Professional Documents
Culture Documents
‘The house of with a royal residence Tradition has been exceptionally fortunate with the name
temples of and Goshen in particular identified Goshen with the
region and the of the Amalekit‘es. The
evidently not very far E., and on of Goshen to Sadir, a village N E . of by Sa‘adia
the site, of modern Tell It is very ques- (and Abu-sa‘id) is as strange as the limitation to (Old
tionable whether before there were in the Cairo) by Bar Modern scholars have, on the contrary
frequently extended Goshen too widely: Ebers, included
eastern part of the valley any Egyptian settlements it the whole eastern delta between the Tanitic branch Targ.
except the fortification mentioned above at any rate, Jer. which made Goshen ‘the land of Pelusium’),
it fully deserved the name that it came to bear in and the Bitter Lakes. We can afford to neglect certain
later times-’ land of (this would hardly hypotheses which date from the period before the decipherment
of the hieroglyphics for the situation erroneously assumed by
apply to the old western district). The position of the Brugscb, see EXODUS, 13. W. M. M.
land colonised by Rameses was very advantageous. It
possessed a healthy desert climate and was most fertile GOSHEN [BAFL]; I. A
as long as the canal to the Crocodile Lake was kept in land mentioned in Deuteronomistic portions of Joshua
The extension of the canal of Ram( to among other districts of Canaan, Josh.
the Ked Sea by Necho I. increased the commercial im- [AFL]), [BAFL]). It is strange to find
portance of the district. Quite recently, the repairing the name of Goshen outside the limits of Goshen roper.
of the canal has trebled the population, now Hommel
this district, which forms a part of the modern province supposes that as the Israelites in Egypt multiplied, the
Heroopolis-Patum thus became an im- area allotted to them was extended, and that the strip
portant place 4 for the trade on the Red Sea, where of country between Egypt and Judah, which still
also the Romans built a fortified camp. belonged to the Pharaoh, was regarded as an integral
Thus we see that and ‘land of part of the land of Goshen. This is obviously a con-
were with the Egyptians
. hardly identical. servative hypothesis (see EXODUS i., § ; M IZRAIM ,
The country of could be The text, however, may need criticism. That
only the eighth (eastern) nome. The the M T sometimes misunderstands, or even fails to
application to that (eastern) district, of observe, geographical names, is plain we have learned
the (obsolete and rare) name so much from Assyriology. Let us then suppose that
(vocalise of western dome) not Goshen is wrongly vocalised, and should be and
yet been shown on the (later) Egyptian monuments. compare the name of the town (‘fat
The Hebrew story (Nu. 33 of the Israelites marching two soil’), the Gischala of Josephus. Other solutions are
da ys (Rameses to Succoth, Succoth to Etham) through the
whole valley of (instead of starting from its eastern open we may at any rate presume that this old Hebrew
end) might suggest to some a mistake of P, J E placing the name had a Semitic origin, see
country of the Israelites hetween Bubastus, and Tell
(cp Naville). T h e probabilities, however, of such a As they now stand, Josh. and do
theory are small all sources seem to mean the same part of the the same geographical picture. T he words in 11 16, all the
country. Negeh and all the land of Goshen and the
Probably Heroopolis had, before the extension of the suggest that ‘the Goshen’ lay hetween the Negeb or southern
canal by Necho I., less importance, and the possibility steppe region and the or Lowlands. We might hold
that it took in the SW. of the hill-coimtry of Judah. In Josh;
that once also the eastern district had P-sapdu as capital where we read ‘all the land of Goshen as far as
and belonged to the district is, therefore, not to be we may ,presume that some words have dropped out after
denied. It must he confessed that the geographical Goshen. Cp N EGEB, 4.
texts upon which we have to rely date from Ptolemaic A town in the SW. of the hill-country of Judah, mentioned
with Debir, Anab, etc., Josh. 15 Probably an echo of
times only. The division of the Arabian district may the old name of a district in the same region (see I). Cp
have been different in earlier centuries. Gesham. T. K. C.
G o S ’ PE L s
CONTENTS
AND ANALYTICAL.
A.- INTERNAL EVIDENCE AS T O ORIGIN.
I. THE EARLIEST TRADITION IV. THE INTRODUCTIONS and ,
The effect of prophecy
THE TRIPLE TRADITION Philonian Traditions
The edition of Mk. from which Mt. and Lk. borrowed Justin and
Divergence of Mt. and Lk.
Mk. relation to Mt. and Lk. Jn. in relation to the Introductions
Jn. in relation to the Triple Tradition 8-14).
(a) Instances from the first part of Mk. 8). V. THE C ONCLUSIONS (Mt. Lk.
of the Resurrection 24-33.
(y ) Deviations of Lk. from Mk. (or Mk. and Mt.) (i.) The Evangelists select their evidence 24).
caused by obscurity (5 IO). (ii.) T he Period of Manifestations 25).
T he Passover and the Lord’s Supper Traces of Poetic Tradition 26).
( e ) T he Passion .
Discrepancies 27).
Conclusion and Exceptions (v.) view (‘proofs ’), 28.
(vi.) T he Manifestation to the Eleven
111. DOUBLE TRADITIONS 15-20). Lk. Ignatius) 5
Mk. and Mt. Jn. in relation to Mk. and Mt. 15). T he of tradition
.
Mk. and Lk Jn. in relation to Mk. and Lk. 16). (vni.) view (‘signs ’),
Mt. and or Double Tradition . (ix.) Contrast between Jn. and the Synoptists (5 33).
Acts of the Lord’; (6) Words of the Lord (x.) Note on the Testimony of Paul 33 note).
(iv.) Jn. in relation to ‘The Double Tradition’
VI. SINGLE TRADITIONS 34-63).
First Gospel 34-36).
A poetic description of the new city is to be found in Doctrinal and other characteristics 343.
Anastasi, 4 6. Evidence as to date 35).
t of the canal always led immediately to an
encroachment ofthe desert upon the narrow cultivable area. Jn. in relation to Mt’s. Tradition 36).
The canal was cubits wide (according to Strabo ft. The Coptic versions which simply transliterate, seem,
according to Pliny j o yards according to traces near however to have lost all Possibly the vocalisation of
ft. deep (according to Pliny; 16-17 Engl. ft. disguised the Egyptian name to them. A woman pilgrim
according to modern traces). of the fourth century places the ‘terra Gesse‘ 16 R. m. from
The canal was repaired by II., calling the capital ‘civitas Arabia.’ She believed
whence the name of the province Augustamnica from the he 4 R. m. to the E. of this capital (see Naville,
Canalis Trajanus. meaning apparently
1761 1762
GOSPELS GOSPELS
( b ) The Third Structure 52-63).
I
37-44).
The Dedication, Linguistic characteristics T he Gospel as a whole 52).
T he Details.
Doctrinal characteristics 39). The Prologue 53).
(iii.) A manual for daily conduct The Bridegroom
(a) Galilee, Jerusalem, Samaria
Evidence as to date
(3 T he Bread of
of Life 55).
The Light 56).
T he Life 57).
The Gospel 45-63). (6) The Raising of the Dead 58).
Hypotheses of authorship (7) The Raising of Lazarus 59).
(ii.) [a] Names, 46, numbers, 47, and quotations (8) The Preparation for the Sacrifice 60).
The ‘Deuteronomy’
(iii.) (IO) The Passion
B. - EXTERNAL EVI DENCE AS TO ORIGIN.
I. STATEMENTS 64-82) Clement of Rome 87).
The Third Gospel 64). The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles
Pa 65-74). Th e Epistle of Barnabas
His Exposition 65 a). (I Alleged Synoptic Quotations 89).
His account of Mk. and Mt. 65 b). Anticipations Jn. go).
I
The system of Eusebius 66). The Great Apophasis
The silence of Papias on Lk. and Jn. 67). (ix. Ignatius
(e) The date of his Exposition 68-73). . (I) Was
Papias a hearer of ? and and
Jn. the Papias’ His list The hpistle to Diognetus 95).
of the Apostles (6) His relation to Polycarp. The Shepherd of 96).
Summary of the 74). 97).
Justin Martyr 75-77). Marcion
( a ) His titles of the Gospels Valentinus 99).
(6) Indications of Lk. as a recent Gospel 76). Summary of the Evidence before Justin
The origin of Justin’s view of the Memoirs 77). (xviii.) Justin Martyr
The Muratorian 78). (I) Minor apparent Johannine quotations
79). ‘Except ye be begotten again’
(yi.) Clement of Alexandria (3) Other alleged quotations
(vii.) Summary of the Evidence as to Mk. and Mt. 81). (4) Abstentions from quotation
(viii.) Summary of the Evidence as to Lk. and Jn. Inconsistencies with Jn. 103).
Summary of the evidence about Justin
11. QUOTATIONS ...
Paul 83). Traces of Jn. as a recent ‘interpretation’
(ii.) ames 84).
quoted from the Gospels The Diatessaron
T he Oxyrhynchus fragment 86).
B.-HISTORICAL AND SYNTHETICAL.
A.-SYNOPTIC GOSPELS.
I. IN THE Order of narratives I 3).
In general Occasion of Words
I n Lk. IO Places and persons
I n Mt. Later conditions
I n Mk. Miracle stories
Conclusion Resurrection of Jesus 138).
Absolute
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM. ( a ) About Jesus generally
(b) About Jesus’ miracles 140).
Tradition theory Inference regarding the ‘signs
Dependence theory 116). Metaphors misinterpreted 142).
Original gospel Influence of O T
Original Mk. Miraculous
Logia (5 Conclusion as to words of Jesus
Two-source theory
Extent of logia
Special Lk. source 123). AUTHORSHIP AND DATE OF AND
Smaller sources 124). THEIR SOURCES.
Theories of combination Titles of gospels 146).
Review of classes of theory Statements of Fathers
Use of Mt. by Lk. Author of gospel 148).
Sources of the sources Author of gospel and the logia
Critical inferences Date of logia
Semitic basis 130). Date of gospel of gospel (5
author and date of 3rd
TRUSTWORTHINESS OF Conclusion
Fundamental principles Gospel of Hebrews ($155).
Chronological statements Other extra-canonical gospels
B.-FOURTH GOSPEL.
See JOHN
him, and Gqd him in himself and 978, uses the word absolutely of
him. Who was to conjecture that, when Jesus spoke of Paradise. leads to the inference [which is highly
being ‘ from the earth,’ he said this (12 signifying probable as regards and which further knowledge
by what death he was to die’? or that might render equally probable as regards ‘place’] that an expres-
sion, misunderstood and as meaning and
‘Call,’ used by 41 times 26, Mk. only 4, is used omitted by Lk. because he could not understand it at all, was
by Jn. only twice. Righteous in Mt. and understood by to mean [my Father’s ‘Paradise.’
Lk. (but only twice in to describe who observes the In any case we have here a tradition of Mk. and rejected
law’-is used but thrice in Jn. and then in the higher Platonic by Lk., Jn. such a way as to throw light
sense 0 righteous and see 5 724). on the different views taken by Lk. and Jn. of Christ’s sayings
times in Lk., only times in hft. and Mk. together, occurs about his resurrection.
only 4 in Jn., and except in the of
Jn. differs in expression from Mk. and ; but one is said to have understood the ‘stretching out,’ and the
he differsf a r context almost compels us to suppose that it was not understood.
Similarly, the ‘Raise In I Sam. where of have a corrupt reproduc-
cleave the tree, mainly referring to the Baptist’; tion of Sym. has ‘appointed
doctrine about stones as children to Abraham. and place.’ Also compare Mt. ‘Go tell my brethren to
about cutting down barren tree of Jewish formalism-may depart to Galilee,’ with Jn. 20 17, to my brethren and say
possibly have had in his mind Eccles. unto them I ascend Does not this indicate
The aorist cannot be exactly expressed in English : hath that what understood as meaning ‘Galilee’ or ‘appointed
been’ is nearer to the meaning than ‘ was.’ mountain understood as meaning ‘heaven’? This points
‘Signifying representingunderafigure or to some of being expressed by ‘the place,’
n o one the time). In 21 the cross is ‘signified’ ‘the holy place,’ (place) of the Father,’ ‘the
more clearly by the ‘stretching out of the ‘hands but no ‘the Holy Mountain.
GOSPELS GOSPELS
Deviations of Lk. from Mk. (or caused Lk. amplifies and dignifies while Jn. appears to subordinate,
the circumstances of the Supper. What Jn. had to say
by obscurity, appear to be corrected, about the feeding on the flesh and blood of the Saviour, he
or omissions supplied, by in earlier, in synagogue at Capernaum. There Jesus
the followine instances insists, (663) words that I have spoken to are
Mk. (117 and Mt. say that Jesus ‘ s a t on the ass’. spirit and are life ’ and, profiteth nothing.’ Now he
Lk. first with and then substituted reiterates this (13 ‘ye are clean but not
for the latter the ‘they put him thereon.’ This, when compared with (15 3), ‘ye are clean
Jn. (12 goes with Mk. T he Synoptists all mention of the word that (have spoken untoyou,’ indicates that
‘garments,’ on the ass and strewn in the road. But Mk. participating in the bread and wine and washing of was
and Mt. mention also the ‘strewing’ of branches (Mt. useless except so far as it went with spiritual participation in
however, calling them a word that mostly ‘the himself. A climax of warning is attained by
means litter,’ or ‘grass straw used for or for making Judas receive the devil when he receives the bread
of mattress. This Lk. omits. inserts dipped in wine by the hand of Jesus.
(without mentioning ‘garments but in a avoids the ambiguous Synoptic word ‘covenant’
context: ‘They took (in their hands) the or ‘testament and makes it clear,
of the palm trees and went the final discourse, that he regards the Spirit as a (or
forth to meet that implies nothing of the nature of a bargain or
Whether Jn. or Mk. was right or whether both were right compact.
is not now the question. T he is that where Lk. omits 5. Mk. 14 27 (and Mt.; but Lk. ‘All ye shall be caused to
tradition of Mk. possibly as being difficult, Jn. modifies it, or stumble; for it is written, I will smite the Shepherd, and
substitutes a kindred one. sheep shall be scattered abroad,’ was likely to cause a ‘scandal
(143-9) account of the anointing of Jesus by a woman -as though God could ‘smite’ his son. This may be seen
is either omitted by Lk. or placed much earlier and from Barnabas, who gives the prophecy thus : (5 hen
greatly modified the woman being called sinner,’ and the they the Jews] shall own shepherd, then shall
host being as ‘Simon a ‘Pharisee.’ Mk. and Mt., perish the sheep of the flock. Jn. while retaining Christ’s
however, call him ‘Simon the and Jn. (12 suggests prediction that the disciples be ‘scattered
that the house belonged to and his sisters. I t is effectively destroys the ‘scandal’ by adding that, even wheh
not impossible that the difference may be caused by some clerical abandoned by them he would not be abandoned the Father
error. Chajes, accounts for ‘Simon the leper’ by ‘And yet I alone, because the Father with me.’
aconfusion between ‘the The Passion.- The facts seem to be as follows :-
the leper.’ May there have further confusion between I. and Mt. place the words, ‘Arise let us go’ at
the arrival of Judas. Lk. omits all that between ( a )
and ‘Lazarus’? Jn. apparently guards the reader
against supposing the woman to he a sinner, by telling us (11 Mk. 14 38 Watch and pray.
the and (6) Mk.
.. temptation,’
‘Arise, let us go,’ having
that it Mary, the sister of
The Passover and the Lord’s Supper.- The merely (2246) ‘Stand
temptation.’ Now ‘to stand
and pray ...
Synoptists and especially Lk seem to represent the Cruci- ‘nothing else than to pray’ 2 But
fixion as after. occurrine before. the Paschal might also mean ‘watch cp Neh. 73. Lk. may have considered
-meal.‘ are of in (6) a duplicate of (a), the meaning to he ‘stand fast and
Lk. between the Day of Preparation and pray.‘ Jn. places the words ‘Arise, let us go,’ at the moment
the Day of I t was one thing to when Jesus feels the approach, not of hut of
(Mk. 14 and Mt.) ‘prepare to eat the Pass- world who
over,’ and another to (Lk. 228) ‘prepare the that we Lk. omits all) mention of the ‘binding’ of Jesus.
may eat it,’ which Lk. substitutes for the former. Also Mk. early Christian writers regarded it as a symbolical
14 (which Mt. adjusts to a different context, act, being performed in the case of the intended sacrifice of
and omits) indicates that original tradition have Isaac, the prototype of Christ (Gen. 22 Jn. inserts it (18
agreed with view: for no one would have been abroad a t as does Mk. 15 I (and Mt.).
or after sunset when the Passovermealwas to be eaten. 3. Lk. speaks of 52) ‘generals (UT of the temple.’
Mk. Mt. ’in parts unquestionably sanction view. they Jn. says (18 ‘The and officers of the
do not express it so decidedly as Lk., and they contain slight Lk. has loosely (3 Annas Caiaphas as ‘high priests
traces of an older tradition indicating that the Last Supper that Caiaphas was high priest, and Annas his
was on the Day of Preparation. father-in-law.
I . Mk. 14 One of you shall betray me, he that 4. According to Mk. 14 false witnesses asserted that
with was perhaps a shock to some believers, as Jesus had declared that destroy the temple.
indicating that partook of the bread. Mt. the Mt. alters ‘would’ into was and implies that, though
words, retaining more general phrase, while what had been previously testified was false this may have been
they were eating.’ Lk. omits ‘eating,’ having simply, ‘the Lk. omits the whole. I n his the destruction of
(13 quotes ‘He eateth my bread ...
hand of him that is to betray me is with me on the table.’ Jn.
,’and
the temple by the Romans was accepted by Christians as a
divine retaliation. which he reearded as inflicted bv
mentions as the from Jesus himself, so’thaf he wish avoid saying that
hands. testimony was ‘false. says in effect, ‘Some words about
Mk. (and Mt.) H e that dippeth his hand in the dish destroying “the temple had been uttered by Jesus but
with me’ will be the is omitted by Lk. Jn. com- they referred to “the temple of his body.” And the were
bines a modification of this with the foregoing; Jesus the-“destroyers.”’
dips the sop’ and gives it to Judas. Mk. 15 6 (and Mt.) says that it was the custom to
3. Lk. differs from Mk. Mt. in mentioning the release a malefactor a t the feast. Lk. omits this. Jn. not
meal (apparently) as the Passover mentioning inserts it, adds that Pilate himself the
a ‘cup’ which 17) ‘received’ meal, and Jews of it.
bade the disciples ‘distribute to one another inserting the 6. (and Mt.) the (purple or scarlet)
words D o this a s a memorial of me (4) mentioning ‘robe and the ‘crown of thorns. Lk. omits these striking
a second cup, that was ‘after sup (5) speaking of what reason, it is difficult to Jn. inserts
the as new covenant. I n all these points both of them.
7. Mk 1465 alone of the Synoptists mentions ‘blows with
in the flat ‘hand” ; in in Is. 506). Jn. also
mentions 3 (and
Conclusion and Exceptions.- The instances above
of the enumerated might be largely supplemented. The
in 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,
on
with Mt.13 17 Lk. 17 Also (3) and and (5) may be interpola-
tions (but more probably early additions, made in a later edition
of the work) I Cor. or (more probably) from
her tradition.
would D and destroy this possibility by reading ‘two
witnesses.’
is what Barnabas (7 ) connects them with the scapegoat. Possibly
this connection may have seemed to Lk. objectionable.
The miracle (Mk. 11 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.
GOSPELS GOSPELS
carries it a stage further, ever agrees with It must be added that, in this Double Tradition
as whilst he very steps in to and (to a less extent) in those parts of the Triple
support, or explain by modifying, some obscure harsh Tradition where Lk. makes omissions, Mk. and Mt.
statement omitted by Lk. generally agree more closely than where Lk. intervenes.
Two important exceptions demand mention :- The phenomena point to a common document occasion-
(a) Mk.1525, ‘ I t was the third hour and they crucified ally used by Mk. and Mt., and, where thus used,
him,’ is omitted by Mt. and Lk and con-
14. Exceptions. tradicted indirectly Jn. 19 ‘ I t was avoided by Lk. and also by The Walking on the
about the hour’ (when Pilate pro. Water is an exception to general omission. The
nounced sentence). Mk. may have confused (‘sixth’) Anointing of Jesus (since Lk. has a version of it) has
(‘third’). [In I 637 the impossible thirty been treated above as part of the Triple Tradition.’
may be due to a similar confusion.] Or the sentence may be out
of place and should come later, describing the death of Jesus and in relation to and
a s occurring when was the lime when is very brief. The larger portion of it relates
they crucified How easily confusion might spring up, to exorcism, Mk. (and note
may be seen from the Acts of John ‘when he was hanged the close agreement between Mk. and
on the bush of the cross i n the sixth of the day
was over all the land. First, ‘sixth Lk. as to the exorcism of the Legion,’ a name omitted
might be mistaken for ‘from the’ (or vice versa); then by Mt. in his account of it). There are also accounts
a numeral would have to Or might be of Jesus (Mk. 45) retiring to solitude, and of
repeated (or dropped) before In Mk. 15 33, D, which
elsewhere gives in full, has an unusual symbol people flocking to him from (38) Tyre and Sidon. A
The conclusion is that Mk. seemed to Mt. Lk., and section of some length attacks the Pharisees, as (Mk. 12
t o be in error, and that Jn. corrected by what Mt. 38-40) devourers of widows’ houses,’ and prepares the
and Lk. corrected by omission. (Mk. 236) way for the story of
(6) Mk. 14 30, Before the cock crow twice thrice thou shalt
deny is given by Mt. and Lk. with omission of the widow’s mite. In the later portions of the Gospel,
‘twice. This is remarkable because ‘ twice enhances the Lk. deviates from Mk. (as Mt. approximates to Mk. ),
miraculousness of the predidtion. May not Mk. be based on returning to similarity in the Preparation for the Pass-
a Semitic original, which gave the saying thus, Before the cock
crow, twice and thrice’ (=repeatedly, see Job 3329 over (Mk. 14 12-16), but from this point deviating more
(1338) accepts modification of Mt., but with and more.
tion-‘the cock shall not crow, until such time as thou deny insertion of what may be called the
me thrice section,’ is consistent with the prominence given by him
Here Jn. accepts, but‘ improves on, the Synoptic correction of
Mk., though perhaps literally correct, does not represent to women and to poverty (see below, 39).
the spirit of what Jesus said. and or, The Double Tradition’ (a)
the Acts of the Lord, ( b ) the Words of
111. DOUBLE TRADITIONS.
The Double Traditions include what is common to Acts of the Lord are con-
) Mk. and Mt., ) Mk. and ) fined to the details of the Tempta -
Mt. and Lk. . The last of these is so much tion and the healing of the Centurion’s servant.
fuller than or that it may be con- gives no detailed account of a Temptation, hut just
veniently called ‘ Double Tradition.’ it adding (113) ‘and the angels were ministering
apparentlyduring the Temptation ; Mt.
(i.) and ; in to and says that after the departure of the devil ‘ angels
Much of this has been incidentally discussed above, and to unto him ;Lk.
under the head of the Triple Tradition : and what has mentions no ‘angels.’ omits all temptation of Jesus,
suggests (1 that ‘angels were always ascending and descend-
been said there will explain why Lk. and Jn. omit Mk. ing on the Son of man,’ and that, in course of time, the eyes of
and (accounts of the Baptist), 913 (‘Elias the disciples would be opened todiscern them.
is come already’), He calleth for As regards the healing, some assert that Jn. does
omission of a long and continuous section of Mk. not refer to the event described by
But if so it can hardly be denied that he, their
(a),Christ’s walking on the Sea, it in inserting in his Gospel another
the doctrine about ‘ things that defile,’ and about case of healing, resembling the former in being performed ( I ) a t
‘the children’s crumbs,’ (d),the feeding of the Four a distance, on the child (apparently) of a foreigner, and (3)
near Capernaum. and Lk. differ irreconcileably.3 Jn.,
‘Thousand, ( e ) ,acomparison between this and the feeding
of the Five Thousand, and the dialogue (see 39 n. ) Space hardly admits mention of the possiblereasons for
following the doctrine of leaven - may indicate several omissions. Some of these passages the practical
abrogation of the Levitical Law of meats in Mk.
that Lk. knew this section as existing in a separate have seemed to him to point to a later period, such as that in
tradition, which, for some reason, he did not wish Actslog-16, where Christ abrogated the Law by a special
t o include in his Gospel. Most of it may be said utterance to Peter. Again in the Doctrine of Bread, while
(Mk. 7 crumbs and 8 leaven are used spiritually
t o belong to ‘the Doctrine of Bread,’ as taught loaves’ and (Mk. 8 ‘one loaf’ are used literally and
in Galilee. Jn. also devotes a section of his Gospel to mixture of the literal and metaphorical may have perplexed Lk
.a doctrine of Bread (but of quite a different kind from especially if he interpreted the miracle of the Fig-Tree
phorically, and was in doubt as to the literal or metaphorical
concentrating attention on Christ as the Bread. meaning of the Walking on the Water. Some passages he may
Lk. also omits (Mk. the cutting off of hand and also have omitted a5 du licates, the Feeding of the Four
foot,’ and (Mk. the discussion of the enactments lhousand. As regards ‘leaven,’ insertion ‘which is
of Moses concerning divorce-the former, perhaps, as hypocrisy’), if authentic, is fatal to the authenticityof Mk.
Perhaps the original was simply Beware of leaven,’ and the ex-
being liable to literal interpretation, the latter, as being planation, the was ‘ Beware of
of date. The ambitious petition (Mk. ,the leaven of hypocrisy. T he rest was
the sons of Zebedee, Christ’s rebuke (Mk. of evangelistic teaching How Jesus mean real leaven and
real bread when he could feed his flock with the leaven of heaven
Peter as Satan, and the quotation (Mk. ‘ I will at his pleasure?’) inserted first as a parenthesis (perhaps about
smite the shepherd,’ L k. may have omitted, as not the Son of man or the Son of God), and then transferred to the
tending to edification. In the discourse on ‘the last text in the first person. The variation of Mt. ftom Mk.
day’ L k. omits a great deal that prevents attention suggests that the words were not Christ’s.
Jn. thenarrative of Jesus walking on the Sea but adds
from being concentrated on the destruction of Jerusalem expressions (6 borrowed from Ps. ‘go to the
as exactly the predictions of Christ; but sea and where they would which increase
especially he omits (Mk. ‘of this hour the Son the symbolism of a story describing the helplessness of the
knoweth not.’ 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.
Attempts have been made, but in vain (see Classical Review, The passages referred to in this section will be found in
18 to prove that ‘sixth hour’ meant 6 A.M. Rushhrooke’s Synopticon, arranged in order.
T he parallel in Mt. can be ascertained by refer- D and omit Lk. 7 ‘Wherefore neither thought I
ence to myself worthy to come unto thee,’ thus harmonising Lk. with
For the Withering of the Fig-Tree (Mk. 11 see 13 n. Mt., who says that the man did come to Jesus. .
GOSPELS GOSPELS
while correcting both Evangelists in some respects, and especially from perhaps because there was a as well as
in tacitly (448) denying that Jesus ‘marvelled,’ corrects Lk. a Galilean tradition of the life of Jesus, and towards
more particularly by stating ( I ) that the man came to Jesus
that Jesus a word, or promise of healing (3) the close of his history, depended mainly on the former.
the child was healed in t h a t hour,’ and by it clear owing to their length and number
that the patient was not a servant but a In the first tbree (and perhaps their frequent repetition in varied shapes
points, Jn. agrees with Mt. in the fourth, he interprets Mt. by Jesus himself, and by the apostles after
in all, he differs from Lk.
The Words of the Lord are differently arranged the resurrection), would naturally contain
by Mt. and Lk. Mt. groups sayings according to more variations than are found in the
their subject matter. Lk. avows in shorter Words of the Lord. The parable of the Sower,
his preface (1 3 ) an intention to write coming first in order, and having appended to it a
in (chronological) order,’ and he often supplies for a short discourse of Jesus (Mk. that might
saying a framework indicating the causes and circum- seem intended to explain the motive of the parabolic
stances called it forth. Sometimes, however, he is might naturally find a place in the Triple
manifestly wrong in his chronological arrangement, , Tradition. But this privilege was accorded to no other
whenheplaces Christ’s mourning over Jerusalem (1334 35) parable except that of the Vineyard, which partakes of
early, and in Galilee, whereas Mt. (2337-39) places it in the natwe of prophecy.
the Temple at the close of Christ’s . T h e longer discourses of the Double Tradition show traces o f
a Greek document, often in rhythmical and almost poetic style.
The Lord‘s Prayer (Mt. 69-13 Lk. 112-4). It was Changes of words such as for
perhaps on the principle of grouping that Mt. added for for for
to the shorter version of the Lord’s Prayer the words, for may indicate merely an attempt to render
more exactly a word in the original; but such substitutions as
thy will be done, as in heaven so on earth,’ as having (Lk.
been in part used by Jesus on another occasion (Mt. Spirit’ for (Mt. ‘good indicate doctrinal pur-
other addition, Deliver us from the evil pose. The original of Lk. 13 was perhaps (as
one,’ is not indeed recorded as having been used by ‘thyspiritis
Jesus elsewhere, it resembles the prayer of Jesus for good,’ RT] Lk. appears to have the older
version when he retains (L 1426) ‘hate his father,’ Mt.
his disciples in Jn. : keep them from the ‘love more than
one’ (and cp Tim. On changes, see Other variations indicate a corruption or various interpretation
LORD’S P RAYER they adapt the prayer for daily of a Greek original of course, precluding a still earlier
Mt. probably
and indicate that Lk. follows a later version of the in text which he read as e.,
prayer in his alterations, but an earlier version in his ‘for two farthings,’ and then he added (‘five before
omissions.4 to complete the sense. Perhaps a desire to make straightforward
sense as well as some variation in the MS., may have led Lk. to
exactly in the Double Tradition substitute for in Mt. Lk.
are for the most part of a prophetic or historical char- This last passage exhibits Lk. as apparently misunderstanding
acter. Some describe the relations between John the a tradition more correctly given by Mt. I n Mt. it is part of a
Baptist and Christ another calls down woe on late and public denunciation of the Pharisees in Jerusalem in
Lk. it is an early utterance, and in the house of a Pharisee
another, in language that reminds of the thoughts, Christ’s host. Probably the use of the singular
though not of the words of thanks God for revealing ‘Thou blind Pharisee’), together with the metaphor of the ‘cup
to babes what He has hidden from the wise and and platter,’ caused Lk. to infer that the speech was delivered
prudent another pours forth lamentations over doomed to a Pharisee, in whose house Jesus was dining. The use
of (Lk. 1139) (see below, 38) makes it Probable
Jerusalem. Others, such as, ‘But know this, that if that is a late tradition. Other instances of Lk. s altera-
the goodman,’ and ‘ W h o then is the faithful and tions are his change of the original and
just steward,’ etc., appear to have an ecclesiastical into the Christian (Lk. 1149)
Lk. also omits the difficult In Mt.
rather than an individual reference, at all events in their
primary application. All these passages were especially send unto you prophets ...
2334, Jesus is represented as saying ‘Wherefore behold
and of them ye slay
.
fitted for reading in the services of the Church, and
consequently more likely to have been soon committed God said, I
etc.
unto them rophets ...
Lk. 1149, ‘Wherefore also the Wisdom
and some of
them shall they slay etc., omitting ‘crucify.’ Here Lk. seems
to writing. On the other hand, those sayings which to have in some respects, the original tradition
have most gone home to men’s hearts and have been whereas Mt. interpreting the Wisdom of God (cp I Cor.
most on their lips, as being of individual application, ‘Christ the of God to mean Jesus, it
Also Mt. retains a n a tradition
seem to have been so early modified by oral tradition which made ‘Zachariah’ of Barachiah ; Lk. omits the
as to deviate from exact agreement. Such are, ‘ T h e error.
mote and the beam Ask and it shall be given unto I n the ‘parables of the Wedding
you Take no thought for the morrow Fear not Feast, the Talents, and the Hundred Sheep-it may be
them that kill the body’ ‘Whosoever shall confess,’ said that Mt. lays more stress on the exclusion of those
etc. He that loveth father or mother more than me,’ who might have been expected to be fit, Lk. on the
etc. and note, above all, the differences in the Lord’s inclusion of those who might have been expected to b e
Prayer. As Lk. approaches the later period of Christ’s unfit.
work, he deviates more and more both from Mt. and Thus in the Wedding Feast, Lk. adds the invitation
of the maimed,’ etc. Mt. adds the rejection
Mt. 86 mentions which may mean ‘child,’ but more
often means servant’ in such a phrase as Cp P ARABLES.
etc. See (RV) Mt. ‘my servant’; Acts3 his Mk. (also Mt. and. Lk.) ‘he will destroy husband-
(marg. or Child ’). mentions (7 ‘ servant. men’-{.e., the Jewish nation. The parable of the Sower may
has repeatedly 47 50) ‘son,’ but finally recurs to Mt. s also be said to predict the history of the Church, its successes
word (4 child liveth (the only instance in which and failures.
uses ‘Hebrew ‘when used in the present article concerning the
The reason for transposition is probably to be in original of the Gospels, means ‘ Hebrew or Aramaic,’
the last words of the passage, ‘Ye shall not see me, until ye leaving that question open. But see Clue, A. and C. Black,
shall say, is t h a t cometh in the name of the Lord,’ 4 Other instances are ‘over many
words uttered by the crowd (Lk. 38) welcoming Jesus on his things,’ which might easily be corrupted into ‘over
entrance into Lk. probably assumed that the ten cities’ (see Lk. and comp. Mk. perhaps
prediction referred to
fore, have been made sometime before
into Jerusalem.
utterance, and must, there-
before the entrance
written parallel to Lk. 839
of the Seventy (Lk. ...
Also, in the Mission
is
3 Cp I RV: ‘As may be the will in heaven, so almost certainly (Abbott and Rushbrooke’s Common Tradition
shall he do.’ of xxxvii.) a confusion of two details in the
Cp Lk. 9 23 : ‘If any one wishes to come
me, ... let him take up his cross daily,’ where Lk. substitutes
after Mission of the Twelve (I) Take nothing for the journey,’
(Mt. ‘Salute the house. The corruption of a Greek
the present for and and inserts ‘daily. original is perhaps sufficient to explain this ; but it is more easily
in order to adapt the precept to the inculcation of explicable on the hypothesis of a Greek Tradition corrected b y
of a reference to a Hebrew original.
