i .;•.■;-.;;.■..;.-■.: ■;■:.. •':&. THE HUMAN I GEORGE SALMON, ©.©. "3 I *~ CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY GIFT OF Alfred C. Barnes 1 Date Due mat S£f» — £■ wrwt*-^ % PRINTED IN U. S. A. (Qf CAT * NO. 23233 BS2555 .SiT" ""^^ ^^ Human element in the gospels: a comments olin 3 1924 029 338 914 Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029338914 THE HUMAN ELEMENT IN THE GOSPELS'®^, A COMMENTARY ON THE SYNOPTIC NARRATIVE By GEORGE SALMON, D.D., F.R.S. late provost of trinity college, dublin Edited by NEWPORT J. D. WHITE, D.D. CANON OF ST PATRICK'S AND PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL GREEK IN THE UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN NEW YORK E. P. DUTTON AND COMPANY 1907 Printed in Great Britain. EDITOR'S PREFACE Those who read this book will not require from the Editor's Preface anything more than an account of the relation of the printed volume to the Author's manuscript. In January 1905 the notes on the Synoptic Narrative which Dr Salmon had left were placed in my hands with a view to their publication if I should consider them to be in a sufficiently completed state. I found that there were two sets of note books, marked A and B respectively ; the former consisting of thirteen volumes, the latter of seventeen, besides a book containing what I have here printed as the Author's Preface. A and B represent the first and second drafts of Dr Salmon's notes ; the second draft stops abruptly at a point noted on p. 510 of this volume. On careful consideration, I came to the con- clusion that the second draft was, on the whole, the worthier presentation of Dr Salmon's views, although it appears from a note in one of the volumes that he was not altogether satisfied on this point himself. It is possible that if he had lived to go over the work again he would have somewhat modified the arrangement of the matter ; but there vii viii EDITOR'S PREFACE is no reason to suppose that he would have altered any of his critical conclusions. It is to be observed that the printed volume is an abridgment of the manuscript. The work was designed to be an essay in the Higher Criticism ; that is to say, it is an investigation of the sources of the Synoptic Gospels ; and in such a work philological notes and discussions on various readings are strictly speaking only admissible when it can be shown that they affect decisions on questions of Higher Criticism. Consequently, I have thought it best to omit many such notes and discussions. They were not distributed uniformly throughout the manuscript, and in all probability they were not intended by the author for ultimate publication, but rather were written down as material for reflection. Dr Salmon,^ if I may judge from this MS., used the pen a's a stimulus to thought. In these two drafts of notes every word of the Greek text of St Mark, with the parallels in the other Gospels, is copied out by his own hand ; l and the same motive, as it would seem, suggested the repetition in suitable places of matter already published in his Introduction. This of course has also been cut out. But I desire that it should be clearly understood that with the exceptions I have noted, which are in fact not significant, there has been no suppression whatever of critical judgments ; and, beyond the correction of obvious slips of the pen, no alteration has been 1 See note on p. 19. EDITOR'S PREFACE ix made in the wording. What is here presented to the reading public is all Dr Salmon's own, and wholly fresh. Higher Criticism is not directly concerned with exegesis ; and I may be charged with inconsistent treatment of the MS., in having printed so much exegetical matter. The reader will readily pardon this inconsistency; for I venture to think that significant as are Dr Salmon's critical conclusions, the exegesis and obiter dicta contained in this volume are more characteristic of the man, and will appeal to a wider circle. Those who have read his other works and sermons, or who had the privilege of personal intercourse with him, know how Dr Salmon's humorous wisdom and common sense, expressed with unconventional simplicity and directness, were wont to clear an entangled argument or illuminate an obscurity. The present work will supply many examples of this characteristic, which was especially his own. Those who are acquainted with Dr Salmon's Introduction to the New Testament will probably feel some degree of surprise at some of the opinions expressed in this work, especially as regards the Fourth Gospel. Some may think it reasonable to hold that the truest presentation of the great critic's mind is to be found in the conclusions, which Dr Salmon honestly arrived at when he was a younger man. On this matter I need not offer any opinion. My present business, as I conceive it, is to see through the Press, as accurately as I can, x EDITOR'S PREFACE the work of my revered and honoured teacher, not to criticise it. I must, however, remind those to whom Dr Salmon's last decisions will be unwelcome, that the views here expressed are the spontaneous and untrammelled judgments of a trained and powerful intellect on an entirely fresh study of the Gospels. His intellect had been nurtured on the broad culture of what used to be known as University education, an education which had at least this merit that it was favourable to the development of a sense of proportion in the judgment of a man who profited by it. Moreover, although this work is not only posthumous but incomplete, from the standpoint of the author's design, it cannot be said to betray the weakness of old age, notwithstanding the pathetic confession in the Author's Preface. The studies, of which this book is the outcome, were taken up at a time when Dr Salmon's intellect and personality profoundly impressed all who came into contact with him. For several years before his death, Dr Salmon may be said to have devoted his thoughts and serious study almost altogether to the Synoptic Problem. He talked and corresponded with scholars who were interested in the same or similar studies, in particular with the eminent theologians who are now the Deans of Westminster and of St Patrick's. And yet he felt strangely alone amongst men of a younger generation, whose minds had grown up in an environment of belief so different in some respects from that of his own EDITOR'S PREFACE xi youth. It is difficult for us now to place ourselves in the times when our Essays-and-Revitws 1 debate Began to tell on the public mind, And Colenso's words had weight. The feeling of aloneness, which is one of the trials of old age, is accentuated in the case of one who has passed through a stage of transition in religious thought, and who may be easily pardoned if he exaggerates the width of the chasm between the old and the new. He is tempted to feel that he has lost the companionship, not only of his old friends, but of his old self. As an illustration of this feeling I think that the following note, written on the fly leaf of one of his MS. note-books, is of profound interest. The note is on a quotation from a current number of the Spectator. " Every person who meditates much upon any- thing and never discusses it usually becomes upon that subject so separate that his fellow-men fail to understand him." — Spectator, 8th October 1898, p. 486. And the note is as follows : — " I have meditated much on the subject of these papers ; I have not discussed them with others : With some, because their sympathies would be as much opposed to my views, as my own originally were, and because I have no right to throw them out of their present mental position without being sure of being able to offer them a better one ; with others, because I should only encourage them xii EDITOR'S PREFACE to go further in the same direction than I am prepared to follow or to sympathise with." This somewhat pathetic tone of uneasiness, however, only affected, in his case, literary problems connected with our most holy faith. Those who really knew George Salmon do not need to be told, and those who read this book will see for themselves, that his faith in all that concerns the Christian life was founded upon a rock. The Greek text printed in this book is that of Westcott and Hort, except in a very few cases where readings preferred by Dr Salmon are com- mented on. I have noted above that Dr Salmon had written out the whole of the Greek text before each section ; and if I had retained all his notes on the minute variations between the Evangelic records it would have been desirable to print the Greek all through. But there did not seem any adequate reason for doing so in cases where the comment following did not of necessity compel immediate attention to the original text. It remains that I should express my sincere thanks to the Rev. R. M. Gwynn, Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin, and to the Rev. Canon H. V. White, Treasurer of St Patrick's Cathedral, who have kindly assisted me in reading the proofs of this book. Trinity College, Dublin, \blh January 1907. Newport J. D. White. TABLE OF CONTENTS EDITOR'S PREFACE AUTHOR'S PREFACE INTRODUCTION Page v i ■ 13 References Subject Mark Matt. Luke PROLOGUE OF ST MARK'S GOSPEL. Mark i. I-13 33 THE TITLE OF THE BOOK i. 1 33 THE APPEARANCE OF THE BAPTIST i. 2-4 iii. 1-3 iii. 2-6 40 it it » xi. 10 vii. 27 it It tt i. 5-6 iii. 4-6 47 THE PREACHING OF THE BAPTIST . iii. 7-10 iii. 7-9 48 tt )> it ' iii. io-i6a JOHN'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE MESSIAH i. 7, 8 iii. 11, 12 iii. 166- 18 Si it it it • Johni. 27 THE BAPTISM OF JESUS i-9 iii. 13 iii. 2i 33 11 i. 22 vii. 2S6, 29 iv. 32 89 THE MIRACLE IN THE SYNAGOGUI I i. 23 iv- 33 93 11 3) 11 . i. 24 iv. 34 94 11 39 31 . i. 25, 26 iv. 35 97 THE EFFECT OF THE MIRACLE . i. 27 iv. 36 98 33 u i) . i. 28 iv. 37, 14 99 PETER'S WIFE'S MOTHER . . i. 29 viii. 14a iv. 38a 99 a it * ' . i- 3°.,3l viii. 146, 15 iv. 38*, 39 100 xiii xiv TABLE OF CONTENTS References p»r-ir Subject Mark Matt . Luke THE CROWD ROUND THE DOOR IN THE EVENING i. 32-34 viii. 16, 17 iv. 40, 41 103 JESUS LEAVES CAPERNAUM . . i. 35-38 iv. 42, 43 106 • • i- 39 iv - 44 i°7 THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT— preliminary remarks .... 109 „ „ .... v. 1,2 vi. 203 no I. THE BEATITUDES. Matt. V. 3-12 . V. 3-I2 vi. 20*5-26 112 II. THE INFLUENCE OF THE CITIZENS OF the kingdom. Matt. v. 13-16 . ix. 50 v. 13 xiv. 34, 35 117 „ „ „ . iv. 21, 22 V. IS III. THE AUTHORITY OF THE MOSAIC LAW. Matt. v. 17-20 ... 119 „ „ ,, v. 18 xvi. 17 121 IV. THE EXTENSION OF THE MOSAIC law. Matt. v. 21-48 ... 121 (a) The Law of Murder. Matt. v. 21-26 v. 25, 26 xii. 58, 59 121 r v. 29, 30 "I (6) The Law of Adultery. Matt. v. 27-30 ix. 43-47 J xviii. 8, 9 f 125 Ixix. 12 ' (d) The Law of Perjury. Matt. v. 33-37 («) The Law of Revenge. Matt. v. 38-42 {viii. 16, 17"! xi. 33 / (/) The Law of Enmity. Matt. v. 43-48 V. ACTS OF DEVOTION. Matt. vi. I-l8 (a) Almsgiving. Matt. vi. 1-4 . (b) Prayer. Matt. vi. 5-15. (c) Pasting. Matt. vi. 16-18 VI. TRUST IN GOD. Matt. vi. I9-34. x. 2-12 J":^,^ I. xix. 3-12 ) 128 132 132 v. 40 vi. 29* 133 »• 39 vi. 29a v. 42 vi. 35a 134 ; ». 44 vi. 27, 28 I3S v- 45 vi. 35* 136 v. 46, 47 vi. 32-34 v. 48 vi. 36 137 '37 vi. 9-13 xi. 1-4 138 xi.2 5 (26) / vi -.. I 4» IS \xviu. 35 } vi. 19-21 x «-33.34 139 vi. 22, 23 xi. 34-36 140 vi. 24 xvi. 13 vi. 25-34 x «- 22-31 141 TABLE OF CONTENTS Subject Mark References Matt. Luke XV Page THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT (continued) — VII. CONDUCT, DANGERS. Matt. Vli. I-27. iv. 24 Enter ye in by the narrow gate Beware of fake prophets. Deeds not words. Matt. vii. 15-27 THE HEALING OF THE LEPER THE CENTURION'S SERVANT THE PARALYTIC MAN . THE CALLING OF THE PUBLICAN THE PUBLICAN'S FEAST THE QUESTION ABOUT FASTING THE WALK THROUGH THE CORN FIELDS THE MAN WITH THE WITHERED HAND OUR LORD'S CHANGE OF HIS SCENE OF LABOUR . THE CROWDS .... iv. 24 vii. 1, 2 vi. 37. 38 141 vii. 3-5 vi. 41, 42 142 vii. 7-n xi. 9-13 vii. 12 vi. 31 vii. 13a xiii. 24a 143 vii. 1 6a, 20 vi. 44a 143 .'44 vii, 166 vi. 44A J vii. 17,18! I xii. 33 J vi. 43 / vii. 19 \ \ iii. 10 f iii. 9 vii. 21 vi. 46 vii. 22, 23 xiii. 25-27 vii. 24-27 vi. 47-49 144 viii. 1 146 i. 40 viii. 2 v. 12 148 i. 41-44 viii. 3, 4 v. 13. 14 149 i- 45 v. 15, 16 151 viii. 5-10 vii. 1-10 152 viii. 11,12 xiii. 28, 29 156 ii. 1 -12 ix. 1-8 v. 17-26 157 ii. 13, 14 ix. 9 v. 27, 28 164 ii. 15-17 ix. 10-13 v. 29-32 167 ii. 18-22 ix. 14-17 v- 33-38 171 ii. 23-28 xii. 1-4, 8 xii. 5-7 vi. 1-5 174 iii. 1-6 xii. 9-14 vi. 6-1 1 177 xii. 11,12 / X ! v /S I 181 111. Ja su. 15a 182 THE APPOINTMENT OF THE TWELVE iii. 13-15 vi. 12, 13 186 x. 1 xvi TABLE OF CONTENTS „ References Page Subject Mark Matt . Luke THE NAMES OF THE APOSTLES Hi. 16-193 x. 2-4 vi. .14-16 194 THE SEVENTY 20 ° CHARGES MADE BY OUR LORD'S ENEMIES Hi. 196-21 z °2 THE CHARGE OF CASTING OUT DEVIL'S BY BEELZEBUB . iu. 22-26 {£' \^^} xi - '4- 20 z°S xii. 27,28 xi. 19,20 208 , . iii. 27 xii. 29 xi. 21, 22 210 „ „ xii. 30 xi. 23 210 „ . iii. 28-30 xii. 31, 32 xii. 10 210 OUR LORD'S MOTHER AND HIS BRETHREN iii. 3i"35 xii. 46-50 viii. 19-21 213. THE DEMAND OF A SIGN FROM HEAVEN xii. 38-40 xi. 16, 29, 30 216 „ ,, . viii. 1 1, 12 xvi. 1, 23,4 xii. 41,42 xi. 31,32 219 WEATHER SIGNS .... xvi. 26, 3 220 xii. 54-57 221 THE RELAPSED DEMONIAC . xii. 43-45 xi. 24-26 222 THE MESSAGE OF THE BAPTIST xi. 2, 3 vii. 18-20 226 our lord's answer to John's disciples xi. 4-6 vii. 21-23 Z 3 I OUR lord's discourse concerning John xi. 7- 11 vii. 24-28, 232 29,30 ,, „ ■ xi. 12, 13 xvi. 16 232 xi. 14, 15 235 THECHILDREN IN THE MARKET PLACE xi. 16-I9 vii. 31-35 237 OUR LORD'S TEACHING BY THE LAKE 240 PARABLE OF THE SOWER . . iv. I, 2 xiii. 1-30 viii. 4 242 the wayside iv. 3, 4 xiii. 3*, 4 viii. 5 , 244 „ the explanation iv. 14, 15 xiii. 19 viii. lib, 12 245 the rocky ground . . . iv. 5, 6 xiii. 5, 6 viii. 6 247 ,, the explanation iv. 16, 17 xiii. 20, 21 viii. 13 247 the thorns iv. 7 xiii. 7 viii. 7 248 ,, the explanation iv, 18, 19 xiii. 22 viii. 14 248 the good ground . . . iv. 8, 9 xiii. 8, 9 viii. 8 249 ,, „ the explanation iv. 20 xiii. 23 viii. 15 249 ! »» i) ft THE LAW OF RECIPROCITY TABLE OF CONTENTS xvii „„ T „ References -d.~„ Sob J ect Mark Matt. Luke Pagb THE REASON FOR OUR LORD'S METHOD OF TEACHING BY PARABLES iv. 10-13 xiii. 10-15 v "'- 9> I0 2 5° THE CANDLE AND THE BUSHEL iv. 21-23 viii. 16, 17 256 v. 15 xi. 33 257 x. 26-33 xii. 2- 4 a 2 57 iv. 24, 25 xiii. 12 viii. 18 258 vii. 2 vi. 38 259 xxv. 29 xix. 26 260 THE SEED GROWING SECRETLY iv. 26-29 260 THE GRAIN OF MUSTARD SEED iv. 30-32 xiii. 31, 32 xiii. 18, 19 262 THE LEAVEN xiii. 33 xiii. 20, 21 262 .. iv. 33. 34 xiii. 34, 35 263 THE CROSSING OF THE LAKE . iv. 35, 36 viii. 18,23 viii. 22 264 THE STORM ON THE LAKE . iv. 37-41 viii. 24-27 viii. 23-25 265 OUR LORD'S WOULD-BE FOL- LOWERS viii. 19-22 ix. 57-60 267 ' „ „ „ ix. 61, 62 THE DEMONIAC IN THE TOMBS v. 1, 2 viii. 28a viii. 26, 27a 268 the demoniac's previous history •/. 3-5 viii. 28* viii. 274, 29* 272 THE MEETING OF JESUS WITH THE demoniac v. 6-10 viii. 29 { ™i 2 ij 90 ' } 2 73 THE DEMONS AND THE SWINE . v. 11-13 viii. 30-32 viii. 32, 33 274 THE CURE OF THE DEMONIAC: THE SEQUEL .... V. I4-2O viii. 33, 34 viii. 34-39 279 THERETURN:JAIRUS'DAUGHTER v. 21-240 ix. 18, 19 viii.40.42a 281 THE WOMAN WITH THE ISSUE OF BLOOD v. 24^-34 ix. 20-22 viii. 420-48 283 JAIRUS' DAUGHTER, THE SECOND MESSAGE v. 35-37 Viii. 49-51 284 JAIRUS' DAUGHTER : THE MIRACLE . v. 38-43 ix. 23-26 viii. 52-56 285 THE VISIT TO NAZARETH . . vi. i-6a xiii. 53-58 73> 287 THE SENDING OUT OF THE APOSTLES vi. 66 ix. 35a 290 1, „ „ „ {"■ ^ I2 '}x. I ix. 1,2 291 fix. 2, 61 _„„ ! » » » *•? lx.9,11) 292 XV111 TABLE OF CONTENTS References Page Subject Mark Matt. Luke Airja THE SENDING OUT OF THE APOSTLES (continued) . vi. 8, 9 x. 8-10 fix.3l \x.4«/ 292 >i >* »' vi. io, II x. 11-14 ix. 4, S 293 >t )» >» x. 5-1 Ifl 294 it it n x. IS x. 12 296 THE REPROACHES .... xi. 20-24 *■ 13-15 297 OUR LORD'S THANKSGIVING xi. 25-27 X. 21, 22 297 l» J» • ' xiii. 16, 17 *• 23, 24 300 THE EXTENSION OF OUR LORD'S FAME TO HEROD'S COURT . vi. 14-18 xiv. 1-4 ix. 7-9 300 »> J) )» vi. 19, 20 xiv. 5 3°3 sj sj a vi. 21 xiv. 6a 304 ji a >> vi. 22, 23 xiv. 66, 7 31 1* 3) vi. 24-29 xiv. 8-12 308 THE RETURN OF THE MIS- SIONARIES ix. 10a 309 THE FEEDING OF THE FIVE THOUSAND vi. 31, 32 „ t, ,1 vi. 33, 34 THE FEEDING OF THE MULTITUDE vi. 35-38 ,. » » vi. 39-44 JESUS SENDS THE DISCIPLES AWAY vi. 45-47 THE TOILSOME ROWING . . vi. 48-52 THE WALKING ON THE WATER . vi. 5 1, 52 OUR LORD'S RETURN TO THE WESTERN BANK . vi. 53-56 THE EATING WITH UNWASHEN HANDS vii. 1-5 our lord's reply . . .vii. 6-13 WHAT DEFILES THE MAN . . vii. I4-16 THE EXPLANATION . . . vii. 17-23 THE SYRO-PHGENICIAN WOMAN . THE RETURN TO GALILEE . THE EPHPHATHA MIRACLE THE SECOND FEEDING OF THE MULTITUDE .... xiv. 13a ix. 10*309,310 xiv. 13*, 14 ix- 11 311 xiv. 15-18 ix. 12, 13 313 xiv. 19-21 ix. 14-17 314 xiv. 22, 23 xiv. 24-33 xiv. 28-33 vii. 24-30 vii. 31 vii. 32.37 xiv. 34-36 xv. I, 2 xv. 3-9 XV. 10, 1 1 XV. 12-20 xv. 21-28 xv. 290 xi. 37> 38 vui. 1-10 xv 32-39 317 3i8 320 325 327 329 332 337 338 339 TABLE OF CONTENTS xix _ References tj„„„ Sdb J ect Mark Matt. Luke Page THE DEMAND OF A SIGN FROM HEAVEN viii. n, 12 xvi. 1,23,4a 344 THE LEAVEN OF THE PHARISEES viii. 13-21 xvi. 44-12 xii. 1 345 THE HEALING OF THE BLIND MAN AT BETHSAIDA . viii. 22-26 347 OUR LORD'S DECLARATION OF HIS MESSIAHSHIP . . . viii. 27-30 xvi. 13-20 ix. 18-21 348 THE FIRST ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE PASSION AND THE RE- BUKE TO PETER . . . viii. 31-33 xvi. 21-23 ix - 22 352 THE CONDITIONS OF DISCIPLE- SHIP viii. 34-37 xvi. 24-26 ix. 23-25 355 x. 37-39 { X lli 2 3 S 3 27 } 3S7 ,, ,. viii. 38 INTRODUCTION TO THE TRANS- FIGURATION . . . ix. 1 THE TRANSFIGURATION . . ix. 23 „ . . ix. 2b, 3 » „ • ■ ix. 4-8 THE DESCENT FROM THE MOUNT ix. 9-13 THE HEALING OF THE EPILEPTIC DEMONIAC ix. 14-19 xvii. 14-17 ix. 370-41 368 „ . ix. 20-25 37° „ ,, . ix. 26, 27 xvii. 18 ix. 42, 430 371 THE CAUSE OF THE DISCIPLES' ILL-SUCCESS . . . . ix. 28, 29 xvii. 19-21 372 THE CONTINUED ANNOUNCE- MENT OF THE PASSION . . ix. 30-32 xvii. 22, 23 ix. 43^-45 376 THE DISPUTE ABOUT PRE- CEDENCE ix. 33-37 xviii. 1-5 ix. 46-48 378 ,, ,, xxii. 24-26 THE INDEPENDENT EXORCIST . ix. 38-40 ix. 49, 50 379 THE REWARD OF IMPERFECT FAITH ix. 41 x. 42 381 xvi. 27 ix. 26 358 x.32.33 xii. 8, 9 359 xvi. 28 ix. 27 361 xvii. 1 ix. 28 363 xvii. 2 ix. 29 365 xvii. 3-8 ix. 30-363 xvii. 9-13 ix.360.37a 367 xx TABLE OF CONTENTS References Subject Mar k Matt. OFFENCES ix- 42 xviii 6 xviii. 7 11 ...... ix. 43-48 xviii. 8, 9 „ ix. 49i 5° THE DEPARTURE FROM GALILEE x. 1 xix. 1, 2 THE QUESTION OF DIVORCE x. 2 xix. 3 • x. 3-9 xix. 4-8 „ „ . x. 10-12 xix. 9-12 THE BLESSING OF THE LITTLE CHILDREN . ... x. 13-16 xix. 13-15 THE RICH YOUNG MAN . . x. 17-22 xix. 16-22 OUR LORD'S REFLECTIONS ON THE RICH MAN'S REFUSAL . a. 23-27 xix. 23-26 PETER'S CLAIM . . . . x. 28-31 xix. 27-30 xix. 28 >3 ..... „ x. 32-34 xx. 17-19 THE REQUEST OF THE SONS OF ZEBEDEE a. 35-40 xx. 20-23 THE MUTUAL JEALOUSIES OF THE APOSTLES . . . . x. 41-45 xx. 24-28 THE HEALING OF THE BLIND MAN AT JERICHO . . . x. 46-52 xx. 29-34 11 ■> ix- 27-31 THE TRIUMPHAL ENTRY . . xi. 1-11 xxi. 1-11 THE BARREN FIG TREE . . . xi. 12-14 xxi. 18,19 THE CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE xi. 15-18 xxi. 12-17 THE CONTINUATION OF THE STORY OF THE FIG TREE . xi. 19-26 xxi. 20-22 ,, ,, xvii. 20 THE CHALLENGE OF OUR LORD'S AUTHORITY . . . . xi. 27, 28 xxi. 23 OUR LORD'S REPLY TO THE CHALLENGE OF HIS AU- THORITY xi. 29, 30 xxi. 24, 25a » 1, xi. 31-33 xxi. 254-27 T , Page Luke xvii. 2 384 xvii. I 385 386 389 390 392 393 xviii. 15-17 395 xviii. 18-23 396 xviii. 24-27 412 xviii. 28-30 416 xxii. 29, 30 xviii. 31-34 418 419 420 xviii. 35-43 422 423 xix. 28-40 424 429 xix. 45-48 431 437 xvii. 6 x. I, 2 438 xx. 3, 4 440 xx. 5-8 Subject THE PARABLE OF THE WICKED HUSBANDMEN . THE TRIBUTE MONEY . THE SADDUCEES' QUESTION our lord's answer . THE GREAT COMMANDMENT OUR LORD'S OWN QUESTION . THE HYPOCRISY OF THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES THE WIDOW'S MITE THE PAROUSIA DISCOURSE THE FIG TREE PARABLE CONT1 SNT5 XXI References Mark Matt. Luke PAGE xii. I a xxi. 33a xx. 9a 442 xii. lb xxi. 33* xx. gb 443 xii. 2-5 xxi. 34-36 XX. 10-12 xii. 6-1 1 xxi. 37-42 xx. 13-17 444 xxi. 43 445 xxi. 44 xx. 18 446 xii. 12 xxi. 45,46 xx. 19 xii. 13-17 xxii. 15-22 xx. 20-26 447 xii. 18-23 xxii. 23-28 xx. 27-33 451 xii. 24-27 xxii. 29-33 xx. 34-40 452 xii. 28-34 xxii. 34-40 454 A. 25-29 455 xii. 35-37 xxii. 41-46 xx. 41-44 457 xii. 38-40 xxiii. 6, 7 xx. 45-47 xi. 43 459 xii. 41-44 xxi. 1-4 460 xiii. 1, 2 xxiv. 1,2 xxi. 5, 6 461 xiii. 3, 4 xxiv. 3 xxi. 7 462 xiii. 5-8 xxiv. 4-8 xxi. 8- 1 1 463 THE FIRST STAGE . THE SECOND STAGE . . . xiii. 9, 10 {xxiv^g.'uf ™. 12,13 4&4 . xiii. 11-13 x. 19-22 | x ".' I1 ' 12 \/l66 J J \xxi.i4-i9/4°° . xiii. 14-16 xxiv. 15-18 xxi. 20-22 469 xvii. 31 470 . xiii. 17-20 xxiv. 19-22 xxi. 23 471 ■ xiii - 2 3 { xxiv 1J:f Ht^} ^ . xiii. 24-27 xxiv. 29-31 xxi. 25-28 473 . xiii. 28, 29 xxiv. 32, 33 xxi. 29-31 474 THE TIME OF THE SECOND COMING xiii. 3O-32 Xxiv. 34-36 Xxi. 32,33 475 xxiv. 3 7-4i{ xv J i 4 2 3 6 63°} 4 77 _ ( xxiv. 42I EXHORTATION TO WATCHFULNESS Xlll. 33"37 "i xxv . 13 / 477 „ „ xxiv. 43, 44 xii. 39,40 478 „ „ xxiv. 14-55 xii. 42-46 479 ■tf*w*«to»*,8kii,«M«»*'&«iU,*.&- w xxii TABLE OF CONTENTS References Page Subject Mark Matt Luke THE LAST PASSOVER . . . xiv. I, 2 xxvi. 1-5 xxii. I, 2 480 THE ANOINTING OF OUR LORD'S FEET . . . . xiv. 3-9 xxvi. 6-13 vii. 36-40 481 John xii. 1-8 THE TREACHERY OF JUDAS xiv. 10, 11 xxvi. 14-16 xxii. 3-6 487 THE PREPARATIONS FOR THE PASSOVER .... xiv. 12-16 xxvi. 17-19 xxii. 7-13 488 THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF TREASON . . .xiv. 17-21 xxvi. 20-25 xxii. 14,21-23 490 THE INSTITUTION OF THE EUCHARIST . . . .xiv. 22-29 xxvi. 26-30 xxii. 15-20, 39 THE WARNING TO PETER xiv. 27-31 xxvi. 31-35 xxii. 31-34 494 „ John xiii. 36-38 GETHSEMANE .... xiv. 32-42 xxvi. 36-46 xxii. 40-46 495 THE CAPTURE .... xiv. 43-52 xxvi. 47-56 xxii. 47-53 498 THE TRIAL xiv. 53, 54 xxvi. 57, 58 xxii. 54, 55 500 >, xiv. 55-59 xxvi.59-61 THE SENTENCE OF CONDEM- NATION xiv. 60-65 xxvi. 62-68 xxii. 63-71 502 THE DENIAL OF PETER . . xiv. 66-72 xxvi. 69-75 xxii. 56-62 507 THE REFERENCE TO PILATE xv. 1 xxvii. 1, 2 xxiii. 1, 2 509 THE TRIAL BEFORE PILATE . xv. 2-5 xxvii. 11-14 xxiii. 3-5 510 f xxvii 1 •*- 1 JESUS OR BARABBAS . . .XV. 6-1 1 i ^ 20 f XX " i - X 3 _I 9 5'3 {xxvii 21- 1 2 ' g Y xxiii. 20-25 5 r 4 THE MOCKING BY THE SOLDIERS . . .xv. 16-20 THE PREPARATIONS FOR THE CRUCIFIXION . . .xv. 21-23 THE CRUCIFIXION . . . xv. 24-32 THE MIRACULOUS DARKNESS . XV. 33 Xxvii. 45 xxiii. 44, 45a 519 THE COMPLAINT OF FORSAKENNESS XV. 34-36 xxvii. 46-49 xxiu.44*,46a 520 THE DEATH XV. 37-39 j**™^} xxiii - 45*"47 5^ THE WOMEN AT THE CROSS xv. 4 o, 41 xxvii. 55, 56 xxiii. 48, 49 525 xxvii. 27-31 xxvii. 32-34 xxiii. 26 516 xxvii. 35-44 xxiii. 32-43 517 TABLE OF CONTENTS xxiii SUBrECT Refbrencbs p SUBJECT Mark Matt Luke FACE THE BURIAL xv. 42-47 xxvii. 57-61 xxiii. 50-56 526 THE NEWS OF THE RESURREC- TION xvi. 1-8 xxviii. 1-10 xxiv. 1-11 528 INDEX OF PERSONS AND SUBJECTS 533 VARIOUS READINGS S37 INDEX OF SCRIPTURE REFERENCES . . 539 AUTHOR'S PREFACE The question of the mutual relations of the Synoptic Gospels is one in which for several years I have taken interest ; at least so far as to make myself acquainted with different speculations on the subject, and to form some judgment of my own on the arguments offered on behalf of them. But it is only within compara- tively few years that I have given the subject serious study of my own. What led me to give these problems more systematic investigation was the impression made on me by the growing adoption of opinions concern- ing the authorship of Old Testament books at variance not only with the views in which I had been brought up, but with the doctrine taught in the Christian Church ever since the time of the Apostles. It was suggested to me that I should take part in the contro- versy by writing in defence of traditional opinions ; but this was a work which I did not feel myself competent to undertake. It is ill for amateurs to contend with experts ; and I should be under a hope- less disadvantage if, relying on my amateur know- ledge of the Hebrew language and literature, obtained casually and intermittently in the midst of other pursuits which had more attraction for me, I ventured to contend with men who had made these studies the business of their lives. There was another reason why I considered myself unfit to discuss the authorship of the Old Testament 2 AUTHOR'S PREFACE books, namely, that I felt I could not conduct the investigation with the necessary impartiality. I myself attach little value to any arguments that are only used to bring out a foregone conclusion. I did feel that I possessed this impartiality in investigating the authorship of New Testament books ; because I believed that the credit of our religion was not pledged to any theory on this subject. It was no fundamental article of our faith that St Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles, or that he was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Our belief in the truth of the facts recorded in the Gospels would not be affected by any uncertainty or error as to the traditional names of the compilers; because it was not on the credit of their names that our assent was given. Matthew, to whom the first is ascribed, was one of the least distinguished of the Apostles ; of Mark and Luke we scarcely know any- thing, except as the authors of books accepted by the Christian community from times previous to historical record. Yet I had learnt not to bow with too absolute submission to the decision of those who were in repute as experts. It is wonderful what an objection most men have to taking the trouble of forming opinions for themselves, and how eagerly they accept any authority that will dictate to them what views they ought to hold. No sooner is an old authority dethroned, than a new tyrant is set up in his place, whose doctrines must one adopt and defend on pain of being despised as too ignorant or too bigoted to be able to keep pace with the progress of thought. When , I first began to study the question of the authorship of the New Testament books, Baur had not been long dead ; but he had left a host of adherents who counted him an almost infallible guide. Those who followed AUTHOR'S PREFACE 3 his methods, or improved on them, were proclaimed as the best witics ; those who questioned his doctrines were dismissed as unworthy of serious consideration, being generally nick-named as apologists ; the intention being to convey the idea that they had made no investigations except with the purpose of bringing out foregone conclusions. Yet I have lived to see a great shrinkage of the claims made for Baur's results even by the warmest of his admirers, many of whom now abandon as indefensible positions to contest which was once represented as a sign of ignorance or immodesty. I thought myself free therefore to postpone my accept- ance of many modern opinions concerning Old Testa- ment books until the questions had been more completely threshed out. But it occurred to me that I might meanwhile do some useful work in experimenting what would be the result of equal freedom of criticism applied to the New Testament. Certainly I had no reason to com- plain that we have not found abundance of freedom used by modern New Testament critics ; but those who have used most have seemed to me to be usually wanting in impartiality, and to be men who form their judgment with a bias against received opinions. Feeling myself to be quite free from any such bias, I was yet willing to try what the result would be of an impartial investigation of the composition of New Testament books, conducted with as complete inde- pendence of traditional opinions as has been obtained in the case of the Old Testament. My notion was to take the three Synoptic Gospels, and, putting aside all Church doctrine as to their inspiration or authority, discuss their mutual relations as a mere question of criticism, just as if they had been newly discovered documents of whose history we knew nothing. I do 4 AUTHOR'S PREFACE not think that when I undertook this task I had fully- understood what a sacrifice of previous sentiments it involved ; and I shall not be surprised if many who look into this book content themselves with very slight acquaintance with it, and have little inclination to pursue the same study. For my own feelings, the books of the Gospels had a sacredness which Old Testament books had not ; and it was painful to me to lay aside those feelings of reverence which had hitherto deterred me from too minute investigation. I felt as if I had been set to make a dissection of the body of my mother ; and could not feel that the scientific value of the results I might obtain would repay me for the painful shock resulting from the very nature of the task. No doubt the present generation has relaxed much of the strictness of that theory of verbal inspiration which regarded the smallest discordance between the statements of two sacred writers as a thing needing explanation or apology ; and which could find deep mysteries in the use of one word rather than another which in popular use was its exact equivalent. For instance, no great importance would now be attached to the difficulty which commentators were at one time required to explain : that according to one Evangelist, the inscription over the cross was simply The King of the Jews, according to another Jesus, the King of the Jews, according to a third Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews; nor would it be felt as a great relief if it could be shown that the discrepancies were to be attributed not to the Evangelists, but to their transcribers. We should simply say that there never had been any reason to hold that it had been divinely intended that the Gospels should present absolute uniformity in such trifling details. Notwithstanding AUTHOR'S PREFACE 5 this general laxity, there are many who would still find it a shock to have to acknowledge that in any particular case an Evangelist had either made a mistake or had consciously varied from the story that had been told him. Yet the possibility of such shocks is indis- pensable from the investigation on which we are entering. The question whether one Evangelist copied another is part of the general question, What authorities did the Evangelists use? If we find an answer to this question^ we are led on to another, In what way did they use their authorities ? What standard of accuracy are we fairly justified in expecting? Can we reason- ably expect that any writer of the first century should work exactly in the same way as a historian of the nineteenth? that he should observe the scrupulous care which we now feel ourselves entitled to demand in not going in the slightest degree beyond what he had good authority for stating, and in not, without warning, mixing up inferences of his own with what he had learnt from other well-informed persons? It was at one time a shock to Christians to be told that our New Testament Scriptures were not written in the purest Attic Greek ; and it required some discussion and apology to make men understand that if our sacred books had had the qualities which were alleged to be necessary to the perfection of divinely inspired Scripture, sound criticism would have obliged us to infer that the books could not have been written at the time or in the place to which we now refer them. Exactly the same thing might be maintained if we found the Gospels written with nineteenth-century punctiliousness. I have elsewhere (Introd. N. T. , p. 62) quoted the apology made by an editor of Longinus for his author's looseness of citation. He owns that in the whole book you could hardly find any passage accurately quoted, at least if 6 AUTHOR'S PREFACE it contained more than three or four words. But he observes that all the other writers of the same date were equally careless ; and that if they put before their readers' eyes the general sense of the author cited, and two or three of the more remarkable words, they were indifferent about the rest : Accurata hcec citandi diligentia, qua hodie utimur, quceque laudabilis sane est, frustra in veteribus qucerenda est. I cannot then help thinking that much time has been wasted on the verbal comparison of one Gospel with another; and that some of the theories built on such comparison have no solid foundation, and that, even if the differences are not merely with respect to forms of expression, but extend to trifling details of facts, we are not justified in condemning either writer as an unfaithful historian, regard being had to the customary standard of his age. There is another way in which the results of the investigation on which we are entering must give a shock to many readers. If we find what seem to be differences between the accounts of the same occurrence by different Evangelists, and if we decide that it is not necessary to force them into agreement, we have then to decide as to which account is the more probable ; and that is a question which, whether deliberately or not, we cannot help determining by the standards of our own age. I have disclaimed all sympathy with those with whom it is a foregone conclusion that nothing that can properly be called miracle ever occurred, and whose whole criticism is made with the polemical object of eliminating everything miraculous from the story ; some of them having proceeded beyond the doctrine that no miracle ever occurred to the doctrine that no one could ever have believed that it did. But nevertheless, if we are comparing two accounts of the same occurrence, we cannot help judging on the same principles as would AUTHOR'S PREFACE 7 guide us if we were judging between two different accounts of a contemporary event. And in that case we naturally give a preference to the account most in harmony with our ordinary experience. Thus, without having any desire to eliminate miracle from the story, we may be led to account some things as non-miraculous which on a different system had been thought capable only of a supernatural interpretation. There being much in the investigation on which I have entered which was at first repulsive to myself, and which I have no doubt will be equally so to many readers, I have had to ask myself, Why proceed with it at all? or at least, Why invite others to join in it? The study can yield no trustworthy results without a minute and tedious examination of many particulars ; and no hasty conclusion can be safely adopted without examining how the solution suggested by one case will satisfy the others. I cannot wonder that men should shrink from all this labour if they find it to be what they regard as, in every sense of the words, labor improbus. As far as I am myself concerned, my plea for not abandoning the investigation on which I had entered is simply that I found too much fascination in it to be able to leave it. I have found nothing more interesting than this work of turning dead records into living history, as I tried to throw myself into the feelings and attitude of mind of those men of old whose story I read. The historians whose works I studied became to me living characters ; Mark was no longer the mere name of an ancient document, but a real person, with his own mode of literary workmanship, whose style was as distinctly recognisable as was that of St Paul. I found myself constantly seeing more in long familiar words than I had ever seen in them before. It may be that other critics will count my fancied discoveries as 8 AUTHOR'S PREFACE unsubstantial as I have myself regarded the speculations of other old men, in which they believed they were laying the foundation of a great reputation. But to myself, my discoveries are real, and I could not help treating them as if they were. If I can recommend the study to others who have patience for it, it is because I consider that it gives us a firmer hold of the reality of the facts of the Gospel history. To one who has thus learnt to feel the persona- lity of the Evangelists nothing can seem more ignorant than Goldwin Smith's verdict that the Gospels were written by nobody knows who, nobody knows when. 1 The nobody knows who is an unimportant matter. We get all our information about present-day history from newspapers, written by nobody knows who ; nor do ordinary readers care much to enquire. Three at least of the Gospels bear strong marks of the personality of the writers ; and our belief would be little affected if we should discover that their names, instead of being Mark, Luke, and John, were Jacob, Joseph, and Simon. But I cannot doubt that these writings present us with the story as told in the very first assemblies of Christians, by men who had been personal disciples of Jesus ; nor do I think that the account of any of our Lord's miracles would have been very different if we could have the report of it as published in a Jerusalem newspaper next morning. Of all attempts to eliminate miracle from the Gospel history the expectation to do so by historical criticism of our sources is the vainest ; for it proceeds on the assumption that the first reporters were less likely than we should be now to ascribe a super- natural origin to what they had witnessed. 1 " Tradition of unknown origin recorded by unknown writers at a date uncertain and, for aught that we can tell, many years after the events. " Guesses at the Riddle of Existence, p. 150. AUTHOR'S PREFACE 9 The best defence of the study of the human element in the Gospels is that this human element is the real foundation of our faith. The cult of a Roman Catholic Saint, Philumena, in modern times has gained much extension ; but belief in her very existence has no other historical foundation than the statement of a holy nun that in a dream there had been revealed to her the true history of some relics which her bishop had brought from Rome. I do not think it important to discuss the logical question whether such a statement might not be a sufficient ground of evidence ; for it is enough to know that such evidence would not bring conviction to the minds of the majority of educated people in these islands at the present day, however mistaken they might be in their unbelief. And if our belief in the facts of the Gospel history is made to rest on the foundation that this or that Evangelist could not be mistaken in anything he asserts, there will be a continual growth of unbelief among many who will ask, What evidence there is of the inerrancy of Evangelists, unless we have first ascertained that the facts of the Gospel history are true? We shall find that in the last resort we come to depend on the human element in the Gospels, that is to say, on things that can be proved by ordinary historical testimony. And yet the fact is that the immense value we attach to the divine element in the Gospels has had a tendency to make us indifferent or inattentive to the human element. If we know that all the books of Scripture have one and the same infallible Author, what import- ance is it to us to know through what, or through how many channels His communications are made? The statements made in one of the sacred books are un- doubtedly accurate, and need no confirmation from any other of them. Even if instead of confirmation we find io AUTHOR'S PREFACE apparent contradiction, we need not distress ourselves ; for the contradiction is sure to be only apparent. This has led to the paradoxical result that at the present day those who ascribe the highest authority to the Bible, and who have devoted their best years to the study of it, find themselves learning much from men who treat its books as ordinary literature ; and they have to own that they had never taken notice of much that less reverent readers can now point out to them. The results that are hoped from this investigation are comparable to the knowledge of the constitution of the sun that has been gained of recent years by the study of it during the time of an eclipse. Consequently, expeditions have been sent out to the places where an expected eclipse could be best, seen ; and the reports of different observers have been carefully compared, with the result that much has been discovered which the dazzling blaze of sunlight had previously concealed from us ; though now that we know exactly what to look for, we can recognise at other times some things which only the eclipse had made known to us. I have thought that in like manner the dazzling brightness of the divine element has obscured for us much of the human element ; and that now a study in which the divine element has been shut out may enable us to see many things more clearly, the knowledge of which will remain a permanent benefit, even after this method of investigation has been abandoned. And surely people who make eclipse observations on the sun must not be supposed to wish to live in this semi-darkness, or to think it better than the full glory of the unclouded rays. . I regret, however, that I have only taken up this study after I had become too old to prosecute it with much success. I have often noted of how little value an old AUTHOR'S PREFACE n man's work commonly is. Old men are apt to see visions and to dream dreams. They devote the latest years of their life to studies which they imagine will outdo the best work of their earlier years, and will be recognised as having produced results of permanent value. Yet their survivors, if competent judges, some- times adjudge the papers left behind as not deserving the honour of print ; or if they have not courage to destroy what has evidently cost much labour, they find the general verdict of the literary public to be that the world would have lost nothing if a less merciful decision had been made. If I were asked to account for this general ill-success of old men's work, my own experience would lead me to impute it to failure of memory. I find myself now constantly reminded by some accident of having forgotten something which if I had been younger I should certainly have kept in mind. But, above all, I find inconvenience from not being able to keep the whole of a case thoroughly before my mind all together ; and consequently while dealing, as I must, with separate points singly, being tempted to adopt conclusions and explanations which I should have rejected if able to take a larger view. It may be asked then, Why persevere at all in a study which I feel myself unable to prosecute satisfactorily? or why embarrass my executors by leaving papers behind which regard for my memory might restrain them from putting in the fire, though in their own judgment that might be the best thing to do with them ? I have put this question to myself, and have not been able to give a satisfactory answer. As for my own continuance in the study, if it is no more than a solitary patience game, it is one which has a certain fascination for me, and is at least an innocent employ- ment of hours which would not be better employed if spent otherwise. As for the preservation of my papers, 12 AUTHOR'S PREFACE modern humanity does not impose on a parent the decision which a Roman father had to make, whether his offspring were worth preserving ; and at least it does not require him to be himself the executioner, if in tenderness of heart he prefers to expose the babe on the mountains, and leaves it to chance or to others to decide whether it is to live or to die. INTRODUCTION THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM Readers of this book are not likely to need any- lengthened preliminary explanation of the problem which it is its object to investigate. We are in possession of four narratives of the life of our Lord, the great antiquity of which must be admitted even by those who reject the general belief that they are founded on the testimony of eye-witnesses of the facts related. If these narratives had been perfectly independent, we might expect them to differ from each other a good deal, both in the selection of incidents for narration, and in the arrangement of those related by more Evangelists than one. And so in point of fact one of these narratives does differ "from the other three. But these three have so many points of agree- ment, not only in the selection and arrangement of incidents, but sometimes in the very words in which the story is told, that it is impossible to doubt the existence in these narratives of a common element, either to be accounted for by the supposition that one of these writers copied from another, or else that all drew from a common source. Still, if we compare places where the same story is told by more Evangelists than one, we constantly find such diversity as to shew that there has been no slavish copying ; but that if there was a common original, a good deal of liberty must have been used in occasional deviations from it. The problem is to find what account of the mutual relations of these narratives will best explain their 13 i 4 INTRODUCTION coincidences and their variations. The documents are older by at least a century than any records of the Christian Church which could tell us anything of the history of their publication. We are thus left to draw our conclusions from the internal evidence afforded by the documents themselves ; and the difficulty of arriving in this way at secure results is proved by the discordant conclusions of the many critics who have examined this question. We may take this discordance as a warning, showing us the wisdom of postponing the adoption of any theory until we have first made a very patient study of the facts. The problem of accounting for the agreements of the Evangelists naturally takes precedence of that of accounting for their variations. If the three narratives were independent of each other, diversity were to be expected ; and the need of accounting for it does not arise as a literary problem, until we have found reason to believe that two writers draw from a common source. Even in the case of two biographers who have drawn their facts from the same original, absolute uniformity is not to be expected. Each of them is apt to prefer to tell the story in his own words, though no doubt he is likely to incorporate in his narrative many of the phrases of his original. And, if there is no reason to the contrary, each of them is also likely, in his arrange- ment of the facts, to follow the order of the original. Still it is possible that either may designedly deviate from that order ; whether with the view of placing the facts in what is supposed to be the true chronological order, or with the artistic purpose of grouping incidents of the same kind together. If the two later writers have more common sources than one, in which the order of narration may possibly have been different, they may have combined them in different ways. And besides, there is nothing to surprise us, if in the procedure of independent writers we find variations for which we cannot precisely account. Thus then the need of accounting for diversities does not arise until we have INTRODUCTION 15 first established the existence of such an original connexion between the narrators as would lead us to expect to find agreement to be the rule. I have said elsewhere (Jntrod. N.T., p. 571) that we are not warranted in founding an investigation of the Gospel history on an assumption that those who recorded it used their materials in a different way from what other historical writers of the same age were likely to do. In so saying, I did not merely mean to deprecate the founding of our investigation on any theory of inspiration adopted previously to a patient study of the facts ; but I had equally in view the exclusion of quite an opposite theory, which has been acted on by one who holds the very lowest view of the inspiration of the Evangelists, Dr Edwin Abbott. He tacitly assumes that a writer who derives his information from another, would not venture to deviate in the slightest degree from the very words in which the information had been conveyed. Consequently, though he acknowledges the existence of a common element in the Gospels, he only recognises as belonging to that common element those places where the same story is told in identical words. The result of eliminating all words which are not common to, all the Evangelists is often to make the narrative unintelligible without the help of one of the existing Gospels to throw light on it. Time would be wasted in formal argument against a supposition so completely destitute of support from our experience of the ways of writers who use the words of others. Certainly, if a writer had to refute a charge of plagiarism, he would plead in vain, if he could only point out to his critic that he had proved his originality by frequently using expressions different from those to be found in the author from whom he was accused of having borrowed. In fact it is easy to see that though verbal coincidences may be used to prove the indebtedness of one writer to another, yet verbal variations do not disprove it. If two writers telling the same story agree in the use of 16 INTRODUCTION the same words or phrases, the question at once arises whether the later has not borrowed from the earlier. It is a not uncommon error to found a charge of plagiarism on the common use of phrases which belong to the ordinary vocabulary of the time, and which the two writers might very conceivably have employed independently. But if the phrases are strange and unusual, then we cannot help believing that one borrowed from the other, unless what is common to them can be traced to a source from which both might have derived it. On the other hand, if there is sub- stantial agreement — if the later writer has nothing to tell which he might not have learnt from the other, then there arises a suspicion of indebtedness, which is not refuted by any variations of language through which the obligation has been disguised. I can quite understand how critics who hold a very high theory of verbal inspiration are much embarrassed by variations even in the language, when the same circumstances are recorded by more Evangelists than one ; and still more if the discrepancies are more than verbal. Their whole theory collapses unless some way can be found of reconciling these differences ; either, for instance, by maintaining that the two discordant accounts are not narratives of the same event, or else that one of them was not intended to have the meaning which an ordinary reader would put upon it. But considering how common it is to find differences in details between the accounts of two honest witnesses of the same occurrence, it is surprising that persons who are not hampered by any extreme theory of inspira- tion should be distressed by differences between the accounts of two sacred writers. It may even happen that they are such that the reception of the one account as strictly accurate would force us to the conclusion that the writer of the other had received some defective or erroneous information. Yet the only differences that would affect our belief in the main facts of the Gospel story would be if they were such as to make it difficult INTRODUCTION 17 to believe that the writers had access to first hand information about the facts, or that they did not faith- fully record the information they received. I will add besides, that though a single mistake would be enough to disprove the claim that knowledge had been supernaturally communicated, yet that, as far as human information is concerned, a person may be a high authority on some matters concerning which he had exceptionally good means of information, not- withstanding his having committed errors on other points concerning which he had smaller opportunities of knowledge. To take an illustration from a well- known book, Napier's History of the Peninsular War — This is a book of real historical value, on account of the author's exceptional opportunities of knowledge concerning the facts which he relates, but the author is not entitled to the same deference on subjects outside his own sphere ; nor ought his statements on his own subject to be at all discredited, even if it could be shewn that he was not equally trustworthy in his account of events twenty years before his own time. For myself, I have no confidence in any historical investigation in which a perfectly open mind is not kept with regard to the reception of new information. Those who held the theories of inspiration to which I have already referred were not embarrassed for a moment if there appeared to be a contradiction between the statements of a sacred and of a profane writer. That of the former was infallibly right, and the other was held entitled to no regard. Through a natural reaction, a modern school of critics completely reversed this decision. A statement of Scripture was held to be certainly false if it was contradicted by any profane writer, and very probably false if it was not confirmed by independent testimony, however scanty the historical records of the time might be. Much new light has been cast upon history by the discoveries of the present century, during which many important manuscripts have been unearthed, inscriptions have been extensively 18 INTRODUCTION collected and studied, and other archaeological evidence obtained ; and we have every reason to believe that the coming years will continue to add to the materials for history that we at present possess. Yet I have no apprehension that we shall be obliged to discard, as unworthy of confidence, the historical guides in whom we have hitherto trusted. It is extravagance of claims which is likely to produce a sceptical attitude of mind : if, for instance, the principle is laid down that a writer who is detected in a single error forfeits all claim to be regarded as a historical authority. The fact, however, is that there is no one who does not make mistakes ; and that occasion- ally a very good writer will make a very bad one. I will add, that in forming a judgment on the merits of a historian it is fair that he should be tried by the standard of his own age. A couple of hundred years ago a historian was thought to have acquitted himself well if he composed a lucid narrative in a pleasing style ; and it is not reasonable to censure one who wrote then, if he did not use the diligence in collecting materials that is now thought necessary, or if he did not take great pains in balancing the credibility of each of his witnesses. But it seems to me that it is the opposite fault that is now most frequently committed in the criticism of the Gospels ; in other words, that the amount of literary skill to be fairly expected from the writer is apt to be, not over-rated, but under-rated. For example, when both Alford and Abbott assume, as a thing to be expected, that an Evangelist who used an earlier document should simply embody it in his work verbatim, they practically treat the Gospel historian as likely to possess no more literary skill than a monastic annalist, who was often content to copy the entries of his predecessors, merely adding, in equally inartificial style, some notices of events that occurred between their time and his own. But our Evangelists lived in a literary age ; and while it would not be reasonable to expect that every one of them should exhibit in his style the highest accomplishments of a practised writer, INTRODUCTION 19 it would be equally unreasonable to assume that they were ignorant as to what the reading public of their day had been trained to expect, or that they made no attempt to satisfy those expectations. If we want information as to the literary standard of- the time, we can get it from Polybius, who wrote some two hundred years before our Evangelists ; and the principles which he lays down as to the duties of a historian do not substantially differ from those that are accepted in our own day. It was to me an unexpected touch of modern- ness that having occasion to criticise severely the work of Zeno, a Rhodian historian, Polybius tells us {Hist., xvi. 20) that, counting it unbecoming to triumph in exposing the blunders of another, he wrote a private letter to Zeno pointing out an error into which he had fallen ; and that Zeno took the correction very kindly, but was sorry that it was now too late for him to profit by it, his book having been already published. Believing that it is quite as important to take note of substantial as of verbal agreements, I make no use at this stage of our enquiries of a work prepared at Dr E. Abbott's suggestion — Mr Rushbrooke's Synopticon. In this work, by the use of different types and differently coloured inks, the reader is enabled to compare parallel evangelic narratives, and to see at a glance what words are common to three Evangelists, what to only two, and what are. peculiar to one. We may neglect differences which disappear on translation, when we are only examining whether two writers who tell the same story drew from independent sources of information. At a later stage, if interdependence has been established, a careful examination of the language will be needful for guiding us to more exact conclusions as to the relations between the writers ; as, for example, in determining the question whether one copied another, or both drew from a common source. 1 1 My own experience would lead me to recommend a student to copy out for himself the parallel stories which he desires to compare. In this way he will be struck by the recurrence of identical words more forcibly than by any help diversity of types could give him. 20 INTRODUCTION There is another preliminary investigation, which, as dealing with the matter rather than the words of the narrators, can be effectively carried on, even though only a translation is used : I mean the study of the order in which the different stories are related. It is only a study of the order in which incidents are told that gives probability to the hypothesis that an Evangelist used a previous document. Any agreement between two in the relation of a single story would be sufficiently explained by the supposition that both had heard it told by the same Apostle, and had been able to reproduce, with more or less exactness, his very words. But, besides numberless instances of identity in the form in which separate stories are related, we find a multitude of cases in which a whole series of incidents follow in the same order in more Gospels than one. The stories rarely contain any notes of time which could direct the order of placing them ; and, if they had been preserved separately by oral tradition, the chances are enormous that different persons weaving them into a connected narrative would arrange them differently. It follows that if one Evangelist did not make use of the work of another, all must have derived from a common source, not only their common matter, but also the arrangement in which they agree. If it be not admitted that they used any written document, it would have to be acknow- ledged that the apostolic record, which they have pre- served, did not consist of anecdotes told separately, and casually remembered, but that the original narrator must have related incidents in a definite order, so as, in fact, to have delivered an oral Gospel. I am willing to use the word document in so elastic a sense as to include an oral Gospel faithfully preserved in the memory of those who had listened to it ; but the hypothesis of such a Gospel is not forced on us, because we know from St Luke's preface that other written accounts of our Saviour's life were in existence before our Third Gospel was published. (See Introd. N. T., p. 572 sqq.) INTRODUCTION 21 My object in the present investigation is to ascertain what conclusions as to the genesis of the Gospels can be drawn from a study of the documents themselves, without the assumption of the truth or falsity of any traditional accounts. Such accounts as have reached us are but scanty ; and few of them can be traced back to a date so early as to give us assurance that those to whom we owe them were speaking, not from conjecture, but from real historical knowledge. But with whatever caution these traditions must be used, they give us important help in our study of the documents. They suggest to us hypotheses which must be tested, questions that must be asked, and, as Lord Bacon has said, Prudens interrogatio dimidium est sciential. Let us take, for example, the tradition reported by Papias that St Mark had been in personal intercourse with the Apostle Peter, some of the reporters of which have so magnified the Evangelist's obligations to that Apostle, that, according to their view, the Second Gospel ought rather to have been designated as the Gospel according to St Peter, than as that according to St Mark. The fact that such a tradition existed presents us with a problem to be investigated in our study of the Second Gospel — namely, whether it exhibits traces of such an authority as has been claimed for it. Speaking for my- self, I may say that I have found no reason to believe in anything that later writers have added to what Papias had stated ; and that I do not believe that St Peter had any share in the composition of St Mark's Gospel, or that he was in any way responsible for its contents. But I consider that critical study would lead us to believe that some of the Evangelist's statements were derived directly or indirectly from that Apostle ; and therefore I would not hastily reject a tradition that there had been personal intercourse between the two. What inclines me most to accept the statement of Papias, is the marked difference of style between the section of the Gospel which relates what happened before 22 INTRODUCTION the calling of Peter and those which tell of what happened after it — the contrast between the meagreness of St Mark's narrative in the one case, and its fulness in the other. In the earlier history, as told by St Matthew and by St Luke, we find a common element which could not have been derived from Mark, who tells the same story with so much greater brevity, that the first question we are disposed to submit to critical investigation is whether St Mark's is more than an abridgment of an earlier narrative. But when we go on to compare the remainder of St Mark's first chapter with the corresponding passage of Matthew, we find the parts quite reversed : it is now St Matthew who is the abridger, St Mark who tells the full story. All the rest of that chapter is occupied with the relation of the events that occurred on a single day of the Saviour's life ; and that day was the Sabbath that followed the calling of Peter. The history includes the account of a visit paid by our Lord to Peter's house ; if indeed we are not rather to conclude that our Lord was lodging in that house at the time. The change then from an abridged to a detailed narrative takes place exactly when Peter comes into the story ; and thus internal evidence harmonises with the very ancient tradition that the Evangelist had had personal inter- course with St Peter. I hope that my readers will not consider that I am committing them to the acceptance of what, however probable, is no more than a hypothesis, if I use the letter P to denote the authority used by the Evangelists in passages which all three Synoptics have in common. I am not assuming that P is identical with St Mark's Gospel as we have itnow. Theories about an Original Matthew, an Original Mark, from which the Gospels now bearing these names have been developed, have had much circulation. We should not be justified at the outset of a scientific enquiry in assuming either the truth or the falsity of such theories. When, in what follows, I speak of St Matthew and St Mark, I am to be understood to mean the authors of the First and INTRODUCTION 23 Second Gospels as we have them now, without assuming anything as to the identity of the traditional and the real authorship ; while I postpone for further enquiry the question whether the Matthew and Mark that we have now may not have had predecessors ascribed to the same authors. I have already said that in the sections common to three Evangelists, St Mark frequently gives details absent from the other two Synoptics ; and the question which a critic has to decide is whether these additional particulars are sufficiently accounted for by the hypothesis that St Mark, having a pictorial turn of mind, added these details from his own sense of the fitness of things. I must not here anticipate discussions which will come more suitably afterwards ; but I can now state the result at which I have arrived — namely, that there are some cases in which St Mark's fulness of detail is best explained, not by the hypothesis that this Evangelist had greater powers of graphic description, but that he had access to more accurate information. If this be so, I see no reason for rejecting the tradition that St Peter may have been the source of that information. If St Mark was not in these sections an expander of Matthew, St Matthew must have been an abridger ; but the question remains open for critical enquiry whether it was St Mark's Gospel that St Matthew abridged, or whether the First Gospel represents to us a document which, being earlier than the Second, does not contain St Mark's characteristic touches. We are bound to take the second supposition into account, because we have already seen that the hypothesis that the other two Synoptics used St Mark's Gospel will not explain all the phenomena. The account of the Baptist's preaching and of our Lord's baptism as given by St Matthew and St Luke have clearly some common elements which seem to indicate the use of a common authority ; and that authority could not be St Mark, in whose Gospel the common elements of which I am here speaking are not found. I find it 2 4 INTRODUCTION convenient then, if I use the letter P to denote the common authority used in the sections which all three Synoptics have in common, to use the letter Q to denote the common authority of the sections common to Matthew and Luke. This notation binds us to nothing. It may be that we shall find on examination that P and Q are the same, that is to say, that we have no need to postulate more than one common authority used by the Evangelists ; and that Q means no more than those parts of P which St Mark has abridged or used more slightly. But if we used the same symbol to denote the authority for what I call the P sections and the Q sections, we should seem to lend ourselves to the theory that there was but a single authority for both classes of passages. It remains, however, open to in- vestigation whether St Mark was not acquainted with Q ; and the result at which I have myself arrived is that he was. There are some who have thought that we must come nearer to the truth the more we simplify our hypothesis : as, for instance, if we hold that St Matthew and St Luke made use of Mark, thus reducing our fundamental documents to one. But there is no good reason for so thinking. St Luke tells us, in his preface, that many before him had attempted to make an orderly narrative of our Lord's life. There were therefore many Gospels which St Luke had read, and of which he might have made such use as his independent knowledge showed that they deserved. If we have reason to think that St Mark's Gospel was one of them, we are not entitled to assume without proof that it was the only one. Neither are we entitled to assume without proof that, for instance, the things common to Matthew and Luke were all derived from a single document ; and my notation is not intended to convey that idea, for we are at liberty, if we find good reason, to split it up into Q v Qv etc. I have preferred to speak of sources rather than of documents to which our Evangelists might have been INTRODUCTION 25 indebted, because the latter may seem to denote written as opposed to oral sources of information ; and I do not myself attach importance to the question which were used. The whole Gospel history no doubt ultimately rests on the oral statements of the first disciples ; but I do not see that any questions concerning the inspiration of our records are much affected, whether the Apostles' statements were at once committed to writing, or were preserved by faithful memories. But I have contended that the agreement between the Evangelists in their order of narration proves that their common source was not a mere collection of anecdotes arbitrarily put together, but had already assumed the form of a continuous narrative. Yet I willingly admit the proba- bility that such continuous narratives had been orally promulgated among Christians before the circulation of any written Gospel. It seems to me, then, that we may easily make mistakes in our criticism of the Gospels, if we assume that the methods of the writers may fitly be judged by what we know of the present practice of literary men, who piece documents together in order to write a history. It may be that the first Gospels were composed, not in order to be read, but to be spoken. Shakespeare's plays, for example, were not composed in order to be circulated as literature among a reading public, but were put into writing for the use of the actors who were to deliver them orally ; and it is to actors that we owe the preservation of the plays. St Luke's preface to his Gospel illustrates the fact that however little reason we have to think that the Gospels were first composed to satisfy the demands of a reading public, yet such demands would begin to arise as soon as the religion was embraced by men of culture and education. In the same preface St Luke, who does not profess ability to speak from his own personal knowledge of the facts, describes the sources of his information : even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers 26 INTRODUCTION of the word. What, I think, most persons are apt to understand by this is, that St Luke, though not an apostle, or an eye-witness of the events of our Lord's life, had made the acquaintance of some of those who were, and had learnt (in private intercourse with them) the things which he afterwards recorded for the benefit of the Church. But I am now more disposed to believe that St Luke owed his knowledge of our Saviour's history, not to any private communication, but to the public instruction given in the Church of the city to which he belonged. I have seen no reason for rejecting the common belief that the author of the Third Gospel and of the Acts was a fellow-traveller with St Paul. But we have no reason to believe that St Paul had ever been a hearer of our Lord ; and it is probable that with regard to the history of our Lord's life on earth, St Luke had more to teach St Paul than to learn from him. It is possible that in his later years St Luke may have made the acquaintance of some of the heads of the Jerusalem Church ; but it would be rash to affirm that he did, or that the acquaintance was very intimate. What I regard as the source of St Luke's knowledge is the public recital of the history in the Church of Antioch, of which all the evidence leads me to regard him as a member. It seems to have been the earliest formed Church outside the Holy Land, and was certainly the most important of those early Churches. The date of its formation must have been very early ; for we are told that it was founded by some of those who were dispersed from Jerusalem by the persecution which arose on Stephen's death ; but at that time those who had been guilty of our Lord's death were still in power (Acts vii. 52). Those who founded the Church of Antioch in all probability included some who had been personal disciples of our Lord ; and in any case this important Church must have received many visits from leading members of the parent Church, of whom we can actually mention by INTRODUCTION 27 name as visiting Antioch, Barnabas, John Mark, Judas, possibly Silas, and the Apostle Peter. The version of the Gospel history weekly recited in such a Church must be regarded as an authority of great weight. I do not suppose that in St Luke's Gospel we have this version exacdy; since it is natural to suppose that when the Evangelist committed his narrative to writing he might combine materials which had reached him from other sources, but that this version formed the groundwork of his narrative is a reasonable supposition. The most probable explanation of the feet that we have now three histories of our Lord's life, so like one another, yet in many parts so independent, is that we have preserved for us the oral Gospel as delivered at three different centres. And that these three versions should have so many points of agreement, both in the arrangement of topics, and frequently in the very phrases employed, justifies the belief that the common element of our three Synoptics was not a mere cento of sayings of Jesus, or of anecdotes of His actions, but an oral Gospel which gave a continuous history of His life, from His baptism by John to His crucifixion. We must not, however, pass over in silence an important question. In what language are we to suppose this oral Gospel to have been first delivered? In connexion with this we must consider a tradition of Papias preserved by Eusebius (E. H.„ iii. 39). He says concerning St Matthew's Gospel, M «"•»■ 'ISfipatSi SutXarrm tu Xoyia inveypdijraTO. H/yajrewire S mTtt, w? |y rttoTW, ettw-ro?. The last clause is clearly not applicable to the private reading of a book. It clearly intimates that there was no authorised translation of St Matthew's Gospel. In that case no one who did not understand the language would attempt to read it ; and if he did understand it, he would not need an interpreter. It seems to me plain that what Papias has in his mind is the public Church use of the Gospel. It had been the custom in the Jewish synagogues, even where Hebrew had ceased to be a spoken language, to 28 INTRODUCTION read the Hebrew Scriptures, but to have the reading followed by an interpretation ; and we find traces for two or three centuries of a similar custom in the mixed congregations of the Christian Church. 