DIVINITY SCHOOL
TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY

GOSPEL ORIGINS

STUDIES IN THEOLOGY
ISftio, cloth. 75 cents net per vol.

NOW READY
A Critical Introduction to the New Testament
By Arthur Samuel Peake, D.D.
Faith and its Psychology
By the Rev. William R. Inge, D.D.
Philosophy and Religion
By the Rev. Hastings Rashdall, D.Litt. (Oxon),
D.CL. (Durham), F.B.A.
Revelation and Inspiration
By the Rev. James Orr, D.D.
Christianity and Social Questions
By the Rev. William Cunningham, D.D., F.B.A.
Christian Thought to the Reformation
By Herbert B. Workman, D.Litt.
Protestant Thought Before Kant
By A. C. McGiffert, Ph.D., D.D.
An Outline of the History of Christian Thought
Since Kant
By Edward Caldwell Moore, D.D.
The Christian Hope: A Study in the Doctrine of
Immortality
By William Adams Brown, Ph.D., D.D.
The Theology of the Gospels
By the Rev. James Moffatt, D.D., D.Litt.
The Text and Canon of the New Testament
By Alexander Souter, D.Litt.
A Critical Introduction to the Old Testament
By the Rev. George Buchanan Gray, D.D., DXitt.
A Handbook of Christian Apologetics
By Alfred Ernest Garvie, M.A., D.D.
Gospel Origins
By the Rev. William West Holdsworth, M.A.

GOSPEL ORIGINS
A Study in the Synoptic Problem

BY THE REV.
WILLIAM WEST HOLDSWORTH, M.A.
TUTOR IN NEW TESTAMENT LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
HANDSWORTH COLLEGE
AUTHOR OF 'THE CHRIST OF THE GOSPELS
*THE LIFE OF FAITH,' ETC.

NEW YORK
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
1913

All rights reserved.

I DEDICATE THIS WORK
TO THOSE BEST TEACHERS
MY STUDENTS
OF THE EAST AND OF THE WEST

'Eir€i8r]7rep 7roXXoi iire^eiprjo-av avara£ao'6ai o'lTjytjo'tv
irepi rwv irerr^rjpodjoprjpevav ev rjpiv rpaypdraiv, naSws
irapeooo-av rjp.lv ol oV dp^rjs avToWrat Kal v7rr]perai
yevopevoi roS Xo'yov, f8ofe ndpdi, irapr)Ko\ov6rjK6n
ava&ev irdo-iv dxpifiCbs, KaSe^rjs adi ypd-^rai, KpaTurre
BeofpCKe, iva imyvqs ircpl %>v Kan))(j)8r]S Xdycov rr)v
do"<pd\eiav.
St. Luke.

PREFACE
The chapters which make up this little book are so many
studies in the Synoptic Problem. The author makes no
claim to originality in dealing with this question. He has
made full use of the minute research and laborious work
of those who have preceded him ; but he has tried to carry
their work on to a further stage in endeavouring to define
more closely than they have done the sources used by the
three evangelists. In doing so he has given the fullest
consideration to the many different theories advanced by
modern scholars, and in consequence, though it cannot be
claimed that this work is a ' Handbook ' on the subject
with which it deals, yet the hope is cherished that students
will be able, in following the hne of thought advanced, to
bring into view the several positions taken up by those
who have attempted a solution.
The hne followed in treating this subject was first
suggested by the distinction made by Dr. Arthur Wright
between the three editions of the Markan narrative which
appear in the three Gospels as we know them, and Dr.
Wright's well-known titles for these editions — proto-Mark,
deutero-Mark, and trito-Mark — have been freely used in
the pages which follow. The author, however, has ventured
to differ from Dr. Wright in an important particular, in
that he apphes this differentiation not to an oral tradition,
but to documents, and a study of the Gospels, extending Til

viii GOSPEL ORIGINS
now over many years, from this point of view, has led
him to the conclusion that it offers the most likely solution
of the difficult but fascinating problem. Should this con
clusion be finally reached by others, the fullest acknow
ledgment will be due to the distinguished scholar whose
Synopsis will long remain an indispensable text-book for
students of the Gospels.
But the recognition of a deutero-Mark in the first Gospel,
and an attempt to separate this element, has led the
author to a second conclusion, and this is that the Logia of
St. Matthew are not lost, as so many have thought, but
actually exist, sandwiched between distinctly Markan
sections, in the Gospel which bears St. Matthew's name.
This led to an attempt to define the source of the sayings
thus compiled by St. Matthew, a source generally indicated
by the formula ' Q.' Finally, when, in the case of the third
Gospel, the Markan section, or proto-Mark was removed,
together with the sections taken from Q thus defined,
the remainder appeared to possess so many common
features that it seemed possible to bring the whole of it
under one designation, and to ascribe it to a single author
ship. It is hoped that it may be seen that outstanding
features of the three Gospels may be fairly accounted for
in this way, and that the sources from which the three
evangehsts derived their material afford a sufficient
guarantee for the deeds and words of Jesus as these appear
in the three Gospels.
In the hope that the book may be read by others than
students, critical details have been eliminated from the
main chapters. They appear, however, in additional notes
attached to the several chapters, and it is hoped that in
considering the theory here advanced judgment will be

PREFACE ix
suspended until these last have been examined. Instead
of crowding the pages with references to other works on
the subject, it has been thought best to give a hst of the
works which have been freely used by the present author.
His indebtedness to his many teachers is hereby fully
acknowledged, and if he may venture to mention one name
it shall be that of the scholar whose work in this depart
ment, as in others, has been both stimulus and example
to a host of students unknown to him. The praise of
Dr. Sanday is in all the Churches.
In conclusion, the author would express his great in
debtedness to his friends, the Rev. J. A. Vanes, B.A.,
and Mr. F. Richards, M.A., for their most helpful sugges
tions made during the preparation of the work.
W. W. HOLDSWORTH.
Handswobth College,
January 1, 1913.

CONTENTS CHAPTER I
PiOE
Apostolic Preaching and Gospel Origins ... 1
The Synoptic Problem arises out of a study of prominent features
of the first three Gospels.
These correspond so closely as to suggest a common origin.
Yet they also vary in a way which indicates a variety of sources.
Their production was governed by conditions existing in the
Church of the first century.
They arose from the preaching of the first Apostles.
Both narrative and discourses must have appeared early in docu
mentary form.
Each Gospel reveals a ' tendency ' of its own.
This tendency illustrated from the three records of our Lord's
teaching on the subject of divorce.
Such differences call for explanation. Theories which have been
advanced.
Differences will be best accounted for if we succeed in going
behind the canonical Gospels and defining their sources.
Additional Note
Oral tradition as a basis for the Synoptic Gospels.
The oral theory of the origin of the Gospels.
The theory, though attractive, is not consistent, and fails to
convince.
Reasons advanced for its failure.

CHAPTER II
The Stnoptic Gospels — The History of Criticism . 20
The history of criticism.
' Harmonies ' of the Gospels.
The sections of Ammonius and the canons of Eusebius.
Tatian's Diatcssaron. si

xii GOSPEL ORIGINS
Augustine's account of Gospel relations.
Theories advanced by German scholars.
Summary of results.
Criticism in England.
Dr. Stanton. The Gospels as historical documents.
The Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem.
Theories advanced by American scholars.

CHAPTER III
The Sayings op Jesus  . 37
A source consisting of Logia. 'Q.'
Collections of ' Sayings.'
Patristic references to the Logia of St. Matthew.
The meaning of the word \oyla.
' Sayings ' in the Epistles of the New Testament, and in other
writings.
Recently discovered sayings from Oxyrhynchus.
The Logia of the first Gospel and those of the third.
The exact connotation of ' Q. '

CHAPTER IV
The First Gospel  62
Zahn's theory of the dependence of Mark upon Matthew.
The priority of Mark : in what sense may this be accepted.
Three main divisions in the first Gospel.
1. The Nativity section. Its chief characteristics.
2. The Logian section. Five ' blocks ' of sayings.
3. The Markan section.
Narrative sections usually assigned to Q are really Markan.
The Markan section is prior to canonical Mark, and differs again
from the corresponding section in Luke.
A suggested history of the first Gospel.
Additional Notes
1. Harnack's rearrangement of the Logian document in the first
Gospel. Other reconstructions of Q.
2. An analysis of St. Matthew's fire collections of the sayings of
Jesus.
3. Messianic proof-texts in the first Gospel.

CONTENTS

CHAPTER V PACK
The Second Gospel  104
The first and third Gospels reproduce Markan narrative.
But they often differ from canonical Mark.
The theory of an Ur-Markus or original Mark.
Mark is homogeneous, and does not exhibit any dependence upon Q.
The ' Little Apocalypse ' in the second Gospel.
The absence of doublets from Mark.
The history of St. Mark.
Three editions of Markan narrative.
Vivid details indicate a later edition, not an earlier.
The secondary character of canonical Mark is further indicated by
its Pauline characteristics and such details as the use of the
word e&a.yy£\iov.
St. Mark's use of names.
The Latinisms of the second Gospel.
The date of the composition of the second Gospel.
Additional Notes
1. Analysis of the second Gospel, with notes.
2. The sayings of Jesus in the second Gospel.

CHAPTER VI
The Lukan Sources  145
The Preface to the third Gospel.
The Markan source. How it came into the hands of St. Luke.
His treatment of this source. St. Luke's omissions.
The Logian document.
Additional sections : —
1. The Nativity story.
2. The travel document.
3. The history of the Passion and of the Resurrection.
Features common to these three and indicating a single source.
Additional Notes.
1. Analysis of the third Gospel.
2. St. Luke's ' special source.' Analysis, with notes.
3. The sayings of Jesns in St. Luke's Gospel.

GOSPEL ORIGINS

CHAPTER VII PiO«
The Justification of Historical Criticism . . . 187
The Christian religion is subjective in the experience of the believer,
but it is, at the same time, objective in the facts of history.
Three questions prominently before the Church to-day —
1. The question of miracles cannot be discussed apart from
historical criticism of the Gospels. The position taken up
by the Rev. J. M. Thompson.
2. The apocalyptic element in the Gospels must be considered
in the light of Gospel sources.
3. The Person of our Lord appears more distinctly in so far as
we discover the human element in the composition of the
Gospels.
Losses and gains in the critical method. The triple and the
double tradition.
The unity of the Spirit in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Index  Sll

GOSPEL ORIGINS
CHAPTER I
APOSTOLIC PREACHING AND GOSPEL ORIGINS
The four Gospels of the Christian Canon are usually
divided into two classes. The fourth Gospel is not only
independent of the other three : it differs in the personages
that appear in its pages, in the incidents recorded, and in
treatment. The Person of our Lord is set before us from
a point of view other than that which appears in the
Synoptic Gospels, and both His words and His works are
given us not merely with a different interpretation from
that which we have in the other Gospels, but in an entirely
different setting. This Gospel is therefore rightly placed
in a class by itself. But the remaining three are closely
connected. They exhibit a similar method of compilation.
They deal with the same facts in the history of Jesus, and
the words in which these are recorded correspond so
closely that it is impossible to consider that they are
independent one of another. They give us a common
view of our Lord, and for that reason they have received
the name of the Synoptic Gospels. The correspondence
between them is so close that the question of a common
origin is suggested as soon as we begin to compare them.
That correspondence, however, is not complete. Together
with points of closest similarity marked divergences
appear, and these last are so many and so distinct that
any attempt to refer the Gospels to a single source is
certain to break down.

2 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
Now the historical value, and the moral authority of
any writing, is always dependent upon the character of
its author, and the position which he occupies with refer
ence to that which he describes or records. No writing
in the world demands a clear presentation of authorship
so much as do the Gospels upon which we rely for our
conception of the Person of Christ, the central fact of the
Christian religion. But directly we ask how did these all-
important books come to be written, we are confronted
with the difficulty that we have no contemporary writings
which might have been expected to suggest to us those
facts of authorship which we need to establish the
tremendous claim which the writings make upon the
judgment and the faith of men. We are driven then to
the books themselves. But here, as we have already
indicated, we find that though the main facts of author
ship may be considered to be fairly established, the mutual
relations of the matter which they use are far from clear.
Sources are indicated ; some of these are distinctly seen ;
others are obscure. The lines upon which we pursue our
quest cross and recross, until the question of the sources
of the three Gospels has become one of the most difficult
of all the problems which confront the student of the New
Testament. In approaching the study of the Synoptic Gospels it is
necessary to clear the mind of certain natural but mis
leading prepossessions. The writers, or editors, of these
Gospels were men who worked under conditions belong
ing to their own age, and when we ask what these were,
we are carried back to the latter half of the first century
of the Christian era. Now in the governing idea of the
Church of that time, as well as in its organisation and
method of work, we may detect elements which were
bound to influence any scheme of drawing up a narrative
of the work and teaching of Jesus. We may go further
and say that certain features of the hfe and outlook of

i.] APOSTOLIC PREACHING AND GOSPEL ORIGINS 3
the Church of the first century would even militate
against the production of anything in the nature of
' history,' as we conceive it. Possessed, as its members
were, with the expectation of the immediate return of
their Lord, they would never dream that they were
writing for all time, nor would they, hke the Church of
a later day, be troubled with the question whether this
or that writing should be considered to be ' canonical.'
To them ' the Scriptures ' would mean what we call the
Old Testament,' and the idea that they were creating
what would rank as of equal authority with this, would
never be entertained by them. They wrote, we may
be sure, ' as, the occasion demanded,' and that occasion
might often be caused by some need which was distinctly
personal or local.
Again, there was no special organic unity between the
different centres of the Christian community. ' Churches '
in those days had a distinctly local limitation. There
was one in Rome, and another in Kenchraea, and several
in the region known as ' Galatia.' The Church might
even be found existing among the slaves who formed
' the household ' of an individual. Among these scattered
congregations there moved a number of men variously
described as Apostles, Prophets (or Preachers) and
Teachers. Their function was that of ' confirming ' or
' building up ' the individual Churches they visited. They
did so, for the most part, by relating and explaining what
Jesus had said or had done. Their qualification was
found in some direct and immediate personal contact with
the Lord. Their position was ' charismatic ' — that is, it
rested upon some gracious manifestation conferred upon
them — and it was therefore privileged. St. Paul rested
his claim to apostleship largely upon the fact that he had
seen the Lord Jesus, and in such descriptions of his spoken
ministry as are suggested to us in the course of his writing
he seems to have dealt with the accepted facts of our

4 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
Lord's life. Writing to the Galatians he speaks of himself
as having so described the death of Jesus that it was as
if the Crucified had been depicted before their very eyes.
His teaching of the Resurrection also had been clear and
definite. It was in accordance with information which
he had himself received from members of the apostolic
band, doubtless on the occasion when he had ' interviewed '
Peter and James, the brother of the Lord, in Jerusalem
(Gal. i. 18), but he claims that he was indebted more to
personal revelation than to instruction from the other
apostles. Such references to the oral teaching of the
apostles lead to the inference that it did not lack that
insistence upon guaranteed fact concerning the hfe and
death of Jesus, which appears also in the recorded
preaching of St. Peter in the Acts of the Apostles. We
may accept that he also ' in the synagogues proclaimed
Jesus, that He is the Son of God ' (Acts ix. 20). We
are expressly told that such teaching was given not on
any definite and consecutive plan. It would conform to
the method ascribed to both St. Peter and his ' Interpreter,'
St. Mark, the one in his preaching and the other as
recording the preaching. For Eusebius quotes Papias
in the following words : ' Mark having become the inter
preter of Peter, wrote down accurately everything that he
remembered, without, however, recording in order what
was either said or done by Christ. For neither did he hear
the Lord nor did he foUow Him ; but afterwards attended
Peter, who adapted his instructions to the needs of his
hearers, but not as making a connected narrative of the
Lord's discourses.' ] This statement of Papias will come
before us again, but it is mentioned here in support of the
general statement that the early teaching of the Church
out of which arose the documents to be considered was
occasional rather than continuous, disconnected rather
than systematic, and topical rather than historical. It
l Eusebius, Hist. iii. 39.

i.] APOSTOLIC PREACHING AND GOSPEL ORIGINS 5
was also conditioned by local circumstances. The needs of
his hearers could not be considered apart from their environ
ment. That which would be of interest to people in
Caesarea might be comparatively unimportant to those
who hved in Rome, so that we shall be prepared for a con
siderable amount of variation in the telling of the story.
This view of the circumstances in which the earliest
apostolic teaching was given is of importance in judging
whether the basis of the Gospel record was oral or not.
The advocates of this theory presuppose a fixed form of
narrative repeated frequently and without variation in
the selection of incidents, the order of their narration,
and the language employed, so as to lead to the ' stereo
typing ' which they need to account for the marked
resemblance of the three Gospels. We may well ask
where and how this fixed oral tradition came into being
if the earhest teaching lacked continuity, and depended
upon the varying needs of groups of Christians separated
in locality and to some extent in habit of thought and
interest. We are told in the Didache, an important Church
manual composed about the end of the first century, and
deahng with the teaching of the twelve apostles, that the
' apostle ' moved on from place to place, and that he was
not to remain more than two days in one place (Did. xi. 5).
It is obvious that this would create another set of circum
stances which would affect the question of Gospel origins.
How would the severed IkkA^o-jcu be instructed during
the intervals between one apostolical visitation and
another ? Who would continue to them the recital of
what Jesus did and said, when the missionary had moved
on to some other Church ? And what authority would
such a later recital possess ? Their need would be met
in the most obvious manner by committing to writing the
authoritative statements made by those who had been
eye-witnesses of our Lord, and these documents might be

6 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
read by the local officers the bishops and deacons, as
described in the Didache. That this is what actually took
place is distinctly stated by Clement of Alexandria, who
says that ' When Peter had pubhcly preached the word
in Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, those who
were present, being many, urged Mark, as one who had
followed him for a long time and remembered what he
said, to record what he stated ; and that he having made
his Gospel gave it to those who made the request of him '
(Hypotyp. vi.). This is supported by a similar statement
in Eusebius (Hist. ii. 15), who says that Peter's hearers
were not content with the unwritten teaching of the
Gospel, but ' with all sorts of entreaties they besought
Mark, a follower of Peter, that he would leave with them
a written monument of the doctrine which had been
orally communicated to them. Nor did they cease until
they had prevailed with the man, and thus become the
occasion of the written Gospel which bears the name of
Mark.' We may be sure that the request made in Rome,
as Clement tells us, was one which would be made in other
places. Harnack quotes from Eusebius a statement to
the effect that the four daughters of Philip ' transmitted
stories of the old days,' a statement which accords with
the reference to the same women in the Acts of the Apostles
as being women ' who did prophesy.' Such references
will be most easily understood if we take them to indicate
that these women possessed written records of ' the old
days,' and that their ministry was found in reading and
expounding these to the local Church in Caesarea, in con
tinuation of the practice of reading passages from the
Old Testament in the Synagogues of the Jews. The early
existence of such records may then be taken for granted.
Inasmuch as their subject-matter would be the same, they
would exhibit a marked resemblance to one another, but
inasmuch as they would arise to meet local necessities
there would also be equally marked differences.

i.] APOSTOLIC PREACHING AND GOSPEL ORIGINS 7
The language in which they would be written would be
that type of Greek which formed the spoken language of
the common people ; for it is probable that the demand
for such literature arose as soon as the Church began to
appeal to those members of the community who are described
in the Acts of the Apostles as consisting of ' devout persons '
(ot o-e/36pevoi). These formed what has been called ' the
seed-bed of Christianity.' They consisted of those
Gentiles who were attracted by the teaching of the Jews
and were in sympathy with their religion. Such a one was
Cornelius, and we may well imagine that after St. Peter
had dehvered in his house the address recorded in the
Acts of the Apostles, this would be written down by his
interpreter, St. Mark, probably associated very early with
St. Peter, and that it would be written not in Aramaic,
but in such a language as would make it accessible to
those for whom it was written.
Probably even before this there existed a number of
those pointed apophthegms spoken by our Lord to which
the name of ' Sayings ' (\6yia) would at once be given.
This name would suggest itself because the very form of
the sayings would suggest the oracular statements to
which the name had long before been given. Such sayings
would be received with pecuhar reverence in the early
Church. What could have been more precious than the
very words of the Master Himself ? In their earliest form
they would doubtless appear in Aramaic, but as soon as
Christianity began to appeal to Gentiles the need of
having these also in Greek would be felt, and more than
one collection of them would be made by the devout.
If we may accept the year a.d. 80 as being approximately
the date of the composition of the third Gospel, it is clear
that even then there were in existence many writings of
which St. Luke had cognisance (Luke i. 1-4). It" will
later on be shown that the sayings used by St. Luke differed
so markedly from those which appear in the first Gospel,

8 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
that it is most likely that he did not take them from the
first Gospel, but from some one of other collections, and
if there was any great multiphcation of these the need
would be felt of making such a compilation of them as
might be considered authoritative. We shall be able to
account in this way for the tradition, to which reference
must presently be made, that St. Matthew compiled the
sayings of our Lord, and the fact of a coUection made on
such authority would account for the disappearance of
others which did not possess such a guarantee.
As soon as we begin to read the three earlier Gospels,
we find that there is a considerable amount of repetition.
Incidents mentioned in one are repeated, often word for
word, in another. In many cases expressions which are
unusual,1 words which are rare in writings related in time
to these Gospels, occur in all three. Not only so, but so
far as the narrative portion of these Gospels is concerned,
the general order of events is, speaking generally, the
same in each. We find also that with the possible
exception of the second Gospel the works are composite.
In the first Gospel and in the third it is possible to dis
tinguish certain sections as narrative and others as con
sisting of discourses. The difference between the seventh
chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel and the eighth, or between
the sixth and seventh of St. Luke's, is unmistakable.
If we turn our attention for the moment to the narrative
sections of these two Gospels we observe a close corre
spondence between them and what we have in the second
Gospel, while in this last we find that the element of dis
course, in the form in which it appears in the others, is
i The following unusual words are taken from Dr. Gould's Commentary
on Mark : —
TrpuTOKadeSptas Matt, xxiii. 6. Luke xi. 43. Mark xii. 39.
<?/coX6/3u>cre Marie xiii. 20. Matt. xxiv. 22.
ripara Mark xiii. 22. Matt. xxiv. 25.
dypvirveire Mark xiii. 33. Luke xxi. 36.
t^SXjw } Mark xiv- 20- Matt- xxvi- 33-

i.] APOSTOLIC PREACHING AND GOSPEL ORIGINS 9
lacking. It has therefore become an accepted axiom with
scholars that the narrative portion of both the first and
the third Gospels is Markan. But it is not wholly Markan.
There are considerable sections, especially in the third
Gospel, which are distinctly narrative, but which do not
appear either in Matthew or in Mark. They seem to be
derived from quite another source. The composite char
acter of Matthew and Luke is therefore accepted as readily
as the derivation of their narrative portions from St.
Mark. We may here refer to the point of view of the several
evangehsts, or as it is nowadays called, the ' tendency,'
and this must always be carefully borne in mind. It is
one of the most important conditions governing the
form of the several Gospels. In the first Gospel we find
abundant references which indicate a distinctly Jewish
tendency. The genealogy with which the Gospel opens
begins with Abraham, while St. Luke, writing with Gentile
sympathies, carries the genealogy up to Adam. Other
features of the first Gospel indicating the same tendency,
are the prominence given to Christ's teaching concerning
the Messianic kingdom, the frequent use of Old Testament
writings to prove the Messiahship of Jesus, references to
Jerusalem as ' the holy city,' and the hke. The second
Gospel, on the other hand, is not so much concerned with
the Messiahship of Jesus as with such a presentation of
His Person as will prove Him to be the Son of God. St.
Mark is at pains to explain Jewish words and customs,
thus proving that he wrote with non-Jewish readers in
view. The frequency with which he uses Latin words
and military terms would seem to indicate — what indeed
tradition declares — that he wrote for those who dwelt in
Rome, and that soldiers were immediately interested in his
writing (Clement of Alexandria, Adumbr. in Pet. Ep. i.).
St. Luke, on the other hand, reveals aU through the third
Gospel the unmistakable marks of one who was closely

10 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
associated with St. Paul, and who reproduces not only
the characteristic phraseology of that apostle, but also
his world-wide view and strongly Gentile sympathies.
We shall also see, in his markedly sympathetic references
to women, a tendency which plays an important part in
enabhng us to determine at least one of his sources.
Now the study of ' tendency ' will carry us a long way
in accounting for divergences between one gospel and
another where they relate the same incident or record the
same teaching, but it does not carry us all the way. There
are differences in the common record which are not
accounted for by the principle of selection or expression
in this individual or in that, and an exceUent illustration
of this is afforded by the several accounts of our Lord's
teaching on the subject of divorce. In Mark x. 2-12 we
have the incident which gave rise to our Lord's pronounce
ment on the subject. We are told that it arose from an
attempt made by the Pharisees to get our Lord to com
promise Himself by a declaration which would contravene
the Mosaic directions. This appears again in the Markan
section of the first Gospel which is given in Matthew xix.,
but in this last we find a considerable amount of variation
from the account given in Mark, and the differences between
the two accounts are precisely those which would occur
when the same person repeated what he had written in a
former edition. There is a difference in the order of the
several statements on the subject, and the account in
the second Gospel is considerably abbreviated. If we
consider that the second Gospel is prior to the first, we
are bound to accept what seems most unlikely, namely,
that the evangehst of the first Gospel made considerable
additions to the Markan narrative in transcribing from
that source. The third Gospel, on the other hand, does
not record the Markan section at all, and if that Gospel
was based upon canonical Mark we shall ask why St.
Luke decided to omit it. It cannot be because he thought

i.] APOSTOLIC PREACHING AND GOSPEL ORIGINS 11
the teaching inappropriate to his particular hne of thought
in composing his Gospel, for he has included the same
teaching in a passage which he derived from the Logia,
where he gives our Lord's words without any of those
qualifications which we have in the first Gospel. Nor
can we suppose that for the sake of abbreviation he could
omit the whole passage. A better explanation of the
facts is that this section was not in the Markan edition
used by St. Luke.
But in addition to this section in the Markan narrative
we have our Lord's words given again in the Sermon on
the Mount in the first Gospel and in the Travel Document
in the third. Here the words are given in the form of a
Logion. That is, there is no attempt to connect the
utterance with any incident in the history. It is cast in
epigrammatic form. It possesses all the characteristics
of a true Logion.1 But when we come to consider the
Lukan version in comparison with that given in the first
Gospel, we see at once that it is difficult to beheve that
the two evangehsts derived the saying from Q or any
other common document. We are bound to admit that
here the sources were different. The two passages should
be placed in parallel columns :
It was said also whosoever Every one that putteth away
shall put away his wife let his wife and marrieth another
him give her a writ of divorce- committeth adultery, and he
ment : but I say unto you, that that marrieth one that is put
every one that putteth away his away from a husband corn-
wife, saving for the cause of mitteth adultery.
fornication, maketh her an Luke xvi. 18.
adulteress; and whosoever shall
marry her when she is put away
committeth adultery. Matt. v. 31-32.
It is difficult to beheve that the considerable difference
i See p. 41.

12 GOSPEL ORIGINS [oh.
between the two statements can be explained on the
ground of editorial alterations. As we shall see, St. Luke
treats his Logian source with such respect that he makes
such alterations less frequently in this part of his Gospel
than he does in any other. We are shut up to the conclusion
that the sayings were taken from different sources, and the
emphasis in the Lukan account upon the man's action in
the matter would seem to indicate a woman's point of
view. There is also the significant addition in the
Matthaean version of the clause ' saving for the cause
of fornication.' Why did St. Luke omit this clause if he
used the same source as St. Matthew did ? We may be
sure that it was not in the saying as he found it in his
collection of Logia. Indeed, the fact that it appears in
the first Gospel seems to indicate that it must be con
sidered to be inserted by St. Matthew as an interpretation
of the spirit of our Lord's teaching on the subject, and as
a concession made to the Jewish Christian Church for
which he wrote. That Church would find it difficult to
break away all at once from the Mosaic statute on the
subject, and the qualifying clause would be added ' for
the hardness of their hearts.' It is to be noticed that it
appears only in the first Gospel, and that it is inserted
in the Markan section of this Gospel as well as in the
Sermon on the Mount. The use of the word iropvtia
again is significant and points in the same direction. It
is not ' fornication ' as an act common to the two sexes
which is indicated as the one exception, iropvtia describes
rather the professional harlotry of women. So that the
exception is made in the interests of men just as was the
case in the Mosaic law given in Deuteronomy xxiv. 1.
The above study of the facts before us in the record show
that, while tendency may account for the character of those
points in which the first Gospel reveals an addition to what
we have in the second, it does not account for the omission
by St. Luke of a section which certainly belongs to the

i.] APOSTOLIC PREACHING AND GOSPEL ORIGINS 13
Markan narrative, nor does it account for the difference
between the teaching of our Lord on the subject which he
derived from his second source and that given by St.
Matthew, and apparently derived from a similar source.
The only complete explanation of the facts will be found
when we accept the theory that the Markan source used
by the first and third evangehsts was not identical with
canonical Mark, and that the collection of ' Sayings '
used by St. Luke differed from that which was used by
St. Matthew. When we further discover that this theory
accounts for a large number of other differences between
one Gospel and another, we may feel a considerable amount
of confidence in applying the theory to the general question
of Gospel sources.
There are of course other explanations of the facts with
which we have to deal, and these must be fuUy weighed by
the student of the Gospels. One of the most recent of
these is given by Dr. Sanday in a work to which frequent
reference will be made in subsequent chapters. Dr.
Sanday describes the several evangehsts as being historians
rather than mere transcribers of other matter that came
before them, and as exercising a certain amount of freedom
in selecting from their material that which seemed to be
of importance from their several points of view. ' They
were faithful and yet independent ; not wilfully capricious,
but content to tell their story sometimes in the words of
their predecessors, sometimes in their own. Their method
in transcribing would to a large extent be formed by the
conditions under which they worked, and consequently
the evangehst, in reproducing what belonged to his source,
would trust largely to his memory. This will perhaps
explain the fact that, while there is a considerable amount
of agreement where Markan matter appears in the first
and third Gospels, there is also a great amount of
divergence.' x Now it is possible that this may be the
' Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem.

14 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
explanation of the facts under consideration ; but while it
might account for merely verbal divergences, it fails
altogether to account for the omission in one Gospel of a
whole incident, or for the inclusion in another of a con
siderable block of matter. For example, the omission by
St. Luke of the story of the cure of the Syrophenician's
daughter could not be accounted for in this way. It is
impossible to beheve that if St. Luke had come upon that
story in his source he could ever have forgotten it. Some
other explanation of the fact has therefore to be dis
covered. Some of these are discussed in another chapter,
but it is possible that most, if not all, of these divergences
from the Markan tradition may be due to the simple fact
that they were not included in the editions of Mark used by
the editors of the first and third Gospels. This theory
will be fully discussed later on, but in considering the
conditions under which the different evangehsts prepared
their work, we must not lose sight of the possibihty that the
copies from which they worked were not identical. Dr.
Sanday would account for ' by far the greater number of
the coincidences of Matthew-Luke against Mark as being
due to the use by Matthew-Luke of a recension of the
text of Mark different from that from which all the extant
MSS. of the Gospel are descended.' Again, we would
urge that while this is possible, other explanations of the
facts should first be tested before we draw such a con
clusion. It involves, for instance, what seems a very
unlikely thing to happen, viz. that ' this recension was
perpetuated in just these two copies, but after giving
birth to them it came to an abrupt end ' : this statement is
actually made by Dr. Sanday in his Essay in the Oxford
Studies in the Synoptic Problem.
Rejecting then the theory that divergences from the
second Gospel are to be explained by the supposition that
the evangehst failed to carry in his memory the whole
of the section he was transcribing, and rejecting also that

I.] APOSTOLIC PREACHING AND GOSPEL ORIGINS 15
they are to be explained on the ground of a recension of the
text, we find another attempt made to account for them
on the ground that they are due to editorial alterations.
For example, it is well known that the word cvdvs occurs
with extraordinary frequency in the second Gospel, appear
ing no less than forty-two times. In Matthew it occurs
only six times, and in Luke in a single passage taken from
the Logia document and not from Mark. Now while
the marked absence of the word from the third Gospel
may be due to St. Luke's dislike of the word, yet when we
find that the editor of the first Gospel also rejects it in
thirty-six passages, we are led to think that the explana
tion must be sought elsewhere than in the direction of
editorial alteration. For it is most unlikely that two
editors, one of them a Jew and the other a Gentile, working
separately with very different constituencies before them,
would agree in omitting this word so often. But if
canonical Mark differs from other Markan narrative in
this that it was later than they, then we can see that
everything that tended to make an incident more vivid
would appear in the later edition though it was not found
in the earher.
Few will care to deny a considerable amount of editorial
alteration in the dealing of these editors with their material.
While in the main they were faithful to the sources which
they used, they nevertheless allowed themselves con
siderable freedom in substituting words which seemed
more suitable to them, and in recasting phrases which
appeared to them to be imperfectly expressed. But to
press this principle so far as to hold that it explains the
many cases in which Matthew and Luke agree against
Mark seems to be a mistake. A far more hkely hne of
investigation is that in which an attempt is made to go
behind the evangehsts whose work we have in the
canonical Gospels, and bearing in mind the conditions in
which the work of the earliest preachers was accomphshed,

16 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
to ask whether we can say anything more definite than, * a
Gospel practically identical with our second Gospel ' when
speaking of Markan narrative, and anything which will
indicate the second documentary source more certainly
than the very indefinite Q. Such questions may well
be considered now. An enormous amount of research
has been accomphshed, and in so far as an agreement has
been reached that all three Gospels are not at all original
productions but rest upon previously existing documents,
the ground has been cleared for the further question
whether those documents can be more fully defined. There
is no reason why we should approach this question with
a feehng of despair. We have certain statements in
Patristic writings to guide us. It is true that these have
often seemed so contradictory of one another that little
use has been made of their statements, and perhaps the
impatience which has been felt with regard to anything
that savoured of ' the traditional view ' may have con
tributed to the neglect of this part of the evidence for
Gospel origins. But there is a feehng in the present time
that there is more to be said on the side of ' tradition,' and
it may be that our own prepossessions have had much to
do with the mutual contradictions which we discover in
the writings of the fathers. There is, for instance, a
tradition which connects the second Gospel with Egypt,
another connects it with Rome. We have too hastily
said ' both cannot be right,' and dismissed the writings
as being to this extent untrustworthy. And yet we hope
to show that there is a sense in which both these state
ments are correct. The true method of investigation is
that in which neither internal nor external evidence is
neglected, but the one is tested by the other, and it may
well be that following this method we may arrive at what
is of supreme importance to the Church at the present day.
For if the Gospels as we have them are secondary, that is,
if the writers derived them from other sources, so that the

I.] APOSTOLIC PREACHING AND GOSPEL ORIGINS 17
part they played was rather editorial than original, we
shall only estabhsh the authority of the Gospels in so far
as we see that those who first compiled the writings were
in a position to guarantee the statements they have made.

ADDITIONAL NOTE
THE THEORY OP ORAL TRADITION AS A BASIS FOR
THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
In describing the conditions under which the evangelists
worked, we have so far proceeded on the supposition that the
sources from which they drew their matter were documentary.
This is now largely accepted by scholars both in Germany and
in England. Justice must, however, be done to a theory which
at one time seemed to promise a full solution of the Synoptic
Problem. Towards the end of the eighteenth century G. Herder
put forward a theory that all three Gospels were based upon
another Gospel which, though fixed in form, only existed in an
unwritten tradition. This Gospel originated in Palestine and
was written in Aramaic, forming the content of apostolic
preaching, and it was communicated frequently in the schools
of Catechumens into which new converts were gathered. The
fixity of this Gospel was accounted for as due at once to the
catechetical method and to the development of memory which
followed, and which can be amply illustrated from Eastern
parallels. St. Mark was the first to reduce this unwritten
Gospel to writing, and later on another version of the same was
produced which eventually became our Gospel of St. Matthew.
Later still St. Luke, using this Aramaic Gospel, and working
over St. Mark's version which by that time had been published
in Greek, prepared the Gospel which now bears his name.
This theory was developed by J. C. L. Giesler, who held that
even in its Greek form the Gospel continued to be oral, and
supported the theory by historical considerations, such as the
absence of all allusions in the Gospels themselves to written
documents, while the absence also of literary culture in the
early Church made it unlikely that the Gospel would assume a
written form. In England this theory was advocated by Dr.

18 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
Westcott, and later on by Dr. Arthur Wright, whose Synopsis of
the Gospels in Greek remains to-day the most able presentation
of the theory.
The doctrine of an oral basis for the Gospels is at first sight
exceedingly attractive. It fits in admirably with the method
of instruction which to this day is pursued in Eastern countries,
and the element of stereotyping which it assumes seems to offer
a reasonable account of the extraordinarily close correspond
ence to be discovered between the three Gospels based upon it.
In spite of this, however, it has failed to carry conviction, and is
practically rejected both in Germany and in England.1 Dr.
Schmiedel speaks of the hypothesis as being at once an
'asylum ignorantiae,' and an 'asylum orthodoxiae.' He says it
spares the critic all necessity for an answer to the question why
one evangelist wrote in this manner and another in that. ' If
the Synoptical oral narrative was really so firmly fixed as to
secure verbatim repetition of entire verses in three authors
writing independently of one another, then the variations
between the three become all the more mysterious.' It is
further a relief to the orthodox mind because 'it dispenses
with the necessity of assuming that original documents from
which our Gospels had been drawn — writings of eye-witnesses
— have perished. The theory is really wrecked, as Dr. Schmiedel
suggests, on the differences between one record and the other.
Its advocates account for these on the ground that equally
credible witnesses would give a different account of the same
event, and memory might fail in transmitting orally the same
discourse. But it is evident that the two terms of the
hypothesis cancel one another. Its advocates cannot have it
both ways. They claim 'a stereotyped tradition,' yet with it
they allow for 'slips of memory.' If the tradition was so fixed
as it must have been to account for the many and marked
resemblances, such slips would have been impossible. Nor are
these differences slight verbal changes. They amount in some
cases to whole sections, and sections of great importance, such
as the Lord's Prayer, the Eucharistic words, and the story of
the Resurrection. If any sections in the Gospel story were
likely to be fixed by frequency of repetition, they are these ; yet
we find that it is precisely in these that the account varies
1 See Article sub. verb. ' Gospels ' in the Encyclopcedia Biblica.

i.] ADDITIONAL NOTE 19
most, and in each some detail which appears in the others is
altogether missing. The hypothesis of an oral basis rests in
reahty upon the assumption that documents containing memoirs
of the works and words of Jesus were comparatively late in
appearing, but the existence of Logia preserved upon pieces of
papyrus shows that there were documents at a very much earlier
stage of Church history. So also does St. Paul's instructions
with reference to the parchments which he so specially required
during his imprisonment at Rome. St. Luke's language in the
introduction to the third Gospel indicates that, even before he
began to write, accounts of our Lord's life were extant in
documentary form. (See p. 145.)
Again, the original instruction of converts, which we may
well agree was given in catechetical form, must have been
given in Aramaic, the mother-tongue of the first apostles,
while these resemblances are in Greek, and it is difficult to
believe that the same fixity in verbal expression would persist
through the whole process of translation. An even more
destructive criticism of this theory is to be found when we
reflect that though this method of instruction must have arisen
in Jerusalem, and though it is clear from the fourth Gospel, as
well as from indications in the Synoptic Gospels, that there was
a Judaean as well as a Galilean ministry in the course of our
Lord's public life, yet this tradition scarcely refers at aU to
what took place in Judaea. 'The fact that the Synoptic
Gospels record only the Galilean ministry is inexplicable if the
tradition grew up in the heart of the city they so strangely
neglected.' 1 In another passage of the same article Dr. Sanday
says, ' The stamp which these Gospels bear is not collective but
individual, and this cannot be explained if they are the product
of the Church working collectively.' Such arguments make
the theory of a purely oral tradition as the basis of the three
Gospels untenable.
1 See Article by Dr. Sanday in The Expositor, Fourth Series, iii. p. 186 ff.
For a full and clear discussion of this subject, the student is referred to
Dr. Stanton's work, The Gospels as Historical Documents, vol. ii. p. 17 ff.
See also Oxford Studies, pp. 98, 99.

20 GOSPEL ORIGINS [oh.

CHAPTER II
THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS — THE HISTORY OP CRITICISM
The four Gospels came into regular use in Church services
in the first quarter of the second century, and as soon as
they were thus put together it became evident that there
was much matter common to two, three, or even to four
Gospels. It was also seen that with this large body of
' similarities ' there was a considerable amount of
' divergences.' The many attempts to deal with these
are so many efforts to solve what has become known as
' the Synoptic Problem.' Some methods adopted may
be at once dismissed as unscientific. While no attempt
was made to account for the points of correspondence, and
any recognition of the dependence of one evangehst upon
another was resented as a charge of plagiarism, the issue
of which would be the weakening of the authority of
Scripture, the differences existing between one Gospel and
another were explained away through fear of disclosing
contradiction between one record and another. This
attempt to resolve the variations .existing in the several
stories was dignified by the name of ' harmonising,' and
the methods adopted by some harmonists are not such as
to raise them in public esteem, or add to the authority of
Scripture. Even the text of Scripture has in not a few instances
been tampered with in the attempt to reduce the several
accounts to conformity, and textual critics have come
to recognise a whole class of readings as due to this
tendency, and quite rightly they make short work of such
variants. Harmonists of this class seem strangely to

n.] SYNOPTIC GOSPELS— HISTORY OP CRITICISM 21
ignore the fact that, so far from weakening the force and
the authority of the record, the acceptance of divergences
really increases these, inasmuch as it gives us the story from
more than one point of view. The word ' harmony ' was
indeed ill chosen by those who aimed at conformity, for
the blending together of different notes, under well-defined
laws, is what a true ' harmony ' really means. Reduction
to a single expression might give us unison ; it certainly
does not produce a harmony. In later days the word
' synopsis ' has come to be used instead of ' harmony,'
and this secures the great advantage of indicating that in
such work an attempt is made to bring the whole of the
matter dealt with into the range of a single view, the
student accepting divergences no less than similarities,
and seeking to discover their significance.
In the third century Ammonius prepared a work in
which the sections of the other Gospels were compared
with those which appear in St. Matthew's Gospel, the
text of which was given in full. The first Gospel thus
became his basis, and the other Gospels were arranged in
parallel columns where, in his opinion, the accounts coin
cided. He found in this way that Matthew contained
355 sections, Mark 233, Luke 342, and John 232. It is
clear that such a method, while it had the advantage of
bringing together similar passages, and of thus allowing
comparison of their details, suffered from the disadvantage
of being arbitrary in so far as the selection of parallels was
concerned ; it broke up the text of all the Gospels with
the exception of Matthew, and we do not know that it
led to any criticism of the details thus arranged. It seems
to have been rather a selection of parallel passages, than
an attempt to deal with the Synoptic Problem. The
sphtting up of the Gospels other than Matthew seems to
have been felt by Eusebius to be a defect, and he therefore,
while making use of his predecessor's work, proceeded to
number the sections in each Gospel. The sections thus

22 GOSPEL ORIGINS [oh.
distinguished were called rot iro.po.Tr\i)o-ia, and in addition
to these Eusebius drew up a set of tables KavoVes in
which the numbers of the corresponding sections were
arranged together. References to these were made by
figures written on the margin of the text. These ' canons '
were prepared as follows : No. 1 contains a. list of 71 places
in which all four Gospels agree. Nos. 2, 3, 4 show a hst
of passages in which three have common matter amounting
to 158. Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 contain 141 passages in which
two have common matter and No. 10 consists of a hst
of 62 passages pecuhar to some one evangehst. The
method of using these canons was as follows : if any one
wished to consult the passages which were parallel to one
which he was reading, he would look at the margin and
see that the section number was accompanied by another
number indicating the table to which his passage belonged ;
turning to this table he would find opposite to the number
of the passage he was reading the numbers which indicated
the parallels in the other Gospels, and would thus be able
to consult them. This method, however, hke that which
it was intended to supersede, is rather an arrangement of
parallel passages than a synopsis.
Another notable harmony was that prepared in the
second century by the Syrian Christian named Tatian.
Strictly speaking this was not a harmony at all, but rather
a Gospel narrative formed by selecting from all the Gospels
passages which seemed to follow one another consecutively.
Eusebius speaks somewhat contemptuously of this as
' a sort of connection or compilation, I know not how,
of the Gospels.' x Theodoret also speaks of the mischief
done by this ' Diatessaron,' as it is called, and congratu
lates himself on the fact that having found some two
hundred copies of the work in one district of his diocese,
he was able to put them away and to replace them with
1 <nni&$ti&r two. Kal awaytoyty oix olo" Swas twv ciayyeKltev ; see Zahn,
i. pp. 14, 15.

n.] SYNOPTIC GOSPELS— HISTORY OP CRITICISM 23
Gospels of the four evangehsts. It is possible that the
Sinaitic and Curetonian texts of the Syriac version of the
New Testament came into existence as the result of an
attempt to destroy Tatian's work. The Diatessaron is
of extreme importance from the standpoint of the textual
critic, but it is clear that while the name given to it seems
to suggest some attempt at harmonising the four Gospels,
in reality it was not so at all, and for our purposes need not
be further considered.
From the time when the Gospels began to circu
late or to be appealed to, it was the common tradition
of the Christian Church that they were written by
those whose names they bear. Even Marcion, who took
exception to many things which were stated in the
Gospels, especially to statements made in the third, and
did not hesitate to remove from the letters of St. Paul
passages which he considered to be unauthorised and
false, never attempted to question the authorship of the
three books under consideration. This tradition rested
upon no claim made within the books themselves, and the
only possible explanation of it is that the tradition rested
upon facts so clearly within the cognisance of the Christian
Church that denial of the received authorship was held
to be impossible. This tradition does not decide anything
as to what we call ' the Synoptic Problem.' That is to say,
it does not pronounce any opinion as to whether the books
were entirely or only in part the work of the evangehsts
whose names they bear, neither does it say whether the
writers wrote at first hand, or whether they were dependent
upon others. The earliest titles were apparently those
which appear in the oldest codices, and such forms as
Kara Mardaiov, Kara MdpKov might be used without
reference to the dependence of the first Gospel on the
second, or of St. Mark upon St. Peter. The early tradition
says nothing as to ' Gospel sources.'
In certain codices the books appear in the order Matthew,

24 GOSPEL ORIGINS [oh.
Mark, Luke, but Clement of Alexandria1 held that St.
Luke compiled the third Gospel before St. Mark wrote the
second. The dates to which these Gospels may be assigned
will be considered later in this chapter, but this divergence
of opinion is to be noted here, for if it can be shown that
St. Luke used an edition of St. Mark's work other than
that which we have in canonical Mark, and written at an
earlier date, the apparent contradiction may be easily
resolved. Irenaeus,2 too, represents St. Mark as having
written his Gospel after the death of both St. Peter and
St. Paul. If the third Gospel appeared before the death
of the latter — and it is difficult to beheve that St. Luke
could have closed the account given in the Acts as he has
done if St. Paul was not still alive — then the statement
of Irenaeus must be held to refer to canonical Mark, a
previous edition of that Gospel, differing in details but
similar in arrangement and in many particulars even
identical, having come into the hands of St. Luke. The
order in which the books appear in the different codices
cannot be held to be conclusive as to historical sequence.
For the books would first be written on separate rolls and
kept together. When they were put in the form of a
codex the order in which they appeared would be quite
adventitious. This is shown by the fact that codices which
keep the traditional order for the Synoptic Gospels put the
fourth Gospel before them all.
The first attempt to decide on the interdependence of
the three Gospels was made by St. Augustine. He held
that St. Matthew was the first to write and that St. Mark
' eum subsecutus tanquam pedisequus et abbreviator ejus
videtur.' 3 He also held that St. Luke used both Matthew
and Mark. This view obtained for a very long time, and
it was not until the eighteenth century, when historical
questions began to be treated upon scientific fines, that it
i Eus., H.E., vi. 14. 2 Irenaeus, iii. 1, 1 ; Eus., H.M., v. 8, 2.
3 De Consensu Mv., i. 2, 4.

n.] SYNOPTIC GOSPELS— HISTORY OP CRITICISM 26
was given up. Both in Germany and in England very
different views have been held, and some attempt must
be made to show the history of criticism.1
The first to offer any account of Gospel origins other
than that of Augustine was G. E. Lessing, who held that
the original Gospel was written in Aramaic, and that the
three canonical Gospels are translations of this, the first
Gospel coming nearest to the original. Lessing seems to
have arrived at this conclusion by a rendering of the
passage already quoted from Eusebius.2
Lessing was followed by J. J. Griesbach, who taught
that St. Matthew wrote his Gospel from his own personal
knowledge of Christ, and that St. Luke supplemented this
from oral tradition, the second Gospel being made up of
excerpts from the other two.
G. Herder seems to have been the first to see that the
second Gospel must be considered prior to the other two.
He held that St. Mark wrote down for his own convenience
the teaching which had been given him orally, and that
he did this at a quite early date, that later on an Aramaic
Gospel was prepared and has survived in the first Gospel,
and was used also by St. Luke, who added that which he
had himself received from apostolic teachers.
A notable addition to criticism was made by J. C. L.
Giesler, who found the common basis of the Synoptic
Gospel in an oral tradition. This need not be further
mentioned here, as we have already considered it in the
Additional Note to chapter i. Another typical theory is
that of B. Weiss. This theory had its antecedent in
Eichhorn's, which again is based on that of Lessing noticed
above. All of these, while they differ from one another,
seek for the source of the Synoptic Gospels in an original
Gospel written in Aramaic but early translated into
Greek. This Gospel was held to consist for the most
1 For the whole of this section I have used Zahn's Intro, to the New
Testament, vol. ii. 2 Hist. iii. 24, 6.

