Gospels

GOSPELS Synoptical Gospels.

OF the four canonical Gospels (yocZ, God or good; spell, discourse or tidings, cf. evayytkiov) the first three (differing from the fourth) agree in narrating nearly the same events in somewhat similar language, and are hence called synoptical (σ⅛, together; oψi<s, view). It wdl be advantageous to begin with the treatment of these, as to their origin, date, and objects, so far as can be determined from (1) internal evidence and (2) external evidence.

Internal Evidence.

In discussing the internal evidence, it will be convenient to speak, first, of those portions of the synoptic narrative which are found in three Gospels; then of those which are found in only two; and, lastly, of those which are found in only one.

The Triple Tradition.— Few are aware of the very small extent to which independent narrators of the same events use the same words. A comparison of a few specimens of independent narratives (of such events, for example, as the attempt to assassinate King Humbert, or the recent death of the Prince Imperial) would show that the narratives often contain scarcely two or three consecutive words in common, and rarely or never a whole clause of five or six words. The same statement applies to narratives of discourses of any length reported from memory, and not from notes taken at the moment. Now it is well known that in many parts of the first three Gospels the same words and phrases are curiously interlaced, in such a way as to suggest that the writers have borrowed either from each other or from some common source. For example, in describing the healing of the sick (Mat. viii. 16; Mk. i. 32; Lu. iv. 40), Matthew begins thus: όψίας δε yevopHης; Mark, δι∕uας δ∈ yevopiwfpi 6τe ∈δυσεv ό ήλιον; Luke, δυvovτoς δέ του ήλιου. From this and many similar passages it might seem natural to infer that Mark borrowed one of these expressions from Matthew and the other from Luke, and that the narrative of Mark is little more than a combination of passages from Matthew and Luke. This is an inference which has actually been drawn by many critics both before and since De Wette; but at present it finds comparatively little support among competent investigators. However, the oscillations of New Testament criticism have been so numerous that it may be of use to indicate a method by which the originality of Mark may be established on an immovable basis. That Mark (at all events in many parts) contains the original document or tradition from which Matthew and Luke have borrowed can be proved to demonstration by a necessary inference from the following specimen of narrative common to the three writers.

MATTHEW XXÎ. 83-44.

33 ’Ά-λ-λ-î; -V παραβολήν (ϊ-κ· ο V σ-α-τ-ε. "Ανθρωπος η ν ο-ι-κ-ο δ-ε σ-π-ό-τ-η-ς, ο-σ-τ-ι-ς εφύτευσεν αμπελώνα, και φραγμόν α-ύ-Τ-ώ πεpιtθηκεv και ώρυξεν 6-V α-Ù-T-çô ληνού και ώκοδόμησεν πύργον, καϊ ε’^εδετο αύτόν γεωpγoiς, καϊ άπεδήμησεν. 34 ο-τ-ε δ ε ή-γ-γι-σ-ε-ν δ-καιρ ό ς τ-ώ-ν κ αρ- •π-ώ-ν, απεστειλεν τ-ο-υ-ς δούλους α-ύ-τ-ού προς τούς γεωργούς λαβ-ε-t-v το-ύ-ς καρπούς α-ύ-τ-ο-ύ. 35 και λαβovτεs οι γεωργοί το-ύ-ς δ-ο-ύλ-ο-υ-ς α-ύ-τ-ού ο V ∣dv ^δεzpav, δ y δε dπε κτ-ε-ί-V α-ν, ον δ-ε ε λ-ι-θ-ο-β-ό-λ-η-σ-α-ν.

36 πdλιv απεστειλεν άλλ-0-V Ç δούλο υ-ç 7Γ-λ-ε-to ν α ς τ-ών π ρ ώτων, κa-t ε-π-ο-ιησα-ν α-ύ-τ-ο-ΐς ώ σ-α-ύ-τ-ω-ς.

37 V-σ-T-e-p-O-V δε απεστειλεν πpos aÙToùs τ-ο-ν υιόν α-ύ-Τ-Ο-ύ λε'γωv ’ Έντραπήσονται τον υιόν μου. 38 Οί δε γεωργοί ίδόντες τ-ό-ν V-ί-ό-νάπ-ο-νε-ν tavT-o-î-ç· Ούτόςεστίν ό κληρονόμος' δεύτε άποκτεινωμεν αυτόν και σ-χ-ώ-μ-ε-ν -την-κληρονο-μ-ί-α-ν α ύ-τ-ού. 39 και λaβovτεs αυτόν εξίβαλον εξω τού άμπελώ-νος καί άπέκτειναν. 40 ο-τ-α-ν ούν ε-λ-θ-τ ∣ ό κύριος τού άμπελώ-νος, τί ποιήσει τ-ο ϊ ς γ-εω-ρ-γ-ο ΐ-ς ε-κ εί-ν-ο-ι-ς; 41 λ-ε-γ-ο-υ σ-ι-ν a -ύτ-ω' Κ-α-κ ο ύ ς κ a κ-ώ-ς απαλέ-σει a ύ τ-ο-ύ-ς, και τον αμπελώνα ε-κ δώσ-ε-τ-α-ι αλλοις γεωργ ο ύς, οϊ-τ-ι-ν-ε-ς ά-π-ο-δ-ώ-σ-ο-υ-σ-ι-ν α-ύ-τ-ώ τ-ο-ύ-ς κα-ρπ-ο-ύ-ς ε-ν τ-ο-ΐ-ς κ α-ι-ρ-ο ΐ ς α-ύ-τ-ώ-ν.

42 λ-έ-γ-ε-ι αύτοΐς ό-Ίη-σ-ο-ύς’ Ov8 ε π-ο τ-ε άνόγνωτε ε-ν τα-ΐ-ς γρα- Φ a i ς' λίθον ον απεδοκίμασαν οί οίκοδομουντές, ούτος εγενήθη εις κεφαλήν γωνίας' παρά Κυρίου εγε'νετο αΰτη, και εστιν θαυμαστή εν oφθaλμoιs ημών; 43 δ-ι-ά τ-ο-ύ-τ-ο λ-εγ-ω ύ μ ΐ ν Ö -τ-ι ά μθ-ή-σ-ε-τ α-ι a-φ , ύ-μ-ώ-ν ή-β α-σ-ι-λ-ε-ΰα το-ύ Θεού κ α ι δ-ο-θ-ή-σ-ε-τ-α ι ε-θ-ν-ε-ι π-ο ι-ο ύ-ν-τ-ι τ-ο-ύ-ς κ-α-ρ-π-ο ύ ς α-ύτ-ής.

44 K a t ό πεσών έπ-ϊ τον λίθον τούτον συvθλaσθησετaι' έφί ον δ’ αν πεση, λικμήσει αύτόν.

LUKE XX. 9—18.

9 Ηρξατο δ-ε π-ρό-ς τον λ-αό-ν λ-έ-γ-ε-ι-ν τ-ή-ν παραβολήν τ-α ύ-τ-η-ν. 'Άνθρωπος εφύτευσεν αμπελώνα και εξεδετο αυτόν γεωργοΐς, και άπεδήμησεν χρ όνους ί-κ α-ν-ο-ύ-ς. 10 και καιρω απεστειλεν προς τούς γεωργούς δούλον, "να από το-ύ καρπό ύ τού αμπελώνος δ ώ-σ-ο-υ σ-ι ν a-vτ-ω ’ οί δ-ε γεωργοί ε ξ απέστειλαν αύτόν δείρ-α-ν-τ-ε-ς κενόν.

11 καί π-ρ-ο-σ-ε-θ-ε-τ-ο ε-τ-ε-ρ ο-ν π-ε-μ-φr-a-ι' ο-ί δ -è κακεϊνον δ-ε-ίρ-α-ν-τ-ε-ς καϊά-τιμάσ-α-ν-τ-ε-ς έ-ξ-απ-έ-σ-τ-ε-ι λ-α-ν κ-ε-ν-ό-ν. 12 καϊ π-ρ-ο-σ-ε-θ-ε-τ-ο τ-p∙ι-τ-ο-v π-ε μ φr-a-i' ο-ί δ-ε κα ι τ-ο-ύ τ-ο-ν τ-ρ-α-υ-μ-ατ-ί-σ-α-ν-τ-ε-ς έ-ξ-ε-β-α-λ-ο-ν,

13 ε-ϊ-π-ε-ν δε όκ-υ-ρ-ι-ο-ς τ-ο-ύ ά-μ-π-ε-λ-ώ-ν-ο-ς' Τ-ί π-ο ι ή-σ-ω; π-ε-μ-φr-ω τον υιόν μου τ-ο-ν αγαπητόν" ί-σ-ω-ς τ-ο ύ-τ-ο-ν έντραπήσονται. 14 ιδovτεs δεα-ύ-τ-ο-ν οί γεωργοί δ-ι-e-λ-ο-γ-ι-ζ-ο-^V-τ-ο προς ά-λ-λ-ή-λ-ο-υ-ς λ-έ-γ-ο-ν-τ-ε-ς' Θύτός εστιν ό κληρονόμος' άποκτεινωμεν αύτόν ί-ν-α ημών γ έ-ν-η-τ-α-ι ή κληρονομιά. 15 καϊ έκβαλ-ό-ν-τ-ε-ς αύτον εξω τού αμπελώνος άπεκτειναν. τί οΰν ποιήσει α-ύ-τ-οΐ-ς ο κύριος τού αμπελώνος; 1G έλευ-σεται καϊ απολύσει τούς γεωργούς τ-ο-ύ-τ-ο-υ-ς, καϊ δώσει τον αμπελώνα αλλοις. à -κ ο-ύ-σ-α ν-τ-ε-ς δ ε εΐ-π-α-ν, Μ ή γ-έ-ν-ο ι-τ-ο.

17 ό-δ-ε ε-μ-β-λ-έ-φτ-α-ς aυτois € L r ∏ ’ -e v l-ι ο-υ-ν e-σ-τ-t-v το- y e- γρα-μ-μ -é-v-o-v τ-ο-ΰ-τ -o' λίθον ôv απεδοκίμασαν οι olκoδo μουντές, ΰύτος εγενήθη εις κεφαλήν γωνίας·,

18 π-ά-ς <5 πεσών èir* έ-κ-ε-ι-ν-ο-ν τον λίθον συνθλασθή σεται’ ίφ' ον δ’ αν Tdtrγ, λικμήσει αύτόν.

MARK ΧΙΤ. 1—11.

1 Kat ή’ρξατο α-ύ-τ-ο-ΐ-ς ε-ν παραβολ-αϊ-ς λα-λ-ε-ι-ν. Αμπελώνα άνθρωπος εφύτευσεν, καϊ περιέθηκεν φραγμόν καϊ ώρυξεν ύ π-ο-λήνα-ο-ν καϊ ώκοδόμησεν πύργον, καϊ εξεδετο αύτόν γεωργοΐς, καϊ άπεδήμησεν. 2 καί άπεστειλεν προς τούς γεωργούς τ-ω καιρω δούλον, ϊνα π-α-ρ-ά τ-ώ-ν γεωργών λάβ η άπο τώ ν καρ-π-ώ-ν τοΰ aμπελωvos∙ 3 καϊ λαβοντες αυτόν έδειραν κ-a ∖ dπε'στειλav κενόν.

4 καί πάλιν απεστειλεν π-ρ-ό-ς α-ύ-τ-ο ύ ς άλλ-ο-ν δούλ-ο-ν' κάκάνον ε-κ-ε-φ-α-λ-ί-ω-σ-α-ν καί ή ripaar a-v. 5 και ά-λ-λ-ο-ν ά-π-ε-σ-τ-ε-ι-λ-ε-ν’ κά κ ε ι-ν ο V à -π-ε-κ-τ-ε-ι-ν-α-ν, κ α-ϊ π-ο-λ λ ο ύ-ς ά-λ-λ-ο-υ-ς, ο ύ-ς μεν δ-ε ρ-ο-ν-τ-ε-ς ο-ύ-ς δε άπ-ο-κτ-ε-ν- v . v -v-τ-ες. 6 yr tr 3 f ∖ ε-τ-ι ε ν a ε-ι-χ-ε ν υιόν αγαπητόν απεστειλεν α ύ-τ ό-ν ε-σχ-α-τ-ο-ν προς αύτούς λέγων ο-τ-ι Έντραπήσονται τον υιόν μου. 7 ε-κ-ε ι ν-ο-ι (?) δε οί γεωργοί πpos εαυτ ο ύς είπ-α-ν ο-τ-ι ούτός εστιν ό κληρονόμος' δεύτε άπο-κτείνωμεν αύτόν, καϊ ήμών ε-σ-τ-α-ι ή κληρονομιά.. 8 καϊ λαβόντες άπέκτειναν αύτον, καϊ έξέβαλον^ α ύ-τ-ο-ν (?) εξω τού αμπελώνος. 9 τί ποιήσει ό κύριος τού άμπε-λώνος j έλεύσεται και aπoλεσεi τoυs γεωργούς, καϊ δώσει τον αμπελώνα αλλοις.

10 Ουδ έ τή-ν γραφή ν τ-α-ύ-τ-η-ν άνεγνωτε, λίθον ον άπε-δοκίμασαν οί οίκοδομούντες, ούτος εγενήθη εις κεφαλήν γωνίας' 11 παρά Κυρίου ίγενετο αύτη καϊ, εστιν θαυμαστή εν όφθαλμοϊς ήμών; It will be observed in the foregoing extracts that (up to verse 11 of Mark), besides the matter common to all three writers, Mark and Luke have a good deal of additional matter in common (ηρξaτo, the dat. term, (καιp)ω, iva από, εζaπεστειλav avτbv κενόν, κάκεΐνον, και ητιμaσav, αγαπητόν, πρός, τ)p,ωv, ελεύσεται και, τoυs γεωργούς); Mark and Matthew have also much additional matter in common (και πεpιεθηκεv φραγμόν και ωpvζεv {yπο)ληv(ιοv) και ωκοδο-μησεv πύργον, και λαβόντες, παλιν a7rε<rτεtλει∕, αλλ(ον), άπεκτειναν, προς αντους λίγων, εaυτ(oυς), εc7r(o)i', δεύτε, λαβόντες, παρά κνρίου εγ ενετό αντη και εστιν θανμαστη εν οφθαλμούς ημών; but, in striking contrast, Matthew and Luke have no additional matter in common, except that in verse 3 of Mark they insert οi γεωργοί for clearness; in verse 7 they insert ιδόντες ; and in verse 9 they insert ovv. Are these facts compatible with the theory that Mark compounded his narrative out of Matthew and Luke 1

We may begin by dismissing the three trifling words which "Matthew and Luke agree in adding to the Triple Tradition (by which we mean the matter common to the three Gospels), as being words that any early editor of Mark might naturally insert. The insertion of the subject in verse 3, for clearness, requires no comment. The oυv in verse 9 softens an abruptness which (however characteristic of Mark) would naturally repel readers and editors. Again, in verse 7 the omission of some phrase to denote that thehusbandmen saw the son approaching before they formed their plan, is so abrupt that lδovτες or θεασάμενοι has been actually supplied in Mark by several manuscripts and versions (possibly, of course, influenced by Matthew and Luke), and might naturally be supplied by still earlier editors, Having therefore accounted for these words, we are led to this result, that, from Mk. xii. 1 to Mk. xii. 11, Matthew and Luke contain nothing in common which is not also found in a slightly modified edition of Mark. This being the case, it can be proved by reductio ad absτιrdum that Mark did not copy from Matthew and Luke. For suppose that he did so copy, it follows that he must not only have constructed a narrative based upon two others, borrowing here a piece from Matthew and here a piece from Luke, but that he must have deliberately determined to insert, and must have adapted his narrative so as to insert, every word that was common to Matthew and Luke. The difficulty of doing this is enormous, and will be patent to any one who will try to perform a similar literary feat himself. To embody the whole of even one document in a narrative of one’s own, without copying it verbatim, and to do this in a free and natural manner, requires no little care. But to take two documents, to put them side by side and analyse their common matter, and then to write a narrative, graphic, abrupt, and in all respects the opposite of artificial, which shall contain every phrase and word that is common to both—this would be a tour de force even for a skilful literary forger of these days, and may be dismissed as an impossibility for the writer of the Second Gospel.

For example, Mark might have begun his narrative, Kα'ι ελεγεv αiτοις, omitting παραβολήν ; he might have borrowed οικοδεσπότης from Matthew and have dropped άνθρωπος ; he might have borrowed πεμψaι from Luke (ver. 11) instead of άπεστειλε. Had he done these things (all natural enough),, we should have at once had, as additional “common matter” for Matthew and Luke, παραβολήν, άνθρωπος, and άπεστειλεν, and all in the space of three verses, and “common matter” proportionally in the rest of the narrative. We may assume, therefore, that Mark did not copy Matthew and Luke in this passage, nor in other passages where a similar phenomenon occurs. But it occurs throughout by far the greater part of Mark’s narrative. We may, therefore, regard it as absolutely certain that by far the greater part of Mark is not borrowed from Matthew and Luke, and that the duality of phrase, which is undoubtedly a characteristic of Mark, must be explained by other causes. (For other passages where Matthew and Luke have little or no additional matter in common, compare more especially the passages parallel to Mk. ii. 13-17; iii. 1-6;. V. 1-39; X. 17-31; xi. 1-10; xii. 13-27; xiii. 1-19; xiv. 1-16; XV. 1-11.)

The question remains, Were Matthew and Luke entirely dependent upon Mark for that part of their narrative which covers the same ground as Mark? It would not be difficult, from a comparison of the three columns above, to make it probable that both Matthew and Luke did not borrow from the complete Mark as we have it. For though each of the three additions οvv, Ιδόντες, οι γεωργοί, is in itself natural enough, yet the hypothesis that Matthew and Luke independently adopted precisely these and no other-additions is most improbable. From a comparison of many such passages the improbability of the borrowing hypothesis might be increased. But as the process of proof could not be complete, and would certainly belong, it will be better to bring forward some short passages which are wholly irreconcilable with the hypothesis of deliberate borrowing, and which point to an original source, either written or oral, round which the three narratives play. Those passages will be most convincing where there are traces that some original tradition has been differently understood by the different writers.

(a) One natural error in interpreting a terse tradition (perhaps translated from Aramaic into Greek) would be to supply different subjects to the same verbs, as in the following important passages, which variously describe the message of the angel or angels to the women at the tomb of Jesus :—

(1) Matt, xxviii. 7, προάγει i ∣ μas ει ’ s τ¾v Γaλι ∖ aiav εκεΐ αυτόν υψεσθε∙ ιδού, εΐπον ΰμΐν— “behold, Ζhave told you.”

(2) Mk. xvi. 7, προάγει l>μas ειs την Γaλιλaiav∙ εκεί αυτόν i>ψεσ0ε, κaθωs εϊπεν ΰμΐν— “asZZctold you.”

On the other hand, Luke, who records several appearances of the Lord to the ’ disciples in or near Jerusalem, and who does not take the Galilean view of the resurrection, finds the words εls τ⅛v Γ. out of place in his narrative. Yet his memory or knowledge of the common tradition is too strong to allow him to omit all mention of Galilee, and he therefore inserts it, but differently.

(3) Lu. xxiv. 6,μvησθητε ωs ελάλησεν ΰμΐν ετι &>v εv τg Γaλιλaia —“remember how He spake unto you while He was still in Galilee.”

(3) (1) Matt. iii. 5, εt i επopευετo πρός αυτόν . · · πάσ α η πεpiχωpos τoυ Ίορδάνου.

(2) Mk. i. 5 (agreeing here with Matthew), εξεπορεύετο πρός αυτόν . . . πάσα η Ιουδαία χώρα.

(3) Lu. iii. 3, ⅛Kθεv ε.'s πάσ αν την περίχωρον του Ίορδάνου. (γ) In some cases the confusion is so important as seriously to affect the context, as in—

(1) Matt. xix. 16, Διδάσκαλε, τί αγαθόν ποιήσω—which is followed (in the correct text) by “Why askest thou me about the good ?”

(2) Mk. x. 17, Διδάσκαλε αγαθέ, τl ποιήσω — which is fol lowed by “Why callest thou me good? ' ’

(3) Luke (xviii. 18) agrees with Mark: Διδάσκαλε αγαθέ, ri πoιησas. Note that a scribe has endeavoured to combine the two traditions by inserting αγαθέ in Matt, xix. 16.

In the following the confusions are between only two narratives :—

(δ) (1) Mk. iv. 19, al μεριμvaι . . . εlσπopευiμεvaι συvπviγoυσι — ,, caresζ^ going into the heart, choke (the word).”

(2) Lu. viii. 14, υπδ μερίμνων . . . πορευόμενοι συvπviγovτaι —“(the men) going their way (or gradually, as in LXX. ), are choked by cares, or under the influence of cares.”

(ε) In the following, Matthew and Mark concur in attributing “desire” and “fear;” but Matthew attributes the “desire” to Herod, Mark to Herodias; again, Matthew makes the object of the “fear” to be the “crowd,” Mark “John the Baptist.”

(1) Matt. xiv. 5, Kαl θeλωv αύτδν aπoκτε7vaι eφoβηθη τδv όχλον.

(2) Mk. vi. 19, Ή δε ’ Hρωδιαs . . . f)θελεv αύτδν aπoκτε7vaι, καί ούκ ήδύνατο· δ yàp Ηρώδης εφoβε7τo τδν 'ϊωάννην.

(f) In a record of dialogue, the phrases, “said he,” “answered they,” would naturally vary (as they do, Matthew, Mark, and Luke having peculiarities in this respect), and they might sometimes be omitted, with the important result of transmuting a statement of fact (Mark) into an utterance of Jesus (Matthew), thus :—

(1) Matt, xxvi. 2, Ofδατε oτι μετά δύο ημέρας τδ πάσχα γίνεται.

(2) Mk. xiv. 1, ’ Hy δετδ πάσχα καί τά άζυμα μετά δύο ημέρας. (δ) t>s έάν είπγ λόγον κατά τού υιού τού ανθρώπου, άφεθησεται αύτψ, ός δ’ etπy κατά τού πνεύματος τού αγίου ούκ άφεθησεται αύτψ oυτe έν τούτω τψ αϊώνι οότε εν τφ μέλλοντι. (2) Lu. xii. 10 (using ει∖ for κατά, εpe7 for άν είπγ, and borrowing from (a) the word βλaσφημε7v}, (δ) κal πaς t>ς έρε7 λόγον εις τδν υίδν τού ανθρώπου άφεθησεται αύτψ, τφ δε els τδ άγιον πνεύμα βλασφημήσαντι ούκ άφεθήσεται. (3) Mk. iii. 28, 29 (probably transposing υίδς, and using the dative instead of κατά or εlς), (α) λέγω υμ7v oτι πάντα άφεθησεται τo7ς υio7s τών ανθρώπων τά αμαρτήματα και αί βλασφημίαι οσα εάν βλασφημήσωσι ; (δ) δs δ’ άν βλασφημήση εις τδ πνεύμα τδ άγιον ούκ εχει όφεσιν εις τδν αιώνα. Even those who may reject this explanation of the άπαξ λεγόμενον in Mark will probably feel that this passage, and all those previously quoted, point to some original tradition (whether written or oral) upon which our three synoptic Gospels are based. These then are the results to which (so far) we are led :—(1) Mark certainly did not borrow from Matthew and Luke; (2) Matthew and Luke, though clearly influenced by some form of Mark, yet probably borrowed, not from Mark, but from some original tradition upon which Mark also is based. The Nature of the Triple Tradition.— What was the original tradition upon which our three synoptic Gospels are based? Was it Aramaic or Greek? oral or written? single or manifold? Did the earliest of our synoptists receive it fresh from its first source, or after it had passed through many recensions? Few or none of these questions (to some of which reference will be made hereafter) can be answered with absolute certainty; but it is evident that, if Matthew, Mark, and Luke are all based upon an earlier original tradition, then those words and phrases which are common to Matthew, Mark, and Luke (to which we have given the name of the Triple Tradition) must have a peculiar weight, as approximating to the original tradition itself. If it be found that these scattered words and phrases make up of themselves an almost continuous narrative, we may fairly suppose that we are approximating very closely indeed to the original tradition. We shall not expect to find a perfectly continuous narrative. On the contrary, a perfectly continuous narrative, identical in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, would imply, not a floating early variable tradition, but a document simply copied by the authors of our Gospels. An early tradition, circulated perhaps in various churches, iu Antioch, in Rome, in Ephesus, in Corinth, before being embodied in a document, will naturally have been modified, supplemented, and sometimes (as above) confused. Mere especially in certain unimportant and constantly recurring words and phrases we may expect variations. The words “said,” “answered,” “went,” “journeyed,” “asked,” “questioned,” “tempted,” “refused,” “rebuked,” &c., may naturally be expected to differ in the three versions. But greater differences will soon arise. One version will lay greater stress on the details of miracles; another on the relations between Jesus and John the Baptist; another on the law; another on the forgiveness of sins; and this varying emphasis will produce certain modifications of the original tradition. Again, in the early times of the church, the Greek of slaves and freedmen may pass without offence; but in later times an editor of the Gospel, writ ing for readers of higher rank and better education, will ] (η) The following is another case of difference in the grammatical subject of the verb; the resemblance will appear demonstrative proof of confusion to those who compare the context, and who also remember that aκoλoυθε7v is used habitually of others following Jesus, but not of Jesus following others.

(1) Matt. ix. 19, Kαl εγεpθεls <5 Ιησούς ηκoλoυθeι aυτφ.

(2) Mk. V. 24, Kαl aπηλθεv μετ’ αύτού, καί ήκολούθει aυτcρ όχλος πολύς.

(θ) In the following there is a curious confusion from the omission of some words by Luke, so that what is the apodosis in Matthew becomes the protasis in Luke :—

(1) Matt. xii. 26, Kαl el δ 2αταyαs [τδv 1,aτavav ^κj8aλλε<], έφ' εaυτδv έμερίσθη-πώς [o5vj στaθησeτaι ή βασιλεία αύτού ;

(2) Lu. xi. 18, εί δε καί δ Σατανάς έφ’ εaυτδv διeμeρiσθη, πωs σταθησεται ή βασιλεία αύτου;

(t) The following suggests that some Aramaic word meaning to “question” and to “try” or “tempt” may have been diversely rendered by—

(1) Matt. xii. 10, Kαl επηρώτησαν αυτόν, λέγοντες el εξεστι θεpaπευeιv.

(2) Lu. vi. 7, X ∖ apeτηρoυvτo δε αύτδν el θερaπeυeι.

(κ) (1) Matt, xxvii. 49, Oi δe λoiπoι eλeyov, ,, Aφeς, ίδωμεν el eρχeτaι , Hλ(αs σώσων αυτόν.

(2) Mk. XV. 36, λέγων, "∆φeτε , ίδωμεν el έρχεται ’ Hλ'ιaς κaθελε7v αυτόν.

Here (1) in Matthew the bystanders address the man who brings the drink to Jesus; but (2) in Mark the man addresses the bystanders. In (1) the meaning is “desist from giving the drink;” in (2) it appears to be “desist from mocking.” But in any case, the meaning differs in Matthew and Mark.

Many other instances might be given (e.g., Mat. xiv. 2;

Mk. vi. 16; Lu. ix. 9: Mk. ix. 5; Lu. ix. 34); but we will conclude with one in which two traditional versions of a saying of our Lord, blended into one by Mark, appear to have caused a confusion: (a) “Every sin and blasphemy shall be remitted to men, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be remitted;” (b) “ Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man, it shall be remitted to him; but whosoeve-speaketh against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be remitted to him.” Matthew gives both these versions, Luke one of them (with slight variations). But Mark, combining the former part of the first version with the latter part of the second, so as to omit the phrase “Son of Man,” and yet feeling that some mention of “Son of Man” was made in the tradition, substitutes for “men” “sons of men,” a phrase that is not found elsewhere in the whole of the Gospels :—

substitute less uncouth words for the original barbarisms. Thus, from varying causes, the different versions of the tradition will deviate; and when we come to compare three of them together, and to write down the words common to the three, we shall no longer find the original continuous tradition. Gaps in the sense will occur every now and then, owing to the omission of some necessary word. On the other hand, although the literary cement (so to speak) which fills up the interstices between the words and deeds of the Lord may naturally vary, we may expect that the words of the Lord Himself will be more carefully preserved, and more identically reported by all three synoptists, so that they will give a more continuous sense, and will enable us to approximate to the original tradition. Let us now take the Gospel of Mark, and set down, from the first two chapters of it, all such words as it contains in common with Matthew and Luke, merely adding in italics such words as may enable the reader to perceive the structure of each sentence; and let us see whether the words thus collected show any traces of a continuous narrative;—

“Esaias ∣ the prophet: ∣∣ the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare the way of the Lord, make His paths straight, i John I in the wilderness preaching ∣ repen(t). ∣ All ∣ wen(t) forth ∣ io be baptiz(ed) by him. ∣∣ There cometh one stronger than I I whose shoe-latchet [Mat. shoes] ∣ I am not worthy to loose [Mat. bear], I I baptiz(e) you with water, He ∣ shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit. ∣∣ Jesu(s) was bapti(zed). ∣∣ The heaven ∣ and the Spirit, as a dove, descend(ing) on Him. And a voic(e) from ∣ heaven ∣ My beloved Son, in Thee [Mat. whom] I am well pleased. ∣ The Spirit drives Him ; ∣ in the wildern(ess) forty days tempt(ed) by [Satan; Lu. devil]. ∣∣ He came into Galilee. ∣∣ Com(eth) into the house of Simon [Mat. Peter], ∣ Stepmother sick of a fever. ∣∣ And the feve(r) left her; ∣ she ministered to the(m). ∣∣ He heale(d). ∣∣ He preache(d) in the synagogu(es) of Galil(ee). ∣∣ There came a leper ∣ saying to Hi(m), If Thou wilt, Thou canst make me clean. And stretching forth His hand, He touched him ∣ I will, be thou clean. And immediately there departed from him the leprosy. ∣∣ And He said to him, Tel(l) no one, but ∣ show thyself to the priest, and offer that which Moses ordained as a testimony to them.” Chap. ii. “ ∣∣ And they brin(g) Hi(m) a paralyti(c). ∣∣ And seeing their faith, ∣∣ He said, Thy sins are forgive(n). ∣ The scribes said, This man blasphem(eth). ∣∣ Jesus said to the(m), ∣ Why reason ye in your hearts? Which is easier, to say ∣ Thy sins are forgive(n), or to say, Ris(e) ∣ and walk. But that ye may know that the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins, He saith to the paralyti(c), ∣ Rise, take thy bed, ∣ go to thy house. And

I having taken it up, he went. ∣∣ And they glorifi(ed) God. And He saw one sitting at the receipt of custom, and said to him, Follow Me, ∣ and arising he followe(d) Him. ∣ And λ ∖ a feasted Him in his house, and man(y) publican(s) ∣ were feast(ing). ∣∣ And the Pharisee(s) sai(d) to His disciple(s), W(hy) eat with publicans and sinners? ∣ H(e) ∣ said to them, They that are strong [Lu. healthy] have no need of a physician, but they that are sick. I cam(e) not to call the righteous but sinners. ∣ The disciples of John ∣ say to Hi(m): ∣ The disciples of John and of the Pharisee(s) fas(t), but Thin(e) do not. Jesus said to the(m), Ca(n) the son(s) of the bride-chamber fast? ∣ The bridegroom is with them. ∣∣ But the days shall come when the bridegroom shall be taken from them. Then shall they fast. ∣ No one put/eZ/i on a ∣ patch upon an ol(d) garmen(t). No on(e) putte(th) new wine into old bottles. Else, it will burs(t) the bottle(s), and the wine will peris(h) and the bottles also. But new wine into new bottles. ∣∣ On the Sabbath, they were going through corn-fields; His disciples plucke(d) the wheat-ears. ∣ The Pharisee(s) said, They are doin(g) on the Sabbat(h) that which is not lawful. He said to the(m), Have ye not read what David did when he was an hungered, and they that were with him? how he went into the house of God, ∣ and ate the shewbread, whic(h) it is not law(ful) to eat, save for the priest(s)? (I The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

Few will have any difficulty in following the above narrative which represents the Triple Tradition of the synoptists. It will be generally admitted that, so far as it extends, it omits little of importance: and its con tinuity will commend it as likely to be, if not the original tradition, at all events a closer approximation to it than we are likely to find elsewhere. It therefore becomes an important business to consider the scope and variations of the Triple Tradition,—where it is full and ample, where it is meagre, where it begins and where it ends.

The commencement of the Triple Tradition has been given in the specimen quoted above. It begins with the proclamation made by John the Baptist, of the advent of the Stronger One. Describing (Mk. iii.) the cure of the withered hand, the choice of the Twelve, the discourse on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and the answer to the question, “Who is My mother and My brethren ?” it passes (chap, iv.) to the parables of the sower and the mustard seed, which it gives very fully; the rebuking of the wind and the exorcism of the legion (Mk. v.) are given as follows :—

Mk. iv. 35. “Let us go across to the other side. They took Hi(m) I ⅛ a boat. ∣∣ They wak(e) Hi(m) say(ing), We perish: and He, arising, rebuked the win(d). ∣∣ And there was a calm. He said to them, I Your faith! ∣∣ They said, Who is this that even the wind obey(eth) Him ?” Mk. v. 1. “And they came across into the land of the [Gadarenes, Gerasenes, or Gergesenes]. There met Him ∣ one [Mat. two] in the ∣∣ tombs ∣∣ crying, ∣ What is there between me and Thee, Thou Son of God? ∣∣ Torment me not. ∣∣ And he [Mat. they] besought Him . . . into . . . ∣∣ And He . . . them, ∣ goin(g) forth, they come to (or into) the swine, and the herd rushed down the steep place into the sea [Lu. lake] and were choked [Mat. perished], ∣ Those that were feeding them ∣ fled and brought word into the city. ∣∣ They came ∣∣ Jesus. ∣∣ And ∣ they besought Him to depart from ∣ them.”

This is given as a specimen of those passages where the narrative is not so continuous, and where there is some appearance of confusion. The evidence of confusion is confirmed (1) by the fact that a word is used here (δαipωv) to denote “spirit” or “demon,” which is not found once elsewhere in the whole of the Gospels, nor, indeed, anywhere in the New Testament (except in the Apocalypse twice), whereas δαtpwιov is used forty-five times, and πvevpa twenty-seven times in the three Gospels alone; (2) by the difference of the names for the locality, Gadara, Gerasa, Gergesa; (3) by the fact that Matthew speaks of two demoniacs instead of one.

The restoring to life of the daughter of a ruler (Mk. and Lu., ruler of a synagogue) is next thus briefly related: “He came into the house. ∣ She is not dead, but sleepeth. And they mocked Him. ∣∣ Having taken Λer by the hand ∣ Arise.” Then follow (chap, vi.) the mission of the twelve, Herod’s conjecture about the new prophet, and the feeding of the five thousand, which runs thus (Mk. vi. 44) :—

“Send them away, that they may go into villages. ∣ Give ye them to eat. ∣ JVC have five loaves and two fishes. ∣∣ Having taken the five loaves and the two fishes, looking up to heaven, He blessed, and having broke(n) them, He gave them to the disciples.

I And they all ate and were filled. ∣ And they to(ok) up twelve bask(ets) of fragments. They were ∣ five thousand men.”

The walking on the waves is much more briefly recorded (Mk. vi. 46-51). “He went to the mountain. I It was late. ∣∣ They see Him walking on the sea. II It is I; be not afraid.” Then follows a blank, in which Matthew and Mark generally agree, while Luke is altogether wanting; and, after this, the famous confession of Peter, followed closely by the transfiguration.

Mk. viii. 27. “He aske(d) them, ∣ saying, ∣ Whom ∣ do they say that I am? They answered, ∣ John the Baptist; ∣ others Elias; but others a prophe(t). ∣ He said, But whom do ye say that I am? Peter ∣ answering said, Chτis(t). Tell no one. He said that He must needs ∣ suffer many things ∣ from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and after three days [or, on the third day] He must be raised up [Mk. aι∙aστrjvaι, Lu. and Mat. lγepβηvaι.] ∣∣ If any one wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. For whosoever wishes to save his life shall lose it, but whosoever los(eth) his life for My sake shall save it. For what is a man profit(ed), to gai(n) the whole world, and be lost? ∣∣ The Son of Man shall come in glory, with the angels.” ∣∣ Mk. ix. “I say unto you, There are some of those standing) here who shall not taste death till they see th(e) kingdo(m). ∣ After six [Lit. eight] day(s) he take(th) ∣ Peter and James aud John ∣ into a mountain. ∣∣ His garment(s) become white. ∣∣ And there appear(ed) Elias and Moses speak(ing) with Him. I Peter said to Jesu(s), It is good for us to be here; let us mak(e) three tabernacles, one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. ∣∣ A cloud overshadow(ed) the(m), and there was a voice from the cloud, This is My Son: hear Him. ∣ They saw Jesus alone.”

From Mark ix. 14 to x. 16 there is a break in the common tradition, which here records little except three or four sayings of the Lord.

“0 faithless generation, how long shall 1 be with you ?” “The

Son of Man is to be betrayed into the hands of men.” “Whosoever receiveth a child in My name receiveth Me.” “If any one cause one of these little ones to stumble, a mill-stone round his neck, and let him be cast into the se(a).” ‘ ‘ Salt is good, but if the salt lose its savour, wherewith shall it be salted?” “Suffer the children; forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom.”

In contrast to this discontinuity, Mark x. 17-52 gives a continuous tradition about the rich young man, the promise of reward to the disciples, the predictions of betrayal, and the healing of the blind man near Jericho. The entry into Jerusalem and the purification of the temple (xi. 1-17) are also fairly continuous. The disputes in the temple touching the baptism of John (xi. 27-33), the wicked husbandmen (xii. 1—12), and the tribute-money (xii. 13-17) are very continuous. A brief denunciation of the Pharisees, who love the first seats in synagogues and at feasts, is found in Mark xii. 38-40. The Triple Tradition then touches on the second coming of Jesus. Luke has here omitted many important passages which are recorded by Matthew and Mark alone, and which will be given hereafter (see p. 795). Here we will set down nothing but the common tradition, marking Luke’s omissions.

Mk. xiii. 1. “And ∣∣ He said. ∣∣ Not a stone shall be left on stone, which shall not be cast down. ∣∣ They asked Hirn, ∣∣ When shall these things be? And what is the sign? He answered, Take heed lest any deceiv(e) you. Many shall come in My name saying, I am He. ∣∣ JV∕ιen ye hea(r) of wars, be not alarmed, [Lιι. substitutes the usual LXX. word πτoηθr l τe for the LXX. ciπαξ Key0μevov, θpoe7σθt, which is in Mat. and Mk.]. These things must needs come to pass, but the end is not yet. Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There shall be earthquakes in places, there shall be famines. ∣∣ They shall deliver you to . . . for a witness . . . ∣∣ And ye shall be hated by all men for My name's sake, but he that remain(eth) shall be saved. When ye see ∣ desolat(ion), then let them that are in Judaea llee to the mountains. ∣∣ He that is on the house-top let him not descend,

I and he that is in the field let him not turn back. ∣∣ But woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days.” [Here Luke leaves a blank in which Matthew and Mark predict “false Christs" and “the darkening of the sum"] “And the powers of (or in) the heavens shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of Man coming in the cloud(s) with great power and glory. ∣∣ From the fig-tree ye know that the summer is near. So also ye, when ye see these things. ∣∣ Heaven and earth shall pass away; but My words shall never pass away.”

In (Matthew and (Mark there follows the avowal that “of that day or hour none knoweth, not even the angels in heaven, nor even the Son, but only the Father.” But Luke omits this. The Triple Tradition passes to the betrayal of Jesus. The traitor’s compact (Mk. xiv. 10, 11) and the visit to the city to eat the Passover are briefly narrated. From this point the Triple Tradition becomes more and more scanty, till it leaves us at last little more than a few disconnected sayings of Jesus.

Mk. xiv. 21. “The Son of Man goeth indeed, as it is rørtWen; but woe to that man by whom He is to be betrayed. ∣∣ Having taken bread, He brake it, and ga(ve) it. ∣ This is My body. And taking the cup, This is My blood of the testamen(t), that is shed . . . Il I say unto you, I will never drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom. ∣∣ And ∣ they wen(t) forth to the Mount of Olives. H I say unto thee, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny Me thrice. ∣∣ He pray(ed), If it be possible . . . ∣∣ He sai(d), Fath(er), take this cup from Me; ∣∣ yet not as I wil(l), but as Thou wilt. I, And having foun(d) them sleeping, He said, Pray, that ye enter not into temptation. ∣∣ While He was still speaking, came Judas, I one of the twelve, ∣ ami a multitud(e) with him. ∣∣ He kiss(ed) Him. ∣∣ One smote [Mk. eτrαw∈, for which Mat. and Lu. substitute the more appropriate and common word fπdταξi] the servant of the high priest, and cut off his ea(r). j Jesus said, As against a thief have ye com(e) out with swords and staves? 1 was daily ∣ in the temple; ami ye took Me not. ∣∣ They led Him to th(e) high pries(t). ∣∣ Peter followe(d) afar olf ∣ and sat in ∣ the hall. Art thou the Son of God [Mk. the Blessed]? ∣∣ Thou shalt see the Son of Man seated on the right hand of the Power. ∣∣ What need have we yet of witnesses? ∣∣ They sai(d) unto Him, Prophesy. ∣∣ A maid-servan(t) spake unto Pete(r). ∣∣ But he denied, saying, I do not know Him. ∣∣ Verily thou art erne of them, for . . . ∣∣ And Peter remembered, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny Me thrice, and he wep(t). , '

Mk. XV. “They led Him to Pilat(e). ∣∣ He aske(d) Him, ∣ Art Thou the King of the Jews? He said to him, Thou sayest ∣∣ . . . Barabbas . . . ∣∣ Cruci(fy) Him. Why, what evil hath He done? I Crucif(y) Him. ∣ Pilate released Barabbas, and delivered over Jesus. ∣∣ And they le(a)d Him away. ∣∣ They made Simon a Cyrenian carry the cross. ∣∣ They came to the place of the Skull. ∣∣ They divide(d) His garments and cast lots. ∣∣ There was written up, The King of the Jews. ∣∣ On the right hand and on the left . . . ∣∣ He saved others; let Him save (Him)self. ∣∣ About the sixt(h) hou(r) there was darkness over the earth until the ninth hour. ∣∣ Jesus with a loud voice emitted His breath. ∣∣ And the women ∣ who in [or from] Galilee had followed Him behel(d) [Mk. and Mat. θeωpea', Lu. ôpâv, reserving Θia>pe7v for v. 55] these things from afar. ∣∣ Joseph of Arimathaea ∣ cam(e) to Pilate and begged the body of Jésus, II and wound [Mk. lveiλ∙ησtvj Mat. and Lu. i∣∕eτυλιξey) it in linen ∣ and laid it in a tomb.”

At this point the tradition not only becomes discontinuous, but also shows marks of confusion. The tradition appears to have been that the women “beheld,” or came to “behold” (another tradition added at “dawn ”), and came to the tomb; but what “dawn” is meant, and what was the object of their beholding, is left uncertain.

(1) Matt, xxvii. 61; xxviii. 1. “There were there Mary Magdalene and the other Mary sitting over against the tomb. Late in the Sabbath, at the hour of dawning (rp Ιπιφωσκοόσγ), before the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and Mary to behold {θtωpησaι) the tomb {τάφον). ’

(2) Mk. XV. 47; xvi. 1, “Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses beheld (fθeωpoυv) where He was laid (τe0eiται)∙ When the Sabbath was passed, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Janies and Salome brought spices that they might come and anoint Him.”

(3) Lu. xxiii. 54. “And the Sabbath was dawning (fπiφωσκe); and having followed Him (to the grave), the women who had come with Him from Galilee beheld (fθtaσavτo) the tomb, and how His body was laid {τtθeιτaι), and returning they brought spices.” The only remaining words of the tradition are: “ . . . the first day of the week . . . roll(ed) away [ή e., the stone at the opening of the tomb] . . . He is not here; He is risen . . . Galilee . . . they fled from the tomb.” Matthew and Mark continue for a few lines a narrative based upon some common tradition; but even here there occurs the confusion mentioned above—Mark, “asZZe told you;” Matthew, “behold, I told you;” and the narrative of Mark ends at xvi. 9. The remaining verses of Mark are an appendix added by some later editor; and henceforth the narratives of Matthew and Luke—having lost Mark— present no further traces of agreement.

To sum up the contents of the common tradition, it omits the genealogies, miraculous incarnation, and the picturesque details of the infancy; it lays emphasis on the relations between John the Baptist and Jesus; it contains none of the parables except the sower, the mustard seed, and the wicked husbandmen, and few of the long discourses of Jesus, except an abridged prediction of the second coming. The disputes between Jesus and the Pharisees about the Sabbath, about fasting, about exorcism, about the baptism of John, and the tribute, and Christ the Son of David, and the dialogue with the Sadducees about the resurrection, are very fully given; and so also is the dialogue with the rich young man. Indeed it is a collection of dialogues and anecdotes rather than a set treatise of doctrine or biography. The sayings of Jesus recorded in it are short, pithy, and abrupt, and many of them are polemical. Only now and then do we find a sentence which goes down deep below all polemics, and reveals a deep-laid spiritual plan. But putting such sentences together we perceive that the Triple Tradition describes a prophet wholly different from any that had before appeared in Israel; a prophet who not only (like Isaiah) protested against sabbaths and purifications as ends in themselve3, but who also preached the Fatherhood of God in a manner entirely peculiar to Himself, and who set aside the Mosaic law of divorce (Mk. x. 2-11). He also instructed His disciples to enter into the kingdom as little children (x. 15), and seems to have attached a certain symbolic mystery to childhood as representing Himself (ix. 37). He taught His disciples further to devote their lives to Him, and to ignore all life apart from Him (viii. 34), (“to confess Christ, to deny themselves ”). From the first He claims the power of forgiving sins (ii. 7); and, as soon as one of His disciples confessed Him to be the Messiah, He prepared for death, predicting that He should die, but rise again. Then, after prophesying the fall of the temple, and great distress in all nations, He predicted a final triumph for His disciples; and after bequeathing Himself, His body and His blood, as at a funeral feast, as His final legacy to His disciples, He was arrested and put to death.

