3-7 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of tliis bool< is in 
 tlie Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029338872 
 
The Oxford Library 
 
 of 
 Practical Theology 
 
 EDITED BY THE 
 REV. W. C. E. NEWBOLT, M.A. 
 
 CANOir AND CHANCELLOB OF S. PATTL'S 
 AND THE 
 
 REV. DARWELL STONE, D.D. 
 
 PRINCIPAL OF PirSBr HOUSE, OXFORD 
 
BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 
 
 THE ATONEMENT. Crown Svo. 5s. 
 
 (The Oxford Library.) 
 
 THE HISTORY OF THE BOOK OF COMMON FRATER. 
 Crown Svo. 5s. ( The Oxford Libra/ry. ) 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN TRADITION. Crown Svo. 5b. 
 
 (The Oxford Libra/ry.) 
 *^* This booh contains an account of the origin of 
 Episcopacy, the three Creeds, the Ancient Western 
 Liturgies and other institutions of the Ghwrch. Special 
 attention is also given to the early history of /Sacra- 
 mental Confession and to the principle of Authority 
 in the Church of England. 
 
 LECTURES ON RELIGION. Crown Svo. 6s. 
 
 LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. 
 
 LONDON, NEW YOBK, BOMBAY, AND CALCUTTA. 
 
THE GOSPELS 
 
 BY THE REV. 
 LEIGHTON PULLAN 
 
 Fellow and Tutor of S. John Baptist's 
 College, Oxford 
 
 LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. 
 
 39 Paternoster Row : London 
 
 New York, Bombay, and Calcutta 
 
 1912 
 
 All rights reserved 
 
 5 
 
I I 
 
EDITORS',' PREFACE 
 
 The object of the Oxford Library of Practical Theo- 
 logy is to supply some carefully considered teaching 
 on matters of Religion to that large body of devout 
 laymen who desire instruction, but are not attracted 
 by the learned treatises which appeal to the theo- 
 logian. One of the needs of the time would seem 
 to be, to translate the solid theological learning, 
 of which there is no lack, into the vernacular of 
 everyday practical religion; and while steering a 
 course between what is called plain teaching on 
 the one hand and erudition on the other, to supply 
 some sound and readable instruction to those who 
 require it, on the subjects included under the common 
 title 'The Christian Religion,' that they may be 
 ready always to give an answer to every man that 
 asketh them a reason of the hope that is in them, 
 with meekness and fear. 
 
 The Editors, while not holding themselves pre- 
 cluded from suggesting criticisms, have regarded their 
 proper task as that of editing, and accordingly they 
 have not interfered with the responsibility of each 
 writer for his treatment of his own subject. 
 
 W. C. E. N. 
 
 D. S. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 This book has been largely based upon some informal 
 instruction which I have given to my pupils in Oxford 
 But I have endeavoured to make every chapter intelli- 
 gible to readers who are unacquainted with Greek, the 
 welcome which has been extended to my Boohs of the 
 New Testament having proved to me that there are 
 many persons who, whether they can read Greek or 
 not, want to know the true history of the Gospels. It 
 has been necessary to omit all discussion of many 
 interesting questions. But I trust that attention has 
 been called to all that are most vital, and especially to 
 those which bear upon the Person and the teaching of 
 our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 Much has been gleaned from works written in 
 different languages and by authors of very different 
 religious convictions. But nothing in the realm of 
 New Testament studies seems to me to be clearer tban 
 the superiority of recent Christian scholarship over non- 
 Christian scholarship. And, as a general rule, there 
 can be found a marked superiority of genuine English 
 work over the work produced in other countries. In 
 this connection I desire to emphasise my debt to 
 Sir John Hawkins' Horae Synopticae, and to the 
 articles by Mr. C. H. Turner in the Journal of 
 
viii THE GOSPELS 
 
 Theological Studies, vols. x. and xi. I am also 
 much indebted to the Studies in the Synoptic Problem, 
 edited by Dr. Sanday, which were published when 
 this book was far advanced. Perhaps I ought to 
 explain that I had made a comparison between the 
 different Gospels and the different lives of S. Francis 
 before I read the similar comparison drawn by the 
 Rev. B. H. Streeter, and that I applied to Christians 
 the Moslem name of 'people of a book' before Sir 
 W. M. Ramsay used a similar Moslem phrase in his 
 delightful little criticism of Dr. Moffatt's ' results.' 
 
 In the study of the Gospels according to S. Mark 
 and S. Luke, I have derived much benefit from Pro- 
 fessor Burkitt's writings, though I cannot accept some 
 theories that he has propounded. 
 
 The limits of this book have made it impossible for 
 me to deal at all fully with the theology of the Gospel 
 according to S. John. The question whether this is 
 genuine theology, or mere theosophy, to a great extent 
 depends for its answer upon the further question 
 whether the author was, or was not, an eye-witness 
 of Jesus Christ. And to this latter subject of inquiry 
 I have given all the space at my disposal. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 CHAI?. 
 
 I. THE CANON OP THE GOSPELS . ' 
 
 II. CRITICISM OF THE GOSPELS 
 
 III. THE SYNOPTIC PROBLESI 
 
 IV. THE SAYINGS OP OUR LORD . 
 
 V. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MARK 
 VI. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 
 VII. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE . 
 VIII. THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTISTS. 
 IX. THE AUTHOR OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 
 INDEX .... 
 
 1 
 32 
 
 65 
 102 
 133 
 169 
 206 
 243 
 276 
 317 
 
CHAPTER I 
 
 THE CANON OF THE GOSPELS 
 
 § 1. One Gospel in Four Gospels. 
 
 Cheistianity is a life. But like the adherents of the 
 religions which are its caricatures, Christians are what 
 the Moslems call 'people of the book.' It was so 
 with the followers of Mani, who in the third century 
 endeavoured to combine Christianity with the religions 
 of Zoroaster and Buddha, and it was the same with 
 most of the Gnostics who anticipated him in the 
 Roman Empire of the second century. In the seventh 
 century Muhammad, using traditions of the Jews and 
 Christians, but unacquainted with their literature, 
 gave to his adherents a book which they regard as 
 wholly infallible. In recent times the Book of Mor- 
 mon and the lucubrations of Mrs. Eddy, the foundress 
 of ' Christian Science,' rival the baser forms of Gnostic 
 literature. Each of these books emanated from a 
 single mind and was composed in a single lifetime. 
 The sacred volumes of the Manichees were numerous, 
 but they were all the work of Mani, and Mrs. Eddy 
 tolerated no rival prophetess. Now the New Testa- 
 ment is a collection of books by different authors, 
 written at different though not widely separated 
 periods, collected afterwards as sacred books of the 
 New Covenant made between God and man by Jesus 
 Christ. Not a single book which it contains makes 
 
 A 
 
2 THE GOSPELS 
 
 the claim to have been written by Christ. From 
 whatever point of view He is regarded, this fact is 
 important. In founding a new religion which was the 
 reversal of Judaism as well as its development, He 
 came forward as a Prophet, and was understood to be 
 a Prophet. Yet many, if not most, of the greatest 
 prophets of Israel had written books, and Jesus Christ 
 began His teaching at Nazareth by reading a passage 
 from the Book of the prophet Isaiah, which He 
 declared to be fulfilled in His own Person. But we 
 are only once told of His writing, and then He wrote 
 upon the dust. 
 
 Why did He write no book ? The explanation, if 
 it is to be discovered by us anywhere, must be dis- 
 covered in His own conception of His own Person and 
 His work. Did He desire that His followers should 
 be preserved from the risk of exalting the letter of 
 His teaching above the spirit, until the life of His 
 Church was vigorous enough to be trusted ? Did He, 
 as is now widely held by non-Christians, think that. 
 He would return to earth so soon after His death 
 that a written document would be unnecessary to His 
 followers ? If either of these explanations be true, it 
 implies a marvellous conviction and confidence with 
 regard to the future. And if the fourth evangelist 
 is correct in saying that He taught that He would 
 return to the world in the coming of the Holy Spirit, 
 who proceeds from the Father, then there is some 
 truth in both explanations. From certain of His best 
 authenticated statements we learn that His message 
 rang with an unfaltering confidence. ' It was said to 
 them of old time . . . but I say unto you . . . 
 verily, I say unto thee ' (Matt. v. 21 f.). He claims 
 the authority to revise and alter even what had been 
 said by Moses, whom the Jews regarded as the greatest 
 of the prophets. Naturally the people regarded Him 
 as 'a great prophet' (Luke vii. 16). He claimed 
 
THE CANON OF THE GOSPELS 3 
 
 more than this, teaching that even His forerunner, 
 John, was ' much more than a prophet ' (Matt. xi. 9) ; 
 and He declared, ' Heaven and earth shall pass away, 
 but My words shall not pass away' (Mark xiii. 31). 
 We can thus readily believe that while the first 
 Christians of Jewish origin would and did appeal to 
 the Old Testament, saying, ' it is written,' they would 
 also appeal to His words, and say, ' He Himself said ' 
 (Acts XX. 35). 
 
 In a later chapter we shall consider more fully the 
 first records of His sayings. At present let us recall 
 the familiar truth that the words have come down 
 to us in somewhat long and elaborate settings. The 
 four Gospels all contain a large amount of narrative, 
 and 'the Gospel,' when our oldest manuscripts were 
 written, was not considered to be four, but rather 
 fourfold. Sometimes they are in a manuscript by 
 themselves, called 'the Gospel.' Often the four 
 books are headed simply, 'according to Matthew,' 
 ' according to Mark,' ' according to Luke,' ' accord- 
 ing to John.' There was therefore, in the idea 
 of the early Church, one Gospel, one story of the 
 good news of the life and teaching of Jesus Christ ■ 
 committed to writing by four different writers bear- 
 ing well-known names. It is, however, an interesting 
 point that S. Augustine tells us that Faustus, his 
 celebrated Manichean opponent, held that the Synoptic 
 Gospels were written by unknown authors, who made 
 use of some records of Christ's own preaching.^ This is 
 almost certainly correct in the case of the first Gospel, 
 as we shall see later. Faustus accepted S. John's 
 Gospel, and it is clear that the above theory was in- 
 vented to account for the divergence between the Gospels 
 on the one hand and his own paganised doctrines on 
 the other. He did not hold it on intelligent critical 
 grounds. Thus the modern Moslems, who are aware of 
 ' C. Faust, xxxii. 2 (cf. 7). 
 
4 THE GOSPELS 
 
 the wide difference between the Christian Gospels and 
 the teaching of Muhammad, refuse to admit that the 
 Gospel has come down in its original form, and assert 
 that the Christians have corrupted the text. This is 
 merely because they know that Muhammad praised 
 ' the Gospel,' and do not know that he had probably 
 never read it. 
 
 The word 'Gospel,' then, meant the message of 
 salvation. S. Paul, when he speaks of 'my Gospel,' 
 means 'my explanation of the Gospel,' and when 
 he says, ' I had been intrusted with the Gospel of 
 the uncircumcision ' (Gal. ii. 7), he means that 
 he had been appointed by God to preach the good 
 tidings of salvation to the Gentiles, with special 
 emphasis on the points most necessary for their in- 
 struction. By a natural evolution, the word which 
 meant the message came to be applied to the book 
 containing it. The word almost certainly means a 
 written Gospel in the ancient Christian manual called 
 the DidacM, or Teaching of the Twelve Apostks, in 
 Chapter xv. : ' Reprove one another, not in anger but in 
 peace, as ye have it in the Gospel.' It probably bears 
 the same meaning in the old Roman homily known 
 incorrectly as the Second Epistle of Clement, the date 
 of which is about a.d. 140. The plural ' Gospels ' is 
 first found in a writing of S. Justin Martyr^ about 
 A.D. 152. He calls them ' Memoirs of the Apostles,' 
 and he refers to them collectively as ' the Gospel,' 
 inasmuch as they were, in reference to their testimony 
 to Jesus Christ, one book. The plural ' Gospels ' also 
 occurs in the Epistle to Diognetus, xi. 6. This is 
 probably late in the second century. In the apostolic 
 age we can trace no desire to form a fixed and final 
 list of Gospels, ' the Canon,' as it came to be called. 
 The Christians, like the ordinary Jews living outside 
 Palestine, had the Greek version of the Old Testa- 
 1 Apol. i. 66. 
 
THE CANON OF THE GOSPELS 5 
 
 ment, including what we call the Apocrypha. If they 
 desired edification, that was the Bible which they 
 read. If they entered upon a controversy with the 
 Jews, it was the Greek Bible which both parties 
 quoted. If they desired to convert the heathen, they 
 appealed to the Greek Bible to show how impressively 
 the predictions of the prophets had been fulfilled in 
 the life of Jesus. Widely as modern Greek and 
 Italian are now understood in the south and the east 
 of Europe and the immediately adjacent countries, by 
 people of very difierent nationalities, Greek was then 
 understood over a larger area than modern Greek and 
 Italian together. The Greek Old Testament was of 
 inestimable value over this wide area, and late in the 
 second century Melito, bishop of Sardis in Asia 
 Minor, and Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons in the south 
 of France, issued for Christians doctrinal books drawn 
 entirely from this Greek Old Testament. It is no 
 exaggeration to say that some of the early Christians 
 found a great deal more in the Old Testament than it 
 really contains. Such discoveries were efiected by 
 means of allegory. They inherited from the Jews of 
 Alexandria a love of allegorical interpretation which 
 was equal to any emergency. Possibly at the present 
 day we are a little too impatient of allegory. I 
 believe that the more closely we read the sayings of 
 our Lord, the plainer it will become to us that much 
 is allegorical or symbolical, and that we do not explain 
 His words away, but explain them better, when we 
 cautiously and reverently adopt such a line of inter- 
 pretation. And allegorical interpretations of non- 
 allegorical passages of the Bible, while they become 
 positively mischievous when they are used as a basis 
 for dogma, may be wholly good when understood as 
 poetical illustrations. Allegory, then, must not be 
 despised. But it was really good for the Church that 
 the mass of Churchmen instinctively felt that their 
 
6 THE GOSPELS 
 
 own traditions, based on the teaching of the Lord, 
 were superior to the ingenuities which discovered the 
 incarnation and the Cross of Christ signified by the 
 Greek letters which denoted the three hundred and 
 eighteen servants of Abraham, or detected the Gnostic 
 goddess Achamoth in the woman at the well of 
 Samaria. 
 
 Let us return for a moment to the fact that there are 
 four, and only four, canonical Gospels. To the modem 
 Christian this rightly appears indisputable and obvious, 
 just as the modern Englishman rightly thinks it 
 obvious that the United Kingdom includes and ought 
 to include England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland. 
 They are four countries, and no more. Once, how- 
 ever, the lilies of France were on English shields and 
 flags, and once there were other Gospels which 
 challenged a place in the reverence of Christ's 
 followers. Yet our analogy is very imperfect. For 
 the French lilies shone for centuries on the English 
 arms. But in less than one century after their publi- 
 cation the canon of only four Gospels was regarded 
 as fixed. The other Gospels got but a short shrift. 
 S. Irenaeus looks upon the sacred four as similar to 
 the four winds and the four quarters of heaven. There 
 were sects of believers on the fringe of orthodox Christi- 
 anity, or beyond it, who fixed their predilection on one 
 only. Thus there were Jewish Christians who till at 
 least the close of the fourth century had one Gospel, 
 which they called the Gospel according to the Hebrews, 
 and which was used by Hegesippus, an intelligent and 
 orthodox Palestinian Christian of about a.d. 150. 
 Another Gospel, that according to the Egyptians, 
 advocated a strange Orientalised perversion of Christi- 
 anity, and was probably intended to form the one and 
 only Gospel for some sect in Alexandria. It manifests 
 that opposition to the idea of marriage which was not 
 uncommon in some semi-Christian circles. It was used 
 
THE CANON OF THE GOSPELS 7 
 
 by the Egyptian Gnostics, by the author of the Second 
 Epistle of Clement, and by Clement of Alexandria, 
 though the latter does not assign it the same position 
 as the other Gospels. Like the Gospel of Marcion, 
 which we must notice later, each of these writings was 
 probably intended to be the one and only Gospel of 
 the coterie from which it issued. Even in more 
 orthodox quarters the instinct in favour of one 
 authoritative Gospel asserted itself. S. Justin Martyr 
 had a clever S)T:ian pupil named Tatian, who appears 
 to have succeeded his master as a teacher of a Chris- 
 tian catechetical school at Rome. He developed 
 Gnostic leanings, and left Rome near a.d. 175, and 
 went to the East. Besides writing a defence of 
 Christianity which contains a piquant satire on con- 
 temporary heathenism, he composed a kind of Gospel 
 which Eusebius describes as "a sort of conglomeration 
 of the Gospels which he named the Diatessaron ' ''■ (i.e. 
 fourfold narrative). It was what we should call a 
 harmony of the Gospels. It was first written in 
 Greek, and probably at Rome ; it was soon translated 
 into Syriac, and was regarded as a precious heirloom 
 by Tatian's Syriac-speaking compatriots in and around 
 Edessa until the fifth century. Not till then was it 
 finally replaced by the separate Gospels. 
 
 The above instances have been quoted to show that 
 in such widely separated quarters as Palestine, Egypt, 
 and the regions of what was then the far East, there 
 existed this very natural tendency in favour of one 
 Gospel rather than four. At the same time, it is con- 
 ceivable that Christians might have desired to reckon 
 another Gospel with the four. We have some slight 
 evidence for such a desire in the esteem felt for the 
 Gospel according to the Hebrews and that according 
 to the Egyptians. But there were other Gospels 
 which seem more obviously intended to be supple- 
 1 Eus. S: E. iv. 29. 
 
8 THE GOSPELS 
 
 mentary. Such is the Protevangelium of James, a 
 Gospel giving an account of our Lord's infancy, 
 known to Origen about a.d. 220, and possibly to 
 Justin Martyr seventy years earlier. Its interest 
 largely lay in the fact that it appeared to supply a 
 gap in men's knowledge of our Lord's life, a dangerous 
 attraction for that vitiated taste which in later times 
 relished such stories as those about S. Mary in the 
 ' Golden Legend.' Another work of the second 
 century is the so-called Gospel according to Peter, 
 which at the end of that century was used by some 
 Christians of Rhossus. Serapion, bishop of Antioch, 
 accused it of Docetism, the heresy which denies the 
 reality of our Lord's human nature and treats His 
 body as a kind of phantom. Part of this Gospel, the 
 account of Christ's Passion and Resurrection, has been 
 discovered in Egypt, and justifies Serapion's opinion of 
 its heterodoxy. It has been thought by some of the 
 best critics that Justin Martyr made use of this book, 
 and his First Apology, Chapter xxxv., renders the 
 statement in John xix. 13 in a manner very similar 
 to that found in this apocryphal Gospel. If Justin 
 really used it, we should probably have to date it 
 about A.D. 120 or 130. In any case it is a work of very 
 great antiquity, and yet it failed to secure recognition 
 in the Church. These additional Gospels might be 
 quoted here and there, but we have no ground for 
 thinking that any one of them seriously threatened 
 either to oust or stand beside the four canonical Gospels 
 tha,t we possess. The Diatessaron of Tatian, which was 
 assigned such a high position among the Syrians, owed 
 its popularity to the fact that it was the first in the 
 field. It came to them before they were in possession 
 of a vernacular version of the separate Gospels. 
 
 The thing which emerges for our consideration 
 is this: that the Church would probably have kept 
 one Gospel and not four Gospels, or, like Tatian, 
 
THE CANON OF THE GOSPELS 9 
 
 would have made one Gospel out of four, unless she 
 had been very deeply convinced, by a.d. 140 or 150 at 
 latest, that all were authentic, that their record was 
 true, and that they issued from some highly competent 
 authority. The inclusion of S. John's Gospel aids this 
 contention. It is so unlike the other Gospels in many 
 particulars that it seems to challenge comparison with 
 them. The fact that in spite of its difference it was 
 added to the other three, is a proof that it was re- 
 garded as having some very strong testimony in its 
 favour, and it is a proof which cannot be rejected when 
 the problem of its origin is under discussion. 
 
 No doubt it may be said that, as mere broken 
 fragments of the non-canonical Gospels have survived, 
 we are not in a position to say that the Church judged 
 wisely in excluding such Gospels from the canon. But 
 we can certainly say that, so far as has hitherto been 
 ascertained*, the Church acted very wisely, and showed 
 a sound critical judgment which the Christian may 
 fitly believe to have been guided by God. Even the 
 Gospel of Peter, one of the best of the alien Gospels, 
 shows a decided inferiority to the first three canonical 
 Gospels, whose account of the Passion it copies and 
 travesties. Of the sayings rightly or wrongly attri- 
 buted to our Lord, several have survived outside the 
 New Testament, and it is possible that more will be 
 discovered as the result of explorations in the East. 
 But the greater part of those which we possess are 
 such as can hardly commend themselves to any one 
 familiar with the dignity and depth of the teaching 
 recorded in the Gospels. 
 
 A considerable time before the close of the second 
 century the four Gospels had in the more important 
 centres of Christian life certainly vindicated their 
 unique position. The Muratorian Canon, Clement 
 of Alexandria, and S. Irenaeus show us this position 
 with the utmost clearness. The four Gospels were 
 
10 THE GOSPELS 
 
 regarded as teaching one Gospel, and with them were 
 numbered certain other books, more especially the 
 thirteen Epistles of S. Paul, the Acts of the Apostles, 
 the First Epistle of S. Peter, the First Epistle of 
 S. John, and in some quarters the Revelation, which 
 is referred to by S. Justin Martyr as the work of 'John, 
 one of the apostles of Christ/ S. Polycarp, the pupil 
 of S. John, and Polycarp's contemporary Papias, both 
 quoted S. John's First Epistle, and both used the First 
 Epistle of S. Peter. It would be beside our purpose 
 to say much about the formation of the whole ' canon,' 
 or list of New Testament writings, and the reasons 
 which hastened or retarded the inclusion of certain 
 books in that list. We will here merely quote the 
 statement in which S. Irenaeus, writing about a.d. 185, 
 gives a short summary of the origin of the Gospels : 
 'Matthew published a written Gospel among the 
 Hebrews in their own dialect, Peter and Paul preaching 
 the Gospel at Rome and founding the Church. After 
 their departure, Mark, the disciple and secretary of 
 Peter, also transmitted to us in writing the things 
 preached by Peter. Luke, the companion of Paul, 
 deposited in a book the Gospel preached by him. 
 Then John, the disciple of the Lord, who had laid 
 his head upon His bosom, also published a Gospel 
 when he was living at Ephesus in Asia.' ^ 
 
 This shows how S. Irenaeus — and his evidence is 
 reinforced by the earlier evidence of Tatian and S. Justin 
 Martyr — regarded the four Gospels as documents of 
 the apostolic age. They preserved from destruction the 
 teaching about Christ which two apostles had written 
 and two had given orally. It is quite plainly proved 
 by his other statements that they were valued as works 
 to which the Church could appeal to prove what she 
 taught. In opposition to the numerous forgeries of the 
 second century put forward by teachers of novel heresy, 
 1 Quoted in Eus. H. E. v. 8. 
 
THE CANON OF THE GOSPELS 11 
 
 the Church appealed to what she believed to be the 
 true credentials of Christianity. These were attributed 
 to two apostles, S. Matthew and S. John, and two 
 companion^ and ministers of apostles, S. Mark, the 
 companion of S. Peter, and S. Luke, the companion of 
 S. Paul. Thus the testimony of the great apostle 
 of the Gentiles was included with the testimony of the 
 original Twelve, especially of their leader, S. Peter. 
 The Gospels stood in the eyes of the Church as a tower 
 four-square, not only confronting Jew and Gentile, but 
 also the Judaising Ebionite and the Hellenising Gnostic. 
 This fact is really of the greatest historical import- 
 ance. In view of controversies which have been active 
 during the last two generations, it is of deep interest to 
 notice that in the second half of the second century the 
 Church believed that S. Peter, S. John, and S. Paul 
 taught one Gospel, one plan of salvation, and that the 
 books written by them, or as a result of their influence, 
 were in fundamental agreement. At even an earlier 
 date than that of Justin, the scanty evidence afforded 
 by Papias and Polycarp points to the same conviction 
 that the apostles were united. Still earlier, the long 
 Epistle of S. Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, an 
 undoubtedly genuine work written about a.d. 96, shows 
 no trace of any division between the adherents of 
 S. Peter and S. Paul. The same holds good in the case 
 of the Epistles of S. Ignatius, written about a.d. 110. 
 Both Clement and Ignatius refer to the two great 
 apostles, and both speak of Christian belief and duty in 
 a way which can be far better harmonised with the 
 theory that the apostles agreed than with the theory 
 that they widely differed. 
 
 § 2. The Gospels and Marcion. 
 
 The notion that there was a schism in the apostolic 
 college with reference to the observance of the Law and 
 
12 THE GOSPELS 
 
 the being of Jesus Christ was nevertheless not the 
 invention of the modern sceptic. It was vigorously 
 taught by Marcion, an acute, ascetic, and argumenta- 
 tive native of Pontus, who founded a large sect about 
 A.D. 144, and was recognised as a most dangerous 
 enemy of Christianity. He saw that there was a 
 different tone in different parts of the New Testa- 
 ment. And he had a theory to account for it, a theory 
 which won a large number of convinced and enthusi- 
 astic supporters. He taught that there is a God of 
 Law, who by Law rules Matter. This is the God of 
 Judaism, the religion of Matter, and the Author of the 
 Old Testament. Distinct from the God of Law is the 
 God of Grace. This is the God of Christianity, the 
 religion of Spirit. Jesus, who was the Son of the God 
 of Grace, had no real flesh and blood, but was only 
 Spirit. The two Gods and their respective systems 
 were in absolute opposition. Marcion held that only 
 S. Paul had really understood the teaching of Jesus, 
 and that the original apostles were in grievous Jewish 
 error. And the only Gospel which he accepted was 
 that according to S. Luke. Even this he mutilated, 
 as he also mutilated the writings of S. Paul. For 
 though he could find in them an opposition between 
 Law and Grace, the utmost ingenuity could not dis- 
 cover in these writings either two Gods, or a Jesus who 
 had only a phantom body, or the Marcionite doctrine 
 that marriage is evil. Marcion held that S. Paul was 
 the only apostle who understood the teaching of Christ. 
 Modern rationalist criticism is apt to insist that S. Paul 
 radically altered His teaching, more especially with 
 regard to His Person and work. Marcion held that 
 Jesus was not really human. Modern rationalism insists 
 that He was not really divine. The contrast is in many 
 ways instructive. So far as we are now able to under- 
 stand the second century, it would seem that if the 
 Church had yielded to Marcion or some form of 
 
THE CANON OF THE GOSPELS 13 
 
 Gnosticism laxer than Marcionism, and said, ' No Law, 
 no Old Testament, no free will, no humanity of Christ,' 
 Christianity would have been very popular. But the 
 Church refused point-blank. It may be quite true that 
 few Churchmen of that period were very clever. Those 
 whose writings have survived fall far below the writers 
 of the New Testament. But they were wise enough to 
 avoid the commonplace line of action. For centuries 
 orthodox Christians were invited to be logical and told 
 to give up either Law or Grace, either the Deity or 
 the humanity of Christ, either the Unity or the Trinity, 
 either man's freedom or God's predestination. As a 
 rule, they refused. Even if they understood these 
 things imperfectly, and they sometimes understood 
 them as imperfectly as ourselves, they knew that there 
 were two sides in all these questions, and they tried 
 to hold both. This was a difficult and adventurous 
 method. But the Church crossed the rugged plains of 
 time better than the opposing sects with their artificial 
 simplicity. For life itself is very complex, and religion, 
 if it be true to life, may be less simple than Marcion 
 imagined. 
 
 Not only did the Church canonise the best Gospels, 
 but her conflict with Marcionism shows that she also 
 was willing to run the risk of people saying that the 
 witness of the apostles did not agree. In spite of their 
 diversity, they taught the same Gospel. And it is no 
 small tribute to the intelligence of the early Christians 
 that modern scepticism has been as powerless to revive 
 the whole of Marcion's criticism as modern supersti- 
 tion has been powerless to revive the whole of his 
 theology. The men who lay most stress on the 
 divergence between S. Paul and the Twelve, declare 
 that the writings of the New Testament which do not 
 bear the name of S. Paul or S. Luke show traces, 
 occasionally the deepest traces, of S. Paul's influence. 
 They find these deep traces in the Fourth Gospel, 
 
14 THE GOSPELS 
 
 in the First Epistle of S. John, and the First Epistle of 
 S. Peter. They find at least some traces in the first 
 two Gospels. And indeed the coincidences are so 
 marked that either we must say there is a Pauline 
 touch in almost all the books ascribed to the apostolic 
 age, or we must attribute much that they have in com- 
 mon with S. Paul to an influence and atmosphere that 
 affected both. This is one of the most crucial problems 
 of modern theology. It touches the Person of Jesus 
 Christ. The Gospels tell of His earthly life, how He 
 travelled, spoke, and healed. S. Paul adores an exalted, 
 glorified Lord, and tells us of His present action upon 
 the world which He has left. Yet S. Paul shows an 
 insight into the character of Jesus and the nature of 
 His love to mankind which forces us to think that he 
 knew much of the Master''s life on earth. And on 
 their side the evangelists all regard Jesus as the wonder- 
 ful and wonder-working Son of God, 'the Lord.' 
 Through the colours of their portraits of Jesus there 
 glows a glory which proves that their faith in Him was 
 not different from the faith of him who said that Christ 
 Jesus was ' in the form of God.' We have therefore 
 reasonable grounds for strongly affirming that the Chris- 
 tian Church regarded the four Gospels as coming from a 
 good source and as presenting a real unity in diversity. 
 When Clement of Alexandria contrasts S. John's 
 Gospel with the earlier Gospels as being distinctly 
 'spiritual,' he shows that he realises an important 
 difference between them, but he does not think 
 it necessary to abandon a ' Synoptic Christ ' who 
 ' acts,' for a ' Johannine Christ ' who ' claims.' Calling 
 the Fourth Gospel ' pneumatic,' he does not assume 
 that the original apostles of Christ held a theory which 
 denied that Christ was a divine Spirit and implied that 
 He was only an ' adopted ' Son of God. Just as the 
 more radical critics of the present day have found it 
 impossible to retain even one of the Synoptic Gospels 
 
THE CANON OF THE GOSPELS 16 
 
 as substantial history, after repudiating the Fourth 
 Gospel, so it was with the heretics of the second 
 century. As a rule, if they rejected one Gospel, they 
 refused to accept any one of the other three in its 
 entirety. They were guided less by criticism than by 
 an a priori theory as to what Jesus must have been. 
 
 § 3. The Gospels and Docetism. 
 
 The instinctive but at first undefined sense on the 
 part of the Christians of the superiority of their own 
 traditions was in time bound to demand a collection 
 of canonical books. The collection was not made 
 suddenly, nor must the collection of the sacred books 
 be regarded as contemporaneous with the creation of 
 the books. But the value of the written Gospels, and 
 the need of an authoritative list, were appreciated 
 during a great struggle of which a good many foot- 
 prints have been left on the sands of time. We can 
 see the coming signs of that struggle in the Epistles of 
 S. Paul, and we can see it hotly progressing in the 
 Epistles of S. Ignatius. It is the struggle with Docetism, 
 the heresy which denied the reality of Christ's human 
 nature. We have already noticed the Docetism of 
 Marcion, but Marcion was only a clever and effective 
 exponent of a mighty movement which has not yet 
 spent its force. 
 
 East is East and West is West, 
 And never the twain shall meet. 
 
 Docetism is part of the ancient Oriental scorn of 
 matter, the dislike of what can be apprehended by 
 the senses. The modem European materialist scorns 
 Christianity as not sufficiently sensual, as a religion of 
 other-worldliness, and foolish in preaching the cruci- 
 fixion of the passions. The Buddhist and the Hindu 
 dislike it because it is too indulgent towards the senses, 
 
16 THE GOSPELS 
 
 too much concerned with the amelioration of this 
 present life, not severe enough in preaching the ex- 
 tinction of every kind of desire. This was the attitude 
 of many thinkers in the eastern part of the Roman 
 Empire. They were willing to welcome Jesus as their 
 Messiah, or as a member of their pantheon, but it must 
 be a Jesus who belonged to their own set. He must 
 be one who never made, in the language of modern 
 so-called ' Christian Science,' any ' concession to 
 materialism.' He must Himself be so unlike ourselves 
 as to have only a kind of spiritualistic humanity. 
 Some thought that He did not eat, some that He was 
 not really born but appeared, some that He did not 
 die. And to this day Muhammadans believe that He 
 did not die, but that some other form than . that of 
 Jesus took His place on the cross. 
 
 We must not suppose that these fantastic errors, 
 which blanched every feature of the human life of 
 Jesus, were wholly irreverent or novel. It is extremely 
 likely that they began among men who had read of 
 those appearances of 'angels' in the Old Testament 
 which seem to be represented as appearances of God in 
 a quasi-human but spiritual form. For instance, in 
 Genesis xvi. we read of 'the angel of the Lord who 
 appeared to Hagar,' and immediately afterwards we 
 read of ' the Lord that spake unto her,' as though God 
 spoke in the angel. Again, in Judges xiii. ' the angel 
 of the Lord' appears to Manoah and his wife, but 
 when he leaves them and ascends, Manoah says, ' We 
 shall surely die, because we have seen God.' These 
 theophanies described in the Old Testament probably 
 suggested the idea that the appearance of Jesus Christ 
 in this world was a similar but more prolonged theo- 
 phany, that God was in some way present in Him, 
 but that all that men could outwardly see of 
 Jesus was unreal. Such was probably the beginning 
 of this view of the Persop of Christ, a beginning which 
 
THE CANON OP THE GOSPELS 17 
 
 was essentially monotheistic. But the view found 
 acceptance in circles which were essentially polytheistic, 
 and in which the Old Testament was regarded as a 
 mill-stone round the neck of true religion. 
 
 Against all Docetic views of our Lord the Gospels 
 are a standing witness. Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels 
 is born of a human mother, He grows as a human 
 Child, increasing in favour with God and man, He 
 feels, He touches, He is hungry, He eats. He dies. In 
 fact, the early date of the Gospels and their substantial 
 accuracy is very cogently supported by the fact that 
 they represent Jesus as supernatural and yet thoroughly 
 human. They show us no trace of that morbid, perhaps 
 we may say priggish, view of human nature which has 
 sometimes made temporary invasions even into the 
 midst of the Christian Church. S. John's attitude is 
 essentially the same as that of the Synoptists, with this 
 difference, that he does know of Docetism as an existing 
 menace. His first Epistle unquestionably was written 
 in view of certain heretics who deny that Jesus Christ 
 has come in the Jlesh, who disbelieve that the Son of 
 God submitted to the water of baptism and shed blood 
 in death. The evidence of the Gospel of S. John is 
 not so decisive. It is possible that S. John intends to 
 contradict the Docetic fable that Simon of Cyrene was 
 crucified instead of Jesus when he writes ' Jesus went 
 out, bearing the cross for Himself (John six. 17). 
 But whether this is so or not, S. John describes the 
 divine ' Word,' the Son of God, as becoming flesh, he 
 represents Him as sitting weary by the well at Samaria, 
 he says that ' Jesus wept ' at the grave of Lazarus, and 
 exclaimed ' I thirst ' when tortured on the cross. All 
 this absolutely excludes the theory that Jesus was a 
 man in appearance only. And the deep consciousness 
 which the Church had of the real humanity of Jesus 
 led her to canonise the Gospels which testified to that 
 humanity. 
 
18 THE GOSPELS 
 
 Fortunately we are able to see how the Church met 
 Docetism shortly after the end of the apostolic age. 
 We learn from S. Irenaeus how S. John at Ephesus 
 opposed the Docetic teacher Cerinthus. The story is 
 in itself quite probable, and shqws in S. John a trace 
 of the old ardour which caused him as a young disciple 
 to desire to call down fire from heaven on the Samaritan 
 village which rejected His Master. In the letters of 
 S. Ignatius we see the next stage. Ignatius was bishop 
 of Antioch in Syria, one of the very first centres of 
 Christianity, and he was taken away from Antioch to 
 be put to death at Rome in the time of the Emperor 
 Trajan, between a.d. 110 and 117. Led as a prisoner 
 by a small company of soldiers, he passed from town to 
 town on the coasts of Asia, Macedonia, and Achaia. 
 On arriving at Smyrna he was entertained by the 
 Church there and its bishop, Polycarp, and was met by 
 delegates of the neighbouring Churches. At Smyrna 
 he wrote four letters to the Churches of Tralles, 
 Magnesia, Ephesus, and Rome. From Smyrna he went 
 to Troas, and there wrote the other three letters that 
 are still extant. His style is rough, glowing, and 
 picturesque. His great desire is to promote the unity 
 and coherence of the ' Catholic Church,' and to enable 
 the Church to withstand a disintegrating heresy. The 
 heretics separated from the Church and its bishops, 
 and abstained from the Eucharist, denying it to be the 
 flesh of Christ ; but the root of their offence was their 
 denial of the reality of Christ's human body. Ignatius 
 with intense earnestness declares that Christ is ' fleshly' 
 as well as ' spiritual,' that Christ truly suffered, other- 
 wise why should Ignatius be willing to suffer martyr- 
 dom ? Christ was truly ' nailed up in the flesh for our 
 sakes under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch,' 
 and 'after His resurrection He both ate with them 
 (the apostles) and drank with them.' So sure is 
 Ignatius of the union of the humanity and divinity in 
 
THE CANON OF THE GOSPELS 19 
 
 Christ that he does not hesitate to speak of ' the passion 
 of my God' and 'the blood of God.' He speaks 
 equally plainly of ' the virginity of Mary.' And it is 
 worth noting that whereas some modern writers have 
 maintained that the belief that Christ was born of a 
 Virgin was the result of an unwholesome scorn for the 
 dignity of human nature and a dislike of a truly human 
 Christ, Ignatius, the first writer outside the New Testa- 
 ment who mentions the Virgin birth, upholds it as 
 emphatically as the truth that Christ was really Man. 
 
 On what did Ignatius rely for his assertions ? It is 
 practically certain from his language that he used the 
 Gospel according to S. Matthew; and though critics 
 are less agreed upon this point, I cannot bring myself 
 to think that he had not read S. John's. His theology 
 has a strong Johannine flavour, and some of his 
 phrases seem to be moulded by, or actually borrowed 
 from, S. John. But the Gospel for S. Ignatius, as for 
 S. Paul, was one, even though he knew it as written in 
 different forms. He tells the Philadelphians that he 
 takes refuge ' in the Gospel as the Flesh of Jesus,' a 
 significant allusion to the genuineness of Christ's life 
 and the record or records through which he had learnt 
 Christ's life. And he tells the people of Smyrna to 
 ' take heed to the prophets, but more particularly to 
 the Gospel.' On the other hand, the heretics profess to 
 be content with the Old Testament, probably inter- 
 preted according to fanciful allegorical methods. He 
 tells the Philadelphians how the heretics would argue. 
 ' If I find it not in the archives (i.e. the Old Testament), 
 I believe it not in the Gospel,' and when he said, ' It is 
 written,' they answered, ' That is the question.' Now 
 the phrase ' it is written ' was at first strictly reserved 
 for quotations from the Old Testament. In the 
 writings of Justin Martyr about a.d. 150 it is applied 
 to quotations from the Gospels, and there are possible 
 cases of this kind in Polycarp and the so-called Epistle 
 
20 THE GOSPELS 
 
 of Barnabas. It is conceivable that this passage in 
 Ignatius means that the heretics questioned whether 
 this or that statement was * written ' in the Gospel, but 
 other evidence makes this interpretation precarious.^ 
 We can at any rate say with confidence that Ignatius 
 himself relies upon some written Gospel record or 
 records, and he does so partly because this record is a 
 guarantee that Jesus Christ was not a phantom, or 
 a divine Messenger who merely assumed the unreal 
 appearance of a man. 
 
 § 4. The Canon and Gnostic ' Tradition.'' 
 
 If we pass on from S. Ignatius to the times of Justin 
 Martyr, we can see both a more copious use of the 
 Gospels and additional reasons for the grouping of this 
 material into one unalterable canon. The process was 
 then nearly complete. Justin was born in Judaea at 
 Flavia Neapolis, now Nablous, about a.d. 100. His 
 father or grandfather was probably a member of the 
 colony which the Emperor Vespasian established near 
 Sichem. Justin belonged to a pagan family, and was 
 well educated; he studied Plato, and travelled from one 
 philosophic centre to another. He passed through a 
 series of doubts and disillusions. He became attracted 
 by Judaism, and finally by the high morality of the 
 Christian religion. He became a Christian at Ephesus 
 in the time of Hadrian, and then went to Rome, where 
 he became the teacher of a school of Christian philo- 
 sophy. He died a martyr in the time of the prefect 
 Junius Rusticus, between a.d. 163 and 167. As a 
 controversialist he endeavoured to keep Christianity 
 from the corrupting influence of Marcion, and the 
 speculations of the Gnostics, who were merely using 
 Christianity as the decoration of new forms of 
 
 ' See Mr. C. H. Txanex, Journal of Theol. Studies, vol. x.'p, 27. 
 
THE CANON OF THE GOSPELS 21 
 
 paganism. He also tried to draw the Jews from the 
 prophets to Christ, and his Dialogue with the Jew 
 Trypho is one of the most important specimens of the 
 anti-Jewish literary debates that issued from the ancient 
 Church. And as an apologist he tried to show the 
 heathen that Christianity is the highest expression of 
 wisdom, and that Christians were not guilty of the 
 disloyalty or the obscene immorality with which they 
 were charged by the heathen. His work against 
 Marcion and his Compendium against all Heresies have 
 perished. But his two Apologies, and the Dialogue 
 mentioned above, throw the most important light 
 upon the use made of Scripture by a man who was 
 familiar with the two centres of Christendom, Rome 
 and Ephesus. 
 
 By the time that Justin wrote his books Christianity 
 was confronted by an overwhelming danger. In 
 addition to Marcionism, there had been inaugurated 
 a number of Gnostic systems of various degrees of 
 excellence, but all popular. Not only did able men, 
 such as the famous Egyptians Basilides and Valentinus, 
 find a ready market for their doctrines, but a countless 
 number of lesser teachers offered a new ' knowledge ' of 
 their own in Egypt, Italy, and Syria. In Gnosticism 
 the sublime and the ridiculous met together. Occa- 
 sionally we find Gnostic maxims and meditations of a 
 really devout and spiritual character, reminding us of 
 S. John himself. At other times we come across a 
 trick such as that of Marcos, who made the wine in 
 the Eucharistic cup change from white to red, and 
 here and there we read of the moral degradation into 
 which the Gnostic quacks led their unfortunate dupes. 
 In fact, the baser heretics of the second century were 
 on the same plane as the spiritualistic mediums in 
 modern London or the founders of so-called religious 
 'abodes of love.' Now the more ingenious Gnostics 
 appealed to tradition. Against the apostolic succes- 
 
22 THE GOSPELS 
 
 sion of the ministers of the Church such as we find 
 taught by S. Clement of Rome, they raised the false 
 apostolic succession of secret traditions handed down 
 to a select initiated few. Thus Basilides, who taught 
 at Alexandria in the time of Hadrian, claimed to be 
 a disciple of ' Glaucias,' the interpreter of S. Peter. 
 And Valentinus, who taught in Alexandria, Cyprus, 
 and Rome in the time of the Emperor Antoninus 
 Pius, pretended to be a disciple of ' Theodas,' a friend 
 of S. Paul. The Church, which had so greatly prized 
 the ' deposit ' of oral tradition when S. Paul wrote to 
 Timothy and Titus, and later when Papias made his 
 inquiries, saw for the first time that her tradition, 
 which was the word of her Lord, was in danger of 
 being 'made of none effect.' Tradition was being 
 brought into disrepute, because its name was used to 
 cover a multitude of fictions by which the one true 
 God was hidden behind a cloud of semi-Oriental 
 deities. 
 
 Christendom has witnessed many subsequent theories 
 which have put tradition and history in false opposition 
 to each other. Within recent years Mrs. Besant, the 
 priestess of Theosophy, has appealed to secret tradi- 
 tions of the early Church to support what she calls 
 'Esoteric Christianity,' according to which Jesus was 
 born one hundred years before the Christian era, and 
 reared at Mount Serbal in Arabia in the principles of 
 Theosophy. Another more respectable appeal to tradi- 
 tion at one time made by Roman Catholic writers was 
 that described by the late Father Tyrrell as an appeal 
 ' to the Disciplina Arcani and to all that Christ 
 taught the Apostles during those forty days after His 
 resurrection. This was not written down, but was 
 confided to the rulers of the Church to be dispensed 
 according as exigencies might demand. All apparent 
 additions to the creed were, from the first, known 
 explicitly to a favoured but undefined few, who trans- 
 
THE CANON OP THE GOSPELS 23 
 
 mitted them to the episcopate or to the Pope. How 
 much more these know only the future can tell. This 
 is hardly consistent with qvod ubigue, quod ab omnibus, 
 though it saves the quod semper.''^ In fact, the 
 Disciplina Arcani, or giving of secret instructions to 
 Christian converts, though it existed in the fourth and 
 fifth centuries, did not exist among the Catholics of 
 the second century. And when S. Vincent of Lerins 
 taught that articles of the Catholic faith must have 
 been held everywhere by every one, or they would be 
 uncatholic, he was simply expressing in a terse, quick 
 fashion what S. Irenaeus and TertuUian meant when 
 they asserted that the genuine tradition of the Church 
 was an open and official tradition corroborated by 
 Christians from all quarters. 
 
 The Church of the second century saw that it 
 would be fatal to allow the flood of spurious oral 
 tradition to swamp the teaching of the apostles. 
 Hence during this period we find a growing import- 
 ance attached to an already existing episcopate as 
 guarding the genuine Christian tradition. We also 
 find the creed emphasised and expanded. It was 
 a summary of the truth about the God of the 
 Christians, a God made known to man in a Jesus 
 Christ who was really born and crucified, and really 
 rose from the dead. But Catholic Christians were 
 also compelled to put their books in order, and thus 
 partly consciously and partly unconsciously they fixed 
 the Canon of the Gospels. 
 
 Justin's two Apologies and his Dialogue with Trypho 
 are perhaps all the more valuable because the former 
 are addressed to pagans and the last is addressed to 
 Jews. He quotes the Gospels as authorities for the 
 life and teaching of our Lord, and his quotations are 
 so frequent that we can construct a brief outline of 
 
 ' George Tyrrell, Christianity at the Cross-Roads, pp. 19-20 (2nd 
 impression, 1910). 
 
24 THE GOSPELS 
 
 Christ's life from the passages cited. His view of that 
 life is substantially the same as that which we should 
 gather from the four Gospels. He had before him 
 some narratives distinct from the four — possibly a 
 Harmony like the Diatessaron of his pupil Tatian, 
 possibly the Protevangelium of James with its stories 
 of the birth and childhood of both Jesus and Mary, 
 and possibly the apocryphal Gospel of Peter. I cannot 
 feel sure that he used this apocryphal Gospel, for he 
 had a keen eye for heresy, and would almost certainly 
 have detected its Docetic tendencies. But the evidence 
 of Justin enables us to say that in his time the four 
 Gospels just fall short of having attained to exclusive 
 canonicity. And we cannot with fairness discount his 
 evidence Ijy saying that it is evidence for himself only 
 and not for the Church in general. His acquaintance 
 with a wide area of Christendom, his own position in 
 Rome, and the fact that these writings are intended 
 primarily for outside critics, all do something to 
 guarantee the fact that Justin's references to the life 
 of Christ are such as the Church of his day would 
 have been prepared to corroborate in all important 
 particulars. 
 
 Justin calls the records which he quotes Memoirs 
 of the Apostles (eight times) ; The Memoirs (four 
 times) ; Memoirs composed h/ the Apostles of Christ 
 and their Companions (once); Memoirs made hy the 
 Apostles, which are called Gospels (once). That these 
 Memoirs included our four Gospels is certain. In 
 common with Matthew, Justin mentions that to Christ 
 the name of Jesus is given: 'For He shall save His 
 people from their sins.' Various quotations are given 
 from the Sermon on the Mount, and the comment that 
 John the Baptist was the true Elias is in exact 
 harmony with Matt. xvii. IS. Like S. Luke, Justin 
 says that the census at the time of our Lord's birth 
 was taken under Cyrenius, that Jesus began His 
 
THE CANON OF THE GOSPELS 26 
 
 ministry when thirty years of age, and that He 
 changed the names of the sons of Zebedee to Boanerges. 
 It is still sometimes denied that Justin was acquainted 
 with S. John's Gospel, but the grounds for this view 
 are generally regarded as thoroughly insufficient, and 
 it is in conflict with the striking coincidences between 
 the expressions used by Justin and S. John, and by 
 Justin's assumption that Jesus is the incarnate Word 
 of God. It is easy to see how Justin after a pre- 
 liminary training in Greek philosophy could accept 
 the doctrine which is summarised in the prologue of 
 the Fourth Gospel, and in presenting that doctrine to 
 his pagan readers colour it unconsciously with a tinge 
 of Greek speculation. But it is only paradox to assert 
 that the author of the Fourth Gospel derived his 
 doctrine of the Word from Justin. This would imply 
 that a Greek Christian doctrine was gradually turned 
 back into something that was more Jewish at the very 
 time when the Church was becoming so Gentile that 
 Jewish Christianity was left in a lonely backwater. 
 Justin surely shows his knowledge of the prologue of 
 the Fourth Gospel when he says that the Word 
 'became Man' and that 'through Him God created 
 all things,' and tells his readers that he has learnt that 
 Christ as the Word is the ' only-begotten ' Son of God. 
 Like S. John, he regards the lifting up of the brazen 
 serpent as typical of the crucifixion ; like S. John and 
 unlike the Synoptists, he describes the Eucharist as 
 the ' flesh ' rather than the ' body' of Christ; and when 
 he speaks of baptism he says, 'For Christ also said. 
 Except ye be born again, ye shall in no wise enter into 
 the kingdom of heaven.' ^ 
 
 At first it seems strange that he does not mention 
 
 the writers of the Gospels by name. But the solution 
 
 of this difficulty is very simple. The early Christian 
 
 writers when addressing readers who were not Christians 
 
 1 Apol. i. 6i. 
 
26 THE GOSPELS 
 
 did not as a rule make mention of the authors of the 
 sacred books of the Church. Tatian and Tertullian, 
 who not only knew our Gospels but regarded them as 
 exclusively canonical, do not mention the names of the 
 evangelists when they write for heathen readers. 
 
 § 5. The Canofi and Public Worship. 
 
 Justin also shows us another reason why the Canon 
 of the Gospels became fixed, one which is connected 
 with the essence of genuine Christian tradition. This 
 is the practice of reading the Gospels in public worship. 
 As we have already hinted, secrecy in the second 
 century was not a note of the Church, but of heresy 
 or heathenism. Thirty years later than S. Justin 
 Martyr, S. Irenaeus reproached the Gnostics with not 
 teaching openly, but gradually luring on their con- 
 verts to a greater depravity of creed and conduct by 
 revealing to them secrets only fit for the initiated. 
 Justin sees no need of secrecy. He writes quite 
 plainly about the sacraments for the instruction of 
 his pagan readers. And he tells how the Christians 
 worship, thus publishing the first account of the 
 Roman Mass : — 
 
 ' On the day called Sunday all those who live in 
 the towns, or in the country, meet together ; and the 
 memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets 
 are read, as long as time permits. Then, when the 
 reader has ended, the president addresses words of 
 instruction, and exhortation to imitate these good 
 things. Then we all stand up together and offer 
 prayers. And when prayer is ended, bread is brought 
 and wine and water, and the president offers up alike 
 prayers and thanksgiving with all his energy, and the 
 people give their assent, saying the Amen. And the 
 distribution of the elements, over which thanksgiving 
 
THE CANON OF THE GOSPELS 27 
 
 has been uttered, is made, so that each partakes ; and 
 to those who are absent they are sent by the hands of 
 the deacons. And those who have the means, and 
 are so disposed, give as much as they will, each accord- 
 ing to his inclination ; and the sum collected is placed 
 in the hands of the president, who himself succours 
 the orphans and widows, and those who, through sick- 
 ness or any other cause, are in want, and the prisoners, 
 and the foreigners who are staying in the place, and 
 in short he provides for all who are in need.' The 
 general structure of the service so described is that 
 common to all the ancient liturgies. And the universal 
 practice in all these liturgies was to read part of the 
 New Testament, and more especially part of the 
 Gospels, before receiving the ' food ' which, as Justin 
 says, ' is called among us Eucharist.' The order of 
 christian worship was based upon the worship of the 
 synagogue. The latter included readings from the 
 ' law and the prophets.' So we read in Acts xiii. 27 
 that when S. Paul and his companions went into the 
 synagogue at Antioch in Pisidia, ' after the reading of 
 the law and the prophets ' the rulers of the synagogue 
 invited them to exhort the people. At Rome in 
 Justin's time the reading of the Gospels had taken 
 the place of the reading of the law. The reading of 
 the letter of an apostle such as S. Paul, or a great 
 bishop such as S. Clement of Rome, dates back far 
 earlier than the time when Justin wrote, and probably 
 did much to determine what was of really apostolic 
 origin or not. Regular worshippers would soon learn 
 to detect the difference between Gnostic kickshaws and 
 Gospel meat. 
 
 § 6. The Canon and Montanism. 
 Before the death of Justin there arose in Phrygia 
 
28 THE GOSPELS 
 
 the sect founded by Montanus. It spread westward, 
 and was known in the south of Gaul before S. Irenaeus 
 became bishop of Lyons about a.d. 177. Montanism 
 is a suggestive movement to students of the Canon of 
 the New Testament and the Canon of the Gospels. It 
 is an instance of that ascetic but undisciplined enthusi- 
 asm which has so often manifested itself in Christen- 
 dom when it has been felt that 
 
 The days are waxing evilj 
 The times are waxing late. 
 
 It hurled itself against the pagan world and a Church 
 which it suspected of compromising with that world. 
 It began by proclaiming that Christ would speedily 
 return and establish His kingdom upon earth — Phrygian 
 earth ; and not content with the truth that Christianity 
 is a New Covenant, it practically represented itself as 
 one newer. Montanus and his female companions, 
 Priscilla, Maximilla, and Quintilla, were hailed by 
 their followers as uttering a new prophecy, improving 
 on the revelation given to the apostles. They were 
 'spiritual,' ushering in a reign of the Paraclete to 
 prepare for the second advent, teaching both a restora- 
 tion and a development of primitive Christianity. 
 Montanism cannot be understood unless it is seen in 
 relation to the Fourth Gospel and the Book of Revela- 
 tion, for it shows the deep influence which those books 
 had already exercised on Christendom. It assumed 
 while it perverted such an indwelling of the Holy 
 Spirit in the Christian as is taught in John x., xv.-xvii., 
 and it also assumed that a literal interpretation should 
 be put upon the millennium foretold in the Apocalypse. 
 The relation of the Church to Montanism has some- 
 times been misunderstood. The Montanists opposed 
 the hierarchy of the Church, but they seem to have 
 claimed for their own prophets, even after the time 
 of Montanus, quite as much authority as any Christian 
 
THE CANON OF THE GOSPELS 29 
 
 bishop claimed for himself. If in the time of Cromwell 
 Milton could say 
 
 New presbyter is but old priest writ large, 
 
 we can find a parallel in the fact that Tertullian, when he 
 became a Montanist, allowed to the Montanist prophets 
 an authority which he denied to the 'blessed pope' of 
 Rome. Montanism was not therefore a movement in 
 favour of the belief that the ordinary layman ought 
 to have a share in the government and the progress of 
 the Church of Christ. It was a new school of prophets. 
 But the Church did not oppose it on the ground that 
 prophecy had not continued in the Church after the 
 apostolic age. As Dr. Gore has said, ' the gift of 
 prophecy continued as a recognised endowment of the 
 Church into the second or third centuries.' ^ S. Poly- 
 carp, who died a martyr in a.d. 155, was regarded as a 
 prophet, and we find a prophetess, Ammia, in Phila- 
 delphia at a rather earlier date. But the Church did not 
 believe that every one who claimed to be a prophet had 
 a right to the title. The DidacM and the Shepherd 
 of Hermas, both earlier than the rise of Montanism, 
 distinguish false from true prophets, testing them by 
 their love of gain and their ambition. Similarly the 
 Montanist prophets were criticised for accepting pay- 
 ment, and they were also criticised because their 
 utterances were irrational and delivered in an ecstasy, 
 and an ecstasy that was artificially produced. It is 
 no satisfactory reply to this to say that S. Paul and 
 S. Peter saw visions in a trance, and that S. John's 
 Apocalypse is the prophecy of a ' seer.' For S. Paul's 
 ecstasy or trance was not turned into material for 
 public preaching : he does not even mention it until 
 fourteen years afterwards {% Cor. xii. 2-4). S. Peter 
 in Acts X. 10 f. and S. John in the Apocalypse retain 
 their own consciousness and do not behave like a 
 1 The Church and the Ministry, p. 361, note I. 
 
30 THE GOSPELS 
 
 Greek diviner, or like Saul, or a modern clairvoyant. 
 Yet we can see that Catholic Christians might find it 
 hard to say why the Montanists were wrong, especially 
 when they were men of austere moral life, absolutely 
 unlike the loose Gnostic teachers on the extreme left 
 wing of semi-Christian sectarianism. If the Montanist 
 was virtuous, if he had no love of filthy lucre, and if 
 his ecstasy was occasional and his claims moderate, 
 how was he to be refuted ? 
 
 So far as we can judge, the Catholics of the latter 
 part of the second century were profoundly convinced 
 that the Holy Spirit does not impart new truths 
 to the Church, nor cause the production at a proper 
 moment of truths wrapped up, as it were, and deposited 
 with a select body of teachers. Rather they were 
 conscious that the Holy Spirit only gives a clearer 
 understanding of what has already been revealed to 
 the whole Church. Consequently they relied on two 
 principles of action. One was that the authority of 
 the prophet, as in the time of the apostles, must be 
 subject to the regulative authority of the whole body. 
 Prophets were not to be recognised as genuine prophets 
 if they set at naught the constitution of the Church, 
 which had been framed by the apostles. The second 
 principle was closely allied to the first. Christ and 
 His apostles had delivered to the Church the whole 
 truth, and accretions were unnecessary and untrue. 
 What was expressly contained in the written words of 
 the Lord and His apostles, or could be obviously and 
 naturally inferred from these words, was to be believed. 
 Tradition was not despised. A creed was in use, with 
 its simple summary of the revelation of God made to 
 us in Jesus Christ, and where particular errors were 
 arrayed against the Church the creed was already 
 expanded so as to repudiate those errors. But the 
 tradition enshrined in the creed was inseparable from 
 the Scriptures. The New Testament alongside the 
 
THE CANON OF THE GOSPELS 31 
 
 Old became, with the creed, the authoritative stan- 
 dard for Christian teaching. The Church appealed 
 always to a past deposit. The result was that when 
 S. Irenaeus wrote against heresies about a.d. 185 the 
 Canon of the Gospels was irrevocably fixed, and the 
 Muratorian Canon, probably written in his time, sug- 
 gestively says concerning the New Testament, 'gall 
 should not be mixed with honey.' 
 
CHAPTER II 
 CRITICISM OF THE GOSPELS 
 
 § 1. Some Fundamental Problems. 
 
 One of the most hopeful signs of the times is that all 
 over the world there is an increasing demand that the 
 truth and nothing but the truth shall be ascertained 
 and written down as history. We cannot hope to 
 recover the whole truth. We must be content with 
 the best that we can do, in spite of knowing that much 
 has been lost and cannot be recovered. But in every 
 department of history it is considered necessary to get 
 evidence by every means in our power, and the results, 
 both negative and positive, are well worth the trouble. 
 It is a laudable instinct to be intolerant of any 
 literary fraud, though even this instinct requires to 
 be balanced by the presumption that a large class 
 of ancient statements may be trusted. In the case of 
 the Gospels it is quite right that we should inquire 
 whether the names blazoned by the writers of ancient 
 manuscripts at the head of each Gospel are really 
 correct, and whether the pedigrees assigned to the 
 Gospels in ancient Christian books are also correct. 
 For instance, it is right to ask whether the author of 
 the second Gospel was really S. Mark, and whether 
 S. Mark was, as the oldest record says, an interpreter 
 of S. Peter. But the true historian, while narrowly 
 searching the evidence, will be ready to think these 
 
CRITICISM OF THE GOSPELS 33 
 
 traditions correct, unless he has strong ground for 
 believing them to be false. He wishes to weed, not to 
 destroy, and he knows that during the last few years 
 tradition has had many revenges. 
 
 Not only has the science of history advanced, but 
 natural science has also greatly advanced. One con- 
 sequence of this is a perplexity concerning the nature 
 and possibility of miracles and, in some quarters, a 
 denial of their possibility. The New Testament is a 
 region of miracle. It is full of phenomena described 
 as ' signs ' or ' works ' or ' acts of power.' In particular, 
 S. Paul lives and moves in the midst of such pheno- 
 mena. His testimony to them is absolutely genuine, 
 and all the more impressive because it is ordinarily 
 given in a manner quite foreign to that known as 
 ' apologetic' He is convinced that miracles have 
 happened, do happen, and are worked by himself as 
 well as others (2 Cor. xii. 12). The evangelists also 
 evidently believe in the miracles worked by Christ. 
 According to their record. He believed in His own 
 power to work such wonders. He connected them with 
 a special divine power within Himself (Luke xi. 20 ; 
 John V. 19 ; x. 38). Whatever account we may give 
 of these activities, it is clear that those who came into 
 contact with Him believed that they were real, and were 
 a proof that -God was with Him in a special sense. 
 Christ says, 'If I by the spirit of God cast out 
 devils, then is the kingdom of God come upon 
 you ' (Matt. xii. 28) ; ' Woe unto thee, Chorazin ! 
 woe unto thee, Bethsaida ! for if the mighty works 
 had been done in Tyre and Sidon which were done in 
 you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth 
 and ashes. . . . And thou, Capernaum, shalt thou be 
 exalted unto heaven ? thou shalt go down unto Hades : 
 for if the mighty works had been done in Sodom which 
 were done in thee, it would have remained until this 
 day' (Matt. xi. 21, 23). The word translated 'mighty 
 
34 THE GOSPELS 
 
 works' in our Bible is the equivalent of 'miracles.' 
 Just as we find in all the Gospels a peculiar tone of 
 authority in our Lord's sayings, so we find in His 
 actions a peculiar power over spiritual, mental, and 
 material phenomena. If we are prepared to be 
 guided by the evidence we shall see that these sayings 
 and these actions combined to impress upon the dis- 
 ciples of Jesus Christ the certainty that He was the 
 Son of God. And if we reject the evidence, we can 
 give no reasonable account of the origin of the 
 Gospels at all. 
 
 If teachers of natural science are willing to believe 
 that the universe is not self-sufficient, and that room 
 should be left for the theory that it is guided by 
 external laws and permeated by a divine Spirit, there 
 seems no reason why the controversy about the 
 miracles of the Gospel should not one day be set at 
 rest. The crucial miracle, as the first Christians clearly 
 perceived, is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Most of 
 the heavy artillery of modern rationalism is directed 
 against it. Appeal is made to S. Paul, who is said 
 never to use a phrase which implies that the grave of 
 Christ was left empty on the third day, and all the 
 evidence borne by the apostles to the resurrection is 
 taken to show no more than the fact that they believed 
 that the soul of the Crucified was alive at the right 
 hand of God, and had somehow appeared to them. If 
 this theory were true, we should find it very diflicult to 
 explain either the conduct or the language of S. Paul 
 and the other apostles. If they thought that the 
 resurrection of Christ meant no more than the survival 
 of His soul in glory, they would obviously have believed 
 that He 'rose' the instant that He died on the cross 
 after commending His spirit to His Father. On the 
 contrary, the belief that He rose ' the third day,' and 
 not before, is perhaps the most deeply rooted and 
 widely attested fact in all Christian belief. And that 
 
CRITICISM OF THE GOSPELS 36 
 
 He then rose and left His grave empty is taught in all 
 the Gospels. 
 
 Critics who hold the above attenuated theory of the 
 resurrection hold a corresponding view of other 
 miracles. Few would now say that no uncommon 
 manifestations attended the ministry of Jesus. But 
 they would confine these manifestations to a beneficent 
 power over nervous diseases such as is believed, rightly or 
 wrongly, to be occasionally exercised by modern healers. 
 That is not the view of the evangelists. In addition to 
 the cure of serious nervous and physical disorders, they 
 mention the cure of such ailments as leprosy and 
 dropsy ; and give instances of Christ's power over 
 organic matter, as shown in the multiplication of loaves 
 and fishes, and in the raising of the dead. The last 
 kind of miracle is found in all four Gospels, the stilling 
 of the storm in the three Synoptic Gospels, walking on 
 the water in three Gospels, and the miraculous feeding of 
 the multitude in all four. Miracles are woven into the 
 whole texture of the record, so that nearly the whole 
 fabric falls to pieces without them. In the case of 
 many of the so-called ecclesiastical miracles of later 
 times, the miracles can be extracted from the surround- 
 ing life of the saint. The alleged miracles which 
 attended the discovery of the relics of the supposed 
 S. ' Philomena ' in Rome in 1802 leave us as ignorant as 
 before with regard to the martyr's character and history. 
 S. PhilipNeri and S.Teresa would remain greatif all their 
 miracles were omitted. Of many ecclesiastical miracles 
 we may say that they are so trivial that they are more 
 in a line with the portents admired by ignorant 
 peasants than with the stories in the Gospels. But in 
 dealing with the life of Christ we find that as a rule 
 the miracles cannot be separated from His teaching 
 and history. Thus His teaching that 'the Son of 
 Man hath power on earth to forgive sins ' cannot be 
 dissociated from His healing of the palsied man, and 
 
36 THE GOSPELS 
 
 the beginning of the opposition of the Pharisees and 
 Herodians to Jesus is best explained, as in S. Mark, by 
 His healing a man wibh a withered hand. 
 
 Therefore even if we explain certain diseases and 
 cures otherwise than in the language natural to the 
 evangelists, the problems to be considered are (i) 
 whether we still regard the passing popularity of Christ 
 and the opposition to Him as only to be fully explained 
 on the ground of His having performed miracles ; 
 (ii) whether He claimed the power to work miracles, 
 and claimed it sincerely ; (iii) whether such a power 
 is in harmony with that special manifestation and 
 interposition of the divine Presence in the world 
 which we find in His own personality. 
 
 Thus we ask with regard to the Gospels not only. 
 Were they written by the men whose names they bear ? 
 but, Did the acts recorded in connection with His 
 ministry happen as they are said to have happened ? 
 Is the teaching of the Master correctly reported ? Was 
 He what the evangelists represent Him to be ? 
 
 Here we find ourselves at once brought face to face 
 with the difference between the first three Gospels 
 and the fourth. The first three evangelists give the 
 story of our Lord's ministry in one way, the fourth 
 in another. There is no escape from the conclusion, 
 even if we desired to escape it, that on the whole 
 the first three are delivering a story which they have 
 received, while the fourth evangelist is giving us a story 
 as it has shaped itself in his own mind. But we must 
 beware of exaggeration. S. Paul constructed a great 
 theology, yet he speaks of delivering what he had 
 received ; he laid the Gospel which he preached before 
 th^ original apostles for their approval ; he never poses 
 as an inventor. And we must not hastily conclude 
 that the Fourth Gospel is a romance or a speculation, 
 or that the central ideas are the product of the 
 author's imagination. If he coined the gold afresh, 
 
CRITICISM OF THE GOSPELS 37 
 
 he did not make the gold. The more closely we study 
 the image and superscription, the more we are likely to 
 recognise the Son of Man whom the other evangelists 
 have drawn. They too differ among themselves. We 
 cannot fairly say that we gather in every detail precisely 
 the same impression of the Person of Christ from the first 
 three evangelists. We have every reason to be glad that 
 we do not. There are half-educated people who quarrel 
 with a portrait because it is not precisely the same as 
 a photograph. They do not know how the true 
 artist seizes and interprets that which does not merely 
 belong to a fleeting moment of a life but to its 
 essential character. In this way the evangelists 
 interpret Jesus Christ. It is a very poor apology for 
 the fourth evangelist to say that he tells us of the 
 Christ of experience and not the Christ of history. 
 There can be no Christ of experience other than the 
 Christ of history, who walked through the fields of 
 Galilee and the streets of Jerusalem nineteen hundred 
 years ago. And we ask why the fourth evangelist 
 (whether S. John or another) identifies Jesus with ' the 
 Word' or eternal counterpart of God, whether this 
 identification contradicts the other Gospels, and 
 whether it has a real spiritual value or not. 
 
 A kindred problem arises if we pass from considering 
 the portrait of Jesus Christ in the Fourth Gospel to 
 His discourses. All who have read anything about 
 biblical criticism are familiar with the saying that, if 
 He spoke as He is said to have spoken by the earlier 
 evangelists. He cannot have spoken as He is said to 
 have spoken by the author of the Fourth Gospel. 
 That is the kind of dictum which should be strictly 
 cross-questioned. It looks so persuasive at first sight 
 that it is allowed to pass. There is such an obvious 
 difference between the Sermon on the Mount in 
 Matthew and the discourse on the Bread of Life in 
 John. And further, the same kind of expressions 
 
38 THE GOSPELS 
 
 and the same kind of ideas run through the dis- 
 courses in John and the writer's own reflections, and 
 even through his own prologue and the Epistles which 
 bear his name. And we are forced to ask, Did our 
 Lord speak just as the Sermon on the Mount reads, 
 and did He, on the other hand, assimilate His manner 
 so completely to the thought of a Hellenised Jew 
 as the Fourth Gospel suggests ? We should probably 
 go far astray if we gave an unqualified ' Yes' to either 
 or both of these questions. For a careful examination 
 of the Sermon on the Mount makes it clear to us 
 that it has been arranged in a scheme fitted for the 
 instruction of members of the early Christian Church, 
 and it is more than doubtful whether it was ever all 
 uttered at once. And an examination of different 
 records of the same sayings as recorded by the earlier 
 evangelists shows us that the treasure of Christ's 
 words was far too great for any one vessel to contain. 
 He told them not to skilled reporters with modern 
 appliances for recording sounds, but to simple, earnest 
 men. He was not always perfectly understood by 
 His disciples. Clear and pure as was the medium of 
 their souls, it did not permit the whole truth to flow 
 through and onward. There is another thing which 
 every careful reader of the Gospels will at once admit. 
 It is that the sayings of the Lord, though very simple, 
 are so deep that no one will venture to declare that 
 he fully understands them. They will always bring 
 some new message to those who wait. They must 
 pass into the life as well as the mind of the reader. 
 The varying explanations which are still given of 
 certain of Christ's sayings and parables ought to 
 make us very slow to speak about their interpretation 
 as if His meaning always lay on the surface of His 
 words. It is not so. The Christian who in the early 
 stages of his biblical studies was perplexed by the 
 arguments of S. Paul may, many years later, find 
 
CRITICISM OF THE GOSPELS 39 
 
 himself asking if he has ever really understood some of 
 the sayings of the Lord in the first two Gospels. And 
 before we decide that the discourses in the Fourth 
 Gospel are philosophical compositions of the second 
 century, we should ask if we have sufficient reasons 
 for denying that these discourses can truthfully 
 represent certain aspects of a doctrine which has 
 always been too wide for any single mind to com- 
 prehend. 
 
 The topography of the Fourth Gospel, the chrono- 
 logy of Christ's ministry, and the sequence of the events 
 recorded are all matters of controversy. The divergences 
 which they present, when compared with the statements 
 of the earlier Gospels, will be dealt with when we 
 consider S. John's Gospel more minutely. At present it 
 will be enough to say that whereas S. John's Gospel 
 makes our Lord's ministry extend over nearly three 
 years, and makes Jerusalem and its neighbourhood 
 the principal scene of that ministry, the earlier Gospels 
 give very little indication that the time was longer 
 than one year, and describe the ministry chiefly in 
 connection with Galilee. The extreme wing of adverse 
 critics call the Fourth Gospel historically worthless. 
 Others, like Renan, hold that it includes some sound 
 historical traditions, and that in some particulars it 
 is the most accurate of the Gospels. Those, again, 
 who regard this Gospel as the work of an eye-witness 
 and friend of Jesus Christ find in it many details 
 which complete and occasionally correct the earlier 
 narratives. 
 
 We have dwelt for a short time upon some char- 
 acteristics of the Fourth Gospel, because the criticism 
 of all the Gospels, even of some of the apocryphal 
 Gospels, has been so closely dependent upon the 
 criticism of that according to S. John. There have 
 been more doubts with regard to its authorship than 
 in the case of the others, many more than in the case 
 
40 THE GOSPELS 
 
 of Mark and Luke, and more serious than in the 
 case of Matthew. For while it is widely held that 
 S. Matthew did not write in its present form the Gospel 
 which bears his name, such a theory is quite com- 
 patible with the view that he did write a large part 
 of the matter which it contains. But the theory that 
 S. John wrote part of the Fourth Gospel, and that 
 his work was incorporated into a larger work by a later 
 writer, though it has been suggested, has been almost 
 universally rejected. Moreover, the course of His 
 ministry is depicted differently, a'hd the miracles, 
 though less numerous than those recorded by the 
 Synoptists, are of special magnitude. And lastly, while 
 our Lord is represented as living in perfect filial sub- 
 mission to the will of the divine Father, His equality 
 in nature with the Father is more unquestionably 
 taught by this evangelist than by the Synoptists. 
 Critics have therefore felt for more than one hundred 
 years that if the Fourth Gospel disagrees with the 
 others, either its testimony or theirs must be preferred ; 
 whereas if they fundamentally agree, two testimonies 
 are better than one, and the supernatural origin of 
 Christianity gains strong support. The inquiry there- 
 fore lies close to the very heart of our creed. 
 
 § 2. Rise of Modern Antichristian Criticism. 
 
 The older rationalism and semi- Christian theology 
 of Germany wavered in its view of S. John's Gospel. 
 Reimarus and Paulus, who were the apostles of German 
 unbelief in the second half of the eighteenth century, 
 endeavoured to reduce the Gospel to common-sense 
 and Christ to the founder of a valuable ethical system. 
 He showed His reasonableness by His substantial agree- 
 ment with the contemporaries of our King George iii. 
 The marvels of the New Testament could be explained 
 on merely natural grounds. Our Lord's miracles 
 
CRITICISM OF THE GOSPELS 41 
 
 of healing were explained as effected by a knowledge 
 of potent remedies, and the instances of raising 
 the dead only involved cases of apparent death. 
 He did not think it necessary — here we see Renan 
 anticipated — to correct the mistaken opinions of those 
 who attributed His actions to supernatural power. 
 He swam with the tide. Just as He did not raise 
 others from the dead, He did not Himself rise from 
 the dead. When He was buried the cool sepulchre 
 and the spices began to revive Him, and then a storm 
 and an earthquake restored Him to His senses. He 
 did not rise : He merely for a time recovered. 
 