26 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
part of discourses, but it also contained narratives, and it
may therefore be considered a ' Gospel,' and the Canonical
Gospels are accounted for as translations, other supple
mentary matter being added as each translation was made.
Thus the second Gospel was derived from this original
Gospel with additions derived by St. Mark from the
preaching of St. Peter. The first Gospel used the original
and drew additional matter from St. Mark, and the third
Gospel is based upon the original, St. Mark, and special
sources available to St. Luke. This theory was a great
advance upon all that had then appeared, but it is open
to the serious objection discussed in connection with the
question of an ' Ur-Markus ' in chapter v., and further,
while it accounts fairly well for resemblances, it breaks
down in attempting to account for divergences. For it
is not merely in the supplementary matter that these
appear, but even when common matter is being narrated
by the different evangehsts there are differences which
are hard to explain if they had before them an original
Gospel from which each was transcribing.
It is impossible here to pass in review the many attempts
which have been made to solve the Synoptic Problem.
The most that can be done is to select those which seem
typical of groups, and we therefore turn to a theory which,
with modifications, forms the basis of the present work.
It is that of Holtzmann, who held that there were two
documentary sources before the evangehsts. One of these
was Markan, and in its original form was used both by the
editor who compiled the first Gospel and also by St. Luke.
It was not quite identical with the second Gospel. The
latter was considerably abbreviated, especially in the
earliest section which forms an introduction. The account
of the heahng of the servant of the Centurion (Matt. viii.
5-13, Luke vii. 1-10) and other incidents were omitted.
But additions to the original account were made in what
is now canonical Mark, such as the cure of the deaf man

n.] SYNOPTIC GOSPELS— HISTORY OP CRITICISM 27
with an impediment in his speech (Mark vii. 32-37), and
the many vivid details which characterise the second
Gospel. The second document consists mainly of dis
courses, and is to be found most clearly in the third Gospel,
though the Church has acknowledged their author by
attaching his name to the first Gospel rather than the
third. Other material, such as the genealogies, derived
neither from St. Mark nor from the Logia, was added to
the first and third Gospels by their respective editors.
It is claimed that this hypothesis is in accord with the
statements of Papias already quoted. This theory has
not hitherto received any great amount of acceptance,
though there have been approximations to it in the course
of time. These will be noted when the question of the
Markan narrative is more fully before us.
Looking back over this necessarily imperfect survey of
the course of German criticism we may sum up results as
follows : —
1. The basis is held to be documentary rather than oral.
2. The basis is twofold, consisting largely of sayings and
of narrative.
3. The former of these is connected with the name of
St. Matthew, and the latter with that of St. Mark,
and both of these in some form or other were used
by St. Luke.
Beyond this point, however, there does not seem to be
any general consensus of opinion. The details vary
with the critic. When we turn to the course of Enghsh
criticism, we find that the general results of German
research are freely accepted, but here again, beyond the
three points mentioned above, there seems to be an almost
endless variety of opinion.
Giesler's theory of an oral, basis from which all three
Canonical Gospels are derived is still maintained by Dr.
Arthur Wright. In a recent article in the Expository

28 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
Times (February 1910) he so far modifies his position as
to allow that ' documents — temporary documents — were
in use from the first ' ; but he finds these documents in
tablets, ' perhaps half a dozen which St. Peter used for
refreshing his memory.' This concession, however, is
hardly sufficient, and it is difficult to imagine St. Peter
' using notes ' as a modern preacher might do.
In 1884 a work appeared under the names of Dr. Edwin
A. Abbott and Mr. W. G. Rushbrooke, entitled The Common
Tradition of the Synoptic Gospels. In this it was held
that the basis of the three Gospels was to be discovered
by ruling out everything except that which appeared in
all three Gospels. When this is done, the remainder
consists of briefest notes as terse as the wording of ' a
modern telegram,' and the necessary expansion, before
these could be worked up into the Gospels as we have
them, accounts for the divergences which exist between
them. This system of discovering the basis or bases of the
Gospels is altogether too mechanical. The nucleus which
results is called by the authors 'the Triple Tradition,'
but it is clear that, inasmuch as the common matter may
have come from one source, a better name would be that
of ' the Original Tradition,' x and even thus it would fail
to account for many of the pecuhar features of these
Gospels. The expansions, for instance, reveal a con
siderable amount of correspondence, and this fact becomes
inexplicable if the three editors were expanding inde
pendently of one another.
The theory of an Ur-Markus, or original Gospel corre
sponding most closely to the second Gospel, is supported
by Dr. Salmon, who holds that ' Matthew and Luke did
not copy Mark, but that all drew from a common source,
which, however, is represented most fully and with most
verbal exactness in St. Mark's version.' Dr. Salmon
thinks that it is even possible that St. Mark's Gospel may
1 See Salmon, Introduction, etc., pp. 132 ff.

n.] SYNOPTIC GOSPELS— HISTORY OP CRITICISM 29
be the latest of the three, since it contains a good deal
more than the Petrine tradition. This is an important
concession from the point of view of the present work ; for
if canonical Mark is later than the Markan narrative which
appears in the first and third Gospels, it would account
for those features which have thus impressed Dr. Salmon.
The question of an Ur-Markus will receive separate treat
ment in a later chapter. 1 In addition to this Dr. Salmon
assumes the existence of Matthaean Logia upon which the
first and third Gospels are based.
The ninth edition of Dr. Salmon's Introduction to the
New Testament was published in 1899, and since then we
have had at least three works in English to which we must
give some attention.
The first is that of Dr. Burkitt, entitled The Gospel
History in Transmission, and pubhshed in 1906. Dr.
Burkitt does not accept either the theory of oral tradition
as a basis, or that of an Ur-Markus. He holds that
' the main common source of the Synoptic Gospels was
a single written document.' This document he finds in
canonical Mark. He follows Wellhausen in the belief
that with one exception ' Mark was known to both the
other synoptists in the same form and with the same
contents as we have it now.' The one exception which
Dr. Burkitt makes is that of the Eschatological Discourse
(Mark xiii. 3-37), which he considers to differ in hterary
form from the rest of the Gospel, and regards as a separate
' fly-sheet ' incorporated by the evangehst, with or with
out alteration, into his work. He considers the Matthaean
contribution to the first Gospel to be not the Logia, the
reconstruction of which he holds to be hopeless, but a
collection of Messiamc proof-texts drawn up by Matthew
the publican, and taken for the most part direct from the
Hebrew. These Messianic texts were probably the Logia
of which Papias, as quoted by Eusebius, speaks, and which
i See p. 107.

30 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
' each one interpreted as he could.' The non-Markan
portions of the first and third Gospels he holds to belong
to a work now lost, to designate which he adopts the
convenient formula ' Q.' x Many of the positions here
taken up will be discussed under the several headings to
which they belong. We are concerned here with the
mere statement of them.
In 1909 Dr. V. H. Stanton published a volume of extra
ordinary value for those who would study ' the Synoptic
Problem.' It is entitled The Gospels as Historical
Documents, vol. ii., and it is a clear and balanced statement
of the many questions that arise in this connection. Dr.
Stanton mentions the following as * positions in regard to
which a large amount of agreement has been attained ' : —
1. The resemblances between the Synoptic Gospels are
such as require us to suppose connections through
Greek sources.
2. The relations between the first three Gospels cannot
be adequately explained by the influence of oral
tradition.
3. Our third evangehst was not to any considerable
extent dependent upon the first (or the first upon
the third) for the common contents of their Gospels.
4. A record which, if not virtually identical with our
St. Mark, is at least most nearly represented in it,
was largely used in the composition of our first and
third Gospels.
5. There was a second principal source common to our
first and third evangehsts, consisting mainly of
discourses and sayings of Jesus, which they inde
pendently combined with their Markan document.
Dr. Stanton finds a considerable amount of freedom in
amending the Markan document on the part of both the
first and the third evangehsts, and this may be readily
1 See pp. 38 ff.

n.] SYNOPTIC GOSPELS— HISTORY OF CRITICISM 31
allowed. It is possible, however, that some things which
look hke editorial emendations may be due to the fact that
the editions of St. Mark used by these other evangehsts
differed from that which appears in canonical Mark.
Dr. Stanton himself seems to recognise this, though he
makes no clear pronouncement on the subject. Thus,
in discussing Markan sections omitted from the first
Gospel, he speaks of the possibihty of their having been
absent from the copy of St. Mark which the evangehst was
using, and the agreements of Matthew and Luke against
Mark are accounted for as belonging to ' an earher form of
Markan document.' This explanation he prefers to that
advanced by B. Weiss, that they indicate an ' Apostolic
Gospel,' containing both Logia and narrative, and drawn
upon by all three of our evangehsts. On the other hand,
he speaks of the omission of the heahng of the demoniac in
Matthew as having been due to mere inadvertence. Again
he accounts for the description of Jesus in Mark vi. 3, as
' the carpenter,' whereas Matthew has ' the son of the
carpenter ' (xiii. 55), and Luke ' the son of Joseph ' (iv. 22),
by ascribing the first-named to ' a revising hand,' and
where St. Mark has the expression ' servant of all ' (Mark
ix. 35), the phrase is accounted for as having been intro
duced by a copyist ' owing to his familiarity with other
sayings of our Lord.' In Mark xi. 17 the words ' for all
the nations,' wanting in Matthew and Luke, ' may have
been supplied from a recollection of the passage of the
prophet, and a sense of their significance.'
So in dealing with St. Luke's revision of his Markan
document, Dr. Stanton says that St. Luke, ' while adhering
closely on the whole to St. Mark's narrative, seems to
have here and there drawn inferences from what he read,
to have formed his own idea of the circumstances and
incidents, and then to have told the facts as he conceived
them. Or again, the special interest which he felt in the
subject-matter, and the belief that he could improve the

32 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
presentation of it, have moved him to add various touches
or to rearrange the account. Or, once more, some httle
piece of additional information which he possessed, or a
different mode of telling a story to which he had become
accustomed, has exercised an influence upon him.'
Now while the possibihty of these motives cannot be
denied, yet most, if not all, of such departures from the
Markan narrative seem to be better accounted for on the
supposition that they were not ' departures ' at all, and that
the real variation is in St. Mark's method of telling stories
which he repeated more than once. Thus it is well known
that though St. Luke is fond of the word used for ' preach
ing the Gospel' — as indeed a follower of St. Paul was
hkely to be — he never uses the word ' Gospel.' And yet
the word is used absolutely in several passages occurring
in the second Gospel. Dr. Stanton accounts for the non
appearance of this word in the third Gospel by suggesting
that the text of the second Gospel was altered so as to
allow for the insertion of the word. But we prefer the
theory that canonical Mark is a later edition of the Markan
narrative which St. Luke used, and that during the time
that had intervened between the publication of the two
editions the teaching of the Church had assumed the more
definite form of a Gospel. It therefore appears in
canonical Mark, but not in St. Luke's Gospel.1
Other examples bearing upon this point will be given in
a subsequent chapter, and we shall only say here that a
more thorough development of the theory of different
editions of the Markan document may possibly afford a
better explanation. In another passage Dr. Stanton
says : ' There are good reasons for thinking that our
Matthew may have been the last composed of the Synoptic
Gospels, and if so, it is obviously possible that the Markan
document may have come to the hands of the writer of
it with additions which it had not 'received when it lay
i See p. 122.

n.] SYNOPTIC GOSPELS— HISTORY OP CRITICISM 33
before St. Luke.' With this we would agree, only we
hold that the subsequent additions were made by the
hand of Mark himself, with still further additions in the
third edition which is our canonical Mark.
We have dwelt at this length herejm the question of the
Markan document lying before the first and third evangehsts
because not only does a clearing up of this matter help us
in deciding"as"fo the exact contents of the Markan docu
ment, but it also has^"3TsiEincTbearing upon the character
and^ontentsofthe second document "which has by common
consent jeen ^designated ' Q.' For where we have matter
common to the first and third Gospels, yet wanting in whole
or in part from the second, its appearance in Matthew and
Luke is often accounted for on the supposition that it was
derived from Q. It will be shown that many of such
instances are fully accounted for on the supposition that
while they appeared in proto- and deutero-Mark, for some
reason or other they were omitted, or considerably
curtailed, when St. Mark came to draw up his latest
edition, and in many cases it is not at all impossible to
see the reasons which may have led him to make the
alteration. Early in 1911 there appeared a volume entitled Oxford
Studies in the Synoptic Problem. This volume is the work
of several members of the University of Oxford under the
general editorship of Dr. Sanday. The members con
tributing, in addition to the editor, are Sir J. C. Hawkins,
Archdeacon W. C. Allen, Dr. J. V. Bartlet, and the Revs.
B. H. Streeter, W. E. Addis, and N. P. Williams. With
such a composite authorship the book exhibits a certain
amount of dissentient opinion between the different
writers. Dr. Sanday minimises this difference of opinion,
but to us it seems to be considerable. Thus Dr. Bartlet,
and to some extent Archdeacon Allen, rejects the ' two-
document theory,' while the others accept it. Sir J. C.
Hawkins, in discussing the use of Q by the first and third

34 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
evangehsts, considers that St. Luke did not use the same
collection of sayings as was used by St. Matthew. Mr.
Streeter, on the other hand, considers that he did, and
that he has preserved the original order of Q better than
St. Matthew has done. Dr. Allen again considers that the
first Gospel, is the best authority for the contents of Q.
Dr. Bartlet, who contributes what he calls ' a Minority
Report,' accepting a two-document basis for the third
Gospel alone, holds that the special source of Luke was
bound up with Q and can scarcely be separated from it.
It is therefore far from easy to indicate the general opinion
of this school of criticism as a whole on the subject.
We notice a general abandonment of an oral basis for
the three Gospels. The priority of Mark is allowed, but
in every case this priority is qualified. The phrase
generally used is : ' What was practically identical with
Mark.' But it may be asked, Wherein lay the difference
if there was not complete identity ? It will be the purpose
of the following chapters to show that a thorough applica
tion of the theory of a proto-, deutero-, and trito-Mark
to documents will answer this and many other questions.
In considering the question whether Q contained narrative
as well as ' sayings ' properly so called, there seems to be
a general abandonment of Lightfoot's well-known con
tention that the term ' logion ' 1 might be used of scripture
generally without insisting too rigorously upon the mean
ing ' discourse.' Yet the stories of the Baptism and the
Temptation, as well as that of the heahng of the centurion's
servant, are all attributed to Q, in spite of the fact that in
the first Gospel the formula which always marks the
transition from discourse to narrative is used in passing
from the Sermon on the Mount to the heahng of the
servant. Apparently the inclusion of the three sections
in Q is due to the difficulty of accounting for the differences
between them as they appear in canonical Mark and as
i See p. 43.

n.] SYNOPTIC GOSPELS— HISTORY OF CRITICISM 35
they appear in the other two Gospels, supposing that
canonical Mark was before the other evangehsts. This
question of the exact contents of the Markan source must
be settled before we can hope to arrive at a conclusion as
to the nature and composition of Q.
If it is at all possible to summarise criticism in England
of the origins of the Synoptic Gospels, we may say that the
general opinion, with notable exceptions, is as follows : —
1. The basis was documentary rather than oral.
2. The documents were two in number, and consisted
of a collection or collections of ' sayings,' and a
narrative portion corresponding most closely to
canonical Mark.
3. In addition to these there were special sources avail
able to the first and third evangehsts which account
for such features in both as the genealogical tables,
the Messianic texts, and ' the Travel Document,'
or Perean Section.
In America a notable contribution to the study of the
Synoptic Problem is to be found in an able Introduction
to a Commentary on the second Gospel by Dr. B. W.
Bacon of Yale University. Dr. Bacon's conclusions are
to the effect that the second Gospel is the work of a
redactor, and very much more than a mere editing of St.
Peter's discourses, inasmuch as it contains sections which
show no intrinsic evidence of proceeding from such a
source, and is dominated by theoretical considerations,
often manifestly derived from the Pauline Epistles, especi
ally Romans. He also holds that this redactor used Q
to embelhsh and supplement an earher and simpler Petrine
narrative. Dr. Bacon does not discuss in detail the other
sources, but he apparently holds that Q contained the
sections which describe the preaching of the Baptist and the
Baptism and Temptation of our Lord, and also that some

36 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
of the narrative supplements of Mark are derived from the
Lukan form of Q.
A more detailed and comprehensive discussion of the
whole question is to be found in an excellent reprint from
the Decennial Publications of the University of Chicago by
Dr. E. De Witt Burton, entitled The Principles of Literary
Criticism and the Synoptic Problem. We cannot do more
than summarise the conclusions of Dr. Burton, which are
as follows : — -
1. Our Mark, or a document in large part identical with
it, was employed as a source of both our first and
third Gospels.
2. The Matthaean sources in addition to Mark are, a
document not employed by Luke, made up chiefly
or wholly of discourses and presumably the Logia
of St. Matthew. In addition, two documentary
sources common to Luke and Matthew are found
in what are described as the Gahlean document
and the Perean document. Minor sources also
exist in the infancy narrative, etc.
3. St. Luke has the same chief sources as are indicated
in Matthew, with the exception of the Matthaean
Logia as above said. He has interpolated material
from the Gahlean document into the Markan
narrative, omitting St. Mark's similar narratives
when they seemed to him less full and vivid, and
adding the Perean document in two sohd sections.
The agreements of Matthew and Luke against
Mark are left as an unexplained remainder by
Dr. Burton. >
It will thus be seen that the general results of criticism
in America are much the same as we have found in
England. Such differences as exist are prominent when
an effort is made to define more closely the sources of
the Gospels as we have them.

m.] THE SAYINGS OP JESUS 37

CHAPTER III
THE SAYINGS OF JESUS
These ' Sayings ' constitute a prominent feature of the
first and third Gospels. They are generally described as
the non-Markan element in those Gospels, but the phrase
is not sufficiently definitive. In the first place, it is stiU a
moot question whether St. Mark does not, to some extent
at least, introduce into the Gospel which bears his name
sayings of our Lord technically so called. If he did, he
may have drawn them from a source open to either or both
of the other two evangehsts. If again he did not, the
phrase needs some further definition, inasmuch as matter
may be Markan in origin, even though it do not appear in
the second Gospel. Harnack seems to adopt the idea of a
non-Markan element common to the first and third Gospels
as indicating a certain source which was used by the
evangehsts of those Gospels, but, as Dr. Willoughby Charles
Allen points out, the method is open to serious question ;
for even if those two evangehsts agree closely in many
sections, it does not follow that they derived them from
a single source. It will later on be shown that while the
fact that the sayings in question are spoken by one
teacher gives them a considerable amount of resemblance,
there is nevertheless good reason for beheving that the
two evangehsts derived them from different sources.
Another descriptive title, used formerly in speaking of
this source, is the word ' Logia.' But this again is open to
misconception. For the same word seems to be used,
notably in Romans iii. 2, where we should use the word
' Scriptures.' Such a term then might denote a docu-

38 GOSPEL ORIGINS [on
ment which contained as much narrative as discourse, or
it might be used in a more strictly etymological sense to
describe more oracular sayings. The uncertainty would
then arise whether, when the word was used by any par
ticular scholar, it was taken to cover a source consisting
entirely of sayings, or whether it connoted one which
contained a certain amount of historical matter, or in
other words a ' Gospel,' as the word is understood in our
days. To avoid such difficulties the non-committal formula
' Q ' (=Quelle= Source) has found general acceptance of
late years. But, unfortunately, the uncertainty still
remains. We are told that St. Matthew caused to be
collected (o-vvtrd^aro) the ' sayings ' (Logia) of Jesus.
Are we to suppose that this collection of St. Matthew's is
what we are to understand by Q ? Or does the formula
indicate some underlying basis of that apostle's work ?
Even then the question remains, and there seems no
probabihty of any immediate consensus of opinion on the
part of scholars, whether Q consisted entirely of discourse
or whether it contained — be it St. Matthew's work or not —
some admixture of narrative. If some agreement on
terms could be arrived at by scholars, the Synoptic
Problem would come appreciably nearer solution.
Collections of precepts spoken by their Master would
commend themselves very early to the disciples. The
treasuring up of sayings uttered by Rabbis was already a
common habit among the Jews, and that the followers of
Jesus should do the same was but natural under any
circumstances. But there was a certain character about
the sayings of Jesus which made them specially hkely to
be early thrown together into some sort of coUection.
They were terse, pointed, epigrammatic apophthegms
which could easily be retained in the memory. They
were didactic rather than historical, inasmuch as they
dealt with universal truths, and had a distinctly moral

nx] THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 39
and spiritual apphcation. They might be expanded into
what we call a ' parable,' but the unity of the parable was
always some central truth, to which all other details were
but setting and scenery. Many of the most striking
of the sayings were in fact interpretations of the Mosaic
Law, which sounded a note far deeper and truer than
those to which the Jews had become accustomed in
Rabbinical schools. When the earhest Christians assembled
together to partake of the Agape, we may feel quite sure
that the sayings of the Master would form the text of many
a discourse, or they might be committed to memory in
the catechetical schools which were early estabhshed. In
the course of time a considerable number of these sayings
would be in vogue, and the collections would be continually
growing, as devout men and women called to remembrance
sayings which their Master had uttered. In such a method
of compilation there was room for a certain amount of
variety in the form in which the sayings were recorded.
Some memories would be more accurate than others, and
while the general idea was the same, there would be a
difference of expression when the same saying was given
by this one and by that. It was also inevitable that a
piety which was more imaginative than accurate would
put forth as sayings thoughts which belonged to their own
minds, and had never been spoken by Christ at all, and a
considerable number of spurious sayings would come into
existence in this way. If the question be asked how it is
that no such collection has survived, the answer would
probably be found to He in the fact that such collections
were unauthorised, arbitrary, and exposed to the uncer
tainties attending such collections. A study of the
sayings which are to be found in the apocryphal Gospels
reveals many which it is difficult to accept as having been
spoken by our Lord. One such may be cited. It is
quoted by Origen from the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
' The Saviour Himself says : " Just now the Holy Spirit

40 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
my Mother, took me by one of my hairs, and carried me
away to the great mountain Tabor " ' (Origen, In Johann.
ii. 6). The gulf between such a saying and those which
appear in the Sermon on the Mount is immeasurable.
At the same time we may feel quite sure that the necessity
would be quickly felt of sifting this increasing quantity
of puerile and unworthy sayings, and the task of doing
this seems to have fallen in the first instance to St.
Matthew. Later on another attempt was made by St.
Luke, or by some unknown compiler whose work St. Luke
adopted, and as soon as these ' Authorised Versions,' as
we may call them, came into existence, their obvious
superiority would quickly lead to the disappearance of
inferior collections.
It is necessary to repeat here the often quoted passage
from Eusebius in which this work of St. Matthew's is
described. It is given as a statement made by Papias,
and occurs in the Ecclesiastical History (iii. 39). ' So then
Matthew composed the Logia in the Hebrew language,
and each one interpreted them as he was able.' It is to
be noted that in this passage we have a variant reading ;
the word awey pd iparo= 'caused to be written' appearing
in some MSS. instead of o-uvsTafaro ' caused to be drawn
up.' Dr. Arthur Wright prefers the reading o-werdgaTo
as fitting in better with the idea of an oral basis for this
source. But even if (rweTagaro be preferred, it is difficult
to see how a definite compilation could be secured unless
the sayings were given in writing. Another indirect
allusion to the same work seems to be given by Papias
when, referring to St. Mark's memoirs of St. Peter's preach
ing, he says that Peter adapted his instructions to the
needs of his hearers, but had no design of giving ' a con
nected account of the Lord's Logia.' x Here, presumably,
we are led to infer that the elhpse may be supplied, ' as
St. Matthew had done.' It is to be noticed again that in
1 <n5crafip, cf. <TvveT&£ aro in the former quotation.

nx] THE SAYINGS OP JESUS 41
this passage too there is a variant reading, some MSS.
giving X6y<ov instead of AoyiW.
In considering these references to the work of St.
Matthew, we notice —
1. That it was originally written in Aramaic. This is
borne out by other statements made both by
Origen and Irenaeus. It follows from this that if
the first Gospel contains St. Matthew's contribution
to the Gospel story, it had been translated into
Greek before it was added to the Markan narrative
which the first Gospel undoubtedly contains.
2. St. Matthew's work was not a mere collection or
accumulation of sayings. There was some method
and plan in the matter. He arranged the sayings.
The word o-vvtrd^aro seems to indicate some
classification or distribution of the sayings, and
a more or less topical arrangement is at once
suggested.
3. The phrase ' each one interpreted them as he was
able ' points to the use of these sayings in the
assemblies of the Christian congregations, as we
have aheady suggested. They formed exegetical
material for moral and spiritual exhortations in
the earhest Church, as they still do in the later
Church of our own times.
Now when we turn from these Patristic references to
the Gospel itself we are at once struck with the fact that it
contains a considerable number of sections which come
under the description of such a word as Logia, if we
interpret that word in the sense of an utterance more or
less of an oracular character. These sections are sharply,
it will be seen that they are almost mechanically, divided
from the Markan narrative in which they are inserted.
Many of them are terse and epigrammatic, admirably con
structed for remaining in the memory of those who hstened

42 GOSPEL ORIGINS [oh.
to them. Others are more in the character of a discourse,
while others again take the form of a parable. All, how
ever, either enunciate or interpret great spiritual or moral
laws. They deal with what is universal rather than local,
and have to do with the inner spirit rather than the out
ward expression of religious thought. The question has
never been fully discussed whether these sayings as they
exist in the first Gospel constitute the work of St. Matthew
as described by Papias. Most scholars content them
selves with saying that the Logia of that apostle are lost,
and that these sections of the first Gospel are derived from
Q. With reference to this source again there is the greatest
uncertainty. Some hold that while it consisted for the
most part of discourses, it nevertheless contained a certain
amount of narrative. Even here there is uncertainty, for
some would assign to it a Passion narrative. Others,
hke Harnack, cannot agree that it contained an account of
our Lord's Passion and Resurrection, and yet they assign
to it an account of the ministry of the Baptist, and the
story of our Lord's Temptation, and even an account
of the heahng of the Centurion's servant. Dr. Allen very
pertinently asks what an account of the preaching of the
Baptist, or of the heahng of the Centurion's servant, has
to do in a collection of discourses. Harnack points out
that while much attention has been given to the Markan
element in the Gospels, comparatively Httle has been
directed towards a definition of Q. A definition of this
source he himself attempts in a work, to which frequent
reference will be made by the present writer, but by
assuming that Q consists of the whole of the non-Markan
element in the first and third Gospels, and by the further
assumption (imphed by the use of the same formula to
denote the source of both) that their authors used a common
document, he does not reaUy carry us very much further
towards a solution of the problem. The importance of the
problem, as well as its difficulty, can scarcely be over-

m.] THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 43
estimated. Its solution will affect even our conclusions
with regard to the Markan question, which Harnack says
has been treated with scientific thoroughness. For, at
present, sections of the first and third Gospels are assigned
to Q which may after aU be found to belong to that form
of the Markan narrative which the evangehsts who com
piled those Gospels used. The question reaUy turns upon
whether Q is to be considered to be one document common
to St. Matthew and St. Luke, and whether it is to be held
to contain narrative as weU as discourse. In approaching
this question the first thing to do is to attempt to come
to some decision with reference to the use of the word'
Adyioi/. EtymologicaUy it would be most natural to take
it to denote something spoken, and as a diminutive of
Aoyos it would stand for some brief utterance as dis
tinguished from a lengthy or reasoned statement. As
such it was used to describe the utterances associated
with oracular shrines such as that at Delphi, and if the
use of the word could be thus fimited we should have
no difficulty in coming to a conclusion. In 1875 Dr.
Lightfoot pubhshed his Essays on Supernatural Religion,
and in these the student wiU find a discussion of the use
of this word marked by the scholarship and research
which we generaUy associate with Lightfoot's name. In
this he contends that though the word was used to describe
' oracles,' properly so called, yet from the time of Philo
onwards it was used to cover a much wider connotation,
and that it was used by Philo and others in the sense in
which we use the word ' Scripture,' denoting thereby both
historical incident and didactic matter. It is certainly
so used by St. Paul in Romans iii. 2. But while we shall
agree that this use of the word was not uncommon in the
time when Papias wrote, he may quite well have used it
in the equaUy weU-known sense of ' oracle.' In the writings
of Clement of Rome the word is used together with ypa<pai,
as though that writer, in order that he might give a more

44 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
comprehensive expression covering both history and
discourse, used both the terms side by side. Lightfoot's
contention is well discussed by Sir John Hawkins
(Ox. St., p. 105), and his conclusion is as follows : ' I think
that if a person who has freed himself, as it is not difficult
to do now, from all bias on either side, will take concord
ances and indexes and will examine for himself the forty-
six places in which Aoytoi/ occurs in the LXX or in the
Hexaplaric fragments, the four places in the NewTestament,
the five places in Clement (Rom. i. and ii.) and Polycarp,
and the two in Justin Martyr, he will come to the conclusion
that the sense which a Christian writer of the date of
Papias would (apart from any special reason to the
contrary) naturally attach to the word is that of a divine
or sacred utterance. And this seems to be an opinion
widely and increasingly held by recent English writers.'
To the present writer this conclusion seems inevitable;
and I shall therefore assume that if we are to seek for the
Matthaean contribution in the first Gospel, we must look
for ' sayings ' properly so called, and where we find words
of Jesus which occur in describing some incident in His
ministry they must be held over for the time as not belong
ing to the Matthaean part of the Gospel, until we are able
to assign them to some other of the different elements
which go to make up the first Gospel.
If sayings of our Lord were from an early date recited
and expounded in the Church, and afterwards collected
and written down, it is inevitable that the question should
arise whether indications of such sayings are to be found
elsewhere than in the two Gospels in which they appear
so conspicuously - The answer is distinctly affirmative.
There are traces of such both in the canonical writings of
the New Testament and in the writings that belong to
the sub-apostolic period of Church history, and the evidence
which these afford has been greatly strengthened by recent
discoveries in Egypt. If we could put ourselves in the

nx] THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 45
place of those for whom the New Testament writings
were first prepared, we should doubtless find that many
of the moral or spiritual exhortations contained in the
Epistles were the more pointed and authoritative, because
they were at once recognised as echoes of famihar words
spoken first by Him who remained the great Master of
Assembhes. Thus St. Paul in writing to the Corinthian
Church impresses upon them the importance of celebrating
the Lord's Supper, and in doing so uses words which are
not found in the institution of that Supper as recorded
in the Gospels, though a suggestion of them occurs in the
account given by St. Luke. ' As often,' he writes, ' as
ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye proclaim the
Lord's death until He come.' Now these words are given
in the Apostolic Constitutions as words of Christ Himself,
and the phraseology is identical with that which appears
in the Epistle to the Corinthians. They also appear as
distinct words of Jesus in several ancient liturgies, and it
thus seems probable that St. Paul uses these words as
conveying an injunction, already famihar to those to
whom he wrote, and authoritative, as being recorded
words of Christ Himself. There are many other moral
injunctions in the Epistles which are given as words of
Christ in non-canonical writings, but it seems uncertain
whether in the latter they are cited as the words of the
Lord because they occur in the Scriptures. It is possible
that they are repetitions of the Pauhne injunction rather
than taken from some source common to St. Paul and to
the Father who uses them. We are on much surer
ground when we turn to the well-known passage in Acts
xx. 35 where St. Paul is represented as bidding the
Ephesian elders ' remember the words of the Lord Jesus,
how He Himself (ohjtos) said, "It is more blessed to give
than to receive." ' These words occur in no edition of the
Gospels. They are quoted by Epiphanius (Haer. 74. 5),
and they also appear in the Constitutions. There can be

46 GOSPEL ORIGINS [oh.
no reasonable doubt that they are a genuine Logion of
Jesus, and their use by St. Paul offers presumptive evidence
that he may have used others, even though he did not
specifically declare their origin as in this case. Another
hkely saying given by St. Paul occurs in Ephesians iv. 26 :
' Let not the sun go down upon your wrath.' It is true
that St. Paul does not ascribe the words to Jesus, but the
somewhat formal way in which Origen does so in his
Dialogue (De recta Fide), ' The Lord, being good, says,
" The sun, let it not go down upon your wrath," indicates
that he at any rate considered the words to have been
spoken by Jesus.
Another passage generally accepted as an unrecorded
' saying ' is given by St. James where he speaks (i. 12) of
' the crown of hfe which the Lord hath promised to them
that love Him.' No such ' saying ' occurs in the Gospels,
but the phrase ' the crown of Hfe ' occurs in Rev. ii. 10,
and the use of the definite article, both here and in the
Epistle of St. James, suggests that the phrase had become
famihar in the Christian Church, and that the promise
possessed a sanction which could only have been derived
from Christ. There are other injunctions in the Epistle of
St. James as there are in St. Paul's writings which read hke
' sayings ' woven into the exhortations of the writer, but
it is unnecessary to refer to any except those that can
fairly be claimed as examples of unrecorded ' sayings,'
and a single instance is enough for our present contention
that such ' sayings ' were used in the early Church.
A striking and often quoted Logion is found in the
great Cambridge Codex known by the name of Codex
Bezae. In the sixth chapter of St. Luke's Gospel, where
our Lord is represented as in controversy with the Pharisees
on the subject of the keeping of the Sabbath, the following
words occur : ' On the same day, seeing a man working on
the Sabbath, He said to him, 0 man, if thou knowest
what thou doest, blessed art thou ; but if thou knowest

m-1 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 47
not, thou art accursed and a transgressor of the law.'
The saying is one of extraordinary force, and is a distinct
echo of such teaching as our Lord is said to have given in
such passages as Matthew xii. 12, in which He shows that
there were certain works which might be done with
dehberation on the Sabbath day. It upholds the spirit
of the law, while it shows a proper reverence for that well-
being of mankind which our Lord maintains is the true
purpose of the law of the Sabbath when He says ' the
Sabbath was made for man.' The passage in Codex
Bezae is one of the many interpolations famihar in the
so-caUed Western Text. We cannot accept it as belonging
to St. Luke's original writing. It was probably inserted
at an early date, but its appearance again bears out our
contention that such sayings formed part of the treasured
inheritance of the early Church, and might or might not
be included in the canonical Gospels. We must content
ourselves with two instances from Patristic writings.
The former of them we take from Origen, who says in one
of his Homines (On Jerem. xx. 3) : ' Moreover the Saviour
Himself says, He that is near Me is near the fire ; and he
who is far from Me, is far from the kingdom.' The saying
must be interpreted in very general terms to mean that
while the greater danger lay in being far removed from
Christ, yet proximity to Him who came to send fire upon
earth would mean a cleansing fire to one who, as St. Paul
said, built with wood, hay, or stubble. But whatever the
interpretation of this saying may be, there is no doubt
that Origen considered it to be a real saying of our Lord.
The second is also from Origen, though it is quoted by
several others of the Patristic writers. Origen says (On
John, xix. 2), ' The command of Jesus which says, Become
ye approved bankers.' In the Pistis Sophia also we read,
' The Saviour of Mary replies, " I said to you of old, Be
ye as prudent bankers, take the good, cast out the bad." '
And Chrysostom, after giving the Logion, says, ' Not that

48 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
ye should stand in the market-place and count silver coins,
but that ye may test your words with aU exactness '
(Chrysostom, v. 844) . The above may be taken as examples,
which might be considerably augmented, of sayings which
were attributed to our Lord, and it is to be noticed that
they all possess the common characteristics of terse moral
injunctions conveyed in such a way as to be easily carried
in the memory. It may be said that there is a slight
difference between these and those which appear in the
Gospels, but this difference may be due to our familiarity
with those that are extant in the Scriptures, and they
certainly differ much more from the extravagant and
puerile sayings often attributed to Christ in the Apocryphal
Gospels. But whether they are genuine or not does not
make much difference to our argument, which is that it
was well known that from earhest times sayings of a
certain character were attributed to our Lord, and that
these were treasured in the memory of the faithful, and
were freely quoted in homilies delivered to the Church.
These indications of the use of the Lord's sayings received
additional significance by the discovery in 1897 of a leaf
of papyrus containing eight sayings similar in character
yet differing from those which were extant before. They
were discovered by Messrs. Grenfell and Hunt in the village
of Oxyrhynchus, south of Cairo, and were speedily given
to the world in an edition in which the lacunae, or gaps in
the text caused by the breaking away of the papyrus,
were tentatively filled up by capable scholars. The
sayings have no sort of connection with one another ;
each is entirely detached, and is introduced by the simple
formula, ' Jesus saith.' No historical framework was
considered necessary for the different sayings, each was
recorded for its independent value, and the whole collection
would probably be used for purposes of meditation by some
early Christian. The sayings are as follows : —
1. Jesus saith, Except ye fast to the world, ye shall in

m.] THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 49
nowise find the kingdom of God ; and except ye
make the Sabbath a real Sabbath, ye shall not see
the Father.
2. Jesus saith, I stood in the midst of the world, and in
the flesh was I seen of them ; and I found all men
drunken, and none found I athirst among them.
And my soul grieveth over the sons of men, because
they are bhnd in their heart, and see not their
wretchedness and their poverty.
3. Jesus saith, Wherever there are two, they are not
without God ; and wherever there is one alone,
I say I am with him. Raise the stone and there
thou shalt find me ; cleave the wood and there
am I.
4. Jesus saith, A prophet is not acceptable in his own
country ; neither doth a physician work cures
upon those who know him.
5. Jesus saith, A city built upon the top of a high hill,
and estabhshed, cannot fall nor be hidden.
6. Jesus saith, Thou hearest with one ear (but the other
thou hast closed).
7. . . . And then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the
mote that is in thy brother's eye.
8. . . . Poverty. . . .
The editors of these striking sayings have put forward
the following propositions : —
1. The sayings were part of a collection of sayings, not
extracts from a Gospel.
2. They were independent of our Four Gospels in their
present shape.
3. They were put together earher than a.d. 140, and it
might be in the first century.
4. They do not belong to heretical writings.
These propositions seem to have met with general accept-
D

50 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
ance, and there can be very Httle doubt that they form
part of some coUection loosely strung together for didactic
or devotional purposes. Their independence of canonical
Scripture is fuU of significance. The coUector, whoever
~~^ae was, had access to some other source than that which
•' is furnished by our Gospels, and if there was one there may
have been many in the earhest Church. They differ in
tone and spirit from the great majority of those which
appear in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, the
Ebionite Gospel, and other apocryphal writings. Now as
soon as we consider these sayings thus put together we are
bound to recall the statement made by Papias, and already
quoted, as to a collection of the sayings of our Lord which
Matthew made in the Hebrew tongue, and on which
Papias himself is said to have written a commentary.
-^The question arises whether that coUection of St. Matthew's
could have been anything of this sort. If the phraseology
of Papias, as quoted by Eusebius, can be rehed upon, the
answer must be in the negative. For the word o-wtci£is
indicates some sort of arrangement, and not a mere
accumulation of disjointed utterances such as we have
here. It wiU be further shown that we have in the first
Gospel something which comes much nearer to the de
scription of St. Matthew's work which Papias gives us.
When we turn from these ' sayings ' to those which are
recorded in the first and third Gospels, we see that the
latter can be placed under two categories. We have
sayings which spring out of some incident, and the
narration of the incident is necessary for discovering the
point of the saying. The words spoken by Christ, for
instance, in connection with His temptation, require what
we may caU the historical setting before they become
intelligible to us ; and when He says of the Centurion
' I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel,' the
statement is without point unless we read it in connection
with the request of the Centurion. Such sayings, too, lack

nx] THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 61
the ' oracular ' character which others reveal. They deal
with special instances rather than with universal truths.
We have urged elsewhere, in connection with the supposed
use of Q by St. Mark, that the appearance of words spoken
by our Lord when performing a miracle, or when deahng
with those who sought Him, does not necessarily imply
derivation from a collection of sayings properly so caUed,
and the Synoptic Problem wiU have come appreciably
nearer solution if scholars can agree to distinguish between
statements of our Lord made in the course of His common
intercourse with men, and those which He made when He
dealt with great underlying principles of life and godliness.
These last belong to the second of our two categories.
They resemble in form and structure those which we have
discovered in the Epistles and in extra-canonical writings,
and there is a strong Hkeness between them and those
discovered at Oxyrhynchus. They are independent of
any setting of narrative or historical statement. Any of
them may quite weU be found in a catalogue of apophthegms
needing no other introduction than that which has now
become famiHar — ' Jesus saith.' Sayings that belong to
the former class may then be accounted for in connection
with some narrative source, and we may consider with
reference to the second whether or no there are indications
of some coUection or coUections of ' oracles ' that wiU
account for those features of both the first and third
Gospels which differentiate them from the second. If it
be possible to account for the former class as belonging
to a narrative source, then the term Q could be used for
the second, and if this could become the universal custom
of scholars the gain would be very great, for, as we have
shown, there is no common use of terms at present, and
' Q ' seems to represent some sort of receptacle to which
are relegated aU the bits and ends of Gospel sections, the
origin of which seems to be uncertain. Dr. Burkitt
contends that Q was a Gospel now irretrievably lost, but