GOSPELS GOSPELS
of a guest who has no wedding garment and, in Talents in the LXX, and occurs in N T only in 8 Lk. 9 The Son
the casting out of the servant. In Mt. of man hath where to rest his head. But there is pathos and
22 13 47 the inclusion of prepares for an ultimate ex- power the thought that the one place on earth where the
clusion. The conclusion of the Hundred Sheep is, in 18 of man ‘rested his head’ was the Cross and the one moment
I t is not the will of my Father in heaven that one of these was when he had accomplished the will.
little ones should perish’; in Lk.157, ‘There shall be joy in
heaven over one sinner that repenteth.’ The Single Traditions IV. INTRODUCTIONS (Mt. and ).
of Mt. and Lk., when examined, will he found severally to (i.) in these is very manifest.
reveal the same tendency to dwell on exclusion and inclusion ;
and this will confirm the inference, in itself prohahle, that the The agreement of Mt. and Lk. in the introductions
hand of each Evangelist is apparent thevarying characteristics describing the birth and childhood of
of the parables of the Double Tradition. Jesus consists in little more than fragments
in to The from Is. which, in the Hebrew, is,
The discourses in Jn. have almost for their sole subject A young woman shall conceive and hear
the Father as revealed through the Son, a (or, the) son and his name Immanuel,’
lie outside the province of the precepts, but in The virgin shall be with child and
parables, and discourses of the Double bring forth a son, and thou the husband)
Tradition. In the Synoptists, Jesus is a his name Immanuel.’ This was regarded as having
teacher of truth in Truth itself. been fulfilled, not by the birth of Isaiah‘s son recorded
The word used by Mk.) is employed Mt. and
Lk. (Mt. Lk. 816 11 33-36) to signify the light given in Is. (but cp but by the birth of the
the teachers of the Gospel, or else the conscience. The Disciples Messiah. In the earliest days of the Jewish Church of
themselves are called Mt. ‘the light of the world.’ Christ, the Messiah would naturally be described in
introduces Christ a s saying (8 I am the Light of the World. hymns and poetic imagery as the Son of the Virgin the
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 Daughter of Sion. In Rev. the Man Child is
who make it so being no other than Christ himself, born of a woman clothed with the sun,’ who evidently
‘go in out,’ and ‘shall find represents the spiritual Israel. Eusebius v. 1 4 5 )
pasture. Mt. 23 speaks of sinners as being excluded
(breaking the Moses) Lk. substitutes quotes a very early letter from the church of Lyons.
the law of justice): not in his Gospel in his Epistle where the ‘Virgin Mother’ means the Church,’ and
( I Jn. 34, cp with appears to refer to some controversy other instances are
about these words when he pronounces that is ) Traditions about every
in the true sense, and that all is
Though Jn. never mentions but always would tend in the same direction : (i. 131) ‘the Lord
asking or requesting,’ he nevertheless introduces begat Isaac’ Isaac 215) ‘is to be thought not the
Jesus as uttering, in his last words a kind of result of generation but the shaping of the
parallel to the Lor ds Prayer, of such a nature as to unbegotten.’ The real husband of Leah is (i. the
imply that what the disciples were to pray to God as Unnoticed (6 though Jacob is the father
future, Jesus thanked God as past. of her children. is found by Moses (i.
I t is true that prayer and praise are combined, and the words ‘pregnant, (but) by no mortal.’ Tamar is (i. 598-9)
are wholly different : for example ‘the hour is come’ has ‘pregnant through divine seed.’ is (i.
no counterpart in the Lord’s prayer. But (a) ‘the hour in Jn. born of a human mother’ who became pregnant after-
hour of glorifying the Father
Son,’ that is say ‘the hour of doing his will and establishing receiving divine seed.’ Concerning the birth of Isaac,
his kingdom . in essence, hour is come’ means Philo says (i. 148) : It is most fitting that God should
‘Th y is come.’ So, too (6) ‘I converse, in a manner opposite to that of man, with a
manifested thy name to the whom thou hast given me nature wonderful and unpolluted and pure.’ If such
means, in effect ‘T hy name hath been hallowed.’ (c) T he
prayer that, as Son has glorified the Father on earth, so the language as this could be used by educated Jewish
Father mayglorify the in heaven (17 j with the writers about the parentage of those who were merely
glory which he ‘had before the world was,’ means,‘ in effect inspired G o d s Word, how much more would even
‘Thy will heen done on earth; so may it now be done
heaven a s it was from the heginning.’ Also, remembering stronger language be used about the origin of one who
‘the words’ of God are the of man, we find in was regarded as w ith the Word, or the
(‘the words thou me Z them’) an equivalent Word
to I have given day day their bread.’ (e) The Justin and confirm the view that pro-
declaration that he has kept all except the son of
perdition ‘in the name’ given him the Father seems to phecy has contributed to shape the belief a miraculous
mean ‘ I have prevented them hitherto from being led into conception. Justin admits that some did not accept it,
temptation.’ If) Last comes the one prayer not yet but bases his dissent from them on (Tryph. 48) the.
(17 I ‘keep them the which
seems to allude to the clause in version ‘Deliver us from proclamations made by the prophets and taught
evil one by him Christ).’ says that the Ebionites
Possibly there is also an allusion to Mt. Lk. declared Jesus to have been the son of Joseph 21 I )
have not come to bring peace (not as though denying the
of Mt. and Lk., hut as though supplementing what, itself, following those who interpreted
would he a superficial statement), in Jn. ‘Peace I leave with virgin in Is. 7 14 as young woman Pro-
you,
spoken ... I give nnto
that in me ye may
agreement with Lk. 1426 . ..
These things I have
his own (or
phecy will also explain the divergence between Mt. and
Lk. Some, following the Hebrew, might say that the
life),’ against Mt. 10 37 loveth more me (omitting soul ’) divine message came to the mother of the Lord,
Jn. ‘he that his soul in this world,’ indicate; others (following might assert that the message
that Lk. has preserved the older tradition. But came Mary’s husband. Lk. has taken the
addition shows his sense of the obscurity of Lk., who did not
make it clear that ‘father’ ‘mother’ and ‘soul’ are to he former course, Mt. (though inconsistently) the latter.
‘hated only so they ‘in this Prophecy also explains and attitude toward
of temptation.
More conjectural must he the theory of an allusion to the that the of to represent it throughout
Douhle Tradition in used of Jesus and N T makes it improbable that it would represent ‘bowing’
the Cross. I t is commonly rendered ‘hawing’ his head, hut here.
no authority is alleged for The expression is not found The name is sometimes Thus. when
Ahercius (A.D. writes that grasped
The relation of Jn. to the Double Tradition of the Acts of the Fish’ (the meaning Christ), Lightfoot (Ign. 481)
the Lord has been considered above 17. This section deals hesitates between the Virgin Mary’ and ‘the Church,’ hut
with his relation to the Double of the Words of the apparently inclines to the latter. Marcion is accused
Lord. Epiphanius of ‘seducing a virgin’ and being consequently ex-
Comp. 79 : communicated. But ( I) neither Tertullian (an earlier hut not
less enemy of Marcion) nor the still earlier Irenaeus,
3 Even in this last clause implies partial fulfilment already: makes mention of any such charge. Hegesippns (Eus. iii. 32 7)
Thev have been delivered: now let them he in a state of says that ‘the Church remained a and
deliverance.’ till the days of Symeon hisho of Jerusalem, when heresies
When Lk. means he uses Marcion must acquitted : cp ad
cis And the word ‘bow’ is so common in the Eba (the Church)
GOSPELS GOSPELS
the Messianic name Immanuel.’ Jesus was not (any As regards the childhood of Jesus, Mt. looks on
more than Isaiah‘s son) called by this name, and Lk. Bethlehem (21)as the predicted home of Joseph and
omits all reference to it. Mt. (or the author of Mary, and mentions their going to Nazareth as a thing
though he represents Joseph as receiving unexpected and (223) a fulfilment of prophecy. H e
the Annunciation, representspeopk as also mentions (as fulfilments of prophecy) a flight into,
to give Jesus this name, and alters the prophecy ac- and return from, Egypt, and a massacre in Bethlehem.
cordingly (Mt. Thou shalt call his name Neither of these is mentioned by Lk., and the latter is
Jesus ... that it might be fulfilled , . .
They not mentioned by any But a typical meaning
his name Immanuel.’ is also obvious in both narratives ; Jesus is the vine
Divergence of the rest, Mt. of Israel brought out of Egypt.’ He is the of
a n d Lk. altogether diverge. Both the of Moses, who was saved from the slaughter of the children
(according to all under Pharaoh. Lk. treads the safer ground of private
trace his descent through and personal narrative, except so far as he has given
pretation)
Joseph, not through and there trouble to apologists by his statement about an enrol-
survive even ndw traces of a between them and ment that took place under Quirinius, which was the
the Gospels in which they are The cause why Joseph and Mary left their home in Nazareth
Genealogies (for account and analysis of which see in order to be enrolled at Bethlehem, the home of their
G ENEALOGIES appear to have denied, the Gospels Instead of prophetic there is contemporary
certainly affirm, a Miraculous Conception. and typical testimony :-Anna, the prophetess of
Mt. in its text. has ’I. representing the extreme north; the aged Simeon
representing the extreme south and Elizabeth
But Ss. has J. Joseph; Joseph to whom was Zachariah, of the tribe of
Mary the Virgin, begat Jesus, whd is called the As regards the Baptist, while omitting some points
is also retained a, 6, Bohb. and S. Germanensis
though they make Mary the This indicates that liken him to Elijah, Lk. inserts details showing
the original had simply (a) ‘James begat Joseph, and Joseph that, from the first, John was foreordained to go before
hegat Jesus.’ Then, when the belief in the Miraculous Con- the Messiah, not really as Elijah, but (117) i n the spirit
ception arose, various corrections were made such as (6) ‘ to
whom was espoused or betrothed Mary or ‘the of Elijah.’
husband of Mary,’ indicate the ‘begetting’ to he (v .) in to the Introductions is apparently,
taken in a putative sense, or to refer the reader to what followed but not really, In his own person he
as a corrective of the formal genealogical statement. Then (c)
‘Mary’ was repeated as the subject of a new clause in no mention of Nazareth or Bethlehem. He
genealogy, hut with the repetition of the now misplaced ‘hegat.’ takes us back to the cradle (Jn. 1I ) in the
Then some altered ‘begat’ into ‘brought forth, others beginning,’ as though heaven were the only
into whom was begotten.’ true Bethlehem (House of [the] Bread [of life]).’ T h e
Lk. 323 has
But has, ‘And fervent, faith of the first disciples defies past prophecies
Jesus, when he was about thirty years old as he was called the about Bethlehem, and present objections as to Nazareth
son Joseph son of Heli etc.; is not a complete and Joseph, by admitting the apparent historical fact
sentence. D
etc.. and iust before. has to fact, and yet believing (145 ) : W e have found
: him of. whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did
5) read (for and interpret it as write, the son the ma n
to baptism.’ D interpreted that Jesus When the objection is urged against (146) Nazareth,’
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 faith in the personality of Jesus overwhelms the objector
baptism, he again the Spirit. will with the mystical reply (1 ‘Come and In Mt.
have the same meaning if we insert ‘ was’ as the
’Jesus . .. as he was called, the son of Joseph.’
throw light on almost forgotten Jewish charges
verb,
The not actual to
first of these three version;
against Jesus that may have influenced some Evangelists defends Jesus against the Jewish charge hut surrenders the
inducing them to lay stress on the fact that Jesus was Miraculous Conception. The second is ’obscure. The third
‘the son of Joseph,’ or a t all events that Mary, at the time of sacrifices the defence, but retains the miracle.
the birth of her first-born, was ‘ espoused to Some attempt to explain the omission by other omissions of
the crimes of kings by but Josephusdwells on
I t is highly probahle, on grounds of style, that author the history of Herod and his family in order to show (Ant.
of the Introduction is not the author of the whole of xviii. 5 3)
Gospel. Quirinius was governor of Syria, A.D. 6, fen years
D rewrites the earliest part of genealogy, partially this time. The most plausible explanation suggested is
conforming it to perhaps, that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria;
3 This is all the more important if the tradition recorded by there is no direct, and scarcely any indirect, evidence to justify
is correctly interpreted to mean that the belief. There is also no proof that Mary’s presence was
of the Gospels which consist the genealogies were written ohligatory. That Lk. invented such an ‘enrolment’ is im-
first (see below possible; hut that he antedated it is highly probable. Making
4 Codex a sim. Bobb.) has J. Joseph cui (or a compilation toward close of the century,
desponsata Virgo Maria Jesum’ 6 has Joseph,’ cui he might naturally consider that the ‘enrolment’ supplied an
desponsata erat V.M., V. autem Jesum.’ Later, answer to the difficult question ‘How came the parents of
and Bohh. (a is missing) use and ‘peperit’ of Jesus to Bethlehem at the time of birth?’ See
Mary, showing that ‘genuit’ is not an error here, hut is a also
retention of the old true reading, inconsistent with the altera- For the meaning of this Rabbinical formula, see
tions adopted. Codex (D is missing) alters ‘genuit’ into and nd and Wetst. (on Jn. 140) who quotes
‘peperit,‘ but in other respects agrees with a. Corh. and other Rev. I t introduces the
Brix. agree with the Greek text. The Vat. of the tion a mystery. Ndte also a similar contrast
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.
personal belief and
... hut some said, What d o 6
unbelief in 40
when they heard these words said This is ..
come out
the prophet
1897, p. 45, n. 6), who points the confusion not the Scripture that Christ cometh seed
between ‘who of her begat,’ and ‘from whom was begotten,’ o j David and And compare the sub-
in from Syriac to Arabic. ordinate ‘ officers ’ (7 46, ‘ Never man so spake ’) with ‘the chief
however, ‘This day Ihave thee,’ priests and Pharisees’ (7 52, ‘Out ariseth no prophet ’).
hut) ‘Thou art my Son and my beloved. But Westcott says on Jn. 742, ‘There is a tragic irony in the fact
this may have been as equivalent to ‘ I have begotten that the which the objectors assumed to he
thee to -day as my Son. Codex has ‘quod et unsatisfied birth in Bethlehem was actually satisfied.:
dicehatur esse filius . follows D. But are to, believe that Jesus that the ‘condition
I n Acta P.(A and B) 2 the ‘elders of the Jews’ say to was ‘satisfied and yet left the in their ignor-
Jesus ‘Thou art born of (B ‘of sin to which ance, so as keep back from them the fulfilment of God’s
other’pious Jews reply (A), ‘we h a t Joseph espoused word, making himself responsible for the ‘tragic’ consequences?
(or betrothed Mary, and that he is not born of And in the face of such an objection, publicly and
fornication (B) ‘we know that Joseph received Mary his made, is it credible that a conspiracy of silence have
mother in the way of which another been maintained Christ’s relations, friends, and neighbours
version is ‘His mother Mary was given to Joseph This, a t all events, cannot be disputed, that Jn. represents the
1780
GOSPELS GOSPELS
i t is the fulfilment of prophecy in Lk. it is the testimony others ‘worshipped.’ If other manifestations were of
of visions and voices pointing to John as the messenger the same kind, different observers might record them
of the Messiah, and to the Messiah himself; in it is differently. To testify to the resurrection was the
(1 the glory as of the only begotten Father special duty of an apostle, and such testimony was
-that constitutes the true testimony to Christ. oral. The two earliest Gospels (even if we include
as genuine) contain very much less about
V. THE CONCLUSIONS. the resurrection than the two latest. When at last
The conclusions (Mt. Lk. and in the apostles passed away, and it became needful to
effect treat of Christ’s resurrection. write something about Christ’s rising from the dead,
This the genuine Mk. does not and to add it to the already existing manuals of his
describe, breaking off abruptly a t teaching, the writers might find themselves forced to
(16E), for they were afraid. choose a few typical instances that seemed to them
The their evidence. -Mt. most ‘according to the Scriptures,’ and best adapted
mentions two appearances. In the first, Christ for edifying the Church. At first, they might be
appears to women who ‘held his feet’ in the tent (as Paul was) with bare enumerations but, when
second, to the Eleven but it is added that ‘some the time came to fill in details, the narrators might
doubted.’ I n Lk. Christ never appears to women. supply them, partly from prose traditions, partly from
Indeed, Lk. almost excludes such an appearance by the most ancient and popular of those hymns, which, as
speaking of (2423) ‘ a vision of which the Pliny testifies, they sang to Christ as to a god, on the
women are reported to have seen, without any mention day on which they celebrated his resurrection, partly
of Christ’s appearing to them. I n this omission he from the Scriptures on which the earliest witnesses for
resembles Paul, who enumerates several appearances Christ’s resurrection lay so emphatic a stress.
to men but none to women.’ in giving a list of ) of poetic tradition. the more ancient
the ‘appearances’ which he had laid stress, an traditions of Mk. and Mt., some details appear to arise
apostle might write in a letter to his own converts. from hymnal Later accounts
But Lk. writes as a historian, giving Theophilus evi- indicate an intention to convey either (as
dence that he might know ‘t he exact truth.’ Him, Lk.) ‘proofs’ of a historical fact, or
therefore, we might reasonably expect not to omit any (as Jn. ) signs indicative of the real though spiritual
important testimony, known to him, concerning Christ’s converse held with the disciples by the risen Saviour.
resurrection. His omission, in itself, disposes of the (iv. ) account appears to have
theory that the differences of Lk. from Mt. arise from been (in parts at all events) the earliest. The testimony
mere haste or carelessness of observation, like those of the soldiers to the Resurrection (where
with which we are familiar in a court of justice. Like note the words (2815) to this day’) was
a glacier-worn rock, Lk. exhibits the signs of attempts dropped in subsequent gospels, perhaps
to smooth away points of objection. Not, of course, owing to the unlikelihood that Roman soldiers would
that he invents. But while adopting old traditions, he risk their lives by a falsehood such as Mt.
Henceforth was (Mk., Lk., no the stone
accepts adaptations suggested in the course of new con-
troversies. H e shows a desire to prove, improve,
.
was not ‘sealed there was no earthquake an angel
did not descend heaven ; the women came, not ‘to look at
edify, reconcile, select-motives natural, but not adapted the they had carefully ‘looked at’ it before (Mk.
to elicit the exact truth.’
) The Period of for the It is impossible here to do more than indicate one or two
traces of this. The earthouake. which Mt. alone might
coolest and most judicial historian, the difficulty of naturally spring from ‘God is a
reconciling and selectingmust have been shout and ‘The earth melted was shaken ’).
very great. though he mentions
of the resurrection ‘ mhny bodies of the
only three manifestations, implies (2030) saints’-a miracle if authentic more startling than the Raising
of Lazarus, but by the Evangelists-was probably
that there were many more. Not derived from some hymn describing how Christ went down to
improbably the period of appearances and voices was Hades and brought np to light the saints detained there.
much longer than is commonly supposed. Mt. tells us, Mk. says that the women came to the sepulchre when ‘the
sun had inconsistently with his own ‘very early
concerning the only manifestation that he records as ‘deep dawn and ‘dark.’ becomes if
made to the Eleven, that (28 17) ‘some doubted,’ while tradition variously influenced by hymns describing how
‘the sun (of righteousness) had risen,’ or by the
disciples as believing in a ‘Jesus of Nazareth whilst the un- prophecy (Ps. 465) God shall help her and that at the dawn
believing Pharisees demand a ‘Jesus of of the morning.’ It is difficult for us’to realise the probable
For the evidence of spuriousness (lately increased by the extent and influence of metaphor in the earliest traditions of
discovery of the Codex of the Syriac Gospels) see the Christian Church,.. The of Behnesa the
WH 2 (notes), pp. stone, cleave the tree, taken by many in a sense. But
Cp Acta Pilati (7) (A and B), ‘We have, a law that a it probably means, Raise up stones to he of Abraham
woman is not to come forward to give evidence. Doubtless cut down and cleave the tree of Christ never
such an objection was often by Christians from
adversaries.
3 The only evidence is
where D reads, in different order, without In first Christian generation might be so misunderstood as to affect
Hebrew ‘days’ sometimes means ‘some, or several, days,’ as in the historical traditions of the second.
Cen. 404, They continued [for some] days in ward.’ Later writers modify account so as to soften some of
By corruption, or tradition, M ‘forty’) might easily be its improbabilities. Pseudo-Peter makes the soldiers tell the
added to (or before or after it and the whole truth to Pilate, who (at the instance of the Jews) enjoins
number would suit OT traditions about Israel, Mbses and silence. In some MSS of Acta Pilati (A) the soldiers try to
Elijah. The Valentinians supposed Christ to have deny truth, but are supernaturally forced to affirm it. The
with his disciples eighteen months: Sophia ch. 1 retention of story, with modifications, in apocryphal books
mentions eleven years. Lk. indicates that the to of the second century that delighted in the icturesque, does not
remain (Acts in Jerusalem till the descent of the Spirit, prove a late origin. Some have thought tradition is
two or three days. Apollonius indicates (Eus. v. 18 proved to be late by the excess of ‘prophetic gnosis’ in it.
tradition a period of twelve years : (764) says In But that alone is not a sure criterion. The difficultiespre-
the Lord says to the disciples the sented of the ‘dead bodies of arising,’
Resurrection, I have twelve disciples, judging you and of the women grasping the feet of Jesus and
worthy of me ... that those who disbelieve may hear and bald statement that ‘some doubted,’ all suggest origin.
testify, not being able to say in excuse We did not hear The use of ‘prophetic gnosis’ depends in large measure not on
...
but, just before, (762) ‘Peter says the Lord said to the the date but on the personal characteristics of the writer. For
apostles. After forth to the world, lest there is more in Mt. than in Jn. But of
any should say, We did not hear. Perhaps there was a con- is a sign of an date. In course
fusion between ‘twelve years ’ and ‘twelve (really eleven) of tics and enemies detected and exposed
See for the evidence that Barnabas and blocks, subsequent evangelists adopted traditions that
Jn. disagreed with Lk. as to the day of the Ascension. sprang up to remove or diminish them.
1781 1782
GOSPELS GOSPELS
Lk. hut to ‘bring the purpose of em- (lit. not ‘the Lord is risen indeed
balming the body. But when did the women buy them? When hath appeared to This is consistent with
the Sabbath was ‘quite passed says Mk. (16 I). App who says of the two travellers ‘they went away and
Not so, says Lk. they bought them first, and then it the rest to the Eleven), they them.
‘rested on the Sabbath. Again what was the use of the (vi.) The to the (Mk.
the ‘great the way? Mk. no Ignatius), occurring i n Mk.
reply. Lk. the objection not asserting that the
stone was ‘great. Pseudo-Peter, who has committed himself’ but in Lk. while the two
to a ‘very stone,’ replies, ‘the women determined, if they travellers are telling their tale, is described
could not enter, to spices outside door.’ says by the latter as follows : ‘See my hands and
in effect ‘T he women brought no spices. body had
received ’this already from Nicodemus. From my feet that is I myself: handle me and see
point, inconipatihilities constitute almost the whole narrative. for a spirit hath not flesh
T he women (I) came to the tomb (Mk. [a]Mt., Lk., Jn.) and bones as ye see me having. [And when he had
before dawn or while it was yet dark, yet (Mk.
sunrise; yet said this, he shewed them his hands and his
they Eleven (3) they (Mk., Mt.), were And while they still disbelieved for joy and wondered,
to hid the Eleven go to Galilee,’ yet (Lk.) they were merely he said unto them : Have ye anything to eat here
to remind the Eleven of what Jesus had said Galilee or And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish [and a
they (or rather Mary) brought no message a t all hom
angels, but message from Jesus that he was on honeycomb.] And he took it and did eat before them.’
the point of ‘ascending
entered the tomb, yet
. (4) they (Lk., and perhaps
proh. Mt.) they did not enter it (5)
Cp Ignatius, 3 : For I know and believe that
he was in the flesh even after the resurrection; and
the angel was (Mk., Mt.) yet (Lk. two; (6) the angel when he came to Peter and his company
(or angels) (Mt.) the women they sought
Do not fear, for I know that ye seek he said to them: “Ta ke handle
Jesus, and yet blamed them for so doing (Lk. 24 5 : me and see that I am
‘Wh y seek ye the living among the (7) The Eleven not a bodiless demon.” And straightway they touched
(Mk Mt.) were to go to to see Jesus, yet (Lk., Jn.)
him in Jerusalem and were (Acts) not t o depart him and believed, being mixed with his
(apparently having left it since the resur- and his Spirit (or, For this cause
rection) (8) Peter (Lk. 24 looked into the tomb and also they despised death, and were found superior to
then went home without entering, yet Peter entered the death. And after his resurrection he ate with them
tomb ; Mary was not to touch Jesus because he had
not yet ascended, yet (Mt.) the women held f a s t his feet and drank with them -as being in the flesh
though he had not yet ascended; (IO) when the two disciples although spiritually united with the Father.’ The word
from Emmaus reported that the Lord had appeared to them (as in Mk. Mt. is.
the Eleven 16 13) did not believe, yet (Lk.)
replied ‘the Lord is the Lord (Mt. Jn.) grammatically, as well as traditionally, adapted to
appeared to the disciples in Galilee yet (so far as we can judge express a Eucharistic and the words, mixed
from Lk. and Acts) no in Galilee could have
occurred. is confused ‘They found the Eleven gathered together
and them that with them. And he hath appeared.
(v. ) (’proofs’). - Lk. concentrates himself
on the accumulation of ‘proofs,’ by ( I )
they ... saying, Lord is risen indeed and hath appeared
rigidly defining the time when Jesus
unto Simon.
in the way.
say, ‘The Lord
... they also told them what
I n direct speech
appeared nnto us. In
had happened
two travellers would
speech,
ascended and left his disciples, re-
proo s’ presenting Jesus as appearing merely
f this would become the Lordappeared unto them. The next
stage of the would define ‘them’ as ‘Simon and a
in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, so as to omit all companion.’ Lastly, Simon, as being the more important, would
appearances in Galilee where some doubted,’ (3) giving be alone mentioned.
W H regard the bracketed words as an ‘at a
the impression that the women saw nothing but period when forms of the oral Gospel were still current.
‘a vision of angels,’ (4)recording no apparition that ‘See is proh. the rendering of here (so
was not attested by at least ‘two [male] witnesses,’ (5) Lightf.), in the corresponding passage in Lk. it means.
introducing Jesus as eating 5 in the presence of his ‘see
4 MSS are in favour of
disciples. N o instance has been of the of in the
Yet even Lk. shows loopholes for detecting possihle misunder- sense of the middle, take hold of.
standing of metaphor. Compare, for example, narrative of There are several signs of variations as to this tradition
the Lord’s drawing and conversing with the two disciples both in Ignatius and in Lk. The words ‘and see that I am not
on their way to Emmaus, with the Martyrdom a bodiless demon’ dislocate the sentence, which begins with an
‘the Lord was standing near and conversing with appeal to touch, not to sight. W e know from Origen (see
I n the latter the ‘standing Lightf. adloc.) that these words were in the Preaching
near‘ is spiritual; and so may have been the which he rejected, and we have reason to believe that they were
‘drawing near and the ‘conversing,’ in the not in the the as known to him and
The that Lk. in his attempt to ascertain the Lightf. suggests that they were added in the recension of that
facts may be illustrated by the probable explanation of his Gospel known to Jerome. Cancelling them, we should have, a s
omission of the appearance of Christ to Peter. I n reality, Peter the original, in Gospel of the ‘Take me; and
was probably one of the two disciples journeying to Emmaus, as they straightway handled him and believed. As regards Lk.,
is repeatedly assumed by Origen. But tradition confused Irenreus 14 when quoting passages from Lk. accepted
the story, t o the the words uttered by Marcion and Valentinus, omits this passage though Tertullian
two Lk. should have run (as in D), inserts it as part of Marcion’s Gospel. con-
the travellers ‘found the Eleven and those with them, and said sidered that Marcion was quoting it from some apocryphal
(though Tertullian does not say so, hut merely accuses
B favours the supposition that they did not Marcion of perverting the passage). Irenreus himself nowhere
enter. This is not inconsistent with which some- quotes this passage, hut alludes to the assumption about
times means ‘depart,’ nor with Mk.168, ‘spirits’ expressed in it, in ‘For Spirit.
which may that they ‘fled’ (not hath neither hones nor flesh. Tertullian Marcion 4 4 3 ,
‘out of’) the tomb. De Christi 5 ) the words twice, omitting the
‘Ye’is emphatic. The soldiers might well be afraid, but to and omitting Even in ( a) ,
the women were not to he afraid. the context shows that he is not quoting a mutilated text of
3 This is still mort obvious in Pseudo-Peter, ‘ But Marcion’s; (6) makes it certain that the omission is
not stoop and look. own. H e quotes thus, (a) my hands and
probably not a part of the original Lk.,this insertion feet that it is I myself,’ (6) that it is I and in cases
represents a very early tradition, and perhaps formed a part of adds ‘for a spirit hath not bones as ye see me having. In the
a later edition of the Gospel. I t can hardly he a condensation of (6) he asserts a spirit has but has not
‘bones ‘han k,’ and ‘feet. Marcion (according to Tertullian)
(and cp. Philo on Gen. 188) for the estab - interpreted the passage thus (Marcion 4 43) A hath not
lished belief that an angel or spirit might live familiarly with hones, as,’ and so, ‘ y e see me having bones] and he
men for a long period could not eat. remarks that Marcion might as well have cancelled the passage
‘their were may be a as interpret it thus. [In (6) Clark has, by error, ‘hath
metaphor meaning that ‘their eyes were opened to discern and hones’ instead of ‘hath not bones.’] A fragment of
Hippolytus from Theodoret Clark, has : For
Christ in Scriptures’ (cp. Lk.
used of opening the mind or heart)
Acts 16 14 where it
their H e having risen . .. when His disciples were douht, called
the Lord‘s presence a t the breaking of to Him and said, “Reach hither; handle and see :
reminds the reader of the implied precept to resort to ‘violence for a Spirit hath not hones and flesh, as ye see me have.”’
in prayer (Lk.16 16, and cp. D (differing from has (Lk. 2 4 3 9 )
GOSPELS GOSPELS
with his flesh and spirit (or blood),’ implying a close the one hundred and fifty-three fish in the of the
union such as binds each member of the Church to Christ Church, and feeding them with the One Bread and the
in the one Body or one Bread, may very well be a part of One before they go forth to preach the Gospel to
the tradition (or of some comment on it) from which the world. Then, without definite demarcation of the
is quoting. If so, the original (though not the period of manifestations and voices, the Gospel ends.
Ignatian) meaning may be correctly expressed by the In all this, the difference between Jn. and Lk. is obvious.
Armenian paraphrastic version, they believed, who Take, for example, the first manifestation to the disciples.,
(or, and they) were participators of the Eucharist (lit. Jn., the disciples are not (Lk. 24 37) terrified
communicated), and who (?) feasted before on his body and affrighted ;they have received the message
between from Mary in which Jesus calls them his
and blood.’ In other words, the disciples not only signs ‘brethren,’ and when Jesus in the midst
received a vision and an utterance of the Lord, but of they as soon as they see
also were made one w ith the body and spirit (or ‘the hands and the They do not (as in
Lk.) suppose Jesus to be a ‘spirit’ (or, as D, ‘phantasm’);
of Christ and were raised the f e a r of by they require no appeal to sight or touch ; nor does Jesus eat in
the Eucharist and therein handling his their presence. The of the first manifestation in is
These facts, being literalised in later narratives, apparently not to prove the Resurrection hut to convey the
may have given rise to the statements, made in good to the disciples. There is no explanation of prophecy’
the Spirit is conveyed at once, not promised as a future
faith, that they had handled’ Christ’s body,’ or that T he appeal to touch comes afterwards. The incredulity of
Christ had given them his body’ to handle.’ Thomas (absent on the first occasion) makes Jesus reproachfully
) The historical estimate of Tradition must suggest on a second occasion that the incredulous disciple may
touch the wounds in his hands and side ; hut it is not indicated
be lowered, ( I ) by evidence of his other errors and that Thomas does this. The words that follow suggest that it
misunderstandings given above, was not done: (2029) ‘Because thou hast thou hast
by the variations in the corresponding believed’ : (it is not said, Because thou hast touched’).!
tradition quoted by Ignatius and The same spiritual (as distinct from logical)
’Tertullian, (3) by the fact that, A . D. purpose pervaded sign of the ‘seven’-who, if
Ignatius, bishop of Antioch (of which city Luke [Eus. proof’ and not a ‘sign’ had been intended, should
34 is said to have been a native), wishing to attest have been the Eleven.’ There is indeed some
the reality of the bodily resurrection of Christ, quotes similarity between the words of Jesus in Jn. 215 :
from an unknown authority a passage that omits all Children, have ye any meat? and those in Lk. :
mention of eating,’ and neither here nor elsewhere ‘Ha ve ye here anything to e at ?‘ how great a
to the testimony of This certainly leads to difference in reality! I n the latter case the Messiah
the inference that Lk. had not, in the mind of deigns to take food from the disciples in order to meet
that preponderant authority which a canonical their (Lk. ‘reasonings’ ; in the former, the
or even authoritative Gospel might be expected to Saviour gives himself to the ‘children’ to strengthen
have.’ them for the work of the Gospel.
evidence must not be disniissed without a reference (ix. ) Contrast the
Acts 14, which really meant with,
h u t was probably interpreted by Lk. (as patristic com-
mentators Clement, to and 15 For the symbolism of this helow, 47.
‘Nottoallthepeople, but towitnesses This ‘standing in the however, is from prophetic
to those foreordained God, namely ourselves, who see Ps. 22 quoted Heb. 2 and by Justin
.ate and drank with after the resurrection from the dead.’ 106) : also cp 24 36.
This, when combined with Acts 1 4 and Lk. 13 26 (‘we 3 Not, as Lk., ‘the hands and the I n Jn., as in
have eaten and drunk in thy presence ; not in parallel Mt. Pseudo-Peter. the feet are avvarentlv . reearded as hound. not
indicates a consistent interpretation of sucha nature as (possibly) nailed to
to convert metaphorical accounts of spiritual and 4 Jn., the first manifestation to the disciples seems to
revelation into literal accounts of historical ‘proofs. include a new and spiritual Genesis or Creation of The
(viii.) (signs). I n proof’ is entirely Genesis (2 7) described how God ‘breathed
into the face (of man) the of and man became
subordinated to ‘signs’-i.e., spiritual symbolisms. The riving soul.’
first manifestation of Jesus is to a woman, The rarity of which occurs in NT in
(2016) does not recognise him till called Jn. 2022, suffices to make the reference to Gen. 2 7 certain.