 German Protestantism was thrown into a whirlpool 
 by these and similar theories, and the result was a 
 fresh investigation of the Gospels. Crude as these 
 investigations may seem to-day, they gave a stimulus 
 to scientific research. England, where the Deists had 
 taught the advanced rationalism which had been im- 
 ported into Germany by Toland (1670-1722), had 
 the doubtful honour of publishing one of the first and 
 coarsest of critical books. This was Evanson's Dis- 
 sonance of the Four commonly received Gospels, a.d. 1792. 
 He placed Luke first, Matthew he thought was probably 
 copied from Luke, and Mark from the earlier two. He 
 also denied the genuineness of the Fourth Gospel. The 
 Tiibingen school, so famous fifty years later, followed 
 Evanson in his view of Mark, though as early as a.d. 1786 
 G. Chr. Storr had maintained the view, now almost 
 universal, that Mark is the earliest Gospel. While 
 Evanson was one of those who started the liypothesis 
 of borrowing, Lessing and Eichhorn started the hypo- 
 thesis of a source older than our present Gospels. 
 Eichhorn held that all the Synoptists borrowed from 
 an Aramaic Gospel now lost, but afterwards adopted 
 the view that there was a translation of this Gospel 
 into Greek which was used in variously corrupted 
 forms by the Synoptists. The next important theory 
 
42 THE GOSPELS 
 
 was that of Gieseler, a.d. 1818, who preferred oral 
 tradition as the explanation of the similarities and 
 divergences of the Gospels. He held that oral tradition 
 had taken two main forms in Greek, that of S. Paul 
 as represented by Luke, that of the Galilean apostles 
 as represented by Matthew and Mark. The remarkably 
 retentive memories of many peoples, both Eastern and 
 Western, in periods when books were scarce, can 
 reasonably be appealed to in support of such an oral 
 tradition. At this day there are Christians in Asia 
 Minor who can recite large parts of the Church 
 services in Greek, though they speak Turkish and are 
 almost wholly ignorant of Greek. And two genera- 
 tions ago the Irish and the Scottish Highlanders 
 could repeat quantities of legends and poems which 
 they had never read. The oral theory has been 
 popular in England, where it was defended by Bishop 
 Westcott, and has recently been well presented by Mr. 
 A. Wright. 
 
 In A.D. 1820 the authenticity of S. John's Gospel 
 was called in question in Germany by an able work of 
 Bretschneider. He afterwards showed that he accepted 
 it, and for a time the popularity of this Gospel was 
 secured by the brilliant influence of Schleiermacher. 
 Celebrated alike as a preacher, a writer, and philoso- 
 pher, Schleiermacher endeavoured to rescue German 
 Protestantism from ruin by repi-esenting faith in Christ 
 as independent of all historical reports of miraculous 
 events. He regarded the doctrines of His miraculous 
 birth. His resurrection, ascension, and return to judg- 
 ment as having no connection with Christ's redeeming 
 activity, and it is on this activity alone that faith was 
 said to depend. A large amount of semi-Christian 
 thought in Europe to-day can be directly traced to 
 these opinions. With regard to the Gospels, Schleier- 
 macher held that the three Synoptists composed 
 mosaics from fragments such as are apparently men- 
 
CRITICISM OP THE GOSPELS 43 
 
 tioned in Luke i. 1-4, and that S. Matthew wrote not 
 our Gospel according to S. Matthew, but a collection 
 of sayings of Christ subsequently embodied in that 
 Gospel. He strongly upheld S. John's Gospel as the 
 work of an eye-witness, feeling it to be in harmony 
 with his own personal experience of religion. 
 
 In A.D. 1831 there came to Berlin to complete his 
 studies a young man who called upon Schleiermacher, 
 and explained that he had come to hear not Schleier- 
 macher, but the philosopher Hegel, who was just dead. 
 That young man was David Strauss, the founder of 
 the Judaeo-German scepticism which has waged a 
 ceaseless war against Christianity for eighty years. 
 In A.D. 1835 he published his Life of Jesus. 
 
 Strauss in his Life of Jesus rejects the now widely 
 accepted view of Schleiermacher that Papias, when'he 
 mentions the Logia composed by Matthew, means a 
 collection of the sayings of Jesus. He prefers to think 
 that it was ' an entire Gospel,' but not identical with 
 our first Gospel. He declares that ' our second Gospel 
 cannot have originated from recollections of Peter's 
 instructions,' and, like Evanson, holds that it is a com- 
 pilation drawn from the first and third Gospels. With 
 regard to the third Gospel and Acts he says, ' The 
 companion of Paul may have composed his two works 
 at a time and under circumstances when he was no 
 longer protected by apostolic influence against the tide 
 of tradition.' With regard to the Fourth Gospel he 
 says, ' We meet with it first among the Valentinians 
 and the Montanists about the middle of the second 
 century.' He left to our Lord only the position of 
 a gifted genius whom legend had gradually deified. 
 He repudiated the doctrine of the incarnation, and the 
 variations in the different editions of his Life of Jesus 
 showed that he knew that to grant the authenticity of 
 the Fourth Gospel would be to overthrow the founda- 
 tion of his theory. 
 
44 THE GOSPELS 
 
 Strauss made every student of the Gospels ask. Is the 
 life of Jesus only historical in the sense in which the 
 life of Socrates is historical, or was it supernatural ? 
 Did miracles happen ? He replied that they did not 
 happen ; they are legends born of the spirit of myth- 
 ology. The people believed Jesus to be the Messiah ; 
 they expected the Messiah to work miracles that would 
 equal or surpass the miracles wrought by the ancient 
 prophets, therefore legend created story after story of 
 His wonderful works. Sailing through the dim haze 
 which he had projected from his study, Strauss was 
 unable to give any satisfactory explanation of the 
 non-miraculous incidents in the life and words of Christ. 
 He was not sure whether the cleansing of the temple 
 happened or not, he left it an open question whether 
 the Baptist sent to Jesus to inquire 'Art thou He 
 that should come,' and he asked how we can tell where 
 the title ' Son of Man ' is genuine in the sayings of 
 Jesus and where inserted by the writer from habit. 
 Strauss was not logical enough to see the fact which has 
 been a corner-stone in the more extreme antichristian 
 criticism of later years. It is that wherever we seek for 
 Jesus in primitive Christian literature we find the super- 
 natural as well as the natural traits recorded together. 
 ' Never and nowhere,' as Kalthoft'said in 1880, ' is He 
 ... a purely natural man.' The result of treating 
 the Gospels as something from which everything 
 supernatural can be drawn, leaving only a natural 
 Christ, leaves us no Christ, but a myth only. Strauss 
 did not get so far as this. His Christ was a religious 
 genius, a Jew of human parentage, who thought that 
 He would be taken up into heaven and come again to 
 inaugurate His kingdom. Jesus thought that He 
 would on His return to earth come in the glory of the 
 Messiah to rule over a people free from bondage to 
 a foreign power. The new era would be ushered in 
 by a catastrophe at the command of God. Strauss 
 
CRITICISM OP THE GOSPELS 45 
 
 seems to have thought that Jesus was in some un- 
 certainty as to whether He was the Messiah or not, 
 but that on the whole He came to the conclusion that 
 He was, and that after His death His Messianic office, 
 which was now potential, would be actual. 
 
 In the Judaeo-German portrait of Jesus drawn by 
 Strauss we can recognise most of the traits of a 
 very modern form of infidelity. But he was not con- 
 sistent. He afterwards dropped his strong insistence 
 on the Jewish element in Jesus, in which everything 
 centres in the idea of a coming catastrophe, and in 
 his Life of Jesus for the German People, published in 
 1864, Strauss veered nearer to the ordinary Christ 
 depicted by what now calls itself ' liberal Protestantism.' 
 The latter portrait is much less Jewish, much less 
 influenced by the Jewish eschatology of the first century 
 than by the rationalism of the nineteenth. Strauss 
 was quite conscious of the fact that he was not a 
 Christian. Schweitzer thus sums up the belief of 
 Strauss : ' To the question, " Are we still Christians ? " 
 he answers, "No." But to his second question, "Have 
 we still a religion ? " he is prepared to give an affirma- 
 tive answer, if the assumption is granted that the 
 feeling of dependence, of self-surrender, of inner free- 
 dom, which has sprung from the pantheistic view of the 
 world, can be called religion.' ^ And in the sad melan- 
 choly of the verses which he composed upon his death- 
 bed there is not a trace of religious faith. 
 
 Ferdinand Christian Baur, whose work Strauss him- 
 self turned to account in the popular Life of Jesus for 
 the German People, is the next great critic that claims 
 our attention. He and his ' Tiibingen School ' began 
 a new method of treating Church history, a method 
 intended to explain how a visionary Jew, who had been 
 followed by twelve other Jews, came by the close of the 
 
 1 Schweitzer, Von Reimarus nu Wrede, p. 75 (English translation, 
 p. 76). 
 
46 THE GOSPELS 
 
 second century to be regarded as essentially divine and 
 the founder of a universal Church. The special type 
 of philosophy which dominated Baur was that of Hegel. 
 The Hegelian doctrine taught that underlying all 
 nature there is an innermost essence, a spiritual prin- 
 ciple, and nature itself should be regarded as a system 
 of stages in which one stage necessarily proceeds from 
 the other, not, however, in such a way that one is 
 necessarily produced by the other, but produced in 
 the inner idea which constitutes the ground of nature. 
 Baur applied this principle to the history of Christi- 
 anity, and found in it a clue to the origin of the New 
 Testament. Believing as he did that Jesus was not 
 divine, he supposed very naturally that His immediate 
 disciples did not believe Him to be divine. Like 
 Toland, the English Deist, he fastened his eyes on the 
 semi-Christian Jewish sect of Ebionites, which is first 
 definitely mentioned in early Christian literature con- 
 siderably more than one hundred years after the death 
 of Christ. These Ebionites, said Baur, represented 
 primitive Christianity ; their religion was the religion 
 of the first apostles, though evidently not the religion 
 of S. Paul. And the Catholic religion as it existed 
 about A.D. 200, a religion which taught less definitely 
 than S. Paul the doctrine of justification by faith, 
 a religion with sacred laws and institutions, is an 
 amalgam of Jewish Christianity with S. Paul's Chris- 
 tianity. 
 
 According to Baur, the original apostles believed in 
 the Messiahship of Jesus, but were otherwise orthodox 
 Jews in doctrine and ceremonial. They intended to 
 confine their missionary work to Jews. But S. Paul 
 chose the world for his mission field ; he was convinced 
 that the Gentiles would not come to Christ by the way 
 of circumcision, and so he proclaimed salvation by 
 faith in Jesus without circumcision and the works 
 required by the Jewish law. The result was that 
 
CRITICISM OF THE GOSPELS 47 
 
 S. Paul quarrelled with the Twelve. And after his 
 dispute with S. Peter at Antioch there was a complete 
 rupture between the two parties. The struggle be- 
 tween the Petrine and the Pauline Christians continued 
 until the appearance of a common foe, the Gnosticism 
 of the second century. The two parties in the Christian 
 Church were then forced to draw closer to each other, 
 and our present New Testament was the result of their 
 alliance. Of its twenty-seven books only five were really 
 genuine, the Epistles to the Galatians, Corinthians, and 
 Romans, which show us the author fighting against 
 the Petrine party, and the Judaistic Revelation, which 
 attacks S. Paul under the name of Baalam. All the 
 other books of the New Testament either were forgeries 
 or were revised in such a way as to obliterate the feud 
 of earlier times. S. Matthew's Gospel was Judaistic 
 and Petrine, but retouched ; S. Luke's Gospel, Gentile 
 and Pauline, also retouched and altered. S. Mark's 
 Gospel was composed later, in order to remove the 
 contradictions which can still be traced in the other 
 two Synoptic Gospels in spite of the restorer's artful 
 aid. The Acts is a reconciling book which makes 
 S. Peter and S. Paul speak with one another's tones. 
 The remaining Epistles of S. Paul, like the Epistle of 
 S. Clement of Rome and the First Epistle of S. Peter 
 (so-called), are all forgeries which softened S. Paul's 
 teaching in order to make it acceptable to the other 
 party. Finally, there is the Gospel according to S. 
 John, written about a.d. 170, with its essentially divine 
 and therefore universal Saviour, and its identification 
 of believing, loving, and keeping the commandments. 
 This marked the close of the conflict and the coronation 
 of Catholic Christianity as supreme. 
 
 Baur's hypothesis was the work of genius. It placed 
 the Gospels and the whole of the New Testament in 
 connection with a movement which every one recognised 
 to be in some degree historical, and which some imagined 
 
48 THE GOSPELS 
 
 to be entirely historical. The New Testament appeared 
 to be a living body of literature, just as organic as it 
 had appeared to the Christian who placed it all in the 
 apostolic age and attributed it all to the guidance of 
 the Holy Spirit. We may observe that of recent 
 years there has been a tendency on the part of non- 
 Christian writers, whether they are called ' radical ' or 
 merely ' liberal,' not to explain how much of their 
 creed they owe to F. C. Baur. This habit of ignoring 
 him, whether conscious or unconscious, is at any rate 
 intelligible. In logical power he was infinitely superior 
 to the great mass of succeeding rationalistic critics. 
 He saw how the origin of Christianity and the Person 
 of Jesus might be explained on a basis which left no 
 real room for a miracle or an incarnation. It was the 
 best possible explanation of its kind, and yet it is an 
 acknowledged failure. The fatal weakness of Baur's 
 scheme is its artificial symmetry. Even the four 
 Epistles of S. Paul to which he appealed do not 
 really support his theory as to the relation between 
 S. Paul and the other apostles. But every addition 
 of an Epistle to that list, and every subtraction of an 
 Epistle from that list, alike undermines his theory. 
 And it is now admitted on all sides that we must 
 either add or subtract. The reckless imputation of 
 forgery to every document which cried out against his 
 reconstruction of the early Church has brought its own 
 nemesis. There are now critics who, while they dis- 
 believe in the authenticity of S. John's Gospel, do not 
 dispute the genuineness of the Epistles of S. Ignatius, 
 written near a.d. 110, or that of S. Clement of Rome, 
 written near a.d. 96. And none of these Epistles 
 could possibly have been written at these dates if 
 Baur's theory of the quarrel between the apostles was 
 correct. The publication of Harnack's great volume 
 on early Christian literature in 1897 at least showed 
 that from a literary point of view Baur's criticism was 
 
CRITICISM OF THE GOSPELS 49 
 
 hopelessly shattered. This fact had been realised even 
 by A.D. 1875. But in spite of it the Christ of Strauss 
 and Baur has been again and again produced on the 
 stage with new paint and new clothes. 
 
 § 3. Renan and his Contemporaries. 
 
 Renan made the cleverest, though not the most 
 learned, eifort to make this figure walk. He intro- 
 duced to the Latin races the rationalism of Germany. 
 His famous Life of Jesus, which was published in 
 A.D. 1863 and ran through eight editions in three 
 months, was written in exquisite French and execrable 
 taste. The Jesus of German scepticism was like a 
 collection of bones, but the hero of Kenan's romance is 
 like the wax image of an Italian saint in which the 
 bones are concealed under a smiling face and smart 
 vestments. Our Lord is described with an astonishing 
 lack of moral insight. Renan said that 'Jesus was 
 charming,' and that ' in His general physiognomy He 
 was such as the Synoptic Gospels represent Him to us.' 
 In one passage Renan says that 'in Him was condensed 
 everything that is good and elevated in our nature ' ; in 
 another we are elaborately informed that we must not 
 expect to find among Orientals, as in 'our rigid 
 consciences,' an absolute opposition between "good 
 faith and imposture.' The value of this explanation 
 becomes evident later, when we are told that Jesus was 
 not able 'to moderate the greediness of the crowd and 
 of His own disciples for the marvellous,' and con- 
 sequently allowed Lazarus and his family to perform a 
 burlesque resurrection. Renan invites his readers to 
 admire a Christ of whom he says, ' Desperate, pushed to 
 an extremity. He was no longer His own master. His 
 mission weighed upon Him, and He obeyed the stream,' 
 and 'sometimes His ill temper at all resistance led 
 Him to inexplicable and apparently absurd actions.' 
 
50 THE GOSPELS 
 
 We are told to 'divest ourselves of the instinctive 
 repugnances which are the fruit of a purely reasonable 
 education,' and then to venerate a Jesus who first grew 
 dissatisfied with the title of Rabbi, then with that of 
 Prophet, and finally ' wished that people should regard 
 Him as having a higher relation towards God than 
 that of other men.' The Jesus of Renan is a conceited 
 sentimentalist, and even in Gethsemane He is redolent 
 of the perfumes of Paris. 
 
 Though Renan failed in moral insight, his literary 
 insight was cleai-er than that of many of his school, 
 and many of the views which he adopted have been 
 subsequently ratified. He maintained that S. Mark's 
 Gospel was written before all the eye-witnesses of the 
 life of Christ were dead, and was derived from the 
 tradition of Peter.^ Then he held that the writer 
 of our Gospel 'according to Matthew' took that of 
 S. Mark as the basis of his own work, and transferred 
 to it the discourses of Christ, which he found already 
 arranged in ' packets ' written in Aramaic, and a large 
 number of stories current among the Christians. He 
 rightly regarded the author as a Jewish Christian 
 who was strongly anti-Pharisaic, and points out the 
 •charming state' and 'exquisite transition' and the 
 ' excellent moment for art ' that is revealed to us by a 
 conscience which has become Christian without ceasing 
 to be Jewish. S. Luke's Gospel was held by Renan to 
 have been written about a.d. 95. The author, he 
 believed, made use of S. Mark's Gospel but did not 
 know our first Gospel ; he plunged into tradition and 
 drew from it freely ; he had no record of the sayings of 
 Jesus arranged in a long connected series ; and those 
 sayings which he found in the sources which he had 
 collected he separated and polished to insert in his 
 ' delicious stories.' Renan loved S. Luke as an artist ; 
 he speaks of him as we might speak of one of the 
 ^ Les £,vangiles, p. 125. 
 
CRITICISM OF THE GOSPELS 61 
 
 fashionable French painters of the period of Louis xv., 
 a Boucher or a Fragonard. Unlike the more para- 
 doxical modern rationalists, he regards S. Luke as 
 essentially Pauline, holding views in 'perfect con- 
 formity ' with those of the apostle of the Gentiles,^ and 
 says that his Gospel ' forms a sort of intermediary 
 between the first two Gospels and the fourth.' He 
 declares its historical value to be inferior to that of 
 the other two Synoptic Gospels. But he acutely re- 
 marks that the contrast between the speeches attributed 
 to the apostles in Acts, a work by the same author, 
 and the speeches attributed to Jesus in the third 
 Gospel, prove that the Synoptic Gospels ' really con- 
 tain an echo of the word of Jesus.' ^ 
 
 Kenan's treatment of S. John's Gospel is very 
 characteristic. It was hardly to be expected that he 
 would entirely despise such a treatise on 'the delicious 
 theology of love,' and his aesthetic feeling made him 
 sure that many of the historical traits of the fourth 
 Gospel are convincing. He boldly adopts ' the system 
 of John, according to which the public life of Jesus 
 lasted three years' ; ^ and with regard to the close of 
 Christ's life he again says, ' We follow the system of 
 John.' Kenan's Life of Jesus was accompanied and 
 followed by a number of important German works 
 dealing with the criticism of the Gospels and the life 
 of Christ. Among these works are included those 
 of Schenkel, Weizsacker, Heinrich Julius Holtzmann, 
 and Keim. They have much in common with Kenan ; 
 they are deeply infected with rationalistic views of 
 Christ's Person, but they speak with admiration of 
 the character of Jesus and of His attempt to found an 
 inward and spiritual kingdom. It is significant that 
 Strauss accused Schenkel of using, in a ' sodden ' 
 condition, the materials of Tiibingen theology, and 
 of want of frankness in clinging to orthodox phrases 
 ^ Oj>. cit. p. 266. ^ Op. cit. p. 284. ' Vie de fisus, p. 270, 
 
62 THE GOSPELS 
 
 which did not represent his real views. Like Renan, 
 these writers were inclined to draw upon the fourth 
 Gospel in order to supplement the other three. 
 Schenkel adopted the teaching of S. John with regard 
 to Christ's second coming; Holtzmann, while basing 
 his work on the ministry of Christ as recorded by 
 S. Mark, did not wholly exclude S. John ; Weizsacker 
 directly asserted that the fourth Gospel contains 
 'genuine apostolic reminiscences.'' They were strug- 
 gling with a dilemma. They instinctively felt that 
 S. John's Gospel really adds to our knowledge of the 
 ministry of Christ, but they were resolved not to 
 accept it, because it teaches His Divinity. Weizsacker 
 in his later book on the Apostolic Age of the Church ^ 
 shows this quite plainly. He says, 'It is impossible 
 to imagine any power of faith and philosophy so great 
 as thus to obliterate the recollection of the real life, 
 and to substitute for it this marvellous picture of a 
 Divine Being.' It is assumed that ' the real life ' could 
 not have been divine, and the gradual abandonment 
 of the fourth Gospel has been the result. Keim 
 denied the possibility of using it as a historical 
 source, and though a few later rationalistic writers 
 have endeavoured to weave together S. John and the 
 Synoptists, they have on the whole gone back to 
 Strauss and Baur. They consistently ignore the fourth 
 Gospel, or allude to it in order to make the most of 
 the differences between it and the earlier Gospels, and 
 to declare that the Synoptic traditions must be pre- 
 ferred. These arguments would be considerably more 
 plausible if the same writers did not proceed to treat 
 the Synoptic Gospels in precisely the same way as the 
 Fourth. For having attempted to persuade us that 
 the Synoptists are historical whenever they seem to 
 disagree with S. John, they now strain every nerve 
 to prove that they are unhistorical whenever they 
 
 ' Vol. ii. p. 21 1 (English translation). 
 
CRITICISM OF THE GOSPELS 63 
 
 record anything that favours S. John's account of our 
 Lord's ministry and Person. At the end they present 
 us not to S. Mark's ' Son of God ' but to a ' man of 
 God ' of their own creation. 
 
 If the authenticity of S. John's Gospel had really 
 been disproved,itwould have been incumbent upon every 
 sincere student to reject it. But during the very 
 period when its rejection became an axiom with the 
 critics who presupposed that the New Testament 
 picture of Christ is incredible, its genuineness was 
 defended both in England and on the Continent by 
 scholars of the highest rank, such as Lightfoot, 
 Westcott, Zahn, and Godet. 
 
 § 4. Present Day Criticism and Rationalism} 
 
 It would be impossible to give in this chapter even 
 the shortest outline of all the history of the criticism 
 of the Gospels during the last thirty years. Broadly 
 speaking, tlie followers of Baur have been forced to go 
 much further in one direction or another. On the one 
 hand, they have become nihilist, denying that Jesus 
 ever existed, or affirming that we can know practically 
 nothing about Him, and deriving Christian teaching 
 from Buddhism or some esoteric Oriental philo- 
 sophy. On the other hand, they have become ' frag- 
 mentists,' lacking Baur's massive originality, and sur- 
 I'endering his views piecemeal, accepting the genuineness 
 of several of the books of the New Testament which 
 he rejected. Those that have desired to retain the 
 name of Christian have involved themselves in a view 
 of Christianity more pessimistic than that of Baur. 
 According to Baur, Christian doctrine can be held to 
 
 ^ It should be observed that a large number of modern non- 
 Christian and semi-Christian writers, though not all, object to the term 
 ' Rationalist ' as applied to themselves. They prefer the term 
 ' Liberal,' and give a new sense to the word Rationalism, applying it 
 to certain types of intellectualism in theology. 
 
64 THE GOSPELS 
 
 represent a genuine development of the human mind, 
 though marked by many serious aberrations. But 
 the more recent 'liberalism' is apt to assume that 
 Christianity as taught by Christ was pure, but that 
 as taught by the apostles and the Church of their 
 age, it was exceedingly corrupt. Greek influence upon 
 Christianity is too often regarded as almost entirely 
 evil, and the contribution of the Greek race to 
 Christian thought and life as little better than a 
 pollution. With regard to the origin of the Gospels, 
 the ' liberal ' school, by concentrating attention upon 
 the Gospel of S. Mark as our earliest source for a 
 knowledge of the ministry of Christ, has achieved a 
 distinct success. It has taken up the argument advanced 
 in 1837 by C. H. Weisse, that the priority of S. Mark's 
 Gospel can be demonstrated, and that the other two 
 Synoptic Gospels have been based on that of S. Mark 
 and a document or documents containing the sayings 
 of Jesus. This theory is now so widely accepted that 
 at present it completely holds the field. It is regarded 
 as proved by Harnack and von Soden in Germany, by 
 Batiffol and Lagrange in France, and Dr. Sanday and 
 Professor Burkitt in England. The first of these 
 scholars calls for mention as having published valuable 
 monographs on the Synoptic Gospels, as well as large 
 and important works dealing with other departments 
 of theology, and a notable exposition of his own 
 conception of the essence of Christianity. He may 
 be fairly regarded as the most prominent, most 
 learned, and one of the most reverent exponents of a 
 religion which derives its impulse from Christianity 
 though rejecting all its distinctive doctrines. While 
 not accepting the genuineness of S. John's Gospel, he 
 places it at a far earlier date than Schmiedel, who has 
 tried to bring it down again to a date nearer to that 
 selected by Baur. He attributes the third Gospel to 
 S. Luke, the companion of S, Paul, while regarding 
 
CRITICISM OF THE GOSPELS 55 
 
 him as much more artistic than exact. He also 
 assigns the second Gospel to its traditional author, 
 and even dates the first Gospel near the time of the 
 destruction of Jerusalem. He holds that Jesus was 
 conscious of a unique moral nearness to God, a kind 
 of sonship which prompted Him to believe that He 
 was the Messiah. But he has shown a strong tendency 
 to declare spurious, or interpolated, or unhistorical, 
 passages in the Gospels which do not favour his own 
 'reduced Christianity.' A religion of this type is 
 on the Continent of Europe ordinarily described as 
 'Liberal' or 'Modern' Protestantism.^ It is now 
 being propagated so widely and so systematically that 
 it is worth while stating what amount of Christianity 
 the average type of 'liberalism' leaves more or less 
 unquestioned. 
 
 There is a Founder whom the ' liberal ' theologians 
 call ' Jesus ' but not ' Christ.' He was not born of a 
 Virgin, but was the son of Joseph and Mary. He 
 was not divine, but may perhaps be called ' Son of 
 God ' in a titular sense, on account of the close moral 
 union which existed between Himself and the Father. 
 His mind must be studied by the ordinary rules of 
 psychology. He gradually developed a sense of His son- 
 ship towards God, and then came to believe that He was 
 the Messiah expected by the Jews, and the supernatural 
 'Son of Man' foretold in the seventh chapter of 
 Daniel — this, however, is not conceded by all ' liberal ' 
 critics. He is especially regarded as a Teacher. The 
 prophetic side of His office, like the kingly or Mes- 
 sianic side, is apt to be neglected. He did not at the 
 beginning of His ministry realise that He would be 
 put to death by the Jews ; afterwards He saw that He 
 
 ' The Modernism which has arisen and been condemned within 
 the Roman Catholic Church has done so little original work in the 
 region of New Testament criticism that it is not necessary to describe 
 it in this chapter. 
 
56 THE GOSPELS 
 
 must die, and believed that the kingdom would come 
 when that death was accomplished. He attributed no 
 propitiatory character to His death. It was a self- 
 denying act, a fine moral example, not a means of 
 atonement between God and man. With this reduction 
 of the doctrine of the Atonement there is usually to be 
 found in ' liberal ' theology a reduced view of the guilt 
 of sin and man's need of a Saviour. Christ's bodily 
 resurrection and ascension are emphatically denied, 
 and the testimony of the evangelists to these events 
 explained as mere legend based on certain phantasms 
 of Him which the disciples saw or imagined, or on the 
 belief that Jesus was living with God, because of His 
 moral union with God, or the belief that He must be 
 alive, because He had before His death declared that 
 He would return. 
 
 Like the Gnostics of ancient times, the modern 
 ' liberals ' treat as Jewish fables the teaching of Jesus 
 about His second coming, the resurrection of the dead, 
 and the judgment. 'Liberalism' is satisfied to think 
 of a continuous growth of the good which is already 
 in us. And it dislikes all notion of an interference, 
 any interposition of God in the work of redeeming man, 
 any cataclysm in establishing the reign of righteousness. 
 Hence while reverent epithets are often given to Christ, 
 ' liberal' Protestantism, when it is honest and outspoken, 
 always denies that He is God. Consistently with this 
 denial, even its best representatives, such as Harnack, 
 denounce as ' sub-Christian,' i.e. semi-pagan, the 
 whole idea of man being made partaker of the divine 
 nature through union with Christ. This doctrine, 
 which is rooted in the teaching of S. Paul and S. 
 John, and was so magnificently developed by the 
 Greek Fathers of the Church, is elaborately attacked 
 or ignored as a fiction. With this denial goes the 
 whole doctrine of the sacraments. Instead of efficacious 
 means by which God acts morally upon the human 
 
CRITICISM OF THE GOSPELS 67 
 
 soul, the sacraments are nothing but bare symbols, 
 and sometimes it is denied that Jesus instituted 
 Christian baptism or desired His disciples to continue 
 any celebration of the meal which He ate with them 
 the night before His death. ' Liberalism ' has valued 
 Christ's teaching about the kingdom of God, so far 
 as that kingdom is regarded as inward and as a moral 
 bond between believers. But the Christian conception 
 of the Church vanishes. If there is no divine Saviour, 
 it is seen that there cannot be a body through the 
 members of which He acts upon the world. Baur 
 objected to S. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians because 
 it contains 'the material conception of the Catholic 
 Church ' ; Julicher finds in the high priestly prayer 
 of our Lord in S. John xvii. a forged utterance 
 inspired by a later idea of the unity of the Church ; 
 Harnack repudiates Christ's mention of the Church in 
 S. Matt. xvi. He is copied by Dr. James Moifatt in 
 his Historical New Testament, where we are told that 
 ' to suppose that Jesus contemplated a visible church 
 as the embodiment of His gospel is almost to be guilty 
 of a historical atrocity ' (p. 269). 
 
 The Protestantism of the sixteenth century con- 
 stantly appealed to the doctrinal teaching of S. Paul. 
 But the so-called ' modern Protestantism ' is intensely 
 hostile to it, attacking the very roots of S. Paul's 
 teaching about our Lord's divinity. His past and 
 present atoning work, as well as the Pauline doctrine 
 concerning the Church and the sacraments. This hos- 
 tility is sometimes masked by praises of the apostle, 
 especially where his name is honoured as it deserves. 
 
 It should lastly be noticed that with a repudiation 
 of Christian eschatology, 'liberal' Protestantism has 
 decidedly, though not universally, tended to minimise 
 the ascetic element in Christ's teaching, and to lay a 
 rather one-sided stress on the joyful and genial nature 
 of Christian ethics. 
 
68 THE GOSPELS 
 
 That 'liberal' Protestantism is hardly distinguish- 
 able from a modernised form of Judaism is self-evident. 
 And it has lately been treated as such in the remark-, 
 able commentary on the Synoptic Gospels composed by 
 a leading English Jew, Mr. Claude Montefiore, published 
 in 1909, and in his work, published the next year, on The 
 Moral Teaching of Jesus. These books were marked 
 by an enthusiasm for the teaching of our Lord so genuine 
 as to create a profound impression on English Judaism. 
 The learned author believes that Jesus supposed Him- 
 self to be the Messiah, though he does not accept as 
 genuine the crucial passage in which Jesus- declares 
 that ' no man knoweth the Father, but the Son.' Mr. 
 Montefiore's work is built on the foundation of Gentile 
 rationalism of a pronounced though not extreme type. 
 It must therefore stand or fall with that system. 
 
 § 5. The Eschatological Critics. 
 
 Recently this comfortable Christianity, so carefully 
 reduced by the professor in his study to fit the capacity 
 of the man in the street, has received some very rude 
 shocks. First Wrede assailed it with his negations. 
 Then the new 'eschatological' school, represented by 
 Johannes Weiss, and more brilliantly by Schweitzer, 
 attacked it as trenchantly as the ' modern ' school 
 has ever attacked orthodox Christianity. They have 
 fastened their arguments to the eschatology of the 
 Gospels, that is, the teaching about the last things, 
 the end of the world, the future resurrection, 
 the judgment day, and the kingdom to be founded 
 when that judgment is complete. They claim to 
 show that the attitude of Jesus towards these articles 
 of the Jewish faith of His time prove conclusively 
 that He was not ' modern.' Paradoxical as some of 
 the utterances of this school have been, and meagre 
 
CRITICISM OF THE GOSPELS 59 
 
 as is their portrait of Christ, they have done some 
 useful work, both destructive and constructive. 
 
 Jesus, they assert, shows no such mental develop- 
 ment during His ministry as the ' liberal ' Protestant 
 professors have declared. And the Synoptic Gospels 
 cannot be treated as waste paper whenever they happen 
 to conflict with a conception of Jesus created in the 
 nineteenth century. He knew that He was the Messiah, 
 and appears in the Gospels throughout as a prophet 
 preaching that the kingdom of God would come. He 
 believed that there would be a great catastrophe at 
 the end of the world, and the title ' Son of Man,' which 
 He so frequently employed, cannot with any degree of 
 sanity be treated as an interpolation. It actually forms 
 a strong guarantee of the primitive and trustworthy 
 character of the passages in which it occurs. It was 
 unintelligible to Greeks, and goes back to the old 
 Hebrew stage of Christianity. 
 
 The kingdom of God is not a mere union of hearts 
 and the reign of a gradually spreading morality. Its 
 coming will be outward, open, supernatural, operated 
 by God and His angels. Man is to prepare for it by 
 repentance, by passive patience, and not by effort or 
 active organisation. It will be established in this 
 present world. When Jesus announced it. He an- 
 nounced it as something still future, but all in the 
 immediate future. It did not come when He began 
 His ministry, though He at first expected that it 
 would come during His ministry. When He met with 
 opposition and rebuffs (here the eschatological school 
 agrees with some of the ' modern ' theologians). He 
 believed that it would come after His death. He also 
 believed that His death had a highly supernatural 
 significance, for He thought that in Himself there 
 would be summed up all those woes which the Jews 
 believed would be the painful prelude of the golden 
 age. He understood, like Caiaphas, that it was ex- 
 
60 THE GOSPELS 
 
 pedient that one should die for the people, nay for the 
 world, for by His death others would be saved from 
 dying. 
 
 Further, the eschatological school insists that the 
 moral teaching of Jesus is not of that genial and joyful 
 character which attracts the German bourgeois. It 
 contained a strongly ascetic element, it was predomin- 
 antly 'other-worldly,' the precepts delivered in the 
 Sermon on the Mount being intended for the brief 
 interval between the time when they were delivered 
 and the new miraculous existence. The beatitudes 
 are not exhortations, but mere serious statements that 
 those who possess certain qualities are shown by this 
 very fact to be predestined to be members of the 
 coming kingdom. Jesus does not found the kingdom 
 of God, He waits for it, and the ' mystery of the 
 kingdom' is the secret that the movement of repent- 
 ance, begun by the Baptist and furtliered by Jesus, 
 will be quickly followed by the dawn of the kingdom. 
 It is impending, and human prayer and repentance 
 are causing it to come quickly. 
 
 Lastly, the eschatological school repudiates the 
 ' modern Protestant ' conception of the sacraments. It 
 asserts that if this conception were true, the Church 
 would never have continued the use of sacraments. 
 We may indeed ask why should a Church which 
 repudiated circumcision continue to use a merely 
 symbolic baptism, and why should it commemorate by 
 a feast the death of its Founder if the feast only 
 spoke of a pitiful tragedy ? From the eschatological 
 point of view Christian baptism is intelligible. John 
 baptised 'unto repentance,' giving to his adherents a 
 provision for securing that forgiveness of sins, that 
 salvation, which they could only secure from the 
 Messiah. To use a favourite metaphor of the early 
 Christians, John's baptism * sealed ' the recipients to 
 secure them against condemnation. But the baptism 
 
CRITICISM OF THE GOSPELS 61 
 
 of the Christian Church was more than this. It was 
 ' with the Spirit ' as well as ' with water.' And the obj act 
 of being baptised with water at the hands of John the 
 Baptist was not only to secure forgiveness but also to 
 secure future baptism with the Spirit. Since Pentecost 
 the Spirit has been present with the Church, and so, 
 according to Schweitzer, the ' Christianising ' of baptism 
 consisted in nothing more than adding baptism with 
 the Spirit both logically and in point of time to 
 baptism with water. 
 
 As for the Eucharist, it was not a mere memorial, 
 and had practically nothing to do with the satisfaction 
 of hunger. ' The act of Jesus is an end in itself, and 
 the significance of the celebration consists in the fact 
 that it is He Himself who makes the distribution.' 
 So says Schweitzer. His explanation is inadequate, 
 for it does not do justice to the fact that Jesus used 
 the words, ' This is My body ' and ' This is My blood,' 
 but it at least implies that the meal was Messianic, 
 and that it had a definite reference to an immediate 
 future when Jesus and His disciples would be once 
 more united at the same table. Jesus believed that 
 He, and He alone, could distribute in actual reality 
 that feast which the Jews hoped to enjoy in the 
 kingdom of the Messiah. In His mind, as in the 
 mind of the primitive Church, His last meal was 
 neither a mere meal nor a bare symbol of His death. 
 
 The eschatological school, which represents the last 
 phase of Judaeo-German rationalism, is open to a no 
 less severe criticism than the Teutonic rationalism 
 which it has so roughly handled. History has told us 
 very plainly what manner of man the eschatological 
 enthusiast is wont to be. The frenzied utterances of 
 the early Montanists, the wilder Anabaptists, the 
 visionary Camisards, the gibbering early Irvingites, all 
 contribute something to the picture. The New Testa- 
 ment shows us traces of the same spirit. In S. Paul's 
 
62 THE GOSPELS 
 
 Epistles to the Thessalonians we find a tender rebuke 
 and correction of some earnest and excitable Christians 
 who were expecting the immediate coming of Christ 
 and end of the world. That they did not represent 
 the normal tone of primitive Christianity should be 
 obvious to any thoughtful student. A Church which 
 so quickly organised its ministry, its worship, and its 
 charity, a Church which at once set to work to 
 evangelise first the Holy Land and then the Roman 
 Empire, must have ' learned Christ ' very differently. 
 The mere survival of S. Paul's Epistles, with their 
 deliberate moderating influence on the more excitable 
 elements in Christian thought and practice, shows that 
 the mind of the Church was sober. Otherwise his 
 letters would have suffered the same fate as the prophetic 
 roll thrust by King Jehoiakim into the flames. And so 
 great and sane and moral a movement as early Christi- 
 anity cannot have derived itself from a Christ who was 
 intoxicated with the delusions which are attributed to 
 Him by the latest form of criticism. 
 
 But both 'liberal Protestantism' and Judaeo- 
 German rationalism are of value to the man who can 
 estimate the positive elements which they contain. 
 And the latter form of rationalism is a most useful 
 corrective of the former. It has been right in showing, 
 like the extreme infidel school, that the theories of 
 Harnack, Wernle and others, make an incredible chasm 
 between the religion of Jesus and that of S. Paul, or 
 of the primitive Church as a whole. The more the 
 ' liberals ' have whittled away the consciousness which 
 Jesus had of His divinity and ignored the ascetic 
 element in His teaching, and the more they have denied 
 that He taught the atoning eflicacy of His death and 
 the reality of sacramental grace, the more they have 
 darkened the origin of Christianity for the modern 
 inquirer. On the other hand, the ' liberals ' are able 
 to retort that the religion taught by Jesus is a religion 
 
CRITICISM OF THE GOSPELS 63 
 
 for ordinary life, it was meant for this world before it 
 was meant for the world to come, and the impression 
 which Jesus produced upon His disciples was not the 
 impression of 'an imperious ruler' but a gracious 
 Teacher. The kingdom was not primarily a kingdom 
 of catastrophes. Jesus Himself taught that it was to 
 work like leaven. Neither party has done anything 
 like justice to the religion of the Gospels, or to that 
 Person whose relation to His followers has from the 
 first been understood by all true Christians to be 
 something essentially dift'erent from that of Moses to 
 Judaism, or of S. Francis to the Franciscans, or of 
 John Wesley to the Methodists. By studying the 
 writings of both parties one can learn how rash it is 
 to make reckless concessions to the latest conjecture 
 which may pose as critical. An enlightened ortho- 
 doxy has difficulties to face, but it has no such fatal 
 difficulties as those which beset the schools which we 
 have briefly described. And it will be an unfortunate 
 thing for English scholarship and English Christianity 
 if there is any great increase of the tendency to prefer 
 what is smart to what is solid, and to make this country 
 a home for the lost causes of unbelief. 
 
 In concluding our remarks on the course of modern 
 criticism of the Gospels, it will not be narrow-minded 
 if we strike a patriotic note. During the last forty 
 years Englishmen have changed from one of the most 
 insular to one of the most cosmopolitan of races. The 
 new spirit has deeply affected religion, literature, and 
 theology. It is a spirit which has hardly yet learnt 
 self-control. It has shown itself in earnest but not 
 always well digested plans for the reunion of Christen- 
 dom, and in the enthusiastic study of certain classes 
 of foreign books dealing with the earliest history of 
 Christianity. Even students seem sometimes to forget 
 what a large amount of the best critical work on the 
 Gospels has been done in England. Any country 
 
64 THE GOSPELS 
 
 might have been proud to have produced a Light- 
 foot and a Westcott, and passages which they wrote 
 on the Gospel according to S. John are as well worth 
 weighing as anything that has been written during the 
 last twenty years on the same subject. The study of 
 the same Gospel has been stimulated in the wisest 
 way by Dr. Sanday's Authorship and Historical Char- 
 acter of the Fourth Gospel (1872), and his Criticism of 
 the Fourth Gospel (1908). 
 
 The Synoptic Gospels have been discussed in 
 England with a sense of responsibility and minute- 
 ness of investigation which is on a level with the very 
 best German work, and sometimes above it. Thus 
 in 1880 there was published Mr. Rushbrooke's 
 Synopticon, side by side with which may be men- 
 tioned Dr. Arthur Wright's Synopsis of the Gospels 
 (1896 and 1903). 
 
 Sir John Hawkins published his Horae Synopticae 
 in 1899, and a second and improved edition of it in 
 1909. It is a work which is of the highest critical 
 quality, and whether one is in entire agreement with it 
 or not, he will find it difficult to mention any foreign 
 book which is quite as good. Dr. Stanton has pub- 
 lished two large volumes on the Gospels as historical 
 documents (1903 and 1909), which are also of a very 
 high quality. The commentaries on the Synoptic 
 Gospels in the English language, such as those by the 
 Venerable W. C. Allen, Dr. Plummer, and Dr. Swete, 
 cannot reasonably be said to be inferior to any recent 
 Continental works, and Dr. Sanday's Outlines of the 
 Life of Christ (1906) is- just what is wanted by tliose 
 who know that we cannot have such a thing as a full 
 biography of our Lord, but may learn enough to teach 
 us His character. To this must be added the invalu- 
 able Studies in the Synoptic Problem, by Members of tlie 
 University of Oxford, edited by Dr. Sanday (1911). 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 
 
 § 1. Introductory. 
 
 Let us leave the fourth Gospel for the present and 
 concentrate our attention upon the first three Gospels. 
 The first literary problem concerns the order in which 
 they were written, and the dates. They do not appear 
 in precisely the same order in all the old manu- 
 scripts of the Gospels and writings which mention the 
 Gospels. S. Irenaeus quotes them in this order : 
 Matthew, Luke, Mark, John,^ and : John, Luke, 
 Matthew, Mark.^ Clement of Alexandria is said by 
 Eusebius* to have mentioned an old tradition which 
 placed first the Gospels with the genealogies, as 
 written first, Matthew and Luke, and then Mark and 
 John. But much the most usual order is that which we 
 have in our modern Bibles. S. Irenaeus has it as well 
 as the other arrangements just mentioned, and it is 
 found in the Muratorian Canon and in almost all the 
 Greek manuscripts. With one important exception, 
 and this exception is not hard to explain, our order 
 is almost certainly right. There is now an almost 
 unanimous agreement among scholars that Mark is 
 the earliest and John the latest of the Gospels. 
 Opinions vary as to the relative dates of Matthew 
 and Luke. But it is agreed that both are later 
 
 ' Adv. Haer. Hi. lo-ll, § 7. ^ Op. cit. II, § II. 
 
 ' H. E. vi. 14. 
 
 E 8« 
 
66 THE GOSPELS 
 
 than Mark. That the Gospel according to S. Luke 
 was written, as was believed in the second century, by 
 the author of Acts, and that this author was really 
 S. Luke, the companion of S. Paul, is a view which is 
 supported by abundant internal evidence, and is no 
 longer confined to orthodox Christian circles. Some 
 years ago it seemed to me that this conclusion was 
 proved up to the hilt by Sir John Hawkins in his 
 Horae Synopticae, and since the publication of that 
 book it has increased in favour. If we assign the 
 third Gospel to S. Luke, we can hardly place it later 
 than A.D. 80, unless the author was very much younger 
 than S. Paul. It may even have been written between 
 A.D. 60 and 70. Our first Gospel raises more difficult 
 problems than the third. As it stands, it was written 
 in Greek and not translated from Hebrew or Aramaic, 
 in spite of the Hebraisms which it contains. It is 
 also composite, as will be shown in detail later. But 
 that one of the largest constituent elements in it was 
 a previous work written by S. Matthew can only be 
 denied by an excessive scepticism. The antiquity of 
 this original work gave rise to the idea that the 
 Gospel based upon it is the oldest Gospel. Even in 
 its present condition the perceptible Jewish tinge of 
 the first Gospel, and the manner in which the destruc- 
 tion of Jerusalem is confused with the catastrophe 
 which is to be the immediate herald of the end of the 
 world, decidedly suggest that it was written before, 
 but not long before, a.d. 70, when the Romans took 
 ' the Holy City.' A later date can only be assigned 
 to this Gospel on the hypothesis that the writer, who 
 elsewhere carefully adapted his material to his purpose, 
 left unaltered certain puzzling passages which must 
 have been written before Jerusalem was destroyed. 
 This hypothesis seems far from probable. S. Mark's 
 Gospel as a whole must have been written not later 
 than the sixties, perhaps early in the sixties. The 
 
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 67 
 
 date of the Gospels will be more fully discussed in the 
 chapters dedicated to each Gospel. 
 
 The three earlier Gospels present us with a story 
 marked by unity of arrangement. The order of events 
 is similar, the events recorded are usually the same 
 from the preaching of John the Baptist to the resur- 
 rection of Jesus Christ. The unity is so unmistakable 
 that at least as early as the time of the celebrated 
 early historian and critic Eusebius of Caesarea, a.d. 
 320, the three Gospels were arranged in parallel 
 columns. The awkward but now indispensable name 
 of ' Synoptic Gospels ' has been applied to them for 
 nearly a hundred years, because they can be so tabu- 
 lated that the reader can simultaneously get a common 
 view or synopsis of the three. And the ' Synoptic 
 problem ' consists in the difficulties raised by the simi- 
 larity and dissimilarity of the three. It is because the 
 similarity is often so astonishing that we find it all 
 the harder to explain the dissimilarity when it exists. 
 It is not as if another arrangement of material was 
 impossible. The fourth Gospel alone is enough to 
 show that the 'memoirs,' as S. Justin calls them, 
 might have been edited very differently. It is con- 
 ceivable that a most edifying ' Life of Jesus Christ,' or 
 selection of incidents in His ministry, might have been 
 composed on lines equally distinct from the Synoptists 
 and from S. John. And the first answer that we can 
 give to the Synoptic question is that either all three 
 Gospels depend on one common source, or two of 
 them followed the order which they found in the third. 
 The latter solution is now seldom called in question. 
 It is now the common opinion that S. Mark's Gospel 
 was copied and followed by the author of the first 
 Gospel and by S. Luke. They added to his Gospel 
 from other precious sources; but they used his work 
 in a form substantially identical with that in which 
 we read it to-day. 
 
68 THE GOSPELS 
 
 To test the above statement let us notice some 
 details of interest and importance, many of which 
 can easily be examined by those who have enjoyed 
 no long technical training in the study of the Greek 
 Testament. The next chapter will contain an account 
 of those ' Sayings of the Lord ' which are found in our 
 first and third Gospels. But there are points which 
 concern the methods and motives of the Synoptic writers 
 which may properly be mentioned here as corrobor- 
 ating the accuracy of the solution now so generally 
 accepted. 
 
 § 2. Luke is based on Mark. 
 
 The first indication of an answer to the problem is 
 suggested at once in the prologue of S. Luke's Gospel. 
 He says, ' Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to 
 draw up a narrative concerning those matters which have 
 been fulfilled among us, even as they delivered them unto 
 us, which from the beginning were eye-witnesses and 
 ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having 
 traced the course of all things accurately from the first, 
 to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 
 that thou mightest know the certainty concerning 
 those things wherein thou wast instructed.' Now 
 most of this is perfectly clear. It proves that other 
 narratives of the ministry of our Lord had been 
 written before S. Luke wrote ; that oral instruction 
 about that ministry had been given to Theophilus 
 and apparently other converts to Christianity ; that 
 S. Luke had known eye-witnesses and ministers of the 
 Word who knew our Lord's teaching from the begin- 
 ning, but was not himself one of these eye-witnesses ; 
 that he was convinced that his narrative was accurate 
 and in chronological order. 
 
 It will naturally occur to us to ask whether among 
 the many writers to whom he alludes we can reckon 
 
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 69 
 
 the author of the Gospel according to S. Matthew. 
 The answer is now almost universally given in the 
 negative. Some early critics, who belonged to the 
 Tiibingen school, held that Luke was dependent upon 
 Matthew, and maintained that Mark was the latest, 
 and dependent upon the other two. The theory was 
 intended to fit their attempted reconstruction of the 
 early history of the Church, according to which 
 Christianity, after passing through a stage of Jewish 
 unitarianism and Gentile ditheism, became a Catholi- 
 cism with elements derived from both. The three 
 Synoptic Gospels were supposed to fit these three 
 stages of progress or perversion. But in more recent 
 years opinion has usually tended in another direction. 
 There is no proof or even probability that S. Luke 
 copied Matthew. At the very start he would have 
 found in the story of the Magi coming from a heathen 
 country to visit the Infant Jesus something which 
 would have appealed to his deep poetic instinct and 
 his desire to show that Jesus was ' a light to lighten 
 the Gentiles.' But he shows no trace of any acquaint- 
 ance with Matthew's account of the sacred infancy, 
 nor does he enrich his story of the resurrection by 
 copying the command of the risen Lord to ' make dis- 
 ciples of all the nations.' Besides such omissions, the 
 linguistic similarity between Matthew and Luke is too 
 slight to warrant the supposition of dependence. 
 
 Just as it is practically certain that Matthew was 
 not one of the sources incorporated into Luke, so it is 
 practically certain that Luke was not one of the sources 
 incorporated into Matthew. Widely as the tone of 
 Luke difiers from Matthew, it is almost inconceivable 
 that this difference of tone would have wholly pre- 
 vented the first evangelist from employing the third 
 Gospel if he had known it. At first sight we are 
 surprised to find that Matthew and Luke occasionally 
 agree with one another when they both diverge from 
 
70 THE GOSPELS 
 
 Mark, and this agreement was not long ago thought to 
 point to the probabihty that S. Luke had a copy of 
 Matthew. But in several of these cases the agreement 
 is simply the result of corruptions in the manuscripts, 
 and the above hypothesis therefore remains unproved. 
 As no one supposes that Matthew and Luke are 
 based upon the Gospel according to S. John, the plan 
 of which is essentially different, we are left with Mark, 
 the simplest and shortest Gospel. Did S. Luke use 
 it? 
 
 The question falls under three divisions. 
 
 I. The question of style and language. Does the 
 language of Luke show that it is derived from that 
 of Mark ? 
 
 II. The question of contents. Do the contents of 
 Mark and Luke correspond so closely as to justify 
 the belief that S. Luke knew the whole Gospel of 
 S. Mark ? 
 
 III. The question of order. Does the arrangement 
 of material in Luke prove that the author found it 
 arranged in the order found in Mark ? 
 
 All these three questions are better answered by an 
 affirmative than by a negative reply. This reply does 
 not gain its full strength until the first Gospel is also 
 utilised. It is only when three parallel passages are 
 read side by side in Greek that it can be seen that the 
 Greek of Mark frequently accounts for the Greek of 
 the other two evangelists, a fact which can be effect- 
 ively tested by underlining the words which the three 
 Gospels have in common. And it is only by com- 
 paring the contents and order of these three Gospels 
 that one can see that the order which underlies the 
 three is Mark's. Where Matthew leaves it, Luke 
 keeps it ; where Luke deserts it, Matthew goes with it. 
 Matthew and Luke never agree in deserting Mark. 
 
 But although the proof only approaches demonstra- 
 tion if we compare all three Gospels, a comparison of 
 
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 71 
 
 either Matthew or Luke with Mark gives us luminous 
 indications. Luke omits the following important 
 passages in Mark, besides making other smaller omis- 
 sions : — 
 
 1. Mark iii. 20-21. Our Lord's friends say that 'He 
 is beside Himself.' 
 
 2. Mark iv. 26-29. The parable of the seed grow- 
 ing silently. 
 
 3. Mark vi. 17-20. The death of John the Baptist. 
 
 4. Mark vi. 45-viii. 26. Walking on the water ; 
 healing at Gennesaret ; the tradition of the elders ; 
 defilement ; healing of the Syrophoenician woman's 
 daughter ; the cure of a deaf man with an impediment 
 in his speech; a second miraculous multiplication of 
 loaves ; the demand for a sign ; the ' leaven of the 
 Pharisees' ; and the cure of a blind man with spittle. 
 
 5. Mark ix. 11-13. The question about the coming 
 of Elias. 
 
 6. Mark x. 35-41. The ambitious request of James 
 and John. 
 
 7. Mark xi. 11. Our Lord's first visit to the temple 
 after His entrance into Jerusalem. 
 
 8. Mark xi. 12-14, 19-21. The cursing of the 
 barren fig-tree and the discourse about it. 
 
 9. Mark xiv. 3-9. The anointing at Bethany. 
 
 10. Mark xv. 1 (cf. xiv. 53). The second meeting 
 of the Sanhedrin to condemn Jesus to death. 
 
 How are we to explain these omissions if we accept 
 the hypothesis that S. Luke knew and used our Mark ? 
 Either the passages in question were npt in his copy 
 of Mark, or he left them out on purpose."~~^rhe latter 
 h3rpothesis appears to be true, for we can in many 
 cases find an intelligible reason for S. Luke's omis- 
 sions. 
 
 1. The statement that our Lord was ' beside Himself 
 is omitted as derogatory to His honour. 
 
72 THE GOSPELS 
 
 2. The parable of the seed growing silently has a 
 parallel in the parable of the mustard seed in Luke 
 xiii. 19, drawn from another source than Mark. 
 
 3. S. Luke knows the facts relating to the Baptist's 
 imprisonment and death. He records them in iii. 19- 
 20 ; ix. 7-9, and for the sake of brevity says no more. 
 
 4. Various texts in Luke suggest that the author 
 knew Mark vi. 45-viii. 26. But he omits Christ walking 
 on the water, possibly as similar to the stilling of the 
 tempest in viii. 22-25. 
 
 The tradition of the elders and the matter of cere- 
 monial defilement probably had little interest for. 
 Gentile readers. 
 
 The words of Christ to the Syrophoenician woman 
 were liable to be understood as confining salvation 
 permanently to the Jews, and are therefore omitted. 
 
 The cure of the dumb man and the blind man with 
 spittle, may perhaps be omitted because the means 
 used was one employed in heathen magic. 
 
 The miraculous feeding of the four thousand is 
 omitted as similar to the miraculous feeding of the five 
 thousand recorded in Luke ix. 14. 
 
 The demand for a sign from heaven is met later in 
 Luke xi. 16, 29 fF., and the caution against the leaven 
 of the Pharisees comes in a diff^erent connection in 
 Luke xii. 1. 
 
 5. The question about Elias is probably omitted 
 because Gentile readers tended to take less interest in 
 the Baptist. The early Hebrew Christians, on the 
 contrary, took a deep interest in him. 
 
 6. The ambitious request of James and John is 
 omitted out of a tenderness towards these apostles. 
 
 7. This is omitted in accordance with S. Luke's special 
 treatment of the narrative of the Passion. His account, 
 which was probably derived from special oral sources, 
 will be described in our chapter on S. Luke. Under 
 the same heading we must include 10. 
 
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 78 
 
 8. The cursing of the barren fig-tree is omitted 
 because of the parable resembling it in xiii. 6 ff. 
 
 9. The anointing at Bethany is omitted because of 
 the similar anointing in the Pharisee's house in vii. 
 36 ff. 
 
 Now it is possible that S. Luke omitted all the above 
 passages by accident, for we must remember that an 
 ancient scholar was not in the position of a modern 
 one, who, if he loses or injures a book, can usually buy 
 another copy the same week. And a good case can be 
 made for the theory that certain of these passages 
 were not in the original edition of Mark. S. Luke may 
 have only had at his disposal a Marcan Gospel which 
 omitted the ' great interpolation,' as it is sometimes 
 called — vi. 45-viii. 26 — and this view does gain consider- 
 able support from the fact that almost the whole of it 
 is found in Matthew.^ The last explanation is simple, 
 and to some students appears almost too simple. But 
 whether we hold it or not, the fact remains that we 
 are left with the result that S. Luke appears to have 
 utilised almost the whole contents of Mark. 
 
 If S. Luke possessed a written collection of our 
 Lord's sayings before he got a copy of Mark, he would 
 naturally be inclined to omit similar or identical pas- 
 sages when he found them in Mark. And if S. Luke 
 had any wish to abbreviate, he would omit facts which 
 seemed to him to be unimportant, or which would 
 puzzle the ordinary reader. This would specially be 
 the case if passages seemed derogatory to the' dignity 
 of our Lord or the character of the apostles. The 
 simple way in which S. Mark depicts the failings of 
 the apostles, and the emotions of our Lord and the 
 limitations of His power, raised difficulties. They are 
 toned down in Matthew and Luke. To the sincere 
 Christian the limitations under which his Saviour chose 
 
 ' See Studies in the Synoptic Problem, edited by Dr. W. Sanday, 
 pp. 6ofF., 417. 
 
74 
 
 THE GOSPELS 
 
 to live and work are ' the condescension of pity and 
 not the failure of power.' But the Jew thought other- 
 wise; and the well-educated pagans liked their wise 
 men to show an apathy superior to emotion. Doubt- 
 less they ridiculed some of the passages in Mark. And 
 S. Luke modified and left out such passages, just as he 
 omits as unnecessary such touches of ' local colour ' as 
 the twice repeated statement in Mark that Jesus and 
 His disciples had no time for their meals (Mark iii. 20 ; 
 vi. 31), and the story of the young man who followed 
 Christ when the disciples fled, and himself fled naked 
 when about to be arrested (Mark xiv. 51, 52). 
 
 If we pass from comparing the contents of Mark 
 and Luke to comparing the order of the narrative, we 
 find our theory corroborated. There are, exclusive of 
 the story of the Passion, only seven real variations in 
 Luke from the order in Mark. 
 
 1. 
 
 Mark 
 
 iii. 7- 19a 
 
 altered 
 
 in Luke 
 
 vi. 12-19.' 
 
 2. 
 
 
 iv. 37, 38 
 
 j> 
 
 3> 
 
 viii. 23. 
 
 3. 
 
 
 v. 3-8 
 
 « 
 
 „ 
 
 viii. 28, 29. 
 
 4. 
 
 
 V. 42 
 
 yj 
 
 J, 
 
 viii. 42. 
 
 5. 
 
 
 V. 42b, 43 
 
 » 
 
 33 
 
 viii. 55b, 56. 
 
 6. 
 
 
 vi. 44 
 
 jj 
 
 33 
 
 ix. 14a. 
 
 7. 
 
 
 xii. 8 
 
 „ 
 
 33 
 
 XX. 15. 
 
 None of these are of apparent importance except the 
 first, which was caused by S. Luke's wish to provide an 
 introduction to our Lord's ' Sermon on the Level 
 Place.' The order of Mark is better kept in Luke 
 than in Matthew. 
 
 § 3. Matthew is based on Mark. 
 
 The phenomena which we find in Luke we find, 
 though with variations, in Matthew. The evangelist 
 has utilised i the work of S. Mark. Like S. Luke he 
 alters the rough colloquial and semi-Aramaic language 
 of S. Mark into something that is slightly more classical 
 
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 76 
 
 and elegant. As a very simple instance we may men- 
 tion that in Matt. xii. 31 we have 'men' for the quite 
 Semitic phrase ' the sons of men ' in Mark iii. 28. It 
 has also been noticed that he systematically obliter- 
 ates those instances of the use of the present tense in 
 which S. Mark delights. S. Luke, in spite of being 
 influenced by the somewhat un-Hellenic language of 
 the Greek version of the Old Testament, can write 
 good Greek. When we compare parallel passages in 
 the three Gospels we see that in some cases Matthew 
 manifests a better style than Mark, while Luke has 
 both a better style and better words. Nevertheless, 
 the three evangelists often agree verbally, and Matthew, 
 though it has some favourite distinctive phrases, such 
 as ' the kingdom of the heavens,' sometimes follows 
 Mark practically word for word. For this students 
 should compare such passages as 
 
 Matt. ix. 6 with Mark ii. 10. 
 ix. 12 f. „ ii. 17. 
 
 X. 21 f. 
 xvi. 23 
 xix. 6 
 xix. 30 
 XX. 28 
 xxvi. 24 
 
 xiii. 12 f. 
 viii. 33. 
 x. 8b f. 
 x. 31. 
 x. 45. 
 xiv. 21. 
 
 Matthew omits the following important passages in 
 Mark :— 
 
 1. Mark i. 21-28. Jesus casts out an unclean spirit 
 in the synagogue at Ca,pernaum. 
 
 2. Mark i. 35-38. Jesus retires before preaching in 
 Galilee. 
 
 3. Mark iv. 26-29. The parable of the seed grow- 
 ing silently. 
 
 4. Mark vii. 32-37. The healing of a deaf man 
 with an impediment in his speech. 
 
 5. Mark viii. 22-26. The healing of the blind man 
 of Bethsaida. 
 
76 THE GOSPELS 
 
 6. Mark ix. 38-40. The incident of the exorcist 
 who had received no commission from Christ. 
 
 7. Mark xi. 11. The first visit of Jesus to the 
 temple in the week of His Passion. 
 
 8. Mark xii. 41-44. The widow's mite. 
 
 An explanation of at least some of those omissions 
 appears to be possible, though we ought to be cautious 
 in advancing them. 
 
 1. Matthew omits the scene in the synagogue, with 
 the subsequent amazement of the people, in order to 
 introduce an allusion to the impression created by our 
 Lord in vii. 28, 29, at the end of the Sermon on the 
 Mount. 
 
 2. Matthew perhaps omits the retirement of our 
 Lord because it would interrupt the triplet of miracles 
 here recorded. We shall see later how constantly the 
 first evangelist arranges his subjects in fixed numbers, 
 probably because he had found this method useful in 
 oral teaching. 
 
 3. The parable of the seed growing silently may be 
 omitted because it has a parallel in the parable of the 
 tares. 
 
 4 and 5. The miracles of healing the deaf and the 
 blind man are omitted, as there are parallels in the 
 great chapter of miracles. Matt. ix. 
 
 6. The sanction given by our Lord to the work of 
 the exorcist who was not a disciple may have been 
 omitted lest it should be quoted as a precedent by such 
 vagabond exorcists as were found by S. Paul at 
 Ephesus (Acts xix. 13). 
 
 7. The first visit to the temple may have been 
 omitted for the sake of simplification. The evangelist 
 wished to connect Mark xi. 11 with 15-18, describing 
 Christ's entrance into Jerusalem, thereby also connecting 
 Mark xi. 12-14, 20-25, the different verses concerning 
 the barren fig-tree. 
 
 8. The incident of the widow's mite is omitted 
 because in Mark it forms the conclusion of our Lord's 
 
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 77 
 
 denunciation of the scribes. This is replaced by a 
 longer denunciation, so that the story would be ren- 
 dered less appropriate. 
 
 That all three evangelists, even S. Mark, did abbre- 
 viate and omit incidents which they knew, becomes 
 more evident the more their Gospels are studied. And 
 it is worth noting that the Gospels according to 
 S. Matthew and S. Luke and the Acts are very nearly 
 of the same length. And it has been reasonably con- 
 jectured that they were all alike intended to fill a roll 
 of papyrus of some definite size. As these are the 
 three longest books in the New Testament, we can say 
 that if the above idea is correct, the authors were 
 restrained from exceeding their limits by the most 
 practical of all considerations. This is not mere con- 
 jecture. For there was a certain recognised length for 
 books, a ' tome ' or cut of papyrus. And by comparing 
 these three books of the New Testament with certain 
 great classical works, such as Homer's Iliad and 
 Odyssey, we find that the former were of more than the 
 average length. 
 
 While the contents of Mark are almost all to be 
 found in Matthew, we find in some places a decided 
 difference in order. From iii. 1 to iv. 22 Matthew' 
 follows the order of Mark i. 2-20. After this we find 
 sharp divergences until Mark vi. We have noted above 
 how Matthew postpones an account of the impression 
 produced by our Lord upon His hearers, and we find 
 no very close adherence to the Marcan thread until we 
 come to Matt. xiii. 53-58 ( = Mark vi. 1-6). Then we 
 find that the mission given by Christ to His disciples 
 in Mark vi. is omitted, having been previously antici- 
 pated by a long discourse of Christ to the disciples in 
 Matt. X. When Matt. xiv. is begun, the order of 
 S. Mark is usually kept. At first sight the divergences 
 are apt to conceal the agreements, and therefore the 
 following table is inserted to show them both: The 
 passages in italics come from other sources than Mark. 
 
78 
 
 THE GOSPELS 
 
 Mark. 
 
 The Baptist. 
 Baptism of Jesus. 
 The Temptation. 
 
 Call of the Apostles. 
 
 Miracles on the first day. 
 Miracles and Sayings on the 
 Sabbath. 
 
 Appointment of the Twelve. 
 
 Satan divided against Satan. 
 
 Christ'smotherand brethren. 
 
 Parables. 
 
 Miracles. 
 
 In His own country. 
 
 Sending out the Apostles. 
 
 Herod and John. 
 
 Miracles, feeding, etc. 
 
 S. Peter's Confession. 
 
 First Prediction of the Pas- 
 sion. 
 
 On Discipleship. 
 
 The Transfiguration. 
 
 On Elijah. 
 
 Dumb Epileptic Boy. 
 
 Second Prediction of the 
 Passion. 
 
 Various Sayings. 
 Blessing of Children. 
 Renunciation of Riches. 
 Third Prediction of the 
 
 Passion. 
 Request of James and John. 
 The Blind Man at Jericho. 
 
 Matthew. 
 
 The story of the infancy. 
 The Baptist and his discourse. 
 Baptism of Jesus. 
 The Temptation. 
 
 Sayings at the Temptation. 
 Call of the Apostles. 
 
 Sermon on the Mount. 
 
 — ix. Group of Miracles. 
 
 viii. Centurion's servant. 
 
 X. Appointment of the 
 Twelve. 
 
 X. Sending out and charge 
 
 to the Apostles. 
 xi. Discourse about John. 
 — xii. Sayings on the Sabbath, 
 xii. Satan divided against 
 
 Satan, 
 xii. Sign of Jonah. 
 xii. Christ's mother and 
 
 brethren, 
 xiii. Many Parables. 
 
 In His own country. 
 
 Herod and John. 
 
 Many miracles, feeding, etc. 
 
 S. Peter's Confession. 
 
 First Prediction of the Pas- 
 sion. 
 
 On Discipleship. 
 
 The Transfiguration. 
 
 On Elijah. 
 
 Epileptic Boy. 
 
 Second Prediction of the 
 Passion. 
 Coin in the Fish's Mouth. 
 
 Various Sayings. 
 
 Blessing of Children. 
 
 Renunciation of Riches. 
 
 Third Prediction of the 
 Passion. 
 
 Request of James and John. 
 
 Two Blind Men at Jericho. 
 
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 79 
 
 After this the story of the Passion begins. 
 
 The above tables, necessarily abbreviated and imper- 
 fect, show that while Matthew is influenced by the order 
 of Mark, the writer deserts that order in nearly a quarter 
 of his Gospel, viz. in Matt, viii.-xiii., containing 252 
 verses. Yet even here he had before him either our 
 Mark, or something equivalent to a large part of it, 
 for out of the 252 verses there are 108 which are 
 practically parallel with Mark.^ If we could find no 
 reason for the order chosen, we might seriously doubt 
 if he had before him our existing Mark. But there 
 are two reasons which appear to be quite evident. 
 First, he wishes to add a large amount of material 
 which is absent in Mark, and of this we shall speak 
 presently. Secondly, he tries to put both his Marcan 
 and his other material into compendious blocks. 
 Christ's teaching is contained in five such blocks. 
 Chaps, v.-vii., x., and xiii. comprise His teaching as 
 to fundamental morality, missions, and parables, xviii. 
 speaks of children and forgiveness, xxiii.-xxv. of the 
 Pharisees and the Last Things. Further, chaps, viii.- 
 ix. give specimens of His ' mighty ' works, ana chaps, 
 xi.-xii. show how His words and His works were 
 received. The writer tried to group -the facts in 
 such a way as to aid the memory of teachers and 
 catechumens. So he takes miracles that are strewn 
 about in Mark and places them together in viii.-ix. 
 As our Lord's words about the Sabbath gain point 
 when they are studied in connection with His denuncia- 
 tion of the Pharisees, the evangelist detaches them 
 from Mark ii. and iii. and places them in a great anti- 
 Pharisaic passage in Matt. xii. So the choice and 
 the sending out of the apostles are placed together. 
 We can see the same process at work in the later 
 chapters, where there are omissions for the sake of 
 
 ^ See Sir John Hawkins, Expository Times, vol. xii. p. 471 ; vol. 
 xiii. p. 20. 
 
80 THE GOSPELS 
 
 simplification (see above, p. 76) and important sayings 
 that are not in Mark. 
 
 It seems then that the majority of modern scholars 
 are justified in their belief that the first and the third 
 Gospel in our New Testament are based upon the 
 second. The authors sometimes corrected S. Mark's 
 Greek, and sometimes considerably modified what he 
 said. There has perhaps been too great a readiness 
 to believe that they made these modifications to serve 
 dogmatic interests which they had at heart. We 
 must take into account the strong probability that the 
 practice of oral teaching had done something to crys- 
 tallise slightly different reports of the same incidents. 
 And this theory is greatly strengthened by the fact 
 that some of the widest divergences from S. Mark 
 occur in the other narratives of the Passion. The 
 death of Christ was so important, the story was so often 
 repeated, additional details were so earnestly prized, 
 that primitive Christian teachers had in their own 
 minds enough to enable them to treat any written 
 record with considerable freedom. 
 
 When we first realise how S. Mark's work was incor- 
 porated by the other evangelists into their own Gospels, 
 it seems strange and very alien from the methods of 
 respectable modern writers. Plagiarism, unacknow- 
 ledged appropriation of another's labour, is nowadays 
 not a recommendation but a condemnation. But all 
 the evangelists regarded the matter on another plane. 
 S. Mark does not call his Gospel his own, but simply 
 that ' of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.' The Gospel 
 was the common property of the Church. And it was 
 still so much on the lips of those who knew either the 
 Master or His apostles that the evangelists felt them- 
 selves free both to copy and correct what they found 
 written. Less than a hundred years later S. Mark's 
 work would neither have been copied nor altered in 
 the same degree. To the Catholic it would have been 
 
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 81 
 
 too sacred, to the Gnostic it would have been too 
 carnal. The first would have left it reverently alone, 
 the second would have turned it into a Greek romance. 
 
 § 4. Non-Marcan Sources. 
 
 In addition to the Gospel written by S. Mark, 
 Matthew and Luke show the use of written accounts 
 of our Lord's sayings. Mark contains comparatively 
 few of His discourses, the other two Gospels contain 
 them in rich abundance. And just as the two later 
 evangelists, in spite of the changes which they some- 
 times make in the style of S. Mark, have preserved 
 traces of his style, so they both show traces of another 
 document. More probably they used two different 
 versions of one document. From it were extracted, 
 the Sermon on the Mount (Matt, v.-vii. ; Luke vi.); the 
 sending out of the apostles (Matt. x. ; Luke x.) ; the 
 discourse about the Baptist (Matt. xi. ; Luke vii.) ; 
 and many other isolated sayings of our Lord. These 
 discourses and sayings of our Lord were written in 
 a simple and Hebraic style, such as we can readily 
 believe was His usual manner of speech. Luke has 
 kept what seems to be the more faithful reproduction 
 of the original order, Matthew has perhaps the more 
 original terms of expression. In Matthew the sayings 
 are arranged in large blocks, admirably adapted for 
 catechetical instruction. In Luke they are recorded 
 separately, and in some cases they are given in con- 
 nection with the circumstances which led up to them. 
 If we read the Lord's Prayer (Matt. vi. 9-13 ; Luke 
 xi. 1-4) ; the treasure and the heart (Matt. vi. 19-21 ; 
 Luke xii. 33, 34) ; God and mammon (Matt. vi. 24 ; 
 Luke xvi. 13), we see how one evangelist combines 
 what the other keeps separate. In addition to say- 
 ings of our Lord, there was a certain amount of 
 history which linked those sayings together. Such 
 
82 THE GOSPELS 
 
 a blending of history and sayings is found in the 
 preaching of the Baptist, the temptation of our Lord, 
 and the Centurion's servant. All of these are found 
 in a very similar form in Matthew and Luke. 
 
 With regard to the document or documents used in 
 addition to Mark for the composition of Matthew and 
 Luke, exact knowledge is impossible. Critics have given, 
 and are still giving, the minutest attention to the sub- 
 ject, believing that here there exists a record of our 
 Lord's teaching which is probably even more primitive 
 than Mark. That S. Mark was himself acquainted 
 with this source either because he had read it or 
 because he had heard some of it, is probable if not 
 certain. Important in this connection are his account 
 of John the Baptist's preaching, the controversy 
 between our Lord and those who accused Him of 
 acting under the influence of Beelzebub, and the 
 parable of the mustard seed. Here S. Mark appears 
 to have used material which the other evangelists 
 possessed both in a form distinct from Mark and also 
 incorporated in Mark. Other and even more difficult 
 problems are involved in the questions as to how much 
 the non-Marcan document contained, and the relation 
 of the document embodied in Matthew to the special 
 source of information possessed by S. Luke. I think 
 that Dr. Bartlet speaks correctly when he says that 
 this source of information ' was a peculiar form of 
 written memoirs elicited by our Third Evangelist ad 
 hoc, not immediately for the literary purpose to which 
 he finally put it, but rather as a permanent record of 
 the most authentic tradition to which it had been his 
 lot to obtain access, for use in his own work as an 
 evangelist or catechistof the oral Gospel.'^ This docu- 
 ment we may call S, reserving for the other document 
 the symbol Q, which is quite meaningless in English, 
 as it represents the German Quelle or ' source.' The 
 ' Studies in the Synoptic Problem, p. 351. 
 
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 83 
 
 adoption of this latter symbol into English theological 
 works at first deserved little but ridicule. But it now 
 has the advantage of leaving the letter S free for 
 employment in connection with Luke. 
 
