(Jbe ^
of Cbicatjo
THE THREE TRADITIONS
IN THE GOSPELS
AN ESSAY
BY THE SAME AUTHOR
The Resurrection and Other
Gospel Narratives and the
Narratives of the Virgin Birth
Crown 8vo., 5s. net.
' The book is a masterpiece of exegesis.'
The Guardian.
LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO. LTD.
LONDON NEW TORE TORONTO
BOMBAY CALCUTTA. MADBAS
THE THREE, TR ADITINS
IN
'
'ESSAY :; " "' ;
BY
W. LOCKTON, B.D.
VICE-PRINCIPAL AND LECTURER IN MATHEMATICS
WINCHESTER DIOCESAN TRAINING COLLEGE
LONGMANS, GEEEN AND CO. LTD.
39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON, B.C. 4
NEW YORK, TORONTO
BOMBAY, CALCUTTA AND MADRAS
1926
' .""* .'.*
* . . ".'
* *
C
Made in Great Britain
789569
PREFACE
THE essay which follows is an expansion of
a paper prepared for the Salisbury Clerical
Society. It is a continuation of the line of
argument put forward by the writer in an
article on ' The Origin of the Gospels,' which
appeared in the Church Quarterly Review in
July 1922, and in his essays on the Resur-
rection and the Virgin Birth, published in
1924. By all but a few critics his earlier
work was well received, but several, in spite
of the statement to the contrary in the preface
of the former book, seemed to think that the
theory of the priority of Luke would be useless
for the explanation of the gospels as a whole,
though for special reasons it might seem to
give more or less satisfactory results when
applied to the Resurrection narratives. Yet
the writer's conviction of the truth of the
hypothesis was reached not by the investi-
gation of a few passages only, but by an
examination of the gospels in their entirety,
vi PREFACE
every verse and every word, and its applica-
tion to the Resurrection stories was in-
tended only as a specially useful example of
what was possible on a much larger scale,
but quite impracticable because of the pro-
hibitive cost of printing. It is hoped that
the subject-matter of the present essay,
though by no means exhaustive, is at any
rate sufficiently wide and general to make a
repetition of this particular criticism quite
impossible. Whether the arguments carry
conviction or not, the unprejudiced reader
will see that it is possible to put forward an
explanation of the origin of the gospels quite
apart from the popular Mark-Q hypothesis,
which indeed, however modified, seems to
create more difficulties than it solves, and
that the writer's views on the Synoptic Prob-
lem are not merely the result of ignorance
and a rather superficial acquaintance with the
literature of the subject, as several critics
kindly suggested. Though ever ready to
learn from the researches of other students
English, American, French or German on
questions of Gospel origins as on others, the
writer is not content to take his views on
authority, but is audacious enough to think
for himself, and, whatever its faults, he claims
that the essay which follows is largely
PREFACE vii
original, and not merely a reshuffling of the
results of earlier researches with the dotting
of a few i's and the crossing of a few t's,
which by a surprising number of people seems
to be regarded as a sufficient basis for a new
book on the origin of the gospels. In some
directions it will be seen that the writer has
carried the argument a little further than in
the previous essays, and on one or two points,
not of primary importance, he has not
hesitated to modify his earlier conclusions
in the light of continued research.
Probably certain of the conclusions will
come as a surprise, perhaps even as a shock,
to some of his readers. They are in all cases
however the genuine results of the writer's
study and research, and in no detail is there
an attempt to bolster up opinions held on
other grounds. Some of the conclusions were
indeed as surprising to the writer when first
reached as they are likely to be to any of his
readers, but it is hoped that they will be
judged on their merits and not condemned
apart from the arguments as being only the
fantasies of an unknown author and unworthy
of serious consideration. Any reasonable
criticism he will gladly welcome.
The writer is conscious that the book will
be in many places by no means easy to read,
viii PREFACE
in part doubtless as a result of his own
literary incapacity, but in part because of the
nature of the problems discussed. Without
a synopsis of the gospels at hand for constant
reference much of it, he is afraid, will be
scarcely intelligible. Ideally the numerous
quotations from the New Testament and
Septuagint should have been given in the
original Greek, but the expense of printing
made it quite impracticable, and. even if
practicable, it would necessarily have limited
the number of possible readers to such small
dimensions as to be undesirable. The use,
where available, of a Greek synopsis, together
with the Greek New Testament and Septua-
gint, will however do much to remedy for
the more learned the defects of quotations in
English. As a rule quotations from the New
Testament and Apocrypha are taken from
the Revised Version, but occasionally for
purposes of the argument it was necessary
to give another translation. Old Testament
quotations are usually according to the
Septuagint, but sometimes it was desirable
to give a translation of the Hebrew, and then,
unless the argument seemed to require a
different rendering, the Revised Version is
quoted. The writer wishes to express his
thanks to the University Presses of Oxford
PREFACE ix
and Cambridge for permission kindly given
to use this version where suitable, and he
accepts entire responsibility for all deviations
from it.
W. LOCKTON.
WINCHESTER DIOCESAN TRAINING COLLEGE,
St. Matthew's Day, 1926.
CONTENTS
OHAPTEB PAQB
I. THE EXISTENCE or DIFFERENT TRA-
DITIONS . . . . . 1
II. THE THREE LINES OF TRADITION . 19
III. THE TRADITIONS OF PETER, JAMES,
AND JOHN ..... 42
IV. THE PRIMITIVE GOSPEL STORY . 73
V. SOME ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE HYPO-
THESIS ... . . .96
VI. THE ANOINTING OF JESUS . . 116
VII. THE LAST SUPPER .... 181
VIII. THE INSTITUTION OF THE EUCHARIST 149
IX. THE ARREST OF JESUS . . 172
X. IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE . 183
XI. THE DENIALS OF PETER . . . 230
XII. THE MOCKING IN THE PR^ITORIUM . 245
XIII. THE DEATH OF JESUS . . . 274
Kal rp rov vfkiov \eyofievp fjpepa iravrmv
Kara TroA-et? ^ a<ypov? uevovrcav CTTI TO avrb
crui/eXei/trt? ryiverai, /cal ra aTroiw^^ovev^ara
T&V aTToa-ToXwi/ ^ Ta ffvyypdfjifjiara
avaytvaxriceTai, ytte^pt?
JUSTIN MARTYR, Apologia I, Ixvii, 3.
THE THEEE TRADITIONS IN
THE GOSPELS
CHAPTER I
THE EXISTENCE OF DIFFERENT
TRADITIONS
IT is commonly agreed that the gospels are
compiled of material drawn from several
sources, which record different traditions with
regard to the life of Jesus, and that the three
Synoptic gospels, at any rate, cannot be
considered independent one of another. It
is not the primary purpose of this essay to
prove the priority or dependence of any of
the gospels, and it will deal rather with
traditions than with individual gospels. Yet
it may be well at the outset to give an in-
dication, without proof, of certain conclusions
with respect to the origin of the gospels,
which will receive continual confirmation as
the essay proceeds, though to set out all the
evidence would require a very large book.
2 THE EXISTENCE OF
Mark, there are reasons to believe, is a com-
pilation from three separate lines of tradi-
tion, two of which are used in Luke, generally
in an earlier stage of development, and
Matthew is an edited version of Mark with
the addition of other material, especially
from one of the primary traditions.
Luke says, for example : ' As it is written
in the book of the words of Isaiah the
prophet, The voice of one crying in the
wilderness, Make ye ready the way of the
Lord, Make his paths straight ' (iii. 4 ; cf .
Is. xl. 3). In quite another context we read :
4 This is he of whom it is written, Behold, I
send my messenger before thy face, Who shall
prepare thy way before thee ' (vii. 27 ; cf.
Mai. iii. 1). Mark gives a combination of
the two. 4 Even as it is written in Isaiah the
prophet, Behold, I send my messenger before
thy face, Who shall prepare thy way; The
voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make
ye ready the way of the Lord, Make his paths
straight ' (i. 2-3). We notice that a prophecy
of Malachi is attributed to Isaiah, one of the
somewhat numerous inaccuracies to be found
in the second gospel.
Again Luke says in two quite distinct
contexts : ' Then let them that are in Judaea
flee unto the mountains ; and let them that
DIFFERENT TRADITIONS 3
are in the midst of her depart out ; and let
not them that are in the country enter therein '
(xxi. 21). 'In that day, he which shall be
on the housetop, and his goods in the house,
let him not go down to take them away '
(xvii. 31). Mark conflates the two passages.
4 Then let them that are in Judaea flee unto
the mountains : and let him that is on the
housetop not go down, nor enter in, to take
anything out of his house ' (xiii. 14-15).
Two really contradictory traditions are thus
combined. Very many examples of similar
conflation might be quoted. Some we shall
have to discuss later in this essay.
The sequence, Luke, Mark, Matthew, shews
a continuous and frequently very striking
development of tradition. We may illus-
trate it by the accounts of the stone and
angels at the sepulchre. Luke says : ' And
they found the stone rolled away from the
tomb. And they entered in, and found not
the body of the Lord Jesus. And it came to
pass, while they were perplexed thereabout,
behold, two men stood by them in dazzling
apparel : and . . . they were affrighted, and
bowed down their faces to the earth ' (xxiv.
2-5). Mark says : ' And they were saying
among themselves, Who shall roll us away the
stone from the door of the tomb? and
4 THE EXISTENCE OF
looking up, they see that the stone is rolled
back : for it was exceeding great. And
entering into the tomb, they saw a young
man sitting on the right side, arrayed in a
white robe ; and they were amazed ' (xvi.
3-5). Matthew says : ' And behold, there
was a great earthquake ; for an angel of the
Lord descended from heaven, and came and
rolled away the stone, and sat upon it. His
appearance was as lightning, and his raiment
white as snow : and for fear of him the
watchers did quake, and became as dead
men ' (xxviii. 2-4). In the three stages the
story has changed almost beyond recognition.
Numerous instances of a similar character
might be adduced. Several we must quote
at a later point in the argument. Sometimes
the Synoptic gospels provide us with no fewer
than five different stages in the development
of a saying. In Luke xii. we read : ' And when
they bring you before the synagogues, and
the rulers, and the authorities . . . ' (xii. 11).
In Luke xxi. it has become, ' They shall lay
their hands on you, and shall persecute
you, delivering you up to the synagogues
and prisons, bringing you before kings and
governors for my name's sake. It shall turn
unto you for a testimony ' (xxi. 12-13). At
the other stages it will perhaps be sufficient
DIFFERENT TRADITIONS 5
to quote the equivalent of the last sentence,
which is absent from the earliest version of
the saying. In Matthew x. it has become,
' For a testimony to them and to the Gen-
tiles ' (x. 18). In Mark we read: 'For a
testimony unto them. And the gospel must
first be preached unto all the Gentiles ' (xiii.
9-10). In Matthew xxiv. we read ; c And this
gospel of the kingdom shall be preached
in the whole world for a testimony unto all
the Gentiles' (xxiv. 14). The growth of the
saying is most remarkable, and apart from
the intermediate stages it would be almost
impossible to recognise the connexion be-
tween the first and last versions of it.
A consideration of the various doublets
in the gospels will help us to distinguish the
different traditions. At the conclusion of
our Lord's explanation of the parable of the
sower we read in Luke : ' And no man, when
he hath lighted a lamp, covereth it with a
vessel, or putteth it under a bed; but
putteth it on a stand, that they which enter
in may see the light. For nothing is hid,
that shall not be made manifest ; nor any-
thing secret, that shall not be known and
come to light. Take heed therefore how ye
hear : for whosoever hath, to him shall be
given ; and whosoever hath not, from him
6 THE EXISTENCE OF
shall be taken away even that which he
thinketh he hath ' (viii. 16-18). Much of this
appears also elsewhere in Luke. * No man,
when he hath lighted a lamp, putteth it in
a cellar, neither under the bushel, but on
the stand, that they which enter in may see
the light ' (xi. 33). ' But there is nothing
covered up, that shall not be revealed :
and hid, that shall not be known ' (xii. 2).
1 1 say unto you, that unto every one that
hath shall be given ; but from him that hath
not, even that which he hath shall be taken
away from him ' (xix. 26). Only one sentence,
we notice, has no parallel elsewhere in the
gospel, 'Take heed therefore how ye hear,'
and this, we find, if we omit the passages
which appear also in another context, fits
on admirably at the end of the explanation
of the parable. We then read ; ' Now the
parable is this : The seed is the word of God.
And those by the way side are they that have
heard ; then cometh the devil, and taketh
away the word from their heart, that they
may not believe and be saved. And those
on the rock are they which, when they have
heard, receive the word with joy ; and these
have no root, which for a while believe, and
in time of temptation fall away. And that
which fell among the thorns, these are they
DIFFERENT TRADITIONS 7
that have heard, and as they go on their way
they are choked with cares and riches and
pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to
perfection. And that in the good ground,
these are such as in an honest and good
heart, having heard the word, hold it fast,
and bring forth fruit with patience. Take
heed therefore how ye hear' (viii. 11-15,
18). We cannot well doubt that this is a
more original form of the passage. Mark has
changed this final warning so as to read,
' Take heed what ye hear ' (iv. 24), the
connexion with the explanation of the parable
thus entirely disappearing. Mark has also
added further interpolations, ' If any man
hath ears to hear, let him hear. Ajid he
saith unto them . . . With what measure
ye mete it shall be measured unto you:
and more shall be given unto you' (iv.
23-24), drawn from other contexts in
Luke. c He that hath ears to hear, let him
hear ' (xiv. 35 ; cf . viii. 8), ' For with what
measure ye mete it shall be measured to you
again ' (vi. 38), ' And these things shall be
added unto you ' (xii. 31). A comparison of
Mark with Luke, we see, shews the process of
interpolation from one tradition in the other,
which had begun in Luke, still at work.
Another example may be found in the
8 THE EXISTENCE OF
collection of sayings which follows our Lord's
first prediction of His passion and resurrec-
tion. We read in Luke : c And he said unto
all, If any man would come after me, let him
deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and
follow me. For whosoever would save his life
shall lose it ; but whosoever shall lose his life
for my sake, the same shall save it. For what
is a man profited, if he gain the whole world,
and lose or forfeit his own self ? For who-
soever shall be ashamed of me and of my
words, of him shall the Son of man be
ashamed, when he cometh in his own glory,
and the glory of the Father, and of the holy
angels' (ix. 23-26). We note parallels in
other contexts in Luke : ' Whosoever doth not
bear his own cross, and come after me, cannot
be my disciple. , , . So therefore whosoever
he be of you that renounceth not all that he
hath, he cannot be my disciple ' (xiv. 27, 33),
* Whosoever shall seek to gain his life shall
lose it : but whosoever shall lose his life shall
preserve it ' (xvii. 33), ' And I say unto you,
Every one who shall confess me before men,
him shall the Son of man also confess before
the angels of God : but he that denieth me
in the presence of men shall be denied in the
presence of the angels of God ' (xii. 8-9).
The hand of an editor is apparent in the
DIFFERENT TRADITIONS 9
sayings as they appear in Luke ix. 23-26,
but only one verse is without a parallel
elsewhere in the gospel. This verse was
evidently suggested by a saying in the Apoca-
lypse of Baruch, ' For what then have men
lost their life ? . . . For . . . they denied the
world ' (li. 15-16), 1 and so it differs from the
other verses of the collection of sayings only
in its source. If we omit the verses which
have parallels elsewhere, what is left makes
excellent sense, the proper meaning of the
verse which follows coming out for the first
time. ' But he charged them, and com-
manded them to tell this to no man ; saying,
The Son of man must suffer many things,
and be rejected of the elders and chief priests
and scribes, and be killed, and the third day
be raised up. And I tell you of a truth,
There be some of them that stand here, which
shall in no wise taste of death, till they see
the kingdom of God ' (ix. 21-22, 27). It
seems certain that we have here a more
original version of the saying, as it stood
before interpolation. Mark repeats the same
interpolated collection of sayings with a few
editorial changes, omitting ' daily ' and ' his
own glory,' and adding c and the gospel's *
and 'in this adulterous and sinful generation,'
1 Eng. trans. Charles (S.P.C.K.).
10 THE EXISTENCE OF
the chief alteration being that he continues
the excerpt from the Apocalypse of Baruch in
a more exact and fuller form, ' For what should
a man give in exchange for his soul ? ' (viii. 37),
4 And for what have those who were on the
earth exchanged their soul ? ' (li. 15). Again
a comparison of Mark and Luke shews the
process of interpolation at work.
The most important example of develop-
ment by accretion, and the influence of one
tradition upon another is to be found in
the great apocalyptic discourse, which to
the original nucleus of Luke xxi. adds the
apocalyptic discourse of Luke xvii. modified
and expanded by sayings from the Old
Testament and elsewhere almost beyond
recognition.' To trace out the equivalence of
the two discourses is far too long to attempt
here, 1 but the result, which enables us to
identify the original form of the narrative,
in Luke xxi., is particularly interesting.
4 And as some spake of the temple, how it
was adorned with goodly stones and offerings,
he said, As for these things which ye
behold, the days will come, in which there
shall not be left here one stone upon another,
that shall not be thrown down. And they
asked him, saying, Master, when therefore
1 See The Parousia by the present writer, in preparation.
DIFFERENT TRADITIONS 11
shall these things be ? and what shall be the
sign when these things are about to come to
pass ? And he said, When ye see Jerusalem
compassed with armies, then know that her
desolation is at hand. And he spake to them
a parable : Behold the fig tree, and all the
trees : when they now shoot forth, ye see it
and know of your own selves that the summer
is now nigh. Even so ye also, when ye see
these things coming to pass, know ye that
the kingdom of God is nigh ' (xxi. 5-8, 20,
29-31). Luke combines the original in-
cident of chapter xxi. with a developed
version of the apocalyptic discourse of
chapter xvii. Mark conflates the narrative
thus compiled with certain features of the
same apocalyptic discourse in a less developed
form, while Matthew goes still further and
combines Mark's narrative with large portions
of the same discourse in practically its
original text, with the result that at least
one saying of our Lord appears in Matthew
in three different versions (Luke xvii. 23 =
Matt. xxiv. 5 = xxiv. 23 = xxiv. 26), as a
consequence of three successive interpolations
in a context which properly contains none of
them.
So far we have illustrated the influence
of one line of tradition upon another ex-
12 THE EXISTENCE OF
clusively from Luke. Mark however supplies
us with many examples of the same thing.
The story of the visit of our Lord's relatives
is particularly interesting in this way, also
because it provides an instance of Mark
retaining material belonging to Luke's
primary tradition which Luke himself has
discarded without giving the equivalent from
his second line of tradition. Into the middle
of the narrative the evangelist has inter-
polated the saying about Satan casting out
Satan (Mark iii. 22b-27 = Luke xi. 15, 17-18a,
21-22), and also the saying about blasphemy
against the Holy Ghost (Mark iii. 28-29 =
Luke xii. 10). The addition of the former
was evidently suggested by the similarity of
the accusations, ' He hath Beelzebub,' and
' By the prince of the devils casteth he out
devils,' and that of the latter by the blas-
phemy of saying ' He hath Beelzebub,' the
evangelist himself giving this reason for it,
c because they said, He hath an unclean
spirit,' adapting our Lord's own words as
given in Luke, ' because ye say that I cast
out devils by Beelzebub.' Omitting the in-
terpolations we read : ' And he cometh into a
house. And the multitude cometh together
again, so that they could not so much as eat
bread. And when his friends heard it, they
DIFFERENT TRADITIONS 13
went out to lay hold on him : for people
said, He is beside himself. And the scribes
which came down from Jerusalem said, He
hath Beelzebub. And there come his mother
and his brethren ; and, standing without, they
sent unto him, calling him ' (iii. 19-22a, 31).
It is curious to notice how Matthew con-
tinues the process of interpolation, inserting
Luke's version of the saying about blasphemy
against the Holy Ghost immediately after the
version drawn from Mark, thus producing a
doublet in two successive verses (xii. 31-32).
A list of all the passages where Mark
augments one tradition by material taken
from the other would be quite lengthy, but
it may be drawn up without much difficulty
by noticing where matter found in Mark
appears in Luke, and in particular where
statements or sayings found in combination
in the former are widely separated in the
latter, though caution is necessary, for some-
times passages belonging to the same, not to
a different line of tradition, are conflated in
the second gospel. One of the most striking
instances of the combination of different
traditions is the insertion of the incident of
the lawyer's question at the end of the
account of the Sadducees' question about
the woman with seven husbands. We read in
14 THE EXISTENCE OF
Luke : ' And certain of the scribes answering
said, Master, thou hast well said. For they
durst not any more ask him any question '
(xx. 39-40). In quite another context we
read : ' And behold, a certain lawyer stood
up and tempted him, saying, Master, what
shall I do to inherit eternal life ? And he
said unto him, What is written in the law ?
how readest thou ? And he answering said,
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all
thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with
all thy strength, and with all thy mind ; and
thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto
him, Thou hast answered right : this dp,
and thou shalt live ' (x. 25-28). In Mark we
have a palpable combination of the two.
'And one of the scribes came, and heard
them questioning together, and knowing that
he had answered them well, asked him, What
commandment is the first of all ? Jesus
answered, The first is, Hear, O Israel ; The
Lord our God, the Lord is one : and thou
shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy
mind, and with all thy strength. The second
is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself. There is none other commandment
greater than these. And the scribe said unto
him, Of a truth, Master, thou hast well said
DIFFERENT TRADITIONS 15
that he is one ; and there is none other but
he : and to love him with all the heart, and
with all the understanding, and with all the
strength, and to love his neighbour as himself,
is much more than all whole burnt offerings
and sacrifices. And when Jesus saw that he
answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou
art not far from the kingdom of God. And
no man after that durst ask him any question'
(xii. 28-34). It is surely obvious that the
Judaised narrative of Mark is secondary, and
that the two commandments ought not
properly to be ascribed to our Lord at all as
commandments of the gospel. He merely
assented to the lawyer's statement that they
are an excellent summary of the law. We
notice that Matthew makes the interpolation
still greater, including within it the incident
of our Lord's question about the Son of
David, and concluding 4 Neither durst any
man from that day forth ask him any more
questions ' (xxii. 46), words used by Mark after
the question of the scribe, but in Luke after
the question of the Sadducees.
It seems plain that we have in Luke, but
also in Mark and Matthew, two distinct
traditions, and that one is constantly being
drawn upon for interpretative additions to
the other. Sometimes the two lines of
16 THE EXISTENCE OF
tradition included different accounts of the
same event, and in a few instances both are
given in Luke ; for example the mission of
the seventy (x. 1-12) would appear to be
another account of the mission of the twelve
(ix. 1-5). Not infrequently the two traditions
manifest themselves by the appearance of
different accounts of the same incident in
different gospels. We notice two quite dis-
tinct accounts of the work of John the Baptist
(Mark i. 4-6 ; Luke iii. 1-17), though one
has been augmented from the other (Mark i.
2-3 *= Luke iii. 4 with vii. 27 ; Mark i. 7-8 =
Luke iii. 16), Matthew making a further
combination of the narratives of Mark and
Luke (Matt. iii. 4, 5a, 6 = Mark i. 6, 5 ;
Matt. iii. 5b = Luke iii. 3a ; Matt. iii. 7-10 ==
Luke iii. 7-9 ; Matt. iii. 11 = Luke iii. 16 =
Mark i. 7-8 ; Matt. iii. 12 = Luke iii. 17).
Similarly we have two accounts of our Lord's
temptation (Mark i. 12-13 ; Luke iv. 1-13),
Matthew again combining the narratives of
Mark and Luke (Matt. iv. l-2a = Mark i.
12-13a = Luke iv. l-2a ; Matt. iv. 2b-lla =
Luke iv. 2b-4, 9-12, 5-8, 13 ; Matt. iv. lib =
Mark i. 13b). Luke has an account of the
call of Peter with James and John (v. 1-11),
but Mark of Peter and Andrew, and then of
James and John (i. 16-20), each of these
DIFFERENT TRADITIONS 17
narratives being modelled on that of the call
of Levi (Luke v. 27-28 = Markii. 13-14), and
so apparently drawn from the same source,
Matthew (iv. 18-22) repeating Mark. Luke
again gives one account of our Lord's visit
to Nazareth (iv. 16-30), but Mark a shorter
and largely different account (vi. l-6a),
Matthew (xiii. 53-58) again reproducing Mark.
Luke also gives one account of the prediction
of Peter's denial (xxii. 31-34), but Mark
(xiv. 27-31), followed by Matthew (xxvi.
31-35), another. Various other passages in
Luke and Mark of smaller importance,
parallel in substance yet shewing no signs
of direct literary connexion, might also be
quoted.
Mark, we see, frequently combines elements
of the two traditions in Luke, sometimes he
gives an account of an incident according
to one tradition only where Luke gives the
accounts from each of the two traditions, and
sometimes he gives the story according to one
tradition but Luke from another. It seems
therefore not unreasonable to suppose that
sometimes elsewhere, particularly when ex-
panding Luke, he is utilising material from
the source of the second line of tradition in
Luke even though the particular incident or
saying does, not appear in that portion of the
c
18 DIFFERENT TRADITIONS
tradition incorporated in the third gospel.
Mark nearly always expands Luke, but fre-
quently the expansion is of such a character
that it cannot adequately be explained as the
result of merely interpretative or editorial
addition. New information is often apparent.
In some cases, where the second tradition has
survived, the source of this material, as we
have seen, is obvious, and there seems no
reason to postulate a different origin in cases
where Luke has not thought fit to record it.
We conclude therefore that Mark is a com-
bination or conflation of two chief traditions,
one of which provides the main outline of
Luke, the other being utilised in a less degree
though still largely. Luke as a rule makes
a choice between different accounts of the
same incident, or at any rate keeps them
separate, whereas Mark combines the two
into one narrative.
CHAPTER II
THE THREE LINES OF TRADITION
WE now turn to a consideration of the section
of Mark, vi. 45 to viii. 26, which is not
recorded in Luke, or in the case of a few
passages in a different context. First of all
we must examine the story of the feeding of
the four thousand. We notice at once an
extraordinary resemblance between this nar-
rative and that of the feeding of the five
thousand, and only if we consider the accounts
of the feeding of the five thousand as well as
those of the feeding of the four thousand can
we find a solution of the problem involved.
If we compare the accounts of the feeding
of the five thousand as given in Mark (vi.
30-44) and Luke (ix. 10-17) we notice that
to a large extent they are identical, 1 as indeed
we should expect from what we find in other
parts of the two gospels. It will be useful to
1 In this and later comparisons it has not, as a rule, been
thought worth while to draw attention to the cases where
different Greek words are represented by the same word in
English, the meaning being the same. See a Greek synopsis.
20 THE THREE LINES
set out the points of agreement between the
two. We note : ' And the apostles . . . told
him all things, whatsoever they had done,'
'And the apostles . . . declared unto him what-
soever things they had done ' ; * And they went
away . . . apart,' ' And he took them . . .
apart ' ; ' and many knew it,' ' But the
multitudes knew it ' ; 'a great multitude,'
' the multitudes ' ; ' his disciples came unto
him, and said,' 4i and the twelve came, and
said unto him ' ; 4 send them away,' ' Send
the multitude away ' ; * that they may go
away into the country and villages round
about,' 'that they may go into the villages
and country round about'; ' But he . . .
said unto them, Give ye them to eat. And
they say unto him,' ' But he said unto them,
Give ye them to eat. And they said ' ;
' How many loaves . . . Five, and two fishes,'
' five loaves and two fishes ' ; ' And he com-
manded them that all should sit down,'
' And they . . . made them all sit down ' ;
4 by fifties,' ' about fifty each ' ; ' And he took
the five loaves and the two fishes, and looking
up to heaven, he blessed, and brake the
loaves ; and he gave to the disciples to set
before them,' ' And he took the five loaves
and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven,
he blessed them, and brake ; and gave to the
OF TRADITION 21
disciples to set before the multitude ' ; c And
they did all eat, and were filled, 5 ' And they
did eat, and were all filled ' ; ' And they took
up broken pieces, twelve basketfuls,' ' and
there was taken up ... of broken pieces,
twelve baskets ' ; ' And they . . . were five
thousand men,' ' For they were about five
thousand men.'
A comparison of Mark's two stories of the
feeding of the five thousand (vi. 34-45) and
of the feeding of the four thousand (viii. 1-10)
likewise shews much verbal agreement. We
notice in particular ' a great multitude,' ' a
great multitude ' ; 'he had compassion on
them, because they ...,''! have compassion
on the multitude, because they . . . ' ; 4 And
. . . his disciples came unto him, and said,'
' And his disciples answered him ' ; ' The
place is desert,' ' in a desert place ' ; ' send
them away,' ' if I send them away ' ; ; And
he saith unto them, How many loaves have
ye ? ... And . . . they say, Five,' * And
he asked them, How many loaves have ye ?
And they said, Seven J ; ' And he commanded
them that all should sit down . . . upon
the green grass,' ' And he commandeth the
multitude to sit down on the ground ' ;
* And he took the five loaves,' ' and he took
the seven loaves ' ; ' and he brake the loaves ;
22 THE THREE LINES
and he gave to the disciples to set before
them, 5 ' he brake, and gave to his disciples,
to set before them ' ; ' And they did all eat,
and were filled,' ' And they did eat, and were
filled ' ; ' And they took up broken pieces,'
' and they took up, of broken pieces ' ; ' And
they . . . were five thousand men,' 4 And
they were about four thousand ' ; ' And
straightway he constrained his disciples to
enter into the boat,' c And straightway he
entered into the boat with his disciples ' ;
' while he himself sendeth the multitude
away,' ' and he sent them away.'
Giving full weight to these points of agree-
ment, we can hardly avoid the conclusion
that Mark's account of the feeding of the
five thousand is a conflation of the account
of the same miracle as preserved in Luke,
and of the similar story of the feeding of the
four thousand given in another context in
Mark. If so, in view of the fact that Mark
is largely a combination of the two traditions
incorporated in Luke, the latter account
would seem to belong to the same line of
tradition as that to which we have assigned
Luke's account of the visit to Nazareth, the
mission of the seventy and other incidents
and sayings in Luke, as well as some found
elsewhere in Mark. The appearance of the
OF TRADITION 23
incident of the asking for a sign in this section
of Mark (viii. 11-12), and in the second
tradition recorded in Luke (xi. 16, 29-30)
seems to put the matter almost beyond
question. It appears to be by no means
improbable therefore that other material
besides the incidents of the feeding of the
multitude and the request for a sign recorded
in the section of Mark not represented in
Luke, belongs to the same tradition, which
is given, apparently, by no means in its
entirety in Luke, allowance of course being
made in each case for editorial modification of
phraseology to suit the evangelist's own taste.
Yet a conflation of the story of the
feeding of the five thousand as given in Luke
with the story of the feeding of the four
thousand in Mark, does not fully explain all
the features of Mark's account of the feeding
of the five thousand. The fourth gospel also
has a description of the miracle (vi. 1-17), and
Mark's account (vi. 32-45) has much in
common with this. We note in particular,
' And they went away in the boat,' ' Jesus
went away to the other side of the sea ' ;
' a great multitude,' ' a great multitude ' ;
4 his disciples came unto him, and said,' ' One
of his disciples . . . saith unto him'; 'and
buy themselves something they may eat,'
24 THE THREE LINES
1 are we to buy bread that these may eat ' ;
' he answered and said unto them,' ' Philip
answered him ' ; ' two hundred pennyworth
of bread,' ' Two hundred pennyworth of
bread'; 'How many loaves have ye?'
4 which hath five . . . loaves ' ; 4 Five, and
two fishes,' ' five barley loaves, and two
fishes ' ; ' upon the green grass,' ' there was
much grass ' ; ' And they sat down,' ' the men
sat down ' ; ' And he took the five loaves,'
4 Jesus . . . took the loaves ' ; 4 And they
took up broken pieces, twelve basketfuls,'
4 So they . . . filled twelve baskets with
broken pieces ' ; ' five thousand men,' 4 the
men ... in number about five thousand';
4 And ... he constrained his disciples to
enter into the boat,' 4 And ... his disciples
. . . entered into a boat'; 4 unto the other
side,' 4 to the other side of the sea.' The
similarity of the phraseology in so many
details, and particularly the mention of the
4 two hundred pennyworth of bread ' and the
' grass ' in both narratives, suggests a literary
connexion, and that Mark is conflating not
only the accounts of the feeding of the five
thousand as given in Luke, and of the four
thousand given elsewhere in Mark, but also
the account of the feeding of the five thousand
in John.
OF TRADITION 25
After the stories of the miraculous feeding
both of the five thousand and of the four thou-
sand we are told of a voyage across the lake.
In the case of the feeding of the four thousand
we read also of a second outward journey.
In Mark's description of this later voyage we
read : ' Do ye not yet perceive, neither under-
stand ? have ye your heart hardened ? . . .
When I brake the five loaves among the five
thousand, how many baskets full of broken
pieces took ye up ' (viii. 17, 19), ' And they
come unto Bethsaida ' (viii. 22). In the
description of the return journey after the
feeding of the five thousand we note, 4 to
go ... to Bethsaida ' (vi. 45), ' for they
understood not concerning the loaves, but
their heart was hardened' (vi. 52). Details
belonging properly to the later voyage, we
notice, have been inserted into the description
of the backward journey regardless of the
geographical fact that c to go ... unto the
other side to Bethsaida ' (vi. 45) contra-
dicts the later statement that c when they had
crossed over, they came to the land unto
Gennesaret ' (vi. 53). We notice also other
points of agreement between the two sections
of Mark. ' And straightway he constrained
his disciples to enter into the boat,' 'And
straightway he entered into the boat with
26 THE THREE LINES
his disciples ' ; 'to enter into the boat, and
to go ... unto the other side,' ' entering
into the boat departed to the other side ' ;
' he himself sendeth the multitude away, 5
' he sent them away ' ; * And . . . they came
to the land unto Gennesaret,' ' and came into
the parts of Dalmanutha.' It seems to
emerge that the description of the voyage
after the feeding of the five thousand in
Mark is a conflation of the accounts of the
two voyages, the backward and outward jour-
neys, after the feeding of the four thousand.
Luke says that before the feeding of the five
thousand Jesus ' withdrew apart to a city
called Bethsaida ' (ix. 10), which agrees with
John's statement that ' Jesus went away to
the other side of the sea of Galilee ' (vi. 1),
and with what we are told in Mark was the
result of the second crossing of the lake after
the miracle, that 'they come unto Bethsaida '
(viii. 22). Mark omits Luke's statement that
the journey before the miracle was ' to a city
called Bethsaida,' because of his inaccurate
statement later, the result of combining the
backward and outward voyages across the
lake, that immediately after the feeding of the
multitude they returned ' unto the other side
to Bethsaida.' The problem afforded by the
discrepancy between Mark and John is thus,
OF TRADITION 27
it would seem, completely solved. It is
noteworthy that the statements that the
voyage was ' to Bethsaida ' (vi. 45), and
that the disciples 'understood not' because
'their heart was hardened' (vi. 52), are absent
from Matthew.
It will be useful to compare the two
accounts of the second and fourth gospel of
the voyage after the feeding of the five
thousand. In Mark we read : ' And straight-
way he constrained his disciples to enter into
the boat, and to go before him unto the other
side to Bethsaida, while he himself sendeth
the multitude away. And after he had taken
leave of them, he departed into the mountain
to pray. And when even was come, the boat
was in the midst of the sea, and he alone on
the land. And seeing them distressed in
rowing, for the wind was contrary unto them,
about the fourth watch of the night he
cometh unto them, walking on the sea ; and
he would have passed by them : but they,
when they saw him walking on the sea, sup-
posed that it was an apparition, and cried out:
for they all saw him, and were troubled. But
he straightway spake with them, and saith unto
them, Be of good cheer : it is I; be not afraid.
And he went up unto them into the boat ;
and the wind ceased : and they were sore
28 THE THREE LINES
amazed in themselves ; for they understood
not concerning the loaves, but their heart was
hardened. And when they had crossed over,
they came to the land unto Gennesaret, and
moored to the shore ' (vi. 45-53). In John
we read : ' Jesus therefore ... withdrew
again into the mountain himself alone. And
when evening came, his disciples went down
unto the sea ; and they entered into a boat,
and were going over the sea unto Capernaum.
And it was now dark, and Jesus had not yet
come to them. And the sea was rising by
reason of a great wind that blew. When
therefore they had rowed about five and
twenty or thirty furlongs, they behold Jesus
walking on the sea, and drawing nigh unto
the boat : and they were afraid. But he
saith unto them, It is I ; be not afraid.
They were willing therefore to receive him
into the boat : and straightway the boat was
at the land whither they were going ' (vi.
15-21).
Removing the elements which are drawn
from the accounts of the two voyages after
the feeding of the four thousand, which the
evangelist has conflated, we notice how closely
the rest of the story in Mark agrees with
what we find in John, the two narratives
being to a large extent verbally identical.
OF TRADITION 29
The differences are easily accounted for, and
in some cases are particularly interesting.
* Constrained ' is a Lukan word (xiv. 23 ; cf .
Acts xxvi. 11, xxviii. 19), and may have
been suggested by its use in the third gospel,
being found otherwise only in this context
in Matthew (xiv. 22) in the gospels. ' To go
before ' is a favourite word of Mark, being
used five times (vi. 45, x. 32, xi. 9, xiv. 28,
xvi, 7), though only once in Luke (xviii. 39).
To c take leave ' is Lukan (ix. 61, xiv. 33 ;
Acts xviii. 18, 21), appearing nowhere else in
Mark and not at all in Matthew or John, so
that it may have been suggested by the third
gospel, if a source is desired. ' He departed
into the mountain to pray ' agrees with John
in the words ' into the mountain.' The
statement as a whole is particularly Lukan.
4 He went out into the mountain to pray '
(vi. 12), * He went up into the mountain to
pray ' (ix. 28), similar statements with the
verb in the infinitive appearing also elsewhere
(xviii. 10 ; Acts x. 9), though the form of
words appears only in this context in the
other Synoptic gospels (Mark vi. 46 ; Matt,
xiv. 23). The phrases ' distressed [tormented]
in the rowing [driving],' ' that it was an
apparition ' seem to be suggested by a de-
scription of the plagues on the Egyptians in
30 THE THREE LINES
the book of Wisdom, ' How their enemies
were tormented ' (xvi. 4), ' They were vexed
[driven] with signs of apparitions ' (xvii. 15).
We notice that in Matthew (xiv. 24, 26) the
reference to the ' rowing ' or ' driving ' has
disappeared, while the words, 'It is an
apparition,' are put into the mouths of the
disciples. ' The wind was contrary ' is not
found in any other context in the gospels,
but in the plural it appears in Acts, ; The
winds were contrary' (xxvii. 4), so that it
was apparently a familiar expression (cf.
Is. xvii. 13 ; Ecclus. xxii. 18). ' About the
fourth watch of the night he cometh towards
them . . . and he would have come to them '
is connected with 'Jesus had not yet come to-
wards them . . . they behold Jesus . . . drawing
nigh ' of John, but the phraseology seems in-
fluenced by a passage in Luke, ' He shall come
[to them] and serve them. And if he shall
come in the second watch, and if in the third . . .
happy are they ' (xii. 37-38). As they were
not ' happy ' but ' troubled,' it could not have
been in the second or third but must have been
6 about the fourth watch of the night,' though
the evangelist had only just stated that they
were already ' in the midst of the sea ' ' when
even was come,' and John says that they set
out ' when evening came,' even before 4 it
OF TRADITION 31
was now dark. 5 ' They cried out ' is peculiar
to Luke (iv. 33, viii. 28, xxiii. 18) and Mark
(i. 23, vi. 49), occurring nowhere else in the
New Testament. As the first of Mark's
examples is derived from the tradition given
in Luke, it is not improbable that the second
is due to the same influence. ' Straightway '
is characteristic of Mark, where it appears no
fewer than forty times, though only seven
times in Matthew, three times in John, once
in Luke, and once in Acts, but nowhere else in
the New Testament. ' He spake with them '
is a combination of phraseology common in
Mark. *Be of good cheer, I . . .' is found
not only in the parallel passage in Matthew
(xiv. 27), but also in John (xvi. 33). In the
singular the verb appears once in Mark
(x. 49), and twice in Matthew (ix. 2, 22),
and once in Acts (xxiii. 11). * The wind
ceased ' occurs also earlier in Mark (iv. 39),
and in the present context in Matthew (xiv.
32), but nowhere else in the New Testament.
'They were amazed' is a favourite expression
of Mark (ii. 12, iii. 21, v. 42, vi. 51), and also
of Luke (ii. 47, viii. 56, xxiv. 22 ; Acts ii. 7,
12, viii. 9, 11, 13, ix. 21, x. 45, xii. 16),
occurring elsewhere in the New Testament
only once in Matthew (xii. 23) and once in
the second epistle to the Corinthians (v. 13).
32 THE THREE LINES
4 They had crossed over ' is a word already
used in Mark (v. 21). It occurs once in
Luke(xvi. 26), once in Acts (xxi. 2), and twice
in Matthew (ix. 1, xiv. 34), and except in
Luke is always used of crossing the sea in a
boat. ' They moored to the shore ' is a
word found nowhere else in biblical Greek,
in either the New Testament or Septuagint.
Our examination of the words and phrases
in Mark's description of the voyage across
the lake not found in John has shewn that
none of them postulates another source. We
have noticed the influence of the Septuagint,
of passages in other contexts in Luke, and
also of phraseology and even definite state-
ments which appear elsewhere in Mark. All
this suggests the hand of an editor but
nothing more. We conclude then that Mark's
account of the voyage across the lake after
the feeding of the five thousand is in part a
conflation of the accounts of the two voyages,
backward and again outward, after the
feeding of the four thousand, likewise re-
corded in the present text of Mark, and in
part of an edited and developed version of
John's account of the same voyage. The
phraseology of Mark's story of the feeding of
the five thousand suggested what seems now
to have been proved almost beyond question
OF TRADITION 33
that, in addition to material drawn from the
two lines of tradition utilised by Luke, Mark
has also used the tradition recorded in the
fourth gospel. This conclusion is confirmed
if we examine the various passages in the
gospel where Mark has language in common
with John, for generally where Mark agrees
with John Luke has nothing, shewing that
Mark has added matter from the Johannine
tradition to the traditions recorded in Luke
which form the basis of his gospel. We must
examine some of these passages later. If it
be correct that Mark used, even in a minor
degree, the tradition recorded in the fourth
gospel, it is plain that this tradition, whether
expanded later or not, must have had its
origin at a date earlier than Mark, and indeed,
to judge from the way in which it is used in
the second gospel, must have already existed as
a definite body of tradition, if not in writing.