‘signs.’ whoy name. The Ascension is mentioned as
Philo also frequently quotes Gen. 2 7 (with to contrast
the ‘first‘ man with the ‘second’man.
-impending and as (apparently) preliminary to being Not improbably Jn. also has in mind that Ignatian tradition
(20 17) ‘ touched.’ In the second manifestation, Jesus which ,described the apostles as ‘mixed with his flesh and his
conveys to the disciples‘ the Holy Spirit which (739) analysis of all the passages where Ignatius
combines flesh and spirit’ and ‘flesh and blood’ makes it
not be the Ascension-a fact probable that ‘spirit’ (not ‘blood’) is the correct reading. At
indicating that, in the interval between the two, Jesus the same time, if both traditions were prevalent, first
had ascended. In a third the second to manifestation to the disciples would express the ‘being mixed
with his spirit,’ and the second (that to Thomas) the ‘being
he offers himself to the ‘handling’ of the mixed with his
incredulous Thomas, and pronounces a blessing on In any case, Jn. takes this historically sacred word, tradition.
those who have not seen yet have believed. In a fourth, ally associated with the creation of man, and represents it as
‘the third’ ‘the he is in Galilee, in in which the Logos
Divine image into’ him that Spirit of himself
directing the seven fishermen in their task of catching (as I Cor. not ‘living hut
life-giving so as to enahle the disciples to
transmit life to others.
Codex a has Handle me (reading I t is interesting to note here (in the light of Mk. 116-20) the
for in what precedes). In the passage, which has been between and Draught of Fish, which
scraped with a thus, ‘Behold, see my hands Lk. connects with the calling of Peter to be a Fisher of
and my feet,
.
and see that it is I ; for a spirit
.
flesh and hones. . a s . .see m e . .. .
When. . n ot.
. .. .. Men, but Jn. with a n imparting of the One Fish and the
?ne Bread to the ‘seven’ disciples-apparently as a preparation
were. Again he said unto them ‘Have ye here anything to or their apostolic work. I t will he found that Lk. differs from
eat Codices a 6 d and Brix. me after ‘handle. Mk. and in seven the boats are ‘standing’
The emphasis laid on ‘bones’ may have arisen from an he lake; there are two (the Jewish and Gentile
allusion to Is. 6614 ‘Your hones shall spring up.’ not one; all (Peter included) have given up
‘Blood’ was omitted, perhaps in accordance with a sense that ishing in despair ; Jesus enters one of the vessels ; the
it could not appeal either to sight or to touch. (Justin are ‘rent asunder’; (6) Peter fears and Jesus depart
761 indicates something specially non-human about the blood of 7) Jesus does not expressly any of the fishers ‘follow’ him.
Christ.) differs from Lk. these details: ( I ) I t is Jesus (not the
Apologists usually depreciate what they call mere who is standing the sea ; there is one vessel
argument from silence’; but it has weight varying with cir- Peter has not given up fishing ; (4) Jesus does not enter the
cumstances. Here it The evidence is almosf ; (5) io spite of the multitude of the fishes (21 ‘the net
as strong as if Ignatius said expressly, I did not know rent’ ; (6) Peter leapt into the sea and hastened toward
or else, ‘ I knew Lk., hut did not believe to he so authori- lesus; Peter is hidden, after the Sacramental Feast,
tative as the tradition from which I quoted. to feed Christ’s sheep, hut also to ‘follow’ him.
GOSPELS GOSPELS
is a curious contrast between the personal and as it VI. SINGLE TRADITIONS.
were private nature of Christ’s last THE FIRST
utterances in Jn. and the public or - That Mt. was intended for
ecclesiastical utterances recorded by readers is suggested by the stress laid
Lk., Mk. and the last verses of Mt. on prophecy; the tracing of genealogy
In Hither, break your fast,’ thou me? back to Abraham as in Lk.. to
Feed my sheep,’ If I will that he tarry till I come, Ada m; cp the Sermon on the
what is that to thee?’ In the Synoptists, either Mount corresponding to the Law given on Mount
App. ) the injunction to preach the Gospel, the prediction Sinai ; the contrast between what had been said of old
of condemnation for those who will not believe and be time’ and what the new Lawgiver prescribed the word
baptized, and the promise of signs such as the casting lawlessness (altered Lk. to ‘ iniquity ’), used
out of devils,’ tongues,’ lifting up serpents,” drinking by Mt. alone, and the strong condemnation of him
poison, etc., and healing the sick or else (Mt.) bap- who (Mt. 5 breaks, or tenches others to break, one
tizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and of the least of the commandments.’
the Holy Spirit, teaching them to keep all things as
parables point less to the inclusion of the Gentiles than
many as I commanded you,’ and a farewell in Galilee, to the exclusion of unworthy Jews. H e alone has the saying
with an assertion that Jesus possesses all power, and (22 14) : ‘Many are called but few chosen. H e seems to move
a promise that he will be always present with the amid a race of backsliders, among dogs and swine unworthy of
disciples; or, lastly (Lk.), an ’opening’ of the dis- 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
ciples’ to understand the Scriptures, and a long the net of the Gospel. ‘The way’ is mentioned him
statement that the Scriptures must needs have been alone and the multitude of those that go thereby, and the guest
thus fulfilled, and that there must be the preaching of the wedding garment, and the foolish virgins, and the
goats and those who even ‘cast out devils’ in name of the
repentance in his name with a view to the remission Lord’and yet are rejected by him because they ‘work lawless-.
of sins to all the nations-beginning from Jerusalem,’ ness.’ H e alone introduces into the Lord’s Prayer the
and then a promise, and a warning that they must Deliver us from the evil (one).’ Elsewhere he alone gives as a
remain in the city till the promise is fulfilled :-concern- reason for not being distracted, ‘sufficient for the day is the.
evil thereof.’ The wavering or retrogression of many Jewish
ing all which utterances we are warned by our knowledge converts when the breach between Jews and Gentiles widened,
of the various accounts of Christ’s revelations to Paul about the time of the siege of Jerusalem, may well explain t h e
that we must accept none of them as necessarily repre- emphasis laid by Mt. on backsliding and the Condemnation
of might refer to Jews who considered
senting the actual words of Christ himself, though (in that the new law set them free from all restraint, and who,
various degrees, and subject to various qualifications) casting aside every vestige of nationality, wished to cast aside
they may be regarded as revelations to the Early Church, morality as well. Yet Mt. prefers (12 33) even open and con-
conveyed, during the period of manifestations, to this sistent wickedness to the sin of the ‘ hypocrites’ whom his Gospel
continually denounced (the word occurs Mt. times, in Mk.
or that disciple, in the same way in which the vision I , in Lk. in Jn. and he dwells more than the rest on t h e
and the voice were conveyed to Paul at his conver- blessings of the meek, the merciful, and the little ones
sion. angels behold the face of the Father.
Besides the fulfilments of prophecy or type mentioned
his Introduction, Mt. sees several others not
in the Triple Tradition.
the gift of ‘ tongues ‘-as we infer from Paul‘s Epistles-was a Some of these that relating to the (212-5) and the
phenomenon remarkable, hut not supernatural ( 3 ) the ‘taking colt (27 ‘the the ‘three days and three
or, more probably, destroying of serpents was in the belly of the as representing the time o f
probably a of the promise in Lk. 10 that the Christ’s remaining in the tomb and the (2335) apparently in-
disciples should ‘trample upon serpents and scorpions and all accurate reference to the son of Barachiah, contain
the Dower of the enemv.’ such obvious difficulties may he regarded as evidences
‘The text is of early, not of late and the same applies to
3 The in any full discussion of the Re- He shall be called a which is found in no existing
surrection, would come first and claim a detailed consideration. book of prophecy. See N A ZARE TH .
Here we can onlv observe on I Cor. 15 that the Apart from his account of the Resurrection, few new miracles
earliest traditions communicated to a doctrine are introduced Mt. Two of these consist of acts of healing.
(probably oral, on the of in Two are connected with Peter (I) Mt. the on
this tradition ‘accordance with the Scriptures’ played the water Mt. the in the fish‘s mouth. As
part (3) manifestations of Christ were described the these, the’omission of former Mk. and Jn., who record
word ‘appeared a word regularly denoting visions [the what precedes and follows, points to the conclusion that it is a
instance in is used in N T of the appearance of a poetic symbolism of Peter’s lapse and restoration. Ametaphorical
body is Acts 7 ; (4) places first appearance explanation probably applies also to the
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 also o f the Sociefv o f
Christ to himself on the same footing as those witnessed by the (‘97) as to character
apostles: (7) he speaks of the risen body as ‘a spiritual body’ or by Lk.), the seven petitions of the Lord’s Prayer
(on which, note that says that every spirit (where Lk. probably retains the original and shorter form), tha
has a ‘body,’ and that demons are called ‘bodiless’ in seven parables in Mt. the genealogy compressed into a triad
comparison with the spirits that are destined t o saved) and and other humerical groupings that show Jewish
as being (8) the same in kind, for Christ as’ for the influence.
after as should infer not An authoritative and widely circulated Gospel stands in this
T he latest of Paul’s speeches on vision repeats, as from respect on quite a different footing from an apocryphal and non-
a long discourse (Acts26 14-18). It then continues rg) authoritative book. The former would be attacked con-
... I was not disobedient unto the heaven@ troversialists, and any contained in it would he
exposed. Christians could not cancel the difficult passages
vision.’ But Paul’s earlier speech (22) assigns to Jesus merely
a portion this discourse, while another portion (mentioning without giving up the authority of the book. Consequently
‘ a witness’ and ‘sins’) occurs (22 15 in the report of a speech the difficult passages would remain in that Gospel, but would be
Ananias t o Saul, and another (mentioning ‘the Gentiles’) quietly dropped by subsequent evangelists. Hence, as
is uttered by Jesus indeed, but (22 canonical Gospels, the presence of difficulties is a mark of
when the was in a ‘trance. On the other hand, in early date. But this criterion does not apply to comparatively
the earliest account of the vision, the mention of Saul’s mission obscure works not so liable to attack.
to Gentiles’ is made Jesus (915) not to to 3 See an extraordinary comment in Ephraem 161) ‘So
dnanias; and Jesus is represented as saying ~- to Saul no more when Simon ... took his net and
(cp Jn. 21
to cast it into the sea,
I go a-fishing. T hey
than occurs in they also went
These facts lead to the following general conclusions :- (a) say unto him, We also come with thee ’). Also cp Philo (1499)
Words recorded as uttered on ‘the holy didrachm,’ and where he says
have heard in the ‘vision.’ Words that ‘the fish‘ hints a t food, and that
as in a ‘vision’ ncay have heard in the course a stater might admit ‘other solutions not unknown
trance. (c) The occasion utterance may implies a tradition of symbolism on this incident.
a even more occasions. the For other traces of Philonian symbolism in the Synoptic Gospels,
words 6ut cp Mt. 13 33 and Lk. 13 on the ‘leaven‘ which a woman ‘hid
an inspired speaker. in of with
1788
GOSPELS GOSPELS
) to Mt. recorded the pre- a patron, a man of rank. The apostles-the ( 1 eye-
diction that the apostles would not accomplish witnesses and ministers of the word ’-appear to have
the cities of Israel’ until the Son of man delivered their testimony by oral tradition
had come,’ must he not have assumed and to have passed away. T o supply their places (1I )
that, in some sense, he had ‘come’ If so, this ‘many had ‘ attempted to draw up a formal narrative
will explain the difficult expression in 2 66 4, ‘ye shall concerning the matters fully
or see the Son of man, established in the Church. These writers had clearly
It would seem that, as Jn. saw at least a primary not been eye-witnesses, nor were they, in judgment,
fulfilment of Zech. (‘They shall look on him whom so successful as to make unnecessary any further
they pierced’) in the moment when the spectators of attempts. Apparently they had failed in the three
the Cross gazed on the pierced side of Jesus, so Mt. points in which he hopes to excel : they had not ( I )
regarded the coming of Christ with power as com- traced everything up to its source
mencing from the time of the sacrifice on the Cross, and this ( 2 ) accurately and
or of the Resurrection. But, whatever he the inter- ( 3 ) they had not written ‘in order
pretation, the difficulty of this and some other passages All this affords an interesting parallel to the description of the
leads to the belief that Mt. has in some cases preserved of the Mishna by R. Judah (Hor. Hebr.
When he saw the captivity was (sic) prolonged and the scholars
the earliest tradition. Other passages point to a very tohecomefaint-hearted, and and the cabala
much later , the name of the Field of Blood to fail, and the oral law t o be much diminished-he gathered and
borne ( 2 7 8 ) to this day,’ the charge of stealing Christ’s together all the decrees, statutes, and sayings of the
wise men. For captivity was prolonged,’ substitute
body repeated ( 2 8 1 5 ) to this day,’ and the mention of Lord delayed his coming,’ for sayings of wise men’ substitute
the Jews in the same passage as an alien race also ‘traditions and ‘narratives some of
the recognition of ‘the false prophets ‘as a definite which were probably based on the Psalms of Israel and the
class to be avoided, and of (1817) the church’ as the hymns of the first generation of Christians-and we have the
same phenomena introducing themselves. Catechumens were
arbiter in quarrels. Perhaps, viewed in the light disturbed the diversity of traditions ; catechists and evangel-
of the the precepts (5 24) to be reconciled with ists themselves found it hard to distinguish the genuine from,
a brother before bringing one’s gift to the altar,’ and the spurious; it was time to ‘gather and scrape up together
the traditions-especially those upon the Resurrection and the
( 7 6 ) to avoid casting pearls before swine, indicate a time Incarnation and to do this with such exactness that
the Eucharist had so long been celebrated in the the might know the certainty about
Church as materially to influence the general traditions points of Christian faith.
of the doctrine of Christ. Linguistic characteristics.-As a corrector, in
) in io the Triple Tradition, Lk. has been shown above to b e
often agrees with, but intensifies, the doctrine of a linguistic purist, and his insertions
depreciation the teachers of old time is more often indicate a love of sonorous and
strongly expressed in ‘thieves and robbers’; compound words But in his Introduction,
(1130) ‘easy yoke’ is less strong than Jn.
36. which implies that Christ’s service describing the days before the Nativity (as also
shall deliver from every yoke ; Mt. when describing the first days of the church in Acts),
priests profane the Sabbath’ is not so the narrative takes an archaic Hebraic
clear as ‘on the Sabbath ye a man . and The vocahularyof Lk. is largely borrowed from the L XX , and in
23 33) offspring of vipers and ‘serpents (Satan particular from the
being ‘the is less forcible than 844) ‘ye are of (in the sense of ‘belonging’) the use of
your father the alone of the Synoptists, describes for God,
the Pharisees as (15 mentions (1513) the ‘rooting and Cp story of the
up of Pharisaism, and the rewarding of men according rich fool (1219) with Ecclus. Lk.187 (‘Though he bear
to their works and similar thoughts will he found i n Jn.
In a very few cases does Jn. appear to be tacitly
long with them . .. )
(‘Blessed art thou among women’) with Judith
22 ; Lk. 142
Often
correcting Single .Tradition. Perhaps doctrine there is an allusive use of L X X words. Cp Lk. (about
‘little children’ and the stress laid by him on Joseph of who had not to’ the decision
appeared to Jn. liable to be perverted into a confession that of the Pharisees) with 23 I ‘Thou shalt not
Christianity was a religion of weakness and At all the unjust with Ps. 888 ‘Thou hast
events, though he alone of the Evangelists supports Mt. 21 5 in mine far from me’ . and Lk. 20
quoting Zech. 9 9 ‘Behold thy king cometh,’ he omits ‘meek with Job 19 31 ; also Lk. 1 7
on which the Rabbis (Schottg. 2 etc.) laid with Gen. 1811 It difficult to
emphasis ; and, whereas Mt. immediately afterwards decide whether those portions of Lk. which approach the L X X in
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 name for a Jew. And the omission of K Acts
52 18 though partly correcting to be might he explained on the ground that thinks it i n
rather him against omissions or statements of Mk. bad taste to be-noble a young catechumen too much as
and Lk. Dion. Halic. 5 begins and. ends
( b ) THE THIRD a treatise with but intersperses
and T o use the term
The Dedication of dedication shows characteristic of ‘the obsequious man’ in Theophr.
that we have passed into a new’literary 5, ‘after a
The Muratorian fragment ’).
province. certainly cannot refer to qualities alone.
calls attention to the fact that the This is proved ( I ) hy use of the vocative in Acts243 2625
author writes in his own name,’ a novelty among evan- (and cp 2326); Jos. Ant. iv. 2 8 (in the
gelists. H e also dedicates his work to some one who, latter, vocatively), where it is applied to ‘young men of distinc-
if not an imaginary would appear to be tion or cp Lucian ...
Philo on ‘the three measures of the soul that (3) Dion. Halic. seems (as quoted dis-
are to be ‘kneaded’ like cakes the sacred tinguish between and (4) I t seems highly
doctrine must he hidden ( K E K After the destruction of robahle that the author of the first part of the Epistle to
the Temple Vespasian Jews in all parts of the Empire has Lk. in view when writing I)
to pay the to the Roman Treasury. Among Christian where ‘Diognetus represents not a Christian,
there mav have arisen the whether thev. an inquirer, and is probably a fictitious name. If so, this
longer were liable to it. tends to show that he regarded Theophilus’ as represent-
Mk. ‘immediately,’ Lk. substitutes ‘shall ing a typical catechumen, just as his own ‘ Diognetus’ repre-
be’ for ‘ye shall see.’ Cp also Mt. 16 till they see the Son sented a typical inquirer. On the whole, the impression left hy
in his kingdom,’ Mk. I ‘the of God the use of the name is that it is typical of one who might be
having.come,’ Lk. 9 27 the-kingdom of God.’ addressed
Cp I Cor, ‘be not in mind: how- Philo a treatise on the Creation (1I ) ‘for the sake of
beit in malice be ye babes, but in be men’ (see also I Cor. the God-beloved (roil And does not (Acts 1I)
I 13 I). sound
3 There may have been, however, controversial reasons for like an echo of Philo 2 444 b
omitting that epithet. . . . ? Tatian speaks of ‘interpretations (of
Cp Lightf. BE ,197 ‘Theophilus, if a real person and Scripture) which being published in writing make those who
not a nom de itself, is not an unlikely give heed to them God
1789
GOSPELS GOSPELS
rhythm and vocabulary are translations from Hebrew documents, ‘day by day,’ both in the Lord‘s Prayer and in the
or imitations, conscious or unconscious of the books of LXX. precept to take up the cross,’ indicates
But the use of ‘the the raising of the
widow’s son at Nain, (10 I) the appointment of the Seventy, (11 a purpose the writer to produce a
39) the rebuke of the Pharisees, the preface to the practical Gospel. seems to see, as the obstacles
parable of the faithful and just steward, (1315) the healing of to the Faith, not hypocrisies nor Jewish backsliding,
the daughter of Abraham bound by Satan the parable
of the sycamore tree (156) the parable of unjust judge (19 but the temptations of wealth and social position acticg
8) the story of Christ’s looking on upon half-hearted converts and his sayings abcut
the verse (243) where it is said that ‘they found not the body of building the tower,’ ‘putting the hand to the plough,’
the Lord Jesus’-confirms the theory (which is also supported renouncing all one’s possessions,’ and hating
by internal evidence) that these passages in Lk. are translations.
Another test-word is Lk. uses about and mother, are pathetic indications of what must have
twenty-six times, only three times been going on in the divided household of many a
T h e latter form is sometimes used geographically by writers young Theophilus.’ The important part played
who use the former rhetorically or historically; it is
ahle that in 2 and 41 the two forms should be used apparently by ‘devout women’ in Acts prepares the reader for
finding prominence assigned to them here. Lk. alone
...
in the same sense, and :TO-
Cp gives us the songs of Mary and of Elisabeth, and the
) Doctrinal testimony of Anna. The mother of the Lord (not
doctrine is touched in the song of Zacharias over the Joseph) ponders in her heart the words of her Son, and
Baptist, and struck more clearly in the her sufferings are made ( 2 35) the subject of prophecy;
song of Simeon over the child Jesus ; alone mentions the domestic anxieties of Martha
proclaiming, in the first case, redemption for (1 and the devoted faith of her sister, the cure of the
‘God‘s people,’ in the second, for the afflicted daughter of Abraham,’ the woman who
a light for revelation of invoked a blessing upon the womb that bare Jesus, the
implied rejection of the Jews in favour of the story of her who loved much,’ and the parable of the
Gentiles at the outset of Christ’s public life in Nazareth is a woman rejoicing over the lost piece of silver. Lot’s
chronological error; but it indicates the tendency of the Gospel.
(Mt.632) ‘the Gentiles’ are condemned as seeking wife is mentioned by him alone nor do we find in any
pleasures, Lk. is careful (1230) ‘the Gentiles other Gospel the utterance of Jesus to the daughters of
those who are spiritually Gentiles; and ‘seventy’ Jerusalem.’ Mk. and Mt. with Lk. in pro-
are emblematic of the Gospel to the nations.’ Mk.
makes no mention of the Samaritans. Mt. has merely nouncing a blessing on the man who gives up father or
‘Go not into any city of the ; but in Lk. the sons mother or lands or houses for Christ’s sake; bnt Lk.
of Zehedee are rebuked for desiring to call down fire on a alone adds ‘ wife.
Samaritan village ; a just Samaritan shames both priest and Strangely incongruous with these sayings and with the great
Levite; and a grateful Samaritan puts nine Jewish lepers to the body of Synoptic doctrine, are the parables of the unjust steward
blush. As for the law, it is valid as long as Jesus is a child or the unjust judge, and the friend persuaded by importunity:
( 2 51 ) ‘subject to’ his parents; but as soon as he has been T he moral of t h e y appears to be ‘Copy the world, only an
baptized, it is regarded as superseded because unworldly fashion. Yet the thought and the language
fulfilled. make it difficult to believe that uttered’ these parables
Gospel is abundant in contrasts. It couples their present shape ; and the last two (as they stand) seem at
blessings with (Lk. 6 24-26) ‘ woes. It proclaims a variance with his to remember that the Father
knoweth what things we need before we ask for them. Every-
conflict pending-between God and Satan, forgiveness thing points to the conclusion that we have here and probably
and sin, self-renunciation and worldliness-which is to elsewhere in Lk., discourses, based indeed on Christ’s doctrine
culminate in the triumph of mercy imparting to the hut not containing his words or modelled after his methods and
style. Else, why in the parable of the Shepherd, do we find the
Gentiles (2447) a message of ‘repentance and remission dramatic Lk. it is in Mt. and
of sins.’ do introduce in the
When Satan departs from Jesus it is only (413) ‘for a time’; case of the rich fool, the prodigal son, the unjust steward, the
Satan binds a daughter of is beheld by Jesus ‘fallen unjust judge?
from heaven,’ enters into Judas, and the Twelve that Evidence as t o more clearly than
he may ‘sift’ them. There is a sharp demarcation between
rich and poor. I t is ‘the, poor,’ not (as Mt. 53) ‘the poor in describes the fall of Jerusalem as the result
spirit,’ that are ‘blessed. In Lk., Christ pronounces a woe of a siege and capture. H e also more
upon them that are rich, rebukes the ‘cumbered’ Martha, definitely a term for all troubles.
exhorts the rich to entertain the poor and dooms the rich fool
t o a sudden while Dives is ’consigned to unalterable Lk. alone has the exhortation to (2128) ‘look up.’
torment. But above all Lk. contrasts ‘repentance’ with Omitting the remarkable saying of Mk. and Mt. that
If is contrasted with Dives, the grateful the Son himself knoweth not ‘the hour,’ he declares
amaritan with the ungrateful Jewish lepers the merciful that the trampling down of Jerusalem will be only till
Samaritan with the heartless priest and Levite, the trivial
anxieties of Martha with the simple devotion of Mary, much the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.’ Then will come
more does the publican find his foil in the Pharisee prays a time of ‘ distress ’-not, however, now for Israel, but
by his side ; the woman ‘which was a sinner’ and loved much for the Gentiles-and amidst convulsions of nature the
in Simon the churlish host loved little; the prodigal
younger son in the envious elder son; and the penitent thief on Son of man will come. In the hope of this coming,
the right in the impenitent thief on the left. All these stories, the disciples are to lift up their heads, remembering
as well as that of and the lost piece of silver, must that, although some of them will be slain,’ not a hair
have appealed with great force to many who applied to them- of their heads will be injured. The comparatively
selves the words of Epbes. 2 I : ‘And you did when
ye were dead through your trespasses and sins ; they magnify cheerful discourse on the Coming, combined with the
power of forgiveness-contrasting the instantaneous and joyful and triumphant tone of the Introduction, accords
complete victories of faith (for the most part ‘without works’) with the general tenor of Lk. when compared with Mt.,
with inferior results of a long life of ordinary and prudent
respectability. and indicates as the author a Christian Gentile to whom
) A conduct.-The insertion of (as to Barnabas) the fall of Jerusalem was an accepted
and not unwelcome fact. Writing with recollection,
T he Gospel of the Hebrew always uses the form but not under the present pressure, of persecution,
never b
Another test-phrase is SEI, frequent in Genesis and the when the Church was making rapid progress in the
early part of Exodus but rare or non-existent in later books. conversion, not only of the slaves, the poor, and the
I t does not occur in Mk. or Mt. I n Jn. it occurs only (a) in ‘devout women,’ but also of the higher and more
the interpolated811 the woman taken in adultery’ (6) in126 educated classes in the Roman Empire, the Evangelist
[where D transpose; SEI and omits ( ‘ h o w Judas
did not care’), the probably being simply ‘N ot seems to be looking forward to the moment when the
that Judas in2123 where sup- times of the Gentiles would be fulfilled,’ and the Son
ported by and is perhaps genuine, meaning ‘ however.’ of man would suddenly come.’ Such a date might be
In Lk. (as also in Acts) it is frequent, mostly in his Single reasonably at the close of Vespasiau’s or the
Tradition, but sometimes in the Double or Triple when he
words his I n view of beginning of Nerva’s See
these facts, Mt. 1247, bracketed by Tischendorf and placed by Acts 25 And he (Paul) two years [in Rome]’)
W H in marg., should be rejected as an interpolation. suggests, a t first sight, that Acts-and, a (Acts 1I )
GOSPELS GOSPELS
, (v. ) Narratives peculiar to apart value of his work. Every page of it shows signs of
from the Introduction and the Conclusion, are : ( I ) the pains, literary labour, and good taste. It is by far the
miraculous draught of fishes the raising most beautiful, picturesque, and pathetic of all the
of the widow’s son (3) the healing Gospels, and probably the best adapted for making
of the woman bound’ by Satan; (4) the converts, especially among those who have to do
cure of the dropsical m a n ; (5) the appearance of the the life of the household. But, if bald bare facts are in
angel strengthening Jesus, and (6) the healing of the question, it is probably the least’ authoritative of the
severed Four.
As regards its omission all the other Evangelists is, in often intervenes to facts mentioned by
itself, almost fatal to its authenticity, and it is probably t o be and omitted by Lk. But, as regards facts
explained as the result of a literary misunderstanding,
was probably some tradition or obscure, and mentioned by Lk. alone, Jn. is either silent or gives so
omitted by Jesus said ( a) ‘let it the sword) be re- version of them (as in the case of the Draught
stored t o its place. This was misunderstood by Lk. as meaning of Fishes) that many would fail to recognise an intention
(6) ‘let it the ear) be restored.’ He therefore substituted to describe the same event. On this point, see the next
(6) for and amplified his narrative in such words as to leave
no section.
(vi. ) are led to the (vii. ) in
conclusion that, although Lk. attempted to write is only where Lk. alters, or omits, some Synoptic
accurately’ and in order,’ yet he Tradition, or where he attempts to
could not always succeed. When describe the phenomena that followed
decidingbetweenan earlier and a later the Resurrection, that Jn. (as a rule)
date, between this and that place or occasion, between steps in to correct Lk. The Fourth Gospel lies outside
metaphor and literalism, between what Jesus himself that large and province, peculiar to the Third,
said and what he said through his disciples, he had which deals with the welcome of repentant sinners and
be guided by evidence which sometimes led him right, some of the words most in use with
but not always. faith,’ rich,’ riches,’ divorce,’ publican,’ and (in
I n regarding the story of the fig-tree as a metaphor and the the words of Jesus) sinner ‘-are altogether absent
promise about treading on scorpions as a spiritual and from Jn.
the home of the infant Jesus a t Nazareth, not a t Perhaps the only important point of doctrine in which n.
Bet lehem, he was probably right. T he Feeding of the Four may be thought tacitly to contradict the Single Tradition of
Thousand he may have rightly rejected as a duplicate of the as to which Lk. encourages something approaching to
tradition about the Five Thousand. But be himself seems to while Jn. so far discourages that he’avoids the
give in his Mission of the Seventy a duplicate of Mission of very use of the word, preferring ‘ask’ or every-
the His two-fold description of Jesus as mourning where implies that the essential thing is, not that the petitioner
Jerusalem in Galilee and once near the should be importunate, but that he should be ‘in Christ,’ in
city itself, an error of an character (like his which case his petition be granted.
inference from the expressions ‘cnp’and ‘platter,’ that a certain Lk. aims at chronological order. while giving a new
discourse of Jesus was uttered at the table of a chronology, his history to symbolical and
Again, Mk. and Mt. show traces of duplicate traditions concern- spiritual principles. Lk. often removes from the old Tradition
ing the insults offered to Jesus in the Passion; and these such words as Atticists might condemn Jn. seems sometimes
(combined with the Psalmists predictions about ‘T he to prefer and always uses a vocabulary simple even to
of the earth’) may have led Lk. to adopt a tradition-not monotony, Lk. writes what have delivered,’
by the other Evangelists-that Herod joined with Jn. (not here dissenting, but indicating superiority) writes in
Pilate to the journey to Emmaus and the the name of eye-witnesses 114) that which we
Manifestation to the Eleven, it has been shown that he have
seems to take metaphor for literal statement. Some textual So far, Jii. may be said to differ, without correcting ; but on
ambiguity may have induced him to believe that the Nazarenes,, one or two points of Single Tradition he seems to write
instead of (as Mk. and Mt.) ‘being caused to stumble in Jesus For mentions Annas and
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 of the mentions Martha and Mary together.
traditions- especially in connection with Christ’s ap- Mary, he says w a s a t Christ’s feet; Martha was
pearing to women after the Resurrection and with ‘troubled’ Lk. ‘about much serving. Jn.
does not contradict this. but he presents us with a different
Christ’s promise to go to Galilee ‘-though it may be aspect of Martha. Mar;, he says, was sitting a t home with the
in part extenuated on the ground of the need of selection, Martha went to meet Jesus, and made a confession of
and in part almost justified on the ground of the obscurity faith ’in him, and induced Mary to come forth also to meet
him.
the original, nevertheless seriously diminishes the 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
‘the former treatise,‘ completed during the apostle’s you as ,he that IS to Jn. where Jesus
life. But although Acts may incorporate documents written while ‘serves ; Lk. (‘I have for thee’) seems parallel
Paul was living and left unaltered by the compiler, the compila- to the prayer to the Father in (‘keep them from
tion may have been made many years after the apostle’s death. evil Perhaps we may add (‘I commend my
Of these (3) and (4) no special mention ; ( I ) must be spirit’) and Jn. 1930 (‘he delivered np his spirit ’).
classed 32 and 47) with draught of fishes, which is THE J OHANNINE GOSPEL. -The has
symbolical will be discussed with the Raising of Lazarus
(see below, 58). to ( 5 ) (described by WH as not a part been the subject of various hypotheses
of gospel, but as one of precious among the of authorship. The internal evidence for,
remains of’ an ‘evangelical tradition locally current these (apart from direct statements) is
the Canonical Gospels,’ and as being ’rescued from oblivion by derivable from (ii. ) names, allusions, etc. style
the scribes of the second century’) see 5 6 2 (4).
The same word means ‘restore’ a sword in ) structure.
Jer. 29 47) 6, and a in Lk. 610. The solution is (i. ) Gospel states that
: ‘Justitiam
unconsciously suggested by Ephrem
in ... Aurem in
(2 1
and
the disciple whom loved is the witness
of ‘these things,’ adding ‘and we know
accounts of the two Missions ( a) that his witness is true.’ A comparison of several
with account of the single it will other passages leads (by a process of elimination) to the
be that is almost entirely made up of that portion of inference that the author-writing perhaps with some
Mt. which does not occur in (a).
4 See above co-operation or attestation of others-was John the son
between a verb and its causal form produces of Zebedee. But the belief that the apostle originated
manyvariations in the L X X (Gen. 32 Jer. 15 the Gospel is compatible with a conviction that he did
...
and probably explains many Synopticvariations; cp Mk. 2 Mt.
(Mt. with Lk. 534 not or write it in its
Mk. Lk. Mk. 1 1 7 Lk. A great (as used in Mk.
many instances occur in Theodotion’s and the LXX version of. The text is uncertain. There may have been ,originally a
Daniel 16, distinction between and ‘the writer has
See above, IO simply hath been written,’ and 19 35 simply ‘hath
1794
GOSPELS
For example the teaching of the aged apostle may have been of places in Tn. divide themselves into two classes :
taken up disciple or ‘interpreter,’ and may have been first, the well known second, the ob-
ultimately published by the latter, as Peter’s is said to have
been recorded and, circulated Mark (see below, 65) *& scure and contested. Concerning the
Peter’s ‘interpreter. If, as says John the former. Tn. mav be shown to write
wrote the Apocalypse about A . D . the’difference of style mostly from biblical, or literary, not from local, know-
between that and the Gospel would necessitate a very
interval to admit even a possibility that he wrote the latter5 ledge. The latter he mentions only when they are
Suppose the apostle t o have been ninety, or, say, only adapted for symbolism.
five, when he wrote the Apoc., and concede an interval of only For example : ( I ) that ‘spake in the Treasury ’is an
years to allow him to learn a new kind of Greek, change his error (so far as we know) from a supposition that what
vocabulary, and adopt a new style, new thoughts, and a new held in the days of Nehemiah and cp Neh. held
tone, yet this brings us to 106 and the apostle to the age of also in the time of Christ that the temple was
a hundred or ninety-five. Is it probable that one so aged could ‘forty and six years’ was a false from I about
retain powers of memory and expression sufficient for the mental the second temple. That Jesus I ) crossed the Kidron may
construction, or even the literary expression, of a work in which very well have happened; but the fact appears to he introduced
as will he shown, every word is weighed and every as a parallel to David who similarly S. crossed the
adapted to a spiritual purpose? The improbability is increased Kidron mourning to in triumph. (3) mention of
by the tradition (reported Jerome) that towards the close of the cornfields of Sychar, or Shechem, far from implying an eye-
his life the venerable apostle bad to he carried into the midst of witness, might have been made by any reader of Philo
the congregation and could do no more repeat over and familiar with Gen. 4915. (4) Dialogues between a Samaritan
over again the injunction one another. and a Jew about ‘this mountain’ as compared with
If this was so, John’s Gospel would nevertheless continue to Mount Sion, existed among the Talmudists, and was the
be preached, probably by one or more of his elders,’ preaching custom to place the scene a t the foot of the former near
in his name, say from A.D. 98 to A.D. or A.D. Then it SYCHAR appears to have been an opprobrious name for
becomes easy to understand how the individuality of an Shechem 54 it adapted itself to the dialogue on ‘the
‘interpreter’ may have combined with the force of new living water. the alleged familiarity with Capernaum
cumstances-attacks from philosophers without conflicts with and its ‘sea,’ it reduces itself to this, that the writer knew
incipient Docetism within-to mould the oral Johannine Gospel Capernaum to he on the sea-shore, so that people would ‘go
into its present shape, first without an appendix, and then, when down’ to it, and knew that the sea was large enough to allow
the nominal author had passed away (say A.D. with the men to row-under stress of weather and not necessarily in a
additional chapter that, effect, alludes (21 23) to his death. straight direction-for (6 19) twenty-five or thirty furlongs.’
