, -~^
Ex Libris
1
h
K. OGDEN
THE GOSPELS
IN THE
LIGHT OF MODERN RESEARCH.
BY THE
REV. J. R. COHU,
RECTOR OF ASTON CLINTON, BUCKS ; SOMETIME FELLOW
OF JESUS COLLEGE, OXFORD.
(Author of " The Old Testament in the Light of Modern Research
" Or emus: or the Place of Prayer in Modern Religions Life" ;
" The Sermon on the Mount " ; " The Morning Service " ;
" The Ten Commandments.")
DEDICATED TO THE
RIGHT REV. THE LORD BISHOP OF RIPON.
OXFORD: JAMES PARKER & CO.
LONDON: SIMPKIN, MARSHALL & Co.
1909.
PRINTED BY JAMES PARKER AND CO.
CROWN YARD, OXFORD
DEDICATED
BY PERMISSION
TO THE
RIGHT REVEREND FATHER IN GOD,
WILLIAM BOYD CARPENTER, D.D.,
IN GRATEFUL RECOGNITION
OF
MUCH KINDLY ENCOURAGEMENT.
200013O
AUTHOR'S PREFACE.
IN this book, our aim is to place before the reader,
in an intelligible form, the present attitude of
the Higher Criticism towards the vexed problems of
the origin, composition and historical trustworthi-
ness of our four Gospels. Upon this subject, much
valuable work has been done within the last twenty
years. A flood of light has been poured upon the
pages of our Evangelists and their relationship to
each other.
In the space at our disposal*, it is a moral impos-
sibility, even if it lay within our power, to deal
with such an immense theme as adequately as its
intrinsic importance and absorbing interest demand.
Our only wish is to give the reader a practical
working knowledge of the present position of the
critical enquiry into the Gospel-story, and to record
the main results achieved by Biblical scholarship.
The skeleton frame- work of the book is simple.
In Part I. will be found a plea for a reasonable
11 True, 600 pages! But Prof. Burkitt truly says: " In a work
on the Gospels, if I give the several parts the attention they need,
I must show you the trees, (and perhaps take you into a thicket,)
when you rather want a view of the wood as a whole." Preliminary
and collateral investigations leave only 300 pages for the critical
examination oifour Gospels ! S. John alone needs twice 300 pages.
vi Author's Preface.
criticism of the Bible in the interests of true religion.
Part II., or " Gospel Side-Lights," is devoted to
sundry preliminary questions which must be investi-
gated before we can approach the main problems of
the Gospel- History. Part III. consists of a detailed
critical enquiry into the origin, composition and
historical value of our Gospels. Part IV. b gives
a supplementary picture of the social, religious
and political condition of things in Palestine in our
Lord's time. The Appendix glances at some of
the deeper questions (e.g. miracles, the Kenosis,
the bodily Resurrection on the third day), which
are occupying thinking minds to-day.
Throughout, we have approached each topic from
the modern critical standpoint. The historical
critic's first task is to clearly define the points at
issue. His next step is to collect all the available
evidence in any way bearing on these points. He
must then weigh the evidence and argue its meaning.
Finally he should sum up the case and indicate the
probable conclusions to which the evidence seems to
point. The reader is thus placed in a position to
form his own independent judgment, to accept or
reject the critic's conclusions. He is in no way
b Part IV. may seem out of place in a Higher Critical work ; yet
it is essential (though admittedly too elementary) if we are to re-
construct the background of 30 A. D. Even to-day, many critics are
not fair to the Jews. The frequent repetitions in the text are a more
serious objection. Our apology is twofold : (a) Few read a book
of this nature from cover to cover, (l>) all teachers know that repe-
titions are a necessary evil.
Authors Preface. vii
bound to follow the critic's private opinion as to
the weight, value, and relevancy of the evidence
submitted. The case must be decided on its own
merits.
This is the method of historical research. It
professes to deal with none but verified facts, and,
if the historical critic ventures on a hypothetical
statement, he is expected openly to label it as such.
There is no doubt that many a hotly-contested
controversial question, unduly wounding Christian
susceptibilities, would never have been raised if
critics had more fully and consistently remembered
and recognized these fundamental principles of their
own Higher Criticism.
But, it may be objected, historical research is no
safe or true guide in Biblical matters. " Spiritual
things are spiritually discerned."
This is a fair criticism, and no one can subscribe
to this axiom more conscientiously than the pre-
sent writer. After all is said, " our full persuasion
and assurance of the infallible truth and divine
authority of Holy Scripture is from the inward
work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness in our
hearts " ( Westminster Confession}. The Canonicity
and spiritual credentials of our four Gospels lie
within themselves and nowhere else. They bear on
their face God's own stamp and mint-mark. Our
Gospels afford the clearest and best witness to their
own Inspiration as containing a revelation and
declaration of the Divine Will.
viii Authors Preface.
On the other hand, while fully recognizing the
unique preciousness and authority of our four
Gospels, it is equally clear that the human element
and it is with this that the critic deals enters largely
into their composition. S. Paul himself tells us :
" we have this treasure in earthen vessels." Even
from the spiritual point of view, our Bible is not all
on the same level from cover to cover. A Leviticus
or Ecclesiastes does not appeal to us in the same
way as a S. John or the Psalms. If not on the
" human element " principle, how are we to explain
that terrible last verse of one of the grandest Psalms
(cxxxvii)? Does the Holy Spirit indite the first six
verses of " By the waters of Babylon we sat down
and wept " from a supernatural height, and drop to
a very low plane in the last three with their vindic-
tive blood-thirstiness ?
If, then, the human element enters largely into
the books of our Bible, if Inspiration does not
supersede human knowledge or eliminate human
weaknesses, if we believe that neither the Evan-
gelists nor any other inspired holy men of old
wrote as passive penmen at God's dictation,
why should we ascribe to inspired writers an
infallibility to which they lay no claim ? Under
the Holy Spirit's guidance, their inner light led
them into a true insight of great spiritual truths
which they have revealed to us. None the less,
the mere fact of Inspiration guarantees neither
absolute freedom from error in the record of
Author s Preface. ix
historical events, nor absolute finality in the spiritual
pronouncements of these inspired men. It is ad-
mitted on all hands that there are clear traces
of a " progressive revelation " throughout the Bible
itself. Surely, this progressiveness did not come
to a dead stop with the last chapter of the Bible.
If we believe in a guiding Providence at all, Reve-
lation, even as Creation, is a never-ending process
going on actively at the present moment. At no
point in Finite Time can we say : " This is the last
word of God's Revelation."
If this is true, then the too prevalent summary
method of brushing aside historical evidence and
research as irrelevant, is not so godly as it seems.
The dogmatic assertion that God has spoken in His
Bible, therefore no more need be said, betokens a
praiseworthy jealousy for the honour of God, but
betrays more zeal than discretion. Such letter-
worship may easily become a snare and a fetter,
narrowing a great truth into a cramped dogma, if
not into an actual falsehood.
In history, in Nature, in the ever-increasing en-
lightenment of our own minds and hearts, God is
making revelations to us every single day, unveiling
Himself to us ever more and more, pouring light
upon and interpreting His own Bible. To whom
much is given, of him is much required. It is
a sin against God wilfully to hide under a bushel
the light He gives us, to quench the Holy Spirit
Who is guiding us into all truth as we are able to
x AiitJiors Preface,
bear it. Men are eagerly, honestly, fearlessly seeking
after Truth to-day as never before, and it is an
impertinence and an insult to Him Who is the
Truth even to suggest that God's Bible, in so far
as it is God's Bible, has anything to fear from an
honest and reverent historical investigation into the
accuracy of its facts.
Many, we know, are exclaiming that the old Faith
is gone and man has invented a new one for himself.
Nothing of the kind ! Never was the old Faith
more alive than to-day, only it is now stated in new
terms. It is the old Faith translated into the lan-
guage of to-day, proclaiming a living message to
living men in their own tongue, the only tongue
they can understand.
History ever repeats itself. Every true Reforma-
tion has, in its day, been denounced as a destructive
revolutionary upheaval. In course of time, the new
creed seems so clear and so simple that it surprises
us we did not adopt it before. With the experience
of the past before our eyes, we need not face the
religious future with apprehension. Truth has a
wondrous way of vindicating itself. " Wisdom is
justified of her children." Partial views of Truth
may fail, but not the Truth itself. Sooner or later
the time comes when what is false in the new perishes,
and what is true no more seems strange.
Strong in this conviction, we are fully persuaded
that the modern movement in favour of a reverent
but frank dealing with the Bible in the light of
Ant liar's Preface. xi
modern research is altogether in the truest interests
of religion and of the Bible itself. At times, minds
may fear and hearts may fail when some of our most
cherished beliefs seem threatened ; but only for a
while. We soon discover it is merely " that which
decayeth and waxeth old, and is ready to vanish
away " that has to go. After criticism has done its
best or its worst, all that is true and eternal in the
traditional beliefs abides more firmly established
than ever on a foundation that cannot be shaken.
This is precisely what has happened with our
Gospels. In spite of his more recent disclaimer,
which was amply called for, Dr. Harnack's prophecy
of twelve years ago is daily finding its fulfilment
more and more : " A time will come, it is already
drawing near, in which men will not trouble them-
selves much more about the working out of problems
of literary history in the region of primitive Chris-
tianity, because the essential accuracy of tradition,
with a few unimportant exceptions, will have received
general assent." True, Harnack's meaning has been
so grossly misrepresented that he has felt con-
strained to qualify his statement. Many traditional
views as to the authorship of New Testament books,
for instance, are radically wrong and untenable, and
must be surrendered. None the less, what Harnack
really said and meant has proved true to the very
letter. The fact is now generally acknowledged that
the result of modern Higher Critical work on the
New Testament books has been to shatter the
xii AutJiors Preface.
objections urged against their genuineness, and to
substantiate in a wondrous way the traditional views
which have always been held by Christians as to
their age and character. It is to the Higher
Criticism that we owe this immense debt, and not
least to Harnack himself. Englishmen as a nation
are the last to credit Higher Critics with any virtues,
and then only grudgingly and under great pressure.
Yet even they must admit that criticism has done us
invaluable service in this way. In the matter of our
New Testament Books, it has converted into assured
convictions traditional views which we had previously
to accept on bare trust or Authority. It has made
"reason aware of itself that it is reason"; and,
looking at the matter from a purely moral and
practical standpoint, this is an immense gain.
Viewed as active influences and motive forces in
a man's life, there is all the difference in the world
between solid convictions and shifting opinions.
" As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he."
In much of what we have said, we are trespassing
on the ground of the following chapters, so we shall
add no more on this subject.
As already hinted, Part III. consists of a detailed
critical examination of our four Gospels. Naturally,
the whole question bristles with hard problems.
Indeed, in two out of the four Gospels we suggest an
open verdict, for the data seem too inadequate to do
otherwise, especially in the case of " S. John." This
Author's Preface. xiii
may lay us open to the charge of lack of knowledge
and indecision. Both accusations are probably true
to fact. At the same time, such large questions as
the authorship and historicity of " S. John "* must
needs be viewed from a severe standpoint, and, above
all, in a purely impersonal way. The critic has no
right to be a special pleader, even in the interests of
his own pet creed ; in fact, such a course borders on
immorality. In these complex cases, where the
evidence is so inadequate and conflicting, it is not
enough to advocate one hypothesis. A number of
other rival views may and must be kept before the
mind's eye, and their claims fairly and impartially
heard. Till fresh light comes, our tentative conclu-
sions should be definitely spoken of as more or less
probable rather than as true or untrue.
This method of procedure, however, does not
make for lucidity, neither does it satisfy readers who
desire clearly-defined views or attractive pages. For
the sake of clearness, though at the cost of uni-
formity and in defiance of our publishers' advice, we
have, in Part III. only, prefaced each chapter with a
brief argument by way of a clue to the general line
of thought.
Although, in this volume, we have rashly resolved
" millius jurare in verba magistri" our chief guides
have been Sanday, Burkitt, Westcott, and Harnack,
especially Harnack, the apostle of the " dry light "
of reason. In his broad, unbiassed judgment we
place almost implicit trust. We have consulted
xiv Author's Preface.
many other authorities, and have endeavoured to
acknowledge the fact in the text, though we may not
have paid all our debts in full.
Reviewers of previous works, who have been
unduly kind, have suggested the advisability of an
index. Their suggestion we have gladly adopted in
this book.
Our standpoint is not extremely radical, neither is
it likely to be called very conservative. Many of the
opinions herein expressed are sure to be condemned,
but a writer is bound to speak with no uncertain
sound and as conscience bids him, without disguise,
without evasion. As in the " Old Testament in the
light of Modern Research" our one wish is to help
others in their perplexity. We can honestly say we
have endeavoured to do this in a spirit of reverence
and with the heartfelt and prayerful desire to serve
God and His Truth. The achievement is very small,
but the ideal was high.
I have (by permission) dedicated this book to the
Bishop of Ripon. At his hands I received the Order
of Priesthood twenty-five years ago. It was his book
on the Bible that opened my eyes, four years ago, to
the Higher Critical interpretation of Holy Scripture,
confirming my Faith at a time when doubts and
perplexities were besetting me on every side. In
very many other ways my debt to him is great.
It is only fair to his Lordship to state that, owing
to his recent severe illness, he has not read a single
AutJior's Preface. xv
line of this work. All the more keenly do I
appreciate the trust he reposes in me, but I do
not wish him to be held responsible for any of my
views. No doubt, there is much in this book which
he would not endorse. At the same time, I sincerely
hope nothing in these pages is of such a nature as
to make him regret his gracious permission to accept
the dedication.
J. R. COHU.
ASTON CLINTON,
August, 1909.
CONTENTS.
PART I.
CHAPTER I.
A plea for liberal tJieology.
Bibliolatry, or the letter-worship of the Bible, is respon-
sible for much of our modern unbelief. A plea for a more
reasonable interpretation of Scripture in the interests of
true religion. Reverent modernism makes the Bible a
living Book, solves many Scriptural problems, meets
present-day needs, and follows Christ's lead. Some dangers
of modernism pp. 3 24
CHAPTER II.
CJirist a liberal in religion.
The religious state of things in the Palestine of our
^Lord's day was the product of two antecedent factors, viz.,
the progressive policy of the canonical prophets and the
retrogressive reaction of Judaism after the Captivity. Our
Lord's sympathies were with the progressive prophets, and
He was bent on the reform of contemporary Judaism. His
attitude to the " Law " and the " Prophets " sanctions the
principles of reasonable and reverent criticism pp. 25 44
CHAPTER III.
The Higher Criticism.
The popular view of Higher Critics. They themselves
are largely answerable for their bad name. Exaggerations
of the Tubingen School. Moderation and reasonableness
of the Higher Criticism of to-day. Its canons. Essential
qualifications in a modern critic - - pp. 45 60
b
xviii Contents.
PART II.
CHAPTER IV.
The Gospel-Portrait of Christ.
The historical and the psychological methods of writing
a " Life of Christ " compared. Contrast between the
ancient and modern way of writing history. Is the Gospel-
Portrait of Christ historically true ? Inspiration does not
guarantee infallibility. By reason of the immensity of their
theme the Evangelists' portraiture of Christ must needs be
imperfect and partial. The subjective element also enters
largely into their picture - //. 63 77
CHAPTER V.
Are our Gospels faithful records?
Answers to objections urged against the trustworthiness
of our Gospels on three pleas : (i) They are condensed
summaries ; (2) imperfect translations ; (3) late records.
pp. 7895
CHAPTER VI.
Oral Tradition.
Jewish reverence for oral tradition. Early Christianity
was not a book-religion. The Gospel-record was treasured
in men's hearts, and transmitted by word of mouth.
Hence the importance attached to sound teaching. Cate-
chists, an officially recognized and highly-respected order.
Apostolic origin of oral tradition ; three probable stages in
its development. Local " uses " of tradition, hence its
variations - //. 96 115
CHAPTER VII.
Rise of written Gospels.
Four main reasons assigned for the origin of written
gospels. Our canonical Gospels are only four out of a
Contents. xix
very large number once existing. All these gospel-records
probably reproduced oral tradition. The extant non-
canonical gospels are of varying value. Some were good,
e.g., S. Matthew's "Sayings of Jesus" (the only Gospel
known to us as undoubtedly composed by an Apostle), now
lost to us. Brief sketch of some extant non-canonical
gospels - pp. 116 135
CHAPTER VIII.
Canonization of our Gospels.
Some reasons for the late date of the inclusion of our
Gospels in the Canon of Holy Scripture. External evi-
dence our main source of information on this point, i.e.,
we have to draw our inferences from evidence supplied by
documents dating from about 100 200 A.D. List of the
principal documents and ecclesiastical writings available
for this purpose. Analysis of the external evidence.
pp. 136155
CHAPTER IX.
Textual Criticism.
The original Text of the New Testament is lost. Our
present Text is full of doubtful readings and interpolations.
Why this uncertainty of the Text does not affect the
Inspiration of our New Testament. The corruption of
our Text is due to many reasons, e.g., the perishable
nature of the original MSS. ; copyists' errors ; the variety
of local " uses." Main conclusions of modern Textual
Criticism pp. 156 171
CHAPTER X.
Apocalyptic Literature.
The Apocrypha (including Apocalypses) bridges the gap
between the Old and New Testaments. This interval was
xx Contents.
the seed-plot of the Judaism of Gospel-days ; hence the
study of Apocalyptic literature is imperative for a right
understanding of our Gospels. The raison-d'etre of Apo-
calypses : they are " Tracts for hard times," on the
model of the Book of Daniel. Outline-sketch of the
Apocalyptic Messianic picture and eschatology The
" fulness of time " //. 172 188
PART III.
CHAPTER XI.
Christianity and Gospel-Criticism.
A criticism of the Gospels is not an attack on the
Christian Faith. Modern criticism wondrously substan-
tiates the traditional view of the age and value of our
Gospel-records. The most unassailable proof of the truth
of Christianity is the existence of the Christian Church
itself, with its Sacraments. Recapitulation of the main
conclusions arrived at by Higher Critics in connection
with the origin and growth of Gospel-literature. Dates
of our New Testament books - //. 191 199
CHAPTER XII.
The Synoptic Problem.
S. Matthew, S. Mark and S. Luke agree, in language
and matter, in a way that no three absolutely independent
writers possibly can agree. They ail three embody a
" common-stock Gospel," which is almost identical with
the Gospel of S. Mark, admittedly the earliest Evangelist
of them all. There are three ways of accounting for the
strong Synoptic family-likeness: (i) All three Synoptists
copy an earlier document; (2) They reproduce the same
stereotyped oral tradition ; (3) S. Matthew and S. Luke
Contents. xxi
copy S. Mark. Reasons for believing that the first two
hypotheses break down, while the third covers all the
facts - pp. 203 222
CHAPTER XIII.
Source of S. Mark's Gospel.
Papias (140 A.D.) places on record a tradition that S.
Mark wrote his Gospel as " the interpreter of S. Peter."
Is this tradition true ? External evidence, subsequent to
Papias, merely echoes and embellishes Papias' statement,
and adds nothing to our knowledge. If we would solve
this problem we must collate evidence from other quarters ;
e.g., a knowledge of S. Mark's life and character, or evi-
dence derived from the contents of the Gospel itself,
may furnish helpful clues. Biography of S. Mark. Ana-
lysis of S. Mark i. x. pp. 225 239
CHAPTER XIV.
Is S. Mark tJie Interpreter of S. Peter ?
The internal evidence of S. Mark does not seem, at
first sight, to support the Papias tradition. In a Petrine
Gospel we should expect a strong spiritual element,
whereas S. Mark is apparently a fragmentary, anecdotal,
myth-loving, unspiritual chronicle. In favour of the
traditional view, much stress is usually laid on S. Mark's
special references to S. Peter, but this argument is utterly
inconclusive. If we wish to establish S. Mark's Petrine
origin, we must found our plea on a broader basis. We
must show, to begin with, that S. Mark is not unspiritual,
nor anecdotal merely, nor more myth-loving than his
contemporaries (Apostles included). Two main reasons
why the charge of " unspirituality " utterly breaks down :
{i) S. Mark is essentially spiritual; (2) Spirituality was not
b 2
xxii Contents.
his real aim. Written Gospel-records, like oral tradition,
were intended to supplement Apostolic " preaching," not
to supersede it. The earliest Gospels are records of
facts, not declarations of faith. They lay the foundation
on which the spiritual edifice is to be built.
pp. 243267
CHAPTER XV.
S. Mark's own witness to its Petrine origin.
If S. Mark is not unspiritual, neither is he merely
anecdotal. The leading ideas in S. Mark, viz. (i) Christ
the Strong Son of God ; (2) Christ's love and tender com-
passion; (3) Christ's impatience with ecclesiastical con-
ventionalism ; prove that there is a definite unity of
purpose pervading his Gospel. But if Mark's Christ
is perfect God, He is also perfect Man, with waves of
human feeling passing through His soul. Clear traces
in S. Mark of a development (i) in our Lord's teaching;
(2) in the disciples ; (3) in Jewish hostility to Him, but
(4) no development in our Lord's own consciousness of
His Mission. Realistic style of S. Mark. Great historical
value of S. Mark. S. Mark's miracles ; their credibility.
Is S. Mark the " interpreter of S. Peter " in this Gospel ?
Where, when, and for whom this second Gospel was
composed pp. 271 297
CHAPTER XVI.
Outline-sketch of S. Luke and his Gospel.
Harnack's re-establishment of S. Luke as the author
of the Acts and also of the third Gospel, or "former
treatise," thus endorsing the unanimous verdict of early
tradition from 140 A.D. Biography of S. Luke, the
companion and " beloved physician " of S. Paul, and his
Contents. xxiii
fellow-worker, but not an eye-witness of the Ministry.