1 I make no doubt, then, that what Papias gives us to understand is that the Aramaic Gospel of St Matthew was for some time read in the Christian Church, that no authorised translation of it into Greek was published, but that on each occasion the official charged by the Church with this duty gave an interpretation according to his ability. It is quite intelligible that the method of interpretation which was used in making public the written memoirs of St Matthew would be used also with regard to the oral addresses of other Apostles whose native language was Aramaic, and who either from necessity or from choice made their public addresses rather in that tongue than in one with which they were less familiar; nor need we be at any loss to understand what is meant when Mark or Glaucias is described as having been the interpreter of St Peter. What has been said as to the probable use of Aramaic by the original witnesses of the Gospel history, suggests a method of reconciling variations between the existing records which has been often attempted. Some differences between our Greek Gospels would at once disappear on translating back into Aramaic, and a few more could be reconciled by tempting conjectures. Of course, in our study of the Gospels, we must not lose sight of the possibility which I have indicated. But it must be owned that 1 Towards the end of the fourth century, we find the method of bilingual instruction still in use in Palestine, but with this difference, that Greek is now the language spoken by the bishop, and the interpretation is for the benefit of those who do not speak that language. (S. Sylvia Peregrinatio referred to by Zahn, Gcschichte des N. T. Kanons, i., p. 43.) " Et quoniam in ea provincia pars populi et grsece et siriste novit, pars etiam alia per se graece, aliqua etiam pars tantum siriste, itaque, quoniam episcopus, licet siriste noverit, tamen semper grsece loquitur, et nunquam siriste ; itaque ergo stat semper presbyter, qui episcopo grace dicente, siriste interpretatur ut omnes audiant quae exponuntur. Lectiones etiam, quaecunque in ecclesia leguntur, quia necesse est grsece legi, semper stat qui siriste interpretatur, propter populum ut semper discant." (itinera Hitrosolymitana ed. P. Geyer, p. 99.) INTRODUCTION 29 very few results of this kind have been obtained which we can adopt with entire confidence ; and the explanation seems to be that the Gospel history had passed out of the Aramaic into a definite Greek form before any of the existing Greek Gospels had been written. Before I part with this statement of Papias that Matthew wrote ra \6yia in Hebrew, it is proper to mention an inference which Schleiermacher drew from it, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, which has been fortunate enough to find more acceptance than in my opinion is deserved. He understood by ra \6yia a collection of our Lord's sayings, and imagined that such was the nature of the earliest Gospel. Of late years this idea has been very widely adopted. When, not long since, an Egyptian papyrus was discovered, in which many supposed utterances of our Lord were recorded, with the introduction Jesus saitk, the leaves were generally described as taken from a collection of Logia, and any saying of our Lord is commonly spoken of as a Logion. But for this use of the word I find no authority earlier than the nineteenth century ; and now it rests solely on a doubtful interpretation of an ambiguous word in an isolated extract from a lost book. Yet if Papias had intended to \6yia as the title of St Matthew's Gospel, he would not have entitled his own work Aoyicov KvpiaKwv 'E^yjyo-i?, since it does not appear to have been either a commentary on St Matthew's Gospel, or to have been confined to an exposition of sayings of our Lord. It would be strange if some of those early writers who mention Papias had not followed his use of this word. We shall find as we go along that the very earliest forms of the Gospel which we can trace were all like the Gospels we have now, dealing with the things that Jesus did, as well as those which He said. And, above all, if there had been any early Gospel treating exclusively of our Lord's sayings, we should find traces of the order of that book in the 3 o INTRODUCTION arrangement of those sayings by subsequent writers. But, in point of fact, it is especially with regard to the sayings of our Lord that we find so much variety of arrangement as to preclude the idea that all drew from a common source, whose order we might expect would be followed by all. I purpose now to go systematically through the portion of the Gospel history which has been pre- served by more Evangelists than one, endeavouring in each case to form the best judgment that I can as to the source whence the narrative is most probably derived. And I may state once for all that I am duly sensible of the reserve with which the conclu- sions we draw in any particular case must be asserted. Even in that one case opinions may differ ; for it constantly happens that what one takes as a note of priority is regarded by another as a proof of obligation. And the conclusions suggested by a few instances, or by one, are liable to be modified when we find them overbalanced on the result of a larger induction. It will be observed that I am not concerned with textual criticism or with exegesis, except when they seem to throw light on the special subject of our enquiry. Nor, as a general rule, do I purpose to comment on passages peculiar to a single Evangelist; because any assertion as to the source whence he obtained his knowledge must rest mainly on conjecture. I make an exception, however, as regards the sections peculiar to Mark. These are so very few that the commentary on the passages common to St Mark and another Evangelist would go so very near being a commentary on the whole of his Gospel that it does not seem worth while to omit the few exceptional cases where Mark stands alone. But I need not defer stating the opinion, to which my whole study of the Synoptic Gospels has led me, of the superior value of St Mark's Gospel. I have already expressed my acceptance of two traditions INTRODUCTION 31 preserved by Papias, viz., that St Matthew had been the author of an Aramaic Gospel, and that St Mark had been on terms of special intimacy with St Peter. But I must express my entire dissent from what perhaps is not so much a tradition recorded by Papias, as a critical judgment of his ; viz., that, as regards the order of the things related, St Mark's authority is lower than that of the other two Synoptics. Papias had evidently to deal with the difficulty that in some particular cases St Mark's order of narration differs from that of the other Evangelists ; and his solution is that St Mark does not aim at presenting to us the order in which the different incidents occurred, but only the order in which St Peter had related them, or at least the order in which the things told by the Apostle occurred to the Evangelist's memory. I believe that a critical examination leads to precisely the opposite conclusion. I consider that St Matthew's Gospel, or St Luke's, might be adequately described as a cento of our Lord's sayings and of the leading incidents of His life, such as those who had personally known Him might have told after His death to their disciples. Both Gospels assume Jesus to be well known as a great teacher who had enlisted a body of admiring disciples, but who was confronted by prejudiced and influential opponents ; but it is St Mark's Gospel that must be consulted by any one who desires to know whether there was anything gradual in the process by which the attachment of His followers was gained, and the opposition of His adversaries excited. And I can well believe that St Mark has preserved for us in some cases a trustworthy report, obtained from an eye-witness, of the details of incidents told in a general way by St Matthew. I have already expressed my opinion that the prologue of St Mark, by which I mean the first thirteen verses of his Gospel, exhibits signs of a different style of treatment from the following sections, 32 INTRODUCTION and that in short it shows tokens of a pre-Petrine source. I think it right, therefore, to deal with this section separately, any conclusions that we draw from it being not necessarily applicable to the following sections. THE PROLOGUE OF ST MARK'S GOSPEL I have already sufficiently explained why I consider that the study of the first thirteen verses of Mark ought to be separated from that of the rest of the Gospel ; any conclusions that we may arrive at as to the composition of the former not being necessarily applicable to the latter. In much of the rest of the Gospel St Mark deserves to be regarded as a primary authority, independent of the other two Synoptics, and equally deserving of consideration. In this which I have called his prologue, he is not only not an original authority, but we have some means of knowing the source which he employed ; and thus of forming a judgment on the manner in which he has dealt with it. The verbal coincidences between the accounts given by St Matthew and by St Luke, both of the Baptist's teaching and of our Lord's temptation in the wilderness, leave no room for doubt that these two Evangelists have used a common authority, which I here provisionally call Q. The corresponding parts of St Mark's Gospel read like an abridgment of Q, some of the phrases of which are retained ; so that, as to the sources of this prologue, our enquiry reduces itself to the two points, Was St Mark acquainted with Q ? and, Did he use any other authority ? MARK i. I. 'A-PXh T <"' eiayye\(ov 'IijiroO X/motoO, i/£o0 Oeov. This opening verse of Mark, having no parallel in either of the other Gospels, supplies no materials for what is the special object of the present study — specula- tion as to the sources used by the Evangelist. In fact n 33 34 PROLOGUE OF ST MARK'S GOSPEL I see no reason for imagining that St Mark was in- debted to any one for what I look on as the title which he prefixed to his work. For such an opening the Evangelist had an Old Testament precedent; for the Book of the Twelve Prophets commences, The begin- ning of the word of the Lord by Hosea, 'Apxh \6yov TZvplov ev 'Qtrrje (Hos. i. 2). In considering this title in detail I find it convenient to study the words in their inverse order ; and I begin with the last two words vlov deov, because they have been cancelled by Tischendorf, and consigned to the margin by Hort. Yet I cannot feel any doubt that they are a genuine, part of the Evangelist's text. I have already said that the criticism of the text does not come directly within the scope of my enquiries ; but as the verse now under consideration is in a special sense the Evangelist's own, any error in the transmission of it would affect all our inferences from it as to the date of the Gospel and the person of the writer. Now considering in the first place the external evidence, the favourable testimony of the Greek MSS. is overwhelming. The only exception worth mentioning is that the first hand of the Sinaitic MS. leaves them out, though the omission appears to have received contemporary correction. Tischendorfs decision seems in this, as in some other cases, to have been biassed by partiality for the manu- script which he had himself made known to the world. Against the doubtful possibility that the first transcriber of K had not found these words in his archetype must be set the recognition of the words, not only by the whole body of Greek MSS., with two trivial exceptions (28, 255), but in particular by the Vatican MS. Although I have not been able to agree with Hort in his ordinary treatment of this MS., as if it were practically infallible, I feel the greatest reverence for it, as having preserved for us a type of text older than that made known to us by any other authority, and it is therefore with the greatest reluctance that I ever reject its testimony ; and in the few cases where Hort does so, he seems to me THE TITLE OF THE BOOK 35 to set aside evidence merely in obedience to a critical canon of his own. Hort is not content to acknowledge in a general way the laxity of the members of the infant Church. His hypothesis is that, while it must be owned that they were little simpletons as to the addition of unauthentic matter, it is incredible that they would omit anything that had any kind of claim to have inspired authority. Consequently, if there be evidence that there were once current two forms of an Evangelic story, he feels little hesitation in always deciding that the shorter must certainly be the older, and is to be accounted the genuine one. But I cannot ascribe such authority to any a priori principle of criticism as would entitle it to make us accept the testimony of less credible witnesses, rejecting that of those whom we have good reason to regard as their superiors. Of course in our decision we have always to consider the two questions, If the shorter form be the genuine, how came the doubtful passage to be inserted? In the opposite case, How are we to account for its omission? But it does not necessarily follow that if we cannot answer the second question satisfactorily, we may make our decision without ever putting to ourselves the first. In the present case omission is not difficult to explain. The most important evidence against the genuine- ness of the words consists in the verse having been quoted by some early writers without the two conclud- ing words ; but in none of these cases does it appear to me that these words are relevant to the purpose for which Mark is quoted. It is common enough to find writers abridging a quotation by the omission of words of which they make no use in their argument. Thus Irenaeus quotes the present passage in full where he builds an argument on the words Son of God (Hcer. Int. iii. 10, 6, p. 187 ; 16, 3, p. 205), but elsewhere, where he does not, he omits them. The present passage has also been quoted (Iren. Hcer. Int. iii. 11, 8, p. 191 ; Epiph. Hcer. li. 6) with the omission, not only of the words 36 PROLOGUE OF ST MARK'S GOSPEL Son of God, but also of Jesus Christ, the genuineness of which is undisputed.- (The Greek of Iren., p. 191, has Jesus Christ.) It may perhaps be remarked, too, that a verse which only dates from the time when St Mark put the oral Gospel into a literary form was more liable to depravation in quotation than any portion of the original record which had been made familiar by continual repetition. On the whole then it seems to me that it is opposed to all sound criticism to cancel words that are almost unanimously attested by our most trustworthy authorities and which are in complete accordance with the habitual use of the writer to whom they are attributed, merely on the strength of an a priori assumption that if it can be shown that two forms of text were ever current in early times, the shorter, however poorly attested, must certainly be the original. 'Ijjo-ou ~Kpi]6i, 6 evayye\i£6/u.evos "Leiwv (xl. 9) ; 'Q? 7ro'<5e? evayyeXi^ofievov oncotjv elprivri?- — Taking, as I do, evayy'eXiov to mean the Gospel dispensation, I gather from St Mark's title that the Evangelist counted that dispensation to commence with the baptism of John. And though St Matthew and St Luke both go back in their narrative to the conception and birth of our Lord, yet I infer from the great variation between St Matthew and St Luke in the pre-Johannine part of the history that their common authority did not. And it does not seem to me that St Luke dissented from St Mark's way of reckoning the preaching of the Baptist as the beginning of the Gospel ; for in his preface he claims to have derived his information from persons who air apxw had been eye-witnesses of the word ; a description which applies to those who had been disciples of John the Baptist, but cannot be referred back to any earlier date. In harmony with this, St Luke relates (Acts i. 22) that those were to be regarded as original disciples, from whom the successor of Judas was to be chosen, whose companion- ship with our Lord had dated from the baptism of John. A modern reader might easily overlook the import- THE TITLE OF THE BOOK 39- ance attached by the first disciples to the announcement by the Baptist of a mightier than he who was to come after him. AH the Synoptics relate that when Jesus called on Peter and Andrew, James and John to follow Him, they at once obeyed the summons ; and if we had no other information we should suppose that this prompt obedience was due to a miraculous disposal of their hearts. But the Fourth Evangelist relates that the Baptist had previously pointed out Jesus to his disciples as the mightier successor whose coming he had pre- dicted, and that it was in consequence of this indication that Jesus was joined by two of John's disciples, who at once proceeded to gather others to Him. Twice elsewhere (iii. 26 ; v. 33) the same Evangelist refers to the Baptist's testimony. All the Synoptic Gospels relate that when our Lord was challenged to state the grounds of the authority which He assumed, He silenced the questioners by asking them whether they recognised the Divine mission of the Baptist ; the assumption involved in this question, viz., that if they believed John they must also believe Jesus, having plain reference to the testimony of the Baptist. The same testimony was appealed to by St Paul in the synagogue of Antioch in Pisidia (Acts xiii. 25). See also Acts i. 5 ; xi. 16. In the Clementines far greater prominence is given to the influence of the Baptist than could be natural to a writer of the present day. In fact these Homilies represent Jesus as not only John's successor, but as having been for some time his leading and favourite disciple. Nor does the Gospel history enable us con- fidently to contradict this representation ; for it would be pressing too far St Mark's use of his favourite adverb evdvs in i. 12, which is not repeated in the corresponding passages of St Matthew or St Luke, if we were to con- clude from it that there was no interval between our Lord's baptism and His being driven by the Spirit into the wilderness. Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. iii. 6) infers from the saying All the prophets and the law prophesied until John (Matt. xi. 13), that John was the 40 PROLOGUE OF ST MARK'S GOSPEL connecting link between the two Dispensations, the end of the Prophets and the beginning of the Gospel. Thus we can see good reason why St Mark should count the Baptist's preaching as the beginning of the Gospel. THE APPEARANCE OF THE BAPTIST Mark i. 2-4. Kad&s yiypairTai iv tQ '~ELo~alq, Tip irpoqrfry, " 'ISov, dTOffriWu rbv &yye\6v fiov irpb irpoatb- ttov bSbv Kvplov, evdelas voiehe ras rplBovs airov." Luke iii. 2-4. 'E7^yero pijfia Oeov M 'luav-qv rbv Zaxaplov vibv iv rjj ipJipup. Kal fj\0ev els irSLtrav ireplxoipov rov 'lopddvov Ktjpijcrauv 8&T- TLfffia fj-eravoias els ticpeaiv dfiaprtOv, ds yiypairrai iv BlB\(p \6yav 'Kaalov tov irpotfrf/Tov, &yye\6v fwv vpb wpoffiiwov ; KctTacrKevacrei instead of e-mfiXhp-eTai ; and rtjv 6S6v aou instead of 6S6v, St Mark agreeing in all three points with the other two Evangelists. But the argument which seems to me decisive is that the hypothesis that St Mark is here using Q gives the only admissible explanation of his ascription to Isaiah of a prophecy which really belongs to Malachi. For St Mark's purpose the important words were not in the wilderness, but prepare the way, words which are common to the two prophetical texts cited. St Mark's object was to show that it had been predicted that the coming of the Messiah was to be preceded by that of one who was to prepare His way, and thus that the coming of this precursor was to be regarded as the beginning of the New Dispensation. Now in Q he could have found the passage from Malachi quoted without mention of the author's name, and simply with the formula It is written (Matt. xi. 10; Luke vii. 27). There was then nothing to remind St Mark that any inconvenience could arise from his joining the two sister predictions together, though one passage had already been introduced with the formula As it is written in Isaiah the prophet. I think then that, without proceeding further in our study, we may adopt the two following conclusions as proved: (1) that verbal coincidences between St Matthew and THE APPEARANCE OF THE BAPTIST 43 St Luke are not to be explained by the supposition that either Evangelist copied the other, but rather that both used a source earlier than either. (2) That this earlier document was used by St Mark as well as by the other two Synoptics. St Luke completes the quotation from Isaiah by the addition of the two verses which follow in the LXX. We cannot disprove the hypothesis that these verses were found in Q, and were omitted by St Matthew and St Mark as not relevant to their purpose ; but it seems more probable that they were not con- tained in Q, and that St Luke did what the copiers of an abbreviated Old Testament quotation are very apt to do, namely, to complete it by adding the omitted context. The early Western authorities add these words in Matthew also, and in complete con- formity with St Luke's form in the only important point in which it differs from the Septuagint, namely, that for the word plain in the rough places plain, the LXX (B) has els TreSla ; St Luke has els oSovs Xelas ; the Latin has, in vias planas. It is likely that in Roman Church use the quotation in Matthew was read with the fulness to which the people were accustomed in Luke. To the statement that John came preaching in the wilderness, St Matthew adds of Judcea, words not found in Mark or Luke, yet I have no hesitation in regarding these words as derived from the common original Q. When we attempt to restore Q, the agreement of St Matthew and St Luke against St Mark is a fact of great importance, because St Matthew and St Luke may be regarded as independent witnesses. But we have no reason to think the same of St Luke and St Mark ; and, on the contrary, we shall find reason as we proceed to think that St Luke was indebted to St Mark ; and I find moreover many reasons to think in other cases, where we derive a knowledge of Q both from St Matthew and St Luke, that St Matthew is the more trustworthy authority. 44 PROLOGUE OF ST MARK'S GOSPEL To a modern reader, the phrase preaching in the wilderness conveys the idea of a man preaching where there was no one to listen to him ; and we are disposed to ask, why, if John came to preach, he should choose a place where he could not expect to find an audience ? It must be borne in mind, in the first place, that the English word wilderness conveys an idea of greater desolation than the Greek eprino?. In fact, when we read further on of our Lord going to an eprifios tottos, we may simply understand a place unencumbered by habitations or by human cultivation, which, though a large audience was not likely to be found there, was more convenient for addressing one than either the narrow streets of a small Eastern town or land occupied by growing crops. In Q, I take it, that the phrase wilderness of Judcea was used historically, to describe the place where John appeared as a preacher. The context leads us to think of it as a stretch of waste land adjacent to the lower Jordan, with scarcely any resident population, in which, uncultivated though it was, it was not impossible to find native growths capable of sustaining life. St Luke (iii. 2) describes the situation : John was in the wilderness, to which no doubt he had retired for solitude and meditation ; there the word of God came unto him ; and he preached, first to those in his immediate neighbourhood ; and, as his fame spread, people went out to him, until at length at Jerusalem itself his preaching and its authority was thought worthy of investigation. We have next to enquire whether, in restoring Q, we are to adopt St Matthew's version, saying, repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand, or that in which St Mark and St Luke agree, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. That at least the words riyyiK&i h fiatriXela twv ovpavwv come from Q we have independent evidence in Matt. x. 7, a passage which must be referred to Q, because, though not contained in Mark, it is reproduced in Luke x. 9, but with an addition which makes the words more THE APPEARANCE OF THE BAPTIST 45 suitable when placed in our Lord's mouth, f/yyiKev efivfia? jJ fiao-iXeia tov deov. We need not doubt also that the exhortation Repent was part of the Baptist's message ; for, besides St Matthew's testimony, we have also that of St Luke in Acts xiii. 24, where John is described as having preached the baptism of repentance. The full phrase /leravoetTe, rjyyiKev yap jJ /8av, though not found in the Septuagint, is frequent with St Luke. In any case we find that the phrase was in use in the circle in which both St Mark and St Luke moved, and therefore is one which might be used by either independently of the other. It is to be noted that neither St Luke nor St Mark ever uses the phrase kingdom of heaven, >) /3a)v ba hSv/ia airov diri Tpv/fi" kcumJAou Kal £tbvi]v Sep/iarlvriv wepl Hjv bo-iv airrov, i] Si rpooH) fy airrov axplSes Kal /U\i 6-ypi.ov. T rip 'lopSdvri irorap-ip iir' airov 4t;op.o\oyovfnevoi ras ap.ap- rlas airCtv. St Matthew and St Mark give in almost identical words the description of the Baptist's food and raiment. They differ in arrangement : the two verses just quoted from Mark being transposed in Matthew. On account of the freedom of St Mark's dealings with Q I am disposed to believe that St Matthew here represents the order of the original. John's spare diet is referred to in the passage Matt. xi. 8 ; Luke vii. 25, which I have already claimed as derived from Q. There are two variations of language between St Matthew's account and St Mark's : St Matthew's jj Tpocfrh avrov is replaced in Mark by rjv ea-Owv ; and St Matthew's etxev to evSvfia avrov by ?i/ ivSeSv/uLevoi. St Mark constantly employs as here (v. 6, >}v evSeSvpevos • • • kcu ecrQwv), the substan- tive verb with a participle to express either an habitual action or a continuous state. But this practice is not so exclusively St Mark's that we can count instances of it as notes of Marcan origin. Examples of it abound in St Luke, both in Gospel and Acts (see, for example, Luke iv. 32, 44). Following what I suppose to have been the original order of Q, I have considered the sixth verse of Mark before the fifth ; but a few notes concerning that fifth verse may now be added. St Matthew states that there went out to John Jerusalem and all Judcea and all % Treplxwpos tov 'lopSavov. St Mark omits these last words ; yet, as they are also found in Luke iii. 3, we can scarcely doubt that they came from Q. Instead of St Matthew's Jerusalem and all Judcea, St Mark has all the country of Judaa and all 4 8 PROLOGUE OF ST MARK'S GOSPEL they of Jerusalem, a variation which needs no comment, save that it is evidence that St Mark did not copy so slavishly as not to feel himself at liberty to alter the form of expression, so as to give a subject for the verb eficnrTL^ovTo, which immediately follows. With regard to the tense of this verb, this is not an unsuitable place to remark that St Mark strictly abstains from using the aorist tense when not recording a definite act. He uses the imperfect tense, not only when speaking of an uncompleted or of a continuous action, but also when speaking of the act of a body of men, if, from the nature of the case, their action must have been successive, not simultaneous. Thus, in the present case, it was a succession of persons who came, one after another, and were baptized ; and so we have the imperfects e£eiropev€ro and ef3cnrTi£ovTo. In like manner, in relating the utter- ance of a single person, St Mark uses the aorist or the historic present, but the imperfect is used in such phrases as The disciples said, The Pharisees said, where several persons are introduced as speaking, who are not supposed to have spoken altogether. See p. 105. In the fourth chapter of Mark several sayings of our Lord are con- secutively introduced with ekeyev. In this case we are not obliged to suppose that all these sayings were part of a connected discourse. These imperfects might be translated This also was a saying of Jesus, which might have been uttered on the occasion of which the context speaks, or might also have been repeated on another occasion. The verb egeiropeveTo, which I have just quoted, and in which St Matthew and St Mark agree, does not occur in St Luke's direct narrative, but is recognised by him immediately afterwards, where he tells us that John the Baptist spoke tois eKTropevofievois ox\ois- THE PREACHING OF JOHN THE BAPTIST St Matthew and St Luke now agree in giving an abstract of John's preaching which is not found in Mark. THE PREACHING OF THE BAPTIST 49 Their verbal agreement is so close that we must suppose that both used the common source which I have called Q. As I have already given reasons for thinking that St Mark also was acquainted with Q, I conclude that in this place he abridged it, hastening on to what he needed for his purpose — the Baptist's announcement of the coming of our Lord. It will be convenient then to study in this place that section of Q which treats of John's preaching. Matt. iii. 7-10. 'XSiiv Si iroXKobs rum Qapuraluv teal "SiaSSovKalwv ipxo^vov; iirl rb f3iirrurfia elirev aiirdis, Tevvtip.aTa (X<.$vuv, rls iiriSeil-ev ipXv vyetv &wb ttjs fie\\o6l 86fr)Te \iyea> iv iavrols, Jlaripa (xopev rbv 'AfSpad/t, Wyw yap ip.iv tin Sivarai 6 0ebs £k tuv \Wtav rotiruy iyetpai rhva r; So&Te in his original, and substituted for the somewhat difficult expression Soirtre the easier ap£i] iiiv ijuis /Sairrifw iv SSari eh ner&vouiv 6 Se diriaui /u.ov ipx.6- lievos la%vpbTep6s p.ov itrrlv, off oix cl/u licapbs ra iiiro5ijp.aTa jSatrrdcar oi/tos ip.as (iaTTkrei iv wei/MTi irflif kbX Tvpt. Mark i. 7, 8. Kol eK^pvffffev \iywv, "Epxerai & ta%vpirep6s p.ov ivlaa [fiov], off oin dpi Ixdvbs K^if/as >*Vat rbv ifiivra tujv inroSiipAriav ai/rou* £y& efl&Tr- Tura &p&s OSart, airbs Si ^airrltrei i/ias TTvdp.aTi aylip. Luke iii. 16. 'Eyii p£y tiSan fiaTTTlfa vp.av tpxerai Si 6 Urxvptrrepbs /tow, off oix elfil Ikclvos \vacu rev ipAvra. twv inroSTjfiArav affroir aiirbs ff/ias jSott- tIucl ir irceifyta™ ir/lif xal irvpl. John i. 26, 27. 'Eyii fSaiTTlfa ev SSan- /.mVos bp.wv (TT^Kei bv i/p.eis oiK otSare, birlffw fiov ipxfaepos, off oiiK elp.1 [£yi!>] fijios ha \tiaw airov rbv 1/iivra rod inroS-fipinTos. The verbal coincidences here leave no room for doubt that St Matthew and St Luke are using their common authority Q, and that the common authority, as they used it, must have been in Greek. We need not doubt that St Mark used the same authority ; and his omission of the clause wliose fan is in his hand, etc. (Matt. iii. 12; Luke iii. 17) is only to be regarded as furnishing ground for the assertion that when St Mark uses Q, he is apt to abridge. For the same reason no stress is to be laid on St Mark's omission of the words and with fire, which in Matthew and Luke follow the words He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. Exegesis not being the object of this study, it would be irrelevant to discuss whether the double baptism is to be understood of two classes of persons : with the Holy Ghost being said of those who receive rightly, and with fire of those who do not, thus connecting the -n-vploi St Matthew's eleventh 52 PROLOGUE OF ST MARK'S GOSPEL verse with the irvpi acr^ea-rw of his twelfth ; or whether the irvpi is not to be understood as metaphorically representing the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts ii. 3). In these verses St Mark has a small difference of order from St Matthew and St Luke. These two, doubt- less following Q, begin with eyw jmev 11/j.as fiairrifa ev vSan. St Mark improves the strength of the sentence by putting this clause later. St Matthew adds els /xeravoiav, without support from the other two witnesses. The word Ikclvos is used in the sense of worthy in another section derived from Q, the healing of the centurion's servant, which is related by St Matthew (viii. 8), and by St Luke (vii. 6), but not by St Mark. In the present passage St John substitutes agios for kavos- We come now to the variation which needs most comment, viz., that whereas according to St Matthew, John says that he is not worthy fSatTTcurcu to. inroSy/jLara of his successor, according to St Mark he says that he is not worthy Kv^p-as Xva-ai tov Ifxavra twv vvoS^/tarav avTou. St Luke and St John agree in this Xvcrai, but have not Kvtyas ; Justin Martyr twice has Matthew's fiao-raarai (Trypho, 49, 88). The explanation that most obviously occurs is that the origin of this variation was due to some ambiguity in the common Aramaic original ; as, for example, if an Aramaic word could be found bear- ing the two meanings to bear and to loose, which might have been differently understood by two Evangelists ; or if words respectively bearing one of these meanings could be found so like each other that one might con- ceivably have been substituted, in copying, for the other. But I have found no explanation of this kind which I can accept as convincing ; and I am persuaded that the variation did not arise from the chance substitution of one word for another like it in sound, but from the deliberate alteration of a phrase which had ceased to be intelligible into another conveying the same idea. I think we must accept the testimony of St Matthew, confirmed by Justin Martyr, that fiaarraaai was the word used in Q. The idea of carrying shoes, though ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE MESSIAH 53 not familiar to us, cannot be quite strange to any one who has seen an Irish country girl walking barefoot on her way to fair or Mass, but carrying her shoes in her hand, which she puts on when she arrives close to the town for which she is bound. Such a one can easily understand that the Jews of our Lord's time thought that the shoes then worn were an encumbrance on a long walk, and preferred to be without them. Our Lord when He sent forth His disciples on missionary tours round the neighbouring towns, and directed them to take nothing in the nature of luggage with them, ordered them to take no shoes, otherwise no doubt each would have had to carry his shoes on the road. If a rabbi walked with his disciples, the shoes of the master would be carried by one of the disciples, and this is the office which John declares himself unworthy to fill towards his successor. But as the customs in the neighbourhood of Rome were not those of Palestine, St Mark, who according to the best information we have got, wrote for a Roman audience, omits the direction that the missionary apostles were to take no shoes, and substitutes that they were to wear only sandals (vi. 9). 1 To the same class of readers the idea of carrying shoes would be unfamiliar, and St Mark substitutes a kindred humble office, that of loosing the thong that kept the sandal in its place. I regard this change as made by St Mark, and copied from him by St Luke, and after him by St John (i. 27) ; for my whole study of the two Gospels forbids me to invert the relation between Mark and Luke. But I must in candour own that we should have expected that St Luke and St John, if they had been copying Mark, would also have copied the Kifya?, by which St Mark accentuates the humility of the office ; this word in the Old Testament being commonly used of an act of worship. St Luke omits SttIo-w fiov which is attested by St Matthew, St Mark, and St John. 1 In Mark vi. 9 the change of construction in dXXot vToSeSe/ttvovs (rav5£Kta is recognised as natural when we see that at this point St Mark breaks off copying his original. 54 PROLOGUE OF ST MARK'S GOSPEL THE BAPTISM OF JESUS Mark i. 9. Matt. iii. 13. Luke iii. 21. Kol tyhero (v cKelvats Tire irapaylverat b 'Eyiyero Si iv rQ |8o7r- rtus ii/i4pcus f/Xdcv 'Itjitous 'IijitoBs awb rijs Va\i.\alas TurBTJvai diravra rbv \abv &t6 Nafaptr rfjs ToXi- iirl rbv '\opiavriv irpbs rbv nal 'lycrov fiaimaBivTOS \alas, Kal tfiairriirBTi els 'IfddpTjv rov paTrTiedijj'aL xal irpoaevxofie'vov rbv 'lopS&vqv i/irb 'lwdvov. for' atirov. These accounts evidently were derived from a common source, which no doubt contained the state- ment that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in Jordan. St Luke has abridged the account, hastening on to tell of the Baptist's proclamation of his successor. St Matthew and St Luke had already described Jesus as a dweller in Nazareth, and have no occasion to mention that name here ; but it is retained by St Mark, in whose Gospel it here occurs for the first time. It has been suggested that the kcu eyevero, which is common to St Mark and St Luke, indicates that both are translating from the Aramaic, this formula being of constant occurrence in the Septuagint, where it is used to render the Hebrew W. But the forms of speech in which a story has been originally told pass easily into another language, into which it has been translated. Biblical phraseology has stamped itself on the English language as appropriate to certain narratives. That this eyevero is no more than a trick of style appears from the fact, that while it occurs but six times in St Matthew's Gospel, and four times in St Mark's, it appears to be a formula with St Luke, who uses it more than forty times in his Gospel, and more than twenty times in the Acts. Matt. iii. 14, 15. '0 Si SieKitiKvev airbv \4yw>, 'Ey&i xp f'ac tx a 0*4 a <"> /HawTurSrjiitu, Kal oi> ixrel airrdv, nai Qwriiv ejf ovpa- fvril [e-yArero] 4k tuv repurrepiiv ipxiiurw er vol yerivBai, Zi> el o vids odparut, Sdeli uios juov auroV xai iSoi ^dwt) 4k /tow 6 ayarords, in crol o iyanfrfc, 4r vol cM4- rwv ovparwr "Kiyoxxra, dS6irt)tra. OJrds 4ara> 6 vids putv A iyanfrfc, 4* $ eiSArrpa. 56 PROLOGUE OF ST MARK'S GOSPEL The next difference between our Gospels that needs to be noticed is, that St Mark represents the opening of the heavens and the descent of the Holy Ghost as something seen by our Lord ; and we should suppose that it was from His narration of it that the disciples obtained their knowledge. St Matthew relates the opening of the heavens historically, but agrees with St Mark in relating the descent of the Holy Ghost as seen by our Lord ; St Luke relates both phenomena historically ; St John rests belief in the descent of the Holy Ghost on the testimony of the Baptist, who declared, / have seen, and have borne witness (John i. 34). But the account in the Fourth Gospel does not quite harmonise with that in the First ; for if it was only through the descent of the Holy Ghost that the Baptist learnt that Jesus was to be his greater successor, and if that descent took place at the time of the Baptism, it does not give the explanation of John's reluctance to admit our Lord to his baptism. It seems to me possible that in the history as related by Q the eTSev had an ambiguous position, so that the nominative to the verb might be taken either as John or as Jesus. This history has its echoes elsewhere in the New Testament. I cannot help thinking that the designations of Jesus as 6 rjr/anrrifj.evopi\<;ev els rty Ta\i\alav. nal KaTaXiinlB' T7JK Nofapi iXSiiv Kariptcri rb eiayyi\iov [t^s /3o t?;s -y-fjs iiravayayeiv SKtyov, tcadlaat Si in toO ir\olov iUtiaaKev toM 6x\ovi. . . . dpolus Si Kal 'Unufiov koX 'Iwivriv vlolii 7,i /iiSalov, ot 9/rrai' koipuvoI rif 21/jumn,. xal elwev irpbs rbv Si/iuva 'Ir/troOs, M^ 0oj3oD" irb toD vdv iuiBpiliirovs tern fuyp&v ml Karayaydpret r& irKoia M t^v yr\v &evreg to ttKoiov kcu tov irarepa avTwv ? Now it is evident that whether St Matthew and St Luke used St Mark's Gospel or not, they had other sources of information. And on the hypothesis that they did use Mark, it was to be expected that when they had to introduce matter derived from a different source they would be obliged to abridge or make selections from that derived from Mark ; and also that if they had been following St Mark's order, their doing so would be interrupted when they introduced extraneous matter. It seems to me that there is good reason for thinking that just at this place St Matthew passes from the use of one authority to another. He has just told the story of the call of the Apostles, which, as I believe, he might have found in Q as well as in Mark ; and he is about to introduce a long section to which Mark has nothing corresponding, namely, that which reports the Sermon on the Mount, taking three whole chapters, followed by the account of the healing of the centurion's servant, which, though not recorded by St Mark, is told by St Luke, and therefore may be probably referred to Q as its authority. But here St Matthew, before parting with Mark, gives in the last three verses of his fourth chapter an account in general terms, almost in the very words of Mark iii. 7, 8, of our Lord's preaching in Galilee. And here it is to be noted that St Matthew repeats in ix. 35, in almost identical words, the verse iv. 23. ACCORDING TO ST LUKE 87 We turn now to compare Mark with Luke, and we find that, with the exception of one great divergence, St Luke in this part of his work follows Mark more closely than St Matthew has done. With regard to the change of the place where the calling of Peter is related, it is a sufficient explanation that St Luke had obtained from a source which he regarded as trustworthy an account which connected the call of Peter with a miraculous draught of fishes, of which that disciple was a witness ; and St Luke's account is by no means contradictory of St Mark's, to which it may rather be regarded as supplemental. St Luke does not represent Peter as owing his first know- ledge of our Lord to this miracle ; on the contrary, he tells first of the entry of Jesus into Peter's house, and the healing of his wife's mother ; he tells of our Lord's use of Peter's boat, in order to escape the pressure of the multitude ; and he relates also how, at a word from Jesus, Peter let down his net, though it is not to be supposed that if the word had been spoken by an entire stranger, the fishermen would have consented to prolong their fruitless toil. In fact Peter's discipleship had evidently different stages of intimacy with our Lord. First we know of Peter as a disciple of the Baptist, but taught by his master to recognise Jesus as his destined successor. We find him, after John's imprisonment, formally enlisted, as St Mark tells, as a disciple of our Lord. Then follows a stage when he became our Lord's constant companion, going about with Him in His tours of preaching, placing, as it would seem, his boat at his Master's disposal, whether for visiting different villages on the lake, or as affording a place for preaching secure from the pressure of the crowd ; and, when well in- structed in our Lord's doctrines, going about as His envoy or missionary to make known the glad tidings to villages which Jesus Himself had not visited. We could not tell from St Mark's brief narrative whether this missionary work began immediately on Peter's professed discipleship, which that Evangelist records, or whether 88 THE SYNAGOGUE OF CAPERNAUM there may not have been a subsequent call to closer partnership, such as St Luke records. We are therefore not bound to regard St Luke's account as contradictory to that given by St Mark ; and we are not concerned to discuss whether Troiricrw v/xag yevecrOai aXeeis avdpunrwv, and, airb tov vvv avQpunrovs ecru t oo yp^ >v are *° De re g al "ded as words spoken by our Lord on two different occasions, or as two reports, different in form, but substantially identical, of the same utterance. On the whole I see no reason to doubt that St Luke used St Mark's Gospel as his authority, though he modified the first sections in accordance with other information which he had received, and which he accounted trustworthy. THE SYNAGOGUE OF CAPERNAUM. Mark i. 21a. Luke iv. 31a. Kai elairop&vovrai ek Kaaoi'>iJ.. Kai KarijXdev els Kcapapvao6fi tt6\lv ttjs ra\i\a(as. I follow now St Mark's order, accounting him to be the original authority for what is told in the rest of this chapter. St Luke's explanation that Capernaum was a city of Galilee would need no comment (since the name occurs in a work intended for readers unacquainted with the locality), if the explanation had been given the first time the city was mentioned. But actually he had already introduced the name of the city, without explana- tion (iv. 23). This becomes quite intelligible when it is acknowledged that the report of the sermon at Nazareth comes from a source different from that from which the narrative that follows it is derived, and that the latter narrative bears internal marks of dealing with events earlier in date than the visit to Nazareth. See P- 73- SABBATH PREACHING 89 Mark i. 11b. Luke iv. j,\b. Ka! etidis tois ai.f$f}aoiv eltreKBibv Kol fy Slo6.hkwv airois iv tois els rijv crvvayuyriv iSlSaaKtv. o-a^aaiv. It is certainly true that T a crafifiara may be used when only one Sabbath is spoken of. Thus, Exod. xvi. 25, 26 : ecrTiv yap o-a/3/3ara crijfiepov tu icvpiw, dux evpeOrjo-erai ev tu> ireS'ia). ef jj^epa? cn/XXe^ere' tq Se fipepq 777 efiSo/nfl crafifiaTa. ; but I see no reason for under- standing St Mark's statement in any other than the obvious sense that our Lord at once on His arrival commenced the practice of teaching in the synagogue every Sabbath day. The fa SiSdo-Kwv of St Mark's next verse evidently describes the impression produced by our Lord's habitual mode of teaching. It is true that the ev6v? of Mark i. 23 suggests that the healing of the demoniac took place on the first Sabbath that our Lord attended the synagogue, and that He left Caper- naum next morning. But since we find that He soon returned to that city, His general practice of preaching in the synagogue might well be mentioned here. It may be added that there is no evidence that the visit to the synagogue which St Mark relates was our Lord's first visit. He may have included Capernaum in His missionary circuits before He enlisted Peter as His assistant. Before St Luke tells of our Lord's visit to Nazareth, he had recorded our Lord's custom of preaching in the Galilean synagogues, 'E&'cW/cei/ ev rats o-vvayayyats avrwv (Luke iv. 15). And St Luke evidently understood St Mark to speak of our Lord's habitual practice, for in verse 31 he substitutes for St Mark's eSiSacncev, rjv SiSaerKcav avrov? ev tois aafifiaariv. Mark i. 22. Matt. vii. 28, 29. Luke iv. 32. Kcti ££eirkfi" Ka l "fa &s "' el-ovo-lav (xwv Kal oi\ is ypa/ifiarets. oi ypa/i/iareis airrwv. It is impossible to read these words of the three Evangelists without feeling that all three represent one go THE SYNAGOGUE OF CAPERNAUM original. The closest resemblance is between St Matthew's version and St Mark's, which are almost identical, save that where St Mark says not as the scribes, St Matthew says not as their scribes. We might be inclined to regard this as a mark of posteriority, as indicating a time when the separation between the Christian community and the Jewish had become so marked, that, in speaking of the scribes, it was felt necessary to explain that it was the Jewish scribes that were intended. However this may be, we are well disposed to accept the connexion in which St Matthew places this remark. He introduces it at the conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount ; and there seems much appropriateness in noticing there the independent character of our Lord's mode of teachfhg. He did not found His instruction on any external authority, This was the opinion of such a rabbi, that of such another rabbi ; on the contrary, He freely disregarded the dicta of previous teachers : Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time . . . but T say unto you. Our first impression therefore would certainly be that St Matthew does not here copy Mark, but found this remark appended to the Sermon on the Mount in Q, or what- ever document from which he drew his report of that Sermon, and that St Mark took the remark from the same source, finding it equally applicable to the teach- ing in the Galilean synagogues which he himself describes. The questions, however, raised by a comparison of St Mark's report with St Matthew's are much less important than those that arise on a comparison with St Luke's, which affect our interpretation of the saying that our Lord taught them as having authority, and not as the scribes ; for I find no trace that St Luke under- stood the passage as we do. I cannot doubt that we have been rightly taught by St Matthew to connect this remark with the independence of other teachers which our Lord exhibited, when, on His own authority, He extended the range of the precepts of old time. But HIS WORD WAS WITH AUTHORITY 91 in St Luke's report we find egova-la. attributed to our Lord in His character, not of a teacher, but of an exorciser of demons. He seems to have in view, not the authority which our Lord exercised over the hearers, who were bound meekly to receive His instructions, but over the demons who were compelled to obey the commands which He had power to enforce, authority which He not only possessed Himself (Luke iv. 36), but was able to confer on His disciples (Luke ix. 1 ; x. 19). In the present passage, St Luke makes no comparison with the teaching of the scribes, but merely observes that our Lord's word was with authority hi i^ova-la yv 6 Xoyo? avrov. He goes on to relate His casting out the demon in the synagogue, and tells of the impression made on the spectators of the miracle ; a> e£btxr rweiitan axaSdprip, ml txar TveSfta Saifutriov ixaBaprov, «u d»e«po|ci' \fymr d»&pa|a> 4*»>ri /"T^D St Luke's omission of the ei;0J? is natural, because he is relating an isolated story, and not, as in St Mark's case, one in close connexion with what precedes. The difference between St Luke's object and St Mark's is apparent from the fact that though they agree in saying that the miracle about to be related was 94 THE MIRACLE IN THE SYNAGOGUE performed in the synagogue, St Mark, as relating a continuous narrative, first tells of our Lord's entrance into the synagogue ; but St Luke gives no explanation how he came to be there. Mark i. 24. Luke iv. 34. ["Ba], tI T]iuv Kal trol, 'I?;croB Na£a- "Ea, ri tj/mv Ktd croi, 'Ir/aov Nafo- piqvi ; ^\0es awci\4' airrov els nnvraxov els HXyv rty ireplxvpov ttjs v&vto. t&itov ttjs irepix&P ov - TahChalas. The only difference here that is not merely verbal is that St Luke does not mention Galilee ; but he had previously done so in verse 14 of this chapter, a verse which seems to have been suggested by the verse of Mark now under consideration. Luke iv. 14. Kal inriirrpeij/ev 6 'IijffoBs (» rrj Swap-ei rod TVeti/MTOS els ri)v Ta\i\alav. Kal tyim i^fjKBev Had' SXrjs tt)s irepi- %/ipov irepl airov. PETER'S WIFE'S MOTHER Mark i. 29. Matt. viii. 14a. Luke iv. 38a. Kal ei0is ix T7JS crwa- Kal £\8i>i> i 'IijitoCs 'Avaar&s Si &wi ttjs 7wyi}s 4£e\B6vTes JjKBav els tt)v olrfav Uirpov trviiayuyrjs eUrrjKBev els els tt)» olxlar 21/iupos Kal ")» oldav Zlfiwvos. 'AvSpiov fiera. 'laKt&flov Kal 'lu&vov. Here St Mark makes the visit to Peter's house take place immediately on our Lord's coming out of the synagogue. St Matthew disregards this connexion, but St Luke conveys the same idea, though he avoids ioo PETER'S WIFE'S MOTHER the use of the word ev$v$. He also corrects St Mark's inelegant e£e\9cov rj\6ev (B) into ai/aon-a? . . • eicrrj\6ev. The simplest explanation seems to me that the story had been told in Q as an isolated anecdote, which St Mark, under St Peter's instruction, has placed in its proper setting, and that St Luke has copied Mark. St Mark alone tells that the house was Andrew's as well as Peter's, and that the two sons of Zebedee entered with our Lord. It has been noticed already (p. 85), that St Mark only gives the Apostle the name Simon, until he formally relates (iii. 16) that our Lord surnamed him Peter, after which in his narrative the Evangelist drops the name of Simon. St Matthew, in his first mention of the Apostle (iv. 18), designates him as Simon who is called Peter; and thus is able in relating this story to give him no other name than Peter. St Luke's vacilla- tion on this point marks the diversity of the sources which he employed. He had not mentioned, under any name, this disciple as being in our Lord's company until (iv. 38) he gives St Mark's version of the present story and calls him by St Mark's name, Simon. Mark i. 30, 31. Matt. viii. 14^ 15. Luke iv. 380, 39. 'H Se irevBepb. 'Sl/mvos ElSev rty irevffepav Uep6ep& 81 tov ZJ/mukos kwt4k€lto Trvpiaaovaa, Kal ainav fiefih-qiUvqv Kal ty avvex°P-^ v V truperip eidis \4yov(rw a$r

As ai- rbv irepl aiiTTJi. Kal emtr- ijyeipev aM)V KpaH\uas rrjs, Kal aipfiKev airi/v ras eT&vu airrijs eirerf- ttjs x el P is ' Ka l ^?«o l i irvperds, Kal ifyipBij, /iija-ey Tt# Trvperip, Kal airrty 6 Trvperds, Kal Siy- Kal S«jjci5j/« atfr£ ajnJKev aiiripi' irapaxpTtpa Kivet airaTs. Si avaaraaa BnjKdvtt ai- TO(S. St Matthew makes our Lord, on coming in, see the sick person ; according to the other two authorities He has to be told of her; and it seems altogether more probable that she was lying in a different room from that which was first entered, and in which the meal was to take place. St Mark only relates that they told our Lord of her ; St Luke's word asked implies that they requested Him to heal her. Yet the narrative does not tell us that the disciples had previous experience of our Lord's power to heal sickness, though they knew of His THE 'SABBATH FEAST 101 u authority to command demons. St Luke's phrase, how- ever, ewerlfujcrev tw irvperm, would seem to indicate that he regarded the disease as caused by the working of a malignant spiritual being. We have a parallel, however, to our Lord's rebuking the fever in what St Mark tells us of His rebuking the wind (iv. 39). The mention of the woman waiting on the guests reveals what otherwise might escape notice, that Jesus entered Peter's house because invited to a meal ; and we get the explanation why James and John came in too, to take part in the entertainment. It was, in short, what answered to our "Sunday dinner" ; for Josephus tells us that it was customary among the Jews to have a dinner-party on the Sabbath. "Ekt»7 SKr) ii iri\is emavvifynivi) irpos rip> Bipav, Kal iBep&irev- aev iroXXoi/s mucus txovras woixlXats vbaois, Kal Sat- fi6vta TroXKa i^aKef, Kal oix ijQiev XaXeic ra Sai- ftdvia, Sri jjSeurav airbv [Xpurr&v etvai\. Matt. viii. 16. 'Oijilas Si yeno/Uri)? wpov/jveyKar atrip Sia/Mvit^o^fovs iroX- XoiV Kal i^fSaXty to. wnet/iara \6yip, xal iravras rois /caucus txovras iBepivevtrev. Luke iv. 40, 41. Aivoirros Si rov ijXiov airavres Stxoi S%ov iade* vovvras vdsois voiKlkat- ijyayov aurous wpbs aiir6v' Si ivl ixdffrtp airuv rat Xetpas eirirtBtls iSepd- irevev avrovs. efijpxero Si Kal 8at/i6via airb iro\- \uv, KpafovTa koI ~Kiyorra Sri, Si el 6 vUs rod Beov' Kal (TriTtfuiv o6k eta ain-a \a~Kuii, in jjSeurar rhr Hpurrbv avrbv ehrai. The impression produced by our Lord's miracle in the synagogue, and probably also by what was noised abroad by the healing of Peter's wife's mother, was so great that in the evening there was a crowd of people about the door. St Mark's expression that all the city was gathered together there seems to express the vivid recollection of an eye-witness, for the phrase is not preserved by St Matthew or St Luke. St Mark says that the sick people were brought at even, when the sun did set ; and as the day was the Sabbath, we can understand that it was not till the Sabbath was brought to a close by sunset that the labour of transporting the sick people could be under- taken. St Mark's at even, when the sun did set is not really pleonastic. It tells not only that the time was io 4 THE CROWD ROUND THE DOOR evening, but which part of the evening it was. The sick people began to be brought only when the Sabbath was over. St Matthew has only 6i/sias yevo/uLevtjs, pro- bably all that was contained in Q, which St Matthew copied, and St Mark made more definite. There is, however, a complete parallel to this double dating in Mark xvi. 2, very early . . . when the sun was risen. Moreover the next verse appears to indicate a use of Mark by St Matthew ; for phrases used by St Mark in this verse (34), in reference to what took place on the evening of the day of which he has so much to tell, are repeated by St Matthew (iv. 24) in his general account of our Lord's preaching, Kai irpoa-riveyKav avrw Travras toi/? KaKwg exovTWS iroiKiXaii voa-ois- Though St Matthew mentions the evening, yet as he has not related the miracle in the synagogue, he gives no hint that the day was the Sabbath. St Luke does not call attention to this fact. He leaves out the phrase 6\jslas yevofiivw : it may be to correct a seeming pleonasm ; but it may be noted that while St Mark has the phrase 6\/siag yei/o^teV^y five times, the word 6i[flas is not used by St Luke either in Gospel or Acts. Here instead of it, St Luke alters St Mark's ore eSvo-ev 6 fjXios into Swovrog rov rjXiov, seemingly being unconscious of the reason why the setting of the sun was mentioned. In the verses now under consideration, though there is some diversity between St Mark's narrative and those of the other two Evangelists, yet there is nothing to contradict, and a good deal to confirm, the hypothesis suggested by other considerations that these two Evangelists used Mark as their authority. In St Luke's case, note, for example, how St Mark's ttoikIXois vocrois is brought in, though not exactly in the same place. Stylistic reasons afford quite sufficient explanation why St Luke should vary from St Mark's language. I frankly confess that there present themselves cases when St Mark's homeliness of style is more agreeable to modern taste than St Luke's careful compliance with rules laid down by the grammatical teachers approved DEMONIACS SILENCED 105 n his day. For example, St Luke might easily con- sider that he was making a literary improvement when nstead of St Mark's vague they, in they brought unto him ill that were sick, he wrote, all they that had any sick . . . Wought them unto him ; or when he corrected St Mark's ise of the imperfect tense. In order to present to an English reader this peculiarity of St Mark's style, we night almost be driven to use the Irish frequentative 1o be. If an English historian found a statement they lid be bringing sick people to him, it would seem an jbvious improvement to reproduce it in the form they brought ; and yet there would be some loss of vividness, wd a missing of the point that what was related was, not a single attack, but a continuous series of applica- tions for relief. In passages common to the three Evangelists, St Matthew generally agrees with St Luke in using the aorist, rather than St Mark's imperfect (here e.g. Matthew has irpooiiveyKav, and Luke 5yayof for Mark's eipepov). but there are exceptions, and there are even cases, when in passages common only to Matthew and Luke, St Matthew uses the aorist and St Luke the imperfect. St Luke (iv. 41) has stated what was probably true, but what goes beyond what he might have found in Mark, who says (i. 34). that Jesus suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him. St Luke (iv. 41), enlarges this into Devils also came out from many, crying out, and saying, Thou art the Son of God. And rebuking them, he suffered them not to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ. If we are content with believing that St Luke used his authority as an honest historian might, he only draws from St Mark's words the inference that would be made from them by any modern commentator. St Mark had told (i. 25), how our Lord silenced the demoniac in the synagogue who bore witness, / know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God, and again (jii. 1 1) how when unclean spirits . . . fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God . . . he charged them much that they should not make him known. St 106 JESUS LEAVES CAPERNAUM Luke himself had experience at Philippi how the Apostle Paul had silenced a demoniac who bore witness to his divine commission (Acts xvi. 17); so that the only thing that it can be said that St Luke added here on his own authority is that the words of attestation were Thou art the Son of God, or, the Christ. We need not wonder that Jesus refused to receive testimony from so discreditable a source. Indeed if we bear in mind what we are told a little further on, of the theory put forward by the Jewish rulers that Jesus Himself was possessed by a demon, and that the chief of all the demons, not much regard would be paid to testimony borne by one demon to another, and that other the chief, whom he was bound to obey. JESUS LEAVES CAPERNAUM Mark i. 35-38. Ko! irptal ivvvx& M £tto- pei6t\ els Ipy/wr t&itov' xal ol Sx^oi iire&frrow airov, ko.1 fj\8ov las airov, nai Ka/reixov airrbv rov pvti iropeieffBai dir' adrwv. 6 Si elirev irpbs atirobs tin, Kol tois iripais TtSkeaiv eiay- yeKlaaaBal fie Set t)\v flacriKdav tov 0eo8, tin tirl tovto dxeordXi/i'i St Luke retains the «y eptj/uov tottov of the first of these verses of Mark ; his taste disapproves of St Mark's e£ij\Qev kou onrij\6ev, and he corrects the phrase into i£e\6ow eiropevOrj. He does not care to preserve St Mark's forcible irpiai ewvxa Xlav, and he reserves for a later narrative the mention of our Lord's solitary prayers. From St Mark's next verse, St Luke much softens down the KareSioogev in which St Mark has described the pursuit of our Lord. But the most important difference is that while St Mark describes AND PREACHES THROUGH GALILEE 107 those who pursued after Him as Simon and his company, Xlfiwv ko.1 oi fier avrov, St Luke appears to have understood from this phrase that the crowds who had gathered round Simon's house followed in the search. But St Mark's narrative inclines us rather to think that by oi fieT avrov are meant Andrew, James, and John ; for St Mark reports our Lord's answer when urged to return, not, / must go to preach to other cities, but ayw/uev (see Matt. xxvi. 46 ; Mark xiv. 42 ; John xiv. 31), Let us go elsewhere into the next towns, that I may preach there also. That is to say, He summons those whom He had previously called to follow Him, now to leave their homes and accompany Him on His evangelistic tour. It would certainly seem as if our Lord saw that His celebrity as a healer was in danger of interfering with His work as a preacher. If He had returned, He would have been thronged, as He had been the evening before, by crowds of people curious to see some exhibition of miraculous power, or hoping to receive some miraculous benefit for them- selves or their families, and He preferred to go to preach to minds less pre-occupied. The last clause of our Lord's answer, els tovto yap e£ij\dov, might be understood in a different sense from that given them by St Luke in his version, eni tovto aveaTaKnv. We might connect the ZgrjXOev of Mark i. 35 with the igrj\6ov of verse 38, and might understand our Lord as telling Simon and Andrew that it was with the view of preaching elsewhere that He had left their house in the morning. But since St Luke regards the verse as addressed to the crowds, it can have no other than its higher meaning. Mark i. 39. Luke iv. 44. Kal fjKSev K7lpi^ovs aviftii els rb Koi airbs iirapas robs 6 yevifrai, 4v yhv tap Si ri> SXas /tup- Si koX t6 4Xas luopavBy, rivi airb ipritrere ; £%ere avBy, iv rlvi AXurO^jerM ; iv rtvt d/wu0i}. \ovaui aiird. This passage has parallels both in Mark and Luke ; but in neither of these Gospels is it found in the same connexion as here. In St Matthew's Gospel the connexion is clear enough. Our Lord's discourse was addressed, not to the mixed multitude, but to the disciples who had obeyed His call to follow Him. He had begun by proclaiming the blessedness of the life to which He had called them, and now He warns them of the responsi- bility that attended their high position. They were to be the salt of the earth, whose function would be to flavour the whole mass ; but what if they themselves were flavourless? It is the same lesson which He presently teaches by a different illustration (see Matt, vi. 23). They were also to be the light of the world ; but what if that which was to enlighten the whole were itself darkness ? St Luke has the saying, but not as part of the dis- course which he records in his sixth chapter. It is found in his fourteenth chapter, and as part of a discourse delivered to a different audience ; that is to say, not to the disciples only, but to the crowds who thronged Jesus, and who showed a desire to become His disciples. These He warned to count well the cost before they committed themselves to such a step. We shall after- wards have good reasons for believing that St Luke was acquainted with St Mark's Gospel ; and though I believe that he is using a different authority here, yet the beginning, koXov to d'Xa?, leads me to think that St Luke's version has been here modified by St Mark's. n8 THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT Matt. v. 14-16. These verses have their appropriate place here as continuing the exhortation to the disciples to fulfil the purpose they have been chosen to serve. They were to be lights to the world, illuminating it by their teaching and their example, therefore they must exercise and display the gift entrusted to them. There is only one verse of these three that is represented in the other Gospels. Mark iv. 21, 22. Mi}n Hpxerat & \v\vos tva iirb rbv fibdiov reBjj i) iirb t\v kKIvijv, mix tva iirl rty "Kvxvlav reB§; ov yap tarai Kpvirrbv iav /ri) tva (pavepwBrj, oiSe iyhero iwdicpvipov dW tva l\0r) its dXV (tI rijv \vxvlav, nal Xti|U7T£i Traaiv rots iv rj) otola. Luke viii. 16, 17. Ouoeis Si \ixvov iij/at Ka\iirrei avrbv BKebei 1) iiroKi.ru K\tvijs rWyaiv, &W 4tI \vxvlai TWqinv, tva ol eloiropevdftevoi /SW- irwi» rb 0 i/uv, las av impiK- EvKOTtlrrepov Si 4v tus [ov] iravra yhtfrai. It does not seem to me likely that if St Luke was acquainted with the whole section as it appears in Matthew, he would have omitted three of the verses, and placed the fourth in a different context, where the ingenuity of commentators has been taxed to make out that it has any connexion with either what precedes or what follows. This one verse is a striking one, which might easily have been preserved independently of its original context ; and having become known to St Luke through its citation in the Apostolic teaching was one which he did not choose to omit from incorporation in his Gospel, even though he was without guidance as to the place to which it properly belonged. Matt. v. 20. This verse leads up to the next section, which goes on to show how much higher was the standard of righteousness inculcated by our Lord than that enjoined by the Scribes and Pharisees, not- withstanding that He treated as unimportant some precepts which they insisted on as essential. SECTION IV. — THE EXTENSION OF THE MOSAIC LAW. Matt. v. 21-48 (a) The Law of Murder. Matt. v. 21-26 In verse 22 I omit the word ekij after opyi^o/jievos ru> aSe\ 8e \eya> ifuv the emphasis is as much on the v/uuv as on the eya>. I cannot but be struck by the systematic character of the Sermon on the Mount as reported by St Matthew. I have already remarked with reference to the history of our Lord's actions, that often where St Matthew's report would seem to be a collection of unconnected anecdotes, St Mark's places them in a historical connexion. It is just the reverse with respect to our Lord's sayings : While St Luke's report might seem to be a casual collection of our Lord's utterances on different occasions, independently remembered, St Matthew's gives them a connected and systematic form. This has been ascribed by some to the more ingenious workmanship of this Evangelist ; but I rather believe it to be due to his being able to give, whether from his own recollection or from the report of others, a more 1 (Seep. 115.) THE CAUSE OF ST LUKE'S OMISSIONS 123 accurate representation of the form in which the dis- course was first delivered. We have to ask ourselves, how is it that St Luke could have missed this systematic treatment if he had found it in the authority which he followed. We have seen in the case of the last two sections, that St Luke shows acquaintance with a single verse of each, but no acquaintance with the connexion of this verse with the rest. Of the six verses in the section now under consideration only the last two are recognised by Luke, and are by him (in chap. xii. 58, 59), appended to quite a different discourse, which corresponds to one at the beginning of Matt. xvi. ; but even with that these two verses have no obvious connexion. Then the question arises, May not St Luke's report have been written down from memory? Not the memory of having himself heard our Lord deliver it ; for St Luke in his preface makes no pretension to having been one of our Lord's original disciples ; but the memory of having heard the speech recited by one of the first witnesses. The idea that we have in Luke a report from memory of part of the discourse recorded in St Matthew's Gospel is strongly confirmed^ when we find close agreement, with great variety of expression. I take as an example a clause of the section we are now dealing with. Suppose that any one desired to repeat the following which he had heard some time before : — Matt. v. 35, 26. "l famSUip aov ra%v s Stow eXper' avrov iv tjJ &S$, nil irori ffe irapaBtj) 6 &vHSikos t$ Kpny, xal 6 Kptrijs r Wr*> s one - Again, it is contended that in this case a man may put away his wife, that is to say, may separate her from bed and board, but still consider her so much his wife as to be incapable of marriage with another. But I do not know of any evidence that in our Lord's time there had been invented this method of acknowledg- ing a woman to be a wife, but treating her as if she were not. If divorce to this extent is permissible, and if we are not to interpret the limitation in Matthew as putting a distinction between adultery and other causes for separation, the law of Deuteronomy practically remains in force. A man in whose eyes his wife, for any cause, does not find favour, may deal with her as the husband of an, adulterous wife is permitted to do ; and, provided he does not marry again, need not regard his vow to love his wife, comfort her, honour and keep her. If notice be taken of another variation between St 1 i 3 o THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT Matthew's version (in chapter xix.)and St Mark's, no fair- minded critic can doubt that the limitations in Matthew were made with the express purpose of removing any prohibition against divorcing an adulterous wife. The question with which the Pharisees tempted our Lord is, according to St Mark's version, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife ? but according to St Matthew, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? In fact, the question touches on a dispute which then went on between rival schools of expounders of the Law. Moses had said (Deut. xxiv. i) that a man might lawfully put away his wife if she found no favour in his eyes, because he had found some unseemly thing in her ; and that on his then giving her a bill of divorce- ment, she might be another man's wife. The laxer school of rabbis gave the husband unlimited power of divorce, if for any cause his wife found no favour in his eyes ; the stricter gave him the power only if he had found some unseemly thing in her. But it was agreed on both sides that the wife's adultery would be a sufficient cause for divorce. If, therefore, St Matthew has correctly reported the question put to our Lord, as whether a man might put away his wife for every cause, the case of adultery was outside the question on which our Lord was asked to give a decision ; and it needed no special formula of exclusion to make His answer not applicable to it. Thus it does not appear to me that St Matthew reports our Lord as having said anything to disallow the remarriage of an innocent divorced person. The question then arises, If there be a discordance, which report are we to follow? Which is more likely to represent the record first made of our Lord's words ? A question of criticism must be decided on critical grounds without regard to doctrinal consequences ; and it seems to me that St Mark's version, which appears to disallow divorce without any exception, is more likely to represent the common source than St Matthew's, which exoepts the case of the adulterous wife. For it THE LAW OF DIVORCE 131 is much easier to account for St Matthew's insertion of the words than for St Mark's omission of them, if they had been in his original. The case is parallel to the various reading we have already discussed a few verses previously, where in our Lord's censure of him who is angry with his brother without cause, the last two words have not the support of the best authorities. And the example illustrates how little effect the decision of a critical question may often have on our interpretation ; for no one who refuses to give ehrj a place in his text of Matt. v. 22, feels himself bound to deny that cases may arise when a man may, without sin, be angry with his brother. It is quite conceivable that our Lord may have issued His prohibition of divorce, without making any exceptions, and yet that the Evangelist, in reporting the saying, might, in order to prevent misunderstand- ing, have thought it necessary to express the limitation without which the precept would have been rejected as absurd. Who would think it his duty to go on living with a wife who was unfaithful to him? and in those days there does not seem to have been devised any middle course between living with a wife and parting from her. We are not so much concerned with the words of our Lord, as with the meaning which He desired to convey. And to that meaning we could not have a better guide than the earliest commentator, St Matthew, who has sufficiently indicated how he understood it, and who has been recognised by the Church for centuries as an authorised interpreter of our Lord's meaning. A few words must be said as to the only parallel to this section to be found in Luke. It consists of but a single verse (xvi. 18), which is substantially the same as the last verse of the section in Mark which we are discussing, and which asserts that it is adultery either to put away one's wife and marry another, or to marry one whom another has put away. This verse in Luke comes immediately after the saying that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one tittle of the law to fail, 132 THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT and immediately before the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. I cannot say that I am satisfied with any of the reasons that have been given why it should be so placed ; but as Luke is not a primary authority for it, we need not be much concerned if we can give no better reason for the place it occupies, than that it was a saying of our Lord which the Evangelist desired to include in his Gospel, and for which he could find no other more convenient place. (d) The Law of Perjury. Matt. v. 33-37. There being no parallel to this section in the other Gospels, it hardly falls within the province of this work. I am inclined, however, to think that St Luke's silence arises from ignorance of this section in St Matthew's form. (e) The Law of Revenge. Matt. v. 38-42. At length we come again to a section of the Sermon on the Mount which has something corresponding in the parallel discourse in Luke vi., the latter in this case having very much the appearance of a memoriter report of the former. I can well believe that St Luke faithfully reports the form in which the substance of the discourse was reported in the Church teaching he had received ; for this is one of the sections which begin Ye have heard that it was said, . . . but I say unto you, a formula which I have already said I do not think that St Luke would have suppressed if he had heard it or read it, though a trace remains of the eyw Se Xeyto i/itv in Luke vi. 27, where he begins this series of precepts with 'AXXa ifuv Xeyto rots cxkovovitiv, where the context does not suggest that he should begin with aXXd. That which is criticised in this section, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, was not intended to regulate private retaliation, but was an ordinance of the Law, probably intended to mitigate the revenge which a THE LAW OF REVENGE 133 sense of injury prompts, and to take care that retaliation should not exceed the injury done, and that an injured man should be so sure of getting reasonable redress by due course of law, that he should have no temptation to take the law into his own hands. It would seem that our Lord taught His disciples not to invoke the aid of the law, nor even take all that human tribunals might declare to be their right. This appears from the curious difference between the versions of one of these commands in Matthew and in Luke : Matt. v. 40, tw O'eXovrl Vj the inner ; and clearly any one who violently despoiled you of your garments must begin with the outer one. But St Matthew's tw Qekovrl aoi KpiOijvai show that what is contemplated is not a case of forcible seizure, but of a suit at law, in which the less valuable article, the Xitwv, was claimed ; and it is recommended that so far from resisting, even the more costly garment should be resigned. It may be doubted whether our Lord's prohibition against being a defendant in a lawsuit was intended to apply when the offender was an out- sider, and it may have been in order to make the precept agree with what immediately became the practical inter- pretation given it by the Church that St Matthew's form came to be altered to that reported by St Luke. Matt. v. 39. Luke vi. 29a. 'E7<1> 5e X£yw {ifiiv fiij dvTUTTrjj'at Ttfi rivrovrl ae iirl rn\v (nayova t$ irovTipy' dXV SffTis iirl robs axaplarovs iyaSobs xal Ppix el ^tI Sucatovs /cat ical irovripobs- aSUovs. Here the thought is the same in both versions, but the expression of it much clearer in St Matthew's. Matt. v. 46, 47. Luke vi. 32-34. 'Ei-j* yap ayairjjtrijre robs ayairuv- Kal el ayairare robs ayairGivras ras tf/ias, rlva fuxsBbv &x.ere ; obxl i/tos, irola bpXv x&P ts i ; koX yap Kal ol reXCvai rb abrb iroiovobs &yairw £\irlfrrc XajSeii", irola bpXv x°/" ! [tvrlv] j Kal ifiap- raiXoi &fiaprw\ots Savlfowiv lya awdKafiuio-iv t4 f/i& aov aKonvbv rb awfid aov aKOTivdv. aicbirei. o$v (arai. el oiv rb i/itv, /*Jj fiept/i- T V , P V X.V bp&v ft ij Trrums atfrijs /MyaXi). One cannot speak confidently on the result of a comparison, on which different readers will be apt to form different opinions ; but the impression on my mind is that St Luke had heard the discourse related in the form in which St Matthew has preserved it, and was repeating it in his own words, rather than that he was using a different authority, oral or written. K THE HEALING OF THE LEPER Matt. viii. i. I return now to take up St Mark's order. We have to consider the time and place of this miracle. In the above verse St Matthew places it in immediate connexion with the Sermon on the Mount ; and though this verse does not authorise us to suppose, as some have taken it, that our Lord met this man on the way down, yet it is clearly intended to represent the occurrence as posterior to that discourse, and as having taken place not earlier than one of the progresses made by our Lord after He had come down. On the other hand, St Mark (i. 40) tells this story immedi- ately after what he has related of our Lord's visit to Capernaum, on the occasion of Peter's call, and leads us to believe that it took place before He returned to that city. St Luke has been following St Mark's order all through the section we have hitherto treated ; but having materials for giving a fuller account of the call of Peter than St Mark had done, St Luke omits to tell the story of Peter's call in St Mark's place, but takes the first convenient opportunity of relating the fuller account which had come into his possession, and then returns to take up the thread of St Mark's narrative. And St Luke places the discourse which corresponds to St Matthew's Sermon on the Mount at a later position in his history than that of the healing of this leper. It will appear on consideration that there is no difference between the Evangelists as to the place 146 THREE STAGES IN THE STORY 147 of this miracle, but rather as to that of the Sermon on the Mount, if indeed there is any as to that. It happens to be one of the first things related at length by St Matthew after the call of the first four Apostles ; but the last three verses of his fourth chapter relate in general terms our Lord's preaching tour in Galilee, the extension of His fame throughout all Syria, and the gathering of multitudes to Him, not only from Galilee, but from Jerusalem and from Judaea, from Decapolis and from beyond Jordan. It is while pressed by these multitudes that He is represented as going up into a mountain, and delivering the discourse recorded in Matt, v.-vii. There is therefore no disagreement between the Evangelists as to the period of our Lord's life when this miracle was performed. If there is any difference, it is only as to the place in the Gospel where a specimen of our Lord's teaching might be most con- veniently inserted. St Mark does not name the place of the healing of this leper; but it would seem to be one of the towns which Jesus visited in His Galilean tour; and this seems to have been so understood by St Luke, who says that the miracle took place in one of the cities. Though this miracle is related by all three Evangelists, yet there are features in St Mark's account which do not appear in the other two ; and I believe that careful examination shows that St Luke is not here copying Mark, but drawing from Q. I consider that we have in this example an excellent illustration of three stages in the narration of a Gospel story — We have in St Matthew's Gospel the account of this miracle nearly as it had been given in Q, viii. 1 being inserted by the Evangelist merely to connect it with his previous subject, the Sermon on the Mount. In St Mark's Gospel we have the story as told in Q, reproduced with additions derived from an authentic source by the second Evangelist. In Luke we have a combination of Q with St Mark's account. 148 THE HEALING OF THE LEPER Mark i. 40. Matt. viii. 2. Luke v. 12. Kal tpxeTtu vpbs atrriv Kal ISobXeirpbs irpo- Kal tyivero iv t$ elvai \eirpbs 7rapaKa\wi> aiirbv v r