 This special source used by S. Luke contained those 
 exquisite passages which give to his Gospel much of 
 its peculiar charm. We may believe that S. Luke had 
 selected them because they were congenial to his soul, 
 and that his own spiritual life was also greatly in- 
 fluenced by their revelation of the Master. Dives and 
 Lazarus, the Prodigal Son, the Good Samaritan, and 
 certain incidents such as the woman ' that was in the 
 city, a sinner,' Zacchaeus, and Martha ' cumbered about 
 much serving,' are drawn from this record. In it Jesus 
 is specially represented as the Friend of sinners and 
 the Consoler of the afflicted. The stories and sayings 
 breathe the same spirit. They sometimes relate what 
 was also to be found in Mark and in Q. But S. Luke 
 regarded them as particularly authentic and important, 
 and seems to have sometimes preferred this collection 
 to Mark, otherwise he would not have inserted most of 
 it bodily in one large block (Luke ix. 51-xviii. 14) 
 into the midst of a narrative taken from Mark. Several 
 eminent scholars who believe that S. Luke had this 
 special source of his own, believe that it not merely 
 related certain things which were also related in Q, 
 but that it included passages directly copied from Q. 
 I agree with Dr. Sanday in thinking that this was not 
 the case, and that S. Luke was the first to fuse Q and S. 
 
 Having noticed S. Luke's special source, we now turn 
 to inquire if the phenomena presented in Matthew and 
 Luke really demand the explanation of a large common 
 source other than Mark, viz. a collection of our Lord's 
 sayings. In our next chapter we shall consider some 
 external evidence which bears upon this matter, but 
 here we shall confine ourselves to the internal evidence to 
 be discovered in our first and third Gospels themselves. 
 
84 THE GOSPELS 
 
 First, it is evident that there is a large amount of 
 most important material, nearly all records of our 
 Lord's sayings, to be found in Matthew and Luke and 
 not in Mark. It is conceivable that this might have 
 been derived solely from oral tradition and teaching. 
 No fatal objection to this view can be drawn from the 
 fact that such oral tradition would have been originally 
 in Aramaic while our Gospels are all in Greek. The 
 two languages were often used side by side, like Welsh 
 and English in some parts of Wales. But there is> a 
 more serious objection in the fact that a tradition 
 cherished for the instruction of catechumens and 
 Christians would almost necessarily have been formu- 
 lated at first in Jerusalem, and would have told us 
 more about our Lord's doings in Jerusalem. This is 
 precisely what the Synoptists do not tell us until they 
 come to the Passion. They tell us about the ministry 
 everywhere else, they are rich in stories which go back 
 to some witness or witnesses of His ministry outside 
 Jerusalem. What is more is that, though Matthew 
 and Luke give us their non-Marcan matter in two 
 forms which are significantly different, they agree in 
 one very striking particular. The arrangement in 
 Matthew is coherent but artificial, its purpose is homi- 
 letical. The arrangement in Luke is more natural and 
 equally coherent in another way. It suggests what 
 seems to be a really genuine chronological outline of 
 our Lord's ministry. Now, it is possible that S. Luke 
 wrote down what he found traditionally preserved, and 
 not written, and that the author of Matthew wrote 
 down the same tradition in a different way. But would 
 this tradition have consisted almost entirely of sayings 
 of Jesus ? Here the two Gospels agree. This is a real 
 difficulty in the way of accepting the oral theory. It 
 is far more reasonable to think that these sayings, with 
 their intensely Palestinian and strongly primitive back- 
 " ind, were written down at a time when there were 
 
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 86 
 
 still many who could remember the chief actions and 
 sufferings of our Lord and the more important places 
 which He visited, but knew that they were in danger of 
 forgetting some of His gracious words. 
 
 Next, there is the style which we find in the non- 
 Marcan passages in Matthew and Luke. Though both 
 authors retouched S. Mark's style, and therefore, we 
 may presume, the style of any other document that 
 they copied, we find that the words which they employ 
 point to the fact that each used a written source apart 
 from Mark. When they follow Mark they both use 
 their own favourite expressions less frequently than in 
 those passages which are peculiar to themselves, and 
 the same phenomenon occurs when they record dis- 
 courses which are not in Mark. Various methods 
 have been used for estimating the variations of style 
 which occur in different portions of Matthew and Luke, 
 but none is perhaps more simple and effective than that 
 of Sir John Hawkins. He shows that in Matthew out 
 of 1068 verses there are 338 which are ' peculiar,' 
 having no parallel in the other Gospels. In Luke 
 there are 1149 verses, and of these 499 which are 
 ' peculiar.' But in Matthew there are 482 instances of 
 the use of characteristic Matthaean words and phrases 
 in the ' peculiar ' division, and only 422 in the ' com- 
 mon ' division. And in Luke there are 777 instances 
 of the use of characteristic Lucan words and phrases in 
 the ' peculiar ' division, and only 706 in the ' common ' 
 division. That is, we find that in Matthew the 
 characteristic words and phrases are scattered more 
 than twice as thickly over the peculiar portions as 
 over the other portions, and in Luke rather more than 
 half as thickly again. 
 
 This certainly tends to show that both Matthew and 
 Luke are largely derived from a written collection of 
 our Lord's discourses. The two evangelists introduced 
 their own favourite terms of expression into the narra- 
 
86 THE GOSPELS 
 
 tive whicli they have in common with Mark, and also, 
 though to a much less extent, into the sayings which 
 they have in common with Mark. But both these 
 classes of passages, and the sayings which are not in 
 Mark, agree in showing a more sparing use of 
 Matthaean and Lucan expressions. It is therefore 
 reasonable to conclude tliat the non-Marcan passages 
 common to Matthew and Luke, as well as the Marcan, 
 have be^n mainly derived from written sources. 
 
 The above argument is immensely strengthened by 
 the existence of the doublets or duplicate accounts of 
 the same incidents or sayings in the same Gospel. An 
 instance is in 
 
 Matt. xiii. 12. Matt. xxv. 29. 
 
 For whosoever hath, to him For unto every one that hath 
 
 shall be given^ and he shall shall be given, and he shall 
 
 have abundance : but whoso- have abundance : but from him 
 
 ever hath not, from him shall that hath not, shall be taken 
 
 be taken away even that which away even that which he hath, 
 he hath. 
 
 We may take another case from Luke : — 
 
 Luke viii. 17. Luke xii. 2. 
 
 For nothing is secret, that For there is nothing covered, 
 
 shall not be made manifest ; that shall not be revealed ; 
 
 neither anything hid, that neither hid, that shall not be 
 
 shall not be known and come known, 
 abroad. 
 
 In both these instances the first member of the 
 doublet is apparently derived from Mark and the second 
 not. The argument from the existence of doublets 
 must be used with extreme care. We must not take 
 for granted that whenever we find a doublet one 
 member of it is necessarily an account of the very same 
 incident as that recorded in the other member. Our 
 Lord may have repeated the same sayings on different 
 occasions. Nor need we fall under the same spell as 
 those critics who, whenever they find two similar 
 miracles recorded, regard one passage as a duplicate of 
 
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 87 
 
 the other, and having disposed of the genuineness of 
 the one story, throw doubt upon the other. In this 
 way the miraculous feeding of the four thousand is too 
 readily declared to be the same as the feeding of the 
 five thousand, the healing of the ten lepers in Luke 
 xvii. 11-19 the same as the healing of the one leper in 
 Luke V. 12-16, and the sending out of the seventy 
 disciples in Luke x. is represented as a legendary 
 duplicate of the sending out of the twelve apostles. 
 
 Putting aside the discussion of these points, let us 
 return to solid ground. We cannot ignore the fact 
 that in Mark, in great contrast with Matthew and 
 Luke, there is only one doublet : 
 
 Mark ix. 35. Mark x. 44. 
 
 If any man would be first. Whosoever would be first 
 he shall be last of all, and among you, shall be servant 
 minister of all. of all. 
 
 It may be considered doubtful if this is a doublet of 
 the stricter kind, for we can most easily believe that 
 our Lord repeated such an injunction as this. There- 
 fore it need not be the case that S. Mark has given us 
 a duplicate account of the same saying. But a com- 
 parison of these passages with Matthew and Luke 
 makes it very probable that one of these passages in 
 Mark has been derived from Q. In Matthew some 
 critics have reckoned no less than twenty-two doublets, 
 of which we must mention the following eleven : 
 
 1. Matt. xiii. 12 and xxv. 29. 
 
 2. Matt. xvi. 4 and xii. SQ. 
 
 3. Matt. xvi. 24 and x. 38. 
 
 4. Matt. xvi. 25 and x. 39. 
 
 5. Matt, xviii. 8 f. and v. 29 f. 
 
 6. Matt. xix. 9 and v. 32. 
 
 7. Matt. xix. 30 and xx. l6. 
 
 8. Matt. xxi. 21 and xvii. 20. 
 
 9. Matt. vii. 16-18 and xii. 33-35. 
 
 10. Matt. X. 1.5 and xi. 24. 
 
 11. Matt. ix. 13 and xii. 7. 
 
88 THE GOSPELS 
 
 It is important to observe that in the case of the 
 first eight of these doublets, the first member of the 
 doublet, that in the first column, corresponds with a 
 passage in Mark. The other members of the doublets, 
 those in the second column, do not come from Mark. 
 The doublets which are numbered 9 and 10 are of a 
 rare kind, for both members of them seem to have 
 been derived from Q, and 11 has no parallel in Mark 
 orQ. 
 
 Next we can consider nine doublets in Luke : — 
 
 1. Luke viii. l6 and xi. 33. 
 
 2. Luke viii. 17 and xii. 2. 
 
 3. Luke ix. 3, 4, 5 and x. 4, 5, 7, 10^ 11. 
 
 4. Luke ix. 23 and xiv. 27. 
 
 5. Luke ix. 24 and xvii. 33. 
 
 6. Luke ix. 26 and xii. 9. 
 
 7. Luke XX. 46 and xi. 43. 
 
 8. Luke xxi. 14, 15 and xii. 11, 12. 
 
 9. Luke xiv. 11 and xviii. 14. 
 
 The first eight of the members in the first column 
 are parallel in position with similar verses in Mark. 
 And all these eight have one member in that middle 
 section of Luke (ix. 51-xviii. 14) which is derived 
 from S. Luke's special source. Further, in 2, 4, 5, 
 6, and 7 the member of the Lucan doublet which 
 corresponds in position with the similar passage in 
 Mark is more like Mark than is the member which 
 is in the middle section of Luke. In the case of the 
 eighth instance, the preponderance of agreement is on 
 the other side. No. 9 has both its members in the 
 middle section. In addition to these doublets there 
 are possibly others, and there are two which have 
 neither member in that section. They are Luke viii. 
 18 and xix. 26, and ix. 46 and xxii. 24. Of these 
 Luke viii. 18 is from Mark, and S. Luke has kept it 
 after the explanation of the parable of the sower, 
 whereas in Matthew it is placed before. Luke ix. 46 is 
 
THE SYNOPTIC' PROBLEM 89 
 
 also from Mark, and it is so likely that there were two 
 disputes between the disciples as to who should be 
 greatest that we may hesitate to call this a doublet. 
 
 To sum up this brief inquiry, one may say that in 
 Matthew and Luke the contents, style, and duplicates 
 make it certain that their origin is composite. They 
 are based on Mark and on another document which they 
 both used, and which can be denoted by the symbol 
 Q. The same source was known to S. Mark, though 
 he has made little use of it, probably because he de- 
 liberately wrote his Gospel to serve as a supplement to 
 Q. S. Luke, in addition to Mark and Q, had another 
 important source, which may be denoted by S. 
 
 § 5. The Stories of Christ's Birth. 
 
 The narratives in Matthew and Luke concerning 
 the birth and infancy of our Lord are obviously in- 
 dependent of each other. They agree as to His birth 
 at Bethlehem, the names of Mary and Joseph, the 
 descent from David, and the residence at Nazareth. 
 But the genealogies diverge widely, and the story of 
 the birth in Matthew is told rather from the point of 
 view of Joseph, that in Luke from the point of view of 
 Mary. In Matthew we have no record of the presen- 
 tation of the Holy Child in the temple, though the 
 story would have been dear to any Jewish Christian's 
 heart, and S. Luke says nothing of the Eastern sages 
 coming to worship the light of the Gentiles, though 
 this would have admirably suited the spirit and purpose 
 of his Gospel. Plainly we here have two stories based 
 on some independent sources. The second thing to 
 notice is that neither of these stories can be regarded 
 as a later addition to the Gospels such as the cruder 
 class of critics used to maintain. The story in Matthew 
 shows some of the evangelist's best- known character- 
 istics. His love of artificial numerical arrangement is 
 
90 THE GOSPELS 
 
 reflected in the genealogy, which contains three sets of 
 fourteen generations, an arrangement which both assists 
 the memory and makes use of the sacred Jewish number 
 seven. His steady resolve to show that Jesus is the 
 Messiah is shown throughout the story. And his 
 defence of the character of the blessed Virgin is exactly 
 in a line with his constant criticism of unbelieving 
 Jewish adversaries. At least as early as the second 
 century the Jews started a scandalous story about the 
 paternitj' of Jesus. And the evangelist defends both 
 Mary and her Son by not only asserting her virginity 
 and His genuine Davidic descent, but also by intro- 
 ducing into the genealogy the names of Rahab, Tamar, 
 and the wife of Uriah. These names alone were enough 
 to prove that, in the providence of God, kings whom 
 the Jews themselves regarded as members of the legiti- 
 mate line were descended from women of irregular life. 
 Thus the evangelist carries war into the enemy's camp. 
 
 Just as the story in Matthew is thoroughly Matthaean 
 in form, so the story in Luke is thoroughly Lucan. 
 Towards a real and inward Judaism S. Luke is 
 always reverent, and there is therefore nothing un- 
 Lucan in the reference to the throne of David and the 
 obligations of the Law. The style is archaic but not 
 un-Lucan. Here as elsewhere S. Luke has probably 
 worked over a document which was either in Aramaic 
 or translated from Aramaic. The author's consistent 
 interest in women is here not merely illustrated but 
 explained. And the artistic sense which marks the 
 whole story is Lucan through and through. 
 
 No valid objection against the authenticity of these 
 two accounts of our Lord's birth can be made on the 
 score that the doctrine of the Virgin birth is a pagan 
 importation into Christianity. Mythology, decent and 
 indecent, has been ransacked to find the origin of the 
 doctrine. But the fact remains that both accounts 
 must have taken shape in Palestinian Jewish Christian 
 
THE SYNOP'nC PROBLEM 91 
 
 circles. The tone is not Gentile, nor even that of Jews 
 living in a Gentile environment. The bedizened legend 
 of the miraculous birth of Buddha and a story of the 
 Egyptian Isis supposed to have filtered into Christianity 
 through Jewish legend, have been appealed to in vain. 
 It is not at all probable that the story of the Virgin 
 birth was told at first except to those who were already 
 convinced that Jesus was the Son of God. The apostles 
 would be cautious in speaking of a matter which was 
 open to such misinterpretation. S. Paul does not 
 actually mention it, though his language about the 
 sinfulness of all the descendants of Adam, except the 
 sinless Jesus, cannot be explained if he did not be- 
 lieve in the miraculous birth of Jesus Christ. He 
 gives clear expression to the idea of the solidarity 
 of all mankind, and regards all men as infected with 
 a taint derived from Adam by natural descent. 
 But he regards Jesus Christ as the Second Adam, sin- 
 less in actual fact, free from the inherited taint of 
 Adam's sin, and the Head of a renewed humanity, 
 capable of communicating His life to others. In 
 view of these connected ideas, it seems impossible to 
 think that S. Paul did not believe that by a physical 
 miracle Christ's birth was protected from the taint 
 which accompanies our own. It is often said that 
 S. John is silent as to the Virgin birth. But this 
 silence cannot be taken for granted. For there is good 
 ground for suspecting that in i. IS the correct text is 
 really ' who was born, not of blood, nor of the will 
 of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.' 
 The reference is then to Christ, and not to Christians, 
 and the text one of the strongest testimonies to the 
 supernatural birth of Jesus. This view is corroborated 
 by the assertion of His Jewish opponents in viii. 41. 
 They say 'We were not born of fornication,' words 
 which seem to imply a reference to the evil story 
 about our Lord's mother based upon a perversion of 
 
92 THE GOSPELS 
 
 the fact that He was not the Son of Joseph. This 
 story is found in the Talmud, and was incorporated 
 in a disgusting mediaeval Jewish lampoon. It may have 
 been current in S. John's time. 
 
 In the second century it is only where the 
 apostolic faith concerning Christ was denied that 
 we find the Virgin birth repudiated. Except among 
 the semi-Jewish Ebionites and some more than 
 semi-pagan Gnostics, we find that a profession 
 of Christianity and a belief in such a birth went 
 together, and we find this as early as S. Ignatius, 
 A.D. 110. It is sometimes said that such writers as 
 testify to this belief derived it from our Gospels. 
 That is a double-edged argument. For, if it is true, it 
 shows how universally and how early their account of 
 Christ's birth was accepted. The virginity of Mary 
 was asserted in the earliest forms of the creed. In 
 other words, it was an ' article of faith ' at least as 
 early as the first quarter of the second century. 
 
 While it is now almost undisputed that the stories 
 of Christ's infancy were as a whole written in their 
 present form by our evangelists, it is still urged by 
 some that they did not originally assert the Virgin 
 birth. First, there is the difficulty raised by the strange 
 variety of readings in Greek, Latin, and Syriac manu- 
 scripts in Matt. i. 16. The Old Syriac version has 
 ' Jacob begat Joseph, Joseph, to whom was betrothed 
 Mary the virgin, begat Jesus who is called the Messiah.' 
 An elaborate comparison of the different forms of this 
 text shows that the Old Syriac is here corrupt, but 
 that it probably contains an older reading under later 
 accretions. It is perhaps best to refer the reader to 
 the discussion of the subject by Mr. C. H. Turner in 
 the Journal ofTheological Studies for January 1910. 
 He holds that the best explanation of the existing 
 variations is that the text which they have altered in 
 different ways was : 
 
THK SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 93 
 
 Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary ; 
 
 And Joseph begat (eycVvijcrew) Jesus who was called Christ. 
 
 Mr. Turner is probably the ablest of all the critics 
 who have defended the originality of the words 
 'Joseph begat Jesus.' It is, therefore, important to 
 observe that he unequivocally asserts that it is ' quite 
 certain ' that the evangelist and his contemporaries 
 ' accepted absolutely the Virgin birth,' and agrees with 
 Professor Burkitt that 'since the Virgin birth is 
 obviously of the essence of the narrative,' the above 
 phrase, if it is genuine, ' must be interpreted in 
 accordance with it.' That is, it must have been 
 intended to establish a legal, rather than a natural, 
 descent and heirship of Christ from David through 
 Joseph. The adoption of Mary's Child by Joseph 
 made the Child, according to Jewish law, a legal 
 descendant of Joseph's ancestry, and proved his 
 Davidic lineage. ^ 
 
 After long deliberation, I am unable to convince 
 myself that the evangelist wrote, ' Joseph begat Jesus.' 
 He takes such scrupulous care to impress upon his 
 readers the truth of the Virgin birth that it is not 
 likely that he would have used a phrase which they 
 would have instantly felt to be inconsistent with such 
 a miracle. In this short first chapter of Matthew the 
 author explicitly teaches the miraculous birth in three 
 separate verses (18, 20, 25). He reinforces the fact 
 by a perfectly unambiguous quotation from the Greek 
 version of Isaiah. And, as we saw above, he has the 
 extraordinary boldness to hint at it in the genealogy 
 itself by referring to three women, one of whom is 
 Rahab. Not content with this, the evangelist in the 
 second chapter carefully avoids describing the Holy 
 Child as the child of Joseph in the very places where 
 it would have been natural to do so, if he had 
 ' See Dr. R. J. Knowling, Our LorcCs Virgin Birth. 
 
94 THE GOSPELS 
 
 believed Him to be such. Is there then any other 
 reading which will account for the variations in the 
 manuscripts ? 
 
 Mr. Turner has himself suggested such a reading : 
 
 Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary ; 
 
 And Mary bare (iyewrja-ev) ' Jesus who was called Christ. 
 
 If the evangelist wrote this, all the phenomena can be 
 naturally explained. The scribe of one manuscript, 
 which must have been very early, and the parent of 
 other copies, made a mistake which any copyist might 
 make, writing ' Joseph ' twice instead of ' Joseph ' and 
 ' Mary.' The mistake is natural, being of a kind 
 which is so commonly made in rapid writing that it 
 can excite no surprise. But whether this suggestion 
 is accepted or not, the fact remains that belief in the 
 Virgin birth is the evangelist's own belief and not an 
 interpolation, it is Palestinian and not pagan, it is 
 primitive and not late. This is so incontrovertible 
 that Harnack, without accepting, it would seem, the 
 doctrine of the Virgin birth, has recently said that it 
 is ' beyond dispute that in the most important verses 
 (i. 18-25) of the story of the Infancy in the first 
 Gospel nothing is to be found that could not have 
 been written about the year 70 a.d.' ^ 
 
 The case of S. Luke is slightly different. It has 
 been recently argued by several critics, mostly very 
 definitely rationalistic or anti-Christian, that the story 
 in Luke could run quite smoothly and naturally if 
 the two verses (Luke i. 34-35) were omitted. They 
 are : — 
 
 And Mary said unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I 
 know not a man ? And the angel answered and said unto her, 
 The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the 
 
 1 It is important to remember that in Greek the same word is used 
 for ' beget ' and ' bear.' 
 
 ^ T/ie Date of the Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels, p. 148 (English 
 trans,]. 
 
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 95 
 
 Most High shall overshadow thee : wherefore also that which 
 is to be born shall be called holy, the Son of God. 
 
 Here the evidence of the manuscripts is decisively 
 against the omission of tlie verses in question. A sincere 
 criticism compels us to say that the words above are 
 part of the original text of Luke. Dr. Sanday has lately 
 said of the first two chapters of Luke that ' there is 
 nothing more intensely and primitively Jewish in the 
 whole New Testament.' ^ Harnack also has lately said 
 with regard to S. Luke's stories of Christ's infancy 
 that 'S. Luke regarded them as proceeding from S. 
 Mary; for his practice elsewhere as an historian proves 
 that he could not have himself invented a fiction like 
 this.' And he is satisfied that they too were written 
 before a.d. 70.^ It seems certain that S. Luke wrote 
 the words as we have them. The manuscript evidence 
 in their favour is overwhelming, they agree in style 
 with the rest of the passage, and fitly attribute to our 
 Lord a strictly supernatural birth, after attributing to 
 His inferior and forerunner a birth attended by 
 mysterious, though less miraculous, circumstances. 
 
 The hymns in this portion of Luke appear to have 
 been drawn from an Aramaic source, though they 
 contain Lucan phrases. As S. Luke was in Jerusalem 
 with S. Paul in a.d. 56 (Acts xxi.), it is quite possible 
 that he may have found such a document there, and 
 that he came to know some of the holy women who 
 were friends of Mary. Among them was probably 
 Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward (viii. 3 ; 
 xxiv. 10). 
 
 § 6. Valuable results of Criticism. 
 
 While most of the above statements as to the 
 Synoptic problem are such as meet with wide acceptance, 
 
 1 Miracles, p. 14. ^ Op. cit. p. 155. 
 
96 THE GOSPELS 
 
 the problem is by no means entirely solved. Perhaps 
 it never will be solved. The critics who write as 
 though they had been at Rome and Antioch, and sat 
 by the side of the evangelists while they composed 
 their Gospels, are not to be wholly trusted. They 
 are ready with an explanation for every word which 
 the Synoptists changed, and they label each change 
 with what they consider the appropriate motive. But 
 it will be enough for most of us if we arrive at some 
 well reasoned hypothesis which accounts for the origin 
 of that knowledge of the life and teaching of Jesus 
 Christ which we possess. We must be content if many 
 details are unexplained, even after much searching. 
 We must even welcome an entirely new hypothesis if 
 it overthrows that on which we have spent much 
 labour. And yet the results of the critical investiga- 
 tions of the last three generations have been substantial 
 and valuable. Some of them may be mentioned. 
 
 (i) The practical certainty that the great bulk of 
 the story in the Synoptic Gospels dates from the life- 
 time of persons who had seen and spoken with Jesus 
 Christ. This is usually granted by non-Christian as 
 well as Christian writers. The latest date to which 
 Mark can with any plausibility be assigned is a little 
 before a.d. 70. The sayings of the Lord which were 
 written down before they were incorporated in Matthew 
 and Luke were in all probability written earlier than 
 Mark. An adverse critic may urge that this does not 
 prove that everything in these documents is true. 
 But it does at least give us ground for treating them 
 with respect. The figures of a date do at least count 
 for something. The proverb rightly warns us that 
 two and two do not make five, but it can be main- 
 tained with equal confidence that two and two make 
 more than three. The value of an earlier as compared 
 with a later record has been strikingly shown during 
 recent years in the case of the ' Lives ' of S. Francis of 
 Assisi. Sometimes with irreverence, and sometimes 
 
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 97 
 
 with sincerity, S. Francis has been considered the saint 
 who was most like Jesus. His later biography, the 
 official biography put out to the world in a.d. 1260 
 by the order of friars who regarded him as their father, 
 is a valuable book. But the earlier books — the Speculum 
 Perfectionis, written just after the death of S. Francis 
 by brother Leo in a.d. 1226, and the First Life of 
 S. Francis, written in a.d. 1229 — are universally re- 
 garded as the truer picture of the saint who brought 
 the Gospel once more to the people of the highways 
 and the hedges. 
 
 A closer study of Jewish and Gentile life as they 
 were in the first century of the Christian era has led 
 to the conviction that the ' local colour ' , of the 
 Synoptic Gospels is true to the alleged period and 
 place. In the course of this book we shall consider 
 many illustrations of this, and will also notice similar 
 indications in the Fourth Gospel. The rugged Greek 
 is the common Greek of the Mediterranean, with that 
 Jewish flavour which we should expect from men living 
 in a Jewish atmosphere. It is Greek which a school- 
 boy of seventeen is apt to despise, for it is no such 
 literary idiom as that of Thucydides and Plato. But 
 learned men now know what dialects are worth. They 
 can value the poetry of the best Scottish ballads, and 
 the crisp wit of the now dying Yorkshire dialects. 
 And the Greek of the Gospels has its own magic. It 
 is pithy and expressive. And it is this in spite of 
 the fact that the underlying thought is usually not 
 Greek at all, but thoroughly Semitic. The Christians 
 made comparatively few converts among the Jews 
 after the earliest years of apostolic preaching. It is 
 certain that as early as a.d. 120, or earlier, the 
 Christians were mainly Gentiles speaking Greek. And 
 yet we find enshrined in the Gospels such Semitic words 
 as Amen, Abba, Talitha cumi, and Eli, Eli, la/ma 
 sabachthani. And these are not like antique gems 
 
 G 
 
98 THE GOSPELS 
 
 set in reliquaries of a later and alien time. For some 
 of the most vital phrases of the Gospels, such as the 
 ' kingdom of the heavens,' or ' kingdom of G-od,' and ' the 
 Son of Man,' 'the Christ' or 'Messiah,' and even 
 ' righteousness ' and the ' resurrection,' are not in the 
 least Greek. To the Greek they were probably less 
 intelligible than the phraseology in the Analecta of 
 Confucius. They are fundamentally Hebrew, and 
 Hebrew of the first century. 
 
 The geography of the Holy Land gives a local 
 colour of very great importance. It is held by critics that 
 S. Mark did not write his Gospel in that country, 
 and yet the journeys of our Lord are sketched in such 
 a manner that we obtain an intelligible outline of His 
 missionary work. A skilful modern novelist might, 
 no doubt, construct a story which fitted the geography of 
 the Hebrides or the Pacific, and print a map to elucidate 
 his hero's wanderings. But in the case of S. Mark 
 we have a very rough writer who, without the slightest 
 appearance of art, gives an outline which is too meagre 
 to be fictitious. It is meagre, but it fits a precise 
 historical situation. Our Lord avoided certain places 
 because they were in the dominions of Herod Antipas, 
 and S. Mark knew from an eye-witness that Jesus had to 
 avoid some districts on account of the opposition of 
 the civil as well as the religious authorities. S. Mark 
 knows much about the Holy Land. S. Luke knows 
 much about Asia Minor and parts of the Mediterranean. 
 The apocryphal Gospels and Acts know very little. 
 A writer who had to rely upon a vague tradition of 
 the past, or upon the Old Testament alone, would 
 hardly have mentioned Capernaum or Chorazin, both 
 of which names occur in the Talmud but not in the 
 Old Testament. A Gentile of inventive mind would 
 also almost certainly have represented our Lord as 
 teaching in some Gentile town, just as the Buddhists 
 of Ceylon represented the Buddha as visiting their 
 
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 99 
 
 holy island. But none of the four Gospels definitely 
 represents our Lord as preaching in any Greek city of 
 Palestine. He only pays brief visits to non-Jewish 
 districts. This is a negative but very real proof of 
 the early date of the Christian tradition. 
 
 Again, the whole attitude of our Lord towards the 
 religious authorities and institutions of Judaism fits a 
 particular time. It is presupposed that the worship 
 of the temple is still being offered. It is presupposed 
 that there exists a class technically called the ' poor,' 
 despised for their ignorance of the law as well as for 
 their natural poverty. The existence of this class, we 
 may almost say ' caste,' is proved by Jewish evidence. 
 The Herodians, a party mentioned in the Gospel story, 
 were at the close of the first century more dead than 
 the Jacobites at the close of the nineteenth. In Rome 
 and Ephesus at the close of the first or the beginning 
 of the second century there would have been no need 
 to compose discourses with Sadducees, who were already 
 crushed or extinct. Pharisaism still lived, but the 
 Pharisaic rules about cleanness and uncleanness fell 
 into disuse, and the Church was already strong enough 
 to make rules of her own such as we find in the manual 
 known as the Didache. 
 
 In short, the words of our Lord, like the journeys of 
 our Lord, belong to Palestine previous to a.d. 70. 
 Recognition of this fact is now so general that no 
 moderate critic is likely to repeat concerning the 
 Gospels the words once used by Dr. Jowett, that 
 'they are an unauthenticated fragment belonging to 
 an age absolutely unknown.' ^ 
 
 (ii) We are reaching sounder principles in deter- 
 mining what is well attested and what is less well 
 attested. So long as the theory that the Synoptic 
 Gospels were three different forms of oral traditions 
 
 ' Abbott and Campbell, Zjii ami Letters of Benjamin Jowett, 
 vol. ii. p. 341. 
 
100 THE GOSPELS 
 
 held the field, it was natural to say that if anything 
 occurred in two Gospels it had two independent 
 witnesses in its favour, and if found in all three, it 
 had three witnesses. This theory, which itself is of 
 modern origin, may contain a considerable element 
 of truth. All the evangelists probably wrote with a 
 large amount of subject-matter in their minds, even 
 when they made use of books such as S. Luke expressly 
 mentions at the beginning of his Gospel. But the 
 fact remains that when all the first three Gospels re- 
 late the same thing, the witness may only be that of 
 S. Mark, whose work is copied by the other Synoptic 
 writers. There is no reason to regret this fact. It 
 shows the very high estimation in which S. Mark was 
 held at a very early period, apparently between a.d. 
 65 and a.d. 80. It also helps us to explain certain 
 silences in the Gospels, gaps in the story. To take 
 boldly one of the most important of all, it enables us 
 to understand why the Synoptists do not mention the 
 raising of Lazarus. This omission, if it occurred in 
 three absolutely independent Gospels, would be so 
 startling that we might feel inclined to agree with 
 those who say that the story is a fiction. But its 
 omission in the primitive collection of our Lord's say- 
 ings is natural. And though we should expect to find 
 it in Mark, the repeated omissions in that record, 
 and its great incompleteness, will make us too cautious 
 to say that if the miracle happened he must have 
 known it, and that if he knew it, he must have written 
 an account of it. 
 
 With regard to the written collection of our Lord's 
 sayings, it can justly be said that anything which 
 has the double attestation of Mark and this other 
 document, has very strong support. There may 
 be, and are, many acts and sayings recorded by 
 one evangelist only which are thoroughly historical 
 and told in a manner which we deeply feel is worthy 
 
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 101 
 
 of the Saviour. But if we find that Mark and the 
 sayings leave on our minds the same impression of 
 Jesus Christ, that impression is one which we must 
 retain. We may be sure that it does not tell us every- 
 thing, but it tells us what no later age would ever 
 have invented or could invent. Thus we are aided in 
 dealing with the greatest problem of all. 'Who do 
 men say that I, the Son of Man, am ? ' The question 
 is always coming back. It is as fresh to-day as it was 
 during any of the great Christological controversies 
 which racked the Church of bygone days. He 
 appears as more than Poet, more than Prophet. He 
 utters the hardest words, such as 'Let the dead 
 bury their dead,' 'He that hateth not father and 
 mother cannot be My disciple,' and ' He that saveth 
 his life shall lose it.' Yet He took the little children 
 in His arms, pardoned the penitent woman, and said, 
 ' Come unto Me, all ye that are weary and heavy 
 laden, and I will give you rest.' 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 THE SAYINGS OF OUR LORD 
 
 § 1. ' The Lord Said' 
 
 The modern world has witnessed the rise and history 
 of numerous Christian communities which in one way 
 or another have been the product of the New Testa- 
 ment. Here or there an individual has derived from 
 it his own ideal of what Christianity ought to be, and 
 has founded a society to embody that idea. On the 
 contrary, the Church of primitive times was not the 
 product of the New Testament, but the New Testa- 
 ment was the product of the Church. That Church 
 had sacred books which she called ' scripture,' or ' the 
 scriptures,' and when quoting from these scriptures 
 the Christians were accustomed to introduce their 
 quotation with the phrase ' it has been written.' But 
 these scriptures were at first simply and entirely the 
 Old Testament. The Old Testament had a more 
 elastic list of books in some quarters than in others, 
 for at Alexandria books were accounted canonical 
 whicli did not satisfy the more rigorous require- 
 ments of the Jews of Palestine. But for a long time 
 ' scripture ' was always the Old Testament. In the New 
 Testament the solitary approach to an exception is to 
 be found in 2 Peter iii. 15, 16, where the letters of 
 ' our beloved brother Paul ' are compared to ' the 
 other scriptures.' This is an exception which proves 
 
 102 
 
THE SAYINGS OF OUR LORD 103 
 
 nothing against our rule, for the late date of 2 Peter 
 is on other grounds so likely that we cannot argue 
 from this text that the first Christians gave the name 
 of scripture to any New Testament writings. 
 
 What the first generation of Christians valued, and 
 the next generation, was tradition. It is evident from 
 various passages in the New Testament itself that 
 many of them expected our Lord to return visibly 
 within their own lifetime. They said Marantha, ' the 
 Lord Cometh,' and prayed ' Even so come, Lord Jesus,' 
 expecting Him speedily. In the meantime, for a know- 
 ledge of His doctrine they relied upon the teaching of 
 the persons whom Christ had commissioned to teach. 
 Early and late in his Epistles, S. Paul speaks of ' the 
 traditions ^ which were ' received ' and ' handed on.' 
 He has no New Testament to quote. If he has a book, 
 he does not call it a ' Gospel.' With him the ' Gospel ' 
 is still one message of good news. It is not a book. 
 The Thessalonians are bidden to ' hold the traditions ' 
 (2 Thess. ii. 15), the Corinthians are congratulated on 
 keeping the traditions in the shape in which he gave 
 them to his converts (1 Cor. xi. 2). As he had 
 ' received from the Lord ' what he had handed on to 
 the Corinthians, so he tells Timothy to 'keep the 
 deposit safe' (1 Tim. vi. 20, cf. 2 Tim. i. 13-14), and 
 to commit it ' to such trustworthy men as will be com- 
 petent in turn to teach others ' (2 Tim. ii. 2). 
 
 S. Luke, the companion of S. Paul, refers to such a 
 tradition, when at the very beginning of his Gospel he 
 mentions ' the word ' and ' the words.' Matter of im- 
 portant interest had been ' delivered ' to him by those 
 who ' from the beginning were eye-witnesses and 
 ministers of the word,' and he writes that Theophilus 
 may ' recognise the certainty concerning the words ' in 
 which he was ' catechised ' or ' taught orally.' These 
 logoi ov ' words ' would evidently comprise more than 
 a group of sayings of our Lord, but it can hardly be 
 
104 THE GOSPELS 
 
 doubted that such sayings were included in these 
 logoi. 
 
 For a considerable time it was the custom of the 
 early Christians to refer to these logoi of Jesus Christ 
 as things which He ' said,' rather than things which He 
 ' says.' When the position of the Gospels as the most 
 authentic mine for Christ's sayings was fully estab- 
 lished, we find that they began to employ the present 
 tense, for it was understood that the writer meant 
 that Christ ' says ' this or that in His written word. 
 We find this usage in the so-called Second Epistle 
 of Clement about a.d. 140. But in Acts xx. 35, 
 S. Paul, when quoting an unwritten saying of our 
 Lord, speaks thus : ' Ye ought to help the weak, and 
 to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how He Him- 
 self said. It is more blessed to give than to receive.' 
 This manner of speech is to be found in some other 
 primitive Christian documents. The early Church 
 manual called the DidacM, the letter of S. Clement 
 of Rome, and that of S. Polycarp, writings com- 
 posed between a.d. 95 and a.d. 115, say, ' The Lord 
 commanded,' ' the Lord said.' These expressions 
 originated at a period when there either was no 
 written Gospel, or when living tradition was more 
 valued than the written page. No doubt some Chris- 
 tians would naturally be more conservative than 
 others, and would tend to retain such a habit later 
 than others. Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, 
 was a man of this type. About a.d. 140 he published 
 his ' Expositions of the Lord's Oracles ' (Logia). Many 
 years before this he had collected traditions about the 
 Lord, and he says, ' I did not suppose that the con- 
 tents of books would profit me so much as the utter- 
 ances of a living and abiding voice.' i From the 
 fragments of his works preserved by Eusebius, the 
 Church historian of two hundred years later, it is 
 1 Eus. ff. E. iii. 39. 
 
THE SAYINGS OF OUR LORD 105 
 
 plain that when Fapias collected these traditions the 
 apostles were dead. Two of our Lord's personal dis- 
 ciples survived, probably at a very advanced age. 
 They were named Aristion and John the Presbyter. 
 Whether Papias actually met them or not is un- 
 certain, but he derived information from them which 
 he welcomed as of unique value. We are not justified 
 in saying that he regarded the contents of the Gospels 
 as less true than the sayings which he learnt orally. 
 But the living tradition was still in his estimation so 
 excellent that it was indispensable, and he was eager 
 to secure this living tradition before it was gone for 
 ever. 
 
 § 2. Was there a Collection of' Sayings? 
 
 The word Logia occurs in another connection in 
 Papias, besides forming part of the title of his own 
 work. And it is this other passage which nearly 
 secured for the word Logia an entry into the English 
 language. Papias says : — 
 
 Matthew then made an orderly arrangement of the 
 Logia in the Hebrew dialect, and each one interpreted 
 them as he was able.^ 
 
 Some modern students who observed the similarity 
 of the sayings of Jesus recorded in Matthew and Luke, 
 and not derived from Mark, held that Papias was 
 speaking of a document called the Logia which the 
 two later Synoptic writers copied. That they did copy 
 such a document is very probable, as we have seen in 
 the last chapter. But it is by no means certain that 
 Papias is here specifically speaking of it. In the New 
 Testament Logia signifies the ' oracles ' or utterances 
 of God contained in the Old Testament, or the inspired 
 utterances of prophets. At a rather later period Logia 
 ' Eus. ff. E. iii. 39. 
 
106 THE GOSPELS 
 
 means the 'commandments'' or precepts of our Lord. 
 It is used in this sense by S. Clement of Rome, a.d. 
 96, and also by S. Polycarp, the contemporary of 
 Papias.^ It seems probable that Papias also used the 
 word Logia as equivalent to 'the commandments 
 delivered by the Lord to our faith ' in contrast with 
 ' alien commandments ' of heretics.^ Now there is no 
 reason whatever why we should not speak of the short 
 pregnant sayings of our Lord as Logia, whether we 
 use the word in the sense of 'oracles' or, in accord- 
 ance with the more classical Greek meaning, under- 
 stand it as equivalent to 'brief utterances.' But we 
 have no evidence to show that the early Christians 
 ever gave the name of Logia to any compilation of 
 Christ's sayings employed by the evangelists. Papias 
 himself speaks of the Lord's words, Logoi, in a manner 
 which implies that he identified ^hese words, and not 
 a document, with the Logia that he knew. 
 
 But though we hesitate in saying that any book 
 was called Logia, we have to ask if any written 
 collection of our Lord's sayings did exist in the 
 apostolic age, and if so, what this collection contained. 
 The opening chapters of Acts, which abound in 
 primitive touches, give us an exact idea of the general 
 character of the earliest manner of preaching the 
 Gospel. This preaching must usually have been in 
 the Aramaic language, then commonly called Hebrew, 
 though differing considerably from real Hebrew. The 
 Gospels themselves show that our Lord spoke Aramaic. 
 The Acts show us that it was the popular language of 
 Jerusalem, for the mob which threatened S. Paul 
 calmed down when they heard him begin to speak in 
 Aramaic. The preaching of the apostles was 'preaching 
 Christ.' They explained that Jesus of Nazareth was 
 the Christ, the Messiah ; they spoke of the signs and 
 wonders which God had worked by Him, of His death 
 1 Ad Philipp. 7. . "^ Eus. loc. cit. 
 
THE SAYINGS OF OUR LORD 107 
 
 as part of God's plan for man's salvation, and of His 
 resurrection as an incontrovertible fact proving that 
 He was truly the Lord. They testified to what they 
 had ' seen and heard ' (Acts iv. 20). Any one who reads 
 S. Peter's speeches in the Acts will feel certain that 
 the earliest tradition handed down by the apostles 
 consisted primarily of some great facts of the story of 
 Jesus combined with appropriate passages of the Old 
 Testament which the apostles interpreted as referring 
 to the Messiah. And some tradition as to the words 
 of the Lord must have accompanied this preaching, 
 for the apostles beyond all question preached to the 
 unconverted about the second coming of Christ which 
 He had foretold. Converts were apparently not 
 required to repeat sayings of the Lord before they 
 were baptised, and we have no trace as yet of any 
 written sayings. But the new morality and teaching 
 of the Christian Church demanded such sayings as 
 their basis. 
 
 Here let us return to S. Paul. One very great 
 advantage in dealing with his writings is that we know 
 the dates at which most of his letters were written, at 
 any rate within a year or two. We are unable to 
 prove that any Gospel existed when he suffered 
 martyrdom at Rome in or near a.d. 64. S. Irenaeus 
 places the publication of the Gospel of S. Mark ' after 
 the departure' of Peter and Paul, and appears to 
 mean soon after their departure from this present 
 world. Clement of Alexandria holds that S. Peter 
 knew of it, and S. Peter died near the same time as 
 S. Paul. It is therefore possible, though by no means 
 certain, that S. Paul had seen our earliest Gospel 
 before he died. But he certainly knew a ' guaranteed ' 
 tradition (2 Tim. ii. 2), and we must leave room for 
 the hypothesis that he may have known some written 
 documents about our Lord's teaching and life some 
 years before he wrote his letters to Timothy and 
 
108 THE GOSPELS 
 
 Titus. S. Paul knows of Christ's poverty, His obedi- 
 ence to the law, His self-effacement and refusal to 
 please Himself, His meekness and gentleness, His 
 sinlessness. He appeals directly to the command of 
 the Lord that a husband and a wife may not separate 
 and remarry (1 Cor. vii. 10), and to His direction 
 that those who preach the Gospel should live by the 
 Gospel (1 Cor. ix. 14 ; cf. Matt. x. 9-11). Several 
 other passages show reminiscences of Christ's say- 
 ings. The references to our Lord's death, the 
 circumstances of it and of His resurrection, are 
 numerous. Two passages are of special importance, 
 that in which he writes about the institution of the 
 Lord's Supper (1 Cor. xi. 23-26), and that in which 
 He enumerates the appearances of Christ after His 
 resurrection (1 Cor. xv. 8-8). The former has points 
 of contact with Luke, the latter, it has been con- 
 j ectured, may correspond with the list of appearances 
 recorded in the original, now lost, ending of Mark. 
 At least, the appearance to Cephas in 1 Cor. xv. 5 
 should be studied in connection with the words ' but 
 go tell His disciples and Peter,' which come almost at 
 the end of the genuine portion of Mark xvi. We 
 cannot expect to solve the problem to our complete 
 satisfaction. But the phenomena of these two passages 
 in 1 Cor. are suggestive. Their detail and precision 
 encourage us to think that the apostle was drawing 
 from a considerable storehouse of information, probably 
 written. And yet his source, if written, was not one 
 of our Synoptic Gospels, for 1 Cor. is older than any 
 of them. We have already noted that in Acts xx. 35 
 S. Paul is mentioned as quoting a saying of our Lord 
 not in our Gospels, ' It is more blessed to give than 
 to receive.' 
 
 On the whole, it is more likely than not that S. Paul 
 had some written account of our Lord's ministry and 
 possibly a written account of His sayings. 
 
THE SAYINGS OF OUR LORD 109 
 
 That S. Peter and S. James also used some written 
 records is a tenable view. The First Epistle of S. Peter 
 shows no acquaintance with our Gospels which can be 
 called certain. But the apostle's idea of His Master, 
 of His self-denial, and of His death as God's suiFering 
 Servant, is very closely parallel to that found in the 
 Synoptists. While S. Peter recalls the Synoptists' 
 portrait of our Lord, the Epistle of S. James shows 
 us a very interesting kinship with the Sermon on 
 the Mount. It has several points of contact with 
 both Matthew and Luke, and yet does not actually 
 quote any of our canonical Gospels. Its condem- 
 nation of ' hearers only,' of critics, and of world- 
 liness, and its teaching about prayer, poverty, and 
 humility, are apparently based on a familiar know- 
 ledge of some record of our Lord's sayings. These pas- 
 sages contain one remarkable variation from Matthew. 
 S. James in v. 12 writes, 'Swear not . . . but let your 
 yea be yea, and your nay, nay ; that ye fall not under 
 judgment.' Matt. v. 34, 37 has, ' Swear not at all . . . 
 but let your speech be Yea, yea ; Nay, nay ; and what- 
 soever is more than these is of the evil one.' S. Justin 
 Martyr in his First Apology, Chapter xvi., written 
 about A.D. 152, says that Christ enjoined ' Swear not at 
 all ; but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay ; for 
 whatsoever is more than these cometh of the evil 
 one.' The agreement between Matthew and S. Justin 
 Martyr in diverging from S. James is obvious. And 
 it rather points us to the conclusion that there was some 
 document other than our canonical Matthew from 
 which S. James is quoting, and that this document 
 influenced certain manuscript copies of our canonical 
 Matthew more than others. S. Justin Martyr may 
 be combining the words in Matthew and James. But 
 when we consider this passage in James in connection 
 with other verses similar to those in the Sermon on 
 the Mount, it remains probable that S. James is 
 
110 THE GOSPELS 
 
 quoting a certain book. If we acknowledge his 
 Epistle to be genuine — and the grounds for denying 
 it seem to be quite inadequate — we get some light on 
 the date of the book that he quotes. For it is prac- 
 tically certain that S. James suffered martyrdom at 
 Jerusalem in a.d. 62. 
 
 We can sum up the evidence of S. Paul, S. Peter, 
 and S. James, by saying that it is probable, though 
 not certain, that these three great disciples possessed 
 written documents about our Lord. It is also pro- 
 bable that the first preaching of the Gospel as recorded 
 in Acts was aided by some written account of our 
 Lord's ministry and sayings, and a collection of 
 quotations from the Old Testament. But there is not 
 any absolute proof of the existence of any such 
 documents. The first proof of any written documents 
 that we get is in the prologue of S. Luke's Gospel, 
 which can with most safety be dated between a.d. 75 
 and 80, and this prologue can be profitably studied in 
 the light given to us in the words of Papias : — 
 
 Mark, having become an interpreter of Peter, wrote 
 exactly whatever he remembered of the sayings and 
 actions of Christ, not however in order. For he 
 neither heard the Lord, nor accompanied Him, but 
 afterwards, as I said, accompanied Peter, who gave 
 instruction as occasion demanded, but did not make 
 any ordered arrangement (a-vvTa^iv) of the Lord's sayings. 
 So that Mark made no error in thus writing some 
 things as he recalled them. For he had one object only, 
 to omit or falsify nothing of the things which he 
 heard. . . . Matthew then made an orderly arrangement 
 (a-vviTd^aro) of the Logia in the Hebrew dialect, and 
 each one interpreted them as he was able. 
 
 These two passages are part of a single tradition 
 current at the end of the first or beginning of the 
 second century. They do not refer to Matthew in its 
 present form, for it is not in Hebrew, nor is it a transla- 
 
THE SAYINGS OF OUR LORD 111 
 
 tion from the Hebrew. It can be proved that our present 
 Matthew was composed in Greek, and it is only based 
 partly on Hebrew or Aramaic writings. The question 
 then arises. Does Papias refer to our present Mark? 
 He speaks of the want of systematic order or arrange- 
 ment in S. Mark's writing. And yet Mark is arranged 
 chronologically and, in spite of the gaps which it 
 betrays, we can from this Gospel determine a large 
 part of the history of our Lord's ministry. The great 
 majority of modern critics, nevertheless, hold that 
 Papias is referring to our Mark. For this Gospel 
 bears plain tokens not only of being very early in date 
 and written under Petrine influence, but also of being 
 an original work, not based on a previous Gospel by 
 S. Mark. We must therefore ask if by ' ordered 
 arrangement ' Papias meant chronological arrange- 
 ment. Probably he did not. Like Lucian {de hist, 
 conscrib. 6 f.) he meant by ' order,' orderliness. He 
 meant a system of instruction such as S. Matthew 
 arranged in Hebrew.^ S. Mark, though he used other 
 sources, wrote down a faithful record of the evangelistic 
 preaching of S. Peter, a preaching of Christ's words 
 and Christ's actions. On the other hand, the original 
 work of S. Matthew was serviceable and often trans- 
 lated, because it provided in an orderly fashion what 
 Papias elsewhere calls 'the commandments delivered 
 by the Lord to our faith.' 
 
 The distinction made by Papias between Matthew 
 and Mark is made still clearer if we turn to Luke. 
 The valuable little prologue by the author shows that 
 he was not satisfied with previous narratives of our 
 Lord's ministry. His investigations had yielded fruit. 
 He had accumulated a large store of material, and his 
 aim was to write 'a narrative in consecutive order' 
 (Sfjjyijcrt? /caOe^ijsi). The expressions used are quite 
 
 ^ Papias may also refer to the contrast between the artistic arrange- 
 ment of S. John's Gospel and the shape of S. Mark's. 
 
112 THE GOSPELS 
 
 i 
 different from those used by Papias in reference to the 
 original work of S. Matthew. S. Luke is giving us a 
 new history partly based on Mark, and he records those 
 discourses of Christ which he has in common with 
 Matthew, in a historical setting, and not cemented 
 together for the purpose of aiding memory and in- 
 structing catechumens. Two of our Gospels are 
 evangelistic, those of S. Mark and S. Luke. Of the 
 other two, one at least is catechetical, and very probably 
 the other. For the Gospel according to S. John shows, 
 like Matthew, distinct traces of grouping facts accord- 
 ing to numbers such as would aid the memory of 
 teacher and learner. And its relation to the Synoptic 
 Gospels is such that it may have been used as an 
 additional spiritual manual for those who had already 
 been baptised, and had grasped some simple moral 
 teaching and the outlines of our Lord's life. 
 
 It is then reasonable to conclude that Papias believed 
 that S. Matthew's original collection of our Lord's 
 sayings was not so much a narrative as an arrangement 
 of groups of discourses and sayings. They were re- 
 arranged in different groups when our Gospel according 
 to S. Matthew was written. They were not rearranged 
 in this second form when S. Luke read them. S. Luke 
 did not break up these blocks of marble to scatter over 
 his garden and intersperse with plants. It was, on the 
 contrary, the writer of our first Gospel who arranged 
 the different groups together in their final shape. 
 And the question is how we can separate the sayings of 
 Jesus from their context in these two Gospels, compare 
 them, and arrive at their most primitive form. The 
 only safe way to begin is to take out of these Gospels 
 those sayings which they both have and which S. Mark 
 does not record. The first problem is to determine when 
 sayings are, or are not, suificiently parallel to justify us 
 in holding that they ultimately came from one written 
 source. It can hardly be expected that critics will 
 
THE SAYINGS OF OUR LORD 113 
 
 ever entirely agree about this. But we shall not be 
 far wrong if we agree with Sir John Hawkins in holding 
 that these sayings include about 191 verses in Matthew, 
 rather more than one-sixth of the whole Gospel, and 
 about 181 verses in Luke, which make less than one- 
 sixth. These parallels may be better described as 
 consisting of 74 passages. And of these there are 
 56 which are placed differently in the two Gospels. 
 It is very doubtful whether they were ever in exact 
 chronological order. But there is some chronological 
 order, for they begin with a short account of the 
 preaching of the Baptist and of our Lord's tempta- 
 tion, and end before His Passion. They are predomi- 
 nantly concerned with conduct and character. But 
 they are not only ethical. They show exactly how 
 Christ dealt with Pharisaism, and the exact relation 
 between the Baptist and the Messiah. And they 
 throw a vivid light on the primitive Christian concep- 
 tion of the Messiah (see below, p. 126). 
 
 § 3. The Contents of the Collection. 
 
 The sayings fall into five groups. The first, which 
 we may call A, contains an account of the Baptisfs 
 preaching, and of our Lord's temptation (probably also 
 His baptism), then deals with the righteousness that God 
 requires in the subjects of His kingdom. Let us com- 
 pare the record of such sayings as are found in Matt. 
 v.-vii. and Luke vi. 20-49. 
 
 (fl) Blessed are the poor in Blessed are ye poor: for 
 
 spirit : for their' s is the kingdom yours is the kingdom of God. 
 of heaven. 
 
 Blessed are they that mourn : Blessed are ye that weep now : 
 
 for they shall he comforted. for ye shall laugh. 
 
 Blessed are they that hunger Blessed are ye that hunger 
 
 and thirst after righteousness : now : 
 
 for they shall be filled. for ye shall be filled. 
 
 H 
 
114 
 
 THE GOSPELS 
 
 Blessed are ye, when men shall 
 reproach you and persecute you, 
 and say all manner of evil 
 against you, falsely, for My 
 sake. 
 
 Rejoice, and be exceeding 
 glad : for great is your reward 
 in heaven : for so persecuted they 
 the prophets which were before 
 you. 
 
 Agree with thine adversary 
 quickly, whiles thou art with 
 him in the way ; lest haply 
 the adversary deliver thee to the 
 judge, and the judge deliver 
 thee to the officer, and thou 
 be cast into prison. Verily I 
 say unto thee. Thou shalt by 
 no means come out thence, 
 till thou have paid the last 
 farthing. 
 
 (6) Whosoever smiteth thee 
 on thy right cheek, turn to him 
 the other also. And if any 
 man would go to law with thee, 
 and take away thy coat, let 
 him have thy cloke also. 
 
 Give to him that asketh 
 thee, and from him that would 
 borrow of thee turn not thou 
 away. 
 
 Love your enemies^ 
 
 and pray 
 for them that persecute you ; 
 that ye may be sons of your 
 Father which is in heaven : 
 for He maketh Mis sun to rise 
 on the evil and the good, and 
 sendeth rain on the just and the 
 unjust. For if ye love them 
 that love you, what reward 
 have ye? do not even the 
 publicans the same} And if 
 
 Blessed are ye, when men 
 shall hate you, and when they 
 shall separate you from their 
 company, and reproach you, 
 and cast out your name as evil, 
 for the Son of man's sake. 
 
 Rejoice in that day, and leap 
 for joy : for, behold, your reward 
 is great in heaven : for in the 
 same manner did their fathers 
 unto the prophets. 
 
 As thou art going with thine 
 adversary before the magistrate, 
 on the way give diligence to be 
 quit of him ; lest haply he take 
 thee unto the judge, and the 
 judge deliver thee unto the 
 officer and the officer shall cast 
 thee into prison. I say unto 
 thee. Thou shalt by no means 
 come out thence, till thou have 
 paid the very last mite. 
 
 To him that smiteth thee on 
 the one cheek, offer also the 
 other ; and from him 
 
 that taketh away thy cloke, 
 withhold not thy coat also. 
 
 Give to every one that asketh 
 thee ; and of him that taketh 
 away thy goods ask them not 
 again. 
 
 Love your enemies, do good 
 to them that hate you, bless 
 them that curse you, pray for 
 them that despitefully use you 
 . . . and ye shall be sons 
 of the Most High : 
 for He is kind toward the un- 
 thankful and evil. 
 
 And if ye love 
 them that love you, what thank 
 have ye .'' for even sinners love 
 those that love them. And if 
 
THE SAYINGS OF OUR LORD 115 
 
 ye salute your brethren only, ye do good to them that do good 
 
 what do ye more than others} to you, what thank have ye? 
 
 do not even the Gentiles the for even sinners do the same, 
 same ? Ye therefore shall he ... Be ye 
 
 perfect, as your heavenly Fs^ther merciful, even as your Father 
 
 is perfect. is merciful. 
 
 Our Lord's teaching about the right and the wrong 
 method of Almsgiving, Prayer, and Fasting here follows 
 in Matt. vi. 1-8, 16-18. This seems to be in its proper 
 place, but the Lord's Prayer, which is found in Matt. 
 vi. 9-13, is in its original position in Luke xi. 1-4, 
 where we find that our Lord taught it in response to 
 the direct request of His disciples that He would teach 
 them as John taught his disciples. S. Luke makes no 
 mention of the Pharisaic customs of sounding a trumpet 
 before giving alms and disfiguring the face on fast 
 days. 
 
 It is probable that our Lord's saying that ' the 
 lamp of the body is the eye, and when the eye is single 
 the whole body is full of light ' (Matt. vi. 22-23 = Luke 
 xi. 34-36) is also in its proper place in Matthew. Then 
 there comes the saying that 'no man can serve two 
 masters' (Matt. vi. 24 = Luke xvi. IS). The next 
 section, with its command to trust God for the neces- 
 saries of life, learning from the birds and the lilies 
 (Matt. vi. 25-33 = Luke xii. 22-81), should probably 
 be placed in section D below, before the command to 
 watch, where S. Luke places it. The character of the 
 member of the kingdom of God towards his neighbour 
 is resumed in the saying 
 
 (c) Judge not, that ye be not And judge not, and ye shall 
 judged. For with what jvdg- not be judged : and condemn 
 ment ye judge, ye shall he not, and ye shall not be con- 
 demned : release, and ye shall 
 be released : give, and it shaU 
 he given unto you; good measure 
 pressed down, shaken together, 
 running over, shall they give 
 
116 
 
 THE GOSPELS 
 
 And with what measure ye 
 metCj it shall be measured 
 unto you. 
 
 And why heholdest thou the 
 mote that is in thy brother's 
 eye, but considerest not the 
 beam that is in thine own eye? 
 Or how wilt thou say to thy 
 brother. Let me cast out the 
 mote out of thine eye ; and lo, 
 the beam is in thine own eye ? 
 Thou hypocrite, cast out first 
 the beam out of thine own eye; 
 and then shalt thou see clearly 
 to cast out the mote out of thy 
 brother's eye. 
 
 Ask, and it shall be given 
 you ; seek, and ye shall find ; 
 knock, and it shall be opened 
 unto you : for every one that 
 asketh receiveth ; and he that 
 seeketh findeth ; and to him 
 that knocketh it shall be 
 opened. Or what man is there 
 of you who, if his son shall ask 
 him for a loaf, will give him 
 a stone ? Or if he ask for a fish, 
 will he give him a serpent ? 
 
 If ye then, being evil, know 
 how to give good gifts unto 
 your children, how much more 
 shall your Father which is in 
 heaven give good things to them 
 that ask Him ? 
 
 All things therefore whatso- 
 ever ye would that men should 
 do unto you, even so do ye 
 also unto them : 
 
 for this is the law and the 
 prophets. 
 
 into your bosom. For with 
 what measure ye mete, it shall 
 be measured to you again. 
 
 And why beholdest thou the 
 motethatis inthybrother'seye, 
 but considerest not the beam 
 that is in thine own eye .'' Or 
 how canH thou say to the bro- 
 ther, Brother, let me cast out 
 the mote that is in thine eye, 
 when thou beholdest not the beam 
 that is in thine own eye } Thou 
 hypocrite, cast out first the 
 beam out of thine own eye, 
 and then shalt thou see clearly 
 to cast out the mote that is in 
 thy brother's eye. 
 
 Ask, and it shall be given 
 you ; seek, and ye shall find ; 
 knock, and it shall be opened 
 unto you. For every one that 
 asketh receiveth, and he that 
 seeketh findeth ; and to him 
 that knocketh it shall be 
 opened. And of which of you 
 that is a father shall his son 
 ask a loaf, and he give him 
 a stone.' or a fish, and he 
 for afi.9h give him a serpent? 
 
 Or if he ask an egg, will he 
 give him a scorpion ? 
 
 If ye then, being evil, know 
 how to give good gifts unto 
 your children : how much more 
 shall your heavenly Father give 
 the Holy Spirit to them that 
 ask Him? 
 
 And as 
 ye would that men should do 
 to you, do ye 
 also to them likewise. 
 
 [Cf. Matt. xxii. 40 :— 
 On these two commandments 
 hangeth the whole law and the 
 prophets.] 
 
THE SAYINGS OF OUR LORD 117 
 
 {d) We may next read Matt. vii. 16-21, and xii. 33- 
 35 with Luke vi. 44, 43, 45, 46, where we find a rough 
 but substantial identity in the records of our Lord's 
 teaching that a tree is known by its fruits, and then 
 His words about empty profession of belief. 
 
 Not every one that saith unto And why call ye Me, Lord, 
 
 Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into Lord, 
 
 the kingdom, of heaven ; hut he and 
 
 that d.oe^ the will of My Father do not the things which I 
 
 which is in heaven. say ? 
 
 This is followed by the vain plea made at the last 
 judgment by those who, having disobeyed the Lord, 
 declare that they ' prophesied in His name' (Matt.), 
 or ' did eat and drink in His presence ' (Luke). After 
 this our Lord speaks of the two kinds of hearers, the 
 man who built his house ' upon the rock ' and the man 
 who built ' upon the sand.' 
 
 And every one that heareth But he that heareth, 
 these words of Mine, and doeth 
 
 them not, shall be likened unto and doeth not, is like a man 
 
 a. foolish man, which built his that built his house upon the 
 
 house upon the sand : and the earth without a foundation ; 
 
 rain descended, and the floods against which the stream brake, 
 came, and the winds blew, and 
 smote upon that house ; and it 
 
 fell : and great was the fall and straightway it fell in ; and 
 
 thereof. the ruin of that house was 
 
 great. 
 
 This first great section of the sayings began, as we 
 saw, by explaining the work of John the Baptist and 
 the position of the Messiah, and it is followed by two 
 most remarkable passages. The first of these contains 
 the accoimt of the Gentile centurion, who came to 
 our Lord with the prayer that bis servant might be 
 healed, and was confident that law and order would be 
 the marks of any supernatural work that the Messiah 
 might do for him (Matt. viii. 5-10, 13 = Luke vii. 1-10). 
 
118 THE GOSPELS 
 
 The words of Jesus that He had not found so great 
 faith ' no, not in Israel ' must have sunk deep into the 
 hearts of His first Jewish disciples. And the second 
 passage contains the message of the Baptist, and our 
 Lord's significant reply as to the Baptist's character 
 and His own mission (Matt. xi. 2-11, 16-19 = Luke vii. 
 18-28, 31-35). 
 
 B. The second group of our Lord's sayings is con- 
 cerned with His disciples. 
 
 (a) Commands to His disciples (Matt. viii. 19, 20, 
 21, 22 = Luke ix. 57, 58, 59, 60). The harvest is 
 declared to be plenteous, but the labourers few (Matt, 
 ix. 37, 38 = Lukex. 2). 
 
 (fi) Directions to those who preach the Gospel (Matt. 
 X. 7-16, 24, 25-38, 40 = Luke x. 3-12 ; vi. 40 ; xii. 2-9, 
 51-53; xiv. 26, 27; x. 16). The order here difi«rs 
 considerably in the two evangelists. 
 
 Closely connected with these directions are sayings 
 about the rejection and reception of the truth. Woe 
 is pronounced on Chorazin, etc. (Matt. xi. 21-24 = 
 Luke X. 12-15). Christ pronounces a thanksgiving to 
 the Father that He has revealed to the simple what is 
 hidden from the wise (Matt. xi. 25-27 = Luke x. 21,22), 
 and utters a blessing on His disciples (Matt. xiii. 16, 
 17 = Luke X. 23, 24). He teaches them the Lord's 
 Prayer (Matt. vi. 9-13 = Luke xi. 2-4). 
 
 C, The third group of our Lord's sayings is concerned 
 with His antagonists. 
 
 Jesus is accused of casting out devils with the help 
 of Beelzebub (Matt. xii. 22-30 = Luke xi. 14-23). 
 
 He speaks of the good tree and the corrupt tree 
 (Matt. xii. 33-35 = Luke vi. 43-45). 
 
 He describes the man whom the unclean spirit leaves 
 for a time only (Matt. xii. 43-45 = Luke xi. 24-26). 
 
 He is asked for a ' sign ' and says that the sign He 
 gives will be like that of Jonah (Matt. xii. 38-42 = 
 Luke xi. 16, 29-32). 
 
THE SAYINGS OF OUR LORD 119 
 
 He denounces the scribes and Pharisees (Matt, xxiii. 
 1-36 = Luke xi. 39-52, but much fuller). 
 
 D. The fourth group consists of various exhortations 
 to the disciples in view of coming trials. 
 
 Jesus tells His disciples to watch lest the Son of Man 
 should come as a thief (Matt. xxiv. 43, 44 = Luke xii. 
 39, 40). 
 
 The servant set over the household is to act as a 
 prudent steward (Matt. xxiv. 45-51 = Luke xii. 42-46). 
 
 Encouragement is to be drawn from the fact that 
 the kingdom of God spreads like a grain of mustard 
 seed and like leaven in meal (Matt. xiii. 31-33 = Luke 
 xiii. 18-21). For the mustard seed, compare Mark iv. 
 30-32. 
 
 Jesus foretells that there will be occasions of stum- 
 bling (Matt, xviii. 6-7, 15 = Luke xvii. 1-3). 
 
 He utters the parable of the lost sheep (Matt, xviii. 
 12-14 = Luke XV. 4,5,7). 
 
 E. The fifth group speaks of the doom of Jerusalem 
 and of the end of the world with the MessiaJCs return. 
 
 Jesus foretells that Jerusalem, which has slain the 
 prophets, will be left desolate (Matt, xxiii. 37-39 = 
 Luke xiii. 34, 35). 
 
 He foretells His return (Matt. xxiv. 27, 28, 37-41 = 
 Luke xvii. 24, 37 ; 26, 27, 34, 35). 
 
 A consideration of these passages leads us to results 
 which cannot be called certainties, but at least are very 
 sound probabilities. The correspondence of consider- 
 able passages in both Gospels and the use of a number 
 of peculiar expressions go to prove rather cogently that 
 the two evangelists used a written source. There is 
 no reason why S. Matthew may not have written in 
 Aramaic a document which roughly corresponded with 
 the collection of sayings which we have briefly described 
 above. The sayings were put into a Greek dress before 
 they were incorporated into our first and third Gospels. 
 
120 THE GOSPELS 
 
 It is quite possible that there was more than one trans- 
 lation into Greek, or different recastings of one transla- 
 tion. S. Matthew himself may have written such a 
 translation of his own work. It may be urged that 
 nothing necessitates an Aramaic original, and that the 
 very first report of our Lord's sayings may have been 
 in Greek. But so long as there were Christian converts 
 from Judaism of the humbler classes — and converts 
 appear to have been mainly of the humbler classes — it 
 must have been desirable, if not necessary, that the 
 words of Jesus should be accessible to them in their 
 own language. 
 
 The actual entire contents of the original document 
 will probably never be determined at all minutely. 
 It was apparently rather a handbook than a Gospel, 
 and contained nothing like all the teaching which 
 even the oldest and truest tradition attributed to our 
 Lord. It contained few, if any, parables except 
 that of the Lost Sheep, that of the Leaven, and the 
 Mustard Seed. Possibly some critics are right in 
 ascribing to it the partially similar parables of the 
 Marriage of the King's Son (Matt. xxii. 1-10), and the 
 Great Supper (Luke xiv. 15-24), and the parables of 
 the Talents (Matt. xxv. 14-30), and the Pounds (Luke 
 xix. 11-27). These, however, must be regarded as 
 quite doubtful. It is commonly held that the sayings 
 of our Lord which belong to the period covered by the 
 narrative of the Passion were entirely absent from this 
 document. If we could be certain that this view is 
 correct, we might well be content with the theory of 
 Sir W. Ramsay, that it was actually written before the 
 close of our Lord's ministry. Wellhausen has assigned 
 it to a later date than S. Mark's Gospel. But the 
 general consensus of opinion is on the other side, and 
 acute as Wellhausen sometimes is, his critical theories 
 rest on a view of the origins of Christianity which is 
 assumed rather than proved. If the non-Marc^n 
 
THE SAYINGS OF OUR LORD 121 
 
 elements in S. Luke's story of the Passion were taken 
 from tlie sayings, then it still remains possible that the 
 sayings were compiled while the first generation of 
 disciples was still living. If, on the other hand, the 
 sayings contained no story of the Passion, they must 
 either have been compiled before the death of Jesus 
 Christ, or at a time when there were so many persons 
 who actually remembered His death and resurrection 
 that it was not yet thought necessary to write the 
 story. The latter theory is the most probable. The 
 memory of Christ's death was never utterly over- 
 powered by a belief in His immediate return. The 
 early chapters of the Acts prove conclusively that it 
 was not overpowered. But it was much less necessary 
 at first to write down a history which many carried in 
 their minds than the sayings which might be remem- 
 bered by one or two. 
 
 The question whether Matthew or Luke has pre- 
 served the sayings of our Lord in the more correct 
 and original form remains a difficulty. To some 
 extent we can control one form of a saying by the other 
 form. But there is not sufficient linguistic evidence 
 to show fully the exact style of the source which they 
 employed. It has been worked over by our first and 
 third evangelists to such an extent that we cannot 
 detect its flavour in the way in which an able Old 
 Testament critic can detect cei-tain strata in the Penta- 
 teuch or the Book of Isaiah. The safest clue as to the 
 original form of the document is to be found in the 
 sequence in which we find the sayings in Matthew and 
 Luke. Sometimes they agree; more frequently they 
 do not agree. More than two-thirds of the passages 
 are differently placed, so that one or both dealt very 
 freely with the order of Q. They most nearly agree in 
 our Lord's sermon (Matt, v.-vii. ; Luke vi. 20-49). 
 Here each evangelist probably had before him the 
 sermon in four similar sections. And on the whole 
 
122 THE GOSPELS 
 
 the order of Q seems to be best preserved in Luke. 
 We should expect this, because it is in harmony 
 with S. Luke's regard for the order of Mark. And 
 if the document was a collection of sayings, it is 
 necessarily almost certain that they must have been 
 arranged according to topics. And Luke furnishes 
 indications of that kind of arrangement. He provides 
 the sayings with introductions, some of which are 
 vague, some more definite and apparently based on a 
 sound tradition. If S. Luke had found the sayings in 
 his source identical in order with the sayings which 
 we find in Matthew, it is hard to see why he should 
 have altered the order. But we can see both that in 
 Matthew they are grouped according to a certain plan, 
 and that the evangelist would have no scruple in fol- 
 lowing this plan if the sayings in his source were 
 connected with little or no historical narrative. 
 
 I 4:. An Authentic Account of Christ. 
 
 We now touch one of the most fundamental ques- 
 tions, one which cannot be properly handled without 
 a considerable training in biblical criticism. It is 
 whether the evangelists, when quoting from Q, have 
 preserved the sayings of Jesus in an authentic form. 
 Did our Lord speak as they represent Him speaking ? 
 Was He such as they depict Him in His sayings.' 
 There are several ways in which the evangelists enable 
 us to answer this question. In the first place, their 
 account of His sayings is such that we can call it 
 ' objective.' Just as the local colour in the narrative 
 of the Gospels is true to a particular time and place, so 
 the record of the sayings shows very little indeed of 
 those interpretations and modifications which betray a 
 later date. The negative evidence fits the positive. 
 In spite of that subjective element without which any 
 
THE SAYINGS OF OUR LORD 123 
 
 writing would be an impossibility, the Synoptists tell 
 a faithful story. Each has his own ideal of Christ, but 
 it affects his book to a much less degree than the ideal 
 Christ of many modern writers affects their account of 
 primitive Christianity. Take any popular modern 
 description of the life of Jesus — Renan's, Farrar's, 
 Harnack's, whose you will — and then ask if their ideal 
 is as all-embracing as that of the three Synoptists. 
 The evangelists lived through times of controversy. 
 The Church was harassed, first by Jews, then by 
 Judaising Christians, and then by heathens. And yet 
 how little there is in the Gospels which betrays the 
 times of battle, except the first battle with the Jews. 
 
 For instance, we know that the primitive Church 
 was agitated by the question whether a convert to 
 Christianity must become a Jew before he became a 
 Christian. Must he be circumcised ? A similar diffi- 
 culty has begun to be felt in modem Judaism. Pro- 
 gressive Jews are asking if their children cannot be 
 regarded as children of Abraham though they remain 
 uncircumcised. But in the first century of our era it 
 was assumed by the Jews that to be a true child of 
 Abraham circumcision was essential. The fact that the 
 early Church was troubled by the question is certain. 
 But none of the Synoptic Gospels represent our Lord 
 as saying a word which would decide the question. 
 Matthew is the work of a cultivated Jewish Christian, 
 and some think that he displays actual pro-Jewish 
 tendencies. The most probable instance of this is in 
 V. 32 and xix. 9, where he adds to our Lord's absolute 
 condemnation of divorce an exception which is allowed 
 by the Jewish Mishna. But the teaching of the 
 Messiah is set far above the Mosaic law, even when it 
 openly contradicts it. The writer assuredly had much 
 of the mind of Christ. He gives us an account of our 
 Lord's description of the judgment day, when 'the 
 nations,' the Gentiles, are gathered before Him. They 
 
124 THE GOSPELS 
 
 will be saved, not by works of the law, but by acts of 
 love and mercy done towards the needy, and therefore 
 done to Jesus, who Himself had not where to lay His 
 head. Some have thought that the world-wide com- 
 mission given by Jesus to His apostles at the end of 
 this Gospel is inconsistent with His hard saying to 
 the Syrophoenician woman, and that Jesus did not 
 really mean the Gospel to be carried to the heathen. 
 But the object of the evangelist in recording this saying 
 was probably quite different. It was not to show that 
 Jesus intended His followers to be Jews, but to show 
 that He publicly yielded to the prayer of a Gentile, 
 even at a time when He had wished to remain un- 
 noticed. 
 