52 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
the present writer holds that there is far more to be said
for Dr. Sanday when he writes : —
' The leading purpose of this Httle book appears to have
been to set before its readers some account of the Christian
ideal, the character and mode of Hfe expected of them as
Christians. It was felt that this could best be done by
coUecting together a number of typical sayings and dis
courses of Christ. There was no idea of writing a biography,
and not even in this case of composing a " gospel ' (or fuU
statement of the redeeming acts of Christ), but only a
brief exemplar to set before the eyes and minds of con
verts' (Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, vol i. p. 575).
Harnack also does not aUow that Q contained a Passion
narrative, and states that it was no Gospel Hke Matthew,
Mark, and Luke, though it was not a mere formless com
pilation of sayings and discourses without any thread of
connection. He does, however, aUow that it contained
the story of the baptism of Jesus with its closely connected
sequel, the temptation, and adds to these the account of
the heahng of the Centurion's servant. Dr. Stanton is in
general agreement with this. H these scholars could see
their way to remove from Q the narratives above
mentioned, as they have already removed the story of the
Passion, the question of these sources would be immensely
simplified, and, as it seems to me, a fair solution of a
difficult problem would come at last into sight.
It is not difficult to see why it is found convenient to
relegate the stories of the baptism, the temptation, and the
heahng of the Centurion's servant to Q. It is because of
the great difficulty of accounting for these as coming from
the Markan source, always supposing that by ' the Markan
source ' we are to understand canonical Mark. The last
of the three is not given at ah by St. Mark in the second
Gospel, and his account of the baptism and temptation
is so exceedingly brief, as compared with the other accounts,
that it is impossible to suppose that the editors of the first

ni.] THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 53
and third Gospels took the Hberty of ampHfying to the
extent which they must have done if only canonical Mark
was before them. It is thought better to refuse a Markan
origin for these sections, and if we ask where then their
source is to be found, the answer is ' in Q.' I would urge
that this avoidance of one difficulty only leads us to another.
It is exceedingly difficult to see what an account of the
Baptist's ministry has to do with sayings and discourses
of Christ. Our Lord's words in reply to the Tempter differ
in essential characteristics from the sayings which we have
in the Sermon on the Mount; and, as we have aheady
seen, to claim that the word ' I have not found so great
faith, no, not in Israel,' belongs to a collection of ' sayings,'
is criticism in despair. There is another and a better way
out of this difficulty, It is to accept, what I hope to show
has very much in its favour, that St. Mark wrote down his
memoirs of St. Peter's preaching more than once, and that
in earher editions, prepared one in Palestine and the other
in the interests of a Jewish-Christian community, a fuU
account of the Baptist's ministry, and of his relation to
our Lord, would be entirely in place ; these subjects,
however, would be mentioned in the briefest possible way
in a later edition prepared in Rome, for a Church which
was largely Gentile. These earher editions would
naturaUy include also the account of the coming of the
Centurion, because the point of our Lord's words on that
occasion was that Israel had failed to evince the faith
which He had found in this Gentile.
We may account for the inclusion of a Passion narrative
in Q by some scholars, though not by any means by aU,
in the same way. When we make a comparative study of
the three accounts of our Lord's Passion, we find that the
first and second Gospels are in close correspondence, but
St. Luke obviously departs to a considerable extent from
them, and he departs entirely in his account of the resur
rection appearances of our Lord. The question then

54 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
arises : if he did not derive this matter from St. Mark,
from what source did he obtain it ? Again the answer
is ' from Q,' and so we are presented with the theory
that this coUection of sayings and discourses contained
an account of the Passion. Then when arguments against
this are brought forward, we have Dr. Burkitt rounding
upon his critics and saying : ' I find it difficult to beheve
that a critical method is wholly to be trusted, which
presents us with a document that starts off with the story
of our Lord's Baptism, and then gives us His words but
not the story of His Cross and Resurrection.' To my
mind Dr. Burkitt is here (Journ. of Theol. Stud., p. 454)
unanswerable, but a truer conclusion than that which
he gives us seems to be this — that neither the Baptism nor
the Passion story belongs to Q ; that the one belongs to
an earher edition of St. Mark than that which we have in
the second Gospel, and the other belongs to that special
source which, as we shaU show,1 St. Luke so freely used.
I would therefore strongly urge that the term Q be reserved
for a coUection of sayings properly so called, and that all
sections which contain anything of narrative which is
more than a mere introduction be assigned to some other
source. Among such sections would certainly be found
the three to which we have just referred.
But having got as far as this we are confronted by a
further question. Are we to suppose that Q thus inter
preted stands for the collection of our Lord's sayings which
we learn from Papias St. Matthew compiled ? Or are we
to use the term Q for some such collection as that of
which* we have a fragment remaining in the Oxyrhynchus
Logia ? And what is St. Luke's relation to this collection ?
Did he use the Matthaean collection ? Or did he use, as
St. Matthew did, some collection of sayings which he
reduced to some sort of order ? If the latter, was the
collection before him the same as, or other than, that
1 See chap. vi.

m] THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 55
before St. Matthew ? To these questions we must now
address ourselves.
If by Q we are to understand the Matthaean coUection
of sayings, then it wiU foUow that St. Luke used St.
Matthew in aU that part of his Gospel which contains sayings
of Jesus, and against this, as we shaU see, there are great
objections which may be brought whenever we say that
St. Luke derived this or that from Q. Further, if we identify
Q with the Matthaean coUection, and if this — as Dr.
Burkitt and others maintain — is no longer extant, then it
is difficult to see why St. Matthew's name ever came to be
connected with the first Gospel. The Logian sections of
the first Gospel would in that case be a mere selection
from the work of that apostle. His connection with the
book would be considerably more remote. But if we
present ourselves with the hypothesis that St. Matthew
had before him one of the many loose and informal col
lections of sayings of which the Oxyrhynchus papyrus
is a type, and if he distributed these sayings which he could
accept as genuine under different heads, making his dis
tribution topical in its scheme; if further this o-vvto.£is,
so far from being lost, actuaUy exists in the first Gospel,
sandwiched between blocks of Markan narrative, we shaU
at once account for the statements of Papias, and also for
the association of St. Matthew's name with the first
Gospel. Before such a hypothesis can be accepted it must
of course be tested in the Hght of what is given us in the
first Gospel. This part of our task wiU be attempted in
the chapter in which we discuss that Gospel more in detail,
but for the sake of clearness I would here reconstruct the
history of the production of the first Gospel somewhat
as foUows.
The words of the Lord Jesus began to be quoted and
expounded in the Christian assembhes at a very early date.
To facihtate such work, and also for the purpose of private
meditation on the part of individual Christians, coUections

66 GOSPEL ORIGINS [oh.
of such sayings began to appear. These were in no sort of
order, nor was it necessary to do more by way of intro
ducing them than to use the formula ' Jesus saith.' But
the method was open to abuse. The sayings could not
always be guaranteed, and spurious sayings began to be
attributed to our Lord. St. Matthew then undertook the
task of drawing up a coUection of true sayings, and he
did so in their original Aramaic, each speaker in the
Christian assembhes translating or expanding them as he
was able. In this way fuU justice is done to the statement
of Papias which Eusebius records. But when HeUenistic
Jews began to enter the Christian Church, the Aramaic,
in which the sayings were recorded, was felt to be a
difficulty, and at a comparatively early date the sayings
were translated into Greek. In this form they found their
way to some centre in which there were a number of Jewish
Christians. The conditions of a Church in Alexandria
would exactly correspond with the imaginary conditions
which we have thus laid down. But that Church had
other treasures than this coUection of sayings. St. Mark
had been one of its first ' bishops,' and he had even before
coming to Egypt drawn up some memoirs of St. Peter's
preaching. That he would do so again for the Church in
Egypt we may feel assured, and for some time the two
documents would exist side by side. The arrangement,
however, was awkward, and later on an attempt was made
to join the two documents, and at the same time to add
other matter which had come to hand. This was done in
the simplest way by introducing the different Matthaean
sections bodily into the Markan narrative, at such points
as seemed suitable, and a simple formula was used to form
such connections as were felt to be necessary to make a
single volume out of the two.
When we turn from the first Gospel to the third we
notice at once that whether St. Luke used the same source
as St. Matthew did or not, he has undoubtedly distributed

ra-] THE SAYINGS OP JESUS 57
his material on a different principle. St. Matthew has
arranged his sayings topicaUy, bringing together in five
sections (though some critics consider the number to be
seven and others eight) what he considered represented
the teaching of Jesus, each section having a theme of its
own. These five sections are discussed in the chapter
which deals with the first Gospel. St. Luke, however,
arranged his Logian material not topicaUy but chronologi-
caUy, distributing them among the Markan and other
sections which appear in his Gospel in such a way as to
give the impression that they were spoken on certain
occasions indicated by the evangehst. Thus, to take a
weU-known example, St. Matthew places the Lord's Prayer
in the considerable body of sayings which he has put
together and which we caU ' the Sermon on the Mount.'
St. Luke, however, shows us that the prayer was given by
our Lord quite late in His ministry, on an occasion when
His disciples approached Him with the request that He
would teach them to pray.
It is generaUy accepted that St. Luke no less than St.
Matthew used Q, and an attempt has been made to decide
which of the two kept the closer to their common source,
and from the conclusion arrived at it is generaUy thought
that some guidance may be reached with a view to the
reconstruction of Q. Thus Dr. Stanton says : ' H we ask
in which of the two writers the contents of a document
which both have used, or two editions of which they
respectively used, is most Hkely to be given in its original
order, there can be no question that it is in St. Luke.'
Dr. Stanton is here in agreement with Dr. Burkitt, but it
is to be noticed that both of these critics assume Q to be a
document containing narrative as weU as discourses, and
this, as we have shown, is a point to be settled by discussion,
and not assumed. H the source underlying the Logian
sections of the two Gospels be, as we prefer to regard it,
a coUection of sayings without order or ¦definite arrange-

58 GOSPEL ORIGINS [oh.
ment, or rather of two such collections, then it becomes
unnecessary to discuss which of the two adheres the more
closely to the original. Schmiedel seems to feel tins'
imcertainty, for he contends that if we are to conside:'
tvHich of the two has preserved the Logia in the moro
original form, the answer must be that it is sometimes tht
me and sometimes the other. Dr. Plummer has pointed
out in his commentary on the third Gospel that absence
or scarcity of the characteristics of St. Luke is most common
in the matter which appears in the first and third Gospels,
and he infers from this that where the materials were
already in Greek, St. Luke would use them without any
great amount of alteration. ' It is incredible that two
or three independent translations should agree almost
word for word.' This, however, scarcely affects the con
clusion at which we have arrived, that the Logia in the first
Gospel came from a source other than that which was used
by St. Luke, for none of the passages cited by Dr. Plummer
in illustration are taken from the five great blocks of sayings
which appear in the first Gospel. The fact that Lukan
characteristics are most lacking in passages taken from
Logian sections would indicate St. Luke's special reverence
for this particular source, and if we find that there is any
considerable difference between the sayings in the one
Gospel and the sayings in the other, we may safely infer
that St. Luke did not use the same coUection as did St.
Matthew. Now this is precisely what we do find. Dr.
Stanton indeed points out that the degree of correspondence
varies in the third Gospel, that in some passages the sayings
are identical, and in others there is more difference. He
would single out those sayings in which the correspondence
is so close as to lead us to conclude that the two evangeHsts
used a common source, and he would account for the
sayings in which there is more difference by ascribing that
difference to conditions affecting the translation into
Greek of the Aramaic coUection of sayings. But may not

ra.] THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 69
the explanation be a far simpler one ? If there were many
attempts to set forth the facts of our Lord's Hfe and
teaching, we have only to suppose that one collection of
sayings was used by St. Matthew and another by St. Luke
to sufficiently account for the differences, while the
character of these sayings, their epigrammatio form, and
the reverence in which such sayings would be held, would
completely account for the fact that some sayings would
appear in the one coUection in a form aU but identical
with that in which they appear in the other. The differ
ences, moreover, are too great for us to account for them
merely on the score of translation. The different versions
of the Beatitudes alone is sufficient to settle this. We
may feel sure that in this section least of aU would St.
Luke feel himself at Hberty to amend the form in which
he found the sayings, yet his version differs considerably
from that in St. Matthew's Gospel. In the section of St.
Luke which most corresponds with the ' Sermon,' as given
in the first Gospel, we are told that our Lord stood upon a
level place where St. Matthew speaks of ' the mountain.'
There is no necessary contradiction in this', but in the
sayings which foUow our Lord is represented as speaking
directly to His disciples : ' Blessed are ye poor . . .
Blessed are ye that hunger,' etc., while in the first Gospel
the form is more general : ' Blessed are the poor,' etc. The
number of Beatitudes is different. There are only four in
Luke, while there are nine in the first Gospel. In the third
Gospel the Beatitudes are followed by a corresponding
number of woes which do not appear in the first Gospel.
Again, the Beatitudes in the third Gospel are simpler in
form and more universal in appHcation, while in the other
there is some amount of interpretation of the general
truth ; thus ' the poor ' in the one becomes ' the poor in
spirit ' in the other. There is the same difference in the
saying in which ' salt ' is used to convey the teaching. St.
Matthew gives us the Logion as follows : ' Ye are the salt

60 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
of the earth, but if the salt lose its savour wherewith
shaU it be salted ? It is good for nothing but to be cast
out and trodden underfoot of men.' This appears in the
third Gospel in quite another setting and in the foUowing
form : ' Salt is good, but if even the salt have lost its
savour wherewith shaU it be seasoned ? It is fit neither
for the land nor for the dunghiU ; men cast it out.'
Instances of such differences may easily be multipHed,
but these wiU suffice to show the difficulty of beHeving
that St. Luke used the same document as St. Matthew
did. If the two evangehsts had the same document or
even two editions of the same document before them,
one or the other must have aUowed himself an amount
,i of freedom in transcribing them of which we have no
i evidence elsewhere in their respective writings. Neither
can we beUeve that St. Luke would have taken the Hberty
to separate and distribute the sayings as he has done, if
they appeared in his source thrown together into the con
siderable ' blocks ' in which they appear in the first Gospel.
jNow aU these difficulties disappear in a moment if we can
!accept the theory that the two evangehsts had before them
^different coUections of sayings thrown together without
'any attempt to arrange them under different heads, or to
indicate the occasion on which each was spoken by Christ.
The freedom in that case would be readily aUowed them to
arrange these as each thought best. St. Matthew preferred
to bring together those which bore upon some aspect or
other of ' the kingdom,' St. Luke attempted to place
each in its chronological setting. The form of the saying
wiU account for whatever Hkeness may be discovered
between the two versions ; the more epigrammatic it was
; the more Hkely was it that it would be identical in the
'' two versions. At the same time, the fact that it was
written down by different persons in the first instance
would account for whatever difference may appear between
the two versions. The two sources, we are convinced,

n%] THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 61
would resemble the collection discovered at Oxyrhynchus,
and just as in that coUection we have the saying, ' And then
shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote that is in thy
brother's eye,' which has a great amount of resemblance
to the corresponding logion in the first Gospel, and yet
differs from it, so we may be sure, between those used by
St. Luke and those used by St. Matthew, there would be
Hkeness and unhkeness. They would be hke in the
essential teaching, and yet would vary in the form of
expression. We conclude then that if the formula Q be stiU used to
indicate the logion source, it should be used to indicate a
far more simple and elementary source than one which,
by adding narrative to logia, would partake of the char
acter of a Gospel, and in order to show that the source
used by one evangehst differed from that used by the
other, we should make the further differentiation of Q (L)
and Q (M).

GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.

CHAPTER IV
THE FIRST GOSPEL
In discussing the many questions which arise out of a study
of the first Gospel we shaU find ourselves obHged to repeat
much that we have already stated in the preceding chapter,
for the problem of the first Gospel is bound up in the
problem of Q. In so far as the Markan element in it is
concerned, critics have arrived at a fair amount of agree
ment. Zahn is now the only critic of eminence who main
tains that the first Gospel was prior to the second, and was
used by St. Mark. He does so largely upon the considera
tion that the evidence from Papias points to a Hebrew
Gospel prepared by St. Matthew, and this Hebrew original,
he maintains, was afterwards translated by St. Mark into
Greek. He thus accounts in part, but not entirely, for
differences between the first and second Gospel on the
ground of translation. The second of the two great
arguments he brings forward refers to the character of the
contents of the first Gospel. These show that it must
have been written for Jewish Christians, and therefore it
could scarcely be dependent upon a work written at Rome
and for Gentiles. He also considers that in Matthew
' the material stifles the thought. On the other hand,
in spite of numerous infehoities of expression, Mark shows
himself a master in clear narrative, in his abihty to portray
a situation, and to reproduce with exactness trivial details,
which in the memory of an eye-witness, are inseparably
connected with the kernel of the event. If this is true it
foUows that Matthew is more original. It would be in
conceivable that with the narratives of Mark before him,

rv.] THE FIRST GOSPEL 63
which for the most part are very clearly drawn and accu
rate in details, he should have obliterated or otherwise
destroyed those characteristics without intending either to
correct errors or to make considerable abridgment.' 1
These contentions of Zahn have often been met and
refuted. The student wiU find an admirable discussion
of them in Dr. Stanton's work.2 We shaU not attempt
to go over the same ground, but we would point out that
Zahn's position is reaUy based upon two assumptions each
of which fails to commend itself. The former of the two
is this, that by the Logia of St. Matthew written in Hebrew
we are to understand the first Gospel as it stands in the
Christian canon. A far better interpretation of the refer
ence in Eusebius is that which considers that the term
Logia is to be used not of a Gospel, but of a coUection of
sayings uttered by our Lord, preserved in the memory of
the earhest Church, and thrown into form and order by
St. Matthew.
The second assumption is that when we speak of the
priority of Mark we are shut up to the idea of the priority
of the canonical Gospel known by that name. If it can be
shown that there is good reason to suppose that St. Mark
wrote his Gospel more than once, and that it is an earher
edition which is contained in the first Gospel, an edition
too which bears distinct signs, as Zahn declares, of having
been prepared in the interests of Jewish Christians, then it
foUows that there may weU be a Markan element in the
first Gospel which wiU agree with the rest of that Gospel
in exhibiting Jewish characteristics, and in maintaining
a ' unity of design,' and that nevertheless in the later
canonical Mark we shaU have as distinct a Gentile reference
and as great a richness of detail as that which Zahn, quite
correctly, considers to belong to a late work.
Accepting then the idea of the priority of Mark as
i Intro, to the New Test., (Eng. Trans.), vol. ii. p. 606.
2 P. 88 ff.

64 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
estabHshed in this sense, we proceed to mark off three
main sections in the first Gospel. These are :
1. A Nativity section consisting of chapters i. and n.
2. A Markan section which is not consecutive, but
is arranged alternately with blocks of matter to
which the description ' discourses ' may be assigned.
3. A section consisting of discourses. These are
sandwiched between Markan sections, as we have
said, and possess distinct characteristics of first-
rate importance as indicating the origin and purpose
of the Gospel.
In addition to these main divisions we notice that the
editor of the Gospel had before him a coUection of
Messianic proof-texts, which he inserted in the record
wherever he thought it desirable to do so. These must
be distinguished from quotations from the Jewish
Scriptures made by our Lord Himself. They are easily
distinguished as belonging rather to the comment of the
evangehst than to Christ, and they are usuaUy introduced
by the formula ' that it might be fulfilled,' Iva irk-riptoOy],
or its equivalent. They appear in the foUowing passages :
i. 23, ii. 6, 15, 18, 23, iv. 14-16, viii. 17, xii. 17-21, xiii. 35,
xxi. 5, xxvii. 9-10. These citations greatly intensify the
strong Jewish point of view which Zahn and others dis
cover in the Gospel, but they present no great difficulty
in connection with the Synoptic Problem. They are
clearly interpolations, taken from a variety of sources
some of which are not to be discovered in the Old
Testament. The Nativity section stands alone. There are Hnguistic
peculiarities such as the use of ' behold,' ISov, after a
genitive absolute which occur only in these chapters ; but
apart from these we have the story of the Massacre of the
Innocents and the flight into Egypt, of which we have
no mention in the Nativity section of the third Gospel.

iv.] THE FIRST GOSPEL 65
Further, St. Luke places the home of the holy family in
Nazareth, both before and after the birth of our Lord,
while St. Matthew says that the home was in Bethlehem,
and that after the flight into Egypt Joseph removed to
Nazareth from fear of Archelaus. But above aU, what
makes the two accounts distinct is the fact that the one
story is clearly that which would be given by Joseph,
while that in St. Luke is as clearly that which could have
been derived from Mary alone. The story of the birth of
our Lord is preceded by a genealogical table, the purpose
of which seems to be, as Zahn points out, not so much to
give the Davidic descent of Jesus, as to show that the
Jesus who received the name Messiah was 'the goal of
the entire history of His people.' This is shown by the
incompleteness of the table considered as a line of unbroken
descent, and by an indication of ' the change brought
about in the Davidic house when the unity of the family
and the inheritance of the promise were no longer repre
sented in one person who occupied the throne, but when
what was once the royal seed continued to exist only as a
number of famihes, with uncertainty as to which one
would enter upon the inheritance.' These characteristics
of the section wiU have a strong determining influence
when we come to consider the circumstances, local and
temporal, in which this Gospel, as a whole, was produced,
but they have Httle to do with the Synoptic Problem,
which is mainly concerned with the inter-relations of the
three Gospels. These come into view when we take
account of the three main questions, which are :
1. To what extent does this Gospel depend upon Mark,
and what is the relation of its Markan material to
the corresponding portion of the third Gospel and
also to canonical Mark ?
2. What is the Matthaean contribution which wiU
E

66 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
account for the traditional title given to this
Gospel ?
3. To what extent is it dependent upon another docu
ment (Q), and does it share this dependence with
Luke?
These three questions reaUy overlap. It is scarcely
possible to discuss the Markan element without reference
to the Matthaean, for what cannot be assigned to the
one wiU generaUy find its place in the other, and as we
have seen, our definition of Q involves a definition of the
Matthaean Logia. It is the overlapping of these questions
which has made the question of Gospel Origins appear so
hopeless of solution to the general reader. To us the clue
out of the labyrinth is to be found in a phrase which
occurs five times, and always in passing from a section
containing discourse to narrative. That phrase occurs
first at the close of the Sermon on the Mount, where we
read (vii. 28), 'And it came to pass when Jesus had
ended these words the multitudes were astonished at His
teaching.' The same phrase, or a variant which is a
distinct equivalent, occurs also at xi. 1, xfii. 53, xix. 1, and
xxvi. 1. If we give our attention to what precedes we
shall find that in each case it consists of a number of
sayings many of them cast in the form of epigram, and
entirely independent of historical setting, others expanded
into parables, and others again taking the form of set
discourses, but aU of them deahng with what we have
caUed ' universals,' or the great basal spiritual principles
which underlie our Lord's conception and teaching con
cerning the Kingdom of Heaven. In each case the section
which foUows is distinctly Markan. It is found in both
the first and second Gospel, and the Hnguistic character
istics are very close. If, now, we remove these sections
which, whatever they may be, are certainly not Logian,
we find that we have five blocks of quite homogeneous

iv.] THE FIRST GOSPEL 67
matter. They evidently belong to one source, and that
source is other than the Markan Gospel, in whatever sense
this last be interpreted.
Before we pass, however, to consider what that source
can be, we ought to consider whether any other sections of
the first Gospel belong to the same category, and four
passages at once attract attention, inasmuch as they also
contain a considerable amount of the teaching of our
Lord, and also because they are not found in canonical
Mark. These are, as a rule, referred by critics to Q,
and the reference is due to two facts ; first, they are words
spoken by our Lord, which is supposed to stamp them as
' sayings,' and secondly, they are not found in canonical
Mark, and for this reason are supposed to belong to a non-
Markan source. But when we come to examine them we
find that they possess certain features which differentiate
them from the five blocks which we have now taken out
of the first Gospel, and on the other hand, there are con
siderations which suggest a Markan source for the sections
in spite of the fact that they do not occur in canonical
Mark. The first section is that which is found in xi. 2-30.
This consists of the account of the Baptist's message to
Jesus, and of our Lord's vindication of His Fore-runner.
To this must be added the section beginning at verse 20,
which is closely connected with the preceding (' Then
began Jesus to upbraid,' etc.). In idea also the latter
follows on the Baptist section, inasmuch as the cities
mentioned had not known the day of their visitation any
more than those to whom the Baptist had made his appeal
in vain. The section differs from the five blocks aforesaid
because its historical setting is necessary before the point
of the teaching can be apprehended. The reference is not
universal, as is the case with the different parts of the
Sermon on the Mount, but is circumscribed by the
particular and local relations of the Baptist to the Jews
on the one hand, and to Christ on the other. Another

68 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
significant fact is this, that it is to be found in the third
Gospel though not in the second.
Now when we come to consider the second Gospel we
shaU at once be struck with the fact that its reference to
the ministry of the Baptist is extremely scanty as compared
with what we find in the other two Gospels. This is far
from indicating, in our opinion, that the account of the
Baptist's ministry in the first and third Gospels must be
referred to Q. To those who would so relate it, it is
sufficient to ask with Dr. WiUoughby AUen what the
record of the Baptist's preaching has to do with a col
lection of the discourses of Jesus. A far better explana
tion of the fuUer record of the Baptist's ministry in the
first and third Gospel is to be found in a distinction between
the Markan sections of those Gospels and canonical Mark.
As soon as we have grasped the fact, as it seems to me,
that the Markan element in the first and third Gospels
was in each case earher than canonical Mark, and that
they were written in Palestine in the one case and for
Jewish Christians in the other, while the second Gospel,
as we have it, was written for Gentiles in Rome and con
siderably later, then we see that references in the first
and third to the Baptist were hkely to be fuU. Their
interest would be great and immediate, while in Rome they
would be remote and comparatively unimportant. Thus
the section xi. 2-30 would belong, hke the fuUer account
of the baptism and temptation of our Lord, to the earher
editions of the Markan narrative, though it does not
appear in canonical Mark. There is no apparent reason
why it should be considered to have come from the same
source as the Sermon on the Mount.
The second passage of the class now under consideration
consists of the first sixteen verses of the twentieth chapter.
The parable of the labourers in the vineyard does not
occur in either of the other two Gospels. Now if this
parable belongs to Q, we may well ask for what reason St.

rv.] THE FIRST GOSPEL 69
Luke omitted it from his Gospel. The teaching it contains
was admirably suited to one who held with St. Paul that
though the Gentiles might enter the kingdom later than
did the Jews, they were nevertheless equal in privilege,
and feUow-heirs of the grace of God. It is one of the
parables which, we consider, St. Luke would have made
haste to transcribe if he had found it in Q. But the
question remains whether it did belong to Q. It is closely
connected, both grammaticaUy and logicaUy, with the
section which precedes. St. Peter had said to his Master,
' Lo, we have left aU and foUowed Thee ; what shaU we
have therefore ? ' The thought of rewards was distinctly
before him. Christ closes His reply with the words,
' Many that are first shaU be last, and the last first,' and
then foUows the parable ' For the kingdom of heaven is
Hke. . . .' To us it seems that St. Luke does not record
the saying because it never was in his source. It belongs
to the deutero-Mark, and may with confidence be included
in the Markan section of the first Gospel.
Another similar passage is that in which we have the
parable of the royal marriage feast (Matt. xxii. 1-14).
This passage, too, does not occur in the second Gospel,
and those who refer everything that does not so occur to
Q have no hesitation in ascribing the parable to that
source. Unhke the preceding parable in chapter xxi.
this is found in the third Gospel ; but there it appears
not in those sections in which St. Luke appears to be
using a coUection of sayings, but in that part of the third
Gospel which is known by the name of ' the Travel
Document,' and which is pecuhar to that Gospel. It is
given by St. Luke in chapter xiv. 15-24, and if the passage
is compared with its equivalent in the first Gospel, it wiU
be seen how different it is in wording and detail. Now
we have aheady seen that the characteristics of St. Luke
are least frequent in those passages in which he uses his
coUection of sayings. He seems least willing to make

70 GOSPEL ORIGINS [oh.
changes when he is deahng with the words of Jesus, and
if the difference is to be explained on the ground of editorial
privilege, it must be admitted that here the third evangeUst
departs from his usual practice. Is it at aU necessary for
us to do so ? It follows a section in the first Gospel which
is distinctly Markan, and its main purpose is closely
connected with what precedes, for in each we have the
neglect and insult of the lord which culminates in the
murder of his servants. In each the lord punishes his
rebellious subordinates with death, and their privilege
is given to others. The section is so closely connected
with what we have in Mark that it seems better to assign
this passage too to the Markan source, and the fact
that it does not appear in the second Gospel presents no
difficulty to those who consider that the three Gospels
present us with three editions of Markan writing. The
custom of ascribing everything of a paraboHc nature to
Q does not seem to us to be sound criticism. Indeed it is
impossible to ehminate from Mark aU parabohc teaching.
As we have elsewhere shown, St. Mark does not use Q,
but there is no reason why in his writings the words and
parables of the Lord should not appear, as they certainly
do in chapter iv. We may be quite sure that though
St. Peter dealt for the most part with those works of
Christ which declared Him to be the Son of God, he would
not hesitate to give the teaching of our Lord if the occasion
seemed to him to demand it, and that Mark recorded this
parable in his second edition we have very Httle doubt. It
was spoken during our Lord's journey up to Jerusalem,
but there is httle trace of chronological exactness in these
memoirs of St. Peter's preaching. St. Luke has given
the occasion of its utterance with greater accuracy, but
the details of the parable in the two records vary inasmuch
as it was derived from different sources.
The last of these passages is that which occurs in chaptei
xxiii. 15-39. This again is closely connected with a

rv.] THE FIRST GOSPEL 71
preceding Markan section though it does not appear in
canonical Mark. It is the passage in which our Lord
declares the woes of the Scribes and Pharisees, and it is
given in substance by St. Luke, though the latter does
not foUow the order in which the woes are given in the
first Gospel, and his account is very much abbreviated.
We would therefore assign this passage also to the Markan
section of the first Gospel ; and if the question be raised why
it does not appear in the second Gospel, we would answer
that the subject-matter of the section, while of extreme
importance to Jews, would be omitted from an edition
prepared for a Gentile Church in Rome, as being of much
less importance and interest to them. Now if this analysis
of these sections be correct, we are left with a sharp
division between the five blocks of homogeneous ' sayings,'
and the great mass of Markan material into which the
sayings seem to have been thrust.
It is true that much of what we have assigned to the
Markan document is held by critics to have been derived
from Q, and these sections wiU be duly weighed, but
assuming for the present that the division we have made
is a true division, we now proceed to consider the five
blocks of sayings which we have taken out of the first
Gospel.1 The very arrangement of a group of five is
significant. Sir John Hawkins compares with it the five
books of the Pentateuch, the five books of the Psalms,
the five MegiUoth, as weU as other similar groups, and
concludes by saying : ' It is hard to beheve that it is by
accident that we find in a writer with the Jewish affinities
of Matthew this five times repeated formula,' i.e. ' When
Jesus had finished these sayings.' Another most signifi
cant fact is that, according to Eusebius (iii. 39), Papias
wrote a commentary on the Logia of Matthew in five
books, and we may conclude that he did so because the
sayings were already grouped into that number of chapters.
1 For a detailed analysis of these sections, see Additional Note, p. 93 ff.

72 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
AU this makes a strong prima facie argument that the
Logia of Matthew are not lost, but exist in the first Gospel,
sandwiched between corresponding portions of Markan
narrative. The traditional title of the first Gospel is thus
easily accounted for. If the distinctive portion of the
Gospel had been taken from some Gospel (Q) of unknown
authorship, there is no apparent reason why the name of
St. Matthew should have been attached to it, and if a
work of such first-rate importance as one written by the
apostle Matthew, and containing the discourses of Christ,
was ever in existence, it is hard to beheve that it could
have disappeared from among the treasured documents
of the Christian Church. The statement of Papias can
not Hghtly be set aside, and our analysis of the Gospel
enables us to see that St. Matthew's work has never been
lost, but is stiU before us in the Gospel which bears his
name. The history of the Gospel may then be reconstructed
somewhat as foUows : — In quite early days St. Matthew
coUated the sayings ascribed to Jesus, rejecting those that
were spurious and retaining those that he recognised as
having been spoken at different times by his great Master.
He arranged these according to an approved Jewish method
by placing them in five groups, the sayings in each group
deahng directly with some topic upon which our Lord was
wont to discourse from time to time. When the Church
began to find converts among the Hellenistic Jews of the
Dispersion, translations of these sayings were made, and
one such copy found its way to Egypt, where there were
from earhest times a considerable number of Jews. St.
Mark had aheady left there a copy of his memoirs of St.
Peter's preaching ; it was not identical with either that
earher edition which he had left at Caesarea (see chap, v.)
nor with one which he was to publish considerably later in
Rome. It contained parables and other teaching of our
Lord's, which St. Matthew had not included in his work,

!V.] THE FIRST GOSPEL 73
and there were in it certain references which would be of
special interest to Christians Hving in Egypt. It feU to
the lot of some member of this Church to throw into one
volume these two accounts of what Jesus said and what
Jesus did. . He accomphshed this in a very simple, a very
rough and ready manner, by separating the five chapters
and inserting each at some likely point in the Markan
narrative, but he was always careful to mark the point
of transition by a formula which is found nowhere else.
He also possessed an account of the birth of our Lord
which had been derived through stages of which we have
no trace, from Joseph the husband of the mother of our
Lord, and which, from its inclusion of the flight into Egypt
and other details, seems to have been drawn up hi Egypt.1
This he naturaUy prefixed to the other two sections. He
further interpolated quotations from a coUection of
Messianic proof-texts at points at which such seemed
appropriate, and to the Gospel thus prepared the name of
' The Gospel according to St. Matthew ' was given to dis
tinguish it from the Gospel according to St. Mark, which by
that time was beginning to be known.
If this account of the way in which St. Matthew's name
was attached to this Gospel be correct, it foUows that we
need not seek for any exact definition in time for the
occasions on which the several discourses or the individual
sayings were uttered by our Lord. The relation of saying
to saying is that of its bearing upon the topic which St.
Matthew discovered underlying the general teaching of
Jesus. He would put together sayings some of which were
uttered early in the course of our Lord's ministry, and
others which He uttered on His way to Jerusalem, or in
the course of His latest ministry in the temple.
1 It is interesting to note that while Justin (Dial. 77, 78) and Tertullian
(Jud. 9) say that the Magi came from Arabia, which lies to the south of
Palestine, the first Gospel says that they came 'from the East.' The two
statements are seen to be in agreement if we accept the theory that the
birthplace of the first Gospel was Alexandria.

74 GOSPEL ORIGINS [oh.
Thus we shaU stiU continue to use the term ' The Sermon
on the Mount,' but the unity of that sermon is to be
ascribed to St. Matthew rather than to the great Teacher
whose words he recorded. We need not on this account
take up the position that our Lord never dehvered a set
discourse in which many of these sayings found utterance,
but it does not seem likely that we have such a discourse
in this ' sermon.' For in the first place no report of that
discourse could have been taken down, and it is impossible
to accept that any one could have committed it to memory
on the strength of a single utterance. In the second
place, no amount of editorial freedom would have led St.
Luke to separate that discourse into disjointed fragments
as, on this hypothesis, he has done. Further, it is extremely
difficult to account for the connection of such passages as
Matthew v. 31, 32, vi. 7-15, and vii. 7-11 if they formed
parts of a single discourse. Those who hold that the
sermon was actuaUy dehvered as a sermon by our Lord are
forced to regard these and other passages as interpolations,
but this method of accounting for the coUection as it
stands raises other difficulties. Then if the arrangement
of sayings was the work of our Lord, there is no reason
why we should not suppose that the other sections in
which we have blocks of sayings in the first Gospel are also
given as dehvered by Him, and this would produce an
impression of Christ's method far different from what we
beheve was the fact. It would make Him out to be a
formahst, whereas the remarks have a spontaneity and
freshness about them which make it far more probable that
they were uttered as each several occasion demanded, with
a readiness suggestive of a fountain of truth which was brim-
f uU, and ever ready to pour forth the riches of its contents.
What then was the ' unity ' which appealed to the mind
of St. Matthew, and led him to group together the sayings
which make up our ' Sermon on the Mount ' ? The
answer varies with the scholar who considers it. Professor

iv.] THE FIRST GOSPEL 75
Votaw considers that the theme is sufficiently described
under the title ' The Ideal Life,' and the Beatitudes are
considered to give a summary of the theme which is after
wards developed in detail. Dr. Stanton describes the
theme as ' The Character of the Heirs of the Kingdom,'
but this seems more appropriate as a description of
chapter xviii. Holtzmann, Wendt, and others find the
unity in v. 17-20, and describe it as ' The Fulfilment of
the Law.' None of these however seems, to the present
writer at least, to supply a sufficient unity. The present
Bishop of Oxford comes much nearer to it when he
describes it as ' The Moral Law of the Kingdom.' Dr.
Gore, however, goes on to say that it is ' law, not grace ;
letter, not spirit.' But although we shaU acknowledge
that it contains what we should expect in a first chapter
of discourses on the Kingdom — a statement of its statutes,
of the great principles that underlie the whole conception
of that great Jewish ideal as it existed in the thought of
Christ — it is the spirit of the law, rather than its letter
that is before us.
The most satisfactory account, which we have seen,
of the theme not only of this first chapter of St. Matthew's
work, but also of the remaining four sections, is given by
Monsignor Barnes in the Journal of Theological Studies,
1905. M. Barnes holds that St. Matthew's purpose was
to iUustrate from the teaching of Jesus His exposition of
that idea which was always prominently before the rehgious
conception of the Jew, and which formed the purpose of
the preaching of both the Baptist and the Christ — the
Kingdom of God. M. Barnes thus arranges the sections :
Matt, v., vi., vii. : The Law of the Kingdom.
Matt. x. : The Rulers of the Kingdom.
Matt. xni. : The Parables of the Kingdom.
Matt, xvifi. : Relations of the Members of the
Kingdom.
Matt, xxiv., xxv. : The Coming of the King.

76 GOSPEL ORIGINS [oh.
This seems a fair description of the contents of these
sections, though others may prefer other titles.
In discussing the Markan narrative which we have in the
first Gospel, it wiU be best to begin with a statement of the
points which have secured recognition and acceptance
among scholars. These can scarcely be better stated than
they are by Dr. Stanton in the work to which frequent
reference has been made, and which wiU long remain a
storehouse of scholarly research and critical acumen.
Dr. Stanton says :
1. While the narratives of the birth and infancy of
Jesus in St. Matthew and St. Luke are widely
different, these Gospels begin to agree with one
another and with St. Mark from the point at which
the latter begins, namely, with the ministry of
John the Baptist.
2. By far the greater part of the subject-matter of St.
Mark is found in both St. Matthew and St. Luke,
and there is on the whole a close paraUehsm
between aU three in the arrangement of this matter.
In other words, there is a common outhne ; into
this in St. Matthew and St. Luke a considerable
amount of additional matter has been quite
diversely introduced.
3. With very few exceptions, our first and third
evangehsts, so far as they omit incidents and
sayings given in St. Mark, do not omit the same
ones ; the result being that almost aU the sections
in St. Mark are found also in one or other of the
two remaining Synoptics ; that is to say, there are
very few passages pecuHar to this Gospel.
4. When the sequence of narratives in St. Matthew or
St. Luke differs from that in St. Mark, the other
one agrees with St. Mark. In other words, St.
Matthew and St. Luke do not, save in one or two

iv.] THE FIRST GOSPEL 77
instances, unite against St. Mark as to order.
When aU three do not agree in respect to it, we have
the same sequence in St. Matthew and St. Mark,
or in St. Luke and St. Mark.
5. There is further an agreement which is generaUy
considerable, and sometimes very fuU, between St.
Mark and each of the two other Synoptics in the
manner in which incidents are related, and in
phraseology. AU three frequently agree in these
respects. But there are also commonly particulars
of this kind in which St. Matthew and St. Luke
each separately agrees with St. Mark. On the
whole the correspondence is closest between St.
Matthew and St. Mark ; but there are cases in
which the correspondence is closer between St.
Luke and the paraUel passage in St. Mark than
between the latter and the paraUel in St. Matthew.
FinaUy, it is to be observed that the amount of
agreement in statements or words between St.
Matthew and St. Luke alone, in aU parts of their
Gospels which are in substance contained in St.
Mark, is trifling in comparison with the agreement
of each separately, and even of both together,
with St. Mark.
Dr. Stanton concludes that if we suppose that St.
Matthew and St. Luke used Mark, or a document resembling
Mark, and each in his own way revised and supplemented
it, we have a simple and natural explanation of these
phenomena. The present writer finds himseU in complete
agreement with aU the facts as related by Dr. Stanton,
but in the conclusion drawn he would prefer the second of
the alternatives offered by him, and would rather say that
the two authors used ' a document resembling St. Mark,'
and not the second Gospel as we know it. The reasons for
this preference are set forth in the chapter deahng with the

78 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
second Gospel, and we proceed now to discuss, in the Hght
of this preference, the Markan narrative as it appears in the
first. The first section which we assign to the authorship of
St. Mark is the one which is most disputed, and it raises
most of the questions which gather around the question
of the Markan element in St. Matthew and St. Luke. It
is the section in which the ministry of the Baptist is set
forth with the sequel so closely connected with it — the
temptation of our Lord. The majority of critics refer this
section to Q, and we have aheady aUuded to this in general
terms. A comparison of the three accounts reveals at
once the ground upon which they arrive at their con
clusion. By far the fuUest account is given by St. Luke,
and this evangehst prefaces his account with a detailed
chronological statement which is a distinct addition of
his own.
The account given in the first Gospel is not quite so
extensive as that in the third Gospel, but it is in close
agreement with it in giving the words of the Baptist in
some detail, and in caning attention to the rebuke given by
the Baptist to the Pharisees and the Sadducees. The
second Gospel gives the account of the Baptist's- ministry
in a most scanty fashion. The preaching of the Baptist
is referred to in the very brief statement that he preached
the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. There
is no reference to the denunciation of the religious leaders
among the Jews. The announcement of the coming of
Jesus varies in precisely the same way in the three accounts.
St. Luke's account is the fuUest and St. Mark's the briefest.
At the same time it is to be noticed that both in this and
in the preceding section, where we get a reference to the
same matter in the first Gospel and in the second, whether
it be the description of the habits of the Baptist or of
his reference to the coming Messiah, there is marked
resemblance in phraseology, so that we may infer that if

iv.] THE FIRST GOSPEL 79
St. Matthew derived the sections from any one source,
St. Mark also must have taken them from that source.
In describing the ministry of the coming Messiah, the first
Gospel (here in agreement with the third) makes the
significant addition that He would baptize ' with fire.'
In the baptism of our Lord the first Gospel represents the
Baptist as accepting a position of inferiority to Him who
came to be baptized. We can see how this would be a
point to be insisted upon when addressing those who held
John to be ' that prophet ' if not the Messiah HimseU,
and the fuffilhng of ' righteousness ' would again have
weight with those to whom the Old Testament teaching
on the subject of righteousness would be famihar. The
second Gospel also differs characteristicaUy by the
insertion of the word o-x'f<v«Vovs, ' rent asunder,'
where the other Gospels say simply that the heavens
' were opened.' This addition is one of the many vivid
details which make up the outstanding feature of the
second Gospel. They indicate not only the evidence of
an eye-witness, but also the experience of the speaker who
has learnt how to make his narrative vivid and effective
for his hearers. They are distinctly Petrine in origin,
and appear appropriately in the later rather than in the
eariier edition of the Petrine memoirs.
The temptation of our Lord sprang directly out of the
manifestation made in the course of His baptism, and
forms one section with the foregoing. It exhibits precisely
the same features as we find in the latter ; a fuU account
in the third Gospel, another almost as fuU in the first with
the reference to ' the holy city ' which repeats the Jewish
tendency, and an account in the second which by com
parison is the merest outhne, and gives no details of our
Lord's temptation. It exhibits, however, the same vivid
touch, which we have already found in the second Gospel,
in the statement pecuHar to that Gospel that our Lord was
' with the wUd beasts.'