9bs airijh&ev air 3 avrov i; \4irpa, koX eKaBeptaBrj. Matt. viii. 3. Kal eKTeivas rijv Xeipa ij^aro airrov \iyw>, &{\a, naOapicr- Brfrf KalevBiias iicaBe- pla8t\ airov ij r\iirpa. Luke v. 13. Kal itsrelvas t^v x c ° tfxfiaro airrov \4yuv, Aw, KaBapio-Bryri' Kal tvBiws t\ \4irpa dirij\8ey At' airrov. a-TrXayxvio-Oels- — Instead of this word there is some Western authority for SpyicrOels which Westcott and Hort have counted as sufficient to justify them in putting this reading in their margin. In any case it bears witness to the unfavourable impression of this applicant which Mark's account conveys. Nor is this impression removed by the acceptance of the much better attested reading. Whatever cause for displeasure there was, it did not check the impulse of compassion which the sight of the man's misery excited. St Luke's fi \eirpa cnrfjXdev air avrov is St Mark's phrase, not that ofQ. Mark i. 43, 44. Kal infJpiiA-qa&nevos av- Ttp evBbs itjiflaka' avrbv, Kal "Kiyei. airy, "Opa /it)- Sevl fisqSev etirys, d\\a troyye creavrbv SeTl-ov rip UpeX Kal vpoaheKye irepl tov KaBapur/ioS (rov a irpo- aira^ev Mwi/irijs els pap- ripiov avrois. Matt. viii. 4. Kal \4yei avrip 6 'Iijffous, "Opa fnjdevl etirijs, aXXa ihraye aeavrbv Self ov t$ lepet, Kal irpoaheyKOV rb dupov 6 irpoo'era^Ev Mo>vi> Ifpl-aTO Kripiao-tw Ai-ripxero Si /mWov o \6yos repl irdMa Kal Sia^ri/ilteiv rbv \6yov, ou'roO, Kal trwfipxovro 8x\oi toWoI Bitrrt yiHjK^ri avrbv SivaaOai (pavepm anoieiv Kal Bepaireieadai ojt4 twv eh vSKlv el occurs in all three Gospels [eiirev, Luke], and it is certainly incredible that three different writers should by accident agree in telling the story in this dramatic way. We must first notice a discrepancy, which is only apparent, between Matthew and Mark as to the place of the miracle. St Mark places it at Capernaum, and is followed by St Luke ; St Matthew says that it was in our Lord's own city, a phrase which might suggest to us Nazareth ; but this is clearly not what the Evangelist intended, and we have the explanation in Matt. iv. 13, where the Evangelist tells that our Lord, when He left Nazareth, came to reside in Capernaum. As for the time of the incident, St Matthew is at variance with St Mark, placing it after our Lord's return from the country of the Gadarenes, which St Mark does not relate till his fifth chapter. Possibly St Matthew followed the order in which the story was told in Q. On looking more closely into St Matthew's account, we are at once struck by his omission of particulars which it is hardly conceivable that any one could leave out who was using Mark as his authority. St Matthew's coincidences with the other Gospels do not begin until the sick man is brought into our Lord's presence. It is not told how he had been brought in ; and nothing is said of the crowd about the door, nor of the expedient which the bearers had to use in order to get the paralytic into the house. Indeed one could not tell from the first Gospel that the transaction took place within a house at all. The translators of St Mark's Gospel have been puzzled how to render his expression qKoverdq Sri iv o'Ikos itrrlv. If they render iv oIkm in the house, the reader asks, In what house? for none had been particularly mentioned ; if, with the R. V. margin, we render it at home, we take it on ourselves to decide the question, whether the house here spoken of could properly be described as the home of Jesus. There are some who L 162 THE PARALYTIC MAN imagine that our Lord owned a house of His own at Capernaum ; and if it was one capable of being the scene of the incident here described, it must have been a tolerably large one. We cannot give absolute proof either way, but to me the probabilities are adverse to the supposition. We have no reason to think of our Lord as wanting a large house for the purpose of His trade, at which there is no evidence that He worked after He became a preacher. It seems to be only at Nazareth that He was remembered as the carpenter. Capernaum seems to have been with Him no more than a centre for missionary tours ; and we may believe that He followed the rule, which He prescribed to those whom He Himself sent out, of accepting in each place such hospitality as might be offered. According to this rule, it would seem most natural to understand the house spoken of as Peter's, into which we know He entered immediately after the meeting of the synagogue ; but, as I have already remarked, probably not before that meeting, else he would have been told sooner of the illness of His host's mother-in-law. The account in Matthew seems to have been taken from an authority which made no mention of a house ; and the singular feature in this miraculous cure would seem to have been only that, whereas other such people brought to Him had been able, at least with assistance, to come on their own legs, this man was so completely paralysed that he had to be brought lying down, bed and all, whereupon he received the command, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk. Yet from this point out, St Matthew takes up St Mark's narrative, and indeed St Matthew's next verse is hardly intelligible without St Mark's explanation. St Matthew had told in the vaguest way that the palsied man had been brought to Christ, without telling by whom, TrpotreQepov avrw irapaXvriKov ; yet he goes on to say, and Jesus seeing their faith said, etc. It would have been in accordance with the accounts of other miracles, if we had been told something of the sick man's faith, or at least how his ST MATTHEW'S ACCOUNT 163 bearers manifested theirs, but for this information we are dependent upon Mark. And as we proceed, co- incidences with Mark multiply. We have for instance the tskvov, which St Luke omits, but which in Matthew assumes an even more affectionate form, ddpo-et tskvov. St Matthew mentions the murmuring of the scribes, but does not, like the other two Evangelists, explain how scribes came to be present. St Matthew's variations often present the appearance not so much of an abridgment as of an unskilful rewriting of Mark. Instead of Mark's version of our Lord's address to the scribes : -n Tavra StaXoyl^eerde ev Tats KapSlais vfmv ; Matthew has Iva t'l evQvfieiarQe Trovijpa ev tous KapSlais vf/.wv ; Yet it can hardly be called an evil thought that God only can forgive sins. Notwithstanding the signs of the use of St Mark's Gospel here by St Matthew, there are also tokens of the employment of another source. We have here the phenomenon of agreement between Matthew and Luke, for which Mark will not account, and which I ordinarily take to indicate the use of an independent source Q. For instance, instead of Mark's eyelpov kcu apov tov KpdfiaTTov 6ftov of Luke. On the whole, these coincidences lead me to believe that the story had been told by an authority Q, which was known to St Luke as well as to St Matthew. But I believe that this story was again told by St Mark, with fuller knowledge, and that St Luke made use of St Mark's account. It is a mistake to imagine that the earliest form of the Gospel story must necessarily have been the best. Our Lord lived a public life, and we have not been left to depend on a single witness for our knowledge of Him. However excellent the i6 4 THE CALLING OF THE PUBLICAN first collection of anecdotes of His life may have been, it is very conceivable that it may have been read by some one able to tell some of the story with greater accuracy, or at least with more fulness of detail. THE CALLING OF THE PUBLICAN Matt. ix. 9. Kal wapiyiov o 'Iij- aovs &KeWev stSev &v- BpWTTov KaBtffievov iirl rb TeXihviop, MaBBaiov \ey6fievojff Kal \£yet ai/ry, 'AKoXoiBet /toi" Kal avavras ^ko\oij87J- bvi- part Aevelv nad^/ievon M rb TeX&VLOV, Kal elirev afi- rtf 'AKo\oA8ei poi. Kal KaTa\nr&>v ir&rra dvaords Tj/coXoiiflei aim}. Mark ii. 13, 14. Kal e^rjXdep iraKtv irapa tt)v 86.\affffav' Kal iras 6 6xXos ijpxeTO irpbs airbv, Kal eoloaiTKev aureus. "Kal irapayuv elSev Aevdv rbv toO 'A\h who were not partakers of the feast ; and such appears to have been the case with the feast related in Luke vii. 36. But when we are told that our Lord was found fault with for eating with publicans and sinners, we naturally ask, Are two classes of people spoken of, or only one? The latter is the general impression that we all receive. The idea that occurs to us is that if the men were publicans, they were of necessity sinners, and that we are not bound to suppose that others of bad character 1 It may be remarked in passing that critical editors have been sometimes sarcastic at the expense of copyists, who cannot tell of eating without giving the guests also something to drink. But how natural this was appears from St Luke's variation here ; for he alters Mark's eat into eat and drink. WHO WERE "THE SINNERS"? 169 were present. Yet I think that if the statement in this verse originated with St Mark, he would not have stated that publicans and sinners sat down with Jesus, unless he had two classes of people in his mind, and that he would then have specified what the second class was. We are told that the Pharisees applied the word sinners to all who disregarded the religious obligations which they held to be binding ; and so we could understand a Pharisee describing this company as made up of publicans and other sinners. But would such language be used by St Mark, who probably was, from a Pharisaic point of view, a sinner himself? So I find it more easy to believe that St Mark's authority, which may have been Q, merely reported the charge that our Lord ate with publicans and sinners, and that the necessity of the narrative form obliged our Evangelists to begin by relating that publicans and sinners sat down. I notice now what I ought to have observed before : the evidence afforded by the commencement of the narrative. One cannot but be struck with the Hebraistic character of the beginning of Matthew's account, eyevero avrov avcuceifjievov . . . rat ISov. For the constant use of eyevero in O.T. narration it is enough to refer to the LXX. version of Gen. iv. 8 ; vi. 1. St Mark begins this narrative with ylvercu ; St Luke drops the Hebraistic form altogether. I feel therefore that the present is a section which may safely be referred to Q. We know for certain that Q contained a mention that the reproach was made against our Lord that He was a friend of publicans and sinners ; for this is found in the section absent from Mark, but common to Matthew and Luke, which tells of the message sent by the Baptist to our Lord (Matt. xi. 19 ; Luke vii. 34). Certainly at the time that St Luke wrote his Gospel the equivalence of the terms reXwvrjs and afjLaprwXog seems to have established itself (xviii. 13 ; xix. 7 ; vi. 32, 34 compared with Matt. v. 46, 47 ; and xv. 1, 2, compared with the present passage), but it does not follow that this usage was as early as Q. In a passage which we may 170 THE PUBLICAN'S FEAST reasonably believe to have been derived from Q we find the publicans with a different association, oi reXwvai koc ai iropvai (Matt. xxi. 31, 32). On another occasion we find a woman, who was a sinner, is described as minister- ing to our Lord at a feast where He was a guest (Luke vii. 37). The story of the woman taken in adultery (John viii.) illustrates our Lord's known willingness to receive into His society persons of such ill repute that others would have despaired of them as incapable of reformation. What I understand then by sinners is persons notorious for sexual immorality ; and this is what I suppose the Pharisees to have intended when they described Him as making His friends oi publicans and sinners. The scribes who murmured were no doubt the same as those spoken of in Mark ii. 6, that is to say, not all the scribes, but those of them who were of the sect of the Pharisees. St Luke's description is less accurate, The Pharisees and their scribes. The murmurers could scarcely have themselves taken part in the feast. St Luke substitutes for Mark's laxvovres the more accurate vyialvovTe iv ixehru tj; ii/tipa. Matt. ix. 14, 15. Tore irpoa-tyxovrai airnp ol luaQiyral 'laavov Xiyov- res, Aid H ii/Jieis Kal ol $apuraioi vytTreiofiev, oi Si /laBirral 6.K0vs ayvd tarui &Se. el 5k i~pii!i- Kecre rl 48e. The change from TrKelov to fteigov would seem to indicate that St Matthew's language is rather suggested by Q than copied from it. The quotation from Hosea which reappears here, had been used by St Matthew (ix. 13) as part of our Lord's defence for eating with publicans and sinners. But as the order of Mark and Luke shows, that section must have stood in Q in close connexion with the present section, and that quotation may have read so as to be equally applicable to both. We have also to comment on a remarkable various reading in this section of Luke. According to the majority of the MSS., supported by good patristic testimony, the incident is described as occurring £v o-afij3a.Ta> Sevrepoirparrw; but the last word is not found in the oldest Alexandrian authorities, nor in some of the Western. The present is a case where the solution we adopt of the Synoptic problem affects a question of reading. The arguments on both sides have been not very unevenly balanced. On the one hand, the retention of the disputed word is recommended by the maxim of preferring the more difficult reading. No 176 THROUGH THE CORN FIELDS one, ancient or modern, has given an explanation of this adjective, such as can be adopted with any con- fidence ; so that a copyist would be under a strong temptation to omit a word which he did not understand. On the other hand, there is not a particle of confirmatory evidence that any Sabbath was known among the Jews as the Second-first Sabbath, and if so strange a name had been in use we might surely have expected to hear of it elsewhere. So that Sevrepoirpwrw seems to be, not only a difficult, but an impossible reading. Hort also contends that the designed omission might occur in a single document, or in a group of restricted ancestry, but not where the omission has attestation of such variety and excellence as in the present case. I do not dispute what he says about the "excellence," but I am not convinced of the "variety"; for it appears to me that in this case B has only its usual allies. But if SevrepoTrpurrcp is not genuine, how did that reading originate? Meyer's explanation is the best, that the mention of another Sabbath in verse 6 led some scribe to insert here the word irpun-w, and that a second scribe, observing that St Luke had told of a Sabbath in chapter iv., substituted Sevrepw in the margin, marking irpwrw with dots for erasure ; but a third transcriber, overlooking the erasure dots, combined the readings of the text and the margin of his auto- graph into SevrepoTrpwrw. This is a very complicated and lame explanation, and the chief difficulty in accept- ing it is exactly the great variety of attestation for this strange word. A single transcriber might have so blundered, but how came so many to follow him that towards the end of the fourth century commentators who were puzzled by the phrase attempted in different ways to explain it, but none of them seems to have thought of questioning his text? I may quote Jerome's good story that when he asked Gregory Nazianzen to explain it to him, Gregory, who clearly had not much confidence in his own explanation, answered, I should prefer that you would listen to my explanation when THE MAN WITH THE WITHERED HAND 177 I give it in Church ; you will find that it will be received with so much applause that you will then not have the face to cavil at it. 1 I should be disposed to pronounce the controversy as to the genuineness of this word to have ended in a drawn battle, if it were not for the light which the Synoptic study throws on the matter. If we had come to the conclusion that St Mark was following Luke, we should have no difficulty in deciding that Sevrepoirpwra) was the genuine text of Luke, and that St Mark had designedly omitted the word. But since I find no reason to think that St Luke here used any authority but Mark, while I could account for his omitting a strange word which he found in Mark, I cannot think it probable that he would have introduced it without Mark's, and, as far as I can see, without any other authority. I therefore reject the word from the text of Luke. I cannot help taking notice of a reading which has a very slight Old Latin attestation, Sabbato mane factum est. Mane evidently points to a Greek Trpw't which might have been an alternative for Trpun-u>, but not for SevrepoTrpun-a). This is the best evidence I know in favour of Meyer's theory that the reading SevrepoTrpura) had its source in an original Trpwrai. THE MAN WITH THE WITHERED HAND Mark iii. 1-6. Matt. xii. 9-14. Luke vi. 6-11. In all three Synoptics this section is closely connected with that about the walk through the corn fields. In 1 Praeceptor quondam meus Gregorius Nazianzenus rogatus a me ut exponeret quid sibi vellet in Luca sabbatum devrepdTpuTOV, id est, secundo- primum, eleganter lusit, docebo te, inquiens, super hac re in Ecclesia ; in qua, mini omni populo acclamante, cogeris invitus scire quod nescis. Aut certe si solus tacueris, solus ab omnibus stultitia: condemnaberis, Epist. 52, 8. M 178 THE MAN WITH THE WITHERED HAND these two sections St Mark tells us for the first time of the dispute concerning Sabbath observance, on which question the laxity of our Lord's teaching came later (John ix. 1 6), to be regarded as a principal cause of His rejection by the more religious of the nation. But St Mark's narrative leads us to think that the distrust of our Lord and His teaching felt by the ecclesiastical authorities had an earlier date than the controversy about Sabbath obligation. But we need not go beyond the account which St Mark, in his first chapter, gives of our Lord's first recorded visit to the synagogue at Capernaum, in order to understand the prejudice which lovers of law and order would feel against the irregu- larities of this new teacher. He had no doubt been seen going about the city followed by crowds of enthusiastic believers in His miraculous power ; and now He and they came into the synagogue, and with them a shrieking demoniac. No doubt many would be scandalised at this interruption to the quiet and orderly service of the day, and their feelings would be such as are expressed in St Luke's report (xiii. 14) of the indignant utterance of the ruler of the synagogue on another occasion, There are six days in which men ought to work ; in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the day of the Sabbath. We can imagine what a parish clergyman of the present day would feel, if a leader of a Salvation Army band brought his followers into Church, and there interrupted the service with an attempt to work a miracle. It was not so much by teaching false doctrine, as by irregularity and in- subordination, that Whitfield and Wesley a hundred and fifty years ago, and George Fox a century earlier, stirred up the opposition of the ecclesiastical rulers ; though no doubt the irregularity and insubordination made the authorities keen-scented in their suspicion of false doctrine. There are two questions suggested by St Mark's account. The first is one to which we do not seem under any obligation to attempt an answer : Why did THE SABBATH NOT BROKEN 179 Jesus bid the diseased man to stand forth in the midst ? The other, however, is a point which must be explained, else the story is not intelligible, What was the breach of the Sabbath complained of? Jesus. had bid the man stretch forth his hand, and he had done so. How could it be imagined that he broke the Sabbath by such a simple act, or that Jesus had sinned in asking him to do so? Jewish writings have been explored, in order to find out what there was which the strictest theory of Sabbath observance forbade, and which might have been violated on this occasion. The prohibition most to our purpose is one against performing a surgical operation on the Sabbath, unless there was imminent danger to life. We should not regard this doctrine as unreasonable ; but there was nothing here that could be called a surgical operation. So I believe the true con- clusion to be that though the Jewish rulers expected a violation of the Sabbath, none took place, and that our Lord was careful that none should. We know from other instances of our Lord's treatment of the sick that we are usually told no more than that He laid his hands on them, and healed them. What the Jewish spectators on this occasion probably expected was that He would take the diseased limb in His hands, and stroke it until it was brought to healthy vigour; and such treatment could easily be described as a surgical operation. But our Lord took care that there should be no room for any such suspicion. He did not either call the diseased man to Him, or go over to him Himself. He makes him stand out in the midst, where all could see that there was no contact between them. He merely bids the sufferer to stretch forth his hand, and he finds himself able to obey. The sick man has been cured by a word, and our Lord's baffled enemies are left without a word to say. According to St Mark's account those enemies did not speak the whole time. At first they waited in silence, to observe what Jesus would do, then when He had placed the man in the midst, it was He who 180 THE MAN WITH THE WITHERED HAND challenged them with the question, Is it lawful on the Sabbath day to do good, or to do harm ? to save a life, or to kill? to which question they did not venture to reply. Still less were they inclined to speak after the cure had been performed. St Luke, who in the main closely follows Mark, likewise makes the challenge proceed from our Lord. But St Matthew has a version of the story, according to which it was they who sought matter of accusation against our Lord, and began by asking Him whether it was lawful to heal on the Sabbath day. There are coincidences between Matthew and Luke, to be noticed presently, to which there is nothing corre- sponding in Mark, which leads us to the conclusion that Q had contained either this same story or another similar story of healing on the Sabbath. The story, as St Mark tells it, hangs so completely together that we cannot but accept it as the most exact relation of what took place on this occasion ; and if what was told in Q was intended to describe the same occurrence, we must suppose that St Mark modified it, in the light of fuller information received from others who had been present. In the relation of the story St Luke follows Mark so closely that I count it no less than a blunder when critics are tempted, by small stylistic changes, to imagine that St Luke derived these variations from a different authority. On the other hand, we cannot think if a chance coincidence that all three Synoptics, in describing the restoration of the withered hand, use the word a-KeKarea-raQri. Nor is this argument to be pronounced worthless though it should equally prove that St Matthew was acquainted with St Mark's narra- tive, a conclusion to which the comparison of other passages also leads us. However, when a phrase is common to all three Evangelists a double explanation can be given : either the other two Evangelists copied Mark, or St Matthew and St Mark may both have retained a phrase belonging to their common original ; and in this case there is WORKS OF NECESSITY AND MERCY 181 evidence of such an original which must presently be considered. Yet there can be no doubt that it is on Mark that St Luke mainly depends. On the other hand, St Luke has in quite a different connexion the defence which St Matthew reports our Lord as making here, namely, by the question, whether if a sheep fell into a pit, its owner would not pull it out on the Sabbath day. This, with the substitution of an ass or an ox for one sheep, occurs in the account of the healing of a dropsical man on the Sabbath (Luke xiv. 5), and he has substantially the same argument (Luke xiii. 15), in his account of the healing of a woman so paralysed as to be unable to hold herself erect. I consider that the legitimate inference is that this argument is derived from Q, where it did not occur in connexion with the miracle now under consideration, which possibly may not have been separately recorded by Q at all. Here, however, we must note that while St Luke retains St Mark's word TrepifSXeilsafiievos, he does not copy what St Mark adds, with anger, being grieved at the hardening of their heart. We cannot doubt that these words are a genuine part of the Gospel of St Mark, who is apt to relate in a tone of indignation and astonishment instances where the spectators of our Lord's miracles failed to perceive the evidence of His divine nature which His works afforded. Other cases will be noticed as we go along. But it may be asked, why St Luke, who has copied so much of the rest, did not copy this. It may, perhaps, be said that the anger of our Lord was a topic on which St Luke did not love to dwell ; but perhaps no other explanation is needed than that St Luke, who is here using two sources, Mark and Q, found it necessary to compress the matter which he took from one of them. St Mark goes on to say that the baffled Pharisees then proceeded to take counsel with the Herodians how they might destroy Jesus. It is quite in conformity with human nature that instead of being convinced by the miracle, they set themselves to destroy Him who had i82 CHANGE OF HIS SCENE OF LABOUR confuted them. But why with the Herodians? It is only St Mark who mentions them here. St Matthew only speaks of the Pharisees as thus consulting, and St Luke appears to know no more ; for he says that they communed one with another what they might do to Jesus. The they can only mean the same persons who had been just described as watching whether He would heal on the Sabbath, a subject on which it is not likely that the Herodians would have felt any deep interest. But we can implicitly believe St Mark's account that the result of the deliberation of the Pharisees, who desired to destroy Jesus, was that it was necessary to obtain the co-operation of the Herodians. It was Herod's country. At the time of this incident Herod had cast John into prison, if he had not already recently put him to death. It could not but be known that John had marked out Jesus as his successor ; and if Herod had already felt jealous of the influence of John as a popular leader, it would not be difficult to excite in him a like jealousy of Jesus; and St Luke (xiii. 31) bears testimony how successful had been the attempt to nurse Herod's jealousy. OUR LORD'S CHANGE OF HIS SCENE OF LABOUR Mark Hi. ya. Matt. xii. 15a. Kal 'Iijirous fieri, t&v fi.a,6riTCoi> '0 Si 'I^irous 7x01)5 ave\ilifrq(reii airrov &vex&l )r l< re '' "V * T V" 8d\a \iyovra in, 2b el 6 vlbs tov Beov. Kal jroXXa iwerlfw, abrois iva pvii ab- rbv xru>. Matt. iv. 24, 25. Kal dirrj\8ev ^ dxoii abrov els 6\r]v ttjv tivplaV xal TrpoaijveyKav abrtp irdvras robs /ra/cuJs §x w ' ras TTMidXais pbvois Kal ffo.vavoLs crvvexofitvovs, Saip,ovi£op.hovs Kal 6pos Kal irpoanaXeiTai ovs fjBe\ev air6s, Kal dirijX- Bov vpbs airbv. Kal iirolyaev StliSexa, ovs xat &TO, ha & Kal (x ely ^foiwfaw ixpaWeiv ra 8ai/i6via' Kal iiroltiaev rois diideKa. Matt. x. i. Kal wpoaKaKeaa- fievos rois S&SeKa fia- dtjras airov HdbiKev airois i^ovalav irvev- fiarav aKaOapruv &are iKfSaWeiy aira Kal Bepaireiew iraaav v6- aov Kal iravap fiaka- xlav. Luke vi. 12, 13. 'E7&6T0 Si & rois i/pi- pais rairavs e£e\8eiv avr6> els to 6pos Trpoo-ei^aaBai, Kal rjv SiavvKTepciwv iv ry irporevxjj tov Beov. Kal ire iyivero rmipa, vpoo-eibvqj\0ov irpba.p8o\o,uaioi> Kai Mad- ffalon Kai 9»(iaf Kai 'l&Kwfiov rbv tov 'Wifraiov Kai 0a58aior Kai 21/iava tov *Kavavaiov Kai 'louder 'lo-Kapui$, Ss Kai irapi- Sioxev avr6v. Matt. x. 2-4. Tup 5e ddjSexa &to- ariXup ra 6v6/iaTi iffTtv raura" irpGrros ^ifitiip 6 \ey6fievos \ltrpos Kai 'Avdptas 6 dde\(pos avTou Kai 'I&KUfios 6 tov Ze/Jc- Saiov Kai 'ladvrjs 6 &Se\/tas Kai NaBffalos T£\tbvi)S, 'IAkU1@0S 6 toG 'A\l\i.irirov Kai BapfloXo- liatov Kai MaSSatov Kai Qu/iSv [Kai] 'IdKuSov ' A\ero TrpoSirijs. I may notice in passing a slight awkwardness of expression in the terms in which St Mark introduces his list, for which the Evangelist himself rather than his transcribers seems to be responsible. It is such that a strict grammarian might maintain that Peter was not included in St Mark's list of Apostles ; for the accusative ILirpou is made to do double duty. We want it to complete the sentence eTredqicev ovofia rm ~2ifjiwvi ILerpov ; and if we so employ it, it is absent from its place in the Apostolic list, Herpov, kcu 'laxwfiov, k.t.X. So trifling a matter scarcely needs mention ; but it is more important to remark that we have in the Synoptic Gospels three lists of the Apostles ; and though the CAUSE OF VARIATION IN THE LISTS 195 lists agree so closely that there is strong probability that they have all a common source — there is in fact agreement as to eleven of the names — yet St Luke mentions one, 'lovSav Toucw/Sov (Judas the son, or it may be the brother of James), whose name is not recorded by St Matthew or St Mark. In the ordinary course of things, where no counter- acting supernatural interference takes place, uncertainty creeps into the early history of any great institution. Newly enlisted workers who throw themselves heartily into the performance of the task assigned to them often have little curiosity to enquire into the antiquity of the details of the system which they find in actual operation. Every living organism is constantly receiv- ing developments ; and in my own experience I have found that several details of practical working, the origin of which I myself remember, are accepted by the younger generation as of immemorial antiquity. I have often regretted that when I was myself a young man I had not the curiosity to enquire into the history of some of our existing usages, concerning which there were many then alive who could have informed me, but whose testimony is now lost. I suppose that if any one were now writing the history of one of our universities, and had to give a list of those who held the chief offices forty years ago, unless he had some- thing more than unwritten tradition to guide him, he would be likely to omit the names of several who did good work in their time, but whose personality had not been such as to impress itself strongly on their contemporaries, and he would perhaps include the names of two or three of the immediately following generation whose activity had made their names remembered. Now the rulers of the Church when St Luke wrote were not the same as those who received the original commission. We know for certain of one change — the substitution of Matthias for Judas Iscariot ; and in the course of forty years there were probably other 196 THE NAMES OF THE APOSTLES changes. When St Luke wrote, the first place among the church rulers at Jerusalem belonged to James, the Lord's brother; but the best critics are agreed that he could not have been one of the original Twelve, for both St Mark and St John give us to understand that at the time of the appointment of the Twelve our Lord's brethren did not believe on Him. Nay, very respectable tradition asserts that it was only after our Lord's resurrection that an appearance to James brought him to full and complete faith. Yet we know from i Cor. ix. 5 that in the early days of the Church our Lord's brethren took an active part in preaching His Gospel. Other changes must have occurred during the interval between the appointment of the Twelve and the first publication of the Gospels, so that if the Evangelists had been dependent on their own enquiries for a list of the original Twelve, there would be likely to have been much variation between their accounts. The fact, however, is that they agree as to all the names but one. This agreement makes it reasonable to believe that all used a common document, while the one disagreement shews that they did not use it slavishly, but supple- mented it with independent information. Let us compare now St Matthew's list with St Mark's. We shall find in other cases indications that St Matthew used St Mark's Gospel, though in possession of an earlier source of information. And as I have noted an indication that St Mark's list of the Apostles was added as an afterthought to what he had derived from his principal earlier source, it is natural to conclude that the list of the Apostles was borrowed by St Matthew from Mark. Yet, on examination, it seems to me more likely that both Evangelists were indebted to a common authority. We are at once struck by the difference, that in St Matthew's list the Apostles are arranged in couples, but not so in Mark. We are told that our Lord sent out these missionaries two by two. St Luke tells the same of the Seventy (x. i) ; and in the Clementines Peter is represented as sending out his ARRANGEMENT IN PAIRS 197 disciples in pairs in like manner. In the Acts too, when Paul and Barnabas can no longer travel together on a missionary tour, each seeks a new assistant, as if a preacher without a companion were impossible ; and thenceforward we read of Paul and Silas, while Barnabas joins Mark with himself. Thus it is natural enough that the earliest list should exhibit a trace of this pairing. If this had been so in the list which St Mark had received, we can still see reason why this Evangelist might use a different arrangement ; for he begins by telling how our Lord gave Simon the surname of Peter ; and then it is appropriate to add that He gave the sons of Zebedee the name Boanerges. Thus Andrew comes to be separated from Peter, and the arrangement in pairs is abandoned. Both lists begin with Peter, but St Matthew expressly says vpwTos 2/yua)j/. There is no room for doubt that in our Lord's lifetime Peter took the leading part among the Twelve ; and, contrary to what we might have been led to expect by the tradition that Mark had been Peter's interpreter, we find in the First Gospel anecdotes honourable to Peter, which St Mark does not record. St Mark's arrangement of the names gives prominence to the fact that besides Peter there were two other disciples, James and John, whom our Lord had distinguished with special favour. On the whole then I am inclined to believe that the list of the Apostles which Matthew gives preserves the more ancient tradition, and that the arrangement in Mark which exhibits a triplicity of leading Apostles is that Evangelist's own. It does not seem likely that if the list which reached St Matthew had been a mere catalogue of separate names he would have undertaken to give the original couplings, unless he had some early tradition to guide him. I come now to the only name about which the tradition is indistinct. It appears in the latest form that the Apostolic list assumed as Lebbmus, whose surname was T/iaddceus (Matt. x. 3, Text. Rec). This form, 198 THE NAMES OF THE APOSTLES however, we may disregard, as an attempt to reconcile two earlier conflicting accounts, one of which gave the name as Thaddagus and the other as Lebbaeus. Of the MSS. which have reached us, the two oldest give the name as Thaddasus. But the authority for the form Lebbceus is also very ancient. It was accepted by Origen as the true reading of Matthew, and we may assume was so read by him in his MSS. of the Gospel (Pre/. Comm. in Ep. ad Romanos). Consequently, the decision made by Tischendorf was that Lebbceus was the true reading of Matthew, and Thaddceus that of Mark. There is no doubt that in both Gospels the reading Lebbceus had very early and wide circulation in the class of MSS. commonly now classified as Western. But I find little reason for making much distinction between the evidence in the case of Matthew and of Mark. All that the testimony of Origen gives us a right to believe is that the reading Lebbceus was found in copies of St Matthew's Gospel before the end of the second century. But if we were to make any distinction between the two Gospels it is rather in Mark than in Matthew that we should expect to find the read- ing Lebbceus ; for I can find no account of the origin of the variation so plausible as the suggestion that it arose out of an attempt to include in the list of the Apostles the Levi whom St Mark alone records as having received a summons from our Lord to follow Him identical with that addressed to Peter and Andrew, James and John. The Hebrew name Levi was Grascised into the form Ae/3}J? by Heracleon, who is chiefly known to us by large extracts from his comments on St John's Gospel preserved by Origen, and who therefore may be referred to the second century, the only room for controversy being how much earlier than Origen he lived. I suspect that the form Ae/3/3a $ t «3a\Aw t& Sai/jdvia, dpa (9a' i/ias iy fiatrihela rod SeoO. These words are identical in the two Gospels, save that instead of ev vvev/mn Oeov, Luke has ev SaKrvXto Qeov, itself an Old Testament phrase (Exod. viii. ig). The words that occur here are not so common that casual agreement is conceivable. We are therefore forced to the conclusion that not only did the Evangelists use a common source, but that if that source had been originally Aramaic, there must have been a current Greek translation of it. I think that in this case there is evidence both that St Mark here used Q, and also that the other two Evangelists were acquainted, not only with Q, but also with St Mark's account. And I believe that in order to fully understand the history we must combine all the accounts. I see nothing to forbid our supposing that the disciples were allowed to exercise their authority over demons before they had been sent away ; and it is thus I understand His argument, If I by Beelzebub cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out ? The whole of the Pharisaic explanation turned on the supposition that the demon who possessed our Lord was superior in authority to the evil spirits who possessed others. But this was a prerogative which was not transferable. If He was possessed by Beelzebub, by whom were His Apostles and the ordinary Jewish exorcists possessed? But we must not omit to mention that we have here a duplicate in Matthew, the story which is fully told (xii. 22, etc.) having been briefly mentioned (ix. 32). There are cases where I am disposed to believe that St Matthew has added an account derived from Mark to a less full relation of the same incident which had been given in Q. In the present case I account for the duplicate by regarding the short section in chapter ix. as an after-thought of the Evangelist, added in order to give an explanation of the saying If they have called ST MATTHEW'S USE OF MARK 209 the master of the house Beelzebub ; for it would evidently be a fault in composition, if one who read this saying in the tenth chapter got no explanation of it until the twelfth. It must be mentioned here that Hort was much disposed to reject as what he calls "a Western non- interpolation " the last verse (34) in that short section of Matt, ix., ol Se §api apxovri twv Saifjiovloov eKJ3a\Xei to Sai/xovia. The evidence for rejection is extremely slender, being merely that it is not found in three Western MSS., while all the best authorities are opposed to the omission. I must own that the verse bears very much the appearance of an insertion suggested by Mark. The words By the prince of the demons he casteth out demons are Mark's words, and e\eyov also is Marcan. St Matthew (xii. 24) and St Luke (xi. 15) introduce the same accusation with eltrov or elirav. On the other hand, admitting that there was a use of Mark, the question remains whether this use was made by St Matthew himself or by his copyists. But having convinced myself on other grounds that St Matthew did know St Mark's Gospel, I must admit the former solution to be possible, and I consider that the disputed verse shows clear traces of St Matthew's hand. It states that the suggestion that our Lord gained His power from Beelzebub was made by the Pharisees. So St Matthew has it (xii. 24) ; but the Pharisees are not named in this connexion either by St Mark or St Luke. It may seem paradoxical, but it is the Marcan character of Matt. ix. 34, which makes me think that verse more likely to come from St Matthew himself than from his copyists. A scribe who knew no Gospel but St Matthew's might be tempted to add to the story briefly told in chapter ix. a trait which he found in the fuller narrative of chapter xii. ; but in that chapter he could not find Mark's phrases. St Mark does not use the word Beelzebub which occurs twice in the two verses common to Matthew and Luke (Matt. xii. 27, 28 ; Luke xi. 19, 20), but absent from Mark. But both St Matthew and o 2io CASTING OUT DEVILS BY BEELZEBUB St Luke agree with St Mark in using the word Satan in our Lord's reply, If Satan cast out Satan. After these verses follows in all the Gospels Mark iii. 27. 'AW ov Sivarai ovSels els W/p olxlav tov laxvpov elo-e\8o>v rb. amiri) airov Siapvdaai ibv /*■)) irp&rov tov Icxvpbv Sfoy, xal T&re ttjv olidav avTOv Siap- TtLffei. Matt. xii. 29. *H irws duvarat Tis elaeKBetv els t^v olidav tov krxvpov KO.I to. CKevrj atrrov apirdtrai, £av fiij irpwrov SiJo-j7 rbv laxvpdv ; Kal T&re -rlpi olidav airov Siaprdo-ei. 22. Luke xi. 21, "Orav b faxvpbs KaBa- ir\io~/i4vos qivkdffoTi rip> iavroO aiM/v, ev elpfyy torlv rb, iirdpxovra airov' iirav Si Urxvp&repos airov {ire\Biiv vud\aTj atrbv, Tty travoirSlav airov atpei 4$' fj iireirolBei xal ra ovci/Xa airov StaSlSwcriv. The connexion here is obvious enough : "You are not to adopt the absurd conclusion that my casting out devils is a sign that Satan's kingdom is divided in itself, you ought rather to perceive that it means that a stronger than Satan has come upon him and is spoil- ing his goods." We are reminded of our Lord's tempta- tion, when He refused to accept anything from Satan except on the terms of conquest. After this verse St Matthew (xii. 30) and St Luke (xi. 23) have another not found in Mark, 6 i*h &v /ner efiov kcit efiov io-Tiv, /ecu 6 fir\ crvvaywv fier ifiov a-Kopvl^ei. This is part of the evidence that St Mark is here abridg- ing Q. Next follow in Matthew and Mark the saying about the peculiar malignity of the sin against the Holy Ghost. Mark iii. 28-30. 'A/ity \4yu i/uv in ir&vra atpeB-liuerai rots viols t&v avBpiinruv, Ta b\fw.pri\iuura Kal oi fikaa- .IKKovti, Luke xii. 10. KaJ iras 8s ("pet \iyov els tov vlbv tov avOpiiirov, a^eB^aerai airy' r Si els rb ayiov irvev/ia fShar- 4>wfl ypap.pa.Ttwv Kal Qapiaalwv \eyovres, AidaiTKaKe, 8i\op.tv dir6 aov aijpetor Idea'. Matt. xii. 39, 40. '0 Se diroxpidels etirev airroh, Yevea wovijpa Kal /totxaXls o-r/peiov iirifrfrel, Kal crjpeTov oi So8r)"> iiraBpoi^ofiivwv ■SjpZaro X4yeu>, 'H yerea avri\ yevA irovi\pd IbtW cripelov fryrel, Kal 8e. Luke xi. 31, 32. BcurfXunra vtrrov iyepB-qaerai iv rg Kp'urei fieri, rwv avSpGv rfjs yeyeas ra&rqs xal KaraxpiveX airofc Sri lj\8ey £k rwv irepdruv ttjs y9js &kov- aai rijv os tpxerai, icai ylver&i offrais - nal Srav vdrov wiotrra, \4yere 6'n, Kafour ftrrat, /tai ylverai. iroKpirai rb irpdiruirov rijs ■yijs Kal toB oipavou otSare SoKifi&fav, rbv Kaipbv 5£ tout-ox 7nis otV ofSaTe SoKi/ictfetc ; Ti Sk ical &» airrov & 'Iua^s (irtiiyj/ev irpos rbv Kipuni \iyuv, Si> ft i ipx&iuvos % frepov TrpoaSoKu/iev ; irapaytvi- fievot Si irpbt ainbv ol tripes elwav, 'laiirris i pairrurTijs aircaTeikeir \11Sx irpis tri \eyuy, 2i> el 6 ipxip^vos fl iXKov irpotrtoK&iixv ; Although in what follows there is such verbal identity between Matthew and Luke as to show that both are using ^ common written document, yet in these intro- ductory verses St Luke is not copying, but telling the story in his own words. It was necessary that he should use an introduction of his own in order to connect the Baptist's message with the miracle at Nain, his account of which he derived, not from Q, but from another source. This account of the raising of a dead man is a fit preface for the veicpoi iyelpovrai of our Lord's answer. St Matthew had previously told of the raising of Jairus' daughter, but this miracle has a later place in Luke. The conclusion that St Luke's introduction is his own composition is confirmed by our finding in it traces of Luke's phraseology. For instance we may set down Trapa.yev6fi.evoi and ol avSpes. What would be the most decisive evidence of all is weakened by a variation of reading. From the very beginning of the Christian Church its Founder was known in it as 6 Kvpios. By this title He is constantly called in the Apostolic Epistles and in the Acts ; but in the very earliest records of His life, though He is represented as ordinarily receiving the respectful address Kvpie, yet when He is spoken of historically, it is always by His proper name 'L/Tes ivayyelXare 'laivei a dxaicre Kal jSX&rere" rv ifiot. Luke vii. 21-23. 'Ev iicelrQ t-q tilpq. (Bepi/irevtrtt iroXKois airb vbauv xal ptaarlyw xal irvevp.aTwv irowripwv, xal TvTai xal Kuxpol axoiovnv, vexpol iyelpov- rai, ttwxoI eiayye\ltoi>Taf koX p.a,K&pi6s tarai 8s iav fir) axavSahiirBxi €f ifiot. St Luke here states that on receiving this message, Jesus immediately, in sight of the messengers, healed many of diseases and other scourges, cast out evil spirits, and gave sight to many blind. It does not appear to me that this had been expressly told in Q, though the words in our Lord's answer, a a/covere kcu /SXeVeTe, sufficiently imply that besides what the messengers would be told of previous miracles of our Lord, they were allowed to witness some for them- selves. And St Luke seems to have thought it necessary that mention of the latter should be made in his narrative. The words vetcpoi iyelpovrat deserve attention. It is not stated by either authority that any dead person was raised on this occasion, so that the raising of the dead must be counted as one of the things which John's disciples heard rather than saw. But St Matthew, in an earlier chapter (ix. 18), had told of the raising of Jairus' daughter ; St Mark how- ever (v. 22), has given this miracle a later place in his narrative ; and St Luke (viii. 41) follows Mark. But as St Luke relates the story of the raising of the widow's son at Nain, he is able, without impropriety, to give to the mission of John's disciples the same earlier place in the history that St Matthew has done. 232 THE MESSAGE OF THE BAPTIST our lord's DISCOURSE CONCERNING JOHN Matt. xi. 7-19. Luke vii. 24-35. The opening verses of this discourse (Matt. xi. 7-1 1 ; Luke vii. 24-28) being almost verbally identical in our two sources need not be commented on from the point of view of the present investigation. In these verses there is so much coincidence between Matthew and Luke in the use and collocation of unusual words, that we cannot doubt that both versions have a common written source. The variations are scarcely important enough to deserve mention. They all seem to me to need no other explanation than that they were introduced by St Luke in his way of telling the story. At this point St Luke breaks off his copying of Q, and interposes a statement in his own words (vv. 2 9i 3°)> as to the reception of this discourse, viz., that it was heard gladly by the publicans and others who had flocked to John's baptism, but was rejected, to their own detriment, by the Pharisees and lawyers who had previously refused discipleship with John. St Luke then returns to agreement with Matthew in the verses Matt. xi. 16-19 ! Luke vii. 31-35, where the different reception by the Jews of John and of Jesus is compared to the conduct of wayward children. If we are to accept St Matthew's narrative as an accurate representation of the story told in Q, we must hold that St Luke has omitted here four verses which we now consider. The first two of these verses must be referred to Q, for they are also found in Luke, but in a different place, and with considerable alteration. Matt. xi. 12-15. Luke xvi. 16. 'At6 Se tuv rifiepuv 'laivov tou '0 vd/tos /toi 0! irpo$rjra.L /t^X/u pawTurTov Iws apn ij PturiKela tuv 'luiivov awb rfrre ^ jSewtXefa toB oipavwv /3idfe™i, leal jSiaora! apirA- 0cov eiayye\lterat koX iras els dirty iovsai eirHff. itivres yap oi irpo- (StdfeTai. 0v)Tat ical 6 r6fiot i'ws 'Iwipov iwpo- (fyflTevaav k«X el WXere BiiaoOat, airds icmv 'HXe(as 6 /i4\\w tpxw- Dai. 6 ?%*"' & Ta ' aKovh-u. UNCONNECTED SAYINGS IN LUKE 233 That both these versions had a common source in Q need not be doubted ; the only question is what place in Q they occupied ; and this is an important question as regards the interpretation ; for this saying of our Lord's is an extremely difficult one, and we should be in a better position to say what lesson He wished to convey, if we knew the occasion on which the words were spoken. In Matthew, whatever difficulty there may be about the interpretation, there seems to be none about the connexion : these verses seem to be a natural continuation of our Lord's discourse about John the Baptist. In Luke, on the other hand, there is no part of his Gospel where the sequence of thought is so hard to apprehend. Chapter xvi. begins with the parable of the Unjust Steward, ending with the lesson, Make to yourselves friends by means of the mammon of unrighteousness ; and we are at no loss to trace the connexion of ideas which leads to the use of this word mammon ; again, Ye cannot serve God and mammon. Then we are told that the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, scoffed at Him, and He taught them how what would gain great honour among men might be abomination in the sight of God. Then follows the verse now under consideration, The law and the prophets were until John, etc., where it requires some ingenuity to make the connexion throw light on the interpretation. But next comes a saying, also found in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt, v. 18), It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one tittle of the law to fail. Here again the connexion is not obvious, save that there is a mention of the law in both. But we are still more startled when we go on to the next verse, Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery, where the sequence of thought is indeed hard to trace. And thus we are led up to the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. Yet, however great the selfish worldli- ness of the rich man, no intimation is given that unfaithfulness to his wife was one of his faults. 234 THE MESSAGE OF THE BAPTIST It seems to me that the best explanation we can give of the dislocation of thought in this little section of Luke is that the Evangelist is here weaving into his narrative different sayings of Jesus which had been recorded in Q, but without indication of the occasions on which they were spoken ; and that therefore if we are to aid ourselves by the context in the interpretation of this difficult saying, it is the context as given by St Matthew, and not that as given by St Luke that we have to look to. But now we have to consider whether even the order in Matthew really represents the order of Q. One difficulty at once occurs to us, that if St Luke, who also used Q, had found this saying about John the Baptist related in connexion with the discourse con- cerning John delivered on the departure of John's disciples, he would scarcely have omitted to record it in its proper place, but instead have dealt with it as an isolated saying of our Lord, for which he had to find a place as best he could. And on the other hand, we must take into account that if this saying had been reported in Q, without any account of the circumstances under which it was uttered, the place that St Matthew has assigned it is that which any editor would most naturally give it. Notwithstanding the extreme suitability of Matt. xi. 12 to be read in connexion with the verses immediately preceding, there is a difficulty which I feel very strongly against assigning this verse to the same period of our Lord's life as the preceding verses. These were spoken while John, though in prison, was still alive ; yet in this verse our Lord says, From the days of John the Baptist until now. Was not this now to be included among the days of John the Baptist ? Though his activity had been suspended by imprisonment, there had been nothing at the time to forbid the hope that he might be released and might resume his work. Thus it may be argued that these words were more likely to have been spoken after the Baptist's death. On this account I do not "THIS IS ELIJAH, WHICH IS TO COME" 235 venture to reject the inference suggested by the place which St Luke has given this verse, namely, that he did not find it in Q connected with the mission of the Baptist's disciples, but either as an isolated saying of our Lord, or else as connected with two other references by our Lord to the Baptist, Matt. xvii. 13, and xxi. 25. The form corresponding in Luke to Matt. xi. 12, has the air of being derived from it, while it softens some of the harshness of expression. The word fiidgerai is retained, but in the middle voice, not the passive ; the Kingdom of God not fiidgeTai, but evayyeklgerai, and instead of calling those who get possession of it ^lacrral, we have every one described as pressing into it. Our Lord did not shrink from using startling forms of expression, if thereby He could arrest the attention of His hearers and impress His words on their memory. But it is not likely that those who reported His sayings would gratuitously import into them a difficulty which had not existed before. Thus the form in Matthew bears a greater air of originality than that in Luke. The remainder however of the passage, Matt. xi. 14, 15, must be placed early in our Lord's history. It must be referred to a time when He was preparing the minds of His disciples for an announcement of His Messiahship, but had not yet explicitly made it to them. There were two things which, according to Jewish expectation, must precede the coming of the Messiah : there must be a sign from heaven, and Elijah must first come. The thought that Jesus was the Messiah must have occurred to the disciples before their Master had given them His assurance that it was so ; but if they expressed this idea to any of the ruling party, they were met by the difficulty that neither of these two anticipatory signs had been exhibited. The witnesses of the Transfiguration evidently had their hopes raised high by what they had seen, and then they formally stated the difficulty to their Master (see Mark ix. n , a section copied by St Matthew, xvii. 10, and which will come under consideration afterwards). The question 236 THE MESSAGE OF THE BAPTIST now is whether He had not, as St Matthew alone records, given a reply to their difficulty about Elijah on this earlier occasion. That He did so is not disproved by the silence of St Mark, who habitually refrains from lengthening his Gospel by telling two stories of the same kind, and he relates the answer to the difficulty about Elijah in a later place, as I have just mentioned. The silence of St Luke is still less of an objection ; for the strange point is that St Luke nowhere identifies John with Elijah, unless indeed we count it an exception that he records the prediction (i. 17) that John was to come in the spirit and power of Elijah. It is still more remarkable that the Fourth Evangelist, who shows himself acquainted with St Mark's Gospel, represents the Baptist as answering, No, when asked, Art thou Elijah ? I have already (p. 226) had occasion to remark how differently the Baptist was regarded by the Jewish members of the Church, and by the Gentile converts, of whom St Luke was one. We can easily conceive the sensation caused by the preaching of John the Baptist, and the impression which he made on his contemporaries. Unlike to ordinary men in his manner of life, he seemed a revival of one of the prophets of old, especially of Elijah, whom he resembled not only in his garb, but in the boldness with which he rebuked kings. His call to repentance was pronounced with an authority which was felt to be divine ; and the faith of the multitudes who recognised it was strengthened by their mutual sympathy. Nor did his preaching provoke the opposition from the ruling classes which our Lord met with. It is an unpopular thing to oppose one who seems to have no other object but to effect moral reforma- tion, and to bring men's conduct into harmony with their professed belief. But it is easy to find good reasons for opposing one who attempts to alter received opinions, or to disparage the authority of accepted teachers. Thus the Baptist's name gathered round it an authority which helped to gain reception for a successor whom THE CHILDREN IN THE MARKET-PLACE 237 he had approved and recommended. Thus did John really prepare the way for Jesus. But with Gentile converts the case was just the reverse. With them it was Jesus who prepared the way for John. They did not acknowledge Jesus as a prophet because John had borne testimony to Him ; but, like ourselves, they honoured the memory of John because Jesus had condescended to be baptized by him, and had borne testimony to him as a prophet and much more than a prophet. It is intelligible then why St Luke, writing as a Gentile for Gentile readers, should not have cared to dwell on the solution of a difficulty which only existed for Jews. On the other hand, though the Fourth Evangelist frequently speaks of the Jews in such a way as to suggest that he did not himself belong to that nation, yet the prominence which he gives more than once to the testimony of the Baptist is one of many indications of his thorough acquaintance with the feel- ings of the Jews of the first century. On the whole, I am not sure but that this early place is the most suitable for the declaration that John the Baptist was the predicted Elijah. It evidently belongs to a period before our Lord had announced that He was the Messiah, but when He was leading on His disciples to that belief. It is propounded with the air of one uttering something difficult of reception, but intended to lead on to something still more so : If ye are willing to receive it. . . He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. In other words, If John is the forerunner of the Messiah, who then is the Messiah whose way he was to prepare? THE CHILDREN IN THE MARKET-PLACE Matt. xi. 16-19. Luke vii. 31-35. A few preliminary words must be said on the formula with which this little parable begins : Whereunto shall I liken this generation ? The coincidence of Matthew and Luke shows that it came from Q. It reveals that 238 THE MESSAGE OF THE BAPTIST illustration was a characteristic of our Lord's method ot exposition, and that, in order to make men understand a thing, He felt it to be necessary to compare it to something with which they were acquainted. Regarding Matthew and Luke as independent witnesses to the contents of Q, I have had no hesita- tion in assuming that Q was the source of the inter- rogative formula with which this section commences. In this place we cannot expect testimony from St Mark ; for he has omitted this whole narrative concerning the mission of John's disciples, though he attests his knowledge of it by inserting from it, in his prologue, Malachi's prophecy of the forerunner of the Messiah. But St Mark is the main authority for the use of a similar formula in Q, in his introduction to the com- parison of the new Kingdom to a grain of mustard seed. Mark iv. 30. Luke xiii. 18. lids ifiou&tru/iev rijx (iaaikdav ttvi ofioia 4a/3oXais iroXXd, Kal l\eyev atirois iv ry SiSaxij airrov Matt. xiii. i-$a. 'Ev Tij 71/iipQ iKelvy i£e\8irv 6 'Itjctous rrjs oUtas iK&6r]T0 irapa rty B&Kaaaav ko! a/3oXeus \iyuv Luke viii. 4. 2wi6vtos Si BxXou iroX- Xou Kal tu)V Kara tt6\w iTiTopevo/iivwv irpbs ati- rbv etircv Sid 7ra/>a/3oX7js The three Synoptic Gospels agree in relating this parable, and it is natural to conclude that all derived ITS PLACE IN LUKE 243 it from Q. That there is close connexion between Matthew and Mark is unmistakable, the coincidences being even verbal. But the copying, on whichever side it was, has not been slavish. Two explanations of these coincidences may be given : either both of our Evangelists followed Q, each with some variations of his own, and the words common to both may be assumed to be the very words of their common authority, or else we are to add to this assumption, what other instances lead us to think of as possible, that St Matthew was acquainted with St Mark's work, and therefore that common phrases may be accounted for as a mere copying of St Mark's phraseology by St Matthew. We turn now to Luke, and the chief difference to which we must attend is the different place in the order of events which he gives to this parable. He tells first (viii. 1) of our Lord's starting on an extensive missionary tour accompanied not only by the Twelve, but by women in good position, who in gratitude for benefits which they had received from His miraculous power contributed to the expenses of the party. St Mark's account would rather lead us to think of such extensive tours as coming after the attempts made at Capernaum to silence His preaching. Here we must take notice that St Luke shows no knowledge of the fact about which St Matthew and St Mark agree, that this parable of the Sower was spoken as part of our Lord's teaching from a boat ; St Luke only mentions it as an incident on our Lord's preaching tour, without giving any hint where it occurred. And again, concerning the voyage across the lake, on which our Lord rebuked the storm, St. Luke shows no knowledge of what St Mark tells, that the voyage was made at the close of a day when our Lord had been preaching from the boat, and that His command to cross the lake was issued by Him without getting out of the boat. It seems likely that He found He could not otherwise free Himself of the crowds, who would continue to follow Him if the boat 244 THE PARABLE OF THE SOWER was merely rowed along the same side of the lake. Thus it seems to me that notwithstanding many signs that St Luke was acquainted with St Mark's Gospel, the present is one of several indications which appear to show that he did not know it as a document ; and I am disposed to regard the facts as rather pointing to the conclusion that St Luke was acquainted with St Mark's Gospel, not through having read it, but through having heard it orally delivered at several meetings at which he was present. Mark iv. 3, 4. 'AicoiJeTe. ISoi iifikBev 6 tnreipat. ko.1 iyivero iv r$ airelpeui S /il v tireaev irapd rty bSbv, ical 1j\dev rd Trerctva /cai Kariipayev airS. THE WAYSIDE Matt. xiii. $i, 4. 'IS06 e&jKBev i tnrelpav rod oirelpeiv. ko.1 ip t$ cnrelpeiv airbv & /tip &re- wapd rijv bSbv, Kal £K06vTn to. vereaia Kari- ipayev aira. Luke viii. 5. 'EfijXte' i (TTelpw toO ffweipai rhv airbpav airrov. Kal if T(f awelpeiv airbv S fiiv Iweffcv wapa rty bSbv, Kal KaTCirar/jBii Kal ri, wereiva rod Kariipayev airrd. The differences between the Evangelists here are insignificant. St Mark differs from the others in pre- fixing the command 'Akovets, which however harmonises with He that hath ears to hear at the end. St Matthew and St Mark agree in beginning with IS06, which is consistent with the supposition of the use of an Aramaic original. In fact my own belief is that this parable was included in the Aramaic Matthew, and that many of the variations in our Greek Gospels are simply translational, though Church use would naturally lead to many Greek words establishing themselves in the versions given by different readers. Elsewhere to ■wereiva. is so commonly followed by tov ovpavov, that it may perhaps be counted an agreement between Matthew and Mark that both omit the genitive. Matthew has tov ovpavov in every other place where nrereiva. occurs. Mark has it in one other place (iv. 32). Luke has it five times out of six, the only exception being xii. 24. THE WAYSIDE 245 THE WAYSIDE : THE EXPLANATION Mark iv. 14, 15. Matt. xiii. 19. Luke viii. 11b, 12. '0 awelpuv rbv \6yov Ilavrbs ixoiovros rbv '0 cirbpos iarlv i \6yot melpei. oSroi 84 eltriv ol \6yov ttjs ficuriKelas xal tou 6eo0. ol Si irapb. t^v ■trapk Ti)V bSbv Sirov trirel- pi/ awiivTos, tpxerai 6 bS6v elaiv ol AKoicravres, perai i \&yos, ml Srav wovrjpis xal Apirdfa rb elro tpxprai 6 8«£/3oXos &Koiawia> eiffis lpxerov iv ry KapSiy ml atpei rby \6yov ivb Zotokos Kal aipei rbv airrmr oSrbs ioTiv 6 irapk r9)S KapSias airrum, Iva p/t) \6yov rbv istris.pp.biov els rijv bSbv crirapets. Turreto-ames aaBQatv. afrrois. It is hard, in comparing the Evangelic narratives, to hit the mean between the danger of dwelling too much on trivialities, and of overlooking peculiarities which have a real significance. I think we ought to count in the latter class the difference that, in the first words of this common passage, St Mark speaks of the thing sown simply as the word, whereas St Matthew speaks of the word of the kingdom, and St Luke of the word of God. That is to say, the phrase the word has now acquired a technical meaning, and our first conclusion would be that St Mark's was the latest of the three forms. It might be regarded as a confirmation of this view that, as has been already pointed out, to evayyeXiov also is used by St Mark simply as a technical term not needing an explanation as to what the good tidings was. But while I freely acknowledge that St Mark here uses what was by comparison a later form of expression, we are bound to remember how very early that form was. I have already pointed this out with respect to to evayyeXiov, which St Paul's epistles show to have been early an established phrase in the circle to which St Mark belonged. And much the same may be said of the phrase the word, used to denote the subject of the Gospel preaching. St Mark uses it again several times, of which one deserves special notice because it is also employed by St Matthew, when persecution ariseth because of the word (Mark iv. 17 ; Matt. xiii. 21). If the once prevalent view be adopted, that St Matthew's Gospel is the earliest, we 246 THE PARABLE OF THE SOWER need not be surprised at finding the phrase in estab- lished use when St Mark wrote. If, as I believe, St Mark's was the earliest of our three Synoptics, we might take the present coincidence as an indication that his Gospel had been used by St Matthew. But this argument would not be decisive, since there is other evidence how early this phraseology became established. The most striking piece of evidence is that of St Luke, who, though either his sense of historic propriety, or the form in which the traditions had reached him, restrains him from using it when reporting our Lord's discourses, yet employs it in his own preface, when he speaks of those which from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word (see also Acts viii. 4). And though this use is rare in St Paul, we find him in one of his later Epistles exhorting Timothy to preach the word (2 Tim. iv. 2). The next thing to be noticed is that St Matthew differs from the other two Evangelists in using the participle cnrapels of him who receives the seed, so that the word has to be translated sown upon. But St Mark has the same use, though not in this first clause, yet in the other clauses of the parable. 1 He who snatches away the good seed is called by St Mark 2ctTaj/a? ; by St Matthew 6 irovr\po fla.t)os -yijs, ijXlov Si avarelXavros iKavparlirBi) Kal Sia to pi) ixeiv plfav ^{ifpdpffij. Luke viii. 6. Kai ?repoi» nariTrwev cirl tjjk T&rpay, Kal fair i&lpavBii Sia to pi) ex«» UpiSa. Mark iv. 5, 6. Kai dXXo iireaev &ri rd irerpwo'es [irai] Sirou od« ctxe" T?" woXXi)i' ) Kai ei- 6is O-arireikev jta to pi) tx&* jSdflos "yjjs - Kai ore dWreiXev 6 ?j\ios inavfia- rUrSri Kal Sia to pi) ?x e "' /S(Jai> £fijpdi»0ij. Here the almost complete identity of Matthew and Mark is striking. The greatest difference being that St Mark, followed by St Luke, speaks of the seed in the singular number ; St Matthew all through uses the plural. Though the sense conveyed by St Luke's version is the same, the form of expression is quite different. But it is easier to account for St Luke's as a literary compression of St Mark's than for St Mark's as an expansion of St Luke's. THE ROCKY GROUND : THE EXPLANATION Mark iv. 16, 17. Kai ofroi eiaiv opotas o£ eiri t& Ter/K&Si) OTretpo- pevot, ot Srar oKoiaaxrw Tor \6yov eiBis pera Xapas Xap.fidvovt7iv aiT<5>', Kai oAk tx 0WTl '' A'iap *" iavrois aWa *p6aKOipol cltrir, elra •yeyojaeVi/s tiXtyeais i) Suaypov Sia t6» \6yov ciBte a-KOvSaXl- forrau Matt. xiii. 20, 21. '0 Si irl ra irerptbSi) l%av iv iavrip dXXa rpdoTcaipis Arru', ycvopimis Si ffhbji- cat ^ Suoypov Sid rbv X670V ci$is o-KavSaXife- Tat. Luke viii. 13. Oi Si iirl Tijs ireVpas ot Srav aKovauxriv peri, xa- pas Sixpvrai T0V koyov 3 Kal oiTOt f)t£av ouk txov- triv, ot Trpbs Kaipdv iriareA- ourip Kai iv Kaiptp Treipatr- pou dtpicTavrai. Here the resemblance between Matthew and Mark is still very strong, and we are tempted to regard Mark as the original, because of the double occurrence of St Mark's favourite evdvs. Luke, as before, agrees in sense, but varies in language. His tt/oo? icaipbv ■n-Krrevovtriv seems plainly suggested by Mark's adjective irpoa-icaipoi. o-icavSaXigw is frequently used by St Matthew and St Mark, but not by St Luke, except in passages parallel with these two Gospels. On the other hand, 248 THE PARABLE OF THE SOWER St Luke is the only Evangelist who uses the word alo-Tcur6ai ; and the only close N. T. parallel is 1 Tim. iv. 1 ; but the word apostate remains to testify the full admission of this word into the Christian vocabulary. SexovTai, which St Luke uses here instead of Xa/ifidvova-iv, may be described as a Lucan word. THE THORNS Mark iv. 7. Kal &X\o eireaev els ras aKavtias, xal avifSyaav al &Kai>8ai xal avviTrvi^av abr6, xal xapirbv oiK eSoixev. Matt. xiii. 7 "AXXa Si eiretrev irl ras &K&v6as, Kal avi^i\aav al ixavBat Kal &,iciirvt.%av airi. LUKK viii. 7. Kal erepov eiretrev ev fUaip tuv axavBwv, Kal crvpvu axoiiav Kal ij /J-epi/i- va tov al&vos Kal r; a.-wa.TT) tov tt\o6tou avvmilyei tov \byor, Kal &Kapiros ylve- LUKE viii. 14. To be els ras axivBas ireabv, ovrol eltnv oi Akov- aavres, Kal viri pepi/ivwv Kal ttKovtov Kal i]5ovGii> tov fllov wopevb/ievot o-wmil- yovrai xal oi TekeeQopov- MARK iv. 18, 19. Kal SKKoi elalv oi els ras axavBas e- per els rpi&Kovra Kal iv i^r/Kovra. Kal iv ixarbv. Kal k\eyev, °0s tx a ^ ro aKoieiv aKOviru. THE GOOD GROUND Matt. xiii. 8, 9. "AXXa Be Iwevev iwl rty ytpi -n\v KaXty, Kal iSlSov Kapvdv, 6 /lev ixarbv i Si ijtfKOjra i Si Tpi&Koyra. '0 ixw Una aKoveru. Luke viii. 8. Kal trepan Hiretrev els ri)v yi)v t\v iyaBfy, Kal Tair\aalwa. Tau- ra \iyav iqU&vei, '0 (%av Grra axoieiv aKovirui. THE GOOD GROUND: THE EXPLANATION Matt. xiii. 23. Si iirl t$jv KaXijV y9jv virapels, oSt6s iarui o rbv \6yov aKoiuv Kal trwtels, 6s 5-q Kapirotpopei Kal iroteT 6 /iiv ixarbv 6 Si i&j- Kovra t Si rpi&KOvra. Luke viii. 15. Tb Si iv tJ Ka\y yy, oirrol elinv otrives iv Kop- Sla KaXi) Kal ayaBr) AkoA- aavres rbv \6yov Karixov- au> Kal KapTcotpopovtnv iv iiro/wvrj. Mark iv. 20. Kal ixeivoi eltsw oi iirl ri)V yrfp rtyv koKtiv ianv tcpvirrbv iav fiii tva ipavepaBu, oiSe ^y&ero dw6Kpvipop iXV iva e\6y els 4>avep6v. Et tis i?X'i &T a ittoieiv aKovirin. Luke viii. 16, 17. ChUds Sk \i%vov 4^os KoXtiwrei abrbv amiei f) CwokAto) kMpijs rldy- ofy 'po^-nffrJTe mJrotV ovSer OiSh Se to ofc axouere, cjipAfrxre eri rSr Tots to/icUus Kiifuxfl^enu erl tu» SaitAnm. ral pi) frifhflijre, *.t.X. So/iarm. Aeycj 4* u/w» tocs o^tiQtjrre gives the key to the interpretation. But that version bears what I count to be a mark of posteriority, in that those addressed are regarded as the givers, not the recipients of the secret instruction. When St Luke wrote he could not but be struck by the fact that the quiet work of a very small number of preachers had filled the whole world with their doctrine. Mark iv. 24, 25. Luke viii. 18. Kai (Keyev airots, H\4irerc tI BX&rere oHv irws aKoiere' 8s av dKovere. iv dodfoercu airrip, Kal 8s av BJjoerai ifuv Kal irpooreflijcreTat 6/uv. pA) ex"Q> * X"" apBfoerai dV a&rov. 8s yap ex«. SoBtftrerai a&rip- Kal 8s oix lx e h Ka l 1 %X el ipBriirerai aw' airou. Matt. xiii. 12. "Oittis yap lx e 'i SoSfaertti airrip Kal TrepuraevBfaeraf Sans Si oix ex«, Kal 8 ex«i apSfrerai dir* airov. There are several other parallels to these verses of Mark, but I place opposite to them what St Luke has in the same place, the comparison as I think plainly showing that St Luke is here using Mark as his authority. I have already said that St Mark's im- perfects, eXeyev, permit us to suppose that all the sayings here recorded were not uttered on the same occasion ; but neither do they forbid us to think that they were, and the precept Take heed what ye hear, or as St Luke has it, Take heed how ye hear, is a natural sequel to the parable of the Sower, which had pointed out how much the efficacy of the spoken word depends on the receptiveness of those to whom it is addressed. But the next clause, With what measure ye mete, contains a saying used by our Lord on other occasions too, the connexion of which with the present discourse is not obvious, and perhaps it was on that account omitted here by St Luke, who had recorded the saying a little before, vi. 38. THE LAW OF RECIPROCITY 259 Matt. vii. 2. Luke vi. 38. 'Ev if yi.p Kplnan Kpivere KpiBi- Aldort, ual Jofltjcreriu vfuv fi&rpav aeaSe, koX (v ip p,(rptp /lerpeire Ka\&y ireTtar/jUvov aeaaKeviiivov fierprjO^ceTat ifilv. ivipeKXuvviiievov diirovatv els rbr kSKttov i/ubv.

