Full text of "The Gospels as historical documents .."

See other formats

i'/.

'■'S/y<

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2010 with funding from

University of Toronto

http://www.archive.org/details/gospelsashistori02stan

THE GOSPELS

HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

iontion: FETTER LANE, E.G.

C. F. CLAY, Manager

i i
i
i i

i- i »
i * »■

lEBinlurBl): 100, PRINCES STREET

Btrlin: A. ASHER AND CO.

leiUMS: F. A. BROCKHAUS

i^tfa gotfe: G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS

Bomfaao anil Calcutta: MACMILLAN AND CO., Ltd.

THE GOSPELS

HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS

PART II
THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

VINCENT HENRY STANTON, D.D.

FELLOW OF TRINITV COLLEGE
ELY PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE

CAMBRIDGE :
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS

1909

CambriTigc:

PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A.
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

PREFACE

IN the preface to Part I the aim and plan of the whole
work were described. In accordance therewith we shall
now pass from the consideration of the evidence in regard to
the history of our Canonical Gospels which is afforded by
traces of the use of them in early days, by express state-
ments about them, and by the position they held in the
Church before and at the close of the Second Century, to the
examination of the Gospels themselves. A few of the dis-
cussions in Part I will prove of service in connexion with
points that must now come before us. But the significance
of the conclusions there reached will be chiefly felt when, in
the last Part, we consider more generally the value of the
Gospels as historical records.

In the present Part, as in the last, I have endeavoured
both to indicate clearly the results which appear to me to be
well-established, and also to advance knowledge by further
investigations. From the positions stated, and the brief
accounts of the reasons for them, and the references to
opposite views, in Chapter I, the reader will, I hope, be able to
gather what the chief turning-points have been in the history
of speculation and inquiry on the subject of the relations of
our first three Gospels. A study of that history, the review
and the testing of the arguments that have been employed in
regard to questions that have been raised in the past, form the
best discipline that the student can undergo in order to prepare
him for grappling with problems that still press for solution.

« 3

vi Preface

The inquiries with which we shall be engaged in the
present Part have this advantage over those with which the
last was occupied, that the means of verifying descriptions of
the phenomena to be explained, and therefore, also, of forming
an independent judgment upon the theories propounded, are
at the disposal of a far larger number of students. They
have the Gospels in their hands. Valuable aids also for the
work of comparing the Synoptic Gospels have been provided,
especially in England, as in the Synopses of Mr W. G. Rush-
brooke, and Dr A. Wright, and the studies and tables
contained in ihe Horce SynopticcB of Sir J. C. Hawkins.
I have sought also to add to such aids in the Additional
Notes to the first four chapters, and the two Tables at the
end, of this volume.

The fact, too, that in pursuing these inquiries a fuller and
more accurate knowledge of the actual contents of the Gospels
will be acquired, should be an encouragement to those who
are inclined to be disheartened by the difficulties of the
subject, the variety of views with which they are confronted,
and the intricacy of the considerations upon which decisions
must depend. Their labour cannot be wholly thrown away.

V. H. S.
Trinity College,
Cambridge.

May 31, 1909.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER I.

INTRODUCTORV REMARKS : THE PRESENT POSITION
OF THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM.

PAGES
1-2

The importance of the Synoptic problem ....
Reasons for deferring the consideration of the question of the

credibility of the miraculous 2-4

More attention should be paid to the subject of critical method 5-6

The assistance to be derived from the study of the history

of investigation and controversy in regard to the Synoptic

problem 6-8

Positions in regard to which a large amount of agreement has

been attained :

1. The resemblances between the Synoptic Gospels are

such as require us to suppose connexions through

Greek sources ....... 8-16

2. The relations between the first three Gospels cannot

be adequately explained by the influence of oral
tradition 17-29

3. Our third evangelist was not to any considerable

extent dependent upon the first (or the first upon
the third) for the common contents of their
Gospels 29-30

4. A record which, if not virtually identical with our

St Mark, is at least most nearly represented in
it, was largely used in the composition of our first
and third Gospels 30-44

5. There was a second principal source common to our

first and third evangelists, consisting mainly of
Discourses and Sayings of Jesus, which they inde-
pendently combined with their Marcan document 44-9

viii Table of Contents

PAGES

Questions remaining to be discussed 5°"^

Additional Notes :

I. Indications that our first and third evangelists have
revised St Mark, or a source closely resembling

St Mark 5i-3

11. Doublets 54-60

CHAPTER II.

THE COMPILATION OF THE UTTERANCES OF JESUS,
AND THEIR TRANSMISSION TO THE GREEK-SPEAK-
ING CHURCH.

The subject of the earliest preaching of the Apostles . . 61

The need for dwelling upon the Precepts of Jesus must have

been felt from the first 61-2

Differences between the needs of the Aramaic-speaking districts

of Palestine and those of Jews and others belonging to the

Greek-speaking world 63-4

Evidence of the Epistles of the New Testament as to the

communication in Greek of the Teaching of Jesus . 64-7

k/ Circumstances affecting the translation of the Utterances of

Jesus into Greek 68-9

The amount of verbal agreement which implies derivation from

the same document ^9^74

The different arrangement in St Matthew and St Luke of the

non-Marcan matter 74-6

Clues for the reconstruction of the lost common source 76-9

Review of the non-Marcan matter common to St Matthew and

St Luke 79-102

Results as to the form and contents of the common Greek

Logian document 102-6

The Beatitudes in St Matthew and St Luke .... 106-8
The attitude to the Mosaic Law displayed in the " Sermon

on the Mount" in St Matthew 108-9

Theories as to the source from which the Teaching of Jesus

contained in St Mark was derived 109-112

The form of that Teaching characteristic of this Gospel . 1 12-1 14

Table of Contents

The Discourse on the Last Things in Mark xiii .

Additional Note :

Analysis of the Discourses of Jesus in St Matthew

PAGES

115-121
122-9

CHAPTER III.

EARLY ACCOUNTS OF THE MAIN FACTS AND FEATURES
OFCHRIST'S MINISTRY AND PASSION.— THE HISTORY
OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST MARK.

In the work of evangelising the Greek-speaking world accounts
were needed of the character and deeds of Jesus, as well as

of His Teaching 130-1

The influence of the oral period in shaping the Gospel records 131-5
The "many" Gospel narratives referred to in Luke i. i . 135-7
Three views of the history of the composition of St Mark

between which the choice lies ...... 137

VThe method to be pursued in investigating the history of the

composition of St Mark ....... 138-9

•• The consentient differences of St Matthew and St Luke from
St Mark in Marcan contexts :

The theories of B. Weiss and E. Simons. . . 139-141
Four causes to which the differences in question may

be attributed 141-150

♦ The circumstance which lends significance to omissions from

St Luke of sections of St Mark 150-2

Review of sections of St Mark omitted from St Luke, for the
purpose of determining the contents of the Marcan docu-
ment used in the composition of St Luke .... 152-170
Recent theories of the compositeness of St Mark . . . 170-180
The question of authorship :

Mark the hearer of Peter 180-3

The purpose of the work 183-4

The march of events in the narrative as a whole . 184-8
The general uniformity of style ..... 188

Various marks of authenticity ..... 1 88-191
Discussion of traits which have been alleged to be

unhistorical 191-200

Table of Contents

PAGES

A recent theory as to the original termination of the Gospel . 200-2
Conclusions .......... 202-3

Additional Notes :

I. Style as a means of distinguishing the passages added

to Proto-Mark 204-6

II. The coincident differences from St Mark in the first -^

and third Gospels 207-219 ^

CHAPTER IV.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST LUKE.

The matter peculiar to this Gospel :

The contents of Chapters I and II has sometimes been
supposed, as in the theories of B. Weiss and Feine, to
have been derived from the same source as the remainder
of the peculiar matter in St Luke, but without suf^cient
ground .......... 220-3

(i) The first two chapters and the Genealogy : they
were probably derived from a Greek document, of
Palestinian origin ........ 223-7

(2) The two chief insertions :

Various views to be considered as to the source

or sources of the remainder of the peculiar matter 227-8
Review of the contents of the two chief insertions . 228-230
The parables peculiar to this Gospel . . . 230-2
Alleged traces of Ebionism in this Gospel . . 232-7
The compassion of Jesus for the lost of Israel illus-
trated in this Gospel 237

(3) The remaining pieces peculiar to this Gospel . . 238-9
Conclusions as to the sources of the matter peculiar to this

Gospel 239-40

The authorship of this Gospel :

The question of the authorship of the Third Gospel is

bound up with that of the Acts 240-1

Objections to the Lucan authorship of the Acts examined

and found inconclusive ....... 242-255

The evidence for the Lucan authorship afforded by the

" we"-scctions in the Acts ...... 255-9

Table of Contents

The accurate knowledge of localities and institutions shewn
in the Acts

Two other lines of argument, similar in character but of

opposite tendency, which bear upon the question of the

authorship of the third Gospel and Acts

The alleged medical language in these writings

The alleged signs of acquaintance with the works of

Josephus ..........

The value of Luke's authentication of the truth of his record,
and the time at which he composed it ....

Additional Note :

The employment of characteristics of style, vocabulary and
thought in different portions of the Lucan writings as
a means of determining the origin of those portions
severally.

Aids for the study of the Lucan style and vocabulary
passages examined in the present note.

1. Luke's revision of his Marcan document

2. Luke's peculiar matter .....

3. The authorship of the "we"-sections in the Acts

260

260
261-3

263-274
274-5

276-7
278-290
291-312

^12-^22

CHAPTER V.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST MATTHEW.

Recapitulation of points in regard to the composition of this

Gospel which have been already decided .... 323-4

The cause of the greater brevity with which some narratives
are told in St Matthew than in the corresponding sections
of St Mark 324-6

Review of the Marcan sections omitted in St Matthew . 326-7

Review of the Discourses in St Matthew with special reference
to the matter embodied in them which is peculiar to this

Gospel Z':^l-y:>(>

The Parables in St Matthew y:}l-li¥^

An apocalypse of the Last Judgment 341-2

xii Table of Contents

PAGES

The citations from the Old Testament in St Matthew :

The two classes into which they fall .... 342-4

The source of one class appears to be a catena of fulfil-

. ments of prophecy 344-5

Its compass 345-6

The narrative of the Birth and Infancy of Jesus . . 346-7
Instances of the influence of Old Testament language

upon Gospel narratives 347

Traditions peculiar to this Gospel of which the source cannot

be indicated 347-35'

Touches due to the evangelist :

Eschatological language ....... 351-4

Titles bestowed on Jesus 354-5

Expressions in the Lord's Prayer and the account of the

Institution of the Eucharist due to liturgical use . . 355

The injunction to baptise in the Three-fold Name . . 355^9

The leading ideas in St Matthew ...... 359-363

The author of the Gospel ........ 363-7

The time of its composition ....... 367-8

Its value as a historical document 368-9

Additional Note :

A few remarks on Les Proccdcs de Redactio?i des Trots

Preiiners Eva7igclistes^ by F. Nicolardot . . . 370-1

Index 372

Table I. Comparison of the Contents and Order of the Synoptic
Gospels.

Table II. The matter common to St Matthew and St Luke which is
not derived from St Mark.

CHAPTER I.

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS : THE PRESENT POSITION
OF THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM.

In the first Part of this work I have discussed the
history of the reception which the Four Gospels met with
in the second century, and have thereby arrived at certain
conckisions in regard to the times by which they must have
been composed, the quarters whence they emanated and the
amount of authority which, on these grounds and by virtue
of the position accorded to them in the Church, they possess.
Some questions which we had to consider related to indi-
vidual Gospels, especially the fourth. Nevertheless we found
that the history of the recognition of the Fourfold Gospel had
to be regarded as a whole in order that even its parts may be
understood. In the examination, however, of the Gospels
themselves, to which we now pass, I shall group together the
first three and reserve the fourth for subsequent study. This
division of the subject will be understood at once by anyone
who is at all likely to open this volume. The remark-
able similarities between the first three Gospels in contents,
arrangement and phraseology, owing to which they have
received the name now so familiar of the Synoptic Gospels,
supply the elements of a literary problem of unusual intricacy,
but also of great interest and importance. In connexion with
the inquiry into it we shall need to bear in mind the peculiar
characteristics of the Fourth Gospel in so far only as may be
necessary for realising the contrast between it and the other
three ; for the perception of this contrast will force upon us
the conviction that the resemblances between the first three
must be due to a cause, or causes, more special than simply
the fact that their theme is the same.

But while the history of the composition of the Synoptic

S. G. II. I

2 TJie qttestion of the credibility

Gospels forms a subject by itself, the view that we are led
to take of it will at the same time have an important bearing
upon the question of the historical character of the Fourth
Gospel. For in order to estimate fairly the significance of the
difference between their and the Johannine representations
of the Person of Jesus and the course of His Ministry, it will
be necessary to ask whether their origin is such as to preclude
the probability of incompleteness, or even error, in their
accounts. I would urge this consideration upon the attention
of those in whose thoughts the question of the character of
the Fourth Gospel overshadows all other Gospel problems,
and who, perhaps not unnaturally, are becoming somewhat
weary of the discussion of the Synoptic question. But apart
from this it should be obvious that as the Synoptic Gospels
are some of our chief authorities for the Gospel history, we
cannot afford to leave any points unsettled in regard to their
relations to one another and origin, which it is reasonable
to hope might be decided by fuller investigation. Moreover,
even in the exegesis of the Gospels severally we are brought
face to face with this subject. The commentators in treating
of passages in one of them which have parallels in one or
both of the others cannot forbear from referring to those
parallels, and the question is thus raised whether this or that
difference ought to be regarded as a diverse tradition, or as
due to the feeling and reflection of one or other of the
evangelists, and consequently valuable chiefly as a very early
comment ; or again when a series of sayings is to be examined
we want to know whether their collocation is likely to be
original or the result of compilation.

It must be added, however, that our investigations in the
present Part will only serve to contribute material towards
an estimate of the historical value even of the Synoptic
Gospels. Before a final estimate can be formed it will be
necessary to enter fully into the question of the credibility
of the supernatural element in them, which I wish to refrain
from doing before the last stage of our whole inquiry. It may
seem more difficult to avoid taking account of this feature
of the Gospels in the present Part, where the contents of
three of them will come directly before us, than it was in

of the Miraculous to be deferred 3

the first Part, where we were concerned only with external
evidence. Nevertheless, there are strong reasons for thinking
that its consideration may well be, and should be, kept
separate from that of the indications of an ordinary' kind as
to the trustworthiness, or untrustworthiness, of the Gospels ;
and that after we have examined these we shall be in a
better position for forming an opinion upon it. Further,
as these- reasons apply with quite as much force to the
treatment of the Fourth Gospel as to that of the other three,
it will be most convenient to defer the subject in question
not simply to the end of the present Part but to the conclud-
ing one, when all four Gospels can be dealt with together.

The principal reasons for deferring it are the following^
First, it is coming to be recognised that miraculous stories in
an ancient writing, even if they are to be themselves rejected,
do not discredit the whole document in the way that they
were once supposed to do. If indeed we found someone in
our own or recent generations relating miraculous occurrences
we might be justified in regarding him as a man of bad faith,
or of weak judgment, and unusual credulit}', and consequently
in treating him as an untrustworthy witness even when he
made statements in themselves not improbable. Accordingly
in the eighteenth centur\', and a considerable part of the
nineteenth, deists and sceptics held that the supernatural
element in the Gospels brought suspicion upon their state-
ments generally. In so judging they failed, through the
unhistorical habit of mind then still prevalent, to make
allowance for the wide difference between their own age and
that in which the Gospels were produced. In a time when
all men, including the most highly educated and those of the
greatest sobriety of judgment, found no difficulty in believing
marvels of all sorts, a writer's testimony in regard to more
ordinary events is not prejudiced by the circumstance that he
also records miracles ; or if in any degree it is, the question
how far it should be held to be so is a delicate one. Clearly,

^ With the following remarks cp. especially Hamack, Das IVesen des
Ckristetithums, p. i6 ff., Eng. trans. IVhai is Christianity? p. 25 ff. Also
Professor Burkitt's Paper, read to the Church Congress at Liverpool in 1904,
Church Congress Report for that year, p. 130.

I — 2

4 The danger of bias

therefore, it is advisable that the evidence as to the authen-
ticity of any such record should first be examined, irrespec-
tively of the peculiar nature of portions of its contents.

A further reason for doing this lies in the fact that — as
will be far more commonly allowed now than would have
been the case even a few years ago — the connexion between
mind and body is very imperfectly understood, and that
consequently some classes at least of miracles described in
the Gospels might have happened as (in a certain sense)
natural effects of the presence of a very wonderful Personality,
Who excited faith in Himself in a remarkable degree. Room
is left on this view, to a still larger extent than on the last,
for attributing a historical character to the Gospel narratives,
should the evidence as a whole make it reasonable to do so.

Yet again, those who, on the ground of their belief in the
Divinity of Christ, would refuse to allow that what is recorded
of Him is only to be regarded as possible if it can conceivably
belong to the category of ' the natural,' may yet feel strongly
that the question how far a supernatural element is actually
to be admitted, and the hypothesis of illusion and legend
excluded, cannot be determined a priori.

But it may be said that the convictions or prepossessions
of a writer in regard to a matter of such profound interest as
the historical truth of supernatural facts, which are assumed
as the basis for the Christian Creed, must subtly influence his
reasoning in all inquiries connected therewith, even though
he may profess to decide subordinate questions on their
own merits. Certainly it is difficult to avoid being biassed,
especially in coming to a decision upon doubtful and obscure
points, by the bearing which the conclusions reached will
have upon ulterior positions. But I am convinced that there
may be bias of more than one kind and in more than one
direction, and that those who are strongly attached to the
Creed of the Christian Church are not alone in being liable
to such a fault. The best safeguard against allowing the
critical judgment to be thus affected is to be found in a strong
sense of the need that there is at the present time for
investigations from which all partiality has been excluded,
coupled with a lively realisation of the temptation in one's

Importance of right method 5

own case to some particular form of it, and the practice of
constant self-scrutiny in order to discover whether it has been
resisted.

But differences of another kind also have a large share
in determining opinions that are formed on the subjects with
which we are dealing. We hear much of scientific criticism
and its application to the history of the rise of Christianity.
The validity of the processes of science should be beyond
question and the results which it obtains sure. Yet there are
serious discrepancies in regard both to facts, theories, and
worse still, modes of argument, among those who aim at
being scientific critics. The truth is, no doubt, that the study
of history can never be made fully scientific in the sense
which the term has when used of physical inquiries, and that
in the field with which we are concerned — the history' of the
rise of the Christian Faith — the difficulties are of a kind to
put the equipment and the capacities of the investigator to
a peculiarly severe test. But the hope of clearer and more
certain knowledge and of a larger measure of agreement
cannot be relinquished even here ; — here, indeed, it would be
less possible to do so than anywhere. And I am sure that,
with a view to progress towards the attainment of these
ends, far more attention needs to be given to the question of
right critical method, the principles which should guide the
judgment, the temper and habits of mind which the inquirer
should cultivate, the kind of experience which he may find
most useful and of which he should seek to avail himself,
than these subjects have hitherto commonly received. It is
true that the discussion of method, whether in the Novum
Orgamim or subsequently, seems to have contributed little
towards the making of discoveries in physical science. But
there is this great difference between physical science and the
study of history. In the former the investigator can usually
have recourse to experiment, or (as in astronomy) to pre-
dictions which experience verifies, and these means of
ascertaining the truth of his theories are so much more
effective than all others as generally to supersede them. In
consequence of such tests being available, many a hypothesis
which seemed promising to the student when it occurred to

6 Help to be derived from studying

him never emerges, so to speak, from his laboratory, or (if it
does) speedily receives a happy despatch from other workers
and is heard of no more. On the other hand, in early
Christian history and other studies of a similar nature, the
field becomes encumbered with unsound theories, and it
takes often a long time and much labour, which might have
been more profitably expended, before criticism can dispose
of them effectually. Often they win favour at first through
their very faults, because a one-sided presentation of the facts
can be made more striking than a fuller one would be. This
is a grave counterpoise to the advantages that have at times
been derived from the publication of speculations, which have
been imperfectly tested by their authors. It is not, I think,
sufficiently felt that inasmuch as in historical criticism no
practical verification of our theories is possible, there is special
reason for carefully surveying, and considering, the legitimacy
of the grounds on which they rest. It would perhaps be
unprofitable to attempt to lay down rules of right method.
A tact, which is undefinable, in the application of sound
principles of reasoning is at least as important as the
principles themselves. But it may not be useless to insist,
that while pursuing such inquiries as we are engaged upon,
the mind ought to be constantly exercising reflection upon
its own processes*.

It has long been recognised by those who have closely
compared the first three Gospels that the resemblances
between them in regard to words and phrases, the forms of
sentences and of paragraphs, and the sequence of narratives,
are such as to shew that there must be a relationship between
them, either through the dependence of the Gospels them-
selves one upon another, or upon two others, according to the
order of their priority, or through the use of a common source
or common sources, in writing, or in the form of approxi-
mately fixed oral tradition ; or by some combination of these
various causes. And during the past 120 years or so, during

^ Dr Sanday has done good service in his work on The Criticisvi of (he
Fourth Gospel, by the stress he has there laid on the question of method. See
also Harnack, Spritche, pp. 3f., 143.

the history of the subject 7

which especially the phenomena in question have been
investigated and discussed, the most diverse explanations of
them have been proposed. In commencing the study of
a subject which has this history, it is the part of common
prudence that we should endeavour to turn to account the
experience and the labours of the past. I make this remark,
obvious as it is, because the student may not unnaturally
shrink from doing this owing to the effort which it involves,
and because there seem to me to be signs in some of the
critical work of recent times that there has not been sufficient
preparation of this kind before undertaking it, and that the
work has suffered in consequence.

I desire in this chapter to state certain conclusions which
have, I believe, been adequately established through investiga-
• tion and controversy. In framing them I have had regard to
the most salient facts, or most impressive groups of facts, to
which attention has been drawn by discussion, rather than to
shades of difference between theories. Where two interpre-
tations of classes of facts agree to a considerable extent,
I have allowed for them in the same proposition as alterna-
tives, in order to draw attention to their common element,
which in general corresponds, as might be expected, to the
clearest part of the evidence. As propositions defining in
a guarded manner the inferences which may most surely be
draw^i from the facts, they would, there can be little doubt,
command the assent of a decided majority of critics at the
present day. I am well aware that they would not command
universal assent ; and in justifying my statements it will be
necessary for me to meet arguments adverse to them which
are employed by writers, some living and some belonging to
quite recent times, whose opinions are entitled to respect.
I shall give reasons in every case ; but it will be suitable
to give them succinctly on points which have been much
debated and where a large amount of agreement has been
attained. In laying such stress on the agreement of critics,
I would not be thought to imply that I would ask anyone to
accept the conclusions without independent examination-
But if we put any confidence at all in the faculties of the
human mind, we must feel confirmed in our own views when

8 Theories as to a

we find that they are in accord with those of a large number
of persons highly qualified to judge.

But in addition to these well-assured results — for such
I am convinced they are — of long and full inquiries, there are
other points as to which much fuller investigation appears
still to be required. These I shall indicate in the present
chapter with a view to their being discussed in the sequel.
By thus distinguishing between positions which have been
already made good and the work that remains to be accom-
plished, we shall learn how to employ our own labour to the
best advantage.

I. As the first ascertained point let me state that
the phenomena of relatiojiship between the Synoptic Gospels
cannot be explained as the result merely of translation from
a Hebrew, or Aramaic, source. The similarities of phrase
are such as requir'e 7is to suppose connexions through Greek
sources.

In recent times, as well as in the early days of Gospel
criticism, some have attempted to get behind our Greek
Gospels to one or more Semitic documents used in them. It
has not been my intention in what I have just asserted to
rule such inquiries out of court, and the guarded statement
which I have made above will be readily accepted, I believe,
by most of those who engage in them. But the amount of
verbal agreement between the three Synoptics, and between
St Matthew and St Luke throughout considerable portions
of the matter contained in both of them but not in St Mark,
is far too great to be accounted for as the result of the
accidental choice of the same expressions by different trans-
lators. This may be held, perhaps, to have been settled once
for all when Eichhorn, who had at first maintained that in our
Synoptic Gospels we possess three independent translations
made by the evangelists themselves, or by others, from more
or less expanded and altered editions of a primitive Aramaic
Gospels felt himself compelled afterwards to supplement this
view by the supposition that the three translators, though
not directly dependent one upon another, had nevertheless all

^ See his Allgemeine Bibliothek der biblischen Literatitr, YA. 5, p. 784, pub.
1794-

Semitic Source 9

used the same older translation in order to shorten their own
labour^

But the above proposition is not an otiose one. Even
when facts are not denied, their significance may be ignored.
And so it appears to me that those who of late have been
much occupied with attempts to trace in our Gospels the
effects of diversity of translation from a Semitic source, have
often considered too little how the question of the interpreta-
tion of the evidence on which they lay stress is affected by
the signs of relationship through Greek in the Gospels
generally. Herein the chief interest and importance at the
present time of the proposition at the head of this section
will be found to lie. And a few reflections now upon this
point may serve to render clear the course to be pursued in
this work, and to lighten future discussion.

Let me premise that I do not desire to see the Synoptic
question restricted so rigorously as some still think it should
be, or as for a long period, which ended only a few years
ago, it practically was, to an investigation of the relationship
of Greek documents*. I hold that it has been sometimes too
readily assumed that where a Semitic original existed, our
evangelists knew only one and the same translation of it.
There is at least one important case in which, as it seems to
me, some of the phenomena are to be explained by the use of
different versions — that of the discourse in St Matthew
commonly called the Sermon on the Mount, and its Lucan
parallels

But there are such strong reasons for thinking that the
same Greek sources were used in large portions of the Gospels,
that we are bound in the first instance to consider how far
the hypothesis of the use of these Greek sources will carry
us. And there is a presumption in favour of attributing
differences between parallel passages in the Gospels, wherever

^ Eittleitung in das N.T. 2te Ausg. 1820, Bd. i, p. 161 ff.

^ P. Wernle confines the Synoptic question to this ; consequently the study of
Aramaic forms of thought and speech are, according to him, in place only in
connexion with the origin and historj' of the Gospel tradition, which he regards as
a wholly distinct subject {Die Synoptische Frage, pp. v, vi). Cp. to the same
effect H. J. Holtzmann, Hand. -com. zitm N. T. I. p. vi.

^ See below, p. 80 ff.

10 Theories as to a

this can reasonably be done, to a certain freedom to which
the evangelists felt entitled in their use of these common
sources, and in which their varieties of taste and of purpose
were displayed, instead of assuming the collateral use of
a Semitic original, or of a multiplicity of versions of it,
whose very existence is doubtful, and the knowledge of them
by the evangelists still more so, and thus increasing the
elaborateness and artificiality of the supposed process of
composition. I will proceed to illustrate the bearing of these
remarks by a few criticisms on recent writers.

A. Resch has made an elaborate study, not only of
divergences between parallel passages in the Gospels, but also
of textual variations, and of the different forms in which
Sayings of Christ that appear to be in reality the same are
given, whether in the Gospels, the Epistles and other writings
of the New Testament, or by early Christian writers outside
the Canon ; and he has suggested Hebrew words and phrases
which, through independent rendering, might have given rise
to these differences^ Now objection may obviously be taken
to the soundness of an inquiry in which a single cause is
assumed without regard to other possibilities. He should
have compared other explanations which may be given of the
differences to which he draws attention. It is evident that in
many cases the same expression which might be preferred as
a better translation might also, partly on tlie same grounds of
taste, be preferred by an editor, where the question of correct
translation did not enter. Again, differences due ultimately
to translation might have appeared first in various forms of
Greek oral tradition, and in this way have affected writers
who had not a Semitic document before them, and perhaps
could not have used one.

What I wish, however, specially to lay stress upon in
connexion with Resch's investigations is the unsatisfactory
relation in which they stand to the Synoptic question
generally. He starts from certain positions which have been
arrived at by the employment of the ordinary methods of
Gospel criticism, and presents the results of his own in-
quiries into the traces of a Semitic Gospel as a testing and

* Agrapha, 1889; Aussercanonische Paralleltexle, Pts. I., II., III., 1893 — 5.

Semitic Source ii

confirmation of those previous conclusions^ This would seem
to be practically equivalent to an admission that the value of
the inferences to be drawn from such facts as he adduces
must depend largely upon their agreement with views already
rendered probable by a surer method. And for a portion of
Resch's presuppositions in regard to Gospel sources it may
justly be claimed that they have come to be widely held, but
unfortunately not for the whole of them by any means. He
adopts the theory of B. Weiss as to a primitive document
containing not only Sayings and Discourses of Jesus, but
a considerable number of narratives, and he would extend
the amount of matter of this kind beyond the point that
Weiss does. And, further, he assumes with Weiss that in
the composition of St Mark, as well as of St Matthew and
St Luke, this primitive document was used both for Sayings
of Christ, and for not a few of the narratives-. But these are
all very questionable hypotheses. The last, as to Mark's use
of this primitive (Semitic) Gospel, is so especially. Resch,
writing in 1889, confessed that it had still to win its way to
general acceptance, though he was confident that it would do
so. But it has not as yet succeeded in doing so, and we shall
presently see that it has exceedingly little to recommend it ;
while it is open to serious objections^. The moral which I
would draw is that inquiries such as those of Resch can
properly take only a strictly subordinate place in the general
investigation and consideration of the problem of the Gospel
sources.

Again, Dr E. A.Abbott thinks that instances of erroneous
translation of particular words and phrases in the LXX.
furnish a clue whereby to distinguish errors of translation in
St Mark which were corrected in the two other Synoptics ; and
from these indications he infers that behind all three Gospels
there lay a document, which was written, as he maintains, in
Biblical Hebrew*. First, I must point out, as I have done in

^ See Agrapha, § 5, p. 27 f. ; Aussercan. Paralleltexte, i. § 9, p. 152 f.

^ A. Resch, Agrapha, pp. 27 — 8 ; Aussercan. Paralleltexte, II. § 3, p. 12 f.

^ For the writings in which B. Weiss has maintained this theory, and for the
names of some of his adherents see pp. 49, n. 3, 109, n. i.

* Clue, A Guide through Greek to Hebrew Scripture, 1900 ; The Corrections of
Mark adopted by Matthew and Luke, 1901.

12 Theories as to a

criticising Resch, and in my general remarks on the class of
theories we are now considering, that it is not enough to shew
that certain phenomena might have arisen in a certain way ;
this does not prove that they even probably did arise thus,
unless we have looked round and assured ourselves that no
other equally good or better account can be given of them.
The instances adduced by Dr Abbott in support of his
theory, which are of any force, appear to me to be few in
number, and to count for little when viewed in connexion
with the phenomena of the Gospels generally. Yet on such
evidence he proposes to build a peculiarly plain and certain
demonstration \ It is to be observed that he is not conscious,
as Resch undoubtedly is, that such means of inquiry as he
employs are unlikely to prove serviceable unless the investi-
gator takes care to be guided by indications as to the sources
and composition of the Gospels which are supplied to him by
other methods of criticism-. Further, his view of the way in
which translation has affected the form of the Gospels com-
pares unfavourably with Resch's, because the use of the original
which he supposes is of a more artificial kind. Among
Christians of the latter half of the first century there was
no such desire for verbal accuracy in the Gospel records,
especially in the case of narratives — to which (as well as to
Sayings of Christ) Dr Abbott often applies his principle —
as would have led our first and third evangelists to turn to
a Hebrew document used in St Mark (supposing such to have
existed) in order to correct it in points of detail. In the case
of the Old Testament, in spite of the fact that its verbal
inspiration had long been an established tenet, attempts were
not made to correct the errors of the LXX. till a later time,
either by Jews or Christians, and then chiefly (it would seem)
in consequence of the use of the LXX. by Christians in con-
troversy with Jews. Moreover, any persons sufficiently well
acquainted with the original language to make corrections
would scarcely have confined their alterations to the few

^ See the extraordinary passage, Clite, p. xviii f.

- Dr Abbott is quite heedless of all such considerations. He even assumes a
Hebrew document used in common by the fourth evangelist and the three
Synoptics. See Clue, IV. § 3.

Semitic Source 13

instances which can with plausibility be explained in this
way, and have retained so largely in the same contexts the
words of their less skilful predecessor.

I pass to Wellhausen. It is a special and valuable feature
of his recently published commentaries on the Synoptic
Gospels, that he points out Aramaisms. It must always be
a matter of interest in studying the Gospels to observe signs
of the Semitic background, whether we are concerned with
exegesis, or with the question of sources. But in the latter
connexion, more particularly in the case of a narrator such as
Mark, we have to consider whether we have to do with
a somewhat literal translation from a Semitic document, or
with a writer who is to a large extent (it may be) reproducing
narratives which he had heard told in Aramaic, and to whom
it was natural to think in Aramaic though he has written in
Greek, while the dialect of Greek which he employed had
itself also been previously affected by Semitic forms. My com-
plaint against Wellhausen is that he ignores these distinctions,
and that while he implies more or less plainly in various
places that the instances of Aramaic forms of thought and
expression which he adduces are signs of translation from an
Aramaic document, they might be equally well accounted for
in one or other of the remaining ways which I have men-
tioned \ And the question which of these views is right is an
important one in connexion with the problem of the origin of
the Gospels.

Objections the same as, or similar to, those which I have
urged in the case of the three last-named writers, also lie
against the inferences as to the sources of the Gospels which

^ E.g., stQ Das Erang. Marci, n. lo; vi. 8; vni. 29. Cp. his Skizze/i und
Vorarbcitcn, VI. pp. 1S8 — 194. He there speaks of "the Aramaic foundations"
which may be discerned as remnants glimmering through "the Greek of the
Gospels,"' and that in truth not only in the Logia passages. And again of "the
traces of the Aramaic originals of the Gospels."

More recently he has discussed the question of a written Aramaic original of
the Gospels in his Eiiileitiing in die Drei Ersten Evangelien, 1905, pp. 35 — 8,
though still very inadequately. The i&w instances on which he builds his case for
such an original of St Mark are such as can well be explained by the effects
of oral translation. The question of a written Aramaic source of the matter
common to our first and third Gospels but not in St Mark, is an entirely different
one.

14 Chris fs Teaching was in all probability

J. T. Marshall^, Merx^, F. Blass^, and R. A. Hoffmann* have
drawn from the Aramaisms and Hebraisms which they
contain. On the other hand it is satisfactory to observe
that the precariousness of such inferences as to sources, and
the caution that is needed in regard to the whole subject, are
fully recognised and insisted upon by G. Dalman, who has
specially addressed himself to the task of recovering the form
and precise force of the Sayings of Jesus in the language in
which they were spoken, and who is eminently fitted by his
linguistic equipment for the work^

Thus far I have said nothing on the difference of view
which has come before us as to the Semitic language in
which the supposed primitive record was composed. The
criticisms which I wished to make did not turn on this point.
But it will be suitable to add a few remarks upon it at this
place. I cannot but think it to be far the most probable that
at any rate the language of a record which consisted largely of
the Teaching of Jesus would be Aramaic, not Hebrew. It is
an accepted fact that a dialect of Aramaic was the language
spoken in Galilee*^. We cannot indeed doubt that Jesus
must have read and deeply pondered the Old Testament for
Himself and must thus have become familiar with Hebrew.
There is some force also in Resch's contention that the people
generally would be able to understand more Hebrew than

^ " The Aramaic Gospel," articles in the Expositor in 1891 and 1892. Prof.
Marshall's work is unsatisfactory on other grounds besides those indicated above.
See the Critique by W. C. Allen and S. R. Driver, Expositor for 1893. See also
G. Dalman's judgment, Die IVorte Jesu, p. 49, Eng. trans, p. 61 f.

2 On Merx's views see H.J. Holtzmann'sart. "Die AMarcus-controverse \n ihrer
heutigen Gestalt," in Archiv f. Religioiiswissejischaft, x. p. 20, n. 6.

^ '^QQ Philology of the Gospels, p. 210 ff., and N.T. Graintnar, Eng. trans.
p. 203, n. 2.

* Das Marctisevangeliiitn ttnd seine Qudlen. Hoffmann pursues his theme —
the attribution of differences between parallel passages in the Gospels and of
textual variations in the same passages to diversity of translation — through 644
large octavo pages. His line of argument is peculiarly incomplete and uninteresting,
because he does not suggest the original expressions of which he supposes the
different Greek ones to be renderings. I cannot pretend to have read more of his
work than sufficed to shew me his method.

' See his Introduction in Die IVorteJesu, especially §§ 3 — 7.

® Dalman adds that there is no reason to suppose anything different in regard
to Judaea [ib. p. 6, Eng. trans, p. 7).

preserved in Aramaic 15

they would have been masters of for purposes of conversation ;
and further that Hebrew words and expressions which they
were accustomed to hear in the passages from the Scriptures
read in the Synagogues would have had peculiarly solemn
and impressive associations for their ears, and might for that
reason have been employed by Jesus. It is quite possible
that He may occasionally have introduced such phrases in
His Teaching. Yet it is evident that when the Targums
began to take shape, and the directions contained in the
Talmud were given regarding the interpretation in Aramaic
of the passages from the Hebrew Scriptures read in the
Synagogues, any teacher who desired to be generally and
fully understood must have spoken mainly Aramaic. There
is no reason to suppose that the circumstances of our
Lord's time were different in this respect. And it is most
unlikely that disciples who had heard His words uttered in
this language, and who were themselves accustomed to speak
it, and were addressing those who spoke it, would alter their
form. Nor is it probable that any great change in this respect
would be made when they were written down\ though the
Hebraic element may have been increased in some degree from
considerations of style. Some Hebraisms, as distinct from
Aramaisms, found in the Gospels may be due to this cause.
On the other hand Dalman seems more inclined to attribute
them to the influence of the LXX. upon evangelists writing
in Greek, and he points out that they are specially common
in St Luke I I would, however, add that the question
whether Luke may not in his first two chapters, where
Hebraisms are specially abundant, have used a document
which was originally written in Hebrew, not Aramaic, is
quite a distinct question from that of the language in which
a primitive record of the Teaching of Jesus was composed.

The extent to which Greek was spoken in Palestine is
another of the linguistic conditions which should be borne in
mind in connexion with the history of the composition of the
Gospels. It will not be necessar)^ for me to refute the opinion

^ On the probability that such a primitive record was in Aramaic not Hebrew,
cp. Dalman, ib. Introd. §§ 5, 6.

* Dalman, ib. pp. ■29 — 34 (Eng. trans, pp. 36 — 42).

1 6 Aramaic and Greek in Palestine

which was formerly received with some favour that both
Greek and Aramaic were generally understood throughout
Palestine in the time of Christ, the latter being the language
of homely and familiar intercourse, while the former was
customarily employed on public occasions and in religious
instruction, so that it would be natural for Christ to use it,
and that He in fact did so\ It may be doubted whether any
country was ever bilingual in the sense that the masses of the
population in all parts were masters of two languages. It is
not in this sense that Wales, for instance, or Brittany, can
even now be called bilingual in spite of the primary schools.
In Palestine three districts, Judaea, Galilee and Peraea, were
occupied by a Jewish population which spoke Aramaic.
Most of them might know a few Greek words and phrases,
picked up in their intercourse with strangers with whom they
had traded ; but a few only who had resided abroad, or who
had been brought into close contact with high Roman officials,
or with the court of Herod, where doubtless Greek was in
common use, can have understood or been able to speak that
language well. The Ministry of Christ was confined to this
distinctively Jewish region ; and within it the first commu-
nities of believers in Him were formed. But this central
portion of the land was well-nigh surrounded by a belt of
Greek cities and their territories ; and it is a significant cir-
cumstance that thus within Palestine itself, from the moment
that the new faith began to be carried beyond its original
borders, the necessity arose for setting forth in Greek the
Christian Way of Salvation and the facts of the Gospel.

It will be im.portant for us presently to consider how the
tradition, or traditions, which must have begun to be formed
in Greek from a very early time, were related to those
delivered in the Aramaic-speaking Church, and what has
been here said is a preparation for this.

II. In the proposition at the head of the last section one
mode which has been tried of explaining the phenomena

^ This view was first put forward by Isaac Voss. In recent times it has been
pertinaciously maintained by Professor A. Roberts. See his Discussions on the
Gospels, I St edition, 1862 ; Greek, the Language of Christ and His Apostles,
1888. For a refutation of it see Neubauer, Studia Biblica for 1885, p. 39 fif., and
Schurer, Pt. II. § 22.

Inadequacy of the Oral Theory 17

of the Gospels is pronounced insufficient ; I must pass a
similar verdict upon another, which has had even greater
vogue, in my next proposition which is this :

The relations between the first three Gospels cannot be
adequately explained simply by the influence of oral traditioti.

Among writers on the Synoptic problem not only in
Germany but also in England there is now a very large
amount of agreement as to the untenableness of the Oral
Theory of the origin of the Gospels^ But it is probable that
especially in England there are still many persons interested
in Biblical studies who adhere to it, or who will at least want
to know the reasons why it should be rejected. It was
maintained in the books on the Gospels most widely read in
England a few years ago, and several of which are still, and

^ The following English writers may be mentioned among others : Sanday,
Expositor for 1891, i. p. 180 flf. Sir J. C. Hawkins, Expository Times, vol. XIV.
p. 18 f. See also ib. xv. p. 12 ■2, and as to another common document, ib. vol.
XII. p. 76 (he expresses himself somewhat ambiguously in Horae Synopticae, p. 42,
n. 2). Dr Armitage Robinson, The Pilot for June, 1900 (he shews what he thinks
in his little book on The Study of the Gospels in Handbooks for the Clergy by the
fact that he does not even allude to the Oral Theory). F. C. Burkitt, The Gospel
History and its Transmission, 1906, p. 34 ff. Dr E. A. Abbott, who in his
article in the 9th edition of Encyclopaedia Bntantiica seemed to leave the question
open, plainly assumes the use of written documents in his Clue. Salmon, Introduc-
tion to N.T. ch. ix. p. 159 ff. , ist edition 1885, replies effectively to one of the chief
arguments of the advocates of the Oral Theory, and appears to incline to the view
that the common source was documentary and not simply oral. In the Human
Element in the Gospels there are passages in which he seems to adopt that theory
himself, see pp. 27, 74; but there are many others to the opposite effect (e.g.
pp. 71, 223). It is with reluctance that I have drawn attention to these incon-
sistencies in a work of such a veteran scholar, which he had not the opportunity
of revising. But I feared that, if I did not, I might be accused of misrepresenting
him.

Dr Wright says {Synopsis, 2nd edition, p. x) "Bishop Westcott maintained to the
last that it was the only satisfactory solution of the problem." I suppose he refers
to the fact that successive editions of his Introduction to the Study of the Gospels
were published from which it appeared that his position in regard to the Synoptic
problem remained unchanged. But I am not aware that he wrote anything fresh
upon it, and he never lectured on it during the twenty years of his Cambridge
professoriate. He had become engrossed in other subjects, and there is reason to
think that he never seriously reconsidered this question after the publication of the
second (ox first full) edition in i860. The text and the notes of chapter iii. (on
" The Origin of the Gospels ") remained substantially unchanged in all subsequent
editions.

S. G. II. 2

1 8 Inadequacy of the Oral Theory

for good reasons are likely to continue to be, in common use\
And at the present time Dr A. Wright, who has rendered
valuable service in the promotion of the study of the Gospels
by his Synopsis, has in the Introduction to it and in other
writings- argued vigorously in its defence.

I think, therefore, it will not be superfluous for me to
state as concisely as I can the chief objections to it, especially
as recent writers who have declared against it have either
refrained altogether from giving the reasons why it is un-
satisfactory, or at most have indicated them very slightly.

It must first be noticed that the Oral Theory, in the form
in which it has been generally held, does not seem fully
satisfactory to Dr A. Wright himself, and that a modification
in part resembling his has also been put forward by a German
writer. It used to be said that a common form of oral
Gospel arose as the joint result of the teaching, interchange
of thought and experience, and influence upon one another,
of the twelve Apostles during the first stage of the Church's
life. " They remained together," Dr Westcott writes, " at
Jerusalem in close communion for a period long enough to
shape a common narrative, and to fix it with the requisite
consistency^" They and other evangelists adhered to this
common form in their missionary work in different parts of
the world, though at times expanding or otherwise adapting
it. And so " the original oral Gospel, definite in general
outline and even in language, was committed to writing in
the lapse of time in various special shapes, according to the
typical forms which it assumed in the preaching of diff'erent
Apostles. It is probable that this oral Gospel existed from
the first both in Aramaic and in Greeks"

^ Besides Westcott's Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, I may memion the
Prolegomena to vol. I. of Alford's Commentary, Bishop Alexander's Leading
Ideas of the Gospels, Godet's Commentary on St Luke. A more recent commen-
tary on St Luke in which it is adopted is that of Dr Plummer in the International
Series.

"^ The Composition of the Four Gospels, 1890, Some New Testament Problems,
1898, and St Luke in Greek, 1900.

* lb. p. 171.

* lb. p. 192. I have quoted from Westcott as one of the latest representatives
of the theory in its original form. Gieseler, the author of the theory, writes

Inadequacy of the Oral Theory 19

G. Wetzel, however, the German writer to whom I have
alkided above, while he holds that the same person in often
repeating the same narrative will fall into a stereotyped way
of doing so, observes that it is impossible to conceive how the
modes of narration of different persons should have con-
tributed to form a fixed type ^ Accordingly he supposes
that it fell to the lot of one Apostle in particular to instruct
Hellenistic Jews who visited Jerusalem, in regard to the facts
of the life of Jesus, of which they, more than residents in
Palestine, needed to be informed. For reasons which do not
appear to be weighty and which it is unnecessary here to
state, Wetzel imagines Matthew to have been the Apostle
upon whom this duty devolved. As fresh people came he
had to go over old ground again and again. Ere long
through habit his selection of pieces and the words and the
order in which he gave them became approximately fixed.
His hearers impressed what he told them upon their memories
as accurately as possible in order to be able to repeat it
to others when they departed to their own homes. " Doubt-
less, however," he adds, " many of them made short notes
during the instructions, or immediately after them, to aid their
memories." Out of their notes and reminiscences of Matthew's
lectures, many — the " many " of Luke's Preface — compiled
accounts of the life of Christ, in which some of them also

to much the same effect {Die Enlstehung und die friihesten Schicksale der schrift-
lichen Evangelien, 1818, §§ 6 — 8). He also grapples somewhat more closely with
the question how the fixed form would be preserved. He thinks that disciples of
the Apostles from often hearing them deliver it would naturally have it imprinted
upon their memories. He is against supposing any express learning by heart.
"Ein mechanisches Auswendiglernen der Erzahlungen, welches mit der Be-
geisterung jener Zeit einen zu schneidenden Contrast bilden wiirde, darf man
deshalb noch nicht annehmen," p. 106.

^ Die Syrioptisc hen Evangelien, 1883, p. 9, " Wie die EizAMungen versc/iieckner
Personen allmahlich in einen gemeinsamen Erzahlungstypus zusammengeflossen
sein sollen, ist unvorstellbar." Dr Edersheim drew the attention of English
students to this work in Studia Biblica, I. p. 75 ff.

K. Veit {Die Synoptischen Para Helen und ein alter Versuch ikrer Eutriit setting
mit netier Begriindiing, 1897) also defends the Oral Theory. The main improve-
ment upon Gieseler's statement of it which he suggests is that more stress should
be laid on the analogy between the Oral Law among the Rabbis and the Oral
Gospel among the early Christians, and thatj Christ's own instruction of His
disciples should be supposed to have been given on the Rabbinic plan.

2 — 2

20 Inadequacy of the Oral Theory

variously inserted pieces which they had derived from other
Apostles. The similarities and differences of our three
Synoptic Gospels are to be explained in this way^

Dr A. Wright, again, tells us that he would " be the first
to admit that the correspondences between the Synoptists are
too numerous and too minute to be accounted for by oral
teaching," unless " formal lessons " are meant thereby, " which
his (Peter's) catechumens committed to memory^." St Peter,
according to him, began this work of instruction in Jerusalem,
teaching in Aramaic ; Mark acted as his interpreter there
to those who only understood Greek. Thus arose the first
oral source which was carried to other Churches by those
who had thoroughly learnt it and had so become fitted to be
themselves catechists. In Jerusalem, side by side with this
Petrine-Marcan narrative, another collection of matter was
formed, the Matthaean Logia. These were similarly trans-
mitted, though subsequently to the tradition before mentioned,
to Churches among the Gentiles, in a more or less extended
form '.

These changes in the Oral Theory have, I cannot doubt,
been felt to be required in consequence of that fuller view,
which has been obtained in process of time, of the facts to be
explained. Nevertheless, the theory has thus been deprived
of that appearance of simplicity which it possessed in its
earlier form, and which was its great charm, especially as
contrasted with the earlier theories of the use of common
documents or of interdependence, such as those of Eichhorn
and Griesbach. Wetzel's hypothesis, indeed, is not open so
largely to the charge of artificiality as Dr Wright's is, but he
escapes it by calling in the aid of writing to account for the
preservation of the same form in the transmission of the
original Gospel from Jerusalem to different parts of the world.
Dr Wright's supposition of an elaborate system of catechizing
and of schools of catechists may, so far as Palestine is
concerned, be partially justified by the precedent of the

1 lb. p. 143 ff.

- Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek, 2nd edition, p. xiv.
^ Co7Hposition of the Gospels, p. 62 ff.

hiadeqiiacy of the Oral Theoiy 21

Rabbinic schools, and the habits of mind of the East generally
which made learning by heart natural. But it fits ill with the
conditions prevailing in the mixed communities of Grecian
Jews and Gentiles in the Graeco-Roman world. Here as
soon as the need was felt for adopting measures to preserve
unaltered the contents and arrangement of the tradition, it
would be obvious to have recourse to writing^

We are concerned at present not with establishing any
particular documentary theory but with shewing the inade-
quacy of the Oral Theory. Nevertheless, it will add very
greatly to the clearness of our discussion if we have at least
the outlines of a definite documentary theory before our
minds, so that we may compare it with the oral. And
fortunately the documentary theory which I would desire
to bring into competition with the oral one is based on the
same general grouping of the phenomena, and up to a certain
point interprets them also in the same way, as the Oral
Theory does. Hence the comparison will be simple and
direct. The Oral Theory acknowledges, though partly in
a sense of its own, the priority of St Mark ; that is to say,
it holds that this Gospel corresponds most nearly in its
contents and form to the earliest oral Gospel, which has also
indeed been retained in the two other Synoptics, but which is
there enlarged in two different ways by the introduction of
other matter. I shall suppose on the other hand, in general
accordance with the so-called "'two-document theory," that
St Mark, or a document used and most nearly represented
in St Mark, has been to a large extent reproduced in the
two others, and that the additional matter included in them
has been derived from another document, or from sources
having some documentary connexion with one another.

^ The argument, it would seem, on which Dr Wright reUes for shewing why
this was not done, is that " the possession of documents might lead to torture and
death, but no one could discover or erase the treasure of the heart." Synopsis, ib.
p. xiv ; cp. St Luke's Gospel in Greek, p. x. But there is no reason whatever to
think that there would have been any special danger connected with the possession
of written Christian records in the Apostolic Age, or for long afterwards. Besides
it is clear that, if it existed, it did not deter men from committing the Gospel
history to writing a few years later than the time of which Dr Wright is
speaking.

2 2 Inadequacy of the Oral Theory

It is with an explanation of the facts somewhat of this
kind that the advocates of the Oral Theory have mainly to
reckon. There was a time when the diversity of documentary
hypotheses that had been put forward could be appealed
to in order to shew that the Synoptic problem could not be
solved by such a methods But this argument has in great
degree lost its force owing to the growth of agreement as
to the documentary sources. Now, on the oral hypothesis, it
is necessary to assume that the common outline of the Gospel
narrative could be carried to and preserved in places widely
removed from one another, with but little change in the order
of a long series of sections, and to a large extent in the same
words, although the general form, at all events, and the
descriptive portions possessed none of the sacredness of
a book that had come to be regarded as inspired, and in
spite of the fact that the oral tradition was still undergoing
expansion.

This last is a point which deserves special attention. The
earlier form of the Oral Theory breaks down conspicuously,
as it seems to me, from its failure to explain the absence
from St Mark of the additional matter common to St Matthew
and St Luke ; while Dr Wright's form also, as well as the
earlier one, breaks down from its inability to give a natural
account of the way in which this matter came to be combined
with the common outline in those two Gospels in the manner
it is, and without causing more disturbance to that outline
than it has done. This additional matter consists mainly
of Christ's Teaching and is of the highest interest and value.
We should certainly have expected that it would be included
in the contents of the oral Gospel which was everywhere
to be taught, if these contents were agreed upon in Jerusalem
by the Twelve before their separation. It is strange that
Gieseler and those who adopted his view did not perceive
this; and also that they did not feel the necessity of explaining
how, notwithstanding its original omission, the matter in
question was handed on till it was embodied — as to the
position given it quite differently, yet much of it in almost

^ E.g. see Westcott, hitrodiiction, p. 201.

Inadeqttacy of the Oral Theory 23

exactly the same form — in the traditions represented in
St Matthew and St Luke.

Dr Wright avoids some difficulties which here suggest
themselves by supposing that two traditions circulated
separately from a very early time, one that represented in
St Mark, the other consisting chiefly of the Sayings of Christ.
He makes Jerusalem the home of them both, where he
imagines them to have existed " side by side in friendly
rivalry^" This is surely most unnatural ; they could hardly
have been kept from being intermingled if taught in the same
Christian community. But to urge this particular point
against him would be simply an argumentum ad ho7ninem,
because I believe that a better account can be given of the
way in which the two traditions may probably have originated
within the oral period-.

But it is upon the way in which the Sayings of Jesus have
been combined with the Synoptic outline that I desire to fix
attention. So long as a collection of them merely existed in
the form of an oral tradition, it could only be transmitted to
and learnt in different Christian communities piece by piece,
and so be gradually incorporated in the tradition which had
been previously current. And this is in point of fact what
Dr Wright supposes. But the actual disposition of the
matter in question in both our first and our third Gospels
is not what would have been likely to result from such a
process. There are too many signs of intentional and skilful
arrangement. Luke resolved, apparently, to keep this
additional matter separate. He has given it in three portions.
The matter relating to the preaching of the Baptist and to
the Temptation he has naturally placed before the commence-
ment of Christ's Ministry; the next portion he has inserted
immediately after the appointment and list of the Twelve,
the third and longest on Christ's departure from Galilee when
He had ended His Ministry there. In each of the two latter
some matter peculiar to St Luke has also been included. In
St Matthew, on the other hand, narratives from St Mark and
pieces of non-Marcan matter are much more intermingled
in the account of the early part of Christ's Ministry. But

1 Synopsis, p. xxvi. 2 See below, pp. 61 ff., 130 fif.

24 Inadequacy of the Oral Theory

in the arrangement there are clear signs of a design to exhibit
from the outset the character of His Teaching as well as His
power as a worker of miracles^. It is to be observed, also,
that with pieces from St Mark others have been united which
were of similar purport, and seemed to belong to the same
occasions, and that nearly the whole of the Teaching of Jesus
given in this Gospel has been collected in a few more or less
well-constructed discourses, each of which has a distinct aim
and character'^ These facts can be naturally explained only
if we suppose that our first and third evangelists each had
both the Marcan outline and the additional matter, or a
considerable portion of it, lying before him in a written form,
when he set about combining them, so that he could frame
a plan how best to introduce the latter into the former and
could systematically carry out his plan.

Further, it is highly improbable that, if the original
outline was known simply as an oral tradition, the sequence
of its sections could, when additions were made, have remained
so little altered as we see it to have been on comparing
St Matthew and St Luke with St Mark. Again and again,
after the introduction of other matter, the thread of the
common order is resumed at the point at which it had been
left. This would be natural enough if the evangelists had
a written source to which they recurred ; but if they were
depending upon memory the natural effect of the working
of the laws of association would be that when some fresh
incident or piece of Teaching was recalled the old order of
thought would be more or less extensively disturbed^

^ These statements can be readily verified by Table I. at the end of this vol.

^ Their structure will come before us partly in the next chapter and still more
fully in ch. v.

2 Dr Wright suggests (Synopsis, p. xvii) that the accepted order was clung to in
oral repetition to aid the memory. But even if it were granted that the Christians
of the first generation are likely to have perceived the advantages of a Memoria
technica, the supposition would hardly seem to be consistent with that kind of
combination of order with departures therefrom to which I have referred. Dr
Wright also suggests that the oral Gospel was divided into Church Lessons, one
for every Sunday in the year, and that Luke, and I suppose also other catechists,
were thus assisted in preserving the original order of sections {St Luke's Gospel,
p. xi). This is a more astonishing anachronism even than that referred to p. 21,
n. I. How could such a division be made while the current tradition was still

Inadequacy of the Oral Theory 25

I have laid stress thus far on the close similarity of order
between the three Gospels, so far at least as the contents
comprised in the shortest of them are concerned. It is much
easier to obtain a comprehensive and correct view as to the
extent of their correspondence in this respect^ than in respect
to all the details of phraseology and mode of presentation
throughout their parallel sections. Nevertheless this latter
class of facts, also, demands attention. In examining simi-
larities and differences of phraseology we must distinguish
between the Words of Christ and the narrative portions of
the Gospel history. There would be special reason for aiming
at verbally exact reproduction in the former case, whether
oral tradition or writing were the means employed. But it
may well be doubted whether such close agreement as we
actually find in a large proportion of the parallel passages
which give the Teaching of Jesus could have been secured
through oral tradition. Both the individual Sayings and

in process of expansion ? Moreover, in the account of public worship by Justin
nearly loo years later, there is no trace of such a table of lessons. " The prophets
and the Apostolic Memoirs were," he tells us, "read so far as time permitted"
{Apol. I. 67).

Among his grounds for maintaining the Oral Theory, Dr Wright lays special
stress upon the fact that Luke omits many of the names of persons and places
given in St Mark. He contends that Luke would not have done this if he had
had St Mark before him in a written form, because he shews that he valued such
details, which, as a good historian, he could not fail to do {New Testament
Problems, p. 63 f., and St Luke's Gospel in Greek, p. xi). It might be sufficient
to reply that no one is perfectly consistent, and that an inclination to give such
details might often be overborne by other considerations. But in point of fact it is
one thing to give details which connect incidents that are related with the general
course of history, or with well-known persons, as Luke shews himself anxious to
do; quite another to bring in names that would be wholly unfamiliar to the
readers addressed, and may well have been so also to the evangelist himself. It
might well seem to him, for instance, suitable to write "a certain blind man sat by
the way begging" in place of "the son of Timaeus, Bartimaeus, a blind beggar,
sat by the way." When he does bring in names of places or persons that would
be unknown he frequently does so apologetically, adding "called" (e.g. "a city
called Nain," vii. 11 ; cp. ix. 10, xix. 2, xxiii. 33, A. i. 12, xxvii. 8, 16) or "by
name" (i. 5, x. 38, xxiii. 50, etc.). And when he omits such names altogether he
is not untrue to his character as a historical writer. It is the oral narrator rather
than the writer who needs to use proper names of persons however obscure and in
themselves unimportant, especially in narrating to children and simple people, in
order to make his story clear and to impress it upon the memory.

1 See Table I.

26 Inadequacy of the Oral Theory

longer pieces of Teaching given in St Mark reappear in St
Matthew with exceedingly little variation on the whole. In
two instances he gives a form of saying which has a different
dogmatic effect^ and in a third- he has substituted, as the
reply to the same question, a similar though different answer,
consisting of a saying to which there is a parallel (though not
a close one), in a different context in St Luke. With these
exceptions the changes which our first evangelist would
appear to have made in Sayings of Jesus which he found in
St Mark are quite inconsiderable^ Often indeed he seems to
combine what he has taken from two sources, one of which
agrees with St Mark ; but even in doing this he often gives
the matter which he takes from each in such a way that it
remains distinguishable ; he interweaves passages", keeping
whole sentences from two sources intact, or he inserts clauses
from one into the sentences of the other without altering the
form ^ The divergencies of St Luke from St Mark in Words
of Christ given by both are decidedly greater ; yet the agree-
ment is often very closed

Once more, in the matter common to St Matthew and
St Luke but not found in St Mark, there are pieces of Christ's
Teaching, extending in some instances to many verses, which
are almost verbally identical in the two Gospels.

In the descriptive portions there was not the same reason

1 Mt. xvi. 27 = Mk viii. 38; Mt. xix. i7 = Mk x. 18.

* Mt. xvii. 19, 20 = Mk ix. 28, 29.

■* The chief are Mf. xvi. 6=Mk viii. 15 (where xal 'EaddovKalwv is substituted
for Kal TTJs i'OnTjs ' Hpwdov) ; Mt. xvii. i2 = Mk ix. 12, 13, where a clause, which
comes in very awkwardly in the middle of Mk v. 12, is omitted and provision is
made for what seems to be the purport of it at the end of the sentence. At Mt.
iv. i7 = Mk i. 15, the difference is probably due to a reviser's hand in Mk;
see p. 142.

* Cp. Mt. xii. 25 ff. with Mk iii. 23 ff. and Lk xi. 17 ff. (see Analysis,
p. 126). Again cp. Mt. xviii. 6 ff. with Mk ix. 42 ff. and Lk xvii. i, 2 (see
Analysis, p. 129).

5 VoT the insertion, or rather the addition of a clause cp. Mt. xvi. 4 with
Mk viii. 12 ; there is a parallel to the addition at Lk xi. 29 = .Mt. xii. 38, 39. See
also the following insertions to which we have no parallels, Mt. ix. 12, i3 = Mk ii.
17 and Ml. xii. 3 — 8 = Mk ii. 25, 26, 28.

® For a long passage throughout which the agreement is close see Mk x. 17 — 27
= Lk xviii. 18 — 27. See also the following shorter pieces: Mk x. 14, i5 = Lk
xviii. 16, 17; Mk xii. 43, 44 = Lk xxi. 3, 4 ; Mk xiv. 13 — 15 = Lk xxii. 9 — 12.

Inadequacy of the Oral Theory 27

for adhering to one form, and there is in point of fact in these
portions a larger amount of diversity between the Gospels.
Yet even here between the sections in St Mark and the
Matthaean and Lucan parallels thereto we may note almost
throughout an astonishing amount of agreement in the forms
of paragraphs and of sentences, and the order of clauses,
and in words and phrases.

It will, however, be urged that the strength of the case
for the Oral Theory lies in the differences of the Synoptics
from one another which are intermingled with the resem-
blances, and that this combination of resemblances and
differences can only be satisfactorily explained on that
theory. It would have been unworthy, it will be said, of
any of the evangelists to make wholesale use in their own
Gospels of written records already composed by others, and
if they had done so they should have reproduced them with
greater fidelity. But this is to look at the matter too much
from the point of view of the present day, and in particular
to ignore the very peculiar conditions under which the Gospels
were composed. There can in reality be no question that
writers of former times, very specially in the case of historical
records, felt themselves at liberty to adopt what had been
compiled before as if it were their own, and in doing so to
modify and add to it, in a way that at the present day no
honourable and self-respecting writers would, and to an
extent that those who are not of this character would not
dare to do. The difference of feeling on the subject, and of
the real morality of the act, lay partly in the absence of the
pecuniary advantages and consequent legal rights connected
with authorship, but perhaps even more in the fact that before
the invention of printing, the distinction must often have
been a shadowy one between copying for the private use of
an individual, or of a limited circle, and publication. He who
copied a document and in doing so partly abridged, partly
enlarged it, may never have contemplated the possibility that
his MS. would itself be copied, and that what he had taken
from others without full acknowledgment would be regarded
as his own. Further, in the case of the evangelists it is to be
observed that the facts which ex hypothcsi they took from

28 Inadequacy of the Oral Theory

previous written records were in reality the common property
of the Church. So far as the statement of them already
made was satisfactory it would be suitable to reproduce it.
The men who had indited these records would themselves
have made no claim to authorship in the ordinary sense, and
the later of the writers with whom we are concerned were of
the same generation, or approximately so, as those whose
work they used. They are likely to have possessed additional
information, oral and written, of an equally trustworthy
character, or what seemed to them to be such ; and where it
did not agree with the document which in the main they used
they would not have hesitated to follow their own preferences in
their own record. Oral tradition must still have been a living
things at the latest time at which any one of the Synoptic
evangelists wrote, and still more so in his early life. If he
had been accustomed to hear a Saying of Christ given in
a form, or an incident placed in a connexion, different from
that in which he found it in his document, he would naturally
correct or modify the latter in accordance with his own
memory. Many of the more material differences as to events
and their sequence, and the form of Christ's Sayings, may
thus rest on independent evidence upon which the evangelist
who altered his principal document relied. But it must be
remembered, also, that there was not in that age such a sense
of the importance of verbal exactness in the repetition even
of Christ's Words, as we might have expected ; the practice
of the early fathers in quoting them is proof of this*. So
also one or other of the evangelists may in some cases have
persuaded himself that a particular arrangement of incidents,
which had seemed to him the most suitable, gave the true
historical order.

Lastly, very many of the differences in the parallel sections
of the Synoptics do not by any means strengthen the case for

^ Even Papias, it will be remembered, could speak of the ftDcro <pwvr] koX
fxivovaa in regard to facts of the Gospel history (Eus. H.E. HI. 39).

* Zahn, Einleit. II. p. 324, forcibly appeals to differences in the N.T. ilself in
regard to the form of the Lord's Prayer, the Institution of the Lord's Supper, and
one or two other points, in order to shew that there could not have been among
the early believers such uniformity of oral tradition as would of itself account for
the amount of agreement that we find between the Synoptic Gospels.

First Gospel not largely used in Third 29

an oral hypothesis, but on the contrary give clearly the
impression that they are due to the revision of St Mark by
the authors of the two other Gospels. They are of the nature
of stylistic improvements, and consist in the employment of
more polished Greek words or constructions for uncouth ones,
the compression of passages by the removal of redundancies
or the omission of comparatively unimportant details, and
the more logical, or more effective arrangement of clauses, or
of the points in a description. Or they display the idio-
syncrasies of the first or the third evangelist'. And yet
their limited extent in each instance suggests that they have
been made in a document, which held in check (as it were)
those who sought to improve upon it, continually bringing
them back to what lay before them. If they had simply
committed to writing an oral tradition, they would probably
have moulded it much more freely so far as the literary form
was concerned^

III. It follows from what has been thus far urged in this
chapter that in seeking for a solution of the Synoptic problem,
we must look primarily for relations between the Synoptic
Gospels either through the direct dependence of one upon
another, or through the common use of Greek documents. As
regards connexions of the former kind it will be well at once
to lay down one proposition upon which it will not be neces-
sary to dwell at length. Some subsequent discussions will
thus be simplified.

Our third evangelist was not to any considerable extent
dependent upon the first {or the first upon the third) for the
common contents of their Gospels.

Hardly anyone will, I believe, at the present day dissent

' See Additional Note, p. 51 ff.

^ I have discussed the character of the evidence generally because it is only by
a survey of the whole mass of evidence that the question as to the use of a written
source, or written sources, can be decided. But as an individual instance hard to
account for on an oral hypothesis I may mention the three successive predictions
of the Passion, given at exactly corresponding points and with the peculiarities of
the several announcements preserved in each Gospel (Mk viii. 3i = Mt. xvi. 21 =
Lk ix. 22; Mk ix. 3i = Mt. xvii. 22, 23 = Lk ix. 43, 44; Mk x. 32 — 34 = Mt.
XX. 17 — r9 = Lk xviii. 31 — 33. It is surely most unlikely that in oral tradition the
different occasions and the words used at them would not have been confused.

30 The priority of St Mark

from this statement. E. Simons has, it is true, maintained
that our third evangehst had read St Matthew and that he
was in certain particulars affected by his reminiscences of it*,
and he has also succeeded in convincing a certain number
of critics of the truth of his view. I shall discuss it fully in
a later chapter. But Simons, and those whom he has per-
suaded, only suppose Luke's acquaintance with St Matthew
to be accountable for certain quite subordinate touches in his
Gospel. I have sufficiently allowed for their view in saying
that he " was not to any considerable extent dependent upon
St Matthew."

In the matter common to St Matthew and St Luke, but
not found in St Mark, there are many sentences, and even
whole paragraphs, which are almost verbally identical, but the
arrangement of this matter in the two Gospels is. as we have
already observed, widely different. The task of separating
the various portions of this matter from the contexts in which
they stand in St Matthew and putting them together and
introducing them again as they appear in St Luke would
have been a very troublesome one, and there could be no
good reason, so far as we can see, for undertaking it. Again,
in those portions of his subject-matter which our third
evangelist has in common with both the other Synoptics
he is on the whole very much closer to St Mark than to
St Matthew. Lastly, in his account of the Birth and Infancy
of Jesus he has manifestly not drawn from our first Gospel.
On all these grounds we are justified in asserting that in the
main at least he was not dependent upon that Gospel in the
composition of his own work.

IV. We may now pass on to consider more fully that
view of the documentary relations of the Synoptic Gospels
which I have already implied when discussing the Oral Theory.
It is embodied in the two remaining propositions laid down
in this chapter. The first of these is that

A record which, if not virtually identical with our St Mark,
is at least most nearly represented in it, was largely used in the
.composition of our first and third Gospels.

This thesis, which is now one of the most widely accepted

^ Hat der dritte Evangelist den kanonischen Mattkdus benulzt? 1880.

Contrast between ancient and modern opinion 3 1

results of modern criticism of the Gospels, cannot claim

support, it must be admitted, either from early tradition, or

from long prescription. Early tradition, as represented by

Irenaeus, though it did not expressly affirm the independence

of the evangelists, might most naturally have been understood

to imply it. Augustine, however, from observing the close

similarity in matter and language between St Matthew and

St Mark was led to surmise a connexion between them. In

forming his conception of that connexion he did as little

violence as possible to existing prepossessions. He supposed

that Mark, the disciple of Apostles, whose Gospel ordinarily

stood second, and never first, in the list of the Gospels, had

made use of the Gospel by an Apostle, which stood at the

head of that list. Both Augustine himself and the Church of

his day would have refused to believe in the inverse relation

between these Gospels. And the same may be said of the

whole Middle-age. Further, during the sixteenth, seventeenth

and the greater part of the eighteenth centuries, while some

scholars asserted the independence of St Mark, the rest with

scarcely an exception adhered substantially to the Augustinian

view of its relation to St Matthew^ At length Griesbach

added St Luke to St Matthew as a source of St Mark,

maintaining that the last-named was wholly derived from the

other two. He first indicated this view incidentally in 1783

in a praelection on the " Sources whence the evangelists drew

their narratives of the Resurrection-," and elaborated it in

a dissertation published in 1790I But meanwhile G. C.

Storr had taken the decisive step which opened out a wholly

new point of view. In an essay, Ueber deii Zweck der

evangelischen Geschichte Johannes (§ 58 ff.), published in 1786,

1 For a convenient summar}' of opinion among the theologians of the Reforma-
tion up to the middle of the eighteenth century, see Lardner's Credibility,
Supplement, Pt. I. ch. 10 (pub. 1756). This may be supplemented from
J. D. Michaelis, Introduction, 4th edition (1788), trans, by Marsh, vol. 3, Pt. i.

ch. 5. §§ 4—7-

^ See the closing paragraphs pp. 255 — 6 in his collected Opuscula Academica,
H. published in 1824.

^ The title of this dissertation is Commentatio qud Marci evangelium totum e
Alatthaei et Liicae commentariis decerptum esse vionstratur. It was republished
in a revised and much enlarged form in 1794, and is so given in the Opuscula, il.
PP- 358—425-

32 Recent advocates of

he suggested that St Mark was prior to, and used in, both
St Luke and St Matthew, and afterwards defended this thesis
forcibly and emphatically in a reply to Griesbach (1790)^
For a long time this view found little favour, but from 1835
onwards the claims of Mark's Gospel to be regarded as
either itself the source from which the authors of both our
first and our third Gospels derived the matter which they have
in common with it, or to have preserved most nearly the
character and outline of that source, have been powerfully
urged by a succession of writers^ And this view has ever
increasingly commended itself to students of the Synoptic
problem during recent years.

Keim was, I think, the latest writer of eminence who held
Griesbach's theory^ No small part of the importance which
once belonged to it was due to the fact that Baur*, and the
older members of the Tubingen school generally, had espoused
it with confidence; yet A. Hilgenfeld, the ablest of the later
members of that school, declared in his Introdnction to the
New Testament (1875) that he had long asserted St Mark to
be independent of St Luke, though not of St Matthew^
C. Holsten, also, another of the later disciples of this school,
took up the same position^ On another side Th. Zahn has
sought to adhere to the traditional view of St Matthew, while
recognising to some extent the signs of secondariness in it
relatively to St Mark. He has accordingly revived a view

^ See In libronim iV.T. historicoruin loca qiiaedam, vol. ill. ; Diss, prima,
pp. 63—8.

^ Lachmann {De ordine narrationum in evangdiis synopticis. Stud. u. Krit.
1835), and C. G. Wilke {Der Urevangelist, 1838) prepared the way for this view
by contending that St Mark was "prior" to the two other Synoptics, either in the
sense that in it the oral tradition is exhibited in its earliest form, or as a document.
Some of the chief writers to establish definitely the position that our St Mark
itself, or a document most nearly represented in it, was actually used in the
composition of our first and third Gospels were C. H. Weisse in Die Evangelische
Geschichte, 1838, and Die Evavgelienfrage, 1856; H. J. Holtzmann, Die
Synoptischen Evangelien, 1863 ; C. Weizsacker, Untersuchtmgen iiber die
Evangelische Geschichte, 1864; B. Weiss, Das Marciisevangelium, 1872.

'^ See h\?,JesusofNazara, 1867, vol. I. p. 118, Eng. trans.

* Die kationischen Evatigelien, 1847, p. 535 ff.

° Einleit. in d. N.T. p. 504 f. He had written to this effect in 1850 and
Baur replied in Das Marcusevattgelium, 185 1.

* Die Synopt. Evang. 1885.

the priority of St Matthew 33

suggested by Grotius, that Mark used the Hebrew Gospel by
the Apostle Matthew, and that the translator of the latter in
turn made use of Mark's rendering for those parts in w^hich
he had already given one'.

Holsten's chief arguments for the priority of St Matthew
are of a kind which would appeal to few, if any, minds now.
They are of the approved Tubingen type, being drawn from
the supposed relations of parties in the second century. But
Hilgenfeld aims at being critical in the more ordinary sense
of the term, and his arguments deserve consideration. Again,
it would not be right to disregard what is urged by a man
of Zahn's learning and position. The question, therefore, of
the relations between St ]\Iatthew and St Mark must re-
ceive special attention. Yet it is not desirable that it should
be isolated from other parts of the Synoptic problem. That
problem must be considered as a whole. The full strength
of the case for the use of St Mark in the composition of
St Matthew can only be realised when St Luke also is
compared with both these. It was a merit in Griesbach's
hypothesis that it brought the relations between St Mark and
the two other Synoptics into view together. And consequently
in any attempt to deal comprehensively with the evidence
bearing on the origin of the Gospels this hypothesis can
hardly fail to appear on the scene, as an alternative explana-
tion, albeit one to be rejected.

Let me then first describe certain salient features of rela-
tionship between the Synoptics which are beyond dispute,
and to which I have already alluded in more or less general
terms-.

1 Annot. in Evang. secntid. Matth. preface, near end, "Sicut autem ^Tarcus
usus est Matthaei Hebraeo, ni fallor, codice, ita Marci libro Graeco usus est, mihi
videtur, quisquis is fuit Matthaei Graecus interpres : nam quae Marcus ex
Matthaeo desumserat, idem hie iisdem prope verbis posuit, nisi quod quaedam a
Marco Hebraico aut Chaldaico loquendi genere expressa propius ad Graeci
sermonis normam emollivit." Zahn refers to Grotius, Einleit. ii. pp. 196 and 322.

Salmon seems at the end of his life to have inclined to the same view, see
The Human Element in the Gospels, p. 405, comparing therewith pp. 41 f.,
301, etc.

- Statements {a) to [d) following may be readily verified by examining Table I.
at end of vol. ; for (e) a Synopsis such as Rushbrooke's or Wright's is of course
necessary.

S. G. II. 3

34 Features of relationship betiveen the Gospels

(a) While the narratives of the Birth and Infancy of
Jesus in St ^Matthew and St Luke are widely different, these
Gospels begin to agree with one another and with St Mark
from the point at which the latter begins, namely with the
Ministry of John the Baptist.

(d) By far the greater part of the subject-matter of
St Mark is found in l?ot/i St Matthew and St Luke, and there
is on the whole a close parallelism between all three in
the arrangement of this matter. Li other words there is
a common outline ; into this in St Matthew and St Luke
a considerable amount of additional matter has been quite
diversely introduced.

(c) With v'ery few exceptions, our first and third evange-
lists, so far as they omit incidents or sayings given in St Mark,
do not omit the same ones ; the result being that almost all
the sections in St Mark are found also in one or other of the
two remaining Synoptics ; that is to say, there are very few
passages peculiar to this Gospel.

(d) When the sequence of narratives in St Matthew or
in St Luke differs from that in St Mark, the other one agrees
with St Mark. In other words St Matthew and St Luke do
not, save in one or two instances, unite against St Mark as to
order. When all three do not agree in respect to it, we have
the same sequence in St Matthew and St Mark, or in St Luke
and St Mark.

(e) There is, further, an agreement which is generally
considerable and sometimes very full between St Mark and
each of the two other Synoptics in the manner in which
incidents are related, and in phraseology. All three frequently
agree in these respects. But there are also commonly
particulars of this kind in which St Matthew and St Luke
each separately agrees with St Mark. On the whole the
correspondence is closest between St Matthew and St Mark ;
but there are some cases in which the correspondence is
closer between St Luke and the parallel passage in St Mark
than between the latter and a parallel in St Matthew. Finally
it is to be observed that the amount of agreement in state-
ments or words between St Matthew and St Luke alone, in
all those portions of their Gospels which are in substance con-

The priority of St Mark 35

tained in St Mark, is trifling in comparison with the agreement
of each separately, and even of both together, with St Mark.

Now if, instead of supposing, with Griesbach, that Mark
extracted his matter from the two others and worked together
what he took from them, we suppose that the authors of these
Gospels used St Mark, or a document resembling St Mark,
and each in his own way revised and supplemented it, we
have a simple and natural explanation of these phenomena.
We are not then under the necessity of finding a reason
for the absence from St Mark of much interesting matter
which is contained in the two other Synoptics. Again, the
fact is accounted for, not only that there is a large amount of
agreement both in sequence and in language between
St Matthew and St Mark and between St Luke and St Mark,
but also that to a less but yet considerable extent St Matthew
and St Luke agree with one another in agreeing with
St Mark.

This parallelism between St Luke and St Matthew in
Marcan contexts is, it should be observed, left altogether
unexplained by Griesbach's theory. That theory calls for
another besides itself to complete it, and such a supplementary
theory is not forthcoming. We should not, indeed, be at
a loss for one, if we could hold that either our first or our
third evangelist had used the work of the other as one of his
principal sources, but that possibility has already been
excluded ^

The case is not, I think, substantially altered when we
pass from a broad and comprehensive survey of the contents
of the three Gospels to the examination of particular
passages.

It is true that in some instances phrases, or whole
sentences, occurring separately in St Matthew and St Luke
but conjointly in St Mark, might have been intentionally
combined in the way that Griesbach's theory assumes^.
Moreover, early and mediaeval writings in which more than

^ See p. 29 f. :i)

- E.g. at Mk i. 32 = Mt. viii. i6=^Lk iv. 40, it would not have been difficult:

to combine oi/'tas hi yevo\xivr\% (Mt.) b\)vovTQ% 8i toO ijXlov (Lk) into 6\l/las ;5^r

yfvofjLivrjs ore ldv<T€v 6 rjXios (Mk). iisb

3—2

36 The priority of St Mark

one source has been drawn upon would supply not a few
illustrations of patchwork of this kind. The conflate readings
of which there are many in manuscripts of the Gospels may
likewise be compared. But, in the first place, those who hold
that a document most nearly represented by our St Mark lay
before the two other Synoptics are not precluded from
supposing that an editor of the former has here and there
introduced into it touches from the two other Gospels.
Further, it would in very many cases have been an ex-
ceedingly troublesome, or even an impossible, task to frame
St Mark's account out of the parallels in the two other
Synoptics. His narrative appears to imderlie them both, but
cannot be said to combine them. Their different expressions
have not been fitted together in St Mark, but can reasonably
be regarded as recastings of St Mark\

It will also be remembered that in discussing the Oral
Theory I have referred to the many indications of the revision
of St Mark in St Matthew and St Luke. We were then
concerned with a theory according to which St Mark repre-
sents the Gospel tradition in its earliest form, and this would
account for the peculiar vividness and freshness which has
been often noticed in this Gospel. But the comparative loss
of this characteristic in the two latter, so far as it is admitted,

^ E.g. cp. Mk i. 30, 3i = Mt. viii. 14, 15= Lk iv. 38, 39, vv. immediately pre-
ceding one of the instances given, p. 35 n. 2. The statement as to the illness of
Simon's mother-in-law is made by Mark in a separate sentence. The writer of St
Matthew brings it into the one which describes Jesus coming to the house; he has,
however, an equivalent for Mark's /careKetro and uses the same word for "being in
a fever." Luke, on the other hand, has a sentence of the same form as Mark's to
describe the sick person, but has no word corresponding to KonriKHTo and a
different expression for -Kvpkaaovaa.. Mark's words might well have suggested the
form either in St Matthew or in St Luke; but it is inconceivable that any rational
being would have set himself to fuse the two and thus have produced what Mark
has written. The same holds of other parallelisms between St Mark and St
Matthew, and St Mark and St Luke, in the same verses.

As another example take Mk ii. 24=Mt. xii. ■2 = Lk vi. 2. In St Mark and
St Matthew the Pharisees address Jesus on the subject of the conduct of His
disciples, but in St Mark only is the form interrogative — t^i rl iroiovcriv ; In St
Luke also they ask a question, but it is addressed to Jesus and the disciples
together, or to the latter — tI TroietTe; Here again it cannot be supposed that
anyone would have tried to give what the first and third evangelists have written
in Mark's form ; but that the expressions of each of the former should have been
derived from the latter is natural enough. Such cases are innumerable.

The priority of St Mark 37

would be attributed, by those who hold that theory, to the
imperceptible influences of oral repetition of the tradition,
though it might also be due to the different treatment of
such a tradition. We examined, however, the differences
in question and saw that they were of a kind which could
only naturally be the result of the use of the contents of
St Mark lying before the other two writers in a documentary
form\ It is unnecessary to go over this ground again here.
I would insist only upon the point that, while in the case
of some of the differences between St Matthew or St Luke
and St Mark, considered in themselves, the change might
almost equally well be supposed to have been made on either
side, there are many in which it is easy to understand why
our first or third evangelist should have altered Mark's form
but not possible to assign a good reason for Mark's having
altered theirs ; and that there are not instances to set over
against these, at all comparable in number, where it would
be more natural to suppose that Mark has made the alteration.
The latter appears to have been clearly the less experienced
writer and to have had less mastery of Greek. But such
an one would have been scarcely more likely than a writer
of greater skill to substitute awkward turns of expression
for better ones, or a less for a more simple and lucid
arrangement, in a record which on the whole he closely
followed. On the other hand, that uncouthness should be
remedied and solecisms removed is just what we should
expect of a revising hand. Further, our first evangelist
repeatedly connects two narratives closely in time where
Mark's language is vague. And surely it is more likely
that the juxtaposition of two narratives in a document should
have been taken to imply immediate sequence in time, than
that a definite indication of time should have been obliterated.
Once more it is improbable that a devout Christian would
omit words expressive of reverence for and faith in Jesus
which he found in his source, as Mark must have done if
he had St Matthew before him-. Instances of these kinds
clearly have weight in proving that the second Gospel was
used in the composition of the first and third, and not either

^ See p. 28. ^ See Table of instances on p. 51 fT.

38 The theory of Grotiiis

the first or third in that of the second. But when once we are
convinced that this is the true relation between them, it will
also seem natural to explain many differences of that am-
biguous kind to which reference has been made above, as
due to the revision of St Mark.

It was, however, as we have seen, maintained to the end
by Hilgenfeld.that our Greek Gospel according to St Matthew,
was prior to and used by Mark ; while Zahn maintains that
a Hebrew original of that Gospel was used by him. What
then are their arguments .-'

Both Hilgenfeld^ and Zahn- give lists of instances in
which the dependence of Mark is, they think, evident. We
are entitled to assume that they have brought forward those
which they consider to be the strongest. Some, but by no
means the majority, appear to have forced It is to be
observed, however, that the admission of a certain number of
expressions in which the advantage in regard to priority is on
the side of St Matthew does not militate against the acceptance
of the proposition stated above. Even those who suppose
our St Mark to be practically identical with the work which
lay before the first and third evangelists can have no difficulty
in assuming that subsequently to the time of their use of it
some alterations were made in it by cop\'ists. But we have
also left another view of the relations of the three Synoptics
open, as an alternative, namely that instead of our St Mark
being regarded as the source of the two others, all three
should be held to have used a common source, which was
edited even in St Mark to some extent, though not to the
same extent as in the two others. If so, there may well be
cases in which the original document is more accurately
reproduced in them than in St Mark.

I have here allowed for certain cases in whfch St Matthew —
and for the matter of that St Luke also — ma\- give us an

1 Einleit. pp. 505 — 10. ^ Einleit. II. pp. 330 — 2.

* The most significant in Ililgenfeld's list — less than a third of the whole
number mentioned by him — aj^pear to me to be those occurring in Mk vi. 3;
vi. 8, 9; X. 12; X. 24 (Western and Syriac); x. 30; xiv. 30, 72; xiv. 58. Mk
vii. I — 23 may be added from Zahn's list. Some of them will come before us in
the course of our inquiries.

revived by Zahn 39

earlier form of words than St Mark. But among these I do
not include those brief accounts of discourses in St Mark^,
in the form of which Zahn sees clear signs that they were
extracted from St Matthew. These passages of St Mark are
interesting and important in connexion with the inquiry into
the sources and composition of the Gospels. Whether their
features do, or do not, point to their being extracts from a
fuller written record I will not at this point consider ; suffice
it to say that for several reasons the record from which he
made the extracts cannot have been St Matthew-.

I will now examine briefly the chief reasons of a broader
kind which Zahn gives for his view, (i) He maintains that
the Grotian theory is the only one which corresponds with
the tradition in regard to the composition of the Gospels,
because according to tradition Matthew composed his Gospel
in Hebrew at an earlier date than Mark composed his, so
that Mark might have used the Hebrew Matthew, but not
Matthew Mark, while Mark's differences ma}' be put down
to his reminiscences of Peter's teaching^. In reality, however,
this theory sets aside the tradition about Mark in favour of
a less precise or trustworthy one in regard to ]\Iatthew. The
account of the Elder related by Papias represents Mark as
simply writing down what he remembered of Peter's teaching.
And even if it be allowed that this statement need not
exclude the possibility of his having also made use of other
material written or oral, it certainly does not suggest that

1 Mk i. 7, 8 ; vi. 8— ii ; xii. 38—40.

- Zahn lays special stress on the combination of the indirect with the direct
form of speech in certain passages of St Mark and a separate introduction (three
times KoX ?\ey€P axnoh, once Kai €KT)pv<j(jev Xe'^ojj') for the latter, when (according to
Zahn) he is about to make an exact extract from his authority. See Einleit. 11.
PP- 327. 330, 332. In Mk i. 4, 7, 8 and \\. 8 — 11, we have also briefer accounts
than in Matthew's parallels. But (as we have already observed, p. 23 f.) when we
compare Luke's Gospel we see that our first evangelist in the latter case has in
reality combined a short account such as Mark's with other matter which Luke has
kept separate. By analogy it is probable that in i. 4, 7, 8 Mark is not extracting
(see further, p. 109 ff.). Again, when Mark uses ^Xeyev avrois at ii. 27, it is not
to introduce an extract from St Matthew, for the saying he proceeds to give is not
in St Matthew, while at vii. 9, where the formula is again used, he is not turning
from indirect to direct, and in the whole context he is somewhat fuller than
St Matthew.

' Eiiileit. II. pp. 322 f. and 326.

40 The theory of Grotius

he mainly derived his Gospel by translation from Matthew's
Hebrew work. Nor is it probable that if he was a hearer
of Peter the store of his recollections would have supplied
hardly anything substantial to be added to what he found
in Matthew — little in fact beyond a certain number of vivid
touches in narratives already related there. The most striking
differences between St Matthew and St Mark are differences
in the placing of certain incidents, and Zahn considers that
Mark departed from Matthew in these respects under the
influence of his reminiscences of Peter's teaching ^ But
Mark's arrangement is just the one feature in his Gospel,
which, according to tradition, is not to be attributed to Peter.
How far we are bound to follow this tradition about the
composition of Mark in regard to this question of the order
of narratives, and in other respects, may be matter of opinion ;
but at least it is entitled to more weight than the far vaguer
words about Matthew proceeding from the same source ^ or
the later statements of Irenaeus and Eusebius.

(2) Zahn holds that the Gospel according to St Matthew
was expressly written, even to its minute details of contents
and form, for Jews and Jewish Christians of Palestine, and
that it could not, therefore, have been dependent upon a
Gospel written for Christians outside of Palestine^. To this
it is sufficient to reply that, although this Gospel was un-
doubtedly addressed to Jews and Jewish Christians, it does
not appear that those resident in Palestine were before the
writer's mind, rather than those of the Dispersion*.

(3) Zahn urges that " the Matthew-Gospel presents itself
as a work of large design and a single casting (von grossem
Entwurf und aus einem Guss) ; the Mark-Gospel as a piece
of mosaic carefully put together out of many piecesl" With
regard to the latter part of this assertion little more can
be said at this place than that this is as far as possible from
being the impression which the Gospel according to St Mark
gives to the majority of readers. We get a different view

' Einleit. 11. p. 325. ^ See vol. i. pp. 52 — 7 of the present work.

* Einleit. \\. p. 324 (4).

* See below, the chapter on the Gospel according to St Matthew, pp. 330,
359—363, .^65 ff.

" Einleit. \\. p. 325 f.

revived by Zahn 41

from Hilgenfeld, who attributes the alterations which, as he
supposes, Mark made in Matthew to a desire to set forth
the Gospel history in a way to bring out more forcibly the
unfolding drama of Christ's work and the reception that He
met with\ I believe, however, that Zahn is right in finding
in St Matthew a more manifest unity of design, such as the
writer must himself have been conscious oP. And I would
ask, Would not a writer who had a clearly conceived plan for
his whole work be more likely to feel impelled to alter the
arrangement of the matter in a document lying before him,
than one who wrote artlessly? Zahn, however, implies that
the unity in Matthew shews that the work is of "a single
casting," the product of a mind working freely. But when
we analyse that impression of clear purpose which we get
in reading this Gospel, we perceive that it is produced by
a limited number of comments which he has made, especially
in the form of citations from the Old Testament, and some
incidents and sayings peculiar to himself which he has in-
cluded, as well as the manner in which he has arranged
some portions of his matter. All this he could have done,
with the object of giving prominence to certain aspects of the
history, even while he in the main reproduced a record, or
records, which had preceded his own.

(4) Zahn admits that there are indications of the use and
revision of St Mark in our Greek St Matthew. But he has
not been at the pains, as one who recognised this feature
should have been, to measure the extent of these indications ^.
Further, he has attributed a very complex piece of labour
to the translator of Matthew's work into Greek, and one
which he is unlikely to have performed. For while following
Mark's rendering more or less closely, and often very closely
indeed, wherever it existed, he has nevertheless, according
to Zahn, restored the order of the original, and translated
from it all that large and important part which was lacking
in St Mark. Surely one who must accordingly have regarded
himself strictly as engaged in making a translation, and who

^ Einleit. p. 513 f.

^ See below, p. 359 ff.

3 He refers to them Einleit. II. pp. 327 and 332 (A. 3).

42 Composition of St Luke not explained

was fully competent for that task, would have found it more
troublesome than helpful to make large use of a work which
only reproduced portions of his author and even these not in
regular order, or with exactness, or in such polished language
as he could write himself.

Before finally dismissing the hypothesis that Mark de-
pended upon Matthew, it remains to be said that like
Griesbach's theory, even if it supplied as satisfactory an
explanation of the phenomena immediately in question as
the hypothesis of Mark's priority does, it would be at a
disadvantage when compared therewith in that it does not
carry us so far on the road to a reasonable solution of the
Synoptic problem generally. For even though the critics
whose views we have now been considering do not preclude
themselves from supposing that Luke used Mark's Gospel,
it is certainly more likely that if this work was only a
fragmentary translation of an Apostolic Gospel, a fact which
Luke could hardly have failed to know, he would have
sought for someone to interpret the original to him if he
was himself unable to read it. Further, there is the matter
to be accounted for which is not in St Mark, but which is
common to St Luke and St Matthew. The critics who
suppose St Matthew to be prior to St Mark are unable to
explain satisfactorily how our third evangelist obtained this
matter^ A far more satisfactor}' view than they can offer us
of its presence in both St Matthew and St Luke will come
before us presently.

I have been occupied thus far in this section with the
defence of the proposition at the head of it. Before leaving

^ Neither Hilgenfeld nor Zahn faces the facts in regard to the matter common
to Luke and Matthew. Hilgenfeld declares that Luke has "certainly used at
least the Matthew- Gospel, and indeed not merely in its canonical but also
in its pre-canonical form" {Einleit. p. 570; cp. also p. 609 top). But he does
not attempt to justify this assertion. Zahn on the other hand supposes that Luke
had obtained through oral tradition the discourse-matter which he has in common
with Matthew {Ehileit. 11. p. 406). This is indeed a lame conclusion for one who
has rejected oral tradition in another case, where it is not more inapplicable.
Surely it would have been nothing short of a miracle that a form of words should
have been arrived at by direct translation from a Hebrew book, so similar to
that which, on this hypothesis, had been independently handed down by oral
tradition.

Questions that remain to be disctissed 43

it, I must touch on some questions connected with the relations
of our first and third Gospels to the Marcan record which it
does not determine.

A considerable number of sections in our St Mark have
not been reproduced at all in St Luke, and a few (for the
most part, as I have said, different ones) are wanting in
St Matthew. Nevertheless it has been commonly, though
not universally, supposed, that the same Marcan document
lay before both evangelists and that when matter is found in
St Mark and also either in St Matthew or St Luke, but not
in the other of them, its absence from that other is due solely
to the action of the evangelist, who for some reason decided
to omit it. But it has sometimes been asked whether the
Marcan document which Luke knew was not a less extended
one and nearer to the original than that used in our first
Gospel, though the latter corresponded more closely with our
present St Mark. If this should appear to be the case, it
will evidently be a fact of great importance in connexion
with the history of the Gospel according to St Mark. The
idea is not suggested by our proposition above, but there has
been no intention of excluding it\

Again, it has been and is most commonly held that our
first and third evangelists obtained from their Marcan
document only such matter as we still have in our St Mark,
and that all other matter common to them was taken from
another source. But some, and among them H. J. Holtzmann,
have maintained that certain pieces even of this other matter
common to the first and third Gospels, but not in our St Mark,
were contained in the original Marcan document and derived
thence by our first and third evangelists ; in other words that
Ur-Marcus was of larger, not of less, compass than our
St Mark. I doubt, however, whether even Holtzmann
adheres any longer firm!}' to this view ; and I do not know
of any other critic who has in recent times advocated it.
I do not think it will be necessary for me to discuss it at
lengths

^ For the discussion of it, see below, p. 152 ff.

^ It had been held by some critics several years before Holtzmann ; Weisse in
Die Evangelienfrage (1856), p. 88 f., so far modified the theory of the sources of

44 A second principal Source

Finally, there is that class of instances in which the first
and third Synoptics agree in differing from St Mark, for the
most part only as to a word or two, or a short phrase, in
passages which are on the whole parallel with that Gospel.
We must try to account for these satisfactorily. It seems
natural to suppose that in the case of some of them at least
the original form of the Marcan document has been better
preserved by our first and third evangelists than in our
St Mark, though Holtzmann who at one time explained
the phenomena in question chiefly in this way, has now
adopted another theory \

V. We now pass to the final thesis of this chapter.

TJie flatter connnon only to our first and third evangelists,
and consisting mainly of Discourses and Sayings of fesus, was
(o a large extent derived by them either from a document used
by both, or from tivo closely allied documents in both of which
large portions of that matter had been embodied in the same
written fortn ; and it ivas independently combined by each of
them with the Marcati docume?it.

The view that a written source existed, from which our
first and third evangelists for the most part drew those
Discourses and Sayings which they give in much greater
abundance than Mark, was in its origin closely associated
with the interpretation of the statement of Papias that
" Matthew composed ra \6yia in the Hebrew tongue, and
each man interpreted them as he was able." In 1832
Schleiermacher had urged that rd Xoyia here referred
specifically to the Teaching of Jesus-. Next Lachmann,
accepting this view of Matthew's work, and imagining our
first and third Gospels to be developments formed by the
embodiment of oral tradition with this document, pointed
out that the narratives common to these Gospels and to St
Mark are in the main arranged in all three in the same order,

the Gospels which he had at first put forward (see for it below, p. 45) as to allow
for its possibility. For Iloltzmann's earlier view see Die Synoptischen Evangclien
(1863), p. 75 f. (on Lk vi. 20 — 49), p. 77 f. (on Lk vii. i — 10, Mt. viii. i, 5 — 10),
p. 92 f. (on Jn vii. 53 — viii. 11). For his present position in regard to this question
see Einleit. p. 350.

1 It is referred to above, p. 30, and fully discussed, p. 139 ff. As to Holtzmann,
see reference at end of last note.

^ Stud. u. Krit. for 1832, p. 735!!".

common to the first and third Gospels 45

as though it were something prescribed to them, but he
argued that so far as they differ, the order in St Mark is the
original one\ Then C. H. Weisse-, using the points gained by
these two writers, but not satisfied with Lachmann's idea of the
combination of a document with an oral tradition, held that
it was our second Gospel itself with which Matthew's collection
of Discourses had been in the Canonical Matthew and in
St Luke independently combined. Moreover he maintained
that the writing by Mark, referred to by Papias, was our
Gospel according to St Mark, which Schleiermacher had
denied.

The conception of two principal documentary sources
from which the Gospel history, as set forth in the Synoptics,
was mainly derived, did not at once find favour. In 1856
Weisse wrote that still no one had joined him in this
conclusion, which, as he contended, naturally followed from
the positions previously established ^ A few years later,
however, the truth of this theory, at least as regards its
general outlines, was very ably maintained by H. J. Holtzmann
in his thorough work, Die Synoptischen Evangelien (1863),
and by C. Weizsacker, in his suggestive Ujitersiichimgeii ilber
die evangelische Geschichte (1864), and it has increasingly
commended itself and is now verj- widely accepted. It
explains admirably the broad features in the relationship
of the first and third Gospels to one another and to St
Mark. It also explains to a large extent the phenomenon
of " doublets," that is to say the instances in the first and
third Gospels of the repetition of Sayings where one member
of the pair commonly has a parallel, both as regards its form
and position, in St Mark, while the other member, although
the same in substance, differs somewhat in form and is placed
in quite a different context, often in the midst of matter
common to the first and third Gospels but not found in
St Mark^ From the latter, on the other hand, such re-

^ De Ordine narrationum, etc. See especially pp. 577, 582.
2 See his Evangelische Geschichte kritisch itnd philosophisch hearbeitet, 1838,
I. p. 29 fF., and Die Evangelienfrage, 1856, p. 78 flf.

* Evangelienfrage, p. 85.

* Weisse appears to have been the first to point out the significance of
"doublets" and to give the name {Evangelicnfj-age, p. 146).

46 Questions as to tJie non-Marcan Source

petitions are almost wholly absent, the reason being, as it
is natural to assume, that it is not composite, at least in the
sense that the two others are^ There are also cases in which
our first evangelist appears to have interwoven matter from
a non-Marcan source with similar matter in his Marcan
source, while Luke has given only the former. These have
not, perhaps, commonly been reckoned as doublets ; but the
name may fairly be extended to them, and it is convenient
that this should be done. Although we have no repetition
here of substantially the same matter in different contexts
of the same Gospel, there is evidence of the existence of the
same matter in two different sources, both of which have been
used in one of our Gospels-.

It is a very significant fact that in the great majority
of instances of " doublets," one source appears to have been
the Marcan document, and the other also a source common to
St Matthew and St Luke. But there are a few cases in which
one at least of the sources cannot be identified.

It may well, however, be doubted whether the " two-
document hypothesis" in the simple form in which it was
at first, and has been frequently since, put forward, can
adequately account for all the facts which it has been held to
explain. There are at all events several points which need
to be cleared up. In the statement which I have made above,
I have allowed for alternative views. Our choice between
them must depend upon subsequent inquiry.

Portions of the non-Marcan matter common to the first
and third Gospels are so closely alike in them that the two
evangelists must have possessed these portions at least in the
same written form. The arrangement, however, even of these
closely similar portions is very different, not only relatively
to the Synoptic outline (which is accounted for by the
independent use of a second document), but also considered
by themselves. The same pieces are differently united to
other pieces ; the same Sayings occur in wholly different
contexts. Furthermore the degree of verbal similarity varies
greatly in different parts. It is necessary to ask whether

1 See the Table on p. 54. ^ See ib. pp. 57, 58, nos. 4, 5.

common to the first mid third Gospels 47

these differences are to be traced solely to the diverse re-
vision and adaptation of the same document by the two
evangelists ; or whether it is not more probable that two
somewhat widely different editions of the same document
came to their hands.

The question whether there were two forms of the
document used respectively in the first and third Gospels
cannot be separated from that of the probable relation of
such forms to the common original. It has generally been
supposed that an Aramaic (or Hebrew) document existed
which contained the non-AIarcan matter common to St Matthew
and St Luke. Dal man has, however, recently suggested that
even the ultimate source from which this matter was derived
might have been a Greek composition \ This point must,
therefore, be considered ; but should we come to the con-
clusion that this Semitic source did exist, there will still be
need to inquire how its contents came to be known in Greek-
speaking churches. Was there a single translation of it, or
were there, as Resch supposes, several regular translations
of it ; or is it not possible that fragmentary, and often more
or less paraphrastic renderings from it had been made at
different times, and that out of these more than one Greek
representative of it had been built up ?

Again, we shall naturally ask whether the common original
is more truly represented in St Matthew or St Luke, alike if
for that original we can only go back to a Greek document,
or can to any degree trace in them different versions of an
Aramaic source. Some have given the preference to
St Matthew, some to St Luke ; but on examining different
passages in detail we may find that now one, now the other,
probably has the advantage, in such a way that it would be
difificult and hardly worth while to decide, to which on the
whole the palm should be assigned.

The idea of a source other than St Mark (or than a
document like St Mark) which our first and third evangelists
might have used, was suggested (as we have seen) in the first
instance by the fragment of Papias regarding a compilation

1 Die Worte lesu, p. 56 f. (Eng. trans, p. 71.)

48 Use of ''the Login' as a title for a document

by the Apostle Matthew of " the Logia," rightly interpreted
to mean more particularly the Sayings and Discourses of
Jesus^ And this is the character of the matter primarily
in question here. Accordingly this second source has
frequently been called "the Logia." It must be said, however,
that this name seems to make the theory of the sources of
the Gospels depend too much on the evidence of Papias'
fragment, from the directness with which it appears to refer
to that fragment. It should, also, be observed that Papias
himself does not employ it as the title of the writing which
he is describing, as the modern use of the expression may be
supposed to suggest. To call the source we are considering
simply "the Logian document" cannot, I think, be open
to the same objection, and I shall myself so designate it
after a certain point in my argument has been reached. This
will imply no more than that this source was in the main
a collection of " Logia " in the sense in which, as we have

1 It is trae that, as Dr Salmon sarcastically observes, there is " no authority
earlier than the nineteenth century" for this use of the word (Human Element,
p. 29). But it is a perfectly natural and suitable one and entirely in accord with the
prominence which the Words of the Lord Jesus had in the thought of Christians at
the time in question. We have only to turn to the fragment of Papias on Mark's
writing for an illustration. Note there especially the words oi^x wcrTrep avvTa^ii'
Tuv KvpiaKwv iroiovfievos \6yuv. Where could Christians look for oracular utter-
ances if these were not such ? Moreover, it is impossible that a single Apostolic
writing, on the ground of its inspiration, could at this time, or at any time, have
been called "the Oracles" (see vol. I. p. 53 f. of the present work). Prof. Burkitt's
recent suggestion (The Gospel History and its Transmission, p. 127) that the Logia
of Matthew of which Papias writes, were a collection of "Messianic proof-texts,"
like the testirnonia of Cyprian, does not commend itself to me as any more
probable. For (i) The natural name for such a work as he supposes would
have been naprvpiai, as his own illustration reminds us, or eKXoyai, the name by
which Melito, the younger contemporary of Papias, describes the collection of
such passages which he made (ap. Eus. H.£. I v. xxvi. § 13) ; (2) The use of to.
"Kdyia as the description of a particular set of extracts from the Old Testament,
when the whole Old Testament was commonly so called, would be too confusing
to be thought of. The use of the definite article would also have implied com-
pleteness, whereas the inclination of the time was rather to exercise ingenuity in
finding prophecies and types in all parts of the Scriptures ; (3) The proposed
meaning is inconsistent with the rest of the statement in which it occurs. For the
words "everyone interpreted them as he was able," plainly from the connexion
in which they stand, refer to translation from Hebrew (or Aramaic) into Greek.
Now there would be no need for this in the case of passages from the Old Testa-
ment, since the LXX. was in common use.