S. Luke's is the Gospel (a) of Humanity and (b) of
universal forgiveness, (c) It assigns a prominent place
to women ; (d} leans towards the poor ; (e) is full of
song and rejoicing; (/) and the work of a poet-painter.
pp. 301324
CHAPTER XVII.
6". Luke's sources Matthcean Logia.
Analysis of S. Luke's Preface. His reasons for claim-
ing exceptional completeness and accuracy for his Gospel.
S. Mark forms the backbone of S. Luke's narrative, but
the third Evangelist also makes free use of S. Matthew's
Logia, and has private sources of information for a large
number of passages peculiar to this Gospel.
Tentative reconstruction of the Matthsean Logia. Diffi-
culty of the task. Conclusions to be drawn from a com-
parison of the Logia common to S. Matthew and S. Luke :
(i) Q is almost entirely discourse-material; (2) ethical,
but free from dogmatic theology; (3) full of Messianic
colouring; (4) contains few miracles; (5) consists of
mosaics of independent sayings ; (6) belongs to the first
cycle of tradition. Reasons for believing that our S.
Matthew adheres more closely than S. Luke to the original.
S. Luke's private sources of information. Examination
of the sections in the third Gospel peculiar to S. Luke.
S. Luke's historicity. Note on S. Mark's possible use
- pp. 327 353
CHAPTER XVIII.
5. Matthew.
Reasons why our S. Matthew is not the Apostle
Matthew's work. Explanation of the title " according
to S. Matthew."
xxiv Contents.
Introductory. S. Matthew is (i) the Gospel of Pro-
phecy ; (2) it is addressed to Jewish readers, (i) Early
Palestinian Christians, like all Jews, often interpreted the
Old Testament in a strangely artificial manner. S. Mat-
thew gives a Christological interpretation to everything in
the " Law and the Prophets." (2) S. Matthew, writing
as a Jew for Jews, shows great reverence for the Mosaic
Law. (3) S. Matthew's discourses are " conflations," or
artificial groupings pp. 357 368
CHAPTER XIX.
5. Matthew (continued}.
Leading ideas in S. Matthew. (i) The Gospel of
Prophecy. All threads of Old Testament prophecy are
gathered together in Christ. (2) The Gospel of the King-
dom. Jesus is the promised Messianic King, the " Son
of Man." Matthew's eschatology. (3) The Gospel of the
New Law. Matthew's attitude to the Mosaic Law. The
Law of the Kingdom as applied to (a) the citizens of the
Kingdom, (b) the preachers of the Kingdom, (c) the
Church as a corporate body. Why the Kingdom is taken
away from the false Judaism and given to the true Israel
(Christian Church). Ecclesiasticism of S. Matthew. Its
theology and historicity examined. Style of S. Matthew.
By whom, for what readers, and when was S. Matthew
written? Recapitulation. " The Gospel" is one and not
fourfold, and mainly Apostolic in its origin. //. 371 394
CHAPTER XX.
5. John Introductory the problem stated.
Striking contrast between the Fourth and Synoptic
Gospels. Idealization in S. John. Why the author of
S. John omits the Birth, Baptism, Temptation, Trans-
Contents. xxv
figuration and Agony. His superhuman Christ. Every-
thing and everyone, in this Gospel, subordinated to the
majestic central Figure. All minor details are eliminated.
There is movement but no development in the narrative.
Judaea, and no longer Galilee, is the scene of action. The
scene, incidents and dramatis persona are unfamiliar.
Can this be the work of S. John the Apostle, an eye-
witness? Importance of the question of authorship.
PP- 397407
CHAPTER XXI.
S John Incondusiveness of the external evidence.
External evidence clearly proves the early existence
and recognition of the Fourth Gospel, but is utterly
inconclusive as to its Apostolic authorship. From 180
A.D. onwards, John, "the beloved disciple of the Lord,"
is named as the author, though even thus early the Alogi
disputed the Apostolic authorship. Before 180 A.D., we
have no evidence on this point. Reasons for suspecting
the commonly accepted tradition. Most modern critics
suspend their judgment or are openly adverse. Papias'
famous piece of evidence, together with Eusebius' com-
ment on it, complicate the problem still further. "John
the Presbyter." Note on "The disciple whom Jesus
loved" - pp. 411 420
CHAPTER XXII.
S. John a Gospel transfigured by its leading idea :
" The Word was made Flesh."
S. John's leading idea, "The Word was made Flesh,"
the key to the Fourth Gospel. The author is a philo-
sopher-theologian, not a historian. He takes little interest
in pure history or biography ; his aim is something different
xxvi Contents.
and higher. "Truth of idea" (cf. Carlyle's "the poet is
the only seer") an important factor in the writing of Jewish
history. To S. John (a) Truth of idea is more real than
truth of fact; (b} his main aim is to edify (xx. 31);
(c) his Gospel is an epic poem ; (d} he writes to combat
Gnostic and other speculative heresies and uses their own
weapons - pp. 423 432
CHAPTER XXIII.
S. John the internal evidence examined.
S. John's Gospel is pervaded by one fundamental con-
ception : " The Word was made Flesh." Christ is perfect
Man, but perfect God. The Incarnate Word is God from
all eternity, hence (a) the deep impression made by Jesus
on all who come near Him ; (b) Contrasts with the Synop-
tists S. John's bare allusions to e.g. the Birth, Baptism,
Temptation, Transfiguration and Agony ; (c) the new light
in which S. John regards Miracles; (d] S. John's treat-
ment of the " Discourses." Various theories suggested in
explanation of the contrast between S. John's " Discourses
of our Lord " and the Synoptic version of them. S. John
idealizes and spiritualizes the familiar facts of oral tradi-
tion. He assumes a knowledge of our Lord's Life and
Sayings, and brings out their spiritual inner meaning.
Intrinsic value of S. John. The Synoptists are wanted
to supplement spiritual S. John, S. John is needed to
interpret the matter-of-fact Synoptists pp. 435 463
CHAPTER XXIV.
S.John Data for solution of problem :
Who is its author?
Two reasons which enhance the value of S. John's
spiritual Gospel for us to-day. Clues to its author fur-
Contents. xxvii
nished by the internal evidence : (i) He is a Jew, (2)
writing for non-Jewish readers. (3) He is familiar with
Palestine (and especially Jerusalem), and its Jewish
customs and institutions. (4) He is presumably an eye-
witness of the Ministry, (5) a man of Greek culture and
a philosopher, with a working knowledge of Philo's phi-
losophy. The Philonic element in S. John examined and
explained.
Is tradition right in ascribing this Gospel to S. John the
Apostle? Three objections considered. The solution of
the problem largely resolves itself into the question whether
S. John left Jerusalem and resided at Ephesus or not. The
external evidence on this point is inconclusive. On the
whole, the balance of evidence seems to dip slightly in
favour of tradition. Note on the style of the Fourth
Gospel - pp. 467 500
PART IV.
CHAPTER XXV.
Jewish parties in our Lord's day.
Does history endorse the Christian view of Judaism?
Historical reconstruction of Jewish background of 30 A.D.
Antiochus Epiphanes and the Maccabees. Hellenism
in Palestine. Rise of Jewish sects. Pharisees, Sadducees,
Scribes, Zealots, Herodians, Essenes. Bright side of
Judaism. Modern estimate of the Jews of 30 A.D.
PP> 5 353o
CHAPTER XXVI.
The Holy Land in our Lord's Day.
Political Geography of Palestine. Social conditions and
occupations. Agriculture, trade, fishing. Labourers and
xxviii Contents.
servants. Houses and Food. Inns. Worship in Syna-
gogues. Education and culture. Art. Language.
Government. Sanhedrin. Roman toleration. Money.
APPENDIX.
I. New Testament Miracles - p. 555
II. The Kenosis p. 563
III. Is the New Testament the last word of
God's Revelation to man? /. 571
IV. Resurrection of the Body - / 577
V. Poetical element in Hebrew literature - p. 580
VI. The Didache p. 584
VII. S. John's Apocalypse /. 587
INDEX.
ERRATA.
p. 9, 1. l$,/or 'his handwriting' read 1 His handwriting.'
p. 107, 1. 15, for 'all that Peter had remembered (or mentioned)'
read 'all that he remembered (or that he [Peter] mentioned).'
PART I.
INTRODUCTORY:
OR, A BRIEF FOR BIBLE-CRITICISM ON THREE
PLEAS :
(1) Present-day needs. (Chap. I.)
(2) Christ's own example. (Chap. II.)
(3) Its own reasonableness. (Chap. III.)
CHAPTER I.
CHRISTIAN FAITH IN RELATION TO MODERN
THOUGHT.
" TT is within the memory of some now living that
a certain Professor in Edinburgh was suspended
from his office because he would not subscribe to a
form of Bibliolatry which implied that the Bible came
straight down from heaven, with its scientific and his-
torical facts, chronology, headings to chapters and all.
It is not so long ago that considerable opposition
was shown to the Revision of the text of the Bible
on like grounds. In the minds of a vast number of
people, criticism of the Bible has been equivalent to
an attack on their Faith, because to them every
word of the Bible was divinely inspired and equally
infallible. And a younger generation, finding many
former views erroneous or even absurd, are inclined
to give up all belief. Some are sensibly disturbed,
and ask the old question, What then is Truth ?
Others simply pass to tacit Agnosticism a ."
We quote this passage because it exactly illustrates
three attitudes of mind at the present day towards
the Bible : (i) The old evangelical position, (2)
The Liberal theologian, (3) The " troubled and
perplexed."
a Academy (Aug. 29, 1908) Review of " Old Testament in the Light
of Modern Research."
4 Christian FaitJt in relation to Modern Thought.
(i) The old evangelical position.
The spirit of Bibliolatry is far from dead amongst
us even now, and the belief that the Bible, " from
cover to cover," is verbally inspired, and " came
straight down from heaven," is not confined to
simple-minded pious souls. Not a few highly-
educated religious-minded men, on opening their
Bibles, unconsciously force themselves into a mental
attitude which is foreign to them at all other times.
They read God's Book as they read no other
book, with a strange mixture of devoutness and
a sub-conscious stifling of thought. To them
S. Paul's words, " The wisdom of this world is
foolishness with God" (i Cor. iii. 19, ii. 5, 6), are
so true that they experience a sense of self-reproach
if they allow their human intelligence to question
the Bible's science and history, still more its moral
teaching, according to the ordinary canons which
they unhesitatingly apply elsewhere. In their eyes,
the Bible stands on a plane far above the sphere
of human reason. It is an impertinence and a sin
to interpret Scripture as " man's wisdom teacheth."
Self-condemned if they do not gather spiritual
refreshment from the study of each verse of Holy
Writ, their intellectual honesty often convicts them
of partial failure. Why this failure ? Their curious
theory of Inspiration supplies a ready answer :
"spiritual things are spiritually discerned," and they
are reading God's Word with the head and not
the heart.
Christian FaitJi in relation to Modern Thought, 5
What then ? As an act of faith, prompted by
the highest motives, they automatically hypnotize
their normal intelligence, and even their moral
sense b . In this abnormal state, they find them-
selves forthwith in perfect intellectual and moral
sympathy with Bible-incidents which they would be
the first to discredit or condemn anywhere outside
its pages.
It does not strike them as anomalous, in the
least, to read Holy Writ in this strained unnatural
manner. It is a supernatural Book. It does not
merely enshrine God's Word : every syllable of it
is God's Word. If its history, miracles, or Inspira-
tion are unlike anything in human experience, what
of that ? " God's ways are not our ways, neither
are His thoughts our thoughts." The Bible contains
the history of God's Chosen People, and God Himself
takes an active personal part in it. On Israel's
behalf, God constantly intervenes in the course of
human affairs, and, as we may expect, by isolated
acts of extraordinary power. The miracles of the
Bible are thus a matter of course. They are " acts
of God."
So with Bible Inspiration. The inspired writers
are the mouthpieces of God, His penmen. The
message they deliver is in nowise their own. Every
word they write at His dictation. If Inspiration
has ceased absolutely nowadays, it is because God's
h Exaggerated as this may sound, " we speak of that we know."
It is autobiographical.
6 Christian Faith in relation to Modern Thought.
last word to man has long since been said. With
the last page of the Bible, His message is complete.
Now, if we thus set the Bible in complete
isolation, if we regard the revelation of God as
one small chapter in the world's history, if we
treat the Bible as a supernatural volume which
has come down from heaven in its entirety, a book
dealing with times and circumstances when other
laws obtained than those of to-day, our attitude
towards the Bible is vastly simplified. Its inter-
pretation is now an easy matter, for a God-dictated
Word saves us all the trouble of personal thought.
At one stroke, all possibility of doubt as to the
truth of Holy Scripture in matters of detail is
eliminated.
Another result follows as a corollary. If the
Bible is God's dictated Word, then the application
of the findings of modern research to the Old
Testament, and especially to the Gospels, borders
on profanity. The Higher Criticism becomes "a
philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of
men, after the rudiments of the world, and not
after Christ." It is a system of interpretation
" made in Germany," posing as the true friend of
Scripture, yet its deadliest foe.
(2) Modern liberalism in theology.
We shall now look at the other side of the
picture. Profound as is their admiration for the
piety and consistent lives of their more fortunate
Christian FaitJi in relation to Modern Thought. 7
brethren, who can thus read their Bible untroubled
and unperplexed, there are numbers who cannot
throttle thought, or fetter their minds at will,
and would not if they could. Trained in the
modern historical school of exact thought, they
have been taught never to tamper with facts, conceal
difficulties, slur over inconsistencies, nor overstate
convictions, even in matters of faith. Impatient
of half-truths, they prefer to suspend their judgment
where no solid basis of evidence is to be found,
to wait patiently till new light comes. It might
save them the trouble of personal thought and
many a painful doubt, could they but read God's
Word with the heart only, and not with the under-
standing, but even were it feasible such a course
*would degrade them in their own eyes, blunt their
conscience, and hurt their soul. More than this,
to read God's Word in this (to them) unreal and
unnatural way would put them out of all practical
and vital touch with Holy Scripture. They are
persuaded that this artificial buttressing of the Bible,
in order to sustain its Divine character, is not only
totally uncalled for, but signally defeats its own
ends, and for the following reason.
The history recorded in the Bible admits of two
possible interpretations, and two only. Either
Israel's history followed the ordinary lines of natural
development, or it did not. If the latter supposition
be true, and Israel developed under abnormal condi-
tions in a miraculous way, then there is an end
8 Christian Faith in relation to Modern Thought.
of the whole matter. The Bible-story of Israel's
life has nothing to say to us. It is altogether out
of touch with our own life. They witnessed constant
miracles ; they were miraculously guided and en-
lightened at critical periods of their existence. We
do not expect God and His Angels visibly to
interpose on our behalf in this miraculous fashion,
neither do we see it done on this wise. Israel's
experience therefore can bring us neither encourage-
ment nor practical help in our hour of need, as
S. Paul would have us believe (Rom. xv. 4).
If, on the other hand, Israel (like ourselves)
passed through the various stages of its education,
its moral and religious development under perfectly
normal conditions, then our course is plain. We
are bound, for our own example and guidance, to*
investigate the facts presented to us in the Bible,
and bring them, as much as possible, into harmony
with God's ordinary methods of government as
revealed to us in history and nature. We shall
see in the Bible, not a mere store-house of proof-
texts, but a living Book "written for our learning."
We shall see in the inspired writers not only
chroniclers of Israel's past, but serious men in deadly
earnest whose one object is religion rather than
history, men who care more for the making of
saints and true children of our Father in Heaven
than for an exact record of facts.
To the Hebrew mind truth of idea appeals far
more than truth of literal fact. Essentially practical
Christian Faith in relation to Modern Thought. 9
and religious, the Old Testament Prophet deals
with the history of the Jews even as S. John deals
with the Ministry of Christ. He interprets and
idealizes it by the light of enlightened experience <: .
"Thou leddest Thy people by the hand of Moses
and Aaron." This is the standpoint from which
Hebrew prophets and psalmists face history. They
see God, Love Divine, behind it all, as its driving
power and its key. Their whole aim is to portray
Jehovah as a righteous God, the moral Governor
of the Universe, a lover of righteousness and a hater
of iniquity, and Israel's history is an open page in
which they can clearly read his handwriting.
Realizing that the inspired Old Testament writers
are spiritual teachers far more than chroniclers,
we have in our hands the clue to the visible walking
of God with men on earth, His miraculous inter-
positions on Israel's behalf, and the idealization
of Hebrew history generally. Strange as it may
seem to us who regard facts as sacred, this deliberate
Hebrew sacrifice of truth of fact to truth of idea
is a high ideal.
And does not the modern view of the Bible,
which regards it, not as a scientific or historical
primer, but essentially a moral and spiritual guide,
involve a far higher conception of God and His
c "Interest in pure history did not exist among the writers of an-
tiquity, certainly not among the writers of the East. What we call
a historical conscience is a modern discovery. In Hebrew historical
literature, the past was seen in the light of the present and the future."
Von Soden, Books of the New Testament.
io Christian Faith in relation to Modern Thought.
>'
Book than the old traditional Bibliolatry? It makes
altogether for a closer walk with God. It breaks
down the barrier which separates the Bible from
the life of to-day. It opens the pages of the Bible
once more, as a source of spiritual light, practical
encouragement and help to thousands who, troubled
and perplexed, were beginning to abandon its study.
They did not actually question the presence of the
Divine element in it, but it was a hopeless puzzle
to them. How could a God-dictated Bible be
anything but perfect ? yet it so often went counter
to their idea of history, and not unfrequently
offended their moral sense d .
(3) The " troubled and perplexed,"
This naturally brings us to our third class of
Bible-readers, the " troubled and perplexed," who
have got detached from their old evangelical position
and have not yet fallen into line with the modern
school of theological thought, or perhaps cannot
reconcile it with their conscience to take that step.
There are many nowadays, brought up from
childhood to regard the Bible as the authoritative
and infallible Word of God, who halt between the
modernist van and the evangelical rear, puzzled and
d "There are multitudes of good, earnest souls who do love the
light, but have been forced into unbelief by the cruel demand that
they must accept every word of the Bible as coining direct from God,
or reject the whole. . . . There never were so many, in all the history
of the Church, crying out, 'Where am I?' as there are to-day."
Dr. J. Monro Gibson.
Christian FaitJi in relation to Modern Thought. 1 1
bewildered. Gladly would they believe the Bible's
message true, but, with growing minds and wider
knowledge, their traditional faith in its infallibility-
has evaporated into a feeling of doubt and uncer-
tainty which is to them a source of sadness and
anxiety. Questioning the abiding value of the Bible,
they feel like sailors off a dangerous coast who have
lost all faith in their chart and compass. Where
can they now turn for guidance ? What are they
to do ? Their old guides are proved wrong and
misleading. On one side stand God and His Bible,
on the other, the verified facts of history, science
and nature. On many points these seem to con-
tradict each other flatly. With mingled feelings
of irritation and sadness, they begin to question the
truths they learnt at their mother's knee. They
turn to theological works for guidance, and at first
find some help, but their educated habits of thought
soon suggest the uncomfortable feeling that the
orthodox pleas for many difficulties which puzzle
them (e.g., the wholesale murder of the Amalekites,
or the imprecatory Psalms), need too much ingenuity,
and that simple truth should scarcely require so
much special pleading. They can see for them-
selves that the Bible is not all on the same level.
Ecclesiastes reads like the work of a sceptical pes-
simist. There may be a deep spiritual meaning in
Solomon's Song, but it is hidden behind a screen of
erotic and sensuous imagery. The story of Esther
has all the appearance of a historical romance, and
12 Christian Faith in relation to Modern Thought.
the ritual codes of Leviticus look like so many
sections taken out of the religious books of Babylon.
If theologians insist that they must accept every
word of Holy Scripture as God-inspired or reject
the whole, if it has to be " a whole Bible or no
Bible," only one course is open to them. They
cannot accept on bare Authority opinions which
their reason cannot endorse and convert into
personal convictions. Their hearts pull in one
direction, their heads in another, and they cannot
see their way to fly in the face of verified facts
and force their reason to walk in step with their
hearts.
And who is to blame them ? Why should they
force their convictions ? God does not require it at
their hands. On our generation He has graciously
bestowed greater knowledge and a wider outlook
than our forefathers possessed. These are talents
He has lent us to profit withal : " to whom much
is given, of him is much required." If increase of
knowledge has created new problems and a temper
of scepticism, the advance of education is rapidly
enabling us to understand and measure these
problems, while our very spiritual difficulties are
not all loss. These doubts we so deplore are
positive aids to faith. They stimulate and quicken
faith into life by compelling us to review the truths
we learnt in childhood, and, by personal thought
and experience, bring them into harmony with the
life, light and thought of the age in which we live,
Christian Faitli in relation to Modern Thought. 13
move and have our being. Origen weightily re-
marks : " the Divine Word ordered some stumbling-
blocks and stones of offence in the sacred records,
that we might not be led away by the unalloyed
attractiveness of the narration, and seek for nothing
more divine" (Philoc. I. 15). We should be the last
to quarrel with the temper of an age which con-
strains us to consecrate our entire faculties to the
study of the Bible, to investigate it in the full light
of modern research, a light more than sufficient to
turn our doubts into truer and deeper faith, so as
to "be ready always to. give an answer to every
man that asketh a reason of the hope that is in us."
At any rate, we cannot alter the temper of our
age or put back the hands of the intellectual clock.