Several miracles of healing are recorded, and, in addition to these, the exorcism of the Gadarene (in which, however, great confusion is apparent), the stilling of the storm, the feeding of the five thousand, and the transfiguration. From the beginning of the discourse on the second coming, Luke diverges more and more from Matthew and Mark. After the death of Jesus, Matthew and Mark continue to agree in words and phrases, but a little confusion is apparent; and the tradition suddenly terminates without any record of the appearance of Jesus to His disciples. However we may regret this, it is perhaps what may be naturally expected on the hypothesis that we have before us an early tradition originated at a time when the numerous manifestations of Jesus after His death were still attested by living witnesses; when as yet it had been found impossible to reduce the experiences and impressions of those who had seen Him—impressions necessarily variable and transient, blended with fear and with an excitement bordering on ecstasy—to a consistent and historical shape; and when it had not yet been found necessary to define and harden the narrative so as to adapt it for the purpose of meeting doubts and objections.

The Additions common to Matthew and Mark.— The additions to the Triple Tradition which are found in Matthew and Mark, but not in Luke, are the following :—

(1) The description of John the Baptist (Mat. iii. 4; Mk. i. 6); (2) the ministering of the angels (Mat. iv. 11; Mk. i. 13); (3) the calling of the fishermen (Mat. iv. 18-22; Mk. i. 14-20); (4) the murmuring of His friends at Nazareth (Mat. xiii. 53-57; Mk. vi. 1-4); (5) the influence of Herodias in procuring John’s execution (Mat. xiv, 8-13; Mk. vi. 25-29); (6) the walking on the water (Mat. xiv. 22-28; Mk. vi. 45-51); (7) the disputes with the scribes from Jerusalem (Mat. xv. 1-20; Mk. vii. 1-23); (8) the story of the Syro-Phoenician woman, which is narrated by Matthew and Mark in widely divergent language, but with an almost identical conclusion (Mat. xv. 21-28; Mk. vii. 24-30); (9) the feeding of the four thousand (Mat. xv. 32-38; Mk. viii. 1—9), and the comparison between this miracle and that of the five thousand (Mat. xvi. 5-12; Mk. viii. 14-21); (10) the saying of Jesus that Elias had already come (Mat. xvii. 12; Mk. ix. 13); (11) the discussion of the enactments of Moses concerning divorce (Mat. xix. 4-8; Mk. x. 2-9); (12) the saying (but Luke inserts it elsewhere) that “many that are first shall be last” (Mat. xix. 30; Mk. x. 31); (13) the petition of the sons of Zebedee for the chief places (Mat. xx. 20-28; Mk. x. 35-45); (14) the withering of the fig tree (Mat. xxi. 18-22; Mk. xi. 13, 14, 20); (15) the introductory question of the lawyer, “Which is the great commandment” (Mat. xxii. 36; Mk. xii. 28); (16) in the discourse on the last day, Luke omits reference to the “consummation,” συv-τiheια (Mat.), συvτeλeισθaι (Mk.); “these things are the beginning of troubles;” “the abomination of desolation,” &c.; “he that readeth let him understand;” “pray that your flight may not be in winter;” “(tribulation) such as was not from the beginning till now, nor ever shall be;” the expression about the “shortening” of the days “for the elects’ sake;” “He shall send His angels, and gather together the elect;” “of this hour the Son knoweth not;” (17) later on, Luke omits the anointing of Jesus “for His burial” (Mat. xxvi. 6-13; Mk. xiv. 3-9); (18) “I will smite the Shepherd,” &c., and “1 will go before you into Galilee” (Mat. xxvi. 31, 32; Mk. xiv. 27, 28); (19) the compact of Judas with the priests that a kiss should be the signal (Mat. xxvi. 48; Mk. xiv. 44); (20) the false witness about “destroying the temple in three days” (Mat. xxvi. 59, 62; Mk. xiv. 55-60); (21) the taunt “Thou that destroyest the temple” (Mat. xxvii. 40; Mk. XV. 29); (22) the utterance of Jesus, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me ?” with the consequent misunderstanding of the bystanders (Mat. xxvii. 46-49; Mk. xv. 34-36); (23) the utterance of the angel (or angels) at the tomb, “He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see Him” (Mat. xxviii. 7; Mk. xvi. 7).

In considering these passages it is natural to ask whether any reason (besides ignorance of them) can be alleged why Luke should have omitted them. It is scarcely possible to fail to see design in some of these omissions,—for example, in those which relate to John the Baptist and Elias (1), (5), and (10). The author of the Acts of the Apostles is by general consent admitted to be identical with the author of the Third Gospel. Now remembering that Luke in the Acts (xix. 3) informs us that, many years after the death of Jesus, there were in Ephesus several disciples who were baptized with the baptism of John, and knew nothing of the Holy Spirit, we may well understand that the author of the Acts finds it necessary, when writing a gospel, to put in as clear a light as possible the subordination of John to Jesus. Accordingly, in place of the graphic description of the austere food and garb of the prophet, he gives (iii. 10-14) a description of his teaching, as containing the elements of a simple and almost commonplace morality, intended merely to prepare the way for a higher teaching, and he adds an express negative from the prophet in answer to those who doubted whether John were the Messiah. Repeatedly does Luke deviate from the common tradition of Matthew and Mark on the subject of Elias; and in each case the object is apparent. Only a close inspection of a harmony of the Gospels will make this clear; but three or four passages may be mentioned which point in this direction. Luke has already (i. 17) declared that John will go before Jesus “in the spirit and power” of Elias, but he cautiously avoids committing himself to the tradition (Mk. ix. 13; Mat. xvii. 13) that John was Elias. The belief in an actual transmigration of souls he will allow the multitude to entertain (ix. 8, 19), but not Herod: for whereas in Mark (vi. 16) Herod says, “Whom I beheaded, viz., John, this man (ovτoς, corr. text), is risen from the dead,” Luke, by a slight transposition of the traditional words, converts the proposition into a question: “John I beheaded; but who is this man?” And, further, in order to prepare the way for the interview between Herod and the Lord—which he purposes to describe at the end of his Gospel (xxiii. 8, 9), and to refer to in his continuation of the Gospel (Acts iv. 27)—he adds the words, “And he (Herod) was desirous to see Him.” Again Mark (ix. 6) tells us that Peter “not knowing what io answer,” proposed to build three tabernacles for Jesus, M03es, and Elias; but Luke reads (ix. 33), “not knowing xvhat he said,” as if to caution the reader against supposing that Elias or Moses could be seriously placed on the same level as Jesus. For the same reason he omits the irreverent misunderstanding of the bystander who supposed that Jesus in his last moments called for Elias, and even the utterance itself (Mat. xxvii. 49; Mk. xv. 36).

With reference to many of the other omissions it will be noticed that Luke seems to have before him somewhat different versions of the narratives, which different versions he inserts elsewhere. For example, he gives a version of the calling of the apostle-fishermen, which adds a miraculous draught of fishes, thereby approximating to the narrative in the Fourth Gospel (xxi. 6-11). Again Luke places the murmuring of the Nazarenes much earlier, in the fore-front of the ministry of Jesus, as was very natural, and gives an entirely different version of it. The ministry of the angels after the temptation he omits; but he alone records the ministry of the angel (xxii. 43) when Jesus was tempted in Gethsemane, for which temptation he carefully prepares the way by saying (iv. 13) that the devil departed from Jesus only “for a season.” As regards the anointing “for the burial,” it is probable we have a different version of it in his story of the woman that was “a sinner” (vii. 37). The reasons for the omission of the feeding of the four thousand and the withering of the fig· tree are not so obvious. The omission could hardly have been dictated by any desire to minimize the supernatural (seeing that Luke contains many miracles peculiar to himself, and that he does not shrink from giving in full detail the exorcism of the Gadarene). It is possible that he omitted the former as being too similar to the feeding of the five thousand to require to be repeated; and if he regarded it (as the author of the Fourth Gospel does) as having a sacramental meaning, one story of the kind may have seemed sufficient. If the story of the withered fig-tree was regarded by him in the same way (rather as emblematic than as historical), then it may have been replaced in his narrative by the story of the barren fig tree (peculiar to Luke), to which the master came seeking fruit and finding none. It is also noticeable that the moral (on the power of faith) deduced from the withering of the fig tree in Matthew and Mark is contained in Luke, but in a different form. In Matthew and Mark it runs: “If ye say to this mountain, Be raised up and cast into the sea;” whereas in Luke (xvii. 6) it is, “Ye might have said to this sycamine tree, Be rooted up and planted in the sea.” This perhaps slightly confirms the supposition that Luke regarded the narrative of the fig-tree rather as a parable than as a fact. But it is important to bear in mind that we have little more than the evidence of conjecture to explain some of Luke’s omissions. For example, the story of the walking on the waves, as told by Matthew and Mark, represents the disciples as being alarmed by the thought that the apparition of the Lord was only a spirit (φαrτασ∕zα); unless Luke considered that the ground of this narrative was occupied by his account of a similar fear when the disciples beheld the Lord after the resurrection, it is hard to suggest any reason for its omission. This class of omissions may be terminated with that numbered (19) above—the compact of Judas concerning the signal. It is obvious here that Luke has another version of the tradition in his mind. He alone of the three records the words of Jesus, “Betrayest thou the Son of Man with a kiss,” thereby making it unnecessary to explain (with Matthew and Mark) that the kiss was a signal fixed by the traitor.

Another class of passages may possibly have been omitted as being not of interest to the Gentile world, or as being liable to misunderstanding or perversion. The story of the Syro-Phcenician woman perhaps appeared to the editor of the Gentile Gospel to exhibit Jesus in too harsh a light; the application to Jesus of the prophecy “I will smite the Shepherd,” appeared more liable to misunderstanding than “He was reckoned with transgressors” (not found in Mark’s genuine text); the discussion of the law of divorce and of the regulations touching uncleanness, and the part played by Herodias in the execution of the Baptist, may have seemed to lack interest for readers outside Palestine. In the discourse on the second coming it would be natural for an editor of the tradition writing after the siege of Jerusalem to substitute “encircled by armies” for the “abomination of desolation ”—a phrase that would perplex a Gentile reader, and also to modify some of the hyperbolic and emblematic expressions. Lastly, the mention of the “false witness” concerning the destruction of the temple, and the raising up of a new temple in three days, may have begun to present a difficulty in times when the temple actually had been destroyed, and when the Lord Jesus Himself had come to be regarded as the new temple not made with hands. Although therefore Luke does not go so far as the author of the Fourth Gospel (who exhibits Jesus as actually predicting the destruction of the temple and as promising to raise it up in three days), yet he not only omits the “false witness,” but also the allusion to it contained in the taunts addressed to Jesus on the cross, “Thou that destroyest the temple and raisest it again in three days, save Thyself” (Mat. xxvii. 40; Mk. xv. 29).

The above explanation of Luke’s omissions may only partially commend itself to the reader; but few will fail to see that there is at least some method and motive in most of them. It is a matter of certainty that in the Triple Tradition many of Luke’s omissions and modifications of phrases and words are not accidental but editorial: it is but natural therefore to suppose (especially when reasons can easily be assigned) that editorial reasons may also explain omissions and modifications of narratives and discourses. Of course it is not maintained that Luke, or any individual editor, made these changes on his own responsibility. Many of them are probably the result of a “Gentile use” which had gradually sprung up in certain churches, and which was not created but adopted and expressed by the author of the Third Gospel. Consequently we are not obliged to suppose that the omissions resulted from ignorance. The very fact that it is easy to supply motives and reasons for the omission of these narratives increases their credibility, by diminishing the probability that they were late traditions unknown to the author of the Third Gospel. The passages omitted are generally in the style of the common tradition, and they contain incidents of a similar kind to the incidents of the common tradition. It only remains to add that (except in the story of the Syro-Phoenician woman, and, in a lesser degree, in the question of the lawyer about the great commandment) Matthew and Mark closely agree whenever Luke separates himself from them. This is also found frequently to be the case in the Triple Tradition. In the midst of very similar context, if Mark is identical, or nearly so, with Matthew, in the expression of some action, it will be found that Luke often suddenly diverges, or makes some omission. Thus—

(1) Mat. xxi. 12. Kαi elσηλθev , lησoυs els τb ieρbv κal εlfβaλe πavτas τoυs πωλoυvτas κal ayopaζovτas èv τ<ρ ιepφ, καϊ sas τpaπeζas των κολλυβιστών κaτe'στρeψe, καϊ τas κaθeδρas των πωλυύντων τct,s περιστεράς.

(2) Mk. xi. 15. Kal είσελθάιυ els το ιερόν, ήρξατο εκβάλλειν τυbs πωλoυvτas καί tous ayoρaζovτas èv τ<ρ lεpφ' καϊ τα s τρaπεζas των κολλυβιστών, καί τas κaθεδρas των πωλούντων τas περιστεpas κaτeστρeψe.

(3) Lu. xix. 45. Kai εlσελθωv els τb ιερόν, ήρξατο εκβάλλειν τoυs πωλoυvτas, omitting the rest.

So, in the midst of the story of the rich young man, where Matthew and Mark have α7∏7λ0∈ λυποΰμενος, ήν yap eγωv κτήματα 7r0λλα, Luke, suddenly diverging, has 7reptλυ7roς eγevηθη' ήν yàp πλούσιος σφο8pa (Mk. X. 22; Mat. xix. 22; Lu. xviii. 23). Sometimes the divergence appears to arise from literary motives, and especially from the dislike of repetition (Lu. iv. 32; Mat. vii. 29; Mk. i. 22); but in other cases it cannot be so explained :—Lu. v. 29, 30; Mat. ix. 10, 11; Mk. ii. 15, 16: Lu. v. 33, 34; Mat. ix. 14, 15; Mk. ii. 18, 19 (see also, in a parable, Lu. v. 36; Mat. ix. 16; Mk. ii. 21): Lu. vi. 11; Mat. xii. 14; Mk. iii. 6: Lu. viii. 13; Mat. xiii. 21; Mk. iv. 17: Lu. viii. 44; Mat. ix. 21; Mk. v. 29. In some of these cases the agreement between Matthew and Mark is so cl03e as to suggest that both writers may have used some common document (not oral tradition) which contained little more than certaiu words of the Lord in a scanty framework of narrative. But this common matter adds little to our knowledge of Christ. The most important narrative in it 13 the story of the Syro-Phoenician, showing how Jesus, as it were, acknowledged in the woman’s persistent faith a divine revelation, extending His gospel even to the heathen. And this narrative is written in language so divergent as to indicate not a document but an oral tradition.

The Additions of Mark and Luke.— Additions of any length are very few :—

(1) An exorcism of an unclean spirit (Mk. i. 21-25; Lu. iv. 31-35); (2) the account of Jesus retiring to a solitary place, when He declares that He must carry the gospel elsewhere (Mk. i. 35-39; Lu. iv. 42-44); (3) the saying of John the son of Zebedee, “Master, we saw one casting out devils in Thy name, and we forbade him,” and the reply of Jesus (Mk. ix. 38-40; Lu. ix. 49, 50); (4) the short denunciation of the Pharisees that devour widows’ houses (Mk. xii. 38-40; Lu. xx. 46, 47); (5) the story of the widow’s mite (Mk. xii. 41-44; Lu. xxi. 1-4). Shorteι ’ similarities are—(6) a mention of Jesus as being in retirement (Mk. i. 45; Lu. v. 16); and (7) a mention of “Tyre and Sidon” as places to which the fame of Jesus had spread (Mk. iii. 8; Lu. vi. 17). There is a close verbal agreement between Mark and Luke in the exorcism of the “legion” (a name that does not occur in Mark); in the raising of the daughter of Jairus; and in the stilling of the storm. But gradually as Matthew approximates to Mark, Luke deviates from Mark. There is a return to similarity in the preparation for the Passover (Mk. xiv. 12-16; Lu. xxii. 7-13); but from this point Luke deviates more and more, and, with the exception of two words (στάσις and φόνος} in the incident of Barabbas, and of a somewhat closer approximation in the incident of Joseph of Arimathaea, it may be almost said that Luke has henceforth nothing in common with Mark, except what is found in the Triple Tradition.

Most of the incidents common to Mark and Luke are so few and so simple that their omission by Matthew requires no explanation. It is possible that the names Jairus and Legion did not exist in the earliest tradition, as it presented itself to Matthew; the “authority” which Mark illustrates (compare i. 22 with i. 27) by exorcism, Matthew applies (and perhaps justly) rather to our Lord’s method of teaching (vii. 28, 29); but it is difficult to suppose that any other cause than ignorance could have caused the omission of the saying of Jesus concerning the widow’s mite. It is certain that, in some at least of these passages, Mark represents the earlier, and Luke a modified tradition. Luke (see below, p. 806), writing with a literary purpose, has softened many early irregularities, which in Mark retain their original harshness. For example, the ungrammatical oi κατεσ0ovτ∈ς (Mk. xii. 40) is altered (Tischendorf and Tregelles, pace Lachmann) into 01 κατ∈σ(hbυσι (Lu. xx. 47); and instead of θελόντων before ασπασμούς (Mk. xii. 38) Luke inserts φιλowτωv (Lu. xx. 46). In the story of the widow also, Luke, disapproving of the epithet “beggar” (πτωχ77) applied to the poor widow, substitutes the more respectable πενιχρά, yet with a natural but inconsistent reverence declines to cancel the same epithet (πτωχή) when (Lu. xxi. 3) it occurs in the words of the Lord. The rarer and less correct (ambiguous also when followed by the feminine αυτής) υστερήσεως (Mk. xii. 44) is altered into υστερήματος (Lu. xxi. 4); and, lastly, the lengthy duality of Mark, “as many things as she had; all her livelihood” (which looks as if it had arisen from combining two different renderings of the same Aramaic original), is condensed by Luke (who takes one part of one rendering, and another part of the other) into “all the livelihood that she had.” It is probable that not only in these but in all passages common to Mark and Luke alone, wherever Mark and Luke differ, Mark represents an earlier, and Luke a later version of the original. And generally it may be said that Luke follows the tradition of Mark most faithfully when it deals with Galilee, and least when it deals with Jerusalem.

Additions common to Matthew and Luke.— These introduce an altogether new element into the tradition. Hitherto the Triple Tradition of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (as well as the double tradition of Matthew and Mark, and of Luke and Mark) has consisted mostly of short “words of the Lord,” set in a framework of short narratives, and very seldom agreeing exactly for more than seven or eight consecutive words. But we now come upon “words of the Lord” in Matthew and Luke, some of which agree exactly for several sentences. What was the origin of this close agreement? In order to gain some view of the data for solving this problem, we must briefly consider the principal passages common to Matthew and Luke alone.

The temptation (Mat. iv. 1-10; Lu. iv. 1-12) and the healing of the centurion’s servant (Mat. viii. 1-13; Lu. vii. 1-10) are the principal narratives of fact common to Matthew and Luke alone. They resemble the narratives of the Triple Tradition in agreeing so far as concerns the words of Jesus, and of those who address Him, much more than in the general narrative. In the narrative of facts, the story of the centurion in Luke differs altogether from that in Matthew; in the temptation, the difference is less. Dismissing these, we pass to the “w 0rds of the Lord.” As Luke’s avowed object was to write “in order,” we will adhere to his arrangement in our enumeration.

(1) Mat. iii. 8-10; Lu. iii. 8, 9. “Generation of vipers,” &c.; this agrees verbatim, except that Luke has άρξησθε, where Matthew has δοξητe.

(2) After a break in which (Mk. intervening) Matthew and Luke have no more than a general agreement with Mark and one another, we come to another passage describing the purifying of the threshing-floor with fire unquenchable (Mat. iii. 12; Lu. iii.

17); the two agree verbatim.

(3) Mat. v., vi., vii.; Lu. vi. Here are some scattered sayings of the Sermon on the Mount, such as, “Blessed are the poor,” “the hungry,” &c. In these the agreement is not verbatim. The only passage that agrees almost verbatim is that about the mote and the beam.

(4) Mat. xii. 35; Lu. vi. 45. “The good man out of the good treasure of his heart,” &c., nearly verbatim, but curiously transposed to suit the differing context.

(5) Mat. xi. 2-11; Lu. vii. 19-28. John the Baptist sends two of his disciples to say, “Art thou He that is to come?” With the exception that Luke («) introduces some cures wrought by our Lord, for the special purpose of convincing John’s disciples, and (b) avoids the repetition of «V μaλaκo7s iμaτioιs by using έν ίματισμφ ενδόξφ, this passage shows an agreement almost verbatim.

(6) Mat. xi. 16-19; Lu. vii. 31-35. “We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced,” &c., almost verbatim, except that Matthew has έκόφασθε, Luke έκλαύσατε.

(7) Mat. (a) ix. 37, 38, and (b) x. 16; Lu. (a) x. 2, and (b)

X. 3. (a) “The harvest truly is great,” &c.; (5) “I send you as sheep among wolves.” The agreement, though not verbatim, is considerable. But note (a) that Matthew takes the prayer for the increase of the labourers, as a preface to the choice of the twelve, while Luke places it after the choice of the twelve, and uses it as a preface to the choice of the seventy, an incident which he alone records; (ό) Luke applies to the seventy the warning against danger which Matthew applies to the twelve.

(8) Mat. xi. 21-25; Lu. x. 12-15. “Woe unto thee, Chorazin;” almost verbatim, except that where Matthew has καταβήσει, “thou shalt come down,” Luke has (if the reading be correct) κaτa∙ βιβασθήσει, “thou shalt be brought down.”

(9) In Matthew no interval occurs between the last and the following passage; but in Luke intervenes (x. 17-20) the return of the seventy, and a mention of a vision in which Satan was seen falling from heaven, together with the imparting of a power to tread on serpents (compare the late appendix to Mark’s Gospel, xvi.

18); then comes Mat. xi. 25-28; Lu. x. 21-22, “I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth,” &c. There is but a trifling exception to the agreement. Note also that Luke apparently considers the two sayings which are continuous in Matthew to have been. discontinuous, for between vers. 21 and 22 he inserts (so Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles) “and turning to His disciples, He said.”

(10) Mat. xiii. 16,17; Lu. x. 23, 24. “Blessed are the eyes,” &c.; here, again Luke inserts his usual note of a discontinuous saying by inserting “and turning to His disciples, He said privately.” Matthew έπεθΰμησαν, Luke ήθέλησαν ; Matthew δίκαιοι, Luke βaσιλε7s. Otherwise verbatim.

(11) Mat. vi. 10-13; Lu. xi. 2-4. The Lord’s Prayer. Here, where (if anywhere) we should expect identity, there is considerable difference. Luke, after ∏dτερ, omits (a) ημών & èv τo7ς obρavo7s, and (ό) yeμηθirrω τb θέλημά σου, ως εν oυρavω κal eπl τής yηs. Further, Luke substitutes (c) δiδoυ for 80s; (d) τδ καθ’ ημέραν for σήμερον ; (e) τάς αμαρτίας for τα οφειλήματα ; (∕) άφίομεν for άφήκαμεν ; (y) πdvτι τω oφεiλovτι for τo7ς οφειλέταις ημών ; and he also (Λ) omits the clause άλλα (>υσaι ημάς a,πb του πονηρού.

If any words of the Lord have been handed down by oral tradi tion, the Lord’s Prayer would seem necessarily to have been thus handed down, and from the earliest times. Internal evidence also leaves little doubt that here oral tradition, and not a document, is the origin, and that Luke represents the original most closely in his omissions, though not in his changes. If the Lord’s Prayer had been early committed to writing, and had contained Matthew’s additional clauses, it is inconceivable that Luke should have omitted them. The same tendency which led a later generation to insert (and us in modern times to retain) the interpretation, “For thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory,” &c., would no doubt in the earliest times favour the insertion, rather than the rejection, of any appropriate clauses that had once gained a footing in the prayer. The abruptness of the simple ∏dτερ, which is distasteful to us, as implying too great familiarity, would naturally commend to the early church Matthew’s (a) insertion. Matthew’s second insertion (δ) is no less natural. It, or something much like it, is found in 1 Mac. iii. 60, “Whatsoever be His will in heaven, so let Him (or will He) do” (is δ ’ hv g θέλημα èv oυρavφ, ούτως ποιήσει); moreover, Luke himself assigns very similar words to our Lord Himself, xxii. 42 (μή τb θέλημά μου αλλά τb σbv yιviσθω), and to the friends of St Paul (Acts xxi. 14). The fact that our Lord Himself used this prayer may have seemed sufficient cause in the earliest times, and especially to Matthew, who is in the habit of massing together doctrine of a certain kind, as in the Sermon on the Mount, for inserting it in the Lord’s Prayer, (c) Luke’s change of the aor. imperative into a present implies a desire to represent a continuous and not an isolated action; and (d) the change of σήμερον into καθ’ ημέραν is explicable by the same motive. The word, επιούσιος, common both to Matthew and Luke, and not found elsewhere in the whole of Greek literature, seems to indicate that a Greek tradition, and not an Aramaic tradition, of this prayer, was the basis of both Matthew’s and Luke’s version. It is probably derived from ή έπιοΰσα (Prov. xxvii. 1, où yàp o!δaς τι τέξεται ή έπιοΰσα (QT l ), “Thou knowest not what the day will bring”), and, probably (though this is disputed), means “for the immediate future, the instant.’’ -There appears to be a reference to the manna which (Exod. xvi. 4) the people of Israel were to gather from day to day. So Philo, Alley., iii. 57, “Let the soul therefore collect the food of the day for the day (τδ τi)s ημέρας εls ημέραν)." 1 This meaning is consistent both with Matthew’s σήμερον and with Luke’s τb καθ’ ημέραν. Luke’s next three changes, (tZ), (e), and (∕), substitute the more intelligible word “sin” for the less intelligible “debt,” and the more intelligible present “we forgive” for the less intelligible past “we forgave;” and increase the emphasis by adding “every one (that is our debtor).” In all these cases Matthew’s seems to be the earlier form; for it is more likely that the comparatively difficult version of Matthew should have been altered into the comparatively easy version of Luke than vice versa. Besides, the retention of the metaphorical oφεiλovτι by Luke, in the second clause, indicates that the metaphor of “debt,” appeared in the original (g). Matthew’s insertion of the clause “deliver us from the evil” may naturally have arisen from the reluctance to end a prayer with a negative petition., “lead us not into temptation.” The inserted clause resembles many passages in the Psalms (xvii. 49, LXX.; A.λ'. xviii. 48, aπb avδρbς αδίκου βΰστ) με), and early commended itself to the church (2 Tim. iv. 18). in any case, there is no reason why Luke should omit such a clause, if it were known to him; and there are many reasons why such a clause should be introduced (even though it were not in the original), and why, when introduced, it should be speedily accepted. To sum up the inferences from this most important passage: the variations (and the nature of the passage) indicate a source oral and not documentary, Greek and not Aramaic; Matthew appears to have massed together a number of prayers taught by, or perhaps used by, the Lord Jesus, while Luke seems to have adhered to an earlier form, which, however, has received late modification for the purposes of daily use. Though, however, we may follow Luke here, as more closely approximating to the original form of the prayer, it does not result that on this account we must commit ourselves to the statement that the Lord’s Prayer was actually given at the exact time, and in the exact manner, which Luke describes. Just as Matthew supplies grouping, so Luke supplies motives and occasions. Often it may be more probable that the grouping and continuity of Matthew may be closer to the historical fact than the attempt at orderly arrangement, and at assignment of motive and cause and time, which characterizes Luke. I nstances of this will be given hereafter.

(12) Mat. vii. 7-12; Lu. xi. 34-36. “Ask, and it shall be given unto you,” &c. Luke prefaces this by a parable peculiar to himself, and of a peculiar type,—the argument being that if an indolent man grants requests, influenced by mere importunity, much more will the perfectly good God listen to earnest prayer. There is no reason, in the style or thought of this and similar parables, for supposing that we have the exact words of Jesus. Luke inserts in the part common to him and Matthew a clause about an “egg and scorpion;” and where Matthew has “good things” Luke has “the Holy Spirit.” With these exceptions, the agreement is nearly verbatim.

(13) Mat. vi. ‘22-23; Lu. xi. 9-13. “The light of the body is the eye.” Similar in the first part; but varies (seemingly through confusion) towards the end.

(14) Mat. xii. 30, 43-45; Lu. xi. 23-26. “He that is not with Me is against Me, and he that gathereth not with Sie scattereth,” followed by “When the unclean spirit goeth forth from the man,” &c., nearly verbatim, but apparently better placed by Matthew than by Luke, who has transposed the passage into the neighbourhood of the discourse on Beelzebub, moved possibly by the superficial resemblance of subject (“unclean spirit” and “Beelzebub”), not perhaps perceiving that it is the climax of a condemnation of “this evil generation,” which last words (Mat. xii. 45) Luke omits.

(15) Mat. xii. 41, 42; Lu. xi. 31, 32. “The queen of the south shall rise up,” &c. The queen of the south is placed by Luke before, by Matthew after, the “men of Nineveh;” and in one of the clauses (very curiously, but perhaps with a desire to bring out the antithesis between the “women” and the “men”) Luke substitutes “the men of this generation” for “this generation,” and “them” for “it.” Otherwise the agreement is almost verbatim.

(16) Mat. xxiii. 23-39; Lu. xi. 37-52. A denunciation of those who tithed mint and anise, yet were the true children of the murderers of the prophets. Matthew makes this a part of a long and public denunciation of the Pharisees, in Jerusalem; Luke places it early, and as an utterance in the house of a Pharisee, his host. It is certainly remarkable that here, and nowhere else, a Pharisee is addressed in the singular number, “Thou blind Pharisee” (Mat. xxiii. 26). The “Pharisee” is clearly generic; but if the use of the singular were misunderstood, it might originate a tradition that the speech was delivered to a single Pharisee, in whose house Jesus was dining; and though Luke does not insert the “Pharisee,” he may have been influenced by this traditional misunderstanding. Internal evidence is here strongly for Matthew’s, and against Luke’s place and time. Luke has probably been led to place this discourse at the table of a Pharisee, by the metaphor of the “cup and platter.” But the metaphor suits Matthew’s version equally well; and it*∙is in defiance at once of good taste and probability, to attribute to Jesus such a denunciation of a host at his own table, and to place it so early in our Lord’s ministry. The use (Lu. xi. 39) of ô Κύριος (see below, 22) makes it probable that this is a late tradition; and, if it is rejected, there falls with it an accusation brought against Jesus, of neglecting the decencies of life, by coming to a repast with unwashed hands. The agreement is here by no means verbatim ; and, besides other differences, Matthew has τb εντός καθάρισον, where Luke has τα eVo'vτα δ<fre όλεηαοσύνην (a change, as in the Lord’s Prayer, from the metaphorical to the real). The original and Judaean expression σοφούς κal yρaμμaτε7ς Luke alters into the Christian απ∙o<rτ<fλoι>s; he also omits the somewhat difficult σταυρώσατε. It is especially noteworthy that, whereas in Matthew Jesus says, “Wherefore, behold 7 send unto you prophets,” &c., in Luke Jesus says, “Wherefore, also the Wisdom of God said, 1 will send unto them prophets,” &c. Here Luke probably represents the earlier form, although the explanation may be doubtful. It is possible that the book containing the “words of the Lord,” from which Matthew and Luke borrowed this saying, gave to Jesus the name of “the Wisdom of God” (c∕. 1 Cor. i. 24, “Christ the Wisdom of God”), and that this title was retained by Luke, but applied, not to Jesus, but to the divine providence. Matthew adds to Zachariah the words “son of Barachiah;” Luke omits them. Here again Luke probably represents the earlier tradition. The Zachariah here mentioned was the son of Jehoiada. But Matthew, whose manner it is to lay especial stress upon all matters connected with the prophets (Schenkel’s Bibel-Lexicon, “Sacliarja”), having in his mind either Zechariah, the son of Jebe-rechiah (Is. viii. 2), or Zechariah the prophet, the son of Berechiah (Zech. i. 1), inserted the erroneous words. The agreement here is by no means verbatim. Matthew makes the utterance continuous, but Luke (xi. 45), introducing a remonstrance from a “lawyer,” turns the denunciation from the Pharisees to the “lawyers.”

(17) Mat. X. 28-31; Lu. xii. 4-8. “Fear not them which kill the body,” &c. Instead of Matthew’s “shall fall to the earth without your father,” Luke has the more general phrase, “is forgotten in the presence of God.” In other parts of the passage there is considerable dissimilarity.

(18) Mat. X. 32, 33; Lu. xii. 8, 9. “Whosoever shall confess me before men,” &e. Not verbatim. Besides other differences, instead of Matthew’s έμπροσθεν του πατρός μου, Luke has έμπροσθεν or ενώπιον των ayylλων του &εοΰ twice. This expression occurs in another passage peculiar to Luke (xv. 10), and nowhere else.

(19) Mat. vi. 25-34; Lu. xii. 22-34. “Wherefore I say unto you, Take no thought,” &c. This is the second passage (see above, Mat. xxiii. 34; Lu. xi. 49) common to Matthew and Luke, introduced by “wherefore,” though the context is different. Matthew (vi. 25) introduces the passage by a single sentence, to the effect that no one can serve two masters, God and mammon. Luke, on the other hand, after narrating the refusal of Jesus to become a “judge or a divider,” and after describing in language and thought peculiar to himself (for to Luke alone belong the parables of soliloquy) the death of the rich fool, continues thus: “And He said unto His disciples, Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought,” &c. The comparison of this passage is most useful as illustrating the difference between Matthew’s and Luke’s handling of their subject matter, and also as throwing light on the object (and perhaps on the origin) of many of the parables peculiar to Luke. They seem intended as tales to prepare the way for some famous saying of the Lord as the conclusion and moral. The agreement in language here is not verbatim. Besides other differences, Luke changes the πίτηνά τοΰ ουρανού into κόρακας, moved perhaps by the memory of the ravens, for whom God “provideth food” (Job xxxviii. 41; Ps. cxlvii. 9). But Luke’s κal μη μετεωρiζεσθε, instead of f ∣ τl περιβαλώμεθα, suggests some difference of original text, or some different rendering of the same original rather than a mere alteration.

(20) Mat. vi. 19-21; Lu. xii. 33, 34. “Lay not up for your selves treasure,” &c. There is little exact similarity of language here, except in the last sentence.

(21) Mat. xxiv. 42-51; Lu. xii. 39-46. “But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known,” &c. In Matthew this sentence comes towards the end of a long discourse on the second coming, uttered in Jerusalem; in Luke it is spoken in Galilee, and it is preceded by a passage peculiar to Luke, and reminding one of the Epistles: “Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning,” &c. With the exception of Matthew εtaσε, Luke aφηκε (probably the original word), the passages agree almost verbatim.

(22) Mat. xxiv. 45; Lu. xii. 42. “Who then is the faithful and just,” &c. Here there is precise agreement, except where Luke has altered the text with an object. Finding this parable, in the book or tradition from which he extracted it, connected with the name of Peter, and desiring to distinguish the “steward” or upper “servant,” who is placed over the household, from the common slaves, he (a) inserts a question of Peter, “Speakest Thou this parable unto us or even unto all?” (δ) alters the first δoυλor (“slave”) into οικονόμος (“steward”); (c)_ alters oικετεias (“household,” the true reading of Matthew) into a word with somewhat higher associations, θεραπείας (“suite” or “retinue”); and (d) changes συνόούλους (“fellow-slaves”) into “the manservants and maid-servants.” One or two other changes are also made (μεθύσκεσθαι and τε) to improve the text. Luke’s σιτoμετpιov and απίστων, for Matthew’s τροφήν and υποκριτών, might be early variations arising from the varying translation of some Aramaic original. There remains the curious fact that, in introducing this parable, Luke uses the rare Κύριος (used not as a vocative in speech of address, but in narration), instead of ’Ιησούς : “The Lord said unto Peter.” This is an almost sure sign of a late addition to the Gospels, often of an interpolation. The word Κύριος is not used once thus in the correct text of Matthew. It is not used once in the genuine Mark; but it is used twice in the short interpolated appendix to Mark (xvi. 19, 20). In Luke it is used about twelve times, always in prefaces or other passages peculiar to Luke, and of these twelve passages three are connected with Peter (xii. 42; xxii. 31; xxii. 61).

(23) Mat. X. 34-36; Lu. xii. 51-55. “Think ye that I came to send peace on earth?” The agreement is not verbatim, and suggests two independent translations from an Aramaic original. Instead of Matthew’s μάχαιραν, “a sword,” Luke has Sιaμεpισμ6v, “division.” This might either be the divergence of translators (so ΠΊΠ is translated in the LXX. both μaχaιpatvad πόλεμος), or it might be a mannerism of Luke (c∕. επισιτισμόν, ix. 12; iμaτισμy, vii. 25; ix. 29, where Matthew has severally βρώματα, μαλακά, and ιμάτια).

(24) Mat. V. 25, 26; Lu. xii. 58, 59. “Agree with thine adversary,” &c. This passage is not verbatim in Matthew and Luke, except in the last sentence. The word υπayειv in Luke (which Luke as a rule systematically alters or omits whenever it is found in the common tradition of Matthew and Luke [see Mk. i. 44; ii. 11; x. 21 j xiv. 21]) indicates that therein Luke is following some early tradition: but κατασύργ, πράκτωρ, and λεπτόν (Luke’s “half-farthing,” instead of Matthew’s “farthing”} seem all later touches added to give graphic variety and climax.

(25) Mat. xiii. 33; Lu. xiii. 21. “The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven.” &c. Nearly verbatim.

(26) Mat. viii. 11, 12; Lu. xiii. 28, 29. “Many shall come from the east and the west,” &c. In Matthew these words are uttered by Jesus as a comment upon the marvellous faith of the centurion. In Luke they follow a parable peculiar to himself. The clause “there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (which, except in this instance, is peculiar to Matthew) is transferred from the end to the beginning; and there are other variations, seemingly purposed. The agreement is far from verbatim.

(27) Mat. xxiii. 37-39; Lu. xiii. 34,35. “Jerusalem, Jerusalem,” &c. This is a conspicuous instance of the manner in which Luke has sometimes deviated from the true chronological order. He represents these words to have been uttered in Galilee, when the Pharisees warn Jesus to flee from fear of Herod. But Matthew represents them as having been uttered in Jerusalem, and in the temple. The reason for Luke’s transposition is possibly contained in the last words, “Ye shall not see Me till the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord.” Now these very words, “Blessed is He,” &c., were uttered by the crowd welcoming Jesus on His entrauce into Jerusalem (xix. 39). Luke therefore, regarding the words of Jesus, “Ye shall not see Me,” as a prediction necessarily preceding its fulfilment, is bound to place these words before the entry of Jesus iuto Jerusalem But all internal evidence is on the side of Matthew’s order, and against Luke’s. The agreement is very nearly verbatim, but Luke (whose arrangement does not require the word) dispenses with the ‘ ‘ henceforth” of Matthew.

(28) Mat. xxii. 1-14; Lu. xiv. 15-24. The parable of the wedding feast. These parables differ entirely in language, and somewhat in thought. In Matthew those who are first invited slay the messengers, and are slain by the king; and, among those who are subsequently invited, one is rejected for being without a wedding garment. In Luke the guests are simply discourteous, and the host merely invites others (the poor and the maimed, and then the wanderers in the streets) in the place of the first. Matthew’s parable is therefore political, Luke’s social. Note, however, that in the parable of the pounds (Mat. talents, xxv. ), Luke introduces (xix. 27) the missing political element, whereas Matthew there omits it. Clearly no common document nor even detailed tradition originated these parables. They are rather (as also are the parables of the talents and the pounds) of the nature of sermons or stories based upon short “words of the Lord” as texts. It is obvious that Matthew lays special stress upon the exclusion of the unfit intruder, Luke upon the inclusion of all the world.

(29) Mat. X. 37-39; Lu. xiv. 26, 27. “He that loveth father and mother more than Me,” &c. In Matthew these words are addressed by Jesus to the twelve in Galilee; in Luke to the multitude following Him during His journey to Jerusalem. Here Luke seems to have preserved the older (because more difficult) form of the tradition: “Whosoever hateth not ' (Marcion altered μ,ισei into κaτaKVιιrιi) “his father, .... yea, his own life also,” &c. It seems more probable that this was the original form than that Luke intensified the form by any alteration of his own. There is scarcely any agreement of language between Matthew and Luke here.

(30) Mat. xviii. 12-14; Lu. xv. 4-7. “What man having an hundred sheep,” &c. The thought is the same, but there is scarcely any similarity of language; and even the conclusion characteristically differs, Matthew having “it is not the will of your Father in heaven that one of these little ones should perish;’’ Luke having “there is joy in heaven over one sinner that re-penteth.” The contrast between the negative (“not the will”) and the positive (“joy”), between the “non-perishing” and the “repenting,” is typical of the contrast between the whole of Matthew and the whole of Luke.

(31) Mat. vi. 24; Lu. xvi. 13. “No (servant) can serve two masters,” &c. With the exception of “servant” added by Luke for definiteness, this saying is the same verbatim in Matthew and Luke.

(32) Mat. xi. 12 and v. 18; Lu. xvi. 16, 17. “The law and the prophets were till John,” &c., and “Not one tittle shall pass from the law.” There seems little connexion in these sayings as they stand in Luke, and there is very little similarity of language between Matthew and Luke.

(33) Mat. xxiv. 26-28, 37-41; Lu. xvii. 23-27, 34-37. These are scattered sayings on the second coming, likening it to the “days of Noah” and to “lightning,” and predicting the severance of those who are “atone mill” and “in one bed.” Luke, after his manner, introduces a question, “Where, Lord?” to which the reply comes, “Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together.” Matthew, on the other hand, introduces the sentence in the midst of the discourse, “So shall also the coming of the Son of Alan be, for wheresoever the body is,” &c. The agreement of language is not considerable, except in the last part.

(34) AIat. xxiii. 12; Lu. xviii. 14, and xiv. 11. “Everyone that exalteth himself shall be abased,” &c. This again furnishes a striking instance of the manner in which Luke utilizes words of the Lord as texts for discourses. The saying is introduced by AIatthew in the midst of the discourse against the Pharisees; but it is made by Luke the conclusion and moral of the parable of the publican and the Pharisee, and of the discourse on choosing the lower room.

(35) Alat. XXV. 14-30; Lu. xix. 1-28. The parable of the talents or pounds. There is no similarity of language, except in the dialogue between the idle servant and the master. Luke, after his manner, inserts a question from the bystanders (“And they said to him, Lord, he hath ten pounds ”); and Luke here, as Matthew above (28), introduces a political element, making the master a king, and narrating a royal vengeance.

In' the consideration of the passages quoted above, one fact strikes us at once, that the Lord’s Prayer is not verbatim the same in Matthew and Luke. If this is not identical, it might be thought that we cannot expect any words of the Lord to be identical. And indeed, as a matter not cf hypothesis but of fact, those words w hich have most strongly appealed to men’s hearts, and have been most frequently on their lips, from the earliest times of the church; those sayings which have given the tone to Christian life, which have encouraged martyrs, and stimulated waverers, such as (17), “Fear not them which kill the body;” (18), “Whosoever shall confess,” &c.; (29), “He that loveth father or mother more than Me,” &c.—all these, though identical as regards thought, and similar as regards words, are nevertheless not exactly similar in Matthew and Luke. The exactly similar passages are of a very different nature: they are for the most part passages of a prophetic or historical rather than a doctrinal character with application to individuals. Some, (1), (2), (5), (6), describe the relations between John the Baptist and Christ; another, (8), calls down woe on Chorazin; another, (9), in language that reminds us of the thoughts, though not of the words, of the Fourth Gospel, thanks God for revealing to babes what He has hidden from the wise and prudent; another, (27), pours forth lamentations over doomed Jerusalem. All these passages, dealing as it were on a large scale with the will of God, as it affects religions and nations rather than as it affects individuals, are better fitted for reading in the services of the church than for being transmitted from mouth to mouth in the family from father to son, or from catechist to catechumen, for personal and individual guidance; and consequently they seem more likely to have been handed down in a book than by means of oral tradition. The same conclusion applies to (21), “But know this, that if the goodman,” &c. and to (22), “Who then is the faithful and just steward,” <fcc.—both of which passages agree verbatim, and both of which appear to have an ecclesiastical rather than an individual reference, at all events in their primary application. In proportion as a rhetorical passage limits itself to individual application, it seems to have been modified by oral tradition so as to deviate from exact agreement: compare in (3) the “mote and the beam;” also (12), “Ask, and it shall be given unto you;” and (19), “Take no thought for the morrow.” The only exception perhaps to this rule is in the denunciation of the Pharisees (16). This passage, being of the historical type, ought (according to our rule) to be identical; but Luke differs from Matthew considerably. Possibly, in the earliest days of the church, and especially in the synagogues of Palestine a few years after the death of Christ, the angry conflicts between the disciples of the Lord and the Pharisees may have frequently reproduced and modified by traditional influences the original form of our Lord’s denunciation; so that perhaps this'subject comes naturally under the head of traditional doctrine. It must also be remembered that, as Luke approaches the later period of the work of Christ in Judaea, he deviates more and more both from Matthew and from Mark; perhaps because there was a Judaean as well as a Galilean tradition of the life of Jesus, and Luke, in the latter part of his history, depended mainly on the former. These two considerations may explain the deviation of Luke from Matthew in the denunciation of the Pharisees.

That the parables should diverge is natural. Their length and number would prevent them from being remembered, or passed from mouth to mouth, with the same fidelity with which the shorter words of the Lord would be preserved; and as they were probably often repeated by Jesus in varied shapes, no one particular shape of any parable would seem to claim a place in the written document of the words of the Lord, as being of the same importance as the “Woe to Jerusalem,” or the other strains of poetic prophecy. The parable of the sower, coming first in order, and being typical of the rest of the parables, and having appended to it an explanation of the motive of the parabolic teaching, would naturally attract attention from the earliest times, and consequently it found a place in the Triple Tradition; but this privilege was accorded to no other parable. There is therefore no ground whatever for inferring from the discrepancy of the language of a parable in Matthew and Luke (e√7., the parable of the lost sheep) that it was not actually uttered by Jesus. The exact similarity of thought and sequence of incident in that parable, as recorded by Matthew and Luke, proves to demonstration that the two records are derived from one source.