Use of ''the Logia '' as a title for a docMinent 49

learnt from the words of Papias, the term was probably used
among Christian believers of the end of the first and the
beginning of the second century. It would not be fair,
however, to adopt even this name prior to discussion. For
there are diverse views on the subject of the contents and
character of our document. B. Weiss, for instance, holds
that it comprised a considerable number of narratives, and
his whole theory of the relations of our three Synoptics is
to a large extent bound up with this conception of it^
Recently, too. Professor Burkitt has expressed his opinion
that it was "a real 'Gospel' and that it contained a story of
the Passion-." For the present, therefore, in accordance with
the fashion which has recently come in, I will call it " Q."

It remains only to indicate the important place which,
as I have said, "Q" occupies in Weiss' solution of the
Synoptic problem. He maintains that Mark drew not only
Sayings and pieces of discourse, but also a good many
narratives from the same primitive document which lay
before the other two Synoptics. He calls it "the oldest
source." According to this critic, Mark combined what he
took therefrom with his reminiscences of Peter's preaching.
The two others used both our Mark and "the oldest source,"
the latter both in its original form and parts of it also in
a derived form, as it was reproduced in Mark. In this way
he accounts for many of the agreements of St Matthew and
St Luke against St Mark in Marcan contexts, contending
that in these instances all three were dependent upon the
source in question, while the two first-named represent it
more accurately ^ I shall shew that this complicated theory
is unnecessary and untenable.

^ See below.

"^ Journal of Theological Studies for April, 1907, p. 457. On it see below, p. 105 f.

3 He first put forward this theory in the /ahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. for 1864,
and 1865. He applies it repeatedly in Das Marcusevangelium unci seine Synop-
tischen Parallelen, 1872. He maintains it in the Introduction to the Com. on
St Mark in the 8th ed. of Meyer's N.T., 1892, in his Manual of Introduction to
the N.T., Eng. trans. 11. p. 246 ff., and in Die Geschichtlichkeit d. Markusevang-
1905. A list, which is nearly, though not quite, complete of the passages in
which, according to Weiss, Mark is dependent upon the "oldest source " is given
by A. Resch, who is a follower of Weiss, in his Aussercanonische Paralleltexte,
Heft 2. p. 13.

S. G. II. 4

50 Questions to be discussed

The conclusions which have been stated in this chapter
as the surest so far attained in regard to the solution of the
Synoptic problem, all have to do, it will be observed, with
that problem strictly understood, i.e., with the phenomena
of relationship between our three first Gospels. And they
go far to account for those phenomena. Some points,
however, in connexion with them have still to be cleared up,
and for this it is requisite that we should have a more precise
idea of the two chief sources of the common matter in the
Gospels than we have in the preceding pages felt able to
give. But these sources themselves, so far as we can define
them, must evidently be objects of the greatest interest and
importance. In some respects they are of greater importance
even than our present Gospels. We must endeavour to learn
all we can about their origin and composition.

Dr Schmiedel, in his able article on the Gospels in
Encyclopaedia Biblica has pointed to the investigation of
" sources of sources " as the task to which critical students
of the Synoptic Gospels have now to address themselves'.
It will be our duty to consider whether, or how far, any such
earlier sources of our two principal sources are discoverable.
But it is clearly also conceivable that the two sources in
question may not have had any such complex literary history
as the expression " sources of sources " seems to suggest.
They may have arisen — I believe it will be found that in all
probability they did, in the main, arise — from the writing
down of oral tradition ; or that, so far as earlier written records
were used in them, these also were fragments of tradition
committed to writing. If so, the identification of the source
from which various pieces come is likely to be in many cases
impossible. We can then ask only whether the repre-
sentations of facts in different parts are consistent with one
another, and whether the matter is, or is not, homogeneous
in doctrinal character.

Unquestionably, however, there is a history lying behind
the appearance of our sources, and it is necessary that we
should endeavour to trace it in order that we may under-
stand how they were produced. Light will, also, thus be
1 Vol. II. col. 1868.

in the following chapters 51

thrown, I believe, on the form of the sources themselves.
These various questions with regard to our two principal
Synoptic sources will occupy us in the next two chapters.
In the study of the relations of our Gospels it is the Marcan
document which first emerges to view; but, at the present
stage of our inquiry it will be best, for reasons which will
appear as we proceed, to fix our attention first upon the
source in which the Teaching of Jesus was chiefly
preserved.

ADDITIONAL NOTE I. TO CHAPTER I.

INDICATIONS THAT OUR FIRST AND THIRD EVAN-
GELISTS HAVE REVISED ST MARK, OR A SOURCE
CLOSELY RESEMBLING ST MARK.

This list is only illustrative ; other examples may be noticed by the
reader in almost any section of St Matthew or St Luke parallel to St Mark.
I have given special prominence to the signs of revision by our first
evangelist, as revision by Luke will hardly be disputed.

In the present table I have indicated only a few cases (and those
in brackets) in which the first and third Synoptics differ from Mark
in the same way ; I believe that such as I have here given and a fair
number of others are due to accidental agreement in the revision of
St Mark. (On this subject see below, p. 139 ff.)

{a) Asyndeta are usually mended ; they are contrary to the genius
of the Greek language and even in St Mark are rare. Mk x. 28, 29 :
Mt. xix. 27, 28 : Lk xviii. 28, 29. (In the former case Mt. introduces
Tore, Lk hi; in the latter both have Se.) Mk xii. \^b: Mt. xxii. 17
(Mt. introduces a clause with ovv). Mk xii. 23 : Mt. xxii. 28 : Lk xx. 33
(both Mt. and Lk introduce ovv). Mk xii. 24 : Mt. xxii. 29 : Lk xx. 34
(Mt. introduces aTroK/jt^els S«', Lk /cai).

{J}) The number of repetitions of /cat in connecting sentences and
clauses is reduced, usually by the use of a participle, but sometimes also
in other ways.

Mk vi. I, 2 : Mt. xiii. 53, 54. Mk vi. 7 : Mt. x. I : Lk ix. i. Mk vi. ly.
Lk ix. II. Mk xi. 27, 28: Mt. xxi. 23.

{c) A subject is supplied where Mark is indefinite. Mk i. 32 :
Lk iv. 40. Mk ii. 3 : Lk v. 18. Mk ii. 18 : Mt. ix. 14 : Lk v. i^. (In Mk
it is not clear who ask Jesus the question ; Mt. makes it the disciples
of John, Lk "the Pharisees and their scribes" who have been mentioned

4—2

52 The revision of St Mark

at V. 30.) Mk iii. 2: Mt. xii. 10: Lk vi. 7. (The subject is definite in
Matthew because he has introduced avroiv in the preceding verse.)
Mk V. 35 : Lk viii. 49 (for Mk's " they come," Lk has i'px(rai ns). Mk
viii. 14 : Mt. xvi. 5.

(d) At Mk X. ^;^, 34 there is a change of subject from the chief
priests to the Gentiles, in two successive clauses of the same sentence
linked by Kai. At Mt. xx. 19 this is remedied by turning kqi inirai^ovaiv
into fk TO ffiirai^ai, and at Lk xviii. 32 by turning the verbs into the
passive with Jesus as subject.

(e) Various colloquialisms or awkward constructions rectified.
Mk vii. II, 12: Mt. XV. 5. (For Mark's incomplete structure we have
a complete one in Matthew.) Mk viii. 28 : Mt. xvi. 14 : Lk ix. 19.
Mk viii. 36: Mt. xvi. 26: Lk ix. 25. Mk xiv. 11 : Mt. xxvi. 16:
Lk xxii. 6. Mk x. 26 : Mt. xix. 25 {ris apa for kuI tIs). Mk xiv. 2 :
Mt. xxvi. 5 {p,r]TroTf followed by future is replaced by iva pr] with
conjunctive), i^ipxecrdai (< Mk i. 25, 26, etc. is changed in Lk iv.
35 n and b into f^epx^frdai and.

(/) Statements are made shorter and more compact, often by the
^ omission of some unnecessary repetition.

Mk i. 29 — 31 : Mt. viii. 14, 15 : Lk iv. 38, 39. (Notice especially in
Mk f^eXdovTfs rjKQov in v. 29 and in v. 31 Trpoa-eXOuiv.) Mk i. 32 — 34:
Mt. viii. 16 : Lk iv. 40, 41. (Note Mk's double mention of the two kinds of
sufferers in vv. 32 and 34 and the manner in which this is avoided in
Mt. and Lk, especially the former.) Mk viii. 32, 2i3 '■ "^t. xvi. 22, 23.
(Mark after using iiriTipav of Peter's words to Jesus, uses it again in the
next verse of the words of Jesus to Peter.)

Mk X. 46 : Mt. XX. 29. Mk xi. 4 — 6 : Mt. xxi. 6. I omit those cases
in which Matthew or Luke has given a whole narrative in a more
meagre form than Mark's, as a different view may be taken of these.
(See in regard to such cases in the former p. 324 fif.)

{g) Rearrangement of points in a narrative with a view to clearer, or
more logical description.

(Instances of this class occur only in St Luke.)

Mk ii. 2 ff. : Lk v. 17 fif. (Mark first mentions scribes at %'. 6, Luke
refers to their presence at the outset in describing the scene.)

Mk v. 22, 23, 35 — 43: Lk viii. 41, 42, 49—56. (The age of Jairus'
daughter mentioned by Mark at the end is given by Luke at the
beginning.)

Mk vi. 37 fif. : Lk ix. 13 fif. (The number stated by Mark at the end
is mentioned by Lk at v. 14 in order to explain the perplexity of the
disciples.)

Mk XV. 22 ff. : Lk xxiii. 32 fif. (The two malefactors are noticed in
Luke in the procession to Golgotha, and their crucifixion is mentioned
along with that of Jesus.)

by the first and third evangelists 53

{h) Rearrangement of a piece of discourse. (Instances of this class
occur only in St Matthew.)

Mk vii. 6 — 12 : Mt. xv. 3 — 9.
Mk X. 3—9: Mt. xix. 4—8.

(z) Substitutes are employed for unusual words or words used
inappropriately.

Mk ii. 4: Mt. ix. 2: Lk v. 18. (Matthew and Luke use kKIvt] for
upajBaTTos. Matthew also uses kXivj] in the context and Luke other
substitutes. In Acts v. 15 and ix. 33, Luke uses Kpa^arros, distinguishing
it, in the former of these places, from a Kkivapiov. For some reason he
thought it inappropriate in the case of the paralytic.)

Mk XV. I : Mt. xxvii. 2. (Matthew uses dirrjyayov in place of
dirrjVfyKav in regard to Jesus.) Cp. Mk xi. 7 : Mt. xxi. 7 : Lk xix. 35.
ayeiv in Mt. and Lk, for (fifpeiv, of leading the colt.

Mkxii. 37: Mt. xxii. 45: Lkxx. 44. (Matthew and Luke both use KoXetv
instead of Xeyetf.)

Mk XV. 4: Mt. xxvii. 13 {ovk oKovfis used in St Matthew in place of
the colloquial i'Se. Cp. omission of i'Se Mt. xxvii. 47 in parallel to
Mk XV. 35).

(J) In St Matthew there is frequently a definite and close mark
of connexion in time between successive narratives, where in St Mark
it is vague. Mk i. 14 : Mt. iv. 12. Mk ii. i : Mt. ix. i. Mk ii. 13:
Mt. ix. 9. Mk iii. i : Mt. xii. 9. Mk iv. i: Mt. xiii. i. Mk vi. 30:
Mt. xiv. 13. Mk viii. i : Mt. xv. 32.

(k) Expressions of reverence and faith occurring in St Matthew
but absent from St Mark, though a devout Christian would not have
been likely to have omitted them if they were found in a document lying
before him.

Mk vi. 51 : Mt. xiv. ;^^. Mk viii. 29: Mt. xvi. 16. The use of Kvpie is
also decidedly less frequent in St Mark.

54 Doublets

ADDITIONAL NOTE II. TO CHAPTER I.

DOUBLETS

(i.e. repetitions whicJi point to the use of more than
one source).

1. Doublets in St Mark.

i. The greatest in the Kingdom of God is he who is willing
to serve.
Mk ix. 35 = Mt. xxiii. ii.

Mk X. 41 — 45 = Mt. XX. 24 — 28 = Lk xxii. 24 — 27.
[Note that the setting of the precept at Matthew xxiii. 1 1 is unhke
that in Mark ix. 35 ; also that the teaching contained in Mark x. 41 — 45
and in the parallel in Matthew is quite dififerently placed in Luke,
though the substance and in large measure the form and language are
the same.]

ii. The two accounts of feeding the multitude :
Mk vi. 34 ff. ; viii. 2 fif.

2. Cases where St Matthew and St Luke have each of them a
parallel with the other, occurring in the midst of non-Marcan matter,
and also either both of them, or one of them, a parallel with St Mark.

i. Warnings to disciples in respect to the hostility they would
meet with.
Mt. X. 19, 2o = Lk xii. 11, 12.
Mt. xxiv. 9 — 14 = Mk xiii. 9 — 13 = Lk xxi. 12 — 19.

[The passage in the Charge to the Twelve in Mt. x. corresponds closely
to the passage in the eschatological discourse in Mk xiii., whereas in
the piece corresponding to this in Matthew's eschatological discourse,
though the sense is the same, there is a good deal of difference of
form.

We further note that the same form evidently underlies Mt. x. 19, 20,
and Lk xii. 11, 12 ; and though only these two verses are parallel in this
piece there are other parallels in the immediate context, including some
more cases of doublets ; see Nos. xi. and xii. below.]
ii. Taking up the cross.
Mt. x. 38 = Lk xiv. 27.
Mt. xvi. 24 = Mk viii. 34 = Lk ix. 23.
[There is sufficient similarity between the form of the saying in
St Matthew and in St Luke in their non-Marcan contexts, and difference

Doublets 55

from St Mark, to suggest some connexion between them other than through
St Mark. Luke has the present infinitive ep^eo-^at in his Marcan parallel
and the present indicative fpxerai in the other. Note that Mt. x. 37 and
Lk xiv. 26 are also parallel.]

iii. //ow the soul may be saved or lost.
Mt. X. 39= Lk xvii. 2)2)-
Ml xvi. 25 = Mk viii. 35 = Lk ix. 24.

[Substantially the same relation between the Marcan and non-Marcan
passages as in the last case.]

iv. Whosoever hath, etc.
Mt. xiii. i2 = Mk iv. 25 = Lk viii. \Zb.
Mt. XXV. 29 = Lk xix. 26.

[Our first evangelist, in his non-Marcan context, places the saying
at the end of the parable of the Talents, Luke at the end of the similar
parable of the Minae. The first and third evangelists also here agree
in a difference of form from St Mark, and from their own parallels to
St Mark. The former inserts km Trepiaa-tvOrja-fTm both times of quoting
the saying.]

V. See I. i. above.

vi. Divorce.
Mt. V. 32 = Lk xvi. 18.
Mt. xix. 9 = Mk X. 11, (12).

[There are points in which the form of the saying is the same each
time of its occurrence in St Matthew ; but in other respects there is
agreement at the former place with St Luke and at the latter with
St Mark.]

vii. The poiuer of faith.

Mt. vii. 7 = Lk xi. 9.

Mt. xvii. 2o = Lk xvii. 6.

Mt. xxi. 21, 22 = Mk .xi. 23, 24.

[Two sayings on the power of prayer and of faith (named absolutely),
which are widely separated in two passages of St Matthew and of
St Luke, occur together in St Mark, and in the parallel to the latter
at Mt. xxi. 21, 22.]

viii. Demand for a sign, and reply.

Mt. xii. 38, 39= Lk xi. 16, 29.
Mt. xvi. I, 2, 4 = Mk viii. 11, 12.

[The words of Christ's reply in the two places in St Matthew are
almost identical and most like the Lucan parallel. It should be noted

56 Doublets

that much of the matter which intervenes between the demand for a sign
in Lk xi. 14 and the reply in v. 29 is given shortly before the demand at
Mt. xii. 38. Cp. further 3. iii. below.]

ix. The first last^ etc.
Mt. xix. 30 = Mk X. 31.
Mt. XX. 16 = Lk xiii. 30.

[The second passage in St Matthew has the same conciseness as the
former, but there is an inversion ("the last first and the first last," instead
of "the first last and the last first") which so far makes it resemble the
saying in St Luke.]

X. The pu7-pose of a lajnp.
Lk viii. 16 = Mk iv. 21.
Lk xi. 33 = Mt. v. 15.

[Luke has peculiarities which he introduces each time. In the place
where the context is parallel to Mark, he has 'vnoKarui kKivt]^ like Mark's
VTTO TT]v K.\Lvr)v. But his ovb(\s \vxvov d'^as and Iva 01 elairopevo^KvoL to
(j)o}s /SXeTT 0)0-11' are equivalent in meaning to Matthew's ovSe Kuiovcri Xvxvov
and XiifiTTfi Tracrt Tois iv rrj oiKt'a.]

xi. That which is hidden shall be made tiiani/est.
Lk viii. i7 = Mk iv. 22.
Lk xii. 2 = Mt. X. 26.

[The form of the saying at the two places in St Luke is quite distinct,
and the one corresponds with St Mark, the other with St Matthew. Even
in'the earlier place, however, in St Luke there is one expression — o ov fxt]
yvaxTdfj — which agrees not with St Mark but with St Matthew.]

xii. Those who fear to confess Christ before men shall not be
acknowledged hereafter by Him.
Lk ix. 26= Mk viii. 38.
Lk xii. 9 = Mt. x. 33.

[There is again a clear distinction, even more so indeed than usual,
between the Marcan and the non-Marcan form. Moreover in the present
instance there is parallelism in the context in the latter case as well as in
the former.]

xiii. Acknowledgment of followers of Christ is acknowledgment
of Christ.
Lk ix. 48 (mid.) = Mk ix. 37^!'.
Lk X. 16 = Mt. X. 40.

3. Similar matter occurring in two contexts in St Luke, one of them
parallel with St Mark has been combined in St Matthew in a single
passage.

Doublets 57

i. Charges io disciples in regard to their missionary work.

Lk ix. 2— 5 = Mk vi. 8 — ii]

,, ^ \ =Mt. X. 5— 16.

Lk X. 3 — 12 J ■'

[In the same context as the latter passage from St Luke there are
other parallels with St Matthew. Cp. Lk x. 2 with Alt. ix. 36 — 38 and
Lk x. 12 — 15 with Mt. xi. 21—24. On Lk .x. 12 see p. 88.]

ii. Warnings against, and denunciations of, Scribes
and Pharisees.

Lk xi. 39-52 j

Lk xiv. 7, 8, II >• =Mt. xxiii. i, 6, ja, 12, 13, 23—36.

Lk XX. 45 — 47 = Mk xii. 38 — 40)

[Matter found in three similar passages in St Luke appears in the
verses of St Matthew which I have given. On the parallelism in the case
of Lk xiv. 7, 8, II see below, No. 6.]

iii. The siidden7iess of Chris fs appearing.

Lk xvii. 20 — 37 ] ^,

T, ■ ,,, ... > =AIt. -xxiv. 15— 41.

Lk XXI. 20 — 23: Mk XIII. 14 — 23^ ^

[The second passage in St Luke overlaps the first only in one verse ;
Lk xxi. 2i = Lk xvii. 31. But in order that the significance of the
repetition should be duly estimated the whole contexts in the three
Gospels should be compared. It should be noted also that Lk xvii. 31
agrees more closely with Mk vv. 15, 16 than Lk xxi. 21 does, and that
there is a parallel to Mk xiii. 21 at Lk xvii. 23 not found in Lk x.xi.]

4. The following cases of the combination in St Matthew of matter
occurring in St Mark, and not in the same but only in a different context
in St Luke, should be compared with those under the last head^.

i. The reply of fesus to the charge of collusion with Satan.
Mk iii. 19*5-

I. \<^b — 30 1 -.

/ ■■ \ =Mt. xii. 22 — 32.
. 14 — 26, xii. loj ^

Lk xi

[Our first evangelist follows Mark in regard to the place at which
he introduces this attack, while he agrees with Luke as to the miracle,
which was the occasion of it, e.xcept that he makes the daemoniac blind
as well as dumb. In vv. 25 — 28 and 30, he agrees almost exactly with
Luke, but in v. 29 with Mark. Vv. 31, 32 are a combination of Mk v. 28
with a form of saying found in Lk xii. 10.

Matthew and Luke also both refer to the demand for a sign in the
same connexion.]

^ On the inclusion of these as instances of doublets see above, p. 46.

58 Doublets

ii. Comparison of the Kingdom to a mustard plant.

Mk iv. 30— 32 1

^, ...-^ „ -^ y =Mt. xiii. 32.

Lk xui. 18, 19J -^

[The saying in St Luke is not taken from the Marcan document ;
though its purport is the same, it has distinct features and occurs in
a wholly different context amidst matter taken from a non-Marcan source.
Our first evangelist combines the features of both, and places it in the
same context as Mark.]

iii. Offences.

Mk ix. 42 I ., ....
, , .. r =Mt. xvni. 6, 7.
Lk xvii. I ) ' '

[The same remarks apply as in the last case.]

5. The following case is peculiar. A passage occurring in St Mark
(in the "little Apocalypse") is in substance twice repeated in St Matthew;
and its form is exceedingly close to that in St Mark when it is placed
differently, while it is not so close when it appears in a context parallel to
that in which it stands in St Mark.

Mt. x. 17 — 22 = Mkxiii. 9 — 13 1 ^i

-., ..7 -• V =Lk xxi. 12— 19.
Mt. xxiv. 9— i4 = Mk xni. 9— 13 J

[On this doublet see pp. 93, 1 16, 330.]

6. A case in which two members of a doublet in St Matthew appear
to be combined in St Luke.

The tree is known by its fruit.
Mt. vii. 16 — I

- , , — Lk vi. 43—45.

Mt. xn. 33-35J

[Luke's passage occurs in a context corresponding to that in which
the former passage stands in St Matthew ; and his v. 44 corresponds
with V. 16 in that passage and has nothing like it in the other. But
on the other hand in St Luke the various similes are not applied to
false prophets, as they are in the Sermon on the Mount in St Matthew,
but to words as an indication of character, as they are in the second
passage in St Matthew.]

7. Cases where there is apparently a doublet in St Matthew but no
parallel to one member of it in either of the other Gospels.

i. Opening the eyes of tiuo blind men.

Mt. ix. 27 — 31.

Mt. XX. 29 — 34 = Mk X. 46 — 52 = Lk xviii. 35 — 43.

[Mk viii. 22 — 26 should also be compared.]

Doublets 59

ii. The dumb daeinoniac.

Mt. ix. 32 — 34.

Mt. xii. 22 — 24 = Lk xi. 14, 15.

[There is close agreement between the two passages in St Matthew
and that in St Luke. The only noteworthy difference is that in the
second, that which is followed by Christ's reply, the daemoniac is repre-
sented in St Matthew as not only dumb but blind.]

iii. Get rid of any offending member.
Mt. V. 29, 30.
Mt. xviii. 8, 9 = Mk ix. 43, 45, 47.

[The phrase e^eXe avrov kgi ^dXe otto aov is used in both passages in
St Matthew but not in St Mark.]

8. A doubtful case of a doublet in St Luke.

Hnmility the condition for exaltation.
Lk xi\'. ii = Mt. xxiii. 12.
Lk xviii. 14.

[There may well be some connexion between the former passage
in St Luke and that in St Matthew. The saying as to humbling oneself
is pointed in both cases by a reference to those who chose chief places.
Also the acts of Pharisees seem to be in view in Luke as well as in
Matthew. The words were spoken according to St Luke at an entertain-
ment in the house of a Pharisee, where the guests would probably also
be Pharisees. (On other passages more or less parallel, see above,
No. 3. ii.) The saying recurs in St Luke at the end of the parable of
the Publican, where it has a very natural place. It may have belonged
there equally, and have been found by the evangelist repeated there
in the same source from which he took the other passage ; or he may
have repeated it himself, on account of its suitability. In either of these
cases it would not be, properly speaking, a doublet.]

9. The following should not, I consider, be reckoned as doublets :

i. Mt. iv. 23 = Mk i. 39 = Lk iv. 44.
Mt. ix. 35 = Mk vi. 6(^=Lk viii. i.

ii. Mt. xxiv. 42 1 ,.,

•Kt, \ =Mk xin. 33, 35.

Mt. xxv. 13 J •^•^' ^^

iii. Mt. ix. 13 and xii. 7.

iv. Mt. xvi. 19 and xviii. 18.

[In the last two cases there are no parallels to St Matthew in the
other Synoptics, and the evangelist has probably repeated the words
in question because of their striking character, and their suitability on
each occasion.]

6o Doublets

V. Mt. xiii. 9 = Mk iv. 9 = Lk viii. 8.
[The saying — el' ns- i'^ei (or 6 exav) Srra uKoveiv aKovero} — occurs also at
Mk iv. 23, Mt. xiii. 43, Mt. xi. 15, Lk xiv. 35 ; but all the contexts are
different, and such a short saying which is, as Sir J. Hawkins says
{//or. Syn. p. 87., "an adjunct to other sayings," might frequently be
repeated.]

vi. Mt. ix. 36 = Mk vi. 34.
Mt. xiv. 14^7.
[The evangelist himself has probably repeated the words expressing
compassion on the multitude.]

vii. It also appears to me very doubtful whether Mt. x. I5=xi. 24;
iii. 7 = xxiii. 2,2) '■> '"• io = vii. 19, mentioned by Schmiedel as doublets
{Encycl. Bibl. col. 18&7 — 8), or Lk xxi. 18 = Lk xii. 7, ought to be so

rej^arded.

CHAPTER II.

THE COMPILATION OF THE UTTERANCES OF JESUS,
AND THEIR TRANSMISSION TO THE GREEK-
SPEAKING CHURCH.

The great aim of the preaching of the Apostles in early
days after their Master had been taken from them was (as the
Book of Acts shews) to prove that although He had been
crucified, He was indeed the Christ. In the nature of things
this must have been the theme upon which they chiefly dwelt.
For the secret of the independent life of the new community
of believers and of its power of growth lay in this conviction.
Moreover those among whom it was first proclaimed did not
require to have an account given them of the character and
work of the prophet of Nazareth. It was unnecessary to
define for them the subject in the proposition "Jesus is the
Christ"; they required only to have the truth of the predi-
cate established to their satisfaction. They had frequently
seen and listened to Jesus, or had at least heard much about
His deeds. Nevertheless, even disciples who were familiar
with the main facts of His Ministry must from the first have
experienced the need of His precepts in their daily life. And
the Twelve more particularly would have been most untrue to
the instruction they had received, if they had not sought to
mould their own lives and those of their fellow-believers
according to the pattern which He had set before them, by
the express use for that purpose of His injunctions. Sayings
and little pieces of discourse would be often repeated and
engraven upon the memory of the faithful, especially those that
inculcated a righteousness the principles of which were shewn
to be implied in the Mosaic Law, but which was altogether

62 How the Sayings of Jesus were compiled

higher and nobler than that which the Pharisees founded
upon their interpretation and practice of the Law ; or again,
those which exhorted to confidence in the Heavenly Father's
care in the midst of the anxieties and sorrows which the
position of the early believers brought upon them in large
measure ; or those which held out the hope of future blessed-
ness. Ere long also, as the need arose, other Sayings would
be called to mind, which prescribed rules for the guidance
of the missionaries, of the Gospel, or for the common life and
behaviour to one another of the members of the infant
Christian communities. Precepts taught in this way w^ould
often be given without any very precise indication, if any at
all, of the connexion in which they were first spoken. There
would also be a tendency to group together Sayings, or pieces,
which bore upon the same or similar points^

The circumstances to which I have here referred would be
hkely to engender a habit in the early Church of Jerusalem
favourable to the formation of a separate collection of the
Sayings and Discourses of Jesus, such as, on a consideration
of the common matter in our first and third Gospels we see
reason to think must have existed". In the structure, also, of
this matter, and the topics therein treated we have indications
of the process of compilation which has been suggested. VV' e
should further observe how immediately suitable certain
portions of the Teaching which had been given by Jesus to
His disciples and the multitudes in Galilee and Judaea and
Peraea would be to converts from among the same people
after His death. They, like the disciples made in His life-
time, were allowed to retain their Jewish customs, but needed
at the same time to be instructed in the spiritual meaning and
purpose of the ancient Law, and they had examples constantly
before their eyes of the Pharisees whom Jesus had denounced,
and were doubtless frequently brought into conflict with them
as He had been. They could not fail to feel strongly the
force of many passages, the value of which would not have
been at once perceived elsewhere. Added to this, the Teach-

^ In regard to the formation of the tradition of the Teaching of Jesus I have
found Weizsacker, Apost. Zdtalter, p. 369 ff. (Eng. trans, n. ch. 2), specially useful.
^ See above, p. 44 (T.

Their full coinniunication in Greek delayed 63

ing could be preserved among them without any labour
of translation.

Let us turn now to the work of evangelisation among
Greek-speaking people. I have had occasion to allude to the
view that the sources of our Gospels may have been wholly
Greek from the firsts I have now to urge that in this
supposition some important considerations are overlooked.
The delivery of the Gospel in Greek, even when carried on in
close proximity to its delivery in Aramaic, was subject to
widely different conditions. In the latter case the persons
addressed had for the most part considerable previous know-
ledge of Jesus, in the former they had little or none. Jews
residing in the Greek cities on the coast had had no oppor-
tunities of personal contact with Him, except in so far as
a few may have sought Him out ; and the Hellenists in
Jerusalem must, generally speaking, have been strangers there,
who visited it at the times of the Jewish feasts, and remained
at furthest for a few weeks. When such people were called
upon to accept Jesus as the Christ, it must usually have been
necessary to give them some general information about the
life and character of Jesus. It is probable, therefore, that the
formation of a tradition of His Teaching, separately from
the account of His life, never took place among the Greek-
speaking believers, as we have seen that it probably did quite
naturally in the primitive Aramaic-speaking Church. Further,
it is most likely for several reasons that the Teaching of Jesus
was not at first, or for a good many years, communicated in
Greek with at all the same fulness. To render pieces of any
length orally from an original which had not itself been com-
mitted to writing — and this for some time it cannot have been
— must have been a matter of serious difificulty. Few, if any,
minds would be capable to any large extent of the three-fold
effort of remembering in one language and translating into
another, and at the same time fixing in the memory what had
just been translated before passing on to the next sentence.
Those, moreover, among the evangelists and teachers who
knew the Teaching best in its original form were not masters

^ See p. 15.

64 5/ Paul and the Sayings of Jestis

of Greek ; while those who had most faciHty in Greek had
had comparatively limited opportunities of gaining a complete
knowledge of the Teaching. There must have been a strong
disposition in either case to rest content with the repetition of
a few striking and significant Sayings of the Master, or with
an attempt to give the gist of what He had said on particular
subjects. That which was not directly applicable to those
addressed would also at first be passed over. The circum-
stances and requirements even of Jews living in the cities of
the Graeco- Roman world, whence the Hellenists who visited
Jerusalem came, or where the Gospel was preached, were not
in all respects the same as those of the inhabitants of the
Jewish districts of Palestine. The special evils of Pharisaism
cannot there have bulked so largely. And the questions of
the observance of the Law and the relation of Christ to Moses,
though they soon became burning ones in mixed Jewish and
Gentile communities, presented themselves under a different
aspect. It is hardly necessary to add that the missionaries of
the Gospel were compelled to meet habits of thought and
moral and spiritual needs which were still more markedly
different, when the heathen, and converts freshly made from
among them, had to be primarily considered.

The most direct evidence which we possess of the spread
of the Gospel in the Apostolic age is to be found in the
Epistles of the New Testament and the Acts of the Apostles.
It will be natural therefore to ask whether any light is thrown
by these writings, and in the first place by those of St Paul,
upon the subject of the delivery in Greek of the evangelic
tradition, and more particularly of Christ's Words.

It is not altogether easy to determine the place which the
facts of the life of Christ on earth, and His precepts, occupied
in St Paul's thought and teaching. It has often been and
still is asserted that he was indifferent to them ; and in
support of this view his own declaration is quoted that " even
though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we
know Him so no more\" Nevertheless to one for whom the
Death of Christ meant so much, as it unquestionably did for

1 1 Cor. V. 1 6.

S^ Paul and the Sayings of Jesus 65

St Paul, His life as mortal man must also have meant very
much ; for the one implied the other. He felt, too, the great-
ness of His sacrifice not only in dying but in coming to live as
a man amongst men, as he shews in the exceedingly striking
passage in the Epistle to the Philippians^, and scarcely, if at
all, less impressively in the brief and simple words of the Second
Epistle to the Corinthians, hi v^a<^ eVroo^j^eucrey irXovaco^ uv,
" though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor^"
It is true that in these instances the xApostle appeals to the
supreme acts in Christ's sacrifice of Himself, comprehensively
considered, as an incentive, rather than to particular traits in
His life of labour and suffering, or than to the motive of
obedience to His precepts. And yet it is hard to suppose
that one who could thus dwell on the power of Christ's
example did not, as occasion offered, draw out in his oral
teaching some of those details of the life of Christ and of His
Passion which were fitted to bring the greatness of His self-
abnegation vividly before the mind, or that he did not enforce
the principles of Christian conduct by some at least of Christ's
wordsl To a certain extent he does in his Epistles bring
Christ before us in the character of the lawgiver for Christians.
In the First Epistle to the Corinthians he appeals to commands
of Christ on the sanctity of marriage, on the maintenance to
be afforded to the missionaries of the Gospel, and on the
Eucharistic commemoration of His Death, and also clearly
distinguishes between the authority belonging to such com-
mands and to his own recommendations^ In the First Epistle
to the Thessalonians he refers in more general terms to injunc-
tions to live purely, which he had laid upon his converts, as
proceeding from Christ Himself'. He seems, also, to base the

^ Phil. ii. 5 — II. - 2 Cor. viii. 9.

^ Eph. iv. 20 strongly suggests that systematic instruction in a Christ-like
character, by reference to His Teaching as well as His example, had been given.
" Ye did not so learn Christ, if so be that j^ heard Hitn, and were taught in Him,
even as truth is in Jesus." Moreover, even those who do not regard this Epistle
as the composition of Paul himself will yet admit that it is Pauline. The language
quoted is therefore in any case good evidence of what had been customary in
Churches which St Paul had founded.

■* I Cor. vii. 10 ; ix. 14 ; xi. 23 ; vii. 12, 25. The meaning of xiv. 37 is more
doubtful.

* 1 Thess. iv. 2 f.

S. G. II. 5

66 Evidence of other New Testament books

assurance that "those who are left unto the coming of the Lord
shall in no wise precede those that are fallen asleep" upon some
express word of Christ^ And when he says in another place,
"Yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh
as a thief in the night," he may well be reminding them of a
Saying of Christ with which they were familiar-.

The consideration of some other writings of the New
Testament will supply a useful warning against drawing
inferences from mere paucity of evidence on the point now
before us. Let us turn to the Acts of the Apostles. It will not
be denied that the author of the Acts — whether he was Luke,
the companion of St Paul, or not — had previously composed
our third Gospel. He was, therefore, beyond question
thoroughly familiar with the Sayings and Discourses of
Jesus. Moreover, he did not lack opportunities for quoting
some of them, if not in his narrative, yet in those speeches
which he has introduced, and which, it is thought, he himself
framed, at least in part, to suit different occasions. Yet he
has given in this book only a single Saying of Jesus, and that,
moreover, one which does not occur in his own, or any other.
Gospel^. Again, there is strong reason to think that the First
Epistle of St John was by the author of the Fourth Gospel,
and if not, it must at any rate have proceeded from someone
belonging to the same circle. Now not only does the Fourth
Gospel contain many Sayings and Discourses of Jesus, but it
is now generally maintained, and is in all probability true,
that the author was well acquainted with the Synoptic
Gospels. This writer lays great stress upon the importance
of "keeping Christ's commandments'*," and "His word*," and
of imitating His example**. But he mentions distinctly only
one commandment of His — given in the Fourth Gospel —
"Love one another^" He describes it as "the announcement
which ye heard from the beginning*," i.e., from the time that
the Gospel had first been preached to them. He gives it

1 I Thess. iv. 15.

* lb. V. ^. In addition to the references to particular sayings which have been
noted we have also a reference of a general kind by St Paul to the Words of Jesus
in I Timothy vi. 3, if this Epistle is allowed to be his.

' A. XX. 35. * I Jn ii. 3, 4 ; iii. 23, 24. ' lb. ii. 5.

* lb. ii. 6. ' lb. iii. 23. * lb. iii. 11.

as to the currency of the Sayings of Jesus 67

also in one passage in a form not found exactly in any of the
Gospels: — "This commandment have we from him that he
who loveth God love his brother also^" He says also that He
(apparently "Jesus Christ^") "promised eternal life." This is
no doubt the purport of many passages in the Gospels, but no
one passage in particular seems to be in view. I may also
note in passing that one broad feature of Christ's Ministry is
referred to: — "the world knew him not"." In the Second
Epistle of John there is a general reference to "the Teaching"
(t^ hihaxii) of Christ^ The Epistle of James is interesting
on different grounds from those writings which have hitherto
been noticed. Its date must be considered uncertain : some
have thought that it was written early in the Apostolic Age.
However this may be, we find that it has numerous points of
similarity with the Teaching of Jesus recorded in the Synoptic
Gospels, and yet His authority is not once appealed to, unless
it be for the promise of eternal life in a clause where the subject
of the verb is indefinite'. Other writings than those mentioned
contain nothing that is in point for our present purposes.

Clearly, therefore, it would be a mistake to lay great
stress on the silence of the Epistles in regard to the Teach-
ing of Jesus, considering their character and the aims which
the writers for the most part had in view. Still, if His
utterances were already available for citation to the extent
and in the form that they were when the Gospels according to
St Matthew and St Luke, not to say also that according to
St Mark, were composed, it is strange that not more of them
should have been quoted in substance, and none of them in
the same form as that in which we have them in our Gospels.
And the strangeness of this is increased by the consideration
that the Teaching and the human example of Christ evidently
occupied a larger place in St Paul's scheme of thought than
they are often supposed to have done, as also by the further
consideration that we have other Epistles besides his. The
evidence, then, of the writings which have come before us,
taken collectively®, points to the conclusion that, at the time

^ I Jn iv. 21. 2 /^_ ii 25. 3 /^ iji , ■* 2 Jn 9. ^ Jas i. 12.

* The reason here given cannot well apply to a writing of a date so late as that
of I Ep. Jn must have been.

5—2

68 CircMinstances affecting the translation

when most of them were composed, the tradition of Christ's
Teaching can only to a very Hmited extent have been de-
livered in Greek. And this view is confirmed by considera-
tions of general probability. For some years the amount of
this Teaching known in Greek-speaking Churches would be
increased slowly by the method of oral rendering from an
Aramaic tradition preserved in the memory. Information
about it would be demanded from those who knew that
tradition. And as time went on Gentile Christians would
be prepared to understand and appreciate larger portions of
the Teaching, especially through their increased familiarity
with the Greek Old Testament ; just as we modern Chris-
tians are enabled the better to understand Christ's Teaching
through our having entered upon the ancient inheritance of
the Jew. They would learn to adjust their own minds to
a form of teaching which had not been in the first instance
designed for them. And they would wish to know as fully
as possible the actual circumstances in which the new Faith
to which they had surrendered themselves began, and all the
utterances of Him in Whom they believed.

But however ready those believers who knew both Aramaic
and Greek might be to try to satisfy this demand, it must,
for the reasons given above, have continued to be a difficult task
so long as the original tradition had not been committed to
writing. When once this was done the work of translation
could be carried on with far greater facility. And in spite
of the fact that the habits and circumstances of the Aramaic-
speaking Church would make the preservation of an oral
tradition of teaching comparatively easy and natural among
them, the time could not fail to come when it would be
written down. The convenience of those who were called
upon to translate it into Greek would itself supply a motive
for doing so. Whether then Papias' statement that "Matthew
was the first to put together in writing the utterances of
Jesus, after which each man interpreted them as he was able,"
is in all respects accurate or not, I cannot doubt that he
indicates for us what was in truth the beginning of a new era
in the transmission of Christ's Teaching to the Greek world.

In my first volume I have discussed the meaning of the

of Chrisfs Sayings into Greek 69

words "each man interpreted them as he was able" in Papias'
statements They may most naturally be taken to imply
that, just as the Targumists in the Jewish synagogues
rendered the ancient Hebrew Scriptures into, and explained
them in, the Semitic dialects of a later time and of different
regions, so in like manner copies of the Aramaic document
containing the utterances of Jesus used to be orally rendered
and explained to congregations, or Christian friends, who
understood only Greek. Some pieces may probably have
been written down from the lips of these interpreters. We
must also ask whether the transition to the making and the
use of full and regular written Greek translations was an
abrupt one. May not the habits of mind of the Targumist
have continued for a time even when writing was emplo\-ed ?
That is to say, may not the translator have sometimes para-
phrased his original instead of keeping close to it, and may he
not have considered what portions were most suited to
edification ? These are some of the possibilities which must
be borne in mind as we examine the actual phenomena of
our Gospels.

Before this chapter is concluded we shall have to consider
the question whence Mark obtained such Sayings and pieces
of discourse by Jesus as he gives. But we must first fix our
attention on our first and third Gospels, where matter of this
kind is much more abundant. One supposition has already
been dismissed. It is certain that they did not use tJiro2(gJiout
two independent translations of the Aramaic source for this
common matter. The resemblance in many pieces is far too
close to allow of our supposing this-.

But we can see almost at a glance that there are other
parallels where there is sufficient similarit\' in substance to
lead us to suppose that the same piece of Christ's Teaching
is represented, but where the differences in expression, and
even in idea, are very considerable. And between the
extremes of agreement and divergence there is ever}' degree
of resemblance in the various instances. Now we have to
endeavour to decide which of these parallel passages in the
two Gospels should, and which should not, be held to have

1 Vol. I. p. 55 ff. - See above, p. 25 f.

70 The amount of vei'bal agreement wJiich

been derived from the same Greek document. This cannot
be an easy task, but one difficulty, which will probably occur
to many minds, namely, that of the uncertainty of the text,
is not (I think) so serious as it may seem to be at first
sight. A few years ago, it may be said, well-established and
settled conclusions as to the true text of the New Testament
appeared to have been reached through the labours of a long
series of critics, crowned by those of Westcott and Hort ; but
more recently some fresh evidence has been discovered, and
views before accepted have been challenged even on many
points not touched by this fresh evidence. Is it not then
essential that in the solution of a problem, in which the
extent of verbal resemblance and difference between parallel
passages is a factor, these textual questions should first be
faced.'' If so, our inquiry would have to be greatly prolonged,
and our confidence in our final results would be weakened by
all the doubts left behind by our textual investigation. But
the considerations by which we must be guided, in forming
a judgment upon the cases presently to come before us, are of
a kind not to be affected by a limited number of variations in
the text. Certainly, when we seek to determine whether our
first or our third evangelist most accurately represents the
common source, in passages which we have agreed to regard
as derived from that source, questions relating to the true text
of each must be of importance. But in the preliminary task
of ascertaining the matter taken by both from that source,
we need concern ourselves only with fairly broad distinctions
between it and other cases of resemblance. It would be
impossible to have any finely drawn line between the amount
of difference that is, and such as is not, compatible with the
use of the same document. I do not think that even the
adoption of the extreme views of Blass on textual criticism
would seriously alter our results as to the contents of the
common document, and I am quite sure that the amount of
diversity existing among the majority of critics should not
do so. I may add that the standard of comparison which
I propose to apply to the parallelisms between our first and
third Gospels in matter common to them but not found
in St Mark, is of a kind that will reduce to a minimum

implies derivation from the same document 71

the danger of error arising through uncertainty as to the
text \

We are not unprepared for the possibility that there
might be a good deal of inequality in the extent to which
our first and third evangelists would agree in different portions
of their reproductions of a source from which they took the
Words of Christ. For we have seen that in their use of their
Marcan document, while our first evangelist has on the whole
in giving Words of Christ kept very close to this source, as
Luke has also in many places^ with the result that the two

1 See below, p. 74. Harnack begins his inquiry into the contents of "Q"
by an examination of the individual passages reproduced from " Q " in the two
Gospels with a view to the determination of " the text of Q," and this necessarily
involves considerations as to the true text of St Matthew and St Luke in the
passages in question [Spriiche und Reden Jesti, p. 6 ff-). But his reasons for
including passages, and for the arrangement and character of the whole, are
independent of it, and I shall restrict myself in the main to these more general
questions first. In addressing English readers, at any rate, this course will (I be-
lieve) be the most advisable, seeing that many of them will probably have to be
persuaded that a clear conception of the lost source can be attained. And the
expediency of this course will, I think, be manifested when we come below to the
discussion of an important particular question as to the contents of the lost source.
Seep. 80 ff. I may, however, take this opportunity of quoting Harnack's exceedingly
interesting and important statement as to the conviction to which his textual studies
have led him. " Ich habe mich aufs neue davon iiberzeugt, was ich schon bei
meinen Studien iiber den Text der Apostelgeschichte gelernt hatte, dass der nicht
zu verachtende Cod. D mit seinen partiellen Trabanten, sowie die Sonderlesarten
anderer Zeugen (Chrysostomus I) von Blass ungebiihrlich iiberschatzt werden.
Aber auch Wellhausen geht in dieser Richtung m. E. zu weit. Ich vermag auch
nicht anzuerkennen, dass der Lukastext auf den Matthaustext den Einfluss
nachtraglich gehabt hat, den Blass annimmt, halte vielmehr ihm gegeniiber viel
starker an dem Westcott-Hortschen Texte fest " {ib. p. 5).

My own attitude in textual matters is that I accept the critical principles, and
in the main the results, of Westcott and Ilort, subject to two modifications : (i) the
available evidence appears to me to be more defective than they supposed ; we
must allow for a somewhat larger measure of uncertainty than they allowed for ;
and give weight to considerations of intrinsic probability in attempting to come to
a decision in more cases than they did ; (2) when the Sinaitic and Curetonian
Syriac agree in supporting a "Western "' reading, such a reading must be held to
be equally well attested with what Westcott and Hort call the "neutral " reading.
I say only '■'■ equally well attested." For although the agreement of witnesses in
such different quarters of the globe is striking, and may point to an original far
back, it is also quite possible that there may have been some link between the
two, through communication between the East and the West, which would do
away with the force of the agreement. In the actual state of our knowledge such
cases cannot therefore be decided (except on grounds of intrinsic probability).

2 See above, p. 25 f.

72 The amount of verbal agreement which

remain close to each other, there are nevertheless contexts in
which, as a result of their independent departures from the
original added together, the difference between them is very-
marked. The variations from the Marcan record appear to have
arisen partly from individual taste in matters of style and
idiosyncrasies of thought and feeling, partly, it may be, from
some want of care in copying, partly, again, from reminiscences
of phrases, and additional touches, to which they had become
accustomed in the oral tradition which they had heard and
taught, and perhaps, also, from reminiscences of what they
had read in some other document. Such actual reminiscences
of what they had learned and repeated orally, or read in
other writings, probably supplied the ground for the more
substantial changes. For it is unlikely that the evangelists
would have permitted themselves much liberty in emending
entirely propria motii the form in which they had received
the Utterances of Jesus. And we have, moreover, evidence
that neither their individual mental characteristics, nor purely-
accidental causes, operated to any great extent. For these
are causes which would be likely to act with a fair degree
of equableness at all times, with the result that we should
find approximately the same amount of variation in different
parts of the parallel accounts. On the other hand, diversities
produced by reminiscences of oral teaching, or of other
documents, might well be more considerable in some passages
than in others. Still, the other causes mentioned may have
contributed their quota to the total sum of differences, and
it is with this total that we are mainly concerned. Further,
our first and third evangelists have in some parts combined
matter derived from oral tradition, or from another written
source, with their Marcan document, but they do not appear
to have wholly set aside the latter for some other authority
throughout any section which they have in common with him.
They seem at most to have preferred some other form of
particular Sayings, or portions of Sayings,

Let us then inquire how far the matter common to
St Matthew and St Luke only can be referred to a second
source, called for convenience " Q," which they used in the
same way as their Marcan document. Will causes such as
those which explain differences between St Matthew and

implies derivation from the same document 73

St Luke, where both are parallel with St Mark, suffice to ac-
count for all the differences between them in respect to this other
common matter ; or so far as they do not, what explanation
can be given of the phenomena ? These are questions which
have been far too little considered by writers on the Synoptic
problem, and yet till they are answered, a clear and well-
grounded theory of the sources of the Synoptic Gospels must
be impossible.

From what has already been said it will be evident that it
is no easy thing to decide what amount of difference between
the first and third evangelists in their accounts of a piece
of Christ's Teaching is compatible with their having employed
the same written source for it, and modified it only under the
influences that I have named. Short pieces certainly cannot
furnish a standard, for they may happen to be cases in which
there were exceptional reasons for divergence. And un-
fortunately a large proportion of the Words of Christ in
St Mark to which there are parallels in the two other Synoptics
are individual Sayings embedded in narrative. We have,
however, one discourse of some length — that on the Last
Things — where the three Gospels correspond closely in order
of thought and substance, and yet differ considerably. (Mk
xiii. 5 — 33 = Mt. xxiv\ 4 — 36 = Lk xxi. 8 — 36.) It is a case in
which we should expect variation if anywhere ; for the theme
stirred men's feelings deeply and must have been constantly
dwelt upon, and there was a manifest disposition to mould
the language of prophecy in accordance with experience.
The next longest continuous pieces of Christ's Teaching given
in all three Synoptics are the parable of the Husbandmen
(Mk xii. I — II = Mt. xxi. 33 — 44=Lk xx. 9 — 18), and the
parable of the Sower, with its interpretation (Mk iv. 3 — 9,
II — 20= Mt. xiii. 3—9, II, 13, 18 — 23 = Lk viii. 5 — 8, 10 — 15).
In these passages, again, as might be expected, the amount of
difference is above the average. In reproducing a parable,
which was of the nature of a narrative, an amount of freedom
might be held to be lawful, which would be recognised as
unsuitable in recording a precept. A fresh touch might
be introduced here and there to add vividness. In the
interpretation of a parable also there would be a natural
inclination to amplify, or adapt, in order to bring out the

74 The different arrangement in St Matthew

lesson. It is reasonable then to suppose that these instances
shew us the maximum amount of divergence from the main
source that lay before the two writers, which was likely to
occur, so long as it was not wholly disregarded and another
account used in its place, by one or other of them. We will
seek for help from the indications thus supplied in endeavouring
to estimate the significance of the various degrees of agreement
between different portions of matter common to St Matthew
and St Luke only. The danger, such as it is, — I have said
that it is not great — of error arising in our conclusions owing
to our text not being the true one, is to a large extent
avoided in applying this standard, because the textual
corruption is likely to have been of much the same kind
on both sides of the comparison, so as to have affected the
amount of resemblance between St Matthew and St Luke in
their Marcan and non-Marcan parallels to approximately the
same degree.

But there is another fact which is of great importance
in connexion with our present inquiry. Reference has already
been made to the different methods of introducing their
non-Marcan matter which our first and third evangelists
have adopted ^ They necessarily had to face a somewhat
perplexing problem of arrangement when they undertook to
combine with the Marcan narrative other matter which they
had severally gathered from different quarters, and more
particularly that supplied by a document which each had,
consisting largely of Sayings and Discourses. Luke decided
on the easiest, though not the most artistic plan. He de-
termined to bring in the greater part of his additional matter
in two masses at two diflferent points of the Marcan outline,
which seemed to him suitable and convenient, and so to keep
it almost entirely separate from the matter which he took
from the Marcan document-. Our first evangelist, on the
other hand, chose to use his non-Marcan source, or sources,

^ See above, p. 23 f.

"^ See Table I. at end of vol. It will be noticed that two passages — but only two
— to which there are parallels in St Matthew only occur in St Luke subsequently
to the end of his long insertion, viz. the " Parable of the sum of money given to
servants to trade with" (Lk xix. 12— 27 = Mt. xxv. 14—30), and the " Promise to
the disciples that they should judge the tribes of Israel" (Lk xxii. 28 — 3o = Mt.
xix. 28).

and St Luke of the non-Marcan matter 75

of information pari passu with his Marcan document, and
wherever possible to unite pieces of discourse from the two
which either evidently did, or which could naturally be taken
to, refer to the same occasion. A desire, closely allied to
this, to bring together Teaching which bore on the same or
similar topics is manifested in the fact that he has collected
nearly all that he had to deliver of the Teaching of Jesus in
eight discourses, placed in different connexions, but each on
a theme of its own\

Now if we ask in which of the two writers, whose methods
of procedure have just been described, the contents of a
document which both have used, or two editions of which
they respectively used, is most likely to be given in its
original order, there can be no question that it is in St
Luke. This evangelist evidently sought by his plan for
uniting the matter from his different sources to interfere
with the substance of each as little as possible. This did
not prevent him from emending the style. And it may be
observed that he did this in reproducing matter from "O"
far more freely than our first evangelist does^ as we might
have expected from the manner in which each has dealt
with his Marcan document. On the other hand, our first
evangelist's plan involved him in rearrangement, and this
would be likely to affect his treatment of a Collection of
Sayings more than that of a narrative in which there was
a thread of historical sequence, to which he would feel it right
in general to adhere. In the case of Sayings and short pieces
of discourse, when they were not set in a continuous narrative
of events, the only arrangement possible would be one
according to topics, and in the contents of " Q," as it may
be inferred from St Luke, we can see indications of such an
arrangement. But if the author of St Matthew thought the
arrangement capable of improvement he would feel quite at
liberty to alter it, especially if the pieces in the source, like so
many in St Luke, had prefixed to them only some slight
introduction like "Jesus said to His disciples."

The conclusion to which we are led by this general

^ See the Analysis, pp. 122 — 9.

2 This is very fully shewn by Harnack. See his statements, id. pp. 31, 78.

76 Chtes for the reconstruction of the

consideration of the plans of the two evangelists respectively
is, I believe, confirmed when the contexts are examined in
which the pieces placed differently in the two are found. No
good reason can be given why Luke if he had found the
several passages placed in his source as they are in St Matthew
should in any instance have changed their positions to those
which they occupy in his own Gospel ; whereas it is generally
easy to see why the first evangelist should have brought them
into the connexion in which they stand in his discourses. On
the other hand, it is true that Luke seems to have provided
introductions for several of the pieces, either from his know-
ledge of tradition, or from his own imagination ; and it may
be suggested that in doing this he too would be induced to
rearrange his matter, though with a different object from that
which the author of St Matthew had. These descriptions,
however, by Luke, of occasions on which various pieces of
discourse were uttered, are wholly indefinite as to their time
and connexion. It is far more probable that they have been
fitted in at certain points in his source, with a view to imparting
life and an appearance of naturalness to his record, than that
the sequence of paragraphs in the source should have been
altered on account of them. In one or two places he has,
I believe, made slight transpositions in the contexts of "Q" in
order to be able to connect some additional matter therewith
more conveniently ; but with these exceptions I see no good
grounds for thinking that he has changed the order.

These, then, will be our chief clues in seeking to re-
construct "Q" so far as that is possible^ (i) The pieces

^ Reconstruction may be thought too bold a word. But at least it is important
that we should ascertain as clearly as we can, and put together, all that may be
inferred with most probability in respect to the source of non-Marcan matter
common to our first and third Gospels. No criticism of the Synoptic Gospels
that aims at being scientific can well avoid this task. Reconstruction in such a
case is after all a matter of degree. No one, I imagine, thinks that it can be
more than partial. And, on the other hand, no assertion or suggestion whatever
can be made about the source which does not imply at least a measure of recon-
struction in the mind of him who makes it. My friend and colleague, Prof. Burkitt,
who declares the reconstruction of " Q " to be impracticable, has himself pro-
pounded a tolerably comprehensive and definite view of it (see above, p. 49).
He says at the same time that he would not have it supposed that he is sceptical
as to the commonly received reconstruction of the Pentateuch {Gospel History

lost common source n

are to be singled out which our first and third evangelists
must be supposed to have taken from a common source,
on account of their agreement in the form in which they give
them ; and in cases that seem doubtful, because of the

and Us Transmission, p. 12 ff.). The comparison of the Pentateuch is suggestive.
I would point out that the means which we have at our disposal in the two cases
are of an essentially different kind. In the Pentateuch there are different strata
discernible, composed in different ages and with different aims, whereas the
Synoptic Gospels were approximately, if not strictly, the product of a single
generation and the work of men whose point of view was substantially the same.
We could hope for little from noting internal peculiarities in our first Gospel, or
our third Gospel, taken by itself, which would be analogous to what has to be
done in the case of the Pentateuch. But in other respects the criticism of the
Gospel has an enormous advantage over that of the Pentateuch, as regards its
resources. We can compare two works in which the lost source has been more or
less extensively reproduced. And that is not all : our problem is greatly simplified
by the fact that we are able to separate off, first of all, those large portions of these
Gospels in which use was made of another source, of which we still have in our
hands at least an approximately true representative — the Gospel according to
St Mark. Moreover, from the treatment of this last-named source by our first
and third evangelists, \\^ are able to judge how they would be likely each of them
to treat another document. "We see clearly enough," Professor Burkitt observes,
" that we could not have reconstructed the Gospel according to S. Mark out of
the other two Synoptic Gospels, although between them nearly all Mark has been
incorporated by Matthew and Luke. How futile, therefore, it is to attempt to
reconstruct those other literary sources which seem to have been used by Matthew
and Luke, but have not been independently preserved" (tb. p. 17; cp. also his
review of Harnack's Spriiche in Journal of Theological Studies for April, 1907,
p. 454 ff.). Whether it would have been impossible to reconstruct the Marcan
document to any extent is perhaps questionable. But be this as it may, the fact
that we possess this document places us in a far more favourable position for the
attempt to recover the contents and form of the second source.

Of the clues described above which are to guide us in our investigation, the
first is obtained by examining the limits of disagreement in passages of Christ's
Teaching which our first and third evangelists have both taken from St Mark ;
while the third has been suggested by a consideration of the manner in which
non-Marcan matter has been introduced by the two evangelists into the Marcan
outline. Some instances will also come before us, especially in later chapters,
where, in examining differences of form in passages derived by each from a non-
Marcan source, we may get a good indication of the way in which one or other
has probably altered his source from his revision of passages of his Marcan docu-
ment. Our inferences are from the known to the unknown, which is surely a
legitimate method of reasoning. And this principle may be applied in many
more cases than it will be in this work. I shall deal only with a few that are
of special interest, or which for one reason or another come before us.

The knowledge of the source obtained in this way may possibly remain very
incomplete; but so far as it goes it is valuable. On Prof. Burkitt's conjecture
that " Q " contained a narrative of the Passion, see below, p. 105 f.

78 Clues for the reconstruction of the

intermixture of difference and resemblance, we must be
guided in part by comparing the manner in which the two
evangelists have used their Marcan document.

(ii) In discussing some cases where matter the same in
substance has been preserved in St Matthew and St Luke in
widely different forms, we shall do well to bear in mind the
special conditions affecting the translation into Greek of the
Aramaic Collection of Sayings. There was, as we have seen,
in all probability a period in which the renderings of it were
fragmentary, and some of these fragmentary renderings may
have been known to one or other evangelist, and may have
exercised an influence, even when a version which aimed at
being more continuous and complete was followed in the main.
Moreover, even in such a version some portions of the original
may have been given in a condensed form. If so, fuller ren-
derings might in course of time have been substituted in these
parts. Whether this is a probable explanation of the relation
between the two accounts, one more meagre than the other,
will depend on the character of the matter omitted in the
more meagre one, and its connexion with the part common
to both. Instances of the former kind — the survival of brief,
fragmentary renderings — are to be found, I believe, especially
in St Luke ; of the latter — the substitution of a fuller render-
ing for a more compressed one — in St Matthew.

(iii) There is a strong presumption in favour of the view
that the order in which Luke has given the pieces is in the
main that of the. source; and we may by the aid of this
Gospel also often disengage the pieces as they stood in the
source from the Marcan or other matter with which in St
Matthew they have been interwoven ^

^ Reference may here be made more particularly to three writers who have
endeavoured to reconstruct the lost source common to our first and third Gospels :
— H. H. W^ndi {Die Lekre Jesu, Erster Theil, 1886); P. Wernle [Die Synoptische
Frage, 1899, pp. 61 ff., 80 fif., 178 fif., 224 ff.) ; A. Harnack {Spriiche zind Redeii
Jesii, 1907). In important respects they agree, and so do I with them. I have,
however, endeavoured to determine somewhat more closely than they have done,
how much difference in parallel passages in St Matthew and St Luke should be
considered compatible with derivation from a common Greek original. In a few
instances of wide difference, which they explain as due to great freedom in the
treatment of the common document by one or other evangelist, I cannot bring

lost common source 79

In St Matthew and St Luke^ we find an account of the
preaching of John the Baptist in which several verses are
almost word for word the same and must unquestionably have
been taken from the same written source. In St Luke here,
as well as in St Matthew, the Marcan record has been to
a slight extent at least combined with the non-Marcan. There
was the more reason for their being interwoven, because the
position which the account actually holds in each Gospel is
the only one in which it could fitly be placed. And in all
probability it formed the introduction, as it were, to the
collection of Christ's own Sayings, as it does to St Mark's
Gospel.

This section is followed by a narrative of the Temptation
in the Wilderness. Here again there is good reason for the
agreement between the first an*d third evangelists as to the
place given to the narrative. Their narratives are fuller by
far than Mark's and while they differ from one another in the
order of the two last temptations, in other respects the agree-
ment between them is so close that it is most reasonable to
suppose the same document to have been emplo)-ed as for the
Baptist's preaching.

The discourse on the " Character of the heirs of the
Kingdom" is the addition to Mark to which we come next in
both St Matthew and St Luke, though in the latter it is
placed somewhat later than in the former relatively to the
Synoptic outline. This discourse is preceded in each Gospel

myself to regard this as a probable explanation ; and I have found one in the
considerations referred to in my last remarks above. I may add that the present
chapter wa.s written in the summer of 1906, before the appearance of the number
of Harnack's Beitrdge above referred to ; and it remains substantially unaltered.
My agreement with him is the more satisfactory to me.

^ From Table II. at end of vol. a comprehensive view of the matter common
to St Matthew and St Luke but not in St Mark may be obtained ; the pieces also
which in the judgment of the present writer were, and those which were not, taken
by the two evangelists from the same Greek document, are there distinguished
by differences of type. Again, an Analysis at the end of the present chapter
exhibits the arrangement of this matter, and other matter similar to it, in the
discourses of our first Gospel. Finally, the manner in which the matter in
question has been introduced into the Synoptic outline by our first and third
evangelists may be easily learned from Table I., at end of vol. The use of these
Tables will, I think, assist the reader in following the discussion upon which I
here enter.

8o Review of the non-Marcan matter

by a description of a gathering of crowds from all parts to
hear Jesus (Mt. iv. 24, 25 ; Lk vi. 17 — 19). It is probable,
therefore, that in the source itself from which the discourse
was derived there were at least some indications of attendant
circumstances of this kind. Luke found a place for the
insertion of the discourse just after the point at which Mark,
too, describes such a gathering \ Our first evangelist had his
own reasons for wishing to place the discourse earlier-, and
was accordingly in this instance content to introduce it where
the only link supplied in his Marcan document was a refer-
ence to the activity of Jesus in teaching as well as in working
miracles (Mk i. 38, 39 = Mt. iv. 23).

This discourse, as given in Mt. v — vii., contains, it will be
remembered, a good deal of matter which is found only in
that Gospel, and also passages of some length as well as
individual Sayings which are included by Luke in his " Great
Insertion^" But on the other hand the whole of what is
given in the discourse in Lk vi. 20 — 49 is comprised in the
corresponding discourse in St Matthew, with the exception
perhaps'' of the "Woes" (Lk vv. 24 — 26) and of two brief
Sayings (Lk vv. 39, 40) which occur later in St Matthew, in
two other contexts. It is with the discourse so far as it is
common to both Gospels, that we are now primarily con-
cerned. The beginning and end are the same in both, the
order of Sayings in the intervening part corresponds in the
main, though not entirely ; but while in substance there is
agreement, the difference in expression is often wide'. It is
distinctly greater than that between the same two Gospels
in the case of the parable of the Vineyard, or of the
Sower, and its interpretation. It is just a little less than that
in the Eschatological Discourse in Mt. xxiv. and Lk xxi.
But in this last instance the number of distinct Sayings which
have been added or substituted by Luke, and of modifications
made for obvious reasons, are nearly twice as great as in the

^ Mk iii. 7 — i2 = Lk vi. 17 — 19. See Table I.
"^ See pp. 23 f., 323, and cp. p. 85.
2 See Analysis, p. 123 f.

* This is not certainly an exception. See p. 83.

* In one Saying only do they agree closely throughout, that on " the Mote and
the Beam" (Mt. vii. 3 — 5 = Lk vi. 41, 42).

common to St Matthew and St Luke 8i

discourse in Lk vi. This is a circumstance which should be
allowed for in comparing them. Like these instances, which
we decided to apply as tests, the discourse on the " Character
of the heirs of the Kingdom " was doubtless one where
variations might be likely to occur, since its precepts would
have been often taught orally. Still, it would seem that the
amount of difference between the account of it in St Luke and
the parallel portions in St Matthew at least reaches, if it does
not even go beyond, the extreme limit that can be allowed
for where the same Greek document was employed ^ And
consequently the hypothesis that the two evangelists used
different translations suggests itself as at least an alternative
explanation. I am not prepared to say how much resem-
blance there would probably be between the renderings of two
translators. But there can be little doubt that the amount of
difference would be likely to be greater than in the case of
two editions or adaptations of the same Greek document.
And if, on the other hand, it should seem at first sight
improbable that two translators should both independently
employ some of the words and expressions which are com-
mon to the parallels before us, it should be borne in mind
that reminiscences of oral teaching might so influence the
minds of two translators as to make their renderings more
similar than translations by different hands would ordinarily
be. The supposed translators would not in point of fact have
been in the full sense independent, because they would have
shared in greater or less degree the same special vocabulary

^ The number of words which are the same, or partly the same (different parts
of same verb, or noun, owing to differences in the formation of the sentences)
may be compared with the total number of words in the passage in order to obtain
the proportion of resemblance. Even the smallest words should be counted, such
as (cat, 5e, 7dp. The similarity or difference in regard to these little words is often
significant as shewing similarity or difference in the structure of the sentences.
For the extent of the passages to be compared, I have taken Luke. I make the
proportion in the parable of the Vineyard -5, in that of the Sower -657 ; in the
interpretation of the latter parable "534 ; in the Eschatological Discourse in Lk xxi.
only -391 ; in the Discourse in Lk vi. -403. But it should be observed that in the
discourse in Lk xxi. vz'. 18, 19, 22, 24, 28, 34, 35, 36 and parts of w. 18, 19 are
additional matter not represented in Matthew, making 147 words out of a total in
the whole discourse of 447 ; while in Lk vi. w. 24, 25, 26, 39, 40 are not represented
in parallel in Mt., making 81 words out of a total of 548. This is clearly a point of
importance when we are comparing them.

S. G. II. 6

82 Review of the non-Marcan matter

and associations. For instance, the general form and most
prominent words of the Beatitudes, or such a saying as o fiiad6<;
vfiMv TToXu? eV TO) ovpavu) (or Toi<; ovpavols;) in Mt. v. 12 =
Lk vi. 23, 25, would be fixed in their minds through tradition,
before they began to translate. While such a saying as that
on " the Mote and the Beam " might have been remembered
by both as an oft-repeated proverb. But further, the later of
the two translators may have been acquainted with the ver-
sion previously made, and have reproduced it here and there.
On the whole then the view that the resemblances and
differences in these parallels may be accounted for by the
supposition that our two evangelists used different translations
here is not an unreasonable one. And there are some other
facts to be considered, which will, I believe, recommend it
further. It appears to be highly probable that the sections
on "the relation of the New to the Old Law" and on "the
contrast between the right and the Pharisaic practice of three
great parts of religious observance" (Mt. v. 17 — 48, and vi.
I — 8, 16 — 18) stood in the Aramaic original virtually as they
do in St Matthew. Though in the Lucan discourse neither of
these topics is treated, the sayings of which its paragraph on
love and meekness is composed are all to be found in St
Matthew under the last two heads of the section on the Law,
viz., those on the Law of retaliation and the Rule of loving a
neighbour and hating an enemy. Moreover, there are signs in
the Lucan form of some rearrangement, such as might be
necessary in order to provide for a new and suitable beginning
of the paragraph, when there had been an omission. For the
maxim dyaTruTe, etc., which Luke at v. 27 introduces with the
words dWa vfiip Xeyo), etc., occurs in St Matthew after
sayings which Luke postpones to it, and the consequence of
so using it has been that Luke has found it necessary to
repeat it at v. 35, in order to resume the thread, with -jrXijv
prefixed to apologise (as it were) for doing so^

' For referring these passages to the original I may claim the support of
Wendt, id. p. 57 ff., and Wernle, id. p. 62 f. Ilarnack, on the other hand, i/i.
p. n8f., excludes them. It is the most important point on which I differ from
him. The reason he gives, viz. that the individuality of Matthew appears in them,
seems to me inadequate. Why should not this attitude in regard to the Law have
been found in the Logian source ?

commoji to St Matt hew and St Luke 83

In circumstances such as those upon which I have
dwelt in the earHer part of this chapter it would not have
been unnatural that in the first communication of this dis-
course to Gentiles the piece about the Jewish Law should
have been omitted as unsuited to them. But it seems to me
improbable that Luke himself should have passed it over, if
he found the passage in a Greek document lying before him ;
for the desire for full knowledge in regard to the Lord's
Teaching must have been already strongly felt. It is the
more unlikely that he should have done so because he gives
an emphatic saying on the inviolability of the Law contained
in this passage, along with some of its teaching on marriage,
in a different context (xvi. 17, 18). Even supposing then
that Luke had thought it unnecessary to give the whole of
the passage on the Law, it would have been most natural for
him to have given a summary of it in its original position, if
his Greek source had contained it. Indeed, it would have
been a strong measure for anyone to have set the piece aside,
if he had found it ready translated in a document which he
had in his hands. It is easier to understand that one who was
translating the discourse for use in a Gentile Church might
have omitted it, as a passage not directly suited to them. •

The contrast between the right and the Pharisaic practice
of Almsgiving, Prayer and Fasting (Mt, vi. i — 8, 16 — 18), which
follows the exposition of the true principles of the Law, seems
to belong to the same connexion and to come from the same
source, and there would be the same reason for omitting its
translation ^ We iind also indications of its existence in
St Luke, though they are somewhat less marked than in the
case last discussed. For the Woes in St Luke may be
regarded as a kind of generalisation of the condemnation of
the Pharisees preserved in St Matthew. The words airkyere
TT]v TrapciKXiqaLv vfMwv in Lk vi. 24 should be compared with
aTrixovcnv rov fiiaOov avrcov in Mt. vi. 2, 5, 16.

From all this it follows that Luke's account of the dis-
course was not taken from the version used in St Matthew,

^ The Lord's Prayer has, however, been transferred to Mt. vi. 9 — 13 from a
later context in the same document. Whether the saying that follows in z>v. 14, 15,
stood in this connexion in the Aramaic source may be left an open question. See
below, p. 329.

6—2

84 Review of the non-Marcatt matter

which contained the paragraphs referred to. Further, it will
not, I think, be suggested that these paragraphs alone were
separately translated and incorporated with the Lucan version
of the rest. One who had translated those long paragraphs
would naturally continue his work of independent translation
to the end of the discourse. But this discourse might, owing
to its special practical value, have been translated and copied,
and have passed into the hands of the author of the Greek
St Matthew as a separate piece, and have been substituted by
him here for the compressed version in the document which he
elsewhere followed. Or again this substitution might already
have been effected in his copy of that document. I do not
suggest that he himself made the fuller version which he
gives, partly because it seems to me more likely that an
independent rendering of limited extent should be due to
one who had a more limited aim than the author of this
Gospel ; partly for a reason which will come before us in a
later chapter^

But we should not be justified in arguing that because the
version of the discourse used by our first evangelist embraced
a larger part of the contents of the original than that used
by Luke did, it was, therefore, in all points more exact. It
would, however, be inexpedient to interrupt our general
review of the contents of "O" by an inquiry of this kind.
Something will be said on this subject before this examina-
tion of the document in question is concluded^

By the preceding discussion we have incidentally been led
to the interesting and important conclusion that the sections
on the relation of the New to the Old Law, and on the con-
trast between the true and the Pharisaic performance of three
great departments of religious observance, which we have in
Mt. V. 17 — vi. 18, but which are not given by Luke, did in all
probability stand in the Aramaic original of the discourse in
a position corresponding to that which they occupy in our
first Gospel. It may likewise here be suggested that the little
piece containing Sayings on the Pharisaic desire for human
approbation, the permanency of the Law and the inviolability
of marriage (Lk xvi. 15, 17, 18), which Luke places much
later, had first been given as a brief, oral rendering or account
^ See p. 343 f. - See p. 106 f.

common to St Matthew and St Luke 85

of the passages just referred to, when no full translation of
them existed, that it had become current in tradition, or been
written down in some short record, and so had reached our
third evangelist.

But we must proceed with the examination of the passages
which have to come under our consideration, in the order in
which Luke gives them. The discourse which we have been
considering is followed immediately in St Luke by the
narrative of the healing of the centurion's servant, while in
St Matthew one other narrative only is interposed — that of
the cleansing of the leper, which was taken from the Marcan
document. The first and third evangelists also agree verbally,
to a considerable extent, in their accounts of this incident,
and there seems to be no good reason for doubting that each
of the two evangelists is here reproducing a narrative which
stood next to the discourse on the " Character of the heirs
of the Kingdom," in a Greek document which was a source
to both. Luke, however, has introduced several particulars
derived probably from tradition, while in St Matthew a piece
is added on the subject of the Gentiles who should be re-
ceived into the kingdom, to which we shall come much later
in Luke's order.

Luke continues after this to give other non-Marcan matter,
including the important incident of the Baptist's message
and the discourse by Jesus that was called forth thereby.
Our first evangelist places this incident and discourse some-
what differently, both with reference to the sequence of the
Synoptic outline, and to other matter taken from " O."
(xi. I fif.). His design seems to have been to use it as a
climax after the series of illustrations of the Saviour's
Teaching and miracles which occupy the first half of his
account of the public Ministry. The Words of Jesus on this
occasion fall naturally into two divisions ; the first consists
of His reply to John's inquiry and reflections on his pro-
phetic character ; in the second He comments on the recep-
tion accorded both to John and to Himself At the point
of division Luke characteristically interposes a few words
(vii. 29, 30), in which he notes the different attitude to John
of the publicans and people, on the one hand, and of the
Pharisees on the other, and the different ways in which con-

86 Review of the non-Ma re an matter

sequently they were affected by the language of Jesus about
him. Our first evangelist, again, after his different manner,
has at the end of the first part of the discourse introduced a
Saying (Mt. xi. 12, 13) about John's work given in another
context and in a different form in St Luke (xvi. 16), and has
also at the end of the whole added some pieces, which do
not seem properly to belong here, as they have nothing to do
with the subject of John the Baptist, but only with the
attitude of men to Christ (xi. 20 — 30). But both parts of
the discourse given in St Luke are given also in St Matthew
in an almost verbally identical form, and must undoubtedly
have been derived by both evangelists from the same docu-
ment. Luke's same insertion of non-Marcan matter contains
also two narratives peculiar to his Gospel ; he places the one
before, the other after, the incident of the Baptist's message
(vii. II — 17, 36 — 50). Lastly at the end of the insertion
there is a reference to a missionary journey. Now, if we pass
on at once to Luke's next insertion into the Synoptic out-
line at ix. 51 ff., omitting the intervening Marcan matter,
the earliest pieces having parallels also in St Matthew, to
which we come, relate to the calling of the disciples of Jesus,
His own homelessness in which those who followed Him
were required to participate, and the missionary work which
lay before them (Lk ix. 57 — 60, x. 2, 3 — 12 = Mt. viii. 19—22,
ix. 37, 38, X. 5 a, 7 — 16). These pieces are also some of those
in which there is very close agreement between the two
Gospels. Now let us mark the position of these pieces in
St Matthew. They occur in close proximity to the mention
at ix. 35 of a missionary tour in which Lk viii. i has its
truest parallel. There are, then, strong grounds for thinking
that in " Q " a reference to a missionary tour by Jesus
introduced the teaching about the missionary calling of His
disciples. Luke has broken that connexion by giving the
former piece at the end of one insertion, and then relating
many narratives from his Marcan document before he resumes
the use of " Q."^ Nevertheless, he has to some extent

1 According to Mark also the sending forth of the Twelve to preach was pre
ceded by a missionary journey of Jesus Himself. See Mk vi. 6 b. But Lk viii. 1
is (as I have said) most nearly parallel to Mt. ix. 35. Note in the two latter the
mention of ' cities' as well as ' villages,' and 'the preaching of the kingdom of God.'

common to St Matthew and St Luke 87

suggested the same idea as the sequence in the source did,
seeing that he has associated the Sayings and directions
regarding the missionary calHng of disciples with Christ's
journeying towards Jerusalem.

The Saying on ' the need of labourers to gather in the
spiritual harvest ' and the charge containing directions for
the guidance of the missionaries of the Gospel, which were
according to Luke delivered to seventy disciples (Lk x. i ff.),
who were about to be sent forth, are in St Matthew connected
with the Mission of the Twelve (Mt. ix. 37 ff.). The form of
the saying on the need of labourers is identical in the two
Gospels, save for the different order of two words. The
whole of the language of the Charge has not been embodied
in St Matthew, though portions of it have been. It should be
remembered that our first evangelist has evidently combined
this piece with the shorter Charge given to the Twelve in his
Marcan document (Mk vi. 8 — 11)^. Expressions taken from
the latter have in some instances been employed instead of
similar ones from the former. Moreover, the adaptations
required when two parallel accounts were united would
naturally lead to rearrangement of sentences and to the use
of some words and phrases not found in either. We need not
hesitate then to conclude that portions of this Charge in the
first and the third Gospels belonged to " Q." Probably the
words which introduced it in that document were not very
precise as to the occasion, so that the first and third evange-
lists were able to take different views of the circumstances in
which the Teaching in question was delivered. The former
supposed that this passage of his second source referred to
the time of the sending forth of the Twelve described in his
Marcan one ; Luke on the contrary supposed the occasion to
be a distinct one, when an additional body of preachers was
commissioned.

The precise extent of this Charge, as it stood in " Q " may
not be altogether easy to determine. The concluding passage
in the discourse to the Twelve in St Matthew {vv. 40 — 42)
corresponds with the last saying of the Charge in St Luke

^ See Analysis, p. I24f.

88 Review of the non-Marcan matter

(v. 1 6), just as the ends of the discourse in Mt. v. — vii. and
Lk vi. correspond. And between the common commence-
ment and ending our first evangelist has, in the case now
before us as well as in that one, introduced several pieces
placed later in St Luke. But it may also be questioned
whether the Apostrophe given in Lk x. 13 — 15 does not appear
here through a slight displacement, and whether it should not
stand after the conclusion of the Charge and immediately
before the Thanksgiving which follows in vv. 21, 22. These
two little pieces present the contrast between those who have
rejected and those who have received the truth. Our first
evangelist gives them together, though he places them in
another context (Mt. xi. 20 — 27). The Apostrophe does not
fit in altogether suitably at the end of the Missionary Charge,
since the cities named in it were those in which Jesus had
already preached, not those to which His representatives
were being sent. But seeing that there seems to have been a
reference to the judgment on Sodom (cp. Mt. x. 15), near the
end of the Charge, as given in the source, as well as in the
Apostrophe addressed to Chorazin, etc., it may well have
occurred to the evangelist to weave the two together.

The two paragraphs of which I have just been speaking
are given by the two evangelists so near!}- in the same words,
that both must have been derived from the same Greek
document. The same holds of the Sa}'ing, " Blessed are your
eyes," etc., which stands next in St Luke (x. 23, 24), and the
connexion of thought is natural. In St Matthew, however,
the two former have not unsuitably been placed in the
discour.'^e in which the reception accorded first to John the
Baptist and then to Jesus is treated of(Mt. xi. 21 — 24,25 — 27),
and the latter in the passage on the privileges enjoyed by the
disciples, which is connected with their having the parables
interpreted to them (Mt. xiii. 16, 17).

The words " Blessed are your eyes," etc., are followed in
St Luke by the question of a lawyer from whom Jesus draws
forth a statement of the two great commandments of the
Law (Lk x. 25 — 28); these must be compared with the
similar question and reply in St Mark placed in that Gospel
among the incidents of the last few da)'s of the life of Jesus,

co7mnon to St Matthew and St Luke 89

at Jerusalem (Mk xii. 28 — 34), and the parallel in St Matthew
standing in the same connexion (Mt. xxii. 34 — 40). Luke
has no parallel at that point to St Mark, though on the
whole he follows the Marcan order closely in that part of the
Gospel history. He doubtless omitted the incident there,
because he had already given a very similar one, taken from
another source, in his "Great Insertion." It is further to be
observed that he represents differently the motive of the
scribe. The latter asked his question in order to " tempt," or
"try," Jesus, instead of (as Mark states) because he approved
the answers which he had already heard. Now in this, as
well as in some of the other differences between St Luke and
St Mark, our first evangelist agrees with the former. There
is good reason, then, for thinking that "O" contained an
account of the lawyer's question and the reply, substantially
as Luke gives it, and that, as in several other instances, the
first evangelist has combined what he read in that source
with what he read in his Marcan document, even while he
adhered to the order of the latter.

It is to be added that here again a slight dislocation of
the original sequence may have taken place in St Luke's
reproduction of the source, as might easih' happen when more
matter was being introduced. For the question asked by a
scribe in order to tempt Jesus would come in more naturally in
connexion with the series of paragraphs on the conflict of Jesus
with the Scribes and Pharisees, Lk xi. 14 — 54. The teaching
addressed to disciples would also then not be interrupted.

We have next to consider^ the 'Instruction on prayer' in
Lk xi. I — 13. After a request by the disciples to be taught
to pray, which may possibly have been imagined by the
evangelist as an introduction, we have the Lord's Prayer, an
Example of successful importunity, and an Exhortation to
earnestness in prayer. The second of these is peculiar to
Luke. But the two others are both given in the discourse in
Mt. V. — vii. There are differences in his form of the Lord's
Prayer, but these differences, mostly amplifications, may
reasonably be attributed to the influence of the liturgical

1 I.e. passing over two pieces peculiar to Lk, viz. the parable of the Good
Samaritan, and the incident connected with Martha and Mary.

go Review of tJie non-Marcan matter

usage to which the evangelist had become accustomed. It
would not be strange that he should give the prayer in the
form in which he himself knew it best, even though in the
document which lay before him it appeared in that briefer
form in which we have it in St Luke. The Exhortation to
earnestness in prayer is placed a little later in the Matthaean
discourse. In the form of this piece the two Gospels agree
closely on the whole, and it is to be referred to the source
common to them.

From the instruction and encouragement given to dis-
ciples we turn now to contention with the sceptical and
actively hostile. I have already spoken of one passage
(Lk X. 25 — 28), which falls under this head, and which may,
I think, in the document which we are endeavouring to re-
construct, have stood at the beginning of a division treating
of that feature of Christ's Ministry. In this division we
have next the Accusation of collusion with Satan. The rela-
tions between the three Synoptics noticed in the instance of
the lawyer's question appear here again, but more strikingly.
There is a corresponding account in St Mark, but it is clear
that Luke's is taken from a different source (Mk iii. 21 — 30;
Lk xi. 14, 15, 17 — 26). In St Mark the accusation, made (it
is expressly saidj by " scribes from Jerusalem," is compared
(it would seem) with the declaration of His own relatives that
" He is mad." In St Luke the suggestion of the Pharisees
is introduced by the mention of a case in which He cast out
a "dumb devil." Again, while a portion of the reply of Jesus
is the same in substance in both St Mark and St Luke, there
are sentences in each which are wholly independent. More-
over, Luke has passed the account by at the place where
it should have occurred according to the Marcan outline,
and given it in his "Great Insertion," where certainly the
far larger part of his matter is not derived from the Marcan
document. Lastly, our first evangelist evidently had the two
accounts before him and has combined them (Mt. xii. 22 — 32).
He has introduced this accusation at a point in his outline
corresponding approximately to that at which it stands in
St Mark, but has prefixed the same incident as Luke does
by way of providing an occasion for it. Further, he has in

common to St Matthew and St Liike 91

the reply of Jesus interwoven sentences taken now from
the Marcan, now from the non-Marcan accounts. Another
form of attack, the demand for a sign (Lk xi. i6, 29 — 32;
Mt. xii. 38 — 42) is also connected by both our first and third
evangelists with the accusation of collusion with Satan, and
much of the matter relating to this also is identical in form
in the two Gospels, and must have been taken from " Q."^

The reply of Jesus to the Demand for a sign is followed
in St Luke by two proverbial sayings on light (Lk xi, 33 — 36).
The first of these has a parallel, though not one which is
close in form, at Mt. v. 15. There its application to the
responsibilities of disciples and its suitability to the place
which it occupies are obvious. In Lk xi. 33, on the contrary,
it interferes with a good connexion ; for the second saying
which insists on the need for singleness of eye would be
naturally suggested by the perverse attitude of the Pharisees
and others, which had just before been exhibited. It is
difficult not to suppose that the first saying in which the
figure of a lamp is used was introduced here because the
same figure was employed in the second, which has a rightful
place in this context. As to the first of the two sayings the
arrangement of the source has, I believe, for once been
preserved in the first and not in the third Gospel. The
passage of the discourse in which it there occurs was probably
(we have seen) not known to Luke in its original form and
position, though some of its matter had reached him dis-
jointedly. One of these fragments he introduces at the
place now before us. But the other saying on light not only
occupies a fitting place in its Lucan context, when the pre-
ceding saying has been removed, but it also closely resembles
in language its parallel at Mt. vi. 22, 23, and must have been
derived by both evangelists from the same Greek document.
There is good reason then to hold that the two evangelists
have, as to this saying, kept to their usual parts, Luke giving
it in the position in which he found it in " Q," while our
first evangelist used the matter in " Q " for the compilation
of longer discourses.

The series of passages in this part of St Luke, treating of

^ See the Analysis, p. 125 f.

92 Review of the non-Marcmt matter

the conflicts of Jesus, concludes with a denunciation of the
Pharisees and Scribes by Jesus, followed by vehement attacks
upon Him from their side (Lk xi. 39 — 54). Their rejoinders
and the occasion on which the denunciation was delivered are
mentioned only in this Gospel, and may have been contributed
by the evangelist, but much of the matter contained in the
denunciation itself is found in the still longer passage on the
same theme in St Matthew, where it stands at the conclusion
of Christ's public Ministry (Mt. xxiii.). The agreement, how-
ever, in form between St Matthew and St Luke is not so close
as in many other passages, and the former contains a good
deal of peculiar matter which appears from its character to
be in the main authentic^ and also to be closely connected
with that which is common to both Gospels. It seems prob-
able, therefore, that here, as in the discourse on the Heirs
of the Kingdom, a fuller rendering of the Aramaic original
has taken the place of a brief account of it in the document
used by Luke. Our first evangelist has combined this fuller
discourse with the corresponding section in St Mark.

This account in St Luke of the acute opposition between
Jesus and the Pharisees and Scribes is immediately followed
in that Gospel by an exhortation to His disciples — describing
the spirit and manner in which they ought to face and en-
dure the opposition and persecution to which they must
look forward (xii. i — 12). In St Matthew the greater part
of this paragraph has been placed in the Mission Charge
addressed to the Twelve (Lk xii. 2 — 9 = Mt. x. 26 — 33 ;
Lk xii. II, 12 = Mt. X. 19, 20). But the larger portion of it
must in all probability have been taken from the same source
by the first and third evangelists. The form and purport of
the Saying at the beginning on the making known of that
which is secret is indeed different in the two Gospels ; Luke
has not improbably modified the form of the Saying in the
source in favour of one otherwise known to him. But on the
whole the agreement of vv. 2 — 9 in St Luke and vv. 26 — 33
in St Matthew is fairly close. The Saying at Lk xii. 11, 12,
on 'not being anxious as to the answer to be given when
arraigned ' appears somewhat earlier in the Matthaean

1 See p. 335 f.

commoji to St Matthew and St Luke 93

Mission Charge, and in a different context. Although the
Saying there given (Mt. x. 19, 20) agrees in substance with the
one just referred to in St Luke, and although it may have been
included in " O," it would seem that our first evangelist did
not derive it from that source ; for it forms part of a passage
common to St Matthew and St Mark\ and in expression it
resembles the latter much more closely than it does the
parallel in the third Gospel-. The saying on " speaking
against the Son of Man" in Lk xii, 10, has been given
(Mt. xii. 32), in the discourse occasioned by the Accusation
of collusion with Satan, where a Saying that resembles it
occurs in the Marcan parallel. In this instance, as in others
which we have noticed, our first evangelist has been (it would
seem) guided by his ]\Iarcan document in regard to the
position which he has assigned to the Saying, and influenced
by " O " as to its form.

To proceed with our review of the contents of Luke's
"Great Insertion": after a piece peculiar to him, in which
Jesus warns one who was not a disciple, and then the multi-
tude, against covetousness, we come again to an exhortation
addressed to disciples, Lk xii. 22 — 34, given in almost exactly
the same form at Mt. vi. 25 — 34, 19 — 21 ^ It consists of
the Sayings, so familiar to us, on trust in God for the
necessaries of life and on seeking His Kingdom. As the
piece stands in St Luke its lesson appears to be suggested
by that of the piece on covetousness which has been given
just before. But if we suppose that piece removed we still
have a good, and perhaps a better, connexion of thought
For those who were to preach Christ's Gospel were required
to renounce worldly possessions with a view to this work
which they had to do, and for those so engaged the injunction
to put confidence in their Heavenly Father's care had special
significance. This aspect of the Teaching in question appears
most clearly in vv. 32 and 33 b, which are peculiar to Luke.
Our first evangelist, on the other hand, feeling that the lessons

^ Mt. X. 17 — 22 = Mk xiii. 9 — 13. On this piece see pp. 116, 330.

2 Mt. agrees with Lk against Mk in this Saying only in one slight turn of
phrase.

* There is the difference of arrangement here indicated, but the language is
almost identical.

94 Review of the non-Marcan matter

taught in this passage were, in their essence at least, ap-
pHcable to all the children of God, has placed it in the
discourse in which he has sought to present the most general
view of the Teaching of Jesus on the Way of life.

From the passage last discussed we pass in the immediate
sequel to three which enjoin watchfulness for the return of
the Christ. The first of these (Lk xii. 35—38) contains the
main idea of the parable of the Ten Virgins at Mt. xxv.
I — 13, — that of servants keeping their lamps burning, and
otherwise in a state of readiness, so that they may open the
door immediately to their Master when he returns from his
wedding. The Lucan figure might conceivabl}' be due to
abbreviation of the parable of the Ten Virgins, by someone
who felt that the full parable was unsuited to Greeks, on
account of the Eastern features of the imagery. But I do
not think that this is what has happened. And it is evident
that, as our first evangelist was acquainted with the parable
of the Ten Virgins he might well have substituted it for the
shorter piece\

In the form of the next two pieces, that on ' watching
lest the Son of Man should come as a thief and on ' the
prudent steward ' (Lk xii. 39, 40 and 42 — 46 = Mt. xxiv.
43 — 5 1 ), there is very close agreement between the two
evangelists. Doubtless in both cases the immediate or ulti-
mate source was " Q." Luke interposes a remark by Peter
at V. 41.

From this point onwards to the end of the " Great In-
sertion " there is a much larger proportion of matter which is
altogether peculiar to St Luke than before, and much even
of that which may be reckoned common to him with
St Matthew, as regards substance, is markedly distinct in
form. Further, although much of the teaching comprised
under the head of this common matter is suitable to the
closing period of Christ's Ministry, it is nevertheless more
difficult to trace signs of order in this part of the " Great
Insertion," after the pieces peculiar to Luke have been re-
moved, than we have found it to be up to this point. The
cause may be partly that some of the pieces which are in

1 See further below, p. 99, and p. 340 in Chapter on St Matthew.

common to St Matthew and St Litke 95

substance common have not been derived from the document
generally used, but either from some other document or
from tradition. We should certainly expect that among
the additional pieces collected independently by the two
evangelists some, though not derived from the same written
record in Greek, or even it may be in Aramaic, would yet
have ultimately a common origin and be in substance the
same. The two evangelists, when they looked beyond their
two principal documents, would not be likely to light only on
different matter. But again, the introduction of matter not
contained in the principal source would sometimes, even in
the case of a writer who proceeded on Luke's plan, lead to
rearrangement of that which was taken from that source
itself A couple of instances in which this has probably
happened have already come before us ; and in the part
where a great deal of additional matter has been included
it would be natural that there should be more dislocation.

It will be convenient to notice first the pieces which may
with most reason be held to have been derived by both
evangelists from the same document. The Saying on ' the
divisions between near relatives which would arise as a con-
sequence of His coming' (Lk xii. 51 — 53) and that on 'its
being necessary for those who would be His disciples to set
aside human relationships and to bear the cross' (Lk xiv.
26, 27), may be taken together. They seem properly to
belong to one another, and are given as though they formed
one piece in Mt. x. 34 — 38. The amount of verbal agree-
ment between the two Gospels in these sayings, though not
so great as in several other passages, is nevertheless quite
sufficient to allow of our supposing them to have been
derived by both evangelists from the same Greek document.
Luke may have been induced to separate them because the
first seemed to him to fit well with another saying which he
had himself collected, " I have come to kindle a fire," etc. (xii.
49. 50) ; while the second could suitably be connected with
sayings on 'counting the cost' and 'renouncing earthly pos-
sessions' (xiv. 28 — 33), which were likewise part of his special
store.

The parables of the Mustard Plant and Leaven at Lk xiii.

96 Review of the non-Marcan matter

1 8 — 21, are introduced v'ery abruptly, and it is difficult to see
any other position which they could occupy in this part of
his Gospel where the connexion of thought would be more
obvious. In Mt. xiii. 31 — },^ the pair stand in the connexion
in which the first of them is found in St Mark, viz., in the
group of parables at the head of which we have that of the
Sower. But our first and third evangelists appear to have
known both as a pair from " O " ; for the former has in
giving the first of them combined phrases from the Marcan
and Lucan forms in a very noticeable manner, while in the
second, where he had only " O," he is in close agreement
throughout with Luke. The Apostrophe to Jerusalem, " the
slayer of prophets," in Lk xiii. 34, 35 and Mt. xxiii. 37 — 39,
is identical, except for two or three exceedingly slight
verbal differences. Luke has, according to his view as to the
period to which a large portion of his non-Marcan matter
could best be referred, connected it with the journey towards
Jerusalem, and has supposed it to have been spoken when
Jesus was in Herod's territory (xiii. 31 — 33), somewhere
nearer probably to Herod's own place of residence than He
had been in Galilee — especially those central and northerly
parts of Galilee which He had frequented. In St Matthew
it concludes the denunciation of the Pharisees and Scribes,
immediately after which Jesus departs from the courts of the
Temple for the last time. In the source it may have pre-
ceded the passage on the Coming of the Son of Man given
in Lk xvii. 22 — 37. The supposition that this was its original
position will, I think, be confirmed by a consideration of the
only two passages occurring between it and the Coming of
the Son of Man in Luke's " Great Insertion " which have close
parallels in St Matthew, viz. xiv. 26, 27 and xvii. i — 4\ We
have already seen reasons for connecting the former of these
closely with xii. 51 — 53-. The latter also would suitably
follow the warnings to disciples given in those two pieces.

The description of the Future Coming of the Son of Man
comes nearly at the end of Luke's "Great Insertion," being
followed only by two parables which are peculiar to him.
Our first evangelist has embodied the substance of part of

^ See Table II. ^ See p. 95.

common to St Matthew and St Lnke 97

this eschatological passage and uses many of the same ex-
pressions in his Discourse on the Last Things. As in some
other cases we may here attribute omissions and differences
on his part to his having united matter taken from different
sources, and shall be justified in supposing " Q " to have been
one of these.

In two instances of which I have not yet spoken the
origin of the similarity between the two Gospels is specially
difficult to determine. The first is the incident of the Healing
of the dropsical man on the Sabbath with the defence of His
act made by Jesus on the occasion (Lk xiv. i — 6). This may
have had a place in the source and may have been in the
mind of our first evangelist (Mt. xii. 9 — 14) who may have
drawn thence the argument with which he supplements the
account of a similar incident taken from Mk iii. i — 6. The
other is the figure of the Lost Sheep (Mt. xviii. 12 — 14), which
is expanded into a parable in Lk xv. 4 ff and differently
applied. But so far as the two Gospels correspond in sub-
stance the language also is very similar^

The remaining Sayings and longer pieces in St Luke
which have parallels in St Matthew, but not in St Mark,
reached the two evangelists I believe by different channels,
oral or written. There are a few quite short Sayings, scattered
through the concluding portion of Luke's " Great Insertion,"
and one subsequent to it, which are given in very similar, and
sometimes practically identical form in St Matthewl Not
only, however, do the two evangelists place them in wholly
different settings, but in St Luke they are connected in each
case with matter that is peculiar to him, and seem to belong
to it so closely that there would be no proper position left for
them in this portion of his Gospel if the pieces with which
they are respectively associated were removed. Let us notice,
for instance, that in Lk xii. 58, 59, on 'the unwisdom of
deferring the payment of a debt.' The purpose with which
this proverbial Saying is quoted here depends wholly on the
Saying peculiar to Luke which precedes, on men's blindness

' See further on this subject p. 331 f. below.

2 Lk xii. 58, 59 = Mt. v. 25, 26; Lk xiv. ii = Mt. xxiii. 12; Lk xiv. 34,
35 = Mt. V. 13; Lk xvi. i3 = Mt. vi. 24; Lk xxii. 30= Mt. xix. 28.

S. G. II. 7

98 Review of the non-Marcan matter

in regard to the signs of the times {ib. vv. 54 — 57). The
significance which the proverb about payment has in the
position which it holds in Mt. v. 25, 26 appears to be quite
dififerent. Again, to take the Saying in which the agreement
of language is most striking (Lk xvi. i3 = Mt. vi. 24): we
may fairly say, I think, that to explain its place in St Luke
we must suppose it to have been attracted (so to speak) to
the parable of the Unjust Steward, rather than that parable
to have been attracted to it. And at the same time no stress
can be laid on the closeness of agreement in the case of this
Saying with the parallel in our first Gospel — and still less can
it be in the others which have been enumerated — because (as
I have already had occasion to remark) single pith}' Sayings
might easily be remembered and reproduced in the same
form, or might have been textuall}' assimilated by very early
copyists, of whose action our existing textual evidence gives
no indication.

Again the difference between the Saying concerning
'winning one's life through sacrificing it' at Mt. x. 39 and Lk
xvii. 33, not only in form but also in the application sug-
gested, makes it probable that in I\It. x. it comes from a
different source (perhaps current oral teaching). At the same
time such a Saying probably stood in "Q" in the eschatological
passage reproduced in Lk xvii. 22 — 37. Our first evangelist
may have passed it over, though he knew it there, in his
conflate Eschatological Discourse in chh. xxiv., xxv.

I have still to speak of two little groups of Sayings. The
three in Lk xiii. 24 — 29 go well together, and it seems not
improbable that our first evangelist also may have known them
as forming a single piece. He has given corresponding Sayings
separately, indeed, but near together and in the same order,
the first two in the concluding part of his discourse on the
'Character of the heirs of the Kingdom '(vii. 13, 14, 22, 23), and
the third at the end of the narrative of the centurion's servant
(viii. II, 12). Nevertheless, in the case of the two former
Sayings the form of expression is widely dififerent in the two
Gospels. In the first (Mt. vii. 13, 14), the image is that of
" a gate " by which " a way " is entered, whereas in Lk xiii.
24 f, it is that of "a door" and "a house." In the second

common to St Matthew and St Liike 99

Saying the false professors claim, according to Mt. vii. 22, 23,
to 'have prophesied and wrought miracles in Christ's Name' ;
in Lk xiii. 25 — 27 they say that they 'have eaten and drunk
in His presence,' and that He 'has taught in their streets.' In
the third Saying there is fairly close similarity between the
two Gospels ; nevertheless the phrases and words which are
the same are such as might well have been used indepen-
dently in two reports \

In Lk xvi. 15 — 18 we have four Sayings on the Pharisees
and the Jewish Law. I have already suggested a way in
which Luke may have come by three of these-. The remain-
ing one, on the place occupied by John the Baptist at the
turning-point between the age of the Law and Prophets
and that new age which had now come, is included in the
Matthaean discourse on the Baptist. It is surely probable
that the whole little piece was put together in the process
of oral teaching, and that Luke received it through such
teaching, or found it in some document other than " Q."

Lastly, the parables in St Luke of the Great Supper (xiv.
15 — 24), to which guests are summoned by one servant,
and the Ten Minae given one apiece to ten servants (xix.
II — 28) have affinities with, and yet differ in conception
from, those in St Matthew of the Wedding-feast for the king's
son to which guests were summoned by successive bodies of
servants (xxii. i — 14), and of the Talents, five, two and one,
given respectively to different servants (xxv. 14 — 30). We
saw that Luke is more than usually free in his treatment of
his Marcan document when reproducing from it the parables
of the Sower and of the Vine-dressers I But the freedom
required on the part of the first and third evangelists in the
use of a common original, in order to produce out of it the
pairs of parables now before us, would far exceed that shewn
in those instances. Nor is the relation of the members of the
pairs the same as that which we have observed between the
exhortation to the disciples to be watchful as servants await-
ing the return of the bridegroom and the parable of the Ten
Virgins. There the figurative exhortation in Luke might
have been intended to give succinctly the lesson of the full

^ See further on these Sayings, p. 352. - See p. 84 f. ■* See p. 73.

7—2

100 Review of the non-Marcan matter

parable. On the contrary in the case now before us we have
in each Gospel the independent development of the same
idea. Weizsacker, when noting the greater degree of varia-
tion which seems to have been held permissible in the parables
than in the precepts of Christ, compares the difference to
that between the Haggadah and Halachah among the Jews.
In connexion with this interesting remark I would point out
the very small extent to which parables seem to have been
included in " Q." The only two which there is strong reason
to think were comprised in it are those of the Mustard Plant
and the Leaven \ It may well be that parables were not
regarded in the strict and full sense as "Logia," and had not
been embodied in the same formal tradition which was first
orally delivered and then written down. It would be quite
natural that the Christian Halachah should be kept distinct
from Christian Haggadah. This would explain the fact that
the parables recorded by our first and third evangelists are to
so large an extent different ones. If the parables were not
contained in the early source used by both, but were pre-
served for a long period in floating tradition, each might
well have become acquainted with different parables.

It has been observed above that, while throughout Luke's
" Insertions " pieces taken from " O " are intermingled with
pieces from other quarters, the latter become specially plenti-
ful towards the close of the last and longest " Insertion."
This is just what one would expect, whether these other
pieces were contributed by Luke himself or by someone who
revised and expanded the copy of " O " which Luke after-
wards used. In either case it would be natural that much of
"O" should first be given, and that when only a few passages,
belonging clearly to the end of Christ's Ministry, remained
to be taken from it, other matter for which no obviously
fitting place had so far been found, should be introduced.

The use made of "Q" in the composition of the discourses
in our first Gospel is likewise a natural one'^. Here as well as

^ Comparisons such as those of the servants waiting for the bridegroom
(xii. 35 — 38), the Coming of the Son of Man like that of a thief, etc., are not
parables. Figurative language is used, but the intended application is made
perfectly plain.

* See Analyses of Discourses in St Matthew, pp. 122 — 9,

commo7i to St Matthew and St Lttke loi

in St Luke a kind of precedence has been accorded to it.
Accounts of addresses taken from it — or in two instances
(those of the Character of the heirs of the Kingdom and the
Denunciation of the Scribes and Pharisees) from fuller versions
which it contained in an abbreviated form — have furnished
the groundwork of the first four of the principal discourses,
just as the accounts from the Marcan document have done in
the discourse illustrating the Teaching by parables, that
on Offences and on the Last Things. Further, several of
the pieces which the first evangelist has taken from the
common document — those which he has transplanted as well
as those which form the basis of certain of his composite
discourses — are of not inconsiderable length, and none are
very short single Sayings. Such brief, separate Sayings there
are, occurring in both Gospels, which closely resemble one
another in form as well as in substance, but which are very
differently placed in the two. We have, however, already
inferred from their position in St Luke that they were
probably not found in the common document. And it may
now be added that although, if they had been included in
it, the first evangelist might have taken them thence and
given them a new setting, yet it would be less likely that he
should have dealt thus with small fragments than with longer
pieces which were more noticeable, and could more easily
be regarded as distinct wholes. In the case of single brief
Sayings it is more natural to suppose that he was guided in
the place that he gave them by associations arising from oral
tradition, or from what he had read in other documents, than
by the intention to rearrange his main sources. And it may
be remarked that we have one instructive example of a saying
differently placed in St Luke and St Matthew, which owes its
position in the latter to the fact of its being included in a
piece not derived from "Q^"

In the preceding discussion the question has been left
open whether the matter peculiar to the first and third Gospels
respectively, as also the matter which is in substance the same
in both, but too different in form to have been derived from
the same document, was added by the evangelists themselves,

^ See p. 92 f. on Lk xii. 11, 12 (Mt. x. 19, 20).