It seems clear that the conflation of the
three traditions which we find in the bulk of
Mark is not the work of the final editor of the
gospel, but must have been taken over by
him with the material which had come into
his hands. Otherwise he would hardly have
given the story of the feeding of the four
thousand without realising that he had
already described the same event as a feeding
34 THE THREE LINES
of the five thousand, and for his description
had borrowed part of his phraseology from
this selfsame narrative of the feeding of the
four thousand. We note that this large
section of Mark not represented in Luke is
not an interpretative addition to one tradition
from another, like so many of the interpola-
tions in Mark compared with Luke, but is a
genuine piece of descriptive narrative in its
proper place. According to Luke, Jesus
crossed the lake to Bethsaida, and in the
neighbourhood of this city the feeding of the
five thousand took place. We are then given
the story of Peter's confession. According to
Mark, after the feeding of the four thousand
Jesus crossed the lake to Dalmanutha, and
then back again to Bethsaida, after which
we are told of Peter's confession. In the
parallel account in Mark telling of the feeding
of the five thousand after the miracle there
is a voyage to Bethsaida, which yet brings
our Lord to Gennesaret, through a conflation,
as we have seen, of two voyages in different
directions. Clearly the account of Peter's
confession ought to follow. Mark, or the
final editor of the second gospel, evidently
had before him two documents, that which
is a conflation of three distinct lines of tra-
dition, and one of these traditions, that which
OF TRADITION 35
Luke uses to augment the tradition which
provides the main outline of his gospel, in
its original form. The conflated narrative
presumably contained none of the material
which we now find between Mark vii. 1 and
viii. 26, but proceeded from Mark vi. 56 to
viii. 27 at once. The insertion was evidently
made by the final editor because he found it
in one of his two sources before the account
of Peter's confession and thought it would be
a valuable addition to the other source at
that point, failing however to recognise that
one of his two sources had already used
elements of the other, so that his interpolation
involved a repetition of much that he had
already utilised in a slightly different form,
in particular a repetition of the story of the
feeding of the multitude and the crossing of
the lake which followed.
Yet the inserted passage, Mark vii. 1 to
viii. 26, is itself not without interpolations.
In the account of the second voyage to
Bethsaida we read : ' And he charged them,
saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of
the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod '
(viii. 15). It is clearly an interpretative
addition from another context in the same
tradition recorded in Luke, ' He began to say
unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the
36 THE THREE LINES
leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy '
(xii. 1). If the verse is omitted from Mark
the sense is much improved. ' And they
forgot to take bread ; and they had not in
the boat with them more than one loaf. And
they reasoned one with another, saying,
We have no bread ' (viii. 14, 16). Yet in
Matthew, where the Sadducees are mentioned
and not Herod, we find that the question,
' Do ye not yet understand ? ' (Mark viii. 21),
is interpreted at length in the light of the
addition from the other context in Luke,
* How is it that ye do not perceive that I
spake not to you concerning bread? But
beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and
Sadducees. Then understood they how that
he bade them not beware of the leaven of
bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees
and Sadducees ' (xvi. 11-12).
Two other passages, the stories of the
cure of the deaf man with the impediment
in his speech (vii. 32-37), and of the blind
man near some village (viii. 22b-26), appear
to be interpolations. In outline the two
accounts are almost identical, and they are
evidently modelled on the same plan.
Matthew, we note, gives neither. He omits
also what in Mark seems to be the intro-
duction to the story of the healing of the
OF TRADITION 37
blind man. c And they come unto Beth-
saida J (viii. 22a). He omits, however, all
mention of Bethsaida, Luke's statement
that Jesus withdrew to Bethsaida before the
feeding of the multitude (ix. 10), as well as
Mark's inaccurate statement that the voyage
after the miracle was to Bethsaida (vi. 45),
in addition to the present passage, presum-
ably because he was aware that the state-
ments were inconsistent, but had no means
of correcting them. That the account of the
healing of the blind man is an interpolation
at the point is shewn further by internal
evidence, for Bethsaida was something very
much more than a c village ' at this period.
The story of the cure of the deaf man with
an impediment in his speech seems to have
been inserted as an illustration of the healing
of the dumb. Mark says : ' And again he
went out from the borders of Tyre, and came
through Sidon unto the sea of Galilee,
through the midst of the borders of Decapolis.
And they bring unto him one that was deaf,
and stammered [had an impediment in his
speech]. . . . And his ears were opened, and
the bond of his tongue was loosed, and he
spake plain. . . . And they were beyond
measure astonished, saying, He hath done
all things well : he maketh even the deaf to
38 THE THREE LINES
hear, and the dumb to speak ' (vii. 31-32,
35,37). Matthew says: ' And Jesus departed
thence, and came nigh unto the sea of
Galilee ; and he went up into the mountain,
and sat there. And there came unto him
great multitudes, having with them the lame,
blind, dumb, maimed, and many others, and
they cast them down at his feet; and he
healed them : insomuch that the multitude
wondered, when they saw the dumb speak-
ing, the maimed whole, and the lame walking,
and the blind seeing : and they glorified the
God of Israel ' (xv. 29-31). Both passages
seem modified from an original which was
based apparently on a prophecy of Isaiah,
each evangelist editing in his own way the
prophet's summary of the infirm made
whole. ' Then the eyes of the blind shall be
opened, and the ears of the deaf shall hear.
Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and
the tongue of the stammerers shall speak
plainly ' (xxxv. 5-6). ' The God of Israel '
is one of the titles of Jehovah in Isaiah
(xli. 17, xlv. 3, xlviii. 2). The reference in
Matthew apparently is not to the Septuagint,
though Mark seems to have had it in mind
when he illustrated the healing of the dumb
by the account of a cure of a stammerer.
The close resemblance which exists between
OF TRADITION 39
Matthew's introduction to the story of the
feeding of the four thousand, and John's to
his account of the feeding of the five thousand
is very remarkable. We read in the fourth
gospel : 4 After these things Jesus went away
to the other side of the sea of Galilee, which
is the sea of Tiberias. And a great multitude
followed him, because they beheld the signs
which he did on them that were sick. And
Jesus went up into the mountain, and there
he sat with his disciples ' (vi. 1-3). The
agreement between the two accounts suggests
that they are traceable to a common original
rather than that one has influenced the other,
and, if so, at this point Matthew, not Mark,
preserves the earlier form of the Synoptic
text, the story of the healing of the deaf man
being an interpolation inserted apparently at
a period subsequent to the use of the second
gospel by the compiler of the first.
The journey outlined by Mark after the
account of the healing of the daughter of the
Syrophcenician woman is very extraordinary.
' And again he went out from the borders of
Tyre, and came through Sidon unto the sea
of Galilee, through the midst of the borders
of Decapolis ' (vii. 31). That anyone jour-
neying from Tyre to the sea of Galilee
should pass through Sidon, going north in
40 THE THREE LINES
order to reach a place in the south, no reason
being assigned for such a detour, is almost in-
conceivable. In the corresponding accounts
of John and Matthew only the sea of Galilee
is mentioned. ' From the borders of Tyre
. . . through Sidon ' seems to be an echo
of ' into the borders of Tyre and Sidon ' in
the introduction to the story of the Syro-
phcenician woman, regardless of geography.
The reference to ' the borders of Decapolis, '
which takes the place in Mark of the state-
ment in Matthew that Jesus went up into a
mountain, is probably to be ascribed to an
editor, ' throughout the whole city ' of Luke
(viii. 39) being changed to ' in Decapolis ' in
Mark (v. 20) in the account of the Gerasene
demoniac. Otherwise the mention of Deca-
polis must belong to the story of the healing
of the deaf man with the impediment in his
speech, though it is improbable that a vague
description like Decapolis would be given as
the scene of a miracle rather than the name
of a particular town. Elsewhere in the
gospels Decapolis is mentioned only in a list
of places in Matthew (iv. 25) from which
great multitudes followed Jesus, where also
probably it is an editorial addition.
Neither the incident of the cure of the deaf
man with the impediment in his speech, nor
OF TRADITION 41
that of the healing of the blind man can be
regarded, it would seem, as rightly placed in
the context in which they are given in Mark.
Yet the careful attention to details suggests
that they belong to the same source. We
note the similarity, particularly of the former,
to the account of the healing of the two blind
men in the house in the first gospel (ix. 27-31),
which appears to be the equivalent in the
second line of tradition of that of the healing
of the blind man at Jericho in the first
(Luke xviii. 35-43). Probably then, though
out of position, they belong, like the warning
about the leaven of the Pharisees (viii. 15),
to the same source as the rest of Mark's
interpolation, not to that used by him as the
framework for the greater part of his gospel.
CHAPTER III
THE TRADITIONS OF PETER, JAMES,
AND JOHN
WE have distinguished three separate tra-
ditions in the gospel story. Can we discover
anything about their origin, or identify their
authors ? At Capernaum we read : ' And
he rose up from the synagogue, and entered
into the house of Simon. And Simon's wife's
mother was holden with a great fever ; and
they besought him for her ' (Luke iv. 38).
The prominent figure is Peter, and it is quite
natural that he should tell the story of his
mother-in-law's cure. When we notice that
in Mark the incident is told from another
point of view, it is difficult to resist the
conclusion that Luke is giving Peter's account
of the incident.
Again, at the beginning of the list of the
twelve apostles as recorded in Luke we read :
1 Simon, whom he also named Peter, and
Andrew his brother ' (vi. 14). In Mark we
read : 4 And Simon he surnamed Peter . . .
PETER, JAMES, AND JOHN 43
and Andrew ' (iii. 16, 18), the names and
description of the sons of Zebedee being in-
serted between the name of Peter and that
of his brother, who is indeed not described as
such. The interest is in Peter in Luke's
version of the list in a way which is not true
in Mark's, Peter's prominence suggesting that
the particular line of tradition which thus
makes him central is ultimately traceable to
him.
In the account of the healing of the
woman who had the issue of blood we read
in Luke : 'And Jesus said, Who is it that
touched me ? And when all denied, Peter
said, and they that were with him, Master,
the multitudes press thee and crush thee '
(viii. 45). Mark speaks only of ' his disciples '
(v. 31). Whether c and they that were with
him ' is authentic or not, Peter certainly
appears as leader, and no one would be more
likely to remember that it was he who tried
to explain away the fact that the woman had
touched Jesus' garment. Later when Jesus
came to Jairus' house we are told ' he suffered
not any man to enter in with him, save
Peter, and John, and James' (viii. 51). The
sequence ' Peter, and John,' appears also in
Luke's story of the transfiguration (ix. 28),
and of the sending of the disciples to prepare
44 THE TRADITIONS OF
the passover (xxii. 8). It appears too in Acts
in the list of the apostles (i. 13), and six
times in the account of the healing of the
lame man at the gate of the temple and the
events which followed (iii. 1, 3, 4, 11; iv. 13,
19), likewise also in the account of the first
confirmation in Samaria (viii. 14). The
account of the healing of the lame man must
be ascribed to Peter or John, and if we
examine it carefully the natural explanation
is that it is derived from Peter. The central
figure is Peter, and the story is told from his
point of view. If we put the narrative into
the first person with Peter as the speaker,
we have a quite natural description, but if
we try to imagine John as the speaker it is
somewhat awkward. The events in Samaria
likewise are described as they would appear
to Peter, not to John. Peter and John were
evidently both intimate friends and fellow
workers, Peter however being much the more
prominent. It is easy to imagine Peter when
telling of his work making mention of John,
but if we think of the account as given by
John there is no reason why he should have
mentioned himself at all, for no element of
the narrative depends upon his presence.
In the story of the Transfiguration we read :
1 He took with him Peter and John and James,
PETER, JAMES, AND JOHN 45
and went up into the mountain to pray. . . .
Now Peter and they that were with him were
heavy with sleep. . . . And it came to pass, as
they were parting from him, Peter said unto
Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here :
and let us make three tabernacles ; one for
thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah :
not knowing what he said ' (ix. 28, 32-33).
Peter is beyond doubt the central figure of
the story, John and James being merely
' they that were with him.' Even what is
said of our Lord is only a record of what was
seen and heard by another. Nothing is said
of His own personal experience; yet the
thoughts of Peter are given, ' not knowing
what he said.' In Mark (ix. 2-8) Peter's
prominence has largely disappeared, his
friend John is separated from him, 4 Peter,
and James, and John,' and the other two
apostles are no longer described as ' they that
are with him,' the statement ' not knowing
what he said ' which reveals to us Peter's
mind being replaced by ' For he wist not
what to answer,' found also in the non-
Lukan tradition of the events in Gethsemane
(xiv. 40), these words giving merely the
opinion of another person.
Of the confession of Peter we have two
independent traditions. In Luke we read:
46 THE TRADITIONS OF
4 And it came to pass, as he was praying
alone, the disciples were with him : and he
asked them, saying, Who do the multitudes
say that I am ? And they answering said,
John the Baptist; but others say, Elijah;
and others, that one of the old prophets is
risen again. And he said unto them, But
who say ye that I am ? And Peter answer-
ing said, The Christ of God. But he charged
them, and commanded them to tell this to
no man ' (ix. 18-21). In John we read :
' Upon this many of his disciples went back,
and walked no more with him. Jesus said
therefore unto the twelve, Would ye also go
away ? Simon Peter answered him, Lord,
to whom shall we go ? thou hast the words
of eternal life. And we have believed and
know that thou art the Holy One of God.
Jesus answered them, Did not I choose you
the twelve, and one of you is a devil ? V (vi.
66-70). In John the confession is incidental,
but in Luke it is mentioned for its own sake.
One person only would be likely to regard as
of special importance a declaration of what
had been the disciples' faith from the be-
ginning. l Andrew, Simon Peter's brother,'
we are told, ' findeth first his own brother
Simon, and saith unto him, We have found
the Messiah ' (John i. 40-41). Philip had
PETER, JAMES, AND JOHN 47
said the same thing to Nathanael, 4 We have
found him, of whom Moses in the law, and
the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth,
the son of Joseph ' (i. 45), and Nathanael had
confessed it to Jesus, ' Rabbi, thou art the
Son of God ; thou art king of Israel ' (i. 49).
Only Peter therefore would be likely to see
in his confession an event of such central
significance as it holds in Luke and the other
Synoptic gospels, reflecting it would seem
Peter's own experience.
Again we read in Luke at the end of our
Lord's saying about those who have riches,
4 And Peter said, Lo, we have left our own,
and followed thee. And he said unto them,
Verily I say unto you, There is no man that
hath left house, or wife, or brethren, or
parents, or children, for the kingdom of
God's sake, who shall not receive manifold
more in this time, and in the world to come
eternal life ' (xviii. 28-30). No one would
be more likely to record this incident than
Peter. ' We have left our own,' ' that hath
left . . . wife,' are specially significant in
his case. In Mark the first has become ' We
have left all ' (x. 28), and ' wife ' is omitted,
the special suitability to Peter's case dis-
appearing.
At the end of our Lord's discourse after
48 THE TRADITIONS OF
the last supper according to Luke we read :
' Simon, Simon, behold, Satan asked to have
you, that he might sift you as wheat : but
I made supplication for thee, that thy faith
fail not : and do thou, when once thou hast
turned again, stablish thy brethren. And
he said unto him, Lord, with thee I am ready
to go both to prison and to death. And he
said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow
this day, until thou shalt thrice deny that
thou knowest me ' (xxii. 31-34). The record
of a promise so personal and intimate is
surely traceable to Peter himself. It is
difficult to imagine it due to the recollection
of another. In Mark the incident is related
in much more general terms. ' And Jesus
said unto them, All ye shall be offended :
for it is written, I will smite the shepherd,
and the sheep shall be scattered abroad.
Howbeit, after I am raised up, I will go
before you into Galilee. But Peter said unto
him, Although all shall be offended, yet will
not I. ... If I must die with thee, I will
not deny thee. And in like manner also said
they all' (xiv. 27-29, 31). The specially
Petrine features have disappeared, mention
being made of all.
After the arrest of Jesus Luke tells us :
' But Peter followed afar off. And when
PETER, JAMES, AND JOHN 49
they had kindled a fire in the midst of the
court, and had sat down together, Peter sat
in the midst of them ' (xxii. 54-55). The
story of his three denials follows. ' And the
Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And
Peter remembered the word of the Lord '
(xxii. 61). Only two disciples could give
accounts of Peter's denials, Peter and ' the
other disciple ' mentioned in John. That it
was the Lord's look which made Peter re-
member could only come from Peter himself.
It is absent from Mark.
Much of Luke's chief source is thus most
naturally ascribed to Peter, and for certain
elements of it any other origin seems out of
the question. We decide therefore that this
line of tradition is traceable ultimately to
Peter. Where in Mark another tradition
has been substituted for that given in Luke,
as in the story of the call of Peter and
Andrew, James and John, and the visit to
Nazareth, the brief and formal style suggests
the same author. Much of the description
of the call of Peter as given by Luke could
only have been derived from Peter himself,
in particular the incidents on Simon's boat.
Yet as we have it the story seems to be told
from the point of view of another. It reads
very awkwardly if we put it into the first
E
50 THE TRADITIONS OF
person and make Simon the speaker.
Although so prominent he is not really
central, and the description is not his. It
is very different in Mark's account. ' And
passing along by the sea of Galilee, he saw
Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon
casting a net in the sea : for they were
fishers. And Jesus said unto them, Come ye
after me, and I will make you to become
fishers of men. And straightway they left
the nets, and followed him. And going on
a little further, he saw James the son of
Zebedee, and John his brother, who also were
in the boat mending the nets. And straight-
way he called them : and they left their
father Zebedee in the boat with the hired
servants, and went after him ' (i. 16-20).
Peter here is quite central, and the account
reads easily in the first person with Peter as
the speaker. If we try to imagine Andrew,
James, or John speaking we see how im-
possible it becomes. Andrew is mentioned
as ' the brother of Simon,' but is ignored in
Luke. The call of James and John is evi-
dently of minor interest to the narrator.
Zebedee is prominent, and there is a mention
of ' the hired servants,' all quite natural if
Peter be the speaker and the statement of the
other story true that ' James and John, sons
PETER, JAMES, AND JOHN 51
of Zebedee . . . were partners with Simon s
(Luke v. 10). We notice further how closely
parallel the two accounts of the call of the
two pairs of brothers are to that of the call of
Levi in Luke, in the line of tradition we have
concluded to be Petrine. ' And after these
things he went forth, and beheld a publican,
named Levi, sitting at the place of toll, and
said unto him, Follow me. And he forsook
all, and rose up, and followed him ' (v. 27-28).
Our conclusion must be that in his descrip-
tion of the call of Peter and Andrew, James
and John, Mark is using the Petrine tradition,
which Luke here discards, preferring another.
We have thus further confirmation of our
identification of the two principal lines of
tradition in Luke and Mark, suggesting that
the method of discrimination is equally
trustworthy where no similar test can be
applied.
Can we identify the author of the second
line of tradition employed in Luke ? The
mission of the seventy in this tradition we
have decided is a doublet of the mission of
the twelve in the other. The mission of the
seventy, however, does not stand alone, but
tells of the continuation of a policy adopted
by our Lord in the case of a village in
Samaria. c And it came to pass, when the
52 THE TRADITIONS OF
days were well-nigh come that he should be
received up, he stedfastly set his face to go
to Jerusalem, and sent messengers before his
face : and they went, and entered into a
village of the Samaritans, to make ready for
him. ... Now after these things the Lord
appointed seventy others, and sent them two
and two before his face into every city and
place, whither he himself was about to come '
(ix. 51-52, x. 1). Two of the apostles come
before us very prominently in connexion
with the refusal of the Samaritans to receive
our Lord, and from the incident they seem to
have gained the name 'Boanerges, which is,
Sons of thunder ' (Mark in. 17). ' And they
did not receive him, because his face was as
though he were going to Jerusalem. And
when his disciples James and John saw this,
they said, Lord, wilt thou that we bid fire
to come down from heaven, and consume
them ? But he turned and rebuked them.
And they went to another village ' (ix. 53-56).
That the story of their rebuke should have
been recorded by James or John is much
more probable than that we owe it to some-
one else. If so, the mission of the seventy
would appear to be the account of James or
John, while the mission of the twelve is Peter's
version of the same incident.
PETER, JAMES, AND JOHN 53
We have already discussed the two
accounts of the call of Peter and have
decided that that in Mark is Peter's own.
Luke's story is much fuller, a characteristic
of the tradition from which, if our conten-
tion is correct, he has taken it. Though
studiously kept in the background, there
are other figures besides Peter who had an
important part in what happened. 'They
beckoned unto their partners in the other
boat, that they should come and help them.
And they came, and filled both the boats,
so that they began to sink. But Simon
Peter, when he saw it, fell down at Jesus'
knees, saying, Depart from me ; for I am a
sinful man, O Lord. For he was amazed,
and all that were with him, at the draught
of the fishes which they had taken ; and so
were also James and John, sons of Zebedee,
which were partners with Simon. And Jesus
said unto Simon, Fear not ; for henceforth
thou shalt catch men. And when they had
brought their boats to land, they left all,
and followed him ' (v. 7-11). We notice the
reserve with regard to the part played by the
partners. It is plainly unwillingness to make
them prominent, not lack of interest as in
the other tradition, which keeps them in the
background. The suggestion is that as we
54 THE TRADITIONS OF
owe the other account to Peter, we owe this
to James or John.
The two accounts of our Lord's visit to
Nazareth afford no direct evidence of author-
ship, as no names of apostles or other dis-
ciples who might be regarded as originators
of a tradition are mentioned. In each case,
however, the style of the narrative is un-
mistakable, that in Mark clearly belonging
to the same tradition as Mark's story of the
call of Peter and Andrew, while that in Luke
just as plainly belongs to the same source as
Luke's story of the call of Peter. If so, we
have the authorship of Peter in one case and
that of James or John in the other.
The many additions which Mark has
made to the Petrine narrative as it appears
in Luke, which seem to be not merely
editorial alterations but drawn from a parallel
tradition, are particularly interesting. Luke
says : ' And he rose up from the synagogue,
and entered into the house of Simon ' (iv. 38).
Mark says : ' And straightway, when they were
come out of the synagogue, they came into
the house of Simon and Andrew, with James
and John ' (i. 29). Luke says, ' And he stood
over her, and rebuked the fever ' (iv. 39), but
Mark, ' And he came and took her by the
hand, and raised her up ' (i. 31). In both
PETER, JAMES, AND JOHN 55
cases apparently Mark has information not in
Luke, so that the addition cannot well be
merely editorial. We seem to have additions
derived from an eyewitness who must have
been Andrew, James, or John, and from the
different way in which they are mentioned
probably one of the two last.
In Luke in the list of the twelve apostles
we read : ' Simon, whom he also named Peter,
and Andrew his brother, and James and
John ' (vi. 14). In Mark, where there is
evidence of conflation with another tradition,
we read : ' And Simon he surnamed Peter ;
and James the son of Zebedee, and John the
brother of James ; and them he surnamed
Boanerges, which is, Sons of thunder : and
Andrew ' (iii. 16-18). In Luke Peter alone is
the important person, James and John being
merely names. In Mark it is very different.
Peter is of less account, and Andrew is no
longer mentioned as his brother. All the
emphasis is put upon the sons of Zebedee.
If Luke's narrative be Peter's, Mark's must
be derived, so far as these additions are
concerned, from James or John. We
notice that Mark has ' Thaddaeus ' (iii. 18)
where Luke has ' Judas the son of James '
(vi. 16). If the changes in Mark are trace-
able to a tradition derived from James or
56 THE TRADITIONS OF
John, we see why a confusing reference to
another James is avoided.
In his account of the healing of the woman
with the issue of blood and of thejpaising of
the daughter of Jairus, Mark has much in-
formation not found in Luke, suggesting a
parallel story by an eyewitness. We note
the words of Jairus, ' I pray thee, that thou
come and lay thy hands on her, that she
may be made whole and live ' (v. 23), the
words of the woman, 'If I touch but his
garments, I shall be made whole * (v. 28),
* and she felt in her body that she was
healed of her plague ' (v. 29), ' [Jesus] ...
turned him about in the crowd ' (v. 30), ' And
he looked round about to see her that had
done this thing ' (v. 32), * knowing what
had been done to her ' (v. 33), ' And they
come to the house of the ruler of the syna-
gogue ; and he beholdeth a tumult ' (v. 38),
' Why make ye a tumult ' (v. 39), * having
put them all forth, taketh . . . them that
were with him, and goeth in where the child
was ' (v; 40), ' Talitha cumi ' (v. 41), l and
walked ' (v. 42). ' Peter, and John, and
James' has become ' Peter, and James, and
John the brother of James ' (v. 37). An order
of names which emphasises John's friendship
with Peter, natural in the Petrine tradition,
PETER, JAMES, AND JOHN 57
has given place to one which emphasises
the importance of James. The suggestion is
that the additions to the Petrine tradition
preserved in Luke are traceable to James.
The story of Peter's confession, as given
in Luke, we decided is Peter's own. We
notice that our Lord's rebuke of Peter is
absent from Luke, being an addition of
Mark. 4 And he spake the saying openly.
And Peter took him, and began to rebuke
him. But he turning about, and seeing his
disciples, rebuked Peter, and saith, Get thee
behind me, Satan : for thou mindest not the
things of God, but the things of men ' (viii.
32-33). At first sight it might seem that a
rebuke of Peter would be recounted only by
Peter himself, according to the argument
used in dealing with the rebuke of James and
John. The rebuke of Peter, however, was
really for the benefit of the other disciples.
' But he turning about, and seeing his
disciples, rebuked Peter.' In the case of
James and John we read only, * But he
turned, and rebuked them ' (Luke ix. 55).
We notice the close similarity of expression,
and yet the important difference. The sug-
gestion is that though in this case the rebuke
is of Peter the narrator of both incidents is
the same. The passage is indeed an inter-
58 THE TRADITIONS OF
polation in Mark. We have decided above
that Luke ix. 27 is properly a continuation
of the saying of ix. 22. If so, Mark ix. 1 is
a continuation of the saying of Mark viii. 31.
If the collection of sayings found in Luke ix.
23-26 and Mark viii. 34-38 is an interpolation,
the same must be true of Mark viii. 32-33>
which tells of the rebuke of Peter. Like the
other insertions at the point it must be drawn
from another tradition. Unlike them, how-
ever, there is no reason to suppose that it has
been interpolated in an entirely alien context.
Yet clearly it would be more suitably placed
at the conclusion of our Lord's prophecy
about His death and resurrection than in the
middle of it, and therefore would be better
after Mark ix. 1, and before the account of
the Transfiguration, in which, we shall see,
as in the story of the raising of Jairus's
daughter, the influence of a tradition which
tends to emphasise the importance of James
is again apparent. Such transposition of
material, however, is by no means un-
common in Mark, being found repeatedly in
the narrative of the passion.
Mark's account of the Transfiguration is
much less Petrine than Luke's ; it is written
to describe the experience not of one man
but of three. ' Peter and John and James '
PETER, JAMES, AND JOHN 59
has become ' Peter, and James, and John.'
There are constant references to the three
not found in Luke; Jesus ' bringeth them
up into a high mountain apart by them-
selves : and he was transfigured before
them ' (ix. 2), where Luke contains no allusion
to the apostles ; ' And there appeared unto
them Elijah with Moses ' (ix. 4), where Luke
has simply, ' And behold, there talked with
him two men, which were Moses and Elijah '
(ix. 30). c And suddenly looking round
about, they saw no one any more, save Jesus
only with themselves ' (ix. 8), takes the place
of ' Jesus was found alone.' The expression
' Peter and they that were with him ' has
disappeared, while ' not knowing what he
said ' has been replaced by the less intimate
statement, 'For he wist not what to answer/
which is repeated in the non-Petrine matter
added in Mark to the account of the events
in Gethsemane (xiv. 40). At the end of the
description Luke says simply, ' And they held
their peace, and told no man in those days
any of the things which they had seen '
(ix. 36). Mark gives quite a long passage
instead. 4 And as they were coming down
from the mountain, he charged them that
they should tell no man what things they
had seen, save when the Son of man should
60 THE TRADITIONS OF
have risen again from the dead. And they
kept the saying, questioning among them-
selves what the rising again from the dead
should mean. And they asked him, saying,
The scribes say that Elijah must first come.
And he said unto them, Elijah indeed cometh
first, and restoreth all things : and how is
it written of the Son of man, that he should
suffer many things and be set at nought ?
But I say unto you, that Elijah is come, and
they have also done unto him whatsoever
they listed, even as it is written of him '
(ix. 9-13). Mark clearly must have had
another source at his disposal in addition to
Luke. The various alterations and addi-
tions, including the increase in the import-
ance of James and John and the decrease
in that of Peter, cannot be explained as
merely editorial, and the change from
4 Peter and John and James ' to ' Peter, and
James, and John,' linking it with the same
change in the story of the raising of Jairus's
daughter, seems to suggest the identity of
the source, the line of tradition already asso-
ciated, as we have seen reason to believe,
with the name of James.
Luke says nothing of the ambitious
request of James and John. In Mark we
read: 'And there come near unto him James
PETER, JAMES, AND JOHN 61
and John, the sons of Zebedee, saying unto
him, Master, we would that thou shouldest
do for us whatsoever we shall ask of thee.
And he said unto them, What would ye that
I should do for you ? And they said unto
him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on
thy right hand, and one on thy left hand, in
thy glory. . . . And when the ten heard it,
they began to be moved with indignation
concerning James and John ' (x. 35-37, 41).
Again we have the record of an incident not
complimentary to the sons of Zebedee, and
as we are told the rest of the apostles were
absent, the account must come ultimately
from James or John. It marked the be-
ginning of an indignation which continued
apparently for some time, the meaning of
which only James and John would fully
appreciate. It summarises their experience,
so that we cannot regard the story as coming
merely from those who reported the incident
to the ten. The climax of the story Mark
gives immediately, relating our Lord's dis-
course on those who would be great at this
point instead of at the last supper, as in Luke,
to which it properly belongs. Mark shews
other signs of accretion, absent from Matthew,
who thus again preserves an earlier form of
tradition, ' Or to be baptized with the
62 THE TRADITIONS OF
baptism that I am baptized with ' (x. 38),
'And with the baptism that I am baptized
withal shall ye be baptized ' (x. 39), being
based upon, ' But I have a baptism to be
baptized with,' belonging properly to a quite
different context as recorded in Luke (xii. 50).
After our Lord's prophecy of the destruc-
tion of the temple we read in Luke : l And
they asked him, saying, Master, when there-
fore shall these things be ? ' (xxi. 7). In
Mark we read : ' And as he sat on the
mount of Olives over against the temple,
Peter and James and John and Andrew
asked him privately, Tell us, when shall these
things be?' (xiii. 3-4). Evidently Mark is
in possession of fuller information than is
contained in Luke. The fact is apparent
indeed even in the words leading up to the
prophecy. Luke says : ' And as some spake
of the temple, how it was adorned with
goodly stones and offerings, he said ' (xxi. 5) ;
but Mark says : 4 And as he went forth out of
the temple, one of his disciples saith unto
him, Master, behold, what manner of stones
and what manner V>f buildings ! And Jesus
said unto him ' (xiii. 1-2). The concise
narrative of Luke at the point agrees exactly
with that of the tradition we have seen
reason to believe Petrine, while the fuller
PETER, JAMES, AND JOHN 63
style of Mark agrees with that of the other
tradition utilised by Luke and to some extent
by Mark. Mark is evidently expanding one
tradition by phraseology from the other. If
Luke's story is Peter's, the second line of
tradition used by Mark must be derived from
James, John or Andrew, who also were
present, probably from James, who may
perhaps be discovered in the background, as
in the account of the call of Peter, and
identified with him who is called ' one of his
disciples.'
Luke's account of what took place in the
garden of Gethsemane begins : ' And he came
out, and went, as his custom was, unto the
mount of Olives ; and the disciples also
followed him. And when he was at the
place, he said unto them, Pray that ye enter
not into temptation' (xxii. 39-40). Mark's
account is very different. ' And they come
unto a place which was named Gethsemane :
and he saith unto his disciples, Sit ye here,
while I pray. And he taketh with him Peter
and James and John, and began to be greatly
amazed, and sore troubled. And he saith
unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful
even unto death : abide ye here, and watch '
(xiv. 32-34). Mark clearly has much in-
formation not found in Luke. Again Luke
64 THE TRADITIONS OF
says : * And when he rose up from his prayer,
he came unto the disciples, and found them
sleeping for sorrow, and said unto them, Why
sleep ye ? ' (xxii. 45-46). Mark says : * And
he cometh, and findeth them sleeping, and
saith unto Peter, Simon sleepest thou ?
couldest thou not watch one hour ? ' (xiv. 37).
He could not have gathered from the tra-
dition recorded in Luke that it was Peter
in particular whom our Lord addressed.
Again Mark must have had access to other
information, apparently another source. The
lengthy passage describing our Lord's re-
peated prayer, and His return a second and
third time to the disciples, belongs to a
tradition of which Luke presumably knew
nothing. Only an eyewitness could have
supplied the information, if authentic. If
Luke's account be Peter's, as is probable on
general grounds and also because of the con-
ciseness of narrative, manifest also elsewhere,
and the omission of any suggestion that our
Lord's rebuke to the sleeping disciples was
addressed specially to Peter, the additional
information in Mark must be derived from
James or John. We notice the statement,
4 And they wist not what to answer him '
(xiv. 40), linking the narrative with the
Markan account of the Transfiguration, 'For
PETER, JAMES, AND JOHN 65
he wist not what to answer ' (ix. 6), where we
came to the same conclusion.
Describing the scene at the cross Luke
says : ' And all his acquaintance, and the
women that followed with him from Galilee,
stood afar off, seeing these things ' (xxiii. 49).
Mark says : ' And there were also women
beholding from afar : among whom were both
Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of
James the less and of Joses, and Salome ;
who, when he was in Galilee, followed him,
and ministered unto him ; and many other
women which came up with him unto
Jerusalem ' (xv. 40-41). Another passage in
Luke must also be taken into consideration in
discussing the origin of what we find in Mark.
'And it came to pass soon afterwards, that
he went about through cities and villages,
preaching and bringing the good tidings of the
kingdom of God, and with him the twelve,
and certain women which had been healed of
evil spirits and infirmities, Mary that was
called Magdalene, from whom seven devils
had gone out, and Joanna the wife of Chuza
Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many
others, which ministered unto them of their
substance ' (viii. 1-3). The two passages
of Luke account for most of what we find
in Mark, but not for the names. Other
F
66 THE TRADITIONS OF
information must have been at the evan-
gelist's disposal to account for these. We
notice in particular 'Salome, 5 whom Matthew
seems to identify with 4 the mother of the sons
of Zebedee' (xxvii. 56). Again we have an
indication of a source connected with James
and John. The description ' James the less '
is thus not without significance, for it distin-
guishes him from James the son of Zebedee.
After the burial Mark says, ' And Mary Mag-
dalene and Mary the mother of Joses beheld
where he was laid ' (xv. 47), where Luke has
no names, 4 And the women, which had come
with him out of Galilee, followed after, and
beheld the tomb, and how his body was laid '
(xxiii. 55). We note the absence of Salome.
According to the fourth gospel the beloved
disciple took the mother of Jesus unto his
own home before the death of Jesus (xix. 27).
If he is to be identified with John the
son of Zebedee it seems quite natural that
his mother Salome would accompany them.
There is thus a reason for the absence of
Salome's name from the statement of those
present at our Lord's burial, which otherwise
is inexplicable. She is present again how-
ever, Mark tells us, on the Saturday evening
at the purchase of spices, * And when the
sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary
the mother of James, and Salome, bought
PETER, JAMES, AND JOHN 67
spices that they might come and anoint him '
(xvi. 1). We notice a discrepancy between
this statement and Luke's that they were
already bought on Friday afternoon, ' And
they returned, and prepared spices and oint-
ments ' (xxiii. 56). Speaking of the women
who went to the sepulchre on Sunday morning,
Luke says, ' Now they were Mary Magdalene,
and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James '
(xxiv. 10). Mark clearly had information not
to be found in Luke, apparently another
tradition, with regard to what happened at
the sepulchre on Good Friday and Easter
Day, the statements of the two gospels some-
times being irreconcilable. The special in-
terest in Salome suggests that this second
tradition of Mark is connected with the sons
of Zebedee.
Our investigation has brought out very
many points on which the tradition used
by Mark to augment the Petrine tradition
recorded in Luke is traceable to James or
John. In some instances the connexion
seems to be beyond dispute, even if we regard
merely the evidence afforded by a particular
passage. The cumulative effect of all the
additions would appear to be incontrovertible,
that they are taken from a tradition which
had its origin in James or John. The same
result follows from a consideration of longer
68 THE TRADITIONS OF
passages ascribable to the same line of tra-
dition, as the call of Peter and the mission of
the seventy. In the Petrine tradition John
as the friend and fellow worker of Peter is of
more importance than James, and we read of
' Peter and John and James.' In this second
line of tradition James is always mentioned
before John, the order of Luke being changed
in Mark in several contexts. There is thus
no reason why we should suppose John rather
than James the author of the tradition and
very much which tells in the opposite direc-
tion. Evidence to be adduced later indeed
will shew its absolute impossibility. Our
conclusion therefore must be that as the main
outline of the gospel of Luke is derived from
a tradition having its origin in Peter, so the
second line of tradition in Luke, which appears
also in Mark in a smaller degree, frequently
conflated with the former, and in Matthew,
is traceable to James.
The third line of tradition utilised in Mark,
as we have seen, though only in a compara-
tively few places, is that of the fourth gospel.
According to this gospel first-hand reports of
Peter's denial could come from two disciples
only, Peter and 4 the other disciple,' for these
two alone followed Jesus into the palace of
the high priest where the denials took place.
As Peter's account is contained in Luke, that
PETER, JAMES, AND JOHN 69
in the fourth gospel must be that of c the
other disciple.' Mark's account of the arrest,
as we shall see, utilises the tradition pre-
served in the fourth gospel. As Peter, James,
and John alone were in close proximity to
Jesus, to one of these apparently, rather than
to one of the disciples more distant, must be
ascribed the detailed report of the incident
given in the fourth gospel, and therefore the
material drawn from this source in Mark.
As the traditions which, according to our
argument, are traceable to Peter and James
are quite distinct from that recorded in the
fourth gospel, the suggestion is that John is
the author of this narrative. The presence
of Salome at the cross and at the tomb on
the first day of the week, but not at the burial,
confirms this conclusion.
The account of the Transfiguration in
Luke, if our argument is correct, must be
ascribed to Peter, and that in Mark, to some
extent at any rate, to James. Luke says :
* The form of his countenance was altered, and
his raiment became white and dazzling. . .
And . . . they saw his glory. , . . And a
voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is
my Son, my chosen ' (ix. 29, 32, 35). The
Transfiguration was a mystical experience or
ecstasy in which Jesus was manifested in the
glory prophesied of the Child or Servant of
70 THE TRADITIONS OF
Jehovah, the reversal of his former humilia-
tion, of which the second Isaiah speaks. Of
the latter we read : c Thy form shall be without
glory from men, and thy glory from the sons
of men. Thus shall many nations wonder at
him . . . for . . . they shall see . . .He
hath no form nor glory, and we saw him,
but he had no form nor beauty . . . for his
countenance was turned from us ' (Is. Hi.
14-15, liii. 2-3). Of the former we read:
4 Behold, my servant shall . . . be glorified ex-
ceedingly, ... The Lord also is pleased . . .
to shew him light (Is. Hi. 13, liii 10-11). The
voice out of the cloud quotes another of the
Servant passages, but from the Hebrew text,
' Behold my servant . . . my chosen ' (xlii.
1). According to Mark the voice said, - This
is my son, my beloved ' (ix. 7). In the
Septuagint the two titles are almost synony-
mous, * Fear not, my servant Jacob, and
beloved Israel, whom I have chosen ' (xliv. 2),
while Matthew, in quoting Isaiah xlii. 1,
actually substitutes one title for the other,
' Behold, my servant whom I have chosen ;
my beloved in whom my soul is well pleased '
(xii. 18). In the fourth gospel we read : ' And
the light shineth in the darkness ; and the
darkness apprehended it not. . . . He came
unto his own, and they that were his own
PETER, JAMES, AND JOHN 71
/received him not. . . . And the Word became
flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his
glory, glory as of the only begotten from the
Father), full of grace and truth ' (i. 5, 11, 14).
' Only begotten ' and ' beloved ' are used in
the Septuagint to translate the same Hebrew
word (Ps. xxi. (xxii.) 20, xxiv. (xxv.) 16,
xxxiv. (xxxv.) 17 ; Gen. xxii. 2, 12, 16 ;
Judges xi. 34 ; Jer. vi. 26 ; Amos viii. 10 ;
Zech. xii. 10), and are therefore practically
synonymous. The particular experience the
writer of the fourth gospel had in mind and
the use of the aorist points to a definite
occasion was evidently the Transfiguration,
and the Transfiguration as a reversal of the
humiliation predicted of the Servant, the
identification of Jesus with the Servant
appearing also in the words of John the
Baptist, ' Behold, the Lamb of God, which
taketh away the sin of the world ' (i. 29), in
the same chapter. The phraseology, we see,
is almost identical in the three passages.
' Thy glory . . . they shall see. . . . He hath
no ... glory, and we saw him,' * They saw
his glory, 5 ' We beheld his glory.' Only three
apostles were witnesses of the Transfiguration
Peter, James, and John. Peter's account of
what happened, so we have decided, is pre-
served in Luke, and James's, in part at any
72 PETER, JAMES, AND JOHN
rate, in Mark. The author of the fourth
gospel says, 4 We beheld his glory,' including
himself among the beholders. He can there-
fore be identified only with John. There are,
of course, many other arguments which tend
to prove that the fourth gospel, or its source,
is to be ascribed to John the son of Zebedee,
but as they are in no way based on the
existence of material from different lines of
tradition in the gospels, they need not be
repeated here.
Our investigation seems to have proved
that the four gospels are compiled of material
from three distinct lines of tradition, trace-
able to the three apostles, Peter, James, and
John. The fourth gospel alone contains a
simple tradition, that of John. Luke con-
sists largely of narratives taken from the
tradition of Peter, but with large blocks of
matter drawn from the tradition of James.
Mark also is based on the Petrine tradition,
containing likewise much material derived
from the Jacobean tradition, not however as
a rule in big blocks, but as interpretative
additions scattered throughout the Petrine
narrative or conflated with it. In a smaller
degree also it contains matter drawn from
the tradition of John, preserved in its
entirety in the fourth gospel.
CHAPTER IV
THE PEIMITIVE GOSPEL STORY
OF our Lord's temptation Luke says : ' And
Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from
the Jordan, and was led by the Spirit in the
wilderness during forty days, being tempted
of the devil. And he did eat nothing in
those days : and when they were completed,
he hungered ' (iv. 1-2). Mark says : * And
straightway the Spirit driveth him forth into
the wilderness. And he was in the wilderness
forty days tempted of Satan ; and he was
with the wild beasts ; and the angels minis-
tered unto him ' (i. 12-13). In Deuteronomy
we read : l And thou shalt remember all the
way which the Lord thy God hath led thee these
forty years in the wilderness ... to tempt
thee. . . . And he suffered thee to hunger,
and fed thee with manna. . . . Who led thee
through the great and terrible wilderness,
wherein were fiery serpents and scorpions . . .
who fed thee in the wilderness with manna
. . that he might tempt thee ' (viii. 2-3,
74 THE PRIMITIVE GOSPEL STORY
15-16, Heb.). Luke's account is clearly based
on the passage of Deuteronomy. We notice
the ' leading,' 'in the wilderness,' 'forty
days [years],' the temptation, ' hunger.' In
Deuteronomy it is God who tempts, or proves ;
in Luke the devil. The same change is
seen in the two accounts in 2 Samuel and
1 Chronicles of David's numbering of Israel.
'* And again the anger of the Lord was kindled
against Israel, and he moved David against
them, saying, Go, number Israel and Judah '
(2 Sam. xxiv. 1, Heb.), ' And Satan stood
up against Israel, and moved David to
number Israel ' (1 Chron. xxi. 1, Heb.).