Who this or ‘interpreter’may have been we cannot now Passing to ‘obscure and places we find (6) in (323)
For the present it must suffice to point out that, as near to [the var. cited]
the Muratorian Fragment enrolls among the canonical books near to Peace’), a reference to the Baptist’s urification by
the Wisdom of though admitting it to have been water as a preparation for the higher purification
written not by Solomon but by Solomon’s friends ‘in his honour,’ king of Salem (or Christ. Cp As for (7)
so a and ‘interpreter’ of John, committing to writing a the corrupt passage4 relating to Bethesda, Bethzatha, or
Johannine Gospel, might deem it a merit to ignore his own part saida, the most probable supposition is that Jn. wished to
in the composition, and to it as a whole to his master describe some place of bathing or purification in Jerusalem
and teacher. The alternative was to do as Lk. had done : to that the themselves (Wetst. ad called a
use I and me in the preface, and to explain that the writer place by the Greek-derived name sheep-pool and
received his doctrine from the aoostle. That. however. was an that a kindred name appeared to he applied to a pool in Jeru-
salem Lastly (8) the pool of Siloam, and its
from the spiritual interpretation-which introduces in the healing of
in man horn blind, the type of the converted Gentile
novel precedent even stimulate the Johannine would he known to every reader of Is. 86.
‘interpreter’ to merge his own authorship in that of the apostle Numbers-If the man at Bethesda represents
or, rather, in that of ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved,’ and
he perhaps regards as a pattern and type of true discipleship. sinful Israel, his 38 years of waiting might correspond to the 38
Some of these points will be more fitly discussed years that elapsed before Israel 2 ‘went
over the Brook The fish, according
under External Evidence. What has been said above to Philonian principles,‘?would mean (as explained
is intended to guard reader against assumptions Augustine) the Church as evolved from the
fatal to unprejudiced criticism. Law and the Spirit. The 6 water-pots ‘containing or 3 firkins
apiece’ (after the Jews’ manner of purifying) represent the
For example it is commonly assumed ( I ) that the author inferior dispensation of the the Law-preparing
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 Further, how little security there is that names would he
minute details with which the narrative abounds are signs of an accurately preserved in passing from Hebrew to Greek (not to
eye-witness with a taste for the picturesque, and ear-witness speak of the gulf dividing an oral tradition from Gospels written
with a keen sense of the On the contrary, ( I ) if the say, may be seen comparing two books of
writer is a disciple regarding himself as the pen of a teacher, he in the circumstances most favourahle to accuracy, where
not to he regarded as a forger if the writer received from 60th same which errors
John the apostle some things not known to the Synoptists, it might corrected. Cp ( a ) Ch. with (6) I Esd.
does not follow that he received everything, still less that he : (a) (6) u.8 : (a) (6)
must himself be an apostle ; (3) if, among a vast store of details 15. Similar discrepanciesahound in I Esd. Esd.
of name number (such as might naturally drop from the lips I t was that variations in obscure Gospel names should
of a very old man in oral accounts of reminiscences) he selected abound a t the beginning of the second century, leaving it open
those which lent themselves to a symbolical meaning, it does to the writer to choose that form which seemed most suitable.
not follow that he was an eye-witness or ear-witness; and it Neh. might give the impression that ‘the children of
may even be that he would have regarded picturesqueness as Israel when bringing their offerings into ‘the Chambers,’ were
an impertinence approximating to profanity in one who was to enter the treasure-house. Mk. against
attempting to write a Gospel that should be a New Testament the Treasury’) is correct, and so is Josephns v.
Scripture’ But no unofficial person was, Christ’s time, allowed
) Evidence from Names, -Here we consider in the Treasury.‘
(a) Numbers, Names See the
of Eusehius
The Apocalypse contains much internal evidence the
reference to cheap wine and dear corn in Rev. for placing a t built his part of the
least part of the work in the reign of Domitian. The ancient tempie ‘in eight years.’
external evidence for the Domitian date is singularly strong. Cp on
APOCALYPSE. The RV rendering the sheep (gate)’ unsupported by
JOHN S O N ....If it was John the Elder-a any instance of a similar ellipse in Greek literature, and in-
as Eusebius 396) tells was confused directly condemned and Jerome.
with the imputation of the Gospel to John the 5 See the of for
apostle might he more easily explained. of the king. in Philo represent the irrational
3 Some critics actually extend this last inference to the passions. The sick man Jn. typifies sinful 514
dialogue with the Samaritan woman a t which no was sin no more’) waiting for the intermittent purification of the
present ! Law (typified by the intermittent pool).
4 In order to appreciate what follows the reader re- ’ does not the whob of the except
member ( I ) that every name number, and even syllable in these
in Scripture was generally in Rabbinical tradition to 7 The (the ten commandments): Spirit (Rev. 14
have some significance that this significance or 31 According to Philo (1 the fulfilment of any
symbolism was reduced to a system the Alexandrian Jews potentiality, say 3, the fulfilment of 4 is
(see Siegfried and Drummond on Philo); (3) that (as will The fulfilment of is . .
he shown in foot-notes to this section) was familiar with the absurd of course to of
Philonian teaching. Philonian interpretation, and not thought absurd by Augustine.
GOSPELS GOSPELS
the way for the perfect dispensation of the the in the Talmudists ; and something similar has been indicated
Gospell-of which the wedding feast at Cana is a type. Peter 34 n.) as present in Mt. But in we find
swims over a number that represents (Philo 60. Jn. repetition rather than grouping. Now Jn. differs
on repentance. The ‘five porches’ in Bethesda from the Synoptists (and shows some resemblance
represent the five senses of unredeemed the to the Apocalypse) in being from to last a
unregenerate passions-and so the ‘five husbands’ of the Woman whether from the Evangelist, or the Baptist, or the
of Samaria represent what Philo calls ’the five seducers,’ who Son, or the Father and it expressly distinguishes between
lead the soul from its union with God. (3 ‘earthly things” and ‘heavenly things,’ to both of which
Quotations.-Quotations from O T (rare in the Christ ‘hears witness.’ Hence we are led to ask whether
twofold iteration may not he a kind of verbal image of the
Gospel, and non-existent in the Epistle) are condensed principle that ‘The testimony of two men is true’ (referring to
and adapted’to the context. Almost all the earthly witness of the Son attested the co-operation of
differ both from the Hebrew and from the the Father). Again, the occurrence of threefold iteration in
references to the Resurrection and other mysteries, recalls the
LXX, even where these agree. For the mention (in the Epistle) of the Three that bear witness
most part, Jn. quotes the OT as illustrating funda- earth ( I Jn. 5 ‘the Spirit pnd the Water, and the Blood,’
mental tendencies or pointing to three ‘make up the Here the witness though
T he words (1034) ‘ I said ye are gods’ are taken to indicate earth,’ yet testifies to a ‘heavenly’ mystery, to the
that all men who have received the Word of God’ are in some essence and redeeming powers of Christ. Thus once more, we
sense divine. (8 17) ‘The testimony of two men is true’ means are led to ask whether this juxtaposition of and three-
that in the spiritual world, as in the material, experience is the fold iteration may be neither accident nor tautological blemish,
test of truth ; so that he who can produce the results he aims at hut the result, partly of a style formed in the schools of Jewish
is proved to he-so far as the province of the action extends-in thought, partly of a deliberate purpose to direct the spiritual
the region of truth having the testimony of ‘ t w o ’ (himself and reader to between the things of earth and those of
God, or himself ahd Nature). From first to last this Gospel heaven. And the question is almost changed into an affirmative
ahounds in allusions to the O T and is permeated with Jewish inference, when we find Philo commenting on the distinction
tradition, but the seems to have shared in the growing between the Lord’s ‘once’ or ‘twice, and
dissatisfaction felt Jews with the L X X a t the beginning of declaring-in allusion to Dent. 19 ( t w o witnesses or three’)
the second century, and to have been largely influenced by -that (1 holy matter is proved three
Christian traditions of free quotation.4 Probably, also, the combination of positive and negative was
based on principles of
) Fourth Gospel in iteration
It may be objected that such a style would be highly
-sometimes( a )double, sometimes triple, sometimes
artificial, whereas style is simplicity itself. Rut,
of the same expressed in the first place, might seem
positively and negatively-quite different artificial for us might be a second
from anything-in the Synoptists. nature for those bred amid Jewish and
confessed ;
that doeth ill . . . cometh not to
(1 H e confessed, and denied not, (a)
Alexandrian traditions of the interpretation of the OT
. hut he that doeth the truth (y) cometh to the ; (10 and, in the second, though words are as simple a s
7 9) ‘ I am the door of the sheep. .. I am ( a ) the door. (a) I n
the Baptist’s testimony, and at the heginning of the Gospel, the
those of Tennysop’s Memo riam, his is not
simple.
iteration (with or without slight variation) is often There are more ambiguities Jn. than in all the rest of the
1 33 ‘ I knew him not (twice), and 3 4 35 48 Gospels put together so that sometimes it might almost seem
etc. But not infrequently-with the aid ofquestionandanswer, as if he intended to his readers to choose between several
or other slight variations which have a meaning break- meanings, or even to decide according to their impres-
ing the sense of monotody-the effect of a threefold iteration is sions, whether the Evangelist or ’some other is speaking.
produced, as when Jesus is predicting his Resurrection Moreover he abounds in variations-impossible to render
where the words little while and ye shall see me,’ are
...
repeated thrice, and ‘a little while’ seven times. So the words in English, and wholly wanting in the Synoptists-hetween
of Mk. and ‘(cometh) me’-rejected Greek words such as : (21 15 and Simon,
converted by Jn. (1 into a triple testimony from the
Baptist to the pre-existence of Christ. Cp 1 8 4 for a quaint illustration of the ‘twice
Westcott rightly calls attention to the triple repetition of and ‘thrice’ ‘twice’ apparently denoting earthly confirm;
‘these things’ in 12 where the allusion is to an unconscious and ‘thrice’ the ‘holy matter’). Siegfried (p. 168)
fulfilment of prophecy; in fact the Gospel ahounds with such gives as a Philonian rule, that ‘Scripture points to a deeper
instances 855 15-18 16 13-16 and some- meaning by doubling and adds that this is a
times the repetition refers not to words hut t o acts. Thrice did principle of It might he a mere accident that
171) rejects the Synoptic ‘(Jesus) answering said and always prefers
raise his eyes to heaven, and always as a prelude to some ‘answered and said.’ But note that in the Synoptists! Christ
sublime of act or utterance. T he writer implies that always says ‘Verily’; in Jn., Verily. Both
lesus manifested himself to the after the Resurrection can hardly be right ; for who can believe that Christ used
many signs ; but he selects and, of the last, he says sometimes one, sometimes the other, and that the Synoptists
(21 I This is now the third time .. .
Numerical groupings, in threes, fives, sevens, etc., are frequent
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 ‘verily’without additional
For this mention of 6, connection with and 3, cp Philo meaning, he was guilty of tautology, which Philo calls (1 529)
2 : 6. .. composed of having the odd the vilest kind of ‘macrology
denying its existence in the OT. Moderns
as male, and the even as female, whence originate those things
which are according to the fixed laws of nature. . . What the may think this a trifle hut the question is, not what they think
number that the number 7 exhibited in full what was thought a Jew A . D. T o him, no word
perfection. ‘ Scripture could be trifling.
The occurs again (67) in the old tradition This distinction between the heavenly and the earthly, repre-
derived from Mk. 6 37 : ‘two hundred of bread.’ sented by threefold and twofold rhythms, is perceptible at the
This is a good instance to show how Jn. may (as often elsewhere) very outset (1 where the three clauses about the Logos,
have retained a n old tradition that adapted t o spiritual followed by their summary in one clause-suggesting the
interpretation, as if to say, ‘N ot all the repentance in the world ‘heavenly’ Witnesses, who are One-are followed the
could suffice to bread to feed, the Church; it must be account of the ‘man, named John,’ of whom it is twice said
received as the free of God. On the other hand in that he (1 to hear witness of the light.’
mentioning (125) ‘three hundred pence’ (see Philo on Gen. On the Positive and Negative, see the Canon of Sohar, a
Judas Iscariot (like Caiaphas, 11 testifies to treatise of suspicious origin containing very ancient elements
the comnleteness of the
(as 300 does
of sweet
harmonybetween
which .
laws of the Torah . . resolve
themselves into the mysteries of the masculine and the feminine
man, or the symmetrical body of Humanity, so that it is here principle (positive and negative). Only when parts meet
appropriate to the perfect sacrifice of Christ, and the consequent together does the higher unity arise.’ As regards what may be
unity of the Church in his body. called the of the Twofold witness, see
appears a t first to resemble quotations (on Ex. 31 16): It (the Sabbath) twice because of
being an instance of minute and exact fulfilment. But the the Shechinah and below,’ in Johannine language.
‘vesture’ is the Church, which is not to he and there is attest it in the name of the Son and of the Father : and see the
also a reference to the Logos, which keeps the Church together comment on Gen. 5 I : ‘Behold Adams are named
(Phil. 1562) ‘Nor shall he rend his (Lev. 21 IO), for in this section : one is the mystical the other is the
of the spiritual Universe , ..
keeps all its parts in mystical terrestrial’ So Philo (on Ex. 14) speaks of ‘duo
union. divina’ or rationes.
Perhaps also he did not know Hehrew enough to render The first chapter alone suffices to prove this
the OT with that exact accuracy which was attempted soon 50). Especially difficult is it to decide whether his are
after his days in the version of That a writer might be used affirmatively, interrogatively, or imperatively (5 39 12
familiar with Hehrew traditionhut not with the Hebrew language, I 15 18 27 16 20 29) and his may often mean that or
is proved by the example of Philo.
1797
GOSPELS GOSPELS
thou me?’ followed by ‘Simon , ..
art thou and the Life was the Light of Alluding to the
? and and Thou knowest name bv which the called the Messiah Comer
that am thy friend followed by Thou tells us the Light bas
all things thou that I am thy ginning ‘coming’ t o the world, but that at last, as the
Similar distinctions are drawn between the Psalmist had predicted, the Word ‘tabernacled men,
meanings of and between and they beheld his ‘glory.’ But what ‘glory’? Not t h a t of
and and between the aorist and present and material splendour hut that of ‘grace and These words
All are natural in an familiar with introduce a with the The Logos wbo
philosophy and so long habituated to Greek as to has given light and life to men has also given ‘grace’and ‘truth’
be able t o play on its words and t o the its minute t o Israel; (1 ‘The Law was given through Moses,
differences of grammatical expression. (thereof) and the (thereof) were through Jesus
(iv. ) -( a ) as a See TRUTH.
Having prepared us by a parenthesis (1 14, ‘the glory as of
Fourth Gospel (Westc. on ‘begins and closes an only-begotten’) to conceive of an ‘only-begotten,’ and of a
with a sacred week.’ The (week’ has ‘glory’ in the unity of divine love, exceeding all Hebraic notions
to be deduced from a careful reading of of the splendour of prophetic signs or visions and all Hellenic
notions of wisdom, he now concludes by that it is not
the context. But this is a characteristic (as Job had said) God who has ‘declared Wisdom, it is
of the Gospel, distinguishing it from the the Only-begotten in the bosom of the Father who has ‘declared
Apocalypse. In the latter, symbolism is on the sur- God.
face : in the former,. latent. The word ‘ seven ’ occurs Bridegroom. - This section contains the
about .fifty-five times in the Apocalypse ‘seven Doctrine of Water : the Water of the Law super-
spirits,’ stars,’ angels,’ vials,’ etc. ) in the Gospel seded by the Wine of the Gospel ;
never. None the less, as might be expected in a work the Water of Purification from
that opens with the words ‘ i n the beginning,’ so as to above’ the Water of Life that
suggest a parallel with the seven days of Creation and quenches the soul‘s thirst. three scenes of these sub-
Rest, the thought of perfect ‘seven’ pervades all sections severally Galilee, Jerusalem, and Samaria.
Jn. highest revelations of the divine Galilee. After a period of 2 r j six
There are seven miracles or ‘signs.’ There is a sevenfold days comes the wedding-feast at Cana where Jesus the un-
acknowledged Bridegroom of the after first justice
witness (West. of ( I ) the Father, the the t o the ‘purification of the Jews,’ his ministers draw forth
works, (4) Scripture, (5) the Forerunner, (6) the Spirit, (7) the from the well the water which the Governor of the Feast pro-
Disciples. In the final discourse-a Deuteronomy in which nounces the best
Jesus reviews his ‘testimony,’ the clause
(which occurs nowhere else in the Gospels) is repeated seven Jerusalem. The next act of the Bridegroom
is the noun ‘love (which the Epistle mentions as
the very Name of Lastly the sacred words, I AM For the connection, cp 36 thee is the fountain
used (8 58) absolutely to represent eternal being of the of life: in thv shall we see Also note the distinction
are combined with seven predicates to represent seven revela- which been is in the Logos
tions : ( I ) the Bread, the Light ’(3) the Door, (4) the Good and that which ‘came into being the Logos:
Shepherd, ( 5 ) the Resurrection the Life, (6) the Way, the T he former is permanent, the latter transient. This distinction
Truth, and the Life, and (7) the true Vine. is lost the punctuation of the ‘was not anything made
(6) The The Prologue is based on that was made?
Ps. after mentioning ‘glory,’ ‘tabernacle,’ ‘mercy’
ancient traditions, describing Wisdom as having taken or ‘grace,’ a n d ‘ truth goes on to personify these virtues and to
part with God from the beginning in the describe Truth as up’ from the earth, and Righteous-
creation, and predicting the accomplish- ness as from heaven. This enables us to under-
ment of God’s ‘ truth and grace,’ and the ‘ tabernacling ’ stand the spiritual meaning of
ascending and descending on the
of God
of man.’ They are ‘grace
of his glory among traditions Jn. con- and truth,’ ‘peace and righteousness,’ looking down from heaven
centrates on Christ. Only, instead of calling and rising from earth. Thus was fnlfilled the im-
Wisdom, he prefers the more commonly plied in (Gen. 28 the vision of Bethel when Jacob rested
the stone which was afterwards ‘anointed the type
used in the OT. (Just. 86) of, Christ. (for
T he Synoptists begin their Gospels b y saying in effect (Mk.) should he read with the Valentinians cp Orig.
‘The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ . ..
was John7 668, where the context necessitates though the text
or by tracing the descent of Jesus to (Mt.) has been conformed t o T.R.
or Adam. Jn. goes farther hack, saying that Light, corresponds to ‘truth,’ as every Jew would feel who
the Word ‘ w a s . .
in the beginning, and , was God and thought of the high priest’s Urim and Thuminim (‘light’
that the ‘man’ John merely (Westc. on Jn. 1 6) ‘arose, truth ’), and of Ps. 43 3 out thy light and thy truth.
into existence H e then turns to nature history. the life of man: says the Psalmist is in God’s
‘What has been the Word,’ he says, ‘was Life, ‘favour more often Hence what from the
point of view of nature may be called ‘light will be
38 : ‘that ye may know and from the point of view the Law, ‘truth, and favour, or
grow in knowledge.’ A difference kept between
and 5 6 ‘the prophets having grace from
There are indications that Jn., in writing his Gospel Christ. the curious expression (1 16) ‘grace for grace’
the New Genesis or regeneration of man had in view the apparently ‘grace following grace,’ one ‘grace’ or
Great Announcement of Simon Magus, (see below, ‘favour,’ after another-cp 1 3 4 2 , ‘constantly bestowing
allegorising the Pentateuch, discerned in the five books a refer- his graces one after another (possibly
ence to the five senses and in the whole a description of the based on some Jewish tradition the of
second creation. If is t o the point to remember that the in connection with ‘the head stone,
Talmudists 363) found a mystical meaning in the
sevenfold repetition of ‘the the Shechinah-in the Orieen takes to mean
Pentateuch. hut it mean ‘jealous’ or a applied
Owing to the variation of MSS, it is impossible t o speak only to as the husband of Israel. The ‘zeal’ or
with certainty as to the repetition of as the subject, repre- ‘jealousy’ suits the context, and also (2 ‘The zeal of thine
senting the divine Creator. There is fair evidence, however, house etc.
for its sevenfold repetition, and still better for that of in the ‘ the well not from the vessels.’ So Westc. ad
words of Jesus, the divine unity. 7 Philo, 1296 : ‘ that hath received from God, directly (or
Job The latter declares that God indirectly, through an draughts of wine will
alone ‘hath seen and declared wisdom. not drink out of a cistern. See also his on Gen. 16 7,
Mic. Ps. 85 9-11. and his description of the as ‘intoxicated
Thus he leaves it an open question-to be answered what with the wine of the divine love of God. Add
follows concerning the person of Christ-as to the nature of the also (1 103) bringing forth bread and wine
Word. ‘Wisdom’ would have closed the question by giving it instead of water,’ and (1 683) the truly great High Priest, the
a too narrow answer. Note that Jn., alone of the Evangelists, Cupbearer of God, who, having received the draughts of grace,
uses the word though it is found (four times) gives them in turn, pouring forth the libation in its fulness,
in the Apocalypse. H e regards God as a Spirit, permeating, namely himself.’ For the vessels and the ‘two or
attracting, and harmonising all that is, and especially all that three firkins ‘see above 47. According to Westcott‘s new,
is in the sphere of righteousness. To call such a adopted the in vessels ‘remained water,’ but
‘Wisdom’ would be bathos. In the Epistle he prefers ‘Love. the water drawn from the became wine ; so
7 WH ii., on Mk. 1 I , say that ‘several fathers’ that the filling of the vessels was a purely emblematic act.
connected the words thus, and this is far the least harsh con. This fact, the context, the structure of the Gospel, and the
nection, whether the parenthesis (1 be considered genuine traditions. of Philo, combine to indicate that the whole of the
or not. narrative is spiritual and emblematic.
1800
GOSPELS GOSPELS
is to a tte mp t to win back a n d purify the unfaithful The woman (Jn. 428) ‘left her water-pot and departed’
d au g h te r of Jerusalem, typified by th e temple. The 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
Synoptists, fr o m the h u ma n standpoint, describe t h e detail. H e says’that Rebecca (1 did not, like Agar, need
temple as a d en of robbers 2 16 , as a of the leather the body-to hold the water, but only
merchandise the water-pot,’ which is a symbol of a heart that can
Herein Jn. to be following the prophets, who called hold draught. view may be that, as Rebecca
Tyre (Ez. 27 3 Is. 23 17) a place of merchandise of needed not the so the woman of Samaria, .who
the as the in the latter passage expresses stage higher, needed not the having received the
it, she ‘played the T o Jn. the greedy ‘merchandise dwelling spring of living water.
of the priestly monopolists in the temple appeared a kind of The seed of the Gospel having been in Sbechem, the
‘idolatry’ (cp. Col. 3 unfaithfulness to the Bridegroom associations of the place are changed. is connected no longer
-and he represents Jesus as devoured by ‘jealousy for with Jacob but with Jesus (or with Jacob in his higher stage, as
of for the true Church (his bride and his a type of Jesus); no longer with ‘the things of the senses,’ but
body)-and as predicting that, even men might destroy with ‘the ‘Jesus bids the disciples ‘lift up their
it, it should be raised up in ‘three days. eyes’ to look the fields white already’ with the results of
Closely connected with this attempt to purify Jerusalem his husbandry. Immediately the harvest begins. The Samari-
‘the harlot,’ comes the mention of a birth tans come from the city. Some of them had believed, in Jesus
by ‘water and the It is introduced as a doctrine of on the testimony of the woman. But Philo saps that it is
‘earthly as a rudimentary one-and ininculcating it characteristic of a false god to exist only report and con-
Jn. to he baptism with water, on vention, and the a woman &{,
baptism with the Spirit also. The purification, which Here it is added
requires ‘blood’ (I Jn. ‘the Spirit and the water and the ‘that the (442) believed ‘no longer owing
blood’) is yet to come; but it is faintly suggested by to the speaking of the woman,’ but to the ‘word
‘hour,’ and (3 14) ‘the (brazen) of Christ.
(y) Samaria. F r o m unfaithful Jerusalem the Jesus returns to Galilee a n d Cana. Thus cycle
Bridegroom passes to unfaithful (the w o m a n of th e Bridegroom e nd s in th e place where it began,
with th e five h us b a nd s ’). S h e, too, like t h e H o u s e of ma k in g way for t h e doctrine of Bread.
Ja c ob of old (Jer. h a d played th e harlot ‘ w i t h ( 3 ) The of healing of t h e sick m a n
many husbands,’ a n d h a d g o n e t o th e waters of at Bethesda o n the S ab b at h , which represents th e heal-
to slake her thirst, h av in g forsaken the L o r d , ‘the in g of Israel - not unaccompanied
fountain of living waters.‘ (5 14) warning th at th e work might be
T h e dialogue place near Jacob’s well. I n Philo the undone- 1s followed b y a statement
‘well and the fountain represent different stages of t h a t the S o n does nothing b u t h e sees the F a t h e r
ledge. The well of Agar represents a lower stage than that of
Rebecca; Rebecca supplies the camels from the do. H e n ce , when he ‘lifts his before the
‘well,’ but the servant the ‘fountain,’ because the .latter is eucharistic sign of the giving of t h e bread, w e a r e
(1 the holy word. The highest and best well of all is the prepared to hear th at w h a t he gives, t h e F at he r is really
Father of all, the Fountain of life In giving. It t h e b re ad fr o m heaven.
Jn. we find a place called or
ably opprobrious name for Shechem (see alluding By placing the giving of Christ’s flecb and blood early in the
to (Is. 28 ‘the drunkenness of Ephraim,’ in any case Gospel, and by introducing, much later, the one commandment
suited to the moral of the It is (45) ‘near the place of love, fulfilled by Christ on the Cross, Jn gives the
that to Joseph his son. This is explained by Philo. of a desire to discourage materialistic of the :
Shechem (‘shoulder’) has two meanings; in connection (663) ‘The spirit it that giveth life, the flesh profiteth
Gen. ‘a certain athlete’ becomes a ‘husbandman, nothing; the words that I spoken unto you, they are
it indicates labour but when it is mentioned as given spirit and they are life. 5
it means (1 ‘the bodily things which ( 4 ) The L ig h t -The doctrine of Light, th o u gh
of the senses; .Jesus (Jn. ‘wearied of his journey, sat in Prologue, a n d touched
Philo says that Moses ‘sat a t the not by Jesns b u t by th e Evangelist)
a cowardly retreat, but ‘like an athlete recover.
ing breath’ for a new attack - an ‘interesting parallel to the 3 is not definitely set forth b y
position of Jesus before his attack on Samaritan unbelief. I t Jesus till th e m i d d l e of the Gospel (8 ‘ I am
was (46) ‘about the sixth hour hour described by Philo the light of th e world.’
(on as fittest for the revelation of divine truth.
The woman of Samaria, coming to draw water from Jacob’s This revelation is desciibed as being followed by a more active
well, received the from Jesus (418) ‘Thou hast had hostility in the enemies who now (8 37-44) seek to destroy
five and he whom thou now is not thy revealing themselves as the children of the Destroyer. The
Philo says (on Gen.36) that woman is symbolically depth of darkness (848: hast a devil’) draws the
the sense (sensus),’ and (1 131) There are two husbands of fullest light: ‘BeforeAbraham was, I AM’). Then,
senses one lawful, one a seducer’ ; but he proceeds that
‘the acts through senses; he also (1 563) con- be uttered.’ I f Jn. wrote in part with a view to contemporary
nects ‘having with heresies, he might very well include that of Magus, who
‘having many gods,’ and speaks of 609) those ‘ enamoured of is said in Acts to have held the Samaritans at a
many gods,’ who know not the one Husband, namely 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
Cp the introductory words in same passage of ambition (leading to hatred of truth moral goodness), Rev.
‘Thus the .
thy God unto Jerusalem. . neither 13 5 a mouth speaking great things,’ some
thou washed in to cleanse thee; thou not with Simon Magus.
‘Salt’is symbol of the Spirit. speaks of ‘salting’ Philo quoted above.
with ‘fire. , 4 the healing of the nobleman s son compared
See Philo, on ‘the brazen serpent’ (the enemy of the with healing of the centurion’s servant, see above
that came to Eve); it is (ib. ‘the strongest may mean either ‘king’s servant or
virtue. For the apparently abrupt transition that ensues from like,’ ‘princely. Origen (perhaps reading with
serpent’ to ‘the living water,‘ see Philo, ; one regards the as representing Abraham, and the raising
is healed by the the other is caused to drink of the son as representing the action of the Logos in raising up
that most excellent draught, Wisdom, from the which Isaac, as if from the dead. If that is so, the three miracles of
he brought forth from his own wisdom. represent the action of the Logos before the Law,
The statement, that ‘(Westc. p. ‘there can be no under the Law, 3) outside the This ‘sign’ is wrought
question as to the individuality of the discourse with the woman at Cana and is 54) ‘the second. It terminates the section
of Samaria,’ is perfectly true, if ‘individuality’ means of of the and introduces that of health and food,
style and purpose. It is practically certain, however, that the healing and the Bread of Life.
dialogue did not actually occur in the exact words recorded by Jn. 3 Philo that the imitates the Father’s
For ( I ) no disciple (48) was present; and, even if we that ways to patterns.’
the Evangelist received an account of the dialogue from.Jesus 4 Jesus thrice lifts his eyes 17 I ) : when he ( I )
himself, both Jesus and the Woman of Samaria talk in gives the Bread, (2) raises Lazarus, the final sacrifice of
nine style. The applies to the dialogue with Nicodemus. praise and prayer to the Father.
4 ‘the Nile. 5 Words-hut words into the heart- not acts,. nor
Cp a tradition on Joel 3 1 : ‘ A s the first miracles, are the climax of Christ’s life among his
caused a well to spring up, shall a second cause waters before the crucifixion. washes their feet ; but Judas, like
to spring the rest, is washed, and Judas is also expressly said by Jn. (not
What the sixth (Jn. 4 ‘he whom thou now by the Synoptists) to have received ‘the sop.’ Neither act
hast’? Philo speaks (26) of the ‘six powers’ of turbulence, makes them They are ‘clean’ (15 3)
the five senses and uttered speech,’ of which the last of the word that he has spoken and they have received;
prates with unbridled mouth of countless things that should not Judas is not because he has not received
1801 1802
GOSPELS
an attempt to stone Jesus! he ‘was hidden and because they did not understand that ruling implies serving
went forth from the temple. This and a second (12 36) eclipse and even dying. The Shepherd (10 ‘layeih down his
are ‘two witnesses’ against ‘the darkness’ that will not (1 5 ) for the sheep’ (10 ‘ i norder that it may
‘apprehend the light. In other words, the Resurrection, or attainment of life through
Next comes the healing of the Gentile world, typified death, is a law of the spiritual world a part of the Father’s will.
Thus Jn. anticipates the objection that if the Shepherd dies in
by the man who was blind from his birth. conflict with wolf,’ the wolf is
As Naaman was sent to Jordan, so the man is sent to
(97) the Pool of Siloam which represents (Is. the Later, the law is restated as the law of the Harvest :
worship of the true God as distinct from the worship of (1224) ‘Except it (the grain) die, it abideth alone, but
false gods (see also Is. 7 3 22 I I if it perish it bringeth forth much fruit meantime,
3 292). The inference that the Gentile world must Jesus says (1 018) that he has power to take np his
purified by Jewish waters-i.e by the Law-is obviated by the
statement-probably supersession of the Law by life as well as to lay it down, and these words naturally
49 IO) Siloam means This sign is prepare us for a ‘sign’ of this particular ‘power.’
altogether different from the healing of the man a t Bethesda a sign is afforded by the Resurrection of Lazarus.
(Israel) who is never said to believe, and who is threatened with (6) The Raising of the Dead.-That marvellous cures (and
in case of relapse. The Gentile world (9 believes not improbably, revivifications) were wrought by the
so that this sign includes the creation of spiritual, as well Christians is indicated by the Pauline
material, light. Raising Epistles, by indirect Talmudic testimony
T he section terminates with a denunciation of the dead in and bv earlv Christian traditions.
abiding sin of the blind who profess to lead others are hdwever, of very early exaggera-
tion arising from misunderstood metaphor.
and who say we see.’ For example, (Eus. v. 18 14) alleges A.D.) that
T h e Life.-The mention of the ‘blind leaders’ John in Ephesns raised a dead man. How, we ask, did this
leads to the mention of the ideal Leader who knows escape writers-Papias for example records such
loves) all that are his, and that, an act of Philip but not of Jbhn? The is to he found
in where the apostle, an Elder
too, 3 about a young convert receives the answer H e is dead.’
so that they are drawn towards him as the Good ‘What death?’ ‘ H e died God.’ The reconverts
Shepherd who does not drive, but the youth, who becomes trophy resurrection. Similarly,
All the shepherds and deliverers of the world that ‘came’ whereas the churches of Gaul speak of reconverted apostates as
before the Logos are described as ‘thieves and 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
Westcott has no note here. but the second ‘hiding the and this, literally; and it seems highly probable
in 12 36 he translates hidden’ (not ‘hid himself’) that he has confused some metaphorical The question
and declares it to be ‘the result of the want of faith’ of Christ’; arises, how early did such occur ? ‘ T he
adversaries and he there refers to the present passage (8 wicked,’ says a Jewish tradition ‘though living, are termed
dead.’ ‘Let the dead: says Lord ‘bury their dead.’ In
Chrisf’s commission to the Twelve, Mt. alone has ‘raise the
dead,’ and afterwards (11 5) ‘the dead are raised.’ Yet Mt. de-
scribes 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 widow’s son (7 immediately
before. daughter, he might now plead that
the raising of persons justified the plural ‘are.’