The following are our conclusions therefore about the additions to the Triple Tradition made jointly by Matthew and Luke. (1.) Their omission by Mark furnishes no argument for their rejection, inasmuch as Mark also omits the Lord’s Prayer, and obviously aims at narrating the acts rather than the sayings of the Lord. (2.) Of the additions, some appear to be based upon common tradition, or on documents modified by tradition,—principally those short trenchant sayings (including the Lord’s Prayer) which are of a universal and private application. (3.) Others appear to be based upon a common document; and in these documentary additions (as perhaps to some extent in the rest) Luke seems to have modified the original tradition, in words and phrases, with a view to purity of style and intelligibility, or to remove difficulties. (4.) In chronological order and arrangement Matthew and Luke pursue divergent paths; Matthew’s object being to group and mass the teaching of the Lord, while Luke aims at supplying motive, occasion, place, and time for each utterance. It is scarcely possible to doubt that the arrangement of neither is to be implicitly adopted. There is much reason to doubt whether what is called the Sermon on the Mount was actually delivered at one time in the shape in which Matthew presents it; and it is equally questionable whether the lamentation over Jerusalem was delivered in a village of Galilee, and whether the denunciation of the Scribes and Pharisees (as murderers, on whom should be avenged all the innocent blood shed from the beginning of the world) was uttered at the table of a Pharisee. (6.) As regards the parables, we have to depend—in our conjecture as to the degree to which the thoughts of Jesus have been preserved—mainly upon the presence in them of the same spiritual power and insight which are perceptible in His other recognized genuine sayings. But the dissimilarity of the language of the parables in Matthew and Luke (where the thought is the same) gives no ground for denying that parables on the same subjects, and to the same effect, were actually delivered by Him. (7.) Since the hypothesis that Luke borrowed from Matthew is untenable, and since therefore we must suppose that Matthew and Luke borrowed these additions independently from some early document, we may infer that, before the times of Matthew and Luke, a document containing words of the Lord had existed long enough, and had acquired authority enough, to induce two editors or writers of Gospels, apparently representing different schools of thought and writing for different churches, to borrow from it independently.

This last conclusion is of the greatest importance; for though the document may be, and almost certainly was, later than the Triple Tradition, yet it would have the advantage of preserving the original utterances of the Lord comparatively unimpaired by traditional transmutations. When to this consideration is added the authoritative nature of the words of the Lord in this document, their direct reference to events, and the extreme improbability that any disciple would have, or could have, invented them,—for which of the apostles or subordinate disciples could have invented the discourse on “the lilies of the field,” or the lamentation over Jerusalem, or the speech which likens John to “a reed shaken by the wind,” and pronounces him the greatest of the prophets, yet less than the least in the kingdom of God!— we are led to infer that in all probability we have in these additions of Matthew and Luke a very close approximation to some of the noblest and most impressive utterances of Jesus Himself. With the exception of the healing of the son of the centurion, and the narrative of the temptation, the additions common to Matthew and Luke introduce no new supernatural element.

The Additions and Peculiarities of Mark.— It might be expected that when we come to the additions peculiar to each of the three synoptists we should find some increase to the accounts of supernatural events. Now it seems to be a striking proof of the antiquity of the Second Gospel that we find in it no additions of this kind. Not that Mark does not lay stress on what appears to be supernatural; on the contrary, he records acts of instantaneous healing with greater minuteness of detail than any other evangelist (vii. 31-37; viii. 22-26; ix. 14-27); but we find in Mark no mention of our Lord’s birth or childhood, and only the barest prediction of His resurrection. As an explanation of the deficiency of information onthe resurrection, it has been frequently suggested that the latter part of the Gospel may have been lost; and, less frequently (Weiss, Marcusevangelium, p. 511), that the Gospel was deliberately closed with the prediction of the resurrection by the mouth of an angel, because “the manifestations of the risen Saviour belong (according to the earliest notions) no longer to the earthly sphere of the action of Jesus, and therefore do not fall within the province of the Gospel.” Few Greek scholars, however, will be induced to believe that the author of the Second Gospel deliberately chose to end a book on the good news of Christ with the words (φοβούντο γάρ. From a literary point of view the γάρ, and from ∙a moral point of view the ill-omened (φοβονντο, make it almost incredible that these words represent a deliberate termination assigned by an author to a composition of his own. Others have suggested that the last page of the MS. may have been accidentally destroyed. But this suggestion seems to overlook the consideration that the MS. was in all probability written not for a private library but for use in the church, and that it would immediately be multiplied by copies. Again, we know, from reference to Mat. xxviii. 8 and Lu. xxiv. 9, that the common tradition ceases with the return of the women from the Lord’s tomb. But it is precisely at this point that the genuine Mark (xvi. 8) also terminates. Now, that a page should have been torn out containing just that part of Mark which followed after the close of the common tradition would be a most remarkable and unlikely coincidence. It seems far more probable that Mark ends his Gospel here because the common tradition ended here, and because he scrupled to add anything to the notes and traditions which he knew to rest upon a higher authority than his own. If this be the true explanation, it stamps with the seal of a higher authority such traditions as have been preserved to us by so scrupulous an author. We proceed therefore to an investigation of the peculiarities of Mark, with a confidence in him increased rather than diminished by the fact that he has neither the introductions nor the appendices which are found in the rest of the Gospels.

The first thing that strikes us in Mark is his duality. Verbosity wo might be tempted to call it at the first sight; but though there is a certain disproportion in the space assigned to detail, duality, and not verbosity, is the better word. It is this duality which gave rise (see above, p. 789) to the erroneous supposition that Mark had borrowed from Matthew and Luke. But it maybe shown, by reference to passages where there can be no possibility that Mark borrowed from Matthew and Luke (Mk. ii. 19; iii. 5 ; iii. 27; iii. 22, 30; v. 3, 5; xii. 44), that this duality is a part of Mark’s style. In many cases, e.g., iii. 22, 30 (B∈eλξε∕8oυλ εχει and τrvcvμa ακάθαρτον εχeι), it is almost forced on the reader that the evangelist had before him two versions of one saying, and that in his “anxiety to omit nothing” x he inserted both. Whether there be any definite traces of translation in his Gospel will be considered hereafter. But, so far, we merely note that some of Mark’s dualities of expression might be explained as double renderings of the same original. Only one parable is peculiar to Mark; it is one that illustrates (iv. 26-29) the spread of the kingdom of God by the quiet, unperceived, and gradual growth of corn. The subdued tone of this (one of the most interesting of all the parables) was perhaps the reason why it was not at first widely known, as it undoubtedly is the reason why modern readers pay it too little attention. Mark also amplifies the story of the Baptist’s execution (vi. 20-28), and the graphic story of the exorcism of the “legion.” For the rest, the other additions peculiar to Mark consist either of dual expressions and amplifications of detail, or of realistic details which would naturally be subordinated in later times, as likely to be stumbling-blocks. For amplifications which treat of the resistance and ultimate submission of unclean spirits see i. 26, 27; i. 44; iii. 7- 12; ix. 14-27; for others which relate to the crowding of people round Jesus, the publicity of His work, and His desire for solitude, see i. 28; i. 35-37; i. 45; ii. 1-4; ii. 15; iii. 10-12; vi. 32-33, &c. The narrative also, from first to last, abounds with expressions as to the manner and look and minute action of Jesus during dialogues or miracles (cf. iii. 5; vii. 31-37; viii. 22-26). In many of these additions Aramaic words are given as the very utterances of Jesus, e.g., v. 41, Tαλι0α κoυμι ; vii. 34, Έφφαθά ; xiv. 36, Άββά ; sometimes, also, names that are given by no other writer, e.g., Bartimaeus, Boanerges, and Dalmanutha. Unquestionably, under ordinary circumstances, this elaboration of unimportant detail (and especially the introduction of names—for instances of which see the Apocryphal Gospels passim) is a mark of a late writer, and of a composer of fiction rather thau history. But all the characteristics of Mark support the belief that in his case they are rather the excrescences and redundancies of one who trusted his memory rather than his judgment, and who preferred to report rather than to select and arrange.

One proof of the early composition of Mark is the rudeness and even vulgarity of his Greek. He uses a great number of words which are expressly forbidden by the grammarians. For example, of Mark’s phrase εσχάτως εχει (Mk. v. 23), Phrynichus says (ed. Lobeck, p. 389), “only the canaille use it in this sense;” the same grammarian also warns his readers against κράββατος (Mk. ii. 4, 9, 11, 12). Other words noted by Phrynichus, and used by Mark (some of which are also used by Matthew) but avoided by Luke, are p,ovoφθαλpoζ (ix. 47); ευσχr∕p,ωv (for πλούσιος, xv. 43); κολλυβtστaι (xi. 15); κοράσιον (v. 41); ορκίζω (v, 7); ράπισμα (xiv. 65); paφi8ο<s (χ. 25). Such words as these might naturally find their place in the mongrel Greek of the slaves and freedmen who formed the first congregations of the church in Rome; and they are therefore tokens of a date of composition earlier than that of Matthew and Luke. For it is not conceivable that such terms (some of which would so have jarred upon the ear of an educated Greek as almost to correspond to our “slang”) should be substituted in later times for a more tasteful vocabulary; whereas it is easily conceivable, and a priori probable, that better Greek should, in the prosperous days of the church, be substituted for worse.

It is a natural characteristic of an unpractised reporter that he lays undue stress on a few vivid expressions and striking words, and that he reproduces or exaggerates anacolutha which, though not objectionable in a speech, are inconvenient in a book, because they tend to obscure or subordinate the subject matter. Many such words are inserted by Mark, and avoided by Matthew or Luke, or by both, e.y., σχιζο/χενους, i. 10; dγvαφoς, ii. 21; κωμοπολεις, i. 38; avaλov, ix. 50. For irregular constructions see iv. 28 (7rλ77p77s σίτος, the correct reading); xii. 40, oi κaτiσθοvτtς (altered by Luke); v. 23, ιva iπιθjj<s; note also the curious change of construction from Aα to the infinitive in iii. 15, as compared with iii. 14. The Latinisms of this Gospel are well known: see xv. 15, to iκavοv ποιησaι ’ i vi. 35, ώρα 7r0λλr∕; vi. 27, σιτεκουλάτωρ', XV. 39, κevτvρiωv. The words πpaιτωpιοv (xv. 16), κηvσο<s (xii. 14), and φpaγeλλοιv (xv. 15) Mark shares with Matthew. Other barbarisms are the use of οτav with the indicative, and the use of oτc to ask a question (ii. 16; ix. 11; ix. 28), both of which idioms are common in the Äcta Pilati, ancl perhaps indicate Latin influence.

A still more cogent proof of the early date of Mark is that this Gospel contains many expressions which would be likely to be stumbling-blocks in the way of weak believers, so that they are omitted in the later Gospels, and would not have been tolerated except in a Gospel of extreme antiquity. For example, the strong expression (vi. 5, 6), “He was not alle to do there any mighty work;” the statement (i. 32, 34) that all the sick were brought to Jesus, but that He healed only many, whereas Matthew (viii, 16) says that He healed all, and Luke (iv. 40) that He healed each one (εvι εκάστω); the attempt of His mother and brethren to lay hands on Him on the ground that He was insane (iii. 20-21); the imputation of an ambitious petition to James and John, instead of (as Matthew) to their mother (x. 35); the mention of the marvel of Pilate at the speedy death of Jesus, which might have been perverted to support those who denied that Jesus had really died upon the cross (xv. 44); the statement that Jesus only gave power to His apostles to cast out devils (iii.

15, correct text), and not (as Mat. x. 1) to heal diseases; the enumeration of the different stages by which Jesus, at least on one occasion, effected a cure, and the description of the, at first, only partial cure (viii. 24); the statement that the fig-tree, instead of being withered up “immediately” (as Matthew, παρα-χρήμα, xxi. 19), was not observed tobe withered till after the interval of a day; the bare statement (xvi. 4) that the women found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre (which might have been used to support the statements of those who maintained that the friends or enemies of Jesus had stolen His body), whereas Matthew (xxviii. 2) distinctly meets such an objection by asserting that an angel descended from heaven in the sight of the keepers and rolled away the stone;—these, and probably other expressions, indicate a very early date of composition, and a disposition to record facts as they came, without emphasis or subordination. Mark neither masses similar sayings or deeds, as Matthew does, nor supplies motives and occasions, as Luke does. It is most interesting to note that the words “law,” “lawyer,” which played so prominent a part in Matthew and Luke, are not to be found at all in Mark’s narrative. His business is simply with the life of Christ. Again, whereas Matthew and (in'a less degree) Luke are careful to point out that Jesus fulfilled the sayings of the prophets, Mark, on the other hand, though he recognizes in John the Baptist (i. 2) the messenger predicted by the prophets, sees in Jesus a Being too absorbing and interesting as a man to find much time for contemplation of Him as the mere fulfiller of prophecy. In a word, Mark writes of Jesus, not as the destroyer or fulfiller of the law, not as the Messiah predicted by the prophets, not as the refuge of the Gentiles, but rather as a man; subject to anger, and disappointment, and weariness; not knowing all things; not able to do all things; but endowed with strange powers of healing the souls and bodies of men: and carrying out a mysterious plan for the regeneration of the world, through a spirit of childlike obedience to God and brotherly love towards men; lastly, a man who assumed for Himself and for His disciples a power of forgiving sins, and who based all the success of His plans upon His predicted death and resurrection, to be followed by a second coming.

True, Mark’s Gospel is disproportioned, inartistic, and uncouth—scarcely, indeed, to be called a book, but rather a collection of graphic anecdotes. Yet it has a unity derived from its naive simplicity and single-mindedness, in recording whatever it records as it was delivered from the earliest sources in its entirety; and possibly in that string of anecdotes the development of Christ's life and work may be traced with not less clearness than in the ampler and more artistic production of Luke.

The Additions and Peculiarities of Matthew.— The principal additions to the common tradition contributed by Matthew alone are the following :—

(1) i. 1-17, the genealogy of Jesus from David; (2) i. 18-25, the annunciation, and the dream of Joseph; (3) ii. 1-12, the adoration of the Magi; (4) ii. 13-23, the massacre of children in Bethlehem and the flight of the parents of Jesus to Egypt, together with their return to Nazareth; (5) iii. 13-17, the reluctance of John to baptize Jesus; (6) iv. 14-16, the fulfilment of the prophecy, “The people that sit in darkness,” &c.; (7) v. 5-10, the six beatitudes on the sorrowing, the meek, the merciful, the pure in heart, the peacemakers, the persecuted; (8) v. 17-48, the new law is more exacting than the old. law; (9) vi. 1-18, warnings against ostentation in almsgiving, prayer, and fasting; (103 vi. 34, “Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof”; (11) vii. 6, “Give not that which is holy to dogs,” &c.; (12) vii. 13, 14, “Broad is the gate,” &c.; (13) vii. 22, “In thy name have we cast out devils,” &c.; (14) ix. 13 and xii. 7, the saying, “1 will have mercy and not sacrifice”; (15) ix. 27-34, the cure of two blind men and of a deaf man J (16) x. 5-8, “Go not into any city of the Samaritans,” &c., instructions to the twelve; (17) x. 23, “But when they pursue you in this city, fleo unto the other; for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel until the Son of Man be come”; (18) x. 25, “The servant is not above his master,” &c.; (19) xi. 28-30, “Come unto Me, all ye that are weary,” &c.; (20) xii. 17-21, the prophecy of Isaiah, “Behold my servant,” &c., is fulfilled in Jesus; (21) xii. 22, 23, the healing of one that was both dumb and blind; (22) xii. 33, “Either make the tree sound and the fruit sound, or,” &c.; (23) xii. 36,37, “Every idle word,” &c.; (24) xii. 40, “As Jonas was in the whale’s belly,” &c.; (25) xiii. 14, 15, the fulfilment of a prophecy of Isaiah in the misunderstanding of Christ’s teaching; (26) xiii. 24-30, the enemy and the tares; (27) xiii. 35, the fulfilment of prophecy in Christ’s teaching by parables; (28) xiii. 36-43, the interpretation of the parable of the tares; (29) xiii. 44-50, “The kingdom of heaven is like (a) a treasure, (b) a merchant buying a pearl, (c) a net; (30) xiii. 51, 52, Every disciple to bring forth things new and old,” &c.; (31) xiv. 28-33, the attempt of Peter to walk upon the waves; (32) xv. 13, “Every plant that My heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up,” &c.; (33) xvi. 17-19, the blessing on Peter; (34) xvii. 24-27, the tribute money; (35) xviii. 3, 4, “If ye be not converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter,” &c.; (36) xviii. 10, “Their angels do always behold,” &e.; (37) xviii. 12-14, the parable of the hundred sheep (given by Luke in similar language); (38) xviii. 15-18, “Tell it to the church,” &c., the course of pιocedure in case of quarrel; (39) xviii. 21, 22, the question of Peter, “How often shall my brother sin against me ?” (40) xviii. 23-34, the parable of the unforgiving servant; (41) xix. 10-12, “There are some eunuchs,” &c.; (42) xx. 1-15, the labourers in the vineyard; (43) xxi. 5, the fulfilment of the prophecy, “Behold thy King cometh,” &c.; (44) xxi. 16, the fulfilment ot the prophecy, “Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings,” &c.; (45) xxi. 28-32, “Igo” and “Igo not”; (46) xxi. 43, “The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and shall be given to a nation that bringeth forth the fruits thereof”; (47) xxii. 1-14, the parable of the despiteful and murderous guests (very dissimilar in Luke); (48) xxiii. 1-3, “The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat, &c,; (49) xxiii. 7-12; ib. 15-22, “Be not called Rabbi,” &c., “He that sweareth by the altar,” &c.; (50) xxv. 1-13, the parable of the ten virgins; (51) xxv. 14-28, the parable of the talents; (52) XXV. 31-46, the parable of the sheep and the goats; (53) xxvi. 51-54, “Put up thy sword,” and “Thinkest thou not that I cannot now pray to My Father,” &c.; (54) xxvii. 3-10, the fulfilment of the prophecy, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver,” &c.; (55) xxvii. 19, “Have thou nothing to do with that just man,” &c.; (56) xxvii. 24-25, Pilate washing his hands; (57) xxvii. 52, 53, “And many bodies of them that slept arose,” &c.; (58) xxvii. 62-66, the Jews seal the sepulchre; (59) xxviii. 2-5, the angel rolls t⅛ stone from the tomb of Jesus; (60) xxviii. 9-15, the women clasp the feet of the risen Jesus; the soldiers are bribed to say that the disciples stole away the body; (61) xxviii. 16-20, Jesus appear; to the eleven disciples on a mountain in Galilee.

The preface (chaps, i. and ii.) reveals a part of the purpose of the whole Gospel, in tracing the genealogy of Jesus, not from David merely, who was under the law, but from Abraham, who was the receiver of the promise (Gal. iii.. 16) and the father of the faithful (Gal. iii. 7). Such a genealogy is the fitting preface of a book which aims at exhibiting the law, not as trampled upon but as fulfilled and developed into a higher law of promise, in which all the families of the world were to be blessed (Gen. xii. 3). But by this time also the church required some distinct affirmation concerning the divine origin of Jesus. The gap left in the opening of Mark’s Gospel needed to be filled up. The mere earthly pedigree from Abraham was insufficient; nor did it suffice that Jesus should be declared to be spiritually the Son of God. It was necessary that the verity of the spiritual birth of Jesus from the Father should be embodied in a narrative so expressed as to be intelligible to all.

The differences between the prefaces of Matthew and Luke are obvious, and need no stress laid on them, except as illustrations of the freedom which, at this period, was allowed in the handling of the various introductions to the Gospel tradition. It is obvious, for example, that Luke regards Nazareth as the residence of Joseph and Mary from the first (i. 26; ii. 4), whereas Matthew seems to represent them as selecting Nazareth for their new home after the birth of Jesus and the return from Egypt, only because they were afraid to return to their old home in Judaea, thereby fulfilling an ancient prophecy (ii. 23). Throughout his preface, as throughout his version of the Triple Tradition, Matthew always bears in mind that Jesus came to fulfil the prophets as well as the law. The birth from a virgin (i. 25), the birth in Bethlehem (ii. 6), the return from Egypt (ii. 15), the massacre of the children in Bethlehem (ii. 18), and the residence in Nazareth (ii. 23) are all spoken of as the consequences of prophecies. It is scarcely fanciful, also, to see some reference to the infancy of Moses, and the slaughter of the Israelitish children by Pharaoh in the massacre of the children of Bethlehem by Herod.

Passing next to Matthew’s version of the Triple Tradition, we note first the prominence given to the law. Instead of giving a chronological account of our Lord’s acts and sayings, Matthew prefers to collecta mass of doctrine into one continuous discourse, known from early times as the Sermon on the Mount. This discourse follows almost immediately (iv. 11; V. 1.) on the commencement of His public life; and it contains the new law of the new kingdom. The Sermon on the Mount corresponds to the law given on Mount Sinai, and a thread of contrast runs through the former, comparing in each case that which had been said “of old time 3 ’ with that which the New Lawgiver prescribed, and showing that in each case the new law, though more gentle, was also more stringent and more exacting than the old, “Depart from Me, ye workers of iniquity” (Lu. xiii. 27) is expressed by Matthew (vii. 23), “Depart from Me, ye that work lawlessness;” and this word “lawlessness” is found four times in Matthew, and not at all in the rest of the Gospels. Luke recognizes that no jot or tittle is to pass from the law till all be fulfilled; but nowhere in Luke shall we find the strong language which declares (Mat. v. 19) that he who breaks, or teaches others to break, one of the least of the commandments of the law shall be called least in the kingdom of God.

The genealogy traced from Abraham, and the stress laid on prophecy, as well as the prominence thus given to the law, all suggest that this book was primarily intended for Jewish readers; and this supposition is confirmed by the whole tenor of the Gospel. Matthew finds less space than Luke for the parables which point to the inclusion of the Gentiles, and more for those which point to the exclusion of the workers of lawlessness and of the unworthy Jews. He alone among the evangelists has the saying, “Many are called but few chosen;” and the distinction between the “called” (κλητοί) and “chosen” (lκλeκτoi) is the more remarkable, because Paul uses the two words almost indifferently, and Luke (though he too has the parable of the unworthy guests) has not ventured to use κλητοί in Matthew’s disparaging signification. But Matthew, more than the rest of the evangelists, seems to move in evil days, and amid a race of backsliders, among dogs and swine who are unworthy of the pearls of truth, among the tares sown by the enemy, among fishermen who have to cast back again many of the fish caught in the net of the gospel; the broad way is ever in his mind, and the multitude of those that go thereby, and the guest without the wedding garment, and the foolish virgins, and the goats as well as the sheep, and those who even “cast out devils” in the name of the Lord, and yet are rejected by Him because they “work lawlessness.” Where Luke speaks exultantly of “joy in heaven” over one repentant sinner, Matthew in more negative and sober phrases declares that it is not the will of the Father that one of the little ones should perish; and as a reason for not being distracted about the future it is alleged that “sufficient for the day is the evil thereof”: see above, (10), (11), (12), (13), (28), (29 c ), (50), (52). It is farfetched to suppose that these subjects are selected or amplified in antagonism to the doctrine of Paul. The condition of the Jews, their increasing hostility to the Christians, and the wavering or retrogression of many Jewish converts when the hostility became intensified shortly before and during the siege of Jerusalem,—this may well explain one side of Matthew’s Gospel; and the other side (the condemnation of “lawlessness ”) might find an explanation in a reference to Hellenizing Jews, who (like some of the Corinthians) considered that the new law set them free from all restraint, and who, in casting aside every vestige of nationality, wished to cast aside morality as well. Viewed in the light of the approaching fall of Jerusalem, and the wavering or retrogression of great masses of the nation, the introduction into the Lord’s Prayer of the words, “Deliver us from the evil,” and the prediction (xxiv. 12) that “by reason of the multiplying of lawlessness the love of many shall wax cold,” will seem not only appropriate, but typical of the character of the whole of the First Gospel.

Besides the fulfilments of prophecy mentioned in the preface, Matthew sees several others (6), (25), (43), (44), (54) which are not mentioned in the Triple Tradition, and these applications of prophecy sometimes contain obvious confusions. For example, Matthew sees in our Lord’s entry into· Jerusalem a fulfilment of the prophecy: “Thy king cometh . . . sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.” The repetition seems to denote one animal, after the manner of H ebrew poetry, and only one is mentioned by Mark and Luke; but Matthew, applying prophecy more closely, speaks of two, and adds (xxi. 7) “they brought the ass and the foal and cast their clothes upon them, and he sat upon themT Again, in speaking of the “potter’s field” (xxvii. 9), he quotes, as from Jeremiah, a prophecy that is really from Zechariah xi. 12 (the word translated “potter” is rendered by Ewald “treasury”; and [though Aquila has 7rλαστψ'] the LXX. has γwvevτηpiov, “foundry,’ neither of which renderings will suit Matthew’s application). Again, though Luke speaks of the “sign of Jonah,” Matthew alone makes Jesus publicly declare that, as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale (xii. 40), so He shall be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth; and such a declaration, exciting no questioning in the disciples, nor wonder in bystanders, appears in the highest degree improbable, and looks like a later application. It will be remembered that Matthew alone has the inaccurate statement that the murdered Zachariah was the son of Barachiah (xxiii. 35); and perhaps an inaccuracy resulting from a lapse of memory may explain, not only the use of the name of Jeremiah above, but also the quotation “He shall be called a Nazarene” (ii. 23), which is found in no existing book of prophecy. Similarly (perhaps) Mark, through lapse of memory on the part of those whose tradition he records, quotes (i. 2), as from Isaiah, according to the correct reading (the A. V. reads “prophets”), a prophecy composed of two passages, the first of which is from Malachi, and only the second from Isaiah. It must be remembered that, without the modern means for rapid reference, verification was a much harder task then than now, and much more trust was necessarily given to memory.

Few new miracles are introduced by Matthew into the body of his work (15), (21), (31), (34). Two of these consist of acts of healing; and two are connected with Peter, viz., Peter’s partial success in walking upon the waves, and his (supposed) extraction of a stater from the mouth of a fish. But the words implying the latter miracle have possibly arisen from a misunderstanding; at all events they leave in the mind “a doubt whether, in this instance, some essential particular may not have been either omitted or left unexplained” (Farrar’s Life of Christ, vol. ii. p. 46).

In its moral teaching this Gospel lays special stress upon the sin of religious ostentation and hypocrisy. In a strong passage (xii. 33) consistent undissembling wickedness is preferred to dissembled wickedness, and the Pharisees are described at greater length than in any of the other Gospels. Yet this Gospel does not always dwell upon the dark side of Christ’s doctrine. It preserves also some of the Lord’s most “comfortable” sayings: the blessings upon the meek and merciful; the saying that the angels of the little ones always behold the face of the Father; and above all that saying which is a gospel in itself, “Come unto KΓe, all ye that labour, and are heavy laden,” &c. (xi. 28-30).

In speaking of the date of Matthew’s Gospel, so far as it can be determined from internal evidence, we must remember that, if the work be composite, the fact that some of Matthew’s additions are clearly late will not show that others may not be early. The saying, for example, that the disciples shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man shall have come (x. 23), seems to be an early and unaltered reminiscence of a saying of Jesus, which was not generally adopted in the tradition because of its recognized difficulty at a later date. It is possible that Matthew may consider the coming of the Son of Man fulfilled primarily in the transfiguration; for whereas in their prefaces to the transfiguration Mark and Luke write, “There are «orne standing here who shall not taste of death till they see the kingdom of God” (Mark adds “coming in power”), Matthew substitutes for “kingdom of God,” <kc., “the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” But, whatever may have been Matthew’s theory, the difficulty of the utterance in Matt. x. 23 implies its early date. On the other hand, a decidedly late date seems implied in the expression “up to this day,” which is twice found—once in the addition xxvii. 8 (the potter’s field) and again in xxviii. 15 (the bribing of the guard by the chief priests). Yet these additions appear to be in the style of the writer both of the preface and the appendix, and of the other passages peculiar to Matthew. 1 It would follow that all these passages are of a late date, not added to the tradition till long after the death of Christ. The interval must have been long enough to allow, for example, the “potter’s field ’’—and this argument holds whether the story of the potter’s field (xxvii. 8) be historical •er not—first, to acquire the name of the Field of Blood, and secondly, to retain that name for so long a period (nearly at least a generation) as to make it possible for a writer to speak of the acquisition of the name as a far distant fact, writing that the name is still borne, even “to this day.” The same expression in xxviii. 15,—where it is said that the false charge against the disciples, of stealing the body of Jesus, is commonly reported “unto this day” by “the Jews,”—warrants the same inference; and this inference is corroborated by the remarkable use of “the Jews.” The author of the Fourth Gospel, writing at a much later date, habitually speaks of “the Jews” as an alien race, quite separated from the Christians; but this is not in the manner of the synoptistic tradition.

The uncertainty in whieh Mark left the resurrection of Jesus would naturally seem to later writers to require to be removed; and accordingly we find that Matthew adds to the vision of angels (two instead of one) a manifestation of Jesus Himself. But the whole of this narrative (xxviii. 9-20), though apparently in Matthew’s style (c∕., for example, the remarkable use of oi δε', without the oi piv, in the sense of “others,” in xxviii. 17 with that in xxvi. 67), and though containing internal evidence of being composed long after the events narrated (xxviii. 15), is nevertheless strangely disjointed. Yet its very defects, its disconnectedness, incompleteness, and abruptness, indicate a date earlier than that of the more connected and completer narratives of the Third and Fourth Gospels. Matthew separates from Mark’s narrative at the departure of the women from the tomb, having previously given an account (repeated by no other evangelist) of the resurrection from the dead of a great number of “saints,” who “went into the holy city and appeared unto many.” To Mark’s simple statement that the women “found the stone rolled away” Matthew adds a graphic account of a glorious angel visibly descending from heaven, filling the keepers with fear, and rolling the stone away. Then, immediately after the women have departed with the angelic message, to bid the disciples to go to Galilee, Jesus suddenly appears to them. They clasp His feet, while He repeats over again the message that the disciples must go to Galilee there to behold Him. Without any further mention of the place of meeting, the disciples are said to have gone to “the mountain, where Jesus made agreement (∈τc⅛ατo) with them (to meet them).” To avoid this dislocation, there has been suggested the desperate remedy (Weiss, Matthäusevangelium, p. 582) of rendering iταξατο, “laid down the law,” with reference to the Sermon on the Mount; but the probable solution is that Matthew here extracts and separates from its context some ancient tradition which is obscured through want of its framework. 2 Again Matthew tells us that, upon this mountain, only the eleven were present, and that while some of them worshipped, others “doubted.” This statement is of value as evidence that it was acknowledged, even so late as the compilation of Matthew’s Gospel, that some at least of the manifestations of Jesus were of such a nature that, while they brought immediate conviction to some beholders, they did not at once convince others, even of His nearest disciples; in other words, the manifestation of Jesus depended upon other considerations than the mere physical sense of sight. But, on the other hand, the statement seems quite inconsistent with the supposition that in previous manifestations in or near Jerusalem Jesus had been recognized and worshipped by all the eleven. The last words of the Gospel represent Jesus as commissioning His disciples to go into all nations, preaching His gospel, and baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The thought con-

1 Want of space renders it impossible to state the grounds on which it seems probable that Matthew consists only of (1) the Triple Tradition; (2) extracts from a book or tradition of the words of the Lord from which Luke also borrowed; and (3) an introduction, framework, and appendix, all added by one hand; though possibly the introduction and appendix, being borrowed, the former from an Aramaic source, the latter from a Latin source, may show differences of idiom not wholly concealed by the overlying style of the author who works up the materials. A similar use of the particles δe and καί, and of participles, ruu3 throughout almost all the non-traditional narrative parts of Matthew; and the rhythm of the sentences is very similar. But the linguistic evidence has not as yet been so selected, classified, and concentrated as to obtain any certain results. And until this is done, inferences drawn from isolated phenomena are likely to be very misleading. For example, it has been inferred (Weiss, Matihäusevan· geiiu>n, p. 502) that the use of the form 'Iepουσaλhμ once only in Matthew (xxiii. 37, in a passage almost identical with Lu. xiii. 34, whereas Matthew uses , ∖ ιpοσοKυμa eleven times) proves that Matthew borrowed the passage in which it occurs from an Aramaic source. Now it is true that other reasons make the hypothesis of an Aramaic source for the identical passages in Matthew and Luke extremely probable; but this use of 'ttρουσaKhμ is quite insufficient proof. For a comparison of Paul’s use of , Upοσ6λυμa (Gal. i. 17, 18; ii. 1) and 'Ieρουcra ∖ i]μ (Gal. iv. 25, 26) will show that the same author might use the one form geographically and the other in a higher style, theologically or rhetorically. And this may possibly be held to explain the use of 'leρουοa ∖ ∙f ∣ μ by Matthew in the highly rhetorical passage in which alone it is found.

2 In a somewhat similar manner the author of the Second Epistle of Peter speaks of “the holy mount"’ (2 Pet. i. 18), assuming that his readers would understand the definite reference to the mountain of the transfiguration.

tained in these words furnishes a suitable termination to the Gospel; but there is every probability that we have not here the exact words of Jesus Himself. Not to speak of the introduction of the later baptismal formulary, “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,” the rest of the vocabulary is not found in the words of Jesus as recorded in the Triple Tradition, but is peculiar to Matthew. For example, (1) the word μαθήτευες (xxviii. 19) is used three times by Matthew, and nowhere else in the New Testament, except once in the Acts; (2) the expression συντέλειας τoυ alωvoς (xxviii. 20) is found five times in Matthew, and nowhere else in the New Testament, except once in the Epistle to the Hebrews; and (3) the word τηρείν (xxviii. 20), used by Matthew six times, is used once only by Mark, and not at all by Luke.

It is noteworthy that Matthew makes no express mention of the ascension of Jesus. But it is possible that he considers this final manifestation on the mountain-top to have terminated with the ascension; for Matthew, describing the farewell of Jesus, appears to have in his mind the picture, contemplated also by Daniel, of the Son of Man endowed with all power and seated on the clouds of heaven. Compare Daniel vii. 14, “ εδόθη aυτω εξουσία,” with Matthew xxviii. 18, “εδόθη μοι πάσα εξουσία.” And this perhaps may explain the twice repeated saying of Matthew, that some of the disciples should see the Son of Man coming. The manifestation of Jesus upon the mountain in Galilee, commissioning His disciples to go forth to make disciples of all the world, and claiming all kingdoms for Himself, might well seem a fulfilment of these two prophecies (x. 23; xvi. 28), as well as a fitting close to the book of the Gospel.

Additions and Peculiarities of Luke.— The principal passages peculiar to Luke are :—

(1) i. 1-4, the dedication to Theophilus; (2) i. 5-25, t∏e vision of Zacharias; (3) i. 26-38, the annunciation; (4) i. 39-45, the meeting of Elisabeth and Mary; (5) i. 46-56, the song of Mary; (6) i. 57-80, the naming of John and the song of Zacharias; (7) ii. 1- 7, the journey of Mary to Bethlehem; (8) ii. 8-20, the vision of the shepherds; (9) ii. 21-35, the song of Simeon; (10) ii. 36-40, the prophetess Anna; (11) ii. 41-52, the child Jesus found in the temple; (12) iii. 1, the precise date of the commencement of the public life of Jesus; (13) iii. 5-16 (except vers. 8 and 9), the teaching of John the Baptist; (14) iii. 18-20, Herod imprisons John; (15) iii. 23-38, the genealogy of Jesus from Adam; (16) iv. 13, the devil departs from Jesus “for a season”; (17) iv. 14-30, Jesus preaches at Nazareth; (18) v. 1-11, the miraculous draught of fish and the call of Simon; (19) v. 17, preface to the healing of the paralytic; (20) v. 39, “No one havingdrunk old wine desireth new,” &c.; (21) vi. 12-13, preface to the choice of the apostles; (22) vi. 24-26, “Woe unto you that are rich,” &c.; (23) vi. 32-35, “Love your enemies,” &c. (in language peculiar to Luke); (24) vii. 1-10, the healing of the centurion’s servant (in language peculiar to Luke); (25) vii. 11-17, the raising of the widow’s son at Nain; (26) vii. 21, 22, the acts of healing wrought before John’s disciples; (27) vii. 36-50, the sinful woman and the parable of the two debtors; (28) viii. 1-3, the names of the women who accompanied Jesus; (29) ix. 51-56, James and John wish to call down fire on the Samaritans; (30) ix. 61, 62, “No one having put his hand to the plough,” &c.; (31) x. 1, the appointment of the seventy; (32) x. 17-20, “I beheld Satan as lightning,’ - &c.; (33) x. 25-37, the good Samaritan; (34) x. 38- 42, Martha and Mary; (35) xi. 1, “Teach us to pray,” &c.; (36)

xi. 6-8, the friend persuaded by importunity; (37) xii. 13-21, the rich fool; (38) xi. 21-22, “When the strong man armed,” &c.; (39) xi. 27, 28, “Blessed is the womb that bare Thee,” &c.; (40)

xii. 32, 33, “Fear not, little flock,” &c.; (41) xii. 35-38, “Let your loins be girded about,” &c.; (42) xii. 47. 48, “But that servant that knew not his lord’s will,” &c.; (43) xii. 49-50, “I came to send fire on earth,” &c.; (44) xii. 54-57, “When ye see a cloud rising,” &c.; (45) xiii. 1-9, the Galileans slain by Pilate, and the parable of the fig-tree; (46) xiii. 10-17, the healing of the woman bound by Satan; (47) xiii. 23-27, “Are there few'that be saved?” and the answer; (48) xiii. 31-34, “Go tell that fox,” &c.; (49) xiv. 1-6, the healing of the dropsical man on the sabbath; (50) xiv. 7-11, “Sit not down in the highest room,” &c.; (51) xiv. 12- 14, “When thou makest a dinner,” &c.; (52) xiv. 15-24, the discourteous guests; (53) xiv. 28-33, “Which of you intending to build a tower,” &c.; (54) xv. 1-10, the lost sheep (different in Matthew), and the lost piece of silver; (55) xv. 11-32, the prodigal son; (56) xvi. 1-12, the unjust steward; (57) xvi. 14-31, Dives and Lazarus, with preface; (58) xvii. 7-10, the master must be served before the servant; (59) xvii. 11-19, the grateful Samaritan; (60) xvii. 20-22, “The kingdom of God cometh not with observation,” &c.; (61) xvii. 28-30, “It shall be as in the days of Lot,” &c.; (62) xviii. 1-8, the unjust judge; (63) xviii. 9-14, the Pharisee and the publican; (64) xix. 1-10, Zacclueus; (65) xix. 11-27, the parable of the pounds (different in Matthew); (66) xix. 39-44, “If thou hadst known even thou,” &c.; (67) xx. 18, “Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken,” &c.; (68) xxi. 18, “There shall not an hair of your head perish;” (69) xxi. 23-26, “There shall be great distress in the land,” &c.; (70)

xxi. 28, “And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up,” &c.; (71) xxi. 34-38, “But take heed to yourselves lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting,” &c.; (72)

xxii. 14-16, with parts of 17 and 19, “With desire have I desired to eat this passover with you,” &c.; (73) xxii. 31-34, “Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, &c.; (74) xxii. 35- 38, “When I sent you without purse,” &c.; (75) xxii. 43, 44, the angel strengthening Jesus; (76) xxii. 48, 49, “Betrayest thou the Son of Man with a kiss?” (77) xxii. 51, the healing of the wound of the high priest’s servant, (78) xxiii. 5-12, Jesus is sent by Pilate to Herod; (79) xxiii. 13-15, Pilate proposes to release Jesus; (80) xxiii. 27-31, “Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for Me,” &c.; (81) xxiii. 39-43, the penitent thief; (82) xxiii. 48, 49, the crowd beat their breasts and return; (83) xxiv. 12, Peter sees the linen clothes in the open tomb; (84) xxiv. 13-35, the walk to Emmaus; (85) xxiv. 36-49, Jesus appears and eats in the presence of His disciples; (86) xxiv. 50-53, Jesus parts from the disciples near Bethany, and they return to the temple.

Before speaking in detail of the passages peculiar to Luke, it will be convenient to consider his avowed purpose in writing, and some peculiarities of his style. The dedication to Theophilus, a name which is now believed by many to be merely typical of every reader who is so far “loved of God” as to be admitted into the church of Christ, states that the author purposes to write an account “in order,” and implies that many previous “attempts” (επεχεipησαv, a word implying impotence; cf. Acts ix. 2, 9; xix. 13) at similar compilations had not been “in order”; further it informs us that the object of the treatise was not to tell the reader anything that was new, but rather to give him an ampler knowledge of the certainty of those things which were then and always had been fully believed in the church, even as they had been handed down by those who had been from the beginning eyewitnesses and ministers of the word. Without going so far as to affirm that the tvord handed down (παpεbοσαv) excludes written tradition (Westcott’s Introduction, 186, 203), it is at least remarkable that Luke distinguishes between the “eyewitnesses” and those whose attempts he disapproved,—saying that the latter attempted to draw up a “connected narrative,” whereas the former merely “handed down” the facts. This amounts almost to a denial on the part of Luke that any “eyewitness” (that is to say, apostlej had up to that time written any narrative (so far as Luki knew) of the life of Christ. It implies also that the words and deeds of the Lord had been recorded by many without arrangement, and that the author purposed to arrange them. The literary and artistic purpose of the author appears in words and phrases, as well as in the conceptions. Writing perhaps principally for readers to whom the Greek of the original tradition would be in many respects distasteful, he substitutes more classical words for many that are used by Matthew and Mark in the Triple Tradition (see above, p. 796). Even the use of “sea” to denote the Lake of Gennesareth, is objectionable to him, and he always substitutes “lake.” The Latinism κοδράντ^ς for farthing (Mat. v. 26; Mk. xii. 42) is altered or omitted by Luke. He prefers πορεύομαι. to ύττάγω. Versed as he is, and as his readers would be, in the metamorphoses of the heathen stories, he shrinks from applying the word “metamorphosed” (Mat. xvii. 2; Mk. ix. 2) to the transfiguration of Jesus, and substitutes (ix. 29) “became different.” He dislikes repetitions also, as much as he dislikes low-class words: compare v. 32, 33; vi. 10; viii. 21, 15, with the corresponding passages in Matthew and Mark; and note especially, in the cure of the palsied man (Mat. ix.; Mk. ii; Lu. v.) how Luke not only avoids the word κράββατος, for “bed” (noted by Phrynichus as objectionable, Lobeck, p. 62), but also, to avoid repetition, uses three substitutes in succession,—(v. 18) κXlvr]<s, (v. 19 and 24) κλιvιδιω, (v. 25) ε<j> ώ (or δ) κaτεκειτo, where Mark is content to use the objectionable κράββατος four times. When writing in his own style he is fond of long and sonorous words, such as διάδος for δός (Mat. xix. 21; Mk. X. 21; Lu. xviii. 22), δια∕z∙εp⅛o∕zαι, διaγoγγυξειv, and the compounds of διά generally; compare also his use of 7rεpi7roιoυp,αι (xvii. 33, correct text), and of ζωογονεΐν (ϊά.) for σωξειv.

The question of Luke’s style is specially important because the striking differences between certain portions of his Gospel which are all, though in very different styles, found in his Gospel alone (occurring neither in the Triple Tradition, nor in the parts which Luke has in common with Matthew or in common with Mark), might naturally induce even a careful student to believe that they are composed by different authors. For example, take as a criterion the use of καί and δε. In classical Greek, and indeed in almost every Greek except the ultra-Hebraic, the particle δε' is of constant occurrence. The fact that it does not occur more than six or seven times in the whole of the Apocalypse, and not at all in the first book of the Maccabees till chap, iii. 36, would naturally lead us readily to believe that the former was written by a Jew who knew little of Greek literature, and that Jerome was right in saying that the latter is a translation from a Hebrew original. Applying this test to Luke, we find that in the 80 verses of Luke’s first chapter, it occurs 16 times, while in the 19 verses of X. 25-42 it occurs 16 times; or in other words, δε' is (proportionately) used more than four times as often in the ninth chapter as in the first. This suggests the inference that Luke’s introduction has an Aramaic origin. But if we turn to the Acts we find that in the first chapter, containing 26 verses (or 19 verses of narrative and 7 of a speech), δε z occurs only twice; whereas in the ninth chapter, which contains 43 verses, δεoccurs 35 times. Yet an Aramaic origin has not been thought, by any consensus of competent authorities, necessary or probable for the first chapter in the Acts.

Although, therefore, it is possible that the first two chapters of Luke may be a direct translation from an Aramaic original, yet there is an alternative. The alternative is that Luke, a man of letters and skilled in composition, consciously or unconsciously adapted his style to the subject, feeling that a different style was required on the one hand by the Magnificat and the Nunc Dimittis, and on the other hand by the graceful domestic narrative of the contrast between the sisters Martha and Mary.

