' ¦¦¦ I. : ¦. ¦•<' liy-

YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

1942

THE GOSPELS BY
A LAYMAN

THE
GOSPELS

BY
A LAYMAN

G^

era I

PRINTED AT
THE GILLISS PRESS
NEW YORK
I916

COPYRIGHT, 1 916
BY
GHERARDI DAVIS

TO MY FRIEND
EDWARD E. SPRAGUE
WITH WHOM
I HAVE HAD MANY INTERESTING TALKS
ON THE SUBJECT CONTAINED
IN THE FOLLOWING PAGES
GHERARDI DAVIS

NEW YORK
APRIL, 19 16

THERE is nothing that will advance the
cause of true religion among all the
people more than the use and knowledge
of Holy Scripture. The unchaining of the Bible
and taking it out of the exclusive control of the
Church; the trusting of it freely to the people,
were the setting free of spiritual forces that have
revolutionized human society. And now the
day has come when scholarship and criticism of
both the Old and New Testaments are not found
exclusively among ecclesiastics and university
professors, but in an increasing degree among
the thoughtful laymen of all professions. The
Church distrusted the wisdom of giving the Bible
freely to the people ; she is timid now when men
are seeking to know the truth and the whole
truth about God's word ; she is anxiously asking
what criticism and scholarship will do with the
Bible. But we must always trust freedom; for
we can do nothing against the truth but only for
vii

the truth. Those devout laymen who bring
their earnest and reasonable thought to this
study, will bear witness to the power of God's
word to cleanse and uplift and inspire their lives,
and the life of the world. So let us rejoice in
books like this. W. M. G.

The Dean's Office
Cathedral of St. John the Divine

New York, April 25, 19 16.

vm

SOME years ago a friend, to whose sermons I
listened with great interest while he was
my rector — he has now been advanced to
higher honors in the Episcopal Church — in answer
to a question I put to him referred me to a well-
known book on the history of the New Testament.
I had for some time wondered why no preacher
ever touched on many of the questions which
came to my mind, as I listened in church to the
reading of the Gospels, or as 1 read them myself;
for, as others have no doubt done, I often wondered
how those four books came to be written, who
their authors really were, whence those authors
derived their knowledge of the facts relating to
our Saviour's life and the words He spoke, as they
are recorded in the Gospels, when the Gospels
were written, and many other like matters.
Thus my interest in this subject grew, until from
the book my friend referred me to I went on to
others, equally interesting. Several of these
ix

books were replete with Greek, Latin and Hebrew,
and as I knew nothing ofthe latter language, and
to my regret, had forgotten most of my Greek
and Latin, I did not assume to question the
deductions from, or the interpretations of, the
originals made by students, and I was of course
obliged to hold to the English text alone.
I soon found that 1 was reading a subject of
extraordinary interest, and what, as a layman, I
thus learned from studying the Gospels and the
books on the New Testament, I have written down
in the following pages, perhaps with too great
brevity, but with deep reverence.

THE GOSPELS BY
A LAYMAN

Cl^e flDlDcjst of
1 SUPPOSE that every one who has read the
Gospels at all carefully has observed how
totally different the first three are from the
fourth. Such a reader may have gone further
and have noticed how much alike many passages
are in the first three Gospels. No doubt, too,
an attentive reader has often wondered how it
was that only two of the Gospels bear the names
of men who were of Christ's twelve chosen dis
ciples, and who therefore were with Him during
His ministry, it seems strange that the second
Gospel should have been written by one who
during Christ's ministry must have been a mere
lad, and that the Gospel according to St. Luke
is by one who does not even intimate that he ever
saw our Saviour or heard Him speak. Again, it
is evident to even a casual reader that not only is
the sequence of events not the same in the several
3

THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN
Gospels, but that the Gospels do not at all contain
the same matter. Thus, the Lord's Prayer, which
is probably repeated more frequently than any
other words ofthe New Testament, isto be found
only in St. Matthew and St. Luke. The institu
tion ofthe Lord's Supper, by the breaking of bread
and partaking of wine, is not mentioned by St.
John, whose account of the Last Supper is far
more in detail in other respects than that con
tained in the other Gospels. The wonderful
miracle of the Raising of Lazarus is told only by
St John, while the Ascension is told only by St.
Mark and St. Luke, and it is a question whether
this passage in St. Mark is genuine.
For convenience of reference, and as an aid to
students, the Gospels have been printed in parallel
columns, the same incidents being placed to
gether, although their sequence in the several
Gospels is by no means always the same. Such
a book is known as a "Harmony ofthe Gospels,"
and the idea of a Harmony is not at all modern.
If, now, this book is even only glanced over, it
is impossible not to notice how very similar is the
language of the first three Gospels, verse after
verse at times being in almost the same words.
In literature, when such similarity of language
4

THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN
appears in books by different authors on the same
subject, the suggestion occurs that they either
used an identical original or that one ofthe authors
is the original of the others. And very early in
Bible history search was made for the original
from which the first three Gospels were drawn.
Before describing the result of this search, ref
erence should be made to the manner in which
the Gospels have been handed down to us. Of
course, like all works written before printing
was invented, they appear in manuscript form.
Ancient manuscripts are on vellum or on papyrus.
The latter, if removed to a damp climate, has
usually rotted and been lost; the vellum has lasted
for centuries. No matter how the original was
written, whether by the author himself or by a
scribe under his dictation, copies were made as a
rule by dictation to a body of scribes, just as,
when I was a law clerk, before the days of type
writing machines, we clerks would be gathered
together in a room to make copies of a paper from
dictation, where they were needed in a hurry.
Manuscripts written without punctuation and in
letters all of the same size, with no distinction
between capitals and other letters, are called
"uncial" manuscripts, and the oldest and most
5

THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN
perfect Gospel manuscripts, three in number, are
of this character. They are:
( I ) The CoDEx Vaticanus Graecus, which has
been in the Vatican Library in Rome since 1481,
at least. It was written in the fourth century
and is, like the others, in Greek and on vellum
(2) The CoDEX Sinaiticus, discovered in a
monastery on Mount Sinai, and now at Petro-
grad. It is considered certain that it was at Caes
area in the seventh century, it having been writ
ten in the fourth century, but later than the Codex
Vaticanus. (3) The CoDEX Alexandrinus ofthe fifth cen
tury, now in the British Museum.
There are pieces of an older third century man
uscript, partly in London, partly in Philadelphia,
but it is very fragmentary.
Last winter several sheets of the Codex Vati
canus, if I remember correctly, were to be seen
in photographic reproduction at the Public Li
brary. A very ingenious method of photograph
ing manuscripts has been invented, and they can
be had in reproduction quite readily. The three
Codices referred to are the great authorities for
the New Testament text, and they are very much
nearer the time when the authors of the New
6

THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN
Testament lived than are the manuscripts of
the works of many an ancient author.
In the early days, the Gospels were not always
placed in the same order. St. Matthew appears
to have always been first, but, while in the East
ern Church the sequence was like that to which
we are accustomed, in the V\^estern Church St.
John usually followed St. Matthew.
These old texts ofthe Gospels have been stud
ied as few, if any, other books; similarity of style
and composition have been gone over with the
greatest care; even the use of words has been
studied. And this has been done with all the
more care from a literary point of view, because
the three first Gospels are unique in this, that,
written at about the same time, they each de
scribe the life and teachings of the same person.
There is no parallel to this in ancient literature.
The Gospels, it will be noticed, have been pre
served just as any other ancient writings— like the
works of Homer, Herodotus, Aeschylus, Plato,
Caesar, Cicero, Horace, Virgil, and all the others,
ofthe genuineness of which there is no doubt;
and I cannot conceive of any honest question
being raised against the genuineness of the
Gospels.

THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN
The three first Gospels are known as the Sy
noptic Gospels, because, combined, they present
a general and harmonized view of Christ's life.

Cl^c d^ojspel accorufng to ^t 0pat6
THE Gospel according to St. Mark is uni
versally considered the oldest of all four
Gospels. Mark, it will be remembered,
was the companion of Paul and Barnabas, over
whom a serious dispute arose, as is recounted in
Acts (XV. 37, 38). Mark is referred to in various
Epistles and in Acts, and in I. Peter (V. 13), St.
Peter calls him, ' 'Marcus, my son. " He was with
St. Peter in Rome, and Papias (a Bishop of Hier-
apolis, and a Christian writer of the second cen
tury) says that Mark wrote down what he heard
from Peter. That is, Mark must have taken down
Christ's life and words from Peter's dictation, or
have written down from what he heard Peter
preach, a story of Christ's life and His words. It
is asserted with great ingenuity that the present
Gospel is made up of an original work by Mark,
which has been edited, as we would say today,
by another person. But with equal skill, it is
9

THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN
shown that the Gospel is a homogeneous work
and hence original. I am inclined to believe that
it is by the hand of St. Mark, even if it is an elab
oration of an earlier work, and even if it is gener
ally admitted that the last nine verses are not of
the original.
By the time of the death of St. Peter and St.
Paul (A. D. 64 or 65) the necessity for a written
Gospel must have become very apparent. How
some of those, to whom Peter and Paul and the
other writers sent their epistles, became familiar
with Christ's life and ministry through word^ of
mouth, is told in Acts (as for example at XI. 19-
21), to which book we would naturally turn for
this information. The Epistles most certainly
presuppose a thorough knowledge of the words
and life of our Saviour, for His life is not given in
the Epistles; His miracles (except the Resur
rection) are never referred to; and His words are
rarely quoted, and then not as they appear in the
Gospels. It was therefore but natural as time
went on that through Peter, who was with Christ
in all His ministry, a book ofthe life and sayings
of our Saviour should first come into existence,
even if he were not its author; for oral traditions
are decidedly unreliable in important matters.

10

THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN
St. Mark's Gospel makes no reference to the
birth of Christ or John the Baptist, but begins with
the latter's preaching. Its chronology is prob
ably the most correct. It was written, as indeed
were all the Gospels, in Greek, and is supposed
to date from before the destruction ofjerusalem,
which was in A. D. 70. It has always borne St.
Mark's name. It would be beyond the scope of
these pages to discuss at any length the theolog
ical side of this or the other Synoptic Gospels. I
will only say that St. Mark's Gospel is the sim
plest in language of all four Gospels.
I now come to an extraordinarily interesting
fact, which was discovered very early by students
of the Gospels. If the reader of these pages will
turn to a Harmony ofthe Gospels, and if he goes
no further than the index of parallel matter, he
will very soon notice that virtually all that is in
St. Mark appears also in St. Matthew and St. Luke.
Identity of language in individual sentences is very
easily discovered. For example, in the account
ofthe raising of Jairus's daughter, the multitude's
opinion of Jesus, when He says the maid is asleep,
not dead, is expressed in all three Gospels by the
sentence: "They laughed Him to scorn." Similar
1 1