We note that in Luke there is no reference
to the manna or the serpents. In the book
of Wisdom we read : ' Even when terrible
raging of wild beasts came upon thy people,
and they were perishing by the bites of
crooked serpents, thy wrath continued not to
the uttermost ' (xvi. 5), ' Thou gavest thy
people angels' food to eat, and bread ready
for their use didst thou provide for them from
heaven without their toil ' (xvi. 20). The
manna and serpents of Deuteronomy, to which
in Luke we find no reference, here appear as
4 angels' food ' and ' wild beasts.' We see
thus the origin of Mark's statement, ' And he
was with the wild beasts ; and the angels
THE PRIMITIVE GOSPEL STORY 75
ministered unto him.' Both in Luke and
in Mark the phraseology of the story of our
Lord's sojourn in the wilderness is based upon
that of the story of the wanderings of the
children of Israel in the wilderness. The
accounts of the two gospels are thus com-
plementary, and both are necessary to bring
out all the details of the comparison of the
two stories. In Mark the connexion with
Deuteronomy has almost disappeared, and it
is plain that Mark's account is not adequately
explained as based on Luke's. Both must be
derived from a common original which gave
all the details common to the experiences of
our Lord and the children of Israel in the
wilderness. The two gospel traditions of
Peter and James are thus not entirely in-
dependent, but are the result of separate
development from the same original, the
primitive gospel story.
The accounts of our Lord's charge to the
twelve in Luke and Mark, and of His charge
to the seventy in Luke, give particularly
interesting results when compared. Describ-
ing the mission of the twelve, Luke says :
* And he called the twelve together . . . and
he sent them forth . . . and he said unto
them, Take nothing for your journey, neither
staff, nor wallet, nor bread, nor money;
76 THE PRIMITIVE GOSPEL STORY
neither have two coats. And into whatsoever
house ye enter, there abide, and thence depart '
(ix. 1-4). Mark says : ' And he called unto
him the twelve, and began to send them forth
by two and two . . . and he charged them
that they should take nothing for their
journey, save a staff only; no bread, no
wallet, no money in their girdle ; but to go
shod with sandals : and, said he, put not on
two coats. And he said unto them, Where-
soever ye enter into a house, there abide till
ye depart thence ' (vi. 7-10). Describing
the mission of the seventy Luke says : * Now
after these things the Lord appointed seventy
others, and sent them two and two before
his face into every city and place, whither he
himself was about to come. And he said unto
them, ... Go your ways : . . . Carry no
purse, no wallet, no shoes : and salute no man
on the way. And into whatsoever house ye
shall enter, first say, Peace to this house.
And if a son of peace be there, your peace
shall rest upon him : but if not, it shall turn
to you again. And in that same house
remain ' (x. 1-7).
We notice the discrepancies between
Mark's account and the other two, and parti-
cularly that in Mark a staff is allowed, but in
Luke's charge to the twelve forbidden ; also
THE PRIMITIVE GOSPEL STORY 77
that Mark assumes a girdle which could be
used as a purse, while in Luke's charge to the
seventy a purse is forbidden. We compare
certain passages in the story of Elisha's
raising of the son of the Shunammite. ' And
it came to pass, when Elisha saw her coming,
that he said to Gehazi his servant, Behold
now, that Shunammite : run now to meet
her, and thou shalt say, Peace to thee, peace
to thy husband, peace to the child. And she
said, Peace. . . . And Elisha said to Gehazi,
Gird up thy loins, and take my staff in thine
hand, and go thy way : if thou meet any
man thou shalt not salute him ; and if a
man salute thee, thou shalt not answer him.
. . . And Gehazi went on before her. ...
And Elisha entered into the house ' (4 (2)
Kings iv. 25-26, 29, 31-32). There can be
no doubt but that this story of Elisha has
influenced the phraseology of the gospel
narratives. Yet the Old Testament phrases
appear not in one only of the New Testament
accounts, but in the three, and particularly
in Mark's charge to the twelve and Luke's
charge to the seventy, different items in each.
In Mark the staff is to be taken and a girdle
worn, as in the order to Gehazi, though in
Luke the first is forbidden in the charge to
the twelve and the second (as a purse) in the
78 THE PRIMITIVE GOSPEL STORY
charge to the seventy. In the charge to the
seventy in Luke we have the command to
salute no man on the way, and to say ' Peace
to this house,' agreeing exactly with the
instructions to Gehazi. The seventy like
Gehazi are to go on before. In all three
accounts we have mention of entering into
the house, which is prominent in the story
of Elisha. It is plain that the comparison
with the Old Testament story was a feature
of an earlier form of the narrative which was
the source from which the three different
accounts as we have them in the gospels were
derived. Mark's account, as usual, is a con-
flation of the traditions of Peter and James,
Luke's account of the mission of the seventy
being derived from the tradition of James
alone. We have evidence therefore of the
existence of this tradition of James in an
earlier form than that which we now find in
Luke, certain elements of this primitive
narrative surviving in Mark and others in
Luke.
Other details, which appear only in the
different versions of the charge to the twelve,
likewise help us to understand the process
of development. We note the references to
* bread ' (Luke ix. 3 ; Mark vi. 8) and ' sandals '
(Mark vi. 9), and the injunction, ' Take
THE PRIMITIVE GOSPEL STORY 79
nothing for the journey' (Luke ix. 3; cf.
Mark vi. 8), which seem to have been sug-
gested by the story of the Gibeonites, in
which also we find mention of 4 bread ' and
'sandals,' this word occurring only three
times elsewhere in the Septuagint (Is. xx. 2 ;
Judith x. 4, xvi. 9), and the instruction,
' Take to yourselves provision for the jour-
ney ' (Josh. ix. 11 (5), 17 (11) ). The command
6 Neither have two coats ' (Luke ix. 3 ; cf.
Mark vi. 9) repeats the advice of the Baptist
to the multitudes, ' He that hath two coats,
let him impart to him that hath none '
(Luke iii. 11), and so is an example of the
assimilation of one narrative, or tradition,
to another.
We have noticed that Mark's account of
the feeding of the five thousand is compiled
from the traditions of the feeding of the five
thousand recorded in Luke and John, and
that of the feeding of the four thousand
found in Mark, the traditions of Peter, James,
and John being this combined. If we com-
pare the Jacobean account in Mark (vii. 31-
viii. iO) (with Matthew xv. 29-39) with the
Petrine account in Luke (ix. 10-17) we find
they have much in common. In both the
healing of the sick is given as a reason for
the presence of the multitudes. Various
80 THE PRIMITIVE GOSPEL STORY
phrases appear in both : ' if I send them away,'
4 Send the multitude away'; 'here in a
desert place,' ' here in a desert place ' ; 4 and
he took the seven loaves,' ' And he took the
five loaves ' ; * he brake, and gave to his
disciples, to set before them ; and they set
them before the multitude,' ' and he brake,
and gave to the disciples to set before the
multitude ' ; ' And they did eat, and were
filled,' c And they did eat, and were all filled ' ;
' and they took up, of broken pieces that
remained over,' 'and there was taken up that
which remained over to them of broken
pieces ' ; ' And they were about four thousand, '
' For they were about five thousand men.'
If we compare the Jacobean account with
that in the fourth gospel (vi. 1-17) we likewise
notice many points of resemblance, some of
which have been already discussed. 'And
Jesus departed thence, and came nigh unto
the sea of Galilee,' ' After these things Jesus
went away to the other side of the sea of
Galilee ' ; ' and he went up into the mountain,
and sat there,' ' And Jesus went up into the
mountain, and there he sat ' ; 'And there
came unto him great multitudes,' 'And a
great multitude followed him'; 'and he
healed them . . . they saw the dumb speak-
ing, the maimed whole, and the lame walking,
THE PRIMITIVE GOSPEL STORY 81
and the blind seeing,' 4 they beheld the signs
which he did on them that were sick' 1 ; 'a
great multitude,' ' a great multitude ' ; ' And
his disciples answered him,' ' Philip answered
him ' ; ' Whence shall one be able to fill these
men with bread,' ' Whence are we to buy
bread, that these may eat ' ; * he commandeth
the multitude to sit down,' * Make the people
sit down ' ; ' and he took the seven loaves,'
' Jesus therefore took the loaves ' ; ' and
having given thanks,' ' and having given
thanks ' ; ' broken pieces that remained
over,' ' the broken pieces which remain over ';
'they were about four thousand,' 'hi number
about five thousand ' ; 'he entered into the
boat with his disciples,' ' his disciples . . .
entered into a boat.'
A comparison of the Petrine account in
Luke with the Johannine account of the
fourth gospel shews also many details in
common, ' the multitudes . . . followed him,'
4 a great multitude followed him ' ; 'he spake
to them of the kingdom of God,' ' they were
about to come ... to make him king ' ;
' them that had need of healing he healed,'
1 the signs which he did on them that were
sick ' ; ' Give ye them to eat,' ' that these
1 Matthew xv. 29-31 is used for the first four clauses
compared, afterwards Mark via. 1-10. See pp. 38-39.
G
82 THE PRIMITIVE GOSPEL STORY
may eat ' ; ' five loaves and two fishes,'
' five barley loaves, and two fishes ' ; ' except
we should go and buy food,' ' Whence are
we to buy bread ' ; ' For they were about
five thousand men,' ' So the men sat down,
in number about five thousand ' ; ' And he
said unto his disciples, Make them sit down,'
' Jesus said, Make the people sit down J ;
* And he took the five loaves and the two
fishes,' ' Jesus therefore took the loaves ...
likewise also of the fishes ' ; ' that which
remained over to them of broken pieces,'
' the broken pieces which remain over ' ;
' of broken pieces, twelve baskets,' ' twelve
baskets with broken pieces.'
It is plain from our comparison that the
three primary accounts of the miracle are not
really independent, but are merely different
versions of an original narrative, the changes
at any rate in part being due to the influence
of passages to some extent similar in the
Septuagint. The original form of the story
indeed seems modelled upon an incident re-
corded of Elisha, though apart from an histori-
cal basis this could never have suggested it.
' And there came a man from Baal-shalishah,
and brought the man of God bread of the first-
fruits, twenty loaves of barley, and fresh ears
of corn in his sack. And he said, Give unto
the people, that they may eat. And his
THE PRIMITIVE GOSPEL STORY 83
servant said, What, should I set this before
an hundred men ? But he said, Give the
people, that they may eat ; for thus saith
the Lord, They shall eat, and shall leave
thereof. So he set it before them, and they
did eat, and left thereof, according to the
word of the Lord' (2 Kings iv. 42-44, Heb.).
The c barley loaves ' reappear in the account
of the feeding of the five thousand in the
fourth gospel. ' Give the people, that they
may eat' becomes 'Give ye them to eat'
in the three Synoptic accounts of the same
miracle. The objection of Elisha's servant
that the supply of food is not sufficient is
recorded of the apostles in varying forms in
all the six accounts of the feeding of the
multitudes in the gospels. The phrase ' he
set it before them ' is repeated in each of
Mark's two accounts of miraculous feeding,
' to set before them ; and they set them
before the multitude ... to set these also
before them,' ' to set before them,' and in
Luke's account of the feeding of the five
thousand, * to set before the multitude.'
' They did eat ' is found in each of the five
Synoptic accounts of the feeding of a multi-
tude, but not in John. The idea that they
* left thereof ' appears in each of the six
accounts in the gospels, where we read of
the ' broken pieces that remained over ' or
84 THE PRIMITIVE GOSPEL STORY
similar words. Comparison with the story
of Elisha thus helps to confirm the view that
the four accounts of the feeding of the five
thousand, and the two accounts of the
feeding of the four thousand, are derived
from a common original.
On general principles derived from a com-
parison of the three traditions we should
expect that that of James recorded hi Mark
is the most primitive, and this view is con-
firmed by an examination of the details of
the different accounts of the miraculous
feeding of the multitude. In this version of
the narrative we have seven loaves and seven
baskets. ' Seven ' in both cases apparently
should be interpreted as meaning ' several '
according to a usage very common in the Old
Testament in both the Hebrew and Septua-
gint, as * seven judgments ' (Gen. iv. 15),
4 seven times ' (Gen. iv. 24 ; Lev. xxvi. 18,
24, 28; 4 (2) Kings iv. 35; Ps. cxviii.
(cxix.) 164 ; Prov. xxiv. 16), ' seven plagues '
(Lev. xxvi. 21), ' seven ways ' (Deut. xxviii.
7, 25), ' seven years ' (Judges vi. 1 ; Ezek.
xxxix. 9 ; Dan. iv. 13 (16), 23, 25, 29 (32),
[30, 31, 32]), 1 ' seven sons ' (Ruth iv. 15),
* seven children ' (1 Kings (Sam.) ii. 5 ; Jer.
1 Italics Hebrew only. Square brackets Septuagint
only, in Ecclesiasticus Hebrew text wanting.
THE PRIMITIVE GOSPEL STORY 85
xv. 9), 4 seven troubles ' (Job v. -19), 4 seven-
fold ' (Ps. xi. (xii.) 6, Ixxviii. (Ixxix.) 12 ;
Prov. vi. 31 ; Is. xxx. 26 ; Dan. iii. 19, [22] ;
Ecclus. vii. 3, [xx. 12], xxxii. (xxxv.) 11,
[xl. 8]), ' seven men ' (Prov. xxvi. 16), ' seven
abominations 5 (Prov. xxvi. 25), ' seven
women ' (Is. iv. 1), ' seven streams ' (Is. xi.
15), ' seven days ' (Is. xxx. 26), ' seven
months ' (Ezek. xxxix. 12, 14), c seven watch-
men ' (Ecclus. xxxvii. 14). In the gospels
we note * seven spirits ' (Matt. xii. 45 ; Luke
xi. 26), ' seven times ' (Matt, xviii. 21, 22 ;
Luke xvii. 4 bis), ' seven devils ' (Luke viii. 2).
1 Several loaves ' would easily become i five
loaves ' influenced by the incident of David at
Nob, ' if there are under thy hand five loaves,
give . . . what is found ' (1 Kings (Sam.)
xxi. 3). In Luke we read : c Give. . . .
There are not to us more than five loaves '
(ix. 13). David is frequently called a lad
1 Thou art a lad J (1 Kings (Sam.) xvii. 33),
4 He was a lad ' (xvii. 42), ' Whose son art
thou, lad ? ' (xvii. 58) and it was for his
4 lads ' (xxi. 2, 4, 5) that he wanted bread.
We see then the allusion in the saying given in
John, ' There is a lad here, which hath five
barley loaves ' (vi. 9). The Jacobean account
says : 4 They took up ... seven baskets, 5
but the Johannine, ' They filled twelve
86 THE PRIMITIVE GOSPEL STORY
baskets.' The twelve baskets were of the
type normally carried by the poorer Jews, 1
made of stout wicker work, and ' filled V
means 'laded,' not necessarily that they
became full. Each of the twelve apostles
evidently used his own basket for the
collection of the fragments, ' seven ' or
' several baskets ' of another type, probably
larger, such as that which was used by St.
Paul when escaping from Damascus (Acts ix.
25), being required to store them in readi-
ness for future use. There is no necessary
contradiction between the statements of the
Jacobean and Johannine traditions. The
Petrine account, as we have it in Luke,
suggests that the twelve baskets were full,
4 There was taken up that which remained
over . . . twelve baskets ' (ix. 17), while in
the later versions of the tradition in Mark and
Matthew it is actually stated, ' They took up
. . . twelve basketfuls .'. (Mark vi. 43), ' They
took up ... twelve baskets full ' (Matt. xiv.
20). Matthew also amplifies the Jacobean
statement of Mark, ' They took up ... seven
baskets ' (viii. 8), saying, ' They took up
... seven baskets full ' (xv. 37). We see the
different lines of tradition developing before
1 Juvenal, Satirae, Hi. 14, vi. 542 ; cf. Judges vi. 19,
Ps. Ixxx. (Ixxxi.) 6, and, in Aquila's translation, Gen. xl. 16*
THE PRIMITIVE GOSPEL STORY 87
our eyes, and find confirmation for our con-
clusions where the earlier stages have not
survived.
The allusions to Old Testament incidents
in the accounts of the feeding of the multitude
are not only interesting in themselves but
valuable as shewing the influences under
which development of narrative occurs. The
phrases ' lodge, and get victuals,' ' except we
should go and buy food for all this people,'
found in the Petrine story of the miracle in
Luke, take us back to the story of Joseph and
the famine, and must be regarded as inter-
pretative additions, the Jacobean account
in Mark having nothing to correspond. We
notice ' where they lodged ' (Gen. xlii. 27),
' when we came to the lodging place '
(xliii. 21), the verb found in the gospel being
used. The word translated ' victuals ' which
is found only thirteen times in the Septuagint
appears twice in the narrative of Joseph, ' to
give them victuals for the way ' (xlii. 25),
' and gave them victuals for the way ' (xlv.
21). Though the phrase ' get ' or rather
' find food ' does not appear, the verb ' get '
or ' find ' is frequent in the story of Joseph
(xxxix. 4 ; xli. 38 ; xliv. 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16,
17, 34 ; xlvii. 14, 25, 29 ; 1. 4). The thought
of going to buy food is common, providing
88 THE PRIMITIVE GOSPEL STORY
the basis for much of the narrative, the
identical words of the gospel being employed,
' Whence are ye come ? . . . From the land
of Canaan to buy food ' (xlii. 7), ' Go again,
purchase us a little food ' (xliii. 2), ' We will
go down and buy thee food. . . . We will not
go ' (xliii. 4-5), 'to buy food ' (xliii. 22), 4 Go
again, and buy us a little food ' (xliv. 25).
Even the phrase * for all this people ' is
repeated from Genesis, ' All my people shall
be obedient ' (xli. 40), ' All the people cried
to Pharaoh for bread ' (xli. 55), * He sold to
all the people of the land ' (xlii. 6).
The story of Joseph clearly supplied part
of the background of the Petrine account
of the feeding of the multitude. In the
Johannine account a similar use is made of
the story of Tobit. ' In the feast of Pente-
cost ... I sat down to eat. And I saw
abundance of meat, and I said to my son,
Go and bring what poor man soever thou
shalt find of our brethren, who is mindful of
the Lord ' (ii. 1-2). In the gospel we read :
' Now the feast of the Jews was at hand,
Jesus therefore . , . seeing that a great
multitude cometh unto him, saith unto
Philip, Whence are we to buy bread, that
these may eat ? ' (vi. 4-5). The idea of pro-
viding a feast because of the festival is
THE PRIMITIVE GOSPEL STORY 89
common to both. The Greek word for ' I
sat down ' is that used in the fourth gospel
of the multitude (vi. 10), in Mark (vi. 40),
copying John, but not in the Petrine tra-
dition in Luke, and in the Jacobean tradition
in Mark (viii. 6; cf. Matt. xv. 35). The
Greek word for ' seeing ' in John is that used
for ' I saw ' in Tobit, and that for ' great *
the word in Tobit translated ' abundance of.'
In the Sinaitic text instead of 4 1 saw abun-
dance of meat ' we read ' abundance of fishes
was set before me.' The Greek word used
here for ' fishes ' is found nowhere else in the
Septuagint, and in the New Testament only
in the fourth gospel in the present context
(vi. 9, 11) and in the epilogue (xxi. 9, 10, 13),
while the word for ' set before ' is that which
appears in the accounts of the miracle in
Luke (ix. 16) and Mark (vi. 41 ; viii. 6 bis, 7).
We notice that Tobit's son is commonly
called ' the lad ' (v. 16 ; vi. 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 13).
The incident of the fish forms an important
feature of the story. ' And the lad went
down to wash himself, and a fish leaped out
of the river. . . . And the lad caught hold
of the fish. . . . And they roasted the fish
and did eat it ' (vi. 2-3, 5). In the account
in John the lad has not one fish but two.
4 Two are better than one ' (Eccles. iv. 9).
90 THE PRIMITIVE GOSPEL STORY
1 There is a lad here, which hath . . . two
fishes.' In the light then of stories in the
Septuagint we understand both the five
loaves and the two fishes. The Petrine as
well as the Johannine tradition gives these
details which are absent from the Jacobean.
We seem thus to have evidence that the
Petrine and Johannine traditions are derived
from a common original at a later stage of
development than that which the Jacobean
represents, the allusions to the story of
Joseph in the Petrine tradition suggesting
that it is in this respect further developed
than the Johannine.
In the Jacobean account of the feeding of
the multitude we are told ' They were about
four thousand ' (Mark viii. 9), but in the
Petrine, ' They were about five thousand
men ' (Luke ix. 14), while in the Johannine
we read likewise, ' So the men sat down, in
number about five thousand ' (John vi. 10).
As the word ' about ' appears in each instance,
the discrepancy is not serious, but what is
the explanation ? The Jacobean version of
the story says that the miracle took place
' in a desert ' (Mark viii. 4 ; cf . Matt. xv. 33),
and the Petrine ' in a desert place ' (Luke
ix. 12; cf. Mark vi. 32, 35; Matt. xiv. 13,
15). We remember a statement of the book
THE PRIMITIVE GOSPEL STORY 91
of Judges which seems to have had an
influence. ' And they fled into the desert
. . . and the children of Israel gleaned of
them . . . five thousand men ' (xx. 45). In
the Jacobean account the word * men ' is
not expressed in the Greek (Mark viii. 9),
but it appears in the Petrine and Johannine
forms of the story (Luke ix. 14 ; John vi. 10),
and in the later versions of it in Mark (vi. 44)
and Matthew (xiv. 21, xv. 38), as in Judges.
The development of the statement in the
three traditions and the later versions is par-
ticularly interesting, ' about four thousand '
(Mark viii. 9), i about five thousand men '
(Luke ix. 14), c men ... in number about
five thousand ' (John vi. 10), c five thousand
men ' (Mark vi. 44), ' about five thousand
men, beside women and children ' (Matt. xiv.
21). Mark, we notice, improves the story by
omitting ' about,' but Matthew by adding
' beside women and children,' both altera-
tions appearing also in Matthew's version of
the Jacobean tradition, ' four thousand men,
beside women and children ' (xv. 38). Again
the evidence seems to prove that the Jacobean
is the earliest of the three traditions, the
Petrine in this case, as it has come down to
us, being more primitive than the Johannine,
which omits any mention of the ' desert,'
92 THE PRIMITIVE GOSPEL STORY
surely an original feature. As the Petrine
and Johannine traditions are largely inde-
pendent developments from a primitive
parent narrative, it is quite natural that at
some points one of them should retain the
earlier form of text, and at others the other.
There is perhaps no need to discuss in
detail every passage which affords evidence
of the existence in the earliest days, for
certain incidents at any rate, of a parent
form of story which afterwards developed
along more than one line of tradition. A
final example may be the dispute about
precedence which Luke, who in this context
is following the Petrine tradition, places at
the last supper. l And there arose also a
contention among them, which of them is
accounted to be greatest. And he said unto
them, The kings of the Gentiles have lord-
ship over them ; and they that have
authority over them are called Benefactors.
But ye shall not be so : but he that is greater
among you, let him become as the younger ;
and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.
For whether is greater, he that sitteth at
meat, or he that serveth ? is not he that
sitteth at meat ? but I am in the midst of
you as he that serveth ' (xxii. 24-27). In
Mark, which at this point is using Jacobean
THE PRIMITIVE GOSPEL STORY 93
material, another version of the saying is
given as the conclusion of the story of the
request of James and John, and probably it
represents the last stage of the controversy
raised by that incident. ' And Jesus called
them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know
that they which are accounted to rule over
the Gentiles lord it over them ; and their
great ones exercise authority over them.
But it is not so among you : but whosoever
would become great among you, shall be your
minister : and whosoever would be first
among you, shall be servant of all. For
verily the Son of man came not to be minis-
tered unto, but to minister, and to give his
life a ransom for many ' (x. 42-45).
The saying is clearly based on the descrip-
tion of the Servant of Jehovah, found in the
second Isaiah, expanded and interpreted in
terms of the sacrificial regulations of the
Pentateuch. ' Sanctify him that despiseth
his life, him that is abhorred by the Gentiles
that are the servants of rulers : kings shall
see him and rulers shall arise, and shall
worship him, for the Lord's sake ' (xlix. 7).
4 Behold, my servant shall understand, and
shall be exalted, and shall be glorified
exceedingly. . . . So shall many Gentiles
wonder at him : and kings shall shut their
94 THE PRIMITIVE GOSPEL STORY
mouths. ... The Lord also is pleased ...
to justify the just one who serveth many well
. . . for whom his life was delivered to
death' (Hi. 13,15, liii. 10 (11)-12). Among
similar statements in the Pentateuch we
note, ' He shall give life for life . . . he shall
give the ransom of his life ' (Exod. xxi. 23, 30 ;
cf . xxx. 12, 15 ; Lev. xxiv. 18). The last sen-
tence of Mark's version of the saying is absent
from Luke, but it is based on an essential
element in the description of the Servant,
which forms the groundwork of the passage,
and must be authentic. We may note the
verbal agreement between Luke's introduc-
tion to the saying, and the beginning of it in
Mark, echoes apparently in the Petrine and
Jacobean traditions of a word in the parent
narrative, ' And there arose also a contention
among them, which of them is accounted to
be greatest ' (xxii. 24), ' Ye know that they
which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles
lord it over them ' (x. 42). The fact that
1 Gentiles ' and ' kings ' are frequently men-
tioned together in the later Isaiahs, in the
passages already quoted and elsewhere (xli. 2,
xlv. 1, xlix. 7, 22-23, [li. 4], Hi. 15, Ix. 3, 11,
[12], 16, Ixii. 2), seems to explain why the long
description * they which are accounted to rule
over the Gentiles ' of one tradition appears
THE PRIMITIVE GOSPEL STORY 95
in the other as c the kings of the Gentiles.'
We note various reminiscences of the Septua-
gint in the Petrine tradition as it appears in
Luke. ' He sent unto Jonathan the high
priest, saying . . . And why dost thou
vaunt thy authority against us ? ... And
Jonathan had lordship over Joppa ' (1 Mace,
x. 69, 70, 76). ' They alone among the
Gentiles lift up their heads against kings and
their own benefactors ' (3 Mace. iii. 19).
The idea of a suffering Son of man, due to
the identification of the suffering Servant of
Jehovah of the second Isaiah with the Son
of man of the book of Enoch, is quite com-
mon both in Mark (viii. 31, ix. 9, 12, 31,
x. 33, 45, xiv. 21, 41) and in Luke (ix. 22, 44,
58, xviii. 31, xxii. 22, 48, xxiv. 7), and must
be an authentic element in our Lord's teach-
ing, so that, although it does not appear in
the present saying according to the Petrine
tradition preserved in Luke, there is no need
to reject it as an interpolation in the Jacobean
tradition utilised in Mark. The differences
between the two versions of the saying are
exactly such as we might expect in two
reports of the same speech belonging to
two distinct lines of tradition which are yet
traceable to a parent source, the primitive
record of the actual words of Jesus.
CHAPTER V
SOME ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE HYPOTHESIS
Now that we have distinguished the three
streams of tradition in the gospels, flowing
from a common source, we may consider some
of the results of our conclusions on the inter-
pretation of certain passages, and in parti-
cular our identification of certain elements as
Johannine. Luke says : ' Whether is easier,
to say, Thy sins are forgiven thee ; or to
say, Arise and walk ? But that ye may
know that the Son of man hath power on
earth to forgive sins (he said unto him that
was palsied), I say unto thee, Arise, and take
up thy couch, and go unto thy house. And
immediately he rose up before them, and
took up that whereon he lay, and departed
to his house ' (v. 23-25). John says : ' Jesus
saith unto him, Arise, take up thy bed, and
walk. And straightway the man was made
whole, and took up his bed and walked.
Now it was the sabbath on that day. So the
Jews said unto him that was cured, It is
the sabbath, and it is not lawful for thee to
SOME ILLUSTRATIONS 97
take up thy bed. But he answered them, He
that made me whole, the same said unto me,
Take up thy bed, and walk. They asked
him, Who is the man that said unto thee,
Take up thy bed, and walk ' (v. 8-12). Mark
says : * Whether is easier, to say to the sick
of the palsy, Thy sins are forgiven ; or to
say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk ?
But that ye may know that the Son of man
hath power on earth to forgive sins (he saith
to the sick of the palsy), I say unto thee,
Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thy
house. And he arose, and straightway took
up the bed, and went forth before them all '
(ii. 9-12).
Mark's account is clearly a conflation of
Luke and John. In Luke, we note, a certain
similarity to John exists, but it is not very
close. In Mark, however, the similarity has
practically become identity. ' Arise, take up
thy bed, and walk. And straightway the
man . . . took up his bed and walked,'
' Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk. . . .
Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thy house.
And he ... straightway took up the bed,
and went forth.' The resemblance is the
more striking because of the Greek word, used
in John and Mark but not in Luke, for bed
or couch, which is said by the grammarians
H
98 SOME ILLUSTRATIONS
to be a vulgarism. In John ' Take up thy
bed ' is the pivot of the story, but in Mark
it is quite otiose. If John's account be the
latest, we have to suppose that he picked out
a quite unimportant statement of Mark, not
found at all in Luke, and made it the central
feature of a new story, repeating it indeed
several times. The argument that John
would not be likely to use a vulgar word
like that translated ' bed, ' except as a result
of literary borrowing, loses its cogency when
we notice that the word is used by Luke
(Acts v. 15, ix. 33), while Matthew who
certainly bases his narrative on Mark avoids
it. If, however, we suppose that John is one
of the three chief sources of Mark, all the
difficulties disappear.
The accounts of our Lord's triumphant
entry into Jerusalem in Luke and John have
much in common, yet it is plain that their
agreement is due, not to borrowing one from
the other, but merely to the fact that they
are descriptions of the same incident, though
by different eyewitnesses, Peter and John.
Luke says : ; And they that were sent went
away, and found even as he had said unto
them. And as they were loosing the colt, the
owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye
the colt ? And they said, The Lord hath need
OF THE HYPOTHESIS 99
of him. And they brought him to Jesus :
and they threw their garments upon the colt,
and set Jesus thereon. And as he went,
they spread their garments in the way. And
as he was now drawing nigh, even at the
descent of the mount of Olives, the whole
multitude of the disciples began to rejoice
and praise God with a loud voice for all the
mighty works which they had seen ; saying :
Blessed is the King that cometh in the name
of the Lord : peace in heaven, and glory in
the highest. And some of the Pharisees from
the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke
thy disciples ' (xix. 32-39). John says : ' On
the morrow a great multitude that had come
to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was
coming to Jerusalem, took the branches of
the palm trees, and went forth to meet him,
and cried out, Hosanna : Blessed is he that
cometh in the name of the Lord, even the
King of Israel. And Jesus, having found
a young ass, sat thereon; as it is written,
Fear not, daughter of Zion : behold, thy
king cometh, sitting on an ass's colt. . . .
The multitude therefore that was with
him when he called Lazarus out of the
tomb, and raised him from the dead, bare
witness. For this cause also the multitude
went and met him, for that they heard that
100 SOME ILLUSTRATIONS
he had done this sign. The Pharisees there-
fore said among themselves, Behold how ye
prevail nothing : lo, the world is gone after
him ' (xii. 12-15, 17-19). Mark says : And
they went away, and found a colt tied at the
door without in the open street ; and they
loose him. And certain of them that stood
there said unto them, What do ye, loosing
the colt ? And they said unto them even
as Jesus had said : and they let them go.
And they bring the colt unto Jesus, and cast
on him their garments ; and he sat upon
him. And many spread their garments upon
the way ; and others branches, which they
had cut from the fields. And they that
went before, and they that followed, cried,
Hosanna ; Blessed is he that cometh in the
name of the Lord : Blessed is the kingdom
that cometh, the kingdom of our father
David : Hosanna in the highest ' (xi. 4-10).
Mark plainly uses the Petrine tradition as
the basis of his account, yet he augments it
by phraseology from John, ' they found a
colt/ 4 having found a young ass'; 'and he
sat upon him,' ' And Jesus . . . sat thereon';
' branches, which they had cut from the
fields,' 'the branches of the palm trees';
' they cried,' ' they cried out.' ' They that
went before, and they that followed ' appears
OF THE HYPOTHESIS 101
to be an allusion to the two multitudes
mentioned in John, that which 4 was with
him when he called Lazarus out of the tomb/
and that which * went and met him,' whether
they should rightly be distinguished or not,
Luke's expression c the whole multitude of
the disciples ' being interpreted as two dis-
tinct companies. Mark conflates the two
accounts as a whole, but in particular the
cry of the multitudes. 'Hosanna; Blessed
is he that cometh in the name of the Lord '
is taken from John. David was * king of
Israel' (2 Kings (Sam.) vi. 20; 2 Chron.
xxxv. 3), and * Blessed is the king that
cometh,' ' Blessed is he that cometh . . .
even the King of Israel ' become ' Blessed is
the kingdom that cometh, the kingdom of
our father David.' 4 Peace in heaven, and
glory in the highest ' reminds us of ' Glory to
God in the highest, and on earth peace ' (Luke
ii. 14), and there may be a reminiscence of
other phraseology in the birth stories of
Luke, 'The Lord God shall give unto him
the throne of his father David . . . and of
his kingdom there shall be no end ' (i. 32-33),
1 A horn of salvation for us in the house of
his servant David ... to remember . . .
the oath which he sware unto Abraham our
father' (i. 69, 72-73), ' In the city of David
102 SOME ILLUSTRATIONS
a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord* (ii. 11).
Matthew awkwardly adds a popular title,
4 Hosann,a to the son of David : Blessed is
he that cometh ' (xxi. 9), the designation
'son of David' appearing three times in Luke
(xviii. 38, 39, xx, 41), three times in Mark
(x. 47, 48, xii. 35), and nine times in Matthew
(i. 1, 20, ix. 27, xii. 23, xv. 22, xx. 30, 31,
xxi. 9, 15). This strange use of ' Hosanna '
had its origin in Mark's combination of
* Hosanna,' and c Peace in heaven, and glory
in the highest ' to form 'Hosanna in the
highest,' an unprecedented and, though so
familiar to-day, a difficult and almost mean-
ingless exclamation. Mark has other details
not found in either the Petrine or Johannine
tradition, but they appear to be no more
than interpretative additions of the editor,
and there is perhaps no sufficient reason to
postulate the use of the Jacobean tradition
also. It is curious that he omits the reasons
for the congress of the multitudes, the
working of miracles and raising of Lazarus,
and the hostility of the Pharisees, which are
mentioned in both the Petrine and Johannine
traditions.
Recognition of the existence of the three
traditions in the gospels throws light also
upon the story of the cleansing of the temple.
OF THE HYPOTHESIS 103
Luke says : ' And he entered into the temple,
and began to cast out them that sold, saying
unto them, It is written, And my house shall
be a house of prayer : but ye have made it
a den of robbers ' (xix. 45-46). John says :
' And Jesus went up to Jerusalem. And he
found in the temple those that sold oxen and
sheep and doves, and the changers of money
sitting : and he made a scourge of cords,
and cast all out of the temple, both the sheep
and the oxen ; and he poured out the
changers' money, and overthrew their tables ;
and to them that sold the doves he said,
Take these things hence ; make not my
Father's house a house of merchandise ' (ii.
13-16). Mark says : ' And they come to
Jerusalem : and he entered into the temple,
and began to cast out them that sold and
them that bought in the temple, and over-
threw the tables of the money-changers, and
the seats of them that sold the doves ; and
he would not suffer that any man should
carry a vessel through the temple. And he
taught, and said unto them, Is it not written,
My house shall be called a house of prayer for
all the nations ? but ye have made it a den
of robbers' (xi. 15-17).
Comparing the narratives, it is plain that
Mark's account is a combination of what we
104 SOME ILLUSTRATIONS
find in Luke and John, together with a few
editorial additions and alterations. The out-
line is that found in Luke, but the mention
of the overthrowing of the tables of the
money-changers and the selling of the doves
is from John. The references to ' those that
bought ' and ' the seats ' are apparently only
editorial improvements. As Mark not in-
frequently enlarges Old Testament quotations
(iv. 12, xii. 1, xii. 29-30, xiv. 62; cf. Luke
viii. 10, xx. 9, x. 27, xxii. 69 ; Is. vi. 9-10,
v. 1-2 ; Deut. vi. 4-5 ; Dan. vii. 13), the
addition to the text from Isaiah, * called . . .
for all the nations ' (Ivi. 7), is easily explained.
Though the market was held in the court of
the Gentiles, the enlargement is somewhat
incongruous, for no matter touching the Gen-
tiles was in dispute. The longer insertion,
' And he would not suffer that any man
should carry a vessel through the temple,'
puts into our Lord's mouth what was
apparently a well-known Jewish rule at the
period. Josephus says : ; Nor is it lawful
to carry any vessel into the temple.' 1 The
Talmud also preserves a similar regulation,
' What is the reverence of the temple ?
That none go into the mountain of the
temple with his staff, and his shoes, with
1 C. Apion. ii. 8.
OF THE HYPOTHESIS 105
his purse, and dust upon his feet, and that
none make it his common thoroughfare.' *
A like prohibition held, we are told, even
with regard to a synagogue. R. Eleazar
ben Shammua said : ' I never made a
synagogue a common thoroughfare.' 2 We
even read : ' A synagogue, now laid waste,
let not men make a common thoroughfare.' 3
The composite character of Mark's narrative
is plain, and he has not limited himself to a
combination of different apostolic traditions.
Evidently the cleansing is regarded as taking
place only once, though John puts it at the
beginning of our Lord's ministry and Luke
at the end. Before his account of the
cleansing John says : ' And the passover of
the Jews was nigh, and Jesus went up to
Jerusalem. And he found in the temple . . .'
(ii. 13-14), and before his account of the
triumphal entry, ' Jesus therefore six days
before the passover came to Bethany. ...
On the morrow a great multitude that had
come to the feast, when they heard that
Jesus was coming to Jerusalem, took the
branches of the palm trees, and went forth
to meet him' (xii. 1, 12-13). Doubtless
similar notes of time appeared in the Petrine
1 Babylonian Yebamoth, fol. 66. See Lightfoot, Horae
Hebraicae et Talmudicae in Works (1823), vol. xi. pp. 413-4.
2 Megillah, fol. 27b. * Ibid. fol. 28a.
106 SOME ILLUSTRATIONS
tradition in its original form, but Luke has
equated them. 4 And ... he went on before,
going up to Jerusalem. And it came to pass,
when he drew nigh unto Bethphage and
Bethany > at the mount that is called the
mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples.
. . . And as he went, they spread their
garments in the way. . . . And he entered
into the temple. . . . Now the feast of
unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called
the Passover' (xix. 28-29, 36, 45, xxii. 1).
Luke puts both the triumphant entry and
the cleansing of the temple on the Sunday.
Mark puts the latter on the Monday, intro-
ducing his account by the words ' And they
come to Jerusalem,' corresponding to ' And
Jesus went up to Jerusalem ' of John. There
can be little doubt that the fourth gospel
is more accurate in this matter than either
Luke or Mark.
Almost at the point where Luke says our
Lord saw the city of Jerusalem and wept over
it in disappointment, Mark says He saw a
fig tree afar off, and drawing near was dis-
appointed to find nothing but leaves. Indeed,
both incidents are said to have taken place
in the course of the journey to Jerusalem
which preceded the cleansing of the temple.
What is the connexion between the two
OF THE HYPOTHESIS 107
events ? Mark says : ' And on the morrow,
when they were come out from Bethany, he
hungered. And seeing a fig tree afar off
having leaves, he came, if haply he might
find anything thereon : and when he came
to it, he found nothing but leaves ; for it was
not the season of figs. And he answered and
said unto it, No man eat fruit from thee
henceforward for ever. And his disciples
heard it. . . . And as they passed by in the
morning, they saw the fig tree withered away
from the roots. And Peter calling to re-
membrance saith unto him, Rabbi, behold,
the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered
away. And Jesus answering saith unto
them, Have faith in God. Verily I say unto
you, Whosoever shall say unto this mountain,
Be thou taken up and cast into the sea ; and
shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe
that what he saith cometh to pass ; he shall
have it. Therefore I say unto you, All things
whatsoever ye pray and ask for, believe that
ye have received them, and ye shall have
them. And whensoever ye stand praying,
forgive, if ye have aught against any one ;
that your Father also which is in heaven
may forgive you your trespasses ' (xi. 12-14,
20-25). The passage is certainly built up in
part of material from the tradition of James.
108 SOME ILLUSTRATIONS
Our Lord's reply to Peter is clearly another
version of His saying about the sycamine
tree found in Luke. ' If ye have faith as a
grain of mustard seed, ye would say unto
this sycamine tree, Be thou rooted up, and
be thou planted in the sea ; and it would
have obeyed you ' (xvii. 6). In the Septua-
gint the sycamine tree is the fig-mulberry
(3 (1) Kings x. 31 (27) ; 1 Chron. xxvii. 28 ;
2 Chron. i. 15, ix. 27 ; Ps. Ixxvii. (Ixxviii.) 47 ;
Is. ix. 10 ; Amos vii. 14), the sycamore of the
story of Zacchaeus (Luke xix. 4). The fig and
sycamore trees have similar fruits, but other-
wise the connexion between the cursing of the
fig tree and the saying about the sycamine tree
is not obvious, for the withering of the fig tree
was not the result of an act of faith in God.
Even this connexion has disappeared, how-
ever, in the saying as given in Mark, for we
read : ' Whosoever shall say unto this moun-
tain, Be thou taken up and cast into the
sea.' The change appears to be due to the
influence of the Talmud. We read: 'Kabbah
[bar Nachmani] is a rooter up of mountains,' '
4 He saw Resh Lachish in the school, as if he
were plucking up of mountains.' 2 The fact
that the result produced a saying of the
1 Bab. Berakoth, fol. 64a. See Lightfoot, Works, xi. p. 270.
2 Bab. Sanh., fol. 24a ; cf. Bab. Erubin, fol. 29a.
OF THE HYPOTHESIS 109
psalmist probably helped the change,
* though the mountains be moved in the
heart of the seas ' (xlv. (xlvi). 2).
The latter part of our Lord's reply is
likewise based on passages in the tradition of
James found in Luke. ' If thy brother sin,
rebuke him ; and if he repent, forgive him.
And if he sin against thee seven times in the
day, and seven times turn again to thee,
saying, I repent ; thou shalt forgive him '
(xvii. 3-4). ' One of his disciples said unto
him, Lord, teach us to pray. . . . And he
said unto them, When ye pray, say, Father
. . . Forgive us our sins ; for we ourselves
also forgive every one that is indebted to us.
. . . And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall
be given you. . . . For every one that asketh
receiveth ' (xi. 1-2, 4, 9-10). The first passage
immediately precedes the saying about the
sycamine tree, and the second contains the
same teaching about forgiveness, shewing
that it is the only basis of effective prayer.
Yet the saying recorded in Mark is not based
directly on the sayings quoted from Luke.
' Your Father which is in heaven ' is a
characteristic expression of the first gospel,
occurring in it no fewer than thirteen times
(v. 16, 45, vi. 1, 9, vii. 11, 21, x. 32, 33,
xii. 50, xvi. 17, xviii. 10, 14, 19), but
110 SOME ILLUSTRATIONS
elsewhere in the New Testament only in the
present passage. An examination of Matthew
x. 17-22, which deals with persecutions,
shews that, though later than Luke xxi. 12-19
and Luke xii. 11-12, which it conflates, it is
earlier than Mark xiii. 9-13, a fact indeed
which in the case of one or two verses we
have noted already. The same thing is true
with regard to the section of Mark under
discussion. Mark xi. 24-25 is later than the
corresponding words in Matthew vi. and vii.