ur Lord should have dealt with this topic at so early 1 period of His ministry. Even the parable of the Sower seems likely to have suggested itself only after 1 long course of but partially successful preaching. iTet a human teacher must after a time have felt dis- ippointment at his poor success ; and might have tried o account for it by the want of attention of his hearers. 3ut no ordinary founder of a new system would begin jy giving warning of its partial failures. We could inderstand the teacher expelling from his company a bllower whose conduct had disappointed him, but not io his perception of the evils of premature expulsion, f we reject the explanation that it was our Lord's livine fore-knowledge which enabled Him to do so, we lave to choose between two solutions, neither of which 262 THE GRAIN OF MUSTARD SEED is satisfactory. I find it difficult to believe either that the lesson taught in the parable of the Tares was needed in our Lord's own lifetime, or else that at the time when the tares did manifest themselves any later disciple could give this account of them, and throw it into the form of a parable, a form in which our Lord's example found no imitators. THE GRAIN OF MUSTARD SEED Mark iv. 30-32. Matt. xiii. 31, 32. Luke xiii. 18, 19. This parable of the Grain of Mustard Seed has the same tendency as that one which Mark alone reports, namely, to dispel discouragement at the little show and small beginnings of the new Kingdom, which, neverthe- less, was destined to grow into a mighty empire. This parable is found in all three Synoptics, and certainly came from their common source Q. In Mark and Luke it begins with the formula on which I have commented already, How shall we liken the kingdom of God? and we might perhaps suppose that St Luke had copied Mark ; but when we look a little further, we find that it is not Mark, but Q which St Luke is using as his authority. In the first place, he forsakes St Mark's order, and instead of telling this parable along with the rest with which St Mark places it, and which are used in St Luke's eighth chapter, he does not tell this until the thirteenth. Again, he joins to the parable of the Mustard Seed a kindred parable about Leaven, which St Mark has omitted, but which is found in the same connexion in Matthew. And, lastly, whereas St Mark simply speaks of the mustard seed as sown, St Matthew says that a man sowed it in his field, or, as St Luke has it, in his own garden. So I conclude that St Matthew and St Luke both used Q, and that St Mark used it too, but with abridgments and omissions as is his wont. St Luke, however, omits a point in which Matthew and "AS THEY WERE ABLE TO HEAR IT" 263 Mark agree, namely, the contrast between the small- ness of the mustard seed and the greatness of the plant that springs from it. Mark iv. 33, 34. Matt. xiii. 34, 35. Kai roiai/rais irapafjoXais iroXXais Tauro rivra AdXiprep 6 'lyirois 4v c'\a\ei adrois top \6yov, icaSiis -qSi- irapa/JoXats tois (SxXots, Kai %up!s vavro dicoiW- x w P is 8* iropoj3oX^5 irapo/SoX^s odSiv e\£\ci airoW 4V«s o6k eAdXei airrots, nor' JBiav 5£ tois TrXijpuffj to ^ijS^ Sta toO ?t/}a/ffoXcus rb ord/ia pov, k.t.X. This remark comes in St Mark's Gospel in what we should be disposed to consider its natural place ; viz., at the end of the series of parables which the Evangelist has selected for narration. It notifies to the reader that the parables which have been related were but a selection from many others of the same kind ; it declares that what was related of our Lord in the case of the parable of the Sower, of which the explanation was not given until our Lord was alone with His disciples, was His general method ; viz. , to speak in parables to the multitude, and interpret them privately to His disciples. And the words as they were able to hear it point to the reason for this difference ; namely, that His instruction was proportioned to the intelligence of the hearers, and their anxiety to learn. We may note in passing the phrase peculiar to Mark, Spake he the word unto them. I do not think that we can positively say whether St Matthew derived this account of our Lord's method from Mark, or both from Q. In favour of the former view may be urged that the remark which St Mark makes at the end of his series of parables is placed by St Matthew in the middle of his, yet still almost exactly in St Mark's place, namely, after the parable of the Grain of Mustard Seed. But it may be said in reply that it is not correct to say that Matthew's remark comes in the middle, whereas it is really at the end of the series of parables which were spoken publicly. St Matthew mentions no change of place after verse 43 ; and the parables recorded in the following verses may be regarded as not spoken to the multitude, but to His 264 THE CROSSING OF THE LAKE disciples ; and verse 51 would show that He supposed them to be intelligible to His audience. Moreover if St Matthew is copying Mark he leaves out the second half of Mark iv. 34. I have already expressed myself as inclined to the opinion that the Old Testament quotation in Matt. xiii. 35 was not derived from Q, but added by the Greek Evangelist. THE CROSSING OF THE LAKE Mark iv. 35, 36. Matt. viii. 18 & 23. Luke viii. 22. KaJ Wy" airols iv 'ISiiv Se 6 'Ii/o-oDs &x\ov 'Eyivero Si iv futf twv ixelvg rjj ii/iipa d^las irepl adriv iici\ev(rev direX- Ji/iepiiv xal airrds ivi^t] yevanirns, A(A0wyaev els Oeiv els rb iripav. els irkdiov ko.1 ol fiaB-rjTal rb iripav. ko.1 dQivTes atrov, /col etircv wpbs ai- rbv SxXoy iraptLKafipdvov- Kai iiJ.pi.vn air$ els robs, LiiKSajixv els rb aiv airrbv lis Jjv iv T o-eur/ibs p-(yas iyivero iv r% BaKdao-Q, iiirre rb irhoiov KaMirreir- 6at tiirb ruv Kv/idrtnv airbs Si 4K&8ev5ev. Kal rrpoire\66vTes ijyeipav ai- rbv \iyovres, Kipie, ad- aov, airoWtifieBa. Kal \iyei aiirois, T£ Sei\oi iare, Skiybvurroi ; Tore iyepBels irrerlji.i]o-ev rots avi/wis Kal tj? BdKdffari, Kal iyivero ya\i)vri /ie- 70X17. 02 Si AvSponroi iBaipuao-av \iyovres, llo- rartis iariv offros Sri Kal 0! dve/MOi i(al i] ffaXao-tra aim} iwaKoioviriv ; Luke viii. 23-25. H\e6vriirvatrev. Kal Kari^tj \ai\aty dvip.ov els rfp> Mfivrjv, Kal sweirkqpovvTO Kal iKivStivevov. irpoaeh- BSvres Si Srfaeipav airbv \iyovres, 'ETurr&ra iirur- rdra, diroWtipieBa- 6 Si SieyepBels itrerlp^aev rip dvipup xal rip icXudavi rod iSaros, Kal iiraiaavro, Kal iyivero ya\$vi}. etirev Si airois, IIou ij vlaris bpJSiv ; tpofifiBivres Si effav/zaaav, Xiyovres rrpbs aXXijXovs, lis &pa o$r6s iariv Sri Kal rots dvifiois imr&trtrei Kal rip OSan, Kal viraKouovaiv airrip; Comparing the three versions of this story, common to all the Synoptics, I see no clear evidence that St 266 THE STORM ON THE LAKE Luke used any authority but St Mark's account, of which he gives a literary rehandling. We note at once Mark's phrase \ai\a\fr avifiov, where Matthew has o-ejo-yuoy yurya? ev Tfj OaXdovy. St Luke puts the events into more regular order : for example, telling at once that Jesus had gone to sleep, and not reserving the first mention of His sleep until the disciples came to awake Him. He does not give the words of the rebuke to the sea and winds, ertanra, Tre0//«oo-o ; he minimises the somewhat reproachful cry of the disciples from Teacher, carest thou not that we perish ? into Master, master, we perish. Probably SiSda-KaXe and eTna-Tarra are here only different equivalents for rabbi. St Mark everywhere brings out how slow were the hearts of the disciples to learn to trust their Master's power. St Luke softens much the severity of His rebuke to them, Why are ye fearful? Have ye not yet faith ? into, Where is your faith ? St Mark says that the waves were beating into the boat so that it was getting full ; St Luke compresses all into one word, G-vveirXripovvTo. Note St Mark's rig apa, in which St Luke follows him. I do not think that any of these variations oblige us to suppose that St Luke had an independent source of information. When we turn to St Matthew's account we do not find the same dependence on Mark's language, as we do in other cases where Mark is the authority whom St Matthew is following. The boat is hidden by the waves ; the cry is Save, Lord ; we perish; the rebuke is, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith ? (oXryoTrurroi) and the story begins with Ka l ISov. On the whole, I incline to the conclusion that the story was related in Q, and that St Matthew has preserved much of its language. Some phrases are common to all the accounts : eTrvri/xricrev Tip avefite or toi$ dve/u.019 . ■ ■ koi eyevero yaXjJi/i; [/ieyaXjj]. This miracle has an important place in the history of the progressive steps by which Jesus revealed His power to His disciples. Their attention was first caught by His power over demoniacs, then St Luke (iv. 39) OUR LORD'S WOULD-BE FOLLOWERS 267 tells us how He rebuked a fever, and it departed ; here we read that inanimate objects were obedient to His command, and that when He rebuked the winds and the waves they submitted. With respect to the effect of the miracle, St Matthew merely says that the men marvelled; St Mark says that they were afraid with great fear, by which I understand the awe which they felt at being brought into the immediate presence of divine power (see Luke v. 9). St Luke has here what might be taken for a conflation of the other two accounts, els to vipav Kal £\$6vtos airrov els Kal Ka.Ti'irKevirav els rrjs 0a\& irijr- airif £k tuv fivyiieloiv S.v- i^epxii^evoi. Tt\aev avt\p tis £k rrjs v6- Bpwros (v wvei/mn dico- Xeus tx wv iaijx6vi.a. Siprtp. Comparing in a general way the accounts of the miracle given by the three Evangelists, I find St Luke's entirely founded on St Mark's, of which it is a literary reproduction, containing nothing that might not have been founded on that original. St Matthew's account, on the other hand, is shorter than St Mark's, and at least the foundation of it may conceivably have been more ancient. More disciples than one had been present with our Lord, and more than one may have reported the occurrence. It is quite possible that the story as told, let us say, by St Matthew, was afterwards enlarged by St Mark, in the light of additional information given "GADARENES" OR "GERASENES" 269 him by St Peter, or by some other of those who had been present. At the beginning we find much variation in the manuscripts as to the name of the district on the other side of the lake, opposite to Galilee, on which our Lord landed. Very good authorities severally describe it as the country of the Gadarenes, of the Gerasenes, and of the Gergesenes. It seems to me that we are only concerned with the question, which was the phrase the Evangelists used, and not which it was that they ought to have used. The most interesting ancient information is obtained from Origen (Comm. in Johan, torn. vi. 24). He visited the place, and tried to identify the spot where the miracle occurred : it must have been near the lake, and close to it must have been the cliffs down which the swine ran. It is in this very way that Origen tests the readings of different copies. He makes no attempt to distinguish the report of one Evangelist from that of another ; nor does he inform us what was the reading of the manu- scripts which he consulted, save that he tells us that he found the reading Gadarenes in a few copies, but he does not say what was the reading of the others. In fact his whole interest was absorbed in determining what the locality really was, not what the Evangelists called it. On examining the documentary evidence, we find the testimony of the oldest manuscripts decisive that Gadarenes was the original reading of Matthew, and so it was recognised to be a couple of centuries later than Origen, as we know from the testimony of Epiphanius. Some ancient authorities have Gazarenes (so S*) or Garadenes (so A), a variation which only shows that the copyists had no independent knowledge of the localities, but leaves no room for doubt that Gadarenes was the original reading in the text of Matthew. And I think we are also warranted in believing that this was likewise the reading of Q, which I consider, as a general rule, is more closely copied by St Matthew than by St Luke. Origen objects that Gadara could not have been the 270 THE DEMONIAC IN THE TOMBS scene of this incident. It was a place well known for its hot springs, but not close to the lake, nor were there any cliffs in the neighbourhood down which the swine could have run. But a proof that Gadara was not the city to which the swineherds belonged leaves us quite free to believe that the much frequented springs of Gadara might have given a name to the district, which might have been known on the other side of the lake as the Gadarene country. The hypothesis of a double name was not likely to be resorted to, and people who had learnt from Matthew to speak of the demoniac of Gadara would be apt to retain the same name when using another Gospel. Therefore I am no more impressed by the fact that a number of good manu- scripts present Gadarenes as the reading of Mark, than I am by the opposing fact that the Latin MSS. generally give Gerasenes as the reading of Matthew. We learn from Origen that there was on that side of the lake an important place called Gerasa ; but he contends that it could not have been the scene of the miracle : it was too far east, nearly on the borders of Arabia, and there was neither lake nor cliffs there ; yet it seems to me possible that though not the scene of the miracle, it might in popular language have given a name to the district. It was, according to Pliny, one of the ten cities of Decapolis, and it is likely that St Mark conformed to popular usage in substituting Gerasenes for the name of the district, instead of the then unfamiliar Gadarenes. Origen's own solution was that the true reading was Gergesenes. He found that there was an ancient city called Gergesa situated close to the lake, and having near it cliffs such as the story demanded. This solution was widely accepted, and the reading Gergesenes is that of the majority of the MSS., both of Mark and Luke. I think it likely that Gergesa really was the name of the little town to which the swineherds belonged, but it is much to be wished that Origen had told us whether this reading was a mere conjecture of his own, or whether ORIGEN'S " GERGESENES " 271 he had found it in any manuscripts. In the absence of any ancient manuscript evidence in support of it, critics now generally cast it aside as a mere guess of Origen's ; yet I find some difficulty in believing that a mere con- jecture, though by so eminent a scholar, should have gained such wide acceptance ; and considering how small a proportion of the manuscripts of his day Origen could himself have seen, I should not consider his being unable to quote any in support of the reading which he preferred was an absolute proof of the non-existence of any such manuscript. But it must be treated as non- existent until we have clear proof to the contrary. The case is parallel to that of the reading Bethabara instead of Bethany in John i. 28. St Matthew's account of this miracle differs from St Mark's by many omissions, of which we shall speak presently ; but the most important difference is that Matthew tells of two demoniacs, Mark and Luke only of one. It seems probable that only one had been mentioned in the original form of the story ; for if it had told of two it is not easy to see why one should be left out. Demoniacs were not gregarious, and we should not expect to find two of them together. I therefore content myself with accepting St Mark's form of the story, and do not feel myself bound to make conjectural attempts to explain how two should be mentioned in the form of the story reported by St Matthew. In all forms of the story demons, in the plural number, are mentioned, — otherwise how could they enter into many swine? — and therefore it was not a violent change to infer that there must have been more demoniacs than one. We may infer from St Luke's remark that the district of the Gerasenes was over against Galilee, that this name for the district was not familiar to his readers. I own that the evidence for Yepyetrr\vwv instead of Yepatrrpiwv in Luke is so good that I only retain the latter word because I believe it to be the true reading in Mark; and holding that St Luke copied Mark, it seems to me unlikely that he should not retain Mark's words. 272 THE DEMONIAC IN THE TOMBS THE DEMONIAC S PREVIOUS HISTORY Matt. viii. 28& Xa\eTol \lav tiiere p.T) foxieiv Tivi. wapeXSeiv Bid. ttjs odou iKeivrjs, Luke viii. 27b, 2gi. Kal XP°>"!> inavto oil! iveStaaro 1/ultiov, Kal iv ou;ia oix i/ievev iW iv tois /jurfjfiatriv. IloXXots yap xp6vois avvypiraKci adrdv, Kal iSetrfietiero aXweaiv Kal iriSais w?i fieydko X£y«, T£ i/wl xal Svo/ii /ioi, Sn iroWot £v Si rbv 'Irjirovv avaxpal-as vposiveaev atrip xal . On inspection of these columns we are struck at once by the difference between the relations of Mark to Luke and to Matthew. And on looking more closely, it is seen that Luke agrees with Mark, not only in respect of the length at which the story is told, but in a multitude of details involving many verbal identities or close similarities. We have common the Kpa£as wvg fieydXy ; the title of God, rod tylcrrov ; the request, fuj fie f3acravicrw ; but above all, there is the very remark- able coincidence that in both there is the same devia- tion from the chronological order of telling the story, 274 THE DEMONIAC IN THE TOMBS viz., this request, m /ne fiapiLi)sev t) &ye\ri Kara rov Kprj/ivov els rrjv 8a\a, s Sur- X'N'O', Kal iirvlyovro iv Tj 8a\ao-a%). Matt. viii. 30-32. *H» Se fiaxpav dx' ab- Tuiv (17A77 x°Lp av iroW&j' ^OffKOfi^vr/. ol Se Sal- fioves irapexbWovv abrbv \4yovres, E( ixftdWeis ijfias, &Tr6(rrei\ov jjfias els rr]v dyi\i\v rav x ^"- nal elirev abrois, 'tvayere. ol Se QekBbvres dirr)\Bav els robs x°lp ov *' Kai l°* ov &pfL7] \liwqv xal direr- viyrj. The more I study the Gospels the more convinced I am that we have in them contemporaneous history ; that is to say, that we have in them the stories told of Jesus immediately after His death, and which had been circulated, and, as I am disposed to believe, put THE DEMONS AND THE SWINE 275 in writing while He was yet alive. There is much in this narrative which I consider must be accepted as historically true by any candid enquirer, whether he believes in the possibility of miracle or not. We have no reason to doubt that Jesus crossed the lake in a boat, that on the way He encountered a storm, that on the other side His fame as an exorcist had been justified and increased by the cure of a demoniac whom every one else had regarded as irretrievably mischievous. And the story which the Gospels tell of the circum- stances of this cure, having no marks of being the results of a long growth of legend, may most reason- ably be accepted as the very story which the disciples had to tell when they crossed the lake on their return. If the story of demons entering into swine sounds now incredible in our ears, it must be remembered that those who find it so have also difficulty in believing that a demon could enter into a man ; and so this latter possibility must be first discussed. Now I have treated the subject of demoniacs on the assumption that our experience of lunatics would enable us fully to understand the phenomena ; and I dare say I am liable to be asked, whether I mean to say that what the Jews called a demoniac was no more than what we call a lunatic ; and my answer is that I believe the difference lies altogether in the theories by which, in ancient and in modern times, his abnormal state was accounted for. In modern times we commonly content ourselves with a profession of ignorance. We believe that there is something wrong with the man's brain ; but what exactly it is, and how it arose, ordinary people do not care much to enquire. The Jews believed that the cause of the disturbance was that some invisible being or beings had entered into possession of the man's body, and performed actions with it which he himself would not, or could not, have done. Naturally I cannot myself adopt a view so inconsistent with my training ; but I must say that it is easier to reject such a theory than to refute it. It would be outside the limits I have set myself if I 276 THE DEMONIAC IN THE TOMBS were to discuss the theological question, whether Jesus was in His human nature acquainted with modern astronomy, and whether it is permissible to believe that on other subjects He shared the erroneous beliefs of His countrymen ; in particular, whether He shared the then prevalent belief of His countrymen concerning demoniac possession. Certain it is that if that belief were erroneous He made no attempt to correct it ; and accordingly it is still held by His followers with regard to the phenomena which exhibited themselves in His day, though they give a different explanation of similar phenomena if they are exhibited in ours. Returning now from this digression, I come back to what I was saying as to the complete credibility of the main facts of the story under discussion. It would appear that the fame of Jesus as an exorcist had reached the demoniac. Instead of assailing the stranger, as passers-by had learnt to think it likely that he would, he runs to meet Him, and falls at His feet in an attitude of supplication. The general belief had been that he was possessed by a demon ; he showed that belief himself and lived up to the character ; now he is equally persuaded that One has come who has authority to expel the demon. It is universally agreed that what the Evangelists report as said by the demons, was said with the voice of the possessed man who spoke in their name. He proceeds then, in their name, to make conditions. They would depart if they were not sent out of the country ; might they not enter into the swine who were feeding there ? they could do so, for there were many of them. I believe that any prudent physician who had charge of the case would willingly accept these conditions. So many delusions have been cured by accepting the patient's own view of his case, and applying the remedy which he has himself suggested, that I see no reason for being shocked or surprised at being told that Jesus gave the desired permission. I do not think it makes much practical difference whether He did so, as St Matthew tells the story, in the form of a command Go, or as St Mark, and St Luke after him, softens it, in the form of CREDIBILITY OF THE MAIN FACTS 277 a simple permission. In any case it was justified by complete success. The man was completely satisfied that the demons had left him ; he became quite rational, and was willing to dress and comport himself like ordinary people. In all this I discover nothing incredible, or unworthy the character of Jesus. A divergence of opinion need only arise when the question is raised, what exactly it was that occurred which convinced the man that the demons had left him, and had taken possession of the swine. All might agree that the animals had violently rushed off, and dis- appeared down the cliffs ; but commentators who try to explain why they did so will vary according to their theological prepossessions. No difficulty is felt by those who are content to accept the occurrence as supernatural, while those who will believe in nothing miraculous, if they are ashamed to put forward so improbable a solution as that of a chance coincidence, have nothing better to suggest than that it was the demoniac himself who hunted the animals away. I doubt not that we have in Mark the story as the man himself told it, and as the disciples believed it ; and the only remaining question worth discussing is, whether they were competent witnesses. Now at the interview between the demoniac and our Lord the disciples were present, and were competent to report what took place. But after the demoniac had obtained permission to transfer his demons to the swine, it is to be supposed that he went to where these animals were feeding. Had he to go far? St Matthew says that they were afar off It is true that the majority of the early Latin translators (non longe) seemed to have used a text which read ou ftwcpav, but the unanimous testimony of the Greek copies obliges us to regard the ov as an insertion, probably made to harmonise St Matthew's Gospel with that of St Mark, who says that the swine were there on the mountain side (on the mountain, Luke). Mountain is perhaps not the word we should have used to describe what is evidently meant, viz., high ground with steep banks overhanging the lake ; and Origen reports that 278 THE DEMONIAC IN THE TOMBS such high ground was to be found near the place which he calls Gergesa. We should conclude then that the swine were within sight of the disciples, but not very near them. They might have been able to see the swine rush away, but might be dependent on the man himself for his report of what had occurred ; we are therefore not in a position to refute the " minimisers," who treat miraculous stories in a manner with which I have no sympathy. In this instance they seem as if they had been appointed to scrutinise the bill sent in by the owners of the swine : " No doubt some swine were lost ; but were they as many as two thousand ? " The owners would of course be under a temptation to exaggerate the amount of the damage ; but that some serious loss had been incurred may be gathered from the desire of the local authorities that Jesus should leave the district. They evidently held Him responsible for the conduct of the demoniac, whom they recognised as being now under His control. It is when we try to follow commentators into a discussion of the ethics of the transaction, such as I remember Huxley engaged in, in a magazine, that we find them guilty of what Archbishop Whately used to call the " thaumatrope fallacy." The question turns on whether Jesus was God, or at least One divinely endowed with supernatural power, or whether He was but an exceptionally gifted man, whose knowledge, however, was subject to the same limitations as ours. In the former case we have to own that the operations of Divine Power are above our criticism. We might as well bring an indictment against Providence for having permitted a Highland shepherd to lose a large number of lambs in a winter snowstorm, as on account of a number of swine that had been drowned in a Galilean lake. But if Jesus was but a man, why should Huxley find fault with a permission which no doubt he would have given him- self, if he had been the demoniac's medical adviser. He could not have foreseen that the effects of the permission would have been so large. Even if He had, the per- mission had the effect of curing the afflicted person ; and we become entangled in the vivisectionist problem, HUXLEY'S FALLACY 279 What amount of benefit to humanity would justify the sacrifice of those whom we count as inferior animals? There would be no dispute if only one had suffered. If the physician had prescribed that the man could be restored to health by a dinner of bacon, no one would have the smallest scruple about the killing of one pig. If it is the number that shocks us, we might ask, How many pigs are killed at Chicago in one quarter of an hour ? It seems to be a matter of sentiment to consider a pig as not dying a natural death if he dies otherwise than by the butcher's knife. In any case, what I am insisting on is that it is not consistent to regard Jesus as not different from other men, when we are discussing what He did ; and to assume Him to have been possessed of supernatural knowledge, when we are discussing whether what He did was justifiable. THE CURE OF THE DEMONIAC : THE SEQUEL Mark v. 14-20. K irGKtv xal els robs d-ypovr ko.1 rjKBov ldea> tI £o~ra> rb yeyovbs. xal tpxovrai. irpbs rbv 'Itjo-ovv, xal Beiapovaai rbv Saifiovi- '£6p.evov Ka.Srip.evov IpMTlir- pAvov koX awtppovovvra, rbv (axriK&ra rbv "Keyiava, Kal £(pofii)Bricrav. xal Bii\yl\aavTO abrols ol ISbvres 7rws eyivero T(j> Saiiiovi^oiUva xal irepl tuv xolpw Kal Ijpl-avTO irapanakeiv abrbv aire\- Setv airb tuv bptuv abruv. Kal infiaivovTos aurou els rb Trhoiov irapeKaXei avrbv A Saifiovurdds tra fier' abrov 5. xal obx & £v rrj AeKav6\ci Sua eTotqrev avrip 'Iijffous, Kal wdvres £6avp:a'(ov. Matt. viii. 33-34. 01 Be f$6ffKoj>Tes e'tpvyov, xal direXdbvres els ttjv tt6\lv diHryyeiKav iravra xal ra ru>v 8aip.ovi'£opA- vwv. xal ISoii tracra 17 irSKis i^ijKSev els birdv- rrjo-iv t$ 'Iiprov, xal lS6v- res abrbv TapeKa\eo~av 07ras /leraSj airb tuv opium abruv. Luke viii. 34-39. 'ISbvres Be ol f36o-KOVTes rb yeyovbs ttpvyov Kal airfffyeCkav els rijv ir6\iv xal els robs aypobs. e£- tjKSov Be Ideiv rb ■yeyoj'ds xal r)\dav irpbs rbv '\i\9ct ra So.ip.6via. elvai abv ab- Tip- diriXvirev Be abrbv \4yuv, "IiroaTpetpe els tot olxov gov, xal BniyoQ oaa. trot frroiTjffev 6 deos. xal &irTj\6ev xo8' 8\rp> ri)v vo\iv Ktipbfftrtim titra iirovfi- o~ev abrtp a 'I»)ffo5r, 28o THE DEMONIAC IN THE TOMBS This section exhibits in even a more marked manner close relationship between St Mark's account and St Luke's, while St Matthew's is much more brief, and seems quite independent of St Mark's. We are told that the swineherds were frightened, and ran away to the city. We should have expected them to run the other way, and try to stop the flight of the swine : but it was probably the formidable demoniac who frightened them. He would approach the herd in order to transfer to them his unwelcome inmates, as he had obtained permission to do. So to the city they ran, and the people there must have heard of the violence done to the swineherds before they heard of the cure of the demoniac. They would then come out full of anger against Jesus, who would have been described to them, if not as having done violence Himself, at least as abetting the man, who, under His instigation, had worked such mischief as he had never done before. And in this determination they persisted, after having seen the man restored to sanity. St Matthew indeed does not mention that they witnessed the cure. Neither does St Matthew tell what St Mark and St Luke relate of the restored demoniac's request to our Lord to be allowed to join His company. It is needless to dwell on very obvious reasons why he was not deemed eligible for admission. Whatever good he could have done by bearing testimony to his own cure could only be effectually worked among those who had witnessed his frenzy; not among strangers who might see him in health, but could only learn by hear- say that he had not been always so. One small change made by St Luke deserves to be remarked. According to St Mark, the restored demoniac is bidden to tell his friends how great things the Lord had done for him. St Luke certainly does not mean to change Mark's meaning when he alters this into how great things God had done for him. But by the time that St Luke wrote, the title the Lord had come especially to designate Jesus ; and as the name seemed JAIRUS' DAUGHTER 281 unsuitable to be put into His own mouth, the less ambiguous God was substituted. THE RETURN : JAIRUS' DAUGHTER Mark v. 21-240. Kal SiairepdvavTOS rod 'IijcroB ir T

els to wipav awfaBri &x- Xos wokis $t' airrov, Kal fjv irapa rty Oakaatmv. Kal tpxerai ets tuv Apxi- % va 4\8i)V (iriB^s rets x e 'P as airjj tva auO% Kal ^077. Kal airijKSev fier' aiSrov. Matt. ix. 18, 19. 'ISoi> Apxoiv [els] rpixr- e\$6>v vpoaeKivu air$ \iyuv 6Vi, 'H Svym-qp IJ.OV &pri ere\ciriiirei> • &\\a i\6ti>v iwtSes rty Xeipa Si Tip VT0(7Tp{(j>UV rbv 'Iii avfy 'laKiifiov. Luke viii. 49-51. E« airroS XoXouiTOS tpxca.1 tu wapb. toC dpxurwayiiyov \iyay in, TiSrriKev ^ Bvy&ryp trov, ny/ciTi (T/ciiXXe rov StSd(TKa\oi>. b Si 'Ii/troSi &Koi 6 'Iijerout els rty olxlav rod ipxovros xal ISiiv rots aBKirras xal Toy l$x\ov Bopvpoifievov £\eyev, 'Ajiaxwpehe, oi yap airiBavev rb xop&ciov dXXd Kadeiioei- xal xare- yi\uv airov. Sre Si ti-e- fUMiOi) 6 &x\os, claeKBtiw ixpar-qaev ttjs x«/>os airijs, xal ■iiyipBij rb xop&aiov. Kal i£fi\Bev 7) . Luke viii. 52-56. "&x\aiov St w&rres xal ixhnrromo atrip. i Si ehrev, JH) xXalere, oi yap airiBaver dXXd xaBciSet. xal KareyeTiwp airoO, el- Sires Sri airiBavev. ai- rbs Si xparfytas rrp X ll pb* airrrp iayelv. On glancing at these three versions, we can at once perceive that St Luke has used Mark as his authority, but that St Matthew's account is quite independent ; and it is probably the oldest of the three. The most important difference between St Luke's account and St Mark's does not suggest that St Luke was making use of some other authority, but only that he understood in a different sense from that which our translators have usually given it the ambiguous word eyeipe, which occurs in St Mark's report of our Lord's command to the ruler's daughter. Taking St Mark's report by itself, we should put no other interpretation on it than that which translators generally have given it : our Lord took the maiden by the hand, saying Damsel arise ; she did arise, and walked. But if we had no other account of the miracle but St Luke's, we should not think of translating eyeipe otherwise than 286 THE RETURN: JAIRUS' DAUGHTER Awake. Jesus had said that she was not dead, but asleep ; then He takes her by the hand, and evrie-ev \eywv, words for which no weaker translation will suffice than He loudly called with the words, etc. At this loud call we are told, her spirit returned ; and then St Mark's narrative is resumed : she got up immediately, and He prescribed that food should be given her. In other words, the getting up and walking, which has the first place in St Mark's account, has but a secondary place in St Luke's. There are those who consider that they have the authority of our Lord Himself for expelling miracle from the story, and holding that the girl had never been really dead. St Luke certainly did not under- stand it so ; for he clearly conveys that her spirit had really left her body, and undoubtedly this was the belief of our Lord's followers. At all events we cannot expel miracle from the story. How came Jesus, with- out having seen the girl, to be so positive that she was only asleep, in spite of the reiterated assurances of those who had been about her that she was really dead, and that it was ridiculous to think otherwise ? It certainly looked like death when the auX^ral, that is to say, the hired mourners and minstrels had been sent for. Apparently it was by these professional wailers that our Lord found the house thronged, and it may be assumed too that it was they who jeered at His announcement that their services were not required. I do not doubt that St Mark used the account of Q, though I do not build much on the agreement of Matthew and Mark in the use of the word Kopaxriov. The explanation of one point is not obvious : Why should our Lord give the injunction that the thing should not be made known? How could it be kept secret if it were a success at all? for crowds were assembled in the belief that the girl was dead. I suppose that the command was mainly directed to the three disciples who had been allowed to witness the • miracle, and who were directed not to publish it at THE VISIT TO NAZARETH 287 once among their brethren ; and I suppose it would be enough for the parents of the child to inform their friends that it had turned out as the Master had said, that their daughter had been but asleep. THE VISIT TO NAZARETH Mark vi. i-6a. Matt. xiii. 53-58. We have not a parallel in Luke to this section, common to Matthew and Mark, and very probably derived from Q. The reason of St Luke's omission no doubt is that he had already related our Lord's visit to Nazareth (iv. 16). I cannot doubt that it is the same visit that St Mark and St Luke are speaking of. The discourse which Luke records is so admirably adapted to the circumstances, if delivered after Jesus had been a few days in the little town, that St Luke must have founded his narrative on most trustworthy information. But on combining this justly valuable contribution with the information derived from other sources, I must pronounce St Luke to be inferior to St Mark in his chronological arrangement. We should imagine from St Luke's order of narration that the visit of which he tells took place in the very commencement of our Lord's ministry, and before He had gathered disciples as His companions. But according to St Mark's account, He had already enlisted disciples who accompanied Him on this visit. Moreover, St Luke's arrangement would also lead us to imagine that it was only after our Lord's repulse at Nazareth, that He went down to teach at Capernaum, though certainly St Matthew's Gospel would lead us to think that Capernaum was the first place in Galilee in which He settled after His return from the wilderness. And it appears from the story itself which we are consider- ing that Jesus had already become known as a public 288 THE VISIT TO NAZARETH teacher and a worker of miracles, and that dissatisfaction was felt at Nazareth because He did not show any of the wonders there which they had heard of His having performed at Capernaum. Mark and Luke are in perfect agreement as to His non-performance of notable miracles at Nazareth, and as to the ill reception He met there. Every difficulty disappears when once we correct into conformity with Mark the ideas which St Luke's account, if we had no other, might have led us to form as to the chronological place of this incident in the history of our Lord's life. We have no reason to doubt the truth of the addition which St Luke makes to the story told by St Mark, viz. , that Jesus was mobbed by the unfriendly populace on leaving the synagogue. The disciples whom He had brought with Him would be able to secure Him a safe passage through the crowd, but the reception He got would not make Him wish to visit the town again. It is evident that in this section St Matthew is dependent, not on Q, but on Mark, whose language he copies with but slight alteration. The most important difference is that whereas in Mark, Jesus is called the carpenter, and the son of Mary, in Matthew He is the carpenter's son ; and it is only said, Is not his mother called Mary? Clearly at the time of which St Mark wrote, Joseph was dead, and Jesus was work- ing as a carpenter, and was known as the son of Mary. When St Matthew wrote, the idea that such work was degrading to our Lord suggested the transference of the handicraft to His father ; and, moreover, it seemed strange to designate a man's parentage by His mother's name, instead of His father's. I must own that a different explanation may be given of this description of Jesus as the son of Mary. It was certainly unusual, as I have said, to designate a man's parentage by his mother's name ; and St Luke in his account of the same visit represents (iv. 22) the people of Nazareth as saying, Is not this Joseph's son ? and St John (vi. 42), though speaking of a different occasion, reports the THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD 289 exclamation in the form, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know ? It may be that it was St Mark who here varied from his original, through unwillingness to seem to recognise Joseph as the real father of our Lord. The names of four of His brethren are given, and sisters are mentioned, who seem to have married and settled at Nazareth. I think it may be concluded that these brothers were sons of Joseph by a former wife. If they had been children of Mary, the story of her virginity could never have obtained currency in the Church in which the elder brothers of Jesus held high office ; and the rise of this belief cannot be pushed down to a later time. On the other hand, that they were only cousins does not harmonise with the present incident. Jesus had apparently for some time left Nazareth ; probably He had never returned to it since He had gone to John's baptism ; He is now recognised as a native of the little town, and the recognition is con- firmed by His relationship to four well-known citizens ; but it seems to me that the relation of cousinship is too vague to be used in this way, and others besides these four might have had a right to claim it. I should con- jecture that after the death of Joseph, Jesus had lived with His mother ; His elder brothers being established else- where, and that He thus became known as the son of Mary. When our Lord came back to Nazareth, He had evidently been so long out of it as to be no longer a familiar face in the town, and was recognised with some difficulty. Where had He been in the meantime ? I suspect that He left Nazareth to receive baptism from John, and that His visit to the Baptist was not as transient as the Synoptic narrative might lead us to imagine. And I fancy that John's recognition of Him as his successor was founded on full knowledge of Him. Our Lord's transference of the scene of His activity to Capernaum may have resulted from His having made acquaintance in John's company with disciples from Capernaum, such as Andrew and Peter, T ago THE SENDING OUT OF THE APOSTLES and perhaps the sons of Zebedee. Though I do not attach the same weight, as a contemporary record, to the Fourth Gospel as to the Synoptics, I believe that that Gospel has preserved for us some valuable traditions. The saying that a prophet has no honour in his own country is included also by Luke (iv. 24) in his account of our Lord's sermon at Nazareth. Mark vi. 4 ; Matt. xiii. 57. Luke iv. 24. Oiiit iarai irpo {\alip jroXXoils appdoyovs Kal tBepdirevop. St Mark had previously stated (iii. 15) that our Lord's intention in choosing the Twelve was that He ■might send them forth to preach, and to have autho- rity to cast out demons. Here he only mentions the actual conferring of the authority over demons, and does not think it necessary to repeat the instruction to preach, though their actually doing so, as well as their casting out of demons, is recorded (vv. 12, 13). The oldest MSS. of Mark iii. 15 say nothing about the Apostles' healing diseases ; but their doing so by anointing with oil is here mentioned (verse 13). It may be questioned whether the reading which obtained the widest circulation is not the right one. Luke has the vocrovs depaireveiv, and healing is made part of their function. Matt. x. $b, 6. ffls 686k {Bvwv /X-J7 i,iri\0rfre, xal els iroKiv Sa/napeiTwy fify eWXSijTe- iropeiei 6 - „ x. 9. 11. K-qpiaaew ttjv flcuri- \elav toO Beov. evayye\i$fievoi. 'Myere avrdls, "Hyyt- kcv i i^Brfre. el' i/i&s iwtffrpa- 0ij™. Kal is av /iij S4^ij- toi tytas /lySe a/cova-fl rods \6yovs v/iuv, ££epx6fi.cvoi. t£a rijs oliclas f) rijs irdXeus iKclvrjS iieriva^aTe rbv ko- vioprdv t&v iroSuv vfiuv. 1 See note on p. 53. Luke ix. 4, 5. Kal els fir av aiidav elaiXByre, fuel /livere xal ixeWer iS-ipxevBe. Kal baoi av fii) Sixuvrai i/ias, il-epx6liei>oi avb T^s iro- Xeus iKelvijs rbv Kovtoprbv inrb twv ttoSQiv i/xCiv diro- Twaaaere els /lapripuui iff' airrovs. 294 THE SENDING OUT OF THE APOSTLES In this place St Luke seems to have been dependent wholly on Mark for the portion of our Lord's address which he gives here. But we must subjoin his much fuller representation, which he gives as a charge to the Seventy. Luke x. s-na. Els fy S' av eW\0ijre oUlav vpCirov \iyere, Elpfyri rip otKtp roirtp. Kal iav tnei $ vlbs elp^vqs, e'iravaira'/iffeTai iir' abrbv i] nipr/vq i/i&V el Se pyqye, (' ipas avaKapuj/ei. iv airy Si r§ oUla pivere, taBovres Kal Ttvovres ra vap' airwv, fifios yap & (pyariis rou purBov oiJtoO, pA) p.era- fiatvere Q oUas els oMav. koX els fy av iro'Xic (Wp- XV°~8 e Ka l Six"" 1 ™ ipas, iffBlere t& vapar^Bipeva ip.tr, xal Bepaireiere rois & airfj aaBeveis, Kal \eyere airdis, "SyyiKev ftp' ipas i] SaaiXela tov Beov. els f/v 5' av iro\u> el 4k ttjs w6\eus ipubv els rois iroBas airop.aaff6p.cdo. ip.iV I believe the key to the explanation of the small variations in these accounts is that St Mark's imperfect tenses, and his aorist ripgaro forbid us to think that the sending out of the Twelve was performed by a single definite act ; each couple sent out on its special mission received its own charge. And what forbids us to believe that in the course of our Lord's ministry, as to the exact duration of which we have no definite information, He may have employed others beside the Twelve in similar preaching tours? St Luke must have met many who had been personally acquainted with our Lord, and whose names have not come down to us. One of those who, though not of the Twelve, had been thus sent by our Lord, might have truly reported the charge given him when he was sent forth. In the charge given to each of these missionaries, whether their number was exactly seventy or not, the original charge might have been slightly modified by subsequent practice. Returning now to the charge to the Seventy as reported by St Luke, I cannot but think that Q has been used for the opening sentences. He begins (x. 2) with the identical words with which St Matthew has prefaced his account of the appointment of the Twelve "SALUTE NO MAN BY THE WAY" 295 (i x - 37> 38)> the direction to the disciples to pray the Lord of the harvest to send forth labourers into the harvest. Then follows (Luke x. 3) inrdyere- ISov anrooriWw una? <*>? apra? ev /j.£o-

9 irpofSara, k.t.X. x. 16) ; still I believe it to have come from Q, since we find the ISou both in Luke and Matthew. The rest of that section in Matthew has strong affinities with our Lord's warnings, Matt, xxiii., xxiv., and its tenor seems to harmonise best with that later period of our Lord's ministry. But it should be noted that Matt. x. 40 has a parallel in Luke x. 16. The directions (Luke x. 4) about taking no money are the same as those given in Matthew ; but St Luke's addition, Salute no man by the way, requires some comment. We must take it in connexion with the charge in Matthew, As ye enter into the house, salute it ; and it is plain from Matthew's words that Luke correctly gives the form of salutation, Peace be to this house. Matthew and Luke agree that the disciples were not to distress themselves with doubts whether he on whom the benediction was bestowed were worthy of it. If he were a son of peace it would rest on him ; if not, their peace would return to them again. But this solemn benediction was not to be vulgarised by universal appli- cation. It was not to be given to the chance passers- by whom they met on the road. Luke x. 7. — This is the same direction as that given Matt. x. 1 1 . The envoys were not to leave the house in which they had been first received, even though better accommodation might be offered them afterwards, or by a more distinguished person. But according to Matthew they were not to make their first choice with- out enquiry as to the worthiness of him who proposed to receive them. Luke x. 8. — The phrase Eat whatsoever is set before you is used by St Paul (1 Cor. x. 27) though with a 296 THE SENDING OUT OF THE APOSTLES somewhat different application. In this passage, the missionaries are directed not to quarrel with the food which their hosts provided for them, even though it might be coarse or poor. St Paul has chiefly in view the case where the food might be such as, if its history were enquired into, they might have a religious scruple in using. So again, the maxim The labourer is worthy of his hire, which has a parallel, though not in absolutely verbal agreement, in Matt. x. 10, is found in i Tim. v. 1 8 in a form exactly the same as St Luke's. My belief is that the reading of the Gospel history was even then part of the service at the weekly Christian meetings ; and it would not be strange if St Paul used words which he had heard, possibly even from St Luke's own lips, if it were he to whom this evangelistic work was entrusted. Matt. x. 15. Luke x. 12. 'A/ity \iyu ifilv, dweKrlrrepov Iffrai Aiyu i/uv Stl So56/aois £v TJ w^W 77; ^SoS6fj.uiv xal Yop-dppuv iv i]n(p txelvtp t$ xaipip dToxpiBels b 'l7l aylw is the reading which is attested by a strong array of the oldest MSS., including some which in other places are not in agreement with Bx (kD ins. ev; B om. ev). I add to these a few which have ev tu> Trvevfian without tu> aylm, instead of simply tw Trvev/xaTi, the reading followed by the translators of the A. V. (so A.). When once the ev was introduced, no one could then understand the Spirit in which our Lord spoke to be anything but the Holy Spirit. The conception seems to be especially Lucan ; for St Luke gives especial prominence to what we should call the miraculous operation of the Holy Spirit, which THE SPIRIT OF JESUS 299 according to his view put the especial difference between the baptisms of Jesus and of John. In the history of the Acts great importance is given to the action of the prophets who were in St Paul's company, and who claimed authority to say Thus saith the Holy Ghost. St Paul writing to the Corinthian Church, says (1 Cor. xiv. 26) Each one hath a psalm, hath a teaching, hath a revelation. He who gave utterance to such sayings under the influence of the Holy Spirit, was said to speak in the Spirit. Now on Jesus was poured at His baptism the Spirit without measure ; and St Luke, who in his phrase Jesus was led by the Spirit in the wilderness, seems to distinguish what our Lord did under the impulse of the Spirit from the working of His human personality, seems to identify this saying of our Lord's as of like character with things spoken by the N. T. prophets in the Spirit. The same idea seems to me to underlie the statement (Acts xvi. 7) that it was the Spirit of Jesus which forbade Paul and his company to visit Bithynia ; by which I understand that it was the same Spirit who dwelt in Jesus when He was on earth. In Matt. xi. 27, Luke x. 22 we have a coincidence which can only be explained by a common use of Q, and it is certainly remarkable that in this, the oldest Christian document of which we have any trace, there should be put into the mouth of our Lord Himself as high a claim for His dignity and His powers as any at which critics have taken umbrage in the report of the Fourth Evangelist. The connexion with what precedes seems to be that if we ask how it is that some should be able to see what others of greater natural powers and higher education are blind to, all must be referred to the good pleasure of God. It is not by natural powers, but by a special revelation, that men can be made to know either Father or Son. The Father, who has committed all things to the Son, has empowered Him to make revelations to whom He will. There follow here words in Luke which, being 3°o HEROD HEARS OF JESUS found also in Matthew, may probably be referred to Q as their original ; but we have no means of ascer- taining the occasion on which they were spoken. Both in Matthew and in Luke they are quite in harmony with their context, but the contexts in the two cases are quite different. Matt. xiii. 16, 17. 'Tfuiv Si fj.aKa.pioi ol i tov 'ludyriv xal (Sijaey airbv iv la d'w-ij Kal at Swdfieis. That the other two Evangelists used Mark is, however, evident from their both having followed St Mark in his arrangement of the narrative. There is no direct account of the imprisonment and death of John. But we are told that when Jesus grew into notoriety, Herod heard of Him, and was disposed to adopt one current theory about Him, viz., that He was John whom Herod had beheaded, and who had now risen from the dead. St Mark, who had not mentioned the Baptist since relating how he had baptized our Lord, now goes back on his history ; and in order to explain the saying John, whom I beheaded, here relates the imprisonment and death of John. It is incredible that two historians should by independent chance agree in such a violation of orderly narration ; and one who has compared other sections common to Matthew and Mark cannot doubt on which side the obligation lies. In this case, however, we have to ask ourselves whether St Matthew has not made a mistake in his following of Mark. He agrees with that Evangelist, in telling next after the story of John's death that of the retirement of Jesus and His disciples to a desert place where He feeds the multitude. But St Matthew makes this retirement consequent on the return of the Apostles from the preaching tour on which their Master had sent them. He represents the retirement as caused by the fact that. the news of John's death had just then reached Jesus. St Matthew assumes that the narrative on which he wns depending was told in chronological 302 HEROD HEARS OF JESUS order ; in which case the Baptist's death must have occurred between the sending out of the Apostles and their return. But we should rather gather from St Mark's narrative that the Baptist's death had occurred some time previously, and is only related here by St Mark in order to explain the saying, This is John, whom I beheaded. If St Matthew has here made a mistake, St Luke has avoided it. He follows Mark's order, and connects the retirement to a desert place only with the return of the Apostles from their tour. Though St Luke does not here relate the death of John, his close verbal agreement with Mark proves his dependence on him. But we find in a couple of other instances St Luke correcting the order in which his predecessors had told their story, and putting into what he regarded as the proper place an incident which they had told, but not placed quite so early as in his judgment it ought to have been related. In this case, we know from Matt. xi. 2 that at least John's imprisonment, of which St Mark tells here for the first time, had occurred before the fame had reached the Baptist that Jesus was performing Messianic acts. St Luke's sense of chronological propriety taught him that, if the casting of John into prison were to be told at all, it ought to be told earlier ; and accordingly he relates it (iii. 19, 20), but with the omission of details, which, though a necessary part of a full biography of John, were not equally relevant to a biography of Jesus. And he does not think it necessary in this place to interrupt his narrative, in order to record the well-known fact that the Baptist's imprisonment, of which he had told before, had ended in his death. In the account of the different opinions current about Jesus, St Luke follows Mark so closely that it is not worth while to comment on trifling variations ; but we must note how St Luke, in anticipation of a story which he will afterwards have to tell, but which seems to have been unknown to St Mark, mentions in this place Herod's desire to see Jesus. ST MARK LENIENT TO HEROD 303 It is also to be noted that St Mark calls this Herod the king; it is very conceivable that the title, Herod the king, which his predecessor had borne, remained for some time not only in courtly, but in popular, use. St Luke who shows (ill- 1), that he had given some attention to the political history of the time, corrects Mark's impropriety of language and calls him the tetrarch, and this more correct designation was in use when St Matthew's Gospel was compiled. But in verse 9 St Matthew slips back into the use of the title King, which I take as an indication that he is following Mark. Mark retains some ancient forms of expression. Thus John is not known by the name of the Baptist, which ultimately came to be the accepted form in the Christian Church, but is always called the Baptizer. Mark vi. 17-18 are practically identical with Matt, xiv. 3, 4. Mark vi. 19, 20. Matt. xiv. 5. 'H Si 'HpyS'os iva%ev airif Kal Kal 64\wv airbv airoKre'ivai. iopeh-o rbv airrbv eT-xpv. 'Iwavvpi, elSiis airrbv avSpa SUaiov Kai ayiov, Kal avverqpei air6v, Kal axotiaas airroS iroXXd ijirdpei, Kal ydtus airov jJKOva'. Here St Matthew forsakes Mark's guidance, and adopts another current account, which may have been that of Q, but which we have no reason to regard as more worthy of credit. According to Matthew, Herod had all along been desirous to put John to death, and had only refrained from doing so through fear of shock- ing the populace, who venerated John as a prophet. As far as danger from the populace was concerned (and Herod does not seem to have on other occasions scrupled to shock the popular sentiments) the state of things was the same after the dance as before. According to Mark, it was Herodias who was desirous to have the Baptist put to death, but had not been able to obtain the consent of her husband, who had respect and regard for John. 30 4 HEROD HEARS OF JESUS The 7ro\\a niropei of the oldest MSS., though by- no means free from obscurity, is, I think, to be preferred to the voXka evolei of the later. If it was in the text that St Luke read, it might account for the Sty-ropei in Luke ix. 7. Mark vi. 21. Matt. xiv. 6a. Kal yevo/Uriis iipipas eixalpov Sre Fevealois Si yevofUrois toO 'Bipig- 'KptpSys tols yevefflots aiirov Seiirvov Sov iiroltiffev rots fjLeyiarratrtv afirov Kal rots xikiapxw Kal Ttils Trp&rois ttjs TaXiXalas, St Mark's fuller account of the number and dignity of the assembled guests harmonises with his statement of Herod's unwillingness to put John to death. The more public and solemn his promise to the girl, the more difficult to refuse to fulfil it. Mark vi. 22, 23. Matt. xiv. 6b, 7. Kal elaeKBoiai)i rijs Bvyarpis [01!- 'OpxijVaro t\ Svyinip rrfs 'Kpip- rijs TTJsySpipStdSos Kal SiaSos iv Tip ixiaw Kal ijpeaev Tip ijpeaer Tip 'SpipSr/, Kal toTs awava- 'Hpipdri, S8a> fiera opxov iif.oX&yr]rer xetfievois. » di ptHriXeis elwev Tip airy Bovvai S (av alrferfrai. Kopaaltp, Atrticrbv /ie 6 iav 9£\ys, Kal Siiau ow Kal &/ioaev airy, "Ori iav fie ah-foris dutruj aoi ?wj Tj/xicrovs rrp (SaaiXelas fiov. I think it best to begin by noticing the awkward- ness of expression in Mark, because it bears on the question whether St Matthew was able to use for this story a source different from Mark, and earlier. St Matthew's own account is perfectly plain and intelligible ; but St Mark's, if literally translated, runs, When the daughter of Herodias came in and danced, pleased Herod, which leaves it ambiguous who or what pleased Herod ; and the translators of the R. V. give as an alternative rendering, It pleased; but I reject all criticisms of the Gospel text, or explanations of it, which ignore the Synoptic problem. In this case the words fypearev tw 'HpusSy, common to Matthew and Mark, must in both be interpreted in the same way : that is to say, we must render, She pleased Herod. It might be supposed that the awkward construction must have THE DAUGHTER OF HERODIAS 305 been the original, and the smoother a later improve- ment. But, on the other hand, if Q had been the original, we must suppose this to have been of Semitic origin ; and to a Jewish writer the construction with the indicative is more natural and intelligible than the use of participles. St Mark, however, was so familiar with this use that he has packed seven participles into one sentence (vv. 25-27) ; and in the present instance, if he has offended against the laws of grammatical purists, he has sinned in the company of some good writers. There is therefore no difficulty in holding that St Matthew has reproduced the form of Q, which St Mark has altered in telling the story his own way. But we come now to a point which puts a crucial test on our adherence to the oldest MSS. In Mark vi. 22 instead of avrijs rijs, B and K, supported by such evidence as in other cases has been thought sufficient to induce us to accept their verdict (in this case, DLA, but no version), read avrov: that is to say, the girl who danced was not merely the daughter of Herodias, but was Herod's own daughter, and her name was Herodias. I have already said that our investigation into the mutual relations of the Synoptic Gospels has an important bearing on questions of reading, and in this case I count it a strong objection to the reading avrov that St Matthew has not adopted it. The manuscript evidence proves that avrov was the reading of a manuscript older than either Vatican or Sinaitic, which therefore must have been one of very great antiquity. But was the transcriber of that ancient MS. incapable of making a mistake? and if he did make a blunder, have we a right to charge the blunder on St Mark? I count it established that St Matthew used St Mark's Gospel ; and the question arises, Did St Matthew find the reading avrov in his copy of Mark? Either he did not, or he deliberately rejected it as an error. We do not consider ourselves bound to follow the original reading of a manuscript, if there be a correction prima manu. On similar u 306 HEROD HEARS OF JESUS grounds, a reading rejected at so early a date as that at which St Matthew wrote must be condemned as faulty. But if I am right in thinking that St Matthew not only used Mark, but also a still older authority which described the dancer as only the daughter of Herodias, the difficulty is increased when we are asked to believe that St Mark of his own accord introduced a statement for which a previous document with which he was acquainted gave him no authority. That St Mark should introduce such a statement is directly contrary to the whole spirit of his account, which is directed to diminishing as far as possible the guilt of Herod. St Mark is careful to tell that the dancer had pleased not only Herod, but all the guests, whose sympathy he must have had in promising a reward to the successful performer, and with whom he would incur discredit by breaking his word. But a failure of promise would only be a disgrace if it had been made to one who was independent of him. If the girl were his own daughter, the whole thing would be a private matter between him and her. I therefore see no reason that St Mark could have had for departing from the earlier version of the story. I own that the reading ai/T^y t^j 'UpwSidSos is a strange and awkward form of expression ; so much so that a few authorities which have followed the reading have cut down the avrfjs Ttjs into t??. But the argument cuts both ways : the harsher the form of expression, the more likely that a transcriber or editor would change it. It is possible that St Mark might have first written her daughter, and then added Herodias's to avoid ambiguity, so that T fc 'KpcfSidSos might have been a marginal explanation that found its way into the text. Again, if following some Latin versions we translate, ipsius Herodiadis, Herodias's own daughter, not merely step-daughter, the clause would express some surprise that the Queen should permit her daughter to make such an exhibition of herself. But certainly we should feel even greater surprise if it was her own father who THE DAUGHTER OF HERODIAS 307 had produced the spectacle. I do not know enough of the feelings of Eastern potentates to pronounce it incredible that Herod should have tolerated such an exhibition ; but if he did, manners must have changed greatly since Queen Vashti's time. I may add that the book of Esther must have been well known at the time ; for the words of the promise, unto the half of my kingdom were plainly suggested by that book. Further, if this girl was a daughter of Herod's, John must have been very tardy in his remonstrances, if he did not rebuke Herod until the connection had lasted so long that a daughter of the marriage had grown up, and was old enough to play the part here ascribed to her. Even allowing for Eastern precocity we cannot put her age at much less than twelve. Either John was demanding the dissolution of a marriage which had lasted some thirteen years, or if his remonstrance was earlier, Herodias must have bottled up her wrath very long. I have tried whether we might not remove the last objection to accepting the reading of B, by reducing still more the age of the girl. Suppose she were but a pretty child, whose dancing the father admired so much that in paternal pride he exhibited her per- formance to his guests, we can then understand how when she was empowered to ask for a recompense she should run off to her mother to get instructions what to ask for. If this were so, we must press very lightly on the clause she gave it to her mother, which, if literally understood, would make the child the bearer of the ghastly burden. On the whole, considering how very local the evidence for avrov is, and how early that reading was rejected, I am less inclined to throw on St Mark the responsibility of what seems to be an error than to attribute it to the chance blunder of an early transcriber. 