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
the Shiloh of Gen. 49 IO ; cp metaphor. I n Esd. 9 there is a vision of a woman (Sion)
3 Cp Philo (1 382) on the two kinds of ignorance, of which the sorrowing for the death of her ‘only son’ (the City or Temple).
second fancies that it knows what it does not know, puffed u p Christians would assert that Christ (Jn. 2 up the
‘with a false notion of its own : this ‘generates Temple,’ or, in the language of Christian psalms and hymns
I t is this proud, complacent, that he up the only son of the sorrowing
‘and deliberate and scorn ofgoodness), the possible influence of symbolism combines with other
is, in the Synoptists, unpardonable, and, in Jn., the sin causes4 to oblige to reject as non-historical account of
that ‘abideth cannot be effaced. (For cp Jn. the raising of the widow’s son. See NAIN.
15 16 I Cor. 13
4 The true Shepherd and the trne Husbandman (or Vine- Gospel as authoritative. The saying has affinities to Greek
dresser) are connected by Philo in a discourse about notion that the only lawful is that of the wise man (see
the husbandry or of soul. H e distinguishes Philo 38).
between the tiller of ground (who is a ‘hire- (I) Eusebius, in quoting these words of prefixes to
ling’) and the real husbandman (who prunes, or encourages them (v. 7 I ) ‘that, he says,’ which (though in 17 6
as the case may require). So the ‘shepherd it introduces a statement attested bv ‘the canonical Acts of the
distinguished from the mere ‘keeper. Poets he says Apostles’) may imply, according context, an emphasis laid
call kings the their people, the title is on the subjectiveness and doubtfulness of what is alleged (see
rightly reserved for ‘the wise. The difference between Philo iv.1546 the words ‘owing to sore need
and In. is that the former makes no mention of ‘laying down a ply very well to apostasy, hut less well to literal
life the sheep.’ death (3) 32 4) implies that, whilst
If the text IS correct. ‘came allusion to healing of the sick still went on the raising of the dead
the or the character of the ideal was a thing of the past ... and that though
. Deliverer. Of David, as of Abraham, Jn. they had lived for some time, none were living when wrote
would say that they (8 56) saw Christ’s they did not For the date of the
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; and the letter) facilitates the theory that mis-
fore time). ‘before estimation).’ and ‘in the of. understood the metaphor. When Papias records similar acts,
‘before Eusebius by the words 39 and
‘before’ (mg., ‘like’). Or an original Gr. tradition, appears indicate his disbelief in them, a t least if we combine
(cp Mk. 1042 with them with the followine ‘mvthical.’ ‘not
might mean ‘before me,’ or ‘above me. Cp Justin,
lrpb Since
Christ is ‘the Truth,’ lrpb in Justin may represent
a traditional version of the in Jn. Many authorities wicked one, prince of Israel.’ The interpretation is applied to
of the words heretics. 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
1803
GOSPELS GOSPELS
(7)Reserving the historical question for special treat - he puts and answers negatively the shall
I say? I say] save me from’this hour? By this act,
ment (see it may be said here that : in spite he virtually fulfills tde Law of Sacrifice, or the Law of the
of Martha’s inferential statement in 1 1 3 9 Harvest, which he has (1224) just enunciated.
the words of Jesus at the tomb ad ‘the prince of this world is, in Jewish Tradition,
Father, I thank thee that thou heardest the prince of the ‘seventy’ nations of the Gentiles, there is
point in the words that follow the introduction of the
me,’ imply that the hearing’ was already past, and the ‘Greeks : Now is the judgment of this world, now shall
life of Lazarus was in effect already granted to his prayers. the of he out ; and I, if I he lifted up,
W e must, however, suppose that the narrative- though will draw unto me. But as with this
second manifestation of light comes (1236) a second and final
possibly based on one or more of Christ’s actual eclipse
is mainly allegorical. The great negative reason is the The unstable or ‘multitude’ of the Jews is now
silence of the Synoptists about Christ’s greatest miracle, mentioned for the last time, quitting the stage as the devout
which was, according to the chief cause of both Gentile world enters; and its last words are (1234): ‘Who is
this Son of man?‘
( a ) the applause that greeted his entry into Jerusalem, The Deuteronomy. -The public doctrine of Jesus
and (6) the resolution of the priests to slay
ends when he ‘cries aloud’ for the third
The positive reasons are : (I) Jn., adopting Philonian tradi -
tions of style and expression, and writing on the lines of the OT, time (see above, saying that his
might naturally subordinate the literal to the synibolical. For word will the world and that
Philo calls creation of Eve from Adam’s rib (1 70) his word is the word of the Father.
mythical If such was view, he might well W e are now transported to a higher sphere, to the
think himself justified composing a single symbolical story
that might sum up a hundred floating traditions about Christ’s inner teaching of Christ, the revision and summary of
revivifying acts in such a form as to point to him as the Consoler his doctrine, the giving of the One commandment, the
of Israel and the Resurrection and the Life of the world. promise of the Paraclete, and the prayer to the Father.
The of Lazarus suggests symbolism. Another form of It is a Deuteronomy, full of mystical allusions in which a
it is who is, in Philo (1 the type of a being numerical symbolism-sometimes veiled, sometimes manifest, as
and (indeed) a corpse,’ but ‘held together and in the seven times repeated refrain ‘These things have I spoken
into by the rovidence of God.’ (3) unto you’-is prevalent throughout. As Abraham (Gen. 184)
Lk. and Jn. alone mention Martha sister Mary. They washed the feet of the Three Persons and gave them food, so
appear to differ in their views of the sisters; possibly they now the Son or Messiah (Schottg. 2 repays the to
differ as to the brother Some early writers took Abraham’s The Talmudists, in the spirit of
to he a real person ; and it is easy to see that traditions the prophets, describe (Schottg. 2 the ‘mansions
about the Lazarus of Lk. may have prepared the way for the habitations’ of God as coming to man and Philo speaks of the
Lazarus of Jn. ‘Jesus it might he said raised many from the Divine word and Powers 249 ‘making .their home in,’
dead. hut concerning Lazarus by he said (Lk. : and ‘sharing their with the devout soul, and of (i. 643)
If h e y believe not Moses and the neither will they God himself as in souls of the perfectly purified;
believe though one rise from the dead.”’ The next step would So teaches that Father and the Son will ‘make
he to say that this prediction was fulfilled : Lazarus was raised their the heart of the As Philo, agreeing
from the dead; yet the Jews did not with the Talmudists warns us that (1 457) ‘place does
(8) The Preparation for the Sacrifice.-We pass to not mean a region’filled with matter, hut God himself, the
refuge of the Universe, so by his context, teaches us that
the beginning of the week before the Passover. the ‘place which Jesus will ‘prepare’ for his
The anointing of Christ (12 is a kind of preparation of the disciples is a home in the bosom of the Father.
lamb for the sacrifice, and the coming of the ‘Greeks’ to the All these allusive iterations of ancient traditions, and
New Temple is hailed by Jesus as a sign
60. that ) ‘the hour’ of ‘glory’ has ar- all the lines of various doctrine, converge towards
rived. Voice from heaven, which the Christ in his threefold character of ( 1 4 6 ) ‘the way, the
Synoptists place a t the Baptism (where truth, and the life.’
it), and also a t the Transfiguration, mentioned
alone in this as ratifying the act of Jesus 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
coffin,’ ‘the dead man sat (3) ‘he began to speak the predominant element, the threefold
Jesus ‘gave him to his mother. Similar details are found in of the The two sections of the Way (or Son) and the
K. and I K. which describe miracles of Truth (or Spirit) terminate with a prediction of victory because
revivification performed and Elijah. the Father is with the Son; so the latter has, in effect,
Those who regard the speeches in Acts as historical would already (1633) ‘conquered the world. Last comes the doctrine
also have to explain how Paul, in mentioning the Resurrection of the Father himself (the Life), called ‘Father,’
omits the raising of any dead people by Christ and ‘holy Father,’ and finally 25) ‘just or Father.
more, how Peter (10 when emphasising his acts Here ‘my name’ ceases and ‘t hy is Finally
makes no mention of -with repeated references to the Church as being 6 7 IO,
This has never been explained. Some have suggested that etc.) ‘that which’or ‘those whom’ the Father hath
the Synoptists kept silence to screen Lazarus. But how could the Son- the Last Words terminate in an outpouring of the Son’s
they hope to ‘screen’ one who was known to all Jerusalem, not devotion to the Father,’ wherein his ‘name’ is, in
to speak of the multitude of pilgrims? effect revealed as ‘love : I have made known unto them
3 As regards the different delineations of the sisters see $44 . thy and will make it known, that the wherewith
I n Lk. Martha comes first as entertaining appar- thou in them, then:.
ently (or certainly, see v. 1.) her house; then Mary is men-
tioned hut not a t all. (11 I ) mentions in order
Mary, Martha. I n Mary is the anointing was present. Those who heard anything not hear the true
is narrated) ‘she who anointed the Lord,’ which implies knowledge thing. They heard ‘thunder’ or angel. See 2
of only one anointer. But Lk. 37) the only woman that for the decline of the authority of the Bath-Kol.
anoints the Lord is ‘a sinner. in Lk. the anointing is Cp Lk. ‘ I beheld Satan fallen as lightning from
in the of the Pharisee ; in in the house of heaven.’ uttered the return of the Seventv.’
‘Lazarus. mention (1623) of a Lazarus in connection
with the life after death ‘Abraham’s suggests that 14 26 15 24 (15 is obviously to be excluded).
there is some confusion of tradition latent under these differences The Paraclete or ‘friend called in to help,’ is connected by
and similarities in Lk. and Jn. the name Lazarus, see Philo sometimes with the Elenchos, or Convicting
above and cp Power, sometimes (ii. 227) with the high priest entering
4 2 4 (see Grabe’s note), De 7 and God‘s presence to represent the Cosmos, but perhaps more often
the Fathers generally, regard the story as history. is with the Spirit of the ideal Cosmos (the name Logos being given
placed by 8 7 in the same category as to the High Priest, see Sometimes 227) the Priest
those who took this view, no distinguished the appears as interceding with the Father of Cosmos hut
Lazarus of Lk. from the. Lazarus of calling to his aid the Son of the Father. Philo does
5 A literal interpretation of the narrative is accompanied by himself to one form of ex The Elenchos is called
many minor difficulties, such as the question why Jesus, after 247) Paraclete (i. god‘s own Logos ; (i. the ideal
he had been informed of the of Lazarus, remained Man or Man to Truth
beyond Jordan (116) ‘two days. From this and from 11 17 The ’whole of last discourse shows Philonian ;
Lightfoot infers (BE178) ‘ a journey which occupies three but (as usual), whereas Philo regards the intellect, Jn. regards
days,’ Westcott (on 116) ‘The journey would occupy about the heart- aconseauenceofthe belief of the latter in the incarnate
a day.’ There no solid basis for either conclusion. A full Logos.
discussion of the subject would show the mystical meaning 5 in Jn. and I Jn. 2 I, of having the
underlying these and other details. narrow legal meaning implied in the Synoptists Mt. Lk. 1 6
Jn. takes pains to show that the Voice was not, in Mk. 17, ‘just’ in the Platonic sense, and is
popular and modern sense of the term, ‘objective.’ A ‘multitude of the of God and Christ.
1805 1806
GOSPELS GOSPELS
The Passion (see above, can be as veil (Heh. 10 it would be natural to describe the
found here for only one or two points, not only peculiar piercing of his as ‘rending of the veil.’ It is said
(Joel’s that the Jews believed the veil of the
to Jn. but to his purpose. They Temple to have been literally rent, shortly before the capture of
are connected with Christ’s last utterances the City. This may have helped to literalise the veil-tradition.
on the Cross, and with what followed them. Christians would say to Jews you speak of, did not
I. The words Eli, Eli, etc. recorded by Mk. and happen in the siege, or at least did not happen only then ; the
veil was rent when Lord was by you.’ Also,
are said to have been misunderstood by bystanders against the Synoptists, there is this consideration, that the
at the time. Lk. omits them, and even Mk. and Mt. ‘rending of the veil if it had occurred would probably have
are at variance the In the corresponding been kept a the priests (who would know of it)
and,’ if it was ever revealed by any of them, would probably
passage Jn. has simply I thirst.’ revealed by zealous converts apt to make. exaggerations and find
Of course the first impulse is to take this, as the bystanders coincidences.
took it in a purely literal meaning and to say that it has no
Mk. and Mt. in the Fourth Gospel 4. The piercing of Christ’s side us to
words ‘ bread water ‘food ‘eat drink feed,’ and ‘ thirst central thought of the Fonrth Gospel and the Epistle,
are hardly used in literal when the namely, the love of God revealed in the Blood of Christ
bring him food he replies that (434) hi‘s is to do the Paschal Lamb.
the will of the Father and accomplish his work. This suggests
that in Christ’s last utterance the same spiritual standard must T he E istle to the Hebrews recognises that old
maintained, so that, in effect, it was the expression of a way to was through (Lev. 146) ‘blood ‘water scarlet
‘thirst’ for that final acconiplishment of God’s wool,’ and ‘hyssop,’ but asserts that the way (Heb. 10
him to say ‘it is finished,’ and then to down the the blood of Jesus.’ The Epistle of Barnabas
barrier of the flesh and to enter into unfettered communion with (11 however, will not give up the old Levitical elements : i t
the Father (cp even adds the Levitical ‘wood which it discerns in Cross
and though not difficulty, it brings in
What Mk. and express in the form of (apparent) notion of the Cross as a ‘tree,
complaint, Lk. entirely omits (perhaps because which flows the purifying stream of baptism. I n the
of its difficulty), Jn. ,appears to express in the form of ospels, the ‘scarlet cloak’ represents the ‘scarlet wool,’ and
the highest spiritual aspiration. Not that he excludes the cross the wood ; hut the blood that came from the mere
piercing of the hands, or perhaps the hands and might
the .physical meaning, but (as always throughout the well seem insufficient to express the purifying blood of
Gospel) he includes a spiritual meaning-that the Son ; and there was nothing at all to’ indicate the water.
of God, who is in the bosom of the Father,’endured An early tradition inserted in Lk. (2244) endeavoured to supply
the of sprinkling’ by relating how ‘drops as of blood
for our sakes to feel, for a brief space, as if, i n a certain streamed from Jesus in his agony; hut still there was no
sense, he were not there, ‘so that he ‘thirsted’ for the mention of water. Yet not only did the Levitical requirements
presence of God. mention ‘running water hut Zech. 131 predicted the opening
2. The spontaneousness of Christ’s death was not
of a fountain against and uncleanness for I t is in
the of Christ’s side that a revelation of the
clearly expressed by the two earliest
inserts, as uttered by Jesus, the first half of the
that, to this day, terminates a pious Jew’s confession on .
(2) the human soul
presented the blood human body, repre-
his death-bed (Ps. 31 5). Yet even this was liable to the sented
Jewish objection that it implied, as utterer,’ not a Physically, that these details should have been seen the
Redeemer, but’one need of redemption. No, such eye of a disciple kept probably at some distance from the cross
objection applied to the tradition preserved by I Pet. a crowd of hostile spectators and soldiers, must he, if not
impossible at least disputable. But, whatever facts
2 23 perhaps gave himself up as a sacrifice’ ; may have been seen, the essence of the narrative is a spiritual
cp Gal. 220 Eph. This word Jn. adopts. But he fact. A revelation is vouchsafed to the beloved disciple. His
represents Jesus not as saying this, as doing it : eyes are opened to discern the Fountain of It may have
his spirit.’ See above, I n the Synoptists, the feet, too, are pierced, but not in Jn.
3. The rending of the is omitted by partly and Pseudo-Peter.
perhaps because, in his view ( I ) Christ’s body is the
’Temple, and the veil is flesh, so that the piercing
of his side by the soldier’s true tradition, omitting the word ‘blood,’ seeing in it a fulfil-
and essential ‘rending of the veil,’ but partly because ment of Ps. 22 14 ‘ poured ont like water.
( 2) Jn. may have considered the Synoptic tradition This symbolism seems to be in accordance with
erroneous. describing ‘ashes and water’ as origin of genera-
tion ; and purification of the body
here explains many difficulties. Death under with water as preparatory the purification of the soul with
crucifixion did not generally ensue till after two or three ; blood. But Jn. may be also alluding to the ‘mixed cup’ of the
Mk. mentions ‘surprise’ (omitted at Eucharist, which contained wine mixed with water. Irenaeus
the speedy death of Jesus. Unbelievers, explaining says that (5 the Ebionites (who denied Christ’s nature
resurrection as a might ‘Pilate well be sur - used water alone in the Eucharist) ‘not receiving the
prised,” for death could not happen so soon. steps in to combination of God and man into their rejected the mix-
say that it did happen, and to spiritualise the circumstances. ing of the heavenly wine,‘ and did not God into
The (see CROSS, 6), was performed, he says, on mingling (non recipientes Denm ad commistionem :
the twocriminals ; this would have violated in other words he declares their rejection of the divine natnre in
the ordinance about the Paschal Lamb [Ex. was averted Christ to he analogous to their rejection of the wine in the
from Jesus hy his death, and the death was attested hy the Eucharist. According to this view, the wine in the Eucharist,
piercing of his side ; and thus two Scriptures were fulfilled. and the blood of Christ on the cross, would represent Christ’s
It is more probable that the Synoptic account of ‘the rending nature. But whatever reference Jn. may have had to
of the veil should have sprung from a misunderstanding of the Ebionitism, or to a rising Docetism that rejected Christ’s human
‘piercing of the side’ than vice versa. In the earliest days of nature, it seems probable that his main object is to hear witness
the Church, when it became customary to speak of Christ’s flesh for the to Christ’s human nature as completely
real-in and soul well as spirit. Applied to the
Mk. supposes to be addressed by the man with Eucharist, the Johannine view would recognise the in the
the vinegar to the bystanders, supposes to he the soul spirit in the water and blood.
addressed the bystanders to the man. See ELI, Aramaic 4 Cp Ps. 369 : With thee is the of in thy
(or in D Hebrew) is confused in all the MSS. Pseudo-Peter light shall we see light’-a passage closely connected with
interpret; the, words ‘ My Power, my Power, why thou key-passage in the Gospel (14): ‘The was of
forsaken me? Justin (Tryph. 125) translates and cp Rev. : will give unto that is athirst of the
Ev. X. 8494’ Robinson on fountain of Also cp Rev. :
the word in the by and of water of life ... proceeding out of the throne of God and
the Lamb.’ I t was a saying, older Fourth Gospel, that
E
word in (Barn. The kingdom Jesus is on the tree’ (or Cross,
(where M S S might have seems to : cp Justin, I 41, 73, ‘The Lord hath
have been, in the corrected edition used reigned from the tree’). So, in Jn., the Cross-heing the place
Mt. retained (in the form hut with Christ is up’ and where God is
(from as object. This expresses the throne of God. In Barn. 11 as in Rev. 222 (imitating the
somewhat more of voluntariness. Lk. (23 46) goes farther. astoral picture of Ezek. 477 the Cross is also the tree
Retaining in the sense of ‘breathing his last,’ he of life whose leaves will heal the nations, and it is planted
adds an expiession of trust on the part of Jesus. by side ofthe river of living water. But there were varieties
1807 1808
GOSPELS GOSPELS
been given to some one to see literally the piercing of the side as possible, fact from not-fact. No criticism, however.
and to hand down to the church of Ephesus a historical fact
obscured in previous traditions. But the spiritual meaning of ought to prevent us from recognising
the act is not to be regarded or from the materialistic its historicalvalue in correcting
or historical The whole of the context is spiritual sions derived from the Synoptic Gospels, and the epic
thought and mystically symbolical in expression. First power and dramatic irony which brings on the
there is threefold mention of ‘ accomplishment. Then as
there were ‘signs’ wrought by Christ during his so stage the characters and classes whereby the will of God is
now there are, perhaps, seven accomplishments of OT being continuously fulfilled, so that we ourselves
type or that accompany, or follow, his In learning from Pilate to ‘behold the man,’ and discern-
the last of these, the striking of all (prospective as well as
retrospective backward to prophecy hut also forward ing with Caiaphas that ‘ i t is expedient that one man
to the of the Gentiles, to’ the christianising of the should die and not that the whole people should
Roman Empire, and to the metamorphosis of blind ersecution perish.’ It often raises us above details of which the
into awe-struck adoration), the soldiers of ‘this coming certitude will probably never be into a
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 region where we apprehend the nature and existence of
they pierced. a Word of Life, essentially the same in heaven and on
Thus, amid mysticism and as it began, earth, human yet divine, the incarnation of the concord
ends the Johannine life of Christ. Viewed as history, it of the spiritual Yet, while no Gospel
must be dispassionately analysed so as to separate, as far so high, none stands more firmly, more pi below.
EVIDENCE.
The Exterhal Evidence as to the authorship and first half of the second century, wrote five books of
the Gospels consists of, I. Statements, of the Lord’s Logia.’
Quotations. ( a ) His was probably a ‘setting forth’
of the Logia, though it might include interpretation
I. STATEMENTS. as By ‘Logia (oracles),’ he
meant the Words also In-
Written Gospels are neither mentioned nor implied
cluding the Acts) of Christ as being
in the N T Epistles, nor in that of. Cleniens
oracularly’ applicable to the
nor, probably, in that of Barnabas, nor in the
of man. This title was already in use to denote,
i. THE T H I RD implies ( a ) that
their oracular aspect, the Scriptures of the OT, and
‘many’ Gospels were current, and perhaps that
here transfers it to what he regards as the
their diversity was t o obscure oracles of
‘the certainty concerning the
things wherein ’ the Christian catechu- Eus. iii. 39 I
men was instructed : that whereas the apostles (al.
delivered , taught them Schwegl.
Lightfoot proves that Eusebius, not
‘many’ ‘drew up a e ., wrote. This uses to mean ‘inter re
points to a time when the apostles had passed away, in L X X and means
leaving the open to the historians. ‘interpret ). In Judg. 7 (AL setting
qualification not that he had consulted an apostle forth is ‘interpretation. Heretics
are called by (Pref. I, and i. 3 6) bad setters (or
and obtained his but that he had (13 ) ‘traced of things well they
the course of all things accurately from the first.’ The sometimes= “forge “make false entries the
particular defects implied in existing ‘ narratives besides perverting’
For example, the Valentinians are said to I)
that they were not accurate,’ and not chronological transgress the order and connection of the Scriptures,’ ‘trans -
order. posing and and making anything out
Papias, a bishop of Phrygian Hierapolis in the 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
of tradition, and Barnabas himself quotes a saying that sug- regarded as a heretical or ‘exposition,’ of Jn.
gested the thought of the as a Vine front which the Similarly (Polyc. Phil. 7 ) does not refer to
juice, or blood, is dropping : 12) ‘When a tree bow (Lightf. ad ‘perverse interpretations,’ but to
down and rise and when blood shall dropfrom a tricks ‘artful treatment,’ in ‘setting as well as
This view is developed in the later Johannine vision.
water and the blood the Cross, or rather from Christ The of oracles in Lucian deal with both
on the Cross. See Rev. 22 17. (‘setting forth‘), and (‘solution’) : the panto-
I t may be objected that the author lays stress upon ‘seeing’ mime makes his meaning so clear as to need ii.
(19 35 : H e that hath seen hath borne witness ’). The very stress ‘no one to set it forth words.‘ Aristotles
however, indicates that seeing’. hasaspiritnal signification, as ad Alex. I) is perhaps a short of
(149) ‘ H e that seen me hath seen the ‘we facts, as compared a long narrative. is
his glory ; and elsewhere Jn. Space does not allow called by ’the setter forth of the will of
the exposition of the Philonian and Johannine uses of expres- Zeus,’ not because he but because he the
sions relating to sight and vision, which would demonstrate this Oracles Incourseof time, however, both among
conclusion. But it may be assumed that, whenever and Greeks, no new ‘oracles’ were forthcom-
senses aye used are always used ing. Then the exegetes had to confine himself to explaining the
in a Handling’ in I Jn. 1I old oracles ; and so by degrees and assumed
no exception to this invariable rule; see above (on the their modern prevailed in the days of
‘handling in Ignatius), 29. Eusebius. This explains why the Alexandrine scribe altered
(I) The the ‘bone not into in 7
(5) the ‘looking’ on him whom they pierced,’ are all I t cannot he denied that a collection of the Lord‘s Logia
definitely mentioned in the OT, and (6) the ‘delivering of the might contain nothing but his words, like the Oxyrhynchus
spirit’ may be regarded a fulfilment of 31 5 ; but there is papyrus: I t is tnie that Philo applies the term Logion even
no verbal allusion either to Zech. or to Ps. 2214. We to a statement in the Pentateuch Phi. 1538
cannot therefore assert that ‘seven’ is here in the author’s 10 9 ; Phi. quoting Gen.
mind. the structure of the whole Gospel makes it probable. in the passage where (2163 he speaks of ‘all things
3 And he that hath seen hath written in the hooks‘ as ‘oracles he proceeds
and witness is true and he knoweth that to say that they were oracularly delivered through Moses, and
he saith true. On the assumption (so Westcott and Alford) that then divides them into three according as they are uttered
is the a repeated the sentence ( I ) in the person of God, by question and answer, (3) in the
isstrangely tautological. But may not Jn. intend to mean person of Moses, under and control from God. This
Christ? The passage is the keynote to the, Epistle, and in the separates them, it would seem, from historical statements made
Epistle (see Westc. on I Jn. 26) is always used by the historians themselves, in the books of Kings, Chronicles,
(cp especially I Jn. 417). I t characteristic of Esther, etc. In the Words
Jn. that he should use the so that a superficial reader of the Lord, regarded either as to
should render it in one way and a spiritual reader another. Dt.339 Ps.11967 [sing.] or as sure promises of
I n any case, the threefold form of the attestation appears deliverance Ps. 12 7 1831 10519 In N T the
deliberately adapted to the context describing the Three living oracles (Acts 38) are those delivered from Mount Sinai,
Witnesses. apparently referred to in Rom. 3 and in the only two other
GOSPELS GOSPELS
Papias’ and i s as follows: (Eus.
iii. 39
r oil (V.
roil yip
roil
instances (Heb. 5 I Pet. 4 it means the moral precepts, or
Law, of Christ. In the only two instances given in Otto’s index
t o Justin it means (I 32) OT ‘prophecy 17-18)
prophetid denunciation of woe (where the Logia against I n the light of what follows-about the between ( I )
the Pharisees are coupled with the prophetic Logia of OT). Peter, who ‘adapted his discourses to the needs of the occasion,
Eusebins perhaps expresses his view of the meaning of Logia (as making no classified collection of the Lord‘s Logia,’ and
when 24 Matthew, who ‘compiled the Logia-he seems to mean that
Matthew and John were the only apostles that left memorials Peter neither confined himself to the Logia, nor attempted to
of the Lord‘s a word that in sing. sometimes meant group or classify them (as Matthew in the Sermon on the
‘life’ (Epict. but in ‘discourses’ (Epict. 24 Mount), but taught all that related to Christ’s life, ‘whether
etc.). Although the term Logia might include actions, without distinguishing between his words
circumstances, it is extremely doubtful whether Papias would and his deeds.
have given the name, for example, to Mk. ‘And King H e ‘committed no misfake’). This
Herod heard it, for his name had become ; and he said must be the meaning, as the verb is invariably so used in N T
John the Baptist is risen from the dead etc. We must there! and almost alwpys (if not always) in OT. Cp especially Acts
fore he content to be uncertain how far, all, Papias embodied 25 Cor. 7 thou not commit a
history in his ‘setting forth’ of the Logia, as distinct from I Cor. 36. Lucian
‘interpretations’ and traditions which he may have added to ed. Holden,
them Xen. Cyr. 140. Papias is defending Mark against the very
Papias calls them rather than for obvious natural objection that he did not do the apostle justice in writing
is from in that the down oral and casual (or at all events e x tempore,
former pften means ‘God whilst the latter means ‘the Lord teaching, unchanged, in a permanent book. The style that suits
(Jesus). might have meant ‘Oracles the former is often unsuitable to the latter. Lightfoot
of the O T (as in Iren. Pref. I). 163) in calling this (‘he did no wrong’) a ‘mistranslation’ of the
be clear but lengthy. being applied author of must be thinking of the sense, not of the Greek.
t o the Lords Day as from the Sabbath, was exactly the But, thus interpreted, it makes excellent sense.
fit word to distinguish the oracles of the Law of Christ from the appears to be used by Papias as an emphatic
oracles of the Law of Moses. form of (used above in the sense ‘repeat, or teach
mean ‘remembered.‘ But it may also from memory’) and to mean ‘repeat memory.‘ Cp
mean ‘mentioned.’ In the another passage, generally admitted to be from Papias, in
Papias elsewhere will be our guide here-’ I n 68 v. 33 3 ‘Asthe Elders who saw John, the disciple of the Lord,
Papias uses it twice; and Lightf. (SR renders memory (Lat. where there can be
fiist then ‘relate. That the same word should little doubt, that Latin points to a Greek original
he used in two consecutive sentences to mean quite different or And a precisely parallel use occurs in
things is in itself, highly improbable. still, more when Papias the description given by himself of the way in which
might used for The meaning ‘re- Polycarp, the of John and of the HE v. 20
peat ’ ‘ trach from memory,’ which is absolutely necessary in the used not only to ‘relate his intercourse with them,
secohd, is highly probable also in the first. When a convert but t o repeat front their
been taught the Logia, his business was (Heb. 5 to ‘repeat Justin goes a step takes
them to others. Hence, in 68, Papias contrasts himself, as to mean something distinct from traching. Influenced
‘learning well and teaching well’ the traditions of b y his that the were not about the
the Elders,’ with heretics who ‘ taught alien apostles the apostles, he appeals to those (I
commandnients‘ and not those of the Lord. Iren. 18 I of 33) recorded all that concerned our
the teaching their dogma of the decad Saviour Jesus Christ, have it.’ And pubsequent
with gen.). Eusebius describes the Synoptists a s passages show that he meant ‘recorded in There is
accus.), co-ordinately with Jn. as no doubt that he was in error. But his error strengthens the
It be urged that, in the LXX, ‘call to evidence that in Papias means something
mind. There is close connection, however, between ‘calling t o than ‘remember.’ I n Lucian, 2 8,
mind’ 13 3, the deliverance of the Passover) and to ‘relate exactly, or in detail, some special instances’; 3
‘commemorating. The two words are the active and causative it is contrasted with ‘disorderly and
forms of the same Hebrew verb and renders both seems to mean ‘repeating what one has thought out (id. 3
(‘remember’ and ‘make by the Greek it describes one who not only knew the exact facts but also
and in Ps. I Macc. 12 speaks of ‘remember-. ‘repeated from memory (or? registered in memory) the exact
friends in prayers, sacrifices, etc. (cp and words
Macc. 9 (Tisch.), ‘I would have your good So 8
will,’ means, ‘ I would have acknowledged or recorded it introducing one of the sculptor’s sayings.
some act.‘ Similarly, in NT, 2 IO, ‘ the poor As, therefore, Irenaeus describes Polycarp, one of John’s dis-
means. ‘remember them in act. So Heb. 137. ciples, as ‘repeatinq exactly from memory ‘John’s doctrine abcut
them had the rule over yon, which spake‘unto you the (Eus. 206) ‘the mighty works and
word of God,’ would, itself, imply what actually follows, of the Lord, so Papias appears to be describing
their faith.’ So the Ephesians are bidden to (Acts 20 Mark, Peter’s ‘interpreter,’ first as ‘repeating from memory
31 35) ‘call to mind’ Paul’s life among them, and also words and then as exactly from memory
of the Lord Jesus.’ Col. 418, my bonds’ (following the doctrine of Peter about Christ’s discourses
43, us God open unto a door for or actions, and as committing to writing what he
the word, to speak the mystery of Christ for which I am (Mark) had thus ‘repeated.
i n bonds’), probably includes, in I Macc. 12 and Lightfoot translates here ‘re-
as in later Christian writers, remember my bonds (in your membered. And the word has this meaning in a few phrases
prayers).’ (For the connection between ‘praying’ and ‘re- such as ‘bear a grudge against,’ etc. ( I ) there is no notion
membering ’ see I Tbess. 13.) I n Mt. 16 g, is here of ‘grudge’; the usage, and the context,
probably corruption of Mk. So favour the meaning ‘recount (4) besides the above-mentioned
far, in NT, with this exception, takes the gen. or : but passage from Irenreus, and that from Justin (meaning
in I Thess. (best taken apparently ‘record at all events something more than
the
.
... is. ‘remind one another of’ ‘remember’), also (6) Justin’s frequent appeal to
implying mention’), Tim. 2 8 as ‘written records.’ These considerations, together
following 2 the things thou with the kindred use of above mentioned, are con-
commit to faithful men, who will be able to teach others), clusive in favour of the decision here means
and preceding 2 1 4 these in ‘recount‘ or ‘repeat from memory. There is a considerable
almost certainly means ‘make mention of, or teach, Jesus probability that the word was in regular use to denote the
Christ.’ We see, therefore, in the Pauline Epistles, a com- Memoirs or Anecdotes the apostles, first ‘repeated’ by
mencement of the later tendency to pass from the active to the their immediateinterpreters or pupils then committed to writing
causative meaning of the Hebrew some of them the form of Gospels ; and lastly accepted
from mere ‘remembering to some Justin as Memoirs written by the apostles Christ. Yet
practical way ,in preaching. he seems to have retained the old title. As Xenophon’s
The ambiguity of the word has probably caused Clem. Alex. mean Memoirs
(following, but misunderstanding and modifying, Papias) would naturally mean ‘Memoirs
describe Mark as (Eus. 146) ‘remembering about the apostles,’ and about Christ’s teaching through them.