102 Results as to the form and contents

or had already found a place in revised and expanded forms of
the common source, which they severally used. We shall in
later chapters consider this question in connexion with the
subject of the composition of these Gospels. In the present
chapter it has been my aim to ascertain the contents of the
chief source of non-Marcan matter common to the first and
third Gospels, which was also in all probability the earliest
consecutive and relatively complete representative of the
Aramaic Collection of the Sayings of Jesus. But incidentally
we have also been led to single out in St Matthew two dis-
courses in which a fuller version of the original seems to have
been substituted. I subjoin a conspectus to shew the form of
the source which maybe deduced from the available evidence,
according- to the view of it taken above.

THE LOG/AN SOURCE IN GREEK, KNOWN TO AND USED
BY OUR FIRST AND THIRD EVANGELISTS, OR EMBODIED
IN TWO DOCUMENTS W^HICH WERE USED BY THEM
SEVERALLY.

The ushering in of the Ministry of Christ.

The preaching of the Baptist. (Lk iii, 3, 7 — 9, 16^, 17 ;
Mt. iii. 5, 7—12.)

The Baptism of Jesus. (Lk iii. 21, 22 ; Mt. iii. 13, 16, 17.)
The Temptation of Jesus. (Lk iv. i — 13; Mt. iv. i — 11^.)

TJie first stage in the preaching of the Gospel.

The discourse on the Character of the heirs of the King-
dom. (Lk vi. 17 — 49.)

(N.B. A fuller version of this discourse is substituted in
Mt. (v. 3 — vi. 8, vi. 16 — 18, vii. i — 5, 12, 15 — 21,
24 — 27) for that contained in the Greek docu-
ment which was in other parts a common source.)
The faith of the Gentile centurion and its reward. (Lk vii.
I — 10; Mt. viii. 5 — 10, 13.)

The message of John the Baptist, and the reply of Jesus
to it and His remarks on the character of John, and on the
perverse attitude of men to both John and Himself (Lk vii.
18 — 28,31—35; Mt. xi. 2 — 11,16 — 19.)

of the common Greek Logian source 103

TJie extension of the Gospel.

Missionary tour by Jesus. (Lk viii. i ; Mt. ix. 35.)

Warnings addressed to two men on the subject of following
Him. (Lk ix. 57—60; Mt. viii. 19 — 22.)

The harvest plenteous but the labourers few. (Lk x. 2 ;
Mt. ix. 37, 38.)

Directions for the preachers of the Gospel. (Lk x. 3 — 12,
16; Mt. x. 5 a, 7 — 16, 40; but for form of v. 40 see Mk ix. 37.)

The rejection and the reception of Divine truth.

Woe to thee, Chorazin, etc. (Lk x. 13 — 15; Mt. xi.
21—23.)

Thanksgiving that the Father reveals to the simple what
is hidden from the wise. (Lk x. 21, 22 ; Mt. xi. 25 — 27.)

Blessed are your eyes, etc. (Lk x. 23, 24 ; Mt. xiif.
16, 17.)

Instruction on Prayer.

The Lord's Prayer. (Lk xi. 2—4; Mt. vi. 9 — 13.)
Exhortation to be earnest in prayer. (Lk xi. 9 — 13 ; Mt.
vii. 7 — II.)

Jesus and His antagonists.

The lawyer who tried Him with a question as to the
means of obtaining eternal life: — the two great command-
ments. (Lk X. 25—28; Mt. xxii. 34—40.)

On casting out a devil Jesus is accused of collusion with
Beelzebub. (Lk xi. 14, 15, 17—23; Mt. xii. 22—30.)

The man whom the unclean spirit leaves for a time only.
(Lk xi. 24—26; Mt. xii. 43—45-)

The demand for a sign. (Lk xi. 16, 29 — 32 ; Mt. xii.

39—42.)

The lamp of the body is the eye (i.e. singleness of purpose
is necessary for perceiving the truth). (Lk xi. 34 — 36 ; Mt.
vi. 22, 23.)

Denunciation of Pharisees and Scribes. (Lk xi. 39 — 52 ;
a fuller version of this discourse is substituted in Mt. xxiii.
1-36.)

104 Results as to the form and contents

ExJiortations to disciples in view of the opposition and
other trials that awaited them.

Confess Me faithfully. (Lk xii. 2—10; Mt. x. 26—33,
and xii. 32.)

Trust God for the necessaries of life. (Lk xii. 22 — 34 ;
Mt. vi. 25 — 34, 19—21.)

Watch lest the Son of Man should come as a thief (Lk
xii. 39, 40; Mt. xxiv. 43, 44.)

Act as a prudent steward would. (Lk xii. 42 — 46 ; Mt.
xxiv. 45—51.)

Expect divisions in consequence of Christ's work, and be
prepared to set aside human relationships and to bear the
cross. (Lk xii. 51 — 53, xiv. 26, 27; Mt. x. 34—38.)

Two parables on the secret beginnings and ultimate
triumph of Christ's work. (Lk xiii. 18 — 21 ; Mt. xiii.

31—33)

There will be offences. (Lk xvii. i — 4 ; Mt. xviii. 5 — 7, 15,

21, 22.)

The power of faith. (Lk xvii. 5, 6 ; cp. Mt. xvii. 19, 20,
which may be a conflation of the Saying in "Q" and at
Mk xi. 23.)

The doom on Jernsalem, and the things of the end.

Jerusalem, slayer of prophets, thy house shall be left
desolate. (Lk xiii. 34, 35; Mt. xxiii. 37—39-)

The Return of the Son of Man. (Lk xvii. 22—37 ; Mt.
xxiv. 26—28, 37—41- Cp. also x. 39.)

I feel considerable confidence in giving this as at least a
list of the passages from our first and third Gospels which
there is most reason to think were contained in their common
non-Marcan source. But there is some ground for going
further. The simple and natural order of this outline, and
the compactness of the whole, suggest that we may have here
approximately its whole contents. There may indeed be
among pieces peculiar to St Matthew or St Luke a few
derived from this source which have not been included above;
we cannot say that neither evangelist would ever omit what

of the common Greek Logian source 105

the other took^ But the amount of such matter which we
have not the means of distinguishing, and so have failed
to gather in, is not likely to have been considerable, because
in that case the remaining matter from the source, the deriva-
tion of which from it we have been able to ascertain, would
not have presented that appearance of orderly connexion and
compactness which we have found in it. For another reason,
in addition to this one, it must be pronounced highly im-
probable that the peculiarities in Luke's narrative of the
Passion were derived from this source. It is most unlikely
that our first evangelist, who in other parts combines matter
from this source with the Marcan document, should — through-
out this large division of his Gospel, in which all the
information that could be obtained would be of interest —
have refrained altogether from using it, although it was
available"-. There is nothing comparable to this in the

^ There are, no doubt, also points of detail, clauses, etc., preserved only in
one evangelist. With this we are not now concerned.

^ Harnack, ib. p. 127, also comes to the conclusion, that "Q" did not contain
an account of the Passion. Burkitt {Joum. of Theol. Studies, p. 1540".) adheres
to the opinion before expressed by him that it did. "I find it difficult," he writes
(p. 454), '■ to believe that critical method is wholly to be trusted, which presents
us with a document that starts off with the story of our Lord's Baptism and then
gives us His words but not the story of the Cross and Resurrection." See also
p. 457. The fact that "Q" contained a mention of the Baptism is the only
one from which, so far as I can see, he can claim any support for his view; and
it is a slender ground for forming a conception of the document in question.
In reality the mention of the Baptism (possibly it was a mere reference) may
have been intended only to introduce the words spoken at it, or the temptations
and replies of Jesus in the Wilderness. A setting of some kind, more or less
historical, was naturally given to pieces of Teaching where possible. And there
could be no doubt also that Teaching connected with the Baptism and Temptation
should be placed at the beginning, even though no attempt at chronological
sequence was made in the rest of the work. In view of their subject-matter itself
the place they occupy was the proper one for them. The Baptism is closely
associated with the Preaching of John, which is the true starting-point, and the
fitting prelude, for the Teaching of Jesus.

Further there would be no suitability in the document's giving a history of the
Passion unless it had likewise before given at least a brief account of the Ministry.
Now there is strong reason for thinking that it cannot have done this; for, if so,
our first and third evangelists would not have been left free to introduce the matter
taken from this source into the Marcan outline so diversely as they have done.
The arrangement of the Teaching relatively to the events, in one or the other, must
then have conflicted seriously with that in the source and it is not likely that either
would so greatly have disregarded the source.

io6 The Beatitudes in

omission of Marcan sections by Luke, even if we assume,
which we are not justified in doing, that he had them all
lying before him. Besides, it is a question here not of Luke's
action, but of that of our first evangelist, who has passed over
only a few short sections, here one, there another, in his
Marcan document.

The subject-matter and form of the document corresponded
with the character of the early tradition of the precepts of
Jesus among Palestinian believers, as we have been led to
conceive it. Thus even apart from the general probability
that an Aramaic source would be used for the Teaching of
Jesus, there is good reason to hold that in the Greek Logian
source which was used by our first and third evangelists, or
which formed the foundation of documents used by them, we
have a translation of an Aramaic document, embodying the
oral tradition of those of Christ's Sayings which were felt by
believers of the first days to be most needful for the conduct
of their life and for sustaining their courage^

It is impossible to discuss the doctrinal character of the
Logian document without raising questions as to the true
conception of the Person and Work of Christ, which I should
prefer to reserve altogether for future consideration. Never-
theless, it will be expedient, I think, that I should here make
a few remarks on the attitude to the distinctions of poverty
and wealth, and to the Mosaic Law manifested in the two
forms of the discourse on the Character of the heirs of the
Kingdom.

(i) The contrast between the Beatitudes in St Matthew
and St Luke is at first sight startling. The descriptions of
the four classes blessed in the latter all refer to external
conditions of hardship and of suffering ; whereas in the
former the persons on whom blessings are pronounced are
(with one possible exception) characterised by moral and

^ Professor Harnack [ib. p. 127 f.) observes that if we consider Jewish habits
of thought of that time, it will not surprise us and will even seem a /r/tjr/ probable,
that the Sayings and Discourses of Jesus should have been separately compiled ;
and that this is confirmed by the usage of Christian language which from the
beginning distinguished between the words and the deeds of Jesus, e.g., Acts i. i
and Lk xxiv. 19.

Sf Matthew and St Luke 107

spiritual traits. But on reflection it may, I think, appear
that, although the ideas suggested in the two accounts are
partly distinct, they are not wholly so, and also in no wise
inconsistent. In St Luke the gesture described at the be-
ginning of the discourse — " He lifted up His eyes upon His
disciples and said," — and the direct address to them through-
out should be noticed. It is not all the poor who are blessed,
but Christ's disciples, although they were poor. This they
certainly were as a class ; or at least they were all working-
people, and they had either been called already to give up
such possessions as they had, or they would henceforth be
allowed to retain only a most precarious hold upon them.
Among the poor, or those comparatively so, were, and long
would be, found the minds and hearts most ready to receive
Christ's message. " The poor whom Jesus not only here but
ordinarily has in view are also those who are susceptible of
spiritual influence "\ The rich and prosperous, on the other
hand, on whom Christ pronounces His woes, were then as
a matter of fact almost to a man either actively opposed
to the progress of the Kingdom of God, or at least indifferent
to it. There is, therefore, no good ground for saying that
poverty is in this passage represented as in itself a virtue and
as affording a claim on God for future reward.

Turning to St Matthew we should observe that the temper
there described and which was necessary for the reception of
Christ's message, was one which the discipline of poverty
tended to produce, while material well-being, or a good
religious position in the society of the day, w^ere very un-
favourable to it. Moreover, the sharp distinction which we
are prompt to make now between the humble temper of mind
and the outward conditions that promote this temper would
not have been drawn in days of far less introspection, and
when men also shewed their feelings of self-satisfaction more
naively, and had not learned, to the extent that we have now,
that it is the part even of good manners for one who possesses
personal or social advantages over others to conceal, if he
cannot inwardly suppress, the sense of it. On the whole,

^ Harnack, "What is Christianity?" Lect. 6, p. 60.

io8 Attitiide to the Mosaic Law

it appears probable that the account in St Luke of what Jesus
said is most exact, considered simply as a report. The words
are there seen in their direct reference to, and should be inter-
preted by, the circumstances in which they were spoken.
Moreover, there are traces of this form of them remaining in
the Matthaean version. For while in vv. 3 — 10 the statements
are general, there is a relapse into direct address in vv. 1 1 and
12, and in the same verses external sufferings are indicated.
Again, the " sorrowing," v. 4, seems to correspond with the
"weeping" of Lk v. 2\b^. At the same time the additions
" in the spirit " and " after righteousness " in vv. 3 and 6
and the additional Sayings in regard to the pitiful, the pure
in heart and the peacemakers bring out the essential mean-
ing of the teaching for after times and different states of
society, without possibility of misunderstanding, (ii) I pass
to the treatment of the Mosaic Law. Did the strong words
that " till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one
tittle shall in no wise pass from the law," and that " Who-
soever shall break one of these least commandments and shall
teach men so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of heaven "
(Mt. V. 18, 19), and the briefer Saying to the same effect
at Lk xvi. 17 in reality proceed not from Christ, but from
some Jewish Christian, who was concerned for the permanence
of the Jewish Law .'' Or, on the other hand, was language
which appears to be of an opposite character introduced by
some liberal Jewish or Gentile Christian, as a counterpoise to
those Sayings ? Neither supposition seems to be necessary.
The mention of a "jot" or a "tittle" suggests to us the
minute observance of the Law which we associate with the
Scribes and Pharisees. But in the figurative language of the
East it might be used to urge the importance of the strictest
and most entire obedience to the great principles of the Law
and conformity to its spirit, and the connexion in which
the language in question is used in St Luke, as well as
in St Matthew, suggests that this was the application of it
intended.

There does not then seem to be good reason for supposing

^ The sorrow intended might, of course, also be that which is created by the
sense of individual sin.

Attitude to the Mosaic Law 109

that the Logian source in its Greek or in its original Aramaic
form has been affected by the dogmatic tendencies of a trans-
lator or a compiler in either of the above cases and these are
the chief ones where this might be suggested.

Our investigation has led us to the conclusion that the
common Logian source was very brief, but that it should
be brief is what we might expect in the case of a primitive
document. Partly, however, for this very reason Sayings and
parables which have been omitted from it may likewise be
authentic. In discussing the contents of the document used
by both our first and third evangelists, much other matter of
this kind has come before us, which deserves the most careful
attention. But at the present point we shall do well to
consider the evidence as to the transmission of the Teaching
of Jesus which is supplied from another quarter, namely from
the Gospel according to St Mark.

The TeacJiing of Jesiis hi the Gospel according
to St Mark.

It has been held by the majority of students of the
Synoptic problem that St Mark and the Logian document
were in their origin independent of one another. But a
different opinion has been maintained by B. Weiss and
recently by Wellhausen, though they take opposite views of
the relationship between the two writings. Weiss contends^
that the same document in Greek, often called " the Logia,"
and called by him the " Oldest source " which was used by
our first and third evangelists was known also to Mark and to
a limited extent used by him, though he forebore to do so
nearly so freely as they did, because his special purpose was
to set forth the deeds rather than the Teaching of Jesus.
Weiss supposes him to have made excerpts in certain
instances from discourses contained in that document, more
particularly in the case of the Preaching of the Baptist (Mk i.

1 For the writings in which he has done so see p. 49, n. 3. (For F. Nicolardot's
justification and use of the theory see below, p. 370.)

no The Teaching of Jestts

7, 8), the Mission of the Apostles and Christ's Charge to them
(Mk vi. 8 — ii), and the Denunciation of the Pharisees (Mk
xii. 38 — 40) ; while he also derived from the same source a
few other short pieces and several single Sayings. As the two
other Synoptics have frequently given this matter in the form
in which they found it in their Marcan source, and have also
given it separately, or (as is especially true in the case of our
first evangelist) have interwoven with it the same matter in
the more or less different form in which they derived it
directly from the Logian source, they were in reality doubly
dependent upon the Logian source, though no doubt without
being conscious of the fact\ This would not be impossible,
though it may not seem very likely. Let us see, however,
whether the actual phenomena of relationship are consistent
with the theory.

In the parallels in question, alike where there is a strict
doublet, and where similar matter, diversely placed in St Mark
and St Luke, has been combined in St Matthew, the Marcan
form is (with scarcely an exception) noticeably different from
the other^. Now why, we ask, if Mark had the same Greek
Logian document before him as the others, should he thus
regularly stand apart from them? Is it likely that he would
be always the one to alter the source? Moreover, his differ-
ences from the form which we should infer from the other two
are not of the kind that suggests stylistic revision on his part,
but derivation through a different channel.

The differences in the settings of the pieces are also
unfavourable to Weiss' view. That in the case of the Reply

^ Weiss also holds that the "Oldest source " contained a good many narratives,
which Mark took from it, and which the two other Synoptics knew botli through
Mark, and through his source, so that they have sometimes more accurately
reproduced the source than Mark has done. I shall refer to this view again in
the next chapter, but for the present, I desire to confine attention to the
utterances of Jesus.

^ The parallel in which the resemblance is greatest is that between the account
of the Preaching of the Baptist in Mk i. 7, 8 and the other Synoptics. This
resemblance may, however, well be due to the first and third evangelists having
combined expressions from the brief Marcan account which they had before them
with the account in the Logian source.

All the parallels to be examined can be readily found from Table II. nn.

recorded in St Mark m

of Jesus to the accusation that He was acting in collusion
with Satan is an instance on which I would lay special stress.
The connexion in which it is placed by Mark (iii. 24 — 30) is
not such a natural one as that in which it stood in the Logian
document (cp. Lk x. 14 with Mt. xii. 22, 23)^ The incident
of the healing of a daemoniac, which was there prefixed, is
not given by Mark ; and yet he generally shews a special
interest in cases of exorcism. It is therefore very unlikely
that if he had before him a document in which this attack
upon Jesus, and His defence of Himself, were represented
as arising out of a case of this kind, he should have substi-
tuted another and a less obviously suitable introduction.
Frequently the position of sayings in St Mark is quite as
good, or better, than a different one assigned them in the
other Gospels. But even here it may be questioned whether,
if the latter was the one in which they stood in a document
which he was using, he would have changed it, or that, if he
did determine to do so, he would have been so often successful
in finding a perfectly appropriate occasion for giving them.

I turn to Wellhausen^ w^ho virtually asstunes that eitJier
Mark must be dependent upon " O," or " Q " upon Mark, and
decides in favour of the latter alternative, on the ground of a
certain number of instances where in parallels between Mark
and " Q," the latter appears to him to be "secondary"-. But
even if the marks of " secondariness " which he adduces were
more convincing than many of them at least are^ they might
equally well be accounted for by supposing that a source
common to both Gospels has been represented with more
accuracy and freshness in St Mark than in " Q," or, indeed,
that the particular Sayings or traditions in question have been
preserved with more truth in the one than in the other. This
would no doubt affect to some extent our judgment upon
the character of " Q," but it would not prove dependence
generally of " Q," either upon our Greek St Mark, or upon
such an Aramaic original of it as Wellhausen imagines. And
that there should have been a dependence of this kind we

^ See p. 90 f. above.

^ See his Einleitung in die drei Ersten Evangelien, 1905, p. 73 ff.

^ See the examination of them by Harnack, ib. p. 136 ff.

112 The Teaching of Jesus

may well pronounce to be inconceivable. For if the author
of " Q " derived from St Mark the few Sayings which both
give, whence, we ask, did he obtain all the other matter of the
same kind which he gives ?

Dismissing then alike the view that various pieces of
Christ's Teaching given by Mark were taken by him from
a Greek document, which was more largely used by our first
and third evangelists for matter of this kind, and also the
inverse view that their Logian source was itself dependent
upon the Marcan document, let us go on to consider more
generally the place of Christ's Teaching in the Gospel accord-
ing to St Mark. I doubt whether the supposition is sound that
Mark of set purpose curtailed the amount of Christ's Teaching
which he included in his Gospel. A brief study of this point
may, perhaps, throw some light upon the different ways in
which Christ taught, and upon the transmission of His Words,
and the composition of our second Gospel.

I shall not lay stress upon the fact that St Mark contains
one formal discourse, of some length, namely, that on the
Last Things in ch. xiii., for this instance is in more respects
than one peculiar. Again, I will not dwell upon the other
pieces of continuous discourse in this Gospel — that on the
Charge of collusion with Satan (iii. 22 — 30), the Speaking
in Parables (iv. 2 — 34), the Ceremonialism of the Pharisees
(vii. I — 23), and the Avoidance of Offences (ix. 35 — 50).
For in the second and last of these some additions appear to
have been made to the original document, as we shall see in
the next chapter, while some doubt may also be felt as to
whether the first and third of them are not interpolations.
I desire rather to direct attention to the fact that those
replies to questions and objections, and individual Sayings
called forth by special incidents, of which there is an abun-
dance in St Mark, contain instruction of the most profound
significance. How much, for instance, of all that is most
precious in the Teaching of Jesus, and most characteristic
of it, is contained in the Sayings embodied in the three
successive sections relating to the Healing of a Paralytic, the
Call of Levi, and the subject of Fasting (Mk ii. i — 12, 13 — 17,
18 — 22)? Many incidents, like that of the question suggested

recorded in St Mark 113

by the fasts of the disciples of John and of the Pharisees, are
evidently related solely on account of the Words of Jesus of
which they furnished the occasion ; but even some of the most
striking miracles appear to be recorded^ at least as much for
the sake of some Word full of meaning for Christian life
which was spoken in connexion with them as on account
of the deed itself As regards the preservation of Teaching
in the form of questions and the replies to them, it should be
observed that this was thoroughly in accordance with Jewish
habits of thought, as everyone will recognise who is even
slightly acquainted with the Rabbinic writings. Considered
as a mode of conveying the teaching of a great Master,
questions with his replies to them and incidents with the
remarks which they led him to make are plainly analogous.
And that much valuable instruction should have been given
in the latter way, and preserved in the form in which it was
given, would be specially natural in the case of One Who did
not teach in the schools, but while moving about among men.
The Logian document, too, contained matter of the kind just
described — short narratives in each of which some great utter-
ance of Jesus is set. But the form of instruction characteristic
of it is that of the more or less closely connected series of
Sayings. This feature in the document is probably to be
accounted for, as we have seen, in part at least as the result of
compilation for practical purposes, and it is, therefore, pro-
bable that the longer pieces which our Gospels contain do not
accurately correspond with what was spoken on any one
occasion. Nevertheless, it is evident that Jesus cannot have
confined Himself to isolated Sayings, and that He must con-
stantly have set forth the truths which the world needed, and
which it was His mission to deliver, in continuous speech.

How then are we to explain the scarcity in St Mark's
Gospel, relatively to the two other Synoptics, of continuous
addresses? The answer is ready, if what I have urged in the
early part of this chapter, as to the rendering of the Teaching
of Jesus into Greek, be sound. The phenomena of his Gospel
both as to the comparative absence of pieces of Teaching of

^ E.g., the Healing of the paralytic just referred to; many others will occur
to the reader.

S. G. II. 8

114 The Teaching of Jesus

any length, and the form in which we do at the same time
learn from it much about the character of Christ's Teaching,
illustrate a certain stage in the process of the transmission of
the tradition of that Teaching to the Greek-speaking Church.
The writer had not the longer pieces readily at his command,
because a full translation into Greek did not yet exist. And
supposing that he himself knew Aramaic, which is indeed
probable, the same circumstances which withheld others from
translating would have affected him. The tradition may not
yet have been committed to writing in Aramaic, so as to
make translation comparatively easy, \v'hile portions of the
tradition might be felt to be more or less unsuited to believers
from among the Gentiles.

In connexion with this last point, we ma\' notice the
omission from St Mark of all reference to the discourse on
the Character of the heirs of the Kingdom, and of nearly all
its contents. We might have expected that even if he knew
this discourse only in Aramaic, or through those who could
orally interpret its substance to him from the Aramaic, he
would have given a brief account of it, such as he has given
in the case of the Preaching of the Baptist (Mk i. 7, 8) ; the
charge of Jesus to His Apostles on sending them forth to
preach (Mk vi. 7 — 11); the Denunciation of the Scribes (Mk
xii. 38 — 40). It is, however, possible that the same reason
which, as we have seen, probably led to the abbreviated form
of the translation of the discourse on the Character of the
heirs of the Kingdom in our third Gospel, may have led
Mark to pass it over altogether. That whole portion of the
discourse coming near the beginning of it, which dealt with
the subject of the Jewish Law and with the Pharisaic spirit,
may have seemed to him unsuited for the Gentile readers for
whom more particularly his Gospel was intended. Even the
Beatitudes, if the Lucan form of them is the nearest to the
original, as (we have seen) is probable^, may have seemed to
him open to misunderstanding.

^ See above, p. io6 f.

recorded in St Mark 115

It remains only to discuss the history of the

Discourse on the Last Tilings

in Mk xiii.

There is not in St Mark any other account of a discourse
of Jesus which in length and form resembles this one. There
is no other which, like this, is an articulated whole with clearly
marked and yet connected divisions. In the drama that is
unfolded there are three successive acts, (i) the " Beginning
of birth-throes" {vv. 5 — 13; the phrase ap-)(rj ooSlvcov ravra,
which characterises the period referred to, is in v. 8) ; (ii) the
"Great tribulation" {vv. 14 — 23, see esp. v. 19); (iii) the
Appearance of the Son of Man {vv. 24 — 27). Finally,
(iv) there are general exhortations to watchfulness {vv. 28
— 37) which emphasize the warnings included in the preced-
ing portions. From these peculiarities both as to the extent
and structure of this discourse, apart altogether from the
nature of its contents, we may fairly conclude that it had
a history different from that of the other reports of Christ's
Teaching embodied in this Gospel. It is also improbable that
its form is due to the evangelist himself, since he plainly has
not in any other instance sought to construct a regular dis-
course out of different traditions, or by any other means^
The piece must in all probability have come to his hands as a
separate, written composition-. But indeed this discourse

^ Wendt's view {Lehre Jesti, I. p. 20), to which I have referred again
p. 117, n. I below, must therefore be rejected.

'^ The parenthesis in v. 14 — 6 avayii'iJxrKuv i/oeiro} — has also frequently been
taken as a clear indication that the discourse was contained in a document. The
reference in these words, it is said, must be to a reader of the discourse : it cannot
be to the prophet Daniel (though some striking words from that prophet are quoted
immediately before), because the prophet's name is not mentioned here. I am
quite unable myself to use this argument. An allusive reference to the words
of some well-known writer is surely a common thing, and may be all the more
impressive from its very allusiveness. So here, the clause dvayi.vibaKwi' etc., has
a good and forcible meaning if we are to understand by it in effect "let those who
read the well-known words of the prophet be prompt to mark their fulfilment
which is about to be accomplished." For citations similarly introduced see Mk
ii. 25 ; xii. 10, 26, etc., and cp. p. 343.

It is also unlikely that a writer who professed to be simply recording an
address by Jesus to His disciples should have so far forgotten himself as to refer
in solemn terms to his own writing, and there would be no special appropriateness

ii6 Discourse on the Last Things in Mk xiii.

affords a contrast, in respect of its methodical arrangement,
even with those in the two other Synoptic Gospels, especially
St Luke. It should also be noticed that in the case of those
discourses in St Matthew which approach in some degree to
the formality of structure which is to be observed in this one,
there is reason to think that this character was imparted to
them by the writer of our Greek Gospel, who combined
different accounts.

I must now, however, go on to observe that the Eschato-
logical Discourse in St Mark (reproduced in the two other
Synoptics) appears to be composite in a different sense from
those discourses in St ]\Iatthew, to which I have just referred.
No one refuses to allow that genuine Sayings of Jesus are
included in it ; but in its general scheme of future events, and
its descriptions of the calamities that should come upon the
world, it closely resembles many Jewish and Jewish-Christian
Apocalypses. In these portions and features of it there is not
that accent of originality and profound moral significance
which we find almost invariably in the remainder of the
Teaching attributed to Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels^ There
are also signs of compilation in connexion with the other,
more probabh' authentic, element in this discourse. Between
Mk vv. 9 — 13 and the Mission-address in Mt. x. vv. 17 — 22
there is a correspondence so close that we must suppose two
writers to have derived the piece directly or ultimately from
the same document, and that the one determined to place it
in an address delivered by Jesus to His disciples when about
to send them foi-th to preach, and the other in a discourse in
which, near the end of His Ministry, He instructed them
regarding the future. There are also parallels, though not
such close ones in point of form, between other Sayings in the
Discourse on the Last Things, and some that have been
preserved in the Logian document-.

Two views have been taken of the origin of this composi-

in the position of the words, if that were their purport. The case of the writer
of the Apocalypse of John (xxii. 18 fif.) is quite different. Moreover, the adjuration
there is suitably placed at the end of the work.

1 I confine the remark to the Synoptic Gospels simply because the Fourth
Gospel is not now before us.

2 Mk xiii. 15, i6 = Lk xvii. 31; Mk xiii. 2i=Lk xvii. 23.

^Discourse on the Last Things in Mk xiii. 117

tion in consequence of the features in it of which I have
spoken, (i) Some have held that the groundwork is a little
apocal}'pse of strictly Jewish origin, into which a certain
number of Sayings of Jesus have been introduced, (ii) It has
seemed to other critical students that some Jewish-Christian
was the author, who was influenced in his general presentation
of the distinctively Christian material which he had at his
disposal by his Jewish conceptions, and amplified it with
expressions familiar to him through Jewish writings. In this
case, too, the work may perhaps not unfitly be described as a
" little apocalypse," and yet the difference between the two
views is not without importance in relation to the history
of the evangelic tradition and of the composition of the
Gospels, and they ought to be more clearly distinguished
than they sometimes have been. I believe there are strong
reasons for adopting the latter of them\

The extent of the Christian element must first be con-
sidered. The warning in v. 6 concerning those who should
come " in my name," and should deceive many, is evidently
not Jewish, and with this we must place the renewed warning
to the same effect in vv. 21, 22 against false prophets and
false Christs. The early disciples of Jesus are put on their
guard against illusions to which the minds of many of their
fellow-countrymen would become a prey\ There is a parallel
in the Logian document (see Lk xvii. 23 ; cp. also I\It. vii. 15,
in a different context) ; while from the predictions of the

^ The supposition that a strictly Jewish writing formed the groundwork is
held by Pfleiderer, Urchrist. I. pp. 382 — 4, though at an earlier time he held the
whole to be Jewish-Christian (Jahrb. f. detitsche TheoL, 1868, p. i37f. ); so also
Vischer, Texte u. Untersuch. 11. 3, p. 9 n. H. Holtzmann expresses himself more
doubtfully, N.T. Theol. I. p. 327 (" ein vielleicht ursprunglich jiidisches...
apokalyptisches Stiick"). On the other hand the following consider that we
have here a Jewish-Christian composition: Colani, Jesiis-Ckrisl et Us croyances
lilessianiques, p. 201 f.; Renan, P Antichrist, p. 292 f. ; ¥^€\vci, Jesus 0/ iVazara,
V. p. 237 f. ; Weizsacker, who has followed the inverse course to Ptleiderer: — in his
Untersuchungen, p. 124 f., he assumed a Jewish source, whereas in his Afost. Zeit.,
p. 361 f. (Eng. trans, n. p. 22 ff.), he contends that the work is Jewish-Christian.
Wernle, Synopt. Frage, p. 214, is on the same side. Wendt, Lehre Jcsu, i. p. 10 ff.
argues that two sources, one genuinely Apostolic, another Jes\ ish-Christian of in-
ferior value, were combined by Mark himself. I have argued above, p. 115, that
the compilation should not be attributed to Mark.

1 1 8 Discourse on the Last Things in Mk xiii.

Jewish apocalypses this trait is almost absents Again the
paragraph {vv. g — 13), to which there is a parallel in the
Mission-address in Mt. x., is evidently a description of what
Christians would have to endure. But, further, in the section
concerning the "great tribulation," the point of view appears
clearly to be Christian not Jewish I It would be impossible
to understand otherwise how the question of the fate of the
Jewish race and of the Holy City should be completely passed
over, when to a Jewish mind it would have been so directly
suggested by the whole context. It is true that in Jewish
apocalypses a distinction is drawn between the righteous or
" elect " among the chosen people, and the sinners amongst
them. But the fulfilment of God's covenant with Israel was
promised, so far as the faithful remainder was concerned^.
And at the same time the severity of God's punishment of
Zion was felt to be an inscrutable enigma^

I pass to the section on the Parousia {z>v. 24 — 27). The
application of the passage concerning " one like unto a Son
of Man " in Daniel vii. to the revelation of the Messiah,
though not exclusively Christian, seems never to have taken
the same hold among Jews as it did among Christians^ It is
reasonable, therefore, to suppose that the passage before us is
of Christian origin. Pfleiderer, indeed, argues^ that a Christian
writer could not well have omitted to indicate that the Son of
Man was none other than Jesus, Who had been crucified.
And certainly it was and has ever been usual in Christian
thought to associate the humiliation with the future glory of
the Christ ; but if it were indeed scarcely possible that a
Christian writer should leave the former unexpressed, we
might equally have ^expected that a Christian editor of a

^ The only instance which I have noticed is a comparatively indistinct one
at yi/>0c. Baruchi, xlviii. 34, " Et erunt rumores multi et nuncii non pauci, et opera
phantasiarum ostendentur, et enarrabuntur promissiones non paucae, quarum aliae
vanae, et aliae confirrriabuntur."

' Cp. Weizsacker, ib. pp. ■261, 262.

^ E.g., see Apoc. Baruchi, xli.; xlviii. 21 ff.

* E.g., see 4 Esdras v. 21 ff.; vi. 18 ff. and 57 — 59; viii. 15 — 17.

' See the present \sx\\.tr'% Jewish aud Christian Messiah^ p. 61 ff., and article
"Messiah," Hastings'' Diet, of Bible, \\\. p. 353, col. i.

• Urchrist. I. p. 383.

Discourse on the Last Things in Mk xiii. 119

Jewish document would have made the necessary addition,
which he could very easily have done.

The concluding exhortations may be regarded as an
appendage to an earlier document, and I therefore lay no
stress upon them, although none of them are distinctively
Jewish, and some are distinctively Christian.

On the whole it appears that the portions of the " little
apocalypse " in which it is natural to trace a Christian inten-
tion are so considerable as to leave little room for the
supposition of a purely Jewish groundwork. But there is
another reason for rejecting this hypothesis, which has been
strangely overlooked. It was of the essence of an apocalypse
that it was supposed to be communicated by some eminent
person who had been chosen to receive the revelation. In
the case of a Jewish apocalypse the seer was necessarily some
famous character of the Old Testament. It would be im-
possible therefore that a Jewish apocalypse could have been
mistaken for a discourse by Jesus ; and even if any Christian
of the Apostolic age had sought to pass it off as such, it
is highly improbable that he would have succeeded in re-
moving all indications of the prophet to whom it had before
been attributed.

I have spoken only of the discourse from v. 5 onwards.
But the revelation which Jesus is represented to have made
must have been introduced in some way, and since we have
come to the conclusion that the composition was a Jewish-
Christian one, there is nothing to prevent our supposing the
introduction to have been substantially that contained in
Mk xiii. I — 4^ The circumstance that the prophecy was
delivered to four specially trusted disciples {vv. 3, 4), not to
the whole body, is (it should be observed) in accord with the
" apocalyptic " idea, to which I have just referred, that the
knowledge of the future is in the first instance communicated
as a peculiar privilege.

That the composition of this writing belongs to Palestine
cannot be doubted. The sign that is given, that of the
desecration of the Holy Place, and the warning to escape

1 Tavra in v. 4 seems to refer only to the destruction of the temple, but such a
catastrophe could not be supposed to come by itself.

1 20 Discourse on the Last Things hi Mk xiii.

from Judaea when this happens, are evidence of this. Various
traits, also, in the description of the miseries and perplexities
which were to be expected fit the state of things actually
experienced in Palestine during the decade or so before the
capture of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, and not in the same way any
other time or place. Nevertheless, it may possibly have been
composed in Greek. The correspondences between some of
its phrases and the LXX. are more easily explicable if it was
not a translation from Aramaic^ If so we may imagine that
it was written in one of the Greek cities on the border of the
district that was predominantly Jewish, either beyond Jordan
or near the sea-coast. And the fact that it contains a refer-
ence to Judaea, but none to escaping from Jerusalem itself is
a slight confirmation of this hypothesis.

On the assumption, in itself a reasonable one, that circum-
stances stimulated its composition and aff'ected at least in
some degree its contents, we shall be justified in inquiring
into its probable date. There is now general agreement- that
the composition of this writing must have preceded the taking
of Jerusalem by Titus, both on account of the absence of any
allusion to that events and of the general indistinctness of the
prospect so far as the issues of the "great tribulation," and the
relation to it in time of the Parousia, are concerned. Indeed,
the most natural point at which to place the composition
seems to be a little after A.D. 60, when it was felt that " the
birth-throes " were beginning, while trials of greater intensity,
though of the same general character, might well be antici-
patedl There is no good reason to see in the words to
^heXvyixa Tr}<i iprjfKoaeco^; ea-TTjKora orrov ov Set a reference to
anything which had alread}' happened. Belief in the ancient

^ Cp. esp. V. ■27, iiTLawd^ei rovs (KXeKTOvi (k tQiv Tecraapwv avifuiiv with
Zech. ii. 6, iK tQ)v rfffcrdpcov dv^/iuiv rod ovpapov ffwd^w v/j.ds. It is noteworthy
here that the Hebrew refers to the scattering of Israel, not to the gathering of
them together. Further cp. v. 14 with Dan. ix. 27; xi. 31; v. 19 with
Dan. xii. i ; v. i\ with Isa. xiii. 10; v. 25 with Isa. xxxiv. 4. In the last case
vliTTovTfs agrees with LXX. but not with Ileb.

^ So all the writers mentioned in p. 117 n. above; others might easily be
added.

' I am of course speaking of the form in which Mark has given it. It has
undergone alterations in St Luke which imply a later point of view.

* See esp. Weizsacker, t7>., but others, too, have written to the same effect.

Discourse on the Last Things in Mk xiii. 121

prophecy^ which had already acquired a definite meaning
from its application to the act of Antiochus Epiphanes^ and
the threatened perpetration of a similar act of impiety by
Caligula, was quite sufficient to suggest the sign. Again, the
warning to flee " to the mountains " may have been due to a
reminiscence of Ezek. vii. 15, 16.

The author of our second Gospel, in introducing where he
does the contents of this little document which we have been
considering, may have been guided by genuine tradition as to
a discourse of Jesus concerning things to come, which He
addressed to His disciples when His public Ministry had just
been closed. We may be in a better position to judge how
far this is likely when we have examined the composition of
this Gospel more generally.

^ Dan. ix. 27, xi. 31. ^ Mace. i. 54, 59.

122 Analysis of Discourses in St Matthew

ADDITIONAL NOTE TO CHAPTER II.

Analysis of the discourses of Jestis^ in St MattJiew.

On these discourses see pp. 72 — 102, and also (especially
as to the matter peculiar to St Matthew), pp. 327 — 336.

The headings indicating passages and individual Sayings
which agree so closely in form in the two Gospels that they
must have been taken from the same Greek document are
printed in thick type.

Those indicating passages and individual Sayings for
which probably the same Greek document was used, but the
Marcan one along with it, are likewise printed in thick type.

Those indicating passages and individual Sayings which,
although the same in substance in the two Gospels, were
probably not taken from the same Greek Logian document,
or which have been taken from St Mark, are printed in ordinary
type.

Those indicating passages and individual Sayings which
are peculiar to St Matthew are printed in italics.

An obelus has been prefixed to those passages, whether
in substance the same in the two Gospels, or peculiar to
St Matthew, which appear to come from another version.

^ The construction of John the Baptist's discourse in Mt. iii. appears to be
(so far as we are acquainted with the sources) so simple that it does not require
analysis. At the same time the combination by the first evangelist of the account
of the Baptist's preaching from the Logian document with the briefer account in
Mk i. 7, 8, is important as illustrating his method.

jNIatthew

Luke

r. 3—12

vi. 20 — 23

, 13

, 14^—1

xiv. 34, 35^
xi. 2,f-

XVI. 17

Analysis of Discourses in St Matthew 123

The Discourse on the Character of the Heirs of the
Kingdom, Mt. v — vii, with the Parallels in the Gospel

ACCORDING to ST LUKE.

^ Who are truly blessed
The high vocation of the disciples of
Jesus : —

To be salt ...

To be light

The purpose of a lamp

The relation of the New to the Old
Laiu^

Christ has come not to destroy

but to fulfil
No word of the Law can fail
Fulfilment of the Law a title to
greatness in the Kingdom of
heaven ...
Inadequacy of Pharisaic right-
eousness ... ...

The Sixth Command/nent : —
Its interpretatio?i
An inference : — '"''seek reconcili-
ation before offering sacrifice "
Another inference : — "Agree
with thine adversary quickly "
The Seventh Commandment: —
Its interpretation
Inference : — self- mortification
necessary
The Law on divorce ... .,,.

The inviolability of marriage ...
The Law on the sanctity of oaths

Its interpretatiofi
The Law on retaliation ... ....

The cojitrast : —va&ekn&ss under
injuries
The Law on loving a neighbour
and hating an enemy ...

The co?itrast : — love even of

23, 24

25,

29,

3o5

34-

-Z7

58, 59*

39—42

44—48

vi. 27 — 36^

^ Cp. Mk ix. 50. - Cp. Lk viii. i6 = Mk iv. 2\.

' There are parallels in Lk to some of the Sayings included under this head ;
but the form of the section, and the theme treated in it, are peculiar.

* See p. 97 f. ' Cp. Mt. xviii. 9, 8 = Mk ix. 47, 43, 45.

* Lk V. 27 = Mt. V. 44; Lk v. 29= Mt. v. 39; Lk v. 3oa = Mt. v. 42 a;
Lk V. 30(^ = Mt. V. 40; Lk v. 34a = Mt. v. 42 b; Lk v. 35=rMt. v. 45.;
Lk V. 32, 33 = Mt. z'f. 46, 47; Lk v. 36 = Mt. v. 48.

124 Analysis of Discourses in St Matthew

Matthew Luke

/ 77^1? right and the Pharisaic practice
I of three dtities o/religiofi contrasted'^

! Almsgiving ... ... ... vi. i — 4^

\ Prayer.

Pray in secret ... ... ... „ 5,6

Use not vain repetitions like

^ tlie heathen ... ... ... „ 7, 8

The Lord's Prayer „ 9—13 xi. 2—4

Forgive that your Heavenly

Father may forgive you ... „ 14, 15^ Mk xi. 25

\Fasting „ 16 — 18

Let your treasure be in Heaven ... „ 19 — 21 xii. 33,34

The lamp of the body is the eye ... „ 22,23 xi. 34 — 36

No man can serve two masters ... ,) 24 xvi. 13*

Trust God for your daily needs and

seek His Kingdom „ 25 — 34 xii. 22 — 32

Various directions : —

tjudge not that ye may not be

judged

tThe mote and the beam...
Guard that which is precious
from contamination

Be earnest in prayer

tDo to others as you would they

should do to you, '''■ for this is

the law and the prophets "

Strive to enter the Kingdom,

though the approach is narrow

tThe tree is known by its fruit ...

t Mere professions are vain

False professors will attempt in

vain to obtain admission at the

last

tThe two kinds of hearers

II. The Mission-Address.

Rules for the guidance of preachers
of the Gospel : —

Confine your labours to Israelites x. 5, 6

The message and its delivery... „ 7—16 x. 3 — 12

Mk vi. 8— II

1 See p. 83.

"^ The sayings on Almsgiving at Lk xi. 4 1 and xii. 33 are not parallels to this
passage.

' See p. 83 n. * See p. 98.

1,2

VI.

37,

3—5

41,

7— II

xi.

-13

\2a

vi.

12b

13, 14

xiii.

15 — 20

vi.

43-

-45

22, 23

xiii

25-

-27

24—27

vi.

47-

-49

Analysis of Discourses in St Matthew 125

Matthew Luke

There will be persecution: how xii. ii, 12

to meet it 1 x. 17—22 Mkxiii.9 — 13

Flee from city to city j ye shall
not have gone through the cities
of Israel till ^ etc. ... ... » 23

The disciple and his Master ... „ 24,25 vi. 40

Exhortation to faitliful con-
fession „ 26—33 xii. 2—9

I have come to cause divisions „ 34 — 36 „ 51—53

The setting aside of human re-
lationships and bearing the
Cross „ y]^ 38 xiv. 26, 27

The gain which is loss, and the

loss which is gain^ ... ... jj 39 xvii. })^

Attention to you is attention to

Me^ „ 40 x. 16

Mk ix. yj b

He that receiveth a prophet^ etc. » 41

Whosoever shall give a cup of

cold water, etc „ 42 Mk ix. 41

III. The Message of John the Baptist and the Discourse

THEREUPON, WITH PIECES THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

The Message and reply to it : the

character of John the Baptist ... xi. 2 — 11 vii. 18 — 28

The epoch-making character of John's

work ... ... ... ... ... „ 12 — 15 xvi. 16

The perverse attitude of men to

both John and Jesus „ 16 — 19 vii. 31 — 35

He upbraids the cities in which He

has preached „ 20 — 24 x. 12 — 15

Thanksgiving that the Father re-
veals to the simple what is

hidden from the wise „ 25 — 27 „ 21, 22

Covie unto Me all ye that labour^ etc. „ 28 — 30

IV. Ax Accusation and a Challenge.

He casts out a devil and is accused

of collusion with Satan xii. 22—24 xi. 14,15

1 See p. 92 f. 2 See p. 98.

* The Greek source common to our first and third Gospels probably con-
tained the Saying in the form of the latter ; but Mark has been followed in the
former.

126 Analysis of Discourses in St Matthew

Matthew Luke

Christ's reply : —

The absurdity of the charge ... xii. 25— 28 xi. 17 — 20^

The strong man overcome ... „ 29 Mk iii. 27^

He that is not with Me, etc. ... „ 30 ,,23
All blasphemies (even against
the Son of Man) shall be for-
given, saving that against the

Holy Spirit „ 31, 32 Mk iii. 28,29

xii. 10

Speech an indication of character^ „ 33 — y] vi. 43 — 45

The demand for a sign „ 38 xi. 16

Christ's reply : —

The Son of Man is a sign to

this generation „ 39 — 42 „ 29 — 32

The man whom the unclean

spirit leaves for a time only „ 43 — 45 „ 24 — 26

V. The Teaching by Parables.

The Sower xiii. i — 9 Mk iv. i — 9

The disciples ask for the interpre-
tation of it ... ... ... ... ,) 10 „ „ 10

His reply : —

To you it is given to know, etc. » 1 1 „ >, 1 1 *

Whosoever hath, to him shall be

given, etc „ 12 „ „ 25

The explanation is withheld from

men in general as a judgment
A propJiecy cited ...
Blessed are your eyes, etc.
The interpretation of the parable
T/ie Tares

The mustard-seed which a man
sowed and it grew to a tree and
the birds found shelter in its
branches

The piece of leaven

^ Cp. Mk iii. 23 — ■26, which is similar but not so close.

' Cp. Lk xi. 21, 22, which is similar but not so close.

^ See pp. 328 f., 331. ** Cp. also Lk viii. 10, and see p. 211,

^ The parable of the Tares may have been developed from the same idea as
i/ie Seed growing secretly in Mk iv. 30 — 39, but that passage of Mk was not
Mt.'s source here.

))

„ 12

14,

16,

15
17

Lk X. 23, 24

18-
24-

-23 „

-3o5

„ 13—20
Cp. Mk iv. 26—29

31, 32

Mk iv. 30 — 32
Lk xiii. 18, 19

32,

„ „ 20, 21

Analysis of Discourses in St Matthew 127

Mk iv. 33, 34

Matthew
xiii. 34
» 35

" He spake not without a parable" ...
Citation of a prophecy ...
Interpretation of the parable of the

tares u 3^ — 43

More parables : — the Hidden treasure,

Pearl-merchant^ Draw-net ... „ 44 — 50

The instructed scribe of the Kingdom „ 51,52

VI. On Offences.
xviii. I

The question, "Who is greatest ?" ...
He takes a child as an object-
lesson
Except yebecome as little children
He who humbles himself as a child
shall be greatest

He who receives one such child

shall be greatest

It were better for a man to be
drowned than to offend one of
these little ones

Offences must come, but woe to the

cause of them •

If one of thine own members is a

snare to thee, sacrifice it

Despise not one of these little ones;
their angels^ etc.

The lost Sheep

So not the will of my Father that one

of these little ones perish
Reprove an offending brother pri-
vately

If he will not hearken call in

witnesses ; and finally appeal

to the Church which shall have

authority from me

How often shall we forgive an

offending brother ?

Tlie parable of the unmerciful servant

16 — 20

Mk ix. 34

„ » 36

„ X. 15

» ix. 35

„ » n

„ » 42

Lk xvii. 2

Lk xvii. I

Mk ix. 43—47

12—

-13

Lk XV. 3 — 7

„ xvii. 3 a

21, 22
23—35

■>•, „ 3 ^> 4
^ Mt. avoids the unnecessary repetition in Mk by introducing ^ 6 rroi/s into v. 8.

1—5

6-7 a

Mk xii. 38, 39

7b — 10

» ix. 35

Lk xiv. 1 1

128 Analysis of Discourses in St Matthew

VII, Concerning the Scribes and Pharisees.

Matthew
( The Scribes and Pharisees sit on

Moses' seat, therefore observe their

injunctions J but do not imitate their

practice ... ... ... ... y

They desire deference and places of

honour
And to be called of men Rabbi; but

be not ye called Rabbi

The greatest among you shall be your

minister
Whoso exalteth himself, etc.

Seven woes addressed to Scribes and
Pharisees : —

Woe to you because,

(i) Ye neither enter the king-
dom nor will suffer others
to enter ,, 14 „ xi. 52

(2) Ye zealously tnake prose-

lytes, only to corrupt them „ 15

(3) Ye tnake much of distinc-

tions which have no

moral significance ... ,, 16 — 22

(4) Ye tithe mint, anise and

cummin, and neglect
judgment, mercy and

faith „ ~3 Lk xi. 42

Ye strain out the gnat and
swallow the camel ... » 24

(5) Ye pay attention only to

externals „ 25, 26 „ „ 39—41

(6) Ye are outwardly fair but

foul within ... ... » 27 „ „ 44

(7) Ye are proving yourselves

to be the true sons of
those who slew the pro-
phets of old, and will do

so yet more fully ... „ 29—36 „ „ 47—51
Apostrophe to Jerusalem „ 37—39 „ xiii. 34, 35

Analysis of Discourses in St Matthew 129

VIII. The Discourse on the Last Things.
Mt. xxiv., XXV.

The occasion

Be not deceived by false prophets or
by wars and the rumours of them
and other calamities, which are but
the beginning of the travail-pains...

Ye shall be persecuted and there
shall be scandals in the Church her-
self; the Gospel shall be preached
throughout the world before the end

A sign of the approach of the end ...

Be not disturbed with rumours that
the Son of Man has come, for His
Coming when it happens will be
manifest to all

Where the carcase is there the birds
of prey will gather ...

The Coming of the Son of Man

Learn from the fig-tree to expect what
I have foretold

Of that day and hour knoweth no man

The catastrophe will fall upon men
unawares as the flood did

One shall be taken, another left ...

Watch, since you know not when your
Lord will come

Watch as you would for the coming
of a thief

Who is the prudent steward ?

The Ten \'irgins

The Servants who receive sums of
money to trade with

The Sheep and the Goats

Matthew
xxiv. I — 3 Mk xiii. i — 4

» 4-8

s-f

» 9—14^ » „ 9—13
» 15—23^ » » 14—23

„ 26, 27 Lk xvii. 23^, 24

))

)) 11

29-

-31

Mk xiii.

24-

-27

32-

-35

)) 11

28-

-31

» ))

11 37—39 Lk xvii. 26, 27, 30

„ 40, 41 „ „ 34, 35

,, 42 Mk xiii. 35 a

» 43) 44 Lk xii. 39, 40

» 45 — 51 11 11 42 — 46

XXV. I — 13 (Cp. Lkxii.35 — 38)

„ 14—30 (Cp.Lkxix.12— 27)

„ 31—46

^ There is a much closer parallel to Mk xiii. 9 — 13 in Mt. x. 17 — 22, except
for the Saying as to the uni%-ersal preaching of the Gospel. With Mk v. 11,
cp. Lk xii. II, 12.

* Cp. Lk xvii. 31 with Mt. xxiv. 17, 18.

^ Cp. Mk xiii. 21 with Lk xvii. 23.

S. G. II.

CHAPTER III.

EARLY ACCOUNTS OF THE MAIN FACTS AND FEATURES
OF CHRIST'S MINISTRY AND PASSION.— THE HISTORY
OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST MARK.

I POINTED out at the beginning of my last chapter that the
pecuh'ar position and special needs of the early believers in
Palestine account for the collection and preservation among
them of a considerable portion of Christ's Teaching in a
separate form, and that the full communication of this
tradition of His Words to Greek-speaking Christians was
retarded by the barrier of language and other circumstances.
But those who had not known Jesus required, as I have
already observed, to be told something about His Person
and Work and not simply to have His precepts impressed
upon their minds. From the time that the preaching of
the Gospel to Hellenistic Jews and to Gentiles began, such
general accounts, and descriptions of particular incidents,
must have been given — at first, of course, orally. In process
of time attempts would be made to preserve a written record
of that which had been delivered. Luke in his preface alludes
to such attempts which had preceded his own work. For
plainly any "narrative concerning those matters which have
been fulfilled among us " must have comprised (as we read in
Papias' fragment about Mark) " the things that were either
said or done by Christ," and not merely the former. And
this is the type of composition to which our Synoptic Gospels
conform, and of which they were, no doubt, the most complete
and perfect specimens. The history of these more general
records is, I believe, throughout connected in a special
manner with the work of evangelisation, and the establish-

The 7ieed for information about fesits 131

ment of the Church, in the Greek-speaking world. When
those who first taught the Christian faith in Greek had to
supply some general information about Jesus, no instruction
of precisely the same kind can have been habitually given in
Aramaic which would have served them as a model, and even
if there had, there could have been no such reason for making
the effort to translate exactly in the case of narrative, as there
was in the case of the Words of Jesus; the aim of the mission-
aries would simply have been to relate afresh the facts which
they knew, as best they could, in the language understood by
their hearers. Further, it is evidently most probable that the
earliest attempts to reduce the tradition to writing were made by
Greek-speaking Christians, because literary habits were more
widely spread among them, and dependence upon the memor)'
was less usual. And these early attempts in Greek would
naturally form the basis of other more complete records in
Greek, although (as we have seen) these records were enriched
as time went on, especially in regard to the element of Christ's
Teaching, by translations from the Aramaic tradition. A con-
sideration, then, of the historical circumstances is unfavourable
to the supposition, so lightly adopted by several recent critics,
that the translation of an Aramaic source formed the ground-
work of the Synoptic narrative ; it is more natural to suppose
that our Gospels were — so far as their arrangement and the
form of a large part of their contents are concerned — a growth
indigenous in Greek-speaking Christendom.

■ We will dwell for a few moments on the earlier stages oi
the process. And, first, let us consider the influence of the
period of oral teaching. I am disposed to think that this was
more important than it is held to have been by most of those
who, like myself, reject the Oral Theory \ It would generally
be allowed that the grouping of incidents in the Gospels is in

^ The common view of critics is clearly expressed in the following passage of
Wellhausen's Einleitung, p. 43: "The ultimate source of the Gospels is oral
tradition, but this contains only dispersed matter. The pieces of greater or less
compass circulate therein separately. Their combination into a whole is always
the work of an author, and commonly of a writer. Particular narratives which
correspond might have been taken by this or that Synoptic writer from the mouth
of the people and do not serve to prove the dependence of one upon another. But

9—2

132 TJie part played by oral leaching

not a few cases due to links of association forged through
habits of oral teaching, which must often have tended to
bring together narratives connected rather in subject than in
time. But oral teaching may have had a larger part than
this in determining the form and contents of the Synoptic
Gospels. Although, as I have shewn in ch. I, the relations
of our Synoptic Gospels to one another cannot be explained
on the hypothesis that the evangelists were each directly
dependent solely upon a common oral tradition, it is probable
that the document from which they derived their Synoptic
outline and common matter was itself in large measure
dependent upon tradition ; and although this tradition cannot
have been formally agreed upon in the way supposed by
Gieseler and others who followed him, and is not likely to
have had the rigidity attributed to it by them, it may never-
theless have acquired a certain amount of fixity, especially as
regards some of its principal features. The fact that our first
three evangelists were ready to follow — on the whole so
closely — the outline in the document that lay before them
is an indication that the type of narration which it repre-
sented was a widely prevalent one and had no serious rival
within their knowledge.

Let us reflect for a few moments upon the circumstances
which would have led to the existence of such a commonly
accepted type of oral narrative. There can be little doubt
that individual preachers and teachers had their customary
way of telling the story of the Life of Christ. On different
occasions, they might dwell at greater or less length on parts
of it ; they might omit or add this or that narrative. Some-
times they might only relate a particular conversation, or
describe a miracle, or two or three miracles of similar
character, just as they might sometimes recall a single pre-

the Synoptics also agree remarkably in their arrangement, and the supposition of
their independence as writers is thereby excluded."

I have contended that there was also a general shaping of the form of the
narrative as a whole during the oral period which must not be confounded with the
fixing of the sequence of all the sections in a document. The advocates of the Oral
Theory did not confine the work of the oral period to the former, but they help
us to realise it. This is the element of truth in their theory. It is commonly
overlooked at present, but it is important.

in shaping the Gospel records 133

cept, or two or three precepts. But when a comprehensive
account was required, they would adhere in the main to a
plan which had become usual to them. And in the case of
those of them whose command of Greek was limited, this
circumstance would serve in a special manner to stereotype
even their phraseology.

Thus far I have spoken only of the fixity of form which
would naturally belong to the Gospel tradition as delivered
by individuals ; but different individuals might have their
characteristic variations. There were, however, also influences
which may well have caused a particular type to be widely
prevalent. Those who had heard some eminent authority tell
the story, would try to tell it in the same manner. While
narrators who were wholly independent of one another might
resemble each other to a large extent in their mode of pre-
senting the facts, owing to the circumstance that they all
had the same purpose.

It would be natural, then, that there should come to be
a more or less commonly accepted mode of setting forth the
facts of the Gospel in oral teaching, and I cannot doubt that
the features of it would be more or less distinctly imprinted,
also, on the earliest written records. Moreover, it seems to
me that the common outline of the Synoptic Gospels — its
commencement from the Ministry of the Baptist which was
an obviously appropriate starting point for apologetic reasons
in preaching the Gospel ; its picture of the crowded days of
Christ's Ministry in Galilee, designed to set forth alike His
superhuman power, and attractive grace and goodness ; its
fuller narrative of His Last Days and Passion — corresponds,
as regards its form and scope and character, with the sort
of sketch, though this might no doubt often have been of a
slighter nature, which the early Christian preachers and
teachers are likely to have been in the habit of giving^

Further, let it be considered how exceedingly difficult
it would be to understand the production of the Synoptic
Gospels, as the result simply of a literary effort. The simplest
method of writing history, and that to which consequently
untrained minds instinctively turn, is that of a chronicle.
^ Cp. Acts X. 36 — 39.

134 The part played by oral teaching

But the Gospels are as far as possible from being chronicles.
Nor were there any models of other kinds of historical or
biographical composition that would have helped the writer
of the first record, and with which he could have been
acquainted. The theme was utterly new, as well as tran-
scendent, and men of the most practised literary skill would
have been baffled in attempting to treat it suitably. " The
experience of oral teaching," as Dr Westcott strikingly
observed^, " was required in order to bring within the reach
of writing the vast subject of the Life of Christ." If the
Apostles had been bidden to sit down and write an account
of the years that they had spent with their Master, they
would have been overwhelmed by the fulness of their know-
ledge. But under the pressure of the work of oral instruction
and limited by its conditions, with inquirers present before
them, they learned how to convey a vivid impression of what
He was. And so it came to pass that the tradition which
had afterwards to be committed to writing was not a merely
chaotic one, or of unmanageable extent. Those who wrote
had not to perform to any great degree a work of selection ;
this had been done for them already ; they could on the
contrary place before themselves the far less difficult aim of
" omitting nothing which they had heard and which they
regarded as trustworthy-." And they had also received
some indications of a plan according to which the matter
might be arranged.

We may believe, then, that the oral teaching prepared the
way for written records by facilitating the task of composition.
It is true that our third evangelist in his reference at the
beginning of his work to the labours of those who had pre-
ceded him in "drawing up a narrative" of the facts of the
Gospel, as well as to the task he had himself performed, does
not recognise that they or he were indebted in any way, for
the form in which they presented the facts, to those who had
delivered them ; while Papias in his fragment on Mark not
only makes no allusion to the latter's ever having heard Peter
give a general account of the Gospel history, but may be

1 Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, p. 169.

^ Cp. fragment of Tajnas on Mark's writing, ap. Eus. H.E. in. 39.

/// shaping the Gospel records 135

thought to imply the contrary. And I have pointed out
above that the expressions of these early notices would be
very strange, if in the oral instruction that special attention
had been given to the sequence of narratives which has
according to the Oral Theory to be supposed. It is not,
however, hard to understand that both Luke and Papias
(or his informant) might be unconscious of the importance
of what was effected by that first rough-hewing of the tradition
of which I have spoken.

We will next fix our thoughts on the time when the
writing down of the oral tradition began ; and in this con-
nexion we must discuss more particularh- Luke's statement
(i. i) that "many" had attempted it.

According to Schleiermacher's celebrated theory Luke
here refers to short pieces, consisting of a few Sayings, or the
account of a single incident, or at most of some episode in
the Gospel history, written on one or two tablets, or a leaf or
two of papyrus ; and he holds that the evangelist himself
composed his Gospel largely out of such fragments. Now it
is likely enough that individual Christians did make such
brief memoranda both before an}-thing more comprehensive
had been attempted, and also afterwards, owing to the labour
or expense involved in procuring copies of MSS. of any
considerable length. And it is possible that some use may
have been made of such little pieces by Luke himself and
others when composing fuller records. But the supposition
that the evangelist can be thinking of such mere fragments is
precluded by the terms he employs — avard^aadai 8i,rjy7](Tiv
Trepl TMP 7reir\rjpo(jioprjfievcov ev i)fuv Trpay/jbdrayv — " to draw up
a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled
among us." Evidently he has in view compositions which
aimed at giving a general account of the Gospel history as
his own did, though they were less full, and he regarded them
as in some points at least less accurate, than his own\

^ It is customary to call Schleiermacher's view " Die Diegesen-theorie," which
directly involves a mistaken translation of the word Siriyriais. Schleiermacher's
language is such as to suggest that those fragmentary records, which he imagines,
might be called 5trj7^a-eis, but it is fair to add that, so far as I have observed, he
does not himself actually apply this name to them.

136 Gospel narratives referred to by Luke

The Gospel according to St Mark, or the document more
or less approximately represented thereby, which was used
by Luke as one of his principal sources, answers to the
description given. If, as some suppose — though in all
probability mistakenh', as we shall presently see — Luke was
also acquainted with the Gospel according to St Matthew,
he might have this too in view. And in addition he may have
thought of the source originally written in Aramaic, from
which he derived much of the Teaching of Jesus, included
in his Gospel, although the subordinate position of the
element of narrative in it must render this doubtful. But
even if he had all these three in mind, there must have been
others besides to justify his speaking of " many." We may,
perhaps, find it hard to understand why man}' such records
having the same object should have been written, and how
they could not only have disappeared, but have ceased wholly
to be remembered, in the generations following. It is probable,
however, that an)' difficulty of this kind which we may feel is
due to our failure to realise the special character of the
process — belonging to a brief, transitional period in the
early history of the Church — to which the evangelist's words
relate.

W^e may well suppose that the desire for written records
of the Gospel history began to make itself felt in various
quarters at about the same time. Surely this would in the
circumstances be natural. One Christian here and another
there who had some education would set himself to commit
to writing the deeds and occurrences and Sa}'ings which he
had learned by word of mouth. The written records are
likely — if what I have said, as to the character of the oral
tradition on which they were based, is true — to have been
marked by a good deal of similarity of form and contents.
Moreover writers who were not absolutely the first would
not be unwilling to make large use of any record already
written which came to their hands. But they would not be
mere copyists. While they reproduced they would not shrink
from emending, and in particular they would seek to add
matter which had been omitted. If so, the several writings
might fairly be regarded as distinct efforts, different "attempts

The history of our St Mark 137

to draw up a narrative," and it would be possible for a good
number to be produced and to have a limited use for a time
side by side. And when after a brief period most of these
narratives were superseded by more complete ones, they
naturally soon passed from memory. How soon the name
" Gospel " was given to any such writings, on the ground that
they set forth Jesus as the Christ, or whether their authors
so conceived their object from the first, we cannot say.
But at least whenever the account comprised both the
Ministry and the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus, men
had the thing.

Few at the present day will be inclined to deny that our
second Gospel is the best representative which we possess
of this early kind of evangelic literature. For this very
reason it becomes the more important and interesting to
inquire whether (i) we have it practically in its original form ;
or (2) we are to believe that this form has undergone a certain
amount of editing and amplification, yet not so as to alter
substantially its structure and character ; or finally (3), as
some allege, a primitive collection of narratives has been
worked up with an equal, or larger, amount of other material
by a later hand, or later hands, to whom the arrangement of
the Gospel is mainly due^

It will be best, I think, in this inquiry to work backwards.
That is to say. we will endeavour to determine more precisely
than we have hitherto done whether the Synoptic source
used in the composition of our first and third Gospels, or
in either of them, differed in any respects from our second
Gospel, before we attempt to penetrate still further back
into the history of that source. After we have followed

1 Among those who in recent years have discussed the question of the original
form of the Marcan document, I would name especially the following: von Soden,
Urchristliche Literatiir Geschichte, 1905, p. 71 ff., Eng. trans, p. 142 ff . ; J. Weiss,
Das dlteUe Evangeliuni, 1903; E. Wendiing, Ur-]\larciis, 190-;; J. Wellhausen,
Einleitiing, 1905, pp. 53 — 57, taken with the passages in his Commentary on Mark
there referred to. Loisy, Antoicr cfitn petit livre, 1903, p. 80 ff.; Les Evaugi/es
Synoptiques, 1907, I. p. 85 fif.

Wellhausen and Loisy do not attempt the reconstruction of an earlier document,
or documents, in the manner that the three first named do. They content them-
selves with indicating certain portions of the matter as of inferior value historically
to other portions.

138 Course of inquiry to be followed

out the indications afforded by the documents which we
have in our hands, we may enter the region where we are
without this guidance.

Too httle use, it seems to me, has been made of this help
by those who have recently investigated the history of the
composition of St Mark. There are cases in which a com-
parison of the other Synoptics, taken in conjunction with
signs of editing in St Mark itself, will shew us what the
original form of the Synoptic source was, where the indications
of editing taken by themselves alone cannot do this. It will
shew what the real significance of the latter is — whether the
traces of secondariness imply that the whole section in which
they occur was added to the original document, or whether
such section, free from these signs of secondariness, was found
in that document as known to the other Synoptics, so that if
it had lain before us in the form in which it lay before them,
there would have been no reason to suspect its originality^
More generally it may be observed, that by comparing the
two other Synoptics, we may be able to distinguish stages
whereby our Gospel reached its present form, and that it will
be worth while in any case to know this.

Wendling, among the principles that he lays down at the
beginning of his investigation, has the following : " To limit
the inquiry to Mark and not to amalgamate the ' Ur-Marcus'
problem with the Synoptic problem I" But he gives no
good reason for this view. Nor does Wellhausen for a similar
observation I Others have not drawn the line so decidedly,
but there has been no attempt to use the Synoptic parallels
systematically in this inquiry so far as they will serve.

When setting forth the grounds for the belief in the priority
of St Mark I noted that for the most part the first and third
Gospels, where they do not both reproduce the words of
St Mark exactly, differ therefrom each in a way of its own''.
This general view of the features of relationship between the
Synoptic Gospels was sufficient for the purpose which I then

^ For an example, see p. 1 54 f.

2 Op. cit. p. 3.

^ Einkitiing, p. 53.

■• See p. 34 f. The existence of exceptions was referred to.

The theory of B. JVeiss 139

had in hand. But there is a class of exceptions to which we
must now turn our attention. Scattered through the parallels
to St Mark in the two other Synoptics, there is a number of
cases, considerable on the whole, in which they agree in using
a word or phrase not found in St Mark or in omitting touches
or statements, and in a few instances whole incidents, which
are contained therein. It is natural to ask whether these
agreements between the first and third evangelists, or any of
them, are derived from a form of the text of the Common
Source earlier than that in our St Mark, and it is for this
reason that I notice them in the present connexion. But this
question cannot be decided without taking account of other
explanations of which the phenomena may be susceptible.
So that the whole subject of these coincidences in disagree-
ment from St INIark on the part of the two other Synoptics
must here be examined.

The consentient differences of St Matthew and St Lnke
from St Mark in Marcan contexts.

Let me first notice two theories in regard to this class of
phenomena which have attracted a good deal of attention.

B. Weiss sees in many of these coincidences between
St Matthew and St Luke in differing from St Mark a con-
firmation of his favourite hypothesis of an " Oldest " or
" Apostolic " source which contained many narratives as well
as " Logia," and was drawn upon for both elements by Mark
as well as by the two other Synoptics. This theory need not
here detain us long in view of the conclusion to which we
came in the last chapter in respecr of " Logia" in St Mark\
If these were not derived from the Greek document which
the first and third evangelists used, it is hardly probable that
Mark took narratives from it. But to turn to the evidence
now more particularly under discussion : a little reflexion
will shew that it cannot properly be made to serve Weiss'
purpose. For if the agreements of St Matthew and St Luke
against St Mark may be taken to shew that a source used
by all three has in certain cases been most closely adhered to
^ See pp. 109 — 1 12.

140 The theory of E. Simons

by the two first-named, it does not follow that this source
was the one imagined by Weiss. It is far simpler to suppose
it to have been an earlier form of Marcan document. We
shall not then be required to attribute to the first and third
evangelists the complex procedure of using partly the original
source, partly Mark's revised edition of that source. Weiss, ^
it is true, la}^s stress upon the Hebraic character of some of
the expressions which the first and third evangelists have
preserved, as a ground for connecting them with his "Oldest
source^" Rut such Hebraisms, or Aramaisms, might quite
as well have occurred in an earlier form of St Mark ; and, to
speak broadly, whatever might in the one case have been
removed or altered by a revising hand, so as to give us St Mark
in its present form, might have been so in the other.

I turn to the contention of E. Simons- that the agreements
between the first and third Gospels in differing from St Mark,
or many of them, are due to the third evangelist's acquaintance
with St Matthew. It is the more important to consider this
view, since H. Holtzmann appears to have become a convert
to it^ and it has been adopted also by some other well-known
critics ^ It is not wanting in simplicity, but we shall (I believe)
see that it is unsatisfactory on other grounds. It is important
for the proper consideration of it to observe that Simons
and those who have followed him allow that the imitation of
St Matthew by the third evangelist was strictly subordinate
to his use of St Mark. Their hypothesis may be put in its
least unnatural form if we suppose Luke to have read
St Matthew at some time, to have no longer had it by him,
and to have been influenced more or less unconsciously by
his recollection of it^. It does not, however, seem likely that
if he had read that Gospel, he would have forgotten, or been
indifferent to, its more considerable additions to the Marcan
and other common source, or sources, and generally have

1 See Weiss, Das Marcus-evangelitim, p. 72, on Mk i. 40. For other illustra-
tions of various kinds of his application of his theory, see the same context ; also
pp. 49 — 50, 62, 109, 133, 334, 400, etc., of the same work.

2 Hat der dritle Evangelist den kanonischen Matthliiis bcnutzt? 1880.
* Einleit. 350, 356 f.

■* E.g., H. H. Wendt; see Die Lehre Jesn, p. 46.
' Cp. Simons, op. cit. p. 108.

The theory of E. Simons 141

remained unaffected by it in his own treatment of them, while
he reproduced it only in a certain number of quite unimportant
particulars. That is not the way in which memory would
usually work. Moreover, it may well be asked whether
there is not something unsuitable in representing the third
evangelist as dependent in his work of revision upon the
suggestions of memory, when he plainly shews often so much
freedom in revising, and such a decided mind of his own in
matters of style.

But, further, the supposition of reminiscence is wholly
inappropriate in connexion with the most important class
of agreements between the first and third Gospels, namely,
the instances in which both omit a passage or substantial
statement contained in St Mark. It is strange that adherents
of the theory have not realised this more clearly than they
appear to have done. If Luke had noticed that something
contained in one of his principal sources had been omitted by
a writer who, like himself, had used those sources, his most
natural impulse would have been to include it all the more
carefully in his own work, lest it should be forgotten. It
is most unlikely that he could have regarded St Matthew
as an authority so superior to a source which he more
commonly used, that he would have omitted a passage or
phrase because he found it omitted here. Such an estimate
as this would have been an anachronism, and, if he had
formed it, he would have been at the pains to make larger
use of this Gospel than he has done.

I will now proceed to mention four causes to each of which
some effect ought in all probability to be attributed, and
which are (I believe) jointly quite adequate to account for
the phenomena under consideration. The admission of a
variety of causes will be distasteful to some minds. There
is a charm — an appearance of simplicity and completeness — in
any theory which assigns a single cause for a large group
of phenomena. But we ought not to attach much weight
to a consideration of that kind. For it is evident that
phenomena which we have been led for convenience to class
together may have arisen in different ways. In the present
case, it will be found on examination that no single cause

142 Causes of differences from St Mark

can afford a natural explanation in every instance, but that
always one of the causes which I have specified will do so,
and often more than one. To convince himself of this the
student must work through all the instances. At the end
of this chapter he will find a Table which will aid him in the
task. Here I can only make some general remarks in regard
to the different causes, and give a certain number of
examples.

I. Differences between the text of the Marcaji dociivient
used by the first and third evangelists and onr St Mark.

Even by those who suppose the first and third evangelists
to have used a document which was virtually identical with
our St Mark, it will be admitted to be scarcely conceivable
that the original text should have been preserved there
f- perfectly intact. And there are at least a limited number
of instances in which the difference between our St Mark
and the two other Synoptics may most probably be attributed
to alterations of the original in the former. The use of the
term to eva'y'yeXiov absolutely (Mk i. i; i. 14, 15; viii. 35;
X. 29), which is peculiar to this Gospel, is to be explained
in this way. In the two last places it could have been
introduced with great ease; in the two first a little more
recasting of the original form of the sentence, which we may
suppose to have closely resembled that of the parallel in
St Matthew, would be necessary ; but this would not be difficult
to effect. It is very unlikely that the third evangelist, more
particularly, with his Pauline sympathies and his fondness for
the verb evayyeXl^eadai, would have avoided the use of the term
TO eva^yeXiov in all these passages, if he had found it in his
source. Again, it is difficult not to admit the probability
that the description of Jesus as 6 reKTcov in Mk vi. 3 is due to
a revising hand, when we compare 6 tov T€KTouo<i vi6<i and
6 ui09 'Icoai'jcf) at Mt. xiii. 55 and Lk iv. 22, and consider how
naturally it might be feared that an expression of this kind
would be misunderstood. The " anointing of the sick with
oil " in the charge to the disciples at vi. 1 3 may have been
suggested by the custom of the Church. The saying " the
Sabbath was made for man," etc. at Mk ii. 27 has the

common to the First and Third Gospels 143

appearance of being an insertion. There does not seem to
be any good reason why it should have been passed over
in both the other Gospels, and especially in St Luke, if it was
in the original document. And the connexion between it
and the following saying, suggested by the (uare. at the
beginning of the next sentence, is somewhat forced and not
in accordance with the usual style of this Gospel. The
instruction on humility in Mk ix. 35 — n seems to have been
rearranged. The saying placed at the beginning of the passage
in St Mark stands appropriately there as a direct answer to the
question which has preceded ; if the two other Synoptics had
found it so placed they would hardly, instead of giving it thus,
have embodied it in the lesson drawn from the child. There is
also nothing in either of the parallels here to correspond to
the words koli Trdvrcov ScaKovof, though there is in other
contexts. These words may, therefore, have been introduced
here by a copyist owing to his familiarity with those other
Sayings. In Wk xi. 17 the words Traaiv rot? eOveaiv, wanting
in St Matthew and St Luke, may have been supplied from
a recollection of the passage of the prophet, and a sense
of their significance.

The connexion (Mk iv. 35, 36) between the account of the
Speaking in Parables and the Crossing of the Lake is a point
of a different kind. In St Mark we read: "and oti that day
when even was come he saith unto them, Let us go over unto
the other side, and leaving the multitude they take hijn with
them as he was in the boat" I have italicised statements that
are peculiar to this Gospel. The parallel accounts in the
first and third Gospels begin, on the contrary, by saying that
Jesus embarked and make no reference to the day and hour.
Moreover each of them has placed the narrative in a different
connexion, Luke (it is true) only after one, but still quite
a distinct, occurrence; the first evangelist considerably earlier.
It would, indeed, be curious that one of the very rare occasions
on which the first and third evangelists agree in differing from
St Mark as to order, should be one in which the connexion
was unusually precise in their common document. That the
first evangelist should have disregarded this connexion would
be specially strange, since he has sometimes apparently him-

144 Causes of differences from St Mark

self imagined such links where in his source he found only-
juxtaposition \ It is probable, therefore, that an editor of the
Marcan document introduced the touch that Jesus was in the
boat and the statement that it was the same day at evening,
having inferred them from the preceding passage. We shall
presently see that there are other points in that context which
strengthen this supposition.

Another interesting case where a comparison of the three
Synoptics seems to make it plain that the transition from one
narrative to another has been unwisely tampered with by a
revising hand is Mk ix. 30, 3i<rz (cp. Mt. xvii. 22; Lk ix.
43, 44 rt). In St Mark we read, " And they went forth from
thence, and passed through Galilee ; and he would not that
any man should know it. For he taught his disciples and
said unto them, The Son of Man is delivered up," etc. The
connexion implied in the "for" at the beginning oiv. 31 is far
from clear, though it might perhaps be possible to supply
a train of thought which would explain it. We notice, how-
ever, that neither the statement, " he would not that any man
should know it," nor the connexion of the successive sentences
by " for " appears in either of the two other Synoptics. The
section is introduced in St Matthew quite abruptly, just as
sections in St Mark so often are : " And while they abode
in Galilee, Jesus said unto them. The Son of Man shall be
delivered up," etc. In St Luke, as in our St Mark, a more
formal introduction has been provided, but quite differently
and more skilfully. St Matthew is in all probability the near-
est here to the original text of Mark, though it is suitable to
attribute the use of dvaarpecfjofievcou (or crvaTpe(j)o/j.euo)i>) to
the author of that Gospel.

Again, the discrepancy between St Mark and the two
other Synoptics in regard to the day of the Cleansing of the
Temple may be due to the revision of the original document,
and connected with the manner in which the incident of
the barren fig-tree is told in St Mark. This is a point which
we shall have occasion to discuss later. The word 8i<; in the
warning to Peter in regard to the crowing of the cock, each
time that it occurs in St Mark (xiv. 30 and 72) may be an

1 See above, p. 53 (j).

common to the First and Third Gospels 145

addition to the original, as also the statement that it was the
third hour when they crucified Jesus (xv. 25).

Those vivid little individual touches which every reader
notices in St Mark, and which give character to this Gospel,
belong for the most part, there can be little reason for
doubting, to the original document. They are eminently
natural and not such as a reviser of the Gospel would be
likely to think of, or would have cared to introduce. Still
it is possible that a few of them may have been added by
a scribe v/ith revising instincts, who had entered into the
spirit of the work he was copying. There are, likewise, in
this Gospel a class of general statements which heighten the
representation of the popular impression made by Jesus, and
which are not reproduced, or but partially so, in St Matthew
and St Luke\ These expressions, also, are commonly, I
imagine, regarded as examples of the vigour of the author's
style. It is possible that they may be so; but their originality
(at least, in all the amplitude in which we have them) seems to
me to be more doubtful than that of the individual traits before
mentioned, from which they may clearly be distinguished.

There are some other clauses and sentences peculiar to
this Gospel, which may, perhaps, be insertions. If the erroneous
statement in Mk ii. 26 that David came to the tabernacle
to ask for bread k-nX ^X^LciOap ap^^tepeco? was made in the
original document, we can well understand its being omitted ;
but it may also have been an addition by a badly informed
copyist. Again, in the account of the return of Jesus
from the Mount of Transfiguration, it is said that He
found "scribes contending with" the disciples (Mk ix. 14).
There is no mention of scribes in St Matthew and St Luke,
and in the immediate sequel in St Mark it is of the multitude
that Jesus asks: "About what are you contending with them?"
The reference to the scribes has probably been introduced
by a revising hand, because these were the common opponents
of Jesus and His disciples-.

1 E.g. Mk i. 32 — 34; iii. lo, ii.

^ There are a few other agreements of Mt. and Lk which may be assigned to
this cause: — Mk ii. 13, 14, 191^; iv. 10; vi. 41 ; x. 12 ; xiv. 61. (See Table,
p. 207 ff.)

S. G. II. 10

146 Causes of differences from St Mark

2. Undesigned agreement betiveen the Jirst and third
evangelists in revising their Marcan document. Where in
St Mark the historic present, or the imperfect, is used, it is
exceedingly common to find the aorist in St Matthew and
St Luke (e.g. etTrei/ for Xeyei) ; or again where in St Mark
two finite verbs are Hnked by Kai, to have one of them turned
into the participle and the kql omitted ; or where many
successive sentences and clauses are conjoined by kuI, to
have the monotony broken by the occasional substitution
of Be, or by other simple devices. Changes of these kinds
occur not seldom both in St Matthew and in St Luke at
different points, or where only one of them is parallel to
St Mark. That they should happen frequently to be in
accord in making them, without either having an\' knowledge
of the work of the other, could cause no surprise.

But there are other cases of agreement, less common than
those just indicated, which may reasonably be explained by
the similarity of their stylistic ideas and habits. For instance,
the particle ovv is very rarely used in St Mark, whereas
both the first and third evangelists, aiming as they do at a
more connected construction, frequently employ it, but for the
most part not at corresponding points. At the parallels, how-
ever, to Mk xii. 9 and 23 (Mt. xxi. 40, xxii. 28 ; Lk xx. 15, 33)
both use it ; but plainly we do not need to look for any
special reason to account for this, such as their both finding
it in the same document, or the third evangelist having
remembered what he had read in St Matthew. It may
further be pointed out that in the former of the two places
just referred to, although both use ovv they give it a different
position in the sentence'.

What, then, are we to say of the use three times in parallel
passages by the first and third evangelists of the Hebraic kuI
ISov, which is nowhere used in St Mark'-.' This example

1 A further example of their independence in the use of the particle may be
given from the same context. At Mt. xxii. •zi we find ovv and in the Lucan parallel
(xx. 25) Toivvv.

2 Mt. viii. 2 = Lk v. i2 = Mk i. 40; Mt. ix. 2 = Lk v. 18 = Mk ii. 3 (Mt. ix. 18
= Lk viii. 4I = Mk v. 22 ; here Mt has Idou and Lk *cai lSo6) ; Mt. xvii. 3 = Lk ix. 30
= Mk ix. 4.

coimnon to the First and Third Gospels 147

possesses interest both intrinsically and because B. Weiss has
laid great stress on it'. Here again the expression in question is
several times used in St Matthew in passages where it does not
occur in St Luke, and in St Luke where it is not in St Matthew.
Where, therefore, they agree in using it, they may well have
done so without design, and I believe that in the last two
instances given in p. 146, n. 2, this is the true explanation.
It has, however, to be remembered that coincidences which,
taken singly, may reasonably be regarded as undesigned, may
need to be accounted for in some more special way when
several occur close together. And it happens that in the two
earlier parallels in which the first and third evangelists agree
in using /cat Ihov, they also agree against St Mark in certain
other particulars, and these agreements collectively suggest
some common influence acting upon both.

The question what this influence may have been will
come before us under the next head". But before I pass
to it, I must say a few words on the effect of revision in
leading to the absence from both St ^Matthew and St Luke
of words, clauses and sentences which are in St Mark. I have
above specified some instances of probable additions to the
Synoptic source which appear in our St Mark only, and have
suggested the possibility that there are others. But there
are also many cases in which it may well be that both the
first and third evangelists have from similar motives made
the same omissions. Both often compress the Marcan
narratives ; frequently each does this most in narratives,
or parts of narratives, where the other does not ; but it is
natural that sometimes their curtailments should correspond.
Details in St Mark's descriptions which are really un-
important may well have seemed so to both. Others may
have been passed over because they appeared to be, so to
speak, rather the property of the particular narrator than
part of the common tradition. A few may have been
avoided as open to misconception I

' See above, p. 140. * Cp. p. 148 and see Table, p. 208.

^ Cp. Hawkins, p. 96 fF.; though he puts down more omissions to the account
of this feeling than I should be inclined to do.

10 — 2

148 Causes of differences from St Mark

3. The influence of parallel accounts in the Logian or other
docunients, or of oral tradition, or habits of oral teaching.
When we discussed the contents of the Logian document,
we noticed a certain number of parallels with St Mark
which it included, and traced the use of them in the two
other Synoptics^ It is not necessary to go over this ground
here again. It is to be noted only that a certain number of
instances in which St [Matthew and St Luke agree in differing
from St Mark are accounted for in this way.

We do not know that the first and the third evangelists
were both acquainted with an}' other records, which con-
tained matter corresponding to that in St Mark, but it is
certainly possible that they may have been ; and that they
were in a measure affected thereb\- in their reproductions
of St Mark. Again we cannot prove that both inherited
the same habitual forms of statement on any points ; but it is
hio-hly probable that they did so to some extent. And there
are some among their agreements against St Mark which
may be most suitably traced to the operation of one or
other of these causes. In the account of the leper coming
to Jesus (Mk i. 40= Mt. viii. 2 = Lk v. 12) we find /cat Ihov
and Kvpce in both St Matthew and St Luke. In the form
also of the next sentence in each Gospel, describing the cure,
the correspondence is closest in those two. The appearance
of these various little agreements so near together in the
same context suggests that both evangelists were familiar
with the same manner of telling the story. The same is to
be said of the narrative which follows next in each of the three
Synoptics, that of the Healing of the paralytic. Here several
of the differences from St Mark are not, even individually
taken, such as two other writers would have been likely to
think of independently.

Again, the position assigned in St Matthew and St Luke
to Andrew in the lists of the Twelve, next to Simon Peter,
although in St INIark the sons of Zebedee are for a particular
reason placed there-, may be confidently attributed to habit,

1 E.g. see above, pp. 79, 88 f., 90, 93; also the Analyses, pp. 123 — 129,
and Table II. at end of vol.

2 Mt. X. 2 = Lk vi. i4 = Mk iii. 16, 17.

co}mnon to the First and Third Gospels 149

as also may the substitution of t^ Tpirr) rjixepa iyepdijvai in both
St Matthew and St Luke for fMera rpeU 'i)p.epa<; avaaTrjvai,^.
Probably also the fact that the description of the taunts
cast at Jesus when hanging on the Cross is similar in
St Matthew and St Luke, being more expanded than that
in St Mark, is to be traced to the customary form of teaching
(Mk XV. 30= Mt. xxvii, 40 = Lk xxiii. 35). Once more the
agreement between St Matthew and St Luke in regard to
the saying "to you it has been given to know the mysteries
of the kingdom of God " (as contrasted with the singular "the
mystery," and the omission of "to know" in St Mark) must
be due to its having been derived by the two former from the
Logian, or some other, document, or from a common tradition-.

4. Textual assimilation. The existing MS. evidence, so
far as it enables us to trace the history of the text of the
Gospels, reveals a tendency on the part of copyists to assimilate
here and there the form of parallel passages in the several
Gospels. It may safely be conjectured that this process
began before the time from which we are able to trace it.
Moreover, as there is reason to think that in very early times
St Mark was less often copied than the two other Synoptics^
it is probable that during that time there were more cases of
assimilation between St Matthew and St Luke than of St Mark
to either of them.

It is not possible to draw a sharp line of distinction
between the agreements which should be referred to the
last cause and to this one. Verbal identity JDetween
St ]\Iatthew and St Luke in a clause, or sentence, not
derived from St Mark, might have been brought about
through a copyist of one of them having the words of the
other in his mind ; but it might also be due to the common
knowledge of some written account, or of tradition, by the
evangelists themselves. As examples, however, of cases
where textual assimilation should be borne in mind as an
alternative explanation, I may mention the question T19 icrnv
6 7ral(ra^ ae ; in Mt. xxvi. C8 and Lk xxii. 64, and the words

^ Mt. xvi. 2i=Lk ix. 22 = Mk viii. 31.

^ Mt. xiii. II =Lk. viii. io = Mk iv. 1 1. * See vol. i. p. lyf.

1 50 The omission from St Lttke

i^e\6(ov €^0) €K\avaev TTi/c/aw? in Mt. xxvi. 75, Lk xxii. 62,
standing in place of eiri^aXoov exXaiev (Mk xiv. 72).

One important conclusion from the examination in which
we have been engaged of the consentient differences of
St Matthew and St Luke from St Mark does not bear
directly upon the main subject of the present chapter. We
have seen that there is no reason to trace them to the third
evangelist's recollections of the Gospel according to St Matthew,
and consequently to suppose an acquaintance with that Gospel
on his part. But we have also seen reason to think that, in a
certain number of instances, comparison between our first and
third Gospels reveals the original form of the Synoptic source
which has in St Mark been altered by some, not very exten-
sive, additions and revision.

In the cases which we have so far been considering, there
have been coincident differences from St Mark in both the
other Gospels. But can differences in one only of the others
afford any light as to the original form of St Mark .-' This is
a question which ought to be asked although it must be
admitted that little significance in this respect has been
hitherto attached to these one-sided differences^ It is on
a comparison of St Luke with St Mark that the question
may be expected especially to arise — and that in fact it does
arise — both because the contents of St Mark are reproduced in
St Matthew so much more nearly, and also for another reason
which I will give in a moment. Yet even those — and they
have been a small minority^ — who have held that Luke was
unacquainted with the portions of the contents of St Mark
which he does not give, have not, I think, insisted that the
form of Marcan document known to him was necessarily
earlier than the fuller one used by our first evangelist. And

^ Zahn and B. Weiss, however, have alike appealed to certain instances of
narratives in St Matthew from which words and sentences contained in the Marcan
parallel are absent, as affording support for their respective theories of the relations
of the Gospels to one another and to sources. See below, p. 324 f.

For the Marcan matter omitted from St Matthew see p. 326 f.

^ Reuss is, perhaps, the most eminent critic who has held this view. See La
Bible, Nouveau Testament, I. pp. 28 f., 81.

of sections of St Mark

I.tI

it would probably still serve no useful purpose to discuss the
question whether it was so, were it not for the remarkable
fact that a considerable number of the passages of St Mark
which in their form and their connexions with their contexts
bear signs more or less clear that they are interpolations, and
which have been most frequently regarded as such, are included
among those which Luke passes over. When once this is
observed, it must surely appear desirable that the whole of
Luke's omissions of Marcan matter should be examined with
the object of ascertaining whether we can distinguish among
them some passages which he would have been less likely to
omit than others, if they had lain before him\ If the result
of this investigation corresponds, as it will (I believe) be
found to do, with the indications of interpolation just
referred to in the Marcan matter itself, the two kinds of
evidence will confirm each other.

It is not, perhaps, absolutely necessary that Luke should
be held to have been unacquainted with our St Mark in order
that his omission of certain passages should be held to support
the view that they are insertions. Wendling, who appears to
hold the common opinion that there was no difference between
the Synoptic source used in the composition of St Matthew
(which must have been nearly coextensive with St Mark) and
that known to and commonly used by Luke, at the same time
argues in certain cases that the latter criticised it by com-
paring it with an earlier form-. But this is rather what a
critical writer at the present day might have done. It is less
probable than that the form which Luke regularly used was
an earlier one, in which the passages in question were wanting.

The pertinacity with which it has been and is held that
the Synoptic source known to Luke was virtually identical
in its compass and details with that used in the composition
of St Matthew is not difficult to understand. Till a very

^ Wernle has briefly examined these omissions. Die Synopt. Frage, pp. 4 — 6,
and comes to the conclusion that Luke knew the sections of St Mark which he
omitted. But it must appear, I believe, to anyone, who considers Wernle 's reasons
for thinking so in the different cases, that they are, to say the least, of greatly
varying degrees of force.

- Op. cit. p. 16, § 31 [d). Cp. also J. Weiss, ib. p. 332, though the view
there indicated is rather different.

152 TJie omission fi'oni St Luke

recent time, in studying the relations of the Gospels, criticism
has been mainly occupied with the question of the priority of
St Mark broadly considered. The time had hardly come for
examining separately the relations of the first and third
Gospels to St Mark. Many students, also, who have made
up their minds to abandon the traditional view of the order
of composition of the Gospels in favour of the priority of
St Mark, have not felt prepared to set it aside still further
by postponing the composition of St Matthew to that of
St Luke. Yet there are good grounds for thinking that our
St Matthew may have been the last composed of the Synoptic
Gospels ; and, if so, it is obviously possible that the Marcan
document ma}- have come to the hands of the writer of it
with additions which it had not received when it lay before
Luke.

The contents of the Synoptic source used in the
composition of St Lnkc.

Our third evangelist, in so far as he has reproduced the
contents of St Mark, has preserved on the whole very nearly
the same sequence of sections ; but as regards more than
a fourth of the contents of that Gospel he has either given
nothing that corresponds even in substance, or else (and this
applies only to a. smaller portion) the form and the connexion
are so different that he has plainly derived his matter entirely
from an independent source. Is it possible to give a reason-
able explanation of these omissions ? In view of the words
of his preface w^e are entitled to suppose that he would have
been anxious to supply as complete an account of the life of
Christ as he could, and that he would therefore have been
disposed to include matter lying before him in a document
which he commonly made use of, except when lie had on the
same points other information which he considered superior.
On the other hand, practical considerations might induce an
ancient writer, even more than one of the present time, to
restrict the contents of his work. In particular he might not

of sections of St Mark 153

wish to extend it beyond a single roll, while it was important
that a roll should not be inconveniently long and bulky^.
Still the limit was not an absolute one ; and the question
would at all events arise whether this passage of a source,
or that one, should be omitted. We have then to consider
whether, in the case of certain Marcan sections wanting in
St Luke's Gospel, we can see reasons why they should have
been omitted, while in others there appear to be none ; and
at the same time we are to be on the look-out for signs that
any of the Marcan passages were insertions in the contexts in
which they stand. The evidence of style shall be subsequently
discussed.

Mk i. 16 — 20. TJie Call of the first disciples. There can
be no reason to doubt that this section was to be found in
Luke's Marcan document, and that he passes it over at the
point where it occurs in the Marcan sequence, because he had
that (on the whole) considerably fuller narrative of the incident
to give, which we find just afterwards in his Gospel (v. i — 1 1).

Mk iii. \c)b — 30. Attempt of frie?ids of fesiis to restraiji
Him, as mad ; cJiarge of the Pharisees that He cast out devils
by Beelzebub and His reply. Luke gives a closely similar,
though apparently distinct, version of the latter piece from
his Logian document at a later point in his Gospel (xi. 14 ff)-
and with the intention in his mind of doing this he might
have passed over the passage in St Mark. It can, also, cause
no surprise that he should not relate the attempt to seize
Jesus on the ground that He was mad. But it is to be
observed that the charge of collusion with Beelzebub to which
alone the reply of Jesus is directed appears to have been
somewhat clumsily hooked on in St Mark to the assertion
of others that He was mad^ with which it seems to have no
real connexion. There are, also, other signs of disturbance
in the Marcan context. It seems as if the incident of the
mother and brethren of Jesus coming to speak to Him, at

1 On the usual length of rolls see T. Birt, Antike Btichzuesen, esp. ch. vi., and
F. G. Kenyon, Palceography of Greek Papyri, pp. 17, 18; and for the bearing of
custom in this matter on the lengths of the two Lucan writings, Zahn, Kanon,
1. p. 76 ff.

'^ See above p. 90.

* €Kiyov yap on i^^ffTrj. Kai ol ypafjLfxaTe2s . . JXeyov, etc.

154 The omission from St Litke

V. 31 ff., ought to have some connexion with the mention
shortly before of His friends going forth for the purpose of
restraining Him, which the introduction of the charge erf the
Pharisees has broken. But even if the latter is removed the
two pieces about His friends and His mother and brethren
respectively do not in their actual form fit well together.
On the whole, it seems probable that the piece on the charge
of collusion with Satan was interpolated in the original Marcan
document and that there have been some other slight altera-
tions in the context^

Mk iv. 26— 34, together with vv.2, fo, 13^, 23, 24/^, 35, 36 .rz.
Portiofis of the account of the speaking in parables. Luke relates
that on an occasion when a great crowd had gathered, Jesus
addressed a parable to them (viii. 4) and he proceeds to give
that of the Sower. The disciples ask Him the meaning of this
parable {v. 9). He allows that it is their privilege to have
truths communicated to them which are for the time being
kept back from others {v. 10) and thereupon interprets to them
the parable which is in question {v. 1 1 fif.). After the con-
clusion of it the responsibilities of those who receive such
special instruction are insisted on in some striking proverbial
Sayings {vv. 15 — ,18). In Mk iv. i — 25 we have a passage
closely corresponding to the one in St Luke which I have just
described, though there are certain small, but not unimportant
differences to which attention must presently be directed.
First, however, let us notice that after the point down to
which there is parallelism between St Mark and St Luke two
parables are appended in somewhat loose fashion- to the
former, viz., the Seed growing without human aid and the
]\Iustard-seed (Mk iv. 26 — 29 and 30 — 32). Luke has not in
any part of his Gospel an equivalent for the first of these.
The latter he has given in a different context (xiii. 18, 19),
taking it from his Logian document'^; and it may be suggested
that he passed it over when he came to it in his Marcan
document because he was intending to give it later on from
his other chief source. But it should be observed that a

^ Cp. M. Loisy, Atttoia- d' tin petit livre, p. 80 f.

^ They are introduced by koX gXfytv, v. 26 ; koI '4\(yfv, v. 30.

' See above, p. 95 f.

of sections of St Mark i55

consideration of this kind has not prevented him from including
the sayings in Mk iv. 21, 22, 24 (=Lk viii. 16— 18)^ in their
Marcan context. Further, the instruction of the disciples
when Jesus was alone with them, as it stands in St Mark,
involves an awkward change of time and scene ; it breaks
into the series of parables addressed to the people, after which
He was t^ken straight away " in the boat as He was" to the
other side. We have already seen that this last touch was
probably not in the original Mark-. But to a reviser who had
added more parables it would seem natural to imagine this
sequel. To him, also, we may suppose are due those differences
from Luke to which reference has been made above. They
were introduced to suit the purpose of giving more than one
illustration of Christ's speaking in parables. In the setting
of the single parable which the original document contained
here, the words " He taught them many things in parables "
{v. 2) takes the place of " He spake by a parable." Again,
after the parable of the Sower only has been recounted, it is
said that " His companions with the Twelve asked Him tJie
parables'' {v. 10). Then at v. 13 they are asked "Know ye
not this parable, and how will ye know all the parables .'' "
though the preceding statements in the plural have left no
ground for singling this parable out. There is good ground
then for thinking that in this whole section Luke has preserved
for us an earlier form of the Marcan document which was
brought through additions and editing to the form in which
we have it in our St Mark^.

Mk vi. I — 6a. The visit to Nazareth. That Luke should
not notice at this point the visit to Nazareth does not indicate
that the present section was wanting in his Marcan document.
He knew a much fuller account of it, which he had chosen to
give near the beginning of the public Ministry (iv. 16 — 30).

^ Lk viii. 16 is in substance repeated at Lk xi. 33; Lk viii. 17 at xii. 1; Lk
viii. 18 at xix. 26.

2 Cp. p. 143.

^ Wendling, op. cit. p. 4 ff., who likewise holds (as many critics do) that the
original account of the speaking in parables has been revised and interpolated,
takes a different, and (as it seems to nie) a less probable, view of the interpolations
and other changes, because he has neglected to take into consideration the evidence
supplied by the Synoptic parallels.

156 The omissioji from St Lttke

Mk vi. 17 — 29, The fate of foJin the Baptist. It is
stated in all three Synoptics that the fame of Jesus disturbed
Herod, conscience-stricken as he was by his recollection of
the murder of John the Baptist. In St Mark the cause of
the imprisonment of John, and his execution, are thereupon
described. As Luke had already, near the beginning of his
Gospel, concluded his account of the Baptist's preaching,
aptly enough, with a reference to his imprisonment (iii. 18 —
20), it would not be unnatural that he should not follow
Mark in mentioning it here; and that consequently he
should have passed over the remainder of this section of
St Mark.

But the whole historical notice here of the Baptist may
also very well be an editorial addition.

We come now to the contents of Mk vi. 45 — viii. 26, the
whole of which is altogether absent from St Luke, with the
exception of a couple of Sayings, which are given in that
Gospel in a different context. It may be noted that in
Mk vi. 46, Jesus is said to have retired to the mountain after
the Feeding of the five thousand in order to pray \ and that in
Lk ix. 18, the verse which follows the same narrative, though
it is an introduction to the conversation that follows, Jesus is
likewise said to have been alone prayitig. But this does not
in itself afford sufficient ground for supposing that all the
matter which intervenes in St Mark was wanting in Luke's
document. This peculiar trait in Luke's description of the
occasion when Simon Peter confessed his faith may well have
been due to the evangelist's own imagination of the scene\
And we must consider separately for each of the pieces
comprised in this portion of St Mark the question whetiier the
document used by Luke is likely to have contained it.

Mk vi. 45 — 53. The crossing of the lake after the Feeding
of the five tJioiisand. It does not seem possible to assign
any good reason why Luke should have passed over this
narrative, if he had it before him. He could not well
have regarded the stilling of the storm by Jesus on an earlier

^ Cp. p. 282 (note on Lk v. i6).

of sections of St Mark 157

occasion when He was with them in the boat as an equivalent.
The appearance of Jesus unexpectedly to the disciples when
they were toilsomely rowing against a contrary wind was
plainly a different incident and taught a different lesson.
But further there is an indication that two sources have been
combined in this context in the discrepancy between the
statement in v. 45 that the disciples were to "go before Him
across to Bethsaida," and that of v. 53, "when they had
crossed over they came to the land unto Gennesaret, and
moored to the shore." There is not known to have been any
other Bethsaida save the well-known one at the head of the
lake on the east side of the Jordan ; and this is clearly the
place intended in the Lucan parallel (ix. 10). In order to
harmonise the two statements it has been suggested that the
disciples started to go from the place a little to the south-east
of Bethsaida " across " the bay that lay between, but that
they were driven westward by the wind and so came to
Gennesaret^" But there is nothing of this in the passage
itself, and the use of " across " in the former verse, and
"having crossed "Just afterwards, renders it highly improbable
that it is intended. It appears to be far more likely that " to
Bethsaida " comes from the conclusion of the narrative of the
Feeding of the five thousand in the original document, while
" to Gennesaret " was the point at which in the tradition about
Christ's walking on the sea, the boat came to land. This was
the destination for which they started according to the parallel
passage in the Fourth Gospel (vi. 17), "they entered into a
boat, and were going across the sea to Capernaum." The
reviser who embodied the narrative in St Mark, from lack of
familiarity with the localities, did not perceive that there was
any want of agreement between the two statements, and
he may accidentally or intentionally have transferred the
words 7r/3o? BrjdaaiSav from the account of the miracle of
Feeding the five thousand where, according to the Lucan
parallel, they should stand, and introduced them into the
beginning of the account of the crossing which he inserted.
Mk vi. 54 — 56. TJie gathering of crowds on the western

1 Cp. G. A. Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land, p. 458 ; also
Swete's St Mark, in loc.

158 The omission from St Ltike

side of the lake. This description is closely connected with
the preceding crossing. The landing in the parallel narrative
of the crossing in the Fourth Gospel is likewise followed
by a concourse of people (vi. 22 ff)^ It must be reckoned
as part of the same insertion.

Mk vii. I — 23. Pharisaic ceremonialism. This piece may,
perhaps, also belong to the insertion. It would be more natural
that Pharisees and certain of the scribes from Jerusalem should
come to Him at or near Capernaum than to Bethsaida or its
neighbourhood, where the miracle of Feeding was wrought.
At Lk xi. '^'J, 38, a Pharisee expresses astonishment at the
same neglect of ceremonial observances by Jesus Himself
with which His disciples are here charged ; but the reply
called forth is different. It looks as if two distinct traditions
of the Teaching of Jesus on this subject had reached Luke
and a reviser of the IMarcan document respectively.

If these three sections comprised in vi. 45 — vii. 23 be
removed, the eKeWev he dvaard^; of vii. 24 would follow upon
the account of the miracle in vi. 35 — 44. The sequence would
be very similar to that at v. 43 — vi. i. The neighbourhood
of Bethsaida would also be a natural starting point for the
northward journey described, vii. 24 ff.

]\Ik vii. 24 — 31. Visit to region of Tyre and Sidon; the
Gentile woman s request; return to Sea of Galilee. The inci-
dent of the Syrophoenician woman ma}^ have been passed over
by Luke because he thought the words of Jesus to her might
prove a stumbling-block to Gentiles ; he may have so judged
especially if the words at Mt. xv. 24 stood in his document.
The story is vividly told, and evidently of Palestinian origin
and the indications of the route followed in the journey on
which the incident happened are marks of genuineness. It
probably belongs to the original document.

