You are on page 1of 69


The house of with a royal residence temples of and evidently not very far E., and on the site, of modern Tell It is very questionable whether before there were in the eastern part of the valley any Egyptian settlements except the fortification mentioned above at any rate, it fully deserved the name that it came to bear in later times- land of (this would hardly apply to the old western district). The position of the land colonised by Rameses was very advantageous. It possessed a healthy desert climate and was most fertile as long as the canal to the Crocodile Lake was kept in The extension of the canal of Ram( to the Ked Sea by Necho I. increased the commercial importance of the district. Quite recently, the repairing of the canal has trebled the population, now this district, which forms a part of the modern province Heroopolis-Patum thus became an important place 4 for the trade on the Red Sea, where also the Romans built a fortified camp. Thus we see that and land of were with the Egyptians hardly identical. . The country of could be only the eighth (eastern) nome. The application to that (eastern) district, of the (obsolete and rare) name (vocalise of western dome) not yet been shown on the (later) Egyptian monuments.
The Hebrew story (Nu. 33 of the Israelites marching two da ys (Rameses to Succoth, Succoth to Etham) through the whole valley of (instead of starting from its eastern end) might suggest to some a mistake of P, J E placing the country of the Israelites hetween Bubastus, and Tell (cp Naville). T h e probabilities, however, of such a theory are small all sources seem to mean the same part of the country.

Tradition has been exceptionally fortunate with the name Goshen in particular identified Goshen with the region and the of the Amalekites. The of Goshen to Sadir, a village N E . of by Saadia (and Abu-said) is as strange as the limitation to (Old Cairo) by Bar Modern scholars have, on the contrary frequently extended Goshen too widely: Ebers, included it the whole eastern delta between the Tanitic branch Targ. Jer. which made Goshen the land of Pelusium), and the Bitter Lakes. We can afford to neglect certain hypotheses which date from the period before the decipherment of the hieroglyphics for the situation erroneously assumed by Brugscb, see EXODUS, 13. W. M. M.
I. A GOSHEN [BAFL]; land mentioned in Deuteronomistic portions of Joshua among other districts of Canaan, Josh. [AFL]), [BAFL]). It is strange to find the name of Goshen outside the limits of Goshen roper. Hommel supposes that as the Israelites in Egypt multiplied, the area allotted to them was extended, and that the strip of country between Egypt and Judah, which still belonged to the Pharaoh, was regarded as an integral part of the land of Goshen. This is obviously a conservative hypothesis (see EXODUS i., ; M IZRAIM , The text, however, may need criticism. That the M T sometimes misunderstands, or even fails to observe, geographical names, is plain we have learned so much from Assyriology. Let us then suppose that Goshen is wrongly vocalised, and should be and town (fat compare the name of the soil), the Gischala of Josephus. Other solutions are open we may at any rate presume that this old Hebrew name had a Semitic origin, see

Probably Heroopolis had, before the extension of the canal by Necho I., less importance, and the possibility that once also the eastern district had P-sapdu as capital and belonged to the district is, therefore, not to be denied. It must he confessed that the geographical texts upon which we have to rely date from Ptolemaic times only. The division of the Arabian district may have been different in earlier centuries.

As they now stand, Josh. and do the same geographical picture. T he words in 11 16, all the Negeh and all the land of Goshen and the suggest that the Goshen lay hetween the Negeb or southern steppe region and the or Lowlands. We might hold that it took in the SW. of the hill-coimtry of Judah. In Josh; where we read all the land of Goshen as far as we may ,presume that some words have dropped out after Goshen. Cp N EGEB, 4. A town in the SW. of the hill-country of Judah, mentioned with Debir, Anab, etc., Josh. 15 Probably an echo of the old name of a district in the same region (see I. Cp ) Gesham. T. K. C.

G o S PE L s



The edition of Mk. from which Mt. and Lk. borrowed Mk. relation to Mt. and Lk. Jn. in relation to the Triple Tradition 8-14). ( ) Instances from the first part of Mk. a 8). of the Resurrection (y ) Deviations of Lk. from Mk. (or Mk. and Mt.) caused by obscurity (5 IO). T he Passover and the Lords Supper ( e ) T he Passion Conclusion and Exceptions



The effect of prophecy Philonian Traditions Justin and Divergence of Mt. and Lk. Jn. in relation to the Introductions





Mk. and Mt. Jn. in relation to Mk. and Mt. 1) 5. Mk. and Lk Jn. in relation to Mk. and Lk. 16). Mt. and or Double Tradition Acts of the Lord; (6) Words of the Lord (iv.) Jn. in relation to The Double Tradition

(i.) The Evangelists select their evidence 24). (ii.) T he Period of Manifestations 2) 5. Traces of Poetic Tradition 2) 6. Discrepancies . 27). (v.) view (proofs ), 28. (vi.) T he Manifestation to the Eleven Lk. Ignatius) 5 T he of tradition (vni.) view (signs ), (ix.) Contrast between Jn. and the Synoptists (5 33). (x Note on the Testimony of Paul 33 note). .)

(Mt. Lk. 24-33.

A poetic description of the new city is to be found in Anastasi, 4 6. t of the canal always led immediately to an encroachment ofthe desert upon the narrow cultivable area. The canal was cubits wide (according to Strabo ft. according to Pliny j o yards according to traces near ft. deep (according to Pliny; 16-17 Engl. ft. according to modern traces). The canal was repaired by II., whence the name of the province Augustamnica from the Canalis Trajanus.

VI. SINGLE TRADITIONS 34-63). First Gospel 34-36).

Doctrinal and other characteristics 343. Evidence as to date 35). Jn. in relation to Mts. Tradition 36). The Coptic versions which simply transliterate, seem, however to have lost all Possibly the vocalisation of disguised the Egyptian name to them. A woman pilgrim of the fourth century places the terra Gesse 16 R. m. from calling the capital civitas Arabia. She believed he 4 R. m. to the E. of this capital (see Naville, meaning apparently



( b ) The Third
The Dedication, 37-44). Linguistic characteristics


9. Doctrinal characteristics 3 ) (iii.) A manual for daily conduct Evidence as to date

Structure 52-63). T he Gospel as a whole 52). T he Details. The Prologue 5) 3. The Bridegroom ( ) Galilee, a Jerusalem,




47, and

Hypotheses of authorship (ii.) [a] Names, 46, numbers,


of ( T he Bread of Life 5) 3 5. The Light 56). T he Life 57). (6) The Raising of the Dead 58). ( The Raising of Lazarus 5 ) 7) 9. (8) The Preparation for the Sacrifice The Deuteronomy (IO) The Passion
Clement of Rome 8) 7. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles Th e Epistle of Barnabas (I Alleged Synoptic Quotations 89). Anticipations Jn. g) o. The Great Apophasis (ix. Ignatius



64-82) The Third Gospel 6) 4. Pa 65-74). His Exposition 65 a). His account of Mk. and Mt. 65 b). The system of Eusebius 6) 6. The silence of Papias on Lk. and Jn. 6) 7. (e) The date of his Exposition 68-73). . (I) Was Papias a hearer of ? and and Jn. the Papias His list of the Apostles (6) His relation to Polycarp. Summary of the 74). Justin Martyr 75-77). ( a ) His titles of the Gospels (6) Indications of Lk. as a recent Gospel 76). The origin of Justins view of the Memoirs 77). The Muratorian 78). 7) 9. (yi.) Clement of Alexandria (vii.) Summary of the Evidence as to Mk. and Mt. 8) 1. (viii.) Summary of the Evidence as to Lk. and Jn. Paul 83). ames 84).

(ii.) quoted from the Gospels T he Oxyrhynchus fragment 86).

The hpistle to Diognetus 9) 5. The Shepherd of 96). 9) 7. Marcion Valentinus 9 ) 9. Summary of the Evidence before Justin (xviii.) Justin Martyr (I) Minor apparent Johannine quotations Except ye be begotten again ( Other alleged quotations 3) (4) Abstentions from quotation Inconsistencies with Jn. 13. 0) Summary of the evidence about Justin

.. .

Traces of Jn. as a recent interpretation

The Diatessaron





In general I n Lk. IO I n Mt. I n Mk. Conclusion


Tradition theory Dependence theory 16. 1) Original gospel Original Mk. Logia (5 Two-source theory Extent of logia Special Lk. source 123). Smaller sources 1 4) 2 . Theories of combination Review of classes of theory Use of Mt. by Lk. Sources of the sources Critical inferences Semitic basis 130).

Order of narratives I 3. ) Occasion of Words Places and persons Later conditions Miracle stories Resurrection of Jesus 1 . 38) Absolute ( a ) About Jesus generally (b) About Jesus miracles 10. 4) Inference regarding the signs Metaphors misinterpreted 1 2 . 4) Influence of O T Miraculous Conclusion as to words of Jesus








Fundamental principles Chronological statements See JOHN

Titles of gospels 146). Statements of Fathers Author of gospel 1 8 . 4) Author of gospel and the logia Date of logia Date of gospel of gospel author and date of 3rd Conclusion Gospel of Hebrews ($155). Other extra-canonical gospels


abbreviations used in this article. o Ignatius, ed. Lightf
Refutation Heresies (text of Grabe books and sections of ET in ante-Nicene Library). Lightf. Lightfoot, B b Essays. i. Lightf. Lightfoot, Essays on Religion. (ed. Amsterdam, ref. to and page). to Mk.

epistle entitled An ancient homily, in Lightfoots ed. Clement. Homilies, ed. Schwegler. Harmony called Tatians Diatessaron. ed. HE ed.

(reff. to and margin of

in Potters ed.



Heresies ed. Duncker. Lightfoot, ed.

=the Common Tradition of Mk. and Lk. where differs from Mt.

Tradition of Mk. and Mt. where it differs from Lk. Lk. =Common Tradition of M . t and Lk. (whether in Synoptic or Double Tradition). contra Huet, Kouen, 1668). Philo (Mangeys vol. and page). Pseudo-Peter Gospel of Peter. Schottg. 2 vols. Codex (see TEXT), called Sinaiticus. Tryph. Justins (ed. Otto). Westc Westcotts on John. on



is relatively full in its account of the [The aim of the article to set forth with of the gospels as a basis for considering their mutual sufficient fulness the facts that have to be taken into relations, and in its survey of the external evidence as account in formulating a theory of the genesis of the . to origin. The second mainly at gospels, to record and some of the more giving ordered account of the various questions bearportant theories that have been proposed, and to ing on (especially) the internal evidence that have cate if possible the present position of the question and raised by scholars in the long course of the development the apparent trend of thought. of gospel criticism, and at attempting to find at least a Its two parts, as will appear from the prefixed tabular provisional answer.] exhibit of their contents, are partly independent, partly complementary. Roughly it may be said that the first



Roughly it may be said that, of the Synoptists, Mk. exhibits the Acts shorter Words of the Lord Mt. a combination of the Acts with Discourses of the Lord, the latter often grouped together, as in the Sermon on the Mount Lk. a second of Acts with Discourses, which an attempt is made to arrange the Words and Discourses chronologically, assigning to each the circumstances that occasioned it. A comparison shows that Mt. and where Mk. is silent, often agreewith one another. This doubly-attested account-for the most part confined to Discourses, where the agreement is sometimes Double verbatim- may be conveniently called Tradition. Where Mk. steps in, the agreement between Mt. and Lk. is less close and a study of what may be called the Triple Tradition, the matter common to Mk., Mt., and Lk., shows that here and as a rule, contain nothing o importance in common. which f is not found i n our ( o r rather in a n ancient f containing a fe w edition o for [see below, This leads to the conclusion that, in the Triple Tradition, Mt. and Lk. borrowed (independent& of each other) either our (more f r o m some document 2 embedded

known. (Eus. the substance of the it is antecedently probable that, where the Synoptists differ, if favours one, he does so deliberately. Inde pendently, therefore, of its intrinsic value, is important as being, in effect, the commentary on

the Synoptists.
11. THE TRIPLE Here we have to consider : (i.) The edition of Mk. from which Mt. and Lk. borrowed; (ii.) Mk. in relation to Mt. and Lk. Jn. in relation to and Lk. The Edition of from which and borrowed differs from Mk. itself merely in a few points indicating a tendency to correct style.
The most frequent changes are (a)to substitute for and to insert pronouns, for the sake of clearness. But is often apparent (6) a tendency to substitute more definite, or classical or appropriate words. For example, are substituted for the single (Mk. 2 applied to wine and wine-skins), (or some other for the barbaric (Mk. 2 4 for (MU. for the unheard of (Mk. 2 is by the following; bracketed additions : Mk. 4 mystery of God; (3 [his brother]; (44) In Mk. for them Mt. and Lk. heart. (c) there iscondensation 4 IO] or an unusual word [of a plant] is changed to a more one ; or a less reverential phrase 27 ) to a more reverential one In altered into or possihly because means in (four or five times) This follows from the generally admitted fact that versions of the Three Synoptic Gospels were welt known in the Church long before the publication of the Fourth (see helow, External Evidence). An interesting testimony to the authority of our Four Canonical Gospels, and also to the later date of the Fourth comes from the Jew of Celsus, who says that (Orig. 2 certain believers, as though roused from intoxication to control (or to self-judgment, sir alter the character of the Gospel from its first in fourfold and fashion and it that they might have wherewith to gainsay refutations Celsus apparently that there was first an original Gospel, of such a kind as to render it possihle for enemies to make a charge of intoxication (perhaps being in Hebrew and characterised by eastern metaphor and hyperbole), then, that there were three versions of this Gospel, then four, thus making an interval between the first three and the fourth, which he, does not make between any of the first three. The word manifold ap ears to refer to still later apocryphal Gospels. seemed more appropriate for history. At all events Lk. never (without etc.) Jesus. The only apparent instance is Lk. unto them Peace he unto yon. This is expunged dorf, and in double brackets by WH . Alford condemns Tischendorf on the ground that authority is weak. internal evidence is strong. 3 The deviations of Mt. and Lk. from Mk. are printed in distinct characters in Mr. Rushbrookes which is indispensable for the critical study of this question. It follows the order of Mk.

Any other hypothesis requires only to he stated in order to untenable. For example : ( I ) that Mt. and Lk. should agree accident, would be contrary to all literary experience ; if and Lk. borrowed from a common document containing Mk or (3) differing in important respects from Mk or Lk. from or Mt. from Lk and would contain not in ( 5 ) if Mk. borrowed from Mt. and from Lk., he must have his narrative so to insert almost and word common to and in the passage before him-a hard task, even for a literary forger of these days, and an impossibility for such a writer as Mk. The Fourth Gospel called Jn.) does the Synoptic repentance, faith,, baptism, rebuke, sinners, 2. John. disease possessed with a devil, cast devils unclean leper leaven, enemy, hypocrisy, adultery, wbe rich, riches, mighty work Instead of Jn. uses have faith Faith, in Jn. is abiding Christ. The Synoptists say that prayer will he if we have faith : Jn. says (15 I ye f in and my words you, ask whatsoever ye will, and it shall be done unto you. Except in narrating the Crucifixion, Jn. never mentions cross or crucify, but he represents Jesus as predicting being uplifted or glorified. In Jn. the Synoptic child rarely occurs but the necessity of the kingdom of God as little children is expressed by him in the necessity (verbally different, hut spiritually the same) of being born from above.

Since the author of the Fourth Gospel must have

For the meaning of the emphasised the see helow T he hypothesis of an Oral Tradition, as the sole of the similarities in the Synoptists, is contrary both to external and to internal evidence. 3 The kingdom of God or of heaven, occurs in Jn. twice, in the Synoptists more times.


the cleft of a rock. Once at least our Mk. (9 : dvahov to have traditio;, Mt. and Lk. the older : there is order, is on the Mount, indicating that both Mt. and Lk. derive the saying, not from but from a different source, which come the portion: common to Mt. and Lk. above called The Double Tradition.

Introduction) might naturally their place in the dialect of the slaves and freedmen who formed the first congregations of the Church in Rome ; but in the more prosperous days of the Church they would be corrected.

An examination of the deviations from Mk. common to Mt. and Lk. in the Triple Tradition confirms the view that Mt. did not borrow from L k . , nor L k. from Mt. Had either borrowed from the other, they would have agreed, at least occasionally, against Mk. in more important details. (ii.) in relation t o and is a remarkable fact that-whereas the later Evangelists, and other writers such as Barnabas and Justin, appeal largely to detailed fulfilments of prophecy-Mk. quotes no prophecies in his own and gives no miraculous incidents peculiar to himself except (Mk. an ancient and semi-poetical tradition of the healing of the blind. H e makes no mention of Christs birth or childhood, and gives no account of the
Occasionally Mk. repeats the same thing in the formofquestion and answer. may sometimes he a mere peculiarity of style eg 2 3 . : but in many cases (1 32 42 3 [compared 3 4 5 12 44 etc ) he seems t o have had before him two versions of one saying in his anxiety to omit to in connection with unhave inserted hoth. clean spirits see 44 37 - 12 for others, relating to the of people round Jesus, the publicity of his work and his desire for solitude, see 2 3 etc. (some paralleled in Lk., not so fully or gra Mk. abounds with details as to the manner and gestures of Jesus (see 3 31-37 I n some these, Aramaic words are given as his very utterances, 5 41 14 36. Sometimes Mk. gives names mentioned by no other writer (cp 3 8 10 46).

Again, a very early Evangelist, not having much experience of other written Gospels, and not knowing exactly what most edify Church, might naturallv stress on vivid expressions and striking words, or reproduce anacolutha, which, though not objectionable in discourse, are unsuitable for written composition.
Many such words are inserted Mk. and avoided Mt. or Lk. or by (13s) For irregular constructions 12 (altered 5 Note also the change of construction from to the infinitive in 315, as compared with 314 and the use of to ask a question (2x6 The of Mk. are known; see 627 7 4 39. Those in 1214 and in Mk. shares with Less noticed but more noteworthy, are the uses of rare, poetic, or prophetic words (7 32 8 23 which may indicate a Christian or hymn the basis

stumbling-blocks in the way of weak believers, omitted in later Gospels, and not likely to have been tolerated, except in a Gospel of extreme antiquity. example H e was not to do there any
work only

Mk. also contains

In some circumstances, elaboration of portant detail (and especially the introduction of names), instances of which abonnd in the Apocryphal Gospels, would indicate a late writer. But Mk. often emphasises and elaborates points omitted, or subordinated, by the other Evangelists, and likely to be omitted in later times, as not being interesting or edifying.
For example Lk. and Jn. subordinate facts relating to the ersonal influence and execution of John the Now Acts 3 that several years after Christs death the baptism of John was actually overshadowing the baptism of Christ among certain Christians. This being the case, it was natural for the later Evangelists to references t o the Baptist. Lk., it is true, describes birth in detail: but the effect is to show that the son of Zachariah was destined from the womb to be nothing hut a forerunner of the Messiah. Jn. effects the same in a different way, by recording the Baptists confessions of Christs preexistence and sacrificial mission. I t is characteristic of early date a s well as of his simplicity and freedom from controversial that, whether aware or not of this danger of rivalry, he set down: just as he may have heard them, traditions the Baptist that must have interested the Galilean Church far more than Churches of the Gentiles.

34) all sick are brought to Jesus, hut he heals whereas Mt. (816) says that he healed all, and Lk. that he healed each one ; his mother and brethren attempt to lay hands on him, on the ground that he was insane. an ambitious petition is imputed to James and Johh, instead of (as Mt.) t o their mother; Pilate marvels at the speedy death of Jesus which might have been used to support the view (still maintained by a few modern critics) that Jesus had not really died Mk. omits (6 7) the statement that Jesus gave power (as Mt. Lk. 91) to his apostles to heal he enumerates the different stages which Jesus effected a cure, and describes the cure as at first, only partial the fig-tree, instead of being up immediately (as Mt. 2119 is not observed to he withered till after the interval of a day.

(iii.) in the Instances from the first part of following comparisons will elucidate relation to the Triple Tradition. (It will be found that Jn. generally supports a combination of Mk. and Mt., and often Mk. alone, against Lk. the exceptions being in those passages which describe the relation of John the Baptist There Jn. goes beyond Lk.

Another sign of early composition is the rudeness of Greek.

as the


Mk. uses many words Phrynichus, (5 23)


(1025) Constitutions improves the had (Taylors so Lk. always (and sometimes Mt.) corrects these Such words (which stand on quite a different footing Greek, such as we find in

Mk. 1 As it is written in Isaiah, If these prophecies, wrongly assigned to Isaiah are not an early interpolation, they are the only ones quoted the Evangelist Mt. and assigns to Lk. assign one of these prophecies the Baptist, so as to the willing subordination of the latter I am [but] the voice). Mk. mentions no suspicion among the Jews that the Baptist might be the Messiah. Lk. mentions a silent questioning (that does not elicit a direct denial). adds a question (1 art thou? followed a I not Mk.17: me. Rejected by Lk. (possibly as being liable to an interpretation derogatory to Jesus), but. thrice repeated by Jn. 27 such a context as to to Christsprecedence Mk.18: shall baptize you with f he Holy Spirit, omitting is added by, Mt. and Lk. Jn. goes with with the Holy Spirit. Mk. 133) : He it is that Mk 1 mentions Jordan in connection with the baptism of Jesus: k. does not (though he does afterwards in his preface to the Temptation). Jn. (1 does, with details of the place. (Note that Lk. never mentions the Synoptic beyond I t is beside the mark to reply that these words are used, occasionally, by classical prose writers. T he point is, that occurs in N T only and a account healing in 2034, occurs i n N T ninety times! In the canonical books of OT, occurs only in Proverbs. occurs only here in NT, and only twice (apart from a lepers scab in OT, and there in poetical passages. (practically non-occurrent in Greek literature, see Thayer) is found nowhere in the Bible, except in of Is. 356, and in account of the man who had (Mk. 732) impediment in his speech. I t omitted also in 3 (where D and Ss. add it). The of and Lk. to Mk. will be found by Synopticon. I t may sumed that in this section, Mt. agrees with except where indicated.

Almost the only addition of importance in this corrected edition of Mk. is Who it thee? added to explain the obscure Mk. 1465 Prophesy. T he parenthesis in Mk. 1 is the only exception. This was probably an insertion in the original Gospel (see 5 8). 3 For proof that Gospel terminates at 168, see WH on Mk. 16 which is there pronounced to he a narrative of Christs appearances after the Resurrection, found by a scribe or editor in some secondary record then surviving from a preceding its authorship and its precise date must remain unknown ; it is, however apparently older than the time when the Canonical Gospels received for though it has points of contact with them all, it contains attempt harmonise their various representations of the course of events. Papias, quoted Eus. (3 39) : For he (Mk.) took great care about one matter, io omit nothing o what he heard. f

has it thrice.) Lk. describing the descent of the Spirit adds in a bodily shape. Jn. implies that the descent was a sign to the Baptist alone and States that abode on Jesus. Thus he bodily shape,-at all events in the ordinary sense. Lk. alone (136) had stated that the Baptist was connected with Jesus through family ties; represents the Baptist a s saying And I knew not. Mk. 1 (possibly also leaves room for interval after the Temptation, in which the reader may place Christs early teaching in Jerusalem before John was betrayed. Lk. 414, omitting the mention of John, appears to leave mo interval. Jn. repeatedly says, or imphes, that the early teaching took place
(324 4
I3 )

meant glorifying the Father, and hence the Son, by the supreme sacrifice on the Cross? No one can that these were what Jesus calls dark sayings the Behold at disciples contradicted him : (16 speakest thou clearly and utterest no dark saying. But they were wrong.


puts into the mouths of Christs household or friends the words H e is beside and Lk. seem to transfer this to the multitudes. They render it were astonished or Jn. goes with in mentioning a charge of madness and connecting it with the charge of possession hath a devil and is mad). the charee of the Pharisees, ( a ) in thd form (3 an unclean spirit while adding a milder (2) 32: In the prince of he casteth out the (devils. and reject (a) and adopt defining prince by Beelzebnl. aoes with H e hath a devil. parable of seed that springeth up Mk. sower knoweth not how is omitted by and Lk. the essence of this in of the from the Spirit, as to which, we (38) not whence and apparently modelled on Eccles. : As what is way wind the in o her f with child, even so thou knowest not the work of God all. I n the morning sow thy seed and in the evening withhold not thine hand :for thou not which shall prosper, this or that. Mk. 6 :A prophet in his own country. Lk. alone connects this proverb with a visit Nazareth, in which the Nazarenes try to Jn. it with a visit in which the Galileans Jesus. Cp N A Z ARE TH . 8 27-29. Here Lk., alone of the evangelists, represents Jesus as praying and he does the four other passages where and omit it. Jn. never uses the word throughout his Gospel.


I have not come to, call the righteous, but the Lk. adds to Jn. the word



Jn. seems to say, therefore, not that Christs teaching, thoughclear, was concealed (Lk. from the disciples supernaturally, but rather that it was beyond till the Spirit was given. Imbued with the popular belief that resurrection must imply resurrection in a fleshly form, visible to friends and enemies how could they a t present apprehend a spiritual tion, wherein the risen Christ must be shaped forth by the Spirit, and brought forth after sorrow like that of the woman when she is in travail? Mk. and Mt. seem to have read in to utterances o Jesus f from fa ct s o r Towards these, Lk. and Jn. different attitudes
starting a t first in accord with the Tradition, gradually drops more and more of the definite ; and a t last, when confronted with the words, After I am raised, I will go before you into Galilee, omits the promise altogether. Jn., on the contrary, recognises that the predictions of Christ were of a general nature, though expressed in Scriptural types. Lk. differ also in their attitudes towards Scripture a s proving the Resurrection. Lk. represents the two travellers to the risen Saviour, till he interpreted to as the Scriptures the things concerning himself. Jn. expressly says that the belief of the beloved disciple precede4 the knowledge of the Scriptures: And he saw and the Scripture, how believed ; for not even y e t did they that he must needs rise from the dead. In the light of returning to statement that disciples discussed together what the the dead might mean, we have only to suhstitute this for the, and i t becomes intelligible. Every one knew what rising from the dead meant. But they did not know the meaning of this kind of rising from the dead what Christ said about his

Predictions of the to these Mk. and Lk. give us a choice between two difficulties.
(a) 9 (comp. also 9 tioned among themselves the dead predicting Lk. says, that the disciples queswas the meaning of rising from Yet what could he clearer? I n predictions of death and Resurrection. with fulness detail, which the Gospel proceeds; and the last prediction of death a statement that 45) it was as it were veiled them. so whereas Mk. (and Mt.) contains the I have been raised up, I will go before you t o Lk. omits this; and repeat or refer to this subsequently, where Mk. (16 7) and promise, Lk. alters the words to into he in Galilee.

(6) The promise and Mt.), I will go before you to occurs in close connection with Peters profession that he will not desert Jesus. Jn. has, in the same connection I go to prepare for you.
This leads us to elsewhere for a confusion between Galilee and place. Comparing with Lk. 437,we find that Lk. has, instead of The whole of Galilee, the words every place of the (so also in Lk. stands where we should expect so Chajes [Markus-studies, who also independently offers the same theory [double meaning of to account for Lk. 4 37). In Mk. 3 7, Lk. Galilee. The question, then, arises, whether, the original, may have been some word signifying region, or place which (I) interpreted to mean Galilee, Jn. the place (of my Father) or the (holy) while (3) Lk. found the tradition so obscure that he omitted it altogether. Now the word a longer form of (Galilee), is used to mean (Josh. 22 region. Again, Mt. to Galilee to the where he for them, suggests two Galilee, appointed Lastly, hesidrs many passages Ign. Barn. 19 I ; 5, and also where word is used, with a n attribute, to mean place the next world), 978, uses the word absolutely of Paradise. leads to the inference [which is highly probable as regards and which further knowledge might render equally probable as regards place] that an expression, misunderstood and as meaning and omitted by Lk. because he could not understand it at all, was understood by to mean [my Fathers Paradise. In any case we have here a tradition of Mk. and rejected by Lk., Jn. such a way as to throw light on the different views taken by Lk. and Jn. of Christs sayings about his resurrection. one is said to have understood the stretching out, and the context almost compels us to suppose that it was not understood. In I Sam. where of have a corrupt reproduction of Sym. has appointed place. Also compare Mt. Go tell my brethren to depart to Galilee, with Jn. 20 17, to my brethren and say unto them I ascend Does not this indicate that what understood as meaning Galilee or appointed mountain understood as meaning heaven? This points to some of being expressed by the place, the holy place, (place) of the Father, the the Holy Mountain.

relation to ( a ) and (6) is as follows in (a) and (a) Jn. makes it obvious why the disciples conld not understand Christs predictions.
Take the following 19) Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up ; (3 Son of man must be up (1223) T he hour is come that the Son of man should be (13 Now hath the Son of man God hath been in him, and Gqd him in himself and him. Who was to conjecture that, when Jesus spoke of being from the earth, he said this (12 signifying by what death he was to die? or that

Call, used by 41 times 26, Mk. only 4, is used by Jn. only twice. Righteous in Mt. and Lk. (but only twice in to describe who observes the law-is used but thrice in Jn. and then in the higher Platonic sense 0 righteous and see 5 724). times in Lk., only times in hft. and Mk. together, occurs only 4 in Jn., and except in the of Jn. differs in expression from Mk. and ; but he differsf a r Similarly, the Raise cleave the tree, mainly referring to the Baptist; doctrine about stones as children to Abraham. and about cutting down barren tree of Jewish formalism-may possibly have had in his mind Eccles. The aorist cannot be exactly expressed in English : hath been is nearer to the meaning than was. Signifying representingunderafigure or n o one the time). In 21 the cross is signified more clearly by the stretching out of the hands but no

Deviations of Lk. from Mk. (or caused by obscurity, appear to be corrected, or omissions supplied, by in the followine instances
Mk. ( 17 1 and Mt. say that Jesus s a t on the ass. Lk. first with and then substituted for the latter the they put him thereon. Jn. (12 goes with Mk. T he Synoptists all mention garments, on the ass and strewn in the road. But Mk. and Mt. mention also the strewing of branches (Mt. however, calling them a word that mostly means litter, or grass straw used for or for of mattress. This Lk. omits. inserts (without mentioning garments but in a context: They took (in their hands) the o the palm trees f and went forth to meet Whether Jn. or Mk. was right or whether both were right is not now the question. T he is that where Lk. omits tradition of Mk. possibly as being difficult, Jn. modifies it, or substitutes a kindred one. (143-9) account of the anointing of Jesus by a woman is either omitted by Lk. or placed much earlier and greatly modified the woman being called sinner, and the as Simon a Pharisee. Mk. and Mt., host being however, call him Simon the and Jn. (12 suggests that the house belonged to and his sisters. I t is not impossible that the difference may be caused by some clerical error. Chajes, accounts for Simon the leper by aconfusion between the the leper. May there have further confusion between and Lazarus? Jn. apparently guards the reader 1 against supposing the woman to he a sinner, by telling us ( 1 that it Mary, the sister of

Lk. amplifies and dignifies while Jn. appears to subordinate, the circumstances of the Supper. What Jn. had to say about the feeding on the flesh and blood of the Saviour, he earlier, in synagogue at Capernaum. There Jesus insists, (663) words that I have spoken to are spirit and are life and, profiteth nothing. Now he reiterates this (13 ye are clean but not This, when compared with (15 3), ye are clean o the word that (have spoken untoyou, indicates that f participating in the bread and wine and washing of was useless except so far as it went with spiritual participation in the himself. A climax of warning is attained by making Judas receive the devil when he receives the bread dipped in wine by the hand of Jesus. avoids the ambiguous Synoptic word covenant or testament and makes it clear, the final discourse, that he regards the Spirit as a (or that implies nothing of the nature of a bargain or compact. 5. Mk. 14 27 (and Mt.; but Lk. All ye shall be caused to stumble; for it is written, I will smite the Shepherd, and sheep shall be scattered abroad, was likely to cause a scandal - though God could smite his son. This may be seen as from Barnabas, who gives the prophecy thus : (5 hen they the Jews] shall own shepherd, then shall perish the sheep of the flock. Jn. while retaining Christs prediction that the disciples be scattered effectively destroys the scandal by adding that, even wheh abandoned by them he would not be abandoned the Father And yet I alone, because the Father with me.

The Passion.- The facts seem to be as follows :I . and Mt. place the words, Arise let us go at between ( a ) the arrival of Judas. Lk. omits all that Mk. 14 38 Watch and pray. temptation, the and (6) Mk. Arise, let us go, having merely (2246) Stand and pray temptation. Now to stand 2 But nothing else than to pray might also mean watch cp Neh. 73. Lk. may have considered (6) a duplicate of (a), the meaning to he stand fast and pray. Jn. places the words Arise, let us go, at the moment when Jesus feels the approach, not of hut of world who Lk. omits all) mention of the binding of Jesus. early Christian writers regarded it as a symbolical act, being performed in the case of the intended sacrifice of Isaac, the prototype of Christ (Gen. 22 Jn. inserts it (18 as does Mk. 15 I (and Mt.). 3. Lk. speaks of 52) generals (UT of the temple. Jn. says (18 The and officers of the Lk. has loosely (3 Annas Caiaphas as high priests that Caiaphas was high priest, and Annas his father-in-law. 4. According to Mk. 14 false witnesses asserted that Jesus had declared that destroy the temple. Mt. alters would into was and implies that, though what had been previously testified was false this may have been Lk. omits the whole. I n his the destruction of the temple by the Romans was accepted by Christians as a divine retaliation. which he reearded as inflicted bv Jesus himself, sothaf he wish avoid saying that testimony was false. says in effect, Some words about destroying the temple had been uttered by Jesus but they referred to the temple of his body. And the were the-destroyers. Mk. 15 6 (and Mt.) says that it was the custom to release a malefactor a t the feast. Lk. omits this. Jn. not inserts it, adds that Pilate himself the Jews of it. 6. (and Mt.) the (purple or scarlet) robe and the crown of thorns. Lk. omits these striking what reason, it is difficult to Jn. inserts both of them. 7. Mk 1465 alone of the Synoptists mentions blows with the flat hand ; in in Is. 506). Jn. also mentions 3 (and


The Passover and the Lords Supper.- The

Synoptists and especially Lk seem to represent the Crucifixion as after. occurrine before. the Paschal -meal. are of in Lk. between the Day of Preparation and I t was one thing to the Day of (Mk. 14 and Mt.) prepare to eat the Passover, and another to (Lk. 228) prepare the that we may eat it, which Lk. substitutes for the former. Also Mk. 14 (which Mt. adjusts to a different context, and omits) indicates that original tradition have agreed with view: for no one would have been abroad a t or after sunset when the Passovermealwas to be eaten. Mk. Mt. in parts unquestionably sanction view. they do not express it so decidedly as Lk., and they contain slight traces of an older tradition indicating that the Last Supper was on the Day of Preparation. I . Mk. 14 One of you shall betray me, he that with was perhaps a shock to some believers, as indicating that partook of the bread. Mt. the words, retaining more general phrase, while they were eating. Lk. omits eating, having simply, the hand of him that is to betray me is with me on the table. Jn. (13 quotes He eateth my bread ,and mentions as the from hands. Mk. (and Mt.) H e that dippeth his hand in the dish is omitted by Lk. Jn. comwith me will be the bines a modification of this with the foregoing; Jesus dips the sop and gives it to Judas. 3. Lk. differs from Mk. Mt. in mentioning the meal (apparently) as the Passover mentioning a cup which 17) received meal, and bade the disciples distribute to one another inserting the words D o this a s a memorial of me (4) mentioning a second cup, that was after sup (5) speaking of the as new covenant. I n all these points



in of the in

Conclusion and Exceptions.- The instances above enumerated might be largely supplemented. The conclusion from them is that-setting aside ( I ) descriptions of possession, and other subjects excluded from the Johannine allusions to John the Baptist, (3 ) a few passages where Jn., accepting development,
Mt.13 17 Lk. 17 Also (3) and and (5) may be interpolations (but more probably early additions, made in a later edition I Cor. or (more probably) from of the work) tradition. D and destroy this possibility by reading two witnesses. Barnabas (7 ) connects them with the scapegoat. Possibly this connection may have seemed to Lk. objectionable. The miracle (Mk. 1 1 Mt. 21 of the Withered Fig Tree may come under this head. It has a close resemblance to (136) parable of the Fig Tree. Cp FIG.

on with her would is what

carries it a stage further, ever agrees with as whilst he very steps in to support, or explain by modifying, some obscure harsh statement omitted by Lk.
him, is omitted by Mt. and Lk and conJn. 19 I t was about the hour (when Pilate pro. nounced sentence). Mk. may have confused (sixth) [In I 637 the impossible thirty (third). may be due to a similar confusion.] Or the sentence may be out of place and should come later, describing the death of Jesus a s occurring when was the lime when they crucified How easily confusion might spring up, may be seen from the Acts of John when he was hanged on the bush of the cross i n the sixth of the day was over all the land. First, sixth might be mistaken for from the (or vice versa); then a numeral would have to Or might be repeated (or dropped) before In Mk. 15 33, D, which elsewhere gives in full, has an unusual symbol The conclusion is that Mk. seemed to Mt. Lk., and t o be in error, and that Jn. corrected by what Mt. and Lk. corrected by omission. (6) Mk. 14 30, Before the cock crow twice thrice thou shalt deny is given by Mt. and Lk. with omission of twice. This is remarkable because twice enhances the miraculousness of the predidtion. May not Mk. be based on a Semitic original, which gave the saying thus, Before the cock crow, twice and thrice (=repeatedly, see Job 3329 (1338) accepts modification of Mt., but with tion-the cock shall not crow, until such time as thou deny me thrice Here Jn. accepts, but improves on, the Synoptic correction of Mk., though perhaps literally correct, does not represent the spirit of what Jesus said.

It must be added that, in this Double Tradition and (to a less extent) in those parts of the Triple Tradition where Lk. makes omissions, Mk. and Mt. generally agree more closely than where Lk. intervenes. The phenomena point to a common document occasionally used by Mk. and Mt., and, where thus used, avoided by Lk. and also by The Walking on the Water is an exception to general omission. The Anointing of Jesus (since Lk. has a version of it) has been treated above as part of the Triple Tradition. and in relation to and is very brief. The larger portion of it relates to exorcism, Mk. (and note the close agreement between Mk. and Lk. as to the exorcism of the Legion, a name omitted by Mt. in his account of it). There are also accounts of Jesus (Mk. 45) retiring to solitude, and of people flocking to him from (38) Tyre and Sidon. A section of some length attacks the Pharisees, as (Mk. 12 38-40) devourers of widows houses, and prepares the (Mk. 236) way for the story of the widows mite. In the later portions of the Gospel, Lk. deviates from Mk. (as Mt. approximates to Mk. ), returning to similarity in the Preparation for the Passover (Mk. 14 12-16), but from this point deviating more and more. insertion of what may be called the section, is consistent with the prominence given by him to women and to poverty (see below, 39). and or, The Double Tradition (a) the Acts of the Lord, ( b ) the Words of Acts of the Lord are confined to the details of the Tempta the healing of the Centurions servant.

(a) Mk.1525, I t was the third hour and they crucified

Two important exceptions demand mention : -

14. Exceptions. tradicted indirectly

111. DOUBLE TRADITIONS. The Double Traditions include what is common to ) Mk. and Mt., ) Mk. and ) Mt. and Lk. . The last of these is so much fuller than or that it may be conveniently called Double Tradition. (i.) and ; in to and Much of this has been incidentally discussed above, under the head of the Triple Tradition : and what has been said there will explain why Lk. and Jn. omit Mk. and (accounts of the Baptist), 913 (Elias is come already), He calleth for omission of a long and continuous section of Mk. (a), Christs walking on the Sea, the doctrine about things that defile, and about the feeding of the Four the childrens crumbs, (d), Thousand, ( e ) ,acomparison between this and the feeding the dialogue (see 39 n. ) of the Five Thousand, and following the doctrine of leaven - may indicate that Lk. knew this section as existing in a separate tradition, which, for some reason, he did not wish t o include in his Gospel. Most of it may be said t o belong to the Doctrine of Bread, as taught in Galilee. Jn. also devotes a section of his Gospel to .a doctrine of Bread (but of quite a different kind from concentrating attention on Christ as the Bread. Lk. also omits (Mk. the cutting off of hand and foot, and (Mk. the discussion of the enactments of Moses concerning divorce-the former, perhaps, as being liable to literal interpretation, the latter, as being of date. The ambitious petition (Mk. the sons of Zebedee, Christs rebuke (Mk. of Peter as Satan, and the quotation (Mk. I will smite the shepherd, L k. may have omitted, as not tending to edification. In the discourse on the last day L k. omits a great deal that prevents attention from being concentrated on the destruction of Jerusalem as exactly the predictions of Christ; but especially he omits (Mk. of this hour the Son knoweth not.
Attempts have been made, but in vain (see Classical Review, to prove that sixth hour meant 6 A.M. T he parallel in Mt. can be ascertained by reference to For the Withering of the Fig-Tree (Mk. 1 1 see 13 n . 18

tion and

gives no detailed account of a Temptation, hut just it adding (113) and the angels were ministering apparentlyduring the Temptation ; Mt. says that after the departure of the devil angels and to unto him ;Lk. mentions no angels. omits all temptation of Jesus, suggests (1 that angels were always ascending and descending on the Son of man, and that, in course of time, the eyes of the disciples would be opened todiscern them. As regards the healing, some assert that Jn. does not refer to the event described by But if so it can hardly be denied that he, their it in inserting in his Gospel another case of healing, resembling the former in being performed ( I ) a t a distance, on the child (apparently) of a foreigner, and (3) near Capernaum. and Lk. differ irreconcileably.3 Jn., Space hardly admits mention of the possiblereasons for several omissions. Some of these passages the practical abrogation of the Levitical Law of meats in Mk. have seemed to him to point to a later period, such as that in Actslog-16, where Christ abrogated the Law by a special utterance to Peter. Again in the Doctrine of Bread, while (Mk. 7 crumbs and 8 leaven are used spiritually loaves and (Mk. 8 one loaf are used literally and mixture of the literal and metaphorical may have perplexed Lk especially if he interpreted the miracle of the Fig-Tree phorically, and was in doubt as to the literal or metaphorical meaning of the Walking on the Water. Some passages he may also have omitted a5 du licates, the Feeding of the Four lhousand. As regards leaven, insertion which is hypocrisy), if authentic, is fatal to the authenticityof Mk. Perhaps the original was simply Beware of leaven, and the explanation, the was Beware of ,the leaven of hypocrisy. T he rest was evangelistic teaching How Jesus mean real leaven and real bread when he could feed his flock with the leaven of heaven at his pleasure?) inserted first as a parenthesis (perhaps about the Son of man or the Son of God), and then transferred to the text in the first person. The variation of Mt. ftom Mk. suggests that the words were not Christs. Jn. thenarrative of Jesus walking on the Sea but adds expressions (6 borrowed from Ps. go to the sea and where they would which increase the symbolism of a story describing the helplessness of the Twelve, when, for a short time, they had left their master. Jn. omits the statement (Mk. and Mt.) that Jesus constrained the disciples to leave him. The passages referred to in this section will be found in Rushhrookes Synopticon, arranged in order. D and omit Lk. 7 Wherefore neither thought I myself worthy to come unto thee, thus harmonising Lk. with . Mt., who says that the man did come to Jesus.

while correcting both Evangelists in some respects, and especially in tacitly (448) denying that Jesus marvelled, corrects Lk. more particularly by stating ( I ) that the man came to Jesus that Jesus a word, or promise of healing (3) the child was healed in t h a t hour, and by it clear that the patient was not a servant but a In the first tbree points, Jn. agrees with Mt. in the fourth, he interprets Mt. in all, he differs from Lk.

from perhaps because there was a as well as a Galilean tradition o the life of Jesus, and f towards the close of his history, depended mainly on the former. owing to their length and number (and perhaps their frequent repetition in varied shapes by Jesus himself, and by the apostles after the resurrection), would naturally contain more variations than are found in the shorter Words of the Lord. The parable of the Sower, coming first in order, and having appended to it a short discourse of Jesus (Mk. that might seem intended to explain the motive of the parabolic might naturally find a place in the Triple Tradition. But this privilege was accorded to no other parable except that of the Vineyard, which partakes of the natwe of prophecy. . T h e longer discourses of the Double Tradition show traces o f

The Words of the Lord are differently arranged by Mt. and Lk. Mt. groups sayings according to their subject matter. Lk. avows in his preface (1 3 ) an intention to write in (chronological) order, and he often supplies for a saying a framework indicating the causes and circumstances called it forth. Sometimes, however, he is manifestly wrong in his chronological arrangement, , whenheplaces Christs mourning over Jerusalem (1334 35) early, and in Galilee, whereas Mt. (2337-39) places it in the Temple at the close of Christs The Lords Prayer (Mt. 69-13 Lk. 112-4). It was perhaps on the principle of grouping that Mt. added to the shorter version of the Lords Prayer the words, thy will be done, as in heaven so on earth, as having been in part used by Jesus on another occasion (Mt. other addition, Deliver us from the evil one, is not indeed recorded as having been used by Jesus elsewhere, it resembles the prayer of Jesus for his disciples in Jn. : keep them from the one (and cp Tim. On changes, see LORDS P RAYER they adapt the prayer for daily and indicate that Lk. follows a later version of the prayer in his alterations, but an earlier version in his omissions.4 exactly in the Double Tradition are for the most part of a prophetic or historical character. Some describe the relations between John the Baptist and Christ another calls down woe on another, in language that reminds of the thoughts, though not of the words of thanks God for revealing to babes what He has hidden from the wise and prudent another pours forth lamentations over doomed Jerusalem. Others, such as, But know this, that if the goodman, and W h o then is the faithful and just steward, etc., appear to have an ecclesiastical rather than an individual reference, at all events in their primary application. All these passages were especially fitted for reading in the services of the Church, and consequently more likely to have been soon committed to writing. On the other hand, those sayings which have most gone home to mens hearts and have been most on their lips, as being of individual application, seem to have been so early modified by oral tradition as to deviate from exact agreement. Such are, T h e mote and the beam Ask and it shall be given unto Fear not you Take no thought for the morrow them that kill the body Whosoever shall confess, etc. He that loveth father or mother more than me, etc. and note, above all, the differences in the Lords Prayer. As Lk. approaches the later period of Christs work, he deviates more and more both from Mt. and
Mt. 86 mentions which may mean child, but more often means servant in such a phrase as etc. See (RV) Mt. my servant; Acts3 his (marg. or Child ). mentions (7 servant. has repeatedly 47 50) son, but finally recurs to Mt. s word (4 child liveth (the only instance in which uses The reason for transposition is probably to be in the last words of the passage, Ye shall not see me, until ye shall say, is t h a t cometh in the name o the Lord, f words uttered by the crowd (Lk. 38) welcoming Jesus on his entrance into Lk. probably assumed that the prediction referred to utterance, and must, therefore, have been made sometime before before the entrance into Jerusalem. 3 Cp I RV: As may be the will in heaven, so shall he do. Cp Lk. 9 23 : If any one wishes to come after me, let him take up his cross daily, where Lk. substitutes the present for and and inserts daily. in order to adapt the precept to the inculcation of o a f

a Greek document, often in rhythmical and almost poetic style. Changes of words such as for for for for for may indicate merely an attempt to render more exactly a word in the original; but such substitutions as (Lk. Spirit for (Mt. good indicate doctrinal purpose. The original of Lk. 13 was perhaps (as thyspiritis good, RT] Lk. appears to have the older version when he retains (L 1426) hate his father, Mt. love more than Other variations indicate a corruption or various interpretation of a Greek original of course, precluding a still earlier Mt. probably in text which he read as e., for two farthings, and then he added (five before to complete the sense. Perhaps a desire to make straightforward sense as well as some variation in the MS., may have led Lk. to for in Mt. Lk. substitute This last passage exhibits Lk. as apparently misunderstanding a tradition more correctly given by Mt. I n Mt. it is part of a late and public denunciation of the Pharisees in Jerusalem in Lk. it is an early utterance, and in the house of a Pharisee Christs host. Probably the use of the singular Thou blind Pharisee), together with the metaphor of the cup and platter, caused Lk. to infer that the speech was delivered to a Pharisee, in whose house Jesus was dining. The use of (Lk. 1 39) 1 (see below, 38) makes it Probable that is a late tradition. Other instances of Lk. s alterations are his change of the original and into the Christian (Lk. 1149) Lk. also omits the difficult In Mt. 2334, Jesus is represented as saying Wherefore behold send unto you prophets and of them ye slay etc. Lk. 1149, Wherefore also the Wisdom God said, I unto them rophets and some of them shall they slay etc., omitting crucify. Here Lk. seems to have in some respects, the original tradition whereas Mt. interpreting the Wisdom of God (cp I Cor. Christ the of God to mean Jesus, it Also Mt. retains a n a tradition which made Zachariah of Barachiah ; Lk. omits the error.



I n the parables of the Wedding Feast, the Talents, and the Hundred Sheep-it may be said that Mt. lays more stress on the exclusion of those who might have been expected to be fit, Lk. on the inclusion of those who might have been expected to b e unfit.
of Thus in the Wedding Feast, Lk. adds the maimed, etc. Mt. adds the invitation the rejection


Cp P ARABLES. Mk. (also Mt. and. Lk.) he will destroy husbandmen-{.e., the Jewish nation. The parable of the Sower may also be said to predict the history of the Church, its successes and failures. Hebrew when used in the present article concerning the original of the Gospels, means Hebrew or Aramaic, leaving that question open. But see Clue, A. and C. Black, 4 Other instances are over many things, which might easily be corrupted into over ten cities (see Lk. and comp. Mk. perhaps written parallel to Lk. 839 Also, in the Mission of the Seventy (Lk. is almost certainly (Abbott and Rushbrookes Common Tradition o f xxxvii.) a confusion of two details in the Mission of the Twelve (I) Take nothing for the journey, (Mt. Salute the house. The corruption of a Greek original is perhaps sufficient to explain this ; but it is more easily explicable on the hypothesis of a Greek Tradition corrected b y reference to a Hebrew original.


of a guest who has no wedding garment and, in
Talents the casting out of the servant. In Mt. 22 13 47 the inclusion of prepares for an ultimate exclusion. The conclusion of the Hundred Sheep is, in 18 I t is not the will of my Father in heaven that one of these little ones should perish; in Lk.157, There shall be joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth. The Single Traditions of Mt. and Lk., when examined, will he found severally to reveal the same tendency to dwell on exclusion and inclusion ; and this will confirm the inference, in itself prohahle, that the hand of each Evangelist is apparent thevarying characteristics of the parables of the Double Tradition.

in the LXX, and occurs in N T only in 8 Lk. 9 The Son of man hath where to rest his head. But there is pathos and power the thought that the one place on earth where the of man rested his head was the Cross and the one moment was when he had accomplished the will.




The discourses in Jn. have almost for their sole subject the Father as revealed through the Son, lie outside the province of the precepts, parables, and discourses of the Double Tradition. In the Synoptists, Jesus is a teacher of truth in Truth itself.
The word used by Mk.) is employed Mt. and Lk. (Mt. Lk. 816 11 33-36) to signify the light given the teachers of the Gospel, or else the conscience. The Disciples themselves are called Mt. the light of the world. introduces Christ a s saying (8 I am the Light of the World. Again Mt. 7 13 and Lk. 13 24 declare that the gate is narrow ; Jn. that it is n o t objectively narrow, but only to those who make it so being no other than Christ himself, go in out, and shall find pasture. Mt. 23 speaks of sinners as being excluded (breaking the Moses) Lk. substitutes the law of justice): not in his Gospel in his Epistle ( I Jn. 34, cp with appears to refer to some controversy about these words when he pronounces that is in the true sense, and that all is

but always Though Jn. never mentions asking or requesting, he nevertheless introduces Jesus as uttering, in his last words a kind of parallel to the Lor ds Prayer, of such a nature as to as imply that what the disciples were to pray to God future, Jesus thanked God as past.
I t is true that prayer and praise are combined, and the words the hour is come has But (a) the hour in Jn. hour of glorifying the Father Son, that is say the hour of doing his will and establishing his kingdom in essence, hour is come means Th y is come. So, too (6) I manifested thy name to the whom thou hast given me means, in effect T hy name hath been hallowed. (c) T he prayer that, as Son has glorified the Father on earth, so the Father mayglorify the in heaven (17 j with the glory which he had before the world was, means, in effect Thy will heen done on earth; so may it now be done heaven a s it was from the heginning. Also, remembering the words of God are the of man, we find in (the words thou me Z them) an equivalent to I have given day day their bread. (e) The declaration that he has kept all except the son of perdition in the name given him the Father seems to mean I have prevented them hitherto from being led into temptation. If) Last comes the one prayer not yet (17 I keep them the which seems to allude to the clause in version Deliver us from evil one Possibly there is also an allusion to Mt. Lk. have not come to bring peace (not as though denying the of Mt. and Lk., hut as though supplementing what, itself, would he a superficial statement), in Jn. Peace I leave with you, I give nnto These things I have spoken that in me ye may agreement with Lk. 1426 his own (or life), against Mt. 10 37 loveth more me (omitting soul ) Jn. he that his soul in this world, indicate; that Lk. has preserved the older tradition. But addition shows his sense of the obscurity of Lk., who did not make it clear that father mother and soul are to he hated only so they in this of temptation. More conjectural must he the theory of an allusion to the Douhle Tradition in used of Jesus the Cross. I t is commonly rendered hawing his head, hut no authority is alleged for The expression is not found
are wholly different : for example no counterpart in the Lords prayer.

IV. INTRODUCTIONS (Mt. and ). (i.) in these is very manifest. The agreement of Mt. and Lk. in the introductions describing the birth and childhood of Jesus consists in little more than fragments from Is. which, in the Hebrew, is, A young woman shall conceive and hear a (or, the) son and his name Immanuel, but in The virgin shall be with child and the husband) bring forth a son, and thou his name Immanuel. This was regarded as having been fulfilled, not by the birth of Isaiahs son recorded in Is. (but cp but by the birth of the Messiah. In the earliest days of the Jewish Church of Christ, the Messiah would naturally be described in hymns and poetic imagery as the Son of the Virgin the Daughter of Sion. In Rev. the Man Child is born of a woman clothed with the sun, who evidently represents the spiritual Israel. Eusebius v. 1 4 5 ) quotes a very early letter from the church of Lyons. where the Virgin Mother means the Church, and other instances are ) Traditions about every would tend in the same direction : (i. 131) the Lord 215) is to be thought not the begat Isaac Isaac result of generation but the shaping of the unbegotten. The real husband of Leah is (i. the Unnoticed (6 though Jacob is the father of her children. is found by Moses (i. pregnant, (but) by no mortal. Tamar is (i. 598-9) pregnant through divine seed. is (i. born of a human mother who became pregnant afterreceiving divine seed. Concerning the birth of Isaac, Philo says (i. 148) : It is most fitting that God should converse, in a manner opposite to that of man, with a nature wonderful and unpolluted and pure. If such language as this could be used by educated Jewish writers about the parentage of those who were merely inspired G o d s Word, how much more would even stronger language be used about the origin of one who w ith the Word, or the was regarded as

Justin and confirm the view that prophecy has contributed to shape the belief a miraculous conception. Justin admits that some did not accept it, but bases his dissent from them on (Tryph. 48) the. proclamations made by the prophets and taught by him Christ). says that the Ebionites 21 I ) declared Jesus to have been the son of Joseph following those who interpreted virgin in Is. 7 14 as young woman Prophecy will also explain the divergence between Mt. and Lk. Some, following the Hebrew, might say that the divine message came to the mother of the Lord, others (following might assert that the message came Marys husband. Lk. has taken the former course, Mt. (though inconsistently) the latter. Prophecy also explains and attitude toward
that the of to represent it throughout and N T makes it improbable that it would represent bowing here. Thus. when The name is sometimes Ahercius (A.D. writes that grasped the Fish (the meaning Christ), Lightfoot (Ign. 481) hesitates between the Virgin Mary and the Church, hut apparently inclines to the latter. Marcion is accused Epiphanius of seducing a virgin and being consequently excommunicated. But ( I) neither Tertullian (an earlier hut not less enemy of Marcion) nor the still earlier Irenaeus, makes mention of any such charge. Hegesippns (Eus. iii. 32 7) says that the Church remained a and till the days of Symeon hisho of Jerusalem, when heresies Marcion must acquitted : cp ad Eba (the Church)


. ..