 Then let us consider the sayings of our Lord in 
 Luke. S. Luke writes at a time when it was possible 
 to hope that the Roman government would treat the 
 Church with fairness. It is difficult to read the Acts 
 without seeing how this hope pervades his writing. 
 Moreover, S. Luke has a Greek and more than Greek 
 joyfulness in his temperament. He discards as un- 
 necessary in a Gentile environment some of the anti- 
 Pharisaic utterances of our Lord that are kept in 
 Matthew. Yet he records the startling saying that 
 ' it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than 
 for one tittle of the law to fail ' (Luke xvi. 17). The 
 whole temper of his book shows that he did not believe 
 this to be true in a verbal sense. He must have found 
 the saying in his records, and he copied it honestly, 
 believing Christianity to be God's own fulfilment of 
 Judaism. In the second century Marcion regarded 
 Luke as the essentially Pauline Gospel. And it is true 
 that it shows Christ as the Saviour of the Samaritan 
 and the heathen, and all the sons of Adam. But the 
 writer does not make either his own personality or his 
 friendship for S. Paul in any way prominent. S. Paul 
 insisted, and had to insist, on the truth of God's mercy 
 
THE SAYINGS OF OUR LORD 125 
 
 to the Gentile world. But S. Luke prefers to lay 
 stress on the love of Jesus for sinners. The evangelist 
 is no mere echo of the apostle, still less his ' shadow.' 
 If he told the story of the compassion of Jesus, he did 
 not tell it to further any party interest, but because 
 he had sufficient grounds for believing that He so 
 spoke and acted. That S. Luke did probably here and 
 there omit incidents which might be stumbling-blocks 
 to the weaker brethren we have noticed above (p. 71). 
 But his general attitude towards Jews and Gentiles 
 alike is neutral while sympathetic. What do these 
 sayings teach us with regard to the claims made by 
 Jesus Christ ? What do they show that He believed 
 Himself to be ? It is impossible for us to put aside all 
 the discussions of the last three generations with regard 
 to this momentous subject. We are confronted by 
 every type of scepticism, each with its different answer, 
 and united in nothing but their denial that the Christ 
 of the creeds is the Christ of history. On the one 
 hand, we have the Jesus who was born of a virgin, who 
 claimed to be 'the Son of Man' in a new sense, as 
 though mankind were in some way included in Himself, 
 who claimed also to be the Son of God both by moral 
 union of purpose and by a metaphysical union of life, 
 and who, because He was the Son of God in a unique 
 sense, claimed to fulfil the Jewish expectation of an 
 ideal King, the Messiah. On the other hand, we are 
 presented with a number of new Christs, who, from 
 the point of view taken by the creeds, are all false 
 Christs. There is the Christ who, we are told, never 
 claimed any divine prerogatives, and who, if He ever 
 called Himself even the Son of Man, did not mean that 
 He was Son of Man in any representative or inclusive 
 sense any more than S. Peter. There is the Christ who 
 never claimed to be the Messiah, and there is the 
 Christ who claimed to be the Messiah near the end of 
 His life. There is the Christ who never claimed to be 
 
126 THE GOSPELS 
 
 the Son of God, and the Christ who, when He made 
 this claim, only meant that He was a human Messiah. 
 There is the Christ who was literally the Son of Joseph, 
 and there is the Christ who is only a sun-myth. 
 
 The investigation of the sayings incorporated in our 
 Gospels touches these theories and shrivels them up. 
 For it leaves us with a luminous proof that the oldest 
 Christian tradition represented our Lord as consistently 
 supernatural. We cannot find our way back to a 
 Jesus who was not supernatural. There is no evidence 
 for such a Jesus having existed. And the evidence for 
 the supernatural Jesus is all the more cogent because 
 it is mainly rather implied than taught. It is never 
 thrust upon the reader. Nevertheless Q certainly re- 
 corded the preaching of the Baptist and probably the 
 baptism of Jesus by John. The first was recorded to 
 show that the ascetic who had produced so profound 
 an impression on the people had done a work which 
 was only preliminary and inferior to that of Jesus. 
 The second would show how the divine Sonship of 
 Jesus was ratified before His ministry began. And 
 the story of the temptation was also in Q, and shows 
 that Jesus at the very beginning of His ministry was 
 tempted as the Messiah. If a Jewish inquirer asked, 
 ' How can Jesus be the Messiah when He lived in 
 poverty and hunger, and not in wealth and splendour .'' ' 
 the Christian reply was, ' Jesus was tempted to choose 
 the latter, but showed His true Messiahship by choosing 
 the former.' He is tempted to use His power in order 
 to acquire that authority over the world which He had 
 resolved to establish by meekness, service, and love. 
 In the great words of S. Leo, ' that self-humiliation 
 was not the failure of power but the condescension 
 of pity.' This is what our oldest sources for the life 
 of Jesus imply. He did not cry aloud to the public, 
 'I am the Messiah, obey Me.' If He had done this, 
 the people would have made Him a King, and the 
 
THE SAYINGS OF OUR LORD 127 
 
 real spiritual kingdom which He claimed would never 
 have been founded at all. Jesus came forward openly 
 as a Prophet, preaching repentance. But He also 
 regarded Himself as ' the beloved Son ' of the Father, 
 as the Messiah, and as the mysterious ' Son of Man,' 
 who is the Man who will judge and will represent and, 
 as it were, include His people. When the Baptist sent 
 two disciples to inquire whether Jesus was the Messiah 
 who ' was to come,'' He did not say, ' I am,' But His 
 reply rivets together His miracles. His message, and 
 His Messiahship (Matt. xi. 2-11; Luke vii. 18-28). 
 The words which He adds, ' Blessed is he whosoever 
 shall not be offended in Me,' can only be explained by 
 the fact that He claims to be the Messiah, and knows 
 that He is not such a Messiah as was expected by the 
 debased Judaism of the day. 
 
 The visible reign and outward splendour of the 
 Messiah belong to the future, but His sayings are 
 issued in a tone which is that of neither the rabbi nor 
 the mere prophet. Jesus instinctively takes up an in- 
 finitely higher position. He abrogates not only the 
 ethics of the rabbis, but those of the Pentateuch. 
 He asserts, ' Not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, 
 Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but 
 he that doeth the will of My Father ' (Matt. vii. 21 
 = Luke vi. 46). An orthodox confession of belief is 
 not enough. But the very form of assertion indicates 
 that He is Lord, and that there is no difference between 
 doing the will of Jesus and the will of the Father. 
 ' Every one that heareth these My words and doeth 
 them ' is compared with the man who built his house 
 upon a rock (Matt. vii. 24 = Luke vi. 47, 48). Salva- 
 tion is made to depend upon loyalty to Himself. 
 'Every one therefore who shall confess Me before 
 men, him will the Son of man also confess before the 
 angels of God; but whosoever shall deny Me before 
 men, him will I also deny before the angels of God.' 
 
128 THE GOSPELS 
 
 He declares that it will be ' more tolerable for the land 
 of Sodom and Gomorrha in that day ' than for the city 
 which rejects His teaching when delivered by His 
 disciples. And He pronounces woes upon Chorazin 
 and jBethsaida, ' for if the mighty works which were 
 done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they 
 would long ago have repented in sackcloth and ashes.' 
 Here the stress is laid upon His miracles. They are 
 regarded as the natural manifestation of His Person, 
 they are what might naturaljy be expected of one who 
 really is what Jesus claims to be. 
 
 It matters little if Q did not contain the memorable 
 confession of His Messiahship made by S. Peter and 
 recorded by S. Mark and the other Synoptists. There 
 is ample evidence for the historical fact of that con- 
 fession. But Q contained quite as strong testimony to 
 the nature of Christ's personality. He is ' more than 
 Jonah' and 'more than Solomon,' removed from all 
 those who preceded Him (Matt. xii. 38-42 = Luke xi. 
 29-81). He never confesses sin, never asks God for 
 pardon, never expresses that sense of unworthiness 
 which Isaiah and Jeremiah so deeply felt. He advances 
 demands which from any other lips would appear 
 intolerable : ' Follow Me, and let the dead bury their 
 own dead' (Matt. viii. 22 = Luke ix. 60); 'He that 
 loveth father and mother more than Me is not 
 worthy of Me,' 'Whosoever doth not take his cross 
 and follow after Me is not worthy of Me' (Matt. x. 
 37, 38 = Luke xiv. 26, 27). Such are the sayings re- 
 corded in Q. And they are in harmony with the 
 judgment which He pronounced in the words, ' He that 
 is not with Me is against Me,' and with His prophecies 
 that He, the Son of Man and the Lord of His house- 
 hold, would return suddenly. To be watchful, to be 
 ready, to be faithful is what He meanwhile requires of 
 His servants. The Christian student has no need to 
 exaggerate what Q records of the claims made by 
 
THE SAYINGS OF OUR LORD 129 
 
 Jesus. For the whole attitude which we have been 
 considering denotes a demand upon our inmost moral 
 life such as no created being can with any justice make 
 upon a fellow-creature. And this attitude is illumin- 
 ated by a passage which shows that there exists a 
 unique fellowship between Himself and the Fountain 
 of all life and goodness. This passage is that which 
 speaks of the mutual knowledge of the Father and the 
 Son. Long ago it was noticed that this passage teaches 
 a doctrine like that of the Fourth Gospel. Fairly 
 interpreted, it seems to cover all that S. John wrote 
 about the unique nature of the Sonship of our Lord. 
 It describes a reciprocal relationship between the Son 
 and the Father : the Son alone has a true knowledge 
 of the Father ; the Son is Himself such that the Father 
 alone understands Him. Now, at one time it was 
 possible to assert, though impossible to prove, that 
 this passage was merely a later interpolation inserted 
 into the midst of the genuine sayings of Jesus. Dr, 
 Martineau, for instance, disliked its ' dogmatic asser- 
 tion.'^ So he rejected it along with other statements 
 of Christ, such as 'One greater than the temple is 
 here,' and other authoritative utterances of Christ. 
 Such sayings were pronounced 'out of character with 
 His spirit,' it being assumed that Jesus could not have 
 claimed to be divine. But more penetrating criticism 
 has shown that the passage in question belongs to 
 the most primitive stratum in the Gospels. It is 
 found in almost the same words in Matt. xi. 25-27 
 and Luke x. 21-22. It is as follows : 
 
 Matthew. Luke. 
 
 AtthatseasonJesusanswered In that same hour He re- 
 
 and said, I thank Thee, O joiced in the Holy Spirit, and 
 
 Father, Lord of heaven and said, I thank Thee, O Father, 
 
 earth, that Thou didst hide Lord of heaven and earth, that 
 
 these things from the wise and Thou didst hide these things 
 
 1 Seat of Authority in Religion, p. 582. 
 I 
 
130 THE GOSPELS 
 
 understanding, and didst re- from the wise and understand- 
 veal them unto babes : Yea, mg, and didst reveal them unto 
 Father, for so it was well- babes : yea. Father ; for so it 
 pleasing in Thy sight. All was well-pleasing in Thy sight, 
 things have been delivered All things have been delivered 
 unto Me of My Father : and no unto Me of My Father: and 
 one knoweth the Son, save the no one knoweth who the Son 
 Father; neither doth any know is, save the Father; and who 
 the Father, save the Son, and the Father is, save the Son, 
 he to whomsoever the Son and he to whomsoever the Son 
 willeth to reveal Him. willeth to reveal Him. 
 
 Come unto Me, all ye that 
 labour and are heavy laden, 
 and I will give you rest. Take 
 My yoke upon you, and learn 
 of Me; for I am meek and 
 lowly in heart : and ye shall 
 find rest unto your souls. For 
 My yoke is easy, and My 
 burden is light. 
 
 Here as elsewhere a minute study of the two 
 passages shows that, while the actual expressions used 
 in the first clause in Matthew seem the more primi- 
 tive, it is in Luke that we find the true historical 
 setting of the passage. The seventy disciples have just 
 returned from their first mission. Their success has 
 been a means of revealing to them the divine authority 
 of Jesus, and their Master gives thanks to His Father, 
 the Lord of heaven and earth, for giving them this 
 revelation. He goes on to say that all things have 
 been delivered unto Him by the Father. He is God's 
 Son, the Messiah, and He has entered on His spiritual 
 reign as His birthright. The idea of the Father reveal- 
 ing the nature of the Son to the disciples of Jesus is 
 exactly what our Lord teaches in Matt. xvi. 17, when 
 S. Peter confesses that He is the Son of God, and it 
 corresponds with S. Paul's statement that it pleased 
 God 'to reveal His Son in me' (Gal. i. 16). We 
 may say that though this passage represents one of 
 the highest points of doctrine in the Synoptic Gospels, 
 
THE SAYINGS OF OUR LORD 131 
 
 it is in harmony with the whole claim that Christ 
 makes over the conscience of mankind. And the 
 additional passage in Matthew, in which Christ invites 
 the weary to come to Him, agrees with all that we 
 know of His majesty and tenderness. ' The meekness 
 and gentleness of Christ ' must have produced a pro- 
 found impression upon the first disciples, or S. Paul 
 would not have alluded to these characteristics as he 
 does (2 Cor. x. 1). We may doubt if any good man 
 who was no more than a prophet could possibly have 
 spoken thus of his own meekness. It would have been 
 a piece of intolerable and irreligious conceit. But the 
 words fall with the accents of grace and truth from 
 the one who could describe Himself with equal justice 
 as Son of Man and Son of God. 
 
 Now that the passage cannot be treated as a ' non- 
 authentic'' addition, attempts are being made to atten- 
 uate its meaning. O. Holtzmann and Harnack explain 
 the ' all things ' delivered unto Christ as the doctrine 
 that He taught! Wellhausen regards ^ and no one 
 knoweth the Son bid the Father'' as an early inter- 
 polation, which must indeed have been early, as it 
 is found in all manuscripts and in all versions of 
 Matthew, and in all of Luke except one {Codex 
 Vercellensis). Harnack tries to prove the same thing 
 with an imposing array of quotations from the fathers, 
 and says, 'The canonical version in both Gospels is 
 "Johannine" in character and indefensible.'^ He 
 grants that ' if the first evangelist wrote the passage as 
 we now read it, ' his own Christology approached very 
 nearly to that of the Johannine writings in one of 
 the most important points.' He therefore tries to 
 restore the original 'complexion' of the passage by 
 omitting the words which we have printed in italics, 
 and by rejecting the present tense knoweth for the aorist 
 came to know where the Son's knowledge of the Father 
 ^ Spriiche u. Reden /esu, p. zio (English translation, p. 302). 
 
132 THE GOSPELS 
 
 is in question. The result would be to weaken the 
 parallel and likeness between the Father and the Son, 
 and to suggest that the Son's knowledge of the Father 
 began in time, and was not eternal. If it was not 
 eternal, it would of course follow that the Son is not 
 eternal, but a creature. 
 
 We may first remark that it is doubtful, as a matter 
 of Greek grammar, whether the latter result would be 
 attained by substituting one tense for another. But 
 it is enough to say that the present tense is far better 
 supported by the quotations in the fathers as well as 
 by the manuscripts of the Gospels, and Harnack's 
 appeal to the fathers has to be heavily discounted, 
 being wrong or doubtful in several instances. '^ With 
 regard to the important clause, which makes, he says, 
 'a formal likeness' between the Father and the Son, 
 it remains an integral part of the text. It is really 
 less distinctively 'Johannine' than the other clause, 
 which says, ' Neither doth any know the Father, save 
 the Son,' but it is essential to the balance of the 
 whole passage. 
 
 The passage is testimony of the very highest value 
 as to the oldest belief in Jesus and His own self- 
 consciousness. And it agrees closely with the teach- 
 ing of S. Paul, of the Epistle to the Hebrews, of the 
 fourth Gospel, and of the Apocalypse. 
 
 ' See Dom Chapman, Journal of Theological Studies, vol. a. 
 P- 552. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MARK 
 
 § 1. Mark a Roman Book. 
 
 If we have with any degree of accuracy succeeded in 
 showing the nature of the collected sayings of our 
 Lord, it is obvious that they did not form what we 
 call a Gospel. To S. Mark, so far as we know, belongs 
 the glory of writing the first Gospel. That he knew 
 a collection of Christ's sayings is likely. A comparison 
 of all three Synoptic Gospels leaves the balance of pro- 
 bability on the side of this theory. His use of Q is 
 fairly plain in the case of the account of the Baptist's 
 preaching (Matt. iii. 7-12 = Luke iii. 7-9, 16-17 and 
 Mark i. 7-8), in the account of the temptation shortly 
 afterwards, in the story where Christ is accused of 
 working miracles by Beelzebub (Matt. xii. 22-32 = Luke 
 xi. 14-15 and Mark iii. 22-SO), and the parable of the 
 mustard seed (Matt. xiii. SI, 32 = Luke xiii. 18, 19 
 and Mark iv. 30-32). Several other instances exist.^ 
 
 As time went on it became necessary to write down 
 more than the sayings of Jesus. One by one the men 
 who had walked with Him in Galilee and Jerusalem 
 were passing away, and the Lord had not visibly 
 returned to earth again. The growing Christian 
 family wished to have more of the history of its 
 Founder recorded. S. Mark therefore wrote not so 
 
 ^ See Mr. B. H. Streeter in Studies in the Synoptic Problem, p. l66. 
 
 133 
 
134 THE GOSPELS 
 
 much to supersede the sayings as to supplement them. 
 He was Peter's ' interpreter,' says Papias ; ' he followed 
 Peter.' ' After the departure ' of Peter and Paul, says 
 S. Irenaeus, ' he delivered to us in writing the things 
 that had been preached by Peter.' ^ Clement of 
 Alexandria says that Mark wrote at the request of 
 those who wished him to write what Peter had spoken, 
 ' which, when Peter knew, he neither forbade nor en- 
 couraged it.'^ The testimony of Clement can be 
 reconciled with that of Irenaeus if we hold that the 
 Gospel was written while S. Peter was alive, and given 
 to the Church after his death. Possibly it underwent 
 some revision before this was done. As the martyrdom 
 of the apostles was in or near a.d. 64, we find that the 
 oldest tradition provides us with a perfectly reasonable 
 explanation of the origin of our oldest Gospel. It 
 was written by one who is shown by the New Testa- 
 ment to have known both S. Peter and S. Paul, both of 
 whom spent some of their last days in Rome. Many 
 subtle but strong lines of evidence corroborate the 
 Roman origin of Mark. The history of early Christian 
 worship, which is steadily becoming recognised as 
 important for the whole history of Christianity, gives 
 us one or two significant hints. The late Dr. Ceriani, 
 one of the most learned of recent liturgiologists, 
 observed that when the student of the canon of the 
 Mass shall have reached a point when he can really 
 compare what was originally common to both Eastern 
 and Western liturgies, one of the differences which he 
 will discern will be that in the West the words of the 
 consecration of the bread and wine as the body and 
 blood of Christ follow more closely the form given in 
 Matthew and Mark ; in the East that given by S. Paul 
 and S. Luke. 
 
 Again, we find that, even when S. Paul wrote to the 
 Romans, they were not inclined to be very tolerant 
 1 Eus. H. E. iii. 39. ^ Qp_ ^it. vi. 14. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MARK 135 
 
 towards the ' weak ' brethren who had an affection for 
 innocent Jewish practices. The famous controversy in 
 the second century between the Churches of Rome 
 and Ephesus proves that they were still apt to be 
 intolerant in that direction. And the question is 
 involved in some very intricate matters of New Testa- 
 ment criticism. The combined evidence of S. Paul 
 and S. John, and numerous indications in early Christian 
 literature, make it more probable that our Lord died 
 on the 14th day of the month Nisan than the 15th, 
 and that He did not celebrate His Last Supper on the 
 night of the Passover. But S. Mark's Gospel, though 
 its details about the Last Supper are not consistent, 
 does in its present form assume that Christ died on 
 Nisan 15th. And while the Church of Ephesus took 
 its stand upon the Johannine tradition, the Church of 
 Rome took its stand upon the tradition enshrined in 
 Mark and copied by the other Synoptists. 
 
 The Roman Christians believed that the Eucharist 
 was a substitute for the Passover, instituted by Christ 
 on the same night as the Passover. But they did not 
 commemorate the institution. They transferred their 
 ' Pascha ' to the Sunday following, emphasising Christ's 
 resurrection rather than His death and the institution 
 of the Eucharist. Or, to put the matter more exactly, 
 they celebrated the death with the resurrection. The 
 history of Easter, Christmas, and even Whitsunday 
 shows that in early times men saw nothing incongruous 
 in this. As Easter commemorated both the death and 
 the resurrection, so Christmas originally commemorated 
 both Christ's birth and His baptism, and Whitsunday 
 both His ascension and the descent of the Holy Spirit. 
 The Christians did not think that both events happened 
 on the same day, but believed that it was well for 
 them to celebrate the two events together. 
 
 So the Roman Christians dissociated themselves, as 
 far as was consistent with an observance of any Pascha, 
 
136 THE GOSPELS 
 
 from the practice of the Jews, who always kept the 
 14th day of Nisan as the Pascha. We know that by 
 A.D. 154 the Roman Church held firmly, and by a.d. 
 190 vehemently, to her Paschal usage. But in Asia 
 Jews and Christians alike observed Nisan 14th, though 
 the Christians attached to it an immensely enhanced 
 significance, as the commemoration of the sacrifice of 
 the Lamb of God. Sometimes S. Mark's Gospel appears 
 to side with the latter view, for it contains various 
 details which suggest that Christ died on Nisan 14th 
 rather than Nisan 15th. The most significant is in 
 Mark xiv. 2, where we are told that the Jewish 
 authorities took measures for arresting Jesus two days 
 before the Passover, with the resolve that the arrest 
 should not take place during the feast. And yet the 
 chapter goes on to represent them as arresting Him and 
 holding a solemn meeting on the sacred night of the 
 Passover itself. And S. Mark represents our Lord as 
 keeping His Last Supper at the time of the Passover. 
 He says, 'On the first day of unleavened bread, 
 when they sacrificed the Passover, His disciples say 
 unto Him, Where wilt Thou that we go and make 
 ready that Thou mayest eat the Passover ? ' (xiv. 12). 
 The first meal at which unleavened bread was eaten 
 by the Jews was after sunset, when the next day, 
 Nisan 15th, was reckoned as having just begun. 
 Therefore S. Mark in the latter verse excludes the 
 view that Christ died on Nisan 14th, the date of His 
 death according to S. John. We can only repeat that 
 Mark contains several indications that S. John and 
 S. Paul are correct ; but in spite of these indications 
 the narrative, as it now stands, is on the side of 
 the Roman view that the Last Supper coincided in 
 time with the Jewish sacred meal which it supplanted. 
 And in all probability it was so before Matthew and 
 Luke were written. 
 
 In the above fact we discover something that is 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MARK 137 
 
 Roman, but presumably non-Petrine. We must 
 interrogate the Gospel more closely if we desire 
 to seek for proofs of the author's contact with the 
 apostle. Such proofs are frequent. They repeatedly 
 corroborate what we know to have been held by 
 Papias and his friends about a.d. 100, viz. that 
 ' Mark, having become an interpreter of Peter, wrote 
 exactly whatever he remembered of the sayings and 
 actions of Christ, not, however, in order ' (see above 
 p. 110). 
 
 § 2. S. Mark's Style. 
 
 The vividness of this Gospel has long been noticed, 
 and it gives the book a peculiar freshness and interest. 
 It contains a multitude of details, little touches of the 
 brush which make the air breathe and the figures 
 move. We must be prepared to hear all these details 
 described as so much artifice, and a proof of the un- 
 trustworthy nature of the record. For there is a 
 school of critics which is inclined to pronounce any 
 mere summary of facts as too lifeless to be first-hand 
 evidence, and then to declare that any detailed account 
 is the literary trick of an impressionist writer. S. Mark's 
 story is now called too realistic to be real. The 
 thoughtful reader must judge for himself. The effect 
 of these details is cumulative. They are too numer- 
 ous and too natural to be all lightly attributed 
 to imagination — the imagination of a writer who is 
 incapable of writing any Greek but the roughest. 
 The evangelist is no wizard like Sir Walter Scott, able 
 to turn in a moment from a pithy local dialect to an 
 exquisite literary language, and able to give flesh and 
 blood to the creations of his own brain. His style 
 inspires confidence in his honesty. It is so Aramaic 
 in character that some critics think that the Gospel 
 must first have been written in Aramaic, or at least 
 
138 THE GOSPELS 
 
 based upon some Aramaic original.^ - It contains 
 Aramaic words: Boanerges (iii. 17), Talitha cumi 
 (v. 41), Corhan (vii. 11), Ephphatha (vii. 34), Abha 
 (xiv. 36), which are all omitted in Matthew and Luke, 
 as well as the actiial Aramaic words spoken by our 
 Lord in His extreme desolation on the cross, words 
 also recorded in Matthew. All these phrases come in 
 fitly, for the writer has a genuinely dramatic sense 
 such as the unlearned not unfrequently possess. But 
 a dramatic sense does not account for his frequent 
 grammatical irregularities, his plebeian Greek words, 
 his clumsy use of Greek participles, or the Latin 
 idioms employed in v. 23 and xv. 15, and such Latin 
 words as speculator for a soldier of the guard (vi. 27), 
 a contracted form of sextarius for a drinking-pot 
 (vii. 4), centurion (xv, 39), and the Latin names for 
 the coins denarius (vi. 37) and quadratis (xii. 42). If 
 this Greek is not the Greek of an early Christian Jew 
 with an imperfect education, we must for ever remain 
 at a loss to know how such a man would have written. 
 It is vigorous, naive, and unpremeditated. 
 
 Why should such a writer be suspected if he tells us 
 of the green grass where the crowds sat, and the appear- 
 ance of flower-beds which they presented when sitting 
 in groups in their bright Oriental costume (vi. 39, 40) ; 
 or of the stern of the boat and the pillow on which 
 our Lord slept (iv. 38); of the Gerasene demoniac 
 cutting himself with stones (v. 5) ; of the woman who 
 was a Syrophoenician but spoke Greek (vii. 26) ; of 
 Jesus taking the children into His arms (ix. 36 ; 
 X. 16) ; of the door where the colt was tied (xi. 4) ? 
 It is the same with regard to the proper names that he 
 mentions. We do not deny that at certain stages of 
 
 ' See Ven. W. C. Allen in Studies in the Synoptic Problem, p. 295. 
 The theory of an Aramaic original of Mark is criticised by Dr. A. J. 
 Maclean, Bishop of Moray, in Hastings' Dictionary of Christ and the 
 Gospels, vol. ii. p. 130. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MARK 139 
 
 thought there comes a natural desire to supply infor- 
 mation which is lacking in earlier authorities. Legend 
 cherished the memory of the repentant thief and the 
 centurion who confessed that the dying Jesus was the 
 Son of God. And legend gave to the first the name 
 of Dismas and to the second the name of Longinus. 
 These names appear long after the Gospels were written, 
 and there is no probability that they are correct. But 
 such fictions are no satisfactory reason for doubting that 
 S. John is correct when he alone tells us that the 
 servant whose ear Peter cut off was named Malchus. 
 Nor should S. Mark be accused by us of inventing 
 the name of Bartimaeus, the blind beggar, whose name 
 is unrecorded by Matthew and Luke (Mark x. 46) ; 
 Salome, the mother of Zebedee's children (xv. 40) ; and 
 Boanerges, their surname (iii. 17) ; also the names of 
 Alexander and Rufus, the sons of Simon of Cyrene 
 (xv. 21), names which would have been quite pointless 
 if they had not been familiar in the circle for which 
 S. Mark was writing. 
 
 § 3. The last twelve Verses. 
 
 The last twelve verses of Mark are widely different 
 in style from the rest of the book, and some of the 
 most ancient authorities end with the words ' for they 
 were afraid.' A few critics think that this was the 
 original ending, S. Mark having closed his Gospel thus 
 either by accident or intentionally. A far larger 
 number of critics hold that there was some longer end- 
 ing, now lost. Some think it was deliberately torn off 
 because it contradicted the other Gospels. Others, 
 and in all probability rightly, believe that there was 
 at first only one copy of the Gospel, and that the end 
 of the roll was lost by accident. The present ending 
 is very apcient, for it is certainly quoted by Irenaeus, 
 
140 THE GOSPELS 
 
 and is probably referred to by Justin Martyr. The 
 origin of it was quite unknown until 1891, when an 
 Armenian manuscript of the Gospels, written in a.d. 
 986, was discovered, attributing it to the 'presbyter 
 Ariston.'^ Ariston is another form of the name 
 Aristion. It has been conjectured that this was 
 Ariston of Pella, who wrote after a.d. 135. But this 
 conjecture is rendered improbable by the occurrence of 
 the definite citation in Irenaeus, which seems to neces- 
 sitate an earlier date. The author, therefore, is most 
 likely the Aristion mentioned by Papias, and one of the 
 last of our Lord's personal disciples. If so, it may be 
 fairly assumed that these verses were written in Asia 
 Minor. But the problem cannot be said to be abso- 
 lutely solved. 
 
 § 4. The Disciples and the Mysteries of 
 God's Kingdom. 
 
 Let us notice the relation of Jesus to His disciples. 
 It is depicted by S. Mark with peculiar force. No 
 other Gospel shows us so clearly how He trained His 
 disciples for their great future, and how slow they were 
 in understanding His purpose. They had to un-learn 
 as well as learn. It was necessary to instruct them 
 thoroughly as to the nature of the kingdom of God 
 and His own work in founding that kingdom on earth. 
 After the Pharisees had become definitely hostile to 
 Him and united with the Herodians, i.e. the Govern- 
 ment and Erastian party. He withdrew with His 
 disciples to the sea-shore, but being followed by a 
 multitude from Galilee, Judaea, and other regions. He 
 retired to the hills. With Him He took ' whom He 
 Himself would.' And He appointed twelve ' that they 
 might be with Him, and that He might send them forth 
 ' Mr. F. C. Conybeare, Expositor, 4th series, viii. p. 241. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MARK 141 
 
 to preach, and to have authority to cast out devils ' 
 (iii. 14, 15). He again returns to His public work. 
 The scribes from Jerusalem definitely accuse Him 
 of casting out devils by the prince of the devils, 
 and then He finds that even His friends think Him 
 mad, and His mother and brethren wish to remove 
 Him from danger. In reply to this anxiety, He 
 simply says farewell to His own family. ' Whosoever 
 shall do the will of God, the same is My brother, and 
 sister, and mother' (iii. 85). 
 
 As He cut Himself free from the sympathy of home, 
 so must His disciples. He utters in public the parable 
 of the sower. And we find at once a separation 
 between esoteric and exoteric teaching. Words ad- 
 dressed to the disciples only are distinguished from 
 those meant for the people who are without. ' When 
 He was alone, they that were about Him with the 
 twelve asked of Him the parables ' (iv. 10). So again, 
 later, we read, ' When He was entered into the house 
 from the multitude, His disciples asked of Him the 
 parable' (vii. 17), and it is 'in the house' that His 
 disciples ask Him about the nature of marriage and 
 divorce (x. 10). The parable of the sower, the sub- 
 sequent explanation of this parable in private, the 
 parable of the seed growing while men slept, and the 
 parable of the mustard seed, are placed near each other 
 by S. Mark in chap, iv., as specimens of many parables 
 which Jesus ' privately expounded.' To the Twelve He 
 says, ' Unto you is given the mystery of the kingdom 
 of God' (iv. 11). Those who are ' without,' the out- 
 siders, do not understand this secret. They only see 
 the parable, the illustration from natural life, with the 
 result that while seeing they do not perceive, and are 
 not converted. 
 
 We are not to think that the Twelve had as yet any 
 deep perception of ' the mystery.' Our Lord's words 
 imply the contrary. He says, ' Know ye not this 
 
142 THE GOSPELS 
 
 parable ' (i.e. of the sower), ' and how shall ye know all 
 the parables ? ' (iv. 13). But He has chosen them that 
 they may know. They have been called to preach and 
 to do the will of God. They have believed in Him 
 sufficiently to answer His call, as is instanced by the 
 fishermen who left their nets to follow Him (i. 16 f.). 
 And they are beginning to know. What was the first 
 great secret imparted to those who had received the 
 word, and were to bring forth fruit .'* It was that the 
 kingdom or reign of God was not to begin by any out- 
 ward catastrophe, but by a slow and gradual process. 
 It was to be thoroughly supernatural, and yet largely 
 natural. This is what the hearers of our Lord found 
 so hard to understand. 
 
 What the ordinary Jew desired was a sudden miracu- 
 lous deliverance from present misery and oppression. 
 In the Jewish Apocalypses and in the New Testament 
 we can see how the people yearned for the restoration 
 of the sovereignty of their nation. At the head of 
 the victorious Jews there was to be a great temporal 
 prince. He was to appear suddenly and conquer 
 quickly. They dreamed of a time like the golden days 
 of Solomon. And the ' day of the Lord,' which the 
 ancient prophets had foretold, was to be the dawn, 
 not so much of righteousness as of revenge upon the 
 Gentile. Every now and then some impostor took 
 advantage of these national hopes. Such was the 
 Theudas mentioned by Gamaliel in Acts v. 36 as the 
 head of an unsuccessful rebellion of four thousand men, 
 and such was Bar-cochba, who in a.d. 134 stirred up 
 the last frenzied opposition to Roman rule. When 
 Christ came and preached that the kingdom of God 
 was at hand, and bade men prepare for it by repent- 
 ance, and when He severed Himself from the official 
 teachers of Judaism, the populace hoped that He would 
 head that great rebellion which would usher in the 
 new age. As the fourth evangelist says, they wished 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MARK 143 
 
 to make Him a king (John vi. 15). Only a few were 
 prepared to believe that the kingdom would come by 
 a slow moral growth in the hearts of men, and then 
 find an outward expression in a new community before 
 the time was ripe for the great final change. This is 
 the first mystery of the kingdom. 
 
 We must connect with this mystery our Lord's in- 
 junctions to silence. In several cases we find that after 
 some miraculous occurrence Jesus told the witnesses 
 of His power to remain silent ; they were to tell no one. 
 Different interpretations have been put upon these 
 injunctions by modern critics. It has been held that 
 they are not really authentic, but invented by the 
 primitive Church or the evangelist to account for the 
 fact that the Jews among whom Jesus had worked did 
 not become Christians. The disciples did not suppose 
 that He was the Messiah until He was dead, and they 
 believed that He had appeared to them. And it was 
 imagined by the early Church that the Jews did not 
 accept Him as the Messiah, because He had not claimed 
 to be the Messiah or encouraged thera to believe it. 
 On the other hand, it has been held that these injunc- 
 tions are truly historical, and that Jesus enjoined silence 
 because it was not His purpose to found a church or 
 even a new system of morality. He came forward to 
 preach repentance in view of the sudden miraculous 
 advent of the kingdom of God. He knew that He 
 was the predestined Messiah, but His second advent 
 would be His first coming as the Messiah. The first 
 of these theories seems to me to be profoundly un- 
 historical, and the second, though much truer, to be 
 very one-sided. It is impossible to avoid the belief 
 that the stories with which these injunctions are con- 
 nected go back to genuine reminiscences of an apostle 
 and others whom the evangelist had personally known. 
 Moreover, their relative positions in the narrative appear 
 to be historical. No commands to ' tell no man ' are 
 given at the time of the first healings in Capernaum, nor 
 
144 THE GOSPELS 
 
 do they occur near the end when publicity was inevit- 
 able. They come where they are deliberately intended 
 to check a popular Messianic movement. Christ does 
 certain miracles in public, such as the cure of the 
 paralytic in ii. 1-12, and the man with the withered 
 hand in iii. 1-6. Here, as in the case of the feeding 
 of the five thousand in vi. 35-45, there is no command 
 to keep silence. But in the two former cases Jesus 
 withdraws from the town, and in the last case He sends 
 the crowd away. He does not wish to make His 
 cures the most vital part of His work or rely on them 
 for the spread of His fame. He refuses to accept 
 such an advertisement as might be given Him by 
 persons, whether epileptic or otherwise mentally alien- 
 ated, whose ' unclean spirits ' He had driven out (iii. 
 10-12). Cries which the bystanders plainly believed 
 to be a confession of His authority as ' the Holy One 
 of God' (i. 24), or 'the Son of the most High God ' 
 (v. 7), prove that the afflicted persons were conscious of 
 His influence, but He seeks no such acknowledgment 
 from such a quarter. Even when a leper whom He 
 had healed disobeyed His injunction to 'say nothing 
 to any man,' the result was that Christ ' could no more 
 openly enter into a city ' (i. 44, 45). With this we 
 may compare the command that the raising of the 
 daughter of Jairus should not be made known (v. 43 ; 
 cf. vii. 36; viii. 26). The injunction given to Peter, 
 James, and John after the transfiguration is of especial 
 interest, for a time limit is imposed on their silence. 
 ' He charged them that they should tell no man vchat 
 things they had seen, till the Son of Man were risen 
 from the dead' (ix. 9). The vision appears to be 
 intended to confirm their loyalty towards Him as the 
 Son of God before the impending trial of their faith 
 involved in His rejection and crucifixion. 
 
 We cannot be wrong if we interpret these commands 
 to ' tell no man ' by our Lord's own teaching with 
 regai'd to His Person. He knew that time was on 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MARK 145 
 
 His side, that through His death there would be a 
 new era for the kingdom of God which He had 
 already inaugurated. The certainty that this time 
 would dawn was compatible with both His laying the 
 foundation of a new society and His promulgation of 
 a new and better moral law. But the society must be 
 realised to be His own, and His authority over the 
 conscience must be unquestioned. He is God's Son, 
 He can wait. And as ' God is patient because He is 
 eternal,' His disciples must be patient, and not pro- 
 claim the full mystery of His Person until His resur- 
 rection proves His divine Sonship. 
 
 S. Mark does not spare the failings of the Twelve, 
 who were being won to this true idea of God's king- 
 dom and of the Messiah's office. In the storm Christ 
 has to say to them, ' Why are ye fearful ? have ye not 
 yet faith ? ' (iv. 40). And after the evangelist has 
 recorded how Christ walked to them on the sea, he 
 adds, ' They were sore amazed in themselves ; for they 
 understood not concerning the loaves, but their heart 
 was hardened' (vi. 51, 52). Again, they are so slow 
 to understand the true nature of defilement that 
 Christ asks, ' Are ye so without understanding also .-' ' 
 (vii. 18). They seem to have put a childishly literal in- 
 terpretation on His warning to beware of ' the leaven 
 of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.' And 
 He pleads with them. ' Do ye not yet perceive ? . . . 
 Do ye not yet understand ? ' (viii. 14 f.). They cannot 
 yet believe that He is fully able to provide them 
 with their daily bread, just as He knows when they 
 need rest and refreshment (vi. 31). Nor can they see 
 how corrupting and pervading is the spirit of vitiated 
 religion and worldly politics. 
 
 After S. Peter's confession, Jesus draws them from 
 the thought of the kingdom of God to the thought of 
 His own death. It is not that He has altered His 
 own conception of His work. S. Mark gives us no 
 
 K 
 
146 THE GOSPELS 
 
 hint of such an idea. The ' Bridegroom ' foresaw His 
 death before the Pharisees determined to destroy Him 
 (ii. 20 ; iii. 6). But He expands His teaching now that 
 the Twelve are better established in their allegiance to 
 His Person and know something of the nature of the 
 kingdom of God. But they are still very slow and 
 dull. The latter part of the Gospel lies under the 
 shadow of the cross even before we reach the detailed 
 story of the Passion. Many of His adherents expected 
 that the last journey of Jesus to Jerusalem would 
 result in some startling upheaval, some great manifes- 
 tation of God. We cannot otherwise account for the 
 scene of Palm Sunday. But the Master went up to 
 Jerusalem knowing that He would die, and that the 
 ' wicked husbandmen ' would kill the Son of the Lord 
 of the vineyard. He had tried to prepare the inner 
 circle of His followers for that crisis. 
 
 This story, as given to us by S. Mark, harmonises 
 well with the theory that it was written by a friend of 
 S. Peter. We are under no necessity of supposing that 
 S. Peter composed any outline of the whole book, or 
 that he provided all the incidents that it contains. 
 Some other matters connected with S. Peter and with 
 S. Mark's picture of our Lord will be noticed later. 
 What we can be content to say j ust now is that the 
 account which this Gospel gives of the training of the 
 disciples, and of the influence which Jesus exercised 
 over those disciples, does account for their subsequent 
 devotion to His cause. It therefore points us back 
 to an eye-witness. 
 
 § 5. S. Mark's Geography} 
 If we turn from the training of the disciples to 
 
 ^ I owe much in this section to Professor Burkitt's TAe Gospel 
 History and its Transmission, while attributing a much higher value 
 than he does to the record of journeys implied in the Fourth GospeE 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MARK 147 
 
 their first travels with the Master, we shall be able to 
 corroborate the theory that the evangelist had known 
 a personal follower of Christ. The descriptions of 
 His journeys have not the air of being invented by a 
 foreigner. Nor would they be probable as the inven- 
 tion of one who knew the scene of Christ's ministry at 
 a later age. The excursions are ' roundabout ' ; they 
 imply a certain amount of opposition and failure, and 
 they fit the political circumstances of the time of 
 Christ. Let us consider the country where our Lord 
 travelled, beginning at the north. To the north-east 
 there is the heathen district of Tyre and Sidon, and 
 almost due east of Tyre is the city of Caesarea Philippi. 
 Southward of the district of Tyre is the Jewish region 
 of Galilee, coming down to the west coast of the inland 
 sea of Tiberias. Almost in the heart of Galilee is 
 Nazareth. And by the shores of the sea are Tiberias, 
 Capernaum, and Bethsaida. Over Galilee ruled Herod 
 Antipas, 'that fox'; but Bethsaida was just outside 
 his dominions. Far south of the sea of Tiberias is the 
 other inland sea, the Dead Sea, and the Jordan joins 
 the two seas. To the west of the Jordan, just under 
 Galilee, is Samaria, the country of schismatics, half- 
 Jew, half-heathen, and strongly hostile to the Jews. 
 Opposite Samaria, on the other side, is the heathen 
 region of Decapolis. South of Samaria, and lying 
 between the coast of the Mediterranean to the west 
 and the Jordan and the Dead Sea to the east, is 
 Judaea with the cities of Jericho and Jerusalem. 
 Opposite Judaea, and on the east of the Jordan south 
 of Decapolis, is Peraea. Over Peraea ruled Herod 
 Antipas. And in the south of Peraea was the castle 
 of Machaerus, where, as Josephus the Jewish historian 
 records, John the Baptist was put to death. 
 
 The above brief description shows us that there were 
 within this small geographical area three openly 
 opposed religions : Judaism, Samaritanism, and hea- 
 
148 THE GOSPELS 
 
 thenism. We further know from Jewish books that 
 within Judaism itself there were different types of 
 thought. In addition to the Pharisees, the strictly 
 orthodox nationalist party, and the more sceptical 
 Sadducees, whose centre was Jerusalem, there were the 
 ' people of the land.' These were simple country folk, 
 despised by the Pharisees for their ignorance and dis- 
 regard of Pharisaic ceremonial, but probably ready to 
 give ear to an attractive teacher. The ascetic Jewish 
 community of Essenes, which lived near the Dead Sea, 
 is not important for our present discussion. 
 
 The political divisions of the country are of very 
 great importance. Galilee and Peraea had in the 
 person of Herod Antipas a vicious ruler, who had been 
 rebuked by the Baptist for marrying Herodias, his 
 brother's wife. Such a man would not be inclined to 
 view with favourable eyes any teacher of renown who 
 continued the Baptist's habit of rebuking vice. Beth- 
 saida and Caesarea Philippi were ruled by Herod 
 Philip I., whom Herodias had deserted. Decapolis 
 had been annexed to the Roman province of Syria by 
 Pompey, the ten cities from which the district derived 
 its name being allowed a considerable amount of free- 
 dom under Roman rule. Samaria and Judaea were 
 likewise part of the Roman province of Syria, ruled by 
 a Roman procurator. The Romans, as is well known, 
 were usually tolerant towards the religion of their 
 subject races, and in Samaria and Judaea they had to 
 deal with religions which took themselves seriously. 
 The whole history of Jerusalem under Roman rule 
 shows that it was animated by a fanaticism which 
 embarrassed the government, and which Rome had 
 either to humour or to crush. 
 
 Now the narrative of S. Mark, meagre though it is, 
 fits in with the three religions and the three govern- 
 ments which I have described. And it is in substantial 
 agreement with certain important indications furnished 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MARK 149 
 
 by S. Luke and S. John. These indications must be 
 mentioned later. In the meantime we can observe the 
 following points in S. Mark's account of our Lord's 
 journeys : — 
 
 A. The basis of our Lord's missionary work is 
 Galilee, starting from Capernaum, a town which was 
 not far from His own home at Nazareth, and was 
 probably identical with the modern Tell Hum. 
 
 (a) First missionary journey, in towns of Galilee : 
 withdrawal to the hills. — His first excursion is in the 
 neighbourhood of Capernaum (i. 38 ; ii. 1). Afterwards 
 He travels on the north side of the sea of Galilee, where 
 there was a toll-house on the border between the land 
 of Herod Antipas and that of Herod Philip, and 
 returns to the synagogue (ii. 13; iii. 1). He makes 
 an expedition on the left shore (iii. 7, 13). This 
 expedition was the i-esult of a break with the Pharisees. 
 They were indignant at His disregard of their rules 
 respecting Sabbath observance, and went off to make 
 plans with the government party, ' the Herodians,' to 
 suppress the new Teacher. 
 
 When He goes, Jesus is followed by an enthusiastic 
 multitude. But He now desires to instruct the few 
 rather than the many. So he departs to the hills, 
 summoning only ' whom He would,' and He appoints 
 twelve men to be His apostles (iii. 13). 
 
 (6) Opposition at Ca/pemaum. — He returns to Caper- 
 naum, apparently with the intention of passing to the 
 other, the right, shore of the lake (iii. 19, 20). 
 People have talked about Him during His absence. 
 The scribes hold that He works miracles with the help 
 of diabolic power. His own friends think Him mad 
 (iii. 22 fF.). Therefore He leaves the town and spends 
 a day on the shore of the lake (iv. 1). (c) Second 
 missionary jowmey, on the eastern shore of the lake of 
 Gennesaret. — He ci-osses the lake to the country of the 
 Gerasenes, who beseech Him to depart from their 
 
150 THE GOSPELS 
 
 borders (iv. 35; v. 1, 17). (d) Third missionary 
 journey, in the western highlands : Herod's perplexity. 
 — He returns and goes to Nazareth (v. 21 ; vi. 1). 
 In the meantime Herod has heard of Him, and thinks 
 that the Baptist is risen from the dead (vi. 14). There- 
 fore after the miracle of feeding the five thousand 
 Jesus and His disciples start in their boat for Beth- 
 saida, outside the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas. But 
 they are driven back by a contrary wind to Gennesaret, 
 vi^ithin that jurisdiction (vi. 45, 53). 
 
 B. Our Lord visits pagan districts. 
 
 (as) Fourth missionary journey, into Phoenicia and 
 Decapolis. — In Gennesaret He is met by crowds of 
 people and by Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem. 
 So dangerous are the circumstances that He goes far 
 off to the heathen district of Phoenicia, containing the 
 cities of Tyre and Sidon (vii. 24), and then to the 
 predominantly non-Jewish district of Decapolis (vii. 81). 
 A long circuit was made, and the reason evidently was 
 to avoid Herod Antipas. But He goes back once more 
 to a place which seems to have been on the west side 
 of the lake (Dalmanutha; probably Magdalunaya, a 
 suburb of Tiberias). He is immediately met by the 
 Pharisees (viii. 10, 11). (&) Fifth journey, to towns oj 
 Caesarea Philippi. — He goes once more to Bethsaida, 
 and then to the non- Jewish district of Caesarea Philippi 
 (viii. 22, 27). Here S. Peter confesses Him to be the 
 Christ, and He definitely foretells His death. 
 
 C. Our Lord's last visits to Jerusalem. 
 
 (a) Journey to Jerusalem through Samaria {or 
 ? Peraed). — Christ journeys slowly to Jerusalem. He 
 goes back from Caesarea Philippi to Capernaum, but 
 goes in secret (ix. 30 ff.). In travelling southward 
 He would be obliged to pass either through Samaria, 
 on the west of Jordan, or through Peraea on the east, 
 or through part of both. Most unfortunately we here 
 reach a crux in the text of Mark. Ancient students 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MARK 151 
 
 saw the difiSculty, and tried to correct the reading, with 
 the result that we are confronted with three different 
 readings, each of which is plausible. The later Greek 
 MSS., followed by the English Authorised Version, say 
 in Mark x. 1, ' He arose from thence, and cometh into 
 the coasts [i.e. borders] of Judaea by the farther side 
 of Jordan.' The Greek of this is perfectly plain, and 
 means that He came into Judaea, not by passing 
 straight through Samaria, but by going through 
 Peraea. On the other hand, the Vatican MS., a most 
 important MS. of the fourth century, and other kindred 
 MSS., followed by the English Revised Version, have, 
 ' He arose from thence, and cometh into the borders of 
 Judaea and beyond Jordan.' This is also quite plain, 
 and quite different from the other reading. It means 
 that our Lord came into Judaea — probably through 
 Samaria, but the way is not specified — and then turned 
 eastward into Peraea. If this is correct, then Mark x. 
 relates to a visit to Judaea, followed by a ministry in 
 Peraea, before Christ's final return to Jerusalem. At 
 first sight this is a very attractive reading. It agrees 
 in an unobtrusive way with the Fourth Gospel, where 
 we find that our Lord went to Jerusalem, was bitterly 
 opposed (John vii., viii., ix., x.), and then retired to 
 the east of the Jordan (John x. 40). From thence He 
 went to Bethany and Ephraim (John xi. 54), returning 
 to Jerusalem to die. Jesus, according to S. John, went 
 beyond the Jordan after the feast of the Dedication 
 at Jerusalem in December a.b. 28, and returned to 
 Jerusalem for the Passover in March a.d. 29. 
 
 Such are the two readings with which the modern 
 student of the Bible is most familiar. But there is a 
 ' harder ' reading, and harder readings are proverbially 
 to be ' preferred ' to the easier, as it can be shown that 
 they were frequently altered by well-meaning scribes. 
 The best Greek text of Mark x. 1 may be that 
 which agrees with the old Syriac and Latin versions. 
 
152 THE GOSPELS 
 
 It runs, ' He arose from thence, and cometh into the 
 borders of Judaea beyond the Jordan.' Now the 
 borders of Judaea could only be ' beyond the Jordan,' 
 to a person who was himself east of the Jordan, and 
 presumably travelling through Peraea. It is certainly 
 most unlikely that any one would have invented this 
 very ancient reading. It may possibly be corrupt. 
 An 'and' may have dropped out before 'beyond.' 
 But if it is genuine, it implies that the person who 
 originally told the story which we have in S. Mark went 
 through Peraea, though it does not necessarily imply 
 that Jesus went with him. The whole journey cannot 
 be traced. But we learn from Luke ix. 51-56 that our 
 Lord, with James and John, was refused admission into 
 a Samaritan village. S. Peter was apparently not with 
 them at the time. Probably the little company had 
 divided, some of them going by the road through 
 Samaria, and some of them going by the usual Peraean 
 road adopted by Jewish pilgrims for the very purpose 
 of avoiding Samaria. 
 
 It is possible that Jesus, after encountering this 
 opposition from the Samaritans, crossed the Jordan 
 and travelled through Peraea until He came nearly 
 opposite to Jericho, and then crossed the river and 
 came into Judaea. This seems to me perfectly con- 
 sistent with the difficult reading in Mark x. 1, though 
 not necessarily implied by it. But if this was our 
 Lord's route, we should be led to suppose that it was 
 more dangerous for Him to go through Samaria than 
 through the Peraean part of Herod's dominions. This 
 is not what the Gospels generally suggest. It is more 
 probable that He went through Samaria, and arranged 
 to meet the main body of His disciples, probably 
 including S. Peter, on the west side of the Jordan near 
 Jericho. This view has two advantages. It gives a 
 reason for the fact that S. Mark's Gospel, which seems 
 to be rich in the personal recollections of S. Peter, 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MARK 153 
 
 especially near its end, tells us practically nothing 
 about this journey into Judaea. It also agrees with 
 the fact that S. Luke here supplements S. Mark by 
 important additions, apparently derived from another 
 companion of our Lord. Among these additions is the 
 parable of the good Samaritan (Luke x. 25-37). 
 
 When Jesus did reach the frontiers of Judaea He 
 was at least safe from Herod Antipas, and S. Mark says, 
 ' Multitudes came together unto Him again.' He then 
 visited Jerusalem as recorded in John vii. 10. 
 
 In the view which has been adopted above there is a 
 difficulty which it would be disingenuous to ignore. It 
 is that Mark x. mentions only one actual visit to 
 Jerusalem (x. 32), and not the two, or even three, 
 visits implied by S. John (vii. 10; .?x. 22; xii. 12). If 
 S. Peter, who was with our Lord during at least part 
 of the time recorded in this chapter (x. 28), narrated 
 one such journey, why did he not narrate more ? It is 
 a mistake to try to cut the knot by simply dismissing 
 S. John's record of the different visits to Jerusalem as 
 a pious fiction.'' The question can only be answered, 
 if at all, by another question : Why does S. Mark omit 
 the precious material contained in the middle section 
 of S. Luke's Gospel.? It is generally admitted by 
 critics that this material does not belong entirely to 
 the period following the final departure of Jesus from 
 Galilee for the south. And it contains much teaching 
 which bears every conceivable mark of genuineness. 
 Did S. Mark's instructor or S. Mark himself know this, 
 or did one of them for any reason, such as a desire for 
 brevity, omit it ? We cannot tell. But we can say 
 that it is probable that some of this teaching belongs 
 to the time when Jesus went once more beyond the 
 Jordan, after the feast of the Dedication in a.d. 28. 
 That such is the case is not only intrinsically probable, 
 
 1 For the historical value of the Fourth Gospel on this point see 
 Dr. Sanday's Outlines of the Life of Christ. 
 
154 THE GOSPELS 
 
 but is also strongly corroborated by Luke xiii. 31-35. 
 Here we are told that the Pharisees came to Jesus, 
 saying to Him, ' Get Thee out and go hence, for Herod 
 would fain kill Thee.' Jesus is once again in Herod's 
 territory. He knows His danger. But He also knows 
 that He is in equal danger at Jerusalem. He goes 
 thither resolved to die. 
 
 The result of this investigation is to show that 
 S. Mark's account of our Lord's travels, though far 
 from complete, is of very great historical Value. In 
 spite of his conviction that Jesus is the Son of God, he 
 certainly does not represent Him as breaking down all 
 opposition and meeting with triumphant success. He 
 is hunted; He has not where to lay His head. He 
 delivers His message, but again and again He withdraws 
 from danger until the supreme hour has come. The 
 bare outline of facts is more pathetic than any ad- 
 ventures and victories which a romancer of later times 
 would have attributed to a popular prophet. The 
 more critically we look at it the more likely we are to 
 think that it was based on the experience of one who 
 was with Christ for a large part, but most likely not 
 the whole, of His ministry. 
 
 We cannot discover the same precision in either 
 Matthew or Luke. In the former Gospel it is destroyed 
 by the author's grouping of the sayings of our Lord, 
 and we find vague phrases, such 'as, ' Jesus went about 
 all the cities and the villages' (ix. 35), and 'He 
 departed thence to teach and preach in their cities' 
 (xi. 1). In the same way S. Luke in viii. 1 says, ' He 
 went about through cities and villages.' S. Luke, who 
 is particularly accurate in the geographical allusions 
 made in Acts, is very uncertain as to the itineraries 
 of our Lord. A good instance is to be found in the 
 passage which prefaces S. Peter's confession that our 
 Lord is the Christ (Matt. xvi. 13 ; Mark viii. 27 ; 
 Luke ix. 18). The first two evangelists definitely 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, MARK 155 
 
 mention Caesarea Philippi. S. Luke omits the name 
 altogether and says, 'As He was praying alone, the 
 disciples were with Him ; and He asked them, saying, 
 Who do the multitudes say that I am?' S. Luke 
 appears to have deliberately omitted the name as one 
 unknown to his readers. An equally interesting case 
 is found after the story of the miraculous feeding of 
 the five thousand (Matt. xiv. 22 ; Mark vi. 45 ; Luke ix.). 
 S. Mark shows that Jesus and His disciples intended on 
 crossing the lake to go to Bethsaida ; in Matthew ' the 
 other side ' is mentioned, but not the town ; in Luke 
 there is no mention of either one or the other. 
 From S. Mark also we gain a clearer view of the 
 last week of our Lord's life before the crucifixion,' 
 for he seems to show, either directly or indirectly, 
 that our Lord returned every evening to Bethany 
 (xi. 1, 11, 12, 19, 20 ; xiv. 3, 12 f.). The anointing 
 of our Lord by a woman in the house of Simon the 
 leper at Bethany is perhaps inserted by S. Mark on 
 the wrong day (xiv. 3-9). Here it appears to be two 
 days before the Passover. In John xii. 1 it is six days 
 before the Passover. Perhaps S. Mark did not know 
 exactly when it happened, and therefore put it next 
 to the story of the betrayal, in order to throw the 
 action of Judas into a higher relief. As a final 
 instance of the greater minuteness of S. Mark's topo- 
 graphy we may note that whereas he states that the dis- 
 course about the destruction of Jerusalem was delivered 
 by Jesus ' as He sat on the Mount of Olives over 
 against the temple' (xiii. 3), S. Matthew says simply 
 ' on the Mount of Olives,' and S. Luke omits both the 
 reference to the mount and that to the temple. 
 
 § 6. S. Peter in Mark. 
 
 S. Peter is the most prominent of the disciples of 
 Jesus, both at the beginning of the Gospel, where he 
 
156 THE GOSPELS 
 
 is mentioned first of the Twelve (iii. 16), and at the 
 end, where ' the young man ' seen by the holy women 
 at Christ's tomb says to them, 'But go, tell His 
 disciples and Peter' (xvi. 7). S. Peter's confession 
 that Jesus is the Christ is as central here as in the 
 other Synoptic Gospels (viii. 29), but Mark does not 
 record, like Matthew, the fact that our Lord called 
 Peter the rock on which He would build His Church. 
 Indeed, the things told concerning Peter are rather 
 of a nature to check any desire to venerate him as the 
 prince of the apostles. Here we find the reprimand 
 which he received when he criticised our Lord's 
 mission (viii. S3), Christ calling him ' Satan,' a term 
 copied in Matthew but omitted in Luke. Like the 
 other Synoptists, S. Mark records S. Peter's fanciful 
 suggestion to erect three tabernacles to Jesus, Moses, 
 and Elias on the scene of the transfiiguration, a sug- 
 gestion to which he adds, 'for he wist not what to 
 answer ' (Mark ix. 4 ; Luke ix. 33). S. Mark alone 
 notes that it was Peter who specially called our Lord's 
 attention to the withering of the fig-tree which He 
 had cursed, and possibly S. Mark understands Christ's 
 reply, ' Have faith in God,' as in some sense a rebuke 
 of S. Peter's action (xi. 21, 22). It was Peter whom 
 Christ awoke in Gethsemane by uttering his name, 
 ' Simon ' (xiv. 37) ; and his denial of his Lord is 
 shown in the least favourable light, for he does 
 not repent until the cock crew twice, giving him 
 a double reminder of Christ's warning (xiv. 72). 
 The record of Mark, followed by Matthew, mentions 
 both the imprecations and the perjury of Peter, 
 ' He began to curse, and to swear, I know not this 
 man of whom ye speak.' And if we go back to the 
 scene where this fall of S. Peter was predicted by 
 Christ, we find the same characteristics. S. Luke 
 says nothing of the failure of the apostles as a body. 
 But S. Mark, closely followed by the first Gospel, 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MARK 157 
 
 mentions both our Lord's prediction that all would 
 be offended, and Peter's presumptuous double declara- 
 tion that he would be loyal, ' He spake exceeding 
 vehemently. If I must die with Thee, I will not deny 
 Thee'(xiv. 31). 
 
 That S. Mai'k created these features of his narrative 
 is scarcely probable. Either he wrote with an animus 
 against all the original twelve apostles, especially 
 S. Peter, or relied upon some early tradition in which the 
 saints appeared as less impeccable and infallible than 
 they were supposed to be by later generations. Now 
 S. Mark may have had a very great admiration for 
 S. Peter. He may have revered him both as a man 
 and as a martyr of Christ, and thought that any 
 failing shown by him in early days was atoned for by 
 a life spent and laid down in the service of Jesus. 
 Such a thing as this is so reasonable that we need 
 not feel bound by any psychological necessity to think 
 that S. Mark despised S. Peter. A coarser manner 
 than that of the evangelist would have been employed 
 by the ancient writer who wished to advertise to the 
 world the inferior quality of the earliest type of 
 . Christianity. The Clementine romances, forged about 
 A.D. 200 by a Judaistic Christian who disliked S. Paul, 
 give us a good hint as to the nature of primitive 
 powers of calumny. It is much too subtle to see in 
 S. Mark an armoury of innuendoes against the Twelve 
 and a hidden glorification of S. Paul in the prophecy, 
 ' Many that are first shall be last ; and the last first ' 
 (X. 31). 
 
 § 7. S. Mark, S. Paul, S. John. 
 
 This Gospel, though largely derived from S. Peter, 
 must not be called distinctively Petrine. Such a view 
 is unbalanced, and has provoked the energetic eiforts 
 which have been made, and are still made, to find in it 
 
158 THE GOSPELS 
 
 the most pronounced Pauline teaching. A well-known 
 representative of this critical tendency is Professor 
 B. W. Bacon of Yale. He holds that the book has 
 been revised by an ultra- Pauline Roman Christian who 
 wrote about a.d. 70-75. Professor Bacon belongs to 
 the school of writers who hold that S. Paul held a 
 fundamentally different conception of the work of 
 Christ from that which Christ held Himself, and that 
 he turned the original message delivered by the apostles 
 into an alien Gospel. When they discover in the 
 Gospels any passages which lay emphasis upon the 
 saving value of Christ's death, they usually feel them- 
 selves compelled to say that these are mere interpola- 
 tions. So Professor Bacon says, ' In very high degree 
 Mark's narrative is dominated by theoretical consi- 
 derations, often manifestly derived from the Pauline 
 Epistles, especially Romans,' ^ and ' the Paulinism of 
 Mark is supremely manifest in this evangelist's whole 
 conception of what constitutes the apostolic message.''^ 
 The Christian can be grateful to any critic, however 
 hostile he may be to the heart of Christianity, when 
 he testifies in this fashion to the inward unity of the 
 New Testament. The Church of the second century 
 was correct in regarding the books which compose it 
 as the work of the same Spirit. S. Mark's Gospel, 
 rough and simple as it is, teaches the doctrine of the 
 cross as certainly as the fervid arguments of S. Paul. 
 S. Mark and S. Paul apprehended Christianity in a 
 manner which is radically the same. Were they both 
 mistaken ? Were there no events which explain their 
 ideas ? 
 
 The decisive event which justifies the doctrine of the 
 cross is the crucifixion. Jesus died, when He might 
 have avoided death. As Professor Bacon himself 
 says, ' For some reason Jesus did go up to Jerusalem, 
 
 I The Beginnings of Gosfel Story, p. xx. 
 ^ Op. cit. p. xxviii. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MARK 159 
 
 and throw down the gauntlet in the face of the priestly 
 hierocracy in the temple itself. For some reason He 
 did follow a role which led to His execution by Pilate 
 as a political agitator. For some reason His followers, 
 very shortly after, did ascribe to Him not mere reap- 
 pearance from the tomb, but exaltation to the place of 
 the Messiah " at the right hand of God " — attributes 
 so exalted that it is difficult to believe they had no 
 other foundation than mere reverence for an admired 
 Teacher.' ^ It is indeed difficult. The credulity of an 
 illiterate peasant is pure enlightenment compared with 
 the credulity of the critic who thinks that Jesus deli- 
 berately courted an awful death without the idea that 
 His death would save sinners, that He was executed as 
 a political agitator, and yet never made the one claim 
 which in Roman eyes would justify His execution, and 
 that after His death His followers died for declaring 
 that He was alive in heaven, when they really knew 
 that His body was rotting in Jerusalem. According 
 to S. Mark, Christ died with a purpose. He had 
 taught that He would give His life 'a ransom for 
 many ' (x. 45). The phrase comes from the Old Testa- 
 ment, and Jesus in using it meant that the offering of 
 His life would be a means towards liberating men 
 from guilt. Historically it has had this effect. The 
 verse agrees with other passages which are found in our 
 other oldest sources copied in Matthew and Luke. It 
 is in the same line with other words in which Christ 
 foretells His death and subsequent resurrection. It is 
 in harmony with what all the Synoptists record in 
 connection with the Last Supper. In short, all that 
 S. Mark says about the significance of Christ's death is 
 coherent, and it stands the severe test of comparison 
 with all the best authenticated passages in the New 
 Testament. According to all known rules of evidence 
 it must, at least in substance, be part of the teaching 
 1 Op. cit. p. io6. 
 
160 THE GOSPELS 
 
 of Jesus. According to a rigidly conservative scepti- 
 cism it was not, because it could not be ; and it could 
 not be, because Jesus was a ' plain mechanic.'^ 
 
 Other alleged footsteps of Paulinism need hardly 
 detain us. If the evangelist did not borrow from 
 S. Paul a novel doctrine of Christ's Person, and a novel 
 doctrine concerning His death, but merely recorded 
 what was the common faith of the Church, the accusa- 
 tion that he borrowed S. Paul's universalism is worth- 
 less. It is said that he falsely represents Jesus as 
 commanding that the Gospel should be preached to all 
 nations, in all the world (xiii. 10 ; xiv. 9) ; that His 
 words to the Syrophoenician woman are less harsh and 
 therefore less genuine in Mark than in Matthew (Mark 
 vii. 24-30 ; Matt. xv. 21-28) ; that He is represented as 
 altering the law of the Sabbath (ii. 27) and of unclean 
 meats (yii. 15-19), and exalting the command to love 
 (xii. 32-34). S. Mark also speaks of the rending of the 
 temple veil at the death of Christ (xv. 38), and of God's 
 rejection of the Jews (iv. 11 ff.). The question, however, 
 is not whether this is all in harmony with S. Paul, which 
 the Christian Church does not doubt, but whether the 
 evangelist teaches a partisan Paulinism which perverts 
 history. Jesus Christ gave a mighty impulse to both 
 an extensive and an intensive universalism. This is 
 widely admitted even by non-Christian writers, and we 
 therefore have no sure ground at all for saying that 
 the evangelist is a Pauline partisan. It is worth 
 noting in this connection that the vocabulary of 
 S. Mark is to an extraordinary degree less Pauline than 
 that of S. Luke, and to a small degree less Pauline 
 than that of Matthew. There are 22 words found 
 only in Mark and in Paul, 32 only in Matthew and in 
 Paul, 103 only in Luke and in Paul.^ 
 
 At the present time, when so much is made of any 
 
 ^ Op. cit. p. io8. 
 
 ^ Sir John Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, p. 189. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MARK 161 
 
 apparent contradictions and antitheses in the Gospels, 
 it is a real aid to correct thinking if we ask ourselves 
 in every case whether these contradictions truly exist. 
 Sometimes the problem has only to be grasped in 
 order to be at least partly solved. We have already 
 seen that the idea of a lasting opposition between a 
 Pauline and a Petrine party in the primitive Church 
 gains no support from this Gospel. The sharpest 
 criticism has never been able to determine whether 
 this, the earliest Gospel, contains a preponderating 
 measure of Pauline or Petrine elements. And we are 
 at least encouraged by this fact to think that much 
 which has been tabulated among the distinctive theories 
 of this or that great apostle is really Christian in the 
 truest sense of the word. It is ' of Christ,' and only in 
 a secondary sense ' of Paul ' or 'of Cephas.' But we 
 may now fitly allude to another supposed antithesis. 
 The fourth Gospel and the second are generally held to 
 be more widely separated than any other two Gospels. 
 In Mark the subjective element appears to be least, in 
 John it is greatest. Mark is essentially realistic ; John 
 is at least accused of presenting us with an idealised 
 and remodelled story of our Lord. Mark is practical, 
 concerning himself with the notable deeds of Christ's 
 life ; John is symbolic. That John selects events which 
 have an inner meaning, and sometimes even two inner 
 meanings, is indisputable. And many critics assert 
 that John abounds in scenes and persons and events 
 which are merely invented to enforce a doctrine or 
 suggest a hidden and mysterious truth. 
 
 Let us compare a few points in Mark and John. 
 We may note in passing that Volkmar, a critic much 
 in vogue some thirty years ago, interpreted the miracles 
 in Mark exactly as the most recent rationalism inter- 
 prets the miracles in John. For him the woman with an 
 issue of blood was a picture of Israel under the influence 
 of the rabbis, whose prescriptions were impotent to expel 
 
162 THE GOSPELS 
 
 uncleanness. The dead daughter of Jairus was, accord- 
 ing to his interpretation, a picture of Israel united to 
 the synagogue, and dead in spite of this union. For 
 the present this method of interpreting Mark appears 
 to have fallen into abeyance. The book is too graphic, 
 its style too artless, for this vaporising. And yet the 
 question still remains whether S. Mark himself did 
 not think that certain of' the miracles of Jesus, and 
 certain events connected with His life and death, had 
 a symbolic meaning. Was not the cure of the leper 
 something more for S. Mark than a sign of the power 
 of the Son of God ? Must he not have noticed that 
 he wrote down the story of the healing of the blind 
 man immediately after he had shown the dulness of the 
 disciples, and immediately before Jesus begins to reveal 
 the mystery of His death ? Was he not aware that the 
 healing of the man who was both deaf and dumb in a 
 heathen country would suggest the future work of 
 Jesus in the heathen world ? Would he not think 
 that the repeated miracle of Christ feeding the hungry 
 would suggest to his readers, and was intended by 
 Christ to suggest, the coming Eucharistic feast .'' Is it 
 possible that he regarded the rending of the veil of the 
 temple when Jesus died as a chance event with no signifi- 
 cance as to a new relation between God and the world ? 
 
 If such questions are fairly considered we shall at 
 least lose confidence in the dogmatism which pits the 
 Johannine spirit against that of the Synoptists, and 
 does so with the dogmatic purpose of reducing the 
 Christian conception of Christ. 
 
 § 8. S. Mark's Portrait of Christ. 
 
 A notable proof of the historical accuracy of this 
 Gospel is to be found in the childlike simplicity with 
 which S. Mark describes the emotions of our Lord, and 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MARK 163 
 
 even writes down what others might conceive to be 
 derogatory to His honour. In this respect the differ- 
 ence between Mark on the one hand and Matthew and 
 Luke on the other is very great. S. Mark speaks of 
 Christ as showing anger and grief (iii. 5) and wonder 
 (vi. 6). These words are omitted in both Matthew 
 and Luke. He also applies to Christ the following 
 expressions : — sternly charged (i. 43), sighed (vii. 34), 
 sighed deeply in His spirit (viii. 12), was moved with 
 indignation (x. 14), was greatly a/mazed (xiv. 33). In 
 vi. 5 S. Mark says that Jesus could not, but Matthew in 
 xiii. 58 that He did not do mighty works at Nazareth. 
 We may also compare the following phrases : — He 
 wished to pass hy them (vi. 48) ; He did not wish that 
 any man should know it, and He could not be hid (vii. 
 24 ; cf . ix. 30), omitted in Matthew. In several passages 
 our Lord is represented as asking questions (v. 9, SO ; 
 vi. 38 ; ix. 12, 16, 21, 33 ; xiv. 14). These are omitted 
 in Matthew, possibly because they might be inter- 
 preted as implying ignorance on our Lord's part. The 
 question asked by Jesus Himself in Mark x. 3 is put 
 into the mouth of the Pharisees in Matthew. In 
 Mark the completeness and the immediate effect of 
 Christ's miracles are less prominent than in the parallel 
 passages in Matthew. Thus in Mark i. 32-34 all are 
 brought and many healed, but in Matt. viii. 16 many 
 are brought and all are healed (cf. Mark iii. 10 ; Matt, 
 xii. 15). In three places in Matthew (ix. 22 ; xv. 28 ; 
 xvii. 18) we find inserted a phrase intended to make it 
 clear that Christ's healing power took effect immedi- 
 ately. The case of the barren fig-tree is important. 
 In Mark xi. 12 we find that our Lord on His way from 
 Bethany to Jerusalem was hungry, and seeing a fig-tree 
 in leaf camie if haply He might find anything thereon, 
 but found nothing but leaves, ^or it was not the season 
 of figs. Both these phrases are omitted in Matthew. 
 The first might seem to imply ignorance, and the second 
 
164 THE GOSPELS 
 
 might seem to suggest that our Lord was mistaken in 
 expecting good figs at such a season. In Matthew it 
 is added that the tree withered immediately, and that 
 the fact caused the disciples to wonder so much that 
 they called their Master's attention to it. 
 
 Most important is the difference between our Lord's 
 question, ' Why callest Thou Me good ? None is good 
 save one, even God'' (x. 18), and the form in which it 
 appears in Matt. xix. 17, 'Why askest thou Me concern- 
 ing that which is good? One there is who is good.'' 
 The words were not a disclaimer of holiness or of Deity 
 on the part of the Saviour. They were a repudiation 
 of a man's empty compliment involved in the address, 
 ' Good Master,' and were meant to turn his thoughts 
 upward to the Source of all goodness. S. Luke leaves 
 the words unaltered (xviii. 19), perceiving that S. Mark 
 had written something true to the character of Him 
 who ' humbled Himself.' 
 
 It is right and necessary clearly to place before us 
 these passages which imply the limitations under which 
 our Lord lived. But the practice of accepting these 
 passages as if they were the only real clue, or the best 
 clue to a correct interpretation of Christ's life, is most 
 unreasonable. For the very fact that S. Mark so can- 
 didly narrates passages of this kind gives us a guarantee 
 that his other statements are at least in the main his- 
 torical. And it is beyond dispute that in his mind this 
 second class of statements is far the more important. 
 
 S. Mark's particular titles for Jesus are ' the Son of 
 God' and ' the Son of Man.' It is quite evident that 
 this latter title means something very different from 
 'a mere man.' The title is apocalyptic. It goes 
 back to Daniel vii. 13, where the four great empires 
 of the world are represented by four beasts, but their 
 dominion falls before the advent of ' one like unto a 
 Son of Man.' This supernatural person is Israel, the 
 saints of God united in one heavenly predestined 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MARK 165 
 
 figure. Gradually the name acquired the strictly 
 Messianic meaning which it bears in the ' Similitudes ' 
 of the Book of Enoch (chaps. 37-70). Here the Son 
 of Man is a superhuman Messiah, whose office it is 
 to judge the world, to vindicate the righteous, and 
 to crush the wicked. At the day of judgment ' the 
 kings, and the mighty, and the exalted' will set 
 their hope upon the Son of Man and implore His 
 mercy. But only the righteous will be ' saved,' and 
 ' the Lord of Spirits will abide over them, and with 
 that Son of Man will they eat and lie down and rise 
 up for ever and ever.' Without in the least disclaim- 
 ing the idea of sovereignty and power which the name 
 bears in the Jewish apocalyptic story, Jesus shows 
 that He is sovereign of another and higher order. 
 He fills it with a deeper meaning, as He filled the 
 phrase ' kingdom of God.' And for S. Mark it is 
 precisely the Jesus who walks upon the earth, hungry 
 and poor, who is this heavenly being who has been 
 exalted to heaven (xv. 62) and will come again with 
 power and glory (xiii. 26). He represents Jesus as 
 calling Himself the Son of Man even when He is speak- 
 ing of His work on earth (ii. 10, 28; x. 45), of His 
 . sufierings (viii. 31), and His resurrection (ix. 9). 
 
 To S. Mark the life of Jesus was a sufficient and over- 
 whelming proof that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son 
 of God. Just as the fourth evangelist writes with 
 the intention that his readers may believe that Jesus 
 is ' the Christ, the Son of God ' (John xx. 31), so 
 S. Mark wishes to leave upon his readers an impression 
 which he regards as vital to religion. It is the same 
 as that of the fourth evangelist, though sometimes 
 presented in other words. For him Jesus is the Christ, 
 and the Christ is the Son of God. The dignity of 
 Christ is attested at the beginning, at the central crisis, 
 and at the end of Christ's ministry. His divine Son- 
 ship is attested by the Father at His baptism (i. 11). 
 