This will be made all the more probable if it can be shown that Luke had studied and imitated the LXX., and in particular the Greek Apocrypha. Words not used (or seldom) by Matthew and Mark, but by Luke and the Apocryphal writers, are tπiβλεψοv, άποσπασθέντων, επιβάλλει in the sense of “belonging,” επισιτισμός, the use of υψιστοs for God, στιγμή, άντιβάλλειν, εύθετος, περισπaσθaι, κaιpbι επισκοπής, δοχf], and λuσιτελe^. But far more striking than mere words (for Matthew and Mark might be shown to have some peculiar words in common with the Apocrypha) are the sentences in the Apocrypha which seem to have suggested similar sentences in Luke. For example, compare Luke’s story of the rich fool (xii. 19) with the following passage from Sirach (xi. 18): “There is one that gathereth wealth from his overheed and pinching; and this is the lot of his reward. In the hour when he sayeth, I have found rest, and now let me eat of my good things, even then he knoweth not what season shall pass away, and he shalΓleave these things unto others and shall perish.” Again, in the parable of the unjust judge, there is a striking similarity between the words (xviii. 8) “Though he bear long with them (μακροθυμεί), I tell you He will avenge them speedily,” and (Sirach xxii. 22), “And He will surely not delay; nor will He bear long (μακροθυμήσει) with them”; so also between (i. 42) “Blessed art thou among women,” and (Judith xiii. 17) “Blessed art thou, 0 daughter, by the Most High God, above all the women that are in the earth”; and between (vi. 35) “Love ye your enemies . . . and ye shall be the children of the Highest,” and (Sirach iv. 10), “Be as a father unto the fatherless . . . and thou shalt be as the son of the Highest.” Occasional similarities of thought and even of words are found between Matthew and Mark and the LXX. Apocrypha; but it cannot be said of either of them, as it can of the Third Gospel, that it is saturated with the LXX. diction. In many cases there is an allusive use of LXX. words. For example, Luke (xxiii. 51), telling us that Joseph of Arimathaea had not “consented to” the wicked decision of the Pharisees against Jesus, uses a word not elsewhere used in the whole of the New Testament. Why? Because the word is used by the LXX. (Exod. xxiii. 1) in a passage expressly prohibiting combinations for false judgment: “Thou shalt not consent with (συγκαταθήσγ) the unjust to become an unjust witness; thou sbalt not be with the stronger side to do ill; thou shalt not add thyself with the multitude to shut out judgment.” Again, when Luke (xxiii. 49), telling how the “acquaintances” of Jesus stood at a distance from the cross, uses the word “γνωστοί" —not elsewhere found in the synoptists, —there can be little doubt that he has in his mind the passage from the LXX. (Ps. lxxvii. 9), ‘ ‘ Thou hast put mine acquaintances (γνωστούς) far from me.” Compare also the use of εγκαθέτους, only found once in Luke (xx. 20), with the use of the word in the LXX. (twice only) Job xix. 12; xxxi. 9. See also a similarity implied between the aged Abraham and Sarah on the one hand, and Zacharias and Elisabeth on the other, in the similarity between “προβεβηκότες ήμερων" (Gen. xvii. 11) and προβεβηκότες tv τa^ις ήμέραις ” (Lu. i. 7).

Our conclusion must be (1) that as Luke has modified the Triple Tradition, and the words of the Lord common to himself and Matthew, by alterations of words and phrases, so and much more has he modified other traditions or documents which he has introduced into his work; and (2) that those portions of the part of the Gospel peculiar to himself which have a more archaic and Judaic rhythm and vocabulary than the rest may be either translations from Aramaic documents, or imitations, conscious or unconscious, of the books of the LXX.,— natural adaptations of the style to the subject, like the language of Shakespeare’s Julius Casar as compared with the less simple and dignified language in his English plays of the same date. It is probable, however, that when the evidence is more thoroughly classified than it has hitherto been, it may at least demonstrate the existence of different documents in Luke, whether translations or not.

Impossible though it is here even to summarize the evidence, we may give the reader a conception of the nature of it. Attention has been called above to the use of the form <5 Κύριος, “ the Lord,” in narration, as being an indication of late authorship. But this form occurs several times in the body of Luke’s Gospel: namely, in the passages containing the raising of the widow’s son at Nain (vii. 13); the appointment of the seventy (x. 1); the rebuke of the Pharisees (xi. 39); the preface to the parable of the faithful and just steward (xii. 42); the healing of the daughter of Abraham bound by Satan (xiii. 15); the parable of the sycamore tree (xvii. 5, 6); the parable of the unjust judge (xviii. 6); the story of Zaccliaeus (xix. 8); warning to Simon Peter (xxii. 31); Christ’s look (xxii. 61); and the verse where it is said that they found not the body of the Lord Jesus (xxiv. 3). Many of the above passages certainly show signs of translation; and when we remember that the Gospel of the Hebrews (see below, p. 818) always uses the form ό Κύριος, and never ό ’Ιησούς, we see herein a confirmation of the theory that these passages in Luke are translations from Aramaic. Another testing word is Ιερουσαλήμ. Luke uses Ιερουσαλήμ about twenty-six times, 'Ιεροσόλυμα only three times (ii. 22; xix. 28; xxiii. 7). It has been shown above that the latter form is sometimes used geographically by writers who use the former rhetorically or historically; but it is certainly remarkable that in ii. 22 and 41 the two forms should be used, apparently in the same sense, dvηyayov αυτόν els 'leρoσo ∖ υμa and eτroρei>ovτo . . . els ’ ∖ eρυυσaKhμ. Many other test words might be mentioned, the converging evidence of which, added to the internal evidence of thought (and perhaps corroborated by the evidence of special forms, e.g. , ήλθαν for jjλθov), may possibly hereafter enable future critics to distinguish with certainty between the different strata of Luke’s narrative. But no certainty is possible in the present condition of the evidence. There has been abundant labour but insufficient classification of evidence, and no attempt at all to represent it in a concentrated form.

Passing now to the consideration of Luke’s additional subject matter, and reserving the supernatural element to the last, we will speak first of the doctrine. The key-note is struck in the song of Zacharias, and repeated in the first sermon of Jesus in Nazareth. The object of the messenger of Jesus is (i. 77) “to give us knowledge of salvation” by “the remission of sins,” by reason of “the tender mercy of our God, whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us to give light to them that sit in darkness;” and the object of Jesus Himself (iv. 18) is “to preach the gospel to the poor,” to “heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind.” All through the Gospel {or at least the parts peculiar to Luke) there appears to a greater degree than in the First or Second Gospel the contrast between light and darkness, God and Satan, sin and remission of sins, culminating in the triumph of forgiveness and mercy; so that in the very last words of Jesus to His disciples (xxiv. 47) the proclamation of “repentance and remission of sins” is made the prospect of the future gospel to all nations.

The law of Moses appears at first sight inconsistently magnified, almost in an Ebionitic spirit, throughout the first two introductory chapters of the Gospel, and afterwards put aside. But there is no inconsistency. Paul himself says that the Saviour placed Himself at His birth “under the law,” and hence it is that Luke, with an almost anxious elaboration, details the exact fulfilments of the law not only by the parents of Jesus, but also by those of His messenger. Hence also it is that in a single chapter of the introduction the word “law” occurs more often than in all the rest of the Gospel put together. For when Jesus attained to manhood, He was no longer under the bondage of the old law, which had now attained its fulfilment in the new law of the remission of sins through love. Yet the law is not trampled on, but only superseded by development; it was only “until John;” yet not “one tittle” of it can fail (xvi. 1G, 17). True to its principle of contrast, this book gives Satan a prominent position. When Satan departs from Jesus, he departs only “for a time” (iv. 13); Satan causes diseases and binds a daughter of Abraham; Satan is beheld by Jesus in a vision cast down from heaven; he enters into Judas (xxii. 3, not mentioned by Matthew or Mark); he demands the Twelve that he may “sift” them; see above (16), (32), (46), (73). But this need not denote (as is thought by Keim) an Ebionitic source; the same recognition of the eξovσia τον σκότονς appears in the Acts and the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians, which no one suspects of Ebionitic tendencies (Lu. xxii. 53; Acts xxvi. 18; Eph. ii. 2; vi. 12; Col. i. 13). Something more than the principle of contrast may, however, be required to explain the sharp demarcation between rich and poor. We do not find in Luke that qualification of the epithet “poor” which Matthew (v. 3) inserts, “the poor in spirit.” He enforces the hampering disadvantages cf wealth, pronouncing a woe upon them that are rich; gently rebukes the “cumbered” Martha; exhorts the rich to entertain the poor; aud dooms the rich fool to a sudden and disappointing death, while Dives is consigned to unalterable torment,—(21), (34), (46), (51), (57). But if this seems to savour of Ebionitic thought, let it be remembered that the principle of contrast is even more systematically applied to illustrate the power of the genuine Pauline faith in the parables of forgiveness. As Lazarus is contrasted with Dives, and the grateful Samaritan with the ungrateful Jewish lepers, and the merciful Samaritan with the heartless priest and Levite, and even the trivial anxieties of Martha with the simple devotion of Mary,—so in the stories of forgiveness, the publican finds his foil in the Pharisee who prays by his side; the woman “which was a sinner,” and who “loved much,” contrasts with Simon, the churlish host, who loved little; the prodigal younger son with the envious elder son; and the penitent thief on the right with the impenitent thief on the left. All these stories, as well as the tale of Zacchaeus, and the lost piece of silver, and the lost sheep (peculiar to Luke in language, though the same subject is found in Matthew), magnify the power of forgiveness, and repentance, and faith, for the most part “without works”—contrasting the instantaneous and complete victories of emotional faith with the inferior results of a long life of ordinary and prudent respectability,—(27), (54), (55), (81), (66), (64).

The universality of the Gospel is more marked in Luke than in Matthew or Mark. The seventy missionaries appear to be emblematic of the preaching of the gospel to the seventy (or seventy-two, see Westcott’s Introduction, p. 374) nations of the earth. The preference of the Gentiles to the Jews would seem to be indicated at the very outset of the public life of Jesus in the sermon at Nazareth (iv. 16-30), if we could accept this as chronologically and historically accurate. Besides the statement of Jesus in the Triple Tradition, that His kinsmen were those that heard the word of God and did it (Luke prefers this expression to that of Matthew and Mark, “doing the will of God ”), Luke gives us another assurance that God’s special blessing is reserved, not for the mother of the Saviour, but for those who do the word of God. The inclusiveness of the author breaks down the barrier between Jesus and the Samaritans; the sons of Zebedee are rebuked for desiring to call down fire on a Samaritan village; a just Samaritan shames both priest and Levite; and a grateful Samaritan puts nine Jewish lepers to the blush,—see (31), (17), (39), (29), (33), (59).

In connexion with this, the gentler and more inclusive side of the gospel teaching, it may be mentioned that Luke lays especial stress on the part played by women alike in discerning the providence of God, in ministering to Jesus, and in eliciting some of His most helpful utterances. The songs of Mary and of Elisabeth, and the testimony of the prophetess Anna, are found nowhere but in the Third Gospel; in Luke, for the first time, the mother of the Lord begins to assume a wider province,—she it is, and not Joseph, that ponders in her heart the words of her divine Son, and her sufferings are made the subject of inspired prophecy (ii. 35). Luke alone thinks it worth while to record at some length the names of those women who accompanied Jesus and contributed to His support; he alone knows of the devoted faith of Mary and the domestic anxieties of Martha; he alone records the cure of the afflicted “daughter of Abraham,” the truth-eliciting exclamation of the woman who invoked a blessing upon the womb that bare Him, the story of the woman who “loved much,” and the parable of the woman rejoicing over the lost piece of silver. Luke alone holds up the fate of Lot’s wife as a warning; nor do we find in any other Gospel the touching utterance of Jesus to the weeping “daughters of Jerusalem.” The other synoptists concur with Luke in pronouncing a blessing on the man who gives up father or mother or lands or houses for Christ’s sake, and the sense of fitness has induced the scribes of several MSS. to insert in Matthew and Mark the word “wife” as well as “mother”; but it has no legitimate place except in the version of Luke. It is true indeed that Luke, so far from giving to women the prominent part assigned to them by Matthew and the interpolated Mark, and even by the Fourth Gospel, in attesting the resurrection of Jesus, carefully places their evidence in the background; but the evidence of impressionable witnesses might naturally be subordinated by a writer (perhaps a physician too) who was collecting the traditions of the church into an historical narrative. In any case, it is noteworthy that the word “woman” occurs in Luke almost as many times as in Matthew and Mark put together.

Probably the most perplexing part of Luke’s doctrine is found in the parables of the unjust steward, the unjust judge, and the friend persuaded by importunity. In the last two of these the argument appears to be,—“If an unjust or indolent man can be goaded by importunity into granting requests, much more will assiduous prayer prevail with the Father in heaven;” in the first, “If the fraudulent show forethought in providing for their earthly future, much more should the children of light show forethought for their eternal future.” Although it is quite possible that our Lord drew a contrast (with something of irony) between the single-mindedness of earthly ambition anti the scattered energies of those whose aim is righteousness, yet it is difficult to believe that He uttered these parables in their present shape, or that they are entirely free from misunderstanding. The last two of these three parables (as they stand) seem at variance with His teaching in prayer, which bids us remember that the Father knoweth what things we need before we ask them; and the right moral to be drawn from the unjust judge would seem to be, “Although the unjust judge may be won by importunity, do not suppose that importunity can prevail with the just Judge.” It is to be observed, however, that the language and style of these parables (differing from that of the Triple Tradition) make it somewhat improbable that we have here in Luke’s narrative the exact words of Jesus, see (36), (56), (62). As regards the great day and the coming of the Lord, Luke appears to distinguish (more than Matthew and Mark) between the ultimate coming and the fall of Jerusalem, which was to precede it. As Luke distributes the discourses which Matthew connects with the twelve into two parts,—one connected with the twelve and the other with the seventy,—so he distributes the discourse on the coming (which Matthew reports asonecontinuousdiscour.se uttered at Jerusalem) into two parts,—one uttered at Jerusalem, and dealing principally with the fall of Jerusalem (xxi. 6-38), the other uttered on the way to Jerusalem, and expressed in more general terms (xvii. 20-37). As a preparation for the coming, Luke lays stress on constancy and directness of purpose. No man who puts his hand on the plough must look back (30); better not to begin the tower than leave the tower unfinished (53); remember Lot’s wife (61). The coming is spoken of as possible at any moment—suddenly and without observation (60); and the disciples are exhorted to wait as servants for their master, with their loins girded (41 and 42), avoiding surfeit aud drunkenness (71). When the master or king returns, ignorant disobedience will be less severely punished than the disobedience of knowledge (42); and those who have not increased the “mina” or pound intrusted to them, will be less severely punished than the rebels (65), who will be slain.

Luke (like Matthew and Mark) predicts a time of trouble; but he sees somewhat clearly, beyond it, the dawn which is to precede the rise of the kingdom. Destruction falls, not by chance, but on all that do not repent (45); all must strive to enter the strait gate (47), for not those that were first called shall enter in (52). Much more clearly than in Matthew and in Mark is the future fall of Jerusalem described, as the result of a siege and capture; and the slaughter of the citizens, the scattering of the nation, and trampling down of the city are mentioned, with details for which we vainly look in the first two Gospels (59). It is not concealed that the disciples have much tribulation in store, and that they must use all prudence to protect themselves (74). Buta term is set for all these troubles; Luke (omitting the remarkable saying of Matthew and Mark that the Son Himself knoweth not “the hour ”) declares that the trampling down of Jerusalem will be only till “the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” Then will come a time of “distress,” not, however, now for Israel but for the Gentiles (69); and amidst convulsions of nature the Son of Man will come. In the hope of this coming, the disciples are to lift up their heads (70), remembering that not a hair of their heads will be injured (68). Certainly the comparatively cheerful tone of the discourse on the coming, combined with the joyful and triumphant tone of the first two chapters of Luke’s Gospel, indicates an author writing at a time when the fall of Jerusalem was an accepted fact, and the establishment of a new and spiritual Jerusalem recognized as a sufficient consolation,—a time when the church, not yet troubled by systematic persecution or by serious desertion (Keim, Jesus of Nazara, Engl, ed., vol. i. p. 96), was still sanguinely looking forward to the moment when the times of the Gentiles should be fulfilled, and the Son of Man should suddenly come.

The supernatural narratives peculiar to Luke, and found in the main body of his treatise, are the miraculous draught of fishes, the raising of the widow’s son at Nain, the healing of the woman bound by Satan, the cure of the dropsical man, and the appearance of the angel strengthening Jesus,—(18), (25), (46), (49), (75). The first two suggest to many minds a symbolical interpretation, and raise the question whether they (and possibly some of the other miracles) may be emblematical rather than historical. This question cannot suitably be discussed in these pages; but one or two observations may be made. That Jesus wrought instantaneous cures cannot be contradicted, being proved by the whole texture of the Triple Tradition, as well as by the indirect testimony of Paul. That He also had the power of raising the dead no Jew could well doubt or dispute. Elijah had raised a child from the dead; still more notably Elisha, even when dead himself; some (interpreting the prophet literally) said that Ezekiel (Ez. xxxvii. 7) had done the same. But whatever the inferior prophets had done He who was at once the Prophet and Messiah could not fail to do. Still less could heathen converts suppose that Jesus was inferior in power to Aesculapius. It was therefore certain that, whether the traditions and books of the church contained or omitted any record of a raising from the dead, the church would believe from the first that Jesus possessed and employed this power. Different readers will give different weight to the considerations for and against the authenticity of Luke’s narrative of the raising of the widow’s son. Many will be so far influenced by the extreme beauty of the story (and perhaps by the fact that the custom of early burial among the Jews might reduce this, like the case of Jairus’s daughter, to the level of natural though marvellous events) as to believe that in it we have, not legend, but history; but no one who can weigh evidence at all will maintain that the evidence for this miracle is equal to the evidence for the raising of Jairus’s daughter. Luke’s other principal miracle, the draught of fishes, is also considered by many to have arisen from metaphor misunderstood. It is connected by Luke with the calling of Simon Peter, an incident mentioned both by Matthew and by Mark: yet neither Matthew nor Mark describes or gives the slightest hint of any such miracle in connexion with the calling of Peter. In the next place, the metaphor describing the apostles as fishermen and converts as fish, borrowed from Jeremiah perhaps (xvi, 1 6), is applied by our Lord both to the apostles, as “fishers of men,” and to the preaching of the gospel, which he describes as a “net” catching all sorts of fish, bad and good. As the sea in the Old Testament is regarded a3 the type of “sin,” everything favoured the addition and development of this metaphor. Accordingly Philo (Creation) describes fishes as typical of the lowest kind of unenlightened existence; and Clement of Alexandria addresses a hymn to Christ, as the fisher of men catching fishes with the bait of eternal life from the hateful wave of the sea of vices (The Instructor, iii. 12). It is of course possible that the developed symbolism which we find in Clement may have been entirely the effect, and in no degree the cause, of the narrative in Luke v. G; and in any case the full discussion of this question would require more space than the limits of this article allow.

Passing now from the main body of Luke’s Gospel, we come to the introduction, which name we may give to the first two chapters, describing the birth and childhood of Jesus, and the birth of His forerunner John, the son of Zacharias. The doctrine of the miraculous incarnation, although distinctly stated in Matthew’s Gospel, nevertheless required further confirmation. This doctrine appears to have been spoken of from the earliest time, in language which might give rise to different conclusions, according as it was interpreted literally or metaphorically. For example, in the Apocalypse, “the Man Child who was to rule over all nations with a rod of iron” is said to have been born of a woman who was “clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars,” who, after her son had been “caught up into heaven,” fled “into the wilderness where she hath a place prepared of God” (Rev. xii. 1-6). It seems certain that the writer represents by the woman, not the Virgin Mary, but the Church—the Spiritual Israel; and in later times the letter of the Church of Lyons (Euseb., HE., v. 1) speaks of the “Virgin Mother” as having her children restored to her from the dead (meaning that the church received back, as martyrs, those who had first recanted and then renounced their recantation). Justin Martyr also protests that, even though he should not be able to prove the pre-existence of Jesus, and even though it should appear that He was born man of men, yet it would still be true that He is Christ; “for,” adds he, in his dialogue with Trypho (chap, xlviii.; or, ed. Morell, p. 267), “there are some, O my friends, of our race, who confess Him to be Christ, but who declare that He is man of men, to whom I do not assent: nor would very many that have formed the same opinions as I have say as they say, because we have been commanded by Christ Himself not to follow the teachings of men, but the proclamations made by the blessed prophets, and taught by Him.” The expression “not very many” (ού πλαστοί) indicates that (a) even in Justin’s time (150 a.d.) a large though not very large number of Christians in Samaria or Judaea believed that Christ was the son of Joseph, and that (0) a principal part of the evidence for the contrary belief was based upon “the proclamations of the prophets.” On the other side, what germs of wild and fanciful doctrine were in the air may be inferred from the Gospel of the Hebrews, which will not allow that Jesus had even a human mother, but speaks of His mother as being the Holy Spirit (Kirchhofer, p. 451, and cf. p. 454). In opposition to these divergent but heterodox beliefs, it became increasingly necessary to maintain the doctrine that Jesus was at once a man, born of a human mother, and divine, born of the heavenly Father; and this needed to be reaffirmed now, during the prosperity of the church, in a somewhat less apologetic tone than characterized the narrative of Matthew.

V hen we speak of Luke’s “supplying the deficiencies of Matthew,” we must not be supposed to mean that Luke had before him, or even knew the existence of, Matthew’s Gospel. It has been shown above that he probably knew of no apostolic written narrative (see p. 806 above). Though Matthew’s was probably written some years before Luke’s Gospel, very many years might elapse before a treatise used in one church or province might be recognized as authoritative beyond its original boundaries. But by “supplying the deficiencies” we mean that the conscience and faith of the church required in Luke’s time some further and more vivid embodiment of the spiritual truth involved in the incarnation than was contained in the unsupplemented narrative of Matthew.

For example, it was not a sufficient argument against the Jewish slanderers who asserted that Jesus was born of adultery, to say that Joseph, when purposing to put Mary away, was warned by an angel in a dream to give up his purpose. Something more positive, and in a higher tone, not a dream, but an angelic visitation, was needed to confirm the divine origin of the Son of God. Moreover, in order to set forth still more emphatically the subordination of John the Baptist to the Lord, it was needed that the church should know that the prophet (who himself also had his own birth heralded by angels) was from the first acknowledged by his parents as the mere forerunner and messenger of Him that was to come, to whom, even in his mother’s womb, the inferior prophet did obeisance. Further, when Jesus was born, it was not enough that wise and learned men from the East should come to worship Him. It was necessary to show that the poor and simple toilers of the earth, typified by nightwatching shepherds, were also privileged to behold His glory, and were the first to hear with the ear of faith the divine message of the birth of the Redeemer.

The testimony offered to the divine Son of David by Zacharias, who represents the priestly tribe of Levi, and by Elisabeth, who was one of the daughters of Aaron, and the blessing of Simeon, and of Anna who is said to have been of the distant tribe of Asher,—all this emblematic homage from Israel to its Redeemer would be inadequately replaced by Matthew’s brief story of the flight into Egypt; and, although refusing to feed a frivolous curiosity with frivolous legends on the childhood of Jesus, the church would naturally cherish the story which told how the youthful Redeemer, when missed by Mary and Joseph, was found in His Father’s house. A narrative of this kind, not vulgar nor colloquial, and yet not too refined or scholastic, but framed both in language and in thought on the model of the best Greek Apocrypha, setting forth in the sacred vocabulary of the LXX. the earliest Christian psalms and hymns that had been committed to writing, would be justly felt by all the churches tfl> tend to edification, and would soon find a place in every assembly for Christian worship.

But the resurrection, even more than the incarnation, required amplifications. If Matthew had left gaps in his introduction, still more serious were the deficiencies in his appendix to the traditional gospel. Although Mat thew had added something to the mere suggestions of a resurrection contributed by Mark, he had not added enough. More proof was required, tangible proof, if possible. Tlιe women, it is true (according to the narrative of Mat. xxviii. 9), had held Jesus by the feet, but the disciples themselves were not recorded to have done so; and, besides, the increasing reverence of the church shrank from the thought that the body of the risen Saviour had been actually touched (Jo. xx. 17), even though He might have offered Himself to the touch of His disciples. As far therefore as the evidence went, it was open to the Jewish sceptic to call the manifestations of the Lord delusions, or at best visions, and to apply to them the words of the angel (Tobit xii. 19): “All those days I did but make myself visible unto you, and did neither eat nor drink ; but ye beheld a vision.” Against so formidable an objection, no proof could better commend itself to a close student of the LXX. (such as Luke assuredly was) than a narrative describing how Jesus ate in the presence of His disciples (xxiv. 43). Again, whereas the conclusion of Matthew’s narrative leaves Jesus (except by inference) still on earth, Luke omitting the apologetic details which had now become unnecessary, or even liable to perversion (c. 1 7., the Jewish slander that the Lord’s body had been stolen from the sepulchre, and the fact that some of the eleven disciples “doubted” when they saw the Lord, apparently for the last time, upon the mountain), describes how Jesus was not parted from His disciples till He had produced complete conviction in all of them, and had opened their minds to understand the scriptures.

Still, even with these important additions, the appendix of Luke seemed to some, and perhaps to Luke himself, incomplete; and, accordingly, either Luke himself, or some early editor or very early scribes, inserted in the appendix several further additions :—(1) that Peter saw the grave-clothes of Jesus lying in the open tomb (xxiv. 12); (2) that Jesus proved His identity to His disciples by showing them His hands and His feet; (3) that He fed not only on the emblematic “fish” but also on the “honeycomb” (xxiv, 42); and lastly, (4) that He ascended into heaven (xxiv. 51). Perhaps the same hand added, in the account of the agony at Gethsemane, the description of the angel from heaven who appeared strengthening Jesus, and of drops as it were of blood falling from Him to the earth. It is by no means improbable that Luke himself added these passages in a later edition of his own work, as authoritative traditions which had subsequently become known to him; and two or three of them, in somewhat different shapes, will present themselves to us subsequently in the Fourth Gospel. Language of the Original Tradition.— It is probable that the Jews, and more especially those in Galilee, were (like the Welsh in the present day) bilingual; and the question has therefore been raised whether our Lord, in His teaching, spoke Greek or Aramaic, If He spoke Greek, then the Aramaic words Talitha cιιmi and Ephphatha (Mk. V. 41; vii. 34) must be supposed to be specially addressed to the young and the illiterate, who would best understand the national dialect. But the names Cephas, Boanerges, given by our Lord to His Galilean disciples, and the use of Aramaic in His own prayer (f Abba, Father”), and in His last utterance (as recorded by Mat. xxvii. 46; Mk. xv. 34), indicate that both for Himself and for His disciples Aramaic and not Greek was the natural tongue. Although therefore it cannot be denied that Greek, even in Jerusalem (see Acts xvii. 2, indicating that Greek would have been understood, though they preferred “Hebrew”), was generally intelligible, yet the scanty evidence derivable from our Lord’s words is that He habitually used Aramaic.

The testimony of Josephus tends in the same direction. He, though a man of education, composed certain books first in his own tongue (pref, to TK<ιrs, 1). He also tells us that he found it a laborious task to render the history of his country in Greek, “an alien and strange language” (pref, to Antign., T). It is to be presumed that he wrote in Aramaic partly for his countrymen in Judaea; but he adds that it was also for the sake of “Parthians, Babylonians, and remotest Arabians, and those of our nation beyond Euphrates, and the Adiabeni” (pref, to JJ z αrs, 2). Making every allowance for exaggeration, we are justified in drawing from the fact that Josephus thought it worth while to compose books first in Aramaic the inference that a large number of readers in the East would be more likely to read Aramaic than Greek.

But it has been thought that the use of the LXX. in our Lord’s quotations from the Old Testament shows that He spoke Greek. The answer is—(1) Even if all the quotations in the syuoptists from the Old Testament exactly agreed with the LXX., the agreement would by no means prove that our Lord used the LXX.; for, in translating Hebrew into Greek, the translator might naturally translate the Hebrew quotations from the Old Testament into the corresponding LXX. version, to which his readers were accustomed. This he might do, even though the LXX. did not quite accurately represent the Hebrew; just as, in translating into English a Latin book, with quotations from the Vulgate, we should naturally use our English version, without considering whether the English exactly represented the Latin. (2) But, in the second place, there is scarcely a single quotation in the Gospels from the Old Testament that exactly agrees with the LXX. when the LXX. differs from the Hebrew; and many of the quotations differ slightly both from the Hebrew and from the LXX., and even from the same quotations as elsewhere occurring in the New Testament. And this is just what we might expect. A Hellenist, translating a Hebrew document into Greek (in times when reference to books was fur more cumbrous, and trust to memory far more common, than with us) would be likely to be guided principally by his memory of the LXX., but partly by the Hebrew before him. Hence would result translations slightly varying both from the Hebrew and from the LXX., and from other translations made by contemporaneous writers. This argument is, of course, unaffected whether the translation was originally made in a document or, as is more probable, in an oral tradition.

Some confirmation of this hypothesis is derived from the fact that, although the first book of Maccabees was without doubt originally written in Hebrew, yet the quotations in it from Scripture are not translations from the Hebrew version. On the contrary, if the, quotation in 1 Mac. vii. 17 from Ps. lxxviii. (lxxix.) 2, 3, be compared with the latter passage in the LXX., it will be seen at once that the former, though not identical with the latter (nor with the Hebrew), could not have been written but by a writer familiar with the LXX. version; compare also 1 Mac. ix. 23 with the LXX. version of Ps. xci. (xcii.) 8. A similar inference would seem to be justified by the statement (De Wette, quoted by Roberts, Discussions on the Gospels, p. 50) that Josephus uses the LXX. more than the Hebrew text.

Mistranslation of an Aramaic original may possibly explain in part some of the confusions in the common tradition noted above (p. 791). It cannot of course be denied that some of these confusions imply a confusion of Greek, not Hebrew, tradition {e.g., iσayyt ∖ oι, Lu. XX. 36; ωs àyyéxoi, Mat. xxii. 30; Mk. xii. 25); but some of the changes of construction (p.g., -πάσα ή πeρiχωρos eξtπooeυ∈τo, Mat. iii. 5 and Lu. iii. 3, tf ∖ θev eis -πάσαν την -πepiχωpov, Mk. i. 5) are more easily explicable on the hypothesis of translation. Some of the changes of words are also explicable thus, as may be illustrated by the Latin version. Commenting on the text, “Domine, ne in ira tua arguas me, nec in furore tuo corripias me,’’ Augustine (Ziegler, p. 10) says that in some codices of the Latin translations “ira” stands first, and “furor” second, in others “furor” first and “ira” second. Compare with this Mat. v. 40, τφ 0e'λovτι λaβeiv χιτώνα &<pes abτψ τδ ίμάτιον, and Lu. vi. 29, τού atρovτos σου τδ ΐμάτιον μη κω ∖ υστ)s τbv χιτώνα, where the phenomena are precisely the same; and note that Mat. (xxvii. 65) has lμdτιa, where Mk. (xiv. 63) has χιτωvas. Of somewhat the same type (perhaps) are the passages Mat. vii. 16, άπώ άκανθων σταφυλήν, and Lu. vi. 44, eκ βάτου σταφυλήν.

In the translations from Greek into the early Latin versions of the New Testament, one very common difference is (besides divergent rendering of single words) that one version uses participles where the other uses finite verbs, or relative pronouns where the other uses co-ordinate conjunctions. These same slight differences are found in several sayings of our Lord where they happen to be twice recorded by the same evangelist. Compare (a) Lu. vni. 18, ⅛s yàp bv <lχr ∣ , and Lu. xix. 26, -πavτι τ<ρ %χovτι (see also Mat. xiii. 12; xxv. 29); (ύ) Lu. viii. 17, ob yap iστιv κρυπτbv b ob φavepbv yevησeτaι, and Lu. xii. 2, obl>'ιv δe συyκeκaKυμμevov eστιv b obκ a-πoκaKι>φθησeτaι (see also Mat. X. 26); (c) Mat. x. 39, i> ebρωv τηv ψυχήν αυτού aπoλeσeι αυτήν, κaι ô άπολίσας την φυχηv^ abτoυ eveκev eμoυ ebpi ∣ σeι αυτήν, and Mat. xvi. 25, os yap eav θeλy την ψυχήν αυτού σώσαι aπo ∖ eσeι αύτήν, bs δ ’ àv aπoλeσγ τ n v ψυχήν αυτού eveκev lμoυ evρησeι αυτήν (and Cf. Lu. ix. 24; xvιι. 25); (<Z) Mat. v. 32, iras ό άπολυων τήν yυvaiκa abτoυ, &C., and Mat. xix. 9, ⅛s &ν aπo ∖ bσy, &c. (e) In the same two passages there appears to be a confusion between “causeth to commit adultery” and “committeth adultery,”—Mat. v. 32, πaptκτbs λJγoυ -πopveias, πoιei αυτήν μoιχeυθηvaι, and Mat. xix. 9, μή ∈πl ∙πopveιa .... μoιχaτaι ; (/) Mat. V. 32, ⅛s éav aπoλeλυμivηv yaiihστ ∣ , and Mat. xix. 9, ύ άπολιλυμ-ΐνην yaμήσas. These passages, so far as they go, would indicate that the compilers of the

First and Third Gospels did not themselves translate from Aramaic originals; for if they had themselves been the translators, it would seem that they would have adopted a uniform rendering in translating the same or very similar words. Limited though the evidence is, it goes to prove that the compilers incorporated in their treatises Greek translations, not all made by themselves, from Aramaic originals.

The phenomena of the ante-Jerome versions of the New Testament deserve careful consideration in discussing the possible origin of our Greek synoptic tradition from an Aramaic original. In a well-known passage, Jerome (Ziegler, Die Lateinischen Bibelübersetzungen vor Hieronymus, p. 12) complains that there were as many texts as copies of the Latin versions (“tot sunt enim exemplaria poene quot codices”), and the occasionally great variety' may be illustrated by comparing an extract from the Codex Bobbiensis {Jahrbücher d. Literatur, Vienna, 1847, ad fin.) with the Vulgate version of Acts xxvii. 20, 21 :— [table]

It will be seen at once that there is some similarity between the thread common to these two Latin versions and the thread common to many passages in Matthew, Mark, and Lιιke; though the resemblance between any two of the three synoptists would generally exceed the resemblance of the two passages quoted above. In most cases, however, the ante-Jerome versions (as represented by the Codex Corbeiensis, Brixianus, Vercellensis, and Veronensis) agree much more closely together, even more closely than any two of the synoptists agree together, and a portion more closely than the three synoptists agree. On the whole, taking into consideration the greater influence of differentiating causes in the earliest times of the church than in the times when the ante-Jerome versions were composed, we may fairly conclude that if in these later times so great a variety could occur in the process of translation from Greek, the greater variety found in the common tradition, as given by the three synoptists, might well be partly explained in the same way, as originating in part from varieties of translation from Hebrew. But then the questions arise—(a) Were the ante-Jerome versions independent translations from the Greek text? {b) Or were they divergent corruptions of one original Latin translation from the Greek text? (c) Or were they partly independent, but partly modified by some oral tradition or “ecclesiastical use,” which diminished the divergence? On these questions there is not at present a complete agreement. Wiseman maintained that the second {b) answer was the right one; but in a recent work (quoted above) Ziegler (p. 123) maintains, with great probability, that the third (c) is correct—viz., that the oral catechizing and preaching in the Latin churches modified and assimilated translations otherwise independent. It is extremely probable that the same hypothesis of combined causes—(1) translations from Aramaic documents, (2) influence of oral Greek tradition—may explain much of the agreement and variation in the passages common to the three synoptists.

The difference between the Triple Tradition of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and the Double Tradition of Matthew and Luke will, at this stage, occur to us as an important feature in our evidence. The widely different phenomena of the Double and the Triple Traditions suggest different origins for the two traditions. Many of the passages common to Matthew and Luke agree together far more closely than even the Latin versions of the Greek Gospels. It would seem to follow that in such cases Matthew and Luke used one and the same Greek document—a translation of some Aramaic original—which document had not undergone much modification by oral tradition before passing into the several treatises of Matthew and Luke. On the other hand, the more varying language of the Triple Tradition, together with the additions and omissions of the three writers, suggests (a) independent translations of an Aramaic original; (δ) occasional resemblances suggested by the general “usus ecclesiasticus”; (c) divergences created by the local “usus ecclesiasticus,” or by the individual style of the editor or editors.

Date of the Synoptic Writers.— The composite nature of the synoptic Gospels makes it necessary to distinguish carefully between the date of the compilation of each collective treatise and the date of the composition of the several parts of which that treatise may be composed. The original tradition has been shown to have existed before any of the three synoptics; some common document of the words of the Lord has been shown to have probably existed before Matthew’s or Luke’s narrative; other documents or traditions might also possibly be shown to exist embedded in each of the synoptists, and the date of each of these parts would be earlier than the date of the whole. Therefore, even if the date of Matthew, or Mark, or Luke could be exactly determined, it would by no means determine the date of the traditions which they contain. It is even possible that a later Gospel may retain in some cases an earlier version of the common tradition of the words of the Lord, as we have seen in the case of Luke’s version of the Lord’s Prayer (see p. 798 above).

There is no internal evidence for exactly determining the date of any one of the synoptics. The supposed references in Mark to the death of James, the capture of Jerusalem, or any special earthquakes which might determine the date (Renan’s Évangiles, p. 123), are so shadowy as scarcely to deserve consideration. The reference to the death of Zachariah the son of Baruch, shortly before the capture of Jerusalem (Joseph., B. J., iv. 5, 4), supposed to be found in Mat. xxiii. 35, is still more improbable. Still the marked difference between the detailed prediction (in Lu. xxi. 18-25) of the fall of the city and the scattering of the people, and the more general predictions in corresponding passages in Matthew and Mark, indicates that Luke’s description is modified by reminiscences of the siege of Jerusalem; while Matthew’s and Mark’s accounts are not thus, or at all events not equally, modified. It is an almost certain inference that Luke compiled after 70 A.D. As regards Matthew and Mark inferences cannot be drawn with equal certainty; for of course a compiler may compile at a late date, and yet preserve traditions in their earliest shape; but it is at least a reasonable inference that the compilers of the First and Second Gospels wrote before Luke; and there is a balance of probability in favour of the supposition that they wrote before the fall of Jerusalem.

Coming to more general evidence, we find (see p. 791) that (1) Mark, at least in many passages, includes the original tradition from which both Matthew and Luke borrowed; (2) his language, less polished than that of Matthew and Luke, appears more natural for an earlier Gospel in the first and rudest age of the church; (3) Mark’s version of the tradition contains many expressions which might naturally be considered “stumbling-blocks,” and which, in fact, were rejected or not inserted in the other Gospels; (4) the omission of all account of the manifestations of Jesus after the resurrection indicates a very early date; and though it may be said that this omission arises from the fact that the Second Gospel was accidentally left incomplete, yet this answer will not account for the omission of the genealogies, and of all account of the birth and infancy of Jesus; (5) the interpolated appendix describing the resurrection of Jesus, quoted as it is by Irenaeus, shows that even in the time of Irenaeus (170 a.d.) the Gospel had been long enough in use to admit of widespread interpolations. All these facts lead to the inference that Mark was compiled earlier than any of the other Gospels, and probably some time before 70 a.d. It is almost impossible to fix any date (worth stating) after which the compilation must have taken place. Those who accept as literally true Mark’s accounts of the feeding of the four thousand and five thousand, the walking on the waves, and the exorcism of the Gadarene, may naturally carry back his history to the first years of the Galilean church; and even those who interpret these accounts symbolically are ready to admit that a very short space of time is often quite sufficient, by misunderstanding and accretion, to erect supernatural narratives on a basis of natural and symbolic story. But any approximation to a date after which the Gospel was compiled must be deferred till we consider the external evidence.

The narrative of Matthew does not leave uβ quite so uncertain. The mention of “the Jews,” which is so frequent in the Fourth Gospel, is justly regarded as a. proof that the author was writing in times when the Christian church was regarded as definitely and antagonistically separated from the Jewish nation. In the synoptists it is the “Pharisees,” not the “Jews,” who are in conflict with Jesus. But in his account of the resurrection Matthew (xxviii. 15) uses the word in this antagonistic sense. Further, he twice (xxvii. 8; xxviii. 15) uses the expression “even to this day,” of events occurring shortly before or after the death of Jesus,—thereby showing that a long interval had occurred between the death of Jesus and the compilation of the narrative. The tone of the Gospel, as compared with Luke, indicates a period when the Jews still existed as a nation, and when the abrogation of the law and the destruction of the temple were not yet accepted as recognized facts; but the number of parables upon the end of the w orld and the judgment, the tendency to dwell on exclusion rather than inclusion, on the “many” that are shut out rather than on the “few” that are chosen, and the atmosphere of gloom generally characterizing the Gospel, point perhaps to the crisis immediately preceding the siege of Jerusalem. The additions concerning the birth and incarnation may seem to imply a later date; but when we reflect how natural it was that in very early times the church should attach importance to these subjects, the wonder will be, not that these narratives were written so soon, but that they were deferred to so late a period as forty years after our Lord’s death. It is also extremely remarkable—and a mark of early date as compared with Luke—that even in this developed form of the Gospel the accounts of manifestation of our Lord after His resurrection should be so scanty, doubtful, and vague.

In Luke the signs of later date abound :—(1) the preexistence and implied failure of many “attempts” to set forth continuous narratives of the things “surely believed (2) the mention of the “tradition” of the eye-witnesses and ministers of the word as past, not as present (7rαpeδ0σαι-)∙ (i. 2); (3) the dedication of the Gospel to a man of rank (fictitious or otherwise), who is supposed to have been “catechized” in Christian truth; (4) the attempt at literary style and at improvement of the “usus ecclesiasticus” of the common tradition; (5) the composition of something like the commencement of a Christian hymno-l°gy; (θ) t he development of the genealogy and the higher tone of the narrative of the incarnation; (7) the insertion of many passages mentioning our Lord as o κνpι,ος, not in address, but in narrative; (8) the distinction, more sharply drawn, between the fall of Jerusalem and the final coming; (9) the detailed prediction of the fall of Jerusalem, implying reminiscences of its fulfilment; (10) the very great development of the manifestations of Jesus after the resurrection, The inference from all this evidence would be that Luke was not written till about 80 a d. at earliest. If it could be further demonstrated that Luke used any Greek Apocryphal book (Judith, for example), and if it could be shown that the book in question was written after a certain date (Renan suggests 80 a.d. for the date of the book of Judith), it might be necessary to place Luke much later; but no such demonstration has been hitherto produced.

External Evidence.

The composite nature of the synoptic Gospels will affect the inferences we shall draw from early quotations of passages found in them, where the authors of the Gospels are not expressly mentioned. If, for example, we find in Justin a passage (quoted as a saying of the Lord) which is found both in Matthew and Luke, Justin may indeed have quoted it from Matthew or from Luke; but it is also possible that he may have quoted it neither from Matthew nor from Luke, but either (a) from the common source whence Matthew and Luke derived the passage, or (6) from some other book or tradition, which, like Matthew and Luke, included the passage in its collection or compilation. The same applies to a quotation from the Triple Tradition. It may be quoted from Matthew or from Mark or from Luke; but it is also possible that it may be drawn from none of these, but from the common tradition itself, or from some other treatise based on the Triple Tradition.

Taking the evidence chronologically, we come first to the testimony of Paul, who, in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, says (1 Cor. xi. 23), “I received from the Lord that which also I delivered to you and then follows a description of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, differing materially from Matthew and Mark, and agreeing in the main with Luke, except that Paul repeats twice the command, “Do this in remembrance of Me.” It would seem unreasonable and scarcely reverent to suppose that a special revelation revealed to Paul the exact words of the institution; but comparing the passage with Gal. i. 9, 12, we see that Paul merely says here about this part of his teaching what in Gal. i. 9, 12 he says about the whole of it, viz., that he received it from the Lord and not from man. From Ananias, or from other elders of the church, he may have received the words of oral tradition of the church; but for the meaning and spiritual force of it, and the application of each part of it to the work of redemption, he was indebted, not to the elders of the church in Damascus, but to the revelations given to him in the solitude of Arabia. The words of Paul, therefore, do not exclude (and the facts render probable) the use of oral tradition in this passage. This being so, it may seem remarkable that Paul follows the tradition contained in the latest of the three Gospels. It can hardly be that Luke has here preserved the earliest tradition. The insertion of “new” before “testament” (not inserted in the correct text of Matthew and Mark), and the ampler narrative of Luke indicate a later, not an earlier, shape of the tradition. The word “testament” appears to have been used by our Lord in the ordinary sense of “will” and “testament,” indicating that in that funeral feast He was bequeathing Himself to His disciples for ever. had been taken into Hebrew in the sense of “will” (Buxtorf, Lex. Ra1Λ. s.v.). It would seem to follow that long before that date, the word διαθήκη was in regular use, in Hebraic Greek, to render the meaning “will” or “testament,’’although of course it also represents (and very much more frequently, owing to the more frequent repetition of the thought in the New Testament) the meaning “covenant.” ] The insertion of “new,” by a sort of play upon the double meaning of the word “testament,” introduces the sense of “covenant,” and therewith a contrast between the old and the new covenants. But this suggestive thought (highly characteristic of Paul) seems more likely to have been added to the original in process of explanation, than to have been dropped by Matthew and Mark through neglect, or discarded owing to difficulty. The probable solution therefore would seem to be that Luke has embodied, not the earliest tradition, but the later Pauline shape of the tradition. We have here therefore not Paul supporting the tradition of Luke, but Luke (in all probability) borrowing from Paul. The only other passage in which Paul (in the Acts) quotes a saying of Jesus contains (Acts XX. 35) words not found in any of our Gospels, “It is more blessed to give than to receive.”

The Second Epistle of Peter (2 Pet. i. 17) contains a reference (apparently) to the transfiguration, of which the writer speaks as an eye-witness. But this testimony, most important if genuine, is almost certainly spurious. The mention of the mount of transfiguration as “the Holy Mount,” and of Paul’s epistles as “scriptures,” would in itself suggest a late date; and Canon Westcott {Gospels, p. 175) justly says that “the comparative elaborateness of the description (of the transfiguration) seems to offer an instinctive contrast to the simplicity of the earlier Gospel.” External evidence is also against the genuineness of this epistle. Up to the times of Clement of Alexandria “no trace has been found” of its existence (Westcott, Canon, ρ. 349); and neither Origen nor Eusebius accepts it as canonical. To obtain a complete idea of the judgment of the church upon the canon, we must combine (Westcott, Canon, p. 264) the two canons of the East and West; by doing this “we obtain, with, one exception, a perfect New Testament without the admixture ot any foreign element.” That “exception” is the Second Epistle of Peter. The only importance to be attached therefore to the testimony of an epistle thus rejected by the general consent of the early church is that which attaches itself to an early literary fabrication composed so early as to have found a place in our canon. Such a composition (mentioning Paul’s letters as “scriptures ) cannot have been written before the beginning of the second century; yet we find that, even at that date, the common tradition is quoted most inexactly. The voice from heaven, as given by the author of the spurious epistle, is, ζ O υl<is μου ό ayaιrητ0s μου otτJs εστιv εis όν εyω ευδόκησα· But in Matthew (xvii. 5) it is oυτos εστιv <5 izιJs μου ύ ayaττητis εν ψ eυδJ∕cτj<rα∙ ακούετε αυτοί). Mark and Luke differ still more from the Epistle, for they both omit ευδόκησα. The inaccuracy is the more serious because, in describing the baptism of Jesus, Matthew (iii. 17) speaks of a voice from heaven which almost exactly agrees with the words in the Epistle, omitting the words ακούετε αυτοί). In these circumstances it is impossible to say that the author of this spurious Epistle had Matthew before him. Much more probably he was quoting from memory, or from some document differing from any of our synoptic Gospels.