80 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
Now apparently the reason which leads critics to refer
the whole of this section to Q is the difficulty of finding
a place for it in the Markan source, when that source is
taken to be the canonical Mark. If this section belongs to
that source, then we have the editors of the first and third
Gospels making additions to that source for which no
account can be given. To avoid this difficulty, the whole
section is commonly assigned to Q. And yet if we accept
this, we entirely destroy the character of Q, so far as we
can assign it a definite character. For in this section we
must admit that the proportion of narrative is far in excess
of anything in the nature of discourse. It contains far
more of the words of the Baptist than of the teaching of
Christ, and the very few words of Jesus which it records
differ in what we have seen to be an essential point from
Logia properly so called. They do not deal with essential
spiritual principles, but are dependent for interpretation
upon the circumstances which called them forth. If again
the editors of the first and third Gospels derived the
section from Q, the fact that they differ as they do between
themselves creates a further difficulty. St. Luke treats
his Logian source with the greatest respect. What are
caUed ' Lukan characteristics ' are least apparent in this
part of his Gospel, which means that he felt less inclined
to use his editorial freedom in amending this one of his
sources. This was only natural to one who reahsed that
in this he was deahng with ' the words of the Lord Jesus.'
But how then are we to explain the fact that he differs
from St. Matthew as he does if they both used the same
source ? In the teaching of the Baptist, in the order of
the temptations, and in minor details, he seems to be
using a source which, while exhibiting a general hkeness
to that used in compihng the first Gospel, nevertheless is
far from being identical with that source.
Now aU these difficulties find an easy solution when we
refer this section not to Q, but to Mark, meaning by that

rv.] THE FIRST GOSPEL 81
an earher edition of the work of that evangehst. We see
at once that the earher editions, prepared in Palestine,
or for Jews, would be in this section much fuUer than
they would be in the later edition which belongs to Rome,
while the latter would exhibit just those vivid details
which we have found in it. We also secure what seems to
the present writer the great advantage of considering Q
to be homogeneous. It is difficult to answer the objection
of those who say that if this narrative section can be
aUowed at the beginning of Q, there is no reason why we
should refuse to admit that it also closed with an account
of our Lord's Passion. But if Q contained both these
sections it must have been to aU intents and purposes
' a Gospel,' and its disappearance and loss becomes inex
plicable. Returning to the section as it appears in the
first Gospel, we notice that it contains more than one
aUusion to what we may caU a Jewish interest. The
denunciation of the religious orders among the Jews and
the reference to the ' holy city,' these are things which
would appear naturaUy in an account written for those
who were Jewish Christians, and in describing the difference
between the baptism of John and the baptism of our Lord,
the addition of the significant phrase ' He shall baptise with
fire,' belongs naturaUy to an edition prepared for those
who had witnessed or heard of what took place at
Pentecost and in the house of Cornelius, but the phrase
would have lost significance for those who belonged to a
later age, and Hved in Rome. It therefore fails to appear
in the second Gospel. We confidently then refer this
section to the Markan source rather than to Q.
The next Markan section in the first Gospel begins at
iv. 17-25 and continues on in chapters viii. and ix., the
sequence being broken, as we have seen, by the insertion
of chapters v., vi., and vii. which are taken from another
source. In this passage we notice that the caU of the
first four disciples while agreeing almost word for word

82 GOSPEL ORIGINS [oh.
with what we have in St. Mark does not appear in St.
Luke. This evangeUst gives in the fifth chapter of his
Gospel what is evidently a later and more decisive caU
than what is given here. The fact of the two caUs creates
no difficulty. Wc can see from the fourth Gospel that
the first attachment of the disciples to Christ was
apparently less binding, and that their connection with
Him became a much closer thing later on. In the first
edition of Mark the later caU was described, and as such
appears in the third Gospel, but in the later editions the
earher caU was given.
This is foUowed by the story of the cure of a leper,
chap. viii. 1-4. The section is given in practicaUy the
same terms in aU three accounts, but in the second Gospel
we notice at least two 'vivid touches.' In verse 41 of
that Gospel we read that Christ ' had compassion ' upon
the leper, and in verse 43 a remarkable word 1 is used to
describe the strictness with which Christ charged the man
that he was not to publish his cure abroad. That these
two expressions do not appear in the first Gospel is usuaUy
explained on the ground that they were omitted by its
editor probably for the sake of brevity. But the brevity
so gained would be very shght in amount, and one would
scarcely imagine that to secure this shght advantage words
which have so much to do with the personal feehng of our
Lord would be omitted ; and that St. Luke, writing under
quite different conditions and for a different chentele,
should fix upon precisely the same words to save space
seems to us most unlikely. A far more reasonable
explanation is to suppose that their non-appearance in the
first Gospel is due simply to the fact that they were not
included in the edition of Mark which was used by the
editor. Time had revealed to both St. Peter and St. Mark
that the personality of their Lord was the great treasure
which they had to hand down to the Church, and thus
1 ipftpipriadpevos.

rv.] THE FIRST GOSPEL 83
that which had to do with the personal hfe of Christ found
expression in the later edition though it was absent from
the earher.
The story of the cure of the centurion's servant which
foUows is one of the most disputed sections of our Gospel.
It is given both by St. Luke and by the editor of the first
Gospel, but it is completely absent from the second.
On the principle that non-Markan material means Q,
this section also is assigned to the Logian document, and
with Dr. WiUoughby AUen we are compeUed to ask what
a compilation of discourses can have in common with a
narrative section Hke this. Dr. AUen points out that
' the central point of the story is not Christ's saying " not
even in Israel have I found such faith," for as a saying
apart from its context that has no meaning, but the facts
that Christ could heal with a word, and that He had done
such a heaHng for the servant of a centurion.' To us this
comment of Dr. AUen seems unanswerable, and on the
theory of a deutero-Mark in which the section appeared,
though it was omitted from the trito-Mark, we have no
hesitation in referring this section also to the Markan
document. From this point to the end of the ninth chapter we have
what is accepted as Markan material. The three versions
differ, as we should expect them to differ, if, while written
down by one man, they were written on different occasions
and for different classes of persons. There are also editorial
changes, especiaUy in the third Gospel, but these need not
detain us.
We have shown that chapters x.-xi. 1 belong to the Logia,
and we have also given reasons for relating the section
which foUows this xi. 2-30 to the Markan document. From
xii. 1-xni. 23 we have a distinct Markan section, only broken
by the insertion of a quotation from the Messianic proof-
texts to which reference has previously been made. In
verses 5-7 of the twelfth chapter we have a statement

84 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
made by our Lord which appears in the first Gospel, but
not in the others. The statement carries that Jewish
reference which we have seen is characteristic of the
first Gospel throughout. It reflects upon the attitude of
the religious teachers of the Jews, and would have its
place in a narrative prepared by St. Mark for the Jewish
Christians of Alexandria. It is whoUy unnecessary to
refer it to Q. In the paraUel section of canonical Mark we
find a statement which is entirely apposite to the discussion
on the Sabbath given by aU three evangehsts, and yet
the remarkable words do not appear in either the first or
the third Gospel. In Mark ii. 27 we read that ' the
Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.'
Now if canonical Mark was before both the first and the
third Evangehsts, it is exceedingly difficult to see on what
ground they omitted the striking words which go so far to
support their own point of view. The so-caUed ' omissions '
of these evangehsts make an insuperable difficulty in the
way of those who accept the theory that canonical Mark
was one of their sources.
In xii. 22-32 we have the account of a discussion which
foUowed upon the cure of a blind and dumb demoniac.
This section also appears in the second Gospel. Those
who consider that non-Markan material indicates Q assign
this section to that document, and get over the incon
sistency which might be charged against them by assuming
that in this case St. Mark must have used Q. With refer
ence to the supposed use of Q by St. Mark we have written
elsewhere (see page 109). It is to be noticed that if St.
Mark were here reproducing Q, it is strange that he should
have omitted such striking words as are given in the first
Gospel in verses 27, 28 and 30. Dr. Streeter 1 holds that
St. Mark quoted Q from memory, thus accounting for
passages in which there is a divergence from Q in the
second Gospel, and in any case he contends that St. Mark
1 Oxford Studies, p. 219.

iv.] THE PIRST GOSPEL 85
only used the Logian document to a limited extent. But
this limited use of sayings in the second Gospel is better
accounted for if the point may be conceded that the
narrative of an event does not necessarily exclude the
words of Jesus uttered on the occasion. This opinion is
expressed clearly by Dr. Stanton x who says : ' The mere
fact of the existence of paraUels in the Logian document
to sayings contained in St. Mark is no proof that the
author of the latter must have derived them from the
oral or written Logian coUection, and not directly or
independently from the Apostle Peter.' This section
therefore with the rest we assign to St. Mark's narrative
rather than to Q. There are differences between the one
account and the other, but these are fuUy accounted
for on the theory of three editions of Mark. The section
in which a description of Scribes and Pharisees demanding
a sign from our Lord is given does not appear in St. Mark's
Gospel, but that need create no difficulty ; for as it has to
do with the attitude of these Jews to Christ it would be
more apposite in the proto- and deutero-Mark than in the
trito-Mark. The next Markan section of the first Gospel according
to our division is found in chapters xii. 33-50 and xiii. 1-23.
In this the verses 33-45 in the tweUth chapter do not appear
in the second Gospel ; they have the appearance of such
sayings as we have found in the five great sections which
we have taken to constitute St. Matthew's contribution to
this Gospel. But it is clear that they are closely connected
with the passage which foUows in verses 46-50 which is
distinctly Markan, and as they have to do with the spiritual
failure of the Scribes and Pharisees, and with our Lord's
reflections upon them, it is probable that they were excluded
from the trito-Mark for this reason.
xiii. 24-52 is, as we have seen, another of the divisions
of this Gospel which close with the formula of transition
i Op. cit. p. 174.

86 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
from sayings to narrative. The fact that one of the
parables — that of the mustard seed — occurs in St. Mark
should not lead us either to include the Matthaean section
in the Markan narrative, or to infer that here St. Mark
is using Q, for there is no reason in the world why we
should rule out from the preaching of St. Peter, repro
duced by St. Mark, any parable of our Lord which the
preacher or the evangehst might have thought fit to give.
The parable might have come into the Matthaean Logia
along quite another hne of tradition, and there are
linguistic differences between the two accounts which
lead us to infer that this was so. Further, St. Mark
closely connects it with the parable of the seed growing
secretly, and we have shown that if St. Mark derived this
latter parable from Q it is difficult to see why both St.
Matthew and St. Luke should have omitted it in using that
document. At verse 53 a long section common to the first and
second Gospel begins and continues to xxiv. 36. In the
twentieth, the twenty-second and the twenty-third
chapters occur short sections containing the teaching of
our Lord, which some would on that account refer to Q,
but we have shown reason for including these also in the
Markan document (see p. 68 ff.). A considerable part of
the matter contained in this section does not appear at all
in the third Gospel. It forms what has been caUed ' the
great omission ' from the third Gospel, and a discussion
of it wiU be found in chapter vi.
It will not be necessary to dwell here upon the differences
between the deutero- and trito-Mark in this section.
They exhibit exactly what, we have seen, might be
expected in the way of difference between one edition and
another — a certain amount of resemblance, inasmuch as
both were the work of one evangehst, but also a certain
amount of difference inasmuch as they were prepared
under different conditions and in the interests of con-

iv.] THE FIRST GOSPEL 87
gregations one of which was mainly Jewish, and the other
mainly Gentile. We may notice as confirmatory of this
that the trito-Mark omits the woes spoken by our Lord
against the Scribes and Pharisees.
The last section of the Matthaean Logia begins at xxiv.
37 and continues to xxv. 46. It is what constitutes the
Eschatological section of the first Gospel, although
Eschatological references in the teaching of our Lord are
not limited to this section. The difficult question of the
relation of this discourse to the ' Little Apocalypse ' in the
second Gospel wfll be better discussed in the foUowing
chapter of this work.
In the concluding section, chapters xxvi. 1 to xxviii. 20,
the correspondence between the first and second Gospels
is particularly close. As we shaU see, St. Luke here departs
considerably from the Markan source in relating the
Passion and the post-Resurrection appearances of our
Lord. But the close correspondence between the other
two is of pecuhar value to us in view of the fact that the
last chapter of St. Mark has been obviously mutilated.
There can be very httle doubt that if we are to seek the
close of the second Gospel we shall find it, with such
variations as we have found between the one edition and
the other, in the first Gospel, and we thus have the
Gahlean setting of the Markan narrative unbroken to the
end, while in the third Gospel St. Luke adopts an account
which is far more Judaean than Gahlean. The significance
of this wiU appear in chapter vi.
We may thus conclude that the passages of the first
Gospel which we have been considering are Markan in
origin, but it is obvious that they have not been taken
directly from the second Gospel. In the Additional
Notes appended to the fifth chapter of this work it will be
seen that the points of difference between these sections
and the corresponding passages in Mark are many and
considerable. They are usually accounted for as editorial

88 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
alterations of Mark, but such explanations are in the
majority of cases far from satisfactory. They raise as
many difficulties as they remove. If, however, the Markan
narrative in the first Gospel is prior to that which we find
in the second in this sense — that it formed an earher
edition of St. Mark's work, written when that evangehst
was in Egypt, we have a simple but a satisfactory explana
tion of both resemblances and divergences, and the
latter wiU be seen to be just those which would appear
when a writer gives two accounts of the same events, one
account being written on behalf of a Jewish-Christian
community, and the other written at a later date in the
interests of a Gentile Christian Church such as that which
was in existence in Rome about the seventh decade of the
first century.
In making this analysis of the first Gospel we are
perfectly aware that many questions of detail and of
linguistic correspondence and difference have not been
considered. Different scholars have analysed this Gospel
with quite other results. Some of these wfll be given in
the Additional Notes which foUow this chapter. What
has been offered here has been an analysis on broad and
simple hnes, taking into account traditional views of the
book and attempting to discover from internal evidence
such a differentiation of the several parts of the Gospel
as will fall in with a reasonable interpretation of that
tradition. It would seem more Hkely that the books
which make up the Synoptic Gospels were constructed
upon such broad and simple hnes, than that they are a
mosaic of small portions of narrative and of discourses
thrown together according to some elaborate plan. Such
a method does not seem to be a likely one in the age in
which these Gospels assumed the form in which we know
them now, and the somewhat mechanical method of
compilation suggested here may after all come nearer the
truth than the more elaborate methods which are offered

iv.] THE FIRST GOSPEL 89
by modern scholarship. The present writer is far from
disparaging the research of scholars to whom he himseU
is under such great obhgation, but the perils of statistics
are weU known, and it is possible to build up by the use
of verbal categories and the enumeration of vocabularies
a structure which wiU command our respect for the
ingenuity of its composer, but which may after aU be
very far from a true representation of the way in which
the Gospels came into being.

ADDITIONAL NOTE I
HARNACK'S RE-ARRANGEMENT OF THE LOGIAN
DOCUMENT IN THE FIRST GOSPEL (THE
SAYINGS OP JESUS, pp. 127-146.)
21. Matt. x. 10b.
22. Matt. x. 15.
23. Matt. xi. 21-23.
24. Matt. x. 40.
25. Matt. xi. 25-27.
26. Matt. xiii. 16, 17.
27. Matt. vi. 9-13.
28. Matt. vii. 7-11.
29. Matt. xii. 22, 23, 25, 27,
28, 30, 43-45.
30. Matt. xii. 38, 39, 41, 42.
31. Matt. v. 15.
32. Matt. vi. 22, 23.
33. Matt, xxiii. 4, 13, 23, 25,
27, 29, 30, 32, 34-36.
34. Matt. x. 26-33. (b) Matt.
xii. 32.
35. Matt. vi. 25-33.
36. Matt. vi. 19-21.
37. Matt. xxiv. 43-51.
38. Matt. x. 34-36.

1.

Matt. iii. 5, 7-12.

2.

Matt. iv. 1-11.

3.

Matt. v. 1-4, 6, 11, 12.

4.

Matt. v. 39-40.

5.

Matt. v. 42.

6.

Matt. v. 44-48.

7.

Matt. vii. 12.

8.

Matt. vii. 1-5.

9.

Matt. xv. 14.

10.

Matt. x. 24-25.

11.

Matt. vii. 16-18, xii. 33.

12.

Matt. vii. 21, 24-27.

13.

Matt. vii. 28, viii. 5-10,

13.

14.

Matt. xi. 2-11.

15.

Matt. xi. 16-19.

16.

Matt. x. 7.

17.

Matt. viii. 19-22.

18.

Matt. ix. 37-38.

19.

Matt. x. 16a.

20.

Matt. x. 12, 13.

90 GOSPEL ORIGINS [oh.
39. Matt. v. 25-26. 50. Matt. xi. 12, 13.
40. Matt. xiii. 31-33. 51. Matt. v. 18.
41. Matt. vii. 13, 14. 52. Matt. v. 32.
42. Matt. viii. 11, 12. 53. Matt, xviii. 17.
43. Matt, xxiii. 37-39. 54. Matt, xviii. 15, 21, 22.
44. Matt, xxiii. 12. 55. Matt. xvii. 20b.
45. Matt. x. 37. 56. Matt. xxiv. 26-28, 37-41.
46. Matt. x. 38. 57. Matt. x. 39.
47. Matt. v. 13. 58. Matt. xxv. 29.
48. Matt, xviii. 12, 13. 59. Matt. xix. 28.
49. Matt. vi. 24.
For a criticism of the above see Dr. WiUoughby C. Allen in
Oxford Studies, pp. 235-272. Dr. AUen offers an alternative
rearrangement which may be examined by the student and
compared with Harnack's as given above.
Dr. Burkitt considers that if we wish to reconstruct the
order and arrangement of the lost document used by Matthew
and Luke (he will not call it the Logia), we must take the
outline of it from Luke rather than from Matthew. We must
subtract from Luke the first two chapters, and those sections of
the third Gospel which are derived from Mark : what is left
will give us an approximate outline of the document in question.
In this Dr. Burkitt is in agreement with Dr. Armitage Robinson.
See The Gospel History in Transmission, pp. 130 ff.
Dr. Stanton also seems to prefer St. Luke in analysing the
Logian source known to the first and third evangelists. His
analysis of this source in the first Gospel is as follows : —
1. The ushering in of the Ministry of Christ: Matt. iii. 5,
7-12, 13-17 and iv. l-lla.
2. The first stage in the Preaching of the Gospel : Matt. v. 3 ;
vi. 8; vi. 16-18; vii. 1-5, 12, 15-21, 24-27; viii. 5-10, 13;
xi. 2-11, 16-19.
3. The Extension of the Gospel: Matt. ix. 35; viii. 19-22;
ix. 37, 38 ; x. 5a, 7-16, 40.
4. The Rejection and the Reception of Divine truth: Matt. xi.
21-23, 25-27 ; xiii. 16, 17.
5. Instruction on Prayer: Matt. vi. 9-13; vii. 7-11.
6. Jesus and His Antagonists : Matt. xxii. 34-40 ; xii. 22-30,
43-45, 39-42 ; vi. 22, 23 ; xxiii. 136.
7. Exhortations to disciples in view of the opposition and

iv.] ADDITIONAL NOTE 91
other trials that awaited them : Matt. x. 26-33 ; xii. 32 ; vi.
25-34, 19-21; xxiv. 43-44, 45-51; x. 34-38; xiii. 31-33;
xviii. 5-7, 15, 21, 22 ; xvii. 19-20.
8. The doom on Jerusalem, and the things of the end :
Matt, xxiii. 37-39 ; xxiv. 26-28, 37-41.
Dr. Stanton adds that there may be among pieces peculiar to
St. Matthew or St. Luke a few derived from this source which
are not included in the above. But the amount of such matter
is not likely to have been considerable. In the Oxford
Studies of the Synoptic Problem Dr. WiUoughby Allen
criticises Harnack's reconstruction of the Book of Sayings, and
offers an alternative of his own based on the principle that
the sayings in Matthew, over and above those already found in
Mark, when put together present us with a homogeneous, con
sistent and intelligible work (no doubt only fragmentary).
This source, he holds, was a collection of Christ's sayings and
discourses compiled to represent certain aspects of. His teaching,
and was marked by a very characteristic phraseology. Dr.
Allen's reconstruction of this source is as follows :

1. Matt. v. 3-12. Nine Beatitudes.
17, 20, 21-24, 27-28, 31-32, 33-48. The old
Law and new righteousness.
vi. 1-6, 16-18; vii. 1-5, 6, 12, 15-16, 21-23. Illustra
tions of the better righteousness.
vii. 24-27. Concluding parable.
ix. 37-38 ; x. 5»-8 ; x. 12-13, 15-16, 23. The Mission
of the Disciples.
x. 24-41. A Discourse about Persecution.
xi. 2-11, 12-15, 16-19. Discourse about John the
Baptist.
xi. 20-30. Woes upon certain cities followed by
thanksgiving to the Father.
xii. 27-28, 30, 32, 33-37. A Discourse about
Beelzebub.
xii. 38-45. Discourse in answer to request for a sign.
xiii. 24-33, 26-52. Parables concerning the Kingdom.
xviii. 15-20; xviii. 21-35. A Discourse on forgive
ness.
xxiii. 2-36. A Denunciation of the Pharisees.

92 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
Matt. xxiv. 10-12, 26-28, 30, 37-41, 43-51 ; xxv. 1-12, 14-
46. Eschatological Sayings.
v. 13-16, 18-19, 25-26, 29-30; vi. 7-8, 9-13, 14-15,
19-34; vii. 7-11, 13-14, 16-19. Fragments
inserted by editor in the Sermon on the Mount.
viii. 11-12, 19-22; ix. 13; xii. 5-7, 11-12; xiii. 16-17.
xv. 13-14; xvi. 17-19; xviii. 7, 10-12-14; xix. 11-12,
28.
xxiii. 37-39. Detached Sayings, which stood in the
source in positions which we cannot rediscover.
xx. 1-15; xxi. 28-32; xxii. 2-14. Other parables.
Dr. Allen is more consistent than most critics in omitting from
the Logia sections which really belong to the Narrative Source,
but it does not appear to the present writer that he has
accounted for the tradition which connects the name of St.
Matthew with the first Gospel, and it seems more likely that
the compilation of that Gospel was a more simple matter
than the somewhat elaborate arrangement here suggested.
Dr. Allen marks certain words and phrases as characteristic
of this source. They are such as 17 Bacrikela rtov ovpavwv, 6
Trari)p vptov 6 kv ovpavois, SiKawo-vvi], opoiow, 6 vlbs rov
dvOpumov, ipirpoadtv c. Gen., irovrjpos, ol viroKpnai, i) irapovo~ia
tov vlov rov dvOpumov. It does not seem, however, that too
much weight should be given to a vocabulary of this sort.
Such words belong to the phraseology commonly used in such
teaching as our Lord would give, and they would inevitably
appear in any collection of sayings, however formless and
inconsecutive they might be. To us it seems more likely that
the arrangement should be assigned to St. Matthew, the
language to his translator, or the editor of the Gospel as we
know it. But, if arrangement belongs to the Apostle, then the
arrangement of five blocks should be taken into account.

iv.] ADDITIONAL NOTE 93

ADDITIONAL NOTE II
ANALYSIS OP ST. MATTHEW'S FIVE COLLECTIONS
OP SAYINGS OF JESUS
Section 1, Matt, v., vi., vii.
1. eis to opos. Luke has Io-tij eirl ranrov ireSivov. The eight
beatitudes in Matt, are represented by only three in
Luke. In Luke the disciples are directly addressed, and
the beatitudes are followed by corresponding woes.
3. Tiji irvzvpaTi, an interpretation of irro>xoi, which may
have been in the source, or may have been added by
St. Matthew.
4. irevOovvTei . . . irapaKk-rjOrjo-ovrai. In Luke we read
/cAatovTes . . . ytkdcrare, KkaUiv is frequent in Luke,
and yekdv would follow by antithesis, but the expressions
are Hebraistic (cf. Ps. cxxvi. 6, Eccl. iii. 4), and may
have been in the source.
11. \pev86pevoi does not appear elsewhere in the Synoptists,
and the word reads as if it were an interpolation. It is
omitted in D. Latt. and Syrs. The wording of this verse
in Luke is entirely different. We infer from this not
that St. Luke altered Q, but that he used a different
collection of Logia. See p. 56 ff.
12. dyaXXicLo-9e, Luke a-KLpTr)<rare. Cf. Luke i. 41, 44 and
Psalm 68, 16.
13-16. Two brief parables. The former is given by St. Luke
in xiv. 34 as having been spoken on the way from Galilee
to Jerusalem. It also appears in Mark ix. 50, but it
does not follow from this that St. Mark took it from Q.
See p. 109. The second is given by St. Luke in viii. 16
with considerable verbal differences. It also appears in
Mark. iv. 21 where it is thrown into the form of a
question, 'and seems to be quite independent of the state
ments made in Matt, and Luke.
17-48. Relation of the New Law of the Kingdom to the Old
Law.
18. Appears in St. Luke's account of the journey up to
Jerusalem.

94 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
v. 20. Note as a Matthaean characteristic the condemnation of
the Scribes and Pharisees.
21-24. These sayings do not appear at all in Luke. Why
should he have omitted them if they belonged to a
source which was common to him and to St. Matthew ?
25-26. Derived by St. Luke from 'the Travel Document,'
xii. 58. The wording varies in the two versions. Matt.
has lxtOi evvoZv Tip dvriStKtp, whfle Luke has 80s epyao-lav
dirrjXXdxdai avrov. So also where Matt, has virriperrjs,
Luke has irpaKTutp.
27-28. This saying is not given by St. Luke. See note on
vv. 21-24.
29-30. This passage appears as a 'Doublet' in chap. xix. 9,
which latter is a Markan Section. Cf. Mark x. 11,
and Luke xvi. 18. It is to be noticed that Matthew
adds the words irapeKrbs Adyou iropveias. This is in
keeping with his Jewish 'Tendency.' See Alien, I.C.C.
in loco.
33-37. Not in Luke.
38-40. Luke vi. 29.
41-42. pairt(etv, elsewhere only in Matt. xxvi. 17.
41. Not in Luke.
43-48. Luke vi. 27-36.
Matt, has eo-eo-Ot rkXtioi, but Luke has ylvco-dt oiKrelppovvi ;
which last word appears only here in the Gospels. To
take this as a deliberate alteration on the part of St. Luke
can hardly be justified.
vi. 1-18. Warnings against hypocrisy. Dr. Wright says that
this section contains ' foreign matter,' and that Matt. vi.
7-15 is 'out of place.' But this criticism presupposes
a stricter coherence than is to be expected from the
character of the source used by St. Matthew. See p. 56 ff.
1-8. Does not occur in Luke. It is difficult to think that
he would have omitted them, if he had used either the
first Gospel or the same collection of Sayings as
St. Matthew used.
9-15. We find in Luke that this model Prayer was given on
an occasion when the disciples asked their Master to
teach them to pray. Luke xi. 2-4. The version he
gives contains only three petitions and no doxology.
The latter seems to be an addition even in the Matthaean

iv.] ADDITIONAL NOTE 95
text. See Comm. in loco. In the Lukan version of the
first petition there is a remarkable variant found in
Gregory of Nyssa, which reads as foUows : — iXOfrai to
ayiov irvevpa 4<j>' rjpas Kal Kadapio-aTu ^/ias.
vi. 11. iiriovo-tov. See Comm. and Wright in loco. It is
impossible that St. Luke made all these alterations and
omissions if the details given us in Matt, had appeared
in his source also. We conclude that he used a different
source.
16-18. Not in Luke.
19-33. The importance of the spiritual.
19-21. Luke xii. 32. Note difference of wording.
22-23. Luke xi. 34, 35.
24. Luke xvi. 13.
25-33. Of this passage too Dr. Wright says that it is ' out
of place.' See note on vi. 1-18. It appears in Luke in
xii. 22.
vii. 1-12. The Laws of the Kingdom.
1-5. The Law concerning Censoriousness. Luke vi. 37-38.
The section which follows in Luke is given in Matt, in
xv. 14 and x. 24 ff. A clear indication of the non-
chronological character of the source, and of the
difference between this and the source used by St. Luke.
6. The Law of Sacrilege. Not in Luke.
7-11. The Law concerning Prayer. Luke xi. 9-13.
12. The Golden Rule. Luke vi. 31.
13-23. Warnings.
13-14. This appears in Luke xiii. 22-25.
15. Not in Luke.
16-19. Luke vi. 43-45. The passage in Matt. xii. 33-35
contains simflar teaching, but it is not a true doublet.
The figure was one which might have been used by our
Lord with incidental variations.
22-23. St. Luke takes this from 'the Travel Document.'
xiii. 26.
24-27. Concluding similitude. Given in Luke with differ
ences in wording which we account for on the ground
not of alterations made by St. Luke, but of a difference
in the sources. See p. 56 ff.
28-viii. 1. An editorial note marking a transition from

96 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
discourse to narrative. The phrase Kal iyevero ore
tTeAeo-ti/ is Hebraistic. See Dalman, Words of Jesus,
p. 32. Section 2, ix. 37-x. 42.
ix. 37-38. St. Luke gives this (x. 1) as a remark made to the
Seventy, but Matthew gives it as addressed to the
Twelve, and follows it with an account of the call of the
Twelve and of Christ's charge to them.
x. 1. Luke ix. 1.
7-10. Luke ix. 2-3, but part of verse 10 appears in Luke as
addressed to the Seventy.
7. St. Luke gives this charge in brief and general terms,
but adds the characteristic word laadat.
11. Appears in Luke ix. 4-6 as spoken to the Twelve.
12-15. Appears in Luke as spoken to the Seventy (x. 5-12).
16. Appears in Luke as spoken to the Seventy (x. 3).
17-22. This does not appear in Luke at all. Dr. Wright
describes it as a Markan addition. It is true that Mark
has a similar passage (xiii. 9 ff.), but the introduction of
the Logion here indicates another source. That a
similar saying should appear in Markan narrative does
not imply that St. Mark used Q. St. Peter might well
quote such a saying of our Lord's in the course of his
preaching.
23. This is an eschatological saying which St. Matthew
inserts here as an appropriate conclusion to the passage.
24. This is inserted by St. Luke in the sermon on the
Plain (vi. 40).
25. dpeKTov rip padr)TQ Iva ykvqrai <5>s 6 SiSao-zcaAos appears
in Luke as KaTijpTio-pevoi irds co-rat u>s 6 Sioacnca Aos. The
word Kar-qpTiapkvo'i appears only here in the Gospels,
though it is not uncommon in the Pauline letters. The
word dpEKTov is found only in Matt.
26-33. St. Luke gives this as a part of the address to the
Twelve (xii. 3 ff.) The Lukan form differs from the
Matthaean. St. Luke has five sparrows for two farthings.
Harnack describes this variant as 'an enigma,' and asks
whether sparrows had become cheaper when St. Luke
wrote ! To such straits are critics reduced when they

iv.] ADDITIONAL NOTE 97
insist upon the theory that the editors of the first and
third gospels used the same Logian source, or Q, and
that variants imply emendation.
x. 34-36. Luke xii. 49-53. Where Matthew has pd\aipav,
Luke has Siapepio-pov.
37-39. This appears in Luke as spoken when Christ was
journeying up to Jerusalem (xiv. 25-27). As verse 38
appears also in Mark (viii. 35), we are not surprised to
find that it occurs as a doublet in both Matthew and
Luke. The occurrence of the Pauline words irtpiiroieio-dai.
and ftuo-yoi'etvin the Lukan version is to be noted. See
Acts xx. 28 and 1 Tim. iii. 13 for the one, and Acts. vii.
19 and 1 Tim, 6, 13 for the other. They do not occur
elsewhere in the Gospels.
40. The passage in xviii. 5 is not a true doublet. The
sayings seem rather to have been uttered by our Lord on
different occasions, and St. Mark followed by St. Luke
has run the two sayings together.
41. Does not occur at aU in St. Luke.
42: This also does not appear in St. Luke's Gospel. It
occurs in St. Mark's (ix. 41), but it does not follow
either that St. Matthew derived it from St. Mark, or
that the latter obtained it from Q.
xi. 1. Note the formula of transition from discourse to narra
tive ; and compare xiii. 53 and xix. 1.
The way in which throughout this section some of these
sayings are given by St. Luke as spoken to the Twelve,
others as spoken to the Seventy, while others again are
given as spoken on quite other occasions, while St.
Matthew gives them all as spoken to the Twelve Disciples,
is strongly confirmatory of the contention that each took
the sayings from different collections of Logia, in which
the occasion of utterance was not marked. St. Matthew,
as making a topical arrangement of sayings, brings them
all under one head.
Section 3, xiii. 16-53.
St. Matthew has attached to the Markan section which
contains the parable of the Sower and its interpretation the

98 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
foUowing additional parables which he took from his Logian
source.v. 16-17. Luke gives this as spoken on the way up to Jerusalem
when the Seventy returned from their mission.
18-23. The interpretation of the parable of the Sower. The
difference in phraseology between this account and that
which appears in Mark, especiaUy in the introductory
words, seems to indicate that the two accounts are from
different sources. That there should be a considerable
amount of agreement is not to be wondered at. It does
not necessarily indicate a common origin.
24-30. Parable of the Tares. In St. Mark's gospel the
parable of the Sower is followed by that of the Seed
growing secretly, and this latter is peculiar to Mark.
This is a clear indication that there is no common origin
for the two sections. It is difficult to see why
St. Matthew should have omitted the latter if it was in
his source. The parable of the Tares is not, as some
would assume, a variant of the parable of the Seed
growing secretly. Each parable illustrates the tendency
of the two evangelists. St. Matthew inserts the one
because it Ulustrates the corruption of Judaism.
St. Mark inserts the other because it accounts for the
spontaneous answer of the human heart, — Gentile
though it may be — to the appeal of the Gospel — the
good seed of the Kingdom.
31-32. The parable of the Mustard Seed. (Mark. iv. 30-32.
Luke xiii. 18-19.) All three accounts vary, and St. Luke
places the parable in his account of the journey
up to Jerusalem. This parable then is from three
different sources. St. Mark's source is Petrine. St.
Matthew derives it from the Logia; St. Luke gets it
from ' the Travel Document.'
33. The parable of the Leaven. Luke xiii. 20-21.
34-35. An insertion from the collection of Messianic Texts.
36-43. Interpretation of the parable of the Tares.
44. Parable of the hidden Treasure. Peculiar to Matthew.
45-46. Parable of the Pearl of great Price. Peculiar to
Matthew.
47-50. Parable of the Drawnet. PecuHar to Matthew.

iv.] ADDITIONAL NOTE 99
51-52. The Householder and his Treasury.
53. Formula of transition from discourse to Narrative. Note
the word perrjpev found in only these formulae, cf. vii. 28.
Section 4, xviii. 1-xix. 1.
v. 1-11. A discourse on true greatness. Considerable portions
of this are common to all three evangelists; but Matthew
differs so much from the other two, both in what appears
and what does not, while in addition he gives quite
another occasion for the giving of the discourse, that it
is best to consider the rest of this chapter to belong to
the Matthaean Logia. That it should also appear in the
Markan narrative (with variants) should create no
difficulty. Why should not St. Peter have given the
gist of this teaching in the course of his preaching?
The latter part of the section dealing with 'offences'
was given very briefly in the proto:Mark. See Luke
xvii. 2.
12-14. Parable of the Lost Sheep. Taken by St. Matthew
from the Logia. St. Luke has substantially the same
parable ; but he derives it from ' the Travel Document,'
and it appears in xv. 3-7.
15-22. The Law of Forbearance. There is a brief statement
to the same effect in Luke xvii. 3-4. St. Matthew
follows the enunciation of the law with the parable of the
Unforgiving Servant, which does not appear elsewhere.
Note the phrase o-vvaipetv Adyov which occurs again in
Matthew xxv. 19, another of the five sections of
St. Matthew's collections, and not elsewhere.
23-35. The parable of the Unforgiving Servant.
xix. 1. Formula of transition to Markan narrative. Note the
repetition of peTrjpev. See note on vii. 28.

Section 5, xxiv. 37-xxvi. 1.
The close correspondence between what precedes this section
with the Markan parallel, which is given by St. Luke also,
forbids our assigning it to the Logia of St. Matthew. But at
verse 37 the editor of the first gospel departs from his Markan

100 GOSPEL ORIGINS [oh.
source, and what follows may be assigned to the Logia. The
editor seems to have joined on to Christ's words as to the
destruction of Jerusalem His teaching with reference to the
Parousia. Probably the Apocalyptic language used of both events
suggested his doing this.
v. 37. In Luke the phrase 15 irapovo-ia rov vtov rov dvOpdirov
appears as kv tcus -qpepais rov vtov toQ dvBpdirov. There is
no reason whatever why St. Luke should have altered the
word irapovo-la, if he found it in his source. Harnack
says that he abandoned it because it belonged to the
sphere of Jewish Messianic dogma, and was an unsuitable
term for that second coming in which Christians believed.
It is difficult to see how Harnack can hold this opinion
in view of St. Paul's use of the word. See 1 Thess. ii. 20
and elsewhere.
33. At this point St. Luke inserts an additional parallel from
the history of Lot. If the two evangehsts used a
common source in which it appeared, it is hard to say
why St. Matthew should have omitted to give it. If it
was not in the source, then it is equally hard to say
whence St. Luke derived it. To account for it as a
' scrap of oral tradition ' begs the whole question of an
oral basis for the Gospels, and against this there is too
much to be said. See Chapter i., Additional Note.
40. Where Matthew has kv tQ dyp$ Luke has kirl kAiVijs.
Harnack thinks that St. Luke altered Q in this way so
as to convey the idea that the coming might be at night.
This seems to be an unnecessary refinement of criticism.
43-51. This Logion appears in Luke in 'the Travel Document,'
xii. 39-40.
xxv. 1-13. The parable of the Ten Virgins. This is peculiar to
Matthew. It is appropriate to him as it records the
failure of the Jews to welcome the Messiah.
14-30. The parable of the Talents. In spite of the general
likeness between this parable and that of the Pounds
(Luke xix. 11-26), we do not hold that the two parables
are identical. The Lukan parable appears to be taken
from ' the Travel Document.' It was spoken at Jericho in
the house of Zacchaeus, and all the details of the two
parables differ. The parable of the Pounds in Luke

iv.] ADDITIONAL NOTE 101
seems to be based upon the history of the effort of
Archelaus to obtain the title of /3ao-iXev<s. See Com
mentaries. If the parables are identical and from the
same source, then St. Luke has allowed himself an
altogether unwonted amount of licence in the alteration
of details. It is better to consider that the two accounts
not only differ in origin, but were spoken on different
occasions. Their common theme is that of privilege and
responsibility, and on that subject we may imagine that
our Lord would frequently speak.
31-46. The Last Judgment. Peculiar to Matthew.
xxvi. 1. Formula of transition. See note on vii. 28.

ADDITIONAL NOTE III
QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN
THE FIRST GOSPEL
A marked feature of the first Gospel is to be found in the
way in which passages from the Old Testament are woven into
the narrative. A distinction, however, has to be drawn between
citations which are given as made by our Lord Himself in the
course of His ministry, whether of teaching or of healing, and
those passages which are evidently introduced by the unknown
editor of the Gospel as we have it. The connection of the
former with what precedes is always such as would be naturally
used by a speaker who wished to point his remarks from the
authoritative literature of his people, but the latter are in
variably introduced by the phrase ' that it might be fulfilled
which was spoken by the prophet,' or its equivalent. The
passages are as follows : —
Matt. i. 22, 23.=Isaiah vii. 14.
ii. 5, 6. = Micah v. 1, 4a.
15. = Hosea xi. 1.
17, 18. =Jerem. xxxi. 15.
23.
iv. 14, 16. = Isaiah viii. 23.
vin. 17. = Isaiah liii. 4.

102 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
Matt. xii. 17-21. = Isaiah xlu. 1-4.
xiii. 35.
xxi. 4, 5.= Isaiah Ixii. 11 ; Zech. Ix. 9.
xxvii. 9-10.
Of these it is to be noticed
1. That the passage from ii. 23 does not occur in any book of
the Old Testament.
2. That the passages in Matt. ii. 6, 15, viii. 17 are
apparently cited from a different text from that which we have,
as there is considerable difference between the quotation and
the passages with which they are usually identified.
3. That the passage in Matt, xxvii. 9 is said to be taken
from the prophet Jeremiah, whereas it seems rather to corre
spond, and that not very closely, to Zechariah xi. 13.
4. In the passage in xiii. 35 the Sinaitic manuscript reads
'Ho-aiov rov TtpodyfjTov, and Dr. Hort seems to consider it the true
reading. If so then a passage is assigned to Isaiah which is
really taken from Psalm lxviii. 2.
5. The quotations are made usuaUy from the Hebrew, but
some of the passages seem to be taken from the LXX. This is
notably the case in Matt. iii. 3 and i. 23, though some other
passages also read as if they were reminiscences of the LXX.
On the other hand the passages given as quoted by our Lord
are wholly from the LXX. They belong, as it seems, to the
Markan source used by the editor of the first Gospel, the fuller
citations found in Matt. xiii. 14, 15 and xix. 18, 19 being due
not to the editor, but to the source; that source was not
canonical Mark, but an earher edition prepared especially for
Jewish Christians, and for that reason making a fuller reference
to the Jewish scriptures. We need not therefore make any
further reference to these passages.
Returning to the other class we may draw from the facts
enumerated above the conclusion that these quotations were
made from a collection of similar passages taken from the
Hebrew. Dr. Stanton considers that they came before the
editor in a translation from an Aramaic document, which may
be described as ' a Catena of fulfilments of prophecy,' and this
description would account for the features which they exhibit.
Probably the name of the prophets, from whose writings the
quotations were made, had not been attached to them in this

IV.] ADDITIONAL NOTE 103
Catena, and we can account thus for the uncertainty as to
origin which some of them exhibit. Dr. Stanton holds that
the coUection was not a bare Catena, but that the incident
which was held to fulfil the prophecy was in each case attached.
It is, however, scarcely possible from such slender material as
we possess to reconstruct even in outline the contents of the
source. It may have been full, or it may have been a very
incomplete collection. The paucity of passages referring to the
Passion and Crucifixion of our Lord would indicate that it was
very imperfect. Dr. Burkitt considers that possibly the com
pilation was made by St. Matthew, and that it was because of
the use made of it in the first Gospel that the name of that
apostle was attached to the Gospel. This, however, seems to
us a very slender cause for giving St. Matthew's name to the
Gospel, and we have indicated a far more likely reason for his
name being connected with it. See pages, 72, 73.

104 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.

CHAPTER V
THE SECOND GOSPEL
The priority of St. Mark's Gospel is now generally accepted
by modern critics. Out of 661 verses in that Gospel
aU but 50 are to be found in Matthew and Luke, and this
incorporated matter so often reveals a marked similarity,
not merely in order of arrangement, but also in vocabulary,
that the conclusion is inevitable that the first and third
evangehsts considered the Markan narrative which they
thus used to be authoritative. Their respect for the
document shows itseU in the inclusion in their Gospels of
many words and phrases which we should have expected
them to alter in the use of their editorial capacity. Thus
in Mark ii. l-12=Matthew ix. l-8=Luke v. 17-26 we have
an account of the heahng of a paralytic man in which the
awkward parenthesis, ' then saith He to the sick of the
palsy,' is reproduced. In Mark ii. 20=Matthew ix. 15=
Luke v. 35 the removal of the bridegroom is spoken of by
the use of the rare word dirapO-Q. The expression ' to
taste of death ' is metaphorical, and its alteration by
subsequent editors might have been expected, yet it occurs
in aU three Gospels (Mark ix. l=Matt. xvi. 28=Luke
ix. 27). The same thing occurs where one or other of the
two reproduces Markan matter. In Mark xiv.20 =Matthew
xxvi. 23 the words kp/3d-n-T(o and TpvfiXwv appear, though
they are not found in the rest of the New Testament
writings ; and in Mark xiii. 33=Luke xxi. 36 we have the
word dypvirvtlre, which does not appear elsewhere in
the Synoptic Gospels. It has also bfign pointed out

v.] THE SECOND GOSPEL 105
that where all three Gospels quote from the Old Testament
the citations are invariably from the LXX.
Now if the common Markan matter presented invariably
such correspondences the conclusion would have been
easily drawn that the two later editors had used canonical
Mark, and had transferred this Gospel en bloc to their
writings. But side by side with these resemblances there
occur equally distinct divergences. Matter contained in
Mark is omitted by both the first and the third evangeUsts.
Outstanding examples of these are :
1. The parable of the Seed growing secretly (iv. 26-29).
2. The heaHng of the blind man at Bethsaida (viii. 22-26).
3. The reference to the young man with the Hnen cloth
(xiv. 51-52).
Again matter contained in Mark is omitted by one or
other of the two later evangehsts. The chief instance of
this is to be found in what is caUed ' the great Lukan
omission' (Mark vi. 45-viii. 26). The passage contains
much that would make it peculiarly worthy of being
transcribed by St. Luke with his appreciation of the
Gentile mission of St. Paul, and with his marked sym
pathy with women. In addition to the story of the
Syrophenician woman it contains also much teach
ing on ceremonial defilement, and this again would be
welcomed by one who was in sympathy with St. Paul's
attitude to the Mosaic Law. Explanations of its
omission by St. Luke are forthcoming, and these wiU
be examined later on, but it wfll be sufficient here to
record the fact as an outstanding instance of St. Luke's
divergence from the second Gospel as we know it.
There is yet a third class of passages in which the first
and third evangeUsts seem to depart from a Markan
source. They do this of course in aU passages which
belong to the second document or coUection of Logia.
But even in narrative portions we come upon cases in which

106 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
Matthew and Luke contain incidents which do not appear
in Mark. A good example of this kind of passage is found
in the heahng of the son (servant) of the centurion. It is
true that in the third Gospel we have a whole section, and
a very considerable one, in which St. Luke has embodied
the account of our Lord's journey from Gahlee through
Perea to Jerusalem, and an additional section appearing
in the third Gospel would present no great difficulty. But
such additional narratives are not found in Matthew,
and Luke's ' Travel Document ' is from a distinct section
in his Gospel. The similarity between Matthew's de
scription of the heaHng of the centurion's servant, and that
which appears in the third Gospel, makes it almost certain
that the two evangehsts derived it from a common source,
and the question arises what could this source have been ?
In the first Gospel it appears sandwiched between the
story of the heaHng of the leper, and the recovery of the
mother of Peter's wife, which are both Markan sections.
And yet the incident does not appear in St. Mark's Gospel
as we know it. Here again we must reserve the discussion
of this fact for a later section of the present work. It is
mentioned now by way of illustration of points of divergence
from Markan narrative on the part of the other evangehsts.
Such differences have greatly compHcated the Synoptic
Problem, and it is not surprising that some scholars have
held that the priority of Mark cannot be granted, while
others have held that such differences can only be explained
on the assumption that aU three evangeUsts drew from
another source earher than aU three. The former account
for what, on their theory, are additions made by St. Mark,
the latter for what appear to be omissions discovered in
his Gospel.
The chief exponent of the theory that St. Mark was
dependent upon the first Gospel is Zahn,1 who finds that in
many points Mark is secondary to Matthew. We shaU
i See p. 62.

v.] THE SECOND GOSPEL 107
not foUow Zahn in discussing this point. His position is
not accepted by the great majority of scholars. Those
who wish to consider the matter wiU find the arguments
against his contention admirably set forth by Dr. Stanton.1
For our purposes it is sufficient to point out that the
absence from Mark of so much matter that is contained in
Matthew is inexphcable on this theory, and though some
scholars take a different view, we shall see that there is no
good reason for supposing that St. Mark used Q 2 in the
preparation of his Gospel. His neglect of the Sayings in
the form in which they appear in Matthew can scarcely
be accounted for if Matthew was before him when he
wrote. At the same time most scholars point out that
there are in the narratives given us by St. Mark certain ,
secondary elements. Thus Dr. P. W. Schmiedel says that
it is not possible to assign to Mark priority at aU points, j
and that in the Ught of secondary passages canonical;
Mark is a later edition. So also Dr. Salmon holds that/
canonical Mark is ' at once the oldest and the youngest y
of the Synoptics.' Now this conflicting feature of the
second Gospel may be explained without resort to the
difficult theory that Matthew is prior to Mark. It is
possible that St. Mark prepared his ' Memoirs of St.
Peter's preaching ' s more than once for the benefit of the
different churches with which he was associated ; and, if
canonical Mark was the latest of the three editions thus
prepared, it wiU be just as we should expect that secondary
elements should appear in it. They would thus be
secondary, not to the first Gospel, but to that Markan
portion which appears in it.
Others, however, consider that aU the resemblances as
weU as the differences are accounted for on the supposition
that no one of the three evangehsts was dependent upon
any one of the others, but that aU three used freely an
earher Gospel which corresponded most closely to the
1 Op. cit. p. 38 ff. 2 See pp. 109, 110. 3 ri airopvifpoveiixaTa.