166 THE GOSPELS 
 
 His Messiahship is confessed by S. Peter, the representa- 
 tive of the disciples (viii. 29), and the centurion, 
 whether he was heathen or proselyte, who stood by 
 the cross of the dying Jesus, confessed that He was 
 ' the Son of God ' (xv. 39). And Jesus Himself acknow- 
 ledges to the high priest that He is ' the Christ, the 
 Son of the Blessed' (xiv. 61). These testimonies were 
 not recorded by chance, or because the evangelist 
 thought that he had nothing else to tell us. He 
 recorded them deliberately, with the conviction that 
 they are so important that he had nothing better to 
 tell us. They are part of the essence of his Gospel. 
 
 With regard to the Baptism of our Lord, recent 
 controversy has made it almost as necessary to see what 
 S. Mark does not say, as what he actually says. Cer- 
 tain sects of the second century of the Christian era, 
 more Jewish than Christian, taught that Jesus was 
 only a man chosen by God, who became an adopted and 
 titular Son of God, and the Messiah, at His baptism. 
 Some even held that the Holy Spirit who then de- 
 scended on Jesus was what they called the Son of God, 
 a half-divine being who came to dwell in the man 
 Jesus. In recent years such views have sometimes 
 been considered primitive. But by no critical dexterity 
 can the earliest Gospel be made to harmonise with 
 such theories, any more than it can be made to 
 harmonise with the somewhat similar view that Jesus 
 first became the Son of God at His resurrection. 
 S. Peter, in Acts x. 38, says that God anointed Jesus 
 Christ ' with the Holy Ghost and with power.' This 
 corresponds exactly with S. Mark's conception of the 
 result of Christ's baptism. It does not exclude a 
 divine Soriship existing before the baptism, and it does 
 not exclude that outward demonstration of the divine 
 Sonship which S. Paul connects with the resurrection 
 (Rom. i. 4). The words heard by Jesus at His baptism, 
 according to S. Mark, are ' Thou art My beloved Son, 
 in Thee I am well pleased.' They combine the thought 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MARK 167 
 
 of two passages in the Old Testament, in one of which 
 the royal Messiah is described, in the other the ideal 
 suifering servant of God (Ps. ii. 7 ; Isa. xlii. 1). In the 
 original the first passage runs, ' Thou art My beloved 
 Son, this day have I begotten Thee.' If S. Mark had 
 simply copied this verse,"- it might have reasonably been 
 argued that he held the ' Adoptionist ' view of Christ's 
 Person . Such is not the case. In Mark we do not gather 
 that Jesus became the Son of God at His baptism, but 
 that He knew that He was the Son of God. It does 
 not follow from this that the baptism brought to Him 
 no increase of spiritual power. But it is simply un- 
 deniable that the work of the Holy Spirit in equip- 
 ping the Messiah for His mission is but little empha- 
 sised in Mark. It is much more prominent in Luke, 
 where, however, the supernatural birth of Christ is 
 recorded, and where the doctrine of His divine origin 
 is unmistakably implied. 
 
 What meaning is attached to the phrase ' Son of 
 God ' can only be ascertained by a close study of the 
 Gospel itself. His authority (i. 27 ; iii. 15 ; vi. 7) 
 and His power (vi. 2, 5, 14) are repeatedly illus- 
 trated ; His figure is commanding ; His conquest over 
 spiritual adversaries is continuous. The evil spirits 
 obey Him (i. 27) and fear Him (i. 24, 34 ; v. 7; ix. 26). 
 They do this because they recognise that He is the Son 
 of God (i. 24, 34 ; iii. 11 f. ; v. 7). He, the Son of 
 Man, is able to forgive sins, and He regards the miracle 
 of healing which accompanies this forgiveness as an 
 easier matter than forgiveness (ii. 9 f ). He is ' Lord of 
 the sabbath,' able to regulate the true observance of the 
 day (ii. 28). He feeds five thousand with miraculously 
 created bread (vi. 44) ; the sea and the winds obey Him 
 (vi. 48 f.). He withers a fig-tree by His word (xi. 14, 
 20). He raises from the dead the daughter of Jairus 
 (v. 42). When scribes from Jerusalem accuse Him of 
 
 ^ The verse appears in this form in some Western manuscripts of 
 Luke. 
 
168 THE GOSPELS 
 
 working miracles by Satanic power, He treats this as 
 blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and S. Mark's 
 comment shows that he regards the reply of Jesus as 
 identifying calumny against Himself as a sin of this un- 
 pardonable nature (iii. 28-SO). Even if we omit this 
 comment of the evangelist, the passage as it stands in 
 Mark exalts Jesus higher than the corresponding 
 passage in Matthew (xii. 22 f.). For in the latter Jesus 
 speaks of calumny against the Son of Man as pardonable, 
 distinguishing it from blasphemy against the Spirit. In 
 Mark xii. 1-12 we have a final parable of warning, in 
 which Jesus expressly distinguishes Himself as ' the be- 
 loved Son ' and ' the heir ' from 'servants ' of God, who 
 had previously come to teach the Jews. If all these 
 passages imply a merely human Messiah, we may well 
 ask how the evangelist would have described the action 
 and teaching of One who was by nature more than man. 
 S. Mark certainly understood that Jesus is the Son of 
 God, not merely in the lower theocratic sense of a human 
 Messianic King,but because He is the sole Person among 
 men who derives the essence of His being from God. 
 
 The author of this, our earliest Gospel, had no 
 'humanitarian' conception of Christ. It is worth 
 noticing that Professor Haruack has lately stated that 
 S. Mark — for he believes that S. Mark wrote this 
 Gospel — ' has almost transformed our Lord into a 
 spirit-being of divine power, or had found such a con- 
 ception of Him already in existence ... he and his 
 authorities have modified the tradition concerning 
 Jesus in accordance with the experience of the Christian 
 Church.' ^ That S. Mark ' transformed ' the conception 
 of Christ's Person is easy to assert, but it is impossible 
 to prove. For the principal documents in the New 
 Testament, which are older than S. Mark's Gospel, 
 such as S. Paul's Epistles, the Sayings, and the First 
 Epistle of S. Peter, unite in representing Jesus as 'a 
 spirit-being of divine power.' 
 
 ^ Luke the Physician, p. 122 note (English translation). 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 
 
 § 1. General Characteristics. 
 
 Origen, the genius and the defender of early Greek 
 Christianity, saw that this Gospel was written for 
 Christian converts from Judaism.^ These converts, 
 both in Palestine and beyond, would be anxious for 
 information about the Messiah. They would be 
 anxious to prove to Jewish inquirers and Jewish perse- 
 cutors that the, Scriptures prepared for the coming of a 
 poor and persecuted Saviour. They were also con- 
 fronted by the fact that Gentiles were pouring into the 
 Church on the understanding that the law of Moses 
 was largely abrogated. S. Paul had taught that 
 national privileges as such were at an end, though he 
 also taught that the Gospel really belonged 'to the 
 Jew first.' They would therefore eagerly desire to 
 know what the attitude of Jesus really was toward the 
 Law, what was now to be done, and what was to be 
 left undone. It was inevitable that these Christian 
 Jews should ask, first. Did our prophets foretell 
 such a Messiah as Jesus.'' and, secondly. Did Jesus 
 destroy or fulfil the Law of Moses? To these two 
 questions the evangelist endeavours to give a full 
 answer. And it is throughout the Jew rather than 
 the Gentile that he has in mind. The quotations in this 
 > Eus. H. E. vi. 25. 
 
170 THE GOSPELS 
 
 Gospel form by themselves a study of great importance. 
 It was long ago observed that they fall into two dis- 
 tinct classes. The first class consists of quotations from 
 the Old Testament used as comments on events con- 
 nected with the life of Christ, and intended to show 
 that in these events certain great prophecies have been 
 fulfilled. They are all ushered in by the formula, 'in 
 order that what was spoken by the prophet might be 
 fulfilled' or by a formula nearly to the same effect. 
 These quotations vary widely from the Greek version 
 of the Old Testament. One of them, that which says 
 that 'He should be called a Nazarene' (ii. 23) cannot 
 be identified with any exact passage in the Old Testa- 
 ment. Perhaps the evangelist himself is playing upon 
 Hebrew words which resemble 'Nazarene' and mean 
 ' Branch,' the Messiah having been spoken of as a 
 ' Branch,' or his meaning is, ''for He shall be called a 
 Nazarene,' and he thinks that by becoming an inhabi- 
 tant of a specially despised town, Jesus fulfilled the 
 prophecies which represent the Messiah as despised 
 and poor. The other quotations of this same class are 
 firstly, ii. 6 ; iv. 15 f . ; viii. 17; xiii, 35; xxvii. 9 f., which 
 are translations, and partly paraphrases, of the Hebrew; 
 secondly, i. 23; ii. 15; ii. 18; ii. 23; iv. 6; xii. 18, 
 which are translations from the Hebrew, but eked out 
 with the Septuagint. That in xxvii. 9-10, which 
 speaks of the words of Jeremiah with regard to the 
 thirty pieces of silver, like ii. 23 concerning the 
 Nazarene, presents a special difficulty. Possibly it 
 is from the apocryphal book of Jeremiah. These 
 quotations from the prophets vary very much in the 
 nature of their application to the event recorded by 
 the evangelist. Sometimes the verse quoted is directly 
 Messianic, such as ' The virgin shall be with child, and 
 shall bring forth a son ' (i. 23). ' Out of Egypt did 
 I call my son ' (ii. 15), which in Hosea applies to the 
 Hebrew people, is in Matthew applied to the Messiah, 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 171 
 
 because He is in an eminent degree representative of 
 Israel's filial relation to God. The weeping in Rama 
 over the death of the Israelites in the Assyrian in- 
 vasion, quoted in ii. 18, and the quotation in iv. 15, 16 
 from Isaiah, about the darkness of the shadow of death 
 in the land of Zebulon followed by the light wlien 
 Sennacherib's forces were dispelled, stand on a different 
 level. They offer merely poetical parallels to the 
 lamentation over the murdered innocents and to the 
 night-dispelling preaching of Christ in Galilee. 
 
 While the above quotations show a Hebrew back- 
 ground, the quotations which Matthew has in common 
 with Mark are as a rule actually nearer to the Septua- 
 gint than those in Mark. The same is true of some 
 non-Marcan quotations. This, when considered in 
 connection with the facts described in Chapter in., 
 adds to the numerous proofs of the composite origin 
 of our first Gospel. The phenomena appear to be 
 accounted for by the hypothesis that the author was a 
 Christian Jew, who knew both languages, and quoted 
 sometimes from memory and sometimes perhaps from 
 a collection of Messianic texts. 
 
 The literary method of the author of our first Gospel 
 is further illustrated by its frequent traces of a numer- 
 ical arrangement of the deeds or words of Jesus Christ. 
 This does not merely add to the effect produced upon 
 the reader, but was also in all probability intended to 
 aid the memory of teachers and catechumens. The 
 common numbers so employed are three, five, and 
 seven. The genealogy is artificially compressed into 
 three divisions, each containing fourteen names. There 
 are three main incidents in the holy Childhood, the 
 coming of the Magi, the flight into Egypt, and the 
 return from Egypt (ii. 1-23) ; there are three tempta- 
 tions (iv. 1-11); three examples of righteousness, viz. 
 almsgiving, prayer, and fasting (vi. 1 -18) ; three prohibi- 
 tions — Lay not up treasure on earth ; Judge not ; Give 
 
172 THE GOSPELS 
 
 not what is holy to the dogs (vi. 19-vii. 6). These 
 groups of three abound to such an extent that we have 
 not space to mention anything like the whole list. 
 But we may note that in viii.-ix. 8 there are three 
 miracles of healing, viz. of leprosy, palsy, and fever; 
 and three miracles of power over natural and super- 
 natural forces, viz. a storm, demoniacs, and sin. In 
 ix. 18-34 there are three short stories containing four 
 miracles of restoration, viz. of health, life, sight and 
 speech. In xii. 38-42 there are three signs given to 
 the Pharisees, viz. that of Jonah, the Nineyites, and 
 the Queen of the South. In xxii. there are three 
 questions asked Him, by the Pharisees, the Sadducees, 
 and the lawyer. The concluding chapters also abound 
 in these groups. In xxiv. and xxv. there are three 
 parables against negligence, viz. the Faithful and 
 Unfaithful Slaves, the Ten Virgins, and the Talents. 
 In xxvi. there are three prayers in Gethsemane, and 
 three utterances of our Lord at the time of His arrest. 
 In xxvii. 51-53 there are three signs to attest the 
 Messiahship of the crucified Jesus, viz. the rending of 
 the veil, the earthquake, and the resurrection of saints. 
 In xxviii. there are three groups of witnesses to the 
 resurrection of our Lord, viz. the women, the soldiers, 
 and the disciples. 
 
 Comparison with Mark and Luke leaves no doubt 
 that some of these groups were arranged by the evan- 
 gelist himself. 
 
 The number_^w is also of importance in this connec- 
 tion. Matthew contains five great discourses of our Lord, 
 each of which ends with such a formula as, ' It came to 
 pass when Jesus finished ' (vii. 28 ; xi. 1 ; xiii. 53 ; xix. 
 1 ; xxvi. 1). These five discourses are : the Sermon on 
 the Mount ; the charge to the apostles ; the collection 
 of parables ; the discourse on the little child, with 
 certain sayings that follow ; and the denunciation of 
 the Pharisees, followed by the great discourse on ' the 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 173 
 
 last things.' In chap. v. the Sermon on the Mount 
 contains five corrections by our Lord of inadequate 
 ideas about the Law of God, each beginning with 
 the words, 'But I say unto you' (22, 28, 34., 39, 44). 
 
 With regard to the number seven, we have already 
 noted the divisions of our Lord's genealogy, and we 
 can add the seven parables in chap. xiii. and the seven 
 woes in chap, xxiii. 
 
 That the above arrangement is based upon Jewish 
 literary methods is clear. Three and seven are favour- 
 ite numbers in the Old Testament, and the number 
 five was equally classical. There are the five books of 
 the Pentateuch, the five books of the Psalms, the five 
 Megilloth or Rolls, and the five divisions of the Pirqe 
 Aboih or Sayings of the Fathers. 
 
 This Gospel is, in the arrangement of its matter, arti- 
 ficial. Its numerical grouping of our Lord's sayings 
 produces an effect of unity and solidity. It is like 
 some masterpiece of architecture such as the cathedral 
 church of the Holy Wisdom at Constantinople, in its 
 grandiose and harmonious character. 
 
 The composite nature of this document, artistically 
 welding together S. Mark's narrative with other 
 sources, at once raises a question as to its authorship, 
 such as is not so acutely raised in the case of the other 
 sjmoptic gospels. Neither S. Mark nor S. Luke were 
 numbered among the twelve disciples of our Lord, and 
 they would therefore naturally have to depend upon 
 such information, oral or written, as they were able to 
 collect. On the contrary, S. Matthew was one of the 
 apostles who was with Jesus during His ministry, and 
 must have been in possession of abundant first-hand 
 knowledge. Would he be likely to accept the frame- 
 work of his story from S. Mark .? It is difficult to 
 think so ; and it becomes all the more difficult when 
 we realise that Mark, in spite of its inestimable value, 
 contains certain gaps which S. Matthew in all proba- 
 
174 THE GOSPELS 
 
 bility would have been able to fill, and which are not 
 filled by the Gospel which bears his name. So far as 
 the date of Matthew is concerned, there appears to be 
 no definite stumbling-block in the way of its apostolic 
 authorship. Without attributing it to any extrava- 
 gantly early period, we can say that it bears numerous 
 marks which stamp it as a document written within 
 forty or fifty years after the crucifixion. The fact that 
 it is in some ways artificial is no adequate proof of a 
 late date. The writers who think that a late and 
 developed stage' of thought is necessarily implied when- 
 ever they discover in any religion an elaborate cere- 
 monial, or a deep theology, or a conscious literary skill, 
 have to reckon with very stubborn facts. The mag- 
 nificent worship which the Syrian Christians employed 
 ages before an equal splendour was customary at Rome, 
 the early but profound theology of S. Ignatius of 
 Antioch, and the Syriac ' Hymn of the Soul,' are 
 among the many monuments of the past which tell us 
 that all is not late that shows a fulness of knowledge 
 or of art. The Gospel according to S. Matthew, which 
 I believe contains that apostle's own collection of our 
 Lord's words embedded in it, reveals both an intimacy 
 with the old religious culture of the Hebrews, and a 
 very real skill in fitting his story to the needs of the 
 growing Church of his time. The author is, in the 
 words of Christ, which he quotes, a ' scribe who hath 
 been made a disciple to the kingdom of heaven, like 
 unto a man that is a householder, which bringeth 
 forth out of his treasure things new and old' 
 (xiii. 52). 
 
 In S. Matthew's original collection of our Lord's 
 Sayings, for which we have adopted the symbol Q, the 
 word ' Gospel ' cannot now be discovered. But these 
 'good tidings' are implied in the answer given by our 
 Lord to the disciples of John the Baptist (Matt. xi. 2- 
 11 ; Luke vii. 18-28). 'The blind receive their sight. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 175 
 
 and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the 
 deaf hear, and the dead are raised, and the poor receive 
 good tidings ; and blessed is he whosoever shall not be 
 offended in Me.' The writer of the Sayings understood 
 by these ' good tidings ' the news of the coming of the 
 kingdom of God to those on whom Christ's beatitudes 
 were pronounced. They were tlie truly blessed, and 
 such would not be offended in the stern and lowly Son 
 of Man. S. Mark, writing somewhat later, reads into 
 the word ' Gospel ' its fuller meaning. With him, as 
 with S. Paul, the Gospel cannot be separated from the 
 Person of the Jesus who had been crucified and raised. 
 That Jesus Himself had meant that His good tidings 
 should be understood in this fashion when He had risen 
 from the dead, seems implied in the authoritative claim 
 which He made upon the souls of men. S. Mark 
 records His saying, ' Whosoever shall save his life, 
 shall lose it, and whosoever shall lose his life for My 
 sake and the Gospel's, shall save it' (viii. 35); the 
 nearest parallel to which in Q perhaps omitted for 
 My sake and the GospeTs (Luke xvii. 33 ; but cf. Matt. 
 X. 39). 
 
 Even if Q did not actually contain the word ' Gospel,' 
 the author may have regarded the message of salvation 
 in the same way as S. Mark. He firmly believed that 
 Jesus was the Messiah, he knew that the Christian 
 must take up the cross (Matt. x. 38 ; Luke xiv. 27), 
 and, unless we have misinterpreted him, he only 
 omitted the story of the Passion and the Resurrection 
 because they were still imprinted on the minds of 
 Christ's disciples. Both he and S. Mark speak of the 
 ' kingdom of God,' and attafch to the phrase the same 
 meaning. It is a reign of God, both present and future, 
 inward in the heart of the blessed, and to be mani- 
 fested outwardly at the second advent in all its 
 power. 
 
 The author of our ' Gospel according to S. Matthew ' 
 
176 THE GOSPELS 
 
 did what S. Mark never attempted. By incorporating 
 Q in his own book he practically terminated its exist- 
 ence as an independent work. And he applies to the 
 teaching of our Lord a significant title not found else- 
 where in the New Testament. He calls it ' the Gospel 
 of the kingdom' (iv. 23; ix. 35; xxiv. 14). It urged 
 repentance, but it also inspired joy, and he does not 
 apply the name of Gospel to the preaching of the 
 Baptist. The latter preached repentance and pro- 
 claimed that the kingdom was at hand, but the note of 
 severity in his message was perhaps too marked for 
 the evangelist to give the preaching of the forerunner 
 the name of 'good tidings.' It is well known that 
 the evangelist calls this kingdom the ' kingdom of the 
 heavens,' a phrase which he uses thirty-two times, 
 while he only once uses the phrase ' kingdom of God ' 
 employed by the other Synoptists.^ It is merely an 
 instance of the Jewish reverence which shrank from 
 uttering the name of God, and used periphrases, such 
 as 'the heavens,' in order to avoid the name itself. 
 Possibly the Aramaic Sayings of S. Matthew used this 
 same periphrasis, and we need not hastily conclude 
 that the evangelist was the first Christian writer to 
 employ it. 
 
 Our first Gospel might itself be called ' the Gospel of 
 the kingdom.' Nowhere do we find a closer alliance 
 between the new Christian joy and the old Jewish 
 hope. The result is sometimes regarded as a contra- 
 diction, but chiefly by those who fail to see that all 
 great and comprehensive truths contain something of 
 this element of contradiction. Like S. Paul, the 
 evangelist fights Pharisaism step by step. He is on 
 his defence, and from the genealogy in the first chapter 
 to his indictment of the chief priests for bribing the 
 guard at the holy sepulchre, he is a critic of Judaism. 
 Like S. Paul, he was proud of his Jewish race, and he 
 • Matt, xix, 24. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW" 177 
 
 had a sympathetic insight into the antique world 
 and could appreciate its prophetic inspiration. Those 
 waves of expectation which Judaism had so long ex- 
 perienced found an answer in his heart. His Gospel is 
 the most apocalyptic of our Gospels. Whatever injury 
 Judaism had suffered in the grasp of an exaggerated 
 legalism and literalism, it had not lost the hope of the 
 great apocalypse, the revelation of God. Jews still 
 believed that the ideal state of the world would be 
 perfectly realised, and God would reign visibly on earth 
 either by some manifestation of His own Person, or of 
 His anointed Son. This advent would be the ' con- 
 summation of the ages.' Our first evangelist is the 
 only evangelist who uses this phrase, and he uses it five 
 times. He alone gives us the parables of the Virgins 
 and the Talents, and the description of the Sheep and 
 the Goats (chap. xxv.). They are to warn his readers to 
 be completely ready for the coming of Him who is 
 both the Bridegroom and the Judge of the soul. The 
 kingdom is not a future one only. The series of 
 parables in Matt. xiii. compare not the doctrine of the 
 kingdom but the kingdom itself to the man who sows 
 good seed, to a grain of mustard seed, to leaven, to a 
 hidden treasure, to a merchant seeking pearls, to a drag- 
 net. But the first and the last of these parables have a 
 directly apocalyptic interpretation added. At the end 
 there will be a separation not of Gentile from Jew, but 
 of the wicked from among the just. It is implied that 
 the kingdom will then be perfectly realised, and in 
 Matt. vii. 21 it is shown that a man's right to enter 
 that kingdom must rest upon his character and relation 
 to God, 'Not every one that saith unto Me Lord, 
 Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven ; but he 
 that doeth the will of My Father which is in heaven.' 
 It is worth noting that S. Luke, the more Gentile 
 evangelist, does not mention the kingdom in the 
 corresponding passage of his Gospel (Luke vi. 46). 
 
 M 
 
178 • THE GOSPELS 
 
 § 2. Date of Matthew. 
 
 The perceptibly Jewish colouring of this Gospel puts 
 us at once on the right track when we seek to discover 
 its date. The more radical critics of sixty years since 
 tried to assign it to a date which is now generally 
 regarded as impossible. Baur wished to fix it about 
 A.D. 134, near the time of the second destruction of 
 Jerusalem by the Romans. But the internal evidence 
 points to a date much nearer a.d. 70, the year of the 
 first destruction. Many critics are inclined to date 
 it a generation or so later, mainly on account of its 
 doctrinal teaching, a point which we must consider 
 a little later. On the other hand, one of the ablest 
 writers on this Gospel, and one who is by no means 
 always conservative, has adopted the very early date 
 of about A.D. 50.^ It is difficult to reconcile this 
 with the evangelist's use of Mark. And it appears 
 equally difficult to assign it to a period between a.d. 75 
 and A.D. 100. For it is luminously clear that the 
 visible return of the Son of Man is expected 'im- 
 mediately after the tribulation of those days' in which 
 Jerusalem will be laid desolate (xxiv. 29). Nothing 
 can be more unlikely than that these words were merely 
 copied by the evangelist from an older source after 
 Jerusalem had been destroyed. They appear to be a 
 modification of S. Mark's words in Mark xiii. 24, 
 deliberately made by a writer who is uncommonly 
 deliberate in all that he writes. He carefully removes 
 various difficulties which the ordinary Christian would 
 feel when reading Mark, but here as in xvi. 28 (cf. 
 Mark ix. 1) he not only leaves, but actually emphasises, 
 words in Mark which very soon after a.d. 70 would be 
 among the most perplexing of all. We may compare 
 the remarkable verse in which the evangelist, speaking 
 ' Ven. W. C. Allen, Expository Times, July igio. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 179 
 
 of the potter's field bought by the chief priests, adds, 
 ' wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, 
 unto this day ' (xxvii. 8), a statement much more likely 
 to be true before the destruction of Jerusalem than 
 after it. The verse about the bridegroom 'tarrying,' 
 in the parable of the ten virgins (xxv. 5), and that 
 which speaks about the 'long time' before the Lord 
 Cometh, in the parable of the ten talents (xxv. 19), 
 seem in no way to prove a late date. Even before 
 A.D. 70 many of the first believers in Jesus must have 
 left this life, and those who had expected His speedy 
 return would feel that they had waited long. Such 
 verses cannot outweigh the evangelist's expectation of 
 a great catastrophe which will follow upon the appear- 
 ance of the 'abomination of desolation' in the holy 
 place (xxiv. 15). This catastrophe is expected more 
 definitely here than in any other Gospel. And the 
 only natural explanation of the fact is that the 
 evangelist, believing that the fall of Jerusalem was 
 near, did, as a devout Hebrew Christian, believe that 
 the destruction of God's city would be the herald of 
 the destruction of the old world. 
 
 The external evidence, afforded by quotations from 
 Matthew in early Christian writers, is decisively in 
 favour of the theory that the date is much nearer a.d. 70 
 than A.D. 135. For it can be proved that the First 
 Gospel was the popular Gospel of the early Church. 
 It cannot be by mere chance that whatever order is 
 adopted by early writers in arranging the Gospels, 
 they almost invariably put Matthew first. Moreover, 
 it cannot be that the Christians of the second century 
 gave this pre-eminence to the Gospel because it showed 
 most favour to their own predilections. The Church 
 of the second century was vehemently opposed by the 
 Jews. Jewish literature shows that the ' heretics ' were 
 illtreated in the synagogue and cursed in daily prayers. 
 And Christian literature has recorded the part which 
 
180 THE GOSPELS 
 
 the Jews played at the martyrdom of S. Polycarp in 
 A.D. 155. In return, the Christians found it very 
 difficult to do any justice to Judaism. They did 
 not adopt the Antisemitic line of the Gnostics, who 
 ascribed the Old Testament to an evil god inferior to 
 the supreme Being. But many refused the name of 
 Christian to Jewish converts, who, though sound in 
 their faith towards Christ, still kept the Law. The so- 
 called Epistle of Barnabas in a.d. 130 and Justin's 
 dialogue with Trypho about a.d. 155 unite in adopting 
 an almost defiant attitude towards the ceremonial Law 
 of the Old Testament. In Barnabas we find the view 
 that the Jews went astray in fitting a literal meaning to 
 the laws about the Sabbath and circumcision. In 
 Justin there is the view that the Sabbath was insti- 
 tuted because the Jews forgot God, and that circum- 
 cision was commanded that the Jews might be visibly 
 marked out for punishment by the Romans. 
 
 In fact, the primitive Gentile Church had little sym- 
 pathy with Judaism, and little understanding of the 
 principles of continuity and development in religion. 
 We have to be content with the fact that it had far 
 more sympathy and more intelligence in these matters 
 than the cultured heathenism and Gnosticism of the 
 time. And we must not expect to find it tender- 
 hearted towards Jewish exclusiveness. And yet, in 
 spite of all this, the Gentile Church used Matthew 
 most. The earliest certain instance of a citation of a 
 saying of Christ as ' Scripture ' is from this Gospel in 
 the Epistle of Barnabas, iv. 14. Dr. Schmiedel has tried 
 to make out that these words, ' many called, but few 
 chosen,' are not from the words of the Gospel, which 
 are identical, but fiom a version of the Book of Enoch 
 which does not exist.^ And Professor Burkitt suggests 
 that the author ' had forgotten the reference.' ^ It is 
 
 ' Encyclopaedia Biblica, vol. ii. col. 1828. 
 
 ' The Gospel Story and its Transtnission, p. 320. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 181 
 
 more probable that the ancient writer means what he 
 says, and intentionally quotes as Scripture the verse as 
 recorded in Matthew^ And this is made all the more 
 probable by the fact that St. Ignatius about a.d. 110 
 shows, like Justin, a closer affinity with Matthew than 
 with any other Gospel. I do not at all mean that they 
 used no other of our four Gospels, only that they show 
 the plainest traces of the first. 
 
 There is another phenomenon to be observed in the 
 first half of the second century. S. Matthew was not con- 
 nected with either of the two great centres of Christian 
 life. He was a converted tax-gatherer, and very little 
 is known of his life after the resurrection of our Lord. 
 Perhaps the tradition existing at a later date was 
 correct in saying that he went to Parthia. But legend 
 also connects him with India and Ethiopia. At any 
 rate we have no evidence of his ever visiting Rome 
 ^and Ephesus. The first of these two cities did, even 
 in the second century, glory in its connection with 
 S. Peter, and it is fairly certain that S. Mark, the 
 interpreter of S. Peter, wrote his Gospel in Rome. 
 Ephesus had other noble traditions. The Church 
 there gloried in the name of John, the disciple of the 
 Lord, and possessed the Gospel which bore his name. 
 Neither of these two Churches, nor any other great 
 Church of the world that spoke Greek and Latin, 
 claimed to have been founded by S. Matthew or to 
 have enjoyed his instructions. Yet in the Far West 
 as in the Far East the Gospel according to S. Matthew 
 was accepted, and enjoyed a position of pre-eminence. 
 
 There is only one reasonable explanation of these 
 facts. It is that this Gospel must have been written 
 a considerable time before the close of the first 
 century. Its whole tone suggests that it was written 
 for Greek-speaking Jewish Christians in Syria and 
 Palestine before a.d. 70, and its external history sug- 
 gests that immediately after the destruction of the 
 
182 THE GOSPELS 
 
 holy city it was carried to the Gentile Christians in 
 Antioch, Asia Minor, and Rome. 
 
 § 3. Catholicism of Matthew. 
 
 Against the above view a constant appeal is made 
 to the alleged ' Catholicism ' of Matthew. We find 
 critics who declare it to be ' Catholic,' and therefore, 
 as they hold that primitive Christianity was not 
 Catholic, they are convinced that Matthew is late. 
 In the meantime other critics assert that there is no 
 Catholicism in it, and that there is therefore no reason 
 to forbid us to believe that it is early. There is the 
 third view, that the book shows a simple form of Catholic 
 belief, and that such a doctrine is quite compatible 
 with what we know of the state of Christianity before 
 the catastrophe of a.d. 70 and the chasm that hence- 
 forth yawned between the Church and the Synagogue. 
 The conception of the Church which this Gospel 
 presents to us may, after all, be primitive, may be 
 what Jesus Christ taught, and not an anachronism 
 which has filtered into the record of His sayings. 
 
 As instances of these accusations of anachronism 
 we observe that Wellhausen says with regard to 
 Matthew that ' we cannot help recognising that the 
 Ecclesia, the Church, is meant' (in certain parables), 
 ' although the name is generally avoided on historical 
 grounds. . . . This identification of the kingdom and 
 the Ecclesia is entirely comprehensible, seeing that 
 the Christian Society was undeniably the work of 
 Jesus, and it was considered to be the porch of 
 Heaven itself But this kingdom, as it is set forth 
 in Matthew, is altogether " Christian"; it cannot have 
 been thus set forth, or rather presupposed, by Jesus 
 Himself.''^ Nearer home we find an English Non- 
 
 ' Einleit. p. 105. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 183 
 
 conformist, Professor , Peake, saying, ' This rather 
 Catholicised Gospel may have been written towards 
 the close of the first century.' ^ Dr. J. Estlin Carpenter, 
 an English Unitarian, says with regard to the idea of 
 the Church in Matthew that it ' is in some sense 
 present in the background much oftener than the 
 term itself appears.'^ We may cordially accept this 
 view, without infeiTing that the Gospel has modified 
 the teaching of Jesus in this particular. And we 
 cannot with Dr. Moffatt think that the mere mention 
 of the word 'ecclesia' and the parables which imply 
 the presence of evil with the good in the visible 
 Church, and the regulations with regard to discipline 
 and baptism, point to a modification and corruption 
 of the ideas of Jesus.^ Such an argument begs the 
 question, unless it can be proved that His Gospel 
 excluded such a system. 
 
 If we bear in mind that Acts and the most widely 
 accepted Epistles of S. Paul show that the impulse 
 towards a definite Church organisation was potent 
 long before the destruction of Jerusalem, we shall 
 merely find in Matthew a corroboration of their 
 testimony. In Matthew the community or corpora- 
 tion of believers who accept Jesus as the Son of 
 God and Messiah is called ' Ecclesia ' or Church ; this 
 Ecclesia is regarded as the embodiment of the kingdom 
 of God on earth, and the individual disciples are called 
 ' sons of the kingdom ' (xiii. 38). The word ' Church ' 
 is first applied to the whole body of our Lord's 
 disciples and is so applied by our Lord Himself 
 (xvi. 18). It is secondly applied to a local body or 
 church representing the larger body in a single spot ; 
 it is the society to which a particular offender belongs 
 and under whose jurisdiction he falls (xviii. 17). S. Paul 
 
 ' Critical Introduction to the New Testament, p. 123. 
 
 ^ The First Three Gospels, p. 375. 
 
 ' The Historical New Testament, p. 269. 
 
184 THE GOSPELS 
 
 uses the word in both these meanings. As the name 
 'Ecclesia' was familiar to Greeic-speaking Jews, being 
 employed as the equivalent of the Hebrew word 
 qahdl, there is no reason whatever for suspecting that 
 both the name and the idea did not belong to the 
 most primitive period of Christianity. As for the 
 precise organisation of this Church, it is remarkable 
 how little Matthew contains. The position of S. Peter 
 is t-hat which he occupies in all the Gospels, in Acts, 
 and in the Epistle to the Galatians, and his functions 
 are described in strongly Jewish language. The twelve 
 apostles are to sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve 
 tribes of Israel (six. 28), a figure of apocalyptic language 
 of an obviously ancient character. There is no mention 
 of bishops, presbyters, or deacons. Admission into 
 the Church is by baptism. But this is no evidence of 
 a late date. And though there are critics who hold 
 that the mention of the Trinity in our Lord's command 
 to baptise does prove a late date, a good deal can 
 be said, and well said, on the other side. Allusions to 
 a threefold nature in the Godhead are too numerous 
 and too early in the New Testament for us to maintain 
 that it was after a.d. 70 that 'Catholicism' first 
 required the use of this formula in baptism. The 
 organisation of the Church suggested in Matthew can 
 no more safely be alleged as a proof of a late and 
 degenerate period than the simple prophecy of our 
 Lord that the city of his murderers would be burnt 
 (xxii. 7) can be called a 'decisive' proof that the 
 Gospel was composed after that event had taken place. 
 A Roman origin has sometimes been sought for the 
 famous text in which Jesus declares that He will build 
 His Church on the rock of Peter (xvi. 18). No doubt 
 this text has been a favourite text in Rome. It has 
 been valued there from the days when Pope Callistus 
 irritated Tertullian by quoting it in the great contro- 
 versy concerning the discipline of penitents about a.d. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 185 
 
 215. It shines round the interior of the dome of 
 S. Peter's basilica. It has become a controversial war- 
 cry. But it is at least probable that this and the 
 two stories in which S. Peter walks on the sea, and 
 finds the shekel in the fish's mouth (xvii. 24-27), are 
 derived from the Christians of Jerusalem. That 
 S. Peter was peculiarly revered in the mother Church 
 is certain. S. James presided at the momentous council 
 there in a.d. 49, when it was decided not to exact 
 circumcision in the case of Gentile converts (Acts xv.). 
 But it was S. Peter who summed up the meaning of the 
 council in his own words. And it was under the aegis 
 of the name of ' Cephas' that Judaising semi-Christians 
 endeavoured to upset the work of S. Paul in Corinth 
 and apparently in Galatia also. The same regard for 
 Cephas is shown in the strange Judaistic romances 
 about S. Clement which became popular in Rome in 
 the third century, but were evidently not first devised 
 in any Gentile atmosphere. It is practically certain, 
 though the Tubingen school denied it, that S. Peter 
 suffered martyrdom at Rome, and that he had some 
 share in the organisation of the early Roman Church. 
 But we know from S. Irenaeus, who wrote about 
 A.D. 185, that in his day the share of S. Paul in that 
 organisation was well remembered. He attributes 
 the appointment of Linus as bishop of Rome to the 
 two apostles jointly. And it was not until S. Paul's 
 share, in that work had been somewhat overshadowed 
 by legend that the Christians of Rome would have 
 been even tempted to invent such a text as the 
 promise given by our Lord to S. Peter. Either the 
 text is, as I believe it to be, the record of a genuine 
 tradition, or it is the invention of an early Judaistic 
 Christian circle. 
 
 There are other passages in Matthew which bear 
 upon the Catholicism of the Church and must now be 
 mentioned. They imply the admission of the Gentiles 
 
186 THE GOSPELS 
 
 into the Church. And it is urged, on the one hand, 
 that as they imply this universalism, they cannot be the 
 genuine words of Jesus, and are later inventions. It is 
 urged, on the other hand, that, although the admission 
 of the Gentiles into the Church is taught by our Lord 
 in the Gospel as one of the fundamental principles of 
 the Christian religion, there is nothing to show that 
 the Gentile, thus admitted to an equality with the 
 converted Jew, will not be required to keep the Law of 
 Moses. Now the Jews themselves made proselytes on 
 that condition, admitting to a lower rank those who 
 observed merely certain moral rules, and admitting to 
 the full status of an Israelite those proselytes who 
 undertook to observe the whole moral and ceremonial 
 Law contained in the Old Testament. Even the 
 triumph of rabbinism which followed the destruction of 
 Jerusalem in a.d. 70 did not put an end to a Jewish 
 missionary propaganda conducted on the principle that 
 the Gentile who was circumcised, and undertook the 
 obligations which circumcision involved, became one of 
 God's people. In fact, the Jews of modern Europe are 
 to a large extent descended from Tartar proselytes 
 who were converted to Judaism in the eighth century 
 of the Christian era in what is now part of Southern 
 Russia.^- 
 
 What, it is asked, is there to show that the Gentile 
 converts, foreseen by our first evangelist, were not 
 expected to keep the Law .? They would differ from 
 converts to the ordinary Judaism of the day by being, 
 required to confess that Jesus, the Son of God, is the 
 Messiah, and that Jesus, through His death, resurrec- 
 tion, ascension, and outpouring of the Holy Spirit, 
 was inaugurating the kingdom of God, and, unlike 
 
 ^ I am indebted to Professor Margoliouth for my first knowledge of 
 this fact. Many details may be found in The Jewish Encyclopaedia, 
 vol. iv. p. I ff., article 'Chazars' (Funk & Wagnalls, New York 
 and London, 1903). 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 187 
 
 converts to orthodox Judaism, they would be baptised 
 into His Name, but it would be taken for granted that 
 they would be circumcised and keep the Law. There- 
 fore, it is urged, the first Gospel probably belongs to a 
 period long before the destruction of Jerusalem. 
 
 Underneath this apparently simple suggestion there 
 lie some very serious problems. In the first place, 
 there is the question as to whether in a.d. 49 the 
 Church at Jerusalem decided in a council not to lay 
 upon Grentile converts the burden of the Law, excus- 
 ing them from circumcision, and only demanding in 
 addition to abstention ft'om idolatrous and unchaste 
 actions, that in certain regions where Jewish and 
 Gentile converts came into daily contact with each 
 other, the Gentiles should abstain from eating meat 
 containing blood or killed in a cruel manner. The 
 two latter practices were very offensive to the pious 
 Jew. Acts XV. records that such was the decision of 
 the Church. The older rationalism and the more 
 extreme type of recent rationalism treat the story as 
 a fiction. But it fits so admirably the other events 
 which took place in the development of primitive 
 Christianity, and it has gained such substantial support 
 from the increasing mass of evidence which favours the 
 view that Acts was written in the apostolic age, that 
 we can safely assume that Acts has given a correct 
 account of the main facts. The improbability of the 
 story having been invented in the second century is 
 conclusively shown by Dr. Sanday in his pamphlet on 
 the Apostolic Decree?- 
 
 If we grant that the Church in a.d. 49 made such a 
 decree with regard to the non-observance of the Law 
 by Gentile converts, then it is almost inconceivable 
 that S. Matthew's Gospel was written after that date 
 in opposition to a decree so solemnly ratified. And 
 since Antioch was one of the very first places to be 
 
 ' Leipzig (A. Deichert'sche Verlagsbucfahandlung, Nachf.), igo8. 
 
188 THE GOSPELS 
 
 ^affected by the rule, and this Gospel was probably 
 written in or near Antioch, the chance of such a con- 
 tradiction is reduced to a minimum. Further, if this 
 Gospel is earlier than a.d. 60 we must be prepared to 
 assign to S. Mark's Gospel, which it has used so freely, 
 a date which is opposed to all the best evidence. 
 
 § 4. Jesus Christ and the Law. 
 
 A second problem which underlies the assumption 
 that Matthew expects Gentile converts to keep the 
 Law of Moses is this : Would such an assumption 
 accord with the real teaching of Jesus Christ .'' What 
 was the attitude of Jesus towards the Law.? Three 
 views are possible. The extreme sceptical view is that 
 Jesus was only a religious Jew, observing the Law and 
 expecting that His disciples would do the same, though 
 it is not certain whether He claimed to be the Messiah 
 or not. Such a Jesus could not have founded a 
 universal religion. So we find that Professor Huxley, 
 a protagonist of English agnosticism, said, ' If the 
 primitive Nazarenes of whom the Acts speaks were 
 orthodox Jews, what sort of probability can there be 
 that Jesus was anything else.? How can He have 
 founded the universal religion which was not heard of 
 till twenty years after His death ? ' ^ According to this 
 view the Founder of Christianity regarded the whole 
 Mosaic Law as binding on His followers. It is enough 
 to say in reply that none of the Gospels nor the Acts 
 support such a theory. It is quite inconsistent with 
 the earliest Gospel, where Jesus Himself claims to be 
 'Lord of the Sabbath,' and where 'entrance into life' 
 and ' inheritance of eternal life ' are promised not to a 
 mere keeping of the commandments, but to an imita- 
 tion of the self-sacrifice of Jesus (Mark ix. 48, 45 ; 
 
 ^ Science and Christian Tradition, p. 302. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 189 
 
 X. 17 fF.). It is inconsistent with the promise of Jesus 
 that His yoke is easy (Matt. xi. 29), and with S. Peter's 
 statement that the Law was a yoke ' which neither our 
 fathers nor we were able to bear' (Acts xv. 10). That 
 all these passages and all similar passages are fictions 
 cannot be maintained when no critical evidence supports 
 the assertion. 
 
 Another view with regard to the attitude of our 
 Lord towards the Law is that of semi-rationalism. It 
 is more plausible and perhaps more popular than the 
 above. It holds that Jesus was inconsistent, though 
 in a way nobly inconsistent. It is said that He 
 observed the Law and intended that His followers 
 should do the same, but that unconsciously He pre- 
 pared for its destruction. His own teaching about the 
 relation between the human soul and God slowly 
 undermined the banks of stone by which Judaism had 
 diverted righteousness into its own narrow channel, 
 and prevented it from fertilising the world. His 
 action is even compared with the first efforts of Luther, 
 who, it is said, wished to remain within the borders of 
 the Roman Catholic Church, assuming that it was his 
 proper home, and that its rulers would eventually see 
 that he loved the Church and take his side. The 
 grounds for supposing that Jesus was unconscious of 
 what He was doing merely reduce themselves to this, 
 that there is an apparent contradiction between some 
 of His sayings and actions affecting the Mosaic Law, 
 and it is held that He would not consciously be guilty 
 of such a contradiction. Now these supposed contra- 
 dictions are more numerous and striking in the first 
 Gospel than in any other, though some can be found 
 even in the fourth. And, therefore, if it can be shown 
 that in Matthew there is no adequate proof that our 
 Lord intended His disciples to keep the Mosaic Law, 
 the whole theory breaks down. If the record of this 
 Gospel does not imply such an intention on His part, no 
 
190 THE GOSPELS 
 
 Gospel implies it; and if the evangelist did notthink that 
 His Master taught such a doctrine, he could not have 
 intended that His Gospel should teach it. And, there- 
 fore, the attitude of Matthew towards the Jewish Law 
 cannot pbint to a period when the disciples thought it 
 necessary that every Gentile should be circumcised. 
 
 § 5, Marriage, Meats, Sabbath. 
 
 In considering the attitude of Jesus Christ towards 
 the Law as recorded in Matthew, it will be most 
 practical first to consider certain passages to which a 
 confident appeal is sometimes made on the ground 
 that they prove that the evangelist believed that his 
 Master thought that the Law would remain binding. 
 
 There is one matter where it must frankly be 
 admitted that the influence of Judaism in opposition 
 to Christianity seems to have left a plain trace upon 
 this Gospel. It is conceivable that the passages in 
 question have been interpolated by later scribes, but 
 it is certainly quite probable that they were written 
 by the evangelist himself. This grave matter is our 
 Lord's teaching with regard to marriage. The laxer 
 school of Jewish rabbis, that of Hillel, permitted 
 divorce for the slightest provocation, such as even the 
 Mosaic Law never contemplated. The stricter school, 
 that of Shammai, by their interpretation of Deut. 
 xxiv. 1, which allowed a man to divorce a wife 'because 
 he hath found some unseemly thing in her,' allowed 
 divorce when the wife had been guilty of adultery. 
 As it is almost certain from the statements of S. Mark, 
 S. Luke, and S. Paul that our Lord allowed no divorce 
 in any circumstances whatever when a marriage had 
 once been consummated, we can hardly avoid the con- 
 clusion that Christ's teaching in Matt. v. 32 and 
 xix. 9 has been affected by a false, though unconsciously 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 191 
 
 false, tradition. The clause about adultery is a direct 
 quotation from Shammai, and it lowers our Lord's 
 doctrine concerning divorce to the level of the higher 
 of the two Jewish doctrines then current. It .is 
 doubtful whether the clause is consistent with the 
 context in either of the two passages. For in both it 
 is assumed that the woman who has been put away 
 continues to he the wife of her original husband, a fact 
 frequently overlooked by those who appeal to these 
 verses as a sanction for the second marriage of an 
 innocent person who has divorced a guilty spouse. 
 But whether the clause is consistent or not, its Jewish 
 origin is evident. And consequently the teaching of 
 Christ about divorce in Matthew makes a useful 
 starting-point for those who hold that the Gospel 
 throughout assumes that the legalism of the Old 
 Testament will remain in force. The other alleged 
 proofs appear to me to be wholly inconclusive, but 
 the most important must be mentioned. 
 
 The Jewish Law had prescribed in detail what 
 kinds of food defiled the person who ate them. The 
 Jews also had a most elaborate system of ablutions 
 both of persons and vessels in order to avoid any 
 possible contamination. What does the evangelist 
 say about Christ's attitude towards such ceremonial 
 defilement.'' He records our Lord's saying, ' Not that 
 which entereth into the mouth defileth the man, but 
 that which proceedeth out of the mouth, this defileth 
 the man' (xv. 11), followed by a brief explanation 
 given by our Lord to S. Peter. The verses in Mark 
 and Matthew will now be added in parallel columns, 
 the words peculiar to each being printed in italics. 
 
 S. Mark vii. S. Matt. xv. 
 
 Then came the disciples, and 
 said unto Him, Knowest Thou 
 that the Pharisees were offended, 
 when they heard this saying} 
 
192 
 
 THE GOSPELS 
 
 S. Mark vii. 
 
 And when He was entered into 
 the house from the multitude, 
 His disciples asked of Him the 
 parable. 
 
 And He said unto them^ 
 Are ye so without understand- 
 in jf also ? 
 
 Perceive ye not, that what- 
 soever _/rom without goeth into 
 the man, it cannot defile him ; 
 because it goeth not into his 
 heart, but into his belly, and 
 goeth out into the draught ? 
 
 This He said, making all meats 
 clean. 
 
 And He said, that which pro- 
 ceedeth out of the man, that 
 defileth the man. 
 
 For from within, out of the 
 heart of men, evil thoughts 
 proceed, fornications, thefts, 
 murders, adulteries, covetings, 
 wickedness, deceit, lascivious- 
 ness, an evil eye, railing, pride, 
 foolishness : all these evil 
 things proceed from within, 
 and deAle the man. 
 
 S. Matt. XV. 
 But He answered and said, 
 Every plant, which My heavenly 
 Father planted not, shall be 
 rooted up. Let them alone : 
 they are blind guides. And if 
 the blind guide the blind, 
 both shall fall into a pit.' 
 
 And Peter answered and said 
 unto Him, Declare unto us the 
 parable. 
 
 And He said. 
 Are ye also even yet without 
 understanding .'' 
 
 Perceive ye not, that what- 
 soever goeth into the mouth 
 
 passeth into the belly, and is 
 cast out into the draught.' 
 
 But thethings which proceed 
 out of the mouth come forth out 
 of the heart ; and they deiile 
 the man. 
 
 For out of the 
 heart come forth evil thoughts, 
 
 murders, adulteries, fornica- 
 tions, thefts, false witness, 
 railings : 
 
 these are the 
 things which defile the man : 
 but to eat with unwashen hands 
 defileth not the man. 
 
 Unfortunately the incident is not recorded by S. 
 Luke, so that we cannot check the statements in Matthew 
 and Mark by what might possibly have been a more 
 correct account. But I find it hard to agree with the 
 critics who, holding it certain that S. Mark's account 
 ' Cf. Luke vi. 39. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 193 
 
 is throughout the more primitive, and that the other 
 evangelist had before his eyes S. Mark's words exactly 
 as they stand in our present Gospel, believe that he 
 deliberately altered them because he disagreed on prin- 
 ciple with S. Mark. The words in Matthew which 
 speak of the Pharisees being oifended are extremely 
 natural, as is the introduction of St. Peter's name. It 
 seems, to say the least, unnecessary to attribute these 
 divergences to the evangelist's consistent antagonism 
 to the Pharisees, and to his special interest in 
 S. Peter. In both Gospels the main point is quite clear, 
 though it is rather more luminous in Mark. The 
 Pharisees held that it was necessary to wash the hands 
 before a meal, not to avoid being dirty, but lest any 
 person eating with others should be ceremonially un- 
 clean and communicate this uncleanness to the food, 
 which would then make every one who partook of it 
 unclean. Our Lord teaches that there is no religious 
 defilement in the matter at all. Nothing that goes 
 into a man defiles a man ; it is the things which 
 proceed from him that may defile him. Of course, it 
 would be possible to pervert our Lord's words by some 
 form of rabbinism ; and this was done by the powerful 
 Russian sectaries in the time of Peter the Great, when 
 they maintained that to smoke tobacco was condemned 
 by this verse, but apparently were less ready to oppose 
 the excessive use of brandy. If we found any gloss 
 comparable to this in the words of Matthew, we might 
 well say that it had perverted or Judaised S. Mark's 
 statement. S. Mark added to our Lord's words a re- 
 flection of his own, viz. ' This He said, making all meats 
 clean.'' To the modern Christian this appears to be a 
 wholly legitimate inference from the words of Jesus. 
 But they are not one of the ' words of Jesus.' And if 
 they were in the copy of Mark that was used by the 
 author of our first Gospel, it seems to me very unreason- 
 able to say that he omitted them because he held, 
 
194 THE GOSPELS 
 
 unlike the Council of Jerusalem of a.d. 49, that certain 
 meats convey a religious defilement to those who 
 partake of them. We may even go a step further than 
 this. S. Paul himself, the apostle of Gentile freedom, 
 held that there were circumstances in which it would be 
 wrong to eat meat that had been offered to idols. An 
 idol was nothing, and one might eat or not eat without 
 any difference in God's eyes. But the use of such meat 
 might injure another man's conscience, and to share in 
 an actual idol sacrifice by eating the food offered to the 
 idol he regarded as a heinous sin. It is doubtful 
 whether S. Paul would have said that our first 
 evangelist was at all wrong in omitting S. Mark's 
 comment. And even if the evangelist had supposed 
 that the Jewish Christian was bound to observe the 
 Mosaic Law in reference to unclean meats, and there is 
 not sufficient proof of such a belief on his part, this 
 would not necessarily affect the case of the Gentile at 
 all. We know that in the second century the two 
 sects of Hebrew Christians who kept the Law them- 
 selves differed fundamentally. The Ebionites, or 
 extremists, who were merely Jews believing that Jesus 
 was a human Messiah, held that the Law was binding 
 on all who accepted Jesus as the Messiah. The 
 Nazarenes, the more moderate and orthodox party, 
 believed that it was only binding on men of Hebrew 
 blood, and not binding on the Gentiles. It was one 
 thing to observe the Law like S. James while giving 
 the right hand of fellowship to the apostle of the 
 Gentiles, and another thing to hold that S. Paul and 
 every one who did not keep the Law were destined to 
 Gehenna. 
 
 After the law of marriage and the law of meats we 
 must notice that ' rule of worship ' which, as always, 
 implies a ' rule of belief.' One of the most interesting 
 passages concerned with worship in the New Testament 
 is Matt. V. 23, ' If therefore thou art offering thy gift at 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 195 
 
 the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother 
 hath aught against thee, leave there thy gift before the 
 altar, and go thy way ; first be reconciled to thy 
 brother, and then come and offer thy gift.' This has 
 been fully explained by Mr. Israel Abrahams in his 
 valuable contribution to Cambridge Biblical Essays. 
 He shows that the passage refers to one who has to 
 bring a sin-offering, 'and in the act of so doing re- 
 members that he has not yet made amends for a wrong 
 committed by him against another man, presumably for 
 the very wrong which has been the reason for bringing 
 the offering at all/ According to rabbinic law a sin- 
 offering, in case of a theft, was useless until the stolen 
 goods were restored. Not only so, but there is also a 
 remarkable passage in the Tosefta which exactly fits the 
 passage. It is, ' If one has brought his trespass-offering 
 before restoring the stolen goods, the priest (though he 
 has already slain the sacrificial animal) shall not go on 
 to mix the blood (for sprinkling) until the offerer has 
 restored the stolen goods.' So valueless was the gift 
 considered that the animal, though slain, was not used 
 as an offering, but taken outside the temple precincts 
 and destroyed. Mr. Abrahams says, 'The parallel is 
 exact. . . . To me it seems almost certain that Matthew 
 has here preserved a genuine saying of Jesus.' Nothing, 
 in fact, could illustrate more admirably our Lord's 
 attitude towards the Jewish Law than this passage 
 when considered in connection with the verses con- 
 cerned with unwashed hands. One denies all merely 
 ceremonial defilement ; the other affirms that worship 
 and ceremonial cannot be acceptable to God unless the 
 heart is right. In the latter case Jesus takes part of 
 the best rabbinical teaching, and gives it a simpler 
 and wider form which will cover any sacrifice to God. 
 He takes for granted that the Jews to whom He is 
 speaking ought to frequent the temple and fulfil the 
 temple rites. The same principle marks His command 
 
196 THE GOSPELS 
 
 to the cleansed leper. He is bidden, ' Go thy way ; 
 show thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that 
 Moses commanded' (Matt. viii. 4). The man was not 
 to imagine that his miraculous cure made it superfluous 
 for him to obey the Law. Further, our Lord adds that 
 this is to be done ' for a testimony unto them.' The 
 priests were to have an opportunity of seeing that the 
 Messiah did not disregard the Law. If the ceremonial 
 law came into conflict with the moral law, it must give 
 way. But so far from being indiscriminately con- 
 demned, it was to be treated as valid when it fostered 
 the right relation between the creature and his 
 Creator. 
 
 The above statements with regard to sacrificial wor- 
 ship seem to be indisputably genuine ' sayings of Jesus.' 
 And the record of them in Matthew, especially the 
 mention of 'the altar,' favours the view^ that the 
 Gospel was written while the altar was still un- 
 destroyed. To maintain the contrary view seems as 
 paradoxical as the assertion that the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews was written at the close of the first century, in 
 spite of the fact that the author declares that the 
 Jewish priest ' standeth day by day ministering and 
 offering' (Heb. x. 11). But there is nothing to show 
 that these words in Matthew might not have been 
 written between a.d. 60 and a.d. 70 as well as twenty 
 years earlier. And there is certainly nothing whatever 
 to show that our Lord expected that the Gentile 
 Christian would be under an obligation to obev 
 the literal precepts of any Jewish beremonial regula- 
 tion. 
 
 Matt. xxiv. 20 contains an allusion to the Sabbath 
 which is sometimes quoted as a clear proof that the 
 author conceived that the observance of the Sabbath 
 was binding on all Christians. Our Lord in this verse 
 says, ' Pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, 
 neither on a Sabbath.'' Mark xiii. 18, in speaking of 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 197 
 
 this flight from Jerusalem before the siege, contains a 
 mention of winter but not of the Sabbath. It is 
 therefore thought by some critics that the latter is a 
 Judaistic interpolation, though it is not impossible 
 that S. Mark may have known it and omitted it. That 
 flight on a Sabbath might be fraught with disaster is 
 shown by 1 Mace. ii. 32-38, where certain pious Jews, 
 having retreated into the wilderness and been pursued 
 by the forces of Antiochus, refused to do anything to 
 defend themselves because it was a Sabbath day, and 
 were butchered with their wives and children. In a 
 community of Jewish Christians there might be many 
 who would feel scruples about going more than a 
 Sabbath day's journey on the Sabbath, or about taking 
 any measures other than this short flight for the defence 
 of themselves and their families. The injunction 
 attributed to our Lord in Matthew is therefore per- 
 fectly intelligible without our supposing that either 
 the evangelist or his Master considered that such 
 scruples ought to be permanently fostered. It cannot 
 be isolated from the actions recorded in chap, xii , 
 where Jesus teaches that mercy is better than sacrifice, 
 and that the method of observing the Sabbath practised 
 by the Pharisees cut through the real purpose of the 
 holy day. If the Sabbath rest every week has to yield 
 to the necessity of preparing the temple sacrifices, 
 much more can it give way to requirements of philan- 
 thropy. Such is the teaching of chap, xii., and it is 
 hard to think that the evangelist who wrote that 
 chapter would have thought it wrong for a man to 
 save his wife and children from the Roman soldiers by 
 moving more than three miles on a Sabbath day. 
 
 It may still be objected that in Matt, xxiii. 2 Jesus 
 says, ' The scribes and the Pharisees sit [or, took their 
 seat] on Moses' seat : all things therefore whatsoever 
 they bid you, these do and observe ; but do not ye 
 after their works ; for they say, and do not.' The 
 
198 THE GOSPELS 
 
 immediate context shows that this is not to be inter- 
 preted as a sanction of the rabbinical additions, per- 
 versions, and misinterpretations of the Law. Such 
 were ' heavy burdens ' wrongfully imposed. Perhaps I 
 may illustrate this from my personal experience. 
 Several years ago I was in the company of one of the 
 most prominent and orthodox of English Jews. To 
 my astonishment he asked me to open a letter for 
 him. He explained that it was a Jewish festival, and 
 that he might not open it, though he made it obvious 
 that he might study the contents. Now it would surely 
 be both possible and reasonable to hold that a Jew 
 ought to observe what his rabbis could show him to be 
 the Law with regard to the Sabbath without holding 
 that he might indulge in such a form of casuistry. The 
 observance of the Sabbath was not only natural but 
 beneficial to the Christian Church until it became 
 possible to spend a new space of twenty-four hours in 
 worship and rest. But this passage, in which our Lord 
 upholds the authority of the scribes and Pharisees at 
 a time when the Christian Church existed only in 
 embryo, cannot be fairly interpreted as binding on 
 any Christian Jew after the day of Pentecost, still less 
 as binding on Gentile converts. 
 
 § 6. Our Lord and S. Paul. 
 
 Let us sum up. With the single exception of the 
 modified tradition about marriage, the record given in 
 Matthew appears to give a consistent picture of Christ's 
 attitude towards the Law. He drew a deep line of 
 cleavage between the actual Law of the Old Testa- 
 ment and the rabbinical Halacha,ov 'tradition of men.' 
 We have seen that He by no means despised all rab- 
 binical teaching. But in the matter of ceremonial 
 defilement, almsgiving, the Sabbath, prayer, fasting. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 199 
 
 and temple worship, He strove to lead men from false re- 
 straints to that mastery of self which only belongs to the 
 true children of God. This involved not only a return 
 to the Law, but a return to Him who gave the Law. 
 The result is sometimes a verbal contradiction in His 
 teaching. He says, ' Think not that I came to destroy 
 the law or the prophets ; I came not to destroy, but to 
 fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and 
 earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise 
 pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished ' 
 (Matt. V. 17, 18). Evidently He knew, and the evan- 
 gelist knew, that He was suspected of breaking the 
 Law. And some of His commandments, especially with 
 regard to revenge and marriage, do supersede the Law. 
 The contradiction between this assertion of the per- 
 manence of the Law and His disregard of it can be 
 done away if one condition is fulfilled. If there exists 
 some law within the Law, so far-reaching as to pene- 
 trate all that the writers of the Old Testament directed 
 to be done, and able to complete what they left 
 incomplete, the contradiction disappears. This law 
 within the Law is love. And the Old Testament itself 
 testifies to this in its command that a man shall love 
 the Lord his God, and love his neighbour as himself. 
 All the Synoptists record that our Lord insisted upon 
 this command as vital. But it is remarkable that in 
 Matthew alone do we find the addition, ' On these two 
 commandments hangeth the whole law and the pro- 
 phets ' (Matt. xxii. 40). 
 
 It is this recognition that there is a law within the 
 Law which enables us to see that the teaching of 
 Jesus is itself consistent, and that the teaching of 
 S. Paul agrees with it. The elaborate attempts made 
 to establish an opposition between ' Jesus and Paul ' 
 have not been successful either in this or any other 
 direction. Of course, it is true that Paul, a converted 
 sinner, a man who had writhed under the tyranny of 
 
200 THE GOSPELS 
 
 the rabbinism in which he had been trained, and only 
 found through Jesus '^ peace with God,' could not 
 possibly speak of the Law and of sin and atonement as 
 Jesus spoke, He whose heart never needed ' reconcilia- 
 tion ' and ' atonement.' Allowing for this difference, 
 the unity of S. Paul's doctrine with that of His 
 Master is complete. Behind the Law of Moses S. Paul 
 saw God's ' promise,' a purpose of love by which the 
 Law must be interpreted, and he appealed to the 
 Law's own record of Abraham's saving faith in God. 
 Thus he could quite truly say, ' We establish the Law ' 
 (Rom. iii. 31). He could say, 'In Christ Jesus neither 
 circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision ; 
 but faith working through love' (Gal. v. 6); and 
 again, ' Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is 
 nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of 
 God ' (1 Cor. vii. 19). With him, as with His Master, 
 love is the fulfilling of the Law. Jesus is shown in the 
 Gospels to have revealed in His own character as well 
 as in His teaching what kind of observance of the Law 
 satisfies the heart of God. And having shown that 
 true religion springs from trust and love, such love as 
 led Him to the cross, He said to His disciples, ' Go ye 
 therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptis- 
 ing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
 and of the Holy Ghost : teaching them to observe all 
 things whatsoever I have commanded you' (Matt, xxviii. 
 19, 20). 
 
 § 7. Christ's Sayings on Eschatology. 
 
 At the end of our second chapter we noticed the 
 acute conflict which has lately been in progress 
 between two different schools of semi-Christian and 
 anti - Christian thought. The self-styled 'Liberal 
 Protestants' have minimised important aspects of our 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 201 
 
 Lord's teaching about the end of the world. The 
 Eschatological school, familiar to us in the writings 
 of Schweitzer, Loisy, and Tyrrell, have taught that 
 Christ steeped Himself in the eschatological doctrines 
 of the Jews, and they have interpreted all Christianity 
 by the key which those doctrines are supposed to furnish. 
 A more searching and more temperate criticism than 
 that of either school of thought will discover that 
 the truth lies almost exactly half-way between the two. 
 The teaching of our Lord with regard to the end of 
 the world and His own office at the end can in a large 
 measure be recovered, if indeed it has ever been lost. 
 
 In his very able essay at the end of Studies in the 
 Synoptic Problem, Mr. Streeter has expounded the 
 matter with such characteristic clearness that a few 
 sentences will illustrate his view. He says, ' The 
 Christian hope, first finding its expression in crude 
 Apocalyptic like that of the Epistles to the Thessa- 
 lonians, insensibly changes its emphasis, passes through 
 the mysticism of the Epistles of the Captivity,^ and 
 culminates in the Johannine doctrines of the Spirit 
 and Eternal Life. The critical recognition of the 
 priority of Q to Mark and of Mark to Matthew 
 makes it clear that there was taking place in other 
 circles of the Church during the same period an evolu- 
 tion in the contrary direction. The Apocalyptic 
 element in Mark has a precision and detail not found 
 in Q ; in Matthew is seen a still further development. 
 The eschatological language of the Master becomes 
 more and more conformed to the Apocalyptic picture 
 which was cherished by the early Church.' ^ And again 
 he says, ' In the series Q, Mark, Matthew, there is a 
 steady development in the direction of emphasising, 
 making more definite, and even creating, sayings of 
 
 1 I.e. S. Paul's Epistles to Colossians, Philemon, Ephesians, 
 Philippians. 
 
 2 Op. cit. p. 425. 
 
202 THE GOSPELS 
 
 our Lord of the catastrophic Apocalyptic type, and of 
 thrusting more and more into the background the say- 
 ings of a contrary turn.'^ He justly remarks that 
 this does not apply to Luke.^ 
 
 The result of his investigation is that he holds that 
 whereas Q may perhaps exaggerate the Apocalyptic 
 element in our Lord's teaching, this most primitive 
 and authentic record of our Lord's sayings still 
 records very little of that nature. Its characteristic, 
 sayings are rather those which imply that the kingdom 
 of God was already a spiritual force working in the 
 world when Jesus was exercising His ministry. The 
 kingdom is one that grows gradually like the mustard 
 seed (Luke xiii. 18, 19 = Matt. xiii. 31, 32); it will 
 slowly pervade society like leaven (Luke xiii. 20 = 
 Matt. xiii. 33). It is already here, because he that is 
 little in the kingdom of heaven is greater than the 
 Baptist (Luke vii. 28 = Matt. xi. 11). At the same 
 time there are passages in Q which represent our Lord 
 as saying that He would come ' when ye think not ' 
 (Luke xii. 40 = Matt. xxiv. 44); appearing 'as the 
 lightning' (Luke xvii. 24 = Matt, xxiv. 27); like the 
 deluge in 'the days of Noah' (Luke xvii. 26 = Matt. 
 xxiv. 37). Not till then would the kingdom of God 
 be fully inaugurated, the twelve apostles sit on 
 thrones (Luke xxii. 80 = Matt. xix. 28), a judgment 
 take place in the presence of the angels of God 
 (Luke xii. 9 = Matt. x. 33), and some be welcomed into 
 and others rejected from the kingdom of God (Luke 
 xiii. 28-30 = Matt. viii. 11, 12). 
 
 It is, in fact, by frankly recognising the presence of 
 these two elements in our Lord's teaching about the 
 kingdom of God that we save ourselves from the 
 paradoxes and the pitfalls of the extreme critics on 
 both sides. But it is only bare justice to the writers 
 of the New Testament to add that the two elements 
 ^ Lac. cit. p. 433. ^ Loc. cit. p. 426. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 203 
 
 are present in the teaching of S. John and in the 
 later teaching of S. Paul. S. John's Gospel, in spite 
 of suggestions that have been made to the effect 
 that such passages are later interpolations, distinctly 
 teaches that Christ will come again, that there will 
 be a future judgment and a future resurrection (John 
 V. 29; vi. 39, 40, 44, 54; xi. 24; xiv. 8). Nor do 
 such passages contradict those which teach that Christ's 
 presence among men itself involved a judgment, and 
 that eternal life may be enjoyed here and now. 
 S. Paul, too, does not repeat in his existing Epistles 
 the full description of the end of the world which he 
 gives to the Thessalonians, and he seems to abandon 
 the idea that Christ will return in his own lifetime. 
 But he certainly does not abandon his belief in the 
 return of Christ to execute judgment at the resurrec- 
 tion of the dead, and the future reward and punish- 
 ment of mankind. There is no great distance between 
 the .teaching of S. John and S. Paul and that con- 
 tained in Q. But we have to ask if Mark and 
 Matthew did appreciably add to the genuine teaching 
 of our Lord. 
 
 It is impossible for us to review every verse, but, 
 broadly speaking, the question falls into two divisions. 
 The first part is concerned with more or less isolated 
 texts or groups of texts. The second depends upon 
 the authenticity of our Lord's long discourse in Mark 
 xiii., which has been copied with modifications in 
 Matthew and Luke. The main facts under the first 
 division are these : (1) according to Matthew (x. 23), 
 Jesus said that He would come before His disciples 
 had finished visiting the cities of Israel. (2) Accord- 
 ing to Matthew, some of the bystanders who heard 
 our Lord would see the Son of Man coming in His 
 kingdom ; the other two Synoptists speak of this as 
 a coming of the kingdom of God, though they, like 
 Matthew, mention the visible return of the Son in the 
 
204 THE GOSPELS 
 
 previous verse : Matt. xvi. 28 ; Mark ix. 1 ; Luke ix. 27. 
 Note also that Matthew alone says that the Son of Man 
 shall then 'render unto every man according to his 
 deeds.' (3) In Matthew and Marie our Lord is described 
 as telling the high priest that he would see the Son 
 of Man ' sitting at the right hand of power and 
 coming'; in Lvke this statement merely appears as a 
 description of the Son's glory in heaven : Mark xiv. 62 ; 
 Matt. xxvi. 64; Luke xxii. 69. Matthew also shows 
 an affection for certain apocalyptic phrases like 'the 
 consummation of the age,' and in the parables of the 
 tares and the drag-net shows a profound belief in a 
 great catastrophe and judgment at the end of the 
 world. We can therefore feel justified in saying that 
 the author of Matthew took a special interest in 
 apocalyptic and eschatological sayings, and that the 
 vision in Daniel vii. may have led him to think that 
 God's kingdom upon earth could not come without a 
 visible return of the Son of Man in a comparatively 
 near future. The other evangelists, including S. John, 
 take a rather wider view, and hold that a longer in- 
 crease of His kingdom and power will take place 
 before He visibly returns. 
 
 But the most seriously debated passage is the dis- 
 course of our Lord in Mark xiii. Does it come from 
 Q.' And whether it comes from Q or from some 
 wholly different source, does it correctly represent 
 Christ's teaching .'' It has been plausibly maintained for 
 many years that it is not authentic, but an interpolated 
 'fly-sheet' containing pointed references to the persecu- 
 tion of S. Paul before the Sanhedrin, the Synagogue, 
 Felix and Festus, King Agrippa and the Emperor Nero. 
 Certain other prophecies in this chapter are also said 
 to be prophecies after the event. Among these some 
 writers place even the prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem 
 attributed to our Lord. 
 
 Now the above theory bristles with difficulties. It 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 205 
 
 cannot be proved that no form of Q contained the 
 substance of this discourse. And, on the other hand, 
 it can be proved that Q did contain at least some 
 references to the sudden and visible return of Christ 
 It cannot be proved that Christ did not make, or could 
 not make, predictions with regard to the fortunes of 
 His followers or the fate of Jerusalem. And it can be 
 proved that this chapter was already in Mark when 
 it was copied by the writer of Matthew as authentic. 
 Since there is much in Matthew which implies that it 
 was published rather before than after the fall of 
 Jerusalem, it is exceedingly rash to hold that the 
 prophecy in Mark was interpolated after Jerusalem was 
 destroyed. When we say this we are not committing 
 ourselves to the theory that all or any of the three 
 Synoptic accounts of the end of the world can be con- 
 sidered to have been immune against the personal 
 convictions of the writers. But we can afBrm that the 
 substance of the chapter shows no disagreement with 
 the best primitive traditions of our Lord's teaching. 
 The Christians of the second and third centuries were 
 therefore in the right when they inserted in their 
 creeds a record of their belief that Christ would return 
 to judge the quick and the dead, and assumed at the 
 same time that the kingdom of God is a divine force 
 already present in the world. 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 
 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE 
 
 § 1. General Characteristics. 
 
 S. Mark wrote to show the Christian Church, most 
 of all the Church in Rome, how Jesus lived, died, and 
 rose again as the Son of God. The evangelist who 
 combined S. Mark's Gospel with the sayings of our 
 Lord collected by S. Matthew is a Jewish Christian 
 who wishes above all to show that Jesus is the Messiah, 
 that the Christian Church is the true Church, and 
 Pharisaism a perversion of religion. S. Luke is a 
 Gentile, who wishes to show that Jesus is indeed the 
 Saviour of the world. He is writing in order that a 
 certain Theophilus, apparently a convert of good social 
 position, may be better informed and more deeply 
 convinced. He arranges his material carefully, he puts 
 aside everything which he considers unnecessary, dis- 
 cards sentences like the woes pronounced by Christ 
 against the Pharisees, for a Greek would derive little 
 profit from a denunciation of the sins which he did 
 not commit. He omits the anointing of our Lord's 
 feet by the woman of Bethany because he has a similar 
 story concerning a sinful penitent woman who loved 
 and was forgiven. He omits the long story about the 
 daughter of Herodias and her dancing because he has 
 to economise his space for the sake of showing how 
 much Christ did for outcast men and women. He 
 
 206 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE 207 
 
 omits the story of the Syro-Phoenician woman in which 
 a Gentile woman was willing to accept for all Gentiles 
 the position of dogs beneath the Master's table. More 
 than 'the beloved disciple' himself, S. Luke omits 
 anything that would seem to imply that the Lord was 
 ever weak or ever hard. He does not, like S. Mark, 
 tell us that Jesus said that He was ignorant of the 
 day of judgment, or record His cursing of the barren 
 fig-tree. His words are sometimes stern, yet they are 
 well indicated by the happy phrase in which S. Luke 
 describes the Lord's address in the synagogue at 
 Nazareth ; ' words of grace ' (iv. 22). He sets the 
 faults of the twelve in a subdued light. He does not 
 tell us that Christ once called S. Peter ' Satan,' or that 
 Peter cursed and swore when he denied his Lord. He 
 does not tell us, as S. Mark does, of the ambitious 
 request of James and John that they might sit by the 
 Messiah in His kingdom, or that all the disciples for- 
 sook Him and fled. Even when he speaks of the slum- 
 ber of the disciples in Gethsemane, he says, perhaps very 
 truly, that they were ' sleeping^r sorrow ' (xxii. 45). 
 
 He is a great artist. Mediaeval tradition ascribed to 
 S. Luke some Byzantine pictures where the maid- 
 mother, with grave wondering eyes. 
 
 Sat smiling, babe in arm. 
 
 The legend that he was a painter is too late to be 
 trusted, but it is an indication of the fact that long 
 ago the Church was conscious of his artistic power. 
 S. Mark gives us vignettes ; S. Luke presents us with 
 groups in harmonious surroundings. The scene of the 
 Nunc dimittis, and the walk to Emmaus, are idyllic. 
 