The relation of Jn. to the Double Tradition of the Acts of the Lord has been considered above 17. This section deals with his relation to the Double of the Words of the Lord. Comp. 79 :
3 Even in this last clause implies partial fulfilment already: Thev have been delivered: now let them he in a state of deliverance. When Lk. means he uses cis And the word bow is so common in the

Immanuel. Jesus was not (any more than Isaiahs son) called by this name, and Lk. omits all reference to it. Mt. (or the author of though he represents Joseph as receiving the Annunciation, representspeopk as to give Jesus this name, and alters the prophecy accordingly (Mt. Thou shalt call his name Jesus that it might be fulfilled , They his name Immanuel. Divergence of the rest, Mt. a n d Lk. altogether diverge. Both the of (according to all trace his descent through pretation) Joseph, not through and there survive even ndw traces of a between them and the Gospels in which they are The Genealogies (for account and analysis of which see G ENEALOGIES appear to have denied, the Gospels certainly affirm, a Miraculous Conception.

As regards the childhood of Jesus, Mt. looks on Bethlehem (21)as the predicted home of Joseph and Mary, and mentions their going to Nazareth as a thing unexpected and (223) a fulfilment of prophecy. H e also mentions (as fulfilments of prophecy) a flight into, and return from, Egypt, and a massacre in Bethlehem. Neither of these is mentioned by Lk., and the latter is not mentioned by any But a typical meaning is also obvious in both narratives ; Jesus is the vine of Israel brought out of Egypt. He is the of Moses, who was saved from the slaughter of the children under Pharaoh. Lk. treads the safer ground of private and personal narrative, except so far as he has given trouble to apologists by his statement about an enrolment that took place under Quirinius, which was the cause why Joseph and Mary left their home in Nazareth in order to be enrolled at Bethlehem, the home of their Instead of prophetic there is contemporary and typical testimony :-Anna, the prophetess of representing the extreme north; the aged Simeon representing the extreme south and Elizabeth Zachariah, of the tribe of As regards the Baptist, while omitting some points that liken him to Elijah, Lk. inserts details showing that, from the first, John was foreordained to go before the Messiah, not really as Elijah, but (117) i n the spirit of Elijah. (v .) in to the Introductions is apparently, but not really, In his own person he no mention of Nazareth or Bethlehem. He takes us back to the cradle (Jn. 1I ) in the beginning, as though heaven were the only true Bethlehem (House of [the] Bread [of life]). T h e fervent, faith of the first disciples defies past prophecies about Bethlehem, and present objections as to Nazareth and Joseph, by admitting the apparent historical fact fact, and yet believing (1 45 ) : W e have found to him of. whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did the son the ma n write, When the objection is urged against (146) Nazareth, faith in the personality of Jesus overwhelms the objector with the mystical reply (1 Come and In Mt.
not actual to first of these three version; defends Jesus against the Jewish charge hut surrenders the Miraculous Conception. The second is obscure. The third sacrifices the defence, but retains the miracle. Some attempt to explain the omission by other omissions of the crimes of kings by but Josephusdwells on the history of Herod and his family in order to show (Ant. xviii. 5 3) Quirinius was governor of Syria, A.D. 6, fen years this time. The most plausible explanation suggested is perhaps, that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria; there is no direct, and scarcely any indirect, evidence to justify the belief. There is also no proof that Marys presence was ohligatory. That Lk. invented such an enrolment is impossible; hut that he antedated it is highly probable. Making a compilation toward close of the century, (or he might naturally consider that the enrolment supplied an answer to the difficult question How came the parents of Jesus to Bethlehem at the time of birth? See also For the meaning of this Rabbinical formula, see and nd and Wetst. (on Jn. 140) who quotes other Rev. I t introduces the tion a mystery. Ndte also a similar contrast personal belief and unbelief in 40 when they heard these words said This is the prophet hut some said, What d o 6 come out not the Scripture that Christ cometh seed o j David and And compare the subordinate officers (7 46, Never man so spake ) with the chief priests and Pharisees (7 52, Out ariseth no prophet ). Westcott says on Jn. 742, There is a tragic irony in the fact that the which the objectors assumed to he unsatisfied birth in Bethlehem was actually satisfied.: to, believe that Jesus that the condition But are was satisfied and yet left the in their ignorance, so as keep back from them the fulfilment of Gods word, making himself responsible for the tragic consequences? And in the face of such an objection, publicly and made, is it credible that a conspiracy of silence have been maintained Christs relations, friends, and neighbours This, a t all events, cannot be disputed, that Jn. represents the

the Messianic name


. .


in its

text. has I.

But Ss. has J. Joseph; Joseph to whom was Mary the Virgin, begat Jesus, whd is called the is also retained a, 6, Bohb. and S. Germanensis though they make Mary the This indicates the original had simply (a) James begat Joseph, and Joseph hegat Jesus. Then, when the belief in the Miraculous Conception arose, various corrections were made such as (6) to whom was espoused or betrothed Mary or the husband of Mary, indicate the begetting to he taken in a putative sense, or to refer the reader to what followed as a corrective of the formal genealogical statement. Then (c) Mary was repeated as the subject of a new clause in genealogy, hut with the repetition of the now misplaced hegat. Then some altered begat into brought forth, others into whom was begotten. Lk. 323 has But has, And Jesus, when he was about thirty years old as he was called the son Joseph son of Heli etc.; is not a complete sentence. D etc.. and iust before. has : 5) read (for and interpret it as to baptism. D interpreted that Jesus a t the beginning of his thirtieth year, was (really), as he supposed to be the son of Joseph hut that in the moment of baptism, he again the Spirit. will have the same meaning if we insert was as the verb, Jesus as he was called, the son of Joseph. The throw light on almost forgotten Jewish charges against Jesus that may have influenced some Evangelists inducing them to lay stress on the fact that Jesus was the son of Joseph, or a t all events that Mary, at the time of the birth of her first-born, was espoused to

. ..

I t is highly probahle, on grounds of style, that author of the Introduction is not the author of the whole of Gospel. D rewrites the earliest part of genealogy, partially conforming it to 3 This is all the more important if the tradition recorded by is correctly interpreted to mean that of the Gospels which consist the genealogies were written first (see below 4 Codex a sim. Bobb.) has J. Joseph cui desponsata Virgo Maria Jesum 6 has Joseph, cui desponsata erat V.M., V. autem Jesum. Later, and Bohh. (a is missing) use and peperit of Mary, showing that genuit is not an error here, hut is a retention of the old true reading, inconsistent with the alterations adopted. Codex (D is missing) alters genuit into peperit, but in other respects agrees with a. Corh. and of the Brix. agree with the Greek text. The Vat. gives Mt. 116 thus : Jacob hegat Joseph, the husband of Mary, who of her hegat Jesus, the Messiah. See the English tion by Hogg (Ante-Nicene Christian Library add. vol. 1897, p. 45, n. 6), who points the confusion between who of her begat, and from whom was begotten, in from Syriac to Arabic. however, This day Ihave thee, hut) Thou art my Son and my beloved. But this may have been as equivalent to I have begotten thee to -day as my Son. Codex has quod et follows D. dicehatur esse filius I n Acta P.(A and B) 2 the elders of the Jews say to Jesus Thou art born of (B of sin to which otherpious Jews reply (A), we h a t Joseph espoused (or betrothed Mary, and that he is not born of fornication (B) we know that Joseph received Mary his mother in the way of which another version is His mother Mary was given to Joseph





i t is the fulfilment of prophecy in Lk. it is the testimony of visions and voices pointing to John as the messenger of the Messiah, and to the Messiah himself; in it is (1 the glory as of the only begotten Father -that constitutes the true testimony to Christ.

others worshipped. If other manifestations were of the same kind, different observers might record them differently. To testify to the resurrection was the special duty of an apostle, and such testimony was oral. The two earliest Gospels (even if we include as genuine) contain very much less about the resurrection than the two latest. When at last the apostles passed away, and it became needful to write something about Christs rising from the dead, and to add it to the already existing manuals of his teaching, the writers might find themselves forced to choose a few typical instances that seemed to them most according to the Scriptures, and best adapted for edifying the Church. At first, they might be tent (as Paul was) with bare enumerations but, when the time came to fill in details, the narrators might supply them, partly from prose traditions, partly from the most ancient and popular of those hymns, which, as Pliny testifies, they sang to Christ as to a god, on the day on which they celebrated his resurrection, partly from the Scriptures on which the earliest witnesses for Christs resurrection lay so emphatic a stress. ) o poetic tradition. f the more ancient traditions of Mk. and Mt., some details appear to arise from hymnal Later accounts indicate an intention to convey either (as Lk.) proofs of a historical fact, or (as Jn. ) signs indicative of the real though spiritual converse held with the disciples by the risen Saviour. account appears to have (iv. ) been (in parts at all events) the earliest. The testimony of the soldiers to the Resurrection (where note the words (2815) to this day) was dropped in subsequent gospels, perhaps owing to the unlikelihood that Roman soldiers would risk their lives by a falsehood such as Mt. Henceforth was (Mk., Lk., no the stone earthquake an angel was not sealed there was no heaven ; the women came, not to look at did not descend the they had carefully looked at it before (Mk.

conclusions (Mt. Lk. and in effect treat of Christs resurrection. This the genuine Mk. does not describe, breaking off abruptly a t (16E), for they were afraid. The their evidence. -Mt. mentions two appearances. In the first, Christ appears to women who held his feet in the second, to the Eleven but it is added that some doubted. I n Lk. Christ never appears to women. Indeed, Lk. almost excludes such an appearance by speaking of (2423) a vision of which the women are reported to have seen, without any mention of Christs appearing to them. I n this omission he resembles Paul, who enumerates several appearances to men but none to women. in giving a list of the appearances which he had laid stress, an apostle might write in a letter to his own converts. But Lk. writes as a historian, giving Theophilus evidence that he might know t he exact truth. Him, therefore, we might reasonably expect not to omit any important testimony, known to him, concerning Christs resurrection. His omission, in itself, disposes of the theory that the differences of Lk. from Mt. arise from mere haste or carelessness of observation, like those with which we are familiar in a court of justice. Like a glacier-worn rock, Lk. exhibits the signs of attempts to smooth away points of objection. Not, of course, that he invents. But while adopting old traditions, he accepts adaptations suggested in the course of new controversies. H e shows a desire to prove, improve, edify, reconcile, select-motives natural, but not adapted to elicit the exact truth. ) The Period o f for the coolest and most judicial historian, the difficulty of reconciling and selectingmust have been very great. though he mentions only three manifestations, implies (2030) that there were many more. Not improbably the period of appearances and voices was much longer than is commonly supposed. Mt. tells us, concerning the only manifestation that he records as made to the Eleven, that (28 17) some doubted, while disciples as believing in a Jesus of Nazareth whilst the unbelieving Pharisees demand a Jesus of For the evidence of spuriousness (lately increased by the discovery of the Codex of the Syriac Gospels) see WH 2 (notes), pp. Cp Acta Pilati (7) (A and B), We have, a law that a woman is not to come forward to give evidence. Doubtless by Christians from such an objection was often adversaries. 3 The only evidence is where D reads, in different order, without In Hebrew days sometimes means some, or several, days, as in in ward. Cen. 404, They continued [for some] days By corruption, or tradition, M forty) might easily be added to (or before or after it and the number would suit OT traditions about Israel, Mbses and Elijah. The Valentinians supposed Christ to have with his disciples eighteen months: Sophia ch. 1 mentions eleven years. Lk. indicates that the to in Jerusalem till the descent of the Spirit, remain (Acts two or three days. Apollonius indicates (Eus. v. 18 tradition a period of twelve years : (764) says In the Lord says to the disciples the Resurrection, I have twelve disciples, judging you worthy of me that those who disbelieve may hear and testify, not being able to say in excuse We did not hear but, just before, (762) Peter says the Lord said to the apostles. After forth to the world, lest any should say, We did not hear. Perhaps there was a confusion between twelve years and twelve (really eleven) See for the evidence that Barnabas and Jn. disagreed with Lk. as to the day of the Ascension. The

It is impossible here to do more than indicate one or two traces of this. The earthouake. which Mt. alone might naturally spring from God is a shout and The earth melted was shaken ). of the resurrection mhny bodies of the saints-a miracle if authentic more startling than the Raising of Lazarus, but by the Evangelists-was probably derived from some hymn describing how Christ went down to Hades and brought np to light the saints detained there. Mk. says that the women came to the sepulchre when the sun had inconsistently with his own very early deep dawn and dark. becomes if tradition variously influenced by hymns describing how the sun (of righteousness) had risen, or by the prophecy (Ps. 465) God shall help her and that at the dawn of the morning. It is difficult for usto realise the probable extent and influence of metaphor in the earliest traditions of of Behnesa the the Christian Church,.. The stone, cleave the tree, taken by many in a sense. But it probably means, Raise up stones to he of Abraham cut down and cleave the tree of Christ never




first Christian generation might be so misunderstood as to affect the historical traditions of the second. Later writers modify account so as to soften some of its improbabilities. Pseudo-Peter makes the soldiers tell the whole truth to Pilate, who (at the instance of the Jews) enjoins silence. In some MSS of Acta Pilati (A) the soldiers try to deny truth, but are supernaturally forced to affirm it. The retention of story, with modifications, in apocryphal books of the second century that delighted in the icturesque, does not prove a late origin. Some have thought tradition is proved to be late by the excess of prophetic gnosis in it. But that alone is not a sure criterion. The difficulties pre sented of the dead bodies of arising, and of the women grasping the feet of Jesus and bald statement that some doubted, all suggest origin. The use of prophetic gnosis depends in large measure not on the date but on the personal characteristics of the writer. For there is more in Mt. than in Jn. But o f is a sign o an f date. In course of tics and enemies detected and exposed blocks, subsequent evangelists adopted traditions that sprang up to remove or diminish them. 1782

Lk. hut to bring the purpose of embalming the body. But when did the women buy them? When the Sabbath was quite passed says Mk. (16 I). Not so, says Lk. they bought them first, and then rested on the Sabbath. Again what was the use of the the great the way? Mk. no reply. Lk. the objection not asserting that the stone was great. Pseudo-Peter, who has committed himself stone, replies, the women determined, if they to a very could not enter, to spices outside door. says in effect T he women brought no spices. body had received this already from Nicodemus. From point, inconipatihilities constitute almost the whole narrative. T he women (I) came to the tomb (Mk. [a]Mt., Lk., Jn.) before dawn or while it was yet dark, yet (Mk. sunrise; yet they Eleven (3) they (Mk., Mt.), were to hid the Eleven go to Galilee, yet (Lk.) they were merely to remind the Eleven of what Jesus had said Galilee or they (or rather Mary) brought no message a t all hom angels, but message from Jesus that he was on the point of ascending (4) they (Lk., and perhaps entered the tomb, yet proh. Mt.) they did not enter it (5) the angel was (Mk., Mt.) yet (Lk. two; (6) the angel (or angels) (Mt.) the women they sought Do not fear, for I know that ye seek blamed them for so doing (Lk. 24 5 : Jesus, and yet Wh y seek ye the living among the (7) The Eleven (Mk Mt.) were to go to to see Jesus, yet (Lk., Jn.) him in Jerusalem and were (Acts) not t o depart (apparently having left it since the resurrection) (8) Peter (Lk. 24 looked into the tomb and then went home without entering, yet Peter entered the tomb ; Mary was not to touch Jesus because he had not yet ascended, yet (Mt.) the women held f a s t his feet though he had not yet ascended; (IO) when the two disciples from Emmaus reported that the Lord had appeared to them the Eleven 16 13) did not believe, yet (Lk.) replied the Lord is the Lord (Mt. Jn.) appeared to the disciples in Galilee yet (so far as we can judge from Lk. and Acts) no in Galilee could have occurred. (lit.

not the Lord is risen indeed hath appeared to This is consistent with App who says of the two travellers they went away and it the rest to the Eleven), they them.

to the (Mk. Ignatius), occurring i n Mk. but in Lk. while the two travellers are telling their tale, is described by the latter as follows : See my hands and my feet that is I myself: handle me and see for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me having. [And when he had said this, he shewed them his hands and his And while they still disbelieved for joy and wondered, he said unto them : Have ye anything to eat here And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish [and a honeycomb.] And he took it and did eat before them. Cp Ignatius, 3 : For I know and believe that he was in the flesh even after the resurrection; and when he came to Peter and his company he said to them: Ta ke handle me and see that I am not a bodiless demon. And straightway they touched him and believed, being mixed with his and his Spirit (or, For this cause also they despised death, and were found superior to death. And after his resurrection he ate with them and drank with them -as being in the flesh although spiritually united with the Father. The word (as in Mk. Mt. is. grammatically, as well as traditionally, adapted to and the words, mixed express a Eucharistic
is confused They found the Eleven gathered together and them that with them. And he hath appeared. they saying, Lord is risen indeed and hath appeared unto Simon. they also told them what had happened in the way. I n direct speech two travellers would say, The Lord appeared nnto us. In speech, this would become the Lordappeared unto them. The next stage of the would define them as Simon and a companion. Lastly, Simon, as being the more important, would be alone mentioned. W H regard the bracketed words as an at a period when forms of the oral Gospel were still current. See is proh. the rendering of here (so Lightf.), in the corresponding passage in Lk. it means.

(vi.) The

Yet even Lk. shows loopholes for detecting possihle misunderstanding of metaphor. Compare, for example, narrative of the Lords drawing and conversing with the two disciples on their way to Emmaus, with the Martyrdom the Lord was standing near and conversing with I n the latter the standing near is spiritual; and so may have been the drawing near and the conversing, in the The that Lk. in his attempt to ascertain the facts may be illustrated by the probable explanation of his omission of the appearance of Christ to Peter. I n reality, Peter was probably one of the two disciples journeying to Emmaus, as is repeatedly assumed by Origen. But tradition confused the story, t o the the words uttered two Lk. should have run (as in D), the travellers found the Eleven and those with them, and said

(v. ) (proofs). - Lk. concentrates himself on the accumulation of proofs, by ( I ) rigidly defining the time when Jesus ascended and left his disciples, reproo s presenting Jesus as appearing merely in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, so as to omit all appearances in Galilee where some doubted, (3) giving the impression that the women saw nothing but a vision of angels, (4)recording no apparition that was not attested by at least two [male] witnesses, (5) introducing Jesus as eating 5 in the presence of his disciples.



B favours the supposition that they did not enter. This is not inconsistent with which sometimes means depart, nor with Mk.168, which may that they fled (not out of) the tomb. Yeis emphatic. The soldiers might well be afraid, but the women were not to he afraid. 3 This is still mort obvious in Pseudo-Peter, But not stoop and look. probably not a part of the original Lk.,this insertion represents a very early tradition, and perhaps formed a part of a later edition of the Gospel. I t can hardly he a condensation
(and cp. Philo on Gen. 188) for the estab lished belief that an angel or spirit might live familiarly with men for a long period could not eat. their were may be a metaphor meaning that their eyes were opened to discern Christ in Scriptures (cp. Lk. Acts 16 14 where it used of opening the mind or heart) their the Lords presence a t the breaking of reminds the reader of the implied precept to resort to violence in prayer (Lk. 16, and cp. 16

4 MSS are in favour of N o instance has been of the of in the sense of the middle, take hold of. There are several signs of variations as to this tradition both in Ignatius and in Lk. The words and see that I am not a bodiless demon dislocate the sentence, which begins with an appeal to touch, not to sight. W e know from Origen (see Lightf. adloc.) that these words were in the Preaching which he rejected, and we have reason to believe that they were not i the n the as known to him and Lightf. suggests that they were added in the recension of that Gospel known to Jerome. Cancelling them, we should have, a s the original, in Gospel o the f Take me; and they straightway handled him and believed. As regards Lk., Irenreus 14 when quoting passages from Lk. accepted by Marcion and Valentinus, omits this passage though Tertullian inserts it as part of Marcions Gospel. considered that Marcion was quoting it from some apocryphal (though Tertullian does not say so, hut merely accuses Marcion of perverting the passage). Irenreus himself nowhere quotes this passage, hut alludes to the assumption about spirits expressed in it, in For Spirit. hath neither hones nor flesh. Tertullian Marcion 4 4 3 , De Christi 5 ) the words twice, omitting the to and omitting Even in ( a) , the context shows that he is not quoting a mutilated text of Marcions; (6) makes it certain that the omission is own. H e quotes thus, (a) my hands and feet that it is I myself, (6) that it is I and in cases adds for a spirit hath not bones as ye see me having. In the of (6) he asserts a spirit has but has not bones han k, and feet. Marcion (according to Tertullian) interpreted the passage thus (Marcion 4 43) A hath not hones, as, and so, y e see me having bones] and he remarks that Marcion might as well have cancelled the passage as interpret it thus. [In (6) Clark has, by error, hath and hones instead of hath not bones.] A fragment of Hippolytus from Theodoret Clark, has : For H e having risen when His disciples were douht, called to Him and said, Reach hither; handle and see : for a Spirit hath not hones and flesh, as ye see me have. D (differing from has (Lk. 2 4 3 9 )


. ..

with his flesh and spirit (or blood), implying a close union such as binds each member o the Church to Christ f in the one Body or one Bread, may very well be a part of the tradition (or of some comment on it) from which is quoting. If so, the original (though not the Ignatian) meaning may be correctly expressed by the Armenian paraphrastic version, they believed, who (or, and they) were participators of the Eucharist (lit. communicated), and who (?) feasted before on his body and blood. In other words, the disciples not only received a vision and an utterance of the Lord, but also were made one w ith the body and spirit (or of Christ and were raised the f e a r o f by the Eucharist and therein handling his These facts, being literalised in later narratives, may have given rise to the statements, made in good faith, that they had handled Christs body, or that Christ had given them his body to handle. ) The historical estimate o f Tradition must be lowered, ( I ) by evidence of his other errors and misunderstandings given above, by the variations in the corresponding tradition quoted by Ignatius and Tertullian, (3) by the fact that, A . D. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch (of which city Luke [Eus. 34 is said to have been a native), wishing to attest the reality of the bodily resurrection of Christ, quotes from an unknown authority a passage that omits all mention of eating, and neither here nor elsewhere to the testimony of This certainly leads to the inference that Lk. had not, in the mind of that preponderant authority which a canonical or even authoritative Gospel might be expected to have.
evidence must not be disniissed without a reference Acts 14, which really meant with, h u t was probably interpreted by Lk. (as patristic commentators Clement, to and 15 Nottoallthepeople, but towitnesses to those foreordained God, namely ourselves, who .ate and drank with after the resurrection from the dead. and Lk. 13 26 (we This, when combined with Acts 1 4 have eaten and drunk in thy presence ; not in parallel Mt. indicates a consistent interpretation of sucha nature as (possibly) to convert metaphorical accounts of spiritual and revelation into literal accounts of historical proofs.

the one hundred and fifty-three fish in the of the Church, and feeding them with the One Bread and the One before they go forth to preach the Gospel to the world. Then, without definite demarcation of the period of manifestations and voices, the Gospel ends.
In all this, the difference between Jn. and Lk. is obvious. Take, for example, the first manifestation to the disciples., Jn., the disciples are not (Lk. 24 37) terrified and affrighted ;they have received the message between from Mary in which Jesus calls them his signs brethren, and when Jesus in the midst of they as soon as they see the hands and the They do not (as in Lk.) suppose Jesus to be a spirit (or, as D, phantasm); they require no appeal to sight or touch ; nor does Jesus eat in their presence. The of the first manifestation in is apparently not to prove the Resurrection hut to convey the to the disciples. There is no explanation of prophecy the Spirit is conveyed at once, not promised as a future T he appeal to touch comes afterwards. The incredulity of Thomas (absent on the first occasion) makes Jesus reproachfully suggest on a second occasion that the incredulous disciple may touch the wounds in his hands and side ; hut it is not indicated that Thomas does this. The words that follow suggest that it was not done: (2029) Because thou hast thou hast believed : (it is not said, Because thou hast touched).!

The same spiritual (as distinct from logical) purpose pervaded sign of the seven-who, if proof and not a sign had been intended, should have been the Eleven. There is indeed some similarity between the words of Jesus in Jn. 215 : Children, have ye any meat? and those in Lk. : Ha ve ye here anything to e at ? how great a difference in reality! I n the latter case the Messiah deigns to take food from the disciples in order to meet their (Lk. reasonings ; in the former, the Saviour gives himself to the children to strengthen them for the work of the Gospel. the (ix. ) Contrast
For the symbolism of this helow, 47. This standing in the however, is from prophetic see Ps. 22 quoted Heb. 2 and by Justin 106) : also cp 24 36. 3 Not, as Lk., the hands and the I n Jn., as in Pseudo-Peter. the feet are avvarentlv reearded as hound. not . nailed to 4 Jn., the first manifestation to the disciples seems to include a new and spiritual Genesis or Creation of The Genesis (2 7) described how God breathed into the face (of man) the o f and man became riving soul. The rarity of which occurs in NT in Jn. 2022, suffices to make the reference to Gen. 2 7 certain. Philo also frequently quotes Gen. 2 7 (with to contrast the first man with the secondman. Not improbably Jn. also has in mind that Ignatian tradition which ,described the apostles as mixed with his flesh and his analysis of all the passages where Ignatius combines flesh and spirit and flesh and blood makes it probable that spirit (not blood) is the correct reading. At the same time, if both traditions were prevalent, first manifestation to the disciples would express the being mixed with his spirit, and the second (that to Thomas) the being mixed with his In any case, Jn. takes this historically sacred word, tradition. ally associated with the creation of man, and represents it as in in which the Logos Divine image into him that Spirit of himself (as I Cor. not living hut life-giving so as to enahle the disciples to transmit life to others. I t is interesting to note here (in the light of Mk. 116-20) the between and Draught of Fish, which Lk. connects with the calling of Peter to be a Fisher of Men, but Jn. with a n imparting of the One Fish and the ?ne Bread to the seven disciples-apparently as a preparation or their apostolic work. I t will he found that Lk. differs from Mk. and in seven the boats are standing he lake; there are two (the Jewish and Gentile not one; all (Peter included) have given up ishing in despair ; Jesus enters one of the vessels ; the are rent asunder; (6) Peter fears and Jesus depart 7) Jesus does not expressly any of the fishers follow him. differs from Lk. these details: ( I ) I t is Jesus (not the who is standing the sea ; there is one vessel Peter has not given up fishing ; (4) Jesus does not enter the ; (5) io spite of the multitude of the fishes (21 the net rent ; (6) Peter leapt into the sea and hastened toward lesus; Peter is hidden, after the Sacramental Feast, to feed Christs sheep, hut also to follow him.

(viii.) (signs). I n proof is entirely subordinated to signs-i.e., spiritual symbolisms. The first manifestation of Jesus is to a woman, (2016) signs. whoname. does not recognise him till called y The Ascension is mentioned as -impending and as (apparently) preliminary to being (20 17) touched. In the second manifestation, Jesus conveys to the disciples the Holy Spirit which (739) not be the Ascension-a fact indicating that, in the interval between the two, Jesus had ascended. In a third the second to he offers himself to the handling of the incredulous Thomas, and pronounces a blessing on those who have not seen yet have believed. In a fourth, the third the he is in Galilee, directing the seven fishermen in their task of catching
Codex a has Handle me (reading in what precedes). In the passage, which has been scraped with a thus, Behold, see my hands and my feet, and see that it is I ; for a spirit flesh and hones. . a s . .see m e . When. . n ot. were. Again he said unto them Have ye here anything to eat Codices a 6 d and Brix. me after handle. The emphasis laid on bones may have arisen from an allusion to Is. 6614 Your hones shall spring up. Blood was omitted, perhaps in accordance with a sense that it could not appeal either to sight or to touch. (Justin 761 indicates something specially non-human about the blood of Christ.) Apologists usually depreciate what they call mere argument from silence; but it has weight varying with circumstances. Here it The evidence is almosf as strong as if Ignatius said expressly, I did not know or else, I knew Lk., hut did not believe to he so authoritative as the tradition from which I quoted. for


... ..

is a curious contrast between the personal and as it
were private nature of Christs last utterances in Jn. and the public or ecclesiastical utterances recorded by Lk., Mk. and the last verses of Mt. In Hither, break your fast, thou me? Feed my sheep, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? In the Synoptists, either App. ) the injunction to preach the Gospel, the prediction of condemnation for those who will not believe and be baptized, and the promise of signs such as the casting out of devils, tongues, lifting up serpents, drinking poison, etc., and healing the sick or else (Mt.) baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to keep all things as many as I commanded you, and a farewell in Galilee, with an assertion that Jesus possesses all power, and a promise that he will be always present with the disciples; or, lastly (Lk.), an opening of the disciples to understand the Scriptures, and a long statement that the Scriptures must needs have been thus fulfilled, and that there must be the preaching of repentance in his name with a view to the remission of sins to all the nations-beginning from Jerusalem, and then a promise, and a warning that they must remain in the city till the promise is fulfilled :-concerning all which utterances we are warned by our knowledge of the various accounts of Christs revelations to Paul that we must accept none of them as necessarily representing the actual words of Christ himself, though (in various degrees, and subject to various qualifications) they may be regarded as revelations to the Early Church, conveyed, during the period of manifestations, to this or that disciple, in the same way in which the vision and the voice were conveyed to Paul at his conversion.


- That Mt. was intended for readers is suggested by the stress laid on prophecy; the tracing of genealogy back to Abraham as in Lk.. to Ada m; cp the Sermon on the Mount corresponding to the Law given on Mount Sinai ; the contrast between what had been said of old time and what the new Lawgiver prescribed the word lawlessness (altered Lk. to iniquity ), used by Mt. alone, and the strong condemnation of him who (Mt. 5 breaks, or tenches others to break, one of the least of the commandments.
parables point less to the inclusion of the Gentiles than to the exclusion of unworthy Jews. H e alone has the saying (22 14) : Many are called but few chosen. H e seems to move amid a race of backsliders, among dogs and swine unworthy of the pearls of truth, aniong the tares sown by the enemy among fishermen who must cast hack again many of the fish caught i n way is mentioned him the net of the Gospel. The alone and the multitude of those that go thereby, and the guest the wedding garment, and the foolish virgins, and the goats and those who even cast out devils in name of the Lordand yet are rejected by him because they work lawless-. ness. H e alone introduces into the Lords Prayer the Deliver us from the evil (one). Elsewhere he alone gives as a reason for not being distracted, sufficient for the day is the. evil thereof. The wavering or retrogression of many Jewish converts when the breach between Jews and Gentiles widened, about the time of the siege of Jerusalem, may well explain t h e emphasis laid by Mt. on backsliding and the Condemnation of might refer to Jews who considered that the new law set them free from all restraint, and who, casting aside every vestige of nationality, wished to cast aside morality as well. Yet Mt. prefers (12 33) even open and consistent wickedness to the sin of the hypocrites whom his Gospel continually denounced (the word occurs Mt. times, in Mk. I , in Lk. in Jn. and he dwells more than the rest on t h e blessings of the meek, the merciful, and the little ones angels behold the face of the Father.

the gift of tongues - we infer from Pauls Epistles-was a as phenomenon remarkable, hut not supernatural ( 3 ) the taking or, more probably, destroying of serpents was probably a of the promise in Lk. 10 that the disciples should trample upon serpents and scorpions and all the Dower of the enemv. The text is 3 The in any full discussion of the Resurrection, would come first and claim a detailed consideration. Here we can onlv observe on I Cor. 15 that the a doctrine earliest traditions communicated to (probably oral, on the of in this tradition accordance with the Scriptures played part (3) manifestations of Christ were described the a word regularly denoting visions [the word appeared instance in is used in N T of the appearance of a body is Acts 7 ; (4) places first appearance to Cephas, and last hut one an appearance to James, neither of which is recorded in our canonical Gospels (5) he excludes all appearances to women; (6) he places the appearance of Christ to himself on the same footing as those witnessed by the apostles: (7) he speaks of the risen body as a spiritual body (on which, note that says that every spirit has a body, and that demons are called bodiless in comparison with the spirits that are destined t o saved) and as being (8) the same in kind, for Christ as for the after as should infer not T he latest of Pauls speeches on vision repeats, as from a long discourse (Acts26 14-18). It then continues rg) I was not disobedient unto the heaven@ vision. But Pauls earlier speech (22) assigns to Jesus merely a portion this discourse, while another portion (mentioning a witness and sins) occurs (22 15 in the report of a speech Ananias t o Saul, and another (mentioning the Gentiles) is uttered by Jesus indeed, but (22 when the was in a trance. On the other hand, in the earliest account of the vision, the mention of Sauls mission to Gentiles is made Jesus (915) not to to dnanias; and Jesus is represented as saying to Saul no more ~than occurs in These facts lead to the following general conclusions :- (a) Words recorded as uttered have heard in the vision. Words as in a vision ncay have heard i the course n a occasion utterance may trance. (c) The a even more occasions. the words 6ut an inspired speaker.

Besides the fulfilments of prophecy or type mentioned his Introduction, Mt. sees several others not in the Triple Tradition.
Some of these that relating to the (212-5) and the colt (27 the the three days and three in the belly of the as representing the time o f Christs remaining in the tomb and the (2335) apparently inaccurate reference to the son of Barachiah, contain such obvious difficulties may he regarded as evidences of early, not of late and the same applies to He shall be called a which is found in no existing book of prophecy. See N A ZARE TH . Apart from his account of the Resurrection, few new miracles are introduced Mt. Two of these consist of acts of healing. Two are connected with Peter (I) Mt. the on the water Mt. the in the fishs mouth. As these, theomission of former Mk. and Jn., who record what precedes and follows, points to the conclusion that it is a poetic symbolism of Peters lapse and restoration. Ametaphorical explanation probably applies also to the also o f the Sociefv o f as to character or by Lk.), the seven petitions of the Lords Prayer (where Lk. probably retains the original and shorter form), tha seven parables in Mt. the genealogy compressed into a triad and other humerical groupings that show Jewish influence. An authoritative and widely circulated Gospel stands in this respect on quite a different footing from an apocryphal and nonauthoritative book. The former would be attacked controversialists, and any contained in it would he exposed. Christians could not cancel the difficult passages without giving up the authority of the book. Consequently the difficult passages would remain in that Gospel, but would be quietly dropped by subsequent evangelists. Hence, as canonical Gospels, the presence of difficulties is a mark of early date. But this criterion does not apply to comparatively obscure works not so liable to attack. 3 See an extraordinary comment in Ephraem 161) So when Simon took his net and to cast it into the sea, they also went (cp Jn. 21 I go a-fishing. T hey say unto him, We also come with thee ). Also cp Philo (1499) on the holy didrachm, and where he says that the fish hints a t food, and that stater might admit other solutions not unknown implies a tradition of symbolism on this incident. For other traces of Philonian symbolism in the Synoptic Gospels, cp Mt. 13 33 and Lk. 13 on the leaven which a woman hid in of with




) to Mt. recorded the prediction that the apostles would not accomplish the cities of Israel until the Son of man had come, must he not have assumed that, in some sense, he had come If so, this will explain the difficult expression in 2 66 4, ye shall or see the Son of man, It would seem that, as Jn. saw at least a primary fulfilment of Zech. (They shall look on him whom they pierced) in the moment when the spectators of the Cross gazed on the pierced side of Jesus, so Mt. regarded the coming of Christ with power as commencing from the time of the sacrifice on the Cross, or of the Resurrection. But, whatever he the interpretation, the difficulty of this and some other passages leads to the belief that Mt. has in some cases preserved the earliest tradition. Other passages point to a very much later , the name of the Field of Blood borne ( 2 7 8 ) to this day, the charge of stealing Christs body repeated ( 2 8 1 5 ) to this day, and the mention of the Jews in the same passage as an alien race also the recognition of the false prophets as a definite class to be avoided, and of (1817) the church as the arbiter in quarrels. Perhaps, viewed in the light the precepts (5 24) to be reconciled with of the a brother before bringing ones gift to the altar, and ( 7 6 ) to avoid casting pearls before swine, indicate a time the Eucharist had so long been celebrated in the Church as materially to influence the general traditions of the doctrine of Christ. ) in io often agrees with, but intensifies, the doctrine of
depreciation strongly expressed in

a patron, a man of rank. The apostles-the ( 1 eyewitnesses and ministers of the word -appear to have delivered their testimony by oral tradition and to have passed away. T o supply their places (1 ) I many had attempted to draw up a formal narrative concerning the matters fully established in the Church. These writers had clearly not been eye-witnesses, nor were they, in judgment, so successful as to make unnecessary any further attempts. Apparently they had failed in the three points in which he hopes to excel : they had not ( I ) traced everything up to its source and this ( 2 ) accurately and ( 3 ) they had not written in order
All this affords an interesting parallel to the description of the of the Mishna by R. Judah (Hor. Hebr. When he saw the captivity was (sic) prolonged and the scholars tohecomefaint-hearted, and and the cabala to fail, and the oral law t o be much diminished-he gathered and together all the decrees, statutes, and sayings of the wise men. For captivity was prolonged, substitute Lord delayed his coming, for sayings of wise men substitute traditions and narratives some of which were probably based on the Psalms of Israel and the hymns of the first generation of Christians-and we have the same phenomena introducing themselves. Catechumens were disturbed the diversity of traditions ; catechists and evangelists themselves found it hard to distinguish the genuine from, the spurious; it was time to gather and scrape up together the traditions-especially those upon the Resurrection and the Incarnation and to do this with such exactness that the might know the certainty about points of Christian faith.

( b ) THE THIRD The Dedication of dedication shows that we have passed into a newliterary The Muratorian fragment province. calls attention to the fact that the author writes in his own name, a novelty among evangelists. H e also dedicates his work to some one who, if not an imaginary would appear to be
Philo on the three measures of the soul that are to be kneaded like cakes the sacred doctrine must he hidden ( K E K After the destruction of the Temple Vespasian Jews in all parts of the Empire to pay the to the Roman Treasury. Among Christian there mav have arisen the whether thev. longer were liable to it. Mk. immediately, Lk. substitutes shall till they see the Son be for ye shall see. Cp also Mt. 16 in his kingdom, Mk. I the o God f having.come, Lk. 9 27 the-kingdom of God. Cp I Cor, be not in mind: howbeit in malice be ye babes, but in be men (see also I Cor. I 13 I). 3 There may have been, however, controversial reasons for omitting that epithet. Cp Lightf. BE ,197 Theophilus, if a real person and itself, is not an unlikely not a nom de

which implies that Christs service shall deliver from every yoke ; Mt. priests profane the Sabbath is not so clear as on the Sabbath ye a man . and 23 33) offspring of vipers and serpents (Satan being the is less forcible than 844) ye are of your father the alone of the Synoptists, describes mentions (1513) the rooting the Pharisees as (15 up of Pharisaism, and the rewarding of men according to their works and similar thoughts will he found i n Jn. In a very few cases does Jn. appear to be tacitly correcting Single .Tradition. Perhaps doctrine little children and the stress laid by him on appeared to Jn. liable to be perverted into a confession that Christianity was a religion of weakness and At all events, though he alone of the Evangelists supports Mt. 21 5 in quoting Zech. 9 9 Behold thy king cometh, he omits meek on which the Rabbis (Schottg. 2 etc.) laid emphasis ; and, whereas Mt. immediately afterwards describes the testimony to Jesus as that of babes and children Jn. states that even of rulers many believed him. Inafe w otherpassages (Mt. Mt. 26 52 18 though partly correcting to be rather him against omissions or statements of Mk. and Lk.


thieves and robbers; (1130) easy yoke is less strong than Jn.

the teachers of old time is more

Linguistic characteristics.-As a corrector, i n the Triple Tradition, Lk. has been shown above to b e a linguistic purist, and his insertions often indicate a love of sonorous and compound words But in his Introduction, describing the days before the Nativity (as also when describing the first days of the church in Acts), the narrative takes an archaic Hebraic
The vocahularyof Lk. is largely borrowed from the L XX , and in particular from the (in the sense of belonging) the use of for God, and Cp story of the rich fool (1219) with Ecclus. Lk.187 (Though he bear long with them ) 22 ; Lk. 142 (Blessed art thou among women) with Judith Often there is an allusive use of L X X words. Cp Lk. (about Joseph of who had not to the decision of the Pharisees) with 23 I Thou shalt not the unjust with Ps. 888 Thou hast mine far from me . and Lk. 20 with Job 19 31 ; also Lk. 1 7 with Gen. 1811 It difficult to decide whether those portions of Lk. which approach the L X X in

. ..

name for a Jew. And the omission of K Acts might he explained on the ground that thinks it i n bad taste to be-noble a young catechumen too much as Dion. Halic. 5 begins and. ends a treatise with but intersperses and T o use the term characteristic of the obsequious man in Theophr. 5, after a ). certainly cannot refer to qualities alone. This is proved ( I ) hy use of the vocative in Acts243 2625 Jos. Ant. iv. 2 8 (in the (and cp 2326); latter, vocatively), where it is applied to young men of distinction or cp Lucian
(3) Dion. Halic. seems (as quoted distinguish between and (4) I t seems highly


robahle that the author of the first part of the Epistle t o has Lk. in view when writing I) where Diognetus represents not a Christian, an inquirer, and is probably a fictitious name. If so, this tends to show that he regarded Theophilus as representing a typical catechumen, just as his own Diognetus represented a typical inquirer. On the whole, the impression left hy the use of the name is that it is typical of one who might be addressed Philo a treatise on the Creation (1I ) for the sake of the God-beloved (roil And does not (Acts 1I) sound like an echo of Philo 2 444 b . . ? Tatian speaks of interpretations (of Scripture) which being published in writing make those who give heed to them God


rhythm and vocabulary are translations from Hebrew documents, or imitations, conscious or unconscious of the books of LXX. But the use of the the raising of the widows son at Nain, (10 I) the appointment of the Seventy, (11 39) the rebuke of the Pharisees, the preface to the parable of the faithful and just steward, (1315) the healing of the daughter of Abraham bound by Satan the parable of the sycamore tree (156) the parable of unjust judge (19 8) the story of Christs looking on the verse (243) where it is said that they found not the body of the Lord Jesus-confirms the theory (which is also supported by internal evidence) that these passages in Lk. are translations. Another test-word is Lk. uses about twenty-six times, only three times T h e latter form is sometimes used geographically by writers who use the former rhetorically or historically; it is ahle that in 2 and 41 the two forms should be used apparently in the same sense, and :TOCp

day by day, both in the Lords Prayer and in the precept to take up the cross, indicates a purpose the writer to produce a practical Gospel. seems to see, as the obstacles to the Faith, not hypocrisies nor Jewish backsliding, but the temptations of wealth and social position acticg upon half-hearted converts and his sayings abcut building the tower, putting the hand to the plough, renouncing all ones possessions, and hating and mother, are pathetic indications of what must have been going on in the divided household of many a young Theophilus. The important part played by devout women in Acts prepares the reader for finding prominence assigned to them here. Lk. alone gives us the songs of Mary and of Elisabeth, and the testimony of Anna. The mother of the Lord (not Joseph) ponders in her heart the words of her Son, and her sufferings are made ( 2 35) the subject of prophecy; alone mentions the domestic anxieties of Martha and the devoted faith of her sister, the cure of the afflicted daughter of Abraham, the woman who invoked a blessing upon the womb that bare Jesus, the story of her who loved much, and the parable of the woman rejoicing over the lost piece of silver. Lots wife is mentioned by him alone nor do we find in any other Gospel the utterance of Jesus to the daughters of Jerusalem. Mk. and Mt. with Lk. in pronouncing a blessing on the man who gives up father or mother or lands or houses for Christs sake; bnt Lk. alone adds wife.
Strangely incongruous with these sayings and with the great body of Synoptic doctrine, are the parables of the unjust steward the unjust judge, and the friend persuaded by importunity: T he moral of t h e y appears to be Copy the world, only an unworldly fashion. Yet the thought and the language make it difficult to believe that uttered these parables their present shape ; and the last two (as they stand) seem at variance with his to remember that the Father knoweth what things we need before we ask for them. Everything points to the conclusion that we have here and probably elsewhere in Lk., discourses, based indeed on Christs doctrine hut not containing his words or modelled after his methods and style. Else, why in the parable of the Shepherd, do we find the dramatic Lk. it is in Mt. and do introduce in the case of the rich fool, the prodigal son, the unjust steward, the unjust judge? Evidence as t o more clearly than

) Doctrinal
doctrine is touched in the song of Zacharias over the Baptist, and struck more clearly in the song of Simeon over the child Jesus ; proclaiming, in the first case, redemption for (1 Gods people, in the second, for the a light for revelation of
implied rejection of the Jews in favour of the Gentiles at the outset of Christs public life in Nazareth is a chronological error; but it indicates the tendency of the Gospel. (Mt.632) the Gentiles are condemned as seeking pleasures, Lk. is careful (1230) the Gentiles those who are spiritually Gentiles; and seventy are emblematic of the Gospel to the nations. Mk. makes no mention of the Samaritans. Mt. has merely Go not into any city of the ; but in Lk. the sons of Zehedee are rebuked for desiring to call down fire on a Samaritan village ; a just Samaritan shames both priest and Levite; and a grateful Samaritan puts nine Jewish lepers to the blush. As for the law, it is valid as long as Jesus is a child or ( 2 51 ) subject to his parents; but as soon as he has been baptized, it is regarded as superseded because fulfilled.


Gospel is abundant in contrasts. It couples blessings with (Lk. 6 24-26) woes. It proclaims a conflict pending-between God and Satan, forgiveness and sin, self-renunciation and worldliness-which is to culminate in the triumph of mercy imparting to the Gentiles (2447) a message of repentance and remission of sins.
When Satan departs from Jesus it is only (413) for a time; Satan binds a daughter of is beheld by Jesus fallen from heaven, enters into Judas, and the Twelve that he may sift them. There is a sharp demarcation between rich and poor. I t is the, poor, not (as Mt. 53) the poor i n spirit, that are blessed. In Lk., Christ pronounces a woe upon them that are rich, rebukes the cumbered Martha, exhorts the rich to entertain the poor and dooms the rich fool t o a sudden while Dives is consigned to unalterable torment. But above all Lk. contrasts repentance with If is contrasted with Dives, the grateful amaritan with the ungrateful Jewish lepers the merciful Samaritan with the heartless priest and Levite, the trivial anxieties of Martha with the simple devotion of Mary, much more does the publican find his foil in the Pharisee prays by his side ; the woman which was a sinner and loved much in Simon the churlish host loved little; the prodigal younger son in the envious elder son; and the penitent thief on the right in the impenitent thief on the left. All these stories, as well a that of s and the lost piece of silver, must have appealed with great force to many who applied to themselves the words of Epbes. 2 I : And you did when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins ; they magnify power of forgiveness-contrasting the instantaneous and complete victories of faith (for the most part without works) with inferior results of a long life of ordinary and prudent respectability.

) A

conduct.-The insertion of

T he Gospel of the Hebrew always uses the form never b Another test-phrase is SEI, frequent in Genesis and the early part of Exodus but rare or non-existent in later books. I t does not occur in Mk. or Mt. I n Jn. it occurs only (a) in the interpolated811 the woman taken in adultery (6) in126 [where D transpose; SEI and omits ( h o w Judas did not care), the probably being simply N ot that Judas in2123 where supported by and is perhaps genuine, meaning however. In Lk. (as also in Acts) it is frequent, mostly in his Single Tradition, but sometimes in the Double or Triple when he words his I n view of these facts, Mt. 1247, bracketed by Tischendorf and placed by W H in marg., should be rejected as an interpolation.

describes the fall of Jerusalem as the result of a siege and capture. H e also more definitely a term for all troubles. Lk. alone has the exhortation to (2128) look up. Omitting the remarkable saying of Mk. and Mt. that the Son himself knoweth not the hour, he declares that the trampling down of Jerusalem will be only till the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. Then will come a time of distress -not, however, now for Israel, but for the Gentiles-and amidst convulsions of nature the Son of man will come. In the hope of this coming, the disciples are to lift up their heads, remembering that, although some of them will be slain, not a hair of their heads will be injured. The comparatively cheerful discourse on the Coming, combined with the joyful and triumphant tone of the Introduction, accords with the general tenor of Lk. when compared with Mt., and indicates as the author a Christian Gentile to whom (as to Barnabas) the fall of Jerusalem was an accepted and not unwelcome fact. Writing with recollection, but not under the present pressure, of persecution, when the Church was making rapid progress in the conversion, not only of the slaves, the poor, and the devout women, but also of the higher and more educated classes in the Roman Empire, the Evangelist seems to be looking forward to the moment when the times of the Gentiles would be fulfilled, and the Son of man would suddenly come. Such a date might be reasonably at the close of Vespasiaus or the beginning of Nervas See
Acts 25 And he (Paul) two suggests, a t first sight, that Acts-and, a years [in Rome]) (Acts 1I )

, (v. ) Narratives peculiar to apart from the Introduction and the Conclusion, are : ( I ) the miraculous draught of fishes the raising of the widows son (3) the healing of the woman bound by Satan; (4) the cure of the dropsical m a n ; (5) the appearance of the angel strengthening Jesus, and (6) the healing of the severed

value of his work. Every page of it shows signs of pains, literary labour, and good taste. It is by far the most beautiful, picturesque, and pathetic of all the Gospels, and probably the best adapted for making converts, especially among those who have to do the life of the household. But, if bald bare facts are in question, it is probably the least authoritative of the Four. often intervenes to facts mentioned by and omitted by Lk. But, as regards facts mentioned by Lk. alone, Jn. is either silent or gives so version of them (as in the case of the Draught of Fishes) that many would fail to recognise an intention to describe the same event. On this point, see the next section. in (vii. ) is only where Lk. alters, or omits, some Synoptic Tradition, or where he attempts to describe the phenomena that followed the Resurrection, that Jn. (as a rule) steps in to correct Lk. The Fourth Gospel lies outside that large and province, peculiar to the Third, which deals with the welcome of repentant sinners and some of the words most in use with faith, rich, riches, divorce, publican, and (in the words of Jesus) sinner -are altogether absent from Jn.
Perhaps the only important point of doctrine in which n. may be thought tacitly to contradict the Single Tradition of as to which Lk. encourages something approaching to while Jn. so far discourages that heavoids the very use of the word, preferring ask or everywhere implies that the essential thing is, not that the petitioner should be importunate, but that he should be in Christ, in which case his petition be granted. Lk. aims at chronological order. while giving a new chronology, his history to symbolical and spiritual principles. Lk. often removes from the old Tradition such words as Atticists might condemn Jn. seems sometimes to prefer and always uses a vocabulary simple even to monotony, Lk. writes what have delivered, Jn. (not here dissenting, but indicating superiority) writes in the name of eye-witnesses 114) that which we have So far, Jii. may be said to differ, without correcting ; but on one or two points of Single Tradition he seems to write For mentions Annas and

As regards its omission all the other Evangelists is, in itself, almost fatal to its authenticity, and it is probably t o be explained as the result of a literary misunderstanding, was probably some tradition or obscure, and omitted by Jesus said ( a) let it the sword) be restored t o its place. This was misunderstood by Lk. as meaning (6) let it the ear) be restored. He therefore substituted (6) for and amplified his narrative in such words as to leave no

(vi. ) are led to the conclusion that, although Lk. attempted to write accurately and in order, yet he could not always succeed. When decidingbetweenan earlier and a later date, between this and that place or occasion, between metaphor and literalism, between what Jesus himself said and what he said through his disciples, he had be guided by evidence which sometimes led him right, but not always.
I n regarding the story of the fig-tree as a metaphor and the promise about treading on scorpions as a spiritual and the home of the infant Jesus a t Nazareth, not a t Bet lehem, he was probably right. T he Feeding of the Four Thousand he may have rightly rejected as a duplicate of the tradition about the Five Thousand. But be himself seems to give in his Mission of the Seventy a duplicate of Mission of the His two-fold description of Jesus as mourning Jerusalem in Galilee and once near the city itself, an error of an character (like his inference from the expressions cnpand platter, that a certain discourse of Jesus was uttered at the table of a Again, Mk. and Mt. show traces of duplicate traditions concerning the insults offered to Jesus in the Passion; and these (combined with the Psalmists predictions about T he of the earth) may have led Lk. to adopt a tradition-not by the other Evangelists-that Herod joined with Pilate to the journey to Emmaus and the Manifestation to the Eleven, it has been shown that he seems to take metaphor for literal statement. Some textual ambiguity may have induced him to believe that the Nazarenes,, instead of (as Mk. and Mt.) being caused to stumble in Jesus tried to cause Jesus to (down a precipice) and that words uttered to the woman at the were not L et her alone, but H er sins are forgiven

Lk. absolute omission of some genuine and valuable traditions- especially in connection with Christs appearing to women after the Resurrection and with Christs promise to go to Galilee -though it may be in part extenuated on the ground of the need of selection, and in part almost justified on the ground of the obscurity the original, nevertheless seriously diminishes the
the former treatise, completed during the apostles life. But although Acts may incorporate documents written while Paul was living and left unaltered by the compiler, the compilation may have been made many years after the apostles death. Of these (3) and (4) no special mention ; ( I ) must be classed 32 and 47) with draught of fishes, which is symbolical will be discussed with the Raising of Lazarus (see below, 58). to ( 5 ) (described by WH as not a part of gospel, but as one of precious among the remains of an evangelical tradition locally current the Canonical Gospels, and as being rescued from oblivion by the scribes of the second century) see 5 6 2 (4). The same word means restore a sword in Jer. 29 47) 6, and a in Lk. 610. The solution is unconsciously suggested by Ephrem : Justitiam in Aurem in

of the mentions Martha and Mary together. Mary, he says w a s a t Christs feet; Martha was troubled Lk. about much serving. Jn. does not contradict this. but he presents us with a different aspect of Martha. Mar;, he says, was sitting a t home with the Martha went to meet Jesus, and made a confession of faith in him, and induced Mary to come forth also to meet him. I n two or three instances, Jn. represents as an act what Lk. represents as a word. Lk. 22 27 (I am in the of you as ,he that IS to Jn. where Jesus serves ; Lk. (I have for thee) seems parallel to the prayer to the Father in (keep them from evil Perhaps we may add (I commend my spirit) and Jn. 1930 (he delivered np his spirit ).


accounts of the two Missions ( a) with account of the single it will be that is almost entirely made up of that portion of Mt. which does not occur in (a). 4 See above between a verb and its causal form produces manyvariations in the L X X (Gen. 32 Jer. 15 and probably explains many Synopticvariations; cp Mk. 2 Mt. (Mt. with Lk. 534 Mk. Lk. Mk. 1 1 7 Lk. A great many instances occur in Theodotions and the LXX version of. Daniel 16, See above, IO


has been the subject of various hypotheses of authorship. The internal evidence for, these (apart from direct statements) is derivable from (ii. ) names, allusions, etc. style ) structure. (i. ) Gospel states that (2 1 the disciple whom loved is the witness and of these things, adding and we know that his witness is true. A comparison of several other passages leads (by a process of elimination) to the inference that the author-writing perhaps with some co-operation or attestation of others-was John the son of Zebedee. But the belief that the apostle originated the Gospel is compatible with a conviction that he did not or write it in its
(as used in Mk. The text is uncertain. There may have been ,originally a distinction between and the writer has simply hath been written, and 19 35 simply hath



For example the teaching of the aged apostle may have been disciple or interpreter, and may have been taken up ultimately published by the latter, as Peters is said to have been recorded and, circulated Mark (see below, 65) If, as says John the Peters interpreter. wrote the Apocalypse about A . D . thedifference of style between that and the Gospel would necessitate a very interval to admit even a possibility that he wrote the latter5 Suppose the apostle t o have been ninety, or, say, only five, when he wrote the Apoc., and concede an interval of only years to allow him to learn a new kind of Greek, change his vocabulary, and adopt a new style, new thoughts, and a new tone, yet this brings us to 106 and the apostle to the age of a hundred or ninety-five. Is it probable that one so aged could retain powers of memory and expression sufficient for the mental construction, or even the literary expression, of a work in which as will he shown, every word is weighed and every adapted to a spiritual purpose? The improbability is increased by the tradition (reported Jerome) that towards the close of his life the venerable apostle bad to he carried into the midst of the congregation and could do no more repeat over and over again the injunction one another. If this was so, Johns Gospel would nevertheless continue to be preached, probably by one or more of his elders, preaching Then it in his name, say from A.D. 98 to A.D. or A.D. becomes easy to understand how the individuality of an interpreter may have combined with the force of new cumstances-attacks from philosophers without conflicts with incipient Docetism within-to mould the oral Johannine Gospel into its present shape, first without an appendix, and then, when with the the nominal author had passed away (say A.D. additional chapter that, effect, alludes (21 23) to his death. Who this or interpretermay have been we cannot now For the present it must suffice to point out that, as the Muratorian Fragment enrolls among the canonical books the Wisdom o f though admitting it to have been written not by Solomon but by Solomons friends in his honour, so a and interpreter of John, committing to writing a Johannine Gospel, might deem it a merit to ignore his own part in the composition, and to it as a whole to his master and teacher. The alternative was to do as Lk. had done : to use I and me in the preface, and to explain that the writer received his doctrine from the aoostle. That. however. was an from the in novel precedent even stimulate the Johannine interpreter to merge his own authorship in that of the apostle or, rather, in that of the disciple whom Jesus loved, and he perhaps regards as a pattern and type of true discipleship.

of places in Tn. divide themselves into two classes :

first, the well known second, the obscure and contested. Concerning the former. Tn. mav be shown to write mostly from biblical, or literary, not from local, knowledge. The latter he mentions only when they are adapted for symbolism. For example : ( I ) that spake in the Treasury is an

error (so far as we know) from a supposition that what held in the days of Nehemiah and cp Neh. held also in the time of Christ that the temple was forty and six years was a false from I about the second temple. That Jesus I ) crossed the Kidron may very well have happened; but the fact appears to he introduced as a parallel to David who similarly S. crossed the mourning to in triumph. (3) mention of Kidron the cornfields of Sychar, or Shechem, far from implying an eyewitness, might have been made by any reader of Philo familiar with Gen. 4915. ( ) Dialogues between a Samaritan 4 as compared with and a Jew about this mountain Mount Sion, existed among the Talmudists, and was the custom to place the scene a t the foot of the former near SYCHAR appears to have been an opprobrious name for Shechem 54 it adapted itself to the dialogue on the living water. the alleged familiarity with Capernaum and its sea, it reduces itself to this, that the writer knew Capernaum to he on the sea-shore, so that people would go down to it, and knew that the sea was large enough to allow men to row-under stress of weather and not necessarily in a straight direction-for (6 19) twenty-five or thirty furlongs. Passing to obscure and places we find (6) in (323) near to [the var. cited] near to Peace), a reference to the Baptists urification by water as a preparation for the higher purification king of Salem (or Christ. Cp As for (7) the corrupt passage4 relating to Bethesda, Bethzatha, or saida, the most probable supposition is that Jn. wished to describe some place of bathing or purification in Jerusalem that the themselves (Wetst. ad called a place by the Greek-derived name sheep-pool and that a kindred name appeared to he applied to a pool in Jerusalem Lastly (8) the pool of Siloam, and its spiritual interpretation-which introduces in the healing of man horn blind, the type of the converted Gentile would he known to every reader of Is. 86.