THE GOSPELS — BY A LAYMAN
instances are the language of the sentence ofthe
House Divided against itself, so well known to
us Americans through Lincoln's use of it; the
sentence in which is described how Simon was
made to bear the cross; the verse describing the
sending out ofthe Twelve.
In the story of Jairus's daughter, the whole
incident is alike in the three Gospels, and in many
other cases not only is the incident, but the lan
guage used in describing it, the same. Thus,
the story of the Paralytic borne into Christ's
presence by Four Men, the Parable of the Sower,
the Three (Questions of the Jewish Rulers, the
Transfiguration, the Rich Young Ruler, the Dis
course on the Destruction of Jerusalem, the Agony
at Gethsemane, are astonishingly alike. As I
have not space for all these passages I will quote
but two from each Gospel; the first, a passage
known to every communicant, reads thus:
ST. MATTHEW ST. MARK ST. LUKE
XXVI. 26-30 XIV. 22-26 XXII. 17-20
And as they were eat- And as they did eat. And he took the cup,
ing, Jesus took bread Jesus took bread, and and gave thanks, and
and blessed it, and brake blessed, and brake it, said. Take this, and
it, and gave it to the dis- and gave to them, and divide it among your-
ciples, and said. Take, said, Take, eat; this is selves; for I say unto
eat; this is my body, my body. And he took you, I will not drink of
And he took the cup, the cup, and when he the fruit of the vine, un-
and gave thanks, and had given thanks, he til the kingdom of God
12

THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN
gave it to them, saying, gave it to them; and shall come. And he
Drink ye all of it; for they all drank of it. took bread, and gave
this is my blood of the And he said unto them, thanks, and brake it,
new testament, which is This is my blood of the and gave unto them,
shed for many for the new testament, which is saying. This is my body
remission of sins. But shed for many. Verily I which is given for you:
I say unto you, I will not say unto you, I will this do in remembrance
drink henceforth of this drink no more of the of me. Likewise also
fruit of the vine, until fruit of the vine, until the cup after supper,
that day when I drink it that day that I drink it saying, This cup is the
new with you in my new in the kingdom of new testament in my
Father's kingdom. And God. And when they blood, which is shed for
when they had sung a had sung a hymn, they you.
hymn, they went out went out into the Mount
into the mount of Olives, of Olives.
And then for a group of passages, more in the
nature of a description of an event, there is the
Transfiguration, which reads in the three Synoptic
Gospels as follows:
ST. MATTHEW ST. MARK ST. LUKE
XVII. 1-9 IX. 2-9 IX. 28-36
And after six days And after six days And it came to pass
Jesustaketh Peter, Jesus taketh with him about an eight days
James, and John his Peter, and James, and after these sayings. He
brother, and bringeth John, and leadeth them took Peter and John and
them up into a high up into a high mountain James, and went up into
mountain apart, and apart by themselves: a mountain to pray.
was transfigured before and He was transfigured And as He prayed, the
them: and His face did before them. And His fashion of His counte-
shine as the sun, and raiment became shin- nance was altered, and
His raiment was white ing, exceeding white as His raiment was white
as the light. And, be- snow; so as no fuller on and glistering. And be
hold, there appeared earth can white them, hold, there talked with
unto them Moses and And there appeared un- him two men, which
Elias talking with Him. tothemEliaswith were Moses and Elias:
Then answered Peter, Moses; and they were who appeared in glory,
and said unto Jeuss, talking with Jesus. And and spake of His decease
13

THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN
Lord, it is good for us, Peter answered and said which He should accom-
to be here: if Thou wilt, to Jesus, Master, it is plish at Jerusalem. But
let us make here three good for us to be here: Peter and they that
tabernacles, one for and let us make three were with him were
Thee, and one for Moses, tabernacles; one for heavy with sleep: and
and one for Elias, Thee, and one for Moses, when they were awake,
While he yet spake, be- and one for Elias. For they saw His glory, and
hold, a bright cloud he wist not what to say; the two men that stood
overshadowed them: for they were sore afraid, with Him. And it came
and behold a voice out And there was a cloud to pass, as they departed
of the cloud, which said, thatovershadowed from Him, Peter said
This is my beloved Son, them; and a voice came unto Jesus, Master, it
in whom I am well out of the cloud, saying, is good for us to be here:
pleased; hear ye Him. This is my beloved Son: and let us make three
And when the disciples hear him. And sudden- tabernacles; one for
heard it, they fell on ly, when they had look- Thee, and one for Moses,
their face, and were sore ed round about, they and one for Elias: not
afraid. And Jesus came saw no man any more, knowing what he said.
and touched them, and save Jesus only with While he thus spake,
said. Arise, and be not themselves. And as they there came a cloud, and
afraid. And when they came down from the overshadowed them : and
had lifted up their eyes, mountain. He charged they feared as they en-
they saw no man, save them that they should tered into the cloud.
Jesus only. And as they tell no man what things And there came a voice
came down from the they had seen, till the out of the cloud, saying,
mountain, Jesus Son of man were risen This is my beloved Son:
charged them, saying, from the dead. hear him. And when
Tell the vision to no the voice was past, Jesus
man, until the Son of was found alone. And
man be risen again from they kept it close, and
the dead. told no man in those
days any of those things
which they had seen.
In a few cases matter appears in St. Mark that
is not in St Matthew and St. Luke but there are
very many passages where St. Matthew and St
Luke agree, and St. Mark is blank. Those Gos
pels in any event are much longer than St. Mark.
14

THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN
in a Bible of the usual small size, printed in two
columns, the length ofthe Gospels is as follows:
St Matthew, 44^^ pages (28 chapters) ; St. Mark,
28 pages (16 chapters); St. Luke, 48 pages (24
chapters), and St John, 35 pages (21 chapters).
*St Mark, it will be seen, is by far the shortest of
all. From the fact that the first and third Gospels
contain virtually all of St. Mark, Bible students
very early reached the conclusion that either there
was an original, now disappeared, which served
as a basis for all three Synoptic Gospels, or that
one of these served as a basis for the other two.
Today there is no question of the fact that St.
Matthew and St. Luke are based on St. Mark. If,
now, it is clear that St Mark's Gospel underlies
the first and third Gospels, a very interesting
question arises as to the source from which St.
Matthew and St. Luke derived the matter com
mon to their two Gospels, and not found in St.
Mark. This question I shall now discuss.