As Dr. Sanday truly says : " to each generation
as it comes, its theology should be offered in the
language it can best understand. We should not
break our continuity with the past, neither should
we attempt to stereotype that past. It is like the
case of the ideas which a dutiful son inherits from his
father. He will start from them, and try all he can
to make them his own, but he will not be bound by
them in the sense that his ultimate statement, at the
end of all his trying, will not deviate from them
to the right hand or to the left."
And it is precisely because a time has come upon
us when we realize we must each do our own
thinking, if it is to be sincere, that we welcome the
spirit of modern religious Liberalism and plead for
14 Christian Faith in relation to Modern Thought.
it in the interests of the victims of the age, the
many troubled and perplexed, and in the interests
of true religion itself. If we are to save twentieth
century men and women, we must show our
generation that the old Bible has a message for
them in their own language. It is we ourselves,
the Church of God, and not God's Bible, that are
responsible for much of the scepticism we deplore.
We insist on presenting God's Truth in a hard
dogmatic way. We cling to the traditional anti-
quated theology prescribed by Authority fifteen
centuries back, and refuse to review it in the newer
and fuller light which the Holy Spirit has poured
upon us in the interval. So it is that we fail to
persuade and convince " them that are without,"
because we will not take the trouble to show
men how essentially reasonable God's Bible and
Christianity really are in themselves.
We indulge in laments that men no longer read
their Bible as in the days of old, when it was the
daily companion and daily bread of our forefathers,
their one unfailing source of comfort and strength
in every emergency. All this is changed now, and
we wonder why or how this change has come about.
We forget the mental revolution tht last sixty years
have witnessed. We forget the vast extension in our
knowledge in every department, the many discoveries
science has made. We forget how widely the
scientific temper of our age separates us from our
more simple-minded forefathers. We forget that
Christian Faith in relation to Modern Thought. 1 5
it is all but impossible for a twentieth century reader
to be equally in touch as his fathers were with
a history of Israel which relates how the sea was
turned into dry land as soon as Moses "stretched
out his hand over it"; how the heavens rained
manna, or the Rock, at the stroke of a rod, gave
forth water; how the Sun and Moon stood still,
or city-walls fell flat at the sound of a trumpet and
the great shout of the people ; how God not only
spoke to Moses, as friend speaks to friend, but with
His finger wrote laws upon two tables of stone ;
how God ate with Abraham in his tent, wrestled
with Jacob, or " walked in the garden of Eden in
the cool of the day." Modern readers feel it hard
to understand what all this means. How can they,
till some clue is placed in their hands which will
unravel these hard sayings ?
Harder still is it for the modern reader to fathom
the moral problems of the Bible. He naturally asks :
How can a loving heavenly Father have hardened
Pharaoh's heart merely to show forth His own
power ? How can the Holy Spirit have inspired
the Psalmist to pronounce a blessing on whoso
should take his enemies' children and dash their
heads against the stones ? How can God approve
of deed after deed narrated in His Bible, as done
by His servants in His Name, deeds which our
conscience condemns and must condemn ?
These are some of the doubts and questions
troubling the hearts of men around us to-day on
1 6 Christian Faith in relation to Modern Thought.
the right hand and on the left 9 . These are a few
of the difficulties creating a yawning gulf between
minds athirst for God and a right understanding
of the Bible.
We know how this gulf is to be spanned, yet we do
not bridge it. Why ? Because, timid victims to un-
worthy fears, we have not the frankness and courage
to speak out for dread of unsettling people's faith.
God has taught us that we are to read our Bible
for moral and spiritual instruction, and not as a
science or history primer. For us to know how
many knives were brought back from Babylon
matters not one jot, but it does matter whether
we note or ignore the great moral and spiritual
principles our Bible unfolds. God has taught us,
too, that "we have this treasure (i.e., His Word) in
earthen vessels," written by men who shared the
limitations of their generation. Yet we are afraid
to hint at the human element in the Bible for fear
of leading people to question its supernatural infalli-
bility. So we continue to preach belief in the
Mosaic authorship of the Hexateuch, or in the his-
torical accuracy of Genesis ; we refrain from asking
men to lay less stress on matters of Bible detail,
which are often wrong, and to focus their gaze more
on its great truths and principles, which are eternally
e "Concentrate our attention upon the Bible being ' all right on the
whole' as we will, there is no hiding its gross animalism, its wicked
stories, its occasional blasphemy." John P. Hopps. Hibbert Journal,
Oct. 1908.
Christian Faith in relation to Modern Thought. 17
true, convinced that, if we surrender one plank,
the whole religious platform will collapse, and men's
belief in God fall with it. Thus we go on day by
day fastening burdens on men's shoulders which we
ourselves are unable to bear.
Unsettle men's faith, forsooth, and weaken their
belief in God and His Bible ! The minds of tens
of thousands are unsettled already, and their faith
is crumbling to pieces by reason of our cowardly
and guilty silence.
When shall we have the moral courage to follow
in the steps of Christ, and do as He did with the
Jews of His day ? History ever repeats itself.
What Englishmen are doing to-day, the Jews were
doing in precisely the same way 1900 years ago.
They allowed the letter of the Bible to override
its spirit, and were positively certain that every
single precept of the Mosaic Law had been dictated
by God and was binding to all eternity. We shall
see in our next chapter how our Lord consistently
and steadfastly set His face against the worship of
the letter of the Bible, and openly contradicted the
traditional view that the Mosaic Law was of eternal
obligation. With His repeated " Ye have heard that
it was said to them of old .... but / say unto
you " (R.V.), He exasperated the ecclesiastical
leaders of His day by His plain speaking and broad
interpretation of their Old Testament on purely
moral lines. He proved to them convincingly in
His strictures on laws dealing with Sabbath obser-
C
1 8 Christian Faith in relation to Modern TJiougJit.
vance, divorce, clean and unclean meats, that it is
wrong for a more advanced age to be content with
a literal interpretation of precepts which were given
to and meant for their ruder forefathers, even if the
laws and their interpretation are in the Bible. He
showed them that theology cannot possibly be
unchanging, for in everything that has life, in nature
(S. Mark iv. 26 sqq.), in history (S. Mark iv. 30 sqq.),
in morals (S. Mark x. 5), in religion (S. Mark ii. 22),
in the Bible itself (S. Matt. v. 17), there is a gradual
growth, a progressive development following a per-
fectly natural course. Then as now, men thought
and openly said that such attempts to bring
Scripture into vital touch with the highest needs
of the day were a betrayal of the faith once delivered
to the saints, an unfaithful tampering with the sacred
deposit of revealed truth. Christ clearly proves that,
on the contrary, the new is the ideal fulfilling of the
old. " I am come, not to destroy, but to fulfil."
That was ever Christ's way, and it must be ours.
There comes a day when for God's herald it is a sin
to be silent, and to stand still is death. Christ
identified Himself with man's social, moral and
religious progress, so must we.
But one thing Christ did which modern would-be
reformers are apt to forget. He came more to fulfil
than to destroy. He did not attempt or wish to
create a brand-new theology and snap the threads
linking men with their past. He, Who is the
Source of Life, knew its secret. He knew that
Christian FaitJi in relation to Modern TJiouglit. 19
man's religion, like man himself, is a living organism
with its roots deep down in the past. If it is to go
on living and thriving amid new surroundings, it
must have the vitality to take up and assimilate the
new ideas. It must adapt itself to its environment,
retaining all the while a living continuity with the
past out of which it has sprung. This it will never
do if you tamper with its roots. Therefore He
lopped off all the dead branches of the tree, pruned
its growing twigs, grafted on new living wood, but
never interfered with its roots.
Christ was a Teacher of men, as well as a
Reformer. If our Lord had spread out a novel field
of unfamiliar truths before the Jews, He might have
led them to argue and speculate, but He could not
have aroused their consciences by convicting them
of sinning against the truth they already knew.
And, by showing them that He did not ask them
to break with their past, He also avoided a great and
obvious danger that of plunging those who listened
to Him into the depths of scepticism or moral in-
difference. Only the strongest moral natures survive
the shock of doubt which dispossesses them of all
they have trusted from childhood. It is the old
in the new which saves it from doing more harm
than good.
His attitude towards men, institutions, the Old
Testament itself; was ever one and the same. He
ruthlessly assailed error, but He was even more
careful to reveal and foster the innate good that
2O Christian Faith in relation to Modern Thought.
was there, and make it more healthy and fruitful
by His whole-hearted recognition and approval
of it.
Christ's method of denouncing the evil comes
naturally and easily to us. We are not so quick
to follow Him in recognizing and commending
that which is good in what we condemn. " T am
come, not to destroy, but to fulfil." We are more
prone to destroy than to fulfil.
But, with this all-important caution, it is our
bounden duty to God and man to bring our
theology into line with the highest moral and
intellectual needs of our day, just as it is the
duty of science to take new and larger forms
as the years pass by and its knowledge and
horizon widen. True, the great underlying facts
of Religion and Revelation remain stedfastly the
same throughout all ages and changes, so do the
great underlying facts of nature. But, from gen-
eration to generation, man's interpretations of these
facts vary. They grow more luminous and complete
as God's Holy Spirit guides us more and more
into all truth. The theology of to-day can no
more be the theology of yesterday, than the science
of to-day is the science of yesterday. At no point
can man crystallize theology and say " This is its
last word." This would mean that we shared the
omniscience of God Himself, and needed no more
of His light.
After all, at any given stage of our progress, we
Christian Faith in relation to Modern Thought. 21
only know in part. We only know our current in-
terpretation of God's Revelation, and the scientific
theory of the moment regarding His Universe.
There is more, far more beyond. It is only by
bracing ourselves from age to age to meet new
modes of thought as they arise, only by voicing
the new needs and convictions of men's inmost
hearts, that either our Theology or our Church
can keep alive, can keep in touch with the men
of to-day, preaching a living message full of real
meaning to our generation, a message which the
world cannot possibly do without. Each age, each
individual must work out its own salvation. This
it can only do, or, at any rate, best do, by living
its own life, cherishing the ideas and beliefs that '
are the outgrowth of its own time, and incor-
porating therewith whatever is living and abiding \ '
in the inheritance bequeathed to it by the life and \
thought of the past.
Here, for us, is the line of life. We want no
break, no gap, no snapping of the threads which
link us with the past. Our religion must have
its roots in the past, yet nourish men in the present
world. Not till the Church learns to spell out
the Bible's eternal truths, translated into modern
language and modern thought, will she again obtain
a hearing of her message, and both win the age
for God and a wider knowledge of the truth for her-
self. She must proclaim the same message, but she
must speak it out with inspiration, with fidelity,
22 Christian FaitJi in relation to Modern Thought.
with power, by the light which God is pouring
on the Bible's pages to-day, not by the light of
1500 years ago. Then once more will the people
hear her gladly, as they heard her Master. Her
message which is His will once more supply
them with the only clue which gives a meaning
and a purpose to a world that otherwise would
be without any real significance.
But, it will be asked, plausible as this liberalism
in religion may sound, is it not beset with grave
dangers? May it not be that, in our frantic zeal
to appear enlightened, broad-minded, progressive,
abreast of the times, we may concede vital points ?
" It is possible to avoid the Scylla of ecclesiasticism,
only to fall into the Charybdis of an opportunism
which sacrifices everything on the altar of ex-
pediency."
This is Rome's plea, and her reply to the Lambeth
Encyclical. In 1908, there appeared almost simul-
taneously two important official documents dealing
with " Christian Faith in relation to Modern
Thought," viz. the Lambeth Encyclical and the
Papal Encyclical Pascendi. Our own Church,
through 240 of her Bishops, welcomes Modern-
ism ; Rome anathematizes it as the spirit of Anti-
/ cKrist ) subversive of all faith and reverence, infect-
ing the leaven of Truth with the deadly poison of
error.
This is the verdict of the Pan-Anglican Confer-
Christian FaitJi in relation to Modern TJwngJit, 23
ence : " We are bound by our principles to look
with confidence and hope on the progress of Modern
Thought. It is our duty to contend earnestly for
the faith once delivered to the saints, which is
the secret of life. And at the same time it is
our duty to learn all that God is teaching through
the studies and discoveries of our contemporaries,
whether inside or outside the Church, discerning,
indeed, the spirits, whether they be of God, but
bending with reverent teachableness to the influence
of His Spirit, from whatever quarter He may
breathe upon us."
Rome replies with apparently unanswerable logic :
Compromise with Modernism and you tamper
with God's revealed Truth. The Bible is one
organic whole, which together stands or falls. The
whole scheme of salvation hinges on the one car-
dinal truth : ' Since by man came death, by man
came also the Resurrection of the dead.' Surrender
to-day the story of Adam and Eve as a mere
myth, or even a parable, and where will you stop?
You jettison together with it the unity of the
human race : the original innocence of man ; ori-
ginal sin as the fruit of man's disobedience ; the
revealed origin of carnal appetites, suffering, death
itself; and, of necessity, you consequently surrender
all need of redemption, together with the gracious
promise of a Redeemer made to man at the moment
of the Fall. You wilfully and sinfully capitulate
all the elements, all the principles, all the vital
truths, of the Christian Faith. It is all well and
24 Cliristian Faith in relation to Modern TliougJit.
good for educated Protestants thus to try and
give the right hand of fellowship to Christ and
Modernism at the same time, to concede the
mythical character of the first chapters of Genesis
while protesting that their faith in the Redemption
of the Cross runs in orthodox grooves. The thing
cannot be done. You cannot thus pick and choose.
You cannot thus arbitrarily give this portion of
God's Word a fixed and absolute value, and assign
to others a merely floating and relative importance.
If the Bible is not to be trusted and obeyed to
the very letter, how is it to retain that virtue
and authority which your own Westminster Con-
fession ascribes to it, and be regarded as the final
court of appeal in all controversies of religion ?
Holy Scripture stands or falls together. If you
sap the foundations of any part of its fabric, the
entire edifice will totter and eventually crumble
into a heap of ruins.
This sounds logical and consistent, but is it true?
If it is, then even our Lord stands self-condemned,
for He cuts across both these statements of Rome.
As already hinted, (i) He set His face against
letter-worship ; (2) He would not accept the plea
that the true doctrine was unchanging.
In our next chapter we propose to examine at
length our Lord's attitude to the Old Testament, and
endeavour to show that the whole tenor of our Lord's
Teaching was progressive, and that He fully sanctions
the principles of reasonable historical criticism.
CHAPTER II.
CHRIST'S ATTITUDE TO RELIGIOUS LIBERALISM
AND BIBLE CRITICISM.
TT7E believe that it. is possible to prove, from the
** tenor of His Life and Work, that our Lord
was a "progressive" in religion, and sanctions the
principles of reasonable Bible Criticism.
(A) Was Christ a Liberal in Religion ?
Before we can estimate the true place and influence
of Christ in the evolution of human thought, we
must reconstruct His contemporary background and
see both the Man and His Work in their historical
setting.
This does not mean that we can give a naturalistic
interpretation of Christ's unique Personality in terms
of His environment. He mastered and moulded
circumstances to do His bidding ; it was not
circumstances that created His Personality.
Yet it would be a mistake, even in the case of
Christ, to fancy that He stood in no sort of relation-
ship or indebtedness to His surroundings. Christ
was " the Word made Flesh," but He chose to be
born a Jew of Palestine. Only by a freak of the
imagination can we isolate our Lord, dissociate Him
from the place and time of His appearance on earth,
26 Christ's attitude to Religions Liberalism
and approach His Life and Work as if their character
would have been precisely the same had he lived in
England or Germany, instead of Judsea and Galilee.
We must view the Ministry of Christ in the light
of the Jewish history, the Jewish ideas, the moral
and spiritual atmosphere of the Palestine of 30 A.D.
They colour His thoughts, words and deeds.
What, then, was the state of things in Palestine in
His day ? What stage in its evolution had Israel
reached ? Its life-story, as told in the Bible, dis-
closes the successive stages, the progressive develop-
ment in the moral and spiritual education of a
remarkable people. The trend of development,
here as elsewhere, is on the whole a forward move-
ment, but the advance is marked by a curious
mixture of ebb and flow. There are receding as
well as advancing waves in its tide.
It was during one of the periods of retrogression
that Christ was born. The tide seemed on the ebb,
for the nation was still caught in the backwash of
a tidal wave that had left its high-water mark far
and away beyond the point reached by any of its
predecessors.
Some centuries prior to Christ, there had arisen
a succession of prophets, great personalities such as
Amos, Hosea, the two Isaiahs, Jeremiah, Ezekiel,
spiritual giants who dwarfed all that went before
or after them for many a generation.
They were Israel's moral and religious saviours
and reformers. Their ideas, hopes and aspirations
and Bible Criticism. 27
are entirely phenomenal. So highly-enlightened are
their ideals, their picture of God and His relationship
to man, that, even to-day, after twenty centuries of
Christian teaching, our souls are drawn out to these
canonical Prophets. As we read the two Isaiahs, we
instinctively feel that all that is best and noblest in
us is being forcibly appealed to by a noble spirit akin
to that of Christ Himself. Their God is the very
God Whom Christ reveals, a loving Father, righteous
in all His ways and holy in all His works, a God
Who is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must
worship Him in spirit and in truth. From first to
last, their pure and lofty moral teaching makes
rightness of life a matter of the heart, and welds
together love of God and love of man in a bond
that cannot be broken. Their creed is : " What doth
the Lord require of thee but to love mercy, to do
justly, and to walk humbly with thy God ? "
One other great service these prophets rendered
to mankind. They were ever pointing to a "golden
age " of prosperity, peace and, joy. Other nations
had dreamed of such a bright era, but always as
a thing of the past. The Hebrew prophets hail it,
not as lying behind, but ahead of them. They hail
it as men hail the dawn, nothing doubting but that
the night and the things of the night are shortly
to pass away, swallowed up in the glorious light of
the perfect day. This golden age is to dawn, not
for Jews only, but for all Gentiles as well. These
prophets burst all narrow local barriers. God's Will
28 CJirisfs attitude to Religious Liberalism
is that all men, heathen nations included, shall share
in this glorious consummation, the Divine goal for
which all humanity is making.
Clearly, then, these great prophets stand for
progress. Forerunners of Christ, they have already,
as we have seen, foreshadowed His revelation of the
Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man.
In their " golden age," they faintly anticipate our
Lord's " Kingdom of God."
But this ideal teaching was too high for the
degenerate Israel of the day. It fell on deaf ears
and dull hearts (Is. vi. 9, 10).
We know the sequel. God had tried to soften
the hardness of Hebrew hearts by His long-suffering
kindness, He now purifies them with the fire of
affliction in Captivity. Sternness succeeds where
love had failed. The Jews come back from Exile
chastened and purified by the fiery ordeal through
which they have passed, full of a deep religious
earnestness.
They have learnt their lesson, and taken it to
heart. Of one fact they are firmly convinced : their
Captivity has been due to their neglect and dis-
obedience of God's Law in the past. Into this sin
they are resolved not to relapse.
In their feverish anxiety not to disobey the law,
they rush to the opposite extreme, and exalt the
letter of the Law into a fetish. Their one ideal now
is to " make a fence about the Law," so that no one
and Bible Criticism. 29
can possibly break out of bounds and go astray.
Keenly alive to his personal responsibility for all that
he now does or leaves undone, the pious Jew yearns
for some hard and fast code of rules to hedge his
duties round at every moment of his life, and make
their performance sure. His spiritual pastors and
masters, the scribes, supply this need. Not only do
they interpret and expound every verse of the Mosaic
Law, they do more than this. By a close and life-
long study of its minutest details, and in a spirit
that the most subtle Jesuit casuist would have envied,
they work out its application so as to meet before-
hand every possible contingency which can occur
in life. The people gladly welcome this Priestly
Code and its traditional glosses as a relief and not
a burden. It raises them above all possibility of
a mistake.
Originally the expression of a deep religious
earnestness, and intended to be helpful, these rules
of holy living soon become a snare. They degenerate
into a mere routine. Isaiah's preaching of Tightness
of life and a worship of the heart gives place to a
rigid observance of rules. All that God now requires
is a due performance of the correct ritual services
and the proper sacrifices. If men wish to please
Him still more, all that is needed is to redouble the
sacrifices and the services. An exaggerated value
is attached once more (cf. Amos v., Is. i.) to Temple,
priests, fasts and feasts, ceremonial, tithes, meat and
drink offerings, Sabbaths, new-moons, even to the
cooking-pots of the Temple.
3O Christ's attitude to Religious Liberalism
All the ennobling ideals, living truths, inspiring
principles, heartfelt worship of an Isaiah or Jeremiah
seem to be forgotten. The legal spectre of religion-
ism has cast its gloomy shadow over Judaism and
destroyed these noble ideals by translating them into
set forms, crystallized these living truths into dead
dogmas, degraded these inspiring principles into
inelastic rules, this heart-worship into a mere routine
of outward observances.
Can we wonder that, with the freedom of the spirit
sacrificed to the bondage of the letter, heart-religion
and true morality recede more and more into the
background ? A form of creed which renders it easy
for a man to make terms with his conscience and his
God, according to a fixed scale of purifications and
propitiations regulated by a tariff prescribed for
every conceivable case that may arise ; a religion
which regards the relationship between God and
man as founded on a kind of legal contract, so that
a punctilious attention to sundry rules and cere-
monial formalities is all that God requires, and brings
its sure reward ; a religion which makes it possible
to acquire merit and excel in God's eyes by obeying
its precepts even beyond what is nominated in the
bond, such a religion can produce but one effect
upon the mass a of its votaries ; it will beget habitual
a As the Psalmists abundantly attest, and such persons as Simeon,
Nicodemus, the young ruler, the "scribe not far from the kingdom
of God," and many more, there was ever a large 'remnant' in Israel
who found the Law a help and not a hindrance, and lived under
it saintly lives.
and Bible Criticism. 3 1
hypocrisy. Human nature is too frail not to take
advantage of a creed which makes it so easy to
serve two masters.