Matthew says : ' After this manner therefore
pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven.
... Forgive us our debts, as we also have
forgiven our debtors. . . . For if ye forgive
men their trespasses, your heavenly Father
will also forgive you. But if ye forgive not
men their trespasses, neither will your Father
forgive your trespasses. . . . Ask, and it shall
be given you . . . for every one that asketh
receiveth ' (vi. 9, 12, 14-15, vii. 7-8).
It is plain that the verses of Mark under
consideration cannot belong to our Lord's
journey into Jerusalem on the last Monday
of His earthly life as the gospel seems to say.
Wliat is given as a reply to Peter is really a
highly composite saying, compiled of material
from various sources, rabbinical as well as
evangelical, though in the main it is derived
OF THE HYPOTHESIS 111
from the Jacobean line of tradition by the
modification and combination of different
sayings.
If the reply to Peter can be explained in
this way, what are we to say of the rest of
the story ? Is it the report of an historical
incident, or is it to be regarded as a piece of
early Christian midrash ? Its position in
the gospel narrative and the fact that the
spiritual interpretation of our Lord's dis-
appointment with regard to the fig tree is
His disappointment with regard to Jerusalem,
over which He wept, suggest the latter. The
parable of the barren fig tree makes the
interpretation clear. ' A certain man had a
fig tree planted in his vineyard ; and he came
seeking fruit thereon, and found none. And
he said unto the vinedresser, Behold, these
three years I come seeking fruit on this
fig tree, and find none : cut it down ; why
doth it also cumber the ground ? And he
answering saith unto him, Lord, let it alone
this year also, till I shall dig about it, and
dung it : and if it bear fruit thenceforth,
well : but if not, thou shalt cut it down '
(Luke xiii. 6-9). Like the illustration of the
sycamine tree the parable belongs to the
Jacobean line of tradition. If a saying made
on another very different occasion can be
112 SOME ILLUSTRATIONS
given as an answer to Peter on the way
to Jerusalem, it is not impossible that the
parable of the barren fig tree should be
regarded as an actual incident which called
forth the reply. The problem is a literary
one, and the change involved is no greater
than that by which ' Ye would say unto this
sycamine tree, Be thou rooted up, and be
thou planted in the sea,' becomes 'Whoso-
ever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou
taken up and cast into the sea.' In one case
as in the other it would only mean that the
original nucleus is modified from other
sources. The warning to the fig tree, ' If it
bear fruit thenceforth, well ; but if not, thou
shalt cut it down,' is exactly our Lord's
warning to Jerusalem and the Jews, ' Except
ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish ' (Luke
xiii. 5, cf . 3). The signs of the destruction of
Jerusalem and the coming of the kingdom
He had explained by another parable of a
fig tree. ' Behold the fig tree, and all the
trees : when they now shoot forth, ye see it
and know of your own selves that the summer
is now nigh. Even so ye also, when ye see
these things coming to pass, know ye that
the kingdom of God is nigh ' (Luke xxi.
29-31). The promise of the book of Pro-
verbs is reversed. ' He that planteth a
OF THE HYPOTHESIS 113
fig tree shall eat the fruits of it ' (xxvii. 18),
* No man eat fruit from thee henceforward
for ever. 5 John Baptist's warning, which is
given in the sermon on the mount as a saying
of our Lord (Matt. vii. 19), is specially
applicable to Jerusalem. c Every tree . . .
that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn
down, and cast into the fire ' (Luke iii. 9).
Yet our Lord's final sentence on the fig tree,
that is, Jerusalem, was not that it should be
cut down, but that it should wither. ' If they
do these things in the green tree, what shall
be done in the dry ? ' (Lukexxiii. 31). ' Rooted
up ' of the parable thus becomes 4 withered
away from the roots ' in the narrative of
Mark. Even details of time and occasion
had been prophesied by the psalmist. ' In
the morning let it flourish and pass away ; in
the evening let it droop, let it be withered
and dried up ' (Ixxxix. (xc.) 6). ' They that
be cursed of him shall be cut off. ... I have
seen the wicked in great power, and spreading
himself like a green tree in its native soil.
But one passed by, and, lo, he was not '
(xxxvii. 22, 35-36, Heb.). 'And as they
passed by in the morning, they saw the fig
tree withered away from the roots.' Com-
paring Matthew xviii. 21-22 with Luke xvii.
3-4 we find that it was Peter who asked the
I
114 SOME ILLUSTRATIONS
question which led to the sayings about
forgiveness and faith (Luke xvii. 3-6) which,
modified and conflated with other sayings
(Luke xi. 1-2, 4, 9-10 = Matt. vi. 9, 12, 14-15,
vii. 7-8), appear in Mark as a short discourse
at the conclusion of the story of the fig tree.
So, too, it was Peter who made the remark to
which in the second gospel this discourse is
given as the reply. The name has persisted
though the change in the context is immense,
for instead of forgiveness of a brother until
seven times we read -of vengeance on a fig
tree because nothing but leaves was found
upon it, in spite of the fact that, as the
evangelist says, ' it was not the season of
figs.' Though a saying about forgiveness also
survives, it seems very much out of place
attached to the lesson about the necessity
of faith the writer would have us draw from
an incident which it is difficult to regard as
anything but an arbitrary act of punishment.
As the account of an actual event the story
appears impossible, and must be explained as
the result of the materialisation of parables
and metaphorical sayings into a narrative
historical in form in the course of a process
of literary development and accretion. If
the story stood alone we might hesitate to
postulate such an origin, but other examples
OF THE HYPOTHESIS 115
-of the same thing may be recognised in
the second gospel, including, as we shall see,
the portents at the time of the crucifixion
with the cry of dereliction, and also what
is the most important instance, the long
discourse on the last things.
CHAPTER VI
THE ANOINTING OF JESUS
IN Mark just before the narrative of the
passion we have an account of a woman
anointing our Lord's head : ' And while he
was at Bethany in the house of Simon the
leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman
having an alabaster cruse of ointment of
spikenard very costly ; and she brake the
cruse, and poured it over his head. But
there were some that had indignation among
themselves, saying, To what purpose hath
this waste of the ointment been made ? For
this ointment might have been sold for above
three hundred pence, and given to the poor.
And they murmured against her. But Jesus
said, Let her alone ; why trouble ye her ?
she hath wrought a good work on me. For
ye have the poor always with you, and when-
soever ye will ye can do them good : but me
ye have not always. She hath done what
she could : she hath anointed my body
aforehand for the burying. And verily I say
THE ANOINTING OF JESUS 117
unto you, Wheresoever the gospel shall be
preached throughout the whole world, that
also which this woman hath done shall be
spoken of for a memorial of her ' (xiv. 3-9).
As the story is absent from Luke at the
point it is apparently no part of the Petrine
tradition, and must be ascribed to James or
John, or both, for there seems to be no reason
to postulate another source. Luke gives
another story of an anointing in a section
made up of material drawn from the Jacobean
line of tradition. ' And one of the Pharisees
desired him that he would eat with him. And
he entered into the Pharisee's house, and sat
down to meat. And behold, a woman which
was in the city, a sinner ; and when she knew
that he was sitting at meat in the Pharisee's
house, she brought an alabaster cruse of oint-
ment, and standing behind at his feet, weep-
ing, she began to wet his feet with her tears,
and wiped them with the hair of her head,
and kissed his feet, and anointed them with
the ointment. Now when the Pharisee which
had bidden him saw it, he spake within him-
self, saying, This man, if he were a prophet,
would have perceived who and what manner
of woman this is which toucheth him, that
she is a sinner. And Jesus answering said
unto him, Simon, I have somewhat to say
118 THE ANOINTING OF JESUS
unto thee. And he saith, Master, say on.
A certain lender had two debtors : the one
owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty.
When they had not wherewith to pay, he
forgave them both. Which of them there-
fore will love him most ? Simon answered
and said, He, I suppose, to whom he forgave
the most. And he said unto him, Thou hast
rightly judged. And turning to the woman,
he said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman ?
I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no
water for my feet : but she hath wetted my
feet with her tears, and wiped them with her
hair. Thou gavest me no kiss : but she,
since the time I came in, hath not ceased to
kiss my feet. My head with oil thou didst
not anoint : but she hath anointed my feet
with ointment. Wherefore I say unto thee,
Her sins, which are many, are forgiven ; for
she loved much : but to whom little is for-
given, the same loveth little. And he said
unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. And they
that sat at meat with him began to say within
themselves, Who is this that even forgiveth
sins ? And he said unto the woman, Thy
faith hath saved thee ; go in peace v (vii.
36-50).
John also gives us a story of an anointing,
placing it just before his account of the
THE ANOINTING OF JESUS 119
triumphant entry : ' Jesus therefore six days
before the passover came to Bethany, where
Lazarus was, whom Jesus raised from the
dead. So they made him a supper there :
and Martha served ; but Lazarus was one of
them that sat at meat with him. Mary there-
fore took a pound of ointment of spikenard,
very precious, and anointed the feet of Jesus,
and wiped his feet with her hair : and the
house was filled with the odour of the oint-
ment. But Judas Iscariot, one of his dis-
ciples, which should betray him, saith, Why
was not this ointment sold for three hundred
pence, and given to the poor ? Now this he
said, not because he cared for the poor ; but
because he was a thief, and having the bag
took away what was put therein. Jesus
therefore said, Suffer her to keep it against
the day of my burying. For the poor ye
have always with you ; but me ye have not
always ' (xii. 1-8).
It is plain that the narratives of Mark and
John cannot be entirely independent. Not
only phrases, but whole sentences are practi-
cally identical 'while he was in Bethany,'
' Jesus . . . came to Bethany ' ; 'in the
house,' ' the house ' ; 'as he sat at meat,'
' them that sat at meat with him ' ; 'of
ointment of spikenard very costly,' ' of
120 THE ANOINTING OF JESUS
ointment of spikenard, very precious ' ; ' Why
[To what purpose] hath this waste of the
ointment been made,' 4 Why was not this
ointment sold ' ; ' this ointment might have
been sold for above three hundred pence,
and given to the poor,' ' Why was not this
ointment sold for three hundred pence, and
given to the poor ' ; * But Jesus said, Let
her alone,' ' Jesus therefore said, Let her
alone [Suffer her] ' ; ' For ye have the poor
always with you . . . but me ye have not
always,' ' For the poor ye have always with
you ; but me ye have not always * ; * for
the burying,' ' for [against] the day of my
burying.' In his account of the voyage over
the lake after the feeding of the multitude
we decided that Mark was using material
from the Johannine tradition ; the evidence
points to the same conclusion in the present
passage.
Yet, as in the story of the voyage, Mark
appears to have drawn upon the Jacobean
line of tradition as well as the Johannine, and
his account of the anointing has various
points in common with Luke's account of
the anointing of our Lord by the woman that
was a sinner ' in the house of Simon,' ' in
the house of the Pharisee . . . Simon ' ; * he
sat at meat,* * he was sitting at meat ' ;
THE ANOINTING OF JESUS 121
' there came a woman,' ' behold, a woman ' ;
4 having an alabaster cruse of ointment,' ' she
brought an alabaster cruse of ointment ' ;
' she poured it over his head,' * my head with
oil thou didst not anoint ' ; ' But Jesus said,'
' And Jesus answering said.'
Yet not the whole of Mark's narrative can
be explained as derived from the Jacobean and
Johannine traditions as we know them. In
particular the statements that Simon was
a leper and that the woman broke the box
of ointment seem to indicate the use of
additional information or another line of
tradition. Certain elements are almost cer-
tainly editorial additions, while others may
be such. The influence of the Old Testament
is also apparent at some points. Mark says
the woman poured the ointment over our
Lord's head, but Luke and John that she
anointed His feet. To pour oil upon the head
is common in the Old Testament (Exod. xxix.
7 ; Lev. viii. 12, xxi. 10 ; 1 Kings (Sam.) x.
1; 4 (2) Kings ix. 3, 6; cf. Lev. xiv. 18),
though the word in the Greek has a different
prefix. The reading in Mark therefore is
probably due to assimilation, possibly also
to the influence of the saying to Simon, ' My
head with oil thou didst not anoint,' and even
of the reference to the woman's ' head ' in
122 THE ANOINTING OF JESUS
the Jacobean form of the story. To anoint
the head in the Old Testament however is a
sign of joy (Ps. xxii. (xxiii.) 5), not of sorrow,
and in no case is it an accompaniment of a
burial or used of a corpse. Our Lord's ex-
planation of the action provides an argument
against the originality of the reading in Mark,
and in favour of that in Luke.
' But there were some that had indigna-
tion among themselves ' is a statement with
no parallel in the traditions recorded in Luke
and John. The Greek for ' have indigna-
tion ' appears once in Luke (xiii. 14), three
times in Mark (x. 14, 41, xiv. 4), and three
times in Matthew (xx. 24, xxi. 15, xxvi. 8).
As the example in Luke and one at any rate
of the examples in Mark (x. 41) are found in
Jacobean material, it is not improbable that
the present example has the same origin.
4 And they murmured against her ' has like-
wise no parallel in the other traditions. The
Greek word translated ' they murmured '
occurs twice in Mark (i. 43, xiv. 5), once in
Matthew (ix. 30), and twice in John (xi. 33,
38), but not in Luke or elsewhere in the New
Testament, and only once in the Septuagint
(Dan. xi. 30 ; cf. Lam. ii. 6). In Mark i. 43
the word seems due to an assimilation of the
phraseology of the narrative to that of the
THE ANOINTING OF JESUS 123
healing of the two blind men in the house
(Matt. ix. 27-31), which is apparently the
Jacobean equivalent of the story of the
healing of the blind man at Jericho in the
Petrine tradition (Luke xviii. 35-43), so that
in the present passage the addition is perhaps
likewise Jacobean and not merely editorial.
' Why trouble ye her ? 'which is also absent
from the traditions given in Luke and John,
is likewise not improbably Jacobean, similar
words appearing twice in Luke (xi. 7, xviii.
5), each time in Jacobean material, but only
once in Mark and Matthew (xxvi. 10) in the
present story, and once in the epistle to
the Galatians (vi. 17). It is found also in
Ecclesiasticus (xxix. 4). c She hath wrought
[worked] a good work on me ' is also wanting
from the traditions in Luke and John. Apart
from the present narrative, where it appears
in Matthew (xxvi. 10) as well as in Mark, the
phrase c work a work ' is found only twice in
the New Testament (Acts xiii. 41 ; 1 Cor.
xvi. 10), once in a quotation from Habakkuk
(i. 5). In the Septuagint it appears but twice
(Hab. i. 5 ; Ecclus. li. 30). The form ' work
the works ' is found twice in John (vi. 28,
ix. 4), and five times in the book of Numbers
(iii. 7, viii. 11, 15, 19, 26), but not elsewhere.
The phrase ' good work ' appears also twice
124 THE ANOINTING OF JESUS
in John (x. 32, 33), and twice in Matthew
(v. 16, xxvi. 10), and ten times in the rest
of the New Testament, all but two in the
Pastoral Epistles. l And whensoever ye will
ye can do them good ' is absent from all the
other accounts of the anointing, the rest of
the saying in almost identical words being
given in John. The Greek phrase for ' do
good ' appears nowhere else in the New
Testament, but it is quite common in the
Septuagint, occurring thirty times. We note
in particular a saying in Ecclesiasticus : ' If
thou do good, know to whom thou doest it.
... Do good to a godly man. ... Do good
to one that is lowly ' (xii. 1, 2, 5). The pre-
diction at the end of Mark's account is
likewise absent from the stories in Luke and
John. The noun ' gospel ' does not appear in
either of these gospels, though Mark has it
seven times (i. 1, 14, 15, viii. 35, x. 29,
xiii. 10, xiv. 9), and Matthew four (iv. 23,
ix. 35, xxiv. 14, xxvi. 13), but except in
the eschatological discourse and the present
context the word does not appear in the
same positions in the two books. In every
case it would seem to be a later addition,
expressing the ideas of the early church.
The phrase ' the whole world ' is found once
in Luke (ix. 25) and twice in Mark (viii. 36,
THE ANOINTING OF JESUS 125
xiv. 9) and Matthew (xvi. 26, xxvi. 13), in
the present context and another, also once
in the epistle to the Romans (i. 8) and twice
in the first epistle of John (ii. 2, v. 19). In
Luke and the corresponding passages of Mark
and Matthew it occurs hi an interpretative
addition to a saying recorded in Luke xvii.
33, based on a passage of the Apocalypse of
Baruch (li. 15-16), as we have seen. It is
not improbable therefore that in the present
context also the phrase is due to the editor.
The prediction about preaching the gospel
throughout the whole world is thus probably
not part of the primitive tradition of our
Lord's words. In the eschatological dis-
course the saying, ' the gospel must first be
preached unto all the nations ' (xiii. 10), we
have already decided, is a later addition
to the original text. The Greek word for
' memorial ' occurs only in the present con-
text in the gospels, in Matthew (xxvi. 13) as
well as Mark, once also in Acts (x. 4), but
not elsewhere in the New Testament. It is
quite frequent in the Septuagint, occurring
seventy -one times, particularly in Ecclesias-
ticus, where it appears seventeen times. We
notice in particular, ' There be of them, that
have left a name behind them, to declare
their praises. And some there be, which have
126 THE ANOINTING OF JESUS
no memorial. ... And the congregation
telleth out their praise ' (xliv. 8, 9, 15). The
passage with its reference to the 'church'
or * congregation ' may have suggested the
saying in the gospel. In Mark however,
though she has such a memorial, the woman
has left no name. The whole verse would
appear to be an interpretative addition,
originating perhaps in the comment of a
primitive evangelist.
Our investigation seems to have shewn
that certain details of the narrative of Mark
are in all probability due to editorial expan-
sion and the influence of the Old Testament,
but that the writer must have had access to
some other source of information than the
stories quoted above, though apparently it
was part of the tradition of James.
The accounts of the anointing given in
Luke and John have also much in common.
In both instances it took place while Jesus
' sat at meat * in a i house.' In the Jacobean
story of Luke we read : ' She brought an
alabaster cruse of ointment, and standing
behind at his feet, weeping, she began to
wet his feet with her tears, and wiped them
with the hair of her head, and kissed his
feet, and anointed them with the ointment.'
In the Johannme story we read : 4 Mary
THE ANOINTING OF JESUS 127
therefore took a pound of ointment of
spikenard, very precious, and anointed the
feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her
hair.' Both mention the ' ointment,' the
anointing and wiping of His feet with her
hair. The two narratives must be different
accounts of the same event. Luke gives also
another story in his collection of Jacobean
material of an incident which apparently took
place on the same occasion : ' Now as they
went on their way, he entered into a certain
village : and a certain woman named Martha
received him into her house. And she had a
sister called Mary, which also sat at the Lord's
feet, and heard his word. But Martha was
cumbered about much serving ; and she came
up to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not
care that my sister did leave me to serve
alone ? bid her therefore that she help me.
But the Lord answered and said unto her,
Martha, Martha, thou art anxious and
troubled about many things : but one thing
is needful : for Mary hath chosen the good
part, which shall not be taken away from
her' (x. 38-42). In this story, as in that
given by John, we hear of Martha and Mary,
and what happened in connexion with a meal
in a house. In Luke we read, ' But Martha
was cumbered about much serving ... my
128 THE ANOINTING OF JESUS
sister did leave me to serve alone,' but in
John, ' and Martha served.' Another passage
of John is also of importance. ' Now a cer-
tain man was sick, Lazarus of Bethany, of
the village of Mary and her sister Martha.
And it was that Mary which anointed the
Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with
her hair ' (xi. 1-2). Luke speaks of ' a
certain village,' John of ; the village.' Luke
says, * a certain woman named Martha . . .
had a sister called Mary,' John, ' Mary and her
sister Martha,' also ' Martha, and her sister '
(xi. 5). In one of Luke's stories we read of
the woman 'standing behind at his feet,'
in the other that Mary ' sat at the Lord's
feet.' It is surely impossible to suppose that
Luke's two stories refer to two different
occasions, or that the anointing in Luke is
other than identical with that differently
described in John. The same incident seems
to have given rise to three different com-
plaints, described in three separate stories,
two preserved in Luke, and one in John, the
last also in Mark and Matthew. Martha
complained that Mary had left her to serve
alone, Simon that the woman was a sinner,
and Judas that the ointment might have been
sold for three hundred pence and given to
the poor. Only the first two are recorded in
THE ANOINTING OF JESUS 129
the Jacobean narrative of Luke, but it is
difficult to imagine that the tradition trace-
able to James recorded the first two but
ignored the third. It seems more probable
that for some reason or other, perhaps to
avoid repetition, Luke omitted the last. If
so, it was apparently from this lost version
of the story that Mark derived his additional
information, which he conflated with material
drawn from the Jacobean account of the
anointing still preserved in Luke, and that
of John. Presumably it connected the be-
trayal with the incident of the anointing,
and shewed how it came to pass that Satan
entered into Judas Iscariot and put it into
his heart to betray Jesus (Luke xxii. 3-4 ;
John xiii. 2). In Mark the incident occupies
the place where in Luke we are told that
Satan entered into Judas, but otherwise
there is nothing to connect the two things,
and apart from a comparison of Luke and
Mark the position of the story in the second
gospel is pointless and an obvious interpola-
tion in a narrative which reads much better
without it. If Mark is utilising the Jacobean
tradition for the position as well as for some
of the substance of his story there is an
adequate explanation.
At the end of the Jacobean account of
K
130 THE ANOINTING OF JESUS
the anointing given by Luke there is an
addition which tends to obscure the proper
significance of the story : c And he said unto
her, Thy sins are forgiven. And they that
sat at meat with him began to say within
themselves, Who is this that even forgiveth
sins ? And he said unto the woman, Thy
faith hath saved thee ; go in peace ' (vii.
49-50). We compare two other passages in
Luke : ' And seeing their faith, he said, Man,
thy sins are forgiven thee. And the scribes
and the Pharisees began to reason, saying,
Who is this that speaketh blasphemies ?
Who can forgive sins, but God alone ' (v.
20-21), ' And he said unto her, Daughter, thy
faith hath made thee whole ; go in peace '
(viii. 48). The existence of parallel passages
in different contexts leaves little room for
doubt that we have an interpretative addi-
tion to the account of the anointing, though
it is really out of harmony with the proper
lesson of the story. We notice that in this
case the Jacobean narrative is augmented
from the Petrine ; usually it is the reverse.
CHAPTER VII
THE LAST SUPPER
A KNOWLEDGE of the sources helps us to
understand very much better the order of
events at the last supper. The accounts of
the third and fourth gospels are primary,
derived from the Petrine and Johannine lines
of tradition, that of Mark being secondary,
a conflation of the three traditions of Peter,
James, and John. The date according to
John was the evening before the paschal
lambs were slain : ' Now before the feast of
the passover, Jesus knowing that his hour
was come that he should depart out of this
world unto the Father . . . during supper
. . . riseth from supper ' (xiii. 1, 2, 4). The
next day we are told, ' Now it was the Pre-
paration of the passover' (xix. 14). Luke
says : ' And the day of unleavened bread
came, on which the passover must be sacri-
ficed. . . . And when the hour was come, he
sat down, and the apostles with him ' (xxii.
7, 14). Earlier he had said : ' Now the feast
132 THE LAST SUPPER
of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is
called the Passover ' (xxii. 1). Similar state-
ments are not uncommon in the writings of
Josephus 1 : ' The feast of unleavened bread
was celebrated, which we call the Passover,' 2
4 Upon the approach of that feast of un-
leavened bread . . . which feast is called the
Passover,' 3 l The feast of unleavened bread,
which was now at hand, and is by the Jews
called the Passover.' 4 According to Josephus
the feast of unleavened bread was commonly
regarded as including the day on which the
paschal lambs were sacrificed, the fourteenth
of Nisan. ' When the fourteenth day was
come . . . they offered the sacrifice. . . .
Whence it is that we do still offer this sacri-
fice in like manner to this day, and call this
festival Pascha, which signifies the feast of
the Passover. . . . We keep a feast for eight
days, which is called the feast of unleavened
bread.' 5 'As the feast of unleavened bread
was now come, when they had offered that
sacrifice which is called the Passover, they
after that offered other ^sacrifices for seven
days.' 6 ' On the feast of unleavened bread,
which was now come, it being the four-
1 Eng. trans. Whiston. 2 AnL xiv. ii. 1.
8 Ibid. xvn. ix. 3. * Bell. n. i. 3.
5 Ant. n. xiv. 6, xv. 1. 6 Ibid. ix. xiii. 3.
THE LAST SUPPER 133
teenth day of the month Xanthicus.' * Yet
on occasion Josephus distinguishes the two
feasts. ' In the month of Xanthicus, which
is by us called Nisan, and is the beginning
of our year, on the fourteenth day of the
lunar month . . . the law ordained that we
should every year slay that sacrifice . . .
which was called the Passover ; and so do
we celebrate this passover in companies. . . .
The feast of unleavened bread succeeds that
of the passover, and falls on the fifteenth day
of the month, and continues seven days,
wherein they feed on unleavened bread. . . .
But on the second day of unleavened bread,
which is the sixteenth day of the month, they
first partake of the fruits of the earth.' 2
Luke evidently identifies the two. ' The
feast of unleavened bread ... is called the
Passover,' and c the day of unleavened bread
... on which the passover must be sacri-
ficed ' is therefore the fourteenth day of
Nisan. Mark likewise seems to equate the
two, 'Now after two days was the feast of
the passover and ^ the unleavened bread*
(xiv. 1). Otherwise his other date would be
nonsense, ' on the first day of unleavened
bread, when they sacrificed the passover '
(xiv. 12), for the first day of unleavened
1 Bell. v. iii. 1. Ant. m. x. 5.
134 THE LAST SUPPER
bread would be the day following the paschal
meal. According to Mark the first day of
unleavened bread is the fourteenth of Nisan,
but according to Josephus the fifteenth. To
Mark it means the first day of the feast of
unleavened bread in the wider sense, not the
first day on which only unleavened bread
is eaten, though the latter is more natural,
particularly in view of the adjective ' first.'
The absence of ' first ' from the more original
statement of Luke makes the interpretation
of it easier, and suggests that the reference
is to the feast in the broader meaning, and
that day of the feast on which the passover
must be sacrificed.
Mark's expression t on the first day of
unleavened bread ' might refer to any time
of that day, whereas Luke's ' the day of
unleavened bread came ' suggests the be-
ginning. The same expression is found else-
where in the fourth gospel, c his hour was
come ' (xiii. 1), ' her hour is come ' (xvi. 21),
and in the Apocalypse, ' the hour of his
judgment is come ' (xiv. 7), ' the hour to
reap is come ' (xiv. 15). In each case the
reference is to the very beginning of the
hour and the action is still in the future.
1 The day of unleavened bread came ' seems
then to mean the period just after the
THE LAST SUPPER 135
sunset which marked the close of Nisan the
thirteenth. There is thus no discrepancy
between Luke and John, and even Mark
seems patient of the same interpretation.
Luke says ' when the hour was come,'
and the natural meaning is ' when it was
time.' Mark's phrase, ' when it was evening, '
is a paraphrase of it on this assumption.
John however interprets it quite differently:
4 Jesus knowing that his hour was come that
he should depart out of this world unto the
Father ' (xiii. 1). Probably both are trace-
able to the same original, but John has given
a spiritual interpretation to the words.
According to John, supper being ready,
Jesus washed the disciples' feet and gave the
discourse on humility : ' He riseth from
supper, and layeth aside his garments ; and
he took a towel, and girded himself. Then
he poureth water into the bason, and began
to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them
with the towel wherewith he was girded. . . .
So when he had washed their feet, and taken
his garments, and sat down again, he said unto
them, Know ye what I have done to you ?
Ye call me, Master, and, Lord : and ye say
well ; for so I am. If I then, the Lord and
the Master, have washed your feet, ye also
ought to wash one another's feet. For I
136 THE LAST SUPPER
have given you an example, that ye also
should do as I have done to you. Verily,
verily, I say unto you, A servant is not
greater than his lord ; neither one that is
sent greater than he that sent him. If ye
know these things, blessed are ye if ye do
them ' (xiii. 4-5, 12-17). The saying in Luke
which we are told was uttered as a result of
the contention which of them was to be
accounted greatest is apparently the Petrine
version of the discourse. * He that is the
greater among you, let him become as the
younger ; and he that is chief, as he that
doth serve. For whether is greater, he that
sitteth at meat, or he that serveth ? is not
he that sitteth at meat ? but I am in the
midst of you as he that serveth ' (xxii. 26-27).
We have also in Mark, as we have seen, the
Jacobean version of the saying : ' Whoso-
ever would become great among you, shall be
your minister : and whosoever would be first
among you, shall be servant of all. For
verily the Son of man came not to be minis-
tered unto, but to minister, and to give his
life a ransom for many ' (x. 43-45). This last
form of the saying makes it plain that it is
based on the description of the Servant in
the second Isaiah, ' The Lord also is pleased
... to justify the just one who serveth many
THE LAST SUPPER 137
well ... for whom his life was delivered
to death ' (liii. 10 (11)-12). The Johannine
account is now seen to echo the phraseology
of Isaiah as he describes the Servant, ' The
Lord that formed me from the womb to be
his own servant ' (xlix. 5), ' The Spirit of the
Lord is upon me ; ... he hath sent me '
(Ixi. 1). The equivalence of the three ver-
sions of our Lord's saying is thus confirmed.
In John we see the connexion between the
discourse and the feet washing, so that
apparently the dispute about precedence was
the occasion for this. If so, Luke's account
of the incident and with it presumably the
three following verses, Luke xxii. 24-30,
should properly be inserted between verses
14 and 15.
Further confirmation of the view that
Luke and John give merely different reports
of the same original saying of Jesus about
humility is to be found in an examination
of Luke's earlier account of a similar dispute.
Mark says : * And they came to Capernaum :
and when he was in the house he asked them,
What were ye reasoning in the way ? But
they held their peace : for they had dis-
puted one with another in the way, who was
the greatest' (ix. 33-34). Luke has simply,
' And there arose a reasoning among them,
138 THE LAST SUPPER
which of them should be greatest ' (ix. 46).
There is evidently assimilation to the intro-
duction to his second account of such a
dispute. c And there arose also a contention
among them, which of them is accounted to
be greatest ' (xxii. 24). There is however an
even more curious example of assimilation
in the earlier narrative of Luke. We read :
c But when Jesus saw the reasoning of their
heart, he took a little child, and set him by
his side, and said unto them, Whosoever
shall receive this little child in my name,
receiveth me : and whosoever shall receive
me receiveth him that sent me : for he that
is least among you all, the same is great '
(ix. 47-48). We notice at once the incon-
gruity of the saying about receiving the little
child. When our Lord rebuked the disciples
because they had hindered little children from
being brought unto Him, He said ' Suffer the
little children to come unto me, and forbid
them not : for of such is the kingdom of
God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever
shall not receive the kingdom of God as a
little child, he shall in no wise enter therein '
(xviii. 16-17). Again we notice incongruity,
for the fact that men must receive the
kingdom of God like little children does not
follow naturally after the rebuke of those
THE LAST SUPPER 139
who would hinder them from being brought
to Jesus ; there is a quick change of interest
from the children to men in general, which
is none the less apparent because both
sayings speak of the relation of children to
the kingdom of God, presumably the fact
which brought about the combination. If
the second part of our Lord's rebuke of the
disciples be inserted in His saying about
humility instead of that which speaks of the
receiving of the little child the sequence of
thought is much better : ' But when Jesus
saw the reasoning of their heart, he took a
little child, and set him by his side, and said
unto them, Verily I say unto you, Whosoever
shall not receive the kingdom of God as a
little child, he shall in no wise enter therein ;
for he that is least among you all, the same is
great.' That our reconstruction is correct
seems to be proved by the fact that this is
what we find in Matthew, ' And he called to
him a little child, and set him in the midst
of them, and said, Verily I say unto you,
Except ye turn, and become as little children,
ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of
heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble
himself as this little child, the same is the
greatest in the kingdom of heaven ' (xviii.
2-4). We might suppose that the saying
140 THE LAST SUPPER
about receiving the little child ought to take
the place of the second part of our Lord's
rebuke of those who forbade the little children
to be brought to Him, and it would not be
an altogether incongruous conclusion of the
saying, but Matthew, who in the account
of the dispute about precedence preserves
the earliest version of the story, gives here
nothing to correspond, but simply, 'Suffer
the little children, and forbid them not to
come unto me : for of such is the kingdom
of heaven * (xix. 14). Whence, then, has the
misplaced saying about the receiving of the
little child been derived ? In a Jacobean
collection of sayings Luke gives a similar
word : ' He that heareth you heareth me ;
and he that rejecteth you rejecteth me;
and he that rejecteth me rejecteth him that
sent me ' (x. 16). In a similar collection of
sayings in Matthew, also Jacobean, it takes
a different form : 4 He that receiveth you
receiveth me, and he that receiveth me
receiveth him that sent me ' (x. 40). Neither
in Luke nor in Matthew is there any real
evidence of the occasion of the utterance, the
collections of sayings being compiled, it would
seem, to some extent fortuitously, though in
part according to similarity of subject-matter.
In John the saying appears at the end of the
THE LAST SUPPER 141
discourse on humility after the feet-washing
at the last supper : ' Verily, verily, I say
unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever
I send receiveth me ; and he that receiveth
me receiveth him that sent me ' (xiii. 20).
We notice the connexion with the verse a
little earlier, ' A servant is not greater than
his lord ; neither one that is sent greater
than he that sent him,' and therefore with
the description of the Servant in Isaiah,
' The Spirit of the Lord is upon me ; ...
he hath sent me ' (Ixi. 1). There can be no
doubt that the saying belongs properly to
the discourse at the last supper, and not to
the earlier saying about true greatness. Luke
therefore, we conclude, in his account of the
first dispute about precedence has not only
utilised a modified version of the introduction
to the second dispute, apparently instead of
the introduction found in Mark or something
similar, but also in the place of a saying
transferred to our Lord's rebuke of those who
hindered the little children from coming to
Him has incorporated a saying, belonging
properly to the second dispute, recorded in
the description of the last supper in the
fourth gospel. Our conclusion that the dis-
pute about precedence at the last supper, and
in particular our Lord's saying about humility
142 THE LAST SUPPER
given in Luke's account of the last supper,
and the similar discourse after the feet-
washing recorded by John as taking place
on the same occasion are two reports of the
same original discourse of Jesus receives
further confirmation.
According to John in a reference to Judas
in His discourse on humility at the beginning
of the last supper Jesus quoted Psalm xl.
(xli.) 9 : 'I speak not of you all : I know
whom I have chosen : but that the scripture
may be fulfilled, He that eateth my bread
lifted up his heel against me ' (xiii. 18). In
a later speech, after being troubled in spirit,
He said : ' Verily, verily, I say unto you,
that one of you shall betray me ' (xiii. 21).
The latter is, in part, the Johannine equiva-
lent of the saying recorded in the Petrine
tradition in Luke, ' Behold, the hand of him
that betrayeth me is with me on the table '
(xxii. 21). The descriptions of the immediate
consequences are very similar in the two
traditions, Johannine and Petrine. ' The
disciples looked one on another, doubting of
whom he spake ' (John xiii. 22), ' And they
began to question among themselves, which
of them it was that should do this thing'
(Luke xxii. 23). According to Luke the
announcement of the betrayal followed the
THE LAST SUPPER 143
institution of the eucharist. Consequently,
if our identification is correct, the eucharist
must have been instituted after the initial
discourse on humility and before Jesus was
troubled in spirit according to the Johannine
scheme of events, that is, between the sayings
recorded in John xiii. 20 and 21. Mark con-
flates the two Johannine sayings about Judas
(xiii. 18, 21), repeating the second without
alteration, and putting the result at the point
to which the earlier saying which quotes
Psalm xl. (xli.) belongs, before the institution
of the eucharist, if our conclusion with regard
to this is correct. 'And as they sat and were
eating, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you,
One of you shall betray me, even he that
eateth with me ' (xiv. 18). We note that he
adds to the Petrine setting of Luke the words
'as they were eating,' so as to fit the context
to the words he puts into the mouth of Jesus,
though in Luke, except in the words ' I have
desired to eat this passover ' (xxii. 15), there
is no suggestion of either eating or drinking
before the blessing of the cup which introduces
the institution of the eucharist.
As the climax of the disciples' questioning
about the identity of the traitor John gives
the episode of the sop : ' The disciples looked
one on another, doubting of whom he spake.
144 THE LAST SUPPER
There was at the table reclining in Jesus'
bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
Simon Peter therefore beckoneth to him, and
saith unto him, Tell us who it is of whom he
speaketh. He leaning back, as he was, on
Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it ?
Jesus therefore answereth, He it is, for whom
I shall dip the sop, and give it him. So when
he had dipped the sop, he taketh and giveth
it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. And
after the sop, then entered Satan into him '
(xiii. 22-27). Mark gives a shorter account
of the disciples' questioning and the incident
of the sop : ' They began to be sorrowful, and
to say unto him one by one, Is it I ? And
he said unto them, It is one of the twelve,
he that dippeth with me in the dish ' (xiv.
19-20). The narrative differs widely from
that in John, and as it is not contained in
the Petrine tradition given by Luke, it is
apparently Jacobean. ' One of the twelve '
is a description of Judas in both the Petrine
(Luke xxii. 47, cf. 3) and Johannine (vi. 71)
traditions, though John uses it also of Thomas
(xx. 24). In the present context apparently
it belongs to the Jacobean tradition. Mark
himself evidently considered ' It is one of the
twelve, he that dippeth with me in the dish '
the equivalent of * Behold, the hand of him
THE LAST SUPPER 145
that betrayeth me is with me on the table*
in the Petrine tradition, and Matthew con-
flates the two, putting the dipping into the
past, * He that dipped his hand with me in
the dish, the same shall betray me ' (xxvi. 23).
Not improbably, however, the Petrine state-
ment in Luke, in which there is no explicit
reference to the sop, ' Behold, the hand of
him that betrayeth me is with me on the
table, ' was intended to be a combination of
our Lord's two sayings about the traitor,
the Johannine (xiii. 21) and Jacobean, which
are given in Mark, 4 Verily I say unto you,
One of you shall betray me ... he that
dippeth with me in the dish ' (xiv. 18, 20).
It is very unlikely that the sop was such a
titbit as an Oriental host might give to a
guest whom he wished specially to honour.
Apparently it was only a morsel of bread.
We compare, ' Comfort thine heart with a
morsel of bread ' (Judges xix. 5), c Thou shalt
eat of the bread, and dip thy morsel in the
vinegar ' (Ruth ii. 14). The Greek word for
' sop ' is the diminutive of that used for
' morsel ' in these passages. We find a
similar usage at table described in Ecclesias-
ticus, ' Sittest thou at a great table ? . . .
Stretch not thine hand whithersoever it [the
eye] looketh, and thrust not thyself with it
146 THE LAST SUPPER
into the dish. . . . And if thou sittest among
many, reach not out thy hand before them '
(xxxiv. (xxxi.) 12, 14, 18). The report of the
incident must be derived from the disciple
' whom Jesus loved ' whom we have identified
with John the son of Zebedee, so that it is
natural that the full account should appear
only in the fourth gospel. The sign would
seem to have been that when Judas stretched
forth his hand to dip his morsel in the dish
our Lord did likewise, and indeed anticipated
him, giving him the morsel He Himself had
dipped, perhaps a common act of politeness,
so that Judas had no need to complete the
action. The Johannine account concludes,
' And after the sop, then entered Satan into
him,' a statement which the Petrine narrative
puts at an earlier point, before the traitor's
original compact with the chief priests, ' And
Satan entered into Judas who was called
Iscariot ' (Luke xxii. 3).
Between the announcement of the be-
trayal and the disciples' questioning among
themselves which resulted we read in the
Petrine tradition in Luke, ' For the Son of
man indeed goeth, as it hath been deter-
mined : but woe unto that man through
whom he is betrayed ' (xxii. 22). There is a
reference to the predictions of the passion,
THE LAST SUPPER 147
and particularly the third, ' All the things
that are written by the prophets shall be
accomplished unto the Son of man. For he
shall be betrayed unto the Gentiles ' (xviii.
31-32). The particular prophecy in view is
plainly the description of the sufferings of
the Servant in the second Isaiah, * Because of
their iniquities he was betrayed ' (liii. 12).
Mark, who omits any reference to the scrip-
tures in his version of our Lord's third
prediction of His passion (x. 33), by what is
practically a conflation of the two sayings as
given in Luke makes the reference quite ex-
plicit here, ' For the Son of man goeth, even as
it is written of him : but woe unto that man
through whom the Son of man is betrayed '
(xiv. 21). Mark then makes an addition to
the prediction not in Luke, ' Good were it
for that man if he had not been born *
(xiv. 21). Its source is found in current
Jewish literature, so that as in the case of
the saying from the Apocalypse of Baruch
(li. 15) inserted among the words of Jesus
in an earlier passage (viii. 37), we have con-
firmation of our view of the secondary
character of Mark. In the book of Enoch we
notice, ' It had been good for them if they
had not been born ' * (xxxviii. 2), and in the
1 Eng. trans. Charles.
148 THE LAST SUPPER
Mishnah and Gemara, * It were better for him
that he had not come into the world,' * *As
for him ... it were better had he never been
created.' 2 Mark omits any mention of the
questioning of the disciples as to the identity
of the traitor which Luke gives at this point,
presumably because he had already described
it with greater particularity in words derived
from a different tradition (xiv. 19). Matthew
reproduces from Mark the saying about the
Son of man, and then adds ' And Judas,
which betrayed him, answered and said, Is
it I, Rabbi ? He saith unto him, Thou hast
said ' (xxvi. 25). In position and to some
extent in substance it represents the state-
ment in Luke, ' And they began to question
among themselves, which of them it was that
should do this thing ' (xxii. 23), but as this
is only another version of the statement in
Mark, 4 They began to be sorrowful, and to
say unto him one by one, Is it I ? ' (xiv. 19),
it is really a doublet of Matthew's version of
this, ' And they were exceeding sorrowful, and
began to say unto him every one, Is it I,
Lord ? ' (xxvi. 22), though by limiting the
reference to Judas on the second occasion the
evangelist has avoided mere repetition.
1 Bab. Chagigah, M. ii. 1. Eng. trans. Streane.
2 Bab. Berakoth, fol. 17a. Eng. trans. Cohen. .
CHAPTER VIII
THE INSTITUTION OF THE EUCHARIST
IN Luke, which, if our argument is correct,
gives the Petrine tradition, the account of
the institution of the eucharist is placed at
the very beginning of the description of the
events in the upper room the night before
the crucifixion, and before the announcement
of the betrayal : ' And when the hour was
come, he sat down, and the apostles with him.
And he said unto them, With desire I have
desired to eat this passover with you before
I suffer : for I say unto you, I will not eat it,
until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.
And he received a cup, and when he had
given thanks, he said, Take this, and divide
it among yourselves : for I say unto you, I
will not drink from henceforth of the fruit
of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall
come. And he took bread, and when he had
given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them,
saying, This is my body which is given for
you : this do in remembrance of me. And
150 THE INSTITUTION OF
the cup in like manner after supper, saying,
This cup is the new covenant in my blood,
even that which is poured out for you. But
behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is
with me on the table ' (xxii. 14-21). At this
point it will be sufficient to notice that ( Codex
Bezae' and various Latin texts of the gospel
omit the words, ' this do in remembrance of
me . . . which is poured out for you.'