The next witness is Clement of Rome, whose Epistle to the Corinthians, probably written in or soon after 95 a.d. (Lightfoot’s Clement of Rome, Appendix, p. 267), contains three passages which may indicate a use of our Gospels. (1) In chap, xiii. he blends together (Sunday, The Gospels vn the Second Century, p. 921) passages common to Matthew (v. 7; vi. 14; vii. 12; vii. 2), Mark (iv. 24; xi, 25), and Luke (vi. 36, 37, 31, 38, 37) in a terse, antithetical, and uniform style, inserting the words, r ∩s χρηστεύεσθε oυτωs χρηστευθησεται ΰμίν. Dr Lightfoot has pointed out that the looseness of this quotation does not exceed the looseness with which (chap. 12) the same author quotes the narrative of Rahab, and therefore it is quite possible that here, as there, Clement may be simply quoting from memory with no other documents than Matthew and Luke in his mind; but to many the “roundness, compactness, and balance of style” which Dr Sanday notices in the quotation will make it probable that Clement was quoting, not perhaps from any other document (for else how is it that no trace remains of a documentary version of the word of the Lord so “rounded and compact” in style, and used 95 a.d. by so eminent a man as demerit of Rome in writing to the church of Corinth ?), but with some tradition in his memory (which had perhaps served the purpose of preachers, teachers, and catechists in the Roman Church), blending and condensing the versions of Matthew and Luke into a form adapted for the oral instruction of converts. (2) In another passage (chap, xxvi.) Clement combines Mat. xviii. 6 (Mk. ix. 42; Lιι. xvii. 1, 2) and Matt, xxvi. 24 (Mk. xiv. 21; Lu. xxii. 22) in a manner which suggests quoting from memory. (3) A third passage (Sanday, p. 70) contains a quotation from Isaiah (xxix. 13) differing from the Hebrew and from the similar LXX. (which is, e'77iift μoι δ λαl>s oιrros εv τφ στόματι ai ∣ τoυ, καΊ εν τdιs χείλ,εσ.ν αυτών τιμωσίν με, η δε καρδία αυτών ττόρρω iπlχει &if εμού), and substituting a condensed and antithetical form, oυτos ô ∖ abs τo^s χείλεσίν με τιμά, η δε καρδία αυτών πo^f>ω αττέστιν aτr' εμoii, which is also found in Matt. XV. 8 and Mk. vii. 6 (except that they read a∙πεχει for aτrεστιv). The inference has been drawn that Clement is quoting frans, our Gospels. But this is not the only passage where quotations from the Old Testament in the New appear to have been influenced by an “ecclesiastical use,” arising in some cases from a desire to make the application closer (compare Jo. xix. 37 with the LX2L version of Zech. xii. 10, and note that this version is exactly quoted by Justin, and allusively by the author of the Apocalypse, i. 7), in part from abridgment or other causes (compare Mat. iii. 3; Mk. i. 3; Lu. iii, 4 with Isa. xl. 3). Therefore, even though the citation in Clement exactly coincided with the citation in Mark and Matthew, it would not follow that Clement cited it from them; and as the quotation is not identical, the probability is that it is quoted by Clement, with a slight alteration, from memory of “ecclesiastical use.” There is also in chap ii. (“more gladly giving than receiving”) an allusion to the saying of Jesus mentioned in Acts XX. 35. Our conclusion is—(a) that Clement of Rome, about 95 A.n., is proved to have a knowledge of the several scattered sentences in our common tradition which he quotes as “words of the Lord,” but very loosely and freely; (δ) that his quotation of the Old Testament appears on one occasion to be influenced by Christian “ecclesiastical use”; (c) that he uses (but whether as a quotation or not we have no means of determining) some words not found in our Gospels, which words are attributed to Jesus by the author of the Acts of the Apostles.

Early in the second century we for the first time meet with a quotation from the addition to the common tradition which are peculiar to Matthew. The Curetonian or shorter version of the epistles of Ignatius (107 or 115 A.l>.) uses Matt. x. 16 almost verbatim, and possibly refers (Sanday, p. 79) to the star of Matthew (chap, ii.). The Vossian or longer version of the Ignatian epistles (which may be accepted as testimony for about 150 A. D. ) contains, besides an ample and somewhat exaggerated reference to the star in Matt, ii., three or four (Westcott, Canon, p. 60) short but striking phrases peculiar to Matthew. But none of these passages have marks of quotation, the words of Matthew being in each case embedded in the writer's own words. It is remarkable that the only words of the Lord expressly quoted by Ignatius are words not found in any of our synoptic writers: “And when He came to those about (πepi) Peter, He said to them, Take, handle Me, and see that I am not a bodiless demon.” These words, although they have some likeness (the word ψηλaφησaτe is in both) to Lu. xxiv. 39, are expressly said by Eusebius to be derived from some source unknown to him. and by Jerome to be derived from a Gospel which he had translated (from Hebrew), and which was read in his time by the Nazarenes (Kirchhofer, p. 449); and, according to Origen, the passage occurred in the teaching of Peter. It is, of course, impossible for us, upon this evidence, to determine whether Ignatius quoted from the Nazarene gospel, or from the teaching of Peter, or from some other document or tradition embodied before or after in both those documents. Our conclusion is that, by the middle of the second century, the writer of the Vossian version of the Ignatian epistles was familiar with the Gospel of Matthew, but that he also used other sources (not known to us) when quoting the words of the Lord in support of the material resurrection of Jesus.

In the Epistles of Barnabas (100-125 a.d.) is found (chap. iv.) the first apparent reference (if we except the reference in 2 Pet. iii. 16) to any passage of the New Testament as “written”: “Let us beware lest we be found, as it is written, many called, but few chosen/' words almost exactly found in Matt, xxii. 14 alone (probably interpolated in Matt. xx. 16). There is also an allusive quotation of the words in Matt. ix. 13; Mk. ii. 17; Lu. v. 32: “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” The only words expressly assigned to Jesus (chap, vii.) are not found in our Gospels: “Even so, saith He, they that would see Me and touch My kingdom, must take Me, through persecution and suffering.” It is most unfortunate that the inexactness of the verifiable quotations in this epistle prevents us from laying much stress upon the author’s statement as to the source of those which are unverifiable. For example, in chap, xvi., the author has, “The scripture saith, And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the Lord will deliver up the sheep ot His pasture, and their sheepfold and tower to destruction. And it so happened as the Lord had spoken.” But we know of no “scripture” containing these words; and the probability is that the author was quoting from memory and erroneously, as when (chap, v.) he combines Isa. iii. 9 and Wisdom ii. 12, as follows: “The prophet speaks against Israel, Woe to their soul because they have counselled an evil counsel against themselves, saying, Let us bind the Just One, because He is displeasingto us.” Our conclusion is that, if Barnabas is deceived by his memory in attributing one passage to “writing” or “scripture,” he may be deceived about another, and that we consequently cannot feel sure that he is quoting Matt, xxii. 14 from a document and not from memory of oral tradition. But (a) that the author was acquainted with passages found in Matthew is certain; and (ά) it is also certain and noteworthy that the only words of the Lord quoted by him are quoted from sources not known to us,

Polycarp (born about 69 a.d., died 155 or 156) quotes (chap, ii. ) sentences from the Sermon on the Mount, similar to those quoted by Clement above, with the preface, “remembering those things which the Lord said (while) teaching, Judge not,” &c. The quotation, like Clement’s, is antithetical and compressed, but neither in order nor in words agrees so far with Clement’s as to make it in the least degree probable that Polycarp and Clement are quoting from a written version differing from our synoptics. There is also a quotation from Mat. xxvi. 41 and Mk. xiv. 38, and a reference to Mat. vi. 13, “Asking the all-beholding God not to lead us into temptation; even as the Lord said, The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak,” Two other coincidences (chap. v. and vi.) seem to refer to Mat. xx. 28; Mat. ix. 35; Mat. vi. 12, 14; Lu. xi. 4. There are no supposed allusions to apocryphal writings in Polycarp (Westcott, Canon, p. 61). It will be seen from what has been said above that there is nothing remarkable in the great variations with which the “Sermon on the Mount” was taught and quoted among the Christians in the first century. Like the “Lord's Prayer,” it has not a literary but a practical interest; and being much used in many different churches from the earliest times, it may naturally have assumed many different shapes serviceable for catechists. and preachers. This consideration (and the possibilities of variation arising from translation) may easily account for the variation between Clement and Polycarp, without necessitating or justifying, even as a working hypothesis, the supposition that Clement or Polycarp, in quoting the “Sermon on the Mount,” quoted from other documents than our existing Gospels.

The “Shepherd” of Hennas, written about 135-40 a.d., “contains no distinct traces of any writing of Old or New Testament” (Sanday, Gospels'}. This is worth bearing in mind, as a warning that the nature of the subject will greatly affect the number of quotations from the scriptures in any early books. The allegorical nature of the “Shepherd,” intended more as a stimulating tale than as a polemical or hortatory discourse, dispenses with scriptural illustrations; and in the same way Justin, in his Second Apology, refrains from quoting the scriptures, while in his other works he multiplies quotations or references. In appealing to the heathen, Justin “quotes the scriptures only when he must speak of things beyond the range of common history, preferring elsewhere to appeal to external documents such as the enrolment of Quirinus and the Acts of Pilate* (Westcott, Canon, p. 110).

Papias, who wrote about 130 140 A.D., composed five books, entitled “Exposition (eξη7⅛<τeα>s) of the Oracles 1 of the Lord.” It is (apparently) in an introduction to this work that he speaks (Euseb., iii. 39) of traditions gathered from different sources: “But I will not shrink from placing along with my interpretations (∈pμηreiαιs) as many (traditions) as at any time I learned well, and well stored up in memory from the elders.” The noun “interpretations” (∈pμηi'eiα i s) may receive some light from Papias’s own use of the words lpμi}νeυ∙rm and epμηr∈υω, as quoted in the same chapter of Eusebius. “Mark,” he says, “was the interpreter of Peter (lpμηveυπηs ∏eτρou yevopevos) ι ’ ' 2 again, “Matthew wrote his scriptures { ∖ oyιa} in Hebrew, and each man interpreted them (⅞ρ 1 uηreaσe) as he best could.” So Eusebius himself in the preceding chapter tells us that some believe Clement to have “interpreted” (eρaηveD<rαι) Paul’s (Hebrew) Epistle to the Hebrews into Greek. Our conclusion would be that the word ιpμηvdaι may here mean something more than mere “commentary”; it may imply that he, as others had done, wrote an interpretation of the “Logia,” accompanied by comments and by supplementary traditions. At all events he does not speak of any one Greek “interpretation” of Matthew as being as yet paramount and authoritative, so as to exclude the necessity of further “interpretations.” Of Mark he speaks (in the person of “the elder”) almost apologetically, implying that his narrative had been censured for its incompleteness and unpolished style; and he defends it by quoting a tradition from “the elder” (apparently, John the elder) thus :— “Mark, having become Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately all that he remembered—not, however, in order—both the words and deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord, nor attached himself to Him, but later on, as I said, attached himself to Peter; who used to adapt his lessons to the needs of the occasion, but not as though he were composing a connected treatise of the discourses (λ07ωr, v. r. ∖ oyiωv) of the Lord: so that Mark committed no error in writing down some matters just as he remembered them (cbr∈- μrημ0veυσe}. For one object was in his thoughts (ιvbs yap iπoιdlτo •πρόνοιαν} — to make no omissions and no false statements in what he heard.”

Much of this exactly applies to our Mark. If we desire to know what is meant by Mark’s not writing “in order,” we have only to turn to Luke, who made it his object to write “in order,” and whose arrangement, chronologically as well as artistically, differs from Mark. It is true that we may be disposed to think Mark’s “order” not inferior to Luke’s; but the fact is indisputable that Luke attempted to write “in order,” and that his “order” diffeιs considerably from that of Mark, who manifests no purpose except the desire to put down what he knew as he remembered it. It has been shown above (see p. 802) that Mark’s Gospel is rather a collection of anecdotes than a connected narrative; and of such a collection it would be natural to say that it was not written as an orderly narrative. To the single evidence of Papias, derived from an unknown elder, not much importance can be attached; and it is very doubtful whether the most searching investigations will ever determine with certainty the name of the author or authors of any one of the synoptic Gospels. But at all events, it is only reasonable to admit that the hypothesis of “notes” taken from oral discourses, and serving as the groundwork for the Second Gospel, would explain many of its phenomena. If these oral discourses embodied the early common Greek tradition, it would be easy to see how the First and Third Gospels came to resemble the Second Gospel, although all three Gospels are mutually independent. As regards the Firat Gospel, it has been shown above that internal evidence is against -the theory of a very early authorship; and we 1 No one word in English will exactly express the word ∖ oyιa, which was used both before and after Papias, to mean not merely “sayings” but “Scriptures.”—Lightfoot, Contemporary Review, Oct. 1875. 2 C∕. also Clem. Alex., Strom.,yü. 17, 106, where certain heretics appeal to Glaucias τov ∏e'τpov eρμηvea ; and Jerome suggests as an explanation of the difference in style between the First and Second Epistle of Peter that the apostle used different interpreters (Kirchhofer, p. 276). The point for considerationis, not whether the statements of Papias are correct, but what Papias meant when he spoke of Mark as epμrj ∣ 'eυτ⅛v, and of himself as writing epμηveiaι.

must add that it exhibits no signs that the portion before the call of Matthew was written from hearsay, and that after the call of Matthew by an eye-witness. But there seems the following strong argument in favour of the tradition of Papias as to the authorship of Matthew: if there was no basis for it, if it was a mere fiction or guess, why not select, as the author, some more distinguished apostle, Peter, John, or James? This argument is neutralized by the following consideration. The apostles (Acts iv. 13) were known in the earliest days to have been unlearned and ignorant men; and although the Holy Spirit gave them power to speak and teach, it was less natural that they should be inspired with power to write and to compose connected treatises. But Matthew being a publican, and necessarily ready with his pen, might naturally be supposed in the post-apostolic generation to be a skilful writer; so that if an early tradition with general apostolic authority was committed to writing, the church would naturally select Matthew the publican and ready writer as the special author of it. N evertheless, the testimony of Papias is important as attesting the belief (1) in a Hebrew origin for the Logia or the Gospel scriptures, and (2) in an early multiplicity of “interpretations.”

The apologetic tone in which Papias introduces the traditions, which he “will not shrink from placing along with the interpretations” of the scriptures, indicates that the written scriptures were gradually subordinating tradition. He nowhere expresses au opinion that the Logia are unauthoritative, but he implies that they require “interpretation,” and adds (almost as though it were an idiosyncrasy) that he set a great store on supplementary tradition from the sources nearest to the truth,—not only taking pleasure in those who taught the commandments that came from the Lord (who was) the very truth (i.e., the disciples of the Lord), but also questioning any who had “attached themselves to the elders,” whom he used to examine closely on the utterances of Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, Matthew, or any other of the disciples of the Lord, and on the sayings of Aristion and the elder John, the disciples of the Lord.? παραγιγνομένας της άληθεία?. el δέ που και παρηκολουθηκώς τιs τοΐ? πρεσβυτέροις ελθοι, τούς των πρεσβυτέρων άνέκρινον λόγους' τί Άνδρέας h τί Πέτρος εΐπεν f τί Φίλιππος h τί θωμάς η Ιάκωβος η τί ’Ιωάννης f Μα-τθαΐο? η τις έτερος των του κυρίου μαθητών, ä τε Άριστίων και ο πρεσβύ-τερος ’Ιωάννης οι του κυρίου μαθηταί λέγουσι. It is maintained by able scholars (from whom dissent can be expressed only with great diffidence) that the λέγουσι indicates that Aristion and John the elder were living, while the εiπεv indicates that Andrew, Peter, John the apostle, Matthew, and all the rest of the apostles were dead at the time “when Papias began his investigations” (westcott, Canon, p. 69). Now, John the apostle is supposed to have died at a very advanced age, about 98 a.»., and Papias (Lightfoot, Contemporary Heriew, May 1875) to have been born about 60-70 A.D., and to have written (westcott, ut sup.) about 140-150 a.d. we have therefore to suppose on this hypothesis (a) that Papias did not “begin his investigations” till he was twentyeight or thirty-eight years old (i.e., not till seven or seventeen years after he had attained to manhood), although the apostle John was living all that time in his immediate neighbourhood; (6) that two personal disciples of Jesus outlived the aged apostle John for a period long enough to enable Papias to conduct a systematic investigation into their traditions during their lifetime. “Improbable” is too mild a word for such a hypothesis. It seems very much more probable that λέγουσιν is simply the graphic present used for variety. Papias desires to make a distinction between the dicta of the apostles and the less authoritative utterances of Aristion and John the elder, who were not apostles. For this purpose he not only (1) mentions them separately, but also (2) varies the construction, changing τi into ä τe, and (3) είπε into λέγει. A hundred instances might be given from the Gospel of St John alone, where είπε and λέγει are used indifferently and alternately for the mere purpose of variety; see John iv. 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17 (bis), and the whole of the gospel passim. And for the use of λέγει in a dependent sentence following an imperf. indie., compare Plato, Apol. 21 B., ήπόρουν τί ποτέ λέγει, “I was in doubt as to what (the oracle) meant.” It is true that Eusebius, though he denies Irenaeus’s assertion that Papias was a hearer of John the apostle, maintained that Papias heard John the elder. But he appears to have no evidence for this statement except the sentence just quoted, and the fact that Papias set down certain traditions of John the elder, mentioning him by name. His words are: “ ’ Aρισ-τιωvoς δε και του πρεσβυτέρου Ίωάννου αύτηκοον εαυτόν φησι γεvεσθaι. Ονομαστϊ γοΰν πολλάκις αυτών μνημονεύσας εν τοΐς αύτοΰ συγγράμμασι τίθησιν αύτών παραδόσεις. This is quite insufficient in face of the great difficulties in such a supposition. The only tradition of an elder quoted by Eusebius from Papias with any words of preface begins thus: “The elder said this also.” Such a preface is quite consistent with the supposition that Papias had heard the tradition, not from the elder himself, but from one who had attached himself to the elder (παρηκολουθηκώς τώ πρεσβυτέριο) ; and the above-quoted sentence of Papias itself better suits such a supposition, for the “cross-examining of those who had attached themselves to the elders” naturally applies to all the names that follow, and more especially to John, since he is expressly included in the class of “elders.” “I used to cross-examine any that came in my way who had attached themselves to the elders (asking them), what said Andrew, . . . and about the sayings of Aristion and John the elder;” surely the natural inference is that Aristion and John are included in the “elders.” If this be so, every difficulty vanishes. Papias, though placed before Polycarp by Eusebius, may have been naturally so placed because he died before the aged Polycarp, so that his work fell in a period preceding Polycarp; but he may have been born about the same time or later, say 80 a.d. In that case the last of the apostles would have passed away before I ’ apias was nineteen; and when Papias began his investigations he would necessarily have to rely on the pupils of the elders, since the elders themselves, whether apostles, as Andrew and Peter, or mere elders, as Aristion and John, had all passed away. If, however, it should appear after all that Papias did hear John the elder, it follows that, when Irenaeus described Papias as “the hearer of John,” he either (1) meant John the elder, or (2) confused John the elder with John the apostle. In either case most important consequences might follow, bearing upon the authorship of the Fourth Gospel. For it follows that, if here, then on other occasions, when speaking of the authorship of the Fourth Gospel, Irenaeus either (1) may have meant John the elder where we at present suppose him to mean John the apostle, or (2) may have confused John the elder with John the apostle. ]

It must be added that Papias, besides recording the raising of a dead man by Philip, and the drinking of poison without injury by Justus surnamed Barsabas, is said by Eusebius to have narrated several “strange parables and teachings of the Saviour,” and other fabulous matters, originating from a literal understanding of figurative expressions. He also published “a story about a woman accused in the presence of the Lord for many sins, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews” (Euseb., ib.) It has been demonstrated by Dr Lightfoot that Eusebius, in treating of the disputed and undisputed writings of the earliest times, adopted one course for the former and another for the latter. (1) As to the disputed books, the antilegomcna, he pledged himself to “record when any ancient writer employs any book belonging to their class;” but (2) as regards the undisputed canonical books, he only professes to mention them, “when such a writer has something to tell about them” (τivα των εvδιaθi]κωv ε'iρητaι) Contemporary Rcvieιv, Jan. 1875. We are not therefore to infer from the silence of Eusebius that Papias did not know or quote the Gospels of Luke and John, but only that he said nothing about them; which of course might arise from cither of two causes, either because he did not know of their existence, or because, knowing their existence, he “had nothing to say about them.” What bearing this may have on the authorship of the Fourtlι Gospel we shall see hereafter. But, so far, we see written scriptures still (1) supplanted by oral tradition; (2) freely criticized as inadequate; and (3) accompanied by memoirs of various interpretations from some Hebrew original; though rapidly emerging, if they have not already emerged, to authoritative definiteness.

One fact is of the highest importance. We have seen that Papias was of a curious disposition, discontented with the written records before him, and anxious to supplement them by traditions. He was also, according to Eusebius, a man of no great judgment, fond of recording wonders, and, by his own account, fond of recording novelties. If therefore there had been any other non-canonical Gospel at that time, rivalling our present Gospels, and known to Papias, it seems probable, if not certain, that he would have used such a book; and, if he had done so, Eusebius could not (in the execution of his plan) have failed to mention such a use; but Eusebius makes no mention of the use of any non-canonical gospel by Papias. Even in the narrative of the sinful woman mentioned above, which was found in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, Eusebius expressly avoids saying that he derived the narrative from that Gospel. He merely says that Papias “has published a narrative which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews” (it is probably the narrative interpolated in Jo. viii. 1-11); whereas, almost in the same sentence, he says that Papias “has used testimonies from the First Epistle of John.” This negative evidence from the silence of Papias is strongly in favour of our Gospels.

In the works of Justin Martyr (who is supposed to have written his Apologies and Dialogue with Trypho, 145-147 a. d. ; so Hort, quoted by Westcott, Canon, p. 98) we find definite and abundant mention of written documents containing the facts of the Gospel narratives, but no assigned names of authors. The Gospel is by him considered as a whole, sometimes called ευαγγέλια, sometimes ευaγγελιov, but frequently τά απομνημονεύματα των αποστόλων, and once (when he is referring to Mark’s Gospel) τα απομνημονεύματα Πέτρου. Bearing in mind Xenophon’s well-known απομνημονεύματα ^2,ωκpaτoυs, from which title “the word had already been borrowed by several writers” (Westcott, Canon, 108), we might naturally infer that the memoirs were not written by the apostles, but about the apostles or rather about their teaching; and this view is confirmed by what Papias says (above) about Mark, that he άπεμνημόνευσε, “ recorded from memory,” the teaching of Peter. This probably was originally the meaning of the title as applied to our Gospels; but it seems to have been understood differently by Justin, as though it meant “written by the apostles.” For in describing the descent of the Holy Spirit on Jesus at His baptism he uses the words, “The ap>ostles wrote.” It might indeed be said that he has in his mind Matthew and John, for John also records this; but St John's Gospel is not once quoted in the whole of his works, and it is inconceivable that, in this latent fashion, he should have referred once to a writing as apostolic, which elsewhere he never quotes. It seems more likely that Justin considered that the aπoμvημoreυμaτa Πέτρου were written by Peter, so that the first two Gospels at all events were written by apostles; or else that he considered the First Gospel not to have been written by one apostle, but to have been a joint apostolic production. Elsewhere, in describing the agony of the Lord (Lu. xxii. 44), a passage peculiar to Luke, he seems to have been struck with the inapplicability of his favourite title to a work written by one who was only a follower of the apostles; and instead of his usual formula, he here substitutes “The memoirs which I assert to have been written by the apostles, and by those who attached themselves to them;” but even this more precise description would only hold good of the three Gospels used by Justin, on the supposition that the “Memoirs of Peter” were written not by Mark but by Peter. The subject is important, as showing by what easy stages a work written by a pupil might be supposed (even in the face of direct evidence to the contrary) to be written by the teacher.

For a full discussion of Justin’s quotations from the Gospels the reader is referred to Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, pp. 95-175, and Sanday, The Gospels in the Second Century, pp. 88-137. Here it must suffice to state a few general conclusions deduced from an examination of his use of the Old and New Testament.

We must bear in mind then (1) that Justin is writing polemically, and that (especially in his dialogue with the Jew Trypho) a main object with him is to show that “the prophets are fulfilled in Jesus;” to the proof from prophecy he attaches more importance than to any other. (2) He is a most inexact quoter; and though he quotes long passages from the Old Testament accurately, shorter passages are quoted from memory inexactly, while Messianic passages, even when long, are modified (sometimes with a closer return to the Hebrew original) by Christian use and adaptation to Christ. (3) He often inserts words and notions of his own in the passages quoted from the Old Testament: for example, he says that Moses, in order to heal the children of Israel from the plague of serpents, “took brass and made an image of a cross, and set this in the holy tabernacle, and said to the people, Should you look on this image and believe on it, ye shall be saved” (Ctonon, p. 124). (4) He ascribes texts to wrong authors, and quotes the same text in various shapes, not only in different books, but even in the same book and at short intervals (lb. 127). This being the case, we shall naturally be prepared, in approaching the New Testament quotations of Justin, to find many inaccuracies, and some alterations of fact; especially where a slight alteration can render some Old Testament prophecy more applicable to the New Testament narrative.

Reviewing the quotations from the apostolic fathers given above, we shall expect to find in Justin also a great number of the words of the Lord and incidents in the life of Jesus quoted from tradition, which are not found in our Gospels. Clement, we find, has two passages roughly quoted from our Gospels; and one traditional saying quoted in Acts xx. 35. Ignatius (Vossian) uses phrases or sentences from Matthew four times allusively, but quotes a “word of the Lord” found in no Gospel. The author of the Epistle of Barnabas quotes Matthew once, and a non-canonical woιd of the Lord once. Polycarp is the first apostolic father who. while four or five times quoting or alluding to sayings in our Gospels, quotes no non-canonical passages. Papias “published” a narrative contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. If then, in the small modicum of quotation hitherto given, so large a proportion (say a fourth) is non-canonical, how much more non-canonical matter might we naturally expect to find in Justin, who in two works quotes our Gospels 67 times (Sanday, p. 116), and occasionally in long continuous passages? We shall also expect to find in Justin many misquotations of our Gospels, arising from interpolations and corruptions of the text, for “the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected originated within a hundred years after it was composed” (Scrivener, quoted by Sanday, p. 135). A generation after Justin, Irenaeus will be found quoting the interpolated appendix of Mark, which the general consent of scholars now recognizes to be spurious; and it has been pointed out that the differences of Justin from the •ordinary text are little more than the differences of Codex D from the same text.

Bearing these considerations in mind, we ought to bo surprised, not at the large, but at the small amount of extraneous matter which Justin has introduced into the Gospel narrative, and at the comparative accuracy with which he has quoted the Gospels. Treating of the variations of quotation, Dr Westcott has shown that, even where Justin’s misquotations are found in other authors, the resemblances are of such a kind as to be easily derivable from some common tradition, or from some early but now obsolete text (Canon, pp. 148-156). The extraneous matter may readily be explained as arising either from sense of an omission or from the morbid desire to find in each incident of the life of Christ the fulfilment of some prophecy in the Old Testament. If, for example, (1) he speaks o’f the voice from heaven at the baptism as being, “Thou art My Son, this day have 1 begotten Thee;” this is explained (apart from the various reading in D, which no doubt arose from the same motive) by a desire to see in the voice a repetition of Ps. ii. 7. (2) If a fire is said to have been kindled in the

Jordan at the Lord’s baptism, was it not natural that He who came to baptize others with the higher baptism of fire, as well as that of water, should Himself receive the highest baptism; or that the act which was already technically known as g>ωτιaμ0s, “enlightenment,” should be accompanied (in the case of the Lord of Light) by that symbol which was specially characteristic of the divine presence? (3) If Mark recorded that Jesus was a “carpenter” (a fact not then suppressed by the various reading in Mk. vi. 3, owing to such sneers as those of Celsus, Origen, Cont. Cels., v. 34), was it not fitting that the Carpenter, who bade men lay hand on the plough, and take His yoke on them, should have “wrought, when among men, ploughs and yokes”? (4) If he speaks of the Magi as having come “from Arabia,” had it not been prophesied, Ps. lxxi. (lxxii.) 10, that “the kings of the Arabians shall bring gifts'’? (5) If the foal of the ass on which our Lord entered Jerusalem was said by Justin to have been “bound to a vine,” must it not needs have been so, seeing that it was said of Judah (Gen. xlix. 11) that “he bound his foal unto the vine”? (6) Lastly, since Isaiah predicted (xxxiii. 16 in LXX.) that “he shall dwell in a high cave of a strong rock,” was it not necessary that the Messiah should not only be born in Bethlehem, but also “in a cave”?

In all these additions there is absolutely nothing to make probable, or even suggest (even though the ‘ ‘ fire” at the baptism of Jesus is mentioned in an apocryphal Gospel) that Justin used any other written Gospel than those known to us. These thoughts and others like them were floating in the atmosphere of every Christian church in those days. They were the results naturally developed from that habit of appeal to prophecy which has produced, even in our own canonical Gospels, not inconsiderable effects; and there is nothing in Justin’s additions that is not capable of being explained from the same method (developed a little further) as that by w hich we may explain Matthew’s addition about the potter’s field, and possibly some of the other passages peculiar to the First and Third Gospels. Nor does the omission of the names Matthew, Maιk, and Luke, by Justin, throw any doubt upon the supposition that he used the Gospels called by those names. It is quite possible that the names were given to these Gospels long after their composition. The very title, “The Gospel according to Matthew,” &c. (not of, or by, Matthew), indicates that, even at the time when the tities were assigned, the compilers were regarded rather as editors of an old and received tradition than as authors of a new book. It is therefore quite possible that Justin (who mentions John by name as the author of the Apocalypse) may have used the first three Gospels, and yet have been ignorant of the names under which they are now cun ent.

Three most important facts remain to be mentioned, (a) Justin tells us that in his days the memoirs of the apostles were read with the books of the prophets in the service of the church. This public reading of the memoirs must have given, if not a complete security, at least a considerable guarantee, against material alterations. The fact that the new traditions were now placed on a level with the ancient and venerable writings or scriptures of the Old Testament was a still more effectual barrier against change, (b) Although Justin mentions sayings of our Lord and events in His life not found in our Gospels, yet “he never does so when he proposes to quote the apostolic memoirs” (Westcott, Canon, p. 157). (c) In describing the fire kindled in the Jordan and the voice from heaven, he not only does not quote the memoirs, but, by implication, distinguishes these statements from other statements immediately following, which are quoted from the memoirs (Canon, pp. 158-159).

To conclude, we find that, although Justin knew and used traditions, yet (1) he set a special value on certain writings, which were publicly read in the churches; (2) he believed these to have been written by apostles, or the immediate disciples of apostles, and he repeatedly quotes them under this title; (3) though lie does not lay stress on miracles (for miracles would be assumed by the Jew Trypho, accustomed to the miracles of Moses and Elisha, and they would be rather harmful than helpful to his cause in the eyes of educated Greeks and Romans), nor on the longer lessons involved in Christ’s parables, yet he covers the greater part of our Gospel history, and much of our Lord’s teaching through maxims; this he does to such an extent that it is possible (Sanday, pp. 91-98) to reconstruct from his quotations a fairly connected narrative of the incarnation, birth, teaching, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of the Lord; (4) the whole of this narrative (with the exception of the few unimportant incidents mentioned above, and one or two traditional sayings of Jesus) is found in Matthew, or Mark, or Luke, or in all three; and there is also a reference to an incident recorded by Mark alone; (5) he never, as from these memoirs, quotes any words, or alleges any incidents not found in our Matthew, Mark, or Luke; (6) he never quotes any rival Gospel, nor alleges any words or facts which make it probable lie used a rival Gospel; (7) such non-canonical sayings and facts as he mentions are readily explicable as the results of lapse of memory, general looseness and inaccuracy, extending to the use of the Old as well as the New Testament, and the desire to adapt the facts of the new scriptures to the prophecies of the old. Our conclusion is that the memoirs of the apostles which include so much that is contained in our first three Gospels, and which were continuously read in the services of the church from the time of Justin downwards, cannot have passed into oblivion a few years afterwards, so as to have given place to rival Gospels not known to Justin. They must be identical with the Gospels, to some or all of which testimony is successively home by Marcion (140 a.d.) in spite of his arbitrary and entirely uncritical excisions; by the heretical Clementine Homilies (160 a.d. ?) in spite of occasional use of apocryphal sources; by the Muratorian fragment (170 a.d.); by Athenagoras and Ptolemaeus, and the churches of Vienne and Lyons (177 a.d.); till the century closes with the affirmation of Irenaeus, who not only uses three synoptical Gospels with the Fourth so fully as to leave no doubt of the identity of his Gospels with ours, but also is so convinced of the essential necessity that there should be four and only four Gospels, that he discerns in the quadriform nature of the cherubim a type of the preordained quadriform nature of the records of the life of Christ.

In the foregoing remarks attention has been mainly directed to definite evidence, whether external or internal. Limits of space, as well as other considerations, prevent the discussion of that more indefinite evidence which might perhaps be called indirect external evidence, and which would treat of the influences amid which the Gospels grew up and by which they were likely to be moulded. For such a discussion it would be necessary that we should place ourselves in the position of a disciple in some early congregation of Jewish or Gentile Christians, and endeavour to realize the influence exerted upon the Christian records—(1) by prophecy; (2) by heathen religions; (3) by Eastern metaphor acting upon Western literalism; (4)

by the ritual and language of the Lord’s Supper; (5) by the universal predilection for the marvellous; (6) by the fall of Jerusalem. The results thus obtained would be in a great measure conjectural; but, compared step by step with the results deduced above, they would enable the reader to feel additional confidence in conclusions supported by the double confirmation of indirect as well as direct evidence. The best work in English bearing on this subject is probably the translation of Keim’s Jesus of Na∑ara (London, 1876-79); and there is also much valuable information in the Appendices to Canon Farrar’s Life of Christ. The Fourth Gospel. Authorship. Evidence from earliest Tradition.— Before considering the subject matter of this Gospel, it will be well to consider the evidence, direct and indirect, bearing on the authorship. The author is not mentioned in the Gospel by name, but only as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (xxi. 24, 20), “which also leaned on His breast,” and to whom Jesus commended His mother from the cross (xix. 26; xiii. 23). The first writer who mentions John as the author in connexion with a passage quoted from our Fourth Gospel is said to be Theophilus, who wrote towards the close of the second century (170-180 a.d.). The Muratorian fragment (170 a.d.) speaks of the apostle as the author of a Gospel, but does not quote from it. But Theophilus quotes Jo. i. 1, as written by John, one of those “inspired by the Spirit” (ττνευ/ζατοφόρωι/). It is a natural inference that Theophilus (at so late a date), using the name thus without further definition, meant by “John,” the “John” best known to his readers, t.e., John, the son of Zebedee, the apostle. But there is unusually strong evidence to show that John the apostle wrote the Apocalypse, so strong that we may assume the apostolic authorship of that book with more confidence than the authorship of any other book in the New Testament, except some of Paul’s epistles. The question therefore arises, how far does the style of the Gospel, which was said by Theophilus (170-180 a.d.) to have been written by John (presumably the apostle), agree with the style of the Apocalypse, which we have so good reason for believing to have been written by the apostle John? If we assume John to have been four or five years younger than his Master, he would be, according to the commonly received date (68 a.d.) of the Apocalypse, about sixtyseven or sixty-eight years of age when he wrote that work. By that age (one would suppose) an author’s style would, if ever, have reached its maturity. Even if he were ten years younger than Jesus, so that he was only a little over sixty years of age, yet his style would not be capable of a complete transformation. Eut when the Gospel is compared with the Apocalypse, instead of similarity, we find an almost complete contrast. The vocabulary, the forms, the idioms, the rhythm, the thought—all is different. That the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel should have been written by the same author would be, we will not say impossible, but one of the mo3t marvellous literary phenomena ever authenticated. The change in Shakespeare’s style, or in the style of Burke, cannot be compared with this; for those changes can be in part explained by the transition from youth to maturity or old age. Here we have to explain how a writer could completely change language, style, and thought, after the age of sixty or sixty-seven years. It is possible, but a priori highly improbable.

It has indeed been suggested that this change of language may be explained by the lapse of more than thirty years, during which the author was living in the midst of a Gentile population. This assumes that the Apocalypse was written in 68 a.d., before John had resided in Ephesus, and that he wrote the Gospel at the age of ninety-eight. But (1) the minute knowledge of the Seven Churches (Rev. i. ii. iii.) makes it probable that the writer had resided for some time in their neighbourhood; (2) the composition of such a work as the Fourth Gospel at the age of ninety-eight is in itself unlikely; (3) it is by no means certain that the Apocalypse was written in 68 A.D., and not rather in 78 a.d., simultaneously with the fourth Sibylline Book (and the later the date of the Apocalypse the shorter the interval between it and the Fourth Gospel, and the more improbable becomes the theory of the change of style). An hypothesis based upon three hypotheses, themselves not proved or improbable, requires much evidence before it can be accepted.

There is yet another difficulty in the way of believing that John the apostle is the author: the words of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel (1) differ altogether in style and rhythm from the synoptic tradition of the words of the Lord, and (2) do not differ at all from the author’s own remarks and observations. So great is the similarity between the words of the writer and the words which are assigned by him either to our Lord or to John the Baptist that Dr Westcott, commenting on Jo. iii. 10-21, 27-36, says (^Introduction to the Gospels, p. 292), “It is impossible not to feel that the evangelist is in fact commenting on and explaining the testimony which he records. The comments seem to begin respectively at verses 16 and 31.” The words italicized (not by Dr Westcott) require little comment. It is obvious that a biographer, who so mixes the words of his characters with observations of his own that a most careful and scholarlike commentator is unable to feel sure where the words of the characters end and the observations of the author “seem to begin,” cannot be supposed to be exactly recording, scarcely even to be attempting to record with exactness, the words of the characters themselves. Yet it seems impossible that the “disciple whom Jesus loved” should either remember his Master’s words so ill, or else deliberately transmute them into entirely different language of his own. A work of this kind, notwithstanding the presence of historical elements, seems rather to deserve to be called a poem, or a drama, than a biography; and accordingly the same careful commentator who is quoted above declares that “the spirit of parallelism, the instinctive perception of symmetry in thought and expression, which is the essential and informing spirit of Hebrew poetry, runs through the whole record” (Introd. to the Gospel of St John). Such a work does not seem likely to have proceeded from one of the sons of Zebedee, a fisherman of the lake district of Galilee, not indeed a poor man, but still not a man of letters nor of any great literary culture.

“The earliest account of the origins of the Gospel is already legendary” (Westcott, Introduction to the Gospels, p. 255), as given in the fragment of Muratori (a.d. 170). It is there said that, being requested by his fellow-disciples and bishops to write, John desired them to fast for three days, and then to relate to one another what revelation each had received either for or against the project. The same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that “while all called (the past) to mind (or while all revised,—‘cunctis recognoscentibus’), John should write everything in his own ηameT Legendary though this account may be, it curiously agrees with a passage in tho Gospel itself which implies that others besides the author were “revising,” or otherwise assisting in, the work: “This is the disciple which testifieth of these things and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true” (xxi. 24). Yet immediately afterwards—in a sentence which, though omitted by Tischendorf, is supported by the MSS. almost without exception—the singular number is resumed: “I suppose that the world could not contain the books that should be written.” This passage certainly seems to indicate some kind of joint authorship or revision, or at all events a desire to convey the impression of joint authorship or revision, such as the Muratorian fragment describes. The theory of joint authorship or revision is confirmed by evidence derivable from the 1st Epistle of John, which is justly regarded (Lightfoot, Contemp. Pev., 1875) as a kind of postscript to the Gospel. It begins (like the Gospel, and unlike the Apocalypse, as also unlike the 2d and 3d Epistles of John) without mention of the author’s name, and in the plural number: “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us.” Yet at the conclusion of the first chapter, as though it were to be understood that the whole was written “in the name of John” (“suo nomine,” as the Muratorian fragment has it), the singular number is used, “these things write I unto you” (1 Jo. ii. 1, 7, 12, 13, 14, 21; v. 16). So far therefore as we have gone, the evidence is very decidedly against the supposition that John the apostle was the sole author of the Fourth Gospel. He may have written it (1) through an amanuensis or disciple, who translated his language (and possibly his thoughts also) in the process of expressing them (just as Paul is said by some to have written the Epistle to the Hebrews in Hebrew, and to have had it freely rendered by one of his followers); or (2) it may have been an attempt on the part of a leading teacher of the Johannine school at Ephesus to reproduce the spirit of their master’s teaching after he had been taken from them by death, an attempt of one of the Ephesian elders to reproduce John once again in their church, surrounded by Andrew and Philip and Aristion and the rest of the disciples of the Lord, the former proclaiming and all the rest assenting to “that which they had heard, that which they had seen with their eyes.” If during the latter years of his life John was infirm and bedridden, obliged to preach and teach by deputy, it is obvious that the “teaching of John” during the last eight years of his life, when the old man was now past ninety years of age, might be very different in language, and even somewhat different in thought and substance, from the teaching of the apostle himself; and a spiritual doctrine, taught in the Ephesian church, and based upon three or four traditions affirmed by the aged apostle, such as the tradition of blood and water, might, even in the lifetime of the apostle, become known, within a limited district, as the Gospel according to the apostle John. How different, in language if not in substance, may be a pupil’s record of a master’s teaching may be perceived from Plato’s and Xenophon’s records of the teaching of Socrates. But in any case, whatever may be the authorship of the book, it must be admitted to be, so far as we have gone, in the highest degree improbable that John the apostle wrote the Fourth Gospel with his own hand at the age of ninety or nearly a hundred, in the same way in which he wrote the Apocalypse at the age of sixty or seventy or eighty.

Evidence from Quotations.— But we pass now to the evidence of the early fathers. Theophilus and Irenaeus are the first to quote John by name, but earlier writers, who do not mention his name, quote words contained in the Fourth Gospel. We will take Papias first. He tells us (see above, p. 816) that he used to inquire about the dicta of Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, Janies, John, Matthew, or any other disciples of the Lord, and also about the sayings of Aristion and the elder John, the disciples of the Lord. The order of names is remarkable, and it has been most ingeniously inferred (Lightfoot, Contemp. Rev., Oct. 1875) that John is placed, out of his order of precedence, along with Matthew, because the last two had left written Gospels; moreover the order of the first three, “Andrew, Peter, Philip,” quite unlike the synoptic order, is the order in Jo. i. 40-43, which suggests that Papias was aware at all events of the story of the calling of the apostles contained in the first chapter of the Fourth Gospel. We are also told by Eusebius that Papias “used testimonies” from the 1st Epistle of John. This is, of course, no proof that Papias quoted the Epistle with John’s name (for quotations of New Testament documents with the name of the author are not common in the earliest writings of the church); but it may be inferred that he regarded the 1st Epistle of John as an authoritative document; and the Epistle is so closely connected with the Gospel that, if the apostle John is proved to be the author of the one, it must follow that he is the author of the other also. But it is important to note that Papias recognized two Johns, both of whom were “disciples of the Lord;” and Eusebius tells us that Papias quoted certain traditions of the non-apostolic John, distinguishing him as “the elder,”—“the elder used to say,” &c. Now Irenaeus—who speaks highly of Paρias, describing him (wrongly) as a “bearer of John” (the apostle),—quotes Papias as one of “the elders who saw John the disciple of the Lord,” and who remembered how he (John) had repeated to them certain teachings of the Lord Jesus, to the effect that “the days will come in which vines shall grow, having each 10,000 branches, and in each branch 10,000 twigs, and in each twig 10,000 shoots, and in every shoot 10,000 clusters, and in every cluster 10,000 grapes, and every grape when pressed will give 25 measures of wine. And when any one of the saints shall lay hold of a cluster, another shall cry out, ‘I am a better cluster, take me; bless the Lord through me,’” <fcc. {Apostolic Fathers, Clark’s trans, p. 443). The question therefore arises, Which John is here meant? It seems certain from the context that Irenaeus meant the famous John, the apostle: yet he calls him nothing but “disciple,” and the tradition imputed to John (though not out of accord perhaps with the imagery of the Apocalypse) is quite unlike anything that we find in the Gospel or 1st Epistle called by John’s name. On the other hand, a passage of the Fourth Gospel (xiv. 2) is quoted by Irenaeus {Adv. Hα ’ r., V. xxxvi. 2) in connexion, not with John the apostle, but with “elders,” and possibly as part of the doctrine communicated to Papias by the “elders” (“the context makes it at least highly probable that the passage was quoted from Papias’s ‘ Exposition,’” Westcott, Introd, to the Gospel of St John). But, if this be so, i.e., if a passage of the Fourth Gospel was communicated to Papias, not necessarily by John the apostle, but by “elders,” then it follows that among the “elders” who communicated it to him may have been John the “elder.” Although this is, in great measure, conjectural, yet, even as a possibility, it becomes deserving of attention, when placed in juxtaposition with the certainty mentioned above; (1) it is possible that a saying in the Fourth Gospel was communicated to Papias, not by John the apostle but by John the elder; (2) it is certain that the only passage quoted from Papias as coming from John (the apostle) is not to be found in the Fourth Gospel and in no way resembles the style or thought of the Fourth Gospel. Again, the 2d and 3d Epistles of John, which have the name of the author inserted, are written, not in the name of John the apostle, but in the name of “the elder,” and they were so doubtfully regarded (perhaps on that account) by the church that Eusebius places them among the “impeached (αrrtλ∈γ0∕ze∕α) writings,” while Origen speaks of them as only possibly genuine, and Jerome attributes them not to John the apostle but to John the elder. Yet Irenaeus quotes this 2d “impeached” Epistle, not as the work of John the elder, but (twice) as the work of “John the disciple of the Lord.” Evidently there is here, if not confusion, at least a danger of confusion, and one cause of confusion can be immediately indicated. Papias tells us that both John the apostle and John the elder were “disciples of the Lord.” Now, for some reason or other, Irenaeus, though he quotes Matthew as “the apostle” {Adv. Hcer. t III. ix. 1) and a speech of Peter as spoken by “the apostle” {Ib. xii. 1), appears not to quote the Fourth Gospel except as written by John “the disciple of the Lord,” or simply “John” {Ib. xi. 1,2, 3, 7). It cannot indeed be assumed that Irenaeus is here (unconsciously) referring to John the elder, and not to John the apostle. On the contrary, the more probable explanation is, that John the apostle was himself called by preference John “the disciple of the Lord,” as being “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” Nevertheless it remains an unfortunate fact that Irenaeus and Theophilus, who are the first to quote John by name, give us no means of ascertaining whether they refer to John the apostle or John the elder, both of whom are described by Papias as being “disciples of the Lord.” In this state of confusion we are naturally led to suspect that possibly the two Johns mentioned by Papias (neither of whom, as we have shown above, was probably known to Papias himself) may have really been one; and this suspicion is confirmed by the testimony of Jerome, who informs us that though two tombs were shown in his time at Ephesus, one as the tomb of John the apostle, and the other as the tomb of John the elder, yet some considered the two persons to be identical; “nonnulli putant duas memorias ejusdem Joannis evan-gelistae esse” (Jerome, quoted by Kirchhofer, p. 159). We have not evidence to prove this theory, but neither have we evidence to disprove it; and we must therefore leave the question who was the autlιor of the Fourth Gospel (so far as the evidence of Papias and Irenaeus can help us) unanswered and unanswerable. Indeed it cannot be denied that the probability is that Papias did not know of its existence as an authoritative Gospel written by the son of Zebedee. For, had he known it, would he have had “nothing to say” about its origin, about the contrast between it and the Apocalypse, about the difference between it and the synoptic narrative, and about the interesting account of its composition given in the Muratorian fragment and therefore current before 170 a.d. 1 That Papias should have “nothing to say” about Luke’s Gospel is intelligible, because the dedication to Theophilus speaks for itself; but why he should describe the origin of the First and Second Gospels and pass over the Fourth, where there was so much to describe and where a joint authorship was not only suggested by tradition but also by internal evidence (John xxi. 24), is by no means easy to explain. In the face of this silence we cannot attach much value to the evidence in Papias for the apostolic authorship, derived from the association of John with Matthew in the list of the apostles. Against that evidence, too, such as it is, must be set the fact that the only tradition detailed by Irenaeus as coming through Papias from John the disciple of the Lord is one quite unlike the tone of the Fourth Gospel. The latter negative at least neutralizes the first positive; and the scale is thus left unaltered, pressed heavily downwards against the apostolic authorship by the discrepancy of style (when the Gospel is compared with the Apocalypse) and by the external and internal evidence of joint authorship.