 S. Luke's literary style shows real power of assimila- 
 tion. In using Mark, he omits much in order to 
 combine the rest with other materials. And yet in 
 the parts of Mark which he retains he keeps their 
 proper order and does not mix them much with other 
 
208 THE GOSPELS 
 
 sources. He makes certain improvements in vocabulary 
 and style, turning Mark into what we should call 
 ' better Greek.' It runs smoothly. And yet, Gentile 
 though he is, his style is deeply influenced by the 
 Hebraic Greek of the Septuagint. The result is that 
 his style, like his material, is a harmony well com- 
 posed. 
 
 Side by side with the recent tendency to underline 
 and even exaggerate the Pauline tendency in Mark, 
 there has arisen a tendency to minimise the Pauline 
 tendency in Luke. Thus Loisy says, 'if the third 
 Gospel was written by Luke, a disciple of Paul, one 
 has to recognise that this circumstance does not throw 
 much light on its composition, its tendencies and its 
 object.'^ And Harnack, in his Luke the Physician, 
 has drawn up a row of antitheses between the theology 
 of the evangelist and the apostle, while fully defending 
 the theory that one was the disciple of the other.^ 
 Now, it is comparatively seldom that we find a com- 
 plete identity of ideas in a great teacher and an 
 eminent disciple. The disciple would never rise to 
 eminence if he had not a mind of his own. But the 
 points of similarity between S. Paul and S. Luke are 
 numerous. One is a theologian and the other is con- 
 sciously a historian. But they fundamentally agree. 
 Too much store is sometimes set upon mere words, for 
 all religious controversies have shown that people may 
 attribute very diflferent meanings to exactly the same 
 words — as disputes about the 'real presence' testify. 
 But the fact remains that S. Luke's vocabulary is more 
 Pauline than that of the other evangelists, and that 
 among these words are some conspicuous in Pauline 
 theology. Such are faith (eleven times), believe (nine 
 times), grace (eight times), mercy (six times), forgive- 
 ness of sins (three times). He has phrases which are 
 
 ' Jisus et la Tradition ivangilique, p. 17. 
 ^ Op. cit. pp. 140 flf. (English translation). 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE 209 
 
 parallel with phrases in the important epistles of 
 S. Paul. 
 
 No pains are spared to show that Jesus is the 
 Saviour of the world, and no vestige of any Jewish 
 particularism remains. It is sometimes urged that the 
 Christology is rudimentary, and that S. Luke excludes 
 any existence of the Son of God before He was born of 
 Mary. S. Luke no doubt is giving expression to a 
 simpler and less reflective faith than S. Paul, but he 
 depicts the power of Christ and His relation to the 
 Father in a manner which implies that He is in in- 
 separable union with God. More often than the other 
 Synoptists he gives to Jesus the favourite Pauline title 
 of 'the Lord.' The Pauline principle that man is 
 'justified,' acquitted as righteous by God, in response to 
 faith working through love, is perfectly exemplified in 
 the story of the sinful woman whose love and faith are 
 both commended by our Lord (vii. 47, 50). It is 
 possible to draw a contrast between S. Luke's ' para- 
 doxical love for sinners ''^ and S. Paul's stern denuncia- 
 tion of vice. But the paradox is not that of S. Luke 
 so much as that of the omniscient and all-pitying 
 Saviour. And he would be indeed a bold man who 
 should say that S. Paul had no room in his heart for 
 sinners after reading 2 Corinthians ii., vi. 11 and vii. 
 When we make due allowance for the fact that S. Paul 
 was always proud of being a Jew and never forgot his 
 Pharisaic training, while S. Luke is more Greek in 
 spirit than any other writer of the New Testament, we 
 shall find that their attitude towards Judaism is very 
 similar. S. Luke at the beginning of his Gospel shows 
 his interest in Jewish rites, S. Paul, on his last visit to 
 Jerusalem, paid for four men who had taken a Nazarite 
 vow (Acts xxi. 23 ff.). Both held that the inward 
 meaning of the Law is permanently binding (Luke, 
 xvi. 17 ; Rom. iii. 31). S. Paul thinks that the repulse 
 
 ' Harnack, he. cit. 
 
210 THE GOSPELS 
 
 of the Jews from the Kingdom of the Messiah was meant 
 by God to lead to the inclusion of the Gentiles who 
 would rouse the Jews to emulation (Rom. xi. 11, 12). 
 S. Luke, in writing down the Nunc dimittis and the 
 Magnificat, paid tribute to the peculiar spiritual glory 
 of Israel, a glory not extinguished by ' the times of the 
 Gentiles ' following the destruction of the Holy City 
 (Luke xxi. 24). It would be too much to say that 
 S. Luke would have always put ' the Jew first ' as 
 S. Paul, himself a Jew, does steadily. But his writings 
 prove that he would have supported S. PauPs noble 
 statement of the prerogatives of Israel in Rom. ix. 4-5, 
 and the respect which he shows towards the Christian 
 mother Church of Jerusalem, in spite of her failings, is 
 in full accord with S. Paul's own action. In his 
 Catholicism S. Luke is Pauline, and in affection for 
 Judaism he is as Pauline as a Gentile could be, short 
 of becoming a Jew. 
 
 Thoroughly in accordance with the religious con- 
 sciousness of S. Paul is the prominence given by 
 S. Luke to the value of prayer and the power of the 
 Holy Spirit. He shows that Christ insisted on the 
 duty of prayer in two parables which no other evange- 
 list records (xi. 5-13 ; xviii. 1-8). But above all, he 
 shows how Christ prayed. On seven occasions S. Luke 
 is alone in mentioning the prayers which our Lord 
 offered at the crises of His life: at His baptism 
 (iii. 21) ; before His first encounter with the Pharisees 
 and scribes (v. 16) ; before choosing the Twelve (vi. 12) ; 
 before the first prediction of His Passion (ix. 18) ; at 
 the Transfiguration (ix. 29) ; before teaching the Lord's 
 Prayer (xi. 1) ; and on the Cross (xxiii. 34, 46). And 
 S. Luke alone records His declaration that He had 
 made supplication for "Peter, and His charge to the 
 Twelve, ' Pray that ye enter not into temptation ' 
 (xxii. 32, 40). 
 
 The Holy Spirit operates alike in the birth, baptism 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE 211 
 
 and ministry pf our Lord. The 'Holy Spirit," 'the 
 power of the highest,' overshadows His virgin mother 
 (i. 35). After His baptism He is ' full of the Holy 
 Spirit,' and is ' led by the Spirit in the wilderness,' for 
 the temptation (iv. 1). He returns to Galilee ' in the 
 power of the Spirit' (iv. 14), and in beginning His 
 ministry at Nazareth He applies to Himself the words 
 of Isaiah, ' The Spirit of the Lord is upon me ' (iv. 18). 
 Jesus, in giving utterance to the great words in which 
 He proclaims His unique knowledge of the Father, 
 * rejoiced in the Holy Spirit' (x. 21 ; note the parallel 
 in Matt. xi. 25, where the Spirit is not mentioned). 
 And as another instance of S. Luke's insight into the 
 work of the Holy Spirit we may compare 
 
 Matt. vii. 11. Luke xi. 13. 
 
 If ye then, being evil, know If ye then, being evil, know 
 
 how to give good gifts unto how to give good gifts unto 
 
 your children, how much more your children, how much more 
 
 shall your Father which is in shall your heavenly Father 
 
 heaven give good things to them give the Holy Spirit to them 
 
 that ask him .'' that ask Him ? 
 
 Lastly, in xxiv. 49, the risen Lord describes the 
 Holy Spirit as 'the promise of My Father,' and as 
 'power from on high.' The Book of Acts illustrates 
 this truth continuously. The work of the Church is a 
 continuation of Christ's own activity, its inspiring force 
 is the Spirit who guided the human life of Jesus, and 
 whom He has given to His Church from above. This 
 is in harmony with both S. John's teaching and 
 S, Paul's conception of the Church as the body of 
 Christ. 
 
 § 2. Date of Luke. 
 
 The date of S. Luke's Gospel is still in dispute. 
 Sober criticism does not incline to the second century 
 date which was favoured by those who considered Acts, 
 
212 THE GOSPELS 
 
 which is of nearly the same date, to be necessarily later 
 because it implies the existence of an organised Church.^ 
 The Gospel must have been well known in Rome early 
 in the second century. Justin Martyr quotes it, and 
 Marcion's Gospel was simply a mutilated version of it. 
 Unlike the thorough Gnostics, Marcion did not issue 
 forged Gospels and Epistles, but appealed to such as he 
 and his Catholic opponents both acknowledged. There- 
 fore he could hardly have issued his version of Luke about 
 A.D. 144 unless the original had for a generation or so 
 been acknowledged as authentic. Looking backwards 
 into the first century, it is obvious to us that Luke was 
 written later than Mark, which it combines with other 
 materials. Therefore we must probably date it after 
 A.D. 65. But as the writer shows no knowledge what- 
 ever of Matthew, it was probably written before 
 Matthew or nearly simultaneously with it. The 
 latter is the more probable view, because Matthew 
 appears to show no knowledge whatever of Luke. 
 Our first tentative conclusion is that Luke was written 
 between a.d. 65 and a.d. 115, and our second is that 
 like Matthew it was written within a few years of the 
 destruction of Jerusalem in a.d. 70. 
 
 Against this latter view is the strongly advocated 
 theory that it cannot have been written earlier than 
 A.D. 95. Here we have to consider the relation of 
 S. Luke's Gospel to Acts. It is generally admitted by 
 critics of different tendencies and beliefs that the two 
 books are by the same author, that Acts was, as it 
 claims to be, written later than the Gospel, that both 
 books contain older materials, and that Acts contains 
 memoranda of S. Paul's travels written by S. Luke 
 himself between a.d. 50 and a.d. 65. S. Luke accom- 
 panied S. Paul on these travels, as the memoranda, 
 embodied in the 97 verses known as the ' we sections,' 
 abundantly prove. In these sections the author uses 
 ' Cf. Martineau, Seat of Authority in Religion, p. 257.' 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE 213 
 
 the first person plural, implying that he was personally 
 present on the occasions described. The style of the 
 other sections of Acts makes it clear that the same 
 person, S. Luke, wrote substantially the whole book, 
 probably some years later than the memoranda. Could 
 he have written Acts, and the Gospel, his 'former 
 treatise,' as he calls it, as late as a.d. 95 ? It is not 
 impossible, but it is hardly probable. We cannot 
 reasonably place S. Paul's birth after a.d. 5 at the very 
 latest ; he calls himself 'aged ' in writing to Philemon, 
 A.D. 59-61. As S. Luke was his companion in a.d. 50, 
 we might perhaps suppose that S. Luke was born about 
 a.d. 25 ; but we have no reason for affirming that he 
 was not much nearer S. Paul's own age. So, if he 
 wrote his Gospel and Acts in or after a.d. 95, he would 
 be at least seventy, and possibly much older. Only 
 very clear evidence should be thought cogent enough 
 to convince us that he postponed writing either of 
 these fresh and vigorous books to an advanced old 
 age, and that, writing at this date, he ignored the 
 existence of S. Matthew's Gospel. What, then, is the 
 alleged ground for this late date ? 
 
 No real answer appears to be made with regard to 
 his neglect of Matthew, except the very improbable 
 conjecture that Matthew is equally late or later. And 
 the only plausible reason for fixing Luke and Acts 
 about A.D. 95 is that the Jewish historian Josephus 
 published his Antiquities near that time, and S. Luke 
 is said to show that he is undoubtedly acquainted with 
 Josephus' work. Two important passages in S. Luke's 
 writings are alleged to prove this. The allegation 
 appears to me to be in one case disproved and in the 
 other to be unproved. The first is in the Gospel where 
 S. Luke connects the Baptist's ministry with the frame- 
 work of contemporary history. ' In the fifteenth year 
 of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being 
 governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, 
 
214 THE GOSPELS 
 
 and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea 
 and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, in 
 the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word 
 of God came to John ' (iii. 1, 2). The year in question 
 is probably a.d. 26-27. 
 
 This statement of S. Luke is said to have been 
 derived from a careless recollection of a passage in 
 Josephus.-*- Lysanias of Abila is known from a passage 
 in Strabo to have been put to death by Mark Antony 
 in B.C. 36. And Josephus says that in a.d. 53 
 Agrippa ii. received the tetrarchy of Philip and 
 Batanaea together with Trachonitis and Abila, adding 
 that it ' had been the tetrarchy of Lysanias.' S. Luke 
 is said to have read this passage, to have misunderstood 
 it, and concluded that in the time of Tiberius the 
 tetrarchy of Philip belonged to Philip — as it did — and 
 the tetrarchy of Lysanias to Lysanias. If there was a 
 second Lysanias there is no reason for supposing that 
 S. Luke made any mistake, or had misunderstood or 
 had read the passage in Josephus. And the existence 
 of a second Lysanias was long ago practically proved. 
 To say that it is 'at best conjectural,'* does not do 
 justice to the facts. An ancient inscription shows 
 that there was a ' tetrarch Lysanias ' who was a con- 
 temporary of Tiberius, and another inscription is so 
 worded as to make it probable that he was a descendant 
 of the former Lysanias.^ It is not even certain that 
 Josephus, when he speaks of ' the tetrarchy of Lysanias,' 
 is not referring to the later Lysanias. The original 
 Lysanias probably bore a higher title. He was an 
 independent ruler until his 'kingdom,' as Josephus 
 elsewhere calls it,* and his life, were both taken away. 
 Augustus, if he restored the territory to a submissive 
 
 ' Ant. XX. 7- 
 
 ' Dr. James Moffatt, Introduction to the Literature of the New 
 Testament, p. 30. 
 * See Godet, Commentary on S. Luke, p. 169 (English translation). 
 ■* Ve Bellojudaico, ii. Ij. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE 215 
 
 descendant of its former ruler, would have been doing 
 what he took a pleasure in doing. He did this very 
 thing in the case of lamblichus of Emesa and Archelaus 
 of Cappadocia. 
 
 Therefore the mention of Lysanias by S. Luke does 
 not prove that his Gospel was written after the publica- 
 tion of Josephus' Antiquities in a.d. 94. 
 
 The difficulty with regard to Acts is more serious. 
 In Acts V. 34 ff. Gamaliel makes a speech in which he 
 mentions two revolutionaries who headed seditious 
 movements and were crushed by the government, ' For 
 before these days rose up Theudas, giving himself out 
 to be somebody ; to whom a number of men about four 
 hundred, joined themselves ; who was slain ; and all, 
 as many as obeyed him, were dispersed and came to 
 nought. After this man rose up )Judas of Galilee in 
 the days of the enrolment, and drew away some of the 
 people after him : he also perished ; and all, as many as 
 obeyed him, were scattered about.' The alleged parallel 
 to this is in Josephus, Ant. xx. 5. 1-2, where we are told 
 that ' when Fadus was procurator of Judaea a certain 
 charlatan named Theudas persuades a very great multi- 
 tude . . . for he said that he was a prophet . . . 
 Fadus sent a squadron of cavalry after them, which 
 falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them 
 and took many alive. Taking Theudas also alive, they 
 cut off his head and carried it to Jerusalem.' A little 
 later Josephus says that ' there were put to death the 
 children of Jvdas the Galilean, who had stirred up the 
 people to rebel against Rome when Quirinius assessed 
 Judaea.' The former event would have been about 
 A.D. 45, the latter about a.d. 47. The speech of 
 Gamaliel in Acts is supposed to have been made some 
 ten years before either of these took place. 
 
 The resemblances are obvious and the differences are 
 remarkable. Each mentions two agitators, named 
 respectively Theudas and Judas. S. Luke, while 
 
216 THE GOSPELS 
 
 briefer than Josephus with regard to Theudas, adds that 
 Theudas had about four hundred followers, and while S, 
 Luke says Judas was put to death, Josephus says not that 
 Judas, but his sons, met with this punishment. S. Luke 
 says that Judas rose up ' after ' Theudas, while Josephus 
 implies that the sons of Judas were put to death after 
 Theudas for the crime of their father forty years 
 before ! 
 
 Now, S. Luke may possibly have made a mistake in 
 the details of Gamaliel's speech. Perhaps Theudas 
 had not yet ' given himself out to be somebody,' and 
 S. Luke's chronology must then be at fault. On the 
 other hand, Josephus is not infallible, and he may 
 have placed Theudas too late in spite of the many 
 sources of information that he possessed. But what 
 does seem unproved is that the passage in Acts is an 
 inaccurate and distorted reflection of that in Josephus. 
 The passage about the sons of Judas does not look like 
 an interpolation in Josephus, but original, whether 
 historically correct or not. But then S. Luke's 'recollec- 
 tion ' has omitted its most striking feature, viz. that the 
 sons were killed because their father had been seditious 
 more than a generation ago. It appears to me that 
 S. Luke had heard some stories about the Judas 
 mentioned by Josephus, and about a Theudas who was 
 an agitator, but not necessarily the charlatan described 
 by Josephus. The name of Theudas was very common, 
 and little insurrections were no novelty in the east end 
 of the Roman Empire. S. Luke's importance as a 
 saint and an evangelist would remain if he borrowed 
 some of his history from the Jew, and even if his 
 memory sometimes played him false. But the hypo- 
 thesis of his having borrowed is not proved. If the 
 coincidences between S. Luke and Josephus fail to 
 prove that the Gospel and Acts were written between 
 A.D. 95 and 100, an even worse failure has attended all 
 efforts to show that the attitude of S. Luke's writings 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE 217 
 
 towards primitive Christianity betray a late date. 
 They contain nothing which might not have been 
 believed a generation earlier than Josephus' work. 
 Against the critics who have assigned Luke and Acts 
 to a time ranging from a.d. 95 onwards, we have now 
 to set the fact that Hamack has very skilfully pleaded 
 for a date between a.d. 60 and 70. Certain arguments 
 which he has advanced in favour of this view are open 
 to question and appear to me to be exaggerated and 
 one-sided. Others are well collected and well marshalled. 
 One of the simplest arguments for this early date is 
 that Acts contains no account of the death of its great 
 hero, S. Paul. The book ends very simply and 
 impressively, leaving S. Paul in Rome, and the infer- 
 ence drawn from this ending is that S. Luke wrote no 
 more because he had no more to write. This is not 
 absolutely convincing. He might have intended to 
 write a third volume. He might have omitted S. Paul's 
 death because the structure of the book, as sketched 
 in the first chapter, required room for the dawn of the 
 Gospel in Rome and no more. It might truly be called 
 Acta Sanctorum, but not in the sense that it is a 
 collection of biographies and martyrdoms. The omis- 
 sion of S. Paul's martyrdom seems conceivable in a 
 book written a few years after that death. If it is 
 true, and it probably is true, that Q contained no 
 account of our Lord's Passion, partly because the facts 
 were still so fresh in the minds of the faithful, a similar 
 reason may have weighed with the author of Acts. If 
 S. Paul was executed in Rome, where the Christians 
 were already numerous, there would be scores of people 
 who knew how he perished. And the historian S. Luke 
 hastened to record what very few knew and still fewer 
 could write, viz. the story of the extension of the 
 Church under the impulse of the Holy Spirit from 
 Jerusalem through Judaea and Samaria to Rome, ' the 
 world's mightiest.' 
 
218 THE GOSPELS 
 
 S. Luke's omission of S. Paul's death, therefore, 
 seems to me to be compatible with a date either a little 
 before or a few years later than that death, but not 
 compatible with a date thirty or forty years later. 
 
 With the death of S. Paul we must connect his 
 touching farewell speech at Miletus to the elders of 
 Ephesus (Acts xx. 17 ff.). S. Luke after recording his 
 speech says that they were * sorrowing most of all for the 
 words which he had spoken, that they should see his face 
 no more.' Now S. Paul almost certainly did see them 
 again, for he was released from his imprisonment at 
 Rome and went to Asia Minor before his last and fatal 
 journey to the capital. Until the Pastoral Epistles 
 are proved to be wholly fictitious this visit to Asia 
 Minor cannot be denied. And it is urged that if 
 S. Luke wrote Acts after the apostle's death he would 
 not have inserted in it S. Paul's words ' ye all shall see 
 my face no more' (xx. 25), and thereby represented 
 S. Paul as prophesying falsely. We can only say, 
 ' Perhaps not.' But S. Luke, who did not remove all 
 discrepancies from his book, may have had the desire 
 simply to record what he believed to be true. And 
 whether we regard him as an artist or as a historian, or 
 as both, we may suppose that he left his account of the 
 scene at Miletus as he had written it, with the full 
 knowledge that S. Paul lived longer than he expected. 
 But this is more likely to have been written when the 
 elders of Ephesus were alive and able to bear testimony 
 to S. Luke than when most of them were gone to their 
 reward. 
 
 Acts contains archaisms. Sunday is still called 'the 
 first day of the week ' (xx. 7) and not yet ' the Lord's 
 day.' ' Christ,' when the name occurs alone, is still 
 used as an official title meaning the Messiah. And 
 though S. Luke informs us that the name ' Christians ' 
 (or Chrestians) first arose at Antioch, he knows that it 
 was a nickname and himself calls the Christians ' the 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE 219 
 
 disciples.' The word ' Church ' is applied to the 
 separate Christian communities in Acts, but never 
 to the whole Catholic Church except in xx. 28 in the 
 report of the above speech of S. Paul. And on the 
 other hand S. Luke, no doubt correctly, makes S. Paul 
 refer to the Jewish nation as ' the people ' (xxvi. 17, 
 23), in accordance with the practice of Greek-speaking 
 Jews. 
 
 But all these seem possible in a writer who studied 
 the past, who even revelled in it, though he had a clear 
 and hopeful outlook into the future. 
 
 Apart from the practical certainty that Luke is 
 largely based upon Mark, the Gospel contains but 
 slight evidence as to its own date. But an important 
 clue is perhaps to be found in the way in which 
 S. Luke treats S. Mark's account of our Lord's pre- 
 diction of the fall of Jerusalem. For this we must 
 look at Luke xix. 43 f. and xxi. 20, 23, 24. The 
 first passage contains a brief description of the 
 siege of Jerusalem, the bank to be cast about it, the 
 children to be dashed to the ground, not one stone 
 being left upon another. In the next chapter we read 
 that Jerusalem shall be compassed with armies, that 
 there shall be ' wrath unto this people, and they 
 shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led 
 captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem shall be 
 trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the 
 Gentiles be fulfilled.' These impressive sentences are 
 not in the other Synoptic Gospels, and the last is 
 similar in thought to Rom. xi. 25, where S. Paul holds 
 that the Gentiles have an allotted time for their con- 
 version before the restoration of the Jews to spiritual 
 enlightenment. It might naturally be thought that 
 S. Luke writes with the knowledge that Jerusalem has 
 been destroyed, but the evidence is not conclusive until 
 we reach xxi. 25. Here, though the alteration is very 
 slight, we see that it is evident that S. Luke knew that 
 
220 THE GOSPELS 
 
 ' the times of the Gentiles ' are to intervene between 
 the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the world. In 
 Mark xiii. 24 and Matt. xxiv. 29 the perspective 
 is different. The two earlier Gospels do not put this 
 interval between the two events. But Luke xxi. 32 
 still retains the statement of Mark xiii. 80 that ' this 
 generation shall not pass away till all these things be 
 accomplished,' with the omission of the word these. 
 Therefore if it be thought that there is adequate 
 reason for dating Matthew shortly before a.d. 70, 
 there is equal reason for dating Luke after, but not 
 much after, a.d. 70. If we hold that Acts does not 
 depend upon Josephus, there is no reason why it should 
 not be quite as early as a.d. 75 or 80. I cannot regard 
 the chronological question as closed, but the above 
 theory leaves room for the utilisation of Mark by 
 S. Luke, accounts for the fact that Luke and Matthew 
 were written independently, allows for a slight change 
 of style in Luke and Acts, and does not necessitate 
 any improbable age in the author. 
 
 § 3. Asceticism in Luke. 
 
 Side by side with S. Luke's poetry and his sense of 
 proportion is his combined asceticism and reverence 
 for womanhood. Here S. Luke seems to belong to the 
 West rather than to the East, and to be in harmony 
 with all that was best in the age of chivalry. His 
 asceticism carries with it no suggestion of the self- 
 torture which was sometimes encouraged among ancient 
 hermits and later monks. The men who fed on grass 
 or lived on pillars raised high above the earth could 
 find no support in the pages of S. Luke. But real 
 voluntary poverty and the ' daily ' taking up of the 
 cross, and a holy virginity such as S. Paul esteemed, 
 were all dear to S. Luke. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE 221 
 
 The story of the incarnation and Mary praising God 
 shows at once that the author realised the place of 
 woman in the divine scheme of redemption. It has 
 been asserted that by a very small alteration of the 
 text of Luke we can do away with the virginity of 
 our Lord's mother. It is true that if we omit in 
 chap. i. verses 34 and 35 we can alter the story. But 
 we may observe that if we do this, much of the 
 artistic balance of this long and beautiful chapter is 
 ruined. The chapter, as it stands in the universally 
 accepted text, hints plainly at a similarity and a 
 contrast between the birth of John the Forerunner 
 and Jesus the Messiah. Like a true poet, S. Luke 
 tells the story by a series of suggestive touches, gradu- 
 ally reaching the actual birth of Jesus. Now, John 
 the Baptist is regarded as one born more or less out of 
 the ordinary course of nature. His parents are ' well 
 stricken in years ' and he is to be ' filled with the Holy 
 Ghost "■ (i. 15). Jesus, on the contrary, is to be bom 
 of a maiden who ' knows not a man,' and He is to be 
 called the Son of God, being conceived by the direct 
 action of the Holy Spirit. The contrast is completely 
 ruined if we suppose that S. Luke meant that Jesus 
 was the Child of a young man and a young woman, 
 merely ' anointed ' by the Holy Spirit at or after His 
 birth. 
 
 Again we see at the Purification S. Luke's interest 
 in Mary, and in a single life dedicated to God. There 
 Simeon speaks of the sword that shall pierce Mary's soul 
 (ii. 35), and thanks are given to God by ' one Anna, a 
 prophetess, the daughter of Fhanuel, of the tribe of 
 Asher (she was of a great age, having lived with a 
 husband seven years from her virginity, and she had 
 been a widow even for four score aiid four years), 
 which departed not from the temple, worshipping with 
 fastings and supplications night and day.' This widow 
 and prophetess is as interesting to S. Luke as the 
 
222 THE GOSPELS 
 
 prophets and prophetesses whom he met when in the 
 company of S. Paul. In a.d. 56 at Caesarea ' entering 
 into the house of Phihp the evangelist, who was one of 
 the seven, we abode with him. Now this man had 
 four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy ' (Acts xxi. 
 9). We learn from Eusebius that they lived to a great 
 age at Hierapolis in Asia,^ and though the raving 
 Montanist prophetesses of the second century brought 
 the office into disrepute, the Western Church frequently 
 recognised in women a gift akin to that known in the 
 early Church as ' prophecy.' Modern theology has not 
 always recognised the value which the first Christians 
 attributed to virginity side by side with the entirely 
 new honour which they gave to marriage. This 
 esteem for virginity is partly, but not wholly, to 
 be explained by the belief that the end of all 
 things was at hand, and that marriage was there- 
 fore inadvisable. S. Luke's view is closely similar 
 to that of S. Paul when he wrote to the Corin- 
 thians, ' He that is unmarried is careful for the 
 things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord : 
 but he that is married is careful for the things of the 
 world, how he may please his wife.' . . . 'She that 
 is unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord, 
 that she may be holy both in body and in spirit : but 
 she that is married is careful for the things of the 
 world, how she may please her husband ' (1 Cor. vii. 32- 
 34). This is not the current Jewish doctrine, which 
 treated marriage as a duty, and at the same time 
 allowed divorce, and polygamy both simultaneous and 
 consecutive. The doctrine of S. Paul in his Epistle to 
 the Ephesians exalts marriage, comparing it with the 
 union of Christ and His Church. And it is possible 
 that when the promise of Christ's coming seemed to 
 him to be less likely to have a speedy fulfilment, and 
 
 1 B. E. iii. 31. 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE 223 
 
 when he saw the mischievous nastiness of the Gnostics 
 who were ' forbidding to marry,' the apostle developed 
 his original belief in the sanctity of Christian marriage. 
 But the earlier conception was not therefore necessarily 
 abandoned. And it is substantially that of S. John 
 who speaks of the ' virgins ' who ' follow the Lamb 
 whithersoever he goeth,' and are ' the first-fruits unto 
 God and unto the Lamb' (Rev. xiv. 4). The passages 
 in this Gospel which deal with marriage deserve to be 
 closely compared with the parallel passages in the other 
 Synoptic Gospel. In quoting our Lord's stern teach- 
 ing about adultery and divorce, Luke quotes it in its 
 original rigour, unlike Matthew, but omits the state- 
 ment (Matt, and Mark) of God's original intention with 
 regard to the indissoluble nature of marriage.^ He 
 also omits the statement that ' there are eunuchs, 
 which made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of 
 heaven's sake' (Matt. xix. 12). Later in the Gospel, 
 when the Sadducees question Jesus about the resurrec- 
 tion, Luke differs from both. Matthew and Mark 
 practically agree; so it will suffice to compare Mark 
 and Luke. 
 
 Mark xii. 24. Luke xx. 34 flF. 
 
 Jesus said unto them. Is it And Jesus said unto them, 
 not for this cause that ye err, The sons of this world marry, 
 that ye know not the scrip- and are given in marriage : but 
 tures, nor the power of God ? they that are accounted worthy 
 For when they shall rise from to attain to that world, and the 
 the dead, they neither marry, resurrection from the dead, 
 nor are given in marriage ; neither marry, nor are given 
 
 in marriage : for neither can 
 
 but are they die any more : for they are 
 
 as angels in heaven. equal unto the angels ; and are 
 
 sons of God, being sons of the 
 resurrection. 
 
 Various interpretations can be put on the above 
 
 ' Luke xvi. l8 ; Mark x. 2 ff. ; Matt. xix. iff.; v. 31 f. 
 
224 THE GOSPELS 
 
 divergences. If we were to suppose that he disliked 
 and deliberately omitted the statement of our Lord 
 that a man 'shall cleave to his wife, and the twain 
 shall become one flesh,' we also might hold that lie per- 
 verted our Lord's teaching about the risen life into a 
 suggestion that only the unmarried can be raised from 
 the dead to share the glories of God. But the former 
 instance seems only to be part of his systematic 
 abbreviation. And the latter is not patient of the 
 above interpretation, because it would imply that 
 Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would not be worthy of the 
 resurrection, a conclusion which would destroy the 
 whole argument directed by our Lord against the 
 Sadducees. It cannot therefore be maintained with 
 any plausibility that S. Luke intentionally meant to 
 suggest that those who marry in this world will be 
 unworthy of the next. 
 
 One very important fact emerges from the passages 
 in which S. Luke calls attention to the truth that women 
 have the same place in God's eyes as men, that with 
 Him, as S. Paul says, ' there is neither male nor female.' 
 The passages which are found only in his Gospel are 
 familiar to all Christendom, the womanly touches in 
 the story of Christ's birth, and of that of the Baptist, 
 the story of the widow's son at Nain (vii. 11), the story 
 of the sinful woman who anointed Christ's feet (vii. 36), 
 the mention of the women who ministered to Him of 
 their substance (viii. 3), ' the daughter of Abraham ' 
 who was healed (xiii. 16), the ' daughters of Jerusalem ' 
 weeping on the way of the Cross (xxiii. 28), the parable 
 of the woman who lost one of her ten pieces of silver 
 (xv. 8), and that of the importunate widow approach- 
 ing the judge (xviii. 3). Some might ask if in assign- 
 ing such a part to women, S. Luke has merely exercised 
 his inventive and artistic faculty by developing a new 
 aspect of the universalist mission which he assigns to 
 Jesus Christ. But modern criticism enables us to reply 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE 225 
 
 to this question with an emphatic negative. For there 
 are some stories about women which S. Luke has 
 borrowed from Mark. There is the healing of Peter''s 
 mother (iv. 38 ; Mark i. 29), and the woman with an 
 issue (viii. 43; Mark v. 25), and the account of the 
 widow's mites (xxi. 2 ; Mark xii. 42). If S. Luke had 
 embroidered these stories with new and important 
 details, we should have a little less confidence in his 
 other stories about women. But he gives them with 
 no embellishment or addition. And we therefore can 
 feel sure that the prominence which he " assigns to 
 women in other passages is founded upon historical 
 fact, and that the interest which he shows in the sex 
 which the Jews despised, was rooted in the action and 
 the teaching of Christ. 
 
 S. Luke's teaching about voluntary poverty is also 
 important. The deceitfulness of riches is nowhere de- 
 nounced in a more uncompromising tone. S. Luke 
 takes pleasure in recording sayings of our Lord which 
 insist upon the renunciation of worldly goods and are 
 not found in the other Gospels. This teaching is 
 found in (a) the Beatitudes in Luke vi. 20 ff., where 
 Christ says, 'Blessed are ye poor; for yours is the 
 kingdom of God,' and denounces the rich as having 
 received their consolation, whereas in Matthew the 
 poor appear as 'the poor in spirit 'and the rich are 
 not denounced ; (6) commamds to give up worldly goods. 
 In xii. 33, 34, the disciples are told to sell what they 
 have and give alms, thereby making ' purses which wax 
 not old,' i.e. treasure in heaven. In xiv. 33 it is said, 
 ' Whosoever he be of you that renounceth not all that 
 he hath, he cannot be my disciple ' ; (c) various exhorta- 
 tions to almsgiving. The most difficult is, perhaps, 
 that in xi. 41, ' Give for alms those things which are 
 within (or, which ye can) ; and behold, all things are 
 clean unto you.' The meaning of the Greek being 
 uncertain, we cannot say whether our Lord is here 
 
 p 
 
226 THE GOSPELS 
 
 enjoining the giving of resources of inward pity, or of 
 money. In xiv. 12-14 there is a command to entertain 
 the poor at dinner, rather than kinsmen and rich 
 neighbours. In xvi. 1-13 there is the parable of the 
 Unj ust Steward with its warning to ' make friends by 
 means of the mammon of unrighteousness''; evidently 
 these friends are the poor and needy ; {d) warnings 
 against covetousness and callousness. In xii. 13-21 
 there is our Lord's refusal to divide the inheritance of 
 two brothers, the warning ' Keep yourselves from all 
 covetousness ; for a man's life consisteth not in the 
 abundance of the things which he possesseth,' followed 
 by the parable of the Rich Fool. And in xvi. 19-31 
 is the parable of Dives and Lazarus with its impressive 
 ' Son, remember.' 
 
 No other part of the New Testament contains so 
 many lessons on the right use of wealth, and very im- 
 portant questions naturally crop up as to the meaning 
 of S. Luke and as to the mind of Christ towards wealth 
 and self-denial. Since at least the time of Renan the 
 evangelist has been accused of 'Ebionism,' but the 
 word has not been happily chosen. Considerable 
 obscurity exists with regard to the Ebionites, or semi- 
 Christian Jews, whose name first occurs in the 
 writings of S. Irenaeus about a.d. 185, but whose exist- 
 ence is first mentioned a generation earlier by S. Justin 
 Martyr. They observed the Jewish Law, and regarded 
 its observance as necessary to salvation for Jew and 
 Gentile alike. They regarded Jesus as a human 
 Messiah and not as divine. Their name means ' poor,' 
 and had been used by some devout Jews to describe 
 the pious nucleus of the nation who were filled with a 
 sense of dependence upon God. Psalms ix., x., and xii. 
 illustrate this meaning very clearly. Late in the 
 fourth century S. Epiphanius shows that the Ebionites 
 used their name to describe their apostolic and volun- 
 tary poverty, but it is not clear that they did this in 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE 227 
 
 the second century. The Jewish use of the word, and 
 our Lord's blessing upon the poor in His beatitudes, 
 may have seemed to them sufficient warrant for the 
 title without any special reference to poverty being 
 intended. It became as much a title as Friars ' Minor,' 
 ' Minims,' ' Servites.' The most marked traits of the 
 sect are peculiarly remote from S. Luke's convictions, 
 for his attitude towards both the Law and the Person 
 of Christ is essentially different. There is as much 
 and as little sense in accusing him of Ebionism as 
 there is in discovering Buddhism in his story of the 
 sacred Infancy. 
 
 Further, the idea that this view of poverty must 
 emanate from a period later than S. Luke's own age 
 cannot be very seriously entertained. Voluntary 
 poverty was practised by the Essenes, and Josephus 
 speaks of them with the expectation of awakening 
 sympathy among his readers, for there were both Jews 
 and Gentiles who admired such an abnegation as 
 philosophic. The primitive Church at Jerusalem is 
 shown by S. Paul's writings to have been very poor, 
 S. Luke believed it to have practised in its earlier days 
 a voluntary communism, S. James assumes that his 
 readers include the poor, who receive scant justice from 
 the rich. Possibly some of the Christians of Jerusalem 
 and even S. Luke himself may have gone further than 
 the words of Jesus warranted in the direction of re- 
 garding riches as bad in themselves. The later Jewish 
 theology attributed an extraordinary efficacy to alms- 
 giving, and it is possible that generous almsgiving had 
 an additional moral value in the case of a nation which 
 gradually developed a unique capacity for amassing 
 wealth. The view that alms are a means of erasing 
 sins occurs in Ecclus. iii. SO, and is prominent in 
 rabbinical Judaism. This seems to go beyond any 
 reasonable interpretation even of Luke xi. 41, and on 
 the whole we can feel justified in saying that S. Luke 
 
228 THE GOSPELS 
 
 regarded the possession of wealth as hardly compatible 
 with the highest type of Christian character, but not 
 necessarily incompatible. Dives is not a sinner be- 
 cause he is rich, but because he has allowed his riches 
 to act as an opiate making him oblivious to the voice 
 of God and the needs of his neighbour. 
 
 The ascetic element in the teaching of our Lord 
 cannot be minutely weighed so long as we remain a 
 little uncertain about one or two of the above passages 
 in S. Luke. But no serious doubts remain. Of recent 
 years it has been alternately minimised and exaggerated. 
 But something would be done in the cause of peace 
 and truth if scholars, before discussing the question, 
 would give some definition of the meaning that they 
 attach to the word 'asceticism.'' It has become 
 ambiguous, though its origin is honourable. The 
 Greek word asMsis means 'training' whether in 
 athletics or learning, and such a training had a large 
 share in Greek life. The Christians found the word 
 congenial, and gave the name of 'athlete' to great 
 monks who were recognised as masters of the spiritual 
 life. Without denying that athleticism of this type, 
 or of the modern type, has been marked by some follies 
 and attended by some perils, one can see a great deal 
 to recommend the name. The athlete knows that his 
 training demands strictness even in the matter of the 
 most legitimate enjoyments. His conduct does not 
 always correspond with his environment but has some- 
 times to be inconsistent with it. It is consistent with 
 the end that he sets before him. 
 
 Now, in some degree, Christ's moral teaching re- 
 quires such asceticism of every man. The greater 
 inwardness and intensity of His ethics demand a severer 
 training than the Greek thought necessary. S. Paul's 
 doctine of the ' mortifying ' or making dead of every 
 sinful inclination, of ' crucifying ' the lower nature with 
 its voluntary or involuntary evil, is absolutely true to 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE 229 
 
 the whole spirit of the Sermon on the Mount. Our 
 Lord requires of all men a struggle and a self-discipline 
 for the conquest of mammon and of evil covetousness 
 of every kind. This may truly be called asceticism, 
 and seems quite as much implied in Matthew and 
 Mark as in Luke. We may note that all the Synoptists 
 relate our Lord's saying that His disciples will fast in 
 the days when the bridegroom is taken away from 
 them (Luke v. 35). And the appended words, which 
 S. Luke calls ' a parable,' imply that the new religion 
 will have new forms. Apparently the Church is to 
 have the authority to make such ' fresh wine-skins ' for 
 herself and determine, not that fasting is useless, but 
 what form fasting shall take. Our Lord's saying 
 about the duty of fasting in secret, found in Matthew 
 vi. 17, 18, is absent from S. Luke's Gospel, though it 
 seems in harmony with his spirit. Both public and 
 private fasting on the part of Christians is mentioned 
 in Acts. 
 
 The question whether Christ taught asceticism for 
 the personal benefit of the individual soul, as well as 
 for the good of His kingdom, must be answered in the 
 affirmative. It is not primarily for the extension of 
 the Gospel, but for the good of the individual soul 
 that the hand is to be cut off, and the eye plucked 
 out,- a severely ascetic demand which is also absent in 
 Luke. But as our Lord's purpose is always directed 
 towards the coming of His kingdom, He demands 
 sacrifices for the good of the cause. Those who have 
 made themselves better disciples of the despised Son 
 of Man will be able to help others to be good. 
 S. Luke shows how He went to eat and drink in a 
 Pharisee's house and made himself at home in the 
 household at Bethany. His enemies called Him 'a 
 gluttonous man, and a wine-bibber,' and S. Luke does 
 not hesitate to record the words of Jesus, also found 
 in Matthew, 'The Son of Man is come eating and 
 
230 THE GOSPELS 
 
 drinking' (Luke vii. 34). These facts are parallel to 
 the story in John of His presence at the marriage 
 feast at Cana, where He made the water wine. In thus 
 mingling freely and joyfully with those whom He came 
 to save, Jesus ever had before His eyes the fulfilment 
 of the Father's will. For the sake of the same will of 
 God He was hungry in the wilderness, and afterwards 
 sometimes 'had not where to lay His head' (ix. 58). 
 This should not be explained as a figurative description 
 of the impossibility of adapting His sublime teaching 
 to any of the existing forms of Jewish piety. It is 
 a description of a wandering, homeless, and lonely 
 life. Jesus calls some men to imitate this lonely life. 
 When S. Peter said, 'Lo, we have left all and have 
 followed thee ' (Mark x. 28 ; Matt. xix. 27 ; Luke xviii. 
 28), he was not wrong in thinking that the Master 
 had called them to leave all. But he may have been 
 wrong in asking, ' What then shall we have ? ' (Matt, 
 only). The service rendered to Jesus brings its own 
 reward, and doubtless S. Thomas Aquinas was right 
 when as a schoolboy he said, 'His servants shall serve 
 Him ' is the best thing that we know about heaven. 
 The clue to the right interpretation of our Lord's 
 severer demands is to be found in His own saying with 
 regard to His teaching about celibacy, ' He that is able 
 to receive it, let him receive it ' (Matt. xix. 12). Unless 
 He desired to subvert and destroy all civilisation, He 
 could not have intended all His followers to live like 
 monastic missionaries. The recent form of scepticism 
 which represents Him as under the delusion that the 
 Father would immediately establish a visible super- 
 natural kingdom on earth in which all present human 
 relationships would melt away, requires that His 
 ethics should be ascetic in a very different sense. 
 According to this theory, all His disciples were bound 
 to live like the primitive Buddhist 'community,' re- 
 garding the present order of things as so transient and 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE 231 
 
 so inherently evil that they must needs extinguish 
 every desire to remain in connection with it. None 
 of the Gospels is disfigured by this bleak pessimism. 
 Christ's continual recognition of the great worth of 
 man, body and soul, is no excrescence on His teach- 
 ing, inconsistent with His preaching of the second 
 advent. And to lay up treasure in heaven is the 
 correlative not of abstention from the duties of life, 
 but of trading with the talents entrusted to our care. 
 
 § 4. S. Luke on The Passion. 
 
 S. Luke's account of our Lord's Passion and Death 
 is in many ways remarkable. We should notice before 
 we come to the story of the Passion, that Luke is 
 somewhat deficient in passages where the religious 
 significance of the death of Christ is implied. Like 
 the other Synoptists, S. Luke records his threefold 
 prediction of the Passion (Luke ix. 22 ; ix. 43-45 ; 
 xviii. 31-34). As S. Luke usually avoids repetition, 
 we may be sure that he attached great importance 
 both to the predictions and to the event predicted. 
 But this is not the impression which we should gain 
 from his treatment of certain other passages. Thus in 
 Mark viii. 34, and Matt. xvi. 24, we have the saying 
 of Jesus, ' If any man would come after Me, let him 
 deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.' 
 In Luke ix. 23, this appears with the addition of daili/ 
 after his cross. Whatever may be the origin of this word 
 daily, it has the effect of slightly altering the lesson in- 
 culcated. In the two early Synoptists it comes immedi- 
 ately after the rebuke administered to S. Peter for his 
 attempt to turn our Lord away from the thought of 
 death. And it therefore suggests that for every true 
 disciple of Christ there is a crisis, some culminating 
 decision in which he must choose to do what Christ 
 
232 THE GOSPELS 
 
 chose to do. S. Luke, with his usual tenderness 
 towards the Twelve, omits the whole of the rebuke of 
 S. Peter, and by representing the taking up of the 
 cross as daily, implies that the cross is to be found in 
 those vexations and humiliations which continually 
 beset us. And this suggests that in S. Luke's mind 
 all the life of Jesus was the bearing of the cross, and 
 the believer's attention is less concentrated on the 
 death itself. 
 
 Much more remarkable is S. Luke's total omission 
 of the words 'The Son of man came not to be 
 ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His 
 life a ransom for many ' (Matt. xx. 28 ; Mark x. 45). 
 The recent sceptical school which has tried to make 
 S. Paul the inventor of all specifically Christian 
 doctrine, has denied this verse to be genuine, and 
 treated it as a ' Pauline ' interpolation. But the 
 manuscripts are in its favour, and it is in harmony not 
 only with the passage which it so grandly crowns, but 
 also with the teaching of the Old Testament about an 
 atoning ransom and with our Lord's entire plan of 
 action. It agrees with the teaching of S. Peter as 
 much as with that of S. Paul. S. Luke's omission of 
 the anointing at Bethany in the house of Simon the 
 leper is accounted for by his previous insertion of the 
 story of the ' woman which was in the city, a sinner ' 
 (Luke vii. 37), but it has the result of leaving un- 
 recorded in the third Gospel our Lord's touching 
 reference to His burial, and His linking of the 
 woman's generosity with the eternal Gospel. We 
 must lastly notice that in the Lucan account of the 
 Last Supper, a few important manuscripts have ' This 
 is my body ' without the words which is given for 
 you, and also omit the whole of the next verse re- 
 lating to the Eucharistic cup (xxii. 196, 20). It is 
 rather doubtful if the account of the Last Supper 
 without these omitted words is what S. Luke origin- 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE 233 
 
 ally wrote. It seems at least possible that the passage 
 became corrupted and confused at a very early date 
 by some scribe who was ignorant of the fact that the 
 Jews drank several cups of wine at the Passover, and 
 therefore altogether omitted the second, i.e. the Sacra- 
 mental cup, while mentioning one of the others. 
 
 Whatever the text of this passage originally was, 
 the late Professor Bruce went too far in saying that if 
 the doubtful clauses in the evangelist's report of the 
 Last Supper were omitted, ' Luke's Gospel would not 
 contain a single word of Jesus that could be regarded 
 as a contribution towards explaining the moral or 
 theological significance of His death.' ^ The place of 
 the death of Christ in the theology of the most 
 primitive period of the Church's history is shown by 
 the identification of Jesus the Messiah with the suffer- 
 ing servant of the Lord described in Isaiah. S. Luke 
 in the Acts, which is a continuation of the Gospel, 
 gives us abundant proof that the primitive Church 
 did so regard Jesus. And in his Gospel he records 
 the voice which was heard by our Lord at His baptism 
 declaring that He was the One in whom the Father 
 was well pleased (Isaiah xlii. 1 ff.),^ and further says 
 that Jesus applied to Himself the words 'he was 
 reckoned with transgressors' (xxii. 37; Isaiah liii. 12). 
 Both passages refer in Isaiah to the Servant who 
 'hath borne our griefs' and made his soul a 'guilt- 
 offering,' a sacrificial reparation for sin. This is the 
 true idea of what mediaeval writers describe as the 
 ' satisfaction ^ paid by Jesus Christ to the Father. It is 
 the reparation of perfect filial obedience for the heart- 
 
 1 lVii& Open Face, pp. 271-272. 
 
 ^ In some Western MSS. of Luke, the words heard at Christ's 
 baptism are ' Thou art My beloved Son, this day have I begotten 
 Thee.' It has been thought that this is original, and copied by 
 S. Luke from Q. More probably it is the work of a scribe who 
 wished to luring the words into closer conformity with Ps. ii. 7. 
 
234 THE GOSPELS 
 
 less sacrilege of our sins. And because death meant 
 this for Jesus, He is described by S. Luke as saying 
 earlier in His ministry, ' I have a baptism to be 
 baptized with ; and how am I straitened till it be 
 accomplished' (Luke xii. 50). The baptism is the 
 baptism which He mentions in His promise given to 
 the sons of Zebedee after their request to sit on His 
 right hand and on His left hand in glory (Mark x. 
 35 ff., omitted in Luke). It is the flood of death which 
 is to carry Him away, a flood which He shrinks from, 
 but which He desires, because when it is passed, the 
 ' fire ' which he has kindled will have free course. 
 
 S. Luke, then, both omits and adds in what he says 
 about the theological significance of our I^ord's death, 
 and in his record of the actual Passion and dying of 
 Jesus we find that he does the same. Sometimes he 
 abbreviates the facts which are recorded by S. Mark. 
 But he adds others which bear so plain a stamp of 
 originality and probability that we cannot doubt that 
 he had especially good means of learning the truth. 
 
 The Agony in the Garden as told by Luke in 
 chap. xxii. shows so much abbreviation, that if it was 
 based on the story in Mark, it must be said to alter it 
 greatly. Here again there is a serious difiiculty with 
 regard to the text : verses 43 and 44 are : — 
 
 And there appeared unto Him an ang-el from heaven, 
 strengthening Him. And being in an agony He prayed more 
 earnestly : and His sweat became as it were great drops of blood 
 falling down upon the ground. 
 
 Here we have described an awful struggle and an aid 
 sent down from heaven. But the manuscripts leave us 
 uncertain as to the origin of these verses. They are 
 probably not genuine, and were inserted in order to 
 supply what the undoubtedly Lucan record con- 
 spicuously lacks. For the other verses represent our 
 Lord going 'as His custom was,' with His disciples, 
 and kneeling in prayer without any mention of a 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE 235 
 
 terrible distress. S. Luke neither says that only the 
 three favourite disciples were taken apart from the 
 others, nor that they were commanded twice to ' watch,' 
 nor that Jesus said that His soul was exceeding sorrow- 
 ful, even unto death, nor that He fell on the ground. 
 Jesus makes one act of prayer and then returns to find 
 them sleeping ' for sorrow.' S. Luke spares the disciples 
 somewhat, but appears to give us an infinitely less 
 pathetic picture of our Lord's distress. Continuing to 
 abbreviate, he omits in xxii. 47 to say that the multitude 
 came ' with swords and staves ' to take Jesus, and also 
 leaves out the actual capture, though the fact that 
 ' they seized Him ' is stated just afterwards in v. 54. 
 He also leaves out the stern words in Mark that the 
 disciples 'all left Him, and fled.' We may notice that 
 like the Fourth Gospel Luke attributes the work of 
 Judas to the suggestion of Satan (xxii. 3 ; John xiii. 2). 
 The account of our Lord's trial before Caiaphas and 
 then before the Council, and finally Pilate, is most 
 significant. The account in Matthew and Mark 
 implies beyond any doubt that immediately Jesus was 
 arrested, he was taken to Caiaphas the high-priest, and 
 that the whole Sanhedrin was met together and that 
 Jesus was accused before them of saying that He would 
 destroy the temple. Wlien adjured by the high priest, 
 He declares that He is the Son of God and speaks of 
 His second advent. He is then condemned to death, 
 and His face is covered (Mark) and He is smitten by 
 the officials of the high-priest. Then in Mark xv. 1 
 the same authorities hold a consultation in the morning, 
 apparently as to how they should enlist the support of 
 Pilate, to whom Jesus is taken. In Matthew it is said 
 that they took counsel against Jesus to put Him to 
 death, and then delivered Him to Pilate the governor. 
 In Mark nothing is said as to the nature of the consul- 
 tation, but we are told that they ' bound ' Jesus, and 
 carried Him away, and delivered Him up to Pilate. 
 
236 THE GOSPELS 
 
 From this S. Luke diverges rather widely. He says 
 nothing of any trial during the night, and he places in 
 the morning the solemn meeting of the Sanhedrin at 
 which Jesus confesses that He is the Son of Man and 
 the Son of God, although he does not make the circum- 
 stances identical. He says nothing of the high priest 
 rending his clothes to show that he regarded the claim 
 of Jesus as blasphemy, nor does he even mention that 
 the assembly condemned Jesus to death. The fact 
 that he makes these omissions leaves it conceivable 
 that like S. Mark he held that there were two meetings 
 of the Sanhedrin, and was merely abbreviating. This 
 view is slightly strengthened by his arrangement of the 
 story of S. Peter's fall. Like the other evangelists he 
 places S. Peter's denials during the night. But, unlike 
 them all, he does not divide the story but gives it 
 consecutively (xxii. 54<-62 : cf. Mark xiv. 54, 66-72 ; 
 John xviii. "15-18, 25-27). This is probably for the 
 sake of brevity. But can we say the same of his view 
 that the chief part of the examination of our Lord 
 took place in the morning ? 
 
 S. John's narrative appears rather to favour that of 
 S. Luke. In John xviii. 12 Jesus is led by 'the band 
 and the chief captain, and the officers of the Jews,' to 
 Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas. He is sharply 
 interrogated, but no meeting of the Sanhedrin is 
 mentioned. Then in John xviii. 24 Annas sends Jesus 
 bound to Caiaphas, and S. John continues the story of 
 Peter. He says nothing of what happened to Jesus 
 when he was with Caiaphas, the narrative distinctly 
 creating the impression that the writer was not near 
 Jesus but near Peter at the time in question. From 
 Caiaphas Jesus was led to Pilate. Complete certainty 
 seems impossible of attainment. But the narrative of 
 Luke seems to be far from improbable, especially as 
 S. John supports the theory that the Sanhedrin had 
 not met together at the time of the arrest. They 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE 237 
 
 might have met that night without infringing any law, 
 for S. Mark's Gospel testifies against itself by showing 
 that the night of the arrest was not the Passover 
 night. But so long as they could finish the trial and 
 execution before their sacred hour began, the Sanhedrin 
 would naturally prefer to postpone the public trial 
 until the morning. Our Lord was detained in custody 
 until they were ready. Then, as Professor Burkitt 
 says, ' A prisoner, and deserted by His followers, He is 
 naturally exposed to the vulgar insults of the Temple 
 police who had arrested Him (xxii. 63-65) ; in point 
 of fact, they have nothing else to do. Meanwhile 
 Peter slinks into a corner of the great court ; we are 
 even told that he showed his face in the light of the 
 fire (v. 56). He denies his Master, as we know, during 
 the hours that slowly pass by. All the action takes 
 place in the court : in one corner is the Prisoner, in 
 another is Peter and the group of servants. I can 
 very well believe that the one group was visible to the 
 other, and that the Lord really did turn and look upon 
 Peter (». 61). At last the day breaks and the elders 
 of the people gather together, chief priests and scribes ; 
 they give their Prisoner a hasty trial (vv. 66-71) and as 
 soon as He is condemned they bring Him at once before 
 Pilate (xxiii. Iff).'! 
 
 The succeeding narrative is marked by the same 
 distinctive notes. We find that Luke omits the fact 
 that at the Passover the governor was in the habit of 
 releasing a prisoner (Mark xv. 6), though the omission 
 renders less intelligible the cry of the populace that 
 Barabbas should be released (Luke xxiii. 18). On the 
 other hand we find in Luke xxiii. 2 that the accusation 
 which the Sanhedrin brought against Jesus to secure 
 His condemnation by Pilate was that He had been 
 guilty of ' forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying 
 that He Himself is the King Messiah.'' This technical 
 ^ The Gospel History and its Transmission, p. 137. 
 
238 THE GOSPELS 
 
 Jewish phrase is found neither in Matthew nor Mark. 
 And the false charge with regard to the tribute shows 
 how cleverly some of the Jews, after opposing Him for 
 not taking up the role of a temporal potentate, secured 
 His condemnation on the ground that He had claimed 
 to be a King and to control the tribute, as the false 
 Messiah Bar-Cochba did in a.d. 134. And just as 
 Luke gives a specially clear account of the answers 
 given by Jesus to the Sanhedrin, so the scene between 
 our Lord and Pilate is represented with some special 
 additions. From Mark and Matthew we gather that 
 Pilate was really convinced of the innocence of the 
 Prisoner, but in Luke Pilate three times pronounces 
 Him to be innocent {vv. 4, 14, 22). In the Fourth 
 Gospel we find the same threefold assertion of our 
 Lord's innocence (John xviii. 38; xix. 4, 6). Luke 
 and John also agree with regard to the scourging of 
 our Lord. In Mark and Matthew the flagellation 
 appears as a preliminary to the crucifixion, as part of 
 the punishment and that only. A far more subtle 
 significance attaches to it in Luke and John, and one 
 which is in harmony with the whole picture of Pilate. 
 Twice, in Luke xxiii. 16 and 22, Pilate says, ' I will 
 therefore chastise Him and release Him.' He meant 
 to appeal to the pity of the mob, thinking that they 
 might be satisfied if they saw the weak and crushed 
 form of Him whom they pursued with such unreasoning 
 hatred. So in John xix. 5 he says, 'Behold the 
 man ! ' He hoped that the sight of the bleeding 
 thorn-crowned Jesus would make them sure that there 
 was nothing that deserved either their fear or their 
 cruelty. And Pilate, who yielded a step to the Jews 
 at the beginning, found retreat impossible. The mob 
 knew their man, and howled to him that he should 
 crucify the criminal whom he had already scourged. 
 The story in Luke seems to me to carry conviction. 
 After the scourging, the three other Gospels repre- 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE 239 
 
 sent Jesus as mocked by the Roman soldiers. The 
 story, which appeals to the heart of all Christendom, 
 looks pitifully true, and it is hard to think that 
 S. Luke omitted it because he thought it to be un- 
 historical or because he deliberately tried, as is some- 
 times suggested, to exculpate the liomans and throw 
 the whole blame on the Jews. It is Matthew, the 
 Jewish Gospel, which paints Jewish guilt most darkly 
 in the cry of the people, ' His blood be on us, and on 
 our children.' And though the Roman soldiers are 
 not definitely mentioned by S. Luke as having taken 
 Christ to Calvary (Luke xxiii. 26), they, are said to 
 have mocked Him wliile on the Cross {v. 36). S. Luke 
 tells us how Jesus was mocked by Herod Antipas and 
 his soldiers, and the whole passage which describes 
 Jesus before Herod (xxiii. 7-12) is peculiar to his 
 Gospel. Not only is it intrinsically probable that He 
 was sent to Herod, but it again fits the character of 
 Pilate, who dodges his conscience and tries at one 
 stroke to conciliate Herod and avoid the responsibility 
 of putting Jesus to death. Having narrated the first 
 mocking, S. Luke probably omitted the second for the 
 sake of brevity. The fact that he omits to mention 
 that the Sanhedrin condemned Jesus to death would 
 alone be suflScient to show that he does not wish to 
 treat the Jews as the only persons guilty of the world's 
 greatest crime. 
 
 The scene of Jesus before Herod seems to give us a 
 clue which is well worth following : 
 
 Herod and Pilate became friends with each other that very 
 day : for before they were at enmity between themselves. 
 
 It is not easy to regard these words as a mere embellish- 
 ment inserted by the author between his pictures of 
 the stations of the Passion. Herod Antipas, as we 
 saw in speaking of Mark, was an important external 
 factor in our Lord's ministry. And Herod is men- 
 
240 THE GOSPELS 
 
 tioned in a passage peculiar to this evangelist in xiii. 
 31 ft., where the Pharisees tell Jesus ' Herod would 
 fain kill Thee.' Also in ix. 7 fF., where S. Luke 
 records that Herod was perplexed when he heard of 
 Jesus, fearing that John the Baptist was risen from 
 the dead, he alone adds that Herod sought to see him, 
 words which prepare us for this incident in the Passion. 
 In Acts iv. 27 the disciples are represented as men- 
 tioning in prayer ' Herod and Pontius Pilate ' as to- 
 gether conspiring against Jesus. We naturally ask, were 
 there any persons who would give S. Luke any special 
 information about Herod ? The answer is ' yes.' In 
 viii. 3 we are told that Joanna, the wife of Chuza the 
 steward of Herod, was one of the women who followed 
 Jesus and ministered to Him, a statement not found 
 in the other Gospels. And in Acts xiii. 1, Manaen, 
 ' the foster brother of Herod the tetrarch,' appears not 
 only as a Christian but actually as an official of the 
 Church at Antioch, a place with which S. Luke always 
 displays a special acquaintance. Further, in Luke 
 xxiv. 10, Joanna is mentioned as one of the women 
 who were with the disciples at the time of the resurrec- 
 tion. Lastly, from Acts i. 14, we gather that the 
 women who had been with Jesus remained at first with 
 His mother and with the apostles. It is therefore 
 quite possible that S. Luke, who himself visited 
 Jerusalem in a.d. 56, may have learned facts connected 
 with our Lord's infancy and His Passion from some 
 member of this group of holy women. And it is 
 equally possible that he derived some of his knowledge 
 from Manaen. 
 
 In the story of the Crucifixion Luke mentions only 
 one of the two draughts offered to our Lord, that of 
 the vinegar (xxiii. 36). There is a fuller account of 
 the conduct of the malefactors with the promise ' To- 
 day shalt thou be with Me in Paradise." The words, 
 ' My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me,' are 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE 241 
 
 omitted and also the rending of the temple veil. On 
 the other hand, we find only in Luke the dying words 
 'Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit.' It 
 has been thought that the cry of desolation in which 
 Jesus gave expression to a sense of the whole calamity 
 of man's sin as though that calamity was personally 
 His own, was purposely omitted by S. Luke as impos- 
 sible on the lips of one whom he believed to be the 
 Son of God. Whether he thought the words would 
 prove a stone of stumbling we cannot really decide. 
 But if so, it is strange that the testimony of the 
 centurion to the true character of Jesus appears in a 
 much weaker form than in the other Synoptists. In 
 both Mark and Matthew the centurion calls Him ' the 
 Son of God.' In Luke he says, ' Certainly this was a 
 righteous man ' (xxiii. 47). 
 
 % 5. S. Luke and S. John. 
 
 It is not only in the story of the Passion that we 
 find approximations between S. Luke's Gospel and 
 S. John's. They have other historical traits in 
 common. Matthew follows Mark in representing the 
 ministry of our Lord as not beginning until John the 
 Baptist had been arrested (Mark i. 14-15 ; Matt. iv. 12). 
 S. Luke avoids this. He mentions the arrest before 
 he mentions the baptism of our Lord (iii. 18 ff.) 
 because it is in logical connection with the Baptist's 
 preaching. He does not mention it at the time of the 
 return of Jesus into Galilee like Matthew and Mark. 
 What S. Luke does not deny S. John deliberately asserts, 
 showing that the ministry of the Baptist and that of 
 our Lord actually overlapped, ' for John was not yet 
 cast into prison ' (John iii. 24 ff., cf. iv. 1, 2). Both 
 S. Luke and S. John show that some men wondered 
 whether the Baptist was the Messiah (iii. 15; John 
 
 Q 
 
242 THE GOSPELS 
 
 i. 19 f.). Both show the interest taken by our Lord 
 in the Samaritans, and in Mary and Martha (x. 38 ; 
 John xi. 1). It is also important to notice the con- 
 nection between S. Luke's narrative of the appearance 
 of our Lord to the disciples on the evening of Easter 
 Day and the similar narrative given by S. John, who 
 adds to it an account of the doubt of S. Thomas 
 (xxiv. 36-43 ; John xx. 19-25). This appearance is 
 omitted in Matthew, and in Mark the story is merely 
 taken from Luke and is not original, being part of the 
 unauthentic ending of Mark (see above, p. 138). 
 
 In matters more directly doctrinal we notice that in 
 both these Gospels Jesus is very frequently called 
 ' Lord.' He is also called ' Saviour,' and the blessing 
 that He brings is ' salvation ' (Luke ii. 11 ; John iv. 42 ; 
 Luke ii. 30 ; John iv. 22). In both there is less stress 
 on the apocalyptic outward return of Jesus Christ to 
 judge the world than we find in Mark and Matthew. 
 In both we have the same prominence given to the 
 work of the Holy Spirit, and the deep interest shown 
 throughout Acts in the unity of the Church reflects 
 the spirit of our Lord's prayer in John xvii. 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTISTS 
 
 § 1. Some Marks of Style. 
 
 That the Fourth Gospel had a profound influence 
 upon the early Church, and the Church of all subsequent 
 ages, is unquestioned. It was regarded as a document 
 of the highest worth from at least a.d. 160 onwards. 
 Even if we grant that the writings earlier than this 
 date only show a familiarity with a Johannine atmo- 
 sphere, and not a familiarity with the Johannine 
 Gospel, none of us can deny that the whole Christian 
 Church became imbued with its teaching. S. Irenaeus 
 and Origen, S. Athanasius and S. Hilary of Poictiers, 
 S. Ambrose and S. Augustine, all drank from this deep 
 cool well. It was as much prized in the practical 
 West as in the mystical East. In the later Middle 
 Ages the figures of S. Mary and S. John stood in our 
 English churches, as they stand in the Fourth Gospel, 
 by the figure of the Crucified. In the Roman liturgy 
 the first fourteen verses of the Gospel came to be 
 recited at the end of every Eucharist. The Reforma- 
 tion left S. John's Gospel on the altar or the lectern. 
 Luther extolled it, even some of the earlier Rationalists 
 delighted in it. But what is it worth for us ? A book 
 which makes such a claim must be examined with the 
 strictest scrutiny. It is a dishonour to Truth to 
 decline to ask if th6 book is historically true, just as it 
 
244 THE GOSPELS 
 
 is to assume that it is a fiction because it teaches 
 that Jesus is essentially divine. 
 
 In considering the relation of the Synoptic Gospels 
 to each other we noted that the two later evangelists 
 prove conclusively the very great value which they 
 attached to the written materials which were in their 
 hands. They valued the record of S. Mark so much 
 that they reproduced almost the whole of it. And 
 the collections of our Lord's sayings which they 
 possessed were prized as highly as Mark. But here we 
 have a Gospel which seems at first sight to manifest 
 an almost equal indifference to Mark and the sayings 
 embodied in Matthew and Luke. 
 
 First, the form of the teaching is distinctive. The 
 short pregnant sayings, the brilliant similes in the 
 discourses of Christ, have nearly, though not wholly, 
 disappeared in the Fourth Gospel. He speaks of Him- 
 self, His relation to the Father in heaven. His coming 
 into the world, the absolute necessity of believing in 
 Him, His own relation to the Jews, and His present 
 and future relation to His disciples. The style is the 
 same throughout. It is almost impossible to say in 
 some cases where the Speaker ceases and the writer 
 begins. Thus in the third chapter there occurs the 
 well-known verse, ' God so loved the world that He 
 gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth 
 on Him should not perish, but have eternal life.' But 
 it is not certain whether this verse is a reflection by 
 the evangelist or a statement made by our Lord to 
 Nicodemus. In other cases also we find that Jesus 
 speaks of Himself in the third person, as in chapter 
 V. 19-23, where He begins by saying, ' Verily, verily, 
 I say unto you. The Son can do nothing of Himself, 
 but what He seeth the Father doing.' Then in verse 
 24 we have the first person, and in the next verse the 
 third person is resumed ; we have first ' My word,' then 
 ' Me,' and then ' the Son of God.' Such passages have 
 
THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTISTS 245 
 
 given rise to the criticism that the evangelist ' betrays 
 himself,' and speaks through the lips of Jesus. But 
 we must at least weigh the probability that he was 
 generally quite conscious of what he was doing, and 
 that after all Jesus may have spoken of Himself in the 
 third person. Few critics accuse the Synoptists of 
 ' betraying themselves ' when they represent Jesus as 
 describing Himself by the title of ' the Son of Man.' 
 In fact the use of the name ' the Son of Man,' and of 
 the third person is more common on our Lord's lips in 
 the Synoptists than His use of the pronoun 'I.' 
 Another fact which has aroused a strong hostile criticism 
 against the discourses in the Fourth Gospel, is that 
 the evangelist represents Jesus as misunderstood by so 
 many of His hearers. Nicodemus, the Samaritan 
 woman, the disciples and the Jews, misunderstand 
 Him, and they do so because He uses phrases which 
 have a double meaning ; they seize upon the outward 
 significance of His words, they miss the inner. For 
 instance, our Lord says to Nicodemus, ' Except a man 
 be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God ' 
 (iii. 8). And Nicodemus immediately asks how it is 
 possible for a man to enter the second time into his 
 mother's womb, and be born ? To the Samaritan 
 woman He says that He would have given her ' living 
 water ' (iv. 10). She replies that He has nothing to 
 draw with and the well is deep. Again, in the sixth 
 chapter, which is typically Johannine, the Jews question 
 how Jesus can give them His flesh to eat ; and instead 
 of giving any full explanation of His words, our Lord 
 adds to the mystery by saying, ' Except ye eat the 
 flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, ye 
 have not life in yourselves ' (vi. 53). The antagonists 
 of the Gospel say that these and other discourses are 
 entirely the creation of the writer. They declare that 
 th6y are not a record of Christ speaking to His hearers, 
 but instances of a writer talking to his readers. They 
 
246 THE GOSPELS 
 
 say that the second century readers of the Gospel, 
 familiar with baptism, with the extension of the Church 
 outside the bounds of Judaism, and with the Eucharist, 
 would understand what the writer wished them to 
 believe, they would be encouraged to think more highly 
 of the Church as they knew it, and to feel a deeper, 
 if somewhat misplaced, affection for its Founder. 
 
 This criticism seems to assume that there is a wider 
 difference between the Synoptists and the Fourth 
 Gospel than really exists. Christ is always greater 
 than His hearers and greater than His critics. It 
 would be a gross exaggeration to represent Him as 
 talking down to the level of His audience in the 
 Synoptic Gospels, and as always talking above their 
 heads in the Fourth Gospel. The Synoptists testify 
 that He was not always understood, even by His 
 nearest disciples. It is S. Mark, the most primitive of 
 the three, who gives the most outspoken evidence to 
 their slowness of heart and difficulty in understanding 
 their Master. And he emphasises it most in the case of 
 the leader of the apostles, S. Peter. If we pass from 
 the apostles to the populace, we find the same pheno- 
 menon. They do not understand Christ's parables. 
 Corn and sowing and digging are words which are per- 
 fectly intelligible to them. But both in Mark and 
 Matthew we find that the mysteries of the kingdom of 
 God are not mysteries to the crowd. Their hearts are 
 too hard, their eyes. too dim to see what is hidden 
 beneath the outward sign. The crowd did not realise 
 the principles which underlie the spread of God's reign 
 in the world any more than the disciples understood 
 Christ's prophecies of His death and resurrection. 
 Another fact which strikes us in this connection is 
 significant of the whole trend of recent Rationalism. 
 It is the tendency to appeal to the Synoptists as giving 
 us the real key to the ministry of Jesus whenever they 
 seem to contradict the fourth evangelist, and then. 
 
THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTISTS 247 
 
 having made them serve this purpose, to reject their 
 evidence. If a conservative critic asks why the sayings 
 of Jesus in John are to be regarded as no better than 
 the speeches in Homer, he is told that the Synoptists 
 show that Jesus did not and could not speak in 
 such an obscure manner, or meet the density of His 
 hearers with renewed assertions of His divine origin. 
 If in answer it be pointed out that the Synoptists 
 also represent Him as misunderstood, the rationalist 
 replies that even Mark wrote for 'edification,' and 
 endeavoured to give a plausible reason for the failure 
 of Jesus among the Jews, by representing Him as 
 deliberately saying what they could not understand ! 
 
 2. Our Lord and the Jews. 
 
 The attitude of Jesus towards the whole Jewish 
 people, as depicted in the Fourth Gospel, is often 
 declared to be fictitious. It is said to be so stiif and 
 harsh that the Christ of the Fourth Gospel could never, 
 like the Christ of S. Luke, have wept over Jerusalem 
 (Luke xix. 41). Is not this another paradox.? The 
 fourth evangelist represents Jesus as weeping by the 
 grave of one Jew whom He loved, and it shows a 
 strange kind of psychological insight to say that this 
 Jesus could not have wept over the city which contained 
 His Father's house. Only from John do we learn how 
 often He was in Jerusalem, and that in that place 
 ' many believed on His name ' (ii. 32, cf. vii. 40). It is 
 therefore evident that the evangelist does not re- 
 present our Lord as condemning the whole nation as 
 hopelessly hardened and lost. The Jews who are con- 
 demned are mainly ' the chief priests and the Pharisees ' 
 (vii. 32), and the official party in Jerusalem. It cannot 
 even be said that the Fourth Gospel represents Jesus 
 as from the first hostile to this official party. What 
 
248 THE GOSPELS 
 
 is said of His relation to the men with whom He came 
 in contact on His first visit to Jerusalem is that 'Jesus 
 did not trust Himself unto them, for that He knew all 
 men'(ii. 24). He was cautious from the beginning. 'The 
 Jews ' became hostile when He set aside their ridiculous 
 regulations about the observance of the Sabbath (v. 
 10 ff ). S. Mark, no doubt correctly, assigns exactly 
 the same reason, though not the same occasion, for this 
 hostility. In reading some of the most recent criticisms 
 of S. John's Gospel, one would suppose that the 
 evangelist represented Jesus as denouncing the Jews 
 from the first because they did not and would not im- 
 mediately recognise Him as the Messiah and Son of 
 God who came down from heaven.^ And this is con- 
 trasted with His denunciation of the scribes and 
 Pharisees recorded in the Synoptic Gospels. The 
 former is represented as a dogmatic anathema, the 
 latter as' a moral protest against their parade of out- 
 ward piety. But Christ in the Fourth Gospel does not 
 call His Jewish antagonists children of the devil, the 
 first murderer, until they seek to kill Him (v. 18 ; 
 viii. 37, 44). The opposition is gradual, and it began 
 on their side, not on His. Both in Mark and in John 
 He defends His action on the Sabbath by an appeal to 
 His unique authority. In Mark, when the Pharisees 
 complained that His disciples broke the Sabbath by 
 plucking corn, He says, ' the Son of man is lord even 
 of the Sabbath ' (Mark ii. 28). In John, after healing 
 the impotent man at the pool of Bethesda, He says, 
 ' My Father worketh even until now, and I work ' (v. 
 17). He co-operates with God, who from creation has 
 preserved life on the Sabbath day as on other days, and 
 He does so in virtue of His nature and His office. The 
 Fourth Gospel is not copying Mark, but their testi- 
 mony agrees. It seems to me to be intelligible. But 
 
 ' W. Heitmiiller, Das Johannes- Evangeliuni , p. 165 (Die Schriften 
 des Neuen Testaments, Lfg. 10). 
 
THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTISTS 249 
 
 it will be difficult to convince the people who have per- 
 suaded themselves that the whole account of the heal- 
 ing at the pool of Bethesda is an ' allegory,' and that 
 its five porches are only the five books of the Penta- 
 teuch in which the Jewish Church lay impotent. 
 