Here we have a period of retrogression.
This was the state of things when Christ appeared.
In the religious historical background stood the
Prophets with their progressive principles ; before
His eyes was contemporary Judaism and its re-
actionary programme.
To these two factors Christ must relate Himself,
and towards the Prophets He naturally takes up
an attitude of appreciation and sympathy.
But what attitude is Christ to adopt towards
contemporary Judaism ? He knows that the Mosaic
Law with its Priestly Code is deadening men's
consciences, demoralizing the nation, setting up a
wall of partition between Jew and Gentile, Jew
and Jew, Jew and God Himself. Worse still, He
sees that both priests and people regard it as the
unchanging and unchangeable deposit of revealed
Truth, the faith once for all delivered to the saints.
They claim for it an absolute finality, the divine
right to remain the one and only true Theology
for ever and ever. In reality it is, as He knows, a
sad departure from the path of progress ; it means
stagnation and death.
All this Christ realizes ; yet tkat, and nothing
else, is the material on which He has to work.
He sees clearly what is possible, and what is impos-
32 Chris fs attitude to Religious Liberalism
sible for Him to do in those short three years. He
foresees that any radically sweeping attempts at
outward social and religious reforms will not only
alienate all sympathy, unsettle faith, and arouse
overwhelming opposition, but inevitably prove worse
than useless to the cause He has at heart. He
is resolved to set about the reform of Judaism,
but by the leaven that works from within outwards.
He means to create a new moral world, but the heart
of His new world is new men and women leavened
by His own Spirit.
Above all, there must be no break with the past.
There is no need for it. He sees a clear line of
development in Judaism from the days of Moses
to His own day, and He does not break off at a
tangent from its line of continuity. He sets His
face towards the direction in which that line travels.
In the priceless heritage of the Prophets, in the
moral principles underlying the Law itself, He sees
the threads connecting the Israel of the past and
present with its better future. Nay, He does not
confine Himself to the Old Testament period. The
two centuries before His Advent have proved a
fertile seed-plot. Whole-heartedly He accepts what
is true and promising in the current Apocalyptic
ideas of the Kingdom of God and its Messiah.
Thus Christ puts Himself sympathetically in
touch with everything in the Law, the Prophets,
and Apocalyptic literature which appeals to Him.
He has the feeling of what is true, progressive
and Bible Criticism. 33
and eternal amid a mass of local and temporary
material, and He enunciates it with Divine emphasis.
" I am come, not to destroy, but to fulfil,"
He takes the progressive elements of Prophetic
teaching and reaffirms them, often in the prophets'
own words. But they had only been partial state-
ments of the truth. He completes them by bringing
their scattered rays to a focus, still further illumi-
nating them with a bright light of His own creation.
So with the Law. The Priestly Code is not so
lifeless that it is not worth resuscitating. The
Mosaic Law is full of healthy life. It is the
traditional glosses of men that are choking it.
They must go.
In the Apocalyptic ideas of Messiah and His
Kingdom, Jesus found current beliefs and hopes
regarding the establishment of God's Kingdom on
earth, the coming of Messiah, the day of judgment
and individual resurrection, far in advance of
anything in the Old Testament. With much of
the Apocalyptic teaching Christ was in sympathy,
though some of its materialism repelled Him. He
adopted its ideas and language, and in adopting
it, transmuted its clay into gold, giving a moral,
spiritual, and world-wide meaning to an eschatolo-
gical doctrine which, in His day, was only (or
mainly) interpreted in a material, temporary, and
local sense b .
b It is not too much to say that the "Kingdom of God" is the
moral foundation on which all that is best in our modern civilization
D
34 Christ's attitude to Religious Liberalism
This is what we mean by saying that Christ was
nothing if not liberal and progressive in His Spirit
and Teaching. " As a scribe instructed unto the
kingdom of heaven, bringing out of His treasures
things new and old," He takes into account both
the new and the old, understands both, adapts the
old to the new, thus bringing it perfectly into line
with the highest moral and spiritual needs of His
own day.
(B) Our Lord sanctions the principles of reasonable
Bible Criticism.
Our Lord's attitude towards the Old Testament
may be described as: (i) conservative; (2) liberal;
(3) critical.
( I ) Co nservative .
Speaking generally, Christ recognized the Old
Testament as enshrining God's revealed Word, and
therefore, as invested with indefeasible authority.-
He expressed His sense of the authority of Holy
Scripture in the strongest possible language : " till
heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in
no wise pass from the Law till all be fulfilled."
(S. Matth. v. 17, 18 ; S. Luke xvi. 17.)
How deeply our Lord was influenced in His
personal life by the Old Testament, and found
therein the food which nourished His spiritual life,
has been built, yet consider what it meant to the Jews, or even to the
first generation of Christians !
and Bible Criticism. 3 5
is proved by the frequency of His quotations from
it. He seems to live in it, to steep His very soul
in its spirit. Its words are on His lips at every
turn. In critical moments of His Life His thoughts
find their natural expression in its language. We
see it at the hour of His Temptation, and even
when He hangs upon the Cross. In religious mat-
ters, it is His final court of appeal. He appeals
to it in defence of His own conduct (S. Mark ii. 25).
He quotes Isaiah as a crushing reply to the
Pharisees, and refutes the Sadducees in the words
of Exodus. He explicitly claims that He has
come, not to destroy, but to fulfil the Law and
the Prophets. When the young ruler asks Him
what he must do to inherit eternal life, He imparts
no new teaching of His own, but simply refers
him to the Ten Commandments. And, in the
parable, when Dives begs that one from the dead
be sent to warn his five brethren, what is the reply ?
" They have Moses and the Prophets, let them hear
them."
(2) Liberal.
But although our Lord says of the Law that not
the dot of an i nor the stroke of a t can be cancelled
by any power on earth, we must give such a sense
to His words as will harmonize them with His
practice and His other expression : " It hath been
said to them of old .... but / say unto you."
In actual practice, as we see in S. Mark vii. I 23,
36 Chris fs attitude to Religions Liberalism
S. Matth. xv. i 20, Jesus completely cuts across
the Law of Moses as to clean and unclean meats,
and the observance of various ritual purifications
by washing.
What our Lord clearly means by the strong
expression in S. Matth. v. 17, 18 is that the Law
and the Prophets are God's Word, and, as such,
must be fulfilled. This general statement, couched
in current Hebrew hyperbole (cf. S. Matth. v. 29 42)
is one which any public speaker will readily under-
stand, and in nowise inconsistent with the attitude
of freedom and independence which our Lord in-
variably adopts towards the Law.
In the Mosaic Law, as we shall see in our next
section, Christ distinguishes between its weightier
matters, love, righteous judgment, mercy and faith,
and its more trivial applications, such as the
"tithing of mint, rue, anise, cummin, and all manner
of herbs" (S. Matth. xxiii. 23). Of this law and
that (e.g. divorce) He asserts it was the best the
Jews of former days were able to receive, " because
of the hardness of their hearts," but that it was
not intended to stop at that. Throughout, He sets
aside much in the Law that does not appeal to Him.
Even as regards the Prophets, the very expression
He uses of them : " I am come to fulfil the Prophets,"
shows that He was conscious of their shortcomings.
He also speaks of the old Revelation, as a whole,
as of a thing which has had its day : " The Law
and the Prophets were until John, since that time
and Bible Criticism. 37
the Kingdom of God is preached ." Christ is
conscious that with Himself a new era has begun
in the history of the world, that He is the bearer
of a newer and larger message : " Many prophets
have desired to see the things that ye see, and
have not seen them ; to hear the things which ye
hear, and have not heard them."
Thus our Lord's attitude towards the Old Testa-
ment is one of perfect freedom and independence.
He does not by any means regard it all as of
equal value. He leaves aside, as of merely local
and temporary worth, much which, from the stand-
point of His contemporaries, was regarded as equally
universal and abiding as what He retained.
(3) Critical.
It is when we come to the ritual law, that part of
the Mosaic Code which deals with the cleansing of
vessels, clean and unclean meats, and Sabbath-observ-
ance, that we reach a point where our Lord seems
completely to break with the Law. Here He acted in
a way which would profoundly shock the prejudices
of strict Jews, the most pronounced letter- worshippers
in the world. The liberties He took with the letter
of their Old Testament cut across all their traditions
and convictions, not of a lifetime, but of twenty
generations.
If we forget, for the moment, that we are Christians,
c What are we to make of the strong expression : " All that came
before Me are thieves and robbers " (S. John x. 8) ?
38 Christ's attitude to Religious Liberalism
and put ourselves in the place of the scribes, we
shall see that, consistently with their religious creed,
they could not but brand Christ as a traitor to the
Law of Moses, and almost a blasphemer. Let us
try to examine dispassionately, from their point
of view, with an unbiassed mind, a few counts in
their indictment of our Lord.
He set Moses at nought, so they believed, and
Moses, to a Jew, was almost what Christ is to us now.
In the matter of divorce, Moses, in Deut. xxiv. I,
had given the Jews permission to put away their
wives for very slight pretexts : " If she find no favour
in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly
thing in her." (R.V.) Christ takes this Mosaic Law,
and shows that it runs counter to God's original in-
tention in the divine institution of marriage. The
marriage-tie, says Christ, is indissoluble d (S. Mark
x. 2 12). Divorce is the outcome of hatred, and
not of a forgiving heart. Christ deliberately adds :
" For the hardness of your heart Moses wrote you
this precept." Christ therefore supersedes this
Mosaic Law.
Still worse in Jewish eyes would be our Lord's
conduct with regard to the Sabbath. On the autho-
rity of God's Word, Sabbath-observance had behind
it One far greater than Moses, the sanction of God's
d S. Matthew's "except for the cause of fornication," is almost
certainly the Evangelist's own addition, an editorial note, for it is
omitted both by S. Mark x., and S. Luke xvi. 18. We shall see later,
in dealing with S. Matthew's Gospel, why S. Matthew inserts this
saving clause.
and Bible Criticism. 39
own hallowed example: "God blessed the seventh
day and sanctified it, because that in it He had
rested from all His work" (Gen. ii. 30). Again, on
Mount Sinai, it was direct from God's own lips that
Moses received the Commandment, "on it shalt thou
do no manner of work." Surely here, if anywhere,
we have inspired Bible- teaching which Christ will not
question. He constantly does question it. On even-
single occasion when the commandment comes into
direct conflict with acts of love and mercy, Christ
consistently breaks the letter of it so as to keep it
more truly in the spirit. It was over this very matter
of Sabbath-observance that our Lord broke definitely
with official Judaism (S. Mark iii. 6).
These are not two isolated instances. Christ takes
the letter of the Mosaic Law on murder, adultery,
divorce, oaths, retaliation, love to our neighbour, and,
in each case, authoritatively restates it with His pro-
nouncement : " It hath been said to them of old ....
but / say unto you."
But, in the cases hitherto examined, our Lord does
not cancel the Law, or in any way abrogate it, as the
Jews thought. On the contrary, in bringing out into
prominent relief the underlying spirit, the broad
principles underlying the letter of the old Law, He
enhances tenfold the value and application of the
precept He criticizes.
Far more radical is His method when He comes
to deal with the purely ritual Laws of ceremonial
respecting the cleansing of vessels, the washing of
40 Christ's attitude to Religious Liberalism
hands by way of purification, the distinction between
meats clean and unclean. He will have none of them.
With a ruthless hand He sweeps aside these dead and
deadening elements in the old creed.
In the classical passage on the subject, S. Mark vii.
2 23, the scribes and Pharisees ask our Lord how
His disciples dare " eat bread with umvashen hands,"
in open violation of sacred tradition. Thus challenged,
Christ not only flatly denies the authority of tradi-
tion, but exasperates the scribes and Pharisees by
explicitly denouncing these very traditions as malig-
nant things which annul the Word of God. He
appeals to Scripture in proof of His assertion, and,
by way of object-lesson, shows that they have made
the Fifth Commandment a dead letter by this tradi-
tional casuistry and quibbling. He goes further
still. Turning away in disgust from these leaders of
Jewish religion, " He called the people unto Him,
and said : Hearken unto Me every one of you "
(S. Mark vii. 14), and by an apt illustration proves to
them that the scribes and Pharisees are all wrong ;
that the only uncleanness which can soil a man is the
moral pollution which comes from the heart (vii. 15).
When the heart is pure, one meat is as clean as
another.
On another occasion Christ even goes so far as to
touch a leper, in defiance of the Mosaic Law (cf. Lev.
xiii., xiv.),and yet refuses to consider Himself unclean!
Nothing can better illustrate our Lord's independence
of the trammels of ritual Mosaic Law than this inci-
and Bible Criticism. 4*
dent and His treatment of the Sabbath. But nothing
could equally shock Pharisaic susceptibilities or
general Jewish religious prejudices.
We may now briefly sum up our Lord's attitude to
the Old Testament, " the Law and the Prophets."
(a) The Old Testament is to Christ the Revelation
of God, but He sees it in broad principles, not in
specific rules. In popular language, He emphatically
affirms the permanent authority of the Old Testa-
ment, yet He does not leave it exactly as it stands.
He " fulfils " it by bringing in a new law of the spirit,
which cancels the law of the letter.
(b] He sets His seal to the lofty, progressive teach-
ing of the Prophets, but puts the coping-stone to their
work. He actualizes their incomplete revelation of
the Fatherhood of God, the Brotherhood of Man, and
the Kingdom of God.
(c] The Law He restates, not by giving us a new
set of commandments to be literally obeyed, but by
opening up the principles of action which are to guide
our heart and conscience, so that we may be a law
unto ourselves (cf. Jer. xxxi. 33, 34).
(d) He brushes aside tradition as of no value what-
ever.
If this is the Spirit of Christ, have we not here the
answer to our question : " Which of the two is nearer
to our Lord's example and teaching the Lambeth
or the Papal Encyclical ? " Rome says : The true
42 Christ's attitude to Religious Liberalism
theology is unchanging ; Christ asserts, " New wine
must be put in new bottles." Rome says : Any
attempt to bring the Bible into line with the results
of modern research is an unfaithful tampering with
the sacred deposit of revealed truth. If this hypo-
thesis is true, Christ stands self-condemned.
Is it not a fact that the moral we are to draw from
our Lord's strictures on the Old Testament is this :
Progress involves the putting aside of old bottles for
new, the correction of false ideas and practices, the
clearing away of spurious accretions, the defeat of
those who counsel stagnation ? Why was our Lord
hounded to death ? Because He tried to wean men
from the cast-iron, rigid rules and dogmas with which
official ecclesiasticism had overlaid and obscured the
Word of God ; because He tried to make them break
away from the bondage of traditional custom, inter-
pretation, and formality, and bring them back to the
freedom of the Spirit, with its broad living principles.
Men said and thought that, in so doing, Christ
belittled the Bible. We now see that zealous as were
the scribes and Pharisees for God's Word, Christ was
a thousandfold more so than they, who were its
official upholders and expounders. Our Lord's one
contention was, not that the scribes were too strict in
their observance of the Old Testament, but that they
did not observe it enough. " Except your righteous-
ness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and
Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the Kingdom
of Heaven." He demands a loyalty to the Law and
and Bible Criticism. 43
the Prophets far more exacting than theirs when He
insists on an obedience, not to the bare letter, but to
the spirit which underlies that letter. Rules are so
easy to keep, principles so hard. Principles tax
thought ; they involve personal responsibility, and we
all hate the labour of thought and shrink from the
burden of responsibility. We would rather have a
clear-cut, definite rule. " God, I thank Thee that I
am not as other men are . . . . / fast twice in the
week, I give titJies of all that I possess."
Christ was a liberal in religion ; and He also sanc-
tions and paves the way for reasonable and reverent
Bible-criticism. He discriminates between what is
temporary or local in God's Word, and what is
intended for all times and all people. More than
this, in His method of dealing with the Decalogue,
He has definitely established certain broad principles
which give the key to the true interpretation of the
Bible, solvents which cause the perishing of all that
is ready to pass away (Heb. viii. 1 3). Even as regards
Bible-history, on the rare occasions when Christ
refers to it at all, e.g. Jonah, Moses at the Bush,
David, He only seizes on the moral or spiritual
drift of the story, not on the matter-of-fact details.
Decry as we will the Higher Criticism, we are all
in a sense Higher Critics. In the exercise of their
private judgment, and what is this but criticism ?
Christians every day of their lives set aside portions
of the Old Testament as no longer speaking to them-
44 Christ's attitiide to Religious Liberalism, &c.
selves. Our Psalms, Isaiah, and Gospels are well
thumbed, but what of Leviticus, Ecclesiastes, or
Solomon's Song ? Even the most conservative advo-
cates of the creed that the Bible is equally inspired
from cover to cover do not consistently act up to it.
We do not even strictly keep the Ten Command-
ments. The Fourth Commandment orders us to
keep holy the seventh day ; we ignore it, and keep
the first day, or Sunday. We do not even copy our
Lord's example. Christ was circumcised on the
eighth day, according to the Mosaic Law. Long
after our Lord's Ascension, S. James and all Pales-
tinian Jewish Christians insisted that the Mosaic
Law as regards circumcision, fasting, vows, things
strangled, and so forth, was still in force and binding
on themselves (Acts xv.). We set it aside altogether.
Why ? Christ never abrogated it in so many words.
S. Paul did so, not our Lord.
What is all this but tacit Higher Criticism ? One
of our Bishops truly writes : " The real question is
not whether Bible criticism is to be allowed or not,
for all admit this and personally act on it. The
question is whether criticism is to follow an orderly
and scientific method, or to follow the vagaries of
individual prejudice or caprice" (Bishop of Ripon).
CHAPTER III.
NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM OLD STYLE
AND NEW.
TF our Lord, by His own example, sanctions Bible
-*- criticism, why is it in such bad odour, and regarded
with such suspicion nowadays ? Why do so many
Christians speak of it as the Bible's deadliest foe,
though posing as its friend?
Popular imagination pictures the Higher Critic as
one who, applying human methods to the Bible,
resolves both the Old Testament and the Gospel-
story itself into a tissue of legends, and does not
spare even Christ. Men complain that in the critic's
hands, Jesus becomes a mere man : another great
personality like Socrates, but only the natural flower
of Hebrew heart-development, even as the Greek
sage is the perfect blossom of Hellenistic brain-
evolution ; while the Inspiration of S. John is on
a level with the inspiration of Shakespeare, and
miracles are a hallucination. In short, the common
opinion of the Higher Criticism endorses a highly-
educated modern writer's definition of it as "an
astounding license of reckless theorizing, forced in-
terpretations, contempt of evidence, and systematic
disregard of common-sense, posing under the name
of scholarship."
46 Nezv Testament Criticism old style and new.
Why is it in such bad repute ? The answer is not
far to seek. The blame lies at the door of the Higher
Critics themselves. The sins of the Tubingen school
in its early days, and of some of its disciples now,
have come home to roost.
We have seen that our Lord's Bible-criticism was
essentially constructive, not destructive ; positive, not
negative. He had a sense of continuity and of values.
To Him the old was "very good." For men's sakes,
and for its own intrinsic worth, He spared it all He
could. He never parleyed with error, tampered with
principle, nor deviated one inch from the straight path
marked out for Him ; but neither did He reject the
old simply because it was old, or formulate new
teaching just to break with the past. He came, not
to destroy, but to fulfil.
Therefore He helped men, because He did not lose
their confidence. They felt that He was a genuine
Hebrew Prophet standing on the very ground which
their fathers had occupied, and uttering old familiar
truths, though in a new way. Even when He
attacked existing ideas, practices, and institutions,
the heart of the pe )ple told them that His very criti-
cisms and rebukes were inspired by His Love of the
Law and the Prophets, dear to Him as to themselves.
His new was their old, only transfigured and freed
from the men-invented traditions and glosses which
were corrupting and making it. void.
Some Bible critics, even now, do the very reverse.
They are primarily destructive, not constructive ;
New Testament Criticism old style and new. 47
negative, not positive. They seem to aim at cutting
themselves loose from all the creeds of the past, to
detect flaws in the old because it is old, to deny it
any value. There is all the difference in the world
between this hypercritical attitude and the reasonable
criticism which is so helpful to mankind.
Helpfulness to mankind has nothing to do with
the matter, it will be urged ; as seekers after Truth,
critics must be lured neither to the right hand nor to
the left by any will-o'-the-wisp of sentiment, tradi-
tion, or authority. Neither likes nor dislikes not
even the highest and purest of moral instincts and
aspirations- must divert them from their path.
Whether they are understood or misunderstood, their
duty is the same. They must speak as facts dictate.
True, but a man may be a thoroughgoing critic
without supposing that criticism is more scientific
when it disproves than when it proves. There is an
uncritical despotism of criticism, just as there is an
irreligious despotism of religion. The bigots of criti-
cism are men not naturally critical, just as the bigots
of religion are men not naturally religious.
It is precisely this unscientific criticism, which
considers its work incomplete till it has disproved
the trustworthiness of the Gospels or reduced the
Person of Christ to the natural level of humanity,
that is responsible for the odium criticum*. Hence
a Every critic must say what he thinks, if he is honest. In the long
run, even the most outrageously unsettling statements, (like heresies,)
do good. They stimulate thought and put men on their mettle. This
48 New Testament Criticism old style and new.
it is that so many people define the aim and mission
of criticism as a perverse resolve to rend and tear to
pieces all that good men hold most dear and sacred.
Hence it is, too, that men view it as a purely de-
structive force, which saps men's beliefs and revels in
nothing so much as to shock and startle pious souls.