Evidence has been drawn from the epistle of Barnabas, the “Shepherd” of Hermas, the Ignatian letters, the epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, the works of Justin, and the Clementine Homilies, to show that the authors of these writings used the Fourth Gospel (Westcott, Canon, passim; Sanday, Gospels in the Second Century, 273-298); and no candid mind can resist the proof that some of them knew and were influenced by the thoughts of the Fourth Gospel, while some even used its language. But it is by no means certain, indeed it is improbable, that they knew of it as a Gospel; and it is still more improbable that they recognized it as a Gospel written by “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” Else, how comes it that Justin quotes Matthew about fifty times and the Fourth Gospel once, or not at all?

Moreover, the apparent quotations of the Fourth Gospel in the apostolic fathers show not so much the use of a document from the first, as rather the influence of the common atmosphere of the Asian churches, the floating tradition of the Ephesian school, gradually merging into a definite document. Barnabas, for example, speaks of “water,” with a certain mystery, associating it with the “cross”; as also Justin seems to do, mentioning the cross and baptism in consecutive chapters (lx. lxi.) of his First Apology. But the Clementine Homilies, amplifying the mysterious efficacy of water, as being the origin of all things, and the direct recipient of the impulses of the Spirit (ch. xxiv.), give a loose quotation of Jo. iii. 5, which seems adapted for the Clementine context by beiug blended with the baptismal formulary previously mentioned by the writer in xxviii. 19: “For thus the prophet has sworn to us, saying, Verily I say to you, Unless ye be regenerated by living water into the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, ye shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.” It can scarcely be an accident that this same passage is the only passage from the Fourth Gospel quoted in the whole of the works of Justin Martyr. Moreover, in Justin also, as in the Clementine Homilies, it is not so much the Gospel as rather the substance of the Gospel that is given; and this too in a shape not so developed as that which appears in the Fourth Gospel.

It is worth while to sketch the growth of this passage, for the process is a typical one, and will illustrate many other theological developments. The doctrine of the new birth first appears (but only in its germ) in the synoptic Gospels: “Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Mat. xviii. 3: cf. Mk. x. 15; Lu. xviii. 17). But Jesus clearly did not mean that His disciples were to become like little children by becoming ignorant, foolish, or helpless; but only that they must trust the Father in heaven, as earthly children trust their earthly parents; in other words, that they must become children of the heavenly Father, and therefore be born again with a heavenly birth. It was therefore a legitimate development of Christ’s teaching to remind Christians (1 Pet. i. 3, 23) that they had been “begotten or born again” ^àvayevvâv') ; and Paul describes his converts as “begotten” (yevvar) by himself in Christ spiritually, distinguishing such a birth from the “birth according to the flesh” (Gal. iv. 23, 29). It was inevitable that the Christians should early associate this spiritual birth with the rite of purification or baptism, with which they would naturally (as John had done) introduce their converts into the church. But further, as soon as the need of this spiritual “begetting” became a part of the teaching of the church, it would have to be protected against the literalism of misrepresenting enemies and of dull unspiritual friends. Jews and Gentiles would argue, “But it is impossible for a man who has once been bora to enter a second time into his mother’s womb.” This argumentative objection would therefore be naturally placed (in the minds of the teachers and catechists of the first century) side by side with the doctrine of Christ. One teacher, treating the subject dramatically, might put the objection into the mouth of an objector in the shape of dialogue; another might state the answer to the objection in his own person. With this explanation we shall at once understand that Justin, though appearing (in the course of an argument upon baptism) to quote the Fourth Gospel once only (whereas he quotes Matthew fifty times), is not really quoting it, but only the floating tradition of the Ephesian elders, when he writes as follows :— [table]

Note here the inexplicable omission—on the hypothesis that it is an omission. We must bear in mind that in the preceding extract Justin is arguing for baptism by water. How obvious then to quote the words of Christ Himself, “Except a man be bora of water and the Spirit,” &c. But Justin does no such thing. He gives as a reason for water-baptism the intention that men may not remain “the children of necessity and ignorance,” which reason, he says, we have learned from the apostles. He also quotes, suitably euough, the saying of Isaiah, “Wash you, make you clean.” Lastly, he quotes a saying of Christ, and omits from it (supposing that he has the Fourth Gospel before him) the very words which tell with greatest force for him, and which indeed make all further argument unnecessary! It is possible, but most improbable, that Justin should quote Matthew fifty times, and a Gospel which he knew to be written by the beloved disciple of the Lord only once; but it is more than improbable—it is inconceivable—that, in this single quotation, he should not only quote inaccurately, but omit the very words that were best ada pted to support his argument.

The probability is that Justin’s quotation represents one stage, and the Fourth Gospel another stage, of the Christian doctrine of the new birth, and that the Ephesian “usus ecclesiasticus” had not yet come to his knowledge, or, if it had, had not yet superseded the less developed tradition. The stages may be classified as follows: (1) Synoptists, “Except ye become as little children;” (2) Justin, “Except ye be bora again;” (3) a third stage is implied in 1 Pet. i. 3, 23, and iii. 21, and it would run thus, “Except a man be born of the Spirit as well as water” (a protest against the Essenistic overvaluing of ablutions, see also Sibylline Books, iv. 164-174); (4) the inevitable transition hence was to the form in the Fourth Gospel, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit.” Here the authority of the Ephesian apostolic school arrested the development, which would else have issued in (5) the Clementine stage, “Except ye be regenerated by living water into the name of Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, ye shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.” If (6) “living” had subsequently been omitted, the development would have been completed iu a sixth and last stage.

Take another case of the apparent use of the Fourth Gospel by Ignatius. “I desire bread of God, heavenly bread, bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, . . . . and I desire drink of God, His blood, which is love imperishable, and ever-abiding life” [Ep. to the Romans, ch. vii.). Now here it is true that we have a thought peculiar to the Fourth Gospel. Paul speaks of the “blood” always as sacrificial, the “blood of sprinkling;” and indeed to a Jewish mind, taught to “abstain from blood,” the thought of drinking “blood” would be at first extremely repulsive, even as a spiritual metaphor. It is very unlike anything in the Apocalypse, where blood is never “drunk,” except by the scarlet woman and the murderers of the saints. But it is an image that must have suggested itself to the church as soon as the Gentiles, unfettered by Jewish associations, began to be imbued with eucharistie thought. Indeed, after the first repugnance had worn away, Jewish thought itself—even Pauline thought, and much more the thought of Jewish Christians trained in the school of Philo—would hasten the adoption of the eucharistie metaphor. For was not the blood “the life,” according to Moses! And was not a Christian taught to believe, with Paul, that his individual life was merged and “hid” in Christ’s life? Again, it would soon be felt that to speak merely of feeding on Christ’s flesh was to present the New Testament in an unsymmetrical and almost maimed aspect. Moses had not only fed his people upon bread from the sky (the manna), but had also given them water to drink from the rock. What had the church to show against this symmetrical display of Mosaic power? It was not enough to say (with Paul) that that same “rock” was really Christ: it was necessary to show that the rock still supplied the faithful with divine drink. And for this purpose, what was more appropriate than the cup of the Lord’s blood? Regarded in this way, the metaphor would commend itself speedily even to the Jewish mind. Nay, to the cultivated Alexandrian Jew, it would at once commend itself, as we may perceive from the works of Philo, who uses words so strikingly similar to Christian thought that they might almost seem, to a hasty reader, to have (of themselves) originated the eucharistie miracle of Cana. “Who can pour over the happy soul (which proffers its own reason as the most sacred cup) the holy goblet of true joy, except the cup-bearer of God, the Master of the Feast, the Word?” [On Dreams, ii. 38). When such thought as this was floating in the atmosphere of Ephesus and Alexandria, it is impossible to draw from the vague resemblance of the Ignatian passage quoted above any inference that Ignatius was quoting, or even referring to, the Fourth Gospel.

Nor can we infer any quotation of documents from the fact that Polycarp [Ep, to Philip. f ch. vii.) mentions Antichrist in language somewhat similar to 1 Jo. iv. 2, 3. “Every one that doth not confess that Jesus Christ hath come in the flesh,” writes Polycarp, “is Antichrist; and whoso doth not confess the mystery of the cross is of the devil.” The thought indeed is manifestly similar, and the language so far similar as to show that both Polycarp and the author of the epistle lived amid identical traditions of Christian teaching. But the epistle itself testifies that the name “Antichrist,” so far from being invented by the author of the epistle, was already current in the church: “Little children, ye have heard that Antichrist shall come.” If, therefore, it was a fact that already in Asia there had arisen a sect denying that Christ had come “in the flesh,"’ and that the Ephesian circle of apostles first, and the Ephesian school of elders afterwards, had denounced such a belief as being of Satan and of Antichrist, and if this was taught to the Ephesian catechumens, and preached in the Ephesian pulpits, in a form sanctioned by authoritative teaching and by repeated use, what more is wanting to explain the similarity between the Epistle of John and that of Polycarp?

Again, it is said that Justin [Dial., ch. 88) imitates John (i. 23) in putting the words “The voice of one crying,” &c., into the mouth of John the Baptist, instead of placing them as an evangelical comment (as the synoptist3 do) on the appearance of the Baptist (Mat. iii. 3; Mk. i. 3; Lu. iii. 4). But this inference is unsound, as can be shown by analogy; for Mark uses also as an evangelical comment (i. 2), “I send My messenger before thy face;” but Matthew and Luke place it in the mouth of our Lord (Mat. xi. 10; Lu. vii. 27); and therefore, according to the reasoning above, we must infer that Luke had copied Matthew, or Matthew had copied Luke, in taking the evangelical comment, and inserting it in a discourse of Jesus! How fallacious would be such a deduction! How much more reasonable to suppose that—in accordance with the inevitable tendency thus to take prophecy, as it were, out of the framework, and insert it in the picture— Matthew and Luke have independently adopted a tradition later than Mark, which transposed Mark’s evangelistic application of prophecy, and inserted it in the words of the Lord! But if this is the more probable solution in the case of Matthew and Luke, why not also in the case of Justin and John, the circumstances being precisely the same?

But it has been urged that, although Justin cannot be shown to have quoted the Fourth Gospel, yet his acquaintance with the Valentinians [Dial. 35)—“who freely used the Fourth Gospel” (Iren., A<⅛. Hcer., I. viii. 5)—“shows that the Fourth Gospel could not have been unknown to him” (Westcott, Introd. to Gospel of St Lohn'). Justin’s words are these: “There are, and there were, many who, coming forward in the name of Jesus, taught both to speak and act blasphemous things, with whom we have nothing in common, since we know them to be atheists. Some are called Marcians, and some Valentinians, and some Basilidians, and some Saturnilians, and others by other names.” Now this mere mention of the Valentinians as one of a number of abhorred sects, with whom the writer has nothing in common, scarcely seems to prove any minute acquaintance on the part of Justin with the opinions or books in use among the Valentinians. But even if it be proved, what is the consequence? Surely this, that Justin, knowing the Fourth Gospel to be freely used by a sect which he stigmatizes by name, altogether abstained from using it himself. Irenaeus, who uses the Fourth Gospel, accuses the Valentinians of misusing it; Justin, who does not use the Gospel, brings no such accusation. The natural inference is (if any inference at all is to be drawn from such slight premises) that either he did not know of the existence of the Gospel or of its misuse, or that he knew of its existence and use but did not recognize its authority.

Two more instances must conclude the list. It is found that both Justin and John alter the quotations of Zech, xii. 10 from the LXX. version [i7rιβλiψοrταL πpος μe <ivθ ’ ωv κaτωρχpσavτο) into δψοvτaι eις or lζeκerτησar: “They shall look on Him whom they pierced;” and the Apocalypse (i. 7) also contains the same word in “they also which pierced Him.” But this, as we have seen above, especially as it involves a return to the Hebrew text, is perfectly explicable on the same grounds as those which explain prophecies similarly quoted by the synoptists∙—viz., a common “ecclesiastical use.” Still less can anything but floating tradition be inferred from such an allusion as is contained in Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philadelphians: “The Spirit, coming from God, is not to be deceived; for it knoweth whence it cometh, and whither it goeth.” Here, though the words otδev πόθεν εpχετaι καί που υπάγει, (υπάγει, is a word specially disliked by Luke in his Gospel, and not used by Paul), being identical here and in John iii., do certainly, as Dr Sanday points out (Gospels, p. 275), imply “an association of ideas,” yet, as the same writer remarks, the thought is different. Polycarp says, “The Spirit knoweth whence it cometh;” John says, “We know not whence the Spirit cometh.” This indicates that Polycarp is vaguely alluding to oral and traditional doctrines current in his province (familiar, perhaps, but by no means as yet authoritative), rather than quoting from a Gospel known to be written by one of the foremost of the apostles, the “beloved disciple of the Lord.”

But it is urged (1) that Justin has the doctrine of the Christian, as distinguished from the Alexandrian, Logos; (2) that he could not have had originality enough to develop this himself, and therefore (3) he must have borrowed this method of thought from the Fourth Gospel. And the following expressions are quoted: “Jesus Christ is, in the proper sense (iδiωs), the only Son begotten of God, being His Word (λ6yοs), and First-born, and Power (Πρωτ0τοκοs κal ∆vvaμιs) ;” “But His Son, who alone is rightly (κυpiωs) called Son, who before all created things was with Him and begotten of Him as His Word, when in the beginning He created and ordered all things through Him,” &c.; “Now, next in order to the Father and Lord of all, the first Power (who indeed may also be called Son) is the Word, concerning whom we shall relate, in what follows, how being made flesh (σapκοποιηθεis) He became man;” “The Word of God is His Son” (Apοl. I., xxiii., xxxii., lxiii.; Apοl. II., x., quoted by Sanday, Gospels, p. 284; see also Lightfoot’s Colossians, i. 15).

But it can be shown (1) that all these thoughts were suggested, and many of these expressions actually used, by Philo in Alexandria (40 A.ι>.), about a hundred years before Justin wrote; (2) that the personification of the Wisdom of God (and Logos means Wisdom as well as Word) in the books of Proverbs and Wisdom rendered it necessary for orthodox Christians, who accepted these books, to identify this personified Wisdom with Christ; (3) that the generally recognized Messianic reference of Ps. lxxxix. 27, e ’ γω πρωτότοκον θησoμaι αυτόν, leading to the comment, “I will make King Messiah a First-born,” resulted in a recognition of “the First-born” (<5 Πρωτότοκον, "l i ∣23) used absolutely, as a title of the Messiah (Lightfoot, Col. i. 15);'(4) that those elements of the Alexandrian theory of the Logos which are inconsistent with the Christian theory furnish no proof at all that the Christian theory was independent of the Alexandrian. It was inevitable that, when the Christians borrowed, they would adopt what was consistent, and discard what was inconsistent, with the belief in the incarnation of Christ.

There is abundant evidence to prove these propositions. Even before Paul wrote the Epistle to the Colossians, and a fortiori before the composition of the Fourth Gospel, that instinct which compels men to set the First Cause of all at a distance from matter had impelled Alexandrian Judaism to adopt the belief that the supreme God did not Himself directly and immediately create the world, or manifest Himself to mankind, but indirectly and mediately, through some medium or mediator. The simplest and subtlest metaphor to express this mediateness was Word—more especially in the Greek language, where Word (Λ<!γos) might mean reason as well as speech, the word in the thought as well as the word in the sound. Man manifests himself through deeds as well as words; but for the Supreme (with whom to speak is to do) the only necessary manifestation was the Word, the Logos. Dr Lightfoot has shown (Col. i. 16) that Philo sometimes regards the Logos as a merely passive instrument, so that he allows himself to use the simple instrumental dative (φ) to describe the relation of the Word to the Creator (ώ καί τbv κόσμον ε'ρyaζeτo), “ which mode of speaking is not found in the New Testament:” and elsewhere Philo, even where he uses the prepositional construction (δι ’ ob), expressly likens the world to a house, the Supreme to the builder, and the Logos to the opyavov or tool (Of Cain and his Birth, ch. xxxv. ). Moreover, as a city, while as yet only existing in the conception of the architect, may be said to be the reason of the architect, so the world (regarded as perceptible only to the intellect) is said to be the Logos or reason of God busying itself in the work of creation (The World, vi.). Philo also describes the Logos as “the archetypal model, the idea of ideas.” These passages undoubtedly indicate a great gulf between the Christian and Alexandrian Logos. But other passages abound, which Christians could adopt unchanged, applying them to the incarnate Christ; in particular, the passage quoted above (On Dreams, ii. 38), where the Word of God is described as “the cup-bearer of God;” and here follow words which would be fraught with eucharistie meaning for a Christian—“the Master of the feast .... not differing from the draught itself.” Again, the Word is said (Who is the Heir, ch. xxxix.) to divide in equal portions among all that are to use it the heavenly food of the soul which Moses calls manna; and the Word is expressly said to be a Person in the following passage (Questions and Solutions, 62)— Question'. “Why is it that He speaks as if of some other god, saying, He made man after the image of God, and not that He made him after His own image ?” Solution·. “Very appropriately and without any falsehood was this oracular sentence uttered by God; for no mortal thing could have been formed on the similitude of the supreme Father of the universe, but only after the pattern of the second Deity, who is the Word of the Supreme Being.” Even where Philo describes the Word as the instrument of creation, he speaks of it or Him as “the image (είκών) of God” (On Monarchy, ii. 5): “The Image of God is the Word by whom all the world was framed (ίδημιουργίΐτο).” Further, the Word is frequently called by Philo the “First-begotten (πρωτ0yovov) Son” and “Eldest Soil." The prophecy of Zechariah (vi. 12, according to the LXX.) “Behold a man, the East is his name,” which is twice applied by Justin (Dialoglie, cvi. and cxxi.) to Jesus the Son of God, was applied with curious similarity and difference a hundred years before by Philo, who, although he finds it inappropriate for “a man compounded of body and soul,” sees in it a singular appropriateness to “that incorporeal Being who in no respect differs from a divine image For the

Father of the Universe has caused Him to spring up as the Eldest Son” (On the Confusion, &c., 24). Many of the very expressions which are sometimes used to show that the Logos of the Alexandrians was impersonal are found applied to God in the Old Testament, or to Christ in the New. For example, if Philo calls the world the “garment” of the Logos, the Psalmist also (Ps. civ. 2), appealing to the Lord his God, says, “Thou coverest Thyself with light a« with a garment;’’ or if the Logos is described by Philo as the “bond” which holds the world together, so also does Paul describe Christ as the Being in whom “all things cohere” (τh πάντα σweστηκεv, Col. i. 17). Nayq further, he attributes to the Logos that function of “reproving” or “convincing” (ελ,ίγχειν) which is so strikingly assigned in the Fourth Gospel to the Spirit of the ascended Christ (Jo. xvi. 8), “And when He is come, He will reprove (ελεyξεi) the world of sin;” compare Philo—who also adds a remark that suggests the thought (Jo. i. 9) of “the Light that lighteth every man"—“As long as the divine Word has not come to our soul, all its actions are blameless; but when the priest, conviction (or “reproval,” 2λ∈∙>χos), enteis our heart like a most pure ray of light, then we see that our actions are liable to blame” (On the Unchangeableness of God, 28),

In the face of all these passages (and many others might be quoted) the difficulty would seem to be, at first sight, not to prove that the Alexandrian theory of the Logos was the parent of the Christian theory, but to find any difference between the two. The difference, however, is in reality very great, and very readily explained. Philo looked on the manifestation of God through the Logos as being the old inferior dispensation, while the new dispensation was to be the manifestation of the Supreme as τδ ov, absolute Being. The Logos manifestation of Philo was a manifestation of God through visible creation; the higher manifestation was to be independent of visible objects. The former was the manifestation of “God as man”— i.e., as liable to anger, change, repentance, &c.; it was also (On the Unchangeableness of God, xi.) an appeal to fear through rewards and punishments, not strictly true, and not intended for the esoteric sage, but only for the unspiritual multitude. The latter, on the other hand, was the manifestation of God as not man—a fatherly revelation, appealing to love. It followed that Philo not only did not identify his Logos with the Messiah, but would have regarded any such identification with one who had “become flesh” as a degradation. It followed also that, although Philo declared the highest revelation to be a revelation of love, there was really no basis for love at all in it. Of God as τδ ov, Philo could not say that He was good, or holy, or loving, because He was superior to all goodness, holiness, and love: “His existence indeed is a fact which we do comprehend concerning Hh n j j but beyond the fact of His existence we can understand nothing” (On the Unchangeableness of God, 13).

Imagine the early Christian teachers and preachers, in the cities which were earliest influenced by Alexandria, brought into contact with the Alexandrian theory of the Logos, or possibly in some cases (as in that of Apollos perhaps) themselves trained up in the Alexandrian theory, and now superadding to it the belief in an incarnate Son of God—and what would be the consequence? Not, surely, that they would cast the Logos theory aside as baseless; for how could they deny that “by the Word of the Lord were the heavens made”? or how cancel the words of Wisdom in the book of Proverbs (viii. 22-30), “The Lord possessed Me in the beginning of His way, before His works of old. . . . When He prepared the heavens I was there. . . . I was by Him as one brought up with Him; and I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him’’? Paul might possibly eschew the actual use of the word Logos, as savouring of men’s philosophy, and alter the πpωτ<iyovos, “First-begotten,” of Philo into πρωτότοκοί, “First-born,” to prevent the inference derivable from the former title, that the Lord, being First-begotten, was not “Only-begotten but how could he, or any Christian who believed Christ to be the Redeemer of all mankind and the Eternal Son of God, do other than adopt the Old Testament theory about the Word of God, and at the same time Philo’s language, so far as it was personal, while discarding all that was impersonal? If Christ was not identical with the Word of God and the Wisdom of God, then there seemed to follow the intolerable inference that He must be inferior to it; but if He was identical with it, then the introduction of Philo’s felicitous language into Christian thought was simply a matter of time.

The introduction would be a very easy process, requiring nothing but a few omissions of expressions implying passive instrumentality {e.g., the instrumental dative), and the addition of an emphatic protest that the manifestation of the Supreme as Love, even though it were through visible objects,—yes, even though it were through the Word of God becoming “flesh,”—nevertheless constituted not an inferior but a superior revelation, the highest revelation of all. To the Logos theory of Philo, which stated that all men were made in the image of the Word, the Christians could add that, through forgiveness and by faith, fallen mankind was destined also to be raised up and conformed to that Word, so that He was the goal as well as the starting-point, the ∩ as well as the A; or, as Paul expresses it, “All things are not only created in Him,” but “to Him (eis αυτόν),” Col. i. 16 (Lightfoot). This is accordingly ex- !)ressed emphatically in the Fourth Gospel. Although “no man ιath seen God at any time,” yet “the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him” (Jo. i. 18); and again, “Have I been so long with you, and hast thou not known Me, Philip? he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father” (Jo. xiv. 9).

This is the full Christian development of Philo’s doctrine, as applied to the “First-born” becoming “flesh.” But there is not only no evidence that Justin quotes from any written document exhibiting this development, but rather evidence to the contrary, that his doctrine of the Logos, though affected by the teaching of the Ephesian school, had not yet been imbued with it. For, in speaking of baptism, he calls attention to the faet that, in that rite, God is mentioned only by the name of “God the Father and Lord of the Universe; for,” he continues, “no man can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name he is incurably mad” {First Apology, lxi.). Looked at in the light of the context, this word 6,pρ-ητos, “ineffable,” implies a conception of the revelation of God through Christ hardly reaching the level of the Ephesian doctrine, which teaches that, though God had never been seen, He had been declared by the only begotten Son, so that whoso had seen Him had seen the Father. But it is in harmony with what Justin says soon afterwards {Ib. lxiii.), that Jesus is also called “Angel” and “Apostle” (compare also Heb. iii. 1); and it harmonizes well too with the doctrine of Philo, that “no mortal thing could have been framed in the similitude of the supreme Father of the universe, but only after the pattern of the second Deity, who is the Word of the Supreme Being ' {Solutions, 62).

It appears therefore that, although Justin knew certain traditions embodied in the Fourth Gospel, yet (1) it was not real in the church services of the district in the same way as the “memoirs of the apostles”; (2) he did not use the Gospel as an authoritative document; (3) his teaching exhibits less of development than the teaching of the Fourth Gospel. An inevitable inference follows that, if he knew of the existence of the Fourth Gospel as a document, he did not believe it to be the work of the apostle John.

The general conclusion to which we are thus led by the external evidence of quotations is that, although some of the doctrine of the Fourth Gospel, expressed in words similar to the words of the Fourth Gospel, was probably current in the Ephesian church towards the end of the first half of the second century, yet it was not by that time widely used, if at all, as an authoritative document; nor have we proof that it was so used till the times of Irenaeus, t.e., towards the end of the second century, by which time the Gospel was authoritatively quoted as a work of John; and those who so quoted it probably meant by “John” John, the son of Zebedee, the apostle.

Internal Evidence. The Fourth Gospel compared with the Synoptic Narrative. —In estimating the Fourth Gospel as a history, we must necessarily attach a special importance to those portions in it which cover the synoptic ground; for these will afford us the best means of judging how far the facts of the life of Christ, as well as the language of Christ may have been transmuted by the author. We will therefore first consider those parts of the Fourth Gospel which afford us an opportunity of comparing it with the Gospels of the synoptists.

The first point of comparison is the greater scope of the Fourth Gospel as compared with the other three. It includes all past time in its prologue, and exhibits the incarnation of the divine Word as but one act in the drama of the universe.

Nor is its scope in space narrower than in time. The limited scenery of the synoptic stage—Galilee, Samaria, Judaea,—is (in spirit, though not in letter) exchanged here for “the world.” As Philo tells us that the tabernacle figured the universe, and that the robes of the high priest represented (J/bsw, iii. 12) the different parts of the world, so the High Priest of the Fourth Gospel, though speaking or working in a narrow province of Syria, is always regarded as officiating at the altar steps of the universe, and bearing with Him the destinies of humanity. “The world” is continually on His lips; and John the Baptist is made to proclaim, even at the very outset of the Messiah’s career, that the Lamb of God will take away the sins, not of “the Jews,” but of “the world.” It is true that Judaism is not ignored. Prophecy is constantly appealed to; and the motive of the Gospel is undoubtedly to show that Jesus is “the Christ” (xx. 31), as well as to show that He is the Son of God. Yet nowhere in the Fourth Gospel is found any marked distinction between the Gentiles and Samaritans on the one side and the Jews on the other, as if the former must be neglected for a time (Matt. x. 5; Lu. ix. 52), and as if the latter were entitled to priority in the offer of salvation; on the contrary, Christ is described, early in the narrative, as preaching to the Samaritans, and the Samaritan faith (far more general than the isolated case of the Samaritan leper in Luke) serves as a foil to the Jewish unbelief. “The Jews,” so far as they are distinguished from others, appear throughout as a nation with whom the writer has no sympathy, as the emblem of rebellious, unspiritual scepticism. Viewing the drama at a greater distance of time than the synoptists, and purposely withdrawing himself to a still more subjectively distant point of view, for the purpose of unity and compression, the author almost ignores the minor distinctions of Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodiaus, scribes, and lawyers, with which the synoptists have made us familiar. 1 Palestine is seen no longer with the distinctions of a neighbouring diversified coast-line, but like a dark mass upon the horizon of the distant East, serving as a foil to the splendour of the rising Sun of Righteousness, which it strives in vain to obscure.

In the miraculous part of our evangelist’s narrative especially, there is visible this artistic power of selection and compression. Few miracles are described, not more than eight in all (including the post-resurrection miracle of the draught of fishes), and among these not a single case of exorcism. The element of mere wonder (which comes too prominently forward, at least for a pupil of Philo, in the synoptic miracle on the Gadarene) is carefully subordinated to the symbolical element. It is true that the whole Gospel breathes a supernatural atmosphere. Although the Logos, becoming “flesh” (i. 14), is immediately afterwards called Jesus (i. 17) or the Son (i. 18), and is never henceforth mentioned by the name Logos throughout the whole of the Gospel, yet in reality it is still the Logos, rather than Jesus, that is "described in the following pages. The Logos is never (as in Mark) “unable” to work miracles, never liable to “marvel,” never “in an agony,” never (with the single exception of the scene at the grave of Lazarus in which cτapaξer eaυτov, John xi. 33) “sorrowful and very heavy;” the words ∈λεos, ∈λεειv, σπλaγχylζopai occur repeatedly in the synoptists, never in the Fourth Gospel; the Logos “knows what is in man,” sees Nathaniel “under the fig-tree,” discerns from the first that one of the twelve whom He had chosen is “a devil”; when He asks advice from His followers, it is a mere form, merely “to prove them,for He Himself knew what He would do”; there is not in the drama of the Fourth Gospel (as in Mark) any development of thought or plan in the chief actor; the development must be looked for in the drama taken as a whole, and including the creation, the fall, and all the preparation of the world for the coming of the Word as flesh; but the life of Christ on earth is, in the Fourth Gospel, only one act as it were, in which the previous action of the drama is simply carried on apd sustained; the whole of the future, His destined “lifting up,” His death, His rising in three days, all lie mapped out before the Saviour, so that He walks in a known country and in light, while all around, friends and foes alike, are stumbling or groping in the dark. In this sense, therefore, it is true that the supernatural element is even more prominent in the Fourth Gospel than in the synoptists. But the miracles themselves are subordinated. Though frequent reference is made to the vast number of them (ii. 23; iii. 2; vi. 2; vii. 31; ix. 16; xi. 47; xii. 37; XX. 30), yet, not only are very few described, but even those few are described rather as “emblems” than as “mighty works.” It is remarkable that the word σηp-eia (“signs ”), which the synoptists almost always use in a bad sense (to denote the “sign from heaven” demanded by the Pharisees, or the “signs” which the false Christs shall work to deceive, if it were possible, even the elect, Mk. xiii. 22), is the very word selected by John to describe the miracles of Jesus; while the word δw<ψ,cις (“mighty works ”), which in the synoptists generally denotes the works of Jesus, is never used in the Fourth Gospel. Partly, no doubt, the author may have felt that miracles were made cheap by excessive enumeration, and that the narrative of a multitude of miracles without apparent motive created a stumbling-block rather than a help to philosophic and educated readers. Especially might this be felt in Ephesus, the home of wizards and wonders and “curious arts” (Acts xix. 19), where even the last-called of the apostles had worked cures and exorcisms past numbering (ib. 12). Accordingly the author, though he makes mention of very many miracles, describes none but those which are obviously emblematic. It has been stated above that the 1st Epistle of John was not only written by the author of the Fourth Gospel, but must be considered as a kind of postscript or appendix, commending the Gospel to the church. Remembering, therefore, the important passage in the Epistle (I Jo. v. 8), which describes the three witnesses on earth as breath (or spirit), water, and blood, and bearing in mind that “blood” in all probability has (among other possible meanings) a reference to the eucharistie wine, we shall not be surprised that the first miracle of all describes the changing of the water into wine. Next is a miracle exemplifying the power of the word of Jesus, where faith is present (iv. 50, and cf. iv. 41); then the Messiah manifests (in the cure of the impotent man) the superiority of the ever-flowing fountain of life to the intermittent power of the pool of the law (v. 3); then comes the eucharistie feeding of the five thousand with bread and fishes, wherein “the Lord gave thanks,” cvχapLστησavτo<s τον Κυρίου (vi. 23), followed by the walking on the water, which is also appended by Matthew and Mark to the eucharistie miracle; then the opening of the eyes of the blind by Him who was the Light of the world (ix. 5); the raising of Lazarus by Him who was the Resurrection and the Life (xi. 25); and lastly, the miraculous draught of fishes, taken at the command of Him who had sent His apostles to be fishers of men, and to cast the net of the gospel (xxi. 6).

In all these narratives, although the common people are exhibited as wonder-struck, yet the impression left on the reader is that, for the Word of God, such works are matters of course, and only important because of their inner spiritual meaning. Philo says (Life of Moses, i. 38) that such miracles as the production of the water from the rock by Moses and the like are the sports (7rαiγμια) of God, and not so really great or deserving of serious attention as the revolutions of the planets. There is no trace of “sport” in any of the works of the Word of God narrated by the author of the Fourth Gospel; yet both he and Philo agree in looking through the letter of the narrative of every miracle to the spiritual essence contained in it, which alone constitutes the importance of the act. Now Philo, in speaking of the creation of Eve from the rib of Adam, declares at once that the literal meaning is fabulous (μ,υ0ωδeς); whereas he treats the emission of the water from the rock as historical, although he suggests, as a first explanation, that possibly there may have been a latent spring in the rock. Yet Philo proceeds to deduce his spiritual inferences as freely from what he deems “fabulous” as from what he deems historical. It is not necessary to assume in the author of the Fourth Gospel precisely the same indifference to the distinction between spiritual and historical narrative; but it appears certain that, in his writings, as in Philo’s, the historical is subordinated to the spiritual. Not but that the picturesque incidents of each miracle receive from him due attention; but it seems to be for the most part the picturesqueness resulting from the skill of a graphic teacher, rather than from the memory of an eye-witness. Compare, for example, Mark’s with John’s account of the feeding of the five thousand. There is less motive, less 1 It has been ingeniously suggested that a distinction is drawn by the author between the “Jews” in the south and the “multitude” Gχλos) in Galilee (Westcott, Intrοd. to Si John). But the term ⅛λos is also applied to the mixed multitude of pilgrims in Jerusalem at the Passover (xii. 12, 17, 18, 29, 34); and besides, if the author had intended to deny any such distinction, he could hardly have expressed himself more cogently than in xii. 9, where he adds that this “multitude was of the ‘ Jews (ii^λos τroλvs ικ τωv 'luvSa'uu ∣ ∕).

art, about Mark’s detail than about John’s. John’s omissions and additions - all point to one object, the desire to heighten the Logos and to subordinate the disciples and the crowd. Mark begins by saying that “Jesus had compassion on the multitude;” but the Logos, knowing beforehand “what He would do,” determines His course at once as soon as He “lifts up His eyes” and discerns the multitude. In Mark, the disciples come to Jesus begging Him to send the multitude away; in John, it is Jesus who first “proves” one of the disciples with the question, “Whence shall we buy bread that they may eat ?” Then (giving a picturesque variety to the story) Andrew, as well as Philip, and a servant-lad (παιδάριον) are introduced, the latter carrying the viaticum of the apostles. The loaves, a new circumstance not found in the synoptists, are of an inferior kind, “barley;” and Andrew bases an expostulation on the smallness of the provision. After the command to “sit down,” Mark says that they sat “down on the green grass,” an epithet natural enough for a speaker perhaps, but inartistic, because too prominent, in a written narrative. John, on the other hand, turns a defect into an excellence, by judiciously connecting the “grass” with the command to sit down, so as to enhance the forethought of the wise Master of the feast, who made provision for the comfort of His guests in the minutest details: “Jesus said, Make the men sit down. Now there was much grass in the place.” Lastly, in the synoptic narrative, the gathering of the fragments is the spontaneous act of the disciples; but in John, the feast ends as it began, with the display of the wisdom of the Master, even in the smallest matters, “Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing may be lost.” It is scarcely possible to deny that, in the symmetrical manner iu which the story gathers itself around the Logos as its object and centre, the narrative of the Fourth Gospel is far superior to that of the synoptists, and that many of the additional touches of the former are dictated by what has been happily described by Canon Westcott as “an instinctive perception of symmetry in thought and expression.”

The same remark applies to the other miracle which John has in common with Matthew and Mark, viz., the healing of the “nobleman’s” son. Every detail of difference in John heightens the dignity of the Saviour. Tn the synoptic account, Jesus offers to go to the house to heal the youth; in John, no such offer is made, and the nobleman and his companions are accosted with a rebuke, “Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe.” In the synoptists, the man is represented as living at Capernaum, and Jesus as entering Capernaum, so that the father sends but a short distance; in John, Jesus is represented as remaining at Cana, while the suppliant father journeys thither in person from Capernaum, a distance of twenty-five miles. In the synoptists, the father sends a message, praying Jesus not to trouble r Limself to enter his roof, but to “speak the word only;” in John, the father piteously supplicates the Saviour to “Come down, ere my child die.” In the synoptists, it is recorded that Jesus “marvelled”; in the Fourth Gospel, He simply pronounces the authoritative words,

“Go thy way, thy son liveth.” In the synoptists, Jesus avails Himself of this incident to proclaim, almost as if it were (and probably it was) a development of His work suddenly revealed to Him by His Father, that many of the Gentiles shall be admitted into the kingdom; in the Fourth Gospel, which exhibits no development, these words would necessarily seem out of place, and are omitted. Contrast could scarcely be more complete; and it is not surprising that many commentators, rather than identify such opposites, prefer to suppose that, about the same time in the life of Jesus, two men, both in high positions, had sons at the point of death, in the same place (Capernaum), both of whom petitioned Jesus to heal their children, and both of whom obtained from Him miraculous cure, performed at a distance from the two patients. To some, however, as to the candid author of The Authorship and Historical Character of the Fourth Gospel, it will appear more probable that we have the same event, differently described. But those who accept the theory of identity ought to consider how much is involved in it. For the defenders of the difference of the two miracles are undoubtedly justified in drawing a contrast between them in almost every point of spiritual importance (Augustine, Ev. Joh. Tract., 16). If, therefore, the Fourth Gospel is historically accurate, then (on the supposition of the identity of these two narratives) the three synoptic Gospels are historically inaccurate; but if the synoptic narrative is historically accurate, the narrative of the Fourth Gospel must be considered rather a new dramatic version, than an independent historical account; and the same remark will necessarily apply to, and affect our estimate of, all the accounts of miracles in the Fourth Gospel.

Gaining light thus from the comparison of the Fourth Gospel with the synoptists, wherever they occupy common ground, we shall find it useful, before proceeding to the summary of the Fourth Gospel, first to touch on the few remaining points which the fourth has in common with one or more of the three. Luke contains most of these. For example, if we accept the passages Lu. xxiv. 12, xxiv. 40, as being not interpolations, though perhaps additions made by the author to a subsequent edition of his Gospel, it will follow that, in the account of the resurrection, Luke and John agree identically in adopting the traditions (1) that Peter “beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves in the sepulchre;” (2) that the Lord showed His disciples, after His resurrection, His wounded body in token of His identity. In both these cases several minute details are added by John; and this also applies to another important incident which Luke and John have in common, viz., the “entering of Satan” into Judas. Luke records it briefly in two words (xxii. 3), and makes the “entrance” occur some time before the last supper; but John, in a far more powerful scene, reserves the “entrance” for the moment when the “sop” is handed to the traitor by the Saviour, and the disciples seated at the last supper. Here again the incident is the same; but the treatment is very different.

The agony described by Luke (xxii, 44, and, without Luke’s additions, in Mat. xxvi. 39 and Mk. xiv. 35, 36), when the Lord prayed that “the cup might pass from Him,” and when an “angel” appeared from heaven strengthening Him, may seem, at first sight, to have no counterpart in John. And indeed the synoptic description of the agony in Gethsemane is not adapted for the Fourth Gospel. Inserted in any page of that Gospel it could not fail to jar upon us as being out of harmony with the context. Nevertheless, a remarkable passage in John (xii. 27) appears to bear a striking resemblance to the account in Luke: “Now is My soul troubled.” Thus the Saviour avows a certain conflict in His heart, yet by the very deliberateness (as well as by the publicity) of the avowal takes from it something of the intense and almost passionate humanity of the synoptic narrative. Immediately after these words the Saviour, in the Fourth Gospel, deliberately suggests to Himself the synoptic prayer, and repeats it: “What shall I say 1 ‘ Father, save Me from this hour?’ But for this cause came I to this hour.” At once triumphing over the—from the point of view of the Fourth Gospel—unworthy suggestion, He exclaims, “Father,glorify Thy name.” Upon this comes the heaven-sent message, but not (as in Luke) an angel to “strengthen” one “in an agony praying more earnestly;” on the contrary, the voice does but ratify the Saviour’s utterance: “I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.” Finally, the author adds, as usual, the babble of the multitude, as a foil to the all-knowing wisdom of the Divine Word: “The people therefore that stood by and heard it said that it thundered; others said, An angel hath spoken to Him.” No answer to their doubts and questionings is given by Jesus; but we are left under the impression that the “I” is uttered, neither by thunder nor by any mere angel of God, but by the Father Himself. A soul “troubled”; a prayer to be saved from the trouble; the suppression of that prayer, after more or less of conflict, and the substitution of another prayer in its place; and lastly, a message or messenger (αγγ∈λoς) from heaven—the facts are much the same both in Luke and in John, yet how different is the treatment of the facts, and what a world of difference in the spiritual result!

Almost the only passage in which John adopts a few consecutive words of the synoptic narrative is the narrative of the anointing (xii. 3-8). There is much less similarity between Peter’s confession, as recorded in Jo. vi. 68, and as recorded in Mat. xvi. 16; Mk. viii. 30; Lu. ix. 20; but the narratives appear to refer to the same event, and if so, the comparison between the two is most instructive. In Matthew and Mark the confession of Peter constitutes a turning-point in the life of Jesus; it is the sign which convinces Him that, the seed of a living faith having been sown, His work is now done, and that the hour of His departure is at hand: “From that time forth” (Mat. xvi. 21; Mk. viii. 31) “began Jesus to show unto His disciples how that He must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer,” &c.; and accordingly the Lord prepares the disciples with the greatest care, and even tenderness, for the all-important answer to the question which He is to put to them, “Whom say ye that I am ?” and when the question is answered, pronounces a fervent blessing on Simon, the son of Jona, but better called Cephas, a rock, whose faithful confession is the token of the laying of the foundation stone of the new temple. If Jesus is to be regarded as a man, “who, though He were a Sen, yet learned obedience by the things which He suffered” (Heb. v. 8), then in the whole synoptic narrative of the life of Christ there is not a more important crisis than this. But in the Johannine narrative crises are altogether out of place, where all is pre-ordained; and instead of the tender questioning, the inspired confession, and the fervent blessing, we have simply an almost casual appeal of the Lord to His disciples, “Will ye also depart?” which, when a response has been made by Peter, is followed, not by a blessing, but by sad words conveying the assurance that the Word of God, who chose the twelve, knows all their weakness as well as their strength, and cannot be surprised either by confession or by betrayal: “Jesus answered, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?” Both in the Fourth Gospel and in the synoptists (Mat. xvi. 23; Mk. ix. 33), immediately after the blessing of Peter, mention is made of “Satan” or “Devil.” To bless Peter, and to call him “Satan” immediately afterwards, is consistent with the human Christ described by Mark and Matthew. The difficulty is avoided, in Luke, by omission; but the Fourth Gospel, retaining the traditional mention of the word “Satan,” or “Devil,” directs it to Judas; upon whom elsewhere the Fourth Gospel (xii. 4-8) concentrates the faults imputed by Matthew (xxvi. 8) not to Judas alone but to all the disciples.