108 GOSPEL ORIGINS [oh.
second Gospel, and which contained both narrative and
discourses. The common origin would account for the
resemblances, and editorial freedom in selection would
account for the differences. This theory has been caUed
the theory of an ' Ur-Markus ' or original Mark. It has
never gained any great amount of acceptance in England,
though German scholars have felt its attractiveness. We
do not advocate its acceptance, for it is inconceivable that
if such a Gospel ever existed it should have disappeared
without the shghtest reference to it having appeared in
the early writings of the Christian Church. Dr. Sanday
rejects the theory of an Ur-Markus, because the great
majority of the coincidences seem to belong to a later form
of text rather than to an earher. He caUs this form of
text ' a recension,' because ' there is so much method and
system about it that it looks Hke the deliberate work of
an editor, or scribe exercising to some extent editorial
functions ' (p. 21). Dr. Schmiedel says that ' the difficulty
with which the hypothesis can be made to work is increased
if we suppose that this original Mark was nearly equal to
the canonical Mark.' It becomes difficult to understand
why a new book so httle different from the old should have
been written. H the original was longer than canonical
Mark, it becomes possible to assign to it a considerable
number of sections (now preserved only in Matthew and
Luke) not so easily explained as derived from Matthew's
and Luke's other sources. If it were shorter, then the
additions of canonical Mark are merely the verses pecuhar
to him, and these are so very few, that a new book would
hardly have been deemed necessary for their incorporation.
The theory which the present work upholds is one
which, we claim, retains the great advantages of the Ur-
Markus in accounting for the differences between the three
Gospels, and yet avoids the many disadvantages which,
as we have seen, belong to the hypothesis. It consists
in an appHcation of the Proto- Deutero- and Trito-Mark,

v.] THE SECOND GOSPEL 109
with which Dr. Arthur Wright has made us famihar, not!
to oral tradition as he makes it, but to documents. This
theory has also been advanced by M. Barnes in two articles
which appeared in the Monthly Review in 1904. Before we
proceed to consider it in detail, there are one or two'
questions which must be cleared out of the way.
The first of these concerns the homogeneity of the second
Gospel. The dependence of St. Mark upon an earher
document, for which the convenient formula ' Q ' may be
adopted, is put forward with special cogency by B. Weiss,
who holds that St. Mark added excerpts from this docu
ment to what he recalled of St. Peter's preaching. The
document is held to have contained both Logia and narra
tive, and, as it was also before the first and third
evangehsts, it accounts for those passages in which they
are in agreement against St. Mark. It also offers an
explanation of the appearance of sayings in the second
Gospel. The theory is reaUy a repetition of the theory
of an Ur-Markus, the only difference being that this
oldest source is considered to differ from canonical Mark
by its inclusion of both Narrative and Sayings. The
general objections to the theory of an Ur-Markus wiU
therefore apply to this, and in addition it may be said
that the agreement of Matthew and Luke against Mark
does not of necessity imply the existence of an earher
Gospel now lost from which all three drew their material.
It wiU be shown that where Sayings, properly so called,
are found in the first and third evangehsts, they differ so
markedly that it is now generaUy held that the coUection
of Logia before the one was different from that used by
the other, and where they reproduce incidents rather than
discourses it is at least possible that the edition of Mark
which they used differed from that which we have in
canonical Mark. The heahng of the centurion's servant may
have been omitted in the later edition which St. Mark
prepared at Rome, though he had included it in his earUer

110 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
editions, and it is also most probable that many of these
' agreements ' which are found in the non-appearance of
personal and picturesque details are to be explained in the
same way.
The appearance of sayings in the second Gospel does not
present any serious difficulty in this connection. In re
lating an incident in the hfe of our Lord, St. Mark would
not of necessity be precluded from writing down what
Jesus said on the occasion in question. It would be part
of the narrative, and without it the account would be
pointless and imperfect. That saying might appear in
any coUection of sayings, as a distinct Logion, separated
from its setting, and as such it would find its place in the
coUection made by St. Luke or by St. Matthew. Its
appearance in Mark then would not imply that he had
derived it from such a coUection. The parable of the
Seed growing secretly may here be referred to. It appears
only in St. Mark's Gospel, and if it is maintained that he
derived it from Q it is very difficult to beheve that both
St. Matthew and St. Luke by mere coincidence agreed in
omitting it. The teaching it conveys would have been
peculiarly appropriate at any rate to the disciple of St.
Paul, and that he should have omitted it dehberately has
never been seriously suggested. Mr. Streeter x maintains
strongly that St. Mark used Q, but even he admits that his
theory breaks down in being apphed to this particular
parable, and he therefore concludes that St. Mark knew
and used Q, ' but only to a Hmited extent.'
Mr. Streeter adduces, as supporting the theory that St.
Mark used Q, the sections describing the Baptism of our
Lord and the controversy with reference to the casting out
of demons. Both of these sections have been mentioned
elsewhere in iUustration of the contention that canonical
Mark is a later edition of St. Mark's Gospel as first written,
1 Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem, p. 178.

v.] THE SECOND GOSPEL 111
and to that section of this work we must refer the student.1
The abbreviated form, in which the section describing
both the Temptation and the Baptism of our Lord appears
in Mark, is held by Mr. Streeter to show that St. Mark is
epitomising Q. He says that ' An original tradition is
always detailed and picturesque, and would hardly record,
as does St. Mark, a temptation to do nothing in particular.'
But if the Markan record was a reproduction of St. Peter's
preaching, it is certain that it would be conditioned by the
circumstances attending that preaching ; and since we are
told, and have good reason to beheve, that St. Peter spoke
as the occasion demanded, the Roman edition might differ
just as the account of the Baptism and Temptation actuaUy
differ in canonical Mark. What was of intense interest
in Palestine or to Jews of the Dispersion in Alexandria
might demand considerable curtailment when prepared
for Christians in Rome.
In the thirteenth chapter of St. Mark's Gospel there
occurs a remarkable section which is known by the name of
the little Apocalypse (Mark xHi. 3-37). It consists appar
ently of two discourses which have been woven together
to form one whole. The former consists of warnings of
the approaching destruction of Jerusalem, and bears a
close correspondence in style to that class of Jewish
writings which have been caUed Apocalyptic or Eschato
logical ; the latter consists of teaching concerning the
Parousia. It appears in aU three Gospels, and in aU there
is a close verbal correspondence. The record, however, in
the first Gospel is very much closer to that which we find
in Mark. The Lukan record differs mostly in omissions
or abbreviations, except in Luke xxi. 24, which stands
alone and reads hke an interpolation reminiscent of
Romans xi. 25. The Matthaean version again reproduces
(chap. xxiv. 19-22) part of the discourse given by our
Lord on sending forth His disciples (chap. x. 17-22), and
i See p. 118.

112 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
the doublet is characteristic of that Gospel, which often
repeats as part of the Logia that which appears in the
Markan narrative.
Now it is obvious that as part of the Markan narrative
this section is unique. It stands alone in St. Mark's
Gospel as a ' discourse ' ; it is apocalyptic in construction,
and it lacks that element of moral and spiritual significance
which we find in the parables and other Logia. St. Mark,
as we have seen, does not exhibit that tendency to ' con
flation ' which we find in the other evangehsts, but in this
section there seems to be an undoubted conflation of
sayings relating to the destruction of Jerusalem, and those
which refer to the Parousia. These facts have given
rise to a number of views concerning the section. Dr.
Stanton considers that it is to be attributed to ' some
Jewish-Christian who was influenced in his general presenta
tion of the distinctively Christian material which he had
at his disposal, by his Jewish conceptions, and amplified
it with expressions famihar to him through Jewish writings.'
If this view be accepted, and to us it seems the most
Hkely, there is no reason why its author should not be
St. Mark himseU. The Pauhne as well as the Johannine
writings show that 'Apocalypse' might characterise the
writings of Christians, and therefore the homogeneity of the
second Gospel need not be destroyed by the appearance of
this original section. Another view is that of Mr. Streeter,
who considers it to be a document dating from the year
70, and revealing, hke the rest of St. Mark's Gospel, traces
of Q. We should prefer to say that distinct sayings of
our Lord which appear in the second Gospel also appeared
in the coUection of sayings used by St. Matthew. Dr.
Burkitt considers the section to have formed a separate
fly-sheet incorporated into the Gospel by the evangehst,
and the allusion to ' him that readeth,' in Mark xiii. 14,
is cited by him in support. Others again derive the
whole section from Q. It will be observed that these

v.] THE SECOND GOSPEL 113
authorities are agreed in treating the section as a separate
document, apocalyptic in character, and incorporated by
St. Mark into his Gospel. Attempts to discover its source
wiU necessarily be speculative, and as it is the one section
in the Markan narrative which appears to break into the
homogeneity of the Gospel, we prefer to regard it as coming
from the hand of St. Mark.
The absence of doublets from the second Gospel is
perhaps the strongest evidence of its homogeneity. In
the first and third Gospels there are many cases in which
a saying of our Lord appears more than once. These are
fuUy set forth by Dr. Stanton,1 and may be studied con
veniently in that arrangement. They indicate conclusively
that the compilers of those Gospels used more than one
source ; and as in nearly every case one of the two sayings
occurs in the Markan narrative, the conclusion is inevitable
that the doublets are due to the writers combining with
Markan narrative, which they used, another source con
sisting largely, if not entirely, of sayings. This may be
seen iUustrated in Matthew x. 19-xxiv. 9-14, and also in
Luke vm. 17-xn. 2.- But when we study the second Gospel
from this point of view the case is altogether different.
Of the many instances discussed by Dr. Stanton only
two are found in Mark.2 One of these is in the two
accounts of feeding the multitude. But it may be urged
in reply that scholars are far from agreeing that in this
we have two accounts of one miracle, and in our Lord's
words recorded in Mark vin. 19, 20 there seems to be a
reference to two miracles rather than to one. Rejecting
this instance then we find the one instance recorded in
Mark ix. 35, Mark x. 41-45, where our Lord rebukes the
disciples for their personal ambition to occupy high places
in His kingdom. This, says Dr. Wright, is the only
instance of a doublet in St. Mark. Even with reference
i Op. cit. p. 54 if. * Cf. Oxford Studies, p. 419.

114 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
to this, we may plead that this human weakness in the
disciples may quite easily have shown itself on more than
one occasion, and the phraseology in which our Lord is
represented to have corrected it is by no means identical.
In one case, too, He is said to have reproved them by
bringing a httle child into their midst, while in the other
there is no mention of the child. But even if we accept
this as a true doublet, the single instance should not be
allowed to weigh unduly in considering the homogeneity
of the Gospel.
In passing to a more constructive criticism of the second
Gospel we proceed to consider the history of St. Mark
as that is given us, and such reference to his connection
with the second Gospel as may be discovered in the
writings of the Fathers.
St. Mark was the son of a woman named Mary, and his
mother's home in Jerusalem seems to have been a place of
resort for the disciples. There is a tradition that the
Upper Room, where the Lord celebrated the last Passover,
as well as the room in which the disciples were assembled
at Pentecost, was in her house. Some have supposed that
the man carrying a pitcher of water, and the young man
who fled away naked, which are mentioned only in the
Markan narrative, were St. Mark himseU. Papias says
that ' he neither heard the Lord nor foUowed Him, but
subsequently attached himseU to Peter.' The latter, on
being deUvered from prison (Acts xn.), went at once to St.
Mark's house, ' where many were gathered together praying.'
He was weU known there and was recognised by the servant,
whose name was inserted in the record by the person
from whom St. Luke derived the earher chapters of ' The
Acts of the Apostles ' — probably from St. Mark himseU.
We are told, again by Papias, that St. Mark became the
interpreter of St. Peter, and as the latter was probably
unable to speak Greek with ease, this was Hkely enough.
It has often been pointed out that the address given by

v.] THE SECOND GOSPEL 116
St. Peter 1 in the house of CorneHus (Acts x. 34 ff .) is an
epitome of the second Gospel, and this becomes significant
if St. Mark was one of the brethren that accompanied
St. Peter from Joppa (Acts x. 23). We have only to
accept that the newly baptized in Caesarea wished to retain
some record of St. Peter's preaching, and that St. Mark
wrote down what St. Peter had said, and left it with them.
Eusebius teUs us that St. Mark was sent to Egypt in the
first year of the Emperor Claudius, which would be in
a.d. 41, and both Eusebius and Jerome teU us that he
took his Gospel with him. St. Chrysostom teUs us that
he wrote his Gospel in Egypt. Both statements may weU
be true if St. Mark, wishing the Church in Alexandria to
possess some record of apostoHc teaching on the facts of
Christ's life, re-wrote ' as much as he remembered ' (oo-a
epvrjpovevo-ev) of St. Peter's addresses. This document
would pass into the treasured records of the Church in
Alexandria. We next find St. Mark in the company of Paul and
Barnabas at Antioch. Presumably he had returned from
Egypt to Jerusalem, and accompanied the two apostles
on their missionary journey, which may be assigned to the
year a.d. 50 (Acts xni. 5). He did not, however, continue
long with them, as he left them at Pamphyha and returned
to Jerusalem. Afterwards he went with Barnabas to
Cyprus, St. Paul having resented his leaving them in
Pamphyha. The strained relations between St. Mark
and St. Paul did not, however, continue long. They were
together when St. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Colossians
(Col. iv. 10), and St. Mark's name occurs again in con
nection with St. Luke's in the Epistle to Philemon (24).
The reference in the Colossian Epistle shows St. Mark to
be on the point of making a journey from Rome to Asia,
but a few years after this he is again required at Rome by
St. Paul, who says (2 Tim. iv. 11) : ' Take Mark and bring
i Zahn, p. U8.

116 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
him with thee, for he is profitable to me for the ministry,'
words which Zahn interprets to mean that St. Mark was in
possession of ' treasure of narrative from the Ups of Peter
and of other disciples of Jesus, who were accustomed to
come and go in his mother's house.' x Apparently he did
return to Rome, for it is generaUy accepted now that the
reference in 1 Peter v. 13 is to be taken as showing that
St. Mark and St. Peter were together in that city when the
first Epistle of Peter was written. This would be after
the year a.d. 61. This falls in with other references in
Patristic writings. In his Hypotyposes Clement of
Alexandria tells us that it was part of the tradition of
former time that ' When Peter had pubhcly preached the
word in Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit,
those who were present, being many, urged Mark, as one
who had foUowed him for a long time and remembered
what he said, to record what he stated ; and that he having
made his Gospel gave it to those who made the request
of him ; and that Peter was careful neither to hinder him
nor to encourage him in the work.' 2 Zahn contrasts the
last clause in this quotation from the Hypotyposes with a
statement made by Eusebius (ii. 15) to the effect that St.
Peter was pleased with the zeal of St. Mark, and that his
work obtained the sanction of his authority for the purpose
of being used in the churches. Zahn reconciles the two
statements by explaining that St. Peter took no part in
the transactions that led up to St. Mark's undertaking this
work, but when the work was completed, accepted it, and
approved of it. The last Father to be cited in this connec
tion is Irenaeus, who says (Haer. hi. 11) that 'Matthew
published his Gospel . . . while Peter and Paul were
preaching and founding the Church in Rome. After their
departure Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter,
himseU also has handed down to us in writing the things
which were preached by Peter.'
» Zahn, vol. ii. p. 430. * Ibid. p. 432.

v.] THE SECOND GOSPEL 117
The patristic testimony fits in fairly weU with such an
outhne of St. Mark's connection with St. Peter as is given
us in the Scriptures. The statements made by the
different Fathers, however, reveal one detail at least in
which there seems to be some contradiction. Some of
them connect St. Mark's Gospel with Egypt, while others
declare that it was produced in Rome. It is probably
because of this uncertainty that more emphasis is not laid
upon patristic testimony in discussing the origins of the
Markan Gospel. But we have only to suppose, what
bears every mark of probabihty, that St. Mark wrote down
what he remembered of St. Peter's preaching both while
he superintended the Church in Alexandria and later
on when he was again associated with St. Peter in Rome,
to see that the apparent contradiction between the Fathers
may be resolved. Chrysostom and Jerome are right in
ascribing the Gospel to Egypt, and Clement is equaUy
right in declaring Rome to be its birthplace. We shaU
show presently that the Markan narrative in the first
Gospel bears unmistakable marks of an Alexandrian
origin, while canonical Mark as distinctly points to Rome.
But if these marks appear in these two Gospels, the Lukan
Mark has many traits which indicate a Palestinian origin,
and there is no reason why St. Mark should not have
written an even earher edition of his Gospel which was
left at Caesarea, where it would pass into the hands of St.
Luke when he visited that town.
The theory of three Markan editions has been strongly
advocated in England by Dr. Arthur Wright, who claims
that it has aU the advantages without any of the impro-
babiHty of an Ur-Markus. He holds that the first edition
is to be found in St. Luke's Gospel, embedded in other
matter, the first Gospel contains the second, and the
second Gospel the third. Unfortunately for its accept
ance Dr. Wright's masterly analysis of these three editions
which he names Proto,- Deutero,- and Trito-Mark has

118 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
scarcely had the justice done to it which it deserves, and
this is largely due to the fact that he has woven this theory
into that which assumes an oral basis as underlying aU
three, the oral basis having taken many years to form.
As we have shown, there are good reasons for rejecting the
theory of an oral tradition as basis for these Gospels, but,
if this part of Dr. Wright's contention be removed, we
hold that he has carried the analysis of the Synoptic
Gospels a long way towards a conclusion. The char
acteristics of the Proto- and Deutero-Mark wiU be con
sidered in discussing the salient features of the first and
third Gospels. We shaU here content ourselves with
noticing features of the second Gospel, which show it to be
secondary to those Gospels where the three have a common
narrative. The references to the Baptist in this Gospel are such as
indicate a later production for a Gentile, or largely Gentile,
Church, such as existed in Rome, with which Mark's
Gospel, as we have seen, was associated from a very early
date. To such a Church the interest in the Baptist would
be shght. It would be quite otherwise to a Church which
belonged to Palestine, or whose members were Jews of
the Dispersion. We know from the fourth Gospel how
great was the interest aroused by the Forerunner, and we
can easily understand that his preaching and his contact
with the Messiah would caU for somewhat detailed treat
ment. It would not, however, be so in Rome a whole
generation after the death of the Baptist, and thus we
find that such references to him as appear in the second
Gospel are, in comparison with what we have in the other
two, very shght. They constitute a mere outhne of his
relation to Christ ; just enough to serve as an introduction
to the Gospel. Even thus the record is not without those
vivid touches which make the second Gospel the most
dramatic of the three, and the one most full of those
personal reminiscences which have done so much to make

v.] THE SECOND GOSPEL 119
the Person of our Lord stand out before the devout
imagination of succeeding ages. These appear in the
statements that the heavens were rent asunder at the
Baptism, and that during the Temptation — an event
always closely connected with the Baptism — our Lord
was in the haunt of wild beasts.
The vivid touches of the second Gospel we consider to be
distinctly secondary features. Their non-appearance in
the other Synoptic Gospels is generally accounted for on
the ground of editorial omissions by the respective editors.
The reasons assigned for such action on the part of the
editors are twofold. Many words and phrases are held
to have been rejected as being pictorial and contributing
nothing of real value to the history. By editors who had
other matter which they deemed of importance, and who
were pressed for space, these would be at once surrendered.
But against this it may be urged that the writings reveal
no such tendency as we should expect in a modern writer
compihng a history, and careful to introduce nothing which
did not bear immediately upon the point with which he
was deahng. There is a personal, affectionate note in aU
three evangehsts which would lead them, and has led
them, to admit matter which was of no distinct historical
value, but which they included because of the reverence
which they felt for all details of the wonderful story. The
principle of economy, too, does not appear in other parts
of their work. They admit phrases and even whole
clauses which we should imagine they might have
excluded without loss. Their whole attitude towards their
sources is rather that of almost scrupulous fidelity than
that of arbitrary rejection of matter which to them seemed
without value. FinaUy, while it might be possible for one
or other of the first and third evangehsts to omit such
matter as unimportant, it is very difficult to beheve that
they should have, by an extraordinary coincidence, agreed
upon what should be omitted and what retained. Most

120 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
of the phrases under consideration are lacking from both
the first and third evangehsts. They wrote for very
different readers, at different times, and in different places,
and yet we are asked to beheve that they fastened upon
identical words and phrases for excision. They include
the ' awkward parenthesis ' of Mark n. 10, but agree to
omit the statement that Jesus took the Httle children into
His arms when He blessed them. H, however, these
features of the second Gospel were secondary, their non
appearance in the other two is easily explained. They
do not appear because they were not found in the edition
of Mark which they used. It is sometimes urged that thj
fuUer statement is always the earher, and that the existence
of such picturesque details in the second Gospel indicates
priority. But this contention ignores the circumstances
in which the Gospels were written. Those who hold this
view are unconsciously imagining that the works were
produced under modern conditions which govern the
production of Hterature, whereas this Markan narrative
reveals everywhere traits which bear out the old tradition
that it was but the transcript of the preaching of St. Peter,
and that he told the story not according to some distinct
plan in his own mind, but just as the circumstance and
need of his hearers might demand. The whole narrative
is a record of apostoHc preaching. As such, we contend,
the story which was told last would be the fuUest and
most detailed of aU. The preacher would discover as he
went on what details were of most interest to his hearers.
Incidents upon which he dwelt at first might be omitted
on subsequent occasions ; or St. Mark, in writing down the
story for others than those for whom he wrote at first,
might omit one incident and insert another which had
not found a place in the earhest writing. But always,
in response to the craving of those to whom the personal
hfe of Jesus was a matter of supreme interest and import
ance, the story, either as given by St. Peter, or written

v.] THE SECOND GOSPEL 121
down by St. Mark, would reveal in its latest edition features
which would make it vivid, dramatic, and fuU of that
' atmosphere ' which we may be sure our Lord carried
with Him wherever He went.
Another reason assigned for the omission of such details
is that the first and third evangehsts would be careful to
omit anything which seemed to be derogatory to the
person of Christ or to the character of the apostles. It
is not shown why this should have been less safeguarded
by St. Mark than by the others. Even if canonical Mark
was prior to Matthew, it could not have been so by more
than a few years, and a tendency which appears in one
writing might have been expected in the other, since both
would reflect the feeHng of the same age. But putting
this consideration on one side, we would urge in reply that
the insertion of these personal details can scarcely be said
to lower the dignity of our Lord and His disciples. The
character of Christ is far from being compromised by the
statement that when He looked upon the rich young ruler
He loved him, yet this detail is omitted from both the
first and the third Gospel. In another passage we read
that Christ was grieved for the hardness of men's hearts ;
this does not appear in the first or in the third evangehst,
and its non-appearance in these Gospels is generaUy ex
plained on the hnes stated above, but it is to be questioned
whether the statement shows as much of the sternness of
Christ's indignation as is evidenced in the great denuncia
tion of the Scribes and Pharisees given by St. Matthew.1
H any passage would seem to reveal Christ in a condition
which, for want of understanding, might be held to be
one of weakness, it is that which describes Him in the
garden of Gethsemane praying that the cup might pass
from Him, and acknowledging the weakness of the flesh.
The disciples certainly appear in what may be caUed a
compromising position on that occasion. Yet the incident
i Cf. Mark viii. 33= Matt. xvi. 23.

122 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
is recorded by all three evangelists. These omissions of
course belong to the same group of characteristics which
find an extreme example in what has been caUed the great
omission of St. Luke, and this wiU be fuUy considered
in discussing the Markan sections of the third Gospel in
chapter vi.
The use of the word evayykXiov is 'full of significance in
a study of the Markan narrative in the three Gospels. In
canonical Mark the word occurs with considerable frequency
and is used in an absolute sense (Mark i. 14, 15, viii. 35,
x. 29). It does not occur at aU in St. Luke. Used absol
utely it is absent from St. Matthew, and in the paraUels
cited above it does not appear at aU. This is the more
extraordinary because St. Luke uses the verb evayyeXi£opai
frequently (iv. 18, vn. 22, viii. 1, xvi. 16), and as the
follower of St. Paul he would be famihar with the marked
use of the noun by that apostle. The editor of the first
Gospel has no objection to the word itseU ; he uses it in
combination with other terms (lx. 35, xxvi. 13). There
does not seem to be any reason why he should not retain
the word in passages borrowed from the source which
presumably he was using. Few facts better iUustrate the
value of the three editions theory than does this. The
Christian Church was slow to recognise the necessity for
any formulated or canonical presentation of the Gospel
story. St. Peter gave his account of the wonderful life,
' in accordance with the needs of his hearers.' It was only
after it had become evident that the return of the Lord in
Messianic glory would not be as immediate as the Church
had thought, and when meanwhile the attempts to seduce
the Gentile converts from the faith made it necessary
that they should have some assurance of the certainty of
those things in which they had been instructed ; it was
only then that the necessity for a guaranteed account of
Christ's words and works began to be felt. Thus we find
St. Paul speaking of the presentation of certain facts

v.] THE SECOND GOSPEL 123
as being ' in accordance with my Gospel,' and of the
necessity of prophesying ' according to the analogy of the
faith ' (Rom. xii. 6), and he exhorts Timothy to ' hold fast
the pattern of sound words which thou hast heard from
me ' (2 Tim. i. 13). This resolving of experience into
historical statement is weU iUustrated by the use of x«ms
in the New Testament. This word has a whole gamut
of uses in which we can detect its passing from a whoUy
subjective relationship to Christ into the description of a
more objective ' Faith,' a formulary or creed ' once dehvered
to the saints' (Jude 3). H, as seems hkely, the Lukan
edition of the Markan narrative was the earhest, we
should expect to find the word evayyeXiov scarcely used
at aU. In the later edition, embodied in the first Gospel,
the word would begin to appear, while in trito-Mark or
our Canonical Gospel — written later in Rome — where St.
Paul's influence would be added to St. Peter's, the word
would be fuUy estabhshed, and this is precisely what we
do find. It is to be noticed that in the first Epistle of
Peter (iv. 17) the word evayytAiov appears used in an
objective sense as connoting a body of authoritative
doctrine to which obedience was expected, and U this
Epistle was written when St. Mark had rejoined St. Peter
in Rome (1 Peter v. 13) the appearance of the word in the
trito-Mark becomes aU the more significant. Dr. Stanton
calls attention to the appearance of the word in an absolute
use in canonical Mark, but draws the conclusion that it is
due to the alteration of some reviser of the original.
Unless positive proof for this can be adduced, it seems better
to accept the explanation given above.
The secondary character of canonical Mark is further
iUustrated from the appearance within it of Pauhne
features. In the second Gospel the death of Christ is
emphasised in a way which is very marked when passages
are compared with their paraUels in the other two Gospels,
and in one passage (x. 45) we have the much discussed

124 GOSPEL ORIGINS [oh.
sentence ' The Son of Man is come ... to give His Ufe
a ransom for many.' The word Xvrpov occurs only in
this passage in the New Testament, but its derivative
diroXvTpmo-is is frequent in St. Paul's letters. Now if
St. Luke had canonical Mark before him when he compiled
his Gospel, on what principle did he omit this passage ?
His teacher, St. Paul, had made this view of a mediatorial
death the prominent feature of his teaching. Why should
St. Luke fix upon this expression of aU others for omission ?
Nor do we find much relief from our perplexity when we
are told that the passage is not an omission of St. Luke's,
but ' belongs to a later recension of the Markan text.'
For it is found word for word in the first Gospel, and if
this explanation be accepted we should have to suppose
that the recension took place subsequently to St. Luke's
use of Mark, but before the first evangehst had incorporated
the Markan narrative in his Gospel. It is no safe conclusion
which is based upon such finessing.
Dr. Stanton rightly observes that in the emphasis laid
upon the mediatorial aspect of Christ's death, there is
nothing that is distinctively and peculiarly Pauhne. St.
Peter also urges the significance of our Lord's death when
he says ' ye were redeemed . . . with the precious blood
as of a lamb without blemish and without spot, even the
blood of Christ ' (1 Peter i. 19). The appearance of this
saying of our Lord in the later editions may thus be a
Petrine, and not a Pauhne, note. At the same time St.
Mark's association with St. Paul both during the short
time when he accompanied him on his missionary journey,
and later on when he was again associated with him in
Rome, may have led him to see a significance in certain
sayings of Christ as given by St. Peter, which had not
impressed his thought and imagination when he first
wrote down his memoirs of the preaching of that apostle.
In any case the emphasis, whether made by St. Peter or
by St. Mark, belongs to a later period of apostolic teaching.

v.] THE SECOND GOSPEL 125
In St. Peter's speeches recorded in the Acts of the Apostles,
he dwells upon the fact of Christ's death ; the interpretation
of that death belongs to a later stage ; and even if we
had not the significant passage quoted from the Epistle
to guide us, we might have felt sure that it would be
reflected in the teaching of St. Peter, especially when
he had to declare the value of that death to Gentiles.
We conclude then that the words are absent from the
third Gospel because they did not appear in the edition
of Mark which St. Luke used, and they have their place
in the later editions because the emphasis they carry
belongs to a later period in the pubhc ministry of the
apostles. H we turn to the eschatological passages of the three
Gospels the same f eature of change of expression due to
different circumstances appears. Let us take a single
example. The declaration of Christ concerning His
Messianic reign made before the council of the chief priests
is given in all three Gospels (Mark xiv. 62, Matt. xxvi. 64,
Luke xxii. 69), but with significant alterations. As Dr.
Stanton points out, the original form of Mark is best
preserved in the first Gospel. The alterations in Luke are
evidently editorial corrections made so as to emphasise
the fact of Christ's Messianic position being given to Him
immediately, whereas the record in Matthew declares that
He would immediately appear. In the later edition,
however, preserved for us in canonical Mark, the Church
had come to see that the Parousia would not be immediate,
and the words dir' dpTi are in consequence omitted. Now
if canonical Mark was the source from which the later
evangehsts drew their account of this declaration, they
must have added the words indicating an immediate
manifestation ; and that they should do so when every
day made the Parousia, which they expected, further
removed from the time when the words were first spoken,
is inexpHcable. Dr. Stanton speaks of the significant

126 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
alteration in canonical Mark as being made by the ' last
reviser of Mark,' and we have no objection to that phrase
except that we hold that St. Mark was his own reviser.
Another strongly corroborative indication of the
secondary character of canonical Mark is mentioned by
Dr. E. A. Abbott (Art. ' Gospels,' Enc. Biblica).1 It is that
in the second Gospel we have a great many names inserted
which are lacking from the paraUels in the other two
Gospels. Dr. Abbott points out that the tendency to
insert names of persons is most marked in Apocryphal
Gospels, and their presence in the second Gospel indicates
a late writer. If then the editors of the first and third
Gospels had these names before them in their source, but
chose to omit them, they were acting contrary to the
common tendency. It is better to suppose that the
names were not included in the earher editions of Mark,
but that in an edition prepared much later, and so far
away from the scene of the incidents recorded as Rome,
the names would be inserted naturaUy. Every missionary
knows that to mention the names of converts in pubhshed
accounts of their work among a people hostile to Chris
tianity is fraught with peril to those who are mentioned.
Such names are therefore excluded from editions pubHshed
where the identification of individuals would be easy, but
appear in the trito-Mark. The difficult question of the
appearance in the fourth Gospel of the raising of Lazarus
finds its best explanation in an appHcation of this rule.
We know that there were attempts made to put Lazarus
also to death, and other members of the family at Bethany
seem to have been threatened. At any rate, although
the Synoptists record the saying of Christ that the name
of the woman who broke the bottle of spikenard and with
its contents anointed the feet of Jesus, should be mentioned
wherever the Gospel was proclaimed, that name was never
Omitting the name 'Jesus,' there are seventy-three names in Mark ne
against twenty-seven in Matt, and twenty-two in Luke.

V.] THE SECOND GOSPEL 127
mentioned by them. It was left for the author of the
fourth Gospel long years afterwards, when probably both
Lazarus and Mary were dead, to introduce the story of
the raising of Lazarus, and of Mary's expression of grateful
love. We shaU therefore find an easy explanation of the
appearance of names in the canonical Mark. One example
of this usage may be specially referred to. We read in
canonical Mark that the Simon who carried the cross of
our Lord was ' the father of Alexander and Rufus,' a
reference which in the way it is introduced in the second
Gospel seems pointless. But when we return to the Hst
of the names of those to whom St. Paul sent greeting when
he wrote the Epistle to the Romans we find that one of
those mentioned is Rufus. Now ' Rufus ' is by no means
an uncommon name, but if the surmise is correct that the
man to whom St. Paul refers was the son of Simon of
Cyrene, then the insertion of the name in the Roman
edition of St. Mark's writings ceases to be abrupt. The
reference would at once be picked up by Roman Christians.
So again the name of Pilate (Mark xv. 1, Matt, xxvii. 2,
Luke xxfii. 1) in the Caesarean edition and in the Roman
is introduced without explanation of the position of the
man named. Persons Hving either in Caesarea or in
Rome did not need information as to Pilate's position,
but in the edition prepared for Jews hving in Alexandria
the words are added which informed the reader that Pilate
was ' the Governor.'
Geographical names have a similarly marked use. The
story, for instance, of the dehverance of ' Legion ' from
the demons is given in aU three Gospels, but a weU-known
difficulty, clearly marked in the uncertainties of the text
in the passages, arises from the fact that different names
are given in all three. Accepting the best supported text
in each case we find that in the first Gospel we have ' the
district of the Gadarenes,' in the second ' the district of
the Gerasenes,' and in the third ' the district of the

128 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
Gergesenes.' There has been much discussion arising out
of this difference, but the best explanation we have seen
is one which is based upon the theory of three editions of
Mark, in which the Palestinian edition gives the name
of the town accurately as ' Gergesa,' the Egyptian edition
gives the name ' Gadara,' which was better known abroad,
while the Roman edition gives the official name of the
district, which was ' Gerasa.'
The Latinisms of the second Gospel are frequent enough
to attract attention, and they have generaUy been cited
in support of the Roman origin of the Gospel. Nothing
decisive can be inferred from the use of these words (a
hst of which is given in the article on the Gospel of St.
Mark by Dr. S. D. F. Salmond in Hastings' Bible Dictionary),
because they are just such words as an editor would be
justified in altering if he saw fit to do so, and again they are
for the most part words which would rapidly come into
use in outlying parts of the Roman Empire, so that if they
were in the first edition of the Markan narrative they
might or might not be changed by an editor. They are,
however, far more frequent in the second Gospel than
in the others, and to this extent they support the Roman
origin of the canonical Mark. One or two changes, too,
seem significant. Thus in Luke xx. 22 the regular word
for ' tax ' is used, but in both the Egyptian and Roman
editions we have kt/j/o-os, the Latin ' Census.' In Mark
xv. 39 the Graecised form of the Latin ' Centurion ' is used,
but in the other editions this appears in the form Ikgitovt-
dpxv's. More significant perhaps is the passage in Mark xii. 42
where St. Mark gives us the value in Roman coinage of
Svo A«rT<£, ' two mites,' which, he says, make a KoSpdvrrjs,
Latin Quadrans. St. Luke mentions the Suo Acti-tci, but
does not give their Roman value, the term being easily
understood in an edition prepared for use in Palestine.
In recording the cure of the paralytic the evangehsts use
a different word in each case for ' bed.' In the first Gospel

v.] THE SECOND GOSPEL 129
the usual word for bed is used (kXIvy)), in the third St.
Luke uses the word usuaUy employed by physicians for
a sick-bed (kXivISiov), but in the second Gospel, as we
have it, the word K/>a/3/3aTos, the Graecised form of the
word used for a soldier's wallet, appears. Other similar
words are £«o-t»/s (Mark vii. 4) and o-TreKovXaroip (Mark
vi. 27) which appear in the trito-Mark alone. The
easily recognised ' Praetorium ' appears in both the
Egyptian and the Roman edition, but the way in which it
is introduced in the latter as a closer definition of the
indefinite avXrj indicates again the Roman edition in
canonical Mark.
The date of the composition of the second Gospel has
been given variously from the earhest time, and this
uncertainty seems to be due to a failure to distinguish
between canonical Mark and earlier editions of the same
work. The Paschal Chronicle places it as early as a.d. 40,
and Eusebius assigns it to the third year of Claudius
(a.d. 43). Others again, Hke Irenaeus and Clement of
Alexandria, say that it was written after St. Peter's arrival
at Rome (a.d. 63). But these are not agreed, for Clement
speaks of the Gospel as being in existence during Peter's
lifetime, while Irenaeus says that it was written ' after his
departure.' This conflict of statement is probably due to
the fact that the different authorities had different editions
before them when they wrote. Modern scholars are fairly
agreed in assigning canonical Mark, for an approximate
date, to the period between a.d. 65 and 70. In the
Oxford Studies, however, we find the Rev. W. E. Addis
asserting that the Gospel was written subsequently to the
destruction of Jerusalem. The same view is held by
P. W. Schmiedel.

130 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
ADDITIONAL NOTE I
ANALYSIS OF THE SECOND GOSPEL WITH NOTES
Chap. i. 1-8. The Ministry of John the Baptist.
9-13. The Baptism and Temptation of Jesus.
14-22. Jesus returns to Galilee, and teaches in Caper
naum.
23-45. Works of Healing.
i 1. The word dpxf) reads suspiciously like an interpolation
from a Lectionary, and it is absent from one Syriac
version, but see Swete in loco, vtov tov deov. See
Wright, Synopsis.
2. The quotation from Malachi was added in trito-Mark as
the idea of the Fore-runner became established in the
Christian Church, without alteration of kv rip 'B.o-aia
which appeared in the earher editions.
4. Cf. Acts i. 22. dp£dpevos dirb tov 3airTio-paT0S 'Itodvov.
The phrase throws light upon St. Luke's source for the
early chapters of Acts, and upon St. Mark's plan in the
composition of his Gospel.
5-6. Not found in the proto-Mark used by St. Luke. Note
that John's condemnation of the different Jewish sects
is not found in canonical Mark, as it would be inapposite
in a gospel prepared for Roman Christians.
8. koI irvpl. Omitted from trito-Mark ; see page 81. The
reference to the winnowing work of the Messiah is also
omitted.
9. John's self-depreciation in the presence of the Messiah
would be of importance to Jewish Christians. It is
therefore included in deutero-Mark, but omitted from
the other editions.
10. o-x<,£opivov<s. Avivid detail peculiarto trito-Mark. Seep. 79.
Another similar detail is found in fjv peTa twv drjpimv.
The descent of the Spirit upon our Lord is described in
practically the same terms in each edition. This makes
the points of difference all the more significant. The
Temptation is given in outline in trito-Mark.

v.] ADDITIONAL NOTE 131
L 20. pera rZv purOurtnv. A detaU peculiar to trito-Mark.
The caU of the four disciples is not given in proto-Mark.
In that edition St. Mark records the later and more
definite call. (Luke v. 1-11.) dp<piftdXXovras. See
Swete in loco.
23-28. The cure of the demoniac is not given in deutero-
Mark. Note the close verbal resemblance between
proto- and trito-Mark. It is difficult to see why this
incident should have been omitted from the first Gospel
if the editor used canonical Mark.
33. Vivid details pecuhar to trito-Mark.
41. o-irXayxvt-o-dets. Another detaU pecuHar to trito-Mark.
See p. 119.
44. Proto- and trito-Mark have irpoo-iveyKt irepl tov
KaOapio-pov o-ov. But in deutero-Mark we read to SUpov,
this simple expression requiring no explanation for
Jewish Christians.

Chap. ii. 1-12. Jesus cures a paralytic.
13-22. The feast in Matthew's house.
23-28. Discussion on the keeping of the Sabbath.
ii. 2. A vivid detaU peculiar to trito-Mark.
4. Kpd/3arrov. Luke has kXivISlov ; Matthew, kXIvi). For
Kpafiarros — the Greek form of Grabatus — see Swete
im loco. Its appearance in trito-Mark is an indication
of Rome as the birthplace of the second Gospel.
10. For the 'awkward parenthesis,' see page 120.
17. Matthew contains the quotation lAeos 6eXa> Kal ov 6vo-lav
— a passage frequently on the hps of our Lord. See
Matt. ix. 13, xii. 7.
22. In proto-Mark we have the significant addition Kal ovSels
iriibv iraXaibv 8eXei veov Xeyei ydpm 6 TraAatbs xpjjo-TOS
ka-Tiv. See Hort, Judaistic Christianity, pp. 23 ff.
26. kirl 'AfiidOap dpxiepkws. This does not appear in proto-
and deutero-Mark. 'It was omitted on account of the
historical difficulty.' Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, p. 99.
It may, however, have been an addition made in the
third edition. 'It may have been an editorial note.'
Swete in loco. See also Wright, Synopsis, p. 25, and

132 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
Stanton, The Gospels as Historical Documents, vol. ii.
p. 145.
u. 27. An addition in trito-Mark. No explanation of the
verse as an omission from proto- and deutero-Mark is
satisfactory. See page 84. In deutero-Mark we have an
addition bearing on the relation of the priesthood to the
Law, concluding with the words tov lepov pel^ov ko-Tiv &Se.
Such a statement would be full of meaning to Jewish
Christians: the words are therefore included in an
edition intended for their use, and need not be relegated
to Q.