15

^t. japatti^etD'js CoUertfon of
Ci^e ^atingjj of 91ej3ttis
also ttnoton as ??il"
IF the reader will turn again to a Harmony of
the Gospels, he will find page after page on
which only the first and third columns con
tain any printed matter, this matter being made
up of passages common to St. Matthew and St.
Luke and absent from St. Mark (and St. John as
well.) Of these passages, the parable of the
Lilies of the Field, the Story of the Centurion's
Servant, the Sermon on the Mount, John the
Baptist's Last Message, are so alike in the two
Gospels as to immediately attract the reader's
attention. In order to show how very marked
this similarity is, I will quote a passage familiar
to every one. In the middle of John the Bap
tist's Last Message, appears the following:
ST. MATTHEW ST LUKE
XI. 7-1 1 vn. 24-28
And as they departed, Jesus began And when the messengers of John
to say unto the multitudes concerning were departed. He began to speak
John, What went ye out into the unto the people concerning John,
16

THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN
wilderness to see? A reed shaken What went ye out into the wilderness
with the wind? But what went ye for to see? A reed shaken with the
out for to see? A man clothed in wind? But what went ye out for to
soft raiment? behold, they that wear see? A man clothed in soft raiment?
soft clothing are in kings' houses. Behold, they which are gorgeously
But what went ye out for to see? A apparelled, and live delicately, are in
prophet? yea, I say unto you, and kings' courts. But what went ye out
more than a prophet. For this is he, for to see? A prophet? Yea, I say
of whom it is written. Behold, I send unto you, and much more than a
my messenger before thy face, which prophet. This is he, of whom it is
shall prepare thy way before thee, written. Behold I send my messenger
Verily I say unto you. Among them before thy face, which shall prepare
that are born of women there hath thy way before thee. For I say unto
not risen a greater than John the you. Among those that are born of
Baptist : nothwithstanding, he that women there is not a greater prophet
is least in the kingdom of heaven is than John the Baptist: but he that
greater than he. is least in the kingdom of God is
greater than he.

It should be further noted that St. Matthew
and St. Luke are most similar in passages em
bodying Christ's own words, and as it is sure
that St Matthew and St. Luke are not copied
one from the other, it is equally evident that the
authors of these Gospels had before them a book
containing in any event our Saviour's words.
Papias again refers to just such a work by St.
Matthew, who, he says, "composed the Logia
in the Hebrew language," meaning by Logia the
words of our Saviour.
The vast importance of a correct version of
our Saviour's sayings must have been in the
minds of many an early Christian, and it seems
17

THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN
but natural that steps should have been taken
very early to preserve these words other than by
oral tradition. St. Matthew can well have been
the only one of the Apostles who knew how to
write readily; he, it will be remembered, was a
tax-officer. And nothing would be more natural
than that he should from time to time write
down the wonderful words that fell from our
Saviour's lips. Unfortunately, this collection of
sayings has not been itself preserved, but its one
time existence students recognize. It was writ
ten in Aramaic — the language of Christ — and
seems to have been early translated into Greek,
which was the universal language of trade and
culture East of Rome in those days. Q_, as this
work of St. Matthew's is often called (Q^from
the German "Quelle" — source, spring) is there
fore another work embodied in the two Gospels
of St. Matthew and St. Luke, which thus appear
to be made up of at least two originals, just as
any history is based on works and manuscripts
of others.
It has been suggested that even St. Mark may
have had Q_ before him. Of course, such a thing
is far from impossible, but it is entirely specula
tive, whereas the existence of Q_, from which St.
i8

THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN
Matthew's and St. Luke's Gospels derived large
portions of their version of Christ's words, is not
doubted. It must not be expected that these
words appear in exactly the same form in the two
Gospels, but I shall have occasion to refer to this
later. Again, it is a much discussed question as
to which Evangelist reproduced Q, most cor
rectly; but this, again, is a discussion which does
not lead to any very satisfactory result.

19

Cl^e mmi accorDing to ^t ^att^^m
THE Gospel according to St. Matthew has
always been placed at the beginning of
the New Testament and has always
borne St. Matthew's name, although from the
earliest days it was recognized that the Apostle
was not its author. Who the author was, is not
known, and there is the same uncertainty as to
its date which attaches to the other Synoptic
Gospels; but this uncertainty relates rather to the
question of whether a Gospel was written before
or after A. D. 70, the date of the destruction of
Jerusalem by Titus. St. Matthew was probably
written before that date, and in any event, after
St Mark was written, foras I have already pointed
out, St. Matthew is primarily based upon St.
Mark. St. Mark's language is not given verbatim in
St. Matthew (nor is it so given in St. Luke),
for neither St. Matthew nor St. Luke quotes
20

THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN
St. Mark, just as neither quotes the passages
from Q_, which both reproduce. Rather is it
that each rewrites both sources in his own
particular style.
It requires but a very little reading in St. Mat
thew to show how totally different this Gospel is
from St. Mark or St Luke. Especially in the
earlier part of the Gospel the constant reference
by the Evangelist to the fulfillment of prophecies
is noticeable and every one has been struck with
the oft repeated phrase: "That it might be ful
filled which was spoken by" such and such a
prophet. This alone gives St. Matthew a char
acter peculiar to itself.
There are a considerable number of passages
in St. Matthew and St. Mark which are not in
St. Luke, and while as between the two latter
Gospels a similar condition of things exists, this
peculiarity is more common as between St. Mat
thew and St Mark. The story of the Syrophoe-
nician Woman, with the pathetic appeal to
Christ, "Yea, Lord, even the dogs under the
table eat of the children's crumbs," that of the
Feeding of the Four Thousand, and the Discourse
on Eating with Unwashed Hands, are all in St.
Matthew and St. Mark, but not in St. Luke (or St

21

THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN
John, for that matter). The similarity of the
Story ofthe Feeding of the Four Thousand is so
great that I think it will be interesting to give the
two passages:

ST. MATTHEW
XV. 32-38
Then Jesus called His disciples
unto Him, and said, I have com
passion on the multitude, because
they continue with me now three
days, and have nothing to eat: and
I will not send them away fasting,
lest they faint in the way. And
His disciples say unto Him, Whence
should we have so much bread in the
wilderness, as to fill so great a multi
tude? And Jesus saith unto them,
How many loaves have ye? And
they said. Seven, and a few little
fishes. And He commanded the
multitude to sit down on the ground.
And He took the seven loaves and
the fishes, and gave thanks, and
brake them, and gave to His dis
ciples, and the disciples to the multi
tude. And they did all eat, and were
filled : and they took up of the broken
meat that was left seven baskets
full. And they that did eat were
four thousand men, beside women
and children.

ST. MARK
VIII. 1-9
In those days the multitude being
very great, and having nothing to
eat, Jesus called His disciples unto
Him, and saith unto them, I have
compassion on the multitude, be
cause they have now been with me
three days, and have nothing to eat:
And if I send them away fasting to
their own houses, they will faint by
the way: for divers of them came
from far. And His disciples an
swered Him, From whence can a man
satisfy these men with bread here
in the wilderness? And He asked
them, How many loaves have ye?
And they said. Seven. And He
commanded the people to sit down
on the ground: and He took the
seven loaves, and gave thanks, and
brake, and gave to His disciples to
set before them; and they did set
them before the people. And they
had a few small fishes: and He
blessed, and commanded to set them
also before them. So they did eat,
and were filled: and they took up of
the broken meat that was left seven
baskets. And they that had eaten
were about four thousand: and He
sent them away.

Then, too, St. Matthew contains a number of
familiar passages not to be found elsewhere.

22

THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN
of which the following are the best known: the
Story of the Magi, the Flight into Egypt, the Par
able of the Wise and Foolish Virgins. We shall
find a similar condition of things in St. Luke and
St. John, just as we have already noticed it in St.
Mark. It would be useless to speculate on the
origin of the many passages in one Gospel which
do not appear in the others, for it is impossible
to ascertain how the Evangelists proceeded to
make use ofthe written sources and the oral tradi
tions they may have had at hand.
Far more remarkable, as I have already pointed
out, is the similarity of passages in St. Matthew
and St. Luke containing sayings by our Saviour
not found elsewhere, and of which QJs the sup
posed original. I have already spoken of the
story ofthe Centurion's Servant and commented
at length on the last Message of John the Baptist.
Both Gospels have the Sermon on the Mount,
but St. Matthew's version is at least three times
as long as St. Luke's. This particular passage
has raised the very interesting question of how
the Sermon was really given. It appears that
most of what St. Luke has seemingly omitted is
given by him elsewhere, scattered through his
Gospel, and it has hence been urged that St.
23

THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN
Matthew put into the Sermon on the Mount say
ings which fitted or appeared to fit in appro
priately. But it seems to me that the matter could
just as reasonably be argued the other way
around, and while this may be an interesting
discussion, it is not a very useful one. Both St.
Matthew and St. Luke give Christ's genealogy,
but while St. Matthew begins with Abraham,
St. Luke begins with Christ and goes backward;
the two genealogies are not at all the same.
Both Evangelists tell the story of Christ's birth
and again the story is differently given. These
passages are not in the other two Gospels.
As St. Matthew's Gospel was written, it is be
lieved, at Jerusalem, at all events in Palestine,
students find in it strong Hebraic characteristics,
wholly outside ofthe distinctive features to which
I have referred. It is a much less poetic produc
tion than St. Luke, and is a rather dryer narrative
than St. Mark.