 The mention of the Jews as ' Jews,' of the passover 
 as ' a feast of the Jews,' of ' the Jews' feast, the feast of 
 tabernacles,' is surely natural enough. They show that 
 the Gospel was written among Gentiles, and for 
 Gentiles. And no one need deny that the word ' Jews ' 
 sometimes carries with it an unfriendly flavour. The 
 author looks upon himself as apart from them ; he has 
 severed his connection with them. Why should this be 
 regarded as a proof that he was not a Jew by birth, and 
 not a personal attendant of Christ ? The Apocalypse 
 is by far the most Jewish book in the New Testament. 
 But the author speaks of ' them who say they are Jews, 
 and they are not, but are a synagogue of Satan ' (Rev. 
 ii. 9), with a bitterness exceeding the bitterness of the 
 Fourth Gospel. And S. Paul, who remained proud of 
 his Jewish origin, speaks exactly like the Fourth Gospel. 
 Writing to Gentiles at Thessalonica, many years before 
 the Fourth Gospel was written, he says, 'Ye also 
 suffered the same things of your own countrymen, even 
 as they (the Churches in Judaea) did of the Jews' 
 (1 Thess. ii. 14). If an apostle, writing about a.d. 51, 
 could thus contrast the Christians and the non- 
 Christian Jews, why should it be impossible for another 
 apostle to do this thirty years later ? In spite of the 
 evangelist's dislike of unbelieving Judaism, he never 
 takes up the attitude of the second-century anti-Semite. 
 The acute hatred of Judaism as a religion, which was a 
 symptom of some semi-Christian heresies of that period, 
 is not discoverable in this Gospel. It was commonly 
 held by the Gnostic sects that the God of the Jews 
 was an evil God or demi-god, that the world He made 
 was inherently evil, and that tlie Jewish religion was a 
 
250 THE GOSPELS 
 
 diabolical invention. But our evangelist puts on the 
 lips of Jesus Himself the words ' salvation is from the 
 Jews' (iv. 22). He not only quotes the Jewish Scrip- 
 tures, but even shows an unmistakable acquaintance 
 with the Hebrew original.^ And at the very begin- 
 ning of the Gospel he speaks of Jesus coming to 
 Palestine as ' His own home ' and to the Jews as ' His 
 own people ' (i. 11 ). Our Lord's attitude towards 
 Judaism in the Fourth Gospel agrees with that in 
 Matthew, where Jesus says, ' The kingdom of God 
 shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a 
 nation bringing forth the fruits thereof (Matt. xxi. 
 43). It is therefore a perversion of the facts to speak 
 of the Fourth Gospel as if one of the main objects 
 with which it was written was to preach a crusade 
 against the Jews, or to represent it as so hostile to 
 Judaism that it could not have been written by one 
 who was born a Jew. 
 
 3. The Baptist in the Fourth Gospel. 
 
 The accusation that it was intended to push the 
 memory of S. John the Baptist into the background 
 and to humiliate his admirers is even more unfounded. 
 He is mentioned several times, in i. 6-8, 15, 19 ff. ; iii. 
 22 ff. ; V. 33 ff. ; X. 41. Not one of these passages can 
 fairly be interpreted as depreciating the greatness of 
 the Baptist. • He is the friend of the bridegroom, Jesus. 
 He is said by our Lord to have been ' the lamp that 
 burneth and shineth.' He is regarded by Him as emin- 
 ently a witness to the truth, and a speaker of truth. It 
 is a weak criticism to say that in the Fourth Gospel the 
 Baptist has no independent position, no importance 
 except as the forerunner and witness to the Messiah. 
 We have no evidence to show that the Baptist claimed 
 ^ Especially in xiii. i8, and xix. 37. 
 
THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTISTS 251 
 
 to be anything else. In his preaching of repentance, 
 which the Synoptists place in high relief, he was pre- 
 paring for the Messianic kingdom, as those writers tell 
 us. He was ' a voice,'' calling on men to make ready 
 for the era of salvation. This is taught by all the 
 evangelists. The fourth evangelist, in accordance with 
 his usual plan of citing witnesses to Jesus, lays most 
 stress upon this part of the Baptist's work. He does 
 not mention that John baptised our Lord, taking for 
 granted that his readers would know this. But he 
 does refer to John's work of baptising in a way which 
 is likely to give the student a prejudice in favour of his 
 accuracy in other particulars. In iii. 22 ff. we read, 
 ' After these things came Jesus and His disciples into 
 the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, 
 and baptised. And John also was baptising in JEnon 
 near to Salim, because there was much water there: 
 and they came, and were baptised. For John was not 
 yet cast into prison.' Then in iv. 3 we read that 
 Jesus ' left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee.' 
 This word ' again' is important, and must be taken in 
 connection with the statement that John was not yet 
 imprisoned. They are a quiet correction of the im- 
 pression conveyed by Matthew and Mark, where the 
 first and the second journey of Jesus to Galilee are 
 confused, and Jesus does not go to Galilee till John is 
 in prison. This error is avoided by Luke and corrected 
 by John i. 43, iii. 24 and iv. 3. And we can conceive no 
 motive for this correction, except the simple desire for 
 historical accuracy. It is an unworthy insinuation to 
 suggest that it is a falsehood written to emphasise the 
 contrast between the Baptist and our Lord (see below, 
 p. 254). The mention of iEnonnear Salim is another 
 point in the evangelist's favour. The word JEnon is 
 a Semitic word, meaning springs or wells, and even 
 Renan ridiculed the idea of such a name being invented 
 by a Greek. The place has been identified, and the 
 
252 THE GOSPELS 
 
 identification has been aided by the survival of the 
 name Salem. From fourth-century writers we know 
 that the Christians long regarded the spot as sacred. 
 Like so many other sacred sites, it was annexed by a 
 later religion. The Moslems took it as they took the 
 tombs of the patriarchs at Hebron and the supposed 
 house of John Mark at Jerusalem. They have erected 
 a building there, and have consecrated it by dubbing it 
 the tomb of a Sheikh named Salim.'^ 
 
 As the Fourth Gospel shows signs of a special know- 
 ledge of the time and place of the Baptist's work, we 
 may think it probable that the writer knew something 
 of the Baptist's character. The more sceptical modern 
 critics, such as Schmiedel, insist that Matthew is 
 correct in saying that the Baptist doubted whether 
 Jesus was the Messiah (xi. 2 f.), and insist that the 
 statement in the same Gospel that in his reverence for 
 Christ he hesitated to baptise Him is ' a later trait.' 
 In the opinion of these writers there was no such dis- 
 tinction between John the Baptist and our Lord as 
 would justify such a hesitation. They hold that the 
 Fourth Gospel exalts the latter over the former in a 
 most unhistorical fashion, and that when we find in 
 Luke and Matthew any traces of the same tendency to 
 exalt Jesus so far above the Baptist, we are necessarily 
 in the presence of ' later traits.' In their eyes the 
 really important fact about the Baptist's relation to 
 Christ is that he had religious doubts. Matthew records 
 how the Baptist sent disciples to Jesus to ask, ' Art thou 
 He that cometh, or look we for another ' — was He the 
 Messiah, or not ? It seems possible that the Baptist sent 
 his disciples to ask this question for their own instruc- 
 tion rather than on account of doubts in his own heart. 
 And yet it is surely quite probable that he felt such 
 doubts. In prison and despondent, learning that the 
 Messiah had not established any external kingdom 
 
 ^ Dr, W. Sanday, Sacred Sties of the Gospel, p. 35. 
 
THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTISTS 263 
 
 such as even the apostles expected, may he not have 
 doubted ? But this doubt is now brought forward as 
 a convincing proof that the Fourth Gospel is a 
 romance. It is said to be impossible that he could 
 have doubted if he had at the beginning of Christ's 
 entrance into public life recognised Him as the Saviour 
 who should die'for the world (i. 27, 29), and as having 
 existed with God in heaven before His work began on 
 earth (i. 15, 30). 
 
 The above objection seems to imply that a sincere 
 and fervent belief makes subsequent doubt, even in a 
 time of special distress, absolutely impossible. The 
 experience of many generations of Christians tells us a 
 very different tale. It has been the sorrow of the 
 saints that they have had to pass through doubts and 
 desolations which seem to deny what they really believe. 
 And why should not John the Baptist have believed 
 more about the Messiah than was believed by the 
 lower type of Jew ? Why should he not have thought 
 that Jesus would be the Saviour, and that He had been 
 with God in heaven ? If he was the greatest of those 
 who represented Old Testament piety, and the words 
 of Jesus imply this (Matt. xi. 11), we may presume 
 that he studied the Old Testament prophets. Why 
 should he not have seen in Jesus a strength and meek- 
 ness which recalled to him Isaiah's picture of the suffer- 
 ing Servant of the Lord whose soul became an offei'ing 
 for sin .'' He had also read in Isaiah that the Messiah 
 would be ' God with us ' (vii. 14) and the ' everlasting 
 Father ' (ix. 6), in Micah that ' his goings forth are 
 from of old, from everlasting ' (v. 2). Why should he 
 not have thought that the Messiah had some specially 
 close relation to God, and even that He existed in 
 heaven with God before He came on earth.? The 
 belief was not confined to Isaiah and Micah. It actu- 
 ally formed part of contemporary Jewish belief, so far 
 as can now be determined. The idea that the Messiah 
 
264 THE GOSPELS 
 
 existed with God, hidden with God, and would 
 mysteriously be revealed at the right moment, was 
 held by some of the Jews of the first century of our 
 era.i The Fourth Gospel contains an allusion to 
 this idea. In vii. 42 we have mention of the popular 
 belief that the Messiah should come from Bethlehem. 
 But in vii. 31 there is a reference to the other 
 view. Some of the Jerusalem Jews, familiar with 
 rabbinical traditions, say, ' When Christ cometh, no 
 man knoweth whence He is.' Only a writer who was 
 a born Jew would have introduced this allusion to the 
 hidden existence of the Messiah in this passing but effec- 
 tive manner. And it shows us how slow we ought to be 
 in deciding that the Baptist necessarily held precisely 
 the same views about the Messiah as those who ex- 
 pected Him to be merely a Hebrew ' Grand Monarch.' 
 A further question has to be asked with regard to 
 the representation of John the Baptist in the Fourth 
 Gospel. If those critics are correct who say that this 
 book was written long after the apostolic age was over, 
 what need was there to depreciate the Baptist ? Why 
 should a writer of a.d. 100 or 140 want to give a false 
 picture of the Baptist ? The motive assigned to him 
 is said to have been supplied by the existence of a sect 
 which venerated John the Baptist more than Jesus, or 
 so highly as to menace the honour which a second- 
 century Christian considered to be due to Jesus. Now, 
 the existence of this sect is purely hypothetical. We 
 have not a shred of proof that in the second century 
 there was any such sect, either Jewish or Christian. 
 The sceptical critics know this well enough. But to 
 show us that such a sect might have existed, they 
 appeal to Acts xix. 1-5. Here we find that S. Paul, 
 when he arrived at Ephesus about a.d. 54, found 
 certain disciples who had only been baptised 'unto 
 
 ' Emil Schiirer, History of the Jewish People in the time of Jesus 
 Christ, Division ii., vol. ii. p. 163 (English translation). 
 
THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTISTS 265 
 
 John's baptism.' We may be fairly sure that they 
 were men of Jewish birth who had heard the Baptist's 
 call to repentance, received baptism at his hands, and 
 then became disciples under the Christian preacher 
 ApoUos. S. Luke represents S. Paul as using words 
 which exactly corroborate the assertion of the Fourth 
 Gospel that the Baptist bore special witness to Jesus 
 as the Messiah. These disciples, who only numbered 
 'about twelve,' then received Christian baptism. So 
 the pseudo-critical argument reduces itself to this 
 syllogism : 
 
 1. In A.D. 54, twelve Christians at Ephesus had been 
 
 disciples of John the Baptist. 
 
 2. The Fourth Gospel, which was probably written 
 
 at Ephesus between a.d. 100 and 140, represents 
 the Baptist as saying that he was much inferior 
 to Christ. 
 S. Therefore the author of the Fourth Gospel per- 
 verted history in order to oppose a sect which 
 preferred the Baptist to Christ. 
 To sum up the attitude of the Fourth Gospel 
 towards the Jews and S. John the Baptist, it is a 
 religious rather than a controversial attitude. There 
 is no teaching to the effect that Judaism as such is an 
 evil thing. Nor is there any preference for Gentiles as 
 such. The prologue shows that the divine Word 
 'lighteth every man,' whether Jew or Gentile. The 
 record of the touching incident of the Greeks at 
 Jerusalem who came to Philip saying, ' Sir, we would 
 see Jesus ' (xii. 21), shows the writer's sympathy, but 
 no more. This is not what we should expect from a 
 romancer of the second century. A modern prophetess 
 of theosophy asserts that Jesus, after he had reached 
 manhood, went to Egypt. Philostratus tells his 
 readers how Apollonius of Tyana visited kingdoms 
 of the mysterious East. And a second-century forger 
 would probably have represented Jesus as floating from 
 
266 THE GOSPELS 
 
 Jerusalem to Athens and disputing with the philo- 
 sophers or contending with magicians.- The fragments 
 of heretical literature which have survived from early 
 times also show what the romancer of the period 
 could do, and what his readers enjoyed. The atmos- 
 phere of these romances resembles that of the Fourth 
 Gospel as much as a scene from a melodrama resembles 
 a stately cathedral. As for the alleged depreciation 
 of S. John the Baptist, there is no such depreciation. 
 It is quite true that the Fourth Gospel contradicts 
 two of the Synoptists with regard to the time of the 
 Baptist's imprisonment. But it is ludicrous to say that 
 the author gives the Baptist a fictitious freedom, leaving 
 him out of prison until he has had the opportunity of 
 sending liis disciples to Jesus. For Mattliew expressly 
 tells us that when John was 'in prison' (Matt. xi. 2), 
 he was able to send disciples to Jesus. If all that the 
 author desired was an emphatic testimony of an inferior 
 to his Superior, he could have invented this testimony 
 without being so foolish as to lay himself open to the 
 charge of contradicting the Gospel which was most 
 widely known to the early Church. 
 
 § 4. Time and Scene of Christ's Ministry. 
 
 In considering the time of the Baptist's imprison- 
 ment, we have already entered on the vexed question 
 of chronology. With this is intimately connected the 
 question of the scene of Christ's ministry. According 
 to the Fourth Gospel, the ministry of our Lord lasted 
 rather more than two ye^rs. Three Passovers are 
 mentioned. The first when Jesus went to Jerusalem 
 and drove the money-changers out of the Temple 
 (ii. 13). A little before the second Passover, He 
 miraculously fed the five thousand in Galilee near the 
 Sea of Gennesaret (vi. 4). At the third Passover He 
 
THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTISTS 257 
 
 was put to death (xi. 55 ; xii. 1 ; xiii. 1). Between 
 these three Passovers, three other feasts are mentioned. 
 The first is merely called ' a feast of the Jews ' — it was 
 probably Pentecost (v. 1). The second is the feast of 
 Tabernacles in October (vii. 2). The third is the 
 feast of the Dedication of the Temple in December 
 (x. 22). Passover fell, roughly speaking, in our 
 month of March. The Synoptists on the other hand, 
 give us very few indications of time. They directly 
 mention no Passover, except the one when Jesus was 
 put to death. Consequently some writers now try 
 to cramp the ministry recorded in the Synoptists 
 within the space of one year, some even within the 
 space of a few months. There is a similar difference 
 as to the districts where Jesus 'went about doing 
 good.' These districts were, roundly speaking, four. 
 There was Galilee in the north, Judaea with its 
 chief city Jerusalem in the south. Between them 
 lay Samaria. And eastward beyond the river Jordan 
 was Peraea, through which Jesus perhaps made part of 
 His last journey to Jerusalem (see p. 150). It is 
 possible that some of the sections in the middle of 
 S. Luke's Gospel are to be connected with Peraea. 
 And the same district is referred to in John x. 40 
 as ' beyond Jordan.' The difficulty is that in the 
 Synoptists the scene of our Lord's ministry is Galilee, 
 near the shores of Lake Gennesaret, though He made 
 excursions to the district of Tyre and Sidon (Mark vii. 
 24, 31), and also to the neighbourhood of Caesarea 
 Philippi (Mark viii. 27). The Synoptists describe no 
 visit of Jesus to Jerusalem except the visit which 
 occasioned His death. On the other hand, we find 
 little in John about His work in Galilee, and very 
 much about his work in Judaea and Jerusalem. Most 
 of the Gospel is connected with His visits to the city. 
 We also find in John clear mention of Christ visiting 
 Samaria with His disciples (iv. 4 ff.). It is urged by the 
 
 K 
 
258 THE GOSPELS 
 
 ' radical ' critics that this is completely unhistorical,that 
 Jesus never went to Samaria, and never visited Jerusalem 
 before the Passover at which He died. The Fourth 
 Gospel is therefore declared to be false as to both 
 the duration and the scene of our Lord's ministry. 
 
 As to the length of Christ's ministry, the notes of 
 time in the Fourth Gospel are quite consistent with 
 themselves. They are also consistent with probability. 
 On any reasonable hypothesis, we must allow time for 
 the development of both faith in Christ and opposi- 
 tion. A space of somewhat more than two years is 
 not too long to account for the training of the little 
 band of faithful disciples, the changed attitude of 
 the populace towards the Messiah and the calculated 
 hostility of the Pharisees and Sadducees. The mere 
 fact that two parties so hostile to each other as the 
 Pharisees and Sadducees did combine to crush the new 
 Teacher, powerfully suggests that His work had not 
 been confined within a few months, or even a year. 
 And the evidence that they did combine is decisive. 
 Further, there are one or two small indications in the 
 Synoptists that Christ's ministry was not so short 
 as it first appears. We can here merely note that in 
 Mark, where we have a particularly accurate account 
 of the earlier part of our Lord's ministry, the mention 
 of ripe com in ii. 23, and green grass in vi. 39, implies 
 two spring times before the last Passover. 
 
 With regard to the scene of our Lord's ministry, 
 the ' radical ' critics are in a much greater difficulty than 
 they are inclined to confess. S. Luke definitely asserts 
 that Jesus came into contact with Samaritans and 
 journeyed through Samaria (Luke ix. 52; xvii. 11). 
 Schmiedel, in his anxiety to deny the historical 
 accuracy of the Fourth Gospel, declares that what 
 S. Luke says about this journey is unworthy of credit.^ 
 We can be content with the fact that S. Luke thought 
 ' Das 4. Evangelium gegenuber den 3 erstcn, p. 8. 
 
THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTISTS 259 
 
 otherwise, especially as this evangelist, who is usually 
 so tender towards the faults of the apostles, connects 
 the beginning of this journey with a rebuke ad- 
 ministered by Christ to James and John. This rebuke 
 is by itself sufficient to give the hall-mark of veracity 
 to the narrative in Luke ix. 51 ff. With regard to 
 Galilee, it is true that Christ's visits to that region 
 appear in John rather as important episodes than any- 
 thing more (ii. 1-12 ; iv. 43-64 ; vi. 1-vii. 10). This 
 may quite well be accounted for by the theory that the 
 evangelist did not wish to record much of what he knew 
 was already in his readers' hands and minds. He may 
 have known a great deal about the work of Christ 
 in Galilee which he does not tell us. There is one 
 suggestive verse which should here be mentioned. We 
 are told that when Jesus left Samaria, ' He went forth 
 from thence into Galilee. For Jesus Himself testified, 
 that a prophet hath no honour in his own country ' (iv. 
 43, 44). This ' country ' is evidently intended by the 
 evangelist to be Judaea, where Matthew and Luke say 
 that Christ was born. He cannot have imagined that 
 Christ by birth or education belonged to Samaria. 
 Now the words here quoted in John are said by 
 S. Luke to have been spoken by Jesus at Nazareth in 
 Galilee (Luke iv. 24), that is, in Luke they referred 
 to Galilee, or a district of Galilee. And the fourth 
 evangelist, though he is speaking of Judaea, to which 
 country they applied with even greater force, apparently 
 quotes them to lay stress on the deliberate intention 
 of Christ to work in Galilee. 
 
 Just as this Gospel shows a knowledge of the 
 ministry exercised by Christ in Galilee, so Matthew 
 and Luke show a knowledge of the fact that He was 
 more than once in Jerusalem. In Matt, xxiii. 37, 
 and Luke xiii. 34, we have unequivocal testimony to 
 our Lord's lament over the repeated disregard which 
 His message experienced in Jerusalem. 
 
260 THE GOSPELS 
 
 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killeth the prophets, and 
 stoneth them that are sent unto her ! how often would I have 
 gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her 
 chickens under her wings, and ye would not ! Behold, your 
 house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not 
 see Me henceforth, till ye shall say. Blessed is He that cometh 
 in the name of the Lord. 
 
 This saying, whether uttered more than once by 
 our Lord or not, is very strongly attested. It must 
 have been in the collections of sayings used by the 
 first and third evangelists. It points to an inference 
 directly opposite to the wishes of the critics who deny 
 the historical character of the Fourth Gospel. Con- 
 sequently we find elaborate attempts to explain it 
 away. Wellhausen tries to discredit the passage by 
 treating the prophecy about the destruction of Jeru- 
 salem as a prophecy after the event. He says 'the 
 destruction of the city is not something in the future, 
 it is already destroyed and is to remain in ruins.' 
 There is, however, no reason why this expression 
 should not be what is called a ' prophetic future,' such 
 as is common enough in Hebrew writings, and Hamack 
 very properly treats it as such.^ Schmiedel falls foul 
 of the words which have been printed above in italics. 
 He suggests that iri the documents employed by our 
 evangelists, the words about the hen and her chickens 
 were attributed not to Jesus, but to ' the wisdom of 
 God.' This wisdom is mentioned in Luke xi. 49, as 
 sending prophets and apostles to Jerusalem, and since 
 prophets and men sent with God's message are also 
 mentioned in Luke xiii. 34, where Christ laments over 
 Jerusalem, Schmiedel says that to apply the words 
 to Jesus is a complete mistake.^ It was only God's 
 ' wisdom,' which some unknown book or other, written 
 by a pious Jew, described as showing this maternal 
 solicitude for Jerusalem. This book was then quoted 
 
 ^ JVie Sayings of Jesus, p. 30 (English translation). 
 2 UJ>. cit. p. 45. 
 
THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTISTS 261 
 
 by the early collectors of Christ's sayings, and finally 
 put into His mouth. Anything more tortuous than 
 this argument it would be hard to invent. It cannot 
 be reasonably considered to disprove the accuracy of 
 John in recording the visits of Christ to Judaea and 
 Jerusalem. There is nothing to make us think it 
 unlikely that Jesus would visit the place which was 
 the centre of the religion which He came to fulfil. 
 To believe that He made such visits causes one to 
 do no real violence to the obviously imperfect record 
 in Mark. And it has the support not only of John 
 and Matthew, but of at least three passages in Luke, 
 and one in Acts. In Luke iv, 44 (see margin of the 
 Revised Version), we find Christ preaching in the 
 synagogues of Judaea. In Luke v. 17, the presence 
 in Galilee of Pharisees from Jerusalem is a testimony 
 to the impression which Christ had made in the holy 
 city. Luke xiii. 34 has been noticed above. In 
 Acts X. 37 the gospel is said to have been ' published 
 throughout all Judaea, beginning from Galilee, after 
 the baptism which John preached.' This last passage 
 is very simple and natural, and there is nothing 
 to make us think that S. Luke is inventing the facts. 
 We have, therefore, no ground whatever for saying 
 that the Synoptic evangelists, or the documents 
 which they used, prove that the visits of our Lord to 
 Judaea and Jerusalem recorded in John are fictitious. 
 Lastly, if He paid several visits to Jerusalem, it 
 seems quite possible that He drove the money-changers 
 out of the temple early in His ministry, as recorded 
 in John ii. 14. This is not in the least excluded, as 
 many critics assert, by the cleansing of the temple at 
 the time of His final visit in Mark xi. 15. 
 
 § 5. The Personal Claims of Christ. 
 Another charge against the Fourth Gospel is that it 
 
262 THE GOSPELS 
 
 contradicts the other Gospels with regard to the 
 personal claims made by our Lord. It is said that in 
 the Synoptists there is a gradual development in His 
 claims to the Messiahship and divine Sonship, and that 
 this development has been ignored or obliterated by 
 the author of the Fourth Gospel. As a simple speci- 
 men of the manner in which this accusation is some- 
 times made, I will quote Heitmiiller. ' From the older 
 Gospels we definitely recognise that Jesus only spoke 
 of His Messianic dignity, the secret of His life, very 
 seldom, and first towards the end of His activity ; He 
 exercised, as we can understand, a modest reserve with 
 regard to this most delicate and intimate fact of His 
 most inward life. In John Jesus manifests Himself 
 from the beginning as the Messiah (i. 50, etc.). From 
 the Synoptists we further gather that even the disciples 
 at a rather late period, first in the celebrated scene at 
 Caesarea Philippi (Mark viii. 27 ff.), arrived at the 
 belief that their Master was the Messiah of Israel. 
 According to the Gospel of John they are on the con- 
 trary convinced of it from the commencement; they 
 only become the disciples of Jesus because they have 
 recognised Him as the Messiah (i. 41 ff.).'^ 
 
 Criticisms of this kind are frequently made. But 
 they can never injure the reputation of the evangelist 
 until it can be shown that the Synoptists prove that 
 the thought of Jesus with regard to His Messiahship 
 developed after the commencement of His ministry, 
 and that the Johannine portrait of Jesus is incon- 
 sistent with a modest reserve in the statement of His 
 claims. For the first point we may consult Schmiedel's 
 article on the Gospels in the Encyclopaedia Biblicd.^ 
 He says ' it would be quite out of place to look in the 
 Gospels for direct statements as to any development 
 in Jesus during the period of his public activity. The 
 latest date at which reverence for him would have 
 1 Of. cit. p. 165. = Vol. ii. col. 1888. 
 
THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTISTS 263 
 
 allowed a conception of anything of the kind to be 
 assigned is that of his temptation before hi§ ministry 
 began.' In spite of this, Schmiedel ' ventures to con- 
 jecture some development in Jesus during his public 
 life ' with regard to His idea of His Messiahship. He 
 points out that in all the Synoptists Christ commands 
 His disciples to keep secret the substance of S. Peter's 
 confession of His dignity. He also says that in Mark, 
 unlike Matthew, Christ only twice calls Himself by the 
 Messianic title ' Son of Man ' before S. Peter called 
 Him 'the Christ.' The inference to be drawn from 
 the above criticisms, and indeed from the Synoptists 
 themselves, is obvious. It is that all the documents 
 we possess affirm that Jesus was conscious of His dignity 
 throughout His ministry. We can go further back 
 than this, for the remarkable saying which S. Luke 
 attributes to the boy Jesus when He was found by 
 His parents in the Temple, shows that S. Luke be- 
 lieved that in His boyhood He was fully conscious of 
 His divine Sonship, though still ' growing in wisdom 
 and stature.' But the Synoptists do prove that our 
 Lord showed a very careful reserve in teaching His 
 Messiahship. In Mark this is very evident. He would 
 not have every one proclaim what He himself knew. 
 That would have meant disaster before His disciples 
 were sufficiently trained to face it. And the Fourth 
 Gospel not only shows that Christ taught gradually 
 and cautiously, but even records the fact that the Jews 
 reproached Him for so doing. At quite a late period 
 in His ministry the Jews ' came round about Him, and 
 said unto Him, How long dost Thou hold us in sus- 
 pense ? if Thou art the Christ, tell us plainly ' (x. 24). 
 The whole passage deserves the most careful study. It 
 represents Christ as in no way forcing His hearers to 
 believe, but as meeting His opponents on their own 
 ground and then refusing to retreat from His position. 
 The earlier chapters of the Gospel do not militate 
 
264 THE GOSPELS 
 
 against this view. The Baptist, who in all the Gospels 
 appears as a great prophet, in the first chapter of John 
 greets Christ ' as the Lamb of God which taketh away 
 the sin of the world.' And to His chosen disciples He 
 reveals Himself as the Messiah. This does not render S. 
 Peter's later confession otiose. It was one thing to follow 
 Him as Messiah in the lower Jewish sense of the word 
 when His disciples thought that He would command as 
 well as deserve success. It was a different thing to confess 
 Him when they had begun to understand that His 
 office as Messiah depended upon a mysterious and 
 unique sonship, and that in spite of this close relation 
 to God, His ministry was to involveHis death (Mai-k viii. 
 31). At first they probably only thought that He was 
 Son of God in the very inferior sense of being God's 
 chosen representative. This is what a Jew would 
 ordinarily have thought about the Messiah. And the 
 Fourth Gospel in a most interesting manner throws 
 light on the first view of Jesus held by His disciples in 
 the exclamation with which Nathanael hails Him. He. 
 says, ' Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; Thou art King 
 of Israel' (i. 49). Apparently the one title is here 
 used as the equivalent of the other. Philip, before 
 bringing Nathanael to Jesus, had convinced himself that 
 ' the son of Joseph ' was indeed the Messiah, and his 
 trust in our Lord corresponded with that conviction. 
 But the very evening of Christ's betrayal, he says to 
 Jesus, ' Lord, shew us the Father ' (xiv. 8). Even 
 then he hardly knew what the divine Sonship was, 
 though the title probably did not seem to him ex- 
 travagant when he first heard it uttered. There is in 
 fact development in the Fourth Gospel, not in our 
 Lord's belief concerning Himself, but in His revela- 
 tion of His own dignity, and in the belief or unbelief 
 with which that revelation was received.^ 
 
 ' It would be impossible to discuss at length in this book the 
 evangelist's doctrine of Christ's Person. For this the reader should 
 
THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTISTS 265 
 
 § 6. The Raising of Lazarus. 
 
 The raising of Lazarus and the date given by the 
 Fourth Gospel to the death of Jesus Christ have been 
 for many years the objects of special adverse criticism. 
 The two events are closely connected in the author's 
 mind. The raising of Lazarus, which is the greatest of 
 the miracles of Jesus, prepares for the coming cata- 
 strophe. It provokes a definite resolution on the part 
 of the Jewish Sanhedrin, and this resolution takes 
 elFect. For our Lord, having shown that He is Master 
 of life and death, is ready to die. His death is volun- 
 tary and is the gate to His own risen life and ascent to 
 the Father. He dies too as ' the Lamb of God ' sacri- 
 ficing Himself on man's behalf, and dies on the very 
 day and near the very moment when the Passover 
 lambs were sacrificed by the Jews in memory of their 
 deliverance from the land of bondage. 
 
 That Jesus died upon the Cross is almost undisputed, 
 except by the few men who deny that He ever existed, 
 or those who think that He was scarcely half dead 
 when put into the grave, and therefore able to come 
 out of the grave after three days of repose. At present 
 neither of these two views is sufficiently popular to 
 need a closer examination. But it is still sometimes 
 asserted that the Fourth Gospel assigns a false date to 
 His death, placing it a day too early in order to create 
 an artificial symmetry between that death and the 
 slaying of the Passover lambs. It is also asserted that 
 the raising of Lazarus is devoid of any historical foun- 
 
 consult Liddon's Bampton Lectures, and Dr. R. L. Ottley, The 
 Doctrine of the Incarnation. We may just notice that the doctrine of 
 the author's prologue (i. 1-14) consistently agrees with his record of the 
 acts and words of Jesus. He has found in Jesus the Logos, the perfect 
 Word or Expression of an active loving God. But with the possible 
 exception of a hint in x. 35 he never represents our Lord as calling 
 Himself the Word. 
 
266 THE GOSPELS 
 
 elation, being constructed out of the stories of the 
 raising of the daughter of Jairus and the widow's son 
 of Nain, with various ingredients from other sources. 
 The raising of Lazarus is said to be excluded by the 
 silence of the Synoptists, and John's date of the cruci- 
 fixion is said to be incompatible with their evidence. 
 
 To estimate the value of the criticisms passed on the 
 story of Lazarus, it is well to gain some icnowledge of 
 the manner in which the different critics have criticised 
 each other. The story itself is detailed and dramatic. 
 The figures are no mere silhouettes. The women are 
 sketched in firm and delicate lines. The Jews, to whom 
 this evangelist is said to be so severe, appear as at 
 least sympathetic towards the family which Jesus loved, 
 and Jesus when most divine appears most human. No 
 one can deny that the story has a persuasive charm. 
 And it admirably fits into the chain of events. The 
 manner in which its reality has been explained away 
 has greatly varied, and has illustrated to perfection the 
 different phases through which non-Christian and 
 semi-Christian thought have passed during the last 
 hundred years. But it leaves upon our minds the 
 impression of being not an explanation, but an ex- 
 pedient. It does not prove to us that the story is 
 incompatible with the estimate of Christ formed by 
 the men who knew Him. It only tells us how one 
 who never knew Jesus in the flesh might conceivably 
 have invented a miraculous story in order to glorify 
 his Hero. The older form of rationalism, that of 
 Paulus, Schweitzer, and others, declared that Lazarus 
 never really died, and that when Jesus arrived at the 
 sepulchre He called upon a Lazarus who was already 
 reviving amid the cool air and spices of his tomb. The 
 second stage of modern rationalism, that of Strauss 
 and Baur, poured ridicule on this theory, but its two 
 great exponents disagreed as to the real origin of the 
 story. Strauss held that it was a Christian legend 
 
THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTISTS 267 
 
 which arose under the influence of similar legends in 
 the Old Testament. Baur acutely criticised the theory 
 of Strauss, and declared the story to be a piece of 
 speculation, a picture invented to illustrate the words 
 of Jesus, ' I am the resurrection and the life.' ^ That 
 it was really intended as such an illustration is more 
 than probable. The author of the Gospel does give 
 concrete instances of the power of Jesus, and does it in 
 order that his readers may believe that Jesus is 
 the Messiah, the Son of God, and that believing they 
 may have life in His name (xx. 31). But it does not 
 follow that the story is only a symbolic representation 
 of a religious truth. Loisy adheres in the main to the 
 explanation of Baur. Renan, on the contrary, saw 
 that the miracle forms such a natural link in the 
 development of the last days of the Son of Man, that 
 he held that Jesus was guilty of a pious fraud, and 
 condescended to perform a burlesque resurrection 
 which imposed upon the bystanders. 
 
 More recent rationalism usually favours another line 
 of interpretation. The story is said by Holtzmann, 
 Schmiedel, Heitmiiller and others to have taken its 
 start from the parable of Dives and Lazarus in Luke 
 xvi. There Lazarus is not allowed to leave his rest in 
 the unseen world to warn the unrepentant brothers of 
 Dives. But the author of the Fourth Gospel is said 
 to have selected his name — not an uncommon Jewish 
 name even nowadays — and then improved upon the 
 parable of Jesus. The new Lazarus is allowed to leave 
 the regions of the dead. In spite of his resurrection, 
 the Jews remain unconverted, just as Abraham said 
 that the brothers of Dives would not repent though 
 one rose from the dead to warn them. Such is Heit- 
 miiller's explanation.^ But he is once more too much 
 
 ' A good brief summary of the older rationalistic theories about 
 Lazarus can be found in Godet, VAvangiU de St. Jean, vol. iii. p. 257 
 (3rd edition). "^ Op. cit. pp. 268-9. 
 
268 THE GOSPELS 
 
 dominated by the idea that the Fourth Gospel is a 
 direct polemic against the Jews. For our evangelist, 
 instead of using the story of Lazarus as a mere demon- 
 stration of the power of Christ, and of the hardened 
 stupidity of the Jews, expressly says that the result of 
 the miracle was that many of the Jews believed on 
 Jesus (xi. 45). It is worth noticing that the third 
 Gospel is now accused of the same aberrations as the 
 fourth. For Johannes Weiss, the author of the 
 commentary on Luke, in the same series as 'that for 
 which Heitmiiller has written, confidently asserts that 
 the parable has been influenced by the fact that the 
 Jews remained unbelieving though Christ rose from 
 the dead. It is a perversion of the original teaching 
 of Jesus, and the name of Lazarus possibly was taken 
 into the third Gospel from the fourth ! ^ 
 
 Of all the explanations which have been proposed 
 there is none which is sufficiently natui'al or probable 
 to make us abandon the literal story. If we are will- 
 ing to believe that Jesus could raise the dead, the 
 story presents no serious difficulty. The fact that 
 Jesus died and rose from the dead was, as we see in 
 Acts, tlie central fact in the earliest preaching of the 
 Gospel. It overshadowed everything else, even His 
 miracles of raising the daughter of Jairus, the widow's 
 son, and Lazarus. Luke has taken the story of the 
 raising of the widow's son from an unknown source ; 
 and the story of the daughter of Jairus is borrowed 
 by Matthew and Luke from Mark. We are reduced 
 to one authority for each of the three miracles, and the 
 authority may still be good. What is more remarkable 
 is that the most important appearance of the risen 
 Jesus, that which S. Paul mentions as having been 
 made to above five hundred brethren at once, is not 
 mentioned in a single Gospel. S. Paul is sure that it 
 
 • Das Lukas-Evangelium, p. 453 [Die SchrifUn des Neuen Testa- 
 ments, Lfg. 7)- 
 
THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTISTS 269 
 
 took place, and the epistle in which he mentions it is 
 certainly genuine. The author of the Fourth Gospel 
 may have been equally sure that Lazarus was raised 
 from the dead, and the silence of the Synoptists does 
 not prove that either S. Paul or S. John were wrong. 
 
 § 7. The Date of Chrisfs Death. 
 
 The date of the death of Jesus is the last difficulty 
 to be discussed in this chapter. The controversy 
 about the day on which Jesus died has been one of the 
 most important theological controversies of the last 
 eighty years. Baur and his followers claimed that 
 they had gained a clear and decisive victory over their 
 orthodox opponents at a point of the greatest strategical 
 importance. They contended that while the Synoptic 
 Gospels make Christ die on Nisan 15th, the author of 
 the Fourth Gospel ' deliberately shifted ' the date of 
 the Last Supper from Nisan 14th to the 13th, in order 
 to make it appear that Christ died on the 14th, at the 
 time when the Passover lambs were sacrificed. But, 
 they urged, the Asiatic Churches which claimed to have 
 been founded by S. John observed their Paschal festival 
 when tiie Jews observed it ; that is, they kept as 
 sacred the evening which closed the 14th day of the 
 month Nisan, and believed that Jesus died on the 15th. 
 They therefore agreed with the Synoptic Gospels and 
 disagreed with the Fourth Gospel. The period at 
 which the Asiatic Churches are known to have defended 
 their practice was between a.d. 140 and a.d. 200. 
 The conclusion of Baur was that S. John could not 
 have been the author of a Gospel which (i) differs 
 from all the Synoptic Gospels with regard to the date 
 of Christ's death, and (ii) differs from the Churches of 
 
270 
 
 THE GOSPELS 
 
 the second century which claimed to have preserved 
 S. John's teaching and practice. 
 
 For the sake of additional clearness the following 
 table is appended. The crucifixion of our Lord is 
 marked by f . 
 
 The Synoptists. 
 
 Days of the Month. 
 
 The Foobth Gospel. 
 
 Wednesday. 
 
 13th. 
 
 Thursday, 
 Last Supper. 
 
 Thursday, 
 Last Supper. 
 
 14th, 
 
 Jews' Passover in 
 
 evening. 
 
 t Friday. 
 
 Friday f. 
 
 1.5th. 
 
 Saturday. 
 
 The difference is glaring. We have only to gisk if the 
 Synoptists do differ in this way from the Fourth 
 Gospel, and if the Asiatic Churches sided with them. 
 The answer seems perfectly plain. The present form 
 of the Synoptic narrative on the whole favours the 
 above scheme attributed to it, but contains several 
 traces of having originally agreed "with the Fourbh 
 Gospel ; and the Asiatic Churches unequivocally 
 support the latter. Baur's argument appeared at 
 first to be so simple and effective that it was adopted 
 by unorthodox and anti-Christian writers with enthu- 
 siasm. It is very greatly to the credit of a few men 
 like Reuss and Dr. Drummond that they threw away 
 an argument which the ' man in the street ' considered 
 to be advantageous to their general position. But it 
 is continually reappearing, and less conscientious men 
 are using it with effrontery. 
 
THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTISTS 271 
 
 As a preliminary, it has to be observed that there 
 are, independently of the Gospels, some means pro- 
 vided by the New Testament and the earliest Church 
 traditions, of determining the year of our Lord's 
 death. They are sufficient to give ground for believing 
 that the year was a.d. 29, our popular chronology for 
 the beginning of the Christian era being certainly 
 corrupt. In that year the Friday at the beginning of 
 the Passover season was Nisan 14th, as the Fourth 
 Gospel implies. Also the early, though apocryphal. 
 Gospel of Peter supports the same view by representing 
 the crucifixion as not on, but before, the first day of 
 unleavened bread. This agrees with John xviii. 28, 
 where the Jews refuse to go into the Roman praetorium 
 in the early morning before the crucifixion lest they 
 should be defiled, and so unable to eat the Passover. 
 Further, the Jewish Talmud itself asserts that Jesus 
 was executed on the eve of the Passover, which was the 
 eve of the Sabbath. It is very improbable that the 
 Jews would have invented this date or extracted it 
 from the Gospels. 
 
 As for the Synoptic Gospels, it must be admitted 
 that Mark, followed by Matthew and Luke, makes our 
 Lord keep the Last Supper on the evening when the 
 Jews kept their Passover. At least this is the most 
 probable meaning of the words 'on the first day of 
 unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the passover' 
 (Mark xiv. 12; cf. Matt. xxvi. 17, Luke xxii. 7). 
 But, in disagreement with the above words, the 
 Synoptic Gospels mention a number of facts which 
 really favour the Fourth Gospel and imply that our 
 Lord did not eat the Jewish Passover but died on the 
 14th. They make the Sanhedrin say that they will 
 not arrest Jesus 'on the feast day.' They represent 
 the guards, and one of the disciples, as carrying arms, 
 an unlawful act on that day (Mark xiv. 47) ; they tell 
 us that Jesus was tried by the Sanhedrin between His 
 
272 THE GOSPELS 
 
 arrest and His trial before Pilate. They tell us of a 
 man coming on the day of the crucifixion ' from the 
 field,' i.e. from work in the field (Mark xv. 21), Joseph 
 of Arimathaea buys a linen cloth to wrap round the 
 body of Jesus (Mark xv. 46), and the holy women 
 prepare spices for the same purpose (Luke xxiii. 56). 
 All this testifies that our Lord was not arrested and 
 crucified on the feast day, and therefore corroborates 
 the statement of the ifourth evangelist. It is also to 
 be noted that though the Synoptists show that our 
 Lord observed certain Paschal ceremonies at the meal 
 which He made with His disciples, there is no mention 
 of His eating the Passover lamb. 
 
 The last fact was observed by church writers at a very 
 early date. It of course supports the theory that our 
 Lord died on the 14th, before the lambs were ready to 
 be eaten. In spite of Baur and his followers, this was 
 firmly rooted in the belief of the early Christians, not 
 only in the Asiatic Churches, but elsewhere. It is 
 taught by Clement, the first great writer of the Church 
 of Alexandria, and S. Hippolytus, the leading writer 
 of the Roman Church in the first half of the third 
 century. In Asia Minor it is known that Melito, 
 bishop of Sardis, and ApoUinarius of Hierapolis, both 
 observed the 14th day as holy. 
 
 It is urged by the opponents of the authenticity of 
 the Fourth Gospel that the so-called ' Quartodeciman 
 controversy' in a.d. 190 between Victor, bishop of 
 Rome, and Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, a contro- 
 versy which can be traced back to its birth in a.d. 154, 
 favours the view of Baur. It really annihilates it. 
 For the dispute between the Church of Ephesus and 
 the Church of Rome was a dispute as to whether the 
 Christian Passover should be kept on the 14th day of 
 the month, whatever day of the week it might fall, or 
 on the first day of the week at the same season. The 
 former was the practice at Ephesus, the latter at 
 
THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTISTS 273 
 
 Rome. This fact alone is sufficient to prove that the 
 rationalistic theory is wrong. For if the dispute had 
 been specially concerned with the commemoration of 
 the Last Supper, the disputants would have discussed 
 whether it should be commemorated on the 13th day 
 of the month (according to the Fourth Gospel) or on 
 the 14th day of the month (according to the general 
 interpretation of the Synoptic Gospels). Further, it 
 is quite unproved that Melito and Apollinarius, or 
 any Asiatic Christians, kept the 14th as holy in honour 
 of the institution of the Eucharist. Ai a matter 
 of fact, both in Rome and in Ephesus ' to keep the 
 Passover' among the Christians did not mean to keep 
 the anniversary of the Last Supper, but that of the 
 death and resurrection of our Lord, the true Paschal 
 Lamb. It was a feast, preceded by a fast. Li this 
 joyful feast a commemoration of the Passion was in- 
 cluded. The Eucharist was certainly celebrated, but 
 it must not be supposed that the significance of the 
 Christian Passover was exhausted by this celebration. 
 There is a large mass of early evidence which supports 
 the author of the Paschal Chronicle of the seventh 
 century, who says that Christ, the true Lamb, was 
 sacrificed at the feast of the Jewish Passover, and rose the 
 third day, when the Jewish priest was required to offer 
 the sheaf. He ends a long discussion with the words 
 ' Christ our Passover was sacrificed and rose for us, 
 and we call the death and the resurrection of the 
 Lord Passover.^ ^ 
 
 Quite correctly the ancient writer just quoted sees 
 that S. Paul is on the side of S. John's Gospel. His 
 first epistle to the Corinthians, written from Ephesus 
 itself, at or near the Christian Paschal festival, proves 
 the primitive antiquity of the Johannine view and the 
 less primitive character of the view that the Last Supper 
 
 ^ See Dr. J. Drummond, Tie Character and Authorship of the 
 Fourth Gospel, p. 475 5 and my History of Early Christianity, p. 92. 
 
274 THE GOSPELS 
 
 coincided in time with the Jewish Passover. S. Paul 
 declares that the Christian Passover is the sacrifice of 
 Christ (1 Cor. v. 7, 8), and implies that the Christian 
 festival of the Firstfruits is His resurrection ' on the 
 third day ' (xv. 4, 20). So much is this idea of Christ 
 as our Firstfruits in the thoughts of the apostle that it 
 influences much, if not all, of his magnificent chapter on 
 the resurrection. Christ is the first of a great harvest 
 of souls redeemed from death ; He is the buried Wheat 
 which emerges as a Sheaf to be offered to God like the 
 sheaf offered by the Jews on Nisan 16th. This day, 
 according to the Hebrew reckoning, was three days 
 after Nisan 14th, each part of a period of twenty-four 
 hours being reckoned as a day. If even the apostle of 
 the Gentiles so greatly valued a Christian Passover 
 celebrated on the 14!th, the older apostles with their 
 more conservative instincts in all probability held it in 
 no less esteem. The Johannine and Ephesian usage is 
 therefore much more likely to be apostolic than any 
 other. 
 
 To sum up. There is overwhelming evidence to 
 show that the main body of orthodox Christians, 
 whether in Rome, Asia, or Alexandria, kept the feast 
 which they called Passover in united honour of the 
 death and resurrection of Christ the Paschal Lamb. It 
 was a feast terminating a fast. There is no hint that 
 the Asiatics merely commemorated the Last Supper, 
 and their opponents never seem to have charged them 
 with so doing. The Asiatic Quartodecimans kept the 
 14th day, believing that Christ died on that day. 
 They therefore agreed with the Fourth Gospel, and it is 
 granted on all sides that they appealed to the authority 
 of John, the disciple of the Lord. Polycrates, bishop 
 of Ephesus, the bishop most concerned in the contro- 
 versy, says so. In view of all the above facts, the 
 argument that the Fourth Gospel cannot be by an 
 apostle, because it deliberately falsifies the date of 
 
to his Gospel. Dr. Bigg relied upon the opinion that ApoUinarius, 
 bishop of Hierapolis in Asia, was an opponent of Quartodecimanism. 
 In this opinion he differs from such distinguished scholars as Lightfoot, 
 Hefele, Mgr. Duchesne, and Dr. Drummond. The view that 
 ApoUinarius opposed Quartodecimanism seems to me to be quite in- 
 consistent with his glorification of ' the fourteenth day.' 
 
CHAPTER IX 
 THE AUTHOR OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 
 
 § 1. Sovie Primitive Testimony. 
 
 It is frequently said that the external evidence to 
 the genuineness of the Fourth Gospel is indecisive. 
 But it is at any rate so strong as to guide us a long 
 way towards an affirmative decision, and the internal 
 evidence finishes the work which the external testimony 
 begins. It cannot be denied that when the Church 
 emerges into the clear daylight of the latter part of 
 the second century, the Fourth Gospel was one of its 
 most revered books. In all the great centres of 
 Christian life it held the same position. 
 
 (a) In Carthage about A.n. 200, Tertullian uses it and 
 ascribes it to S. John. 
 
 (5) In Akxcmdria, about a.d. 200, Clement, the most 
 influential Christian of that great city, uses it in the 
 same way. 
 
 (c) In Ephesus, about a.d. 190, Polycrates, the 
 bishop, quotes it. 
 
 {d) In Gaul, about a.d. 185, S. Irenaeus, who was in 
 touch with Roman and Asiatic Christianity as well as 
 that of Gaul, is wholly convinced of its genuineness. 
 And about a.d. 175 the letter of the Churches of 
 Vienne and Lyons quotes it. 
 
 (e) In Rome, rather before a.d. 160, Tatian quotes it 
 in his Discourse to the Greeks, and a few years later 
 embodied it in his Diatessaron or Harmony of the 
 
 276 
 
THE AUTHOR OP THE FOURTH GOSPEL 277 
 
 Gospels. It is also quoted at an earlier date by his 
 teacher, S. Justin Martyr. 
 
 {f) At Antioch, about a.d. 175, it is quoted by 
 Theophilus, the bishop. 
 
 (g) What is perhaps equally important, the Gospel 
 is treated as Scripture by two important sects on the 
 extreme right and extreme left of the Catholic Church 
 respectively, the Montanists and the Gnostics. The 
 Montanist sect, which spread from Asia to the West, 
 arose about a.d. 158, and based its teaching about the 
 new advent of the Paraclete on the discourses of our 
 Lord in the Fourth Gospel. The Gnostics, who re- 
 pudiated both the distinctive teaching and the austere 
 discipline of the Montanists, held the Gospel in the 
 same reverence before that date. And about a.d. 170, 
 Heracleon, a leader of the Italian Gnostics, wrote a 
 commentary upon it. The unity of Catholics, Mon- 
 tanists, and Gnostics on this subject is one of the most 
 important facts in the evidence for the authenticity of 
 the book. No book about which serious doubts were 
 felt by thoughtful men could have won so undisputed 
 a rank at such an early date. 
 
 It has recently been said that ' the Church consented 
 slowly, and not without misgiving, to accept it as the 
 work of S. John,' ^ The truth is that the only known 
 ' misgiving ' was that of a small insignificant group of 
 Asiatic origin, we hardly know that it was even a 
 sect, the so-called Alogoi or Irrationalists. They attri- 
 buted it to Cerinthus, a contemporary of S. John, who 
 lived at Ephesus. They were therefore grotesquely 
 ignorant, for the teaching of Cerinthus differed more 
 widely from that of the Fourth Gospel than the teach- 
 ing of John Knox differed from that of the Jesuits.^ It 
 
 ^ Dr. Ernest F. Scott, TAe Historical and Jieligious Value of the 
 Fourth Gospel, p. 14. 
 
 ^ For Cerinthus, see Dr. R. L. Ottley, Doctrine of the Incarnation, 
 vol. i. p. 171. 
 
278 THE GOSPELS 
 
 is necessary to recall this fact, because these people are 
 sometimes quoted to show that the early Church felt 
 serious doubts about the value and authorship of the 
 book. 
 
 Among the writers who bear testimony to the rever- 
 ence in which the Fourth Gospel was held, S. Irenaeus 
 is the most important. His writings are by no means 
 the sole key to the Johannine problem. But his 
 evidence is the most weighty external evidence that 
 we have. Clear, explicit, and inherently probable as 
 the words of Clement are as to the origin of the 
 Fourth Gospel, S. Irenaeus is earlier and closer to the 
 heart of Christian tradition. Let us very briefly 
 review the main points in his testimony. 
 
 1. He travelled widely and read widely, and was 
 acquainted with Christian thought in Asia Minor, Rome, 
 and Gaul. If he had been mistaken as to the Gospel, 
 no one would have been in a better position to correct 
 his own mistakes. 
 
 2. He attributes the Gospel to the apostle John 
 and quotes it freely and repeatedly as one of the only 
 four authentic Gospels. He says that John ' published 
 the Gospel in Ephesus.' 
 
 3. He declares that he perfectly remembers S. Poly- 
 carp, bishop of Smyrna, and his conversations about 
 John and others who had known the Lord. As Poly- 
 carp died in a.d. 155, when Irenaeus was probably 
 about twenty-five years of age, we have no reason to 
 doubt his statement. Further, Irenaeus says that S. 
 John survived till the time of Trajan, i.e. about a.d. 98, 
 and Polycarp just before his death said that he had 
 been a Christian eighty-six years. Having therefore 
 been born not later than a.d. 69 or 70, Polycarp might 
 well remember the apostle if nearly thirty years old 
 when the apostle died. 
 
 4). It is admitted by critics of all schools of thought 
 that Irenaeus believed that Polycarp knew John the 
 
THE AUTHOR OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 279 
 
 apostle. In his letter to Florinus, he reckons Polycarp 
 among the elders who had known the apostles, and 
 says this with special reference to John. 
 
 It is, of course, vital to the theory which opposes 
 the apostolic origin of the Fourth Gospel, that the 
 evidence of S. Irenaeus should be explained away, and 
 we find that continuous attempts are made to do this. 
 ' If,' as Dr. Moffat says, ' Irenaeus is correct, his testi- 
 mony to John the apostle is of first-rate importance.' ^ 
 No real argument against his testimony is forthcoming, 
 and therefore Dr. Moffat says that ' he must be held 
 to have mistaken what Polykarp said, and to have con- 
 fused John the presbyter with John the apostle.' It 
 would surely be a more reasonable thing to say that 
 Irenaeus must be held to be correct unless there is a 
 still better testimony to prove that he is wrong. The 
 only possible testimony that can be so employed will 
 be discussed below on p. 301. The argument that 
 something ' must have been ' is a very ancient, and one 
 might have hoped extinct, method of substituting 
 some cherished conjecture for rational proof. Another 
 well worn method in dealing with Irenaeus is that of 
 blackening his testimony to S. John by mentioning 
 mistakes that he made in other matters with which he 
 was less well acquainted. No writer, however honest 
 and well-informed, and Irenaeus was both, would stand 
 so unjust a trial, and his critics would sometimes stand 
 it less successfully than himself. 
 
 Before the time when S. Irenaeus wrote, and even 
 before the time when Tatian wrote, we have indisput- 
 able evidence for at least the existence of a body of 
 theology substantially the same as that which we find 
 in the Fourth Gospel. This fact, like the fact that in 
 and after the time of Tatian S. John the apostle was 
 regarded as its author, is admitted even by critics who 
 adopt a very sceptical attitude towards the apostolic 
 ' Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, p. 6og. 
 
280 THE GOSPELS 
 
 origin of the book. But they do not always do justice 
 to the nature of the evidence which this theology 
 affords. It may be quite fair when they describe the 
 evidence as consisting of ' echoes ' or traces of the 
 influence of the Gospel, or a theology resembling that 
 of the Gospel. But it is not fair to describe them as 
 ' trembling away' as we approach their supposed origin 
 ' instead of becoming clearer and more unmistakable.' ^ 
 There is no generation in which the echoes of at least 
 the Johannine theology are not clear. If we divide 
 the second century into three generations of the 
 average length, viz. a.d. 100 to 183, a.d. 134 to 166, 
 - A.D. 167 to 199, we shall find that in proportion to the 
 amount of Christian literature which has survived from 
 each of these three generations the Johannine influ- 
 ence is as strong in the second, and even in the first, 
 generation as in the last. 
 
 To the second generation we assign the works of 
 Tatian and his teacher Justin, who was probably born 
 about A.D. 100. Justin describes the author of the 
 Apocalypse as ' a man of the name of John, one of the 
 apostles of Christ,'^ and as he was acquainted with 
 Ephesus where the Apocalypse was written, this 
 evidence is of great importance. He does not mention 
 by name the author of the Fourth Gospel, but his 
 writings show numerous points of contact with it and 
 include a statement plainly based on John iii. 3-5. 
 The connection between Justin's writings and the 
 Fourth Gospel is too clear to be ignored. And in 
 spite of the distinct superiority and greater originality 
 of the latter it has been perversely argued that its 
 author borrowed from Justin. 
 
 Near the border line between the first and the 
 second generation we find that the great Gnostics 
 
 * Dr. B. W. Bacon, The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate, 
 p. 32. = Adv. Tryph. 81. 
 
THE AUTHOR OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 281 
 
 Basilides and Valentinus (a.d. 125-150) almost certainly 
 made a free use of the Fourth Gospel. This has been 
 disputed, mainly on the alleged ground that S. Hippo- 
 lytus, when he refers to these two heresiarchs, is really 
 speaking not of their own views, but those of their 
 followers. But Tertullian, whose evidence is earlier 
 than that of Hippolytus, and quite as good, represents 
 Valentinus as using the Fourth Gospel, and it is at 
 least certain that soon after the time of Valentinus 
 his followers used it. As for Basilides, Hippolytus 
 evidently means that he employed this Gospel, and so 
 unorthodox a critic as Matthew Arnold trenchantly 
 defended this view. The fact that the Fourth Gospel 
 contains much which can only be reconciled with 
 Gnosticism by violent and fantastic explanations, dis- 
 poses of the idea that the Gnostics liked it because they 
 knew it to be of Gnostic origin. If we pass into the 
 company of the men who were in their prime during 
 the first generation of the second century, the 
 Johannine ' echoes ' are plain and loud. In Papias, 
 who probably collected his materials near a.d. 100 and 
 wrote his books later, we find a clear use of the First 
 Epistle of S. John, and a probable use of the Gospel. 
 He knew and accepted the Apocalypse as the work of 
 S. John. S. Polycarp in his one remaining Epistle 
 (near a.d. 110), quotes the First Epistle of S. John. 
 The Epistles of S. Ignatius of Antioch (about a.d. 110) 
 are much more important. For though he does not 
 mention the apostle by name, and cannot be absolutely 
 proved to have used the Fourth Gospel, his theology 
 and language are so intensely Johannine that they are 
 far more easily explained by the hypothesis that he 
 knew the Gospel than by any other theory. In the 
 little Church manual known as the DidachS, which is 
 probably some years older than the letters of Ignatius, 
 there are phrases which appear to be genuine echoes, 
 especially the phrase ' make perfect in love ' (cf. John 
 
282 THE GOSPELS 
 
 xvii. 23). But S. Ignatius has much more than this. 
 His letters are not coloured but saturated with the 
 leading doctrines of S. John, so much so that we are 
 inevitably led to the conclusion that he was either 
 familiar with the Fourth Gospel or had been taught in 
 early life by some great master, whether the apostle or 
 not the apostle, whose teaching is represented by the 
 Fourth Gospel and whose principles he had enthusiasti- 
 cally imbibed. The theory that he had been brought 
 up in an environment where there had been simply a 
 natural development of S. Paul's theology in a Johan- 
 nine direction does not meet the case. The coincidences 
 between the spirit of S. Paul's Epistles and that of the 
 Fourth Gospel are sometimes striking. But the coin- 
 cidences between the Fourth Gospel and the letters of 
 Ignatius are coincidences of spirit and letter alike. 
 Nor must we overlook the fact that Ignatius takes 
 for granted that the Churches to which he writes are 
 in sympathy with this Johannine theology. The 
 phenomena presented to us in the letters of Ignatius 
 are all the more remarkable inasmuch as the later 
 tendency of Antiochene theology was not in this 
 direction. It is the old Antiochene theology, that of 
 Ignatius and Theophilus, which finds Johannine thought 
 entirely congenial. 
 
 Against the' above evidence as to the existence of 
 the Fourth Gospel, it is often urged that some of the 
 earliest references to the author of the Fourth Gospel 
 found in the literature of the Church, though they 
 describe him as John, do not call him the ' apostle ' or 
 ' son of Zebedee.' Thus Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, 
 in his famous letter written to Victor, bishop of Rome, 
 in A.D. 190, calls the John who lived at Ephesus, ' John 
 who lay upon the breast of the Lord.' He therefore is 
 sure that he is the beloved disciple mentioned in the 
 Gospel, but he does not call him an 'apostle.' The 
 Muratorian Canon, probably written in Italy about 
 
THE AUTHOR OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 283 
 
 A.D. 180, calls the author of the Fourth Gospel ' one 
 of the disciples ' only, while it calls S. Andrew ' one of 
 the apostles.' It nevertheless speaks of them as if 
 they were equals, and asserts that this disciple was an 
 eye-witness of the acts of Christ. That the word 
 ' disciple ' might be used synonymously with the word 
 ' apostle ' in the second century as in our day is shown 
 by S. Irenaeus. He usually describes S. John as ' the 
 disciple of the Lord,' and when he mentions the origin 
 of the Gospel he says, 'Then John, the disciple of the 
 Lord, who also leant upon His breast, and himself 
 published the Gospel while dwelling at Ephesus in 
 Asia.'^ Now, he includes this John among the 
 apostles. For after calling John ' the disciple of the 
 Lord,' he says that some of the elders in Asia ' not 
 only saw John, but also other apostles.'^ We have 
 already noticed that S. Justin Martyr calls the author 
 of the Apocalypse 'John, one of the apostles of 
 Christ,' and if the author of the Apocalypse and 
 that of the Gospel are identical, this bears intimately 
 upon the question now under discussion.* The first 
 book in which we find this Gospel attributed to a 
 man named John is in the apology for Christianity 
 addressed by Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, to a pagan 
 named Autolycus, written about a.d. 170, or 175. He 
 quotes the beginning of the Gospel as by 'John,' 
 whom he numbers among ' men inspired.' This, like 
 the statement of Polycrates, does not absolutely prove 
 that the writer held the evangelist to have been an 
 apostle. But it is favourable to that view and in 
 harmony with the reverence felt for the apostles in the 
 
 ' Adv. Haer. iii. i. 
 
 ' Op. cit. ii. 22. § S- Dr. W. Sanday, Criticism of the Fourth 
 Gospel, p. 105, says that Irenaeus ' does perhaps hint at this title,' 
 and he refers to Eus. H. E. iii. 23-4. But the words which I have 
 quoted seem more than a hint, though it is just possible that Irenaeus 
 meant, not ' other apostles,' but ' apostles as well.' 
 
 ' See below, p. 303. 
 
284 THE GOSPELS 
 
 second half of the second century. And it is not only 
 possible, but probable, that writers who mentioned 
 John, while knowing him to have been an apostle, 
 preferred to call him ' disciple,' for they would, if they 
 read the Gospel, almost unconsciously fall into the 
 habit of so doing. In this Gospel the apostles are 
 usually described by the earlier title ' disciple,' which 
 is one of the proofs of its genuineness. And we do 
 not find the phrase 'the apostle whom Jesus loved,' 
 but ' the disciple whom Jesus loved.' The disciples in 
 S. John's Gospel are the apostles. 
 
 It therefore seems to be a well founded opinion that 
 throughout the second century the Fourth Gospel 
 together with the Apocalypse and First Epistle was 
 known in Eastern Christendom, and its use by Justin 
 Martyr favours the view that it was already current in 
 Rome when he was there. It is more sparingly quoted 
 than the other Gospels, but this can be accounted for 
 by the fact that the other Gospels got a good start, 
 probably a start of more than twenty years. And its 
 claim to be by the apostle John is so much less 
 evident than its claim to be by an eye-witness of 
 Christ's ministry that it is not very surprising that 
 in the scanty evidence that has come down to us from 
 the period a.d. 100 to 170, the name of John is not 
 mentioned in direct connection with the Gospel, 
 though it is mentioned in connection with the 
 Apocalypse. The phenomena can be explained if it 
 was not made public until near the time of the 
 author's death, as the conclusion of the last chapter 
 suggests. So soon as an author is ascribed to it, he 
 is named John, and, as we shall see later, his name 
 is most clearly heard among the men connected with 
 the neighbourhood in which the Gospel is admitted 
 to have had its origin. 
 
 The above account is merely an impartial summary. 
 The real value of it can only be judged by a careful 
 
THE AUTHOR OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 285 
 
 consideration of the passages in detail, such as is given 
 by Ezra Abbot, Dr. Drummond, and Dr. Stanton. 
 
 These passages must also be considered in the 
 light of the formation of the fourfold Canon of the 
 Gospels, which has been briefly dealt with in our first 
 chapter. 
 
 § 2. Does the Gospel claim an apostolic 
 origin ? 
 
 We must now turn to consider what the Fourth 
 Gospel itself says about its own author. Occasionally 
 its claims are merely ignored, or elaborately explained 
 to mean something quite different from the natural 
 impression which common sense would derive from 
 them. Now, common sense is a very excellent hand- 
 maid of criticism, and she is quite able to see that, 
 for good or evil, the author of the Gospel claims to be 
 an eye-witness of Christ. 
 
 He claims it first in John i. 14 : ' the Word became 
 flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld His glory, 
 glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full 
 of grace and truth.' The glory, in correspondence 
 with a Hebrew metaphor, means the manifested 
 attributes of God, and the passage refers to these 
 attributes as manifested when the Word came to 
 dwell or 'tabernacle' on earth like the divine 
 Presence in the tabernacle of Moses. It seems to be 
 from modesty that the writer says ' we ' and not ' I.' 
 He does not wish to push himself forward, or to claim 
 that he saw more than the other immediate disciples 
 of Jesus. But he does speak of himself as one of those 
 so peculiarly privileged. 
 
 This is corroborated by the First Epistle bearing the 
 name of S. John. It is very difficult, and the difficulty 
 
286 THE GOSPELS 
 
 is fully realised in recent rationalistic literature, to 
 separate the authorship of the Gospel from that of 
 this beautiful epistle. The theology and circle of 
 ideas are substantially the same, the language and the 
 development of those ideas are slightly different. In 
 maintaining the ancient tradition that they come from 
 the same writer, one possibly exposes oneself to the 
 sneer that similarity is taken to prove identity of 
 authorship, and dissimilarity to corroborate it. But 
 the sneer is not worth much. In this case the dis- 
 similarity is of the kind which an imitator of the 
 Gospel would probably have avoided. It shows re- 
 flection, it applies a lesson already learnt. And from 
 a critical point of view, it is much harder to think 
 that neither the Gospel nor the Epistle are by a 
 disciple of Clirist, than to think that the Gospel 
 records what Christ said, and the JEpistle what his 
 disciple thought. 
 
 Now this Epistle begins with the words : 
 
 That which was from the beginning, that which we have 
 heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which 
 we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of 
 life (and the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear 
 witness, and declare unto you the life, the eternal life, which 
 was with the Father, and was manifested unto us) ; that which 
 we have seen and heard declare we unto you also, that ye also 
 may have fellowship with us : yea, and our fellowship is with 
 the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. 
 
 It would be difficult to frame a stronger statement 
 than this. In exact agreement with the beginning of 
 the Fourth Gospel, it asserts that the writer saw and 
 touched that Being who is eternally the living Word 
 or Expression of the Father, and is also His Son. To 
 tone down this obvious meaning, it has been suggested 
 by some living critics that the word ' beheld ' refers to 
 a spiritual inward vision, and not an outward vision. 
 This is not only an open defiance of the meaning 
 
THE AUTHOR OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 287 
 
 which the Greek word bears throughout the New 
 Testament, but it also forces us to ask if the word 
 ' hands ' signifies some ' mystical ' inward organ. With 
 this question we may leave the verses to be under- 
 stood as best they may; confident that whenever 
 words are interpreted to mean exactly what they were 
 apparently intended to exclude, biblical criticism will 
 command more ridicule than respect. 
 
 Another important but less unambiguous passage 
 is in John xix. 35. The writer here, in telling the 
 story of the crucifixion, speaks of the thrust of the 
 lance into our Saviour's side and the issue of blood and 
 water, a phenomenon explained by modern medical 
 science. He adds : 
 
 And he that hath seen hath borne witness, and his witness 
 is true : and he {eKfivos) Isnoweth that he saith true, that ye 
 also may believe. 
 
 Simple as these words are, they have been inter- 
 preted in very different ways. Is the writer merely 
 declaring that he saw the lance thrust, and asserting 
 that he is speaking the truth? Or is the writer, 
 while declaring that he saw the lance thrust, appealing 
 to Him whose side was pierced as knowing that he is 
 saying- what is true .'' Either of these two explana- 
 tions is possible. And if it be urged that according 
 to neither of these interpretations the Greek can be con- 
 sidered classical, we can fairly reply that the Greek of 
 this Gospel is never classical. The other interpretations 
 which imply that the Gospel was not by an eye- 
 witness require us to believe that the writer is distinct 
 from the man who 'hath borne witness,' and one of 
 such interpretations further demands that the writer 
 is also distinct from the man who ' knoweth that he 
 saith true.' According to this last theory, the infor- 
 mation given as to the thrust of the lance is not even 
 second hand, but third hand. When we remember 
 
288 THE GOSPELS 
 
 that the author of the Gospel always speaks of himself 
 in the third person, it is far easier to think that the 
 writer either truly or falsely claims to be identical 
 with the man who stood by the pierced side of Christ. 
 
 The connection which exists between the First and 
 Third Epistles of S. John and the ' he knoweth that he 
 saith true' in John xix. 35 has not escaped the 
 vigilance of one of the strongest recent opponents of 
 the apostolic authorship of the Gospel, Dr. Bacon of 
 Yale. He has to introduce that obliging ' deus ex 
 raachina,' the imaginary ' editor ' or ' redactor.' This 
 redactor held that the apostle did really witness ' the 
 phenomenon of the blood and water.' He 'will not 
 say in so many words, " This was the ' disciple whom 
 Jesus loved ' ; " still less, " This was John the son of 
 Zebedee," but he makes it impossible to think of any 
 one else.'^ Further, this editor also identified the 
 disciple whom Jesus loved with him ' who, in the 
 Epistles, whose language he borrows, had laid such 
 stress upon the " water and blood," declaring this to be 
 a " witness of the Spirit " in some sense present and 
 eternal.' Dr. Bacon significantly adds that the stand- 
 point of the redactor ' is identically that of subsequent 
 tradition, except that instead of plain statement he 
 shelters himself behind purposed ambiguity.' In other 
 words, this learned critic asks us to believe that a 
 second century editor took certain Epistles which the 
 apostle did not really write (according to his theory) 
 and inserted from these Epistles phrases which made it 
 appear that the beloved disciple was S. John and the 
 original author of the Gospel. The view which Dr. 
 Bacon holds concerning other methods of this redactor 
 is illuminated by his theory that he cancelled ' refer- 
 ences which seemed to present obstacles to his own 
 theory of the authorship.' ^ By this means Dr. Bacon 
 endeavours to dispose of the cogent argument that the 
 ^ Op. cit. p. 309. ^ Op. cit. p. 202. 
 
THE AUTHOR OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 289 
 
 Gospel mentions by name neither of the two sons of 
 Zebedee, James and John, a fact which is hardly 
 explicable if the writer of the Gospel was not one of 
 the two. 
 
 The last passage is xxi. 24. Almost at the very end 
 of the Gospel come the words : 
 
 This is the disciple which beareth witness of these things, 
 and wrote these things ; and we know that his witness is true. 
 
 This verse directly asserts that the disciple who was 
 with S. Peter in our Lord's company immediately after 
 the resurrection, wrote the account of what then 
 happened. This is not a verse which commends itself 
 to certain schools of critics. Even Professor Burkitt, 
 in the chapter on the Fourth Gospel in his book 
 The Gospel History and its Transmission, ignores it. 
 It is one of the most suggestive passages which bear 
 upon the transmission of the Gospel, but it does 
 not support his idea that the Fourth Gospel was 
 written between a.d. 100 and 110. A disciple who was 
 one of the foremost disciples and a companion of 
 S. Peter in a.d. 29 is not a very likely person to have 
 written a Gospel between seventy and eighty years 
 later. Other critics, such as Renan, Reville, Harnack, 
 and Bacon, are less restrained than Professor Burkitt. 
 As Dr. Bacon does not scatter statements which he 
 does not endeavour to support, let us consider what he 
 has to say about the writer of this last chapter of the 
 Fourth Gospel. Once again he takes refuge in a charge 
 of fraud. 
 
 ' For the sake of securing to the " spiritual " Gospel 
 the standing which in his age it could not have unless 
 declared to be " apostolic," he has cautiously and by 
 veiled suggestion, yet unmistakably, introduced his own 
 interpretation, cancelling, it would seem, a few traits 
 which offered obstacles in the body of the work, and 
 
290 THE GOSPELS 
 
 attaching at least the direct declaration in xix. 35, 
 perhaps other and longer passages. The enigmatic 
 figure, he believes, was John the son of Zebedee, next 
 to Peter in prominence in apostolic story. John was 
 suited to the role as author of a Gospel of Ephesian 
 provenance by the currently accepted representation 
 that he had written the Asiatic book of Revelation."' ^ 
 Having selected John, this editor set aside the tradition 
 that S. John had followed Christ in martyrdom even 
 before the death of S. Peter (the nature of this alleged 
 ' tradition ' will be noticed later, p. 301). He then 
 made use of a local tradition about some witness to the 
 Messiah who would abide until the return of Christ 
 (Mark ix. 1), or about John the Elder mentioned by 
 Papias, and adjusted it to his own theory. He did 
 this by 'suggesting' in John xxi. that John the 
 apostle might abide till the return of Christ, though 
 he really meant that not the apostle, but the Gospel, 
 would remain as a permanent witness to Christ. After 
 completing this strange device, the 'editor' himself 
 finally guaranteed this witness to be ' true.' 
 
 Dr. Bacon, in fact, and he is not alone, accuses the 
 editor of a deliberate imposture. He is said to have 
 cancelled and to have added what he liked. He is 
 said to have attached to the writer a tradition about 
 another man, thereby starting a false legend with the 
 intention of creating an apostolic halo round the book. 
 This is the kind of accusation which should not be 
 made apart from convincing evidence. But whether 
 the editor, who calls himself ' we,' was scrupulous or 
 unscrupulous in his methods, how did he come to believe 
 that ' the enigmatic figure was John the son of Zebedee' ? 
 Why should the belief have been a delusion ? 
 
 The editors of the Gospel who say so plainly that 
 it was written by the disciple who plays such an im- 
 portant part in the book, were probably the presbyters. 
 
 ' Op. cit. p. 326. 
 
THE AUTHOR OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 291 
 
 of the Church in whose midst S. John died. That this 
 Gospel was first circulated in Asia Minor, and more 
 particularly in the neighbourhood of Ephesus, has 
 lately been almost undisputed. We need not discuss 
 the theory of Baur and Keim that it was composed at 
 Alexandria, any more than the theory of Resch that 
 it was written in the Decapolis. The most adverse 
 critics now agree with S. Irenaeus that it was written at 
 Ephesus, or near it. So far as we can penetrate into 
 the second century, we are fully justified in saying that 
 in this region, more even than in Rome, primitive 
 Christian tradition and life were vigorous. Polycrates, 
 bishop of Ephesus, says, 'throughout Asia, great 
 luminaries have gone to their rest, which will rise on 
 the day of the Lord's coming.' ^ It was this Roman 
 province of ' Asia ' which was, in the language of 
 Isaiah, a ' hearth of God ' after Jerusalem was 
 destroyed. Here, Polycrates says, ' Philip, one of the 
 twelve apostles, sleeps at Hierapolis.' Possibly the 
 Muratorian Canon is correct in saying that Andrew, 
 the apostle, was with S. John when his Gospel was 
 written. It has even been conjectured that the editors 
 who certified that the author of the Fourth Gospel is 
 the disciple who was so intimate with the Lord, were 
 none other than S. Philip and S. Andrew. This theory 
 is hardly credible. For unless the Gospel was published 
 soon after the Synoptic Gospels, that is, unless it was 
 made known to the Church near a.d. 80, it is impro- 
 bable that it could have had this double attestation. 
 Let us rather keep to the safest line of inquiry; let 
 us suppose that the editors, who might have forged 
 apostolic signatures if they had wished to do so, but 
 added no names to the sacred page, were only presbyters 
 of Ephesus and its neighbourhood. Why should we 
 accuse them of fraud ? What had they to gain in 
 testifying to a writing which they had not written, a 
 ' Eus. H.E. V. 24. 
 