Chap. iii. 1-6. Jesus cures a man with a withered hand.
7-19. Jesus continues His Ministry and appoints
twelve Apostles.
20-30. Discussion on Mighty Works.
31-35. The true 'Brethren' of Jesus.
iii. 5. irepiBXeifdpevos avrovs per' opyrjs o-vXXvwovpevoi kirl
rrj irtapdo-ei rijs KapBia1; awwv. An addition in trito-
Mark rather than an omission made by Matthew and
Luke. See page 121.
6. peTa tbv 'HpuiSiaviov. See Swete in loco.
17. Note the translation of Boav-qpyes— necessary for Roman
Christians. The clause ous Kal diroo-ToXovs divopao-ev
peculiar to the third Gospel may be an editorial addition.
The cure of the Centurion's servant given in proto-and
deutero-Mark does not appear in trito-Mark. See p. 106.
Our Lord's testimony concerning the Baptist is also
omitted. See p. 118.
20-35. The controversy between our Lord and the Pharisees
as to His dependence on Beelzebub for the power to
perform miracles is not from Q, or there would be
greater similarity in language. See p. 84. The two
verses in Matt. xii. 27-28 are omitted from the trito-
Mark as having greater significance for Jewish Christians
than for Roman readers.
30. evoxos ecrrai a'uouiov dpapTr/paroi. See Swete and other
Commentators.
31. epxerai. Note the vivid historic present.

v.] ADDITIONAL NOTE 133
Chap. iv. 1-34. Teaching by parables.
35-41. Jesus stills a storm.
v. 1-20. The cure of the Gadarene demoniac.
21-43. Jesus cures the woman with the issue of blood,
and raises the daughter of Jairus.
iv. 1-34. This section consists of Parables with connective
matter in vv. 10-12. That this section consists of the
teaching of Jesus rather than a narrative of His doings
does not necessarfly denote that its origin is to be found
in Q. There was no reason why Peter should not refer
to Christ's teaching in the course of his preaching. If
the whole section was derived from Q, it is difficult to
account for the fact that the parable of the Seed growing
secretly is not given by St. Matthew, and that the
parable of the Leaven is omitted by St. Mark.
26-29. Peculiar to the second gospel. For a good inter
pretation of this parable, see commentary by Gould in
the I.C.C. Series.
35-37. Note the historic presents.
39. o-icoTra, ire<pLp(ooro. Vivid touches peculiar to Mark.
v. 1. Tepatrr]vZv. See above, p. 127. Compare Wright, Synopsis
in loco.
3-5. A vivid addition in trito-Mark. The account of this
incident is much abbreviated in deutero-Mark.
15. IpaTio-pevov, a word which occurs nowhere else in New
Testament. St. Luke retains the o7ra£ Xeyopevov, a
fact difficult to explain except on the ground of fidelity
to a document.
30. An interpretation of the personal consciousness of Jesus
peculiar to trito-Mark. Cf. Luke viii. 46.
41. TaXiOd, Kovpi. Note the translation of the Aramaic — a
necessity to Roman Christians. The remarkable fulness
of detail in this section indicates its Petrine origin.
Chap. vi. 1-6. Jesus teaches in the Synagogue.
7-13. The Mission of the Twelve Disciples.
14-29. The death of John the Baptist.
vi. 3. o tcktuv 6 vlbs ttjs Mapias. The corresponding phrase
in deutero-Mark is o tov tcktovos vids. If canonical

134 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
Mark was before the editor of the first Gospel then this
term cannot be reconciled with the tendency to enhance
the supernatural view of our Lord which is brought
forward to account for features of the first Gospel. If,
however, canonical Mark is a later edition, the difference
can be accounted for on the ground that the doctrine of
the Virgin Birth had been accepted by the Church when
the Roman edition was prepared by St. Mark.
vi. 13. ijXeKpov !Acua>. An addition in the third edition. Cf.
Mayor on James v. 14.
14. 6 Bao-iXevs 'HpuiSr/s. Cf . Luke xix. 1 2. Herod's mission
to Rome to seek the title of ' King ' would be known in
that city, and it therefore appears in the Roman edition.
The part played by Herodias in the death of John was
not included in proto-Mark, a sufficient reference having
been made in Luke iii. 19.
27. o-ireKovXaToyp. An obvious Latinism which appears
appropriately in the Roman edition. See Swete in loco.

Chap. vi. 30-44. Jesus feeds the five thousand.
45-52. Jesus walks on the sea.
53-56. Jesus cures the sick in Gennesaret.
vi. 34. ko-irXayxvlo-Orj. A vivid touch in the third edition.
39. o-vpiroa-ia o-vuiroa-ia. See Blass, Gr. p. 145. The phrases
in Luke and Matthew are KaTaKXlvare avrov<; KXio-ias
and dvaKXidrjvai respectively. These may be editorial
emendations of what is generaUy considered to be a
Semitic construction. See, however, Moulton's Pro
legomena, p. 97. kirl t$ xXtaplji x°PTV- Cf. John
vi. 10.
40. irpacrtal irpacriai. See p. 119, and Gould and Swete in
loco.
45-52. Omitted in proto-Mark. Peter's attempt to walk on
the water appears only in deutero-Mark. It is difficult
to see whence the evangelist derived it, if he was
dependent on canonical Mark. Its omission from the
latter would be casual.
53. irpoo-toppio-drjo-av. A vivid detail.

v.] ADDITIONAL NOTE 135
Chap. vn. 1-23. Discussion on ceremonial uncleanness.
24-30. Jesus cures the daughter of the Syrophenician.
31-37. Jesus cures the deaf mute.
viii. 1-10. The feeding of the four thousand.
11-21. Warning against Jewish sects and Herod.
22-26. The blind man at Bethsaida.
27-38. Peter's Confession, and first announcement of
Passion.
vn. 1. At this point in the Markan narrative occurs 'the great
omission' in St. Luke's Gospel. See p. 155.
2. These verses peculiar to the second gospel give exactly
the explanation which would be necessary to Roman
readers. They would not be necessary for Jewish
Christians in Alexandria, and accordingly they are not
found in the deutero-Mark.
11. KopBav, note again the translation of the Aramaic word.
Note also that the severity of the strictures against the
Pharisees are modified in trito-Mark. See p. 71.
19. KaOapl^iov irdvra rd BpdpaTa. See Field, Notes on the
Translation of the New Testament, pp. 31, 32, and
compare Acts x. 15.
24. The clauses peculiar to St. Mark in this verse illustrate
again the vivid detail of trito-Mark, and indicate the
eye-witness — St. Peter.
25. 'EAArivi's ^vpocpoviKicro-a t$ yevei. See Swete in loco,
and above p. 155.
32-37. Peculiar to trito-Mark. It is difficult to see why
this incident should have been omitted from the first
Gospel if canonical Mark was before the editor.
34. k<p<pa6d. Again the Aramaic word is translated.
viii. 10. AaXpavovdd. In Matthew we have MayaSdv. See
Swete in loco and Hastings, D. B., sub. verb.
' Magada.'
11-21. Here again the strictures pronounced against the
Pharisees are less severe than in Matthew. Also the
sign of Jona, which does not appear in trito-Mark, is
given without explanation in deutero-Mark.
22-26. This section is peculiar to trito-Mark. Again we
may ask why it should be omitted from Matthew, if the
editor used canonical Mark.

136 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
viii. 2 7-2 9. The commendation of St. Peter is not given in trito-
Mark.
33. We may ask why our Lord's severe rebuke to St. Peter
should appear in Matthew, if the ' tendency ' of that
Gospel was to shield the reputation of the disciples.
See p. 121.
35. Kal tov evayyeXiov. See p. 122.
Chap. ix. 1-28. The Transfiguration and the cure of a de
moniac boy.
29-32. Second announcement of the Passion.
33-50. Discussion on true greatness, toleration, and
offences.
ix. 1-13. In the Lukan parallel (chap, ix.), three verses (31-33)
are peculiar to that Gospel. It is difficult to see how
St. Luke could have inserted in this narrative a scrap of
this sort taken from some external source. If it was in
the Markan edition which he used, this difficulty is
removed.
11-13. Here we have verses which do not appear in Luke,
and the 'omission' is as difficult to explain as the
' insertion ' mentioned in the preceding note.
15. loovres avTov k£edapBrj9i]o-av. A vivid addition in
trito-Mark.
19. aino-Tos Kal Sieo-Tpappevrj. So in proto- and deutero-
Mark. The words Kal Sieo-rpappevr) are omitted in
trito-Mark. See p. 121.
21-25. Another vivid detail in trito-Mark. The differences
in the three accounts of this section are easily accounted
for on the theory of three editions.
30. ovk TjOeXev iva tis yi'ot. An addition in trito-Mark.
Its non-appearance in Matthew and Luke cannot be
explained as due to abbreviation for want of space,
since there would be no great gain.
31. The details of our Lord's death and resurrection do not
appear in the third Gospel. Is it conceivable that Luke
would have omitted them if he had used canonical
Mark?
33. In the Matthaean Mark we have here the incident of the
paying of tribute money. This can scarcely be assigned

v.] ADDITIONAL NOTE 137
to Q. See Oxford Studies im Syn. Problem, p. 137.
Note in the Matthaean record the use of the phrases
to. SiSpaxpa, and ou TtXeT SISpaxpa.
ix. 36. kvayKaXio-dpevos avro. A vivid touch (cf. x. 16).
38-41. This section does not appear in deutero-Mark.
43-48. St. Luke did not find this section in the proto-Mark ;
it therefore does not appear in the third Gospel.
44-50. These verses have their counterpart in the collections
of sayings used by St. Matthew and St. Luke. They
appear in the Markan narrative as a feature of the
trito-Mark.
Chap. x. 1-12. A discourse on divorce.
13-22. Little children and the rich young ruler.
23-31. A discourse on riches and rewards.
32-45. Third announcement of the Passion. Zebedee's
sons.
46-52. The healing of Bartimaeus.
x. 1-12. This section does not appear in proto-Mark. In the
Roman edition divorce is forbidden in absolute terms,
but in deutero-Mark, intended, we must remember, for
Jewish Christians, an exception is made in cases of open
adultery (iropvela). The Jewish ' tendency ' of the first
Gospel is thus fully maintained.
14. rjyavdKT-qo-ev and kvayKaXio-dpevos (16) are vivid touches
pecuhar to trito-Mark. So also is irpoo-Spapdv, v. 17.
18. ti pe Aeycts dyaOov; Here Luke and Mark are in agree
ment. The different form which appears in Matthew
ti pe kpu>Tas irepl tov dyadov ; may be an editorial altera
tion. But see Gould and Swete in loco. The alteration
is not so great as at first sight appears, for in trito-Mark
the emphasis is not on the pronoun pe, but on dyadov,
and the fuller statement of Matthew is implied in Mark.
21-22. ipBXe^as rfydirrjo-ev and o-ruyvao-as are further illustra
tions of the vividness of trito-Mark. No reason appears
why the editors of the first and third Gospels should
have omitted these words. See p. 119.
25. rpvpdXca. This appears in proto-Mark as rprjpa, and in
deutero-Mark as rpvjrrjpa. The difference may be
explained on editorial grounds. The Lukan word rprjpa,

138 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
as well as BeXovrj, which follows, is a medical term (see
Hobart, The Medical Language of St. Luke, p. 60), and
rpvpdXia is a late and rare word.
x. 29. In the corresponding verse in deutero-Mark we have a
considerable enlargement of this, and the added words
are in agreement with the Jewish ' tendency ' of which
we have had so many examples in the first Gospel.
tov evayyeXiov. See p. 122.
32. Note the extraordinary vividness of this verse, and com
pare Matthew xx. 17 and Luke xix. 28.
34. a7roKTevovo-iv. This is the word used in proto- and in
trito-Mark. In deutero-Mark we have o-ravpZo-ai.
There is no need to suppose that this was an alteration
made by the editor reflecting the actual event. As
Gould points out, the scourging implied crucifixion, and
St. Mark may have used one work in the first edition
and the other word in the second.
35-40. This section is omitted in proto-Mark. If it be held
that St. Luke purposely omitted it to save the credit of
the disciples concerned, we may ask why it was not also
omitted from the first Gospel. Further, although St.
Luke does not record this special incident, he records
their (piXoveiKia in xxii. 24.
39. o irivta irlecrde. The difference in the use of tenses (see
Comm.) increases the vividness of the incident in trito-
Mark, when we compare the words used in Matthew.
Otherwise the language of the two accounts reveals a
close correspondence.
45. Xvrpov. This word, air. Xey. in the New Testament,
appears also in deutero-Mark. See Commentaries, and
p. 123 supra.
46-52. In the first Gospel we have two men cured when
Christ was leaving Jericho. In the third Gospel there
is only one man cured when Christ was entering it. In
the second only one man is mentioned; his name is given
and he was cured when Christ was leaving the city. Dr.
Wright (Synopsis in loco) claims that 'under the oral
hypothesis with its proto-Mark the whole mystery is
clear.' We agree with Dr. Wright that if St. Luke had
canonical Mark before him it is difficult to account for

v.] ADDITIONAL NOTE 139
the discrepancy, but against Dr. Wright we would urge
that a stereotyped tradition, sufficiently fixed to account
for the repetition of the unusual word XvTpov in v. 45,
would not have allowed discrepancy here. The theory
of three editions in documentary form affords a better
solution. There were probably two blind men, the
better known of which is referred to by name in the
Roman edition. See p. 126.
Chap. xi. 1-11. Jesus enters Jerusalem in triumph.
12-26. The unfruitful fig tree. The cleansing of the
Temple.
27-33. The authority of Jesus.
xi. 1. B?j#aviav. In deutero-Mark we read Br)6<payrj and in
Luke we have Brj8<payr) Kal Brjdavlav. There is
uncertainty as to the text, but the longer reading in
Mark seems to have been introduced to harmonise with
Luke. See Wright in loco.
2. irQXov. In deutero-Mark we have ovov Kal 7r£Aov. This
is probably an editorial alteration made to harmonise
with the quotation from Zecharia.
4. The additional detaUs in trito-Mark is characteristic of
this edition.
10. (Lo-owa. See Wright and Swete in loco.
12-26. In deutero-Mark the cleansing of the Temple pre
cedes the cursing of the fig-tree. This does not suggest
either a fixed oral tradition, or the use of canonical
Mark by the editor of Matthew. It does, however,
suggest a story told more than once, and a casual change
in the order of events. The story of the fig-tree does
not appear in the third Gospel. Now whether the
interpretation of this incident be on the Hne of 'the
power of faith,' or on that of ' the doom of an unfruitful
nation' (see Romans xi. 17-22), the subject would
have been appropriate to St. Luke with his Pauline
point of view. It would thus be hard to account for
his omission of it. We conclude that it did not appear
in proto-Mark.
27-33. The correspondence between all three accounts is
here very close.

140 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
Chap. xii. 1-12. National failure. Parables.
13-40. Discussion with Pharisees, Sadducees, and
others.
41-44. The widow's mite.
xii. 1-12. In proto-Mark and in trito-Mark only one parable is
given, that of the Wicked Husbandmen. In deutero-
Mark we have also the parables of the Two Sons and of
the Royal Marriage Feast. These would appropriately
find a place in an edition intended for Jewish Christians
to whom the causes of national rejection needed to be
made plain. It is not necessary to refer these two
parables to Q, merely because they do not appear in
canonical Mark. Even where all three give the same
parable, the Jewish 'tendency' appears again in
Matt. xxi. 43-45.
4. kKe<f>aXimo-av. For this aira£ Xeyopevov, see Wright and
Swete in loco.
9. In proto-Mark we have the addition aKovo-avTes eiirav pr)
yevotro; the latter part of this sentence is, with the
exception of this passage, only found in Paul. It may
therefore be an editorial addition inserted to give an
adequate connection to the passage.
11. After this verse in deutero-Mark we have an addition
in xxi. 43, which again is appropriate to that edition
as referring to the divine rejection of Israel. Matt. xxi.
44 is a harmonist's interpolation.
14. Krjvo-ov. See Comm. for the transliterated Latin word.
St. Luke's 4>6pov is editorial.
28-34. This incident is omitted in proto-Mark. It is
difficult to see why St. Luke should have omitted it if
it was in the document before him. Note that the
rebuke of the Pharisees and Sadducees is again more
severe in deutero-Mark.
41-44. The story of the widow's mite does not appear in
deutero-Mark. Dr. Wright speculates that this
1 deliberate omission ' may have been due to some local
reason arising from the circumstances of the church in
Alexandria. To us it seems better to suppose that
St. Mark inadvertently omitted it in preparing his
second edition than that the editor suppressed it for local

v.] ADDITIONAL NOTE 141
reasons. St. Mark wrote ' as he remembered,' and the
incident might escape recollection on one occasion, and
be recalled on others.
xii. 42. XeirTa &vo o ko-Ti KoSpavrins. In trito-Mark the value
of the Xeind is given in Roman coinage, the quadrans
being one-fourth of an 'as.' See p. 128.
Chap. xiii. 1-37. Eschatological discourses.
xiii. 1 KarevavTi tov lepov. Another detail peculiar to trito-
Mark. The difficult question of the ' Little Apocalypse '
has been discussed above. See p. 111. The reader is
also referred to Dr. Stanton's discussion of the question
(Gospels as Historical Documents, pp. 115 ff.).
14. B&kXvypa tjjs kp-qfida-euis. This expression is peculiar
to the deutero-Mark. See Swete and Wright in loco, iv
roirip ayiot an addition to deutero-Mark which would be
understood by Jewish Christians. The verses Luke xxi.
20 and 24, peculiar to that Gospel, are best explained as
late additions made ex post eveniu. See Wright and
Commentaries.
Chap. xiv. 1-11. The conspiracy against Jesus. His anointing
at Bethany.
12-25. The Paschal Supper.
26-42. Jesus withdraws to the Mount of Olives.
His agony.
43-72. The betrayal and the trial of Jesus.
xiv. 3-11. The anointing of Jesus at Bethany has no place in
the third Gospel ; for the attempted identification of the
o/xa/DTwAds in Luke vii. 37 with Mary of Bethany is now
abandoned by practicaUy all. Of this incident also we
claim that it is inconceivable that St. Luke should
suppress it as he must have done if canonical Mark was
before him. Its non-appearance in proto-Mark is to be
accounted for as above, p. 126.
12-25. On the Markan date for the Paschal Feast, see
Wright and Swete.
17. St. Luke here inserts four verses which he derived
from his special source (xxii. 15-18). See p. 181.
22. The giving of the cup before the bread is peculiar to
St. Luke, who may have been influenced by the Pauline

142 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
order, 1 Cor. x. 15. St. Luke also makes the declaration
of betrayal come after the partaking of the bread and
wine. These facts, added to the considerable linguistic
difference from the Markan record, indicate that
St. Luke is in this section dependent largely upon his
special source. Seep. 181.
xiv. 27-31. The prediction of St. Peter's unfaithfulness is given
in aU three Gospels. No attempt is made by the editors
of the first and third Gospels to shield him. Yet this
supposed 'tendency' is held by many to account for
many of the differences between canonical Mark and
the other two Gospels. The Passion of our Lord and His
shrinking from 'the cup' is also given by aU three
evangehsts. Seep. 121.
51-2. These verses, peculiar to the second Gospel, are
generally considered to have been added to the Petrine
Memoirs by St. Mark, and it is not improbable that the
evangelist himseU was the vean'o-Kos.
55. The failure to find witnesses against Jesus is not
recorded by St. Luke, and the identification of Peter by
the servants differs from that given in Matt, and Mark.
For example, in Mark xiv. 69 we read 17 ttguSi'o-ktj 7raAiv
where St. Luke writes erepos. Such differences indicate
again St. Luke's special source. In the verse just cited
Matthew has aAA»?, and we may well ask why the editor
should have altered canonical Mark if it was before him.
Such discrepancies constitute a common human feature
when a story is told more than once.
65. irpotprjrevo-ov. Deutero-Mark adds tis tcrriv 6 7rcu'craso-£;
72. kiriBaXdv — a difficult word peculiar to trito-Mark. See
Field (Notes on Translation, etc., p. 41), Wright and
Swete.
Chap. xv. 1-15. Jesus before Pilate.
16-41. The Crucifixion.
42-47. The Burial of Jesus.
Chap. xvi. 1-8. The Resurrection.
xv. The suicide of Judas is given in the first Gospel alone. Cf.
Acts i. 18. The reference in Acts i. shows this to have
been part of the Markan tradition in spite of its non-

v.] ADDITIONAL NOTE 143
appearance in canonical Mark — that is, if we may hold
that St. Luke derived the earlier chapters of Acts from
St. Mark. If the account of this incident be not referred
to deutero-Mark it is exceedingly difficult to account
for its appearance in the first Gospel.
xv. 1. In proto- and trito-Mark Pilate's name is given without
addition. In deutero-Mark he is called 6 r)yefid>v. This
word is u»ed to describe PUate seven times in the first
Gospel, once in the third, and not at all in the second.
PUate's title and position would be weU known in both
Caesarea and Rome. For Herod's part in the trial of our
Lord, see Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem, p. 230,
and in this work p. 163.
7. perd tSv o-Tao-iao-T<3v . . . ev rrj crrdaei; this is peculiar
to trito-Mark ; the fact of the insurrection and the names
of the insurgents would be known in Rome.
10. In deutero-Mark we have here the additional incident of
Pilate's wife's dream, and a little lower that of Pilate
washing his hands. Dr. WiUoughby Allen refers these
to ' Palestinian tradition.' Their relation to what
precedes and to what follows certainly suggests inter
polation into Markan matter.
16-41. The Lukan differences here — all derived from
St. Luke's special source — are to be carefully noted.
21. tov irarepa ' A.Xe£dv8pov Kal 'Pov<pov. Cf. Romans xvi.
13, and above, p. 126.
22. The variants in this verse are instructive :
Proto-Mark reads Kpavlov (Latin Calvarium).
Deutero-Mark reads ToAyo^a 6 io-ri Kpavlov tottos
Xeyopevos.
Trito-Mark reads ToAyo^a o kern peOepprjvevopevov.
40. yvvauces. The first and third evangehsts identify them
with the women that had followed Jesus from Galilee
and had ministered to Him. See p. 163.
xvi. 1-8. The different indications of time in the three editions
are :
Proto-Mark — opdpov BaOews.
Deutero-Mark — 6\pe ere o-aBBaTiav rg kirKpuicrKovcrrj eh
piav craBBaTdtv.
Trito-Mark — Xiav irpmt rrj pia rZv o-aBBdrav.

144 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
Note that the fourth evangelist seems to correct the
Synoptic tradition, according to his custom, by writing irpmt
o-KOTias In ovo-»js. For the evidence for and against the theory
of the mutilation of this chapter in Greek texts see the
Commentaries.

ADDITIONAL NOTE II
SAYINGS FOUND IN MARKAN NARRATIVE
In the Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem (p. 267 ff.),
Dr. WiUoughby Allen, discussing the Book of Sayings and the
first Gospel, describes certain sayings as being inserted by the
editor of the first Gospel in Markan narrative. Such passages
are as follows :
Matt. viii. 11-12. Luke xiii. 28-29.
ix. 13.
xii. 5-7.11-12. xin. 15 and xiv. 5.
xiii. 16-17. x. 23-24.
xv. 13-14. vi. 39.
xvi. 17-19.
xviii. 7. xvii. 1.
xix. 11-12. 28.
Such a statement seems to be based upon the presupposition
that the sayings of Jesus have no place in the Markan record.
To us it seems far more likely that such sayings are not
insertions made by the editor into Markan record, but that they
belonged to that record, and are not to be regarded as taken
from any book or collection of sayings by the editor of the first
Gospel.

vi.] THE LUKAN SOURCES 145

CHAPTER VI
THE LUKAN SOURCES
The third Gospel presents us with a variety of special
features each of which is of great importance with reference
not only to the Gospel itseU, but also to the conditions in
which aU three were prepared. The common authorship
of this Gospel and the book of the Acts of the Apostles —
an authorship which is now estabHshed as that of St.
Luke, ' the beloved physician,' and the companion of St.
Paul — enables us to bring together facts and features of
both writings which throw considerable hght upon each.
Each is prefaced by a short introduction of great import
ance, and from this we learn :
1. That the Gospel was a ' treatise concerning aU that
Jesus began both to do and to teach until the day
in which He was received up.' The words used,
while they do not exclude the addition of other
matter, seem to indicate that the more considerable
parts of this Gospel consisted of a narrative portion
which we have aheady seen was Markan in origin,
and some coUection of sayings or teachings of our
Lord, which may possibly have been the coUection
made by St. Matthew, but which we have seen to
be more probably drawn from some coUection or
collections of disjointed ' Logia ' used by both St.
Matthew and St. >Luke.
2. That, when St. Luke wrote, many accounts of the
deeds and words of Jesus were in existence, and
that these were in documentary form. The date

146 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
assigned to the production of the Gospel varies
with the scholar who discusses it. Some place it
as late as a.d. 95, others give the date as a.d. 70.
Those who assign the later date are largely in
fluenced by the theory that St. Luke wrote his
book of the Acts with the writings of Josephus
before him. This, however, is far from receiving
a general acceptance. St. Luke's use of Markan
narrative need not determine the date to be even
' so late as a.d. 70. For, as we have seen, the
probabihty is that he used a much earher recension
of St. Mark's Gospel. It has, however, been held
that St. Luke differs so much from St. Mark in
his description of the doom of Jerusalem, and
where he differs seems so clearly to have been
influenced by what had actuaUy transpired, that
few are wiUing to assign an earher date than a.d. 70.
The references in the introduction do not reaUy
help us in deciding for a date later than a.d. 70 ;
for, if our inferences as to the nature of Q and as
to an earher edition of St. Mark's writings Hold
good, St. Luke might speak of ' many ' writings
at a much earher date. The passages in which
he describes details of the destruction of Jerusalem,
and departs from Mark in doing so, are also open
to question. Those passages are xix. 43, 44,
xxi. 20 and 24. But, as Principal Bebb has shown,1
these need not indicate prophecy ex post eventu.
The question is not of vital importance from the
point of view of our present inquiry, and, while
we hold that possibly the date of this Gospel may
finaUy be fixed even earUer than a.d. 70, we shaU
accept the date assigned by Harnack, who places
it between the years 78 and 93, inclining to the
earher rather than the later of the two. That
1 Hastings, Bible Dictionary, iii. p. 168.

vi.] THE LUKAN SOURCES 147
these accounts were in documentary form appears
from the contrast between the words dvard^ao-dai
Sirjyrjcriv and irapeSoo-av. For while the word
Strjyrjo-i's might be used for a spoken narrative,
yet it is clear that St. Luke means to distinguish
between a tradition which has been ' dehvered '
direct to him, and by which he has been able to
verify other accounts, and those accounts of which
he says that there are many. The word dvaTa£ao-9ai
too seems more appropriate to the formahty of a
document than to the more uncertain oral tradition.
That this verification at first hand by those who
were ' eye-witnesses and ministers of the word '
was open to St. Luke is of immense importance,
as indicating an early date for his work and a
sufficient authority for the account which he gives.
We shaU see, when we examine his sources, that the
phrase can be amply justified.
3. In compihng his Gospel from such sources, St. Luke
adopted an order which may fairly be styled
chronological. For while the word Ka9e£rj<s, which
is rendered in Enghsh versions ' in order,' need not
refer to order in time, yet a study of the writing
which foUows, and a recognition of the difference
between his method of arranging the Logia of Jesus
and that foUowed by St. Matthew, shows that the
word was used in this sense. Dr. Bartlet 1 considers
that the historical order is better preserved at the
beginning of the Gospel, and that 'it soon fades
away to be foUowed by a series of sections more
or less loosely linked together.' He considers that
these links belong for the most part to the ' special
source ' used by St. Luke, who foUows, in the earher
part of his writing, the material which came to him
from St. Mark. It is probable that this closer
1 Studies in the Synoptic Problem, p. 345.

148 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
chronological ' nexus ' is due to the character of
the two writings before him, and to his respect for
each, rather than to any slackening of purpose to
maintain a chronological order on the part of St.
Luke. ' The Travel Document ' especiaUy seems
to have been compiled as a series of notes taken
during a memorable journey, and the evangeUst
would probably consider that the fact of the
journey gave an historical unity to the whole
document, and that it was unnecessary for him
to rearrange the incidents there mentioned. St.
Luke's respect for his sources seems to have been
so great, that even where we should have expected
an editor to have corrected his source in using it,
he does not do so. When he comes, however, to
the coUection of ' sayings ' which he used, inas
much as there was in these no attempt at chrono
logical connection, he aUows himseU considerably
more freedom in arrangement.
The first of the sources used by this evangehst is that
which he obviously derived from St. Mark. The section
which deals with the birth and infancy of our Lord, which
is unique, wiU receive separate treatment, and as it is
obviously non-Markan it need not be considered here.
But omitting this for the present we notice in the Markan
section which foUows several important differences from
canonical Mark. In iii. 1 he inserts a distinct chrono
logical note, mentioning a Roman emperor by name and
thus fixing the point of time at which his narrative begins.
This is not found in Mark, and must be considered a dis
tinctly Lukan addition intended to carry out his intention
of chronological treatment.1 This is foUowed by an account
of the ministry of the Baptist, which is given in fuUer
detaU than we find even in the first Gospel, while it is so
l See Stanton, op. cit., p. 228 ff.

vi.] THE LUKAN SOURCES 149
much fuUer than what we have in the second Gospel that
in comparison the latter seems to be a mere reference intro
ducing the more important ministry of our Lord. Now
this account, taken with the baptism and temptation of our
Lord, forms so conspicuous a feature of this Gospel that we
are bound to consider its source. It cannot have come
from canonical Mark. H it was so derived there is an
amount of amphfication suggested which we do not find
in the rest of St. Luke's writing, for he keeps, as we have
seen, very closely to his source. Nor can we assign it to
' oral tradition,' for its correspondence with the paraUel
section in the first Gospel suggests a written source, while
the points of difference with that section show us that it
was a similar, but not an identical, document which was
before St. Luke. The commonly accepted explanation
is that it was taken from Q, but, as we have seen, that
takes for granted that Q contained a certain amount of
narrative, and if this be aUowed at the beginning of that
document we may properly ask why it should not be
allowed also at its close. But if Q contained a history of
the Passion it must be considered to have been another
Gospel, and the difficulties which gather round the theory
of an Ur-Markus would be presented here again.1 The
difficulties which gather around Q are immensely reduced,
if we can beheve that this document was made up of dis
courses properly so caUed. Such difficulties would have
to be faced if we were shut up to the conclusion that this
section was taken from Q, but there is no need for us to
accept that position. H the theory of a proto-Mark be
allowed, and if this edition was that which came before
the notice of St. Luke, we can see at once why his account
of the Baptist's ministry was so much fuUer than that
which appears in the second Gospel, and we can see also
why it should have so much in common with that given
in the first Gospel, and yet differ from it in details. It
i See p. 108.

150 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
becomes unnecessary, too, to disturb the homogeneity of
Q, and that is a considerable gain.
Does the history of St. Luke then afford any occasion
in which he could have met with an early Markan version
of St. Peter's preaching ? Now it is scarcely possible to
consider the Markan source of this Gospel without at
least some reference to the companion work which we
have in the Acts of the Apostles. The masterly treatise
of Harnack, entitled Luke ihe Physician, has placed the
common authorship of the two books beyond dispute,
and in the book of the Acts we have a very distinct con
nection indicated between St. Mark and St. Luke. In
the story of St. Peter's escape from prison we have an
intimate knowledge of the writer's acquaintance with
Mark's home ; he even knows the name of the servant maid
who opened the door to St. Peter. He has recorded the
circumstances which led to the separation of St. Paul
from St. Mark in chapter xv. It is probable that the
earher portion of the Acts, which shows the prominence
of St. Peter in the earhest days of the Christian Church,
was derived from this ' Interpreter ' of St. Peter's, and it
has been pointed out that the Greek of this section,
when compared with that of the ' We sections,' is more
HeUenistic and conforms to that of the Markan narrative
in the Gospels.
But if the first section of the Acts of the Apostles is
Markan, the second may be as clearly connected with
Phihp. Harnack points out the significance of the refer
ence to Philip's removal to Caesarea in chapter vhi., and
explains the abruptness with which the reference closes
by supplying the words ' and there I met him at a later
time.' This later occasion of course is that recorded in
chapter xxi., where we are told that St. Paul and St. Luke
entered into the house of Phihp the evangehst, one of the
seven deacons whose appointment to office is described
in chapter vi. It is also mentioned that Phihp had four

vi.] THE LUKAN SOURCES 151
daughters ' who did prophesy.' With this may be com
pared the statement of Papias that these daughters of
Phihp ' transmitted stories of the old days.' Harnack
argues from this that a possible source for the section of
the Gospel other than that of St. Mark and that derived
from Q, is to be found in that which came to the evangehst
through these daughters of Phihp. At present, however,
we need only consider that here we have a distinct
association in Caesarea with certain Gospel stories. In
the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions there is also
an account of a disputation between St. Peter and Simon
Magus, and in the course of this description it is said that
one of the Christian converts of Caesarea sent to his friend
a work written at St. Peter's dictation, which had for its
theme the hfe of Christ. During the two years of St. Paul's
imprisonment St. Luke remained in Caesarea, and we
may be sure that he was not idle during those years. Yet
another link in our chain of evidence may be found in
connection with St. Peter's visit to Cornehus. On that
occasion the apostle would be accompanied by his
interpreter, and we have the statement of Clement of
Alexandria that St. Mark was asked by those who heard
St. Peter preach to write down what he had said, and that
St. Mark did this, and gave the writing to those who had
made the request. St. Clement says that this took place
in Rome, but this may have been due to some confusion in
Clement's mind between this Caesarean edition and the
later edition put forth by St. Mark at Rome. Some
uncertainty of this kind is indicated when Clement goes
on to say that St. Peter neither hindered nor encouraged
St. Mark in this work, whereas Origen states that St.
Mark was guided by St. Peter. It has often been pointed
out that St. Peter's address in the house of Cornehus is
practically an epitome of St. Mark's Gospel as we have it,
and we have only to consider that this document was
left by St. Mark at Caesarea to account for St. Luke's

152 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
coming into possession of an edition of St. Mark's Gospel
which bears evidence of having had a Palestinian origin,
and of having been written earher than that which now
bears the name of St. Mark in our canon. The references
which connect Caesarea with some sort of Gospel history
now become on this supposition intelligible, and though
each by itseU is not sufficient for us to draw any conclusion
yet their cumulative force is considerable. This would
make the date for the Markan source in the third Gospel
as early as a.d. 42, in which year St. Mark went to Egypt.1
We need not discuss here St. Luke's treatment of the
Markan narrative which he used. Students wiU find the
question admirably dealt with both in Dr. Stanton's
volume entitled The Gospels as Historical Documents,
vol. H. pp. 278 ff., and in Sir John Hawkins's Horae
Synopticae, pp. 140 ff. The verbal alterations are such
as might be expected from an editor whose Greek was less
HeUenistic than that of St. Mark, and the frequent varia
tions when recording works of heahng indicate the medical
interest and more scientific exactness of ' the beloved
Physician.' This latter feature is fuUy worked out in
Hobart's The Medical Language of St. Luke, and this again
is criticised and amphfied by Harnack in his work already
quoted.2 The insertion of additional matter and the non
appearance of incidents which are found in canonical
Mark have aHeady been dealt with in deahng with the
Markan narrative (chap. vi.). Even in the linguistic
differences as between this Gospel and that of St. Mark,
it may weU be that what appear to us to be alterations in
word or phrase may have been due to variations between
the Markan edition which St. Luke used and that which
is famihar to us in the second Gospel. In referring to the
difference between chapters i.-xii. and chapters xiii.-
xxviii. in the book of the Acts, Sir John Hawkins points
out that the divergence of the language from that of the
1 See chap. v. p. 114. 2 Luke the Physician, pp. 175 ff.

vi.] THE LUKAN SOURCES 153
Gospel is greater in the second than in the first part of
Acts, and this would show that St. Luke, deahng as he did
with a document, probably Markan, in the earher section
and writing as himseU an independent witness in the
second shows considerable respect to the document before
him. He would, we are assured, show the same respect to
the document which he used in drawing up his Gospel.
At the same time that his better style should appear in
modifications of St. Mark's language, and in the intro
duction of phraseology which he owed to his association
with St. Paul, need not occasion surprise to the student.
They certainly do not create any difficulty. They are
human features which are natural in a work prepared
under such conditions as St. Luke has outlined for us in
his introduction to the third Gospel. His abandonment of
the Markan source for another in his account of the post-
Resurrection appearances of our Lord wiU be dealt with
in another section, and it is necessary here only to record
the fact.
We have seen that St. Luke foUows closely the Markan
narrative which he used, and that his respect for his source
is so great that he even includes words and phrases which
in his use of editorial privilege we should have expected
him to omit or to alter. This makes it all the more strange
that certain Markan sections are wanting from the third
Gospel, and many explanations of this have been offered.
Such omissions are to be found in the caU of the first
disciples (Mark i. 16-20), the charge that Christ worked
miracles through coUusion with Beelzebub (Mark Hi. 19-30),
the fate of John the Baptist (Mark vi. 17-29), ' the great
omission' (Mark vi. 45, viii. 26), the treatment of offences
(Mark ix. 41-50), the condemnation of the fig-tree (Mark
xi. 11-14 and 19-25), and the anointing at Bethany (Mark
xiv. 3-9). This list of passages is not complete, but the
remainder is comparatively insignificant, and the passages
given may be considered typical.

154 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
The explanations usuaUy given are as foUows :
1. That they were accidentaUy omitted. Sir John
Hawkins points out that St. Luke may have been
misled into omitting ' the great omission ' by
passing from the mention of feeding multitudes
in vi. 42 to that in Mark viii. 19-21 or from the
name Bethsaida in vi. 45, to the same name in
vni. 22.
2. That they were dehberately omitted because the
evangelist knew that he had similar incidents or
teaching in his Logian or some other source which
he dehberately preferred. Dr. Stanton suggests
this as explaining such omissions as that of the
first caU of disciples, the Beelzebub controversy,
the subject of offences, and others.
3. That in the case of ' the great omission ' St. Luke
omitted the passage because he considered it
unsuitable for his Gospel. Sir John Hawkins lays
especial emphasis upon this in connection with the
story of the Syrophenician woman.
4. That they were omitted by St. Luke in order to
curtail his Gospel which seemed Hkely to be of
inordinate bulk. Dr. Sanday incUnes to this view.
To differ from authorities who have so fuUy estabUshed
their position in the world of New Testament scholarship
is fraught with peril, and I do so with the utmost diffidence.
If there were no other solution in sight, one or other of
these might afford rehef to those who would account for
the characteristics of these Gospels. But are we reaUy
shut up to these ? Dr. Sanday beheves that features in
canonical Mark are to be accounted for on the ground of
a later recension of the text, but what if there were a recen
sion not of the text alone, but of the whole Gospel, including
subject matter as weU as text, and made by St. Mark
himseU ? Would it not be possible to account for these

vi.] THE LUKAN SOURCES 155
features of the third Gospel as being due to the fact that
they did not occur in the earher edition of the Markan
narrative which St. Luke used ? Let us take ' the great
omission ' more in detail.
It contains what one might consider to be matter
pecuharly attractive to St. Luke. He reveals a distinct
sympathy with women which runs throughout the whole
of his Gospel, and as the follower of St. Paul he must have
been famihar with the attitude of that Apostle towards
the Gentiles, of whom St. Luke himseU was one, and towards
the whole question of the Mosaic statutes and their relation
to the new hfe of the Spirit in Jesus Christ. In this passage
he would find a story in which a woman and a Gentile was
received by Christ, and aUowed a share in those blessings
which a narrow Pharisaism would reserve for the children
of Abraham. That Christ even for the purpose of
strengthening the woman's faith treated her with contempt
by His use of the word ' dog ' we do not beheve. There
are other methods of creating or strengthening faith, and
this particular method seems far removed from that
which was Christ's. Rather we beheve that our Lord,
sick at heart with the bigotry, the spiritual pride, and the
gross materialistic interpretation of the law made by
Pharisees, seized the opportunity offered by the approach
of this woman to show to His disciples what Pharisaic
teaching was hke when reduced to the concrete. Here
stood a woman with the common human need of a mother's
anxiety for her daughter. Must He treat her as one of
the unclean ? To the Jew she was but one more ' dog of a
Gentile.' But the woman was quick to see the indignant
irony that went with His words. She accepted the current
phrase, unworthy as it was, and yet claimed that even
such a ' dog ' had a share at the banquet of heavenly grace.
Our Lord commended her faith and honoured it by the
gift which she sought. That St. Luke of all evangehsts
should choose this passage for omission is to us unthink-

156 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
able. The point of the whole story was that in spite of the
contempt felt by the Pharisees, and by Jews generaUy, a
contempt weU known already to Gentiles and therefore
less likely to offend them in this setting, Christ agreed
with the woman that the blessings of the Covenant were
for the Gentiles also. It would be strange that St. Luke
should choose this passage so pecuHarly ' PauUne ' for
omission. It is possible to deal with each one of these so-eaUed
' omissions ' in the same way. Dr. Stanton in discussing
the anointing at Bethany, again omitted by St. Luke,
points out that a better explanation is that in this case
' a reviser has inserted in the Markan Gospel a beautiful
and touching story connected with the events of Christ's hfe,
for which he wanted to find a place.' With this we would
agree, but make the further point that the ' reviser ' was
St. Mark himseU. And if we are asked why it was sup
pressed by St. Mark in his earher edition, we would answer
that the family at Bethany seems to have been in danger
of death, because Lazarus in himseU was a complete
argument against the doctrine of the Sadducees, and the
story may have been suppressed for that reason. But
in a late edition pubhshed in Rome the difficulty was not
felt, and the story takes its place as one of perfect beauty
in the record of the Saviour's life.
The contention of the present work is one which brings
rehef to aU such questions. Sir John Hawkins seems to
feel this when, in writing on ' the great omission,' he says :
' It may have been unavoidable, because this whole division
of Mark may not yet have been inserted into that Gospel
when Luke used it. To use a now well-known expression,
it may have belonged to " a deutero-Mark." A good case
could be made for this account of the matter if we could
appeal to any appreciable Unguistic difference between
this one-ninth part of our Mark and the remaining eight-
ninths. But we cannot do so. There is a general

vi.] THE LUKAN SOURCES 157
uniformity of style and wording which is sufficient to show
that— apart from small additions and modifications — it
was composed by one author, or at least was thoroughly
worked over by one editor.' 1
This is an important concession by so great an authority
on the whole question as the author of the Horae Synopticae.
We would gladly accept it, and point out that if the case
can be made out that the author of the deutero-Mark
was St. Mark himseU — that is, that in the first and second
Gospels we have later and fuUer editions of the Petrine
Memoirs prepared by St. Mark — we secure at once the
single authorship which leads to the uniformity of style
and wording which Sir John Hawkins quite rightly finds
in the record. The same explanation, we are convinced,
wiU account for most if not aU of the so-caUed ' Lukan
omissions.' The second of the sources used by St. Luke consisted of
a coUection of sayings. These are distributed by St. Luke
over the whole field of his Gospel in accordance with his
method, which, as we have seen, was to give a more or
less chronological setting to his facts as recorded. The
discussion of this source is complicated by the many un
certainties which gather around the whole question con
cerning the nature and contents of Q. In the third chapter
of this work we have asked :
1. Whether this formula should be given to the
Matthaean Logia as described by Papias, which
many critics consider to be now hopelessly lost.
2. Whether we are to suppose that the term should be
used for a work containing mostly ' sayings,' but
also some admixture of narrative, and especiaUy
an account of the Passion.
3. Whether it should be given to a coUection of Logia,
thrown together without form or plan, containing
1 Oxford Studies, p. 63.