Readers who may think that this last dislocation of the words of Jesus appears somewhat improbable should consider carefully the patent instance which follows. In the synoptic account of the betrayal, Matthew and Mark represent Jesus as awaking the sleeping disciples (at the moment of the arrival of the traitor and his band), with the words, “Rise, let us be going (∈γ∈φ∈σ0e, aγωμev). Behold, he that betrayeth Me is at hand” (Mat. xxvi. 46; Mk. xiv. 42), Luke alters this; it is too human for him, seeming to imply flight; and therefore he substitutes a command, in the second person, “Rise up and pray, lest ye enter into temptation” (Lu. xxii. 46). But John, while averse to this change of the traditional words, neutralizes their questionable effect by taking them completely out of their context. Accordingly, he places them between the discourse on peace in ch. xiv. and the discourse on the vine in ch. xv., just at the point when we may suppose the Master with His disciples to be rising from the table, purposing shortly to pass quietly from the lighted upper-room where He had been celebrating the last supper down into the streets of Jerusalem, on His way to Gethsemane. Taken in this context, the words are free from all suspicion of haste or trepidation; on the contrary, they betoken authoritativeness and decision. Rising from the sacred meal, and going forth to welcome “His hour,” the Saviour says,—as if with the consciousness that He is the High Priest of the World, going forth to celebrate the sacrifice foreordained before the foundations of the world,—“But that the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father gave Me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence (fγεipεσθε, aγωμev εvτεvθεv)T

The entry into Jerusalem, the crucifixion, and resurrection, are almost the only remaining events common to the Fourth Gospel with the synoptists. The entry is much condensed, and closely connected with the raising of Lazarus (xii. 18); the lengthy account of the sending for the ass is passed over in the words—“Jesus, when He had found a young ass, sat thereon”; and the acclamations of the multitude and the pomp of the procession are all omitted or lightly touched, as if the gleam of popular favour which so impressed the synoptists scarcely deserved the attention it had received from them. It was a mere consequence of the raising of Lazarus: “For this cause the people also met Him, for that they heard that He had done this miracle.” Yet in Matthew (xxi. 11), when the city asks “Who is this?” the crowd replies, “This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth of Galilee’’—making no mention of the wonder which—according to the Fourth Gospel—was the sole cause of the procession.

After this, John omits the purification of the temple, which he has placed earlier, at the first visit of Jesus to Jerusalem (ii. 15), and passes rapidly to the last supper. Here, as is well known, there are great difficulties in reconciling the account of the Fourth Gospel with that of the synoptists. In the synoptists the last supper is (apparently) the passover, in which the Lord bequeathes Himself to His disciples as their sacrifice, giving them His body and blood; in John the last supper, so far as he describes it, is merely the last meal shared by the Master and His disciples, at which He washes their feet, and exhorts them to humility, patience, and peace; and it is expressly described as being “before the feast of the passover” (John xiii. 1). Again, in the synoptists, Mark places the crucifixion at the third hour (9 a.μ.), and the darkness is made by all the synoptists to last from 12 to 3 p.m.; but John (who is describing in the crucifixion the sacrifice of the passover, the slaughter of the Lamb of God which was to take away the sins of the world) naturally places the crucifixion later, in order that the Lamb may be slain “between the two evenings,” as prescribed in the law; and therefore he does not place even the delivery of Pilate’s verdict till the sixth hour, i.e., 12 o’clock, and the crucifixion, consequently, later still. The symbolism which prevails in the Fourth Gospel may incline us generally to accept the synoptists’ narrative in preference. But there are special reasons why, at a very early date, a slight misunderstanding, among the Gentile churches, of Jewish custom and of the common tradition may have led to an erroneous supposition that the last supper was the passover meal; and the explanation suggested by Canon Westcott (Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, p. 344) seems a very reasonable one. In this case, therefore, the Fourth Gospel must have the credit of dissipating an error which had very early crept into the synoptic narrative (namely, the insertion of the words “The first day of unleavened bread,” Mat. xxvi. 17; Mk. xiv. 12; Lu. xxii. 7); nor is it at all unlikely that this rectification came from the apostle John himself. But as regards the hour of the crucifixion, it seems more likely that the account of Mark is correct, not only because it leaves more time for the burial before sunset, but also because the later hour implied in the Fourth Gospel appears naturally suggested by thi same symbolism which afterwards finds in the wounde I body of Christ a fulfilment of the two prophecies, “A bone of Him shall not be broken,” and “They shall look on Him whom they pierced.”

Passing now to those details of the crucifixion wherein the Fourth Gospel differs from the synoptists, we find in almost each case but one motive—to enhance the majesty of the Saviour. Even in the arrest of Jesus this motive appeal's. The synoptists tell us that He was arrested by a “crowd” (oχλoς), servants, sent apparently from the houses of (παρά Mat.; aπo Mk.) the chief priests and elders; and as the moon shone at the full, so brightly that the disciples could discern their Master from some distance (a stone’s cast), and perceive His agony, as well as hear the words of His prayer in the stillness of the night, they do not think it necessary to make mention of “lights” or “torches.” The Fourth Gospel describes how the “cohort” of the citadel of Antonia is called out, together with the servants of the priests, making up in all, if the whole cohort is meant, five or six hundred men; and these approach, not with “swords and clubs” (as Mk.), but with “torches and lights and arms.” Jesus goes forward to meet them, and intrepidly declares that He is the person whom they are seeking, upon which they “recoiled and fell to tue ground.” Nothing of all this is found in the synoptists.

Though John agrees with Luke in the tradition that the servant’s ear cut off by Peter was the “right” ear, he entirely omits Luke’s narrative of Christ’s examination before Herod; but this is in accordance with his fixed purpose— while by no means neglecting graphic and picturesquo detail—to ignore all petty local distinctions, and to draw none but large and clear outlines on his canvas. Rome and “the Jews” alone appear round Christ on the stage of his drama; not one of the Herods is so much as once mentioned from the beginning to the end of it. The irony of providence, by which Pilate is made to proclaim that Jesus is “King of the Jews” (xix. 20), reminds us of the similar irony by which Caiaphas, not speaking “of himself” but inspired by God, is forced to publish the suffering of the Saviour (xi. 51); and both passages are quite in the manner of the Fourth Gospel. So also is the very natural application of the prophecy, “And for My raiment did they cast lots,” to the seamless tunic of Christ. Remembering what stress is laid by our author’s teacher, Philo, on the high priest’s garments (Moses, 14; Dreams, 37), which “represent the universe,” tve shall readily perceive that while the outer garment of Christ is freely given to the four quarters of the world, the inner seamless tunic (χtτωv), that which He wears next to His heart, is not to be rent, representing as it does the regenerated world, “those who receive remission of sins through Him” (Dialogue liv.). The Motive of the Fourth Gospel illustrated by the First Epistle of John.— It has been said above that the 1st Epistle of John is most closely connected with the Gospel. The connexion is so close, in thought as well as in language, that the former may almost be called a summary of the latter. In the Epistle, even more clearly than in the Gospel, we see the author’s habit of dealing rather with elements than with nations or individuals. With the exception of the illustration of “Cain,” which he possibly borrowed from Philo (who uses Cain and Abel to denote the earthly and the spiritual principle, Sacrifices of Cain and Abel, 1), he prefers to dispense with personal illustrations of principles. He does not, like Paul, speak of Abraham, or Hagar, or Sinai,, or Isaac, or Melchisedek, or the Jews, or the Gentiles; but of the world and the flesh, the water, the blood, and the spirit, light and darkness, life and death. In the Epistle, as in the Gospel, we see the rejection of Christ explained, not as a casual outcome of individual caprice or wickedness, but as an inevitable result of the eternal antagonism between light and darkness. In the Epistle, as in the Gospel, the author insists that the new commandment of Christ to “love one another” is really an old commandment which men have had from the beginning: a commandment as old as the promptings of the Light which from the beginning has “lighted every man coming into the world,”—an old commandment only so far made new as it has been brought home to the hearts of men with a quite new intensity by the manifestation of the incarnate Love of God. In tbe Epistle, as in the Gospel, it is recognized that the antagonism between the world and the spirit, oetween light and darkness, must go on without truce till one lias prevailed; and each man must take one or other side, putting away all hope of compromise. There are two principles, says Philo, contrary to and at variance with one another,—the one represented by the God-loving Abel, the other by the self-loving Cain, which must needs be at variance when born, “for it is impossible for enemies to dwell for ever together.” In precisely the same way docs our author illustrate the same antagonism by the same personality: “Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil and his brother’s righteous”; and then, relapsing from the unfamiliar method of personal illustration into his habitual language about principles or elements, he substitutes for Cain the “world,” and for Abel the “children of God,” and bids his readers “marvel not if the world hate you.”

In this continuous strife between light and darkness the victory is to be gained by faith,—but faith supported by witnesses; and we read in the Epistle that the object of our victorious faith is “He that came through (διά) water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the (A τω) water only, but with the water and the blood; and the Spirit is that which beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth; because they that bear witness are three, the spirit (or breath, to πνεύμα) and the water, and the blood, and the three are united so as to make up the one” (∈⅛ to ∈ v cι ’ σι) (1 John V. 6-8).

Passing over many differences of interpretation, and asking, What is the meaning of the water and the blood? we turn to the Gospel, and, in the account of the crucifixion, we find (xix. 34) especial stress laid upon the fact that from the side of Jesus “there came out blood and water; and he that hath seen hath born witness (μeμapτυpηκεv), and his witness (μαρτυρία) is genuine (αληθινή), and heknoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.” In what sense is the “blood’’here to be understood? As nourishing? or as cleansing? Almost certainly as cleansing; because above, in this very Epistle, the blood of Jesus is described (i. 7) as cleansing us from all sin. Inferring, then, that the blood signifies a superior purifying or baptismal influence, we necessarily infer simultaneously that the water signifies an inferior baptismal influence. Two purifications are mentioned in all the four Gospels, an inferior and preparatory, and a superior and final: the former is the baptism with water, the latter is the baptism with the Holy Spirit, or (as in Lu. iii. 16) with the Holy Spirit and fire (cf. also Lu. xii. 49). But the conception of “baptism with fire,”— though it is based on the early history of Israel (Num. xxxi. 23), and appears occasionally in the shape of a “fiery trial” of faith, as well as in the fiery tongues of Pentecost—was soon supplanted by one of two other conceptions, either sprinkling with sacrificial blood, or baptism with the Spirit. This higher purification, or baptism with blood, Jesus brought into the world. He not only came working by means of it (διά with gen., as above in the passage quoted, 1 John v. 6), but also, in a certain sense, in it (tτ). That is to say, He himself underwent the higher baptism with blood as well as the lower purification with water, which He received from John the Baptist. “Can ye be baptized with the baptism wherewith I shall be baptized? ”—He said to the sons of Zebedee (Mk. x. 38). The agony in Gethsemane, which was that baptism, was typified by Luke in an exudation of “sweat, as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground” (Lu. xxii. 44). But this baptism was scarcely public enough to be a sufficient fulfilment of the prophecy which predicted that “In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness” (Zech, xiii. 1). When it became recognized that the Lord was this “fountain,” and that His blood was the cleansing stream, then the piercing of His side and the visible emission of the purifying blood from the wound became an effective and almost necessary type of the spiritual purification, and the type of the blood of sprinkling, suggested perhaps by Luke in his description of the agony, fell into the background, being supplanted by the more natural type of the pierced side.

Such a type would all the more commend itself because, without it, the crucifixion might almost seem incomplete. The mere piercing of the hands and the feet might seem an insufficient fulfilment of the prophecy of the “fountain”; and besides, since crucifixion was generally a lingering death extending over many hours, and since the body of Jesus was taken down on the same day on which it had been attached to the cross (and, according to John, only three or four hours after the commencement of the crucifixion), the record of His death, without the spear wound, might seem to justify the statements of those who maintained that Christ never died at all, and that He was a man only in appear, ance. Therefore, as a proof of His humanity and of the reality of His death and sufferings, no less than as a fulfilment of the prophecy of the “fountain,” it was natural that the latest Gospel should insert, and that the church should readily accept, the witness through blood as well as water, which is so emphatically related by the author of the Gospel, and here appealed to by the author of the Epistle.

But the question remains, What is meant by the connexion of the water and the blood with the breath or spirit —“They that bear witness are three, the breath (or spirit), and the water, and the blood”? Philo may throw light both on the number and on the nature of the witnesses. Only to earthly matters did the rule apply that “in the mouth of two witnesses shall every word be established :” heavenly matters required, so Philo teaches, “three witnesses” (άγιον δε πράγμα δοκιμάζεται διά. τριών μαρτύρων, Posterity of Cain, 27). He also calls attention to the fact that Moses declares with apparent inconsistency (1) in Leviticus (xvii. 11) that blood is the essence of life, (2) in Genesis (ii. 7) that breath is the essence of life; and he reconciles the two statements by assigning to men two kinds of life: (1) the irrational, which they have in common with beasts, which life has for its seat (∈λαχε) blood; (2) the rational, which flows from the fountain of reason (λογικές 77 V7 7 7 5 )> which has for its seat breath (or spirit), “not (mere) air in motion, but a kind of type and impress of that divine power which Moses calls by a name especially appropriated to it (κνρίω ονόματύ), image (of God)” (The Worse plotting, &c., 23). Elsewhere (Who is the Heir, 11) he says that blood is the essence of the entire soul, but divine spirit (πνεύμα θeιοv) the essence of the dominant part of the soul. On the metaphor of the water also Philo throws light. Water and earth, he says, represent the origin, growth, and maturity of the human body; consequently, he tells us, purification by water is that preliminary recognition of one’s own nature (“know thyself ”) which is required from those who aspire to the higher purification. Hence purification by water, he asserts, was appointed by the law as a preparation for the purification by sacrificial blood; and hence the Sacred Word thought meet that the high priest, whenever he purposed to perform the sacrifices ordained by law, should previously sprinkle himself with water and ashes (Dreams, 36, 37; Those who offer Sacrifice, 1 , 2).

If now we could find in the Gospel narrative of the crucifixion some mention also of the breath or spirit, nothing would remain wanting to make up the triple purification and triple witness mentioned in the Epistle, of “the spirit and the water and the blood.” Such a mention is probably intended in the willing surrender of the “breath” or “spirit,” which is mentioned (xix. 30) in the Fourth Gospel alone [Mk. eζεπvευσe, Mat. α<ffηκe; Luke (xxiii. 46) who comes nearest to John only describes the intention, not the fact, παpατiθeμαi ∖ : “He bowed His head, and gave up His breath” (or spirit). Thus the meaning both in the Gospel and in the Epistle appears to be the same. (1) Jesus took unto Himself not only (a) the dead fleshly nature of man, typified by water, but also (6) the life and passions of man, typified by blood, and (c) that higher life of man (iu virtue of which he is described as made in the image of God), typified by the spirit. (2) In these three departments of existence He made three several sacrifices, pouring forth (<ι) water and (6) blood from His side, and giving up (c) His breath as the last sacrifice of all. (3) Thus these three sacrifices betoken three several purifications:—(a) the purification, by water, of the body in baptism; (6) the purification of the soul by the death of the lower nature (what Paul calls “the old man”), which partakes in the death of Christ; (c) the purified life of the soul rising from the dead through the Spirit, and living with, and in, the risen Saviour. The two latter purifications are two phases of the same (the former implying dying in the blood of Christ, the latter rising again and living in His Spirit); but there is sufficient difference to warrant a distinction. (4) These three purifications go to make up the one perfectly pure and ideal purification and sacrifice for sin, which is the Lamb of God, the Word (∈tς τo tv ecσLV).

Stress has been laid upon this important passage in the Epistle because it appears to be a key to much that we shall find in the Gospel. It reveals an exaggerated notion of the importance of baptism with water, against which the author feels compelled to contend; “not by water only, but by water and blood.” Somewhat in the same way Paul uses not water but earth (Philo using water and earth) to contrast the natural man, the mere “living soul,” with the “lifegiving breath, or spirit” (1 Cor. xv. 45, 47). But that which distinguishes John from Paul is the use of mystical imagery, arranged with a certain numerical symmetry". Sometimes the imagery is dual, when it describes incompleteness, such as the conflict between the world and the children of God, between light and darkness, between God and the deviL But in other cases it is triple: he appeals to three classes, the children, the young men, the fathers; contending against three enemies, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, the imposture (αλt¼eα) of life; and strengthened in their faith by three witnesses on earth, the water, the blood, and the spirit—all of which dimly tends towards that other triple witness which .has been inserted in the Epistle by later scribes (v. 7), the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit.

If we could be sure that the Second Epistle was from the same pen as the First, then the very great probability that the “elect lady” and the “elect sister” (2 John 1; ib. 13) represent two churches might prepare us for similar personifications in the Gospel; yet as this personification is disputed by some, we must not lay much stress on it. Nevertheless we have seen enough of the nature of the Epistle to be prepared (in passing to the larger work by the same author) for a Gospel of types and symbols, a Gospel of selection rather than of continuous narrative, a Gospel in which principles on a large scale rather than individual characters shall be represented, and in which light and darkness, death and life, the word and the world, the water and the spirit, and the spirit and the blood, shall play no inconsiderable part. Analysis of the Fourth Gospel.

As was to be expected from a writer conversant with the system and thought which, for brevity, we call the school of Philo, the prologue of the Gospel opens with a protest against Philo’s doctrine of an impersonal or quasi-impersonal Logos. The Logos or Word is at once declared to be (i. 1), not the mere instrument by which the world was made, but the companion of God, and God; a Light, from the beginning shining in darkness, received by some, to whom power was given to be born of God, but rejected by others who were the children of the flesh. John the Baptist is introduced, in marked distinction from the Word, as a “man;” not the Light, but a witness to the Light; aud the Baptist declares at the very outset of the public life of Jesus (i. 16) that, though the law was given by Moses, the gifts of divine grace and truth came through Jesus, and that He, being the only begotten Son in the bosom of the Father, has manifested the invisible God to men. The baptism of Jesus by John is omitted; but John bears witness to the visible descent of the Spirit upon Jesus, adding that it “abode upon Him,” and he bears record that his own baptism with water is but to prepare the way for Him who will baptize with the Holy Spirit; and that He on whom the Spirit thus descended is the Son of God, the Lamb of God that is to take away the sins of the world. Here, then, at the very outset, we see the thoughts, and one may almost say the dramatis personoe, of the Epistle reintroduced in the Gospel—light and darkness, the word and the world, the law and grace, the Father, the Spirit, and the Son. The three grades of purification are not as yet mentioned; yet there is perhaps a side-reference to them in the three grades of the world, 7.e., of impure existence, which are alluded to in the contrast between those who are born “of God” (i. 13) and those who are born (1) of blood, (2) of the will of the flesh, (3) of the will of man.

The narrative of the calling of the disciples implies unmistakably that this book is not to follow the common tradition, nor to be a complete narrative, but rather a selection; for it only narrates the calling of six of the twelve, and one of these, Nathanael (significantly described as a man of Cana, where two out of the eight miracles in this Gospel are to take place), is so far from being universally identified with one of the twelve that Augustine excluded him from the number. The earlier names are mentioned in the same order as in Papias (see above, p. 820), and suggest the inference that some of these apostles, or their disciples, dwelling in the neighbourhood of Ephesus, furnished some of the materials of which the Fourth Gospel is composed. Two points are further to be noted in this narrative. (1) In order to enhance the dignity of the central character, the writer causes the inferior characters to revolve around Jesus, conversing with and questioning one another, doubting and erring, before venturing to obtrude themselves upon Him (see, besides this passage, iv. 27, iv. 33, vii. 27, 40- 43, xi. 16, xi. 37, xii. 20-22, xiii. 24, xvi. 17; and note how, both in xvi. 19 and in other passages, Jesus, after the manner of a king, takes the initiative in addressing His disciples, instead of their bringing their difficulties to Him unbidden, as they do for the most part in the synoptists).

(2) The second point is the error of Philip in saying, “We have found Him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph” (i. 45). Philip introduced with this slightly pompous and erroneous statement—in a kind of irony highly characteristic of our evangelist—seems intended as a contrast to the humiliated and wiser Philip of the fourteenth chapter: “Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known Me, Philip ?”

The next chapter (ii.) opens with a “sign,” of which the symbolism is obvious. The water changed into wine evidently typifies the substitution of grace for the law. It was a common metaphor among the Jews to express the superiority of the oral tradition to the written law by saying that “the law is water, but the words of the scribes are wine”—a metaphor that exactly recalls the words of Origen about this very sign: “Before Jesus the Scripture was water, but from the time of Jesus it has been made wine for us” {Comm. in Ev. Joann., xiii. CO). A somewhat similar comparison of old wine and new wine had been adopted by Jesus Himself to illustrate the difference between His teaching and the law of Moses. The identity between the purifying blood of Christ’s sacrifice and the nourishing blood of His sacrament is understood even by Justin independently of the Fourth Gospel, and would be a natural inference from the Messianic prophecy (Gen. xlix. 11), which identified the cleansing stream that was to purify the robe of the Messiah with the blood of the grape, declaring that He should “wash His robe {i.e., as Justin explains it, His church) in the blood of the grape.” Therefore, in changing water into wine, the Messiah is, by His first √gn, striking the key-note of all that is to come, indicating the object and nature of His work, viz., the supersession of the law by the gospel, and the introduction of a new spiritual nutriment and purification, which shall at once cleanse and strengthen and gladden the soul—all this to be effected by and in Himself through His blood.

The prediction here made of “the hour” when the “blood of the grape” should stream from His wounded side is at once followed by a second similar prophecy. After leaving Cana for the passover in Jerusalem (where He purifies the temple by expulsion of the money-changers; see above, p. 827), Jesus answers the request of the Jews for a sign with these words, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” It is added that He “spake of the temple of His body.” It is interesting to note four different stages of development in the expression of this prediction. The synoptists Matthew and Mark declare that a very similar charge (differing only in “I will destroy” and “I am able to destroy,” Mat. xxvi. 61; Mk. xiv. 58) was brought against Jesus by false witnesses; and they give us no hint that the witnesses erred by a simple and natural misunderstanding. Luke, however, who not only wrote after the destruction of Jerusalem (when it would be a common saying that the Lord Jesus had destroyed the temple), but also modified his Gospel in many respects to suit it to the requirements of the changed times, makes no mention of any false accusation. In his subsequent treatise of the Acts he goes a step further; for there the accusation is repeated (Acts vi. 14), and not denied. Now, lastly, the author of the Fourth Gospel adopts the charge as in the main a true one, or at all events as an inevitable misunderstanding in which His disciples, as well as His enemies, participated. At the same time, this prophecy, like the symbol of the wine, prepares the way for Christ’s subsequent doctrine (xiv. 23) that every man is a temple of God, and that He Himself is that Temple in the highest sense. This doctrine had been taught even before Paul by Philo, who scouts the thought of preparing for the Supreme a “house of stone or wood,” and declares {Cain and his Birth, 20) that the invisible soul is the terrestrial habitation of the invisible God. Yet though Philo’s language may have influenced the language of the Fourth Gospel in such passages as xiv. 23, it is most certain that this doctrine is a necessary inference from the teaching of Christ Himself, who taught us that the body must be “full of light.” There is therefore no essential misrepresentation in this introduction of the Pauline doctrine of Christ the Temple or Church.

The whole of the next chapter (iii.) deals with purification by water and the spirit. The learned but timid Nicodemus, “the teacher” of Israel (iii. 10), exhibits the blindness of carnal learning as contrasted with the knowledge that belongs to those who are born of the spirit. A third prediction of “the hour” is expressed through a third figure, the serpent in the wilderness. But this figure introduces a new conception, that of faith, an intense looking towards Christ, even as the children of Israel looked on the healing serpent. This thought of faith as sight, illustrated perhaps by the statement that Nicodemus had come by night, introduces a few remarks on a subject hereafter to be more amply treated by the evangelist—the difference between the children of light and the children of darkness (iii. 18-21). In the second section of this chapter the subject of waterpurification is taken up again by the Baptist, who contrasts his own inferior purification with the higher purification of the Messiah, and his own decrease with Christ’s increase, describing himself (almost in the language of Paul) as “earthly,” whereas the Messiah is “from heaven.” But the Baptist also introduces the subject of faith; the path of life is through faith in the Son of God: “He that believeth in the Son hath everlasting life” (iii. 22-3G).

Particularly to be noted is verse 24 of this chapter, in which it is expressly stated that “John was not yet cast into prison.” It will be remembered that the synoptists give no account of the public appearance of Jesus till after the imprisonment of John. It was therefore open to the enemies of the church to maintain that Jesus was but a pupil of the Baptist, and that He did not venture to teach till His master John had been shut up in prison. Much more might this be asserted in Ephesus, where, as we have seen, there were some who were baptized only with the baptism of John, and who knew nothing of the Holy Spirit. On this account probably it is that our author introduces Jesus as working by the side of John, before his imprisonment, and even then inevitably, and against His own will, drawing multitudes from the Baptist to Himself. The apostle John himself is one of the first to leave the Baptist for the Greater Teacher (i. 37); but the Baptist also is made to witness, and to rejoice in, the desertion: “He must increase, but I must decrease.” And finally, we are told that the superiority of Jesus over the Baptist had become so manifest that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, and upon this, desiring to avoid this appearance of superiority, Jesus retired to Galilee (iv. 1). It would not be possible njore effectively to repel every suggestion of the pupilage of Jesus, or of his subordination—even His temporary subordination—to John the Baptist.

Now follows (ch. iv.) what may be called the foreign section of the Gospel. We noticed that i even in Luke, the Samaritans assume a prominent position, their faith and unconventional goodness being twice contrasted with the carnal formalism of the Pharisees, at one time in a miracle (Lu. xvii. 1G), at another time in a parable (Lu. x. 33). We are now to see how the contrast between Samaria and Judaea is handled in the Fourth Gospel in the dialogue on the living water, which might fairly be called, from its subject, as from its scenery, the “Dialogue of the Well.” The well is a frequent figure in the books of Philo. To all men, says Philo {Planting of Noah, χiχ.), there is, in common, the desire to find drink; but some seek drink for the body, others for the soul. The seekers after truth are as those who dig wells, and many seekers have dug wells without finding water; and taking the LXX. version of Genesis xxvi. 32, “We havener found water,” he comments on the well of the oath (Beersheba), which is discovered to be “dry and he declares that the dry well illustrates the failure of all human search after knowledge, as compared with the ideal God-given knowledge which is like a gushing spring. Elsewhere {Dreams, ii. 2, et seqj) he says, even more explicitly, that the well is the emblem of knowledge; that its depth signifies the difficulty of the attainment of knowledge; and that concerning all knowledge the well-diggers have to make but one sad confession, “We can find no water.” Moses sits by the well “waiting to see what water God will send forth for his thirsty soul” {Alleg., ii. 4); Israel “sang the song of the well,” i.e., sang a song of triumph at the discovery of knowledge {Dreams, ii. 4); and the remark of the daughter of Samaria (iv. 11) that “the well {φpiαp) is deep,” followed by the contrast of the “fountain” {ιτ-ηγr ∣ ) of water that “leaps up” (iv. 14), at once suggests Philo’s contrast between the bond-woman Hagar at “the deep well ” and Rebecca who nourishes those who come to her with “the fountain that never fails” {Posterity of Cain, 41). Origen, in the same way, considering Jacob’s well to mean the Old Testament, contrasts Samaria leaving her vδpια (the old implement of knowledge) with Rebecca at the fountain {Comm, in Ev. Joann., xiii. 10 and 29). The four wells dug by the patriarchs Abraham and Isaac represent {Dreams, ii. 3, 4) four departments of knowledge. The fourth and dry well represents the search after the fourth and incomprehensible immaterial element corresponding to the material heaven—a search that is necessarily fruitless. This being Philo’s interpretation (and he indignantly protests against any other, as being unworthy of wise men), we shall also see a singular propriety in placing the dialogue on the living water in the neighbourhood of “the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph” (iv. 5); for here also Philo has prescribed a metaphorical interpretation, declaring that “Jacob gave Joseph Shechem, meaning thereby the bodily things which are the objects of the outward senses” (Allegories, iii. 8). But there is also an appropriateness in the use of the name (iv. 5) “Sychar.” For whether the name be a corruption of “Shechem” or of “Askar” (Sanday, Fourth Gospel, p. 93), in either case the name contains a possible reference to “drunkenness” (Isaiah, xxviii. 1, 7; Diet, of Bible, s.v.), and serves as a suitable contrast to the Living Water. The next point for consideration is the “five husbands” of the woman of Samaria. Is there any special meaning in the number “five?” Turningagain to Philo, we find, a little after the passage about wells quoted above, the statement that “the number five is appropriate to the outward sense" (Planting, 32), and that it represents material enjoyment. This is certainly a natural use of the number, if it is to be used emblematically. Further, the number “five” is connected also by Philo, not indeed with “husbands,” but with “seducers.” Philo (Allegories, iii. 88) says that the lawful husband is the mind (vovς), the unlawful husband or seducer (φθοpev<s) is represented by the five objects of the senses working through the five senses. Immediately before the passage, Philo adopts the more common metaphor of the Old Testament in speaking, not of the mind, but of the Lord Himself, as the Husband, being the Father of the perfect nature, and sowing and begetting happiness in the soul. Samaria is supposed by Justin (Dial, lxxviii.) to represent in Isaiah (viii. 4) “sinful and unjust power;” but here it rather typifies sense-wrapped ignorant unbelief. The whole of this imagery seems so well connected and so appropriately transferred from the pages of Philo to the pages of the Fourth Gospel, that one hesitates to accept another explanation (Keim) which would otherwise seem extremely probable—an explanation borrowed from the five religions of the five nations of Samaria (2 Kings xvii. 30-37). In either case, the sixth “husband” may very well refer to Simon Magus, who, as we know from the Acts of the Apostles (Acts viii. 11), had very early in the history of the church “for a long time” held the Samaritans “bound with his enchantments.”

Like all the other narratives of our evangelist, this narrative is in the highest degree dramatic. From her previous repellent attitude, the woman of Samaria is led, first into wonder, then into interest, then into conviction of sin (becoming ashamed of her false husbands), and into admiration of the New Prophet; lastly, she receives from the Messiah a draught of that spiritual water which alone can satisfy the longing soul; and in the climax she is brought to the very brink of the eternal fountain— “I that speak unto thee am He.”

The journey into Galilee adds one more to the instances in which the Fourth Gospel corrects the synoptists. The saying that “a prophet is not without honour save in his own country” is stated by the synoptists to have been uttered by Jesus in Galilee (Mat. xiii. 57; Mk. vi. 4; Lu. i V. 24) after the unexpected rejection of Him by His countrymen; and Mark adds one of those passages which were early “stumbling-blocks” to the church, viz., that “He was not able to do there any mighty work, . . . and He marvelled because of their unbelief.” Not content with Luke’s considerable modification of this passage, the author of the Fourth Gospel boldly places this saying of Jesus before the visit to Galilee, and assigns it as a reason for His going thither : “After two days He departed thence (from Samaria) and went into Galilee; for Jesus Himself testified that a prophet hath no honour in his own country” (iv. 44). The motive is obvious: Jesus is desirous of escaping from notoriety. He has found that the Pharisees (iv. 1) are aware of His superiority to John the Baptist, and that His disciples exceed John’s in number; and for this very reason He leaves Judaea, and comes to Samaria, a hostile district. Even here, however, He cannot help making converts. But having made them, He leaves them and goes into Galilee, where at least He is sure to find “no honour.” Yet even here, adds the author, He was honoured; for “the Galileans received Him, having seen all the things that He did at Jerusalem at the feast” (iv. 44). Thus skilfully, after his manner, the author takes those very sayings and traditions which had been turned against Jesus, and, by his delicate handling, uses them to enhance the glory of the Messiah, “who knew what was in man” (ii. 25).

Passing over the cure of the nobleman’s son, which has been discussed above, we come to the first “sign” wrought on the sabbath (v. 2-9). Once more there is a contrast between the water of the law and the fountain of the Messiah. The rejection of this divine act of mercy, simply because it was wrought on the sabbath, introduces, almost for the first time, the conception of “judgment” or “condemnation.” The word “judgment” had been mentioned in the dialogue with Nicodemus, as a necessary result, though not an object, of the coming of the Light, which, by its very presence, distinguishes and “judges” those who love the darkness (iii. 17-21); and now we have an example of the way in which the Light divides all who hold it into two classes—those who love it, and those who hate it. This is in accordance with the spirit of the synoptists, who (Mat xxiii. 13; Mk. xii. 40; Lu. XX. 47) describe Jesus as addressing the Sabbatarian sign-hindereras “hypocrite,” and as pronouncing on “hypocrites” greater “judgment” or condemnation (περισσότερον κρίμα). But that part of the discourse in which Christ describes Himself, in the presence of the multitude, as having received all power to judge and to quicken the dead, does not resemble anything in the synoptic narrative, except the discourse—“All things are delivered unto Me of My Father” (Mat. xi. 27; Lu. x. 22); and that was uttered privately to the disciples, after their return from their mission. It is possible that the author here (as elsewhere) sets down, as a public discourse, some sayings that may have been uttered privately; and the words “that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father,” remind us at once of the synoptic saying, “He that receiveth you receiveth Me, and He that receiveth Me receiveth Him that sent Me” (Mk. ix. 37, &c.); which again, in the synoptists, was a private, not a public saying.

The author’s fidelity to the spirit rather than to the letter of the words of Jesus appears also in the reference to the quickening and raising from the dead. Jesus had in Matthew (κ. 8) bidden His disciples to “raise the dead,” and this precept is amplified, in the Fourth Gospel, into “The hour is coming and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live” (v. 25),—a saying that would naturally be interpreted in a purely spiritual sense. No less spiritual is the doctrine here enunciated on faith. As elsewhere in this Gospel (i. 50; iii. 1, 2; iv. 39-41; xx. 29; and, if rightly considered, vi. 26), the author lightly esteems belief based on “mighty works” or wonders. The right faith is that of the Samaritans, who, rising out of the lower wonder-faith, attain to the higher faith which comes from hearing Christ (iv. 42). For to this, and to no other testimony, does Christ, in the Fourth Gospel, make His ultimate appeal. Christ does not indeed despise the testimony of John to Himself, but He does not accept it as a final basis for the true faith (v. 32-34). He appeals to the Scriptures, it is true, but rather as an unerring guide to the true source of faith than as being of themselves able to generate faith in the reader (v. 39). What then is the living final testimony to which He appeals! It is to His “works,”—not the “mighty works,” or “wonders,” but all “the works (∈pγα) which the Father hath given Me to do,” meaning the whole of His life, and including both words and deeds. In other words, the Fourth Gospel appeals to that which we should call the influence of the life of Jesus, but which the evangelist better calls the “Spirit” of Jesus, passing from Jesus to His disciples, and from those disciples to others who had not seen Jesus—as the final testimony, convincing every honest heart, and generating in every conscience that loves the light a belief in Jesus as the true Light. In the synoptists, “faith” is, for the most part, that half physical thrill of trust in the presence of Jesus which enables the limbs of a paralysed man to make the due physical response to the emotional shock consequent on the word “arise,” so that in the strength of that shock the paralytic is enabled to shake off the disease of many years; or, at the highest, it is a thrill through the inner being, whereby the soul shakes off the burden of sin. But in the Fourth Gospel faith implies even more than in Paul’s Epistles; it is a faculty that tests, transmutes, and develops the recipient soul; it means a trust in Christ, not only as a sacrifice, nor as propitiation, nor as miracle-worker, nor as Son of God, but as source and object of all love, and the be-all and end-all of every human life. If such a Being is best expressed by “Word,” then the human receptiveness of such a Being will be best expressed by the metaphor of “hearing.” Accordingly the Samaritans believe, not because of miracles, nor because He told the woman “all that ever she did,” but because they had enjoyed His presence for two days, and had heard Him. “Now we believe, not because of thy saying; for we have heard Him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.” Here we have at last a doctrine not borrowed from Philo, a doctrine that constitutes the great difference between Philo’s philosophy and the religion of the Fourth Gospel, making the latter a powerful and lifeinspiring motive for all classes of men, while the former remains a barren philosophy fit only for meditative hermits. For in Philo, faith, as in the Old Testament (Lightfoot, Galatians,∙gg. 154-162), hasapassive meaning—trustworthiness, stability, constancy,—rather than the active meaning of trust, by which the lower nature is raised to the level of the higher; the “dog” to the level of “man” (Bacon, Essays, xvi. 79); the man to the level of Christ, and, through Christ, to God (1 Cor. iii. 23). Faith, in Philo, is a prize rather than an effort, a harbour rather than a voyage; it is “the only sure and infallible good, the solace of life, the fulfilment of worthy hopes” (Lightfoot, Gal., p. 158); whereas, in the New Testament, it is the faculty by which one is able to trust in Christ, to love Christ, and to serve Christ—a faculty implying continuous effort, loyal and enthusiastic service, and progressive activity. The nearest approach in Philo to the Pauline and Johannine faith is perhaps in the words that describe it as “the entire amelioration of the soul which leans for support on Him who is the cause of all things, who is able to do all things, and willeth to do those which are most excellent” (ib. p. 158); but even this, though the same in theory, is very different in practice from the faith of the New Testament. For—faith being neutral and colourless and taking its colour from its object—how different must needs be even the faith that is based upon the things that are “most excellent” from the faith that rises to the Father through such a one as Jesus of Nazareth, concerning whom even the most incredulous must admit that He made peace in man’s troubled heart, banished sin from those who trusted in Him, and “constrained” (2 Cor. v. 14) even His bitterest persecutor to join in laying the foundations of His empire.

In the discourse that follows the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand, 3 it is noteworthy that the author speaks of the eucharistie food not as the Lord’s body and blood, but as His “flesh” and blood. Most characteristically: for “flesh” is, as in Paul’s epistles, a principle, an element, and the author desires to show that the Lord’s flesh and blood are the only satisfying element for the human soul. He has before spoken of blood and flesh and man (i. 13) as antagonistic elements to the divine elements; now he wishes to point out the divine elements themselves, and they are the flesh and blood of the Word, who “became flesh” (i. 14, σαρξ eγiveτo) for men. Here, as before, we must add that the use of this language—“Whoso eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood ”—in a public discourse is quite unlike anything in the synoptists, and though it represents the essence of the teaching of the Lord’s supper, somewhat amplified, it can hardly be considered in its chronological, or even perhaps in its artistic place, as a public discourse here. Yet it is necessarily placed here to account for the desertion of many of HÎ3 fol lowers. In the synoptists the desertion is otherwise explained. There we see Jesus, as He develops the constitution of His Kingdom, alienating, step by step, the Pharisees, Herod, the patriots or Galileans, the followers of John the Baptist, and at last the whole of His countrymen, till He is compelled to flee from Herod to the neighbourhood of Caesarea Philippi, where, as an exile with no more than twelve other outcast companions, He who had never revealed Himself to be the Messiah finds, upon questioning His disciples, that they have been led by the divine guidance to the sense that He and He alone must needs be their Redeemer; so that the seed of faith has at last begun to germinate, and He can now prepare to leave them, because He discerns already the temple of the new kingdom founded upon the inspired confession of Simon Peter. In the Fourth Gospel, on the other hand, the desertion of the disciples is represented as due to another cause, namely, their unspiritual dulness and their inability to understand the doctrines of their Master. Here and there in this discourse appear glimpses of the synoptic utterances,—for example, in the words “No man can come unto Me except My Father draw him” (vi. 44); and in the words “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing” (vi. 63), one seems to recognize a version of part of the blessing of Peter, “Blessed art thou Simon, son of Jona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.” But elsewhere, in the greater part of this discourse, the author departs entirely from the synoptists. In the confession of Peter, a very striking peculiarity is presented. Not only do we find brought out in a very touching manner what may be almost called the despairing faith of the confessing apostle—“Lord, to whom shall we go?”—as though the disciples were driven in desperation to remain with Jesus because, if they deserted Him, they had no hope, no refuge, elsewhere; but we also find Peter avowing the cause of his belief, and it is the same cause as moved the believing Samaritans; it is not the “signs’’but the “words” of Jesus—“Thou hast the words of eternal life.” 1

Hitherto the Gospel has dealt with the Word as purifying and nourishing; now it has to speak of it as enlightening. The types have hitherto been water (under various aspects), wine, flesh, blood, bread; now we are to read of Jesus as Light. This is the highest or nearly the highest doctrine; for it is another aspect of the doctrine of the Spirit. The two doctrines are closely connected in Philo, who {Creation of the World, 8) declares that God assigned a “pre-eminence to the elements of spirit (or breath or air) and light, calling the former the spirit of God because it is the most life-giving element, and God is thecause of life;” and the visible light Philo declares to be the image of the invisible light, which is the image of God. In the short summary of Christ’s doctrine set forth to Nicodemus (iii. 3-21), a brief suggestion of the doctrine of the light follows on the doctrine of baptism; now the higher doctrine is to be expanded. But light implies darkness, and therefore the development of the doctrine of light connects itself naturally with the period of conflict between light and darkness, t.e., between the Word and “the Jews,”—a conflict that becomes from this time more and more prominent.

First of all, however, comes a climax of the doctrine of water, and a preparation for the doctrine of light. This section (vii. 2-40) begins with a very distinct indication, differing widely from the synoptic treatment, of the relations between the Lord and his brethren. It is possible that the Ebionite school based their low views of Christ’s nature upon traditions derived, or supposed to have been derived, from the Lord’s brethren, and that the author is here striking at a particular school of thought. Comparing Mk. iii. 21 with Mk. iii. 31, we see clearly that the mother and brethren of Jesus, alarmed perhaps for His safety, and deceived by false reports about His sanity, desired to place Him under restraint; and Matthew and Luke unite in asserting that the mother as well as the brethren desired to speak to Him, and were rejected. But there is no mention of the mother in the Fourth Gospel as ever doubting or ever alarmed concerning her Son; the brethren alone doubt, and their doubt amounts almost to an antagonistic scepticism. They do not “believe in Him,” yet they urge Him to go to “Judaeathat the disciples may see the works that Thou doest. If Thou doest these things, show Thyself to the world” (vii. 3-5). No reproof could be more severe (from the point of view with which the Fourth Gospel regards the “world”) than the reply of Jesus: “The world cannot hate you; but Me it hateth.” So imbued are the Lord’s brethren in fleshly worldliness, that the world recognizes in them that familiar darkness which it loves, because its works are dark, while it hates the convicting light. It is not surprising, after this, that Mary, who throughout this Gospel is regarded with affectionate reverence, is not committed to the guardianship of these sceptical brethren of the Lord.

The discourse itself is, as has been said, mainly preparatory. After one brief appeal to the conscience as the final test of the truth of His teaching (vii. 17), the conflict is predicted: “Why go ye about to kill Me ?” A hint of the synoptic saying “He casteth out devils through Beelzebub” is perhaps contained in the reply of the people, “Thou hast a devil;” but the author deviates from the synoptists, in the justification of the sabbath-cure, not from the “ass” or the “ox” in the pit (Lu. xiv. 5), but from the practice of circumcision on the sabbath (vii. 22, 23). The violent spirit first manifested after the cure of the impotent man (v. 16, 18) now breaks out again, and a direct attempt made by the Pharisees to arrest Him (vii. 32), frustrated by the wonder of His words (vii. 46; and compare xviii. 6), leads Jesus once more to predict that He will soon pass away from them, and finally to conclude the “doctrine of water,” by exclaiming in “the last day, the great day of the feast, . i . he that believeth in Me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water” 2 (vii. 38). The spiritual climax thus given to the doctrine of water is very striking. The well of living water, before promised to the woman of Samaria, is now not merely to spring up in the believer, as there stated (iv. 14), but it is also to flow forth from Him to others, thus preparing the way for the higher doctrine of the Spirit of fellowship which the author touches on in the next verse: “But this He spake of the Spirit, which they that believe on Him should receive” (vii. 39).

The method of the author is admirably illustrated by the dialogue between the people (vii. 41, 42): “Others said, This is the Christ, But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said that Christ cometh 1 Although the word used by Peter (∕5i)μα) is not the same as that used by the Samaritans (λJγor), yet a comparison of a great number of passages in which the “word” of Jesus (λoγos μoυ) is said to be the object of belief, and the source and province of spiritual life (ii. 22; iv. 50; v. 38, the word of God; viii. 31; viii. 37, 43, 51, 52; xii. 48; xiv. 23, 24) seems to show that the name Λoγos itself had some influence in leading the author to insist so frequently upon the “word” rather than “the works” as being the prime cause by which the incarnate Word generated faith in the souls of men. In the Fourth Gospel the plural λJγoi is only once used by Jesus of His words (xiv. 24); and there in a passage where (seemingly) it is desired to distinguish the separate from the collective ‘ ‘ words :” 'O μ¾ αγαπών με τουs λόγους μου ου τηρεΐ' καί δ λόγος ον άκούετε, οiiκ έστιν εμbs αλλά του πέμψαντός με πατρός. On the other hand, the synoptists frequently represent Jesus as speaking of “my words” and of “the word,” but never of “my word.” Note also the remarkable passage (xii. 48) where it is said that Jesus does not judge men, but that the word which He has spoken will judge them.

2 These words have caused perplexity, as not being found in any book of the Old Testament; but they are probably a corrupt reading or reminiscence of the LXX. version of Isa. xliv. 3, 4, “I will give water in the midst of drought to them that walk in a waterless land; I will place My spirit upon thy seed, and My blessings upon thy children— κal ανατελοΰσιν ωs àvà μέσου υδaτοs, &c.” The Greek words quoted above were probably separated from their context; άνατελοΰσιν was taken transitively and connected with ΰδώρ (υδhp dυaτελλειυ, Pind. Is., 6 (5) 111, being a recognized phrase for “to make water gush forth”); and àvà. μέσον was rendered “the middle parts,” εκ κοιλlas. Such corruptions of the Old Testament are readily paralleled from Barnabas and Justin, although altogether unlike the method of quoting the Scripture assigned to our Lord by the synoptists.

of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem where David was ?” It is a curious instance of the degree to which the dramatic character of the Fourth Gospel has been ignored, that even an acute commentator has inferred from this passage that John “was not aware of the birth at Bethlehem.” The fact is that the author uses these and similar errors and blind gropings of the people, the enemies, and eveu the disciples of the Lord, to enhance the majesty and insight of Him who walks above them all, high in the light of heaven, while they are creeping in the mist around His feet. He does not stop to correct these vulgar errors, for he presupposes that his readers are in the light, and able to see through them all; and it is with a frequency almost betokening enjoyment that he repeats this device over and over again, in every case holding up the error in silence to the contempt or pity of his reader, and delighting to exhibit human folly glorifying the wisdom of God. Instances of this device occur in this very chapter. “Who goeth about to kill Thee Ί ” says the ignorant multitude (vii. 20), at the very time when the arrest of Jesus is being planned by the Pharisees: “Out of Galileeariseth no prophet,” say the learned students of the law (vii. 52), so blinded by their malignity that they cannot even read the books that describe the birthplaces of Elijah and Jonah; “We have found Him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph,” says Philip, happy in the completeness of his new-fledged knowledge (i. 45), and ignorant that a time will come when he will hear from “the son of Joseph’’this humiliating rebuke, “Have I been with you so long, and hast thou not known Me, Philip 1”

Passing over the story of the woman taken in adultery as being an interpolation, we are led to that section of the Gospel which treats of the doctrine of light. The mention of the Father and the Son, as being two witnesses, bearing witness to thi Son—according to the saying of “your law” that “the testimony of two men is true” (viii. 12-17)—is a subtle use of the words of Scripture, such as we look for vainly in the teaching of Christ as preserved by the synoptists. But the connexion between the light and the truth, and between truth and freedom, and the dialogue that follows upon the genuine children of Abraham, remind us, in part, of the synoptic version of the Baptist’s teaching about the children of Abraham (Mat. iii. 8; Lu. iii. 8); in part, of the teaching of St Paul concerning the freedom of “Jerusalem which is above” (Gal. iv. 26; and compare Rom. vi. 16-20).