292 THE GOSPELS 
 
 writing, moreover, which does not mention the office of 
 presbyter, which does not use the word ' Church,' and 
 emphasises the subjective element in Christian experi- 
 ence? It is really time that the eighteenth century 
 ideal of a ' designing priesthood,' creating Christianity 
 by frauds more bold than those of a disreputable dealer 
 in antiques, was for ever left in peace. Rightly or 
 wrongly, the editors honestly believed the Gospel to 
 be by an eye-witness. And the Gospel itself claims, 
 modestly but distinctly, truly or untruly, to be by an 
 eye-witness. It is also admitted even by those who 
 handle it most roughly, that it was written in or near 
 Ephesus. 
 
 § 3, Indirect Internal Evidence. 
 
 We have already shown (i) that the Gospel claims 
 directly to have been written by an eye-witness of 
 our Lord's ministry, and also (ii) that the John of 
 Ephesus to whom early tradition attributed the Gospel 
 was probably the apostle. It is now necessary to 
 interrogate the Gospel itself to find whether the in- 
 direct testimony which it contains joins together these 
 two separate links. The author never mentions his 
 own name. Perhaps he gives a suggestion by describ- 
 ing John the Baptist as ' John ' without the title added 
 by the Synoptists. Unlike the forgers who made the 
 most of the apostolic names which they used as pass- 
 ports for their wares, he hides himself under the names 
 ' the other disciple, whom Jesus loved,' ' the other dis- 
 ciple' (xx. 2-3). He thinks so little of posing or 
 imposing that he never calls himself ' the son of Zebedee' 
 or 'John the disciple,' or 'John the apostle.' The 
 very silence is a suggestion, but it is no more. What 
 we have to ask is whether there is evidence to show 
 
THE AUTHOR OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 293 
 
 that the eye-witness of the Gospel is the apostle of 
 tradition. 
 
 A series of passages provides us with evidence of this 
 kind, showing that the author belonged to the inner 
 and higher circle of the apostles. Again and again we 
 have descriptions which are most naturally explained 
 as coming from within that group. Why in the 
 second half of the first chapter is one of the two dis- 
 ciples of the Baptist who followed Jesus named and 
 the other not named ? The first is Andrew. Others 
 are immediately mentioned, but this one still remains 
 unrevealed. May not he be the one who first told the 
 story ? Why in iii. 22-25 should we be told of the 
 distinction between the disciples of Jesus and the dis- 
 ciples of John the Baptist and the dispute of the latter 
 with a Jew.? To one of the immediate disciples of 
 Jesus or of the Baptist this would be of some import- 
 ance. But Christians of the second century would 
 think it more probable that the disciples of Jesus, and 
 not those of John, would dispute with a Jew about 
 purifying, and a writer of fiction would have accommo- 
 dated himself to their ideas. There are touches in 
 chapter v. with its story of the woman of Samaria, and 
 certainly in the close of chapter vi., which tells us of 
 the desertion of many of those who had hitherto 
 walked with Jesus, which are not likely to be the work 
 of any one but an eye-witness. We have no right to 
 take it for granted that no disciple of Jesus was near 
 the well where He sat weary, or that Jesus never was 
 heard to utter those pathetic words, ' Will ye also go 
 away ? ' 
 
 Let us consider the story of the Samaritan woman. 
 Is it artificial, or suggestively real ? The critics who 
 tell us that the Christ of the Fourth Gospel is not 
 truly human but only a mythical god wandering on the 
 earth, are here confronted with the picture of Jesus 
 sitting ' weary ' by the side of a well. He is met by a 
 
294 THE GOSPELS 
 
 woman of bad character who has had ' five husbands.' 
 These critics tell us that this is an allegory, she is 
 really the Gentile world and her 'husbands' signify 
 the five different nationalities from which the popula- 
 tion of Samaria was recruited. The topographical 
 details in the story are perfect. There is Sychar, the 
 modem Al 'Askar ; the deep well to which the woman 
 comes to draw water, probably for human use, distinct 
 from the inferior well nearer to the town ; above the 
 speakers rises ' this mountain ' of Gerizim crowned by 
 the temple of which vestiges still exist, where the 
 Samaritans ' said men ought to worship.' It was winter 
 as we reckon it, four months yet to the harvest, but 
 the fields of human souls were nearly ripe. The 
 evangelist knows the road and knows the well, and the 
 social barrier between Jews and Samaritans. He tells 
 us how the woman, when her conscience begins to be 
 uneasy, tries to divert the conversation to points of 
 theological controversy, how Christ leads her to spiritual 
 truth. And he tells us how His own disciples came 
 back and were shocked to find their Teacher trans- 
 gressing the rabbinical maxim that a man must not 
 speak with a woman in public. 
 
 The picture is convincing because it is never over- 
 done. To attribute it to an Asiatic writer of the 
 second century seems worse than paradox. Let any 
 unprejudiced reader of the Greek language compare it 
 with a scene from the life of Apollonius of Tyana 
 written by Philostratus. Apollonius was the pagan 
 rival of Christ about a.d. 200. His story was perhaps 
 not written in conscious opposition to the Gospels, 
 though it is not always easy to escape the idea that it 
 was written with that intention. Philostratus repre- 
 sents him as a lover and teacher of virtue, not without 
 considerable dignity, and with astonishing, miraculous 
 powers. But the book limps lamely and bungles 
 crudely. It is uncritical, absurd. Yet it enjoyed 
 
THE AUTHOR OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 296 
 
 considerable vogue. It offered men a Sg,viour of the 
 kind that was acceptable in kings' houses. The 
 Graeco-Roman world read it with relish. Put it by 
 the side of our Fourth Gospel with its unobtrusive 
 allusions to real geography and genuine customs, and 
 its natural representations of the character of men 
 and women. We pass from lay figures in Greek 
 drapery to living people moving in their mother 
 country. And there is therefore no real difficulty in 
 believing that a young disciple lingering near his 
 Master while his comrades had gone into the city of 
 Samaria to buy food did hear the substance of the 
 dialogue unfolded in this narrative. 
 
 The allusions to places, customs, beliefs, and cere- 
 monies, which are so frequent in this Gospel, show that 
 the author was a Jew who had been acquainted with 
 Jerusalem when its old life and worship were still in 
 vigour. But what we are now considering is the 
 evidence as to personal feelings and actions which can 
 most naturally be explained as coming from an apostle, 
 and cannot be naturally explained as serving the 
 purpose of a writer of fiction, even of the highest 
 allegorical fiction. The discussion between our Lord 
 and His still unbelieving brethren (vii. 3-8) is valuable 
 as throwing a side-light on the inmost life of Jesus 
 and His disciples. But it is quite worthless if the 
 Christ of the Fourth Gospel is not the Christ of 
 history. For it serves no allegorical purpose. It is 
 a fragment of history, quite out of harmony with the 
 later tendency to idealise the family of our Lord. If 
 Nicodemus is typical of a class of men who are interested 
 in Jesus Christ, he is no mere allegorical figure. The 
 part assigned to him by the evangelist in the burial 
 of our Lord shows that his portrait was meant to be 
 the portrait of a real person. The Greeks who wish 
 to see Jesus are typical of another class, but it does 
 not therefore follow that they never existed and are 
 
296 THE GOSPELS 
 
 mere literary symbols of the Gentile world. All 
 Christendom has regarded the scepticism of S. Thomas 
 as typical of the attitude of those who say ' seeing is 
 believing.' It does not therefore follow that there 
 was no Thomas or that he never doubted. The evan- 
 gelist introduces Mary and Martha on two^ separate 
 occasions, and throughout draws a delicate and con- 
 sistent contrast between the two characters. Yet he 
 does not call our attention to this contrast, but 
 relates his story with simplicity as an eye-witness 
 might write it. To call it the invention of a later 
 generation seems extraordinarily difficult when one 
 considers the writings which are known to have been 
 written between a.d. 100 and 150. For instance, 
 the Shepherd of Hennas is an allegorical Christian 
 book composed within this latter period. It was very 
 highly esteemed by the early Church, so much so that 
 it seems to have been nearer than any other non- 
 canonical book to inclusion within the canon of the 
 New Testament. But the difference between the 
 Gospel according to S. John and the Shepherd is like 
 the difference between York minster and an effort in 
 ' Churchwarden Gothic' 
 
 Let us now pass to the Last Supper. If the Fourth 
 Gospel had been meant to be history pure and simple, 
 its account of the Last Supper, and of many other 
 things, might fitly be called misleading. But it is a 
 Gospel, not a biography, and it selects certain incidents 
 and certain discourses with a special purpose. Just as 
 Mark so often omits what was extant in Q, so the 
 Fourth Gospel omits what was to be found in the 
 Synoptists. It takes for granted that its readers 
 are acquainted with the Eucharist, a rite already 
 recorded in three Gospels and in S. Paul's Epistle to 
 the Corinthians, a rite repeated continually in the 
 Church. Now, any Jew accustomed to the religious 
 practices of his nation would be acquainted with the 
 
THE AUTHOR OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 297 
 
 arrangement of the table at the Passover. He would 
 know that the ritual required that the celebrant should 
 recline on a particular seat. But he would scarcely 
 have been able to make the actions of our Lord and 
 Judas, S. John and S. Peter, fit certain places at the 
 table with such perfection. The author says nothing 
 about the places which the disciples actually occupied. 
 But the beloved disciple who ' was at the table reclin- 
 ing in Jesus' bosom ' and then ' leant back on Jesus' 
 breast' (xiii. 23, 25) was on our Lord's right hand. 
 Judas took the position of principal guest on our 
 Lord's left, so that he could receive the ' sop ' of bitter 
 herbs and bread, and be addressed by Jesus in words 
 which only the beloved disciple could hear (xiii. 27-29). 
 According to this explanation, which is that given by 
 the learned Jewish Christian scholar, Dr. Edersheim,^ 
 S. Peter was opposite S. John on the other side of the 
 table, having impetuously taken this, the lowest place. 
 This is at least probable, and agrees with his ' beckon- 
 ing ' to the beloved disciple. Once more, we can only 
 say that this chapter has not the air of fiction. It is 
 natural, simple, and unaflfected, and the very fact that 
 the beloved disciple does not occupy the place of 
 honour is a telling point on the side of its genuineness. 
 The above instances can be fortified by other 
 passages in the Gospel. They give us at least a 
 strong presumption in favour of the truthfulness of the 
 verses in which it is directly claimed that the writer 
 saw what he narrates. They give an almost equally 
 strong presumption in favour of his being an apostle, 
 and of this apostle being John the son of Zebedee. In 
 xxi. 2 it is mentioned that ' the sons of Zebedee ' were 
 among the disciples near the sea of Tiberias when our 
 Lord showed Himself there after His resurrection. The 
 narrative does not make it clear that 'the disciple 
 whom Jesus loved ' (xxi. 7) was one of these sons, for 
 ' Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, vol. ii. p. 494. 
 
298 THE GOSPELS 
 
 there are two other disciples whose names are unspeci- 
 fied. But his association with Simon Peter is notable. 
 For in the Synoptic Gospels Peter is named in close 
 connection with two other apostles, and these two are 
 the sons of Zebedee. These three men formed the 
 inner circle of the twelve apostles. And Mark v. 37, 
 the early chapters of Acts, and Galatians ii. 9, show 
 that S. Mark, S. Luke and S. Paul, all regarded John 
 the son of Zebedee as a close friend and ally of S. Peter. 
 Jaities, the other son of Zebedee, need not detain us. 
 Acts xii. 2 shows that he was put to death about a.d. 
 44, and no one dreams of identifying him with the 
 author of the Gospel which bears such strong marks 
 of being the latest Gospel of the four. And no one 
 attributes the Fourth Gospel to S. Peter, who was 
 doubtless loved by Christ, but is most clearly dis- 
 tinguished in this Gospel from the beloved disciple, 
 his friend. 
 
 Only John remains. 
 
 § 4. Did John the Apostle live at Ephesus ? 
 
 It is the hope of the hostile critics to prove that 
 S. John died early and never went to Ephesus at all. 
 For if he died early he could not have written a Gospel 
 ■which supplements and corrects the Synoptists, and if he 
 never went to Ephesus, it is improbable that he wrote a 
 Gospel which appears to have been first given recogni- 
 tion in the neighbourhood of that city. Let it be 
 stated provisionally that whereas there is some early 
 evidence to the effect that S. John suffered martyrdom, 
 there is no known evidence to the effect that he died 
 early or that he died elsewhere than in Asia Minor. 
 It is therefore highly disingenuous to make use of the 
 evidence for his martyrdom as though it supported 
 either of the two latter inferences. The evidence for 
 
THE AUTHOR OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 299 
 
 his martyrdom is contained in (i) a prophecy of our 
 Lord concerning the sons of Zebedee preserved in 
 Mark x. 39 = Matt. xx. 23, and (ii.) a quotation from 
 Papias, preserved in a corrupted form in certain later 
 writers. 
 
 Mark. Matthew. 
 
 And Jesus said unto them. He saith unto them. 
 
 The cup that I drink ye shall My cup indeed ye shall 
 
 drink ; and with the baptism drink : 
 that I am baptised withal shall 
 
 ye be baptised : but to sit on but to sit on 
 
 My right hand, or on My left My right hand, or on My left 
 
 hand is not Mine to give : but hand is not Mine to give, but 
 
 it is for them for whom it hath it is for them for whom it hath 
 
 been prepared. been prepared of my Father. 
 
 In these words our Lord foretold that James and 
 John would suffer deeply for His sake. Perhaps He 
 meant to foretell their death, for He Himself elsewhere 
 refers to His own sufferings as a baptism (Luke xii. 50) 
 and as ' the cup ' which the Father gave Him to drink 
 (Mark xiv. 36). But there is no justification whatever 
 for saying, as is sometimes said, that the evangelist 
 would not have recorded these words of Jesus if he had 
 not known that James and John had been put to death 
 before he wrote his Gospel. S. Mark may have simply 
 written down what he had heard S. Peter say, in the 
 belief that somehow the prophecy would be fulfilled in 
 the case of S. John as it had been already fulfilled in 
 the case of his brother. It is worth noting that 
 S. Luke omits this prophecy of Jesus. It is possible 
 that he omitted it, not only because the ambitious 
 request which preceded it reflected little honour on the 
 apostles, but also because John was not yet dead when 
 he wrote. Such an action would accord with his 
 tendency to leave out facts which would perplex his 
 readers. S. Luke in Acts also records the death of 
 S. James and not that of S. John. This omission 
 therefore on the part of S. Luke is more intelligible on 
 
300 THE GOSPELS 
 
 the hypothesis that S. John lived to be an old man 
 than on the hypothesis that he died young. 
 
 Next there is the quotation from Papias. It ought 
 to be considered in connection with the familiar passage 
 quoted by Eusebius {H. E. iii. 39) in which Papias 
 speaks of the manner in which he gained information 
 from the Christians of a past generation, the men who 
 had known the 'elders,' or had known the apostles 
 whom Papias perhaps included among the elders. This 
 information was apparently gathered about a.d. 100. 
 Papias ends the passage by saying : — 
 
 Furthermore, if any one chanced to arrive who had been 
 an actual follower of the elders, I would inquire as to the 
 sayings of the elders — as to what Andrew or Peter said, 
 or Philip, or Thomas, or James, or John, or Matthew, or 
 any other of the Lord's disciples, also as to what Aristion 
 and the presbyter John, the Lord's disciples, say. For I 
 supposed that things out of books would not profit me 
 so much as the utterance of a living voice which was yet 
 with us. 
 
 The whole passage is of importance as showing how 
 tradition was for a long time preferred to a written 
 book of the Lord's commandments. It is also of 
 importance in considering the Johannine question. It 
 proves that when Papias made his inquiries John and 
 Matthew were dead, while Aristion and John the 
 presbyter were alive. He contrasts the ' said ' of the 
 two former with the ' say ' of the two latter. There is 
 no chronological difficulty with regard to his meaning. 
 If Aristion and John the presbyter were born about 
 A.D. 10 or 15, they may have personally come into 
 contact with our Lord before His death, and may have 
 survived till a.d. 100 or later. I have myself conversed 
 with three men whose powers of recollection remained 
 vivid and trustworthy when they were over ninety 
 years of age. Papias clearly puts John the apostle at 
 
THE AUTHOR OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 301 
 
 an earlier stage than John the presbyter. Probably 
 no one who believes in the existence of the two Johns 
 would dispute this. But the passage proves no more 
 than an interval, of few years or many, between the 
 death of the apostle and that of the presbyter. It has 
 no bearing upon the residence of the apostle at Ephesus, 
 nor does it make the date of his death more probable 
 in the fifth or sixth decade of the first century than in 
 the ninth. 
 
 The second fragment of Papias which refers to the 
 apostle has been said by a recent critic to corroborate 
 the first ' by proving not only that he did not survive 
 to a late age, but that he died early as a martyr.' ^ 
 We have seen that all that this first passage proves is 
 that John the apostle was dead by about a.d. 100. 
 The second passage in no way corroborates it in the 
 manner alleged, for it contains no allusion whatever, 
 direct or indirect, to the date, whether early or late, of 
 S. John's death. It is to be found in a reference made 
 about A.D. 430 by Philip of Side in his Church History. 
 He says that Papias in his second book says that ' John 
 the divine and his brother James were put to death by 
 the Jews.'^ And the same statement is made by 
 George Hamartolos in his Chronicle written in the 
 ninth century, in which the testimony of Papias is 
 again quoted, either from Papias or more probably 
 from the history of Philip of Side. Now it is fairly 
 evident that Papias has been slightly misunderstood by 
 Philip and George. For if he actually said that John 
 was ' put to death ' by the Jews it is practically certain 
 that Eusebius, who made use of Papias for his own 
 Church History, would have told us so, and it is 
 equally certain that S. Irenaeus would have known 
 the fact. A very probable explanation is that Papias 
 
 1 Dr. J. Moffatt, op. cit. p. 6oi. 
 
 2 '\uii,vv'r]'i 6eo\6yos xal 'lixw/Sos 6 dSe\0ds aiSroO iir6 'lovSaloiv 
 ai/jipiBrirav, See Texie u. Untersuchungen, v. 2, 
 
302 THE GOSPELS 
 
 said that those two apostles ' became martyrs ^ through 
 the action of the Jews.' The writers who copied him 
 understood by a ' martyr ' one who died for the name 
 of Christ, according to the ordinary meaning of the 
 word ' martyr ' in their time. But in earlier Christian 
 times this name of martyr or ' witness ' was applied to 
 those who suffered for the cause of Christ, whether they 
 were actually put to death or not. In this sense 
 S. John may very well have endured martyrdom. 
 Exile in the dismal island of Patraos would be 
 ' martyrdom.' The Jews in Asia Minor were busy in 
 stirring up the pagans against the Christians. And it 
 may have been at their instigation that S. John was 
 persecuted and exiled, for they were active enough 
 when S. Polycarp was put to death. That this is no 
 fanciful interpretation of the passage can be proved 
 from Origen, who regards the banishment of S. John 
 to Patmos as a martyrdom which fulfilled Christ's 
 prophecy of his sufferings. 
 
 But even if Papias said and said correctly that S. John 
 was put to death, we have no ground for thinking that 
 he said that S. John died in Judaea : George Hamartolos 
 says that he died at Ephesus. There is therefore no 
 evidence to be drawn from Papias which can for a 
 moment be set against either the evidence of the New 
 Testament or the general tradition of the Church with 
 regard to the apostle. The evidence of the New 
 Testament is, so far as it goes, perfectly plain, and 
 adverse to the modern argument drawn from Papias. 
 We have first our Lord's declaration that the sons of 
 Zebedee would drink of His cup, and be baptised with 
 His baptism. We have the statement of S. Luke that 
 S. James, one of these brothers, was put to death by 
 Herod at a date which is about a.d, 44, and we have 
 the equally good testimony of S. Paul to the effect 
 that John was with Peter at Jerusalem when he visited 
 
THE AUTHOR OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 303 
 
 that city about a.d. 49 (Gal. ii. 9). If the apostle was 
 put to death by the Jews, it may have been forty or 
 fifty years later than the death of his brother James, 
 and more probably at Ephesus than anywhere else. 
 And whether he died in Ephesus or not it is still quite 
 conceivable that he wrote the Fourth Gospel before he 
 died. The prophecy of our Lord may have been 
 fulfilled in the most literal sense, and nevertheless John 
 the son of Zebedee may have been the last survivor of 
 the apostolic band, living to a late period of the first 
 century. As S. Peter glorified God (John xxi. 19) by 
 his death, so may John the son of Zebedee have done 
 at a subsequent period. 
 
 Let us now turn to the Apocalypse. In its present 
 form the book almost certainly belongs to the reign of 
 Domitian, about a.d. 93, though it very probably in- 
 cludes passages of an earlier date. We know that the 
 book was attributed to John the apostle by Justin 
 Martyr about a.d. 155, and know that Justin was 
 acquainted with Ephesus. These facts are important ; 
 all the more important because Justin must have been 
 aware that the Apocalypse issued from Ephesus, the 
 Church of which city is addressed in the first chapter of 
 the book before the other Churches of the same region. 
 Whether the Revelation was written by the apostle or 
 not, it affords us positive proof that at the close of the 
 first century an eminent servant of Jesus Christ named 
 John was believed to have worked, or to be still work- 
 ing, at Ephesus. It also cannot be disputed that from 
 the time of Justin onwards the book was believed to 
 be by the apostle until Dionysius of Alexandria, about 
 A.D. 255, suggested that it was the work of another 
 John. This belief, and the internal evidence of the 
 Apocalypse, so strongly support the theory that the 
 apostle was the author of the book, that Dr. Bacon 
 is compelled once more to call in the help of an un- 
 known unscrupulous primitive editor. He says, 'the 
 
304 THE GOSPELS 
 
 tone of authority assumed in the prologue and epi- 
 logue, the simple "John to the seven churches of Asia," 
 the utter non-existence of any other John who could 
 be thought of as thus addressing the seven churches of 
 Asia, should be conclusive as to who is here meant.' ^ 
 It is the apostle. And the writer 'ventured' to 
 attribute it to the apostle, because the apostle was 
 dead ! The prologue and epilogue are therefore forged. 
 But the book still contains in chap. xi. 7-12 a passage 
 which the critic values very highly. It speaks of ' two 
 witnesses' of Christ, whose lineaments are unmistakably 
 derived from those of Moses and Elijah, and who are put 
 to death in the city where ' the Lord was crucified.' It is 
 possible that the passage contains a reference to the 
 martyrdom of James the Lord's brother, not the son of 
 Zebedee, and of one or more of ' some others ' whom 
 Josephus in Ant. xx. ix. 1 shows to have been put to 
 death by Ananus the high priest, about a.d. 62. 
 Dr. Bacon conjectures that one witness was James the 
 Lord's brother, and the other John the apostle, the 
 son of Zebedee. And yet thirty years later, not only 
 were the death of this prominent disciple, and the 
 meaning of the passage in which it was recorded, totally 
 forgotten, but important circular letters and an 
 appended revelation were issued in one of the principal 
 centres of Christendom claiming to be from the pen of 
 that apostle ! Let it be remarked that the prologue 
 with these letters deals with the actual state of the 
 Church, not in the time of Nero, but in the time of 
 Domitian, and yet claims to be the work of a man 
 supposed, on this theory, to be dead thirty years 
 before. We are asked to believe that the early 
 Christian forger was always either diabolically clever or 
 inconceivably silly. 
 
 A further appeal is sometimes made to a Syrian 
 Martyrology. This is a Calendar of the Church of 
 ' Of. cit. p. 176. 
 
THE AUTHOR OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 306 
 
 Edessa, dated a.d. 411. In the month of December it 
 has 
 
 ' On the 26th, the first martyr, at Jerusalem, Stephen 
 the apostle, the head of the martyrs. 
 
 'On the 27th, John and James, the apostles, at 
 Jerusalem.' 
 
 This Calendar has been quoted as definitely proving 
 that the Church commemorated as martyrs two 
 brothers who died at the same place and time. But 
 a closer investigation would show that this Arian 
 Calendar neither proves that the writer held that 
 S. John was put to death, nor that he died at 
 Jerusalem. For under June 6th we find the entry : 
 ' At Alexandria, Arius the presbyter.' ^ 
 
 Now Arius the presbyter, who lived at Alexandria, and 
 was no doubt commemorated there by his followers, 
 was not put to death, nor did he die at Alexandria, 
 but at Constantinople. So the copyist of this Calendar 
 might have been well aware that John the brother of 
 James, who once lived at Jerusalem and was there com- 
 memorated, died at Ephesus. The same list includes 
 the notorious Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia, a 
 man who, so far from dying as a martyr, died after 
 reaching the very summit of his ambition, the episcopal 
 throne of Constantinople. As for the idea that the 
 commemoration of the two sons of Zebedee on the 
 same day implies that they died on the same day, and 
 that this idea is corroborated by the double commemo- 
 ration of S. Peter and S. Paul on the same festival in 
 the Roman Calendar, the analogy suggests nothing of 
 the kind. S. Peter and S. Paul probably died on 
 
 1 For this Martyrology, see Dom. Butler, Journal of Theological 
 Studies, ii. 447 ff. It is unfortunate that in quoting this Calendar in 
 support of ' the statement ascribed to Papias,' Professor Burkitt, op. 
 cit. p. 254, has overlooked this illuminating commemoration of Arius. 
 
 U 
 
306 THE GOSPELS 
 
 different days, and their festival, on June 29th, shows 
 nothing to the contrary. For it commemor&tes, not 
 their death, but the removal of their relics from the 
 catacombs where they were placed when the Christians 
 were persecuted by the Emperor Valerian in a.d. 258. 
 
 The Syrian Church of Edessa had, so far as is known, 
 no tradition to the effect that S. John died at or 
 near Jerusalem. The Doctrine of Addai, an important 
 Syriac work of about a.d. 400, says that the Book of 
 Acts was sent to Edessa from Ephesus by John the 
 son of Zebedee. Whether this is correct, or not, the 
 Christians of Edessa appear to have been as ignorant 
 as the Christians of Rome about any early martyrdom 
 of S. John. 
 
 The desire to commemorate the two sons of Zebedee 
 on or near the same day in certain Martyrologies arose 
 quite naturally from the fact thab they were closely 
 associated by their brotherhood, by their devotion to 
 our Lord, and by their association in the New Testa- 
 ment. A clear illustration of such a desire is found in 
 some of the early service-books of Spain. The oldest 
 known Mozarabic service-book, the Orationale Gothicum, 
 commemorates S. John on December 29, but has no 
 commemoration on the day before or the day after. 
 But at some time between the seventh century and the 
 eleventh the blanks were filled and we find : 
 
 December 28th. S. James the Lord's brother. 
 
 „ 29th. S. John the evangelist. 
 
 „ 30th. S. James the brother of John. 
 We must be prepared to hear before long that this is a 
 proof from an orthodox source that S. John died the 
 day before S. James. In the meantime we can be 
 content to know that the residence of S. John at 
 Ephesus has not been disproved. 
 
THE AUTHOR OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 307 
 
 § 5. Rival Theories of Authorship. 
 
 Against the tradition that the apostle John while 
 at Ephesus wrote our Fourth Gospel, three rival 
 theories are advanced. They are : 
 
 (a) The author was an unknown Christian of the 
 second century, who may have composed almost all the 
 Gospel, or may have been an editor who used some 
 older materials both written and oral. The critics 
 are sharply divided on this question. They are also 
 sharply divided as to the date, placing it in various 
 decades up to a.d. 140. 
 
 (6) The author was the younger John, the presbyter 
 described by Fapias, an eye-witness of our Lord's 
 ministry, younger than the apostles, and one who 
 lived at Ephesus till the close of the first century. 
 
 (c) The author was John the presbyter, but he was 
 much younger than the apostles, and did not know 
 Christ. 
 
 The critics who support these three theories, and 
 the subdivisions of these theories, are united in no 
 single matter of importance, except in their denial 
 that the apostle John was the writer of the Gospel. 
 They are opposed to one another in principle and in 
 detail. They include every conceivable view from the 
 conclusion that the Gospel is historically worthless, 
 but spiritually valuable at the present day, to the con- 
 clusion that its history is sometimes correct, but its 
 theology a delusion of the second century. The 
 theory that the evangelist was neither the apostle John 
 nor any other eye-witness is widely held, more widely 
 by far than the second of the two theories just noted. 
 It has to struggle with a large amount of internal 
 evidence, some of which we have considered. It has 
 also to reject all the evidence of the early Church, 
 including that of S. Irenaeus, as to the venerated John 
 
308 THE GOSPELS 
 
 of Ephesus (whether apostle or younger disciple) 
 having seen Christ. Further, it has to deal with the 
 question of fraud. Did the author or authors of the 
 last chapter, or of the conclusion of that chapter, 
 attribute to an eye-witness chapters i.-xx., knowing 
 that they were not the work of an eye-witness ? Were 
 there removed from the body of the Gospel passages 
 which contradicted the view for which they were try- 
 ing to gain acceptance ? It is not a question of ' un- 
 critical piety' but of unblushing imposture. And if 
 no imposture was intended, and the editors believed 
 the Gospel to have been written by an eye-witness, how 
 could such a mistake have been made at so early a 
 date, a date when men like Polycarp were still alive ? 
 And if the Gospel was partly fraudulent or perverted 
 the true story of Christ's ministry, how did it come 
 to be numbered among the elect Gospels by a Church 
 which had the acumen to reject all the other false 
 Gospels ? The mere fact that it is so unlike the three 
 earlier orthodox Gospels would have been a serious 
 obstacle to its acceptance by the Church, unless it had 
 an imprimatur which was above suspicion. 
 
 More reasonable than the theory that the author 
 was an unknown Christian, is the theory that he was 
 John the presbyter. From a chronological point of 
 view this is not impossible. The passage quoted 
 above (p. 300) from Papias shows that John the 
 presbyter was one of those venerable persons whose 
 opinions he had collected at a former time. If I 
 understand Dr. Sanday correctly, he dates the extracts 
 from Papias preserved in Eusebius about a.d. 100.^ 
 I agree with this opinion if it means that Papias 
 collected these materials about that time, and wrote of 
 them a good many years later. But it is not possible 
 without the use of some fanciful arithmetic to date the 
 work of Papias, as Hamack has done, about a.d. 145- 
 ' T/ie Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, p. 251. 
 
THE AUTHOR OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 309 
 
 160. S. Irenaeus, who was living at this later date, gives 
 the name of ' ancient' (apjj;at09 — Adv. Haer. v. 33) to 
 Fapias and Polycarp alone among the elders. He 
 could hardly have given such a name to any one who 
 was not greatly his senior. Polycarp was such a 
 senior, having been bom at latest about a.d. 70. 
 Probably Papias was bom near the same time. His 
 words suggest that when he had reached manhood, 
 John the presbyter was one of the last of a passing 
 generation. If he died about a.d. 105, and wrote a 
 Gospel about a.d. 90, the dates would cause no 
 difficulty. 
 
 It has indeed been denied that John the presbyter 
 ever lived in Asia Minor. This is excessive scepticism. 
 There is more testimony in early Christian literature 
 to the residence of John the apostle in Asia Minor 
 than to the residence of the presbyter in the same 
 region. But there is not the least reason for setting 
 aside the statement of Dionysius of Alexandria, a 
 man of sense and culture, to the effect that his tomb 
 existed at Ephesus. This statement may perfectly 
 well be true, whether we follow Dionysius or not in 
 attributing the Apocalypse to this John. 
 
 The question is whether this John the presbyter 
 wrote the Fourth Gospel, whether he knew the Lord, 
 and whether, if he wrote the Gospel, he wrote what is 
 historically true. 
 
 Those who hold that he knew the Lord can appeal 
 to the fact that Papias calls him, like Aristion, a 
 'disciple' of the Lord. The Greek reading is not 
 quite certain at this point, but for the present we may 
 give the supporters of this view the full benefit of the 
 doubt. The same critics are impressed by the first- 
 hand knowledge which the Gospel shows. They have 
 made much of the statement that the beloved disciple 
 ' was known unto the high priest ' (xviii. 15), that he 
 knew the name of the high priest's servant Malchus, 
 
310 THE GOSPELS 
 
 that he had special knowledge of Nicodemus, that he 
 gives details about the action of Annas the high 
 priest, possesses an intimate acquaintance with Jeru- 
 salem, and finally had himself in Jerusalem a ' home ' 
 to which he tools the mother of our Lord after the 
 crucifixion (xix. 27). They note, too, that the Gospel 
 is concerned much more with Jerusalem than with 
 Galilee. 
 
 Such points as these have been thought to show that 
 the beloved disciple was not John the son of Zebedee, 
 but an aristocratic Jerusalem Jew, probably a Sadducee, 
 who afterwards lived at Ephesus. It has been observed 
 also that Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, speaks of the 
 John ' who leaned on the bosom of the Lord,' as having 
 become ' a priest who wore the priestly mitre ' (ireTa- 
 \ov).^ This passage might suggest that the beloved 
 disciple belonged to the priestly order in Jerusalem. 
 
 The attention which these points deserve is impor- 
 tant. And it has done something at least to dispose of 
 the theory that the author of the Fourth Gospel was 
 an imaginative Gentile of the second century, or even 
 a Jew of that period. But when it is assumed that the 
 son of Zebedee, the Galilean fisherman, could not have 
 known the high priest, or been familiar with the holy 
 city, or worn a mitre, we must demur. We are once 
 more in the presence of that mischievous hobgoblin, 
 the False Antithesis. It is a spirit which is always 
 appearing unexpectedly to turn good milk sour, and 
 disturb domestic harmony. Zebedee was not a poor 
 man ; he had hired servants, and his wife was one of 
 the women who gave of their substance to support our 
 Lord and His disciples. It was possible a few years 
 ago, and may still be possible, to find in parts of 
 Great Britain men very well to do and fairly well 
 educated in a position analogous to that which we 
 believe to have been occupied by Zebedee and his 
 * Eus. //. E. iii. 31, 3 ; v. 24, 2. 
 
THE AUTHOR OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 311 
 
 family. When critics assume that because S. Peter 
 spoke Aramaic he could not learn to write Greek, 
 and that because S. John was a Galilean he could 
 not acquire a good knowledge of Jerusalem, or be 
 acquainted with leading Sadducees, they are building 
 on a foundation which may be only sand and refuse. 
 In some countries and at certain periods a sharp line 
 has been drawn between those who are engaged in 
 trade, and those who consider themselves superior to 
 such methods of gaining their livelihood. That line 
 did not exist among the Jews, just as for many 
 centuries it did not exist in England, or was habitu- 
 ally crossed. We therefore are doing no violence to 
 the Fourth Gospel, or those analogies with which 
 history furnishes us, when we suppose that the son of 
 Zebedee may have known the topography of Jeru- 
 salem, have known the Jewish high priest, and in his 
 old age at Ephesus worn, as Polycrates says, the high 
 priest's mitre as a sign that he was an apostle of the 
 new ' Israel of God.' 
 
 If it were at all clear that the Jews had put to 
 death, or had been the means of putting to death, 
 John the son of Zebedee at any time near the death of 
 his brother, we might be obliged with little or no 
 hesitation to assign the Fourth Gospel to the younger 
 John, the Ephesian presbyter. And it is not impos- 
 sible that some disciple deeply attached to his divine 
 Master may have been admitted to share the Last 
 Supper in the upper room, though this is to put a 
 very unnatural interpretation on the narrative of the 
 evangelists (Mark xiv. 17 ; Matthew xxvi. 20 ; Luke 
 xxii. 14). Again it is possible that there were two 
 Johns among the more intimate followers of our Lord. 
 Personal names in Palestine were far fewer in number 
 than they are in modern Europe, and we find that the 
 list of the apostles includes beyond all doubt two men 
 of the name of James and two of the name of Simon. 
 
312 THE GOSPELS 
 
 But there is no proved reference to such a younger 
 John in parts of the New Testament where we should 
 expect to find it. We may take it almost as an axiom 
 of criticism that Acts and the Epistle to the Galatians 
 were written independently and that the authors were 
 unacquainted with the Fourth Gospel. Now, the only 
 Johns in the two former books and in the Synoptic 
 Gospels are the Baptist, and John Mark, and the John 
 who appears in Acts iv. 6, as an unconverted kinsman 
 of the high priest, and the son of Zebedee, who is found 
 occupying just that degree of prominence which befits 
 the beloved disciple of the Fourth Gospel. And, as we 
 have already noted, he is in the same close association 
 with S. Peter. Why is there no mention of the younger 
 John, and how can we reconcile this absence of 
 mention with the theory that he was alive, was a com- 
 p.anion of our Lord, and a ' supernumerary apostle ' ? 
 This is only an argument from silence. And argu- 
 ments from silence have been laboured and belaboured 
 in recent criticism. We have ample reason for not 
 regarding such an argument as infallible. But the 
 critics who have laid such stress upon the argument 
 from silence which they derived from the writers of 
 the second century, ought in fairness to pay equal 
 attention to the silence of certain writers of the first 
 century. We have been repeatedly told that genuine 
 writings of the second century, or at least of the first 
 half of that century, say little or nothing that indicates 
 their belief that S. John died at Ephesus or wrote the 
 Fourth Gospel. And in reply we would ask such 
 critics to explain why S. Mark, S. Luke, and S. Paul, 
 writers of the second half of the first century, all of 
 whom were alive during Christ's ministry, never mention 
 the younger John. Or rather, we prefer to say that these 
 silences are not conclusive, but far the more conclusive 
 of the two is this silence with regard to the vyounger 
 John. For the writings to which we have referred are 
 
THE AUTHOR OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 313 
 
 concerned with those who knew and bore testimony to 
 Jesus (Acts i. 21). It is hardly conceivable that, by a 
 conspiracy of jealousy, the authors omitted to mention 
 the younger John. Assuming that he existed, they left 
 out his name because they either did not know him, 
 or regarded him as of little importance. Certainly 
 they cannot have known him as ' the beloved disciple.' 
 
 It is not therefore probable that the Gospel was 
 written by a John who knew our Lord, but was not 
 the apostle. 
 
 But whenever we have to deal with the theory that 
 John the presbyter wrote the Gospel, it has to be borne 
 in mind that the really vital point is not whether the 
 author was the son of Zebedee, but whether he wrote 
 the truth. It is logically possible, though in fact very 
 uncommon, for an acute critic such as Dr. Drummond 
 to hold that the author was John the son of Zebedee, 
 but that a variety of causes led him to transform the 
 history and character of his Master. How far a true 
 affection for that Master, and a deep religious instinct, 
 could permit this flattering travesty, it is hardly neces- 
 sary to inquire. A pagan might represent his inter- 
 course with a venerated friend as intercourse with a 
 divine Being. But it is, to put the matter mildly, very 
 improbable that a sincere monotheist would perform 
 an intellectual feat of so immoral a character. And no 
 wide acceptance has been won for the theory that an 
 apostle and beloved friend of Christ was guilty of this 
 pious fraud of transubstantiating a human Master. 
 
 More probable than the theory of Dr. Drummond is 
 the view already discussed, that the Fourth Gospel is 
 the work of a younger John who knew our Lord and 
 in later life at Ephesus wrote a true account of his 
 Master's life and claims. Such a work would be 
 entitled to an authority only just short of apostolic 
 authority. Indeed, since none of the Synoptic Gospels, 
 not even S. Matthew's Gospel in its present form, was 
 
314 THE GOSPELS 
 
 written by one who lived in our Lord's company, the 
 Fourth Gospel might still be of supreme value if com- 
 posed by a younger John who knew Him. This theory, 
 unlike the last, contains nothing that is morally 
 objectionable. But I am unable to reconcile it with 
 the New Testament. 
 
 The theory which we have numbered (c), viz. : that 
 the author was John the presbyter, but that he was 
 much younger than the apostles and did not know 
 Christ during His life on earth, escapes from the 
 necessity of having to discover room for a super- 
 numerary apostle unknown to the Synoptists and 
 S. Paul. But it has to contend with the internal 
 evidence which points to a knowledge of the origin of 
 Christianity such as no one but an apostle would be 
 likely to possess. And like the criticism which attri- 
 butes the Gospel to an unknown writer of the second 
 century, it is apt to be dominated by a want of 
 sympathy and even by hostility towards the fundamental 
 teaching of the Gospel. It is futile to ignore the fact 
 that the hostile criticism directed against the authen- 
 ticity of this Gospel has in the great majority of cases 
 been associated with, and stimulated by, a repudiation 
 of the evangelist's conception of Jesus Christ and His 
 relation to God the Father. The arguments attribut- 
 ing it to a ' great unknown ' have been almost entirely 
 supplied from non-Christian and anti-Christian sources, 
 though they have occasionally been borrowed by 
 Christian theologians. In our chapter on the ' Criti- 
 cism of the Gospels' it was noticed in outline that the 
 criticism which denies the historical truth of the Fourth 
 Gospel has been connected with a theological plan of 
 campaign. Even comparatively temperate writers like 
 Weizsacker and Jiilicher have quite frankly shown that 
 they object to the evangelist's ' deification ' of Jesus, 
 They assume that he was not divine. They have to 
 reject not only the teaching of the Fourth Gospel 
 
THE AUTHOR OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 316 
 
 concerning Christ, but also that of the great Epistles 
 of S. Paul, of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and of the 
 Apocalypse, all of which can be proved to demonstra- 
 tion to be works of the first Christian century. Traces, 
 by no means obscure, of the influence of such prejudices 
 can be found in other critics who hesitate to break so 
 openly with Christian history. The evangelist is re- 
 garded as possessed by a ' theological conception,' the 
 idea of the Logos. It is granted that ' ever and again 
 the remembrance of the living Person breaks altogether 
 through the theological conception.'^ But not only 
 is this conception treated as having largely lost its 
 value for modern Christianity ; it is also said that ' for 
 much of the fruitless controversy of the succeeding 
 centuries the fourth evangelist must be held re- 
 sponsible.' ^ 
 
 The so-called 'fruitless controversy' which the 
 Christian Church had to wage against those heresies 
 which either denied all the human experiences of Jesus, 
 like Gnosticism, or reduced Him to a demi-god, like 
 Arianism, or regarded Him as a hybrid, like some later 
 errors, was regarded by the early Church as a matter 
 of life or death. The worship, the creeds, the experi- 
 ence, of Christianity were based upon the belief that 
 God, without ceasing to be God, became man, and 
 shared our griefs. The Fourth Gospel powerfully 
 upheld this belief, though it did not originate it. 
 According to this belief, we do not adequately under- 
 stand what Deity is until we realise it in the personality 
 of Jesus Christ, and we cannot understand His human 
 life with its mysterious vicissitudes and tragic close 
 unless we find its explanation in His ' hidden Deity.' 
 This Deity in the background of the human life of 
 Jesus, and inseparably united with it, the fourth 
 evangelist calls the ' Logos,' the Word who has been 
 
 ' Dr. Ernest F. Scott, The Historical and Religious value of the 
 Fourth Gospel, p. 47. ^ Op. cit. p. 87. 
 
316 THE GOSPELS 
 
 uttered from eternity by the Father. He is the ' only- 
 begotten' Son, whose generation is like a pulse of 
 divine life which can never cease to beat. The other 
 conception of Christianity finds much to reverence in 
 Christ.^ But it does not believe that He possessed 
 and revealed the divine life in its fulness, or that He 
 is able to impart this life to His disciples. And this 
 -latter conception the early Church consistently re- 
 pudiated whenever it found expression, for the sufficient 
 reason that she had ' not so learned Christ.' 
 
 ' This of course refers merely to the more sober and moderate type 
 of semi-Christianity, and not to the more unscrupulous and offensive 
 type which is equally common. 
 
INDEX 
 
 Abbot, Ezba, 285. 
 
 Abilene, 214. 
 
 Abrahams, Mr. Israel, on Matt., 
 
 195. 
 Achamotb, Gnostic deity, 6. 
 Acts of the Apostles — 
 
 archaisms in, 218. 
 
 author is the diarist, S. Luke, 
 212. 
 
 date of, 217. 
 
 Josephus not used, 215. 
 Addai, Doctrine of, 306. 
 Alexander and Rufus, 139. 
 Allegory, 5, 249. 
 Allen, Ven. W. C, references to, 
 
 64, 138, 178. 
 Alogoi, repudiated Fourth Gospel, 
 
 277. 
 Antioch, Matt, written near, 188 ; 
 
 S. Luke ImowB, 240. 
 Antiochene theology, 282. 
 Apocalypse of 8. John, 283, 303, 
 
 309. 
 Apocalypses, Jewish, 142. 
 Apocalyptic 'fly-sheet,' so-caUed, 
 
 204. 
 Apocalyptic sayings, 119, 200. 
 Apollonius of Tyana, 255, 294. 
 Aramaic, language of Christ, 106 ; 
 
 original of Gospels, 41, 138. 
 Arian Calendar, on S. John and S. 
 
 James, 305. 
 Aristion (Ariston), probable author 
 
 of conclusion of Mark, 140; in 
 
 Fai)ias, 300. 
 Asceticism in Luke, 220. 
 Augustine, S., on Manichean view 
 
 of Gospels, 3. 
 
 Bacon, Prof. B. W.— 
 on John, 280, 288, 290, 304. 
 on Mark, 158, 160. 
 
 Baptism of Christ, 113, 126, 166, 
 
 210. 
 — - of Christians, 60, 184, 246. 
 Bar-Cochba, 238. 
 Barnabas, Epistle of, 180. 
 Bartlet, Dr. J. V., on Luke, 82. 
 Basilides, the Gnostic, 22, 281. 
 Baur, F. C, 45, 291. 
 Beatitudes, 113, 225. 
 Besant, Mrs. A., her esoteric Chris- 
 tianity, 22. 
 Bethany, our Lord at, 155. 
 Bethesda, miracle at, 249. 
 Bigg, Dr. C, on Quartodecimanism, 
 
 275. 
 Bruce, Prof. A. B., 233. 
 Burkitt, Prof. F. C— 
 
 on date of Fourth Gospel, 289. 
 
 on death of S. John, 305 n. 
 
 on geography of Mark, 146. 
 
 on trial of Christ, 237. 
 
 on Virgin birth, 93. 
 Butler, Dom B. C, on Arian 
 
 martyrology, 305. 
 
 Caesabea Philippi, 147, 150. 
 Calendars, Church, 305. 
 Camhridge Biblical Essays, 195. 
 Canon, New Testament, 1. 
 Capernaum, 98, 149. 
 Carpenter, Dr. J. E., on Matt., 
 
 183. 
 Centurion's servant, healing of, 
 
 117. 
 Cerinthus, 18, 277. 
 Chapman, Dom J., on Harnack, 
 
 132. 
 Chazars, Tartar proselytes to 
 
 Judaism, 186. 
 Christology, of Q, 126; of Mark, 
 
 162, 168; of Matt., 169; of 
 
 Luke, 209 ; of John, 261, 314. 
 317 
 
318 
 
 THE GOSPELS 
 
 Churcli, nature of, 57, 183. 
 Clement of Alexandria, on order 
 
 of Gospels, 65; on origin of 
 
 Mark, 134; testimony to John, 
 
 276. 
 Clement of Home, S., First Epistle 
 
 of, 11 ; so-called Second Epistle, 
 
 4,7. 
 Clementine literature, apooryplial, 
 
 157, 185. 
 • Conybeare, Mr. F. C, on origin of 
 
 conclusion of Mark, 140. 
 Criticism of the Gospels, 32. 
 Cross, Christ's bearing of, in John, 
 
 17 ; our bearing of, in Luke, 231. 
 
 DA1.MANUTHA, 150. 
 
 Decapolis, 148, 150, 291. 
 
 Diatessaron of Tatian, 7, 8. 
 
 Didaohi, 4, 99, 281. 
 
 Diognetui, Epistle to, 4. 
 
 Dionysius of Alexandria, 303, 309. 
 
 Disciplina Arcami, 22. 
 
 Dives and Lazarus, 226, 267. 
 
 Divorce, 190, 223. 
 
 Docetic heresy, 15. 
 
 Documents, Two, the sources of 
 
 the Synoptic Gospels, 54, 89. 
 Domitian, 303. 
 Doublets in the Gospels, 86. 
 Drummond, Dr. J., on Paschal 
 
 controversy, 273; on author of 
 
 Fourth Gospel, 313. 
 
 EBioNrPES, rejected Virgin birth, 
 
 92; S. Luke not influenced by, 
 
 226. 
 Edersheim, Dr. A., on Last Supper, 
 
 297 
 Bdessa, Church of, 306. 
 Encyclopaedia Bihlica, 262. 
 Enoch, Book of, 165. 
 Epiphanius, S., on Ebonites, 226. 
 Eschatology, 68, 200. 
 Eusebius, S. E., 7, 10, 65, 104, 
 
 105, 106, 291, 310. 
 Evangelists, their accuracy tested, 
 
 96, 122, 157. 
 Expository Times, 79, 178. 
 
 Fasting, Christian, 229. 
 Feasts, Jewish, in John, 256. 
 Feeding of four thousand, 87. 
 Fig-tree, the barren, 163. 
 
 Florinus, S. Irenaeus' Epistle to, 
 
 279. 
 Fourth Gospel. See John. 
 Francis, S., of Assisi, Lives of, 97. 
 
 Galilee, our Lord in, 149, 257. 
 
 Gamaliel, 215. 
 
 Gennesaret, 149, 257. 
 
 George Hamartolos, on S. John, 
 
 301.. 
 Gethsemaue, Christ's prayer in, 
 
 235. 
 Gieseler, J. K. L., his theory of 
 
 origin of the Gospels, 42. 
 Glaucias, pretended interpreter of 
 
 S. Peter, 22. 
 Gnosticism, 20, 280. 
 Godet, F., on John, 53, 267; on 
 
 Luke, 214. 
 Gore, Bishop, on prophecy, 29. 
 Gospel, meaning of term, 4, 103, 
 
 174. 
 Gospels, apocryphal, 6, 8. 
 canon of, 1 ; dates of, 134, 
 
 178, 211, 284, 291. 
 
 Hahnaok, Prof. A., 54. — 
 
 on Christ's lament over Jerusalem , 
 260. 
 
 on Christology of Q, 131; of 
 Mark, 168. 
 
 on date of Matt., 94; of Luke, 
 94, 217. 
 
 on "Virgin birth of Christ, 94, 95. 
 Hawkins, Canon Sir J. C. — 
 
 on sayings of our Lord, 113. 
 
 on Synoptic Problem, 64, 79, 85, 
 160. 
 Hebrews, Gospel according to the, 
 
 6. 
 Hegesippus, 6. 
 
 Heitmuller, AV., on John, 248, 267. 
 Herod Antipas, 147, 240. 
 Herodians, 99, 149. 
 High priest, our Lord before, 235. 
 Horae Synopticae. See Hawkins. 
 
 Idols, eating meat offered to, 194. 
 
 Ignatius, S., of Antiooh, knows 
 Matt., 181; relation to fourth 
 Gospel, 19, 281; testimony to 
 primitive Christianity, 18. 
 
 Infancy of our Lord, stories of, 
 apocryphal, 8 ; canonical, 89. 
 
INDEX 
 
 319 
 
 Interpolation, the great, so-called, 
 in Mark, 73. 
 
 Irenaeus, S., on canon of Gospels, 
 31 ; on order of Gospels, 65 ; on 
 date of Mark, 134; on appoint- 
 ment of Linus, 189; testimony 
 to John, 278. 
 
 Jaibtjs' daughter, 144, 162. 
 James and John, ambitious request 
 
 of, 71, 207 ; martyrdom of, 301. 
 Jesus Christ, our Lord — 
 ittitude towards Jewish law, 
 
 188 
 baptism of, 113, 126, 166. 
 birth of, 89. 
 claims in Q, 127 ; in Fourth 
 
 Gospel, 261. 
 date of His death, 269. 
 doctrine of His Person, in Mark, 
 
 164; in Matt., 169; in Luke, 
 
 69, 242; in John, 37, 263, 
 
 313. 
 Founder of the Church, 183. 
 human nature of, 16, 163, 266, 
 
 293. 
 Messiah, 126, 169, 237. 
 miracles of, 35. 
 rationalistic accounts of, 40, 125, 
 
 131, 158, 168, 261. 
 resurrection of, 34, 159. 
 Sayings of, 102. 
 scene of ministry, 39, 149, 256. 
 second coming of, 202. 
 silences enjoined by, 143. 
 teaching misunderstood by 
 
 hearers, 145, 245. 
 temptation of, 113, 133. 
 training of disciples, 140, 
 trial of, 235. 
 universalist teaching of, 124, 
 
 200. 
 John the Elder or Presbyter, Papias 
 on, 300 ; was he the author of 
 the Fourth Gospel? 307. 
 John, S., the Baptist, death of, 
 in Mark, 71 ; preaching of, in Q, 
 113 ; relation to Christ in Q, 127; 
 miraculous birth in Luke, 95, 
 221; attitude of Fourth Gospel 
 towards, 250. 
 John, S., the Evangelist, alleged 
 residence in Asia, 269, 298; 
 
 author of Apocalypse, 280, 283, 
 303 ; author of Fourth Gospel, 
 276, 307. 
 John, S., Gospel according to — 
 agreement with Luke, 241 ; with 
 
 Matt., 250. 
 authorship of, 276. 
 canonical early, 9. 
 date, 284, 289, 291. 
 discourses of Christ in, 37, 244. 
 Docetism opposed in, 17. 
 doctrine of Christ's Person in, 
 
 37, 261, 314. 
 eschatology of, 203. 
 external evidence of use, 276. 
 Holy Spirit in, 211, 277. 
 internal evidence of genuineness, 
 
 285, 292. 
 Jews in, 247. 
 John the Baptist in, 250. 
 Last Supper in, 135, 270, 296. 
 Lazarus, 265. 
 local colour in, 97, 294. 
 Logos or Word in, 265, 315. 
 Mark resembles, 161, 165. 
 rationalistic treatment of, 43, 
 
 47, 51, 56, 247, 255. 
 time of Christ's ministry in, 89, 
 
 256. 
 Josephus, alleged use of his works 
 
 by S. Luke, 213. 
 Judaeo-German scepticism, 43, 
 
 62. 
 Judgment, the, Christ's teaching 
 
 on, 202. 
 Jiilicher, A., on Fourth Gospel, 57, 
 
 314. 
 Justification, in S. Luke and S. 
 
 Paul, 209. 
 Justin Martyr, S. — 
 four Gospels in, 4, 24. 
 Gospel of Peter in, 8. 
 names for the Gospels, 4, 24. 
 quotes Fourth Gospel, 280 ; Ser- 
 mon on the Mount, 109. 
 Revelation ascribed to S. John, 
 
 280. 
 worship of Christians described, 
 
 26. 
 
 Keim, Th., on life of Christ, 51. 
 Kingdom of God, 57, 59, 176. 
 its relation to the Church, 183. 
 
320 
 
 THE GOSPELS 
 
 Knowling, Dr. R. J., on Virgin 
 birth, 93. 
 
 Last Suppbk, day of, in Synoptists, 
 
 136, 271; in John, 136, 269; 
 
 eschattological meaning of, 61. 
 Law, Jewish, attitude of Matthew 
 
 towards, 186 : of Christ towards, 
 
 188. 
 Lazarus, raising of, 100, 265. 
 'Liberal Frotestantism,' doctrines 
 
 and negations of, 55, 62. 
 Liturgical use of Gospels, 26. 
 Local colour in Gospels, 97, 295.' 
 Logia, 81, 102, 105. See also Q. 
 Logos doctrine, 37, 264, 315. 
 Loisy, A. , on Luke, 208 ; on Lazar- 
 us, 267. 
 Lord's Supper, 61, 135, 159, 232, 
 
 246. 
 Luke, S., author of the third Gos- 
 pel, 66, 95, 206 ; gained informa- 
 tion from S. Philip, 222 ; visited 
 
 Jerusalem with S. Paul, 240. 
 Luke, S., Gospel according to — 
 
 agreement with Fourth Gospel, 
 241. 
 
 asceticism, 220. 
 
 attitude towards Judaism, 209. 
 
 based on Mark, 70. 
 
 based on Q, 84. 
 
 characteristics, 206. 
 
 date, 211. 
 
 doublets, 88. 
 
 geographical knowledge, 98. 
 
 Holy Spirit in, 210. 
 
 interpolation into Marcan order, 
 83. 
 
 Josephus not used, 214. 
 
 omission of Marcan matter, 71. 
 
 Passion of Christ in, 231. 
 
 Pauline influence on, 208. 
 
 poverty in, 225. 
 
 prayer in, 210. 
 
 Samaritans in, 152, 242. 
 
 Septuagint influence on, 208. 
 
 special source of, 82. 
 
 the Twelve spared in, 207. 
 
 variations from Marcan order, 74. 
 
 women in, 221, 224. 
 Lysanias, 214. 
 
 Maclxah, Bishop, on original lan- 
 guage of Mark, 138. 
 
 Magi, 69, 171. 
 
 Magnificat, 210. 
 
 Mani, founder of heretical sect, 1. 
 
 Marcion, doctrines of, 11 ; his use 
 
 of Luke, 12. 
 Marcos, the Gnostic, 21. 
 Margoliouth, Prof. D. S., 186. 
 Mark, S., Gospel according to — 
 
 Christ in, 162. 
 
 compared with Fourth Gospel, 
 161. 
 
 date, 134. »' • 
 
 disciples in, 140, 145. 
 
 eschatology of, 203. 
 
 geography of, 146. 
 
 last twelve verses, 139. 
 
 original language of, 138. 
 
 Faulinism in, 158. 
 
 Feter in, 155. 
 
 Bioman origin of, 133. 
 
 source of Matt, and Luke, 68, 74. 
 
 use of Q, 82, 89, 133. 
 Marriage and divorce, in Matt., 
 
 190 ; in Luke, 222. 
 Matthew, S., author of Q, 105, 
 
 110, 174. 
 Gospel according to — 
 
 based on Mark, 74. 
 
 based on Q, 82. 
 
 breaks Mark's order, 77. 
 
 Catholicism of, 182. 
 
 church in, 183. 
 
 date, 178. 
 
 doublets, 87. 
 
 eschatology of, 200. 
 
 favourite Gospel of primitive 
 Church, 179. 
 
 Judaises law of marriage, 190. 
 
 kingdom of the heavens in, 176, 
 202. 
 
 method of grouping materials, 
 171. 
 
 Mosaic Law in, 186, 190, 194. 
 
 omissions of Marcan matter, 75. 
 
 quotations in, 169. 
 
 universaliBm of, 186. 
 Melito, relation to Quartodeciman 
 
 controversy, 273. 
 Miracles, in the Gospels, 33, 127. 
 Modernism, 55. 
 Moffat, Dr. J., on the Church, 57 
 
 on Lysanias, 214 ; on S. Irenaeus, 
 
 279 ; on death of S. John, 301. 
 Montanus, heresy of, 28, 277. 
 
INDEX 
 
 321 
 
 Montefiore, Mr. C. G., on Synoptic 
 
 Gospels, 58. 
 Mozarabic Calendar, On S. James 
 
 and S. John, 306. 
 Muhammad, 1, 4. 
 Muhammadan belief as to Christ's 
 
 death, 16. 
 Mwratorian Ccmon, 9, 31, 291. 
 Mustard seed, parable of, 82, 119, 
 
 120, 177. 
 
 Nain, widow's son at, 224. 
 Nia^retie, meaning of name, 170. 
 Nazarenes, sect of, 194. 
 Nazareth, Christ's childhood at, 
 89, 170 ; sermon at, 207. 
 
 Old Testament, the only Scripture 
 of the Apostolic Church, 4, 102 ; 
 rejection of, by Gnostics, 13; 
 quotations from, in Gospels, 170 ; 
 250. 
 
 Omissions in Luke, 71, 234; in 
 Matt., 75; in Mark, 77, 100, 
 153. 
 
 Oral theory as to origin of Gospels, 
 42. 
 
 tradition, 84. 
 
 Origen, on Matt., 169 ; on martyr- 
 dom of S. John,- 302. 
 
 Ottley, Dr. K. L., on doctrine of 
 Christ's Person, 265, 277. 
 
 Papias, on Logia of S. Matt., 
 110, 112; on S. Mark, 110; on 
 John the Presbyter, 300, 308; 
 date of, 308. 
 
 Parables, misunderstanding of, 246. 
 
 Farousia (second coming of Christ). 
 See Eschatology. 
 
 Paschal Chronicle, 273. 
 
 Passion, Christ's predictions of, 
 78 ; narrative of, whether omitted 
 in Q, 121; how given in Luke, 
 231. 
 
 Paul, S., his doctrine and Christ's, 
 11, 198; his death, 218; testi- 
 mony to date of Christ's death, 
 273. 
 
 Paulinism, in Mark, 158; in Luke, 
 208. 
 
 FauluB, H. E. G., rationalism of, 
 40, 266. 
 
 Peraea, 147, 151, 257. 
 
 Peraean section of Luke, sometimes 
 
 so-called (ix. 51-xviii. 14), 83, 
 
 153. 
 Peter, S.— 
 
 Apocryphal Gospel of, 8. 
 
 confession of Christ, 128, 145, 
 150, 262. 
 
 denial of Christ, 156, 207. 
 
 doctrine of, 11, 161, 168. 
 
 festival of S. Peter and S. Paul, 
 306. 
 
 S. Mark's informant, 110, 134, 
 155. 
 Pharisees, opposed in Q, 113; in 
 
 Matt., 193 ; less in Luke, 206. 
 Philip, S., the Apostle, 264, 291. 
 
 the Evangelist, 222. 
 
 his daughters prophet- 
 esses, 222. 
 of Side, on S. John's death, 
 
 301. 
 
 the Tetrarch, 214. 
 
 Philostratus, 255, 294. 
 Pilate, in Luke and John, 238. 
 Plummer, Dr. A., on Matt., 64. 
 Polycarp, S., Epistle of, 281; con- 
 nection with S. John, 278. 
 Folycrates, his connection with S. 
 
 John, 272, 282; on S. Philip, 
 
 291. 
 Portrait of our Lord, in Synoptists, 
 
 37, 163, 207; in John, 37, 261, 
 
 266. 
 Prayer in Luke, 210. 
 Protestantism, old and 'modern' 
 
 contrasted, 57. 
 Protevangeliv/n of James, 8. 
 
 Q, i.e. Quelle, source (German 
 
 name for the lost document used 
 
 by Matt, and Luke, and probably 
 
 Mark)— 
 
 existence of, 82. 
 
 contents of, 113. 
 
 date of, 120. 
 
 Christology of, 128. 
 
 eschatology of, 201. 
 Quartodeciman controversy, 272. 
 Quintilla, Montanist prophetess, 
 
 28. 
 Quirinius, P. Sulpicius, governor 
 
 of Syria, 215. 
 Quotations from Old Testament, in 
 
 Matt., 170; in John, 250. 
 
322 
 
 THE GOSPBLS 
 
 Ramsay, Sir W. M., on date of Q, 
 
 120. 
 Rationalism, character of the older, 
 
 40 ; of the recent, 53, 58. 
 Renan, E., on our Lord, 49; on 
 
 the Gospels, SO. 
 Resurrection, Christ's, nature of 
 
 appearances, 34. 
 Rhossus, Gospel of Peter at, 8. 
 Roman Mass, described by Justin, 
 
 26 ; canon of, 134. 
 Rome, Mark written at, 133; 
 
 opposed to Ephesus, 272. 
 Russian sectaries, on defilement, 
 
 193. 
 
 S, i.e. Special Soxirce used bj 
 
 Lulje, 82. 
 Sabbath, Christ's action on, 248 ; 
 
 attitude of Matt, towards, 196. 
 Sadducees, 99, 172, 258. 
 Samaria, Christ's visits to, 147, 150, 
 
 293. 
 Samaritans, in Luke, 152, 242; in 
 
 John, 293. 
 Sanday, Dr. "W.— 
 
 on Apostolic decree, 187. 
 
 books by, 64. 
 
 on Fourth Gospel, 283. 
 
 on Papias, 308. 
 
 on Q and S, 83. 
 
 on scene of Christ's ministry, 
 153, 252. 
 
 on Virgin birth, 95. 
 Sanhedrin, meeting at Christ's 
 
 trial, 235. 
 Schleiermacher, F. D. E., 42. 
 Schmiedel, P. W., on Epistle of 
 
 Barnabas, 180; on Luke and 
 
 John, 258, 260. 
 Schiirer, B., on Messianic doctrine, 
 
 254. 
 Schweitzer, A., on eachatology, 45, 
 
 58, 61, 201. 
 Septuagint (Greek) version of Old 
 
 Testament, 4. 
 Sermon on the Mount, 81, 113. 
 Seventy, the, appointment of, 87. 
 Sheep and Goats, parable of, 
 
 177. 
 Shepherd of Sermas, on prophets, 
 
 29. 
 Simon of Cyrene, 17, 139. 
 Simon the Pharisee 73. 
 
 Sinaitio, or old Syriac, version of 
 
 Gospels, 92. 
 Son of God, meaning of title, 129, 
 
 165, 264. 
 Son of Man, 164, 263. 
 Sower, parable of, 141. 
 Speculum perfectionis, 97. 
 Spirit, Holy, blasphemy against, 
 
 168; in S. Luke and S. Paul, 
 
 210. 
 Stanton, Dr. V. H., 64. 
 Strauss, D. F., 43. 
 Streeter, Rev. B. H., references to, 
 
 133, 201. 
 Synoptic problem, 65. 
 Synoptists, relation of, to Fourth 
 
 Gospel, 36, 241, 243. 
 Syrophoenician woman, story of, 
 
 71, 160. 
 Swete, Dr. H. B., 64. 
 
 Tatiau, his Diatesawron, 7 ; use of 
 
 Fourth Gospel, 276. 
 Temptation, the, 113, 133. 
 TertuUian, on pope and prophets, 
 
 29. 
 Theodas, pretended friend of S. 
 
 Paul, 22. 
 Theological Studies, Journal of, 20, 
 
 92, 132. 
 Theophilus of Antioch, attributes 
 
 Fourth Gospel to John, 277, 
 
 283. 
 Theudas, 215. 
 
 Tosefta, on trespass-offering, 195. 
 Training of the disciples, 140. 
 Transfiguration, the, 144. 
 Trypho, J-ustin's Dialogue with, 
 
 23. 
 Tubingen school, 45, 185. 
 Turner, Mr. C. H., on S. Ignatius, 
 
 20 ; on Virgin birth, 92. 
 Tyrrell, Rev. 6., 22, 201. 
 
 Ukiah, wife of, in our Lord's 
 genealogy, 90. 
 
 Valebian, Emperor, persecution 
 
 under, 306. 
 Veil, rending of, 162. 
 Victor, Bishop of Rome, 272. 
 Vincent of Lerina, S., his rule of 
 
 Catholicity, 23. 
 Virgin birth of Christ, 89, 221. 
 
INDEX 
 
 323 
 
 Von Soden, Freiherr, 54. 
 
 ' We SKonoss ' in Acts, 212. 
 Weiss, J., on eschatology, 58; on 
 
 Lazarus, 268. 
 Weizsacker, C, on John, 52, 314. 
 Wellhausen, Prof. J., on Q, 120, 
 
 131; on the Church in Matt., 
 
 182. 
 
 Westoott, Bishop, on John, 53. 
 Widow's mites, 225. 
 Women in Luke, 221, 224. 
 Worship, public, influence on the 
 
 canon of Gospels, 26. 
 Wrede, W., 58. 
 
 ZA.CCHAEUS, 83. 
 
 Zoroaster, 1. 
 
 Frinted by T. and A. Constable, Frinters to His Majesty 
 at the Edinburgh University Fress 
 
MESSRS. LONGMANS & CO.'S 
 NEW LIST 
 
 CREED AND THE CREEDS : Their Panotion in Religion. Being the 
 Bampton Lectures for 1911. |By the Rev. John Hontlkt Skmke, D.D., 
 Vicar of St. Peter's in the East, Oxford. 8vo, 7s. 6d. net. 
 
 MIRACLE AND HISTORY: A Study of the Virgin| Birth and the 
 Resurrection. By the Rev. John HtTNTLBV Skrine, D.D. , 8vo, paper covers, 
 Is. net ; cloth, 2s. net. 
 
 IDEALS OF HOLINESS : An Aid to Preparation for Holy Communion. 
 By the Bev. F. W. Drake, Priest-in-Charge of St. John's Church, Wilton 
 Road, S.W. Crown 8vo, 2s. net. 
 
 FATHER POLLOCK AND HIS BROTHER MISSION PRIESTS OF ST. 
 
 ALBAN'S, BIRMINGHAM. With a Prefatory Letter by the EightSRev. 
 Chablks Gorb, D.D., Bishop of Oxford. ^Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d. net. o/T/l 
 
 CHOSEN AND SENT FORTH: Notes of a Retreat for Priests. By 
 the Rev. John Wakefobd, B.D., Prebendary of Clifton in Lincoln Minster. 
 Fcap. 8vo, 2s. net. 
 
 STEDFASTLT PURPOSED. Notes of a Retreat for Churehwomen. 
 By the Rev. John Wakbfobd, B.D., Prebendary of Clifton in Lincoln Minster. 
 Fcap. 8vo, 23. 6d. net. 
 
 OUT OF THE IVORY PALACES: Devotional and Doctrinal Instruc- 
 tions on Holy Communion, gathered out of Holy Scripture and derived from 
 Types and Teachings in both 'Testaments. A Companion Volume to the Author's 
 'Into the Holy of Holies.' By Rev. John Wakeford, B.D., Prebendary of 
 Clifton in Lincoln Minster. 18mo, limp covers, 9d. net ; cloth, Is. net. 
 
 LEO XIII. AND ANGLICAN ORDERS. By Viscount HaIifax, 8to, 
 12s. 6d. net. 
 
 THE PRICE OF UNITY. By W. B. Matoein, Formerly of Cowley 
 St, John, Oxford. Grown 8vo, 5s. net. 
 
 DEUTERONOMY: Its Place in Revelation. By A. H. MoNbilb, D.D., 
 Fellow and Dean of Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, Examining Chaplain 
 to the Bishop of Oxford. Crown 8vo. 
 
 THE MINISTRY OF ABSOLUTION : A Plea for its more general use, 
 with a due regard to the liberty of the individual. By Ctril Bickehsteth, 
 M.A., of the Community of the Resurrection. Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d. net. 
 
 THE SACRAMENT OF REPENTANCE: A Devotional and Practical 
 Commentai-y on the Fifty-first Psalm. By the Ven. James H. F. Peile, M.A., 
 Archdeacon of Warwick. Fcap. 8vo, 2s. 6d. net. 
 
 XonAon Biocesan Sunbas School Series. 
 Issued under the Authority of The Lord Bishop of London. 
 
 SUNDAY SCHOOL TEACHING: Its Aims and its Methods. By the 
 Rev. H. A.. Lester, M.A., Director of Sunday School Work in the Diocese 
 of London, formerly Vice-Principal of Warrington Training College. Crown 
 8vo, 2s. net. 
 
 LONGMANS, GBEEN AND CO. 
 
 LONDON, NEW YORK, BOMBAY, AND CALCUTTA 
 
MESSRS. LONGMANS & CO.'S 
 NEW LIST 
 
 SPIRITUAL PKOGBESS : A Word of Good Cheer. By the Eev. Arthur 
 W. EoBiNSON, D.D., Vicar of All Hallows Barking by the Tower. With an 
 Introduction by the Bishop op London. Crown 8vo, 2b. 6d. net. 
 
 THE SEASON OF LIFE. By WiLLUM POKCHEE DU BosE, S.T.D., 
 
 Author of ' The Gospel in the Gospels,' &c. Crown SvOj 5s. net. 
 
 This is an attempt to present the Christian Creed as a whole as the ccmr- 
 pletely adequate expression of the meaning and value of life. 
 
 TUENING POINTS IN MY LIFE. Bt Wiluam PobCHEE DU Bose, M. A . , 
 8.T.D. Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d. net. 
 
 STKENGTH FROM QUIETNESS : Suggestions for keeping a Quiet Day, 
 chieiiy addressed to Invalids, and those unable to join in a Retreat. In- 
 cluding Addresses by Bishop King and Dean Butleb. By M. Giles. Fcap. 
 8vo, 2s. net. 
 
 THE CHURCH AND THE AGE. Being Four Lectures delivered at Sion 
 College on ' The Co-operation of the Church with the Spirit of the Age.' By 
 the Very Rev. William Ralph Inge, D.D., Dean of St. Paul's. Fcap. Svo, 
 2s. net. 
 
 LOVE'S ASCENT : Considerations of Some Degrees of Spiritual attain- 
 ment. By the Rev. Jesse Bbeft, L.Th., Chaplain of All Saints' Hospital, 
 Eastbourne. With Frontispiece in Colour. Crown 8vo, 38. 6d. net. 
 
 OUR PROFESSION : A Penitent's Desire of Christian Loyalty. Sermons 
 by the Rev. P. N. Waqgett, M.A. Crown Svo. 
 
 CALLS TO SERVICE. Being Sermons and Addresses delivered in the 
 Diocese of London. By the Bight Eev. Fbederic Edwakd Eidgbway, D.D., 
 Bishop of Salisbury ; formerly Bishop of Kensington. Crown 8vo, 5s. net. 
 
 A SHORT INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT. By the Bev. 
 F. Ernest Spencer, M.A. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d. net. 
 
 OUR BOUNDEN DUTY : Sermons and Addresses. By the Eev. Chaeles 
 H. Robinson, D.D., Hon. Canon of Ripon, and Editorial Secretary of the 
 S.P.G. Crown 8vo, 2s. 64. net. 
 
 A DEVOTIONAL PSALTER. By the Rev. Charles H. Eobinson, D.D. 
 Fcap. Svo, cloth. Is. net ; leather, 2s. net. 
 
 SERMONS AND ADDRESSES. By EDWARD KiNO, D.D.,late Bishop of 
 Lincoln. Edited by B. W.j Randolph, D.D., Canon of Ely. Crown Svo, 
 28. 6d. net. 
 
 PAIN AND GLADNESS : A Biblical Study. By a Sister in an English 
 Community. With a Preface by the Rev. John Neville Figgis, Litt.D. 
 Crown Svo, 2s. 6d. net. 
 
 BIBLE STUDIES IN OUTLINE : The Purpose of the Fourth Gospel. For 
 Study Circles, Bible Classes, and Individual Use. By G. A. Gollogk, 
 Author of 'Bible Studies in Outline: St. Mark's Gospel.' With simplified 
 assignments by Catherine B. Firth, M.A. Crown Svo, paper covers. Is. 
 net ; cloth. Is. 6d. net. 
 
 LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO. 
 
 LONDON, NEW'YOEK, BOMBAY, AND CALCUTTA