There is no reason whatever why the critic should
not subject the New Testament to the most fierce
searchlight. If it cannot stand the test and establish
its claims, when the severest scientific and historical
methods are applied to it, we have no right to ask
rational men to accept it as of binding authority.
But if criticism is without fear or favouv, let it also
be without prejudice. Liberty need not degenerate
into license. We must not mince matters, but we
need not be wrong-headed.
Happily for us, this unfortunate spirit of carping at
the Gospels and Christ is rarer nowadays, and rather
represents the state of things of forty or sixty years
ago. It is to that period that we must go back
if we would trace the popular prejudice against the
Higher Criticism to its true source. Even after sixty
years, Bible-critics are still suffering for the sins of
the founders of the Higher Criticism, the exaggera-
tions of scholars of the type of Baur and Strauss of
is why we learn so much more from stimulative German critics than
from orthodox English scholars. Germans are so independent and
brutally outspoken. Even while often disagreeing with them, English
scholars owe a heavy debt to German critics, especially to that ad-
mirable genius, Harnack, who has all the German virtues, some of
ours, and a great deal more of his own.
New Testament Criticism old style and new. 49
the famous infamous early Tubingen School. "The
fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's
teeth are set on edge."
Of this School it is impossible to speak impartially
and dispassionately nowadays, so rudely did its im-
mature and ultra-radical findings shock Christianity.
Yet, we must try to describe it, if the reader is to
compare the old and the new style of criticism for
himself.
Broadly stated, the old Tubingen School starts from
a position clearly laid down by Strauss. Its main
axiom is that miracles, or unheard of interruptions of
Nature's Laws, are impossible. Therefore any narra-
tive (e. g. the Gospels) which seriously records such
miracles as sober facts is thereby at once stamped
as legendary and unhistorical. Some of the more
cautious Tubingen writers put the case a little more
mildly. They maintain that the attitude of the in-
spired writers towards the miraculous does not rob
their narrative of all historical value, but hampers
their record with such extreme improbability, and
makes it so untrustworthy, that the positive evidence
in favour of the writer's truthfulness and reliability
would require to be much stronger to carry convic-
tion than actually is the case with our Evangelists.
But this looks like a distinction without a difference.
They therefore conclude that our Gospels are not
the record of genuine eye-witnesses, that is to say,
our Gospels are of a far later origin than is com-
monly supposed, unhistorical, a mere collection of
E
50 New Testament Criticism old style and new.
myths, legends, and hearsay. Or, as Strauss himself
expressed it : " We enter the Gospel-history by the
splendid portal of myth, and leave it by the weary
paths of a natural explanation."
The Tubingen view is that the whole of the New
Testament was written for purely party purposes ;
i.e. our New Testament is simply the monument of
a long theological struggle between the Gospel-theo-
logy of Paul and the Gospel-theology of James and
the older Apostles, the story of a deadly feud which
long split early Christianity into two rival camps.
We do know as a fact (Acts xv. ; I Cor. i. 12 ;
Gal. ii. n, 12) that the older Apostles did not see
eye to eye with S. Paul in many matters connected
with the Mosaic Law. They continued to observe it.
He would have none of it for himself or his converts.
Clearly, party-feeling ran high on this point, for the
First General Council of Jerusalem was expressly
summoned to effect a compromise between the two
sides. This it effectually did, mainly through the
mediation of S. Peter. Mutual concessions were
made on both sides. S. Paul and his converts were
exempted from the bondage of the Mosaic yoke, with
slight reservations. The Apostles gave each other
the right hand of fellowship, and parted in perfect
harmony (Acts xv.).
On the strength of I Cor. i. 12, and especially
Gal. ii. n, 12, the Tubingen School denies that any
such complete reconciliation was ever achieved. They
see in S. Paul's Epistles throughout, on the one hand,
New Testament Criticism old style and new. 5 1
and in such New Testament books as S. James, the
Apocalypse, and S. Matthew on the other, clear traces
of this antagonism at its sharpest. In their opinion,
S. Paul, and none, other, is the person at whom
S. James is aiming one of the bitterest terms of
Hebrew execration when he exclaims: " But art thou
willing to recognize, O empty person, that faith with-
out works is dead ? " And, according to their inter-
pretation, the writer of the Apocalypse hurled forth
yet fiercer anathemas, describing Paul as " a false
Apostle," a " Balaam," a " Jezebel," and so forth.
While S. Paul retorts by ridiculing " the beggarly
elements of the law," and those " who fancied them-
selves to be somewhat and pillars of the Church " (cf.
Gal. ii., and 2 Cor. x.).
Thus the various books of the New Testament
would be the literary work of theological pamph-
leteers : counterblasts written by either side for the
express purpose of strengthening its own position
and shattering the opposite party. This bitter hos-
tility, say they, gradually mellowed with time, and in
the " Gospel of S. John " we have a very late second-
century production, which shows that at last the two
opposing Christian factions have arrived at a com-
promise and are dwelling more or less in harmony,
though even this late writer speaks somewhat
slightingly of "your law," and "their law."
The conclusions and verdict of the Tubingen School
may be thus summed up : The New Testament
pours a flood of light on the internal struggles of the
52 New Testament Criticism old style and new.
Christian Church during the second century. Here
it gives us valuable information. As a historical
record of the life and teaching of Christ it is worth-
less. The New Testament is nothing but a set of
literary fictions of very late date.
The theory of the older Tubingen School finds few
if any supporters nowadays. It is an exploded hypo-
thesis which has been " overthrown by men almost as
' free ' as themselves from orthodox prepossessions."
Yet we owe much to the Tubingen School, though
it brought the Higher Criticism into very bad repute.
They were the first to break away from traditional
methods and the tyranny of scholastic ecclesiastical
authority, the first to bring the new principle of
scientific historical investigation to bear on the Bible.
The leaders of this school were men of immense
ability, independence, and scholarship ; intellectual
giants, and yet dwarfs. This paradox is a truism of
all founders of any great movement. As the " fathers
of criticism " their influence is epoch-making, but as
critical authorities their value is very small. They
neither kept close to their actual texts nor hesitated
to generalize without adequate facts. In their deter-
mination to prove a pet theory, they allowed zeal to
outrun discretion, and broke every canon of scientific
criticism. They built a castle on a foundation of
sand. It is one of the episodes in the history of the
Higher Criticism which its opponents have never
allowed us to forget. Even now, Bible-critics have
New Testament Criticism old style and new. 53
to run the gauntlet of the odium and discredit which
such immature utterances and dogmatic arrogance
deservedly bring in their train.
It was in 1835 that Strauss published his Leben
Jesu. Baur followed it up exactly ten years later
with his Paiilus. The mythical theory was remorse-
lessly applied to the whole Gospel-story. Criticism
was then in its infancy, and laboured under all the
defects of its childhood stage. Critics jumped at
conclusions. They discovered one slight clue in their
hypothesis of a feud between the older Apostles and
Paul, and immediately proclaimed their " find " to
the world as if they carried the key to the Gospel-
problem in their pocket.
But we can make some allowance for them. Their
theory is only one of those remarkable exaggerations
of a partial truth in which the nineteenth century was
so prolific. Every age which ushers in great dis-
coveries and sweeping changes is liable to that kind
of exaggeration. New ideas and discoveries (e. g.
evolution, radium, telepathy, the new theology) first
stagger then captivate men's minds, and assume
magic powers for a time. In due season men see
these things in proper perspective, and the next
generation smiles at the former omnipotence of such
catchwords.
So it was with the " almighty discovery " of the
Tubingen School. They exaggerated everything,
exalted a thin hypothesis into a solid law, emphasized
every point which made for their view, slurred over
or ignored inconsistent facts which traversed it.
54 New Testament Criticism old style and new.
These blots are visible on their every page. They
start with a presupposition : Christ worked no
miracles. From this dogmatic assertion, which is
nothing but a plausible guess, they immediately jump
to their verdict, without calling any evidence : The
Gospel-writers are not contemporary eye-witnesses,
and their record is a myth. They have to account
somehow for the existence of S. Matthew, S. Mark,
S. Luke, and S. John. Their fertile imagination is
equal to the occasion : The Gospels are second-
century writings composed to buttress up the pet
theological views of two rival schools, the Judaizing
and Pauline Christians. But they find themselves
confronted with the awkward fact that, before that
date, our Gospels are quoted by early ecclesiastical
writers. This difficulty is easily surmounted : These
ecclesiastical documents are either forgeries or wrongly
dated.
Since 1835, Biblical scholars have undergone a long
training in a stern school. There they have been
taught to unlearn much and to learn still more. For
two generations a sound drilling in modern scientific
methods has had a very salutary effect. They now
know that guess-work will not do, and that nothing
short of verified evidence based on solid facts will do.
The critic has also learnt the wisdom of not being too
positive, and, that hardest of lessons, the virtue of
saying candidly at times : " I don't know."
" Comprehensiveness of knowledge, an open mind
and a well balanced judgment" (Sanday), these are
New Testament Criticism old style and new. 5 5
the tools of the critic's trade. For him " no sweat,
no sweet." Only by many years of patient toil and
self-denying study can he collect his verified facts
and cultivate the frame of mind essential to one who
sits in the seat of judgment.
We may sum up the canons of the modern
scientific Higher Criticism in a few words :
(a] Criticism goes upon questions of fact.
(b} Criticism must follow fearlessly wherever facts
lead b .
(c) Criticism must be free from presuppositions.
(d) Criticism remembers the limitations of human
knowledge c .
We have just spoken of the years of patient toil
entailed in the accumulation of verified evidence
before any positive results can be obtained. By way
of illustration, let us rapidly glance at a few of the
topics with which the critic of S. John's Gospel should
be familiar.
(i) History. Christ was born in Palestine, a Jewish
province under Roman rule. To judge Christ and
Jews alike aright, we must reconstruct the whole
contemporary background. It is not enough for us
to have a knowledge of previous Jewish history and
b " To dictate to knowledge the result at which it is to arrive is to
make knowledge impossible" (Harnack).
c " The conclusions of criticism attain to nothing more than a greater
or less probability. But the probability may be such as to satisfy
the most exacting mind " (Davidson).
56 New Testament Criticism old style and new.
of the Roman system of government. We must be
acquainted with the manners and customs, the social
conditions, the language and institutions d , the mental
and moral atmosphere of Palestine in our Lord's day.
Thus only can our Western minds, 1900 years after
the events, see Christ and His Work in their original
Eastern setting, as they appeared to the actual spec-
tators. We must see through Jewish eyes, and hear
through Jewish ears. We must be one of the dis-
ciples who daily walked with Christ, one of the scribes
and Pharisees who misunderstood Him, one of the
crowd who shouted " Hosannah " on Palm Sunday,
and " Crucify Him " on Good Friday, one of the
Romans who tried Him and carried out His sentence.
Where is the critic to obtain all this information ?
It is not for us to say ; it is for him to provide, or he
cannot be our intelligent guide.
(2) Geography : It is a Syrian landscape that forms
the scene of the Gospel-story. At every turn we are
confronted by the hills and Lake of Galilee, the rocky
heights of Judaea, the rich and broad valleys of
Samaria, and we must be familiar with the topo-
graphy of Palestine if we are to frame a true picture
of oar Lord's Ministry and journeys.
More than this. Just as we have seen that
Schmiedel fancies he detects mistakes in John's
d e.g. Schmiedel accuses the writer of S. John's Gospel of ignorance
of the condition of things in our Lord's day, because the Evangelist
states that " Caiaphas was high-priest that year." A contemporary,
he maintains, would have known the office was held for life.
Neiv Testament Criticism old style and new. 57
history, of which no contemporary could be guilty,
so it is with John's geography. The mention of two
Bethanys in the Fourth Gospel is constantly cited
against its Johannine authorship, on the plea that
a Palestinian Jew would have known there was only
one. Is John right here or his critics ? Only a
close acquaintance with the geography of the Holy
Land can settle such points.
Physical geography is not enough. We must know
the political geography so as to differentiate the pure
Jews of Judaea from the semi-Greek population of
portions of Galilee, the hybrid race of Samaria, and
the half-heathen, half-Jewish settlements East of
Jordan.
(3) Literature and philosophy. The Jews were
steeped to the lips in Old Testament literature,
they spoke and even thought in its words ; so must
the critic if he is not to miss many an Old Testament
reference in the Gospels.
Eschatology or the group of ideas connected with
Messiah's Coming in judgment, plays a most promi-
nent part in the Gospels. If the critic is not familiar
with the large body of Apocalyptic literature dealing
with the " Day of the Lord " and the " Coming of
Messiah," he will be a blind leader of the blind, for
the whole of our Lord's Eschatology is expressed in
current Apocalyptic language.
The student of S. John's Gospel must go further
than this. This Gospel begins : " In the beginning
was the Word." This expression, " The Word/'
58 New Testament Criticism old style and new.
" Logos," is intimately connected with the philosophy
of the Jew-philosopher Philo : so are many other
terms in the Fourth Gospel. Did the Evangelist
borrow these ideas from Philo, or from the Hebrew
Bible ? One of the main problems of the Fourth
Gospel hangs on this point.
Again, the whole question of the date and author-
ship of our Gospels often hinges largely on the
external evidence of such early ecclesiastical writers
as the Apostolic Fathers and their successors, e.g.
Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Papias, Justin Martyr,
Irenaeus, together with such documents as Tatian's
" Harmony of the Gospels" and the Muratorian Frag-
ment. This needs a careful study of the Patristic
theology of at least three centuries after Christ.
(4) Textual criticism. S. John viii. 3 12 (" The
woman taken in adultery") is alleged and now ac-
knowledged to be an interpolation (cf. S. John v. 4
and S. Mark xvi. y 20). A glance at the margin of
the Revised Version will also show that many of the
readings of the text are doubtful. These interpola-
tions and variants present difficulties which can only
be explained by a scholar fully cognizant of the
manner in which the New Testament Text has been
handed down to us.
(5) Literary style. The writer of the Apocalypse
is supposed to be the Apostle John, so is the author
of the Fourth Gospel. If so, there should be literary
affinity between the two works. Only an expert in
style and peculiarities of phraseology can establish
New Testament Criticism old style and new. 59
this affinity. Harnack, in his " Luke the Physician,"
convincingly proves what an essential qualification
this is in a critic.
This rough outline-sketch is necessarily incomplete,
and gives but a faint idea of the critical equipment of
a thoroughgoing modern Bible-scholar. Practically
every branch of knowledge has to be put under con-
tribution. Psychology, in particular, is playing a
most important part in modern Lives of Christ.
Though it is a most powerful weapon, it is also one
of the most dangerous. In our desire to connect
Christ's actions with the motives that prompted them,
we may read much into His Consciousness which is
not there.
Archaeology has also poured much light upon our
Gospel pages.
As may readily be imagined, no one man is capable
of this encyclopaedic knowledge. Special branches
of Gospel-study have to be left in the hands of experts
in each department ; thus alone can accuracy and
depth be secured. The critic's chief duty is loyally
to accept, in each branch of study, the specialists'
matured conclusions where they agree.
It is seriously urged in many quarters, and not
unreasonably, that this tendency to extreme speciali-
zation is the weak point of all scientific work at the
present day, and for two reasons. It has a narrowing
effect, and is responsible for much hair-splitting.
More than this. All Higher Critics, the greatest
60 New Testament Criticism old style and new.
included, are thus compelled to borrow a great deal
of their evidence from brother-specialists, and with
what result ? Is it not possible that under the cover
of a number of authorities (who have borrowed from
one and the same source on trust), and especially
under the sanction of the great names of master-
minds (who have had to take a lesser specialist's
word), we may sometimes accept statements as
authoritative which are only loans from sources not
absolutely reliable ?
Happily for us, the Higher Critics' work has now
been, for many a year, jealously and searchingly
scrutinized by friend and foe alike. Criticism itself,
like science, is also the first to admit and correct its
own mistakes.
We have already acknowledged that criticism is
neither final nor infallible, but even conservative
theologians are beginning to recognize its scholarly
completeness and absolute fairness. They still eye
the Higher Criticism with suspicion, but the old out-
cry against it is fast dying away.
PART II.
GOSPEL SIDE-LIGHTS.
(1) Two ways of writing a Life of Christ. (Chap.
IV.) '
(2) Are our Gospels faithful records? (Chap. V.)
(3) Oral Tradition, or the Gospel-material. (Chap.
VI.)
(4) The rise of written gospels. (Chap. VII.)
(5) When were our Gospels canonized ? (Chap.
VIII.)
(6) The Text of our New Testament. (Chap. IX.)
(7) Apocalyptic Literature. (Chap. X.)
CHAPTER IV.
TWO WAYS OF WRITING CHRIST'S LIFE.
F)R. SANDAY says: "We can read the Life
of Christ either by working from within out-
wards, or from without inwards." And we can at
once see what he means. There are two ways of
approaching Christ's Life. One method is to explain
it in terms of His Consciousness, to start from within,
to interpret His actions by the light of the motives
which gave birth to them. The other method is the
reverse of this. It begins with the external facts of
Christ's Life, steeps itself in them, and makes Christ's
deeds and words themselves testify to the Spirit that
was in Him, the superhuman Personality of our Lord.
To take a concrete illustration, S. John and S. Mark
may, in a way, be taken as types of the two methods.
S. John, in his Life of Christ, works from within out-
wards. He explains everything that Christ does and
says in terms of what He is. " In the beginning was
the Word, and the Word was made Flesh," " I and
the Father are One," here, for John, is the key which
fits into all the wards of the lock, the principle which
harmonizes all the facts of the Life.
S. Mark, on the other hand, starts from the external
facts of Christ's Life, and works from without inwards.
He places before us a Christ " going about doing
64 Two ways of writing Christ's Life.
good," casting out evil spirits, healing all manner of
diseases, mighty in word and deed ; a Christ Who
lets His heart go out to the lepers and outcasts. He
marshals his facts in such a way that, step by step,
we are led up to his own conception of Jesus as " The
strong Son of God, Immortal Love."
We can adopt either course, and each has its
advantages. There is a great deal to be said in
favour of the " S. John method," if we may be allowed
the expression for the moment. It starts from the
very centre, the soul of things, and this is precisely
what all history wants to get at. The most matter-
of-fact historian will admit that a great life or a great
complex movement cannot be adequately rendered
by a simple recapitulation of facts and dates. A
great personality, a great life, like that of Napoleon,
is an organic whole, and must be reconstructed as
such. The isolated events must be combined, linked
together by means of some principle which will har-
monize them. We must seek the motive behind the
actions which quickens them into life, the thread
which gives them unity.
This is one reason why so many prefer the Fourth
Gospel to the other three. It does not, like them,
narrate events with little other thought than that of
the mere chronicler. John puts into our hands from
the outset the clue to the mystery of Christ's Life.
Before, it was an enigma, now it is so clear. With
that key in our hand we go back to the other Gospels,
and all their closed doors at once open to us.
Tu'O ways of writing Christ' s Life. 65
More than this, even the most matter-of-fact bio-
grapher cannot dispense with the " S. John method "
altogether, and yet present us a coherent picture of
the life he is sketching. Consciously or unconsciously,
when we narrate events, we all reconstruct the scene,
and colour it with an interpretation of our own which
oozes out through our string of facts. Even S. Mark
had his own private impression of Jesus, and, as we
have seen, he so marshals his facts that he forcibly
conveys that impression to our own minds.
But the S. John, or psychological method, has one
very great disadvantage. It is perfectly true that the
historian of a reflective or philosophical mind seems
to give us a far truer and more logical estimate of
a great personality than the mere chronicler, but it is
a view of it as seen through the narrator's own spec-
tacles. He may be, and probably is, reading a great
deal into his picture which is not in the original at
all. A Caesar, Napoleon, or Gladstone is approached
by different biographers. Each frames his own
psychological analysis of the man's character,
analyses often diametrically opposed and never quite
correct, and each historian ends by making all the
facts of the life tally with his own conception of the
personality he is delineating.
Herein lies the great danger and drawback of the
psychological method. True, it is the one ideal
method of writing history. It is thus God writes it.
But we are not gifted with His omniscience.
In dealing with the Life of our Lord, there is another
F
66 Two ways of writing Christ's Life.
great risk involved in this method. Psychology lays
bare motives in all their nakedness. It matters not
whose motives they may be. The avowed object of
the psychological critic, his raison d'etre, is to analyse
dispassionately everything he examines. This he
must do, even when it jars on his own or others' feel-
ings. Be his subject of examination our Lord Him-
self, it is his bounden duty to do his work with as
much independence and freedom as if he were dealing
with an ordinary man. And any such callous dissec-
tion of Jesus Christ must needs be unduly offensive
to Christian feelings, and the irreverence of it is
repellent a .
These are some of the reasons why the modern
biographer, especially in a Life of Christ, discards
the psychological method, as far as possible, and
adopts the safer course of "working from without
inwards." Instead of starting from the centre, Christ's
Personality, he starts from the circumference, the mass
of external data that surround Him. This is his base
of operations, and from it he makes a steady, disci-
plined advance upon the centre from all sides, step
by step, making absolutely sure of his ground as he
proceeds.
* This may be too strongly worded. S. John shows how reverently
it can be done. The pulpit does it every Sunday, and, in its stupidity
if not in wilful irreverence, often sins worse than the most radical
German. In a sense, the thing has to be done if we are to have any
theology at all. Psychology has in every %vay deepened our idea of
Christ's Personality. But "sit modus in rebus: sunt certi denique
fines."