Peter’s words. Iren. 3 3 roil appears to retain an old title but to give it a wrong
must mean ‘Paul mention of
117 seems to mean ‘a commemoration Perhaps the use of was influenced by the use
made. of the Hebrew This, meaning originally ‘repeat from
This (which is a very rare construction, if it occurs at all, memory,’ came to mean ‘teach the oral Law,’ whence came the
NT) appears to differ from and word ‘Mishna the doctrine of the oral Law.
mean ‘whateveroriginated from Christ, Is with the co-ordinate for
1812
GOSPELS GOSPELS
io
stimulated him? .
...
write out what the apostle had said ; and that Peter,
of this. neither hindered nor
Papias
Mt. as
Mk. and
did
Eusebius. however. earlier his two other tradi- not thus recognise Lk. or Jn., though
traditions on were
known to him. Justin Martyr regarding
Peter’s hearers. Then he adds (6) ‘But they say the Synoptic Gospels as Memoirs written by the apostles
that the apostle, learning the accomplishment from the teaching of Christ, and showing a preference
from a revelation the Spirit, was pleased with their for Lk. (in an interpolated form), affords no trace of a
sanctioned the work for reading in for) the churches :- recognition Gospel like Jn. outside the stream of
Clement in his has quoted the
history and his account is confirmed also the the (3 ) The Muratorian fragment (? 170
A. D .), welcoming the Fourth Gospel as supplying the
.. . of
Now
called Papias-and further, that Peter
is not in Clement’s or Papias’s account and
differs from the spirit of Perhaps Eusebius, while dis-
deficiencies of the Three, meets any objection that might
tinguishing fact from doubtful tradition (‘they say’), has be raised against divergence the Synoptists
inserted a parenthesis, corrective of the latter, to the effect that (a ) by an account of a special revelation to in
h as and true] history,’ and that accordance with which this Gospel was written in a kind
Clement’s view (namely, that Peter was merely the origin, but of joint authorship, though in John’s name, and by a
mot the suggester, supervisor or authoriser of the work) was
supported substance If so Eusebius instead of protest that the Four Gospels are animated by
committing himself to the view that Mk., pre- Spirit. , (4) has no trace of the theory of
pares the reader for finding it contradicted revision or joint authorship of Jn. H e compares the
Concerning Clement says that (Eus. vi. four Gospels with the four winds or the four living
‘John, last of all, reflecting that earthly aspect creatures of prophecy, as being divinely. ordained in
had been set forth in the Gospels, at the number. Clement no mention of a revela-
instigation of his pupils by a special tion’ to Andrew or to any other of John’s friends, but
of spirit composed says that John himself received a ‘divine impulse’ to
a spiritual gospel.’ write the From the time of Irenaeus the
OF THE EVIDENCE AS T O M K . AN D Gospel met with almost universal acceptance.‘
MT. for Mark he was not in
The Fragment This may have been a misunderstanding such ex-
appears to be apologetic he was pression as accordance with Peter’s teaching. But Origen’s
words mean the latter.
onlv at some discourses For alleged quotations of Justin from Jn. see
Both imply that ‘Peter was dead. when wrote, 3 Traces of the tradition in this form are retained by
that the latter could not have the apostle’s supervision. philus and Tatian (see Eusebius
after recording an anonymous tradition (‘they say,’
Irenaeus, though stating ‘that Mark wrote after Peter’s ‘he says’) that John supplemented the Synoptists by request of
departure (which probably meant death ’), gives no friends says expressly in his own person (cp 24 and
indication that he did’ not adequately represent the ‘us’ 16 that John “began his theology
from the beginning, since that had been reservedf o r him by
apostle;. and it i s doubtful whether he did not mis- Spirit owing to his superiority [ t o the other evangelists].’
interpret the word departure.’ Clement says that appears to be the Eusebian way of expressing
Peter lived to know what had been done by Mark, yet a word that might seem to him to savour of Montanism.
s o far retains the apologetic as to add that Peter neither An important exception has been recently brought to light.
See Rendel Harris. Hermas in Cambridee.
hindered nor incited the composition. Another tradition 43-57. Eusebius extracts from a Dialogue
(apparently later) says that Peter was informed by the Montanist) written by Gaius 25 6 ‘an orthodox writer
Spirit of the accomplishment of the book, and authorised vi. 20 3 ‘ of very great learning
who wrote during the bishopric of Zephyrinus A. D.),
favours the rendering ‘decease’ for which has this meaning and whom passages from his writings indicate as resident in or
in Philo 2 388 Lk. Pet. v. 136 (Letter the near Rome. In one of these extracts, Gaius attacks 28
the notion of an earthly of Christ after the Resurrection,
Yet the inference from Acts2830 (referred to in Iren. as well as the notion of and ‘wedding festivities‘ i n ’
would be that I ) ‘the former Jerusalem, all of which e attributes t o Cerinthus. Such an
composed while Paul was living. Perhaps Irenaeus may be attack, even if it assailed the Johannine Apocalypse, would
setting down an old tradition correctly which he and subsequent robahly commend him to Eusebius. Now Ebed-Jesu, a t the
to mean ‘departure (from Rome)’-inter- of the fourteenth century, recorded Hippolytus
preted wrote a treatise called Heads against Gaius, and Dionysius
in its literary sense, means (not ‘include‘ hut) Bar Salibi quotes from this treatise (along with replies from
‘contain as ‘have as their contents : Diod. Sic. Hippolytus) objections raised by Gaius not only to the Apo-
14 calypse, but also t o the Gospel. An inscription on the
‘have their contents); chair of Hippolytus shows that this bishop had before
cp Eus. 24 The common phrase that date written a treatise ‘ I n defence of the Gospel according
etc. Macc. 15 Macc. 11 means ‘ was John and the and it is argued with great force
substance as follows.’ C p Hippol. that this treatise, or an epitome of it, was the ‘Heads against
‘(my) its Gaius.’
“On, the essence of the All.”’ Hence, Eusebius. vi. the
meant a section and the meaning here is, ‘ the sections th a t (seven or in number) had into hi5
have the genealogies as their contents.’ To place Lk. before not include the ‘Defence of the Gospel of John, and
Mk. would be inconsistent with all early tradition. See calypse’; and it is possible that his ‘Heads against Gaius
The tradition that Peter ‘knew‘ of the composition of the attacked some other- work of Gaius unknown to Eusebius
Gospel ‘through the Spirit probably arose not the Dialogue against Proclus. But the fact seems
from Clement’s confused with a fact so strange that learned critics have described it ‘im -
possible’-that a of the Roman by
The Muratorian fragment describes a ‘revelation’ to those Eusebius as a n d orthodox,’ attacked the Fourth
who urged John to write; Clement, a impulse’ given at the beginning of third century. The almost
t o ohn himself. complete of his book and of his literary
regards Mt. there practically no evidence (under the so complete that Bishop Lightfoot, till recently, maintained that
head of Statements beyond that which been quoted above he was a fictitious character in the Dialogue against Proclus
from Papias 65). which (he affirmed) was written by Hippolytus-shows
5 See above, $65. difficult it is modern critics to that at, and shortly
1823 1824
GOSPELS GOSPELS
QUOTATIONS. Behnesa (Oxyrhynchus fragment) are an example of
quotes nothing that is found in such a manual as has been described
Gospels (Lk. 22, part of 19 and 20 being set aside as an They are a fragment of what
above. to have been a very ancient
seems
interpolation) except the saying about
( I Tim. 5 the labourer worthy of edition of a ‘Sermon on the Mount.’ The extreme
his hire’ (cp Mt. ‘food,’ Lk. antiquity of the (probably not later than zoo A . D . )
and the frequent allusions to it (or to doctrine similar
‘hire’). But this is also found in the 131
food’). to it) in combine to show the antiquity of
Other sayings of Paul are akin to sayings in the the subject matter. But a still stronger proof is found
(a) Rom. ‘Abhor that which is evil in the nature of two of the sayings. Justin, when
to that which is good ... using such a phrase as Sabbatise the sabbath,’ avoids
not suffering yourselves to be carried away the danger of literalism by saying
with the humble Did. 3 Flee from all evil
and from all of .. . Thy shall not true sabbath,’ the sabbath of God,’ etc. and Clem.
to the but thou shalt conversant Alex. is even more cautious. (Magn. bids
with the just and (T.),’ where parts of the original might his readers not sabbatise but live in accordance with
apparently refer either to things or to (6) Thess.
the Lords Day.’ No one, therefore, but Jesus (who
..
I O If any will not work neither let him
let him work and [on these terms] let him eat.
Did. 12 3
did not shrink from utterances seemingly inconsistent)
appears likely to have originated such a saying. The
Paul and Did. probably used an antecedent tradition.
Rom. Be not overcome by evil,’ closely resembles same argument applies to the last words in the same
Pseudo-Clement’s 13 ‘ Let not evil overcome Logion Unless ...
, ye shall not see the F athe r’).
us but the latter could not have borrowed from Paul, The phrase see God is in Sermon but see the
whom he bitterly attacks. Father occurs only in Jn. H e that hath seen me
JAMES.-The Epistle of James, which is of un- hath seen Father,’ a rebuke to Philip’s expectation
certain date. Dermeated with doctrine similar to that of a materialistic seeing the Father.’ These
of the Sermon on the It con- and many other considerations indicate that the Logia
tains more and closer parallels, how- are genuine sayings of Jesus, ignored or suppressed
ever, to the and Barnabas. because of the dangerous tendency of some of them,
The passage that is closest to Mt. is that which forbids swear- and the obscurity of others.
ing by earth, heaven or any other oath (Mt. 534.37 James5 The Logia testify to the antiquity of ( a ) passages in the
but Mt. says he “Yea, yea,”.’ James (RV) Sermon on the Mount, (6) the proverb about ‘a prophet in his
says ‘Let your ye a” be yea.”‘ The meanings are quite own country’ (favouring versions of these sayings). They
different. The former ‘Say and nothing more also show traces of Johannine They use a Hebraism
than the, latter Let your yea” be also a (‘the sons of men’) found only Mk.328, and apparently
“ y e a ” of action. I n latter form it is and corrupted in the later Gospels. Another Hebraism is probably
ad a common Rabbinical precept (apparently alluded latent in the phrase ‘fast (accus.) the
to in Cor. 117). As it is also thus quoted by Justin and ‘fast during the [present] age’ (the Hebrew for and
it was probably found in some versions of Mt ‘age’ being the same). The meaning is, ‘fast to the six
an d therefore the Epistle may be quoting from Mt. But days of the flesh : the of the
cannot regarded as proved. In its denunciations of ‘the v. Of Rome (about 9 A. D. ) has
rich,’ the Epistle resembles Lk. 624, but not so as to indicate
borrowing. (a) 5761472
iii. APPARENT QUOTATIONS.-Passages apparently Lk. 636 - 3831) which, when compared
auoted from the the of Paul and with (Phil 2 ) and
James, have been shown shows pretty that writers had
to be found in sources other, and prob- in some other tradition than that of the Synoptists.
ably earlier, than the Gospels. The subject is kindness and mercy. besides
There were probably many manuals of Christ’s moral teaching throwing the Synoptic tradition into a terse antithetical form,
which the Sermon on the Mount is one) as well as of his adds The word
predictions concerning the last day probably, too, collections occurs nowhere in except I Cor. 1 3 4. Here,
of bearing on the Messiah and perhaps accounts and the context uses it thrice, and also ;
of the Passion showing how these prdphecies were fulfilled. see under Pauline influence. This points to his
,These, together with the ‘narratives’ of his life mentioned by of some tradition of Christ’s teaching about kind-
Lk. 1I, and the various interpretations of mentioned ness and mercy. The explains the reason. I t has mis-
Papias, necessarily left their impress on the earliest Christian understood ’ in the narrow Jewish sense of
writers even after the Gospels were recognised as canonical, almsgiving,‘ so that, instead of Blessed are the merciful for
an d still more before that time. Hence, it is to infer they shall mercy,’ it has (1 5) Blessed is he that
(without further consideration of circumstances) ‘ Barnabas according t o the commandment, for he is exempt (from punish-
ment a t the Day of Judgment). Against such a Judaising
quoted or quoted or ‘Justin
quoted Jn. because of similarity, or even the quota- version the broad Pauline would express a useful
tions. For example, i t has recently been inferred that the Thesaying is introduced with
Vision must be later than is usually supposed Dr. J. B. Mayor pointed out that (556) has
because it 2 4) quoted Dan. 6 from the version (not alleged as yet from any other Greek
But Heh. 1133 appears to quote the same author). For similarities of thought, cp 876,
Moreover, Rev. 9 12 7 1 3 7, resemble
version. It appears therefore, that Theodot. incorporated in It is characteristic of to use sayings that are
version an one by the authors and inconsistent. Hence (a) ’seeing the Father‘ is Johannine
Rev. (see Rendel spite of or because of Jn. 14 So also is (6) ‘thirst used
Harris’s in Arcadia, 25). spiritual (see Jn. 4 6 35 7 37 and the
OF Logia of beautiful saying imputed to Jesus [Resch Origen,
I thirsted for them that Adh (c) Jesus, describing;
after, the first appearance of the Fourth Gospel, it may have himself as (Jn. passim) ‘coming to ‘being in,’ etc. the world
been regarded with suspicion orthodox, educated, and con- (Log. ‘ I stood in the midst of the impossibility
servative Christians, such as Justin in the middle of the second that the true disciple can ever be ‘alone’ (e) the
century, Gaius at the beginning of the third. impediment presented by ‘knowledge to the art
a saying found in the Talmud of spiritual healing (Jn. 27).
(Taylor, 24). Cp I Thess. 5 Log. 27-29, ‘raise the stone .. . cleave the
to mean that any single disciple-while doing his Master’s work
‘It ‘ raising up stones to be children of Abraham, and by cutting
down and ‘cleaving the tree of conventional
passage twice : once embodying in his own remarks (with- Did. I though at first sight suggesting Lk. 12 35 is
out Lk. 633; an ’allusion to Mt. 25 I amplified by a n (to
once with the preface ‘saith the Lord,’ quoting ‘loins girt’ in the first Passover) which became
almost exactly as The variation may indicate that, current in the Church ( I Pet. Eph. 6 14). The latter part
in the latter instance, he is borrowing from some earlier tradition more like a blending of Mk. 13 and Mt. 44, than like
from which also borrowed (as above, in the saying Lk. 12
about to them that are holy ’). Similarly omission all the blessings pronounced on positive
when he asserts (377) that the Scripture says, My son, be not virtue (‘meekness, ‘peacemaking ‘purity,’ and ‘mercy’ [or
a liar, for lying leadeth to theft,’ is probably not giving the name ‘almsgiving’]) is perhaps dictated b y some doctrinal considera-
‘Scripture’ to Hermas 3) ‘They therefore who tion. Th e same cause may explain why, in his parallel to Mt.
.. . have defiled the the Lord and become 548,
gave (Lk. 6 36)
he he preferred a tradition that
pitiful’ (possibly a synonym, for a
of him,’ but is quoting (what Hermas trying to
spiritualise) Did. 3 5 ‘ My be not a liar, since poetic or form of corruption of
leadeth to theft,’ or
The words ‘better
utterance about
...book on which Did. 3 5 is based.
horn’ occur only our Lord’s
a t the Last Supper. I t seems very
wrongly gives
(for which the Hatch -Redpath Concordance
occurs thrice in Dan.
The Latin substitutes ‘Daniel’ for ‘Enoch’and takes the
unlikely that even though he combines passages words ‘for to this,’ etc., as comin from Barnabas.
in a very arbitrary way, would apply such words to quite a 4 Charles pp. who traces its influence in
different matter, and that would follow him. almost every book of and in Heb. 4 (Enoch
authority of some collection of the Logia seems needed to explain 9 5, ‘All things are naked and open in thy sight, and thou
it, and to justify the two authors. all things and nothing can hide itself from thee’), some
‘The Lord’s Day ’ occurs in the Apocalypse (1 IO), which- suppose to have been written by Earnabas. I t has also In-
a t all events sn far %? concerns the passage including the term- fluenced Irenaeus, Justin and other early writers. The tradition
was probably written (as Irenaeus asserted) in, or a little before, of Papias about the branches comes, directly
96 A . D . indirectly, from Enoch 10
1828
GOSPELS GOSPELS
Behold make the last as the first.’ This may possibly he The Gospel 9, 7) is said to contain the Passion
akin Synoptic (Mk. ‘The last shall or Resurrection and also 5 ) the flesh and ‘(personal)
be cp Mt. will give unto this last even as unto presence of brings Christ before us as
thee. in the flesh. But when he of the Incarnation. does
(d)In and the author probably, but not not appeal to the Gospel, but speaks in his own describ-
certainly, assigns to Jesus words not in our Gospels. ing, for example, the in the east in ’language
incompatible with any sober acceptance of account, and
He regards the Ascension as taking place on the actually saying almost in the language of Simon Magus that
day of the Resurrection.‘ the Logos 8) ‘came forth f r o m Silence’-a
Anticipations of in Barnadas.-The special expression, hardly for any one who devoutly accepted
the Fourth
points of interest in this epistle are that ( I ) it was written The Ignatia; passages commonly alleged to prove
(Lightf. BE 91) ‘before the Fourth Ignatius recognised Jn. as a Gospel simply prove that he knew
Gospel the latter resembles it in the substance of some traditions incorporated in (a)
many points :- (a) (Barn. 7, The Spirit
goeth, and
... it and whither it
the things that are secret is closer in
the juxtaposition of baptism and the brazen serpent,’ thought (though not in word) to than to 38. I t is
and the parallel between the serpent and Christ ( b ) a tradition from Gen. 168, quoted by Philo 1576 (and
(66) the application of Ps. to the casting lots over ‘Conviction therefore. to the soul. saith unto
her Whence thou thou Ignatius
Christ’s vesture (c) the ‘piercing is dloser to Philo than to ‘the door of the
of Christ ( d ) (11 the connection between Father,’ may be traced to 48 and back to Ps. 118
the Cross and Water, followed by a connection between 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
the Cross and Blood ( e ) (11 Whosoever shall eat Lastly such variations as (c) 7 bread of God’
of these forever.” This means, Whosoever,” (only once in Jn 17 I , etc. ‘prince of this age,’ and
saith he, shall hear these things when they are spoken (e) Magn. 5 living is not in us’-instead of the
and shall shall f u r ever.” It will be seen familiar bread of ‘prince of this His is not
in us’-would be Impossible, if the Gospel were
below that many of the so-called ‘imitations familiar to the author as a gospel, hut quite natural if he had a
of Jn. by Justin’ might be called, less inaccurately, recent acquaintance with the substance of it as a recent doctrine.
imitations The conclusions are that Ignatius ( I ) recognised Mt.
... SIMOofNBarnabas.‘
MAGUS. - The Great of and probably Mk. as a written gospel, did not
Simon Magus (Lightf. BE ‘probably composed some- recognise Lk. or Jn. The latter is confirmed by the
where about the of the first century, perhaps fact that 29, 30) in order to demonstrate the reality
before the Gospel of John was written, or at of the Resurrection, he appeals, not to Lk. or Jn., but
least circulated ’) twice uses the phrase (Hippol.
6 14) ‘remain alone in potentiality to an apocryphal tradition. The gospel of Ignatins
and once ‘but if a tree abide alone does not appear to have contained account of the
to denote, as in that Incarnation as we have it. The deficiency in
which remsins barren and which will perish with the world
because it is not made fruitful by being ‘likened to the (divine) account of the Resurrection he supplies from apocryphal
of the Simon’s doctrine of three divine beings Though he does not acknowledge Jn. as a
‘there are three that stand,’ his allegorising of the gospel, he accepts a rudimentary Logos-doctrine, and
Pentateuch in connection with the regeneration of man, the has an acquaintance (but not a familiarity) with Johan-
general tone of his materialism, and the wide scope of his influ-
ence, make it probable that Jn. had Simon in view when he nine thought.
Gospel. X. A.D. see 87) has
ix. (before mentions a
Gospel ’-which he compares with the Law’ and the
. - similar to those in the Sermon on the Mount
(Phil and to the words of the Lord
Prophets in such a way as to Mk. Mt.
that it was 5, 8, The former may be from a version of
7. He quotes short sentences found in Mt. but the latter indicates that, like Ignatius, he knew
(once a phrase peculiar to Mk. 943 ). H e the gospel of Mk. and Mt. ( a ) His omission (Phil. 2)
never quotes of ‘in the spirit,’ in quoting Mt. 53, ‘poor in
Herein he appears to anticipate Jn. See the spirit,’ resembles Lk. 620, but may only indicate
and that Polycarp and Lk. herein agreed in adopting the
J Rev.
Cp 63 ‘ H e that my word same version or interpretation of the Logia. (6) 7)
and him sent me hath eternal ‘If an ‘Every one that confesseth not that Jesus Christ has
eat of this bread, he shall ever,’ come in is Antichrist,’ resembles I Jn. 4 3 , every
that spoken you are spirit and are
The similarity is striking ; still it would be a mistake to say spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God and this
Jn. from Barnabas.’ Barnabas borrowing from is the [spirit] of the Antichrist’ but it much more
Ezekiel, has previously been alluding
calls the land Jacob (Ezek. 206) ‘praised’
to the who
var.
resembles Jn. 7 ...they that confess not that
Hebr. glory’), continuing as follows (11IO), Next Lk. 8 pleasures of life ’). But the phrase had been made
what saith he? “and there was a river winding from the popular by 383)
right, and there went up from it fair trees and whoso eat Of the two marked as ‘quotations,’ one 14 tree i s
mer.”’ The words are not in manifest from its fruit is more Mt. 12 33 From the fruit
Ezekiel but they were (doubtless) in the writer’s version of the tree is known’) than like Lk. (‘Each tree is known from
Ezekiel or in some Christian Manual of prophecy containing fruit ’) the other 3 ‘ Take handle me, and see
extracts from Ezek. 47 from which also that I am not a bodiless demon has been to be not from
comes probably Rev. 22 (‘a river of water of life,’ etc.).
The tradition, then, was common to the Church at the close
Lk. (see
Cp Cor.
. ‘his bodily
of the first century, and may be quite independent of presence.
Barnabas. The latter generally regards the Cross a ‘tree The statement that as a martyr, he will be ‘God‘s
and the crucified Jesus as the fruit of the tree (cp Lightf. Logos,’ but otherwise a mere ‘sound is based on a distinction
Ignat. Smym. I) planted the side of the baptismal stream. common from Aristotle downwards ; similarly
The former regards the ‘fountain for sin and uncleanness’ as distinguishes between ‘sound’ and ‘name.’ Such
flowing out of Jesus himself but of Jesus on the Cross, a play on ‘Logos’ would be possible while the Logos doctrine
his throne’ to which he is up. was plastic ; scarcely possible (because scarcely reverent) for one
4 Jn. applies the phrase to a grain of wheat, Simon to a tree. who had received as apostolic the Logos-doctrine of Jn.
It looks as though Simon had misunderstood Christ’s doctrine 3 See Hegesippus (Eus. ‘What is the door of Jesus
in such a way as to induce Jn. emphasise it. The union of to which James replies apparently that ‘the Saviour is the door
the ‘grain‘ with the earth is intelligible the union of a ‘tree cp Epb. 2 18 Rev. 38 Hebr.
with influences affords a far less natural and forcible (saying Christ ‘raised up seems
metaphor. The Logion of Behnesa indicates that Jesus may incongruous with account of the descent of an angel to
have taught a systematic doctrine about ‘abiding alone.’ roll away the stone, but agrees better with Pseudo-Peter who
Tatian‘ (‘ If it [the soul] live alone says (9) that ‘the stone rolled away of itself;’ implying,
it inclines downward to matter, dying with the flesh but if it perhaps, that Christ caused it to roll away arose by his
has obtained union with divine Spirit, it is no own power (so that the angels descended merely to carry
longer without an ally’) is closer to Simon than to Jn. up to heaven). The more orthodox account is that of Paul, and
index contains several ‘resemblances to I Pet. quoted by Polycarp Phil. 2 ‘believing on him who
Lk. One of these is of this life’) resembling raised our Christ the head.’
1829 1830
GOSPELS GOSPELS
Jesus Christ cometh in This is the deceiver A . D .) fre-
and the Antichrist.’ Now Epistle, quently alleged to have quoted from Jn but (owing to the
so that if Eusebius believed it to be a quotation, he culty of between quotations
97. Basilides. from Basilides and quotations from his
would be bound to attention to But he makes followers, and the fact that Hippolytus and
no mention of it, though he tells us that Polycarp differ from in their expositions of his
(iv. quoted I Pet. It is probable, therefore, that doctrine) the only ground for the allegations is in an extract
expressly quoting the hook of his
he regarded the words, not as a quotation, but as a which teaches that all suffering proves the sufferer
use of Johannine traditions in vogue during the conflict .
to have sinned: Against this doctrine-not any means
against Docetism. peculiar to protests when it states that the
The conclusion, so far as any can be drawn from so man who was born was not horn so because he had
sinned. With that protest before him Basilides could hardly
short a letter, is, that Polycarp knew Mk. and Mt. but have accepted Jn., in its entirety, as
not or Jn., though he used a Johannine tradition So far as it goes, then, the evidence indicates that
embodied in a disputed epistle.’ Basilides did not accept Jn. as an authoritative gospel.
xi. 30 A. D. ) is probably
(Lightf. BE 67) recorded by Irenaeus (v. 361 to have xv. MARCION.-Marcion is mentioned by Justin Martyr
preserved a tradition of a saying of the after the two very early
Lord, ‘ I n the region of my heretics Simon Magus and Menander, as
Cp Jn. even now teaching and as having-gained followers in
‘ In my Father’s house are many every race.
The context indicates that Papias had one meaning and Jn. This implies that Marcionism had been flourishing for several
Papias (taking the word as used x. 31 7 years, and points to A.D. as the date for Marcion’s
encampment,’ ‘ halting-place’) means are many stages gospel. Rejecting the O T and the God therein assumed, he
on the the New Jerusalem Paradise was forced if he adopted any of the four gospels to make many
and Heaven. This explains why Papias has ‘in the region,’ changes in ‘ I have not to the
while Jn. has ‘in the house.‘) means ‘stages’ in the law hut he ‘fulfil’ and ‘destroy. His
Apocalypse and (pp. 1003, gospel is shown extracts to agree largely with Lk. hut to
645, 794) who also (p. 797) speaks of the at omit many passages peculiar to Lk. H e did not call it by
‘the three numbers in the Gospel. The name, may have regarded it as hut one of many ‘interpreta-
three numbers are explained by Papias as the ‘thirty,’ ‘sixty,’ tions’ of the Logia of Mt. more authoritative than most and
and hundred of the Parable of the Sower. better adapted than our Mt. to express his anti-Jewish
The conclusion is that Papias is not quoting and misin- The omissions and alterations that he would have had to make in
Jn. are trifling as compared with those which he was forced to
terpreting ,but quoting, and interpreting in accordance introduce into Lk., and Marcion’s alleged Pauline predilections
with tradition, a Logion (illustrating the Synoptic Parable hardly afford a satisfactory reason for his not selecting Jn.
of the Sower) of which Jn. gives a The conclusion is that, A . D ., Lk. had
And this leads to the inference that, if Papias had Jn. in come into prominence as a recognised gospel in Marcion’s
his mind, did not recognise it as a n region, but that Jn. was not yet equally prominent.
xii. to in its
former portion (Lightf. A.D.), while accepting a Logos- xvi. VALENTINUS. A. D. )
doctrine accepts it (ch. ?) in a non-Johannine use our gospels.
96. Epistle form Lightf. on Col. : hut phrases in says that his followers freely used the Fourth.
ch. 10 indicate a familiarity, if not with 99. Hippolytus (635) gives as from
as a a t all events with lohannine himself, a quotation ‘All that
doctrine and of are come before me are thieves and robbers.‘ But Tatian has
The latter portion (Lightf. A.D.) short though it is, yet thrice a somewhat similar allusion (calling it on one occasion a
contains (ch. 11)an apparent allusion to 1629 Now speakest saying of ‘the most ’)(chaps. 12 14 18) referring
thou clearly which makes it highly probable that to demons ’ who have been of deity and ‘taken
the author had read The late date, however, makes this men captive.’ As has been shown above 57 n.), it is
testimony of little importance. probably the Synoptic tradition about the contrast between the
xiii. HERMAS.-The Shepherd of Hermas ideal ruler and the of this world, thrown into a Johannine
contains no traces of recognised authoritative Johannine form, which found its way into Christian tradition before Jn.
thought. The alleged similarities of language was generally recognised as authoritative.
96. Hermas. may generally be traced to common tradition xvii. S UMMARY OF T HE EVIDENCE BEFORE JUSTIN.
based on the Rock and the
Gate, the Son a Fellow-counsellorwith the Father in creation -Thus, up to the middle of the second century, though
(cp Ecclus. with Is. 96); 56) ‘showed them the paths there are traces of Johannine thought
of has no connection with Jn. 2 27. and tradition, and
T h e Logos-doctrine (cp I ‘That Spirit is the Son of God
tions to the Johannine Logos-doctrine, some
and see 56) is so strikingly unlike that of Jn. that the
would seem either not ,o r t o as 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
See 66 ahove. Eusehius’s omission here is the more Papias) mere war-cries of the time, or phrases of a
noteworthy because (though not bound to do it) he tells us that
Papias and Much more would he feel doctrine still in flux, or apocalyptic traditions of which
bound to tell us that Polvcaro. earlier than either of them. Jn. gives a more spiritual and perhaps a truer version.
quoted Goth and could it have escaped him There is nothing to prove, or even suggest, that Jn. was
so short an epistle, Polycarp’s only extant work. ’ recognised as a gospel.’ Many of these writers, how-
Besides the instances above-mentioned, Index
mentions, as a ‘resemblance’ to Jn., ‘that your fruit ever, are known to by extracts so short and slight that
may manifest among all. n. 15 has ‘that may inference from them is very unsafe it is otherwise with
I Tim. bas thy progress may be manifest the writer next to be considered.
to the notions of ‘fruit’ and are both Pauline
(cp 622 ‘your fruit’). xviii. JUSTIN.-Justin Martyr A. D .) has been
has (69) to describe a saint’s citizenship found above ( I )quoting freelyfrom Mt. and Lk.
in tke of the Father. The primary meaning of
is ‘at a man’s ‘at his home’ is sometimes appearing to use a harmony
only a secondary meaning: of the two (3) adopting Lk.by preference
Cp the Enoch (Charles 61 For in the world to as to the Miraculous Conception and the Passion (4)
come ... there are many mansions prepared for
the good, evil for the evil, many without number. This may
good for quoting (apparent) interpolations in Lk. and (5)
be one of several instances where the language of Euoch appears showing a disposition to maintain the claims of Lk. as
in the doctrine of Jesus. a new but authoritative version of the Memoirs of the
5 No many early authors (such as Tatian and Theo- apostles. The instances given 75-77) to prove these
though accepting Jn., may have retained for a long
time traces of an older Logos-doctrine-sometimes more like conclusions will suffice to show Justin’s attitude ‘toward
that of Philo. But Hermas hevond anv hounds consistent the Synoptists. It remains to consider his attitude toward
with acceptance of Jn. in v. 6 Spirit which pre- Jn. as deducible from alleged quotations, or types,
existed, which created all the creation, was caused God to
dwell in flesh which he desired [it to dwell]. That borrowed from it abstentions from quotation agree-
therefore ... along with the Holy Spirit, he chose as a partner.’ ments, or disagreements, with doctrine or statement.
1831 1832
GOSPELS GOSPELS
(I ) Minor apparent potations. him, How can a man be begotten when he is old?
(a ) Tryph. are called and are the true children of Can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb
we should he the children of God (so) we are.
and be begotten? Jesus answered ...
Except a man
Both Justin and Jn. are alluding, (I) Jewish tradition begotten of water and (the) he cannot enter into
ahout God‘s ‘calling’ Isaac to thereby causing him to the kingdom of God.’
(Gen. Isaac shall thy seed be Rom.417 Justin is here meeting heathen misrepresentations of the two
the things that are not as though they were sacraments, hy showing that they are on Christ’s com-
[is to the tradition that Isaac was ‘called’ from mand and on reason and that the heathen themselves have
the dead (Heb. 11 ‘that God was t o raise [him] from the imitated them. As’to the he gives ( I ) Christ’s
to be compared with Josephus’s comment on the sacrifice Words of Institution. the Pagan As to
of Isaac [Ant. ‘that God was able to bring men into since he gives the imitation later (62 64) he is
abundance of the things that are not and to giving here what he regards as the of Institution
take away the things that are’); partly (3) to Philonian traditions (for he gives no others).‘ That they are derived from Jn. is
ahout God‘s creative ‘call’ (Philo 2 367 ‘ H e calleth the things improbable for many reasons. ( I ) Justin’s tradition is thrown
that are so that they are : Philo into the form of an indirect precept thou shalt be baptized or
2 ; and (4) to a Stoic phrase I a m and I a m called’ thou shalt not enter’); is a statement of a law. Justin
(Philo 1 E ‘they both and were omits the two elements mentioned in full form of the
divine’ i6. ‘Heracles was nine utterance-viz. ‘water’ and ‘spirit.’ Justin, though
to he the son of and he was [so] ’). So, here Justin first familiar with the of to mean ‘from above,’ and
shows that God was to (Jer. 3127 and Is. 19 up a though he once uses here has
seed’ to Israel ; then asserts that he this people Israel (4) That Justin agrees with Jn. in connecting
and declared it his inheritance: lastly, in answer to Trypho’s the doctrine of regeneration with words about the impossibility
‘Are you Israel?’ he replies, ‘We both are called and ofre-entering the womb, is not indeed a n accidental coincidence
are the children of (6) Apol. 6 reason and is a n y more than the somewhat similar connection in an
a n allusion not to Jn. ‘spirit and truth,’ but t o what Justin of Simon Ma us ‘How then and in what
has just said about the temper of ‘in reason, manner doth shape (in the to which
reasonableness,’ and is a play on the word Logos. (c) Simon ‘Admit that Paradise is and that
17, ‘the ess and righteous [one], sent [as]light from this is true Scripture will teach thee,’ afterwards entering
God to a recognition of Christ as (Is. 426 Lk. into minute materialistic details about ‘the It is a
232; Enoch ‘light to lighten,’ not only Gentiles,’ connection so natural in controversy that it is easy to understand
the world ; and an allusion to Jewish traditions 2 that it became a commonplace in Christian doctrine.3
226) based on Ps.433
I
of the
60 If ye .. . out thy
ye
thy
he saved’), treating
serpent, differs so much from Num. 21 (‘that
( 3 ) Other
this [man]was
Tryph. 105,
only-hegotten of the Father of the Universe
That
every one that is bitten, when he it, that it is having become
urged (Lightf. BE 87) that the writer had in his mind Jn. from him in a special’way Word and Power
3 that whosoever may in him have eternal 4) and
But Barn. (12 7 ‘let him hope an d
he saved’)
...
from Num.
and immediately
is
the
as we learned the Memoirs I have shown
closer to Bqrnahas than to Jn and a p ears to be the ahove.’ Lightfoot (BE , omitting the words
former or some kindred accuses the Jews infers that Justin as Memoirs for
of cancelling 73) ‘H e shall reign from the tree in Ps. ‘special’ antemundane birth. But the words
96 and some might infer that he borrowed this thought from omits indicate that Justin refers to where he ‘shows
Jn., regards the Cross as a on which Jesus is ‘lifted thisfrom Memoirs, as an inference from peter’s confession.
up ’ ‘exalted.’ But see Barn. 85: the reign of Jesus This resort to the Memoirs to prove what they cannot prove
tree. hut Jn. could prove, indicates that Justin did not
The close and numerous resemblances between authoritative; (6) Justin, against is to have
Barnabas and Justin in respect of prophecies and types
prove that Justin followed either Barnabas or some (3 19 and from Philo 482 443 498 (and cp Menander
in Eus. 326 and Simon Magus in Hippol. and from
tradition used by Barnabas, and g o some way towards Epict. is ir-
proving that, if he knew Jn., he preferred Barnabas. resistibly in favour of the rendering ‘from above. may
Except ye begotten again. 61, For mean ‘again but only where the context to that
in the name of God, the and Lord of the meaning, does in Artemidorus (see Grimm’s Lexicon), who
says that a man who dreams of being born over again
Universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, they then will have a son, because having a son is, as it were, a second
receive the washing with water. For indeed Christ
said, Except ye be begotten again ye not Justin himself never uses the word to mean ‘again,’ hut ( I )
‘fromahove,’ ofthe Incarnation,
enter into the kingdom of the heavens. Now that is rai and also probably (against
absolutely impossible for those once born to re-enter Tryjh. 63
the wombs of those that bare them is evident to all.’ ... with or
Jn. ‘Except a man be begotten from he Tryph. 24, ‘from of old.’ If Justin were here
quoting Jn., he would he a phrase that he himself
cannot kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto uses.