Mark's account differs widely in both sub-
stance and position, being placed at the end
of what we are told about the events in the
upper room. ' And as they were eating, he
took bread, and when he had blessed, he
brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take
ye : this is my body. And he took a cup,
and when he had given thanks, he gave to
them : and they all drank of it. And he said
unto them, This is my blood of the covenant,
which is shed for many. Verily I say unto
you, I will no more drink of the fruit of the
vine, until that day when I drink it new in
the kingdom of God. And when they had
sung a hymn, they went out unto the mount
of Olives ' (xiv. 22-26). We notice at once
that Mark mentions only one cup, not two as
in Luke. St. Paul also in his first epistle to
the Corinthians (xi. 23-25) gives an account
of the institution of the eucharist in many
THE EUCHARIST 151
points very similar to that given in Luke,
and he too speaks of only one cup. If we
compare Luke's narrative and Paul's we see
that the latter simply omits the account of
the first cup, but otherwise repeats what
we find in Luke. Mark's method is very
different.
Mark evidently was very anxious not
to discard any of the phraseology of the
description of the first cup, though he omits
all mention of our Lord's desire to eat the
passover, for he fits practically the whole of
it into his narrative, and his description of
the one cup is a conflation of what Luke tells
us about two cups. At the very beginning,
before the announcement of the betrayal,
Mark tells us that ' they were eating,' thus
agreeing with Luke who says ' The hand of
him that betrayeth me is with me on the
table,' though Luke places the announcement
at a later point after the institution, while
Mark apparently intends his statement, in
part perhaps suggested by ' I have desired to
eat this passover,' to lead up to and provide
a proper setting for the reminiscence of the
psalm (xl. (xli.) 9), ' even he that eateth with
me,' which he has taken from the Johannine
tradition. Before the institution he repeats
the words ' as they were eating,' making it
152 THE INSTITUTION OF
plain that the taking of the bread was not
the first action at the meal, agreeing thus in
a measure with Luke who tells of the first
cup before he mentions the bread, though
probably the words are intended also as an
equivalent to ' after supper ' in Luke, which
Mark omits. ' He said, Take ye : this is my
body ' is substituted for ' saying, This is my
body ' in Luke by a conflation with ' he said,
Take ye this ' in Luke's account of the first
cup, three successive words being identical in
the Greek, though the grammar differs. 'And
he received a cup,' ' And the cup in like
manner ' of Luke are combined in Mark's
' And he took a cup,' the verb, 4 took,' used
in both Luke and Mark of the bread, ' he
took bread,' being suggested by ' in like
manner,' ' He took bread . . . and the cup
in like manner.' The words ' And when he
had given thanks ' used in Luke of the first
cup are utilised in Mark for the description
of the one cup, though in importance this
corresponds rather to the second cup of Luke.
Instead of * he said, Take this and divide it
among yourselves ' in Luke's account of the
first cup we read in Mark of the one cup,
1 he gave to them ; and they all drank of it.'
In substance the two differ but little. ' He
gave to them ' is repeated from the account
THE EUCHARIST 153
of the bread in both Luke and Mark, again
apparently through the influence of c in like
manner,' 4 bread ... he gave to them . . .
and the cup in like manner, 5 the words ' he
said, Take this ' being transferred, as we have
seen, in Mark to the account of the bread.
4 And they all drank of it ' is a more obvious
thing to say of a cup than ' And divide it
among yourselves.' The latter indeed would
be scarcely seemly if used of the * blood of the
covenant. ' There is also the influence of the
words which follow immediately in Luke, ' for
I say unto you, I will not drink,' assimilation
in the circumstances being very natural.
The union in Mark of the two narratives
which tell of the two cups in Luke has left
an obvious suture, for as a result we are
told that ' they all drank of it ' before our
Lord had given His explanation, ' This is
my blood of the covenant.' In Matthew the
difficulty is overcome by changing c they all
drank of it ' into a command, and prefixing
the word ' saying,' from the account of the
second cup in Luke, which thus takes the
place of ' And he said unto them ' which
follows in Mark, ' And gave to them, saying,
Drink ye all of it ; for this is my blood of the
covenant ' (xxvi. 27-28). To introduce our
Lord's words with regard to the two cups
154 THE INSTITUTION OF
in Luke we find ' and ... he said,' and
'saying.' Their combination in Mark gives
' And he said unto them.' Mark applies the
principle of 'in like manner ' even to our
Lord's explanation of the cup, so that 'This
cup is the new covenant in my blood ' becomes
' This is my blood of the covenant,' being
assimilated to ' This is my body ' which is
given in both Luke and Mark. Luke has
' which is poured out for you,' the reference
being, as we see from the grammar, to the
cup, but Mark 'which is shed for many,' re-
ferring perhaps to the blood, though the Greek
for ' poured out ' and ' shed ' are identical.
The text of Mark is assimilated to a saying
belonging to the Jacobean tradition which he
has utilised at an earlier point (x. 45), ' The Son
of man came ... to give his life a ransom
for many ' ; for ' the blood is the life ' (Deut.
xii. 23). ' For many ' through the earlier
passage is thus traceable to the description
of the Servant of Jehovah in the second
Isaiah (liii. 11-12). Mark's 4 for many '
in the account of the eucharist has the same
preposition as Luke's ' for you,' but in the
earlier passage (x. 45) the preposition is that
used by Isaiah (liii. 12), Matthew using still
another in his story of the institution.
Matthew also adds ' unto remission of sins '
THE EUCHARIST 155
(xxvi. 28), shewing that he has recognised
the ultimate source of Mark's 'for many,'
and drawn upon it again ' he bare the sins
of many ' (Is. liii. 12). After bidding His
disciples divide among themselves the first
cup according to the Petrine tradition of
Luke our Lord said, ' For I say unto you, I
will not drink from henceforth of the fruit
of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall
come.' The saying suits the context exactly.
According to Mark, when delivering to them
the one cup which He has identified with
His blood, Jesus said, ' Verily I say unto you,
I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine,
until that day when I drink it new in the
kingdom of God.' Placed after our Lord's
declaration that the wine is His blood the
words are quite inappropriate, for they
speak of what we have just been told is
' the blood of the covenant,' as being again
merely * the fruit of the vine.' Mark con-
flates the saying about the fruit of the vine
with another given by Luke, c And I appoint
unto you a kingdom, even as my Father ap-
pointed unto me, that ye may eat and drink
at my table in my kingdom ' (xxii. 29-30).
He transfers also the adjective ' new,' which
in Luke describes the ' covenant,' to the wine
which will be drunk in the kingdom of the
156 THE INSTITUTION OF
covenant, ' I covenant unto you a kingdom,
even as my Father covenanted unto me.'
In the first passage of Luke the reference is
to the drinking of wine after the kingdom of
God has come, that is, after the resurrection.
St. Peter speaks of this to Cornelius, ' God
. . . gave him to be made manifest ... to
us, who did eat and drink with him after he
rose from the dead ' (Acts x. 40-41). In the
second passage, however, the reference is to
spiritual eating and drinking in the kingdom
of God. Our Lord accepted the Jewish idea
of the heavenly banquet, but gave it a
spiritual meaning. The Jew said, ' Blessed
is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of
God ' (Luke xiv. 15). Jesus likewise said,
' And they shall come from the east and west,
and from the north and south, and shall sit
down in the kingdom of God ' (Luke xiii.
29). By his conflation of the two passages of
Luke, Mark has confused the two thoughts.
6 1 will no more drink of the fruit of the vine '
speaks of a materialistic drinking. ' When I
drink it new in the kingdom of God ' should
refer to a spiritual drinking, but the first part
of the saying makes this impossible. The
secondary character of Mark is very evident.
In Matthew the materialistic view of the feast
of the kingdom is expressed even more
THE EUCHARIST 157
plainly than in Mark, for he speaks of ' this
fruit of the vine ' (xxvi. 29). The fact of
the conflation of the two sayings as given
in Luke is likewise more obvious, the thought
of the disciples feasting with Jesus in the
Father's kingdom, though absent from the
first of the two sayings in Luke and the
parallel saying in Mark about the fruit of
the vine, being prominent in the version of
the corresponding saying in Matthew as in the
second saying in Luke, ' when I drink it new
with you in my Father's kingdom,' ' I appoint
unto you a kingdom, even as my Father
appointed unto me, that ye may eat and
drink at my table in my kingdom.'
The account of the institution of the
eucharist given in Matthew is in general
agreement with that given in Mark, on which
it is clearly based, differing widely from the
account in Luke. The most important differ-
ences between Matthew and Mark we have
already noticed. In addition we may men-
tion that Matthew states explicitly that it
was ' Jesus ' Who took bread, thus differing
from both Luke and Mark, probably because
Judas had been mentioned in the previous
verse, and that He gave it to ' the disciples.'
By adding the word ' eat ' in the command
1 Take, eat ; this is my body,' apparently to
158 THE INSTITUTION OF
balance the command ' Drink ye,' which, as
we have seen, he has prefixed to our Lord's
words about the cup as given in the other
gospels by changing the grammar of a state-
ment in Mark, he has destroyed the sequence
of words, ' he said, Take ye: this,' transferred
from the first cup in Luke to the bread in
Mark.
In Luke the account of the institution of
the eucharist is put at the very beginning
of the description of the events of the last
supper. At the end he says : ' And he came
out, and went, as his custom was, unto
the mount of Olives ; and the disciples
also followed him ' (xxii. 39). In Mark the
account of the institution appears at the
conclusion of what we are told about the
proceedings in the upper room. Then we
read, * And when they had sung a hymn,
they went out unto the mount of Olives.'
Luke says nothing about the hymn, and so
Mark must have had other information than
that found in the Petrine tradition, and
apparently is utilising that of James. In
John we read : ' These things spake Jesus ;
and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said,
Father, the hour is come ; glorify thy Son,
that the Son may glorify thee. . . . When
Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth
THE EUCHARIST 159
with his disciples over the brook Kidron,
where was a garden ' (xvii. 1, xviii. 1). The
hymn and the prayer apparently both formed
part of the devotions with which the meal
concluded in accordance with Jewish practice
on important occasions, so that the two
traditions are in agreement.
Mark, we have seen, is careful to fit in
practically the whole of the phraseology
used in Luke in connexion with the two cups
into his account of the institution. It is
therefore the more remarkable that he omits
the important words found in Luke after the
statement about the bread, ' This is my
body,' which he repeats, 4 which is given for
you : this do in remembrance of me.' Is it
possible to discover a reason ? We have
noticed already that our Lord's mind at
the last supper was dominated by thoughts
derived from the Servant passages in the
second Isaiah, ' The Son of man came not to
be ministered unto, but to minister, and to
give his life a ransom for many.' The words
of institution, ' This is my body, which is
given for you, ' express a similar thought. A
comparison with the words used of the cup
suggests that ' which is given for you ' agrees
primarily with ' this,' ; This is my body, even
that which is given for you,' though evidently
160 THE INSTITUTION OF
intended to describe also the 4 body ' with
which ' this ' is identified. In the description
of the Servant according to the Septuagint
we read, c If ye give an offering for sin,' but
in the Hebrew, ' If his soul should give an
offering for sin ' (Is. liii. 10). The passage
appears to be corrupt and the exact meaning
uncertain. We notice however the word
' give ' used of a sacrifice, though it is by
no means common. In the Greek it appears
in the psalter, though the Hebrew word is
different, c If thou desiredst sacrifice, I would
have given it : thou wilt not take pleasure
in burnt offerings ' (1. (li.) 16). We compare
with this verse, ' Sacrifice and offering thou
desiredst not ; but a body hast thou pre-
pared me : burnt offering and offering for
sin thou didst not require ' (xxxix. (xl.) 6).
If we combine the thoughts of the three
passages, we see that the ' desired ' sacrifice
of the Servant which is ' given ' for many
is the sacrifice of his ' body.' We find thus
the basis of the saying in which the giving
of the bread and of the body are identified,
' This is my body, which is given for you.'
Of the second cup according to Luke our
Lord said, ' This cup is the new covenant
in my blood, even that which is poured out
for you.' The thought of the ' covenant ' is
THE EUCHARIST 161
prominent in the description of the Servant,
and more than once it appears in connexion
with the idea of spiritual food. * I have given
thee for a covenant of the people ' (Is. xlii. 6).
' I have given thee for a covenant of the
people. . . . They shall be fed in all the ways.
. . . They shall not hunger nor thirst ' (Is. xlix.
6, 9-10). ' Ye that thirst, go to the water,
and all that have no money, go and buy :
and eat wine and fat without money or price.
... Ye shall eat that which is good, and
your soul shall feast itself on good things.
... I will make with you an everlasting
covenant. ... I have given him a witness
to the nations ' (Is. Iv. 1-4). The covenant
of the Servant naturally suggests the new
covenant spoken of by Jeremiah. ' I will
make a new covenant with the house of
Israel, and with the house of Judah : not
according to the covenant that I made with
their fathers in the day that I took hold of
their hand to bring them out of the land
of Egypt ' (xxxviii. (xxxi.) 31-32). At the
inauguration of the old covenant at Sinai
we read : c And Moses took the blood, and
sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold
the blood of the covenant, which the Lord
hath made with you concerning all these
words. . . . And they did eat and drink '
M
162 THE INSTITUTION OF
(Exod. xxiv. 8, 11). Of the Servant in the
Hebrew we are told, ' He poured out his
life unto death ' (Is. liii. 12). The ' life ' is
the blood which the Servant pours out in a
sacrificial death. The thought is that of
Deuteronomy, ' The blood is the life of it ;
... ye shall pour it out upon the earth as
water. . . . The blood of thy sacrifices thou
shalt pour out at the foot of the altar of the
Lord thy God ' (xii. 23-24, 27). In later days,
however, the libation of wine, not the pouring
of the blood, was the climax of a sacrifice.
We read of Simon the son of Onias : ' He
stretched out his hand to the cup, and poured
a libation of the blood of the grape ; he
poured out at the foot of the altar a sweet-
smelling savour unto the Most High, the
King of all ' (Ecclus. 1. 15). It is in the
light of these passages that we understand
our Lord's words as recorded in Luke : ' This
cup is the new covenant in my blood, even
that which is poured out for you.' Gram-
matically we see that it is the cup which is
poured out, not the blood, though apparently
the intention is that the subordinate clause
should refer to both. The pouring out of the
wine represents the pouring out in sacrifice
of the blood of Jesus, Who identifies Himself
with the Servant of Jehovah, thus inaugu-
THE EUCHARIST 163
rating a new covenant. We may perhaps
compare the ancient custom of the Greeks,
who in making a covenant poured out a
solemn drink offering of wine, though here
the pouring out is into the cup, not from it.
After His statement about the bread Jesus
said according to Luke, * This do for my
memorial.' A memorial and a covenant are
closely connected in the law concerning the
shewbread in Leviticus. In the Septuagint
we read : ' And ye shall put pure frankincense
and salt upon each pile, and they shall be
to the loaves for a memorial, set forth before
the Lord ... an everlasting covenant '
(xxiv. 7-8). The Hebrew word translated
' memorial ' is used in the Old Testament to
describe the handful of fine flour, oil, and
frankincense which in a meal offering is
burnt upon the altar (Lev. ii. 2, 9, 16, v. 12,
vi. 15 (8) ; Num. v. 26 ; Ecclus. xxxviii. 11,
xlv. 16), as well as the frankincense put
upon the shewbread, which is likewise burnt.
The frankincense and salt are indeed to the
shewbread what the memorial of fine flour,
oil, and frankincense is to the meal offering,
and serve the same purpose. In the Septua-
gint two Greek words are used to translate
the one Hebrew word, that used in the
account of the institution of the eucharist in
164 THE INSTITUTION OF
Luke appearing only in the law with regard
to the shewbread.
Two particular types of covenant are men-
tioned in the Old Testament, the covenant of
blood (Exod. xxiv. 8 ; Zech. ix. 11), and the
covenant of salt (Lev. ii. 13 ; Num. xviii. 19 ;
2 Chron. xiii. 5). A covenant of blood is
founded upon an animal sacrifice, God Him-
self being a party to the agreement. Of this
kind was the covenant between Jehovah and
Israel, inaugurated at Sinai (Exod. xxiv. 8),
but renewed every time sacrifice was offered
(Ps. xlix. (1.) 5), when at ' the table of the
Lord ' (Mai. i. 7, 12), or altar, God and man
were together partakers of ' the food of the
offering' (Lev. iii. 11, Heb.), the 'meat*
(Mai. i. 12), or ' bread of God ' (Lev. xxi.
6, 8, 17, 21, 22; xxii. 25, Heb.), God's
share of the c bread ' being c the fat and the
blood ' (Ezek. xliv. 7), the latter being
' the blood of the covenant ' (Zech. ix. 11).
The covenant of salt is founded on a meal
taken in common, or the partaking by
one man of the food of another (cf. Gen.
xxxi. 46-48, Jos. ix. 14-15). In the Hebrew
of Ezra we read : ' We eat the salt of the
palace, and it is not meet for us to see
the king's dishonour ' (iv. 14). That this
type of covenant might exist between God
THE EUCHARIST 165
and man, salt was made a necessary ingre-
dient of every meal offering, as we read in
Leviticus : ' And every oblation of thy meal
offering shalt thou season with salt ; neither
shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of
thy God to be lacking from thy meal offering :
with all thine oblations thou shalt offer
salt ' (ii. 13, Heb.). For the same reason
apparently, according to the Hebrew, the
incense was c seasoned with salt ' (Exod. xxx.
35), and salt as well as frankincense, according
to the Septuagint, placed on the piles of
shewbread (Lev. xxiv. 7). Thus God and
man were both partakers of ' the pure table '
(Lev. xxiv. 6). The purpose of a sacrifice
was to remind God of the covenant and so
to renew it (Exod. xxiv. 8 ; Ps. xlix. (1.) 5 ;
Zech. ix. 11). The belief that Jehovah
would remember His covenant was the basis
of Jewish religion. The phrase c remember
the covenant ' occurs no fewer than fifteen
times in the Old Testament (Gen. ix. 15, 16 ;
Exod. ii. 24, vi. 5 ; Lev. xxvi. 42 bis, 45 ; Ps.
civ. (cv.) 8, cv. (cvi.) 45, ex. (cxi.) 5 ; Ezek.
xvi. 60; Amos i. 9; Ecclus. xxviii. 7 ; iMacc.
iv. 10 ; 2 Mace. i. 2), all but two referring
to God, and once in the New Testament
(Luke i. 72), also referring to God. We
have thus an explanation of the memorial
166 THE INSTITUTION OF
of a meal offering ; it reminded God of the
covenant between Himself and Israel, and
indeed renewed it as a covenant of salt,
the frankincense and salt which were 4 for
a memorial' serving the same purpose in
the case of the shewbread, ' an everlasting
covenant.' So the purpose of a sacrifice
was to remind God of the covenant, and
as a recognition and renewal of this each
sacrifice was offered. The meaning of our
Lord's words, ' This do for my memorial,'
is therefore apparent. The action of the
eucharist is performed (' This do '), and the
bread ( 4 This is my body ') taken, as a
reminder to God (' for my memorial ') of the
covenant (' the new covenant ') inaugurated
by the sacrifice of Jesus ( 4 in my blood '), as
a recognition and renewal of which the bread
is offered to God in thanksgiving (' when he
had given thanks ').
As Mark shortens the account of the in-
stitution given by Luke by both omission and
conflation, it is not surprising that he omits
the words, 'which is given for you,' used of
the bread, but gives ' which is shed for many '
in the saying about the cup, one presumably
being regarded as included in the other, since
* it is the blood that maketh atonement '
(Lev. xvii. 11, Heb.). ' This do for my
THE EUCHARIST 167
memorial ' is probably omitted for a similar
reason, because it is regarded as included in
the reference to the covenant, ' This is my
blood of the covenant.' We notice that the
adjective 4 new ' has disappeared from the
description of the covenant, being transferred,
as we have seen, to the fruit of the vine
which will be drunk ' new ' in the kingdom
of God. As a result, the words spoken of
the cup are almost identical with those used
by Moses at the inauguration of the old
covenant at Sinai, ' This is my blood of the
covenant,' ' Behold, the blood of the cove-
nant.' As ' the blood of the covenant ' in
one type of sacrifice serves the same pur-
pose as the memorial with * the salt of the
covenant ' in the other, the ratification of the
original covenant, there is no need to mention
both. Though in Mark there is no command
to that effect, an assumption of the repetition
of the ordinance is involved in the reference
to the covenant, just as the repetition or
renewal of the covenant sacrifice of Sinai
in every Jewish sacrifice was regarded as
following from the fact that that sacrifice
inaugurating a covenant had been offered.
Our investigation surely leaves no room
for doubt that the narrative of Mark is
secondary. It would be quite impossible on
168 THE INSTITUTION OF
the assumption that Mark is primary to
explain the account of the institution in Luke
either in general outline or in detail. Mark,
however, can be explained only as an edited
version of the longer text in Luke. It is
no part of the purpose of this essay to
discuss problems of textual criticism, but
the authenticity of this longer text follows
as a matter of course if the result of our
argument is correct. The shorter text found
in certain manuscripts must therefore be the
result of some later revision, which need not
be discussed here.
For the institution of the eucharist we
have not only the narratives of the Synoptic
gospels, but an account given by St. Paul in
his first epistle to the Corinthians. ' The
Lord Jesus in the night in which he was
betrayed took bread ; and when he had
given thanks, he brake it, and said, This
is my body, which is for you : this do in
remembrance of me. In like manner also
the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the
new covenant in my blood : this do, as oft
as ye drink it, in remembrance of me ' (xi.
23-25). We notice at once the close agree-
ment with the account given in Luke,
though as in Mark he mentions but one cup.
Yet whereas Mark reduces the two cups to
THE EUCHARIST 169
one by conflating what is said about the
two into one statement, St. Paul has adopted
the simpler expedient of omitting the refer-
ence to the first cup in Luke altogether.
It will be useful to compare the accounts of
Luke and Paul in detail. Luke speaks of
Jesus ' taking bread,' but Paul says ' he took
bread,' the difference being due to the manner
of Paul's introduction. Consequently Paul
has need of ' and ' to connect two finite verbs.
Instead of Luke's 'he gave to them, saying '
Paul has simply ' he said.' The words
' This is my body ' are given in a different
order. Instead of ' which is given for you '
the apostle has only ' which is for you,' the
omission of * given' corresponding with the
earlier omission of 'he gave,' suggesting the
connexion between the two which we recog-
nised above. ' Which is for you ' is comparable
with ' which is for the people ' in the de-
scription of the day of atonement in Leviticus.
4 And he shall kill the goat of the sin
offering, which is for the people ' (xvi. 15).
* In like manner also the cup, after supper '
differs from Luke only in the order of the
words. In the words about the cup Paul
gives the word ' is ' which is not expressed
in Luke, saying also ' my blood ' instead of
* the blood of me ' as in Luke. Paul omits
170 THE INSTITUTION OF
altogether the words 4 even that which is
poured out for you, 5 giving in their place
' this do, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance
of me,' a repetition of the command given
according to Luke after the words concerning
the bread, with an addition adapting it to
the cup, somewhat unnecessarily as he gives
the words about the covenant, and also
rather inappropriately in view of the history
of the word ' memorial,' though it is but a
further extension of the original meaning of
the word, which had begun even in the use
of the word as given in Luke. We note the
even distribution of agreement and dis-
agreement with Luke's account throughout
the whole of the narrative, and there is no
difference in this respect between the part
paralleled in the shorter text of Luke and
the part paralleled only in the longer.
There is therefore no reason, based on verbal
agreement of text, why the added words of
the longer version of the narrative should be
regarded as founded on Paul's account, and
not the part common to both forms of text.
If the additional matter of the longer text
be regarded as derived from Paul, the
equally close agreement in the common part
is left entirely without explanation, so that
we have confirmation of the authenticity of
THE EUCHARIST 171
the longer text. If Paul's account be a later
version of the longer text of Luke, the agree-
ment between his narrative and Luke's
in both parts is naturally and quite ade-
quately explained. Between Paul's account
and Mark's there is considerable difference,
though both have much in common with
Luke, and each could be explained as a
separate development from the tradition he
records. We notice that Mark omits ' which
is given for you, 5 but Paul ' even that which
is poured out for you ' ; also that Mark omits
4 This do for my memorial,' whereas Paul
gives it twice. The priority of the tradition
recorded in Luke explains both.
CHAPTER IX
THE ARREST OP JESUS
THE accounts of our Lord's arrest afford a
good example of Mark's method of combining
parallel narratives. Luke says : ' While he
yet spake, behold, a multitude, and he that
was called Judas, one of the twelve, went
before them ; and he drew near unto Jesus
to kiss him. But Jesus said unto him, Judas,
betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss ?
. . . And Jesus said unto the chief priests,
and captains of the temple, and elders, which
were come against him, Are ye come out, as
against a robber, with swords and staves ? '
(xxii. 47-48, 52). John says : c Judas then,
having received the band of soldiers, and
officers from the chief priests and the Phari-
sees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches
and weapons. Jesus therefore, knowing all
the things that were coming upon him, went
forth, and saith unto them, Whom seek ye ?
They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus
saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also,
which betrayed him, was standing with them '
THE ARREST OF JESUS 173
(xviii. 3-5). Mark says : ' And straightway,
while he yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the
twelve, and with him a multitude with swords
and staves, from the chief priests and the
scribes and the elders. Now he that be-
trayed him had given them a token, saying,
Whomsoever I shall kiss, that is he ; take
him, and lead him away safely. And when
he was come, straightway he came to him,
and saith, Rabbi; and kissed him. And
they laid hands on him, and took him '
(xiv. 43-46).
Mark's narrative appears to be a conflation
of the tradition recorded in Luke with another
similar to that found in John. 4 And with
him a multitude with swords and staves,,
from the chief priests and the scribes and
the elders ' agrees in substance with ' Having
received the band of soldiers, and officers
from the chief priests and the Pharisees,
cometh thither with lanterns and torches and
weapons,' though the phraseology is largely
that of Luke, who has ' the chief priests, and
captains of the temple, and elders ' and ' with
swords and staves,' Luke stating, however,
that ' the chief priests, and captains of the
temple, and elders ' themselves made the
arrest. Mark substitutes ' the scribes ' for
* captains of the temple.' We read in the
174 THE ARREST OF JESUS
Talmud of the latter, ' The ruler of the
mountain of the temple takes his walks
through every watch with torches lighted
before him : and if he found any . . .
sleeping, he struck him with a stick.' 1 We
note the staves and torches of the different
traditions. * He that betrayed him ' in Mark
repeats ' which betrayed him ' of John. The
compact between Judas and the chief priests
about the kiss may be derived from another
tradition, but it is possible that it is merely
an interpretative addition, for it is difficult to
imagine what evidence there could have been
for the statement. ' Rabbi,' as in the story
of the Transfiguration (ix. 5), is probably
editorial, though it may be taken from
another tradition. Mark omits the question
Jesus puts to Judas. We notice in Luke,
* he drew near,' ' betray est thou the Son
of man,' phraseology which Mark puts earlier,
' He that betrayeth me is at hand [hath
drawn near], 5 in a passage (xiv. 41-42), in
which Mark makes an addition to Luke by
conflating material from different traditions,
and particularly sayings belonging properly
to the end of the proceedings in the upper
room according to John, ' the hour is come l
(xvii. 1, cf. xiii. 1), 'Arise, let us go' (xiv. 31).
1 Middoth, i. 2. See Lightfoot, Works, xii. p. 191.
THE ARREST OF JESUS 175
The Petrine and Johannine traditions
agree in saying that the incident of the cutting
off of the servant's ear took place before they
4 seized ' Jesus, though Mark says 'they laid
hands on him, and took him ' before he
records the action. Mark apparently is using
a different tradition which he is fitting into
the framework found in Luke. The same
conclusion follows from the different accounts
of this incident. Luke says : ' And a certain
one of them smote the servant of the high
priest, and struck off his right ear ' (xxii. 50).
John says : ' Simon Peter therefore having a
sword drew it, and struck the high priest's
servant, and cut off his right ear ' (xviii. 10).
Mark says : ' But a certain one of them that
stood by drew his sword, and smote the
servant of the high priest, and struck off
his ear ' (xiv. 47). The three accounts are
very similar, but Mark agrees with John in
mentioning the drawing of the sword, though
he uses a different word. The words trans-
lated ' smote ' and ' ear ' in Mark are those
used by John. Again Mark seems to be
conflating the different traditions, though
rather oddly he omits the statement that it
was the right ear, found in Luke and John.
Mark says nothing about any words of Jesus
after the incident; but as he introduces the
176 THE ARREST OF JESUS
saying to the * multitude ' with the words
4 And Jesus answered and said,' used in Luke
of the words said in connexion with the
action, he seems to have known them but
omitted them. Luke alone speaks of the cure
of the servant's ear, ' And he touched his
ear, and healed him ' (xxii. 51). If the event
really happened it is curious that there is no
mention of it in any of the other gospels.
In John we read : ' Jesus therefore said unto
Peter, Put up the sword into the sheath '
(xviii. 11), and in Matthew, ' Then saith Jesus
unto him, Put up again thy sword into its
place ' (xxvi. 52), evidently two versions of
a quite different tradition. The suggestion
that Luke, or his authority, has misunder-
stood our Lord's saying is not improbable,
particularly as the same Greek word, not
however the word used here, might be used
of restoring the sword to its place or the ear.
We notice earlier in Luke : ' His hand was
restored ' (vi. 10), and in Jeremiah, ' O sword
of the Lord ... be restored to thy scabbard '
(xxix. (xlvii.) 6). 1 Elsewhere, as in our
Lord's saying about humility, we have seen
reason to believe that Matthew has preserved
an earlier version of a tradition than Luke, 2
1 See Abbott in Classical Review, vol. vii. (Dec. 1893),
p. 443. a See pp. 139-140.
THE ARREST OF JESUS 177
so that the same may be true here. The
conjunction of touching and healing is found
twice in other contexts in Luke, c And all the
multitude sought to touch him : for power
came forth from him, and healed them all '
(vi. 19), ' She touched him, and . . . was
healed immediately ' (viii. 47), the latter being
reproduced in Mark (v. 27-29), but with a
less obvious connexion between the words,
so that the statement about the cure is a
not unlikely addition to the tradition, as an
equivalent to words of our Lord misunder-
stood in the course of transmission. John,
we note, though he speaks of ' Cana of
Galilee, where he made the water wine ' (iv.
46), 4 Lazarus, whom Jesus raised from the
dead ' (xii. 1), yet says only ' a kinsman of
him whose ear Peter cut off ' (xviii. 26),
making no mention of the miracle, of which
therefore he was presumably not aware. We
might have expected Mark to conflate the
two traditions of the healing of the ear and
of the command to put the sword into the
sheath, but he omits both, with the result
that there is a certain lack of connexion in
the narrative, the words ' Jesus answered and
said ' being suitable when He is addressing
the disciples after the cutting off of the ear,
as in Luke, but less suitable when He is
N
178 THE ARREST OF JESUS
speaking to the ' multitude,' who had done
nothing requiring an answer, though indeed
Mark has a similar use of the word ' answer '
elsewhere (ix. 5, x. 51, xi. 14, xii. 35). In
Mark the words can only refer back to ' they
laid hands on him, and took him,' though His
answer assumes, as in Luke, that the arrest
has yet to take place, ' Are ye come out . . .
to seize me ? '
The remonstrance Jesus addressed to
those who were arresting Him ended, ac-
cording to Luke, with the words 4 But this
is your hour, and the power of darkness '
(xxii. 53), exactly suited to the occasion. In
Mark we read, ' But that the scriptures might
be fulfilled' (xiv. 49). It is difficult to
imagine such words used to the chief priests
and others who were seizing Jesus. The
sentence is taken from John, 4 1 know whom
I have chosen : but that the scripture may
be fulfilled, He that eateth my bread lifted
up his heel against me ' (xiii. 18). The
elliptic c but that ' is a characteristic of the
fourth gospel (i. 8, ix. 3, xiii. 18). Luke's
conclusion of our Lord's saying reminds us
of what we read in John : ' He then having
received the sop went out straightway : and
it was night. . . . Behold, the hour cometh,
yea, is come, that ye shall be scattered, every
THE ARREST OF JESUS 179
man to his own, and shall leave me alone*
(xiii. 30, xvi. 32). After the words which in
John refer to the treachery of Judas, Mark
likewise tells of the flight of the rest of the
apostles, ' And they all left him, and fled '
(xiv. 50), though as it stands, evidently a
result of conflation, the statement might be
taken to refer to the chief priests and others
who had come to arrest Jesus, and not to
the disciples, who are not mentioned in the
context. In John we read, c They went
backward, and fell to the ground,' and later,
4 Let these go their way ' (xviii. 6, 8), possibly
therefore a combination of two interpreta-
tions of one original statement. The words,
4 And they all left him, and fled, 5 taken in
conjunction with the prediction of the flight,
1 The sheep shall be scattered abroad ' (Mark
xiv. 27), provide a remarkable parallel to the
phraseology of John. Yet, as they clearly
belong to a different line of tradition, they
must be derived, it would seem, from the
Jacobean narrative, a conclusion already
reached with respect to the prophecy of the
flight on other grounds. The evidence there-
fore seems to leave little room for doubt that
Mark's account is a mosaic formed of elements
from each of the three lines of evangelical
tradition, from Peter, James, and John.
180 THE ARREST OF JESUS
Mark next gives us a passage peculiar to
the second gospel. ' And a certain young
man followed with him, having a linen cloth
cast about him, over his naked body : and
they lay hold on him ; but he left the linen
cloth, and fled naked ' (xiv. 51-52). We
cannot consider it apart from a statement
which follows : ' And Peter had followed him
afar off ' (xiv. 54). Luke merely gives a
parallel to this : ' But Peter followed afar
off ' (xxii. 54). In John we read : ' And
Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did
another disciple ' (xviii. 15). In view of
Mark's frequent use of the Johannine and a.
parallel, presumably the Jacobean, tradition
there can be little doubt that the ' young
man ' and the ' other disciple ' are properly
identical. The change is very extraordinary,
though by no means unparalleled in the
gospel, and is to be explained as development
by accretion. We may compare the state-
ment in Amos according to the Hebrew.
' And he that is courageous among the mighty
shall flee away naked in that day ' (ii. 16).
It is however the story of Joseph which has
supplied most of the details. In Genesis we
read : ' And there was with us there a young
man ' (xli. 12), 4 And she caught hold of
him by his garments . . . and he left his
THE ARREST OF JESUS 181
garments in her hand, and fled' (xxxix. 12).
The closest parallel is to be found in the
Testament of Joseph : ' When I saw that
. . . she was laying hold of my garment,
I left it, and fled naked ' (viii. 3). Here, too,
he is described as a ' young man, 5 ' Let the
young man be brought ' (xiii. 4). The Greek
being largely identical it would seem to be
impossible to deny a literary connexion. The
remainder of the passage, ' clothed with linen
over the naked [body],' is found in the
Septuagint, ' to be clothed with linen ' (1 Mace,
xiv. 44, A), ' If thou seest the naked, clothe
him ' (Is. Iviii. 7), ' The men . . . clothed all
the naked ' (2 Chron. xxviii. 15), ' The man
who . . . shall clothe the naked ' (Ezek.
xviii. 5, 7, cf. 16). Yet, in spite of its mosaic
character, the phraseology of the passage is
essentially Markan, and the influences which
have been at work determining the vocabu-
lary are not really different from those
to be recognised elsewhere in the gospel,
modifying the tradition not infrequently quite
apart from the consciousness of the person
responsible. The nucleus of the story was
derived apparently from the Jacobean line
of tradition, for the Petrine narrative says
nothing about the following of anyone
but Peter, and the Johannine makes no
182 THE ARREST OF JESUS
distinction of near or far in recording the
fact that the two disciples followed Jesus.
The Jacobean tradition being as a rule the
most primitive, the accretion possibly took
place after the combination of elements of
the three traditions to form the original
version of the second gospel.
CHAPTER X
IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE
THERE is perhaps no passage in which Mark's
method of compiling his gospel is to be seen
with greater clearness, than in his account of
the events in the high priest's palace. In
Luke we read : c And they seized him, and
led him away, and brought him into the
high priest's house. But Peter followed afar
off. And when they had kindled a fire in
the midst of the court, and had sat down
together, Peter sat in the midst of them.
. . . And the men that held Jesus mocked
him, and beat him. And they blindfolded
him, and asked him, saying, Prophesy : who
is he that struck thee ? And many other
things spake they against him, reviling him.
And as soon as it was day, the assembly of
the elders of the people was gathered to-
gether, both chief priests and scribes ; and
they led him away into their council, saying,
If thou art the Christ, tell us. But he said
unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe :
184 IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE
and if I ask you, ye will not answer. But
from henceforth shall the Son of man be
seated at the right hand of the power of God.
And they all said, Art thou then the Son of
God ? And he said unto them, Ye say that
I am. And they said, What further need
have we of witness ? for we ourselves have
heard from his own mouth ' (xxii. 54-55,
63-71). In Mark we read : ' And they laid
hands on him, and took him. . . . And they
led Jesus away to the high priest : and there
come together with him all the chief priests
and the elders and the scribes. And Peter
had followed him afar off, even within, into
the court of the high priest ; and he was
sitting with the officers, and warming himself
in the light of the fire. Now the chief priests
and the whole council sought witness against
Jesus to put him to death ; and found it not.
For many bare false witness against him, and
their witness agreed not together. And there
stood up certain, and bare false witness
against him, saying, We heard him say, I will
destroy this temple that is made with hands,
and in three days I will build another made
without hands. And not even so did their
witness agree together. And the high priest
stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus,
saying, Answerest thou nothing ? what is it
IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE 185
which these witness against thee ? But he
held his peace, and answered nothing. Again
the high priest asked him, and saith unto him,
Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed ?
And Jesus said, I am : and ye shall see the
Son of man sitting at the right hand of power,
and coming with the clouds of heaven. And
the high priest rent his clothes, and saith,
What further need have we of witnesses ?
Ye have heard the blasphemy : what think
ye ? And they all condemned him to be
worthy of death. And some began to spit
on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet
him, and to say unto him, Prophesy : and
the officers received him with blows of rods '
(xiv. 46, 53-65).
We have already noticed that Mark has
displaced the arrest, ; And they laid hands on
him, and took him,' putting it before the
incident of the cutting off of the servant's
ear, though in Luke, more naturally, it is
placed afterwards, c And they seized him, and
led him away,' and likewise in John, ' So the
band and the chief captain, and the officers of
the Jews, seized Jesus and bound him, and
led him to Annas first ' (xviii. 12-13). Mark's
words, ' And they led Jesus away to the high
priest : and there come together all the chief
priests and the elders and the scribes,' are a
186 IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE
conflation of two different passages in Luke,
* And they led him away, and brought him
into the high priest's house,' and ' And . . .
the assembly of the elders of the people was
gathered together, both chief priests and
scribes ; and they led him away into their
council.' The verb used in Mark, ' they led
away,' is that which is found in the second
passage of Luke. c To the high priest ' in
Mark is the equivalent of both ' into the high
priest's house,' and 'into their council.'
Matthew gives a modification of Mark, identi-
fying the high priest with Caiaphas, and
stating that the scribes and elders were
already assembled in readiness with him.
4 And they that had taken Jesus led him
away to the house of Caiaphas the high
priest, where the scribes and the elders were
gathered together ' (xxvi. 57). He says
nothing about the chief priests. John agrees
with Luke in saying nothing about the council
at this point, * And they led him to Annas
first ; for he was father in law to Caiaphas,
which was high priest that year ' (xviii. 13).
The original form of the narrative clearly said
nothing about an assembly of the council
until 4 it was day,' so that there is a pre-
sumption that John is likewise right in saying
Jesus was taken to Annas, not to Caiaphas.
IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE 187
Mark continues : ' And Peter had followed
him afar off, even within, into the court of the
high priest ; and he was sitting with the
officers, and warming himself in the light of
the fire,' reproducing Luke's account, ' But
Peter followed afar off. And when they had
kindled a fire in the midst of the court, and
had sat down together, Peter sat in the
midst of them,' with words from his descrip-
tion of the first denial, ' as he sat in the light
of the fire ' (xxii. 56), adding also phraseology
from the account in John, ' into the court of
the high priest,' ' the officers,' ' warming
himself,' and so to some extent modifying
Luke. The word ' within ' seems to have
been suggested by the statement in John
that Peter first of all stood ' without.' John
says : ' And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and
so did another disciple. Now that disciple
was known unto the high priest, and entered
in with Jesus into the court of the high priest ;
but Peter was standing at the door without.
So the other disciple, which was known unto
the high priest, went out and spake unto her
that kept the door, and brought in Peter.
. . . Now the servants and the officers were
standing there, having made a fire of coals ;
for it was cold ; and they were warming
themselves : and Peter also was with them,
188 IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE
standing and warming himself * (xviii. 15-16,
18). Matthew gives a modification of Mark,
omitting and changing some of the phrase-
ology from John, ' But Peter followed him
afar off, unto the court of the high priest,
and entered in, and sat with the officers, to
see the end ' (xxvi. 58).
The next passage in Mark is not repre-
sented in Luke or John. 'Now the chief
priests and the whole council sought witness
against Jesus to put him to death ; and
found it not. For many bare false witness
against him, and their witness agreed not
together. And there stood up certain, and
bare false witness against him, saying, We
heard him say, I will destroy this temple
that is made with hands, and in three days
I will build another made without hands.
And not even so did their witness agree
together.' John gives a quite different tra-
dition with regard to the events within the
high priest's palace : ' The high priest there-
fore asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his
teaching. Jesus answered him, I have
spoken openly to the world ; I ever taught
in synagogues, and in the temple, where all
the Jews come together ; and in secret spake
I nothing. Why askest thou me ? ask them
that have heard me, what I spake unto them :
IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE 189
behold, these know the things which I said.
And when he had said this, one of the officers
standing by gave Jesus a blow of a rod,
saying, Answerest thou the high priest so?
Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil,
bear witness of the evil: but if well, why
smitest thou me ? Annas therefore sent him
bound unto Caiaphas the high priest ' (xviii.
19-24).
The questioning before Annas was evi-
dently an attempt to find evidence, but it is
something very different from the search for
witnesses on the part of 4 the whole council '
described in Mark, and both traditions cannot
well be correct. Peter, we note, was standing
with the servants by the fire, and was hardly
in a position to make a report on what took
place in the high priest's presence. Indeed
nothing is said about it in the tradition
recorded in Luke which we have seen reason
to believe derived from Peter. ' The other
disciple, which was known unto the high
priest ' is the only person mentioned who could
tell what took place, and doubtless it is
his account which is found in John. How,
then, are we to explain the tradition given in
Mark ? The key to the solution of the prob-
lem is to be found in a statement of Luke :
1 The assembly of the elders of the people
190 IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE
was gathered together, both chief priests and
scribes ; and they led him away into their
council. . . . And they said, What further
need have we of witness ? ' The meaning
clearly is that after our Lord's confession
that He was the Son of God, no further
evidence was necessary, not that a search
for witnesses, so far in vain, might now cease.