3 o8 HEROD HEARS OF JESUS Matt. xiv. 8-12. 'H Se TrpopifiaaOeur* inrb t^i fivrpis ain-Tjs, A6s 11.01, fy-qolv, &Se iirl irlvaia tt\v /ce^oXV 'Iuaxou tou Pairrurrov. ko.1 Xinnjflels A paaiKeis Std rois Spxovs koX robs awa.va.Kei- /ihovs itte\evaev SoBijvai, koX vififas airexeip&Kurev 'laavr/v iv Trj 0uXaKJ7* ko.1 -^vexBv V KetpcM] airrov £wl irlvaxi koI iSbBi) Tif Kopaaly, ko.1 peyKev T V WfoX abrfis. Koi irpoae\66vres ol /taffijTO* airrov fyav rb irrS/ta ical fBa\j/av airrbv, koX i\66iwes airfiy- yetXav Tt# 'Irjaov. Mark vi. 24-29. KoJ i^e\Bovs <5ia tovs Bptcovs teal robs aj'cLKCLfih'Ovs ovk i}8e\7jaev dBerrjaat, dvTrjV Kai eiBbs diroarcCKas b flcun- \evs o-ireKOvharopa iveral-ev iveyKal rty KeaMiv airrov. koX a,Tre\6i>v atreKetpiXurev airrbv iv rjj v\aK-rj ko.1 ijveyKcv tt\v Ketj>a\)iv airrov ivl irlvaKi ko.1 (SuiKev airrtiv ry Kopaalip, ko.1 rb Kopi.at.ov ISuixev airrbv ry pryrpl airrip. ko.1 aKoiiaavres olfiaBii- raX airrov f/KBav xal %pav rb jrriSjita airrov koX (B-qKav airb iv livrj/ieltp. We may notice in this comparison St Mark's pre- ference for the dramatic over the historical form of narration. St Matthew's dependence on Mark is very striking. We have a double illustration of it in verse 9 : viz., the use of Mark's word fiaariXevs, and the description of Herod as Xvirtidels, which falls in with St Mark's account, but is quite opposed to St Matthew's, according to which Herod ought rather to have been glad of the good occasion to accomplish a long desired purpose. It remains to notice one other point, which, though it does not affect the sense, is a little perplexing to those who read Mark with a microscope, as we have been attempting to do. It has been already remarked that according to the oldest text, St Mark always speaks of John as the Baptizer, and in this story that word is used, and the instruction given by the mother to the daughter is that she should ask for the head of John the Baptizer. But St Mark, who reports with Homeric fulness, but not with Homeric fidelity, not only the message, but the actual delivery of the message, makes the daughter say Give me at once the head of John the Baptist. We had a somewhat parallel case in St Luke's report of the delivery of the message given by the Baptist to his two disciples. I can only account for the variation here by THE RETURN OF THE MISSIONARIES 309 the supposition that when St Mark wrote, Baptist had already become the form in ordinary use, and that although he strove to retain an older form, yet he slides back inadvertently into the more ordinary phrase. THE RETURN OF THE MISSIONARIES Mark vi. 30. Luke ix. 10a. Kai T kot" ISlav els (prifiov T&iroy koX avairati- ir\olt# els tprj/uiv rirrov ir6Ka> na\ovii4vr)v BijS- ccurBe fihlyev. fiaav yd.p kit' ISlav' aaiSi. ot ipxifierm nul ol ford- yorres iroWol, ko.1 oiSe ipayeir eixalpovp. ko.1 airrjKBov iv rif wKolif els l/nifiov Ttmav ko.t' ISlav. We cannot doubt of St Matthew's use of Mark when we find such a phrase reproduced as ek eprifnov roirov tear ISlav. Luke also has the kclt ISlav. St Matthew, as we have seen, attributes the retirement of our Lord to appre- hension caused by the tidings of the Baptist's death ; St Mark gives no other reason for this retirement than the incessant thronging of crowds who came, whether to receive instruction, or hoping for a miraculous cure. It is true that in St Mark's Gospel the account of this retirement immediately follows that of the Baptist's BETHSAIDA 311 death ; but this death is related in a little digression, and does not seem intended to have any connexion with the narrative immediately following. I imagined at first that St Luke had got hold of a different authority, when he mentioned Bethsaida, which is not found here in Mark. But this is only an instance of St Luke's looking ahead, and stating at once what his authority states later (see Mark vi. 45). The town best known under the name of Bethsaida was on the east side of the lake, and at some distance from it. In the present case, the story seems to require that the place here described should be somewhere on the west side of the lake. Confirmatory evidence that there was such a place there is little, either in ancient or modern times. But it is possible that there may have been a Bethsaida as well as a Chorazin situated not very far from Capernaum, whose rulers, though we hear little of them in the Gospel history, may have played an important part in the early rejection of our Lord. Mark vi. 33, 34. Matt. adv. 13*, 14. Luke be 11. Kai «Sa» atfrote {*&- Kai Arownrrcs oJ igXat 01 S* exXat TfoVre ^o- -ywras cai fyrtm* »-a\- *caXaJ0arar a£r£ we£S Xatfarav a4r£. cni dsra- Xot, cai «*J§ a>0 nar« aerate tXdXet ™» tAew n m t if a par e^Mf eS8e» raAiW- ixXar, «4r«& «^*i rfs pmrtkdas 6rct rai ayaqMar adrote. rai crrXayxrirtn ew' a*- rod fcaS, rai rate xpe*** Kai ^tHr «&» woXiV ns rai fa qwUuwt* rote ^orru fcjwxeias tara, •xXev, cai £nrAa7xW*f« l i ao rSff row avrS*. ^** «*T*fe art 4«a» lis ■ysjfara, ■% fx Brr " *° > - a&a, rai {"faro &4a>- ki> aiJrote waXXd. In this passage the language of Matthew is so completely framed on that of Mark that we have no reason to think that he is using any other source. St Mark's phrase, He saw them . . . as sheep not having a shepherd, is suggested by a passage in Q, used already by St Matthew, ix. 36. In that passage, however, Matthew seems to refer to the people's need of healing ; in this place rather to their need of instruction. There is nothing surprising in the statement that the people that went by land arrived before those that went by boat ; so that when our Lord landed He 3 i2 FEEDING THE FIVE THOUSAND found them ready to welcome Him, and receive His instruction. We must remember what kind of a boat it is likely to have been. It was one made to hold a large quantity of nets, and a sufficient crew to work them ; on this occasion it held twelve Apostles besides our Lord. This was no racing gig, but a great clumsy craft, whose progress must have been slow. St Luke agrees with St Matthew in saying that our Lord healed those that had need of healing, a thing not mentioned by St Mark. So far, this is the only indication that the other two Evangelists used a source other than Mark, and this indication is far from being decisive. We may infer that this was not the first time that our Lord had taught in the same spot. When the people on the shore of the lake saw the boat with our Lord and His disciples passing along, they knew where it was bound for, and could hurry on, on foot, to be at the place to meet them. This consideration makes it easier to believe that there had been two feedings of the multitude on the same spot. And this spot must have been either on the very north of the western side of the lake, or else the people must have gone round the top of the lake to a spot on the north of the eastern side. The latter hypothesis seems to me the more probable, though I do not lay over much stress on the general agreement of ancient authorities that the scene of the miracle was on the eastern side, because this may have been no more than an inference suggested by our Lord's having reached the spot by boat. Schmiedel rejects the story that many of the audience had reached the spot by land, as an arbitrary invention of St Mark's. I rather count this arbitrary rejection as the proceeding of a thoughtless and incompetent critic. 1 1 The suggestion of Schmiedel seems to have come from his coadjutor Prof. Edwin Abbott, a scholar of wonderful ingenuity and an even more astonishing absence of common sense. I Ie seems to have lately made considerable acquaint- ance with Hebrew, and, like a boy with a new knife, goes about hacking everything with it. Many of the attempts to explain discordances between ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE LAKE 313 THE FEEDING OF THE MULTITUDE Matt. xiv. 15-18. 'O^ias 5e yevo/iivris wpoaijXBav atrip ol /4o9tj- ral \eyovres,"Ep7]n6s iuriv b roiros Kai ii Cbpa ijSi] irapr[K9ev' airoXvaov robs 6x\ovs, tva direkSovres els ras Kt!>ims dyopdaoiayea>. oi Se Myovaiv avr$, Qvk ixo/iev SSe el /lii trhre Aprovs Kai 660 l%06at. 6 Se etirev $epere /wi &Se avrois. Luke ix. 12, 13. "H Si iiiiApa Ijpi-aTO k\1- veiv wpoei>. etirev Se wpbs abrobs, Adre abrols tpayelv bfiels. ol Se elirav, OiiK elalv 7ip.1v w\e1ov f) Uproi wivre Kai l%8bes Stio, el /m)ti rropeviivres ■fj/iels ayopiaufiev els irav- ra rbv \abv rovrov /Spii- juara. Mark vi. 35-38. Kai ijSi) Sipas iro\Xi}s yevo/iivris irpoaeXStvres abrtp oi fiaVr/Tal atrov fkeyov Sri, "Epijftbs iarui rbtros, Kai ijSri tiipa wok- \t)' airb\vaov airobs, tva dwe\86vres els robs k6k\(P Aypobs xal Ktbfias ayopd- trufftv iavrois rl tp&yuo'iv, b Se awoxptdels elirev av- rois, AoVe avrois bfiels tpayelv. xal \iyavtnv av- rif, 'Aire\66vres ayopa- ffoi/xev Sijvapluv SiaKoriwv aprovs Kat S&aofiev abrols /j.a$ /ecu aypovs cannot be an accidental coincidence. St Mark tells the story in a dramatic way, which St Luke abridges, and he uses his customary liberty in improving the language ; but I find no trace of the use of a different source. St Mark's expression, for example, wpa iroXkfi, for a late hour, is an unusual one, and does not occur elsewhere, even in his own Gospel. St Luke gives the Evangelists by supposed misunderstanding of a common Aramaic original are very ingenious, but to my mind very unconvincing. But here Abbott takes St Mark, whose intelligence he sadly under-rates ; translates his plain assertions back into Hebrew and tries to explain them away as blunders. In this case irefj? is perfectly intelligible, and throws a flood of light on the whole occurrence, and (what would most have been a recommendation to Abbott) might have helped to eliminate something of the miraculous, hateful in his eyes, yet he imagines the word to be a confusion with one meaning followed. ite{evea> is used by St Luke in the sense of to go by land, Acts xx. 13. St John certainly (John vi.) understands the miracle to have taken place on the eastern shore. If he is not acknowledged as a competent witness to the facts, at least he is a witness to the manner in which the story was understood in his time. [Prof. E. Abbott's explanation is contained in Clue : A Guide through Greek to Hebrew Scripture, 166. " Mark has misunderstood the Hebraic ' at his feet,' i.e., at the feet of Jesus, and has taken it to mean 'with their feet. ' The error is a very natural one, and occurs repeatedly in the Septuagint, e.g., 2 Sam. xv. 16-18. 'At his feet,' i.e., 'following him,' is there twice translated; rots jroalv abrwv, irefij."] 314- FEEDING THE FIVE THOUSAND the same idea in other language, % <5e yfiepa rip^arro KXiveiv; but there was good reason why St Mark should not say, as St Matthew does, 6\[slas yevop.ev^. It may have been late afternoon, but not yet evening ; for in verse 47 the Evangelist has something to tell of what happened when it was really evening. There may be a trace of Mark in what St Matthew presently says, »; wpa qSij iraprj\6ev. In place however of St Mark's phrase somewhat to eat, both St Matthew and St Luke speak of the people buying ^pw/xara. St Matthew, too, has some additions of his own : tey have no need to go away ■ and, when Jesus is told about the loaves and fishes, His command, Bring them hither to me. If I had found these variations in Luke, I should not think of them as evidence of the use of another authority ; but St Matthew does not make such free use of his authorities as St Luke commonly does, but is often content to reproduce a story just as it had been told before. Mark vi. 39-44. Kai irrera^ev avroh ava- K\t.d7jvat irdvras trv/Lirdtria avp/siaia iirl rip y\upif Xbprtp. Kal aviireaav Trpa- trial irpcurial Kara iKarbv Kal Kara rrevrJiKOvra. Kal Xa/Scif rods irevre &provs Kal rois 860 IxOvas ava- f}\t\pas els rbv oipavbv ei\6yr]iTei> Kal Karik\airev rois dprovs Kal idtdou rois fiadyrais ha irapaTidG>ay6vres rois ApTOVS 1TCTTOK(0"x'Xl<« S.V- Spes. Matt. xiv. 19-21. Kal KeXetfa/3A StiSeKa Kotpl- vovs irhfyeis. ol Si laQl- ovres fyav &vSpes ibael irevTaKurxlluoi x u pk 7 U " vaiKuv Kal iraioiwv. Luke ix. 14-17. 'Haw yap tixrel tripes TcvraKurx^ 101 - etwev Si vpbs rois fia$rjras airou, KorojcXfroTe airovs k\i- alas tbcel ava rrevri\KOvra. Kal (mliio-av oSrus Kal KariKkwav diravras. Xo- fi&v Si rois irivre iprovs xal rois Sio IxBias dva- fi\4\j/as els rbv oipavbv etiKdyqffev airoiSKal jcare- KXaffev Kal iSlSov rois fiadrjTais TrapaOavai rip &x^V- Kal l(payov Kal ixoprixiOr\aav irivres, Kal fipf)t\ rb rrepumevaav ai- rots K\a k6$ivoi SiiSexa. In these verses, which conclude the account of the miracle, I find so little trace of any authority but Mark being used by the other two Evangelists that I feel disposed to withdraw my acknowledgment of the WOMEN AND CHILDREN? 315 possible use of a different source. There is astonish- ing verbal identity between the other two Evangelists and Mark ; save that St Mark adds a number of pictorial details which St Matthew and St Luke have omitted, especially the graphic description of the companies seated at their meal, showing like flower- beds on the green grass. St Mark, as usual, is par- ticular about his aorists. The act of blessing and breaking the bread was definite, and the aorists are properly used ; but the distributing to the disciples was a continuous process, to which imperfects are applied. It is only in the last verse that we find any identity between Matthew and Luke which is not accounted for by their common use of Mark. The twelve basketfuls of fragments are described by St Matthew as holding t< s-epurtrevov twv K\a(r/i.a.Twv, and by St Luke to ■s-epiavevarav avrots, but the verb irepiarrevw is not used by St Mark. The number of those who ate, which is given by St Mark definitely as five thousand, is said both by St Matthew and St Luke to have been about (axret) five thousand. They were probably quite right in judging that St Mark's was no more than a rough calculation : so many groups counted as fifty each. But in my opinion the closest evidence of St Matthew's dependence on Mark is found in his adding women and children to the five thousand. How were these counted ? Were they not fed, and so not included in the groups ? I believe the truth to be that the women and children were developed by St Matthew out of Mark's irevTwuox&uoi avSpes. Matthew takes avSpes as not including women and children. In like manner, by parity of reasoning, St Matthew, xv. 38, adds women and children to the four thousand of the feeding of whom St Mark tells (viii. 9). In connexion with this a curious point arises in St John's account of the same miracle (John vi. 10). He reports our Lord's command as Tonjctrre rovy avOpanrovs avairea-eTv, followed by avhrea-aif ow oi avSpes, 316 FEEDING THE FIVE THOUSAND and Bishop Westcott calls attention to the minute carefulness of the translators of the R.V., who render Make the people sit down. . . So the men sat down. But one has to ask, Did the Evangelist mean us to lay stress on the distinction between avOpotnroi and avSpes? Does he wish us to understand that though Jesus had commanded that the people should be seated, the Apostles did not carry out the command as far as females were concerned? or was it that the women were too shy to avail themselves of the invitation, and preferred to remain standing and looking on while their fathers and brothers were feeding? If pressed to answer these questions, I should ask for proof that children were present at all. But I believe the truth to be that St John, who had evidently read Mark, reproducing his two hundred denarii, copied Mark's avSpes, without meaning to make a distinction between this word and avOpwiroi. At this point St Luke's following of Mark breaks off. He tells nothing of the dismissal of the multitude, or of the departure of our Lord's disciples, and the head wind they had to fight against, or of Jesus walking on the waters. This is not all ; for many following sections St Luke dispenses with Mark's guidance, omitting some things we might have expected him to record : such, for example, as the story of the Syro-Phcenician ; and in short, he never returns to following Mark's order of narration as he had done before. JESUS SENDS THE DISCIPLES AWAY Mark vi. 45-47. Matt. xiv. 22, 23. Koi cttfe julyw w rate pat^ris Kai [eMets] *»ii-)rm*Er Twfcjwff- aufrav qi^fu eori s-Xouv mi *pod- t4s Qi fl j w efc *X«a» mi «jhA>c i» •ya* «& t* a^w «pk B«0wMf, «4rA» ets ri re far, Hk *S inMn s It has not been my habit to discuss what is only told by one Evangelist, but it bears on our investigation J to examine what St Matthew here tells, which gives' clear evidence that he is drawing from another source besides Mark. 1 1 regard it as an indication that the writer of the Fourth Gospel had not himself been present on the occasion, that he seems to have no idea that the scene of the miracle could have been left in any way except by boat. THE WALKING ON THE WATER 321 Mark vi. 51, 52. Matt. xiv. 28-33. Kat &v£/3i) wpbs auT-ow- ei's to 'AiroKf>(0e2s Si i Xlirpos dim' 7rXoioi/, xat «ojra<7£ eauroJs ifysravro, 06 y&p 4\8eir irpis ire eVl to OSaTO. 6 8e avvf/Kav irl rots iprois, dXX' ?i» eftrei', 'E\W. xal mwa/Sas d7ri roff airCm i] i:ap3la Teirwpw/iivij. ir\olov Jlerpos Trept&Tr&Ttiaev iirl to iiSaTo /cai ^X0ei» irpbs rim 'IijiroOi'. (■ikiirtnv Si riv &vep.ov icpofUjd-n, KttX &p£A/ici>os KUTairaiTl^eaBai eKpafev \£yw, Kvpie, aSmiv jue. eiBius Si i 'Iij* ijp£arro Hi rots Kpa/Mrrois rods KttxQs txomxs rtptipepeir Swov ^kow Sti (otv. icoi Srov or ehreropetiero eh Ki^ias H «s wrfXets i) eis iypovsj* too aTopals irtoemr rout io-Oevouw- tos, Jtol rapeK&\ovr oOrd» tra ic&» roS xpturriSov rau ifiarlov nflroS ifburnu- xai Sow or <^o»to oihtw (axi^orra. It is only necessary to look at the number of words here common to Matthew and Mark {Siairepdirmrres, Matt. xiv. 34-36. Koi Siarepdaarres y\8ar exi n> yrp> e& TempFaptr. jcai iriywirres airir ol Sripes rov t6tov exeirov ar4ffreiKar eis SKi/r 7T)r repix<» s Srav aprov iadltixnv. Luke xi. 37, 38. 'Ev Si t$ XdKijetu ipio- rq. ainbv iapurcuos ovus apurrfiaj) trap' atrip' ela- e\6ap Si aviweaev. 6 Si $aptaaios ISiiv iBaiputaev Stl oi wpwrov ipairrladii irpb TttO iplarov. Mark vii. 1-5. Kal awayovrai wpbs airiiy ol iapiaaioi Kal rives t&v ypap.pM.Tiav A- 06vtcs diri 'Iepoad\ip.av Kal ISovres nvas t&v pA- BijfrOm airrov Sn koivoas \epalv, tovt' ianv avlir- tois, iaBlovaiv roils aprovs. (ol yip apiaaloi Kal irav- res ol 'lovSaioi lav p,$] wvyp.jj vlyj/miTai ras x«/»"i oix iaBlovaiv, Kparovvres ttjv vapdSoaiv t&v vpea~ flvripwv, Kal dx' ayopas iav p.7] pa.VTlGUVTO.1 OilK iaBlovaw, Kal fiXAa iroKKa ianv a irapi\af3ov Kparetv, Pavnapiovs iromipluv Kal fraruv xal xoKkIuv. ) xal iTrepvr&atv airrbv ol <£api- ffaioi Kal ol ypap.p.a.Te'ts, Alb, H oi irepiiraTovaiv ol pjaBrfral aov Kara rfyv wapiSoatv tuv irpeafivri- puv, aXXek Koivais x^P"^ iaBlovaiv rbv aprov ; With this seventh chapter it seems to me that we enter on a new section of St Mark's Gospel. Up to this point we find the two other Synoptics apparently relating unconnected anecdotes of our Lord's life, while through St Mark's account there runs a well- marked chronological thread enabling us to trace the progress of our Lord's influence and reputation, and also the gradual growth of hostility against Him. Here we have our Lord back again in Capernaum, and the surroundings are just the same as before in Mark iii., where we are told of the offence taken by Scribes and Pharisees because He ate with publicans and sinners, and because His disciples did not keep the Pharisaic fasts. We need not indeed be surprised at finding our Lord again in Capernaum, although no special mention is made of His journey thither ; because we have every 327 328 EATING WITH UNWASHEN HANDS reason to think that this was the direction in which He was going when He landed from the boat. But what follows in Mark is only a collection of isolated anecdotes ; and we are induced to believe that St Mark is here but relating at length a story which had been told by a predecessor, when we find the same story in Luke. We have already seen that St Luke is now no longer dependent on Mark, whose order of narration he here quite forsakes ; and there is no trace of Mark in the language in which this story is told. St Luke, when he relates a traditional saying of our Lord's, is always careful to give an account of something that suggested it, as he does here by telling of the Pharisee's invitation. We have only in this case to contrast St Luke's independence of Mark with St Matthew's dependence. St Matthew, no doubt, abridges Mark's account, by omitting the explanation of Jewish customs, which was necessary to make Gentile readers understand what was meant by Koivai? x e P (r ' LV ' Dut which was not needed by Jews. If this section is rightly placed by St Mark immedi- ately after the return of our Lord from the other side of the lake, we can understand how during a tour in which they had to mix with many people, asking and obtain- ing hospitality from many who though Jews were not Pharisees, the disciples might have come to share their Master's indifference to the observance of precepts which could claim no divine authority. Pharisaism was more likely to flourish in a small city than in the wider atmosphere of the country. We are told that on this occasion the objection was raised by the Pharisees and certain of the Scribes who came from Jerusalem (possibly a deputation sent to report on the proceedings of the new prophet) just as on a previous occasion, Mark iii. 22, it was Scribes from Jerusalem that put forward the theory that He cast out devils through collusion with Beelzebub. I do not know that we can count it a slip that St Matthew transposes, and says Pharisees and Scribes from Jerusalem. WHAT DEFILES THE MAN 329 No doubt some of the Scribes resident in Capernaum were Pharisees, but these were less likely than their visitors to take umbrage at the non - observance of Pharisaic rules. our lord's reply Mark vii. 6-13. Matt. xv. 3-9. The comparison of the two Gospels in this section calls for little remark. St Matthew has transposed two of Mark's sections, and certainly with the effect of improving the effectiveness of the rebuke. It seems to me likely that this retaliation on the teaching of the Scribes may have been elicited by some conduct of theirs at a time when, as men zealous for some public cause will occasioaally do, they urged men to contribute to it that on which private duties had a stronger claim. WHAT DEFILES THE MAN Mark vii. 14-16. Matt. xv. 10, 11. Kol TrpocTKaXetr&fnevos ir&Kiv rbv Kol TrpanK6Xeai.ii.evas rbv &xkov txXov (Xeyev atrrois, 'A-Koiaari pov elirev airrols, 'Axoiere nal (rwiere- wAvtcs Kai aivere. oiSev ianv l!-a- oti to ebrepxifi-evov els rb arti/m koi- 6ev toD avBpumov eleiropevA/ievov els vol rbv iivdponrov, dXXd rb iKiropevi- airbv 6 SAvwrat koivCjcou airbv fievov ex rod irrd/iaros toDto koivoi dXX4 rit in toO duBptbirov ixropevd- rbv &i>6pwirov. /tend isTW rb. Koivovvra rbv SaiBpa- vov. In this section Matthew is practically identical with Mark ; except that by the introduction of «V to a-ro/ia St Matthew gives the sentence a more pointed form. THE EXPLANATION Mark vii. 17-23. Matt. xv. 12-20. St Matthew is in this section making use of an authority independent of Mark. The special mention of Peter suggests that this authority may be the same as that to which we owe some other traditions which 33Q EATING WITH UNWASHEN HANDS give prominence to Peter. I cannot doubt that St Matthew is here using Q, the idea of the blindness of those who undertook to guide being very prominent in Matt, xxiii., which may certainly be referred to Q. Our Lord's rebukes to the Pharisees contained in that chapter will be more conveniently considered in connexion with Mark xii. 38. St Luke, however, vi. 39, shows his knowledge of this section of Q. The next verse in this passage of Luke seems also to be referred to Q, viz., The disciple is not above his master, which we find in Matt. x. 24, and also made use of by St John (xiii. 16 ; xv. 20). In neither case does St Luke derive his phraseology from Mark. In the recital of the evil things which proceed from the heart, St Matthew follows the Decalogue order — murder, adultery, theft, false witness ; so also Matt. xix. 18. St Mark considerably enlarges the list, and makes no attempt to follow the order of the Decalogue. A question arises as to where these sayings were uttered. There were three stages in the discussion. First our Lord addresses Scribes and Pharisees in the absence of the multitude ; then having in His discourse with them enunciated a general principle which it was useful to all to hear, He calls the multitude to listen to it ; lastly, He goes into the house, probably to take food, and there He repeats and explains to His disciples what He had said to the objectors. It has been su gg este d that the Pharisees may have forced them- selves into the house with the disciples when they retired to take food ; but this theory is untenable, since we are told that, in the third stage, when they retired to the house, no one was present but the disciples. What I understand then is that when our Lord was teaching the people, there came up this deputation of leading members of the synagogue to interrogate Jesus on what they had noticed or had been told of the non-observance by His disciples of well-established Jewish usages, that the members of DATE OF THESE SAYINGS 331 this deputation approached our Lord, the multitudes remaining in the background ; that when He had given the objectors His answer, He repeated it aloud for the benefit of those who had not heard it ; and finally, when the time came for retirement, the disciples, as St Mark tells us their custom was, sought explana- tion of an utterance which they had imperfectly understood. I was at first tempted to think that St Mark had misplaced the section we are considering, since it seemed to fit more naturally with the state of feeling exhibited in the second and third chapters. But it is always dangerous to try to improve on your authorities ; and on consideration I find no good reason for dissent- ing from St Mark's arrangement. He had told of the offence given by our Lord to the Church rulers, who in consequence were stirring up the civil authorities against Him. He therefore ceased to make Capernaum His headquarters, and departed with His disciples for a missionary tour, though not to any great distance. Now on His return, He finds the bitterness of feeling against Him in no degree abated. He had not been lost sight of by the authorities at Jerusalem, who soon find new cause of complaint against Him ; for His teaching as to the unimportance of ceremonial defile- ment, as compared with breaches of the moral law, however universally accepted at the present day, must have seemed to the rulers as not only rejecting various rules then generally observed on the authority of Pharasaic teachers held in high repute, but as cutting at the roots of the observance of the entire ceremonial law ordained by Moses. St Mark does not tell what steps were then taken by the rulers to excite the alarm of our Lord and His disciples ; but it is most natural that the next thing we read of Him is that He has entirely left the district and gone into the borders of Tyre and Sidon. It seems to me strange that the sayings of our Lord recorded in this chapter were not made use Of by St 332 THE SYRO-PHCENICIAN WOMAN Paul in his controversy about eating meats. Can the solution be that the only record of our Lord's words with which St Paul was acquainted was that represented in St Luke's Gospel, which does not contain the section we have had under consideration? THE SYRO-PHCENICIAN WOMAN Mark vii. 24-30. Matt. xv. 21-28. Explanations, which I cannot accept as satisfactory, have been offered why this miracle was not recorded by St Luke. As regards the omission of the section concerning eating with unwashen hands, it has been said that St Luke omits it as writing for Gentiles, who would not be interested in a controversy about Jewish customs ; yet certainly the principle which our Lord there laid down had important bearings on early contro- versies in the Christian Church. As regards the present section, some explanation is certainly necessary ; for the story is one which we should have expected to have had a lively interest for the historian of the foundation of Gentile churches, namely, the account of a miracle performed by our Lord Himself for the benefit of a Gentile. It has been suggested that St Luke was unwilling to acknowledge the limitations of our Lord's own mission, and His reluctance to transgress its boundaries. St Luke has not copied the restriction imposed on the Apostles when first sent out : Go not into any way of the Gentiles, and enter not into any city of the Samaritans: but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, this last phrase being used in this very section. Yet surely since the result was that our Lord did go beyond the limits He had marked out for Himself, the history had more interest for an advocate than for an opponent of the extension of Gospel preaching outside the Jewish WHY OMITTED BY ST LUKE 333 boundaries, which we here learn, our Lord, for what- ever reason, Himself went beyond. St Luke shows no unwillingness to acknowledge that it was to the Jews exclusively the Gospel was first preached. Note the Unto you first of Acts iii. 26, and the It was necessary that the word of God should first be spoken to you of Acts xiii. 46. St Mark in this section describes the repulse of the Syro- Phcenician woman as only conveyed in the words Let the children first be filled, etc. St Luke's master, St Paul, distinctly taught that the extension of the Gospel to Gentiles was consequent on a previous rejection of it by the Jews (Rom. xi. 1 1), and St Luke himself takes pleasure in giving historical proofs that it was thus that Gentiles came to be included in the Church (Acts xviii. 6; xxii. 18-21 ; xxviii. 28). We must then reject the hypothesis that St Luke, though acquainted with this story, omitted it for some doctrinal reason. On the other hand, I have already called attention to the fact that St Luke, who has care- fully followed St Mark's order down to the end of the account of the feeding of the five thousand, there forsakes his dependence on Mark, and never returns to it again. I have drawn the inference that St Luke's acquaintance with St Mark's Gospel did not extend beyond the point where we can trace his use of it. But another explanation may be given. It is clear that for this later part of the history St Luke had obtained other materials to which he rightly attached the highest value, preserving for us as they do some parables and other specimens of our Lord's teaching which we could ill spare. Not to say that there appear to have been then conventional limitations of the length to which a "book" ought to extend, it was clearly impossible to relate everything which our Lord had said or done. And therefore in order to make use of these new materials it was necessary to put aside some of the authorities used in the earlier chapters. Whatever account we give of this matter, the result is that we have now but two narratives to compare ; and in this comparison the 334 THE SYRO-PHCENICIAN WOMAN conclusion to which I come is that St Matthew is not now entirely dependent on Mark, but that both Evangelists used an earlier authority. Mark vii. 24a. Matt. xv. 21. 'EKtWer Si avaaras &TT)\$ev (Is Kal i^eKBiiv ineWev i 'IijffoBs rk Spia Tipov [Kal ZtSfivoi]. avexApV"* efe Ta I^PV TiJpou Kal Weiss uses Mark's avatrrds to connect this verse with the discourse concerning the eating with unwashen hands. His idea is that St Mark means that our Lord got up from the usual sitting attitude of a teacher. I believe on the other hand that Mark's avavos. — These words are questioned by the critical editors, though attested by SB and other authorities whom they usually follow without hesitation. The dissentients are DLA and some early old Latin MSS. ; and besides, Origen quotes the passage without this addition (Comm. in Matt., torn. xi. 16). However the main reason for rejection is that Matthew has this addition, and it is easier to account for the received reading as completed by an addition from Matthew than to explain why the words, if genuine, should have been omitted. It is urged that in relating the next anecdote (vii. 31) Mark is represented by the oldest MSS. as stating that our Lord, coming from the borders of Tyre, passed through Sidon, whence it is inferred that in verse 24, he must have mentioned only Tyre, without adding Sidon, an inference however which by no means necessarily follows. I am disposed to look on the common source of KB as an authority by no means in- fallible, but yet free from modern sources of error ; and I count the temptation to alter Mark into conformity SOURCE OF THE STORY 335 with Matthew to be one which only beset scribes who lived at a later date than that of this common source. I own that Tyre and Sidon are as commonly spoken of together as Spain and Portugal are among ourselves ; so that if only Tyre had been mentioned it might be natural to add and Sidon. If St Matthew's reading is thus accounted for, why might not St Mark have yielded to the same temptation. At all events, whichever be the reading, it is plain that St Mark represents our Lord as having been on this visit within the borders of Sidon as well as of Tyre. In deciding that St Matthew's account is not derived from Mark, Weiss is greatly influenced by the kou ISov with which it commences, which he is accustomed to regard as an infallible sign of translation from the Aramaic. That this formula comes from the Aramaic I do not doubt ; but we are not safe in concluding from the use of this formula that any particular story in which it is found must be the translation of an Aramaic original. I have never been able to find convincing proof that St Luke was acquainted with Aramaic. In sections of his which are parallel with others in Matthew the common use of Greek words leads me to believe that St Luke knew the Aramaic original only through the medium of a translation. Now the kcu ISov is as frequent in St Luke's writings as in Matthew. I lay no stress on the Gospel, nor on the earlier chapters of the Acts, which might be said to have been derived from an Aramaic original, but it also occurs frequently in the later chapters where we have no reason to think that the original is anything but Greek. In particular, St Luke (Acts x. 30) puts the kou ISov in the mouth of the Roman centurion, Cornelius. Nevertheless, internal evidence shows that in this place St Matthew has used a source independent of Mark, which I should have been willing to call Q, if it had not been that I have habitually given this title to the source of things common to Matthew and Luke, and not found in Mark ; but this story is not recognised 336 THE SYRO-PHCENICIAN WOMAN by St Luke. This version of this section may possibly have been earlier than Mark ; but if so, St Mark makes some corrections of it which I cannot hesitate to accept. From St Matthew's account, we should have been tempted to imagine that our Lord had gone to Tyre in order to preach the Gospel to a heathen audience ; but if so we cannot understand why He should then decline to cure the disease of a heathen suppliant, declaring that it was only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel that He had been sent. But St Mark gives us to understand that He gave no public instruction in the Tyrian district, being there incognito, and desirous that His presence should not be known. This retirement is well accounted for by the constantly increasing violence of the opposition against Him in Capernaum, as the result of which He seemed likely to meet at once the fate of John the Baptist. In this case Herod would not have been deterred by fear of the people ; for by silencing this popular demagogue he would have gratified those who considered themselves best entitled to speak in the name of the Jews. In what follows, the story as told by St Matthew conveys a different impression from that told by St Mark. We should have concluded from Matthew's icpagei that as our Lord's disciples were going along, this woman followed them with cries for help so vociferous that the disciples interceded for her in order to be rid of her importunity. St Mark lays the scene in the house where our Lord found a lodging. Not- withstanding His desire that His presence should not be made public, St Mark's statement that it was impossible that it should be altogether concealed is very credible. This woman might have known of Him from some of the multitude which thronged to Him in Galilee, among whom St Mark tells (iii. 8), there were some from the neighbourhood of Tyre and Sidon ; or she might have known of Him through acquaintance with one of His disciples. We should decide in favour of the latter solution if we could be quite sure that St MATTHEW MORE VIVID THAN MARK 337 Matthew has rightly represented her as addressing Him as Thou Son of David. This was the form of address which was most calculated to awake the just alarm of the civil authorities ; and St Mark does not represent our Lord's disciples as using it until the last journey to Jerusalem ; but St Matthew is less careful about these small details of chronological propriety. The account in Mark does not absolutely contradict that in Matthew, because it is no doubt possible that the woman having made her request in the house, followed our Lord and His disciples into the street. St Mark's imperfect tenses (1/parra, IXeyev) show that there had been a continuous series of entreaties met by silence or refusal, though he himself has not recorded them. In this narrative there are more autoptic touches in Matthew than in Mark. According to Matthew, our Lord for a time met her entreaties simply by silence, until at length the disciples, wearied by her importunity, begged Him to give her an answer, and send her away ; and it was then He told her that He had been sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. THE RETURN TO GALILEE Mark vii. 31. Matt. xv. 29a. Kai wdXu» e^eX&lr ec rur oplar KoJ iierafUs csetBer i 'Iijows TYpou ijX0e» Sid Ztiuros eis r$|» tfdA- iJXfer rxtpa ri)r ddXaaaat -rip TaXt- aaaar tip raXiXatas iri /i&w ™» XoUas. ipltm AecaxiXeciR. Although St Mark gives no particulars about our Lord's journey to the Phoenician country, does not say how long He remained there, and gives only one anecdote of His visit, yet he is careful to record his return ; for St Mark's Gospel is not a collection of isolated anecdotes, but aims at being a history. And his account quite fells in with the conclusion to which the preceding chapters had led us, viz., that retirement was made necessary by the danger to which Jesus was exposed by the determined opposition of the Jewish authorities, which had now gained the support of Y 338 THE EPHPHATHA MIRACLE Herod. So going up northward from the Tyrian district, He returns, not to Capernaum, but to the opposite side of the lake of Gennesaret, where the hostility to Him was less organised and less for- midable. THE EPHPHATHA MIRACLE Mark vii. 32-37. For the points of similarity between this miracle and the curing of the blind man at Bethsaida, see further, p. 348. Though St Matthew does not relate this miracle, he has in this place a paragraph, xv. 29^-31, describing in general terms the miracles which our Lord performed, and the astonishment they produced. He says that the multitude wondered, when they saw the dumb speaking, the maimed whole, and the lame walking, and the blind seeing. I consider that we may safely infer from the fact that the dumb speaking has the first place in this list, that St Matthew was acquainted with St Mark's account Of this Ephphatha miracle. The, thing is in itself probable ; for St Matthew has been plainly using Mark in the paragraphs which precede and which follow. St Mark signalises this as exciting more astonishment than any other of our Lord's miracles : fjLaWov trepKrcrxrrepov eKripviraov. kcu v7repTrepi(T(r5>s efeirX- i/jercrovTo. There was also in Q an account of the healing of another (or possibly the same) dumb man (Matt. ix. 32 ; xii. 22 ; Luke xi. 14) ; and here too special mention is made of the wonder Which this form of miracle excited : It was never so seen in Israel. THE SECOND FEEDING OF THE MULTITUDE Mark viii. i-io. Matt. xv. 32-39. The first question that here arises is whether I can be justified in the title I have given to this section ; in other words, the question whether we have in Mark vi. and Mark viii. accounts of two distinct occurrences, or two accounts of the same occurrence by independent witnesses. There are so many points of agreement between the two that we are tempted to think that both accounts are descriptions of the same incident ; yet there are some points of difference, such as would oblige us to regard the information possessed by one of the narrators as defective or erroneous, if he is speaking of the same occurrence as the other. I do not myself hold any principles which would oblige me to reject offhand either supposition as antecedently improbable. I see no force in the argument that we cannot believe that what is here attributed to our Lord really happened, because He is said to have done the like on another occasion. I should have thought the inference lay the other way ; that is to say, that it was more likely than not that our Lord should use a second time the course of proceeding which He had successfully employed on a former similar occasion. Then, instead of allowing the multitudes to disperse in order to obtain a mid-day meal, He directed the disciples to make them sit down, and offer them hospitality from their own resources ; and slender as they were, they proved to be more than sufficient. Was there any reason why He should not give the same direction now ? We can lay no stress on the fact that this second feeding of the multitude is not narrated by St Luke ; because St Luke appears to make no use of any part of the section of Mark in which the story is told. Some of the differences pointed out between the accounts present no difficulties except on the hypothesis 340 SECOND FEEDING OF THE MULTITUDE of the absolute inerrancy of the Evangelists in every detail, however minute. For instance, in one account the number of persons fed is estimated as four thousand, and in the other as five thousand. But neither account professes to give more than a rough estimate. Suppose the actual number to have been a few hundred more than four thousand, might it not very honestly have been reported as about four thousand by the one, and as about five thousand by the other? So in like manner about the number of the loaves. Can we say that our faith in the honesty of the witnesses must be destroyed if one reported them as five, and the other as seven ? Might not one have chanced to see two more than had been counted by the other; or, on the other hand, might not one have known that two out of the original stock of seven had been consumed by the disciples before the multitude was fed ? Guesses would be interminable if we attempted either to decide between the relative probabilities of the two accounts, or even if we ventured to pronounce them irreconcilable. The one solid fact is that, whether the two accounts relate to the same miracle or not, St Mark believed them to be reports of two different incidents. This we learn from what he goes on to tell (viii. 19, 20), how, when the disciples were uneasy because they had forgotten to bring a sufficient supply of bread, Jesus reproached them with having forgotten how He had been able with five loaves to satisfy the wants of five thousand, and with seven the wants of four thousand. There is no place in which the use of Mark by St Matthew is more manifest than that in the parallel passage of the First Gospel (xvi. 9, 10) : he not only adheres to Mark's order, but copies most of his language, including his recognition of the distinctness of the two miracles of feeding. In this section I have not thought it worth while to print Matthew's and Mark's accounts side by side ; for the copying is so close that I cannot treat St Matthew's as an independent account, throwing light on St Mark's, or giving independent confirmation of it. DIFFICULTIES IN THE STORY 341 It seems to me a certain inference that St Mark here used two different sources: the one which related the feeding of the five thousand being that which had obtained the widest circulation, the other, though recog- nised by St Mark as authentic, disagreeing in some details from the other. The detail which I conceive St Mark must have found it impossible to reconcile with the history of the other miracle is that, in the former, the whole story turns on our Lord's sending the disciples away without Him, and Himself remaining behind ; in the latter, the disciples and He depart together in the boat. It seems to me that in these eighth and ninth chapters, St Mark has worked in some independent documents of whose authenticity he was convinced, but which he had not the means of accurately fitting in with the previous history. In the present case we are brought back to the Sea of Galilee, and the disciples are able to use the boat. But how did they come by it again? They do not appear to have remained by the lake ; for soon after we read of them as at Caesarea Philippi ; and we have no distinct mention of the return of Jesus to Capernaum until chapter ix. 30, 33. St Mark's accounts of the time and place of this second feeding of a multitude are equally vague. I do not think it is possible for us to say with certainty whether the place was on the east or west side of the lake. On consideration, the best solution that occurs to me is to avail ourselves of the Evangelist John's information, that Bethsaida was the city of Andrew and Peter. James and John would seem to have had their abode at Capernaum ; and probably had made arrangements for the sale of the fish, which made it convenient to their acquaintances, and perhaps cousins, Andrew and Peter, to enter into partnership with them. I take it that when our Lord and His disciples left the lake for a northern journey, Peter's boat was laid up at Bethsaida, and was recovered again on their return ; and that in the last period of our Lord's activity, Bethsaida was His headquarters. 342 SECOND FEEDING OF THE MULTITUDE I confess that I find the evidence very unsatisfactory that there was a Bethsaida on the western bank. The whole difficulty arises from St Mark's statement (vi. 45) that when our Lord constrained His disciples to embark without Him, He bade them go before Him to the other side, 71730? BtjOcraiSdv. And as it is generally assumed that the feeding of the multitude took place on the eastern side, it seems to follow that the Bethsaida here spoken of must be on the western. That vpos Brido-aiSav is the true reading of Mark is confirmed by St Luke, who appears to have got the mention of Bethsaida from Mark. Yet if we take the view which the story seems to suggest, that the scene of the feeding of the multitude was at the north-eastern extremity of the lake, this must be itself close to the better known Bethsaida. When He left it, the docu- ment used by St Mark told that He came into the parts of Dalmanutha. It would seem that St Matthew did not recognise Dalmanutha as the name of a place, for he substitutes Magadan. But our information is not sufficient to enable us to identify either place ; and we must be content to leave the locality uncertain. If St Mark here used another document, I cannot but admire the scrupulous fidelity with which he pre- served it. He carefully records all those small details which have been relied on as proving that the two accounts of the feeding of a multitude could not refer to the same occurrence. In particular, both in the direct account and also later, when our Lord's reference to this miracle is recorded, the distinction is preserved that in the one case the fragments filled twelve icofavot, in the other seven vpi8es. The Kovpls, I may present to those who like such methods of exposition a reconcilement of the twelve cophinoi with the seven spurides. If each of the twelve distributers of the loaves UNBELIEF OF THE DISCIPLES 343 emptied his cophinos full of fragments into the larger basket, it might easily be that twelve of the one would just fill seven of the other. But the chief difficulty I feel in this explanation is that while it is natural enough that each of the disciples should carry with him his little travelling basket, I do not see why they should bring with them the larger ones, unless we suppose that they obtained them in the place where they landed. Although, as I have said, I could with equal ease accept the theory that the two accounts refer to the same or to different occurrences, the scale in my mind is turned in favour of the former by the disciples' question, Whence shall one be able to fill these men with bread here in a desert place ? a question which they need scarcely have asked if they had seen the problem successfully solved before. It must however be acknow- ledged that St Mark shows himself constantly impressed by the stupidity or hardness of heart of the witnesses of our Lord's miracles, who failed to draw from them the conclusion which they ought to have suggested. A striking example is found if we compare the accounts given by St Matthew and St Mark of the impression made by the miracle of our Lord's walking on the water. St Matthew says, xiv. 33, And they that were in the boat worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God; St Mark says, vi. 51, And they were sore amazed in themselves ; for they understood not concerning the loaves, but their heart was hardened. This characteristic of St Mark will have to be considered when we come to decide whether the Evangelist had any share in the Appendix, which betrays in three successive verses, xvi. ir, 13, 14, the writer's astonishment at the unbelief of those who were told of our Lord's resurrection. THE DEMAND OF A SIGN FROM HEAVEN Mark viii. 11,12. Ka! ilfi\9ov ol $apt- Ti) ypau- ixwriwv Kal airoKravBrjvai Kal juera rpeis iip.(pas dvaffrijt'ai' Mark viii. 32, 33. Kal irappr/ffla rbv \6yov i\a\et. Kal ir/>o «™i] toS . eiayyeUov aiiaei airi/v. rl yap - iros idv top k6ltuov S\ov Kep8-/jay rty 8k tyvxty airov fr/uudy ; fl rl 8 tyvxty airov awaai, &iro\£aei avri/v' 8s 8' Hv d.Tro\tv ft£ios- zeal i tpiS&v vlbr ij Ovyaripa ivlp i/ii ovk ianv pov 4£ios - koX 8s oi \anfjavu rbv aravpbv abrov Kal itcoXovBei iirlca /mv, oi/K iarw /iov <5|ios. 6 eupiiv rty ^uxV "■irrov iiro- "kfaa ainipi, Kal & aw6\£o-as rty TJ/vxftv airrov Ivacev i/nov ciptfaei airriiv. I conclude that this passage must have corresponded to something in Q, but in the present passage it seems to me that St Matthew is copying Mark, though with some abridgment, as he takes no notice that the words in this little section were addressed to a different audience from those preceding. St Luke, on the other hand, shows some acquaintance with Mark, for he tells (ix. 23) that this discourse of our Lord was delivered 7rpoy Trdvras ; and in xiv. 25-27, where he records the same lessons, he tells that it was delivered to many crowds collected together. Sweiropeiiocro 3i avrip Sx^<" irdKKol, Kal cls elirev wpbs a&rofc, W tis tpxerai irp6s fie icoi oi purel rbv irar^pa eavrou koX rijv fitp-4pa Kal rfyv ywaiKa Kal ra reia/a koX rois d5c\\ tSutriv rbv Savirov fas &v tSairiv tjJk ffav&rov las hv ISaaiv ■rijv vlbv rod ivBpairov if%i- fiavCKelav tov Seov. {laaChelav tov 8eov eTaj\v- fievov tv rtf j3a(ri\elq, ai- SvTav (v Svv&fiei. rou. The first verse of Mark ix. being separated from what precedes by a kcu eXeyev, we are not obliged to regard it as part of the same discourse. That it appears so both in Matthew and Luke might be explained by their both having followed Mark. My own opinion is that though we are not bound to consider the present verse as part of the discourse in Csesarea Philippi, yet that no great length of time could have separated the two utterances. In all three Gospels this story is immediately followed by that of the Transfiguration ; and though this does not bind us in our interpretation of the verse we are considering, yet it does not seem accidental that the story of the Transfiguration should be prefaced by this section. I do not count it a difficulty, that the length of the interval between these two sections is given by St Matthew and St Mark as six days, and by St Luke as eight ; for I count this difference as rather a confirma- tion of the truth of the history. The epoch of the Transfiguration is defined by reference to a previous discourse of our Lord's ; and that discourse in which He accepted the title of Messiah might well have been considered by His disciples as marking an epoch from which other events might be reckoned. The difference of computation between the eight days and the six is easily reconcilable by the supposition that in the one case the interval was computed from that epoch- making discourse, and in the other from the utterance 361 362 INTRODUCTION TO TRANSFIGURATION two days later, when He announced that some of those present should live to witness the coming of His Kingdom with power. I think that we must regard St Mark as intimating that the Transfiguration exhibited a foretaste of the glories of the kingdom which was afterwards to be revealed. St Luke's account will also admit of this explanation, but St Matthew's will not. It is not satisfied by any partial or spiritual manifestation of the Kingdom of God, or by anything short of the appear- ing of the Son of God in visible possession of His Kingdom. This difference between Matthew and Mark being fundamental, that is to say, one which could not have been introduced and cannot be removed by transla- tion, is fatal to any theory of inspiration that obliges us to maintain that the sacred writers have in all cases given us the ipsissima verba spoken by our Lord. We must then enquire which version of the two represents the words which He actually spoke ; and the solution does not seem to me to be easy. For we are asked to separate two things which our Lord's first hearers did not distinguish. There can be no doubt that He taught them to expect that He should come again with His holy angels in the clouds of heaven, as Daniel had prophesied ; and it was only by such a sudden appearance as this that they thought of His Kingdom as to be established, nor had it entered into their minds that it could come in any form by slow and progressive evolution. Conse- quently if our Lord had said, as St Mark reports Him, that some of those present should live to see His Kingdom come with power, one who reported the saying would not feel that he was making any change in it if he gave it the form which we read in Matthew. On the other hand, it might be suggested that if our Lord had spoken of His personal appearance as likely to be manifested very speedily, it is conceivable that when in time His followers began to despair of the literal fulfilment of His prediction, it came to be modified into a more ambiguous form. But it seems to me that THE TRANSFIGURATION 363 such a change could not take place within the limits of time at our disposal. The time of our Lord's coming was not revealed. It was possible, and His first disciples may well have thought it probable, that its manifestation would not be delayed beyond their own lifetime. This was clearly St Paul's state of mind when he wrote 1 Thess. iv. We must go down some time considerably later than this before Christians would have so given up hope of such a manifestation as St Paul expected that they would be under a temptation to alter traditional words in order to make them tolerant of the spiritual interpretation which they now felt themselves con- strained to give them. And I do not think we can reasonably bring down the composition of St Mark's Gospel so late as this. THE TRANSFIGURATION Mark ix. 2a. Matt. xvii. 1. Luke ix. 28. Kal fieri iipipas ££ Kal fieB' ■que'pas tl- to.