Numbers-If the man at Bethesda represents

sinful Israel, his 38 years of waiting might correspond to the 38 years that elapsed before Israel 2 went over the Brook The fish, according to Philonian principles,?would mean (as explained Augustine) the Church as evolved from the Law and the Spirit. The 6 water-pots containing or 3 firkins apiece (after the Jews manner of purifying) represent the inferior dispensation of the the Law-preparing Further, how little security there is that names would he accurately preserved in passing from Hebrew to Greek (not to speak of the gulf dividing an oral tradition from Gospels written say, may be seen comparing two books of in the circumstances most favourahle to accuracy, where 60th same which errors might corrected. Cp ( a ) Ch. with (6) I Esd. : (a) (6) u.8 : (a) (6) 15. Similar discrepanciesahound in I Esd. Esd. I t was that variations in obscure Gospel names should abound a t the beginning of the second century, leaving it open to the writer to choose that form which seemed most suitable. Neh. might give the impression that the children of Israel when bringing their offerings into the Chambers, were to enter the treasure-house. Mk. against the Treasury) is correct, and so is Josephns v. But no unofficial person was, Christs time, allowed in the Treasury. See the of Eusehius built his part of the tempie in eight years. on The RV rendering the sheep (gate) unsupported by any instance of a similar ellipse in Greek literature, and indirectly condemned and Jerome. the o f for 5 See of the king. in Philo represent the irrational passions. The sick man Jn. typifies sinful 514 sin no more) waiting for the intermittent purification of the Law (typified by the intermittent pool). does not the whob o the f except in these 7 The (the ten commandments): Spirit (Rev. 14 31 According to Philo (1 the fulfilment of any potentiality, say 3, the fulfilment of 4 is The fulfilment of is . absurd of course to of Philonian interpretation, and not thought absurd by Augustine.

Some of these points will be more fitly discussed under External Evidence. What has been said above is intended to guard reader against assumptions fatal to unprejudiced criticism.
For example it is commonly assumed ( I ) that the author must be a n or a forger that if he knows some things not known to the Synoptists he must know everything known to a n apostle must a n apostle; (3) that the minute details with which the narrative abounds are signs of an eye-witness with a taste for the picturesque, and ear-witness On the contrary, ( I ) if the with a keen sense of the writer is a disciple regarding himself as the pen of a teacher, he not to he regarded as a forger if the writer received from John the apostle some things not known to the Synoptists, it does not follow that he received everything, still less that he must himself be an apostle ; (3) if, among a vast store of details of name number (such as might naturally drop from the lips of a very old man in oral accounts of reminiscences) he selected those which lent themselves to a symbolical meaning, it does not follow that he was an eye-witness or ear-witness; and it may even be that he would have regarded picturesqueness as an impertinence approximating to profanity in one who was attempting to write a Gospel that should be a New Testament Scripture

) Evidence from Names,



-Here we consider Names

JOHN S O N ....If it was John the Elder-a as Eusebius 396) tells was confused with the imputation of the Gospel to John the apostle might he more easily explained. 3 Some critics actually extend this last inference to the was dialogue with the Samaritan woman a t which no present ! 4 In order to appreciate what follows the reader remember ( I ) that every name number, and even syllable in Scripture was generally in Rabbinical tradition to have some significance that this significance or symbolism was reduced to a system the Alexandrian Jews (see Siegfried and Drummond on Philo); (3) that (as will he shown in foot-notes to this section) was familiar with the Philonian teaching.


The Apocalypse contains much internal evidence the reference to cheap wine and dear corn in Rev. for placing a t least part of the work in the reign of Domitian. The ancient external evidence for the Domitian date is singularly strong. Cp

the way for the perfect dispensation of the the Gospell-of which the wedding feast at Cana is a type. Peter swims over a number that represents (Philo on repentance. The five porches in Bethesda represent the five senses of unredeemed the unregenerate passions-and so the five husbands of the Woman of Samaria represent what Philo calls the five seducers, who lead the soul from its union with God.

in the Talmudists ; and something similar has been indicated 34 n.) as present in Mt. But in we find 60. Jn. repetition rather than grouping. Now Jn. differs from the Synoptists (and shows some resemblance to the Apocalypse) in being from to last a whether from the Evangelist, or the Baptist, or the Son, or the Father and it expressly distinguishes between (3 earthly things and heavenly things, to both of which Christ hears witness. Hence we are led to ask whether twofold iteration may not he a kind of verbal image of the principle that The testimony of two men is true (referring to the earthly witness of the Son attested the co-operation of the Father). Again, the occurrence of threefold iteration in references to the Resurrection and other mysteries, recalls the mention (in the Epistle) of the Three that bear witness earth ( I Jn. 5 the Spirit pnd the Water, and the Blood, three make up the Here the witness though earth, yet testifies to a heavenly mystery, to the essence and redeeming powers of Christ. Thus once more, we are led to ask whether this juxtaposition of and threefold iteration may be neither accident nor tautological blemish, hut the result, partly of a style formed in the schools of Jewish thought, partly of a deliberate purpose to direct the spiritual reader to between the things of earth and those of heaven. And the question is almost changed into an affirmative inference, when we find Philo commenting on the distinction between the Lords once or twice, and declaring-in allusion to Dent. 19 ( t w o witnesses or three) -that (1 holy matter is proved three Probably, also, the combination of positive and negative was based on principles of

Quotations.-Quotations from O T (rare in the Gospel, and non-existent in the Epistle) are condensed and adaptedto the context. Almost all differ both from the Hebrew and from the LXX, even where these agree. For the most part, Jn. quotes the OT as illustrating fundamental tendencies or pointing to
T he words (1034) I said ye are gods are taken to indicate that all men who have received the Word of God are in some sense divine. (8 17) The testimony of two men is true means that in the spiritual world, as in the material, experience is the test of truth ; so that he who can produce the results he aims at is proved to he-so far as the province of the action extends-in the region of truth having the testimony of t w o (himself and God, or himself ahd Nature). From first to last this Gospel ahounds in allusions to the O T and is permeated with Jewish tradition, but the seems to have shared in the growing dissatisfaction felt Jews with the L X X a t the beginning of the second century, and to have been largely influenced by Christian traditions of free quotation.4

) Fourth Gospel in iteration -sometimes( a )double, sometimes triple, sometimes of the same expressed positively and negatively-quite different from anything-in the Synoptists.
(1 7 9) I am the door of the sheep. I am ( a ) the door. (a) I n the Baptists testimony, and at the heginning of the Gospel, the iteration (with or without slight variation) is often 1 33 I knew him not (twice), and 3 4 35 48 etc. But not infrequently-with the aid ofquestionandanswer, or other slight variations which have a meaning breaking the sense of monotody-the effect of a threefold iteration is produced, as when Jesus is predicting his Resurrection where the words little while and ye shall see me, are repeated thrice, and a little while seven times. So the words of Mk. and (cometh) me-rejected converted by Jn. (1 into a triple testimony from the Baptist to the pre-existence of Christ. Westcott rightly calls attention to the triple repetition of these things in 12 where the allusion is to an unconscious fulfilment of prophecy; in fact the Gospel ahounds with such instances 855 15-18 16 13-16 and sometimes the repetition refers not to words hut t o acts. Thrice did 171) raise his eyes to heaven, and always as a prelude to some sublime of act or utterance. T he writer implies that lesus manifested himself to the after the Resurrection many signs ; but he selects and, of the last, he says (21 I This is now the third time . Numerical groupings, in threes, fives, sevens, etc., are frequent that doeth ill . . cometh . hut he that doeth the truth (y). cometh tonot to the H e confessed, and denied not,

confessed ;


; (10

It may be objected that such a style would be highly artificial, whereas style is simplicity itself. Rut, in the first place, might seem artificial for us might be a second nature for those bred amid Jewish and Alexandrian traditions of the interpretation of the OT and, in the second, though words are as simple a s those of Tennysops Memo riam, his is not simple.
There are more ambiguities Jn. than in all the rest of the Gospels put together so that sometimes it might almost seem as if he intended to his readers to choose between several meanings, or even to decide according to their impressions, whether the Evangelist or some other is speaking. Moreover he abounds in variations-impossible to render in English, and wholly wanting in the Synoptists-hetween Greek words such as : (21 15 and Simon,



For this mention of 6, connection with and 3, cp Philo 2 : 6. composed of having the odd as male, and the even as female, whence originate those things which are according to the fixed laws of nature. . . What the number that the number 7 exhibited in full perfection. The occurs again (67) in the old tradition derived from Mk. 6 37 : two hundred of bread. This is a good instance to show how Jn. may (as often elsewhere) have retained a n old tradition that adapted t o spiritual interpretation, as if to say, N ot all the repentance in the world could suffice to bread to feed, the Church; it must be received as the free of God. On the other hand in mentioning (125) three hundred pence (see Philo on Gen. Judas Iscariot (like Caiaphas, 11 testifies to the comnleteness of the of sweet which (as 300 does harmonybetween man, or the symmetrical body of Humanity, so that it is here appropriate to the perfect sacrifice of Christ, and the consequent unity of the Church in his body. appears a t first to resemble quotations being an instance of minute and exact fulfilment. But the vesture is the Church, which is not to he and there is also a reference to the Logos, which keeps the Church together (Phil. 1562) Nor shall he rend his (Lev. 21 IO), for of the spiritual Universe , keeps all its parts in union. Perhaps also he did not know Hehrew enough to render the OT with that exact accuracy which was attempted soon after his days in the version of That a writer might be familiar with Hehrew traditionhut not with the Hebrew language, is proved by the example of Philo.



Cp 1 8 4 for a quaint illustration of the twice and thrice twice apparently denoting earthly confirm; and thrice the holy matter). Siegfried (p. 168) gives as a Philonian rule, that Scripture points to a deeper and adds that this is a meaning by doubling principle of It might he a mere accident that rejects the Synoptic (Jesus) answering said and always prefers answered and said. But note that in the Synoptists! Christ always says Verily; in Jn., Verily. Both can hardly be right ; for who can believe that Christ used sometimes one, sometimes the other, and that the Synoptists a mere accidental coincidence, rejected all the sayings that contained the latter, whilst Jn. rejected all that contained the former? Yet, if added the second verilywithout additional meaning, he was guilty of tautology, which Philo calls (1 529) the vilest kind of macrology denying its existence in the OT. Moderns may think this a trifle hut the question is, not what they think what was thought a Jew A . D. T o him, no word Scripture could be trifling. This distinction between the heavenly and the earthly, represented by threefold and twofold rhythms, is perceptible at the where the three clauses about the Logos, very outset (1 followed by their summary in one clause-suggesting the heavenly Witnesses, who are One-are followed the account of the man, named John, of whom it is twice said that he (1 to hear witness of the light. On the Positive and Negative, see the Canon of Sohar, a treatise of suspicious origin containing very ancient elements laws of the Torah . . resolve themselves into the mysteries of the masculine and the feminine principle (positive and negative). Only when parts meet together does the higher unity arise. As regards what may be called the of the Twofold witness, see (on Ex. 31 16): It (the Sabbath) twice because of the Shechinah and below, in Johannine language. attest it in the name of the Son and of the Father : and see the comment on Gen. 5 I : Behold Adams are named in this section : one is the mystical the other is the mystical terrestrial So Philo (on Ex. 14) speaks of duo divina or rationes. The first chapter alone suffices to prove this 50). Especially difficult is it to decide whether his are used affirmatively, interrogatively, or imperatively (5 39 12 I 15 18 27 16 20 29) and his may often mean that or



thou me? followed by Simon , art thou ? and and Thou knowest that am thy friend followed by Thou all things thou that I am thy Similar distinctions are drawn between the meanings of and between and and between the aorist and present and All are natural in an familiar with philosophy and so long habituated to Greek as to be able t o play on its words and t o the its minute differences of grammatical expression. (iv. ) -( a ) as a


and the Life was the Light of Alluding to the name bv which the called the Messiah Comer tells us the Light bas ginning coming t o the world, but that at last, as the Psalmist had predicted, the Word tabernacled men, and they beheld his glory. But what glory? Not t h a t of material splendour hut that of grace and These words introduce a with the The Logos wbo has given light and life to men has also given graceand truth t o Israel; (1 The Law was given through Moses, (thereof) and the (thereof) were through Jesus See TRUTH. Having prepared us by a parenthesis (1 14, the glory as of an only-begotten) to conceive of an only-begotten, and of a glory in the unity of divine love, exceeding all Hebraic notions of the splendour of prophetic signs or visions and all Hellenic notions of wisdom, he now concludes by that it is not (as Job had said) God who has declared Wisdom, it is the Only-begotten in the bosom of the Father who has declared God.

Fourth Gospel (Westc. on begins and closes with a sacred week. The (week has to be deduced from a careful reading of the context. But this is a characteristic of the Gospel, distinguishing it from the Apocalypse. In the latter, symbolism is on the surface : in the former,. latent. The word seven occurs about .fifty-five times in the Apocalypse seven spirits, stars, angels, vials, etc. ) in the Gospel never. None the less, as might be expected in a work that opens with the words i n the beginning, so as to suggest a parallel with the seven days of Creation and Rest, the thought of perfect seven pervades all Jn. highest revelations of the divine
There are seven miracles or signs. There is a sevenfold witness (West. of ( I ) the Father, the the works, (4) Scripture, (5) the Forerunner, (6) the Spirit, (7) the Disciples. In the final discourse-a Deuteronomy in which Jesus reviews his testimony, the clause (which occurs nowhere else in the Gospels) is repeated seven is the noun love (which the Epistle mentions as the very Name of Lastly the sacred words, I AM used (8 58) absolutely to represent eternal being of the are combined with seven predicates to represent seven revelations : ( I ) the Bread, the Light (3) the Door, (4) the Good Shepherd, ( 5 ) the Resurrection the Life, (6) the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and (7) the true Vine.

Bridegroom. - This section contains the Doctrine of Water : the Water of the Law superseded by the Wine of the Gospel ; the Water of Purification from above the Water of Life that quenches the souls thirst. three scenes of these subsections severally Galilee, Jerusalem, and Samaria. Galilee. After a period of 2 r j six
days comes the wedding-feast at Cana where Jesus the unacknowledged Bridegroom of the after first justice t o the purification of the Jews, his ministers draw forth from the well the water which the Governor of the Feast pronounces the best


The next act of the Bridegroom

(6) The The Prologue is based on ancient traditions, describing Wisdom as having taken part with God from the beginning in the creation, and predicting the accomplishment of Gods truth and grace, and the tabernacling of his glory among traditions Jn. concentrates on Christ. Only, instead of calling Wisdom, he prefers the more commonly used in the OT.
T he Synoptists begin their Gospels b y saying in effect (Mk.) The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ was John7 or by tracing the descent of Jesus to (Mt.) or Adam. Jn. goes farther hack, saying that the Word w a s in the beginning, and , was God and that the man John merely (Westc. on Jn. 1 6) arose, into existence H e then turns to nature history. What has been the Word, he says, was Life,

. ..

. .

38 : that ye may know and grow in knowledge. A difference kept between and There are indications that Jn., in writing his Gospel the New Genesis or regeneration of man had in view the Great Announcement of Simon Magus, (see below, allegorising the Pentateuch, discerned in the five books a reference to the five senses and in the whole a description of the second creation. If is t o the point to remember that the 363) found a mystical meaning in the Talmudists sevenfold repetition of the the Shechinah-in the Pentateuch. Owing to the variation of MSS, it is impossible t o speak with certainty as to the repetition of as the subject, representing the divine Creator. There is fair evidence, however, for its sevenfold repetition, and still better for that of in the words of Jesus, the divine unity. Job The latter declares that God alone hath seen and declared wisdom. Mic. Ps. 85 9-11. Thus he leaves it an open question-to be answered what follows concerning the person of Christ-as to the nature of the Word. Wisdom would have closed the question by giving it a too narrow answer. Note that Jn., alone of the Evangelists, uses the word though it is found (four times) in the Apocalypse. H e regards God as a Spirit, permeating, attracting, and harmonising all that is, and especially all that is in the sphere of righteousness. To call such a Wisdom would be bathos. In the Epistle he prefers Love. 7 WH ii., on Mk. 1 I , say that several fathers connected the words thus, and this is far the least harsh con. nection, whether the parenthesis (1 be considered genuine or not.

For the connection, cp 36 thee is the fountain of life: in thv shall we see Also note the distinction which been is in the Logos and that which came into being the Logos: T he former is permanent, the latter transient. This distinction is lost the punctuation of the was not anything made that was made? Ps. after mentioning glory, tabernacle, mercy or grace, a n d truth goes on to personify these virtues and to describe Truth as up from the earth, and Righteousness as from heaven. This enables us to understand the spiritual meaning of of God ascending and descending on the of man. They are grace and truth, peace and righteousness, looking down from heaven and rising from earth. Thus was fnlfilled the implied in (Gen. 28 the vision of Bethel when Jacob rested the stone which was afterwards anointed the type (Just. 86) of, Christ. (for should he read with the Valentinians cp Orig. 668, where the context necessitates though the text has been conformed t o T.R. Light, corresponds to truth, as every Jew would feel who thought of the high priests Urim and Thuminim (light truth ), and of Ps. 43 3 out thy light and thy truth. the life of man: says the Psalmist is in Gods favour more often Hence what from the point of view of nature may be called light will be from the point of view the Law, truth, and favour, or
5 6 the prophets having grace from Christ. the curious expression (1 16) grace for grace apparently grace following grace, one grace or favour, after another-cp 1 3 4 2 , constantly bestowing his graces one after another (possibly based on some Jewish tradition the of in connection with the head stone,

Orieen takes to mean hut it mean jealous or a applied only to as the husband of Israel. The zeal or jealousy suits the context, and also (2 The zeal of thine house etc. the well not from the vessels. So Westc. ad 7 Philo, 1296 : that hath received from God, directly (or indirectly, through an draughts of wine will not drink out of a cistern. See also his on Gen. 16 7, and his description of the as intoxicated with the wine of the divine love of God. Add also (1 103) bringing forth bread and wine instead of water, and (1 683) the truly great High Priest, the Cupbearer of God, who, having received the draughts of grace, gives them in turn, pouring forth the libation in its fulness, namely himself. For the vessels and the two or three firkins see above 47. According to Westcotts new, adopted the in vessels remained water, but the water drawn from the became wine ; so that the filling of the vessels was a purely emblematic act. This fact, the context, the structure of the Gospel, and the traditions. of Philo, combine to indicate that the whole of the narrative is spiritual and emblematic.

is to a tte mp t to win back a n d purify the unfaithful d au g h te r of Jerusalem, typified by th e temple. The Synoptists, fr o m the h u ma n standpoint, describe t h e temple as a d en of robbers 2 16 , as a of merchandise Herein Jn. to be following the prophets, who called Tyre (Ez. 27 3 Is. 23 17) a place of merchandise of the as the in the latter passage expresses T o Jn. the greedy merchandise it, she played the of the priestly monopolists in the temple appeared a kind of idolatry (cp. Col. 3 unfaithfulness to the Bridegroom -and he represents Jesus as devoured by jealousy for of for the true Church (his bride and his body)-and as predicting that, even men might destroy it, it should be raised up in three days. Closely connected with this attempt to purify Jerusalem the harlot, comes the mention of a birth by water and the It is introduced as a doctrine of earthly as a rudimentary one-and ininculcating it Jn. to he baptism with water, on baptism with the Spirit also. The purification, which the Spirit and the water and the requires blood (I Jn. blood) is yet to come; but it is faintly suggested by hour, and (3 14) the (brazen) (y) Samaria. F r o m unfaithful Jerusalem the Bridegroom passes to unfaithful (the w o m a n with th e five h us b a nd s ). S h e, too, like t h e H o u s e of Ja c ob of old (Jer. h a d played th e harlot w i t h many husbands, a n d h a d g o n e t o th e waters of to slake her thirst, h av in g forsaken the L o r d , the fountain of living waters. place near Jacobs well. I n Philo the T h e dialogue well and the fountain represent different stages of ledge. The well of Agar represents a lower stage than that of Rebecca; Rebecca supplies the camels from the well, but the servant the fountain, because the .latter is (1 the holy word. The highest and best well of all is the In Father of all, the Fountain of life Jn. we find a place called or ably opprobrious name for Shechem (see alluding to (Is. 28 the drunkenness of Ephraim, in any case suited to the moral of the It is (45) near the place that to Joseph his son. This is explained by Philo. Shechem (shoulder) has two meanings; in connection Gen. a certain athlete becomes a husbandman, it indicates labour but when it is mentioned as given it means (1 the bodily things which of the senses; .Jesus (Jn. wearied of his journey, sat Philo says that Moses sat a t the a cowardly retreat, but like an athlete recover. ing breath for a new attack - an interesting parallel to the position of Jesus before his attack on Samaritan unbelief. I t was (46) about the sixth hour hour described by Philo (on as fittest for the revelation of divine truth. The woman of Samaria, coming to draw water from Jacobs well, received the from Jesus (418) Thou hast had five and he whom thou now is not thy Philo says (on Gen.36) that woman is symbolically the sense (sensus), and (1 131) There are two husbands of senses one lawful, one a seducer ; but he proceeds that the acts through senses; he also (1 563) connects having with having many gods, and speaks of 609) those enamoured of many gods, who know not the one Husband, namely
Cp the introductory words in same passage of Thus the thy God unto Jerusalem. . neither thou washed in to cleanse thee; thou not Saltis symbol of the Spirit. speaks of salting , with fire. See Philo, on the brazen serpent (the enemy of the that came to Eve); it is (ib. the strongest virtue. For the apparently abrupt transition that ensues from serpent to the living water, see Philo, ; one is healed by the the other is caused to drink that most excellent draught, Wisdom, from the which he brought forth from his own wisdom. The statement, that (Westc. p. there can be no question as to the individuality of the discourse with the woman of Samaria, is perfectly true, if individuality means of style and purpose. It is practically certain, however, that the dialogue did not actually occur in the exact words recorded by Jn. For ( I ) no disciple (48) was present; and, even if we that the Evangelist received an account of the dialogue from.Jesus himself, both Jesus and the Woman of Samaria talk in nine style. The applies to the dialogue with Nicodemus. 4 the Nile. Cp a tradition on Joel 3 1 : A s the first caused a well to spring up, shall a second cause waters to spring What the sixth (Jn. 4 he whom thou now hast? Philo speaks (26) of the six powers of turbulence, the five senses and uttered speech, of which the last prates with unbridled mouth of countless things that should not

The woman (Jn. 428) left her water-pot and departed to carry news of the Messiah. differs here but in such a way as to show that the water-pot is not a mere picturesque did not, like Agar, need detail. H e saysthat Rebecca (1 the leather the body-to hold the water, but only the water-pot, which is a symbol of a heart that can hold draught. view may be that, as Rebecca needed not the so the woman of Samaria, .who stage higher, needed not the having received the dwelling spring of living water. The seed of the Gospel having been in Sbechem, the associations of the place are changed. is connected no longer with Jacob but with Jesus (or with Jacob in his higher stage, as a type of Jesus); no longer with the things of the senses, but with the Jesus bids the disciples lift up their the fields white already with the results of eyes to look his husbandry. Immediately the harvest begins. The Samaritans come from the city. Some of them had believed, in Jesus on the testimony of the woman. But Philo saps that it is characteristic of a false god to exist only report and convention, and the a woman &{, Here it is added the (442) believed no longer owing that to the speaking of the woman, but to the word of Christ. Jesus returns to Galilee a n d Cana. Thus cycle of th e Bridegroom e nd s in th e place where it began, ma k in g way for t h e doctrine of Bread. ( 3 ) The of healing o t h e sick m a n f at Bethesda o n the S ab b at h , which represents th e healin g of Israel - not unaccompanied (5 14) warning th at th e work might be undone- 1s followed b y a statement t h a t the S o n does nothing b u t h e sees the F a t h e r do. H e n ce , when he lifts his before the eucharistic sign of the giving of t h e bread, w e a r e prepared to hear th at w h a t he gives, t h e F at he r is really t h e b re ad fr o m heaven. giving. It By placing the giving of Christs flecb and blood early in the Gospel, and by introducing, much later, the one commandment of love, fulfilled by Christ on the Cross, Jn gives the of a desire to discourage materialistic of the : (663) The spirit it that giveth life, the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I spoken unto you, they are spirit and they are life. 5 ( 4 ) The L ig h t -The doctrine of Light, th o u gh in Prologue, a n d touched not by Jesns b u t by th e Evangelist) 3 is not definitely set forth b y th e m i d d l e of the Gospel (8 I am Jesus till the light of th e world. This revelation is desciibed as being followed by a more active hostility in the enemies who now (8 37-44) seek to destroy revealing themselves as the children of the Destroyer. The hast a devil) draws the depth of darkness (848: fullest light: BeforeAbraham was, I AM). Then, be uttered. I f Jn. wrote in part with a view to contemporary heresies, he might very well include that of Magus, who is said in Acts to have held the Samaritans at a early period bound in enchantments. Justin Martyr testifies to his in Samaria in the first half the second century. More probably, however, it means, primarily, religious pride and ambition (leading to hatred of truth moral goodness), Rev. 13 5 a mouth speaking great things, some with Simon Magus. Philo quoted above. 4 the healing of the nobleman s son compared with healing of the centurions servant, see above may mean either kings servant or like, princely. Origen (perhaps reading with regards the as representing Abraham, and the raising of the son as representing the action of the Logos in raising up Isaac, as if from the dead. If that is so, the three miracles of represent the action of the Logos before the Law, under the Law, 3) outside the This sign is wrought at Cana and is 54) the second. It terminates the section of the and introduces that of health and food, healing and the Bread of Life. 3 Philo that the imitates the Fathers ways to patterns. 4 Jesus thrice lifts his eyes 17 I ) : when he ( I ) gives the Bread, (2) raises Lazarus, the final sacrifice of praise and prayer to the Father. 5 Words-hut words into the heart- not acts,. nor miracles, are the climax of Christs life among his before the crucifixion. washes their feet ; but Judas, like the rest, is washed, and Judas is also expressly said by Jn. (not by the Synoptists) to have received the sop. Neither act makes them They are clean (15 3) of the word that he has spoken and they have received; Judas is not because he has not received


an attempt to stone Jesus! he was hidden and went forth from the temple. This and a second (12 36) eclipse are two witnesses against the darkness that will not (1 5 ) apprehend the light.

Next comes the healing of the Gentile world, typified by the man who was blind from his birth.
As Naaman was sent to Jordan, so the man is sent to which represents (Is. the worship of the true God as distinct from the worship of false gods (see also Is. 7 3 22 I I 3 292). The inference that the Gentile world must purified by Jewish waters-i.e by the Law-is obviated by the statement-probably supersession of the Law by 49 IO) Siloam means This sign is altogether different from the healing of the man a t Bethesda (Israel) who is never said to believe, and who is threatened with believes in case of relapse. The Gentile world (9 so that this sign includes the creation of spiritual, as well material, light.
(97) the Pool of Siloam

because they did not understand that ruling implies serving and even dying. The Shepherd (10 layeih down his for the sheep (10 i norder that it may In other words, the Resurrection, or attainment of life through death, is a law of the spiritual world a part of the Fathers will. Thus Jn. anticipates the objection that if the Shepherd dies in conflict with wolf, the wolf is

Later, the law is restated as the law of the Harvest : (1224) Except it (the grain) die, it abideth alone, but if it perish it bringeth forth much fruit meantime, Jesus says (1 018) that he has power to take np his life as well as to lay it down, and these words naturally prepare us for a sign of this particular power. a sign is afforded by the Resurrection of Lazarus.
(6) The Raising of the Dead.-That marvellous cures (and not improbably, revivifications) were wrought by the Christians is indicated by the Pauline Raising Epistles, by indirect Talmudic testimony dead in and bv earlv Christian traditions. are hdwever, of very early exaggeration arising from misunderstood metaphor. (Eus. v. 18 14) alleges A.D.) that For example, John in Ephesns raised a dead man. How, we ask, did this escape writers-Papias for example records such an act of Philip but not of Jbhn? The is to he found in where the apostle, an Elder about a young convert receives the answer H e is dead. What death? H e died God. The reconverts the youth, who becomes trophy resurrection. Similarly, whereas the churches of Gaul speak of reconverted apostates as v. 145) dead brought by the prayers of martyrs, (ii. says that, ere now, in the brotherhood, owing to sore need, many have been raised by the prayers of and this, literally; and it seems highly probable the that he has confused some metaphorical The question arises, how early did such occur ? T he wicked, says a Jewish tradition though living, are termed dead. Let the dead: says Lord bury their dead. In Chrisfs commission to the Twelve, Mt. alone has raise the dead, and afterwards (11 5) the dead are raised. Yet Mt. describes Jesus as revivifying no one except the daughter of Jairus, concerning whom Mt. has written (9 24) she is not dead but sleepeth. See It is probable that Mt. has here given the actual words of Jesus, or the closest approximation to them; they were perhaps omitted by owing to their being first literalised and then regarded as difficult or erroneous. Lk. as well as Mk. records it is true the dead are raised but he meets the possible dead have been raised, by inserting the raising of a widows son (7 immediately before. daughter, he might now plead that persons justified the plural are. the raising of besides the suspicion attaching to the of this narrative not only from Mk. but also from the parallel Mt. which closely agrees with story a misunderstanding of metaphor. I n Esd. 9 there is a vision of a woman (Sion) sorrowing for the death of her only son (the City or Temple). up the Christians would assert that Christ (Jn. 2 Temple, or, in the language of Christian psalms and hymns that he up the only son of the sorrowing the possible influence of symbolism combines with other causes4 to oblige to reject as non-historical account of the raising of the widows son. See NAIN.

T he section terminates with a denunciation of the abiding sin of the blind who profess to lead others and who say we see. T h e Life.-The mention of the blind leaders leads to the mention of the ideal Leader who knows loves) all that are his, and that, too, 3 so that they are drawn towards him as the Good Shepherd who does not drive, but
All the shepherds and deliverers of the world that came before the Logos are described as thieves and Westcott has no note here. but the second hiding in 12 36 he translates hidden (not hid himself) and declares it to be the result of the want of faith of Christ; adversaries and he there refers to the present passage (8

the Shiloh of Gen. 49 IO ; cp 3 Cp Philo (1 382) on the two kinds of ignorance, of which the second fancies that it knows what it does not know, puffed u p : this generates with a false notion of its own I t is this proud, complacent, and deliberate and scorn ofgoodness), is, in the Synoptists, unpardonable, and, in Jn., the sin cannot be effaced. (For cp Jn. that abideth 15 16 I Cor. 13 4 The true Shepherd and the trne Husbandman (or Vinedresser) are connected by Philo in a discourse about the husbandry or of soul. H e distinguishes between the tiller of ground (who is a hireling) and the real husbandman (who prunes, or encourages the shepherd as the case may require). So distinguished from the mere keeper. Poets he says call kings the their people, the title is rightly reserved for the wise. The difference between Philo and In. is that the former makes no mention of laying down life the sheep. If the text IS correct. came allusion to the or the character of the ideal . Deliverer. Of David, as of Abraham, Jn. would say that they (8 56) saw Christs they did not claim to be independent, but depended on the Deliverer. But this does not explain lrpb before me. We expect me, or setting themselves above me. A Hebrew may have caused confusion between be; estimation). and in the of. fore time). before before before (mg., like). Or an original Gr. tradition, (cp Mk. 1042 with might mean before me, or above me. Cp Justin, Since lrpb Christ is the Truth, lrpb in Justin may represent a traditional version of the in Jn. Many authorities of the words heretics.

Gospel as authoritative. The saying has affinities to Greek notion that the only lawful is that of the wise man (see Philo 38). (I) Eusebius, in quoting these words of prefixes to them (v. 7 I ) that, he says, which (though in 17 6 it introduces a statement attested bv the canonical Acts of the Apostles) may imply, according context, an emphasis laid on the subjectiveness and doubtfulness of what is alleged (see iv.1546 the words owing to sore need a ply very well to apostasy, hut less well to literal death (3) 32 4) implies that, whilst healing of the sick still went on the raising of the dead was a thing of the past and that though they had lived for some time, none were living when wrote For the date of the


and the letter) facilitates the theory that misunderstood the metaphor. When Papias records similar acts, Eusebius by the words 39 and appears indicate his disbelief in them, a t least if we combine them with the followine mvthical. not

wicked one, prince of Israel. The interpretation is applied to 95 dead know not anything. See an article on The of the Dead the The

them as Gospel, or he did not, a t the time of writing, recognise the


(7)Reserving the historical question for special treat ment (see it may be said here that : in spite of Marthas inferential statement in 1 1 3 9 the words of Jesus at the tomb Father, I thank thee that thou heardest me, imply that the hearing was already past, and the life of Lazarus was in effect already granted to his prayers. W e must, however, suppose that the narrative- though possibly based on one or more of Christs actual is mainly allegorical. The great negative reason is the silence of the Synoptists about Christs greatest miracle, which was, according to the chief cause of both ( a ) the applause that greeted his entry into Jerusalem, and (6) the resolution of the priests to slay The positive reasons are : (I) Jn., adopting Philonian tradi -

he puts and answers negatively the shall I say? I say] save me fromthis hour? By this act, he virtually fulfills tde Law of Sacrifice, or the Law of the Harvest, which he has (1224) just enunciated. ad the prince of this world is, in Jewish Tradition, the prince of the seventy nations of the Gentiles, there is point in the words that follow the introduction of the Greeks : Now is the judgment of this world, now shall the o f he out ; and I, if I he lifted up, will draw unto me. But as with this second manifestation of light comes (1236) a second and final eclipse The unstable or multitude of the Jews is now mentioned for the last time, quitting the stage as the devout Gentile world enters; and its last words are (1234): Who is this Son of man?

tions of style and expression, and writing on the lines of the OT, might naturally subordinate the literal to the synibolical. For Philo calls creation of Eve from Adams rib (1 70) mythical If such was view, he might well think himself justified composing a single symbolical story that might sum up a hundred floating traditions about Christs revivifying acts in such a form as to point to him as the Consoler of Israel and the Resurrection and the Life of the world. The of Lazarus suggests symbolism. Another form of it is who is, in Philo (1 the type of a being and (indeed) a corpse, but held together and into by the rovidence of God. (3) Lk. and Jn. alone mention Martha sister Mary. They appear to differ in their views of the sisters; possibly they differ as to the brother Some early writers took to he a real person ; and it is easy to see that traditions about the Lazarus of Lk. may have prepared the way for the Lazarus of Jn. Jesus it might he said raised many from the dead. hut concerning Lazarus by he said (Lk. : If h e y believe not Moses and the neither will they believe though one rise from the dead. The next step would he to say that this prediction was fulfilled : Lazarus was raised from the dead; yet the Jews did not

The Deuteronomy. -The public doctrine of Jesus ends when he cries aloud for the third time (see above, saying that his word will the world and that his word is the word of the Father. W e are now transported to a higher sphere, to the inner teaching of Christ, the revision and summary of his doctrine, the giving of the One commandment, the promise of the Paraclete, and the prayer to the Father.
It is a Deuteronomy, full of mystical allusions in which a numerical symbolism-sometimes veiled, sometimes manifest, as in the seven times repeated refrain These things have I spoken unto you-is prevalent throughout. As Abraham (Gen. 184) washed the feet of the Three Persons and gave them food, so now the Son or Messiah (Schottg. 2 repays the to Abrahams The Talmudists, in the spirit of the prophets, describe (Schottg. 2 the mansions habitations of God as coming to man and Philo speaks of the Divine word and Powers 249 making .their home in, and sharing their with the devout soul, and of (i. 643) God himself as in souls of the perfectly purified; So teaches that Father and the Son will make their the heart of the As Philo, agreeing with the Talmudists warns us that (1 457) place does not mean a regionfilled with matter, hut God himself, the refuge of the Universe, so by his context, teaches us that the place which Jesus will prepare for his disciples is a home in the bosom of the Father.

lamb for the sacrifice, and the coming of the Greeks to the New Temple is hailed by Jesus as a sign 60. that ) the hour of glory has arrived. Voice from heaven, which the Synoptists place a t the Baptism (where it), and also a t the Transfiguration, mentioned alone in this as ratifying the act of Jesus

(8) The Preparation for the Sacrifice.-We pass to the beginning of the week before the Passover. The anointing of Christ (12 is a kind of preparation of the

All these allusive iterations of ancient traditions, and all the lines of various doctrine, converge towards Christ in his threefold character of ( 1 4 6 ) the way, the truth, and the life.
First, in the doctrine of the Way the disciples are taught to ray in his name- a clause Then the Truth, or the Spirit of Truth introduced before becomes the threefold the predominant element, of the The two sections of the Way (or Son) and the Truth (or Spirit) terminate with a prediction of victory because the Father is with the Son; so the latter has, in effect, already (1633) conquered the world. Last comes the doctrine of the Father himself (the Life), called Father, holy Father, and finally 25) just or Father. Here my name ceases and t hy is Finally -with repeated references to the Church as being 6 7 IO, etc.) that whichor those whom the Father hath the Son- the Last Words terminate in an outpouring of the Sons devotion to the Father, wherein his name is, in effect revealed as love : I have made known unto them thy and will make it known, that the wherewith thou in them, then:. not hear the true was present. Those who heard anything angel. See 2 thing. They heard thunder or for the decline of the authority of the Bath-Kol. Cp Lk. I beheld Satan fallen as lightning from heaven. uttered the return of the Seventv.
14 26 15 24 (15 is obviously to be excluded). The Paraclete or friend called in to help, is connected by Philo sometimes with the Elenchos, or Convicting Power, sometimes (ii. 227) with the high priest entering Gods presence to represent the Cosmos, but perhaps more often with the Spirit of the ideal Cosmos (the name Logos being given to the High Priest, see Sometimes 227) the Priest appears as interceding with the Father of Cosmos hut calling to his aid the Son of the Father. Philo does The Elenchos is called himself to one form of ex 247) Paraclete (i. gods own Logos ; (i. the ideal Man or Man to Truth The whole of last discourse shows Philonian ; but (as usual), whereas Philo regards the intellect, Jn. regards the heart- aconseauenceofthe belief of the latter in the incarnate Logos. 5 in Jn. and I Jn. 2 I, of having the narrow legal meaning implied in the Synoptists Mt. Lk. 1 6 Mk. 17, just in the Platonic sense, and is o the f o God and Christ. f

coffin, the dead man sat (3) he began to speak Jesus gave him to his mother. Similar details are found in K. and I K. which describe miracles of revivification performed and Elijah. Those who regard the speeches in Acts as historical would also have to explain how Paul, in mentioning the Resurrection omits the raising of any dead people by Christ and more, how Peter (10 when emphasising his acts makes no mention of This has never been explained. Some have suggested that the Synoptists kept silence to screen Lazarus. But how could they hope to screen one who was known to all Jerusalem, not to speak of the multitude of pilgrims? 3 As regards the different delineations of the sisters see $44 . I n Lk. Martha comes first as entertaining apparently (or certainly, see v. 1.) her house; then Mary is mentioned hut not a t all. (11 I ) mentions in order Mary, Martha. I n Mary is the anointing is narrated) she who anointed the Lord, which implies knowledge Lk. 37) the only woman that of only one anointer. But anoints the Lord is a sinner. in Lk. the anointing is in the of the Pharisee ; in in the house of Lazarus. mention (1623) of a Lazarus in connection with the life after death Abrahams suggests that there is some confusion of tradition latent under these differences and similarities in Lk. and Jn. the name Lazarus, see above and cp 4 2 4 (see Grabes note), De 7 and the Fathers generally, regard the story as history. is placed by 8 7 in the same category as those who took this view, no distinguished the Lazarus of Lk. from the. Lazarus of 5 A literal interpretation of the narrative is accompanied by many minor difficulties, such as the question why Jesus, after he had been informed of the of Lazarus, remained beyond Jordan (116) two days. From this and from 11 17 Lightfoot infers (BE178) a journey which occupies three days, Westcott (on 1 6) The journey would occupy about 1 a day. There no solid basis for either conclusion. A full discussion of the subject would show the mystical meaning underlying these and other details. Jn. takes pains to show that the Voice was not, in popular and modern sense of the term, objective. A multitude



The Passion (see above, can be found here for only one or two points, not only peculiar to Jn. but to his purpose. They are connected with Christs last utterances on the Cross, and with what followed them. I. The words Eli, Eli, etc. recorded by Mk. and are said to have been misunderstood by bystanders at the time. Lk. omits them, and even Mk. and Mt. are at variance the In the corresponding passage Jn. has simply I thirst.
Of course the first impulse is to take this, as the bystanders took it in a purely literal meaning and to say that it has no Mk. and Mt. in the Fourth Gospel words bread water food eat drink feed, and thirst are hardly used in literal when the bring him food he replies that (434) his is to do the will of the Father and accomplish his work. This suggests that in Christs last utterance the same spiritual standard must maintained, so that, in effect, it was the expression of a thirst for that final acconiplishment of Gods him to say it is finished, and then to down the barrier of the flesh and to enter into unfettered communion with the Father (cp

as veil (Heh. 10 it would be natural to describe the piercing of his as rending of the veil. It is said (Joels that the Jews believed the veil of the Temple to have been literally rent, shortly before the capture of the City. This may have helped to literalise the veil-tradition. Christians would say to Jews you speak of, did not happen in the siege, or at least did not happen only then ; the veil was rent when Lord was by you. Also, against the Synoptists, there is this consideration, that the rending of the veil if it had occurred would probably have the priests (who would know of it) been kept a and, if it was ever revealed by any of them, would probably revealed by zealous converts apt to make. exaggerations and find coincidences. 4. The piercing of Christs side us to

central thought of the Fonrth Gospel and the Epistle, namely, the love of God revealed in the Blood of Christ the Paschal Lamb.
T he E istle to the Hebrews recognises that old way to was through (Lev. 146) blood water scarlet wool, and hyssop, but asserts that the way (Heb. 10 the blood of Jesus. The Epistle of Barnabas (11 however, will not give up the old Levitical elements : i t even adds the Levitical wood which it discerns in Cross and though not difficulty, it brings in notion of the Cross as a tree, which flows the purifying stream of baptism. I n the ospels, the scarlet cloak represents the scarlet wool, and the cross the wood ; hut the blood that came from the mere piercing of the hands, or perhaps the hands and might well seem insufficient to express the purifying blood of ; and there was nothing at all to indicate the water. An early tradition inserted in Lk. (2244) endeavoured to supply the of sprinkling by relating how drops as of blood streamed from Jesus in his agony; hut still there was no mention of water. Yet not only did the Levitical requirements mention running water hut Zech. 131 predicted the opening of a fountain against and uncleanness for I t is in the of Christs side that a revelation of the (2) the human soul presented the blood human body, represented Physically, that these details should have been seen the eye of a disciple kept probably at some distance from the cross a crowd of hostile spectators and soldiers, must he, if not impossible at least disputable. But, whatever facts may have been seen, the essence of the narrative is a spiritual fact. A revelation is vouchsafed to the beloved disciple. His eyes are opened to discern the Fountain of It may have I n the Synoptists, the feet, too, are pierced, but not in Jn. and Pseudo-Peter.

What Mk. and express in the form of (apparent) complaint, Lk. entirely omits (perhaps because of its difficulty), Jn. ,appears to express in the form of the highest spiritual aspiration. Not that he excludes the .physical meaning, but (as always throughout the Gospel) he includes a spiritual meaning-that the Son of God, who is in the bosom of the Father,endured for our sakes to feel, for a brief space, as if, i n a certain sense, he were not there, so that he thirsted for the presence of God. 2. The spontaneousness of Christs death was not clearly expressed by the two earliest inserts, as uttered by Jesus, the first half of the that, to this day, terminates a pious Jews confession on his death-bed (Ps. 31 5). Yet even this was liable to the Jewish objection that it implied, as utterer, not a Redeemer, butone need of redemption. No, such objection applied to the tradition preserved by I Pet. 2 23 perhaps gave himself up as a sacrifice ; cp Gal. 220 Eph. This word Jn. adopts. But he represents Jesus not as saying this, as doing it : his spirit. See above, 3. The rending of the is omitted by partly perhaps because, in his view ( I ) Christs body is the Temple, and the veil is flesh, so that the piercing of his side by the soldiers true and essential rending of the veil, but partly because ( 2) Jn. may have considered the Synoptic tradition erroneous.
here explains many difficulties. Death under crucifixion did not generally ensue till after two or three ; Mk. mentions surprise (omitted at the speedy death of Jesus. Unbelievers, explaining resurrection as a might Pilate well be sur prised, for death could not happen so soon. steps in to say that it did happen, and to spiritualise the circumstances. The (see CROSS, 6), was performed, he says, on the twocriminals ; this would have violated the ordinance about the Paschal Lamb [Ex. was averted from Jesus hy his death, and the death was attested hy the piercing of his side ; and thus two Scriptures were fulfilled. It is more probable that the Synoptic account of the rending of the veil should have sprung from a misunderstanding of the piercing of the side than vice versa. In the earliest days of the Church, when it became customary to speak of Christs flesh Mk. supposes to be addressed by the man with the vinegar to the bystanders, supposes to he addressed the bystanders to the man. See ELI, Aramaic (or in D Hebrew) is confused in all the MSS. Pseudo-Peter interpret; the, words My Power, my Power, why thou forsaken me? Justin (Tryph. 125) translates Ev. X. 8494 Robinson on the word in the by and

word in (where M S S might have seems to have been, in the corrected edition used Mt. retained (in the form hut with (from as object. This expresses somewhat more of voluntariness. Lk. (23 46) goes farther. Retaining in the sense of breathing his last, he adds an expiession of trust on the part of Jesus.

tradition, omitting the word blood, seeing in it a fulfilment of Ps. 22 14 poured ont like water. This symbolism seems to be in accordance with describing ashes and water as origin of generation ; and purification of the body with water as preparatory the purification of the soul with blood. But Jn. may be also alluding to the mixed cup of the Eucharist, which contained wine mixed with water. Irenaeus says that (5 the Ebionites (who denied Christs nature used water alone in the Eucharist) not receiving the rejected the mixcombination of God and man into their ing of the heavenly wine, and did not God into mingling (non recipientes Denm ad commistionem : in other words he declares their rejection of the divine natnre in Christ to he analogous to their rejection of the wine in the Eucharist. According to this view, the wine in the Eucharist, and the blood of Christ on the cross, would represent Christs nature. But whatever reference Jn. may have had to Ebionitism, or to a rising Docetism that rejected Christs human nature, it seems probable that his main object is to hear witness for the to Christs human nature as completely real-in and soul well as spirit. Applied to the Eucharist, the Johannine view would recognise the in the the soul spirit in the water and blood. 4 Cp Ps. 369 : With thee is the o f in thy light shall we see light-a passage closely connected with key-passage in the Gospel (14): The was of and cp Rev. : will give unto that is athirst of the fountain o f Also cp Rev. : of water of life proceeding out of the throne o God and f the Lamb. I t was a saying, older Fourth Gospel, that (Barn. The kingdom Jesus is on the tree (or Cross, : cp Justin, I 41, 73, The Lord hath reigned from the tree). So, in Jn., the Cross-heing the place Christ is up and where God is the throne of God. In Barn. 11 as in Rev. 222 (imitating the astoral picture of Ezek. 477 the Cross is also the tree of life whose leaves will heal the nations, and it is planted by side ofthe river of living water. But there were varieties




been given to some one to see literally the piercing of the side and to hand down to the church of Ephesus a historical fact obscured in previous traditions. But the spiritual meaning of the act is not to be regarded or from the materialistic or historical The whole of the context is spiritual thought and mystically symbolical in expression. First there is threefold mention of accomplishment. Then as there were signs wrought by Christ during his so now there are, perhaps, seven accomplishments of OT type or that accompany, or follow, his In the last of these, the striking of all (prospective as well as retrospective backward to prophecy hut also forward to the of the Gentiles, to the christianising of the Roman Empire, and to the metamorphosis of blind ersecution into awe-struck adoration), the soldiers of this coming to break the bones of the Paschal Lamb, are not only diverted from their purpose, but as it were forced to look on him whom they pierced.

as possible, fact from not-fact. No criticism, however. ought to prevent us from recognising its historicalvalue in correcting sions derived from the Synoptic Gospels, and the epic power and dramatic irony which brings on the stage the characters and classes whereby the will of God is being continuously fulfilled, so that we ourselves learning from Pilate to behold the man, and discerning with Caiaphas that i t is expedient that one man should die and not that the whole people should perish. It often raises us above details of which the certitude will probably never be into a region where we apprehend the nature and existence of a Word of Life, essentially the same in heaven and on earth, human yet divine, the incarnation of the concord of the spiritual Yet, while no Gospel so high, none stands more firmly, more pi below. EVIDENCE. first half of the second century, wrote five books of of the Lords Logia. ( a ) His was probably a setting forth of the Logia, though it might include interpretation as By Logia (oracles), he meant the Words also Including the Acts) of Christ as being oracularly applicable to the of man. This title was already in use to denote, their oracular aspect, the Scriptures of the OT, and here transfers it to what he regards as the oracles of
Eus. iii. 39 I

Thus, amid mysticism and as it began, ends the Johannine life of Christ. Viewed as history, it must be dispassionately analysed so as to separate, as far The Exterhal Evidence as to the authorship and the Gospels consists of, I. Statements, Quotations.