Mk vii. 32 — 37 and viii. 22 — 26. The cure of a deaf and

^ Wendt (Lehre /esu, I. p. 43) points out that "the unrestricted public healing
of the sick " here is not in accord with other descriptions in St Mark. E.g., in
Mk i. 34 and iii. 10, we read only of " jnatty" being healed. Moreover, after the
return of the Twelve from their Mission at vi. 30, He does not again, except
according to this one passage, exercise His Ministry publicly on the Western
shore of the lake.

of sections of St Mark 159

dumb man, and of a blind man. These two narrativ^es evi-
dently form a pair, and they may most conveniently be
treated together^ Luke may have decided against the
inclusion of these miracles from fear of misunderstanding in
regard to the means employed in them, or from an idea that
these means made them seem less remarkable than other
miracles, and therefore less necessary to be recorded where
there were so many to relate. We shall also see presently
that Luke may have regarded the exorcism of a spirit of
dumbness mentioned by him at xi. 14 as an equivalent for
the former of these miracles.

Mk viii. I — 10. The Feeding of four tJioiisand. The phrase
which introduces this section (eV kKe.ivai<i Tal<^ I'lfiepaL^) does
not connect it closely with what precedes. This second
account of a feeding of multitudes closely resembles the
first in all its circumstances, except in the numbers of
those fed, etc., and these are differences which would be
likely to arise in the oral transmission of what was originally
the same narrative. It is difficult not to regard the two as
a doublet, and if so it is most natural to suppose that an
editor took the second form of the tradition as referring to
a distinct occasion and therefore determined to embody it.
Luke's silence is thus explained. The context is thus also
simplified by the disappearance of the first of the two crossings
{v. 10 and V. 13) which occur so near together.

Mk viii. II — 13 and 15. The Pharisees defnand. These
verses hang well together and make a complete account in
themselves. They should be retained as supplying the ground
into which the other incident in the present context has been
dove-tailed. Luke had a parallel to this challenge of the
Pharisees and the Sayings of Christ thereupon in his Logian
document (see above, p. 91). The challenge is referred to by
him in connexion with the exorcism of a dumb spirit and the

1 Though these miracles are not described in St Matthew here, or fully any-
where, I have not treated them as instances of omissions of Marcan matter by both
the other Synoptics, because in the mention of the healing of "the dumb" in
Mt. XV. 30 there may be a reference to the particular instance in Mk ; and because
also the narratives at Mt. ix. 27 — 31, 32 — 34, may relate to the same pair, while
at any rate the first evangelist's inclusion of those two would explain his passing
over the similar ones in St Mark.

i6o TJie omission from St Luke

remarks of Jesus follow not long after in the same connexion.
It is interesting to observe that in St Mark, also, when the
Feeding of the four thousand is omitted, this matter is brought
into connexion with the cure of a dumb man. This is a
point in favour of the view that the intervening narrative
is an insertion.

The clause in Mk v. 15, Ka\ rf/? ^y/x?;? 'HpwSou, should be
compared with the mention of Herodians at Mk iii. 6; xii. 13.
It is conceivable that the reference to this party may in all
three cases have proceeded from the hand of a reviser.

Mk viii. 14 and 16 — 21. TJie disciples shew that the two
miracles of Feeding had made little impression on them. If the
Second miracle of Feeding was an addition to the Marcan
document as known to Luke, so also must this piece have
been, since it refers to both miracles. Moreover, it has been
woven in rather unskilfully with the allusion to the leaven of
the Pharisees, with which it does not seem really to have
anything to do. The remark added by our first evangelist in
his parallel passage (Mt. xvi. 12) reveals a perception on his
part that the connexion is not obvious. But in spite of his
explanation, the fact remains that the disciples by their
reasonings about their lack of bread had shewn — not a dis-
position to follow the teaching of the Pharisees but — want of
implicit trust in their Master for the supply of their need.

With regard to the sections which we have retained out
of the series comprised in Mk vi. 45 — viii. 26, viz., vii.
24 — 37; viii. II — 13 and 15, 22 — 26, we have one further
observation to make. Topographically they group well
together. They are connected with the north end of the
lake of Galilee and with a journey northwards from that
district ; while at the point at which the parallelism of all
three Synoptics recommences, Jesus again, according to
Mk viii. 27 (and Mt. xvi. 13), journeys northward to Caesarea
Philippi. The accurate acquaintance with places thus shewn
is in favour of the narratives in question having formed part
of the original document, and of the sequence at which we
have arrived being the true one.

Mk viii. 32, 33. Peter's expostulation with Christ, and
the stern rebuke called down thereby. Luke omits this, although

of sections of St Mark i6i

he keeps very close to Mark in the remainder of his account
of Christ's approaching sufferings and call for self-abnegation
on the part of the disciples. We can well understand that
he might not have thought it necessary to record the error of
a particular disciple, who afterwards became so eminent in
the Church, and the condemnation passed upon him.

Mk ix. II — 13. The conversation about the coining of E lias,
which took place during the descent from the Mount of Trans-
figuration. This also is omitted by Luke. The question was
one of Rabbinic theology, which would not greatly concern
the readers whom he had in view ; and the purport of the
answer, as reported, was difficult to seize. The paragraph
may, therefore, well have been passed over intentionally.

Mk ix. 41 — 50. Sayings on the subject of Offences. We
have here probably an addition to the original. Luke has
in different contexts (^Lk xvii. 1,2; xiv. 34) given Sayings
substantially the same as two of those included. But
he has nowhere recorded the beautiful saying " Whosoever
shall give you a cup of cold water etc.," nor the earnest
warning to part with any member that proves a stumbling-
block. Moreover, this passage appears to form a little
collection of Sayings, put together because they bore more
or less directly on the same topic. The individual Sayings,
or short pieces of discourse, contained in St Mark, are for the
most part — and in all the portions of this Gospel which we
may regard with most confidence as original — introduced
very differently, each by itself and with pointed reference to
a particular question, or occasion.

Mk X. 2 — 12. Question of the Pharisees regarding the
inarriage-/aw, aher ]esus has removed from Galilee to Peraea.
We may compare their question and His answer on Ablutions
in Mk vii. i — 23. Here, as there, a parallel in Luke is
wanting, except that he has a single Saying on the subject
in a little miscellaneous collection of Sayings addressed to the
Pharisees (xvi. 14 — 18). In view especially of there being
other passages in our form of St Mark which may probably
be regarded as insertions, this also may be held to be one.
It may further be noted that when the collection of Sayings
on Offences and the Answer to the Pharisees on the Marriage-

s. G. n. II

1 62 The omission from St Litke

law are removed, the incident about children being brought to
Jesus for Him to bless follows close upon that of Jesus Him-
self taking a child and teaching a lesson from it, and is thus
placed in a very natural connexion.

Mk X. 3 5 — 45. The request of tJie sojis of Zcbedee during the
journey from Peraea to feridio, and a lesson of humility tatight to
all the Twelve. Nearly the whole of this latter teaching appears
in Lk xxii. 24 — 27, where it is called forth by a strife among
the disciples on the subject of pre-eminence which occurred at
the Last Supper^ Presumably he placed it there because of
some tradition to that effect which he had received, and with
a view to this he may have decided to pass over the whole
episode at the earlier point, even though he found it there
in his Marcan source.

Mk xi. lib — 14, and 19 — 25. The Condemnation of the
fig-tree^ wanting in St Luke, ma}' have been inserted in our
St Mark in the two parts in which it is there given, after each
of which we read the same words Ka\ epyovrai etV lepoaoXufxa
(xi. 15 « and 2y a ; in the latter place with ttoXlv added).
In the Marcan document used in St Matthew the insertion,
if such it was, was made in a single piece. It may further be
noted that the last verse in St Mark has no parallel in this
context in St Matthew, though a corresponding saying is
included in the Sermon on the Mount (vi. 14, 15). In this
same connexion we have an indication that a revising hand
has been at work upon our St Mark in the difference between
it and both the other Synoptics, where they represent the
Cleansing of the Temple as taking place on the same day as
the Triumphal Entry. (Cp. Mt. xxi. 10 f and Lk xix. 45 f.
with Mk xi. 11.)

Mk xii. 28 — 34. A scribe approving zchat he has heard
asks what is the chief commandment. Luke (x. 25 — 28) had
already given, apparently from his Logian source, the account
of a less friendly scribe, who had interrogated Jesus on this
point and had been taught the same lesson^ It would have
been unsuitable to repeat the instruction.

Mk xiii. In the Discourse on the Last Things, the Saying
in V. 10 is probably an interpolation I The (qw Sayings, also,

1 On this piece see below, p. 238 f, ^ See p. 88 f. ^ Cp. p. 142.

of sections of St Mark 163

at the end of the discourse {z>. 34 ff.) emphasising the duty
of watchfuhiess, to which there is nothing to correspond at
the same point, or in reahty elsewhere, in St Luke, may
probably have been appended, much as we have seen the
two parables to have been added after Mk iv. 25, and the
Sayings on Offences after Mk ix. 40.

Mk xiv. 3 — 9. TJie Anointing at Bethany. In spite of
the fact that St Luke has related the story of another
Anointing, it is strange that, if he knew this one, which is so
different in most of its circumstances, and which was so
significant, he should have passed it over. Moreover the
sequence in St Mark is improved when we omit this narrative.
As told in this Gospel it has no obvious connexion with the
plots of the chief priests and the Betrayal, which form the
subject of the passages preceding and following. On the whole,
when we note the good sequence which Mk vv. 2 and 10
exhibit, if the latter is read immediately after the former, and
observe that vv. 2 and 3 in Luke very closely correspond to
them, we get the impression that a reviser has inserted here a
beautiful and touching story connected with the events of the
last days of Christ's life for which he wanted to find a place.
It will be remembered that the fourth evangelist has introduced
this narrative at a slightly earlier point — six (instead of two)
days before the Passover, and that he has worked it more
completely into the context by the part he has assigned in it
to Judas (Jn xii. 4 — 6).

In the narrative of the last hours of Jesus, from the Last
Supper onwards, and of the Resurrection, Luke made use of
independent information, and has departed a good deal from
Mark's arrangement ; so that particular differences from the
latter by way of omission or otherwise cause at first sight less
surprise than in those portions of his Gospel where the corre-
spondence with St Mark is on the whole closer. Nevertheless
some of them are worthy of consideration in connexion with
an inquiry into the original form of Mark.

Mk xiv. 22 — 25. The significance of the last meal. With
this passage of St Mark, i Cor. xi. 23 — 25, and the Lucan
parallel in two forms — that of the best Greek MSS. and the

164 Differences in accounts of the last honrs

" Western " text — should be compared. The text of the best
Greek MSS. is in this instance also (saving a few minor
differences) the text that has been commonly received. The
" Western " text, adopted in this instance by Westcott and
Hort on the ground that other forms are more likely to have
arisen from conflation, contains the first part of the same
passage down to "this is my body" inclusive in v. 19. Some
Latin texts and the Curetonian and the Sinaitic Syriac,
contain to a greater or less extent respectively the words
omitted in the brief Western form, but arrange them differently
from the long Greek form.

In these passages two views of the significance of the last
meal are set forth : (i) according to one the bread and wine
represent the body and blood of Christ, (2) according to the
other the last meal partaken of together foreshadows the feast
in the Kingdom of God. The former of these aspects appears
with approximately the same fulness^ in i Corinthians {vv. 23 —
25) and St Mark {yv. 22 — 24) and the longer form of the Lucan
parallel {yv. 19, 20), as well as partially in the Western text of
Luke {y. 19^). The other aspect appears fully in both forms
of the Lucan text (z^z^. 15 — 18), and more restrictedly in Mk
{y. 25). It is not passed over altogether even by St Paul (see
V. 26), though he does not quote a Saying of Christ with regard
to it, but indicates it in a remark of his own, and presents it in
a way to appeal continuously to Christians. He seems also
desirous of connecting it with the other view (6adKi<i yap), but
the thought is not clear. It should further be noted that in
both St Mark and i Corinthians, the prospective aspect is
placed after the other, whereas, in the two forms of Lucan
text on which I have commented, it precedes.

The two views, though distinct, are not incompatible ; it is
easy to understand how both might have been dwelt upon
during a discourse or conversation of some length. But it was
not easy to fit them together in a brief narrative. The various
accounts are so many attempts to do this, none of them
completely successful. With regard to the Lucan text the
truth probably is, not that the Western form must be the

^ The most important difference is that the words touto iroieire, ocraKis iai>
7rlvr]T€, et'j tt/j' ifJ-rj" dfa/jLvrjaii', occur only in i Cor.

Differences in accounts of the last hours 165

original one, but that the differences between it and the text of
the best Greek MSS. go back to a very early time and that we
have not sufficient evidence to enable us to decide between
them. Further, there does not seem to be good ground for
regarding the view according to which the Last Supper is
a foreshadowing of the banquet in the Kingdom of God, as
necessarily the earlier of the two, in spite of the Jewish
character of the imagery. St Paul asserts the primitive
character of the tradition which sets forth the other aspects
There can, then, be little reason to suppose that the original
form of Mark has in this passage undergone alteration.

Mk xiv. 27, 28. Prediction that the disciples ivill be
scattered^ and appointment of Galilee as a place where He will
meet them after His resurrection. Luke places a little earlier —
before the upper chamber had been left — a warning given by
Christ to the disciples. It relates to the same crisis, but
is entirely different in substance and form. He may have
passed over the present piece partly because he had already
given that other one ; but there would have been a more
cogent reason for doing so in the fact that the reference to
Galilee did not accord well with what he had himself heard and
was about to relate in regard to the Appearances of the Risen
Christ. When at Mk xvi. 7 Galilee is again indicated as the
place where He would meet them, while in the Lucan parallel
(xxiv. 6) there is a reference to what He had said while still in
Galilee, the latter should probably be regarded as an adapta-
tion of the Marcan record by the third evangelist to suit the
course of his own narrative.

Mk xiv. 55 — 64. The trial and condemnation in the night.
In the early morning a more formal meeting of the Sanhedrin
followed ; but as regards its action we are told in St Mark
only that they " bound Jesus and delivered Him to Pilate." It
is also to be observed that in St Mark we are told that when

^ When St Paul says (z/. 23) that he had received the account of the institution
from the Lord, he means of course through those who had delivered to him the
Lord's commandments. He names the ultimate source in order to lay stress upon
the authority belonging to the injunction. The idea that the Apostle believed
himself to have received it in a vision is wholly without foundation and probability.
He nowhere implies that knowledge in regard to the life of Christ and His Teaching
on earth were thus communicated to him.

1 66 Differences in accounts of tJie last Jiours

Jesus was brought into the high-priests house, Peter made his
\va}- inside and sat among the servants, but his denials are not
related till after the trial and the bufifeting of Jesus. In
St Luke, on the other hand, all that relates to Peter is told
continuously at the beginning of the account of the time
passed in the high-priest's house, and is followed by the buffet-
ing. Then in connexion with the morning trial — the only one
that Luke mentions — he has described an examination of Jesus
which corresponds in large degree to, though it is briefer than,
that which took place according to St Mark in the night.
Hence it has been suggested that the particulars of the trial
have been transferred from a meeting in the morning, described
in the original Marcan record, to their present position in
St Mark, where the time is not suitable and where they divide
in two the account of Peter's temptation. This looks at first
sight not improbable, but on a closer examination it does not
commend itself. St Mark differs from St Luke not only by
having a trial in the midst of the events of the night and in the
division of the story of Peter's fall into two parts, but in
an inversion of the order in which the second of these parts
and the buffeting stand, which would remain unexplained. On
the other hand, it would be quite in Luke's manner, as we see
from his treatment of the Marcan record in other places^, to
bring together all that concerned Peter. He might well, also,
consider that the morning trial was the one which most
deserved to be described, even if he did not think (as he may
have done) that it was an error to suppose that a trial (or
examination) took place in the night. But in reality there
seems to be no difficulty in conceiving that the account in
St Mark may be substantially correct. The members of the
Sanhedrin would be expecting the arrest of Jesus ; the news
that it had been effected would speedily reach them, and many
of them would at once hurry to the high-priest's house in
order to be present at the examination of the prisoner. The
witnesses would be supplied from among their adherents and
servants, or from subordinate ofificials, so that they would be at
hand.

Mk XV. 34 — 36. The cry Eloi, Eloi, etc., and tJie taunt, He
^ See p. 52 (g).

Character and style of omitted passages 167

calletJifor Elias, etc. Luke might have omitted the cry, from
the idea that it might be misunderstood ; the words " Father
into Thy hands, etc.," seem to take its place. With the omission
of the cry " Eloi, etc.," the sequel was necessarily passed over,
and it may not have seemed important.

The omissions of Marcan matter in St Luke which we have
discussed have all consisted of some verses, except in so far as
in one or two instances small differences between the two
Gospels in the same contexts have seemed to be connected
with the larger ones^ I do not propose to carry further the
inquiry into the text of IMark known to Luke, by examining
lesser differences. So many of these appear to be due to the
freedom with which Luke revised the language of his source,
that it would hardly be wise to attempt to distinguish any
among them as due to the source itself, where we have not the
agreement of St ^Matthew to guide us.

The character of the subject-matter in the pieces which we
have been led to single out, as wanting in a Marcan document
earlier than our St Mark, remains still to be noticed. It
should, I think, be allowed that it accords with the view that
they were of later introduction. Several of the pieces (iii.
22 — 30; ix. 41 — 50; x. 2 — 12; xiii. 10, 34 — 37) are of a
" Logian " character ; for the most part they were contained
— in a closely corresponding form, though the version appears
to have been a different one — in the Greek Logian docu-
ment used by our first and third evangelists'-. St Mark has
on the whole comparatively speaking little matter of this
kind. If the original Mark was still more wanting in such

^ It may be convenient that I should enumerate them here, although most of
them are referred to almost immediately in the sequel : iii. 22 — 30 ; iv. 13^, 24^,
26 — 34; vi. 45 — vii. 23; viii. i — 10, 14, 16 — 21; ix. 41 — 50; x. 2 — 12; xi. 11^
—14, 19—25 ; xiii. 10, 34—37 ; xiv. 3—9.

To these passages the smaller differences should be added, where the first and
third Gospels side with one another against the second, see p. 142 ff. and the
Table, p. 207 ff.

It is worthy of remark that two of the sections which have been noted as
interpolations in St Mark are included in the Fourth Gospel, viz., the Crossiiig to
the western shore of the lake after the miracle of Feeding and the gathering of
crowds on the other side, and the Anointing at Bethany.

• See above, p. 1 10.

1 68 Character and style

matter, a later hand might well have supplied some pieces.
Again we have the Second miracle of Feeding (viii. i — lo)
which appears to form a doublet with the first, and which
might well have been included by an editor who did not
realise that the two narratives were accounts of the same
incident. We have, also, two other narratives of miracles
among the passages marked as interpolations (the Walking on
the water, vi. 46 — 52, and the Condemnation of the fig-tree to
barrenness, xi. 1 1 b — 14, 19 — 25), which are different in kind to
any other miracles attributed to Jesus. Once more a general
description of a great concourse and of many healings (vi.
54 — 56) has been removed, as also a statement that Jesus
desired at a particular time to remain concealed (ix. 30)^
And the possibility has been allowed for, that in some other
passages similar to the former and to the latter of these there
may have been some heightening of the language of the
original record. Here too we may not unreasonably see the
hand of an editor. Other cases in which those traits appear
have been left unchallenged in these pages, and I may say
at once for clearness' sake that I believe they had a place in the
original Marcan record and regard them as historically true- ;
but it might well be that some reviser of the Gospel would
be inclined to, and would in fact, emphasise them over much.
I deferred the question whether any evidence as to the
originality of the passages of St Mark omitted by Luke is to
be obtained from their stylistic peculiarities. St Mark b}- its
style makes upon us an individual impression among the
writings of the New Testament, and this has been held to
prove unity of authorship, with hardly an exception, through-
out our present Gospell If this is true, we must set aside the
conclusions just arrived at. Let us ask whether the facts

1 Seep. 144. - See below, pp. 192, 195.

^ Cp. Hawkins, p. 122 : " On the whole it seems to me that such an examina-
tion of the Marcan peculiarities as has now been attempted sujjplies results which
are largely in favour of the view that the Petrine source used by the two later
Synoptists was not an ' Ur-Marciis,^ but St Mark's (jospel almost as we have
it now." He goes on to except about half-a-dozen phrases and points of detail.
W. Soltau, Unsere Evang., p. 30, concurs entirely in this conclusion. Dr Swete's
judgment is more cautiously expressed and allows for a somewhat larger element of
difference between our St Mark and the original : " The present writer," he says,
"has risen from his study of the Gospel with a strong sense of the unity of the

of the omitted passages 169

compel us to do this. The point is not easy of decision.
The pecuhar character of the style in this Gospel is due to the
frequent occurrence of constructions and words here which are
also found, but are not so common, in other writers. In the
case, then, of any particular passage which we may have
reason to suspect to be an insertion, this supposition cannot be
refuted merely by noting one or more instances of such con-
structions or words ; it will at least be necessary to form some
estimate of the degree to which the particular passage is
characterised by them relatively to other parts of the Gospel.
But, further, the peculiarities in St Mark appear to be not so
much idiosyncrasies, such as the most practised writers shew,
but rather traits derived from the common Greek of the time,
especially as it was spoken among Jews. And it is probable
that the traditions generally of the Life and Teaching of
Jesus, alike in their oral and their earliest written forms, had
to a large extent the same linguistic features ; and consequently
fragments of these early traditions, which some editor of the
original Marcan document embodied therein, might likewise
exhibit them in greater or less degree. Or again in making
insertions he might have introduced touches here and there
which were to be found in the main document that he had been
copying, and the phrases of which were running in his thoughts.
On the other hand, when we observe differences between the
style of a particular passage and the rest of a work we cannot
certainly infer difference of authorship therefrom. In judging
of matters of this kind a wide margin must be left for acci-
dental variations, or, in other words, such as we have not the
means of explaining. No writer adheres at all times to the
same modes of expression. If with these considerations in
mind the evidence is examined, I believe it will be found that
it does not contravene the result arrived at above as to
insertions in the original Marcan document, but on the
contrary confirms in some degree the rightness of the selection
that has been made^

work, and can echo the requiescat Urmarkus which ends a recent discussion.
But he is not prepared to express an opinion as to the nature and extent of the
editorial revision which St Mark's original has undergone " {St Mark, p. Ixv, n. i).
1 See Additional Note, p. 204 ff.

170 Recent theories

We have determined approximately the contents of the
Synoptic source known to our third evangehst. But have we
in this work found the original form of this document? Before
we can answer this question we must consider some recent
theories as to the compositeness of St Mark.

^Recent theories as to tJie compositeness of St Mark.

In the foregoing discussion we have endeavoured to learn
what we could as to a form or forms of Synoptic source
earlier than St Mark by comparing therewith the two other
Synoptics ; and we have at the same time taken account of
evidence of two kinds supplied by our second Gospel itself:
{a) indications of broken connexion, or clumsy adaptation,
between successive sections ; {b) finally, the character of the
subject-matter and the literary style. It is important to
distinguish between these two, because (as will, I think,
presently appear) the ground afforded by the latter for in-
ferring difference of sources is far more precarious than that
afforded by the former. It is with the latter alone^ — with

■^ I believe that all cases of ill-fitting contexts, that can fairly be reckoned as
such, are included among the passages already dealt with, and certainly there are
not many more. Loisy {Autoiir tfiin petit livre, p. 80 ff.), indeed, notes some
"seams" {sutures) where my eyes can discern none. "La prediction (he writes)
concernant la passion et la mort du Fils de Thomme (Mk viii. 32 — 38) semble
intercalee entre la confession de Pierre (viii. 27 — 30) et la promesse relative au
prochain avenement du regne de Dieu." But ix. i is closely connected with viii. 38.
Further, there is a natural sequence of thought in the whole piece. "La parabole
des mauvais vignerons (xii. i — 12 a, b) a ete introduite entre la replique faite \>7ci
Jesus dans le temple, aux chefs des pretres qui I'interrogent touchant I'autorite
qu'il s'attribue (xi. 27 — 33), et la retraite des questionneurs deconfils par la
demande que Jesus lui-meme leur adresse" (xii. \ic). In point of fact the
parable of the Vine-dressers follows with admirable suitability after the reply
of Jesus to the question of the members of the Sanhedrin, the chiefs of the Jewish
nation, and the whole of xii. 12 comes as fitly after the parable as it would after
xi. 33. The only thing that is at all strange is the order of clauses in xii. 12.
The chief priests should naturally have left Jesus before they began to plot His
destruction. But it hardly seems necessary to suppose the preceding passage to
be an insertion in order to account for this. This last section is likewise noted by
him as an insertion in Les £,vangiles Synopliqties, I. p. 97. He there also suggests
that Mk i. 40 — 45, the Cleansing of the leper, and vi. i — 6, the Visit to Nazareth,
are insertions (pp. 87, 89) not, however, on. account of any signs of a broken

as to the conipositeuess of St Mark 171

alleged differences of point of view and interest, st)-le and
mode of treatment — that we shall be concerned in those more
extensive analyses of the contents of St Mark which we are
about to examine. In discussing these theories, when we find
certain portions assigned to a record by Mark of Peter's
teaching, to which it is held that other portions do not belong,
it will be necessary to ask whether there is good ground for
confining derivation from Peter and Marcan authorship (one or
both) in the manner proposed. But I will ask my readers to
bear in mind that m}- primary object in this section is not
to consider the question of ^Mark's authorship, but to ascertain
whether St ]\Iark is or is not composite to a greater degree
than we have already found it to be.

It is commonly held that a certain number of narratives,
more or fewer, which ^lark had heard Peter relate and had
then recorded, have been embodied in St Mark. So much
homage is paid to the tradition preserved b}' Papias. Those
more especially are singled out in which it is thought that
personal reminiscences can be traced. Some of the opening
scenes in the account of the Ministr}- in Galilee are always
included ; but there are decided differences of opinion later on
in the portions selected, and as to the notes by which various
sources are distinguished. It is with the latter that we are
chiefly concerned.

J. Weiss separates from the Petrine narratives^ (i) a
collection of " school-discussions " (ii. 2T) — 28; vii. i — 23; x.
I — 12; xii. 18 — 27)-; (2) a large number of Sa}-ings of Jesus,
especiall}' such as have parallels in the Logian document

connexion, but simply for want of connexion, and because they seem to be intro-
duced to " fill a void " in the history. But, to apply words of his own (p. ^i), "in
a work so little literary, mere want of cohesion " — such as is exemplified in these
instances — "is not evidence of multiple authorship." One or two other cases of
patching which he supposes, may, it seems to me, be dismissed on the same ground.
(With regard to F. Nicolardot on Mark's editorial methods see below, p. 370.)

Wendling {op. cit. p. 13, § 28 <^) regards vi. i — 13 as an insertion; vi. 14
connects ill, he says, with ^-i. 13, whereas it does so excellently with v. 43
(omitting 43 a). But in that way it would be connected only with the report of
one miracle, whereas vi. 14 alludes to many. Moreover, he does not consider the
alternative which might equally well (or I should say much more reasonably) be
adopted of making the passage beginning at vi. 14, koX rJKovaev, etc., the insertion.

^ For his list of them see 0/. cit. p. 350 f. ^ /d. p. 365.

172 Recent theories

used in St Matthew and St Luke ; (3) some narratives which
he thinks may likewise be derived from the Logian source'' ;
(4) some traditions of an inferior quaHtyl It is further to be
observed that, hke some other recent critics, as well as some
older ones, he discovers traces of Pauline influence in St Mark.
In regard, however, to the authorship of the Gospel his view
approximates to the traditional one. He thinks it most
probable that the different elements which have been described
were worked up into the present Gospel by a Mark who was
the disciple of both Peter and Paul, though whether this man
was the same as the John Mark mentioned in the Acts he
is doubtful.

Von Soden supposes i. 14 — iv. 34 to be in the main
derived from Peter ; the three narratives that follow this in
iv. 35 — v. 43, viz. those relating to the storm on the lake, the
Gerasene daemoniac, and the raising of the daughter of Jairus,
he regards as typical instances of a style betokening derivation
from a different source. He contrasts them with the earlier
narratives. The former are more concise ; the main purpose
of each appears to be to give some emphatic Saying of Jesus ;
there are comparatively few accessory features. In the latter
there is greater amplitude of description ; there are more
picturesque details ; the writer paints with a broader brush ;
and the dialogues introduced are less pointed and of a more
ordinary character^ In the remainder of the Gospel there is
an admixture of matter from both these sources. Apparently
von Soden is of opinion that whatever was not derived from
Peter belongs to the same second collection and was con-
tributed by the author of our Gospel, who combined it with the
record by Mark of the Petrine narratives.

Wendling declines to start from the statement of Papiasas
to Mark's record of Peter's preaching^ ; but he arrives at much
the same conclusion as von Soden in regard to the contents of
the primitive document embodied in St Mark, and allows in
the end that it may not improbabl}' be a record of Petrine

' lb. p. 375 ff. 2 /^_p. 380 ff.

' Urchrisl. Lit.-Geschichte, ]). 77 ft". ; Eng. trans, p. 153 fT. Cp. also Die
■wichtigslen Fragen im Lebenjcsn, p. 37 f.
* Op. cit. p. 3 f.

as to the compositeness of St Mark 173

reminiscences by Mark\ But the plan on which he conducts
his inquiry into the composition of the Gospel, and some of its

results, are interesting. He fastens upon certain passages
which bear, he thinks, the clearest marks of proceeding from
an editor, and after examining them proceeds to look for the
same characteristics of thought and style in other parts of the
Gospel-. In the course of his inquir}' he discovers two layers
of matter subsequent to the earliest one. He agrees with von
Soden in regard to the characteristics of the narratives in
iv. 35 — V. 43, and takes them as crucial examples of one layer,
the second in time ; but he cannot find in them any special
points of resemblance whatever to the latest additions'. He
calls the three hands AIj, AL, and the evangelist. " Cum
grano salis one may," he says, " describe Mj as the historian,
Mj as the poet, and the evangelist as the theologian-*."

I have given only a general account of these theories.
It does not seem to me to be necessary that I should go
more into detail in regard to them, because the tests them-
selves which are applied for distinguishing between different
sources appear to me to be to a large extent untrustworthy,
and indeed almost wholly so when they are employed inde-
pendently of other considerations. Let us, first, examine the
grounds on which derivation from Simon Peter is in various
cases denied. To prevent misunderstanding let me say that
I see no reason why Mark — assuming him for the moment to
have been the author of the Gospel and Peter at least his
principal informant — should not have included in it matter
which he obtained through channels other than the teaching
of this Apostle. The terms of the statement of Papias should
not be pressed too hard, even when it is taken as substantially
true. The tendency of tradition would be to exaggerate
the dependence of the disciple upon the Apostle. But the
question now is whether the reasons that have been alleged
for attributing various portions of the Gospel to another source,
or other sources, are sound.

I have already contended that the matter of '■ Logian "
character in St Mark — including even those pieces which seem
1 lb. p. 25 f. 2 jf, p. ^ff,

^ /(^. p. 1 1 . * lb. p. 20.

174 Recent theories

to have been inserted by an editor — was not derived from
the same Greek Logian document that the first and third
evangelists used, though I have admitted that most of it was
found in, and that it might therefore have been derived from,
the original Aramaic collection \ But I would now point out
that— except in the case of the insertions just referred to —
there is no need to suppose that it came strictly speaking
from that source. For Simon Peter must have been familiar
with Christ's Sayings; he must in all probability have had
a share, and that a large one, in the formation of the col-
lection of them during the earlier stages of the j^rocess,
and it is inconceivable that he should not to some extent
have repeated them in his teaching. The mere fact, therefore,
of the existence of parallels in the Logian document to Say-
ings contained in St Mark, is no proof that the author of the
latter must have derived them from the oral or written Logian
collection, and not directly and independently from the
Apostle. The same may be said with regard to those "school-
discussions" which J. Weiss marks off, and to which I shall
refer again presently-.

Further, with regard to the varying degrees of fulness
and distinctness in the settings of the Sayings, it is to be
remembered that Mark may well have retained a clearer
impression, and Peter himself have given more vivid descrip-
tions, in some cases than in others. When Jesus had spoken
as He walked by the way^ or as He rested in some house
or taught in the synagogue of some village which was passed
through in the course of a journey S the place could not well
be, and certainly would not be likely to be, so clearly defined
in the record, as in the case of incidents and Sayings that
were connected with his own house and the synagogue which
he had been accustomed to attend at Capernaum. But he
would not be the less likely on that account to repeat the
instruction given, if it seemed to him to be important.

The critics are apt to think of Peter in his relation to
Mark far too much as if he were simply some garrulous old

^ See above, p. ii3f. - See p. 179, n.

^ Mk viii. 27 ; x. 17, 32 ; cp. also ii. 23.

■* Mk vii. 24 {d% oIk'mv without def. art.) ; Mk iii. i (ei's avva.yij}'^-l]v).

as to the coinpositeness of St Mark 175

soldier or traveller who loved to tell stories which had great
personal interest for himself and were also interesting to his
hearers, but which had no immediately practical bearing
upon their conduct, instead of as a teacher who gave men
instruction, as Papias says, Trpo? ra? ;)^|oeta?, "to meet their
needs," an earnest preacher of the Gospel that "Jesus is the
Christ," and trainer of souls in the new Way of Life.

Traces of Pauline influence in St Mark would be quite
compatible with the traditional view of its authorship. Yet
some at least of those that are pointed out must be examined,
because if they are rightly so regarded our conception of the
teaching of Simon Peter, and estimate of the value of the
evidence supplied by the Gospel according to St Mark in
regard to the beginnings of the Christian faith, must be
affected. I refer to the prominent place which the death of
Christ holds in St Mark and the significance attached to it.
But there is, surely, no ground for thinking that there is
anything specially Pauline here. Every believer in Jesus as
the Christ had to face the fact of the Crucifixion, to explain
it to himself, and to urge his explanation of it upon all whom
he desired to convince. One great line of argument, we
know, was that the sufferings of the Christ were foretold in
the Scriptures ; but that He Himself had predicted them, and
had risen again from the dead after enduring them, was
also a weighty consideration, and it is not strange that it
should have been much insisted on. Nor could the Cross
of Christ fail to make a powerful appeal to every genuine
disciple to be ready to follow his Master in the path of self-
denial and humility^ This is not to say that in retrospect
no touches were added to the language of the predictions,
which made them correspond more exactly with the events ;
or to deny that the impressive grouping of the repeated
predictions, and calls to self-abnegation, may not in part be
due to the evangelist. I contend only that we have not in
all this any sign of the working of a particular tendency in
the early Church. As little should this be held, I believe, in
regard to two sayings contained in St Mark in which more

1 Cp. in the Logian document, Lk xiv. 26, 27 ; Mt. x. 37, 38.

1/6 Recent theories

especially the significance of the Death of Christ is set forth.
One of these is virtually contained, it is true, in the account
which St Paul gives of the Institution of the Eucharist in
I Cor. xi.; but, as we have seen already, he declares it to be
a primitive tradition. The other is the saying that the Son
of Man had come "to giv^e His life a ransom for many\" But
supposing the saying not to be genuine, the thought that the
Death of Christ was thus to be regarded would still lie near
at hand. There were passages in the prophets from which it
could be readily inferred in accordance with the modes of
interpretation then prevailing. The lines of thought really
characteristic of St Paul, those which shewed how the Death
of Christ had opened the Kingdom of Heaven to Gentiles as
well as Jews, do not appear in either of these passages, or in
other parts of St Mark.

It is also said that passages have been introduced into the
Gospel with the purpose of teaching a lesson to those who
thought too highly of the elder Apostles relatively to St Paul.
It is not a matter of great moment whether this is really the
case or not. But the indications of this intention are some-
what uncertain. To take one instance that is adduced, that
of the man not belonging to the number of the Twelve, who
cast out devils in the name of Jesus ^ If there was a covert
allusion here to the relations between St Paul and the Twelve^
one wonders that the terms of it were not made a little more
appropriate, by the substitution or addition of a reference to
preaching, which would have been more suggestive of the
work of the Apostle of the Gentiles.

I pass to differences of style and of interest. It is true
that in the narratives in iv. 35 — v. 43 there is an amplitude
of description which distinguishes them from those in the
preceding portion of St Mark; and also that the earlier
narratives form as it were each the setting of some remark-
able Saying of Jesus, while in each of the later groups a
miracle is more exclusively the theme. But do not the two
kinds of difference go together ? The style of every speaker
and writer is likely to vary somewhat with his subject; it was

1 Mk .X. 45. 2 Mk ix. 38—40.

as to the compositeiiess of St Mark 177

natural that where the main purpose was to record some
remarkable miracle, which had been (it was felt) rendered
more impressive by all its attendant circumstances, there
should be far fuller description, than where the principal
object was to record a striking Saying of Jesus by which
chiefly the occasion was made memorable. But between the
several narratives of the two classes there are, also, various
degrees of difference in regard to fulness of description. For
example, in the account of the Healing of the paralytic
(ii. I — 12) which is commonly reckoned as one of the genuine
Petrine narratives, we have several picturesque details, in
particular the carrying of the sick man to the roof and
lowering him in front of Jesus {vv. 3, 4), Moreover even in
passages which are brief and on the whole concise we have
expressions which reveal the writer's tendency to an ampli-
tude that approaches to tautology^

We will now extend our view to the three different
interests which Wendling assigns to the three men who had
a share according to him in bringing St Mark to its present
form, those, namely, of the historian, the poet, and the theo-
logian. Might not the same man, we would ask, have a little
in him of all three, at least to the degree that would be
required for putting together this record .-' We can see how
ridiculous it would be in the case of a modern work — even
one of a kind to be stamped in every part by the author's
own individuality — if, ignoring reputed authorship, we as-
signed to different hands the passages where more or less
distinct differences of interest were apparent : if, for instance,
in a work consisting for the most part of dry critical discus-
sions, we were to say, wherever we came across a passage in
which the writer had permitted himself a little play of his-
torical imagination, or manifestation of ethical feeling, "this
must proceed from a different hand." The method is still
more out of place in the case of a collection of traditions
about the words and deeds of a remarkable personality,
where the collector's own reflective and creative powers are

^ E.g. i. ^2, 6\pias di yevofMeurjs, ore idvaei' orjXios' i. ^^,irpu}t ^vfvxo-^^o-" dvacTTas
i^i]\dei> Kal dirii\0ev and in ii. 4 referred to above, direa-Tiyaaav t7}v aTiy-qv Birov
riv, Kal i^opij^avTes.

S. G. II. 12

178 Recent theories

no measure of what he will consider interesting and worthy
of being recorded, if it should come before him.

It is to be added that the plan specially adopted by
Wendling, the selection of certain passages which are most
probably interpolations and the comparison of others with
them, is unsatisfactory because the grounds on which he
marks off some of his supposed interpolations are uncertain,
and also because the particulars to be compared are too few
to afford sound inferences. It becomes still more evident
how precarious they may be when we consider that an editor
would be not unlikely to reproduce in passages that he added
some forms of expression and features of the history which
impressed him in the record as he had received it.

It remains only to ask what aims the authors of the
supposed sources, as reconstructed by the critics, could have
had, to account for their form and limits. The aim of a
constant hearer of Peter might be, for instance, to record all
that he remembered Peter to have related both of the words
and deeds of Christ. This is the aim attributed to Mark in
the statement of Papias. I refer to it, however, here not in
order to appeal to the authority of this tradition, but because
the aim described is evidently one which might naturally have
inspired and directed the action of a disciple of the Apostle.
If this is assumed to have been actually his aim, then we
have a right to demand that an adequate conception shall be
formed of the probable contents of Peter's teaching, and in
this respect, as I have contended, the theories which I have
been discussing do not satisfy us. If on the other hand the
compiler of a source — whether of a collection of Petrine
narratives or of other traditions — has made a selection only
from the matter at his disposal, the principle on which the
selection would seem to have been made should be one that
commends itself as likely to have been adopted.

Von Soden arrives at " the Petrine narratives " by picking
out those little series of narratives in St Mark, each of which
illustrates more or less distinctly some one topic — the causes
of offence which the Jews found in Jesus in ii. i — iii. 6, the
want of comprehension of His character, purpose and teaching
on the part of the Pharisees and His own relatives, iii. 21 — 35

as to the coinpositeness of St Mark 179

and vi. i — 6, etc., etc. These, he maintains, were severally
arranged by Mark, and put together, and this compilation
formed a document of which different portions have been
embodied along with much additional matter by the author
of our Gospel, who is responsible for the structure as a whole\
But it must be asked whether all that Peter is likely to have
said about the life and work of Jesus is comprised in these
little groups of narratives ; and if not, why Mark should have
refrained from relating anything that did not fit under these
heads .•* What natural want would the collection, limited in
the way indicated, have supplied? If it is granted, as doubt-
less it should be, that Mark was not in a position to give
even an approximately complete account of the Gospel
history, why should he not have desired to represent it as
a whole so far as he was able ? And how was it that a later
hand was able to dissever the several groups, and in some
instances to break them up, and to introduce them into a
work of his own, in such a way that, for the most part we are
not conscious of any want of unity in it ? These are questions
that cannot be answered in a manner that is satisfactory for
von Soden's theory. One can understand well enough that
Sayings should be collected and arranged without reference to
historical considerations. But the collection of narratives
almost necessarily implies some interest in history so far as it
can be ascertained. In truth, the method in which von Soden
sets to work is artificial, and his reconstruction is an idol of
the critic's cave ; it does not belong to the sphere of common
human action, least of all to that of the Church's life in the
first century^

1 Wendt {Die Lehre Jesu, I. especially pp. 22 ff., 39) has taken a similar \'iew
of the Petrine narratives to that of von Soden. But he supposes the groups to
have been derived from Simon Peter himself. In part they may have been. It is
in adding to the supposed groups all narratives that seem at all similar, and in
confining the information derived from Peter to the matter which can be fitted
into the groups that artificiality comes in.

For another reference to Wendt's view of the composition of Mark see above,
p. 117, n.

"^ J. Weiss' theory (see above, p. 174) that one source was a small collection of
"school-discussions" is not of great importance in itself because he does not
doubt that the traditions included were trustworthy ; but it is worth while to notice
it as an instance of method, the soundness of which must be questioned on similar

i8o The authorship of Proto-Mark

Wendling does not bestow much attention upon the
question of the circumstances or intentions which determined
the scope either of his earliest document \ or of the work
which the Second Hand produced by supplementing the
earliest document with additional narratives. But he re-
marks that the latter (Mj + Ma) as marked out by him, makes
a compact whole l It covers also a considerable part of the
Ministry of Christ as represented in St Mark. All the more
must some of its omissions seem strange. I will here note
one only. Wendling has left in it no passages relating to
the call and instruction of "the Twelve^" Yet an unex-
ceptionable witness, St Paul, alludes to the existence of
this body, in a way that implies their importance, and the
familiarity of members of the Gentile Church of Corinth with
the designation^

The question of authoj-ship.

As a result of this discussion, we may, I believe, reject
the view of the origin and history of St Mark, according to
which a primitive document of small extent and containing
little variety of subject-matter has been embodied in it, along
with a large amount of additional material, by one or more
later hands to whom the present arrangement is due. On the
other hand, we have seen that our St Mark was in all proba-
bility preceded by a work which was somewhat shorter, but
which differed little in its structure and character from our
present Gospel, and into the framework of which a certain
number of interpolations have been made and the text of
which has been to a limited extent revised. It would seem
also that there cannot well have been many interpolations or

grounds lo those urged above. No sufficient motive can be suggested for making
such a collection, especially as these accounts are distinguished from others only
by a very shadowy line.

^ p. 20.

2 "Einen abgerundeten Bericht darstellt " {ih.).

^ He even suggests that the name itself did not occur in this document, though
as a matter of convenience he has retained it in the expression eh tuiv dwdeKa at
xiv. 10, 20, 43. See p. 9, § 20, and vv. 24 and 41.

* 1 Cor. XV. 5.

Mark the hearer of Peter i8i

other considerable changes made in this Proto-Mark (as we
may call it), beyond those which were specified in the course
of our comparison of St Mark with the two other Synoptics.
We will, however, keep our minds open to recognise any
probable ones that may come before us in the course of that
examination of the subject-matter in relation to the author-
ship upon which we are about to enter; and it must also be
remembered that there may be some which we have no means
of detecting and which remain unsuspected.

So far in speaking of authorship by Mark, I have con-
tended only that the distinctions drawn between different
portions of the Gospel are in certain cases untrustworthy.
It remains now that we should consider carefully whether
we shall be justified in regarding the document, obtained
by removing from our St Mark the interpolations which have
been enumerated, as a work which proceeded (approximately
at least in this form) from Mark, the hearer of Peter, who
had been mainly dependent upon the Apostle for that which
he embodied therein.

At some points in the discussion it will be necessary to
consider not merely what Peter is likely to have said, but
what ideas Mark is likely to have entertained, and what inde-
pendent information with regard to the facts recorded he is
likely from the circumstances of his life to have possessed.
And indeed it will be well that all through we should bear in
mind that we are concerned immediately with Mark. Let us
begin, therefore, by asking what we know of him.

We may accept, I think, as true in all probability the
usual identification of the Mark of St Paul's Epistles^ with
the " John surnamed Mark " of the Acts. St Paul's designa-
tion of him as " the cousin of Barnabas," and the addition of
the injunction " touching whom ye received commandments,
if he come unto you receive him," suit well with what is
related in regard to John Mark in the Acts^ Whether it is
the same man who is referred to in i Peter as " Mark my
son V' and described as " Peter's disciple and interpreter " in

^ Col. iv. lo; Philemon 24; 1 Tim. iv. ir.
2 Acts xii. 12, 25 ; xv. 37—39.
^ I Pet. V. 13.

i82 Mark the hearer of Peter

the tradition preserved by Papias, may seem more open to
question. If he is the same, it is somewhat curious that in
the notices in the Acts and Pauline Epistles there should be
no indication — beyond the statement that Peter, when he was
delivered from prison, went to the house of Mark's mother —
that he was ever associated with Peter, and on the other
hand none in the notices of i Peter and of Papias, that
he was ever associated with Barnabas and Paul. It is not,
however, impossible to harmonise the various statements
and allusions, and early tradition seems to encourage our
doing so. For when Papias, or Irenaeus, and later writers of
the second and third centuries, mention Mark the follower of
Peter and evangelist, it does not occur to them to distinguish
him from another Mark who was more prominent in the
New Testament \ On the whole, then, I believe we shall be
justified in regarding the Mark of the Acts and of St Paul's
Epistles as the Mark who, according to tradition, was the
author of our Gospel according to St Mark, and who is
commonly allowed to have had in all probability some share
in the work. But we must take care not to find in the
references to him in the Acts more than they actually contain.
They afford no ground for the suggestion of some modern
expositors that Mark was the young man who came out to
see the arrest of Jesus in the night and fled, leaving behind
him the linen cloth in which he had wrapped himself- ; nor
again for the notion which comes before us first in the sixth
century, and which may well have arisen as a pleasant fancy
of pilgrims to the holy places, that the house of Mark's
mother was the house in which " Our Lord Christ with the
Apostles founded the true Zion^"; nor lastly, for the practice of
some modern critics of calling John Mark the "Jerusalemite^"

^ J. Weiss, who has recently called in question the grounds for the identifica-
tion (ib. p. 385 fif.), interprets the silence of Papias and Irenaeus and others in
a different way from that which I do. He takes it as evidence that a tradition did
7iot exist that the same Mark was meant in both cases.

For the common view that the same man is intended, see Th. Zahn, Eitileit.
II. 210 ff.

'^ Mk xiv. 51, 52.

' Theodosius, de Situ Terrae Sanctae, 43, p. 20, ed. Gildemeister.

* J. Weiss, among others, does so (il>-).

The purpose of his work 183

and inferring therefrom that he must have had personal
knowledge of what had passed in Jerusalem during many-
years. We learn only that he was in Jerusalem at the time
of events which apparently happened circ. A.D. 44 ; and that
at this time his mother had a house there which was a centre
for the believers. But we do not know what his age was
at this time ; indeed, it is probable that he was still a young
man, since Paul and Barnabas took him with them, when
they departed, in the capacity of " their minister." So that
even if he was in Jerusalem at the time of the Crucifixion,
he was probably himself then a young child. Again we do
not know the length of time for which his mother had been
a convert, nor indeed for which she had lived in Jerusalem.
It is not unlikely that Mark's parents were Jews of the
Dispersion who had returned to the Holy City. His own
name, and the tradition that he acted as Peter's " interpreter,"
and the statement that his cousin Barnabas was a Jew of
Cyprus all point to this conclusion. It is not unimportant
that, some 12 to 14 years after the period to which the
Gospel-history relates, Mark should for a time have been
domiciled in Jerusalem. But we are not entitled to assume
that his residence and membership of the Church there had
been of long duration.

Let us proceed to examine the Gospel itself.

The first line of our St Mark — "The beginning of the gospel
of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" — was probably added by a
revising hand. But it describes truly the character and motif
of the document, as it remains, even after interpolations have
been removed and the text has been amended in the manner
described above. Its theme was " the gospel," essentially in
the sense in which St Paul used the word. St Paul, indeed,
set forth Jesus as the Christ, manifested through His Resur-
rection, through the gift of His Spirit and the power of His
preached Word. It was thus only that he himself had per-
sonally known Him. The earliest disciples of Jesus likewise
proclaimed Him under this aspect. But they naturally also
went back to Christ's manifestation of Himself when on
earth whereby they had been first led to believe. This was
" the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ." The word

184 The purpose of his work

" beginning " may well have this significance. It may refer
not merely to the ushering in of Christ's work by His fore-
runner, or to the opening of His own Ministry by the shore
of the Galilean lake, but to His whole Ministry on earth as
contrasted with the time subsequent to His resurrection.
(Cp. Acts i. I.) It set forth the Person and Work of Jesus
as the Christ, the Son of God. This theological idea governs
it throughout. It appears not only at great moments of the
histor}% such as the Baptism, the Confession of Peter and
the other disciples near Caesarea Philippi, the Transfiguration ;
nor again merely in the prominence given to the miracles of
Jesus and in particular to the casting out of devils; but also
in many of the Sayings recorded in it, and perhaps in none
more than in the great series for the sake of which the narra-
tives in ch. ii. are related, which are among those most
widely acknowledged to be Petrine : — " Son thy sins are for-
given...The Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins"
(ii. 2, 10). " They that are whole have no need of a physician,
but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous but
sinners" (ii. 17). "Can the sons of the bridechamber fast
while the bridegroom is with them?" (ii. 19).

In these "leading ideas," this spirit and aim of the work,
we may with good reason trace the effect of the teaching of
the Apostle Peter. If the preaching of the original followers
of Jesus was not substantially of this character, the whole
history of the rise of Christianity is unintelligible.

From this consideration of the theme and purpose of the
work we will now pass on to review next the contents gene-
rally, and especially its arrangement. It is evident that the
evangelist often does not give us fully and exactly the
relations to one another in time of the events which he
records ; and the reason of this probably is that he did not
himself know them. Manifestly narratives have sometimes
been grouped together in his Gospel rather on the ground of
points of similarity in their subject-matter than for chrono-
logical reasons. The fact may have been that the evangelist
had heard them told thus, or that he found it convenient so to
arrange them ; but anyway the result may have been that
incident? belonging to widel)' removed periods of Christ's

March of events in the Mar can narrative 185

Ministry have in some cases been brought together. Still more
often he has not been able to fill up, or at any rate he has
not filled up, the interval between events that he has loosely
connected together. But in spite of all this, a march of events,
a progress in Christ's work and its effects, is plainly dis-
cernible in the representation that he gives of the history.
There is development {a) in the stir created by Jesus ^;
{b) in the opposition to Him-; (r) in the formation of a
band of chosen disciples and the position accorded to them^;
{d) in the methods which He adopts^; {e) in the districts

^ At i. 32 — 34, 37, there is local excitement at Capernaum, after the first
miracle there. After this His fame spreads in consequence of His preaching and
working cures throughout a considerable district, i. 38, 45. Somewhat later, at
iii. 7, people from distant parts of the land appear in the crowds that gather
around Him (vi. 33 ff.). But the state of mind of many also ere long shewed
itself to be unsatisfactorj-. (See the parable of the Sower, iv. 2 ff.) And near
the end of the Galilean Ministry we hear discussions as to the character to be
attributed to Him, and great diversity of opinion on the subject (viii. 28).

2 In ii. I — iii. 6, we have a series of narratives which illustrate, among other
things, the beginning of opposition to Him. In these cases the scribes and
Pharisees mentioned appear to belong to the district. A little later, at iii. 22,
we hear of "scribes who have come down from Jerusalem," and they prefer
a more heinous charge than has been made before, that of collusion with
Satan.

^ From the outset Jesus attaches four men to Himself to be His personal
companions (i. 16 — 20); at ii. I4, He says to another "follow me." Subsequently
He "made twelve" (iii. 14) which included the first four, and probably also the
publican whose call has been specially described. The creation of such a body of
Twelve would serve to give a new position even to those members of it who had
before been called to accompany Him. And there is, surely, nothing improbable
in His having at this time formally constituted this body, with a view to the
continuance of His own work, and the organisation of His kingdom. A further
step is taken at vi. 7 ff., when He sends out the Twelve to preach and cast out
devils.

^ Jesus begins by preaching in the synagogues (i. 21, 39; iii. i). He chooses
the most natural places first, where quiet teaching can be given in the ordinary
course of things. He thus also afforded the most favourable opportunity possible
to the religious of Israel for accepting His message. After this, however, we do
not hear of His preaching in a s}-nagogue, except at Nazareth (vi. 2). The numbers
who flocked to hear and see Him, especially in the parts where he had most
exercised His Ministry, had become too great to be confined within walls. He
generally teaches them on the sea-shore, or in some waste place. It may be, also,
that, as the hostility to Him of the Pharisees, etc., grew, the rulers of the
synagogues would generally be unwilling to give Him permission to speak.

He also, after a time, adopts a new mode of address. He speaks in parables
to the multitude, while reserving the interpretation for His disciples (iv. i fF.). A

t86 March of events in the Mar can narrative

visited 1; (/) in His self-revelation-. And these different
aspects of the movement that there is in the narrative are
suitably interrelated ^

In this sense there is an excellent order in the work; the
two other Synoptics have to a great extent preserved it, and
where they have departed from it, their order is generally
speaking inferior*. Consequently, it used to be said, and still
sometimes is', that as Papias describes Mark's record as
deficient in order, he cannot be referring to our St Mark, or
to a document resembling it. But it has been pointed out by

sifting process was required in order to separate genuine inquirers after truth from
those who were not such. And a fitting place is assigned to it in the narrative.
(See more on this below, p. 192 ff.) The three chapters which have preceded may
well cover a period of some length. The 5i' rifiepdv of ii. i is indefinite. In several
paragraphs that follow there is no connexion in time indicated. Thus there has
been opportunity for differences to manifest themselves in the attitudes of men's
minds towards Jesus and His message. It is hardly necessary to point out how
well the parable of the Sower fits such a crisis.

Lastly, after the return of the Twelve from their Mission (vi. 30), Jesus with-
draws from the regions on the western shore where He has hitherto mostly been,
and apparently more and more seeks retirement, while He concentrates His efforts
upon the training of His disciples.

^ At i. 3?^, we read of a tour in the neighbourhood of Capernaum (i. 39 is probably
suggested by this first mention of missionary touring and anticipates somewhat,
describing what was only gradually accomplished). At v. i, we hear for the first
time of His crossing to the eastern shore. At vi. 66, He takes a missionary tour
more (it would seem) to the west and south-west than He has been before, since
it is connected with His visit to Nazareth. After this we hear of His being at
Bethsaida (vi. 45 ; viii. 22), which was in the territory of Philip, and of journeys to
Tyre and Sidon and back through Decapolis (vii. 31), and to the neighbourhood
of Caesarea Philippi (viii. 27).

" There is no unambiguous declaration of His Messiahship before the confession
of Simon Peter near Caesarea Philippi (viii. 27 ff.) and His confirmation of it.

3 The narrative in St Mark of Christ's Ministry in Galilee and other parts of
northern Palestine may be divided as follows : First period: The opening of the
work of Jesus to the first plot to destroy Him (i. 14 — iii. 6). Midiile period: The
gathering of crowds from all parts and appointment of the Twelve to the sending
forth of the Twelve to extend Christ's work and the alarm of Herod (iii. 7 — vi. 29).
Closing period : Christ's withdrawal with His disciples to His final departure from
Galilee (vi. 30 — x. i).

* This was shewn by Lachmann in his essay De ordine narrationum in
evanoeliis Synopticis, 1835.

^ In the first half and middle part of the 19th century it was often put forward.
Recently von .Soden {Urchrist. Lit. p. 75, Eng. trans, p. 149) has made this view
of the words of Papias the foundation for his own theory of the composition of our
Gospel according to St Mark.

March of events in the Marcan narrative 187

many writers^ that Papias may have had some quite different
standard of good order in his mind by which he tried Mark's
composition, and so found it wanting. In point of fact he
appears plainly to associate the want of order with its in-
completeness, especially in view of its omission of many of
"the things spoken," the Sayings of Jesus. That kind of
good order which we with our historical training discover in
St Mark, after careful study, is as little likely as possible
to have been perceived by Papias, or by the elder whose
words he repeats.

On the other hand the order in Mark has recently been
treated as a mere fancy of modern critics. The evangelist
himself, it is said, was unconscious of it ; and from the con-
nexion in which the remark is made, it appears plainly to be
implied that, if so, it must be unreal -. It is probably true
that the evangelist was unconscious of it, and that it is our
discovery there. Logically the case somewhat resembles that
of the conception into which the mind gathers up, and by
which it explains, the phenomena of motion of the heavenly
bodies. After a certain number of positions successively
occupied by them have been observed, it is found that certain
curves will, in spite of irregularities in their motions, approxi-
mately represent their courses, and that a certain law of
attraction will explain their adhering to those courses. In
like manner after noticing a number of particulars we form
an idea of a progress depicted in Mark's record ; but the
circumstance that it is traced by us, not pointed out by him,
only makes it the more significant. The complete artlessness
of his narrative shews that the naturalness of the order must
be an impress from life. It is explained if the writer obtained
much of his information from Simon Peter. No doubt the
Apostle may have often told only single pieces of teaching or
incidents, or a few at a time, and have dwelt on their lessons.
But he must also, one would think, at times have been required
to satisfy the desire which, as I have contended early in the

' For some references see vol. I. p. 53, n. 2 of the present work.

2 A. Schweizer, Von Reimartis zii Wrede, p. 329. B. Weiss also fails to do
justice to the natural progress of events in Mark's narrative. See Die Geschicht-
lichkeit des Markusevang. § i.

1 88 The general nnifonnity of style

present chapter, must have existed for a comprehensive sketch
of Christ's Ministry and Sufferings. In doing so he would
have told things more or less nearly in the order in which
he remembered them to have happened. And one who had
repeatedly heard the story, still more one who had been
employed to interpret it as it was being delivered, would be
likely, in writing it down, to retain for the most part the
same sequence. There is, then, good reason for the judgment
of Weizsacker : " The plan which we still recognise from our
Gospel of Alark shews, however, even in the arrangement of
the whole, so good a view, that the attribution of it to the
disciple of Peter can but be recommended thereby \"

The singleness of aim and simplicity of structure and
harmony of movement which may be observed in the Gospel
are in favour of the original unity of the composition. So
also is the fact that in the unmterpolated, unrevised docu-
ment, as defined above, there are hardly any two passages
that can be regarded as forming a doublet-; this indication
of compositeness at all events is absent. The general simi-
larity of the style points to the same conclusion. I have
remarked above that the similarity between different sections
of St Mark in point of style must be used with caution as an
argument for identity of authorship, because some of the
features in St ]\Iark which most strike us are the unliterary
form and the Semitic constructions, which may have character-
ised very commonly the form of the primitive traditions^'.
Nevertheless, the greater the e.xtent to which an editor, or
more than one editor, is assumed to have had a hand in
bringing the Gospel to its present form, the more strange
must it appear that the effect is not more manifest in the
style of various parts. It is only necessary to compare our
first and third Gospels with their parallels in St Mark in
order to realise this.

To turn to notes of authenticity in the particular narra-
tives— the general remark may first be made that the several

^ Apost. Zeitalter, p. 399, Eng. trans. 11. p. 69.

2 A possible one (ix. 35; x. 43 — 45) has been noted in the Table, p. 54.
The other mentioned there as occurring in our St Mark was not found in the un-
interpolated form of the work.

* See p. 168 f.

Various marks of aitthenticity 189

narratives are distinct and individual to a marvellous degree.
As regards their subject-matter they have no appearance of
having been cast in one mould or even in two or three moulds \
The circumstances described and the characters that come
before us are very various. This is rendered all the more
significant as a proof that the accounts are historical by
the fact that in the mode of narration, the phrases and
turns of expression employed, there is a large amount of
uniformity-.

I turn to passages which bear the stamp of being personal
reminiscences. In doing so, I would remind the reader that,
if my contention above is sound, it is not right to say that all
the matter in which this character is not apparent must come
from a different source. There may be good reason for
assigning most of it to the same source. But even if this is
a point which must be left open, it will still be true that the
indications of personal recollection which we are about to
notice have a significance in regard to the work as a whole, if
there is good reason to believe in its integrity as a compo-
sition from the first. For they go far to shew that the author
of the work was one who had himself been in personal
contact with an immediate follower of Jesus.

The abruptness with which Simon and his brother,
and the other pair of fishermen, are introduced at i. i6fif.,
and the fact that the account of Christ's Ministry begins
from their call, as also the character of the narrative of the
events of the following Sabbath in Capernaum, and of the
sequel, convey strongly the impression that this whole piece
(i. 16 — 38) is derived directly from Simon Peter, There are
other narratives in which Simon Peter specially appears, but
I will not stop to distinguish them from those in which we
seem to have the reminiscences either of this disciple, or of
some other who was actually present. We have all of us
probably observed, or we may easily do so, that those who

' The pair of miracles at vii. 32 — 37 ; viii. 22 — 26, which I have not decided
above to reckon as interpolated, are (I think) the only exceptions.

2 J. Weiss has drawn out very clearly this combination of monotony in the form
with variety in the incidents and has used it to shew that the evangelist was not a
man capable of inventing the narratives for purposes of instruction {ib. pp. 105
—119).

ipo Various marks of authenticity

relate experiences through which they have passed are apt
occasionally to bring in points which are quite unnecessary
for the story, but which interest them simply as part of what
they remember. There are many touches of this kind in
St Mark. The reference to " the hired fishermen " at i. 20
in the narrative of which I have just been speaking is an
example ; let me give a few others. At iv. 36 we are told
that when Jesus started to cross the lake on the occasion when
a storm arose "there were other boats with Him." We hear
no more of these other boats, or of any people who came
in them. They are mentioned only because they were
imprinted on the memory of the narrator. In vii. 24, 31,
the course of a long journey is indicated. No reason for
mentioning this journey is apparent, except the incident
connected with the earlier part of it ; but this incident could
have been related without tracing the whole route. Again,
at ix. 5, 6, in the account of the Transfiguration, we have
just such a remark as one in a dazed condition might make.
But no one Avould have been likely to introduce it into a
description of a vision of Christ's glory who did not remember
that he had himself made it. In the incident at xiv. 51, 52, we
have an obvious example of this common trait, as also in
the mention of the fact that Simon of Cyrene was "coming
from the country" (xv. 21).

The knowledge that is shewn of places \ and of the
conditions of life and thought in Palestine at the time in

1 The references to Capernaum (i. 21; ii. i ; ix. 33), to the lake-shore (i. 16; ii. 13;
iii. 7, etc.), the hills near at hand (iii. 13 ; v. 5, 13 ; vi. 46), to desert-places among
the hills or by the shore (i. 35, 45 ; vi. 31, 32), are life-like. Again, "the neigh-
bouring village-towns" {KUfioirb\eis) (i. 38) seems, from what we read in Josephus'
description of Galilee {B.J. ni. 3. § 43), to be an exceedingly apt expression. The
journey to the borders of Tyre, then through Sidon and back through the borders
of Decapolis to the Sea of Galilee (vii. 24, 31), a little later that to " the villages
of Caesarea Philippi " and back through Galilee (viii. 27 ; ix. 30), and finally that
from the Jordan to Jerusalem through Jericho till they come to Bethphage and
Bethany, with the Mt of Olives just in front of them (Trpos to opoi tCiv iXaiCov, see
Swete's note on trpbi here: x. 17, 32, 46; xi. i), are related as they might be by
one who had actually gone over the ground. Two, however, of the geographical
notices in St Mark may require some discussion.

{a) The name of the place referred to at Mk v. i, and parallels has, it is
well known, been much debated from the days of Origen. Although the reading

Various marks of authenticity 191

question^ are also notes of authenticity. ^Moreover, taken in
conjunction with the signs that our evangehst had good and
precise information on many points, his silence or inde-
finiteness as to others- inspires confidence. It seems to shew-
that, in accordance with Papias' statement, he was careful not
to invent.

Thus far we have been noticing indications in the Gospel
which are favourable to the view that the author of Proto-
Mark, as above defined, was Mark, a hearer of Simon Peter.
In this connexion, however, it would not be right to refrain
from considering objections to the historical character of the
Gospel, so far as they bear on the question of the authorship.
This last limitation will save the discussion from assuming
proportions that would be altogether unsuitable while we are
dealing primarily with a single document. The question with

" Gerasenes" at Mk v. i and Lk viii. 36, 37, may, according to the evidence which
we now possess, be the best attested, I cannot but think that the force of this
evidence is somewhat weakened by the probability that from an early time a well-
known name may have been substituted by a copyist for a less known one. In
any case, the place now called Khersa near the middle of the eastern shore is
probably the place meant (see G. A. Smith, The Historical Geography of the Holy
Lafid, p. 458 f.), whatever the Greek name for it in the first century a.d. may have
been.

[b) Two readings at x. 1 have considerable support : to. opia t^s 'lovdaLas Kal
■jripoLV Tov 'lopddvov, and ra opia rfji 'lovdaias wipav rod 'lopddvov. If the former
be adopted, the order of enumeration is not quite what we should have expected,
because Jesus and His disciples would in coming from Galilee probably have
crossed the Jordan near Bethshemesh and gone southward on the eastern bank
through Peraea. Still the evangelist might mention " the borders of Judaea "
first because they seemed to him the most important. If the /cat is omitted
we must suppose that 'lovoaia is used somewhat loosely, which it well might
be. Cp. the usage of Luke (vi. 17; xxiii. 5, etc.).

^ E.g. the members of the Sanhedrin, "the chief priests, scribes and elders,"
confront Jesus first when He is in the court of the temple, within the enclosure of
which their own halls of assembly, and for giving judgment, were situated, and they
make of Him just the demand which such men would (xi. 27 ff.). Again, the
Sadducees first appear here (xii. 18), vei^ suitably since they were especially the
party to which the chief-priests and their adherents belonged, not one spread
throughout the land like the Pharisees. It may further be noted that the point of
view (so to speak) of the time of Christ's earthly life has been preserved through-
out this Gospel with wonderful fidelity ; there is little, if any, admixture of
ideas which became familiar only after the Church had come into existence.

^ Note his use of the indefinite TrdXij' in connecting narratives at ii. i, 13 ;
iii. I, etc.; also iv t. ad^^aci.v, at ii. 23, and "a synagogue" at iii. i.

192 Traits alleged to be itnhistorical

which we shall be concerned will not be whether the repre-
sentation of the history in our Gospel is in all respects true
or not, but whether it is such as a man with Mark's op-
portunities of knowledge, and his beliefs — the beliefs of a
Christian of A.D. 60 to 70 — would, or would not, be unlikely
to have given. The question of the value to be attached
to his testimony, if the work is ascertained to be by him,
is one that must be separately decided.

I can here consider only some salient points in regard to
which difficulties have been specially raised.

First, let us consider the view that is given in our docu-
ment of the use of parables by Jesus in addressing the
multitude, as a judgment upon them, the interpretation being
reserved for His disciples. We have seen reason to think
that some expressions in Mk iv. (esp. vv. 2 a, 33, 34),
whereby greater stress is laid upon this method and purpose
in the employment of parables, as well as a passage later in
St Mark in which the disciples ask Jesus to explain a parable
(vii. 17, 18), are interpolations. Still the fact remains that
the disciples asked for an explanation of the parable of the
Sower, and that Jesus, in acceding to their request, said,
" Unto you is given the mystery of the Kingdom of God ;
but unto them that are without, all things are done in
parables," etc. And the sayings also remain which imply
that the disciples of Jesus are enjoying the privilege of
special instruction which entails special responsibility (iv.
21—24).

In the Gospel, then, as we have left it, after our critical
examination of the contents earlier in the present chapter,
the feature in Christ's teaching now in question still appears,
but it is a good deal less prominent. Jiilicher, on the other
hand, regards this conception of the use of parables as
wholly unhistorical, and disputes the genuineness of the
saying regarding "the mystery of the Kingdom of GodV'
and J. Weiss"^, while he allows that the saying may be
genuine, holds that it has been wrongly associated with the
interpretation of the parable of the Sower. Other writers,

^ Gleichnisreden, p. ii8ff.
- Alt. Eva tig. p. 1 76 f.

Traits alleged to be ttnhistorical 193

also, might be cited by whom the aspect under which Christ's
teaching by parables is here presented is imputed to the error
of the evangelists At the same time it is evidently a matter
in respect to which a constant hearer of Simon Peter ought
not to have been mistaken.

I have already indicated the connexion of thought^ between
the Saying concerning " the mystery of the Kingdom of God "
and other Sayings later in the same context, the genuineness
of which is (it should be observed) also attested by their
having been included in the Logian documents It is true
that in those Sayings the duty incumbent upon the disciples
of making known that which they learn is insisted upon.
But it is plainly implied that this obligation arises out of
the special privilege which they have enjoyed in having the
truth communicated first with peculiar clearness to them.
And there is certainly nothing to hinder us from supposing,
and much to suggest, that the period of Christ's companion-
ship with the Twelve during His earthly life, and in particular
the latter half of His Ministry, was peculiarly devoted to their
training, and was consequently their time of special privilege"*.

I would now ask whether it is out of harmony with this
that Christ should at a certain point in His career have
begun to speak to the multitude in language which veiled
His meaning, in a way that He had not done before. It was
a change in His method, as is evident even in that form of
the account which I have taken to be the earliest and which
is virtually that in our third Gospel. In St Mark and in our
first Gospel the surprise which it caused to the disciples is
brought out. We have here the additions of later hands,
but those who made them may have been guided by a true
instinct, or the knowledge of an authentic tradition. The
new method referred to was not in all probability adopted
till after He had been for some time delivering His message

1 E.g. Wellhausen, Evang. Alarci, p. 33.

- The similarity of idea is specially apparent in v. 22, cp. Kpv-n-rbv with

flVffTqpLOV .

^ Cp. p. 91 f.

* This remark is made in answer to Wellhausen's observation, ib., that the
" Esoterismus " of the saying iv. 11, 12, is excluded by the saying about a lighted
lamp in iv. 21.

S. G. II. 13

194 Traits alleged to be unhistorical

in plainer terms to the crowds that gathered round Him, but
who came to Him largely from motives that were morally
and religiously without value, and who constantly misappre-
hended His meaning^ That He should choose a mode of
speech which would baffle hearers of this kind still more, was
not unjust nor inconsistent in any way with the character
of Jesus. And the plan actually adopted was suited to its
purpose ; for figurative language is commonly more or less
perplexing when he who uses it does not at the same time
shew us what he means to convey, or to illustrate, by it ; and
in the case now before us it would have been peculiarly hard
to be understood, because the character and substance of
Christ's teaching were in many respects so new^. It was
also merciful ; for if it repelled the careless and indolent, it
stimulated inquiry on the part of the true-hearted ; and there
could not be a doubt that the privilege of receiving fuller
light would not be confined to those who already belonged to
the immediate circle of His disciples, but would be extended
to everyone who sincerely sought it.

Difficulties, then, that are felt in regard to the historical
character of this feature in the narrative appear to be due to
a failure to appreciate rightly the sterner aspects of Christ's
Mission, and the fact that the masses of the People, both in
Galilee and Jerusalem, no less than their rulers, were put to
a great moral probation through His presence among them;
and further — so far as the fitness of unexplained parables to
be an instrument of punishment is concerned — to the differ-
ence not being allowed for sufficiently between the effect of
parables when first spoken, and that which they now have
after being used for centuries.

I come next to a passage, not marked by me as inter-
polated, which cannot well come from a disciple of Simon
Peter, if the objections are valid which have recently been

^ See above, p. 185, n. i.

- The true relation of the profoundly spiritual teaching of Jesus to the eschato-
logical ideas, and the Apocalyptic conception of the Kingdom of Heaven,- which
we also meet with in the Gospels, cannot here be discussed. By Mk iv. 11 fT. and
its parallels it is suggested that even such lessons as those taught by the parable of
the Sower were part of " the mystery of the Kingdom of God," and so they may
well have been.

Traits alleged to be unhistorical 195

made against the statements contained in it. Wellhausen^
finds it inconceivable that the account of the sending forth
by Jesus of His twelve disciples, as described at vi. 7 ff., to
preach and to heal, can be historically true. Now, certainly,
this is a matter about which neither Simon Peter nor any
other member of the Twelve could possibly be mistaken,
and about which Mark also might be expected to be well
informed. But surely there is no good reason why Jesus
should not have sought to extend the proclamation of the
approach of the Kingdom of God in this way to places which
He could not reach Himself, and have designed that the part
assigned to the Twelve in this work should be an element in
their training. Wellhausen remarks, indeed, that " although
the experiment (which they had thus been led to make)
succeeded, they continue afterwards precisely as lacking in
independence and as passive as before." But it is hard to say
that this was the case, when the record is so brief. Moreover,
the time followed soon after when Jesus began more and
more to seek retirement with His disciples, so that there
would no longer be opportunities for them to act.

We will notice next those injunctions to be silent on the
subject of His miracles, laid by Jesus upon the objects of them,
or upon those who witnessed them, which are a special feature
of the Gospel according to St Mark-. One instance of this
kind is probably, according to what has been already said, to
be set down to an editor, and to this extent the difficulty
which this trait causes may be lessened I But there are
besides others ; and as a class they have been considered
unreal — the device of a writer who was not in contact with
fact, to heighten the impression which he would give of the
irresistible spread of the fame of Jesus*. In two cases the
evangelist expressly notes that the effort to obtain silence
proved useless. And, it may be asked, was not this to be

1 Evang. Marci, p. 46.

^ See i. 44, 45; V. 43; viii. 26. Cp. also iii. 12, though this is a somewhat
different case.

^ Mk vii. 36.

* For the objection here referred to see especially Wrede, Das Messiasgeheim-
niss, pp. 15, 16, 48 — 50.

13—2

196 Traits alleged to be jtnhistorical

expected ? Could such acts be kept secret ? And if they
were kept secret, would not one great purpose, with which
the miracles must be supposed to have been performed, be
defeated ? Is it then possible that Jesus should have given
such commands ? The consideration of this subject should,
I think, be interesting in itself, and also instructive as to
what we could expect from accounts of the Ministry of Jesus
delivered by men who were His companions, and who have
been on the whole reported faithfully. First, it may be well
to observe that one instance is recorded in St Mark in which
the man who is cured is actually bidden to go to his own
house and to his friends, and to tell them of the Divine
mercy shewn to him (v. 19, 20). This goes far to prove that
the evangelist does not give the commands of an opposite
kind merely in consequence of an obsession of his own, but
that they represent genuine reminiscences \

The injunctions of silence taken along with so much in
the action of Jesus, and in the manifest purpose of His
coming, which was incompatible with concealment, point,
I believe, to an apparent contradiction in His conduct, which
may have been, perhaps, somewhat baldly and crudely repre-
sented by the evangelist, but which involved no lack of real
consistency. Owing to the cross-currents in human affairs,
seeming inconsistencies often cannot be avoided even by
men of the greatest steadfastness of purpose and clearness
and singleness of aim. Jesus Christ, in becoming subject to
human conditions, was exposed to difficulties of this kind.
Indeed there was probably never a career in which they
pressed more heavily. If we study the Gospels reflectively
and with sympathy we may gather that He set before Him-
self a two-fold object — to implant in the hearts of men faith
in Himself as the Christ, and at the same time to change
their conception of the Christ, — to prevent His countrymen
from receiving Him merely as the Christ of their expectation.
And in seeking to accomplish this purpose, the two parts of

^ Jesus was able to tell the healed daemoniac on the eastern side of the lake to
proclaim at his home and to his kinsfolk and neighbours what God had done for
him, because in Decapolis there were few Jews, and Jesus Himself did not purpose
preaching there.

Traits alleged to be ttnhistorical 197

which must have been in any circumstances so hard to
reconcile, He was thwarted at every turn by opponents
and by the superficial excitement and superstitious beliefs
of the multitude.

His miracles must be considered in the light of the
purpose which has been indicated. They were necessary in
order to give authority to His Teaching^ and to suggest the
thought that He might be the Christ ; and yet there was
a constant danger that the minds of men might be too much
occupied with them. It should further be remembered that
in working cures Jesus cannot have thought only of estab-
lishing His claims. He must have been, and the records
plainly say that He was, moved with compassion towards
those in distress, and who were morally and spiritually fit
to be healed. Thus He might feel constrained to heal in
cases where, apart from consideration for the individuals to
be relieved. He might have preferred not to do so, lest the
fame which was a hindrance to His true work should be
increased thereby. At the same time He would do what
He could to guard against this, and even a temporary check
upon the spread of rumours, till He had Himself gone to
another neighbourhood, might be of service. We may, then,
regard His injunctions of silence and attempts to secure
privacy for His miracles as so many efforts to prevent them
from looming too large in the conception that men formed of
Him, and in short to keep them in their true place.

But it is also not strange that in a record based upon the
information of a personal disciple of Jesus the reasons for His
conduct at different junctures should not be in all respects
plain. Simon Peter and other early disciples had come to
believe with their whole hearts that He was the Christ, and
it was their mission to testify to this conviction. It is not
likely that, in looking back from their state of full assurance,
and with such a message to deliver to men as they had,
they would 'have dwelt upon the problem which presented
itself to the mind of their Lord and Master in choosing the
means and the times of His self-manifestation, or would have

^ Cp. Mk i. 22, 27.

198 Traits alleged to be ^tnhistorical

sought to expound it to others. They had often, it is true,
found the course which He took unintelligible at the moment;
but now they chiefly felt shame at the spiritual obtuseness
and hardness of heart which they had displayed in not
recognising Him fully for what He was, and trusting Him
when they could not understand Him. Naturally, also, the
most faithful reporter of what they delivered might well,
through a failure to understand the more subtle aspects of
his subject, exaggerate contrasts, through the omission of
details, and leave many points unexplained.

Next, let me say a word in passing with regard to the
Discourse concerning the Last Things in Mark xiii. It is
not probable that Mark himself put it together, because in
the remainder of the Gospel he shews no disposition thus to
compile discourses. But it may well have been composed
before he wrote his Gospel and have been included by him in
his work, not added by another hand,

I come now to the Day of the Last Supper. In St Mark,
as it stands, this is plainly fixed as the day of the Jewish
Passover, the 14th of Nisan, The notice at xiv. 12 is explicit.
Moreover, after the question of the disciples in v. 12 b, the
direction at v. 14 and the statement in v. 16, it is clear that
the subsequent meal at v. 17 ff, must be thought of as the
regular passover. In St Luke there is in addition the Saying
which was spoken as the little company took their places,
" I have eagerly desired to eat this passover with you before
I suffer" (xxii. 15),

This view, however, of the time and occasion is — it is
well-known — not only inconsistent with the general tenor of,
and various expressions in, the account of the Last Supper
and Day of the Crucifixion in the Fourth Gospel, but is
also hard to reconcile with various particulars in St Mark.
In Mark xiv, i, 2 we are told that the Jewish rulers began to
take steps for seizing Jesus two days before the Passover,
resolving that it should not be done during the- feast itself
Yet according to the sequel this is what did happen ; and
the fact that their intention to avoid this was foiled is not
pointed out. Again, the holding of a meeting of the San-
hedrin and condemnation of an accused person to death after

Traits alleged to be luihistorical 199

the feast had begun was contrary to all precedent, and must
have been an outrage to common religious feeling. Perhaps,
also, the meeting with Simon of Cyrene, " coming from the
country" (xv. 21), should be regarded as an incident unlikely
to occur on the feast-day.

I have no suggestions to offer that could be satisfactory to
others, or that are satisfactory to myself, for explaining these
discrepancies. I cannot agree with those who, while, they
accept the view in respect to the day of the Crucifixion
given in the Fourth Gospel, on the ground that it is self-con-
sistent and in itself the more probable (which is undoubtedly
the case), and while they fortify their position by reference to
those indications in the Synoptic Gospels which make for the
same conclusions, yet at the same time hold that the whole
of this part of the account in St Mark proceeded from Mark
himself It is clearly improbable that one whose acquaint-
ance with Jewish customs and opportunities of acquiring
information as to the last hours of Jesus were what those of
Mark must have been, could have been in error on the point
whether the Last Supper did, or did not, coincide with the
time of the Jewish Paschal Meal ; and the Arrest, Trials
and Crucifixion did, or did not, take place on the first of the.
days of the Feast.

It would be a welcome thing, if the removal of a phrase
or two, such as one could imagine a revising hand might
easily have introduced, would overcome the difficulty ; or if
traces of more considerable interpolation by an editor could
be pointed out, which has created the contradiction. We
might readily treat the mention of the day \x\ v. \2a zs, an
addition to the original document, if that would suffice.
But nothing would meet the case short of the supposition
that the whole passage, vv. 12 — 16, has been substituted for
some other connexion between v. 11 and v. 17. And I doubt
whether we are justified in assuming interpolations, when
there are no signs of want of coherence in the immediate
context, in order to escape from a difficulty. The true
explanation may be of quite a different kind, though from
our lack of knowledge we cannot divine it.

It does not seem to me necessary that I should here

200 Recent theory as to the

discuss any other difficulties in the narrative of the Last
Hours of Jesus. I have already had occasion to consider
the differences between St Mark and St Luke in respect to
the Last Supper and the events in the High-priest's housed
And as to points that are not clear in the course of the
several trials, it may be remarked generally that the imme-
diate disciples of Jesus must themselves have been dependent
upon what they could learn from others for their knowledge
of much that passed, and that Mark could only give the
account that was current among these simple, uncultured
people, whose ideas may naturally have been affected by
their want of familiarity with processes of law, whether Jewish
or Roman.

Finally, I must say a few words on the view recently
advocated by some writers that xvi. 8 was intended by the
writer of the account of the finding of the empty tomb, of
which it forms part, to be the termination of the Gospel.
To most critical students it has seemed that such an ending
would have been too abrupt, and that it is necessary to
suppose the original ending of the Gospel to have been lost.
But, according to the theory to which I now refer, the finding
of the empty tomb seemed to the writer to be a proof of such
overwhelming force, that it sufficed to mention this alone, and
that indeed the impressiveness of the conclusion would only
have been weakened if he Jiad added a record of appearances-.
Or, to explain his feeling somewhat differently, as J. Weiss
does^ — he felt that he had accomplished his task when he
had shewn that the predictions of Jesus in regard to His
resurrection had been fulfilled, as the tomb found empty early
on the third day after His Crucifixion shewed.

It is further said that this account, designed to give a
more convincing proof of the Resurrection than appearances
could, took the place of an earlier one, and that we have an
indication of this in the statement that the women owing to
their fear, instead of obeying the angels' command, said
nothing to any man. The reference to their silence was, it

^ See above, pp. 163 — 6.

^ See Wellhausen, Evang. Marci, p. 146 ; Loisy, Les £vang. Synopt. i. p. 105.

' Alt. Evang. p. 344 f.

termmation of the Gospel 201

is thought, intended to explain, when this narrative was first
put forward, how it had happened that thus far nothing had
been heard of it.

There seem to me to be several objections to this whole
theory. And, first, although (as everyone would admit) the
empty tomb would be a most significant fact if conjoined
with appearances, no one, surely, could ever have supposed
that taken by itself alone it would be particularly convincing.
The reply that an adversary or doubter could make would be
obvious, that the body had been removed. Indeed passages
in all the other Gospels shew how natural)}- this would occur
to the mind^ It is most unlikely then that any early Chris-
tian writer would have stopped short at the discovery that
the tomb was empty, and not have gone on to relate appear-
ances which were already part of the Church's tradition.

The common view, then, that something followed after
xvi. 8 is, we ma\' feel confident, right. And if so, we must be
cautious how we interpret the force of the words about the
fear and silence of the women. The sequel, if we had it, might
throw light upon their purpose. It might be intended to en-
hance the surprise caused to Simon Peter by Christ's appear-
ance to him, not to apologise for a narrative that was put late
into circulation. Or the reference to the fear of the women
may itself be secondar\', and the original statement may have
stood in the form to which the parallels in Matthew and Luke
testify-. It should, also, be noted that according to i Cor. xv.
it was part of the primitive tradition that Jesus rose on '" the
third day " and that the apostle states this apart from, and
before he proceeds to mention, the series of appearances
which he enumerates. Now wherever else there is mention
of the resurrection having occurred on the third da)' it is in
connexion with the account of the finding of the tomb by the
women ; so that the reference to the resurrection as having
taken place on a particular day in St Paul's brief summary

1 Mt. .\xviii. 12 — 15; Lk xxiv. 22 — 24 : Jn \x. 13 — 15.

- Weiss, p. 340, recognises that the consentient differences of Mt. and Lk
from Mk here may be thought to shew that the last-named is secondary. But he
argues that in the present instance it is more difficult to suppose a change into
Mk's form than the reverse. It is, however, difficult to say that the touch is not
one that a somewhat tactless editor would have introduced.

202 Conclusions from the foregoing inquiry

may well imply acquaintance with that narrative, and lends
at least some support to the belief in its primitive character^.

I would add that in the structure and contents of vv. xv.
40 — xvi. 8, which evidently form a connected passage, there
does not seem to be anything which can fairly be regarded as
a sign of a different hand from that seen in other parts of the
Gospel. Moreover, it may well be that we still have Mark's
original ending"-, which followed after xvi. 8, embodied in our
first Gospel from xxviii. 9 onwards. The whole of these
concluding verses in St Matthew would fit well with Mark xvi.
I — 8, saving the passage about the silencing of the guard by
the chief-priests (Mt. xxviii. ii — 15), which is the sequel to
an earlier passage (Mt. xxvii. 62 — 66) having no parallel in
St Mark.

Let me now sum up the conclusions in respect to the
origin and history of our Second Gospel to which the inquiries
in the present, and in part also in preceding, chapters have led.

1. In St Mark as we have it there are a certain number
of passages and phrases which appear to be interpolations.

2. When these are removed and such consequential
changes in the text as are required have been made, we
have a work in the form in which it was originally composed.
Moreover this work does not seem to contain any smaller
documents embedded in it, with the exception of the Eschato-
logical discourse of Mk xiii.

3. This work is not a translation from an Aramaic
original. No good reasons have been given for so regarding
it ; and it is highly improbable that if such an Aramaic work
had ever existed, all trace of it in tradition should have dis-

^ Cp. J. Weiss, ib. p. 344, in regard to this consideration. He admits tiiat it
has force, though not, perhaps, quite so much as I should attribute to it. See also
Rohrbach, Die Berichte iibcr die AnfersteJmng Jesii Chrisli, 1898. Weilhausen
(/(^. p. 1 46) and others are certainly not justified in saying that Paul "knows
nothing " of the discovery of the women.

- It is unnecessary for me to shew that xvi. 9 — 20 in the Textus Receptus were
not the original ending, since this subject has been so well treated in works which
are in the hands of all English students. I would refer especially to the Appendix
to Westcott and Hart's Greek Test., Notes on Select Readings, p. 29 ff. and Swete's
St Mark in loc. and p. ciii ff. On an extended form, recently recovered, of the
Longer Ending of St Mark, see Two Neiu Gospel Fragments, p. gf., by Dr Swete
in Lietzmann's series.

Conclusions from the foregoing inquiry 203

appeared, and that such a very different account of the
composition of the Gospel should have been given. It is
also entirely natural that the inception and shaping and
production of the work should have been a response to the
needs of Greek-speaking Christendom.

4. The character of this original work is such as might
have been expected from one who had been a constant hearer
of an immediate disciple of Jesus, and consequently it may be
attributed to the Mark who is named by Papias, and who is,
there can be little doubt, the person to whom all the allusions
to a Mark in the New Testament refer.

5. Mark need not in the composition of his work have
depended solely upon the teaching of Peter. He might have
included information obtained from other sources oral or
written ; but it is doubtful whether he did so to any great
extent (with the exception mentioned in 2). He did not use
the Greek Logian document known to the first and third
evangelists. Such pieces of " Logian " matter as he included
in his work came to him by some other channel ; he may well
have received them directly from Peter.

6. The work was known to and used by our third
evangelist approximately, if not exactly, in the form in
which it proceeded from the hand of Mark.

7. Subsequently it received additions which brought it
to the form in which it was known to our first evangelist, and
which is very nearly that of our St Mark. These additions
included some " Logian " pieces ; but even these seem to be
in a different version from that used by the first and third
evangelists.

8. A i&\M changes, for the most part slight ones, were
made in the Marcan document used by our first evangelist,
whereby the work finally attained to the form in which we
know it, according to the best text that can be constructed
from existing MSS. and versions.

ADDITIONAL NOTE I. TO CHAPTER III.

STYLE AS A MEANS OF DISTINGUISHING THE
PASSAGES^ ADDED TO PROTO-MARK.

The sentence from Sir John Hawkins' Horae Sy/iopticae given
by me, p. i68, n. 3 above, comes at the end of an inquiry in which
he is largely occupied with shewing that there are signs in the first
and third Gospels that their authors have revised St Mark. In this,
of course, I fully agree with him. But the conclusion which I have
quoted, could only be established by an examination of the distribution
of the Marcan peculiarities throughout different passages, and it did
not fall within his scheme to attempt this.

I proceed to make a few remarks first upon points of style in
those passages omitted by Luke which, as we have seen, probably
were not, and then upon those which probably were, contained in
the Marcan document known to him.

There is not in the former set of passages ' quite the usual want
of variety in connecting successive sentences. The difference is
specially noticeable in x. 2 — 12, and xiii. 34 — 37. Among other
connecting words we have in each of these the particle ovv which is
used nowhere else in Mark to connect sentences, except at xvi. 19,
in the added ending to the Gospel. It is found besides in Mark
only at xi. 31 and xv. 12, in both of which places it is otherwise
introduced, while in the former it is doubtful whether it should have
a place in the text (at xii. 9 it is not genuine). Again, ei-ckcv
Toirrov is used only at x. 7 (cp. with it ou cu'ckci' at Lk iv. 18, and
'kvf.Ka TovTiiiv at A. xxvi. 21). Again, 8ta toOto which not infrequently
connects two sentences in Mt., Jn, etc. is so used in Mk only at
xi. 24.

The use of the historic present hardly deserves to be treated
as a Marcan peculiarity; for although it is more common in
St Mark than in St Matthew or St Luke it is also very common in
St John and in Josephus (as Sir J. Hawkins has stated, p. 114). Its
occurrence therefore in any passage does not shew that such passage

^ See them enumerated, p. 167, n. i.

style in different parts of St Mark 205

is not an interpolation. Indeed, it would appear as if the first and
third evangelists had in revising St Mark changed his presents into
aorists partly to assert their independence ; for sometimes where
that Gospel has the aorist there is in the parallel a present, e.g. cp.
Mk X. 4, 5 with Mt. xix. 7, 8. In point of fact, however, the use of
the historic present is less prominent in the passages of our St Mark
now in question than in many other parts of that Gospel.

The aorist aTroKpiOeU in combination with the present Xt'yct is
almost confined to St Mark, where it occurs nine times ; one of
these is found in one of the sections under consideration, viz. at
xi. 22 (eTTiyi'otis Xc'yct at Mk ii. 8, and Kpa.$a<: Aeyct at V. 7 may also
be compared). There is, however, one other instance in the New
Testament (Lk xiii. 8). The analogous and still stranger use of
oLTTOKpiOu'; with the future ipel also occurs at iSIt. xxv. 40 and Lk xiii.
25. We also have d-TroKpi^eis Ae'yei in the Lxx. at Dan. vii. 16, and
airoKpiOeU ipel or aTroKpt^evTe? ipovcriv at Deut. xxv. 9, xxvi. 5, xxvii.
14, 15; Isa. iii. 7.

€i6v<s occurs forty-one times in St Mark, i.e. rather more than
twice as often as ev^us, or ivOiui^, in St Matthew, about six times
as often as in St Luke and four times as often as in the Acts, and
about seven times as often as in St John. It is found five times in
all in the sections we are treating as insertions, viz. at iv. 29, vi. 45,
50, 54, and viii. 10.

In the passages before us many words occur which are not used
in other parts of the Gospel, but this is partly due to the fact that
the subjects treated required them. A few words and expressions
may be mentioned, which, perhaps, suggest a writer whose phrase-
ology was different from that of the author of the greater part of the
Gospel.

iv. 30 TTtos 6ju,otaj<Tw/ix£v K.T.X. TKis form of commencement to
a parable, and the use of the word o/xoiovv are without a parallel
in St Mark, though there are several in St Matthew and three in
St Luke. Salmon {Human Element, p. 238) holds that Mark learnt
it here from "Q." We have seen (p. 109 ff. and p. 139 f ) that this
is not to be thought of; but a reviser of the Marcan document might
have done so, or might have obtained the phrase independently.

vi. 49 SoKctv oTi. This word is not used elsewhere in St Mark in
the sense " to think," " to suppose." It is common in this sense
in other parts of N.T. ifxivTaa-fjia is used also in the parallel in Mt.,
but not elsewhere in N.T. /d. 53 TrpoaoppLi^ea-dai, not used in con-
nexion with other landings. Id. 56 av with the impf. : cp. orav with

2o6 style in different parts of St Mark

impf. in another general description at iii. ii, which may likewise, as
we have seen (p. 145), have been touched up by a reviser. In vi.
56 note, also, av with aorist, and cp. orav with aorist at xi. 19. It
is a coincidence worth noting, that iKiropivicrO at occurs at xi. 19 and
cicTTTopeijecr^at at vi. 56. Ii>. tovs aV^si'ovi'Tas : this partic. not else-
where in Mk, but at Mt. x. 8, xxv. 39 ; Lk iv. 40, ix. 2 ; Jn v. 3, 7, 13,
vi. 2, xi. i; A. xix. 12, xx. 35 ; Mark has appworovs at vi. 5, 13.

viii. 4 €7r' iprjfiLa's, elsewhere iv rfj ipij/juD. lb. 7 lyQvhta, elsewhere
iyQvi.%. lb. 8 TrepiaaevfjiaTa KXacrfxaToiv: contrast the phrase at vi. 43.
Jb. 10 iJ-^pv, elsewhere opia.

ix. 41 Xpio-Tos, used as a proper name ; this may be due to a
reviser later not only than Luke but than our first evangelist, /b. 42 01
7rLar€vovT€<; ; from the way in which this term is introduced, it also
seems to have acquired a specific sense.

x. 3 ivTeWiaOat, likewise at xiii. 34 ; elsewhere 7rapayy£/\.A.€tv
(twice).

xi. II b 6ij/e: so also v. 19 and xiii. 35 ; elsewhere ot//t'as ytvoixevq^.
V. 12 T17 iiravpiov : not elsewhere in Mk, several times in Jn and
Acts. V. 13 €1 apa, cp. A. viii. 22, xvii. 27; i Cor. xv. 15. v. 22
TTio-Tis ^€ov, genitive of object; cp. Rom. iii. 22, 26, etc. v. 23
SiaKpLveaOai, used several times in Acts and Epp. in the same sense.
V. 25 6 TTttTTyp vfxojv 6 €v Toi's ovpai'ots : this expression, which is
common in St Matthew, occurs nowhere else in St Mark (excepting
again in the continuation of the present verse, according to Text.
J^ec).

xiii. 36 i^ai<f)vr]<; : four times in Lk and Acts; at Mk ix. 8 we have

C^ttTTlVa.

xiv. 6 KOTTovs irapix^iv, likewise at Lk xi. 7, and xviii. 5, and a few
times in the Epp.

In conclusion I will note a few specially characteristic points
of Marcan style in passages which, though wanting in Lk, I have
retained as included in Proto-Mark. ttoWo. is used as an adverb at
Mk vi. 20; likewise at i. 45; iii. 12; v. 10, 23,. 38, 43; ix. 26; xv. 3.
It is comparatively rare in the rest of N.T. (At Mt. ix. 14 and
A. viii. 24 it does not belong to the true text.)

Again, on is used as an interrogative at ix. 28, as also Mk ii. 16;
not elsewhere in N.T.

6 ySttTTTi^wv, as epithet of John, occurs at Mk vi. 14 and 24; cp. i. 4.
In Mt. and Lk 6 /SaTrncrT?;? is used, as indeed twice in St Mark,
viz. once in this context (v. 25) and at viii. 28.

ADDITIONAL NOTE II. TO CHAPTER IIP.

The coincident differences from St Mark in the First
and Third Gospels, due to :

(i) Revision of tlie original Marcan document.

( 2 ) Uftdesigned agreements between the first and third evangelists

in the revision of their Marcan document.

(3) a. The influence of the Logiati document.

b. The influence of some docwnent distinct from both the
Marcan and the Logian, or of oral traditio?i, or
habits of oral teachitig.

(4) Textual assimilation betiveen the first and third Gospels by

copyists.

In the following table the numbers refer to these explanations.
In a good many cases I have suggested one or more alternative
explanations, placing first the number referring to the explanation
which seems to me most probable. But I have not indicated all
that are possible ; in particular I have refrained from attempting to
estimate fully the effects of textual assimilation.

I have not included oft-recurring coincidences, such as 8e for Ka.i,
ciTrev for Xe'yet or eAcyev, etc. ; or the frequent omission of ttS?, TroXAci,

fjueywi, oAtyos, TraAiv, eupus.

Where the parallel to St Mark in one of the other Synoptics
occurs in a different context, I have placed it in brackets.

Mk i. I — 4: Mt. iii. i — 3: Lk iii. 2b — 4.

There is nothing in Mt. and Lk to correspond to Mk vv. i
and 2 b ; moreover the order in Mt. and Lk agrees, and = Mk
vv. 4 + 2rt;-f-3 ... ... ... ... ... ... (i)

^ Wernle, Synopt. Frage, p. 58 ff., and Hawkins, Hor. Synopt. p. 172 ff.,
explain the coincident differences from St Mark in our first and third Gospels as
I do, in a way to render the assumption that Luke was acquainted with St Matthew
unnecessary.

2o8 Differences from St Mark

Mk i. 5, 7, lo : Mt. iii. 5, 11, 16: Lk iii. 3, 16, 21.

For Tracra 17 'lovSata X'^P" ^\.X.. and Lk have TrSo-a f] Trepixwpos tov
'lopSavou (Lk in ace.) ; in the passage corresponding to vv. 7, 8, the
order of the clauses is different in Mt. and Lk, being the same in
both these, while both add Kal trvpl to Iv Tn'tu/xart ayta>; for etScv
o"xi^o/x,eVou? Tous oiipaious Alt. has tSou ■^v€(i))^dr](rav ol ovpavoi, and Lk
dvew)(6rji'aL tov oipavov ... ... ... ... ... (3'^)

Mk i. 14, 15 : Mt. iv. 17 : Lk iv. 14, 15.

TO evayye'Atov, TreTrXrjpwTai o Katpos, and TricmveTe iv to! emyycAiw
wanting in Mt. and Lk ... ... ... ... ... (i)

(Cp. Mk viii. 35 = Mt. xvi. 25 = Lk ix. 24. Mk x. 29 = Mt. xix.
29 = Lk xviii. 29 — in which parallels likewise to euayye'Aiov occurs
only in St Mark.)

Mk i. 13 : Mt. iv. i : Lk iv, 2.

6 8ta)SoAos for 6 SttTttvas ... ... ... ... (3«)

Mk i. 20: Mt. iv. 22: [Lk v. 11].

/xtTo. T<2v fiLcrdoiTiZv, Omitted by Mt. and Lk ... ... (2)

Mk i. 29 — 34: Mt. viii. 14 — 16: Lk iv. 38 — 41.

Koi 'AvSpcov jxeTo. 'laKw/Sou Kal 'IcoaVvov wanting after ^Lfiuivos

(i) or possibly (2) ; irpoaeXOuJv omitted (2) ; koI ^v oXr] rj Tro'Ats
iTTLcrvvqyp-ivr] irpos ttjv Ovpav wanting ... ... ... (2)

Mk i. 35—37 : Lk iv. 42.

Reference to Simon's action is omitted by Lk who thinks it
sufficient to mention the crowd. By Mt. the whole passage (vv. 35 — 8)
is omitted, probably in the process of rearranging narratives. The omis-
sion is due in each case to revision but the motive is different (2)

Mk i. 38, 39 : Mt. iv. 23 : Lk iv. 43, 44.

After Kr]pv(T(Twv Mt. adds to eiayy. t. fSacr., while Lk has cvay-
yeAto-ao-^at /a€ Set t. /3aa. t. 6. — independent changes, but made
under the influence of familiar Christian language ... (2)

Mk i. 40 — 45 : Mt. viii. i — 4 : Lk v. 12 — 16.

Ktti Ihov and Kv'ptc used in Mt. {v. 2) and Lk {v. 12). Again
in Mt. V. 3, Lk v. 13, yjvl/aTO avTov Ac'ywi/, instead of avTov YjypaTO
KOi Ae'yei ... ... ... ... ... ... ... (3^)

CTTrAayxvicr^eis (Mk V. 41) omitted ... ... ... (2)

Mk ii. I — 12 : Mt. ix. i — 8 : Lk v. 17 — 26.

Koi 180U and €7ri kAiVtjs in Mt. {v. 2) and Lk {v. 18); both also
have ey€tpc Ktti TreptTrctrci (Mt. V. 5, Lk V. 23) and ixTTTiXdiv £is TOV oIkov
avToO (Mt. V. 7, Lk V. 25); both speak of the fear felt by those present
(Mt. 7.'. 8, Lk z;. 26) (3^)

Both omit T<S TTvtu/xaTi avTov ... ... ... ... (2)

common to the First and Third Gospels 209

Mk ii. 13, 14 : Mt. ix. 9 : Lk v. 27, 28.

TTapa. Trjv dd\a<T(Tav...i8iBaarK€v avTous is wanting in Mt. and Lk

... (I) or (2)

For aorist yJKoXovOrja-cv Mt. and Lk both have imperfect

(i), {2)or(3^)

Mk ii. 16 : Mt. ix. 11 : Lk v. 30.

A tautology in Mk, not in Mt. and Lk ... ... (2)

Slcl tl in Mt. and Lk in place of on (as interrogative)... (2)

Mk ii. 18 a: Mt. ix. 14 a : Lk v. 33 a.

There is no introduction in Lk corresponding to that in Mk, and
that in Mt. is much slighter ... ... ... (i) or (2)

Mk ii. 19, 20 : Mt. ix. 15 : Lk v. 34, 35.

Mk 19 (^ is wanting in Mt. and Lk ... ... (i) or (2)

Mk ii. 21, 22 : Mt. ix. 16, 17 : Lk v. 36 — 38.

cTrtySaXAci in place of eVtpaTrTct ; for 6 oivos aTroXXvraL Kai ol olctkol,
Mt. has 6 oTvos iKX^lTai koX 61 dcKol (XTroWvvTaL, and Lk avro?
(viz. o otvos) lK\v6Tq(r£Tai kol ol acrKOi airoXovvTaL. yc IS added to
^JLT] in Mt. and Lk, and the last sentence of Mk v. 22 completed by

use oi jSdXXova-tv in Mt. and fiXrjTiov in Lk (3^), or one or two of

them to (2); use oi jxriyf. may be due to (4).

Mk ii. 23—28 : Mt. xii. 1—8 : Lk vi. 1—5.

6S0V TTotctv (Mk V. 23) not in Mt. and Lk, the former also adds
Koi ia-OUiv, the latter kol tJo-Olov. Mk Z'. 24 — I'Se tl ttoloixtlv 7019 o-d/3-
/Saorii/ o ovK e^eaTLv ; Mt. {v. 2) has iSov ttolovctlv o ovk tiecTTLV iroLelv
iv o-a)8/SaTU), and Lk (v. 2) ti TTOtetTe o ovk 1^(.(ttlv ttol^'lv tois
o-a^/Sao-iv; Mk V. 26, the clauses are differently arranged in Mt.
and Lk so as to bring the exception as to the priests to the end, and
the epithet /loVot is employed. These differences may be due to
(3 b), one or two of them also to ... ... ... ... ( i )

£7ri 'A^LdOap dpx'-^p^^': (Mk V. 26) is not in Mt. and Lk

(i)or(2)_

The saying to crd(3l3aTov Slo. tov dvOpwirov, etc. (Mk v. 27) is
wanting in Mt. and Lk ... ... ... ... ... (i) -

Mk iii. I : Mt. xii. 9, 10 a : Lk vi. 6.

Mt. and Lk have the definite article before a-wayoiyrjv (4) ; both
also use the adjective instead of the perfect pass, partic. to describe
the "withered" hand ... ... ... ... ... (2)

Mk iii. 4, 5 : Mt. xii. 12, 13 : Lk vi. 9, 10.

01 Se eo-iwTTwv is not in Mt. and Lk (cp. Mk ix. ;^3, 34 =

Mt. xviii. I = Lk ix. 46, 47). p-er opyrj^, o-wXiiTTOv/xcvos eVi rfj TToyp(jj(T€L

(2)

S. G. II. 14

210 Differences from St Mark

TT)'; KapStas avrOtv, not in Mt. or Lk; the former also omits TrfpipXnj/a.-
/xevos ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... (2)

Mk iii. 6 : Mt. xii. 14: Lk vi. 11.

jaera Twv 'HpwStavoIv not in Mt. or Lk ... ... (i) or (2)

Mk iii. 7 — 12 : Mt. xii. 15, 16 : Lk vi. 17 — 19. [Also cp. Mt. iv.
24, 25 and V. I.]