The climax of hatred and insult of the Jews is most appropriately expressed (viii. 48), “Say we not well that Thou art a Samaritan and hast a devil ?” and it is also appropriate to a discourse on “the Light that lighteth every man coming into the world” that the Jews should be informed that even Abraham saw that light and rejoiced. It is probable that both here and in xii. 3G we ought (in spite of the LXX. usage) to translate lκpvβη “was hid” (c∕'. Lu. xix. 42; Heb. xi. 23), and that we must suppose the intervention of some supernatural agency in a judicial retribution hiding the Light from the children of darkness who seek to destroy it.

The section on light terminates with an appropriate sign, the opening of the eyes of the blind man, who is sent to wash his eyes in the waters of a pool named Siloam. The evangelist sees a mysterious meaning in the name of the pool. As the Baptist had baptized in Aenon near to Salim, 7.c.,the “waters” near to and preparing the wayfor “peace”; and the Samaritan woman had boasted of her well of Syclιar or drunkenness, and the impotent man had been healed in Bethesda or the “house of mercy,” so now the opening of the eyes of the blind man is effected in part by the direct action of the Light of the world, but in part also by the instrumentality of water at apool named “Sent,”·— a word which may apply to an aqueduct, “missio aquarum,” or to Him whom the Jews expected as the “Sent,” i.e., the Messiah. The conclusion of the section on light (ix. 39), “For judgment I am come into this world; that they which see not might see, and that they which see might be made blind,” accords with the passage in Matthew and Luke where Christ acknowledges to the Father that it hath seemed good to Him to reveal these things to babes and to hide them from the wise and prudent (Mat. xi. 25; Lu. x. 21); and the climax appropriately introduces the Pharisees, confident in the “lamp of the law,” asking, in a tone which suggests the utter impossibility of an affirmative answer, “Are we blind also?” The answer of Jesus distinguishes two kinds of darkness in the soul—the involuntary darkness arising from inexperience of the light, and the voluntary darkness which arises from experience and rejection of the light. His answer explains the sense in which the word “hypocrite” was so often applied to the Pharisees by Jesus in the synoptists. The Pharisees were in darkness, and, like all other men, had received gleams from “the light which lighteth every man,” convicting them of their darkness, and leading them to say, “We see not,” if they had but been honest. But they persisted in saying, “We see.” Therefore, it is said to them, “Your sin remaineth” (ix. 41). These latter words, whether uttered or not by Jesus in the exact shape in which the Fourth Gospel gives them, are undoubtedly true to the spirit of His teaching; and they furnish a suitable end to the discourses on light, bringing prominently forward that “reproving” or “convincing” power of light which is one of the special attributes of that Holy Spirit to whom, step by step, the Fourth Gospel is leading us.

The metaphor of the good shepherd suggests an important difference between the Fourth Gospel and the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, viz., the absence of all allegory and almost all parable in the former. Why did the author, who rejected so many other parabolic subjects, retain only this parable of the shepherd in common with them? The answer may be, partly that it is a parable based upon the teaching of Philo, who distinguishes between mere indulgent “keepers of sheep’’and “shepherds,” somewhat in the same way in which our parable distinguishes between “hirelings”and shepherds; and he adds that the Supreme Shepherd is God, who orders all His flock of created things through the Logos, Plis first-born Son {Plantatio, <fcc., 11). In part, perhaps, the author may have felt that the synoptic picture of the shepherd “leaving the ninety and nine sheep in the wilderness” while He seeks the single wanderer, requires at least to be supplemented by the picture of Him who putteth forth His sheep, and is followed by them, so that none of them wander. But a principal reason for introducing this parable at the conclusion of the doctrine of light, and before the narration of the death of Christ, is to prepare the way for that death, by exhibiting the reason for it in a clear light. It is true that Jesus has, before now, predicted that He is to be “lifted up” (iii. 14, viii. 28) and slain (vii. 19, viii. 40); but it needs to be distinctly stated that Jesus will not only be slain, but voluntarily slain; and the motive requires to be expressed. This is explained in the synoptists by saying that He came to give His life as a ransom (λυτpov) for many (Mat. xx. 28; Mk. x. 45). But to whom was this “ransom” to be paid l ! To God or to the evil one? The question was a difficult one to answer; and the Fourth Gospel avoids, though it does not solve, an insoluble difficulty by substituting a new metaphor for that of ransom: “I am the Good Shepherd. The Good Shepherd giveth His life for the sheep.” Then, in a master-piece of delicate spiritual subtlety, while the expression “the Good Shepherd will even be slain by the wolf for the sheep’s sake”—which would have introduced all sorts of intricate difficulties—is avoided, the same thing is, by antithesis, indirectly suggested—-“But the hireling seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth.” A repetition of this statement leads to a more emphatic reiteration that the Shepherd will lay down His life of His own free will (the essence of sacrifice), “in order that He may take it again” (x. 17)—thus entirely neutralizing the suspicion (so carefully avoided above) that the Good Shepherd may be doomed to succumb to the wolf.

Two points remain to be considered in this chapter (x.). The words, “All that ever came before Me are thieves and robbers,” have naturally caused some difficulty; but it is possible that some words, such as “in comparison with Me,” are to be understood; and if the meaning was, “all previous redeemers of mankind have been, in comparison with the true Redeemer, self-interested and ambitious,” then, such language becomes compatible with the author’s point of view; and, even looked at from the synoptic side, it presents little more difficulty than the saying that John the Baptist, though the greatest of the prophets, was less than the least in the kingdom of God. But the second point is of more importance. In defending Himself (x. 35) against the charge of making Himself God, Jesus is made by the author to argue that, if the judges of Israel in the Psalms are addressed as, in a certain sense, divine and gods,—“I have said ye are gods,”— a fortiori might He Himself without blasphemy call Himself the Son of God. But, if this argument might be adopted, then it might be urged that the Son of God differed from other sons of God only in degree, or, if in anything else, only in pre-existence, and the special privilege of pre-existence has been already destroyed by the evangelist; for, in the introduction to the healing of the blind man, he has caused the disciples of Jesus to take for granted, and Jesus not to impugn, the doctrine that all men exist before birth: “Master, who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither this man nor his parents; but that the works of God should be made manifest in him” (ix. 2, 3). But if all men pre exist, and if to all men, in a certain sense, may be addressed the title of “God,” it would follow that even the Eternal Son of God, by whom the world was made, would be but the eldest among many brethren. It is scarcely possible that the evangelist intended his readers to follow out this train of thought; but it is unquestionable that in spite of the readiness to admit supernatural incidents, the author’s habit of referring all phenomena to the action of certain elements—water, spirit, light, darkness, flesh, blood, and the rest—leads him (perhaps unconsciously) into a habit of describing and perhaps even conceiving the life and work of Christ Himself as conforming itself to an unalterable law, which is none the less a law, because it isalso a will, the will of our Father. The works that He does are “prepared by the Father.” His sheep hear Him; those that are not His sheep do not hear Him. The same thought is expressed, whether the law be regarded as the fixed order of things or as the will of the Father: “No man can come unto Me except the Father which has sent Me draw him.”

Again and again He disclaims caprice, and even the exercise of an independent will: “I came down from heaven not to do Mine own will but the will of Him that sent Me” (vi. 38). Though judgment is committed to Him by the Father, yet so rigidly is His power and desire to judge restrained by facts or laws (or by whatever other name the truth may be called), that He solemnly declares that He does not really judge, it is the facts that judge. “I do not judge,” He says (xii. 47), but “the word that I have spoken shall judge him;” and even where He accepts the task of judging, He declares that He judges “as He hears” (v. 30), and “with the Father that sent Him” (viii. 16), i.e., according to truth. The same conception of the work of the Word as being (like the working of the elements) universal, continuous (v. 17), and according to law, is expressed both in the prologue to the Gospel (John i. 1-9), and in the Epistle also, where the writer declares that the commandment which he gives to the church from Christ is “no new commandment,” but an old commandment which men had had “from the beginning.”

We come nowto the last of the pre-resurrection “signs” of Jesus—the raising of Lazarus. Even those who maintain the historical accuracy of every detail of this narrative will scarcely deny that its symbolic meaning goes down, and is intended to go down, to an act far deeper and far vaster than the revivification of the brother of Mary and Martha. Remembering the teaching of Γaul (1 Cor. xv. 45) that there are two men,—the former the “living soul” or fleshly animal nature (ψvχη ζωσα), the latter the “quickening or life-giving spirit” (πνεύμα ζωοποιοvv) ; the former the first Adam, the latter the second Adam—we see at once in this miracle the second Adam raising up the first Adam from spiritual death, by imparting to him His own life. The very word used by Paul to describe the second Adam (ζωοποιειv) is used by our author to describe the prerogative of the Son—“the Son quickeneth (ζωοποιεί) whom He will” (v. 21). Other meanings may, no doubt, be conveyed beneath this central incident of the Fourth Gospel; nor is it impossible that the author, before describing how the Saviour laid down His life for mankind, wished to give the best possible proof of the spontaneousness of the action (asseverated above, x. 17, 18) by showing that He was actually the source of life to others. As a preparation for His resurrection on the third day, what could be better than that He should raise from the dead one who had been four days lying in the grave? If, also, a preparation was needed for the doctrine of the Spirit, which is soon to come before •us, the resurrection of Lazarus would serve this purpose too. For the Spirit is the source of life (ζω∏κωτατov, Philo calls it, Creation, 7); and, therefore, just as the doctrine of the living water is preceded by the miracle of the water changed into wine, and the doctriue of bread by the miracle of bread, and the doctrine of the supersession of the intermittent sabbath by the continuous loviug activity of the Father and the Son (v. 17) is preceded by the miracle of sabbathhealing vouchsafed to the man to whom the intermittent spring was useless, and the doctrine of the Light of the world is preceded by the miracle of giving light to the blind, so is it natural, and, as it were, proportionate, that the doctrine of the quickening Spirit (c∕. vi. G3, το πvεvpΛ :στε το ζωo7roLoυr) should be preceded by some miracle of quickening the dead.

The anointing and the triumphal entry into Jerusalem having been discussed above, we pass to the last discourses (xii. 20 to xvii. 26). The last discourses in the synoptists treat of the second coming of Jesus in the clouds of heaven, and of the day of judgment; the last discourses in the Fourth Gospel treat rather of the continuous and increased presence of Jesus in the hearts of the disciples, of the reproving or judgment of the world by the Holy Spirit, and generally of the function of the Spirit in the church. In other words, the Fourth Gospel exhibits in a spiritualized form that which the synoptists set forth through material imagery. The promise of the future presence of Christ had been expressed by the synoptists in the legacy of His body and blood, which Christ is described as bequeathing to His disciples. The Fourth Gospel, which omits this incident (possibly as being already sufficiently known and receiving sufficient attention), lays more stress on the presence of the Spirit as Christ’s substitute. It is important to observe that both the synoptic account of the last supper, and the last discourses in the Fourth Gospel, are founded on one and the same basis of historical fact, viz., that Christ approached death with the expressed conviction that His work would not be frustrated by it, but that He would remain for ever a living power in the hearts of His disciples. There is also, even in the Gospel of St Mark, an intimation that His disciples were to be aided by a “Holy Spirit,” which should speak for them before princes and kings: “And when they lead you away, betraying you, take no forethought what ye shall speak, neither rehearse it; but whatsoever shall be given to you in that hour, this speak: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Spirit ” (Mk. xiii. 11). To the same effect Jesus speaks in the parallel passage of Luke (xxi. 14,15), bidding His disciples not to rehearse their defence (προ/ζελετάμ ΰττολογί/^ναι), for He will give them “a mouth and wisdom,” which their adversaries shall not be able to gainsay. Thus, even from our earliest Gospel, it would seem that to those unlettered Galilean peasants, diffident (as Moses had been before them) of the sufficiency of their rhetoric to plead their cause before the bar of the great ones of the earth, a promise had been made of a “mouth” that should plead for them. The Holy Spirit was to be their Advocate. It is not likely that Jesus should have uttered these two expressions (quoted above) and no more, about the Spirit which was to be His substitute. Therefore, if the author of the Fourth Gospel had access to any apostolic sayings and traditions that illustrated the teaching of Christ during the last two or three days before His death, we might naturally expect to find in these traditions something more about the Spirit which was to be the Advocate of the disciples when pleading without their Master before the sanhedrin, and before princes and kings. Accordingly, finding in the last discourses of the Fourth Gospel an ampler doctrine on this subject, we have no ground, a priori, for regarding it with suspicion. True, the doctrine is set forth here, as elsewhere, in the peculiar language of the writer, so that we are absolutely certain that we have not the exact words uttered by Jesus; but this need not hinder us from accepting the thoughts as the thoughts of Jesus, if we can throughout trace the synoptic doctrine. In the synoptists Jesus predicts that He will “rise again obviously the letter of this prediction, though important, implies a still more important spiritual meaning beneath it. For this prediction would not have been satisfied by any amount of literal fulfilment if Jesus had merely walked from His grave and exhibited Himself alive, by tangible as well as ocular proof, to thousands of curious observers, hostile as well as friendly, unless He had at the same time poured a new influence or influent spirit into the hearts of those to whom He manifested Himself. It is characteristic of our evangelist that he realized (1) that the essence of the resurrection of Christ consists in His spiritual resurrection and intensified presence in the hearts of His disciples; (2) that this resurrection, triumphing over death, and making death the stepping-stone to a more active life, is as much in accordance with law, as is the growth of the corn of wheat which (xii. 24), “except it fall into the ground and die, abideth alone; but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.” This law—illustrated daily by the increased influence of the dead upon the living, no less than by the fruitful death of the “corn of wheat ”—a law so simple and yet so profound, like all the other laws enunciated by Jesus, can hardly have proceeded from any other than from Jesus Himself. The spiritual depth of the doctrine, and the similarity which it bears to the synoptic prediction (in spite of the difference of outward form), furnish strong arguments that, in the last discourses of the Fourth Gospel, we have much of our Lord’s own teaching, though modified by the medium through which it is conveyed to us.

The doctrine of the Spirit, regarded not now as the purifying element in conjunction with water, but as the Advocate or Paraclete—being the highest and most esoteric doctrine of all—is reserved for the inner circle of His disciples. First, therefore, it is necessary to bring to an end the doctrine of Jesus to the outside world; and the battle between light and darkness, between Jesus and the Pharisees, ends with a recapitulation and conclusion of the doctrine of light. The Gentile world, appearing on the stage in the person of some inquiring Greeks, stretches out her hand to the Messiah (xii. 20); a voice from heaven attests His glory (xii. 28). The Son of God pronounces the fall of the evil one, and, almost in the same word, His own victorious death (xii. 31, 32). Then the light is hidden from the rebellious nation (xii. 36); the evangelist pronounces against them the sentence of condemnation, that they are blinded because they loved darkness more than light, and the praise of men more than the praise of God; and for the last time the voice of Jesus is heard, as it were from behind a cloud, warning those whom He has left in darkness that in rejecting Him they have rejected the Father also (xii. 37-50).

The esoteric doctrine begins with a parable of action, in which the Lord, by washing the feet of His disciples, teaches them humility. Two classes of heretics seem aimed at in this parable,—those who reject the washing of Jesus, to whom Jesus replies, “If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with Me;” and those who laid stress on repeated baptisms or purifications, “He that is (wholly) washed (λ∈λoυ j α∈voς) needeth not save to wash (√7rτeιv) his feet.” Now Judas, the child of darkness, goes forth from the chamber, and the evangelist seizes the moment to tell us that “it was night” (xiii. 30). Yet in this hour of darkness the hour of glorification is hailed by Jesus; and He conveys to His disciples, not indeed a new testament, but a new commandment, “that ye love one another ”,(ver. 34). How could this be called a new commandment for those who had been commanded long ago by Jesus to love even their enemies, much more their friends'? The answer is found in the context: “As I have loved you, that ye also love one another,” the meaning being, that after the death of Jesus, the memory of His love, enhanced in His absence, would spring up as an entirely new power within their hearts, so that “love” would assume a new meaning, and the command to love—though as old as the first influence of the Word, and therefore as the creation of man—would become essentially a new commandment. These words occur almost verbatim in the First Epistle of John (ii. 7), and, from their language, they can hardly be accepted as giving the letter of the words of Jesus; but they go down to the very roots of His teaching. The importance here attached to this new commandment of love leads us to observe that, throughout the whole of these discourses, love, almost as much as the Spirit, occupies the thoughts; and, indeed, in chapters xiii., xiv., XV , and xvii., the word αγαπάν occurs 24 times, against 10 times in all the rest of the Gospel. The connexion is obvious: step by step we are being led up to God; and God is love. The doctrine of the Spirit can reveal no higher manifestation of Him than this; and the Spirit itself is a Spirit of love, which will find its home only in the hearts of those that love.

Although Jesus has not expressly predicted His death, yet the warnings of betrayal and departure have troubled the hearts of His disciple3. To comfort them Jesus promises that He will return, and be still present with them. But neither is the path of His departure and return, nor is His presence itself—so He warns Thomas and Philip—to be regarded as material. He will (spiritually) be more present with them, when, and because, He will be (materially) absent. Greater works will they do than He has done, because He, abiding with the Father above, will lift up their hearts to heaven—their home henceforth because their treasure, Christ, is there—and will make them one with Himself and with the Father, in will and in power. And here is repeated the saying, also found in the synoptists, that whatsoever the disciples pray for they shall obtain,— joined with the assurance that they shall do greater works (tpγα) than He Himself does (xiv. 12). Note here that our evangelist brings out more clearly than the synoptists the spiritual meaning of the promise concerning prayer, and makes it evident that, as above, the works (∈pγα) meant are not “miracles” (Swàjueiç),—not the casting of a material mountain into the sea, as might be inferred from a misinterpretation of the synoptists,—but the Messianic “works” of forgiveness and regeneration.

The nature of Christ’s future presence in the hearts of His disciples is differently described in different passages. At one time (xiv. 30) He declares that He Himself, together with the Father, will take up His abode in every heart that loves Him; but more often He uses the word used by Mark above, and speaks of a Spirit which shall be sent to them by the Father. He applies to the Spirit the very title we have been led to apply to the Spirit as described by Mark— the Advocate (Παράκλητο?, or Advocatus). As a paracletus or advocatus was wont to explain the law to Greek or

Roman clients, and to put words into their mouths, or rather to be himself their spokesman, so the spiritual Paraclete or Advocate would not only put words into the mouths of the disciples when they stood before the bar of kings (Mk. xiii. 11), but would also teach them all things, and bring to their remembrance all the spiritual laws laid down by their lawgiver Christ (xiv. 26). In one sense, the Spirit is a witness, .because He testifies of Christ (xv. 26); but even here He is in reality an advocate, for the testimony is regarded as not uttered by the Spirit directly, but indirectly through the mouths of the inspired disciples who are to be “martyrs” or witnesses (paρτvρeς) for Christ (xv. 27). It was very natural that that aspect of the advocate’s work which most impressed the editor of our earliest Gospel should retire into the background when the first brunt of the collision between the church and the world was over; and that gradually the work of the advocate should assume a wider province than that of merely educating the disciples to plead the cause of Christ in the presence of Gentile judges. Hence Paul regards the Spirit as teaching the disciples not so much what to say in their defence before, earthly kings as rather in their prayers before the King of Kings: “We know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered” (Rom. viii. 26); “The Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God, .... which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Spirit teacheth” (1 Cor. ii. 10-13). But this conception, carried a stage further, makes the paraclete an advocate not revealing the laws of the celestial kingdom to the enfranchised citizen of it, nor yet revealing the will of the Father in heaven to the child on earth, but rather pleading the cause of the child before the offended Father; and in this sense Philo seems to use the word when he describes the high priest as clothed in the garb which is typical of the invisible universe, i.e., typical of the Logos or Son of the Supreme Father of the world—because it was necessary for the priest consecrated to the Father of the world that he should have as his paraclete the Son, in order (through Him) to obtain pardon of sins and supply of blessings {Life of Moses, 14); and he also introduces Joseph (ch. 40) saying to his brethren, “I forgive you; seek no other paraclete,” i.e., no one to act between me and you as your advocate; and lastly, in this sense, the First Epistle of John (i. 1, 2) seems to use the word in the passage, “If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He is the propitiation for our sins.” But though our evangelist uses the word in this somewhat lower sense in the Epistle, in the Gospel he nowhere uses it thus. Thêre the Paraclete’s function is to be, as in Luke, “a mouth, a wisdom” (Lu. xxi. 15); to be a substitute for the helping presence of Christ (xiv. 16); to teach and remind (xiv. 26); to testify and to aid the disciple to testify (xv. 26); and to convict the world of sin (xvi. 8);—but nowhere to obtain forgiveness of sins from the Father by pleading the cause of the disciples in His presence. It is not an unreasonable inference that the evangelist’s different use of this word in the Gospel and the Epistle may have arisen from the fact that in the former he is adhering more closely to the original use of it as handed down by Christ Himself.

Besides describing the work of the Paraclete as a consequence of the departure of the Son to the Father, the discourse touches upon the enmity which the disciples must be prepared to meet, and enforces the necessity of unity through love. Only in two points does the thought seem to suggest the influence of Philo; and in both of these Philo is rather corrected than followed. Philo says (Giants, 7) that it is impossible that the Spirit of God should remain for ever in the soul (though it may for a time) because of our inseparable connexion with the flesh; lie adds (in language which is at least liable to the interpretation of asceticism) that, as Moses fixed his tent outside the camp, so those who would have the Divine Spirit as a permanent tenant of their souls must put off all the things of creation; the safest course being to contemplate God, not even through the uttered word, but without utterance, as absolute, indivisible existence (ib. 11, 12); with the mass of mankind the Spirit remains only for a moment, nor would it ever have visited them but to convict (δι∈λ∈γ^αι) them of choosing what is disgraceful instead of what is good (ιb. 5). The Fourth Gospel emphasizes no less the work of the Spirit in “convicting” (∈λeγχ∈ιv) the world of sin; but it is also careful to say that the gift of the Spirit shall be permanent, “not as the world giveth give I unto you” (xiv. 27), and that the disciples are to remain in Jesus, while nevertheless not taken out of the world (xvii. 15). The Saviour is no more in the world, and the disciples are in the world (xvii. 11); yet He will not pray that they should be removed from the world, but only that they should be delivered from the evil (ver. 15). The discourse concludes with the prayer that all future believers may be knit together into one great body, which shall be in the Father and the Son. while at the same time the Father and the Son are in it (ver. 21, 23); and the last words of all, after innumerable periphrastic metaphors to describe the promised presence of Christ with His disciples, recur at last to the plain expression of His presence, “and I in you ”—not greatly differing from the promise in the First Gospel (Mat. xxviii. 20), “I am with you always.”

There is doubtless a purpose in this accumulation of •obviously inconsistent statements of the local relations between the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and the Church: “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me;” “Ye in Me, and I in you;” “I go unto the Father;” “The Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in My name;” “The Comforter whom I will send unto you from the Father;” “I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world —the intention being to prevent the mind of the reader from attaching any importance to mere local relations between the Three Persons, and to force him to form spiritual conceptions instead of local by showing that the most opposite local relations may be simultaneously predicated. Thus contradiction after contradiction leads the reader at last to pierce beneath the literal integuments to the spiritual truth concealed below them; and, aided by the bold analogy (xvii. 21) derived from human unity (“that they all may be one; as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in us”), we are led at last to discern that the unity is not that of place, but of will; and that the bond of unity is not sight working through material presence in material light, but Love working through spiritual sight or the spirit of truth, independently of material presence. And so, after all, the evangelist leads his reader to see that the coming of the Paraclete (like all things else in his Gospel) is according to law; “If I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you” (xvi. 7); “The Holy Spirit was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified” (vii. 39). Not until the dead has passed away from us does the “idea of his life” creep into our minds—

“Apparelled in more precious habit,

More moving-delicate and full of life

Than when He lived indeed and the Eternal Word, who subjected Himself to the laws of human nature in birth and life, may be supposed without irreverence to have subjected Himself to, or perhaps rather we should say to have availed Himself of, the same laws of human nature which regulate God’s ordinance of death.

The crucifixion having been considered above, we pass to the narrative of the resurrection. Matthew and Mark imply that Jesus manifested Himself to the disciples in Galilee; Luke mentions none but manifestations in Judaea; the Fourth Gospel mentions manifestations in both places. Compared with Matthew and Luke, the Fourth Gospel may be said to handle the subject more familiarly, taking the resurrection, so to speak, more as a matter of course, and representing Jesus as moving in a more human fashion among His disciples after He had risen from the grave, helping them in their fishing, holding long conversations with them, and, in a word, renewing almost without a break the intercourse of the days before the crucifixion. In Matthew, the Christ after death appears once, upon a mountain, doubtfully discerned by some, and emits one final message, sending His disciples to evangelize the world, and promising them His perpetual presence. In Luke the risen Christ “vanishes,” causes fear and terror to His disciples, and is supposed to be a “spirit” till He eats food in their presence; finally He is “parted from them.” In John, the ascension, though alluded to, is not described; and everything else that might give the manifestation a phantasmal character is studiously kept in the background. No mention is made of the angel who descends (Mat. xxviii. 2) from heaven to roll away the stone from the sepulchre, terrifying the keepers of the grave, and bidding the women “fear not.” It is rather assumed that, by His own unaided strength, Christ burst the bars of the grave, and after leisurely laying aside the grave-clothes, and the “napkin in a place by itself” (John xx. 7), went forth to converse with His disciples. It is true that the Fourth Gospel does not attempt to conceal the fact that the manifestations of Jesus were more than once not recognized by His disciples at first; but, in the cases of non-recognition, it is suggested (as in Luke), not that the manifestation was faint or shadowy (as seemingly in Mat. xxviii. 17, “And when they saw Him, they worshipped Him; but some doubted”), but that they mistook Him for a stranger (xx. 14; xxi. 4). That Jesus ate in the presence of His disciples is not stated, nor can it be said to be implied; but His familiar presence at the meal of the disciples (xxi. 13) suggests a real presence almost as effectively as the narrative of the eating of the fish and honeycomb in Luke. Additional conviction is also obtained by taking one of the apostles, Thomas, as a type of resolute scepticism, refusing to believe unless he touches the body of the risen Saviour, and by describing how even such scepticism as this was converted into certainty. Moreover, as the water and the blood were visibly given by Jesus on the cross, so—lest the giving up of the breath on the cross should be a scarcely sufficiently noticeable type of the gift of the holy breath or Spirit—

our evangelist records that Jesus breathed on His disciples and said, “Receive ye the holy breath” (or Spirit)—at the same time connecting with this highest gift the highest activity for which a human soul can be inspired by God, the faculty of forgiving sins. It is probable that the Gospel originally ended at xx. 31: “But these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through His name.” This is a most appropriate termination; and what follows bears every appearance of being an appendix added by the author, describing a miraculous draught of 153 fishes, and a meal of Jesus with seven of the disciples, followed by a dialogue between Jesus and Peter, in which the death of the latter is predicted, and the erroneous tradition that the beloved disciple should not die is shown to be baseless.

Three inferences seem probable from this last narrative :— (1) that there had been at Ephesus a tradition (arising perhaps from the extreme old age of John and from some such expression as is recorded in John xxi. 22) that John would not die till the Lord had appeared; (2) that John had died when this account was written (for if he were living and past his ninetieth year, at a time when the church daily expected the coming of the Lord, the Ephesian Christians would not have needed any explanation or softening away of a prediction which would seem to them very likely to be fulfilled); but (3) if John was dead, it must seem that the words “we know” could not have been added (as they might be supposed to have been added, according to the Muratorian legend) by Andrew and Philip, who in all probability died before John died; and if John was dead, it must seem that the words would not have been added by any elders of Ephesus representing the generation after John; for how could they—who stood on a footing altogether subordinate and inferior in point of reputation, and with no opportunities of information— have ventured to ratify the testimony of the “beloved disciple?”

It is more easy to arrive at negative than at positive results, when evidence is so slight; but it seems probable that the author, attempting to give the spiritual essence of the gospel of Christ, as a gospel of love, and assigning the Ephesian Gospel to the beloved disciple who had presided over the Ephesian church, by way of honour and respect (for the same reasons which induced the author of the 2d Epistle of Peter to assign that Epistle to the leading apostle), and being at the same time conscious that the book (though representing the Ephesian doctrine generally, and in part the traditions of John the apostle, as well as those of Andrew, Philip, Aristion, and John the elder) did not represent the exact words and teaching of the disciple—added the words “We know, &c.,’’partly as a kind of imprimatur of Andrew, Philip, and the rest; partly in order to imply that other traditions besides those of John are set forth in the book; partly to characterize the book as a Gospel of broader basis and greater authority than the less spiritual traditions issuing from non-apostolic authors, which our evangelist desired to correct or supplement. Nor is it in the least unlikely that this Gospel does represent the teaching of Andrew and Philip, and Aristion and John the elder, as well as that of John. If Papias of Hierapolis gathered up the traditions of these apostles and elders, why not also our author, writing in Ephesus perhaps several years before Papias? It is assuredly not for nothing that the name of “Matthew,” mentioned in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, is not found in the Fourth Gospel; noris it without significance that the Gospel begins and ends with an inner apostolic circle. The “twelve” are indeed mentioned, but as in the background. The beloved disciple, Andrew and Peter, Γhilip and Nathanael,—these, and these only, are mentioned as called by Jesus in the beginning; Peter and Thomas, Nathanael and the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples (presumably the same list as those above, with the addition of James, the son of Zebedee, and Thomas), are mentioned as alone admitted to the sacred meal which closes the Gospel. This fact marks the whole character of the book; it is esoteric and eclectic, and designedly modifies the impression produced by the tradition previously recorded by the synoptics.

The criticism of the first three Gospels.— For fourteen centuries the church was content to follow Augustine {f)c Consensu Evangelistarum, i. 4) in believing that Mark was “as it were the humble companion (pedissequus) and abridger” of Matthew. Towards the end of the 18th century this dogma was shaken, and two different hypotheses were put forward: (1) that the evangelists had borrowed from one another, either Matthew from Mark, or Mark from Luke, or even (so capricious and baseless were the hypotheses which now started into existence) Matthew and Mark from Luke; (2) that all the three Gospels depended upon an original and common Gospel. The first of these hypotheses may for convenience be called the “borrowing” hypothesis; the second may be called the “traditional” hypothesis. Eichhorn was the first to systematize the “traditional” hypothesis, maintaining (1794) that the original tradition was a written Aramaic Gospel, known to the three synoptists, but afterwards (1804) so far modifying his views as to recognize that the Aramaic tradition had been translated into Greek, and passed through several documentary stages, before it assumed the form preserved in the triple version of our synoptists.

Inside the circle of those who maintained the traditional hypothesis there now arose inner divisions upon the question, which evangelist most closely approximated to the “original” tradition. Eichhorn had assigned (1804) the priority to Matthew, Gιatz (1812) to Mark. Moreover, a new form of the hypothesis was shaped out by Schleiermacher (1817), who maintained that our Gospels were composed on the basis of a number of disconnected documents; while Gieseler (1818) showed that it must have been, in any case, oral tradition which served the needs of the earliest disciples,— tradition stereotyped by time, and reduced to some kind of similar pattern before being committed to writing by the synoptists. Still no certain conclusions wtre arrived at. De Wette (beginning from 1826) assumed a common oral tradition for Matthew and Luke, and treated Mark as an epitomizer. Credner (1836) joined Schleiermacher in tracing our Gospels back to a collection of words of the Lord, which he supposed Matthew to have combined with the oldest Gospel, viz., Mark; similarly Lachmann (1835). Bleek (1862-1866) relapsed into Griesbach's view (1784-1790) that Mark was based on Matthew’ and Luke.

All these conflicting hypotheses might naturally induce those who had not themselves closely studied the synoptic texts to believe that the truth of the matter was unattainable, and that, in any case, the synoptic narratives (not being the records of eye-witnesses, nor being preserved in unaltered documents written contemporaneously with or soon after the events) must necessarily be untrustworthy. Accordingly, in 1835, Strauss maintained that the whole synoptic narrative was legendary or otherwise untrustworthy. The defenders of the synoptists against Strauss found little consideration, and the hypothesis that Mark contained the original Gospel was discredited by the extravagance of its supporters. In 1846-7 Schwegler and Baur, recurring to the “borrowing hypothesis,” issued it in a new form as an “adapting hypothesis.’ The original Gospel was now supposed to be the Gospel of the Hebrews (seep. 818 above), which was imagined to contain in all its bare truthfulness the Ebionite doctrine of the early church. Matthew combined this original Jewish-minded document with some other document of more liberal sentiments. Luke was at first a Pauline protest against Judaism, but was afterwards supplemented, in a conciliatory spirit, with passages coloured with Ebionitic and Jewish thought; Mark was treated as a neutral and colourless adapter of Matthew and Luke,—“pedissequus et breviator.” This was the Tübingen doctrine, sometimes called the “tendency hypothesis,” because the adaptations were supposed to proceed from theological “tendencies.”

Ewald (beginning from 1849) combated the Tübingen theory, maintaining that (1) there was an original Gospel, perhaps composed by the evangelist Philip; (2) in addition to this, there was a collection of “logia” made by Matthew; (3) and, out of both these documents, or by an author acquainted with these documents, was formed Mark, or, at all events, Mark in its original shape; (41 Matthew contains (1) (2) and (3), together with extracts from a “book of higher history”; (5) three anonymous evangelists revived this narrative, which received its last form at the hands of Luke (see the account of Ewald's theory in Westcott’s Gospels, p. 203). From this time the compilatory and artistic character of Luke began to be generally recognized; and even the Tubingen school gave up the theory that Mark had adapted Luke. Hilgenfeld, “in a five years’ literary struggle with Baur” (see Holtzmann, in Schenkel’s Bibcl-Lexicon, art. “Evangelien”), proved Mark’s independence. Kostlin (1853) advocated an original Mark as the groundwork of the synoptists; together with a “Gospel of Peter” as the basis for the parts common to Matthew and Luke. Ritschl (1851), recanting his former opposition, and Meyer (1853) became converted to the belief in an “original Mark.” Volkmar (1857) and a number of other theologians took the same view; Weiss (1861) advocated a parity of originality, or rather a common original source, from which Matthew and Mark borrowed equally, while occasionally Matthew borrowed from Mark itself. But the work which most approximates to a proof of the originality of the tradition contained in Mark is Holtzmann’s Die Synoptischen Evangelien, &c., 1863, from whose summary of the criticism of the first three Gospels (SchenkeΓs Bibel- Lexicon, “Evangelien”) these statements are mainly drawn. The author of Jesus of Nazara, Dr Keim, of whom, for the sake of that interesting work, we would speak with all respect, was almost alone in defying, in his last work (p. vii. Aus dem Urchristenthum, 1878), the “mane-shaking of the Mark lion;” but even he, with qualification (ib. p. 30).

The work of Dr Holtzmann last referred to is of great value; and so are Dr Weiss’s Marcusevangelium (1872) and MaUhauscvangelivιm (1876); but it is truly lamentable that nearly a century has passed in the accomplishment of so little. The reason is perhaps to be looked for (1) in the amount of personality which has been introduced into discussions of this kind; (2) in the haste, with which theories have been erected upon the basis of single causes; (3) in the general absence of attempt to classify and concentrate evidence; (4) in the failure to recognize the distinction between probabilities and certainties, and the amount of labour necessary to attain certainty; (5) most of all, in the absence of mechanical helps. It is probable that the publication of Bruder’s Concordance in the middle of this century has done more than all the rest of the hypothesis inventors, from Augustine to Hitzig, to forward the scientific study of the synoptic Gospels; nor could Dr Holtzmann’s valuable work have been written but for the humble assistance of Bruder. It is lamentable to think how much industry, ink, and paper, and occasionally intellect as well, might have been saved if there had been in common circulation from the beginning of this century, along with Bruder, a harmony of the Gospels, printed after the manner suggested above (p. 790), from which any one, almost without knowing Greek at all, could have seen at a glance that the “pedissequus” theory of Mark was not for a moment tenable, and·.that Mark contains— by no means, necessarily, is— the original tradition from which, at least in some places, Matthew and Luke independently borrowed.

There are signs that a similar waste of industry is to be apprehended in the further discussion of the question whether the common tradition is derived from oral or documentary sources. When, for example, we find so able a critic as Dr Holtzmann (Schenkel, “Evangelien,” p. 210) laying stress on the irregular form aπeκaτeστaθη occurring in the same place in all the three synoptists (Mat. xii. 13; Mk. iii. 5; Lu. vi. 10) as a convincing proof that the copying of documents (and not oral tradition) can alone explain so strange a similarity, we naturally suppose that this irregularity is nowhere else found in the Old or New Testament. But so far is this from being the case that the irregular form may be with greater truth said to be the only form current in the Old and New Testament, occurring not only in the three passages above, but also in Mk. viii. 25 {aπeκaτeστη)∙, in Jerem. xxiii. 8; in Exod. iv. 7; in var. interpret. Gem xxiii. 16 [Trommius quotes 3 (1) Esdr. i. 36 (?33), but Tischendorf reads άπΐσ-τησΐν] ; and the only passage in which the regular form is found, Gen. xl. 21, contains a var. lect. aπeκaτlστησev, which, no doubt, ought to be inserted in the text. This may serve as an example to show how ultimately circuitous the path must be through these attempted short cuts to certainty. The truth is that the question of oral or documentary sources is not to be settled without a great deal more of labour and of judgment than the subject has hitherto received. For a statement of the oral hypothesis, which is generally adopted by English scholars, the reader is referred to Westcott’s Introduction to the Gospels, pp. 161-208. It has been pointed out, however, by Dr Sanday {Academy, Sept. 21, 1878) that there has been of late an increasing tendency in the three theories— the Tübingen or adaptation theory, the documentary Mark theory, the oral tradition theory—to approximate to each other; so that the tendency theory lias given less weight to dogmatic tendencies and more weight to literary considerations. The documentary Mark theory allows the previous influence of tradition, only stipulating for some lost documentary links between the oral tradition and our Mark; while the oral theory approaches to the documentary Mark theory in assuming that the oral Gospel is represented most nearly by our present Mark. Nevertheless, says Dr Sanday, between the two last theories (for the Tübingen theory may be left out of account) “the struggle has yet to come. The division between these is almost national. In Germany no one of any significance as a critic holds the oral theory. In England none of our prominent writers hold anything else. France is divided. Godet ranges himself on the side most popular in England. Réville was an early supporter of a view similar to that which is gaining the ascendency in Germany; and the same is substantially adopted by Μ. Renan.”

It is greatly to be desired that, in this “struggle,” the disputants may illustrate the subject in a somewhat ampler manner than has been hitherto common. Different versions of the same original—tales, histories, ballads—transmitted through documentary and oral sources should be compared together; and more especially the phenomena of the ante-Jeromc versions of the New Testament should receive the most careful study, before even the ablest commentator should allow himself to use the dogmatic tone which unfortunately characterizes Dr Weiss’s Matthausevangclium in deciding against the oral theory. But this is a natural characteristic of an author who sees in a single ' ∖ eρoυσaKhμ convincing proof of an Aramaic original (see p. 805 above), and to whom a κa ∖ iδoυ settles all critical disputes. With this dogmatism the tone of Canon Westcott’s remarks on the oral Gospel contrasts advantageously. Nevertheless, it will probably be hereafter found that the phenomena of our present synoptists are due not to one, but to all, of the causes advocated by the various disputants of the 18th century. Tradition, documents, theological tendencies, literary modifications, misunderstanding of metaphorical parable, misunderstanding of eucharistie language, misunderstanding of spiritual language—all these causes will be found to have contributed to produce the present synoptic result; and it will not improbably be found, as Dr Sanday shrewdly suggests, that early documents have been much more modified, and early oral traditions much less modified, than modern associations might have led us to suppose. Future investigations will receive a considerable stimulus and help, as soon as a harmony of the synoptists showing the Triple Tradition as well as the double traditions (pp. 795-800 above) becomes a recognized text-book for all students of the Gospels. It will also be a useful check, if no demonstration of different documents (in Luke, for example) be recognized as sound until it has been tested by application to other authors. For example, the proof from καί, δε, τε, eιπe, λiγeι, λάλε?, Ιερουσαλήμ, κiριos, ενώπιον, ebθis, καϊ iS ον, is by no means to be despised; but it requires expression in a clea ^ picturesque way by the well-known means of curves; and no proof of this kind ought to be accepted until it (or corresponding proof) has been applied,—first (a) negatively, to several passages recognized as genuine productions of the same author (Plato, for example), and then (5), positively, to several passages, some of which are recognized as genuine,others as spurious. In the first case (a) the curves will exhibit no fluctuations; in the second (δ) the curves will exhibit fluctuations corresponding to the fluctuations in Luke; and this will be a strong and clearly intelligible proof (even to those who know no Greek—for the same illustrative proof might be deduced from the application of the test to Titus Andronicus and to Hamlet) that the fluctuations of the curves are caused in each case by the incoming of different documentary strata. But perhaps, to do this thoroughly, it would be necessary to do it four or five times over for each of the four or five principal ancient MSS. (nor ought, perhaps, even varieties of spelling, and certainly not varieties of form, such as ήκθαν, &c., to be neglected, as possibly pointing to the incoming of different documents); and the labour is so great that, even with the avoidance of all broaching of hasty theories and all personalities, a single worker could hardly accomplish it with the devotion of a life,—at least that is the conclusion to which the present writer has been forced after devoting some years to this labour. Yet, in any case, one signal advantage will result from our keeping before ourselves a high standard of demonstration, viz., that, although we may bring forward theories for discussion, we shall draw a very distinct line between what is proved and not proved, and shall shrink with a just horror from short cuts to knowledge.

The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel.— No criticism of a systematic kind, says Dr Holtzmann (Schenkel’s Bibel- Lexicon), began till the publication of Bretschneider’s Probabilia (1820), which provoked so much opposition that the author retracted it. The apostolic authorship was supported by Schleiermacher, and by Credner (1836), even while admitting that the Gospel could not be regarded as a purely objective work. Similarly De Wette, after some doubt and hesitation (1837), and Reuss (1840-64) decided for the Johannine authorship,—the former being influenced by a comparison of the Fourth Gospel with the other works of the 2d century. The attack of Strauss, in his Life of Jesus, being passed over (as indicating no attempt, or possibly ability, to appreciate the depth of the spiritual doctrine in the Fourth Gospel, in spite of the suggestiveness and occasional accuracy of his method), we come to Baur (1847), who pronounced the Gospel to be a religious ideal poem, composed in the 2d century. A great number of writers accepted, this theory; among them, Zeller and Hilgenfeld, and Schenkel and Keim in their lives of Christ, together with Béville (1864) and Scholten. In the meantime an hypothesis of ‘ ‘ partial authorship” had been suggested, some (Weisse in 1838, and Freytag in 1861) believing that the discourses, others, as Renan (1863), believing that the historical naιτatives, were genuine; while some wished to detach the Judaean from the Galilean portier of the Gospel, as being distinct in authorship and origin. Lücke, Ewald, Brückner, and Wittichen, adopting in various forms the view of a divided authorship,-recognized in the Gospel a framework of historical fact, but noted also the prominence of the ideal, the want of historical development, and the subjective colouring given by the author to the discourses of Christ— views which find a full expression in Weizsäcker’s Untersuchungen uber die evangelische Geschichte (1864). Canon Westcott, in his Introduction to the Gospels (5thed,, 1875), maintains apostolic authorship, which is also in a special treatise {Authorship and Historical Character of the Fourth Gospel, 1872) maintained by Dr Sanday. The latter work lays perhaps somewhat too much emphasis on the geographical expressions which are used to prove that the author was a Jew of Palestine. Many of these would appear natural for an Alexandrian Jew who had spent two or three passovers at Jerusalem, and had travelled through the country. Still more doubtful is the canon assumed throughout the treatise, that graphic details, particularities of name, place, &c., imply an eye-witness—the contrary being suggested by the phenomena of the apocryphal Gospels. Nor does Dr Sanday make any attempt to illustrate the Fourth Gospel (except in respect of the Logos doctrine) by the teaching of Philo. Nevertheless the book is eminently candid, and there is no other book in English to compare with it for the light it throws, not only on the Fourth Gospel itself, but also on the history of its criticism. Dr Sanday also recognizes, even more fully than Canon Westcott, the subjective nature of the Gospel, at least so far as to make this admission, that the words of Jesus himself and the words of the evangelist are, in more than one instance, so inextricably intermixed that it is impossible to tell where the former end and the latter begin. In the Introduction to the Gospel of St John, published (1879) in the Speaker's Commentary, Canon Westcott has greatly amplified the valuable remarks on the Fourth Gospel contained in his Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, and states most forcibly the views of those who see in the multiplicity of detail in the Fourth Gospel one among many proofs that the Gospel was composed by an eye-witness of the events which it records. For the doctrine of the Logos Canon Westcott gives the following list:— Gfroerer, Philo u. d. Jud. -Alex. Theosophie, 1835; Daehne, Jud.· Alex. Religions- Philosophie, 1834; Dorner, Person of Christ (Eng. trans.); Jowett’s “St Paul and Philo” {Epistles of St Paul, § 363 ff.); Heinze, Die Lehre v. Logos in Gricch. Philosophic, 1872; Siegfried, Philojvon Alexandria, 1875. Grossmann {Qιιcestiones Philoneae, 1829) gives a complete summary of the use of the word in Philo. An account of the Logos literature up to 1870 is given by Dr Abbot in his appendix to the article on “The Word” in the American edition of the Dictionary of the Bible, and Soulier includes several later works in La, doctrine du Logos chez Philon d’Alexandrie, Turin, 1876.