Written Gospels are neither mentioned nor implied in the N T Epistles, nor in that of. Cleniens nor, probably, in that of Barnabas, nor in the i. THE T H I RD implies ( a ) that many Gospels were current, and perhaps that their diversity was t o obscure the certainty concerning the things wherein the Christian catechumen was instructed : that whereas the apostles delivered , taught them many drew up a e ., wrote. This points to a time when the apostles had passed away, leaving the open to the historians. qualification not that he had consulted an apostle and obtained his but that he had (1 ) traced 3 the course of all things accurately from the first. The particular defects implied in existing narratives that they were not accurate, and not chronological order. Papias, a bishop of Phrygian Hierapolis in the
of tradition, and Barnabas himself quotes a saying that suggested the thought of the as a Vine front which the juice, or blood, is dropping : 12) When a tree bow down and rise and when blood shall dropfrom a This view is developed in the later Johannine vision. water and the blood the Cross, or rather from Christ on the Cross. See Rev. 22 17. I t may be objected that the author lays stress upon seeing (19 35 : H e that hath seen hath borne witness ). The very stress however, indicates that seeing. hasaspiritnal signification, as (149) H e that seen me hath seen the we his glory ; and elsewhere Jn. Space does not allow the exposition of the Philonian and Johannine uses of expressions relating to sight and vision, which would demonstrate this conclusion. But it may be assumed that, whenever senses aye used are always used i a n Handling in I Jn. 1I no exception to this invariable rule; see above (on the handling in Ignatius), 29. (I) The the bone not (5) the looking on him whom they pierced, are all definitely mentioned in the OT, and (6) the delivering of the spirit may be regarded a fulfilment of 31 5 ; but there is no verbal allusion either to Zech. or to Ps. 2214. We cannot therefore assert that seven is here in the authors mind. the structure of the whole Gospel makes it probable. 3 And he that hath seen hath and witness is true and he knoweth that he saith true. On the assumption (so Westcott and Alford) that is the a repeated the sentence isstrangely tautological. But may not Jn. intend to mean Christ? The passage is the keynote to the, Epistle, and in the Epistle (see Westc. on I Jn. 26) is always used (cp especially I Jn. 417). I t characteristic of so that a superficial reader Jn. that he should use the should render it in one way and a spiritual reader another. I n any case, the threefold form of the attestation appears deliberately adapted to the context describing the Three Witnesses.

proves that Eusebius, not uses to mean inter re in L X X and means interpret ). In Judg. 7 (AL setting forth is interpretation. Heretics are called by (Pref. I, and i. 3 6) bad setters (or of things well they sometimes= forge make false entries the besides perverting For example, the Valentinians are said to I) transgress the order and connection of the Scriptures, trans posing and and making anything out of anything As instance, they asserted that the anguish of Sophia was indicated the words And what I shall say I know not, which Irenxus regarded as a heretical or exposition, of Jn. Similarly (Polyc. Phil. 7 ) does not refer to (Lightf. ad perverse interpretations, but to tricks artful treatment, in setting as well as The of oracles in Lucian deal with both (setting forth), and (solution) : the pantomime makes his meaning so clear as to need ii. no one to set it forth words. Aristotles ad Alex. I) is perhaps a short of facts, as compared a long narrative. is called by the setter forth of the will of Zeus, not because he but because he the Oracles Incourseof time, however, both among and Greeks, no new oracles were forthcoming. Then the exegetes had to confine himself to explaining the old oracles ; and so by degrees and assumed their modern prevailed in the days of Eusebius. This explains why the Alexandrine scribe altered into in 7 I t cannot he denied that a collection of the Lords Logia might contain nothing but his words, like the Oxyrhynchus papyrus: I t is tnie that Philo applies the term Logion even to a statement in the Pentateuch Phi. 1538 10 9 ; Phi. quoting Gen. in the passage where (2163 he speaks of all things written in the hooks as oracles he proceeds to say that they were oracularly delivered through Moses, and then divides them into three according as they are uttered ( I ) in the person of God, by question and answer, (3) in the person of Moses, under and control from God. This separates them, it would seem, from historical statements made by the historians themselves, in the books of Kings, Chronicles, Esther, etc. In the Words of the Lord, regarded either as to Dt.339 Ps.11967 [sing.] or as sure promises of deliverance Ps. 12 7 1831 10519 In N T the living oracles (Acts 38) are those delivered from Mount Sinai, apparently referred to in Rom. 3 and in the only two other

Schwegl. Lightfoot

iii. 39
r oil roil

i s as follows: (Eus.



instances (Heb. 5 I Pet. 4 it means the moral precepts, or Law, of Christ. In the only two instances given in Ottos index t o Justin it means (I 32) OT prophecy 17-18) prophetid denunciation of woe (where the Logia against the Pharisees are coupled with the prophetic Logia of OT). Eusebins perhaps expresses his view of the meaning of Logia (as when 24 Matthew and John were the only apostles that left memorials of the Lords a word that in sing. sometimes meant life (Epict. but in discourses (Epict. 24 etc.). Although the term Logia might include actions, circumstances, it is extremely doubtful whether Papias would have given the name, for example, to Mk. And King Herod heard it, for his name had become ; and he said John the Baptist is risen from the dead etc. We must there! fore he content to be uncertain how far, all, Papias embodied history in his setting forth of the Logia, as distinct from interpretations and traditions which he may have added to them Papias calls them rather than for obvious is from in that the former pften means God whilst the latter means the Lord (Jesus). might have meant Oracles of the O T (as in Iren. Pref. I. ) be clear but lengthy. being applied t o the Lords Day as from the Sabbath, was exactly the fit word to distinguish the oracles of the Law of Christ from the oracles of the Law of Moses. mean remembered. But it may also mean mentioned. In the Papias elsewhere will be our guide here- I n 68 Papias uses it twice; and Lightf. (SR renders fiist then relate. That the same word should he used in two consecutive sentences to mean quite different things is in itself, highly improbable. still, more when Papias might used for The meaning repeat trach from memory, which is absolutely necessary in the secohd, is highly probable also in the first. When a convert been taught the Logia, his business was (Heb. 5 to repeat them to others. Hence, in 68, Papias contrasts himself, as learning well and teaching well the traditions of the Elders, with heretics who taught alien commandnients and not those of the Lord. Iren. 18 I of the teaching their dogma of the decad with gen.). Eusebius describes the Synoptists a s accus.), co-ordinately with Jn. as It be urged that, in the LXX, call to mind. There is close connection, however, between calling t o mind 13 3, the deliverance of the Passover) and commemorating. The two words are the active and causative forms of the same Hebrew verb and renders both (remember and make by the Greek and in Ps. I Macc. 12 speaks of remember-. friends in prayers, sacrifices, etc. (cp and Macc. 9 (Tisch.), I would have your good will, means, I would have acknowledged or recorded it some act. Similarly, in NT, 2 IO, the poor means. remember them in act. So Heb. 137. them had the rule over yon, which spakeunto you the word of God, would, itself, imply what actually follows, their faith. So the Ephesians are bidden to (Acts 20 31 35) call to mind Pauls life among them, and also words my bonds (following of the Lord Jesus. Col. 418, 43, us God open unto a door for the word, to speak the mystery of Christ for which I am i n bonds), probably includes, in I Macc. 12 and as in later Christian writers, remember my bonds (in your prayers). (For the connection between praying and remembering see I Tbess. 13.) I n Mt. 16 g, is probably corruption of Mk. So far, in NT, with this exception, takes the gen. or : but in I Thess. (best taken the is. remind one another of .. .. implying mention), Tim. 2 8 following 2 the things thou commit to faithful men, who will be able to teach others), and preceding 2 1 4 these in almost certainly means make mention of, or teach, Jesus Christ. We see, therefore, in the Pauline Epistles, a commencement of the later tendency to pass from the active to the causative meaning of the Hebrew from mere remembering to some practical way ,in preaching. The ambiguity of the word has probably caused Clem. Alex. (following, but misunderstanding and modifying, Papias) describe Mark as (Eus. 146) remembering Peters words. Iren. 3 3 roil must mean Paul mention of 117 seems to mean a commemoration made. This (which is a very rare construction, if it occurs at all, NT) appears to differ from and mean whateveroriginated from Christ,

I n the light of what follows-about the between ( I ) Peter, who adapted his discourses to the needs of the occasion, making no classified collection of the Lords Logia, and Matthew, who compiled the Logia-he seems to mean that Peter neither confined himself to the Logia, nor attempted to group or classify them (as Matthew in the Sermon on the Mount), but taught all that related to Christs life, whether without distinguishing between his words and his deeds. H e committed no misfake). This must be the meaning, as the verb is invariably so used in N T and almost alwpys (if not always) in OT. Cp especially Acts 25 Cor. 7 thou not commit a I Cor. 36. Lucian ed. Holden, Xen. Cyr. 140. Papias is defending Mark against the very natural objection that he did not do the apostle justice in writing down oral and casual (or at all events e x tempore, teaching, unchanged, in a permanent book. The style that suits the former is often unsuitable to the latter. Lightfoot 163) in calling this (he did no wrong) a mistranslation of the author of must be thinking of the sense, not of the Greek. But, thus interpreted, it makes excellent sense. appears to be used by Papias as an emphatic form of (used above in the sense repeat, or teach from memory) and to mean repeat memory. Cp another passage, generally admitted to be from Papias, in v. 33 3 Asthe Elders who saw John, the disciple of the Lord, memory (Lat. where there can be little doubt, that Latin points to a Greek original or And a precisely parallel use occurs in the description given by himself of the way in which of John and of the HE v. 20 Polycarp, the used not only to relate his intercourse with them, but t o repeat front their Justin goes a step takes to mean something distinct from traching. Influenced that the were not about the b y his apostles the apostles, he appeals to those (I 33) recorded all that concerned our Saviour Jesus Christ, have it. And pubsequent passages show that he meant recorded in There is no doubt that he was in error. But his error strengthens the in Papias means something evidence that than remember. I n Lucian, 2 8, to relate exactly, or in detail, some special instances; 3 it is contrasted with disorderly and seems to mean repeating what one has thought out (id. 3 it describes one who not only knew the exact facts but also repeated from memory (or? registered in memory) the exact words So 8 introducing one of the sculptors sayings. As, therefore, Irenaeus describes Polycarp, one of Johns disciples, as repeatinq exactly from memory Johns doctrine abcut (Eus. 206) the mighty works and of the Lord, so Papias appears to be describing Mark, Peters interpreter, first as repeating from memory and then as exactly from memory the doctrine of Peter about Christs discourses or actions, and as committing to writing what he (Mark) had thus repeated. Lightfoot translates here remembered. And the word has this meaning in a few phrases such as bear a grudge against, etc. ( I ) there is no notion here of grudge; the usage, and the context, favour the meaning recount (4) besides the above-mentioned passage from Irenreus, and that from Justin (meaning apparently record at all events something more than remember), also (6) Justins frequent appeal to as written records. These considerations, together with the kindred use of above mentioned, are conclusive in favour of the decision here means recount or repeat from memory. There is a considerable probability that the word was in regular use to denote the Memoirs or Anecdotes the apostles, first repeated by their immediateinterpreters or pupils then committed to writing some of them the form of Gospels ; and lastly accepted Justin as Memoirs written by the apostles Christ. Yet he seems to have retained the old title. As Xenophons mean Memoirs would naturally mean Memoirs about the apostles, and about Christs teaching through them. appears to retain an old title but to give it a wrong Perhaps the use of was influenced by the use of the Hebrew This, meaning originally repeat from memory, came to mean teach the oral Law, whence came the word Mishna the doctrine of the oral Law. Is with the co-ordinate for

The order to appreciate the negative as well as the positive value the evidence of Papias, we must briefly consider the purpose of Eusebius, who has preserved it. Eusebius promises ( H E 3 3 ) to record ( I ) the tions of ecclesiastical writers from disputed books, they have said about the
cal Scrip tures and uncanonical as


well His promise to include the latter we have reason to believe that he faithfully keeps. But he gives no extracts from Papias about Lk. and Jn. It may be reasonably inferred that Papias was silent about them. The silence have proceeded from either of two causes : ( I ) Jn. and Lk. may not have been recognised by Papias as on an equality with Mk. and Mt. though recognising them as authoritative, Papias may have had nothing to say about them. ( d ) The silence of Papias on Lk. and latter of the alternatives just mentioned is highly improbable.
Papias dwells on the defect of order, or arrangement in Mk who he says never even contemplated an orderly of Logia. Now Lk. avowed it as one of his objects to write in (chronological) order and order differs not only from that of Mt. but also from that of It is hard to believe, then, that would have nothing ahout Lk., if he recognised Lk. Again, as regards Jn., would not Papias have naturally added what the Muratorian Fragment says-that this want of order was corrected by Jn. who wrote order o r d i n e m ) ? The Muratorian Frag ment, Clement of Alexandria, and the anonymous tradition preserved Eusehius 24 all have somethi ng to tell us ahout the original authorship of the spiritual Gospel of John the disciple of the Lord; and what they say testifies to the interest taken in its origin those ecclesiastical writers who were among the first to recognise it as Is it likely that if he acknowledged it to be the work of the last of the apostles, knew it t ha t he worth

Was Papias a hearer of John ? -Was Eusebius right in denying, or in asserting, that Papias was

a hearer of John
Here, and in what follows, we must distinguish the statements of Eusehius from his inferences. The former are almost always accurate the latter are sometimes erroneous (though by giving us the grounds for them he enables us to avoid Even the inferences of Eusebius are probably more trustworthy here than the statements of Now Eusebius rejects the definite statement of the latter that Papias was a hearer of John, on the ground that Papias himself makes no such claim in his preface, where he naturally, and almost inevitably, would have made it, if he could. H e gives us the preface to speak for itself. H e adds facts and extracts from the work of Papias, the whole of which was apparently before him. These convey no indication that Papias heard John. That fluenced by the natural tendency of early Christian controversialists to exaggerate the continuity of Christian tradition, and by the fact that Papias lived in Polycarps time and reported said- hastily declared Papias to be a hearer of John, , is more probable than that Eusehius, subsequently reviewing all the evidence, was mistaken in denying it.

These considerations point to the conclusion that Lk. and Jn. were not recognised by Papias as on a level with Mk. and If Papias did not recognise Lk. and Jn. as authoritative, it would likely that probably HE 24 it had been for some time taught orally, and though traditions from it may have been in use in Proconsular Asia--was not yet circulated in writing, or, if circulated, not yet acknowledged as apostolic, when Papias wrote his Consequently the date of the Exposition becomes of great importance. The Date of Papiass Exposition.-There is no evidence of importance bearing on it beyond Eus. HE

The probable conclusion is that Papias was not a hearer of John. and 3. Was Papias a hearer of Aristion and of John the elder ? And were they disciples of the Lord ?
Eusehius affirms that Papias did hear them, and he gives his reasons thus : H e (Papias) confesses that he has received the words of the apostles on the one hand from those who had followed them ; of Aristion Aristion and and of the Elder John he says he was himself a hearer. The context indicates that Eusebius is drawing this inference merely from the distinction that Papias makes between the past and the present, What Andrew, etc., and the things that r e ) Aristion and the Elder John say though the two last were still living so that Papias had probably consulted them . and the habitual conscientiousness leads him perhaps the slightness of his grounds) to qualify his inference in the following sentence-At events making mention them by name in his treatise he sets down their traditions. H e does not add and Papias states that he received them from their own lips, and he appears to have no evidence beyond what he himself puts before us. But the of tense from said to say is Origen, 2 13 ; and 898 ; and Eus. etc. It is equivalent to Papiass Probably taught from memory, or repeated. See note above, 65, n. forth the See above, 65 n. Papias (I) Logia, interpreted then,, and (3) arranged along with them traditions. 4 These bracketed words are perhaps to be omitted. See (3) below. he says that Luke 4 6 ) diligently followed Paul). but shows the source of .. . .. the .. . .. .. his error 13, H e also (cp 4 6 with 36 I) takes (the word) to mean (the Word). These are such errors as the most honest impartial historian might make. This could be proved a collection of Irenaeuss mistakes. And a comparison of the remarks m a d e Eusehius about other writers with silence quoting would indicate that, although he would by no means call the latter (as he calls Papias) a man of very little understanding, he nevertheless thinks less highly of his power of weighing evidence than of his (v. 20 3) orthodoxy and high standard of carefulness in copying MSS. 7 Eus. 39 5 :


mere variety? Or as indicating a shorter statement? or as plyinganydoubt? 15 denote distinctions of historical certainty (see below, 80). Lightfoot, who assumes that Papias must have said something about thinks it probable that the torian writer borrowed from Papias his contrast between secondary evidence of Mk. and the primary evidence of Jn. But, in that case, how is it that was to w h a t e v e r was s a i d by ecclesiastical about books-whilst what was said bv later writers. omits what was said by the of all? This might be regarded as almost certain hut for one consideration. Eusehius has a contempt for Papias. Forced by his antiquity to devote a great deal of space him, he does it with terms of disparagement, and (iii. 39 himself to what is indispensable Want of space, and contempt for his author, may have induced him to break the promise he made just before, and to omit what Papias may have said about Lk. and Jn. reserving it till he came to later ecclesiastical writers who from Papias. This is highly improbable. Eusehius is a most careful and conscientious writer. Though, for example, on one occasion he gives in his own words a tradition about Mk. at an early period in his history, and adds I j) has quoted this story, and , Papias attests it, this does not prevent him from giving the testimony of Papias in full, in its chronological order.




(Lightf. probably for the sake of variety so that .nothing can be inferred from it ; and the mere that Papias sets, down their traditions and mentions their names .by no means proves that he obtained his information from from those who had followed them. We conclnde that (u)Papias is not to have

Most people, says Papias, took pleasure in

been, and that (so far,as we can judge from Eusebiuss production, of inadequate, and omission of adequate, evidence) he probably was not, a hearer of Aristion . and John the Elder.. disciples, the Lord can 3. Again, the .hardly have followed Aristion, etc., in the used by Eusebius., For he regards Arktion a5 living ,at the time when Papias wrote., But that disciples of the Lord should be living when Papias was his investigations (Lightfoot; 150 n. ) would involve a chronological difficulty.
Eusehius would probably have felt, apparently Papias as, born .too late to have. been a Moreover if Papias was hearer of an y hearer of disciple of the Lord this contradict the spirit of inference that Papias drew his information about the apostles merely from their pupils. Aristion the Elder John, if disciples of the Lord, could not be called pupils of the apostles.. This internal evidence that Eusebius did not find the words disciples etc. after Aristion etc. is by (I) their absence version, the of in several Greek MSS, and of by Rufinns, the extreme harshness of disciples of the Lord, the repetition of disciples of the Lord as though they were fhree and (4) ease the can be a s an

Elders.-It remains to consider who are the Elders from whom Papias obtained his information.
Yet Papiass.words- seeming to amount to this, If pupils of the Elders came, I used to ask about the of Elders
Andrew, Peter, a t first sight, to apostles with Elders. T he truth appears to be that, in the days of Papias, the latter title was given to ordained by the of the Lord. The next of Elders was not yet called the but rather of lor those who had There is no evidence to show that apostles were called Elders.

For example, though had made of the Logia, it was variously interpreted ; and this affords a very good reason for the desire of Papias to ascertain what Matthew said, in order to throw light on what Matthew or was supposed have written. Again the E istle of James Eusebius 25) not as as disputed, was probably the days of Papias and we can understand that its existence may well have caused him to add his name to thq apostolic list: Between Matthew and .James comes John in whose name a gospel perhaps his behalf Ephesus his last years) may been recently as a tradition and this would not only for the inclusion of but also for its position between that of James and Matthew. Apocryphal works were, early current names (Eus. 25) Andrew, Peter (whom Papias himself mentions as the originator of Mk.), and Thomas as, Matthias). The inclusion of Philip (whose Eusebius does mention) may be explained by his having in Hierapolis, where Papias was As regards Aristion, Ensebins 39 us that Papias accounts of the words of inserted some of the Lord and there is some slight for regarding him as author of At the fact that he wrote of of the Lord not found in Mk. or Mt., or else why should Eusehius would make it desirable to ascertain what Aristion was in the habit of saying., Lastly the two disputed Epistles of .John (the Second a n d Third)& by the Elder, and may have been naturally to the Elder John. And Papias iii. 39 from the First may on this as well as on other hare made the of the Elder a subject of investigation.

the books he may have, included treatises, that of Basilides but hot exclude Christian apocrypha and disputed books, and various , versions of books.

Thus, though may be, .probably are, other causes, unknown to us ,, for Papiass selection and drift of evidence,, external and indicates, as one ,important cause, the arising from Christian literatore, and had been the special importance of

The most probable conclusions, then, are that ( I ) Papias was not a bearer of John ( 2 and 3) whether he and the Elder John, was, or was not, a hearer of the two latter were not disciples of the Lord ( 4 ) the Elders from whom he obtained his information were not apostles but Elders appointed by John or other apostles and he supplemented this by information from their followers and successors. 5. Papiass list of the apostles.-Why does Papias mention, as the about he made investigations, Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, Matthew? and whv in this order An answer is gested by the context in the extract quoted above
is hut a shade of difference in meaning.
Note that in the same sentence Eusebius (quoted above, 66) varies is varied with So with where there

Eusehius might naturally that Papias-who tells that he regularly cross-examined any who could tell him what said-would have questioned John himself had he alive and accessible to questioning. Denying that he a hearer, he probably implies that he was too late to be one. 3 See 4th 3 245. Papias. probably wrote the of the Lord and Aristion and John disciples. Their (in .was changed into and replaced by (For the frequency of etc., confused with see Otto on. Justin, p. Prof. W. E Bacon has suggested that was corrupted into before the time of Ensehius, This is very likely; cp 4 24 B but A This of Elders is confirmed by the following in passages where he is probably (Lightf. SR quoting) the substance, if not the very words, of Papias, speaks of the, doctrine as that of ,(v. 5 I 3F the Elders, the the 33 the Elders who have If these are the words of Papias, the that he uses Elders there to mean makes it probable that it in the same sense here, and that they represented


oral tradition, and written narrative), and (a) or and .and all imply that though the narrative had been related them; Papias did it them, but from others who handed down and warranted its genuineness. This has an important hearing on date of Papias. The words following on most naturally mean that Philip and his daughters at was same (people). (They can hardly mean that Papias was born the time the same his We are .not to infer that Papias mentioned John, or any one as the author. Had he so, would probably have said, as he does (Eus. v. 8 He also the Epistle John, quotations from it and likewise from the First of Peter. From ( I ) this and the early custom ofquoting without names, we may reasonably infer that Papias did not mention Johns Epistle. It is shown elsewhere (see JOHN, EPISTLES OF ) that some so-called quotations from the First Epistle are probably mere quotations from floating Johannine traditions. Why does was not bound to tell of quotations from canonical books-take up space telling us that Papias quoted from (ni. the Epistle of John? The answer is to be found partly in completion of Eusebinss sentence and from that of Peter likewise partly in, the similar statement ahout 87) Irenreus. It IS simply a quiet way of saying You see Papias and Irenreus do not quote from the and Third Epistles of John, nor from the Second Epistle of Peter. These were works and is against them the fron t silence. 3 For example, he places Andrew first. Cp with this the leading part assigned to Andrew by the Muratorian Fragment (see below, 78) in originating the Fourth Gospel.

between (not



by those disciples of the Lord were reported, truly or falsely, to have left writings also. 6. Papiass relation to this point, bius affords the following indirect evidence.

other Gospel) Papias is silent, and we conclude that he knew neither, or ranked neither with Mk. or Mt. But the date at which he was investigating and writing (about A.D.) and his quotations from I Jn H e first Polycarpas (which was certainly written by the same hand as the the to the bishopric Smyrna the Gospel) combine to it probable that must have eye-witnesses and ministers of the been known to him, at least parts, as a tradition. time flourished Papias (he, too, W e are led to conclude that he was writing at the time of Hierapolis) and the world-famed relation Ignatius, second when Jn. was attaining, but had yet attained, in succession, to Peter in the bishopric of recognition as an apostolic Gospel Then he 4-15) describes the Epistlesof Ignatius There were also current (as Lk. tells us), many and Polycarp. Next he mentions 37 I) Quadratus and the. daughters as being among those who occupied the narratives of Christs life, and (as Papias says) many first rank in the to the apostles adding that has diffuse writings, possibly including Gnostic gospels, and confined his mention of these such as have left so called Apostolic Acts, Revelations, and Epistles. extant records of apostolic teaching. Then after These appear to have prejudiced Papias against books, going back to Clement of Rome to protest spurious works attributed he continues I have (already). and to have him to go back as near as possible mentioned the of Ignatius and : of Papias five, to the fountain-head. His attitude is so well described hooks are extant and he deals his works by the following words of Irenaeus that we can imagine detail, denying t h k a hearer of the apostles, which is equivalent to denying that he was of those the first rank ) All these Papias himself using them : (Iren. v. 20 in the succession to the apostles. Some time after this, (iv. (heretics) are of much later date than the to comes Polycarps to Rome and martyrdom. All Those the apostles the churches this harmonises with the supposition that Papias was so much younger than, Ignatius that he could not be who desert the teaching of the Church impugn the reckoned in their rank of succession but that was knowledge of the holy Elders. To these obliged to t his name theirs account of the importthen, or holy to b y ance of his records, which compiled death the made it his first object to go But ofthe aged Polycarp. His habitof speaking (in his Exposition) in the name of the Elders that have seen John may have led we learn from Clement of Rome (ch. 44) that, as early as to the that Papias was a of 95 A. some of the Elders appointed by the John and companionof Polycarp.,, and even some of those (appointed) in the next Evidence generation by men of note, had died It is Reviewing the evidence, we are led to the ,following. improbable that John, during his last years of disability, positive conclusions. appointed any Elders and it is reasonable to suppose negative and Papias was not a [bearer of John, most of the Johannine Elders would that by A.D. nor a companion nor have passed away. Hence, though Papias did his any disciple of the Lord. He was not in did he best to obtain information from them, he was glad to the same rank of succession as and Philips glean what he could from the those daughters. Thedaughtersdwelt in Papiassnativecity and who had followed them), his question to an Elders about A D. Papias died (Lightfoot, pupil always being, What said John (or or that records narrative handed down them but Disciple of the Lord) by the Elder (whom you (apparently) as coming them. These facts followed ) was appointed? In particular, having suggest for Papiass birth a date about 85 D. When he regard to the apocryphal literature circulated in the reached early manhood A.D. ) the last of the apostles, names of Andrew, Peter, Thomas, to the traditions if living, was probablyincapacitated by old age for current in Hierapolis about Philip, and to the better teaching. The Johannine Gospel, though preached orally attested but literature circulated in the at Ephesus, was not yet published. Being probably of James and John, to the great diversity of the interSR of Pagan origin, and (Eus. pretations of the Logia compiled by Matthew, and to the given to literalise Jewish metaphor, Papias may have objections brought against Peters teaching as recorded been perplexed by a comparison of Hebrew with Greek by Mark-he made these Disciples of the Lord the interpretations of Christian traditions. He found special object of his investigations It of course, current the Commandments (Eus. 3 9 3 ) given from possible, that Jn may have been as the Lord .to the ,Faith but he desired to add to these canonical other churches it was acknowledged from the doctrine of the apostles, as repeated by the early and familiar recognition of the Elders whom they had appointed, and by the, supposition that apostle. In the successors of those Elders. H e also mentions ( I ) the, an interpreter as a natural companion of 393) interpretations that Papias inserted in Ex(Eus. teaching of the apostle Peter, first repeated, and then. position, he may have included his own or other Greek written, by his interpreter Mark, including the Acts as well as explanations, of the Logia. From and from Ign. we see well as the Words of Jesus, and making no attempt how large a part of apostolic and presbyteric teaching would at classifying the Lords Oracles a compilation consist of interpretations of O T a Christian sense, and these by the apostle Matthew, in Hebrew, of the Lords might sometimes be interpreted from the Hebrew. Soon, however, the word would he confined to Oracles certainly including Christs discourses and explaining, obscurities in the Greek Logia. For the thus probably giving some account of Christs life. But this, used, see Orig. 58, and quotations from Irenaeus given instead of being circulated in Greek (as Peters teaching above n. had been) by one authoritative interpreter, had received The hesitation, of to accept Jn. may have been all the greater because (if we accept the theory that many About Lk. or Jn. (or any


Polycarp and Ignatius have phrases that suggest the authority of antiquity. Papias has none. Several MSS, very naturally, interpolate a compliment to Papiass learning. If we may judge from the order of the extracts, Papias This i s slightly confirmed by the fact that in the former extract Papias uses the longer title in the latter, the shorter natural abbreviation when one repeats a title a second time. 3 The interpreter on and on I Cor. 1427) was the recognised attendant of the reader and teacher the Jewish schools. When a Jewish apostle the author of the Apocalypse which is composed most barbarous Greek) preached, or t o Greek congregations, an inter preter may often have been in request. W e have seen that Mark was called the interpreter of Peter. It was an early belief 38) that Luke or Clement of Rome interpreted the Epistle to the Hebrews from Pauls Hebrew into Greek-a

his fifth book is quoting Papias in support of he appears to have accepted the Apocalypse as Johns on authority of (Iren. v. 301) those who saw John face to face, and to have to John in support of very materialistic views of the Millennium. A historian who believed (with that the Apocalypse was written the aged apostle about 96 A .D . might well hesitate t o receive a work published, as coming from the same pen, a few years afterwards, yet differing from the former in language so completely as almost to he in another dialect, also absolutely differing from Mk. and from the interpreters of Mt. in its representation of the Words of the Lord. The teaching (Iren. the vines each with branches, ascribed to the Lord by the elders who saw John according helps us to understand how even Papias Ens.) might feel unable t o believe that the expositor of this teaching was the author of the Fourth Gospel.



in Hierapolis but, so far as Papias guides us, led to the conclusion that, in A . D . , Lk. a n d Jn. were not yet acknowledged a s on a level with a n d Mt . , by the first Christian historian who gives us a n y account of the Gospels. iii. J UST I N M ART YR . - Justin Martyr (Lightfoot, BE 87, A . D .), whilst quoting the Gospels under various titles, makes som e incidental but very important statements ab out their composition. , ( a ) Justins titles the Gospels a r e adap te d to his readers. I n the Apology addressed he generally uses the term, Memoirs the Apostles but in the Dialogue with the Jew, Trypho he gradually subordinates Memoirs and at last resorts to the jewish authoritative form it is Like Lk. and Jn. (and perhaps Papias), in a less degree, he avoids the term In the Dialogue, it is Trypho, not Justin, who first it IO, the socalled Gospel, Justin, replying, calls it the teaching by our Saviour. I n I Apol. he does not use the word till toward the close, and then seemingly as a concession to popular language Memoirs . which are called Gospels. The Memoirs (apart from Gospels) he generally quotes for the facts of Christs life ; but sayings are also quoted from them, twice from Mt., and twice from Lk. (One of the latter agrees with D.) Christs words, when introduced by he said, always agree with Mt. they are called when Jesus is predicting his sufferings, but 18) when denunciatory and when coupled with prophetic utterances. Teachings from Christ himself ( Apol. I refer to chastity and Christian love, and are from Mt. and Lk. ; I 53 speaks of Gentiles, men of everyrace persuaded by the Teaching tliat came from apostles. This quotation (as well as Tryph. and IO cp also 35) indicates moral precepts, such as are in the and the Logia of Behnesa. But I Apol. 33, quoting Lk. with a clause from Mt., and describing the authors of the Memoirs as having taught the Annunciation and Apol. 66, stating that those who are to receive the first accept what is taught by us, indicate a catechetical teaching of facts, different from the Moreover, in 28 what Christ taught or Christs Teachings refer partly to his predictions, partly to the punishment of the wicked in fire. Crescens is charged with not having read them, so that they must have been a hook, or part of one. Indications of as a Gospel.-In a few instances Justin appeals, as it were beyond 76. His Lk.,the Memoirs, to those who composdd them; or else he introduces a personal quasi-protest of authenticity, I assert, I have learned, etc. (i.) I 33 A s those who recorded all things our Saviour Jesus Christ have taught,introduces Annunciation to the Virgin (with a clause taken I Apol. 66 For the apostles, the Memoirs by them, which are called Gospels, delivered that Jesus had thus ordained6 to them introduces in a condensed form, of the of Eucharist, including the words, D o this in remembrance of m e not found in Mk. or Mt., and regarded W H as 1 ; 88, an interpolation from I Cor. 1 fire was in the Jordan. and that The Shepherd of Hermas is quoted once as Scripture by Irenaens and frequently as a divine revelation by Yet the Fragment decides that it is not to be read in the churches. Now the and the Muratorian Fragment probably both originate from Rome, and the torian writer shows familiarity with the authorship and recent date of the book. The more distant Fathers, Irenaens and accept it; the author, who writes on the spot, rejects Similarly we shall find Justin Martyr in the middle of the second century making Ephesus the scene of a -and speaking of John as a man among us ( r a p abstaining in a marked nianner from quoting Jn., while freely quoting the Synoptists and occasionally using Johannine traditions. These he regards, not as Memoirs the apostles and their doctrine, hut as Memoirs about Christ composed by the apostles (I 33 See note above, 65. quoted in I 63 (Jesus himself said) with in (it in the Gospel that he said ). Whenever is mentioned, the is in (which Justin may prefer to as being the Gospel best known to the Jew Trypho). 4 Tryph. 35, and I Apol. the prayer of the word that was from Christ over the Eucharist. These (Tryph. are from Mt., supplemented hy Lk. (as in D ) in such a way as suggest that Justin used a rough harmony of Mt. and Lk., or a correction of the former by the latter. middle; cp and 40,

the Holy Spirit as a hovered on him has written his apostles (the apostles I mean), of this our Christ if the text were correct, would exhibit Justin stating a non -canonical event (the fire) as a fact on his own authority and the canonical event a5 on the authority of the apostles (iv.) Tryph. For in the Memoirs which assert have his apostles and who followed them, introduces it is written that sweat as were drons. streamed down from him while passage found some MSS of Lk. but W H as not genuine3 (and found in no other Gospel); (v.) As we have learned through the Memoirs, anies the words a man through the Virgin (from combined w t h and is followed by (vi.) as also from the Memoirs we have learned this too introducing an utterance of Christ on the Cross peculiar 2346. All these passages reveal Justin a s quoting with a special emphasis a later version of L k . , in cluding interpolated passages - as though protesting tha t L k. is on a level with the Memoirs, a n d was composed

. .

have 1814.n. , that. in is the . regular word for a pupil a n d successor. Now 4 6) misunderstands memoirs. (L k. Eusebius me a ning tha t L u k e had been a pupil of all (the a n d Justin might do the same. This enables us to answer the question, How (in Justins opinion) was L u k e taught the Miraculous Conception ? Justins view is that Christ ( I Apol. 67 a n d c p after his resurrection, a pp e a r e d to his apostles a n d disciples a n d ta ught 3 to the t h e m everything relating to himself K ingdom of T hi s teaching would, therefore, apply ( I Apol, 33) to the Nativity a n d other mysteries, as well as to moral precepts, a n d Luke, as being a pupil of all the apostles, would receive it. As regards the form of transmission, Justin begins with a n am bigu ous expression (I Apol. which rep eated from m a y m e an ( I ) reme mbe red, or memory. Adopting the latter meaning, he uses it, not (as Papias did) of the successors of the apostles, but of he gradually inclines, the apostles themselves. and finally commits himself, t o the theory that this repetition was not oral merely, but also in writing. H e n c e he allows himself to say t h e apostles wrote, seen on the fire as part of the story. Both here and in 103 Justin has This day have I begotten thee (as D in Lk. 3 he had a text differing from which very well have included, the fire as written by the apostles, equally with the The reading, this day, etc., is now found only in some versions of Lk., in 103 Justin follows (not order in the Temptation. Some have inferred that, in apostles must include John, because by including and can the plural be justified. Such an argument ignores a passage also Justin to neither in In and left a loop-hole for supposing that the apostles might not have written but simply taught them. But Justin commits himself to the statement that they w r o t e . (see that and kindred words used by Justin [I 26 63 Apol. I to mean the o a f the very act disclaimed and Mark Remembering that this assertion of Justins is preceded (a few lines before) by the Memoirs the (mentioning the words, This day have I begotten thee, found now only in a of Lk.), we are led to infer that he is protesting against the statement of Papias or against similar statements made others. Justin says, in effect The apostles write books, and then half himself: Or, at all events, fhey and wrote them. 3 The interpolated Lk. drops 4 Lk. course means the third Gospel as have it. The author need not be, and probably is not the beloved physician, the companion of Paul. The the Preface of the Gospel may revised, re-edited, or re-written it, and may he a different person from the Pauline Luke. Thesewords come a t conclusion o the Apology, f before Justins first appeal to the Romans to accept the Faith and they show that the the Christian Faith, which Christ, after his resurrection, was supposed to have taught to the apostles, and which Justin has set before the Romans in his treatise. has it somewhat differently

.. .


7 The rhythm


Ephraem (43) comments


though he uses but one strictly apostolic Gospel (that of Having these views about the apostolic consensus Mt. of the Memoirs, and having a preference for record of the Nativity and the Passion, Justin may naturally have recoiled from as being a new work, breaking this both style and thought, and especially nnfavourable to the authority of Lk. FRAGMENT. Muratorian iv. thustamen et ita Tertium secundum The six words apLucan. parently referring to Mk. (on which supposition there is nothing extant about Mt.) appear to mean that Mark was present at only some of Peters Lukes disadvantages are dwelt on : it was not till after the Ascension that Paul took him as a companion he compiled in his own name, on [his own] judgment, he had not seen the Lord in the flesh he [set down facts] as far as he On the other hand, the Fourth could ascertain them. Gospel was written by John, (one) of the disciples, at the exhortation of his fellow-disciplesand his bishops. After a three days fast i t was revealed to Andrew,

(one) of the apostles, that, whilst all should write all things in his own name. John
Th e writer admits that different catholic truths are taught in the Four Gospels ; but he protests there one Catholic Spirit ac dictating the facts of Nativity Passion Resurrection, intercourse of the Lord with the and two Advents What wonder then if John so persistently sets forth each point in his saying with reference to himself, What we have seen with our eyes and heard-with (our) and our hands these things we have written? For thus he professes himself to be not only a seer but also a nay and a writer (too) of all the wonderful works of the Lord in order ( p e r ordinem). I n these words the writer meets objections probably urged against the Fourth Gospel. Though differing in facts and style from the Synoptists, it was pervaded, he says, by the same one Catholic Spirit. written name of John, it had been revised and attested by th e Disciples a n d Elders at Ephesus and this a special so that it be said to come direct from Christ, and to represent, even better than the earliest Gospels, his exact teaching.




To John Peter was the delivered by the Lord after tion. These delivered it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest to the Seventy. Does Justin recognise Mk. as a distinct Gospel? see Tryph.

(Mk. 3.17 would mean (we set aside the inalone). Here Qv terpretation Memoirs of Jesus ) Peters Memoirs indicating ( I ) either that Justin accepted Mk. as, by Peter, or that he here, inconsistently, would render the phrase, Memoirs about Peter. (But 70 is repeatedly confounded with Th e passage is either tediously lengthy, or it distinguishes between what Christ said and what he H e said that he changed Peters name this is in Mt. and nowhere else. It is the Memoirs [that he changed the name] ; the triple tradition 3 Mt. 10 Lk. G This distinction would indicate that Justin was here quoting the Memoirs of Peter Mk.) in support of the Logia of Mt. (a view somewhat confirmed by the fact that, when Justin introduces quotations with (Jesus) says he quotes from Mt.). This would indicate that wrote after Peters death. Otherwise Peter could have supplied him with the substance of latter was not present. Papias also the discourses a t which implies that Mark could not correct what he had reference to Peter. says 1I) that Mark wrote after the decease of Peter (but see 7) 9. 3 Nomine ex conscripsit. Dominum tamen ipse in Ex express an original from hearing, not from sight. (See Westc. Canon Lightf. But, in that case, should we expect) enim instead of H e wrote not as an had not seen the Lord? a Gospel in ones own name was innovation. Luke did it [his (ex 1 3 it seemed good to m e . How objectionable this may have seemed to some, is shown by the (Lk. 1 3 codex et et (sic) The Muratorian writer contrasts this later the origin of the Fourth Gospel, which the Evangelist wrote down not conscripsit wrote from knowledge, not from his own name as the a divine revelatum ut Iohannes cuncta describeret. If this explanation is correct may have dropped after suo (Nomine suo sua or opinio may used absolutely meaning notion. would imply a contrast between the boldness of Lukes innovation and the limitations of

This theory of special inspiration was well calculated to facilitate the diffusion of a Gospel that seemed t o supply just those things that were wanting in the Synoptists :- certainty not to be found in the various a interpretations of Mt., a fulness of to which Mk. did not pretend, and-in contrast with authority of a disciple, an eye-witness, and ear-witness, who also wrote in order. . v. (about 185 A . D .) emphasises the 11) from inspired unity of the Gospel as coming apostles (who first preached it and then handed it down to us in Scriptures ), but touches also on thesubject of distinctive authorship. H e omits the various interpretations of Mt. mentioned by Papias, and the disadvantages of Lk. mentioned by the Muratorian writer. Mark is the disciple and interpreter of Peter Luke the companion of Paul : thus he implies that their gospels were, in effect, apostolic. He places Mt. before Mk. as the Fragment thus : appears to have done. Jn. is placed after Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also lay on his breast, he too published the Gospel e.) while living in Ephesus of Asia. Elsewhere (iii. he says that John directed his Gospel Matthew, he says against Cerinthus and the 1I ). published his Gospel in Hebrew while Peter Paul in Rome were preaching and founding the Church : after their decease (or departure, but Lat. death),Mark (is known to have) handed down (perf. in writing what Peter was in the habit of preaching Luke set in a book what Paul was in the habit down of preaching (
Lightf. SR 189, the word represents read, Had the original been or we should expect or Our writer has in view Ezek. 15-12,the four living creatures Gospels) dominated one world-wide or catholic spirit. develops this but hardly improves there are 118) four zones winds spiritus, capable of meaning catholic spirits), so there must be Gospels to the lion (John), ox (Luke), man (Matthew) eagle in Rev. 47. Irenreus seems to have felt bound keep the order of Rev. and yet to place John first but the result is so strained that Jerome carried posterity with him assigning eagle to John and the lion to Mark. 3 used of a single letter (see Lightf. SR a very free quotation from I Jn. not merely one of the exoteric spectators of the mighty works of Jesus, h u t one of those privileged to or hear from (cp the Talmudic receive from) to be a disciple, and a transmitter of tradition. Seer might not imply admission to the inner circle which was taught b y Christ, according to Mk., his life, and, according to Justin and (see 77 after his Resurrection. Why does not the writer that too, wrote in (chronological) order Does he imply that Luke had failed? There is no early testimony to any simultaneous presence of the two apostles in Rome except a t the time of their martyrdom (see Eus. 258, quoting Dionysius of Corinth, This

. .. ...

Andrew is hare called an Jphn a disciple. Papias calls Andrew, Peter, etc., disciples. The identifying apostles with prophets, and specifying rules for them, which if broken, stamp an apostle as a false prophet -suggests a and place in which an apostle was little more than a It became a tradition to call John disciple (as Paul is peculiarly apostle). crates of Ephesus, a t the close of the cent., after mentioning (Eus. Philip was of the Twelve goes on to speak of John, who lay on the bosom of the Lord without by ( I ) any mention of apostleship. This may he uncertainty whether John (like Nathanael) was one of the Twelve,, a feeling that was a higher title than apostle or ( ) a desire to describe the author of the Gospel as he 3 scribed himself; and (3) are the most probable;

of Alexandria (circa gives (Eus. a tradition of the earliest elders that those portions of the Gospels which contain the genealogies were written first.
Clement adds a tradition about Mk. apparently on the authority of the same Elders, that publicly preached the word in Rome and uttered the Gospel in the spirit his numerous hearers besought write out what the apostle had said ; and that Peter, io of this. neither hindered nor stimulated him? . Eusebius. however. earlier his two other tradi-

for public use. Lastly Origen, unsurpassed by early Christian writers for honesty and intellect, says 25 from tradition that Mark wrote as P e t e r rug(& a . The investigation may stop here. Later writers have n o further evidence, and can but exemplify the tendency of tradition, even among honest and able men, to exaggerate or to miniin the interests of a good cause. viii. S UMMARY OF EVIDENCE AS TO AND Papias Mk. and Mt. as did not thus recognise Lk. or Jn., though traditions on were known to him. Justin Martyr regarding the Synoptic Gospels as Memoirs written by the apostles from the teaching of Christ, and showing a preference for Lk. (in an interpolated form), affords no trace of a recognition Gospel like Jn. outside the stream of the (3 ) The Muratorian fragment (? 170 A. D .), welcoming the Fourth Gospel as supplying the deficiencies of the Three, meets any objection that might divergence the Synoptists be raised against (a ) by an account of a special revelation to in accordance with which this Gospel was written in a kind of joint authorship, though in Johns name, and by a protest that the Four Gospels are animated by Spirit. , (4) has no trace of the theory of revision or joint authorship of Jn. H e compares the four Gospels with the four winds or the four living creatures of prophecy, as being divinely. ordained in number. Clement no mention of a revelation to Andrew or to any other of Johns friends, but says that John himself received a divine impulse to write the From the time of Irenaeus the Gospel met with almost universal acceptance.
This may have been a misunderstanding such expression as accordance with Peters teaching. But Origens words mean the latter. For alleged quotations of Justin from Jn. see 3 Traces of the tradition in this form are retained by philus and Tatian (see Eusebius after recording an anonymous tradition (they say, he says) that John supplemented the Synoptists by request of friends says expressly in his own person (cp 24 and us 16 that John began his theology from the beginning, since that had been reservedf o r him by Spirit owing to his superiority [ t o the other evangelists]. appears to be the Eusebian way of expressing a word that might seem to him to savour of Montanism. An important exception has been recently brought to light. See Rendel Harris. Hermas i n Cambridee. 43-57. Eusebius extracts from a Dialogue Montanist) written by Gaius 25 6 an orthodox writer vi. 20 3 of very great learning who wrote during the bishopric of Zephyrinus A. D.), and whom passages from his writings indicate as resident in or near Rome. In one of these extracts, Gaius attacks 28 the notion of an earthly of Christ after the Resurrection, as well as the notion of and wedding festivities i n Jerusalem, all of which e attributes t o Cerinthus. Such an attack, even if it assailed the Johannine Apocalypse, would robahly commend him to Eusebius. Now Ebed-Jesu, a t the of the fourteenth century, recorded Hippolytus wrote a treatise called Heads against Gaius, and Dionysius Bar Salibi quotes from this treatise (along with replies from Hippolytus) objections raised by Gaius not only to the Apocalypse, but also t o the Gospel. An inscription on the chair of Hippolytus shows that this bishop had before that date written a treatise I n defence of the Gospel according John and the and it is argued with great force that this treatise, or an epitome of it, was the Heads against Gaius. Eusebius. vi. the (seven or in number) had into hi5 not include the Defence of the Gospel of John, and calypse; and it is possible that his Heads against Gaius attacked some other- work of Gaius unknown to Eusebius not the Dialogue against Proclus. But the fact seems a fact so strange that learned critics have described it im possible-that a o the Roman f by Eusebius as a n d orthodox, attacked the Fourth at the beginning o f third century. The almost complete of his book and of his literary so complete that Bishop Lightfoot, till recently, maintained that he was a fictitious character in the Dialogue against Proclus which (he affirmed) was written by Hippolytus-shows difficult it is modern critics to that at, and shortly



Peters hearers. Then he adds (6) But they say that the apostle, learning the accomplishment from a revelation the Spirit, was pleased with their sanctioned the work for reading in for) the churches : Clement in his has quoted the history and his account is confirmed also the of called Papias-and further, that Peter Now is not in Clements or Papiass account and differs from the spirit of Perhaps Eusebius, while distinguishing fact from doubtful tradition (they say), has inserted a parenthesis, corrective of the latter, to the effect that h as and true] history, and that Clements view (namely, that Peter was merely the origin, but mot the suggester, supervisor or authoriser of the work) was supported substance If so Eusebius instead of committing himself to the view that Mk., prepares the reader for finding it contradicted

.. .

Concerning Clement says that (Eus. vi. John, last of all, reflecting that earthly aspect had been set forth in the Gospels, at the instigation of his pupils by a special o f spirit composed a spiritual gospel. OF THE EVIDENCE AS T O M K . AN D MT. for Mark he was not in The Fragment appears to be apologetic he was onlv at some discourses Both imply that Peter was dead. when wrote, that the latter could not have the apostles supervision. Irenaeus, though stating that Mark wrote after Peters departure (which probably meant death ), gives no indication that he did not adequately represent the apostle;. and it i s doubtful whether he did not misinterpret the word departure. Clement says that Peter lived to know what had been done by Mark, yet s o far retains the apologetic as to add that Peter neither hindered nor incited the composition. Another tradition (apparently later) says that Peter was informed by the Spirit of the accomplishment of the book, and authorised
favours the rendering decease for in Philo 2 388 Lk. Pet. which has this meaning v. 136 (Letter the

Yet the inference from Acts2830 (referred to in Iren. would be that I ) the former composed while Paul was living. Perhaps Irenaeus may be setting down an old tradition correctly which he and subsequent to mean departure (from Rome)-interpreted in its literary sense, means (not include hut) contain as have as their contents : Diod. Sic.

have their contents); The common phrase etc. Macc. 15 Macc. 1 1 means was substance as follows. C p Hippol. (my) its On, the essence of the All. Hence, meant a section and the meaning here is, the sections th a t have the genealogies as their contents. To place Lk. before Mk. would be inconsistent with all early tradition. See The tradition that Peter knew of the composition of the Gospel through the Spirit probably arose from Clements confused with cp Eus.

The Muratorian fragment describes a revelation to those who urged John to write; Clement, a impulse given t o ohn himself. regards Mt. there practically no evidence (under the head of Statements beyond that which been quoted above from Papias 65). 5 See above, $65.



QUOTATIONS. quotes nothing that is found in Gospels (Lk. 22, part of 19 and 20 being set aside as an interpolation) except the saying about ( I Tim. 5 the labourer worthy of his hire (cp Mt. food, Lk. hire). But this is also found in the 131 food).
Other sayings of Paul are akin to sayings in the (a) Rom. Abhor that which is evil to that which is good not suffering yourselves to be carried away with the humble Did. 3 Flee from all evil and from all of . Thy shall not to the but thou shalt conversant with the just and (T.), where parts of the original might apparently refer either to things or to (6) Thess. I O If any will not work neither let him Did. 12 3 let him work and [on these terms] let him eat.

Behnesa (Oxyrhynchus fragment) are an example of such a manual as has been described They are a fragment of what above. seems to have been a very ancient edition of a Sermon on the Mount. The extreme (probably not later than zoo A . D . ) antiquity of the and the frequent allusions to it (or to doctrine similar to it) in combine to show the antiquity of the subject matter. But a still stronger proof is found in the nature of two of the sayings. Justin, when using such a phrase as Sabbatise the sabbath, avoids the danger of literalism by saying true sabbath, the sabbath of God, etc. and Clem. Alex. is even more cautious. (Magn. bids his readers not sabbatise but live in accordance with the Lords Day. No one, therefore, but Jesus (who did not shrink from utterances seemingly inconsistent) appears likely to have originated such a saying. The same argument applies to the last words in the same Logion Unless , ye shall not see the F athe r). The phrase see God is in Sermon but see the Father occurs only in Jn. H e that hath seen me hath seen Father, a rebuke to Philips expectation of a materialistic seeing the Father. These and many other considerations indicate that the Logia are genuine sayings of Jesus, ignored or suppressed because of the dangerous tendency of some of them, and the obscurity of others.



Paul and Did. probably used an antecedent tradition. Rom. Be not overcome by evil, closely resembles Pseudo-Clements 13 Let not evil overcome us but the latter could not have borrowed from Paul, whom he bitterly attacks. JAMES.The Epistle of James, which is of uncertain date. Dermeated with doctrine similar to that It conof the Sermon on the tains more and closer parallels, however, to the and Barnabas.
The passage that is closest to Mt. is that which forbids swearing by earth, heaven or any other oath (Mt. 534.37 James5 but Mt. says he Yea, yea,. James (RV) says Let your ye a be yea. The meanings are quite different. The former Say and nothing more than the, latter Let your yea be also a y e a of action. I n latter form it is and ad a common Rabbinical precept (apparently alluded to in Cor. 117). As it is also thus quoted by Justin and it was probably found in some versions of Mt an d therefore the Epistle may be quoting from Mt. But cannot regarded as proved. In its denunciations of the rich, the Epistle resembles Lk. 624, but not so as to indicate borrowing.



iii. APPARENT QUOTATIONS.-Passages apparently the of Paul and auoted from the James, have been shown to be found in sources other, and probably earlier, than the Gospels.
There were probably many manuals of Christs moral teaching which the Sermon on the Mount is one) as well as of his predictions concerning the last day probably, too, collections of bearing on the Messiah and perhaps accounts of the Passion showing how these prdphecies were fulfilled. ,These, together with the narratives of his life mentioned by mentioned Lk. 1I, and the various interpretations of Papias, necessarily left their impress on the earliest Christian writers even after the Gospels were recognised as canonical, an d still more before that time. Hence, it is to infer (without further consideration of circumstances) Barnabas quoted or quoted or Justin quoted Jn. because of similarity, or even the quotations. For example, i t has recently been inferred that the Vision must be later than is usually supposed because it 2 4) quoted Dan. 6 from the version But Heh. 1 33 appears to quote the same 1 Moreover, Rev. 9 12 7 1 3 7, resemble version. It appears therefore, that Theodot. incorporated in version an one by the authors and Rev. (see Rendel Harriss in Arcadia, 25).

The Logia testify to the antiquity of ( a ) passages in the Sermon on the Mount, (6) the proverb about a prophet in his own country (favouring versions of these sayings). They also show traces of Johannine They use a Hebraism Mk.328, and apparently (the sons of men) found only corrupted in the later Gospels. Another Hebraism is probably latent in the phrase fast (accus.) the fast during the [present] age (the Hebrew for and age being the same). The meaning is, fast to the six the of the days of the flesh : v. O Rome (about 9 A. D. ) has f (a) 5761472 Lk. 636 - 3831) which, when compared


with (Phil 2 ) and shows pretty that writers had some other tradition than that of the Synoptists.

The subject is kindness and mercy. besides throwing the Synoptic tradition into a terse antithetical form, adds The word occurs nowhere in except I Cor. 1 3 4. Here, and the context uses it thrice, and also ; see under Pauline influence. This points to his of some tradition of Christs teaching about kindexplains the reason. I t has misness and mercy. The understood in the narrow Jewish sense of almsgiving, so that, instead of Blessed are the merciful for they shall mercy, it has (1 5) Blessed is he that according t o the commandment, for he is exempt (from punishment a t the Day of Judgment). Against such a Judaising version the broad Pauline would express a useful Thesaying is introduced with Dr. J. B. Mayor pointed out that (556) has (not alleged as yet from any other Greek For similarities of thought, cp 876,


Logia of

after, the first appearance of the Fourth Gospel, it may have been regarded with suspicion orthodox, educated, and conservative Christians, such as Justin in the middle of the second century, Gaius at the beginning of the third. a saying found in the Talmud 24). Cp I Thess. 5 (Taylor,


677 only reversing order. he also quotes Barnabas should cleave them that fear the Lord. the use of (a) Isaac offered on the altar cp with ( a )Did. 4 4 7 5 I , Barn: (6) Barn. 1 (c) 43, Barn. 7 3 (Heb. 11 om. altar ).

It is characteristic of to use sayings that are inconsistent. Hence (a) seeing the Father is Johannine spite of or because of Jn. 14 So also is (6) thirst used spiritual (see Jn. 4 6 35 7 37 and the beautiful saying imputed to Jesus [Resch Origen, I thirsted for them that Adh (c) Jesus, describing; himself as (Jn. passim) coming to being in, etc. the world (Log. I stood in the midst of the impossibility that the true disciple can ever be alone (e) the impediment presented by knowledge to the art of spiritual healing (Jn. 27). Log. 27-29, raise the stone . cleave the to mean that any single disciple-while doing his Masters work raising up stones to be children of Abraham, and by cutting down and cleaving the tree of conventional Law that cumbered the ground-would have his Master with him (cp Jer. I am with thee . I have set . thee to pluck and to break down and to to plant ). If so, it is parallel to the of the Baptist recorded by Mt. 3 IO Lk. 3 9 about the stones and the tree (see vol. no. I Rom. 11 Cp Eph. 4 32, is equivalent to quotes this






manual of the Words of the Lord. Elsewhere the same chapter in which he quotes cleave to the holy, and is followed by both apparently quoting from some version of the Lords Words - combines Mk. 9 4 2 and Mt. ; and again Clem. has Remember the Alex. (561) agrees with him. words of Jesus our Lord, how he said, Woe that man. It were well for him if he had not been born, rather than that he should cause to one of my elect. I t were better for him that a mill-stone were put round him and that he were sunk in the sea, than that he should pervert one of my elect. has the same, substituting and saith the Lord for remember saith. The reduplication of statement has a Hebraic sound, and it is probable (both because of preface, and because of the apparent borrowing from Logia the same chapter) that the two authors are here as above, quoting independently, from an ancient tradition of Words of the condenses Is. 29 13 similarly to Mk. 76 Mt. 158 omitting the bracketed words in the following quotation the L X X : Q (Clem. omitting (Clem. Th e bracketed words the antithesis and Justin omits them (allusively) in 27 and 80

tions of Mt. in the Two So far as this little book is concerned, the Gospel to which it refers might consist of a version of the Sermon on the Mount and the- Precepts to the Twelve. On the Second Advent, the writer mentions (166-8) the Signs of the Truth with such apparent independence of Mt. as to make it doubtful whether, in the context, the resemblances to Mt. indicate quotations from Mt. Of all the promises or blessings in Mt. 5 the earlier part


of the inserts Did .37 meek, since earth is based Mt. 5 5 is) on Ps. 37 Did. is he giveth in accordance with the commandment refers to the commandment which the writer has just (Mt. 5 42 Lk. 6 Give to every one that asketh thee, and ask not again. But the Hebrew for give and alms by alms is often represented by (cp ALMS), so that blessed is he that giveth might be, in N T Greek, (or as Mt. 5 7). It should be noted that Lk. omits both these

vii. BARNABAS.The Epistle of Barnabas assigned by Lightfoot ( BE to but by others placed later.

(I )


i n Barnadas.- (a)

Yet in 78 he quotes the passage quite differently, omitting with of but so that the latter part preserves the antithesis. These facts and the markablevariations inthetext of the indicate that maybe herequotingfromsome Christian manual of prophecy used also by other authors. whq frequently quotes it, is said by Lightf. to follow But this is not likely. For, in the only passage where he resembles has Now is the reading of in Mt. 158 (adopted by also in Probably therefore is following Mt. 1 5 3 (or some ancient of has elsewhere for and similarly D has for in Also has The facts are conclusive negatively. Th e passage does nol prove that is quoting frcm

This Epistle is alleged to quote Mt. 2214 as Scripture : Let us give lest, as it is wri tt en , we be found manv called but few chosen.
Th e application of the title Scripture to NT before the end of the first century, if here intended, would be unique. there are several reasons for doubting the intention. ( I ) In other allusions to Synoptic tradition, the author does not quote as from Scripture. H e twice quotes Enoch, either as 5) ture, or with is written (4 3): The last stumbling-block hath drawn nigh concerning which it is written as Fo r tn this end hath the Lord cut the times Now (3) these two passages agree with the one under discussion in treating of the last days, on which subject Enoch was an authority. Also, (4) in the last-mentioned passage, whereas he might have quoted Mk. Mt. 2422 (if known to him as canonical) about the cutting short of the not only quotes Enoch instead and treats it as Scripture, but also appears to add words not now extant in Enoch For to end etc.). (6) The book of Enoch as we have it, is a composite work and is likely to have many forms. (7) If it for N T (or, at anticipated) the phrases of unrighteousness Gehenna, the New J the Son of Man the throne of his glory it had good for him if he had not been is natural supposition that it may have contained the saying question.