24

Cl^e (KojSpel accotDing to ^t iLufee
THE last of the Synoptic Gospels, that ac
cording to St. Luke, is the longest of all
four of the Gospels. It is the one Gospel
about whose authorship there has been the least
discussion, for it has generally been .admitted
from the earliest days that Luke, who is referred
to as "the beloved physician" in Colossians IV.
14, is the author of both this Gospel and of Acts.
Both books are dedicated, as we would say today,
to Theophilus, but who Theophilus was is not
known. The introduction to the Gospel states in so
many words that others have undertaken to
write of Christ's ministry, and as I have said, St.
Luke based his Gospel primarily on St. Mark,
using for his other matter, Q, among other
works. St. Luke certainly must have had be
fore him a considerable lot of matter, either
unknown to the other Evangelists, including St.
25

THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN
John, or, if known to them, purposely omitted
by them from their books. Thus, the birth of
John the Baptist and all its attendant details, in
cluding Mary's remarkable visit to Elizabeth,
and Zacharias' hymn, are not to be found else
where, although a very curious paraphrase ofthe
birth of John is given in the New Testament
Apocrypha, as applied to the birth of the Vir
gin Mary. The story of the Angels and the
Shepherds, which every childs loves; that of
Christ arguing as a boy with the Elders; the story
of the Good Samaritan; the Prodigal Son; the
Penitent Thief at the Crucifixion — all these are
told by St. Luke alone, and no part of them ap
pears elsewhere.
Another matter worth referring to is this: that
frequently discourses which appear in both St
Luke and St. Matthew do not occur in the same
order or in connection with the same incidents.
Thus, most of the contents of Chapter XI. to
XVII., while in St. Matthew are not in that
Gospel in any such connected form or at all in
the same sequence. The terrible denunciation
of the Scribes and Pharisees is given in St Luke
as being made before Passion Week; in St
Matthew as during that week. I have already
26

THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN
referred to the difference between the two ver
sions of the Sermon on the Mount.
It will be noticed that what St. Matthew and
St. Luke derived from St Mark is generally in the
same order as given by St. Mark, but again St.
Luke and St. Mark agree on passages which do
not appear in the first Gospel. The most im
portant of these is the Ascension, the omission
of which by St. Matthew (and by St. John, as
well) I repeat is hard to understand. And yet it
is considered by some that this passage in St.
Mark is not part of the original Gospel while
stranger still, St. Luke, as an author, gives it
twice — in his Gospel and again in Acts. This
last fact has raised several hard problems for
Bible students to ponder over, without, how
ever, any solution being offered, as no reason
can be advanced why St. Matthew and St. John
should have omitted an event which is certainly
suggested by both. (See St. Matthew, Chapter
XXIV. and St John, Chapters III. and VI. ). It is
as remarkable in its way as the absence of all
allusion to Lazarus except in St. John's Gospel,
and of all reference to St. Peter after the XI.
chapter of Acts.
I will quote a passage from St. Mark and St.
27

THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN
Luke, to show the similarity of language. Of the
Miracles at Capernaum, the first read as follows:

ST. MARK
I. 21-34
And they went into Capernaum;
and straightway on the sabbath day
He entered into the synagogue, and
taught. And they were astonished
at His doctrine: for He taught them
as one that had authority, and not as
the scribes. And there was in their
synagogue a man with an unclean
spirit; and he cried out. Saying, Let
us alone; what have we to do with
Thee, Thou Jesus of Nazareth? art
Thou come to destroy us? I know
Thee who Thou art, the Holy One of
God. And Jesus rebuked him, say
ing, Hold thy peace, and come out
of him. And when the unclean
spirit had torn him, and cried with
a loud voice, he came out of him.
And they were all amazed, insomuch
that they questioned among them
selves, saying. What thing is this?
what new doctrine is this? For with
authority commandeth He even the
unclean spirits, and they do obey
Him. And immediately His fame
spread abroad throughout all the
region round about Galilee. And
forthwith, when they were come out
of the synagogue, they entered into
the house of Simon and Andrew,
with James and John. But Simon's
wife's mother lay sick of a fever; and
anon they tell Him of her. And He
came and took her by the hand, and
lifted her up; and immediately the
fever left her, and she ministered

ST. LUKE
IV. 30-41
But He, passing through the
midst of them, went His way. And
came down to Capernaum, a city of
Galilee, and taught them on the
sabbath days. And they were
astonished at His doctrine: for His
word was with power. And in the
synagogue there was a man, which
had a spirit of an unclean devil, and
cried out with a loud voice. Saying,
Let us alone; what have we to do
with Thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth?
art Thou come to destroy us? I
know Thee who Thou art; the Holy
One of God. And Jesus rebuked
him, saying. Hold thy peace, and
come out of him. And when the
devil had thrown him in the midst,
he came out of him, and hurt him
not. And they were all amazed, and
spake among themselves, saying,
What a word is this? For with
authority and power He command
eth the unclean spirits, and they
come out. And the fame of Him
went out into every place of the
country round about. And He
arose out of the synagogue, and
entered into Simon's house. And
Simon's wife's mother was taken
with a great fever; and they be
sought Him for her. And He stood
over her, and rebuked the fever;
and it left her: and immediately she
arose and ministered unto them.
Now when the sun was setting, all

28

THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN
unto them. And at even, when the they that had any sick with divers
sun did set, they brought unto Him diseases brought them unto Him;
all that were diseased, and them and He laid His hands on every one
that were possessed with devils. And of them, and healed them. And
all the city was gathered together devils also came out of many, crying
at the door. And he healed many out, and saying. Thou art Christ the
that were sick of divers diseases. Son of God. And He rebuking them
and cast out many devils; and suf- suffered them not to speak: for they
fered not the devils to speak, be- knew that He was Christ.
cause they knew him.
It has been ably argued that certain passages in
St. Luke's Gospel clearly indicate that it was not
written until after the destruction of Jerusalem.
I cannot pretend to pass upon such a question.
Each Gospel is a history of the same general
events, and the several authors were clearly men
of strong individuality. While practically noth
ing is known of them, it is very evident that each
wrote under different inspiration, as well as prob
ably with different surroundings; each used a
different style, and approached the subject it
would seem, from a different theological point of
view. While this latter is not so readily notice
able to a layman with the Synoptic Gospels, it is
very apparent if these are compared with the
Gospel according to St. John.