According to Mk the multitudes from all parts came to Jesus
when He was dy the sea, and He continued there ; according to
Mt. when He saw them He went up into a mountain ; according
to Lk He came down from the mountain and stood iitX toVou
TreSivoli in their midst ... ... ... ... ... (3«)

The reference to the boat in Mk v. 9 is of course omitted when
the place of the gathering is not the seashore ... ... (2)

Mk iii. 14, 15 : Mt. x. i : Lk vi. 13.

The description Iva. wcriv /xer' aurov, Kai Ivo. aTrocrTeXXrj avTov<;
KT]pv(r(reiv, kol €;(eiv l^ovaiav cK^aXXetv to. 8aL/x6vLa, are the only words
peculiar to Mk, and when we consider that they were obviously of an
explanatory character and that they would have been unsuitable in
Mt. in the context in which the appointment of the Apostles is treated
in that Gospel, it is not remarkable that they should be absent from
both the parallels ... ... ... ... ... ... (2)

Mk iii. 16 — 18 : Mt. x. 2, 3 : Lk vi. 14.

In Mk the names of the Apostles to whom Jesus gave new
appellations are placed first ; in Mt. and Lk, Andrew is placed next
to Simon Peter with the addition "his brother" (3 (^)

The new name given to the Sons of Zebedee is omitted in Mt.
and Lk (i) or (2)

Mk iii. 19 — 21.

Omitted by Mt. and Lk. It may possibly have been added to
Proto-Mk by a reviser or extruded in Mt. by the charge of complicity
with Satan and the discourse of Jesus upon it taken from the Logian
document, or passed over as reflecting on the relatives of Jesus

(3 a) or (2)

Mk iii. 23 — 30 : Mt. xii. 25 — 32 : Lk xi. 17 — 23.

In this discourse Mt. and Lk correspond more closely with one
another than with Mk in some Sayings, and have others in common
which are not in Mk ... ... ... ... ... (3 «)

Mk iii. 32 : Mt. xii. 47 : Lk viii. 20.

For Mk's c^w tprjTOvcriv (Tc, Mt. has €^0) idTiJKacriv ^r]TovvT€<; uol
XaKrjcrai and Lk eaTrJKacnv e^w iSelv OeXovre^ crc. But it is uncertain
whether the verse in Mt. belongs to the true text. Hence we may
have here a case of ... ... ... ... ... ... (4)

common to the First and Third Gospels 211

Mk iv. I — 9 : Mt. xiii. i — 9 : Lk viii. 4 — 8.

For oxA.os TrXeto-To? Alt. has o;(Xoi ttoXXoi and Lk oxXou iroWov.
In parallels to Mk vv. 3, 4, Mt. and Lk both supply rov before first
occurrence of verb and avroV after second. Both have the saying of
Mk V. 9 OS l;j(et (Sra, etc. in form 6 l^wv (Lra, etc. (Cp. Mk iv. 23)

(3^)

Mk iv. 10 : Mt. xiii. 10 : Lk viii. 9.

For o\ 7r€pi avTov avv Tois SwSeKa Mt. and Lk both have simply ol
fxaOqrai : ore eyeVero Kara jnovas is not in Mt. and Lk, and in place of
the general form of the sentence there is a particular reference, though
different in each ... ... ... .. ... (i)or(3^)

Mk iv. II : Mt. xiii. 11 : Lk viii. 10.

For vplv TO fjiva-njpLov Se'Sorat Mt. and Lk both have ifilv ScSorat
yvwvaL TO. ixvaTtjpLa... ... ... ... ... (3^)0^(3'^)

Mk iv. 15: Mt. xiii. 19: Lk viii. 12.

For atpet Tov Adyov rov ka-n-apfxivov €ts avTOv; Alt. has dpTra^ei
TO ka-irapfxivov Iv -ry KapSia avTOv and Lk aipet tov Xoyov oltto Trj<;
KapStttS auTwv ... ... ... ... ... (3 /^) or (2)

Mk iv. 21 : [Mt. v. 15]: Lk viii. 16.

The Saying in Mt. and Lk is fuller in that it describes the efea of
placing the lamp upon a stand. (Cp. also Lk xi. ^;^) ... (3a)

Mk iv. 22: [Mt. x. 26]: Lk viii. 17. (Cp. also Lk xii. 2.)

For iav fxr] iva and dX\' Lva in Mk, Mt. and Lk have o ov. Again
the verb ytvwo-Kco-^ai is not used in Alk, whereas Mt. has o ov
yvwa-Oija-eTai, and Lk o ov fxr] yvwaOfj ... ... ... (3 ^)

Mk iv. 24(^: [Mt. vii. 2 and vi. 33<^]: [Lk vi. 38 and 31^^].

Composite Saying wanting in both the parallels to Mk in this
context ... ... ... ... ... ••• ... (i)

Alk iv. 31, 32 : Alt. xiii. 32 : [Lk xiii. 19].

Here the form of the Saying in Alk and Lk differs and Mt.
combines both ... ... ... ... ... ••. (3a)

«• Alk iv. 35, 36 : Mt. viii. 18, 23 : Lk viii. 22 — 25.

Peculiar to Alk we have ev kK^ivrj rrj ijfJ-epa 6i//tas yevo/xevr]?...
Trapa\afi.j3a.vovaLV avrov cos rjv iv T(S ttXolw, /cat aAA.a TrAota rjv p-vr avTov.
Mt. {v. 23) and Lk {v. 22) have c^a/Satveiv ... ... ... (i)

Alk iv. 37 — 41 : Alt. viii. 24 — 27 : Lk viii. 23 — 25.

For eyetpouo-iv koX Xeyova-iv (Alk V. 38), Mt. {v. 25) has irpocrekOovTes
rjycipav and Lk (v. 24) Trpoo-eX^dvTes Str^'yeipav. For IXfyov (Alk V. 41),
Alt. {v. 27) and Lk {v. 25) have iOavp.aaav XeyovTes, and also v-n-aKOV-
ova-iv in place of viraKoveu Mt. and Lk have nothing corresponding
to ^v iv TT] irpvp-vrj iirl to 7rpoo-/<e<^aXatov (ALk V. 38), or cnurrra, 7re(j)ip.(j}cro

14 2

212 Differences from St Mark

(Mk V. 39). All these differences, in spite of their number, may
be due to (2), though possibly some of them should be referred
to (i).

Mk V. 27 : Mt. ix. 20 : Lk viii. 44.

For k\Bov(ra. iv tw o;(X(£) oTTicrdcv rjij/aTO tov Ifiartov, Mt. and Lk
have "irpocTeXdovaa oirLcrOev ■^ij/aTO tov KpacnrcSov tov l/jiaTiov

(3^^) or (4)

Mk V. 41, 42 : Mt. ix. 25 : Lk viii. 54, 55.

The Aramaic words in Mk are not given in either Mt. or Lk, nor
the words Kttl 7r€p I cTTttTct ... ... ... ... ... (2)

Mk vi, 3 : Mt. xiii. 55 : [Lk iv. 22].

Mk has 6 tcktwi/, Mt. 6 tov t€ktovo<; vid?, Lk vio? 'l(jicn](f> (l)

Mk vi. 6l>: Mt. ix. 35 : Lk viii. i.

Again, as at Mk i. 39 and parallels a description of a missionary
tour, and again, while Mk has merely SiSaV/cwv, Mt. adds koI K-qpva-croiv

TO cvayye'Aiov T. /3acriAetas while Lk has KrjpvacTwv koI evayyeXi^o^ei-os
Tr]v [ia(Tik(.iav TOV de.ov ... ... ... ... ... (3^)

Mk vi. 7 — 13 : Mt. x. iff.: Lk ix. i — 6.

With the Marcan account of an Address to the disciples, Mt. has
here combined a similar one in the Logian document. The latter
has been given separately by Lk (x. i — 16), but he appears also to
have been influenced by it in some touches in ix. i — 6, where in the
main he follows Mk.

Note the charge to "preach the kingdom of heaven" (or "of
God") in Mt. v. 7, and Lk v. 2 and x. 9. (In Mk z;. 12 it is stated
that they "preached that men should repent.") In both Mt. v. i
and Lk v. i the Twelve are commissioned to heal diseases. Cp.
Lk X. 9. In Mk only exorcism is referred to.

Again for p.r] xaX/<di/ (Mk v. 8) we have in Lk ix. 3 /a-^tc apyvpiov,
in Mt. fxr]Z\ apyvpov ixrjSe ^aXKov. Again with OTTOV eav (.Lcrikdi]T€ ets
oiKLav (Mk V. 10), cp. £t? yjv 8' av ttoXlv — €laek6r}Te...€la-€px6iJievOL Se
€ts Tijv OLKiav (Mt. V7'. II, 12), and €t? y]v av oiKtav el<T€\Or]T€ (Lk V. 4),
and €ts yjv 8' av elaekdrjTe oiKtW (Lk X. 5).

Again with koI os av tottos p-rj Se^rjTai v/xa5. ..eKTropcvo'/xevoi iKCiOcv
CKTtva^are tov Xo^''---(^lk Z'. Il), Cp. Koi 09 av p.r] Se^ijTai vyu,as...
i^ep)(6fjL€V0L t^ui Trj^ otKtas t] Trj<; ttoAcws CKCtvi^S tKTtva^aTC tov
KOViopTdv...(Mt. V. 14), and Kal octol av fxrj Se^wvTat T'/aS? e^ep^d-

fJL€V0L OLTTO Trj? TToXcO)? iK€LVr]<; KOL TOV KO V 10 pTO V . . . d7rOTlVttCrO"£TC. . .

(Lk V. 5), and also Lk x. lo, ii ... ... ... ... (^a)

There is nothing in Lk (or Mt.) to correspond to i^Act^ov eXatu)
TToXXovs dppwo-Tovs in Mk (z/. 13) ... ... ... ... (i)

conwion to the First and Third Gospels 213

Mk vi. 14: Mt. xiv. I : Lk ix. 7.

Herod is described in Mk here and at v. 22, as 6 ySao-iXcvs, and
in both Mt. and Lk as 6 T€Tpaa.pxr]<s ... ... ... (2)

Mk vi. 31 — 34: Mt. xiv. 13, 14: Lk ix. 10, 11.

The Saying of Jesus, and the explanation of the need for retire-
ment in Mk V. 2,1 are wanting in Mt. and Lk. In place of ciTr^^X^ov
(Mk V. 32), Mt. has avcxf^prjaev and Lk vw^x'^PW^^- Both Mt. and
Lk have 01 oyXoi rjKoXovOiqa-av avTi2 in place of the greater part of the
description in Mk v. 33. The words on rjaav ws TrpofSara, etc. in
Mk 34 /; are wanting in both Mt. and Lk, though the former has
them in a different context (ix. 36). On the other hand there is no
statement in Mk that Jesus healed the sick, as there is in Mt. and
Lk ... ... ... ... ... (i), and perhaps partly (2)

Mk vi. 41 : Mt. xiv. 19 : Lk ix. 16.

There is nothing in Mt. and Lk to correspond to the last clause
of the verse in Mk — koI tovs Svo Ix&vas ip-epia-ev TrScrtv ... (i)

Mk vi. 43 : Mt. xiv. 20 : Lk ix. 1 7.

Instead of Mk's KXaa-fiara, Mt. has to Trepicraevov twv KXao-/xaTa)v,
and Lk to Trepio-crcvcrav avTots KXacrfxaTOiv ... ... ... (3 '^)

Mk vi. 44 : Mt. xiv. 21 : Lk ix. 14.

Both Mt. and Lk qualify the number by wo-cl... (2) or (4)

Mk viii. 12 : Mt. xvi. 4: [Lk xi. 29].

Mt. and Lk have Trovrjpd agreeing with ycvea, and d p.r] to (Trjixeiov
'Iwva added at end ; there are also other similarities ... (3 a)

Mk viii. 15 : Mt. xvi. 6 : [Lk xii. i].

Mt. and Lk both have 7rpoa€;(£T€ ... ... ... (3 <^) '

Mk viii. 31 : Mt. xvi. 21 : Lk ix. 22.

In place of fj-era Tpei^ ■qp.ipa.'i avacTTrjvai, Mt. and Lk have rfi
TpCrrj ijfjLipa iyepOrjvai ... ... ... ... ... (S ^)

(Cp. Mk ix. 31 = Mt. xvii. 23 ; Mk x. 34 = Mt. xx. 19 = Lk xviii.
33, though in this last case Lk agrees with Mk.)

Mk viii. 35 : Mt. xvi. 25 : Lk ix. 24.

Kai Tov evayyeXiov not in Mt. and Lk ... ... ... (i)

(Cp. Mk i. 14, 15 = Mt. iv. 17 = Lk iv. 14, 15; Mk x. 29 = Mt.
xix. 29 = Lk xviii. 29,)

Mk viii. 36 : Mt. xvi. 26 : Lk ix. 25.

For to(f>€\ei followed by accusative we have in Mt. and Lk the
nominative and passive ; in the former ti wfjieXijOrja-eTai, in the latter

TL WfjiiXiLTai ... ... ... ... ... ... ... (2)

Mk ix. 3 : Mt. xvii. 2 : Lk ix. 29.

ofa -yvae^cv?, etc. wanting in Mt. and Lk ... (2) or (i)

214 Differences fro7n St Mark

Mk ix. 4 : Mt. xvii. 3 : Lk ix. 30.

Mt. and Lk both begin the sentence with Kal iSou ... (2)

Mk ix. 6, 7 : Mt. xvii. 5, 6 : Lk ix. 34, 35.

Mt. and Lk have very similar transitional clauses (In avrou
\aXovvTO%, Tovra aiirov Acyovros) and both add Xeyovcra after (jiiovrj.

Both refer to the fear of the disciples a little later, the latter
as felt when they entered the bright cloud, the former when they
heard the voice ... ... ... ... ... ... (3<^)

Mk ix. 14 — 16 : Mt. xvii a : Lk ix. 37.

That so much of the description in Mk is not represented in
Mt. or Lk may be chiefly due to (2) ; but the clause kol ypa/x/xaTeis
crw^T/rowTas Trpos auTov? (Mk £». 14/^) to ... ... ... (i)

Mk ix. 18 : Mt. xvii. 16 : Lk ix. 40.

For ovK t<T)(ycrav both Mt. and Lk have ovk TJSvvtjOrjcrav (2)

Mk ix. 19 : Mt. xvii. 17 : Lk ix. 41.

Mt, and Lk both join Kai Siea-Tpafj-ixein] to Mk's aTrio-ros

... ... (4) or (3^)

Mk ix. 20 — 29 : Mt. xvii. 15 (^, 18 — 20 : Lk ix. 42, 43 a.

A large part of the description in Mk, including words of Jesus,
is without parallel in Mt. or Lk ... ... ... (i) or (2)

For concluding saying in Mt., cp. Lk xvii. 6 ... ... (3^)

Mk ix. 30, 31 rt : Mt. xvii. 22 : Lk ix. 43.

Desire for privacy passed over in Mt. and scarcely consistent with
Lk. (Cp. Mk vii. 24) (i)

Mk ix. 31 : Mt. xvii. 22 : Lk ix. 44.

For TTopaStSoTat Mt. and Lk have /xeXAct TrapaSiSoa-Bat

(2) or (3/.)

Mk ix. 34 — 37 : Mt. xviii. i — 5 : Lk ix. 47, 48.

The Saying in Mk ?'. 35, as there placed, affords a clear answer
to the subject of debate among the disciples ; but in spite of this, in
both Mt. and Lk the words which most nearly correspond with this
Saying are placed after the child has been put forward and are intro-
duced as part of the instruction given from this object-lesson. There
is also nothing in the parallel contexts in these Gospels corresponding
to the words koI ttolvtwv 8ia.Kovos, but only in different contexts (Mt.
xxiii. II, Lk xxii. 26) ... ... ... ... ... (i)

efay/caAio-a'/Afvos is wanting in Mt. and Lk (cp. Mk x. 16) (2)
Mk ix. 41.

The saying os yap ai' 770x10-77, etc. is placed in Mk after os yap ovk
lariv Ktt^' T^'/xwv etc. In Mt. it occurs in the Charge to the disciples
(x. 42) and is wanting in Lk ... ... ... ... (i)

common to the First and Third Gospels 215

Mk ix. 42 : Mt. xviii. 7 : [Lk xvii. i].

Cp. Mt.'s dvayKT7...cpx€Tat, with closely similar words in Lk

(3«)

Mk ix. 48 — 50.

There is nothing to correspond to these Sayings at the end of
the closely parallel passage in Mt. (xviii. 6 — 9). There are parallels
to a portion of one saying {v. 50a) in different contexts at Lk xiv. 34,
Mt. V. \2>^. Mk V. 48 reproduces the language of Isa. Ixvi. 24 (i)

Mk X. 12.

A case not noticed in Mt. or Lk, and one that would be suggested
not by Jewish but by Roman customs ... ... ... (i)

Mk X. 13 — 16: Mt. xix. 13 — 15 : Lk xviii. 15 — 17,

T^yavaKTrjaev (Mk V. 14) and ivayKaXicra.ix€vo<; KarevXoyei (v. 1 6)
are wanting in Mt. and Lk (ayavaxrciv generally has a bad sense)

(2)

Mk X. 17 — 27 : Mt. xix. 16 — 26 : Lk xviii. 18 — 27.

Koi yowTreT>](ra^ wanting in Mt. and Lk ... (2) or (i)

fir] KXixf/rj'? . . . jj-r] dTro(TT€p-i]crr]<; (Mk V. 19): Mt. and Lk have not the

latter (2)

AtSao-KaXe (Mk V. 20) and c/x^Aei/'as avTw riydtrrjuev avrov {l\ 21)

are wanting in Mt. and Lk and instead of o-rryvao-as eVt tw Aoyw

(Mk V. 22) both have a/covo-as (Mt. v. 22, Lk v. 23) ... (2)
Mk V. 24 is (according to the text in BX) little more than

a repetition of v. 23; neither Mt. nor Lk has it (i) or (2)

If read with the addition Tovs TTtTToi^oTas eVi ... ... (i)

For Tpu/iaXias (Mk v. 25) both Mt. and Lk have Tpjf/xaros

■■■■■■ ^ (2), (3^^) or (4)

For 01 hi in Mk v. 26, Mt. has aKouo-avrts Se 01 fxaOrjrai and Lk ot
aKOvcravT€<; ... ... ... ... ... ... ... (2)

Mk X. 29, 30 : Mt. xix. 28, 29 : Lk xviii. 29, 30.

For Mk's cvcK€v Tov ivayycXiov Mt and Lk have other expressions

(I)

For Mk's €KaToi/Ta7rAao-tova both Mt. and Lk have TroAAaTrAao-tova

(2) or (3^)

Mt. and Lk omit the particular enumeration of what shall be
received corresponding to what is given up and the qualifying words

fJi€Ta. Biwy/xwv ... ... ... ... ... ... (2) or (l)

Mk X. 32 : Mt. XX. 17 : Lk xviii. 31.

There is nothing in Mt. and Lk to correspond to the words koI tjv
7rpoaywv...€<^o/3ovvTO in Mk ^'. 32 ... ... ... ... (2)

Mk X. 34 : Mt. XX. 19 : Lk xviii. 33.
(Cp. Mk viii. 31 and parallels above.)

2i6 Differences from St Mark

Mk X. 46 — 52 : Mt. XX. 29 — 34 : Lk xviii. 35 — 43.

Mt. and Lk both omit the name of the beggar. There is
nothing in Mt. to correspond to Mk x. 49 ^, 50 ; and in Lk only
cyyicravTos Se omtov. For 'Fa(3/3ovv€t in Mk x. 51, Mt. z'. ^^ and Lk
V. 41 have Kvpu ... ... ... ... ... ... (2)

Mk xi. 2 : Mt. xxi. 2 : Lk xix. 30.

For Xvaare Koi <f>4p€Te Mt. and Lk have Xvcravre^ dydytre (2)

Mk xi. 3 : Mt. xxi. 3 : Lk xix. 31.

For etTTare Mt. and Lk have ipelre oTt ... ... ... (2)

Mk xi. 4 : Mt. xxi. 6 : Lk xix. 32.

The description that the colt was "tied at a door without in the
open street" is wanting in Mt. and Lk ... ... ... (2)

Mk xi. 6d.

Ktti df^rjKav arrou's is Omitted in Mt. and Lk ... ... (2)

Mk xi. g, 10: Mt. xxi. 9 : Lk xix. 38.

From the cry of praise and triumph as given in Mk, the words
evXoyrjfxevr] tj lp)(op.iv-q ySacriXeia rov Trarpos "^jxutv AavctS are omitted
in Mt. and Lk, but the form in each of these Gospels is in part
peculiar ... ... ... ... ... ... ... (^T^b)

Mk xi. 1 1 b.

According to Mk, Jesus having arrived at the temple and merely
looked round on all things, returned to Bethany with the Twelve,
since it was already late ; from Mt. and Lk on the contrary it would
appear that the cleansing of the temple took place on the day after
the triumphal entry ... ... ... ... ... ... (i)

Mk xi. 16.

Wanting in Mt. and Lk... ... ... ... (2) or (i)

Mk xi. 17: Mt. xxi. 13: Lk xix. 46.

Trao-tv Tot? Wvicnv in Mk, not in Mt. and Lk ... ... (i)

Mk xi. 27 — 33: Mt. xxi. 23 — 27; Lk xx. i — 8.

The chief priests, etc., came to Jesus, according to Mk when He
was ivalking in the temple, but according to Mt. and Lk when He was
teachhig there. Mt. and Lk both omit the words at the end of the
question of the chief priests, etc., as it is given in Mk — Iva. Tama ttoi^s.

Both also introduce the reply of Jesus by diroKpiOd^ and have
Kayw and 01 8c in that reply, and both have kav 8e in the statement
of His opponents' dilemma ... ... (2) or in part (3 /')

Mk xii. 3: Mt. xxi. 35: Lk xx. 10.

The subject 01 yeojpyoi is supplied by both Mt. and Lk

(3/') or (2)

Mk xii. 7, 8: Mt. xxi. 38, 39: Lk xx. 14, 15.

Mt. (v. 38) and Lk {^0. 14) are connected with what precedes

common to the First and Third Gospels 217

in a closely similar manner, the former having iSovtcs tov v\6v,
the latter iSoVres avrov. Further, according to Mk the husband-
men killed him and cast him out ; according to Mt. and Lk
they cast him out and then killed him. (Cp. Wernle, p. 60)

(3^)

Mt. xxi. 44: Lk XX. 18.

The Saying about "he that falleth on that stone," etc. is not
in Mk. There is some doubt even on the ground of existing textual
evidence whether it had a place in the original text of Mt.

(3^) or (4)

Mk xii. 14^, 15: Mt. xxii. 17 — 19 «: Lk xx. 22 — 24a.

8c!>/x€v 77 yJi] Sw/Acv and Iva. iSw are omitted in Mt. and Lk (2)

£7riSct^aT€ (Mt. V. 19), Sei^are (Lk V. 24) for Mk's <f>ep€T€

(2) or (3^)

Mk xii. 22, 23 : Mt. xxii. 27, 28 : Lk xx. ^2, ^^.

For ^(TxaTov both Mt. and Lk have varepov, and both use ovv
in introducing the conclusion of the argument ... ... (2)

Mk xii. 27 : Mt. xxii. 32 : Lk xx. 38.

Mk's concluding ttoXv -n-Xavaa-de is wanting in both Mt. and Lk

(2) or (I)

Mk xii. 28 : Mt. xxii. 35, 36 : Lk x. 25, 26.

Mt. as well as Lk uses the word vo/mikos to denote the scribe ;
both attribute to him the purpose of tempting Jesus ; in both he
addresses Jesus as SiSao-xaAe, and the words iv tw vofxto occur in his
question according to Mt. and in a question put by Jesus to him,
according to Lk ... ... ... ... ... ... (3 «)

Mk xii. 30 : Mt. xxii. 37 : Lk xx. 27.

iv oXrj each time (thrice) in Mt., and three out of four times in
Lk; €^ 6\r)<i each time in Mk. The latter agrees with the lxx., the
former is a literal rendering of the Hebrew ... (3 a) or (3 d)

Mk xii. 37a: Mt. xxii. 45 : Lk xx. 44.

Mt. and Lk both connect with preceding sentence by means of ovi/,
and both use /caXci for Ae'yci ... ... ... ... (2)

Mk xii. 37 /^ and 38 a : ]\It. xxiii. 1,6: Lk xx. 45, 46.

The warning against the Pharisees which is introduced in Mk
with the words "in His teaching, He said," was according to Mt.
addressed to the multitudes and //le disciples, and according to Lk to
the disciples in the hearing of all the people. Further, ^ikCtv is used
by both Mt. and Lk ... ... (3«)or(3^)

The general statement of Mk v. 37 b that "the common people
heard him gladly" has dropped out in Mt. and Lk ... (2)

2i8 Differences from St Mark

Mk xiii. 30, 31 : Mt. xxiv. 34, 35 : Lk xxi. 32, 33.

Mt. and Lk have Iws av for /xe'xpt? ov, and strengthen a negation
by/x'7 (2)

Mk xiv. II ^: Mt. xxvi. 16: Lk xxii. 6.

TTws evKULpw^ TTapaSoi, Mt. (.VKaipiav Iva TrapaSw, Lk evKaipiav tov
Trapahovvai ... ... ... ... ... ... ... (2)

Mk xiv. 30 and 72: Mt. xxvi. 34, 75: Lk xxii. 34, 61.

The words of the warning of Jesus to Peter according to Mk
were irpXv rj 8U aXiKTopa (^wfi^crat, . . . 8is is omitted in both Mt. and Lk

Mk xiv. 36 : Mt. xxvi. 39: Lk xxvi. 42.

The Aramaic 'A)8/3a is omitted in Mt. and Lk and for 6 Tra-ny'p
used as vocative, both have irdrep ; in the last clause of the sentence
both use TrATy'i/ instead of aAAa ... ... ... ... (3^)

Mk xiv. 37: Mt. xxvi. 40: Lk xxii. 45.

Mt. and Lk both introduce the words Trpos ror? fia9r]Td<; (2)

Mk xiv. 43: Mt. xxvi. 47: Lk xxii. 47.

For evOvs TrapayiVerai 'lovSa<s...Kal fji.iT avTov 6^(Xos, Mt. has iSov
'IovSa<;...-^\d€v, etc., while Lk has l8ov 6\\os, kol 6 Xeyd/i-ci'os Iov8as

(2)

Mt. xxvi. 50 a: Lk xxii. 48.

Mt. and Lk both add some words of Jesus to Judas, though
different ones ... ... ... ... ... ... (3^^)

Mk xiv. 51, 52.

The young man who followed with a linen cloth about his body, etc.
This incident is wanting in Mt. and Lk ... ... ... (2)

Mk xiv. 61 : Mt. xxvi. 63 : Lk xxii. 67 a and joa.

Mk has uios tov {vXoyrjrov, Mt. and Lk have ri6? tov Oiov

(i)or(2)

Mk xiv. 62 : Mt. xxvi. 64 : Lk xxii. 69.

Mt. agrees with Mk word for word except that he has aV upTi.
Lk has diro TOV vvv ; but by the substitution of eo-rat for oij/eaOe and
the omission of ipxap-^vov, &c., he has turned the Saying from an
assertion that henceforth the Son of Man would be seen returning
into an assertion that His Session at God's right hand would forth-
with begin. It seems probable that Mt. has here preserved the
original form of Mk. The last reviser of Mk, we may suppose,
omitted dir dpTt because the return of Christ had not immediately
taken place. Luke, on the other hand, uses for dir aprt an equivalent
expression, which he preferred on linguistic grounds, and overcomes
the difficulty of fact by more considerable changes ... (i)

common to the First and Third Gospels 219

Mk xiv. 65^: Mt. xxvi. 68: Lk xxii. 64.

Mt. and Lk both have the question, for an answer to which Jesus
was challenged when blindfolded : rts eo-riv 6 iratcra% ere ;

(4) or (3^)

Mk xiv. 72: Mt. xxvi. 75: Lk xxii. 62.

For Mk's iTTi/SaXwv cKXaiev Mt. and Lk both have iieXOuiv eiw
€KXav(rev Tri/cpw? ... ... ... ... ... ... (4)

Mk XV. 7: Mt. xxvii. 16: Lk xxiii. 19.

ficTtt Twv o-Taa-iaaTojv wanting in Mt. and Lk ... (i) or (2)

Mk XV. 21: Mt. xxvii. 32: Lk xxiii. 26.

Mt. and Lk do not state that Simon of Cyrene was "the father of
Alexander and Rufus " ... ... ... ... ... (2)

Mk XV. 24: Mt. xxvii. 35: Lk xxiii. 34.

The concluding words of the sentence in Mk — ctt' avra rt's tl
aprj — are not in Mt. and Lk ... ... ... (i) or (2)

Mk XV. 25.

The statement that the time when Jesus was crucified was the
third hour appears in Mk only ... ... ... ... (i)

Mk XV. 26: Mt. xxvii. 37: Lk xxiii. 38.

In the title over the Cross, Mt. and Lk both use ovtos, one at the
beginning, the other at the end (3 /;) or (2)

Mk XV. 30: Mt. xxvii. 40: Lk xxiii. 35.

The description of the taunts cast at Jesus is expanded in Mt.
and Lk in a similar way ... ... ... ... ... (3/^)

Mk XV. 39: Mt. xxvii. 54: Lk xxiii. 47.

For K€VTvpLU)V Mt. has €KaT6vTapxo<;, Lk iKaTOVTdpxr]<; ... (2)

Mk XV. 43: Mt. xxvii. 57, 58: Lk xxiii. 50, 52.

In introducing Joseph of Arimathea Mt. has tovvo/au 'Iwo-r^'e^ and
Lk ovofiaTL 'lw(Ty](f). Each also breaks up Mk's sentence, beginning
the new one with ovros, and using Trpoa-eXOwv for elarjXdev Trpos (2)

Mk XV. 44, 45.

Description in Mk only of Pilate's surprise that Jesus was dead

(2)

Mk XV. 46: Mt. xxvii. 59: Lk xxiii. 53.

Mt. and Lk do not refer to Joseph's having bought the linen
sheet ; both also use erervAt^ev instead of Mk's evet'AT^o-ev

(2) or (3^)

CHAPTER IV.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST LUKE.

In discussing the history of the composition of St Mark
we have arrived at the conclusion that our third evangeHst
knew and used an earlier and briefer form of our St Mark,
and we have determined approximately its contents. Further,
in Chapter II. we have ascertained approximately the con-
tents and form of a Logian document in Greek, which either
lay before and was used by our first and third evangelists in
its original form, or had furnished the common foundation
of the documents which they severally used. All this we
may assume in proceeding now to consider the subject of
the composition of St Luke. But it remains for us to in-
vestigate the source or sources of the matter peculiar to
this Gospel, and also the question of the authorship of the
Gospel.

The source or sources of the matter peculiar to St Luke.

Peculiar to the third Gospel we have mainly :

(i) The narrative of the birth and childhood of John the

Baptist and of Jesus and the genealogy of Jesus (Chs. i. and

ii., and iii. 23 — 38) ;

(2) A considerable number of Parables, Sayings and
pieces of discourse, and some narratives, included in Luke's
two principal insertions into the Synoptic outline, where
they are interwoven with matter derived immediately or
ultimately from a document used also in the Gospel according
to St Matthew ;

(3) A much smaller number of pieces of narrative and
of Sayings occurring in Marcan contexts ; namely, inde-
pendent accounts of a visit of Jesus to Nazareth, and of the
call of Peter and the Sons of Zebedee, and the saying " No

Two views as to Lake's peculiar 7j latter 221

man having drunk old wine," etc. (Lk v. 39), in the early
part of Christ's Ministry, before Luke's first insertion, and
several more additions or substitutions of both kinds in the
narrative of the Last Days and of the Passion.

We have to consider whether, or how far, the matter
comprised under these three heads was obtained by our
third evangelist from oral tradition and first put into a written
form by him ; or collected by him from a great variety of
records such as he may be supposed to have in mind in
the preface to his Gospel, but of the general character and
contents of which it is impossible for us to know anything ;
or taken from one or more documents which we can in some
measure identify.

The view that the greater part of the peculiar matter in
St Luke came from a single source is presented to us in two
forms :

(i) B. Weiss maintains^ that besides the "Oldest source"
(to use Weiss' name for the document from w4iich the
Discourses and Sayings common to the first and third
Gospels were derived) and St Mark, Luke had a third docu-
ment which he calls L. Both the "Oldest source" and L,
though occupied most largely with the teaching of Jesus,
contained a number of narratives ; moreover to a certain
extent they overlapped each other and St Mark. In par-
ticular L (but not the "Oldest source") contained an account
of the Passion. These three documents were combined by
Luke ; each supplied much that was found in it alone ; where
there were parallel passages in two, or in all three, our evan-
gelist chose one to follow principally, but added traits from
the other one, or the other two.

(2) Feine'^ holds, like B. Weiss, that Luke had a special
source which began with the narrative of the Infancy and
contained the greater part of the remainder of the matter
indicated above ; but he holds that in this document the
matter from the Logian Source common to the first and

^ Introduction to Netu Test., Eng. trans., 1888, n. 296 f.; Die Quellen d.
Lukas-Evangeliums, 1^1 ■, p. 195 ff. and Die Quellen der Synoptischen Ubcr-
lieferungm Texte u. Untersuch. Bd. 2, Heft 3, 1908.

^ Einc vorkanonische Uberlieferung des Ltikas, 189 1.

2 22 Two views as to Lukes peculiar matter

third Gospels had also been already embedded, so that Luke
himself had only to combine this his special document with
St Mark (though he adds that he was acquainted with the
" Synoptic document " underlying St Mark, and was in some
cases influenced by it, a theory with which we are not here
concerned, and which I think has been disposed of by our
previous enquiries).

It will be convenient, I think, that before proceeding to
the examination of the different portions of the matter
peculiar to St Luke we should consider broadly this con-
ception, common to both the writers above-named, of a single
source for it all.

It would seem most natural that a work which opened
with a narrative of the birth and early years of Jesus should,
after this beginning, give a comprehensive account of His
Ministry and of the earthly ending of His career. And Weiss
in point of fact claims this character for that Special Source
which he supposes Luke to have used, on the ground that in
Luke's peculiar material, besides the preliminary history, all
sides of the public life of Jesus commonly illustrated in
evangelic tradition are represented, and that it includes also
many special features in the history of the Passion. It
remains true, however, that some of those different sides of
Christ's work are very slightly represented there, and that
it would have been impossible to obtain from this matter
a clear impression of the general course and chief scenes
of Christ's Ministry. We shall also find (I believe) that
some of the pieces peculiar to the third Gospel, more
particularly in the closing portion of the narrative, bear
strong marks of having been put into writing by the evan-
gelist himself, not taken from a document ; while in some
cases also, where Weiss assumes that the Marcan account
has been altered by Luke under the influence of a parallel
passage in another written narrative, we have instances simply
of his independent revision of his Marcan document, with
the result on the whole that the reasons for supposing the
use of such a narrative disappear.

Feine recognises more clearly than Weiss the relative
incompleteness that must have characterised a single special

The contents of Lt ike' s first two chapters 22^

source of Luke. But he explains this by supposing that the
writer who composed it knew the Synoptic document, and
in introducing pieces of narrative aimed only at supple-
menting that work. But we have no right to assume that
any writer, even the most unpractised, would be wholly devoid
of a sense of proportion. It may be observed also that the
motive suggested by Peine in the case of this unknown work
did not operate in the composition of the two Gospels known
to us, in which an account of the Birth and Infancy was
supplied. The object of the writers in these cases evidently
was to give, so far as they could, a complete narrative. The
best argument, perhaps, that can be advanced in favour of a
single special source used in St Luke is, that both in the first
two chapters, and in much of the peculiar matter contained
in the two chief insertions, there is a Jewish-Christian tone^
This, however, does not shew that they were taken from the
same work, though it may shew that the several traditions
were transmitted, or that documents containing them were
composed, in the same Christian community, or in similar ones.
We may, then, treat (i) the contents of Lk i. 5 — ii. 52,
and the genealogy in iii. 23 — 38, apart from the remainder
of Luke's peculiar matter. It might well have been put forth
originally in a separate writing which came to the hands of
our third evangelist. It has, also, been held that the whole
is his own composition. This has recently been maintained
by Harnack in his work which has become well-known in
England, Luke tJie physician. He contends that " a Greek
source cannot lie at the foundation of cc. i and 2 of the Luke-
Gospel ; the correspondence between their style and that of
Luke is too great ; it would have been necessary that the
source should have been rewritten sentence by sentence. It
is possible, but not probable, that for the narrative part an
Aramaic source was translated. The Magnificat and the
Benedictns at all events are Luke's compositions." In both
Luke has purposely employed to a large extent the diction
of the LXX. ; but "almost all words in the Magiiificat which
depart from the form of verses of the Old Testament are

^ This is fully shewn by Feine in his comments on successive sections.

224 The contents of Luke' s first two chapters

Luke's special property, that is to say belong to his voca-
bulary." In the Bejiedictiis also, he maintains, the special
Lucan language is quite unmistakable^

Now, with Harnack, I believe, what some critics appear
to deny^, that it should be possible to distinguish between
passages which the author of the third Gospel and the Acts
has wholly composed himself and those in which he has
simply revised the language of a document written in a very
different style from his own ; and later in this chapter a
set of passages will come before us where it is of great
importance in connexion with the question of the authorship
of the Lucan writings to draw this distinction, and where,
with Harnack, I think it can be made good. In the case
of the Magnificat and Benedktns, however, the proof offered
by Harnack does not seem to me to be satisfactory. In one
respect, certainly, these hymns are peculiarly suitable for the
purpose of the test which he seeks to apply to them. Poetical
compositions such as these could hardly have preserved their
musical cadence and other beauties, if they had been sub-
jected to revision by a hand other than that of the author.
There would, therefore, be strong ground for thinking that
they were in their entirety Luke's productions if peculiarities
of his style could be clearly pointed out in them. On ex-
amination, however, we find that, with the possible exception
of z^. 55 in the Magnificat, and in the closely corresponding
verse (70) in the Bcncdictiis — the two verses which might
most easily have been inserted — all the expressions and
words may be illustrated from the LXX., and are such as
any writer who had steeped himself in the language and
thought of the LXX. might have used^ It is true that the

^ Lucas der Arzt, p. 150 ff., Eng. trans, p. ■215 ff.

2 E.g. as to passages in the Gospel, B. Weiss, Die Qiicllen d. Ltikas Evs.
p. 195 ff. See also below, p. 256, n. i.

* On p. 140 ff. (Eng. trans, p. 199 ff.) Harnack places in parallel columns
(a) the text of the Magnificat and the Bcnedictus ; (/') the verses of the LXX.
most closely parallel, out of which, he says, those two psalms were compiled ;
(c) annotations commenting upon expressions characteristic of the Lucan writings.
Several of these expressions do not indeed occur in the LXX. parallels given in
the second column, but are very common in other parts of the LXX., and are
equally illustrative of a desire on the part of the author of the Magnificat and
Benedictits to imitate the diction of the Greek Old Testament.

The contents of Lnkes first two cJiapters 225

influence of the LXX, is noticeable in other parts of the
Lucan writings. But this is only one characteristic of the
Lucan style, and it is one which he ma}' well have shared
with other early Christians and with educated Hellenistic
Jews. While then, it may be allowed that the third evan-
gelist might himself have written the hymns in Luke i. and ii.,
it does not appear that their style is unquestionably distinctive
of him. And in the character of their ^Messianic expectation
there is a strong reason for thinking that they cannot be his.
It would have been difficult even for a Jewish-Christian, and
well-nigh impossible for a Gentile, such as the author of the
Lucan writings probably was, and indeed must have been if
he was Luke, the companion of St Paul, to have placed
himself at, and adhered so consistently to, a point of view
which preceded the Passion and the Resurrection. It is not
reasonable to suppose that in that generation an effort of
historical imagination, such as this would have required,
would have been made, when, moreover, the prevailing view
of prophecy and its fulfilment would have rendered it natural
for some indication to have been given of what had actually
come to pass.

It is more difficult to decide whether the narrative gene-
rally in Lk i. and ii. was composed by the evangelist out of
traditions which he had collected, or was received by him in
a written form. On the whole the latter seems the most
probable on account of the accuracy displayed in regard
to Jewish customs and ideas, and the space devoted to the
history of the infancy of the Baptist, and to tracing its con-
nexion with that of Jesus, matters which would be likely to
attract special interest in Jewish-Christian circles \

But the important question remains : — to what extent has
the original document been edited? It will be generally felt
that the notice of the decree of Augustus has probably been,
at least, amplified by the evangelist. Various other touches
may with more or less probability be attributed to his hand,
which need not be mentioned here. The view, however, that
the source gave no indication of the Miraculous Conception
must be briefly considered. The mention, it is held, of " the

1 Cp. Feine, ib. pp. 13—33.
S. G. II. 15

226 The contents of Lnke's first two cJiapters

parents" (ii. 27, 41, 43) of Jesus and of "his father" and "his
niother" (ii. 33, 48), and the description of "their astonish-
ment at the extraordinary destiny predicted for their child "
(ii. 33) shew that the evangehst is here working up material
into which the idea of the supernatural birth had not yet
penetrated^ It is pointed out also that stress is laid at ii. 4,
and by the genealog}^ (iii. 23 ff.), on the Davidic descent of
Joseph, while nothing is said as to Mary's being of Davnd's
house and that her cousinship to Elizabeth indicates rather
that she belonged to that of Aaron.

I am directly concerned here only with the theory that
the Miraculous Conception has been introduced through the
revision of the original narrative. It does not appear to me
that this can be worked out in an intelligible manner so as
to accord with the literary phenomena as a whole. It is
true that the Miraculous Conception is expressly referred to
only in i. 34, 35. But no simple expedient, such as that of
treating these verses as an interpolation, would meet the
case. Throughout these two chapters there is a carefully
constructed parallelism between the birth and infancy and
early years of the Baptist and of Jesus. The angelic pre-
diction of the birth of Jesus (i. 34, 35) corresponds with that
of John (i. 8 ff.); the prophecies on the occasion of the Pre-
sentation of Jesus in the Temple (ii. 22 ff.) correspond with
those at the circumcision of John (i. 59 ff) and so forth.
Thus the Miraculous Conception seems to be a necessary
stone in the structure ; it is hard to see what could have
stood in the place of it. The birth of John was out of the
ordinary course of nature, and the whole purport of the
narrative seems to require that the birth of the Messiah
should be more wonderful still.

As regards the alleged traces of an older representation
of the facts, which I have referred to above, it may, I think,
fairly be said that the astonishment of Joseph and Mary at
the predictions of Simeon and Anna might have been pour-
trayed by a writer who did not reflect that there was an)^thing
inconsistent between it and the knowledge of the mystery of
the Incarnation ; also that the claim of Jesus to be of the
^ II. J. Holtzmann, //and-Coin. on Lk ii. t,t,.

The contents of the two chief insertions 227

family of David may have been understood to rest on His
adoption by Joseph, and that He is spoken of as the son of
the latter, because He passed for tiiis among men. I am
well aware that these explanations must labour under the
suspicion of being devised to support an orthodox conclusion,
even though the immediate question is simply that of the
integrity of a document. But it should be remembered that
some explanation of the kind must in any case be required
in order to account for the fact that the evangelist, after
recording the Miraculous Conception, has afterwards brought
himself to write down those* expressions which are thought
to be incompatible with belief in it.

(2) I pass to the matter peculiar to Luke which is
included in his two chief insertions. It may be well that
I should refer first to Wendt's view that the greater part of
this matter was actually contained in the Logian document
used by both the first and third evangelists. Now it is
conceivable that a few of the pieces which Luke alone gives
may have come from the common source and that their
absence from St Matthew is to be accounted for by the
fact that equivalent matter is related in that Gospel. For
instance if Lk xii. 35 — 38 (" Let your loins be girded
about" etc.) was contained in it, our first evangelist might
have passed it over on the ground that in the parable of the
Ten Virgins, which he proposed to give, the same idea is
more fully worked out. He may also have left out some
Sayings by oversight, or because they did not fit conveniently
into his plan. But it is impossible that he should inadver-
tently have omitted so much of the Lord's Teaching which
actually lay before him ; and no plausible reasons can for the
most part be given for his having done it intentionally. We
may conclude therefore that the matter in question was not
contained in the common Greek Logian source, and that
either {a) our third evangelist himself collected it, and com-
bined it with that derived from this source and from his
Marcan document ; or {U) it had been already combined with
the common Greek Logian source in the document used by
our evangelist.

The latter alternative is adopted by Weizsacker in his

15—2

2 28 The contents of the two chief insertions

memorable Untersuchiingen ilber die evangeliscJu Geschichte
(p. 205 fif.) ; and Peine, as we have seen, is on the same side\
It is the view of the principal source of the Logian matter
in St Luke which will be maintained in the following pages.

I would direct attention first to the many close con-
nexions between successive paragraphs in this portion of
St Luke; e.g. "as He spake" (xi. 37); "meanwhile" (xii. i).
There are other instances at xi. 27, 53 ; xii. 13 ; xiii. 1,31;
xvi. 14. Now it should be observed that in parallels with
St Mark, our third evangelist is careful not to create con-
nexions in time which he did -not find in his source. He
does not take the juxtaposition of narratives to imply
immediate sequence in time as our first evangelist often
does^. On the contrary, three times at least he has employed
phrases which seem expressly designed to shew that this is
7iot to be inferred. (Cp. Mk ii. i with Lk v. 17 ; Mk iii. i
with Lk vi. 6; jMk iii. 13 with Lk vi. 12I) Further, where
he has introduced sections into the Marcan context, or
changed the order, he has generally* been careful to refrain
from suggesting a close temporal connexion. Plainly none
is indicated at v. i and 12. Again, the insertions at iv. 16
and V. I follow references to periods of activity not to par-
ticular events ; while the Crossing of the lake at Lk viii.
22 ff., which does not as in St Mark immediately follow the
Teaching by parables, is said to have happened " on one of
the days." From Luke's procedure in regard to his Marcan
document in this respect we may surely learn how he would

1 See above, p. -222. So also Soltau, Unsere Evattgclien, p. 47, etc. He de-
notes the expanded Logian collection used in the third Gospel by the letters A B.

' See p. 53 U)-

2 Mk ii. 13 and Lk v. 27 might, I think, be added to these ; but some may
be of opinion that /Ltera raura here in Lk is not less ambiguous than Mk's iroKiv.

I may take this opportunity of observing that if 5evT€po-TrpuT(j) at Lk vi. i is
genuine, a description so unusual, and to us unintelligible, and so precise must
have been due to some tradition; but probably in fact the reading is corrupt.

■• The only clear exception, so far as I am aware, is that by the statement at
Lk iv. 31, that Jesus "came down to Capernaum"' after His rejection at Nazareth,
and by then relating according to the order in St Mark incidents of the opening
of the Ministry of Jesus in Capernaum, His visit to Nazareth is brought before
these. I think there may also have been some dislocation, in spite of a close
sequence in one of his sources, near the point where, soon after the end of his
second chief insertion, he rejoins the Synoptic outline. See below, p. 238.

The contents of the two chief insertions 229

be likely to treat another document. It is, therefore, probable
that the expressions, of which (as we have seen) there are
many in his longest insertion into the Synoptic outline,
closely connecting the times when pieces of instruction were
given, were found by the evangelist in his source, not invented
by him. And as considerable masses of matter are thus con-
nected the presumption is raised that in the main this portion
of his Gospel has been taken from the same source ; for of
course the mere absence of close connexions in the case of
other passages does not of itself prove that they did not stand
in the source as they do in our Gospel.

Whether these more loosely connected pieces are severally
to be regarded as additions by the evangelist, or not, must
depend upon an examination in detail of their style and
subject-matter. In the story of the sinful woman in the
house of Simon the Pharisee (vii. 36 — 50), the short piece
about the women who ministered to Jesus (viii. i — 3) and
the parable of the Good Samaritan (x. 29 — ^^j) the Lucan
form of the sentences and vocabulary are so strongly marked
that here, one feels, the evangelist must be telling the story
in his own words. The same holds (though perhaps some-
what less clearly) of the account of the Ten Lepers (xvii.
II — 19). I doubt whether there are any others in the two
chief insertions which should be classed with these^

What has been said above as to links of time does not
affect the question whether other touches in the introductions
to pieces of instruction may not proceed from the hand of
the evangelist. When, for instance, some precepts are said
to have been spoken to the multitude^ others to the dis-
ciples^, others to the Pharisees"*, it is possible that the evan-
gelist may himself have conjectured the persons addressed
from the nature of the subject-matter. Other instances might
be given in which he may not improbably have turned to
account hints in his source, or have used his own imagina-
tion. In particular, we ought no doubt to attribute to him
some at least of the allusions to the journeyings of Jesus and
His disciples. In the first insertion we have a reference of

^ See the Additional Note, p. 276 ff., esp. pp. 298 — 9, 300, 304 f.

* xii. 54; xiv. 25. ^ xii. i, 22; xvi. i ; xvii. i. ■* xiv. 3; xv. 2, 3.

230 The contents of the two chief msertions

this kind at viii. i, and there is a series of them in the second,
greater insertion at ix. 51, 57; x. 38; xiii. 22; xiv. 25; xvii. ii.
By this device he was able without greatly altering the sub-
stance and arrangement of his document, consisting (as it
did) mainly of Sayings and Discourses, to transform it into
a narrative of travel, and so to fit it for inclusion in a work
of history. The allusions to changes of place could be, and
in all probability were, introduced at points where there was
in the source a convenient break in the sense, so that it
was natural to suppose that the Teaching which followed was
spoken on a different occasion and in different surroundings
from that which preceded. And doubtless this manner of
presenting the subject-matter commended itself to him as
the true one. Jesus had, according to the testimony of his
Marcan document, spent much time in journeying from
place to place. And the Collection of Discourses lent itself
to this mode of treatment, inasmuch as its warnings of suffer-
ings and prophecies of the End of the Age, which were no
doubt uttered in the latter part of Christ's Ministry, stood
in the document after the Teaching of wider application.

As regards the connexion of thought between successive
sections, it is in some instances clear. (See especially xii. 13
— 15, 16 — 21, 22 ff.) In others it is difficult to say whether
a connexion is intended; and if this is assumed, then what
precisely the connexion of ideas is. (E.g. xvii. i — 4, 5, 6,
7 — 10.) But there are also passages in which individual
Sayings appear to have been grouped together because they
all bore upon a particular subject, though they do not give a
connected view of the subject, and were probably not spoken
on the same occasion. (E.g. see the Sayings on light, xi. "i^i —
36, discussed above, p. 91 ; and those on the use of wealth,
xvi. 10 — 13, added after the special moral of the parable of
the Unjust Steward.) In the arrangement in these different
cases we may see the hand of a compiler, but that compiler
might almost equally well be either our evangelist himself, or
someone whose work he is using. We will not, therefore,
dwell any longer upon them here.

I pass to certain well-known and interesting features of
Luke's peculiar matter. And first, it includes several parables,

The parables pectdiar to the third Gospel 231

and these parables have a character of their own. They differ
in subject alike from those which Luke has in common with
both the other Synoptics, or with St IMatthew, and from those
peculiar to the latter. The theme of all these is the Kingdom
of God, the manner of its progress, the attitude of various
classes of men to it, the day of its final triumph. On the
contrary the parables peculiar to the third Gospel contain
strictly speaking no reference to the Kingdom of God. In
most of them this is plain ; they teach moral and spiritual
lessons, applicable under all circumstances. In two of them,
indeed, viz. the Barren Fig-tree and the Importunate Widow,
the certainty of a righteous judgment to come is insisted
on ; but the future event is not connected with the specific
conception of the Kingdom of God which we find elsewhere
in the Gospels, and the main consideration in each case is
the practical inference to be drawn by individuals from the
expectation.

Again, the parables peculiar to St Luke differ from the
others in regard to their form and imagery. \\'ith one ex-
ception— that of the Barren Fig-tree — they do not bring
before us Nature, or Man in his relations with Nature, as so
many of the others do. They are concerned with human
emotions and motives, inner debatings and actions, which
are vividly described ; they are in fact sliort tales of human
life. Even in the exception to which I have alluded, the
conversation of the proprietor and the gardener forms a
large and significant part of the parable. Once more, no
subsequent, separate interpretation could be required, or
asked for, in the case of these parables. They bear their
moral on the face of them, and in several instances it is
driven home by an emphatic saying at the conclusion.

Different kinds of parables spoken by Christ, as well as
different parts of His Teaching more generally, may have had
a special interest and attraction for particular individuals or
portions of the Church, and so may have been separately
collected and preserved. But it is also not unlikely, as I
have had occasion to observe in my last chapter, that there
may have been a tendency on the part of some who rendered
parables from the Aramaic, or repeated them orally, or com-

232 Alleged traces of Ebionism in St Litke

mitted them to writing, to work out more fully the original
idea. To one or other of these causes, or partly to one and
partly to another, the fact that the parables peculiar to the
third Gospel are of a special type must be attributed. But
the question remains whether the selection, or moulding, was
due to the evangelist himself, or was connected with an
earlier stage in the history of their transmission.

It has been held by some that the evangelist's powers of
description and delicate perception of various traits of human
character are to be seen in these parables. The idea is
attractive in some respects ; but the characteristics of the
Lucan style are with one exception, that of the Good Sama-
ritan, to which reference has already been made, not specially
noticeable in them. And the difference of style in the rest
is the more noteworthy by contrast, and renders it probable
that the evangelist has derived them from a document.

We have still to consider certain points in regard to the
ethical temper alike of the parables and of other parts of the
matter peculiar to St Luke. The place occupied therein by
Teaching on the subject of poverty and riches, and the tone
and character of that Teaching, have frequeutly been com-
mented on. We have already had occasion to discuss the
special form of the Beatitudes in St Luke, which refer to the
external condition of poverty. Again, in the denunciation
of the Pharisees, much of which at all events was derived
from the common Logian source, Luke has a Saying, not
found elsewhere, on purification through almsgiving (xi. 41).
Yet again, in a passage which has for the most part an ex-
ceedingly close parallel in St Matthew, we have a portion of a
Saying peculiar to St Luke in which Jesus bids His disciples
sell their worldly possessions and give the money so obtained
in alms, and so (this seems to be implied) win heavenly
treasure (Lk xii. 33 a). Once more, in a passage on the doom
which was about to fall on Jerusalem, most of which seems
to have been known to the first evangelist and to have been
worked up also in the eschatological discourse in St Mark,
a special application is made in St Luke of the thought that
there may be an unwise attachment to the things of this world
(xvii. 31 — 33). We have besides, in independent contexts,

Alleged traces of Ebionisni in St Luke 233

a Saying enjoining renunciation of worldly goods (xiv. 33);
an exhortation to entertain the poor (xiv. 12 — 14) ; the
parable of the Unjust Steward, with the Sayings on the
employment of wealth which follow it (xvi. i — 13); the
warning against covetousness and the parable of the Rich
Fool (xii. 13 — 21); the first portion of the parable of the
Rich man and Lazarus (xvi. 19 — 26).

We shall do well, I think, to refrain from applying the
term " Ebionism " to this teaching, even as a brief descrip-
tion, between inverted commas. To do so may well be
extremely misleading, in view of our ignorance as to what
was precisely the Ebionite conception of the religious value
of poverty, or how far different beliefs supposed to be
Ebionite were commonly associated in the same minds.

For the purpose of carefully examining and estimating
the significance of the Teaching now before us we may arrange
it according to its subject-matter as follows. In addition to
id) the Beatitudes in Lk vi. 20 ff., the peculiar form of which
we have had occasion to consider in an earlier chapter, we
have {b) vijiuictions to renounce zuorldly possessions (xii. 33, 34;
^iv- 33)- (^) exhortations of a less drastic kind to almsgiving
(xi. 41; xiv. 12 — 14; xvi. I — 13): {d) warnings against
covetousness and indifference to the needs of others (xii. 13 — 21 ;
xvi. 19 — 26).

I have urged that the form of the Beatitudes in St Luke
is probably closer to the original than that in St Matthew,
and that, if taken in connexion with the circumstances in
which they were spoken, they are neither morally unsound
nor inconsistent with the spirit of Christy and I believe this
to be true also of the remainder of the Teaching now before
us. The injunctions to part altogether with worldly posses-
sions were spoken to disciples, or those who contemplated
becoming disciples, of Jesus. They are strictly parallel to the
concluding words addressed to the rich man in the incident
related in all the Synoptics (Mk x. 17 — 21; Mt. xix. 16 — 21;
Lk xviii. 18 — 21).

The modern Western mind finds it peculiarly hard to
admit the reasonableness of a voluntary poverty, and is

^ See above, p. io6 ff.

2 34 Alleged traces of Ebionisin in St Lttke

consequently disposed to resist the idea that these Sayings
in their literal sense can be part of the Teaching of Jesus.
I will make one or two remarks on this point later on. But
the difficulty of appreciating aright the Sayings in question
may be increased from our not entering readily into the
associations which the word " disciples " had. For us the
calling to be disciples of Jesus appears to be inseparable
from that of being members of a world-wide society. But,
in the days of which the Gospels speak, discipleship to Jesus
suggested a comparison with discipleship to other Masters,
each of whom had his little body of adherents. Jesus placed
before those who offered to become His disciples, how much
more would be required of them in the way of the sacrifice
of other interests than was demanded by other teachers. It
was through the men who were prepared to m.ake this
sacrifice that the Christian faith and law won their place
among mankind. And doubtless He could but desire to
have man}- such disciples ; the greater the number of them,
the better must it have been for the progress of His work.
But it must not be inferred that in the view of Jesus the
multitudes who were not fitted to become His disciples were
excluded thereby from all participation in the blessings of
the Kingdom of God.

I pass to the Sayings and the Parables relating to alms-
giving more generally.

The insistence on the duty of almsgiving was character-
istic of Jewish teaching ; the one new point, perhaps, is the
thought that almsgiving is the true means of sanctifying food
and purifying the utensils employed in connexion therewith,
and the contrast with the Pharisaic ceremonial ablutions that
is herein implied (xi. 41). The prospect of obtaining heavenly
treasure in place of the earthly that is bestowed on the poor
is, it will be observed, employed as a motive. The fact that
we meet with this Teaching in a Gospel by one who has left
us another book, more than half of which is occupied with
the labours of St Paul and with doing him honour, should
help us to see it in a right light. This Christian, who could
dwell with so much sympathy upon the career of St Paul,
was not frightened by the idea that men might be encouraged

Alleged traces of Ebionisin in St Luke 235

to perform good works here by the hope of a reward here-
after. And indeed it is probable that St Paul himself would
not have been so. For how, we may well ask, does the
Teaching in question differ from the principle which the
Apostle himself applies to almsgiving : " he that soweth
sparingly shall reap also sparingly and he that soweth
bountifully shall reap also bountifully^" There appears then
to be no good ground for thinking that there is anything
necessarily sectarian in the Sa}'ings above referred to.

In the parable of the Rich Fool there is nothing that
need detain us, and there ought not to be, as it seems to
me, in that of Lazarus and Dives, where the principal lesson
is essentially the same. It has been said, however, by not
a {q.\v who, to say plainly what I think, ought to have more
perception both literary and moral, that in this parable the
rich is condemned solely because he is rich and the beggar
blessed hereafter solely because of the miseries he has en-
dured here. Evidently the parable does not say this in so
many words ; is there any reason for holding that it is
implied ? Surely the selfish absorption of the rich man in
his own pleasure, and his indifference to misery that lay so
near at hand, could not be more vividly pourtrayed ; and
what sins could be more heinous } For these he is con-
demned. And the warning as to what such an one has to
expect is enforced by a forecast of one of those great reversals
in human lots which the future has in store. We are not
told that Lazarus had been a saint when on earth ; we are
shewn him then as the rich man saw him ; the rich man
afterwards awakes to the fact which he might have realised
all along, that the beggar is a "son of Abraham," or, as we
Christians might rather say, a child of the heavenly Father and
a brother of Jesus Christ. No doubt if the parable had been
addressed to a congregation of beggars, there were warnings
suited to their own case which should have been added ; but
for the rich, and for the multitudes of ordinary men who,
though not rich, were striving to be so, or who at least had
formed an altogether false estimate of the value of riches,
it contained nothing but salutary instruction. And if the
^ 2 Cor. ix. 6. Cp. also Gal. vi. 6, 7.

236 Alleged traces of Ebionism in St Luke

explanations and saving clauses had been added which would
have prevented it from ofifering any points of vantage for the
strictures of prosaic minds, or minds possessed by the dogmatic
standards of later times, among modern critics, it would have
lost much of its perfection of form and its impressiveness.

There is then no good ground for thinking that any of
this Teaching on the subject of poverty and riches which we
have been considering was wrongly attributed to Jesus. At
the same time the fact that it has been recorded where it is,
and not elsewhere, is clearly significant and deserves our
careful attention. The idea that the evangelist himself col-
lected it cannot be at once dismissed. It was congenial to
him, as is evident from the manner in which he dwells in
the Acts upon the readiness displayed among the early
believers at Jerusalem in parting with their worldly goods
and bestowing them upon those who were in need^ Indeed
voluntary poverty at that day attracted the interest and
sympathy even of heathen philosophers and persons of
culture, though no doubt it continued in most cases to be
merely a sentiment. It is evident that Josephus expected
to awaken the admiration of his Gentile readers by his
account of the Essenes^ as an instance of the practical reali-
sation among the Jews of a recognised ideal.

Nevertheless, it would be specially natural that theTeaching
in the third Gospel which we are now considering should
have been preserved among Jewish, and more particularly
Palestinian, Christians. It was in harmony with the ideas
in which they had been bred before they became Christians.
Moreover, the consolations it afforded would be cherished
among them owing to the poverty of the believers in Judaea,
in regard to which there is not a little evidence. This view
is confirmed by the language of the Epistle of St James, which
(whether it was by James, the head of the Church in Jeru-
salem, or not) is no doubt Palestinian. It is also easiest to
suppose that, if the Teaching in question was peculiarly
treasured in Palestine it was also committed to writing there,
and that in this way it reached the evangelist. We should
have expected that, if he had himself collected it, there

1 Acts ii. 44, 45; iv. 32—37. - A)U. xviii. i. § 18 ff.; B. /. II. 8. § 119 ff.

Compassion for the lost of Israel 237

would have been more signs of his own hand in it, and that
it would have been more largely intermingled with Teaching
of other kinds. Thus, taken in conjunction with the marks
of close connexion between paragraphs^ which are specially
noticeable in some of the parts of Luke's greater insertion in
which this Teaching is contained, the character of this
Teaching may be most reasonably viewed as an indication
that the evangelist derived it from a document, while it
indicates Palestine as the birthplace of that document.

But the Parables, Sayings and incidents^ which illustrate
the compassion of Jesus for publicans and sinners, are a
feature of the peculiar matter in the third Gospel no less
marked than the Teaching on the subject of poverty and
wealth. Can we suppose the evangelist to have derived
them from the same source? If to any minds there seems
to be a difficulty in doing so, I think it is due partly to an
idea of the spirit of the Jewish Christians, for which there is
no good ground ; partly to its not having been noticed that
in the Teaching and the narratives now in question the
primary reference is strictly to fallen members of the race
with whom God had made a special covenant, and that stress
is laid upon this fact as a reason for seeking to restore them.
Even the Judaizers with whom St Paul came into conflict
could hardly have urged any theoretical objection against
this, though we should imagine that it was not a work which
would have attracted their sympathy to any great degree.
But we can well believe that to the early Jewish-Christian
community generally, however prejudiced they may have
been against the admission of Gentiles without circumcision,
however disinclined to consort even with Samaritans when
converted to the new faith, the recovery of " the lost sheep
of the house of Israel" was a dearly cherished object. And
this would be in keeping, rather than the reverse, with their
poverty and mutual charity, and with the opposition to the
Pharisees which there is also reason to attribute to them.

1 See above, p. 228.

^ Of peculiar incidents there are two, the Anointing of the feet of Jesus by a
sinful woman in the house of Simon the Pharisee (vii. 36 — 50), and the story of
Zacchaeus (xix. i — ro). The latter of these falls outside the limits of the second
chief insertion, but it is convenient to allude to it in the present connexion.

238 The rest of the peculiar matter in St Liike

(3) It remains only that before summing up as to Luke's
sources, I should touch briefly upon the pieces lying outside
the two principal insertions. The account of the Visit to
Nazareth (iv. 16 — 30) is largely taken up with an address
on the unbelief of its inhabitants, which would have found
a suitable place in the Collection of Discourses elsewhere
used by the evangelist. The narrative with which it was
connected may there have been slighter, some points having
been supplied by Luke from the Marcan parallel. The
account of the miracle of the Draught of fishes and the
Call of the first disciples (v. i — ii) was probably supplied
by Luke himself from tradition \

Turning now to the closing part of the history, we have
the account of Zacchaeus (xix. i — 10) occurring a little after
the end of the second chief insertion. This story has already
come before us as one of the passages peculiar to St Luke
which illustrate the attitude of Jesus to publicans and sinners;
but I must now refer to it again for another reason.

There appears to have been some disturbance of the
original order of the sections here, where the end of the
Logian document is woven into the Synoptic outline. The
parable of the Minae and the words by which it is introduced
at ^. II do not fit naturally with the story of Zacchaeus and
the Saying with which it is concluded ; whereas they would
follow suitably after the passage (xviii. 31 — 34) which precedes
the account of the entry into Jericho. And on the other hand,
the story of Zacchaeus might well have stood after the
parable of the Pharisee and the Publican, and might have
been transferred to its present place either from some asso-
ciation of Zacchaeus with Jericho in tradition, or perception
of the fitness of connecting him with that place of commerce.

It is noteworthy also, that in the section on the Request
of the sons of Zebedee, most of which is omitted by Luke,
but which in St Mark immediately precedes the entry into
Jericho, there is one passage to which there is a parallel in
Luke's account of the Last Supper. He derived, I believe,
the discourse-matter (xxii. 24 — 38) or much of it, which he

^ See Additional Note, p. ■296 f.

Conclusions as to the peculiar matter 239

has given us in his narrative of what took place in the Upper
Chamber, from his Logian document ; and it formed a fitting
close to it, in that the prospect was here held out to the
disciples of meeting their Lord again in His Kingdom and
of reigning with Him.

The other pieces peculiar to the third Gospel in the
narrative of the Passion appear to have been additions by the
evangelist himself. In two of the most considerable of them,
the account of Jesus before Herod (xxiii. 5 — 12) and of the
Penitent Thief (xxiii. 39 — 43), the Lucan style is specially
evident^ It seems to me probable that ch. xxiv. also was
the evangelist's own composition-.

It appears, then, as the result of the foregoing investiga-
tion, that for his account of the Ministry of Jesus our third
evangelist used, besides the original (or approximately the
original) Gospel by Mark, one other principal source, namely,
an expanded form of that original Greek Logian document,
the contents of which were ascertained in Chapter II. With
a copy of the latter as a foundation, a good deal of other
matter was embodied, somewhere in Palestine. In Jerusalem
itself there may well have been throughout the latter half of
the first century A.D. a body of Jewish-Christians, returned
Hellenists and others, to whom it was more natural to speak
and write in Greek than in Aramaic, or who were at least
capable of using Greek. And the employment of that lan-
guage would be suggested by the feeling that a writing in
Greek would command wider influence. If Jerusalem did
not supply the required conditions, there were undoubtedly
other cities of Palestine in which they must have existed.

The additional matter may have been derived to some
extent from the Aramaic Collection of Logia, which had not
been fully rendered before. But besides this it comprises
many parables, which corresponded (there is no reason to
doubt) with Aramaic originals, but which had been told orally
and in greater or less degree shaped anew, before they were
committed to writing. Some of the few incidents added may
also have been first current as traditions in the community
where the document was produced.

1 lb. p. 306 ff. '^ lb. p. 308 f.

240 Conclusions as to the peculiar matter

This document has supplied the greater part of the non-
Marcan matter in the Gospel from the beginning of the
Synoptic outline onwards. And it is natural to conjecture that
the peculiarities of the third Gospel, in passages which have
on the whole close parallels, are in some instances due to it^
e.g. part of the preaching of the Baptist (Lk iii. 10 — 14), the
order of the last two temptations in the wilderness (Lk iv.
5 — 12), and a portion of the account of the Centurion's servant
(Lk vii. 4 — 6a and 10). Most of the matter from it has been
given in two portions, Lk vi. 17 — viii. 3 and Lk ix. 51 —
xviii. 14. But just as some of the earlier sections of the
document have been introduced into the Synoptic outline
before the first of these tw'o insertions, so likewise a few have
been given after the second of them.

The evangelist himself has added a {q.\\ passages, gathered
by him probably from oral tradition. In particular the accounts
of incidents in the history of the Passion and Appearance
of the Risen Christ, peculiar to this Gospel, owe (it would
seem) their written form to him. This being so, and as the
rest of the narrative of the Passion, though differing a good
deal from the Marcan in arrangement, may well have been
founded upon it\ there is no reason for thinking that another
document was used.

Our third evangelist had besides a narrative of the Birth
and Infancy of John the Baptist and of Jesus, which was
composed in Palestine, but which was probably a separate
writing, not part of the expanded Logian document.

We have now to inquire who the evangelist was.

TJie Authorship of the Third Gospel.

The belief that the author of this Gospel was Luke, the
companion of St Paul, who is referred to three times in
Epistles of the New Testament, may with great probability
be traced back, at least as far as to the time of Justin Martyr^

1 See pp. 165 f., 288 f.

'^ In a passage {Dial. c. 103) in which he appears clearly to have a statement
of our third Gospel in view, he refers to the records of the life of Christ as "by
the Apostles and those who followed them."

Authorship of the Acts and third Gospel 241

We shall be concerned now with testing this belief, which
we have exceptional opportunities of doing owing to the
circumstance that our third Gospel has a sequel in the New
Testament, professedly by the same writer, which treats of
the history of the Church in the Apostolic Age. More than
half of this writing is occupied with the work and journeys of
St Paul, and the first person plural is used in certain passages
called for convenience the "we "-sections. May we not, then,
suppose that the writer who composed the work as a whole
was himself in the company of St Paul during parts of his
missionary career? This seems a natural inference. But it
is contended that the contents of the book are in part such
as could not have proceeded from a companion of St Paul.
And this must be allowed to be up to the present time the
preponderant critical opinion, at least in Germany, although
a powerful advocate of the Lucan authorship has quite
recently appeared in the person of Harnack^

Two admissions are almost universally made, and a state-
ment of them will clear the ground for the further discussion
of the subject, (i) It is allowed that, as the dedication of
the Acts implies, this work and the third Gospel have the
same author. The evidence of style and vocabulary in pas-
sages like the introductions to the two books, and also in
many places where sources that have been employed have
been revised, leave (it is felt) no doubt of this. (2) It is
not disputed that in the " we "-sections the use of the first
person is to be traced to one who was a companion of
St Paul in some of his travels. The directness and vivid-
ness of the narrative in the contexts in question, which are
generally recognised, are inconsistent with forgery. And,
moreover, it is impossible to think that the " we," if it was
fictitious, would have been introduced only to such a limited
extent and so abruptly. But it is maintained that the author
of the whole work has in these places, and possibly in some
other parts of his account of St Paul, made use of a record
by such a companion, who may most reasonably on the
ground of tradition be supposed to have been Luke, just as

' Liikas der Arzt der Verfasser des dritten Evangeliums iind der Apostel-
geschichte, 1906, Eng. trans. Luke the Physician.

S. G. II. 16

242 Objections to the Lttcan authorship

in his Gospel, and it may be in the Acts, he has used other
sources, as well as information orally given to him.

We must presently inquire whether the phraseology of
the " we "-sections does not point decisively to their having
been written by the author of the Acts and of the third
Gospel himself But we will first examine the grounds of
objection to this identification which seem most to deserv^e
attention. They are found partly in discrepancies between
the account in the Acts of St Paul's life and teaching and
the facts related by him in his own Epistles, as well as the
general view w^iich we there obtain of him ; partly also in
statements in the Acts referring to the same series of events
as the " we "-sections do, but which cannot (it is held), on
account of their intrinsic character, proceed from the com-
panion of St Paul who uses the first person in those sections.

Now it does not seem to have been sufificientl}' considered
that the difficulties of accounting for discrepancies between
the Acts and Pauline Epistles may, if the former work was
written about lOO A.D., the earliest time to which it is referred
by those who deny the Lucan authorship, be as great as, or
greater than, if it was written, say, about A.D. 8o by one who
had been a companion of St Paul. The discrepancies as to
matters of fact relate almost exclusively to portions of the
Apostle's life when the writer of the " we "-sections does not
seem to have been with him. His recollection of what the
Apostle had told him in regard to these times might not have
been clear and accurate in all respects, and there might have
been many facts of which he had never heard him speak. We
may also well believe that he would have had no collection of
St Paul's Epistles at hand, that he may never have seen those
of them which were written when he was not one of his com-
panions, that to procure copies would not have been easy, and
that, considering himself to be sufficiently well-informed for the
purpose he had in view, he would have thought it unnecessary
to do so. On the contrary, it is probable that at the end of the
first, or beginning of the second, century, copies of St Paul's
Epistleswere to be found in the chief Greek-speaking churches^;

^ Polycarp, ad Phil, xni., regarding the Epistles of Ignatius, shews that the
idea of making a collection of the letters of an eminent member of the Church was

of the Acts of the Apostles 243

and a writer at that time, in composing a narrative concerned
largely with St Paul, would be anxious to make use of them,
all the more because he was dependent upon documents for
his information to a greater extent than a former companion
of the Apostle would have been. Such a writer might fail
to enter into St Paul's spirit and to represent rightly his
aims and principles ; but he would avoid contradicting him on
definite points, and he would probably have reproduced some
of his statements more closely than any passages in the Acts do.
It might have been expected, for instance, that such a writer
would have followed the First Epistle to the Thessalonians
in respect to the mission of Timothy to that Church, instead
of describing the course followed by St Paul's companions
when he escaped from Beroea in a way that does not har-
monise therewith \ On the other hand, the memory of a
companion of St Paul, who was writing a good many years
after the events, might well be somewhat vague as to the
movements of other companions of St Paul of which he had
heard only by word of mouth. Again, one who had read
the catalogue which the Apostle gives in 2 Cor. xi of the per-
secutions he had endured would have been likely to make some
use of it, and there are occasions mentioned in the Acts in con-
nexion with which some of them might naturally have been as-
sumed to have happened. But it is evident from the Apostle's
own lan^uaee that he referred with extreme reluctance to
these personal sufferings-, and even one who had been much in
his company might never have heard him dwell upon them.

Similar considerations apply in the case of some at least
of the differences between chh. i. and ii. of the Epistle to
the Galatians and the Acts. The difficulty of accounting for
them is not diminished, but increased, if the authorship of
the latter work is attributed, not to a companion of St Paul's
later years such as Luke, but to a man of the next generation.
And we can in reality quite well understand that Luke might
never have known, or might have forgotten, the fact of Paul's

a familiar one, while the parallels in Polycarp's own epistle with many of the
Pauline Epistles shews that he must have possessed a more or less complete
collection of them.

^ Cp. I Thess. iii. i ff. and A, xvii. 14 ff. ^2 Cor. .\i. i; xii. i, 11,

16 — 2

244 Objections to the Lttcan authorship

visit to Arabia after his conversion, and the length of the
period that intervened before he went up from Damascus to
Jerusalem. Even, indeed, if he knew of the former he might
not have thought it necessary to refer to it. Again, it would
not be strange that, partly from drawing a little on his
imagination wdth a view to more vivid description, partly
through defect of memory and the silence of the Apostle
himself, partly through relying on information received from
other quarters, which may not have been accurate in all
respects, he should have represented the circumstances of
St Paul's visits to Jerusalem more or less differently.

It may, perhaps, be thought that Luke must have been
too well-informed to have introduced a purely fictitious visit
to Jerusalem, as many on the ground of St Paul's language
at Gal. ii. i hold that mentioned in Acts xi. 30 to be. I am
not sure of this, but it also appears to me that St Paul's
w^ords are unfairly pressed when they are made to exclude
the possibility of a brief visit in which he had no intercourse
with Apostles, and did not become generally known to the
disciples in Judaea, as would be probable in the circumstances
described in Acts xii. The fact of such a visit as this would
not have affected his argument, and he might therefore with-
out real untruthfulness have passed it over.

A companion of St Paul, however, must have known the
Apostle's methods, his ordinary procedure in his evangelistic
w^ork, and the principles of his teaching. If there should be
any real conflict in regard to these between the Acts and
what we learn from St Paul's Epistles, it must weigh heavily
against the claim that the former is by Luke. Now according
to the account in Acts xv. of the conference at Jerusalem at
which it was decided that circumcision should not be imposed
upon believers in Christ from among the Gentiles, it was at
the same time agreed that certain requirements should also
be made of them ; and in the description of a journey of Paul
and Silas shortly after this through Syria, Cilicia and South
Galatia, it is said that " as they went on their way through
the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, which
had been ordained of the apostles and elders that were at
Jerusalem" (Acts xvi. 4). On the other hand, in the account
which St Paul gives in Gal. ii. of the compact made at

of the Acts of the Apostles 245

Jerusalem in respect to the Gentiles, there is no reference
to these decrees, and he declares that he and Barnabas
were desired only to " remember the poor." Moreover, when
writing to the Corinthians^ on one of the points with which
those decrees dealt, that of " meats offered to idols," he makes
no reference to them.

In comparing these statements it should first be observed
that from the Acts it does not appear that any pledge was
exacted from Paul and Barnabas in respect to the communi-
cation of the decrees. Two representatives of the Church at
Jerusalem- were sent with them, and it would obviously be
specially their duty to deliver the letter. We can well believe
also that St Paul, even if the form of the decrees did not
commend itself to him, may have thought it wisest to raise
no objection, and may have been willing to accept their
imposition as a compromise, and to take part in the delivery
of the letter; and yet that afterwards when the Judaizers were
causing still more serious mischief in those very Churches,
and magnifying the authority of the Church at Jerusalem
with a view to destroying the significance of the Gospel
committed to him, he should have felt perfectly justified in
remaining silent about any injunctions of that Church, and
in insisting that he had come out of the conference on the
question of the Gentiles as free as he went into it. So also
in extending his labours to the evangelisation of fresh places,
and in the care of Churches in which the Jewish element was
probably far smaller than in those first founded, which were
nearer to Palestine, he may naturally have felt under no
obligation to refer to the decrees of the Church at Jerusalem
and have considered that to do so would be misleading, and
that it was preferable to argue the question of abstinence
from food offered to idols on its own merits, when it became
a pressing one in a Church like that of Corinth.

The author of the Acts mentions Paul in connexion with
the delivery of the decrees only at xvi. 4^ He puts, however,

^ I Cor. viii. i ff.

2 It might well be urged that the writer would not have contented himself
with this one reference, if his purpose was to shew that St Paul worked in
harmony with the older Apostles, and if he allowed himself to draw inferences
accordingly as to what St Paul must have done.

246 Objections to the Lucan authorship

a reference to them into the mouth of James in xxi. 25; and
he could hardly have done this without explanation, if he
felt that they had been commonly disregarded. But it is
not necessary to assume that the observance of the rules
in question could have spread onh' in consequence of the
formal command of the Church at Jerusalem. Among the
early converts to Christianity there were probably in many
places some who, having first been proselytes to Judaism,
had already observed them, and would naturally continue to
do so. From them the rules may have been learned. They
would also have commended themselves as a means of facili-
tating union between different elements in the Church. With
this object, which he had so much at heart, St Paul himself
may have promoted the observance of them. There would
be no reason why he should not do so, provided that they
were not made a substitute for spiritual religion, or insisted
on in such a way as to make them a barrier to the reception
of the Gospel.

The practice attributed to St Paul of first addressing
himself to the Jews in the places which he visited on his
missionary journeys, and to the Gentiles only after the Jews
had rejected his message^ is also cited as a mark of un-
authenticity. But the fact that the Apostolate of the Gentiles
had been specially assigned to him, and that of the Circum-
cision to prominent members of the Twelve, would not surely
preclude him, in the absence of the latter, from preaching
to Jews of the Dispersion. There can be little doubt that
St Paul himself must have recognised that in consequence
of God's covenant with Israel in the past it was fitting that
they should have the first offer of the salvation which had
been foretold. And there were practical reasons of the
strongest kind for approaching them first. They were pre-
pared to understand the Gospel in a way that the Gentiles
could not be. And if it had been preached first to the latter
this would have made its reception far harder for the Jews.
Moreover the account in one of the "we "-sections of the
course followed by St Paul at Philippi confirms the state-
ments in other parts of the Acts as to what he did in other

^ See Acts xiii. 5, i4ff. ; xiv. iff.; xvii. iff., 17; xviii. iff.; xxviii. ijff.

of the Acts of the Apostles 247

places. Here the Jews and proselytes were not, it would
seem, numerous or rich enough to have a synagogue. But
they had a " proseuche " — a place of prayer — by the river-
side, and the first step taken by the Apostle after his arrival
is to seek it out on the Sabbath day, and to speak to the few
women gathered there^ It is indeed alleged that the "work
of evangelisation among the heathen is in the Acts made to
depend upon its failure among the Jews." The only ground,
so far as I know, that there can be for this assertion, lies in
such words as those at Acts xiii. 46, " It was necessary that
the word of God should first be spoken to you. Seeing ye
thrust it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal
life, lo we turn to the Gentiles-." But to make rhetorical
expressions of this kind imply that if the Gospel had not
been rejected by the Jews it would never have been pro-
claimed to the Gentiles is to press their meaning unfairly ;
and in any case they do not imply this more than do the
Apostle's assertion in the Epistle to the Romans that " by
their fall salvation is come to the Gentiles^"

Further, it is said that in the speech in the Synagogue at
Antioch in Pisidia, given in Acts xiii, St Paul's master-thoughts
are lacking and that he could not have delivered it. If so, it
could no doubt hardly have been attributed to him by one
who was for a considerable time, though at a later period,
his companion. For although the composition of the speeches
in the Acts may be largely the work of the author himself,
he might, if he had often heard the Apostle, be expected to
know both his manner and the points on which he would be
likely to dwell. But is the address in question one such as
St Paul would have been unlikely to have made .'' It would
have been natural for him, in speaking for the first time to
a body of Jews, to commence with a line of thought to which
they were accustomed, and so to lead up to a moderate state-
ment of the new truth which he had to communicate, in so
far as it directly affected themselves {vv. 38, 39). The instinct
of any skilful orator, not to say of a man of such unusual

^ Acts xvi. 13.

^ Cp. also xviii. 6 and xxviii. 25 — 28.

' Rom. xi. II. See also the whole argument of that chapter.

248 Objections to the Lucan authorship

tact and many-sided sympathy as St Paul's Epistles shew
him to have been, would have suggested such a method.
Indeed, I would urge that in this speech, that to the ordinary
heathen at Lystra, and to the cultivated heathen of Athens,
and to the crowd at Jerusalem from the Castle-stairs, the
author of the Acts shews, by the adaptation of the arguments
to each case, that, whether he gives in substance what was
actually spoken or not, he has at least truly caught and
represented a characteristic feature of the Apostle's preaching.
Let us now turn to the representation given us in the
Acts of St Peter's relation to the question of the Admission
of the Gentiles. I would remind the reader that the point
which we have here to consider is not whether the account
in the Acts of Peter's experiences, and of his appreciation
of their significance, can be reconciled with what is related
in the Epistle to the Galatians as to his conduct, and with
the view generally of the history of the question of the
admission of the Gentiles which we obtain from this and
St Paul's other Epistles; but simpl}' whether the divergence
is of such a kind that we cannot imagine the account in the
Acts to have proceeded from a disciple of St Paul. That
the writer of the Acts should, if he knew of Peter's want of
courage at Antioch, have passed it over in silence, can hardly
be thought strange. But he may not even have known of
it, if (as is probable) he had not seen the Epistle to the
Galatians. It would be a grave mistake to regard this Epistle
as representing St Paul's normal attitude to the elder Apostles.
Though he referred to his differences from them in writing
to Churches to which he had to prove his own independent
commission, and the firmness with which he had adhered
and was prepared still to adhere to the Gospel which he had
received, it would have been utterly alien to his character
to dwell upon those differences when it was unnecessary to
do so. He may never have alluded again to Peter's in-
consistent conduct at Antioch. Now, I am not sure that
even if Luke knew of this incident it would have prevented
him from believing the narrative of the revelation to Peter
on the subject of the admission of the Gentiles, and from
giving it prominence in his own work ; but at all events if

of the Acts of the Apostles 249

he did not know of that incident, he would not have been
troubled with a sense of the incongruity between different
parts of Peter's conduct.

It seems, indeed, to be thought by some that the writer
of Acts has obscured the uniqueness of St Paul's part in the
evangelisation of the Gentiles, through giving the place he
has done to St Peter's preaching to Cornelius. If he had
perceived any danger of this, a true disciple of St Paul would
still not have been deterred by it. He would have felt that
it was the cause that mattered, and not the reputation of any
man, even the dearest and most esteemed. And nothing
could be more likely to further the cause in many quarters
than St Peter's testimony. But, further, it is not implied in
the Acts that Peter changed in any way his course of work
after his visit to Cornelius. It had lain, and it continued to
lie, among his own countrymen. Whereas St Paul's call to
deliver a message which was for all men without distinction \
and his labours in obedience thereto, are the theme of the
whole work. No doubt we obtain a more sharply defined and
vivid impression of St Paul's aims and teaching and character
from his own letters than we do from the Acts. But it is
quite conceivable that even in the representation of one who
had been much with the Apostle there should have been this
difference, either in consequence of influences under which he
had subsequently come, or of his own intellectual temper-.

^ ix. 15, 16; xxii. 14, 15, -21; xxvi. i6 — 18.

- Although in the Acts there may be some softening of the lines of difference
between St Peter and St Paul, and although the purpose of exhibiting a certain
parallelism between the careers of the two Apostles is more or less apparent,
Jiilicher surely exaggerates greatly when he writes that "the author has only
one scheme for the activities in which the Apostolic office is fulfilled (nur ein
Schema fiir die Bestatigungen apostoHscher Gewalt), possesses only one ideal
of an Apostle, according to which he delineates Paul and Peter alike" {Einleit.
6th ed. p. 398, Eng. trans, p. 438). In point of fact there are strongly marked
differences both in the circumstances of their lives and in their teaching. Peter's
little tour in Palestine (Acts ix. 32 ff".) bears no comparison with Paul's journeys, nor
does the single reference to the feeling of the Jews which encouraged Herod after
he had slain James to take measures against Peter (xii. 3, 11) with their repeated
acts of bitter hostility in many places to Paul (ix. 23; xiii. 45, 50; xiv. 2 — 5, 19;
xvii. 5, 13; xviii. 12; xix. 33; xx. 3, 19; xxi. 27; xxii. 22 f. ; xxiii. i2f.; xxiv.
5 f.), and the suspicions felt in regard to him even by those Jerusalemite Jews who
believed in Jesus (xxi. 20, 21). Again, the teaching connected with the admission

2 50 Objections to the Lncan attthorship

There are some other passages in which the improbabihty
(real or supposed) of the writer's having been a companion
of St Paul is (as I have indicated at the commencement of
this discussion) of a different kind from that in the foregoing.
The chief is the account of the conversion of the jailor at
Philippi. This narrative lacks that convincing fitness in
details which is frequently a note of first-hand information.
And yet if the writer who came with St Paul from Troas
and who describes the first part of his stay at Philippi, when
he was certainly in his company, remained there (as is gene-
rally assumed) till the Apostle left the place, or it may be
longer, he must have heard particulars as to the night of his
imprisonment on the very next day; and even if (as B. Weiss
has suggested )i he returned to Troas during the "many days"
referred to in xvi. i8, he must, one would think, subsequently
have learned what happened soon after he departed, either from
St Paul himself, or from some other member of his little band.

But after all, is it inconceivable that one who had had
these opportunities for knowing the facts should have v/ritten
the narrative in the Acts .' The coincidence itself between
the earthquake and the imprisonment of the Apostle cannot
be reckoned impossible, and it is not strange that it should
have led to the conversion of the jailor. The difficulties lie
in some of the physical effects attributed to the earthquake,
and in a certain unnaturalness in one or two of the remarks
of the jailor. But even a companion of St Paul might, in
relating the story twenty-five or thirty years after the events,
have used his imagination as to these points, and not have
done so altogether happily. As regards the physical pheno-
mena more particularly he might easily in that age have
gone wrong.

The only other passage of this kind to which it will be
necessary for me, I think, to refer, is the account of St Paul's

of Cornelius does not approach to the intensity and doctrinal fulness-of the passages
regarding the call of Paul (p. 249, n. i). And while Peter declares that remission
of sins, which the prophets had taught men to expect as a blessing of the Messianic
times, is pledged "in the name of" Jesus, no mention of "justification" is attri-
buted to him as it is to Paul at xiii. 39 ; or of the peculiar efficacy of Christ's
death, as to Paul at xx. 28.

1 Textkritik d. Apostelgeschichte, in loc.

of the Acts of the Apostles 251

interv'iew with the heads of the Jewish community in Rome,
three days after he reached the city (xxviii. 17 f ). As to his
practice of addressing himself first to the Jews in the places
he visited I have already spoken \ and I need not repeat what
I have there urged. But in the present instance it is, no
doubt, strange that the existence of a Christian Church in
Rome, to which St Paul had himself written an Epistle,
should be ignored. It is also somewhat surprising that the
representatives of the Jews should have declared that they
had neither received letters from Judaea concerning Paul,
nor any bad report from anyone coming thence.

As regards the former point it may be observed that the
writer of the Acts could not when he penned this passage
have been ignorant or forgetful of the fact that there were
Christian believers in Rome, even if he was not the author
of the diary of travel ; for he had in that case only just before
copied from that document the statement that the brethren
from Rome had come to meet St Paul at Appii Forum and
the Three Taverns {y. 15). As to the other point which I have
mentioned we are scarcely in a position to say whether it is
improbable, owing to our ignorance of the extent to which
there was at this time organised intercommunication between
the Jews of the Dispersion and the chiefs of the nation in Jeru-
salem. But even if the statement was not in point of fact made
by the Roman Jews, this would not prove that a writer who
had come with St Paul to Rome could not have attributed
it to them, when, a good many years later, he recalled the
scene to his memor}', or pictured it if he was not actually
present.

I have considered difficulties in the supposition that the
author of the Acts was a companion of St Paul which arise
directly out of this assumption itself of association with the
Apostle. Improbabilities in the earlier part of the Acts cannot
bear on the question of authorship in the same way. It is
indeed clear that the companion of St Paul who wrote the
" we"-sections must in the course of his journeys have had
many opportunities of obtaining good information about the
early days of the Church, and if he was the author likewise
^ See above, p. 246 f.

2 52 Objections to the Lucan mithorship

of the preface to the third Gospel he was not the man to
neglect those opportunities. Moreover, if he was " Luke the
beloved physician" (Col. iv. 14), he could have learned not a
little from Mark, when both were together in the Apostle's
company at Rome (cp. ib. v. 10 and Philem. vv. 23, 24). Never-
theless, matter of an unauthentic kind regarding that early
period might also in later years have come into his hands,
and he might not have had a sufficiently broad and intimate
knowledge to lead him to reject it. Consequently it cannot
be easy to say what a man who had had the advantages just
described above might, or might not, have been expected to
write. We know too little as to the stages in the development
of Christian faith and institutions, reached in successive de-
cades of the first century, to enable us to decide either
what it would have been natural for such a man to assume,
or what statements must be true or false, accurate or
inaccurate^

There is, however, one point on which it may be right for
me to make a few remarks — the representation in the Acts
of the "speaking with tongues." The account in Acts ii.
"rests," it is said "on a serious misunderstanding of the ex-
pression 'to speak with tongues,' such as could not possibly
befall a contemporary of those who spoke with tongues^"
And although there is no reference to "divers languages"
on the other occasions where "speaking with tongues" is
mentioned in the Acts, it is contended'' — especially on the
ground of St Peter's words with regard to Cornelius and his

^ Jlilicher (/7>. p. 396, Eng. trans, p. 435) remarks that the author of
Acts "knew only organised communities" and refers to the fact that Paul and
Barnabas on their return-journey through South Galatia are said to have "ap-
pointed for them elders in every church," in imitation of the Church at Jerusalem.
But wherever, as prol)ab]y in this region, there was a considerable Jewish element
in the Christian communities, if not elsewhere, it would be natural that the insti-
tution of elders should be speedily introduced, and natural also that Paul and
Barnabas should see to its introduction and set apart the individuals selected.
In the same connexion Jlilicher also refers to the quasi-sacramental character
attributed to the laying on of hands in the Acts. But there is no reason why
this symljolic action should not have been very early adopted as an accompani-
ment to the invocation of the Spirit.

^ Jlilicher, ii. p. 402, Eng. trans, p. 442.

^ E.g., by Clemen, Paulits, p. 21 4, n. i.

of the Acts of the Apostles 253

company, " God gave unto them the like gift as he did also
unto us" (xi. 18) — that in all cases the writer has before his
mind the same conception of the " tongues," which contrasted
strongly with those ecstatic utterances, intelligible only to those
who had a special gift of interpreting them spiritually, of which
we read in the First Epistle to the Corinthians. But in the
first place, "the like gift" (t>}i/ Xai^v Scopedv) at xi. 17 is primarily
the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (cp. v. 16 and xv. 8), and
to insist that the writer must have supposed the evidence of
the Spirit's presence to have been always of precisely the
same kind is to press the words too far. Further, I find it
impossible to believe that at the end of the first, or be-
ginning of the second, century the memory of instances of
" speaking with tongues " had so entirely passed away that
the author of the Acts, if he wrote as late as this, could
have been wholly at fault as to the character of the
" tongues."

But I would especially urge that the speaking with tongues
on the Day of Pentecost may from the account in the Acts
be seen to have been even as a physical phenomenon far
more like that referred to by St Paul than — in consequence,
probably, of the influence of the traditional idea that the gift
described was intended to equip the Apostles for their evan-
gelistic work — has commonly been supposed. The whole
incident is in accord with the principle laid down by St Paul
that "tongues are for a sign^" They were not even on that
day used for the direct instruction of men in the new faith.
The gift was bestowed not on the Twelve separately, but on
the whole congregation assembled, and was exhibited even
before the crowd of people had gathered to listen. The
meaning of the marvel is afterw^ards explained by Peter in
the language, evidently, which he ordinarily spoke. But most
expressive of all are the words of the bystanders : " we do
hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God."
To "speak the wonderful works of God" — XaXetv rd fieja-
Xela Tov &eov (Acts ii. ii) — means, in entire accord with the
language of the Old Testament-, to praise Him. So too
in Acts X. 46 we read " they heard them speaking with

^ I Cor. xiv. 22. - Cp. Ps. ix. i.

2 54 TJie foregoing objections are inconchisive

tongues and magnifying God " {^e'yaXwovroiv rov Qeov). The
essential character and purpose of the speaking with tongues
are here brought out more clearly than in St Paul's allusions,
though in a way fully in harmony therewith', and manifestly
true to life. They were a form of praise prompted by ecstatic
joy". The only feature that was peculiar on the Day of
Pentecost was that Jews and proselytes coming from divers
countries distinguished expressions from the various languages
with which they were severally familiar mingling in the praises
of the body of believers. And it would not be difficult to
suggest even a natural explanation of this. Devout expres-
sions which they had at some time or other heard, but which
in ordinary circumstances they would have been quite unable
to recall or to utter, and which (it may be) they did not
themselves fully understand, might well have been brought to
the lips of those in such an ecstatic state. It is a remarkable
fact that something of the same kind seems to have happened
in connexion with the Irvingite manifestations^. Moreover,
the presence of men from different countries might itself,
by the laws of association or of suggestion, contribute to
this result.

This view, then, that the character of portions of the Acts
is incompatible with the supposition that the work as a whole
was by a companion of St Paul appears to rest on very
insufficient grounds. Those who have asserted this incom-
patibility have been led to do so, I believe, partly from not
making sufficient allowance for the weakness of human
memory and the incompleteness and often inaccuracy even
of good human testimony ; partly from not recognising duly
the many-sidedness of St Paul's character, his magnanimity
and the breadth of his sympathies, or realising how varied
and constantly shifting must have been the aspects of such
a movement as that for the inclusion of the Gentiles, and of
the controversies to which it gave rise. Excessive confidence

^ Cp. I Cor. .\iv. 14 — 19.

^ The signs of ecstasy are indicated in Acts ii. 13.

3 See quotation in Stanley, Ep. to Cor. {3rd ed.), p. 254. St Paul himself
seems to have conceived "the tongues" as in part the language of strange races
of men. See i Cor. xiii. i, and cp. ib. xiv. 10.

The evidence afforded by the ''we'' -sections 255

has also been placed in the class of considerations known as
" Higher Criticism," a confidence which places the critic at
the mercy of his own limitations, whatever they may be, and
is too likely to make him the victim even of his own in-
genuity. Criticism of this kind has its place, and it is an
important one, and often when the contentions originally put
forward in its name prove to be unsound, it leads to a deeper
understanding of the period. It has found a fitting subject
in the authorship of the Acts ; but the discussion has not
been foreclosed by the arguments it has advanced, as many
critics seem to have thought. On the contrary, we may be
glad to turn to an inquiry of a "drier" kind, which is here
open to us, that is, one where the result is less likely to be
affected by our own prepossessions, or lack of insight. Where
our information is so "scanty as it is in many respects in
regard to the early history of the Church, and it is so hard
to place ourselves truly at the point of view of the actors,
we ought, as a matter of common prudence, to make full
use of every kind of evidence that is available. In the
present instance the fact that there are a style, vocabulary,
and phraseology which are acknowledged to belong to the
writer by whom the third Gospel and the Acts of the
Apostles were composed, suggests that we should endeavour
to ascertain whether the use of characteristic words and ex-
pressions in the " we"-sections is such as to shew that the
same man was the author of them, or at most simply their
reviser. It is a serious blot upon the criticism of the Acts
during the past twenty years, as well as earlier, that so little
attention has been given to this question. By a few writers
it has been examined and the conclusion has been reached that
the former of the two alternatives just indicated is clearly the
true one^; but for the most part Criticism has paid no heed.
Now, however, that a historian and critic of Harnack's emi-
nence and of his independent theological position has come
to the same conclusion-, it will scarcely be possible that the

^ See Klostermann, Vindiciae Lucanae, 1866; also an article by the present
writer in the Expositor for 1893, p. 336 flf.; and Hawkins, Horae Synopticae,
1899, p. 148 ff.

^ See Lukas der Arzt, p. 19 ff.

256 The evidejice afforded by the ''we'' -sections

importance of the evidence afforded by a comparison between
portions of the travel-diary and the remainder of the " Lucan"
writings should any longer be ignored ^

The amount of characteristic words and phrases varies
greatly in different parts of the "Lucan" writings. It is
greatest in the latter half of the Acts generally, less in the
first half, least of all in the third Gospel, taken as a whole.
But in the last-named it is further to be observed that they
occur especially at places where we might expect the author
to write in his own style, as for example in sentences that
are of the nature of introductions to, or comments upon,
narratives that he has taken from his Marcan source, or in
additions to, or substitutions for, what he there found, which
he may not improbably have derived from oral tradition and
thus have been freer to express in his own form. But where
he has used his document for the substance of a narrative
he has in the main adhered to its form there. His alterations
are confined for the most part to little changes of construction,
affecting a clause or two, which render the connexion of the
sentences more smooth, and to the removal of some solecisms.
In one or two instances he has rearranged a narrative, and
has consequently been led to write in his own manner for
two or three sentences. Lk v. 17 — 19 is the most considerable
clear example. Possibly, as I have myself suggested, he has
in describing the time spent by Jesus in the high-priest's
house and the trial in the morning by the Sanhedrin, recast
a longer passage of his Marcan document without help from
any other source, again largely with a view to better arrange-
ment. But these are isolated examples, and the motive which
led to free remoulding here, the desire for a more logical
order, could not apply in the case of the " we"-sections. Yet
throiis:Jiont these sections the " Lucan" characteristics abound
to an extent unsurpassed in any part of the Lucan writings ;

^ Schiirer {Thcol. Literattirz. 1906, no. 14) has stated, perhaps as fully as
could be expected in a short review, his reasons for being unconvinced by Ilar-
nack; in no. 16 of the same journal Harnack replied. C. F. G. Ileinrici {^Der
litterarische Cliarakter der tietitestavientlichen Schri/ten, 1908, p. 91) alludes to
this interesting discussion, and gives his own opinion decidedly, as on Ilarnack's
side. It is to be regretted that Loisy, Les Evangiles Sytioptiques, i. p. 74 f.,
should have dismissed so curtly Hamack's argument.

The evidence afiorded by the ''we 'sections 257

they enter into the warp and woof of the passages, and they
are of very various kinds — Hnguistic and such as are not
merely Hnguistic — words and expressions that belong to his
special vocabulary, sentences and clauses moulded in the
same manner as others in different parts of his writings,
habitual points of view, favourite thoughts of an ethical and
religious kind. These together produce an impression which
is quite distinctive, and there is nothing in the practice of the
author of the Acts and third Gospel, where we know him
to have made use of a document, which would justify the
supposition that he would have revised Avhat another had
written to the extent required in order to produce such
a results

Schiirer, indeed, suggests that the " we "-sections proceeded
from a writer whose style was similar to that of the author
of the work as a whole, and that this circumstance together
with revision by the latter accounts for the features of these
sections as we have them. But the combination of these two
suppositions does not seem to meet the case. For, in the
first place, such a similarity of style between two writers as
could reasonably be assumed, could not have extended to
more than a {&\\ of the points mentioned. And, further, the
two forms of explanation are not in reality fitted to supple-
ment each other. For in proportion as the author found
a style similar to his own in the document he was using,
he would feel no need of revising it.

Others have contended that it is not according to the
manner of the author of the Acts to be so concise as these
sections are. There are, it may be pointed out, other passages
which are similar in this respect", but the same travel-docu-
ment may conceivably have been used here, although the first
person plural does not occur in them. Even if we assume
this there does not seem to be much force in the objection.
The character of what the author had to relate would fully
account for this difference. All writers are apt to be affected
in a point of this kind by their subject-matter, and one so

1 See Additional Note, pp. 276 ff., 312 ff.

^ See xiii. 4 — 6a, 13, 14; xiv. 24 — 28; xvi. 40 and xvii, i; xvii. 14, 15;
xviii. 21 — 23; xix. i; xx. i — 3.

S. G. II.

258 The evidence afforded by the ''we'' -sections

versatile as unquestionably the author of the third Gospel
and the Acts was would be specially likely to be so.

The evidence which has been referred to in the last few
pages should of course be examined in detail by anyone who
would satisfy himself as to its valued In an Additional
Note to the present chapter I have provided my readers
with the means of estimating its strength. I would here
add that its force seems to me fully sufficient in the absence
(as I believe) of any good arguments which countervail it,
to establish the conclusion that a companion of St Paul was
the author of the Acts and of the third Gospel.

But the place of the "we"-sections in the general structure
of the latter part of the Acts should also be considered. The
introduction of the first person plural at xvi. 10; xx. 5; and
xxvii. I, is abrupt. But it ought not (I think) to be more
difficult, and to many it will seem easier, to understand, the
writer's having failed to notice this change, if he was giving
his own reminiscences, than if he at these points turned to
a diary by another person. Further the abruptness itself
would not have seemed so great to those for whom he wrote
in the first instance as it does to us, if they knew (even many
of them personally) the man whose book they were reading ;
and we may assume this to have been the case, since plainly
he does not either in the Acts, considered as a whole, or in
the third Gospel, attempt to personate an}-onc for the sake
of gaining credence, and he could therefore have had no
motive for concealing his authorship. It is to be observed
also that the "we "-sections are firml\- embedded in their con-
texts. There are no breaks in the narrati\e at the points

1 Klostermann treats of Acts xxvii. i — xxviii. 16. In my article in the £x-
positor referred to above, I endeavoured to exhibit in tabular form that supplied
by Acts xvi. 10 — 17. Hawkins has given tables relating to all the sections. But
there is much that may be said in the form of a commentary on the passages,
which cannot be shewn conveniently in the form of tables. Harnack in Lukas der
Arzt, p. 28 ff. has commented on xvi. 10 — 17 and xxviii. i — 16. In an appendix
to the present chapter I have given a commentary on the first three of them which
I have had by me in the main as I give it, and used in teaching, for many years,
but to which in preparing it for publication I have added a few points taken from
others. I have also (pp. 276 — 90) investigated the third evangelist's revision of
his jNIarcan document, with a view to determining the extent to which he might
have revised in other cases.

The evidence afforded by the ''^ue 'sections 259

at which the first person begins and ceases to be emplo}'ed.
And there are connecting links of a different kind which are
of greater interest. At ch. xix. 21, we are told of the Apostle's
purpose, near the close of his long sojourn at Ephesus, first
to pass through Macedonia and Achaia, and then to visit Jeru-
salem and subsequently Rome. In the history from this point
onward we are shewn how this plan was carried out, and
the great end which the Apostle had in view achieved, but
not in the way that could have been humanly expected or
desired. He goes up to Jerusalem under inward constraint
(Acts XX. 22), in spite of his own presentiment and the warn-
ings of others as to the dangers which he will encounter there.
Nevertheless he escapes from the Jews and finds his way to
Rome, but only as a prisoner, and after nearly losing his life
at sea. This providential ordering of events is traced no less
in the " we "-sections than in other parts of the concluding
chapters of the Acts\

Another leading purpose in the latter half of the Acts,
the signs of which are still more widely extended, is that of
shewing that there was no real breach of Christian fellowship
between St Paul on the one hand and the true leaders of the
Church at Jerusalem and their genuine following on the other,
and that the latter thankfully recognised the success which
had crowned his missionary labours. Too much has some-
times been made of this intention of the author, and wholly
unjustifiable inferences have been drawn from it. But there
can be little doubt that he did wish to shew that these friendly
relations were maintained. Now we have one clear illustration
of this desire in the account, related in the first person plural,
of the manner in which the Apostle and his companions were
received by "the brethren at Jerusalem" (xxi. 17), as well as
in the immediate sequel {vv. 23 — 26).