No further quotations of importance are alleged. The conclusion is, that ( I ) is certainly proved to have quoted from our Gospels in ( a ) and (6) he is probably quoting from Logia not now extant ; (3) in (c) he may be quoting from our Gospels, but quite as probably from a Manual (or some Oral Tradition) of prophecy in Christian use. vi. DIDACHE.-The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles a document. The earlier part (1-6), consisting of the Doctrine of the Two Ways, inculcates precepts of the Lord, without appeal to his words, or Gospel the latter part appeals to both. The Gospel meant is probably Mt. The additionof adoxology to prayer, and the mention of the Lords indicate for the latter portion a date toward, or after, the close of the first century. There is no indication that Lk. was known to the writer, apart from supplements or
passage twice : once embodying in his own remarks (without Lk. 633; once with the preface saith the Lord, quoting almost exactly as The variation may indicate that, in the latter instance, he is borrowing from some earlier tradition from which also borrowed (as above, in the saying about to them that are holy ). Similarly when he asserts (377) that the Scripture says, My son, be not a liar, for lying leadeth to theft, is probably not giving the name Scripture to Hermas 3) They therefore who have defiled the the Lord and become of him, but is quoting (what Hermas trying to spiritualise) Did. 3 5 My be not a liar, since leadeth to theft, or book on which Did. 3 5 is based. The words better horn occur only our Lords utterance about a t the Last Supper. I t seems very unlikely that even though he combines passages in a very arbitrary way, would apply such words to quite a different matter, and that would follow him. authority of some collection of the Logia seems needed to explain it, and to justify the two authors. The Lords Day occurs in the Apocalypse (1 IO), whicha t all events sn far % concerns the passage including the term? was probably written (as Irenaeus asserted) in, or a little before,

These considerations make probable that the author is either quoting the words from a version of Enoch, or confusing some tradition of the Words of Christ with a version of Enoch, and make either of these suppositions much more probable than that he is quoting from Mt. as Scripture. (6) and (c) In Barn. Christ is said to have chosen as
his apostles men exceeding in lawlessness OUF) beyond all sin, that he might show that came not t o righteous sinners. There is nothing to show quotation, but words Mt. Lk. inserts to re or from some document or tradition, used by Mk. Among several quotations (74 11 12 I) -Barn. refers to the New Creation of man thus (613): The Lord saith,

.. .


96 A . D .

Did. I though at first sight suggesting Lk. 12 35 is an allusion to Mt. 25 I amplified by a n (to loins girt in the first Passover) which became current in the Church ( I Pet. Eph. 6 14). The latter part more like a blending of Mk. 13 and Mt. 44, than like Lk. 12 omission all the blessings pronounced on positive virtue (meekness, peacemaking purity, and mercy [or almsgiving]) is perhaps dictated b y some doctrinal consideration. Th e same cause may explain why, in his parallel to Mt. 548, he he preferred a tradition that gave (Lk. 6 36) pitiful (possibly a synonym, for a poetic or form of corruption of (for which the Hatch -Redpath Concordance wrongly gives occurs thrice in Dan. The Latin substitutes Daniel for Enochand takes the words for to this, etc., as comin from Barnabas. 4 Charles pp. who traces its influence in almost every book of and in Heb. 4 (Enoch 9 5, All things are naked and open in thy sight, and thou all things and nothing can hide itself from thee), some suppose to have been written by Earnabas. I t has also Influenced Irenaeus, Justin and other early writers. The tradition of Papias about the branches comes, directly indirectly, from Enoch 10


Behold akin be thee. make the last as the first. This may possibly he Synoptic (Mk. The last shall cp Mt. will give unto this last even as unto

The Gospel 9, 7) is said to contain the Passion or Resurrection and also 5 ) the flesh and (personal) presence of brings Christ before us as in the flesh. But when he of the Incarnation. does not appeal to the Gospel, but speaks in his own describing, for example, the in the east in language incompatible with any sober acceptance of account, and actually saying almost in the language of Simon Magus that the Logos 8) came forth f r o m Silence-a expression, hardly for any one who devoutly accepted the Fourth The Ignatia; passages commonly alleged to prove Ignatius recognised Jn. as a Gospel simply prove that he knew the substance of some traditions incorporated in (a) 7, The Spirit it and whither it goeth, and the things that are secret is closer in thought (though not in word) to than to 38. I t is a tradition from Gen. 168, quoted by Philo 1576 (and Conviction therefore. to the soul. saith unto her Whence thou thou Ignatius is dloser to Philo than to the door of the 48 and back to Ps. 118 Father, may be traced to it being a natural tradition that the gate of righteousness is the a t e in Christ, and that this leads to life and to the Lastly such variations as (c) 7 bread of God (only once in Jn 17 I , etc. prince of this age, and (e) Magn. 5 living is not in us-instead of the familiar bread of prince of this His is not in us-would be Impossible, if the Gospel were familiar to the author as a gospel, hut quite natural if he had a recent acquaintance with the substance of it as a recent doctrine.

(d)In and the author probably, but not certainly, assigns to Jesus words not in our Gospels. regards the Ascension as taking place on the He day of the Resurrection. Anticipations of in Barnadas.-The special points of interest in this epistle are that ( I ) it was written (Lightf. BE 91) before the Fourth Gospel the latter resembles it in many points :- (a) (Barn. the juxtaposition of baptism and the brazen serpent, and the parallel between the serpent and Christ ( b ) (66) the application of Ps. to the casting lots over Christs vesture (c) the piercing of Christ ( d ) (11 the connection between the Cross and Water, followed by a connection between the Cross and Blood ( e ) (11 Whosoever shall eat of these forever. This means, Whosoever, saith he, shall hear these things when they are spoken and shall shall f u r ever. It will be seen below that many of the so-called imitations of Jn. by Justin might be called, less inaccurately, imitations o Barnabas. f ... SIMON MAGUS. - The Great of
Simon Magus (Lightf. BE probably composed somewhere about the of the first century, perhaps before the Gospel of John was written, or at least circulated ) twice uses the phrase (Hippol. 6 14) remain alone in potentiality and once but if a tree abide alone to denote, as in that which remsins barren and which will perish with the world because it is not made fruitful by being likened to the (divine) of the Simons doctrine of three divine beings there are three that stand, his allegorising of the Pentateuch in connection with the regeneration of man, the general tone of his materialism, and the wide scope of his influence, make it probable that Jn. had Simon in view when he Gospel.


ix. (before mentions a Gospel -which he compares with the Law and the Prophets in such a way as to that it was 5, 8, 7. He quotes short sentences found in Mt. (once a phrase peculiar to Mk. 943 ). H e never quotes
Herein he appears to anticipate Jn. and and See



63 H e that my word him sent me hath eternal If an eat of this bread, he shall ever, spoken you are spirit and are that The similarity is striking ; still it would be a mistake to say Jn. from Barnabas. Barnabas borrowing from Ezekiel, has previously been alluding to the who calls the land Jacob (Ezek. 206) praised var. Hebr. glory), continuing as follows (11IO), Next what saith he? and there was a river winding from the right, and there went up from it fair trees and whoso eat mer. The words are not in Ezekiel but they were (doubtless) in the writers version of Ezekiel or in some Christian Manual of prophecy containing extracts from Ezek. 47 from which also comes probably Rev. 22 (a river of water of life, etc.). The tradition, then, was common to the Church at the close of the first century, and may be quite independent of Barnabas. The latter generally regards the Cross a tree and the crucified Jesus as the fruit of the tree (cp Lightf. Ignat. Smym. I) planted the side of the baptismal stream. The former regards the fountain for sin and uncleanness as flowing out of Jesus himself but of Jesus on the Cross, his throne to which he is up. 4 Jn. applies the phrase to a grain of wheat, Simon to a tree. It looks as though Simon had misunderstood Christs doctrine in such a way as to induce Jn. emphasise it. The union of the grain with the earth is intelligible the union of a tree with influences affords a far less natural and forcible metaphor. The Logion of Behnesa indicates that Jesus may have taught a systematic doctrine about abiding alone. Tatian ( If it [the soul] live alone it inclines downward to matter, dying with the flesh but if it has obtained union with divine Spirit, it is no longer without an ally) is closer to Simon than to Jn. index contains several resemblances to Lk. One of these is of this life) resembling

The conclusions are that Ignatius ( I ) recognised Mt. and probably Mk. as a written gospel, did not recognise Lk. or Jn. The latter is confirmed by the fact that 29, 30) in order to demonstrate the reality of the Resurrection, he appeals, not to Lk. or Jn., but to an apocryphal tradition. The gospel of Ignatins does not appear to have contained account of the Incarnation as we have it. The deficiency in account of the Resurrection he supplies from apocryphal Though he does not acknowledge Jn. as a gospel, he accepts a rudimentary Logos-doctrine, and has an acquaintance (but not a familiarity) with Johannine thought. X. A.D. see 87) has similar to those in the Sermon on the Mount (Phil and to the words of the Lord Mk. Mt. The former may be from a version of but the latter indicates that, like Ignatius, he knew the gospel of Mk. and Mt. ( a ) His omission (Phil. 2) of in the spirit, in quoting Mt. 53, poor in the spirit, resembles Lk. 620, but may only indicate that Polycarp and Lk. herein agreed in adopting the same version or interpretation of the Logia. (6) 7) Every one that confesseth not that Jesus Christ has come in is Antichrist, resembles I Jn. 4 3 , every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God and this is the [spirit] of the Antichrist but it much more Jn. 7 they that confess not that resembles

. -


Lk. 8 pleasures of life ). But the phrase had been made popular by 383) Of the two marked as quotations, one 14 tree i s manifest from its fruit is more Mt. 12 33 From the fruit the tree is known) than like Lk. (Each tree is known from fruit ) the other 3 Take handle me, and see that I am not a bodiless demon has been to be not from Lk. (see Cp Cor. his bodily presence. The statement that as a martyr, he will be Gods Logos, but otherwise a mere sound is based on a distinction common from Aristotle downwards ; similarly distinguishes between sound and name. Such a play on Logos would be possible while the Logos doctrine was plastic ; scarcely possible (because scarcely reverent) for one who had received as apostolic the Logos-doctrine of Jn. 3 See Hegesippus (Eus. What is the door of Jesus to which James replies apparently that the Saviour is the door cp Epb. 2 18 Rev. 38 Hebr. (saying Christ raised up seems incongruous with account of the descent of an angel to roll away the stone, but agrees better with Pseudo-Peter who says (9) that the stone rolled away of itself; implying, perhaps, that Christ caused it to roll away arose by his own power (so that the angels descended merely to carry up to heaven). The more orthodox account is that of Paul, and I Pet. quoted by Polycarp Phil. 2 believing on him who raised our Christ the head.



Jesus Christ cometh in This is the deceiver and the Antichrist. Now Epistle, so that if Eusebius believed it to be a quotation, he would be bound to attention to But he makes no mention of it, though he tells us that Polycarp (iv. quoted I Pet. It is probable, therefore, that he regarded the words, not as a quotation, but as a use of Johannine traditions in vogue during the conflict against Docetism. The conclusion, so far as any can be drawn from so short a letter, is, that Polycarp knew Mk. and Mt. but not or Jn., though he used a Johannine tradition embodied in a disputed epistle. xi. 30 A. D. ) is probably (Lightf. BE 67) recorded by Irenaeus (v. 361 to have preserved a tradition of a saying of the Lord, I n the region of my Cp Jn. In my Fathers house are many
The context indicates that Papias had one meaning and Jn. Papias (taking the word as used x. 31 7 encampment, halting-place) means are many stages on the the New Jerusalem Paradise and Heaven. This explains why Papias has in the region, while Jn. has in the house.) means stages in the Apocalypse and (pp. 1003, 645, 794) who also (p. 797) speaks of the at the three numbers in the Gospel. The three numbers are explained by Papias as the thirty, sixty, and hundred of the Parable of the Sower.

A . D .)


quently alleged to have quoted from Jn but (owing to the culty of between quotations 97. Basilides. from Basilides and quotations from his followers, and the fact that Hippolytus and differ from in their expositions of his doctrine) the only ground for the allegations is in an extract expressly quoting the hook of his which teaches that all suffering proves the sufferer to have sinned: Against this doctrine-not any means peculiar to protests when it states that the man who was born was not horn so because he had sinned. With that protest before him Basilides could hardly have accepted Jn., in its entirety, as

So far as it goes, then, the evidence indicates that Basilides did not accept Jn. as an authoritative gospel. Marcion is mentioned by Justin Martyr xv. MARCION.after the two very early heretics Simon Magus and Menander, as even now teaching and as having-gained followers in every race.
This implies that Marcionism had been flourishing for several years, and points to A.D. as the date for Marcions gospel. Rejecting the O T and the God therein assumed, he was forced if he adopted any of the four gospels to make many changes in I have not to the law hut he fulfil and destroy. His gospel is shown extracts to agree largely with Lk. hut to omit many passages peculiar to Lk. H e did not call it by name, may have regarded it as hut one of many interpretations of the Logia of Mt. more authoritative than most and better adapted than our Mt. to express his anti-Jewish The omissions and alterations that he would have had to make in Jn. are trifling as compared with those which he was forced to introduce into Lk., and Marcions alleged Pauline predilections hardly afford a satisfactory reason for his not selecting Jn.

The conclusion is that Papias is not quoting and misinterpreting ,but quoting, and interpreting in accordance with tradition, a Logion (illustrating the Synoptic Parable of the Sower) of which Jn. gives a And this leads to the inference that, if Papias had Jn. in did not recognise it as a n his mind, xii. to in its
former portion (Lightf. A.D.), while accepting a Logosdoctrine accepts it (ch. ?) in a non-Johannine 96. Epistle form Lightf. on Col. : hut phrases in ch. 10 indicate a familiarity, if not with as a a t all events with lohannine doctrine and of The latter portion (Lightf. A.D.) short though it is, yet contains (ch. 1 )an apparent allusion to 1 1629 Now speakest thou clearly which makes it highly probable that The late date, however, makes this the author had read testimony of little importance.

The conclusion is that, A . D ., Lk. had come into prominence as a recognised gospel in Marcions region, but that Jn. was not yet equally prominent. A. D. ) xvi. VALENTINUS.
use our gospels. says that his followers freely used the Fourth. Hippolytus (635) gives as from himself, a quotation All that are come before me are thieves and robbers. But Tatian has thrice a somewhat similar allusion (calling it on one occasion a saying of the most )(chaps. 12 14 18) referring to demons who have been of deity and taken men captive. As has been shown above 57 n.), it is probably the Synoptic tradition about the contrast between the ideal ruler and the of this world, thrown into a Johannine form, which found its way into Christian tradition before Jn. was generally recognised as authoritative.


xiii. HERMAS.The Shepherd of Hermas

based on the Rock and the Gate, the Son a Fellow-counsellorwith the Father in creation (cp Ecclus. with Is. 96); 56) showed them the paths of has no connection with Jn. 2 27. T h e Logos-doctrine (cp I That Spirit is the Son of God and see 56) is so strikingly unlike that of Jn. that the would seem either not ,o r t o as See 66 ahove. Eusehiuss omission here is the more noteworthy because (though not bound to do it) he tells us that Papias and Much more would he feel bound to tell us that Polvcaro. earlier than either of them. quoted Goth and could it have escaped him so short an epistle, Polycarps only extant work. Besides the instances above-mentioned, Index mentions, as a resemblance to Jn., that your fruit may manifest among all. n. 15 has that may I Tim. bas thy progress may be manifest to the notions of fruit and are both Pauline (cp 622 your fruit). has (69) to describe a saints citizenship in tke of the Father. The primary meaning of is at a mans at his home is only a secondary meaning: Cp the Enoch (Charles 61 For in the world to come there are many mansions prepared for good for the good, evil for the evil, many without number. This may be one of several instances where the language of Euoch appears in the doctrine of Jesus. 5 No many early authors (such as Tatian and Theothough accepting Jn., may have retained for a long time traces of an older Logos-doctrine-sometimes more like that of Philo. But Hermas hevond anv hounds consistent with acceptance of Jn. in v. 6 Spirit which preexisted, which created all the creation, was caused God to dwell in flesh which he desired [it to dwell]. That therefore along with the Holy Spirit, he chose as a partner.

96. Hermas. may generally be traced to common tradition

contains no traces of recognised authoritative Johannine thought. The alleged similarities of language




xvii. S UMMARY OF T HE EVIDENCE BEFORE JUSTIN. -Thus, up to the middle of the second century, though there are traces of Johannine thought and tradition, and tions to the Johannine Logos-doctrine, some writers Barnabas and Simon) we find rather what Jn. develops, or what Jn. attacks, than anything that imitates Jn., and in others Polycarp, Ignatius, and Papias) mere war-cries of the time, or phrases of a doctrine still in flux, or apocalyptic traditions of which Jn. gives a more spiritual and perhaps a truer version. There is nothing to prove, or even suggest, that Jn. was recognised as a gospel. Many of these writers, however, are known to by extracts so short and slight that inference from them is very unsafe it is otherwise with the writer next to be considered. xviii. JUSTIN.-Justin Martyr A. D .) has been found above ( I )quoting freelyfrom Mt. and Lk. sometimes appearing to use a harmony of the two (3) adopting preference as to the Miraculous Conception and the Passion (4) quoting (apparent) interpolations in Lk. and (5) showing a disposition to maintain the claims of Lk. as a new but authoritative version of the Memoirs of the apostles. The instances given 75-77) to prove these conclusions will suffice to show Justins attitude toward the Synoptists. It remains to consider his attitude toward Jn. as deducible from alleged quotations, or types, borrowed from it abstentions from quotation agreements, or disagreements, with doctrine or statement. 1832

(I )

him, How can a man be begotten when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mothers womb and be begotten? Jesus answered Except a man begotten o water and (the) f he cannot enter into the kingdom o God. f

Minor apparent


(a ) Tryph.

are called and are the true children of

we should he the children of God (so) we are. Both Justin and Jn. are alluding, (I) Jewish tradition ahout Gods calling Isaac to thereby causing him to (Gen. Isaac shall thy seed be Rom.417 the things that are not as though they were [is to the tradition that Isaac was called from the dead (Heb. 11 that God was t o raise [him] from the to be compared with Josephuss comment on the sacrifice of Isaac [Ant. that God was able to bring men into abundance of the things that are not and to take away the things that are); partly (3) to Philonian traditions ahout Gods creative call (Philo 2 367 H e calleth the things that are so that they are : Philo 2 ; and (4) to a Stoic phrase I a m and I a m called (Philo 1 E they both and were divine i6. Heracles was to he the son of and he was [so] ). So, here Justin first shows that God was to (Jer. 3127 and Is. 19 up a seed to Israel ; then asserts that he this people Israel and declared it his inheritance: lastly, in answer to Tryphos Are you Israel? he replies, We both are called and are the children of (6) Apol. 6 reason and is a n allusion not to Jn. spirit and truth, but t o what Justin has just said about the temper of in reason, reasonableness, and is a play on the word Logos. (c) 17, the ess and righteous [one], sent [as] light from God to a recognition of Christ as (Is. 426 Lk. 232; Enoch light to lighten, not only Gentiles, the world ; and an allusion to Jewish traditions 2 226) based on Ps.433 out thy thy I 60 If ye ye he saved), treating of the serpent, differs so much from Num. 21 (that every one that is bitten, when he it, that it is urged (Lightf. BE 87) that the writer had in his mind Jn. 3 that whosoever may in him have eternal But Barn. (12 7 let him hope an d and immediately he saved) from Num. is closer to Bqrnahas than to Jn and a p ears to be the former or some kindred accuses the Jews of cancelling 73) H e shall reign from the tree in Ps. 96 and some might infer that he borrowed this thought from Jn., regards the Cross as a on which Jesus is lifted up exalted. But see Barn. 85: the reign of Jesus tree.


.. .

Justin is here meeting heathen misrepresentations of the two sacraments, hy showing that they are on Christs command and on reason and that the heathen themselves have imitated them. Asto the he gives ( I ) Christs As to Words of Institution. the Pagan since he gives the imitation later (62 64) he is giving here what he regards as the of Institution (for he gives no others). That they are derived from Jn. is improbable for many reasons. ( I ) Justins tradition is thrown into the form of an indirect precept thou shalt be baptized or thou shalt not enter); is a statement of a law. Justin omits the two elements mentioned in full form of the nine utterance-viz. water and spirit. Justin, though familiar with the of to mean from above, and though he once uses here has (4) That Justin agrees with Jn. in connecting the doctrine of regeneration with words about the impossibility ofre-entering the womb, is not indeed a n accidental coincidence a n y more than the somewhat similar connection in an of Simon Ma us How then and in what manner doth shape (in the to which Simon Admit that Paradise is and that this is true Scripture will teach thee, afterwards entering into minute materialistic details about the It is a connection so natural in controversy that it is easy to understand that it became a commonplace in Christian doctrine.3

( 3 ) Other
this [man]was





The close and numerous resemblances between Barnabas and Justin in respect of prophecies and types prove that Justin followed either Barnabas or some tradition used by Barnabas, and g o some way towards proving that, if he knew Jn., he preferred Barnabas. Except ye begotten again. 61, For in the name of God, the and Lord of the Universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, they then receive the washing with water. For indeed Christ said, Except ye be begotten again ye not enter into the kingdom of the heavens. Now that is absolutely impossible for those once born to re-enter the wombs of those that bare them is evident to all. Jn. Except a man be begotten from he cannot kingdom o God. Nicodemus saith unto f
The antithesis was naturally common after the of Nero. It may he illustrated by Mt. 22 14 Many are called few chosen, hut also by Epict. When we see a trimming, we are wont to say H e is not a Jew but pretends. But when he takes on the condition of and chosen(& the elect ), then he is called a : where is and is called seems parallel to Justin; called and is. Justin (Tryjh. theonlyspotless man and then repeating the phrase man says that he was sent into the world. Cp Wisd. IO Send her forth from the holy heavens, send from the throne of thy glory where her refers to Wisdom 7 25) the pure of the glory the the of the Both Jn. and Justin adapt Jewish tradition to the Incarnation ; hut Jn. (1246 I am a into the world. 3 soeaks of the as the of it as sent. - (The rendering spotless light is an error ; nor is there a play on the double meaning of man and light.) For the construction (sent [as] ) cp I Jn. 4 IO For other passages in Justin and Barnabas resembling one aiiother, and found also in Jn., see the connection of the Cross or tree with water (mentioned ahove. and

only-hegotten of the Father of the Universe having become from him in a specialway Word and Power 4) and the as we learned the Memoirs I have shown ahove. Lightfoot (BE , omitting the words infers that Justin as Memoirs for special antemundane birth. But the words omits indicate that Justin refers to where he shows thisfrom Memoirs, as an inference from peters confession. This resort to the Memoirs to prove what they cannot prove hut Jn. could prove, indicates that Justin did not authoritative; (6) Justin, against is to have

19 and from Philo 482 443 498 (and cp Menander in Eus. 326 and Simon Magus in Hippol. and from Epict. is irresistibly in favour of the rendering from above. may mean again but only where the context to that meaning, does in Artemidorus (see Grimms Lexicon), who says that a man who dreams of being born over again will have a son, because having a son is, as it were, a second



Justin himself never uses the word to mean again, hut ( I ) fromahove, ofthe Incarnation, and also probably (against Tryjh. 63 with or Tryph. 24, from of old. If Justin were here quoting Jn., he would he a phrase that he himself he


Pet. 1 3

in (RV) again. The evidence from

use of the word

Justins words, Inthe name of the Father, etc., show that the formulary of Mt. 28 as binding in practice. the recogiiises (but does not quote) it. Justin nowhere quotes f o r the fa c ts o Christs f And Lk. omits the to but only If it be urged that Jn. states the doctrine in two forms, and that Justin may have preferred the (begotten from above), then from above into again, he has altered which occurs only in second form. It may be worth noting that Barnabas (168) as well a s Simon Magus, introduces his explanation of (which he bases on the metaphor of a temple) with a How? (Cp n. can these things be?) In these two authors is rhetorical, in Jn. it is not; hut the usage perhaps traditional way of stating and answering a perplexing question. Barnabas (like I Pet. 1 3 23) regards the beas again (not from above), $ . : ace does not permit of showing the doctrine, which tacitly protests that second birth is not the question. The question is Is it from or (like some of the second births of mysteries) from 4 cp I 22, Jn. would not apply the verb to the Logos except in Connection with (174) flesh. frequently draws a marked distinction between the of :he Logos of man or matter (1 I 6 8 58). The words, the only-hegotten, etc., may be those of commenting on what he has quoted from Justin. Eusebius (4 quoting, from Justin, this extract, stops


written (Iren. iv. I should not believed . only-begotten Son came to us. This Lightfoot (BE asserts to be based on Jn. But, besides the objection many authorities as W H, read in Jn. 1 God for Son, this assertion that Jn. must have invented this application of only-begotten, whereas in fact it followed fro m the Logos-passage Wisd. describing the Wisdom of God as containing a Spirit might be gested by Ps. Deliver my the sword, mine from power of the dog. Now in the Apologies an d Dialogue Justin (so far as Ottos Index shows) never uses the word only-hegotten except in referred to above (a) where he supported it by Ps. 22 and professed to have shown it, the showing really a inference from the Memoirs. All this far from indicating a borrowing from Jn., proves that, he to base any statement on (c) T ry j h . 88 has simply the Synoptic tradition of Baptist, developed as in Acts (with a tradition of Justins own twice repeated in connection with the Baptist with ada trd from Is.); and 57, as to the instead alluding to Jn. is a ,quotation from Ps. 78 25 with an allusion to Ps. (cp Cor. 10 3 and also Wisd. representing a stage of tradition earlier than Jn. ; 69, those who were from birth and according to the flesh defective [in vision] is alleged to refer to the healing of the man blind from mentioned only by But Justin speaks of these people in the plural, Jn. 32 states that the unique, unheard from the the world. Justin was probably quoting from some tradition earlier than Jn. ; hut in any case this instance tends to show that, if he knew Jn., he did not regard it as authoritative.3


. ..


Other alleged quotations, if examined, might be shown, even more conspicuously than those treated above, to fail to prove that Justin recognised Jn. as an authoritative gospel. (4) Quotation.-It is generally recognised that the Synoptists do not teach, whereas Jn. and Justin do teach, Christs pre-existence, the feeding on Christs flesh and blood (as in those precise words), the application of the term to Christ, and the Logos-doctrine. When, therefore, we find Justin either not appealing to any authority in behalf of these doctrines, or appealing to pointless passages in the Synoptists instead of pointed .passages in Jn.. it is a legitimate inference that Justin did not recognise Jn. as on a level with the
(a) I 66 W e have been taught that the food both the flesh the blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. I n support of this, instead of quoting Jn. 654 along with the Synoptic words of Institution Justin quotes the interpolated Lk. 22 ; (6) Tryph. 105, (see 101 [a]); (c) 48, the belief in Christs pre-existence is based on what is the part omitted by short before but the only-begotten; Eusebius contains words common in Irenaeus hut not in Justin and (3) has two allusions to Epistle: (to which ; (4) elsewhere Justin never uses apart from prophecy that justifies it. On the other hand, Justin might quote, to a Christian, authorities that he would not quote to a Jew, to whom everything needed to be proved. (In the words omitted by Eusehius [. . nos plasmavit venit a d nos est mea ad eum fides utraque Deo nobis praebente] the intrusion of the sing. [mea] would be strange, whether Justin or Irenaeus were the writer; but may have been misread as On the whole, .the words are probably not Justins. Acts Justin Acts Justin Not, however, by BE. After quoting Is. 85 the deaf lame, dumb, Justin asserts the healing of

proclaimed the and taught him (Christ). this Westcott (Ju. says that the Synoptists anywhere declare his pre-existence, apparently inferring that Justin must have Jn. in mind, though he never quotes But the italicised words (cp 8 IO) simply indicate the general continuity what taught as the Logos, through and what he taught as Jesus in When Justin shows the pre-existence of Christ from a par. it is from the Memoirs, but in a most unsatisfactory manner (see last footnote). ( d ) Tryph. 86 says that the rod in OT is a type of the Cross, and that Moses, by means of this, saw water the fr o m 103) applies to Christ Ps. 22 like water. These words seem absolutely to demand some reference to that stream (if he knew of it) which the author of the Fourth Gospel alone records himself to have seen flowing from Christ on the Cross. Yet Justin (ib. instead of quoting Jn., quotes the interpolated Lk. 2244, omitting mention of so that the quotation accords with the Psalmists poured out like water. (e) 97 follows Barnabas applying part of Ps. 22 18 to the casting of lots for Christs garments. But goes farther, by quoting the whole which mentions dividing as well. also quotes the whole verse, but goes farther still, seeing in it two distinct acts. It is highly improbable that, if Justin had known, as apostolic, this warrant for a fulfilment of prophecy he would have omitted to refer to it. But he neither to it, nor even recognises two says that the Vine is Gods people, planted and pruned for its good by Christ, without reference to 15 describes himself as pruning the Church that the fruitful branches may bring forth more fruit. I Apol. 63, The Jews are justly charged by, Christ himself, with Knowing neither the Father nor the Son. This ought to refer to charges as Jn. 8 Ye neither Know me nor Father. Yet Justin quotes it nothing but an ancientversionof Mt.1127 Lk. but or in Mt. and Lk.] the Father, save the 3 nor the save the Father, and those to whom the Son will reveal [him] which is merely a general statement of the conditions of (h) The well-known lamb that was, to be roasted whole was a type of the Cross. Jn. alone describes the rovidential interposition by which not a bone was broken of the Paschal lamb. Yet Justin, instead of referring to this, refers t o the roasting of the two lambs on two spits, one across the other, which typified the Cross !


( 5 ) Inconsistencies with

mostly concern Justins views of the origin of Christ, and the Logos - doctrine ; but they also affect his views of God, and of theology generally.


Justins view is that 6) God has no name; is that the came declare the Fathers name and to kee them that name. The notion of a Trinity in a Unity of or love, is from Justin. Generally Justin shrinks from the phrase begotten of God. According to him it is the Logos, or the who ( the new (26. the Church, his also Elsewhere he allows himself to say that God has begotten from himself a kind of Logos-power Yet when he eaks of the Father as begetting the Son, he always inserts his or coming forth by the power and counsel of God, or, speaking of birth of Jesus he uses the middle cause to be begotten. In his Justins may be the earlier form, to which of blood may be a later addition. But in any case the argument remains that whereas Jn. fulfils Justins requirements exactly, and the interpolated Lk. does not, Justin quotes the latter and not the former. I t may be replied that Justin understanding the nature of Hebrew poetry, perceived that ohly one action was ; but 53 and ass though by the other Evangelists. The real explanation is that represents a later and more developed tradition than that adopted by Justin. N o one knoweth the Son save the Father, but quoted as by Justin again and by Origen, and Thus according to Justin the Church (Ecclesia) and Man (Anthro are both by Logos. the Valentinians taught Anthropos and Ecclesia were the children of Logos and Zoe. If means containing Logos, means a Power containing Logos. What is this Power? Surely Thought Hence Justin implies that the Father begot Thoiight as the or Beginning and that in this or there was But is formal


. ...


includes if it is not restricted to, those who Inhisearlier work scribe appears to have corrected into (I Apol. 22 I t looks as though Justin interpreted in the but literally the Dialogue, some old tradition about Christ: acts of healing. Hence the strange addition in the flesh. H e seems to ,mean not, as some say, but defective. On this point I Apol. 46 is a key-passage, We were taught Christ is the God, and we that h e is the Word wherein every race of men participated. The doctrine of the First-born is authoritative leaching, the Logos doctrine is the indication the writer. On the rare occasions when Justin asserts (Tryph. that he has shown that Johannine doctrine is in the Memoirs, his showing, when analysed, amounts to we have supported by references to OT



heretical-doctrine Cp Jn. 1 1 3 were begotten of God other insert voluntate Tertullian (D e

where Irenaens and and apply it not t o Chr. 19) accuses


anxiety to emphasise the supremacy and ineffability of the Father, he speaks of one (meaning the Logos) who is (Tryph. 56) not God and Lord, under the Maker of the universe ; ( I 32, and The first Power, to the Father of all. This conveys the notion that the Logos is hut one of many subordinate Powers. Also the multiplicity of names given to the Logos 56 Wisdom, Angel Day East Sword (1 that of Jn. ; and when Justin quotes Dan. to lay stress on the asin Christ 76) the word seems anti-Johanniue, and bordering Docetism.

no darkness-would accept the latter half of this antithesis. Pauls saying that Christ (Phil. 3 comprehends or catches (for its human soul is very different saying that the light comprehends the Also -which applies to any saying, and not specially to Scripturecombines with the naturalness of such a saying in Christian controversy to make it probable that Tatian is quoting a common tradition, and not Jn. ; Renounce demons and follow the only God. All things by him the Father), and without him hath not heen made anything ; cp Jn. (1 All things were made him the Logos), and without him was not made anything. The two sayings are quite distinct in meaning but the likeness makes it certain that Tatian must have known Jn., though he has either misinterpreted it altered it (possibly to avoid polytheistic inferences). ( a ) Truces of as a recent interpretation. Though the teems with subtleties (alien from Jn.) about matter and the Logos and shows no recognition of the Johanniue view of the spiritual of the Father and the Son, yet the abovementioned allusions or quotations-occurring as they do in a very short treatise that contains hardly a single allusion to the Synoptists-indicate that Tatian attached considerable importance to a o stating the Christian f such as he found in Johannine tradition or writing. Such passages 5) God the beginning : but the beginning, w e have received is a Logos indicate what may be called an attempt to on Word was in the beginning, so that we hardly call them recognitions of Jn. as an authoritative gospel. the following passage perhaps in the same evil springs from the direction. Supporting his theory kinds of spirits, Tatian says These inferior of things it is possible to understand detail for, one who does not in empty conceit reject most interpretations which, in having been in for have made those who give heed to them acceptable to God Now the only passage in N T that definitely and fully recognises Tatians two kinds of spirits-bidding the reader not believe every spirit, giving him a test by which he may know the spirit of God and discern the spirit of truth and the spirit of error-is I Jn. 4 I t seems probable, then, that Tatian is here referring to the Johannine Epistle and Gospel which are obviously connected and are generally supposed have been published together.

(6) evidence appears, then, that ( I ) when Justin seems to be alluding to Jn., he is really alluding to OT or Barnabas, or some Christian tradition different from Jn. and often earlier than Jn. when .Justin teaches what is practically the doctrine of the Fourth Gospel, he supports it, not by what can easily be found in the Fourth, but by what can hardly, any show of reason, be found in the Three; (3 ) as regards Logos-doctrine, his views are alien from Jn. These three distinct lines of evidence converge to the conclusion that Justin either did not know Jn., or, as is more probable, knew it but regarded it with suspicion, partly because it contradicted his favourite Gospel, partly because it was beginning to be freely used by his the Valentinians. (4) It may also he fairly added that literary evidence may have weighed with (as many early Christian him. He seldom writers do) from apocryphal The title he gives to the Gospels Memoirs of the Apostles shows the value he set on what seemed to him the very words of Christ noted down by the apostles. Accepting the .Apocalypse as of theapostle John, naturally have rejected the claim of the Gospel he to proceed from the same author. This may account for :a good many otherwise strange phenomena in Justins writings. H e could not help accepting much of the Johannine doctrine, but he expressed it, as far as possible, in non-Johannine language; and, where he could, he went back to earlier tradition for it, such as he found, -for example, in the Epistle of Barnabas. xix. gives evidence A . D . ) of special value because, being a pupil of the recently ceased Justin who does not quote Jn., he wrote an which apparently does Jn., Johannine tradition and, later, after he had become an Encratite heretic, he composed a Harmony of the Four Gospels, thereby accepting the Fourth as on a level with the Three. His Apology may throw light on the date, and perhaps on the reasons, of acceptance.
The alleged -following: (a) This is simply of 699) that God is a spirit, but one that interpenetrates being (and Orig. 13) this, you see, is the meaning of the saying The darkness not the ;for the soul did not itself preserve the spirit, but was reserved by it, and the It is doubtful whether says that (I Jn. 15) God is light and in him
4) God is a spirit, not one that


quotations in the Apology are the

His Apology.



o substituting were f

This would fit in with a good many facts. The word interpretations was applied by Papias to the various versions of Matthews Logia. Mark was called Peters interpreter, so that Mk. itself might be called an interpretation of apostolic tradition. There is evidence to show that the Johannine Gospel was long preached orally before being published and Tatians words seem to hint at a deferred publication in course of time hav ing in writing). If it was interpreted by an Elder of Ephesus, such as John the Elder, be to Tatian as an interpretation. Also, the clause about rejecting implies that some had rejected, or were disposed to reject, the work in question-and this with contempt. Justin may not have gone so far this. Tatians respect for the admirable Justin is quite consistent with the hypothesis that he already dissented from his former masters cautious avoidance of Jn., especially if Tatian himself did not yet rank it with the Synoptists. gives little help beyond the (6) The assurance that, when it was composed, Tatian ranked Jn. with the Synoptists. As handed down Arabic, it differs, both in text and in arrangement, from the text commented on by Ephraem and both of these differ from the text commented on by
Cp perhaps If some were to God, yet Israel received a revelation, having been comprehended (read for grasped and drawn towards God, because God to his own being. In N T is not used to introduce Scripture except when (Lk. 2 24 Acts 2 16 13 accompanied some in the Law in the Prophets! etc. not thus it must be) rendered said spoken etc. (cp Rom. 4 18 according to that which been to Abraham-not according to that which hath been said in Scripture). 3 A complete collation of Aphraates Ephraem and the Latin version of the Arabic shows that are not than three or four passages-and these of little importance-where these three alleged representatives of Tatians work agree against the modern text (as represented by WH): Mk. 923 Mt.

The fact appears to be that, whereas preceding writers had laid stress on being again, laid stress on the nature of birth describing it as (113) from 3 from ) Many offence at this, as suggesting that is of the same as Christs incarnation (which indeed may have been meaning). Therefore, in the first passage where states the doctrine (re-stated in the Epistle too often to be changed), some ventured to change it. 18 By a n act o will f he brought us forth. This thegeneral mistranslation 3) from though it must mean again. 1 H e uses it is true a corrupt text of the L X X and refers to the Acts but never quotes Enoch does), the Gospels of the Hebrews, Egyptians etc. Eusebius, who bestows such praise on Justins 18 I) .cultivated intellect.


This indicates-what of itself is highly probable-that a t a very earlyperiod the was revised in the interests of orthodoxy so as to leave few traces of the authors Encratite and other What may be the correct inferences from Theodorets account of Tatians excisions and of the mischief of the composition and what ought to be inferred from Eusebiuss ( H E statement ahout the work, are that do not affect Tatians recognition ahout of All agree that before the end of his recognised the Four Gospels as bbing of special authority, although his notions of authority may not have prevented him from handling them with considerable freedom. As regards the date of recognition, Tatians adds

little to our knowledge, for the time of its composition (about A . D .), Irenreus regarded four gospels as no less essential1 four than the four zones of the that in Gaul the must have been recoenised much earlier. But the importance of Tatians testimony following on Justins is that the two appear to fix the in sceptical teacher favouring Lk. but rejecting Jn whilst his pupil at first apparently took up Jn. as a divine interpretation specially adapted for a appeal to the Greeks, and before long placed it in a of the Four Gospels.

From this date investigation is rendered needless by the practically unanimous acceptance of the canonical Gospels. E. A.


What remains of the present article will be devoted to a brief statement and discussion of the principal hypotheses which have been at various times put forward as tentative solutions of the Synoptical problem. On the fourth gospel see J OHN , SON OF ZEBEDEE. tendency appears also in another direction, the political the desire to make the Roman authority as little responsible as possible for the death of Jesus (Mk. 15 1-14 Mt. 27 1-23 and very specially Mt. 27 24 most strongly of all in Lk. 23 1-23, where Pilate even invokes the judgment of Herod, an of which there is no hint in Mk. or Mt. 43 The very widely accepted view, that Lk. is of a specifically character, can be maintained only in a very limited The mission to the Gentiles is brought into very distinct prominence by the evangelist not only in his own narrative but also in reporting the words of Jesus.
By Jesus, partly in express utterances partly in the choosing and sending forth of the seventy (10 I ) whose numher corresponds to that of the heathen nations in Gen. 10, partly in his interest in the Samaritans who were not regarded hy the Jews as compatriots who i; the Third Gospel are, to all appearance, the of the Gentiles. The word stranger used to designate the cleansed Samaritan leper (Lk. 17 IS), is the techused for all Gentiles in the well-known inscription marking the limits in the temple precincts which non-Jews were prohibited from passing, under penalty of Lk. has no parallels to Mt. 7 6 (pearls before swine), 10 Go not into any way of the Gentiles 23 15 24 (not sent but unto house of Israel). I n (even sinners love those that love them) the persons spoken of with depreciation are not, as in Mt. 546f ublicans and heathens but sinners. In Lk. 5 (call of the mission to the is hardly mistakable 32, last footnote) : the other boat which is summoned (5 7) to aid Peter in landing the multitude of fish, is that of and his companions, whilst James and John (according to 5 IO) figure as the comrades of Peter and the astonishment and apprehension they share with him signify that until now they had not grasped thedivine of an extended mission. That they nevertheless took part in the mission to the Gentiles at the divine command (5 5 , a t thy word cp repentance . in nnto all the nations) is in entire agreement with the representation in Acts 10 (see Acts, 4).



The question of tendency deserves the first place, for the more tendency can he seen to have been at work in the composition of the Synoptic gospels, the less room is left for the action of . merely influences and the like. of one kind or another in the Synoptists are conceded even by the most conservative scholars. Thus they find that Mt. wrote for Jewish Christians, or for to prove to them from the O T the Messiahship of Jesus this appears from numerous O T quotations, often even prefaced with the words, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken : 1 etc. ). Jerusalem is spoken of as simply the holy city ( 4 5 27 Much space is given to the polemic against the Pharisees and Scribes. The contrast to Mt. sented by Lk. is striking. Here many speeches, which according to Mt. were directed against the Pharisees, are addressed to the nation in general (Lk. 639 43 as against Mt. 38 15 15-20). In Lk. 3 7 (contrast with Mt. 37) we have the (surely impossible) story that the Baptist addressed the masses who desired to receive his baptism as a generation of vipers a, a). The fact, too, that Lk. carries the genealogy Jesus back to Adam points to the conclusion that, in writing, he has Gentile Christians, or Gentiles, in his mind. The same inference can be made for Mk., who is at pains to explain Jewish words or customs 34 and byfrequently Latin words ( 5 6 27 74 39) and forms of expression ( 36 5 23 1465 1515)and even explaining Greek by Latin phrases 1516) shows that he was addressing readers who spoke Latin. Again, from the relatively small number of discourses of Jesus reported by Mk. we may perhaps conclude that he attaches less importance to the teaching than to the person of Jesus. It is the person that he desires to glorify. Further, each evangelist in his own way is influenced by, and seeks his narrative to serve, the apologetic interest. To meet particular objections, such as those preserved by Celsus (cp Mt. 28 we find, for example, an assertion so questionable as that of Mt. (the watching and sealing of the tomb, of which the other evangelists know nothing), or that of the bribing of the watchers (Mt. 28 11-15- charge which, a if actually made and believed, would certainly have involved their death cp Acts Once more,
Dr. Rendel Harris says on Bar Salibi seems to intimate that Tatian gave no harmonised of the Resurrection. Every reader of Ephrems text, current in the Armenian will have been struck by the poverty of the Commentary at this part of the Gospel. But there is no poverty now in the Arabic In particular (see for Greekapeaking Jews. I t ought to be added however, that Gentile Christians also were interested, or at of being interested, in the evidences of Christianity derived from the O T prophecies.



The reverse side is seen in the rejection of the Jewish nation, in great measure, or indeed, if the words be taken literally, altogether.

Cp saved? Strive to enter last first and first last ), (cut it down), where the Jewish nation is intended by the fig-tree (see 4 (Nazareth The rejection of Jesus in his native city means that he met with no recognition in his native the word being ambiguous. The mention of native place works in (4 23) where according t o Lk., Jesus had not yet been (he reaches for first time in makes it evident that the narrative has purposely been given the earlier place the narrator, though not in agreement with his sources, as a sort of programme expressive of the relation of Jesus to the Jews a s a whole 39, 127 a, y).

.. .

.. .



I n an entire group of parables the whole point lies in the rejection of the Jews and the call of the Gentiles to salvation.
Thus the Gentiles are indicated by the third class of those invited to the royal supper-thosecompelled to come in from the highways and hedges (14 ; cp Again, (25 See TEMPLE. Exceptions such as 199 (daughter or son of Abraham) 133 (reign over house of Jacob for ever ), 54 holpen Israel servant salvation unto his people) 2 326 of thy Israel), 38 (redemption of which doubtless come from the authors sources, do not invalidate the above observation-all the less because they agree with what has already been under ACTS, 4 .


14-30) ethical parable of the talents receives in 19 (far country receive kingdom), 14 (citizens him ), 27 (these slay them), additions which give it a wholly different complexion. Here, the nobleman who goes into a far country and whose people, for declining his rule, are in the end put to death, was suggested by the well-known story of Archelaus son of Herod the Great (see 8) but in the intended of the parable the him. self and the far country into which he travels is the region of the Gentiles; cp the similar use of far in 15 73 (:prodigal), Acts239 (promise to all afar off) 2221 send thee [Paul] far hence unto Gentiles), Eph. 2 were far off), 17 (same). Even Lazarus who in Lk. comes into poor and as must, the addition in be regarded as representing the Gentiles the rich man and his brethren being characterised in the word: fhey have Moses and the prophets as representing the Jews. Cp also

parable of the Unjust Steward, the Rich M a n and Lazarus, the Importunate Friend and the Unjust Judge, end). Indeed, the may be specially mentioned writer does not seem to have accepted them in their full extent, for by his appendix to the Rich Man and Lazarus question of sending warning) he has given the 6) similarly in parable quite another meaning the case of the Unjust Steward by the appendix 16 (little and much, ones own and anothers) d) and even in the last parable mentioned above, attention is directed from the Judges unrighteousness by the addition o 188 6 ( faith on earth? f In Lk. great care is taken to warn readers against expecting the coming of the kingdom as imminent (219, immediately; before all these things until times of Gentiles fulfilled not with observation 19 parable because supposed kingdom immediately ). The straightway preserved in Mt. has disappeared in Lk. (2125) ; sa also the statement in Mt. that the days preceding the end shall be shortened for the elects sake, and (2269) the announcement of the speedy appearance of the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven (Mt. 26 64). The idea in Lk. (21 that the premonitory signs of the end cannot appear ! until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled rests upon the belief of Paul that before Christs parusia the gospel 1 25 must first be preached to all nations (Rom. 1 See, more fully; (a) Just as in Lk. Ebionitic and Pauline ideas are found in juxtaposition and contrast, so in Mt. are universalism and Jewish particularism (15 24, lost sheep of Israel twelve thrones not into way of Gentiles; I . . cities of Israel, as against from east and west 21 two sons wicked husbandmen ; royal marriage ; teach all nations; 2414, preached whole world 2 6 13, wheresoever preached in whole world), legal conservatism and freedom from the law not destroy but fulfil; what they bid you d o ; pray not on a Sabbath ;- against 532 1 9 8 , divorce; 534, swear not as 39, resist not; new patch, new wine; Sou o Man lord of Sabbath). f (6) On further is manifest, in the case of two parables especially, that the rejection of the Jews and the call of the Gentiles to salvation was introduced only as an after-thought.
the case of the royal supper, those first invited, after rejecting the invitation and slaying the messengers, are conquered war and their city burnt (Mt. but in the original form of the parable their place was in the kings own city. . After the military expedition the preparations for the supper remain just as they had been (224 others too in 226 bas a strange look coming after 22 5 they went their ways ). The insertion points unmistakably to the destruction Jerusalem in 70 A.D. as a punishment for the of Jesus and his apostles, and serves to indicate the whole nation of the Jews as signified by those first invited. Had this been the original intention of the parable, it mould not he easy to understand why Lk. should have enumerated three classes of invited persons of whom of course only the third can signify the Gentiles. But conversely it would be equally incomprehensible how Mt. could have reduced the number of the classes to two had three classes been already mentioned in the original form of the parable as in Lk. Since there the heathen are the third class, if omitted that class he was obliged to transfer explanation to the second class, which he could do only by inserting These remarks do not in any way contradict the fact that in Acts community of goods is an ideal with the author ; for the idea of OF GOODS is indeed related to the Ebionitic ideas of the Third but is not identical with then,. Further, it must not be that, though with Lk. this community was indeed an ideal for the past it is quite another question how far he wished to see it his own time. The whole journey of Jesus into foreign territory (Mk. woman came out from the borders of Tyre and Sidon to. meet Jesus. Far-reaching consequences follow from this sea

.. .

parable-which also certainly was spoken by Jesus- that of the Prodigal Son who is taken back into favour by the father without anything being said of any sacrifice on his behalf such as Paul would certainly have regarded as necessary. The woman who was a sinner (Lk. 747 jo) is saved not of her faith alone but quite as much by reason of her love-just as Abraham and Rahab are in I Clem. Rom. 10 I.

Against the work-righteousness of the Mosaic law we have the saying about the unprofitable servant 7-10), and the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican with regard to which, however, there is no reason to doubt that it was spoken by Jesus. ( d ) In we have a specifically Pauline expression -the designation of the Publican as justified another in 8 lest they believe and be saved : cp I Cor. 1 to save them that believe) also 188 the claim that should return he would be entitledto find on the earth lastly the formula, thy faith faith has saved thee dusts ae) : 7 (woman house), (Samaritan leper), 848 (woman with issue), (blind The same formula, however, occurs also in Mk. 534 (woman with issue), Mt. (woman with issue). It is therefore not specifically peculiar to Lk. and moreover a careful survey of all the passages cited does not show that Lk. has appropriated any specific doctrine o Paul, but only that he has made his own in all their f generality the gains of the great apostles dom from the law, and the assurance that salvation is open to all. The same conclusion is reached by examination of another

Over against what has just been pointed out we must set those ideas which Lk. has in common with what is usually called the Ebionitic side of primitive ( a )The poor are blessed because of their poverty, 6 j the rich condemned because of their riches Blessed , Woe unto rich man let brother o low degree f and Lazarus cp Jas. glory, God choose poor, 5 6 ye have killed the righteous one Clem. Hom. possessions are in all cases sin loss of them any way is a taking away of sins (6) Beneficence wins salvation (Lk. give for alms all things are clean [but see 130 635, do good and lend; make friends by mammon cp Ecclus. 330, Clem. Rom. 16 4, alms an atonement Tob. 1 2 8 Clem. ad beneficence the ground of salvation, (c) God is to be stormed by earnest importunate prayer 1 8 , because of importunity 18 judge and widow). Such thoughts, through the entire texture of Lk. however, do not they are confined to definite portions, among which the




. ..


Other coincidences are seen also in 8 (eat such things as are set before 11 46 (yourselves touch not the burdens), 20 386 (all live unto him when compared with I Cor. 10 27 (whatsoever is set eat) Gal. 6 bear own burden), die, the Lords). Cp Hawkins, 160 also (but with caution), Evans, Paul the author Third Gospel, 1884. It is necessary here to give a note of warning the usage of the Tiibingen school, which simply made Ebionitism identical with uncompromising Judaism.


The two forms of the parable are in no case independent of each other, for of the three excuses of the first invited two agree very closely in Mt. and Lk. We must therefore assume that the parable in its original form-in which we can, without any difficulty, attribute it to Jesus-distinguished only two classes of invited guests, as is now done in but that these were intended to denote, not the Jews as a whole and the Gentiles as a whole, as in hut the esteemed and despised classes respectively, among the Jews themselves, as in Lk. Each of the evangelists, therefore, has judged it necessary to bring some reference to the Gentile world into the words of Jesus which, as originally uttered, did not look beyond the Jewish nation, but each has carried out his object in a quite independent manner end). With regard to the parable of the wicked husbandmen we are expressly told in Mt. 21 45, as well as in Mk. 12 and Lk. 20 that the hearers understood it as referring to the chief priests Pharisees. Clearly therefore, Kingdom it is a later addition when Mt. (21 43) tells us that God shall he given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof -that is, to the Gentiles. Moreover had it been genuine this place before, not After, verse would have found its (Did ye neverread. On the other hand Mt. 20 has been left unchanged. The fact that here classes of labourers in the vineyard are distinguished is to show that the reference he to the Jews as a whole on t h e one side and to the Gentiles on the other. The distinction of two classes within the Jewish nation without any reference to the Gentiles, which has been shown above to have originally underlain the parable of the royal wedding has heen expressly preserved in the of the Two (Mt. 21 28-32), as also in that of the Pharisee and the Publican in Lk. (18 9-14).

of his own people and even as regards these the task he had in band was a one. Mt. (lost 26 (childrens bread) as his first word to the Canaanitish woman (not as his last) is by no means incredible. H e may very well actually bidden his disciples restrict their preaching to the Jews 5f: 23) on account of the nearness of the end of the world. Mt. 19 (twelve is perhaps only a somewhat modified form of one of his own utterances, even if assuredly it was not spoken by way of answer to so mercenary a question as that of 19 27 (what shall we have?). In the of Jesus perhaps difficult saying to understand will be the expression of friendliness to the Pharisees in Mt. 23 (Moses seat), to which the words of 16 (beware of the doctrine of the Pharisees ), 23 4 (heavy burdens), 11 (my yoke i s easy ) are so directly contrary.

In two places in Mt. some critics have even detected a polemic against the apostle Paul. (a) In Whosoever shall break and teach shall be called the least (Paul having called himself i n I Cor. the least of the apostles, in (the enemy, who sows tares among the wheat).



with or without is, in Recognitions and Homilies, a constant designation for Simon Magus by whom is Paul (see SIMON MAGUS). Perhaps Paul in Gal. 4 16 (am I become your enemy? is already alluding to the term enemy as having been .applied to him by his opponents. At the same time however, it must not he overlooked that the First Evangelist self does not share this view of the enemy : according to enemy is the devil it is only the author the evangelists source, therefore, that can have been following a n anti-Pauline tendency here (cp As for Mt. 5 heaven and earth pass shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven it is almost universally recognised that these verses interrupt the connection, and it therefore remains a that they were not written by the author of the gospel placed on the margin by a later hand (see e). Enemy


As regards the remaining legal and Jewish particularist passages in Mt. (see above, a,a), on the other hand, it is not probable that they were first introduced after those of a universalistic character.
They are neither so few as to admit of being regarded merely as isolated and indeoendent nor vet

yon, do), and (with special facility) Moses seat all neither Sabbath in admit of removal without injury to the connection ; hut not 15 24 ( unto lost sheep), (childrens bread), or 19 (twelve thrones). But precisely the neither on a Sabbath is quite certainly original if it comes from the little Apocalypse As for the substance, we can more easily refer back to Jesus those utterances in which salvation is restricted to Israel. far as the principles of Jesus are concerned, they most assuredly contain within themselves no such limitation. Purity of heart, compassionateness, the childlike spirit, can he shown by the Gentile as by the Jew. The outlook of Jesus, however, seems still to have directed itself but little towards the Gentiles. H e felt himself to be primarily a child (For I . exce t your righteousness) would serve a s giving the grounds 5 (one jot or one tittle) only if the Pharisees were open to the charge of denying validity t o the minor precepts of the law. On the other hand would serve admirably as a ground for 5 17 (not to but t o fulfil) if by the word fulfil Jesus wished to give t o the law a fuller and more perfect meaning, far beyond the mere letter. Were 5 actually the ground (ydp) for 5 the of fulfil could only be that Jesus desired in his to follow the law down to its minutest details, and enjoined the same in others also. But this disagrees not only with 5 but also with 5 21-48 (Ye have heard); 227 (Sabbath for man); 7 1-23 (washing, corban); 10 (divorce), a word, contradicts the whole attitude of Jesus towards Mosaic law.

. ..