- 'Eytvero de /teri rois irapaKa/iB&va 6 'IijiroCs paKa/ifSivei 6 'BjffoOs rbv \6yovs Toirrovs iiael ijnt- rbv TUrpov Kal rbv 'Ukio- lierpov Kal 'UkuBov Kal pai dicri) irapahajitliv Bov Kal lai.vr)v, Kal dra- 'lu&viiv rbv a8e\$bp ai- Jiirpov xal 'luavipi Kal ipipei ain-ois ek 6pos it//ri-. raft, Kal avaipipa airrois 'UkuBov aviBr) els rb Upos \bv /car' ISlav /i.6ih>vs. els Spos iipijKbi> Ka^ IStav. irptxFti%aa6ai. With respect to the accounts of St Matthew and St Mark, it is impossible to doubt that either one is copying the other, or that both are drawing from a common source. St Luke may have used the same authorities, but, according to his custom, employed them with much greater freedom, and the more so in this case because he appears certainly to have used an independent authority, as I have already inferred from the discrepancy between his account and St Mark's of the interval between the Transfiguration and the previous conversation. There is also a minor point in which Luke differs from Mark and Matthew, viz., that while these two 364 THE TRANSFIGURATION speak of James and John, Luke speaks of John and James. It is very intelligible that in the early days of the Church James the elder brother took the lead, and John was chiefly known as the brother of James. In fact when it was found that our Lord's death did not put an end to the society which He had founded, and when His enemies had succeeded in obtaining Herod's alliance in enmity against the infant Church, it seems to have been James the brother of John who was recognised by them as the head to be struck at. Peter would seem to have then held the second place, for after the death of James he was next aimed at. But when St Luke wrote, James had been dead for some time, and John was now prominent among the Apostles, so that to the men of that generation James was best described as having been the brother of John. Perhaps it is not refining too much to find a mark of earlier date in Mark's tov Herpov kcu tov 'Idtcwfiov /cat , \w6vjjv, where James and John are coupled under a single article, while in Matthew the mutual relation between these apostles is not recognised in the same way, and the two brothers appear as jointly dependent on Peter. In another point St Luke's authority must give way to that of St Mark and St Matthew who agree in describing our Lord as having taken His Apostles up a high mountain. Luke speaks of Him having led them to the mountain. This form of expression is rightly used by the earlier Evangelists when the scene is laid at Capernaum, when a definite mountain is referred to. But St Mark and St Matthew had laid the scene of the discourse immediately preceding in the neighbourhood of Caesarea Philippi, and give no hint of a return to Capernaum. SOURCES OF THE STORY 365 Mark ix. 2b, 3. Kal /j.ere/iop(p(xi97i t/i- irpoadtv air&v, Kal ra IfiAna airrov iyivero irrCK- Povto, \evxd Max ota yva- tjieiis iwl Tijs 717s oil Siva- rai offrws XevKavai. Matt. xvii. 2. Ka2 fiere/j.opofieia8e. iva- pavres Si robs dip6a\pbovs airruv oil- Siva eXSov el vM airrbv 'lyaovv pbvov. The close relation between St Matthew's account and St Mark's is manifest; but it is to be noted that St Mark speaks of a voice from the cloud, without having previously told of any cloud. It seems to me that this is best explained by the supposition that St Mark is copying, not Matthew, but the authority whence Mark ix. 4-8. Kal &9rj airrois 'HXefas abv Maivtrei, xal %aav avv\a\ovvres r$ 'lijaov. Kal airoKpWels b JUrpos \i- ya rip '\r\aov, 'Pa|3(3e{, xa\6v ianv tyuas cSSe etvai, Kal troi^aa/iev rpeXs axrpi&s, aol lilav Kal MavaeX pJav Kal 'HXeia //.lav. oil yap jjSei rl airo- xpiBv, &c0o/3ot yap iyivovro. Kal iyivero ve-36a. Koi ISoi avSpes Sio avve\d\ovv airif, otrives Ijaav Mwwrijs tad 'H\elas, ol iQBivres iv S6S-r) tKeyav rty ££o- Sov airov fy ij/ieWev tfKripovv iv 'lepovaaMj/n. o Si lUrpos koJ o! aim airif Jjaav jHefiapiipivoi tirvip' Siaypri- yoptfaaVTes 5t- elSav ri)v 86£av airov xal rous duo dvSpas Toi/s avvearuras a-iirw, koX iyivero iv rip dtaxupi^eadai airoiis iv' airov elirev 6 Hirpos wpbs rbv 'lyaovv, 'Etut- rdra, Ka\6v iarai Tjfms SiSe etvai, koX rorfaafiev aKipias rpets, lilav aot nal pXav Mavael ical yXav 'HXeia, firj eidws 6 \iyei. ravra Si aired \iyovros iyivero ve. nai i) iyivero en rfls vefeXr/s \iyovaa, Offrfo iariv 6 vlds fiov 6 iK\e\eyp^vos, airov aKoiere. Kal iv rip yeveaBat rijv Se eivai. — k? ; and certainly if this had not been the original reading it is not easy to see why it should have been introduced ; while it is quite conceivable that the converse change should be made in order to bring St Luke's account into fuller agreement with that of the other Evangelists. THE DESCENT FROM THE MOUNT Mark ix. 9-13. Matt. xvii. 9-13. Luke ix. 36*, 37a. When the disciples spoke to our Lord of what they had seen, He at once silenced them and commanded them to tell no man until after He had risen from the dead. St Luke mentions that they thus kept silence, but does not tell that it was in obedience to their Master's command. We may conclude that it was not until after our Lord's death that the story of the Transfiguration became known to any but the three who had witnessed it. It is quite natural that just at this moment the disciples should quote the doctrine of the Pharisees that Elijah must come before the appearance of the Messiah. It was but a short time before that they had received their Master's sanction for thinking of Him as the promised Messiah ; and they had no doubt made known to the Scribes and Pharisees this belief of theirs. And then they were encountered by the objection that they must be mistaken in supposing that Christ had already come, seeing that there had as yet been no sign of the Elijah who was to precede Him. In other words, my view is that it was not so much that the disciples had known this as a common article of Pharisaic belief, as that their attention had been drawn to it through its being urged against them as a disproof of the dignity which they had ascribed to their Master. It ought to have been a sufficient o 68 HEALING THE EPILEPTIC DEMONIAC answer to the Pharisees that the same prophecy which told of Elijah also predicted that the Israelites were to be again ruled by David their king. It is not more forced an interpretation to understand the one prophecy as meaning one in the spirit and with the power of Elijah, than to understand the other as a descendant of David with like power and authority. It is remarkable that St Luke, who is here copying Mark, omits altogether the question about Elijah ; and the explanation is that he wrote for a different circle of readers from those for whom the other two Gospels were intended. The Gentile Christians had no special interest in the Baptist, of whose name they had never heard until it became known to them from the prominence it bore in the biography of Jesus. Nor were they so familiar with the Old Testament prophets as to be much troubled by the difficulty raised by the Pharisees that the coming of Elijah must precede the coming of the Messiah. So St Luke could omit the discussion of a difficulty which his readers did not feel, and for the solution of which they would not care ; and could thus make room for other things more suited to their wants. THE HEALING OF THE EPILEPTIC DEMONIAC Mark ix. 14-19. Matt. xvii. 14-17. Luke ix. 374-41. There is no part of St Mark's Gospel in which we can more clearly trace indebtedness to St Peter than in all this section about the Transfiguration. Our Lord had enjoined on the witnesses of the scene to tell no man until after His resurrection, so it was not from Him that the Church derived its knowledge of it ; and of the three witnesses to it, if we naturally think of Peter, our suspicion is confirmed by the account of the words spoken on the occasion by Peter, the exact DIFFERENT SOURCES FOR THE STORY 369 meaning of which he himself could not explain. Then we have an account of the conversation between our Lord and the disciples as they were descending ; and now we have a story told altogether from the point of view of the returning disciples. They catch sight of a crowd thronging about the nine disciples who had remained behind, and the scribes questioning with them. Then when the crowd catches sight of our Lord they run to meet Him ; and then when our Lord enquires the subject of the discussion, one of the multitude tells of his family affliction and how he had sought help from the disciples in vain. Though St Matthew has a good deal in common with Mark, there is evidence of his use of a different authority, sufficient to convince us that this story had been told in Q. Indeed, the account of this miracle is closely connected by all our authorities with the story of the Transfiguration, which could scarcely have been absent from Q. Among the differences between Matthew and Mark we must notice that while St Mark represents the man as speaking in answer to a question from our Lord, both Matthew and Luke would lead us to think of him as rushing up, without any encourage- ment, to make his appeal. But the most important difference is that while St Mark ascribes the boy's sufferings to demoniacal possession, St Matthew says nothing about a demoniac, but describes the boy as an epileptic ; and the point chiefly demanding attention here is that St Matthew in his description makes no mention of demoniacal possession, an omission which could scarcely have taken place if he had learnt his story from Mark. It may be noted that there is the ordinary sign of the use of Q, viz., the agreement of Matthew and Luke against Mark. To Mark's & yevea oVio-ros the other two Evangelists agree in adding kcu Sietrrpannivri. They also agree in having &§e instead of irpos t*e, in the direction to the father to bring his son. That St Luke was also acquainted with Q, must, I think, 2 A 370 HEALING THE EPILEPTIC DEMONIAC rest principally on the use of this Siecrrpaiu.fji.evri. I lay little stress on the koi ISov which Weiss regards as an infallible mark of Aramaic origin (see supra, P- 335)- There being reason to believe that St Mark gives us the testimony of an eye-witness, we are not surprised that he gives us in fuller detail than the others our Lord's conversation with the man who sought His assistance. Mark ix. 20-24. St Matthew appears to have utilised this passage of Mark, but has put this falling into fire and into water into the previous description. Mark ix. 25. Demoniac possession manifested itself in two ways. In the one case the symptoms were such as show themselves in what we call lunacy : loud, unreasonable speech, uncontrollable gestures, violent actions. In the other case, such as we class under the head of epilepsy : convulsive fits in which the patient neither speaks nor seems capable of understanding any address made to him. Thus we understand why this demon is addressed as tc aXaXov kcu kwiv irvev/jLa. It was evidently easy, in comparison, to treat cases such as the disciples had already found themselves competent to deal with, where the patients, however rude or even blasphemous in their language, and however violent in their actions, yet showed so much rationality as to be capable of being addressed, and of recognising an authority superior to themselves, so that when addressed in a voice of mild command they yielded and obeyed. But dealing with these epileptics was like a struggle with the blind forces of nature. This man, whose intellect was probably little developed, when in one of his fits was not capable of conversation, and in the intervals between them neither acknowledged Jesus as the Son of David, nor repelled Him by contumelious reception. No voice that he uttered ST MATTHEW'S NARRATIVE 371 could be taken as the language of the demon. And he was as deaf as he was dumb. Exorcism and adjuration were spent on him in vain. Mark ix. 26, 27. Matt. xvii. 18. Luke ix. 42, 43a. Kal Kp&i-as Kal iroKKa Kal £irerl/j.ri(rev atrip i Eri Si irpoffepxoiUvov o-irapij-as i^ijKSev Kal 'Itjcrovt, Kal QrjKBev av' airov (ppr/^ey airrov rb iyivero Corel vexpbs tixrre airov rb 6aip6i>iov xal Sai/tSviov xal avvearra- rois voWoiis \4yeiv Sri iBepaweiBt] 6 ttois airb pa(ev iirerliaiaev d£ i airiBavev. 6 d£ 'IijiroBs tt\s &pas iKetpris. 'IijiroOs rip irveiiuvn rip Kpar-fjaas ttjs xetjois airov aKodiprtp, xal lacaro rbv ■ijytipev avroy, Kal avisri). rraiia Kal airiSuKev airrbv r

t k6kkov aaimm, ipetre rip tpei roirip, McrdjSa tvBev ixel, Kal /leTafSfaerat, Kal oiSiv a&v- vari/trei i/iiv. [rouro Se rb yhm ouk iKTopeierai, el M iv vpmrevxi Kal vricrTela.] This question and its answer are absent from Luke ; and it is plain also that they were derived by St Matthew from Mark. In fact St Matthew closes his history of the miracle with the words eQepairevQti 6 Trais airo rfjs upas eicelvw, and immediately before, the complaint of the applicant to our Lord is I brought him to thy disciples, and they could not avrcv Qepairevtrai. We should therefore expect the question of the disciples to have been, Why could not we Oepcnrevcrai? but although St Matthew had not until verse 18 made any mention of a demon, the question now is, Why could not we cast it out? It seems to me that the evidence here is irresistible of St Matthew's use of a double source, namely, the authority which I call Q, in which there was no mention of demoniac possession, and St Mark's Gospel, which ascribes the whole illness to the work of a demon. In my opinion there is evidence of conflation in St Matthew's version of our Lord's answer when asked to explain the ill success of His disciples, who had been given by Him authority to cast out demons and had been taught by His example how to do so. I take it that St Matthew has reported to us the answer given by Q, namely, that it was because of their weakness of belief that they could not cure the disease, though 372 PRAYER AND FASTING 373 I am bound to acknowledge the possibility that the Evangelists might have fitted into this place an answer which we know our Lord to have given on other occasions, see Matt. xxi. 21 ; Luke xvii. 6. Mark ix. 29 has great difficulties, both of criticism and of exegesis, which cannot be separated from each other ; and both are so closely connected with the subject of this essay, namely, the investigation of the sources used by the Evangelists, that I cannot turn aside from the discussion of them. A very brief statement will suffice as to the critical questions at issue. First as to the reading of Mark. Our Lord's answer is given by the overpowering majority of the MSS. in the words, This kind can come out by nothing, save by prayer and fasting ; but the words and fasting are omitted by two Greek MSS. and also by one Latin one of high authority. So feebly supported dissent might be easily set aside if it were not that the two Greek MSS. referred to are the oldest that we have, viz., the Vatican and the Sinaitic. Still we cannot permit any authority so to tyrannise over us as to compel us to accept any reading which, when we try to interpret it, will not yield some tolerable sense. But before we proceed to internal evidence we have to ask, What light is thrown on the question at issue by Matthew, this verse being found in the majority of the copies of the First as well as of the Second Gospel? And to this question we get an answer with unexpected unanimity. Every MS. of Matthew which contains this verse at all includes the words ko.1 vrtarela. It cannot plausibly be maintained that the insertion of ko.1 vr/orela was made from Matthew into Mark, because those witnesses which do not acknowledge the words as genuine do not admit this verse into Matthew at all. It remains then that these words came into Matthew from Mark. But why should we suppose that they were inserted only by the transcribers of the First Gospel ? for now that we have learnt what use the Evangelist himself made of Mark there is nothing to forbid us to believe that this 374 CAUSE OF DISCIPLES' ILL SUCCESS Evangelist already found the words in his copy of the Second Gospel ; and if so the date of their insertion must have been very early. But the strongest reason for adhering to the Received Text here is that the omission of the words kcu v^retoi leads to most unnatural exegesis. Of those critics who reject the words kcu vqareitf, the majority suppose that by this kind, in our Lord's answer, He is making a distinction between the casting out of demons and the treatment of ordinary diseases ; certain conditions being demanded in the former case which are not needed for other cures. But in the whole story there is no mention of any kind of disease but the one ; and both the disciples question Why could not we cast it out? and our Lord's answer, This kind goeth not forth or is not cast out, clearly refers only to the expulsion of a demon. It is violent forcing to interpret the words this kind in any other way than this kind of demon, a sense which precisely fits the context. For the symptoms in this case were totally different from what was mani- fested in ordinary cases of demoniac possession, namely, inarticulate convulsive struggles such as show them- selves in cases of what we now call epilepsy. The demon which excited them was SXa\ov teat Kwv fieT e/xov narr e/tov etrriv. It is not without reason that the remark has been made that there is a difference between against us and against me. John's complaint was, He followed not us ; that is to say, He is not one of our society, or, as St Luke puts it, He followeth not with us ; that is to say, He is not a follower of Thee, as we are. But though neutrality may suffice for the success of the cause, it does not suffice for determining whether the man himself is, or is not, to be counted as ranging himself on the side of our Lord's enemies. In the days of persecution, the services of a compassionate heathen might receive such recompense as Christ promised to those who give a cup of cold water to one of His disciples ; but yet these services would not suffice to make the donor a Christian, though in some cases they have led to that result. THE REWARD OF IMPERFECT FAITH Mark ix. 41. Matt. x. 42. Os 7&/> ftc irorltrv tytas Torfyiov Kol 8s &v wort 6/ur,- at Tbv luaQbv airoO. M iirciMtrg rbv purSbv avrou. This verse which I have just quoted has, undoubtedly, a certain connexion with what St Mark has recorded immediately before ; namely, with the maxim enunciated by our Lord, He that is not against us is for us ; for He might naturally go on to speak of the acknowledgment He was willing to give for even slight services to His cause. Yet I believe that the real connexion is with what our Lord had been saying before John's inter- 382 THE REWARD OF IMPERFECT FAITH ruption. In fact, if the whole of the little section which relates the unauthorised exorcism were cut out, our Lord's discourse would read quite coherently. The impression on my mind is that this whole discourse had been contained in Q ; and that St Mark, when he made use of it, inserted from independent information the little anecdote of our Lord's answer to His disciple John, an answer quite in harmony with this discourse. The passage in Matthew which I have set by the side of Mark ix. 41, as its closest parallel, is found in a different section of Matthew itself; that section being, no doubt, also derived from Q. It is the section in which is recorded the instruction given by our Lord to the Twelve when He was sending them out. It is in a later chapter of Matthew (xviii.) that he uses this section of Mark ; but he there omits the verse corresponding to Mark ix. 41, which he had used already. Yet the phrase these little ones common to Matt. x. 42 and xviii. 6, 10, gives us reason to think that both verses belong to the same discourse which had been recorded in Q, and of which we have a fuller account in Matthew than that with which St Mark has contented himself. But the verse in Mark (ix. 41) presents a difficulty, at least if we adopt the reading attested by the authorities which in other cases I regard as best entitled to con- fidence. The rival readings are — Textus Receptus, ev ™ 6v6/j.a.Ti /j.ov, oti Xjojcttou eerre. Westcott and Hort, ev ovofxaTi oti X/o«ttou «rre. Matt. x. 42, «y ovofia /xaOijTov. Here the first reading is condemned not only by the absence of ru> and of fiov from the oldest copies, but also by the fact that it is too clear to give occasion for the use of any rival reading ; whereas ev ovo/j-an certainly seems to require some supplement to make it intelligible, though we can easily conceive that the author himself did not think it necessary to repeat at full length the em tw ovofiarl fiov, which he had used in his account of our Lord's discourse immediately before John's interruption. CHRIST: NAME AND TITLE 383 But the chief difficulty is in the phrase Sri ILpio-Tov ea-re, the genuineness of which is not disputed, but which varies in its wording from St Mark's ordinary practice. To ourselves the name Christ has become as much a proper name as Jesus, so that few modern readers notice the anomaly on which I am now obliged to comment. The context seems to require the sense to be that our Lord is willing to acknowledge and requite the very smallest service, even though no more than giving a cup of cold water, if done for His sake. There would have been no difficulty if the Evangelist had written, If any give you to drink a cup of cold water because you belong to me ; but when he says, because you belong to Christ, he seems to make our Lord demand an acknowledgment of His Messiahship, for which at the time the Apostles themselves were scarcely ripe. Thus the idea suggests itself that the introduction here of the name Christ is an anachronism, and that the Evangelist is expressing himself in his own language, and not repeating the words actually used by Jesus. The use of the word Christ as a proper name came in so very early that there would be nothing surprising in St Mark's form of expression if it were not that this Evangelist has ordinarily taken special pains to speak with strict propriety of language. It was at a com- paratively early stage of the Church's progress that a prophet taught the Church of Antioch the name Christian, which assumes the habitual use of the name Christ. Such a use inevitably followed the formation of Gentile churches. The new converts would naturally call the Founder of the religion they were joining by the name which the earlier disciples had used. But untouched as they were by the associa- tions which in Jewish minds were connected with the title Messiah, or its Greek equivalent, Christ, they would be satisfied to know that this was the name by which their Master was to be called, and would not trouble themselves much about its derivation. In fact, being pronounced Chrestiani, it was generally supposed in 384 OFFENCES Gentile circles to have some affinity with the adjective XpriarTo?. It may be believed that St Mark habitually used the same language as St Paul ; and so it is conceivable that though on the grounds of literary pro- priety he was postponing the introduction of the title Christ, he might, when not on his guard to prevent it, drop back into the use of Christ as a proper name, since it conveyed exactly the same idea to most of his readers whether he wrote, because ye belong to Christy or because ye belong to me. However, on consideration, and remembering that St Mark had related only a little before that our Lord had authorised His disciples to regard Him as the Christ, I believe that he has made no slip, and that he here uses the name Christ in its highest official sense. This conclusion is confirmed by the parallel discourse in Matt. x. Although our Lord was willing to reward the smallest service done Him, He evidently has not in view such services as men give to their equals in the ordinary intercourse of life, but services rendered in acknowledgment of His own divine character. Matthew (x. 41) has reported His saying that, He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward ; and St Mark here supplies the climax, that those who receive the followers of Christ shall be regarded as having received Himself, and shall receive the appropriate reward. Mark ix. 42. Kal is hv o-KavdaKtffy eva. ruv fiLKpwv to&twv T&V TTUTTevdvTUV, koK6v ianv airtpiiaWov elwepl- Ktrrcu /iiSXoi imxis wepl t4x Tp&x l fl MV ".irov ko.1 ^/3\jjtoi els 7%v 0d\ctcr- OFFENCES Matt, xviii. 6. Os 6' tLv ffKavSaKtay cva. tuv /iiKpiav Tofrruiv ruv irurrevivTW els ipJ, aoiujjipei aim? ha Kpe- fiMrOij /ii\os oimcbs wepl rbv rp&xrjKov airov nal KaTatrovTiffBrj iv tQ wcXd- yei rijs 0aM», . M « 4 x* «• # * «* < rm . «"' veioas ftorra d7reX0«.< els rV 7^- * "W^/ -c-XXto « x"**. \*<"> yj eh rb Tvp rb to-p«rrov. «4 Or *«,»« fl «Ko t«m «X«^a /SXy^at i vote cov akviMto ce, iwiKofo, eh rb wvp rb atunor. Kal el 6 if airriv ko\6v iarlv ae eUreSBeiv el, tob/iis ffov eh rr)r fiaai.- \elar rov Bern fj Mo itpBaKfUtin txovra p\n87jvat. eh yievvav, tvov b BKdiKrik airruv otf reKevrq. koI rb wvp oi ajUrwrat' In this it is impossible to doubt that St Matthew has copied Mark. He has abridged Mark by compressing into one verse what in Mark had occupied two, but preserving several of Mark's words such as kvWov, \(jo\6v, ft.ov6 airois ixet We have here the beginning of the account of what proved to be our Lord's final departure from Galilee. It would seem that for some time previously His enemies had been so threatening that He shrank from 3 go THE QUESTION OF DIVORCE publicity; for He Himself had said that it could not be that a prophet should perish out of Jerusalem. And certainly it seems to us that, in the natural course of events, His death could not have produced the same results if He had allowed Himself to be cut off in an obscure corner. 1 We here part company with St Luke who has obtained from other sources a fuller account of our Lord's journey to Jerusalem. It commences with Luke xvii. ii. THE QUESTION OF DIVORCE Mark x. 2. Matt. xix. 3. Kal [irpcurc\S6vTes $api 7W01TO airou Kara iratrav aMav ; The dependence of St Matthew on Mark in this passage is unmistakable. We have common the words Trpotrekdovres, 'feapicraioi, ireipa^ovres avrov and there is some unskilful copying, as when eirrtpwrwv el egea-nv is altered into \eyovres ei e^ea-nv, and where ttjv yvvaaca avrov is used without the antecedent avSpi for avrou which might have been found in Mark. But the most important difference is that whereas according to St Mark, the Pharisees' question is whether it is lawful for a man to put away his wife, St Matthew adds for every cause. If the question had been as St Matthew reports it, the words Tretpdgovres avrov can hardly be translated tempting him ; and must rather be rendered proving him ; for it could scarcely be made a ground of accusation against Jesus that He held a view of 1 I confess that, on consideration, I am disposed to favour the idea that what St Mark here describes is not the first stage of an intended journey to Jerusalem, but a change, for the time, of our Lord's headquarters from Capernaum to a place beyond Jordan, which I take to be Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. THE CHURCH'S INTERPRETATION 391 the indissolubility of marriage no more rigid than teachers of recognised repute had held before Him. It is impossible to settle the question of this difference in the form of making the enquiry without taking into account the subsequent difference made by the insertion of the words //.)] eir). iropveiq. in Matt. xix. 9, and the corresponding addition of irapeKrb's \6yov iropvelas in Matt. v. 32. There is no reasonable doubt that if these words form part of our Lord's precept, then the prohibition against putting away a wife except on account of fornication gives a tacit permission to put away a wife if there had been fornication. This is a good illustration of the maxim Exceptio probat regulam. Omitting the words irapeKTOs Xoyov Tropveias in Matt. v. 32, it appears to forbid absolutely the putting away a wife no matter how unfaithful ; and this, in confessed opposition to the ordinance of Moses. It is because the object of those who put the question to our Lord was to elicit from Him teaching opposed to that of Moses that we can understand in its strictest sense the words applied to them, tempting him. They did not ask for information, but in order to draw from Him utterances on which they could found an accusa- tion, or at least excite a prejudice against Him. I incline to the belief that we ought to accept St Mark's account here as the most literal report of what our Lord said, viz., that He uttered His precept against dissolution of marriage in the most general terms, and without allowance for possible exceptions, that conse- quently the Pharisees had not asked, May a man put away his wife for any reason he likes? but, Is it lawful for a man ever to put away his wife? and I believe that St Matthew's addition was made in order to bring the precept into conformity with the usage of the Church at the time his Gospel was written (see pp. 130, 131). 392 THE QUESTION OF DIVORCE Mark x. 3-9. '0 Si aTOKpiBels drev airrois, Ti i/mi ivereCkaTO Mwiktijs ; ol Si eTwav, 'E7reY/>e^e>> Muwqt ftifSklmf airoara- criov ■ypafiat Kal diroXOircu. 6 Si 'Iijo-oBs eTirev airoU, Ilpbs rty CKkri- poxapBlav dft&v typaij/tv 6/iiv tty ivToKifV Taiir-qv' diri B * apxvs '""'■ trews dpo-ex Kal 8rj\v iirohjaev [airrois\ ivtKev Toinov KaraKetyei &v$piinros rbv varipa afrroQ Kal rJp' ia[rtpa, Kal (aovrai ol Stio els trapxa /dav &rre oixiri clalv Stio dXXd file, o0v to denote, not official rank, but social position. The man is described as one of great wealth, and no doubt enjoyed high consideration among his countrymen. It is St Matthew alone who describes this man as young, for he uses with respect to him the word veaptaricos, which he did not find in Mark, and probably got from some other source of information. There is no real contradiction between the use of this word and the saying of the man, All these things have I observed eK veoTtjroi //.ov. These words are attested both by Mark and Luke ; and we may infer were found in the Aramaic Gospel. They are also found in St Matthew in early Latin versions and in other ancient authorities, but they are absent from those MSS. which have preserved for us what may be regarded as the oldest text The word veavla-KOt might be used of one in early middle life ; and such a man could without impropriety refer to the days of his youth. Yet there is an apparent inconsistency, which might be felt by transcribers, and cause them to omit the words « 398 THE RICH YOUNG MAN veorrrros nov. And I do not reject the solution that this inconsistency might have been felt by the trans- lator of the Aramaic Gospel into Greek ; in which case we must believe that the presence of the words in the majority of MSS. arose from an assimilation of the one Gospel to the other two. I must own that it is in this part of Matthew that I find most to justify the hypothesis that a translation of the Aramaic Gospel earlier than St Mark's had gained some currency — an opinion which we have scarcely evidence enough to warrant our adopting, but which we cannot summarily set aside as inadmissible. I find, however, so many coincidences with Mark as to lead me to think that St Matthew, in using a common source, availed himself of his knowledge of the form in which St Mark had previously presented the same story. We come now to the most striking difference between St Mark's version of a Gospel saying and that of St Matthew, at least as his text is given by the oldest witnesses. Did the rich man say AtSaa-KaXe or AiiSdovcaXe aya6e? the importance of the difference being that the latter form harmonises with our Lord's question, Why callest thou me good? the other form places the word good in the latter part of the question, viz., What good thing shall 1 do ? our Lord's reply then being, Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? There are two questions to which we are not warranted in assuming that the same answer must be given, viz., What words on any particular occasion our Lord is most likely to have spoken? and, What words this or that Evangelist is most likely to have recorded ? In judging of the relative antiquity of two versions of a saying of our Lord, we may reasonably pronounce that to be the earlier which seems less likely to have been altered into the other ; and, on these grounds, we may in this instance give preference to the form in which St Mark records our Lord's words over that which they have in the text accepted as Matthew's "WHY CALLEST THOU ME GOOD?" 399 by critical editors. Every commentator has found it a difficulty that our Lord should seem to decline the title good when addressed to Him. I need not discuss the well-known explanation that our Lord's question Why callest thou me good? is not to be understood as meaning You ought not to call me good, but only as On what grounds do you ascribe goodness to me ? I think it will not be disputed that to His followers generally that version of His words would be most agreeable which did not need explanation to reconcile it with their conviction that He was, in the highest sense of the word, good. But even though we decide to accept St Mark's report as giving the most accurate representation of the words spoken by our Lord, it by no means follows that the correct text of Matthew must agree with Mark. In fact we have the testimony of Origen (Comm. in Matt., torn. xv. 10) that in his time it did not ; and in addition, we must take into account the fact that the earliest Latin translations afford proof that this form of Matthew's text was not confined to Alexandria. We need not enquire whether this was because the manu- scripts from which the translation was made had been derived from that centre of learned Christianity, or because MSS. of the same type had reached the West independently. I have already indicated my opinion that St Matthew's Gospel is a later authority than St Mark's ; so that we need not wonder if some things in which a difficulty might be felt have been smoothed away. I attribute this smoothing to the editor of St Matthew's Gospel himself, and not to his transcribers. In the latter case, why should we not find the same variation of reading in the Gospels of St Mark and St Luke? If an orthodox editor or transcriber had introduced a change into his text of Matthew in order to make it, as he supposed, more consistent with the honour due to our Lord, he would have been likely to make the same change in the parallel passages in the other two Gospels. 400 THE RICH YOUNG MAN Now any one who recognises the authority of the Evangelists must believe, on the unquestioned testimony of St Mark, that our Lord on this occasion uttered the words, Why callest thou me good? none is good save one, even God. If we ask why the Antioch critics did not remove a "seeming contradiction" in their Gospels by altering the words in Mark, we need not hesitate to reply, It was because these words had been so estab- lished in the unbroken tradition of their Church, that it was hopeless to attempt to change them. We can have no better witness to the tradition of the Church of Antioch than St Luke. Whether he merely copied Mark, or is to be regarded as an independent witness to our Lord's words, in either case he gives us reason to believe that the Gospel as read at Antioch recorded our Lord's answer in the form, Why callest thou me good? It had occurred to me as possible that Mark's im- perfect {ewripurra) might be understood to imply that the rich man had put his question more than once, and that thus there would be no contradiction between Evangelists who recorded different forms in which the question had been put. But I am now disposed rather to think that the imperfect tense indicates that the young man puts a question which he had asked before, and that now, learning our Lord's approaching departure, he runs up to ask it once more before our Lord goes away. For the rest of the story is, in each of its forms, too consistent with itself to allow us to believe that the diversity alleged to exist between two Evangelists had an accidental origin. If St Mark has truly stated that our Lord uttered the words Why callest thou me good? it necessarily follows that His questioner had called Him good; in other words, that the address SiSacrtcaKe aya9e is distinctly vouched by St Mark, and that a report which omits the epithet ay aOe cannot be accepted as faithful. Thus, then, it is not surprising if several of the authorities which support K B in giving our Lord's answer as Why askest thou me concerning goodness? do not venture to omit the epithet ayade. ST MARK'S VERSION SUPERIOR 401 With regard to the question, I must pronounce these authorities to have made a conflation between the only two admissible forms, viz., either Good Master, followed by Why callcst thou me good? or else What good thing shall I do? followed by Why askest thou me concerning goodness ? In respect of probability, St Mark's version has a manifest superiority. According to his account, a natural question receives a completely appropriate answer. The other version presents the difficulties — (1) that the form of question. What good thing shall I do ? instead of What shall I do? is not a natural one, and gives us the impression that the adjective good was thrust in, in order to make occasion for the answer about goodness ; (St Luke, who (x. 25) records the same question as put by a lawyer, reports it in the natural form, What shall I do to inherit eternal life ?) ; (2) that the answer is by no means relevant, seeing that the question asked was not concerning goodness in the abstract, but concerning the condi- tions of obtaining eternal life; and (3) that the state- ment that God only is good, which is quite appropriate when used to exclude the application of the title good to any other, does not by any means exclude the performance by another of at least one good deed. The conclusion at which I arrive is that if we want to know what our Lord said we must accept St Mark's account as the original report ; but that if the posteriority of Matthew is frankly acknowledged, we need not be surprised if we find in his Gospel a less accurate report. The account of this incident given in the Alex- andrian 1 form of Matthew is greatly lacking in inde- pendent confirmation. Justin Martyr twice refers to the incident (Apol. i., c. 16 ; Trypho, 101), and both times according to St Mark's form. The testimony of Irenaeus, as far as it can be counted on either side, is against the Alexandrian form. 1 For twenty I give this name to the text of St Matthew which has the earliest attestations, the witnesses being lor the most part Alexandrian. 2 C 4 02 THE RICH YOUNG MAN We have also to take into consideration that the same phenomenon presents itself in the Clementine Homilies (xviii. 3). The presumption always is that a Gospel quotation in the Clementine Homilies comes from St Matthew's Gospel, from which there are more than twice as many quotations as from Mark and Luke put together. In this case, however, there is no room for doubt. The Clementine version agrees in substance with Mark, but in form with Matthew. The question is not, What good thing shall I do? but What shall I do? Our Lord is reported as saying, Bo not call me good, for there is One good, the Father in Heaven, and then as going on to say, If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Thereupon the querist replies, Which? I willingly concede that the Clementine writer is quite capable of altering a Gospel citation in order to make it more suitable to his purpose ; but I cannot see that he had any motive for doing so in this case. No doubt we must admit the possibility that he might have mixed up in his memory the statements of two Gospels. Still the fact remains that we fail to find any confirmation of the Alexandrian form of Matthew, and that what we must regard as the most striking peculiarity of that form seems altogether to have escaped the notice, or the memory, of those who we have reason to think held St Matthew's Gospel in special honour. I consider then that there is no sufficient ground for asserting that the Antioch critics who refused to adopt the Alexandrian reading were actuated by mistaken critical principles, and not by unwillingness to alter the ancient tradition of their Church. There is, however, very early evidence for the form, What good thing shall I do? in a story purporting to be taken from the Gospel according to the Hebrews reported by a Latin translator of Origen in a passage the Greek of which is lost. Comm. in Matt., torn, xv. 14, vetus interpretatio, quoted Introd. N.T., p. 165. EDITORIAL BLUNDERS IN MATTHEW 403 But there is a question which cannot be evaded by a candid investigator: Is it not possible that the Alexandrian critics may have rightly preserved for us the true text as written by the author of our Greek First Gospel, only that that author was not St Matthew ? And I frankly confess that something of that kind is the conclusion at which I have arrived myself. What we now call St Matthew's Gospel contains a quantity of matter presenting such marks of antiquity and authenticity that I cannot reject the tradition that it came direct from an Apostle. In fact, I count St Matthew's report of our Lord's discourses as the most accurate. But, on the other hand, there are passages which, in my judgment, exhibit clear signs of dependence on St Mark's Gospel. It seems to me that the best way of reconciling these phenomena is to accept what is also an ancient tradition, viz., that St Matthew wrote his Gospel in Aramaic, and that what we now know as St Matthew's Gospel is a Greek Gospel of later date, but founded on the original Aramaic. But if we have St Matthew's work only in the form given it by an unknown editor, why preserve with painful accuracy blunders which we do not regard as part of the original? Why should we blame the Antioch critics if they occasionally removed a state- ment which they felt must be erroneous because contradicting something that had come to them on higher authority? They were not doing a work of literary curiosity, such as is done when the first edition of an old book is reprinted with all its misprints and errata. Their object was not literary, but theological and historical. They desired to have a truthful record of our Lord's earthly life, to be periodically read in their Church assemblies for the edification of their people. The assent we give to our Gospels mainly rests on the fact that all over the Christian world they were used for this purpose from the earliest 404 THE RICH YOUNG MAN times ; and it rests in a much lower degree on the credit due to their authors, of whom, apart from this work of theirs, we know extremely little. Believing then, as I do, that the first publication of the Gospel was oral, not literary, I count it to be as unreasonable to ask for the Apostolic autograph of St Matthew's Gospel as it would be to demand the original MS. of Shakespeare's plays, the first publica- tion of which was made, not by printed books, but by public recitation. Though I ascribe extremely high authority to the readings of .that ancient MS. which was a common ancestor of the Vatican and Sinaitic, yet I do not rate that authority higher than that possessed by the First Folio of Shakespeare, or the first editions of separate plays, the readings of which we do not scruple to reject, because we have no reason to believe that the press had been corrected by the poet himself. Applying now these general remarks to the criticism of the First Gospel, no reader of that Gospel can help feeling that we have in it a most precious and most authentic record of our Lord's teaching ; and if we had no other Gospel, we should scarcely have ventured on a task so precarious as to attempt to discriminate between the antiquity of its various parts. But we have two other Gospels showing in many places such close affinity with St Matthew's that we cannot help concluding that either these two made use of St Matthew's Gospel, or else that all three drew from a common source. The latter was the conclusion to which I found myself forced to give the preference. I provisionally called that source Q, not wishing to anticipate any conclusions to which more detailed study might lead me. Still, as there seemed to be indications that the source was Aramaic, I find it increasingly difficult to resist the conclusion that what I have called Q is no other than the Aramaic Matthew, to which tradition points as the earliest of the Gospel narratives. CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OF GOSPELS 405 The reasons for regarding the Aramaic Matthew as not the sole source of our Greek First Gospel are — (1) that there are some sections of the latter with which Mark and Luke show no signs of acquaintance, and with the statements in which they do not always even seem to agree ; (2) that in the places in which Matthew and Mark agree there is often more identity of language than a common Aramaic source will account for ; (3) that, when we examine more closely, we more frequently find reason to think that the editor of the Greek Gospel borrowed his language from Mark than vice versd ; (4) that duplicates occur in the narrative of our Greek Matthew which are best explained by the hypothesis that its editor used a double source. These results of criticism substantially agree with all that historical testimony enables us to assert ; and if they be accepted as correct, we may place the Gospel records in chronological order as follows : First must have come the lost Aramaic by St Matthew, which is the basis of all three Synoptics ; next would come Mark, whose Greek appears to have been used both by " Matthew " and St Luke. As between the last two, the Greek Matthew seems to show more signs of posteriority ; but, until I am shown more satisfactory proof of acquaint- ance by either with the work of the other, I must hold that the interval between their dates of composition was not so long as to allow time for the earlier of the two to pass from being the local form in which in a particular district the history of our Saviour's life was told, to become the property of the whole Church, and thus arrive at such general circulation as necessarily to become known at a distance from its place of composition. It does not come within the scope of this essay to treat of the Fourth Gospel ; but its Evangelist was clearly acquainted with St Luke's Gospel ; and I find no reason for being less confident about his knowledge of St Mark's. He could hardly have been ignorant of the Aramaic Matthew, since he shews acquaintance 4 o6 THE RICH YOUNG MAN with that language ; but as to his use of the Greek Matthew I have not yet been able to come to a positive conclusion. I find no chronological difficulty in believ- ing that he might have known it ; for both the Greek Matthew and St John's Gospel appear to me to have been products of the same age, which may be described either as late in the Apostolic age, or early in the sub-Apostolic. I suspend my judgment on the question whether some points of coincidence between these two documents, if more than casual, are best explained by assuming the Greek editor's acquaintance with the Fourth Gospel, or vice versa. 1 1 I add here a. few notes bearing on the question whether the Fourth Evangelist was acquainted with the Greek Matthew. I use the abbreviation G in referring to things related in our present Matthew, but which, as not having been utilised by St Mark, seem more likely to have been added by the Greek translator. I must not be accused of unwarranted assumption of the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel, if I find it convenient to refer to its author as J. i. According to G, John the Baptist had discerned the dignity of Jesus before he baptized Him, and was on that account unwilling to perform that ministration ; according to J, it was not until the Baptist saw the Holy Ghost descending on Jesus after His baptism that he knew by this appointed sign that Jesus was the destined successor who was to baptize with the Holy Ghost. Twice the Baptist (John i. 31, 33) is made to say / knew Him not. No doubt the contradiction may be only apparent. The Baptist may have felt that he had rightly discerned the dignity of this candidate for his baptism, but yet that he was not warranted to proclaim that this was He who was to baptize with the Holy Ghost, until the appointed sign had been given. But even though there is no real contradiction between G and J, the question arises whether the latter would not have avoided even the appearance of contradiction if he had known the work of the former. This argument would be more conclusive if in other cases J followed carefully the statements of his predecessors ; but we cannot but be struck with the freedom with which he habitually follows a line of his own. Nor can we regard this as any disparagement of his trustworthiness. One who is dependent on second-hand information is bound to follow his authorities scrupulously, and not go beyond what his informants have told him. But one who writes from first hand knowledge of the facts is under no obligation to study how the story had been told by persons with no better means of knowledge than himself. The seeming discordance, then, between J and G is only a presumption, but not a proof that the former was unacquainted with the work of the latter. ii. An illustration of the difficulty of pressing the argument from apparent contradictions is afforded by another example. J represents the Baptist as answering / am not to the question Art thou Elijah ? This is quite reconcilable with what on other grounds we infer as to his use of Luke who speaks (i. 17) of the Baptist as coming in the spirit and power of Elijah. Still it would lead us to think that he had not read Matt. xi. 14, If ye are willing to receive it, this is Elijah which is to come. Yet if he knew St Mark's Gospel, of which I make no doubt, he might have read there (ix. 13) DATE OF THE GREEK MATTHEW 407 It will have been seen that the question what is the true reading of Matthew xix. 17 has an important bearing on the question of the date of the current Greek version of St Matthew's Gospel. If we had to decide whether on this occasion our Lord said, as Mark reports, t'i /u.e \eyeis ayadov; or according to the Alexandrian text of Matthew, rl fie eptaras irepl tqv ayadov; we must pronounce that the latter account has clear marks of posteriority ; for it is enough to say that if this had been the original reading there would have been no temptation to alter it ; while it is quite intelligible that a difficulty should very early be felt in an account which represented our Lord as disclaiming a right to the attribute good. I say very early, for if we examine the conceptions of our Lord's Person entertained by the Fourth Evangelist, or by St Paul, as for instance in the Epistle to the Golossians, we cannot doubt that in the first generation of Christians there must have existed that same reverent feeling which makes a Christian of the present day glad to be told some explanation or modification of the answer which St Mark represents our Lord as giving. If we desire to know the date of the Greek Matthew I think we can at least put a lower limit on it. In the first place, Justin Martyr was acquainted with it. I base this assertion on a comparison of Matt. xiii. 55 with Mark vi. 3, to my comments on which latter passage I refer my reader. I think that a comparison between the two passages leaves no doubt that both represent a common original. But there is the striking difference that in St Mark's account Jesus is described as the carpenter, in St Matthew's as the carpenter's son. In my judgment, the latter report has strong marks of posteriority. If the common original had described Jesus as the carpenter's son, we can see no reason why St Mark should have altered it ; on the other hand, I But I say unto you, that Elijah is come, and they have also done unto him whatsoever they listed, words which hardly need the commentary which St Matthew has added (xvii. 13), Then understood the disciples that He spake unto them of John the Baptist, 4 o8 THE RICH YOUNG MAN see no evidence that Jesus had worked as a tsktw after He had left the town where He had been brought up, and devoted Himself to the work of public teaching. A considerable interval must have intervened between His departure as a young man from His native city, and His return to it, attended by a body of disciples, and already famous not only for His teaching, but for His miraculous cures, the like of which His fellow-townsmen expected to witness. It is quite conceivable that these disciples, or perhaps their successors of the next genera- tion, should have regarded carpenter's work as beneath their Master's dignity, and that in this reverential feeling the version the carpenters son had its origin. The relevance of this various reading to the question immediately before us is that Justin Martyr appears to have known both Matthew's form and Mark's. He describes our Lord (Trypho, 88) as counted the son of Joseph (rov tckt-ovos), and he also speaks of our Lord as having been Himself a re/crow, and as having wrought reKTovuca. epya, of which he names the making of ploughs and yokes. I do not venture to count this statement of Justin's as an authority independent of Mark, out of whose phrase 6 tsktwv a tradition might easily have been developed. But on this subject must be quoted another witness to St Mark's report, namely, the opponent of Christianity, Celsus, who speaks (Origen, Cont. Cels. vi. 34-36) of the common mention among Christians of the tree of life and the resurrection of the flesh from the tree, which, he says, had its origin I suppose because their teacher had been nailed to the cross, and because he had been a tsktoov by trade. But the strangest thing about this objection of Celsus is Origen's reply : Celsus has failed to take notice that Jesus is never described as a tektwv in the Gospels which are current in the Churches. There can be no doubt that 6 TeKTwv is the true reading of Mark, and also that this Gospel was received and current in all the Churches. This reply, then, of Origen's must be explained in one or other of two ways. There is evidence, chiefly DATE OF THE GREEK MATTHEW 409 Western, that copies of St Mark's Gospel had a certain limited circulation in which Mark's tektwv had been replaced by Matthew's tsktovos wo?. It may be that it was a MS. of this type that Origen was using when he was replying to Celsus. If we reject this explanation, we must simply believe that Origen's memory here played him false, and that though he remembered having seen Jesus described as a tsktwv he imagined that it was in an apocryphal Gospel he had seen it. There is, however, little need to elaborate a proof that the Greek Matthew was in circulation in the time of Justin, that is to say, in the middle of the second century, if I am right in believing that it was read by Ignatius in the beginning of that century. He says of our Lord (Smyrn. 1) /3e/3a , 7rTi<7ju.evov biro 'luidvvov Iva TrkripwOy iraua SiKaioa-vvri vif clvtov, where there is a manifest reference to our Lord's answer (Matt. iii. 15) when John scrupled to baptize Him, irpenrov eariv y/xiv irKtipSxrai ■Koxrav Siicaio(Tuvr)v. There are other signs of the use of the Greek Gospel by Ignatius ; for instance {Polyc. 2), povifios yivov oo? o 6i$ ev ttoctiv kcu aicepcuos ela-aei m h Trepia-Tepd which is in close verbal accordance with Matt. x. 16, a saying which has no parallel in Mark or Luke. There are other parallels between Ignatius and Matthew which I do not quote ; either because the verbal similarity is less close, or because there is a possibility that Ignatius might have been using another Gospel as his authority. The passage of Ignatius, however, which I first quoted, viz., that founded on Matt. iii. 15, deserves attention, because we may infer from the silence of Mark and Luke that it was drawn from a source not used by them, and because it has what may be regarded as marks of posteriority. An Evangelist could not be expected to record every saying of our Lord ; and therefore, though St Luke did not include in his work the saying Be ye wise as serpents, we could not infer that he did not find this saying in the source which he had in common with St Mark. But I cannot help thinking that if either St Mark or St 4 io THE RICH YOUNG MAN Luke had found in Q this account of the reluctance of John to baptize our Lord, he would have recorded it in his Gospel. The Baptist's reluctance could only have arisen from divine inspiration ; for as yet our Lord had done no public work which might have manifested His glory. The recording of this reluctance was a useful safeguard against a natural inference that He who sought baptism thereby owned inferiority to the baptizer; and so I think it unlikely that St Mark or St Luke would have omitted this safeguard, if he had found it in the Aramaic Matthew. Again, the need of some explanation must have been suggested by St Matthew's statement that those who desired to be baptized by John came confessing their sins. The question then suggests itself, Why then was Jesus baptized ? What sins had He to confess ? St Matthew's solution of this difficulty received ornamentation in the Jewish section of the Church. See citations from The Gospel according to the Hebrews and the Pseudo Cyprian's De Rebaptismate on p. 46. It appears to me the best explanation of the omission in Mark and Luke of a safeguard provided by St Matthew against a wrong inference from the fact of our Lord's having been •baptized by John, is that this inference resulted from a reflective meditation on the story, and had not been drawn at the time of composition of St Mark's Gospel or St Luke's. It certainly had been drawn in the time of Justin Martyr who, in a passage already referred to (Trypko, 88), describes our Lord as coming to be baptized oi>x <*? evSea avTOv rov ficnrTurOijvai. We have the same idea in Clement of Alexandria (Eclog. Proph., 7), Sia tovto 6 2g)t>//> e/SaxTtVaTo fx.rj XPW& WV cwTo'y. The idea common to both passages, that Jesus had not need to be baptized, seems to me to have been suggested by the Baptist's confession reported in the Greek Matthew that he himself had need to be baptized, eyw yjpkiav ey viro crov fionrTiirdijvai. In what precedes, I have chiefly occupied myself with a comparison of St Matthew's account with St THE ORDER OF THE COMMANDMENTS 411 Mark's. It is time now to consider the variations of Luke. One of the most striking differences between St Luke's version of this story and St Matthew's relates to the order in which the Ten Commandments are quoted. St Matthew's order is that usual amongst our- selves, in which the commandment Thou shalt do no murder precedes the command Thou shalt not commit adultery. St Luke, following Mark, reverses this order. This variation arises from a variation in then current texts of the Septuagint : Cod. B., in Deut. v., places the commandments in the order in which Luke has them ; Philo has the same order {De Decalogo, 24 and 32), and founds an argument on it ; and so likewise does Tertullian {De Pudic, 5), who builds his whole argument on the fact, that in the Decalogue the pro- hibition against adultery is placed before that against murder. This is also St Paul's order (Rom. xiii. 9), and apparently it is likewise the order of St James (ii. 11). We need not wonder, then, if St Luke used the order common in Pauline circles. It is to be noted that all three Evangelists agree in placing the command Honour thy father and mother in a place by itself at the end. The explanation seems to be that our Lord had shortly before reproached the Pharisees with their neglect of this command of Moses (Mark vii. 10 ; Matt. xv. 4), and therefore if the citation of the Commandments had commenced with the first of the second table of the Law, it would be felt that this command ought not to be omitted from the recital. But the most remarkable of St Matthew's additions is that, at the end, he places Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. He has this precept elsewhere in the same context as the other Synoptics ; but the placing it here is peculiar to Matthew. It was natural that a Christian should add to his list of Commandments this which our Lord had taught as the compendium of the whole second table of the Law ; and so we find St Paul intro- ducing it in Romans xiii. 9 ; but I cannot think that the 4 i2 OUR LORD'S REFLECTIONS original could have contained the precept in this place ; for if our Lord had quoted it so, the rich man would have scarcely been so ready with the answer All these things have I observed. It ought to be noted how St Luke (xii. 33) converts into a general precept what had been uttered as a special command to this rich man, Sell that ye have, and give alms. St Luke has a special sympathy for the poor. In his Gospel the benediction which in Matthew appears as one on the poor in spirit, seems to be on actual poverty ; and the story of Dives and Lazarus brings out the irony of the contrast between the share of the rich in temporal and in eternal happiness respectively. What he tells in the Acts about the communism of Christians immediately after our Lord's departure accounts for his recording sayings of our Lord which justified, if they did not suggest, that institution. OUR LORD'S REFLECTIONS ON THE RICH MAN'S REFUSAL Mark x. 23-27. Matt. xix. 23-26. Luke xviii. 