Two ivays of writing Clirisfs Life. 67
As every step is based upon previous steps, verified
evidence is a matter of vital importance. His whole
conclusion hangs upon facts, and his chain of evidence
is no stronger than its weakest links. Hence, when
a modern scientific historian sets himself to recon-
struct a particular life or movement, his first step is
to collate all the available evidence in any way bear-
ing on his subject, carefully sifting it so as to retain
none but verified facts. His preoccupation about
literary form is quite secondary ; moral reflexion he
avoids. But he is bound to quicken into life the huge
army of dry bones, the vast array of facts he has col-
lated. He must discover and supply some connecting
thread which will link together his disconnected mass
of facts into a logical and organic whole. This he
can only do by steeping himself in the spirit of the
events he is recording, making them tell their own
life-story, yet carefully rejecting all inferences which
the facts themselves do not logically suggest Imagi-
nary conjecture must be reduced to a negligeable
quantity.
To return to the New Testament. Here we have
four Evangelists writing a biography of Christ.
S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. Luke profess to give
us a matter-of-fact statement of the Man and His
Work. How far do their historical accounts pf the
Life satisfy our modern standard of history ?
We must bear in mind that our present exacting
conception of history is the natural outcome of a
68 Two ways of writing Christ's Life.
scientific age. The Evangelists wrote in other times,
when other conditions prevailed. They lived in an
unscientific atmosphere. History, in their day, was
viewed as an art, a species of portrait-painting with
grand outline and rich tints. Artistic history, in the
hands of intellectual geniuses, such as the Greek
Thucydides or the Roman Tacitus, allowed of some-
thing like final perfection. But emotional Jews, living
in a land where secular literature was despised, could
never approach the accuracy of a Thucydides or a
Tacitus. Truth of idea appealed to them far more
than truth of fact. And, generally speaking, in olden
days absolute fidelity to fact in details, laborious
research, and careful sifting of evidence were unknown.
These appear to be very serious defects in the eyes
of a generation like ours, which has brought historical
evidence to a pitch of accuracy and exactness nearly
as stringent as that which regulates the depositions
in a court of justice.
But there is another side to the picture, and the
verdict is not in our favour on all counts. We readily
admit that ancient historians laboured under many
disadvantages which render their work inferior to
ours. They had not our vast sources of information
at their disposal. Written records were scarce, and
unsafe oral tradition constantly had to supply their
place. They were also careless of research, and did
not always avail themselves of all the knowledge
accessible even in their day.
But they had one great redeeming virtue which
Two ways of writing Christ's Life. 69
modern historians often lack. They were men of
large sympathies, deeply interested in their subject
and fully in touch with it, writing, not as pedants,
but with a keen and true appreciation of life ; they
also wrote for readers who were men of the world
and not book-worms. Sympathy and feeling are
sometimes valuable assets. There are many truths
which the heart at once feels and detects, though they
are too subtle to appeal to the intellect, and this is
why poetry is so often truer and deeper than philo-
sophy. As Prof. Burkitt truly remarks : " A true
impression of a person is on the whole and for most
people better conveyed by a friend than by an
observer wholly dispassionate." Personally, if we
had the option of one of two eye-witnesses of our
Lord's Ministry, either the illiterate but sympathetic
Mark, or the learned but dispassionate Harnack, we
should greatly prefer Mark in the interests of truth-
fulness of impression.
The modern craze for scientific completeness and
minute elaboration of detail can be carried too far
and defeat its own ends, burying the truth under a
mass of erudition. The citation of chapter and verse
for every statement, important as it is, is apt to
become a little oppressive, and tends to obscure the
main issue. More than erudition, more than an ex-
haustive knowledge of authorities, more than intel-
lectual genius, more than dispassionate observation
is needed to give true insight into character, or to
/o Two ways of writing Chris fs Life.
enable a writer to realize and paint a great historic
scene.
Ancient historians were strong where we are weak,
weak where we are strong. On the whole, the balance
decidedly dips in our favour, but not to the extent we
sometimes fancy. Wrong in matters of detail old
historians frequently are, apt to be careless and rather
credulous, but their impressionist portraits are often
better than our tame, if correct, photographs. They
idealize, it may be, but they catch the true expression
instinctively hit off the real character, and their total
impression is right.
It is well to remember this when we come to
examine critically the Evangelists' portraits of our
Lord, for if they possess many virtues they are by no
means without flaw.
We want to reconstruct the actual historical Por-
trait of the Christ for ourselves, to go " back to Christ."
For this, we have little to go upon beyond what is
given us in the Gospels. Men are asking nowadays :
"Is that Gospel -Portrait historically true?" To
settle this point, it is not enough to hear the evidence
of our Gospel witnesses, what they volunteer to give
us, we must learn to cross-examine our witnesses.
Some of our readers may exclaim : " But, surely,
you are forgetting that ' The Word of God came not
from man, but holy men of God spake as they were
moved by the Holy Ghost,' therefore the Gospel-story
is true to the very letter."
Two ways of writing Christ's Life. 71
Yet the same Bible reminds us that " we have this
treasure in earthen vessels." The inspired writers are
not God, not even angels, only men, and imperfect
men. We have seen that the inspired writers them-
selves are by no means all on the same level. Even
in the Bible, inspiration, and the guidance of God,
and the leading of the Holy Spirit are matters of
degree. The Holy Spirit is behind the Scripture
record, all the while prompting, guiding, inspiring the
hearts and brains of these " holy men," but they are
human hearts and human brains. The mere fact of
Inspiration did not enable the writer of Genesis to
give a scientific account of the Creation, nor an Eccle-
siastes or the author of Esther to rise above a very
moderate spiritual level. In the Bible, the Word of
God comes to us through some thirty different
" earthen vessels," and in each case the message from
God reaches us, not only tinged and coloured by the
limitations, the knowledge or ignorance of the day
and generation which gave it birth, but even more by
the individuality of the person who delivers it.
Therefore, with the human element so pronounced
in the Bible, it does not follow that the authors of its
various books are infallible, incapable of error, because
they are inspired. Men will still ask, and rightly ask :
" Is the Gospel-Portrait of Christ historically true?"
On one point, all critics are agreed. In the Jesus
of the Gospels we have not a creation of the Evange-
lists' imagination, but a historical Figure as real as
Julius Caesar or Wellington. It is the Portrait of
72 Two ways of writing Christ's Life.
One Who is at once the rebuke and the inspiration
of every age, a moral Ideal which realizes once and
for all the highest aspirations of all mankind, so that
there is no higher goodness than that which we see
in Him. It is a picture of such inexpressible moral
beauty that even critics who are avowed anti-super-
naturalists can only evade calling Him God by attri-
buting to the Man Jesus qualities so sublime as really
to embrace all that we understand by God. To
imagine that four ordinary men, such as we know the
Evangelists to be, could ever have invented such
a Portrait is to ask us to believe in a miracle as great
as the Incarnation itself.
One like unto the Son of Man depicted in the
Gospels undoubtedly walked upon this earth 1900
years ago. Even apart from the Gospels, the mere
existence of the Christian Church would convincingly
prove this historical fact.
But this is not what we mean by the question : " Is
the Gospel-Portrait true ? " The question at issue is
rather of this nature. Our Gospels were certainly not
written till thirty years, and, in one instance, not till
sixty years after the events they narrate. Now we
know how easily stories change and grow, when they
are not embodied in written records but transmitted
from mouth to mouth. Oral tradition is all well and
good for contemporary events, but tradition, after
a few decades, is very unsafe and apt to become both
inventive and forgetful. The human memory is pro-
verbially treacherous, and our Gospel-records are full
Two ways of writing Christ's Life. 73
of inconsistencies which clearly prove that Apostolic
memories were not free from this defect. We cannot
possibly expect that a S. Mark after thirty years,
still more a " S. John " b after sixty years, would
reproduce the past with the exactness of despatches
written at the time. As the Dean of Westminster
truly remarks, this would be to postulate a miraculous
'interference with the ordinary laws governing human
memories, a miracle which no sound theory of Inspi-
ration warrants.
The question therefore naturally arises : May not
the Tubingen School, after all, be nearer the truth
than we think, when it hints that it was in this half-
light of tradition that the Gospel-legends and myths,
the miracles and infancy-stories of our Lord were
born of the creative fancy of man ? when it suggests
that the difficulty of separating fact from fiction in
this borderland of mingled fable and reality amounts
nowadays to practical impossibility ?
This is not a discovery or a difficulty of to-day.
Origen long ago emphasized the fact that our Gospels
often give inconsistent and even contradictory accounts
of the self-same facts in a way which it is impossible
either to ignore or explain away. He even adds :
" The Gospels contain many things which are said to
have happened, but which did not happen literally."
It is admitted nowadays almost on all hand's that in
S. John we must not look for history in the strict
b We use this expression for brevity. It must not be taken to
imply necessarily that S. John was the author of the Fourth Gospel.
So with S. Matthew.
74 Two ways of writing CJirisfs Life.
sense of the word. Even such a stalwart conservative
scholar as the Dean of Westminster says of the Fourth
Gospel, " it is a theological interpretation ; not bare
narrative." The same inconsistencies and contradic-
tions confront us in the purely historical Gospels.
Take the two versions of our Lord's Sermon on the
Mount in S. Matthew and S. Luke respectively. Not
only is S. Matthew's Sermon three times as long as
S. Luke's, but they do not tally even in their account
of its subject-matter. S. Luke tells us that much of
what S. Matthew inserts in that discourse was spoken
by our Lord on quite different occasions.
This may be enough to show that there is good
reason for asking " Is the Gospel-Portrait historically
true ? " The human element is palpably present even
in the Gospels. They are not unanimous but often
contradict one another ; they are written by men
fallible as ourselves, and yet in their very weakness
lies their strength.
S. Paul expressly tells us in I Cor. i. 21 23 that
God in His wisdom elects to reach us through men,
with all their imperfections. The Light of Heaven,
like the light of day, can only reach us through earthly
media. The sunlight would blind us with its bright-
ness if it did not pass through our earthly atmosphere
with its layers of vapour visible and invisible. Even
so, to suit our finite capacities, the Light of Heaven
must come to us through human subjectivities, an
Isaiah, a psalmist, and a S. Paul, or our eyes would
not be able to bear its dazzling splendour. By pass-
ing through so many human atmospheres, the Gospel
Two ways of writing Christ's Life. 75
has been moulded to suit the variety of human minds,
and precisely as the sunlight which has passed through
earthly mists is beneficent because it is the sunlight
still, so the light that reaches us through the Evange-
lists' minds can never of itself lead us astray, for it is
the Light from Heaven still.
Each of the four Evangelists is painting his Por-
trait of the Christ from a different standpoint. Christ
is far too great for any one of the four to attempt to
give us more than a partial view of Him. As well
might an artist try to place the Alps on his canvas.
Even when we supplement the one by the other, we
are still very far from seeing the Christ as He really
is. Each Evangelist gives us the total impression of
his Lord which the Personality of the Christ made
upon him. S. Matthew sees the Messiah of Prophecy ;
S. Mark, the strong loving Son of God ; S. Luke, the
universal Saviour ; S. John, the Eternal Word. Each
picture shows aright one side of Christ's manifold
character. The same Spirit is speaking through them
all, and though the voices are four, the utterance is
really one. In each case, they are humanly fallible,
yet divinely inspired. It is still the Light of Heaven
that comes to us, but it has passed through four dif-
ferent atmospheres, and they have coloured its rays.
But this is not all loss, their weakness is our strength.
" Only the prism's obstruction shows aright
The secret of a sunbeam, breaks its light
Into the jewelled bow from blankest white ;
So may a glory from defect arise." (Browning.)
76 Two ways of writing Christ's Life.
Vox quidem dissona, sed una religio. The voices
differ, because, if there is in each Evangelist a divine
element, there is also a human factor. Their Portrait
of the same Figure is not precisely identical, because
it is painted by four different artists and their per-
spective, their materials, their individuality, their skill,
their values differ.
The same Holy Spirit which inspired them is within
us now (for, in a sense, we are all inspired), and bears
witness in our own hearts that their testimony is true.
One Portrait appeals to one set of minds, another to
another, and we may, with all reverence, believe that
God intended this. But still the question insists
on being heard, " Which is the truer picture ? "
This question we cannot answer till we have
satisfied ourselves, (and others, if possible,) on
such important points as these respecting the
authors of S. Matthew, S. Mark, S. Luke, and
S. John : Are they Apostles, or, at any rate, im-
mediate disciples of our Lord ? Do we know any-
thing of their individuality? What material had
they by them as their foundation in the composition
of their Gospels ? From what sources did they derive
this information ? Were they eye-witnesses, or did
they gather their facts at second-hand ? If they had
to depend on sources outside themselves for their in-
formation, did they obtain their knowledge of Christ's
Life from the Apostles, from existing documents, or
from oral tradition ? How are we to account for
their variations? Have we in our present Text
Two ways of writing CJirisfs Life. 77
the actual words and complete writings of the
Evangelists ? Does contemporary history or early
ecclesiastical literature throw any light on these
points?
These preliminary questions must be considered
before we are in a position to assert the historical
accuracy of our Gospel-records with their Life of
Christ. Investigations of this nature involve dry
details, and details are tedious and tiresome. But
the thing has to be done ; and, surely, it is well
worth while, for our subject the reconstruction of
the historical Portrait of Jesus is one of vital im-
portance in itself and of absorbing interest to
mankind.
CHAPTER V.
ARE OUR GOSPELS FAITHFUL RECORDS?
"QEFORE we attack the problems suggested at
-L' the end of the preceding chapter, some refer-
ence should be made to three sweeping objections
often urged against the historical trustworthiness of
our Gospels.
It has been pointed out that our Gospels are
nothing but :
(a) condensed summaries,
(b) imperfect translations,
(c) late records.
(a) Our Gospels are summaries. We should only
betray a pitiful ignorance were we to question
this statement. S. John, writing last of all, openly
admits that our Gospels are but a very abridged
report of our Lord's Teaching and Ministry (S. John
xxi. 25 ; xx. 30). If it were necessary to prove this
obvious fact, we might place side by side S. Matth.
v. vii. and S. Luke vi. the two Gospel-versions
of the Sermon on the Mount. S. Matthew gives
us the whole Sermon in 109 verses, S. Luke in 29.
On the face of it, S. Luke's report is much more
condensed than S. Matthew's, even if we omit from
S. Matthew's version passages which are admittedly
A re our Gospels faithful records ? 79
foreign to it. But even S. Matthew's account of the
Sermon is a highly-condensed summary. We know
from the Gospels themselves that on such important
occasions our Lord was in the habit of speaking for
hours together, sometimes from morning to evening,
and, on one occasion, for three days at a time
(S. Mark viii. 2 ; vi. 35 ; iv. 35). It is a well-known
Oriental trait to make time a very secondary con-
sideration under such circumstances. But even the
longer version of the Sermon as given in S. Matthew
would not have taken much more than twenty
minutes to deliver, and twenty-minute sermons were
not the rule in those days. Evidently we have little
more than the bare headings of the actual Sermon.
So it is with the Gospel-story taken as a whole.
Prof. Burkitt well remarks : " On the very shortest
estimate, the length of Christ's Ministry must have
extended to about 400 days, and I doubt if our
Gospels contain stories from 40 separate days. And
all the recorded sayings of our Lord, how long would
they take to pronounce ? With due gravity and
emphasis, they might take six hours ; hardly,
perhaps, so much."
Now many persons find this summarizing process
on the part of our Evangelists a terrible stumbling-
block. They complain that it robs us of the requisite
information for writing a complete biography of our
Lord according to modern historical requirements.
But is this objection really as serious as it seems?
The real question is not whether we have as much
8o Are our Gospels faithful records ?
as we should like, but whether, as S. John xx. 30, 31
implies, we have as much as we need.
No doubt, Christ never spoke an idle word. The
shortened form of our Gospel-story may account
for much of it that is now hard to understand.
Speaking to simple uneducated men, the common
people who " heard Him gladly," our Lord's style
will have been, as a rule, very plain and simple.
The difficulty we experience to-day here and there
in grasping our Lord's meaning may be due to the
absence of the simple illustrations, the connecting
threads which Christ gave at the time and which
disappear in the brief summary of our Gospels.
For some reasons we might wish, at times, that
the sources of our information for a Life of Christ
were more extensive. But this apparent defect is
not all loss. As we have already hinted, the
Evangelists wrote for a public composed of practical
men of the world and not of specialists, and we
should be deeply grateful that the Holy Spirit has
enabled them to realize and paint a great Personality
and a great historic scene without deluging us with
that mass of erudition under which modern biography
so often staggers. We deliberately assign this result
to the work of the Holy Spirit, for we are persuaded
that these summaries of the Evangelists bear God's
own stamp and mint-mark. Inspiration is often
burdened with more than it is able to bear, but there
is no denying the fact that Inspiration means Divine
prompting. The importance of this divine prompting
Are our Gospels faitJijul records ? 8 1
cannot possibly be exaggerated so long as we clearly
understand that it does not carry infallibility with
it or work impossible miracles.
Now Christ had all along promised that " the Holy
Spirit shall bring all things to your remembrance.
. . . He shall take of Mine and show it unto you."
This does not mean that the Apostles would be able
to recall all that Christ had ever spoken, but it does
mean that the Holy Spirit, stimulating memories
already keenly sensitive to Christ's impressions and
retentive of His words, through intense love of Him,
would recall to their memory all that was necessary
for their purpose.
The highest inspiration is often the rare gift of
judicious selection ; the feeling for what is true and
eternal among a large mass of facts of varying value,
and the power of giving the Truth expression in its
most telling form. And in our Gospels we see the
directing influence of the Holy Spirit not least in the
selection out of an immense number of facts of just
those facts which best illustrate the special truths
to be pressed home.
How often do books, of high excellence in other
respects, give us reason to regret that their authors
have not been able to resist the seductions of
elaborate detail which beset most modern writers !
"A man's life consisteth not in the abundance
of the things which he possesseth." This holds
equally true of his biography. "The part of
Lady Macbeth is just 250 lines long. How many
G
82 Are our Gospels faithful records ?
a large biography in two large volumes tells us
less of what is really essential about its hero ! "
(Burkitt.)
Even in history proper, as Auguste Comte
weightily remarks, the most important facts are
those which are best known and remembered, and
the least dependent on an exhaustive assortment of
details for their true appreciation. Subsequent
research has hardly been able to modify Bacon's
portrait of Henry VII., yet he wrote his book at
a time when he was remote from the means of
knowledge accessible even in his day, which did not
represent a tithe of the knowledge on the subject
accessible now.
So with our Evangelists. They may not give us
all the words and deeds of Christ. Some of these
words and deeds, even when recorded, may be im-
perfectly reported. But they do possess the rare
gift of judicious selection, as well as a sympathetic
insight into character, and this enables them to
atone, and more than atone, for these other defects,
if defects they be. They catch the true expression
of Christ's character, the salient points of His
Teaching, and this is of infinitely more value to us
than a verbatim report, if the Gospels "are written
that we might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the
Son of God," which is their claim (S. John xx.
30, 30-
One word more. It is not too much to say that
had our Lord wished the exact words of His dis-
Are our Gospels faithful records ? 83
courses to be reported in full, this could easily have
been done, and for this reason. In His day, the
teaching of the Rabbis was entirely oral. Their
pupils heard their teaching, and, by frequent repe-
tition, committed it to memory word for word. In
this way they could repeat in a few years as much
as is contained in our New Testament verbatim.
Christ could have trained His disciples in the same
way, but He not only refrained from following the
universal system of teaching current in His day, He
deliberately set His face against it and discouraged
it. Except one short prayer, He would use no set
forms of words. The one refrain of Christ's teaching
is ever the same : " The words that I speak unto
you, they are spirit and they are life." As we have
seen, He was a foe to the worship of the letter. He,
Who was ever impressing upon His hearers the
necessity of reading the Old Testament and inter-
preting His own words and acts in the spirit, would
not have cared or wished that His discourses should
be preserved and transmitted entire and word for
word. This spirit of Christ His disciples had caught
They laid no stress on the exact words of our Lord's
teaching % but so perfectly worded were some of our
Lord's shorter sayings that they could not be for-
gotten, and have persisted in their original form.
Therefore, in the New Testament, the very absence
a Even the Lord's Prayer, and the words of consecration at the
Institution of the last Supper are differently reported (cf. S. Matth. vi.
and S. Luke xi. ; S. Matth. xxvi. and S. Luke xxii.).
84 Are our Gospels faithful records ?
of that " literary piety," which we worship overmuch,
shows clearly " the finger of God and the wisdom of
God " in these summaries which so many deplore.
(b) Our Gospels are imperfect translations. The
plea of those who advocate this view may be broadly
stated thus : Christ spoke Aramaic, or modern
Hebrew, while our Gospels are written in Greek.
Now every tongue is as much part and parcel of
those who create it as is their religion or literature.
Their language is made by them and for them to
express their own peculiar feelings and thoughts. So
much so that, given the vocabulary of a people, it is
possible to reconstruct their culture, occupations, and
character. A borrowed tongue is therefore a very
imperfect vehicle of expression. Palestine was the
home of a passionately emotional people, subordi-
nating everything to feeling, so that their religion is
the excited impassioned outpouring of their souls in
ecstatic rapture, their literature is the glowing utter-
ance of emotional minds, their language is essentially
sensuous, picturesque, and as emotional as them-
selves. Greece, on the other hand, is the home of
reason, philosophy, art and taste, and its language
naturally reflects the Greek character with its love
of harmony and proportion (/jLrjSev ajav). It is
a moral impossibility to translate the deeply emo-
tional utterances of God-rapt Hebrew hearts into
the calm thoughtful language of Greeks. The thing
cannot be done without allowing some of the
Are our Gospels faithful records ? 85
subtlest elements of the original message to eva-
porate. The heart cannot speak in the language
of the head, neither can holy Jewish spiritual truths
be voiced in the unhallowed accents of a pagan
tongue. Therefore, our Greek translation of Christ's
Aramaic utterances is imperfect at best and probably
often misleading.