158 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch
genuine and spurious sayings of Christ, and with
no further connection between one saying and
another than the famihar introduction ' Jesus
said.'
4. We may also ask whether, supposing the formula Q
be used in any one of the above senses, St. Luke
used a ' Q ' identical with that before St. Matthew,
or some other coUection.
It wiU be sufficient to recapitulate here the conclusions
to which we came in chapter in. We hold that the
Matthaean Logia described by Papias are not lost, but
exist in the first Gospel, thus accounting for the name
given to that Gospel from earhest times, though the work,
as a whole, is a compilation drawn up by some Jewish
Christian in Alexandria. We think that it would save
great confusion in discussion if the formula Q were not
used for a work consisting partly of sayings and partly
of narrative, thus making what would be to aU intents and
purposes another ' Gospel,' of which no further trace
remains. We consider that the true source of the sayings
is to be found in those somewhat indiscriminate coUections
of sayings, which seem to have existed in some number
in the early Church, and that the work of these inspired
evangehsts consisted in the sUting of these sayings — a
work in which they were so marveUously guided that
they have preserved only those sayings which belong to
the one Divine Teacher who ' spake as never man spake.'
Last of aU we have seen reason to suppose that while the
sayings that were used by St. Luke came before him in
documentary form, they belonged to a coUection other
than that used by St. Matthew. AU that we need add to
this part of our subject is to point out that in transcribing
these sayings St. Luke uses what seems to some a far
higher degree of verbal exactness than he does in deahng
with narrative (see Stanton, op. cit. p. 278). This, how-

vi.] THE LUKAN SOURCES 159
ever, is better explained by supposing that in Markan
narrative St. Luke records with a fidelity equal to
that which he shows to his other sources the variations
which belong to a writer giving to the Church an earher
edition of what he afterwards re-wrote in a shghtly
different form. In deahng with ' sayings ' he would have
before him matter which was necessarily more fixed in
expression. The third Gospel contains three other sections in addition
to those we have mentioned. These are the Nativity
section embodied in chapters i. and ii., the section known
by the name of ' the Travel Document ' consisting of the
matter contained in ix. 51 -xviii. 14, and the post-
Resurrection appearances of our Lord, xxiii. 54 - xxiv. 53.
An attempt wiU be made in the present work to bring these
three w'thin the compass of a single source, but waiving
that question for the present, and confining attention to
the section commencing at chapter ix. 51, we notice its
uniqueness both in contents and in style. It describes a
portion of our Lord's ministry which is not dealt with by
the other evangehsts in anything approaching the same
detail. It is the sole authority for such incomparable
teaching as we derive from the Parables of the Good
Samaritan, the Rich Man and Lazarus, the Importunate
Widow, and the Prodigal Son. It is true that isolated
sayings which appear in the other Gospels are found in
these chapters, but that is not to be wondered at, when we
recaU the method in which these sayings were collected
before St. Matthew made the topical arrangement of them
which appears in the first Gospel. St. Mark, too, would
incorporate in his narrative incidents which belong to this
part of our Lord's ministry, such as that of Christ's reception
of Httle children, or His treatment of the rich young ruler
(Mark xiii. 13-51), but such sections in the second Gospel
are out of their true chronological setting, and appear
more Hke what we are convinced they were, incidents

160 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
recalled in the course of pubHc preaching, and not parts of
a narrative given with strict chronological accuracy. The
section contains several parables, a considerable proportion
of which are pecuhar to St. Luke. Dr. Stanton considers
that these are to be accounted for as additions made to the
original Greek Logian document from which, as we have
seen, St. Luke drew a considerable part of his matter.
He concludes that these additions were Jewish-Christian
in origin, there being a distinct Hebraistic style discernible
throughout, and its birthplace seems to have been
Palestine. He also holds that it came before the evangehst
in writing, but that certain passages gathered from oral
tradition were added by St. Luke himseU, incidents in
the Passion and the post-Resurrection appearances of the
Lord being so accounted for.1
There is much in aU this with which we cordiaUy agree.
The documentary character of the source, its Jewish
features, and its Palestinian origin, seem to us to be fuUy
estabhshed by Dr. Stanton's scholarly analysis of details.
It does not seem to us, however, that the contents are
best accounted for by considering them to be additions
made to the Logian document supplemented by scraps
of oral tradition put into form by St. Luke. Let us begin
with the parables. These possess — as Dr. Stanton himseU
points out — certain features as marked as they are inter
esting. The parables that belong to the Logian document
deal with characteristics of the Kingdom of God. Their
imagery was drawn largely from nature ; they iUustrate
the coming of the Kingdom, its growth, and its final con
summation. Their interpretation was to some extent a
matter of difficulty ; the clue to that intrepretation had
to be given by the great Teacher before their meaning
became clear. They are above aU distinctly Christological,
and, until the centraUty of Christ and His supremacy
within the Kingdom became clear, they were to the common
1 Op. cit. pp. 239-40.

vi.] THE LUKAN SOURCES 161
people enigmatic. But the miracles pecuhar to St. Luke
which occur in this section have nothing to do with the
Kingdom. To quote from Dr. Stanton : ' They are con
cerned with human emotions and motives, inner debatings
and actions, which are vividly described ; they are in fact
short tales of human Ufe. . . . Once more no subsequent,
separate interpretation could be required, or asked for,
in the case of these parables. They bear their moral
on the face of them, and in several instances it is driven
home by an emphatic saying at the conclusion.' 1 That
parables should appear throughout the whole course of
our Lord's teaching is nothing more than we should expect,
and that having made clear to His immediate foUowers
the principles of the Kingdom of God, as He had come to
estabhsh it, He should go on at some later period in His
ministry to deal with those subtleties of the human heart
which are universal in experience and need no interpreter,
is exactly in keeping with the development of His teaching.
This characteristic of the parables which appear in this
section creates a unity which covers the whole section, and
is accentuated by other features which belong to it, and
which wiU appear when we have dealt with it as a whole.
The passage is introduced by the words ' And it came to
pass when the days were weU nigh fulfiUed that He should
be received up, He steadfastly set His face to go to
Jerusalem.' Throughout the whole section Christ is
described as journeying up to Jerusalem. In the former
part of the Gospel the scene is entirely and consistently
Gahlean, but in this section Galilee is left behind. The
route is first eastwards to Perea and then through that
country to Jerusalem. For this reason scholars have
agreed to give the section the name of ' the Travel Docu
ment,' while others prefer to describe it as ' the Perean
Section.' Now this element of movement from one part
Op. cit. p. 231.

162 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
of the country to another makes a second unity for the
passage. It may be described as ' notes taken on the
course of a memorable journey.' Dr. Arthur Wright
does not aUow any such unity as is here assigned to this
section. He considers it to be a collection of undated
material made up of ' fragments which came to St. Luke,
as he taught at Philippi, by every ship.' This statement
accords with the requirements of an oral tradition as basis
for the Gospel, but it entirely fails to account for out
standing features of the section. For in addition to
features aheady referred to we find a strong Samaritan
element in this portion of the third Gospel. Nearly every
instance in which the Samaritans are mentioned by the
Synoptic writers occurs in this section, nor are they
mentioned without indications of strong sympathy.
This fact is considered so significant that some scholars
assign the sectio-i to St. Phihp. We know that St. Luke
spent two years in the house of that evangehst in Caesarea,
and we are told in the Acts of the Apostles that ' PhiHp
went down to the city of Samaria and preached unto
them the Christ ' (Acts viii. 5). It is extremely Hkely
that the chapters which describe the ministry of PhiHp
in the Acts of the Apostles are due to the intercourse
between these two men in Caesarea. The conjecture that
the section in the Gospel is also to be attributed to that
source is attractive, but considering that the events de
scribed are not limited to Samaria, and bearing in mind
the repeated emphasis laid upon the fact of the journey
(see ix. 56, x. 1-38, xiii. 22, xvn. 11, xviii. 35, xix. 11-29),
it seems to us more probable that while the incidents
recorded were collected by one who from sympathy with
Samaritans would treasure up any reference to them made
by our Lord, that one belonged to the Httle band of men
and women who accompanied Him upon the memorable
journey. To them the incidents of that journey were
hkely to have been indelibly fixed upon the memory, and

vr.] THE LUKAN SOURCES 163
very early, we may be sure, they were committed to the
safer keeping of some written record.
There is yet another feature of this section which indeed
appears in other parts of the third Gospel as weU as in
the Acts of the Apostles, and this is the intimate knowledge
shown of incidents connected with the court of Herod
(see Luke iii. 1, 19, vm. 3, ix. 7-9, xiii. 31, xxiii. 7-12 ;
Acts xii.). In the Acts St. Luke seems to set the authority
of his source against that of Josephus from whose narrative
of Herod's death he differs considerably. Last of aU there
is the strongly marked sympathy with women which runs
throughout the Gospel. So frequent are the indications
of a woman's interest that the Gospel is sometimes caUed
' The Woman's Gospel.' It is most marked in the section
which deals with the Nativity of our Lord, speaking of
which Sir William Ramsay says : ' There is a womanly
spirit in the whole narrative which seems inconsistent
with the transmission from man to man.' This feature
meets us again both in the closing section of the Gospel
and in this ' Travel Document.' Is it possible to bring these
three sections of the third Gospel within the compass of a
single source ? If we could do so the gain would be very
great, for it is generaUy accepted as a canon of criticism
that the multipHcation of sources is to be avoided U
possible. Now in the opening verses of the eighth chapter
we are told that there accompanied our Lord certain
women who ' ministered unto Him of their resources,'
and of these three names are mentioned, — Mary Magdalene,
Susanna, and Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward.
At the close of the twenty-third chapter we are told that
their ministry continued after their Master had been
crucified, and that they proceeded to prepare the spices
which would be required for embalming His body. Of these
women we are told that they had come with Jesus out of
Galilee, and it is easy to infer that they would be Hkely to
treasure up the precious teaching of their Master whom

164 GOSPEL ORIGINS [oh.
they served with such devotion. Of the three names
that of Joanna attracts attention. Her name does not
appear in the other Synoptic Gospels. St. Luke is the one
evangehst who has rescued her name from obHvion. Only
to him has she seemed to be of interest, as indeed she would
be if through her devotion to Christ he had been put in
possession of these priceless records. In the first chapter
of the Acts her name does not appear, but we are told
that the disciples continued in prayer 'with the women,
and Mary the Mother of Jesus.' The reference can only be
to some well-known band of women who were now joined
by the Mother of our Lord, and there can be no reasonable
doubt that they were those who had been the companions
of Jesus during the latter part of His ministry. Harnack
recognises the necessity of finding some womanly element
among the authorities consulted by St. Luke, but thinks
that this may be supphed by the daughters of PhiHp.
These, however, do not seem to have been associated
with our Lord during His ministry, nor do they supply
what we need to account for the knowledge of Herod's
court which belongs to this source. No better authority
for this could be found than what is given us in the wife
of his steward Chuza.
Dr. Bartlet contributes to the Oxford Studies in the
Synoptic Problem a paper on the sources of St. Luke's
Gospel in which he allows that the features of ' the great
insertion ' which Dr. Stanton has discussed, and to which
reference has abeady been made in this work, are fairly
estabhshed, especiaUy the Hebraistic style prominent in
the Nativity section, but appearing also in ' the Travel
Document,' and the Resurrection story. The agreement
of these two authorities on the unity underlying these
different sections goes far to support the claim of a common
authorship for them aU. Dr. Bartlet also agrees with
Dr. Stanton in reducing the Lukan sources to two, ascribing
these three sections together with the Logia to a source

vi.] THE LUKAN SOURCES 165
which he caUs ' S ' and which was unified in tradition with
Q. The difference between Dr. Stanton and Dr. Bartlet
is found in this, that the latter ' sees no evidence that Q
was ever written down before it was so in Luke's S.' Taking
Q to represent ' the original apostoHc tradition ' he con
ceives it to have come before St. Luke in the form of oral
tradition. Dr. Stanton, however, considers that it came
to him in documentary form. But whether this particular
source was oral or documentary — and it seems to us that
the latter is the more Hkely, as Dr. Stanton shows — it
is clear that the question of the nature and contents of
Q, perhaps the most vexed question of aU that concern
the Synoptic Problem, must first be settled before we can
arrive at any general agreement as to the relation of this
section of the third Gospel to Q. Dr. Bartlet considers
that Q included the Passion story, a theory aheady dis
cussed.1 There is also something too formal about the
theory of ' an original apostohc tradition ' existing at the
time when this matter came before St. Luke. It contains
an element of Canonicity which belongs to the second
century rather than the first, and to us it seems probable
that the origins of the Gospel were very much more simple
than an apostoHc tradition would indicate. The out
standing feature of the different parts of the Gospels is
individual rather than coUective, and this is true whether
we consider the Markan narrative, the Matthaean sayings,
or ' the great insertion ' of St. Luke. The homogeneity
of this section is another argument against the idea that
all this matter came to St. Luke in the form of oral tradition.
Such a tradition would come along many hnes, and be
Hkely to reveal many tendencies, whereas this section
reveals in the character of the parabolic teaching and of
the Samaritan interest an individual point of view which
does not go with an apostohc tradition in oral form. Nor
is it an answer that such a point of view would be conferred
i See p. 42.

166 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
by St. Luke the redactor. The Hebraistic feature of the
writing makes that the most unlikely solution of aU.
To account for aU the characteristics of this section we
need a Jewish Christian of Palestine, a companion of
Christ during His journey from Galilee to Jerusalem, one
who had to do with Samaritans and also had knowledge
from within of Herod's court. AU these elements are
supphed by Joanna, the wife of Herod's steward, whose
name appears with such marked emphasis in this Gospel.
There remain for our consideration two sections of this
Gospel. The two chapters which make up what is caUed
' the Nativity Section ' and the chapter with which St.
Luke closes his record are unique in the Gospel story.
They belong neither to Markan narrative nor to Q nor any
other coUection of sayings. We hold that there is good
reason for supposing that they reveal a common authorship.
For not only does St. Luke here depart from the Markan
narrative, but aU three chapters belong to a Judaean
tradition rather than to a Gahlean. To the author the
infancy of John the Baptist, and the circumstances attend
ing his birth, were matters of great interest, and a necessary
introduction to the account of the birth of the Messiah.
The references to Anna and Simeon and to Christ's inter
view with the doctors in the temple are parts of a tradition
which grew up around Jerusalem rather than around
some centre in Gahlee. So in the last chapter Jerusalem
is spoken of as ' the city,' and the reference to the temple
in verse 53 is significant. The Hnguistic characteristics
of the one section appear also in the other ; both are
distinctly Hebraistic, and expressions are found in both
which are not found in other parts of the third Gospel.1
That there should have been a Judaean tradition as weU
as that more distinctly Gahlean tradition which St. Mark
has handed down to us wiU scarcely be denied by any one.
That a Church which originated and grew up in the Holy
1 See additional notes, pp. 173 ff.

vi.] THE LUKAN SOURCES 167
City should have remained content with a record whoUy
concerned with the ministry of our Lord in Gahlee can
scarcely be beheved, and that St. Luke should turn to the
record of that tradition to set forth the circumstances
attending both the birth of Jesus and His Ascension is
the most natural thing in the world. It is the recognition
of his departure from the Markan narrative in recording
the post-Resurrection appearances of Christ which offers
the best solution of the difficulties which beset this part
of the Gospel narrative. The Markan account is preserved
for us in the first Gospel, for the mutilation of the last
chapter in canonical Mark makes anything Hke a close
comparison of the two impossible. That account foUows
the general plan of the Markan narrative. Its scene is
entirely Gahlean, but when we see that St. Luke prefers
in this instance to give those appearances of the risen
Lord which occurred in and about Jerusalem, we account
at once for the differences which undoubtedly exist between
the one account and the other.
Returning to the Nativity section, we notice that,
whether St. Luke modified it in part or not, the original
story has a source which is distinctly feminine. The
story differs from that in the first Gospel exactly as Mary's
story would differ from that of Joseph. The mother of
our Lord would naturaUy refrain from speaking of that
which was known only to her husband and herseU. She
' hid aU these things in her heart.' But after the resur
rection she would as naturaUy feel that she was bound to
impart that story to those who Hke herseU would after
that event know that the Jesus whose earthly Hfe they
had in large measure shared was indeed the very Messiah.
Yet the modesty and reserve which had kept her silent
in this matter would cause her to impart her great secret
only to the women who were with her in the upper room
while they waited for the coming of the promised
Comforter. Among these, as we have seen, was Joanna,

168 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
and if the wife of Herod's steward may be supposed to
have been better educated than the majority of Jewish
women, she would be most hkely to put on record what she
had received, and to add her own contribution to the
story. In his admirable work entitled Luke the Physician,
Harnack says : ' A Greek source cannot He at the founda
tion of chapters i. and ii. of St. Luke's Gospel ; the corre
spondence between their style and that of Luke is too
great ; it would have been necessary that the source
should have been re-written sentence by sentence. It is
possible, but not probable, that for the narrative part an
Aramaic source was translated. The Magnificat and the
Benedictus at aU events are St. Luke's composition.' It
is difficult to go so far as Harnack does in ascribing even
parts of this essentiaUy Jewish composition to a Gentile
Hke St. Luke. The Lukan style is not admitted by Dr.
Stanton, whose paragraph on this point should be carefuUy
read. He says,1 ' While then it may be aUowed that the
third evangehst might himseU have written the hymns in
Luke i. and ii., it does not appear that their style is un
questionably distinctive of him. And in the character of
their Messianic expectation there is strong reason for
thinking that they cannot be his. It would have been
difficult even for a Jewish Christian, and wellnigh impos
sible for a Gentile, such as the author of the Lukan writings
probably was, and indeed must have been if he was Luke
the companion of St. Paul, to have placed himseU at, and
adhered so consistently to, a point of view which preceded
the Passion and the Resurrection.' To the present writer
it seems even less hkely than apparently it does to Dr.
Stanton that the hymns can have been written by St.
Luke. The whole section is without seam or division,
and the hymns in particular are the product of a mind
steeped in the imagery of Hebrew poetry. Least of aU
1 Op. cit. p. 225. For. a three-document hypothesis see Expos. Times, xi.
473 and xx. 112.

vl] THE LUKAN SOURCES 169
do the chapters suggest fragments of oral tradition. One
mind conceived the exquisite portrayal, and U that mind
was that of a woman then it seems most hkely that we
must seek for her among those women who were
associated with our Lord in the course of His ministry
and afterwards with His mother.
In deahng with the common characteristics of the
matter pecuhar to St. Luke we have anticipated what
should be said of the last section of this Gospel in which
St. Luke gives his account of the post-Resurrection appear
ance of our Lord. Dr. Stanton holds that the accounts
of incidents in the history of the Passion and appearance
of the Risen Christ owe their written form to St. Luke,
who gathered them probably from oral tradition. There
is, however, nothing in the passage which would bear out
this assumption, and against it we would place the
Hebraistic style which appears in chapter xxiv. as it appears
in the Nativity sectior. It is possible that there is but
one source for the two sections, and the way in which
Joanna's name is introduced is significant. It appears in
xxiv. 10, and many critics point out that the verse reads
somewhat Hke an interpolation. We hold that if so it was
an interpolation made by the evangehst himseU, and what
could be more natural than that he should thus record the
name of the woman to whom he owed this special contri
bution to the Gospel story.
To sum up this discussion of the Lukan sources we hold
that they were three in number. The first consists of an
account of Christ's ministry in Gahlee derived from St.
Mark, but not from the second Gospel as we have it in the
Christian Canon. The narrative used by St. Luke for this
part of his Gospel was earher than that which appears
either in the first or in the second Gospel. Its birthplace
was Palestine, and if we must define still closer we would
place it in Caesarea. We would account thus for the
fuUer reference in this Gospel to the ministry of the

170 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
Baptist and to the Baptism and Temptation of our Lord,
while at the same time the theory offers a simple but
sufficient explanation for the non-appearance of sections
which are to be found in later and fuUer editions of the
Markan narrative. This does not preclude St. Luke's
use of editorial privilege. He would modify the style
where it seemed to him to be defective, and impress his
own personality upon the record by employing medical
terms where it seemed to him better to do so. He would
also supply such chronological connections as seemed to
be desirable to one who wished to set forth the sayings
and doings of Jesus ' in order,' and he would distribute
his material whether derived from this or from other
sources so as to secure this object.
His second source was undoubtedly a coUection of the
sayings of our Lord. As coming from the same great
Teacher these would bear a great amount of similarity to
those which appear in the first Gospel, but there seems
good reason to beheve that the coUection used by this
evangehst differed considerably from those employed by
St. Matthew when he made his notable compilation of
the same Teacher's words. Whether the coUection before
St. Luke was earUer or later than that before St. Matthew
it is useless to enquire. It may weU be that ' forasmuch
as many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative con
cerning those matters ' more than one coUection was
extant, and the two coUections may weU have existed
side by side.
The third source we consider to have been a document
containing at least the section on the Nativity, the account
of Christ's journey from Gahlee to Jerusalem with His
teaching on the way, and details of the Passion and
Resurrection. We hold that there is good reason drawn
entirely from internal evidence that this was the work of
Joanna.1 Her relation through her husband both to
1 I arrived at this conclusion by independent study, but it has been

vi.] THE LUKAN SOURCES 171
Herod and to the Samaritans, her Jewish birth and
education, and her association with the mother of our
Lord, and her strong womanly sympathy aU combine to
make the introduction of her name by St. Luke significant.

EXCURSUS I
ANALYSIS OF THE THIRD GOSPEL
Chap. i. 1-4. Inteoduction. Editoeial.
Chaps, i. ii. The birth and infancy of Jesus. Special source.
ni. 1-2. Editorial addition.
3-22. Ministry of John the Baptist. Baptism of Jesus.
Markan source.
23-38. Genealogy of Jesus. Special source.
iv. 1-13. The temptation. Markan source.
14-30. The preaching of Jesus at Nazareth. Special
source.
31-44. Works of healing. Markan source.
v. 1-39. Jesus calls His Disciples, cures a leper and a
paralytic, and is entertained by Matthew. Markan
source.
vi. 1-16. Controversy with the Pharisees on the question
of the Sabbath. Jesus withdraws to a mountain.
Markan source.
17-49. Jesus addresses His Disciples. Logian document.
vu. 1-10. Cure of the Centurion's servant. Markan source.
11-17. Jesus raises the son of the widow at Nain.
Special source.
18-35. Testimony concerning the Baptist. Markan
source.
29-30. Special source.
vu. 3 6- viii. 3. The woman that was a sinner at Simon the
Pharisee's house. Special source.
pointed out to me by my friend, Dr. J. H. Moulton, that I have been
anticipated by Dr. Sanday. See Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, art.
' Jesus Christ,' p. 639. I can only say that I am delighted to find myself in
agreement with so great a scholar.

172 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
viii. 4-21. Parables and Discourses. Logian document.
22-56. Mighty works. Markan source.
ix. 1-17. Mission of the Twelve, and death of the Baptist.
Markan source.
18-27. Confession of Peter ; announcement of Passion.
Markan source.
28-45. The Transfiguration, and cure of demoniac boy.
Markan source.
46-50. Questions as to greatness, and toleration.
Markan source.
51 -xviii. 14. The journey from Perea. Special source.
xviii. 15-30. Little children, and the rich young ruler.
Markan source.
30-43. Announcement of Passion. Healing of the bhnd.
Markan source.
xix. 1-27. Zacchseus, and the parable of the Pounds.
Special source.
28-48. Triumphal entry, and cleansing of the Temple.
Markan source.
xx. 1-47. Controversy with Pharisees and others. Markan
source.
xxi. 1-4. The Widow's Mite. Markan source.
5-38. Eschatological teaching. Markan source.
xxu. 1-38. The plot against Jesus. The Paschal Supper.
Markan source.
38-71. The agony of Jesus. His betrayal. Markan
source.
xxiii. 1-5. The trial of Jesus. Markan source.
6-19. Jesus, Herod, and Pilate. Special source.
20-26. Jesus delivered to be crucified. Markan source.
27-31. The weeping daughters of Jerusalem. Special
source.
32-56. The Crucifixion of Jesus. Markan source.
xxiv. 1-53. The Resurrection of Jesus, His appearance to His
disciples, and Ascension into Heaven. Special
source.

"J EXCURSUS 173

EXCURSUS n
The "special souece' op the thied Gospel:
Analysis with notes.
The special source is indicated in the following passages : —
Chaps, i. and ii.
iv. 14-30.
vn. 11-17, 29-30.
vii. 36-viii. 3.
ix. 51. -xviii. 14.
xix. 1-27.
xxiii. 6-19, 27-56.
xxiv.
Chap. i. 1-4. Editorial Introduction. See p. 148.
5-35. On the general question of Semitisms in Synoptic
Gospels, see Dalman, The Words of Jesus, pp. 17 ff.
' Genuine Hebraisms ' are almost exclusively
peculiarities of St. Luke's Gospel.
1. The section begins with a reference to Herod.
See p. 163. The use of the introductory ky'evero is
characteristic of the source. It is sometimes used
absolutely as here and also in i. 8, 23, 59 ; ii. 1, 6,
15, 46; vii. 11 ; viii. 1 ; ix. 18, 28, 37, 51. Often
with kv rip foUowed by an Infinitive. The phrase is
found in each of the five formulae used by the
editor of the first Gospel in passing from the Logia
to the Markan source and in one other place. It is
used four times in Mark, not at all in John, and forty-
two times in Luke. See Plummer's Comm. on this
Gospel, p. 45.
Chap. i. 5. €K twv Ovyarepwv 'kapmv (cf. xiii. 16 and xix. 9).
6. evavr'iov tov deov. This use, with that of kiKoirtov,
is common in the LXX. For its use in this source
see i. 6, xxiv. 19. kvdiriov appears in v. 15 of
this chapter and in twenty-three other passages

174 GOSPEL ORIGINS [oh.
in this Gospel. In does not appear in Matthew or
in Mark, and only once in John. (See Dalman,
op. cit. p. 31.) Of the Lukan passages all but four
are in sections taken from the special source.
iropevopevoi, common in LXX, Psalm cxix. 1. In
this Gospel see ix. 53, xxiv. 13.
8. kv t<Jj with Infinitive. Once in Matt, and Mark,
not at all in John, but twenty-five times in Luke.
See ix. 36, 51; xi. 1; xxiv. 4, 15. k.t.A. See
Dalman, op. cit. p. 33.
i. 19. evayyeXi£eo-9ai. Used as in the Old Testament
for announcing good tidings.
20. tSov. Hebraistic. The word appears fifty-five times
in this Gospel, eo-g o-uairZv. For the use of eivai,
with the participle, see Dalman, p. 35, and Moulton,
Prolegomena, p. 226.
30. x°-PLV evpe* is Hebraic (cf. H. 40, 52, xvii. 7).
The word X'V'5 does not appear in the first two
Gospels. In the ' we ' sections of Acts it is used
in the Pauline sense.
39-56. The meeting of Mary and Elizabeth.
43. iva. See p. 184, and Stanton, Gospels as Historical
Documents, ii. p. 312.
50. eh yeveds Kal yeveds, cf. eh •yei'tav Kal -yertav,
Psalm lxxxix. 2.
51. kiroirjo-ev Kpdros and kv Bpaxlovi are both Hebra
isms. See Plummer in loco. virepr]<pdvovs Siavola.
Frequent in LXX.
54. pvrjo-drjvai kXeovs. Cf. Psalms xxv. 6 and xcvui. 3.
57-79. Birth of John and song of Zecharias.
58. epeydXvvev IXeoi (cf. Genesis xix. 19).
68. t<3 Xa!p (cf. vii. 16, xxiv. 19). kirecrKexpaTo. 'Used
in the Hebrew sense of Divine visitation by St. Luke
alone.' See Plummer in loco.
69. K«pas crioTiipias. A common Old Testament
metaphor (cf. Psalm xviii. 3).
70. dir' aliovos. Pecuhar to St. Luke (cf. Acts iii. 21,
xv. 18.
76. irpb irpoo-dirov. A Hebraistic construction.
Dalman, p. 29.

vl] EXCURSUS 175
i. 78-79. The genitives of characterising quality are
Hebraistic.
Chap. ii. 1-5. (Editorial Introduction.)
6-20. The birth of Jesus.
8. <£vAao-o-ovTfs oSvAa/cas. This Hebraistic form of
expression occurs throughout this source (cf . Mark
v. 9, and Luke vii. 29, xii. 50, xvii. 24, xxii. 15,
and xxiii. 46). See Dalman, p. 34.
9. kireaTq. A Lukan word used of supernatural
appearances (cf. n. 38, and xxiii. 11).
10. t<£ Xaip. So also in i. 68, and vu. 16.
11. ev iroXei AaveiS. Hebraistic.
15. iSaipev to prjpa. Hebraistic.
19. o-w/JaAAovo-a. Peculiar to St. Luke. See Plummer
on i. 66.
21-40. The Circumcision of Jesus and His Presentation
in the Temple.
22. at r)pepai tov KaGapio-pov. A Hebraism which
appears again in iv. 16, xiii. 14, 16, xiv. 5, xxii. 7.
25. irpoo-Sexopevoi. This verb occurs again in v. 38,
and in xxiii. 51. See Dalman, p. 109.
26. 6 Xpio-Tos Kvptov. A similar phrase occurs no less
than nine times in chapters i. and ii.
38. kv avr-g t-q (iS/oa. A Lukan expression which occurs
in x. 21, xi. 12, xm. 31, xx. 19, and xxiv. 33.
48. 68vi«opevoi. Three times in Luke but not else
where in the Gospels (cf. xvi. 24, 25).
49. r)XiKia for ' stature.' So again in xix. 3.
Chap. iv. 14-30. The Discourse at Nazareth.
16. evT§ rjpepa tu>v craBBaTtov. This phrase does not
occur in the other Gospels. In the third Gospel it
occurs here, and also in xiii. 14, 16, and xiv. 5.
20. rjcrav drevitfivTes (cf. i. 20, xiii. 10, xiv. 10, xv. 1).
21. r)p£aro Xeyeiv. Hebraistic. See Dalman, p. 27,
and cf. vii. 38, 49, xi. 29, 53, xii. 1, xv. 25,
xxiii. 30.
27. ev tu> 'lo-parjX. A distinctly Jewish use (cf. i. 16,
54, 68, 80, ii. 25, 32, 34, vu. 9, xxii. 30, xxiv. 21).

176 GOSPEL ORIGINS Lch-
Chap. vii. 11-17. Jesus raises the son of the widow of Nain.
It is to be noted that this section, peculiar to the
third Gospel, contains in the space of half a dozen
verses characteristics which distinctly connect it
with chapters i. and ii. We assign it without
hesitation to the same source.
11. kyeveTo. See note on i. 5.
12. Kal l8ov k£eKopl£eTo. See note on l. 20.
13. 6 kii/hos. This title of Christ does not appear in
the other Synoptic Gospels. In Luke it is used
here, and also in x. 1, 39, xi. 39, xvii. 5, 6, xviii. 6,
xxiv. 34 ; all passages are from the special source.
16. tov Xaov (cf. i. 68 and xxiv. 19).
17. 'IovSoua. Used in Matthew and Mark for the
province of Judaea, but used here, and also in i. 5,
vi. 17, xxiii. 5, xxiv. 19, for Palestine.
29-30. These two verses also seem to be taken from
St. Luke's special source. The foUowing expres
sions should be noted.
29. 6 Aads. See 16 above and i. 68 and xxiv. 19,
kSiKaioio-av (cf. Psalm Ixxii. 13, Ezekiel xvi. 51,
Jeremiah iii. 11, cf. x. 39, and xviii. 14. BairTio--
Oevres to BdirTio-pa. See note on n. 8, and cf.
xxii. 15.
30. vopiKol. In Matthew and Mark the word
generaUy used is ypappareh, but vo/xikos appears
here and also in x. 25, xi. 45, 46, 52, 53, xiv. 3.
36. KaTeKXi9rj. The middle voice is used here and in
xiv. 8 and xxiv. 30, but nowhere else in the New
Testament. Note that in the Markan passage,
ix. 14, the active voice is used.
36-viii. 3. Simon the Pharisee and the woman that
was a sinner. This section is peculiar to the third
Gospel. Christ's vindication of the woman's action
is to be noticed (see p. 163), and the section is
foUowed by a reference to the women who followed
our Lord from Galilee. Among the names that of
Joanna appears for the first time. See pp. 163 ff.
36. KaTaKXivta9ai. See note on v. 36 of this
chapter.

?L] EXCURSUS 177
vii. 38. ^jp£aTo Bpkxeiv. See note on iv. 21.
41. xPe0(Pei^rys- This word appears only here and
in xvi. 5 in the New Testament. The second
passage as weU as this belongs to the special source.
49. iropevov eh elprjvriv. ' A Hebrew formula of peace
and goodwUl with special fulness of meaning.'
Dr. Stanton speaks of this section as being derived
from oral tradition by St. Luke. But such
Hnguistic peculiarities as it possesses show a
connection with other portions of this Gospel, and
it is better to assign it with them to St. Luke's
special source.
Chap. ix. 51-56. Inhospitable Samaritans. St. Luke's 'great
insertion' (see p. 161) begins at this point. Note
the introductory words which indicate a journey
and the Samaritan reference (see p. 162).
51. kyeveTo. See note on i. 5.
51. irpdo-iairov ko-Trjpicrev. A Hebraism. Plummer
compares Jeremiah xxi. 10, Ezekiel vi. 2, etc.
52. irpb irpoa-iLirov. A Hebraism, which occurs again
in vii. 27 and x. 1. See Dalman, p. 29.
57-62. Conditions of discipleship. For the relation
of this section to the paraUel in Matthew, see
Plummer.
61. diroTdgao-9ai. See also xiv. 33. evderos. Used
again xiv. 35. Dalman, p. 119.
Chap. x. 1-16. The Mission of the Seventy.
6. vtos elpr)vrjs. A Hebraism to denote ' one closely
identified with ' (cf. ' The sons of the prophets '
in the Old Testament, and such phrases as reKva
croobias, vii. 35, and vtos rijs dirtoXeta?, John xvii. 12).
17-20. The Return of the Seventy.
21-24. The Mysteries of the Kingdom.
21. r)yaXXido-aTo. The only other passage in which
this word occurs in Luke is i. 47. The author
uses xai7"u quite frequently. evSoKia eyeveTO
epirpoo-8'ev crou. A distinct Hebraism.
25-37. The parable of the good Samaritan.
25. vopiKos. See note on vn. 40.

178 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
x. 29. SiKaiovv eavrov. See note on vii. 35.
33. 'EapapeiTrjs. See p. 162.
37. iroieiv eXeos perd (cf. i. 58).
38-42. In the house of Martha and Mary.
38. kyevero ev Tip with Infin. See note on i. 5.
39. rov Kvplov (cf, v. 17 and vn. 13.)
Chap. xi. 1-15. Prayer, and the cure of the dumb demoniac.
1. kyevero ev Ttp etvai. Note On i. 5.
5. rh kg vpZv ; This phrase appears in Luke, but only
in this ' Travel Document ' in which it is frequent.
See xi. 11, xii. 25, xiv. 5, 28, 31, xv. 4, xvn. 7. In
Matthew it appears two or three times, but always
in Logian sections.
7. pr) Kowovs irdpex* (cf. xvni. 5.)
14. kyevero, followed by gen. abs. 'Any one
desiring to collect instances in favour of a Hebrew
primitive Gospel would have to name in the first
rank this Kal kyevero.' Dalman, p. 32.
16-19. Signs, and the blasphemy of the Pharisees.
20. kv 8aKTvX(p Oeov. 'Luke seems to be fond of
Hebraistic anthropomorphisms, i. 51, 66, 73.'
Plummer in loco.
27-28. True relationship to Christ. The incident
brings again into prominence the ' womanly refer
ence ' characteristic of this source.
29-32. The sign of Jonah. This section as weU as
others in this chapter (notably w. 24-26) appear
in Matthew. They may have found their way into
the collection of Logia used by St. Matthew
independently of the source to which St. Luke was
indebted.
33-36. The inner Light.
37-54. Our Lord's denunciation of hypocrisy.
39. yepei apirayrjs. Matthew yepei e£ dpirayfjs. See
Oxford Studies, p. 300.
49. r) croobia tov #eov = God in His Providence. A
Hebrew idea. See Proverbs viii. 22-31.
51. «us aiparos Zaxaplov. See Comm.

vi.] EXCURSUS 179
Chap. xii. 1-12. This section appears in Matthew x. 26-33.
The two versions reveal considerable verbal
similarity. This, however, need not be taken to
indicate that the two editors derived this matter
from Q. St. Matthew may have had access to
St. Luke's special source. At any rate the peculiar
constructions of that source appear here.
1. rjpgaTo Xeyeiv. See note on iv. 21. irpocrexere
diro. See also xx. 46.
6. evmiriov tov 9eov. See note on i. 6.
13-21. The parable of the rich fool.
19. ev<ppatveo-9ai. Does not appear in Matthew or
Mark, but it is found here, and also in xv. 23, 24,
29, 32, xvi. 19. In Acts ii. 26 it is used in a
quotation from Psalm xvi. 9.
22-34. A discourse on trust in God. This appears
also in Matthew vi. 25-33.
35-48. A discourse on watchfulness and true service.
32. For the phrase 8i86vai rrjv Bao-iXeiav, see
Dalman, p. 134.
49-59. The effect of Christ's teaching and the signs
of the times.
50. Bdirricrpa BairTio-9r)vai. See note on H. 8. ecos
otov. So in xiii. 8, xv. 8, xxii. 16, xxiv. 49, all
from the special source.
Chap. xiu. 1-5. Supposed judgment on Galilaeans.
1. iraprjo-av dirayyeXXovTes. See note on i. 20.
2. irapd with ace. to express comparison, cf. xviii. 4.
6-9. The barren fig-tree.
10-17. A woman is healed on the Sabbath Day.
11. r)v ervvKvirrovo-a. See note on i. 20.
16. OvyaTepa 'ABpadp. See note on i. 5.
11-21. Two parables.
22-35. Conditions of admission to the Kingdom and
the lament over Jerusalem.
26. kvwriov crov. See note on i. 6.
32. For this reference to Herod, see p. 163. The
lament over Jerusalem appears again in Matt, xxiii.
37-39. The editor of the first Gospel inserts it in

180 GOSPEL ORIGINS [oh.
the section containing our Lord's denunciation of
the Scribes and Pharisees, as though it was spoken
in the Temple. St. Luke's source, however, gives it
as an incident of the journey towards Jerusalem.
The method of compiling the Logia followed in the
first Gospel makes it likely that the true historical
setting is to be found in the third Gospel.
Chap. xiv. 1-24. Jesus in the Pharisee's house.
1. kyevero kv r<p kX9eiv. See note on i. 1, 8. r)crav
irapaTrjpovpevot. See note on i. 20.
3. vo/ukos. See note on vii. 30.
10. evdiriov. This word does not occur in Matt, or
Mark, but is used twenty-four times by St. Luke,
iva with fut. Indie. Elsewhere at xx. 10 in Luke.
25-35. Conditions of Discipleship.
32. irpeo-Belav only twice in New Testament, both
times in St. Luke's ' Travel Document.'
Chap. xv. 1-32. Three parables.
1. Stayoyyvfeiv. Only here and xix. 7 in New Testa
ment. Both passages belong to the special source.
7. Sticaios. Note the Jewish use of the word. Cf. i. 6,
xiv. 14.
10. and 18. Note the frequent use of kvioiriov. See
i. 6. Note.
Chap. xvi. The parable of the unjust steward. This parable is
peculiar to the third Gospel.
1. o'lKovopos. This word occurs also in xii. 42, which
belongs to this source. It occurs nowhere else in
the Gospels. The Matthaean equivalent is SovAos.
5. xpeo<peiXeTr)s. See note on vii. 41.
14-17. Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for covetousness.
In this short section there occur several words and
phrases peculiar to this source, such as SiKaiovv
(see note on vii. 29), eviLiriov and evK07ru>T«/)ov.
18. A pronouncement on divorce.
19-31. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus.
22. kyevero. See note on i. 5.

"•] EXCURSUS 181
Chap. xvii. 1-10. Sundry discourses.
11-19. The gratitude of the Samaritan leper.
Another sympathetic reference to Samaritans. See
p. 162.
11-14. kyeveTo kv t<5> with Infin. See note on i. 5.
Dr. Stanton considers that this section was composed
by St. Luke himself, the material for the story being
taken from oral tradition. See p. 169.
20-37. An Eschatological section.
24. dcrrpairr) do-Tpdmovcra. Cf . ii. 8, xi. 46, xxiii. 46.
Chap, xviii. 1-14. Two parables.
5. irapexew kottov. See note on xi. 7.
9. k£ov9evovvTas. Cf. xxiii. 11.
Chap. xix. 1-10. Zacchaeus.
7. /caTaAvo-ou does not occur elsewhere in this sense
except at ix. 12, a passage which comes from the
same source.
11-27. The parable of the pounds.
11. This parable was spoken when the journey was
nearly at an end.
12. XaBeiv eavTw BacriXeiav. For the reference to
the action of Herod, see the commentaries and
supra, p. 163.
15. Kal kyiveTo kv Tip. See note on i. 5. In this
section the words 8ieirpaypaTevcravTO (15), aio-T-qpos
(21), and Karao-<pd£aTe (27) are dir. Xey. in New
Testament.
Chap. xxii. In this chapter occur several short sections which
are peculiar to St. Luke, and many will have been
derived from his special source and woven into the
general fabric of Markan narrative. Such passages
are w. 14-18, 24-32, 33, 35-38, 43-44, 56-66, 70.
Expressions characteristic of the source are kiridvpia
kire9vprjcra (15), I(os otov (16-18), 8iapepi£ecr9ai (17),
ot ctn-do-ToAoi (14), o~rr)pi£eiv (32). v. 53 is Hebraic.
Chap. xxiu. In this chapter too there are passages taken from
the source and interwoven with Markan matter.

182 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
Such passages are vv. 2, 4-5, 6-16, 19, 27-31, 33-
38, 39-43, 46, 48-49, 54-56.
xxiii. 6-19. For the reference to Herod, see p. 163.
7. kgovcria in sense of jurisdiction. Not so used else
where.
8. r)v 9eXtav. Note on i. 5.
9. yivopevov of. miracles; also in iv. 23.
27-31. For the note of sympathy with women,
see p. 163. For other features peculiar to the source
in these sections note kvunriov (14), ko-Tiv ireirpaypevov
(15), tov Aaov (27), dpgovrai Xeyeiv (30). In v. 56
note that the women who prepared the spices for
embalming the body of Jesus are said to be the
same as those who had followed Him from Galilee.
See note on vm. 3 and supra, p. 163.
Chap. xxiv. The Resurrection. The whole of this section was
undoubtedly taken from the special source. For a
discussion of the whole chapter see article in Hibbert
Journal, 1905, by Torkild Skat Rordam, entitled
The Resurrection Appearances of Christ. The
chapter is closely connected linguistically with the
Nativity section. The name of Joanna appears in
v. 10 (see above, p. 164). Expressions which occur
in the chapter and have already been commented on
in these notes are : — rrj 8e piq. tu>v o-aBBaTb>v (1),
kyeveTo kv Tip k.t. X. (4), Kal l8ov (4), ijcrav iropevopevot,
(13), SvvaTos kv Xoyip evavTiov tov 9eov Kal Aaov (19),
rov 'hrpar)X . . . A.vt/>ovo-#ou (21), u><p9i) (34).
In summing up the characteristics which we have sought to
bring out in the preceding notes we would notice :
1. That a distinctly Hebraistic or Aramaic character belongs
to every section which we have ascribed to St Luke's special
source. The most prominent of these are (a) the use of kv rip
with the infinitive mood of the verb which follows.
(b) The use of eTvai with the present participle.
(c) The frequent employment of such words as evai/Tiov and
kvonrlov. See note on i. 6.
(d) The use of such words and phrases as \dpi<s, evayyeX'i{evdai,
irpb trpoo-iiirov, 6 Xaos, dvyarrjp 'ABpad/j., BdirTiapa BairTio-9rjvai,

vx] EXCURSUS 183
vopiKo?, r)XlKia, Koirov irap'exeiv, rjpgaTO Xeyeiv, KaTaKX'iveo9ai,
k.t.X. These are all to be found fairly distributed over the
sections, and they are for the most part characteristic ; that is,
they are not found at all, or in some cases very slightly, in other
sections of the three Gospels.
2. The references to Herod, found only in these sections and
in several of them.
3. The references, always with some amount of sympathy, to
the Samaritans. Nearly all of these occur in these sections.
4. The use of 'IovSat'a for Palestine.
5. The womanly interest and point of view which is so
marked as to give a character to the whole Gospel is to be found
in these sections.
6. A Judaean tradition which is apparent in both the
Nativity section and the closing section which records the
appearances of our Lord after His resurrection.
It must be acknowledged that these are strongly marked
characteristics, and when we find them, as we do, not in one or
two of the sections, but fairly distributed over them aU, they
bind the different sections together into a certain unity of
authorship. Such a unity may have been conferred by St. Luke
himself, and it must be acknowledged that some of the
characteristics, though not the most striking, occur in other
sections of the Gospel, and also in Acts ; but when we recall
the strong Hebrew tendency which belongs to the whole of this
part of the Gospel, it seems far more likely that they are to be
attributed, not to the Gentile Luke, but to the source from
which he derived the invaluable material embodied in this
Gospel alone. That source must have been one to which
St. Luke attached a very special value, for otherwise he would
not have departed so frequently as he has done, especially in
the closing incidents of our Lord's life which he records, from
the Markan narrative, to which he is also indebted.
Dr. Stanton in an invaluable chapter on Style in Luke's
peculiar matter, which I have used freely in compiling these
notes, calls attention to these peculiarities of this Gospel, but
demands, as indeed he shows, the greatest caution in drawing
conclusions from them. On the whole he seems to incline
towards ascribing their common characteristics to the editor
rather than to his source, and he assigns to Luke himseU the

184 GOSPEL ORIGINS [oh.
following sections, suggesting that the evangelist used an oral
basis in compiling these narratives: — v. 1-11, vii. 36-50,
viii. 1-3, x. 29-37, xvii. 11-19, xix. 41-44, xxiii. 5-12, 14-15,
39-43, and the whole of chapter xxiv. It is to be noticed that
with the exception of two of these passages, they all belong to
the group under consideration, and their differentiation from
the rest of the Gospel gives them a certain unity, the recogni
tion of which is, in our opinion, a distinct step in advance.
Dr. Stanton seems to think that there is a certain amount of
positive evidence of the use of a document, and we inchne to
the belief that this is greater both in quantity and in value
than he is apparently inclined to allow. We also find it
difficult to reconcile the statement that for these considerable
and striking sections St. Luke had recourse to oral tradition,
with the strong pronouncement against oral tradition, which
Dr. .Stanton makes elsewhere in his work. The advocates of
oral tradition may well ask why, if the theory be aUowed for
these, it may not be aUowed for other sections. Dr. Stanton
closes his chapter with a note on the use of iva, which we take
the liberty of transcribing here, so conclusive does it seem to us
in supporting the contention which we make in favour of a
documentary, a single, and a unique source for all these
portions of the third Gospel which we refer to a single source.
Dr. Stanton says :
' The use of iva by Luke seems to be of some significance in
connection with the question of his use of a source, or sources,
for his peculiar matter. In the Acts this particle occurs only
twelve times, i.e. much less frequently in proportion than in
any other New Testament writing, and very much less so than
in most — and is for the most part not employed in an
unclassical way. Turning to the third Gospel, we find that in
Markan sections Luke (except at viii. 12, ix. 45, xx. 14) has
used it only where Mark has it ; and further that he has
several times avoided using it where Mark does ; while in
another place (vii. 32) he so turns the sentence as to make the
use of iva less strange than it is in Mark. There are also a few
instances in Logian passages, in two of which (Luke vi. 31,
Matthew vii. 12, and Luke vii. 6, Matthew viii. 8) the use of
iva is, while in four others (iv. 3, vi. 34, xi. 33, 50) it may be
derived from the source. When therefore we find iva occurring

VI.] EXCURSUS 185
twenty-two times in the peculiar matter in the third Gospel
(viz. twice in chapters i. and ii., and twenty times in the
peculiar passages subsequent to them), i.e. nearly half as many
times again as in the whole of the Acts, one cannot but suspect
that several of the instances, at least, were due to Luke's
finding them in a source in which the particle was used more
largely than he would of his own mind have been disposed to
use it.'