Yet Mark has so understood it, ' What further
need have we of witnesses ? ' and, apparently
on the strength of the statement in Luke that
' they said ' this, has ascribed it to the ' chief
priests and scribes,' who formed the ' council,'
so that he tells us * Now the chief priests and
the whole council sought witness against
Jesus to put him to death ; and found it
not.' We notice how a form of statement
which Mark has taken over from the tradition
given in Luke is imitated. * But the chief
priests and the scribes and the principal men
of the people sought to destroy him ' (xix.
47; cf. Mark xi. 18), 'And the scribes and
the chief priests sought to lay hands on him '
(xx. 19; cf. Mark xii. 12), 'And the chief
priests and the scribes sought how they might
put him to death ' (xxii. 2 ; cf. Mark xiv. 1).
The law with regard to witnesses is found in
Deuteronomy, 4 One witness shall not remain
to witness against a man for any iniquity . . . ;
IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE 191
at the mouth of two witnesses, and at the
mouth of three witnesses, shall every word
be established. And if an unrighteous wit-
ness rise up against a man, alleging wrong
doing against him, then the two men,
between whom the controversy is, shall stand
before the Lord ' (xix. 15-17). The council
evidently had this passage in mind when they
put the question, ' What further need have
we of witness ? for we ourselves have heard
from his own mouth.' The two or three
could be provided in the council itself. On
the assumption of such an enquiry as Mark
supposes the lack of agreement between two
or three would suggest the giving of false
testimony. Speaking of differences between
the statements of witnesses the Talmud says :
' Where they contradict each other's evidence,
their evidence is worthless.' 1 What there-
fore was implicit in the high priest's saying,
as he understood it, Mark makes explicit,
' For many witnessed falsely against him,
and their witness agreed not together.' The
ninth commandment and a saying of the
Talmud lie behind the statement apparently.
' Thou shalt not falsely witness false witness
against thy neighbour ' (Exod. xx. 16 ; Deut.
v. 20), 'The evidence of witnesses ... is
1 Sank., M. v. 2. Eng. trans. Dauby (S.P.C.K.).
192 IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE
invalid when the two witnesses do not agree.
Their evidence is only regarded as upheld
when the two are as one.' 1 Though the
assumption of the existence of many false
witnesses was a necessary consequence of his
misunderstanding, it is not easy to see where
Mark thought many witnesses would be found
in the middle of the night, or why, if someone
had taken the trouble to assemble them, he
had not selected at least two or three whose
testimony would agree. In Matthew the
echoes of both commandment and Talmud
have practically disappeared, and the diffi-
culties of the statement are further enhanced,
the council, we are told, deliberately seeking
false witnesses, 'Now the chief priests and the
whole council sought false witness against
Jesus, that they might put him to death ;
and they found it not, though many false
witnesses came' (xxvi. 59-60).
At first sight it seems somewhat extra-
ordinary that Mark after telling of the many
who bare false witness to no purpose should
think it worth while to mention a particular
example which was equally futile, ' And there
stood up certain, and bare false witness
against him, saying, We heard him say, I will
destroy this temple that is made with hands,
1 Sank., T. v. 5b.
IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE 193
and in three days I will build another made
without hands. And not even so did their
witness agree together.' As the particular
saying of Jesus, though recorded in John, is
not given in Mark, the gospel affords no
reason why this particular piece of false
witness should be singled out, nor indeed an
explanation of what constituted the false
witness, or whether Jesus had said some such
words or not. The difficulty is solved only
when we read the history of the early church
in Acts. In Stephen's speech we read : ' The
Most High dwelleth not in houses made with
hands ' (vii. 48). The adjective ' made with
hands ' occurs fourteen times in the Septua-
gint (Lev. xxvi. 1, 30 ; Is. ii. 18, x. 11, xvi.
12, xix. 1, xxi. 9, xxxi. 7, xlvi. 6 ; Dan. v. 4,
23, vi. 27 (28); Judith viii. 18; Wis. xiv. 8),
but it is always used of idols. Stephen
uses it of temples, including the temple at
Jerusalem, and it is to this that it is applied
in Mark. The word is evidently an inter-
pretative addition in Mark, for it does not
occur in the saying as recorded in John :
' Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy
this temple, and in three days I will raise it
up. The Jews therefore said, Forty and six
years was this temple in building, and wilt
thou raise it up in three days ? But he spake
o
194 IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE
of the temple of his body. When therefore
he was raised from the dead, his disciples
remembered that he spake this ' (ii. 19-22).
The word is thus not our Lord's, but an echo
of the controversy about Stephen. Indeed,
the whole passage in Mark is due to a reading
back into the life of Jesus a dispute belonging
to the primitive church which arose in con-
sequence of the preaching of Stephen. ' And
they stirred up the people, and the elders, and
the scribes, and came upon him, and seized
him, and brought him into the council, and
set up false witnesses, which said, This man
ceaseth not to speak words against this holy
place, and the law : for we have heard him
say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy
this place, and shall change the customs
which Moses delivered unto us ' (Acts vi.
12-14). So far as the temple is concerned
the accusation is exactly the same as that
brought by other false witnesses against Jesus
according to Mark. The statement that
4 this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this
place ' is clearly based on a saying of Jesus,
which can be none other than that recorded
by John, ' Destroy this temple, and in three
days I will raise it up,' the change from
1 Destroy this temple ' to ' I will destroy this
temple ' constituting the falsehood. Mark,
IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE 195
who, as we have seen, was acquainted with
and freely utilised elements of the tradition
derived from John, recognised the saying the
enemies of Stephen had in mind, and con-
cluded that a like false charge must have been
made against Jesus, and accordingly incor-
porated it in his gospel. In view of the
literary methods of the second evangelist in
other places such a transference of accusation
is not particularly surprising. The descrip-
tion ' made without hands ' can scarcely be
part of the saying spoken by Jesus, being
used by Stephen merely to summarise words
from the third Isaiah. ' Howbeit the Most
High dwelleth not in houses made with
hands ; as saith the prophet, The heaven is
my throne, And the earth the footstool of
my feet : What manner of house will ye
build me ? saith the Lord : Or what is the
place of my rest ? Did not my hand make
all these things ? ' (Acts vii. 48-50 ; cf. Is. Ixvi.
1-2). Yet Mark includes it in the saying
put into the mouth of the false witnesses.
That the story of Stephen suggested the
similar accusation against Jesus recorded in
the second gospel seems to be beyond dispute.
The words, ' And there stood up certain,
and bare false witness,' are perhaps reminis-
cent of the psalter, l Unrighteous witnesses
196 IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE
stood up against me ' (xxvi. (xxvii.) 12),
' Unrighteous witnesses stood up, and asked
me of things that I knew not J (xxxiv. (xxxv.)
11). We remember also the words of the
Talmud, 'Men must stand when they . . .
bear witness.' x In the statement as a whole,
' And there stood up certain, and bare false
witness against him. . . . And not even so
did their witness agree together,' we notice
again echoes both of the ninth commandment
and of the Talmud.
Mark gives the saying a second time in
his description of the mocking at the cross.
4 And they that passed by railed on him,
wagging their heads, and saying, Ha ! thou
that destroy est the temple, and buildest it in
three days, save thyself, and come down from
the cross. In like manner also the chief
priests mocking him among themselves with
the scribes said, He saved others ; himself
he cannot save. Let the Christ, the King of
Israel, now come down from the cross, that
we may see and believe ' (xv. 29-32). The
whole passage is composite, and is an ex-
pansion of what we find in Luke. ' And the
people stood beholding. And the rulers also
scoffed at him, saying, He saved others ; let
him save himself, if this is the Christ of God,
1 Sank., T. vi. 2.
IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE 197
his chosen ' (xxiii. 35). Instead of the two
reminiscences of Psalm xxi. (xxii.) 7 in Luke,
4 beholding,' ' scoffed at him,' Mark gives
another, ' wagging their heads,' from the same
verse, * All that beheld me scoffed at me :
they spake with their lips, they wagged the
head,' expanding it however by assimilating
it to a longer form of the same statement
in Lamentations, ' All that passed by ...
wagged their head ' (ii. 15). The words,
' and saying . . . save thyself,' which de-
scribe the railing of those who passed by in
Mark, are used of the mocking of the soldiers
in Luke, ' And the soldiers also mocked him,
coming to him, offering him vinegar, and
saying, If thou art the King of the Jews,
save thyself ' (xxiii. 36-37). We have thus
another example of the transference of narra-
tive, comparable with the transference of
the false accusations against Stephen to our
Lord. The words, * and come down from the
cross,' are an interpretative addition explain-
ing ' save thyself.' The second reminiscence
of Psalm xxi. (xxii.) 7, ' scoffed at him,'
in Luke is lost in Mark, for we read only
of the chief priests * mocking him.' * Let
him save himself ' in Luke has become
4 himself he cannot save,' a definite denial.
The explanatory words l come down from the
198 IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE
cross ' are given a second time in Mark, with
the addition, ' that we may see and believe,'
a thought barely implicit in Luke. The
bulk of the passage in Mark is thus explained
as a development from what we find in Luke,
but Luke has nothing even remotely sug-
gesting, 4 Ha ! thou that destroyest the
temple, and buildest it in three days.' Again
we must conclude that it is an addition of
the evangelist in amplification of the simpler
statement found in Luke. Mark's first use
of the saying can be explained as a trans-
ference of what is recorded of Stephen to
Jesus, but in the present instance no such
explanation is possible. It is however ob-
viously intended as evidence of a continuation
of the attitude towards our Lord's teaching
which reached a climax later in the contro-
versy raised by Stephen. We note that the
statement about the saying in the fourth
gospel, which we have seen reason to believe
reliable as an authority, seems to preclude
the authenticity of its quotation in the high
priest's palace and at the cross, 4 When there-
fore he was raised from the dead, his dis-
ciples remembered that he spake this ' (ii. 22).
If the false witnesses and mockers at the cross
could remember that Jesus had so spoken,
it is curious that His disciples should have
IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE 199
forgotten, while it is still more odd that the
disciples should remember that the saying
had twice been quoted against Him as a
saying of Jesus, and yet they themselves did
not remember He had spoken it until after
the resurrection. We conclude rather that
the saying was not quoted by false witnesses
or mockers, but that the statements to that
effect are editorial additions of Mark, ex-
panding the earlier tradition recorded in
Luke from which they are absent.
Matthew in his version of the narrative
follows Mark in both contexts, but on each
occasion carries the development of text
further, as is his wont. We read: 'But
afterward came two, and said, This man said,
I am able to destroy the temple of God, and
to build it in three days ' (xxvi. 60-61). We
notice the disappearance of the epithets
4 made with hands,' ' made without hands,'
which in Mark connect the saying with
Stephen's speech and gave the hint about the
origin of the insertion of the passage in the
second gospel. The echoes of the ninth com-
mandment and the Talmud have likewise
gone, and even the phraseology which sug-
gests the references to the standing up of false
witnesses in the psalter. Instead of these we
find reminiscences of other Old Testament
200 IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE
passages describing similar scenes, 4 And two
men, sons of Belial, came in ... and bare
witness against him ' (3 (1) Kings xx. (xxi.)
13), ' And the men of Belial . . . that they
might put her to death . . . came to the
assembly of the city . . . And the two elders
and judges stood up ' (Sus. 28-29). The law
of Deuteronomy required at least two or
three witnesses, and Mark speaks only of
c certain,' so that the reason for 4 two ' in
Matthew is hardly doubtful. The two wit-
nesses, against both Naboth and Susanna,
' came,' and this is the verb in Matthew, by
assimilation, apparently, in the previous sen-
tence also as well as in that under discussion.
Matthew changes ' We heard him say '
to ' This man said,' nothing now being
mentioned whether they heard the saying
themselves, though the rule of the Talmud
is plain, ' The evidence of witnesses is not
regarded as valid unless they have actually
seen what they assert.' * Our Lord's saying
has become merely a statement of power, not
of intention, ' I am able to destroy ' not 4 1
will destroy.' ' This temple,' the phrase used
in John and Mark, is altered to ' the temple of
God,' an expression not found elsewhere in
the gospels. On the version of the saying in
1 Sank., T. v. 6b.
IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE 201
Matthew it would seem to be difficult to base
any legal charge whatsoever, yet the finding
of these two witnesses according to the first
gospel brings the council's search for witness
to a successful conclusion, Mark's statement
that even this testimony did not agree
together being omitted.
The author of the first gospel makes no
change in the text of our Lord's saying as
inaccurately quoted in the alleged taunt at
the cross, though he adds words to the
context. ' Save thyself ' becomes ' Save thy-
self : if thou art the Son of God, ' confirming
our conclusion that by the addition of these
words Mark has conflated the mocking of the
people and that of the soldiers, as reported in
Luke, where we read, ' And the soldiers also
mocked him . . . saying, If thou art the
King of the Jews, save thyself,' Matthew's
saying being evidently a modification of
this. At the end of the taunt of the chief
priests and scribes as given in Mark, the first
gospel adds : ' He trusteth on God ; let him
deliver him now, if he desireth him : for he
said, I am the Son of God ' (xxvii. 43), again
utilising the words of the twenty-first (second)
psalm : ' He hoped on the Lord ; let him
deliver him : let him save him because he
desireth him ' (xxi. (xxii.) 8). That a verse
202 IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE
of the psalter was used in this way by the
priests and scribes is highly improbable, and
indeed if we remember the rest of the psalm,
it would have been derogatory to themselves
rather than to Jesus. We have rather the
result of the meditation of the evangelist put
in historical form. The next words, 'For
he said, I am the Son of God,' which explain
the quotation from the psalm, correspond
in the saying of the chief priests to ' If thou
art the Son of God ' in that of the passers-by,
the reference being to our Lord's confession
before the high priest. Again we have an
interpretative addition, the evangelist's own
reflexions being put into the mouths of the
mockers. Mark's expansion of the original
tradition with regard to the mocking at the
cross, of which the taunt based on the saying
about the destruction of the temple is a part,
is thus continued further, the practice of
Matthew so providing confirmation of our
conclusion with regard to Mark that he did
not hesitate to make interpretative additions
to sayings or narrative when he thought it
desirable, the accusation against Stephen
suggesting the use in this way of the saying
recorded in John, ' Destroy this temple, and
in three days I will raise it up,' as the basis
of false witness before the high priest, and
IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE 203
in consequence as a taunt at the cross. The
origin of this element in Mark's description
of what he tells us took place in the high
priest's palace is thus adequately explained.
Mark continues : ' And the high priest
stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus,
saying, Answerest thou nothing ? What is
it which these witness against thee ? But he
held his peace, and answered nothing.' If
the account of the false witnesses is an inter-
pretative addition, it is not probable that the
saying of the high priest is entirely authentic.
Luke records nothing of the sort. In another
context in Mark we find a similar passage :
' And the chief priests accused him of many
things. And Pilate again asked him, saying,
Answerest thou nothing ? behold how many
things they accuse thee of. But Jesus no
more answered anything ; insomuch that
Pilate marvelled ' (xv. 3-5). Again Luke
gives no parallel. There is however a similar
passage in Luke's description of the trial
before Herod. 'And he questioned him in
many words ; but he answered him nothing.
And the chief priests and the scribes stood,
vehemently accusing him ' (xxiii. 9-10). We
see a reason why Jesus did not answer
questions asked simply to satisfy Herod's
curiosity, for we are told, ' When Herod saw
204 IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE
Jesus, he was exceeding glad : for he was of
a long time desirous to see him, because he
had heard concerning him ; and he hoped to
see some miracle done by him ' (xxiii. 8).
It is not so easy to see why He should not
answer Pilate when asking about the accusa-
tions of the chief priests, particularly as we
are told He answered the questions of the
same ' chief priests and scribes ' in the Jewish
assembly according to Luke (xxii. 66-70), or
the similar question of the high priest ac-
cording to Mark (xiv. 61-62). Indeed we are
distinctly told that Jesus did answer Pilate
concerning an accusation made by the chief
priests and scribes. Mark says : c And Pilate
asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews ?
And he answering saith unto him, Thou
sayest ' (xv. 2). In Mark this verse stands,
as it were, in the air, for we are not told
why Pilate put the question, though it could
hardly have been put apart from an accusa-
tion of the chief priests and scribes. In Luke
we are told plainly that this was the case,
so that Pilate's question follows quite natur-
ally. ' And the whole company of them rose
up, and brought him before Pilate. And
they began to accuse him, saying, We found
this man perverting our nation, and for-
bidding to give tribute to Caesar, and saying
IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE 205
that he himself is Christ a king. And Pilate
asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the
Jews ? And he answered him and said,
Thou sayest ' (xxiii. 1-3). A comparison of
the narratives of Mark and Luke makes it
quite plain that the statement, ' And the chief
priests accused him of many things,' corre-
sponds to ' And they began to accuse him,
saying, We found this man perverting our
nation, and forbidding to give tribute to
Csesar, and saying that he himself is Christ
a king.' This being so, we see that Jesus did
answer Pilate when asked about the accusa-
tions of the chief priests and scribes. The
passage which follows, which says that He
answered nothing, must be out of place, and
in that case we must conclude that Mark has
interpolated it in the trial before Pilate,
though it belongs properly to the trial before
Herod. The words ' And the chief priests
accused him of many things ' in Mark are
therefore a conflation and modification of
the corresponding passage and what we are
told of Herod and the priests and scribes in
Luke, ' And he questioned him in many
words. . . . And the chief priests and the
scribes stood, vehemently accusing him. ' The
fourth gospel tells us that at a later point
Jesus refused to answer a certain question
206 IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE
of Pilate prompted by an accusation of the
Jews (xix. 9), and this may have helped to
suggest the incident in Mark, though other-
wise there are no signs of literary dependence,
nor, as the circumstances are so different, can
the two narratives be regarded as different
traditions of the same event. ' The Jews
answered him, We have a law, and by that
law he ought to die, because he made himself
the Son of God. When Pilate therefore
heard this saying, he was the more afraid ;
and he entered into the palace again, and
saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou ? But
Jesus gave him no answer. Pilate therefore
saith unto him, Speakest thou not unto me ?
knowest thou not that I have power to re-
lease thee, and have power to crucify thee ?
Jesus answered him, Thou wouldest have
no power against me, except it were given
thee from above ' (xix. 7-11).
The earlier part of the narrative in John,
though it says nothing about the trial before
Herod, is easily harmonised with what we
find in Luke, derived apparently from Peter,
but it is quite impossible to fit in the state-
ment that after Pilate had put the question,
4 Art thou the king of the Jews ? ' the chief
priests continued to accuse Him of many
things. We read : ' They lead Jesus there-
IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE 207
fore from Caiaphas into the palace : and it
was early ; and they themselves entered not
into the palace, that they might not be
defiled, but might eat the passover. Pilate
therefore went out unto them, and saith,
What accusation bring ye against this man ?
They answered and said unto him, If this
man were not an evil doer, we should not have
delivered him up unto thee. Pilate therefore
said unto them, Take him yourselves, and
judge him according to your law. The Jews
said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put
any man to death : that the word of Jesus
might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying
by what manner of death he should die.
Pilate therefore entered again into the palace,
and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou
the King of the Jews ? Jesus answered,
Sayest thou this of thyself, or did others tell
it thee concerning me ? Pilate answered,
Am I a Jew ? Thine own nation and the
chief priests delivered thee unto me : what
hast thou done ? Jesus answered, My king-
dom is not of this world : if my kingdom
were of this world, then would my servants
fight, that I should not be delivered to the
Jews : but now is my kingdom not from
hence. Pilate therefore said unto him, Art
thou a king then ? Jesus answered, Thou
208 IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE
sayest that I am a king. To this end have
I been born, and to this end am I come into
the world, that I should bear witness unto
the truth. Every one that is of the truth
heareth my voice. Pilate saith unto him,
What is truth ? And when he had said this,
he went out again unto the Jews ' (xviii.
28-38).
Pilate's question, we note, is exactly the
same in John as in Luke and Mark. The
accusation of the chief priests and scribes
must have been that He claimed to be a
king, though only Luke tells us this. If, as
John says, the Jews would not enter into
the palace for fear of defilement, the initial
accusation was the only one possible. Mark's
narrative clearly supposes them present in
the judgment hall, for only thus would the
further accusations be possible, or Pilate's
remarks which followed. Before Herod how-
ever such continuous accusation, reported in
Luke, would be quite possible, for as Herod
had himself come up to Jerusalem as a Jew
to keep the passover there would be no risk
of defilement in entering his abode. Again
the evidence shews that Mark's narrative is
secondary and that he has transferred the
incident from Herod's trial to Pilate's. If all
but Peter and the other disciple fled at our
IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE 209
Lord's arrest, only two of His followers
could give reports of the trials, and these we
have in the accounts which we have seen
reason to suppose those of Peter and John
in the third and fourth gospels. The fuller
description of the incident in Mark compared
with what we find in Luke is to be ascribed to
editorial expansion, partly to fit the passage
into the new context, and partly to suit the
evangelist's style. The only real addition is
' insomuch that Pilate marvelled.' Mark
uses the word ' marvel ' only four times
(v. 20, vi. 6, xv. 5, 44). In one case (vi. 6)
there is no real parallel in Luke where we
find a different tradition, but in two cases
the word appears in a comment added by
Mark to the narrative which is found in Luke,
after the healing of the Gerasene demoniac,
' And all men did marvel ' (v. 20 ; cf . Luke
viii. 39), and after our Lord's death, ' And
Pilate marvelled if he were already dead ' (xv.
44 ; cf. Luke xxiii. 52). We conclude there-
fore that the similar addition in the present
context is a comment of the evangelist.
Matthew reproduces Mark's account with
little more than verbal alterations : ' And
when he was accused by the chief priests
and elders, he answered nothing. Then saith
Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many
p
210 IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE
things they witness against thee ? And
he gave him no answer, not even to one
word : insomuch that the governor marvelled
greatly ' (xxvii. 12-14). Pilate's question
' Answerest thou nothing ? ' which is evi-
dently an editorial addition in Mark, not being
found in Luke, has been changed into a mere
statement of fact, ' he answered nothing,' as
in Luke's account of the trial before Herod.
Matthew's treatment of Mark enables us the
better to understand Mark's treatment of
Luke, and to realise the unimportance of such
editorial alterations. We find a change in
exactly the opposite direction in Matthew's
account of the priests' plot against Jesus, a
mere statement of time becoming a saying of
our Lord. In Mark, following Luke (xxii. 1),
we read, ' Now after two days was the feast
of the passover and the unleavened bread '
(xiv. 1), but in Matthew, ' And it came to
pass, when Jesus had finished all these words,
he said unto his disciples, Ye know that after
two days the passover cometh, and the Son
of man is delivered up to be crucified ' (xxvi.
1-2). Matthew thus provides an explanation
of Mark's similar addition of a question,
' Answerest thou nothing ? ' where Luke has
only the statement that ' he answered him
nothing.'
IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE 211
We are now in a position to return to
Mark's account of the silence of Jesus before
the council. We notice that it is exactly
parallel to the account of His silence before
Pilate. In the former case Mark says : ' For
many bare false witness against him. . . .
And the high priest . . . asked Jesus, saying,
Answerest thou nothing ? what is it which
these -witness against thee ? But he held his
peace, and answered nothing.' In the latter
case he says : ' And the chief priests accused
him of many things. And Pilate again asked
him, saying, Answerest thou nothing ? behold
how many things they accuse thee of. But
Jesus no more answered anything.' As Luke
has nothing to correspond to either passage
in the parallel context, and as the intro-
duction to the first saying, the account of
the false witnesses, is, we have decided, an
addition of the evangelist's, and the second
passage likewise, the first passage must also
be ascribed to the editor's hand.
One of the reasons for the addition in the
evangelist's mind doubtless was the law of
the Talmud which allowed the accused person
to defend himself. ' The second witness was
also brought in and examined. If their
testimony is found to agree, they open the
case for the defence. . . . If the accused say
212 IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE
that he has something to plead in his own
defence, he is listened to.' x Throughout the
whole of the narrative which he has added
to the earlier form of the tradition preserved
in Luke the evangelist is evidently trying
to describe what he conceived to be the
procedure at a meeting of the council.
The statement ' And the high priest stood
up in the midst' seems also to have been
suggested by the Talmud. The passage
already quoted has a bearing on the ma,tter,
1 Men must stand when they pronounce
sentence, or bear witness,' but also the fol-
lowing, ' The Sanhedrin was arranged in the
form of a semicircle, so that they might all
see each other. The Prince sat in the middle
with the elders on his right and left.' a
Matthew omits 4 in the midst,' the reminis-
cences of the Talmud in Mark being as a
rule obscured or omitted in the first gospel.
Mark proceeds with a passage taken from
the tradition found in Luke. * Again the high
priest asked him, and saith unto him, Art
thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed ?
And Jesus said, I am : and ye shall see the
Son of man sitting at the right hand of power,
and coming with the clouds of heaven.' The
introductory formula ' Again the high priest
1 Sank., M. v. 4. 2 Ibid. T. viii. 1.
IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE 213
asked him and saith unto him ' is a repetition
of that used before the question ' Answerest
thou nothing ? ' ' And the high priest . . .
asked Jesus, saying,' one word only appear-
ing in Luke, ' saying,' and this referring to
the chief priests and scribes, not to the high
priest alone. The change is part of Mark's
plan in compiling the description of the scene
before the council, and is therefore editorial.
The repeated questioning is doubtless in-
tended to be, technically, the opening of the
defence prescribed in the Talmud. ' If the
evidence of the witnesses is found to agree,
the chief judge opens the case for the de-
fendant, and his fellow judges support him.' 1
Mark conflates two quite distinct questions
in Luke, ' If thou art the Christ, tell us. ...
Art thou then the Son of God ? ' and gives
4 Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed ? '
In Luke between the two questions Jesus
makes the statement, ' From henceforth shall
the Son of man be seated at the right hand
of the power of God,' so that there is a
gradual development of idea, ' Christ,' ' Son
of man,' 4 Son of God,' but in Mark this is
lost. In Luke Jesus identifies the ' Christ '
of the psalter (ii. 2) with the ' son of man '
of Daniel (vii. 13), as in the book of Enoch
1 Sank,, T. ix. Ic.
214 IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE
(xlviii. 2, 10), and 4 the throne of his glory '
of the book of Enoch (xlv. 3, Iv. 4, Ixi. 8,
Ixii. 2, 3, 5, Ixix. 27, 29) with ' the right hand
of the Lord' which 'sheweth power 5 of the
psalter (cix. (ex.) 1, cxvii. (cxviii.) 15-16).
The chief priests and scribes are quick to
recognise the allusions, and consequently His
claim to divine sonship, in the psalter ' Thou
art my son ' (ii. 7), in Enoch ' I and my son '
(cv. 2), so that immediately they put the
question, ' Art thou then the Son of God ? '
In Mark the whole sequence of thought is
gone. The allusion to Psalm cxvii. (cxviii.)
is lost through the omission of the words
* of God,' and ' power ' becomes almost a
synonym for God, as commonly in Jewish
literature. 1 The allusion to Daniel vii. has
become practically a quotation, ' Ye shall see
the Son of man . . . coming with the clouds
of heaven,' ' I beheld . . . and lo one like a
son of man came on the clouds of heaven *
(vii. 13). The saying is thus modified in the
light of current Jewish ideas, reverential and
apocalyptic. Further Judaising is seen in the
title ' the Blessed,' which replaces the re-
ference to God in Luke. It is found in the
Talmud 2 and the book of Enoch (Ixxvii. 1),
1 Dalman, The Words of Jesus, pp. 200-2.
* Berakoth, M. vii. 3.
IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE 215
but in the present passage it was perhaps
suggested by the common Jewish formula
' Blessed be he,' which appears several times
in the chapters of the Talmud dealing with
capital charges, ' the King of kings of kings,
blessed be He.' 1
Luke says our Lord's answer to the ques-
tion of the council was, ' Ye say that I am.'
In John we are told He gave a similar
answer to Pilate, c Thou sayest that I am a
king ' (xviii. 37). Mark gives ' I am ' as the
answer to the high priest, and Matthew
' Thou hast said ' (xxvi. 64), Luke (xxiii. 3),
Mark (xv. 2), and Matthew (xxvii. 11)
agreeing to give 4 Thou sayest ' as the answer
to Pilate. Matthew also gives ' Thou hast
said ' as our Lord's answer to Judas (xxvi.
25), in what seems to be an editorial addition.
The fact that Luke's form of answer is con-
firmed by the occurrence of a similar form
in John, corroborated in a measure in this
second passage by Luke, Mark, and Matthew,
leaves but little room for doubt that Luke is
correct. The forms in Mark and Matthew
could easily be derived from that in Luke, but
the opposite is impossible. A clear affirma-
tive, ' I am,' would hardly be modified into a
statement the exact significance of which is
1 Sank., M. iv. 5b bis, T. viii. 9.
216 IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE
not quite certain, and this so thoroughly that
the original survives in only one passage in
Mark and in none of the parallels. Our con-
clusion must be that the narrative in Mark is
of a secondary order. In Matthew we find
practically a reproduction of Mark, but on
five points we notice agreement of Luke and
Matthew against Mark, 'tell us,' ' whether,'
' Son of God,' ' Thou hast said ' (' Ye say '),
' henceforth,' besides agreement in the order
of words. ' I adjure thee by the living God '
is the only important addition to what we
find in Mark or Luke. It appears to be
a variant of 'as the Lord liveth,' a very
frequent formula in an oath in the Old
Testament. ' The living God ' with the
double article appears only once in the
Septuagint (Ps. xli. (xlii.) 2), but with no
article very often. In the New Testament
it is found with the double article only in
Matthew xvi. 16 apart from the present
passage, though common in the epistles
without an article. In both passages in the
gospel it is plainly an editorial addition. The
adjuration would of course be quite out of
place in the account given in Luke, for there
the question, ' Art thou then the Son of
God ? ' follows naturally upon our Lord's
saying about the Son of man, and is in no
IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE 217
way an attempt to prevail upon Him to break
His silence, which indeed, as we have seen,
is no part of the original tradition with regard
to the proceedings before the council.
Luke continues : ' And they said, What
further need have we of witness ? for we
ourselves have heard from his own mouth/
In Mark the statement is expanded. ' And
the high priest rent his clothes, and saith,
What further need have we of witnesses ?
Ye have heard the blasphemy : what think
ye ? And they all condemned him to be
worthy of death.' We have already noticed
the change from ' witness ' to ' witnesses,'
the alteration providing the basis of Mark's
description of the search for witnesses in the
high priest's palace. The words ' from his
own mouth ' in Luke are evidently a reference
to the law of Deuteronomy, * At the mouth of
two witnesses, and at the mouth of three
witnesses shall every word be established '
(xix. 15). In Luke the thought of witnesses
is implicit only, and these words suggest the
idea of their giving evidence. In Mark the
witnesses being mentioned explicitly they are
omitted, and instead we have a statement of
the charge, ' Ye have heard the blasphemy,'
which is only implicit in Luke. Mark's
statement, ' And the high priest rent his
218 IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE
clothes,' not given in Luke, is therefore an
explanatory addition derived from the Tal-
mud which prescribes the action on proof of
blasphemy. ' The blasphemer is not guilty
until he have expressly uttered the Name.
... All are sent out of the room except the
chief witness, and it is said to him : Say
expressly what you heard. He does so,
whereupon the judges stand up and rend
their clothes ; and they may not mend them
again.' 1 The idea apparently is that the
action of the high priest was an invitation
to the rest of the council to follow his example
and recognise our Lord's words as blasphemy.
In Matthew the accusation is made still more
emphatic, ' He hath spoken blasphemy '
(xxvi. 65). We note the change of person
in Mark, * Ye have heard ' instead of 4 We
ourselves have heard ' in Luke, the in-
tention being to lead on to the additional
words, ' What think ye ? And they all con-
demned him to be worthy of death.' Again
we have an addition suggested by the practice
of the sanhedrin. In the midrash ascribed to
R. Tanchuma we are given the question of the
president and the reply of the members of
the council. l What think ye, gentlemen ?
And they answered, if for life, For life, and
1 Sank., M. vii. 5.
IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE 219
if for death, For death.' 1 Mark's words
are practically a reproduction of this. In
Matthew we find that Mark's statement has
been put on the lips of the members of the
council, ' They answered and said, He is worthy
of death ' (xxvi. 66), a type of alteration we
have noticed in Mark as well as in Matthew. 2
Luke places the mocking of Jesus im-
mediately after His arrival in the high priest's
house, and before any examination. * And
the men that held Jesus mocked him, and
beat him. And they blindfolded him, and
asked him, saying, Prophesy : who is he that
struck thee ? And many other things spake
they against him, reviling him.' Mark places
it after He had been condemned to be worthy
of death. ' And some began to spit on him,
and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and
to say unto him, Prophesy : and the officers
received him with blows of rods.' We notice
the additions to the account given in Luke,
suggested apparently by a passage in the
second Isaiah : ' I gave my back to scourges,
and my cheeks to blows of rods ; and I
turned not away my face from the shame of
spitting ' (1. 6). The mention of spitting,
His face, and the blows of rods are therefore
1 Tanchuma Piqqudey (ed. Warshau), i. fol. 132b. See
Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, vol. ii.
p, 561. * See p. 210 ; cf. pp. 30, 153, 297.
220 IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE
interpretative additions on the basis of pro-
phecy. The curious statement that the
officers ' received ' Him with blows of their
rods is thus explained as complementary to
' gave ' ' I gave . . . my cheeks to blows of
rods,' 'the officers received him with blows
of rods.' The statement of the prophet, c I
gave . . . my cheeks to blows of rods,' is
combined with a statement in John with
regard to the proceedings before the high
priest, ' One of the officers standing by gave
Jesus a blow of a rod ' (xviii. 22). The re-
ference to the officers is thus explained.
Though the statement that they covered
Jesus' face is given in Mark, the question,
4 Who is he that struck thee ? ' is omitted, so
that the taunt ' Prophesy ' is meaningless.
Matthew gives a conflation of Luke and Mark,
' Then did they spit in his face and buffet
him : and some smote him with blows of
rods, saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ :
who is he that struck thee ? ' (xxvi. 67-68).
The reference to ' the officers ' from John has
disappeared, and likewise the noun for ' blows
of rods, ' taken from the Septuagint, though
the kindred verb is used. The statement that
they ' covered ' His face is also omitted, the
question, ' Who is he that struck thee ? '
added to Mark's account from Luke being
IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE 221
thus deprived of meaning. The text of both
Mark and Matthew is thus somewhat un-
intelligible apart from Luke, but it is easily
understood when the patchwork nature of the
narratives of the first two gospels is realised.
The change to ' Then did they spit in his
face ' in Matthew with the omission of a
reference to the blindfolding is perhaps due
to the influence of the Septuagint, ' I turned
not away my face from the shame of spitting.'
The reason for the statement that the officers
' received ' Him, which we found in the pro-
phecy, was presumably not realised, and the
word was dropped, and the verb ' smite with
blows of rods,' as we have seen, substituted
for the noun 'blows of rods' after 'received.'
' Thou Christ ' is an addition suggested by
the question of the high priest, * Whether
thou be the Christ.'
Mark, having transferred the examination
of the chief priests and scribes from the
morning, as reported in Luke, to the previous
night, retains only the setting of the enquiry
in his account of the events of the next day.
Luke says : ' And as soon as it was day, the
assembly of the elders of the people was
gathered together, both chief priests and
scribes ; and they led him away into their
council [sanhedrin], . . . And the whole
222 IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE
company of them rose up, and brought him
before Pilate ' (xxii. 66, xxiii. 1). Mark says :
4 And straightway in the morning the chief
priests with the elders and scribes, and the
whole council [sanhedrin], held a consulta-
tion, and bound Jesus, and carried him away,
and delivered him up to Pilate ' (xv. 1). We
have therefore in the second gospel a doublet
of the first part of Luke's account, the first
introducing the description of the examina-
tion before the chief priests and scribes as in
Luke. ' And there come together all the
chief priests and the elders and the scribes.
. . . Now the chief priests and the whole
council sought witness against Jesus to put
him to death ' (xiv. 53, 55). As he has
transferred the details of the meeting of the
council, which according to Luke took place
in the day-time, to a preliminary meeting in
the night, it might have been supposed that
he would omit altogether any mention of
what has become a second meeting, particu-
larly as he is able to do no more than repeat
what he has said already, omitting the details.
Apparently it was due to an effort to fit
the proceedings to the requirements of the
Talmud. We read : ' In non-capital cases
the trial may take place in day-time and the
verdict be given in the night ; but in capital
IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE 223
cases the trial takes place in day-time and
the verdict is given in day-time. In non-
capital cases a verdict of acquittal or of con-
viction may be reached the same day ; while
in capital cases a verdict of acquittal may be
reached the same day, but a verdict of con-
viction not until the following day. There-
fore such a case is not tried on the eve of
a Sabbath or festival.' J ' If the accused is
found innocent he is set free ; if not, his
case is passed over till the morrow. The
judges then go about in pairs and . . . spend
the night discussing the case and come to
the court early on the morrow.' 2
According to John the Jews said to Pilate
4 It is not lawful for us to put any man to
death ' (xviii. 31), and all the evidence is
in favour of the accuracy of this statement.
No trial therefore before the sanhedrin was,
strictly speaking, a capital case. Yet as the
ultimate object was to put Jesus to death
His trial could hardly be regarded as a non-
capital case. As a quasi-capital case the
evangelist seems to have considered two
meetings essential, but as it was not strictly
a capital case he evidently thought one of
them, as in non-capital cases, might be held
in the night. Possibly, indeed, it was the
1 Sank., M. iv. 1. 2 Ibid, M. v. 5a.
224 IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE
actual practice in such cases, and is not
merely the evangelist's solution of a difficulty.
We note that Luke's ' as soon as it was day '
agrees with the rule that a trial must take
place c in day- time,' while Mark's c straight-
way in the morning ' agrees with the require-
ment that after adjournment a trial must
be continued ' early on the morrow.' We
notice that in Luke the members of the
council are 'the assembly of the elders,' and
their meeting the ' sanhedrin,' while in Mark
the members of the court are called the
1 sanhedrin,' and their meeting a ' consulta-
tion.' In the Talmud, as in Luke, the
members assembled are the sanhedrin. In
Luke ' the assembly of the elders ' consists
of the ' chief priests and scribes,' but in Mark
' the elders ' are distinguished from the chief
priests and scribes. Again it is Luke who
agrees with the Talmud, ' The Prince sat in
the middle with the elders on his right and
left,' * all the members of the court being
' elders.' ' The whole council ' in each of
the members of Mark's doublet appears to
be a conflation of ' their council ' and ' the
whole [all the] company ' in Luke.
Yet the narrative of Mark at the point is
not completely explained as a compilation
1 Sank., T. viii. 1.
IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE 225
from Luke and the Talmud. He has also
utilised elements from the tradition of John,
as elsewhere. We read : c So the band and
the chief captain, and the officers of the
Jews, seized Jesus and bound him, and led
him to Annas first ; for he was father in law
to Caiaphas, which was high priest that year.
. . . Annas therefore sent him bound unto
Caiaphas the high priest. . . . They lead Jesus
therefore from Caiaphas into the palace : and
it was early ' (xviii. 12-13, 24, 28). Mark
very frequently assimilates similar state-
ments, so that we are not surprised that the
binding of Jesus which according to John took
place before they led Him to Annas, being
mentioned also when Annas sent Him to
Caiaphas, in Mark is said to have taken place
before He was led away to Pilate. It is
regarded as a consequence of His condemna-
tion, the beginning of the death penalty.
We compare, ' And he commanded the most
mighty men of those that were in his army
to bind Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego,
and to cast them into the burning fiery
furnace. Then those men were bound in
their garments, having their shoes on and their
turbans on their heads, and were cast into
the burning fiery furnace ' (Dan. iii. 20-21).
Binding in the Septuagint is a sign of
Q
226 IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE
conviction, and is so used very frequently.
In the Talmud we read : ' When the trial is
finished, the man convicted is brought out
to be stoned.' 1 The death penalty being
forbidden to the Jews, Mark describes the
equivalent, ' They bound Jesus, and carried
him away, and delivered him up to Pilate.'
Delivering to the Roman governor was the
utmost the sanhedrin could do on a capital
charge, as is plain in John, where the word
is used several times in this connexion : ' If
this man were not an evil doer, we should
not have delivered him up unto thee ' (xviii.
30), ' Thine own nation and the chief priests
delivered thee unto me : what hast thou
done ? ' (xviii. 35), ' He that delivered me
unto thee hath greater sin ' (xix. 11). In
Luke in another context we read of those
who tried to take hold of Jesus' speech, ' so
as to deliver him up to the rule and to the
authority of the governor ' (xx. 20), but the
usage is not quite identical, and the word
does not occur in the parallel passage of the
actual delivery to Pilate, so that again
apparently Mark is utilising the phraseology
of John. Luke gives a more general state-
ment to the same effect in a prediction of
Jesus Himself. ' He shall be delivered up
1 Sank., M. vi. 1.
IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE 227
unto the Gentiles ' (xviii. 32). Mark expands
this in the light of the passage under dis-
cussion. ' The Son of man shall be delivered
unto the chief priests and the scribes ; and
they shall condemn him to death, and shall
deliver him unto the Gentiles ' (x. 33). The
delivering up is here, too, the utmost the
chief priests and scribes can do towards
the carrying out of the death penalty. John
says that when Jesus was brought to Pilate
1 it was morning [early].' Mark uses the
same adverb when he says it was ' in the
morning.' In Matthew, c when morning was
come ' (xxvii. 1), we have the noun instead.
Again we have the influence of Johannine
phraseology upon the second gospel.
In Matthew Mark's narrative is further
developed, but there are also points in which
there is a return to Luke. ' Now when
morning was come, all the chief priests and
the elders of the people took counsel against
Jesus to put him to death : and they bound
him, and led him away, and delivered him up
to Pilate the governor ' (xxvii. 1-2). ' All
the chief priests and the elders ' agrees with
Luke's c all the [the whole] company ' against
Mark's ' the whole council.' Matthew follows
Luke in speaking of the elders ' of the people,'
Mark having nothing to correspond. Matthew
228 IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE
says they ' led him away ' and Luke they ' led
him ' to Pilate, but Mark says they c carried
him away.' Matthew's statement that they
' took counsel against Jesus to put him
to death,' which takes the place of Mark's
statement that they ' held a consultation,'
is practically a reproduction of what he
had said earlier that the chief priests
and the whole council ' sought false wit-
ness against Jesus, that they might put
him to death ' (xxvi. 59), which is based
on Mark's saying that they ' sought witness
against Jesus to put him to death' (xiv. 55).
Matthew speaks of Pilate as l the governor '
no fewer than seven times (xxvii. 2, 11, 14,
15, 21, 27, xxviii. 14), Luke only once (xx. 20),
and Mark not at all. In Matthew the Petrine
tradition has undergone much further de-
velopment than in Mark, by assimilation and
interpretative addition much more frequently
than as the result of fresh information.
Our examination of Mark's description of
the search for witnesses and the night trial
of Jesus in the high priest's palace seems to
have proved beyond doubt that it is a com-
pilation of material taken from the traditions
of Peter and John and the rabbis. Though
the sayings of the rabbis were not committed
to writing until a much later period, the fact
IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE 229
that Mark's additions to Luke so frequently
agree with what is prescribed in the Mishnah
or Tosefta, or in other collections of rabbinic
teaching, is in itself evidence that the tradi-
tions ultimately incorporated in the Talmud
and kindred literature were already in exist-
ence in our Lord's time.