29

Ci^e (Bomi accordfitg to ^U 9io]^n
FROM the first verse of the Gospel of St John
it is very evident to even a casual reader,
that he is beginning a book of a totally
different character from the Synoptic Gospels.
No doubt every one who reads the Gospels has
pondered over the meaning of the words:
"In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God,"
a sentence exceedingly difficult for the ordinary
mind to comprehend.
And as the reader progresses in this Gospel he
finds more and more passages which introduce
into the story of Christ s life and ministry an element
of mysticism, as well as a manner of thought and
expression, very far removed from the wonderful
simplicity and clearness of His words, as given
by the other Evangelists. Passages like the Dis-
30

THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN
course with Nicodemus (Ch. III.), the Samaritan
Woman at the Well (Ch. IV. ), and the Raising
of Lazarus (Ch. XL), contain references to Water
and the Spirit, the Living Water, the Resurrection
and the Life, while elsewhere we find symbolisms
of the Bread of Life, of the Light of the World,
of Water and Blood. The lessons drawn from
the stories in this Gospel (parables there are few
in St. John ; allegories, however, are frequent), as
well as the stories themselves, are as different in
character as the language in which they are told
is different from that of the other Evangelists.
Compare the parable of the Sower and its
lesson (Matthew XIII., Mark IV., Luke VIII.)
with the parable of the Good Shepherd (John
X.), and its lesson, and the difference in lan
guage and spirit is readily seen. Even more
than that, there is a very great difference in the
clearness of thought of the two, the former, to
my mind, being much the clearer. Indeed, it
soon becomes evident that we are reading in St
John a philosophical and theological treatise, not
a mere story of our Lord as in the other Gospels.
One explanation of this difference between St.
John and the other Gospels is, that St. John was
written at a very much later date than the latest
31

THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN
Synoptic Gospel, that is, about twenty-five years
after St Luke. At that time— about 90 A. D. —
the preaching of Christ had become an established
religion, and was known not only in Asia, but in
Greece and Rome. Its influence must have begun
to be very great in the civilized world, and what
ever they may have failed to say about it in their
writings, the men of intelligence of those days
must have realized that Christianity was an in
tellectual and moral force, superior to anything
hitherto known, and that it was constantly in
creasing in spite of all opposition. To what
extent men like Seneca, Pliny the Elder or Tacitus
thought ofthe superiority of Christian over Roman
morality, is not known; that they must have
thought about it cannot be doubted.
With this growth and spread of Christianity
necessarily arose discussions as to the meaning of
Christ's words. It must be remembered that long
before Jerusalem was destroyed serious disagree
ments had arisen even between Peter and Paul,
and the latter had written a very severe rebuke
of Peter's theology in the Epistle to the Galatians
(Ch. II. V. 1 1, etc.) Now the Gospel accordingto
St. John was written, not in Palestine, but in a
Greek community— either Patmos or Ephesus—
32

THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN
and hence in a totally different atmosphere from
the others. For if St. Mark was written at Rome,
as some think, it was written in close association
with St. Peter, and long before Christianity had
begun to indulge in philosophical discussions
of religion. And so this Gospel of St John was
written, I think, with the intent of giving an
interpretation of Christs words from a theologian
philosopher's point of view, because such an inter
pretation then appeared necessary, and appealed
to the author's followers, who were accustomed to
philosophical discussion, unknown to Palestine.
How the beloved disciple, a simple Galilean fisher
man, came to develop a mentality so at variance
with his early life, is not quite as astonishing to an
American as it may be to a European, for we have
too many examples of the rise of men of humble
origin to dominating intellectual positions.
Much has been said about the authorship of
this Gospel, but I am inclined to believe the
Apostle John wrote it. It has been pointed out
that John of all men would not have written about
himself, the beloved disciple, as the author does;
but Zebedee's children were certainly not lacking
in self-appreciation, as appears from St Matthew
(Ch. XX.) and St Mark (Ch. X.) The martyr-
33

THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN
dom of st John, it must be admitted, appears,
according to early traditions, to have taken place
a considerable time before the Gospel is said to
have been written, but this is a most difficult
matter to settle as there are no specific statements
of dates in any of the old books. To me the end
ing of this Gospel seems strange, for the reason
that it is there taken for granted that people will
be interested in the author, and it appears that
even just after the Resurrection, there was a dis
agreement about John's fate. This interjection
into the Gospel of the author's personality is en
tirely at variance with the spirit ofthe other three.
I have been obliged to go somewhat into the
theological side of this Gospel as it is something
which cannot well be avoided; but there are many
other very marked differences between St. John
and the other Evangelists. Like St. Mark, he
begins with John the Baptist's mission, but un
like any of the others, he constantly goes into
details in his stories with unusual, if not unneces
sary care. This characteristic is so evident that
it does not seem necessary to cite examples, but
it suggests that John had personal knowledge of
many facts, as well as a love of detail. At the
same time, this detail, and an occasional diffu-
34

THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN
siveness — I will not call it verbosity — as in the
case of the story of the Man Born Blind, indicate
an entirely different order of mind in the author,
from that of the other Evangelists. How these
details were preserved so that a man of about
ninety years of age could write them down, is
not known.
St John, it is generally believed, had in his
hands the other three Gospels, and in a few
instances, his language follows that of the other
three fairly closely. The Feeding of the Five
Thousand, for example, is very much the same
in language in St. John and the Synoptic Gospels.
In those Gospels, our Saviour's discourses as a
rule are brief and concise; not so in St. John.
Thus, what our Saviour said at the Last Supper
takes up but a few verses in the other Gospels,
but runs through all of four chapters and a part
of a fifth in St. John. And yet he omits all ref
erence to the institution of the Lord's Supper.
Incidentally, these chapters seem to be in wrong
sequence, if the words, "Arise, let us go hence,"
at the end of Chapter XIV. are in their right
place. I do not like to think that St. John elab
orated our Saviour's words, as historians of
ancient days were wont to do with the orations
35

THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN
of men of whom they wrote, but while these very
chapters are full of beautiful sentences, they con
tain others which are intricate and utterly lacking
in the simplicity of our Saviour's discourses as
given in the other Gospels.
The first twelve chapters of St. John contain a
great deal of matter not in the other Gospels.
Whence this matter is derived is, of course, quite
unknown, and yet some of it is of singular
importance. Chapter V., for example, contains
the story of the Infirm Man at the Pool of
Bethesda, of which no mention whatever is made
elsewhere. The earliest miracle, that of turning
water into wine, is told by St John alone (Ch. II.
i-i i), and while it is rather of minor importance,
it is on this incident that is based to some ex
tent the claim of the Virgin's power of inter
cession by the Roman Catholic Church. But
why the Raising of Lazarus (Ch. XI.) is not
mentioned by the other Evangelists is, as I have
said, very remarkable, for not only is the miracle
itself wonderful, but the whole story is full of
beautiful sayings, and here alone is recorded the
fact that our Saviour wept over His friend's
death. On the other hand, it is equally incom
prehensible that St. John fails to tell the story of
36

THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN
the Ascension at all, and it is strange that St. John,
who seems to have been a man of the most lov
able nature, should not have made mention of
the Blessing of Little Children, or the Raising of
Jairus's Daughter and its attendant incidents — to
mention but two events.
There is one other matter which cannot be
passed over, and that is, the difficulty of explain
ing the presence of so many sayings by our Lord
which are not recorded by the other Evangelists.
It is quite true that we have observed a not dis
similar situation as between St. Mark, on the one
hand, and St. Matthew and St. Luke on the other.
There is, however, a satisfactory explanation of
this in the existence of CL. Furthermore, as we
have seen, there is matter in St Matthew not
in St. Luke and vice versa, but this matter is
not extensive as far as Christs sayings are con
cerned. But with St. John, things are entirely
different Thus, the long Discourse on the Bread
of Life (Ch. VI.), that on the Light of the World
and on Spiritual Freedom (Ch. VIIL), that on the
Good Shepherd (Ch. X.), contain nothing which
can be found elsewhere. It is not difficult to
understand that different authors should have
omitted different matter or have given different
37

THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN
sayings in a slightly different manner, and have
written in different styles. But it is, to me at
least, inexplicable why St. John alone should
have so many allegorical and mystical sayings of
our Saviour (for all these passages are of this
character) of which no trace is to be found in the
other Gospels. It is quite impossible to believe
that our Saviour talked in two different styles,
and long before I began my present study, I used
to think that the first three Gospels probably
came nearer to our Saviour's own words than
did St John, and I think so all the more today.
Nor have I ever been able to make out how the
uneducated multitude, to whom our Saviour
spoke most frequently, could have understood
the meaning of many passages in St. John.
Much more could be said on the subject of this
Gospel — but 1 have already said more than may be
necessary. The cause ofthe many polemics over
St. John appears to me to be that he frequently
gave his version of our Saviour's words, not those
words themselves, or added his elucidation of their
meaning. Even if a layman feels sometimes like
quoting St John: "This is a hard saying, who can
hear it?" there is no denying the beauty of St
John's rendering of many of our Saviour's words.
38

Conclu^fon
THESE four Gospels are the only ones
which from the earliest days were recog
nized as being canonical, and if any one
will take the trouble to look at the so-called
Apocrypha of the New Testament, he will agree
with the wisdom of those who established what
is known as the Canon. For these apocryphal
books have very little to commend them, and
chapter after chapter are full of grotesque and
fairy-like tales.
There does not appear to be any sure method
of determining the exact chronology of our
Saviour's ministry, but it must not be forgotten
that the Gospels are the only existing genuine
histories of His life, and that they are the only
books, dating from a time reasonably near His
ministry, in which His works and discourses are
given. There is one thing that has always impressed
39

THE GOSPELS— BY A LAYMAN
me, and that is, the simplicity of our Saviour's
language, at all events in the first three Gospels.
And yet consider how folios of disputes have
been written on the meaning of what He said,
and how men and women have suffered torture
and been put to death, because they refused to ac
cept some self-constituted human authority's in
terpretation of His sayings. ' 'No man ever spake
like this man," as is said in the Gospel of our
Saviour, and no man's words have produced so
marvelous a change in mankind. The few pages
of the Gospels have had a greater influence on
the world than all the rest of its literature put
together. I do not believe knowledge of what I have
written above can affect a person's belief, except
to strengthen it, and I fail to understand why the
subject is never mentioned in church.

40

i^ote
The following books are among those in which
the history of the Gospels is most conveniently
to be studied:
A Harmony of the Gospels, by Stevens &
Burton. A Critical Introduction to the New Testa
ment, by Peake.
The Text and Canon of the New Testament,
by Souter.
The Making of the New Testament, by Bacon.
The History of Early Christian Literature,
by V. Soden.
Moffat's Introduction to the Literature of the
New Testament is not as convenient for a layman
as the others. It is too full of Latin and Greek.

8204