These are some of the links of connexion between different
passages which cannot be well explained except on the sup-
position that the latter half of the Acts as a whole proceeds
from one hand, and this the hand of one who during part of
the time in question was in the Apostle's company.

Another consideration which makes for the same con-

■' Cp. especially xxi. i, 4, 10 — 14, with xx. 22, 23, 37, 38, and xxvii. 23, 24.

17 — 2

2 6o other lines of argument bearing upon the

elusion is the accurate knowledge of localities and institutions
which characterises especially the latter half of the Acts\
But it is difficult to suppose that the author of so large a
portion of the book, which evidently forms a necessary part
of the plan of the whole work, can be any other than the
author of the whole, and consequently of the third Gospel
likewise.

There are two other lines of argument bearing on the
authorship of the third Gospel and the Acts into which
linguistic considerations enter, one of them to the effect that
/ the author was a physician, the other that he was acquainted
with the writings of Josephus. The special significance of the
former conclusion lies in its agreement with St Paul's refer-
ence to " Luke the beloved physician " (Col. iv. 14). The
second conclusion is, on the contrary, unfavourable to the
" Lucan " authorship, at least if, as is frequently the case, the
writer is supposed to have been acquainted with all the works
of Josephus, or indeed with any besides the earliest of them,
the Jewish War. This was completed before the death of
the emperor Vespasian, which took place in A.D. 79. The
author of the third Gospel may quite well have read it
previously to composing his own work, if we place the latter
about A.D. 80, and we shall presently see grounds for thinking
that it cannot have been written much earlier. This date is
in nowise inconsistent with the supposition that he was the
companion of St Paul, who joined the Apostle at Troas circ.
A.D. 50. He rriay then have been, it is indeed probable that
he was, a young man, say of 20 — 25; so that in A.D. 80 he
would have been fifty years of age, or a little more. If, how-
ever, he was acquainted with the Antiquities of Josephus,
he must have been between sixty-five to seventy when he
wrote, if with Contra Apioneni older still, and if with the

^ Readers of Sir William Ramsay's works, The Church and the Empire and
St Paul the Traveller, know how he insists on the truth and vividness of the
narrative in this respect. He appears sometimes to exaggerate the importance of
particular points. But the testimony of such an able and skilled archaeologist,
who has studied on the spot, as to the impression produced on him, must carry
great weight apart from the details he mentions. Moreover some of the cor-
respondences to which he has drawn attention are of a striking character.

authorship of the third Gospel and Acts 261

Autobiography over seventy. Clearly it is not probable that
he would have deferred writing till so late in life.

It is not surprising, then, that we should find the two
theses above mentioned (namely, that the author of the
" Lucan" writings was a physician, and that he was acquainted
with the works of Josephus) supported by different writers ;
and yet, as I have implied, the character of the evidence and
the considerations urged are in no small degree similar. It
will be well, therefore, that the student should mentally
compare the processes of thought in the two cases.

W. K. Hobart led the way in a careful examination of
the correspondence between Greek medical writers and the
author of the " Lucan" writings in the use of technical terms
and in style and vocabulary generally, and he did his work
so fully that he left little to be done by later writers in the
way of the collection of evidence, as distinguished from the
effort to judge of the value of different parts of it. He
claims to have proved that the author of the ''Gospel according
to St Luke and the Acts of the Apostles was a medical man V
He arranges the evidence under two heads: (iVthe particu-
larity of the descriptions of diseases and of cures in the third
Gospel and the Acts, and the employment therein of terms
of a more or less technical character, (2) the use of words
and phrases, even in regard to matters'^on-medical, which
would readily occur to a medical man because they were
those which he frequently employed in his profession, or was
familiar with in his medical books.

Let me say at once that there are very few of the instances
which have been amassed under this latter head to which
I find it possible to attribute any weight at all. Hobart
observes that " in using words to which he had become
habituated through professional training, St Luke would not
be singular, for the Greek medical writers, also, when dealing
with unprofessional subjects, shew a leaning to the use of

^ The Medical Language of St Luke, 1882. Some other writers who have
treated or referred to the subject, and have arrived at the same result, are : Light-
foot, article on "Acts," in and ed. of Smith's Diet, of Bible, p. 31, col. 2 ; Plummer,
St Luke, p'^. Ixiii — Ixvi; Chase, The Credibility of the Acts of the Apostles, 1902,
p. 13 f. ; A. Harnack, Lukas der Arzt, 1906, p. 122 ff., Eng. trans, p. 175 ff.

262 The medical language in these books

words to which they were accustomed in their professional
language. But most, if not indeed all, the words and ex-
pressions referred to were in use in the Greek literature of
the classical or a later period; and the fact that the medical
writers were men of education is a sufficient explanation of
their having employed them ; and so far as the same words
were also applied by them in special senses in connexion
with their own profession the transference had most often
been from the general to the technical meaning, not vice
versa.

The command shewn b}' the author of the " Lucan "
writings of a vocabulary common to the medical and other
Greek writers may, then, most reasonably be put to the
account of that general Greek culture which, almost alone
among the New Testament writers, he possessed.

The other class of instances, the terms used in describing
diseases and cures, deserves much more attention. The
cogency of the proof here ma\- be doubted, first on the ground
that a writer with a turn for observation and description and
some interest in things medical, might well have written as
the author of the third Gospel and the Acts does in these
cases, without ever having gone through a course of medical
study, or practised as a physician. Secondly, it may also be
asked whether a physician would not, in writing of miracles,
even while he regarded them as such, have expressed himself
still more characteristically. I have no doubt that a modern
ph\-sician would, and I think that so too would an ancient
one, if he had approached their consideration primarily from
a medical point of view. But it seems to me probable that
one who in former years had had some medical knowledge,
but whose main interest in the miracles could no longer be
in any sense a scientific one, and who was writing a narrative
intended simply to set forth to general readers the facts as
to that New Faith and its spread among men, to the progress
of which he had come to be wholly devoted, might not
improbably shew signs of early training agreeing with what
we notice in the "Lucan" writings^ To that extent I believe

^ The chief items of evidence are singled out with critical discrimination, and
compactly and clearly arranged, by Harnack, ib. To this statement I would

The medical language in these books 263

the case for medical language in the " Lucan " writings to
be made out, but no further. This view of the evidence may-
seem to afford a precarious basis for any inference. Here,
however, comes in the fact of the reference in the Epistle to
the Colossians and the testimony of tradition. In the circum-
stance that it should be possible to maintain even so much
as I have stated in respect to the medical character of a
writer, whom there is reason for regarding as a companion
of St Paul, there would have been ground for identifying
him with that companion whom the Apostle himself speaks
of as a physician. And then, over and above this, we find
the works in question assigned traditionally to the same ^^
man, although the medical traits do not seem to have been
ever noticed before the nineteenth century. In these coin-
cidences we have, it seems to me, a substantial argument
for the authorship by Luke.

I turn to the question whether the author of the " Lucan "
writings was acquainted with the works of Josephus. The
main object of the following discussion will be to examine
with some care the alleged evidence that he knew works
later than the History of the Jewish War. In the course of
it, however, some parallels in the " Lucan " writings with the
last-named work will come before us ; and I will also, at
the conclusion of it, refer to a few others.

A work by AI. KrenkeP occupies in connexion with this
subject a position somewhat similar to that of Hobart in
connexion with the one which we have just been considering.
Krenkel, indeed, had more predecessors, including some critics
of great eminence, who had treated of some salient points in
articles of no great lengths But he has discussed the argu-
ments previously used and has also made it his aim to carry

refer my readers. Dr Harnack speaks more confidently as to the inference to be
drawn than I have done.

^ Josephus und Lucas, 1894.

* The following more especially may be named on the side of the influence
of Josephus on the N. T. writer; H. Holtzmann, Zdtschr. f. IViss. Theol. 1873,
pp. 85 — 93, and ih. 1877, pp. 535 — 49; Keim, Aus dem Urchristenthuni, Bd. i,
pp. I — 27 (he only maintains acquaintance with ihe Jewish War and the Atiti-
quities), 1878. On the other side we have E. Schiirer {Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol.,
1876, pp. 574 — 82, a reply to Holtzmann's first article). His opinion is mani-
festly impartial because he does not attribute the third Gospel and Acts to Luke.

264 Alleged traces therein of acquaintance

out a systematic and thorough comparison of the works of
the Jewish and the New Testament writer. He believes that
he has added largely to the body of evidence proving the
influence of the former upon the style and contents of the
latter, and it may certainly be allowed that he has provided
us fully with the materials for forming a judgment. So far
as I am aware no considerable contribution to the discussion
of the subject has been made since. We may then fix our
attention mainly on Krenkel's work. It may be added that
he tries not to be a special pleader, and yet his reasoning is
far from satisfactory.

The evidence adduced may be most conveniently considered
under the following three heads: (i) vocabulary and style;
(2) incidents in the third Gospel or the Acts which, it is
supposed, were invented by the writer in consequence of what
he had read in Josephus ; (3) notices of historical personages,
or events.

(i) Krenkel gives us lists of words and expressions
which no New Testament writer emplo}-s besides the author
of the third Gospel and the Acts, but which do occur in the
works of Josephus, or in these and the LXX.; and these lists
are of considerable length. But the circumstance that other
New Testament writers do not use them is entirely beside
the purpose, because the author of the "Lucan" writings is
distinguished among them by his command of literary Greek.
Such a comparison as Krenkel makes is valueless apart from
an examination of the use of the same words and phrases
in the Greek literature of the time. We cannot indeed say
that the author of the " Lucan" writings had read this or that
other Greek work ; but we may at least feel absolutely certain
that he had not obtained his facility of expression solely
from a knowledge of the works of Josephus. He could not
have made that use of them which is attributed to him, if he
had not been independently a man of culture. The passages
of the New Testament writer are often, I venture to say, far
superior as literature to those of the Jewish historian with
which they are compared.

The author of the "Lucan" writings and Josephus were
in any case nearly contemporaries. They had received the

with the works of Josephiis 265

same kind of literary instruction, must have read to some
extent the same works and have had the same literary
models placed before them, and have been wont to hear
rhetoricians lecture, and public speakers make orations, much
after the same manner. Josephus himself only began to com-
pose works in Greek in his later life, and he obtained assist-
ance in doing so. He was not a man of an original mind, and
in Greek composition more particularly he would necessarily
seek to imitate standard examples ; and certainly he was not
himself a writer who would be chosen for imitation. Further,
the author of the "Lucan" writings and Josephus were both
historians and both wrote about things Jewish. If all this
is borne in mind it must be evident that even a large amount
of similarity between them in st\'le and diction may prove
nothing as to the dependence of one writer upon the other.
Unfortunately it is not possible to ascertain so fully and
directly as we should like to do, whether their common
features in these respects are not due simply to general
conditions which affected them both, because we possess only
very scanty remains from an extensive Greek literature pro-
duced in the first and second centuries of our era. But even
such evidence as is available and may be readily examined
appears to me abundantly sufficient to shew that this view
is by far the most probable. I may mention that somewhat
more than two-thirds of the words given as used " in the Lucan
writings and those of Josephus, but not in the LXX.^" are used
in Polybius, many of them repeatedly, as ma\- be seen from
Schweighaeuser's index to Polybius ; and this in spite of the
facts that the extent of the writings of Pol}-bius which have
come down to us is only about two-thirds of that of the works
of Josephus ; that Polybius wrote more than two centuries
earlier instead of being a man of the same generation ; and
that, although he too wrote history, the subjects dealt with
by him were not related to those of the New Testament
writer in the way that some of those treated by Josephus
were. In addition to this it is to be observed that some of
the words given by Krenkel in another list as " occurring

1 pp. 304—9.

266 Alleged ti'aces therein of acquaintance

neither in the LXX. nor in Josephus but solely in Luke^"
are found in Polybius^.

So far I have referred chiefly to vocabulary ; but similar
remarks may be made as to constructions, phrases, ideas and
the manner of expressing them. The preface to the third
Gospel bears some resemblance to the introductory sentences
of Josephus' Jewish War, and it also contains various ex-
pressions which occur in the early chapters of Contra Apionem.
As I have already said, I should feel no difficulty so far as
dates are concerned in allowing that our third evangelist had
imitated the introduction of t\\'t JeivisJi War; I simply do
not think there is any ground for assuming it because it
seems to me probable that if we had several more of the
compositions of the time we should find that both writers
began their works in a manner that was not unusual. We
have in point of fact an example in the opening words of
the treatise of Dioscorides, irepl uX??? laTpLKrj^^, though
naturally here there are those differences which arose from
his w'ork not being concerned with history. Dioscorides
probably wrote later than either the evangelist or Josephus ;
but it would not, I imagine, generally be thought necessary
to assume that the medical writer was influenced by either
of them. As regards the phrases and words of the preface
which are found also in Contra Apionem, I. cc. i — ii, they are
all such as it was perfectly natural to use in each case in
connexion with the subject in hand, and which other writers
use when they have the same thoughts to express. Whether
quite as many similarities of this kind with Luke's preface
occur within the same space in any other writer I do not
know. The other passages that I have come across in which
a historical writer speaks of his sources of information and

^ pp. 310 — 12.

- It may also be mentioned that a little more than a third of the words given
by Krenkel as common to Luke and Josephus occur among the words on which
Hobart comments as common to Luke and the little group of medical writers
with whom he is concerned; and this although the subjects on which they write
are so different.

On the resemblances here under consideration cp. Godet on Lk i. 4 (3rd ed. I.
p. 92).

^ They may be seen in Plummer's Si Luke, p. 5 f.

with the works of Josephits 267

his aim are much briefer than the portion of Contra Apionem
referred to, the whole of which is an introduction having for
its subject the writing of history, and a comparison between
his own works and those of others. This greater length and
fulness of treatment itself explains the larger number of
common expressions in this contexts

(2) I pass to suggestions for his narratives which the
author of the third Gospel and the Acts is alleged to have
derived from Josephus. It is implied in some cases that he
was led in this way to invent a whole incident. That he
would have been capable of this I do not believe ; it appears
to me incompatible with his character and the aim which
he had in his writings. Without, however, pressing this
objection, I will examine briefly some of the principal
parallelisms in question. The account of Jesus in the
temple at the age of twelve, given in Lk ii. 46, 47, has been
held by some to have been taken from a passage in the Auto-
biography of Josephus about his own boyhoods It cannot,
however, be denied that there is a moderation of statement
in the evangelist's narrative which compares very favourably

•^ With Lk i. I, iTr€i5riirep iroWol iirex^i-pvco-v dvaTa^aardai hi-q-yrjaLV the
following words are compared from Contra Ap. I. c. r, § 13 : ol fxevroi ras iffropias
iirixetp'^aavTes (rvyypd(p€iv Trap' avrdis. But Polyb. n. 37 affords even a better
parallel, ^Trei yap oi' rivas wpd^eLs, Kaddirep oi irpb i) fiQ v...dv ay pd<f>eiv eiriKexeipT^-
Kafiev.

With Lk ih. v. 3, ?5o|e Kdp.ol TrapriKoXovSriKdri avwOev irdaLv aKpL^Qs Kade^rjs
ffOL ypdypai the following sentence from Contra Ap. I. c. 10, §§ 53 — 5 is compared:
5e? Tov dXXots irapddocnv wpd^ewv dXrjdivCov v7riffX''ovn€vov avrbv iiriffracrdaL ravras
irporepov aKpi^Qs rj iraprjKoXovdriKdTa rois yeyovoaiv rj Trapa tQv elSoTuv wvvdavb-
fievov. But compare also Polyb. III. 32, irapaKoXovd-qcrai aacfujs rah /xev Kara
T-ffv 'iTaXiav . . .wpd^fcnv . This is closer, since in Contra Ap. above -wapaKokovQCiv
is used of actual presence at the occurrences. Even Contra Ap. I. c. 23, § 218,
which is also adduced by Krenkel, is not so close as the passage of Polybius.
Other similar examples of the use of TrapaKoXovdetv could be given.

Instances of the use of all the other words and phrases to which Krenkel
points as occurring both in Contra Ap. i. cc. i — 10 and Lk i. i — 4, might be
adduced from other writers; some of those he notes are quite common. See
yivb^j.ivo% a\nbirTr\'s at Polyb. I. 46, §4; cp. also Polyb. iv. 38, § 12. In the im-
mediate context of the passage first quoted (Polyb. n. 37) note ej dpx'?^ which
Krenkel adduces from Josephus as meaning the same as Luke's ait dpx'h'^'-, and
in the same context in Polybius note also ras i^r\% Trpafets Sie^iovrej as similar to
Luke's Kad€^rj9, etc.

"^ Josephi Vita, c. 2.

2 68 Alleged traces therein of acquaintance

with the bragging tone, and doubtless very much exaggerated
description, of Josephus. A writer who followed another in
a matter of this kind would usually be disposed to claim for
his own hero as much as he found claimed for another. Our
evangelist, if he had Josephus in view, has at least resisted
this temptation. Josephus writes, " when I was about fourteen
years old, I was praised by all for my love of learning, and
the chief priests and chief men of the city continually came
together in order to learn from me some more accurate
knowledge concerning the things of the law." Luke says
simply that Jesus " was found in the temple, sitting in the
midst of the teachers, both hearing them and asking them
questions ; and all that heard him were amazed at his under-
standing and his answers." In truth the little that is common
to the two must in all probability have had its counterpart
in the life of many a promising Jewish boy^

I pass to an incident related in the History of the Jezvish
Wat'-. Titus, we are told, on passing near Jerusalem, at a
time subsequent to the siege, grieved over the scene of de-
solation which presented itself to his view and cursed the
rebellion that had led to this vengeance being taken on the
city. There is here certainh' a parallel with the account in
Lk xix. 41 — 44 of Jesus weeping over Jerusalem. But the
coincidences of language are not remarkable; and the Gospel-
narrative is so far superior in compactness and vividness
of description and in musical cadence and sublimit}-, that it
seems superfluous to imagine that the evangelist can have
needed the stimulus of having read Josephus. Moreover, if
he had framed this scene in the life of Christ upon this model
we might have expected to find some indication, however
unintended, that he was conscious of the dramatic contrast
presented by the two.

Again, it is related by Josephus that when Alexander the

Great was considering, before he left Macedonia, how he

should conquer Asia, he had a dream in which one appeared

to him — in a garb whereby he afterwards recognised that he

was a messenger of the God of Israel — and bade him cross

' That which is distinctive in the Gospel-story is of course the saying at v. 49.
2 VII. 5. §§ 112, 113.

with the works of Josephus 269

over, offering to lead his army and to deliver to him the
empire of the Persians^ We are forcibly reminded of St
Paul's vision at Troas^ when a man of Macedonia summoned
him across the same strait in the opposite direction that he
might conquer Europe, not by the sword but the power of
the Cross. Here, however, it should be observed that the
reference to the Apostle's vision is virtually part of the first
of the " we"-sections, which makes it very difficult to suppose
that it was suggested by acquaintance with a passage in the
Antiqiiities of Josephus. Further, the story in regard to
Alexander was probably derived by Josephus himself from
some earlier source, from which the writer of the Acts may
be held to have learnt it, if it is necessary to suppose that he
knew it.

I turn to some cases in which the dependence alleged is
of a more limited kind ; where, namely, it is supposed that
the New Testament writer, in describing events which he
knew or believed to be as to their main substance historical,
has introduced touches suggested to him by narratives in
Josephus which seemed to him to picture situations or cir-
cumstances that were more or less similar. There could be
no great objection to admitting the possibility of this. Many,
however, of the alleged instances are not even plausible^ It
was not necessary that Luke should have read what Josephus
has written in the Jeivish War (ll. 20. §§ 580 — 582) as to the
importance of soldiers conducting themselves aright towards
the inhabitants of a country which is the theatre of war, or in
his Life (c. 47, §. 244) as to the injunctions which he laid upon
his own soldiers to " be content with the supplies furnished them
and not to indulge in looting," in order to realise that soldiers
on service in a subject land might usefully be warned in
regard to points such as these (Lk iii. 14). Nor did he need
to be acquainted with an account of a man led to execution
in Ant. xix. i. § 24, in order that he might know that a crowd
would be likely to follow on such an occasion (Lk xxiii. 27);
or with a description in Ant. IV. viii. § 320, of women "beating
their foreheads" when Moses spoke of his approaching end,

^ Ant. XI. 8. §§ 331 — 5. - Acts xvi. 8 — lo.

^ For the four next mentioned see Krenkel, pp. 103, i4of., 109.

2 70 Alleged traces therein of acqitaintance

in order that he might be led to speak of women waiHng and
lamenting and "beating their breasts" at the Crucifixion of
Jesus (Lk ib. and v. 48). The parallels between Lk x. 17 and
Ant. XII. 2. § 57, and between Acts x. 12 and Contra Ap. II. 8,
besides being trivial might well be due to acquaintance with
the sources of Josephus instead of with Josephus himself

There are a few points of similarity between speeches in
the Acts and in Josephus which seem at first sight somewhat
more deserving of attention. The most striking, I think, are
those between passages in St Paul's Address to the Ephesian
presbyters at Miletus in Acts xx., and in a speech of Agrippa
to the Jews given in XhQ Jewish War, II. 16. § 345 ff.'. But again
in t\\& Jcii'ish War, VI. 2. § 96, Josephus refers to an occasion
when from outside the walls of Jerusalem he addressed those
within the city, "speaking in Hebrew" (e/3pai'^&)f), and after
hearing his opening remarks the people were dejected and
silent. In VII. 5.§ 127 of the same work he describes Vespasian
"making the sign for silence and when there was quiet"
standing up. The sign for silence was a motion with the
hand ; it is referred to Ant. VIII. 1 1. § 276 (r^ %etpi KaTaa-eL(Ta<i
TO 7rXi]0o<?...'y6vo/jbevrj<; 8e aL(07r>]<i yp^aro Xiyetv). In the Life,
c. 29, he refers in these terms to another occasion when he
himself spoke : aiyfj<i ovv irapa ttuvtcov y€i>o/j,evr]<i, av8pe<i,
elirov, afx6(f)vXot Oavelv /J-ev, ei SiKatov iariv, ou TrapacTov/xat.
It is interesting to compare the reference in the first of these
passages to the employment of Hebrew with Acts xxi. 40. The
phrases in the various passages as to the procuring of silence
and the mode of doing so were probably common. The
clause Oavelv fiev, etc., with which Acts x.xv. 1 1 a agrees so
closely, may seem to be more distinctive, yet we have here,
it would seem, a customary form of rhetorical appeal-.

In considering the signifiicance of the parallelisms which

^ With Acts XX. 20 and 26 compare (^rjdrjv Selu iiri to avrb Trdfras vfids avv-
a7a7WJ' eiireiv a vofii^'u} (n>H(p^peiv {B.J. H. 16. §546); and /xaprvpofiai 5e (yu} fxiv
VfiCjv TO, ayia Kal roiis iepovs d77^\oiis toD deov Kal TraTpiSa rrjv Koivqv, cJj ov8ev tQv
(TWTripiuv vfjuv Kadv(f>-qKafj.T}v, vfieis di ^ovXevad/nevoi /j.^v to, SiovTa kolvtjv avv ifj.ol
T-qv eipTjvrjv e^ere, irpoaxOevrei 8e rots dv/xoiS X'^P'' e/nov Kiv8vvfvcreT€ (id. § 401).
Also compare ot5o fiev ovv, etc. (tl>. § 348) with Acts v. 29.

^ See examples in Wetstein A^ov. Test, ad loc. E.g., Dion. Ilalic. v. 29, rhv
Hiv ovv ddvixTov ...ov TrapaiToOfxai.

with the works of Josephus 271

-have been here mentioned and of any others hke them, it
should ever be remembered that circumstances more or less
similar often recur in history and various human lives, and
that in relating them different writers may often use indepen-
dently the same, or similar, words and phrases. We have an
example in the account b\' Josephus in his Life, c. 3, of his
being shipwrecked on a voyage to Rome, and that of St
Paul's shipwreck. As the latter occurs in a portion of the
Acts which is most commonly admitted to be by a companion
of the Apostle, he would be a bold critic who would venture
to attribute the correspondence in the incidents and details
here to the influence of Josephus. But warning has not been
taken from this instance as it should.

(3) I turn to notices of persons and events belonging to
general history. Here, if anywhere, it might have been ex-
pected that the New Testament writer would have used the
works of the Jewish historian, if he was acquainted with
them. But for the most part there is no sign of it. We
do not find particular statements as to public officials, the
years of the reigns of emperors and the like, in the third
Gospel and the Acts which correspond closely in form or
matter with statements in Josephus. Even if there were
such, it would be open to us to assume that they had been
derived not from the latter, but from some of the previous
writers whom (it would seem) he himself largely reproduced ^
But the information which the author of the " Lucan" writings
shews on such subjects was no greater than must have been,
one would think, frequentl}' possessed, or than could at least
easily have been obtained by one residing in an}' of the great
cities of the empire, through conversation with persons of
experience and education, Jewish and Gentile.

KrenkeP appeals to the freedom with which our third
evangelist has treated St Mark in order to explain likewise
his relation to Josephus. But there is no analogy between
the two cases. The departures from St Mark are in the way
of improvements of the style, or of the addition or sub-
stitution of other pieces of tradition ; whereas Josephus

^ See Schurer, Gesch. d.Jiid. Volk. i. p. 80 ff., Eng. trans. I. p. 85 ff.
2 p. It ff.

272 Alleged traces therein of acquaintance

should have been followed with exactness as to facts of history
for which he was the authority. The writer of the third
Gospel and the Acts was quite historian enough to under-
stand this.

Much has been made of an instance in which an error —
or what is probably an error — on the part of the author of
the Acts may be explained as due to a careless reading and
inaccurate remembrance of a passage of the Antiquities (XX.
5. § i). Here the appearance of Theudas in the governorship
of Fadus is referred to, and after him the sons of Judas of
Galilee are mentioned, and this gives occasion to a notice
of the father. In the Acts (v. 36 f ) we have Theudas repre-
sented as preceding in time Judas of Galilee himself, who
" arose in the days of the taxing." It is supposed that the
writer recollected that Theudas was named at the beginning
of the passage, but confused Judas with his sons. With
Schiirer^ I think it unlikely that the author of Acts should
have been so careless ; but be this as it may, the possibility
that his error arose in some other way cannot be excluded.
There may, for example, have been a similar passage in some
earlier work used by Josephus and known to the author of
the Acts in which Theudas and Judas and his sons were
referred to in the same order.

In replying to Schiirer's criticisms on this and other
points^ Holtzmann was led to allow that "the reading of the
works of Josephus already lay behind our author" (Luke)
"when he came to the composition of his own works, and
can never, to speak generally, have been very thorough and
careful. He had just looked through Josephus, nothing
more^" This certainly is all that can reasonably be claimed.
Krenkel's argument to shew that the author of the third

1 Schiirer's conclusion is that "either Luke had taken no notice of Josephus
at all, or subsequently to his reading he proceeded to forget all about it."
Zeitschr. f. VViss. Theol. 1876, p. 5S2.

- See p. 263, n. 2.

2 " Statt dessen lag jene Lectiire, als unser Verfasser zur Abfassung seiner
Werke schritt, bereits hinter ihm, und sehr tiefdringend und genau konnte sie
iiberhaupt niemals gewesen sein. Er hatte eben im Josephus sich umgesehen
(vgl. meiner Aufsatz, S. 89), weiter nichts" {" Noch einmal Lucas und Josephus,"
Zeitschr. f. IViss. Theol. 1S77, p. 536).

with the works of Josephiis 273

Gospel and the Acts had obtained many suggestions for his
own works, and had largely drawn his vocabulary, from the
writings of the Jewish historian, has been seen to be in-
conclusive, and it presupposes such an acquaintance with
those writings as he evidently, from his notices of facts of
general history, did not possess. But further it appears to
me impossible to prove, or to render probable, those vague
reminiscences for which Holtzmann contends by means
simply of such evidence as is adduced. Since no more is
attributed to him, it is implied that the evidence is somewhat
slight. Moreover the consideration is overlooked that other
explanations of the various items of it are possible. The
parallelisms need to be more numerous and more distinctive
than they are in reality, to establish a case for the particular
explanation that is suggested. Failing this, it would be
necessary that there should be some fact rendering it inde-
pendently probable that the author of the third Gospel and
the Acts should have known the works of Josephus in question,
like St Paul's reference to a physician among his companions
which lends meaning to the signs of medical knowledge in
our author. In the absence of any such coincidence in the
case now before us, there is not sufficient force in the argu-
ment to enable it to resist any substantial reasons on the
other side. It is not capable of shaking our conclusion that
the author of the third Gospel and the Acts was a companion
of St Paul, and should not prevent us from assuming what-
ever else is most probable on that supposition. We may,
therefore, dismiss the idea that he had read the Antiquities
and Contra Apionevi and Autobiography of Josephus ; but the
question whether he knew the Jewish War is deserving of
some further consideration.

The indications of acquaintance with this work which
have so far come before us are, I think, slightly stronger than
those alleged in regard to the others ; there are besides a i^w
parallelisms with it of a different character which I proceed
to note. The language in regard to the siege of Jerusalem
in Lk xix. 43, and xxi. 20, agrees well with the description
of it by Josephus. Certainly Luke might have learned the
facts about the siege from many quarters, but it would be
s. G. II. 18

274 TJie time at ivhich

natural that he should have read with deep interest Josephus'
account when it appeared. Further his statement as to the
position of Emmaus in Lk xxiv. 13, may be compared with
that in Josephus, B. J. VII. 6. § 217^ and also Luke's use of
'YXaioiv, Olivet, as a name for the Mount of Olives at Acts i. 12,
and possibly also at Lk xix. 29, xxi. 37, with passages in
Josephus where this form of name may be intended-. The
correspondence in regard to Emmaus is not exact, and as
to " Olivet" is uncertain ; nevertheless these resemblances are
not to be classed with those phrases which may probably
have been used often in the literature of the tim.e.

Let us now in conclusion turn back to the opening
sentences of the third Gospel, and view them in the light
of the results which we have obtained through the inquiries
in this and earlier chapters. The stress laid by Luke upon
the testimony of those who " from the beginning were eye-
witnesses and ministers of the word," and upon his having
himself " traced the course of all things accurately from the
first," is remarkable in one who, as we have seen, has compiled
his own record mainly from written accounts which preceded
it. Evidently men still looked back to the oral teaching of
the first disciples as the ground of their confidence in the
facts of the Gospel, and the authority of any document was
measured by its agreement therewith.

Luke implies that he is prepared to authenticate all that
he has himself written in his book as satisfying this test.
He does not refer to having made use of documents, because
he felt that he could go behind them. It is true that, as has
often been pointed out, the words of Luke's preface need not

^ The words in Josephus, I.e., are xwplov ^Sukcv eis KaToiK-rjaif, 6 KaXetrai fiiv
'Afi/xaovs, ttTr^x^' ^^ ■''<^'' IfpoffoXvfJ.ui' aradlovi TpiaKOvra. This is the text as given
by Niese, which is evidently right. He mentions one Codex where e^riKovra is
read ; no doubt this was a change introduced by a Christian copyist to bring the
statement into accord with Luke.

- At Acts i. 12 we have aTro opovs toO KaKoviJLivov'EXaiiovos, which is of course
quite plain ; but at Lk xix. 29 and xxi. 37 it is doubtful whether we have the
genitive or an accusative in apposition, Trpoj rb opos to KoKovfuvov i\aiQ)v or
i\axwv — of olives, or Olivet— and the passages in Josephus {B.J. II. 13. § 262 ;
V. 2. § 70; Ant. XX. 8. § 169) are similarly ambiguous. Niese takes the word
as the genitive.

Luke composed his Gospel 275

necessarily be taken to mean that the writer had himself been
in immediate contact with the eyewitnesses. But plainly this
is not excluded ; while their statements might also be known
from the reports of many who had been their constant hearers.
Probably both means of information are here intended, though
the second perhaps more than the first. Luke, when he
visited Jerusalem in Paul's company saw and heard James,
" the Lord's brother," and possibly other members of the
earliest body of disciples ; and both during his stay in
Palestine at this time, and after it, and to some extent also
before, in different parts of the world, he must have had not
a few opportunities of holding intimate converse with and
questioning those who had learnt from them.

The third Gospel may have been written as late as
A.D. 80, but (as I have already said)' it is not probable that
it was written much later than this, if Luke was the
author. That it cannot have been composed much earlier
appears from its expressions in regard to the doom of Jeru-
salem, when compared with those in St Mark-. The fact
that Luke is more explicit than a source which he has used
in the context and in other places is here the decisive con-
sideration. If we had only Luke's language on the subject,
it might be open to us to suppose that the references to the
siege were instances of genuine prediction ; but it seems clear
that interpretation after the event must here have been inter-
mingled with the original prophecy, when we turn to the
vaguer terms of the earlier record, which in the main Luke
has followed. One expression peculiar to him (Lk xxi. 24)
brings vividly before us the period of suffering for the Jewish
nation which commenced after the taking of Jerusalem, and
no speedy termination of it appears to be contemplated.
This suggests that some little time has already elapsed since
that event.

' See p. 260.

- Lk xxi. 20= Mk xiii. 14. Cp. also Lk xix. 43.

276 The style of different parts 0/ the Liican

ADDITIONAL NOTE TO CHAPTER IV.

THE EMPLOYMENT OF CHARACTERISTICS OF STYLE,
VOCABULARY Ax\D THOUGHT IN DIFFERENT
PORTIONS OF THE "LUCAN" WRITINGS AS A
MEANS OF DETERMINING THE ORIGIN OF THOSE
PORTIONS SEVERALLY.

In addition to the books dealing directly with the authorship of
the "we "-sections in Acts, mentioned on p. 255, the following works
of a more general kind will be found useful in the study of the Lucan
style and vocabulary : Lekebusch, Die Composition ufid Entsteliung
der Apostelgeschichte vo/i neuem utitersucht, 1854; J- Friedrich, Das
Lukas-evangelium und die Apostelgeschichie, Werke desselben Verfassers ;
Th. Vogel, Zw Charakteristik des Lukas iiach Sprache und Stil, 1899.

Help may also be derived from works on the Grammar of the
New Testament, especially that of Blass (references to him in the
following pages are to the Eng. trans, of his Grammar by H. St J.
Thackeray, 1898), and the treatises of J. Viteau : Etiide sur le Grec
du Nouveau Testament. Leverhe: Syntaxe des propositions, and Etude
sur le Grec du Nouveau Testament compare avec celui des Septante:
Sujet, complement et attribut, in Bibliothcque de fecole des hautes
etudes, 114.

I have stated the number of times that particular v,-ords occur in
the Lucan writings, etc., in accordance with the concordance of
W. F. Moulton and A. S. Geden, which is based on the texts of
Westcott and Hort, Tischendorf and the English Revisers. But
textual differences are not of great moment for our present purpose,
since our conclusions can only be obtained from a broad view of
Lucan peculiarities, and this remains unaffected by such differences.

Different writings of the New Testament alone are here com-
pared, and when, after enumerating the number of times that a
word occurs in various writings contained in it, 1 add "not else-
where," I mean "not elsewhere in N.T."

writings as a criterion of their origin 277

Since the examination of the passages does not follow through-
out their order in the Gospel, the following table is subjoined for
convenience of reference.

Page

Lk i. and ii.

291—5

Lk xiv. I — 24, 28-

-33

302 f.

,, iv. 16 — 30

295 f-

,, XV.

303

,, iv. 31—44

279—81

,, xvi. I — 13, 19-

-31

304

,, V. I II

296—7

,, xvii. 7 — 19

304 f-

,, V. 12 — 26

281—3

,, xviii. I — 14

305

,, vii. II — 17

397

,, xix. I — 28, 41-

-44

305 f-

„ vii. 36 — 50

2 98 f.

,, xxii. 14 — 38

306

,, viii. 1—3

299

,, xxii. 39 — xxiii.

287—90

,, viii. 22—56

283—6

,, xxiii. 5 — 12, 14,

15.

39-

-43 306-8

„ ix. 51—56,

6r,

299

,, xxiv. 13 — end

308 f.

,, X. I, 17 — 20, 21

9—4-

299 f.

Acts xvi. 9 — 18

3 '4— 8

„ xi. I, 5—8,

27,

300 f.

„ XX. 4 — 16

318 — 20

„ xii. 13 — 21,

, 50

301

,, xxi. I — 18

320 — 2

,, xiii. I — 17,

22,

31-

-33

301 f.

In Chapter ii, in conne.xion with the subject of the reconstruc-
tion of the Logian document, I endeavoured to estimate the amount
of difference between Mt. and Lk which we ought to be prepared
for, in passages independently reproduced in both from the same docu-
ment, no longer extant, by considering the differences between them in
their parallels to Mk. Similarly a study of the alterations made by
our third evangelist in his Marcan document, and also, so far as they
can be ascertained, in his Logian document, should enable us the
better to judge how far " Lucan " characteristics which we may
observe in other passages are merely signs that the general author of
the third Gospel and Acts has revised some written source, or can
be taken as evidence that the composition was wholly due to him.

I should weary most of my readers past their endurance, were I for
the purpose in view to conduct them here through an examination of
all the portions of St Luke which are parallel with St Mark ; and
many points would be found to recur again and again. I will content
myself with the treatment in detail of a few passages by way of
example, and with some general statements in regard to the
remainder, based on my own investigation of the evidence. I will then
pass on to consider the bearing of the results obtained upon the two
subjects of inquiry that have come before us in this chapter, to which
they are applicable, that, namely, of the source, or sources, of the
peculiar matter in Luke, and that as to the identity of the author of
the " we "-sections in the Acts with the author of the whole work and
of the third Gospel.

278 Luke's revision of his Marcan document

Luke's revisio7i of his Alarcan documefit.

It must be premised that of the instances in which Luke appears
to have altered the constructions, or the phraseology, of his Marcan
document, not all should be reckoned as specially characteristic of
him. We must obtain our standard for what is characteristic from
the survey of a broader field. If we take the words and turns of
phrase peculiar to Luke in passages parallel with Mark, and inquire
what the usage of the New Testament is in regard to them, this will
shew which are likely to have been characteristic of Luke among the
writers of Christian documents in the first century as a class. And
then from the nature and number of such characteristic expressions
in Luke's Marcan parallels we may get a notion of the nature and
number of those which would probably be noticeable in other
passages taken by the same writer from a written source.

It will be important for us to distinguish between Luke's treat-
ment of descriptions of scenes and incidents in his source and its
reports of spoken words. He is wont to reproduce the latter, as I
have already had occasion to observe in an earlier chapter, with a far
higher degree of verbal exactness than the former, and consequently
it is in the former, the descriptive portions, that his own characteristics
of style and vocabulary and point of view appear most largely. We
will therefore fix our attention upon sections which are either wholly
descriptive, or in which the descriptive element is considerable.
Some from the early part of the Gospel will serve our purpose well.

One remark of a general kind I will make before entering upon
the review of particular passages. We shall find that even in the
descriptive matter the Lucan characteristics are very unequally dis-
tributed. While adhering closely on the whole to Mark's narrative,
Luke seems here and there to have drawn inferences from what he
read, to have formed his own idea of the circumstances and incidents,
and then to have told the facts as he conceived them. Or again the
special interest which he felt in the subject-matter, and the belief
that he could improve the presentation of it, have moved him to
add various touches or to rearrange the account. Or, once more,
some little piece of additional information which he possessed, or a
different mode of telling a story to which he had become accustomed,
has exercised an influence upon him. Sentences in which Luke
shews more than his average amount of independence of the form of
Mark's narrative, owing to one or other of the causes just mentioned,
occur especially at the beginnings of sections, or at the conclusions.

Luke's revision of his Marcan docuiuent 279

where, for instance, he depicts the effects of a miracle ; but some-
times also in other parts. As might be expected, it is in these
sentences, where on the whole the divergence from Mark is most
considerable, that the Lucan characteristics are found in greatest
number.

We will begin our examination at the point where Luke rejoins
the Marcan sequence after his narrative of the Visit of Jesus to
Nazareth.

Lk iv. 31 — 37 = Mk i. 21—28. The motives for the few small
changes which Luke has made in this section of Mark can easily be
divined. The only points which could, if we had not the Marcan
parallel, attract attention as characteristic are : — v. 31, the description
of Capernaum as TrdAtv tt^s raXiXata?, which is evidently intended for
readers who did not know Palestine, and would most naturally
proceed, also, from a writer who himself was a stranger to it : v. 33,
TTveti/xa SaLfiovLov (iKaOdpTOv (in place of the usual TrveS/xa, or Saifxoviov,
aKaOaprov). Luke distinguishes the spirit from the organism in which
it works and the special form of its manifestation ; cp. xiii. 1 1, Trvcv/xa
ao-^ei'ct'as, and A. xvi. 16, irvivixa irvOuiva, sl Pytho-spirit. Similarly
the references in Lk and A. to the Trrevixa, the personal centre, in
human beings, are peculiarly frequent; cp. i. 80; viii. 55; ix. 55;
A. vi. 10; vii. 59; xvii. 16.

V. 36. e^ovcrta koI 8vvdfX€t : the same combination occurs at ix. i,
and similar ones at i. 17, and at A. iii. 12; iv. 7 ; vi. 8; x. 38.
8vi'a/Ai9 is coupled with So^a in Mt. xxiv. 30, and Mk xiii. 26, as also
at Lk xxi. 27.

Lk iv. 38 — 41 = Mk i. 29 — 34. The following expressions and
words may clearly be reckoned characteristic : —

V. 38. crvvex^oixivT) Trvperw /xeyaAw : cp. the closely similar phrase at
A. xxviii. 8, Trvperois kol SucrcvTcpia) a-vvexo/xcvov (see on the two
expressions, Harnack, Lukas der Arzt, pp. 123 f., 127, Eng. trans,
pp. 176, 182). There is reason, also, to think that the use of yuteyaXw
in connexion with fever has even a technical force (see Hobart,
p. 4). — crvi'e'xetv and crvvix.'ia-BaL are used with special frequency in
Lk and A., though only in the two passages here referred to in
regard to bodily plagues. For this application cp. Mt. iv. 24.

The substitution of yjpwrrjaav avrov -rrepl avrr/s for Mk's more
neutral Xiyovaiv, etc., should, I think, also be noticed. "They ques-
tioned Him about her." It is just the expression which would be used in
the case of a physician who had been called in, or who had happened
to enter a house where there was a sick person. At this early point

28o Ljikes revision of his Marcan dociiinent

in the history, when Jesus was just beginning to shew His power as a
healer, it is eminently suitable.

V. 39. i(f)La-Taiai ; 7 times in Lk, 1 1 in A., besides only once
in I Th. and twice in 2 Tim. — ■n-apa-^prjfxa: 10 times in Lk, 6 in
A., besides only at Mt. xxi. 19, 20; of the 10 times in Lk, 7
are in descriptions of cures. In four of these it is used in place of
Mk's (.i'Ov'i, but in the present passage there is no word to correspond
in Mk, and although in the cure of the woman with the issue the
suddenness is noted by Mk, Luke lays stress upon it (Lk viii. 44 /;,
which — Mk v. 29, is followed by v. 47 /'). Trapaxprj fx-a is also used of
a cure related only in Lk at xiii. 13, and of one described at A. iii. 7.
The suddenness of the cures seems to have impressed Luke as a man
interested in things medical.

V. 40. a-avT€<;. ttSs and (iTras occur with special frequency in
Lk and A., cp. Friedrich, p. 6. Luke is fond of the thought that a//
are stirred, etc. (though of course it is not confined to him, e.g. see
Mk i. 27, 28). Similarly we may note the phrase : evl cKaWo) eTriTt^ct?.
Cp. esp. the individuality of the gift of the Spirit at A. ii. 3, and of
the admonition at A. xx. 31. cIs ^Kao-To^ in masc. is used twice in
Lk, five times in A., once in Mt. and five times by St Paul, and the
neut. once in A., once in i Cor.

V. 41. iav. twice in Lk, seven times in A., two in rest of N.T.

Lk iv. 42 — 44 = Mk i. 35 — 39. Luke has recast to a considerable
extent the opening part of the Marcan section. (Lk v. 42 = Mk
^''^'- 35 — 37-) Special points: — 7'. 42. y(.vop.ivr}% ■qixipa'; : the gen.
absol. though not uncommon in the other N.T. writings is used with
special frequency by Luke. — ecus is used (as here) of coming up to, as
far as, a spot or person, at ii. 15 ; iv. 29, 42 ; A. ix. 38; xi. 19, 22 ;
xvii. 15; xxiii. 21,; besides only at Mt. xxvi. 58 and Mk xiv. 54,
and in the poetic expressions Mt. xxiv. 27, 31; Mk xiii. 27.
KarCixov avTov tov fjiiij TropevicrOai. The gen. of infin. dependent not
on a preposition, but either on a verb (as here), or on a noun (e.g.
A. xxvii. 20), " has an extensive range in Paul and still more in Luke ;
it is found to a limited extent in Mt. and Mk, but is wholly, or
almost wholly, absent from the other N.T. writers." Blass, p. 234.
It is to be added that the use of the infin. with the art. in dependence
upon a preposition belongs chiefly in N.T. to the writings of Luke
and Paul. Id. p. 233. Cp. Lekebusch, p. 75, and Friedrich, p. 36,
no. 271. The use oi -jroptveaOai twice in this verse should also be
noticed. Although of course not an uncommon word it occurs in Lk
and A. with unusual frequency, v. 43. emyyeXt^ccr^ai, middle, is

Lukes revision of his Marc an document 281

very common in Lk and A. and in the Pauline Epp., for "preaching
the Gospel," and is used elsewhere only once, viz. at i Pet. i. 12.
(The act. is used twice in Apoc, and the passive once in Mt., in a
Logian passage, Alt. xi. 5 = Lk vii. 22 ; also at Lk xvi. 16, and a few
passages in Gal., Heb. and i Pet.) The good news proclaimed is
further defined not infrequently by the addition of a noun in the
accus. The persons to whom the message is delivered are placed in
dat. in St Paul's Epp., with one exception ; and so also by Luke in
the present passage and at i. 19; ii. 10; and A. viii. 35. But at
Lk iii. 18 and A. viii. 25, 40; xiii. 32; xiv. 15, 21; xvi. 10; and
also at Gal. i. 9, and i Pet. i. 12 the person or persons, place or
places "evangelised" are in accus. The former is in accordance
with Attic usage (cp. Blass, p. 89) ; the latter was probably a techni-
cal form of expression, as it were, which had grown up among
Christian missionaries. Apoc. x. 7 may also be compared, though the
verb, besides being in the act., has a more ordinary meaning, v. 44.
■r]v Krjpvacruiv : the periphrasis of dfXL with participle for the finite verb
is specially common in Lk and A. See Lekebusch, p. 76 ; Friedrich,
p. 12, no. 14 ,^.

Luke's account of the Call of Simon and two other disciples
(Lk V. I — 11) is largely at least independent of Mk ; we may pass
on, therefore, to

Lk V. 12 — 16 = Mk i. 40 — 45. The account of the miracle, —
including the request of the leper, some words of Christ, and also the
descriptive matter in which these are embedded {12 c, 13, 14), — is
given almost exactly in the language of Mk, and there is nothing
characteristic about the two or three little differences. But in Luke's
introduction to the incident (12 a, b) and description of the con-
sequences of the miracle {vv. 15, 16) there are several points to be
noted. V. 12. Kat lykvtro kv t(3 €ri'at...Kai iSou : the impersonal
eyeVcTo in a clause containing a note of time (a Hebraism = ^n^?, which
is pleonastic according to our ideas, since the note of time might be
connected with the principal verb) is specially common in Lk. We
find it with Kat Ihov in apodosi in present verse and at xxiv. 4, and also
at Mt. ix. 10; with koX auros in apodosi, eight times in Lk (v. i, 17 ;
viii. I, 22; ix. 51; xiv. i; xvii. 11; xxiv. 15), and not elsewhere;
followed by a finite verb, but without Kat, 22 times in Lk, 5 in Mt.
(only in the formula with which discourses are concluded, vii. 28 ;
xi. I ; xiii. 53; xix. i ; xxvi. i), twice in Mk, When followed by an
infin. and accus., as it is five times in Lk, 14 in A., and once in Mk,

282 Lukes revision of his Marc an doaiment

it need not be regarded as impers. It should be observed that this
more defensible construction is the only one of those here referred to
which occurs in A. — Iv tw cTvai : iv tw with infin. occurs with special
frequency in Lk, also at A. ix. 3 and xix. i. Cp. above iv. 42 ti. —
kv fjiLo. Twv TToXcwc : cp. ev fxia tojv o"uvaytuyaJv, xiii. lO and iv /xia rwv
nqixi.pwv, v. 1 7, etc. — Again, the particularity of the description of the
man's physical condition, TrXijpy]? AcTrpa?, is noticeable. — Seofxai occurs
eight times in Lk, seven in A., and six in Pauline Epp., once in Mt.
7'. 15. Supx^crOaL occurs 10 times in Lk, 20 in A., 10 in rest of N.T.
— depaweveiv, or depaTrevecrdaL, is also followed as here by ttTTO at
Lk vi. 18, vii. 21 and viii. 2, but not elsewhere. — aa-diveta is used
specifically for sickness four times in Lk and at A. xxviii. 9 ; also once
in Mt. and twice in Jn, and perhaps in 2 Cor. xi., xii. and Gal. iv. 13.
V. 16. The use of avTos, as an equivalent for 05 or oo-ns, is charac-
teristic of Lk, A., and St Paul's Epp. See Viteau, p. 51. In Lk
and A. ovtos also is similarly used {lb-) ', for ^v with participle see
iv. 44 ;/. Lastly, Luke is fond of representing Jesus as praying (cp.
iii. 21 ; vi. 12; ix. 18, 28, 29; xi. i).

Lk V. 17 — 26 = Mk ii. i — 12. With a view probably to more
orderly narration Luke has stated at the beginning of this narrative
{v. 17) that there were scribes present, which Mark does not mention
till r. 6, and he has also amplified and heightened the description.
Moreover, he has a good deal altered the form, though not the
substance, of the account of the bringing of the paralytic into the
presence of Jesus (vv. 18, i9 = Mk vv. 2 — 4). In these three vv. of
Luke's section (17 — 19) there are several Lucan characteristics, v. 1 7.
KoX iyivcTO. . KOi au709 : see above, v. 12 ;/. — iv fxta Twv yjixepwv : the
same phrase is used again at viii. 22 and xx. i ; cp. also above, v. 1 2 u.
For ^v SlSolctkwv, rjcrav KaOiJixevoi, ^aav iXrjXvOoTes, see above, iv. 44 ;/.
For the conception of the power of the Lord being present in and
working through Jesus, cp. the account of His withdrawing into the
wilderness after His baptism, iv rrj Swdfiet rov ITvev/xaTos (iv. 14). —
laaOai in midd. or pass, occurs 1 1 times in Lk, and eight altogether
in the other Gospels, four times in A. and three in rest of N.T. ; the
noun lao-is at xiii. 32 and A. iv. 22, 30. v. 18. TrapaX^Xvp-evo^ : here
and at 7: 24 ; so also at A. viii. 7 ; ix. ;^;^. Mt. and Mk use only
TrapaXvrtKo'?, which is nowhere used by Lk. — ifwTTLov is used nowhere
in Mt. or Mk and once only in Jn ; it occurs 24 times in Lk and 13
in A. It is frequently used, however, by Paul and most of all in
Apoc. V. 19. p-r) cirpoVrts, etc. : cp. the use of (.vpia-Knv at xix. 48,
and A. iv. 21, and see Friedrich, p. 11 (14/). Note also the two

Lukes revision of his Maixan dociuueut 283

participial clauses, each of some length, having no conjunction
between them, but both connected with the same verb. Friedrich
remarks upon the commonness of this construction in Lk and A. and
gives Lk iv. 20 and A. xii. 4, 25, as instances, p. 37, no. 272. The
sentences in question are well-balanced because the action expressed
in one of the participles is in thought most closely connected with
the verb, in the order of time or for some other reason, and the one
which is so connected is placed nearest it, while a slight pause
between the two clauses is thus naturally suggested.

vv. 20 — 24. There is nothing here to note excepting, in v. 24,
TrapaXeXvfji.ev(a (commented on above, v. 18) and -n-opevov. The latter
is also used in dismissing those healed, or who have asked a question,
at vii. 50; viii. 48; x. 37; xvii. 14; in Jn at iv. 50; xx. 17; and in
I^eric. de adult, (viii. 11). For Luke's fondness for the word see
iv. 42 ;/.

vv. 25, 26. TrapaxpijfjLa : see iv. 39 ;/. ; ivioTTLov : see v. 18 n. — Note
a fresh phrase for the man's bed, shewing an aversion to the repeated
use of the same word.- — For the trait that the man who was healed
glorified God cp. xiii. 13; xvii. 15; xviii. 43. The acknowledgment
of God's glory by the people which is called forth by the sight of
miracles is noticed in Mk ii. 12 = Mt. ix. 8 = Lk v. 26 ; Mk vii. 37
= j\It. XV. 31. But in Lk we have also ii. 20; vii. 16; ix. 43; xviii.
43 ; xix. 37. — Trapa.8o$a does not occur elsewhere, but its use here
illustrates the richer and more literary character, relatively to other
N.T. writings, of Luke's vocabulary.

I will pass over the next few sections of Luke which are parallel
to Mark, down to his first considerable insertion, and also after it the
parable of the Sower, and the piece about the mother and brethren
of Jesus coming to Him. In some of these sections the element of
reported words is large, and here (as I have said) we meet with few
Lucan characteristics. But even those of them which are mainly or
wholly descriptive, as well as the descriptive parts of the rest, belong
to the class of Luke's less revised parallels with Mark. The three
sections following upon the last that I have indicated will repay study.

Lk viii. 22 — 25 = Mk iv. 35 — 41. In this account of a storm on
the lake there are several points to be noted, v. 22. €yeVeTo8e...Kat
avros, see V. 12 ;/. — iv fxia T. rip-i-p. (//''•)• — 8tep;(€cr^at occurs 10 times
in Lk, 20 in A., once in Mt., twice each in Mk and Jn, 5 times in
Epp. of St Paul, and once in Heb. — Xifivq (also in v. 23), the lake of
Galilee, as at v. 1,2 and viii. 2,Z- Mt., Mk and Jn always use ddXaaaa
in regard to it, which Lk nowhere does. — dvdyecrOai, with the

284 Luke's revision of his Mar can document

meaning "to put to sea," is used only in the Lucan writings, viz.
here and 13 times in A. (cp. A. xvi. 11 ;/., p. 315). Similarly Kar-
ayctv of "bringing a boat to land,"' and KUTayecrOai, of "coming into
port," see Lk v. 11, and A. xxvii. 3 and xxviii. 12. v. 23. We have
seen that in the Healing of the paralytic (Lk v. 17 f.), Luke states at
the outset that scribes, etc., were present instead of waiting to refer
to them, as Mark does, when their murmurings have to be men-
tioned ; so here he states that Jesus had fallen asleep, before the
moment comes at which He is awaked, and in this way greatly
improves the description. In the clause which he is thus led to
introduce he uses the gen. absol., which is far commoner with him
than in many N.T. writings ; he uses also the word a<f>vTrv(D(T€v,
which occurs nowhere else, but which is significant as illustrating his
employment of compounds, sometimes (as in the present instance)
very felicitously. — KivSwevuv, twice in A., also at i Cor. xv. 30.

V. 24. eTrto-Tara : peculiar to Lk ; it occurs at v. 5 ; viii. 45 ;
ix. ;^^, 49; xvii. 13. — -n-aveaOai, three times in Lk, six in A., six
in Epp.

In addition to the points which have already been commented
on, we may notice Luke's remarkably lifelike reference to the sudden
descent of the squall — Kare/Sr] ; his use of to vSuip (vz'. 24, 25),
suggestive of the volume of the water, which is so impressive at sea,
especially in a storm ; and of 6 kA-vSwv, describing the surging of the
billows. Again, o-vv€7rXr?powro — both the choice of the word, and
the impf tense, and the transference to the crew and passengers of
what really applied to the boat — is more expressive than Mk's wcrre
y]hr\ ye/jLL^eaOai to —Xoioi' (avrTrXrjpovcrOaL is used also at Lk ix. 51
and A. ii. i).

Lk viii. 26 — 39 = Mk v. i — 20. v. 26. KaTairXeiv : here only,
but cp. Lk's use of Kardyea' (see above viii. 22 /i.) and Karip^^ecrOaL (see
A. xxi. 3 «., p. 320). — 17TIS : the relative of indefinite reference is
often used in N.T. in connexion with some definite person or thing,
especially iti the Ltican writings. See Blass, p. 173. For his defining
the locality cp. Lk iv. 31 «. 2^. 27. tKaids: 9 times in Lk, 18 in A.,
3 each in Mt. and Mk, once in Ro. and 5 in i and 2 Cor., and once in
2 Tim. The contrast, however, is still more striking in regard to the
use of the word in the idiomatic meaning "considerable" applied to
quantity. It has this meaning in Lk in all cases but three — two of
which exceptions occur in contexts parallel to Mk (and Mt.) — and in
all cases in A., whereas in the remainder of N.T. it is used in this sense
only at Mt. xxviii. 12, Ro. xv. 23, and i Cor. xi. 30. v. 28. Scio-^at (also

Lukes revision of his Mar can document 285

at V. 38) : see v. \2 n. v. 29. crumpTra'^eiv : three times in A. (though
not applied to demoniacal possession) ; not elsewhere. — cf>vXd(rcr€i.v,
or <f>v\dcrcr€(r6at, is used in the same literal sense as here at Lk ii. 8 ;
xi. 21 ; A. xii. 4; xxii. 20; xxiii. 35; xxviii. 16; not elsewhere. — to.
Sea-fjid, neut. instead of masc, is found at A. xvi. 26 ; xx. 23 ; not in
any other writer, v. 30. Luke uses co-tiv, ^v, etc., TtVt with special
frequency to express possession. Cp. Blass, p. 1 1 1 f It is especially
common in regard to having some relative, a child, sister, etc. So
far as I* have observed the only close parallel in this respect is at
Ro. ix. 9 in a quotation. For his defining the locality cp. Lk iv. 31 h.
v. 2,Z- Xif^yv '■ see viii. 22//. v:'. 34 and 35. to yeyov6<; is twice
used ; the second time it is also used in the parallel in Mk ; for it
cp. Lk viii. 56; xxiv. 12; A. iv. 21; v. 7; xiii. 12. irapar. TrdSas :
" Lk five times, A. six ; in rest of N.T., except at Mt. xv. 30, it
is expressed by Trpos tov? Tro'Sas, etc. ; only Luke speaks of sitting at
someone's feet in order to learn." Friedrich, p. 38. The formation
of substantives out of the neut. of participles as in classical Greek is
much commoner in Lk and A. than in the rest of N.T., cp. Friedrich,

p. 142. V. 37. d-rrav TO Tr\rj6o<; : see iv. :[0 n.—crvvex^a-OaL, see iv. T,8n. —

virocTTpeffieiv (also in vz'. 39 and 40) : 21 times in Lk, 10 in A. ; besides
only 3 times in Epp. and at Mk xiv. 40.

Lk viii. 40 — 56 = Mk v. 21 — 43. v. 40. For the def. art. with inf
governed by prep, here and v. 42 ^, see iv. 42//. — diroSex^crdai: twice in
Lk, five times in A., not elsewhere. — ttcivtcs, see iv. 40 n. — irpoo-SoKdv :
Lk six times, A. five, Mt. two, 2 Pet. three, r. 41. For koL outos, as also
for Kttt avnj at 7'. 42 : see Lk v. 16 «. — (S ovo/xa : Luke in introducing
the name of a person or a place, which he could not assume that his
readers would know, employs some expression such as " by name," or
" called," far more regularly than other N.T. writers do, and his
phrases of this kind differ from theirs. That used here occurs 5 times
in Lk, once in A., not elsewhere, while oiofxart occurs 7 times in Lk,
22 in A., twice only in rest of N.T., viz. at Mk v. 22, and Mt. xxvii. 32.
For other expressions see xxii. 47 a. — virdpx^tv : Lk 15, A. 25, rest of
N.T. 20, including instances of neut. part, used as subst. (Lk 8,
A. I, rest of N.T. 5). — Trapa T. TToS. : see viii. 35 ;/. z: 42. fxoi'oye^njs :
cp. vii. 12 ; ix. 38. — yv airw : see viii. 30 //. v. 43 d. This touch is an
example of Luke's interest in things medical. — 17x15: see viii. 26;/.
V. 44. irapaxprjfjia (here and vv. 47 and 55): see iv. 39/;. v. 45.
eTTtcrraTa : see viii. 24 n. — avvex^tv : see iv. 38 fi. V. 47 : observe
the arrangement and structure of the clauses— tao-^at : see v. 17 71. —
evcoTTiov : see v. 18 71. For oco—iov t. AaoO cp. Ivavriov t. \aov, xx. 26,

286 Lukes revision of his Mavcaii docuinent

and erajTTtoi' T. ttXt^'^ovs A. vi. 5 ; xix. 9. v. 48. -Kopvoov; see iv. 42 )i.
and V. 24//. z'. 52. KOTrreo-^at governing ace, cp. xxiii. 27. ^'. 55.
Staracrcreu' : four times in Lk, five in A., six in Pauline Epp., once in
Mt. V. 56. TO yeyoi'o's : see viii. 34//.

The remainder of the sections of Luke parallel with Mark down
to the entry of the Upper Chamber for the Last Supper would be
found on examination to illustrate the same features as regards the
appearance of Lucan characteristics. In a certain number of verses
Luke describes the circumstances more or less in his own way, and
(as might be expected) his own characteristic forms of expression
and remarks occur here most thickly. These verses are found
chiefly at the beginnings or conclusions of the several narratives ;
they are especially the following: ix. 6; 10 and 11; 18 «; 29;
xviii. 35 and 36 ; xix. 47 and 48 ; xx. 23 ; and in a somewhat less
degree, ix. i and 2 ; 7 ; xx. i ; xxii. i and 2. There are also one
or two instances in other parts, e.g. ix. 32 and 33 a. The Lucan
characteristics are markedly less common in the rest of the descriptive
portions of these sections, and in the words of Jesus and even of
disciples and others they are for the most part more scanty still.
Nowhere in the portion of the Gospel of which I am now speaking
are they more numerous than in the passages where I have set forth
the evidence ; and on the whole they are far less so, owing to the
circumstance that Sayings and discourses form a larger element.
The Apocalyptic discourse, and to a certain extent also the parable?,
are excepiions as regards the closeness with which Luke follows Mark
in reproducing Christ's words, as I have had occasion to observe in
an earlier chapter^

The concluding portion of Luke's Gospel from the beginning of
the account of the Last Supper onwards, while it corresponds with
St Mark as to the principal events treated, differs widely from it in
certain respects. The account of the Last Supper, and indeed of
the whole time spent in the Upper Chamber (xxii. 14 — 38) is, in the
main at least, plainly an independent one, and the sending of Jesus
to Herod (xxiii. 8 — 15), the words addressed by Jesus to the women
who followed Him to Calvary (27 — 31), the words "Father, forgive
them "' (34 a), the incident of the penitent thief {vv. 39 — 43), the cry,
"Father, into Thy hands" (v. 46), are peculiar to Luke. Again, the
appearances of the Risen Christ which are recorded (.xxiv.) are
mainly different, and contain statements hard to reconcile with a
statement in Mark. We will incjuire hereafter what light is thrown

' See p. 73 f.

Lukes revision of his Marcan docninent 287

upon the question of the origin of these portions by their style and
vocabulary. It is evident that for the moment we should not
concern ourselves with them, because our immediate object is to
observe how far Luke altered that which he actually derived from
Mark. But we shall do well to examine the remainder of Luke's
narrative of the last hours of Jesus, with a view to deciding whether
it can have been based upon Mark, and to learning what more we
can as to Luke's practice in regard to the revision of his documents.

Lk xxii. 39 — 46 = Mk xiv. 26, 32 — 42. v. 39. iiropevOrj : see
iv. 42 ;/. — Kara to e^os : cp. i. 9 and ii. 42 and see Friedrich, p. 13,
no. 20 ; also Kara to £i^io-/acVov at ii. 27. v. 40 1>. The same Saying
occurs again ?'. 46, where it is parallel to Mark. Luke has Sayings
about temptation peculiar to him at viii. 13 and xxii. 28. v. 41. aTro-
(TiraaOat oltto : for the same phrase (verb in middle) see A. xxi. i. It is
used there also of a painful departure. — TiOivai to. ydvaTa : peculiar
to Lk and A., cp. A. vii. 60 ; ix. 40 ; xx. 36 ; xxi. 5. St Paul always
writes KafxirreLv to. yoVaTa, and this latter expression is used in lxx.
(i Chr. xxix. 30; I Es. viii. 73; Is. xlv. 23; Dan. vi. 10; 3 Mc. ii. i).
We have also /cXtVetv evrt to. ydraTa at 2 Es. ix. 5.

{vv. 43, 44 are probably not genuine.) Luke passes over the
contents of Mk in-'. 38 — 42, perhaps because the words with which
he concludes make a fitting transition to the next scene, while the
extended account in Mark involves some repetitions.

Lk xxii. 47 — 53 = Mk xiv. 43 — 49. v. 47. 6 Acyd^cvos : on
the use by Luke of expressions like this with proper names that may
be supposed to be unfamiliar cp. viii. 41 n. The particular ex-
l)ression used here is, however, less common in the Lucan writings
than in Mt. and Jn. It does occur at Lk xxii. i, and A. iii. 2 and
vi. 9 ; but Luke far more frequently has KaXov/xevos which is not used
in the other Gospels. — eyyt^crv : see below vii. 1 1 ft. Lk omits the
explanation (Mk v. 44), that the salutation of Jesus by Judas was
a signal which had been agreed upon. The expostulation of Jesus,
and the question of those standing round Him as to whether
they should defend Him, both of which Luke alone has, might
have been imagined by him. But it can hardly have been
simply Luke's own inference that when the ear of the High-Priest's
servant had been struck off Jesus healed the wound (though Luke
alone relates this). Probably therefore in this whole passage
{vv. 48 — 51), he is relying partly on another account besides
Mark's, v. 49. to kcrofxevov. see viii. 34-'/. v. 50. to Se^toV: cp.
vi. 6, where similarly it is stated that a man's right hand was

288 Lukes revision of his Mar can docitnient

withered, v. 51. lav. see iv. 41 «. — laaOai: see v. 17?/. f. 52.
TrapayiveaOaL : 8 times in Lk and 20 in A., 8 in remainder of N.T. —
aTpaTrjyoi: here, at 7'. 4, and three times in A. of certain officers
of the temple ; in A. xvi. of city officials at Philippi ; not elsewhere.
v. 53. €$ov(TLa Tov CTKOTov; : cp. i$ov<TLa ToD Sarava, A. xxvi. 18.

Lk xxii. 54 — 62 = Mk xiv. 53 «, 54, 66 — 72. For differences of
arrangement between Mark and Luke in their narratives of Peter's fall
see p. 165 f. On the whole Luke keeps close to Mark in his narrative
of what took place. The only differences of fact are that whereas
Mark states that the maid who had originally said that Peter was
a follower of Jesus repeated the charge, Luke represents it as having
been made the second time by a man ; and again that he speaks of
it as made once more by yet another man, in place of by the
bystanders generally, as it was according to Mark. The following
verbal points may be noted : — v. 55. In completing the description
of the scene of Peter's trial, he uses (in gen. absol.) the word irepiaTr-
T€Lv in sense of " kindling "; aimLv is used in this sense at viii. 16;
xi. 33 ; XV. 8 ; and A. xxviii. 2 ; not elsewhere. ai'd-n-TCLv at
Lk xii. 49 and Jas iii. 5. r. 56. dTevt^eiv : twice in Lk, 10 times in
A., twice in 2 Cor. v. 59. Stao-racrT^s coo-cl wpas /Atas : Stto-rarat is
used besides only at xxiv. 51 and A. xxvii. 28, — in the last two places
of an interval of space. — Sdaxvpi^eTo ; cp. A. xii. 15 ; it is not found
elsewhere. 7'. 60. irapaxprjiJia : see iv. 39//.

Lk xxii. 6^ — 65 = Mk xiv. 65. Luke confines the mockery in
the High-Priest's house expressly to the attendants, v. 63. 01
avSpcs : the word arr/'p occurs with considerably greater frequency in
Lk than in the other Gospels, and is used more often still in A. —
avve)^€Lv : see iv. 38 n.

Lk xxii. 66 — xxiii. i = Mk xv. i. For some of the differences
between Mark and Luke in regard to the trials of Jesus see p. 166.
Li giving an account of the morning trial Luke seems to have had in
mind, and to have made use of, what Mark relates in regard to the
trial in the night. He passes over, however, the incident of the
false witnesses, though the words which he has retained at 7'. 71
would have derived force from the mention of it. v. 69. diro roi)
vvv. five times in Lk, and at A. xviii. 6; besides only at 2 Cor. v. 16,
and Jn viii. 11 (in the Peri'c de adult.), d-w dpTL, which occurs three
times in Mt., twice in Jn and once in Apoc, is not used by Lk —
xxiii. I. uTrav : see iv. 40 «.

Lk xxiii. 2 — 4, 13, 16 — 25 ^Mk xv. 2 — 15. v. 2. tvpiaK€Lv :
here and 7'. 4: see v. ign. — Bia(rTpi(f>ovTa : cp. A. xiii. 8, 10. — ^opous

Luke's revision of his Mar can document 289

Kaiaapi StSoVat : cp. xx. 22 ; the only other passage in which <^opos is
used is Ro. xiii. 6, 7. In Mk (and Mt.) this charge is not referred
to, but it is implied in Jn xix. 12, 15. v. 4. amov: here and vv. 14
and 22, also at A. xix. 40; elsewhere, both in other writers and in
A., ama is used in similar connexions, v. 13. o-wKaXctcr^ai : the
mid. occurs twice and the act. twice in Lk ; the mid. twice and the
act. once in A.; the act. once in Mk. v. 18. TravTrX-rjOer. cp. v. i. —
V. 21. eVic^wvetv occurs three times in A., not elsewhere, v. 23.
iTTiKeia-OaL : in same sense as here, at v. i and A. xxvii. 20 and also
at I Cor. ix. 16, its force elsewhere is somewhat different, v. 25.
Tw dfXrjfiaTi avTix>v : Luke emphasises the responsibility of the leaders
of the Jewish people. Similarly it may be from a desire to make
light of the fault of the Romans relatively to that of the Jews, that
while he has dwelt on the mockery of Jesus by the officers of the
chief-priests and of Herod with his soldiers, he has made no reference
to that by Roman soldiers described Mk xv. 16 — 20. He alludes,
however, to an act of mockery by the latter during the time that
Jesus was hanging on the Cross {v. 36).

Lk xxiii. 26, 32, 35 — 38, 44, 45, 47 — 49 = Mk xv. 20 b — 41. In
describing the procession to Calvary Luke mentions the two male-
factors, much as at the beginning of the narrative in v. 17 f. he states
who were present. He is then able in the next verse to refer to
their crucifixion more concisely than Mk does. He passes over at
this point the title over the Cross of Jesus. It may have been
accidentally omitted here in consequence of his additions ; but he
finds a suitable place later on at which to mention it, viz., in con-
nexion with the taunts of the chief-priests in regard to the kingship
of Jesus; and the derisive intention of the title is thus made
apparent. The only discrepancy from Mark (apart from his giving
a different version of the last cry of Jesus) is in regard to the offering
of the o^os, and this is but a slight one.

V. 26. iTriXa/jipdvecrOaL : five times in Lk, seven in A., three in
Heb., twice in 2 Tim., once each in Mt. and Mk. v. ^2. dpaLpeOrj-
vai: dvaipclv occurs twice in Lk, 19 times in A., once each in Mt.,
2 Th., Heb. t. 33. t6v KaXovfxevov : see Lk xxii. 47 «. v. 35.
Luke distinguishes the action of the crowd, who simply gazed, from
that of the rulers. At v. 48 he again refers to the crowd, describing
their sympathy and profound emotion at the death of Jesus. — iK/xvK-
TTjpL^iiv: also at xvi. 14. — o ckXcktos : cp. o cKXeXcy/xe'vos at ix. 35.
There is plainly a reference to Isa. xlii. i (lxx.). This epithet is
not applied to Christ in the other Gospels, nor, indeed, is the title

s. G. II. 19

290 Litkes revision of his Marcan document

used — directly as a title — in the remainder of N.T. v. 45. t. riklov
cKXetVovTos : iKXeiirecv is used besides only at Lk xvi. 9; xxii. 32 and
Heb. i. 12; neither time with the present application. This use of
it, though not occurring elsewhere, nevertheless illustrates Luke's
command of literary Greek. Note also the gen. abs. — caxtcr^^; yu-eo-ov:
cp. IXaKYjaev ix€a-o<; at A. i. 18. V. 46. fj>(iivr](ja<; tfiuivfj : the use of
the verb and cognate noun is specially common in Lk and A. ; see
Lekebusch, p. 76, or Winer, § 54, 3. Cp. with the present passage
Lk i. 42; ix. 14; A. V. 28; xvi. 28 ; xxviii. 10. v. 47. to yevofie-
vov : see viii. 34 n. — eSo^a^ev t6v 6e6v : see v. 25 ;/. v. 48. aw-
irapay €vo)u.£vot : for TrapayLvea-dat see xxii. 52;?. oxv in composition
is specially common in Lk and A. I have counted 52 words,
chiefly verbs, compounded with aiiv which occur only, or most fre-
quently, in these two books. Such words are, however, still more
common in the Pauline Epp. I have counted 63 occurring only, or
most frequently, there. v. 49. 01 yrwo-Tot: also Lk ii. 44, not
elsewhere.

Lk xxiii. 50 — 56 = Mk xv. 42 — 47. v. 50. koI l8ov avjjp : a
characteristic beginning, cp. v. 12, 18, etc. ; A. viii. 27; x. 30, etc. —
oi'o'/xaTi: see viii. 41 ?i.—v. 51. outos (again v. 52, where it is used
also in parallel in Mt.): see v. 16 n. — o-ufKaraTe^ei/xcVos : here only,
but KaTaTiOeiat (though not with the same special reference) is used
A. xxiv. 27 ; XXV. 9, and not elsewhere. — ^ovXrj : twice in Lk, seven
times in A., twice in Pauline Epp., once in Heb. v. 53. Xa^cvru) :
the substitution of this word for Mk's more cumbersome expression
illustrates his command of Greek, v. 55. KaraKoXovOelv : besides
only at A. xvi. 17. — arnvts : see viii. 26;/. v. 56. vwocrTpif^nv : see
viii. 39 fi.

At this point the parallelism with St Mark ends. In the portions
of the narrative of the Passion which we have been considering, i.e.,
those which correspond in substance with Mark's account, the
phenomena as regards the appearance of Lucan characteristics are
much the same as in earlier parts of the Gospel, both as to their amount
and the unequal degree to which different verses are marked by
them. There is less composition by the evangelist himself than one
might have expected in view of the extent to which he has rearranged
the subject-matter, and the adjustments which are usually rendered
necessary by the introduction of additional matter.

style in Lukes peculiar matter 291
II.

Ltik^s peculiar matter.

Bearing in mind what we have learned from our study of Luke's
revision of his Marcan document, let us proceed to examine the
Lucan characteristics in Luke's peculiar matter with a view to
determining the nature of the source, or sources, of different parts of
it. The main question to be answered is whether it, or this or that
piece of it, was derived from a document, or from oral information
of some kind. We know what to expect in the former case. If
Lucan features are found to be still more prominent, it will be an
indication that the source was oral ; since commonly there would be
more opportunity for the evangelist to impress his own style upon
that which he was the first to wTite down, and more probability of
his doing so, than when he was using a document. On the other
hand, there may not always be equally good ground for inferring a
documentary source from the scantiness of Lucan characteristics.
For the evangelist might have preserved to a considerable extent
a style and vocabulary that were not specially his own in committing
to writing what he had received in the form of tradition, or oral
information, if it had been told him with fulness and precision, and
remembered by him accurately. Further some of the pieces that
will come before us are short, while at the same time each has to be
judged by the evidence supplied in it separately. From these causes
the test of style is not perfectly adapted to the purpose to which
I propose now to apply it. Nevertheless the results obtained by
these means are worthy of consideration.

Lk i. 5 — ii. 52. The impersonal cyevero occurs in these chapters
at i. 8, 23, 59; ii. i, 6, 15, 46; also Kat i7i apodosi after kqi ot(. in
protasi at ii. 21, and after Kal llov at ii. 25. ^^'e have noted these
Hebraisms as Lucan characteristics (see v. 127/.), but it may be
questioned whether they should be so regarded in the portion of the
third Gospel now under consideration. Here they occur in a
narrative which is Hebraic, and moulded on the Lxx., throughout,
and their use is consequently not very surprising. Luke may have
been led to use the expressions in question partly from his own
familiarity with the lxx., partly from his having become accustomed
to them in copying this document at the beginning. Much the
same may be said of evwTriov (i. 15, 17, 19, 75) — for Luke's use of
which in general see v. 18 ti. — evavn'ov (&. 6), and Ivavri {v. 8). But
these words, occurring in such phrases as eVwTrtov rov 6€ov, are common

19 — 2

292 style in Lukes peailiar matter

in the lxx. The same is true of 6 vi/^io-to?, occurring at i. 32, 35,
76, and also vi. 35, and A. vii. 48. We also have 6 ^eos 6 vi/^toros at
Lk viii. 28 and A. xvi, 17 ; also at Mk v. 7 and Heb. vii. i. Where
the origin of a passage is uncertain and is the subject of inquiry,
there may naturally be some doubt as to whether particular ex-
pressions in it should be regarded as significant in one way or
another. In the present case parallelisms with the lxx. suggest
a special ground for caution. The influence of that version may
well have been felt by some other early Christian writer besides
Luke, and even more strongly than it was by him. This considera-
tion should be borne in mind in connexion with one or two of the
"Lucan" characteristics which follow as well as in those already
noticed.

i. 5. oi'o/xaTt : also w, or ^, oiofxa, vv. 26, 27, and ii. 25 ; see
viii. 41 ;/. For the phrase in ^b^ to ovofxa au-n^s, see below, i. 6.
TToptvio-Oai : also at v. 39 and ii. 3, 41 ; see iv. 42 n. But the word
is also exceedingly common in lxx. ; with the present v. cp. (e.g.)
Ps. cxviii. (cxix.) i, ot TropevofXivoi iv vofxta Kvpiov. v. 7. ctvat with
dat. to express possession : see viii. 30 ti. — KaQoTi occurs also at
xix. 9, and four times in A., not elsewhere, v. 8. Iv toJ with inf.
(also at ii. 27) : see iv, 42 n. and v. 12 n. v. 9. Kara, to e^os : see
xxii. 39 ^^. V. 10. irav TO ir\rj6o<;: see iv. 40//. The subst. verb
with partic. occurs again zv. 20, 21, 22; ii. 26; on it see iv. 44 «.
Z'. II. w<f)Or) Be ai'TiZ: This periphrasis — the passive verb with the
dative — is common in Lk and A. in describing supernatural
appearances. Cp. of angels, xxii. 43 ; A. vii. 35 ; xvi. 9 ; also in
regard to appearances of the Risen Christ, Lk xxiv. 34; A. ix. 17 ;
xiii. 31 ; xxvi. 16. For this last use cp. i Cor. xv. 5, 6, 7, 8 and
I Tim. iii. 16. Cp. also A. ii. 3 (of the appearance of fiery tongues)
and vii. 2 (of the Lord's appearing to Abraham). In Mt. and Mk
we have similar expressions in regard to Moses and Elias at the
Transfiguration. In the remainder of N.T. we have only Apoc.
xi. 19; xii. I, 3. See on the phrase, Winer, §31, 10. — eo-roj's : for
the perf. part, of torr^^i and its compounds we find always in Lk
and A. the short form corw?, except at Lk i. 19. v. 12. <f>6fio<;
€7re7r€o-€v, cp. A. xix. 17 : — eViTrtVTcn' occurs twice in Lk, eight times
in A., four times in remainder of N.T. v. 19. eiayyiXilecrOai : for
its extensive use in Lk and A. see iv. 43 n. In the present v.,
however, and at ii. 10 its meaning seems to be simply that of
' bringing good news ' as in O.T., not specifically that of bringing the
news of 'salvation,' as in the rest of N.T. v. 20. axpt 17s i^Vepas;

style in Luke's peculiar matter 293

occurs again at xvii. 27; axpi in phrases defining the time up to
which is specially common in Lk and A. ; cp. Iws t^s i^/xepas A. i.
22. — a.v& (Sv occurs also Lk xii. 3; xix. 44; A. xii. 23; and once in
Pauline Epp. — oirtvcs : see viii. 26 «. v. 22. oTrrao-ta, occurs xxiv. 23
and A. xxvi. 19; also once in 2 Cor. v. 23. Trt'/ATrATj/xt : eight times
in Lk i. and ii., five in remainder of Lk, nine in A., twice in Mt,
V. 28. \apirovv, used besides only Eph. i. 6, but the use of x<^P''>
(see V. 30) may be compared, v. 30. x^P*-^ '^ ^^^o used ii. 40 and
52, and at 5 other places in Lk and 17 in A., 3 in Jn, not in Mt.
or Mk. In the Gospel and in the first part of A. (ii. 47; iv. 33;
vi. 8; vii. 10, 46) it has not the specific sense in which it is used in
the Pauline Epp., etc., and for the most part in the latter part of the
Acts (xi. 23, etc. except xxv. 3 and 9 ; perhaps also one or two of
the references to the grace of God, e.g. xiv. 26, may be general).
V. 35. hripx(.fjBo.i : 3 times in Lk, 4 in A., twice besides in N.T.
V. 41. a-KLpTav, also at V. 44; it occurs besides only at vi. 23 (Logian
passage), v. 45. Neut. partic. used as substantive; see viii. 34 «.,
and for this use of participles of XaXeXv, cp. ii. 33 and A. xvi. 14.
V. 56. vTro(TTp€<f>€Lv: sce viii. 37 n. v. 57. The gen. of infin., cp.
other examples at ii. 6, 21, 24, 27, and see iv. 42 n. With the words
here, however, and ii. 6, cp. Gen. xxv. 24 — iirXrjpwOrjaav al rjfxipaL
Tov TCKfiv avT-qv. V. 61. arvyyiviia, twice in A. vii., but one of these
is a quotation, v. 62. Neut. sing, prefixed to an indirect inter-
rogative sentence — " rarely except in the Lucan writings," Blass,
p. 158. Cp. ix. 46, XXli. 23. V. 64. -rrapaxprjfia : see iv. 39 n.
V. 65. SiaXaXcii', occurs also at vi. 11. v. 66. lOivro, etc. : cp. ix.
44; xxi. 14. V. 80. dvaSci^is : cp. dvaSciKvwar, Lk X. I and A. i. 24.
ii. 2. 7]yeiJ.oviv€Lv: cp. iii. i, where ■qy^.p-ovia is also used. v. 4.
17x15: see viii. 26 n. v. 8. (^vAdo-o-ovTes (j>v\aKd^ (also ?'. 9 i(f)ol3r]-
Orjaav (fto/Sov) : see xxiii. 46;/. V. 9 (as also v. 38): €<^io-Tdvai : see
iv. 39 n. For its use in describing angeUc appearances cp. ii. 9, and
A. xii. 7, and an appearance of the Lord, xxiii. 11. — TreptAd/LiTreiv,
cp. A. xxvi. 13. V. 13. i^aL(j>vrj^ : twice each in Lk and A., besides
only once in Mk. — aii'ctv : Lk 4, A. 2, twice besides. ?'. 15. to
prjfjia, cp. A. X. 37 for the use of the word with this meaning. It is,
however, a Hebraism, v. 16. o-Trcvo-avrc?, cp. xix. 5, 6, where the
partic. is used in a precisely similar manner; o-TrcvSctv is also used
twice in A., and once in 2 Pet. — dvtvpav : cp. A. xxi. 4, where it is
used in a precisely similar manner. — a-w^aXXuv occurs also at xiv.
31 and A. iv. 15; xvii. 18; xviii. 27; xx. 14; not elsewhere. In
none of these is the meaning precisely the same as here; the

294 Style in Lukes peculiar matter

nearest is A. iv. 15. v. 25. tvka.^r\% \ also three times in A., not
elsewhere, v. 35. di/TtXcyciv : also at xx. 27, and three times
in A., always of opposition to the truth ; it occurs besides once
in Jn and three times in Pauline Epp. — SUpx^adai : see viii. 22;/.
V. 37. a(f)L(TTdvai : four times in Lk, six in A., three in Pauline
Epp., and once in Heb. v. 38. avT-fj t-^ wpa, this phrase (with
or without the prep, iv prefixed) is peculiar to Lk. It occurs in
all parts: — at xx. 19 in a Marcan context; at x. 21; xii. 12, in
Logian contexts; in the verse now before us, and at xiii. 31 and
xxiv. ;^;^ in passages that are peculiar; also A. xvi. 18 and xxii. 13.
Mt. on the other hand has eV e/cctVr/ ttj <Zpa. several times, and Mk
and Apoc. each once, and Lk has this phrase at vii. 21. v. 44. ol
■yvbXTToi: see xxiii. 49 «. — dva^r^Tctv, also at A. xi. 25, not elsewhere.
V. 48. o^vvaadai: three times in Lk, once in A., not elsewhere, v. 49.
TioTi'. cp. A. V. 4, 9. V. 51. hiaTrjpiiv. also at A. xv. 29, not else-
where. V. 52. -qXiKia, used of stature also at xix. 3 and at Eph. iv. 13,

Several of the instances which have been here mentioned are not
remarkably distinctive ones. In number and character conjointly
they do not appear to exceed what might be expected if Luke was
the reviser, not the author, of the narrative. Moreover there are
other particulars which are unfavourable to the supposition that he
was the author. I proceed to notice these.

i. 5^. KoX TO ovofxa avTr]<; 'EAcicra^cT, and similarly V. 2"] b.
This formula resembles Jn i. 6 ; iii. i ; xviii. 10. Elsewhere in Lk
and A. we have in such cases always an adverbial or relative clause —
ovojxaTL, or o) ovofxa. There are examples of these in the same two
vv. here in which we have the unwonted expressions. In like
manner we sometimes find in those sections of Luke which are
parallel with Mk that he alters a word or phrase once, but not twice.
V. 9. cXaxc TO?: at A. i. 17 Xayxdreiv governs the ace. not the gen.
V. 19. TrapeoTv^Kws : in every other passage of Lk and A. in which
the perf. part, of la-T-qpn, or one of its compounds, is used the form is
€o-TO)s. V. 20. la-rf (TKjiiTiZv : cnydv is rather more common with Lk
than (Tuandv. V. 39. €is T^i' opea'fjv : the high table-land forming most
of the Eastern part of Judaea is not likely to have been referred to in
this way by any but a Palestinian writer. It is even contrary to Luke's
usual manner to have introduced such a topographical term without
any explanation, or apologetic expression. Id. 7r6X.1v *Ioi;8a : the only
other instance of the use of this form in N.T. is in the quotation
in Mt. ii. 6. At i. 65 we read cV oXrj ttJ opuv^ nys 'lovSaia?, which
looks like Luke's adaptation of the language of his source.

style in Lukes peculiar matter 295

ii. II, XpicTTo? Kvptos and v. 26, Xpio-ros Kuptbu, are unique in
N.T. ii. 23, 24, 29, vo'/Ao? Kvpiov : elsewhere, as at ii. 22, Luke
speaks of *' the Law," or " the Law 0/ Moses " (the latter at xxiv. 44,
and A. xiii. 39 ; xv. 5 ; xxviii. 23), and this was the most natural
description for a Gentile Christian, a disciple of St Paul, to give
of it.

The last expressions noted are plainly such as we might expect
from a Jewish Christian. There are others also (e.g., ii. 25, Trpoa-
8€x6fjL€vo<; TrapaKXrjfnv rov 'Icrpar^'A, and Simeon's words €ts tt-tcoo-iv,
etc., eV T(p ^la-parik) which betoken such an origin, as do also the tone
of, and knowledge of Jewish institutions displayed in, the whole
narrative.

I pass to two narratives which correspond to narratives in
St Mark but are yet largely independent.

Lk iv. 16 — 30 (cp. Mk vi. i — 6 a). v. 16. reOpafifievo^ : the
word seems to be carefully chosen with reference to the statements
in ii. iff. and 51, 52. — Kara to elwOos aurw, cp. A. xvii. 2 for the
phrase and for the act ; his use of Kara to Wo<; may also be com-
pared ; see xxii. 39 n. — iv rfj r]p.epa roiv a-ajS^aTOiv, or tov o-a/?j8aTov,
cp. xiii. 14, 16 ; xiv. 5 ; A. xiii. 14; xvi. 13. This periphrasis is not
used elsewhere; Jn xix, 31 is somewhat similar but not really the
same. Cp. ^ -qp-ipa Trj<; n.evTrjKoa-r^'i (A. ii. i ; xx. 6) ; rjfxepa r.
at,vpiuiv (Lk xxii. 7; A. xii. 3; xx. 6); neither elsewhere, v. 17 a.
cViSiSoVat, six times in Lk, twice in A., twice in Mt., not elsewhere. —
TOV irpo^. 'Hcratov : " prophet " is likewise placed before the proper
name at A. ii. 16, viii. 28, not elsewhere. 17^^ — 19 (A citation).
V. 20. (ZTci't^civ : see xxii. 56 ti. ; for ci/ai with partic. see iv. 43 n.
V. 21. Luke lays great stress on the fulfilment of prophecy. Cp.
ix. 31; xxi. 22 f. ; xxiv. 44; A. i. 16; iii. 18; xiii. 27, in all which
places the same word Trkrjpovv is used. Cp. also Lk xii. 50; xviii.
31; xxii. 37; and A. xiii. 29, where TcXctv is used. — iv toIs uktlv :
for similar expressions, emphasising the act of hearing, cp. ix. 44,
and A. xi. 22 ; xxviii. 27 (this last is in a quotation made also
Mt. xiii. 15). V. 22. Tois Aoyois tt^s x'^P'-'^'^'^ '■ ^^^ the phrase cp.
A. XX. 32; on x^-P'-^ see i. 30 n. — ix tov o-To/xaTos avrov: as Luke
dwells on the organ of hearing (cp. v. 21), so he does on that of
speech in solemn references to the utterances of prophets, etc. Cp.
esp. Lk i. 70; xxi. 15; A. i. 16; iii. 18, 21 ; iv. 25; viii. 35. In the
other Gospels the only near parallel is Mt. xiii. 35 (a quotation from
O.T.). With the last clause of v. 22 cp. Mt. xiii. 55 and Mk vi. 3,

296 style in Lukes peculiar matter

and see p. 142. v. 23. Travrw? : also three times in A. The words
peculiar to Lk are a taunt commonly addressed to physicians which
is applied to the failure of Christ's ministry of healing in His own
home. — Trapa/SoX-i] : not elsewhere in N.T., as here, "a proverb." Cp.
I Sam. X. 12, and Ez. xii. 22; xviii. 2. Its connexion with v. 24 is of
a kind which suggests compilation, v. 24 = Mk. vi. 4, somewhat abbre-
viated ; ScKTos, also at iv. 19 and A. x. 35 and twice in Pauline Epp.
vv. 25 — 27. There do not seem to be any Lucan characteristics in
these verses ; on the contrary, the reference to a Jewish tradition as
to the length of the famine in the reign of Ahab (cp. Jas. v. 17), and
the phrase ev tw 'IcrparjX, in vv. 25, 26, are suggestive of a Jewish
Christian source, z'. 28. Cp. A. xix. 2S, yeiofxevoLTrXijpei? Ovfiov: on
use of Trijj.TrXrjfj.i see i. 23. v. 29. Iws 6(f>pvoq : see iv. 42 /i. v. 30.
StcX^wv : see v. 12 n. — liropeviTo : see iv. 42 «.

It would seem that in this section Luke has amplified Mark's
account of the Visit to Nazareth by additions from another which
contained more of the words of Jesus, and which probably also lay
before him in a written form. In combining the two he has, in the
narrative portions, written with a good deal of freedom, so that
several points illustrative of his own mental habits appear there ;
at the same time he has brought in parts of two of Mark's sen-
tences.

Lk V. I — II (cp. Mk i. 16 — 20). Luke's narrative is mainly
concerned with Simon ; Andrew is not mentioned, and the place of
the sons of Zebedee is subordinate. In these respects, and in various
other details, as well as in the account of the miracle, its indepen-
dence of Mark is apparent. There are also but few coincident
expressions in the two. The reference, however, to the sons of
Zebedee may be due to the Marcan parallel. The following words,
etc., may be noticed.

V. I. cyeVcTo 8c iv Ta).../<ai avTO? : see v. 12 n. and iv. 42;;. —
liriKiicrOai: see xxiii. 23 n. — rjv k(TTU)<i: see iv. 43 ?t. and i. 1 1 n. — Xtfjiv-qv.
see viii. 22 n. v. 3. cTravayayeu' : also m v. II, KaTayay6vT€<i : see
Lk viii. 22//. V. 4. Travia-Oai: three times in Lk, six in A., six in
Epp. ; in four of the passages in A. it is followed as here by a parti-
ciple describing speaking, teaching, etc. — x'*'^*''> three times in A.,
only once each in Mk and 2 Cor. v. 5. liTKnaTa: see viii. 24?/.
V. 9. 6a.fjL^o<;: also at iv. 36 and A. iii. 10. v. 10. kolvwvol:
instead of repeating p.iTO)(oi, he used another word for variety.

Participles are effectively used in 2 h, 5 /\ "j a, 11. In the last
V. there are two participial clauses in the same tense, one following

style in Lukes peculiar 711 alter 297

the other without a conjunction, but the sentence reads well,
because there is a natural order of succession in the three acts ex-
pressed by the two participles and the finite verb, and perhaps also
for other reasons which might be pointed out. There are, also,
throughout the section, signs of care in the placing of words with
a view to right emphasis. The narrative bears a resemblance to that
related Jn xxi. 4, in regard to the Risen Lord. It appears to me
most probable that Luke derived it from oral tradition.

We now come to the sections peculiar to Luke included in his
two chief insertions into the Synoptic Outline. For the most part
I shall refrain from any expression of opinion as to the origin of the
several sections till the whole series has been reviewed. I will however
call attention in passing to the fev/ pieces in which there seems to be
specially strong reason for thinking that the composition is by the
evangelist.

Lk vii. II — 17. Ktti eycVero : see v. 12 7t. — Iv tw e^^s, cp. kv TO)
Ka6€$7J<: at viii. i. For Luke's use of rij e^? and other similar words
see XX. i^n. and A. xxi. i n. ■>7/x€pa is understood after rfj l^% and it
is actually added at ix. 37. With the reading tw we should probably
supply ■^(povta; the connexion in time which is intended is not then
quite so close; cp. R.V. "soon afterwards." — iTroptvOrj : see iv. 42 «. —
KaXovfjitvrjv : see xxii. 4"] n. v. 12. ws Sc r^yyto-ev : Luke is fond of
picturing the approach to a place or a person. Besides Lk xix. 29 =
Mk xi. I = Mt. xxi. i, we have (in addition to the present passage)
Lk XV. I, 25; xviii. 35, 40; xix. 37, 41; xxii. 47; xxiv. 15, 28;
A. ix. 3 ; X. 9 ; xxi. 33 ; xxii. 6 ; xxiii. 15, — koX tSou in apodosi (here
after w?); see v. 12 «., and also cp. vii. 37; xiii. 11; xix. 2; A. i. 10,
— /xovoycn^s : see viii. 42 n. — 7-77 p-i]'^p^ avrov: see viii. 30 «. — t^avos :
see viii. 27 ?i. v. y^. 6 Kvptos : this title is applied to Jesus in the
Christian manner several times in Luke's two chief insertions (vii.
13J X. 1, 39; xi. 39; xvii. 5, 6; xviii. 6), and also twice later in his
Gospel (xxii. 61; xxiv. 34); and several times in A. (v. 14; ix. i, 17,
etc.); also several times in Jn (iv. i ; xi. 2, xiii. 13), but not in Mk or
in Mt. At Mk v. 19 God is meant, and at Mk xi. 3 = Mt. xxi. 3 =
Lk xiv. 31, it is virtually equivalent to "our master." v. 16. Cp.
v. 25 n. — iTn(TK€irT€aOai, used of God three times in Lk and
once in A. ; with the present verse cp. esp. i. 68. — Aao's here
is used specifically of Israel. ?'. 17. 'lovSata, probably here, as at
xxiii. 5, and vi. 17, the whole land inhabited by Jews, as also at i. 5
and at xxiv. 19. In Mt. and Mk it refers always to the actual
province of Judaea.

298 style in Lukes peculiar matter

vii. 36—50. V. 36 c, cp. the form and words in xviii. 18 a.
V. 36^. KaT(.KKiBy]\ KaTaKkivicrOaL (mid.) is used three times in pieces
of peculiar matter in Lk, viz. here, and at xiv. 8 and xxiv. 30. The
act. is used at ix. 14. The word does not occur elsewhere in N.T.
V. 37 «. Ktti l8ov...K(u: see v. 12/1. — t^tis : see viii. 26 n. w. 37,
38. A long but admirably constructed sentence, such as no N.T.
writer save the author of Lk and A. has shewn himself capable of
composing, unless perhaps the author of Ep. to Heb., but as that is
not narrative it is difficult to draw a comparison. The first half of
this sentence consists of no less than four participial clauses, but as
there is no conjunction between the first two, or between the last
two, this half itself at once and naturally falls into two sub-divisions.
In the latter half of the sentence we have again four clauses, this
time each containing a finite verb. The parallelism between the
first and second is well marked by toi? SaKpvcriv in an emphatic
position at the beginning of the first clause and rats Opi^iv in the
corresponding position in the second. The four clauses follow one
another with rhythmic strokes, exquisitely expressive at once of the
ardour and the orderliness of the woman's action. — Trapo, t. 7ro8as :
see viii. 35 //. — ^pe'xctv (z>v. 38 and 44), again at xvii. 29, but also
once each in Mt. and Apoc. and twice in Jas. v. 17. v. 40^. Notice
the arrangement of the words. 7: 41. cTvai with dat. to express pos-
session : see viii. 30 fi. — xpeo(f>€L\eTy]^ : also at xvi. 5, which likewise
belongs to the pecuHar matter. At Mt. xviii. 24 we have ot^eiXc-
TT^s in a parable. At Lk xiii. 4 also o^etXcTiys, but man's relation to
God is there directly in question (not under a figure), v. 42. fxr]
€;(. 8e al'Twv dTroSori'ai ; cp. ovk e^^ovaiv av'TaTroSoviai at xiv. 1 4. —
ixapLcraro : xapt'^ec^at (mid.) : three times in Lk, three in A.; in pass,
at A. iii. 14 ; besides only in Pauline Epp. The construction x°^P^'
^ccr^atTiia tivl is used at A. XXV. II, 16, and xxvii. 24, not elsewhere
(see Klostermann, /.c, on the last passage). 7'. 43. vnoXafifSdifLv ; in
same sense at A. ii. 15; in other senses at Lk x. 30 ; A. i. 9, and
3 Jn 8. — opOw^, three times in Lk, once in Mk. — l/fpira? : xpiVeiv is
used, as here, nine times in A. of decisions which do not involve
condemnation or acquittal, as also a few times in Pauline Epp. Cp.
iTTiKpivfiv at xxiii. 24. See below, A. xvi. 15 u. w. 44 — 47. Note
the antithetical clauses, v. 48. ol (TviavuKtLfxfi'ot : avi' in composition,
see xxiii. 48/?. 7: 50. The words ^' Trt'cm? crov o-ecrwKtV o-e, TTopcvou
cts (Ipyjvtjv occur also at viii. 48, where they are parallel to Mk v. 34,
except that Mk has vTrayc instead of -n-opivov. For the use of the
latter word see iv. 42 «. The first half of the sentence occurs also
Lk xviii. 42 = Mk x. 52, and Lk xvii. 19.

style in Lukes peculiar matter 299

On p. 310 I have named the above narrative as one that was
composed by the evangelist himseh' on the basis of oral tradition.

viii. I — 3. V. I. Kttt €y€v€To...Kai : see v. \z n. and 17 ti. — Iv toJ
KaOeti]'; : see vii. 11 n. — StoSrueiv, also at A. xvii. i. — oScveiv at Lk x.
33 ; crvvoSevcLV, A. ix. 7 ; neither elsewhere. — Kara itoXlv kol Kwfxrjv :
Kara sensu distribidivo is commoner in Lk and A. than in other parts
of N.T. — cmyyeXi'^ccr^ai : see Lk iv. 43 «. V. 2. Tidepairevixevai Atto:
see V. 15 «. — Trv€VfxdT(Dv TTovrjpwy : we have irvtvixa with the epithet
TTovrjpov also at vii. 21 and A. xix. 12, 13, 15, 16; also Trvcv/xara
TTov-qporepa at Mt. xii. 4 = Lk xi. 26 (Logian document). — do-^ti'cicov :
see V. 15 fi. — KaXovfiivrq : see xxii. 47. v. 3. ainvc? : see Lk viii. 26 n.
■ — Ttt vtrdpxovTa : eight times in Lk and once in A., also three times
in Mt. and once each in i Cor. and Heb. ; followed by dat. only here
and at A. iv. 32.

There are many Lucan characteristics in this short passage. The
evangelist has here worked in with his reference to the journeying of
Jesus an interesting piece of information regarding some of His female
disciples, derived probably from an oral source.

ix. 51 — 56. V. 51. eyeVcToSe Iv Tw...Kal auTo'?: see V. 12 «., iv. 42 ;/.
— iv Tw (Tvi'TrXrjpovcrOai ras 7//xepas : the same phrase (saving sing, for pi.)
occurs at A. ii. i ; cp. also crvi/T€Xccr^77vat similarly applied at Lk iv. 2
and A. xxi. 27, not elsewhere; a-wTrXrjpova-Oai is used besides only at
Lk viii. 23, in a different connexion. — dvoAT/zxi/^is occurs only here, but
avaXafifidieiv is used of the Ascension, A. i. 2, 11, 22, and also Mk
xvi. 19 (later ending); o-TT/pt^etv, also at xvi. 26; xxii. 32; common
in Pauline Epp. Cp. Trpo tt/doo-wttov at x. i. v. 52. diroa-TiWiiv
dyyc'Aovs: cp. Mai. iii. i, quoted at Mt. xi. 10 and Lk vii. 27. The
messengers of John are called ayycXoi at Lk vii. 24. v. 53. -^v
TTopevofjiivov. — TTopcveaOaL is used four times in these six vv., cp. Lk
iv. 42 fi. and 44 n.

ix. 61, 62. V. 61. dTTOTaVo-cor^at, also at xiv. 33 in a saying, like-
wise peculiar to Luke, giving very similar teaching to that in the
present context, also at A. xviii. 18, 21, and once each in Mk and
2 Cor. V. 62. evOeros is used again in Luke's form of a saying from
the Logian document, at xiv. 35, which follows the saying referred to
under the last verse ; besides only at Heb. vi. 7.

X. I, 17 — 20. v. I. dvaScLKvv/xL : at A. i. 24, not elsewhere. — -n-pb
TrpoatoTTov: cp. ix. 52. v. 17. virocrTpicjiuv : see viii. 37 fi. V. 19.
i^ovcrtav tov iraTflv : see iv. 42 n. — 1] Swa/xt? tov i)(6pov : this may be
contrasted with ij 8wa/x.ts tov IIvcv/xaTos or tov Kvpiov, iv. 14;
v. 1 7 .

300 Style in Luke's peculiar matter

X. 29 — 37. V. 29. ZiKaiovv kavTov: cp. same phrase at xvi. 15,
and cp. xviii. 14. v. 30. ivoXa^wv : see vii. 43 n. — iripiiriiTTUv, also at
A. xxvii. 41, and at Jas. i. 2. — TrXr/yas iTriOevTa: see the same phrase
at A. xvi. 23. V. 31. Kara (TvyKv[nav does not occur elsewhere, but
is a phrase in Luke's manner ; avyKvpeiv is used three times in the
Lxx., and o-vyKvprjfia at I K. XX. 25, according to one reading, v. 32.
Kara with a noun of locality in ace. is found also at viii. 39 and xv. 14,
and frequently in A. The other Gospels do not aflford examples of
it. ?'. ^T,. 68ei.W : see viii. i n, v. 34. rpavfjiara, not elsewhere,
but TpavfxaTLCeLv is used Lk XX. 12 and A. xix. 16, and not elsewhere.
— iTTi^LfSd^eiv is used in exactly the same way at xix. 35 and A. xxiii.
24, and not elsewhere. In the latter case also kttjvt] occurs in the
context. — eVi/AcXcio-^ai : cp. iTrLfjieXeiwi tv\€lv, A. xxvii. 3. — £7ri nijv
avpiov: this phrase occurs besides A. iv. 5, not elsewhere; avpiov is
also commoner in Lk and A. than in remainder of N.T. z'. 35.
iTravip\f.(T6ai : also at xix. 15, not elsewhere, v. 37. rroidv tXeo?
fj-iTo.: cp. i. 58. — TTopcvov : see iv. 42 «.