EXCURSUS ni
THE SAYINGS OF JESUS IN ST LUKE'S GOSPEL
The greater part of what is called ' the Sermon on the Mount '
in the first Gospel appears in the third Gospel in two main
divisions — vi. 17-49 and viii. 4-21. The chief differences
between the two collections of sayings have been noted in
chapter ii. It is also to be noted that many of the sayings
which appear in the Matthaean collection are given by St. Luke
as separate sayings uttered by Jesus on different occasions.
These are found in greatest number in 'the Great Insertion,'
or 'the Travel Document.' The following may serve as
outstanding examples :
Chap. x. 5-7, 12, 13-15, 23.
xi. 1-4, 9-13, 14-28, 34-35.
xii. 2-9, 22-31, 33-34, 39-46, 51-53, 57-59.
xiii. 5, 20-21, 26-27, 34-35.
xiv. 5, 15-24, 26-27, 34-35.
xv. 3-7.
xvi. 13, 16-17.
xvii. 1, 23-24, 26-27, 30, 34-35.
Now this fact strongly supports the contention, made on
pages 56-57, that these sayings did not come before the
evangehsts of the first and third Gospels in the form of some
document in which the sayings had been already arranged in
some sort of order, but that the two editors were entirely
independent in this portion of their work. If St. Matthew
dealt with some collection of sayings which he himseU
arranged according to a plan which commended itseU to him,

186 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
then we can understand how it is that he would place in
the Sermon on the Mount such sayings as he considered
belonged to that phase of his Master's teaching which he was
anxious to preserve, whether they were spoken early or late in
the course of that Master's ministry. St. Luke working on
quite a different plan, and finding the sayings embodied in the
record of the journey of Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem, would
give them as they appeared in his source. Dr. WiUoughby
Allen in his analysis of the Logian document, used by the
editor of the first Gospel, comments upon some of these sayings
as recorded by St. Luke, and says that they did not stand in
the Sermon on the Mount, or St. Luke would have placed them
in vi. 17-49 or viii. 4-21. To the present writer it seems a
more likely explanation that the Sermon on the Mount is a
collocation of sayings made by St. Matthew, and that the
difference between the two Gospels in this particular is to be
accounted for as above. So again Dr. Allen in commenting
upon Matthew v. 18-19 says that this is 'unsuitably placed' in
the sermon, but the lack of coherence on which Dr. Allen bases
this remark is to be explained as due to the character of
St. Matthew's source, and the method upon which he worked.
The same explanation accounts for the position of Matthew v. 25
(cf. Luke xii. 57-59). 'The connection in the Sermon is
artificial and literary,' says Dr. Allen. Such a comment is
correct U we suppose that there was any great amount of
coherence between the sayings as they came before St. Matthew,
but the ' literary ' character of the connection is quite in keeping
with the method of St. Matthew as we conceive it.

vn.] JUSTIFICATION OE HISTORICAL CRITICISM 187

CHAPTER VII
THE JUSTIFICATION OF HISTORICAL CRITICISM
The study of Gospel Origins is not an end in itseU. It is
after all only a prehminary study. But it is a study which
is absolutely necessary if the Christian is to arrive at the
fuU assurance of faith. We shaU indeed begin with our
personal experience of Christ, but U we are to know the
certainty of those things wherein we have been instructed
we must consider the historical records which account for
the experience ; we are bound to ask ourselves whether
they possess sufficient authority to enable us to give a
reason for the faith that is in us. The problems raised
by the Gospels merely as literature are of sufficiently
engrossing interest, but it is not from the hterary point
of view that we claim urgency for the many questions
which we have been considering. The whole religious
position of the Christian depends ultimately upon whether
the facts of the Gospel story can be guaranteed. Christianity
depends upon revelation, and this is subjective in the
experience of the behever, but objective in facts of history.
The revelation of the Risen Lord lacks definiteness unless
it can be related to the human hfe of Jesus, and the history
of the record of that hfe assumes an importance which can
never be exaggerated as soon as this is clearly seen. We
shaU be neither surprised nor impatient when the question
of miracle forces itseU again and again upon our attention ;
for the Resurrection of our Lord from the dead is central
in the Christian faith, and in view of that Resurrection
the question of other miraculous works becomes entirely
secondary. The general question of miracles is before us

188 GOSPEL ORIGINS [oh.
again, and we shaU show presently how impossible it is
to discuss that question without raising other questions
which have to do with the fact of authorship, and with
the circumstances under which the writings which record
those miracles were composed. It wiU also be seen that
any attempt to argue either for or against the fact of
miracle is doomed to failure whenever the argument
rests upon mere presupposition with reference to Gospel
sources. But the question of miracles does not stand alone. It is
after aU only a part of a far larger question, and this is
what has been happily caUed ' the Fact of Christ.' The
Person of our Lord is the glowing centre round which the
highest human thought revolves. It is in Him that we
see the Father. It is in Him that we have our redemption,
and in Him stands our hope of eternal Hfe. The Gospels
are so many attempts to set before men the fact and the
interpretation of that Personahty. They contain the
witness of Jesus to HimseU, and the testimony of those
who have declared that which they saw with their eyes,1
that which they contemplated with a vision which
deepened as they peered into the depth beyond the depth,
and that which their hands handled in the sacred
ministries of love and feUowship.
The Personahty of Jesus is being considered to-day
from two different points of view, and we mention these
not with the intention of discussing them so much as to
make good the claim with which we are here concerned —
that in neither case can the positions taken up by the
different schools be made good unless the foundation is
first laid in estabhshing the value of the Gospels as historical
documents. The ideahst would abandon the Gospels
altogether. It is true that he derives from them some
vague concept of Christ, but he attaches Httle value to
the history. That which is of supreme importance for
i 1 John i. 1.

vn.] JUSTIFICATION OF HISTORICAL CRITICISM 189
him is the entirely subjective experience of which he is
conscious. There is another school consisting of those who confine
their attention to what they are pleased to caU ' History.'
They begin by emptying the record of aU that goes beyond
the range of common human experience, and they seek
to account for the Personahty of our Lord on the ground
of His environment, social, intellectual, and rehgious.
To them He was the product of His age, and beyond that
they do not go. The fact that the age in which He Hved
witnessed the rise of what has become known as ' the
Apocalyptic Method ' is sufficient to enable them to explain
whatever reference to transcendent hfe and power may
appear in our Lord's witness to HimseU. Here again we
shaU endeavour to show that before any measure of
finality can appear in the conclusions arrived at in this
matter, the history of the documents upon which the
argument is based needs the fullest consideration. We
shaU endeavour to deal briefly with each of these points
in the remainder of this chapter.
Appeals are constantly being made for and against a
behef in miracles on the ground of historical criticism of
the Gospels which record them. It is, of course, the only
sound method of deahng with the question. To begin
with the laying down of an axiom that ' miracles do not
happen ' is to beg the whole question at issue. We are
not then surprised to find that in a recent work on miracles
the argument is based mainly upon historical criticism
of the Synoptic Gospels. Mr. J. M. Thompson 1 bases the
greater part of his contention upon such facts as we have
discussed in preceding chapters ; but it is to be questioned
whether he does not take too much for granted, and whether
he is justified in drawing the conclusions with which he
presents us. He says that St. Mark knows nothing of
the Virgin Birth, and he concludes that the evidence for
i Miracles in the New Testament.

190 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
this event is considerably weakened in consequence. He
also assumes that the second Gospel is composite ; that
it contains in addition to the Petrine tradition a consider
able amount which was derived from Q, as weU as from
other sources. He then shows that by far the greater
number of miracles belong to the Petrine tradition. He
further divides this last into two sections, one describing
a Gahlean and the other a Judaean ministry, and shows
that in the latter there is no record of miraculous works
done by our Lord. He then asks how it is that no miracles
were wrought in hostile Judaea but only in friendly
Gahlee. The imphcation in this somewhat rhetorical
question is perfectly obvious. It is to discount the
evidence for miracles.
We do not of course discuss the general question,1 or
attempt to value the evidence for or against the historicity
of the record in this chapter. Our one contention is that
Mr. Thompson's conclusions rest upon assumptions, and
as the great body of modern scholars are unable to accept
his presuppositions, his argument carries no weight with
them, though it may seriously prejudice the minds of those
who have not been able to consider the critical questions
involved. To take the points just mentioned in inverse
order, we notice that no argument against miracles can
be based with any fairness upon the fact that they are
more frequent in the earher part of the Markan record
than they are in the latter. That record is almost entirely
descriptive of the Gahlean ministry of our Lord. For
some reason or other — and it is by no means difficult to
suggest a reason — St. Peter chose to Hmit his account of
our Lord's ministry to that portion of it which was
accomphshed in Gahlee ; and St. Mark follows St. Peter
closely, as internal evidence as well as tradition assures us.
According to St. Peter, then, our Lord visited Jerusalem
only to die. That He had preached in Judaea, and had
1 See Miracles: An Outline of the Christian View, by the Rev. F. Piatt.

vn.] JUSTIFICATION OF HISTORICAL CRITICISM 191
in the course of His ministry worked miracles, we know
from the fourth Gospel ; but as Mr. Thompson holds that
this Gospel ' cannot be treated as a historicaUy true account
of the miracles of Christ,' we shaU not labour the point.
For our purpose the fourth Gospel may be left entirely
out of account, though modern scholars are coming to see
that for minuteness and accuracy of historical detail the
fourth Gospel is superior to the Synoptic account. But
even in the latter there are indications that the evangehsts
knew of a Judaean ministry, and in the many spaces left
uncovered by the Synoptic tradition there is room for a
Judaean ministry. H these evangehsts chose to hmit
their accounts to the occasion when our Lord was crucified,
the absence of miracle on such an occasion is without
significance so far as the historical evidence for miracles
is concerned. The absence of such mighty works cannot
be used to support an argument that the appearance of
miracles in the record is due to the simple and superstitious
imagination of the peasants of Gahlee.
With reference to Q Mr. Thompson concludes that while
this document is the only rival to the Petrine memoirs
of St. Mark as an early and good authority, it contains
no evidence for miracles. But here again Mr. Thompson
bases his argument upon a pure assumption. In aU the
criticism of the Synoptic Gospels there is no question
more disputed than that of the contents of Q. If the
arguments advanced in preceding chapters have any
weight it may fairly be argued that the document so
designated contained no narrative whatever, and that it
consisted of sayings of Jesus with the minimum of intro
ductory matter intended merely to serve as connections
between one saying and another. To make the absence
of miracles from writings which had nothing to do with
them an argument against miracles generaUy is not a
method to be commended in any department of Hterary
criticism.

192 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
It is of course open to any one to say that the view of Q
advanced in this work is not to be accepted, but even if
Harnack's reconstruction of Q be foUowed, as it is confessedly
by Mr. Thompson, the fact should not have been ignored
that Harnack himseU says of Q that ' it was in no sense
a biographical narrative, but essentiaUy a coUection of
discourses.' It is true that in spite of that statement
Harnack includes the miracle of the heaHng of the
centurion's servant in his reconstructed Q, but his incon
sistency in doing so has often been pointed out. It is
quite clear that whether we accept Harnack's, or any
other reconstruction of Q, we cannot argue against miracles
on the ground that they do not appear in that document.
But we are quite prepared, if needs be, to argue for miracles
even from Q. For while it contains no account of miracle,
it does present us with the fact that our Lord in many of
His discourses takes the fact that He had done such works
for granted, and bases His arguments upon the fact.
He assumed that His miraculous works were matters
of common knowledge.
The same weakness in Mr. Thompson's method of
criticism appears again when he comes to discuss the
greatest miracle of aU — the Resurrection of our Lord from
the dead. We are told that ' the witness of St. Matthew
and St. Luke is conditioned by their habit of editing
Mark without fresh evidence according to certain a
priori tendencies ; that when they are drawing on new
sources of information they are probably (with the
exception of Q) less trustworthy than Mark.' With refer
ence to St. Mark's evidence Mr. Thompson goes on to
teU us that he gives no account of the actual Resurrection,
' his account breaks off without describing any Resurrec
tion appearances, but not before it has hinted — partly
by its very reaction against this view — that the apostles'
story of the appearances, not the women's story of the
empty tomb, was the original and central ground of behef

vn.] JUSTIFICATION OF HISTORICAL CRITICISM 193
in the Resurrection.' It is difficult to take such state
ments seriously. The veriest tyro in Textual Criticism
knows that the abrupt ending of the second Gospel is due
to the mutilation of a manuscript. It would be a curious
piece of composition which ' broke off ' with the words
e<poBovvTo ydp, and in view of this to speak of St. Mark's
account as one which ' breaks off without describing any
Resurrection appearances,' and then to imply from this
that St. Mark felt a mental reaction against the women's
story of the empty tomb, and that the evidence from the
second Gospel in favour of the Resurrection is thereby
impaired, is false criticism and false reasoning. The
account of the Resurrection in Matthew foUows that in the
second Gospel so closely, up to the point where the break
in the text of the latter occurs, that we may feel a reason
able amount of confidence that the true conclusion of
the second Gospel is to be discovered in the first. Mr.
Thompson writes as though the account of the Resurrection
in the first Gospel was the work of St. Matthew, but if
there is one thing in the whole range of Gospel criticism
which has received anything hke a consensus of opinion
it is that the narrative portion of the first Gospel is Markan
in origin. Where additional details appear in the first
Gospel, it is quite possible that these are due, not to
editing on the part of St. Matthew, but to the fact that
an earUer edition of the Markan narrative was used by the
unknown evangehst who adds that narrative to the
Matthaean Logia, and thus composed the first Gospel as
we have it.
Why should it be assumed that where St. Luke
draws from other sources they are less trustworthy than
St. Mark ? We are told that the latter did not himseU
foUow Jesus. His record consists of so much of the
facts recounted by St. Peter as he remembered. There is
room in this for more than one explanation of omissions
from the Markan narrative. But St. Luke's source for

194 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
this section of the third Gospel — even if we do not accept
that he derived it from one of the very women who visited
the tomb and found it empty — reveals a great knowledge
of detail introduced incidentaUy and without the slightest
straining after effect, and we may weU conclude that this
evidence is derived at first hand, and from one who was
apparently an eye-witness of what is described. H then
we are to choose between the two sources — and we have
yet to discover any real contradiction between them— -
the balance would seem to incHne towards the Lukan
rather than the Markan source.
In deahng with the story of the Virgin Birth Mr.
Thompson reveals a method of criticism in which we
cannot foUow him. St. Mark's account of our Lord's
ministry, after the very briefest introduction describing
the Baptism, begins in Gahlee. To argue from the absence
of aU reference to our Lord's Ufe prior to this event that
St. Mark knows nothing of the Virgin Birth is an out
standing example of that argumentum a silentio which,
one might have thought, has been sufficiently discredited.
We have discussed these conclusions of Mr. Thompson
not at aU in order to weigh the evidence for or against the
facts which he discusses, but solely to show how absolutely
necessary it is to have before us some clear and intelhgent
account of the origins of the Synoptic Gospels if we wish
to draw conclusions from these records of events. No
argument based upon the history of the records can carry
conviction unless we first deal with the questions of
authorship, and of the circumstances attending the com
positions of the writings. Mr. Thompson bases his con
clusions upon ' criticism,' but it is precisely on the critical
side that his arguments are most unsound, and the same
result must follow upon every attempt to argue from the
record without first determining as far as possible the
sources from which that record was drawn.
But the question of miracles is not the only one before

vn.] JUSTIFICATION OF HISTORICAL CRITICISM 196
us in the present day. Dr. Schweitzer and others have
brought into prominence the question of Apocalypse as
affording an explanation of prominent features of the Gospel
story, and this question too must be examined in the hght of
Gospel origins in so far as these can be ascertained. The
Gospels which have come down to us are Hterary docu
ments, and they were written in an age in which what we
caU ' Apocalyptic Literature ' was in vogue. Our Lord's
words and much of His teaching show that He also
foUowed this method of expressing HimseU. Whether
He did so within Hmits, or was ' a thoroughgoing
Eschatologist,' does not enter into the reference of this
work.1 But the analysis of such eschatological passages
as appear in the Gospels can scarcely be attempted apart
from the prior question of Gospel sources. As to the fact
that our Lord used the language of Apocalypse we may
refer briefly to the considerable section which we have in
Mark xni., a section which is reproduced in Matthew xxiv.
and Luke xxi. There are also shorter passages in which
the idea, though reaUy dominant, is only impUed. Such
passages, for instance, as Mark vm. 38 and Mark xiv. 62
can be interpreted only in the Hght of ' Apocalypse.'
These ideas are also prominent in not a few of our Lord's
parables. The Parables of the Ten Virgins, the Tares,
the Ten Talents, and most of those relating to ' the Kingdom
of Heaven ' are distinctly Apocalyptic in character. But
even more significant than these are the many words and
phrases so frequently on the hps of Jesus. Such are
' The Son of Man,' ' The Kingdom of Heaven,' ' The End
of the World — or Age.' Such phrases can only be con
sidered in the hght of their use in the literature which
preceded and which foUowed the days of our Lord's
ministry. The significance of the ' Little Apocalypse ' in Mark xiii.
i On the general question the writer may be allowed to refer the reader to
his Fernley Lecture entitled Christ and the Gospels, chap. vi.

196 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
with references to Gospel sources has been already dis
cussed in chapter v., and we need do no more here than
refer the reader to what has been already written. But
the fact that Apocalyptic writing appears in both the
Markan and the Logian documents has led some to consider
whether there is not to be detected a heightening of effect
in the expressions used in later writings when compared
with those used in earUer. Thus in a valuable appendix
to the Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem we find
Mr. Streeter speaking of ' an evolution of eschatological
conceptions from the present spiritual conception of the
Kingdom in Q, through Mark, to Matthew.' In Q while
the catastrophic eschatology is undoubtedly present, it
is vague and undefined. Mark belongs to the transitional
stage. Matthew further elaborates the eschatological
element, and emphasises its Apocalyptic side. He even
shows ' a tendency to omit sayings inconsistent with the
view of the kingdom as future and catastrophic' The
passages upon which Mr. Streeter bases this differentiation
must be duly weighed by the student of the Gospels. We
can here discuss only the general question in the Hght of
Gospel sources, and of their relation to one another. From
this point of view we would say that any argument based
upon the relation of these sources to one another in time
must always be precarious. We do not know that the
second Gospel, as we have it, preceded the first. As we
have shown above there are many features of the Markan
narrative which indicate that the version of this which
appears in the first Gospel was prior to that which we have
in the second. The argument from Q also is uncertain.
We do not know when the compilation of sayings used by
St. Matthew was made, or to what extent they took their
present form by reason of the interpretative method of
those who compiled them. It is quite possible that
Logia were added to the collection subsequently to St.
Mark's episcopacy in Egypt, during which he wrote down

vn.] JUSTIFICATION OF HISTORICAL CRITICISM 197
for the Church in that country his memoirs of St. Peter's
preaching. But apart from such considerations we may
weU ask whether the true order of development was not
more Hkely to be one in which the more ' catastrophic '
features of the ' Parousia ' would appear in the earlier
rather than in the later writings. We know that St.
Paul's view of the Parousia, as it appears in the Corinthian
Epistles, differs from that which he describes in his first
Epistle to the Thessalonians, and every year which passed
would lead the Church to see that the view which it held
at first of the coming of the Lord in power and in the
glory of the Father needed modification. It would be
led to interpret His sayings more and more as declarations
of great, moral, and spiritual effects, and it is just the
later writings which would reveal this tendency.
To the present writer it seems a sounder method of
criticism to abandon all attempts at chronological sequence
in such matters. It is difficult to decide what was the
chronological order of the Gospels as we have them, and
it is stiU more difficult to say exactly when this source
or that was composed. It is better to content ourselves
with what should find a ready acceptance — that our
Lord used the language of His days, and would thus adopt
a phraseology which might suggest to His hearers a
catastrophic interpretation, passing as it would do through
minds that had been trained to take that view of the
coming of the Son of Man. But though He used the
words He fiUed them with a new content. He laid the
emphasis where those who preceded Him had failed to
lay it. His teaching contained the germ of that which
went far beyond the social and pohtical dreams of Jewish
Apocalypse. The truth was greater than the phrase which
held it, and only slowly have men come to see — if haply
even now they see — the fuUer content of revelation, and
the unfolding of that mystery which is Christ in us, the
hope of glory.

198 GOSPEL ORIGINS [oh.
Eschatology is, as we have said, only a point of view
from which the attempt may be made to account for the
effect which the Personahty of our Lord has produced
upon human thought and life, and side by side with this
attempt to account for Christ as the natural product of
an age possessing marked historical characteristics we
have the many attempts that are being made to offer to
the world an individualistic interpretation of the same
Personahty. To many minds reHgion is independent of
aU revelation on the plane of human history. No longer
are the Scriptures searched because they testify of Jesus.
Impressions, often conditioned by aesthetic or philo
sophic considerations alone, make up aU that is required
in the sphere of rehgion ; and it is the easiest thing in the
world for a new cult to be started, and to attract a con
siderable number of f oUowers, if the new apostle is suffi
ciently starthng in his method or in himseU to chaUenge
attention. This is due very largely to a fact, which is not
in itseU to be deplored. It is the result of the modern
emphasis upon experience as authoritative in reHgion.
The age in which dogma held the first place, and the accept
ance of a creed was considered to be an adequate response
to its pronouncements, has passed or is rapidly passing
away. In place of dogma men are turning to schemes
of morals, which may be individual, social, or poUtical.
Others surrender themselves to a stiU more subjective
expression of faith. The formula of acceptance which the
individual Christian keeps before himseU in judging of the
acceptabihty of any form of rehgion is ' That which finds
me.' It is the moral or psychological significance of faith
which seems to be most prominent at the present moment.
The uncertainty which gathers around everything which
has to do with a document — whether that document
records the facts of history, or the interpretation of those
facts — has led to a general impatience with any presenta
tion of the Christian faith in which the inteUectual element

vn.] JUSTIFICATION OF HISTORICAL CRITICISM 199
is at aU prominent. This tendency is not to be wholly
regretted. The emphasis laid upon creed too often
favoured a lessening of the moral content of spiritual hfe,
and the contrast was at once set up between ' forms of
faith ' and a Hfe which was ' in the right.' Such a contrast
should never have arisen. The two are not mutually
exclusive. Indeed it is becoming clearer every day that
the one can scarcely exist without the other, and that one
should thus be pitted against the other is the result of that
exaggeration in emphasis which apparently we never
learn to avoid. At any rate the fact remains that this
contrast has been set up, and where this takes place the
vote is given in favour of the moral Hfe.
It was inevitable too that this same inteUectual emphasis
should bring faith into comparison with those logical
processes which belong to the school of science, and as soon
as the latter began to appeal to the thought and imagina
tion of men a spirit of antagonism between the two began
to inake itseU felt. This antagonism also, Uke that
between morals and faith, never possessed any real ground,
and this is happily being reahsed both on the side of science
and on that of reHgion. But where it existed the science
which dealt with phenomena governed by fixed and un
varying laws seemed more definite and more final in its
conclusions than that which moved in the realm of faith,
and it was accordingly preferred. In so far as this revolt
from rehgion indicates merely a protest against the excessive
inteUectuahsm which produced this false antagonism it
is to be approved rather than deplored. But as is always
the case, the reaction has been carried to an extreme,
and the period in which agnosticism was prevalent has been
followed by one in which pure subjectivity threatens to
become the accepted basis of faith. Esoteric systems —
often advanced by irresponsible individuals — Theosophies,
and different forms of Christian Science, have come into
vogue, and the number of those who hold one or other

200 ' GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
of these with more or less of conviction must be consider
able. We refer to them merely to illustrate the perils
which threaten any undue emphasis upon personal
experience apart from a revelation in history, as a basis
for reUgion. They are aU perversions of an individual
expression of faith which has not been corrected by the
presentation in history of the true foundations of faith.
For while it is true that the Christian faith is more than
the Christian creed, it is impossible to dispense altogether
with the objective element in rehgion. It is true that
rehgion is to be found in the impact of one personahty
upon another — the divine upon the human — and in the
response of the human to the divine, but we cannot afford
to ignore the revelation in history through which that
impact has become definite and complete in the conscious
ness of man. The true corrective — indeed the only
corrective — to the fancies and extravagances of subjective
faith is to be found in the interpretation of the history
which has come down to us. We need to verify and con
firm the experience by the recorded fact. We are always
in peril of reducing rehgion to a superstition, and if we
would avoid the danger we must find in the Gospels the
dehneation of the causes which account for the spiritual
assurance, and which alone lead it to its fuU development.
The important thing is indeed the revelation — the content
of the Gospels rather than the means by which it reaches
us, but if we are to know the certainty concerning the
things in which we have been instructed, we are bound to
scrutinise the record by which alone we can assure ourselves
that we have not foUowed cunningly devised fables.
The Gospels present us with the history-basis of a
great spiritual revelation ; we must ask ourselves what
credentials they have to offer. The process of doing so
entails a mental discipUne, from which many shrink in
these days of hasty work and superficial investigation, but
we must admit that the burden is laid with even greater

vn.] JUSTD7ICATI0N OF HISTORICAL CRITICISM 201
weight upon our spirits, and we cannot do justice to the
capacities of our spiritual nature unless we justify the
tremendous claim with which these Gospels present us.
The confusion, to say nothing of the moral weakness which
follows upon any neglect to consider these historical
documents, has been weU expressed by a great German
scholar and critic, and we shaU not apologise for the
length of the passage which we quote from his writings.
Harnack, speaking of the present situation in Gospel
criticism, says :
' Men soar away into subhme discussions concerning
the meamng of " the kingdom of God," " the Son of Man,"
" Messiahship," etc., and with problems of genuineness
in the Hght of " higher " criticism ; while the lower problems,
whose treatment involves real scavenger's work in which
one is almost choked in dust, are passed by on the other
side. Or where this is not the case, the investigation is
stiU never carried far enough, it breaks off prematurely,
and the critic rests satisfied with work only haU done.
Hence the wretched phght in which the criticism of the
Gospels finds itseU in these days. . . . This wretched
state is apparent above aU in the case of those who are
compelled to take their knowledge of the criticism of the
New Testament at second hand, or have condemned
themselves to this unassuming inteUectual position. They
are hke reeds swaying with the blasts of the most extreme
and mutuaUy exclusive hypotheses, and find everything
which is offered them in this connection " very worthy
of consideration." To-day they are ready to believe that
there was no such person as Jesus, while yesterday they
regarded Him as a neurotic visionary shown to be such
with convincing force by His own words, if only these are
rightly interpreted, which words, by the way, have been
exceUently transmitted by tradition. To-morrow He
has become for them an Essene, as may be proved like
wise from His own words ; and yet the day before yesterday

202 GOSPEL ORIGINS [oh.
none of those words were His own ; and perhaps on the
very same day it was accounted correct to regard Him as
belonging to some Greek sect of esoteric gnostics — a sect
which stiU remains to be discovered, and which with its
symbols and sacraments represented a rehgion of a
chaotic and retrograde character, nay, exercised a
beneficial influence upon the development of culture. Or
rather He was an anarchist monk Hke Tolstoi, or still
better, a genuine Buddhist, who had, however, come
under the influence of ideas originating in ancient Babylon,
Persia, Egypt, and Greece; or, better stiU, He was the
eponymous hero of the mildly revolutionary and
moderately radical fourth estate in the capital of the
Roman world. It is evident, forsooth, that He may
possibly have been all of these things, and may be assumed
to have been one of them. If, therefore, one only keeps
hold of aU these reins, naturaUy with a loose hand, one is
shielded from the reproach of not being up to date, and
this is more important by far than the knowledge of the
facts themselves, which indeed do not so much concern
us, seeing that in this twentieth century we must of course
wean ourselves from a contemptible dependence upon
history in matters of rehgion ' (The Sayings of Jesus,
Intro, p. xiii.).
The sarcasm in this statement is sharp, but most of
those who have considered the matter wiU acknowledge
that it is deserved. There is no question in reUgion of
such supreme importance as that of the fact of Christ,
and the significance of that fact for men. For the discovery
of these things we are dependent upon our own experience
in the light of certain documents. The history of these
documents, then, how they came into being, the relation
of one writer to the other, and the point of view from
which each writer wrote, these things are of the first
importance, and yet they are left to only a few. The
greater number of these are content with a very partial

vn.] JUSTIFICATION OF HISTORICAL CRITICISM 203
investigation, on the strength of which they make the
most elaborate, the most destructive, theories, to the
distress and often the religious loss of those who cannot
verify their data.
What then may we claim to be accredited results in
criticism ? What balance may we strike between losses
and gains in the critical method of deahng with the Gospel
records ? In former days we used to speak of ' a threefold
evidence,' and of ' a triple tradition.' Such phrases
became current when the three Gospels were thought to
be independent of one another. They implied a narrative
which had come to us along three distinct hnes, and had
emanated from three distinct sources. Where the accounts
given showed correspondence, it was felt that the evidence
was peculiarly strong. At the mouth of two or three
witnesses every word might be established. But as soon
as it became evident that the Gospels were not independent,
but that each contained matter which, even in details of
expression, belonged also to the other two, it became
necessary to abandon such expressions or to use them in
another sense. The latter course was taken by Dr. E. A.
Abbott,1 who used the phrase ' triple tradition ' for ' those
words and phrases which are common to Matthew, Mark,
and Luke.' But in more recent days it has been seen that
the phrase cannot be used with this meaning. For critical
study of Gospel sources has shown that where such words
and phrases occur the Hnguistic correspondence is often
due to the fact that the writings were taken from a common
source. It is now generaUy accepted that the first and
third evangehsts have embodied in their Gospels whole
blocks of narrative which, U not taken directly from the
second Gospel, are distinctly Markan in origin. Where
such correspondences occur we have not a triple tradition
but a single tradition, and at first sight it would appear
that there had been in consequence some loss of corro-
i Encylo. Brit., sub verb. 'Gospels.'

204 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
borative evidence in consequence. In the same way the
' double tradition ' which was found in the sayings of our
Lord recorded in both Matthew and Luke is, as a phrase,
open to objection on the part of those who hold that one
evangehst embodied in his Gospel that which had appeared
in the writings of his predecessor, or that each had recourse
to a common coUection which was prior to both of theirs.
In this case, too, the tradition would be really single, in the
sense that the two records emanated from the same source.
We have seen that probably there is more to be said in
favour of this double tradition than could be said in favour
of the triple ; for opinion inchnes to the behef that St.
Luke and St. Matthew derived their discourses of our Lord
from two independent coUections of Logia.1
It must of course always be understood that where one
evangehst has embodied the writings of his predecessor
in his own work, there has been no attempt at deception,
coUusion, or hterary dishonesty. He would do so, we
may feel sure, because in his opinion the account was
authoritative, and if we beheve that the influence of the
Spirit of truth rested upon him in this process of selection,
as it had rested upon his predecessor in recording this or
that incident in the Hfe of our Lord, though there may not
be a triple tradition there is nevertheless a triple authority
for the incident as having approved itseU to three inde
pendent evangehsts. But the fact is that this loss of
corroborative evidence is only in appearance, and we
may see that in an incident or saying which appears in
the three strata, which run through the Gospel narrative,
we have our threefold tradition not merely restored but
given now in a form which is divested of the many un
certainties which belonged to the former view of the
Gospels, and resting upon a more assured historical basis.
For we may now feel confident that we have in the three
Gospels first of all a common Markan narrative. This ia
i See p. 56.

vn.] JUSTIFICATION OF HISTORICAL CRITICISM 205
generaUy acknowledged to rest upon a source more
authoritative than St. Mark himseU. The latter may be
responsible for details of phraseology, and it is probable
that he has inserted here and there a section which rests
upon his own authority and experience ; but by far the
greatest amount of the Markan narrative is acknowledged
to be Petrine in origin, and the statement, preserved for
us by Eusebius, that St. Mark wrote down what St. Peter
was in the habit of saying to his hearers is seen to be
intrinsicaUy correct. In the Markan narrative then we
are able to go behind St. Mark to the great advantage of
the record in the matter of authority. In the chapters
which precede this an attempt has been made to show
that the original memoirs of St. Peter's preaching were
enriched by the addition of incidents from the same
source. These are therefore as authentic as the first, and
aU tend to heighten the effect of that great PersonaHty
whom St. Peter portrayed to the early Church.
There is less agreement among modern critics with
reference to the second source, but it is a distinct gain on
the side of the Discourse Document that we now have this
clearly distinguished from the Markan narrative. Scholars
differ as to the nature and contents of Q, but aU are agreed
that this document is other than that which is most fuUy
expressed in the second Gospel ; and, though the authority
of St. Matthew cannot be claimed for the whole of the first
Gospel, yet it is certain that his contribution is incor
porated in that Gospel, and that it must be sought in that
part of it which records the discourses of Jesus. Here
then we are able to recover the double tradition as we
have recovered the triple. For when we find the teaching
of Jesus given in connection with some incident in Mark
and again in the form of a separate Logian in Matthew, or
 as sometimes happens — in the narrative section and also
in the discourses of the first Gospel, we have undoubtedly
a doubly authenticated record, and the authority of St.

206 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
Matthew may be added to that of St. Peter in the Markan
narrative. As we have shown in preceding chapters, scholars are
uncertain whether St. Luke derived the sayings recorded
by him from the same source as that which St. Matthew
used. Most critics agree that he has done so, and this
common source is that which has been designated by the
formula Q. But there is an increasing opinion that the
differences between the sayings in the one Gospel and
those in the other are too great to justify this behef in a
common source, and U this opinion becomes estabhshed
we shaU secure another authority for sayings which appear
in the three Gospels. For though St. Luke was not an
apostle, as St. Peter and St. Matthew were, yet we cannot
doubt that he too was guided in his selection of those
deeds and words which he has recorded. There is no smaU
measure of inspiration to be found in the work of the
evangehst who has preserved for us the Parable of the
Prodigal Son.
There remains the considerable section which contains
matter pecuhar to the third Gospel. Opinions as to the
source or sources of this section are many and varied ;
but whatever its source may be there can be no two
opinions as to its value. It may be described as being
in itseU a Gospel — a Gospel of Love and Forgiveness.
It begins with the Ufe of the Holy Family, and aU the
wonder of the revelation made to her who was indeed
' blessed among women,' and it closes with the revelation
to loving hearts of the Risen Lord, and of His return to
the bosom of the Father. AU through the intervening
chapters there runs the golden thread of Christ's compassion
for outcast Jew and ahen Samaritan, and His gentle and
reverent deahng with needy womanhood. It is the
Gospel which teUs us of joy in heaven for the penitent,
and of a place in the Father's house for Lazarus the beggar,
and for Zacchaeus the pubHcan. Whoever may have

vn.] JUSTIFICATION OF HISTORICAL CRITICISM 207
furnished this record there is no mistaking the note of
inspiration in it. St. Luke obtained the priceless story
from one who saw and heard the Master, and had the
insight of love and the quick intuition which enabled one,
who was probably the earliest of aU the evangehsts, to
record that which the world could never afford to lose.
The influence of the Spirit which gave St. Luke the unerring
instinct of a true discrimination led him to select this
material for insertion in his Gospel. Here too we may
claim authority for the record, an authority which belongs
to St. Luke, and in equal measure to his source.
This present study of writings, which contain what
the human mind wiU never exhaust, draws to its appointed
close. Fidehty to the increasing hght given to men, in
fulfilment of the promise that through the ministry of
the Spirit of truth we shaU be led into aU the truth, has
caused us to see that other writings stand behind the
Gospels we have been considering, and that we can only
understand the relation of these Gospels to one another
in so far as we take into account the sources from which
they sprang. To some it may seem that such an analysis
is fraught with peril. They tremble for the ark of God.
They fear that such Gospels, precious to them beyond aU
that words can express, may lose the authority which
their own spiritual experience has told them belongs to
the words which are spirit and Hfe. To aU such we would
say that no criticism of human words can affect the fact
which those words seek to express. It is the Hving Christ
who has brought new Hfe to the Christian, and he must
beware lest, in his anxiety for the letter, he exalt this last
to a place which belongs to the Christ HimseU. But we
would claim that to the humble and the devout seeker
after truth any attempt to see more clearly what part
the human element has played in the production and the
preservation of these Scriptures only helps him to see more
clearly that in which the hope of aU the world resides —

208 GOSPEL ORIGINS [ch.
the Person of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Indeed,
the wonder grows when we consider that which emerges
from the many and varied parts which make up the
whole of the Christian record. Men and women, some
known some unknown, have brought into that record
their several recoUections of what their Master wrought,
and what were the words which feU from His Ups. Their
recoUection has been exposed to the common weakness
of aU that is human. Their impressions have been coloured
by their own pecuhar spiritual and mental condition to
which that Master appealed, through which indeed they
came to see Him as He was. But out of aU these varied
elements, as the final result of aU these processes, there
has emerged the wonder of a PersonaHty infinite in
significance, meeting the differing needs of a world of
men, and yet single and complete. There is no incongruity
between the picture drawn by one evangehst and the
picture drawn by another. It is one Lord Jesus Christ
who is the heart of the Gospels, however many those may
be who have taken in hand to draw up a narrative.
The unquestioned cause of this wondrous unity is to be
discovered in Him who is the spring and source of
inspiration. For there rested upon the eager-hearted
fisherman, teUing to some group of simple souls what
Jesus did, the directing Spirit of truth. With equal
force, with a hke immediacy, that same Spirit guided and
governed the young man who Hstened to the preacher,
and wrote down aU he could remember of what the
preacher said. Away in humble homes men spoke of
what the Master said ; gentle women recalled His
wondrous grace, and over their meditations the same
Spirit brooded creating the one impression, framing the
one figure which was to command the adoration of the
world. Later on the Church took up the work. This
evangehst or that set himseU to select what was worthy
to abide, and to discard the manffold accretions which

ra.] JUSTIFICATION OF HISTORICAL CRITICISM 209
threatened to conceal or to disfigure. Later stiU in the
councils of the Church men considered what books should
be accepted as sacred Scriptures, as the Gospel of the Hving
God. Over their dehberations the same Holy Spirit
presided, and because of His continued ministry we dis
cover to-day in the Gospels this marveUous unity of
thought and purpose, and stand face to face at last with
one Person human and divine, in knowledge of whom
standeth our eternal hfe.
' Here is a tale of things done ages since ;
What truth was ever told the second day 1
Wonders that would prove doctrine, go for nought ;
Remains the doctrine, love : Well, we must love ;
And what we love most, power and love in one,
Let us acknowledge on the record here,
Accepting these in Christ.'

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek, by Dr. Arthur Wright.
Horae Synopticae, by the Rev. Sir J. C. Hawkins.
The Gospels as Historical Documents, by Dr. V. H. Stanton.
Studies in the Synoptic Problem, by Members of the
University of Oxford.
An Introduction to the New Testament, by Dr. T. Zahn.
An Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, by
Dr. J. Moffat.
Principles of Lit. Crit. and the Synoptic Problem, by Dr. E.
De Witt Burton.
The Beginnings of Gospel Story, by Dr. B. W. Bacon.
The Gospel History and its Transmission, by Dr. Burkitt.
The Sayings of Jesus, by Dr. AdoU Harnack.
The Common Tradition of the Synoptic Gospels, by Dr. E. A.
Abbott and Mr. W. G. Rushbrooke.
An Introduction to the Synoptic Problem, by Rev. E. R.
Buckley. Articles on Matthew, Mark, Luke, Logia and Gospels, etc.,
in The Dictionary of the Bible (Hastings) ; The Encyclopedia
Biblica (Cheyne).

INDEX

Abbot, Dr. E. A., 28.
Allen's, Dr. , Analysis of Matthaean
Sayings, 91.
Ammonian Sections, 21.
Apocalypse, 111, 195ff., 125ff.
Bacon, Dr., 35.
Barnes, M., 75, 109.
Burkitt, Dr., 29.
Burton, Dr., 36.
Clement, A., 6, 9, 22.
Didache, 5.
Divorce, Christ's Teaching on, 10.
Eusebius, 4, 6, 40.
Eusebian Sections, 21.
Harnack, 6, 150, 168, 201.
Harnack's Rearrangement of Q,
89.
Herod, References to, in Luke,
163.
Irenaeus, 24.
Lightfoot, Dr., 43.
Logia. See Sayings.
Luke, use of Q, 56ff., 185.
 Introduction to third
Gospel, 145ff.
 Use of Markan Document,

148ff.
 Analysis of third Gospel,
171ff.
Mark, Priority of, 63, 104ff.
Markan Sections in First Gospel,
78ff.

Mark's use of Q, 110, 144.
Mark, Three editions, 117ff.
 Secondary features, 119ff.
 Analysis of, 130ff.
Matthew, Contribution to First
Gospel, 66ff.
 Analysis, 93ff.

Nativity Section in Matthew, 64.
 ¦  in Luke, 167.

Oxford Studies, etc., 13, 33, 90.
Oral Tradition, l7ff.
Oxyrhynchus, 48ff.
Old Testament Quotations in
Matthew, 101.
Philip, Daughters of, 150.
'Q,' 38ff., 80.
Salmon, Dr., 28.
Sayings, 7, 37ff.
Stanton, Dr., 30, 76, 102.
Stanton's Analysis of Matthaean
Logia, 90.
Tatian's Diatessaron, 22.
Thompson, J. M., 189ff.
Travel Document in Luke, 159ff.,
206.
Triple Tradition, 203.
Ur-Markus, 28.
Wright, Dr. A., 18, 27, 109,
117, 162.
Zahn, 62ff.

Studies in Theology
A New Series of Hand-books, being aids to interpretation
in Biblical Criticism for the use of Ministers,
Theological Students and general readers.
12mo, cloth. 75 cents net per volume.
THE aim of the series is described by the general title.
It is an attempt to bring all the resources of modern
learning to the interpretation of the Scriptures, and
to place within the reach of all who are interested
the broad conclusions arrived at by men of distinction in the
world of Christian scholarship on the great problems of Faith
and Destiny. The volumes are critical and constructive, and
their value can scarcely be overstated. Each volume will
contain bibliographies for the guidance of those who wish to
pursue more extended studies.
The writers selected for the various volumes are represen
tative scholars both in this country and in Europe. Each of
them has been assigned a subject with which he is particularly
qualified to deal, as will be at once apparent even in this
preliminary announcement giving a list of some of the vol
umes in preparation.
ARRANGEMENT OF VOLUMES
A CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT.
By Arthur Samuel Peake, D.D., Professor of Biblical Exegesis
and Dean of the Faculty of Theology, Victoria University, Man
chester. Sometime Fellow of Merton College, Oxford. Author of
"A Guide to Biblical Study," " The Problem of Suffering in the
Old Testament," etc. <, [Ready.
FAITH AND ITS PSYCHOLOGY. By the Rev. William R. Inge,
D.D., Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, Cambridge, and
Bampton Lecturer, Oxford, 1899. Author of "Studies of the
English Mystics," " Truth and Falsehood in Religion," " Personal
Idealism and Mysticism," etc. [Ready.
PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION. By the Rev. Hastings Rash-
dall, D.Litt. (Oxon.), D.C.L. (Dunelm), F.B.A. Fellow and
Tutor of New College, Oxford. Author of " The Theory of Good
and Evil," etc., etc. [Ready.

REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. By the Rev. James Orr,
D.D., Professor of Apologetics in the Theological College of the
United Free Church, Glasgow. Author of "The Christian View
of God and the World," "The Ritschlian Theology and Evangelical
Faith," "The Problem of the Old Testament," etc. [Ready.
CHRISTIANITY AND SOCIAL QUESTIONS. By the Rev. Will
iam Cunningham, D.D., F.B.A., Fellow of Trinity College, Cam
bridge. Hon. Fellow of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge.
Archdeacon of Ely. Formerly Lecturer on Economic History to
Harvard University. Author of " Growth of English History and
Commerce," etc. [Ready.
CHRISTIAN THOUGHT TO THE REFORMATION. By
Herbert B. Workman, D.Litt., Principal of the Westminster Train
ing College. Author of "The Church of the West in the Middle
Ages," "The Dawn of the Reformation," etc. [Ready.
PROTESTANT THOUGHT BEFORE KANT. By A. C.
McGhtert, Ph.D., D.D., Professor of Church History in the
Union Theological Seminary, New York. Author of "The His
tory of Christianity in the Apostolic Age" and "The Apostles'
Creed." [Ready.
THE CHRISTIAN HOPE: A STUDY IN THE DOCTRINE
OF IMMORTALITY. By William Adams Brown, Ph.D., D.D.,
Professor of Systematic Theology in the Union Theological Semi
nary, New York. Author of "The Essence of Christianity" and
" Christian Theology in Outline." [Ready.
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN THOUGHT SINCE KANT. By
the Rev. Edward Caldwell Moore, D.D., Parkman Professor of
Theology in Harvard University. Author of "The New Testa
ment in the Christian Church," etc. [Ready.
THE THEOLOGY OF THE GOSPELS. By the Rev. James
Moffatt, D.D., D.Litt., Yates Professor of New Testament Greek
and Exegesis, Mansfield College, Oxford. [Ready.
THE TEXT AND CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. By
Alexander Souter, D.Litt. [Ready.
A HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS. By Alfred
Ernest Garvie, M.A., D.D. [Ready.
GOSPEL ORIGINS. By the Rev. William WestHoldsworth, M.A.
Other volumes are in preparation and will be announced later.

3 9002 051