24-27. The chief difference in this section between Mark and the other two Evangelists is that St Mark represents our Lord, when He saw the astonishment felt by the disciples at His declaration of the difficulty of a rich man's entering the kingdom of God, as repeating the announcement in a more startling form. Yet though St Matthew and St Luke each record only a single utterance of this declaration, there is nothing in either case to forbid our supposing that they drew their information from Mark. It is a sufficient explana- tion of St Luke's version to say that it is only St Mark's abbreviated. Matthew in a different way shows traces of the influence of Mark. St Mark having told "THEM THAT TRUST IN RICHES" 413 of the amazement of the disciples at our Lord's declara- tion, then introduces the saying about the camel and the needle's eye with 6 Se 'Ijjg-oi)? iraXtv cnroKpiOel? Xeyei. St Matthew says nothing about the amazement of the disciples ; but he introduces the saying about the camel and the needle's eye with ttoXiv 8e Xeyw vfj.iv. I cannot but think that the irdXiv here indicates a use of St Mark's Gospel. So far we might seem to be on firm ground ; but when we proceed to the next verse in Mark, we come to a question by no means easy to answer. St Mark having told of the amazement of the disciples at the saying How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! represents our Lord as repeating the saying in the form How hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! Now if our Lord said the same thing twice over, it would be natural for the narrator to content himself, as St Luke does, with telling it once, unless the second time it was said with a variation. Here, according to St Mark, there was an important variation, mitigating greatly the harshness of the saying, by the explanation that the difficulty of entering the kingdom of God arises, not from the possession of riches, but from putting trust in them. It is strange then that so important a mitigation should not have been noticed by the other two Evangelists who tell the story. Yet St Mark's own account would give the impres- sion that our Lord's object in repeating His saying was not to soften it, but to strengthen it ; for it is on the repetition that he states the difficulty in the harshest form, namely, with the addition about the camel and the needle's eye. And it would appear that the hearers were unconscious of any mitigation ; for if they had been astonished before, we are told now that they Trepia-a-ms egeirXyo-o-ovro, and said among themselves Kal rU Svvarcu 6tjvat ; St Luke here verbally copies Mark. St Matthew has t/j apa Svvarai ermdrjvai. This difficulty is smoothed away in our two oldest 4H OUR LORD'S REFLECTIONS extant MSS., Bk, which omit the words for them that trust in riches, but, however, are only supported by a couple of the witnesses that usually join in their attestation. Nevertheless, it is certain that the insertion of these words is extremely ancient ; for they are quoted as Mark's by Clement of Alexandria, whose tract Quis dives salvetur is of the nature of a com- mentary on this story. Clement quotes it at length as from Mark; but two or three verbal alterations seemingly derived from Matthew make it probable that he is quoting from memory ; still this does not throw any doubt on the fact that it is from St Mark's Gospel that he derived these words, there being no other Gospel which contains them. My own judgment inclines to the paradoxical con- clusion that the evidence is in favour of the opinion that the words for them that trust in riches belong to the genuine text of Mark, but not in favour of the opinion that they were spoken by our Lord. It is difficult to think that if the longer form had not been in the original Mark it could have got into the received text so early as the time of Clement, and that the abridged form could have found such poor reception afterwards. Again, if the words had been inserted by scribes or editors in order to diminish the startling effect of our Lord's saying, the insertion would have been made in all three Gospels. Therefore if these words were not written by St Mark, they must have been inserted at that early time when that Gospel circulated singly for the use of people acquainted with no other. Certainly my first impression was that the words for them, that trust in riches belong to the genuine text of Mark, and that the omission of them in a small number of copies arose from the assimilation of Mark's account to that of the other Gospels. Indeed the witnesses for tfre', abridged text might possibly be reduced to a single/ MS. ; for B and x both came out of the same worksh^>, and the same MS. may have been used by both tran- scribers, only by the scribe of the Sinaitic with more "THEN WHO CAN BE SAVED?" 415 consultation of other MSS. than by the scribe of the Vatican. One is certainly not attracted by the form to which our Lord's saying is reduced when the disputed words are struck out of St Mark's report. It then becomes merely How hard is it to enter into the kingdom of God! That is to say, the question whether riches are a hindrance to entering is lost sight of; and we are merely reminded how difficult it is for any one to enter the kingdom of God. I am bound to give due weight to arguments against the view to which I am myself inclined ; and therefore I must not omit to notice that the disciples' exclamation Then who can be saved? would come most naturally if our Lord's saying had been How difficult it is for any one to be saved! On the whole I am inclined to accept St Luke's report as that which approaches most nearly to what our Lord said. If some softening of its apparent harsh- ness were made, whether by St Mark himself, or by a very early transcriber, the case would be parallel with the insertion of elicrj in Matt. v. 22 ; of vapeKTW \6yov TTopvela*; in Matt. v. 32 ; of m eirl iropvela in Matt. xix. 9 ; and of Tt /me epooras irep\ tov ayaOov in Matt. xix. 17. In like manner I am disposed to believe that our Lord gave no other softening of the apparent harsh- ness of the present saying than The things which are impossible with men are possible with God. Our decision about the present various reading strongly affects our decision on a point which is of importance in the investigations of this essay. Did St Matthew and St Luke know the Greek Q only through Mark's translation ? or had they the use of an independent version ? Matthew and Luke have several striking coincidences with the Greek of Mark ; and if they had no other authority than Mark for this story, they must be added to the list of witnesses for the shorter form of Mark, since it is not likely that if they had known the longer one, they would have preferred to tell the story in a way so much more likely to cause 416 PETER'S CLAIM perplexity to those who read it. On the other hand, it complicates the hypothesis very much if we postulate the existence of another translation from the Aramaic, from which St Mark must have borrowed much of his language. PETER'S CLAIM Mark x. 28-31. Matt. xix. 27-30. Luke xviii. 28-30. Compare with Matt. xix. 28 ; Luke xxii. 29, 30. On the question whether the other two Evangelists copied Mark must be taken into account the Marcan features in this section which do not appear in the other Gospels. In the first place, I note the phrase, Mark x. 29, for my sake, and for the gospel's sake. Here Luke has for the kingdom of God's sake ; and Matthew for my name's sake. This phrase for my sake and the gospel's is especially Marcan. We had it (viii. 35) Whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's. The saying is found twice in Matthew (x. 39 ; xvi. 25), but there the phrase is for my sake, and there is no mention of the gospel. (See supra, p. 37.) I own that to me the surprising thing is, not that St Mark should have adopted the Pauline use of this word, but that St Luke should not have done so. Nevertheless, early though this use of the word Gospel to denote the whole subject of the Christian preaching undoubtedly is, yet there is not evidence that it was so used in the Aramaic Matthew, or in whatever work was the earliest attempt to record the work and teaching of our Lord. And therefore, on the ground of this phrase alone, I am disposed to believe that St Matthew and St Luke here used an authority earlier than Mark. I draw the same inference from the words fiera Siwyfiwv in Mark x. 30, which are not found in the parallel passages in Matthew and Luke. I find it hard THE LABOURERS IN THE VINEYARD 417 to believe that if these Evangelists had found these words in the authority which they were using, they would have suppressed them, and have recorded the promise of a return even in this life for sacrifices made for Christ, without adding the warning which the Apostle has expressed in the form (2 Tim. iii. 12): All that would live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. St Paul, in writing to the Thessalonians, reminds them (1 Thess. iii. 4) how he had told them beforehand that they should suffer affliction ; and our Lord Himself never omitted to warn those who desired to become His disciples to count the cost beforehand ; and even if the authority which St Mark was using had made no mention in this place of the cautions which our Lord always joined to His promises, it would not surprise us that the Evangelist should supply this deficiency ; but the converse supposition, of the suppressing of a recorded warning is quite inadmissible. St Mark is here more cautious than St Matthew or St Luke ; for he gives an enumeration showing that a wife is not included in the list of things to be parted with, and to be given back in this life a hundredfold. I have already noted the parallel between Matt. xix. 28 and Luke xxii. 30 which is probably explained as an insertion in this place by St Matthew of words spoken by our Lord at a later time. St Matthew records the parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard as spoken on this occasion ; and his report is amply confirmed by its special appropriateness. St Peter had attempted to stipulate for a reward for the sacrifices which he and his brethren had made ; and he is taught by this parable that while every promise made would be amply fulfilled, yet that they who had made no stipulation might receive a greater reward. St Mark's silence about this parable is sufficiently accounted for by the limitations of his plan, which left him room for but few specimens of our Lord's method of teaching by parables. 2 D 418 PETER'S CLAIM Matt. xx. 17-19. MAXw Si i.va$alveu> 'Ir/aovs els 'lepoirbXv/ia ■jrapi\afiev robs SwdeKa 1/iaBryras"] kot' ISlav, Kal iv rfj 6Sip etvev airrois, 'ISoi Avapalvo/nev els 'le- po els rb i/iirai^ai Kal /laffTtytoaai xal arav- pwaai, Kal tj rplrg i]p.ipa iyepB^fferai. Luke xviii. 31-34. Hapa\a(li>y Si robs Sii- Sexa etirev wpbs airrois, 'ISoi ivapalvofiev els 'le- povraMj/i, Kal Te\etrdii Si (v ry oSip ava- /3alvovres els 'Iepo' irikui rois dt&Sexa -rjp joro airoLS \4yeiv ra pJXKovra airip aviLfialvew Srt, 'ISoi avafialvofiev els 'lepoffb' \vp.a, Kal b vlbs tov av- Bp&irov vapaSoBijaeTai rois apxtepeBciv xal rots ypa/ipaTevia o eyw /3cnrTi£o/j.ai, as well as the corresponding words in verse 39. I do not know what account is to be given of this omission except that the editor of the Greek Matthew did not understand the metaphor used. But that the expression was really used by our Lord on this occasion is made probable by independent testimony to the use of the same metaphor by our Lord on another occasion, / have, a baptism, to be baptized with ; and how am I straitened until it be accom- plished! (Luke xii. 50). This testimony from Luke is the more important as that Evangelist does not record the incident now under consideration. THE MUTUAL JEALOUSIES OF THE APOSTLES Mark x. 41-45. Kal axoiffavres ol Sixa ■Ijpfavro ayavanreiv irepl 'latcihfiov Kal 'Iwd- vou. Kal TrpotTKaXecr&fLevos airrois 6 'IijffoOs \iyei airrois, OtSare 6Vi ol Sokovvtcs apxeui w idvuv Kara- Kvpieiovinv airruv xal oi p.e~/a\oi. airruiv KaTefouffidfoiKTU' airrwv. oix obrtas Si itrriv iv i/uv' dXX' Ss av 6i\y lUyas yeviaSai iv ifuv, lo-rai vp.wv SiAkovos, Kal is av 0i\r) iv iyXv elvai. irpwros, 'iffrai irdvriav Sov\os' xal yap 6 vlbs rov avSpuwov oiiK ?j\8ev SiaKovriBijvai dXXd SiaKOvijo-ai xal Sovvat tV ipvxty airov \irrpov dvrl iroKkwv. Matt. xx. 24-28. Kal aKoiaavres oi SiKa ityavaKTi)- ffav Tepl rum duo &8e\(p£>v. o Si 'Iijffovs irpoffKaKead/Mevos airois elmv, OtSare Sri ol apxovres rHv i$vuv KaraKvpievovaiv airQv Kal ol /j.eya\ot Kare£ovo-id£ov(rt.v airruv. oix oUtok io-rlv iv i/ur dXX' &s av 8i\r) iv ipfiv fiiyas yevitrBai ftrrai ifiibv SiAkovos, Kal 6s av SiXy iv i/iiv etvai irpforos iffrai vfL&v 5ouXos* wffirep d vlbs rov dvBpwirov ovk 7}\8ev SiaKOvq- 0'qvo.i dXXa StaKOVTJo-ai Kal Sovvai ■rill' ^vxhy airov \irpov dvrl iroKKQv. We must note Mark's began to be moved with indigna* tion. It surely does not mean that the other Apostles PRECEPTS OF HUMILITY SUCCESSFUL 421 were in a permanent state of indignation against James and John, which had its origin in the claim now made for them. We ought rather to note that St Mark habitually refuses to use the aorist where it is not a definite incident that is spoken of, but a continuous state of feeling. In speaking of such a state, he ordinarily uses the imperfect tense, except on the first occasion that he has to speak of it, when he usually has began with the infinitive. The verbal coincidences between Matthew and Mark in this passage are such as to prove that we have here two versions of the same original ; and I believe the case to be that St Matthew copies Mark. These precepts of humility seem to have been given more than once. We hear first of the disputes which suggested them as arising immediately after our Lord's rebuke to Peter. Then it is likely that the other two Apostles, who had been united with Peter in special companionship with their Master, conceived the idea of holding a higher place in the future kingdom than that Apostle. This would be all the more likely to occur if Jesus, as the Fourth Evangelist relates, exhibited special love to John. St Mark relates (ix. 35) how our Lord rebuked these disputes ; but they were revived by this request of the sons of Zebedee, which elicited from our Lord a new declaration of the conditions for greatness in His kingdom. St Luke, who wrote at a time when probably the leading men in the Church wished that these ancient disputes should be forgotten, has not told of the ambition of the sons of Zebedee, and he has combined the rebukes with which our Lord more than once suppressed those seething rivalries, springing from the expectation of a temporal kingdom, into one discourse which he places on the night before our Lord's apprehension. What is most astonishing is the perfect success of this teaching, and the complete absence of personal emulation among those who, after their Master's death, governed His Church. The light cast by the Evangelists on the 422 THE BLIND MAN AT JERICHO contests which arose during the brief season of expected triumph, enables us to see how different the history of Christ's kingdom might have been, if it had not been for that rejection and defeat, which seemed to the disciples shocking and incredible when their Master announced it to them. THE HEALING OF THE BLIND MAN AT JERICHO Mark x. 46-52. Matt. xx. 29-34. Luke xviii. 35-43. There can be no doubt that St Luke's narrative here is dependent on St Mark's, with which it has close verbal resemblance. The first difference we find that is not merely verbal is that St Mark gives the name of the blind man, and that St Luke does not. But no explana- tion is necessary save that St Luke wrote for readers who would be interested in hearing how Jesus had restored a blind man to sight, without caring to know his name or his father's ; while we have no right to demand that St Mark should suppress a detail which he remembered, even if we do not make the quite credible hypothesis that this man, on being restored to sight, remained in the company of our Lord's disciples, among whom his name became a familiar word. St Mark here gives a graphic narrative how Jesus stopped, ordered the blind man to be called ; and how the man at once jumped up, cast off his garment, and came. St Luke has substantially the same story to tell, only with less detail. It is only in the final clause that St Luke makes a substantial addition, telling that the blind man followed in the -way glorifying God, and that all the people, when they saw it, gave praise unto God. But these additions are not enough to establish the con- clusion that St Luke here used a different authority. St Luke has here deviated from Mark, in relating A DOUBLET IN MATTHEW 423 this miracle as performed as our Lord was going into Jericho, not as He was coming out. St Luke has evidently some information independent of Mark ; for he goes on to tell of the reception of our Lord in Jericho by Zacchaeus, who may well have been, directly or indirectly, the source of St Luke's information. I find no necessity for making a reconciliation between St Mark's account and St Luke's. Both accounts agree in placing the scene of the miracle in the neighbourhood of Jericho. St Matthew's account, however, requires a closer examina- tion, because it presents what may perhaps be regarded as a " doublet " ; that is to say, there is another account of the healing a blind man which has so many points of resemblance to that under consideration that the question arises whether both are not accounts of the same occurrence. I place first that the place of which in the narrative gives probability to the theory that St Matthew has derived his account from Mark. Matt. xx. 29-34. Matt. ix. 27-31. Ka! eKvopevojxhuiv airum airb 'Ie- Kal irap&yovTi iKeWev Tip 'IijffoB peiX& ■iiKoKoidrjaev avrip 6%\os iroKfa. ^KoKoiBtiaav Sio ru^Xol upAfaiiTes Kal ISob 860 TV(p\ol Ka.6iiiJ.evoi irapa Kal \eyoi>res, 'EX^ffoy 17/ias, vie rty bS6v, aKoiaavrei Sn 'Itjo-oOs AaveiS. i\86vn Se els rijv oUtav irap&yei, (xpal-av "hiyovres, Kify»e, Trpoo-fj\Bav atrip 0! tv$\oI, Kal \eyei i\irjirov 11/ias, vlbs AavclS. Si airots b 'Isjffous, flio-revere Sri Siva- 6x^os iTerifitjo'ev avrols Xva ffibnrij' fiai tovto iroiTJo'ai ; \eyovo-Lv ain-Q, viao-iv' ol Si fietfov §Kpa^av \iyovres, Nai, t<6pte. Tore ^yparo t&v 60a\fiol ijpuZv. mr\ayx"i"8els /.ii)5ds yCPoio-KeTiir ol Si e^e\86rres Si b 'lyaovs ijfaro twv 6/i/h.&twi> Sie is not used by St Matthew except where copied from Mark. 424 THE TRIUMPHAL ENTRY that I may receive my sight, and the word a-n-Xayxvia-Oels is also Matthew's. But the story in Matt. ix. must be referred, not to Mark, but to the Aramaic Matthew. It may be a question whether the Greek translator has not modified it. The story is told by St Matthew as immediately following the raising of Jairus' daughter ; but if we take our chronology from Mark, we should place at a later date the ascription to our Lord of the title Son of David. The command also that no man should be told of the miracle appears to belong to a later period in our Lord's life, though it must be owned that the argument is precarious. The Aramaic story no doubt related a miracle performed on two blind men, which may account for the duplication in St Matthew's account of the miracle in chap. xx. There is no reason for rejecting St Mark's account, which seems to rest on autoptic testimony, that there was only one, nor need we try to save St Matthew's infallibility by the hypothesis that one man had been met when our Lord was going into Jericho, and another as He was coming out. THE TRIUMPHAL ENTRY Mark xi. i-ii. Kal fire iyylfrvtrw els 'Iepo Ktbpvrjv t^x Karhavn to/uiv, Kal eiBbs elo-jropevdfievoi els airrty elip^jere wSXov Be- Sefievov tip' Bv oiSels otiTia avBp&Trtiw inaBtaeV Xi- aare airrbv Kal (pepere. Kal iiv tis ifuv etTfj, 11 iroielre tovto ; etirart, '0 Kiipios airrov xP e ^ av &X a ' Kal eiBbs airbv djroffre'X- Xet vaXiv SSe, k.t.X. Matt. xxi. i-ii. Kal lire ijyyitrav els 'lepocrbXvfm Kal JjXBov els B-rjSipayii els rb "Opos t&v 'EXaiav, rbre 'Iijs ijyyurev els BijS^ayi; Kal "BrjBavib, irpbs rb 6pos rb KaXov/ievov 'EXauSv, dire'aTeiXev Bio tuv naB-qrwv Xeyuv, 'Tird- 7ere els rty Karevavn Kiifi-rji', (v ^ elavopevb- p.evoi eipfaeTe iriSXov Be- Bepevov, iayri, Mark BriOavids, Luke Bt]6 els 'Iepo irola i^ovala roCra iroieis ; ij rts vol HdbiKcv t^v il-ov- alav rafrnjv iva Tavra 7T01JS ; Matt. xxi. 23. Kal i\86vTOS airov eU to lepbv TrpoffTpidav aitrip did&OKOVTi ol apxiepeis Kal ol tt pee fibre poi rov \aov \4yovres, 'Ex irolq. i^ovHa Tavra iroieU ; Kal rls cot ISuwev T7jv Qovalav rati- T-qv; Luke xx. i, 2. Kal iyivero iv /up tSi> •flfiepQv Sidd&KovTos avrov tov XaJv iv t$ lepQ Kal eiayye\ifonevov ivean\- aav ol apx<*peis Kal ol ypaii/juiTeis WT?Jffu> i/ias Kayfo \6yov, teal etwari poi, 16 ^arrriapa '\usavov i% oipavov fy f) Q avBptlmuv ; Thus far we may notice two points in which Matthew and Luke agree against Mark, not very important, but which still must be taken notice of as confirming the conclusion at which we had already arrived, that in this section the other two Evangelists are not dependent on Mark, but that all are following a common authority. The two points are, the beginning of our Lord's reply with diroKpiQek, and the Kayu*. Mark xi. 31-33. Kal Stehoylfrovro irpbs iavrois \iyovres, 'Ea> etwia/iev, 'E£ oipavov, ipei, Aia rl \aiv\ oiK incrrei- crare aircp ; dAXa efrrw- uev, 'E£ avBpdnrctiv ; — i etiruifiev, 5 E£ oipavov, ipei Tjfilv, Ala rl oiv oiK iiricr- reitrare aim} ; iav Si etirwfLev, 5 E£ avBpibirojv, o^ovfi.e6a rbv ttyXov, ir&vres yap ws irpofp^npi %X ovo ~ lv T &v 'IbiavqV Kal airoKpiBivres rip 'Itjctov eiirav, OiK otSafiev. itfnj airoh Kal airds, OiSi iyii X^yw i/uv iv Trola i^ovcrla ravra iroiw. Luke xx. 5-8. 01 Si ffvve\oyicravTO irpbs iavrois \iyovres Sri, 'E&x etiru/icv, 'E| oipa- vov, ipet, Ala rl oiK iirl- crreicrare airtp ; iav Si etwu/iev, 'Ef ivBpiiirav, 6 Xaos iiiras KarakiBaaei ilftas, TreTeicrfiivos yap io-rtv 'IcoavTfV •wpotybfrqv elvac Kal aireKpiBricrav /it; elSivai irdBev. Kal 6 'Ii;- ffovs eTwev airoiS/ OiSi iyih \iyio ipuv iv Tola i^ovcrla ravra iroiui. In this, as in other instances, the relation between Matthew' and Mark is one of simple copying, while St Luke has attempted to tell the story in his own words. Mark xi. 32. — There is here an anacoluthon in Mark ; and the other two Evangelists seem to show their dependence on Mark by correcting this : St Matthew somewhat unskilfully, St Luke in an abler manner ; St Mark has But should we say, From men — they feared THE BAPTIST'S TESTIMONY 441 the multitude. St Matthew removes the grammatical awkwardness, If we shall say, From men, we fear the multitude ; yet was it likely that they should make such frank confession of their cowardice? St Luke puts it in a form which they might conceivably have used, All the people will stone us. A careless reader might imagine that Jesus here avoided, by a clumsy evasion, to answer the question put to Him, namely, by asking another irrelevant question. But His question was not irrelevant. We know from St John's Gospel that our Lord's first disciples were led to join Him in consequence of the testimony borne Him by John the Baptist ; and to this the same Evangelist represents our Lord as Him- self referring (John v. 33-36). The testimony borne by John to our Lord is related in the earliest record of the preaching of John (Matt. iii. 1 1 ; Mark i. 7 ; Luke iii. 16). One mightier than himself was to come after him. The present passage shows that the Baptist's testimony was known not only to the disciples, but to the Jewish rulers, for they were well aware of the retort to which they would be liable if they acknowledged the authority of the Baptist. Our Lord's mode of dealing with the challenge made Him, must have completely satisfied His immediate hearers, the majority of whom had long recognised John as a prophet, who knew that our Lord's opponents would alienate general sympathy if they did not recognise it too, and who did not need that the topic should be developed at length, that the acceptance of John necessarily involved the acknowledgment of the authority of Jesus. But if our Lord thus gained a logical victory, His opponents obtained a political success. The report brought back by the deputation must have convinced the rulers of the necessity of putting a check on teaching which threatened to be dangerous. This new prophet, who was exercising semi-royal authority, was loudly hailed as King by enthusiastic followers, and He did not decline their 442 PARABLE OF WICKED HUSBANDMEN homage ; when asked to silence the children who announced His regal dignity, He refused ; now when given the opportunity of saying whether He put on any lower grounds the authority which He exercised, He evaded the question. What other judgment could they form than that a rebellion against Roman rule was contemplated, of which Jesus was to be the head, but which sober judgment condemned as doomed to failure, disastrous not only to the ringleaders, but to the nation? THE PARABLE OF THE WICKED HUSBANDMEN Mark xii. ia. Matt. xxi. 33a. Luke xx. 90. Kol ^pfaTO airols iv "KXKi\v irapa/SoXV "Hpfaro Si irpis Tie rrapa/3oXai: XaXeip. d/coiWre. Xadp %4ytu> rtjx irapafio- X^x Tatfnjv. St Matthew has just related the parable of the man who bade his two sons work in his vineyard, a parable not recorded by St Mark. He therefore could not use Mark's ripgaro. St Luke copies the ypgaTo ; but, if it is not too audacious a thing to say, I do not think he understood St Mark's use of this formula. There is no precedent in Mark for He began to speak THIS parable. Luke tempts us to ask, If He only began to speak this parable, how did He go on ? St Mark here only gives one parable, and St Luke copies that one. But St Matthew here gives three; viz., he prefixes the story of the man who had two sons — the one obedient in word, the other in deed — and he adds the story of the king who made the marriage feast. The question arises, Were the three parables in the common source of Matthew and Mark? or did St Matthew, in copying Mark, fill up his bare outline with details which he found elsewhere, and which he thought could be advantageously placed here? We have a parallel case OTHER PARABLES IN MATTHEW 443 in Matt, xiii., where St Matthew records several parables, only two of which are given at length by St Mark, though he intimates that other parables were spoken at the same time. Was St Mark here the abridger? or St Matthew the amplifier? It may be said, on the one hand, that St Matthew elsewhere seems to use his liberty in putting together sayings closely related to each other. On the other hand, it is quite plain that St Mark habitually contented himself with giving specimens of his Master's discourses, and did not attempt to preserve everything. Mark xii. 16. 'Afnre\wva dvtipiinros tyfrrevirei', Kal irepiiSijKev >. Luke xx. 96. "AvSpwitos iQ&revtrev d/MreXwva, Kal il-iBero airrbv yewpyoii, Kal dTe- Si/ifi-rjaev xp&row Uavois. We must here contrast the almost slavish fidelity with which either St Matthew copies Mark, or both their original, with the freedom exercised by St Luke, who cuts out the details which are not essential to the story. It is probable that St Matthew copies Mark; but I have already expressed my belief that St Mark himself used an earlier document, and it may be some confirmation of this that Matthew and Luke both begin with an avdpwiros not found in Mark. Mark xii. 2-5. Eai ixttmika' rpbs robs yewpyobs r$ Kaipt? SovXor, T»* irapb. tuv yewpydv XdjSjj iieb t&v tapir £>v toO d/MreXupOS' Kal XajSoVres abrbv (Supav Kal axloTeCKav kcv&v. Kal irdXiv dTr&rr«Xe!> irpbs aiiTofc dXXov Sov\or K&- Kelvov (Kapa\iu>cra.v Kal Tirlpacrav. Kal 4XXoi> dxeVreiXei>" K&Keivoi> airticrcivar, xal xoXXoOs dXXous, .08s pin Sipmrei oOs Si airoKTivvvvres. Matt. xxi. 34-36. "Ore Si ijyyuriv 6 xaipbs twv Kapw&v, direirreiXev robs SoiiXous abrov irpbs robs ycapyobs \ap7civ robs KapTovs avrov. Kal Xa- jSoVres ol yewpyol robs SobXovs avrov &v fiiv (Sei- pav, tv Si ariKTUvav, hv Si 4\i8op6\riijav. irdXte direWetXo' dXXous 8oi)Xous wkelovas tuv irpuruv, Kal tirol}]pai jouXoc ■ ol Si Kdxetvov Selpavres Kal drip-diravTe! c£a«- oreiXai' kcv6i>. Kal irpo- crtSero rplrov ire/t^ai" oi Si Kal tovtov TpavfiarL- (Torres i$tfia\ov. 444 PARABLE OF WICKED HUSBANDMEN St Matthew's version is a real abridgment of St Mark's, but gives no idea that he is drawing from any- different source. St Luke is drawing directly from Mark ; like him, he mentions the successive sending of three servants, but does not narrate the subsequent sending of many others. According to St Mark's account, it would seem that it was only the third messenger who was killed ; those sent previously having been only wounded. St Luke does not tell of the killing of any before the Master's own Son. I attribute this to St Luke's freedom of narration, and not to the use of a different source. Mark xii. 6-n. "Etl Iva etxev, vlbv ayairyrbv' airitrreiKev abrbv e'oxarov wpbs abrobs A^yo!? 6ti, ''EvTpaiHjo'ov- rat rbv vlbv fiov. iKelvoi Si ol yeapyol Tpbs iavrobs eXirav Sn, Obros iarai b K\7]pov6fios* SevTe airoK- relvtafiev abrbv, Kal Tj/J-tav tarai t\ KhypovopXa. Kal \afi6vres airiKTeivav ab- t6v, ko.1 i^i^aXov abrbv £|w tov &fnre\u>vos, rl vorfaei b Kilpios tov ap.- ffeXaJKO! ; eKebo-erat Kal iiroKiaei. robs yeapyobs, Kal SibfTei Tbv a//,ire\&va &\\ois. ObSi tV ypaa\ty yuivlas' irapa Kvplov iyivero airy, Kal itrnv 8av/mos diriKTeivav. tI 0?lv 7T0t^(T6£ aVTOlS b KVpiOS tov a/A7reXwyos ; eXeiifferot Kal dir6K4o-u robs yetop- yobs Tobrovs, xal diicra Tbv dfiire'Kwva aXAots. aKobaavTes Si etirav, Mi] yivoiTo. 6 Si iupXeipas abrots elirev, TI obv iffrlv tS yeypafip.evov tovto, AWov Sv dweSoKlpjurav ol OLKoSofiovvTeSy oStos eyev/jdrj els KeQaM/v yi»- vlas ; St Luke and St Mark here agree in adding to vlov the adjective aya-rrriTov. St Luke, I think, has Mark for his sole authority, but St Matthew also makes use of an authority independent of Mark. All the ADDITIONS IN MATTHEW AND LUKE 445 same, St Matthew verbally follows Mark with wonderful closeness. The dycwnjTO? seems to have been suggested by Isaiah v. 1. St Luke's use of Isaiah is made still plainer by the continuation t'l iroirjcra) (Isaiah v. 4). St Mark speaks of the husbandmen without expression of censure ; St Matthew cannot restrain his indignation : the husbandmen are yecopyots eitetVoty, and again, k e ' ! Ka ^ "' QapuraXoi partis xal ol apxupeU rbv i%\ov, lyvairav yhp ras irapa^SoXas airou gy- ^7rtjSaXeiy ivr' airbv t&s Sri irpbs abrobs rty irapa- voitrav Sn irepl airiiv X eL P a s tv airy rj ffi/>a< /SoXV etvev. Kal &ofir\d-r)csa.v rbv XaoV, airbv airrjXBav. rbv Kparrjaai. tyofflSriaav tyvutrav yhp &ri irpbs ai- rois B^Xovs, 4irel els irpo- robs elircv rqv Tapaj3o\ijv 0ijti)>' airbv etxov. rabrtp. Note St Mark's care of his imperfects in efjfrow, and St Luke's indifference in egiyrqo-ap. They sought was certainly a continuous act. There appeared now no reason to doubt the seditious designs of our Lord's followers, and no reason to expect that He would Himself disclaim the dangerous title of King, which they were offering Him. On the contrary, THE TRIBUTE MONEY 447 He braved the hostility of the rulers ; for the only inter- pretation of His parable was that in anticipation of their designs against Himself, He was charging them with being the habitual murderers of God's messengers. They decided, therefore, that it was a political necessity to remove Him ; and now they were seeking how to lay hold on Him without raising a popular tumult. Either they must elicit some utterance from Him which would alienate from Him the sympathy of the people ; or else they must find means to apprehend Him in the absence of the people. The former plan they first tried, and they failed ; in the latter they succeeded. THE TRIBUTE MONEY Mark xii. 13-17. Matt. xxii. 15-22. Luke xx. 20-26. In place of St Mark's £pere pj.01 S^vapiov, St Matthew and St Luke substitute for (pepere, which is scarcely suit- able, eviSelgaTe and Selgare respectively. But possibly St Mark represents the testimony of an eye-witness who had seen that the denarius had to be sought and brought. It must be pointed out, in the first place, that this question about the tribute money had no connexion with that previously put as to our Lord's claim to the authority which He was exercising. The questions were put by different persons and at different times. The question about our Lord's authority was put officially, viz., by the chief priests and the elders, or members of the ruling body ; it was only after He had evaded answering it that the Pharisees took counsel how they might destroy Him, and got the Herodians to join them in putting to Him, as private men, a still more embarrassing question. The reason for calling attention to the fact that one of these interviews was quite distinct from the other is that light is here cast 448 THE TRIBUTE MONEY on St Matthew's method of working, in putting different anecdotes together, and on his probable dependence on Mark. St Matthew copies verbally the words with which St Mark closes his account of the first interview (ko! a^evreg avrov airrjKQav), and puts them at the end of the second, viz. , this one about the tribute money. That the question was really put, not for the purpose of obtaining information, but of ensnaring our Lord, is assumed by all the Evangelists, who relate it as so understood by our Lord Himself. But the subject was one on which they were well entitled to ask Him to give a ruling, the matter being one in debate between Jewish teachers at the time, and as to which one who was honoured as a rabbi was properly consulted. In practice, no doubt, the tribute had to be paid ; but could it be theoretically justified for men who were proud to be still living under a theocracy? I can remember how, when I was a boy, theory and practice were reconciled on a similar question. It was against the Quaker conscience to pay Church rates ; and these it was the duty of the churchwardens to collect. They used to go into the Quakers' shops, and when the owner pleaded a conscientious objection to paying, they used to go to the tills and take out the right sum ; and, on the Quaker principle of non - resistance, the robbery was quietly submitted to. The question put by the rulers had failed of effect because our Lord's answer was capable of a double interpretation. He clearly claimed to exercise authority such as that to which the Baptist had been entitled ; and this answer was the more forcible if I am right in thinking that the claim of Jesus to be John's successor was more generally recognised than modern readers admit. But about John there was a double opinion : in popular belief he was undoubtedly a prophet, entitled to speak with divine authority; in the opinion of Herod's partisans, who no doubt had sympathisers in Jerusalem, he was one who had been justly put to death for seditious utterances against PHARISEES AND HERODIANS UNITE 449 constituted authority. The question about tribute money was one most skilfully devised to bring about a crisis, having the most innocent aspect, yet with deep political tendencies. We need not be surprised if the Pharisees and the Herodians, though at opposite poles of theological opinion, were united by their common hostility to Jesus, whose influence with the multitude both felt to be dangerous. Though St Luke does not mention the co-operation of Herod's party in the present attempt to ensnare our Lord, yet the whole of St Mark's narrative shows that during the last year of the life of Jesus He had not felt Himself safe in Herod's jurisdiction. He could no longer make Capernaum His headquarters ; and wherever He went He tried to conceal His presence, and discouraged the publication of His miraculous acts. It could not have been acceptable news at Herod's court that John's work was being still actively carried on. In our Lord's reply to this attempt to ensnare Him, the general question of submission to a foreign yoke, which had not been formally raised, was put aside, and the question of paying taxes was treated as a case of the general principle that every one is entitled to get his own. Modern casuists have raised doubts whether this principle was applicable to the present case ; but this point must be determined by the general feeling of men at the time, and not by our modern rules. We ourselves might hold that the denarius was the property of the man who held it, no doubt in return for value given ; and not the property of the state which coined it. Yet no one denies the right of the state to make a profit on its coinage. Our own state makes a large profit on its silver coinage, the intrinsic value of these coins being much below the nominal value. The result, then, of our Lord's answer was that instead of His forfeiting the allegiance of His followers, they were filled with admiration of Him. They all understood the treachery of the question, and the difficulty of answering it with- 2 F 450 THE TRIBUTE MONEY out offence, and they greatly admired their Master's tact. It is evident that the answer which the questioners expected and hoped to elicit was one which would bring Him into collision with the Roman Government. This is plain from their flattering address: "If you evade our question it can only be that you are afraid to speak your mind openly. If you fear the face of man no more than the Baptist did, do not shrink from telling us openly if we are wrong in paying tribute." Mark xii. 14, Itt aX^Oelai. — St Matthew understands the clause as describing the manner in which Jesus taught the way of God, but removes all ambiguity by a transposition, ty\v 6Sov tov 8eov ev ciXydela SiSda-Keig. The R.V. of Mark reduces the saying to, Of a truth thou teachest the way of God. If the passage stood alone, it might well be maintained that this was the correct translation of St Mark's Greek words ; but I cannot reject the commentary given by St Matthew, who was more likely than any modern to know what meaning St Mark wished to convey. In place of elScos tw inroKpiariv, St Luke has Kcn-a- voricraq tt/v wavovpyiav, which does not exceed the freedom with which St Luke habitually uses his authorities ; but St Matthew in this section varies from Mark to a greater degree than is common with him, so as to suggest that he is also using another authority. He has here yvous t^v wovr/piav, yet he shows his acquaint- ance with Mark by immediately introducing the word inroKpiral in our Lord's reply to His interrogators. THE SADDUCEES' QUESTION Mark xii. 18-23. Matt. xxu. 23-28. Luke xx. 27-33. It having been agreed by our Lord's adversaries in consultation that the best way of putting a stop to His teaching was to elicit from Him some utterance on which a charge damaging to His reputation could be founded, the question concerning the tribute money was devised ; and none could be better suited to its intended purpose. But the Sadducean members of the Council could not decently pretend that they had any scruples on the subject. The Sadducees were much looser than the Pharisees in their interpretation of the Mosaic Law ; and having as rulers enforced the obliga- tion of paying tribute, they could scarcely submit the propriety of their action to the judgment of a popular leader. And if I rightly understand St Mark's imperfect tense iinjpurrwv, we have no reason to think that the Sadducees came to Him in a body or by their repre- sentatives, but rather that individual Sadducees succes- sively tried to perplex Him with what no doubt was one of their stock difficulties on the subject of the Resurrection. The language of St Matthew here shows more difference from Mark than is customary with him, not only by the introduction of a different word, such as eiriyafifjpevcrei, but in the structure of many of the sentences. I am therefore confirmed in my opinion that, in this section at least, St Matthew used a Greek translation different from St Mark's. And it is worth remarking that one awkwardness of expression in which St Luke blindly follows Mark is avoided by St Matthew. St Mark recites the law of Moses in the form, If a man's brother die, and leave a wife behind htm, and leave no child, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Of course the brother who is to marry her is the man himself; and St Matthew makes 451 452 THE SADDUCCEES' QUESTION a necessary correction in writing If a man die. There is one point in which Matthew and Luke agree against Mark, namely, that in last of all the woman also died, they have varepov instead of Mark's etrxaTov; and iia-Tepov is not a Lucan word. If any stress is to be laid on this, it would follow that St Luke also knew the same Greek translation as that used by St Matthew, though he uses Mark so much as to make me doubtful whether he had any other Greek authority. On the other hand, St Luke follows Mark's Mawi;? eypayp-ev instead of Matthew's M.wvarijg eiirev. Again, Matthew's ■jrpoa-rjXQov avTw ^aSSovicaioi XeyovTey fir) elvai avaa-racriv would lead one to think that they said so on this occasion ; and therefore he changed for the worse if he knew Mark's o?Tive$ Xeyovcrw. Both the other Evangelists saw the need of somewhat abridging Mark's account of the successive deaths of the brothers. OUR LORDS ANSWER Mark xii. 24-27. Matt. xxii. 29-33. Luke xx. 34-40. It is plain from what has been said that our Lord's adversaries would have been ill advised if they had as a body made themselves responsible for the question which some individuals among them rashly put to Him. For the subject was one on which they were themselves divided ; and our Lord's answer received sympathy and approval from the Pharisaic members of the Council. The present question could not well have been raised as to the case of a man having two wives ; for polygamy not having been then expressly forbidden, it might be ruled that in the resurrection he should keep them both. That a woman should have two husbands, even consecutively, was then counted so discreditable that it was felt to be necessary to produce a case where such an arrangement was contemplated by the Mosaic Law. But the Sadducees spoiled their THE RESURRECTION LIFE 453 case by over-elaboration. As they put it, it would be natural to decide that she should be the wife of the first husband. If we believed in resurrection wives, and had no inspired guidance, we should be puzzled to decide whom a twice married woman could claim as her husband in the resurrection life. I think that we should have to say that she ought to be given her choice ; for much might depend on the length of time she had lived with each. She might decide in favour of the husband of her youth, if his successor had not had time to supplant him in her affections. But after a certain time, if the latter had been good to her, he would be fresher in her memory. And cases have occurred when the second husband would have been her original choice, if the pressure of friends or prudential reasons had not compelled her to take another. The knot of all these difficulties has been cut by our Lord's ruling that in the resurrection life there shall be no marrying ; and the acceptance of this ruling is made all the easier by St Paul's remark that there is no ground for assuming that the resurrec- tion body may not differ as much from that of this life, as a stalk of wheat differs from the little grain out of which it has sprung. St Luke seems not to have in view the general resurrection ; the resurrection of which he speaks being taken as a privilege of which only the just are deemed worthy. This seems to agree with Revelation xx. 5, 6. St Luke does not give in this place the question concerning the Great Commandment, of which he had made use already (x. 25). St Luke, however, shows his obligation to Mark by placing at the end of this Sadducean question the note which Mark has at the end of the question which Luke omits, ovSels ovksti eroXfia olvtov eirepwrrjcrai.. THE GREAT COMMANDMENT Mark xii. 28-34. Kal TpoffeXdwv els ran ypap-fiariuv aKovaas aiir&v ffw^rrroivTUv, eloilis Sti saXfis airtKpLdr) airols, iirqpdiri)- ffev airrov, IIoi'o iffrlv ivroMi Trptlyn) t&vtuv ; dweKpidTj 6 'Iijffovs #ri, Upilrnt] iffrlv, "Akovc, 'Iffpaifh, Kii- pios 6 Bete rifi&v nvptos els iarlv, Kal ayair^ffeu 'Kipwv rbv 6e6v ffov il; S\ris KapSias ffov xal ii; SXijs rijs il/vxys ffov Kal 41; SXijs rijs Siavolas aov Kal (% SKtjs rijs laxios aov. Sev- ripa aUrti, 'Ayawf/ffeis rbv wXiialov ffov Cjs ffeavrov. fielfav Toiruv &M77 ivroXi) oix Iffnv. Stirex airip ypafifiaretis, KaXuis, SiSdffKaXe, 4ir' aXijBelas elires 8n its iffrlv Kal oiK (tTTLV dWos ttXtjv atfroO' Kal rb iyairfv abrbv i% SKi\s xapdlas Kal ilj 8X175 rijs awiaeus Kal i% Ski)s rijs IffX^os Kal rb ayairq.v rbv TrXrjfflov us iavrbv irepiffff&repbv iffnv tt&vtwv T&V 0k0K0.VTWIXa.TWV Kal vvffiCbv. KOI 6 'IijiroCs ISiiv airrbv in vovvexCbs aireKpldi) elirev airrtp, Oi fMLKpav [et] dirb rijs fiaffiXelas tov 6eov. Kai oiSels otiKen irbXfia airbv iirepa- T?7(rai. Matt. xxii. 34-40. 0! 8e 4>apiaaioc aKoucravTes otl eiplfj-waev rois ZaSSbVKalovs avvi]- X6i) Sky ry Siavolq. aov, xal rbv ir\7]alov aov v SiKatua-at iavrbv etirev irpbs t6c '\i\aovv, Kal rls iarlv fwv TrKijalov ; This story has an affinity with the story we are now considering, and also a still closer one with the story of the rich young man, who puts the same question to our Lord as that which the "lawyer" puts here. And it may be asked why the Evangelist should twice tell of this question without mentioning on the second occasion that it had been asked before. I have already said that a doublet often arises when a writer uses two different authorities. St Luke probably obtained these two anecdotes from independent sources ; and the beginning of this one with koc ISov suggests, though it does not prove, that the source was Aramaic. This story and that of the rich young man are like each other, in that both contain a recital of the Commandments ; and I have already noted as a peculiarity of Matthew, which I count as a mark of later date, that it sums up the second table of the Decalogue in the precept Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself; a summary which was not natural to a Jew, and which St Luke informs us was made by our Lord on a different occasion. 456 THE GREAT COMMANDMENT It is to be noted that the command Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself is not one of the "Ten Words " ; and is not found when these are recorded in Exodus or Deuteronomy ; but as a separate command, Lev. xix. 1 8. To a modern reader the questioner's demand when, willing to justify himself, he asked Who is my neighbour ? sounds captious or irrelevant. Yet this very question is one that we are bound to ask. Whom did the Mosaic legislator mean, when he directed each of his people to love his neighbour? I think that if we read the verse in Leviticus in connexion with its context, we must consider that the legislator was not there extending his view beyond the house of Israel : Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. The precepts against usury, Exod. xxii. 25, Lev. xxv. 36, are given their justification in the brotherly relation between descendants of the same patriarch ; and in Deut. xxiii. 19 it is expressly laid down that a Jew may take interest from a stranger, though not from his brethren. Yet we should not be justified in putting this limitation uniformly on the word neighbour where- ever it occurs in commands, as, for instance, in deducing from the command Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour the conclusion that we may bear false witness against a foreigner. A Jew, then, would not regard the second table of the Decalogue as ex- pressing his duty to his neighbour. It was therefore a most natural question to put concerning the command Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, Does it mean that we must love a foreigner as ourself? and our Lord's answer in the parable recorded only by St Luke practically means, Yes, even though the foreigner be a Samaritan, the kind of foreigner regarded with most rancorous hatred by the Jews. It may be asked, Why did St Luke repeat an account of a question so like one which he had recorded before? and I believe the answer to be on account of the different use to be made of the two stories. If St OUR LORD'S OWN QUESTION 457 Matthew seems to aim at throwing into a connected discourse sayings of our Lord which had been separately known as part of our Saviour's teaching, St Luke seems to have set himself to learn concerning each saying the occasion on which it was delivered. Thus concern- ing the parable recorded by St Matthew in connexion with the Two Sons and the Wicked Husbandmen, i.e., that of the Great Supper, St Luke tells us that it was elicited by the exclamation of a guest at a supper at which Jesus was present, Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God (xiv. 15). Now the story of the question put by the rich young man leads on to our Lord's exclamation, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! On the other hand, the question of the vo/ukos leads up to the question, Who is my neighbour? and the parable of the Good Samaritan. It was impossible to combine these two continuations into one story ; and so St Luke, who did not choose to leave out either, had to tell them separately. OUR LORD'S OWN QUESTION Mark xii. 35-37. Matt. xxii. 41-46. Luke xx. 41-44. The first sight interpretation of this incident is that Jesus, having answered to the complete satisfaction of His hearers the question with which His adversaries had hoped to perplex Him, now, when they were silenced and did not venture to put any more questions to Him, turns the tables on them and asks them in turn to give Him a solution of a Scripture difficulty. Yet, notwithstanding the diroicpidek, the imperfect e\eyev makes it doubtful whether this question formed part of the same discourse. It would seem from St Mark's account that our Lord's avowed enemies had retired, and that He then resumed His work of teaching. The lawyer who put the question about the Great Command- 458 OUR LORD'S OWN QUESTION ment appears not so much an enemy as a candid enquirer. Therefore I think we ought not to assume that this question was put chiefly with the object of putting His adversaries to shame. It appears that His object went far beyond that of defeating them in the trial of wits to which they had challenged Him. He puts His own claims on a higher level than they had imagined. They had thought that those who gave Him the title Son of David ascribed to Him a dignity so far beyond His rights that He ought in modesty to have disclaimed it. He now brings out strongly that if He were the Messiah, this title does not adequately express His dignity. If He were no more than the Son of David, He were David's inferior. But the Psalmist represents the Messiah as David's superior. And, in fact, if He was Son of David, He was in a higher sense Son of God. It seems now to have come to open war between the Jewish council and the new prophet. They drop the affectation of respect by which they had hoped to elicit incriminating expressions from Him, and had fully made up their mind to destroy Him, as Jesus well knew. On the other hand, He had gained so much favour with the multitude that He would not be refused a hearing if He spoke His mind freely about the hypocrisy of the Scribes and Pharisees. Accordingly St Matthew puts in this place (chap, xxiii.) a long invective against the ruling body. Very possibly St Matthew has brought together here sayings of like purport spoken on different occasions ; but at the time we are now considering things had come to such a crisis, that the invective recorded by St Matthew is altogether suitable to the place which he assigns it. It does not reappear here in Luke (see Luke xi. 39-52), who shows his dependence on Mark by giving in this place parallels to what St Mark has given, and to none of the sayings preserved by St Matthew alone. THE HYPOCRISY OF THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES Mark xii. 38-40. Kal iv Tfl SiSaxv abrov HKeyev, BW^rere avb tuv ypa/ipm/riwv tuv 6c\6vtuv iv (TTokais vepmareXv Kal acnrcurfiovs iv rats ayopah Kal wparoKaOeSplas iv rats vvvayuyais Kal irpturo/cXt- crias iv rots Sel-rrvois, ol KaricBovrei tos oWas tuv Xfw Kal wpoipaaei naxpa irpocevxiaevof oSroi MipAJ/ovrai irepiaabrepov KplfM. Luke xx. 45-47. 'AKoiovros Si macros toB XaoD elirev rots p.aBt]- rats, JXpoTcu trtpwatntpov Kplfia. Luke xi. 43. Oial i'fiiv tois ^aatcrafots, 6Vt ayawaTe rtyv irpuro- xaBeSplav iv tois a > he has Tiva x*iP av ' O ur Lord and His disciples saw the poor people casting their coppers into the treasury ; for the smallest donations were accepted. It was possible to see this woman's gift — two of the smallest coins. I dare say it is too fanciful of me to infer from 7rra>xv that the woman was a beggar, and that the Xeirrov limited the generosity of one or two of her benefactors. Un- fortunately St Luke gives no countenance to this idea ; for in place of tttwx^ he has irevixpav. THE PAROUSIA DISCOURSE Mask xiii. i, 2. Ea2 iKropevofthov av- tov 4k tov iepov \4yet atmp els raw /laBjp-iow atirov, Aidaff/caXe, tie ro- raxot \iffoi Kai rorarai oltaSopaL. icai i 'Iijaws fixe* avrcfj, BXexeis tuv- ros tos /K-yaAas oltoSo- lids; ov fiii &e&TJ SiSe Xiflos irl A£0o» 6s ov /i<> KaTa\v0Tj. Matt. xxiv. 1, 2. Kai efc\0wr 6 'Iiprous dx6 tov iepov evopevero, irai rpoirijXBor oi fiafoqrai auTov eriSeigat avrt? tos olKoSofi&s tov iepov' 6 8c droKOiBeis elver aurots, Ov /JA^xere ravra Terra; d/ti}r A£ya> vuip, ov u^ dotedg Sie ~M0os eri \l8or os ov KaraXvd^o'eTau Luke zzL 5, 6. Kai TtfOT XeToVroiv x«pi rov iepov, dVi Xitfots caXois jcai dwafHifiaair iceicar/iiyrai, etxty, Tavrs a ffewpcrre, eXevo-orrai ri/Upai er ais our dste&j- o-eT-ai Xfdos exi XiAy Sic & ov jcaraXvoSjo'eTtu. St Mark's account is closely connected with what has preceded. Our Lord, having finished His discourse, is leaving the Temple, when one of the disciples who accompanied Him, himself no doubt a Galilean to whom this great piece of architecture was not too familiar, being struck with admiration at the size of the stones and the magnificence of the buildings, calls our Lord's attention to them ; and receives in reply the startling prediction of the approaching ruin of all that they are now so proud of. Nothing more passes on the instant ; but soon afterwards, when our Lord has seated Himself on the opposite hill, other disciples to whom this terrible prediction had been communicated gather round their Master and ask for further explanations. The story loses much of its sharpness in St Matthew's version. He represents the disciples as coming to our Lord to shew Him the buildings of the Temple ; and what was quite natural when reported as the remark of a single disciple on the structures by which they passed, loses much of its credibility when represented as a common attempt of the disciples to shew Him the Temple in which He had been teaching. And had He never visited it before? St Luke here too is very vague. He tells the story as if it merely was that our Lord was present when they were speaking about the Temple. This might as well have happened in Galilee. But St Luke shews his knowledge of the particular occasion «i 462 THE PAROUSIA DISCOURSE of this prophecy of doom ; for he goes on, ravra a Oeoopeire. Mark xiii. 3, 4. Kal mOiiiiivov airov els rb "Opos rwv '~E\aiG>v Karbiavrt. rov lepov tin]- pwra avrbv tear ISlav Hirpos Kal 'laKtoftos Kal 'Iwdj-ijs xal 'AvSpias, T&l- wbv i}fuv 7r<5re ravra £orai, Kal rl rb arjueiov brav piWy ravra ovrreKeitrBai ir&vra. Matt. xxiv. 3. KaBrniivov Se airov tirl toO "Qpovs ru>v 'EXaiuc irpoarjKBov airrif ol fiaBr;- ral Kar' ISlav \{yopres, 'Elirbv fifuv irdre ravra ttrraL, Kal rl rb ff7]fieiov rrjs l Kara t6tovs, iaovrau Xiyuof' apxh <&8i- vav ravra. THE FIRST STAGE Matt. xxiv. 4-8. Kai iirotcpidels o 'IijirfiOs direv avrots, BX^Trere /tij rts ifias ir\avrfo~y woKkol yap i\eiaovrai iirl r