But was Christ's teaching couched in such emotional
and passionate language that it cannot be translated
into Greek words ? Is it also true that Greek is only
the cold language of speculative reason and calm
thought ? Will any one familiar with Greek litera-
ture venture to say that the Greeks knew nothing of
the intensity of passion or the outbursts of love and
rage and grief that thrilled Hebrew breasts ?
It is quite in a different direction that we must look
for the failure of the Greek tongue as a vehicle of
Hebrew thought. Human nature is the same all the
world over, so is its language of the emotions. But
the Hebrews were intensely spiritual, religious enthu-
siasts. This the Greeks most certainly were not.
Their Greek tongue crystallized all their thoughts,
wants, and experience, but it contained no words to
express the ideas of a Hebrew theology of which
Greece knew nothing. How then are Jewish tenets
to be translated into a tongue which has no words
to express them ?
This would be a serious and all but insuperable
difficulty did we not know that, for two hundred years
86 Are our Gospels fait J if Ji I records ?
before Christ appeared, this defect in the Greek voca-
bulary had been fully remedied. Not only had Greek
become the universal language since 300 B.C., but
Jews had adopted it and vastly enriched its vocabu-
lary.
We must remember that the Jews of the Dispersion
numbered close upon three million souls. A vast
number of these lived in Greek-speaking countries
and knew no other tongue. Had they so cut them-
selves away from their religion that they had no
words in their adopted language in which to express
the ideas of their Hebrew faith ?
More than this. About 200 B.C., the Old Testa-
ment Scriptures had already been translated into
Greek in the famous Septuagint version, and this is
a consideration to which too much weight cannot
possibly be attached. The history of the origin of
the Septuagint is still more or less shrouded in
mystery, but there is no denying the fact that its
influence was epoch-making.
In the first place, it was " the first Apostle to the
Gentiles," as a modern Jewish historian quaintly puts
it. To Greeks and Romans alike the Jews could now
present with pride the writings of Moses and the Pro-
phets in proof that they too were in possession of
a priceless literature. In this way, the Septuagint
contributed not a little to the spread of the knowledge
of the One true and righteous God, thus paving the
road for Christianity.
But the Septuagint rendered another immense ser-
Are our Gospels faithful records ? 87
vice to Christianity. It universalized, if it did not
actually create, the peculiar Greek dialect in which
the New Testament was afterwards written. This
new dialect wedded the Greek language to Hebrew
thought. Two centuries beforehand, it expressed, in
clumsy Greek it may be, still in Greek words and
phraseology, all those deeply spiritual ideas for which
the scattered Greek Jews and the Greek translators
of the Hebrew Testament had somehow to find
phrases. We can readily understand how familiar
these Greek phrases must have become everywhere
in the course of two hundred years' daily use. Any-
one can also see at a glance that the task of the
Apostles and Evangelists would have been far more
difficult than it was, if they had not found ready to
their hands a Greek dialect far more flexible than the
pure Greek of the classics, and a ready-made Greek
religious phraseology widely understood and admir-
ably adapted to convey their Gospel message.
In the face of this, the alleged objection breaks
down. It was as easy for the Gospel-writers to
convey Christ's exact Aramaic message in Greek
words b as it is for us to translate their Greek into
English, and it would be pure hair-splitting to say
that a reader of our Authorized or Revised Version
is not in full touch with the message of Christ. Good
b Mistranslations do occur in our Greek Gospels, but we must lay
the blame, not at the door of the Greek tongue, but of the Evangelists
themselves. They misunderstood our Lord's Aramaic, or were too
poor Greek scholars to express it properly.
88 Are our Gospels faithful records ?
translations are not the poor things some people try
to make out. The trained eye and ear may miss,
even in the best translations, some of the delicate
notes, something of the subtle light and shade of the
original, but, in other respects, a good translation
does faithfully reproduce the original, even in minute
details.
(c) Our Gospels are late records. Many Christians
are often troubled when they learn for the first time
that our Gospels only came into existence 30, 40, or
even 60 years after Christ's Ministry on earth ended.
They would like to believe that, immediately after
the Ascension, Christ's Apostles, inspired by the
Holy Ghost, set to work to compose our Gospels
with the facts still quite fresh in their memory, and
with written notes (taken at the time) of many
of the incidents.
It is a natural wish ; yet, if we bear in mind
two important facts, we shall see that it is better
as it is.
We must not imagine that there was a thirty years'
interval of silence and apathy, a period of oblivion
during which the materials for a Life of Christ were
allowed to remain unheeded, till it suddenly dawned
on the Apostles and others that, if a record of our
Lord's Ministry was to be written, it must be now or
never, for everything about Him would soon be dim
and vague.
There never was such an interval of silence. There
Are our Gospels fait I tf id records ? 89
was not one moment during all this time when the
Gospel was not being written, though not one word
of its story may have been committed to writing c .
Before any true history of a great epoch can be
written, much time and thought must be devoted to
a careful accumulation, sifting, and assimilation of
facts. We shall see that, during all the years inter-
vening between the Ascension and the composition
of our written Gospels, this preliminary collation and
selection of facts was precisely what was being done.
Our Gospels, in their present form, are the ripe fruit
of the accumulated evidence and labour of eye-
witnesses who had been with Christ all through the
eventful years " beginning from the baptism of John,
unto the day when He was received up from us"
(Acts i. 22).
We have formed but a faint conception of the Per-
sonality of Christ, of the profound impression He
made upon His disciples, of what He must have been
in Himself to have revolutionized history as He has
done, if we can fancy that, after thirty years, the
memory of the Man and His Work could have lost
its freshness or grown in any way dim.
From the outset, Jesus was His disciples' Rabbi,
and a great Prophet in their eyes. At Caesarea
Philippi He became something much greater. There
S. Peter guessed His secret and made his confession :
" Thou art the Christ." From that day, at any
c As a matter of fact, we know S. Matthew did commit some
of it to writing about 50 A.D.
90 Are our Gospels faithful records ?
rate, He was to His disciples the long-expected
Messiah.
Knowing this, is it likely that His disciples were
not, all through His Ministry, treasuring His every
word and act, and pondering them in their hearts ?
We can also clearly see from the Gospels that our
Lord concentrated His main attention on the training
of the Twelve, and from day to day was impressing
definite teaching upon their minds and hearts. Little
by little He has to open their eyes to the startling
and (to them) unpalatable fact of His coming suffer-
ings. Like the rest of the Jews, they expected
a triumphant Messiah. Christ openly tells them
that before He their Messiah can come in His glory,
He must first ascend into heaven. He must needs
die. He must needs rise again. Only through the
gate of Death can He enter upon His full Messianic
Kingdom.
We can readily picture the shock this revelation of
a suffering, dying Messiah must have given His dis-
ciples. " Be it far from Thee, Lord ; this shall not
happen unto Thee."
Now is it likely that the disciples could ever forget
the new and strange things Christ was thus teaching
them from day to day ? They eagerly drank in His
every Word, hung on His lips, pondered over His
strange utterances, discussed them among themselves.
They expressly tell us so.
And when that tragic last Week came, was there
one single incident or detail of it that would not
Are our Gospels faithful records / 91
stamp itself indelibly on their minds ? " They cruci-
fied Him," and at that moment all was dark to the
disciples. Then came the Resurrection, and now at
last they understood.
Can we believe that men who had witnessed with
their own eyes that brief and tragic career of Jesus
of Nazareth, so full of surprises and shocks, could
ever forget ?
What was their natural attitude, after our Lord's
Resurrection, towards One Who was their God ?
Jesus, His Life and Teaching, was the one subject
that monopolised their thoughts, their conversation,
their hearts, their worship, their life. More than
ever now that their eyes were opened to see not
only "the sufferings of Christ," but "the glories
that should follow them" (i S. Peter i. n) they
gathered and pondered His every word. They
treasured in their hearts every incident, every utter-
ance of His, studied them, read their true meaning
into them, preached them, faithfully taught them
to all who came into the Christian brotherhood
(Acts ii. 42).
But they were not yet fully prepared to record the
Gospel-story for all times and for all people. They
stood too near to the events to see them in their
true perspective. Besides, for a long time after
Christ's death, the Apostles had still much to learn
and unlearn before they could fully understand the
Christ Whom they loved so well. Naturally dull of
understanding, on their own showing, as S. Matth.
92 Are our Gospels faithful records ?
xv. 1 6 ; xvi. 6 12 ; S. Mark ix. 32 ; S. Luke ix. 49 ;
xxii. 24 ; xxiv. n, 25 ; S. John xii. 16 amply prove,
not until they had had time to grow in Christ were
they in a position to grasp the true significance of
His Life and work. It wanted time, thought and
experience before the Gospel-story could be truly
written.
In our next chapter we shall endeavour to show
how this was achieved. But there is one other con-
sideration for the delay in the composition of our
Gospels which we should like to suggest.
Strange as it sounds, for Christ's complete Portrait
we want more than His Portrait. The character of
a great Personality is known not least through his
friends whom He has stamped with his own per-
sonality and moulded after his own character. Even
so, in order to understand Christ fully, we must also
see what He made of the men who unreservedly
surrendered themselves to His influence. In these
He reveals and expresses Himself, or, as S. Paul
puts it, they are " living Epistles of Christ," His own
handwriting (2 Cor. iii. 3).
The Gospels are not written by Apostles, but
they embody their teaching. Had these Gospels,
and other New Testament books, been written im-
mediately after the Ascension, we should, of course,
have seen Christ already reflected in His Apostles.
But the reflected Portrait would have been faint and
blurred by reason of their emulous selfishness, im-
patience, dulness of understanding. We have to
Are our Gospels faithful records? 93
wait years till the solvent of Christ's Spirit has
eliminated these obscuring flaws, and then we see
?
Christ's likeness.
These are some of the reasons why we should not
regret the years that elapsed between Christ's Death
and the composition of our Gospels. The interval
is a clear gain, and more than compensates for the
few defects for which it is also responsible. All
these years were needed for the collection, digestion,
and judicious selection of the necessary material.
They were needed too for the handwriting in Christ's
living epistles to become clearer.
We know it will be urged that this is taking too
human a view of the composition of our Gospels,
laying all the stress on the human factor and ignoring
their Divine Inspiration.
We have spoken so often on Inspiration that it is
growing tedious, but we shall not refer to it after
this.
The Holy Spirit prompts, It never dictates. God
works through men in a perfectly natural way,
without overriding a man's individuality. The
prompting is an impulse given to the man's own
thoughts. The inspired thought is not magically
communicated. There is nothing supernatural or
abnormal in the result produced, placing it out of
all connection with the previous experiences and
thoughts of the man inspired. All his past training
and knowledge enter into what he now produces,
94 ^ ;r our Gospels faitJifnl records ?
and the result could not have been brought about
without them. Our Gospels prove this.
The prefaces to S. Luke and S. John expressly
tell us that the Evangelists wrote their Gospels, not
from a knowledge of events supernaturally imparted,
but from what they had themselves seen and heard,
or received from trustworthy sources and eye-
witnesses.
Why should the Apostles themselves have been
chosen only from those who had been with our Lord
all through His Ministry (Acts i. 21, 22), if super-
natural information dictated by the Holy Spirit was
enough in itself? If the facts and sayings the
Apostles preached were the mere dictation of the
Holy Ghost, what, then, is the meaning of S. Peter's
declaration to the Jewish Council : " We cannot but
speak the things which we have heard and seen " ?
Why did He not rather say : " We cannot but speak
the things which the Holy Spirit puts into our
mouths"? If the Holy Spirit superseded human
knowledge, how can we account for the fact that
inspired Apostles held such divergent and antago-
nistic opinions upon matters essential to the well-
being of Christ's Church, as Acts xv. and Gal. ii.
reveal ? Why do the Gospel-writers occasionally
contradict one another? Why does our Lord criti-
cize parts of the Old Testament ? Why does S. Paul
admit that even inspired men now only prophesy
and know in part (i Cor. xiii. 9) ? Why does our
moral sense condemn some passages in the Bible
A re our Gospels faithful records ? 95
(e.g. Ps. cxxxvii. 9) ? The Bible is not all on the
same level even in a S. Paul or S. John's writings.
How are we to explain this on the dictation-theory
of Inspiration? Does the Holy Spirit indite one
chapter from a supernatural height and drop to
a lower plane in the next ?
These questions supply their own answer.
CHAPTER VI.
ORAL TRADITION.
WE have seen that, after Christ's Death, His fol-
lowers treasured their Master's sayings, studied
them, preached them, taught them to all who came
into the Christian brotherhood. The story of Jesus'
Life, His deeds and His words, became the guide
of every individual Christian, of the whole Church.
What He had taught was the staple-matter of all
Christian instruction and worship. On Christ's Life
and Work they modelled their lives and all their
actions.
But it is morally certain that, for many years, the
Gospel- story was transmitted by word of mouth
only. And to this body of teaching thus handed
down by word of mouth is given the name of Oral
Tradition.
Oral Tradition was by no means a new departure
in Palestine. It was the universal rule. There was
an unreasoning prejudice against religious books of
exposition. The teaching of the Rabbis was entirely
oral, and had to be learnt by heart. " Commit no-
thing to writing," was a maxim with the Rabbis. In
course of time there grew up in Israel, side by side
with the Written Law, a great mass of unwritten legal
Oral Tradition. 97
traditions or " words of the wise," consisting mainly
of interpretations and expansions of the Written
Law. Except the Sadducees, all Jews revered this
unwritten oral tradition as even superior to the
written Scripture. Indeed, it was commonly held
that the Covenant was originally founded on the
oral word of God, and not on the written Law,
because it is stated in Exodus xxxiv. 27 : " after
tJie tenor of these words I have made a covenant with
Israel."
In the Talmud we are told that " Moses received
the oral Law direct from God and delivered it to
Joshua. Joshua delivered it to the elders, and the
elders to the prophets, and the prophets to the men
of the Great Synagogue." To the question why
oral tradition was not written down at the same
time as the written Law, the Jewish answer was that
Moses did indeed desire to write it down but God
forbade it, because in the days to come Israel would
be scattered among the Gentiles. Then the written
Law would be taken from them, but the oral tradition
would remain to be their distinctive badge as well as
their guide.
Of course, this explanation cannot bear the search-
light of criticism, but it well expresses the Jewish
view of the sacredness of oral tradition in our Lord's
day. So infinitely superior to the written Law was
tradition considered that it was a common saying
with the Jews : " The Law is water, but the words
of the scribes are wine." In the eyes of Pharisees,
II
98 Oral Tradition.
elders and scribes, a man might have perfect know-
ledge of the Scriptures, but if he did not also know
the oral Law, and had never been one of the pupils
of the "wise" (i.e., scribes or Rabbis), he was looked
upon as an ignoramus. He was an "empty cistern,"
and was called by the contemptuous name " am-
haarets," one of the " people of the land." Hence the
expression in S. John vii. 49, " this people (rabble),
which knoweth not the law, are accursed." It was
on this ground that " they perceived that John and
Peter were ignorant and unlearned men " (Acts
iv. 13).
If we bear in mind this extraordinary reverence
among the Jews for oral tradition, and remember
that the Apostles were Palestinian Jews born and
bred, it will explain much. We shall readily under-
stand how easy and natural it was, in such an atmos-
phere, for the Apostles to build up a body of oral
teaching, an oral tradition in connection with the
Life and teaching of our Lord which would become
recognized as sacred and authoritative in the Church.
Of course they would remember our Lord's strictures
on tradition - tyranny, and safeguard themselves
against all possibility of any such abuse.
Christianity in those days was not a book-religion.
Faith sprang from hearing, not from reading. The
living presence and voice of the eye-witnesses of our
Lord's Ministry formed the repository of the Gospel-
story. It was preserved by oral tradition pure and
simple, and not through written documents.
Oral Tradition. 99
Jesus Himself had apparently written nothing*.
The only occasion on which He is ever spoken of
as writing (S. John viii. 6 8) is in connection with
the accusation brought against the woman taken in
adultery. " Jesus stooped down, and with His
finger wrote on the ground, as though He heard
them not." Even were this passage genuine, it
proves nothing, for the words our Lord wrote are
not recorded. Christ's teaching, like God's, cannot
be cramped into books. The thought of Jesus is
preserved in a Diviner way, in "living Epistles"
(2 Cor. iii. 3). "I will put My Law in their mind,
and write it in their hearts."
We may be morally certain that if Christ had
written anything bearing on His teaching, we should
have heard of it. Evidently He did not. It is not
likely that, for many a year, His Apostles did so
either, in connection with the Gospel-story. For
one thing, as we have seen, the hour for that had
not yet come ; and, as they were daily expecting
the return of their Lord, they were far more con-
cerned with the all-important work of preaching
a "Palestine was a land of culture. This culture is reflected in
every word and simile of Jesus, but in His Ministry our Lord had
no need of all the means which this culture afforded Him. He could
only be, He only wished to be and to offer to others what He was
in Himself, a complete self-sufficing Personality, whose creative energy
proceeded from God as its only source. He must call into life in the
souls of others the treasure of His own soul, leave His own impress
upon His environment, and through His followers upon mankind
by means of direct personal influence. Our Lord could use the pen,
and His Parables show that He was specially gifted for authorship,
but He has not committed Himself to writing." Von Soden.
ioo Oral Tradition.
and catechizing than writing books, even if they had
the literary instinct to do it. Besides, the Jewish
custom of those days went dead against such a prac-
tice. It was considered positively wrong to commit
oral tradition to writing. It must be learnt by heart,
and stored in the memory.
Out of this universal Jewish custom arose, among
the Jews, a special qualification for oral instruction
and oral transmission. Their memory was capable
of phenomenal feats, and it became a second nature
faithfully to remember all they heard almost ver-
batim b .
If this was the case with the pupils of an ordinary
Rabbi, how much more will it hold good of the dis-
ciples of our Lord. As Jews, they also will have
been gifted with excellent memories. For three
whole years they had been day by day in the com-
pany of Jesus, their Rabbi in a sense that no other
Rabbi was to his pupils. Other Rabbis spoke to
their pupils of the coming Messiah ; Jesus was
Messiah to His disciples, as we have already seen,
and His Resurrection proved to them that He was
God Himself.
Jesus' sayings and doings were, therefore, God's
own actual words and deeds in their eyes. Like
Moses of old, they had seen God face to face, not
dimly but openly, not for forty days, but for thirty
b Max MUller quotes the case of an Indian lady who could repeat
from memory the whole of the Rig-Veda ; and Archdeacon Moule
catechized children in China who knew our Gospels by heart.
Oral Tradition. IOI
times forty days. " That which we have seen and
heard declare we unto you ; which we have seen
with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our
hands have handled, of the Word of Life which was
from the beginning." " For the Word was made
Flesh, and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth,
and we beheld His Glory, the glory as of the only-
begotten of the Father."
For these men, what need was there of a written
record ? In their eyes, after the Ascension, Christ's
acts and deeds were God's own, and far more sacred
than anything in the Old Testament. The record
of that Life was more safely treasured in their hearts
than in any written book. Therefore, for years and
years it was by the living word, and not out of
a book, that the Gospel was preached ; in men's
hearts, and not in written pages, that it was safely
preserved.
Thus the Apostolic Church had, instead of a New
Testament, a body of teaching which was wholly
unwritten, an oral tradition. Its repositories were
the living eye-witnesses who had " companied with
Jesus, beginning from the baptism of John, unto
that day that He was taken up " into heaven.
But this oral tradition was a gradual growth, and
there were definite stages in its formation. Apart
from the great facts of the Crucifixion, Resurrection,
and Ascension, it took time before the' Apostles
themselves realized which was the most judicious
selection to make out of the mass of incidents and
IO2 Oral Tradition.
sayings which were treasured in their hearts, or the
most appropriate "form of sound words " into which
the Gospel-story should be cast.
From the outset, the Apostles were " preachers of
Christ " as well as teachers. Believing, as they
firmly did, that our Lord's second Coming was to
be speedy and in their own lifetime, they preached
Christ " in season and out of season," daily and at
all hours of the day, to all and any whom they could
reach (Acts v. 42 ; iv. 17 sq. ; xxviii. 30 sq.). But
preaching was not enough. It was essential to in-
struct the new converts. When we remember how
slowly the disciples themselves assimilated the teach-
ing of their Master, what patience and pains on His
part it needed to instruct and train them in the faith
we shall realize the necessity of instructing the new
converts in the articles of the Christian Faith, and
the hard work this involved. We know that very
soon these converts were counted by thousands.
For awhile, the Apostles and other eye-witnesses
had to do the work of catechists as well as of
preachers. For this purpose, they adopted the usual
Jewish method of storing the memories of their
pupils day by day, week by week, with portions of
the Gospel-story.
In Palestine itself, this systematic training would
not be so difficult at the beginning. Palestine is
a very small place. Among the people of Jeru-
salem, and the crowds from Galilee to whom the
great Prophet of Nazareth had been a familiar
Oral Tradition. 103
Figure, the main facts of Christ's Life would be too
well known for Jewish converts to need special in-
struction in them. Even to a man like Cornelius,
not a Jew, but a Roman officer, S. Peter considers
it unnecessary to enter into details. " That word,,
as you know, which was published throughout all
Judaea, beginning from Galilee, after the baptism
which John preached." He assumes that Cornelius
knows all the main facts, and merely mentioning
" how that God anointed Jesus with the Holy Ghost
and with power; and He went about doing good,
healing all that were oppressed with the devil, for
God was with Him," S. Peter at once proceeds to
press home to Cornelius' heart the truth that this
Crucified Jesus is none other than God Himself,
" Whom they slew and hanged on a tree, Him God
raised up the third day, and shewed Him openly.