See, however, in general, At all events it is necessary to assume that the last redactor (who was friendly to the Gentiles)-in other words, the canonical Mt. -dealt much more gently with his particularistic source than Lk. did with his. ( e ) In spite of the straightway of Mt. is not altogether exempt from the tendency we have already seen in postpone the date of the parusia cp (my lord tarrieth), 25 5 (the bridegroom tarries), 25 (after a long time). Of the three Synoptics Mk. is characterisedleast by definite tendencies. The traces of which some critics have found in Mk. are of the time is slightest. For example, fulfilled believe in gospel: Gal. 44, fulness of time through faith ), 9396 Cor. ( I Cor. are reminiscences of Paul but they are not Pauline ideas. The mission to the Gentiles finds its place in 13 IO (gospel. unto all nations ), ( wheresoever the gospel) cp also all the nations in 11 17 (house of prayer for all the nations), unless indeed this be merely a filling out of the citation from the LXX. Some aversion to Jewish particularism may be seen in the toning downof the answer of Jesus to the woman of Canaan children first inserted) as compared with the form in Mt. Mk. also, like the others, seeks to postpone the date of the parusia. Instead of of Mt. he has ( 1 3 2 4 ) the straightway i n those days, and in 9 1 he does not, like Mt. say there be some standing here that shall see the Son of Man coming his Kingdom, but only that they shall see the Kingdom of God come with power. On the whole, then, it would seem that such tendencies as have been spoken of manifest themselves only in a few parts of the three gospels. A warning must be given against seeking to find too confidently any tendencies in the way in which the original apostles arementionedwhetheras implying praise or blame.




It would be in accordance with the general character of Lk. if some aversion to the original apostles were held to underlie the censure of James and John for their proposal to call down fire from heaven upon the inhospitable village (Lk. 9 and it would he in accordance with the opposite character if it made no mention of hardness of heart with which the original apostles are charged in Mk. 6 52 8 But Mt. is precisely the one gospel which chronicles Peters faintheartedness on the water and Mt. as well as Mk. has the speech in which Jesus him as Satan (Mt. 16 Mk. On the other side, it is precisely in Lk. 32) that we find the passage which, along with could be inscribed in golden letters on the Church of Peter in Rome.

. .

In another matter (should we be inclined to see here any tendency at all)-theenhancement of the miracles of Jesus in number and character-all the evangelists have a share Thus, of the tendencies we have discussed are followed, not in the interest of a party, but in that of the church which was ever more and more approximating catholicism in character. But, further, the tendencies affect only a limited portion of the gospel material, and by far the larger part of this material does not admit of explanation by their means. In the sections referred to there are but two instances in which it has been claimed by the present writer that ideas have been clothed in narrative dress-those of Peters draught

of fishes a n d of th e tares a m o n g th e wheat th e other places in this b e alleged a r e b u t few 142, a n d C LEOPAS ), a n d even in these th e symbolical mean ing b o r n e by t h e narrative arises almost always fro m a n originally figurative man ner of speaking being mistakenlynn dersto od as literal expression of a fact, not fro m deliberate a n d conscious invention for purposes of edification. A TTEMPTS T O SOLVE THE BY L ITERARY CRITICISM. PROBLEM

97) has even found himself driven to the assumption that Jesus his teaching t o his disciples catechetically, in the form of continually repeated questionand answer, as was the custom with the Rahhis.

T o m a n y this hypothesis co mmen ds itself as an

I t dispenses with th e necessity of assuming th a t original docu ments from which o u r gospels h a d been drawn - writings of have p e ri sh e d ; also with th e necessity of supposing th a t evangelists h a d deliberately- in other words, with tendency - altered th e written text of their predecessors th a t lay before them. But such advantages a r e only a p p a re n t, not r e a l ; th e variations a r e present, a n d they d o not admit of explanation as d u e to mere accident. Nevertheless, inadequate th ough t h e hypothesis b e as a complete explanation of th e pheno m e n a displayed b y o u r present gospels - and of course we have been here dealing with it in its purity and as unassisted by a n y other assumption - it is a t the same time equally certain th a t it contains a n essential element of truth. Unquestionably t h e formation of a gospel narrative was oral in its beginning. T h e opposite theory th a t a creative writer freely composed th e entire material without a n y previous oral currency ( Rr u u o Bauer, Volkmar) m a y b e regarded as n o longer in th e further, th e propagation of th e gospel field. story by oral tradition continued to b e carried o n for a considerable time even after t h e first written docu ments had taken shape, a n d th u s was capable of exerting a n influence even up o n gospels of a com paratively la te d a te end ). T h e next hypothesis t o re ly upo n very simple mean s is t h a t t h e evangelist who wrote second in ord er m a d e use of the work of t h e first, a n d th e third used th e work of o n e o r both of his predecessors. To g ra s p this hypo thesis in its purity we must put aside all idea of a n y o th e r written sources th a n th e canonical, a n d must keep o u t of account as far a s possible th e idea of a n y o ra l sources. Of the six imaginable orders, Lk., Mt. Mk., Lk Mk been abandoned. A also he regarded as no longer the field. I t specially on the that Mk. often makes use of two expressions for the same thing, for which in the parallel passages only one is found in Mt. and the other in Lk. But this phenomenon admits equally well of another possible explanation-that the diffuseness observable in Mk. ($ 4) gave Mt. and opportunity for Hawkins also Wernle, Woods at T h r e e orders still continue t o b e seriously a r g u e d f o r : Mt . Mk. Lk . Mk. Mt. Lk. ; Mk. Lk . Mt. In spite of t h e fact th a t every assertion, n o matter ho w evident, as t o th e priority of o n e evangelist a n d th e posteriority of anoth er in a n y given passage will be found t o have been th e other way by quite a num ber of scholars of we nevertheless h o p e t o gain a large measure of assent for the following propositions :At the same time even when these are assumed as subsidiary to the the remarks we have t o make will still apply of course at all points where borrowing as between the three evangelists comes into the question. The hypothesis of called the hypothesis, hut not happily, for evidently Mk. or Lk., if either had been the third to write, could also have combined the data sn plied his two predecessors. In the passage most frequently cited (Mk. 132) it even necessary, after at even, to add, when the sun did set for according to Mk. it was the Sabbath day and before it would have been unlawful to bring any sick. Yet Lk. could omit the first of the two clauses without loss, and Mt. as with him the events did not on the Sabbath, could drop the second. 4 Probably the most conspicuous example in point here is the carpenter of Mk.6 3 as against the carpenters SOU of Mt. 13 55, or of Joseph of Lk. 422. On the one side it is held that Mt. and Lk. are here secondary, because they shrink from calling Jesus an ; on the other, the secondary place is given to Mk. because he shrinks from calling Jesus the son of Joseph.

In considering the attempts t o solve t h e Synoptical problem b y literary criticism we begin most conveniently with what, in appearance a t least, is t h e hypothesis : th a t of a primitive gospel h a n d e d do wn solely by oral tradi tion. By continual narrating of th e gospel history, it is held, there came a t last t o b e formed a fixed type of narrative, in Aramaic. U p o n this each evangelist drew directly without a n y acquaintance with t h e written work of a n y other. ( a )T h i s hypothesis is a n I t spares t h e critic all necessity for a n answer t o th e question wherefore it was th a t o n e evangelist wrote in this man ner a n d anoth er in that - although th e question presses for, and very often admits, a solution. If th e Synoptical o ra l narrative was really so firmly fixed as t o secure repetition of entire verses in three authors writing indep end ently of o n e another, th e n th e varia tions between th e three become all th e more mysterious, o r else all th e manifestly d u e t o tendency. T h in k only of th e variations in th e Lords Prayer, in th e words of institution of th e Eucharist, i n th e accounts of th e resurrection of Jesus. T h e coincidence appears, how ever, n o t only in t h e discourses of Jesus, where it would, comparatively speaking, b e intelligible, b u t also in n a rra tive, i n quite indifferent turns of expression in which t h e s a m e writers often also diverge very widely. .The doubly augmented form of the in Mt. 6 I O cannot indeed be adduced as an augment is met with also not only in example, for the Mk. 25 but often elsewhere outside the NT in the case of this verb 7). compare, for example how Mt. 27 in the before Pilate, and Lk. 23 has no parallel), in the hearing before Herod, the middle aorist-met with in Mk. 1461 in the hearing before the hut very rarely elsewhere in the NT- he answered nothing though immediately afterwards (Mt. 27 14) we have the Mk. also in the parallel passage (15 5) having this form ; or the Lord, Lord in the vocative of Lk. 6 46, retained from Mt. 7 his source), though in modified form of the sentence why call ye me only the accusative would be appropriate. In one pair of parallels (Mt. 2661 Mk. 1458) the words of Jesus are reported as being t o the effect that lie would build the (new) temple in the course of three days in another in three days or Mk. 1 1 (cleansing the temple) coincides in the first half word for word with Lk in the second almost word for word with Mt. 21 Further examples are abundantly in Hawkins, 42-52 or Der How far this agreement goes, in the discourses of Jesns, can be observed, for example, in Mt. Mt. Mt Lk Mt. 1 1 or, for instances of coincidence between all three evangelists Mt. 23 6 12 2046; Between Mt. and Mk. this close agreement is met with elsewhere mainly in the OT quotations IO, and in Mt. of agreement between Mk. Lk. Mk. he taken as examples. Instances of deliberate divergence in the midst of the closest verbal agreement can he pointed t o in Lk. (cast devils) as against Mt. or in Lk. 11 give good gifts) as against Mt. 7 c). The artificiality and improbability which are seen t o be necessarily inherent in the hvnothesis under discussion as soon as one tries to it in come very clearly t o light in Arthur the Four (go), A Synopsis the in Greek to Luke Veit, the most recent German advocate of the hypothesis (Die
Consult further, Wernle, Die


( a ) A very stron g arg u me nt for th e priority of Mk. is th e fact that, with the exception of some thirty verses, his entire material reappears bo th in Mt. a n d in o r a t least in on e or other of them, a n d th a t what is even m o re important - in both, or a t least in one, in th e sa m e order as in Mk. T h e absence of th e thirty verses adm its of a satisfactory explanation whilst o n th e other h a n d th e absence from Mk. of so m u c h matter contained in Mt. a n d Lk. would be unaccountable. F o r details as to this, a n d especially also for th e explanation of th e m ar ke d divergencies in th e order of Mt. 8-12, we refer th e reader to W o o d s , 63-78 a n d Wern le , For on ee xa mp le, see (speaking in parables) comes before Mt. (treasure, pearls, etc. ) instead of after it. T o Mk. there is no parallel in Lk. In 15 above this section of. Mk. is derived from a tradition whicd he did not wish to include in his gospel. Reasons for the omission in Lk. are in fact conceivable ; for example, the discussion of the ceremonial law in 1-23 (washing, corhan etc.), it may have been thought, had little interest for Christian readers, or in the narrative of the Canaaiiitish woman Jesus may have seemed too Jewish ; in other sections the omission is less easily explained. Others have accordingly conjectured were that in the copy of Mk. which lay before Lk., 6 45-8 accidentally wanting. This suggestion cannot be set aside by showing that in Lk. 11 38 (Jesus not first washed) 12 I (beware of leaven) we have echoes of Mk. 7 (disciples unwashed hands) 8 (beware of leaven) for Lk. may have derived these from other sources. The mbst important point is that a t (Whom do the multitude- say that I am?), where after omission of Lk. again begins to follow Mk., he gives an introduction which embodies distinct reminiscences of the beginning of the portion omitted, 6 45-47 (praying alone, : If, therefore, the section of Mk. was wanting in copy, that must at least have contained three first verses or the single words just cited must at least have been still legiblk in it. Through the immediate sequence of Peters confession (Mk. 8 9 18-21) on the feeding of the five thousand (Mk. 9 it has also come ahout that Lk. the scene of the confession to the locality of the feeding, that is, to Bethsaida (so according to 9 ;somewhat otherwise, Mk. 6 instead of placing it a t (Mk. 8 27 ; cp
Mt. is secondary to Mk. In Mt. 14 5 Herod wishes to put the Baptist to death, and is fear of the people. Mk. 6 f on the restrained only contrary, it is Herodias who wishes death of whilst Herod hears him gladly. With this it agrees that in Mk. 6 26 sorry because he is bound by his oath to order the execution. But the same sorrow is ascribed to him also in Mt. In Mk. the Baptist is by his disciples; in Mk.6 30 the disciples of Jesus return from their missionary journey and report the miracles they have wrought. T h e connection of the two verses is quite casual the account of the Baptists end being episodical. But in Mt. 14 it is the disciples of John who not only bury their master but also their report to Jesus-the report, namely, of this burial. T h e report the disciples of Jesus of their own return would, in fact, come in too late here, as they were sent as early a s 1 0 5 and their presence with Jesus again has been already presupposed in 12 I ; hut in 14 Mt. would not have had the least occasion to mention a report the disciples of John to Jesus had it not been that the report of Jesus own disciples had been mentioned in Mk. 630. In the answer of Jesus to thequestion, Good Master what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? is Wh y thou me good? good, save God only. I n Mt. 19 the question None : Master, what good thing shall I do that I have eternal life? and the first part of the answer correspqnds : Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? Very in appropriate then is the second part : One (masc.) there is who is the Had not Mt. here had before him such a text as that and Lk. he would certainly, following his own line of thought, have proceeded one is the qood all the more because the immediate continuation also the exhortation to keep the commandments, would have suited so admirably. The question of Mt. 1 93 contains the words for every cause merely because Mt. wishes to introduce fornication as an exception (u. But in this form the question would have had no temptation in it, for an authority so great Schammai had already laid down restrictions on the freedom of divorce. On the were amazed of Mt. 1223 as coming from the is himself of Mk. 3 see 8, middle, and ACTS, i On the first journey . of Jesusinto foreign parts, see a, cp further a, and e also Wernle, secondary character in relation to Mk. is shown with extraordinary frequency, especially in th e

stylistic changes h e makes while retaining individual words. L e t a single example suffice. According to the of other things enter the man and choke the word of God. This entering in does not suit the figure for the explanation of which it is used-the figure, namely, of thorns choking the ood seed. Lk. accordingly avoids the expression entering in, yet does not fail to bring in the word (going using it now, however, of men who in their (RV as they go on their way) are choked cares and riches and lusts as if thorns. The participle had in fact laid such hold on his memory as he read his model, that it came a t once to his pen though in a new connection. Many other examples will be found in Wernle, ; Krenkel, 35-49 (94). . One can also make use of the collections in Hawkins, 53-61, though he himself prefers to infer from them oral. transmission. But in order to furnish also from Lk. an instance of a materially important and clearly intended if not quite deliberate distortion of an expression in his into a very different as has already been done in the case of Mt. (19 12 23 ; see above, b), and will be done in that of Mk. see a), we point to his with the word Galilee (Lk. 246 when he was yet in Galilee as compared with Mk. 16 7 goeth before you into Galilee; Mt. 7 ; see beginning). ( d ) Wh ile th e preceding pa ra grap hs seem t o speak for th e order Mk. Mt. Lk. (o r Lk. M t . ) we must nevertheless g o o n also to say that Mk. is secondary t o Mt. On (children first), ( i n those da ys after th a t tribulation ), 9 I (some not taste of 113. d e a th ) , see above, I n the parable of the wicked husbandmen Mk. mentions, on each occasion only one messenger as been hut finally, 5, quite unnecessary and even disturbing manner says that there were yet many others (in agreement with Mt. 21 35). Mt. says (12 32) that blasphemy against the son of man shall be forgiven and only that against the Holy Spirit shall not be immediately before 31) that every sin and blasphemy shall he forgiven to men, hut blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. In place of these two sentences Mk. has only one (3 ; all their sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and their blasphemies only not those against the Holy Spirit. Thus he has retained the word Son of Man, but made it plural and thereby set aside the sense which seemed offensive from the point of view of a worshipper of Jesus, that blasphemy against Jesus can be Cp, further, the examples in If what has just been advanced is correct, it shows th a t th e borrowing-hypothesis, unless with th e assistance of other assumptions, is unworkable, if only for th e The attempt has often been made to invert the relationship of the two passages and make out that Mt. 1 2 31 is taken from Mk. 3 and that Mt. 12 32 says the same thing and comes or rather from source. I t argued from that the expression Son of Man meaning any man whatever, as in Ps. 8 5, is rendered justice ad in Mk. by the plural, but in source erroneously applied to Jesus. But since Son of Man is the only, or almost the only, Aramaic expression for the idea man, it is impossible that the first writers of Greek in primitive Christendom should not have had occasion, a thousand times over, to render it by man All the more inconceivable is it that precisely here they should have understood Jesus alone to be meant by it, if such an interpretation had not been absolutely certain. I n their worship of Jesus it must have appeared to them in itself the greatest possible blasphemy to say that blasphemy against Jesus could he It is precisely Mk. who has allowed himself forgiven to he influenced by this consideration. H e alone it is, further who in 3 adds the remark that the reason why Jesus spoke blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was because they had spoken of himself as possessed by an unclean spirit (322). But the accusation in 3 is not, as Mk. makes it appear, a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, hut rather a blasphemy against the person of Jesus. Thus the saying to the effect that one blasphemy can be forgiven, another not, does not at all fit the context in the form it receives in Mk., and 3 30 is only an unsuccessful attempt on the part of Mk. to justify his addition. Mk. in so doing presupposes that Jesus had identified himself with the Holy Spirit. But the opposite view, that of Mt. and Lk., that he distinguished between himself and the Holy Spirit can have come only from Jesus himself. Moreover, it is to he observed that in Lk. this .saying of Jesus stands in quite a different place IO) from that of the accusation by Beelzebub, etc.), which according to Mk. (3 and Mt. (12 24-32) furnished the occasion for it. Now, precisely here Lk. is drawing from the same source as Mt. 30). I n that common source, therefore, the two portions referred to were not yet in connection with each other for in that case Lk. would certainly not have separated here. We can attach all the less importance to their connection in Mk. if even their connection in Mt., though so much more is not original.


reaso n that it is compelled in on e a n d th e sa m e breath to say contrary things a s to th e relative priority of Mt. a n d Mk. Nevertheless it is impossible to do ubt that th e evangelists did borrow from one another th e only question is whether here it is only our present gospels, .or not also other written sources, that have been m a d e use of. For this reason we have hitherto refrained t o th e effect that Mt. (o r L k . ) from expressing was dependent on Mk . (o r vice versa), con ten ting ourselves with saying th a t th e on e was to th e other we a r e th us led to consideration of th e hypothesis of a written source o r sources. ( e ) Before passing from the borrowing-hypothesis, however, it will be well to illustrate by a definite example th e various linguistic changes to which reference has been m a d e in the preceding pa ragrap hs (a to d). W e select for this purpose th e parable of th e Sower a n d interpretation it receives. T h e circumstantiality a n d diffuseness of Mk. ap pea r in 4 1 ( t h e thrice repeated sea a n d th e pleonasm b y t h e sea, on th e l a n d ) , in ( h e ta ught them , a n d said un to them in his te a c h in g ), (th e repeated and times - and because it h a d not twice), 4 7 ( a n d it yielded no frui t), (others are they th a t a re sown a m o n g th orns these a r e they th a t a n infelicitous m an n er of expression is in these a re they where. I t is L k . who h a s d on e most t o smoot h a n d tu rn it into idiomatic Greek. For sentences Lk. substitutes participial constructions (Lk. or a gen. abs. (Lk. 4 I ) ; also he substitutes better Greek words (Lk. 88 a instead of Mk. 48 8 of Mk. 415; Lk. of Mk. 4 ; Lk. 8 for of Mk. 4 17 Lk. 8 for of Lk. 8 is In Lk. 8 14 he drops the Hebraism [cares] of the world ; he prepositional phrases in Lk.84 of every city and by a parable and in Lk. inserts the relative clause which, when they have heard . immediately after the antecedent Those upon the instead of at the end of its sentence as in Mk. 4 dependence upon Mk. is shown the good ground of notwithstanding the substitution of a different adjective in Lk. similarlybyhis (418 on to, and his in Lk. 4 r g choke in spite of the amid for into substitution of a different verb for choke for in Lk. 47. I n v. Lk. reverts to the construction of Mk. which - he had avoided in H e is not felicitous in his sub stitution of rock (86) for stony for the hare rock nothing can grow a t all. Mt. (131-23) also smooths a n d Mt. (v. the second sea of Mk.41 and lace of the third adopts a turn of expression with beach In 6 he makes use of the gen. abs. in substitutes other connectives for and for The make fruit cp Gen. he alters to give fruit At the time Mt. 13 23 shows his dependence on Mk. by retaining make alongside of produce fruit, and in (just as Lk. two of Mk. turns of expression of Mk. 47 and as in 4 or in 26 the sing. crowd c p Mk. 4 I ) , although immediately before he has used his favourite form crowds (6 That Jesus was sitting Mt. has already (u. and he has therefore to repeat the expression in from Mk. 4 after Jesus has entered the boat. In v. rg Mt. has an infelicitous alteration to the effect that by the first sowing are intended those who do not understand word, whereas we should think rather of those who easily allow themselves to be again robbed of it. T h o u g h , from what h a s been said, Mk. app ears to have lain before bo th Mt. a n d Lk. it is not possible to assign to him th e priority a t all points. hearken before behold in 4 3 is superfluous and disturbing; in 45 Mk. (and with Mt.135) introduces an amplification of the description which has the effect of for the explanation of the parable ; it is absent in Lk. (86). The O T expression of the heaven which all three evangelists give in the parable of the mustard seed (Mk. 4 32 Mt. 13 32 Lk. 13 rg) i n the present case been preserved only by Lk. (8 as also the fruit of 88. On the relation of dependence a s between Mt. a n d Lk. see If th e contention a t th e close of is correct, th e borrowing-hypothesis when taken

without regard to th e limitations demanded b y 1276) leads to insuperable contradictions here also as th e question of th e interdependence of Mk. a n d Mt. T h e hypothesis - especially associated with the n a m e of Eichh o rn (from one Aramaic gospel, in which a s far back a s 1778 recognised th e Gos pel of th e ebrews, is in m a n y points open to th e sa m e obections a s that of a n oral original, only with th e difference that it explains the agreements in our gospels better, their divergences in th e sa m e proportion worse. Even th e fnrther as sum ption of various translations into Greek with addition of new material a t each translation is far from supplying th e needed explanation of th e divergences, for it is not by a n y means th e literary fo rm alone th a t differs th e matter also, even th e representation of th e s a m e matter, varies widely. T h e sa m e thing has to b e said of th e hypothesis recently forth anew b y Resch (Die who has even sought to restore to their presumed original Hebrew (no t Ara maic) form th e sayings of Jesus, along with a great number of narratives, including a history of the passion, th e resurrection, a n d th e ascension of Jesus (thus even going beyond B. Weiss, see 12 6 e n d ) , a n d moreover maintains that this original gospel was already known to Paul. T h e hypothesis of a n original written gospel contains a kernel of truth, only in so far a s it is certainly undenia b l e that some on e writer must have g on e before th e others in committing to writing the gospel tradition. But the fact of his having been first did not by any m ea n s necessarily secure for him exclusive, o r even preponderating, influence over those who c am e after h im his production may have been promptly followed b y equally impo rta nt writings fro m other pens. A special form of the hypothesis of an original written gospel is that set forth above in according to which the and often ambiguous Triple Tradition was written form, somewhat after the manner of a discussion on the Mishna or of a modern telegram, and was variously expanded and , supplemented by the several evangelists. T h e agreement of Mt. a n d Lk. against if th e two former were not acquainted with eac h other, leads to th e hypothesis th a t each of had before him a Mk. in one a n d th e sa m e form though different from that which w e now possess this was used both by Mt. a n d whilst the canonical Mk. diverges from it. T h e superior a g e of th e form of Mk. postulated by this hypothesis would gain in probability if th e canonical Mk. were found to be secondary to Mt. a n d Lk. (see e, for th e other view see 3, a n d , with t o it, wh a t is said in 126 a ) . Hawkins App. B) reck ons some instances of agreement of Mt. a n d against Mk. Ea ch individual case m a y b e unimp o rt a n t a n d might in other circumstances admit of th e exp la nation of his own proper motion chose th e alteration of the canonical text of Mk. a s Mt. h a d but their large number forbids such a n explanation here. AS for th e extent of th e original Mk. now conjectured, th e with which th e hypothesis can be m a d e t o work is increased if with Beyschlag we suppose it to h ave been nearly equ al t o th e canonical Mk. in particular, it then becomes difficult to understand why a new book differing so little fro m th e old should have been produced a t all. If, a g a in , th e original book is held ( s o Ho ltzm an n) to have been longer than th e canonical it becomes possible to assign to it a considerable number of pa ragrap hs (now preserved to us only in a n d Lk.) not so easily explained a s derived from and other sources If finally we of th e original Mk. (so Weizsacker) a s shorter, then th e additions of canonical Mk. th a t can be to a re merely th e verses (some thirty or so) peculiar to him, together with such individual expressions as have no parallels either in Mt. o r in

individual expressions a r e partly for t h e sake of 14 m o r e g ra p hi c description (17 bowing down, sh e b ra ke the cr u se see also a n d t h e like), partly they give greater precision b y giving n am e s (2 14 3 1 0 46 15 40 16 I ) o r n u mb e rs 637 cp on t h e whole of this h e a d Hawkins, We rn le , 45-47, They d o n o t give o n e the impression, however, of being interpolations of later d a t e t h a n th e rest of t h e work, a n d they c a n m o r e easily be supposed t o h av e been d rop p ed b y t h e writers who c a m e after Mk . as hardly interesting en o u g h (W ern le , or fitted t o ca u s e offence (so for example 6 4 Jesus had no honour a m o n g his o wn kin a n d in his own house, and that they even said, H e is beside himself, see 131). T h e entire verses, or narratives, on the o th er h an d , which are peculiar t o Mk. a r e m u ch too inconsiderable t o m a k e it likely th a t a new book should h av e been ju d g ed necessary for their incorporation here too their omission b y Mt. a n d Lk. ad m its of so m e or it is possible to find traces of them in Mt. a n d If th e original Mk. is conceived of as having b ee n materially shorter t h a n t h e canonical Mk ., the point a t which this comes into consideration is when t h e origin of the latter rather t h a n when th a t of Mt. a n d Lk . is being discussed, for we h av e no m e a n s of determining with precision t h e extent of t h e sup posed original Mk. Particularly unpromising of useful result m u st be a n y at tem p t (such as th a t m ad e , for example, Scholten) to construct a n original Mk. th a t shall be devoid of miracle. If Jesus d id an y th in g th a t seemed to m e n wonderful it would naturally b e reported a s in the fullest sense miraculous on t h e very d a y on which it occurred. In Acts t h e eye-witness - that h e w as an eye-witness is n o t doubted - relates th a t Eutychus was taken up d ea d , th o u g h h e also knows a n d tells us that P a u l had sa id the y o un g m an s life w as still in him. If L k . was acquainted with Mt., o r Mt. with Lk . , the n ee d for an Mk . which has been spoken of the preceding section seems to disappear ; in point of fact H olt zm a nn when he acouaintance with Mt. PT, 78, 78, 553) seemed fo r a time t o ab a n d o n t h e hypothesis of an original Mk. T h e hypothesis nevertheless continues t o b e re co m m e n de d b y a n u mb e r of secondary traits in canonical Mk. which d o not indeed, like those mentioned i n prove dependence of Mk. on Mt. or on Lk. b u t still render it inconceivable th a t the canonical Mk. could have been t h e work which served Mt. or Lk. a s a source. Of course there co m e into consideration h er e those places also in which Mt. and Lk. show n o agreement against Mk. To this category belong such additions as made with hands and made without hands (Mk. 14 Mt. 26 not Lk.), a s also the sense-disturbing parenthesis 9 Mt. 17 ; not in Lk ) And how is it written . set at nought? the remark, based on Roman Law (Mk. 10 after 19 Lk. omit), that the woman also can put away her husband, and (1 Mt. 3 3 Lk. 3 the quotation from Malachi wrongly to Isaiah. Conversely in 14 62 the henceforth (& which Mt. (26 64) has, is omitted. / 27a (children first) 9 I (some standing 13 (in those days after that tribulation, see 5 have been recast; and in 1462 I ani is an elucidation of the obscure thou sayest of Mt. 2664. In 4 the sayings about the lamp and about the hidden thing which must he brought to light are, by the introduction of in order that adapted to the object for which they are here intended,namely, t o say that if one to have found out

meaning of any parable he is not to keep his discovery a secret. but this application of the two sayings is certainly not original (see, 13 ) 4. In Mk. when the statement that Jesus appointed the twelve is repeated, the designation of Simon as the first apostle is omitted, only his surnamed Peter is mentioned. In the expression they which are accounted to rule instead of the simple rulers of Mt. 2025-is a mitigating reflection of the same kind as is frequently met with also in Lk. (the closest parallel in that which he he hath). Mk. 12 34 the statement that no man after that durst ask him any question is introduced at a quite inappropriate point (namely immediately after the commendation of the discreet scribe) is met with in its right place in Mt. 22 46 immediately after the discomfiture of the Pharisees by the telling answers of Jesus to their tempting questions. In Mk. 11 we find the father who is in heaven the only instance in Mk. of an expression which is in Cp also 9 3). (6) I t is op en to us, no d o ub t, t o try t o account fo r these secondary passages b y assuming that after the canonical Mk. h a d been used b y Mt. and it w a s altered b y copyists. hands do not, in The additions in Mk. 14 (made point of fact reappear in (railed a t him, saying); Mk. 9 (how it written, falls into place after 9 (Elijah is come and perhaps was originally a marginal note on this verse an early reader. 1 (quot. from Mal.) or even 1 from have often before now been to have been at later date-especially 1 since 3 comes from Isaiah while on the comes from Mal. 3 I and moreover coincides in spite of original Heh. and LXX, with Mt. 11 7 27 (5 4, n. I). Should we be prepared to go and agree to treat as the work of a later hand everything that could any possibility be so explained we should regard also the end of Mk. 12 (and many some, and in and the mention of the of in 332 (against 31, as having been introduced a n old reader (3 in anticipation of 35 whosoever shall etc.); so also (whereon man yet sat) and even 11 13 (for it was not the season of ; see And gospels 8 35 may also he an addition; the words the other hand, after for sake make it superfluous. prophesy in Mk. the words which and Lk. (2264) agree in giving, who is he that smote thee, may have dropped out 3, perhaps also know after given in Mk. 4 ; is both Henceforth Cp Hawkins (13 and in Lk. (E on the other hand, can have into 2664 from divergent oral tradition, the existence of which alongside of written sources must always be taken into especially when dealing with such important utterances of Jesus
( c ) On t h e o th er h an d , there are m a n y places to which this explanation (later alteration of canonical M k . ) does n o t ad m it of being applied. (children first) (some standing by), (in those days after that (lamp), (accounted to are much too well conceived to allow of our resolving them into marginal glosses; so also Mk. 330 (because they said) and the weakening the statement in as compared with Mt. 268 (that some but not the disciples, complained of waste of the That the cock crowed a t Peters of Jesus is stated not only in but also in vu. 68 7 2; and even if the statement must be traced to a misunderstanding (as in 5 14) the misunderstanding must be imputed to the author not to a who would hardly be so very careful as to insert his note in three separate places. We should not be justified in setting down Mk. (fire not quenched ; salted with fire ; salt is good) as a later addition simply because in this passage sayings are strung together without any connection with each other ; for the same phenomenon can he observed elsewhere in the gospels (d)I t avails little t o seek to find in Codex D a n d t h e allied an older text of Mk. as compared with which t h e present h a s been corrupted by tran scribers. In the first place, D rarely presents different readings in those places where and Lk. offera better text than canonical Mk. Moreover, when, for example, Mk. D has the to know the absence of which was noted above, this may be due quite as well to insertion from or Lk., or even to anticipation of the how shall ye know? of 4 In D there are manifold traces of a very independent mind. this reason we cannot be perfectly confident that Ds reading 16, was clothed in a camels skin is the original one, although the expression in Mk. is cult : John was clothed with camels hair. The camels skin may be a deliberate rectification of the text quite as as that adopted in 34, h e had his raiment of camels hair. For the same reason it would not he safe to lay stress on the fact that for Mk. D has only these words : Rut I say unto you, the Son of Man is Lord also of Sabbath or that Mk. 9 35 (if any man would he first) is (cp 5

. .


Mk. (stages of growth) finds its parallel in Mt. (tares) (see 5 Mk. (deaf and dumb) in Mt. 15 (multitudes Mk. (answereth and saith how hard) in Mt. 1924 (and again I say . , easier for camel) the amazed of Mt. 12 23 arises from the beside himself of Mk. (see 5 8 middle, and the touching of the eyes of the blind (Mt. 20 34 from Mk. 8 23 (spat on his eyes,

... .



( a ) From the statement of Papias given above in 65, Schleiermacher in 1832 first drew the inference
the apostle Matthew had made Aramaic a collection only of the sayings of Jesus. Whether this is what Papias really meant is questionable, for undoubtedly he was acquainted with the canonical Mt. and had every occasion to express himself with regard to this hook as well as with regard to If he was speaking of Mt., then he was as much in error as to its original language as he was as to its author (see this, however, is conceivable enough. That by his logia Papias intended the whole gospel of Mt., although this contains not discourses merely but narratives as well, is not by any means impossible (see 65, n. 3). In Greek, logia, it is true, means only things said the angel which spake Rom. 32 oracles, etc. ) but if Papias took fhe word as a translation of Heb. which he readily have done, on his assumption of a Semitic original-then for him it meant events in general. ( b ) The actual state of the case in Mt. and Lk., however, furnishes justification for the hypothesis to which scholars have been led by the words of Papias, even though perhaps only by a false interpretation of them. A great number, especially of the sayings of Jesus which are absent from Mk., are found in Mt. and Lk. in such a way that they must be assumed to have come from a common source. If these passages were found in absolute agreement in both gospels it would be possible to believe that Lk. had taken them Mt., or Mt. from Lk. ; but in addition to close general agreement the passages exhibit quite characteristic divergences. (c) I n point of fact the controverted question as to whether it is Mt. or Lk. who has preserved them in their more original form must be answered by saying that in many cases it is- the one, in many other cases the other.
Secondary in Lk for exam le are : 1 2 4 as against Mt. 10 (prayer for the Holy Spirit), Lk. against Mt. 2323 (the generalisation every herb or 1144 the misunderstanding that the are like because they not, and not because, as in Mt. 23 they are outwardly beautiful but inwardly noisome. I n Lk. Mt. 5 38-48 Lk. makes love of ones enemy the chief consideration and introduces it accordinglyat the beginning He betrays his dependence, however, by repeating it in 35 because in the parallel passage Mt. in source), it is met with in that position. Cp a . On the other hand in 1326 (we did eat and fits better with the in which Jesus lived Mt. (Lord ord we not prophesy?). I n Lk. the respect the person lit. accept the face )is retained, whilst in Mk. 12 22 16 the changed. On Lk. 8 6 (other fell on the rock) see end on a. I n the Lords Prayer the text of Mt. has is distinctly the more original on the other hand the clauses which are not found in Lk. may have been afterwards (see and the maxim in also

that in the parallel with Mk. not only the occasion but also the text is in agreement with and in the parallel with Lk. occasion and text are in agreement with Lk. Similarly, wherever there is a doublet, is found t o agree in the one case with Mk. and in the other with Mt. If it must be conceded that in many cases the agreement of text is not very manifest, this is easily accounted for by the consideration that the evangelist (Mt. or Lk.) in writing the text the second time would naturally recall the previous occasion on which it had been The passages, however, in which the observation made above holds good are many To account for them without the theory of two sources would, even apart from these special agreements, be extraordinarily difficult,-indeed possible only where an epigrammatic saying fits not only the place assigned to it in what is assumed to be the one and only source, but also the other situation into which the evangelist without following any source will have placed it.
I n some places indeed this would seem to be what we must suppose to have actually happened, as we are unable to point to two different sources. So self shall be abased) ; or the quotation from Hos. 66 (mercy not sacrifice) in (which, moreover is not very ap propriate in either case). It must be with intention that the preaching with which, according to Mk. (the time ; Jesus began his ministry is in already assigned to Baptist or the binding and loosing 136) to Peter. On the other hand, the answer I know you not which follows the invocation Lord, Lord in (many will say) and 25 (five virgins) is associated with a different narrative in the two cases and cannot therefore, properly, he regarded as an independent so also with the threatening with fire

LORDS PRAYER). A conclusion-the existence of a source used

in common by Mt. and Lk. but different from indicated by the doublets, that is to say the utterances which either Mt. or Lk., or both, give, in two separate

two sources.

But, in other cases, such a repetition of a saying, on the part of an evangelist, without authority for it in some source in each case, is all the more improbable because Lk. often, and frequently also Mt. (see, or the omission of Mk. 8 38 9 26 after Mt. 1626 on account of Mt. 1033). avoids introducing for the second time a saying previously given, even when the parallel has it, and thus a doublet might have been expected as in the cases adduced a t the beginning of this section. Were this not so, we should expect that Lk., before him ex hypothesi the same sources as Mt., would a doublet in every case, or nearly every case, As a matter of wherever Mt. had one and vice fact only three or sayings are doublets in Mt. as well as in Lk. ; on the other hand, although the derivation of a passage from the logia is not always free from doubt, we are entitled to reckon that Lk. has seven many. doublets peculiar to himself, and Mt. (6) W e are led to the same inference-that two sources were employed-by those passages common to the three Gospels in which Mt. and Lk. have in common certain little insertions not to be found in Mk. as, for example, Mt. as compared with Mk. or Mt. (baptize with as compared with Mk. at the close of which passage both even have in common the words and with fire Another very manifest transition from one source to another is seen in the parable of the mustard seed. This is given in the form of a narrative only in Lk. in Mk. on the other hand, in the form of a general statement. Now, Mt. has in
For example Lk. 11 33 (lamp under bushel) agrees much more closely with 8 16 (under bed) with its proper parallel in Mt. 5 1 5 ; but Lk. agrees just as closely with its proper parallel in Mk.421 as it does with Lk.1133. C p further, especially, Mk. 35 (save life, lose 9 24 from which the other two parallels, Mt. 17 33, are guised common only by the use of instead of (whosoever everyone Mt. or Mk. (last. or 11 : (faithas 17 6 or Mt. 21 Mt. 7 (ask) = Lk. 1 1 or Mk. 4 Lk. 12 (covered up or Lk.129 (denieth, 1624; Lk. 1427 (bear

( a ) In the majority of cases it can be observed that in Mt. the one doublet has a parallel in Mk. and the other in Lk. I n these cases it is almost invariably found
I n what follows, we use the word logia (because it has become conventional) in both senses (sayings alone, and sayings and narratives) throughout, even if the authors to we have occasion to refer, prefer another word. This is specially desirable when they simply say the source, we must allow for the possibility of several sources for the synoptic gospels. In Mk. there are only two passages that can be called (if any man would be first and (who. soever would become great on which see ; for 9 I there be some and (gospel first preached) can hardly be so classed. For doublets cp Hawkins 64.87, Wernle (in neither is the enumeration complete).

the one half narrative, in the other general statement. In short, the so-called theory of two sources,-that is of the employment by Mt. and Lk. of Mk. (or original Mk.) on the one hand, and of the logia on the ranks among those results of gospel criticism which have met with most general acceptance. If the original Mk. was more extensive than the canonical, possibly it contained things which, on another assumption, Mt. and Lk. might he supposed to have taken from the logia. In particular has this been asserted of the centurion of Capernaum (Mt. 85-13 Lk. of the detailed of the temptation (Mt. 41-13), and also of the Baptist's message (Mt. 1 2-19 Lk. 1 the logia being held to have been merely a of discourses. At present it is almost universally conceded that in any such collection the occasions of the discourses included must also have been stated in narrative form. This once granted, it is no longer possible to deny that, in certain circumstances, even narratives of some length may have been admitted, if only they led up to some definite utterance of Jesus. B. Weiss and, after him, Resch have even carried this thesis so far as to maintain that the logia formed a complete gospel with approximately as many narratives as discourses. A definite separation of the portions derived from the logia might be expected to result from linguistic investigation. B. Weiss has in point of fact sought with great care to determine the linguistic character of the logia hut his argument is exposed to an unavoidable source of error, namely this, that the vocabulary of the logia can be held to have been definitely determined only when we have already, conjecturally, assigned definite passages to this source. I n so far as this provisional assignment has been a t fault, the resultant vocabulary will also have to be modified. can never be accepted otherwise Such a than conditionally-for this reason, besides the reasons indicated above, that it would be necessary first to determine whether it is Mt. or Lk. that has preserved the logia most faithfully. The task, moreover, is rendered difficult, by the fact that Mt. and Lk. by no means adopt their sources without modification they alter freely and follow their own manner of speaking instead of that of their source, or allow themselves to be influenced by Mk. even in pieces borrowed from the logia and vice versa. It is specially interesting to notice that Titius, a disciple of B. Weiss, expressly acknowledges the unprovahleness of his master's hypothesis as a He calls it 'an equation with many unknown quantities. Nevertheless he thinks he can prove it 'quite irrefragably' if it he restricted to the discourses. This has theappearance of sounder method, for greater unanimity prevails as to the extent of the discourses which belonged to the logia (Wernle, 91 187). At the same time, even when this restriction has been made, the difficulties that hare been urged hold good, and all the more so since at the outset assigns too large an extent to the logia and also, what is more serious, in his verbal statistics makes a number of assumptions of a kind that are quite usual but also quite unjustifiable. It was therefore an exceedingly hold step when (amongst others) B. Weiss Wendt (Die First Part, Resch (Die and Blair Gospel, 1896) printed the logia, or a source similar to them Hawkins came to the conclusion that linguistic methods no trustworthy separation of the logiaportions could he made. See further The divergences between Mt. and Lk. in the common to the two but not shared bv Mk. (I beSpecial comes a) are often so great that ithave a question whether both been drawing. from one and the same source. If it be assumed that they were, then one or other of them, or both, must have treated the source with a drastic freedom that does not accord well with the verbal fidelity to their source elsewhere shown by them It is the Ebionitic passages, chiefly, that

come into consideration ,here. According to Lk. derived them from some source. Now, this source must have had many in common with the logia pre-eminently, the beatitudes, as also Lk. (lend, hoping for nothing again); 11 41 ('give for alms') ('sell and give alms'). In it has further been shown to he probable that it was not Lk. himself who was enamoured of Ebionitic ideas. All the more must they already have found place in the edition of the logia which he had before him. ( b ) The hypothesis of a special source for Lk. must not, however, be stretched to the extent of assuming that everything Lk. has from the logia had come to him only in Ebionitic form. Much of his logia material is free from all Ebionitic tendency, yet it is not likely that the Ebionitic editor who often imported his ideas into the text so strongly would have left other passages wholly untouched. Slight traces of an Ebionitic perhaps can be detected in Lk. whosoever renounceth not all'), (bring in the poor) (cp 13 bid the poor), 6 36 ( merciful, 18 ( sell all,' 19 8 (half of my goods). But that Lk. had access to, and made use of, the unrevised logia also can hardly be denied. (c) All the more pressingly are we confronted with the question whether Ebionitic source of Lk. con tained also those passages which are peculiar to Lk. This is at once probable as regards the parables in fact, for the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, a t least its Ebionitic shape without the appendix vv. 27-31 see it is possible to conjecture an original form of a purely ethical nature which characterised the Rich Man as godless and Lazarus as pious, and thus a place (along with the beatitudes) the logia, and may have come from the mouth of Jesus. On the other hand, such pieces as the parable of the Prodigal Son of the Pharisee and the Publican of on account of their the unprofitable servants wholly different theological complexion, cannot possibly be attributed to the same Ebionitic source. For this reason alone, if for no other, it becomes impossible to suppose that Lk. had a special source for his account of the journey of Jesus through Samaria (9 14) this narrative, too, has some things in common with led to the conMk., others with Mt. W e are clusion, so far as Lk. is concerned, that he had various other sources besides Mk. (or original conclusion that is, moreover, in with his own preface. Short Narratives. -Going much beyond the results embodied in the foregoing section Schleiermacher, as early as 1817, assumed a series of quite short notes on detailed events which, founding (incorrectly) on Lk. 1I n. he called 'narratives' On the analogy of OT s i n this might be called the fragment-hypothesis.' That present gospels should. have been directly compiled from such fragmentary sources, as Schleiermacher supposed, is not conceivable, when the degree in which they coincide in matter and arrangement is considered 116 a). As subsidiary sources, however, or as steps in the transition fi-om merely oral tradition to consecutive written narrative, The two forms in which these are found admit of explanation most easily if we assume that ' in spirit' ; Mt. 5 3) and 'righteousness Mt. 56) were originally absent. The Ebionitic source-and, with it, in this case preserved the tenor of the words with the greater fidelity hut Mt., his insertions, has better preserved the religious and ethical meaning in which unquestionably Jesus spoke the words -perhaps also by the addition of unambiguously moral utterances such as (pure in heart, peacemakers) which with equal certainty can be attributed to Jesus, and 7 (mourn merciful). Both these are wanting in Lk., although they capable of used in an Ebionitic sense if he had chosen to take meek in the sense of Ps. 37 and ' merciful in that of Lk. 1141. [Cp


. -


the possibility of such brief notes can by no means be disregarded (see d ) . Still, t show that they exo isted is by no means easy. (6) The '-Nevertheless, the belief is continually gaining ground that into Mt. 24, into Mk. 13, and (only with greater alterations) into Lk. 21 a work often called the 'Little Apocalypse' has been introduced. The evidence of this is found the first instance in the want of connection.
'These things' in Mt. 2433 21 coming as the phrase does after 71.31, refer to the end of the world; yet originally it must have the pre monitory signs of the approaching end, for it is said that when the beholders see 'these things,' then they are to know that 'nigh. Lk. 21 29-31) is not in its proper place here. On the other hand comes appropriately enough after Mt. Mt. Mk. 13 speaking as does of a tribulation,' does not come in well after the discourse about false Messiahs and false prophets in Mt. parallel to which in Lk. is actually found another chapter 23 would be appropriate after Mt. 24 13 where the connection is excellent. 21 occurs also in Mt. in a form which, a s suiting 'in their synagogues they will Jewish circumstances better (10 scourge must be regarded a s the more original ; it is to be regarded a s of place in chap. 24. On the other hand, abomination of desolation,' Mt. comes fittingly after 7171. As for 71. 5 it belongs, so far a s itssubstance a t least concerned, to the passage, 23-28, which we have already seen isoutofplacehere. not fit well with 15 Mk. 13 14) where only a desecration, not a destruction, of the temple is thought of (otherwise in Lk. 21 20- 'when y e shall see Jerusalem compassed'-on which see Regarded a s a unity, accordingly, the passage would consist of Mt. 15-22 14-20 As adiscourse of Jesus it is prefaced by v. 21 introduction which anticipates v. go-and if you will h y v . and is brought to a close in 35 ( = Mk. 21 33).

older than the Christian must be regarded as irrefragable. The Problem is so complicated that few students, if any, will now be found who believe a solution possible by means of any one of the hypotheses described above without other aids. The need for combining several of them is felt more and more. Most frequently, we find the borrowing-hypothesis combined with the sources-hypothesis in one form or another, and, over and above, an oral tradition prior to all written sources assumed. Instead of attempted detailed accounts, we subjoin graphic representations of some combinations which are not too complicated and which bring into characteristic prominence the variety that exists among the leading hypotheses. ( a ) Hilgenfeld combines with the thesis the further assumption of a original gospel in two successive stages, Hebrew and Greek (so also Holsten, only with omission of the first stage), (6) The simplest form of the hypothesis was argued for by Weisse in 1838 in \ 1856, however, heassumed an original Mk.along with

original Mk. alongside of the logia was postulated as a source in simple form by Holtzmann down to The borrowing-hypothesis in its purest state-the theory, namely, that one canonical gospel had been used in the preparation Of the Z. Weisse was thus


In contents, however, the passage is quite alien from Jesus' teaching as recorded elsewhere, whilst on the hand it closely related to other apocalypses. It will, accordingly, not be unsafe to assume that an apocalypse which originally had a separate existence has here been put into the mouth of Jesus and mixed up with utterances that actually came from him. The most appropriate occasion for a prophecy concerning a n abomination about to be set up in the temple (24 would be the expressed intention of the emperor in 40 threw the whole Jewish into the greatest excitement-to cause a statue of himself to be erected The origin of this apocalypse will best be placed somewhere between this date and'the destruction of Jerusalem, which is not yet presupposed in Mt. 24 Whether it was composed by a Jew or by a Christian is an unimportant question (see, however, (c) other minor sources that have been conjectured mention may here be made of the so-called anonymous gospel found by Scholten in 19-22 .other words, in the main, the passages mentioned at the beginning of of the book which is held to be cited by Lk. under the title of 'Wisdom'
( d )Buddhistic ( 1882; '84; '97) has not actually attempted to draw up a gospel derived from Buddhistic material but the parallels he has adduced from the life of Buddha are in many places very striking, at least so far as the story of the childhood of Jesus is and his proof that the Buddhistic sources are

c (a). Holtzmann (before 1878).

As a more complicated form we single out that of (as described by Feine, '85, p. Inaddition to Holtzmann's scheme he assumed a borrowing from canonical Mk. by and also an Ebionitic redaction of the logia 123). (d) Weiss reverts almost to the hypothesis of an original gospel. He postulates for the logia (which he therefore prefers to call the

Lh e. Simons.

ratives as discourses 126 c). ( e ) Simons essentially simplified the theory of two sources by(what

all the hypotheses hitherto enumerated had avoided doing) a borrowing by Lk. from Mt. Holtzmann from 1878 Lh combined this last with the Holtzmann (1878). hypothesis of an original Mk. a). (g) The latest form of the two-source-theory is ihat propounded by Wernle. Whether Mt. and Lk. severally
Only the parable of the Wicked Servant (Mt. and, indirectly, the narrative of the end of the betrayer (Mt. 27 3-10) are affected the resemblance to the story of Ahikar; cp J. Harris The 'Did commit see

59; See ISR AEL


To the (Mt. 1IS), the annunciation to Mary the star (2 the gifts (2 (Lk. the incident a t twelve years of age (Lk. 2 must be added also the presentation in the temple; and here it is worthy of remark that such a presentation was not actually required either by the passage (Ex. 13 cited in Lk. (2 22-24) or yet by the passages Nu. 3 46 18 Ex.22

I. end, p.




used one or more subsidiary sources he leaves an open question. With regard to the logia he assumes that before they were used by Mt. and Lk. they had undergone additions, transpositions, and alterations-yet not to too great an extent-at the hands of a transcriber or possessor. The copy which Mt. used had been that used worked over in a Judaistic spirit by Lk. was somewhat shorter. Mk. was acquainted with the logia, but did not use them; he merely took them for granted as already known and on that account introduced all the fewer discourses (against this see

also Mk. made use of the logia over and above, drew upon the oral communications of Peter and was again in his turn used by Mt. and Lk. This hypothesis has the advantage of accounting for the secondary passages of Mk. as due to a more faithful reproduction of the logia by Mt. and and the fresher colours of Mk. as due to the reminiscences of Peter. It still remains surprising, doubtless, that Mt. and Lk. should have omitted so many of these vivid touches if they lay before them in Mk. The supposition that they did not regard Mk. as of equal importance with the logia is not in itself inherently impossible; but it does not carry us far, for they elsewhere take a great deal from Mk. Still more remarkable is it that Mk. should have omitted so much from the logia. The suggested explanation that in writing down the reminiscences of Peter he regarded the logia as only of secondary value is, in view of the number of passages which according to Weiss he took from them, still more improbable almost than that already mentioned. As regards the coincidences between Mt. and Lk. against Mk., a very simple explanation seems to be found for them in the hypothesis of Weiss, that Mt. and Lk. drew upon the logia with greater fidelity however, can of course be than Mk. did. claimed by Weiss only for those sections which he actually derives from the logia. Yet for one portion of the sections in which such coincidences occur (see above, 6 ) he finds himself compelled by his principles to regard not the logia, as the source of Mt. and Lk. In this way, of the 240 coincidences enumerated by Hawkins, some inconsiderable number-remain unaccounted for. Nor can we overlook the ability that the logia, as conceived of by Weiss, should have contained, as he himself confesses, no account of the passion. In so as the various hvuotheses referred to in the preceding section are found to be insufficient, in the same degree are we compelled to admit that Llc. must have been acquainted with Mt. (or

g Wernle. .

148). Our present Mk. is different from that used by Mt. and Lk. but only by corruption of the text, not by editing. It is the agreement between Mt. and Lk. as compared with Mk. that tries any hypothesis most severely, and it is with reference to this point that all the most important modifications in the various theories have been made. W e proceed to test the leading hypotheses by its on the presupposition that neither Mt. was acquainted with nor Lk. with Mt. (a)The hypothesis of an original Mk. is in a general very well fitted to explain the agreement in question in so far as canonical Mk. is secondary to Mt. and Lk. if, on the other hand, our Mk. has elements of originality, as we have seen to be the case with of his exact details, then one will feel inclined, in accordance with 3, to suppose that it was a younger copy of Mk. that Mt. and Lk. had access to. In actual fact, however, sometimes the one condition holds good, sometimes the other. It is in this textual question, over above the question already 118) spoken of as to its extent, that the difficulty of the original-Mk. -hypothesis in its present form lies. If certain passages which are found in Mk. occurred also in the logia, then Mt. and Lk. may have derived their representation, in so far as it differs from Mk., from the logia, provided that the logia was unknown to Mk. That there were passages common to Mk. (an original Mk. is not required when we approach the question as we do here) and the logia is at least shown by the doublets, and is by no means excluded even where there are no doublets (see 6 and One, however, can hardly help thinkWernle, ing that the great degree of verbal coincidence which nevertheless is seen between Mk. on the one hand and Mt. and Lk. on the other comes from oral tradition. Thus a very high degree of confidence in the fixity of the oral narrative type 115) is required, and this marks one of the extreme limits to which such hypotheses can be carried without losing themselves in what wholly eludes investigation. But, moreover, the logia must be conceived of as a complete gospel if we are to suppose that it contained all the sections in which Mt. and Lk. are in agreement against Mk. Hawkins (pp. reckons that out of 58 sections which almost in their whole extent are common to the three evangelists there are only 7 where Mt. and Lk. are not in agreement against Mk., and in of the remaining 51 he finds agreements which are particularly marked and by no possibility admit of explanation as being due to chance. (c) According to B. Weiss not only Mt. and Lk. but

(a) Each of the two assumptions- partly without any thorough investigation and partly under the influence of a tendency criticism-long found support but the Ai. c) has at present few to uphold it. T h e second other has for the first time been taken up in a thoroughgoing manner with use of literary critical methods by Simons ($125e).
We begin with arguments of minor weight. (a) Out of the selection of specially strong evidences in support of it given in Hawkins we have already (# ointed out that 13 11 Lk. 8 IO (as against Mk. 4 and t. 2668 Lk. 2264 (as against Mk. 1465) admit of another planation. Similarly, the Bethphage and Bethany of Lk. may be sufficiently explained by assuming that originally only the first word stood the text (as in Mt. 21 I ) or only the second (as in Mk. 1 I), and that it was a copyist who, of 1 own proper motion, introduced the name he found lacking. Possibly we ought to trace to the source of Mt., rather than to the canonical Mt., such material divergences as we in Mt. 21 17 Lk. 21 37 (that Jesus the night outside of Jerusalem a statement not found in Mk. 1 1 ; in Mt. 21 23 Lk. 20 I Jesus taught in the temple, as against Mk. 1 27 he was walking 1 in the temple); in Mt. 2650 Lk. 2248 (that Jesus spoke to the betrayer in the garden-a statement not found in Mk. 1445); in 288 Lk. (that the women reported to the disciples the angelsmessage, whereas according to Mk. 168 they said nothing to any one ; on this last point however, see e). Similarly, the representation, the of which has already been referred to in which the Baptist is made to address the penitent crowds flocking to his baptism as a generation of vipers) is either due to an infelicitous juxtaposition of Mt. 3 5 (where it is said that the multitudes went out to him) and Mt. 3 (where the words in question are addressed to the Pharisees and Sad ducees); or it may be due to use of source. Lk. appears to be dependent at once on Mk. and on Mt. (or source) when in 4 2-13 he represents the temptation in the wilderness during the forty days (as in Mk. and also as happening after their expiry (as in Mt. 42-11). Greater importance belongs to the verbal agreements. In Lk.537 spilled is used of the wine perish only of the bottles; in Mk. 222 perish


is used of both. I n 9 Lk. 8 44 the woman touches the hem of the garment of Jesus in Mk. 5 27 simply the garment. I n Mt. I Lk. 9 7 Herod is correctly called tetrarch, in Mk. 614 and also inexactly king Mt. 19 29 Lk. 18 30 have Mk. 10 30 a hundredfold In Mt. 26 75 Lk. 22 it is said of Peter he went out and wept in he began to weep In Lk. 2353 it is said of Joseph of he wrapped it in a linen cloth . . and laid . Mk. 46 wound him in a linen cloth and laid Mt. 28 I Lk. 23 54 have, as against Mk. it began to dawn indeed, in a different connection. In Mt. 28 3 Lk. 244, Mk. 16 5 , the countenanceof the angel, or the apparel of the two

This is in very deed quite conceivable, if only he knew the logia, and was in a position to observe how freely Mt. had dealt with that material. (c) Soltau sought to improve the hypothesis of dependence on Mt. by the assumption that it was with the penultimate form of Mt. that Lk. was acquainted. was still absent from Mt. when Lk. used That Mt. it is an old conjecture. The pieces from the middle cf the gospel which Soltau reserves for the canonical Mt. are of very opposite character (to it he reckons the highly legalistic saying in and the strongly Judaistic one in and are attributed by him lo very various motives. This indicates a great in his hypothesis. Nevertheless the suggestion is always worth considering that O T citations of the latest hand which are adduced to prove the Messiahship of Jesus and perhaps some other portions besides, did not yet lie before Lk. That there is reason to shrink from a hypothesis of this kind, see Let us now proceed to consider whether the possible origin from still earlier written sources of those consecutive books which were the last to precede our present gospels can raised above the level of mere conjecture. This of course can be done, if at all, only at a few points. T o show that it has not been affirmed, even though no very thoroughgoing consequences were drawn from the affirmation, we shall begin by giving three examples well known in the literature of the subject.
so made use of, another revision, which we have in our Mk. and
(a) Johannes Weiss (on Lk. 5 17,in Meyers says that the exemplar of Mk. used by Lk. underwent, after it had been

.. ...