s Trkavfioovffiv. p.e\- Xflv \iyovres, 'Eyia dpi, Kal, '0 Kaipbs Ijyy ucer' p.1) iropevBijre oirlffta avrwv. Srav Si aKovffijre iro\ip.ovs Kal aKaraaraelas, p.^ irroi)- 07jre' Sec yap ravra ye- vtaBai rrpOrrov, dXX' ovk evBias rh ri\os. T6re e"\eyev avrdis, 'EyepBrfve- r'ai IBvos in' ZBpos Kal fiai/3ri$pi re Kal atf ovpavov trrjfieia p,eyd\a (arai. We cannot but be struck by the close relationship between Matthew and Mark ; probably because both copy a common document. St Luke as usual employs his own phraseology, and does so even to a greater degree in the remainder of this discourse. In the persecutions which speedily followed, as predicted here, Christians must have been constantly consoled 464 THE PAROUSIA DISCOURSE and strengthened by hearing the prediction which our Lord had made of what they were enduring, and His directions for their behaviour under it. None of our Lord's discourses therefore was more likely to be recited or referred to in the Christian assemblies, or to receive on repetition small additions or variations ; and St Luke's changes from St Mark's version need not be assumed to have been arbitrarily made by himself, but may faithfully represent the form current in the weekly service of his time. f have already noticed St Mark's use of ripgaro with an infinitive on the first occasion when a continuous action is mentioned, and which is replaced by an imperfect in the further relation. Here I think St Mark would have used the aorist, if he meant to report verbally our Lord's answer to a definite question. The actual form of expression conveys that he is giving the substance of more conversations than one. THE SECOND STAGE Mark xiii. 9, 10. BX^7rere Se ifteis iav- rots' TapaSdxrovriv i/ias els avviSpia Kal els avva- 710701 SapijaeaBe Kal iirl jjyepbvwv Kal fiacriKe'GJv ttraB^aesBe VveKev ifiov els /mpripiov airots. Kal els iravra rb. e'Bvr) irpwrov del KripvxByjvat, rb eiayyi- ~Kiov. Matt. x. 17, 18. Tlpocre'x eTe ^ ^ T0 twv avBptlnrtav irapaSib&ovo'iv yap i/ias els avviSpi.a, /cal iv tcus <7wa7W7cus airwv lxav els Oafa- top Kal 7roT<)p rixvov, xal iiravaar^aovrat rixva M yovets xal Savarilxrovviv airotis' xal (fiS.s, /t4) nepinv/imrre irOt fl H XaXijffov " al t4 ' Hovslas, lift iiepinvirqTt vQs [*) t(] aroKoy^vtirSt 1) tI etrirrf tA t4/» Sytoc n-vtO/ta iiidjfi i/u.fif _ rf» oiSrj rp fi/>a 4 3*r e(nw. Luke xxi. 14-19. (Ore otiv tV rail xapSlaa i/idv fiii TpQfj,e\erq,v diro- XoTijff^fai, ^711) 7ap Jiiffu it/MP ard>a xal aotplav fl oi5 Jwifiroi'Tai avrtffrfyai fl Avretiritv aVair« ol dpTiKei|U«'t>i iJ/uft. irapa- SoOriaeaie Si xal i/ir6 ywiwv xal aiiKtp&v xal cn^o'fie xal roB. Luke xxi. 20-22. "Oray Si tStjre kvk\ov- lUvvpt iirb ffTparoTrtdiov 'lepoviraMiii, T&re tvcSts oVt ijyyiKev ij ifrffuixris airijs. Tire ol 4v rrj 'lov- Sala (pwyh-(tiaav els ra &pTj, Kal ol €v iiitrw avrys iKxwpelTWQ-av, Kal ol iv rats x^pats fiij elaepx&o— Baaav els aMjv, Sti ijfii- pat e/cSifCTjcrcws aCral elaiv rov irXijfffl^i'ai iravra to. yeypan/iiva. Here the identity between Matthew and Mark is striking. That Mark is the elder may be interred from Let him that readeth understand. This does not mean, as some English readers imagine, "Let him that readeth this Gospel understand ; " for we could not suppose that our Lord in speaking would introduce the case of one reading His words after they had been committed to writing. What I take to be meant is the case of one reading the Old Testament. In other words, the phrase fSSeXvy/xa r*js eptifidxretos is the catchword by which the reader will recognise the prophetic passage, the fulfilment of which is announced. St Matthew has clinched the reference, by putting in which was spoken of 470 THE PAROUSIA DISCOURSE by Daniel the prophet ; but in that case there would not have been the necessity for calling the attention of the reader ; therefore I regard Mark as here the original. Mark has standing where he ought not ; Matthew stand- ing in the holy place. Some have supposed the holy place to be the Temple. If so, the sentence could not mean the planting of a standard there ; for it would be then too late to flee. ■ Possibly there is a reference to some previous defilement of the Temple by Roman authorities. Luke says When ye see Jerusalem compassed with armies ; but surely if the disciples waited for that encompassing, it would be too late for them to flee. I think we must regard St Luke as but giving a commentary on words which St Mark has preserved in their original form, and which would be satisfied by the entry of the Roman army into Palestine. St Luke's account may have been modified by what he had heard of what actually occurred. Yet I take it that Jerusalem is the scene and that ev Tats x*Y> at ? (Luke xxi. 21) is to be understood of fields in the neighbourhood of the doomed city, into which the inhabitants were warned not to return. Here again we have a doublet in Luke xvii. 31 : 'Ev ixelvy rjj T)IJ.ipq. 8s ttrrai iirl toO Sd/iaros ko.1 t& aKeii) airrov iv tb oMq., /ii; Kwrapterw ipai airri, icni 6 iv &yp$ ifwlois /ity eiruTTpe\//ATU els to, iirltru. This doublet removes all doubt of there having been a section in the original source dealing with the destruc- tion of Jerusalem. What I take to be peculiar to St Mark is his defining the discourse as spoken at the request of disciples, in sight of the Temple, on the last visit of Jesus to Jerusalem. St Mark, I doubt not, has faith- fully preserved for us prophetical utterances which were remembered as having been delivered by his Master, but the form of St Mark's account does not oblige us to believe that all were delivered in a single discourse ; and the manner in which St Luke uses one fragment in chapter xii. and another in chapter xvii. leads me to think that he took them, not from the report of a single NEITHER ON A SABBATH" 47i discourse delivered shortly before our Lord's Passion, but rather from a document containing sayings of our Lord collected without definite notes of the time when each was spoken. Mark xiii. 17-20. Oial Si this iv yatrrpl i%oiaais xal reus Brj\a- fo&rau iv ixelvas reus ■fi/iipais. vpoaeixeaBe Si iva //.ii yivifrai x^S""'' iaovrai yap al Ti/iipai. ixeivai 8\lij/is ota oi yi- yovev romir'q air 1 ipxys Kritreus %v IsKTitrev & debs Sois tov vvv Kal oi ix'q yivq- tcu. xal el /ify iKo\6/3s i«\eKTobs oOs ^|- eWfaro eKo\6f3tti(Tev ras Ttliipai. Matt. xxiv. 19-22. Oial Si rals iv yturrpl iXoicrais Kal rats drjha- toiaais iv ixelvais tois TIpApaii. wpoaeixeade Si iva j/J) yivtfTai i] 0iry^ i/uav x«A"2pos /ii/Si aafi- §i.Tif tarai yap Tore 8\l\fns fieya\r] ota 01! 7^- yovev at? apxys wdtrfiov £ws tov vvv oiS' oi fll} yini/rat. Kal el fify cko\o- ^liBrjo-av al iinipai eKei- vai, oiK av taijiBt] irao-a |. Std Si tovs e/cAeff- rois KoXopltad^trovTai al jjfiipai ixetvat. Luke xxi. 23. Oial rats iv yaarpl exoitrais Kal rats 8rj\a- foi)is 4x\ex- tovs [airov] 4k t&v Tea- aapoiv avi/iuv dir 1 Axpov yrjs las &xpov ovpavov. Luke xxi. 25-28. Kai 1-crovTai fftjfieta 4v i]\lcj> xal ffe\rfvtj xal &u- Tpots, Kai 4tI ttjs yrfs trvvoxi] 48vQv 4v iiropla 'ilXOvs 8a\aco~tis Kai v tytyvris eiipn bpas xaBeiSovras' S Si i/iiv X^yw iratnv \eya, yprryopetre. I do not know whether it is worth remarking that St Mark's fiXeirere is replaced in Matthew by yptiyopet-re, which, however, appears in Mark xiii. 34, 35, 37. St Luke has aypvirveire in xxi. 36. St Mark's /3XeVere is a word which he frequently uses in this sense. The 478 THE PAROUSIA DISCOURSE absence of direct parallels in Matthew and Luke to this latter part of Mark arises, as I believe, from the fact that this concluding exhortation is an addition of St Mark's own to replace the concluding part of Matt, xxiv., which he omitted for brevity. I had at one time been of the opinion that St Mark's Gospel was the only source from which St Matthew copied, an hypothesis which fits in very well with what is told in the earlier chapters. But in the later chapters we have constantly the phenomenon of coincidences between Matthew and Luke in passages to which there is nothing corresponding in Mark. These coincidences can only be explained by the supposition that the two later Evangelists, even if they used Mark, as I believe they did, drew also from an earlier source. Thus in the present chapter we have such a coincidence. Matt. xxiv. 43, 44. Luke xii. 39, 40. 'E/ceivo Se yivtlxrKere Stl el ySei 6 ToOro de ■yii/iiinrere 8n el jjSet b oIko- olKodeeir&rris irolq. 01/XaKjj b jtMsnjs Seairbrtjs Tolf iipq. 6 kX&ttijs Ipx*™! lpX eTa h ^ypityipv^" & v Ka l °^ K &" iypriyipi)iTev &v koX oiic &pvx0V'' ai tJjc olxlav airrov. pvxSrjpat rbv oTkov airov. koX vpieU 5iA toBto Kal u/icis ylveaBe croifioi., ylveaBe Itoi/ioi, Sti b Hpf oi SoKeire 8ti 5 oi SoKeire (bpq. & vlbs tov duSpu- o vibs rod dvBpwirov tpxeriu. irov tpxerai. The nearly complete identity here shews that our two authorities used a common source (not Mark), and that in this case neither varied from it very much. It will be observed that our Lord gave two illustrations of the danger of unpreparedness : one the case of a householder surprised by a robber, the other that of a careless servant surprised by the unexpected return of his master. Possibly our Lord had used these illustrations before on different occasions. St Matthew has combined both in one discourse ; so also does St Luke ; but he separates them by a question of Peter's, in answer to which the second illustration is used. According to Luke xii. 41, after the saying about the householder and the robber, Peter puts the question, Kvpte, xpo? ^/ua? rrjv TrapafioXyv Tavrtjv Xeyisty tj kou irpos 7ravTaj. It seems to me that St Mark's conclusion, o Sh THE NIGHT WATCHES 479 Vfitv \eyw ttcutiv Xeyto, ypt[yopeire was suggested by this question of Peter's, and therefore that though neither St Mark nor St Matthew report the question, yet that it was possibly derived from the common source ; un- less any one prefer the solution that St Luke expanded the idea expressed more briefly by St Mark. And no ,doubt St Luke seems usually, in reporting a saying of our Lord's, to be able at the same time to give an account of the conversation that had suggested it. However this may be, St Luke returns immediately to identity with Matthew. Matt. xxiv. 45-51. Luke xii. 42-46. It is impossible to compare this passage of Luke with the corresponding section of Matthew without feel- ing that the coincidences are such as cannot possibly be ascribed to chance. Notwithstanding the great cruelty with which slaves were then treated by bad masters, I cannot think dichotomising a punishment likely to be inflicted on a negligent servant, and therefore that the agreement of Matthew and Luke in the use of this word may be counted among the proofs that both used a common authority. Without going into details, it seems to me that St Matthew's version is closer to the original than St Luke^ On St Luke's words, xii. 38, If he shall come in the second watch, and if in the third, a question has been raised why St Luke should here only mention the second and the third. It seems to me that the first, 6\Jse, might well have been omitted, since there would be little merit in staying awake so long ; but it has been inferred from the omission of the fourth that St Luke used the Jewish computation, and counted only three. It seems to me that St Luke was quite as likely as St Mark to use the Roman phraseology ; so, if we are to lay any stress on this omission, I should ascribe its origin to the original Jewish document which St Luke copied faithfully. Having now convinced myself that the exhortations 4 8o THE LAST PASSOVER to watchfulness which St Mark has given briefly had been given in an original document, to which he had access, at greater length and with fuller illustrations, I do not hesitate to believe that the account of the matter is that St Mark finding that those exhortations to watch- fulness were all in natural connexion with the saying which he has reported (verse 32), Of that day or that hour knoweth no one, thought it enough for his purpose to give the substance of them at once. There may be possibly elsewhere traces of acquaint- ance with some other of the passages which St Mark has here omitted. Thus the avdpwvos aTroStj/no? of Mark xiii. 34 may perhaps be connected with the avdpwn-os cnroSrifiLwv of Matt. xxv. 14 ; and there may possibly be a recognition of the parable of the Ten Virgins in the directions (Luke xii. 35, 36) that their lamps should be burning, and that they should be like servants waiting for their Lord, when he should return from the marriage feast. THE LAST PASSOVER Mark xiv. 1, 2. Matt. xxvi. 1-5. Luke xxii. i, 2. In the Passion history we find St Matthew's account closely based on St Mark's, while St Luke appears to have used a different source ; but there is no trace of this in these opening verses, which contain nothing but what St Luke might have learnt from Mark, expressed however in words of his own. What St Matthew has added of his own to the account is that this resolu- tion to take Jesus, if possible by guile, in the absence of His eager listeners, was taken by the Chief Priests and Scribes, or, as St Matthew calls them, the elders of the people, in a formal meeting in the hall of the house of Caiaphas. It is evident that the Jewish rulers saw that here would be danger of a serious riot if they attempted ANOINTING OF OUR LORD'S FEET 481 to make Jesus a prisoner while He was surrounded by His Galilean adherents, and possibly by new disciples whom He had gained as hearers of His discourses at Jerusalem. It is possible that it was resolved at this meeting to reward handsomely any one who would enable them to execute a quiet capture; for we read presently that Judas came to them as a volunteer, induced no doubt by the information that was circulated that such a service would be well remunerated. THE ANOINTING OF OUR LORD'S FEET Mark xiv. 3-9. Matt. xxvi. 6-13. John xii. 1-8. The identity of Mark and Matthew is so nearly complete that we cannot hesitate to believe that one was derived from the other. We have not an account of St Luke's to compare ; for he omits this story here. There is less occasion to account for St Luke's omission than for St Mark's insertion of an anecdote which may seem an irrelevant interruption of the history of our Lord's capture. St Luke had in an early part of his Gospel told a story so similar, that some have thought that it was a different account of the same event ; and St Luke, in making a selection of things to be related, might naturally prefer not to tell two so like each other. In the place where he does tell of a woman anointing our Lord, he uses the narrative to introduce a remarkable parable and to teach an important lesson. Luke vii. 36-40. In the introduction to the parable, the Evangelist who thus far had only spoken of the host anonymously as the Pharisee, now reveals that his name was Simon. This was also the name (Mark xiv. 3) of the host on the occasion of the anointing which the other Evangelists 2 H 482 ANOINTING OF OUR LORD'S FEET record. This identity of name, combined with the fact that both stories tell of a woman pouring on our Lord the contents of an alabaster box of ointment, are the only- reasons why St Luke should be supposed to have been speaking of the same occurrence as the other Evangelists. Yet the name Simon was too common among the Jews to permit us to lay much stress on this coincidence. My theories' about the inspiration of the Gospels do not forbid me to accept the supposition that one of the incidents preserved in the tradition of the Church, and taught in its public recitation of the Saviour's acts, might be differently placed by two of those who, in the Divine Providence, were entrusted with the task of giving to that tradition the more secure permanence of a written record. Nor again, should I be much distressed by the discrepancy that in one case the woman is described as pouring the ointment on our Lord's head, and in the other on His feet. Such a difference at least might easily occur in the report of two different witnesses of the same incident ; but if we have found reason to believe that St Luke was acquainted with a narrative substantially the same as that of the Gospel of St Mark, it is not likely that he would go out of his way to vary from it needlessly. The difference is at once accounted for when it is understood that different persons are spoken of. The woman who had been a sinner dared no more than to come behind the great Teacher and anoint His feet ; such diffidence was not to be expected in a loving friend. St Luke's story all through turns on the fact that the woman was a sinner, all leads up to an inference not suggested in St Mark's narrative, viz., that what men might account as the unworthiness of the object of our Lord's mercy was so far from being an absolute hindrance to acceptance by Him, that the very greatness of the sins forgiven might generate a love more ardent than that felt by one who had never fallen. It is repugnant to our feelings to believe that this dark spot rested on the character of a member of the family which ST JOHN'S ACCOUNT 483 our Lord regarded with special love. The thing no doubt was possible ; and we are not bound to suppose that if Mary, the sister of Lazarus, had so sinned, our Lord would have put her from Him as utterly beyond the reach of His forgiveness and favour. Nevertheless, the imputation is one that we are not warranted in casting, on a mere surmise, and without any evidence to support it. The story of our Lord's anointing which is told by St Matthew and St Mark in almost identical words, is told also with substantial agreement in St John's Gospel. I have purposely avoided comparison with this Gospel in treating of the story told by the Synoptics. I could not do so without a separate discussion of the credit to be attached to the statements of that Gospel, an investi- gation which would demand a treatise in itself. It is, moreover, as all agree, considerably later than the other three ; and, therefore, if it were the case that it contradicted the earlier accounts, it might naturally be regarded as of less authority than they. But undoubtedly it may to a certain extent be used in interpreting these accounts, as showing what meaning was attached to them before the end of the first century ; for I do not think that the Fourth Gospel can be placed later ; and if it was not written by the Apostle John, it must at least have been written by a disciple of his, who claimed to speak with his authority. It is to be noted that this is not St John's first mention of the anointing. Before his own relation of it, in his first mention of Lazarus (xi. 1), he describes Bethany as the village of Mary and her sister Martha, characters whom he assumes to be already well known to his readers ; and adds that this Mary was the same woman as she who had anointed our Lord's feet and wiped them with her hair. I infer from this assumption that his readers were already acquainted with the story of the anointing, that the Fourth Evangelist was aware that other Gospels than his own had been previously in circulation among Christians ; and, as the story 484 ANOINTING OF OUR LORD'S FEET proceeds, we find reason to believe that the Gospels both of St Luke and St Mark were known to the writer. Thus we may infer an acquaintance with Luke x. 38-42, which would not only have made his readers familiar with the names of Mary and Martha, but would have prepared them to read without surprise that while Martha was described as in attendance on the guests, no mention was made of Mary as similarly employed. But the most striking point of agreement is that St John adopts the statement in Luke vii. that it was on our Lord's feet that the woman poured the ointment. Not- withstanding my own strong impression that the sinner of Luke vii. was not the Mary of John xii., I cannot in candour deny that St John's language conveys the idea that this Evangelist regarded the two women as the same. In fact, on reflection, I recant my opinion that St John made a literary blunder in speaking of the anointment of our Lord before he had related it. What I now understand him to say is, This Mary was the woman of whom St Luke tells as having anointed our Lord before ; and I have now to tell how she again repeated her act. In short, St John did not, like modern critics, believe that there was but one anointing, which St Luke has wrongly placed. He holds that there were two. The scene of the anointing was, according to Mark xiv. 3, the house of Simon the leper. We learn from Luke x. 38 that Martha had a house of her own. We also know from John xi. 19 that the sisters had many Jewish friends ; and therefore we seem to have reason to think that the entertainment was given in the house of this Simon, to whom Martha gave her services in waiting on the guests. The sisters do not seem to have been wealthy women, for they do not appear to have kept slave or hired servant, and are not likely to have given such an entertainment as the phrase kiroirja-av Seiirvov suggests. The dinner to which Lazarus was invited was probably in celebration of his unexpected recovery. The anointing related by St Luke took RELEVANCE OF THE STORY 485 place in the house of a rich Pharisee ; and such Simon may have been. His wealth may have been enough to incline the priestly inspectors to take a lenient view of his case, and to judge that the symptoms of the disease were not so grave as to make separation necessary. But the tide 6 Aerrpo? does not necessarily imply that the man was suffering from the disease at the time ; for, as Jerome has remarked, the title may have clung to him after his recovery, just as Matthew was known as i T-eX iir^veyxav Kal wapiSdixav JleiKdrip. Matt, xxvii. 1, 2. II put as Se yevoiukvr\% ffv/if3o£\i.ov fKafiov iravres ol dpxtepeZs Kal ol ir{)e(r(36- repoi tou \aov Kara tov 'Xrjo'ov tbore davaT&aai airrbv Kal bijaavres a&rbv awfyyayov Kal TapiSuKav HeiK&Tip rip Tyy ejxovi. Luke xxiii. 1, 2. Kal avao-ruv Hirav rb t\t}0os airriov ijyayov ai)- rbv iirl rbv IleiXoTOj'. ijp^avTO Se KaTiyyopeiv ai- toO \iyovres, Tovrov eiipa- fiey Siao~Tp4(povTa rb tBvos iifjMV Kal KuXOovra tpdpovs Kaltrapi 5i56vcu xal Xe'YO!'- ra aiyrbv xp^rbv (SaffiVa elvac. The relation of dependence of Matthew on Mark is nowhere more distinct than in this chapter. We have sections in which Mark is plainly copied, inter- polated with sections derived from another, and, as we should judge, a later source. In the verses just cited, the verbal coincidences between Matthew and Mark are numerous ; of which it may suffice to mention how the double verb in Sqa-avres . . . aTnjveyicav Kal 1 Some Thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the N.T., p. 123 sgg. 510 THE TRIAL BEFORE PILATE TrapiSooicav is reproduced in Matthew. But then follows, in Matt, xxvii. 3-10, the story of the remorse of Judas, which is not told by St Mark, and with which St Luke seemed to be unacquainted even when he wrote the Acts. 1 St Luke, on the other hand, appears to have in this chapter a quite independent source, and he shews plainly his perception that the grounds on which the Jewish rulers decided that Jesus ought to die were different from those on which they could seek His condemnation by Pilate. At their own tribunal the charge of blasphemy was the fatal one ; but before Pilate the accusation was one of sedition and attempted revolution. I suppose St Mark's language does not imply that another council was summoned different from that in which the High Priest had pronounced that Jesus deserved to die ; but that, after this conclusion was come to, a consultation was held as to the manner in which punishment was to be inflicted, with the result of a decision that it must be through the authority of the Roman Governor. THE TRIAL BEFORE PILATE Mark xv. 2-5. Matt, xxvii. 11-14. Luke xxiii. 3-5. I have already said that we are at no loss to conjecture means of information which the Evangelists might have had as to the proceedings before the Jewish Council, one member at least of which we know was friendly to Jesus. But when the boldest of their number returned in a state of intimidation and dejec- tion from his attempt to penetrate the secrets of the High Priest's palace, it may be doubted whether many 1 Dr Salmon's second draft of his notes ends here ; all that follows is from i be first draft. OUR LORD'S SILENCE 511 of the disciples would have had courage to mingle with the crowd before Pilate's tribunal. Again I must fell back on Joseph as the most likely person to be able to obtain information as to the proceedings, and to communicate it to the disciples. I think we need have no doubt as to the leading facts of the Evangelic tradition ; as, for example, that Pilate shewed reluctance to send Jesus to execu- tion, and was willing to release Him, not indeed as acquitted, but as the prisoner who according to usage was to be released in honour of the Passover feast. But I do not think that we can have entirely the same confidence in the report of the examination that took place. I say this, because there is one point in the report which presents great difficulty ; namely, that when Pilate asked our Lord whether He was the King of the Jews, he received the answer o-v Aey«?, which is generally understood to be a formula of assent. Having received such an answer, how could Pilate report to the Jewish accusers that he found no fault in Him ? And if the accused person had pleaded guilty to the fatal charge, why should His enemies go on urging many accusations against Him to which Pilate vainly asked for a reply? I own I am not satisfied with the solution that ij>eui SwurScv rod 'Itjo-oO. It is evident, even if no mention had been made of Alexander, that this Simon either was a disciple of Christ, or that he afterwards became a member of the Christian community. How else should they know the name of the man pressed into this unpleasant service, and that he was a native of Cyrene? Note St Mark's care about his imperfect tenses. He could not say eSwKav, as St Matthew does, about the offer of the medicated wine. The offer not having been accepted, St Mark says eSlSow. For e<7fxvpvio-/j.evov St Matthew substitutes fxera x»^?? fj.efuyfi.hiov. I cannot but think that this is a remem- brance of prophecy, Ps. lxix. 21, koi eSwicav els to /3pa)/u.d fxov x°^ v > Kai et V t*iv Sfyfrav fiov eiroTio-av pe o^oj. St John, xix. 28, tells the story so as to make the fulfilment of the prophecy more marked. THE CRUCIFIXION Mark xv. 24-32. Kai aravpovaiv airbv Kai Siafieplfovrai, tA lp.d- Tia airrov, fiaWovres k\tj- pov 4ir' aira rls H dpy. 9jv Si iipa rplri) koX iarai- poiaav airrov. xal fjv i] 4Tiypatpii T7)s alrlas airrov ivtyeypa/i/jJlv'rj, BASI- AETS TON IOTAAIfiN. Kai aiv airip aravpovacv Sio Xjjords, Iva 4k Se|iu» Kai Iva 41- eiuvip.o>v ai- rov. Kai oi trapavopevo- /j.evoi £{S\aatprip.ovv airbv Kivovvres tos Ke^aXas ai- rdv xal X^yovres, Oia 6 KaraXiW rbv vabv Kal olxoSofiwv [4v\ rpialv ii/ii- pais, awaov aeavrbv xara- /34s awb rov aravpov. 6/j.otuis Kal ol apxiepets 4fnral£ovres irpbs dXXlJXovs pera rwv ypaiipiaritav l\eyot>, "AXXous Saaaev, eavrbv oi Sivarai awaav 6 xpioros ° fiaai\eis 'la- paij\ Karap&ru vvv aitb tov aravpov, iva tSoifiev, Kal iriareiau/iev. Kal ol avvearavpapAvoi aiv aiVy ibvelSi^ov airov. Matt, xxvii. 35-44. Sravpiiaavres Si airbv Sieaeplaavro ra l/xdrta airoi fi&Wovres K\ijpov, Kal Ka6i]ixevoi er^povv ai- rbv ixel. Ka! iirid-qKav iirdvw ttjs xetpa\T}s airov ri)v aMav airov yeypau- y.ivr\v, OTTOS BSTIN IHSOTS BASIAETS TON IOTAAION. Tore aravpovvrai civ air$ Sio \yaral, eh 4x Se£iwv Kai eU e£ eiwviuwv. 0! Si Trapairopevufievoi 4{3\aa- es airroh, oi yap otSaatv ri ttoiov- aiv.\ Aiap.epi£6p,ei>0L Si ra iptxTia airov ^jSaXoy K\ijpov. Kal lar^Kei 6 Xais deap&v. 4S-ep.vKri)- pifov Si xal ol Apxovres \4yovres, "AXXous laaaev, aaadroi 4avr6v, el o5r6s 4 xal \4yov- res, Ei ai el 6 jSaaikeis rdv '\ovbaltav, aGiaov aeavrbv. ijv Si xal iiri- ypaVi OiSi Qofiri ai rbv deov, Srt 4v r$ atrip xplpuri el ; Kai ■rip.eis p.iv Smalm, ft|ia yap &v eirpa^afiev aTo\ap,(Sdvo- p,ev oirros Si oiSiv Sro- tov iirpd^ev. xal fKeyev, 'Iijaov, avi\aBr\rl /iou Stoc SXflgs els rty flaai- \elav aov. xal etirev ai- tQ, 'A/iijk ffot X^7«, oTJ/ie- pov p.er' 4/wv lay 4v rip irapaSelatp. Luke xxiii. 34. — There is no saying of our Lord's which we should more regret to lose than this one, yet it is imperfectly attested. It is not found in B 518 THE CRUCIFIXION nor in a few of the oldest Latin MSS. On the other hand, the Sinaitic is not here allied with the Vatican MS.; and the words are attested by Irenaeus and Origen and the Clementine Homilies. I do not know whether the letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons, a.d. 177, is not to be added to the evidence against the verse. At least I think that Stephen the perfect martyr would not have been cited as an example of a martyr praying for his murderers, if the writer had known that therein Stephen was only following an example set by our Lord Himself. I believe the best explanation is to accept the theory of a double edition of St Luke's Gospel, and to reckon this as one of the most valuable of the additions made by St Luke to the later form of his work. I know of only one alternative solution that deserves consideration. Hegesippus (Euseb. H.E., ii. 23), in relating the death of James the Just, reports that martyr as making the dying prayer, irapaKaXte, Kvpie 6ee TTOLTep, a^ey avroh' ov yap oiSaa-i ti ttoiovitiv ', it might be imagined that so beautiful a prayer, and so worthy of our Lord Himself, was transferred by an early scribe to Luke's narrative. But it is quite as likely that Hegisippus copied Luke. The address Trarep is more appropriate to our Lord than to James, and comes in awkwardly as used by Hegesippus. Moreover, I think the recognition of the verse by Irenasus and Origen is too early to be consistent with ascribing the origin to Hegesippus. St Mark states that it was the third hour when they crucified Him, that is to say, at nine in the morning. I do not think so early an hour is inconsistent with the statement in Luke that our Lord was sent to Herod. The Jewish Council was held before sunrise (for Peter was recognised only by the light of the fire). Our Lord, then, might have been sent to Pilate soon after six o'clock ; and, as Herod was in Jerusalem, the trial before him and the second hearing before Pilate might all have taken place in the space of three hours. But I own the story would read more THE MIRACULOUS DARKNESS 519 smoothly if we leave out the visit to Herod which the other authorities do not mention. THE MIRACULOUS DARKNESS Mark xv. 33. Matt, xxvii. 45. Luke xxiii. 44, 45 a - Kot yevonhrjs &pas 'Air6 Si Ikttis &pas Koi fjv tftiy tixrel &pa t/crris Vidros iyivero £rjcreTai «y (Tk-otoj. In other words, it is plainly an eclipse that all the Evangelists describe, only not a natural one, but a miraculous one. It is then quite conceivable that when the ambiguity of the phrase suggested to some that St Luke was relating a 520 THE CRUCIFIXION natural, and not a supernatural, occurrence, and they made the objection that an eclipse could not take place at that time, then, either in the public reading of the Gospel or in its transcription, the phrase was changed for one not open to cavil. THE COMPLAINT OF FORSAKENNESS Mark xv. 34-36. Kal rjj ivory wpa ip&rj- aev 6 'lyirovs tpuvrj fieyd- Xy, 'EXui, e\, '0 0e6s liov [6 Behs fiovj, els rt iyKa.T&iire's fie ; Kal rives rGtv TrapeffT7jK0T(av clkou- o-avres i\eyov, "ISe 'HXe- lav (panel, dpa.fj.ut> St tis yefiltras airdyyov 61-ovs irepiBels Ka\dp.w &roVifei> airrov, Xfyup, "Atpere, idwfiev el Ipxerai "S\elas naBe/\elv airrov. Matt, xxvii. 46-49. TLepl Se rty ivarrfv &pav iplorftrev 6 'IijffoCs v airoyyov irXijiras re 0£ovs Kal irepiOels Ka- \&/iaj> inoTifcv airov. ol Se \oiiroi eTirav t "Arpes IStafiev el ip%erai 'HXcfas •Ttiatnv airrov. Luke xxiii. 44*, 46a. 7jk6tos dyivero £u- >tjv pxy&\-nv ii-iirveveev. Kal rd KarairiratrfLa tov vaou iay(la8i\ els tiio M &vw8ei> tus kAtu>. 'ISiiv Si b Kemvplav b wapeffTij- Ktbs &£ ivavrlas avrov Sti ovtws i^iimevo-ev elirev, 'AXtjdus ovtos 6 &v6ptaros vlbs Beov %v. THE DEATH Matt, xxvii. 50, 51a. '0 Si 'Iinoovs irdXm Kp&l-as 0ai»S neyd\y aU/nj- Kev rb irvevfxa. Kai ISoit rd Karairir utrfia tov vaov iax^B-n [^1^] &va>6ei> las /id™ els Sio. THE EARTHQUAKE AND THE OPENING OF THE TOMBS. Ver. 54. '0 Si &caT&rapxos <«ii ol fier' avrov rtjpdvvTes rbv 'lyaovv ISovres rbv aewjihv koX rb, yivb/ieva £v \6yxyv ew£ev avrov Ttjv irXevpav, km e£q\0ev vScep kcu at/ia. This reminds us of the story told by St John, xix. 34, only that in this latter version of the story the lance thrust was made after the Saviour's death, in order to make sure that death had actually taken place ; but in the version ascribed to St Matthew, while one of those who heard the agonising cry, Eli, Eli, mercifully gave the sufferer drink, another, resolved that the criminal should not escape, anticipated the intervention of Elijah with a lance thrust. And if we accept this reading, this 524 THE CRUCIFIXION stroke must have been the immediate cause of Christ's death. If this insertion is spurious, it must have been made after the publication of the Gospel of St John, who not only here, but in his first Epistle, lays much stress on this incident. And if it is no part of the original Hebrew Matthew, but a genuine part of the Greek Matthew, as Hort evidently considered it, then it would follow that the Greek Matthew is later than the Fourth Gospel. The other theory must be that it was part of the original Matthew which the Fourth Evangelist wove into his narrative with some variation. Yet I confess that, though I find in the Fourth Gospel many traces of acquaintance with the Second and Third Gospels, I find elsewhere no trace of acquaintance with any part of the First, save those which St Mark had already employed. We should certainly have no scruple in rejecting this insertion if it were not that it is attested by those MSS. which in other cases we have reason to regard as containing the oldest text. Yet there is a great lack of the confirmatory testimony which is to be found in other cases. The Patristic testimony in favour of the insertion is only Cyril of Alexandria and, what we should less expect, Chrysostom. The old Latin MSS., which have preserved for us a very ancient type of text, give no adherence here. The only ancient Western testimony is D, a MS. which contains many things the right of which to a place in the true text cannot be admitted. Origen appears to be unacquainted with the story ; but it is only fair to add that the passage of Celsus to which Origen is replying seems to imply the use of a MS. which con- tained the passage. On the whole, the evidence in favour of the insertion is so limited that I think that if the passage had ever been in the genuine text of the First Gospel it could never have been eliminated, so as to leave so little trace of its existence. Hort seems to have believed in the right of this verse to a place in what he ambiguously calls "the extant THE WOMEN AT THE CROSS 525 form" of Matthew. My own hesitation in rejecting this verse as an interpolation is that I see no reason why any one who had read St John's Gospel should have transposed the incident from after death to before it. But I can understand that St John, if he had read the story in the latter form, and had known such an objection as Celsus had made to the representation of ichor flowing from our Lord's side when wounded, might have made a useful correction. On the whole, however, I believe that the verse originated in the mistake of an oral narrator of our Lord's history, who, remembering the story as told by St John, had severed the incident from its true connexion. THE WOMEN AT THE CROSS Mark xv. 40, 41. 'Htrav Si Kai ywauces dwd naKpodev ffewpovaai, f v ats Kai Mapia/i i) M07- Sa\ip>i) cai Mapfa i) 'Ia-

cy ttj ToXtXaly ■!]ko\ov0ovv airip Kai Sai- kovovv ai'T 384 Chrysostom, St John, 524 Church reading of the Gospels; a source of variation between the Synoptics, 56, 57, 83, 114, 217, 219, 464, 476 , a source of various readings, 228, 240, 520 Church teaching ; as interpreting and modifying Sayings of Jesus, 114, 115, "2, 127, 131, 133, 391, 415 Clementine Homilies, 39, 196, 402, 5l8 Clement of Alexandria, St, 166, 410, 414 Commandments ; order of the, 41 1 Cross ; meaning of bearing the cross, 359. 360 Cyprian, St, 143; Pseudo-Cyprian, 46, 410 Cyril of Alexandria, St, 524 of Jerusalem, St, 39 Dalmanutha, 343, 346 Demoniacal possession, 60, 204, 205, 225, 275, 276, 370, 374 Didache, 143, 172 Divorce, 128-131, 390-394 Dollinger, von, 129 Doublets, 86, 118, 125, 128, 185,208, 212, 216, 217, 257, 260, 309, 310, 339. 34i, 3S9, 386, 4t>S» 423. 455. 459. 4°6, 467. 468, 47° Epiphanius, St, 35, 269 Eusebius, 27, 199 Fasting ; Pharisaic fasts, 172 ; Prayer and fasting, 374 sqq. Field, 134, 522 Galen, 102 Geyer, P., 28 Glaucias, 28 Gore, Bishop, 128 Gospel, The; oral recitation of, 27, 57, 74, in, 281, 282, 404. See Luke. See Church Reading , The ; the term as used in the N.T., 36, 37, 38, 82, 83, 245, 360, 416 , The Primitive ; evidence that it was in the Aramaic language, 28, 45. So. 52, 54. 57, 58. 59. 6'. "4, 125, 148, I69, 175, 208, 220, 226, 305. 335. 37°. 397, 428, 455. 479 , The Primitive ; identical with the Aramaic Matthew, 244, 360, 404, 405, 430, 437 , The Primitive; its relative date, 472, 474 534 INDEX OF PERSONS AND SUBJECTS Gospel, The Primitive Aramaic; trans- lated into Greek by St Mark, 398, 415. 451. 478 , the Primitive Aramaic; evidence of a Greek translation earlier than Luke or the Greek Matthew, 29, 51, 66, 140, 141, 166, 208, 223, 232, 238, 244, 326, 335, 396, 398, 416, 451, 452, 468, 475, 478, 479 , the Ebionite, 46, 60 Gospels ; chronological sequence of, 405 Gregory Nazianzen, St, 176, 177 Harris, J. Rendel, 155 Hebrews, Gospel according to the, 46, 55. 57, 60, 127, 402 Hegesippus, 518 Heracleon, 165, 166, 198 Herodians, 182-184, 449 Hort, F. J. A., 34, 35, 83, 108, 176, 209, 230, 468, 524, 530 Howard, 504 Huxley, 278 Ignatius, St, 55, 409 Inspiration of the Gospels ; remarks on its nature and degree, 4, 5, 6, 9, 15-18, 200, 202, 339, 340, 362, 482 Irenseus, St, 35, 36, 142, 401, 497, 5i8» 531 James (the Epistle); the writer's acquaintance with the Sermon on the Mount, 112, 113, 137, 144 Jerome, St, 46, 176, 177, .239, 297, 485 Jesus ; His ministry before the call of Peter, 241. See Chorazin ; how He could be tempted, 63, 68 ; His Human Mind, 254 ; the extent of His knowledge as Man, 276, 476 ; how His Human Soul awoke to a knowledge of His power, 344 ; the carpenter or the carpenter's son, 288, 407 ; the son of Mary, 288, 289 ; His brethren, 289 ; the name of Jesus used in exorcisms, 380 ; had He a home of His own ? 101, 161, 162, 167 John the Baptist ; his baptism of Jesus the beginning of the Gospel, 38 ; His more ancient name, the Baptizer, 303, 308 John the Baptist; differently regarded by Jews and by Gentiles, 226, 236, 237, 368 ; the significance of his testi- mony, 39, 441 John (the Gospel) ; a theory as to its authorship, 436, 483, 486 ; its relative date, 406, 483, 524 ; estimation of its historical value, 290, 320 note, 322, 371, 429, 436, 483. 512. 5 2 8 ; instances of statements in the Fourth Gospel which are credible or probable, 39, 75, 76, 8o, 84, 237, 240, 290, 313, 322, 341, 346, 354, 435. 486, 489, 490, 498, 505, 511, 515 ; discrepancies between the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptics, 56, 317, 318, 406 note, 431-437. 490. 5'2, 527 ; relation to the First Gospel, 319, 320, 406 note, 524, 525, 529, 53° ; the writer's acquaintance with the Second Gospel, 204, 236, 316, 406 note, 485 ; the writer's acquaintance with the Second and Third Gospels, 53, 84, 290, 405, 427, 484, 524 Jonah, the sign of, 217 sqq. Josephus, 101 Justin Martyr, St, 52, 57, 61, 401, 407, 408, 410, 497 Lebb^us, 197-199 Little ones ; who are meant by these little ones, 387, 388 Logia, 29, 70. See also Sayings of Jesus. Longinus, 5 Luke, St ; oral recitation a source of his knowledge of the Gospel history, 50, 67, 92, 121, 145, 211, 240, 244, 464, 494. See Antioch ; failure of memory a cause of his variations, 67, 123, 124, 132, I39> 145. 222, 283, 385 ; his indebtedness to the women who accompanied our Lord, 526 ; his teaching on the Holy Spirit, 46, 211, 212, 298, 299 ; evidence of an Aramaic source (not Matthew) used by him, 455 Luke (the Gospel) ; the nature of the order observed in the narrative, 73, 74, 78, 146, 156, 211, 273, 282, 287, 302, 311. See also Sayings of Jesus INDEX OF PERSONS AND SUBJECTS 535 Luke ; relative date, 258, 284, 364, 421 ; inferences from the Preface, 20, 24. 25. 123, 246 ; relation to Matthew, 42, 43, 57. 457 ; relation to Mark, 53, 71, 88, 118, 147, 211, 244, 316, 328, 333, 339. 377, 378 ; two editions of it, 173, 497, 5l8. 521 ; alleged Ebionite tendencies in it, 113-115, 412 ; Pauline influence on it, 411, 491. 493 ; St Paul's indebtedness to it, 296, 332 ; the text — witness from Matthew, 468 ; witness from Mark, 177, 271 ; its witness to the text of Mark, 94, 99, 192, 304, 425 ; instances in which Luke is closer to the original than Matthew or Mark, 116, 415 ; instances in which Luke varies materially from Mark, 151, 173, 181 Mark, St ; his use of the imperfect tense, 48, 105, 253, 258, 315, 337, 400, 433, 437, 446, 451, 457, 49s, 516, 521, 525 ; his use of ^/>|aro with an in- finitive, followed by the imperfect, 294, 376, 421, 433, 434, 442, 464 ; his use of the substantive verb with a participle, 47, 89, 172, 474, 486 ; his use of participles, 305 Mark (the Gospel) ; probably written in Rome, 53, 394 ; embodies the Petrine tradition, 21-23, 28, 31, 62, 71, 72, 75, 77, 79, 100, 126, 197, 321, 349, 365, 368, 389, 429, 430, 463, 469, 489, 499, 528 ; use of Q by the writer, 41, 58, 71 ; evidence of a source, or sources, of the Second Gospel other than St Peter or Q, 341, 347, 382, 469 ; Pauline influence on, 37, 380, 384, 4l6, 501 , . . ; internal evidence of relative date, 292, 306, 309, 363, 364, 469 ; historical value of, 30, 31, 71, 85, 158, 159, 190, 202, 287, 327, 337, 344, 378 Mark ; other instances of the credi- bility of Mark's order of narration, 211, 301, 302, 331,349 ; instances in which the Second Gospel is closer to the original than are the others, 130, 391, 398, 399, 401, 407, 445, 454, 470 ; in what sense the Second Gospel is an abridgment, 155, 236, 250, 351, 417, 443, 459, 480 ; the text — witness from Matthew, 305, 306, 373 ; witness from Luke, 94, 99, 192, 304, 425 ; witness of Mark to the text of Luke, 177, 271 ; the appendix to the Gospel, 343, 494, 529-531 Mary Magdalene ; possibly a relapsed demoniac Matthew (the Gospel); originally in the Aramaic language, 27, 28, 31, 61, 189, 244, 351, 371, 403, 410, 416, 424, 425, 446. See Gospel, the Primitive ; a Greek translation, or edition, of the original Aramaic Matthew, 70, 189, 264, 351, 371, 389, 398, 399, 403, 405, 410, 420, 424, 428, 446, 524 ; a theory as to its composition, 71, 126, 403, 405 ; the Gospel of the Palestinian churches, 321, 351 ; relative date of the Greek Gospel, as we have it now, 55, 90, 188, 303, 406-410, 420, 426, 433, 455, 462, 465, 472, 523, 524 ; relation to Mark, 23, 71, 77, 85, 86, 109, 403, 466, 472, 500 ; relation to Luke, 42, 43 ; relation to John. See John (the Gospel) ; employment of a source other than Q or Mark, 196, 335, 349, 360, 419, 451, 454, 488, 522 ; instances in which Matthew is closer to the original than are the others, 43, 47, 49, 52, 53, 57, 60, 67, 68, 69, 122, 123, 156, 173, 197, 234, 235, 268, 269, 274, 291, 392, 468, 471, 479, 501 ; witness to the text of Mark, 305, 306, 373 ; witness to the text of Luke, 468 ; order of narration, 281, 282, 301,302. See also Sayings of Jesus : prominence of Peter in Matthew, 321, 329, 349 536 INDEX OF PERSONS AND SUBJECTS Meyer, 176, 177 Milton, 64 Miracles ; remarks on the miraculous element in the Gospels, 6, 7, 8, 102, 275, 278, 286, 322 sqq., 350 Napier, History of Peninsular War, 17 Origen, 60, 127, 198, 269, 270, 271, 277. 334. 399, 402, 408, 409, 425, 446, 518, 524 Paley, Archdeacon, 120 Papias, 21, 27, 28, 29, 31, 70 Patriarchs, the Twelve. See Testa- ments Pauli Prcedicatio, 46 Paulus, 322, 323 Peter, Gospel of, 522, 530 Philo, 411 Philumena, St, 9 Pliny, 270 Polybius, 19 Prophetical citations from O.T., 82, 170, 218, 264, 427, 488, 516 Robinson, J. Armitage, 126 Rushbrooke, 19 Sayings of Jesus, 27, 29, 30, 70, m, 112, us, 233. 234, 250 ; Matthew's arrangement of the Sayings, 122, 157, 252, 443, 457, 458 ; Luke's arrangement of the Sayings, 457, 479 Schleiermacher, 29, 70 Schmiedel, 312, 320 Seventy, The, 200-202, 294, 309 Sign ; the Sign of the Son of Man, 219, 462 ; a sign and a sign from heaven, 216-219, 344, 345 Sinker, R., 58 Sinners ; meaning of the term, 168, 170 Smith, Goldwin, 8 Strauss, 322, 323 Swete, H. B., 101 Sylvia Peregrinatio, 28 TEACHING of the twelve Apostles. See Didache Tertullian, 411 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 58 Textual criticism ; how affected by the Synoptic question. See Church Reading, Hort, F. J. A., Luke, Mark, Matthew, and List of Various Readings Thaddaeus, 197-199 Tischendorf, 34, 198, 425 Twelve, The, 186 Vienne and Lyons; the Letter of the Churches of, 518 Weiss, Bernhard, 58, 150, 164, 241, 334, 335, 37o, 515, 521, 530 Westcott, Bishop, 316 Wetstein, 102 Whately, Archbishop, 278 Wilderness ; meaning of the term, 44, 151 Word, The ; as a technical Christian term, 245, 246 Zahn, 28 Zeno, 19 VARIOUS READINGS Page Page St Matthew— iii. 3 • 43 St Mark — viii. 26 . • 348 iii. 17 • 57 ix. 29 373. sqq. v. 22 . 1 ts, 121, 131, 415 ix. 41 382, sqq. vi. 13 . . 138 x. 12 ■ 394 viii. 28 • 269, sqq. x. 24 413. sqq. viii. 30 ■ 277 xi. 1 ■ 425 ix. 34 . 209 xi. 3 425. sq. x. 3 • • 197. sqq. xv. 44 ■ 527 xi. 19 ■ 239, sq. xiv. 24 • 319 St Luke — Hi. 22 • 57 xvi. 2, 3 . . 220 iv. 8 . 68 xvii. 21 • 373. sqq. iv. 44 . 108 xviii. 11 . xix. 16, 17 ■ 388 ■ 398-407 v- 39 vi. 1 ■ 173 175. sqq. xix. 20 ■ 397 vi. 35 134, sq. xx. 22, 23 . 420 vi. 48 ■ 145 xxi. 1 • 42S vii. 19 227, sq. xxi. 44 . 446 vii. 19, 20 229, sq. xxvi. 7 ■ 485 viii. 26 269, sqq. xxvii. 49 . • S23. sqq. ix. 35 366, sq. St Mark— i. 1 ■ 34, sqq. x. 21 xii. 11 . 298 . 468 i. 14 82 xix. 29 ■ 425 i. 24 94. sq. xxii. 19, 20 • 493 i. 25 • 97 xxii. 43, 44 62, 496 i. 27 ■ 99 xxiii. 17 • • 513 i. 40 . 148 xxiii. 34 . • 5i7. sq- i. 41 • 149. sq. xxiii. 45 . • 519 iii. 14 ■ 191. sqq. xxiv. 19 . • 96 iii. IS . 291 iii. 18 v. 1. vi. 3 . 198 • 269, sqq. ■ 409 St John— i. 28 iv. 1 271 . 228 vi. 20 • 304 xix. 29 . 522 vi. 22 ■ 3°S. sqq. vii. 24, 31 ■ 334 Acts — xv. 29 . . 142 537 INDEX OF SCRIPTURE REFERENCES OLD TESTAMENT The figures in block type refer to passages which are commented on, not merely referred to. Page Page Genesis — iv. 8 ; vi. i 169 Psalms — viii. 2 • 437 xv. 4 ; xxxviii. 29 59 xxxi. 5 • ■ . 52° lxix. 21 . . . • 5i6 Exodus — viii. 19 . 208 xvi. 25, 26 89 Isaiah— v. 1, 4 • 445 xxii. 25 ■ 456 ix. 1 ... . 82 xxiv. 1 202 xxxiv. 4 . ■ 475 xxxiv. 28 . 61 xxxvi. 22 ; xxxvii. 1 . • 5t>3 xl. 9 ; lii. 7 • 38 Leviticus— ii. 13 . 387 xix. 18; xxv. 36 . 456 Jeremiah — xxvi. 18 502 xxxvi. 24 . ■ 5°3 Numbers — xi. 16 . 202 Ezekiel — i. 1 . • 58 Deuteronomy— v. 6-21 . . 411 iii. 19 . • 465 60 xv. 9, 10 . • I3S viii. 3 xxiii. 6 ■ 136 xxxiii. 9 . ■ 465 xxiii. 19 . • 456 xliii. 24 . ■ 387 xxiv. 1 . . . . 130 Hosea — i. 2 . • 34 1 Samuel — xii. 6 • 191 vi. 2 . 218 vi. 6 170, 218 2 Samuel— xv. 16-18 • 313 Zechariah — ix. 9 . • 427 1 Kings — xix. 8 61 xi. 12 . 488 xiii. 7 ■ 494 2 Kings — v. 11 • 103 2 Kings— xxii. 11. • 503 Malachi — iii. 1 • 42 Ezra — ix. 12 . . 136 Tobit— iv. 15 . 142 Psalms— ii. 7. S7 Bel and the Dragon . 60 539 5 4 o INDEX OF SCRIPTURE REFERENCES NEW TESTAMENT Page Page St Matthew— ii. 23 . .Si St Matthew— vi. 22, 23 . 1 19, 140 iii. 1-3 . . 40 vi. 23 . 117 iii. 2 ■ 45 vi. 24 . 140 iii. 4-6 • 47 vi. 25 . 141 iii. 7-10 . . . 48 vi. 33 • 259 iii. 9 . 50 vii. 2 141, 259 iii. 10 • 144. 2 49 vii. 3-12 . . 142 iii. 11 ■ 441 vii. 13a ; 15-27 • 143 iii. 11, 12 . . 51 vii. 16-25 . • 144 iii. 13-16 . • • • 54 vii. 17, 18, 19 . 249 iii. IS • 409 vii. 21-23 > 22 • 143 iii. 16, 17 . ■ 55 vii. 26, 27 • 145 iv. 1. ■ 59 vii. 28i, 29 . . 89 iv. 2-11 . . 61 vii. 29 . 172 iv. 12 • 75> 77. 79. 81 viii. 1 • 146. H7 iv. 12-17 . • 75 viii. 2 . 148 iv. 13 84, 161, 167, 241 viii. 3, 4 • 149 iv. 17 . 45. 2 92 viii. 5-13 • • 152 iv. 18 . 100 viii. 8 . 52 iv. 18-22 . 72. 83 viii. 11, IS . • 156 iv. 23 38, 82, 86, 193 viii. 12 • 38 iv. 23-25 . . . • i8 S viii. 14a • 99 iv. 24 . 104 viii. 140, 15 . 100 iv. 24, 25 . . . 185 viii. 16, 17 . 103 iv. 33 . 250 viii. 18; 23 . 264 v. 1, 2 . no viii. 19-22 65,267 v. 3-12 112 viii. 24-27 . 265 v. 13 • "7. 387 viii. 28 • 273 v. 14-16 . . 118 viii. 28a . . 268 v. 15 • n8, 257 viii. 28* . . 272 v. 17-20 . . 119 viii. 29 . 96, 273 v. 18 . 121, 233 viii. 30-32 ■ 274 v. 20 ; 21-26 . 121 viii. 33, 34 ■ 279 v. 21-48 . 119, 121 ix. I . 241 v. 22 us, 131, 415 ix. 1-8 • 157 v. 25, 26 . . 123 ix. 1-17 . 282 v. 27-30 . . . X2S ix. 9 . 164 v. 29 . 2Ib ix. 10 • 137 v. 29, 30 . . 386 ix. 10-13 . 167 V. 31, 32 . . 128 ix. 13 170, 175 v. 32 216, 391, 415 ix. 14-17 • I7i v. 33-42 . . 132 ix. 18 . 231 v. 39 • '33 ix. 18, 19 . 281 v. 40 • 133 ix. 20-22 . 283 v. 42 ■ 134 ix. 23-26 . 285 v. 43-48 . • 135 ix. 27-31 • 423 v. 45 . 136 ix. 28 ■ 375 v. 46, 47 . 136, 137, 169 ix. 30 . iS° v. 48 ■ 137. 141 ix. 32 208, 338 vi. 1-18 . - 137 ix. 32-34 . 205, 206 vi. 14, IS . ■ • 138 ix- 34 . 209 vi. 19-21 . . 140 ix. 35 38, 82, 86, 290 vi. 19-34 . • 139 ix. 36 • 3" INDEX OF SCRIPTURE REFERENCES 541 Paee Page St Matthew— ix. 36-38 . 190 St Matthew— xii. 27 . 225 x. 1 . 186, 291 xii. 27, 28 208, 209 X. 2-4 189, 194 xii. 29 . 210 x. 3 . . • 197 xii. 30 210, 381 x. Hi, 6 . . 291 xii. 31, 32 . 210 x. 7 . 44. 292 xi»- 33-37 • . 212 x. 8 . • 193 xii. 33 • 144 x. 8-10 . . 292 xii. 34 . . . ■ 5° X. 10 . 296 xii. 38-40 . . 2l6 X. II • 29S xii. 40 . 217 x. 11-14 . • 293 xii. 41 ■ 175 x. 15 . 296 xii. 41, 42 . 219 x. 16 295> 4°9 xii. 43-45 . 222 x. 17, 18 . • 464 xii. 46-50 . • 213 x. 19 . 468 xiii. 1-Za . 242 *. 19-22 . . 466 xiii. 3d, 4 . • 244 x. 24 ■ 33° xiii. 5, 6 . • 247 x. 25 . 207 xiii. 7 . 248 x. 26-28a . • 257 xiii. 8, 9 . • 249 x. 32, 33 . • 359 xiii. 10-15. . 250 x. 37-39 . • 357 xiii. 12 258. 259 *■ 39 . 410 xiii. 16, 17 . 300 x. 40 • 295 xiii. 19 ■ 245 x. 41 • 384 xiii. 20, 21 • 247 X. 42 381, 382 xiii. 21 • 245 xi. 1 . 188 xiii. 22 . 248 xi. 2 . 302 xiii. 23 ■ 249 xi. 2, 3 . 327 xiii. 26 • 253 xi. 3 . 230 xiii. 31-33 . 262 xi. 4-6 . 231 xiii. 34, 35 . 263 xi. 7-11 . . 232 xiii. 35 . 264 xi. 7-19 . 232 xiii. 38 . • 38 xi. 8 • 47 xiii. 43 . . 263 xi. 10 . 40, 41, 42 xiii. 51 . 264 xi. 12 • 234, 235 xiii. S3 . ■ 73 xi. 12-15 . 232 xiii. 53-58 . 73.287 xi. 13 • 39 xiii. 54 . . 3°i xi. 14 . 406 xiii. 55 . • 407 xi. 14, 15 ■ 235 xiii. 57 . 290 xi. 16-19 . 232, 237 xiv. 1-4 . . 300 xi. 19 • »: j7, 169, 239 xiv. 3 77 xi. 20 . 80 xiv. 3, 4 . • 303 xi. 20-24 ■ 297 xiv. 5 • 303 xi. 21 . 296 xiv. 63-7 . • 304 xi. 25-27 • 297 xiv. 8-12 . . 308 xi. 27 ■ 299 xiv. 9 • 3°3. 3°8 xii. 1-8 • 174 xiv. 13a . . 310 xii. 6 . 220 xiv. 133, 14 . 3" xii. 7 . 170 xiv. 15-18. • 313 xii. 9-14 • 177 xiv. 19-21. ■ 314 xii. 11, 12 . 181 xiv. 22, 23 ■ 3'7 xii. 15a . 182 xiv. 24 ■ 3'9 xii. 156, 1 B . . 185 xiv. 24-33. • ■ 318 xii. 22 . 208, 338 xiv. 28-33 . 321 xii. 22-24 . 206 xiv. 33 . • 343 xii. 22-28 . 205 xiv. 34-36 . • 325 xii. 24 . 209 XV. 1, Jl . ■ 169, 327 xii. 25 . 207 xv. 3-9 , , • ■ 329 542 INDEX OF SCRIPTURE REFERENCES Page Page St Matthew— xv. 4 \. . .411 St Matthew— xix. 27-30 . 416 xv. 10-20 . • 329 xix. 28 . 187, 416, 417 xv. 21 ■ 334 xx. 17 . 188 xv. 21-28 . ■ 332 xx. 17-19 . 418 xv. 24 . 292 xx. 20-23 • 4*9 xv. 26 142 xx. 24-28 . . 420 xv. 29a • 337 xx. 29-34 422, 423 xv. 290-31 ■ • 338 xxi. 1-11 • 424 xv. 32-39 . • 339 xxi. 10 428, 432 xv. 38 • 315 xxi. 12-17 • 43* xvi. 1, 2a, 4a • 344 xxi. 17 • 437 xvi. 1, 2a, 4 216 xxi. 18, 19 • 429 xvi. 2b, 3 . 220 xxi. 20-22 ■ 437 xvi. 43-12 . • 345 xxi. 21 ■ 373 xvi. 6 • 347 xxi. 23 • 438 xvi. 9-10 . ■ 34° xxi. 24-27 • 440 xvi. 13-20. • • 348 xxi. 25 • 235 xvi. 17 ■ 35i xxi. 31, 32 . 170 xvi. 17-19 ■ 35° xxi. 33a . • 442 xvi. 18 . . 85 xxi. 333-36 • 443 xvi. 21 . 66 xxi. 37-42 ■ 444 xvi. 21-23. • 352 xxi. 43 • 445 xvi. 24-26. • 3SS xxi. 44-46 . ■ 44 6 xvi. 25 . 416 xxii. 15-22 ■ 447 xvi. 27 • 219, 358 xxii. 23-28 • 45i xvi. 28 . 361 xxii. 29-33 • 452 xvii. 1 • 363 xxii. 34-40 ■ 454 xvii. 2-8 • 36S xxii. 41-46 • 457 xvii. J . 366 xxiii. 6, 7 . • 459 xvii. 10 . ■ 235 xxiii. 33 • So xvii. 13 • 235, 407 xxiv. 1, 2 . 461 xvii. 9-13 . • 3<57 xxiv. 3 . 462 xvii. 14-17 . . 368 xxiv. 4-8 • 463 xvii. 18 . • 37i» 372 xxiv. 9-14 • 4<54 xvii. 20 • 437 xxiv. 14 38, 82, 477 xvii. 19-21 • 372 xxiv. 15-18 • 469 xvii. 22, 23 • 37<5 xxiv. 19-22 • 471 xviii. 1-5 . • • 378 xxiv. 23-28 • 472 xviii. 6 ■ 382, 384 xxiv. 29-31 ■ 473 xviii. 7 • • 385 xxiv. 30 . 219 xviii. 8 . 216 xxiv. 32 . . 221 xviii. 8-9 . . 125, 386 xxiv. 32 33 • 474 xviii. 10 . • 382, 388 xxiv. 34-36 • 475 xviii. 11 . • • 388, 389 xxiv. 37-42 • 477 xviii. 21 . • • 438 xxiv. 43, 44 • 478 xix. 1, 2 . ■ • 389 xxiv. 45-51 • 479 xix. 3 . 390 xxv. 13 • 477 xix. 3-12 . . 128 xxv. 14 . 480 xix. 4-8 . ■ 392 xxv. 29 . 260 xix. 8 . 122 xxv. 31 219 xix. 9 . 1 28, 216, 391, 415 xxvi. 1-5 . 480 xix. 9-12 . • 393 xxvi. 2 • 434 xix. 12 • 127. 394 xxvi. 6-13 . 481 xix. 13-15 . • 395 xxvi. 7 • 48S xix. 16-22. • 396 xxvi. 14 . 188, 486 xix. 17 • 4°7. 415 xxvi. 14-16 • 487 xix. 18 • 33° xxvi. 17-19 . 488 xix. 23-26, . 412 xxvi. 20 . 187, 188 INDEX OF SCRIPTURE REFERENCES 543 Pace Page St Matthew— xxvi. 20-30 . 490 St Mark— i. 39 • 107, 172 xxvi. 31-3S . 494 i. 40 . 146, 148 xxvi. 36-46 495 i. 41-44 . • 149 xxvi. 46 . 107 i. 45 . 151 xxvi. 47 . 188 ii. I . 203 xxvi. 47-66 498 ii. 1-12 . ■ ■ ■ 157 xxvi. 57-61 500 ii. 6 . 170 xxvi. 64 . 219 ii. 9 ; 12 . . . 163 xxvi. 62-68 502 ii. 13, 14 . . 164 xxvi. 69-75 507 ii. 15-17 . . 167 xxvii. 1, 2 509 ii. 18-22 . . . . 171 xxvii. 3-10 5io ii. 23-28 . ■ 174 xxvii. 11-14 510 iii. 1-6 . • 177 xxvii. 16-18, 20 . • 513 iii. 7a . 182 xxvii. 21-23, 26 ; 27-31 • 514 iii. 7 • 79 xxvii. 32-34 516 iii. 7, 8 • . 86 xxvii. 36-44 • 517 iii. 74-12 . . . . 185 xxvii. 45 . 519 iii. 8 • 336 xxvii. 46-49 • 5 20 iii. 9 . 242, 264 xxvii. 49 . ■ 523 iii. 10 • 193 xxvii. 60, 51, 64 522 iii. 11 . 105 xxvii. 66, 66 ■ S25 iii. 13 . 190 xxvii. 57-61 . 526 iii. 13-15 . . 186 xxviii. 1-10 . 528 iii. 14 . 191 iii. IS • 91, 291 iii. 16 85, 100, 207 St Mark — i. 1 • • ■ 33 iii. 16-19tz • 194 i. 2-4 . . 40 iii. 19(5-21 . 202 i. 5, 6 . . .47 iii. 21 , . 215 i. 6 . . . .47, 172 iii. 22 . 328 i. 7, 8 -SI iii. 22-26 . ■ 205, 344 i. 7 441 iii. 27-30 . . 210 i. 9 54 iii. 31-35 . . 213 i. 10 .... 56 iv. 1 . 264 i. 10, 11 .... 55 iv. 1, 2 . . 242 i. 12 ... 39.59 iv. 3, 4 . • 244 i. 13 .... 61 iv. 5, 6 . • 247 i. 14 38, 77, 79, 81, 82 iv. 7 . 248 i. 14, 15 . . 75 iv. 8, 9 . ■ 249 i. IS • 37, 4S, 292 iv. 10 ■ 255 i. 16-20 ... 72, 83 iv. 10-13 . . 250 i. 21fl . . . 88 iv. 11 • 253 i. 21* . . . 89 iv. 13 . 252 i. 21-28 .... 72 iv. 14, 16 . • 245 i. 22 ... 89, 172 iv. 16, 17 . • 247 i. 23 ... 89, 93 iv. 17 ■ 245 i. 24 .... 94 iv. 18, 19 . . 248 i. 25 . . . 105, 186 iv. 20 . 249 i. 25, 26 . . 97 iv. 21 • 253 i. 27 ... 98 iv. 21, 22 . . 118 i. 28 ; 29 . 99 iv. 21-23 . . 256 i. 29-34 • . 72 iv. 24 141, 253, 260 i. 30, 31 . 100 iv. 24, 25 . . 258 i. 32-34 . 103 iv. 25 • 259 i. 34 ... 104, 105 iv. 26 • 253 i. 35 • i°7, 152, 317, 49f iv. 26-29 . 260 i. 35-38 ... 72, 100 iv. 30 • 238, 253 i- 3« .... 107 iv. 30-32 , . 262 y 544 INDEX OF SCRIPTURE REFERENCES Page Page St Mark— iv. 32 . . 244 St Mark— vii. 24-30 • 332 iv. S3, 34 . 251, 263 vii. 27 • 366 iv. 34 . 264 vii. 31 334. 337 iv. SS, 36 . . 264 vii. 32 . . . • 348 iv. 37-41 . . 265 vii. 32-37 . ■• 338 iv. 39 . IOI vii. 33 ■ 348 iv. 41 • 99 viii. 1-10 . • 339 v. 1, 2 . 268 viii. 9 . . . ■ 315 V. 3-5 . 272 viii. 11, 12 216, 344 v. 4 • 273 viii. 13-21 • 345 v. 6-10 • 273 viii. 19, 20 • 340 v. 7. • 96 viii. 22 80,348 v. 7, 8 . • 95 viii. 22-26 • 347 v. 11-13 . • 274 viii. 23 • 348 v. 14-20 . • 279 viii. 27-30 ■ 348 v. 21-24a . . 281 viii. 31 ■ 419 v. 22 . 231 viii. 31-33 ■ 35 z V. 24*5-34 . 283 viii. 33 • • ■ • 97 v. 36-37 . . 284 viii. 34 . • 353 v. 38-43 . . 285 viii. 34-37 • 355 vi. 1 • 73 viii. 35 • • 3 7, 360, 416 vi. l-6a . 287 viii. 38 219, 358 vi. 3 ■ 407 ix. 1 . 361 vi. 4 . 290 ix. 2a ■ 363 vi. 66 290 ix. 25-8 . • 365 vi. 7 31, « )o, 207, 291 ix. 9-13 • 367 vi. 8, 9 . 292 ix. 10 354. 377 vi. 9 - 53 ix. 11 • 235 vi. 10, 11 • 293 ix. 13 . 406 vi. 12 . 292 ix. 14-19 . . 368 vi. 12, 13 . 291 ix. 20 • 97 vi. 14 . 184 ix. 20-25 . • 370 vi. 14-18 . 300 ix. 21, 22 . . 118 vi. 17 • 77 ix. 25 . . ( 17, 226, 370 vi. 17, 18 . 3t>3 ix. 26 • 97 vi. 19, 20 • 303 ix. 26, 27 . • 371 vi. 21-23 . • 3°4 ix. 28, 29 . • 372 vi. 22 . 3°5 ix. 29 • 373 vi. 24-29 . 308 ix. 30-32 . ■ 376 vi. 25-27 ■ 305 ix. 30-33 . • 34i vi. 30 . 193. 309 ix. 30 ■ 377 vi. 31, 32 . 3 10 ix. 31 . 66 vi. 33, 34 . 3" ix. 33 • 393 vi. 3E-38 ■ 3 r 3 ix. 33-37 ■ 378 vi. 39-44 ■ 3*4 ix. 35 187, 421 vi. 45 80,3 11. 319. 342 ix. 36 • J95 vi. 45-47 ■ 317 ix. 38-40 . • 379 vi. 46 • 496 ix. 41 . 3! Si, 382, 385 vi. 47 . 314 ix. 42 • 97. 384 vi. 48-52 . 31 8 ix. 42, 43 ; 45, 47 . 366 vi. SI • 343 ix. 43 • . 127 vi. 51, 52 . 32 1 ix. 43-47 . • 125 vi. 53-56 • 32S ix. 43-48 . . 386 vii. 1-5 ■ 327 ix. 43-50 . • • 385 vii. 6-13 ■ 329 ix. 48, 49, 50 . • 387 vii. 10 . 4" ix. 49, 50 . • • 386 vii. 14-23 ■ 329 ix. 60 . 117 vii. 24a • 334 X. 1 . • • 3 8 9 ■%i-i INDEX OF SCRIPTURE REFERENCES 545 St Mark— x. 2 x. 2-12 x. 3-9 x. 10-12 x. 12 x. 13-16 x. 17 x. 17-22 x. 23-27 x. 28-31 x. 29 x. 30 x. X. 32-34 x. 33 X. 35-40 x. 41-45 x. 46-52 xi. 1-11 xi. 3 xi. 12-14 xi. 15-18 xi. 19-26 xi. 24 xi. 25 xi. 27, 28 xi. 29-33 xi. 32 xii. 1 xii. la xii. l£-6 xii. 6-11 xii. 12 xii. 14 xii. 13-17 xii. 18-23 xii. 24-27 xii. 28-34 xii. 35-37 xii. 38 xii. 38-40 xii. 41-44 xiii. 1, 2 xiii. 3, 4 xiii. 5-8 xiii. 5-13 xiii. 9, 10 xiii. 10 xiii. 11-13 xiii. 14-16 xiii. 17-20 xiii. 21, 23 xiii. 24-27 xiii. 26 xiii. 28, 29 xiii. 30 xiii. 30-32 xiii. 32 Page 390 128 392 393 394 395 395 396 412 416 37. 416 u6, 416 187 418 419 419 420 422 424 425 429 431 437 68 139 438 440 440 434 442 443 444 446 45° 447 45i 452 454 457 330 459 460 461 462 463 469 464 37,83 466 469 47i 472 473 219 474 476 475 476, 480 Page St Mark — xii . 33-37 . . 477 xiii. 34 . 480 xiii. 34, 35, 37 . 477 xiv. 1 • 434 xiv. 1, 2 . 480 xiv. 2 • • ■ • 485 xiv. 3 . 481, 484 xiv. 3-9 . 481 xiv. 10, 1] • 487 xiv. 12-16 . 488 xiv. 17-21 • 490 xiv. 21 . . . 366 xiv. 22-26 ■ 490 xiv. 27-31 ■ 494 xiv. 28 • 494 xiv. 31 • 495 xiv. 32-42 • 495 xiv. 41, 42, 44 . 419 xiv. 42 . 107 xiv. 43 • 419 xiv. 43-52 • 498 xiv. 51 • 499 xiv. 53-59 . 500 xiv. 60-65 . 502 xiv. 64 • 419, 5°3 xiv. 66-72 • 507 XV. 1 • 419. 509 xv. 2-5 . 5W xv. 6-11 ■ 513 xv. 12-15 . 514 xv. 16-20 . 5H xv. 19 • 419 xv. 21-23 . ■ • • 516 xv. 24-32 • 517 xv. 33 ■ 5'9 xv. 34-36 . 520 xv. 37-39 • 522 xv. 40, 41 • 525 xv. 42-47 • 526 xv. 44. 45 • 527 xvi. 1-8 ■ 528 xvi. 2 . 104 xvi. 9 . 225 xvi. 11, 1 '• ,14 ■ 343 St Luke— i. 5 . 10S i. 17 . 236, 406 iii. 1 ■ 3°3 iii. 2 • 44 iii. 2-4 . 40 iii. 3 . 47 iii. 7-9 . . . 48 iii. 8 . 50 iii. 9 . 144 iii. 16 • 5i. 441 iii. 17 . Si iii. 18 . . 50 iii. 19, 20 . 302 2 M 546 INDEX OF SCRIPTURE REFERENCES Page Luke — iii. 20 . . -78 iii. 21 • 54 iii. 214, 22 ■ 55 iii. 22 • 56 iv. 1 . • 59 iv. 2-13 61 iv. 14 81,99 iv. 14, IB . • 75 iv. IS ■ 89 iv. 16 . 287 iv. 22 . 288 iv. 23 88 iv. 24 . 290 iv. 31a 88, 172 iv. 314, 32 • 89 iv. 32 • 47 iv. 33 • 93 iv. 34 ■ 94 iv. 3B • 97 iv. 36a 91,98 iv. 364 . 98 iv. 37 • 99 iv. 38a 99, '°° iv. 384, 39 . 100 iv. 39 . 266 iv. 40, 41 • 103 iv. 41 ■ 105 iv. 42, 43 . 106 iv. 44 . 107 iv. 44 • 47 v. 1-11 83.85 v. 8 . ■ 85 v. 9. . 267 v. 12 . 148 v. 13, 14 • 149 v. 15, 16 • 151 v. 17 . no v. 17-26 ■ • 157 v. 23 • 74 v. 27, 28 164 v. 29-32 . . 167 v-3I ■ 74 v. 33-39 . 171 vi. 1-6 • ■ 174 vi. 6-11 ■ 177 vi. 12 ■ 190, 3'7 vi. 12, 13 . 186 vi. 13 190, 191 vi. 14-16 • 194 vi. 17-19 ■ • 185 vi. 17 . no vi. 20a . no vi. 204-26 . 112 vi. 20 . 186 vi. 24 • "3. 137 vi. 25 . 113 vi. 27 • • . 132 vi. 27, 28 ■ • 135 St Luke— vi. 294 vi. 31 vi. 32-34 vi. 32 vi- 34. 35 vi. 36a vi. 364 vi. 36 vi.38 vi. 39 vi. 41, 42 vi. 43-48 vi. 43-45 vi. 49 vii. 1-10 vii. 6 vii. 13 vii. 17 vii. 18-20 vii. 19 vii. 20 vii. 21-23 vii. 24-35 vii. 25 vii. 27 vii. 29, 30 vii. 31-35 ™. 34 vii. 36 vii. 36-40 vii. 37 viii. I viii. 2 viii. 3 viii. 4 viii. 6 viii. 6 viii. 7 viii. 8 viii. 9, 10 viii. 114, 12 viii. 13 viii. 14 viii. 15 viii. 16 viii. 16, 17 viii. 18 viii. 19-21 viii. 22 viii. 23-25 viii. 26, 27a viii. 274; 294 viii. 28 viii. 28, 29a, viii. 29 viii. 32, 33 viii. 34-39 . viii. 40-42a 30 Page • 133 142 136. 169 • 137 • 135 • 130 • 137 141, 258, 259 33° 142 144 212 145 152 S l 228 108 227 228, 229, 230 • 230 . 231 • 232 • 47 40, 41, 42 • 232 232, 237 . 169 . 168 . 481 170 • 243 • 225 65, 183, 5 "3. 526 . 242 • 244 ■ 247 . 248 • 249 • 250 • 245 • 247 . 248 ■ 249 ■ 257 118, 256 :. 258, 259 213 264 265 268 272 96 273 60 274 279 281 31 255 INDEX OF SCRIPTURE REFERENCES 547 St Luke — viii • 41 Page • 231 • 283 . 284 ■ 285 viii. 42£-48 viii. 19-51 . viii. S2-56 ix. I 91, 190 ix. 1, 2 291 ix. 2-6 • I93> 292 ix. 3. 292 ix. 4, 5 ■ 293 ix. 6. . 292 ix. 7. • 304 ix. 7-9 . 300 ix. 9 ■ 513 ix. 10a • 309 ix. 106 ■ 3K> ix. 11 ■ 3" ix. 12, IS ■ 313 ix. 14-17 • 314 ix. 16-21 ■ 348 ix. 22 • 352 ix. 23 • 357 ix. 23-2S • 355 ix. 26 358, 359 ix. 37 ■ 361 ix. 28 284, 363 ix. 29 ■ 365 ix. 30-36n . 366 ix. 30 ■ 377 ix. 34 • 366 ix. 36*, 37 z • 367 ix. 316-U. . 368 ix. 37, 38 295,327 ix. 42, 43a ■ 37 1 ix. 43(5-45 ■ 376 ix. 45 . 418 ix. 46-48 • 378 ix. 49, 50 • 379 ix. 57-60 . 267 ix. 57-62 • 65 ix. 61, 62 . 267 x. I . 196, 228 x. 2 . • 294 x. 3 • ■ 295 X. 4a . 292 x. 4 . ■ 295 X. 5-llfl ■ 294 x. 7, 8 ■ 295 x. 9 . • 44 *. 9-11 . 292 x. 12 . 296 x. 13 . 80 x. 13-15 • 297 x. 16 • 295 A x. 17 309, 380 ' x. 19 ■ 91 x. 21, 22 . • 297 X. 22 • 299 X. 23, 24 . . 300 Page St Luke— x. 25 ■ 401, 453 x. 25-29 . • 4SS x. 38-42 . . . 484 xi. 1-4 . . 138 xi. 9-13 142 xi. 14 ■ 338 xi. 14, is . . 206 xi. 14-20 . ■ 205 xi. 15 . 209 xi. 16, 29, 30 . . 216 xi. 17 . 207 xi. 19 ■ 225 xi. 19, 20 . 208, 209 xi. 21, 22 . . 210 xi. 23 . 210, 381 xi. 24-26 . . 222 xi. 27 ■ 526 xi. 27, 28 . • 215 xi. 30 . 217 xi. 31 • i75 xi. 31, 32 . 219 xi. 33 . . I) 18, 119, 257 xi. 34-36 . . 119, 140 xi. 37, 38 . • 327 xi. 39-52 . ■ 458 xi. 43 • 459 xii. 1 • 347 xii. 2-4a . ■ 257 xii. 8-9 ■ 359 xii. 10 210 xii. 11, 12 . 466 xii. 11 . 468 xii. 14-19 . 466 xii. 21 . 114 xii. 22-31 139-141 xii. 24 ■ 244 xii. 31 . . . • 259 xii. 33 ■ • ■ . 412 xii. 33, 34 ■ J 39 xii. 35. 36 . 480 xii. 37, 38 . 141 xii. 38 . ■ 479 xii. 39, 40 • 478 xii. 41 • 478 xii. 42-46 . ■ 479 xii. 50 . 420 xii. 54-57 . . 221 xii. 58, 59 • 123 xiii. 14 . . . . 178 xiii. 15 181 xiii. 18 . ■ 238 xiii. 18-21 . 262 xiii. 24a . • 143 xiii. 28, 29 • 156 xiii. 31- . . 18 2, 183, 347 xiii. 32 183, 218 xiii. 33 • • ■ ■ 377 xiv. 5 . 181 548 INDEX OF SCRIPTURE REFERENCES Page Page St Luke — xiv. 12 . . 135 St Luke — xxi. 21 . . . 470 xiv. 15 . ■ 457 xxi. 23 ■ 471 xiv. 25-27 ■ 3S7 xxi. 24 ■ 477 xiv. 34 . • 387 xxi. 25-28 • 473 xiv. 34, 35 • "7 xxi. 29 . 221 xv. i. • i37 xxi. 29-31 • 474 xvi. 13 . 140 xxi. 32, 33 ■ 475 xvi. 16 . 232 xxi. 36 ■ 477 xvi. 17 . 121 xxi. 37 . • 495 xvi. 18 ■ 131 xxii. 1, 2 . . 480 xvi. 25 ■ "3 xxii. 3 . 66 xvii. 1 ■ 385 xxii. 3-6 . • 487 xvii. 1, 2 . . 388 xxii. 7-13 . 488 xvii. 2 • 384 xxii. 14, 21-23 ; 15-2 9, 39 ■ 490 xvii. 3, 4 . • 387 xxii. 17 . • 494 xvii. 6 • 35 '3, 437 xxii. 19, 20 493 xvii. II ■ 390 xxii. 24-26 • 378 xvii. 20-37 ■ 473 xxii. 29, 30 . 416 xvii. 23, 24, 27 • 472 xxii. 30 . 18 7.417 xvii. 26-30 • 477 xxii. 31-34 494 xvii. 31 • 47° xxii. 38 . 498 xvii. 33 . • 3S7 xxii. 40-46 495 xvii. 34-36 ■ 477 xxii. 43 . 62 xviii. 11 . ■ 496 xxii. 43, 44 497 xviii. 12 . 172 xxii. 47-53 498 xviii. 13 . It 9> 496 xxii. 54, 55 500 xviii. 15-17 • 395 xxii. 56-62 507 xviii. 18-23 ■ 396 xxii. 63-71 502 xviii. 24-27 . 412 xxii. 66 . 419 xviii. 28-30 416 xxiii. 1, 2 5°9 xviii. 31-34 418 xxiii. 3-5 . 510 xviii. 35-43 422 xxiii. 5 108 xviii. 37 . 96 xxiii. 6-12 5" xix. 7 13 7, 169 xxiii. 11 . 515 xix. 10 388 xxiii. 13-19 513 xix. 26 260 xxiii. 17 . 5i3 xix. 28-40 424 xxiii. 20-25 5i4 xix. 45-48 431 xxiii. 26 . 5i6 xix. 47 437 xxiii. 32-43 517 xx. 1, 2 . 438 xxiii. 34 . 5i7 xx. 3-8 440 xxiii. 44, 45a: 519 xx. 9a 442 xxiii. Hi, 46a . 520 xx. 9*5 ; 10-12 443 xxiii. 45^-47 522 xx. 13-17 444 xxiii. 48, 49 525 xx. 18, 19 446 xxiii. 50-56 526 xx. 20-26 447 xxiii. 56 . 528 xx. 27-33 45i xxiv" 1-11 528 xx. 34-40 452 xxiv. 10 . Si 3.526 xx. 41-44 457 xxi v. 19 . 96 xx. 45-47 459 xxi. 1-4 . 460 St John -i. 26, 27 . 5i xxi. 5, 6 . 461 i- 27 53 xxi. 7 462 i. 28 271 xxi. 8-11 . 4<53 i- 31. 33 • 406 xxi. 12, 13 464 i. 34 56 xxi. 14 46S i. 42 85 xxi. 14-19 466 1. 44 80 xxi. 20-22 469 ii. 19 218 INDEX OF SCRIPTURE REFERENCES 549 St John— iii. 26 Page • 39 Acts— xvi. 7 Page . 299 iv. 1 • 75, 228 xvi. 17 . 106 iv. 44 . 290 xviii. 6 ■ 333 v- 33-36 • 44i xix. 4, 6 . . . . 46 ▼• 33 • 39 xix. 13 . 380 v. 36 240 xix. 13 • 3'3 vi. 1 . 84 xx. 24 • • ■ ■ 38 vi. 4 ■ 346 xx. 29 ■ 143 vi. 10 • 315 xxii. S . 419 vi. 17 . 3 26 xxii. 18-21 ■ 333 vi. 42 . 288 xxviii. 28 • 333 vii- 3-5 • 354 vii. 5, 20 viii. 48 ; 1 viii. 57 ;z . 204 . • 204 . 241 Romans — xi. xi. 25 11 • 333 • 477 ix. 1 6 . 178 xiii. 9 . 411 x. 20 . 204 xi. 1 • 483 1 Corinthians — iv. 8 . .116 xi. 19 • 484 v. 1 . . 129 xi. 48 ■ 435 ix. 5 . 196 xii. 1-8 . 481 ix. 14 • 37 xii. 12 • 437 x. 27 ■ 295 xii. 16 • 427 xiv. 26 . 299 xii. 21 . 80 xv. 5 . . . 187 xiii. 2 . 66 xiii. 16 • 33o 2 Corinthians- — v. 1 . . 501 • 259 xiii. 27 . 66 ix. 6 xiii. 36-38 ■ 494 xiv. 31 XV. 20 107 330 495 Ephesians — i. 6 . . .56 xviii. 2 vi. 16 . 246 xviii. 28 5 r 5 xix. 28 516 Philippians — iii. 2 . .142 xix. 29 522 xix. 34 xxi. 7 S23 322 Colossians — i. 13 • • .56 1 Thessalonians — iii. 4 . . 417 Acts— i. 5 . . . 39, 46 iv. . ■ 363 i. 7 . • 476 i. 13 i. 22 ii. 3 . 284 38 52 1 Timothy — iv v. 18 . 1 . .248 . 296 ii. 20 519 ii. 36 191 2 Timothy — ii. 12 • • ■ 359 iii. 26 333 iii. 12 , 417 vii. 52 26 iv. 2 . 246 viii. 4 246 ix. 25 342 Hebrews — i. 5 ■ 57 . 191 • 57 206 x. 30 335 iii. 2 x. 37 xi. 16 108 39 v. 5. v. 4-6 xiii. 24 xiii. 25 45 39 ix. 11 501 xiii. 33 . 57 xiii. 46 333 St James — i. 4 17- • ■ 137 xv. 7 38 ii. 11 . 411 xv. 29 142 | iii. 2 • 137 55o INDEX OF SCRIPTURE REFERENCES St James — iii. 12 iv. 9 v. 12 1 John — iii. 15 Page Page 144 Revelation — iii. 17. . 116 113 vii. 9 • 477 112 xii. 9 61 XX. 2 61 xx. 5-6 • 453 124 xxii. 15 . 142 PRINTED AT THE EDINBURGH PRESS 9 AND 11 YOUNG STREET