Justin’s words, In’the name of the Father,’ etc., show that
The antithesis was naturally common after the he the formulary of Mt. 28 as binding in practice.
of Nero. It may he illustrated by Mt. 22 14 Many are called the recogiiises (but does not quote) it.
few chosen,’ hut also by Epict. ‘When we see a Justin nowhere quotes f o r the fa c ts of Christ’s
trimming, we are wont to say H e is not a Jew but pretends. but only And Lk. omits the to
But when he takes on the condition of and If it be urged that Jn. states the doctrine in two forms, and
chosen(& the elect ”), then that Justin may have preferred the (‘begotten from
he is
a : where ‘is
called and is.’
... called
and is called’ seems parallel to Justin’;
above’), then
altered
form.
‘from above’ into ‘again,’ he has
which occurs only in second
Justin (Tryjh. ‘theonlyspotless It may be worth noting that Barnabas (168) as well a s
man and then repeating the phrase ‘man Simon Magus, introduces his explanation of (which
says that he was ‘sent into the world. Cp Wisd. he bases on the metaphor of a temple) with a ‘How?’ (Cp
IO ‘Send her forth from the holy heavens, send from n. can these things be?’) In these two authors
the throne of thy glory ’ where ‘her refers to Wisdom 7 is rhetorical, in Jn. it is not; hut the usage perhaps
25) ‘the pure of the glory the the traditional way of stating and answering a perplex-
of the Both Jn. and Justin ing question. Barnabas (like I Pet. 1 3 23) regards the ‘be-
adapt Jewish tradition to the Incarnation ; hut Jn. (1246 I am as ‘again’ (not ‘from above’), $.:
a into the world.’ 3 soeaks of the as ace does not permit of showing the
‘the of it as ‘sent.’ - (The doctrine, which tacitly protests that
rendering ‘spotless light’ is an error ; nor is there a play on the ‘second birth’ is not the question. The question is ‘Is it from
double meaning of ‘man ‘and ‘light.’) For the construc- or (like some of the second births of mysteries)
tion (‘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
‘from
4 cp I 22, ...
Jn. would not apply the verb
or ‘tree’ with water (mentioned ahove. and 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).
in I The words, the only-hegotten,’ etc., may be those of
Pet. 1 3 (RV) again.’ commenting on what he has quoted from Justin.
5 The evidence from use of the word Eusebius (4 quoting, from Justin, this extract, stops
GOSPELS GOSPELS
written (Iren. iv. ‘ I should not
only-begotten Son came to us. . .. believed . ..
This Lightfoot (BE
‘proclaimed the and taught him (Christ).
this Westcott (Ju. says that the Synoptists
asserts to be based on Jn. But, besides the objection anywhere declare his pre-existence,’ apparently inferring
many authorities as W H, read in Jn. 1 ‘God for ‘Son, that Justin must have Jn. in mind, though he never quotes
this assertion that Jn. must have invented this applica- But the italicised words (cp 8 IO) simply indicate the
tion of ‘only-begotten,’ whereas in fact it followed general continuity what taught as the Logos,
fro m the Logos-passage Wisd. describing the Wisdom through and what he taught as Jesus in
of God as containing a Spirit might be When Justin ‘shows‘ the pre-existence of Christ from a par.
gested by Ps. ‘Deliver my the sword, mine it is from the Memoirs, but in a most unsatis-
from power of the dog. Now in the Apologies factory manner (see last footnote). ( d ) Tryph. 86 says that ‘the
an d Dialogue Justin (so far as Otto’s Index shows) never uses rod in OT is a type of the Cross, and that Moses, ‘by means of
the word ‘only-hegotten’ except in referred to this, saw water the fr o m
above (a) where he supported it by Ps. 22 and professed to 103) applies to Christ Ps. 22 like water.
have shown’ it, the ‘showing’ really a These words seem absolutely to demand some reference to that
inference from the Memoirs. All this far from indicating a stream (if he knew of it) which the author of the Fourth Gospel
borrowing from Jn., proves that, he alone records himself to have ‘seen’ flowing from Christ on the
to base any statement on (c) T ry j h . 88 has simply Cross. Yet Justin (ib. instead of quoting Jn., quotes the
the Synoptic tradition of Baptist, developed as in Acts interpolated Lk. 2244, omitting mention of so
(with a tradition of Justin’s own twice that the quotation accords with the Psalmist’s ‘poured out like
repeated in connection with the Baptist with water.’ (e) 97 follows Barnabas applying part
ada trd from Is.); and 57, as to the of Ps. 22 18 to the ‘casting of lots for Christ’s garments. But
instead alluding to Jn. is a ,quotation from Ps. 78 25 goes farther, by quoting the whole which mentions
with an allusion to Ps. (cp Cor. 10 3 and also Wisd. ’dividing’ as well. also quotes the whole verse, but goes
representing a stage of tradition earlier than Jn. ; farther still, seeing in it two distinct acts. It is
69, ‘those who were from birth and according to the highly improbable that, if Justin had known, as apostolic, this
flesh defective [in vision] is alleged to warrant for a fulfilment of prophecy he would have
refer to the healing of the man ‘blind from mentioned omitted to refer to it. But he neither to it, nor even
only by But Justin speaks of these people in the recognises two says that the Vine is
plural, Jn. 32 states that the unique, unheard God‘s people, planted and pruned for its good by Christ, without
‘from the the world. Justin was probably reference to 15 describes himself as pruning
quoting from some tradition earlier than Jn. ; hut in any case the Church that the fruitful branches may bring forth more fruit.
this instance tends to show that, if he knew Jn., he did not I Apol. 63, ‘The Jews are justly charged ... by, Christ
regard it as authoritative.3 himself, with Knowing neither the Father nor the Son. This
Other alleged quotations, if examined, might be ought to refer to ‘charges’ as Jn. 8 ‘Ye neither Know
shown, even more conspicuously than those treated me nor Father. Yet Justin quotes it nothing but an
ancientversionof Mt.1127 Lk. but
above, to fail to prove that Justin recognised Jn. as an or in Mt. and Lk.] the Father, save the 3
authoritative gospel. nor the save the Father, and those to whom the Son will
(4) Quotation.-It is generally reveal [him] which is merely a general statement of the con-
ditions of (h) ‘The well-known lamb
recognised that the Synoptists do not teach, whereas Jn. that was, to be roasted whole was
and Justin do teach, Christ’s pre-existence, a type of the Cross. Jn. alone describes the rovidential inter-
the feeding on Christ’s flesh and blood position by which ‘not a bone was broken’ of the Paschal
lamb. Yet Justin, instead of referring to this, refers t o’ the
(as in those precise words), the roasting of the two lambs on two spits, one across the other,
application of the term to Christ, and which typified the Cross !
the Logos-doctrine. When, therefore, we find Justin ( 5 ) Inconsistencies with mostly concern Justin’s
either not appealing to any authority in behalf of these views of the origin of Christ, and the
doctrines, or appealing to pointless passages in the Logos - doctrine ; but they also affect
Synoptists instead of pointed .passages in Jn.. it is a his views of God, and of theology
legitimate inference that Justin did not recognise Jn. as generally.
on a level with the
(a) I
both the flesh
66 ‘ W e have been taught that the food ...
the blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.
Justin’s view is that
that the came
6) God has no ‘name’;
declare the Father’s ‘name‘ and to kee
them that ‘name. The notion of a Trinity in a Unity of
is
I n support of this, instead of quoting Jn. 654 along with the or love, is from Justin. Generally Justin shrinks from
Synoptic words of Institution Justin quotes ‘the interpolated the phrase ‘begotten of God.’ According to him it is the Logos,
Lk. 22 ; (6) Tryph. 105, (see 101 [a]); (c) or the who ( ‘the new (26.
48, the belief in Christ’s pre-existence is based on what is the Church, his also
Elsewhere he allows
short before ‘but the only-begotten’; the part omitted by himself to say that God has begotten from himself
a kind of Logos-power Yet when he
Eusebius contains words common in Irenaeus hut not in Justin eaks of the Father as begetting the Son, he always inserts
and (3) has two allusions to Epistle: (to which his or ‘coming forth by the power and
; (4) elsewhere Justin never uses counsel’ of God, or, speaking of birth of Jesus he
apart from prophecy that justifies it. On the other hand, uses the middle ‘cause to be begotten. In his
Justin might quote, to a Christian, authorities that he would
...
not quote to a Jew, to whom everything needed to be proved.
venit a d nos ... . ...
(In the words omitted by Eusehius [‘. . nos plasmavit
est mea ad eum fides utraque Deo
Justin’s may be the earlier form, to which ‘of blood’
may be a later addition. But in any case the argument remains
nobis praebente’] the intrusion of the sing. [‘mea’] would be that whereas Jn. fulfils Justin’s requirements exactly, and the
strange, whether Justin or Irenaeus were the writer; but interpolated Lk. does not, Justin quotes the latter and not the
may have been misread as On the whole, former.
.the words are probably not Justin’s. I t may be replied that Justin understanding the nature of
Acts Justin Acts Hebrew poetry, perceived that ohly one action was ;
Justin but 53 and ‘ass’ though
Not, however, by BE. by the other Evangelists. The real explanation is that
After quoting Is. 85 the deaf lame, represents a later and more developed tradition than that
dumb,’ Justin asserts the healing of adopted by Justin.
.. ‘ N o one knoweth the Son save the Father,’ but quoted
Clearly includes if it is not restricted to, those who as by Justin again and by
Inhisearlier work Origen, and
scribe appears to have corrected into (I Apol. Thus according to Justin the Church (Ecclesia) and Man
22 I t looks (Anthro are both by Logos. the Valentinians
as though Justin interpreted in the’ but taught Anthropos and Ecclesia were the children of Logos
literally the Dialogue, some old tradition about Christ: acts and Zoe.
of healing. Hence the strange addition ‘in the flesh. H e If means ‘containing Logos,’ means
seems to ,mean ‘not, as some say, but ‘a Power containing Logos.’ What is this ‘Power’? Surely
defective. ‘Thought Hence Justin implies that the Father
On this point I Apol. 46 is a key-passage, ‘We were taught begot ‘Thoiight as the or Beginning and that
Christ is the God, and we that in this or there was But is formal
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 heretical-doctrine
Johannine doctrine is in the Memoirs, his ‘showing,’ when Cp Jn. 1 1 3 ‘were begotten of God where Irenaens and
analysed, amounts to ‘we have other insert voluntate and apply it not t o
supported by references to OT Tertullian (D e Chr. 19) accuses
1836
GOSPELS GOSPELS
anxiety to emphasise the supremacy and ineffability of the no darkness’-would accept the latter half of this antithesis.
Father, he speaks of one (meaning the Logos) who is (Tryph. Paul’s saying that Christ (Phil. 3 ‘comprehends or ‘catches
56) not God and Lord, under the (for its human soul is very different saying that
Maker of the universe ; ( I 32, and the light ‘comprehends’ the Also
The first Power, to the Father of all. This conveys the -which applies to any saying, and not specially to Scripture-
notion that the Logos is hut one of many subordinate Powers. combines with the naturalness of such a ‘ saying’ in Christian
Also the multiplicity of names given to the Logos 56 controversy to make it probable that Tatian is quoting a common
Wisdom, Angel Day East Sword tradition, and not Jn. ; Renounce demons and
(1 that follow the only God. All things by him
of Jn. ; and when Justin quotes Dan. to lay stress on the the Father), and without him hath not heen made
‘as’in Christ anything ; cp Jn. (1 All things were made
76) the word him the Logos), and without him was not made
seems anti-Johanniue, and bordering Docetism. anything.’ The two sayings are quite distinct in meaning but
(6) evidence appears, the likeness makes it certain that Tatian must have known
Jn., though he has either misinterpreted it altered it (possibly
then, that ( I ) when Justin seems to be alluding to Jn., to avoid polytheistic inferences).
he is really alluding to OT or Barnabas, ( a ) Truces of as a recent interpretation.’ Though
or some Christian tradition different from the teems with subtleties (alien from Jn.) about matter
Jn. and often earlier than Jn. when and the Logos and shows no recognition of the Johanniue view of
.Justin teaches what is practically the doctrine of the the spiritual of the Father and the Son, yet the above-
mentioned allusions or quotations-occurring as they do in a
Fourth Gospel, he supports it, not by what can easily very short treatise that contains hardly a single allusion to the
be found in the Fourth, but by what can hardly, Synoptists-indicate that Tatian attached considerable import-
ance to a of stating the Christian such as he
any show of reason, be found in the Three; (3 ) as found in Johannine tradition or writing. Such passages
regards Logos-doctrine, his views are alien from Jn. 5) God the beginning : but the beginning, w e have re-
These three distinct lines of evidence converge to the ceived is a Logos
conclusion that Justin either did not know Jn., or, as is indicate what may be called an attempt to
on Word was in the beginning,’ so that we
more probable, knew it but regarded it with suspicion, hardly call them recognitions of Jn. as an authoritative
partly because it contradicted his favourite Gospel, gospel. the following passage perhaps in the same
partly because it was beginning to be freely used by his direction. Supporting his theory evil springs from the
the Valentinians. (4) It may also he fairly inferior of kinds of spirits,’ Tatian says These
things it is possible to understand detail for, one who does
added that literary evidence may have weighed with not in empty conceit reject most
him. He seldom (as many early Christian interpretations which, in having been
writers do) from apocryphal The title he gives in for
have made those who give heed to them acceptable to God
to the Gospels Memoirs of the Apostles shows the Now the only passage in N T that definitely and
value he set on what seemed to him the very words of fully recognises Tatian’s ‘two kinds of spirits’-bidding the
Christ noted down by the apostles. Accepting the reader ‘not believe every spirit,’ giving him a test by which he
.Apocalypse as of theapostle John, 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,
he naturally have rejected the claim of the Gospel that Tatian is here referring to the Johannine Epistle and Gospel
to proceed from the same author. This may account for which are obviously connected and are generally supposed
:a good many otherwise strange phenomena in Justin’s have been published together.
writings. H e could not help accepting much of the This would fit in with a good many facts. The word
Johannine doctrine, but he expressed it, as far as possible, interpretations was applied by Papias to the various
in non-Johannine language; and, where he could, he versions of Matthew’s Logia. Mark was called Peter’s
went back to earlier tradition for it, such as he found, interpreter,’ so that Mk. itself might be called an in-
-for example, in the Epistle of Barnabas. terpretation ’ of apostolic tradition. There is evidence
xix. gives evidence A . D . ) of to show that the Johannine Gospel was long preached
special value because, being a pupil of the recently orally before being published and Tatian’s words seem
ceased Justin who does not quote Jn., he to hint at a deferred publication in course of time hav -
wrote an which apparently does ing in writing’). If it was interpreted
Jn., Johannine tradition and, later, after by an Elder of Ephesus, such as John the Elder,
he had become an Encratite heretic, he composed a be to Tatian as an ‘interpretation. Also, the
Harmony of the Four Gospels, thereby accepting the clause about rejecting implies that some had rejected,
Fourth as on a level with the Three. His Apology or were disposed to reject, the work in question-and
may throw light on the date, and perhaps on the this with contempt. Justin may not have gone so far
reasons, of acceptance. this. Tatian’s respect for the admirable Justin
The alleged BE quotations in the Apology are the is quite consistent with the hypothesis that he already
-following: (a) 4) ‘God is a spirit, not one that dissented from his former master’s cautious avoidance
matter This is of Jn., especially if Tatian himself did not yet rank
His simply of
Apology. 699) that God is ‘a spirit,’ but ‘one that interpene- it with the Synoptists.
trates being (and (6) The gives little help beyond the
Orig. 13) this, you see, is the assurance that, when it was composed, Tatian ranked
meaning of the saying The darkness
not the ;for the soul did not itself Jn. with the Synoptists. As handed down
preserve the spirit, but was reserved by it, and Arabic, it differs, both in text and in
the It is doubtful arrangement, from the text commented
whether says that (I Jn. 15) ‘God is light and in him on by Ephraem and both of these differ from the text
commented on by
the of substituting ‘were
Cp perhaps ‘If some were to
The fact appears to be that, whereas preceding writers had God,’ yet Israel received a revelation, ‘having
laid stress on being again,’ laid stress on the nature been comprehended’ (read for
of birth describing it as (113) ‘from 3) ‘from grasped and drawn towards God, because God to
Many offence at this, as suggesting that his own being.
is of the same as Christ’s incarnation (which In N T is not used to introduce Scripture except
indeed may have been meaning). Therefore, in the first when (Lk. 2 24 Acts 2 16 13 accompanied some
passage where states the doctrine (re-stated in the Epistle too in the Law in the Prophets!’ etc. not
often to be changed), some ventured to change it. thus it must be) rendered ‘said spoken etc. (cp
18 By a n act of will he brought us forth. This Rom. 4 18 ‘according to that which been
thegeneral mistranslation 3) ‘from though to Abraham-not ‘according to that which hath been said
it must mean ‘again.’ in Scripture).
1 H e uses it is true a corrupt text of the L X X and refers to the 3 A complete collation of Aphraates Ephraem and the Latin
Acts but never quotes Enoch does), version of the Arabic shows that are not than three
the Gospels of the Hebrews, Egyptians etc. Eusebius, who or four passages-and these of little importance-where these
bestows such praise on Justin’s 18 I) three alleged representatives of Tatian’s work agree against the
.‘cultivated intellect. modern text (as represented by WH): Mk. 923 Mt.
1838
GOSPELS GOSPELS
This indicates-what ‘of itself is highly probable-that a t a little to our knowledge, for the time of its composition (about
very earlyperiod the was revised in the interests of A . D .), Irenreus regarded four gospels’ as no less essential1
orthodoxy so as to leave few traces of the author’s Encratite and four than the ‘four zones of the that in Gaul the
other What may be the correct inferences must have been recoenised much earlier. But the im-
from Theodoret’s account of Tatian’s excisions and of ‘the mis- portance of Tatian’s testimony following on Justin’s is that the
chief of the composition and what ought to be inferred from two appear to fix the in sceptical
Eusebius’s ( H E statement ahout teacher favouring Lk. but rejecting Jn whilst his pupil at first
the work, are that do not affect Tatian’s recognition apparently took up Jn. as a ‘divine ’interpretation’ specially
of All agree that before the end of his ahout adapted for a appeal to the Greeks, and before long
recognised the Four Gospels as bbing of placed it in a of the Four Gospels.
special authority, although his notions of authority may not From this date investigation is rendered needless by
have prevented him from handling them with considerable
freedom. the practically unanimous acceptance of the canonical
As regards the date of recognition, Tatian’s adds Gospels. E. A.
\
the connection is excellent. with omission of the first stage),
21 occurs also in Mt. in a form which, a s suiting (6) The simplest form of the
Jewish circumstances better (10 'in their synagogues they will
scourge must be regarded a s the more original ; it is to hypothesis was argued for
be regarded a s of place in chap. 24. On the other hand, by Weisse in 1838 in \
abomination of desolation,' Mt. comes 1856, however, heassumed
fittingly after 7171. As for 71. 5
it belongs, so far a s itssubstance a t least an original Mk.along with
concerned, to the passage, 23-28, which we have already Mt
seen isoutofplacehere. original Mk. alongside of the
not fit well with 15 Mk. 13 14) where only a desecration, Z. Weisse
not a destruction, of the temple is thought of (otherwise in Lk. logia was postulated as a source in
21 20- 'when y e shall see Jerusalem compassed'-on which simple form by Holtzmann down to
see Regarded a s a unity, accordingly, the passage The borrowing-hypothesis
would consist of Mt. 15-22 14-20 in its purest state-the theory,
As adiscourse of Jesus it is prefaced by v. namely, that one canonical gospel
21 introduction which anticipates v. go-and if
you will h y v . and is brought to a had been used in the preparation
close in 35 ( = Mk. 21 33). Of the
In contents, however, the passage is quite alien from - c (a). Holtzmann
Jesus' teaching as recorded elsewhere, whilst on the was thus (before 1878).
hand it closely related to other apocalypses.
It will, accordingly, not be unsafe to assume that an As a more complicated
apocalypse which originally had a separate existence form we single out that of
has here been put into the mouth of Jesus and mixed up (as described by Feine,
with utterances that actually came from him. The '85, p. Inaddition
most appropriate occasion for a prophecy concerning to Holtzmann's scheme he
a n abomination about to be set up in the temple assumed a borrowing from
(24 would be the expressed intention of the emperor canonical Mk. by and
in 40 threw the whole Jewish also an Ebionitic redaction
into the greatest excitement-to cause a statue of of the logia 123).
himself to be erected The origin of this apoca- (d) Weiss reverts al-
lypse will best be placed somewhere between this date most to the hypothesis of
and'the destruction of Jerusalem, which is not yet pre- an original gospel. He
supposed in Mt. 24 Whether it was composed by a postulates for the logia
Jew or by a Christian is an unimportant question (see, (which he therefore prefers
however, to call the
(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 ratives as discourses 126 c).
.other words, in the main, the passages mentioned at ( e ) Simons essentially simplified the
the beginning of of the book which is held Lh theory of two
to be cited by Lk. under the title of 'Wisdom' e. Simons. sources by(what
The one thing which Jesus has hitherto done, and, Baptist that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers
if he refuses to work signs the one thing which are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and
the poor have the gospel preached to them. As has
Lk. also as well as Mk. has his share in the weakening of been shown above a ) , both evangelists have seen
this sentence the verse he gives immediately before it heing
9), ‘he denieth me in the presence of men shall he denied to it that all the miracles. mentioned have taken place,
i n the presence of the angels of God.’ either at an earlier date, or before the eyes of the
61 1881
GOSPELS GOSPELS
Baptist’s messengers. All the more remarkable there- mand the storm and it will obey, and ye shall be able
fore is it that the list should close with what is not a to walk unharmed upon the troubled sea (of life).’
miracle a t all. It would be impossible to counteract Indeed even the words which actually stand in the
the preceding enumeration more effectually than by the passages last cited might have given occasion to the
simple insertion of this final clause. The evangelists formation of miraculous narratives. If ye shall say in
therefore cannot have added it of their own proper faith to this mountain, Re thou cast into the sea, or to
motion. Neither could Jesus have neutralised the the tree, Be thou transplanted into the sea, so
force of his own words-if we assume to be shall it be done.’ But literalism of this sort even
intended - in such an extraordinary way. On the those days had its limits.
other hand the clause question fits admirably, if (6) The same explanation is capable of being applied
Jesus was speaking not of the physically but of the also where deeds or words attributed to Jesus himself are
spiritually blind, leprous, deaf, dead. This is not concerned. It is very easily conceivable that a
the meaning, too, which these words actually have in preacher on the death of Jesus may have said, purely
the O T passages, Is. 611, which lie at the root figuratively, that then was the veil of the temple rent in
of this, and it also fits very well the continuation in Mt. twain (Mk. Mt. Lk. What he
116 Lk. which reads, ‘Blessed is he who is not meant to say was that by the death of Jesus the
offended in me’ in my unpretentious simplicity). ancient separation between God and his people was
Here, therefore, we have a case, as remarkable as it is done away. By a misunderstanding, this saying could
assured, in which a saying of Jesus, though completely easily be taken up as statement of a literal physical fact.
misunderstood, has been-in its essence at So also, if another preacher said, using figurative
incorporated with verbal accuracy in the gospels. language, that at the death of Jesus the graves had
Jesus, then, declined to work signs and that, opened (Mt. or that darkness (of sorrow) had
too, on principle. Mk. 8 (and parallels) is not a spread over all the earth (Mk.
saying of a kind he ‘could have also 26, n.
uttered one day and broken the next ( a ) In the present connection we need not do more
moreover he exuresslv that no than allude verv to what bv Strauss was
sign should be given to ‘ this [whole] generation,’ because as almost the only source of origin for
as a whole it was wicked and rebellious against God. such miraculous narratives as had no
Now, the word does not denote any kind of real foundation in fact - namelv.
wonder, but only a wonder of the kind which serves the passages of the OT. These may very well have con-
end of showing the power of him who works it-as, in tributed to the shaping of such narratives, even though
the present case, the Messiahship of Jesus. But, so we do not assume that they originated them. For the
far as the reported miracles of Jesus have this end, of the dead cp I K. 1 7 for
they are, if this saying of his is to be accepted, no the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, cp Ex. 16
longer to be taken to be credible; either they never Nu. 11 K. for the walking upon the water
happened at all or (at least), if historical, they were Ps. 77 Is. 43 16 Job 9 8 for the stilling the storm,
not miraculous. 107 for the healing of the withered hand
This applies very conspicuously to the withering of the fig-tree. I K. 136 for the healing of the dumb Wisd.
Apart from the motive mentioned in 6, this particular Apart from the miracles, there is one OT
miracle is rejected many theologians on the ground that such
a deed having no manifest saving purpose, appears to them passage which has very clearly influenced the form of
worth; of his character. The same principle will apply also at the gospel narrative in 21 7. It is impossible to
least to the stilling of the storm and the walking upon the deny representation here to be that rode into
water, and likewise to the stater the fish‘s mouth even
though, strangely enough, it is not expressly said Jerusalem upon two asses. Even if one chooses to
that this miracle was actually carried out. interpret the words as meaning that he sat upon the
( a )As for the feeding of the 5000 and the 4000, so also garments and not upon the animals the sense is
for the withering of the we still possess a clue to stantially the same, for the garments were laid upon the
the way in the narrative arose asses. The misunderstanding rests only upon a too
out of a parable. The narrative in literal interpretation of the prophecy in Zech. which
question is not found in Lk., and this is not shared by Mk. and Lk. So also the number
is, doubtless correctly, explained from thirty (unmentioned in Mk. 1411 Lk. given to the
the that Lk. considered his sum received by Judas, as also the casting away of the
of the fie-tree - or money into the teniple (Mt. 2615 would seem to
rather the to the parable, the tree not from tradition but from the passage in Zechariah
had at last to be cut down after all-as identical with (11 expressly cited in Mt. Upon
the narrative. By the fig-tree, in this view, was meant Bethlehem, as the birthplace of Jesus, the virgin birth,
the nation of Israel, and that which we have seen to be the Magi, the flight into Egypt, the massacre of the
impossible if the story is taken as a relation of actual innocents, see M ARY [MOTHER OF JESUS] and
fact 6, becomes very effective as soon as the NATIVITY.
symbolical interpretation is adopted. At the close of According to Mk. (see we are to under-
his ministry, at his last festival, Jesus utters his stand that Jesus healed where he found faith. This
curse upon the nation that has borne no fruit. power is so strongly attested throughout
rative forms of expression, which could give rise to the the first and second centuries that, in
story of the feeding, are also to be found in Mt. view of the spiritual greatness of Jesus
56 : ‘blessed are they that hunger,’ for they shall be and the imposing character his personality, it
filled,’ and the verse which in Mk. (634) stands before be indeed difficult to deny it to him. Even the Phari-
the miraculous narrative, to the effect that Jesus sees do not deny his miracles of healing, though they
the multitude, embodies in reality the substance of that trace them to a compact with Beelzebub (Mk. Mt.
narrative. For Peter’s draught of fishes, cp Mk. 934 Lk. According to Mt.
and Mt. It is not difficult to the disciples of the Pharisees also wrought such miracles
expressions made use of by Jesus out of which the man who followed not with the disciples of Jesus cast
the narrative of the walking on the water and the still- out devils (Mk. the same is said of
ing of the tempest could be framed, somewhat after the those whom in Mt. Jesus rejects in his final judg-
analogy of Mk. 1122-24 and Lk. 1 7 6 : if ye have faith as ment. Paul asserts that a like power was possessed by
a grain of mustard seed, then shall ye be able to com- himself Cor. 12 Rom. 15 and by other Christians
( I Cor. Justin mentions castings-out of devils
On the earliest text see 123 a,n. 26 35, 39, 76, 85) so also
1884
GOSPELS GOSPELS
Irenaeus Eus. and Quadratus large number of the sayings of Jesus now received for
(Eus. the first time that consecutive and pointed form which
That Jesus demanded faith is frequently stated (Mk. made them seem worthy of further repetition. Without
Mt. as also that he was approached with doubt Jesus must very often have repeated himself;
faith (Mk.25 Mt. Lk. ; Mt. 810 Lk. but what he assuredly often repeated in many variations
Mt. see d), and that he has been preserved to us only in a single form. One
prayed. may perhaps venture to compare the process with that
Many of the accounts contain particulars that could hardly of a photographer who prints from many negatives of
have been introduced at will merely for effect. Thus in Mk. 5 the same individual on the same paper. There is pro-
the devil does not leave the demoniac of Gerasa at the first
adjuration Jesus must first, just like a modern alienist, enter duced in this way an ' average ' likeness which when
with the man into a conversation in which he elicits from him viewed from some distance seems satisfactory enough,
what his hallucinations are. In Mk. all the symptoms but when it is more closely viewed the vagueness of its
shown by the boy, except the falling into the fire, can he
paralleled from the descriptions of epilepsy in ancient medical contours is at once discovered.
writers (Krenkel, u. The context in which we now find the sayings of
Jesus must never (from what has been said in be
Of course we must endeavour to ascertain how taken as a trustworthy guide in determining what the
many, and still more what sorts of cures were effected by original meaning may have been. In every case the
Jesus. It is quite permissible for us to regard as context tells us only what the evangelists, or their pre-
historical only those of the class which even at the decessors, found it to mean indeed in many it is
present day physicians are able to effect by psychical impossible to believe that even for them the place where
methods,-as, more especially, cures of mental maladies. they introduce the saying is intended to convey any hint
It is highly significant that, in a discourse of Peter as to the meaning. A source like the logia laid
the whole activity of Jesus is summed naturally very little stress upon this point. The greater
in this that he went about doing good and healing number of the utterances of Jesus are like erratic blocks.
all those that were oppressed of the devil. By this All that one sees with perfect clearness is that they d o
expression only demoniacs are intended. Cp also Lk. not originally belong to the place where they are now
It is not at all difficult to understand how the found. What their original position was is unknown.
contemporaries of Jesus, after seeing some wonderful The observer has to rest satisfied if in spite of its removal
deed or deeds wrought by him which they regarded to a new site the real nature and quality of the stone
as miracles, should have credited him with every other can be made out ; and this is happily very often the
kind of miraculous power without distinguishing, as the case.
modern mind does, between those maladies which are On the other hand a wholly mistaken line is taken when for
amenable to psychical influences and those which are not. example, the is niade to base consequences on any
as that Jesus was apt to give forth parahles or say -
It is also necessary to bear in mind that the cure may ings pairs. The parable of the leaven which in Mt.
often have been only temporary. If there was a relapse, and Lk. immediately follows on that ofthe mustard-seed
people did not infer any deficiency in the miraculous is still wanting in Mk. 4 In source as well as
the sayings about the salt and about the light were still separate
efficacy of the healer they accounted for it simply by (not connected as we now see them in Mt. 5 Equally
the return of the demon who had been cast out. On are discussions a s to the order in which Jesus may have
this point Mt. 12 43-45 is very characteristic. Perhaps spoken the beatitudes. If any one were to try to repeat the
also Lk. 82 may be cited in this connection, if the seven beatitudes after hearing once he would not he sure of re-
taining the original order. We cannot expect more of those who
devils were cast out of Mary Magdalene not simul- heard Jesus. In the Sermon on the Mount not only is it needless
taneously but on separate occasions. to ask whether it was heard the disciples alone or by the
Most obscure of all are the two accounts found only in Mk. multitude as well it is equally needless to ask whether it
(7 32-35 8 22-26) according to which Jesus use of saliva to was intended for the one or for the other. I t is a conglomer-
effect a in these two cases it is extraordinarily ate. Little of what is found in Mt. 5-7 recurs in Lk. 6 On
difficult to believe in a cure whether by this or by psychical Mt. 5 13-16 see on 5 see In chap. a really
methods. good connection is found only within each of the following
with 16-18; not between
( a ) Even if the public ministry of Jesus had lasted for a these groups reciprocally, nor yet between them and the other
few months he must have uttered a thousandfold sayings contained in these chapters. Nay, there is not the least
more than all that has been recorded ground for supposing, because they are three in number, that
145. Conclusion in the gospels. His longest discourse Jesus enumerated immediately succession those things in
as t o discourses would, if delivered in the form in which according to Mt. 16-18 hypocrisy is to be avoided
of Jesus. quite apart from the fact that the enumeration is disturbed and
which it has come down to us, not broken by vv.
have taken more than some five minutes in the delivery. Words of such pre-eminent importance as the
However self-evident, this has been constantly over- Lord's Prayer or the words of institution of the
looked by the critics. They are constantly assuming Eucharist, or the description of a scene so unforgettable
that we possess the several words of Jesus that as that in which the sign is given by which the betrayer
have been reported approximately in the same is made known (Mk. Mt. Lk. 2221)
ness with which they were spoken. For the parables are given in a very conflicting manner. Of the words
perhaps (apart, of course, from the manipulations uttered on the cross, Mk. and Mt. have only one, which
pointed out above, in c d)this may in turn is omitted by Lk., who, however, gives three
be to a certain extent true. Of other utterances, we others. In this last case, however, one may be
have traced in Mt. 11 Lk. and Mk. 8 = Mt. that Mk. and Mt. are in the right and to the
one or two which must have been three previous ones one safely apply the maxim
preserved almost In what remains, however, that additions are more likely than omissions omissions
it can hardly be sufficiently emphasised that we possess would in fact be difficult to account for Mk.
only an excessively meagre of what Jesus said, accordingly, with omission of take
namely, only so much as not only made an immediate may be regarded as the relatively (not absolutely) oldest
impression when first heard, but also continued to survive form of the words of institution of the Eucharist.
the ordeal of frequent repetition (for much of it possessed (Against the deletion of Lk. 22 196 see Schmiedel
too little interest for those who had not been actual in Hand-cornmentar on I Cor. 1 1 3 4 . )
witnesses). In this process not only was an extra- ( d ) While the case of the Eucharistic words only
ordinary number of utterances completely lost ; but a Lk. is dependent on Paul, Mt. and still more Mk. avoid-
ing his novelties, Paul in I Cor. as against all the
As for Josephus cp 86 6 3 Ant. 113 viii. 2 5 synoptists, exhibits the earlier form of the prohibition of
and c. 1 3 1 ; for for 16 divorce. This we infer from the fact that it is he who
According to Tacitus 4 Vespasian effected several
wonderful cures (cp above, 1456). gives the strictest form of the prohibition. Subsequent
GOSPELS GOSPELS
relaxations in view of the difficulty in working the pieces, however, may be Jewish ; and Jesus could have foreseen
severer form, are intelligible, increases of stringency are the destruction of Jerusalem even without supernatural know-
ledge. I n no case, however, we to lay weight on the
not especially would these be unintelligible in the case circumstance that he connects it with the end of the world for
of Paul, who actually finds himself constrained ( I Cor. this arises from the fusion of the (certainly vacillating) tradition
7 on his own responsibility to introduce a relaxation regarding his own words with the 'little Apocalypse'
Therefore, also, we must refuse to entertain the conjecture that
the law. Even the Epistle of James, although it in reality he prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem only, and
.already omits Jerusalem as an object by which that his alleged prediction of the end of the world on a
one can swear gives an older form of the precept misunderstanding of the disciples. According to the same
.against swearing than is found in Mt. 5 37 ; namely, Let mode of reasoning, he cannot have prophesied his resurrection
alone without adding a prediction of his second coming from
your yea be a (simple) yea, and your nay a (simple) heaven for this, according to the general and most ancient belief,
nay. which makes no mention ascension also Cor. 1 5 Bom.