A material divergence from Mk., but at the same time an approach to coincidence of expression is seen in Lk. where the answer of Jesus to the high given in this form : Ye say that I am. T he first two words are a paraphrase of the thou said of Mt. 26 64 ; the remainder of the sentence is a repetition of the paraphrase in Mk. For another material divergence from Mk. see Lk. 1 17 = 1 12 25 as against Mk. 323 (Jesus knowing the thoughts of his enemies). ) Specially important are cases which a casual expression of is laid hold of. for example, in Lk. 9 34 while he said these things as compared with 17 (while be was yet speaking), and as against Mk.97. Similarly Lk. (4 16-30) was able to find a justification for his erroneous that Jesus had come forward in the synagogue a t Nazareth at the very of his activity (cp 39, in Mt. 4 where it is said that Jesus before coming to Capernaum left Nazareth (in Lk. he comes to Capernaum from Nazareth). The scribes question as to the greatest of the commandments is described not by Mk. (12 but only by Mt. (22 35) as having been asked for the purpose of tempting Jesus. According to Lk. 10 25 the questioner asks what he must do to inherit eternal life. Nevertheless he too is represented as having sought to tempt Jesus. Lk. 16 would be specially convincing on the present point if here a sentence had been taken over from the latest hand of Mt. (5 But the original text of Lk. probably said the opposite (see On the other hand, we really have a sentence by the latest hand in Mt. with which Lk. 7 I betrays connection, for with the formula When Jesus had ended all these words, Mt. concludes his not only here, hut also in four other places (11 I 13 53 I 26 I). Moreover, Lk. also shares with the statement that the multitude heard the preceding discourse, though this is contradicted by the introduction to it in Lk. 6 as well as in Mt. Mk. says in 1218 correctly There came unto him Sad ducees, who well known] say that there is no resurrection Mt. 22 23 infelicitously reproduces this as there came unto him Sadducees saying that etc. Lk. 2027 seeks to improve this: There came to him of the Sadducees, they which say that there is no resurrection, and they asked him, saying. ought to have been in the genitive In the nom. we seem to have an echo of Lk. rightly inserts the article missing in Mt. reference, however, must he to the Sadducees, not to certain T he formula, while he was saying these things (see above, Lk. 9 is met with also in Lk. 11 37, where Jacohsen would derive it from Mt. 12 46 as also he would derive the state ment in Lk. 12 ,When the myriads of the multitude gathered together insomuch that they trode one upon another (which indeed does not fit well with immediately follows : he began to say to his disciples) from Mt. considers that when he wrote these passages Lk. had reached, in taking what he has taken from Mt., exactly the neighbourhood of the two Mt. passages just cited (1246 13 This, however, cannot he made evident.

(6) On general grounds, on the other hand, the dependence of Lk. on Mt. (and, equally so, the converse) is very improbable. In each of the two evangelists much material is absent which the other has, while yet no possible reason can be assigned for the omission. Nay, more, the representations given in the two are often in violent contradiction. Even agreements in the order, in so far as not coming from almost always can be accounted for as derived from a second source- the logia. Simons has, therefore, in agreement with Holtzmann, put forward his hypothesis only in the form that Lk. regarded Mt. as a subsidiary source merely, perhaps, in fact, only knew it by frequent hearing, without giving to it any commanding import-

that had been previously made use of by Mt. before into the hands of Lk. H ere and in the following paragraphs let A, B, and C he necessarily different hands, and Aa, Ac, on the other hand, be such portions as may perhaps he due to one and the same hand but perhaps also from different hands ; similarly also with Ba, Bc, etc. tben view of Weiss can be stated as follows. A is a written source on the healing of the paralytic without mention of the circumstance that he was let down through the roof. This source was drawn upon, on the one hand by Mt., on the other by B who introduced the new circumstance just mentioned. was drawn upon on the one hand by Lk on the other by Mk. It is in this way at the same Weiss explains also how Mt. and Lk. coincide in many details as against Mk. B thus takes the position which original Mk. has in the usual nomenclature not however-and this is the important point-being the oldbst writing, but being itself in turn dependent on a source. For our own part we cannot regard this view as being sufficiently firmly since it has been shown in that is Mt. who has greatly curtailed the narrative of death of Herod ; it is therefore conceivable also that in the passage before he should have left out the detail about the roof also his interest being merely miracle itself as proving the Messiahship of Jesus, not in any special detail of it such as this Hawkins and also Wernle, for similar passages). (6) 86-88, assumes for the narrative of the Mission of the disciples two sources -one (which we shall call A) relating to that of the twelve the bther (B) to that of the Mk. 67-11 and only from A. A and B were both drawn upon by a third document (C) which was used in Lk. 10 as the sole source, hut in Mt. 10 1-16 along with A. I t will create no difficulties if we recognise in A an original Mk. (according to Woods the tradition ), in B logia. Whilst. critics as Bernard Weiss and Holtzmann 10 were drawn direct from the logia (as Lk. 9 was from Mk., or original Mk.), Woods has found it necessary to interpolate an intermediate stage (C ) in which both these were already fused. One might even feel inclined to go a step further. Lk. in 107 would certainly not have given the injunction to eat such things as are set before you, first in speaking of a house, and then in speaking of a city, unless the one form had come from one source, the other from another. I t happens, however, that neither of the two found either in Mk. or in Lk. 9. Lk. therefore apart from the Mk. source (A), which is made use df, for in 10 I two and two), would seem to have had two other sources. In any case Woods observation in correct that Mt. has fused together all the sources that can be in Mk. or in Lk. Whilst passing over the rest of Lk. introduces the city into 10 11 at the place where Mk. 6 The main point is not affected if it be assumed that B also dealt the mission of the twelve, and that the seventy were first introduced by Lk. a).


a n d Lk. 9 4 speak of the house ; the house he introduces into 10 in the parallel to Lk. 10 5 which is absent from Mk. and Lk. 9. In 10 Mt. has silver with Lk. 3 and also as (with Mk. G 8). Similarly, with Mk. and Lk. he has twelve in 10 I , though he had not hitherto given the number of the twelve and has to enumerate them for the first time in T he injunction laid on the missionaries in 10 9 to acquire no money is to he explained from 108 as meaning that they are forbidden to take a n y reward for their or healing on their journey (freely ye have received, freely give ), whereas 10 (no we are to interpret it as a the way, on against taking anything with them when they set
(c) Loman ( Th. 69, traces back to one original parable those of the Tares in the Wheat Mt. and of the Seed growing secretly in Mk. However different they may he apparently, he urges, and however possible it might he to show that even such in which they agree a s fruit corn, man spring belon ed to two quite distinct parables, a common original form is by the word sleep Mk. would never have introduced any touch so self-evident a s that of the man sleeping and rising night and day had there not lain before him something in which the sleep was spoken of. By the addition that the man awoke again daily the original meaning of the sleep is obscured. If the two parables cannot he supposed to be of independent origin, it is a t the same time only with great violence that we could derive from Mt. or from Mk. lacks the quality of a trne original in so far a s it is not a n incident of ordinary life that any one should sow tares in anothers a n d the other parables of Jesus are conspicuously taken from affairs of every day. lacks the character of a n original in so far as its fundamental idea-that the kingdom of God comes to its realization without the intervention of God or of the Messiah (in other words, the precept of quite a modern one, directly inconsistent with the conceptions of Jesus a s disclosed elsewhere in the gospels. Loman therefore supposes that Mt. 13 24 26 alone stood in a source A : after the seed had been sown, the tares grew up with i t and the servants asked their master whence these came. T h e he takes from Mk. 4 hut in the form : the earth brings forth the tares of itself, With this the parable ended. T hat such a saying would be eminently in the mouth of Jesus he proves very aptly by Mt. 15 19 (out of the heart proceed evil thoughts). An anti-Pauline form of the parable, however B a took Paul a s the sower of the false to he denoted by the tares. I t doctrine which therefore introduced Mt. 13 25 saying that the enemy (on this designation for Paul see had the tares, it also, for the conclusion of the parable in A, substituted Mt. 13 masters answer that the tares were sown by the enemy. then added Mt. 13 that nevertheless no attempt should be to the false doctrine of that it should be left to the Final Judgment. The polemic against here is thus milder than that o Paul against his Judaistic adversaries in Cor. 1 1315 ; f 1 1 5 Canonical Mk., further, was acquainted with A and Ba. I n order to avoid the anti-Pauline meaning he left out the whole of the enemy and of consequently also the tares. H e had therefore to take the answer of the master from A, not however of course in the form that the tares sprang up of themselves, hut in the form that i t was the good seed that did so. This last very modern idea accordingly did not find expression here out of the independent conviction of an ancient author hut arose from the difficulty in which Mk. found himself. The sleep of the master lost its original when the daily waking was added. From 42 it is clear that Mk. had also B6 hefore him, for he speaks the harvest. Canonical Mt. expressly says the interpretation of the parable attributed to Jesus (13 39) that the enemy is the devil. Either, therefore, h e no longer perceives the anti-Pauline tendency of or like Mk. he deliberately seeks to avoid it, though he takes a different way to do so. There remains a possibility that he may have understood the Pauline doctrine to he meant by the false teaching introduced by the devil ; but it is equally possible that he was thinking of form of heresy. This hypothesis of Loman combines with a literary criticism which has far its object the elucidation of the mutual relations of the various texts, also a tendency-criticism which postulates a n anti -Pauline tendency in Ba. Even should one he unable to adopt the latter criticism, it is not necessary on that account to reject the former ; it is open to any one to suppose that the enemy may have been a t the outset some form (as already indicated) of heresy.

very little is unrighteous also in much. And yet in 1 6 8 he is called t he unrighteous steward. In 16 we read further If ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon and so forth. By the very little which one is to show fidelity we must accordingly understand Mammon. Where then are we to look for the stewards fidelity as regards Mammon? According to the parable, in this-that he gave it away. Unfaithfulness accordingly would manifest itself if one were to keep Mammon to oneself. The steward, however, did not keep Mammon to himself and yet was called unrighteous (which of course is not to be distinguished from unfaithful). W e see accordingly that the terminology in 16 is in direct opposition to that of the parable itself. Further, the contrast in the parable is not in the least between fidelity and its opposite. What the steward is commended for is his cleverness the opposite to this would be want of cleverness. Thus are an appendix to the parable by another hand. Taken by their meaning would be simply an exhortation to fidelity in money matters. Here, however, they are brought into connection with the parable of the steward, whose relation to Mammon is represented as one of fidelity. Their fundamental idea accordingly is just as exactly Ebionitic as that of the parable itself. Thus two Ebionitic hands can be distinguished, and distinct from both is that of Lk. himself who has added yet another transformation of the where he declares the parable to have been directed against the Pharisees and their covetousness. (e ) According to we may ta le it that the final redaction of Mt. was made in a sense that was friendly to the Gentiles thus attached no value to compliance with the precepts of the Mosaic law. Unless then Mt. 5 be a marginal gloss (see it must have been introduced not b y the last, but by the pennltimate hand, and its context comes from a source of an antepenultimate hand.
5 18 itself rests upon, Mt. or the source in which this originally stood. The close of 5 18 till all things he accomplished does not amalgamate with the beginning of the verse heaven earth pass away [onejot or one tittle shall in pass away]. Moreover, is difficult to see why the law should cease to have validity the moment it is fulfilled its entirety. But the closing sentence in 2434 is perfectly intelligible : shall not pass away till all these things he accomplished. All these thingsmeans here the premonitory signs of the 24 35 proceeds :Heaven earth shall pass away; hut my words shall not pass away. Marcion has the same thought in his redaction of Lk. 16 17 : I t is easier that heaven and earth pass away than that one tittle should fall from my words. For this, canonical Lk. has than for one tittle of the law to fall. But this can hardly have been what Lk. intended to say, for this verse stands between two verses which accentuate the greatest possible emphasis the abolition of the law. T h e conjecture of therefore is very attractive-that Lk. wrote than for one tittle of my law to fall Here on account of his antipathy to the idea of law, Marcion subdtituted (hut without altering the sense) words for law But a very old transcriber of Lk. took the word my for a wrong repetition of the second syllable of he therefore omitted it and thereby changed the meaning of the sentence to its opposite. This meaning is reproduced in Mt. 5

To the three examples given above we purpose to add a few others which, so far as we are aware, have not been previously employed in this connection. In Lk. the Unjust Steward is commended. H e accordingly must be in the commendatory clause (v. which follows- H e that is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much-not in the words of censure 106) he that is unrighteous in a

One sees how many the intermediate steps must have been before these two verses have received their present form. Still, as already said, 5 may possibly be a marginal gloss. In Mk. and parallels 18 1-6 very diverse things are brought into combination. First, the account of the disciples disputing with one another to precedence then the story of Jesus little child in their midst with the exhortation to receive in his next, the exhortation not to forbid other miracle-workers ; further, the promise that even a cup of water given to a follower of Christ shall by no means lose its reward; and lastly the threatening against those who cause any of the little ones that believe in Christ to stumble.

The dispute ahout precedence is answered according to Mk. (v. 35) by the saying of Jesus If man would be first, he shall be last of all and all. This is not found in Lk. (22 26) where it occurs as a parallel to Mk. except in the in thesameparallel Mt. has it again, only in a quite different place (23 and yet neither nor Lk. would have omitted it the parallel to our present passage Mk. 9 35, had they found it there. For to the matter, whilst the mention indeed it is very of the child no means serves to settle the dispute, for the child is not brought forward as an example of humility hut as a person to he received, and not for the sake of his as a child but for the sake of the Name of Christ. Mt. felt this want of connection and in order to represent the child as an example he says v. that the disciples did not discuss the question among themselves hut referred it to Jesus who by the little child in their midst. Between this act and the exhortation based upon it he inserts further his third verse, Except ye be converted and become little children ye shall in no wise enter the kingdom of heaven. This he borrows from Mk. 10 15, as is made unmistakably clear by the fact that in the parallel to this passage, viz., in Mt. 19 13-15, he omits it, so as to avoid a 183 is also in substance a very fitting settlement of the dispute between the disciples, and would not have passed over by Lk. had it lain before him. The exhortation to receive such a child is in Mt. 185 in the same degree inappropriate to the context. Mt. therefore interpolates between the two distinct thoughts his fourth verse : Whosoever shall humble himself like this child, the same shall he greatest in the kingdom of heaven. But even this insertion does not fill the hiatus between and 5. The exhortation in Mt. 185 to receive the little child is the But whoso shall immediately followed (v. 6) cause one of these little ones to stumble. This fits well enough on the assumption that children are intended by the little In Mk. and Lk., however, the two thoughts are separated very unnaturally by the account of the miracle-worker who followeth not with us, and in Mk., too by the promise of a reward for the cup of cold water-a promise which Mt . (1042) gives in a quite different connection, and there, moreover, using the expression these little ones, whom, however, he stands (differently from grown - up persons of low estate. T o this promise there is appended in Mk. 942 the threatening against him who shall cause one of these little ones to stumble, quite fittihgly-only, however, the assumption that these little ones we are to understand grown-up people of low estate, children, as in

surely also : see last footnote). Mt. then, as above, changed the introduction in v. I , and added his own 3 , so as to bring into mutual connection the dispute about precedence and the precept about receiving the child. 6, through its direct contiguity with v. (instead of with 1042 which here ought to have been repeated as parallel to Mk. underwent a change of meaning, to the effect that children, not grown - up persons, were meant. L k . rests on A + C. He added he that is least among you all, the same is great. This does not, indeed, come in appropriately after the precept about receiving a child it would have found a with greater fitness before this precept and after the statement of the disciples dispute, in other words between and v. a t the very point where Mk. v. 35 introduces the same thought. Mk. rests upon He adds on the one hand his which Lk. would certainly not have passed over had he known it, and on the other hand his 35, containing so excellent a settlement of the dispute. Neither Mt. nor Lk. was acquainted with the verse or (as already said) they would not have omitted it or introduced something like it at a later place, as in Lk. It is certainly worthy of notice that M k . , by the insertion of 35, has produced the only doublet which he has 121 a , n. I ). The circumstance that Jesus calls the disciples to him in 35 whilst in he has already been questioning them, points also to the conclusion that the passage is composed from various pieces. The successive contents of Mk. 4 1-34 and parallels Lk. 84- 18) cannot possibly have been set (Mt. down in any one gospel in their present order a t one writing. Let us examine them. After the parable of the Sower, Jesus is alone with his disciples (Mk. Mt. 89) so also when he explains the parable 13 Lk. 8 11-15). Nor is any hint given of his again addressing himself to the that he spoke openly people yet we read in to the people parables (so also Mt. .and that he gave his explanations to the disciples in private. There is ground, therefore, for supposing that in one source, A, there stood an uninterrupted series of parables, all those which have parallels in Mt. (Mk. 26-29 30-32- an older form as regards 26-29 see in Bn, on the above, also the conclusion 33$ strength of the concluding statement that when they were alone Jesus expounded all things to his disciples, introduced Mk. 4 14-20 Bb the 21-25 to the effect that one ought not to keep hack knowledge once gained of the meaning of a parable, but ought to spread it freely. C introduced These verses to the effect that the parables were interded to conceal the meaning they contained from the people and to 21- 25, are in contradiction alike to v. and are, moreover, impossible in the mouth of Jesus. What pleasure could he have had in his teaching if he had to believe his God-given task to be that of hiding from the people the truths of salvation? It is, therefore, utterly futile to make out forced connection between Mk. and Mk. 4 $ , by interpreting to the effect that Jesus, when asked as to the meaning of the parables, in the first place, said, by way of introduction to his answer, that to the disciples it was given to apprehend the meaning, and then went on to tell them what it was. Moreover, Mk. 413 does not fit in with this connection. The verse is clearly a question in which Jesus expresses his astonishment a t the small understanding of the disciples : How? you
In 4 I O the disciples ask concerning the parables. T h e plural carries us back to what is said in Mk. 42 that Jesus spoke several. The therefore, can very well he that which Lk. 9) expresses more clearly though with reference to one parable only: they asked about the of these parables. Were it the intention of Mk. to say like Mt. (13 that they asked about the of the parables then we must suppose that only Lk. rightly preserved thought of the source

Let us now endeavour to trace, genetically, the origin and growth of this remarkably complicated passage. In a source A were combined only those two parts which are common to all three gospels-to wit, the statement of the dispute among the disciples and of the placing of a child in the midst with the exhortation to receive him. But no connection between them had been as yet established. This (primitive) form is found with least in Mk. it is represented alteration in Lk. Mt. by added to it the promise of reward for the cup of water to a disciple (Mk. Bb further added the threatening against him who shall cause a little one to stumble (Mk. C interpolated the story of the miracle-worker who followed not with the disciples. Its distinctive character forbids the obvious course of assigning it to Bc. Now, in Mk., only 938 39n 40 answers to the form of the story in The form of the whole pericope which arose through addition of this piece (without Mk. thus takes the place which in the usual nomenclature is given to original Mk. Bot on this occasion original Mk. has had not one literary predecessor merely, but two, or, should be separated Bb, three; and these write not, it is to be noted, independently of each other the one was continually making use of the other. Canonical Mt. rests upon A + B (or at least but Since Mt. 18 offers parallels only to what we have
to one might be inclined rather to attribute to the addition Mk. and to that of Mk. If this were done it would have to be presupposed (what was left open, above, under a) that Ba and B6 mean two different authors. We should then have the advantage of being able to suppose that was acquainted with Ba, hut not with A t the same time, however, we should have to attribute Mk. in that case rather to C, for on the previously mentioned presupposition it must remain equally possible that and B6 together mean only one author. T he hypothesis would, therefore, only become more complicated. Further, it is not probable that Mk. 9 42 should have been introduced earlier than I t is simpler, therefore, to suppose that knew other words Mk. as well as Mk. but that he dropped he had himself already reproduced the same thought in 10 42 (cp


do not understand this parable; how then shall you know all the parables? This astonishment again is out of place if Jesus in has found nothing to be surprised at in the circumstance that the disciples needed to have the meaning first of all imparted to them. The question is appropriate, therefore, only as a direct reply to v. IO, and furnishes a aery good occasion for Jesus to decide to give them the interpretation (cp, further, 129 n.). Here also, as C takes the position which elsewhere is appropriate to original and here also there are two or three antecedent literary stages. D inserted the (Mt. Each of the three canonical gospels then rests upon Mt., too, upon D. Mk. did not (perhaps it was he who left change the extent of vv. out the from cp RV with AV), on the other hand he gave to a form which suits the application here made of the saying better than does that of Mt. and Lk. (see u). Mt. and Lk., on the other hand, in order to be able to retain from C, Mk. deleted the surprised question of Jesus in Mk. (from Ba), because it was inappropriate after this insertion. Moreover, Mt. has also so altered the question of the disciples (who in Mk. and Lk. ask as to the meaning of the parable) as to make it suit the answer which was first brought in from C : t o you it is given to understand the parables, but to the multitude it is not given. It now runs in Mt. (13 IO) : Why speakest thou to them in parables? But such a form of the question cannot have been the original one-for this reason, if for no other, that according to it, Jesus would have had no occasion to expound the parable to the disciples. Further, Mt. has in introduced a saying which in at first came after the interpretation of the first parable. W e further see that he must have found difficulty Mk. 412) of the in the assertion that the purpose parables was to conceal the meaning they contained. H e substitutes therefore : For this cause do I speak to them in parables they see not and hear not. H e thus puts in the foreground the defective understanding of the multitude as a fact with which Jesus must reckon. By what follows, however (v. taken from Isaiah, he gives it clearly to be seen that he had before him an exemplar in which their not being understood was alleged as the of the parables in 13 Finally (see the lest perchance, perhaps it was Mt. himself who added the interpretation of the parable of the Tares (not immediately after the parable, but at the end of the whole section that is parallel to cp and also the other parables 1336 - 52 ; possibly also 35.
Still it is also permissible to suppose that only Mk. 4 stood in A but this makes little change in our construction as a whole ; it bnly becomes necessary in that case to postulate that Bc added Mk. 4 26-32. On the other hand, the mutual relation of sources can become still somewhat more complicated if hypothesis regarding 26-29 (see above be combined with what has just been elahorated about 4 Yet it is possible to do this without multiplying the number of sources. We therefore refrain from introducing the hypothesis in question, all more because it might, as being of the nature of tendency-criticism, call forth special objections.

( h ) Finally, it has to be pointed out that even the doublets might be used to give probability to the composite character of the logia. In they have heen employed to show that Mt. and Lk. alike draw from two sources. For the most part these were, on the one hand Mk. (or original Mk. and on the other the logia. Only, happens by no means infrequently that both places which Mt. has the same saying are generally traced to the logia. What would seem to follow for this would be that the writer of the logia himself made
Lk. may have tosupposethat because he already had it

use of two sources. Now, we are not inclined to carry to two sources from which the logia back Mt. drew, but prefer to regard the repetition as an express and deliberate accentuation of the statement upon which stress is here laid. But we do in all seriousness adduce (m ore tolerable for (the tree and its fruits), as well as the utterances of John which are also afterwards put into the mouth of Jesus ye offspring of vipers, how shall ye escape every tree that bringeth not forth good is hewn down and cast into the fire). What has been said above as to sources of sources has far-reaching consequences. (u)If it holds good even partially, then most of the hitherto forward as to the of the gospels can no longer be maintained. 129. Inferences For, in that case, in original Mk., or for gospel- the logia, or whatever be the name criticism. given to the sources immediately preceding our canonical gospels, we are no longer dealing with the earliest written compositions each produced by a writer working independently without written sources, the canonical authors were not dependent (as used to be supposed) on these writers alone, but had at their disposal also the of these sources. It is no longer possible to control them in every detail. to ask what exemplar they had and why they made this, that, or the other change. On the other hand, the thesis that an ancient-seeming saying if it occurs in a writing that can be shown to be relatively young can have no claim to an early origin, must be wholly given up. (6) The first impression one derives from the new situation thns created is, that by it the solution of the synoptical problem which appeared after so much toil to have been brought so near, seems suddenly removed again to an immeasurable distance. For science, however, it is not altogether amiss if from time to time it is compelled to dispense with the lights it had previously considered clear enough, and to accustom itself to a new investigation of its objects in the dark. Possibly it may then find that it has got rid of certain false appearances under which things had formerly been viewed. In this particular instance, it finds itself no longer under compulsion to assign a given passage to no other source than either to the logia, or to original Mk., or to some other of the few sources with which it had hitherto been accustomed to deal. The great danger of any hypothesis lies in this, that it sets up a number of quite general propositions on the basis of a limited number of observations, and then has to find these propositions justified, come what may. (c) On the other hand, signs have for some considerable time not been wanting that scholars were on the way to recognition of the new situation just described. It is not only Scholten and Wittichen who have postulated a tolerably complicated genealogy for the gospels, with Deutero-, and the like even those critics also who are confident in the adequacy of the usual hypotheses are often found reckoning with the possibility -or even probability - that writings original Mk., or the logia, whether in the course of transcription, or at the hands of individual owners, may have received additions or alterations whenever any one believed himself to be acquainted with a better tradition upon any point. The possibility is taken into account, in like manner, that canonical Mk. in particular does not lie before us in the form in which it lay before those who came immediately after him ; possible corruptions
Let one example suffice. verse which was found so helpful in regarded by Feine and others as an addition by canonical Mk., because it is in point of fact in consistent with and these two verses, since they occur all three must he ascribed to the source is to say, to the only with which one allows oneself to reckon whether we it with Feine, original Mk., or, with Weiss logia. If one could only tell how it was that canonical to add this verse !

38, and that Mt. may have omitted all these verses hecause he also had them all elsewhere in one place or another ( 5 15

6 last, in particular, in the very pericope with which we are now dealing (13 12).



of the glosses and the like, have to be Another element in the reckoning is that already our oldest MSS of the gospels have latent in them many examples of transference from the text of one gospel into that of another, examples similar to those which we can quite distinctly observe in many instances when the T R is confronted with these same witnesses. It may be that an older form of Mk., or of original Mk., or of the logia, whose differences from our present gospels are so limited in range and so little intended, can hardly, strictly speaking, deserve the name of a special source, the general contents and arrangement being so much alike yet the effect, in its bearing on the character of the text in its details, is precisely the same as if we actually were to assume such a source. For in particular cases it is not possible for us to rely upon a text as lying before us or as capable of being more or less easily reconstructed, and so to judge of the changes that have been made by the canonical evangelists we have to reckon with an immense range of possibilities and thus security of judgment is lost.
Lastly, scholars are also beginning to remember that the evangelists did not need to draw their material from books alone, but that from youth up they were acquainted with it from oral narration and could easily commit it to writing precisely in this form in either case-whether they had it before them in no written form, or whether they had it in different written form. I n this matter again we are beginning to be on guard against the error of supposing that in the synoptical problem we have to reckon merely with given quantities, or with such as can he easily ascertained.

their arrangement and even of their very words-to which so much acuteness has been devoted- loses greatly in interest as soon as these writings are regarded, not as the earliest, but only as intermediate steps. In the same measure does one gain insight into the difficulty of the problem, and the lesson of caution in dealing with it. For further reasons for the view here taken of the situation see ( e ) On the other hand, however, certain difficulties become easier to deal with. W e can now, for example, offer an explanation of the passage in so friendly to the Pharisees, and of all the passages in a, which it is impossible to ascribe to Jesus, and also even, whatever the intermediate stages may have been, of the legalistic Mt. 5 128 e ) they are attributable to a Judaistic redaction which the logia underwent before they were made use of, and (according to altered to an opposite sense, by Mt. The character of the original logia becomes in this way more uniform and more in accordance with the free attitude of Jesus towards the law, and one can understand better how it was that this attitude of his was successfully transmitted, whereas all record of it might very easily have dropped out of sight had the first transmitter already been so minded. By way of appendix the question of late so keenly as to the influence which the undeniable fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic may have had upon the formation of the may here be appropriately considered. ( a ) If Papias was right in his assertion regarding Mt. (see this influence would have been very great., But our gospels were from the first written in Greek -even the genealogy in Mt. 1 as well as that in 36) the name of Lk. 323-38, which contains (y. met with only in the LXX. In fact, even in what we find reason for tracing back t o the logia, the quotations are, at least in a quite preponderating number of cases, taken from the LXX (cp especially 4 4 where the original in Dt. 8 3 supplies no basis for It is precisely the author of canonical Mt. who oftenest gives the quotations from the Hebrew (Hawkins, and who could not have given such quotations as,. 2 23 after the LXX at all but the. allegation that his book is a translation from a Semitic. original breaks down on the fact that it also nevertheless follows the LXX, and that, too, exactly in passages. which would not have been available had the Hebrew original been followed.
mistranslation virgin cp M ARY [MOTHER made possible to adduce (in Mt. 1 Is. the omission of the second member to in the desert in the Hebrew parallelism in Is. 403 (@)made it possible to these words, in Mt. 33, into relation with what precedes instead of with what follows and thus to find in the words a prediction of one crying in wilderness, though in Isaiah the crier is of course not in the wilderness where no one could have heard him but in the midst of Israelites in Babylon. In Ps. is only the LXX that speaks of praise in the sense in which Mt. 21 finds it here. Further Hosanna in 219 with the dative is regarded as a cry of devotion - Praise. is not reconcilable with the true understanding of original passage (see H OSANNA cp man,

From the point reached to the recognition of sources of sources differing not only in text but also in extent, order, and tendency is always, it is true, a real step. Yet. the distinction is after all but a. fluid one. By mere additions it is possible to give a writing a tendency, which without these does not exist in it 6, It is essentially by the introduction of additional touches that, as we have seen in 128 a-g,the highlycomplicated production, the disentanglement of which now causes so much difficulty, was produced out of a simple combination of related, or at least not mutually inconsistent, pericopes. And each intermediate stage in the process at one time had currency as a gospel writing and served as a basis for further developments. But if this consideration is taken seriously, it becomes increasingly impossible to hold-what any one occupying the standpoint of would wish to hold in spite of every concession to the actual state of the facts-namely, that the man to whom, whether by tradition or by voice of some scholar, the authorship of the latest recognisable form of such a pre-canonical writing is ascribed, can also be regarded as the author of the earliest of these forms. Of the man who has made such manifest changes in the few places that still allow us to follow him in the process, it will be only safe to assume that he treated other passages also in the same way, only that we no longer have the means of detecting it. In that case, however, and still more certainly where there is individual tendency, his writing must be regarded as a new work in so far as in this class of literature newness can be spoken of a t all ; it cannot be treated as merely another form of its predecessor. From this point of view we shall be able to give its full force to prologue, according to which many authors had already in an independent way to draw up in writing (this is the force of the expression cp n. an account of the life of Jesus. But Schleiermachers view of the narratives 124 a ) also in this way comes to its rights for doubtless there must have been quite short notes also as well as narratives of a more comprehensive character 37, 64, and yet these also can have had their influence on the subsequent form of individual pericopes. The reconstruction of original Mk. and of the logia, of
Forexample, that Lk. still read in Mt. of present while Mt. already, on account of this last reading, regarded Mk. 6 16 as a mere repetition and therefore left it out.


The of Mk. Hebraizes still stronelv does Nevertheless, the combinations of Allen 1900,1436-443) do not prove that the evangelist wrote Aramaic, but only that he wrote a kind of Jewish Greek that he had derived from a reading of the LXX. Lk. also has Hebraisms, not only in chaps. but elsewhere as well, and not only where he is dependent on Mk. or Mt. but also where he had no exemplar before him (as, for example, often and it came to pass, see Hawkins, and yet no one holds writing to be a translation of a Semitic original. Is. (Mk. could not possibly be cited in an Aramaic writing (see above, a).
See Allen, 99, pp. Against further assertion that the genealogy was constructed by the author of the entire Gospel, see, however, M ARV (M OTHER OF JESUS).


little can the very small number of variants-partly character-in D and old Latin translations, which Blass Gospels, 98. pp. does not regard as traceable to transcribers, he held to show that the entire gospel of Mk. was written in Aramaic and translated into Greek in different ways, or even- Blass formulates the as that Luke the companion of Paul, himself before he wrote the third gospel, revised and published a bad Greek translation of the Aramaic Mk on which account it was that afterwards he omitted much from his own book, not wishing to exceed the ordinary limits of a papyrus roll. Elsewhere (see ACTS, $3 it has been shown with what independence the text has been dealt with in D and its allied MSS. Least of all can hypothesis seek support the that Lk. shows little verbal coincidence with Mk. fact (so far as it is a fact) can of course he sufficiently explained by the linguistic character of Mk which Lk. regarded as admitting of improvement. linguistic imperfections are due to translation from the Aramaic is a quite separate question. Finally, there are no grounds for the conjecture of Blass that the Aramaic original document dealing with the earliest history of the church in Jerusalem which is held to have heeu used by Lk. in (on this see ACTS, 17 col. 56) was written hy Mark, and that he will on this account havewritten the gospel also in Aramaic-notwithstanding that, according to Papias, he was Peters interpreter and that he has so many Latin words (c) A written source still older than the logia or Mk. (or original Mk. : 148, end) may have been written in Aramaic. A writing in Hebrew 117) is not wholly impossible but certainly quite improbable. There seems to have been a Hebrew original in the case of the Psalms of Solomon (see APOCALYPTIC, 83). But here the ruling pattern may have been that of the O T psalms, and perhaps also in Pompeys time Hebrew was somewhat more generally in use than years afterwards. It is not very it came to be helpful to suggest that people would have been naturally inclined to treat of the sacred subjects of the gospel history in the sacred language. The masses did not understand Hebrew (see A RAMAIC , and they were to miss the purpose yet gospel writings, for which they were written, had to be adapted to the even of the least instructed. (d)The gain from recourse to the theory of such an original is in the first place this, that certain Greek expressions will then admit of explanation as being errors of translation. Once made, such errors could very well pass on without change from one Greek writing to a second and to a third. But it will be at once obvious that such an explanation can have importance only in regard to particular passages, not in regard to the origin of the gospels as complete books. Nor even for this purpose is it necessary to aim at of whole sentences a process which will always offer room for new error; all h a t will be required will he that we should discover the individual words or expressions from which the error can possibly have As a n instance we may to Wellhausens (Lk.11 which may equally as well mean give alms, the sense will then he the same as in Lk.1 39, and in the parallel Mt. 1 and thus the character given to the passage in will be changed. ( e ) Another advantage will be that the consideration of an Aramaic or Hebrew original will aid in determining as to the meaning and use of important or difficult words and ideas in the NT. A very familiar example occurs in the which Jerome found in the gospel of the Hebrews for in 611, and which is assuredly right (see 16, 3 6 ; and cp LORDS P RAYER ). But it must be said that the recent recourse had to Aramaic in this field of research has already had some very infelicitous results. Thus Wellhansen 3 and others assert that Jesus used the word sob of Man in sense of man (cp $3, hut did not apply it to himself in that of Messiah in this last sense, they maintain, it was only taken by the evangelists from the Apocalyptic literature, and so came Just Cp Wellh. in Nachr. Wissensch. pp. I T ; Arnold Meyer, Nestle 96. 96 also aus neue Folge Hft. 99. 381 and u. 6, 1871

to be introduced into the gospel But Dalman in his turn disputes the of the words not the son but only the Father cp on the ground that in the time of Jesus these expressions were not customary without additions such as my of God my [Father]. As if the meaning they express could not nevertheless have come from Jesus, and only the form of expression t o the later use assumed by Dalman (cp

111. C REDIBILITY OF THE S YNOPTICS. T h e investigation of the relationships between the synoptic gospels has in itself a scientific interest and can therefore be carried on with interest even by the student for whom the credibility of the gospels is a matter comparative indifference. Still, in the end the answer to this question is the goal of every research in this field. The question is often, however, unscientifically. Thus, many still still handled think themselves entitled to accept as historically true everything written in the gospels which cannot be shown by explicit testimony to be false. Others pay deference a t least to the opinion that a narrative gains in credibility if found in all three gospels (as if in such a case all were not drawing from one source) and with very few exceptions all critics fall into the very grave error of immediately accepting a thing as true as soon as they have found themselves able to trace it to source. Once we have freed ourselves from the dominion of such fallacies it cannot but seem unfortunate that the decision as to the credibility of the gospel narratives should be made to depend upon the determination of a problem so difficult and perhaps insoluble as the synaptical is. It would accordingly be a very important gain if we could find some means of making it a t least independent of this. Such in some means have already been hinted a t above 27, n. I , and 34, n. The examination of the credibility must from the beginning be set about from two opposite points of view. On the one hand, we must set on one side everything which for any reason arising either from the substance or from considerations of literary criticism has to be regarded as doubtful or as wrong; on the other hand, one must make search for all such data, as from the nature of their contents cannot possibly any account be regarded as inventions. When a profane historian finds before him a historical document which testifies to the worship of a hero unknown to other sources, he attaches and foremost importance to those features which cannot be deduced merely from the fact of this worship, and he does so on the simple and sufficient ground that they woiild not be found in this source unless the author had met with them as fixed data of tradition. The same fundamental principle may safely be applied in the case of the gospels, for they also are all of them written by worshippers of Jesus. W e now have accordingly the advantage-which cannot be appreciated too of being in a position to recognise something as being worthy of belief even without being able to say, or even being called on to inquire, whether it comes from original Mk., from logia, from oral tradition, or from any other quarter that may be alleged. The relative priority becomes a matter of indifference, because the absolute priority-that is, the origin in real traditionis certain. In such points question as to credibility becomes independent of the synoptical question. Here the clearest cases are those in which only one evangelist, or two, have data of this class, and the second, or third, or both, are found to have occasion to alter these in the interests of the reverence due to Jesus. If we discover any such points-even if only a See on the other side Schmiedel, Prof. pp. Nov. 62-65 Dalman, 1 1872

they guarantee not only their own contents, but also much more. For in that also hold as credible else which agrees in character with these, and is in other respects not open to suspicion. the thoroughly disinterested historian must recognise it as his duty to investigate the grounds for this so great reverence for himself which Jesus was able to call forth and he will then, first and foremost, find himself to recognise as true the two great facts that Jesus had compassion for the multitude and that he preached with power, not as the scribes (Mt. Let us, then, proceed to test in the two ways indicated some of the leading points in the synoptic gospels. The chronological framework must be classed among the most untrustworthy elemerits in the gospels. Not only are the data often quite vague-a defect for which we conld not blame the evangelists if they had no precise information; often also it is impossible to have any confidence, when Mt. so frequently says 't he n' 'on that da y' or the like, or when Mk. says straightway' that the event really followed on what immediately precedes it in the narrative. Were we to take the evangelists literally, an enormous number of events would have to be compressed within the limits of certain days Mt. 12 and there would be only a very moderate number of days of the public ministry of Jesus with regard to which any events are recorded a t all. Of the six time-determinations in Lk. 3 I -manifestly brought together with great care-only the first three can be regarded as free from exception. Philip ruled over Trachonitis and other territories, but only over a portion of The office of high priest was never filled by two persons a t the same time; it is Caiaphas who ought to have been named, whilst Annas On see that held the office from 6 to 15 A. article. The statement about the census of 21 is quite erroneous (see also above, 22, last footnote). But the data are often even in direct contradiction to each other. 8-12 especially, matters stand i n a quite different chronological connection from that which they have in 116 a ). Or the mother and brethren of Mk. and Lk. Jesus come, in Mk. 331 and Mt. 1246, after the discourse after the great parableabout Beelzebub, in Lk. discourse (see further $ 18, begin.). The case is no better with the order of the narratives. ( a ) A large number of sayings of Jesus have been placed together by Mt. in five courses which on each occasion he closes with the formula referred to in 127 (a, Among these are included, for example, a series of seven woes upon the Pharisees, a series of seven parables, a series of six theses in correction of the law 34, I Hawkins, Lk. has arranged in two similar large groups-the so-called small and large interpolations, and 951-1814-material partly the same as, and partly different from, that of Mt. The greater interpolation-the narrative of what is known as the Samaritanjourney-can make n o claim to historicity. In the midst of it we find and the mission of the seventy and their return, the warning against the plots of Herod who ruled over Galilee only, not Samaria, a feast in the house of a Pharisee, who can hardly have lived in Samaria, and (17 the statement that Jesus was on the borders of Galilee and Samaria, which yet he had already passed in his journey to Jerusalem. But even outside of these compiled discourses the order of narration is often such as to suggest the suspicion that it has been determined by the nature of the contents. The rubbing of the ears of corn and the healing of the man with the withered hand (Mk. 223-36) are related the one immediately after the other, only because both occurrences showed Jesus in conflict with the law of the Sabbath. Or are we to believe that the or three men-the whole number

recorded in the gospels (Mt. Lk. asked of Jesus to be admitted to the number of his disciples, all presented themselves at one and the same when he was about to take ship across the Sea of Galilee, or, according to Lk., at one and the same point in the journey through Samaria? Conipare, further, the wholly different in which t he events in Mt. 8-12 given as compared with Mk. and with the result that ) the choice of the apostles comes to be placed immediately before their sending-out and the series of miracles before the arrival of the messengers from the Baptist a). (c) In many cases it is not so much for the sake of the order, but simply for the sake of a word, that certain sayings of Jesus are brought into contiguity with others thus, Mk. are brought together only by the idea of stumbling-block' 48. and only by that of fire, 496 and only by that of salt, only by that of light, only b y that of the door. But what is with regard these things is in each case quite different, and he does no honour to Jesus who believes himself in duty bound to prove that the Master gave forth in one breath utterances so utterly disconnected. ( d ) In other places there is manifest lack of clear appreciation of the situation. The prohibition-which certainly comes from Jesus himself and is no mere invention of the evangelists-against making known a deed of healing wrought by him, a prohibition still found in Mt. 84 930, wbuld be utterly futile if, previously ) and simultaneously Jesus had healed whole crowds of sick persons. In 1 2 the prohibition is even upon a multitude of persons healed at one and the same time. But we find same thing also in the parallel Mk. 3 and even in 1 3 4 Lk. 4 41 and here also follows the same prohibition laid upon individuals Mk.826). ( e ) In Mk. one is very willingly disposed to recognise a n appropriate arrangement of the events of the public ministry of Jesus as a whole. It is certainly the fact that his first chapter gives the impression that the public in the manner activity of Jesus may actually have here related. But so far as the rest of the gospel is concerned, little confidence can be placed even in order. In saying this, we lay no stress on the assertion of Papias (see 65) that he set down the deeds and words of Jesus without order for Papias may very have been judging of that order with Mt. as his standard. Nor can we accept the view of B. Weiss, that Mk. intended by his frequent use of the imperfect to convey that he is narrating not individual deeds of Jesus but in the habit of doing, only the sort of things that he as for example in The whole sum, however, of separate events in Galilee (miracles, discourses, and the like) has so comparatively little that is characteristic, and their order-for a writer who wrote only for the glorification of Jesus and not for a laboriously exact account of his biography-was of so comparatively little importance, that it would not be safe for us to rely on them with confidence whatever. In one point Mk . has a superiority over Mt. and Lk. in 24 31 h e records a journey of Jesus to Tyre and in other words, a distance abroad. So also the journey t o Philippi recorded by him ( 8 2 7 ) in common with Mt. signifies for him a noteworthy epoch See further in the public life of Jesus The alleged situations in which the recorded ances of were spoken can by no means be implicitly the Lord's Prayer given the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 69-13), or at the request of the 1 1 Did deliver the Sermon on Mount to his disciples (Mt. 5


88, pp.

reply, pp.

this view of B. Weiss see Holtzmann, ibid., 78,

'87, pp.

or was it heard by the multitudes (Mt. Lk. For a whole series of utterances of Jesus Lk. has assigned occasions of which Mk. and Mt. nothing 918 37 19 Even where an utterance of Jesus recurs more than once in the gospels-and we may be certain that he repeated himself much oftener than is recorded 145 a)-they yet afford us not the slightest guarantee that the repetition took place precisely at the point a t which they place it. The about the light under a bushel is found in three different connections. In Mk. 4 and Lk. 8 16 t he light is th e interpretation of the parables Jesus had spoken (see manifestly a very special application of a thought of very much wider scope. In Lk. 11 33 the saying comes after the sentence which affirms that in the person of Jesus a greater than Jonah is present; here, then, the light can only be Jesus himself. I n this connection. however. it is to carrv the most obvious meaning the that one Moreover we in 11 34 a saying the light under a added only on account of the verbal suggestion the light of the body is the eye. Once more, then, it is not likely that the saying belongs to this place. In Mt. 5 14-16 two the disciples are exdifferent representations are to let their light shine, the city on the hill on the other hand shines of itself. By the the disciples are here meant hut the opening words, ye are the light of the world, can have been framed on the model of the preceding sentence, ye are the salt of the earth, and that, too, for the first time by Mt., for the two sentences can hardly have stood together in one source since in Mk. and in Lk. they are given in two quite distinct places. Thus in no one passage have we any security that we are in possession of the originalconnection of the saying, and it would be just as conceivable that it may have been spoken by Jesus when one of his followers, concerned about his safety, had besought him, as Peter on one occasion (Mt. 16 did, to spare himself and not expose himself to danger-in fact very much as i n Jn. only without the specifically Johannine meaning of Wernle, the word. See, further, Hawkins, In the case of an eye-witness the recollection of an event associates itself readily with that of a definite place, but for those who are not eyewitnesses this has much less interest. I n Lk. 9 Peters confession is not made at Philippi indeed, the evangelist knows nothing end). The about a journey thither at all leper was cleansed according to Mt. 8 after Jesus had finished his Sermon on the Mount, but according to Lk. a considerable time before that, when Jesus was in one of the cities, similarly as in Mk. 140. On the return from his first journey (to Tyre and Sidon) esus, according to Mk. 31, arrives at the eastern shore of Galilee according to Mt. 15 (if we are to take of the the most obvious meaning of the words), at the western. After the feeding of the 4000 evangelists agree in saying that he crossed the lake ; hut according to Mk. 8 the crossing is to the west shore according to Mt. 15 it is to the east. Then follows a new after which the apprehension ahout want of bread arises in Mk. 8 on the eastern shore, in Mt. 16 5 on the western. The two coalesce according to Mk. 827 Mt. only when is reached-unless we are to assume that Mt., in what precedes, means the same localities as Mk. and has only expressed himself misleadingly (cp a. ) As for persons-neither the names of the women a t the cross (see nor even the names of the twelve disciples (Mt. Mk. Lk. 6 are given in two places alike (see APOSTLE). On the divergence between Mt. on the one hand and Mk. 2 and Lk. on the other, see and MATTHEW. Several of the reported sayings of Jesus clearly bear the impress of a time which he did not live to see. T h e precept ahout taking up ones cross and following Jesus (Mt. 1624) is certainly not to be explained by pointing out that the sight of condemned persons carrying their crosses to the place of execution was a familiar one for in that spectacle the most important element of all was wanting-that of innocence. The words in question cannot have taken their present shape till after the death of Jesus. Ex hortations as to how to behave in times of persecution (Mk. he can hardly have found it necessary to give so early, for, however numerous his followers may have been, he formed in his lifetime no definite community outside the bonds of the Jewish religion, and

still less a church. It was therefore also in the lifetime of Jesus hardly possible that his followers should be expelled from the synagogue in the manner spoken of in Lk. and still less so that they should be expelled on account of the name of Christian (see CHRISTIAN, I ). The graduated order of procedure against an erring brother (Mt. is much more easily explained of when transplanted to a later time. In the Jesus it is, a t all events, intelligible only if by we understand not the Christian but the Jewish local community. But also the authority conferred in the verse immediately following Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, could never have been given by Jesus either to the apostles or, what the context leaves open, t o his followers in general, still less to Peter to whom it is limited in (cp BINDING A N D LOOSING). Still more 1618 is open to serious question, quite apart from other reasons, on account of the word and because the verse is wanting in Tatians Into the discourse on the occasion of the mission of the disciples special precepts have been introduced, of a sort which canonlyowe their origin to later missionarypractice Mt. 10 13). The taught by painful experience baptismal precept to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Mt. is questionable, not only because, according to the older accounts, the risen Jesus was only seen, not heard 138 d),but also because, according to the N T throughout, baptism was only in. the name of Jesus (Rom. 6 3 Gal. 327 Acts 238 816 1048 even in also; Vis. 7 3). The Trinitarian formula is met with first in Justin and in the So also, if Jesus had enjoined the mission to the Gentiles the it would be a original apostles, as is stated in Mt. practical impossibility to understand, how they, or their followers, could have withstood Paul so hotly upon this very point. It would clearly be wrong, in an investigation such as the present, to start from any such postulate or axiom as that miracles are impossible. At the same time, on the other hand, some doubt as to the accuracy of the accounts cannot fail to arise in the mind even of the stoutest believer miracles when he observes snch points as the following :-(a) How contradictory they the sick were brought to Jesus are. In Mk. 1 3 2 34 and he healed some; in Mt. 8 they brought many and in Lk. they brought and he healed he healed as also in Mt. In Mk. I O a great multi tude followed him and he healed many; in Mt. many followed and he healed According to this the view of the evangelist must have been that he was followed exclusively by sick persons. According to what is said in d not only the early date but the historicity altogether of those healings en masse must be held to be doubtful. Before the feeding of the in Mk. (634) Jesus teaches the multitude in he does Mt. he heals their sick; in Lk. both. At the beginning of his journey to Jerusalem, according to Mk. Jesus teaches the multitude; according to Mt. he them. According to Lk. Jesus heals a number of and blind-in the presence of the messengers of the Baptist, and immediately before this he raises the widows son a t Nain Mt. knows nothing of this, Mk. as little (the message of the Baptist is wholly wanting in Mk.). But on the other hand Mt. records as before this date not only the healing of a leper and of a paralytic as does Mk. 2 = Lk. 5 12-26, also the raising of the daughter of Jairus and the healing of two men and of a dumb man possessed with a devil : which in are all brought in as having been wrought after the message of the Baptist


1835-43 Thus each of the two evangelists secured that the messengers of the Baptist should be able to hear of miracles of various kinds as but each has wrought by Jesus (Mt. done so in a djfferent way. After the cleansing of the temple, Jesus, according to Mt. heals blind and lame there; of this Mk. and Lk. know nothing. Similarly in he alone reports the resurrection of many dead persons on the death of Jesus. On the describes the preparation of other hand, Mt. the Passover meal without presupposing any supernatural knowledge on the part of Jesus as is done in Mk. and Lk. Lk. alone knows not only of the miracles reported but also of the healing of the woman with the spirit of infirmity, of the man with the dropsy, of the ten lepers, and of the high priests servants ear, as also of the fact of Peters miraculous draft 51-11). In the last two cases the silence of Mt. and Mk. is all the more significant as they give a quite precise account of the very occurrences in the midst of which a miracle, according to Lk., was wrought, and in Gethsemane all the apostles, and at the call of Peter at least he and some others, were present Mk. cp (Mk. 32, n. 42) Only Mk., again, knows of the . healing of a blind man in two successive stages, by application of spittle and by laying on of hands (822-26). Instead of the one man, deaf and with an impediment in his speech, who is healed by Jesus in Mk. by a wholemultitude the same means, blind, and dumb are healed. At Gerasa Mk. (5 and Lk. (827) make mention of one demoniac, Mt. (828) of two, and that too with clear divergence from Mk. and dependence on the words of the demoniac in the synagogue at Capernaum (Mk. Lk. 4 all mention of which has been wholly omitted At Jericho Mk. (1046) mentions one blind man by as Jesus was leaving Lk. 1 8 3 5 one as he was entering, two as he was leaving. The man is dumb is also blind in Mt. who in Lk. According to Mk. 5 23 the daughter of Jairus is at the point of death, according to Lk. 842 she is a-dying in my daughter is Mt. 9 18 the fathers statement even now dead, whilst in Mk. 535 and Lk. 849 this announcement is brought to Jesus only after the healing of the woman with the issue of blood which has been wrought in the interval. T o the number as well as to the 4000 of those were miraculously fed Mt. adds in each case besides women and children. In Mk. the fig tree is found to be withered away on the morning after the curse has been pronounced according to Mt. 21 it withered away it is Jesus who sees immediately. Whilst in Mk. 1 the heaven opened and the spirit descending and hears the voice, so that one is able, if so disposed, to take the whole passage as describing an inward mental experience, with regard to which the disciples had derived their knowledge from himself alone, Mt. represents the opening of the heavens as a n objective occurrence and gives the voice in the third person and thus not as for the hearing of Jesus alone, whilst according to Lk. the Spirit even descends in bodily shape. As for the narratives of the nativity and childhood see M ARY (M OTHER OF J ESUS ) and N ATIVITY . We pass over the numerous other minor differencesin the accounts of miracles the gospels, in order to touch upon :Two cases in which even one strongly predisposed I t must be granted that Mt. means a dumb,
and in 1 a deaf erson. But the two infirmities so often go 1 together that of meaning cannot be held to invalidate the statement in the text, which in all other respects is absolutely exact. These passages must be regarded as parallel because in each there follows this detailed examination of the that 1 1 Jesus cast out demons by Beelzebub (Mt. 12 A second parallel to Lk. 1 14 is Mt. 9 1 which agrees in its details with Lk. more exactly.

to believe in miracles would find it difficult to a narrative of this kind on account of the time to which it is assigned. (a)Lk. expressly, and Mk. Mt. also to all appearance, allege an eclipse of the sun, a celestial phenomenon which, however, is possible only at the period of New Moon-Le., shortly of Nisan-and cannot happen on the before the or 14th of a month. To save for the narrative some relic of credibility the suggestion has even been made that it is in fact an eclipse of the moon that is recorded. But in offering this explanation it was forgotten, not only that at midday such an occurrence would not produce darkness, but also that the shadow of the earth falling upon the moon is visible only from the side of the earth that is turned away from the sun, in other words, during the night, not in the middle of the day from to 3. As for the fig tree (Mk. 1 12-14 1 Mt. 21 18-22), it is certainly the fact that its fruits begin to form before the leaves unfold-approximately about Easter tide. But at this early stage they are still exceedingly small and quite uneatable. The first ripe figs are gathered in the end of June, most of the rest in August, and some not till so late as February. Some do not reach their development at all in the year of their formation, but only in the following spring. Fruits of this named class might therefore have been found by Jesus on the tree but they are in no sense a characteristic mark of a good tree the characteristic of such a tree is its young freshly-produced figs. But with figs of this last kind Jesus could not have satisfied his hunger the narrative would have been possible a t any time from June to February but, placed at Easter, it is not so and yet it belongs so definitely to the Easter season that it would be indeed abold thing to true initselfbutwrongly dated. The only really pertinent remark is that of Mk. (11 : it was not the season of figs. This is so contrary, however, to the whole of the rest of the narrative that Scholten thought himself justified. in setting it down as 119 b ) . Thus, a marginal note by a foreign hand even where there is not the slightest shadow of aversion to miracles as such, there is nothing to surprise us when these two narratives are declared to be unhistorical. See FIG TREE. Taken as a whole the facts brought forward in the immediately preceding paragraphs show only too clearly with what lack of concern for historical precision the evangelists write. The conclusion is inevitable that even the one evangelist whose story in any particular case involves less of the supernatural than that of the others, is still very far from being entitled on that account to claim implicit acceptance of his narrative. Just in the same degree in which those who came after him have gone beyond him, it is easily conceivable that he himself may have gone beyond those who went before him. With reference to the resurrection of Jesus ( a ) the most credible statement in the Synoptics is that of Mt. (and that the first appearances were in Galilee. The appearance in Jerusalem to the two women (Mt. 28 gf.) is almost up-not only because of the silence of all the other accounts, but also because in it Jesus only repeats the direction which the women had already received through the angel. If the disciples had seen Jesus in Jerusalem as Lk. states, it would be absolutely incomprehensible how Mk. and Mt. came to require them to repair to Galilee before they could receive a manifestation of Jesus. The converse on the other hand is very easy to understand; Lk. found it inconceivable that the disciples who, according to him, were still in Jerusalem, should have been unable to see Jesus until they went to Galilee. In actual fact the disciples had already dispersed at Gethsemane (Mk. Mt. 2656); this Lk. very significantly Even Peter, after he had perceived,


when denied his Master, the dangers he incurred, will hardly have exposed himself to these, gratuitously, any longer. At the cross only women, not disciples, were present. Whither these last had betaken themselves we are not told. But it is not difficult to conjecture that they had gone to their native Galilee. The angelic command, therefore, that they should make this their rendezvous, may reasonably he taken as a veiled indication that they had already gone thither. The presupposition made both by Mk. and by Mt. that they were still in Jerusalem on the day of the resurrection is accordingly erroneous. It was this error of theirs that led Lk. to his still more erroneous inversion of the actual state of the facts. The second element in the synoptics that may he accepted with confidence is the statement that it was Peter who received the first manifestation of his risen master. All the more surprising is it that it is only Lk. who tells us so, and that only in passing (2434). It is the chief point in the statement of Paul, I Cor. 15 This passage must be regarded as the earliest of the appearances of the risen Jesus unquestionably it goes back to the communications made by Peter during the fifteen days visit of Paul, three years after the conversion of the latter (Gal. (c) Not only is it a mark of inadequacy in the gospels that they have nothing to say about the greater number of the manifestations here recorded it also becomes necessary to withhold belief from what they actually do relate in addition. Paul would certainly not have left it out had he known it the duty of bringing forward all the available evidence in support of the truth of the resurrection of Jesus as against the Corinthian doubters was of the most stringent kind. ( d ) Thus, on the one hand, the statements that are seen Jesus was touched, and that he ate (Lk. to be incredible. But these are precisely the statements which make it possible to understand why the evangelists should pass over the mere appearing of Jesus to which the statements of Paul are confined, inasmuch as they believed they could offer proofs of a more palpable character.
I n criticism it was a great error to believe that the expression was seen Paul was characterizing the appearances as unreal. I t is indeed true that in the N T this expression with one exception (Acts is applied to visions but, unless he be a thoroughly modern person well versed in philosophy and science, the visionary under a psychological necessity to regard as real the things which he sees in vision even though he distinguishes between them and the objects of ordinary sight. T h e only thing that would prevent him from doing so would if the vision offered that which according to his ideas was utterly impossible. But in the case before us this is far from being so. I n the N T the resurrection of a of the Baptist or of Elijah- is supposed to be thoroughly possible (Mk. 6
1 1

first time by the publication of his gospel. He cannot. intend to say that the women held their peace for short time only, for the general belief is that Jesus. appeared very soon after his resurrection, and every delay on the part of the women would have put back the time at which the disciples could arrive in Galileeand behold the promised appearing of the Lord. Mk. is understood in the sense we have indicated, then in him we have a virtual admission, veiled indeed, yet clear, that all Statements as to the empty were innovations of a later time. Nor, as against this, will it avail to urge inherent likelihood that the sepulchre must without fail have been visited.
Here the assumption is that forthwith on the resurrection day the tidings of the empty sepulchre became known in Jerusalem. this supposition has been shown to he groundless. Yet even had the tidings been brought forthwith to the Christians in Jerusalem, and even if they had thereupon at once visited the sepulchre, their evidence would not have proved more than did that of the women. Only an examination by opponents could have claimed greater weight. But it is hardly likely that the tidings reached their ears forthwith. Yet, even had this happened and the sepulchre been found empty the fact would have been capable of heing explained by as due to a removal of the body. The (unhistorical) statement of Mt. as to setting a watch over the sepulchre 108) had in fact just this very purpose in view-to exclude the possibility of any such removal. But after the visit of the women the watch was not continued even in Mt. Further it has to be borne in mind according to Jewish belief a body did not remain for more than three days (see S ON OF ZEBEDEE H a d a body, therefore, really been found, it would have been possible t o identify it as the of Jesus.