The literary style of the whole piece is admirable. Among other
excellences note the three participial clauses in v. 30, and their
arrangement, the first two being joined by a conjunction and placed
before the verb^, and the third, of which the action coincides with that
of the verb, placed after it. Moreover, as this last clause describes
the condition in which the wounded traveller was left, it forms an
impressive ending to the sentence. The combination of variety with
repetition in v. 32, as compared with 7: 31, should also be noted;
and again, the expressive compound words — dvri7rapT7A^€i' — eVixewv —

eK^aXwv — Trpo<T^aTravi]cn]<; — €7rai'€p>(€cr6'ut.

The structure of the sentences and the vocabulary in this parable
justify us in attributing it, so far as its literary form is concerned, to
our evangelist.

x. ^8 — 42. V. 38. iv Se Tw ■7ropev€(T0aL : see V. 1 2 //., iv. 42 n. ;
auT05, V. 16//. — yvvr] Be tis ovo/xari, etc., cp. A. xvi. 14, and see Lk
viii. 41 n. — vTToBixfcrOaL : also at xix. 6 ; A. xvii. 7 ; once besides at
Jas. ii. 25. V. 39. TrjSe 571', etc. : see viii. 30 «. — KaXovfiexn]: see xxii.
47 «. V. 40. cTTiCTTacra : see iv. 39 w. zv. 41, 42. A lesson as to
the unimportance of material things. — 17715: see viii. 26//. The com-
pounds irapaKadea-deia-a and (rwavTiXdft-qTai. should perhaps be noticed.

— a<f>aip(l(T6ai^ Cp. Xvi. 3.

xi. I, 5 — 8. 7: I. eyercTo 8c iv Tio... : see V. 1 2 ;/. — ctTreV T15 :
Luke, in the matter peculiar to him, attributes questions or remarks
to an individual, rather more commonly than Mk and Mt. do, who

style in Lukes peculiar viatter 301

frequently represent the disciples collectively, or a body of Pharisees,
etc., as putting a question, etc. There are, however, instances of this
kind also in Luke's peculiar matter; see xiii. i, 31. — ws eTravo-aro : see
V. 4 ;/. — On Luke's fondness for representing Jesus as praying, see v.
16 ;/. V. 5. Ti's €^ vii.Qiv : this formula in appealing to human analogies
— a question, the answer to which is plainly indicated — occurred in
the common Logian document (Lk xi. 11 = Mt. vii. 9 ; Lk xii. 25 = Mt.
vi. 27), and we find it also in another piece which may not have been
taken directly from that document, but which was in substance
common to Mt. and Lk, viz., Lk xiv. 5 = Mt. xii. 1 1. But it is also
used several times in passages peculiar to Lk, viz., in addition to the
present one, at xiv. 28, 31 ; xv. 4 (cp. Mt. xviii. 12), 8; xvi. 11, 12 ;
xvii. 3. Lk vii. 47, and xii. 42 (= Mt. xxiv. 45), though they are
different, may also be compared, v. 6. Trapeyevero : cp. Lk xxii.
52 «. v. 7. KOTTows 7rape;(€tv, also at xviii. 5. The thought in the
comparison here is very similar to that in xviii. i — 6.

xi. 27, 28. V. 27. tyeVcTo 8e Iv toI : see v. \2n. — eTraipuv, of lifting
up the voice only here and at A. ii. 14; xiv. 11 ; xxii. 22. Similarly
atpetv <f>o}vr]v at xvii. 13 and A. iv. 24, not elsewhere. For the
exclamation cp. Lk xxiii. 29. v. 28. /u.ei'oiJvdoes not occur elsewhere
at the beginning of a clause, but is found as the second word at Lk
iii. 18, and several times in A. ; also in the present ending of Mk
(xvi. 19), also at Jn xix. 24, and xx. 30.

xii. 13 — 21. v. 13. fl-n-ev Se tis : see xi. in. v. 15. (fyvXdcr-
aecrOf 0.770 occurs only here ; at xx. 46 = Mk xii. 38, Luke has changed
Mk's ^AeVere oltto into ■irpoai-)(€T€ airo, and he has the latter expression
also at xii. i. v. 19. ^.v^paivia-dat occurs four times in the parable
of the Prodigal Son and once in that of Dives and Lazarus (i.e. other
parables comprised in Luke's peculiar matter), twice in A., three times
in Pauline Epp., three in Apoc. — aTratretv, also at vi. 30.

xii. 47 and 48. Nothing to note.

xii. 49, 50. V. 49. d.vi](f>0-/] : see xxii. 55 n. v. 50. /3a7rTio-;u.a
fiaTTTLcrdrjvaL : see xxiii. 46 ;/. — (Tvvi)(op.ai : see iv. 38 fi. — ews otov is
used by Luke here and at xiii. 8; xxii. 16; all belonging to his
peculiar matter; cws ov at xiii. 21 (Logian); and at xv. 8; xxii. 18;
xxiv. 49, all three peculiar to him ; in A. always cws ov. Mt. has Iws
OTOV at V. 25, elsewhere cws ov. Jn each expression once. — T€\fcrOrj :
see ix. 5 1 «.

xiii. I — 5. V. 1. eV avT<p Tw Kaipo) : cp. iv a-vrrj rrj wpa, Lk ii.
38 «. VV. 2 and 4. Trapa TravTas : cp. xviii. 14.
xiii. 6 — 9. V. 8. ews otou : see v. 50 «.

302 style in Lukes peculiar viatter

xiii. lo — 17. 7'. 10. r]v StSao-Kwf: see Lk iv. 44//. — Iv fiiS. t. (tvv-
aywywv: cp.v.l2«. V.IX. Kai iSoi). ..Kai ; seev.l2//. — Trvev/Aa aa^eveias :
see Lk iv. 33 n. and v. 15 n. — ^v irvyKviTTovaa : see Lk iv. 44 ft. Note
the precise description of the woman's physical condition — ovyKvir-
Tova-a...fJiiQ...ai'aKVil/aL €t? to TravTcXc's. For avaKvif/at cp. Lk xxi. 28,
and for els to ttuvt. Heb. vii. 25. v. 12. irpocrffnnvm', four times in
Lk, twice in A., once in Mt. (xi. i6 = Lk vii. 32, taken from the
Logian document), v. 13. airoXveiv is used here only of deliverance
from a disease or infirmity ; Auetv at v. 16 below and at Mk vii. 35.
— irapa-)(prjii.a: see iv. 39 ?i. — dvopdovv, also at A. XV. 16 and Heb. xii.
12. V. 14. TTj -qp.. T. o-a/?. : see Lk iv. 16 n. v. 16. Ovyaripa
'A^paap. : for this designation cp. xix. 9 ; it is also implied in xvi.
22 — 24. v. 17 /k For this termination and for c8o'|. t. 6. at z;. 13 see
V. 25 n.

xiii. 22. Cp. viii. i and ix. 6. Stairopcuccr^ai : also at vi. i and
xviii. 36 and A. xvi. 4 ; besides only Ro. xv. 24. — Kara ttoAcis kol
KoJ/xas : cp. viii. i //.

xiii. 31 — 33. V. 31. €v avrrj Trj wpa: see ii. 38;/. z'. 32. For
the stress laid on the work of healing in this saying cp. ix. i. —
tao-ts, also used A. iv. 22, 30. — aTrorcAetv occurs besides only Jas. i.
15, but for the idea of a solemn work to be accomplished cp. irXrjpovv
at ix. 31. — avpLov. see X. 34 «. — TeXciov/xat, cp. A. XX. 24; but for the
idea see esp. Heb. ii. 10 ; v. 9; vii. 28. v. 33. rrj ixop.€vr] -. cp.
A. XX. 1 5 «. below.

xiv. I — 6. v. I. iyev€TO iv tuj-.-kol avrot : see V. 12 n. — y^crai'Wlth
part., see iv. 44 //. — TrapaTrjpetv used three times in Lk, once in A., once
each in Mk and Ep. to Gal. — {iSpwTriKo's : the precise description of
a disease ; the word does not occur elsewhere, v. 3. vop-tKOi, used
five times by Luke in Logian contexts (vii. 30; x. 25 ; xi. 45, 46, 52),
but nowhere in parallels to Mk : when Mk uses ypa/A/xaTcis Luke
reproduces it. In A. also he uses the latter word four times and
vo/i.i/cd? never. This word must, therefore, in all probability have
been derived from his Logian source. Mt. has it at xxii. 35 = Lk
x. 25, from the Logian document, see p. 88 f. — -qa-uxa^fi-v : also at
Lk xxiii. 56, and twice in A. ; once in 1 Th. ; the nearest in force to
the present passage is A. xxi. 14. — £7rtXa/3o'/x€vos : iTriXap-fSdveadai,
5 times in Lk, 7 in A. ; once each in Mt. and Mk ; twice each in
I Tim. and Heb. — duacnrdi', also at A. xi. 10. — iv ■qp.ip. t. o-a/?. : see
iv. 16 //. ; possibly introduced here as a variation for aafifSdro}, which
has been left standing at vv. i and 3.

xiv. 7 — II. V. 7. eTre'xwv is used similarly at A. iii. 5; and

style in Litkes peculiar matter 303

I Tim. iv. 16; in other senses at A. xix. 22; Phil. ii. 16. v. S.
KaraxXi^gs : see vii. 36 «. v. 10. lvo....ip(x: there is only one other
instance in Lk of Iva. followed by fut. indie, viz., at xx. 10.

xiv. 12 — 24. v. 13. hoyr]v TToiciv : also at v. 29. v. 14. ovk
€\ov<Tiv di'TaTroSovi'at : cp. vii. 42. Z'. 21. Trapaytvo^evo? : see Lk xxii.
52 «. — raxe'tos, or Ta;^v, is used, in a manner which may be compared
to some extent with Mark's use of ev6v<;, in two other pieces belonging
to Lk's peculiar matter, viz., xv. 22 and xvi. 6, but not elsewhere in
Lk. It is so used also at Mt. v. 25 ; xxviii. 7, 8 ; Mk ix. 39.

xiv. 28 — 33. v. 28. Tts i$ vfJLiZv: see xi. 5 ;/. v. 31. avvfiakiiv.
see Lk ii. 19 «. ; the connotation of the word at A. xvii. 18 is nearest
to the present passage, v. 32. irpea-f^eia, also at xix. 14, in a parable
largely peculiar to Lk. — to. Trpos elprjvrjv, this phrase is used again at
xix. 42. With ipiDTo. TO. 77p6? elprjx'Tjv cp. A. xii. 20. v. 33. dTroracr-
o-€Tat : see ix. 61 ;/. — rois iTrdpxovaiv : see viii. 3 ;/. ; for the gist of the
Saying cp. xii. 33.

XV. I, 2. r. I. rjaav iyyL(o\'T€<; : see Lk iv. 44 «. and vii. 12 fi.
V. 2. Stayoyyv^eiv, likewise at xix. 7, in a passage which is to be
compared also for the occasion to which it relates.

XV. 3 — 7. (Cp. as similar in substance, Mt. xviii. 12 — 14.) v. 4.
Tts a.v6pu)iro<;, etc. : see xi. 5 «. tt'. 6, 7. Cp. the endings of the three
parables of this chapter, shewing modelling common to all. — cruv-
KaXetv is used 4 times in Lk, 3 in A., once in Mk ; o-vi'xatpeiv, also
(below) at ?'. 9 and Lk i. 58 ; 4 times in Epp. of St Paul. — St/catos
is used in a wholly favourable (but Jewish) sense at i. 6 ; xiv. 14;
xxiii. 47, 50; A. X. 22. It is used with a touch of irony — directed,
however, against those who claimed the title without conforming to
the (Jewish) ideal of the character, not against that ideal itself —
both in the present passage and at xviii. 9, as also at v. 32 = Mk ii. 17.

XV. 8 — 10. v. 8. Tts yui'T; : see xi. 5?/. — Spaxp-ij : except in
this parable the only reference to this coin in N.T. is the mention of
8iSpaxfj.a at Mt. xvii. 24. The value of the drachm in Syria in ist
cent. A.D. appears to have been about the same as a denarius, which
is the coin most often mentioned in all the Gospels. — aTrret: see xxii.
55 '^- — eTTt/AcA-ws : see x. 34//. z'. 10. ti'wVtov : see v. 18;;.

XV. II — 32. V. 13. ficT oi TToAAas 7;V€pas : cp. almost exactly
the same expression at A. i. 5 ; see, however, also Jn ii. 12. — eh
X<^pav fxaKpav: cp. xix. 12. V. 14. Kara, with acc. of place: cp.
X. 32 «. V. 15. TTop evict's : see Lk iv. 42 n. — KoWaadai, similarly
used five times in A. — 7roXtT7/s, also at xix. 14 and A. xxi. 39, and in
a quotation from lxx. at Heb. viii. 11. v. 18. hw-mov : see v. 18 «.

304 Style in Lukes peculiar matter

V. 20 b. £7r€7reo-€i', etc. : cp. A. XX. 37. v. 22. Ta^u: see xiv. 21 n.
V. 23. <{>epeT€ Tov ixoaxov : except in the present instance Luke avoids
using <j)€peiv in regard to human beings (if in a condition to walk) and
animals; — for A. xiv. 13 should hardly be reckoned an exception,
seeing that a-Te/xixaTa is combined there with ravpov; and is the word
nearest to the verb, and plainly ayeti' would have been even more
unsuitable in regard to it than ^eptiv in regard to rarpovs. — ev(j>pav6u)-
fxev : see xii. 19 «. zk 25. rjyyia-iv ttj olklo.: see vii. 12 n. v. 26.
TTwOdveaOai occurs twice in Lk, seven times in A., once each in Mt.
and Jn. At Lk xviii. 36 it is followed by rt etr] tovto, at A. xxi. 2;^
by Tts elrj, and in three other places by n's, or cases of it. In Mt. and
Jn the constructions are different, v. 27. dTroXafj-fSdvetv : five times
in Lk, three in Paul's Epp., once each in Mk and 2 Jn. v. 29.
Trapepx^o'OaL : cp. the similar use of this word at Lk xi. 42 (= Mt. xxiii.
23), where it is peculiar to Luke's form of a Logian saying.

xvi. I — 13. The word oikovo/aos used in this parable is used also
by Luke in a Logian passage, xii. 42 = Mt. xxiv. 45, where SoCXos
appears in Mt. ot/covoyiios does not occur elsewhere in the Gospels.
V. 3. i-n-aiTeiv: also at xviii. 35, in the parallel to which in Mk x. 46,
we have Trpoo-aiVr/s. — df^iaipdrai: cp. X. 42, there pass., here mid. v. 5.
eva cKao-TOv: see iv. AO n. — xpio(l>eCKiTy]<i: see vii. 41 ;/. v. 8. oIkov6ixo<;
Trjs dSiKias : cp. K/DtT'^s t. aSiKias at xviii. 6. — virep after compar., not
elsewhere, v. 9. eKAciVetv : cp. xxii. 32 and in quotation from
Lxx. at Heb. i. 12.

xvi. 19 — 31. V. 19. ivBiBvo-KeLv is used in the act. at Mk xv. 17.
— ev(f>p(iLV€aOai: see xii. 19;/. v. 20. ovofxari: see Lk viii. 41 n. v. 23.
virdpxciv : see viii. 41;/. — 68vvoip.ai: see ii. 48;/. v. 25. aTrc'Aa/Jes :
see XV. 27 «. — TrapaKaXfXTai : for this sense of irapaKaXeio-Oai, where
the comforting proceeds from circumstances, not from any words that
are spoken, cp. A. xx. 12. But we find it also at Mt. v. 4 ; 2 Cor. i.
6, etc. z>. 26. iv TTucrt TovTOL<; : cp. xxiv. 21. — SiaySaiVeiv, also at A.
xvi. 9, and Heb. xi. 29. v. 28. BLafiaprvpecrOai. : nine times in A.,
three in Pastoral Epp., once each in i Th. and Heb.

xvii. 7 — 10. r. 7. Tts Be i$ vfxwv, etc. : see xi. 5 ft. v. 9. /x?)
l\u xap'*' • for x"'p'? see i. 30 ti. The phrase ex^tv xdpiv tivl occurs
only in present passage, but Lk vi. 32, 33, 34, may be compared. —
TO, Siarax^evTa : see viii. 34;/. and 55 «.

xvii. II — 19. Z>. II. Koi iyivero iv T<3...Kai auros : see v.
12 n. — wopevea-daL here and at v. 14; see iv. 42 «. — SLrjpxeTo: see v.
15;/. V. 12. With XeTTpoi arSpcs (XcTrpos used as an adj.) we may

compare v. 12, dv^p TrXrjprjf; XcVpas. V. 13. atpetv (f>wvi]v : cp.

style in Lukes peculiar matter 305

A. iv. 24, and see Lk xi. 27 on lnaip(.iv (jiwvjv. — eTrio-Tara : see viii.
24 «. w. 15, 16. In this sentence finite verbs and participles are
skilfully intermingled and balanced, v. 15. Ida-Oai: see v. 17 «. —
vTro(TTpe(f)€iv, here and v. 18 ; see Lk viii. 39 u. — Sofa'^wv t. 6. : see v.
25 n. V. 16. Trapa Toijs TToSas : see viii. 35/?. v. 19. See vii. 50 «.

From the style of this narrative we may conclude that the
evangelist himself composed it, deriving the substance of it from oral
tradition.

xviii. I — 8, V. %. 7rape\etv kottov : cp. xi. 7. V. 8. apa, also A.
viii. 30, and Gal. ii. 17.

xviii. 9 — 14. V. 9. Tre— ot6'dTas €</>' lauTois : the same phrase
occurs at 2 Cor. i. 9. — Slkulol : cp. xv. 7 n. — iiovOevelv, also at xxiii.
II and A. iv. 11, eight times in St Paul's Epp. — rors Aoittol's : cp.
viii. 10. V. II. (TTadet^ is similarly used at xviii. 40 and xix. 8 and
four times in A. z>. 12. KTaadai, also at xxi. 19, and three times in
A., once each in Mt. and i Th. 7: 13. co-tojs : see i. 11 n. v. 14.
SiKaiovcrOaL : see X. 29 fi.—Trap Imlvov : cp. the USe of Trapa at xiii. 2, 4.

xix. I — 10. V. 2. Ka\ lhov...Ka\ avTos : See V. 12 ?i. and vii. 12;/.
— oro/xaTi KaXoi'p,cvos : see xxii. 47 n, — -qXiKia : see ii. 52 //. vv. 5, 6.
CTTTcuo-as : see ii. 16 fi. v. 6. VTreSefaro : see X. 38 n. V. 7. TraVres :
see iv. 40 n. — StayoyyJ^ctv : see xv. 2 -'^ — KaraXvaai: in sense, to lodge,
also at ix. 12 and not elsewhere, v. 8. o-Tadecs: see xviii. ii;?. —
Twr v7rap)^6vT(Dv : see viii. 41 ;?. — ffUKo^avTctv, cp. Lk iii. 14. v. 9.
crojTr/pia : cp. i. 69. — KaOori : see i. 7 ;^ — vios ^A.^p. : see xiii. 16 //.

xix. II — -28. V. II. TTpoaTLO-qixL : more frequent in Lk and A.
than elsewhere, but there is no instance exactly parallel to this one.
For an explanation of the occasion by the evangelist cp. Lk xviii. 9, etc.
— Trapayprjp.a : see iv. 39 n. — dvacfiaii'. : cp. A. xxi. 3. The error of the
disciples here is one against which Luke himself has sought to guard,
xxi. 9, 24. V. 12. eryevTjs : cp. A. xvii. II and i Cor. i. 26. — x^P-
fxaKpdv : see XV. 13. — vTroa-rpeffiuv : see viii. 39 /;. v. 14. TroAt-n^s : see
XV. 15 //. — TT peer (3 eia : see xiv. 32. v. 15. kol eyiviTo iv TQ...Kal: see
v. 12 n. (not here as usually at beginning of a section). — iiravipxio-Oai,
also at x. 35. V. 16. Trapeye'iero : see Lk xxii. 52//. V. 14 is an
insertion which has nothing to do with the rest of the parable.
V. 27, ttXt^V: Luke has this word at the beginning of sentences
many times in Logian and peculiar matter ; once besides at beginning
of a clause at Lk xxii. 42 = Mt. xxvi. 39.

xix. 41 — 44. V. 41. /cat tJs riyyidiv. cp. V. 29, and see vii.
12;/. V. 42. Ttt Trpos elpijvrjv : cp. xiv. 32. V. 43. Cp. Luke's
alteration at xxi. 20 of the language of Mk xiii. 14. The present

s. G. II. 20

3o6 Style in Luke's peculiar matter

passage describes the siege of Jerusalem with even greater precision.
— o-vi-e'lovcrtv : see iv. 38 11. V. 44. o-vff cor : see i. 20 n. — iTrLcrKOirrj<; :
the nearest parallel in regard to the use of this subst. is at i Pet. ii.
12; but the verb eVio-KeVTeo-^ai is used of Divine visitations three times
in Lk and once in A., not elsewhere.

The evangelist probably took this incident from oral tradition
and moulded the words of Christ to a certain extent in accordance
with the events.

xxii. 14 — 38. For the structure of this passage and a com-
parison between it and the corresponding account in Mk see pp.
163 — 5. Cp. also p. 238 f. V. 14. ore eyei'CTo rj wpa : cp. the
solemn use of Ipxerat (or IkrjXvdiv) -q utpa in Jn. — 61 a7roo-ToA.ot : this
description of the Twelve is also used at ix. 10; xvii. 5 ; xxiv. 10 and
several times in A., not in Mt. or Jn, and once only in Mk (vi. 30).
V. 15. iTiLdvp-ia iTreOv/ji. : see Lk xxiii. 46 n. — ew? otov : see xii. 50 ;/. —
TrX-qpovcrOai: ix. $'i n. V. 1 7. SiafMepL^eaOai, also at xxiii. 34, and
once each in Mt., Mk and Jn (quotation) in relating the incident to
which the last-named passage in Lk also refers, v. 21. ttXtJv : see
xix. 27 «. V. 22. Kara to u)pLap.evov : cp. esp. A. ii. 23; opt'^eiv is
used five times in A. and once each in Rom. and Heb. For neut.
part, used as subst. see Lk viii. 34 ;/., and for similar phrase see xvii. 10
and iv. 16; A. xvii. 2. — TToptverai: see iv. 42;/. — TvXrjv ovai: cp. vi.
24. ovai followed by dat. is Logian ; there are, however, two
instances in Mk, one each in i Cor. and Jud. and two in Apoc.
V. 23. TO Tt?, etc. : see i. 62 ;/. v. 29. 8taTt'6'ecr^at, also at A. iii. 25
and four times in Heb., cp. StaOrJKr] at v. 20. v. 30. KaBijcreaO^ : for
the fut. here appended to a verb in conj. with ha see Blass, p. 212,
and cp. A. xxi. 24 (if ^vpya-wirai is read there), z'. 32. iSetjOrjv :
see v. 12 n. — cKXetTreiv : cp. xvi. 9 ;/. — o-TxipiCiLv : see ix. 51 >i.
V. 2)Z- trot/xd? etftt : cp. A. xxiii. 15, 21 ; yli'eaOe croi/i,. Lk xii. 40
(— Mt. xxiv. 44) is very similar, v. 35. /Sa-VAairtov : four times in Lk.
V. 37. TeXecrOrji'aL-. see ix. 51;/. v. 38. LKavov : for the meaning
here, the nearest parallels seem to be afforded by A. xvii. 9 and
Mk XV. 15.

xxiii. 5 — 12, 14, 15. V. 5. Cp. the charge against Paul, A. xxiv.
5 ; and for the description of the region over which the preaching of
Jesus extended cp. A. x. 37. w. 6 and 7. Notice the use of
participles in these w. — i^ova-la, there is no exact parallel to the use
of this word here; but Lk xii. 11 ; xx. 20; A. ix. 14; xxvi. 10, 12,
are closely similar. Cp. also Ro. xiii. i; Tit. iii. i. — arairefiTreiv :
used three times in this context and in a precisely similar application

style ill Lukes pecMliar matter 307

at A. XXV. 21. The word is used once besides, viz. at Philem. ii.
V. 8. riv yap diXmv, periphrasis for finite verb, see Lk iv. 44 n. — ef
iKavojv ^(fiovoiv : see Lk viii. 2 7 «. With the present passage cp. especially
xx. 9.- — a-qfieLov vV avTov yivofxevov. For other examples of this
rather remarkable use of yivecr^ai in regard to miracles, see A. iv. 16,
30; v, 12; viii. 13; xiv. 3; also Lk iv. 23. It is confined to Lk
and A. v. 9. iv Aoyois t/cavots : see again Lk viii. 277;. v. 10.
€tiro'va)5, besides only at A. xviii. 28. v. 11. This sentence, which
contains three participial clauses, is skilfully balanced; the two first
clauses are united, and the third {TrepLJSaXwv io-drJTa, etc.) is thus
thrown more closely into connexion with dveirefjuj/ei' ; — led away in
this attire Jesus still bears the marks of the mockery with Him. It
may be noted also that e/zTrat^as carries us a step further than
iiovOevTjcra'i. For the use of the latter word see xviii. g n. v. 12.
TTpovTrapxetv : besides only at A. viii. 9. — h^avr-^ rrj rjixepa : this phrase
occurs besides only at xxiv. 13 ; but cp. Luke's use of avrfj ttj wpa,
see ii. 38//. v. 14. di/a/cptVciv : used four times in A. as here in a
technical sense, of a magistrate conducting a judicial examination and
once in a more general sense. It is likewise used in a general sense
in I Cor. and it does not occur elsewhere in N.T. — aiTLov : also at vv. 4
and 22 ; in all three instances with the meaning '■'ground for an accusa-
tion, or punishment." It occurs besides at A. xix. 40 ; there, however,
in a slightly different sense, v. 15. a.veTrcp.ij/ei' : see v. 11. — ovSkv aEiov

davdrov iarlv ■n-eirpayp.evov avVa) : cp. A. xxiii. 29; XXV. II, 25 ; xxvi.

31 ; also Lk xxiii. 41.

This account of the appearance of Jesus before Herod bears
strong marks of having been indited by the evangelist himself The
matter is, also, of a kind which he might well have obtained from
information orally given to him. In connexion with it we may notice
the reference to Herod, A. iv. 27, and the incident peculiar to tlie
third Gospel at xiii. 31.

xxiii. 39 — 43. V. 39. Kp(.p.dvvvp.L, used of crucifixion as here at
A. v. 30, and x. 39 ; besides only at Gal. iii. 13 (in a quotation from
Deut. xxi. 23). — KaKovpyo% occurs in N.T. only in this passage and
at 2 Tim. ii. 9, but it is a common word in Greek literature. Note
the compactness of the phrase els Se twv KpepacrOei'Twv KaKovpywv.
V. 40. a7roKpi^€ts...c7rtTi/Awv...£<^r7. The clause is not overloaded by
the two participles ; a slight pause after £Tepo<i is naturally suggested,
because the second participle belongs more closely to the verb by
reason of being in the present, as well as by its position. — Kpifxa,
sensii forensi, cp. Lk xxiv. 20. v. 41. rip.Ci% ixkv...ovTo'i 8e : see Blass,

3o8 Style in Lukes peciiliar matter

N.T. Gram. p. 266 f., "The correlation of /xeV and St, which is so
essentially characteristic of the classical Greek style, is very largely
reduced in the N.T. ...it only occurs with any frequency in Acts,
Hebrews (i Peter) and some of the Pauline Epistles." — a^ia yap
(Sv, etc.: see xxiii. 15^?. A contrast is also directly suggested with
the case of Jesus as stated there by Pilate. — aTroXa/xySa^/ecr^at is
similarly used in five other places in Lk, and three only in the
remainder of N.T. — aroirov, used twice in A., viz. xxv. 5 and
xxviii. 6, in the former of these precisely as here. It is used also at
2 Thess. iii. 2 rather differently. — There is nothing that bears on the
question now before us in the few words addressed by the penitent
to Jesus and by Jesus to the penitent in vv. 42, 43.

The foregoing account bears marks of having been put into
a written form by our evangelist.

xxiv. I — 12. V. 4. Kat eyevero kv T(p.../<al iSov : see V. 12 71. and
iv. 42 ;/. — ai'Spes : see xxii. 63 n. — iircaTrja-av : see iv. 39 n. and cp.
ii. 9. 7'. 5. €fjL(f>oPo<;, also at v. 37. It is used twice in A., once
besides in Apoc. v. 7. For the construction cp. v. 44. r. 8. Cp.
A. xi. 16. V. 9. vTTocTTpeil/acrai, see Lk viii. 37 n. v. 10. A curiously
bad construction. — ol aVo'o-ToAot : see xxii. 14 «.

xxiv. 13 — 43. V. 13. ei' avry tt} rijxipa.: see Xxiii. 12 //. — rjcrav
TTop^vofJievoL : see IV. 42 n., 44 u. — aTrexovcrav crraStovs (.^rjKOvra aVd : cp.
ov fxaKpav aTrexovros d-rro, at vii. 6. — y ovo/xa : see viii. 4 1 n. VV. 14, 15.
6p.Lkfiv, also at A. xx. 11, and xxiv. 26; not elsewhere, v. 15. koa.
lyivf.ro ev Tio...Kal auros : see v. 1 2 «. ; and iv. 42 n., and cp. esp.
xvii. II. — eyyt'o-as : see vii. 12. — o-vfTropevea-OaL, used three times in
Lk, and once in Mk in a slightly different application, v. 17. avrt-
/3a/\AeT£ : the word is not elsewhere used, but it may be noted as an
expressive compound. Cp. a-vv/SakXeiv with a similar meaning at
Lk ii. 19; A. iv. 15. v. 18. ovo/xaTi: see viii. 41 «. v. 19. to, irepl
'IrjfTov : on TO, irepi. Tti'os see Lekebusch, p. 77. Cp. v. 27 ; xxii. 37 ;
and A. i. 3; viii. 12, etc. — Swaros if epyw Kat Aoyo) : cp. A. vii. 22.
— ivavTLov Tov Oeov Kal...Xaov: cp. i. 8; XX. 26 ; on Xads see vli. 16.
V. 20. CIS Kpipa Oavdjov : see xxiii. 40 n. — ol apxavres : cp. xxiii. 13, etc.
7'. 21. o yue'/VAwv XvTpoiaOaL tov 'IcrpaijX : cp. i. 68 and ii. 38, where
the noun Airrpwcris is used. — ayct : cp. A. xix. 38. v. 22. i^ea-Trja-av
7?/i."?> cp. A. viii. II. — opOpivai: this epithet applied to persons who
are up with the dawn is literary. The subst. op6po<i is used Lk xxiv. i
and A. v. 21. — oVracrtav : see i. 22 //. The construction of the sentence
contained in vv. 22, 23 should be noticed. v. 25. ftpaSeU tov
7na-T€V€Lv : see Blass, p. 235 ff. v. 26. ISei Tradelv tov XpiaTov : cp.

style in Lukes pecitliar matter 309

V. 46 and A. iii. i8 ; xvii. 3 ; the same phrase exactly does not occur
elsewhere, v. 27. Sup/xT/vruen' ; used also at A. ix. 36 and four
times in i Cor. — to. Trept kavrov, see 7'. ig «. v. 28. ^yyicrav : see
vii. 12. — TTopevicrOat (bis): see iv. 42 n. v. 29. Trapafiiat^a-dai : besides
only at A. xvi. 15. — kcr-n-ipa: besides only twice in A. — KeKXiKcv -q
TJfiepa: see nearly the same phrase at Lk ix. 12. — tov yuetvat : see
iv. 42 n. V. 30. Kttt eye'i'CTo Iv T<2...iv\6yr]cr€v : see V. 12 ?i. — eTrtSt-
Sovat : used in a Logian passage, Mt. vii. 9, io = Lk xi. 11, 12, but
also three other times in Lk and twice in A. v. 31. Stavoi'yciv :
used metaphorically here and at v. 45, and A. xvi. 14, of the heart
or mind ; also of the Scriptures at v. 32 and A. xvii. 3 ; not else-
where metaphorically. The former application may have been
suggested by 2 Mace. i. 4. Cp. also, though not quite so close,
Hos. ii. 15. 7'. 32. Kaiofxevr] -^v : see Lk iv. 44?/. 7'. 33. OLV-rfj ry
wpa : see ii. 38 «. — a9poil,€i.v : here only, but o-vra^'pot'^ea' twice in X.,
not elsewhere. — tovs avv avroU : ot avv Tin or TKriv is an idiom used
many times in Lk and A., once in Mk and once in Ep. to Ro.
V. 34. uxfidr] 'S.ip.oivi : see Lk i. 11 /;. ^.35- ^^ "f^ xXao-ct tov aprov :
the breaking of bread in the Christian assemblies is referred to A. ii.
42, 46 ; XX. 7, and perhaps xxvii. 35. 7'. 37. TTToelaOai : the word occurs
besides only at Lk xxi. 9.- — Ifxt^ofioL : see v. 5 n. v. 38. ava^aivetv :
sensu tropica, as also at A. vii. 23 and i Cor. ii. 9; in both these
instances, however, the preposition after am/SatVciv is eVt. v. 42.
eVeSoDKav : see V. 30 n. V. 44. Cp. V. 7. 7'. 45. hirjvoi^iv tov vovv :
see Z'. 31 n. — tov awievaL: see iv. 42 n. v. 46. TraO^iv tov X-pta-Tov:
see 7'. 26 «. 7'. 47 ^. Kripv^d^vai cTTi TO) oi'o/xart arroi) fJieTavoiav eis
a^etriv d/xaprtwv : cp. A. ii. 38. — 7'7'. 47 ^ and 48. els Travra ra I^vt;,
— dp^dpLfvoL d-rro 'lepovaaXrjp- v/acis /xdpTvpes TOVTOiv : cp. A. i. 8(5.
Z'. 49. Cp. A. i. 4 and 8 a. z'. 51. Sieo-n; : see xxii. 59 -'^ z'. 52.
VTTcarTpeif/av ct's 'Itpouo-aXT/'/jt : cp. A. i. 12. 7;. 53. 8ia Trai'xos : used
also A. ii. 25 (in quotation from Ps. xvi.) and x. 2.

It seems most probable that the evangelist himself committed to
writing these traditions in regard to appearances of the Risen Christ
contained in his concluding chapter. Throughout there are many
of his characteristic expressions and the closing verses are closely
connected with and parallel to the opening passage of the Acts.

We have now completed our examination of the style and
vocabulary of the Peculiar Matter in St Luke. Nine sections have
been noted whose literary form should in all probability be attributed
solely to the author himself of the third Gospel and Acts. They

310 Style in Luke's peculiar matter

are, the Call of the first disciples (v. i — 1 1); the Anointing by a sinful
woman in the house of Simon the Pharisee (vii. 36 — 50); the passage
containing a reference to the women ivho followed Jesus as He
journeyed and ministered to Him (viii. i — 3) ; the parable of the Good
Samaritan {\. 29 — 37); the Ten Lepers {w'n. 11 — 19); the Latnent
over Jerusalem as He ruas entering it (xix. 41 — 44); Pilate's setiding
Jesus to Herod (xxiii. 5 — 12, 14, 15); the account of tlu Penitent
Thief {\yA\\. 39 — 43); the Appearances of the Risen Christ (xxiv.).
For the rest the styUstic phenomena seem to be compatible with,
and to a certain extent to favour, the view that our evangelist used
a document. There are, it is true, Lucan characteristics in every
section, but not more than in the sections of the third Gospel
which are parallel with Mark ; and they appear in the same manner
as in these sections. They are to be noticed especially in the intro-
ductions to the successive sections. E.g. — as in the sections derived
from Mark — we meet again and again with the formula Kat eyeVero
Iv Tw, etc. In the words of Jesus and of others there are but few
Lucan characteristics. A good many of the expressions noted above
as such have not much force. I have mentioned them lest any
indication that ought to be taken into account should be omitted. In
estimating the significance of Lucan traits, we ought also to consider
whether on the one hand they could have arisen through some
slight change made in another's record, or on the other their intro-
duction must have affected the whole, or a considerable part of, a
sentence. E.g., at Lk xxii. 23, 24, we have questions with the neut.
art. prefixed (to ti's, etc.), which is decidedly " Lucan." But all that
was necessary in order to produce this " Lucan" feature was that the
neut. art. should be inserted, which we see to have been actually
what has happened at Lk ix. 46 = Mk ix. 34.

In one or two instances, especially the account of Mary and
Martha, the verses in which there are several "Lucan" character-
istics bulk somewhat large relatively to the whole ; but they are
the introductory verses and their comparative prominence is largely
due to the brevity of the sections in question. The two sections
in which, apart from the nine enumerated above, the "Lucan" traits
are most numerous are accounts of cures (xiii. 10 — 17 ; xiv. i — 6);
but this is in accord with what we have noticed in some of Luke's
parallels with Mark.

Thus far we have observed only that in the majority of the
sections the signs of our evangelist's hand are not more noticeable
than we might expect them to be in passages which he had taken

style in Ltikes pectiliar matter 311

from a document and revised. But some evidence of the use of
a document which is of a more positive kind, even if.it is not very
distinct or abundant, is also to be found in expressions belonging
especially to Luke's peculiar matter, or which connect it with Logian
passages in the form in which he seems to have known them. It
is necessary to proceed with caution here. The fact that the same
or closely similar expressions occur in two or more neighbouring
passages of the peculiar matter, and not at all, or but rarely, else-
where, is not necessarily to be taken as a sign of a style different
from the evangelist's. Certainly no stress can be laid on the use
of xpfo<^€tA€TT7s at vii. 41 and xvi. 5, which might easily have been
substituted for ot^ctAeV?;? by the evangelist in each passage, because
it happened to be running in his mind ; or upon the use of 8te-
yo'yyv^ov at xv. 2 and xix. 7, each time in words of description ; or
upon the use of the words aTroracro-ecr^ai and evdiTo<; in teaching
about renunciation at ix. 61, 62 and xiv. ;^;^, 35, in both which
passages a saying on the subject of renunciation may have been
present to the mind of the evangelist in a form familiar to him.

The following instances are somewhat more deserving of attention
because the expressions in question seem to belong more closely to
the structure of the passages where they occur : — kottov Trapex^Lv at
xi. 7 and xviii. 5. — -rrapd, signifying "in comparison with" in rrapa
7ra.vTa<; at xiii. 2 and 4 and Trap' iKelvov at xviii. 14. — KaraKXtveaOai,
xiv. 8, and also vii. 36 (where see note) and xxiv. 30. — Ta^ews at
xiv. 21 (where see note), xv. 22 and xvi. 6. — Trpeo-^cta at xiv. 32 and
xix. 14. — e/cAeiTretv at xvi. 9 (where see note) and xxii. 32.

Still more worthy of consideration are the following : — ews otov,
xii. 50 (where see note), xiii. 8; xxii. 16. — (fiepere, xv. 23 (where see
note), the use of StKatos in various passages with a Jewish connota-
tion, see note at xv. 7; cp. also BiKaiovv eavrov at x. 29; xvi. 15;
xviii. 14 (though as to the associations of this phrase there may be
more doubt). — 6 Aaos specifically of the chosen nation at vii. 16
(where see note), and probably at xxiv. 19. — vl6<;, and &vyaTT]p,'Af3paciix,
xiii. 16 (where see note); xix. 9; and cp. xvi. 24 f. — The common
moulding of the parables in c. xv., especially as to their endings : the
reference to good cheer expressed by the same word eicftpaLveadai
in the three parables of the Rich Fool (xii. 19, where see note), of
the Prodigal Son (xv. 23 ff.), and of Dives and Lazarus (xvi. 19); the
similar expressions oikovo/xo? tt^s aSi/ctas at xvi. 8, and KpiTr)<; 7-175 aSt/ctas
at xviii. 6 ; the use of oikoio/xos at xvi. i compared with its use also
at xii. 42, where Mt. in his parallel (xxiv. 45), derived from the Logian

312 style ill Lukes peculiar matter

document, has SoGAos; the use several times at the commencement
of the parables peculiar to Lk of the formula n's ii v/jlwv which
occurs once in a Logian passage common to Mt., see note at xi. 5. —
The use of vo/xiko's by Luke solely at xiv. 3 (where see note) and in
several Logian contexts, in one of which only Mt. has it (xxii. 35).

The use of u'a by Luke seems also to be of some significance
in connexion with the question of his use of a source, or sources,
for his peculiar matter. I have refrained from referring to it before,
because it is only on a comparison of this matter as a whole with
other parts of his writings, that the differences in his practice in this
respect can appear to be significant. In the Acts this particle occurs
only 12 times, — i.e., much less frequently in proportion than in any
other N.T. writing, and very much less so than in most,— and is for
the most part not employed in an unclassical way. Turning to the
third Gospel, we find that in Marcan sections Luke (except at
viii. 12; ix. 45 ; xx. 14) has used it only where Mark has it; and
further that he has several times avoided using it where Mark does ;
while in another place (viii. 32) he so turns the sentence as to make
the use of tva less strange than it is in Mk. There are also a few
instances in Logian passages, in two of which (Lk vi. 31 = Mt. vii. 12 ;
and Lk vii. 6 = Mt. viii. 8) the use of Iva is, while in four others
(iv. 3; vi. 34; xi. 33, 50) it may be, derived from the source.
When, therefore, we find ha occurring 22 times in the peculiar
matter in the third Gospel (viz. twice in chaps, i. and ii., and 20
times in the peculiar passages subsequent to them), i.e., nearly half
as many times again as in the whole of the Acts, one cannot but
suspect that several of the instances, at least, were due to Luke's
finding them in a source in which the particle was used more largely
than he would of his own mind have been disposed to use it.

in.

TAe authorship of the '•'■ we"" -sections in the Acts.

The question to which we now pass is a far simpler one than
that with which we have been occupied under the preceding heading.
There can be no doubt that if the " we "-sections in the Acts were
not composed by the author of the whole work, he must have taken
them from a document i)y some other writer; so that we have
to ask only whether the "Lucan" characteristics in those sections
are, or are not, more numerous and significant than is compatible

Authorship of the ''we'' -sections in Acts 313

with the latter supposition. That is to say, we have not here to
consider how far his style might have been affected by the form of
pieces of information orally imparted to him, a case in regard to
which we have no standard whereby to judge.

Again, as was observed above, in inquiring into the origin of the
peculiar matter in St Luke, or at all events of many of its sections,
we have to judge each section, brief as most of them are, on its
own merits, because comparatively itw of them are connected with
one another so closely that the decision which we come to with
respect to one must necessarily carry others with it. There is in
point of fact a probability that, if the evangelist has used a docu-
ment, he may have inserted some passages into it, and if so we
desire to know which they are, as well as to ascertain how far the
view that in other parts he is using a document is confirmed by
indications of style. But in estimating the significance of a small
number of characteristics occurring in a short passage the differences
of value of various alleged characteristics, which may be very great,
must clearly be a matter of great importance. On the contrary, we
are able to compare the "we "-sections broadly with Luke's Marcan
parallels. Differences that there are in the weight that should be
attributed to the various characteristics, and mistakes that we may
make in particular instances, may be expected to balance one
another on the two sides of the comparison ; as also will the varying
lengths of verses be likely to do, if we take the proportion of
characteristics to verses.

Even so errors must be allowed for, and if the preponderance
of characteristics on the side of the " we "-sections were not con-
siderable, we should not be justified in drawing a conclusion there-
from in favour of the view that the reviser of Mark is here himself
the author. But the preponderance is great, and the manner in
which the characteristics are distributed in the two cases highly
significant. Lucan traits appear in verse after verse throughout the
" we "-sections ; there is nothing that can compare with this in
Luke's parallels with Mark. In nearly all the verses of the "we"-
sections they equal, while in many of them they clearly exceed' in
number and distinctiveness those in the verses where they are most
noticeable in sections corresponding to Mark — verses, it must be
borne in mind, which are, if not wholly, yet in great part the com-
position of the author of the third Gospel himself.

^ This is true of every verse (except, perhaps, v. i8) of the first of the " we "-
sections; also oivv. 7, 9, 11, 15 in the second of them.

314 Authors/lip of the ''loe'" -sections in Acts

It is also to be observed that in one of the narratives in St Mark
which, as we have seen, the third evangelist most revised, that
concerning a storm on the Lake of Galilee (Lk viii. 22 — 25 = Mk
iv. 35 — 41), his vivid realisation of the scene and his correct use
of language in describing it, make strongly for his identity with the
companion of St Paul on more than one of his voyages who has
given us the account of the shipwreck in the 27th chapter.

We will proceed to examine the first three of those sections in
detail.

(i) Acts xvi. 9 — 18.

V. 9. opafxa: twice in " we "-sections (A. xvi. 9, 10), nine (or
eight) times in remainder of Acts (vii. 31 ; ix. 10, 12 (?) ; x. 3, 17, 19 ;
xi. 5; xii. 9; xviii. 9); once in remainder of N.T. (Mt. xvii. 19). — tw
IlauAu) (^<f)Orj : for this periphrasis in describing supernatural appear-
ances see Lk i. it h. — 8ta wktos: "in the night," while the night
lasted. The phrase occurs three times in the remainder of Acts (v.
19; xvii. 10; xxiii. 31 and at Lk v. 5), not elsewhere in N.T. ; 81
TJfiepwv Teaa-apuKovTa at A. i. 3 is analogous. 8ia is also used with
words expressive of time, to express that the whole of an interval has
been passed through, A. xxiv. 17 ; xxvii. 5 ; Gal. ii. i. — dvrjp Ma/<e8wv
Tts : on the frequency of the use of dvrjp in Lk and A. see Lk xxii. 63.
Such a use of rts also as that here is specially common in Lk and A.,
e.g. Lk i. 5 and vii. 2, etc. — rjv €a-Tcos: on the periphrasis of d/xi with
participle for finite verb see Lk iv. 44 n. Notice also the characteristic
accumulation of participles. — co-tw's : see Lk i. 11 n. — Sta/3a9 : 8ia-
liaivi.il' occurs also at Lk xvi. 26, besides only at Heb. xi. 29. Verbs
compounded with prepositions are decidedly more common in the
Lucan writings than in N.T. generally. Instances should be con-
sidered not only separately, but as belonging to a class. There will
be several to be noticed in the " we "sections. Note also the
emphatic position given to the participle here.

V. 10. ojs, as conjunction, especially in temporal signification, is
remarkably frequent in Lk and A. In Mt. it does not occur at all as
conjunction. In Mk twice only as conjunction and there not
temporal. In Pauline Epp. some eleven times as conjunction, only
three times temporal, and with addition of dv. Next after Lucan
writings it is most frecjuent in Jn, but in two or three instances here
the use is peculiar (ajs = €w? or nearly so). This Gospel also has ws
ovv several times, ws 8e occurs eight times in the " we "-sections, 20
in remainder of Acts (v. 24; vii. 23; viii. 36; ix. 23; x. 7, 17, 25;

Authorship of the ''7ue'' -sections in Acts 315

xiii. 25, 29 ; xiv. 5, etc.) ; besides twice in Lk and six times in Jn. —
On opafxa see v. 9 ; for the phrase opa/xa elSev cp. x. 17 ; xi. 5 ; see
also xii. 9. — (Tvv(Si/Sd^€Lr, followed by on, occurs in A. ix. 22, in
closely allied sense to that here. In A. xix. ;^;^ the word is difficult
to interpret. It is found besides four times in Pauline Epp., in all
cases in different senses and construction from the two first named in
Acts. Two other compounds of /3t/3a{€tv occur only in Lk and A., viz.
e7ri/3i/3a^eii' at Lk x. 34; xix. 35 and A. xxiii. 24; and ei'/3t/3a^€iv at
A. xxvii. 6 ; we have also TrpofSif^d^eiv at A. xix. 33, and in passive at
Mt. xiv. 8. — (.vayy^XiC^aBai, middle, and with persons to be evangelized
in ace. See Lk iv. 43 11. — TrpoaKiKXrjrai : TrpoaKaXeladaL is used besides
of a call from God only at A. ii. 39 and xiii. 2. At the latter place
there is a specially close parallel to the present passage.

£'. II. With the form of the sentence here — dva)^d€VT€<; d-Trb

TpwaSos evdvSpo/jL-rjcrafiiv €ts '^ajxodpdKrjv. . .KOLKeWey eis "J*. — cp. that in

the account of Paul's first missionary journey (xiii. 4) : — eKTre/xc^^erTcs. . .
KaTqXdov cts 1.€X€VKiav, cKei^ev t€...€is Kv-Trpov (Klostermann, p. 60).
— dvdyea-dai in sense "embark" is found 11 times in " we "-sections,
twice in remainder of Acts (xiii. 13 ; xx. 3) and Lk viii. 22 ; not else-
where in N.T. Cp. Kardyea-OaL at xxvii. 3, and xxviii. 12, and
Kardyeiv (of bringing a boat to land) at Lk v. 11. — cv^uS/jo/i-ctv : here
and at xxi. i. In each case he is writing of a voyage and this
accounts for its being used in these two places and not elsewhere ;
but it is the sort of composite form that the author of Lk and A. is
fond of — r^ iTTLovcrrj : three times in " we "-sections ; twice in
remainder of A. (vii. 26; xxiii. 11); not elsewhere. Cp. also other
words by the use of which he obtains variety : -rfj i-n-avpLov (see on xx.
7 below) and rrj erepa (xx. 15 and xxvii. 3).

V. 12. KdKeWev: five times in " we "-sections ; three in remainder
of A. (vii. 4; xiii. 21 ; xiv. 26), once in Lk (xi. 53), once besides, in
Mk ix. 30. — 17T1S : see Lk viii. 26 n. — With the description of the
snafus of Philippi cp. the reference to the officers there, v. 35, and
references to institutions, political divisions, etc., elsewhere, xiii. 7, 8,
12 (the dvdviraTos), xvii. 6 (the TroAtrap^^at), xix. 3 1, 35, 38 (the
various officials at Ephesus). See also the designations, etc., at Lk
iii. I, which shew, whether they are right or wrong, a certain tendency
of mind like that which led to the mention of contemporary rulers. —
^/Mei/...8taTpty3ovT£s : for ei/xi with partic. see Lk iv. 44 «. — BLaTpi^nv:
twice in " we "-sections, each time with period in accus. ; the word is
used six times in remainder of A. (four with the same construction,
viz. at xiv. 3, 28 ; xxv. 6, 14; the other two are A. xii. 19 ; xv. 35).

3i6 Authorship of the ''we'' -sections in Acts

The word is only used twice besides (Jn iii. 22 ; xi. 54), neither time
with the same construction. — For T/yaepas riv6.% cp. A. x. 48 ; xv. 36 ;
xxiv. 24; also 7]fi€paL i/cavai (A. ix. 23, 43; xviii. 18; xxvii. 7), and
Xpovov iKavov or )(p6vov'i iKavous (Lk XX. g ; xxiii. 8 ; A. viii. 11 ; xiv.
3 ; xxvii. 9). Cp. also phrase in Lk, iv /xia t. 77/x. (Lk v. 17 ; viii. 22;
XX. i).

V. 13. rfj yjfj-^pa. twv aa{3^a.TU)v or toi) craft ^arov : for this peri-
phrasis see Lk iv. 16 Ji. — ov is commoner in A. and Lk than in rest of
N.T. It occurs four times in the " we "-sections, five times in
remainder of A. (i. 13 ; ii. 2 ; vii. 29 ; xii. 12 ; xxv. 10), five times in Lk,
six in Pauline Epp., three in Mt., once in Heb. and Apoc. ; not in
Mk or Jn. In the N.T. generally, apart from the Lucan writings,
oTTov is the commoner word. In Lk this word is used five times, but
in four of them it is taken from the Logian and in the fifth from the
Marcan source. In A. it is used twice only. — vo/xi^etv : six times in
remainder of A. (vii. 25; viii. 20; xiv. 19, etc.), twice in Lk, six
times in remainder of N.T. (viz. three in Mt. and three in Pauline
Epp.). The construction, accusative with infinitive, is used at Lk ii.
44, and in three of the other places in Acts, and also in the three
in Pauline Epp. In Mt. we have each time on, as also at A. xxi. 29.
— 7rpo<T€V)(r], only here and at v. 16 in sense '■''place of prayer." —
o-ui'cpxccr^at : twice in " we "-sections, 15 times in remainder of A. in
all parts, twice in Lk, 13 times in rest of N.T., of which seven are in
I Cor. For close parallels with use in present place see A. i. 21 ; x.
27. For a distinction in the "Lucan" use of o-wtpxef^ai and
(rvvdyca-OaL see XX. 7 n.

V. 14. ovd/xttTi : see Lk viii. 41 n. and xxii. 47 «. — ttoXcws
©varctpwv. Note TTo'Xis without definite article in apposition with
name of city, and placed before it. So also once besides in "we "-
sections, xxvii. 8. Also Lk ii. 4 and A. xi. 5 ; not elsewhere. —
aeftofjiiirq tov Oeov : this participle, with or without tov $e6v, virtually
denoting what the rabbis called " proselytes of the gate," occurs in
five passages of the remainder of A., not elsewhere. — ^s o Kvpio^
Bi-rjvoi^ev T7]y KapSiav. Note the emphatic position of 6 Kvpios as one
instance among very many that could be given of the care with which
words are placed both in the " we "-sections and other parts of the
Lucan writings. — BirjvoL^iv rrjv KapSiav : for BiavoLyeiv used metaphori-
cally see Lk xxiv. 31 n. — Trpoo-c'xc"' rots XaXovixevois : see close parallel
at A. viii. 6. Cp. also xxviii. 24. Also for rd XaXov/xeya see xiii. 45
and Lk ii. 33 ; and cp. to. XeXaXrjixeva, Lk i. 45 ; to. XaXrjdivTa, Lk ii.
18. In other parts of N.T. we have to XaXovp.ivov at i Cor. xiv. 9 and

Authorship of the ''we'' -sections in Acts 317

Ttt XaXr]6rj(r6ix€va at Heb. iii. 5. Also see Lk viii. 34 n. for the use of
neut. participles as substantives.

z>. 15. o oTko<;, "household." Cp. A. x. 2; xi. 14; xvi. 31;
xviii. 8. It occurs likewise in i Cor. i. 16 and a few times in i and 2
Timothy. In particular observe that the participation of the house-
hold of Cornelius in his religious devotion (x. 2), and the blessing
granted him (xi. 14), of that of the jailor in the promise to him (xvi.
31), and of that of Crispus in his faith in Jesus (xviii. 8), are men-
tioned in like manner. — KCKpLKare : for KptVeiv used of decisions which
do not involve condemnation or acquittal cp. Lk vii. 43 ;/. It is so
used in " we "-sections at xx. 16 and xxvii. i, as well as in the present
passage, and some six times in other parts of A. — /xeVeii', in sense "stay":
Lk viii. 27 ; ix. 4 ; x. 7 ; xix. 5 ; xxiv. 29 ; A. ix. 43 ; xxviii. 16, 30 (cp.
Friedrich, p. 20). There are, however, instances also in other N.T.
writings, especially in Jn. — "TrapcKaXeaev Xiyovo-a: cp. TrapcKaXet Xeywv,
ii. 40. For irapaKaXuv, as here, without an object, cp. in the ' we '-
sections, xxi. 12 and xxvii. ^^, and in the remainder of A. ix. 38;
xiii. 42; xiv. 22; xix. 31; xxiv. 4" (Harnack). — TTapa/Bid^ea-Oai : cp.
Lk xxiv. 29, where the use is very similiar ; the word does not occur
elsewhere. In connexion with the notice of Lydia observe that
devout women are referred to also at Lk viii. i — 3 and xxiii. 55, and
at A. xiii. 50 ; xvii. 34.

V. 16. eye'vero 8e...v7ravTrjcraL : see Lk V. 12;/. — Notice also
generally the skilful construction of the sentence. — irvev/xa -n-vdojva :
see Lk iv. ;^;^ fi. On 17x1? see above, v. 12. — Ipyaa-iav TroXX-qv -n-apux^v :
at A. xix. 24 we have almost exactly the same phrase, ipyaaia
occurs three times besides in Acts (xvi. 19; xix. 24, 25); also
once in Lk ; once besides in Eph. iv. 19. Trape^etv occurs twice in
" we "-sections, three times in remainder of later chapters, four in
Luke, five in Pauline Epp., and in a saying common to Mt and Mk.
— Tois Kvpiots : "Similarly at Lk xix. 33 it is noticed with curious
precision that the colt had more than one owner" (Harnack).

V. 17. KaTaKoXovOelv : besides only at Lk xxiii. 55. — 6 0i6<; 6
vKJ/uTTo?, also at Lk viii. 28, Mk v. 7 and Heb. vii. i ; 6 ut/^io-ros is
used by itself four times in Lk and at A. vii. 48, not elsewhere in
N.T. — KaTayyeXXitv : lo times in remainder of A. (all parts), seven in
Pauline Epp.; not elsewhere in N.T. — oSov o-wTT/ptas : 686s, as
designation of Christian faith and practice ; eight times in remainder
of A. (ix. 2 ; xviii. 25, 26, etc.). aoiTrjpia occurs once in Jn and not
at all in Mt. and Mk; in the "Lucan" writings ten times (Harnack).

V. 18. i-n-l TToXXas r)ix€pa<; : "Ad temporis spatium significandum

3i8 Authorship of the ''i.ue'' -sections in Acts

in N.T. a solo I.uca eVt c. ace. adhibetur," Klosterniann, p. 53, on
xxvii. 20. Cp. A. xiii. 31 ; xvii. 2 ; xix. 8, etc. — SiaTroiT/^et?, also at
A. iv. 2. — TrapayyeAAetv : ii times in A., four in Lk, twice each in ISIt.
and Mk, five in Tim., and seven in remaining Pauline Epp. — avr^
Tr\ topa : an expression peculiar to Lk and A. See Lk ii. 28 ;/.

(2) Acts XX. 4 — 16.

V. 5. fxiveLv : used transitively (see Blass, p. 87), besides in N.T.
only at v. 23 ; but see Isa. viii. 17 ; 2 INIacc. vii. 30.

V. 6. iKTrXelv: besides only A. xv. 39 and xviii. 18. — ov : see xvi.
13 fi. — BieTpLij/afjLev -^/j-epas eirTa. : see xvi. 12 ;/. We have two instances
in this verse of the numeral being placed after the subst. This is
vastly more frequent in the "Lucan" writings than elsewhere.

V. 7. avvrjyfxei'iov >//ia(J3i', and next verse, ov rjfi^v o-ui'Tyy/xevot : the

author of Acts lays special stress on the asse!?ibling of Christians for
worship, etc. Cp. iv. 31 ; xi. 26; xiii. 44: xiv. 27; xv. 30; in all
which the word crwayio-daL is used. It is used besides with the same
connotation only at Mt. xviii. 20 and i Cor. v. 4. We have also
avvepxf^crOai several times in i Cor. xi. and xiv., of Christians coming
together. It may be worth while t9 notice that in Lk and A.
avvepx^o-OoLi- is used only of gatherings more generally, including the
case of Jews or proselytes coming together to worship (xvi. 18 and
perhaps x. 27), while for Christian worship he uses a word which
implies that they do not come together solely of their own mind. In
R.V. (and in A.V. at z>. 8) it is suitably translated by "gathered
together." — KXaVat aprov : for references in Lk and A. to the
"breaking of bread " in the Christian assemblies see Lk xxiv. 35 n. —
SiaAeyco-^ai : twice in present section, eight times in remainder of A.
(xvii. 2, 17; xviii. 4, 19; xix. 8, 9; xxiv. 12, 25). Besides only Mk
ix. 34; Heb. xii. 5 ; Jude 9 — all three with a somewhat different
connotation from the foregoing. — fxeXXeiv : followed by an infin.
and expressing what a conscious agent intends to do, is specially
common in all parts of A., though found also, but much less
frequently, elsewhere. See A. iii. 3 ; v. 35 ; xii. 6 ; xvi. 27 ; xvii. 31 ;
XX. 3; xxi. 37; xxii. 26; xxiii. 3, 15, 20; xxv. 4; xxvi. 2. In the
" we "-sections here and at v. 13 (bis) and xxvii. 30. — Inavpiov. twice
in " we "-sections, eight times in remainder of A. (x. 9, 23, 24, etc.) ;
seven besides in N.T., five of which are in Jn. See further xvi. 11 «.
— iieifjLi: twice in " we "-sections ; also at A. xiii. 42 and xvii. 15, not
elsewhere in N.T. — /xco-ovvktiov : also at A. xvi. 25 and Lk xi. 5 ; once
besides (Mk xiii. 35).

Authorship of the ''we'' -sections in Acts 319

V. 8. Ikoj/os : see Lk viii. 27 «. It is used four times in "\ve"-
sections. — -uTrepwov : also at A. i. 13; ix. 37, 39; not elsewhere in
N.T., though it is common in lxx. and in Classical Greek. At Mk
xiv. 15 the word is ava-yaiov, and in his parallel passage, Luke has
reproduced it (xxii. 12); afdyaLov occurs nowhere else, and may have
been formed by Mark on model of KardyaLov. — v/yu-cv o-vviqyiiivoL : see
XX. 7 n.

V. 9. veavtas is used besides only at A. vii. 58; xxiii. 17 and
perhaps xxiii. 18, where another reading is veavt'o-Kos. I'eavicr/cos
occurs a few times both in Lk and A. and in remainder of N.T. The
two words seem to be used even in Classical Greek to describe much the
same age ; both words are used in lxx. — oid/xart : see Lk viii. 41 n. —
KaTa<fi€p€aOaL : twice in this verse ; besides only in active at A. xxv.
7 ; xxvi. 10. Note the skilful combination of repetition with variation
in KaT€ve;!^^€ts dtro toG virrov as compared with KaTacjapo/xevo? vttvw
jSadil. The process is thus kept before oar eyes and yet monotony
avoided. — SiaXeyo/xei'oi; : see v. 7 above. — iwl ttX^lov, also at A. iv. 17;
xxiv. 4; besides only 2 Tim. ii. 16; iii. 9. Cp. c^' i/carov at

V. II.

v. 10. eTrtTrtTrretv : six or five times in remainder of A. (viii. 16;
X. 44; xi. 15, etc.), twice in Lk. Besides only four times (Mk iii. 10;
Jn xiii. 25 ; Ro. xv. 3 (in a quotation from lxx.); Apoc. xi. 11). —
a-vvTrepiXafxfSdveLv: here only in N.T., but Classical and once in lxx.,
and a word such as author of Lk and A. might be expected to use.
For Luke's use of words compounded with avv see Lk xxiii. 48 ;/.

V. II. /(Aacras tov dprov : see Lk xxiv. 35^2. — yevcra/xcvos : used
in the same idiomatic manner as here for "to take nourishment," "to
eat" (cp. Fr. "gouter ") at x. 10 and xxiii. 14 ; not elsewhere in N.T.
— €<^' Ikuvov : cp. eVi TrXeiov at V. 9 and on the use of tKavo? in Lk and
A. see Lk viii. 27 n. — o/AiAT^Va? : o/xiActv is used also at xxiv. 26, and
twice in Lk ; not elsewhere in N.T. — ovrws iirjXOei' : cp. xxviii. 14 (a
" we "-section) and xvii. 32, 33.

V. 12. ov fj.€TpL<ji<;: the negative with an adverb or adjective of
number, degree, or quality, i.e. the figure called "litotes," is very
common in the Lucan writings. Cp. ovk 6Xiyo<; at A. xxvii. 20. In
the rest of N.T. it is found chiefly in the Pauline Epp.

V. 13. di'TJxOrjixev : see xvi. 11. — dyaXa/x/Sdveiv : twice in " we "-
sections, six times in remainder of A., four in Pauline Epp., and once
in the last twelve verses of Mk. — ^larda-a-iadai or Siara'cro-eiv : four
times in remainder of A. (vii. 44 ; xviii. 2, etc.), four times in Lk,
four times in i Cor., and twice in other Pauline Epp. ; also at Mt.

320 Authorship of the ''we'' -sections in Acts

xi. I. Used in middle here and at A. vii. 44, also at i Cor. vii. 17 ;
xi. 34 and Tit. i. 5.

V. 14. crvvfSdWeiv : see Lk ii. 19 //. — dvaXafx(3dv€Lv : see f. 13 «.

V. 15. KaKeWev: see xvi. 12;?. — aTroTrXcti/: twice in "we "-sections,
also at A. xiii. 4 ; xiv. 26. — ttj l-movarj : see xvi. 1 1 fi. — rfj irepa : here
and at xxvii. 3. — rfj i^ofxevy], " next day " : so Lk xiii. 33. Cp. also
A. xiii. 44; xxi. 26. €xo/xci'o? is used for "neighbouring," "con-
nected," Mk i. 38 ; Heb. vi. 9. Like the two last mentioned it is
one of the various expressions for the next day used by the writer to
avoid monotony. Cp. also ry liravpiov (see on xx. 7), and t^ e^s or
rfi e$r]<; T^/Jiepa. (see on A. xxi. i). By the variety of the expressions the
writer avoids monotony. Cp. Klostermann, p. 49 f Attention is
also suitably directed by Klostermann to the successive notes of
time in a series of events told in xxiii. 31 — xxiv. 24. — KaravTav: four
times in " we "-sections, and five besides in latter part of A., four in
the Pauline Epp. — 7rapa/3di\Xea' : only here, but worthy of note as a
nautical term.

V. 16. Kf.KpiK(.L : see xvi. 15;/. — TrapaTrXetv : here only, but see
V. 15 on diroTrXi'iv . — -^povoTpi^dv : here only, but cp. StarptjSeiv with
accusative of time ; see xvi. 12 ;/. — cnri.vh€Lv, also at A. xxii. 18 and
three times in Lk ; once only besides in N.T. (2 Pet. iii. 12). — tt;v
t^jjiipav TYj's Tra'Tr]KocrTrj<; : see xvi. 13 n. — etr]. Optative is far commoner
in Lucan writings than elsewhere in N.T. Cp. Friedrich, p. 36 (No. 268).

(3) Acts xxi. I — 18.

v. I. For ws Se see xvi. 10 «. ; and for eyeVcro followed by infinitive
see Lk v. 1 2 fi. — dvaxOijvai. : see xvi. 1 1 n. — dirotnvda-Oai ttTTo : cp. Lk
xxii, 41 «. — tv6vSpofx. : see xvi. ii«. — T17 €^175: also at Lk ix. 37;
A. XXV. 17; xxvii. 18; at Lk vii. 11 we have t<3 1^175. For similar
expressions see xx. 15 ;/. — KaKeWtv : see xvi. 12;/.

V. 2. cTTt^aiVetv : in quotation at Mt. xxi. 5, besides only in A.,
viz. three times in " we "-sections, twice in remainder of latter
chapters. — dvijx'&vp-^^ '■ see xvi. 1 1 n.

V. 3. di/a^atVeo-^at : " sensu nautico " here only ; in a different
sense at Lk xix. 11. KaTepxea-Oai: 3 times in " we "-sections, 9 in
remainder of A. (viii. 5 ; ix. 32 ; xi. 27 ; xii. 19, etc.), and twice in
Lk ; once only besides in N.T. (Jas. iii. 15). It is u.sed of coming
from the sea into a port, here and at xxvii. 5, like KardyeaOaL at xxvii.

3; xxviii. 12. Cp. KaTayayovTc; rd Trkoia iirl Trjv yrjv at Lk V. II.

— cKcicrc : also at xxii. 5, not elsewhere in N.T. — rjv diro^opTit,6fj.ivov
rov yofiov : nautical ; diro4>opTit,(.<TB<xi occurs here only.

AtithorsJiip of the ''lue' -sections in Acts 321

V. 4. dvevpia-Keiv : used at Lk ii. i6 in precisely similar sense, not
elsewhere. — lirifj-ivuv : four times in " we "-sections, two or three times
in remainder of A., nine in the Pauline Epp. and once in the Perkope de
aduliera. For the construction, the relative referring to an accusative
some way back in the preceding clause, cp. A. xxiii. 33. See Klos-
termann, p. 60. — riy.ipa.% kirra: see XX. 6 «. — 'lepocroXv/xa is used again
in this section at v. 15, but 'UpovaaX-riiJL at 11, 12, 13.

v. 5. iyevero, followed by infin., see Lk v. 12 n. — irpoTTiixwuv -.
also at A. xv. 3 and xx. 38, and five times in Pauline Epp., and at
3 Jn 6. — 6evT€<;...7rpo(T€via.iJ.ei'OL: here two participles are combined
without a conjunction because the action described in the former is
clearly prior to that in the latter. Cp. xiv. 23 x^'poTovT^Vavres...
7rpo(reu^a/X€voi...7rap€^evTO (Klostermann, p. 60). — rt^eVat to. yoVara :
peculiar to Lk and A. See Lk xxii. 41 n.

V. 6. vTTocTTpe^etv : see Lk viii. 37 ?i.

v."]. irXovs: three times in " we "-sections, not elsewhere. —
KaravTav : see xx. 15 //.

V. 8. 1-17 iiravpLov : see XX. 7 >i.

V. 9. tol'to) ^arav OvyaTepis re'crcrape? : see Lk viii. 30 ;/. and A.
XX. 6 H.

V. 10. eTrtp.evdvTwi' : see V. 4 H. above. — KaTep^io-OaL: see v. 3;/. —
ovofxaTi: see Lk viii. 41 //. — ■qjxipa<; Tr/Vetovs : cp. A. xiii. 31.

V. II. IXOuiv KoX dpas rrjv ^wvrjv tov TLavXov, Sv^'cras. . .ei— ev. Here

there are three participles ; between the two first only is there a
conjunction ; the third is more closely united with the verb, and
the action described in it is thus brought into relief. Cp. xii. 19
and xvi. 27 (Klostermann, p. 60).

V. 12. -apcKaXovfxev ...TOV jx-i) ara^aueLv : see Lk iv. 42;/. —
ei/TOTTios : here only, but cp. tovs ovras iv rots tottois eVetVot? at xvi. 3,
and Ta Trepi TOV tottov c/cetvov at xxvin. 7.

V. 13. With ov [xovov SedrjvaL aXXd d~oOaviLV . . .inrkp tov oi'O/xaTO?,

cp. v. 41 and ix. 16 ; xv. 26. There are no other parallels so close;
the nearest are 2 Cor. xii. 10; Phil. i. 29. — The title "the Lord
Jesus" (without "Christ" added) occurs in all parts of the Acts, 13
times in all, .including this one in the "we "-sections; the full title
(with the addition of " Christ") occurs four times (one of them in the
" we "-sections). "The Lord Jesus" is also very common in the
Epp. of St Paul ; but " the Lord Jesus Christ " even more so. The
expression "the Name of the Lord Jesus," found here in the "we "-
sections, occurs three times in the Acts outside of those sections
(viii. 16; xix. 5, 13). In the rest of N.T. we meet with it only at
I Cor. V. 4 and vi. 11.

s. G. II. 21

32 2 Authorship of the ''we'' -sections in Acts

V. 14. Trei^o/xeVou : Tret^ccr^ai (pass, or midd. "to be persuaded,"
i.e. " to believe " or " to obey ") ; twice in " we "-sections, seven times
in remainder of A., twice in Lk, 11 times in Epp. — rjcruxa^ctv : also at
A. xi. 18 and twice in Lk, besides only once in N.T., at i Thess.
iv. II.

V. 15. iTTicTKevd^ea-OaL: only here, but cp. dvaa-Kevd^eLV at A.
XV. 24.

V. 16. ievL^eaOaL : twice in " we "-sections, five times in remainder
of A. ; once (viz. at xvii. 20) in sense "strange," in all other cases of
hospitality. In this latter sense once in Heb. ; in the other sense,
twice in i Pet.

V. 17. aTroSe'xccr^at : twice in " we "-sections ; also at A. ii. 41;
xviii. 27 ; xxiv. 3 ; twice in Lk ; not elsewhere in N.T.

Z'. 18. Tjj iTTLovcrrj : see XX. 15?/. — elcnewai: also at A. iii. 3 and
xxi. 26 ; besides in N.T. only at Heb. ix. 6. — TrapajLveaOai : see Lk
xxii. 52 ;/.

CHAPTER V.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST MATTHEW.

Some points of great importance in regard to the com-
position of the Gospel which stands first in our New Testament
have already been decided through the preceding examination
of the relations of the Synoptic Gospels and inquiry as to
their common sources. We have seen that its account of the
public Ministry of Jesus and His Passion has been largely
compiled from St Mark and another document containing
especially the Teaching of Jesus, both which lay before our
first evangelist in Greek. The evangelist has skilfully com-
bined the matter taken by him from the two documents
which have just been mentioned. With the brief summary
of the Baptist's preaching in St Mark and with accounts,
most of them brief, of the Teaching of Jesus occurring at
various points in that Gospel, he has united pieces from his
other, his Logian, document, which could be assumed to have
been spoken on the same occasions, or which bore upon the
same topics. Where he found no piece of Teaching, however
brief, in St Mark that could form, as it were, a point of attach-
ment for a discourse taken from the other document, he was
naturally influenced, in selecting a position for the latter, by
his own view of the subject of which he was treating, re-
garded as a whole. Thus in the case of, perhaps, the most
important of all his insertions into the Marcan outline, the
so-called "Sermon on the Mount," his object in placing it
where he has done seems to have been to give from the outset
a great example of the Teaching of Jesus, before passing in
the sequel to illustrations of the other side of His two-fold
activity, His deeds of mercy, some of which have been brought
in here for that purpose from later positions in the IMarcan
order. Again, the address suggested by the Message of
the Baptist from prison, which he took from his Logian

324 Sections of St Mark, the parallels to

document, is not linked to any passage in St Mark, even to
the slight extent that the "Sermon on the IMount" is\ but it
holds a significant position in his own narrative. He has,
also, brought together passages from different parts of his
Logian document, and he has besides, as we shall see when
we examine closely the pieces of continuous instruction in
this Gospel, probably inserted into them some Sayings not
derived from either of the two sources so far mentioned. He
has thus gathered up nearly the whole of the Teaching of Jesus
which he has recorded in eight discourses, each of which has
a distinct purpose.

A little still remains to be added here with regard to the
form of these two principal documents, which were known to
the author of our Greek St ^Matthew, and concerning his use of
them. Some questions relating to other sources that he may
have had, especially for matter that is peculiar to him, must
then be considered, and the characteristics of this Gospel as a
whole must be described.

I. First, it will be well to say a few words as to those
narratives in which our first evangelist is more concise than
St Mark and omits some details contained in the latter. The
most striking instances are the Cures of the Paralytic (Mt. ix.
I — 8 = Mk ii. I — 12), and of the Gerasene daemoniac (Mt. viii.
28 — 34=Mk v. I — 20), the Raising of Jairus' daughter (Mt.
ix. 18 — 26 = Mk V. 22 — 43), the Cure of the Epileptic boy
(Mt. xvii. 14 — 20=Mk ix. 14 — 29); but there are others in
which there is the same difference between the parallels in
the two Gospels though it is less marked.

It is contended both by Zahn and B. Weiss that in these
passages our first evangelist has gone back to the original
source, and that this source was used by Mark also, though he
has amplified it with various details which he probably derived
from Simon Peter. Moreover, J. Weiss maintains that in the
explanation of the phenomena in question these theories
score a notable success. He himself suggests a modification
of B. Weiss' theory as regards the origin of Mark's accounts,
but adheres to the point that our first evangelist reproduces
those of another document in these places^ I have urged

' See above, p. 79 f. "^ See Das lilt. Ev. pp. i56f. , 198.

which ill St Matthew are more concise 325

various objections already against the views both of Zahn and
of B. Weiss as to the relations of St Mark and St Matthew to
a common source and to one another^ ; and if those objections
are valid their hypotheses are not available in the class of
cases now before us. But further it should be borne in mind,
that all the three writers named admit that our first evangelist
knew St Mark and used it in the composition of his Gospel.
It is therefore hardly open to them to lay stress, as they do,
upon the strangeness of the omissions of our first evangelist,
as a reason for supposing that he was here using another source.
There would be force in the argument that is founded on his
omissions, if in his Gospel generally he had been independent
of St Mark. But as this is not pretended, it must still be
needful to ask why in the particular passages in question
he refrained from making use of information of an interesting
kind contained in a document which was familiar to him.'

We are thus thrown back upon the adoption of one or
other of the two simpler suppositions either that the traits
wanting in St Matthew were not contained in the Marcan
document known to our first evangelist, t»r that he purposely
omitted them with a view to brevity. I have already noticed
instances in which Luke agrees with our first evangelist in
omissions, and I have suggested that in some of them these
two evangelists represent the original form of the Marcan
document more truly than our St Mark does. But for the
most part the omissions of the first evangelist in his sections
parallel with St Mark appear to be due to his having aimed
at that greater conciseness which we observe. The com-
pression has been produced by the avoidance of redundant
expressions, as well as by the actual omission of picturesque
details ; and while it is more or less noticeable in many
passages, it is most considerable where Mark's mode of
narration afforded the fullest opportunity for it. Moreover,
it is surely natural, and in point of fact extremely common,
that a writer who is making use of a document should in
doing so abbreviate it, especially if he has a good deal of
matter to add from other sources. Further, we ought not to
assume that whatever seems significant to us must have
seemed so in another age. The vivid touches in Mark's
1 pp. 38 ff., 109 ff., 139 f.

326 Sections of St Mark luJiicJi are

narratives are prized by us as indications that his informant
was an eye-witness. They had not the same importance for
our first evangehst because the authenticity of the record was
either not in question, or, in so far as it was, would not have
been defended on this ground.

The narratives and other pieces of matter contained in
St Mark which have not been i)i substance included in
St Matthew are very few in number, and in regard to most
of them there appears to be no reason for suggesting, nor so
far as I am aware has it been suggested, that their omission
points to their having been absent from the copy of St Mark
which the evangelist used. The healing of a daemoniac by
Jesus in a synagogue at the opening of His Ministry is
related in St !Mark and also in St Luke. It may have been
passed over by our first evangelist through mere inadvertence,
when he rearranged the account of the early part of Christ's
work. It may also have seemed to him that it was not such
a striking example, as many others that he gave, of the
wonder-working power of Jesus. Its significance in St Mark
lies in its being the first recorded. Two other miracles placed
in St Mark in the latter part of the Galilean Ministr}-, the
healing of a deaf and dumb man (]\Ik vii. 32 — 35) and of a
blind man (Mk viii. 22 — 26), are not mentioned in St Matthew,
at least in the context where they occur in St IMark. But
there appears to be a reference to the same pair of miracles,
perhaps taken from a different source, at an earlier point in
St Matthew \ and the evangelist may himself have identified
them with the two related in St Mark, and may consequently
have passed these over when he came to them in that Gospel.
It is possible also, since the two narratives in question have
not been reproduced in St Luke, that they were inserted into
a later copy of St ]\Iark than either our first or our third
evangelist used.

In addition to these miracles three incidents recorded in
St Mark are wanting in St Matthew : the question of the
disciples respecting the man whom they had seen casting out
devils in Christ's name, though he was not one of their own
band (Mk ix. 38 — 40), the widow and her two mites (Mk xii.

^ Mt. ix. 27 — 31 and 32 — 34.

omitted in St Matthew 327

41 — 44), and the presence at the arrest of Jesus of a young
man who fled leaving behind him the garment in which
he had wrapped himself (Mk xiv. 51, 52). The two first are
of peculiar interest, and Luke has given them both. The
explanation of their absence from St Matthew may perhaps
be that they are preceded in St Mark by short accounts of
addresses by Jesus which our first evangelist has greatly ex-
panded by combining therewith matter from another source,
or other sources. Through the occupation of his mind with
this other matter, his attention may have been turned away
from the two incidents referred to. He may also have thought
that the first of them might encourage those who falsely pre-
tended to work miracles in Christ's Name, a class against
whom he has in another place (Mt. vii. 22) introduced a
warning which is not elsewhere recorded. The incident of
the young man who fled leaving his garment behind him is
wanting in St Luke as well as in St Matthew. In all pro-
bability both evangelists omitted it as being unimportant.

One parable in St Mark, that of the Seed growing secretly
(Mk iv. 26 — 29), is not reproduced in St Matthew in the
same shape ; but it is virtually included in that of the Tares
which in the corresponding context takes its place. Once
more, the question of the disciples after the exorcism of the
spirit possessing the epileptic boy — " Why could we not cast
it out ? " — is followed in St Mark and St Matthew by different
Sayings, that in the former having no parallel elsewhere in the
Gospels. That in St Matthew may have been substituted for
it by the evangelist.

2. In discussing the source of the Sayings common to
St Matthew and St Luke, I took the pieces of common
matter for the most part in the order in which they occur
in the latter Gospel. Some facts, however, in regard to
the structure of the Matthaean discourses incidentally came
before us. But it will be well for me, I think, now to review
these discourses in a consecutive manner. An opportunity
will, also, thus be afforded for touching on points which I have
not had occasion to deal with before.

(i) From an examination of the discourse on the
Character of the heirs of the Kingdom and of the Denunciation

328 The discourses in St Mattheiu

of the Pharisees and Scribes and the comparison of parallels
in St Luke, and to a limited extent in the second instance
also in St Mark, we were led to the conclusion that in these
two instances we have in St Matthew fuller versions of corre-
sponding discourses in the Aramaic original than the other
Gospels give us\ though a little other matter has also been
embodied. In the case of the former of these I observed
that, as it was so suitable for general edification, the fuller
version might have been at first circulated separately. But
this would be unlikely in the case of the other piece on the
Scribes and Pharisees; and it is therefore simplest to suppose
that in a translation of the Aramaic Collection of Logia, which
in the parts in question gave only an abbreviated rendering,
more extended renderings were afterwards substituted with
the direct intention of making the document a better repre-
sentative of the original. I shall assume that the early
translation of the Aramaic Logia, which, as we saw in ch.
iv., received some additions before it came into the hands of
Luke, had been altered in the different manner which has
now been described before passing into the hands of the
author of our first Gospel.

The discourse on the Character of the heirs of the Kingdom
in St Matthew is made up almost wholly of the discourse on
this theme as it stood in this revised document, together with
passages taken from later parts of this document which had
remained unaltered ^ As regards differences between the
two versions of the discourse, I have already argued that in
the Beatitudes Luke's more meagre rendering is the more
literal, but that the rendering in St Matthew, though more of
the nature of a paraphrase, gives the real purport of the
teaching of Jesus in a way to be more correctly apprehended
by persons not familiar with the circumstances in which He
actually spoked The passage certainly belonging to the
original discourse in which, next to that containing the
Beatitudes, the differences between the two versions are
most significant, is that occurring near the end on knowing
the tree by its fruit. This figure is in Lk vi. 43 — 45
used generally of human conduct and character. In Mt. vii.

^ pp. 80 ff., 92, 335 f. 2 See Analysis, pp. 123, 124. ^ j). 106 fif.

The discourses in St Matthew 329

15 — 20 it is specifically applied to false prophets. This form
is probably later than the other. It is in accord with the
prominence given in this Gospel to the expectation of the
Judgement, in the period preceding which there would be many
false prophets ^ Possibly also trouble had already been ex-
perienced from men of this kind.

There are only very few Sayings in this discourse Avith
regard to the source of which I have felt it necessary to
express doubt. I would leave it an open question whether
the Saying at Mt. vi. 14, 15 is, like vi. i — 8 and 16 — 18, part
of the full rendering of the discourse in the Aramaic document,
or has been introduced at this point by our evangelist, who
may have become acquainted with it in some other way, e.g.
from having it in Mk xi. 25, and may have been reminded of
it by one of the petitions of the Lord's Prayer which he had
decided to insert here- ; though I incline to this latter alter-
native. Stronger reasons, as it seems to me, are given above*
for thinking that Mt. vi. 24 and vii. 13, 14, 22, 23 (the four verses
to be taken together) were not derived from the Logian docu-
ment. There is a parallel to the latter four verses at Lk xiii.
24 — 27. The differences in the imagery employed, according
to the two evangelists, have been pointed out*. Some other
differences between them, which are doctrinally and historically
important, will come before us presently^ I would here only
draw attention to the reference in v. 22 to those who falsely
prophesied and worked miracles in Christ's name. This
probably led the evangelist to weav'e in this piece here in
connexion with the other about false prophets {vv. 1 5 — 20).

(ii) After a series of narratives in chh. viii. and ix. we
have in ch. x. 5 — 42, the Address to the Twelve co7icerning their
Mission^. This discourse is almost wholly made up of Sayings
to which there are parallels in St Luke or St Mark. There
are passages which come ultimately from the common Greek
Logian documenf. There is also a Saying at Mt. x. 39, to

^ See Mt. xxiv. ii, ■24. There is a parallel in Mk only to the latter. See
also Mt. vii. 22. In Lk they aie not mentioned in connexion \\\\\\ the last
times.

^ See p. 83 n. ^ See above, p. 98 f. * See ib.

^ See below, p. 352. " See Analysis, p. 124 f.

^ In these passages the most important differences are to be found in Mt. x. 32,
33 = Lk xii. 8, 9. On these, see below, p. 3..;2.

330 TJie discourses in St Mattheuu

which Luke has a parallel at xvii. 33 ; but the reference
which the latter gives to it makes it improbable that
he can have taken it from the same source, and conse-
quently it becomes doubtful whether the common source
contained it^

The brief summary of the Charge to the Twelve in
Mk vi. 8— II has also been used in the Matthaean discourse
on their ]\Iission, and a passage has been embodied in it
which we find in the Apocalyptic discourse in Mk xiii. 9 — 13,
but which probably also reached the author of St Matthew
independently-. Sayings from Mk ix. 37 and 41 have also
been introduced. In connexion with the last two Sayings
we have a sentence in v. 41, occurring in St Matthew only,
which may best be regarded as an expansion of the former
of them.

There are however — one at the opening of the discourse
and .another somewhat later in it— two sayings peculiar to
St Matthew which require special attention : that in which
the disciples are bidden 'not to depart into the way of the
Gentiles or to enter a city of the Samaritans,' and again,
' when persecuted in one city to flee to another, because they
would not have gone through the cities of Israel before the
Coming of the Son of Man^.' These Sayings cannot have
been added by the author of the Gospel. One who recorded
the commission to preach to the Gentiles which closes his
Gospel (]\It. xxviii. 18 — 20), and who was living when that
work among the Gentiles was in progress, might have kept
the Sayings at Mt. x. 5 and 6 and 23 in the contexts in which he
found them, because he did not wish to tamper with his docu-
ment ; but it is almost inconceivable that he should have
introduced them, in defiance of facts with which he was him-
self familiar. Moreover, these instructions could only have
been addressed to Jewish Christians of Palestine. In spite,
however, of their emanating from the original home of
Christianity, it is difficult in view of other Sayings of Jesus
and the general tenor of His Teaching to believe that they
accurately represent the Mind of the Master.

(iii) We come next to the discourse of Jesus on the

' See p. 98. ^ See p. 116. ^ x. 6 and 23.

The discourses in St MattJieiu 331

Message of John from p7'ison (i\It. xi.)^ In addition to passages
derived from the common Greek Logian source, we have here
only a Saying on the epoch-making character of John's work
which the evangelist has very suitably placed in this con-
nexion-, and a saying of remarkable beauty peculiar to this
Gospel, which the evangelist has placed at the end, though
its connexion with what precedes is not close. Whether it
ultimately came from the Aramaic Collection we cannot say.

(iv) Christ's reply to the charge that He was actiiig m
colhtsion tvith Satan and to the demand for a sign (Mt. xii.
22 — 45)^. The greater part of this address comes from the
common Greek Logian source ; but portions of the parallel
account in St ^lark have been interwoven in the earlier part.
One piece has also been inserted by the evangelist, on speech
as an indication of character, in which the figure of a tree
and its fruit is employed. This, so far as the figure is con-
cerned, forms a doublet with a passage in the discourse on
the Character of the heirs of the Kingdom where it is in its
original context-*. It is not likely that the evangelist would
have used the same matter twice over in compiling two
different discourses. Probably, therefore, besides having it
in his Logian document, in the position I have indicated, he
knew it in some other way as a separate fragment. But
it is curious that it is closer to the parallel in St Luke here
where it does not, than where it does, stand in a corresponding
context.

(v) Next in order we come to the parables in ]\It. xiii. ;
but it will be best to speak of these later in connexion with
the other parables in this Gospel.

(vi) I pass to the discourse on Offences {^It. yiVm.y ; it
contains some sayings peculiar to this Gospel, which raise
questions of special interest. The figure of the lost sheep,
found also in Lk xv., is preceded and followed in St Matthew
by Sayings on the reverence for and care of " the little ones "

^ See Analysis, p. 125.

^ Mt. xi. 12 — 15. Owing to the form and position of the corresponding Saying
in Lk xvi. 16, it must be considered doubtful whether it was included in the
common Greek Logian source. See p. 99.

'^ See Analysis, p. 125 f. ■* See above, p. 328. ^ See Analysis, p. i27f.

332 The discourses in St Matthew

which give it a different application to that which it has in
St Luke. Further, the Saying concerning ' the angels of the
little ones, who are ever in the immediate Presence of God '
suggests an idea different from any that we have elsewhere in
the New Testament. Nevertheless, it should be observed
that there are references also at the ends of the parables of
the Lost Sheep, and of the Lost Drachma, in Lk xv., to "joy
in heaven," and "joy in the presence of the angels of God."
This is an indication that the whole piece (Mt. xviii. lo
— 14) may have been derived ultimately from the same
tradition as Luke's parable, though it had acquired a different
form in transmission. It must be added that the Matthaean
employment of the figure is less suitable than the Lucan.
For " the little ones," whether children or child-like believers
are thereby intended, had not been lost and did not need to
be recovered. There was the duty only of taking care that
they should not be lost. It would seem as if in this instance
the original application of the figure to publicans and sinners,
truly preserved in St Luke, had in some Jewish-Christian
circles been found larger than they could fully rise to, and
that they had sought to restrict the lesson to the case of the
behaviour that was due to those members of their body to
whom special tenderness was due.

Another piece which attracts attention in this discourse is
that in vv. \6 — 20: If he Jiear tJiec not, take zvith thee one or
two more, that at the month of two witnesses or three every
word may be established. And if he refise to hear tJiem, tell
it tinto the cJinrcJi ; and if he rcfnse to hear the cJiurch also,
let him be u7ito thee as the Gentile and publican. Verily
I say nnto yon, ]Vhat things soever ye shall bind on earth
shall be bound in heaven ; and what things soever ye shall loose
on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say Jinto you, that
if two of you shall agree on earth as toucJiing anything that
they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father ivhich
is in heaven. For where tivo or three are gathered together in
my name, there am I in the midst of them.

The term "church " {eKKK-qala) occurs in the Gospels only
at this place and in the words to Simon Peter recorded at
Mt. xvi. 18, which will presently be considered. In the

The discourses iji St Mattheiu 333

present passage the term is evidently used only of a particular
assembly, of which both the offending and the offended
brethren should be members. The constitution and discipline
of such a body which are here suggested correspond with
those of synagogues among the Jews. The use in a Greek
work of the term iKKk'qaia with reference to the Christian
community in a particular place involved but a slight, if any,
adaptation of the original conception for the benefit of Gentile
Christians.

The direction to appeal to the Church with a view to the
making up of differences leads on {v. i8) to an assurance of
the Divine authority belonging to the decisions of the Church
(i.e. in the present passage each local Christian assembly), in
connexion with which part of the promise addressed to Simon
Peter (xvi. i8) is repeated. A similar Saying is also found
in Jn XX. 23. Finally, in vv. 19, 20 we have a saying which
seems most directly to refer to prayer, and to have been
introduced here because the assurance as to the effectualness
of joint acts of prayer by Christians was suggested by that
as to the validity of other joint Christian acts. With Christ's
promise of His presence here the last words of this Gospel
(xxviii. 20) are to be compared ; while with the whole Saying
about the privileges of Christian prayer {vv. 19, 20) we may
compare Jn xiv. 13, 14; xvi. 23. It is not unimportant that
this encouragement to offer prayer in Christ's Name and
promise of His presence were given to the disciples according
to St John on the eve of His departure, and that the latter
promise was according to St Matthew made again after His
resurrection, while the parallel in St John to the Saying con-
cerning the authority of their acts of discipline is likewise
connected with the time after the Resurrection.

The want of clear connexion between various parts of this
discourse must now be considered. The groundwork of it
was supplied by Mk ix. 34 — 50, the latter portion of which
{vv. 41 — 50) was, I have contended in ch. III., an addition to
Mark's own \vork\ The reasons there alleged for this view
were that it is not after the manner of the author of the rest
of the Gospel to give such a collection of Sayings, and that

^ See p. 161.

334 The discourses in St Matthei.ij

Luke has not reproduced the passage. But it might have
been added that the associations of ideas through which
successive Sayings appear to have been brought together are
of a kind to suggest that we have here the work of an editor
and ampHfier of the Gospel rather than of the original author
of it\ In using this section of St Mark our first evangelist has
through certain omissions^ got rid, intentionally or not, of
one abrupt transition. " Whoso shall receive one such little
child in my name, receiveth me," is now followed immediately
by " But whoso shall cause one of these little ones which
believe on me to stumble," etc., which makes an appropriate
antithesis. On the other hand, the fact that the substitution
of childlike believers for actual children has not been prepared
for, which must strike the attentive reader even in St Mark,
has thus been made much more apparent.

The additions in St Matthew have caused new complica-
tions. At V. 3 another lesson drawn from children is inserted,
connected with an incident which is recorded later in Mark
(x. 15). It is suitable enough to the present context, indeed
more obviously suitable than the one originally belonging
here ; but the circumstance that it is a distinct one and that
the other, also, is retained renders the sequence of thought
more difficult^ At v. 7 (or perhaps I should say v. 6) he

^ In Mk V. 41 it is assumed that even a very simple act of kindness done
to a disciple of Christ, may imply that Christ is acknowledged. This seems to be
most closely connected with the saying in v. 37 f. ; but it might be held to have
a certain amount of connexion, also, with vv. 39, 40, since here also the acknow-
ledgement of Christ in an unexpected quarter is in question. In v. 42 the mention
of the " little ones that believe " takes back our thoughts to w. 36 and 37 «, and
"offending" may be regarded as the opposite of "receiving" them. But it has
not been made clear that "such children" in v. 37 « means "childlike believers";
and the man who 'did not follow with the disciples' can hardly have been
intended for an example of them, as some have supposed.

At V. 43 we have still the word <XKavSa\i^€ii' ; but the stumbling-block is one
which may be caused to a man himself by a member of his own, not one which he
may place in the way of a "little one."

- He has placed Mk ix. 37 <^ and 41 in the Mission Address (see p. 330); and
has passed over the incident in Mk ix. 38 — 40 altogether.

^ The connexion of Mk ix. vv. 36, 37 with vv. 34, 35 would seem to be that a
man whose mind is full of questions of pre-eminence will not "receive a child" —
he is indifferent to, and contemptuous of, that which is lowly; and further that
all human differences of rank should for the follower of Christ be swallowed up in
the thought of Niission from Christ and from the Father.

The discourses in St Matthew 335

begins to interweave a little piece on causing ofifences from his
Logian document, to which there is a close parallel in Lk xvii.
I — 4. But then we have, just as in Mk ix. 43, the abrupt
transition from causing offence to others, to the offence that
one of one's own corrupted members may cause to oneself;
and the passage from St Mark on this subject is given,
though skilfully compressed (Mt. vv. 8, 9 = Mk ix. 43 — 47).
The insertion after this of a piece for the most part peculiar
to St Matthew, on which I have commented, takes us back to
the subject of regard for the little ones. Next a verse taken
from the passage of the Logian document on Offences directs
that an offending brother is to be reproved privately, evidently
as the best way to prevent harm arising. It is followed by a
piece peculiar to this Gospel, opening with instructions as to
the course to be pursued if the offender proves obdurate,
which is a side-issue, and leads on to the subject of the
authority of the Christian Society and the effectualness of
joint acts of Christian prayer. After this the broken thread
is resumed in one more Saying taken from the Logian
passage, on the compassionate treatment of offenders ; and
finally our evangelist appends the parable of the Unmerciful
servant.

This is the most composite of all the Matthaean discourses.
In addition to much from a passage on Offences in St Mark and
a Saying from another context in that Gospel, and a passage
from the Logian document used by our first evangelist, which
was found in the same, or approximately the same, form
in the Logian document used by Luke, it contains a not
inconsiderable amount of peculiar matter, which was not in all
probability derived by the evangelist from his Logian docu-
ment, and part of which itself bears marks of a compiler's
hand.

(vii) I have already suggested that the greater part
(down to V. 36) of the discourse Concerning the Seri/>es and
Pharisees^ in Mt. xxiii. is a fuller version of a passage of the
Aramaic collection of Sayings of which we have in Lk xi.
39 — 52 an abridged representation I The whole discourse is

1 See Analysis, p. 1-27 f. ^ See pp. 84, 92, 328.

336 The discourses in St Matthew

well-connected and continuous, and various expressions in
the Sayings peculiar to our first Gospel — " The Scribes and
Pharisees sit in Moses' seat," " Be not ye called Rabbi," etc.,
as well as the tone and character of the discourse generally,
recall in the most forcible manner the circumstances under
which the Teaching must have been given. Two verses
(6 and 7) have been taken from, or their form has been in-
fluenced by, the brief summary in I\Ik xii. 38 — 40 (see vv. 38,
39); and another {v. 11) has possibl}' come from ?klk ix. 35,
though it may also have stood in the Logian document, or
have been known to our evangelist independently of either
source.

At the end of the discourse we have the Apostrophe to
Jerusalem to which there is a close parallel in Lk xiii. 34, 35
though in a different context. I have suggested another
connexion for it in the original Greek Logian documents

(viii) Mt. xxiv., xxv. The author of St ^Matthew has
reproduced in substance the whole of the Discourse on the
Last Things in Alk xiii., and except in one short passage
(Mt. vv. 9 — 14, Mk vv. 9 — 13), has not changed the order of
Mark's sentences^ and has preserved to a large extent the
actual words. He has interwoven, however, several verses
from the Discourse on the Last Things which he doubt-
less found in his Logian document and which is given
approximately in the same form in Lk xvii. 22 — ly. Further
at V. 42, by the exhortation to watch at the conclusion of
the discourse in St Mark, he is reminded (see v. 42) of a
similar exhortation occurring earlier in his Logian source
(Mt. xxiv. 43 — 5 I = Lk xii. 39, 40, 42 — 46), and he introduces
this in place of part of the IMarcan passage to the same
effect.

He adds parables more or less peculiar to this Gospel, and
a description of the Last Judgement, to all of which I shall
recur in the next section, to which I now pass, on the Parables
in St Matthew.

1 See p. 96.

2 With a trifling exception near the end, where Mk tw. 33, 34 are omitted at
the place where they stand in that Gospel because they are represented in the
parable of the Servants given soon afterwards.

The parables in St Matthew 337

3. The fact that the parables in our first and third Gospels
are to so great an extent different, while the precepts of Jesus
are in large measure the same, points, as I have already ob-
served ^ to the parables having been collected separately from
the other Teaching,and to their having been treated with greater
freedom where in substance they are the same. We have now
to examine those in St Matthew more closely than we have
done hitherto. Ten parables in St Matthew — namely, those of
the Mustard plant and the Leaven common to this Gospel and
to St Luke, and the former also to St Mark, together with five
that are wholly-, and three that are to a considerable extent^,
peculiar — are introduced with the formula, " The Kingdom of
heaven is likened " or " is like " or, in one case, " shall be
likened unto"^. The only other parables which this Gospel con-
tains are two common to all three Gospels (those of the Sower
and tWe Vine-dressers), one peculiar to St Matthew, the Two
Sons, and one largely peculiar, the Talents, Moreover, as
regards the last it is to be observed that although the formula
referred to above is not used it is plain from the manner in
which it begins, " for like as," and the preceding context
that the subject to which it relates is the " Kingdom of
heaven'"; while in the interpretation of the parable of the
Sower we have in St Matthew (xiii. 19) the phrase " the word
of the kingdom" — "of the kingdom" being peculiar to this
Gospel.

As everyone who has read the Gospels with attention
knows, the expression " the Kingdom of heaven " (or literally
" of the heavens ") is used only in St Matthew and is very
common there'', being frequently used where in parallels in
St Mark or St Luke we find the expression " Kingdom of

^ See pp. 100, 231 f.

" The Hid treasure, the Pearl-merchant, the Drag-net, the Unmerciful servant,
and the Labourers' hire.

^ The Wheat and the Tares, the Marriage-feast for the King's son and the Ten
Virgins.

■* There is no great difference between the two first expressions ; w/j.o(.wdr] is
simply the aor. of emphasis. The special shade of meaning in 6/j.oiw6riaeTaL
(Mt. XXV. i) is obvious.

5 Mt. XXV. 14.

® On the other hand, 17 /3acri\eta tou Oeou is used only four times in Mt., viz. at
xii. 28, at xix. 24 (in a parallel to Mk), and at xxi. 31 and 43.

S. G. H. 22

338 The parables in St Matthew

God," as for instance in the parables of the Mustard plant and
the Leaven. There can be little doubt that " Kingdom of
heaven" means virtually the same as "Kingdom of God," and
that the former expression is employed instead of the latter
in accordance with Jewish feelings of reverenced In many of
the Sayings in which it stands in St Matthew it is probably
the literal rendering of the Aramaic. At the same time it is
possible that the evangelist himself, or other Greek-speaking
Christians, having become accustomed to it through such
literal renderings, had extended its use.

It is a more important point that this subject — the ex-
pectation of the kingdom of heaven (or of God) — and its
character should be so copiously illustrated by parables in
this Gospel. The significance of this element, and of the form
of certain of the parables, and of the prominence in them of
particular aspects of the general theme, must now be con-
sidered. That the subject of the Kingdom of God and of the
expectation of its coming held a central place in the Teaching
of Jesus is apparent from all the Gospels. And that in setting
forth the nature of this kingdom and of the manner of its
progress He employed parables is attested by the two parables
of the Mustard plant and the Leaven, which (as we have seen)-
were probably contained in the early Greek Logian docu-
ment rendered from the Aramaic. The parable of the Seed
growing secretly (in Mk iv. 26 — 29) in part resembles these two
in the lesson it teaches, while it also points on to the day of
harvest and of reaping. It is doubtful, I have said, whether
this parable was contained in the original document by Mark'*,
but although added somewhat later it may have been derived
from a trustworthy source. The parables of the Hid treasure
and the Pearl-merchant resemble in their brief pithy form
those of the Leaven and the Mustard plant, and their lesson
that men must be prepared to sacrifice all their possessions
for the sake of the Kingdom of God is expressly enjoined
repeatedly by Jesus, without figure, in His teaching. (E.g.
Mk X. 23 — 27 taken with the incident preceding.) The
parables of the Unmerciful servant and of the Labourers'

^ See Dalman, Die Worte Jcsn, p. 75 ft"., Eng. trans, p. 91 ft'.
^ pp. 96 and 104. ^ See above, p. 154.

The payables in St MattJiew 339

hire set forth the principles on which the fixed Divine
award on human conduct and work shall be made, but it
cannot be inferred from them that the Messiah is regarded as
the Judge. There is, however, in the latter of these a point
of a different kind to be noted. The lesson of this parable
seems clearly to be that the first band of disciples must not
regard themselves as superior to those who were called later.
All would enjoy the same inheritance.

It will be convenient to notice at this point the parable of
the Two Sons (xxi. 28 — 32). It is interesting from the strong
resemblance it bears to the type of parable characteristic of
Luke's Gospel^ both in the subject of comparison — ordinary
human conduct — and in the appeal made to common human

judgement: — WJiat think ye? Whether of the tivain did

the will of his father?

It remains to speak of four other parables. The Wheat
and the Tares (Mt. xiii. 24 — 30) resembles that of the Seed
growing secretly (Mk iv. 26 — 29), and might have had the
latter for its foundation, the sowing of the tares by the
enemy and the order to wait till the time of the harvest
for their destruction being added. Moreover an inter-
pretation of the parable is given and attributed to Jesus,
foretelling the execution of judgement " in the end of the
world " by " the Son of Man " Who " shall send forth his
angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things
that cause stumbling, and them that do iniquity, and shall
cast them into the furnace of fire." For the closest parallels
to this language we must turn to other passages in this same
Gospel', Again, the parable of the Marriage feast (Mt. xxii.
I — 14) must be compared with that of the Great feast in
Lk xiv. 15 — 24. The resemblance between them, though not
close as to language or all points of detail, is such that a
common original must lie behind them. The most important
differences are that we have in St Matthew " a certain king
which made a marriage feast for his son " in place of " a
certain man made a great supper," and again " servants," in
the plural, in place of the one servant in St Luke, by whom

^ See p. 231.

- Cp. Mt. xvi. 27, 28 = Mk viii. 38, ix. i ; and see below, pp. 341, 351 ff.

340 TJie parables in St Matt/ieij

Jesus Himself, as the Servant of Jehovah, may be intended.
Further, in Mt. v. 1 1 ff. the case of the man who was not clad
in a wedding garment is added, probably in order to shew
that though the persons first invited had been excluded and
punished on account of their indifference, and a wide in-
vitation had been given to others in their place, the conditions
for admission were still rigorous. The expressions " the outer
darkness" and "wailing and gnashing of teeth" are also
characteristic of this GospeP. I do not think it can be
denied that it is easier to suppose that the special features
in St Matthew were added to the original form, than that the
original form contained them and was stripped of them, so as
to give the form that we find in St Luke.