( e ) As for the substance of the sayings of Jesus, it has Rev.
I Pet. 3 Eph. carried him direct to heaven ; but
:already been pointed out in 109 6, 136 there was quite as general a belief that as Messiah his of
how little credence we can attach to the historicity of setting up the kingdom of God upon earth required his presence
the sayings attributed to Jesus about the call of the here.
Gentiles, the baptismal formula, the later conditions of Of all these predictions it is possible to deny that they
t h e primitive church, and the postponement of his were uttered by only if it be at the same time denied
parusia. Here it may be added that in Mk. a say- that he held himself to be the Messiah. But in that
ing which certainly was originally the closing remark case it be impossible to explain how the disciples,
.of a preacher on the anointing at Bethany is given who had been thrown into the utmost depths of despond-
.as a word of Jesus. In Mt. (2663) it is still further ency his death, nevertheless came to be able to believe
.altered by the addition : Wheresoever gospel shall in his resurrection. Those theologians who go so far as
be preached, that also which this woman hath done shall to remove all the utterances of Jesus to the effect that
be spoken of.' As regards a passage of such great he was the Messiah, hardly continue to hold that the
as Mk. ( ' t o give his life a belief in his resurrection rests on anything more real than
'ransom for many'), judgment can be given only in the visions the disciples which arose out of their sub-
accordance with the following considerations. It can jective mental condition. All psychology, however,
be accepted as genuine if Jesus spoke of his life as a affirms that visions arise only when that which is seen
in no other sense than that in which he did so in the concrete has previously taken firm and living hold
a t the last as an offering not for sin but on the soul of the visionary. The belief is therefore
for the immunity of his followers, after the manner of the inevitable that the disciples had already, in the lifetime
Passover lamb in Egypt, or for ratification of their of Jesus, held him to be the Messiah. They could not,
with God as in Gen. Jer. however, have done so without acquainting him with
if he did so at a date not too long before his death. this of theirs ; and if he had denied it, it is im-
Otherwise the doubt will have to be expressed, that the possible how their respect for his authentic
sentence comes from the Pauline theology. In any case declaration should have permitted them to go on believ-
it is noteworthy that it is absent from Lk. 2227. ing the opposite. As regards the date of his
That Jesus had in view the possibility of his death some coming, the statements in Mt. (that it would be
time before it came upon him is unlikely. But before the then living generation had passed away) and
the very precise predictions of it with their various details are
open to the suspicion that they took shape at a later date in in 2664 (that it would be immediately, have a
.accordance with the facts of history, and least of all is it credible like claim to probability. Whatever he may have said
that Jesus should have put forth such a prediction directly after as to this, it is certain that he also declared
Peter's confession 831 Mt. Lk. This confession
must have been one of the supreme moments in the joyous con- that none knoweth of that day or of that hour (Mk.
sciousness of Jesus-the discovery that he was finding recog- 13 Mt. 2436).
nition as the Messiah and was winning his battle. Suffering It would be quite out of place to look in the
.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 gospels for direct statements as to any development in
looked forward to for himself. Jesus during the period of his public activity. The
the eschatological discourses disappears latest date at which reverence for him would have allowed
specifically apocalyptic concerning the signs a conception of anything of the kind to be assigned is that
of his parusia, if the separation of the little Apocalypse of his temptation (Mt. Lk. 41-13) before his ministry
as made in 6 is correct. This does not, however, began. It could only be from unconscious touches of
by any means imply the elimination of all eschatological theirs that we could be led to conjecture any develop-
utterances whatsoever. On the contrary, there still ment later than this. Yet such a conjecture we
remain to be attributed to Jesus the words in Mt. venture to make, for example, as regards Jesus' freedom of
(ultimately also ; see attitude towards the Mosaic law. What he says in Mt.
which he prophesies his return with the clouds of heaven, about murder, or in about adultery, may
and the like. This is in fact quite intelligible, and even be easy enough to reconcile with his declaration that he
necessary, if he held himself to be the Messiah in such is not come to destroy the law ( 517 ) but the case is
.acase it would have been impossible for him to believe otherwise with the sayings immediately following, upon
that God would allow him and his work to go to ruin divorce upon swearing upon
through the persecutions of his enemies. The failure of retaliation upon love of one's 43-48), as
these prophecies to come to fulfilment ought in no case also upon the laws about foods (Mk. 1-23 Mt. 15
t o lead to any attempt to make out that they were not and about the Sabbath (Mk. and parallels). If
uttered Jesus, or to interpret in such a sense the first-mentioned conservative saying (517) is to be
.ascauses their inconsistency with the facts to disappear. held genuine, we must assign it to the first period of the
As has been shown in 111, e, the evangelists public activity of Jesus. It is in fact quite credible that
found that much trouble was required in order to tone Jesus, who unquestionably was a pious Jew, at first saw
down this inconsistency they had not the least occasion, in the Mosaic law the unalterable will of his Father, and
therefore, to invent such predictions or to heighten them regarded the errors of the Pharisees as consisting only
the prophecies must have lain before them as quite fixed in a too external apprehension of it. But it is equally
elements of tradition. intelligible that in the course of his controversy with them
Another question is whether Jesus foretold the destruction of he should have become convinced how many precepts
the temple as in Mk. 13 Mt. 24 Lk. 21 6. If the little the law in point of fact embodied which were antagonistic
(Mk. 13 Mt. 24 or Rev. 11 I is from a Christian to the spirit of religion as it had revealed itself to him.
hand the answer can hardly be affirmative, a Christian writer
could have Dresumed the continued existence of the It was one of his greatest achievements that he sacrificed
temple in to Jesus' own prophecy. Both these the letter of the law to this and not this to the letter of
1887 1888
GOSPELS GOSPELS
the la w; but we may be sure that it cost him many a conveyed that Matthew, Mark, and the others were-not
hard struggle. the authors, but only the guarantors for the contents of
( h ) Another point in regard to which we may venture the hooks. The inscription means simply ‘Gospel
to conjecture some development in Jesus during his history in the form in which Matthew put it into
public life is his Messiahship. As late as on the occasion writing.‘ In Mk. 1 1 the expression ‘ t h e Gospel of
of Peter’s confession we find him commanding his dis- Jesus Christ’ seems already to designate a book but
ciples to keep this a secret (Mk. 830 Mt. Lk. at the same time it teaches us that the writer of these
With this it agrees that in Mk., before this date, he words cannot have set down as title to the whole book
applies thd designation Son of Man to himself only the words Gospel according to Mark
twice’ (21028). In Mt., on the contrary, he does so Thus also in Mt. and Lk. etc. the titles
very often, and, besides, the significance of Peter’s con- do not come from the authors.
fession is completely destroyed by where already In fact the writings bore no superscription at Every
all the apostles have been made to declare him to be the one who possessed any book of this sort will have called it
Son‘of God. In accordingly, this trace of develop- ‘the gospel as in the case of Marcion
ment in Jesus’ thinking is obliterated. the gospel of Lk. which he caused to be used in his
It is when the purely religious-ethical utterances congregations was called simply ‘ gospel
of Jesus come under consideration that we are most The additions with according to ( became neces-
advantageously placed. Here especially applies the sary at a later date when people began to possess several
maxim laid down in 131 (end) that we may accept as such books either separately or bound together in one
credible everything that harmonises with the idea of volume. If, therefore, it should prove not to be the
Jesus which has been derived from what we have called case that our gospels were severally written by Matthew,
the foundation pillars ) and is not otherwise Mark, and Luke, the statements that they were do not
open to fatal objection. Even though such utterances arise from falsification on the part of the actual authors,
may have been liable to Ebionitic heightening, and but only from error on the part of the church fathers,
already, as showing traces of this, cannot lay claim to such as Papias or the person upon whom he relied.
literal accuracy- even though they may have been Besides the statements of Papias at most those
unconsciously modified into accord with conditions of only of the church fathers of the close of the second and
the Christian community that arose only at a later the beginning of the third century
date- even though they may have undergone some referred to in 75-82 can come into
distortion of their meaning through transference to a consideration here. How small, how-
connection that does not belong to them- the spirit ever. is the confidence that can be
which speaks in them is quite unmistakable. Here placed in the authors of these will at once be evident
we have a wide field of the wholly credible in which to when it is remembered that Irenaeus (and similarly
expatiate, and it would be of unmixed advantage for Tertullian, 4 z ) declares Luke to have com-
theology were it to concentrate its strength upon the mitted to writing the Gospel preached by Paul. The
examination of these sayings, and not attach so much details of the life of Jesus had so little interest for
importance to the minute investigation of the other less Paul that, for example, in Cor. in order to induce
important details of the gospel history. the Corinthians to contribute liberally to the collection
for the poor in Palestine he is able to adduce no other
AUTHORS AND DATES OF THE GOSPELS AND feature in Jesus as a pattern than the fact of his having
MOST IMPORTANT SOURCES. become man. As his explicit declarations in Cor. 5
means originally (and still continues to do I Cor. Gal. 31 tell us, he preached extremely little
so in 4 the reward for a of news. to his congregations about the earthly life of Jesus. The
late classical Greek the good news whole attribution to Paul of the gospel of Lk., which,
Itself, for which the LXX has the according to Origen, the refers to in
in For religious. 216 as ‘m y Gospel’ is only an expedient which
tidings we have the verb in Is. 611, the church fathers adopted to enable them to assign a
cited in Lk. 418. The N T has the substantive also in quasi-apostolic origin to the work of one who was not
this sense. It was a serious error on Origen’s part when himself an apostle.
Eus. HE vi. he took the Gospel of Lk. to be For this reason suspicion attaches also to the state-
meant where Paul speaks of my Gospel (Rom. 2 ment that the gospel of Mk. rested upon communica-
Tim. 28). In the also, still tions of Peter especially as it is accompanied
signifies the substance of the gospel history without with an elaborate apology for Mark’s undertaking.
reference to the book in which it was written so too in The statements of the church fathers, moreover, are
82, the Lord says in his gospel so too in Irenaeus not in the least consistent among themselves. Accord-
when he describes the gospel as fourfold ing to Irenaeus, Matthew wrote his gospel while Peter
so too even in the Muratorian fragment (1. : and Paul were preaching in Rome-thus somewhere in
But here we already find also 17)
the sixties,-while according to a tradition in Eusebius
similarly Justin 76) speaks of the iii. 246) he wrote it before his departure from
of the apostles which are called gospels,’ Palestine into foreign parts, that is to say, much earlier.
and Claudius Apollinaris says in the Again, according to Irenaeus, Mark wrote after the
death of Peter and Paul, while according to of
(cp JO HN , SON OF
42, ‘the gospels seem to contradict one Alexandria, Peter lived to see the completion of Mark’s
another.’ Thus it was not till the middle of the second gospel. Nay, more,- the two statements as to Peter’s
attitude to this gospel which Eusebius ( H E and
century that the nord came to signify a book, and,
vi. takes from Clement are in conflict with
after that, till the end of the second century, it continued
to bear its original meaning as well. The titles Gospel each other, quite apart from the question whether
Clement did not also regard the Gospels that had
according to Matthew,’ ‘ to Mark,’ etc., accordingly do
genealogies as older than those which had not. In
not, linguistically considered, mean the written Gospel
of Matthew,’ etc. still less, however, ‘written Gospel short, all that can be said to be certain is this, that it is
vain to look to the church fathers for trustworthy in-
based on communications by Matthew,’ as if theverytitles
formation on the subject of the origin of the gospels.
We firmly hold that by this name he means to designate
himself as the Messiah-and that too even in Mk. 2 IO although Mt. I could, at a subsequent date, be
these are the two places in which there is most justification for as such after the analogy of 2 4 ; after that of
the attempt to make it ‘man‘ in general. Cp 5 I it originally referred only to the genealogy of Jesus,
also SON OF Mt. 11-17.
1889 1890
GOSPELS GOSPELS
According to Papias (see and also his authority, in Aramaic-becomes also possible, which cannot be
the second gospel was written by M ARK Mark said of the logia according to Rut there
is known to us from Acts remains this that according to the prologue
There is also an inclination to identify of Lk. no eye-witnesses of the life of Jesus took pen in
him with the young man who left hand- none at least appear to have produced any
his garment in the hands of his pursuers in the garden writing which Lk. would have called a narrative'
of Gethsemane (Mk. ). This conjecture. how-
ever, has no value, of course, in the wdy of proof In Mt. the Jewish judicial procedure is still
either that the young man was Mark, or that he was the presupposed in the sacrificial system and in
author of the second gospel he need only be one of the 535 Jerusalem is referred to as still a city
chief for its contents. In what Papias says the while in Jas. 5 the swearing by Jerusalem
important point is not so much the statement that Mark is significantly omitted it was certainly
wrote the gospel as the further statement that Peter no longer in existence then. While it is not practicable
supplied its contents orally. If the student interprets to prove by means of these passages that Mt. was com-
the narratives of the feeding of the five thousand and posed before 70 A. D . (see they strongly tend to
of the four thousand, of the stilling of the storm, of the establish that earlier date for the logia.
walking upon the water, of the withering of the fig-tree, Mt. 23 35 is in the highest degree remarkable. Zachariah the
and so forth, in the manner that has been indicated in son of Berechiah is the well-known prophet of the O T who did
preceding sections of this article not suffer martyrdom. Hut, according t o
Zechariah the son of Jehoiada did so suffer. This was about
then the supposition that the gospel is essentially a re- so that he certainly cannot be called the last martyr, and
petition of oral communications by Peter, will at once least of all can he be so called merely because Chronicles is the
fall to the ground. Rut even apart from this, the last book in the OT. From Josephus 5 4, we learn
compass of the entire work is far too short. that in Zechariah
was put to death The
It is hardly felicitous to say to this that Mk. repeatsso conjecture is a very obvious one that the author had event
few of the words of Jesus because he was aware that the others in his mind. If it be correct, the date of will
were already known through the logia Why, in that have to be placed considerably later than 68 A.D., as the writer
case, then, does he fill some seven of his sixteen chapters with could not, very shortly after this event, easily have confounded
these? As for what Mk. tells ahout Peter personally it this Zechariah with some other who had lived before, or in, the
certainly is true that the statements concerning him in time of Jesus. I t must not he overlooked, however that accord-
Mt. is richer than Mk. (his walking upon the water, ; ing to Lk. the source of this narrative is of
the promise given him, 16 the stater in the fish's mouth, God, that is to say, according to the most probable conjecture,
17 make no claim to historicity. But the statements a hook distinct from the logia which either on its title the
e. Wernle (p. recognises the leading position of words 'Wisdom of God or introduced the Wisdom of God as
Peter it necessary to add also of the sons of speaking. It is doubtful therefore whether the passage is to be
Zehedee'), are found with trifling exceptions in Mt. and Lk. assigned to the logia.
also. Only Mk. 136 13 3 16 7 are wanting both the others For the earliest instance in which a passage is quoted
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 which now is to be found in our canonical Mt. (Epistle
corresponds to the actuality. But precisely for this reason the of Barnabas) see 89. It is not per-
statements regarding it are all the less conclusively shown to be missible to infer a date earlier than 70
derived from Peter personally.
A . D . either from the straightway
Whether it was original Mk. that arose in the manner which Mt. has retained from the 'little
described by Papias will be differently judged according Apocalypse' (see 1 1 1 , 1246) or from the other in-
to the various opinions that are held regarding that dicia adduced in § In Mt. 2 2 7 the. destruction
writing. No answer to a question of this sort, however, of Jerusalem is clearly presupposed as already past
can be of any real service to gospel criticism, for we no (see The church-conditions also, as well
longer possess original Mk. Mark have written a s the postponement of the parusia (see 136,
in Aramaic then he cannot be held to have been the point to a later date. It is not practicable
author of canonical Mk., which is certainly not a to separate these passages as later interpolations,
translation (see nor yet, in view of the LXX and thus gain for the Gospel as a whole the earlier
quotations which have passed over into all three gospels; date. They are much too numerous, and many
can he be held to have been the author of original Mk., of them -- as, for example, precisely - much
but only to have been the author of the source from too closely implicated with a tendency which pervades
the last-named writer drew. the entire work On the other hand, it is quite
The employment of various sources (amongst others, of open to us to regard some of them as interpolations :
or original Mk. the characteristic difference of the for example, 16 or the baptismal formula 28 or
quotations from the LXX and the original the appearance of Jesus to the women or also
the indefiniteness of the deter- chaps. Substantially, these are the leading pas-
minations of time and place (§§ sages on account of which many are disposed to bring
the incredibilities of the contents down the date of the entire gospel as late as to 130 A. D .
108, the introduction of later conditions T h e fact that it was used, as well as Mk. and Lk.,
as also the artificial arrangement by the author of the Fourth Gospel would not
and so forth, have long since led to the conclusion that forbid this late date (see J OHN , S ON OF Z EBEDEE,
for the authorship of the First Gospel the apostle Probably, however, its main contents must
Matthew must be given up. have been in existence at an earlier period if they were
All the more strenuously is the effort made to known to Lk. 127, and even the most of chaps.
preserve for Matthew the anthorship of the logia. is presupposed to have been in existence if it can be
From the contents it is clear that one must assign to shown that in 119 A . D . a final addition was introduced
the logia many things which no ear-witness can have into it. This has been suggested as regards the story of
heard from the mouth of Jesus. This is the case the Magi : a Syriac writing, ascribed to Eusebius of
even if only discourses (for examples, see 136 which was published by William Wright in
and also 150) are sought in the logia, or if it is
the Sacred Literature, 1866, pp.
assumed that the legalistic and Jewish-particularistic and discussed by and Hilgenfeld in
passages were first introduced in the course of a revision pp. pp. makes the statement,
If one derives most of the narratives also which can hardly have been invented, that this narrative,
from the logia, the considerations against their apostolic committed to writing in the interior of Persia, was in
origin already adduced in 148 became still more
cogent. That the apostle Matthew should liave been The heading of the whole tractate is, according to Nestle,
den Stern : wie und was
the author of a still older writing is not excluded. On den Stern und Joseph
this supposition the statement of Papias- that he wrote
1892
GOSPELS GOSPELS
during the episcopate of Xystus of Rome, Lk. makes a quite clear division : the eye-witnesses have
made search for, discovered, andwritten in the languageof handed down and that by word of mouth
no purpose would have been served by adding to
those who were interested in it (that is to say, in Greek). the further predicate ‘ministers of the word
As regards canonical Mk. we possess a datum for others have composed gospel writings; and
fixing its date only if we assume it to have been the seeks to excel these last by accurate research (or taking u p
the narrative from an earlier point) and by correct arrangement.
book that was by Mt. and Lk. That he himself had direct intercourse with is
find ourselves unable to do this therefore not very probable, and it is not at all expressed by the
it is open to us to suppose that it may word (1 ‘they delivered them unto us which from the begin-
have received its final form later than and Lk. It ning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word,’ for immedi-
ately before he speaks of ‘the things which have been fulfilled
is not, however, justifiable to find a proof of this in among us,’ a phrase by which he obviously cannot mean himself
the fact that in it designates the public appear- and his contemporaries, h ut only Christendom generally
ance of the Baptist as the beginning of the gospel of similarly therefore in Cp 37 64.
Jesus. Some scholars have detected here a silent polemic The discussion of the dates of the gospel yields, it
against those gospels which begin with the narratives will be seen, but few definite results. W e have
relating to the nativity of Jesus. The significant ately refrained from making use of
anceof the ‘straightway’ Mt. 1324 certain arguments which could be
certainly points clearly to the period after the more or less easily applied otherwise. All the more
destruction of Jerusalem. On Mk. see would we the proposition, that our uncertainty
If the companion of Paul, cannot have been on the chronological question by no means carries with
the author of Acts (see ACTS, 9 neither can he have it any uncertainty in the judgment we are to form of the
been the author of the Third Gospel. gospels themselves. The chronological question is in
That both works are from the same this instance a very subordinate one. Indeed, even if
pen may be regarded as quite certain. our gospels could be shown to have been written from
The weightiest evidences of the employment of 50 A . D . onwards, or even earlier, we should not be
Josephus by Lk. seen in Acts (see 16) yet under any necessity to withdraw our conclusions as to
tolerably many are found in the gospel also. I n that their contents we should, on the contrary, only
case the year will be the superior, and some- to say that the indubitable transformation in the original
where about the inferior, limit of the date of tradition had taken place much more rapidly than
its composition, since there must have been a considerable might have been ready to suppose. The credibility of
interval between the production of the gospel and that the gospel history cannot be established by an earlier
of Acts. The very precise description of the destruction dating of the gospels themselves in any higher degree
of Jerusalem in Lk. is in full accord than that in which it has already been shown to
with history and, in language, with Josephus. It cannot especially as we know that even in the lifetime of Jesus
exactly be pronounced absolutely impossible that it miracles of every sort were attributed to him in the most
should nevertheless have been written before 70 confident manner. as the transformation has de-
for a lively imagination acquainted with the localities parted so far from the genuine tradition, it is only in the
could hardly have presented them very differently. interest of a better understanding and of a reason-
Only, the prediction of the little Apocalypse b) able appreciation of the process that one should claim
which is still rightly interpreted in Mt. and Mk. in ac- for its working out a, considerable period of time.
cordance with Daniel (see DAN IEL, ii.) as referring to
the setting up of a foreign image in the temple has been By way of appendix a few words must be said here on
made by wrongly yet very in accordance the question, postponed from AP OC RYPHA 26, I ) to
with the expression to refer to the destruction this place, as to whether the gospel of
of Jerusalem Upon this event, he says, will the Hebrews is to be reckoned among
follow (v. 24) the times of the Gentiles 111) during the sources of the
which Jerusalem is to be trodden under foot. Not till ing to the church fathers this gospel was the Hebrew or
after these times are the signs in heaven to appear and Aramaic form of canonical Mt. If this were correct,
the Son of Man to come with clouds (vv. 25-27), and it would not ,have been necessary for Jerome to
not till this point does he promise to the followers of make .a separate translation of it. According to
Christ their redemption and the coming of the Nicholson (The Gospel according the Hebrews, ‘79)
of God (vv. Had Lk. written before the destruc- it was a later Hebrew edition of the gospel of Mt.,
tion of Jerusalem we have expected him to have issued after the Greek had already been published by
thought of this event as connected with the second Matthew himself. Since Lessing’s time 117) it has
coming of Jesus. That instead of this he should re- often regarded-especially in the Tiibingen school
present the judgment day (v. and the beginning of -as one of the sources, or even as the most ancient, or
the kingdom of God as being separated by so long an even as the only, source of our synoptics. Handmann,
interval is, ascomparedwith all prophecyand apocalyptic, again in 5
something quite new and admits of only one explanation identifies it with the logia. That it may have been,
-that the destruction of Jerusalem could at the time in some older form, one of the sources of the Synoptics
of writing be no longer regarded as a recent event. cannot be contradicted but neither can it be proved,
In his prologue Lk. distinguishes himself not only for we no longer possess the older form. Among the
from the eye-witnesses of the life of Jesus but also from fragments preserved to us there are ,only a few which
the many who before him had written comprehensive are not open to challenge on the score of their late date.
and from the number of these, he again seems Many on the other hand are unquestionably late legends
to exclude the eye-witnesses. James, the brother of Jesus, swore at the last
in Dan. (cp 9 27 1131) is simply a veiled ex- supper (where according to our evangelists he cannot
even have been present) to eat nothing till he should
pression for ‘Lord Zeus, altar have beheld Jesus after his resurrection Jesus accord-
(or was erected upon the altar of burnt-offering in ingly appeared in the first instance to him, brought
December B.C. (I Macc. 154 The Syriac Bible actually
gives in Macc. 6 in connection with this event as a bread, broke it, and gave it to him. Or, again, at the
rendering of the Greek word Thus Daniel had not desola- death of Jesus the superliminare or lintel of the temple
tion in his mind in the least. See A BOMINATI ON OF D ESOLATION . was broken. Or, Jesus is reported to have said : even
Further information as to similar veiled designations of heathen
deities is given in $5, n. 56. prehensive work in accordance with literary aims.
The verb (EV ‘set forth in order’) denotes (AV ‘declaration,’RV ‘narrative accordingly must also mean
andbecause, words ‘alsotome’ Lk. this, and not a mere statement about a particular occurrence,
applies it also to his own performance)the composition of a without pretension to literary art (cp
GOSPELS GOSPELS
now has my mother, the Holy Spirit, seized me by one employ, and partly according to the views they main-
of my hairs and borne me to the great mountain Tabor : tain.
and more of the like.
Mainly tendency-criticism.- (a) Mt., Mk. :
It is almost universally conceded that the fragments Krit. die 47
of the so-called gospel of the Ebionites can claim Gesch. ('67) ;
antiquity in a much less degree still than can the gospel i.
of the Hebrews to which it is related. (6) Mk., Lk. : Hilgenfeld, Die
(n) Other gospel- so- Evangelien, '54 ; from '58 onwards. Holsten, Die
Evangelien, '83 ; Die '85 ;
called logia of Jesus found at Oxyrhynchus, first pub - cp 125a.
lished by Grenfell and Hunt. Lk Mt. : Bruno Bauer, der Gesch.
These contain besides an (almost) verbatim repetition of der Evangelien,
Lk. 6 which go far beyond the Johannine theology, mar, Die Evangelien die Synopsis, 70;
and have absolutely nothing analogous to Marcus der '76
them in the canonical gospels. I t would be Schulze, '61, '86.
a great error to see in them a portion of the
gospel logia of Mt. But the hypothesis also, that Mainly, or entirely literary criticism.-(a) Mk Lk.
they are excerpts from the gospel of the Mt. : der '38. Pfleiderer,
Egyptians, has its strongest support only in '87.
the fact that according to accounts this gospel itself was (6) Schleiermacher die des ;
of an equally mixed character. Moreover the identification Stud.
cannot he made were it only for this realon-that we cannot cp
know whether these seven or eight sayings were excerpted Theory of two sources (Mk. and the logia): Weisse,
wholly from one hook or whether they were compiled from a Evangel. Gesch., '38 '56 (but see
variety of sources. in fact, the principle on which such a Wernle, Die synopt.
heterogeneous variety of sayings has been brought together is
quite obscure to us (cp 86). Original gospel of Philip, with the logia: Ewald, Die 3
'71
(6) 1900) (e) Original Mk. with the logia: Holtzmann, Die
has published a Coptic fragment which, amongst other '63 ; 1878, pp.
things, touches upon the scene in Gethsemane. Theol. from 125
I n character this is the same mixture of Synoptic and die evangel. Gesch., 64 ; Das
Johannine or even supra-Jobannine ideas as has been observed '86 Johannes Weiss u. pp.
in the Oxyrhynchus logia. Its derivation from the gospel ; pp.
of the Egyptians is just as questionable as is that of those Wiederkunftsrede in Meyer's
logia. I f then we read in it-what, according to the con- Beyschlag, pp.
nection, it can hardly he doubted, notwithstanding the frag- 1883, ; cp . Feine, '85-'88 ;
mentary character of the piece, we ought to read- that des Lk.,
the words 'The spirit is willing, hut the flesh is Apostolic logia : Bernhard Weiss,
weak, with reference' to himself and not with reference to pp. 1883, 1864, pp.
the disciples, if we should feel inclined to regard this a s 140; pp.
the more original we must not do so merely on 72 ; '76 in Komm.
account of the source in which we find it. '83, Mk. '85, (Mk. only),
The case is quite similar with the gospel accord- Theol. Stud. Weiss, ('97); also
ing to Peter (see P E TER). separately under the title, Das der
den Logia des C p above,
( d ) The fragment, first published by Bickell in the
Theol., 1885, pp. which has (g) Theory of two sources with borrowing from Mt. by Lk.
been dealt with by (amongst others) Harnack : Simon?, Hat der Evangelist
Untersuch. 54, pp. and Resch Stockmeyer des in
Theol. der 1884, pp. Wendt
Lehre '86. Soltau, der synopt.
This fragment contains in a somewhat divergent form the Wissensch., Combined
predictionof Jesus that all his disciples would he offended in with hypothesis of an original Mk.: Jacohsen, die
him and that Peter would deny mentioning also that the Evangelien, ' 8 3 ; 1886,
cock crowed twice it agrees most strongly with Mk. 14 26-30
but also with Mt. 2631 the words 'in this night since More complicated hypotheses : Wittichen
these words in Mk. do not occur in v. 27 hut only 30.
That we have here before us a pre-canonical form of the text ; pp.
cannot be proved with certainty from the divergences in in-
dividual words. A stronger argument is supplied hy the fact that Scholten, 68 (Germ. transl.,
69 Evangelium)
i n the present fragment v. of Mk. 32 of de de van der
wanting-a verse which has long been recognised as disturbing '73 (German translation of both, under title
the : I am risen again I will go before you Evangelium).
into Galilee. At the same time, we must not forget
may have been omitted preciselyfor this reason, if dealing English.- It may be well to notice that the
with a free excerpt. Neither does this fragment, then, supply efforts of recent English students have been
with an irrefragable the existence of written sources devoted to collecting and arranging the material for the
for our gospels.
( e ) The so-called that is to say, solution of the critical problems under consideration, as
a preliminary to the critical hypotheses which may,
sayings of his which are not met with in the gospels,
have been collected with great care by Kesch in unforced, suggest themselves in the future.
(a) Books helpful to students :-Rushbrooke's
u. Untersuch. 54 , '89. and Ahbott and Rushbrooke's Tradition of the
Resch's judgment of these his readiness t o recognise genuine ('84); A. Wright, of the Gospels('96)
sayings of Jesus preserved latest church fathers and and Luke's Sir J.
his employment of these for his Hebrew original gospel F. H.Woods in 2 ('go).
have, however, met with very just criticism in the same series Special treatises, etc. :-A. Wright, The Composition
(142) a t the hands of Ropes (Die die i n den the Gospels ('go), and New
nicht sind '96). At the The ed.
same time Ropes in accepting so many as io Matthew ('97); E. A. Abbott, A
as probably genuine has perhaps gone too far. A somewhat Guide Hebrew Scripture and The
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 Important articles :-E. A. art. 'Gospels' in
D, the extra-canonical as a whole will he found very Sanday in '91, '93, and art.
conveniently brought together. Gospels' in Smith's ; V. H. art. 'Gospels'
in Hastings' vol. Behb, art. 'Luke,'
Literature. In German. - For facility of refer- F.Salmond art. ' Mark,' ibid. J. V. Bartlett,
ence we group the present selection from the German 'Matthew.' W. C. Allen in and
literature on the problem
partly according to the methods they The following hooks hear upon the subject :-Westcott
Introduction t o the Study ('60 ; Salmon'
I t is applied in the Roman Missal and Breviary (see t o N T ('85) Plummer, on Luke
Office for Palm Sunday). P. w.
1896
GOSPELS
n. I,
7877
IAA .
9
9 128, 1864
2749, n. I, 1807
142, 1884
27 S 26. 1782
28 108, 1839
28 6 1782
28
19, 136, 1876
1842
1536, n. I, 1807
1884
16 27, 1783
138,
9
1777 138,
18 15-17, 136, 1876 16 n. 3, 1767
8. 138,
LUKE.
39,
1898