What the expression was seen proves is, accordingly, rather this-that in no description of any appearances of the risen Lord did Paul perceive anything by which they were distinguished from his own, received at Damascus. With reference to this he uses the sameexpression he therefore characterizes it as a vision and, as he still distinguishes from this the revelation in Cor. 12 I , we shall have to take the word literally and interpret it as denoting seeing, not hearing. ( e ) The statements as to the empty sepulchre are to be rejected; Paul is silent regarding them, and his silence is very strongly reinforced by Mk. 1 6 8 which says the women told no one anything of what they had seen. This failure to carry out the angels bidding is quite unthinkable, and one readily understands why Mt. and Lk. should say the opposite, though this is probably the most violent change they have anywhere made on their exemplar. (The word fear, in Mt. 288 shows that he had before him the were afraid, of Mk. ) The statement of Mk. is intelligible only if we take him to mean that the whole statement as to the empty sepulchre is now being promulgated for the

This comes yet more strongly into view if we to ourselves the order of events in the way in which, in all probability, they actually happened. The first belief in the resurrection of Jesus arose through the appearances. in Galilee on the third day after his death, or later. T h e disciples believed in them and therefore felt themselves under no necessity to assure themselves by examination of the sepulchre. Even if the tidings of appearances had brought to Jerusalem forthwith, not even so would they have given occasion for such an examination. It was unnecessary: followers of Jesus believed them without further evidence his enemies laughed them to scorn. knew that the emptiness of the sepulchre after so long a time could prove just as little as could the production of a no longer identifiable body. It is unnecessary to enter more fully into the almost incredible variations in the accounts of what happened at the sepulchre, after what has already been said (see, for enumeration, 27). (g) The conclusion of Mk. is admittedly not. genuine (see W. and H., Appendix, and above, 4, n. 2). Still less can the shorter conclusion printed by W. and H. lay claim to genuineness. Should it he found that thelonger, in accordance with an Armenian superscription found by Conybeare 93 pp. was. written by the name in the inscription i s a very unfavourable light would be shed upon this disciple the Lord, as Papias calls. Almost the entire section is a compilation, even from the fourth gospel and Acts. At the same timethe words for they were afraid cannot have been the close intended by the author, especially seeing that appearances in Galilee are announced (167). The suggestion that the author was. interrupted as he was finishing is a mere makeshift. It cannot be urged in support of it that in Mt. and Lk. no traces of the conjectured genuine conclusion o f Mk. are to he found. W e could not be sure. whether at least Mt. has not drawn from it, especially as he coincides entirely with Mk. But. deliberate divergence from the (supposed) sion of Mk. would also be very intelligible, for Mt. and Lk. have already, as against Mk. 168, said theopposite of what lay hefore them in their exemplar.. The fact that the last leaf of a book is always the most 1880

liable to get lost can suffice to explain how the close of Mk. should have disappeared without leaving any trace. Yet a deliberate removal of it is also conceivable,-if it did not answer the demands which had already come to be set in the time of Mt. and Lk. Nothing can be conjectured with any certainty, except that it described an appearance of Jesus to the disciples. The fact that Peter is also individually named in may perhaps be held to indicate that the conclusion contained also an appearance to Peter alone. The foregoing sections may have sometimes seemed to raise a doubt whether any credible elements were to be found in the gospels at all all the , moreemphatically stress be laid on the existence of passages of the kind indicated in 131. Reference has already been made to Mk. 10 Whv thou me none is good save as also to Mt. (that blasphemy against the son of man can be forgiven), and to Mk. (that his relations held him to be beside himself; cp 1166 d). T o these, two others may now be added : Mk. (of that day and of that knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son but the Father the words neither the Son are absent from Mt. in many MSS and the whole verse from Lk. cp and Mt. 2746 (My God, my God, why thou forsaken m e ? -an utterance which Lk. has wholly omitted). These five passages, along with the four which will be spoken of in might be called the pillars for a truly scientific life of Jesus. Should the idea suggest itself that they have been sought out with partial intent, as proofs of the human as against the divine character of Jesus, the fact at all events cannot be set aside that they exist in the Bible and demand attention. In reality, however, they prove not only that in the person of Jesus we have to do with a completely human being, and that the divine is to be sought in him only in the form in which it is capable of being found in a m a n ; they also prove that he really did exist, and that the gospels contain at least some absolutely trustworthy facts concerning him. If passages of this kind were wholly wanting in them it would be impossible to prove to a sceptic that any historical value whatever was to be assigned to the gospels he would be in a position to declare the picture of Jesus contained in them to be purely a work of phantasy, and could remove the person of Jesus from the field of history,all the more when the meagreness of the historical testimony regarding him, whether in canonical writings outside of the gospels, or in profane writers snch as Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny, is considered. ( a ) According to Mk. Jesus emphatically declined to work a sign before the eyes of his contemporaries ; there shall no sign be given unto this generation. In Mt. and Lk. this saying is given in the enlarged form, there shall no sign be given to this generation but the sign of Jonah (the prophet). Unless here the meaning intended be the exact contrary of what is said in Mk., the sign of Jonah cannot be really a sign, but rather the opposite of one.
To illustrate how notwithstanding it was possible for Jesus to express himself let us put an parallel case. A conqueror, without receiving any provocation, invades a country. I t s inhabitants send an embassy t o ask of him what justification he can show for his aggression. He gives the answer: You ask me what I can allege in justification? I shall you no other justification than that which my sword gives. The situation in the gospel is quite similar.

he can continue to do, is to preach. The main activity of Jonah also in like manner consisted in preaching. By the sign of Jonah accordingly is meant the opposite of a preaching like that of Jonah. This is shown also by the immediate sequel: t he men of repented at the preaching of Jonah. Next follows the example of the Queen of Sheba who came to hear the preaching of Solomon (Mt.
It is only in that this good connection is by the interpretation that the sign of Jonah means his three days sojourn in the belly of the whale and that by this is signified the three days sojourn of Jesus heart of the earth. But even apart from its breaking the connection this verse which rests only on misunderstanding of the utterance in Lk.1 1 is quite unsuitable ; for a sign of course makes its impression only when it can be seen. T h e people of Nineveh could not observe the emergence of Jonah from the place o f his sojourn, nor indeed is it even stated that he told them of it ; all that is said is that he preached to them.

(6) According to Jesus was able to do no mighty work (save healing a few sick folk) in and marvelled at the unbelief of its people. This then is the reason why he was unable. Mt. 1358 is a manifest weakening of this : he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief. (c) In Mk. 8 the disciples, in the crossing of the are reLake, which has been touched on in presented as having forgotten to take bread with them. Jesus says : Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of Herod (in Mt. : of the Pharisees and Sadducees ). This exhortation the disciples as a reproach on them for their forgetfulness. Jesus rebukes them for their little understanding, and reminds them of the feeding of the and of the 4000. The conclusion is given fully only by Mt. but unquestionablyin the sense of Mk., How that ye do not perceive that I not to you concerning bread? then understood they how that he bade them beware of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. evangelists have previously related the feeding of the and the 4000 as facts. If Jesus reminds them of this, the consequence must of course be that they should think of material loaves as being what they are to beware of. In reality, however, the deduction is quite the opposite. This is possible only on one assumption-if the feeding of the and the 4000 was not a historical occurrence, a parable having this as its point that the bread with which one man in the wilderness was able to feed a vast multitude signifies the teaching with which he satisfied their souls. On this view the closing statement of the narrative first finds its full explanation; more bread remains over than was present at the beginning; truth is not consumed when it is communicated to others, but only serves to awaken in them ever new thoughts and an ever-growing power to satisfy in their turn the spiritual hunger of others. It is exceedingly surprising, yet at the same time evidence of a reproduction of earlier materials, that Mk. and Mt. should give the present narrative at all- narrative which in their understanda ing of the miracle of the feeding is so meaningless.


Mt. has made some attempt, albeit a somewhat feeble one, t o bring the two narratives harmony. With him Jesus (16 8) re proaches the disciples for their little faith. Similarly Mk. a t a n earlier place the wording of which recalls that of the present passage alludes the miracle of the loaves and implies that the ought to have learned from it implicit faith in the supernatural power of Jesus even in the storm. All the more important is it to notice that the passage of before us 14-21) Jesus blames them, in the only fitting (and therefore the only original) way, for their little undersianding and by taking this reproach in shows that the other, that of unbelief, is not the original one.

The one thing which Jesus has hitherto done, and, if he refuses to work signs the one thing which

Lk. also as well as Mk. has his share in the weakening of this sentence the verse he gives immediately before it heing 9), he denieth me in the presence of men shall he denied i n the presence of the angels of God.

In Mt. 5 7 2 2 Jesus sends an answer to the Baptist that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have the gospel preached to them. As has been shown above a ) , both evangelists have seen to it that all the miracles. mentioned have taken place, either at an earlier date, or before the eyes of the



Baptists messengers. All the more remarkable therefore is it that the list should close with what is not a miracle a t all. It would be impossible to counteract the preceding enumeration more effectually than by the simple insertion of this final clause. The evangelists therefore cannot have added it of their own proper motion. Neither could Jesus have neutralised the force of his own words-if we assume to be intended - in such an extraordinary way. On the other hand the clause question fits admirably, if Jesus was speaking not of the physically but of the spiritually blind, leprous, deaf, dead. This is the meaning, too, which these words actually have in the O T passages, Is. 611, which lie at the root of this, and it also fits very well the continuation in Mt. 116 Lk. which reads, Blessed is he who is not offended in me in my unpretentious simplicity). Here, therefore, we have a case, as remarkable as it is assured, in which a saying of Jesus, though completely misunderstood, has been-in its essence at incorporated with verbal accuracy in the gospels. Jesus, then, declined to work signs and that, too, on principle. Mk. 8 (and parallels) is not a saying of a kind he could have uttered one day and broken the next moreover he exuresslv that no sign should be given to this [whole] generation, because as a whole it was wicked and rebellious against God. Now, the word does not denote any kind of wonder, but only a wonder of the kind which serves the end of showing the power of him who works it-as, in the present case, the Messiahship of Jesus. But, so far as the reported miracles of Jesus have this end, they are, if this saying of his is to be accepted, no longer to be taken to be credible; either they never happened at all or (at least), if historical, they were not miraculous.
This applies very conspicuously to the withering of the fig-tree. Apart from the motive mentioned in 6, this particular miracle is rejected many theologians on the ground that such a deed having no manifest saving purpose, appears to them worth; of his character. The same principle will apply also at least to the stilling of the storm and the walking upon the the fishs mouth even water, and likewise to the stater though, strangely enough, it is not expressly said that this miracle was actually carried out.

mand the storm and it will obey, and ye shall be able to walk unharmed upon the troubled sea (of life). Indeed even the words which actually stand in the passages last cited might have given occasion to the formation of miraculous narratives. If ye shall say in faith to this mountain, Re thou cast into the sea, or to the tree, Be thou transplanted into the sea, so shall it be done. But literalism of this sort even those days had its limits. (6) The same explanation is capable of being applied also where deeds or words attributed to Jesus himself are not concerned. It is very easily conceivable that a preacher on the death of Jesus may have said, purely figuratively, that then was the veil of the temple rent in twain (Mk. Mt. Lk. What he meant to say was that by the death of Jesus the ancient separation between God and his people was done away. By a misunderstanding, this saying could easily be taken up as statement of a literal physical fact. So also, if another preacher said, using figurative language, that at the death of Jesus the graves had opened (Mt. or that darkness (of sorrow) had spread over all the earth (Mk. also 26, n. ( a ) In the present connection we need not do more to what bv Strauss was than allude verv as almost the only source of origin for such miraculous narratives as had no real foundation in fact - namelv. passages of the OT. These may very well have contributed to the shaping of such narratives, even though we do not assume that they originated them. For the of the dead cp I K. 1 7 for the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, cp Ex. 16 Nu. 11 K. for the walking upon the water Ps. 77 Is. 43 16 Job 9 8 for the stilling the storm, 107 for the healing of the withered hand I K. 136 for the healing of the dumb Wisd. Apart from the miracles, there is one OT passage which has very clearly influenced the form of the gospel narrative in 21 7. It is impossible to deny representation here to be that rode into Jerusalem upon two asses. Even if one chooses to interpret the words as meaning that he sat upon the garments and not upon the animals the sense is stantially the same, for the garments were laid upon the asses. The misunderstanding rests only upon a too literal interpretation of the prophecy in Zech. which is not shared by Mk. and Lk. So also the number given to the thirty (unmentioned in Mk. 1411 Lk. sum received by Judas, as also the casting away of the money into the teniple (Mt. 2615 would seem to not from tradition but from the passage in Zechariah (11 expressly cited in Mt. Upon Bethlehem, as the birthplace of Jesus, the virgin birth, the Magi, the flight into Egypt, the massacre of the innocents, see M ARY [MOTHER OF JESUS] and NATIVITY. According to Mk. (see we are to understand that Jesus healed where he found faith. This power is so strongly attested throughout the first and second centuries that, in view of the spiritual greatness of Jesus and the imposing character his personality, it be indeed difficult to deny it to him. Even the Pharisees do not deny his miracles of healing, though they trace them to a compact with Beelzebub (Mk. Mt. 934 Lk. According to Mt. the disciples of the Pharisees also wrought such miracles the man who followed not with the disciples of Jesus cast the same is said of out devils (Mk. those whom in Mt. Jesus rejects in his final judgment. Paul asserts that a like power was possessed by himself Cor. 12 Rom. 15 and by other Christians ( I Cor. Justin mentions castings-out of devils 26 35, 39, 76, 85) so also

( a )As for the feeding of the 5000 and the 4000, so also we still possess a clue to for the withering of the the way in the narrative arose out of a parable. The narrative in question is not found in Lk., and this is, doubtless correctly, explained from that Lk. considered his the of the fie-tree - or rather the to the parable, the tree had at last to be cut down after all-as identical with the narrative. By the fig-tree, in this view, was meant the nation of Israel, and that which we have seen to be impossible if the story is taken as a relation of actual 6, becomes very effective as soon as the fact symbolical interpretation is adopted. At the close of his ministry, at his last festival, Jesus utters his curse upon the nation that has borne no fruit. rative forms of expression, which could give rise to the story of the feeding, are also to be found in Mt. 56 : blessed are they that hunger, for they shall be filled, and the verse which in Mk. (634) stands before the miraculous narrative, to the effect that Jesus the multitude, embodies in reality the substance of that narrative. For Peters draught of fishes, cp Mk. and Mt. It is not difficult to expressions made use of by Jesus out of which the narrative of the walking on the water and the stilling of the tempest could be framed, somewhat after the analogy of Mk. 1122-24 and Lk. 1 7 6 : if ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, then shall ye be able to com-

On the earliest text see

123 a,n.



and Quadratus large number of the sayings of Jesus now received for the first time that consecutive and pointed form which made them seem worthy of further repetition. Without doubt Jesus must very often have repeated himself; but what he assuredly often repeated in many variations has been preserved to us only in a single form. One may perhaps venture to compare the process with that of a photographer who prints from many negatives of the same individual on the same paper. There is produced in this way an ' average ' likeness which when viewed from some distance seems satisfactory enough, but when it is more closely viewed the vagueness of its contours is at once discovered. The context in which we now find the sayings of Jesus must never (from what has been said in be taken as a trustworthy guide in determining what the original meaning may have been. In every case the context tells us only what the evangelists, or their predecessors, found it to mean indeed in many it is impossible to believe that even for them the place where they introduce the saying is intended to convey any hint as to the meaning. A source like the logia laid naturally very little stress upon this point. The greater number of the utterances of Jesus are like erratic blocks. All that one sees with perfect clearness is that they d o not originally belong to the place where they are now found. What their original position was is unknown. The observer has to rest satisfied if in spite of its removal to a new site the real nature and quality of the stone can be made out ; and this is happily very often the case.
On the other hand a wholly mistaken line is taken when for example, the is niade to base consequences on any as that Jesus was apt to give forth parahles or say ings pairs. The parable of the leaven which in Mt. and Lk. immediately follows on that ofthe mustard-seed In source as well as is still wanting in Mk. 4 the sayings about the salt and about the light were still separate (not connected as we now see them in Mt. 5 Equally are discussions a s to the order in which Jesus may have spoken the beatitudes. If any one were to try to repeat the once he would not he sure of rebeatitudes after hearing taining the original order. We cannot expect more of those who heard Jesus. In the Sermon on the Mount not only is it needless to ask whether it was heard the disciples alone or by the multitude as well it is equally needless to ask whether it was intended for the one or for the other. I t is a conglomerate. Little of what is found in Mt. 5-7 recurs in Lk. 6 On Mt. 5 13-16 see on 5 see In chap. a really good connection is found only within each of the following with 16-18; not between these groups reciprocally, nor yet between them and the other sayings contained in these chapters. Nay, there is not the least ground for supposing, because they are three in number, that Jesus enumerated immediately succession those things in which according to Mt. 16-18 hypocrisy is to be avoided quite apart from the fact that the enumeration is disturbed and broken by vv.


(Eus. That Jesus demanded faith is frequently stated (Mk. Mt. as also that he was approached with faith (Mk.25 Mt. Lk. ; Mt. 810 Lk. d), and that he Mt. see prayed.
Many of the accounts contain particulars that could hardly have been introduced at will merely for effect. Thus in Mk. 5 the devil does not leave the demoniac of Gerasa at the first adjuration Jesus must first, just like a modern alienist, enter with the man into a conversation in which he elicits from him what his hallucinations are. In Mk. all the symptoms shown by the boy, except the falling into the fire, can he paralleled from the descriptions of epilepsy in ancient medical writers (Krenkel, u.

Of course we must endeavour to ascertain how many, and still more what sorts of cures were effected by Jesus. It is quite permissible for us to regard as historical only those of the class which even at the present day physicians are able to effect by psychical methods,-as, more especially, cures of mental maladies. It is highly significant that, in a discourse of Peter the whole activity of Jesus is summed in this that he went about doing good and healing all those that were oppressed of the devil. By this expression only demoniacs are intended. Cp also Lk. It is not at all difficult to understand how the contemporaries of Jesus, after seeing some wonderful deed or deeds wrought by him which they regarded as miracles, should have credited him with every other kind of miraculous power without distinguishing, as the modern mind does, between those maladies which are amenable to psychical influences and those which are not. It is also necessary to bear in mind that the cure may often have been only temporary. If there was a relapse, people did not infer any deficiency in the miraculous efficacy of the healer they accounted for it simply by the return of the demon who had been cast out. On this point Mt. 12 43-45 is very characteristic. Perhaps also Lk. 82 may be cited in this connection, if the seven devils were cast out of Mary Magdalene not simultaneously but on separate occasions.

(7 32-35 8 22-26) according to which Jesus

Most obscure of all are the two accounts found only in Mk. use of saliva to in these two cases it is extraordinarily effect a difficult to believe in a cure whether by this or by psychical methods. ( a ) Even if the public ministry of Jesus had lasted for a

few months

Conclusion in the gospels. His longest discourse as t o discourses would, if delivered in the form in of Jesus. which it has come down to us, not
have taken more than some five minutes in the delivery. However self-evident, this has been constantly overlooked by the critics. They are constantly assuming that we possess the several words of Jesus that have been reported approximately in the same ness with which they were spoken. For the parables perhaps (apart, of course, from the manipulations c d)this may pointed out above, in be to a certain extent true. Of other utterances, we have traced in Mt. 11 Lk. and Mk. 8 = Mt. one or two which must have been In what remains, however, preserved almost it can hardly be sufficiently emphasised that we possess only an excessively meagre of what Jesus said, namely, only so much as not only made an immediate impression when first heard, but also continued to survive the ordeal of frequent repetition (for much of it possessed too little interest for those who had not been actual witnesses). In this process not only was an extraordinary number of utterances completely lost ; but a
As for Josephus cp and c. 1 3 1 ; for According to Tacitus wonderful cures (cp above,
6 3 Ant. 1 3 viii. 2 5 1 for 16 Vespasian effected several

he must have uttered a thousandfold more than all that has been recorded


Words of such pre-eminent importance as the Lord's Prayer or the words of institution of the Eucharist, or the description of a scene so unforgettable as that in which the sign is given by which the betrayer is made known (Mk. Mt. Lk. 2221) are given in a very conflicting manner. Of the words uttered on the cross, Mk. and Mt. have only one, which in turn is omitted by Lk., who, however, gives three others. In this last case, however, one may be that Mk. and Mt. are in the right and to the three previous ones one safely apply the maxim that additions are more likely than omissions omissions would in fact be difficult to account for Mk. accordingly, with omission of take may be regarded as the relatively (not absolutely) oldest form of the words of institution of the Eucharist. (Against the deletion of Lk. 22 196 see Schmiedel in Hand-cornmentar on I Cor. 1 1 3 4 . ) ( d ) While the case of the Eucharistic words only Lk. is dependent on Paul, Mt. and still more Mk. avoiding his novelties, Paul in I Cor. as against all the synoptists, exhibits the earlier form of the prohibition of divorce. This we infer from the fact that it is he who gives the strictest form of the prohibition. Subsequent

relaxations in view of the difficulty in working the severer form, are intelligible, increases of stringency are not especially would these be unintelligible in the case of Paul, who actually finds himself constrained ( I Cor. 7 on his own responsibility to introduce a relaxation the law. Even the Epistle of James, although it .already omits Jerusalem as an object by which one can swear gives an older form of the precept .against swearing than is found in Mt. 5 37 ; namely, Let your yea be a (simple) yea, and your nay a (simple) nay. ( e ) As for the substance of the sayings of Jesus, it has :already been pointed out in 109 6, 136 how little credence we can attach to the historicity of the sayings attributed to Jesus about the call of the Gentiles, the baptismal formula, the later conditions of t h e primitive church, and the postponement of his parusia. Here it may be added that in Mk. a saying which certainly was originally the closing remark .of a preacher on the anointing at Bethany is given .as a word of Jesus. In Mt. (2663) it is still further .altered by the addition : Wheresoever gospel shall be preached, that also which this woman hath done shall be spoken of.' As regards a passage of such great as Mk. ( ' t o give his life a 'ransom for many'), judgment can be given only in accordance with the following considerations. It can be accepted as genuine if Jesus spoke of his life as a in no other sense than that in which he did so a t the last as an offering not for sin but for the immunity of his followers, after the manner of the Passover lamb in Egypt, or for ratification of their with God as in Gen. Jer. if he did so at a date not too long before his death. Otherwise the doubt will have to be expressed, that the sentence comes from the Pauline theology. In any case it is noteworthy that it is absent from Lk. 2227.
That Jesus had in view the possibility of his death some time before it came upon him is unlikely. But the very precise predictions of it with their various details are open to the suspicion that they took shape at a later date in .accordance with the facts of history, and least of all is it credible that Jesus should have put forth such a prediction directly after Peter's confession 831 Mt. Lk. This confession must have been one of the supreme moments in the joyous consciousness of Jesus-the discovery that he was finding recognition as the Messiah and was winning his battle. Suffering .and death are the very opposite of all that is looked for in the Jewish Messiah, and of what Jesus at that moment could have looked forward to for himself.

pieces, however, may be Jewish ; and Jesus could have foreseen the destruction of Jerusalem even without supernatural knowledge. I n no case, however, we to lay weight on the circumstance that he connects it with the end of the world for this arises from the fusion of the (certainly vacillating) tradition regarding his own words with the 'little Apocalypse' Therefore, also, we must refuse to entertain the conjecture that in reality he prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem only, and that his alleged prediction of the end of the world on a misunderstanding of the disciples. According to the same mode of reasoning, he cannot have prophesied his resurrection alone without adding a prediction of his second coming from heaven for this, according to the general and most ancient belief, which makes no mention ascension also Cor. 1 5 Bom. Rev. I Pet. 3 Eph. carried him direct to heaven ; but there was quite as general a belief that as Messiah his of setting up the kingdom of God upon earth required his presence here.

the eschatological discourses disappears specifically apocalyptic concerning the signs of his parusia, if the separation of the little Apocalypse 6 is correct. This does not, however, as made in by any means imply the elimination of all eschatological utterances whatsoever. On the contrary, there still remain to be attributed to Jesus the words in Mt. (ultimately also ; see which he prophesies his return with the clouds of heaven, and the like. This is in fact quite intelligible, and even necessary, if he held himself to be the Messiah in such .acase it would have been impossible for him to believe that God would allow him and his work to go to ruin through the persecutions of his enemies. The failure of these prophecies to come to fulfilment ought in no case t o lead to any attempt to make out that they were not uttered Jesus, or to interpret in such a sense .ascauses their inconsistency with the facts to disappear. As has been shown in 111, e, the evangelists found that much trouble was required in order to tone down this inconsistency they had not the least occasion, therefore, to invent such predictions or to heighten them the prophecies must have lain before them as quite fixed elements of tradition. Another question is whether Jesus foretold the destruction of
the temple as in Mk. 13 Mt. 24 Lk. 21 6. If the little (Mk. 13 Mt. 24 or Rev. 11 I is from a Christian hand the answer can hardly be affirmative, a Christian writer could have Dresumed the continued existence of the temple in to Jesus' own prophecy. Both these

Of all these predictions it is possible to deny that they were uttered by only if it be at the same time denied that he held himself to be the Messiah. But in that case it be impossible to explain how the disciples, who had been thrown into the utmost depths of despondency his death, nevertheless came to be able to believe in his resurrection. Those theologians who go so far as to remove all the utterances of Jesus to the effect that he was the Messiah, hardly continue to hold that the belief in his resurrection rests on anything more real than the visions the disciples which arose out of their subjective mental condition. All psychology, however, affirms that visions arise only when that which is seen in the concrete has previously taken firm and living hold on the soul of the visionary. The belief is therefore inevitable that the disciples had already, in the lifetime of Jesus, held him to be the Messiah. They could not, however, have done so without acquainting him with of theirs ; and if he had denied it, it is imthis possible how their respect for his authentic declaration should have permitted them to go on believing the opposite. As regards the date of his coming, the statements in Mt. (that it would be before the then living generation had passed away) and have a in 2664 (that it would be immediately, like claim to probability. Whatever he may have said as to this, it is certain that he also declared that none knoweth of that day or of that hour (Mk. 13 Mt. 2436). It would be quite out of place to look in the gospels for direct statements as to any development in Jesus during the period of his public activity. The latest date at which reverence for him would have allowed a conception of anything of the kind to be assigned is that of his temptation (Mt. Lk. 41-13) before his ministry began. It could only be from unconscious touches of theirs that we could be led to conjecture any development later than this. Yet such a conjecture we venture to make, for example, as regards Jesus' freedom of attitude towards the Mosaic law. What he says in Mt. about murder, or in about adultery, may be easy enough to reconcile with his declaration that he is not come to destroy the law ( 517 ) but the case is otherwise with the sayings immediately following, upon upon swearing upon divorce retaliation upon love of one's 43-48), as also upon the laws about foods (Mk. 1-23 Mt. 15 and about the Sabbath (Mk. and parallels). If the first-mentioned conservative saying (517) is to be held genuine, we must assign it to the first period of the public activity of Jesus. It is in fact quite credible that Jesus, who unquestionably was a pious Jew, at first saw in the Mosaic law the unalterable will of his Father, and regarded the errors of the Pharisees as consisting only in a too external apprehension of it. But it is equally intelligible that in the course of his controversy with them he should have become convinced how many precepts the law in point of fact embodied which were antagonistic to the spirit of religion as it had revealed itself to him. It was one of his greatest achievements that he sacrificed the letter of the law to this and not this to the letter of 1888


the la w; but we may be sure that it cost him many a hard struggle. ( h ) Another point in regard to which we may venture to conjecture some development in Jesus during his public life is his Messiahship. As late as on the occasion of Peters confession we find him commanding his disciples to keep this a secret (Mk. 830 Mt. Lk. With this it agrees that in Mk., before this date, he applies thd designation Son of Man to himself only twice (21028). In Mt., on the contrary, he does so very often, and, besides, the significance of Peters confession is completely destroyed by where already all the apostles have been made to declare him to be the Sonof God. In accordingly, this trace of development in Jesus thinking is obliterated. It is when the purely religious-ethical utterances of Jesus come under consideration that we are most advantageously placed. Here especially applies the maxim laid down in 131 (end) that we may accept as credible everything that harmonises with the idea of Jesus which has been derived from what we have called the foundation pillars ) and is not otherwise open to fatal objection. Even though such utterances may have been liable to Ebionitic heightening, and already, as showing traces of this, cannot lay claim to literal accuracy- even though they may have been unconsciously modified into accord with conditions of the Christian community that arose only at a later date- even though they may have undergone some distortion of their meaning through transference to a connection that does not belong to them- the spirit which speaks in them is quite unmistakable. Here we have a wide field of the wholly credible in which to expatiate, and it would be of unmixed advantage for theology were it to concentrate its strength upon the examination of these sayings, and not attach so much importance to the minute investigation of the other less important details of the gospel history. AUTHORS AND DATES OF THE GOSPELS AND MOST IMPORTANT SOURCES. means originally (and still continues to do the reward for a of news. late classical Greek the good news Itself, for which the LXX has the in For religious. in Is. 611, tidings we have the verb cited in Lk. 418. The N T has the substantive also in this sense. It was a serious error on Origens part when Eus. HE vi. he took the Gospel of Lk. to be meant where Paul speaks of my Gospel (Rom. 2 still Tim. 28). In the also, signifies the substance of the gospel history without reference to the book in which it was written so too in 82, the Lord says in his gospel so too in Irenaeus when he describes the gospel as fourfold so too even in the Muratorian fragment (1. : But here we already find also 17) similarly Justin 76) speaks of the of the apostles which are called gospels, and Claudius Apollinaris says in the (cp JO HN , SON OF 42, the gospels seem to contradict one another. Thus it was not till the middle of the second century that the nord came to signify a book, and, after that, till the end of the second century, it continued to bear its original meaning as well. The titles Gospel according to Matthew, to Mark, etc., accordingly do not, linguistically considered, mean the written Gospel of Matthew, etc. still less, however, written Gospel based on communications by Matthew, as if theverytitles

conveyed that Matthew, Mark, and the others were-not the authors, but only the guarantors for the contents of the hooks. The inscription means simply Gospel history in the form in which Matthew put it into writing. In Mk. 1 1 the expression t h e Gospel of Jesus Christ seems already to designate a book but at the same time it teaches us that the writer of these words cannot have set down as title to the whole book the words Gospel according to Mark Thus also in Mt. and Lk. etc. the titles do not come from the authors. In fact the writings bore no superscription at Every one who possessed any book of this sort will have called it the gospel as in the case of Marcion the gospel of Lk. which he caused to be used in his congregations was called simply gospel The additions with according to ( became necessary at a later date when people began to possess several such books either separately or bound together in one volume. If, therefore, it should prove not to be the case that our gospels were severally written by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the statements that they were do not arise from falsification on the part of the actual authors, but only from error on the part of the church fathers, such as Papias or the person upon whom he relied. at most those Besides the statements of Papias only of the church fathers of the close of the second and the beginning of the third century referred to in 75-82 can come into consideration here. How small, however. is the confidence that can be placed in the authors of these will at once be evident when it is remembered that Irenaeus (and similarly Tertullian, 4 z ) declares Luke to have committed to writing the Gospel preached by Paul. The details of the life of Jesus had so little interest for Paul that, for example, in Cor. in order to induce the Corinthians to contribute liberally to the collection for the poor in Palestine he is able to adduce no other feature in Jesus as a pattern than the fact of his having become man. As his explicit declarations in Cor. 5 I Cor. Gal. 31 tell us, he preached extremely little to his congregations about the earthly life of Jesus. The whole attribution to Paul of the gospel of Lk., which, according to Origen, the refers to in 216 as m y Gospel is only an expedient which the church fathers adopted to enable them to assign a quasi-apostolic origin to the work of one who was not himself an apostle. For this reason suspicion attaches also to the statement that the gospel of Mk. rested upon communications of Peter especially as it is accompanied with an elaborate apology for Marks undertaking. The statements of the church fathers, moreover, are not in the least consistent among themselves. According to Irenaeus, Matthew wrote his gospel while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome-thus somewhere in the sixties,-while according to a tradition in Eusebius iii. 246) he wrote it before his departure from Palestine into foreign parts, that is to say, much earlier. Again, according to Irenaeus, Mark wrote after the death of Peter and Paul, while according to of Alexandria, Peter lived to see the completion of Marks gospel. Nay, more,- the two statements as to Peters attitude to this gospel which Eusebius ( H E and vi. takes from Clement are in conflict with each other, quite apart from the question whether Clement did not also regard the Gospels that had genealogies as older than those which had not. In short, all that can be said to be certain is this, that it is vain to look to the church fathers for trustworthy information on the subject of the origin of the gospels. Mt. I could, at a subsequent date, be as such after the analogy of 2 4 ; after that of 5 I it originally referred only to the genealogy of Jesus,

so in

also SON OF

We firmly hold that by this name he means to designate himself as the Messiah-and that too even in Mk. 2 IO although these are the two places in which there is most justification for the attempt to make it man in general. Cp




and also his authority, According to Papias (see the second gospel was written by M ARK Mark is known to us from Acts There is also an inclination to identify him with the young man who left his garment in the hands of his pursuers in the garden of Gethsemane (Mk. ). This conjecture. however, has no value, of course, in the wdy of proof either that the young man was Mark, or that he was the author of the second gospel he need only be one of the chief for its contents. In what Papias says the important point is not so much the statement that Mark wrote the gospel as the further statement that Peter supplied its contents orally. If the student interprets the narratives of the feeding of the five thousand and of the four thousand, of the stilling of the storm, of the walking upon the water, of the withering of the fig-tree, and so forth, in the manner that has been indicated in preceding sections of this article then the supposition that the gospel is essentially a repetition of oral communications by Peter, will at once fall to the ground. Rut even apart from this, the compass of the entire work is far too short.
It is hardly felicitous to say to this that Mk. repeatsso few of the words of Jesus because he was aware that the others Why, in that were already known through the logia case, then, does he fill some seven of his sixteen chapters with ahout Peter personally it these? As for what Mk. tells certainly is true that the statements concerning him in Mt. is richer than Mk. (his walking upon the water, ; the promise given him, 16 the stater in the fish's mouth, 17 make no claim to historicity. But the statements e. Wernle (p. recognises the leading position of Peter it necessary to add also of the sons of Zehedee'), are found with trifling exceptions in Mt. and Lk. also. Only Mk. 136 13 3 16 7 are wanting both the others Mk. 3 76 537 is wanting also in only, and Mk. 1433 37 in Lk. only. Peter's leading position in the gospel, any case corresponds to the actuality. But precisely for this reason the statements regarding it are all the less conclusively shown to be derived from Peter personally.

in Aramaic-becomes also possible, which cannot be said of the logia according to Rut there remains this that according to the prologue of Lk. no eye-witnesses of the life of Jesus took pen in hand- none at least appear to have produced any writing which Lk. would have called a narrative' the Jewish judicial procedure is still the sacrificial system and in 535 Jerusalem is referred to as still a city while in Jas. 5 the swearing by Jerusalem is significantly omitted it was certainly no longer in existence then. While it is not practicable to prove by means of these passages that Mt. was composed before 70 A. D . (see they strongly tend to establish that earlier date for the logia. in
Mt. 23 35 is in the highest degree remarkable. Zachariah the son of Berechiah is the well-known prophet of the O T who did not suffer martyrdom. Hut, according t o Zechariah the son of Jehoiada did so suffer. This was about so that he certainly cannot be called the last martyr, and least of all can he be so called merely because Chronicles is the last book in the OT. From Josephus 5 4, we learn that in Zechariah was put to death The conjecture is a very obvious one that the author had event in his mind. If it be correct, the date of will have to be placed considerably later than 68 A.D., as the writer could not, very shortly after this event, easily have confounded this Zechariah with some other who had lived before, or in, the time of Jesus. I t must not he overlooked, however that according to Lk. the source of this narrative is of God, that is to say, according to the most probable conjecture, a hook distinct from the logia which either on its title the words 'Wisdom of God or introduced the Wisdom of God as speaking. It is doubtful therefore whether the passage is to be assigned to the logia.

In Mt. presupposed

Whether it was original Mk. that arose in the manner described by Papias will be differently judged according to the various opinions that are held regarding that writing. No answer to a question of this sort, however, can be of any real service to gospel criticism, for we no longer possess original Mk. Mark have written in Aramaic then he cannot be held to have been the author of canonical Mk., which is certainly not a translation (see nor yet, in view of the LXX quotations which have passed over into all three gospels; can he be held to have been the author of original Mk., but only to have been the author of the source from the last-named writer drew. The employment of various sources (amongst others, of or original Mk. the characteristic difference of the quotations from the LXX and the original the indefiniteness of the determinations of time and place ( the incredibilities of the contents 108, the introduction of later conditions as also the artificial arrangement and so forth, have long since led to the conclusion that for the authorship of the First Gospel the apostle Matthew must be given up. All the more strenuously is the effort made to preserve for Matthew the anthorship of the logia. From the contents it is clear that one must assign to the logia many things which no ear-witness can have heard from the mouth of Jesus. This is the case even if only discourses (for examples, see 136 and also 150) are sought in the logia, or if it is assumed that the legalistic and Jewish-particularistic passages were first introduced in the course of a revision If one derives most of the narratives also from the logia, the considerations against their apostolic 148 became still more origin already adduced in cogent. That the apostle Matthew should liave been the author of a still older writing is not excluded. On this supposition the statement of Papias- that he wrote

For the earliest instance in which a passage is quoted which now is to be found in our canonical Mt. (Epistle of Barnabas) see 89. It is not permissible to infer a date earlier than 70 A . D . either from the straightway which Mt. has retained from the 'little 1 1 1 , 1246) or from the other inApocalypse' (see dicia adduced in In Mt. 2 2 7 the. destruction of Jerusalem is clearly presupposed as already past (see The church-conditions also, as well 136, a s the postponement of the parusia (see point to a later date. It is not practicable to separate these passages as later interpolations, and thus gain for the Gospel as a whole the earlier date. They are much too numerous, and many of them -- as, for example, precisely - much too closely implicated with a tendency which pervades On the other hand, it is quite the entire work open to us to regard some of them as interpolations : for example, 16 or the baptismal formula 28 or or also the appearance of Jesus to the women Substantially, these are the leading paschaps. sages on account of which many are disposed to bring down the date of the entire gospel as late as to 130 A. D . T h e fact that it was used, as well as Mk. and Lk., by the author of the Fourth Gospel would not forbid this late date (see J OHN , S ON OF Z EBEDEE, Probably, however, its main contents must have been in existence at an earlier period if they were known to Lk. 127, and even the most of chaps. is presupposed to have been in existence if it can be shown that in 119 A . D . a final addition was introduced into it. This has been suggested as regards the story of the Magi : a Syriac writing, ascribed to Eusebius of which was published by William Wright in the Sacred Literature, 1866, pp. and discussed by and Hilgenfeld in pp. pp. makes the statement, which can hardly have been invented, that this narrative, committed to writing in the interior of Persia, was in
den Stern

The heading of the whole tractate is, according to Nestle, den Stern : wie und was und Joseph


during the episcopate of Xystus of Rome, made search for, discovered, andwritten in the languageof those who were interested in it (that is to say, in Greek). As regards canonical Mk. we possess a datum for fixing its date only if we assume it to have been the book that was by Mt. and Lk. find ourselves unable to do this it is open to us to suppose that it may have received its final form later than and Lk. It is not, however, justifiable to find a proof of this in the fact that in it designates the public appearance of the Baptist as the beginning of the gospel of Jesus. Some scholars have detected here a silent polemic against those gospels which begin with the narratives relating to the nativity of Jesus. The significant anceof the straightway Mt. 1324 certainly points clearly to the period after the see destruction of Jerusalem. On Mk. the companion of Paul, cannot have been If the author of Acts (see ACTS, 9 neither can he have been the author of the Third Gospel. That both works are from the same pen may be regarded as quite certain. The weightiest evidences of the employment of Josephus by Lk. seen in Acts (see 16) yet tolerably many are found in the gospel also. I n that case the year will be the superior, and somewhere about the inferior, limit of the date of its composition, since there must have been a considerable interval between the production of the gospel and that of Acts. The very precise description of the destruction of Jerusalem in Lk. is in full accord with history and, in language, with Josephus. It cannot exactly be pronounced absolutely impossible that it should nevertheless have been written before 70 for a lively imagination acquainted with the localities could hardly have presented them very differently. b) Only, the prediction of the little Apocalypse which is still rightly interpreted in Mt. and Mk. in accordance with Daniel (see DAN IEL, ii.) as referring to the setting up of a foreign image in the temple has been made by wrongly yet very in accordance with the expression to refer to the destruction of Jerusalem Upon this event, he says, will follow (v. 24) the times of the Gentiles 111) during which Jerusalem is to be trodden under foot. Not till after these times are the signs in heaven to appear and the Son of Man to come with clouds (vv. 25-27), and not till this point does he promise to the followers of Christ their redemption and the coming of the of God (vv. Had Lk. written before the destruction of Jerusalem we have expected him to have thought of this event as connected with the second coming of Jesus. That instead of this he should represent the judgment day (v. and the beginning of the kingdom of God as being separated by so long an interval is, ascomparedwith all prophecyand apocalyptic, something quite new and admits of only one explanation -that the destruction of Jerusalem could at the time of writing be no longer regarded as a recent event. In his prologue Lk. distinguishes himself not only from the eye-witnesses of the life of Jesus but also from the many who before him had written comprehensive and from the number of these, he again seems to exclude the eye-witnesses.
in Dan. (cp 9 27 1131) is simply a veiled expression for Lord Zeus, altar (or was erected upon the altar of burnt-offering in December B.C. (I Macc. 154 The Syriac Bible actually gives in Macc. 6 in connection with this event as a rendering of the Greek word Thus Daniel had not desolation in his mind in the least. See A BOMINATI ON OF D ESOLATION . Further information as to similar veiled designations of heathen deities is given in $5, n. 56. The verb (EV set forth in order) denotes andbecause, words alsotome Lk. applies it also to his own performance)the composition of a

Lk. makes a quite clear division : the eye-witnesses have handed down and that by word of mouth no purpose would have been served by adding to the further predicate ministers of the word others have composed gospel writings; and seeks to excel these last by accurate research (or taking u p the narrative from an earlier point) and by correct arrangement. That he himself had direct intercourse with is therefore not very probable, and it is not at all expressed by the word (1 they delivered them unto us which from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word, for immediately before he speaks of the things which have been fulfilled among us, a phrase by which he obviously cannot mean himself and his contemporaries, h ut only Christendom generally similarly therefore in Cp 37 64. The discussion of the dates of the gospel yields, it will be seen, but few definite results. W e have ately refrained from making use of certain arguments which could be more or less easily applied otherwise. All the more would we the proposition, that our uncertainty on the chronological question by no means carries with it any uncertainty in the judgment we are to form of the gospels themselves. The chronological question is in this instance a very subordinate one. Indeed, even if our gospels could be shown to have been written from 50 A . D . onwards, or even earlier, we should not be under any necessity to withdraw our conclusions as to their contents we should, on the contrary, only to say that the indubitable transformation in the original tradition had taken place much more rapidly than might have been ready to suppose. The credibility of the gospel history cannot be established by an earlier dating of the gospels themselves in any higher degree than that in which it has already been shown to especially as we know that even in the lifetime of Jesus miracles of every sort were attributed to him in the most as the transformation has deconfident manner. parted so far from the genuine tradition, it is only in the reasoninterest of a better understanding and of a able appreciation of the process that one should claim for its working out a, considerable period of time. By way of appendix a few words must be said here on the question, postponed from AP OC RYPHA 26, I ) to this place, as to whether the gospel of the Hebrews is to be reckoned among the sources of the ing to the church fathers this gospel was the Hebrew or Aramaic form of canonical Mt. If this were correct, it would not ,have been necessary for Jerome to make .a separate translation of it. According to Nicholson (The Gospel according the Hebrews, 79) it was a later Hebrew edition of the gospel of Mt., issued after the Greek had already been published by 117) it has Matthew himself. Since Lessings time often regarded-especially in the Tiibingen school - one of the sources, or even as the most ancient, or as even as the only, source of our synoptics. Handmann, again in 5 identifies it with the logia. That it may have been, in some older form, one of the sources of the Synoptics cannot be contradicted but neither can it be proved, for we no longer possess the older form. Among the fragments preserved to us there are ,only a few which are not open to challenge on the score of their late date. Many on the other hand are unquestionably late legends James, the brother of Jesus, swore at the last supper (where according to our evangelists he cannot even have been present) to eat nothing till he should have beheld Jesus after his resurrection Jesus accordingly appeared in the first instance to him, brought bread, broke it, and gave it to him. Or, again, at the death of Jesus the superliminare or lintel of the temple was broken. Or, Jesus is reported to have said : even
(AV declaration,RV narrative accordingly must also mean this, and not a mere statement about a particular occurrence,

prehensive work in accordance with literary aims. without pretension to literary art (cp

now has my mother, the Holy Spirit, seized me by one
of my hairs and borne me to the great mountain Tabor : and more of the like. It is almost universally conceded that the fragments of the so-called gospel of the Ebionites can claim antiquity in a much less degree still than can the gospel of the Hebrews to which it is related. (n) Other gospelsocalled logia of Jesus found at Oxyrhynchus, first pub lished by Grenfell and Hunt.
These contain besides an (almost) verbatim repetition of Lk. 6 which go far beyond the Johannine theology, and have absolutely nothing analogous to them in the canonical gospels. I t would be a great error to see in them a portion of the gospel logia of Mt. But the hypothesis also, that they are excerpts from the gospel of the Egyptians, has its strongest support only in the fact that according to accounts this gospel itself was of an equally mixed character. Moreover the identification cannot he made were it only for this realon-that we cannot know whether these seven or eight sayings were excerpted wholly from one hook or whether they were compiled from a variety of sources. in fact, the principle on which such a heterogeneous variety of sayings has been brought together is quite obscure to us (cp 86).

employ, and partly according to the views they maintain.
Mainly tendency-criticism.- (a) Mt., Mk. : die 47 Gesch. ('67) ; i. (6) Mk., Lk. : Hilgenfeld, Die Evangelien, '54 ; from '58 onwards. Holsten, Die Evangelien, '83 ; Die '85 ; cp 125a. der Gesch. Lk Mt. : Bruno Bauer, der Evangelien, mar, Die Evangelien die Synopsis, 70; Marcus der '76 Schulze, '61, '86.


(6) 1900) has published a Coptic fragment which, amongst other things, touches upon the scene in Gethsemane.
I n character this is the same mixture of Synoptic and Johannine or even supra-Jobannine ideas as has been observed in the Oxyrhynchus logia. Its derivation from the gospel of the Egyptians is just as questionable as is that of those logia. I f then we read in it-what, according to the connection, it can hardly he doubted, notwithstanding the fragmentary character of the piece, we ought to read- that the words 'The spirit is willing, hut the flesh is weak, with reference' to himself and not with reference to the disciples, if we should feel inclined to regard this a s the more original we must not do so merely on account of the source in which we find it.

cp Theory of two sources (Mk. and the logia): Weisse, Evangel. Gesch., '38 '56 (but see Wernle, Die synopt. Original gospel of Philip, with the logia: Ewald, Die 3 '71 (e) Original Mk. with the logia: Holtzmann, Die '63 ; 1878, pp. Theol. from 125 die evangel. Gesch., 64 ; Das '86 Johannes Weiss u. pp. ; pp. Wiederkunftsrede in Meyer's Beyschlag, pp. 1883, ; cp . Feine, '85-'88 ; des Lk., Apostolic logia : Bernhard Weiss, pp. 1883, 1864, pp. 72 ; '76 in Komm. '83, Mk. '85, (Mk. only), Theol. Stud. Weiss, ('97); also separately under the title, Das der den Logia des C p above,
(g) Theory of two sources with borrowing from Mt. by Lk.


Mainly, or entirely literary criticism.-(a) Mk der '38. Pfleiderer, Mt. : '87. (6) Schleiermacher die des



The case is quite similar with the gospel according to Peter (see P E TER). ( d ) The fragment, first published by Bickell in the Theol., 1885, pp. which has been dealt with by (amongst others) Harnack Untersuch. 54, pp. and Resch
This fragment contains in a somewhat divergent form the predictionof Jesus that all his disciples would he offended in him and that Peter would deny mentioning also that the cock crowed twice it agrees most strongly with Mk. 14 26-30 but also with Mt. 2631 the words 'in this night since 30. these words in Mk. do not occur in v. 27 hut only That we have here before us a pre-canonical form of the text cannot be proved with certainty from the divergences in individual words. A stronger argument is supplied hy the fact that of Mk. 32 of i n the present fragment v. wanting-a verse which has long been recognised as disturbing the : I am risen again I will go before you into Galilee. At the same time, we must not forget may have been omitted preciselyfor this reason, if dealing with a free excerpt. Neither does this fragment, then, supply with an irrefragable the existence of written sources for our gospels.

Theol. Lehre

Evangelist Stockmeyer des in der 1884, pp. Wendt '86. Soltau, der synopt. Wissensch., Combined with hypothesis of an original Mk.: Jacohsen, die Evangelien, ' 8 3 ; 1886,

: Simon?, Hat der

More complicated hypotheses pp. Scholten, Evangelium) 69 de de van '73 (German translation of both, Evangelium).

: Wittichen
68 (Germ. transl.,

der under title

( e ) The so-called that is to say, sayings of his which are not met with in the gospels, have been collected with great care by Kesch in u. Untersuch. 54 , '89.
Resch's judgment of these his readiness t o recognise genuine sayings of Jesus preserved latest church fathers and his employment of these for his Hebrew original gospel have, however, met with very just criticism in the same series (142) a t the hands of Ropes (Die die i n den nicht sind '96). At the same time Ropes in accepting so many as as probably genuine has perhaps gone too far. A somewhat richer selection, without pronouncing any judgment as to their genuineness, is given by Nestle in '96, pp. 89-92 where hesides a collation of Codex D, the extra-canonical as a whole will he found very conveniently brought together.

English.- It may be well to notice that the efforts of recent English students have been devoted to collecting and arranging the material for the solution of the critical problems under consideration, as a preliminary to the critical hypotheses which may, unforced, suggest themselves in the future.
and Ahbott and Rushbrooke's Tradition o the f ('84); A. Wright, o the Gospels('96) f Luke's Sir J. F. H Woods in . 2 ('go). Special treatises, etc. :-A. Wright, The Composition the Gospels ('go), and New The ed. io Matthew ('97); E. A. Abbott, A Guide Hebrew Scripture and The and Important articles :- A. E. art. 'Gospels' in Sanday in '91, '93, and art. Gospels' in Smith's ; V. H. art. 'Gospels' in Hastings' vol. Behb, art. 'Luke,' F.Salmond art. ' Mark,' ibid. J. V. Bartlett, 'Matthew.' W. C. Allen in and The following hooks hear upon the subject :-Westcott Introduction t o the Study ('60 ; Salmon' t o N T ('85) Plummer, on Luke
(a) Books helpful to students :-Rushbrooke's

Literature. In German. - For facility of reference we group the present selection from the German literature on the problem partly according to the methods they
I t is applied in the Roman Missal and Breviary (see Office for Palm Sunday).






the right

the Gospel citations indicate the



28 3a,


1844 128, 1870



9 9 128, 1864

2749, 27

n. I, 1807 142, 1884

S 26.


28 28 28 19,

108, 1839

136, 1876 1842



I, 1807 1884 27, 1783 138,

18 15-17,


1777 136, 1876


138, n. 3, 1767 138,