I pass to the parable of the Ten Virgins (Mt. xxv. i — 13).
In Lk xii. 35 — 37 the example of servants waiting for their
master when he shall return from the wedding is employed to
urge the disciples to watchfulness. The figure is carried no
further, but is woven into the exhortation. In St Matthew,
on the other hand, we have a full-grown parable. Two classes
are indicated (just as in the Wheat and the Tares), and the con-
duct of each, and the admission of the one class into, and the
exclusion of the other from, the kingdom by the bridegroom
himself at his return are described. Were we to consider this
figurative language in St Luke and this parable in St Matthew
alone we might perhaps regard the former as a kind of
abstract of the latter, due to reminiscence of it. But in
view of the relations between parables in St Matthew and St
Mark, and St Matthew and St Luke, in the two instances before
considered, the inverse relation must, I think, be held to be more
probable, i.e. that the Matthaean parable of the Ten Virgins is
an amplification of a figure such as that used in St Luke.

Once more in the parable of the Talents in Mt. xxv.
14 — 30, and the Minae in Lk xix. 1 1 — 27 we have the same
main idea diff"erently worked out. The points of difference
theologically speaking are not on the whole so marked ; still
we note in Mt. v. 30 the imagery respecting the fate of the
ungodly as in the conclusion of the parable of the Marriage
feast.

' See below, p. t^^^.

An apocalypse of tJie Judgement 341

It will be convenient to consider at this point the de-
scription of the Last Judgement in Mt. xxv. 31 — 46. This is
not a parable, though some of the language is symbolical.
It is rather a representation of the Great Da\- in the style of
the Jewish and Christian Apocalypses, and in particular of
the portion of the Book of Enoch called the Book of the Three
Similitudes (Enoch, chh. ^^j — 69). In regard both to its general
form and many points in the representation it has no parallels
in the other Gospels. The descriptions which there come
nearest to it are those which, with evident reference to
Daniel vii. 13, 14, speak of the Coming of the Son of Man
in clouds, as also of His "sitting at the right hand of powers"
St ^Matthew likewise has those descriptions of the Coming
of the Son of Man ; but in the passage now before us we are
further told that " then shall he sit on the throne of his
glory," and in the sequel He is represented as the Judge in a
final judgement upon all the nations-. The description of
"the Son of Man sitting on the throne of his glory " is found
also at Mt. xix. 28, but not elsewhere in the New Testament.
It occurs, however, several times in the Book of Enoch in
visions of the judgement to be exercised b\- the Elect One,
the Son of Man^ Another point which recalls the language
of the Book of Enoch, as also of other Apocalypses, is '' the
eternal fire (mentioned also I\It. xviii. 8, but not in the other
Gospels) prepared for the devil and his angels "*." The com-
parison of different classes of men to animals is also in the
style of the Apocalypses, though the example for it may have
been set by Ezek. xxxiv.

I have alluded to expressions in other parts of St [Matthew
shewing the same Messianic and eschatological conceptions as
those that have come before us in passages treated in the
latter part of this section. After we have considered those

1 See Mk xiii. 26 = Mt. xxiv. 3of. = Lk xxi. 27; and Mk xiv. 62 = Mt. xxvi.
64 = Lk xxii. 69.

- On the subject of a universal judgement by the Son of Man see further
below, p. 351.

^ See Enoch xlv. 3 ; li. 3 ; Iv. 4 ; Ixi. 8, 9, etc. From some of these passages
it appears that the throne of glor)' upon which the Son of Man is made to sit is that
of the Lord of Spirits.

■* See Enoch x. 4 — 6, 12, 13 ; Baruch Ivi. 10 — 13; Jubilees cv.

342 Tiuo classes of citations

expressions in their contexts, we may be in a somewhat
better position for estimating the significance which these
features of this Gospel have in connexion with the question
of its composition and authorship. We may, however, I think,
say at once that the four last parables which we have here
examined and the Apocalyptic representation of the Last
Judgement bear marks of a certain development both in
form and ideas, relatively to other teaching in the Gospels
which is broadly speaking of the same type.

4. We will now proceed to consider tJie citations from the
Old Testament in St Matt/ieiv and especially those pecnliar to
him, together with matter associated therewith.

The citations in St Matthew fall into two classes. One
class consists of those which appear in the form of comments
upon events regarded as already matter of history, being
designed to shew that in these events prophecy has been
fulfilled \ The other class consists of those which are em-
ployed by Jesus or by those who ask Him questions'-. The
former are all introduced with the words " in order that what
was spoken by the prophet might be fulfilled," or words
practically identical with these. In the case of none of the
second class is the same formula used, and many of them are
not adduced as prophecies. The two instances in this latter
class in which the manner of making the citation comes
nearest to that in the former class are Mt. xiii. 14, "unto them
is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah," and Mt. xv. 7 (copied from
Mk vii. 6), "Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you."

^ Mt. i. 22, 23 (Isa. vii. 14); ii. 5,6 (Mic. v. i, ^a); ii. i5(Hos. xi. i); ii. 17,
18 (Jer. xxxi. 15); ii. 23; iii. 3 (Isa. xl. 3); iv. 14, 16 (Isa. viii. 23); viii. 17
(Isa. liii. 4) ; xii. 17 — 21 (Isa. xlii. i — 4) ; xiii. 35 (Ps. Ixxviii. 2) ; xxi. 4, 5 (Isa. Ixii.
II and Zech. ix. 9); xxvii. 9, 10 (Zech. xi. 12, 13).

2 Mt. iv. 4, 6, 7, 10 (Deut. viii. 3; Ps. xci. 1 1 f . ; Dent. vi. 16, 13); ix. 13 and
xii. 7 (Hos. vi. 6); xi. 10 (Mai. iii. i) ; xiii. 14, 15 (Isa. vi. 9, 10); xv. 7 — 9
(Isa. xxix. 13) ; xix. 4, 5 (Gen. i. 27 ; ii. 24) ; xix. 7 (Deut. xxiv. 1) ; xix. 18, 19
(Ex. XX. 12 f,) ; xxi. 13 (Isa. Ivi. 7 and Jer. vii. 11) ; xxi. 16 (Ps. viii. 3) ; xxi. 42
(Ps. cxviii. 22 f.); xxii. 24 (Deut. xxv. 5; Gen. xxxviii. 8); xxii. 37 (Deut. vi.
4, 5) ; xxii. 43, 44 (Ps. ex. i). I have not included the citations in Mt. v. 2 r — 43,
because it is possible that they are not taken directly from the O.T. but from some
Jewish exposition, oral or written. Instances of the merely allusive employment of
Old Testament words are not here in question ; for some of these, see below,
P- 345 f-

from the Old Testament in St Mattheiu 343

In other instances we have " It is written," " Have ye not
read?" "Have ye never read?" "Moses said." Again, the
citations in the former class are with one exception^ made
in St ]\Iatthew only, whereas the majority of those in the
latter occur also in parallels in St i\Iark or St Luke. Once
more — and this is the most significant difference, though it
derives its significance from being combined with the
differences before mentioned — the amount of correspondence
with the LXX. is far less among those of the first than of
the second class. Four of the former — not to mention ii. 23
which cannot be identified with any single passage in the Old
Testament- — are wholly independent renderings-^ In five
others there are points of similarity with the LXX. — a phrase
or two, or a clause in each which is the same, or very like —
but they cannot have been derived from it alone. It would
seem rather that renderings of these passages other than
those of the LXX. have been used, but modified in some
cases by reminiscences of that Version ; some of the re-
semblances may be purely accidental^. One only agrees
accurately with the LXX.^ and another nearly so". It may
be further mentioned in passing that in one of them (Mt.
xxvii. 9) a citation from Zech. xi. 12, 13 is wrongly attributed
to Jeremiah. On the other hand in the case of all but one"
of the citations of the second class, there can be no thought
of any other source but the LXX. They are exact, or almost
exact, reproductions of it. It appears that our evangelist has
followed St Mark and also the source common to himself and

^ Isa. xl. 3 cited Mt. iii. 3 and also Mk i. 3.

2 In the formula of introduction here Ave have 5id tQiv ■n-po<pr)TQ]v instead of
5ta Tov irpo<t>-qTov; it may be intended as an inference from several prophets.

* Mt. ii. 6 (Mic. v. i, 4a); ii. 15 (Hos. xi. i) ; viii. 17 (Isa. liii. 4) ; xxvii 9.
(Zech. xi. 12, 13).

* Mt. ii. 18 (Jer. xxxi. 15 [lxx. xxxviii. 15]) ; iv. 15, 16 (Isa. viii. 23 f. [lxx.
ix. I, 2]); xii. 18 — 21 (Isa. xlii. i — 4); xiii. 35 (Ps. Ixxviii. 2 [lxx. Ixxvii. 2]);
xxi. 4, 5 (combination of Isa. Ixii. 11 and Zech. ix. 9).

' Mt. iii. 3 (Isa. xl. 3); the form here may have l^een influenced by the parallel
in Mk i. 3.

® Mt. i. 23 (Isa. vii. 14).

^ This single exception is in Mt. xi. 10 = Lk vii. 27 (Mai. iii. i) in a Logian
passage.

344 The source of one class a Catena

St Luke in quoting the LXX. where they do\ Not only so,
but in two places, where in St Mark words from the LXX. are
allusively brought in, he has substituted express and fuller
citations from that version I In two other places also he
has brought the language into closer agreement with the
LXX., and in one of these he adds another precept in the
words of the LXX.^ Further, in an incident given only in
Mt. xxi. 15, 16, the w^ords of Jesus include a citation of
Ps. viii. 2, exactly after the LXX., while the application of
Hos. vi. 6 by Jesus at Mt. ix. 13 and xii. 7 is nearly so. It is
therefore highly improbable that the renderings not after the
LXX. in the other group of citations are the evangelist's own ;
for if he had been able to give, and had preferred to give, an
independent translation in those passages, he would surely
have done the same in some of those of the second group.
He must therefore have owed the former, either to some
document, or to their having been traditionally known to him
in that form.

Next I would observe that the source from which they
were taken cannot have been a collection of Old Testament
citations and nothing jiiore. It would be unnatural that they
should be unaccompanied by references more or less brief, or
extended, to the events in which the prophecies were severally
fulfilled. And the words by which they are successively
introduced — "thus was fulfilled," "this came to pass in order
that " — plainly imply it. Consequently the viattei- associated
zvith these citations ought, as I have indicated in defining the
present section, to be considered along with them. Both
they and it, or much of it, have, it would seem, been taken
from a little exposition of the fulfilment of prophecy in the

1 The only exception is that at Mt. xxii. 37 = l\Ik xii. 10 (Deut. vi. 4, 5),
Mt. has iv three times, which is a literal rendering of the Ileb., in place of the
ef of the LXX. found in Mk.

2 Cp. Mk iv. 12 with Mt. xiii. 14, 15 (Isa. vi. 9, 10) ; and Mk x. 6. 7, with
Mt. xix. 4, 5 (Gen. ii. 24).

•'' In Mt. xix. 18, i9 = Mk x. 19, Matthew in place of /urj ^oveiVj/s, etc. gives
the direct commands with the neut. art. of quotation before each, t6 oi)
ipoi>(i'ffeis, etc. ; he also adds Lev. xix. 18. In Mt. xxii. 24 = Mk xii. 19,
where Deut. xxv. 5 and Gen. xxxviii. 8 are combined, (iriya/j.^pfva^€i has been
suggested to our first evangelist by the latter passage.

of fulfiliuents of pvopJiecy 345

Gospel history, somewhat like, though probably briefer than,
that which we find afterwards occupying a considerable
part of Justin's First Apology and of his Dialogue ivith
Trypho, the Jezi'. It might fairly be described, perhaps as
a Catena of fulfibncnts of prophecy (though not simpl}- of
prophetic passages). It existed originally in Aramaic. Our
first evangelist had at his disposal a written translation of it,
or else had become familiar with the counterpart of it, orally
delivered in Greek. The former is on the whole the more
probable, because in oral transmission in Greek the LX.X.
renderings of the Old Testament passages would probably
have been substituted for others to a larger extent than we
find to have been the case.

In this little Exposition, or Catena of fulfilments, so far as
we can gather its contents from the use made of it in
St Matthew, the treatment of the subject of the Birth and
Infancy of the Saviour was specially full (]Mt. i. and ii. ; see
especially i. 23, ii. 6, 18, 23). After this the ^Mission of the
Baptist was touched upon (Mt. iii. i ff.); then the preaching
of the Good News by Jesus in Galilee (Mt. iv. 12 ff.); the
miracles of Jesus were referred to collectively, as exemplifying
His compassion (Mt. viii. 16, 17); then His desire to avoid
publicity (Mt. xii. 15 ff.); His speaking to the people in
parables (]\It. xiii. 34, 35); His triumphal entry into Jeru-
salem (Mt. xxi. 4, 5); the return of the thirty pieces of silver
by Judas and the purpose to which they were applied
(Mt. xxvii. 3 ff).

This is the last direct appeal to prophecy which the
Gospel contains. Strange to say there are none in connexion
with the narratives of the Crucifixion and Resurrection, those
great subjects with which the argument from prophecy was in
the early Church so largely occupied. It is not likely that such
a Catena as would seem to have been known to and used by our
evangelist passed these by. It is more likely that when the
]\Iarcan narrative contained allusive references to prophecy or
afforded opportunities for introducing them, our evangelist
was satisfied to employ this method, or even from lack of
space or for some other reason found it preferable. This is
at all events what he has done. He has shewn his own

346 The iiayrativc of the Birth

interest in the fulfilment of prophecy, at least as regards the
Crucifixion, simply by adding to the number of the references
of this allusive kind, and making the words in one case agree
more closely with the Lxx.^

The most substantial addition here to other records is
the narrative of the Birth and Infancy of Jesus. There is,
I venture to think, a trace still to be pointed out of the
existence of the original of such a narrative in Hebrew or
Aramaic, which confirms the inference derived from the
phenomena of our Greek Gospel according to St Matthew.
I have adduced reasons (vol. I. p. 257 fif.) which appear to me
to be sufficient for holding the view that the Gospel according
to the Hebrews contained an account of the Nativity and
Infancy which was similar to that in St Matthew, and in-
cluded some at least of the same quotations from prophecy.
If so it is probable that the same account which, through a
translation, was used in the composition of St Matthew was
also embodied in the Gospel according to the Hebreius, a work
dating from the early part of the second century.

The narrative itself in St Matthew is characterised — in
contrast with that in St Luke — by the attention bestowed on
the part played by Joseph. It may well be that traditions on
this subject were preserved among his descendants and kin
who (it would seem), or some of whom, up to the close of the
first century held a more or less marked place in the Christian
community in Palestine-. The justification of the conduct

34, cp. Ps.

Ixix. 21.

LXX. ]

Ps. Ixviii. 22, not in Mk.

35 ,,

xxii. 18.

xxi. 19, also in Mk.

39 ..

" !•

,, 8, also in Mk.

43 ,.

„ 8.

,, 9, not in Mk.

46 „

.. I-

,, 2, a little closer to the
LXX. than in Mk.

4^^ „

Ixix. 21.

Ixviii. 22, also in Mk.

- It is most probable that "the brethren of the Lord" of whom we read at
Mk vi. 3 = Mt. xiii. 55 and elsewhere in N.T. were the sons of Joseph by a former
marriage. (See Lightfoot, Dissertation II. appended to his Com. on Ep. to
Gal.) One of them, James (Gal. i. 19; A. xii. 17, etc.), was the first head
of the Church at Jerusalem. Hegesippus, the Palestinian Christian writer of
the second century, also tells a story about the descendants of Jude — another
of these "brethren" — who were brought before Domitian and lived till the reign
of Trajan (ap. Eus. H.E. HI. chh. 19, 20 and 32). We learn from the same writer

and Infancy of Jesus 347

of Joseph and his care for the Mother and the Child would be
matters of peculiar interest to them ; and they might take a
pardonable pride in tracing their lineage through the sovereigns
of Judah from David to the Exile, and possibly after that
through the heads of families^

The passages that have been brought before us in this
section necessarily raise the question whether portions of the
Gospel narrative have been moulded to any extent according
to the model of Old Testament predictions. This may be most
easily imagined in cases where the addition of some secondary
trait would bring a well-authenticated fact into more complete
conformity than before with the words of prophecy, as for
instance the mention of an ass as well as the foal in the
account of the Triumphal Entry (Mt. xxi. 2); or again the
gall mingled with the wine as the potion offered to Jesus on
the Cross (]\It. xxvii. 34). But it has of course been held
that the influence of supposed prophecies upon the narrative
has extended much further than merely to instances such as
these. I must, however, defer the discussion of this subject
till I come to consider broadly the character of the evidence
for the Gospel-history in the final division of this work-.

V The source discussed in the last section will seem no

that James "the Lord's brother,"' was succeeded in the oversight of the Church of
Jerusalem by Symeon, a nephew of Joseph, who suffered martyrdom in the reign
of Trajan at the age of 1 20 (ib. chh. 1 1 and 32).

^ Julius Africanus — who resided in Palestine and wrote about the end of the
2nd century — in the fragment which has reached us of his Letter to Aristides
on the Genealogy of the Saviour in the Gospels (ap. Routh's Reliquice Sacrce, n.
pp. 228 — 237), says that the kinsmen of the Lord (ot Kara. ffdpKa (rvyyeveis or
oi deairocvvoL), by whom he doubtless means members of the family referred to
in the preceding note, reconstructed their genealogy from tradition and family
records so far as they could trace it (ets 6(tov (^lkvovvto), like other Jewish families
of illustrious descent did, after Herod had destroyed the genealogies which had
been preserved in the temple. The phrase " so far as they could trace it " is
no doubt intended to account for obscurities in the subject of the relations of
the two genealogies in the first and third Gospels, which Julius Africanus sought
to harmonise. It must be admitted that Julius does not attribute the genealogy
in St Matthew, as distinguished from that in St Luke, specially to the action of
this family. That is purely my conjecture.

- Meanwhile I may perhaps be permitted to refer my readers to some remarks
in \he Je-cvish and the Christian Messiah, p. 357 ff. I adhere in the main to the
position there maintained.

348 Traditions peculiar to this Gospel

doubt to many of my readers to be sufficiently shadowy and
uncertain. But I pass now to a certain number of traditions
of occurrences, peculiar to this Gospel, with regard to the
source of which it seems impossible to make any conjecture
at all. They may be, and indeed have the appearance of
being, of varying historical value. But as they include the
mention of names of persons I do not believe that the evangelist
himself invented them, and I have accordingly described them
as traditio7is. First, we have the account of John the Baptist's
reluctance to baptise Jesus and the answer with which Jesus
overcame it (iii. 14, 15). In the Gospel according to the
Hebrezvs also, an incident in connexion with the Baptism
of Jesus was related, which shewed the sense that it was a
strange and unsuitable thing for Jesus to be baptised by
John, but here the similarity ends^ Next in the account of
the call of a publican to follow Jesus, we find Matthew (ix. 9)
for the name Levi the son of Alphaeus which stands in
St Mark. The difference between the Gospels is virtually
confined to this, but it is of special interest.

Then we have three respecting Simon Peter, viz. Jiis
attempt to ivalk over the icater to meet Jcsiis (xiv. 28 — 32);
the special blessing pronounced on him after his acknoii'ledge-
ment of Jesns as the Christ (xvi. 17 — 19); the question brongJit
by him to fesns as to the payment of the temple tribute, and the
coin for its payment in the month of the fisJi wJiicJi lie zi'as
instructed to catch (xvii. 24 — 27)-.

I will comment only on the words " My church '" in the
second passage. I have alread}' spoken of the use of the
word "church" in another place in this Gospel (xviii. 17),

' Aj). Hieronymi Contra Pclagianos, iii. 2, " Ecce mater doniini et fratres
ejus dicehant eo : Joannes baptista baptizat in remissionem peccatorum ; eamus
et baptizemur ab eo. Dixit autem eis : Quid peccavi ut vadem et baptizer ab eo,
nisi forte hoc ipsum quod dixi ignorantia est?"

- Peter appears also at Mt. xv. 15 as spokesman for the disciples, where
in the parallel in Mk vii. 17 the same request is attributed to the disciples
collectively ; and again at xviii. 21 as asking a question wanting in the parallel in
Lk xvii. 3, 4. The introduction of his name in these places may be due rather to the
evangelist's sense of the fitness of things than to a distinct tradition. On the other
hand at Mk xi. 21, and xiii. 3, Peter speaks while in the parallels in Mt. (xxi. 20
and xxiv. 3) we have "the disciples."

of luhich the source cannot be traced 349

where it denotes a local body of a kind not widely dissimilar
(so far as organisation was concerned) from a Jewish syna-
gogue. In the passage now before us, however, the Universal
Church is meant, and to attribute the use of it to Jesus, it
may be said, is plainly an anachronism, because (if for no
other reason) the conception would have been unintelligible
to the Twelve at that time. Now it was no doubt inevitable
that the saying in Greek, after the term eKKXriala had begun
to be used of the whole society of Christians, should convey
some ideas which could not have been clearly suggested by
an Aramaic original of it spoken within the lifetime of Jesus.
Nevertheless, the idea which seems sometimes clearly to be in-
tended by the phrase "the congregation of Israel " as used in the
Old Testament — that of the people of Israel contemplated as an
organic whole, which those actually assembled on any par-
ticular occasion, more or less adequately represented — could
not be unfamiliar to the disciples of Jesus. It may, I think,
justly be maintained, that the comparison of believers in Jesus
to the true Israel, and the use in the LXX. of the term e/c/cXy/o-ia,
to convey a more or less ideal conception of the nation as
a living unity, helps materially to explain how it was that
Christians attained very early to the conception of the Uni-
versal Christian Society, and also why they used the term
eKKkfjaia to express it. But these same ideas would clearly
also, within the lifetime of Jesus, have supplied a true guide
to the essence of what He meant by such an utterance as that
recorded in St Matthew, which we are now considering. By their
aid they might gather, if at first only uncertainly and dimly, that
in this respect as in others He was " not come to destroy but
to fulfil." He would found a spiritual Israel, a corporate
unity with common privileges, responsibilities and hopes,
bound together and called to act together as the people of
God'.

It is, however, surely remarkable that a Gospel, in which
(as we have seen) special, and perhaps undue, prominence
has been given to the element of Jewish eschatologicai ideas
in the Teaching of Jesus, should also contain a passage

' Cp. Hoit, The Christian Ecclcsia, p. 3 ff.

350 Traditions peculiar to this Gospel

concerning His Church which is of the most widely different
character. This fact may well suggest to us that we ought
not to measure the depth and range of the original Teaching
by any single representation of it ; and that we may mis-
understand the purpose of Jesus in the use of language and
ideas which belonged specially to His own age and country,
if we confine our attention exclusively thereto.

The remainder of the traditions belonging to the class
defined at the beginning of this section occur in the latter
part of the narrative, from the approach to Jerusalem onwards.
The " Mother of the Sons of Zebedee " comes to Jesus with
them and proffers a request on their behalf (xx. 20). She is
mentioned again in this Gospel among women who followed
Jesus from Galilee in order to minister to Him, and who
were present at the Crucifixion, and does not appear else-
where, unless, indeed, she is the same as the Salome named
by Mark (xv. 40, cp. Mt. xxvii. 56). After the purging of
the temple, it is said that blind and lame persons came to
Him there and were healed and that children cried Hosanna
(xxi. 14 — 16)\ At the arrest of Jesus solemn words are
given with which Jesus restrained one of those with Him who
began to resist forcibly (xxvi. 52 — 54). In the scene of the
trial and condemnation, the intervention of Pilate's wife and
Pilate's washing his hands, as a sign that he threw the respon-
sibility for the death of Jesus upon the Jews, and their
acceptance of it are described (xxvii. 19, 24, 25). The im-
pression produced upon the (Roman) soldiers who watched
Him on the Cross (xxvii. 36, 54), the resurrection of departed
saints at the time of the death and resurrection of Jesus
(xxvii. 52 f.), the guard set by the chief-priests to watch the
tomb, their presence at His resurrection, and the false story
which the chief-priests bribed them to spread abroad (xxvii.
62 — 66, xxviii. 2 — 4 and ii — 15) are also related. The con-
clusion of the story about the guard brings us to a point
where we can no longer compare St Mark, but as the earlier
part of this story was not derived from that Gospel, neither can
the last portion of it be. On the other hand, the lost ending

^ This passage was referred to in the last section (p. 344) but^only in order to
distiniruish it from those contained in the source there discussed.

Some touches due to the evangelist 351

of St Mark may not improbably have been the source of
most of the remainder. On the assumption, however, that
it was, it will still appear in the next section that certain
momentous words must in all probability have been added in
St Matthew.

6. In some passages of this Gospel in which St Mark
has in the main been closely followed, and also in others
having parallels in St Luke which were taken directly
or ultimately from the same original, there are words and
phrases of theological import, which are peculiar. These we
proceed now to consider.

In a description of the Future Coming of the Son of Man
in Mt. xvi. 27, 28, there is close parallelism with Mk viii. 38,
ix. I, both in substance and in language (as also throughout a
considerable passage preceding), with the exception that in
St Matthew the clause "and then shall he render unto every
man according to his deeds " is added, and that we have
" with His angels" and " till they see the Son of Man coming
in his kingdom," instead of " with the holy angels " and " till
they see the kingdom of God come with power." The relations
between St Matthew and St Luke are similar as regards the
form in which these two Gospels respectively give another
Saying bearing on the same subject, which both must have
derived immediately or ultimately from a common source
(Mt. xix. 28 = Lk xxii. 28 — 30). We have in St Matthew
the words " when the Son of Man shall sit on the throne
of His glory," but nothing in St Luke that properly corre-
sponds to them. Moreover, the idea of the Judgeship of
Christ, which is plainly expressed in the former and implied
in the latter of these passages in St Matthew, is not elsewhere
set forth in St Mark or St Luke.

We pass to a difference which is chiefly one of terminology;
but the same phenomena of relationship between the Gospels
are repeated. In the question of the disciples which intro-
duces the Apocalyptic discourse in Mk xiii., and parallels, we
have in place of " Tell us... when these things are all about to
be accomplished" (Mk xiii. 4) the ampler phrase in Mt. xxiv. 3,
"Tell us. ..what shall be the sign of thy coming {Tri<i crri<i
irapovaia'i) and of the end of the world {avvreXela'^ rov

63-^

Some touches due to the evangelist

alMvo<;)." The former of these terms — the pavousia — so
common in the Epistles of St Paul, and found also in some
other Epistles of the Xew Testament, occurs besides in the
Gospels only in three other verses of St ^Matthew, viz. xxiv.
27, 37, 39. There is good reason to think that this passage
was derived from the Logian source common to the first and
third Gospels. There is a parallel in Lk xvii. 24, 26, 27, which
agrees closely with the passage just cited from St Matthew,
the chief difference being in point of fact the absence of the
term paroiisia cited in the latter. The other expression
peculiar to St Matthew in the parallel to St Mark above
cited — •/} avvre\€ia rov alciovo<; — occurs besides in the Gospels
only in passages peculiar to St Matthew, viz. at xiii. 39,
40, 49 (in the parable of the Wheat and Tares), and at
xxviii. 20\

There is a difference more significant than the last, between
the first and third Gospels in the Sayings given at Mt. vii.
13, 14, 21— 23 = Lk xiii. 23— 27, and :\It. x. 32, 33 = Lk xii. 8, 9.
Both Gospels have behind them in the latter case the common
Greek Logian document ; and in the former, if not this, then
at least, either the Aramaic Collection of Sayings, or some
other common original. Now according to St Matthew Jesus
speaks in both passages quite unambiguously of His own
action at the Last Da}-, whereas in Luke's parallel to the
former passage, the reference in the figurative language is
unexplained, and in the second there is, in speaking of the
future, a change from the first person to the third person
(with the Son of Man as subject), and then to an impersonal
form. It should be observed that if the form of these Sayings
and the connexion in which they are given in St Matthew are
correct, Jesus spoke of His Messianic dignity more publicly,
and earlier even to the Twelve than we should gather from
the other two Synoptics that He did.

In the two Matthaean parallels to St Mark which we have
been examining and their contexts there are no signs that
another document, or an independent tradition, has in St
Matthew been combined with the Marcan record. It is also

' At Heb. ix. 26, we have a similar phrase eVt cri/^'reXei^ twi/ alwvuiu.

Some touches due to the evangelist 353

most unlikely that the expressions special to St Matthew
upon which I have commented can have been derived from
an earlier text of St Mark. A reviser would not have
omitted or altered such expressions as these. Moreover the
present form ' of St Mark is in these respects supported by
Luke. There can, therefore, be no reasonable doubt that the
phrases and words to which reference has been made were intro-
duced by the author of St Matthew in consequence of his own
sense of what was fitting. In regard to the parallels between
St Matthew and St Luke it is necessary to speak with more
caution, because we do not possess the original. Nevertheless,
it must seem most natural to give the same account as before
of the peculiarities that have been indicated in St Matthew,
on the ground both of the analogy of the parallels between
St Matthew and St Mark which have been considered, and
of the improbability that Luke, or anyone through whom he
had obtained his source, would have altered the Sayings in
those respects if he had found them standing thus in the
source ^

The expressions — " The outer darkness " (to (tkoto'^ to
i^coTepov) and " there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth "
(eVet ecnat 6 K\av9iJb6<i Kal 6 ^pvyfi6<; roov oSovrcov) have
already come before us in parables peculiar to St Matthew-.
Both occur in Mt. viii. ii, 12. In a parallel to this passage in
Lk xiii. 28, 29, the latter of these is used but not the former ;
but as this is not the only difference between the two Gospels
in this passage and the other Sayings with which it is
associated, it is possible that the piece had been diversely
transmitted to the two evangelists^ At Mt. xxiv. 5i=Lk
xii. 41, the former Gospel has and the latter, in a parallel
otherwise close, has not the words " there shall be weep-
ing," etc.

Another phrase "the day of judgement" should also be
noticed. It occurs twice in Mt. xi. 20 — 24 — a passage derived
in all probability from the common Greek Logian source —

^ Luke has altered language which foretold apparently an immediate return
of Christ (see p. 275) ; but the expressions now before us could have caused him
no difficulty.

- See above, p. 340. ^ See above, p. 98 f.

S. G. II. 2-?

354 Some touches due to the evangelist

and also at x. 15 which may have been suggested by the
same passaged But there are expressions in the Lucan
parallel, x, 12 — 15 ("in that day" and "the judgement")
which are so similar that it is hard to say whether the revision
has been on the one side or the other. The phrase is also
used in Mt. xii. 36, a Saying peculiar to this Gospel ; it does
not occur elsewhere in the Gospels.
r" I turn to titles bestowed on Jesus. He is addressed as
V' Son of David " more frequently in St Matthew than in the
\other Gospels. We note it in two parallels to St Mark where
jnot authorised by the latter — Mt. xv. 22 = Mk vii. 25, 26 b \
jand Mt. xxi. 9 = Mk xi. 9, 10"; and again in a Logian context
Kvhere Luke has not this expression : — Mt. xii. 22, 23 = Lk xi.
i 14, 15. It occurs also in two passages peculiar to St Matthew :
•; — ix. 27, xxi. 15. The appellation Kupte (the precise con-
notation of which, however, in different places in the Gospels
is rather difficult to determine) is used somewhat more
frequently than in the other Synoptics. In Mt. viii. 2 it
occurs, but is wanting in Mk i. 40. Luke, however (v. 12),
here agrees with the former and there are other coincidences
in the same narrative between St Matthew and St Luke, so
that both may here be influenced by another document or by
tradition^. But Kyp^e is substituted for StSda-KaXe in Mt. xvii.
i5 = Mk ix. i7 = Lk ix. 38; and added to the Marcan
account at Mt. xx. 31 = Mk x. 48 = Lk xviii. 39 ; and also at
Mt. xxvi. 22 = Mk xiv. 19 = Lk xxii. 23. It occurs also a
/-few times in sections peculiar to this Gospel.
' Again, Jesus is addressed as the "Son of God " in Mt. xiv.

33, but not in the parallel at Mk vi. 51 ; and at Mt. xvi. i, 6,
but not in Mk viii. 29. But it appears from the contexts in
these two instances that this difference may possibly be due
here to another tradition which in St Matthew is combined
with the Marcan document. In the account, also, of the
mockery of Jesus by passers-by when He was hanging upon
the Cross allusions were made, according to St Matthew

^ See above, p. 88.

^ It should be observed, however, tliat the words in Mk z: lo seem to imply
its use.

' See p. 1 48.

Some touches due to the evangelist 355

(xxvii. 40), to His claim to be the Son of God ; not according
to the two other Synoptics. In St Mark, however, they
taunt Him with claiming to be "the Christ" (xv. 32) and
in St Luke "the Christ of God, the Elect" (xxiii. 35), so
that the difference here is but slight, seeing that the name
"the Son of God" had a ]\Iessianic reference.

The special frequency with which Jesus is represented in
this Gospel as speaking of God as " my Father " may also
here be mentioned. It is substituted for God, which stands
in St Mark, at Mt. xii. 50 = Mk iii. 35, and ]^It. xxvi. 29 = Mk
xiv. 25 ; while to the words "for whom it is prepared," in I\Ik x.
40, " by my Father " is added in Mt. xx. 23. " My Father "
or " My Father in heaven " is also used in Sayings that are
peculiar to this Gospel at xv. 13; xvi. 17; xviii. 10, 19, y^\
xxvi. 53.

It remains to speak of three instances of peculiarity in
St Matthew, which are somewhat different from the foregoing.
Each is individual, yet a similar explanation should probably
be given in the case of all three. The greater fulness of the
iMatthaean as compared with the Lucan forms of the Lord's
Prayer (Mt. vi. 9 — 13 = Lk xi. i — 4) may reasonably be at-
tributed to very early liturgical usage. In like manner the
addition of the words et? a^ecra' aiiaprLav in the account of
the Institution of the Eucharist in 'Ml. xxvi. 28, which is in
other respects almost word for word the same as that in
Mk xiv. 24, may not improbably have been made under the
influence of the Church's teaching, and of the language
which it was customary to use at celebrations of the
Eucharist.

The injunction at 'Sit. xxviii. 19, to baptise in the Three-
fold Name, which is the remaining one of the instances of
peculiarity just referred to, must be discussed at greater
length. With regard to this command there is the grave
difficulty that no mention is made of it in the account of the
commission given to the Apostles at the end of St Luke,
and the beginning of Acts, or in the present ending of
St Mark ; and that uniformly in Acts and St Paul's Epistles
we read only of baptising "in the Name of Jesus"; there
are no passages to be compared in the remainder of the New

356 Some touches due to the evangelist

Testaments Much has been said in some quarters concerning
the dangers of the argument from silence: and there is, I
think, no doubt, that sometimes it has been seriously misused.
But each case of silence must be judged on its own merits,
and it appears to me that in the present instance the silence
must be allowed to be significant.

I have argued that the original ending of Mark's Gospel
supplied the basis for the closing part of the narrative in
St Matthew^. But as I have already pointed out, there is
strong reason for thinking that the conclusion of the story
about the guard that watched the tomb (Mt. xxviii. ii — 15)
was an insertion into it, and we are not entitled to say that it
was the only one. In view of the facts that have come before
us in the last few pages, I do not think it can well be denied
that if the custom of using the Three-fold Name in baptising
had become familiar to the author of this Gospel, it would
have seemed to him suitable to add it to the account of the
commission to evangelise taken from his source ; and on a
consideration of all the evidence it appears to me most
probable that this is what has happened.

I believe, indeed, that the formula in Mt. xxviii. 19
summed up teaching which Jesus had given not merely after
His resurrection but before His death, and was in a sense the
natural outcome of the conception of His Messiahship, so that
the transition from the use of the Name of Jesus to the Three-
fold Name in Christian baptism, when it was made, involved
no abrupt and violent change. He who received baptism in
the faith that Jesus was the Christ believed also in the Father
Who sent Him, and looked for the gift of the Spirit, which
spiritually-minded Jews had learnt even from the Old Testa-
ment to associate more or less clearly with the Messianic
times. All this was necessarily implied when Jews were
baptised in the Name of Christ. But it was otherwise when
converts began to be made from heathenism. In their case it
was necessary to insist on the truth that there is One God,
the Father, and also to give instruction respecting the Divine

1 Acts ii. 38; viii. i6; x. 48; xix. 5; Rom. vi. 3; i Cor. i. 12 fif. ; GaL
iii. 27.

^ See p. 202.

Some touches due to the evangelist 357

Spirit. There is no need to dwell on the former point, but
with regard to the latter it may be worth while to recall that
St Paul, in writing to the Corinthians, implies that his reason
for explaining to them the doctrine of the Spirit, and of
spiritual gifts, is that in the past they had been " led away
unto those dumb idols, howsoever they might be led^" At
first even on their admission into the Church the belief in
One God, the Father, and in the Holy Spirit, as well as
in Jesus, the Son of God, may have been a matter of mutual
understanding, rather than of formal confession on the part of
the baptised, and declaration on that of the baptiser. But very
soon it must have been felt that it would be well to have this
belief definitely expressed at the moment of baptism. Hence,
as it seems to me, the employment of the Three-fold Name in
baptism arose in connexion with the evangelisation of the
heathen ; and it is not without significance that in Mt. xxviii.
19, it is closely associated with the charge to "make disciples
of all nations." No new truth was thus brought in ; but at
the same time there had been a development of a thoroughly
sound kind. A clearer apprehension of the belief already
held was rendered possible, and a fresh starting-point was
furnished for earnest thought, and for controversy, in the
generations that were to follow-.

1 I Cor. xii. I f.

- In an article on "The Lord's Command to baptise" in \\\^ Journal of
Theological Shidies for July 1905, Dr Chase (now Bp of Ely) argues that the
injunction to baptise in the Three-fold Name was contained in the original ending
of St Mark's Gospel and taken thence, and further that the words represent with
substantial accuracy what was actually spoken by Jesus. See pp. 482, 508 f.
The view that I should take of most of the considerations urged by Dr Chase will
be apparent from what I have written above, but there is one point on which
it may be well for me to add a few words. He says (p. 508 f.) "If the words
which St Matthew puts into our Lord's mouth are regarded as laying down
' a baptismal formula,' then everything depends on their being the ipsissima verba
of the Lord. But if on the other hand the words are intended to describe what
Baptism essentially is, then we may be entirely satisfied if we have reasonable
grounds for thinking that they give us the substance, possibly in a condensed
form, of what the Lord actually said." And a little later (p. 511) when com-
menting on Acts xix. 2 ff. "If we put aside the thought of a baptismal formula, no
adverse inference can be drawn from the historical notice which follows, ' They
were baptised (immersed) into the name of the Lord Jesus.' " I suppose that
in suggesting that the words are not to be taken as "a baptismal formula." he

358 Some touches due to the evangelist

It has to be added that although the integrity of the text
in Mt. xxviii. 19, has been accepted by the chief modern
editors, it has recently been called in question^ If I may
quite briefly state the impression made on my own mind by
the evidence which has been brought forward in the contro-
versy on this subject, I would say that there is some pro-
bability that in a copy or copies, known to Eusebius in the
earlier part of his life, the reading " in My Name " stood in
place of "baptising them," etc., but that already before this
the latter reading must have been common in all parts of
the Church ; and that further it is barely possible, but most
improbable, that the former reading was the original one
which had been to a large extent already, and was soon to be
completely, ousted by the others To one holding the view
which I have set forth above of the origin of the words in
St Matthew which are under consideration, this textual
question is chiefly interesting from its bearing on the time
when the full baptismal formula began to be used. The
general form of the Baptismal Creed in every part of the

means that they may not have been intended for ritual use. It seems to me,
however, that the impression naturally to be gathered from these words as well as
from "baptising in the name of the Lord Jesus," is that the words "in the name
of the Father," etc., or "in the name of the Lord Jesus" would be in some way
brought in at the time of baptism. But apart from the question whether the
words were designed to be a ritual formula, on the face of them they constitute a
doctrinal formula, and one, moreover, of the kind which in other cases men have
been left to fraine for themselves from meditating on truths more fully taught.

^ Mr F. C. Conybeare rejects the clause "baptising them," etc. in Mt. xxviii.
19 as not genuine (see his articles in the Zeitschrift fiir die neutestamentUche
iVissenschaft, 1901, p. 275 ff. and the Hibbert Jonrnaliox October 1902, p. 102 fif.,
and Prof. Lake has accepted his conclusions (Inaugural Lecture at Leyden,
1904, p. 7 ff.). For replies, see Riggenbach in Beitrdge zur Forderun^ christlicher
Theologie, 1903, and the article by Dr Chase mentioned in the last note. (I am
indebted to the last-named article for the preceding references.) Dr Chase seems
to me to have shewn effectively the weakness of many of Mr Conybeare's
arguments. On the other hand, I cannot say that the addition of "in My Name,"
after "Make disciples of all nations," would be, as Dr Chase holds (p. 488),
"absolutely natural" for one who knew the words "baptising them in the Name
of the Father," etc., and that he might have included them even if it had been his
intention to quote the whole text. The instances of additions in the Western
text which Dr Chase gives are not analogous to such a combination as this
would make. Further he seems to depreciate too much the value of the Western
text.

Leading ideas in St Matthew 359

Church, and its early history so far as we are acquainted with
it, as well as other evidence, render it probable in the
highest degree that this formula was in common use before
the middle of the second century ; while if the words in
St Matthew belong to the genuine text of that Gospel, it
must have been in use in some part of the Church before, or
near, the close of the Apostolic Age. ^/'

7. In St Matthew more plainly than in either St Mark or
St Luke indications are given of the course and issue of the
great spiritual drama, which has been wrought out in the
Gospel history through the action and interaction of Divine
purpose and human perversity. These indications are to be
found chiefly in some favourite expressions and a certain
number of sayings peculiar to this Gospel, but they suffice to
convey to the attentive reader a distinct and strong im-
pression. There were three acts in that drama : {a) the
Mission of Jesus on earth to the Jewish people as their
true king ; {b) their rejection of Him as a nation ; {c) the
consequent extension of the preaching of the Gospel to
the Gentiles after His resurrection. Each of these is clearly
marked.

{a) It is evident from all the Gospels that Jesus exercised
His Ministry almost solely towards Jews. The scenes of His
labours, where nearly all His time is spent, are the distinctively
Jewish districts of Palestine^ If He shews favour to any
individuals not of Jewish race who come before Him, it is ex-
pressly treated as an exception. But in St Matthew stress
is laid on the fact of this restriction, and it is represented as
the result of conscious aim and choice. It did not — to make
the remark is, perhaps, almost superfluous — imply of necessity
any thought in the mind of Jesus that the Kingdom of God
was always to be confined to the Jews. But He was subject
in His earthly life to human limitations of time and strength,
and on every ground it was meet that salvation should first
be offered to the Jews. The actual ordering of the history of
this people, the place assigned them among the nations of the
earth, gave them a right to expect it. Any other course

^ Judaea, Galilee and Peraea.

360 Leading ideas in St Alatthew

'would have been out of harmony with that faithfulness of
God, that constancy of character shewn in fidelity to His
word, that steadfast adherence to His manifested purpose,
which is one great feature of the revelation of the Old Testa-
ment. And again, practical wisdom required it, because this
people had been in a measure prepared — the truly godly and
believing among them were in a very real sense prepared — by
their previous moral and spiritual training, to understand and
believe the Gospel in a way that others were not. The Mission
of Jesus specially to Israel is strikingly set before us almost
at the beginning of St Matthew : " it is he that shall save
his people — t6v Xaov avrov — from their sins " ; for Xa6<i here
must signify IsraeP. Again, at iv. 23, iv tc5 \aa>, "among
t/ie people," has the same meaning: "Jesus went about in all
Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel
of the kingdom, and healing all manner of disease and all
manner of sickness among the people." That is to say,
His works of mercy were wrought in the midst of, and for,
Israel. They were proofs that the promised Messianic days
had come-.

The Sayings contained in St Matthew which confine the
Mission of the Apostles of Christ to Israel will be recalled

•* Mt. i. 2 1. Xa6s according to its earlier classical usage denotes simply a mass
of men, and not, like S^/xoi, the people as a body-politic. It sometimes, however,
denotes "a people," i.e. all who are called by one name. But it is a rare word in
prose.

In the Lxx. it is common, (i) sometimes in pi. to denote "peoples" regarded
as "nationalities" ; (2) specially to denote the people of Israel in contrast with ra
idvT], as a translation. of UV in contrast with D^i5 j (3) also to describe the people
in contrast with the priests and Levites, e.g. i Es. i. 11.

In N.T. the three meanings of LXX. are approximately represented. We have
instances of (i) at Apoc. v. 9; vii. 9, etc. In St Luke we sometimes find (2),
e.g. Lk 1. 68, 77; ii. 10; ii. 32. But Luke also frequently uses the word for
the "common people," the multitude. He does so several times where in the
parallels in Mk and Mt. we have oxXos. See Lk .\x. 6 = Mk xi. 32 = Mt. xxi. 26;
Lk XX. 19= Mk xii. i2 = Mt. xxi. 46 ; Lk xx. 45 = Mt. xxiii. i.

In Matthew \a6s appears nearly always to be used for " the nation," i.e. "the
chosen nation," Israel. In one case only, Mt. xxvii. 64, is it clearly used for the
"common people."

^ Cp. Mt. ix. 33; XV. 31. We have a similar thought at Lk vii. 16 (see
above, p. 297); but it is not so common in St Luke. At Lk iv. 25, 27, quite
a different note is struck, there the limitation of God's gifts, evc/i as regards Israel,
is emphasised.

Leading ideas in St Matthew 361

by everyone. It is sufficient to note them in the present
connexion. I have already touched on the difficulties which
they create through the length of time to which they extend
this restriction, and I will recur to this when speaking of the
point of view of the author of the Gospel. But, again, in
the incident of the Canaanite woman (Mt. xv. 21 — 28 = Mk
vii. 24 — 30) the declaration of Jesus " I was not sent but unto
the lost sheep of the house of Israel " {zk 24) appears in this
Gospel only (Mt. v. 24), and the circumstances in which it
was made gave it special point. In the eyes of Jesus many,
perhaps the majority, of those who formed the crowds
that ordinarily surrounded Him were " lost sheep of the
house of Israel " (see Mt. ix. 36 and cp. Mk vi. 34). But
doubtless in the borderland between Galilee and the district
belonging to Tyre and Sidon, where He was on the occasion
now referred to, the population was a mixed one, and com-
prised not a few Israelites who had become careless as to
their religious observances, and indifferent in regard to their
national hopes and ideals. These were emphatically " lost
sheep of the house of Israel," and the words of Jesus here may
well define in a special manner the purpose which He had in
visiting this region. It is, however, also to be observed that
while Mark does not clearly say on which side of the border-
line between Jewish and non-Jewish territory Jesus was
when the Canaanite woman came to Him, and proceeds to
tell of a journey through the latter, the author of St Matthew
not only omits this journey (which in itself is not strange,
since no incidents are recorded in connexion with it), but
carefully avoids suggesting that Jesus crossed the border^
Similarly at Mt. xvi. i3 = Mk viii. 27, for Mark's "unto the
villages of," he substitutes the vaguer " unto the parts of,"
Caesarea Philippi. And it may be that a little later than this
the same thought, namely, that Jesus has not been outside
of Galilee, may at Mt. xvii. 22 = Mk ix. 30 have led him to
alter Mark's "And they went forth from thence, and passed
through Galilee" into "And while they abode in Galilee^"

woman

1 Mt. XV. 21 — 30 = Mk vii. 24 — 35. In v. 22 Mt. states that the
"came out from those parts" (those of Tyre and Sidon).

^ This is the rendering of R.V. for dva(rTpe<pojj.ivwv. In the mg. of R.V.

362 Leading ideas in St Matthew

{b) The insistence, however, in St ]\Iatthew on the pre-
rogatives of the Jews does not proceed from any special
tenderness for them, or desire to maintain that those privileges
are inalienable. Rather, when we take other traits in con-
junction with it, the thought suggested to our minds is that
the Jews have had their day of special opportunity, and that
it has been brought to a close in consequence of their own
conduct. This could hardly be more strikingly shewn than
it is b\- the phrase employed in Mt. viii. 12 in the saying
appended to the incident of the believing centurion — " the
sous of the kingdom shall be cast out," in place of which we
have simply "ye" in Lk xiii. 28, without even a clear indica-
tion in the context who were the persons addressed. It may
further be observed that at Mt. xiii. 13, the hard-heartedness
of those who were by position the chosen people of God is
moredistinctl}' brought out than in the parallel at Mk iv. 1 1, 12,
by the substitution of ''because they seeing see not" for
Mark's " iji order that they may not see," and by the direct
quotation from Is. vi. 9, which includes the words, " for this
people's heart is waxed gross, etc." Coming to the latter part
of the Gospel, we find that special stress is laid upon the
responsibility of the heads of the nation for the death of
Jesus. Their representative character is indicated in the full
phrase used four times in St Matthew, and not elsewhere, in
connexion with their hostility to Jesus and with His condem-
nation, "the chief priests and elders of the nation^" In the
application of the parable of the Vine-dressers, their doom is
pronounced more sternly than in the parallels in the other
Synoptics-. Again, the Apostrophe to Jerusalem (Mt. xxiii.
37 — 39) derives special significance in this Gospel from the
position 'given to it, at the conclusion of the Denunciation of
the Scribes and Pharisees, and from the sequel; for after Jesus

the better supported reading <TvaTp€(f>onivwv is translated " while they were
gathering themselves together." This seems to suggest that other disciples
besides the Twelve were prepared to accompany Jesus on His journey to Jeru-
salem.

^ Mt. xxi. 23; xxvi. 3, 47; xxvii. i. The various expressions used at
Lk xix. 47, etc., do not involve in the same way the idea of their representative
position.

^ See esp. Mt. xxi. 43, 44.

The ant J 10 r of the Gospel 363

had said, " Lo, your house is left unto you desolate," He
immediately departed from the temple for ever (Mt. xxiv. i).
Finally, in a passage peculiar to this Gospel, the Roman
governor protests his innocence of the blood of Jesus,
and the Jewish nation, so far as it could be formally re-
presented, themselves plainh- accept the responsibility (xxvii.
24, 25).

if) But the privileges which the Jewish nation had
forfeited were transferred to others. This is stated in I\Ik
xii. 9 ; but in Mt. xxi. 41 b^ the thought is expanded. It is
still more interesting to notice that the message which is
to be delivered to the Gentiles is described by the same
characteristic phrase as that used in regard to the teaching of
Jesus among the people of Israel, and which promised the
true fulfilment of their national hopes : — " tJiis gospel of the
kmgdoin shall be preached in the whole world for a testimony
among all nations" (Alt. xxiv. 14)^ At length, in the trans-
cendent conclusion, the Lord, when He is himself emancipated
from the limitations of the flesh, gives the command " Go ye,
make disciples of all the nations," and the promise, " Lo, I am
with you alway, even unto the end of the world."

It remains that from the facts that have come before us
we should gather what we can as to the man who has given
us this Gospel, and the time when he wrote ; and also form
some estimate of its special value relatively to the other
Synoptic Gospels.

It is evident from the manner in which Greek sources have
been reproduced and combined in it that it cannot be simply
a translation of a work in Hebrew or Aramaic. It is also
impossible that it can have been composed in Greek by the
apostle Matthew himself Not only would this supposition
find no support in ancient views of the Gospel in Greek-
speaking Christendom, where writers from Irenaeus onwards,
who treat this book as the Gospel according to Matthew,
themselves uniformly speak of his having written for Hebrew
Christians in their own language ; it is also forbidden by the

^ At the parallel in Mk x i. 10, we have "the gospel."

364 The author of the Gospel

relation of this Gospel to Mark's. For it is inconceivable
that an apostle would have followed so closely the hearer of
another apostle, instead of giving his independent testimony
as an eye-witness.

It is not surprising that as this Gospel came to be con-
nected with the name of Matthew, one of the Twelve — what-
ever the grounds for so connecting it may have been — the
individuality of the Greek writer, to whom its composition is
properly speaking due, should have been lost in that of the
apostle, or that, if he was thought of at all, it was simply as
a translator. Now, however, that we have learned that his
part was certainly a more considerable one than this, it clearly
has become desirable, and even necessary, that we should fix
our thoughts directly upon him and his work. It is somewhat
difficult to know how to describe him. Although his Gospel
is made up almost entirely of materials drawn from various
sources and chiefly from two documents, one of these being
the Gospel according to St ^Mark, yet to call him simply
"the editor" is manifestly inadequate; and again the name
"compiler" would, owing to the associations it usually has,
not do him justice. I have repeatedly called him "the author,"
and I believe that — all things being considered — this is the
most suitable title for him, because in this Gospel the arrange-
ment of the matter, and various little touches, both of which
in large measure proceed from him, have done so much to
impart to the whole work its peculiar character and im-
pressiveness.

We have, however, seen reason to believe that the Col-
lection of Utterances of Jesus in their original language,
which, it would appear from very early testimony, the apostle
Matthew made, and much of which has been preserved in
St Luke, is most fully represented in our Greek St Matthew'.
In another respect also we seem to be brought here more
nearly into contact with that original document. That early
translation of it which (if I have rightly reasoned) lies at the
basis of the documents used severally by Luke and the author
of our St Matthew, had, in the case of the document used by

' See pp. 82 — 84, 92, and pp. 328, 335 f.

The author of the Gospel 365

Luke, been amplified by the insertion of matter not taken
from the same Aramaic Collection \ whereas in the other case
the principal changes had been of a kind to bring the early
Greek translation into closer correspondence with the Aramaic
original. Thus far we can see more or less solid ground for
the name of our Gospel according to Matthew. It is possible
that some other portions of the matter contained in this
Gospel — as for instance some, if not all, of the additional
parables, and the Catena of fulfilments of prophecy — may have
been derived from his oral teaching, if not from a document
by him. But this is, and must probably ever remain, mere
conjecture.

The author of this Gospel had lived in some portion of
the Church where he had been in close contact with Jewish-
Christian teaching and tradition, largely brought direct from
Palestine. Evidence of this has come before us again and
again in the foregoing pages ; it is not necessary for me to
enumerate the instances here. It is possible that he may
himself have been a Grecian Jew, and that his familiarity with
the Septuagint- is to be explained in this way. But whatever
he may have been by race, there can be no doubt that in
his Gospel he reflects some of the special characteristics of
Jewish -Christian thought, while he is at the same time
himself evidently free from that spirit of exclusiveness
in regard to the Gentiles, which many Jewish Christians
shewed. It is not always possible to tell how much is
due to himself and how much to his sources, in regard
to various traits in this Gospel. The same thoughts and
expressions are found alike in clauses added by him to
passages taken from his Marcan or Logian source, and in
pieces derived from other sources known to us only through
this Gospel. It is clearly open to consideration, therefore,
whether in the latter case also these traits may not have been
introduced by the author's own revising hand. Sometimes
they may; but it appears to be on the whole most probable
that from those other sources peculiar to him, as well as from
the teaching to which he had been accustomed, his mind had

^ See p. 227 fF. * See above, p. 343 f.

366 The author of the Gospel

become impregnated with ideaswhich influenced him even when
he was using his ]\Iarcan and Logian documents. We have
had an example of this recurrence of the same characteristics
in different parts of St Matthew w^hich, as to their main
substance, are of different origin, in the case of the special
prominence given in this Gospel to the fulfilment of prophecy
in the Life and Death of Jesus. The evangelist has used
a collection of fulfilments, and he has also in some Marcan
contexts, made the allusions to prophecy plainer and fuller
than they are in St Mark\ We have had another example
of the same kind in allusions to the Judgeship of Christ and
the Last Things both in certain parables and other pieces
peculiar to him, and in Marcan and Logian contexts-. I will
give one other instance to which I have not hitherto had
a convenient opportunity of referring. From his Logian
document he has taken the passage on that law which is the
true fulfilment of the Old (Mt. v. 17 — 48 and vii. 12). But he
emphasises the same great truth when to the account of an
occasion on which the two great commandments of love to
God and to our neighbour have been stated (Mt. xxii. 34 —
39 = Mk xii. 28 — 31), he adds the striking words "on these
two commandments hangeth the whole law and the prophets"
(Mt. V. 40); and again when in Mt. xix. 16 — 19 he supple-
ments the enumeration in Mk x. 17 — 19 of commandments of
the second table of the Decalogue with the law which com-
prised, and more than comprised, them all.

Features in this Gospel which have come before us, and
others which are familiar to every student of the New Testa-
ment, render it probable that the evangelist had Jewish
readers specially in viewl And it was undoubtedly his desire
that they should be led to regard Jesus of Nazareth as the
Messiah Who had been promised them. But he does not

^ See above, p. 342 ff. - pp. 339 fif., 351 ff.

■'' It may be worth while to point out his use of the expression 7; a-yla v6\ls, for
Jerusalem, Mt. iv. 5 and xxvii. 53, which occurs besides in the New Testament
only at Apoc. xi. 2, for the earthly, and Apoc. xxi. 2, for the heavenly, city.
Cp. also if TOTTffj ayi(f} at Mt. xxiv. 15, where in the parallel at Mk xiii. 14 there
is a different phrase. Again, in Mt. xv. iff. ( = Mk vii. i ff.) the explanation
of a Jewish custom given in Mk z^. 2—4 is not reproduced ; probably as being
unnecessary for the readers intended.

The time of its composition 367

suffer them to suppose that Jesus had come as their Saviour
only, and not as the Saviour of the Gentiles. Indeed, he
would seem to have had more or less clearly the intention of
"justifying the ways of God " in the judgement that had
fallen upon them as a nation and the admission of the
Gentiles.

We may, I think, rightly feel confident that this Gospel
was written before the close of the first century. It is
possible that we have indications of its use as early as A.D. 95
in Clement's Epistle ; and they, become fairly clear and
numerous within the first 30 years or so of the second
century^ Also, the work bears within itself no traces of
the thoughts and movements of the beginning of the second
century. Some, perhaps, may be inclined to place it before
the Destruction of Jerusalem on the ground that in repro-
ducing the Apocalyptic discourse in Mt. xxiv^, the evangelist
does not seek to give precision to the somewhat vague
language regarding the city's doom, or to separate clearly
therefrom the return of the Son of Man'-. But I do not
think such reasoning would be sound. The manner in which
Luke modifies the language of those predictions is, indeed,
a sign that, when he wrote, some few }'ears had elapsed since
the Destruction of Jerusalem^; but the converse does not
hold, that a work in which the expressions of the source were
left unaltered must have been composed before that event.
On the contrary, to man}' a writer then, this must have seemed
the right thing to do as it would now, and that he need not
have felt any fear as to the possibility of the prophecies being
fulfilled may be inferred from the way in which they have
been viewed by multitudes of Christians during a long suc-
cession of generations since. To take another case : we have
seen this writer himself including a Saying (Alt. x. 32) mani-
festly inconsistent with the commission to make disciples
of all the nations, to which he himself attaches great signi-
ficance.

1 See vol. I. pp. 8, 13, 15, 25 ff., 31, 33, 42—5, 72 f.

- Mt. xxiv. i5 = Mk xiii. 14. At Mt. xxvi. 64 = Mk xiv. 62, he seems to have
preserved the text of Proto-Mk. See p. 218.
^ See p. 275.

368 The time of its composition

It appears to me unlikely that the conditions already
existed as early as A.D. 70 which would have rendered the
composition of our St Matthew possible. The Gospel of
Mark in its original form was not written long before this, and
it had undergone some expansion before it came to the hands
of the author of our St Matthew \ Further, the period
during which there existed no satisfactory translation into
Greek of the Collection of the Sayings made by the apostle
Matthew must have been of some duration, and the disciple
who spoke of it as within his recollection lived to the end of
the first century or later. But we may find, perhaps, in the
consideration that both this Gospel and that by Luke were
composed quite independently of each other-, our surest
means of fixing the date of the former. It is difficult to
suppose that the earlier of the two could have remained
unknown to the writer of the later one for more than a few
years at furthest after its publication, even if he was living in
some portion of the Church widely different from that in
which the other was produced : or that if he had been ac-
quainted with it, he would have avoided using it. Accord-
ingly, as we have seen reasons for placing the composition
of Luke's work circa A.D. 8o^ I am led to the conclusion
that the Gospel according to St Matthew was written some-
where near that time. There do not appear to me to be
sufficient reasons for giving precedence to either of them.
Luke used the original, unamplified work of Mark, and the
author of St Matthew the amplified one^ but this may have
been due to special circumstances. On the whole, also,
St Matthew seems to me to shew more signs of theological
development, a point of view later in the order of thought.
But differences such as there must naturally have been
between individuals and portions of the Church at one and
the same date in the latter part of the first century would fully
account for this.

Of the value of this work, under other than strictly his-
torical aspects, it is not my place here to speak. But what,
we must ask, is its value to us as a document relating to the

1 See p. 152 ff. ^ See p. Moff.

=* See pp. 260, 275. * See p. 326 f.

Its value as a historical doctiment 369

history of the Life and Work of Jesus ? It cannot be denied
that the records, which, we have reason to believe, were made
by Mark and Luke, come to us with a guarantee which is
lacking here. Nevertheless it is to be remembered that it
is chiefly through the comparison of this Gospel with the two
other Synoptics that we are able to identify a source of
information which is not inferior in value to Mark's remi-
niscences of what Simon Peter related. Further, our anxiety
to get back so far as we can to the sources used in our
Gospels, which is undoubtedly a matter of the highest im-
portance, must not lead us to undervalue the help towards
obtaining a right view of the history which a Christian writer
living in the latter part of the first century may afford. He
may himself have known personal disciples of Jesus ; it is
almost certain that he must have known many who had been
acquainted with them. The use made by such a one of the
documents which had come to his hands ; the manner in
which he thought it necessary to supplement them ; the im-
pression which he had himself formed of the Person and
Mission of Jesus from all that he had read and been told, should
receive our most careful attention, if we would use fully the
means at our disposal for understanding the Gospel history.
And it is to be borne in mind that even details which rested
on no very sound tradition may, when introduced by such
a man, contribute to a total effect which is true. Be it
observed, I say only here that it may be so. Whether it
is so or not can be ascertained only by a general review
of all the evidence as to the rise of the Christian Faith.

S. G II. 24

370 F. Xicolardot on tJie

ADDITIONAL NOTE.

SOME REMARKS OX LES PROCEDES DE REDACTION
DES TROIS PREMIERS EVAXGELISTES, BY F. XICOL-
ARDOT, 1908.

Nearly the whole of the foregoing pages were written before my
attention was called to the above work, and the portion of them in
which I should most naturally have referred to it was already in type
before it was published. But having regard to positions which I have
myself maintained in regard to the composition of St Mark, I feel
that I ought not to close without one or two remarks more par-
ticularly on M. Nicolardot's investigation of this subject.

Let me briefly indicate and comment on his plan for ascertaining
how our second evangelist dealt with his sources.

(i) First of all, we recognise, he observes, among the written sources
used by him those " Discourses '' (the Logian document) which were so
largely laid under contribution by our first and third evangelists. From
the manner in which he has applied Sayings from this source, and the
form in which he has reported them, as compared with the fuller and
more accurate reproduction in the two other Synoptic Gospels, we can
see how he would be prepared to treat other sources also (p. 215 f.).
Now I have urged objections to the view that Mark used this docu-
ment, and they do not seem to me to be seriously weakened by any-
thing that M. Nicolardot has urged in justification of it. He has
indeed in some instances suggested motives which, as he thinks,
determined Mark to alter Sayings from the form represented in
Matthew and Luke into that in which he has given them, and to
place them in new connexions. (See 218-9, 234-7, 244 f., 247 f.,
258 f., 273, 275 ff., 282 f.) And it is quite possible that these
suggested motives may account correctly in those cases for the
moulding which the Sayings received, and their placing, either in
oral tradition, or at the hands of some one who translated them
from the Semitic source, or of the evangelist himself. But there is
little, if anything, to shew that the peculiarities in question were due
to changes made in the form of the Logian document inferred from
Matthew and Luke — in other words that this was the text upon
which our second evangelist worked.

composition of St Mark 371

The actual basis, in the minds of those who hold it, of the theory
that our second evangelist knew, and in a measure used, the same
Greek Logian document which supplied our first and third evangelists
with muchof the discourse-matter found only in them, is a tacit assump-
tion that any Sayings in substance the same, which we meet with,
must have come from the same Greek document. And yet if we go
back in thought to the period of oral tradition and of the first
attempts to frame written records, there will not seem to be any good
reason for this supposition. On the contrary, it is most probable that
a certain number of (substantially) the same Sayings must have been
known in different quarters in different forms and connexions.

(2) From his examination of our second evangelist's (supposed)
use of the " Discourses " M. Nicolardot obtains a kind of general
authorisation for attributing to him great freedom in his revision of
other sources which he employed. But he does not derive there-
from any valuable assistance for the criticism in detail of those
sections of the Gospel, i.e. the greater number of thein, in which
the use of that source cannot be alleged. The considerations put
forward by him in regard to these must be judged on their own
merits. The signs of editing which he discovers are of the nature of
incongruities between different parts of the same context, or traces of
some dogmatic, or other, purpose, which would have induced an
editor to alter his source in a particular way. I have admitted, and
even pointed out, traces of a certain amount of revision in our St Mark ;
but I do not think it can be proved, or is likely, to have been nearly
so extensive as M. Nicolardot supposes. Many of his distinctions
between that which must have belonged to the editor and to his
source respectively appear to me to be arbitrary, especially in view
of the fact that he claims only to be concerned with the last touches
bestowed upon the subject-matter. Features, too, which he declares
to be incompatible with authorship by a disciple of Simon Peter do
not appear to me to be so. I should have been glad to have had
M. Nicolardot's work before me when discussing the composition of
this Gospel, but I believe that in what I have written I have indicated
what my view would be of most of the points which he raises.

24 — 2

INDEX

Abbott, E. A.; his Clue, ii f. ; on
the Oral Theory, 17 n.

Alexander, Bp; 18 n. 1

Alford; iS n. i

Aramaic Source of Christ's Teach-
ing; 13 n. I, 14 ff., 61 f., 69; its
attitude on the subject of the Mosaic
Law, 82 n., 108 f.

Augustine, St ; his theory that Mark
used St Matthew, 31

Baur; 32

Beatitudes, The ; comparison of in
Mt. and Lk, 106 ft'.

Birt, T.; 153 n. i

Blass, F. ; on characteristics of Lucan
style, 276, 280, 281, 284, 285, 306,
307 f. 308.
Other references, 14 n. 3, 70, 71 n. i

Burkitt, F. C; on the bearing of
miraculous elements in an ancient
narrative upon the question of its
general credibility, 3 n.; on the Oral
Theory, 17 n.; on Matthew's col-
lection of rh. \6yia, 48 n.; his view
that " Q" contained a narrative of the
Passion, 49, 76 n., 105 f. ; on recon-
struction of "Q," 76 n.

Chase, Bp; on medical language in
the Lucan writings, 261 n. ; on the
injunction to baptise in the Three-
fold Name, 357 n. 2, 358 n.

Clemen ; 252 n. 3

Colani ; on the Eschatological Dis-
course in Mk xiii., 117 n.
Conybeare, F. C. ; on the text in Mt.

xxviii. 19, 358 n.
Dalman, G. ; 14 n. 6, 15 nn. 1 and 2,

47
Doublets; 45 f., 54-60, 188
Edersheim ; 19 n. i
Eichhorn ; 8 n., 9 n. i, 20

Enoch, Book of; similarity between
language in, and that in Mt. xxv.

.^1-46, 341

Eusebius ; on the text in Mt. xxviii.
19' 558

Feine ; on the source of the peculiar
matter in St Luke, 221 ff., 225 n. i,
228

Friedrich, J. ; on the style and vo-
cabulary of the Lucan writings, 276,
280, 281, 282, 285, 287, 317, 320

Gieseler ; on the Oral Theory, 18 n. 4,
2 2

Godet ; 18 n. i, 266 n. 2

Griesbach ; his theory of the relations
of the Synoptic Gospels, 20, 31, 32,

33' 35 f-

Grotius ; on the relations of St
Matthew and St Mark, 33

Harnack ; on the bearing of a miracu-
lous element in an ancient narrative
upon the question of its general credi-
bility, 3 n. I ; on Textual Criticism,
71 n. ; his reconstruction of " Q,"
71 n., 75 n. 2, 78 n., 82 n., 105 n. 2,
106 n., 107 ; on Lk. i. and ii., 223 f ;
on the Lucan authorship of the
Acts, 241, 255 f., 258 n.; on medical
language in the Lucan writings,
261 n., 262 n., 279, 317
Other references, 6 n., iii n. 3

Hawkins, J. C. ; on the Oral Theory,
17 n. ; on the style of St Mark as
a sign of unity of authorship, 168 n. 3,
204; on the consentient differences
of Mt. and Lk from Mk, 207 n. ;
on the vocabulary of the "we'"-
sections of Acts, 255 n., 258 n.

Hebrews, Gospel according to the;
parallels with St Matthew in, 346;
on the Baptism of Jesus, 348

Index

373

Hegesippus ; on "the brethren of the
Lord," 346 n. 2

Heinrici, C. F. G.; on the evidence
as to the authorship of the Third
Gospel and Acts afforded by the
"we "-sections of the latter, 256 n.

Hilgenfeld, A. ; his defence of the
priority of St Matthew, 32, 38, 40 f.,
42 n.

Hobart, W. K.; on medical language
in St Luke, 261 f. , 266 n. 2, 279

Hoffmann, R. A. ; 14 n. 4

Holstein.C. ; his defence of the priority
of St Matthew, 32 f.

Holtzmann, H.J.; maintains that the
Synoptic Question should be limited
to the investigation of Greek docu-
ments, 9 n. 2; on Ur-Marcus, 43;
on the Eschatological Discourse in
Mk xiii., 117 n. ; his adoption of
Simon's theory, 44, 140; on Lk i.
and ii., 226; holds that the author of
the Lucan writings was acquainted
with the works of Josephus, 263 n. 2,
272 f.
Other references, \\ n. 2, 32 n. 2, 45

James, Ep. of St ; Sayings of Jesus
not cited in, 67

John, Epp. of; references to the
Teaching of Jesus in, 66 f.

Jiilicher ; on the use, according to St
Mark, which Jesus made of parables,
192 f . ; on parallelism between the
careers of Peter and Paul in Acts,
249 n. 2; on the Church organisation
described in Acts, 252 n. i ; on the
Gift of Tongues, 252

Julius Africanus ; on the Lord's
kinsmen, 347 n. i

Justin Martyr; probable reference by
to Luke's Gospel, 240

Keim, Th. ; 32, 117 n., 263 n. 2

Kenyon, F. G.; 153 n. i

Klostermann ; the vocabulary and
style of the "we "-sections of Acts,
255 n., 258 n., 298, 315, 317 f., 320,
321

Krenkel, M. ; his work Josephus Jtiid
Liicas, 263 ff.

Lachmann ; on the priority of St
Mark, 32 n. 2, 44 f. , 186 n. 4

Lake, K. ; on the text in Mt. xxviii. 19,
358 n.

Lardner ; 31 n. i

Lekebusch ; on the style and vocabu-
lary of the Lucan writings, 276, 280,
281, 308

Lightfoot, Bp ; on medical language
in the Lucan writings, 261 n. ; on
"the Lord's brethren," 346 n. 2

Logian document. The (or "Q");
44 ff. ; clues for the reconstruction of,
76 ff. ; reconstruction of, 79-109;
portions of the Aramaic source were
differently rendered into Greek, 47,
69, 78, 82 ff., 92; it did not contain
many parables, 100
See also Aramaic Source

Loisy, A. ; on signs of editing in St
Mark, 137 n., 154 n. i, 170 n. i; on
the evidence as to the authorship of
the third Gospel and Acts afforded
by the "we ''-sections of the latter,
256 n.

Luke, The Gospel according to St;
the plan on which the principal
sources are combined in, 23, 74, 79 f.,
86, 91, 100; the omission, or apolo-
getic introduction, by Luke of proper
names, 24 n. 2 ; instances in this Gos-
pel of close resemblance to St Mark
in Sayings of Christ, 26 n. 6 ; view
that the evangelist was acquainted
with St Matthew 29 f., 140 f.; Mark's
Gospel as known to our third evange-
list, 43, 150-170, 203; the order of
the Logian document more nearly
reproduced in this Gospel than in
Mt., 75 f-, 78 f. ; the arrangement of
the matter peculiar to it, 94 f. ; the
preface, 135 ff. ; the source or sources
of the peculiar matter, 220-240;
chh. i. and ii., 223-227; the parables
peculiar to this Gospel, 23off. ; alleged
traces of Ebionism in this Gospel,
232 ff . ; the compassion of Jesus for
publicans and sinners illustrated in it,
237; the authorship, 240 ff. ; the ob-

374

Index

jections to Lucan authorship which
have been founded on features of the
Acts, 242-255 ; the vocabulary and
style of the Lucan writings, 255-260,
276-322; medical language in, 260-3;
alleged signs of acquaintance with
works of Josephus in, 260, 263-274 ;
time of composition, 275

Mark, The Gospel according to St ;
supposed Aramaic, or Hebrew, origi-
nal of, 8-14, 131; the order in it
preserved to a great extent in the two
other Synoptics, 24; the priority of,
30 ff. ; the revision of in the first
and third Gospels, 36 fif. , 51-53;
consentient differences from in the two
others, 38 f., 44, 139-150; the Petrine
element in, 39 f , 172, 174 f. ; sections
of wanting in St Luke, 43, 150 ff. ;
absence of doublets from, 45 f., 188 ;
the theory that "Q"' was used in its
composition, 11,49, io9ff'- I39f'> 147,
324 f., 37of. ; the form of the Teaching
of Jesus in this Gospel, 112 ff. ; the
Eschatological Discourse in, 11 5-1 21 ;
three views of the history of its com-
position between which the choice
lies, 137 ; the form of the work known
to Luke, 150-170; style in different
parts of, 168 f, 188, 204-6; the
author, 172, 180 ff . ; alleged traces
of Pauline influence in, 172, 175 f.;
the theme of this Gospel, 183 f. ; the
march of events to be traced in it,
184 ff. ; notes of aiithenticity in the
narratives, 189 ff.; features which are
alleged to be unhistorical, or which
present difficulties, 192-200; present
and original endings, 200 ff.

Mark, the hearer of Peter ; ;8i ff.

Marshall, J. T.; 14 n. i

Matthew, The Gospel according to
St ; the arrangement therein of the
matter taken from different sources,
23 f-. 74 f-. 79 f" 87, 90 f., 97, roof.,
122-129, 323 f- ; plan of earlier half
of narrative of Christ's Ministry, 24,
323 f. ; differences from St Mark in
Sayings of Christ, 26, 73 ; the dis-

courses in this Gospel analysed, 1 22-
129 ; discussed, 72-102, 106—109, 327-
336 ; this Gospel often more concise
than Mark in narratives common to
both, 324 ff. ; parables in this Gospel,
337-340; Teaching concerning the
Kingdom of Pleaven, 337 f. ; escha-
tology, 338 f., 340, 341 f., 349 f.,
351 f ; the representation of the Last
Judgment in Mt. xxv. 31 ff., 341 ;
two classes of citations from O.T.,
342 ff. ; the source of one class, a
catena of fulfilments of propliecy,
344 ff.; allusive references to O.T. in
this Gospel, 345 f. ; a possible source
of the narrative of the Birth and
Infancy of Jesus, 346 f. ; parallels
with the Gospel according to the
Hebrews, 346; traditions peculiar to
this Gospel, including three connected
with Peter, 348 ff. ; significant words
and phrases added by the evangelist,
351 ff. ; titles bestowed on Jesus in
this Gospel, 354 f. ; the injunction
to baptise in the Three-fold Name,
355 ff.; leading ideas in this Gospel,
3."9~363 ; the author, 363-366 ; the
time of composition, 367 f. ; value as
a historical document, 368 f.

Melito ; his "extracts," 48 n.

Merx ; 14

Michaelis, J. D.; 31 n. i

Neubauer; on the use of Aramaic and
of Greek in Palestine, 16 n. i

Nicolardot, F. ; 109 n. , 170 n., 370 f.

Niese ; 274 nn. i, 2

Oral teaching ; in the primitive
Aramaic-speaking Church, 61 f . ;
among Greek-speaking people, 63 ;
its influence of on the form of the
Gospels, 130 ff.

Oral Theory ; different forms of, 1 7 ff. ;
discussion of, 17-29

Papias ; on Mark's record of Peter's
preaching, 39 f., 134 f., 172 f., 175,
181 f., 186 f„ 191; on Matthew's
compilation of " the Logia," 44 f.,
47 f., 68 f.

Parables ; freedom in reproduction of.

Index

175

73 f-. 94' 97' 99 <"•• 231 f • ; those
peculiar to St Luke, 230 fi'. ; those
peculiar to St Matthew, 337 ff.

Paul, St; the references to Sayings of
Jesus in his Epistles, 64 ff.; question
as to his interest in the facts of the
life of Jesus, ib.

Pfieiderer; on the Eschatological Dis-
course in Mk xiii., 117 n., 118

Plummer, A. ; adheres to the Oral
Theory, 18 n. i; on medical language
in St Luke, 261 n., 266 n. 3

Polybius; vocabulary and phrases in
the Lucan writings compared with
those of, 265 f., 267 n. i

Polycarp ; evidence supplied by as to
the collection of St Paul's Epp., 242 n.

Ramsay, W. ; on the accurate know-
ledge of localities and institutions dis-
played in Acts, 260 n.

Renan; on the Eschatological Dis-
course in Mk xiii., 117 n.

Resch, A. ; his theory as to the effects
of diverse translations, 10 f., 47 ; on
the Semitic language in which Christ's
teaching was preserved, 14 f. ; a fol-
lower of B. Weiss, 49 n. 3

Reuss ; on Luke's omissions of Marcan
sections, 150 n. 2

Riggenbach ; on the text in Mt.
xxviii. 19, 358 n.

Roberts, A. ; his theory as to the use
of Greek in Palestine, 16 n.

Robinson, Armitage ; on the Oral
Theory, 17 n.

Rohrbach; 202 n. i

Salmon; on the Oral Theory, 17 n.;
on the relations of St Matthew and
St Mark, 33 n. i ; on the meaning of
TO. \671a, 48 n.
Another reference, 205

Sanday; on critical method, 6 n.; on
the Oral Theory, 17 n.

Schleiermacher; 44 f., 135

Schmiedel; 50, 60

Schiirer; on the use of Aramaic and of
Greek in Palestine, 16 n. ; on the
evidence as to the authorship of the
third Gospel and Acts afforded by

the"we"-sectionsof the latter, 256 n.,

257 ; on the view that the author of

the Lucan writings was acquainted

with the works of Josephus, 263 n. 2,

272

Another reference, 271 n. 1

Schweizer, A. ; 187 n. 2

Simons, K. ; 30, 140 f.

Smith, G. A. ; on Mk vi. 45, 157 n. ;
on the name Gerasenes, 190 n.

Soden, H. von ; on the compositeness
of St Mark, 137 n., 172 f.; criticism
of his theory, 178 f., 186 n. 5

Soltau, W. ; on unity of authorship in
St Mark, 168 n. 2; on the source of
the peculiar matter in St Luke, 228
n. I

Storr, G. C. ; 31

Sw^ete; on unity of authorship in St
Mark, 168 n. 2; on Mk xi., i,
190 n. ; on the ending of St Mark,
202 n. 2
Another reference, 157 n.

Synoptic Gospels; features of re-
lationship between them, 33 f.

Synoptic Problem, The; 2, 33 f.,
42, 50

Teaching of Jesus, The ; given and
preserved originally in Aramaic, 1 4 f. ;
its transmission, 24 ff., 48 n., 61 f., 72 ;
source of it as recorded in St Mark,
109-1 14

Text of Gospels ; differences as to may
here be passed over, 70, 74

Theodosius ; on the house of Mark's
mother, 182

Tubingen School ; 32 f.

Two-document theory; 21, 44 ff.

Ur-Marcus; the theory that it was
longer than our St Mark, 43; recent
theories as to the compositeness of
St Mark, 170 fif.

"Veit, K. ; 19 n. I

Viteau, J. ; 276, 282

Vogel, Th. ; on the style and vocabu-
lary of the Lucan writings, 276

Voss, Isaac; his theory as to the use
of Greek in Palestine, 16 n.

Weiss, B.; his theory that Mark used

376

Index

a document containing both Sayings
and discourses and narratives, which
was also used by our first and third
evangelists, ii, 49, 109, 139 f-, 147,
324 f. ; on the source of the peculiar
matter in St Luke, 221 f.
Other references, 32 n. 2, 150 n. i,
187 n. 2, 224 n. 2, 250

Weiss, J.; on the compositeness of St
Mark, 137 n., 171 f., 174, 175 f.,
i79n. 2, 192; his view of the author-
ship of St Mark, 172, 182; on the
combination of monotony in the lan-
guage of Mark's narratives with variety
in the incidents, 189 n. 2 ; on the ter-
mination of St Mark, 200 f. ; on pa-
rallels to Mk in Mt. \\'hich are more
concise in the latter, 324
Other references, 151 n. 2, 202 n. i

Weisse, C. H. ; formulates the "two-
document" theory, 45; on "doub-
lets," ib.
Another reference, 32 n. 2

Weizsacker, C. ; on the fonnation of
the tradition of the Teaching of Jesus,
62 n. I ; on Haggadah and Halachah
in the Gospels, 100; on the order in
St Mark, 188 ; on the source of the
peculiar matter in St Luke, 227 f.
Other references, 32 n. 2, 45

Wellhausen; supposes an Aramaic
original of St Mark, 13; on the
relations of " Q " and St Mark, in f. ;
on the influence of oral teaching,
131 n.; on the compositeness of St
Mark, 137 n., 13S; on the use, ac-
cording to St Mark, which Jesus
made of parables, 193; on the Mission
of the Twelve, as described in St

Mark, 195; on the termination of St
Mark, 200 f., 202 n. i
Another reference, 71 n.

Wendling, E. ; the compositeness of
St Mark, 137 n., 138, 151, 155 n. 3,
170 n., 172 f., 177 f., 180

Wendt, H. H. ; his reconstruction of
" Q," 78 n. I, 82 n., 227; on the
Eschatological Discourse in Mk xiii.,
117 n. ; his adoption of Simons'
theory, 140 n. 5
Other references, 158 n., 179 n. i

Wernle, P. ; maintains that the Syn-
optic Question should be limited to
the investigation of Greek documents,
9 n. 2; his reconstruction of "Q,"
78 n. I, 82 n. ; on the Eschatological
Discourse in Mk xiii., 117 n.; on
Luke's omissions of Marcan sections,
151 n. I ; on the consentient differ-
ences of Mt. and Lk from Mk, 207 n.

Westcott; on the Oral Theory, 17
n., 18, 22 n., 134

Westcott and Hort; Harnack on
their text, 71 n.; on the ending of St
Mark, 202 n. 2

Wetstein; 270 n. 2

Wetzel, G.; 19, 20

W^ilke, C. G. ; on the priority of St
Mark, 32 n. 2

Winer; 292

Wrede ; on injunctions by Jesus to be
silent about His miracles, 195 ft".

Wright, A. ; his Oral Theory, 17 n.,
18, 20 ft".

Zahn ; on the Oral Theory, 28 n. 2;
on the relations of St Matthew and
St Mark, 32 f., 38 fF. , 150 n. i, 324 f.
Other references, 153 n. i, 182 n. i

TABLE I.

COMPARISON OF THE CONTENTS AND
ORDER OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS.

TABLE IL

THE MATTER COMMON TO ST MATTHEW
AND ST LUKE WHICH IS NOT DERIVED
FROM ST MARK.

X
H

o
w

G
P^
O

H
Z

O
U

o
o

I— I
<

O
u

Oh
O

o
u

O ^ ^

o -Q

-2 ? S ^

13 ^
o ^

.S o o

OJ > M

O
O

V
O

c
o

• 1— (

;-!

r-|

'—

^.t-i

p ■

t/2

t/2 p

cu o

c .t

E o

< ^

o 9-3-0 ^ - -^

.- o

i> :j o

■ _.

Cin

cu-

>-<

.— H

.— T

.y "o

a; i; ^ .S

o g ^ la :S ^ 3

-^3

^ -=; -'^

> cu rt o
^ C u c

o > •"

nj u r:

^
u

■u .^

-3^9

O O
tj

^ - ^

'^ HH 4->

c^ i^ "o

t:; -tJ >

?d rt

^ ri •^i

c
o

■^ r- '•->

> ^

S- i? o

-2 c ^ c ~"

rt C 5 U3

o
2- :j

•5-^3

O t/> 'J-'

CJ rt

.s i

O J3

o o

.h^ -3 ^ O . _

i£ 5 -, -" ^ *-

3 ^ ^

O r- "" ^ >^ r-

CJ ^ -'

C '^ rt r-

• " t^ in T',

r- <^

> o
tn tf)

tC _3

3 ^

-^T- 3 -TJ

oj "i: jj

rt -T) rt

.3 S U

^ OJ %3

O -C i3

C "" •-

^3 "t^ .S

- ^ 75

rt ? te

-^ . rt

n ■■;= ,^ 3

.;= c/) u -_, CJ .3 3

-3 '3 -e OJ 3 •'"

-o

C
3

.o ■-,

-3 -73

O -^

tn, - "O
1) OJ rt
3 o T3

tij

O .3

>>^=:=

< ^

-t:5

-5 ^ .> ■*■ <

<> "^^ 'x -^

? 2 ^ ^ '

2 Si

-/■ >-- >

I I

t I i

- 00 to

O
<

W
P^

>^ •

t, ,

cs :

. =

c :

: o

X '■

• '■?J

X •■

• u

J :

. u

■ c

■* ■

. o

- o

: 2

•? s

■ o

*^ t

. ^

?■ 'oj

rt '^ :S - U ^

X •»« p-5

1-1 S -"kj^

ft \>

. <u "^ -o l; — .5
~ -^ <- X rr^ c;

■g- " ^ 5 == o 2
S? Ci 5 '-I *-. "^ -iS

^ -s '"^ ^ 2 = ^s

?i 5 c

l"^

O-

^^ ^2 S

"^ 5 « VI a

N <i ■« •-

ii
S

Jesus, /rrtt
lineal des
rough Nat
emptation
e third to

£
o

gy of

vid th
on, ti

C >3 C ~'Z,

**—

/-I

O 5

o r.

'U5 &i

*:s

5 a.

-5:U

'«.""

^ li

-Q

.tj

■^ 12 o

yS r>

tjO

^^ 1

z. ^

.«

« "-•

— r» r>

O I'

U 2 -'

^
§

CLh

^^J

C/3

u X ■ — ■

•ex "^

u-J^

Sd o

(1)
j3

txi
'ExS

.si

u C

c! !- (U >^

O D 3 >

i HH — ' 5 .'

;- &= 2
: -) c — £

; o J; « '^

f: . t. .« rt

O i^ .5 v: -y; £ 1) ^

r-^ ^

u! :S :

. "" :

•^ — • :

1^ i

,.^

^^ i

c«

-rt-J :

rt 0 :

a." •

^'^'li

(11 ^ ^

j; rt u

OJ O.J=

■s^

;■<.

2 ^

0) i>

-^ — 9 S r! o i:

■^^

O rt w w

o " " S-^-^

■ 3 3 >" "S <i "^

:=| S y g |X
■? a Q ii I 5,-1

-^^1

- (S r^

■1 ir530

"=■ r- '< --> s
^ 5 ^ c .2
si -« "-So

?• +

I I

0\ M-

•O O 1^

: ^ t/: : ^ n

^1=

■r. ^'

1) -

M O

-J- >
9 p g >^;j:

° - -^ t^ ;: - :;

■r. r- >^^ X.

7^ ^X 5

0-:= ?-: =

5 _>^

i- -- — c 't: ^ c*

5 I s 1 2 I = 4

A:i.-^%A

t£ 5 _: s> — ;i '""

= ^ 5 -£ 5 rt _

3 <y

' *. -y; K >i c !=>

•R g J - s g , ^ :^ J ^:-

<J ?:=

rt 'r

1) dj

C . "^ r— 1 r 5- $ ~ ,

■~ ■'■ ^ -S '-' - 5 *;

-■ ^ I — 1 w ^ ; "c- *

o -S 5 7 .^ ^ i •:: ^
- <:h f^

O i^ lO o

T ITT

u! j: '-^

S o «

S-= s

= T-^

1> — %i

■ ,

J2 ^

O o fS

.= c ^

ci 5 ?:

— 'S

5 •£

■^-t:

'<^

"^ X

v: V

■/:

■s

s: —

5 rt

;:_

;->

^ ii ^

^ s J-

K — _

^ u -

lU » •"

^'OS

1- .^ '-i

£1:^

5 I)

I ^ :^ i

^ o . s § S rt

?: :

E u :~

-1-

v2 o->_

= 5^^x

■^■x

<s .

c'5 X 5

^'J

SS--i.t

•^

E-i l> <

*-i

rt sj - •

c « ■' -S •-

« •■;:

V- <S

:^ .X c .•

,u - - ^U

rt -S

5:Efe 1

, I 'a

o "-.

CI o

1 1

pi (v;

1 1

1 1
\C> O
d in

■~ "S r^

^.ii

—

'•^ ^ '->

—

f ,

~ ^ > -

— o

I I

O 30

o% rc r^, fO

^J I O = S

_, ^- J 1) 13 °

Ci — .2 -li! 5>. ^

- § ^ 2 i ;= u:

lil-N'Id.

><±^ r

><5^

' — '"^ *" -

o :: ii

>- - >^

_ >N U

Cv w t.

>■- >,

ci ;;: t)

►^ o S

-»-

S ° 5

r«%

"c ^ !«

C-' K

X S

i*^

y. t;

o •-

> >

y «

^-§

r- Zl

^^>

cJcj

»^ OS

I I

5 ^ " -^ c: ■ .= .'. o

— ^

'— TT"

C "^

tjc-

t*"

■^ rt

i! ;i

t:i

(-:

"iri

-ji

r»

^N «

•2 "^ ,^

• <:

:-^S^

: •v. js

'-J

t/)

= />

•>^2

.™

rfl*"

.-«^ s

•-C £:;

^ ^:§

—

y 0
0 -5

H^ S ^

5
o

. is ^
1- 8 ^

o-c

■; .^

ft 5 ^

S'N

O ,—1

Sii

t/) t> o jy = «

•rr ' r- n -^ Ci

11 E i> -- >- ■<: ^

^ S.S^'S 2 5; 5 o

"-"^ -

U U X — " X

Ch i; ^ i; ~ y ^

rt -r; "^"^ rt

c S rt

H ^

« -a

^ <u

,rt rt a>

•5 V

S .-

&ii

:ii '-^^

>>x ><

X ij

(^ fE

■;^.~ 0

QJ —

5^2

.2 c

oniac hr
of the
tliey cou

■« 0

P 0 ^

HO^

■^.& I

S. G. II.

S'^

rt ^ >; iJ s rr ii -=:

Su.x~-30>

- "= y ,0

' «A

^-. V

X r; ^ r.

^ .0 -r -• c i: -i - .

•ti -!h c '~ rt - --> 2 -^

^' -5 ;; S X ? •£ J2 i?

^•■s-

■•-^

t/3

■r

_«

.!_

;/;

"o"

2
II

—

^-^

>^0

1) - •-

oi o

00^

p. JO •*

c g

q} O

•- — <S r-,

rt ^

^^•=■5

._^ P^ CN 5: _. s: ^

? c g 5

= := ^ ^ ^ "-^ :

'►^ '> -^ - -o tc'

- -J i 5

5 -^ .i3 V 2

^ =

^5.

^ 5 <, ^ *= _^

-5 -is « > ri T.

"55 tfc

ri ^

flj p rt 3 "^
rt - rt •— .^ '

;'^-^|-
•;^ aj 1) jj i_ .

■c'i o I i

^ u .S u
£ "^ = o = _ •

C y 5J C Ji s

o > o ~ r
-^ <^ T, _ > S

i;; ^ d 5^ ==

'C ^ £J w ^ 1)

O's s ^ c J

J^ '"J iH

C CI " -

I i y R S

^ c j: B> D

u i: rt ^— 'j£

^ ^

<5 - fS

c :~ ^

dj X —

5;S

5- c u ,

o -•-- 15 .

'^ n S "^

>= ? c

c -.

"S «

? 5 5 ^S

1) -

-5 '^ o = ^ -

!S =2

5 i:- -J

•y; ^ — U

,-^S

<: g

-J . — . o S

■<;S:K---^ -^-.5-= c^rtrt-a-:? ~— 3

JH ' x ^ "■ ^ ^

~ :i: C)

1) .^

i: ■- :? 2

!^w v;:: u

"^ <

25-

?> %) K

s<; M J^ -5 <; ^ 2 i. rt "H ;=■ -^ .^ V.

CN -
I I

vo o

« ^ X Ji'

not the rich
lainied, &c.
lahich a nu
ant summ
Cp. Mt. X

d of discip
ces of the i
iting the c

eep [cp. ;
lost piece
son.

and Mamm

0
0

1»

ivite
the n
U to
serz
s. [

s require
g instan

of com
ble II.]

lost sh

prodigal
teward.
rve God

1 — iJ=

^ w 1 1

•- c ^ '^ ^

> '^ (U

"^ ^ ^"^ s

the ho
the po
great
rough
my g

-'4J
crilice
cludin
rtance
ee Ta
es of
iii. I
oney,
ijust i
not se

S2 M -«i :;

' <S=;5'-/:'::;55:2C

US:/)

- ^ -5 -^1 — 1—^ .^ s ». rt

^ K

The

Para

The
Yec

S'"<i

^ 'O- g-s

•^ "^

^( 5-

ej «

5 ="^S rt 1 g

^ O t^ . - S ~ > -S 'J rt -y; C->

>■" — lS.-SS=*~, — k?^

-=■ ^ i£ rt 7; . ^ fv '^J Jn ^ _ « rt .^ "is

s rt ^-"'c^^^i-S; ^ u c3 rt« la-

's D J3

f>0

^ y.

:5'*

•5;

3
0

0\ rt

r^"-

.— .

. ■^;

p«5

fi^

2 s -=

J ^

X S'^ X ^

CN<1

T 'H.

S g

CNVO

rt -: ^ b; - ^-S

f— 1 r« "«S

X X

— g > -^ - -^ i-^

J J

'I- - r)

o £ X

c ^ X

jii c X

O "i

li" i

— ^ ■ -

^ c .« !

(u r, ^. o

^:5f=x

J''rt S--

-Sf^^-.

^i-^5

•c s- c«

U OJ — J

;^ O

^ o X t2 '-

H-s:

'c if? w 9

S ^ j^.

. -„ . S 5

., <U 4) c

KHHO

^ _ >^

5 3 '

m -f -HI

•5 r- U 1)

c/3 i:

.TT

O ?

^^.-5

c S •£ .i 1-3-S

o c

:§ s

'S O

5 J's
X

i: «

a '■

•:: S

-«i S

..N

•<; •

§ :

'::^

-5; ;

— ^ X :

S "^ X "^

H^ldll

U . 0-. > >—

-=;:-: 1) o

X 5 •~ y I-

tC-v, ■ <

i: S^-:,£/"'o

£.■2 's

^ u^

S K

■^ s 5

-*■ ■*
I I

O >o

„-30

S i> lo • 0 •

U T

^ " -^^ 5 ■

^43 > !- /^

S '^

S "■ . g cX

• ^

=0 rt -< X

'Z "^ .-

■?-r _rj c i<,

— * U-;

0 —

S ^ ^ --^- i --

- -fi. ^

t ^

C C -J

J. "7. V

-^ *n 5 g > ''— >

*^^ -^ O — ' ^ 1-^

< u

tl.'-/2

•- _c

S ii

I 0

". I - I

"33 Ji a) s

w rt y —

~ v2
s ^ o

•■ ,0 ■" O 1. rt

rt —
3j o

5 'u "p £2
ri -t; 3i j«

lo — —

rt 2

o X s ,::?

? IS

~ ^

•I J

I'o"

■■J

- c

b i

w c

u — > ^

■J^ X.

.—

- 2^N

;^ —

X I;*- _,

X "^

2 5^

: — ^ -s C^

c 5

_ -z

-^ ■— o -^

CCS >-.

,s •"" ■^ p

-J «: •/;

I, ■•->

'^ >^ ;.,

c ^ JJ

D r< 8 X S; e3 r"r

— ' *J S ^ O U

1)5 .. ^ s s cy
15.;o S ^^ s -^'

1 . ■^- &i "S ?

1) C ^1 "-* ^
T= rt — B • ;;

"S^ M-l -• . «

•i -: •£ ^ -S iJ ^
u] o c -^ v: ^ -

P-. y § S

s 5.

x ^

u ^

^ I

. c» rri »

Pi O

1) rt I.
> -r. c3

o — ^

c tfli!
w.S

■5

.;~

<>j

< "> "i;

rt -^ ■" .5

«- «

5: vh ■
^ •- "5 •- ;_

-r.

.;;

0 ;

:'t/}

'or

•r.

0 :

: oj

"5 '■

■ 0

—

0 •

,_,

0 •

J j"

M g

•^?.

t/] £

■■J

C -3

- i£

u
u

-.'^

S 5

.^^

=4 k C^ " -

s^ls?

£ y

rt $

^•^ -^

•ts

- l--^

5 5 i-§

5 -2 =* ■«

•^

^•2 ^ tr :

« .5

s: i^ « 's h ,^
« s: g ^ ^^

I I

2 ^ ?

":§ H

_ rt C

2 o
.= (U

I. U U5

•c ^ 5
■r :^ K s

i '3 .0

•^J^S Si;^_y

ci ^

C .iS o

2 0) o

<=2 r-

" I

C\ -

^X :

■5;X :

^1-3 '■

.-->

it is
with
XX).

and
rion.

pi3

fc.^ <s « "

"■ ?•

0 :: . a u

%. ■'i

a,*.2^£

«:!

== ^ ■>; i J:

• ;M§?

■"^ -^

Il:^^l>

V-s:

"■= 3 -r .5

T S r.. -S^r: ^

- ^ ^ -a •=

rn ii 3 " S =^ = =1^

!T! U ^ " ,„ O l^

_G -^ j:^ U ID J1

o =^ ^-^^ c c

<L> S^ S ii

a; a^.ii ~ ^

cj "5 n "^ '^ o

'^ o ^ u -K o a>

^ -^ .. Oa -r,,^ -?^ .U O rt ^ <-< r. (V. rc -1- -♦

0) OJ

-*- -1-

o . o

HO ^'^^ct<^-^i^^

4-. ^

•-^ i= c/} .i2 ■*" 53 ""

O^ gStfig-^o*"-^ :^:::-a,::-. ::::S

\J f-^ O. " c, wO(/) .0---^-'i'--.-o

^'^ ii^S-5 ^ ^ J i2 . § §- n . ^ . . .5 . . . . 's

U .- ^.> ^^cS^ ^ S ^J ^.= ^:S • ^ . :5 :ci ^-
■5 --S K ^ d s g ^ [^ -^ 5 •. ^^ • - = • :^ ■ i g • :

IJ - C-

t~ 'J' J, <u .= ;, :n-'o Soi;= -—-DC

^ s; ^^ "- H S .^ ° o ?^ ii n ? = r r

^-o o *^ "^^ ^-^'-^ . ^« i^^x:- ^ ?.^ >-'^= «

!/: C '1^

>ZlLl^^ ^ H ?: J X.CJ i- i- H H

§ ir

S cS

- rt I
t>. •/; — O

O u

c "

X
c

u O
20

4-1 i-i

3 ij o

- <->

3 OT « c

- ^ u -^
^, r u N

a 2 '

V o

en _o JtJ

^ >>

u o

1) c

— C/5 > '

*. *^ P p ^

o 7= x: i ii

i I I I I 5? " 6^ -2-^? :^

• . .• 0^5 oz"" —

> ■? -S " " ^ ^'> ;£ = I r.-2 ji H

Ri rt r) ro O

. ^ c< , s jy'^

M "" • ^— 's -5

■^ :; S) a> - rt
- S ^ & c S

III I I I "' r-=, ^ . .= 7 I <^ — ^ — "

III III ^o " - fi^<^_-x=— -;

--Cf.^ rr.rr. .3»-C^^_

^ 1- .^ •— f- "C '-J - .^

; : ; o : : ; ; : ; : l-^uu ^^ ^£3

"S c rt + y - rt

..." V c -if" :i.

• ■ • 1) - • ■ • • • ■

JS ^ .^ ^^ ,

:::xi::::: :: 5-^s ">£ 2_

. ti ^ — ' _ P

: : : ^ : :^ : : : : j § | f « S

o o ^:is "^tii S

: : : ^ o : £ : : : : .= = .o ^ ^5 ^

^■^ tn -£ '-'In 1< S. s

II > :^S|.;|- S

u-^C -rt •• • • rt — .-— £— "

~ 2-- S •- "= « T = " s - 5 =

.~u c2.Si;.2 -.2 ^^2rtu ^

' >^ b ^ c cj' "5 3 "a ■ >. n o J = = P ^

•'• >» 5 -o rt rt -g x; - (u - « X .^7, ■^■^^. -

if t« u g o •§ S o ;:f. f .^ .3 'S •- d : if rt - ^

— ;;- — .2 v,,_5 t; -c J:; tx o^ „ ,; i •^. s; •■/: ^ »

5 5 =5.£ N^ ^-Z*- - £-6 SH=-$'p.-^-c

t/.J5St^i;°SrtJg = ^« i.S^Jg^il

•i^ c-S 3m >.£ i^C^-i^ --^"Brt^H^^H

ii ti < M CDS D,-= r- r^ -- .i .i: "^ s' il >^n

« c> ^

f^ r<-; ■+ ■*

1/^ OS Ci *^

I "? i ~

: >>2

°g

o O
2 -C to

cA en 2

: C o

: o u rt

. .ii ,<u t;

>. r.

C biO

^ (- 1>

2 ■■?

o _ —

: ca c

: o -.1 .i

fe is cu)

- S «

(fl S 71

rt K

03 -- ;2

"J c ;?

2 rt

■ rt

c c

tc o

^__

■?

'P tjO

rt -

t/1 :/,

C u

■X

J-* "^

^ ^

•S 3

c o
£ c

rt .,:

■ c-f!

rt -=

. f\. tx

rt —
C (U S S "^ ^

rt M •= p

- S-c -^

~ .2 ~ '^ -'^

.^'(0 -: '^

o «

o -
2S-

■--— ■ J=T.

3 rt ■"

>_ > ~

.i t: - b£

3-^S

> E i'-^

M rt

" 2
= "a
- o

£ J! O

O -J C ^ *J O rt r w = U

■^rtr'<C^-f--rr;Ti

CiT-

■— 1)

rtj2 ^ C

<£ rt

CO i-

ii jj S ;;^ DOT

=. c •- c; = 3 .

- u ^ c - rt

rt -o _: - <j

' M i c

^ o 5
•^ o ii

3 — -p 5 3 o ^

■- — % ^

^^=-2

3 U (0

C;_-^ i) W I. ^ -r

"> ^ rt rt 5?

* =; c > : ^

ti w S- C >> rt

iS H rt - = D

a. 5- D p-^ , ^

"H ^ " 5 == o ^

2 ?f/,rt 2:^=^-5
' 3 3 2 •- 'rt >? ^

>- iJ 3 Ji ^ "2 11
c o 2 -^ rt o

rt p

^ S i-i rt

^•Z ■" ti5rt

rt J rt a-x = s

^^^^£-:i::^

rt -^ i: rt J= "^ C

^ i; X ii. H l1;

2-5 »-5:5 ti
— 4> ^ 2

.= S.^ Ok'"
^ *-• rt c "Z^ '/I

"•£ "5 'S ^ I

^ 2 £ 5 J I

2 "-^=:

tri

- o

- O . 1 I

C»X— -OSO -*-00

— — fOr^-^ r» -^ c*

<2.

I I ^

ro r» fO

iriVC' t--DO — lO r» r» 00

~ .- y.

Mt. 3

ecoll

. X ^

^H >^

•o

- r^ 'w

■*

- J^?d

^ > . =

1-1

S . X ^

v" O

'-J U U ^ 'O -= ^ :=
2 3 S S S ^2 ,;

!:rbo

: 2 : y cfl.S

^- ci

rt =J=

: u <u

•83

rt.= 2 o'^■

;; S u

rt o £

? 2 £ s"

rt ; <u

^ s

« I

o o

V tA ■-'

= i> -J

:5 a.3^'0 "
2- £2- H

z-o

0 ^

■« ci

Ji rt

•/ =n

1) ,„

- biJ

0 t-

'A C

C~ 3

rt y

►2H

iii^

c-5 S 5

;-r,o >-

O S

0 i2 :■"

^ =-;;

i) X — -

•r J3 _:

c 3
rt —1

^ 9

.« J3

to x:

UJ u — •«

S: c » 3 •;: u

■- V ^ ^ ^

Sc u

C X!

^ 6

1) o

^ Ui

.- 3i

"u ■><

W"^

'7- X

•^:!

0 J

*- 0

C< C3

* G

r- "^ D rt x

73 ^ ^ ^ Q-'C
•- o t£ c

-?.= .- 12 o

O X t_i -^ • o ti

o^ . -Ss^ g
oi_ - -^ M c ^

i-^

^ u -^

X x . — '

'^ > .J s

5 v '" -
5 "S -5 J

:S ■— _; ^ r' c

x>;=-!^.£^.

o ^■^ V

!UJ rt

<5 <^ «:; . "3 !« Cn 1

— — — «* £ f-i —

i^ X a u I; -• ,•

'5c -J «*

u 2

Cambrtljgf:

PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A.
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

f^ to

a; ;:i
{X!

0) a

fH PI

CO nM

c t>
o

►CU

o a> CM

a EH •

to >

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
LIBRMY

Acme Library Card Pocket

Under Pat. " Ref. Index File."
Made by LIBSAET BUREAU

'/r/i

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "The Gospels as historical documents .."

See other formats