CHAPTER XI
THE DENIALS OF PETER
PERHAPS the most extraordinary example of
Mark's method of compiling his narrative is
to be found in his account of Peter's denials.
We read : ' And as Peter was beneath in the
court, there cometh one of the maids of the
high priest ; and seeing Peter warming him-
self, she looked upon him, and saith, Thou
also wast with the Nazarene, even Jesus.
But he denied, saying, I neither know, nor
understand what thou sayest : and he went
out into the porch ; and the cock crew.
And the maid saw him, and began again to
say to them that stood by, This is one of
them. But he again denied it. And after
a little while again they that stood by said
to Peter, Of a truth thou art one of them ;
for thou art a Galilsean. But he began to
curse, and to swear, I know not this man of
whom ye speak. And straightway the second
time the cock crew. And Peter called to
mind the word, how that Jesus said unto
THE DENIALS OF PETER 231
him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt
deny me thrice. And when he thought
thereon, he wept ' (xiv. 66-72).
Only two disciples would be able to give
a first-hand account of what took place in
the courtyard of the high priest's palace, the
two who followed after Jesus, Simon Peter
and 'the other disciple,' as we are told in the
fourth gospel. Internal evidence seems to
make it plain that these two accounts are to
be found in the third and fourth gospels, in
which different but not contradictory stories
are to be found. In Luke we read : ' And a
certain maid seeing him as he sat in the light
of the fire, and looking stedfastly upon him,
said, This man also was with him. But he
denied, saying, Woman, I know him not. And
after a little while another saw him, and said,
Thou also art one of them. But Peter said,
Man, I am not. And after the space of about
one hour another confidently affirmed, saying,
Of a truth this man also was with him : for
he is a Galilaean. But Peter said, Man, I know
not what thou sayest. And immediately,
while he yet spake, the cock crew. And the
Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And
Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how
that he said unto him, Before the cock crow
this day, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he
232 THE DENIALS OF PETER
went out, and wept bitterly ' (xxii. 56-62).
In John we read : ' The maid therefore that
kept the door saith unto Peter, Art thou also
one of this man's disciples ? He saith, I am
not. Now the servants and the officers were
standing there, having made a fire of coals ;
for it was cold ; and they were warming
themselves : and Peter also was with them,
standing and warming himself. . . . Now
Peter was standing and warming himself.
They said therefore unto him, Art thou also
one of his disciples ? He denied, and said,
I am not. One of the servants of the high
priest, being a kinsman of him whose ear
Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the
garden with him ? Peter therefore denied
again : and straightway the cock crew '
(xviii. 17-18, 25-27).
It is plain if we compare the narratives
of Mark and Luke that Mark has drawn
upon the Petrine tradition in large measure
for his description. We note in the account
of the first denial, ' One of the maids,' ' a
certain maid ' ; ' seeing Peter,' ' seeing him ' ;
4 she looked upon him, and saith,' ' and
looking stedfastly upon him, said ' ; * Thou
also wast with the Nazarene,' ' This man also
was with him ' ; ' but he denied, saying,'
'but he denied, saying ' ; 'I neither know,'
THE DENIALS jOF PETER 233
' I know him not.' In the account of the
second denial we notice, ' And . . . saw him,
and began again to say/ 'And . . . saw
him, and said ' ; ' This is one of them,' ' Thou
also art one of them.' In the account of the
third denial we notice, 'truly,' 'of a truth';
' for thou art a Galilsean,' ' for he is a
Galilaean'; 'I know not this man,' 'Man,
I know not ' ; ' And straightway . . . the
cock crew,' 'And immediately . . . the cock
crew.'
On a few points in Mark we find agree-
ment with John. In the account of the first
denial we notice ' one of the maids,' ' the
maid'; 'Peter warming himself,' ' Peter also
was . . . warming himself.' In the account
of the second denial we notice, ' one of them,'
' one of his disciples ' ; 'he again denied it,'
' he denied.' In the account of the third
denial we notice, ' And straightway . . . the
cock crew,' ' And straightway the cock crew.'
The points of agreement between Mark and
John apart from Luke are not very remark-
able, the most noticeable, ' Peter warming
himself,' ' Peter also was . . . warming him-
self,' appearing in John in the context rather
than in the actual report of the first denial.
A very extraordinary thing in the narra-
tives of the denials is that in Mark there is
234 THE DENIALS OF PETER
also agreement with Luke and John, when
the accounts of the particular denials in these
are taken in the order, three, one, two.
' One of the maids of the high priest ' in the
first story of Mark agrees with c one of the
servants of the high priest ' in the third story
of John. ' Thou also wast with . . . Jesus '
of the first story of Mark agrees with ' this
man also was with him ' of the third story
of Luke. ' Thou also wast with the Nazarene,
even Jesus ' agrees also with 6 Did not I
see thee in the garden with him ? ' of the
third story of John, particularly when we
remember that according to John ' Jesus of
Nazareth ' was twice used in the garden by
those who came to arrest Jesus (xviii. 5, 7),
the phrase ' with the Nazarene ' being per-
haps suggested by ' he is a Galilaean ' of
Luke's third account, Matthew indeed sub-
stituting ' Galilaean ' for ' Nazarene.' ' I
neither know . . . what thou sayest ' of
Mark's first story agrees with ' I know not
what thou sayest ' of Luke's third story.
4 And he went out ' of Mark's first story
agrees with ' And he went out ' of Luke's
third story. ' And the cock crew ' of Mark's
first story agrees with ' And . . . the cock
crew ' of Luke's third story. In Mark's second
story ' And the maid seeing him ' agrees
THE DENIALS OF PETER 235
with ' And a certain maid seeing him ' in
Luke's first story, ' this man ' and ' But he
denied again ' with ' this man ' and ' But he
denied ' in the same stories. ' One of them '
in Mark's second account agrees with 4 one
of the disciples ' in John's first account.
' And after a little while ' in Mark's third
account agrees with ' And after a little while '
in Luke's second account. c They . . . said
to Peter ' in Mark's third account agrees with
' They said . . . unto him ' of John's second
account. ' Thou art one of them ' of Mark's
third account agrees with ' Thou also art one
of them ' of Luke's second account, and with
* Art thou also one of his disciples ? ' in John's
second account.
It seems plain that the phraseology of
Mark's account of the three denials agrees
with what we find in Luke and John not
only when the denials are taken in the natural
order, one, two, three, but also with what
appears in Luke and John when taken in the
order, three, one, two, and that the points
of agreement are just as striking and im-
portant in the latter case as in the former.
As there is agreement with both Luke and
John taken in the order, three, one, two, it is
probable that the evangelist utilised neither
of these in this order but an account having
236 THE DENIALS OF PETER
affinity with both. Such a narrative we have
seen reason to believe used by Mark at various
points of his story, and to be traceable to
James.
Our investigation has shewn then that
Mark has utilised for his account of the
denials the Petrine tradition preserved in
Luke, but not apparently the Johannine tra-
dition, save perhaps in a very minor degree,
taking the denials in the natural order, one,
two, three. This tradition he has combined
with another tradition, presumably the
Jacobean, taking the stories of the denials
in this in the order, three, one, two. That
James was not an eyewitness of Peter's
denials is not sufficient to prove that an
account of them did not appear in the
tradition traceable to him, particularly as
we have found no addition to knowledge in
the details which seem to be derived from
this tradition, but only phraseology and
statements to be found in the Petrine and
Johannine traditions of the third and fourth
gospels in connexion with different denials.
The only piece of new information in Mark
is that before his third denial Peter c began
to curse, and to swear,' and this may quite
reasonably be a genuine reminiscence of what
took place preserved by James but omitted
THE DENIALS OF PETER 237
by both Peter and John, at any rate as their
traditions have come down to us. It seems
unlikely that it is merely an editorial addi-
tion, though Matthew says that the second
denial was ' with an oath J (xxvi. 72), the
intention being however, it would seem, to
lead up to the later statement before the
record of the third denial, ' Then began he
to curse and to swear ' (xxvi. 74).
In John the account of the first denial is
given immediately after the statement that
the other disciple brought in Peter into the
court of the high priest. The second denial
is placed after the description of the high
priest's examination of Jesus. This de-
scription seems to be an interpolation in
the story of the denials. The words which
precede and follow it are practically identical.
4 And Peter also was with them, standing
and warming himself.' ' Now Simon Peter
was standing and warming himself.' The
second statement seems to be merely a repeti-
tion of the first, necessitated by the insertion
of the incident of the examination before
Annas. If both the story of the high priest
and the second statement be omitted the
narrative reads much more straightforwardly,
and we see at once who ' they ' were who
put the question which provoked the second
238 THE DENIALS OF PETER
denial. ' Now the servants and the officers
were standing there, having made a fire of
coals ; for it was cold ; and they were
warming themselves : and Peter also was with
them, standing and warming himself. They
said therefore unto him, Art thou also one of
his disciples ? He denied, and said, I am
not.' There can be little doubt but that
this represents an earlier form of the tradition.
The account given in Luke agrees exactly
with this. The second denial took place soon
after the first, 'after a little while,' while he
still ' sat in the light of the fire.' The third
denial took place according to Luke 'after
the space of about one hour ' after the
second. The more natural place for a break
in the report of the denials would be between
the second and third denials, not between the
first and second as in the present text of
John. It seems not unlikely therefore that
in the tradition derived from James this
was the order, and that an account of the
examination before the high priest stood
between the second and third denial. If so,
any equivalent of the statement that ' one
of the officers standing by struck Jesus with
a blow of a rod,' as it appears in John, would
precede the story of the third denial. This
agrees exactly with what we find in Mark,
THE DENIALS OF PETER 239
where ' and the officers received him with
blows of rods ' appears just before an
account of a denial, which, though the first
in Mark, contains phraseology which properly
belongs to the story of the third denial
according to Luke and John. We have thus
an explanation why Mark combines the
account of the first denial according to the
Petrine tradition, given in Luke, with that
of the third denial according to the Jacobean
tradition. After describing what took place
before the high priest, utilising the Jacobean
tradition apparently for the incident of the
officers smiting Jesus with rods, derived
ultimately from John, he proceeds to conflate
the account of the denial which follows with
the account of the first denial as described
in the Petrine tradition. Then apparently
he turned back in the Jacobean narrative
and conflated the stories of the first and
second denials as there given with the stories
of the second and third denials as found in
the Petrine tradition. The echoes of the
Johannine tradition which appear in Mark's
account of the denials in connexion with
the wrong denial, like the story of the officers
striking Jesus with rods, would thus, if our
contention be right, be derived immediately
not from the Johannine tradition, but from
240 THE DENIALS OF PETER
the Jacobean, which, as James was not
present in the high priest's palace, has
utilised material from the account given by
John. Possibly at other points in Mark
likewise the Johannine material may be
derived immediately from the Jacobean
narrative which has incorporated Johannine
matter.
This extraordinary combination of the
stories of the denials from the Petrine
tradition in the order, one, two, three, with
the stories of the denials from the Jacobean
tradition in the order, three, one, two, pro-
vides a quite adequate explanation of the
phenomena presented by the Markan text.
' And he went out ' after the first denial
belongs properly to the third denial as in
Luke, its presence at this stage being due to
the conflation of the account of the third
denial in the Jacobean tradition. We note
the addition ' into the porch [forecourt] ' so as
to modify the earlier form of the statement,
for if Peter had gone out of the court entirely
further denials would have been impossible.
Having said Peter ' went out ' after the first
denial, the evangelist avoids repeating the
statement after the third, and says instead
8 And when he thought thereon, he wept.'
The statement, ' And the cock crew,' after
THE DENIALS OF PETER 241
the first denial is likewise due to conflation
with the Jacobean story of the third denial.
A double cock-crowing is not impossible, and
so in certain manuscripts our Lord's pre-
diction of Peter's denials has been altered to
read ' before the cock crow twice' (xiv. 30),
likewise too in the repetition of the saying
where we are told that it came into Peter's
mind (xiv. 72). Some manuscripts however
avoid the difficulty by omitting the words
' And the cock crew ' after the first denial,
though, unless they are authentic, there is
no obvious reason why they should have been
inserted in others, creating an unnecessary
difficulty. They seem to be required to
explain the change in the statement after
the third denial, ' And straightway the second
time the cock crew,' where at any rate the
reference to two cock-crowings seems to be
authentic. The original reference in our
Lord's prediction was probably to a particu-
lar time of the night, the third watch, ' at
cock crowing ' (Mark xiii. 35), not to the actual
crowing of a cock, the Septuagint similarly
describing a time of night, ' The morning
cock had just crowed ' (3 Mace. v. 23), though
doubtless it was the fact that he heard a
cock crow at the particular moment which
recalled our Lord's words to Peter's mind.
R
242 THE DENIALS OF PETER
The knowledge that the reference to a
second cock-crowing was not without parallel
in contemporary literature r would help to
make the result of the conflation seem not
improbable, though indeed mention of an
earlier cock-crowing robs the literal fulfilment
of our Lord's prediction after the third denial
of all point. A realisation of the fact that
Mark's narrative is a conflation provides an
adequate explanation.
In Mark the first denial is provoked by
' one of the maids ' and the second by ' the
maid,' the same apparently, whereas in Luke
and John only the first denial is due to the
speech of 4 a certain maid,' or ' the maid.'
The conflation of the accounts of different
denials in Mark sufficiently explains his text,
making it clear that only one maid was
concerned in the matter, and she only
with the first denial, the second reference to
her being a doublet of the first. Similarly
Mark's statement that the third denial was
due to a saying of more than one, ' they that
stood by said to Peter,' is an echo of what
John tells us about the second denial, ' Now
the servants and the officers were standing
there . . . and Peter also was with them.
. . . They said therefore unto him.' The
1 Cf. Aristophanes, Eccl. 390 ; Juvenal, Sat. ix. 106,
THE DENIALS OF PETER 243
fact of the conflation thus fully explains the
discrepancy between Mark and what we find
in Luke and John with regard to the third
denial. The truth of the hypothesis seems
to be beyond question.
Matthew on the whole reproduces Mark,
but on quite a number of points he agrees
with Luke against Mark : ' was sitting,' ' sat,'
' was ' ; ' one maid,' ' a certain maid,' ' one
of the maids ' ; 'I know not,' ' I know him
not,' ' I neither know ' ; ' and saith,' ' and
said,' 4 and began again to say ' ; ' with
Jesus,' ' with him,' ' one of them ' ; ' I know
not the man,' ' Man, I am not,' no parallel ;
'thou also,' 'this man also,' ' thou ' ; 'the
man,' ' man,' ' this man ' ; ' the word,'
* the word ' (both genitive), ' the word '
(accusative) ; ' And he went out, and wept
bitterly,' ' And he went out, and wept
bitterly,' ' And when he thought thereon, he
wept.' Matthew speaks of Peter going out
twice, but he omits all reference to a second
cock crowing. In the maid's saying before
the first denial Matthew changes Mark's ' the
Nazarene' to 'the Galilsean,' putting it in
the corresponding speech before the second
denial, 'Jesus the Nazarene,' while instead of
a statement that Peter is a ' Galilsean' in the
saying before the third denial he says ' thy
244 THE DENIALS OF PETER
speech bewrayeth thee.' Contradicting Mark,
Matthew says it was ' another maid ' who
provoked the second denial. ' Forecourt,'
a descriptive addition of Mark suggested
by the statement that Peter went out of
the court, becomes in Matthew the * porch.'
We have already noticed the addition, ' with
an oath,' to the account of the second denial
in Matthew. The first evangelist evidently
knew Mark and the Petrine tradition incor-
porated in Luke, but he makes no use at this
point of the Johannine tradition, or even of
the Jacobean tradition, which elsewhere he
utilises so largely.
CHAPTER XII
THE MOCKING IN THE PE^ETORIUM
WE have already discussed Mark's account
of the mocking of Jesus by the officers and
others in the high priest's palace. He de-
scribes also a similar mocking by the soldiers
in the prsetorium of Pilate. ' And Pilate,
wishing to content the multitude, released
unto them Barabbas, and delivered Jesus,
when he had scourged him, to be crucified.
And the soldiers led him away within the
court, which is the Prsetorium ; and they call
together the whole band. And they clothe
him with purple, and plaiting a crown of
thorns, they put it on him ; and they began
to salute him, Hail, King of the Jews ! And
they smote his head with a reed, and did spit
upon him, and bowing their knees worshipped
him. And when they had mocked him, they
took off from him the purple, and put on him
his garments ' (xv. 15-20). Luke tells of a
similar incident which took place before
Herod. ' And Herod with his soldiers set
246 THE MOCKING IN
him at nought, and mocked him, and array-
ing him in gorgeous apparel sent him back
to Pilate ' (xxiii. 11). John also describes a
similar scene. ' They lead Jesus therefore
from Caiaphas into the praetorium. . . .
Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged
him. And the soldiers plaited a crown of
thorns, and put it on his head, and arrayed
him in a purple garment ; and they came
unto him, and said, Hail, King of the Jews !
and they struck him with blows of rods.
And Pilate went out again, and saith unto
them, Behold, I bring him out to you. . . .
Jesus therefore came out, wearing the crown
of thorns and the purple garment ' (xviii. 28*
xix. 1-5).
The incident recorded in Luke should
doubtless be regarded as the prelude to that
given by John. If Herod sent Jesus back
to Pilate arrayed in gorgeous apparel, it is
not surprising that Pilate should join in and
continue the play, and bring Jesus out to the
people wearing what John calls a ' purple
garment,' though it is much less probable he
would take part in mocking initiated merely
by his own soldiers, in the way John de-
scribes it. There seems to be no direct
literary connexion between Luke's story
and what we read in Mark. For the most
THE PIkETORIUM 247
part Mark's narrative is based on that of
John. Mark says that Pilate scourged Jesus,
and the statement appears in John, but not
in Luke. Luke records Pilate's words, ' I
will therefore chastise him and release him '
(xxiii. 22), but as the people insisted on
crucifixion, the natural interpretation of the
passage is that no chastisement took place.
That scourging commonly preceded cruci-
fixion we learn from various authorities, 1 and
particularly Josephus. ' He first chastised
with stripes, and then crucified,' 2 'Floras
ventured then ... to have men of the
equestrian order whipped, and nailed to the
cross before his tribunal,' 3 'So they were first
whipped, and then tormented with all sorts
of tortures before they died, and were then
crucified.' 4 Mark's statement that Pilate,
after making efforts to release Jesus, per-
formed a quite unnecessary act of cruelty
in scourging Him before crucifixion seems
highly improbable. The statement found in
both Luke and John that the scourging was
intended as a compromise to make the
capital sentence unnecessary is much more
credible. Here as elsewhere Mark would
1 Lucian, Reviv. ad init. ; Livy, Hist, xxxiii. 36.
2 Bell. ii. xiv. 9. 3 Bell. n. xiv. 9.
4 Bell v. xi. 1.
248 THE MOCKING IN
appear to have written his narrative not
simply on the basis of reports of eyewitnesses,
but with the help of information derived
from a knowledge of what frequently did
take place on similar occasions. We notice
that the verb used in Mark is not that found
in John, but is really a Latin word with the
same meaning, the corresponding noun how-
ever appearing in John in the account of the
cleansing of the temple. ' He made a scourge
of cords ' (ii. 15). In the Testament of
Benjamin it is used of flogging the naked
body, ' When they had taken off my coat
they gave me to the Ishmaelites, and they
gave me a loin cloth, and scourged me ' (ii. 3).
The statement that the soldiers ' led him
away within . . . the prsetorium ' practi-
cally reproduces John's earlier words ' they
lead Jesus . . . into the prsetorium.' John
uses the word ' prsetorium ' four times
(xviii. 28 bis, 33, xix. 9), but in Mark and
Matthew it is found only in the present con-
text, and in Luke not at all (cf . Acts xxiii. 35).
c Court,' which is not properly identical with
1 prsetorium,' is used nowhere else in the
gospels of the palace of Pilate, only of that of
the high priest (Luke xxii. 55 ; John xviii. 15 ;
Mark xiv. 54, 66 ; Matt. xxvi. 3, 58, 69),
though Luke speaks of the c court ' of the
THE PKjETORIUM 249
strong man (xi. 21). The word appears in
the present context it would seem because
the evangelist is repeating a phrase he had
used earlier of the palace of the high priest,
* within, into the court of the high priest,'
' within the court, which is the Prsetorium,'
movement into the court from without being
intended apparently on both occasions, the
trial taking place outside the prsetorium
according to John (xix. 13). In the former
passage ' within ' appears to have been sug-
gested to Mark by the fact that in John
Peter is said to have been obliged at first
to stand ' without ' (xviii. 16). The same
contrast with what is found in John seems to
be intended also in the present passage. This
word ' without,' used of the prsetorium, is
particularly prominent and important in
John in the account of the trial before Pilate.
' Pilate therefore went out without unto
them ' (xviii. 29), ' Pilate went out without
again ' (xix. 4), ' I bring him without to you '
(xix. 4), ' Jesus therefore came out without '
(xix. 5), ' He brought Jesus without ' (xix.
13). In contrast to all this Mark is careful
to state that the mocking of the soldiers
took place 'within the court, which is the
Prsetorium.'
No previous mention of the ' band ' of
250 THE MOCKING IN
soldiers is found in Mark, but we read of it
twice in John in the account of the arrest,
* Judas then, having received the band of
soldiers' (xviii. 3), 'So the band and the
chief captain . . . seized Jesus ' (xviii. 12).
Again we have an echo of the Johannine
tradition. ' Call together ' is a Lukan word
(Luke ix. 1, xv. 6, 9, xxiii. 13 ; Acts v. 21,
x. 24, xxviii. 17), and apart from Luke and
Acts is found only in the present passage in
the New Testament. As Mark is editing the
Petrine tradition of Luke, the fact that the
word appears a little earlier in the narrative
in Luke, * Pilate called together the chief
priests and the rulers and the people' (xxiii.
13), perhaps suggested its use here.
' And the soldiers . . . clothe him with
purple, and plaiting a crown of thorns, they
put it on him,' reproduces John's account
with little change, ' And the soldiers plaited
a crown of thorns, and put it on his head,
and arrayed him in a purple garment.' The
Greek word for ' soldiers ' occurs nowhere
else in Mark, but it is frequent in John in the
account of the crucifixion (xix. 2, 23 bis, 25,
32, 34). The expression ' clothe with purple,'
as used in Mark, differs verbally from John,
but agrees both in verb and noun with Luke's
description of the rich man, ' He was clothed
THE PR^ETORIUM 251
with purple ' (xvi. 19). ' Plaiting a crown '
appears identically in Mark and John.
Mark's description ' a thorny crown ' is used
in John on the second occasion, c Jesus came
out, wearing a thorny crown ' (xix. 5). The
verb ' put on,' or 4 round,' is used only three
times in Mark. In one place it is repeated
from the Septuagint (xii. 1 ; Is. v. 2), in
another, as we shall see, from John (xv. 36 ;
John xix. 29), while in the present passage
it is a conflation of the two verbs used in
John, i The soldiers . . . put it on his head,
and arrayed him,' the prefix being derived
from one and the stem from the other. ' And
they began to salute him ' is a natural
improvement on ' And they came unto him,
and said/ ' Began ' is very common in the
Synoptic gospels, appearing thirty-one times
in Luke, twenty-seven in Mark, and thirteen
in Matthew, but only once in John (xiii. 5).
* Salute ' appears twice in each of the Synoptic
gospels, not at all in John, five times in Acts,
and many times in the epistles. Elsewhere
Mark says, ' Running to him, they saluted
him ' (ix. 15), so that evidently the evange-
list is paraphrasing John in his own words.
' Hail, King of the Jews ' in Mark repeats
John, save that ' king ' is changed from the
nominative to the vocative. ' And they
252 THE MOCKING IN
smote his head with a reed ' is Mark's para-
phrase of John's ' And they struck him with
blows of rods.' Mark evidently understood
the word rendered ' blows ' literally, accord-
ing to the etymology, of blows with a rod,
not of blows with the hand, which is some-
times a possible translation. The passage of
Isaiah which influenced the account of the
mocking in the high priest's palace has also
influenced the phraseology here, ' I gave my
back to scourges, and my cheeks to blows of
rods ; and I turned not away my face from
the shame of spitting ' (1. 6). John has
nothing to correspond to ' and did spit upon
him,' so that like the similar words ' Arid
some began to spit on him ' in the description
of the mocking in the high priest's palace,
the statement was apparently suggested by
the prophecy, and not derived from another
source than the Petrine and Johannine tra-
ditions of events from which, at any rate for
the most part, Mark has compiled his narra-
tive. So, too, ' his head ' seems to have been
suggested by ' my cheeks ' in the prophecy.
The word translated c smote ' is a Lukan
word, appearing four times in the gospel
(vi. 29, xii. 45, xviii. 13, xxiii. 48), and five
times in Acts (xviii. 17, xxi. 32, xxiii. 2, 3 bis),
twice in Matthew (xxiv. 49, xxvii. 30), once
THE PR&TORIUM 253
in a passage parallel to one of the examples
in Luke, and once in the passage parallel to
the text under discussion, but only in the
present context in Mark. The saying given
in Luke, ' To him that smiteth thee on the
one cheek offer also the other ' (vi. 29), so
similar to the prophecy of the second Isaiah,
may have helped to suggest its use in the
present passage, if a reason be sought.
Twice Mark speaks of a 4 reed ' (xv. 19, 36),
in both cases in the story of the passion, and in
both cases in a paraphrase of John (xix. 2, 29).
There is no parallel to the words, ' and
bowing their knees worshipped him,' in John,
and they are apparently an interpretative
addition. The context naturally suggests
the phraseology. We read in the Septuagint,
4 And Moses . . . worshipped him . . . and
they saluted one another ' (Exod. xviii. 7),
1 And bending their knees they worshipped
. . . the king ' (1 Chron. xxix. 20), ' And
Bathsheba bowed, and worshipped the king '
(3 (1) Kings i. 16). Similar phraseology is
not uncommon in the Old Testament. The
reference to the mocking, 4 And the soldiers
. . . when they had mocked him,' is taken
from Luke's account of the crucifixion, * And
the soldiers also mocked him ' (xxiii. 36),
the statement being omitted in the parallel
254 THE MOCKING IN
context in Mark. The Greek word here used
for ' soldiers ' occurs only in these two places
in the passion narratives of Luke and Mark.
Though the story of the mocking before Herod
is omitted from Mark, yet other material from
the Petrine tradition .preserved in Luke is
conflated with John in the compilation of the
account of the second gospel.
The statement that ' they took off from
him the purple, and put on him his garments '
has no parallel in Luke or John, and is evi-
dently an editorial addition intended to lead
up to the later saying, ' And they part his
garments among them, casting lots upon
them, what each should take ' (xv. 24). In
Luke the corresponding statement is one of
a series intended to shew how the prophecies
of the psalter were fulfilled. ' And parting
his garments among them, they cast lots.
And the people stood beholding. And the
rulers also scoffed at him. . . . And the
soldiers also mocked him, coming to him,
offering him vinegar ' (xxiii. 34-36). ' All
that beheld me scoffed at me. ... They
parted my garments among them, and upon
my vesture did they cast lots ' (Ps. xxi. (xxii.)
7, 18), ' And for my thirst they gave me
vinegar to drink ' (Ps. Ixviii. (Ixix.) 21).
Mark has failed to recognise that the be-
THE PR^TORIUM 255
holding and scoffing are recorded as fulfilling
prophecy, for he omits these echoes of Psalm
xxi. (xxii.), though he gives other words
reminiscent of the same verse, and a similar
saying in Lamentations, ' They wagged the
head ' (Ps. xxi. (xxii.) 7), ' All that passed by
. . . wagged their head ' (Lam. ii. 15), 'And
they that passed by railed on him, wagging
their heads. ... In like manner also the
chief priests mocking him among themselves
with the scribes ' (xv. 29, 31). Though ap-
parently Mark recognised the reference to
Psalm Ixviii. (Ixix.) in the statement about
the vinegar recorded in Luke, since he intro-
duces the exact phraseology of the psalter,
he transfers the incident to a later point and
connects it with the cry of dereliction (xv. 36),
giving instead, but before the actual cruci-
fixion, the account of the offering of drugged
wine, which we learn from the Talmud was
provided by the ladies of Jerusalem to deaden
the pain of those undergoing execution, 1
4 And they offered him wine mingled with
myrrh : but he received it not ' (xv. 23),
the statement that ' the soldiers also mocked
him ' being utilised in the description of the
clothing with purple and the crowning with
thorns.
1 See p. 289 below.
256 THE MOCKING IN
It seems quite plain also that Mark re-
cognised the fulfilment of prophecy in the
division of the garments, for the words
4 upon them,' which he adds to Luke's version
of the saying, clearly presuppose ' upon my
vesture ' of the psalm. In the psalter the
casting of lots upon the vesture is not an
action distinct from the parting of the gar-
ments, and likewise in Luke and Mark the
casting of lots is merely the method adopted
for the distribution of the different articles
of clothing. In John, however, a distinction
is drawn between the ' garments ' and the
' vesture ' : ' The soldiers therefore, when
they had crucified Jesus, took his garments,
and made four parts, to every soldier a part ;
and also the coat : now the coat was without
seam, woven from the top throughout. They
said therefore one to another, Let us not
rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be :
that the scripture might be fulfilled, which
saith, They parted my garments among them,
and upon my vesture did they cast lots.
These things therefore the soldiers did ' (xix.
23-24). The statement that the soldiers
acted as they did because of the prophecy
seems to shew that in some degree the story
is founded upon the words of the psalm, the
distinction drawn between the ' garments '
THE PRJETORIUM 257
and the c vesture ' being comparable with the
similar distinction between the ass and the
colt in Matthew's interpretation of the pro-
phecy of Zechariah, ' Thy king cometh unto
thee . . . riding upon an ass, and upon a
colt the foal of an ass ' (xxi. 5 ; Zech. ix. 9),
with the result that he tells us there were two
animals and that Jesus rode upon both, ' And
they brought the ass, and the colt . . .
and he sat upon them ' (xxi. 7). The
Roman rule that ' a guard consists of four
men ' * evidently lies behind the statement
that the garments were divided into ' four
parts, to every soldier a part,' and probably
suggested the detail. Herod, we remember,
put Peter in prison, and ' delivered him to
four quaternions of soldiers to guard him '
(Acts xii. 4). The description of the ' ves-
ture ' as distinct from the ' garments,' though
originating in a misinterpretation of the
psalter, is developed in words very similar
to those used by Josephus to describe the
vestments of the high priest, and must be
derived from the same source, the oral
teaching of the rabbis preserved for us in
the Talmud. 2 We read : ' The high priest is
indeed adorned with the same garments that
1 Polybius, Hist. vi. 33 ; cf. Philo, In Place. 13 ; ed.
Mangey, vol. ii. p. 533.
2 Yoma, fol. 72b ; cf. Zebachim, fol. 88a, Taanith, fol. lib.
S
258 THE MOCKING IN
we have described, without abating one ; only
over these he puts on a vestment of a blue
colour. This also is a long robe, reaching
to his feet. . . . Now this vesture was not
composed of two pieces, nor was it sewed
together upon the shoulders and the sides,
but it was one long vestment so woven as
to have an aperture for the neck.' 1 Mark
though frequently utilising details of the
Johannine tradition, as we have seen, makes
no use of John's account of the distribu-
tion of the garments and seamless robe,
and possibly when he wrote it had not been
incorporated in the tradition.
To give a series of four points in which
prophecy was fulfilled in the crucifixion of
Jesus is a somewhat artificial way of writing
a description of what happened, but there
would seem to be no reason to doubt the
authenticity of particular items. It would
have been easy to make up a much more
striking list if the author had been willing
to draw upon his imagination. Only a desire
to keep to the truth could have caused him to
include among details fulfilling prophecy so
obvious a statement as ' the people stood
beholding,' when much more important pro-
phecies, even in Psalm xxi. (xxii.), are left
1 Ant. in. vii. 4.
THE PRJ3TORIUM 259
unfulfilled. There seems to be no other evi-
dence that the clothes of executed criminals
were the perquisite of the executioners, apart
from a much later law given by Ulpianus
which forbade the practice 1 ; yet in view of
the context there is no need to doubt the
authenticity of the statement, the lot being
a common and natural method of distributing
property when an equal division was im-
possible (Num. xxvi. 55 ; Joel iii. 3 ; Obad.
11 ; Nahum iii. 10). The statement in Mark,
' casting lots upon them, what each should
take,' is thus more likely to be accurate than
what is described in John, quite apart from
the original meaning of the verse in the psalm.
In his account of the distribution of the
' garments ' Mark says nothing about the
' vesture,' and it is the same in his pre-
liminary reference to the ' garments,' though
in contrast with the ' purple ' it would have
been rather effective. ' They took off from
him the purple, and put on him his garments.'
In the first book of the Maccabees we notice
an almost identical saying, the only difference
being the interchange of the nouns, 'They
took off from Jonathan his garments, and
put on him the purple ' (x. 62). We compare
also a passage in the Testament of Zabulun,
1 Digesta Justiniani, XLVIII. xx. 6.
260 THE MOCKING IN
' And they took off from Joseph the coat . . .
and put on him the garment of a slave'
(iv, 10). Again the same verbs in the same
tense are used. As the present section of
Mark is almost entirely patchwork, the
passages are probably not independent.
John's expression ' purple garment ' is no-
where repeated. Luke tells us that Herod
with his soldiers arrayed Jesus in 'gorgeous
apparel ' and sent Him back to Pilate. The
idea that His own garments were taken off
that the gorgeous apparel might be put on
seems quite excluded. Similarly in John,
when we are told that the soldiers arrayed
Jesus in a purple garment, there is no
suggestion that His own clothes were first
taken off, nor do we read that they were
put on again. Both in Mark and in John
scourging precedes the vesting in purple, but
not immediately in the former. To what
extent scourging involved the taking off of
garments is rather doubtful, and certainly,
when the chief captain commanded Paul to
be examined by scourging, though we are
told that 'they had tied him up with the
thongs' (Acts xxii. 25), nothing is said of his
clothes being taken off first 'or put on after-
wards. After the scourging Mark tells us
that the soldiers led Jesus away within the
THE PRJETORIUM 261
court and called together the whole band of
soldiers, and then clothed Him with purple.
That Jesus was deprived of His garments all
the time that these things were being done
seems very improbable. As the clothing with
purple would not necessitate His own raiment
being removed, Mark's statement that after
taking off the purple they ' put on him his
garments ' seems to be without foundation
in fact and merely an editorial addition
suggested by other writings, and intended to
lead up to the incident of the distribution of
' his garments ' later, the same description
of them being used on both occasions. In
view of the composite character of this sec-
tion of Mark, and the fact that the material
which is authentic whether from John or
Luke has been removed from its proper
context, this conclusion need cause no
surprise.
The account in Matthew is particularly
important : ' Then released he unto them
Barabbas : but Jesus he scourged and de-
livered to be crucified. Then the soldiers
of the governor took Jesus into the prae-
torium, and gathered unto him the whole
band. And they clothed him, and put on
him a scarlet robe. And they plaited a
crown of thorns and put it upon his head,
262 THE MOCKING IN
and a reed in his right hand ; and they
kneeled down before him, and mocked him,
saying, Hail, King of the Jews! And they
spat upon him, and took the reed and smote
him on the head. And when they had
mocked him, they took off from him the robe,
and put on him his garments ' (xxvii. 26-31).
We notice that the soldiers are now said to
be ' the soldiers of the governor,' an interpre-
tative addition. The statement that they
' took Jesus into the prsetorium ' seems to
imply that previously He was outside, and
agrees with the statement of John that He
was condemned without the prsetorium at
a place called Gabbatha. Mark's statement
that they ' led him away within the court,
which is the Prsetorium,' perhaps means the
same, though it is capable of another interpre-
tation, that He was already within when they
led Him away. The change from ' they call
together ' to ' they gathered unto him ' is
apparently merely interpretative. Instead
of the words ' they clothed him ' some manu-
scripts read ' they stripped him,' the differ-
ence in the Greek being merely of one letter.
Mark says, 'And they clothe him with purple,
and . . . they put on him,' and, as Matthew
is clearly based on Mark, it seems improbable
that the reading in Matthew should be other
THE PKJETORIUM 263
than * And they clothed him, and put on
him a scarlet robe.' The Greek word for
4 clothe ' in Mark is a reduplicated form of
that used, in the manuscripts which read
1 clothe,' in Matthew. It is found only six
times in the Septuagint (2 Kings (Sam.) i. 24,
xiii. 18 ; Prov.xxix. 39 (xxxi. 21) ; Judith ix. 1,
x. 3 ; Ecclus. 1. 11), and in three of the passages
there is a variant reading, but in each case
it seems to be used with a meaning somewhat
more formal than merely ' clothe,' which
properly translates the simpler form of the
verb. Perhaps we should translate ' And
they robe him in purple.' Some such mean-
ing is implied also in the only other passage
where the word appears in the New Testa-
ment (Luke xvi. 19). 'They clothed him' in
Matthew would then be merely the substitu-
tion of the simpler form of the verb, though
with no real change in meaning. The state-
ment that ' they put on him a scarlet robe '
is an explanation of the way in which ' they
clothed him,' ' And clothing him they put
on him a scarlet robe.' In the next sentence
we notice the close agreement which exists
between Matthew and John, 'And they
plaited a crown of thorns and put it upon
his head,' ' And the soldiers plaited a crown
of thorns, and put it on his head.' Five
264 THE MOCKING IN
consecutive words in the Greek are identical,
and for the rest the only differences are that
Matthew has a preposition with the genitive
where John has the dative, and that Matthew
puts * his ' after ' head ' but John before.
In Mark only two words are the same as
those found in John, and even these are not
in the same relative position, no mention
being made of the ' head.' That there is some
kind of literary connexion seems beyond
dispute, and yet it seems impossible to sup-
pose that John is a source for the changes
made by Matthew in Mark. As in the case
of the introduction to the miracle of the
feeding of the four thousand (Matt. xv.
29-31 ; Mark vii. 31-37 ; cf . John vi. 1-3),
it would appear that Matthew at this point
preserves an earlier form of the text than
Mark, and one in closer agreement with that
of John, though in the present passage, it
would seem, Matthew and Mark are utilising
Johannine material, while in the former both
Matthew and Mark, representing the Jacobean
tradition, and the fourth gospel, containing
the Johannine, are derived apparently from
an earlier source.
If this be so, neither Matthew nor the
present text of Mark can be regarded as
giving the original form of the Markan
THE PR^TORIUM 265
narrative which would appear to have run
as follows, ' And robing him they put
about him purple, and plaiting a crown of
thorns they put it upon his head.' At any
rate such a parent text provides an explana-
tion of what we find in both Matthew and
Mark. In Matthew's text there would be
only two alterations, c clothing ' the more
ordinary word instead of ' robing,' and ' a
scarlet robe ' instead of the vague ' purple.'
' A scarlet robe ' is evidently an interpreta-
tive alteration, the garment being a soldier's
scarlet cloak such as would naturally be at
hand in the prsetorium. There is no need
to suppose another source. In Mark the
changes seem to be due to the influence of
other texts. In Luke we read ' he was robed
in purple' (xvi. 19), so that it was natural to
take the word ' purple ' with ' robing him.'
The verb rendered 4 put about ' is used once
in the Septuagint of clothing, ' Put thy
raiment about thee ' (Ruth iii. 3), but it is
not really a synonym for ' clothe,' and most
frequently it is used of different kinds of
headgear a crown (Job xxxi. 36 ; Ecclus.
vi. 31 (32)), diadem (Esth. i. 11 ; 1 Mace,
xi. 13, xii. 39, xiii. 32), tiara (Exod. xxix. 9 ;
Lev. viii. 13, xvi. 4), mitre (Is. Ixi. 10), helmet
(Is. lix. 17; Wis. v. 18). It was natural
266 THE MOCKING IN
therefore that ' they put about him ' should
come to be taken with ' a crown of thorns '
rather than as governing 4 purple.' Only
a slight rearrangement of the sentence was
necessary to effect these two changes and
link the two verbs with the nouns most
commonly used with them. The rest of the
sentence could then be dropped. Thus we
have an explanation of the curious order of
the text in Mark, in which the putting on
of the crown is mentioned before the plaiting,
4 And they robe him with purple, and put
on him plaiting a crown of thorns.' When
4 crown ' was no longer governed by * plaiting '
it was necessary to change 4 out of thorns '
to ' thorny,' for though it is possible to say
'plaiting a crown out of thorns,' it is not
possible, strictly, to say 4 they put on him
a crown out of thorns,' but rather ' they put
on him a thorny crown,' John employing the
two forms of expression in the two different
cases, ' plaiting a crown out of thorns ' (xix. 2),
4 wearing a thorny crown ' (xix. 5).
Matthew next tells us that they put 4 a
reed in his right hand.' That it is an
addition to the original form of the narrative
seems suggested by the fact that it does not
properly fit the context, for the verb, in
Matthew as in John, is really 4 put upon'
THE PR^ETORIUM 267
not ' put.' We notice the development of
thought in connexion with the reed. In
John we read simply of ' blows,' the etymo-
logy of the word suggesting ' blows with rods.'
In Mark this has become 4 they smote his
head with a reed,' the instrument being
specifically mentioned. Matthew says further
that first of all they put the ' reed in his
right hand.' There is a similar development
in the references to the purple robe. In
John it is a ' purple garment ' ; in Mark
' purple,' indefinite and yet suggesting the
purple of kings according to the usage of the
Septuagint ; in Matthew a ' scarlet cloak,'
such as was worn by soldiers (2 Mace. xii. 35).
An interesting parallel is found in Philo.
4 Spreading a strip of byblus they put it on
his head for a diadem . . . and they delivered
to him for a sceptre a short piece of native
papyrus, which they saw thrown by the way.
And because he was dressed as a king . . .
they came to him, some as though to salute
him, and others as though to plead a cause.' *
The use of a reed as a sceptre agrees with
Matthew, but the reference to salutation
with Mark, the make-believe crown (' put on,'
as in Mark) appearing in both, as in John.
A literary connexion seems improbable,
1 In Flaccum, 6 ; ed. Mangey, vol. ii. p. 522.
268 THE MOCKING IN
the points of affinity being divided among
the different gospels, and in view of the
development of thought which we have
noticed in the various accounts, impossible.
The narrative shews rather the widespread
popularity of such crude mockery. Perhaps
the phraseology of Ezekiel, though used in
a very different connexion, may not have
been without influence on the gospel text,
4 And in his hand was ... a reed . . . and
in the hand of the man a reed ' (xl. 3, 5).
Matthew replaces * And bowing their
knees worshipped him ' of Mark by ' And
they kneeled down before him,' the verb
' kneeled down ' appearing twice in Mark
(i. 40, x. 17), and twice in Matthew (xvii. 14,
xxvii. 29). The meaning is practically the
same. Matthew's statement ' And mocked
him ' merely anticipates ' And when they
had mocked him ' found in both Mark and
Matthew a little later, and derived from
Luke's story of the crucifixion (xxiii. 36).
The words l And they took the reed ' are
necessitated by the statement that first of
all it was put in Jesus' hand. The substitu-
tion of ' robe ' for ' purple, 5 ' They took off
from him the robe, and put on him his
garments,' mars the contrast between the
treatment of Jesus and Jonathan, ' And they
THE PR^ETORIUM 269
took off from Jonathan his garments, and
put on him the purple ' (1 Mace. x. 62).
That our Lord would be mocked by the
Gentiles He Himself had predicted. Luke
says: 'Behold, we go up to Jerusalem,
and all the things that are written by the
prophets shall be accomplished unto the
Son of man. For he shall be delivered up
unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked,
and shamefully entreated, and spit upon :
and they shall scourge and kill him : and
the third day he shall rise again ' (xviii.
31-33). The details, it is plainly stated,
are derived from the prophets. The basis
of the statement is to be found apparently in
the description of the Servant of Jehovah :
' His soul was delivered to death . . . and
he was delivered because of their iniquities '
(Is. liii. 12). Other passages help to com-
plete the picture: 'They shall be delivered
to the Gentiles ' (Hos. viii, 10), ' That they
should not deliver him into the hands of
the people to slay him ' (Jer. xxxiii. (xxvi.)
24), ' I will not kill thee, neither will I deliver
thee into the hands of these men ' (Jer.
xlv. (xxxviii.) 16), 'They scoffed at his
messengers, and despised his words, and
mocked his prophets ' (2 Chron. xxxvi. 16),
' Thou, who hatest shameful treatment ...
270 THE MOCKING IN
appear to those . . . who are shamefully
entreated by abhorred lawless Gentiles '
(3 Mace. vi. 9), 4 1 gave my back to scourges
. . . and I turned not away my face from
the shame of spitting ' (Is. 1. 6). The pre-
diction of the resurrection appears to be
based on a prophecy of Hosea, ' On the third
day we shall rise again, and shall live before
him ' (vi. 2 (3) ).
The prediction is not precisely fulfilled in
the ensuing narrative in Luke, for it says
nothing of the spitting and scourging. In
Mark and Matthew we read of spitting in
the high priest's palace and in the prsetorium
of Pilate, but in both cases we decided it
was an editorial addition suggested by the
prophecy of Isaiah. According to Luke,
Pilate said ' I will therefore chastise him,
and release him,' but, as they insisted on
His crucifixion, and Pilate delivered Him
to their will, the suggestion is, as already
noticed, that the scourging did not take
place. John however records it, agreeing
with Luke to the extent that he regards it
as intended to take the place of crucifixion.
In Mark and Matthew the scourging is a
preliminary to crucifixion. It is in Mark
and Matthew then, and not in Luke, that
we read of a fulfilment of the prophecy
THE PR^ETORIUM 271
recorded in Luke, that they would spit upon
Jesus, and scourge Him before crucifixion.
These additions of Mark to the narrative
of the passion given in Luke seem therefore
to have been suggested by the prediction
of Jesus and the prophecies on which it was
based, and intended to record the fulfilment,
the fact that they were predicted being
regarded as sufficient evidence that they
took place.
In Mark's version of our Lord's predic-
tion the reference to the prophets has dis-
appeared : ' Behold, we go up to Jerusalem ;
and the Son of man shall be delivered unto
the chief priests and the scribes ; and they
shall condemn him to death, and shall
deliver him unto the Gentiles : and they
shall mock him, and shall spit upon him,
and shall scourge him, and shall kill him;
and after three days he shall rise again '
(x. 33-34). We note the addition, ' unto
the chief priests and the scribes, and they
shall condemn him to death, and shall
deliver him,' to which there is no parallel
in Luke. We see now a reason for the
omission of the reference to the prophets,
for there is obviously no passage in the Old
Testament which speaks of a delivery to
the chief priests and scribes. The addition,
272 THE MOCKING IN
it would seem, is made in the light of what
actually happened, and the saying has be-
come a detailed prediction of the passion,
not a declaration that the words of the
prophets would be fulfilled. It is not very
plain whether the mocking, spitting,
scourging and killing are intended to refer
to the chief priests and the scribes or to the
Gentiles, and indeed, as we have seen, in
Mark the narrative of the Petrine tradition
has been modified in such a way that at
any rate the first two are ascribed to both,
mocking, spitting and buffeting taking place
in the high priest's palace as well as .the
mocking, spitting and scourging which took
place in the prsetorium of Pilate. The
change from c the third day ' to ' after three
days ' obscures the source of the prophecy
in Hosea.
Matthew's version of the saying (xx. 18-
19) is based on Mark's, but there are several
alterations. The reference to spitting is
omitted, though later in the gospel we are
told it took place in the high priest's palace
and in the prsetorium. ' Kill ' is changed to
' crucify,' an interpretative alteration in the
light of actual events. It is quite plain in
Matthew, as in Luke, that it is the Gentiles
who will mock, scourge and crucify (kill).
THE PR^TORIUM
273
Matthew agrees with Luke against Mark in
reading ' the third day,' not ' after three
days,' though the article is not repeated
as in Luke and Hosea. The verb for ' he
shall be raised up ' is different from that
used in Luke and Mark and the prophecy,
so that the allusion to Hosea is lost.
CHAPTER XIII
THE DEATH OF JESUS
MANY other passages in the gospels might
be examined with profit, but it will perhaps
suffice if we conclude our investigation with
a discussion of the account of our Lord's
death and the events which immediately
preceded or followed it. In Mark we read :
4 And when the sixth hour was come, there
was darkness over the whole land until the
ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus
cried with a loud voice, Eloi, Eloi, lama
sabachthani ? which is, being interpreted,
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken
me ? And some of them that stood by,
when they heard it, said, Behold, he calleth
Elijah. And one ran, and filling a sponge
full of vinegar, put it on a reed, and gave
him to drink, saying, Let be ; let us see
whether Elijah cometh to take him down.
And Jesus uttered a loud voice, and gave
up the ghost. And the veil of the temple
was rent in twain from the top to the
bottom ' (xv. 33-38). In Luke we read :
THE DEATH OF JESUS 275
4 And it was now about the sixth hour, and
a darkness came over the whole land until
the ninth hour, the sun's light failing : and
the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.
And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice,
he said, Father, into thy hands I commend
my spirit : and having said this, he gave up
the ghost ' (xxiii. 44-46).
Comparison shews that Mark's narrative
adds much to Luke's account, but even in
Luke a large part seems to be an editorial
addition. Much of the phraseology is taken
from the Testaments of the Twelve Patri-
archs. ' It was about the sixth hour '
(Jos. viii. 1), ' There shall be in all the land
darkness and blackness ' (Sim. viii. 4), ' The
sun being quenched ' (Levi iv. 1), ' The veil
of the temple shall be rent ' (Levi x. 3).
The statement about the darkness in the
Testament of Simeon is evidently based on
the description of the plague of darkness in
Exodus, and this has also influenced Luke's
account, ' And there was darkness, black-
ness, tempest, over all the land of Egypt
three days ' (x. 22). Luke largely repro-
duces this, ' And there was darkness over
. . . the land ' being identical in the Greek
in both. ' Whole ' likewise appears in the
same connexion in the Septuagint ' over the
276 THE DEATH OF JESUS
whole land of Egypt ' (Gen. xli. 43), ' In the
whole land of Egypt ' (Exod. v. 12). The
4 three days ' of the story in Exodus have
become three hours in the gospel, ' about
the sixth hour . . . until the ninth hour.'
The thought which suggested the inter-
pretative addition is expressed earlier in
Luke, * This is your hour, and the power of
darkness ' (xxii. 53). The spirit of darkness
in the Testaments is Beliar, and so it is Beliar
who is regarded as triumphing at the cruci-
fixion according to Luke. * When I saw the
spirit of Beliar was troubling her ' (vii. 4)
is the description of the event which in the
Testament of Joseph is said to have ended
when ' it was about the sixth hour ' (viii. 1).
We read also ' Choose therefore for yourselves
either the light or the darkness, either the
law of the Lord or the works of Beliar '
(Levi xix. 1), ' And Beliar shall be in
darkness with the Egyptians ' (Jos. xx. 2). 1
If the statement in Luke that ' it was now
about the sixth hour ' is derived verbally
from the Testament of Joseph, we can hardly
look for any close correspondence with actual
fact. Speaking of the trial before Pilate,
John says c It was about the sixth hour '
(xix. 14), the Greek, however, differing from
1 Eng. trans. Charles (S.P.C.K.).
THE DEATH OF JESUS 277
what we find in Luke and the Testament of
Joseph. In view of the many things which
happened that morning, the trial before the
council, two appearances before Pilate and
one before Herod, besides various other inci-
dents, John's statement seems to be much
more probable than Luke's. Mark repeats
the substance of what we find in Luke with
regard to the time, but the close corre-
spondence with the Testament of Joseph has
gone. ' And when the sixth hour was come,
there was darkness over the whole land until
the ninth hour ' (xv. 33). Mark adds other
items to the time-table of the day : 'And it
was the third hour, and they crucified him '
(xv. 25), c And at the ninth hour Jesus cried
with a loud voice, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabach-
thani ? ' (xv. 34). He also gives a time-table
of the events of the last week, dividing them
among the days, but it is doubtful whether in
either case he has any authority other than
his own imagination. Matthew does not re-
peat the statement that it was the third hour
when they crucified him. Though originally
in Luke the references to ' the sixth hour ' and
4 the ninth hour ' must have been interpreted
symbolically, in Mark they are evidently to
be understood literally for otherwise the
time-table would be meaningless. In the same
278 THE DEATH OF JESUS
way the rending of the veil of the temple,
which is placed after our Lord's death, is
clearly regarded as a literal fact, ' And the
veil of the temple was rent in twain from the
top to the bottom ' (xv. 38). The incidents
recorded between the citations from the
Testaments seem to preclude any other inter-
pretation. In Matthew likewise the literal
interpretation is evidently intended, a list of
other portents being added to the statement
about the veil of the temple, in part at any rate,
from the same source. ' And behold, the veil
of the temple was rent in twain from the top
to the bottom ; and the earth did quake ;
and the rocks were rent ; and the tombs were
opened ; and many bodies of the saints that
had fallen asleep were raised ; and coming
forth out of the tombs after his resurrection
they entered into the holy city and appeared
unto many ' (xxvii. 51-53). In the Testa-
ment of Levi we read : ' Because when the
rocks are being rent, and the sun quenched
. . . and the invisible spirits melting away,
and Hades taking spoils through the visita-
tions of the Most High, men will be un-
believing and persist in their iniquity ' * (iv. 1).
There is evidently a connexion between the
statements of Matthew and the Testament
1 Eng. trans. Charles (S.P.C.K.).
THE DEATH OF JESUS 279
of Levi, though the former interprets the
symbolic words of the latter literally.
Among the portents at the death of Jesus
Luke mentions ' the sun failing,' a modifica-
tion, as we have seen, of words in the Testa-
ment of Levi, ' the sun being quenched.'
The Greek word translated ' fail ' is Lukan,
appearing three times in the gospel (xvi. 9,
xxii. 32, xxiii. 45), but only once elsewhere hi
the New Testament (Heb. i. 12) in a quotation .
from the Septuagint (Ps. ci. (cii.) 27). In
Mark's narrative at first sight we seem to
find nothing to correspond. Certainly the
statement in Luke is difficult if understood
literally, the Greek word translated ' failing '
being commonly used of an eclipse, the noun
' eclipse ' indeed being derived from this
verb. An eclipse of the sun can only take
place at new moon, but the Passover is at
full moon. This meaning being impossible,
the second evangelist evidently looked for
another, apparently not realising that the
words are really little more than a repetition
of the statement about the darkness. In
the Old Testament rjKwv is one form taken
by the name Elijah, so that, with breathings
and accents absent, it is possible to translate
rov rf\iov K\eL7rovro<i 'Elijah failing.' 1 Many
1 See Abbott in Classical Review, vol. vii. (Dec. 1893),
pp. 443-4.
280 THE DEATH OF JESUS
things seemed to favour such an interpreta-
tion. At the transfiguration, according to
Luke, Moses and Elijah ' spake of his decease
which he was about to accomplish at Jeru-
salem ' (ix. 31). The darkness over the whole
land was such as Moses had caused in Egypt.
The expectation that Elijah would intervene
to help God's people in times of crisis was a
commonplace of Jewish popular religion at
the time, and there is considerable evidence
of it in the Talmud. From noon until the
time of the offering of the evening sacrifice,
that is from the sixth hour until the ninth
hour, Elijah had mocked the priests of Baal,
bidding them call 4 with a loud voice '
(3 (1) Kings xviii. 27-29). From the sixth
hour until the ninth hour, according to Luke,
Jesus hung in darkness on the cross, but
Elijah did not intervene. Like the prophets
of Baal He too had cried ' with a loud voice,'
and in vain. Had Elijah failed ? It was not
by any means absurd to suppose that the
difficult words of the Petrine tradition of
Luke were intended to mean ' Elijah failing.'
Or, it might be thought, the word should
be not fjkiov but eAW, which is sometimes
left untranslated in the Greek of the Septua-
gint. ' The mountains were shaken before
the face of the Lord Eloi ' (Judges v. 5). So
THE DEATH OF JESUS 281
Hannah called upon God, ' O Adonai Lord
Eloe Sabaoth ' (1 Kings (Sam.) i. 11). The
words found in Luke might thus be inter-
preted ' Eloi failing,' the thought being that
the cry to God, ' Eloi,' had been in vain.
What could the cry addressing God as 4 Eloi '
have been ? As we have noticed, Luke's ac-
count of the Passion is full of reminiscences of
the twenty -first (second) psalm. 'And part-
ing his garments among them, they cast lots,'
' And the people stood beholding. . And the
rulers also scoffed at him.' To some extent
Mark grasped this, repeating the words about
the garments, and adding ' wagging their
heads,' another reminiscence of the same
psalm. The psalm spoke of God failing or for-
saking his servant, ' My God, my God . . .
why hast thou forsaken me ? ' (xxi. (xxii.) 1),
and the words are recorded as having been
used by Esther at a time of spiritual depres-
sion. We read in the Talmud : ' Esther stood
in the inner court of the palace. R. Levi
saith, When she was now just come up to
the idol temple, the divine glory departed
from her : therefore she said, Eli, Eli,
lamma azabhtani.' 1 The fact that the saying
appears twice in the Talmud is evidence that
1 Babylonian Megillah, fol. 15b ; Gloss on Yoma, fol. 29a.
See Lightfoot, Works, xi. p. 351.
282 THE DEATH OF JESUS
it was widely known. Was this then the cry
intended ?
Mark connects the offering of vinegar to
our Lord with the cry of dereliction, but in
Luke, where no mention is made of this word
from the cross, it is one of the series of details
regarded as fulfilling prophecies in the psalter.
' And the soldiers also mocked him, coming
to him, offering him vinegar ' (xxiii. 36). In
the psalm we read : ' For thou knowest my
reproach, and my shame, and my dishonour :
all that afflict me are before thee . . . for my
thirst they gave me vinegar to drink ' (Ixviii.
(Ixix.) 19, 21). The idea that the vinegar was
given in mockery is evidently derived from
the prophecy, the action by no means neces-
sarily suggesting it. In John the thought of
the fulfilment of prophecy is placed in the
forefront. ' After this Jesus, knowing that
all things are now finished, that the scripture
might be accomplished, saith, I thirst. There
was set there a vessel full of vinegar : so
they put a sponge full of the vinegar upon
hyssop, and brought it to his mouth. When
Jesus therefore had received the vinegar,
he saith, It is finished ' (xix. 28-30). The
appearance of the same Greek word, trans-
lated ' offering,' ' brought,' in the two
accounts, as well as the phraseology of
THE DEATH OF JESUS 283
Psalm Ixviii. (Ixix.), suggests that the narra-
tives of Luke and John are developed from
a common original. In John, however, we
recognise also the influence of various other
passages. The mention of hyssop reminds us
of another verse of the psalter, ' Thou shalt
sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be
cleansed' (1. (li.) 7). In the accounts of cere-
monial cleansing in the Pentateuch we several
times find the words 'vessel' and 'hyssop'
associated as in the gospel. ' And he shall
take to purify the house two clean living
birds . . . and hyssop. And he shall kill
one of the birds in an earthen vessel over
running water. And he shall take . . . the
hyssop and the living bird ; and he shall
dip it into the blood of the bird killed over
running water, and with them shall sprinkle
the house seven times ' (Lev. xiv. 49-51),
' And for the unclean they shall take of the
burnt ashes of purification, and they shall
pour upon them running water into a vessel.
And a clean man shall take hyssop and dip it
into the water, and sprinkle it upon the house '
(Num. xix. 17-18). In the account of the
passover mention of the vessel is found only
in the Hebrew, ' And ye shall take a bunch
of hyssop, and dip it in the blood that is in the
bason, and strike the lintel and the two side
284 THE DEATH OF JESUS
posts with the blood that is in the bason '
(Exod. xii. 22). In the rules of the Talmud
for the observance of the feast of the passover,
at the beginning of the meal, after washing his
hands, the celebrant is directed to take one of
the bitter herbs and dip it in a vessel of
vinegar or salt water, and to distribute to all
present, the herb so dipped being explained as
representing the hyssop dipped in blood with
which the houses were sprinkled at the first
passover. 1
It seems plain then that the details of the
description of the offering of vinegar to Jesus
on the cross in the fourth gospel have
been influenced by the rabbinical regulations
for the paschal feast, another reference to the
passover in the Johannine account of the cru-
cifixion appearing later in a quotation from
the same chapter of Exodus, 4 A bone of him
shall not be broken ' (John xix. 36), * A bone
of him ye shall not break ' (Exod. xii. 46). As
the offering of vinegar to Jesus is interpreted
so differently in Luke and John, in the former
as an act of mockery because of the prophecy
in the psalter (Ixviii. (Ixix.) 21), and in the
latter as suggesting also the regulations for
the passover, there is no room for doubt that
the act is historical. The same Greek word
1 Pesachim, x. 1-9 passim.
THE DEATH OF JESUS 285
was used of the nauseous wine which had
undergone acid fermentation to which the
psalmist referred (Ixviii. (Ixix.) 21), of the
vinegar used as a relish at meals (Ruth ii. 14)
in particular at the passover feast, and of
the sour wine which was a common drink
(Num. vi. 3), particularly of soldiers. 1 That
this last was offered to Jesus on the cross as
the gospels narrate is in no way improbable,
and by none with greater likelihood than by
the soldiers, the interpretations put upon the
act in Luke and John being merely, however,
the result of pious reflexion on the meaning
of the incident.
Mark, as very frequently, combines the
Petrine tradition preserved in Luke with the
Johannine, 'And one ran, and filling a
sponge full of vinegar, put it on a reed, and
gave him to drink ' (xv. 36). In describing
the mocking in the praetorium, relying on the
etymology, Mark has paraphrased the state-
ment of John, ' they struck him with blows
(of rods) ' (xix. 3), with the words, ' they
smote his head with a reed ' (xv. 19) ; simi-
larly he interprets 4 they put a sponge full
of the vinegar upon hyssop ' as meaning ' fill-
ing a sponge full of vinegar, he put it on a
1 Aristophanes, Acharnae, 35 ; Plutarch, Colo Major,
i. p. 336.
286 THE DEATH OF JESUS
reed,' the significance of the hyssop not being
understood. Yet the evangelist quite realised,
apparently, that the action was a fulfilment
of prophecy, for the verb translated ' gave to
drink ' appears in the psalm (Ixviii. (Ixix.)
21), but not in Luke or John.
Luke says, ' The soldiers also mocked
him, coming to him, offering him vinegar,'
but Mark, who, as we have seen, has trans-
ferred the statement that the soldiers mocked
Jesus to his description of the events in the
prsetorium, makes no specific mention of
mocking at this point. Still, though the
word is absent, it is clear that the second
evangelist agreed with the third in regarding
the vinegar as offered in mockery, as the
reminiscence of the psalm makes plain. We
read : ' I waited . . . for one to comfort me,
and I found none . . . And for my thirst
they gave me vinegar to drink ' (Ixviii. (Ixix.)
20-21). The narrative is in fact based on
the experience of the psalmist. The cry
4 Why hast thou forsaken me ? ' particularly
if regarded as addressed to Elijah, corre-
sponds to the words ' I waited ... for one
to comfort me, and I found none.' To the
psalmist in his disappointment they offered
vinegar in mockery, and Mark says the same
treatment was accorded to Jesus. ' And one
THE DEATH OF JESUS 287
ran, and filling a sponge with vinegar, put it
on a reed, and gave him to drink, saying,
Let be ; let us see whether Elijah cometh
to take him down.' The parallel between the
psalmist and Jesus according to Mark is
exact. ' They persecuted him whom thou
hast smitten : and they added to the grief
of my wounds ' (Ixviii. (Ixix.) 26). Of the
two interpretations of the words in Luke
properly translated ' the sun failing ' ' Eloi
failing,' ' Elijah failing 'Mark adopts the
former as authentic, identifying the cry with
the words of the psalmist used by Esther in
a moment of depression according to the
Talmud, and attributes the latter to the
bystanders, making it the basis of their
mockery in which another prophecy of the
psalter received fulfilment. ' Eloi,' or ' Eloe,'
the form which the word takes as transliter-
ated in the Septuagint, suggests the Aramaic
rather than the Hebrew of Psalm xxi.
(xxii.) 1, and the intention of the evangelist
apparently was to give the quotation in an
Aramaic dress, though a completely Aramaic
form is found only in certain manuscripts.
In the rest, with variable spellings, we read,
' Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani,' ' lama ' being
the Hebrew form. In Matthew we find
' lema,' and the whole is Aramaic, the first
288 THE DEATH OF JESUS
gospel perhaps thus giving once again an
earlier version of the text. In ' Codex Bezae '
in both Mark and Matthew we read ' Eli,
Eli, lama zaphthani,' intended presumably
to be a transliteration of the Hebrew of the
psalter. The offering of the vinegar in Mark,
as in Luke and the psalter, is an act of
mockery, the words uttered by the man who
offered it, ' Let be ; let us see whether Elijah
cometh to take him down,' being evidently
intended as an added cruelty. ' Let be,' we
note, takes up the last word of the saying,
' sabachthani,' the same Aramaic word in the
book of Daniel (iv. 15, 23, 26) being trans-
lated by the corresponding Greek word in
the Septuagint (iv. 12, 23). In Matthew the
true meaning of the taunt is lost, and it has
become a rebuke of the man offering the
vinegar by other bystanders. ' And the rest
said, Let be ; let us see whether Elijah
cometh to save him ' (xxvii. 49).
Mark gives also an account of a somewhat
similar incident, the offering of drugged wine
to Jesus before crucifixion, inserting it in
a combination of Petrine and Johannine
material. In Luke we read : ' And when
they came unto the place which is called
The skull, there they crucified him ' (xxiii. 33).
In John we read : ' And he went out, bearing
THE DEATH OF JESUS 289
the cross for himself, unto the place called The
place of a skull, which is called in Hebrew Gol-
gotha: where they crucified him ' (xix. 17-18).
In Mark we read : ' And they bring him unto
the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted,
The place of a skull. And they offered him
wine mingled with myrrh : but he received
it not. And they crucify him ' (xv. 22-24).
Again Mark's narrative, as the context
makes clear, is based on that found in Luke,
but certain elements, as the name ' Golgotha,'
and ' the place of a skull,' are derived from
John. The incident of the drugged wine is
drawn from another source, and seems to be
another example of the expansion of the story
by details suggested by a knowledge of what
commonly happened on similar occasions,
such as we have noticed at various points in
the gospel already. 1 We read in the Talmud :
' To those that were to be executed, they gave
a grain of myrrh infused in wine to drink,
that their understanding might be disturbed,
as it is said, Give strong drink to them that
are ready to die, and wine to those that are
of a sorrowful heart, etc. And the tradition
is, That some women of quality in Jerusalem
allowed'this freely of their own cost.' 2 Luke
1 See pp. 196, 211-8, 218-9, 222-4, 247-8.
2 Bab. Sank., fol. 43a. See Lightfoot, Works, xi. p. 348.
U
290 THE DEATH OF JESUS
tells us that the ' daughters of Jerusalem '
followed Jesus to the place of crucifixion, but
says nothing about any provision by them
of drugged wine (xxiii. 27-31). Yet this in-
cident and the fact that in Luke the offering
of vinegar is placed at the beginning of the
account of the crucifixion may have suggested
the insertion of such an episode into the com-
posite narrative of Mark. In the Septuagint
the passage quoted from the book of Proverbs
reads : ' Give strong drink to those that are
in sorrow, and wine to drink to those in pain '
(xxiv. 74 (xxxi. 6) ). We notice the words
'give . . . wine ... to' reproduced in Mark,
though the combination is quite uncommon.
The purpose of the narcotic was to produce
a degree of insensibility, but as Jesus was
conscious to the last, it was necessary to
limit the story to the offer of the drug, and
to add ' but he received it not.' In Matthew
we read : * They gave him wine to drink
mingled with gall : and when he had tasted
it, he would not drink ' (xxvii. 34). We
notice an even closer affinity with the passage
in Proverbs : c they gave him wine to drink,'
4 give . . . wine to drink to those.' The
words ' mingled with gall ' shew the influence
of the prophecy of the psalter which foretold
also the offering of vinegar. ' And they gave
THE DEATH OF JESUS 291
me gall for my food ; and for my thirst they
gave me vinegar to drink ' (Ixviii. (Ixix.) 21).
The one prophecy of the psalm has thus a
double fulfilment in Matthew's narrative, in
the offering of the drugged wine and in the
offering of vinegar. The desire to see a ful-
filment of prophecy in the former incident
necessitated a change in Mark's statement
that ' he received it not,' so that we now
read, ' And when he had tasted it, he would
not drink,' a complete refusal making the
prophecy inapplicable. As a result, prob-
ably by inadvertence, the evangelist has
added words which imply ignorance on our
Lord's part, though, as a rule, he eliminates
such passages from the narrative he takes
over from Mark.
According to Luke, after the darkness and
other portents ' Jesus cried with a loud voice,'
and then commending His spirit to the Father
gave up the ghost. In Mark after the dark-
ness we are told that ' Jesus cried with a
loud voice,' and then after the incident of the
offering of the vinegar that ' Jesus uttered a
loud voice, and gave up the ghost.' The
interpolation of the passage describing the
supposed appeal to Elijah has necessitated
the doubling of the reference to the loud cry
in order to preserve the same connexions as
U2
292 THE DEATH OF JESUS
in Luke. This, as we have seen, 1 is a common
result of interpolations, and sometimes helps
us to recognise their existence. Matthew
says, ' Jesus cried again with a loud voice,'
attempting thus to explain the repetition.
The c loud voice ' in Luke would seem to
be identical with what is commonly regarded
as the seventh word from the cross. 'And
Jesus cried with a loud voice, and said,
Father, into thy hands I commend my
spirit.' In the third gospel this is the last
word of Jesus, 4 and having said this, he
gave up the ghost.' In John, as we have
seen, we find another tradition. ' After this
Jesus, knowing that all things are now
finished, that the scripture might be accom-
plished, saith, I thirst. There was set there
a vessel full of vinegar : so they put a sponge
full of the vinegar upon hyssop, and brought
it to his mouth. When Jesus therefore had
received the vinegar, he said, It is finished :
and he bowed his head, and gave up his
spirit ' (xix. 28-30). We have concluded
that the offering of the vinegar is an historic
event, and, if so, there is no reason why it
should be otherwise with the cry which
John tells us prompted the offer. It is very
unlikely that Jesus said * I thirst ' in order
1 Cf. pp. 212-3, 221-2, 23T-8, 240-2.
THE DEATH OF JESUS 293
4 that the scripture might be accomplished,'
if by this is meant that a particular prophecy
was present to the consciousness of Jesus
and moved Him to utter the word, but it
is equally improbable that a fulfilment of
scripture would ever have been looked for
in such a saying and the offering of vinegar,
if they had not both been authentic. Again,
if 4 1 thirst ' is authentic, 4 It is finished '
must be the same. The two words are
closely connected in the mind of the evange-
list, and he anticipates the second word in
his introduction to the first, ' Jesus, knowing
that all things are now finished, that the
scripture might be accomplished, saith, I
thirst.' Both the thought and the phraseology
are found in earlier sayings of Jesus, recorded
however not in John but in Luke. ' All the
things that are written by the prophets shall
be finished unto the Son of man ' (xviii. 31).
4 This which is written must be finished in
me, And he was reckoned with transgressors :
for that which concerneth me hath a finish '
(xxii. 37). We compare also Luke's report
of Paul's words at Antioch in Pisidia, * And
when they had finished all things that were
written of him, they took him down from
the tree ' (Acts xiii. 29). In view of the
earlier sayings nothing could be more suitable
294 THE DEATH OF JESUS
as the last word of Jesus than ' It is finished,'
but as the previous utterances are not given
in John, the suitability can only be explained
if the saying was actually uttered. The
introductory words, ' Jesus, knowing that
all things are now finished,' which are an
interpretative statement of the evangelist,
together with the word 'therefore,' which
comes later * when Jesus therefore had
received the vinegar ' shew that in the
writer's opinion ' I thirst ' and the offering
of the vinegar are to be regarded as the last
of the things to be ' finished ' according to
the scriptures, and so afford evidence that
in his judgment * It is finished 'was likewise
authentic. Otherwise he would hardly have
taken the trouble to emphasise the not very
obvious connexion between the two sayings.
Immediately after saying t It is finished,'
according to John, Jesus ' bowed his head,
and gave up his spirit.' In a measure the
words follow a formula. Of Jacob we read,
4 He lifted up his feet on the bed, and died '
(Gen. xlix. 33). Similar statements are found
in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,
4 And he stretched out his feet on the bed,
and was gathered to his fathers ' (Lev. xix. 4),
4 And he stretched out his feet, and died '
(Iss. vii. 9), ' He covered his face, and died '
THE DEATH OF JESUS 295
(Nap. ix. 2), ' And he lifted up his feet, and
fell asleep in peace ' (Gad viii. 4), ' He
stretched out his feet, and died ' (Jos. xx. 4 ;
Ben. xii. 1-2). The words ' and gave up his
spirit ' evidently have in view a saying of
Jesus given earlier in the fourth gospel, 1 1
lay down my soul, that I may take it again.
No one taketh it from me, but I lay it down
of myself. I have power to lay it down,
and I have power to take it again ' (x. 17-18).
A statement to a similar effect is in Mark,
' The Son of man came . . . to give his soul
a ransom for many ' (x. 45). Both sayings
are traceable to the description of the
Servant of Jehovah in the second Isaiah,
' The Lord gave him up for our sins ... for
whom his soul was given up to death ...
and he was given up for our iniquities '
(liii. 6, 12). The thought behind the words
4 he gave up his spirit ' is therefore sacrificial,
that Jesus died ' an offering for sin ' (Is.
liii. 10), and that He offered the sacrifice
Himself.
We may now return to the account in
Luke, ' And Jesus cried with a loud voice,
and said, Father, into thy hands I commit
my spirit, and when he had said this, he
expired ' (xxiii. 46). The statement in John
that ' he gave up his spirit ' seems at first
296 THE DEATH OF JESUS
sight to be parallel in substance as in position,
though in shorter form. Yet the passage
from Luke contains nothing sacrificial. The
saying is a quotation from the psalter, ' Into
thy hands I will commit my spirit' (xxx.
(xxxi.) 5). The thought is that of entrusting
the spirit to God's care, in life not in death.
We compare ' Thy visitation hath preserved
my spirit ' (Job x. 12). The verb and general
thought are found also in the first epistle of
Peter, l Let them . . . commit their souls in
well-doing unto a faithful Creator ' (iv. 19).
Again the reference is to the living. In the
Old Testament at death the spirit is not
committed, but departs to God. ' The spirit
shall return unto God who gave it ' (Ecc.
xii. 7). The spirits or souls of the departed
in the book of Wisdom are regarded as being
in God's keeping. ' The souls of the righteous
are in the hand of God, and no torment shall
touch them ' (iii. 1). Yet there is no thought
of committing the soul to God in death. This
is claimed by Jesus as a special prerogative.
' I have power to lay it down, and I have
power to take it again. This command-
ment received I from my Father ' (John x.
18). Properly, then, Jesus only could apply
the words of the psalm to His death, ' Into
thy hands I will commit my spirit.' Yet
THE DEATH OF JESUS 297
there is a big difference between the thought
of entrusting the soul to God's charge in
death, and giving up the soul to death in
sacrifice. The parallel passages of Luke and
John give thus two quite different ideas with
regard to the yielding up of Christ's soul in
death, and they must be regarded as two
distinct developments from the original
primitive tradition. Which is the more
authentic ? The thought found in John is
in complete agreement with our Lord's teach-
ing elsewhere, while that in Luke is found in
no other passage. We must decide, then,
that in this case the earlier form of the
tradition appears in John, that in Luke being
an interpretative development based on an
incomplete understanding of the original.
If this be so, the saying c Father, into thy
hands I commit my spirit ' has no claim to
be part of the earliest form of the evangelical
tradition with regard to our Lord's death,
but is an editorial addition, externalising as
a saying of Jesus what under the influence
of the psalter the evangelist took to be the
meaning of a statement to the effect that
Jesus * gave up his spirit,' as it appears in the
fourth gospel. We have already noticed
several examples of a statement in the text
in one form of the gospel tradition appearing
298 THE DEATH OF JESUS
in a later as a saying of Jesus, or others, as
' Answer est thou nothing ? what is it which
these witness against thee ? ' in Mark (xiv.
60) taking the place of c But he answered
him nothing. And the chief priests and the
scribes stood, vehemently accusing him ' in
Luke (xxiii. 9-10), and ' Ye know that after
two days the passover cometh ' in Matthew
(xxvi. 2) taking the place of ' Now after two
days was the feast of the passover ' in Mark
(xiv. 1), so that it is not surprising to find
the same change even in the text of Luke.
The influence of the psalter in determining
the significance of a statement is likewise
paralleled elsewhere, as when the offering of
vinegar is regarded as mockery in Luke
because it is said to be such in the psalm
(Ixviii. (Ixix.) 19-21), though it is not so
interpreted in John.
The description of the death of Jesus in
Luke cannot be adequately discussed apart
from the similar account of the death of
Stephen given in Acts. ' And he cried with
a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their
charge : and having said this, he fell asleep '
(vii. 60). We notice the close agreement in
form and word with what we find in the
gospel. ' And Jesus cried with a loud voice,
and said, Father, into thy hands I commit
THE DEATH OF JESUS 299
my spirit : and having said this, he expired '
(xxiii. 46) . The substance of our Lord's saying
is likewise paralleled in the words of Stephen,
' Lord Jesus, receive my spirit ' (vii. 59).
The two narratives cannot be independent,
and must be ascribed to Luke or his source,
one evidently being modelled on the other.
But though superficially ' Lord Jesus, receive
my spirit ' and ' Father, into thy hands I
commit my spirit ' appear to be equivalent,
in reality they are very different. Stephen's
prayer is addressed to Jesus, not to the
Father, and in substance is in close agree-
ment with sayings of Jesus which there is
no reason to suppose other than authentic.
' Make to yourselves friends . . . that . . .
they may receive you into the eternal
tabernacles ' (Luke xvi. 9), ' To-day shalt
thou be with me in paradise ' (Luke xxiii. 43).
As Stephen looked up into heaven and saw
Jesus standing on the right hand of God, in
view of these words nothing could be more
appropriate than the cry ' Lord Jesus, receive
my spirit,' but, as we have seen, no such
appropriateness is to be found in the say-
ing attributed to Jesus. It seems certain
that the narrative in Acts is primary, but
that the primitive gospel tradition has been
modified so as to agree, as closely as possible,
300 THE DEATH OF JESUS
in form and substance with it. The affinity
which exists between what we find in the
Johannine version of the story, and what we
find in Acts, would suggest the assimilation
of the two, the words of the psalm, ' Into thy
hands I will commit my spirit,' the suita-
bility of which could hardly fail to appeal
to those who were anxious to see the fulfil-
ment of prophecy in every detail of the
narrative, being at hand to supply an appro-
priate formula, a word of prophecy, as we
have seen with regard to various other points,
so easily passing into a statement of fact.
Both Jesus and Stephen we are told
' cried with a loud voice ' when uttering the
final word, the verb in the gospel being akin
to the noun, though not in Acts. The
cognate words, as in the gospel, appear
together also in Acts, * Paul cried with a
loud voice ' (xvi. 28), and likewise in the
Septuagint, ' The king cried with a loud
voice ' (Dan. v. 7). The expression * loud
voice ' is common in the Lukan writings,
appearing six times in the gospel (iv. 33,
viii. 28, xvii. 15, xix. 37, xxiii. 23, 46), and
six times in Acts (vii. 57, 60, viii. 7, xiv. 10,
xvi. 28, xxvi. 24), though only four times in
Mark (i. 26, v. 7, xv. 34, 37), and twice
(certainly) in Matthew (xxvii. 46, 50), in
THE DEATH OF JESUS 301
contexts derived from Luke. It is very
frequent in the Septuagint.
Of Jesus we read in Luke, ' And when he
had said this, he expired,' and of Stephen in
Acts, ' And when he had said this, he fell
asleep.' The formula appears also in the
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, c And
Judah, when he had said these things, fell
asleep ' ( Jud. xxvi. 4), ' And when he had
said these things, he fell asleep ' (Zeb. x. 6),
' And when he had said these things, he kissed
them, and fell asleep' (Dan vii. 1), 'And
when he had said these things, he stretched
out his feet, and fell asleep ' (Jos. xx. 4 ;
Ben. xii. 1-2).
An examination of the phraseology thus
shews that the accounts of the deaths of Jesus
and Stephen were compiled by someone well
versed in the Septuagint and other Jewish
literature current at the time, and that they
were intended to follow the same model,
which in part is found in the Testaments of
the Twelve Patriarchs.
In Mark we read : ' And Jesus uttered a
loud voice, and expired ' (xv. 37). This is
one of the four passages where the expression
4 a loud voice ' appears in the second gospel,
all being repeated from the tradition given
in Luke. 4 Utter ' is not used with c voice '
302 THE DEATH OF JESUS
elsewhere in the New Testament, but it is
found once in the Septuagint, * And he
uttered his voice with weeping ' (Gen. xlv. 2).
We notice that nothing is said in Mark about
the saying, ' Father, into thy hands I commit
my spirit.' Perhaps it was realised that it
was an interpretative addition, though indeed
the other two sayings from the cross in Luke
are likewise omitted in Mark. The words,
' and when he had said this,' which link the
account of the death of Jesus in Luke with
that of the death of Stephen in Acts, and
with the accounts of the deaths of Judah,
Zebulon, Dan, Joseph and Benjamin in the
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, are also
omitted. The word translated 'expired,'
repeated from Luke, is found nowhere else
in the Old or New Testament. It is not
until after the death of Jesus that Mark
gives his version of the statement from the
Testament of Levi (x. 3) about the veil of
the temple. What in Luke is one of the
accompaniments of the three hours' darkness
becomes thus a portent at our Lord's death.
The changes made in the statement seem to
shew that Mark understood it literally. * And
the veil of the temple was rent in twain from
the top to the bottom ' (xv. 38). The
secondary nature of Mark's narrative seems
THE DEATH OF JESUS 303
clear, and it can only be explained as a
modification of that in Luke.
In Matthew we read : ' And Jesus cried
again with a loud voice, and yielded up his
spirit. And behold, the veil of the temple
was rent in twain from the top to the bottom '
(xxvii. 50-51). On the whole Matthew agrees
with Mark rather than Luke, but in several
points there is a return to what we find in
the third gospel. Again we read ' cried with
a loud voice ' and not ' uttered a loud voice '
as in Mark. The verb translated ' cried,'
however, is not the cognate word to 4 voice '
as in Luke, but the verb used in the account
of the death of Stephen in Acts, where we read
similarly ' cried with a loud voice,' in one of
the passages where ' a loud voice ' occurs
in Mark (v. 7), and elsewhere. The Greek
word translated l uttered ' in Mark is trans-
ferred to the next clause hi Matthew, where
it is rendered ' yielded,' thus reproducing a
phrase of the Septuagint, c as she yielded up
the ghost ' (Gen. xxxv. 18), with a change of
noun, ' spirit ' appearing likewise in John, and
a cognate verb in both Luke and Mark.
Matthew follows Mark in giving the rending
of the veil of the temple as a portent at the
death of Jesus, and reproduces his statement
with no change of importance. He makes it
804 THE DEATH OF JESUS
however one of a number of portents which
happened at the same time, several of them
suggested, as we have seen, by a passage in
the Testament of Levi (iv. 1), from which
the notion of ' the sun's light failing ' in Luke
is also derived. We note the continued de-
velopment of the tradition about the portents,
which even in its earliest form in Luke is
only an interpretative addition to a more
primitive narrative which has not survived in
an uninterpolated text.
Many other stories of the gospels might be
examined with similar results. Enough has
been said to bring out the fact that the four
gospels are derived ultimately from three
different traditions about Jesus, which some-
times give merely different forms evolved
from a primitive gospel narrative as a
common source, but for the most part narrate
quite distinct incidents, which we have seen
reason to attribute to the three apostles,
Peter, James, and John, the Jacobean line
of tradition where it exists being the most
authentic. Luke is built up almost entirely
of material drawn from the Petrine and
Jacobean traditions, matter from each source
appearing as a rule in blocks of consider-
able size. Mark also utilises the same two
THE DEATH OF JESUS
305
traditions, though that of James in a much
smaller degree. The Johannine tradition is
also drawn upon to a considerable extent,
and even the traditions of the rabbis now
preserved in the Talmud and elsewhere, where
they could be used to complete a picture,
as in the account of the trial before the high
priest and council. Mark's narrative is fre-
quently a mosaic of small pieces of material
drawn from the different sources, which are
often transferred to a quite different context
from that to which they properly belong.
As it stands, and apart from a critical in-
vestigation of each section, the story told in
Mark is at many points of little value if we
wish to know exactly what happened, and
particularly in the account of the Passion
where the material, authentic in origin, is so
recombined, expanded and repeated as to
give a quite different account of events from
that which we gain from Luke and John.
Matthew is largely a still further developed
form of Mark, with additional material from
the Jacobean tradition and other sources,
some of it of doubtful historical value, or
even obviously apocryphal as it stands. The
fourth gospel alone contains a single tradi-
tion, that derived from John. Where we
have been able to test it the narrative is
306 THE DEATH OF JESUS
frequently expanded or modified by phraseo-
logy from the Old Testament, and so probably
similar development has taken place in other
places. The Petrine and Johannine tradi-
tions, though inferior to the Jacobean, give
much authentic material, sometimes one and
sometimes the other preserving the more
primitive form of the story where they can
be compared. Our investigation by bringing
out the method by which the several gospels
took their present form has enabled us to
estimate the historic value of the various
narratives and provides a key for their right
interpretation. The result will be very dif-
ferent at many points from the traditional
story of our Lord's life, and many well-known
incidents will be found to be later additions,
to our great disappointment. Still the ad-
vantage will be great if in any degree we are
able to gain a truer picture of the historic
Jesus, Who stands out still as the Son of God
and Saviour of mankind, and particularly if
we can base it on the witness of His three
chief apostles, Peter, James, and John, and
so, in part at any rate, on the teaching, still
largely in its primitive form, of that son of
Zebedee who so early, the first of the apostolic
band, received the martyr's crown.
Ei9 Trourav rrjv yijv e^i]\0v 6 $#0770? avrwv,
Kal et9 ra Trepara rrj^
ra ppara avrv.
Printed in England at THE BALLANTTNB PBESS
SPOTTISWOODE, BALLAHTYNE & Co. LTD.
Colchester, London & Eton
T3S
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