And He commanded us to preach unto the people,
and to testify that it is He Which was ordained of
God to be the Judge of quick and dead. To Him
give all the prophets witness, that through His Name
whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission
of sins" (Acts x. 36 43).
But, as years passed, and the news of glad tidings
was carried to fresh and ever widening circles, and
especially when it spread outside Palestine, a much
more detailed presentation of the Gospel-story was
required. To people who knew the main facts of
our Lord's Life, it might be enough to insist on an
acknowledgment of the Godhead of Jesus and a belief
IO4 Oral Tradition.
in the historical truth of His Resurrection. But it is
idle to preach that Jesus is the Christ, Messiah, God
Himself, unless the preacher's hearers know who and
what Jesus is. It conveys no meaning to proclaim
that an unknown Person is risen from the dead, is
now at God's right hand and will one day come in
glory to judge the quick and dead. S. Peter's brief
summary to Cornelius will no longer do. It must
be greatly expanded. The Gospel-story must be
told from the beginning, and the converts must be
systematically taught the new faith after their
baptism.
Strange as it may seem to us, converts through-
out the Apostolic age were baptized at once, imme-
diately after the Gospel-message had touched their
hearts and they had professed their faith in the risen
Lord. The instances of the converts on the Day of
Pentecost, of Cornelius and his friends, of the Philip-
pian jailer and his household show that little or no
preparation was required before baptism. It was
administered there and then, and the probation and
teaching came afterwards (cf. Acts ii. 38 41 ; viii. 12;
xvi. 31, 33 5 xviii. 8 ; x. 4348).
But after baptism the teaching of the " catechu-
mens " was very thorough. As much patience and
labour was devoted to the " watering " as to the
" planting " (i Cor. iii. 8). A close study of S. Paul's
Epistles will show that his Gentile converts had
a more intimate and living acquaintance with the
facts of the Gospel-history and of the Old Testament
Oral Tradition. 105
ban is usual with Christians in our own day. The
great majority of the members of the Pauline
Churches had been recently converted from heath-
enism. Before their conversion they had not the
slightest knowledge of either the Gospel-story or
the Jewish Scriptures. Yet, within a year or so,
S. Paul is able to appeal in the most natural way to
their knowledge of the character and Life of Christ,
and make frequent allusions to Old Testament pas-
sages. '' I speak to them that know the Law," he
says to the Romans (Rom. vii. I ; cf. I Cor. ix. 13 ;
x. I sqq. ; Gal. iv. 21 sqq., &c.).
This presupposes long and systematic instruction
in the Gospel-story and in the Hebrew Scriptures.
How and by whom had this instruction been given ?
We have seen that the Apostles in the earliest
days were catechists as well as preachers. But the
Apostles and other " eye-witnesses and ministers of
the Word" were few in number. Acts i. 15 tells
us that "the number of names together were about
an hundred and twenty " after our Lord's Ascension.
The labour of spreading the new faith, and catechiz-
ing the thousands of converts, even within Palestine,
would soon outgrow their power of coping with the
work ; and we can hardly assume that the whole 120
were subsequently engaged in this evangelistic work,
or qualified to do so.
Who, then, was to give the necessary instruction ?
The Apostles had devoted much time in the earliest
days to this all-important duty, but they had other
io6 Oral Tradition.
work to do. Catechizing was essential, but it de-
manded none of the higher spiritual gifts possessed
by Apostles or prophets, who were divinely set apart
as God's mouthpieces for the conversion of mankind.
Others, if properly trained, could catechize as well as
they, perhaps even better, for it requires the special
" gift of teaching," as well as a faithful knowledge of
the Gospel-story, sympathy with pupils, and much
patience.
Thus it very soon became necessary to relieve the
Apostles from the labour of catechizing, as much as
possible, if they were to do the work for which they
had been specially commissioned by our Lord and
" preach Christ." Precisely as the order of deacons
was established because the Apostles recognized that
" it is not reason that we should leave the Word and
serve tables," even so it was now imperative to
appoint a separate order of regular authorized cate-
chists or teachers.
From the first, catechists were held in high esteem,
as is the case with all teachers in Eastern lands.
They were the " scribes " and Rabbis of the Christian
Church, and S. Paul ranks them next to Apostles
and prophets (i Cor. xii. 28). Their number will
have been large, for every important church would
require one. If we may judge from the material on
which they had to work in Gentile churches, and the
good results which they produced, their work must
have been very hard and have monopolized all their
time and energy. S. Paul implies as much, for he
Oral Tradition. 107
makes the same claim for them as for the Apostles :
" Let him that is catechized in the Word give of his
good things to him that catechizeth " (TO> Kar^ovvrC)
(Gal. vi. 6) and S. Paul strongly held that "if any
man will not work, neither shall he eat."
Who taught the catechists ? In the first instance,
the Apostles were their teachers. Thus S. Mark was
taught by S. Peter himself. This we know on the
authority of Papias, who obtained his information
from a " disciple of the Lord, personally acquainted
with the Apostles themselves." This very early tradi-
tion is accepted by many of even the most advanced
critics as genuine, and this is what it tells us c :
" Mark having become Peter's interpreter wrote
accurately all that Peter had remembered (or, men-
tioned), though he did not record in order that which
was either said or done by Christ. For he neither
heard the Lord nor followed Him ; but subsequently
attached himself to Peter, who used to frame his
teaching to meet the wants (of his hearers.), but not
as making a connected narrative of the Lord's dis-
courses. So Mark committed no error, as he wrote
down some particulars just as Peter narrated them.
For he took heed to one thing, to omit none of the
facts that he heard, and to make no false statement
(in his account) of them C V
In other words, S. Peter catechized his convert,
c Westcott's rendering ; Study of the Gospels, 184.
d It has been suggested that S. Mark ("the minister"), S. Luke
(Acts xvi. 10), and the unknown author of S. Matthew were catechists.
io8 Oral Tradition.
S. Mark, who later became his fellow-worker. He
taught him carefully that oral tradition which, after
S. Peter's death, S. Mark many years later d embodied
in his Gospel.
And Papias' statement also gives us most im-
portant testimony on three points in connection
with the Oral Tradition problem, (i) It is Apos-
tolic in its origin ; (2) not composed " in order " ;
(3) a judicious selection.
This not only corroborates what we should have
conjectured, but it is amply confirmed by the New
Testament itself.
That it was of Apostolic origin is clearly shown
by such passages as S. Luke i. 2 ; and how jealously
the oral tradition was guarded and watched by the
Apostles is also evident from Gal. i. 6 9 ; i Thess.
iv. I, 2 ; 2 Thess. ii. 15 ; 2 Tim. i. 13 ; ii. 2 ; iii. 14 ;
Tit. i. 9. It was handed down as the solid foundation
of faith from one to another (i Cor. xv. 3 ; xi. 23;
2 Tim. ii. 2) and treasured as a sacred deposit (i Tim.
vi. 20 ; 2 Tim. i. 14). This Apostolic tradition is
spoken of as the "form of doctrine" (Rom. vi. 17),
"the form of sound words" (2 Tim. i. 13), "the
words of the faith and the good doctrine " (i Tim. iv.
6), " the good deposit 6 " (i Tim. vi. 20 ; 2 Tim. i. 14).
The " teachers " were very closely watched by the
Apostles, and any who taught any doctrine at all
inconsistent with this sacred Apostolic tradition
were at once denounced in no measured terms ; " let
d Irenasus c. Haer. III. I. I. e R.V. margin.
Oral Tradition. 109
him be accursed, even if it be we ourselves, or an
angel from heaven (Gal. i. 69).
The New Testament, based as it is on oral tradi-
tion, also tends to show that this Apostolic Teaching
was not " in order," i.e. arranged in chronological
sequence. From S. Luke's day (S. Luke i. 3) down-
wards, endless attempts have been made to write
" Lives of Christ " " in order," assigning the various
events and sayings to their proper occasions, and
they have all signally failed. Oral tradition may
have given the incidents of some one day, or of the
Last Week, in their historical sequence, but in the
main body of the Ministry such sequence was dis-
regarded by the Apostolic teachers themselves, and
we cannot reconstruct it now. This is especially the
case with our Lord's sayings. Our Lord's " words "
seem to have formed the kernel of oral tradition, and
we have a very early and reliable tradition quoted by
Papias that they were, at an early date, collected and
written in a book by the Apostle Matthew (50 A.D.).
These sayings were specially treasured, and regarded
as the final court of appeal (e.g. i Cor. vii. 10 25 ;
ix. 14 ; xi. 23 ; xiv. 37 ; i Thess. iv. 2 ; i Tim. v. 18).
But we shall see that, as a general rule, no two
Gospels agree as to the occasions on which the
various discourses of our Lord were spoken.
The New Testament only represents a portion of
the contents of oral tradition, as will be shown later,
so we cannot quote the "judicious selection" made
by our Evangelists in proof of the judicious selection
IIO Oral Tradition.
of Oral Tradition itself. But such a passage as
S. John xx. 30, hyperbolical as it may be, fairly
represents the opinion of the primitive Church itself
on the subject towards the end of the Apostolic age.
Thus we can clearly trace three stages in the
development of Oral Tradition, and these three
distinct strata are patent in our Gospels to-day f .
(i) In the first stage, Oral Tradition merely
supplements Apostolic preaching. The Church is
still mainly confined to Palestine, and the original
eye-witnesses, whether they were 120 (Acts i. 15)
or 500 (i Cor. xv. 6), together with the evangelists
whom they have trained, can still cope with the
work in person. In this first cycle of " tradition,"
therefore, there is little theological or spiritual
teaching. It would comprise an outline-sketch of
our Lord's Ministry, "beginning from the baptism
of John, unto the day when our Lord was taken
up into heaven." There would be a selection from
our Lord's chief actions of mercy and love in His
miracles of healing, references to His disputes with
Jewish religious leaders, to His claims and to the
impression He made on His hearers. Some of the
more important conversations and sayings would
f N.B. In what follows, (i) S. Mark, (2) S. Luke, (3) S. Mat-
thew are, for the moment, assumed to be fairly representative types
of these three strata of oral tradition. We shall have occasion to
qualify this statement later. Our present threefold classification is
merely intended to act as a rough guide. Our data do not allow
us to dogmatise on the subject.
Oral Tradition. 1 1 1
also be given. Naturally, a much fuller account
would be given of the last week of our Lord's Life
on earth, because of its intrinsic importance.
But oral tradition at this stage is quite supple-
mentary to preaching, and assumes a knowledge of
practical and vital truths. We find in it the barest
reference to Resurrection appearances of our Lord,
and, as our Lord's sayings are household words,
there is a dearth of parables and discourses.
In other words, it is an expansion of that portion
of S. Peter's address to Cornelius which tells us how
" He went about doing good, and healing all that
were oppressed with the devil : Whom they slew
and hanged on a tree." The other portion, " How
God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy
Ghost and with power, for God was with Him ;
how God raised Him up the third day and showed
Him openly ; how He was ordained of God to be
Judge of the quick and dead ; how to Him all
the prophets give witness, that through His Name
whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission
of sins" all this was preached day by day and
was common Christian property.
(2) But as time went on, this was not enough.
Churches' were springing up rapidly all over the
Roman Empire. Twenty years or so after Christ's
Death, all Southern Europe was studded with them,
so was Asia Minor and even Egypt. The Apostles,
Prophets and Evangelists could not be everywhere,
yet converts must be taught their new faith. No
112 Oral Tradition.
previous knowledge could now be assumed. A much
fuller " form of sound words," a complete Oral
Tradition must be drawn up by the Apostles and
authorized for common use in the various churches,
for the guidance of evangelists and catechists, as
well as for the instruction of converts.
As in the first stage, Oral Tradition begins with
the Baptism of John, but much fuller details are
given (e.g. of the Temptation). Christ's sayings
are no longer assumed as household words. Whole
groups of these sayings are given a first and fore-
most place and form the kernel of the teaching.
The " sayings " are often massed together in dis-
courses as was done in the Palestine Church. The
historical facts on which Christianity is based, and
a much fuller account of the Ministry are now in-
serted. The appearances after the Resurrection and
many more parables are given in detail. Old Tes-
tament prophecies and the spiritual teaching and
significance of many of the facts are included.
This would enable men such as Aquila and
Apollos, and other catechists and evangelists like
them, to possess an authentic oral account almost
equivalent, if not quite, to our New Testament.
(3) The third stage is reached about- the year
60 70 A.D. Many of the Apostles are now dead.
The Church is a fully organized ecclesiastical insti-
tution, experiencing many trials. Oral tradition
becomes more apologetic and ecclesiastical in type.
It is unconsciously interpreted in the light of the
Oral Tradition. 1 1 3
needs of the day, furnishing rules for Church worship
and discipline, for ministers and missionaries, the
conduct of individual Christians, and consolation in
times of persecution. This is also the period which
goes behind the old Oral Tradition, and gives us the
Birth and infancy stories", of which S. Mark and
S. Paul seem to know little or nothing.
In this way, or in a manner closely akin to
it, there grew up what we may call an oral
" common-stock Gospel " according to the Teaching
of the Twelve Apostles, and under their direction.
Preachers, missionaries, catechists, would be familiar
with it, and use it as we do our present Gospels.
At the outset, this oral tradition would be the same
everywhere, the "use" recognized in the head
Church of Jerusalem h .
But soon, little by little, slight variations crept in.
We may account for them in two ways.
We have already mentioned that, in those days,
verbal exactitude, " literary piety," was ignored and
even discouraged by Christians. The oral gospel,
therefore, was not learnt by heart, as we teach our
8 This admits of a natural explanation. It has long been pointed
out that on a matter of such delicacy, the Virgin-Mother would not
be likely to speak till very late in life, or when Joseph was dead,
and even then only to a woman, from whom S. Luke obtained the
facts. Adverse critics, on the other hand, maintain that the attitude
of Christ's own mother, who never seems to have grasped our Lord's
Messiahship (cf. S. Mark iii. 21 and 31 sqq.), seems passing strange
if she held in her heart such profound knowledge. .
h Harnack is convinced that it grew up between the years 30 70
A.D. on Palestine soil and more particularly in Jerusalem.
I
114 Oral Tradition.
Church Catechism, but in its spirit and substance.
This tendency easily lends itself to variations. This
would be more the case with Gentiles than Jews.
In Palestine, as we have seen, memories were phe-
nomenally developed. There, as is the habit with
people who read and write little, the gospel-story
transmitted from lip to lip was repeated almost in
the same words every time, and its form would
become more or less stereotyped.
Not so with Greeks. They are an imaginative
and eloquent race. Their verbal fluency and artistic
imagination would constantly make them vary the
words of the narrative, without departing from ac-
curacy or blurring the vital truths of oral tradition.
This was one cause of variation. But there was
another influence at work which gave rise to vari-
ations of far greater import. After all, it is im-
material whether we say with S. Matthew " forgive
us our debts," or, with S. Luke, " forgive us our
sins " ; or whether we are told in one version " behold
him that was possessed with devils," while another
writes, " behold the demoniac."
But there are variations which do matter. Churches
differ as men differ, and there were differences of
view, differences of perspective, differences of theo-
logical expression in the Churches of Jerusalem,
Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, Rome and Alexandria.
For instance, the Church of Jerusalem laid consider-
able stress on* the obligations of the Mosaic Law,
while the Pauline Churches deemed that they were
free from the yoke of the Law. Christianity in all
Oral Tradition, 115
the Churches was, of course, one and indivisible in
its essence, but it naturally had its local colouring.
East and West differ, and, in any case, Greek oral
tradition would have adapted itself to its new en-
vironment even if a cosmopolitan Paul of Antioch
had not stamped his own individuality upon it before
preaching it to Gentiles. Therefore, more and more,
in course of time in Asia Minor, Macedonia, Greece,
Rome, Africa, local " uses " of oral tradition must
needs spring into existence, as actually happened,
but the variations were mainly in minor matters 1 .
It is well to note these sources of variation in oral
-tradition. It will explain much when we come (in
our next chapter) to trace the rise of written gospels.
Our present Gospels only represent a few of many
attempts to embody the Gospel-story in written
documents. But up to the end of the first century,
at any rate, and probably much later, no written
gospel succeeded in taking the place of oral tradition.
Till then, oral tradition reigned supreme. It was
the New Testament of the Christian Church, the
authorized text of all its teaching and preaching,
the final court of appeal. It was only because our
four Gospels were found to conform to this infallible
test that they were accepted and canonized, whilst
others were rejected. Directly or indirectly it is on
oral tradition that our Gospels are based.
1 e.g. even in Palestine, the author of S. Matthew adds to Christ's
strictures on divorce "except for fornication," looking at the matter
from the Jewish point of view.
CHAPTER VII.
THE RISE OF WRITTEN GOSPELS.
IT may come as a surprise to some readers to be
told that, from as early as 50 A.D. onwards, there
sprang up a whole crop of written gospel-narratives,
now mostly lost. This fact is based on very early
Christian evidence, and on many other grounds.
The writings of our four Evangelists represent
but a small fraction of contemporary gospel-literature.
They are a " survival of the fittest." By the middle
of the second century, they had established their
position unchallengeably. On their own intrinsic
merits, our four Gospels were regarded as embodying,
in an altogether unique sense, the Teaching of the
Apostles respecting the Life, Ministry and sayings
of our Lord. They had replaced and superseded
the Oral Tradition on which they are based, and
were appealed to as Holy Scripture with a conviction
that could not have been attained immediately, but
must have existed in men's minds for some time
previously.
Yet the fact remains that our Gospels were, at the
outset, only four among a vast number, and that
their unchallenged supremacy was only achieved by-
degrees.
The rise of written Gospels. 1 1 7
How did these many gospels arise? Four main
reasons may be assigned for their origin :
(a) A desire to make provision for the day when
the living voice of Apostolic eye-witnesses would no
longer be heard.
(b} The rapid spread of Christianity, and the
urgent need of supplying Gentile Churches with
reliable gospel-facts.
(c) The spread of heresy, and the need of com-
bating it.
(d) The natural demand for " Lives of Christ,"
setting forth Oral Tradition " in order " (that is to
say, in orderly chronological sequence), and supple-
menting early Apostolic Teaching in those portions
of our Lord's Life about which it was silent (e.g., the
Birth and Infancy of Christ).
It may be well to consider these points a little
more in detail.
(a) For a generation after Christ's death, there
was no immediate need for written Gospels. The
Apostles and other witnesses were alive. Oral
Tradition more than sufficed. Trained catechists,
under Apostolic superintendence, faithfully taught
" the form of sound words," and the living voice was
worth more than many books.
But there came a time when the need of written
records was keenly felt. The number of eye-wit-
nesses was each year growing less and less. Infirmity
or death was rapidly thinning their ranks. How
1 1 8 TJie rise of written Gospels.
was the Apostolic Teaching to be preserved unim-
paired, when the Apostles were no longer there to
superintend and check the teachers ?
There was one easy way. Sooner or later, the
plan would suggest itself of committing Oral
Tradition to writing. This would make for ex-
actitude, and ensure a fixity of tradition. It would
also secure a wider diffusion of the Gospel-story.
This method of procedure, we know, went more
or less against the Jewish grain, for Oral Tradition
was too sacred to commit to writing. The pre-
judice seems strange to us, but it was keenly felt
by Jews. Still, the matter was a serious one and
had to be faced.
The Apostles themselves seem to have recognized
the urgency of the case, for there is the strongest
evidence that, about 50 A.D., the Apostle Matthew
composed a collection of " Sayings " of Jesus, in the
Hebrew (i.e. Aramaic) tongue. Its Aramaic com-
position shows that it was meant for Palestinian
Jews. This is the first authenticated mention of the
adoption of writing as a means of collecting, pre-
serving and circulating the Memoirs of Jesus. This
Gospel of S. Matthew the Apostle must not be
confounded with our Gospel according to S. Matthew,
written some twenty years later by some unknown
Christian Jew.
() A more fruitful source of the growth of gospels
is to be found in the rapid spread of Christianity
outside Palestine, in Asia Minor and Southern
The rise of written Gospels. 119
Europe. In Palestine, oral tradition was sacred.
But it was not always possible to localize it else-
where with that sanction of infallible authority which
it must have to carry conviction to men's hearts.
Tradition was a hardy native Jewish plant ; outside
Palestine it was an exotic. With Greek Christians,
for instance, written gospels were almost an absolute
necessity. They did not share the Jewish prejudice
in favour of oral tradition. On the contrary, all
their sympathies were enlisted on the side of books.
Hence, the earliest Gospels were probably written
for Gentile use.
But this necessitated another new departure. The
Palestinian oral tradition was in Aramaic. Greek
was the universal language, and into Greek this
Aramaic oral gospel had to be translated. The
translation would take time. Our data do not permit
us to assume that there was one formal, authorized
translation, comprising the whole Gospel-story, and
passing directly into the hands of all Greek-speaking
Christians, as is done by the Bible Society nowadays.
All the evidence points the other way. In all proba-
bility, numerous persons, in different places, and at
different times, informally translated portions of the
Gospel-story, or the whole of it, into Greek.
S. Luke, in his Preface, implies this in so many
words. S. Luke, if we may use a modern phrase,
" dedicates " his Gospel to Theophilus, a Greek or
Roman of high position. In the very first verse of
his Preface, he tells us that many before him " have
1 20 The rise of written Gospels.
taken in hand to set forth in order those things
which are most surely believed among us." Evidently
this refers to " writings," for he straightway adds :
" therefore it seemed good to me also, having had
perfect understanding of all things from the first . . .
even as they delivered them unto us, which from the
beginning were eye-witnesses, and ministers of the
Word, ... to write unto thee, most excellent
Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty
of those things wherein thou hast been instructed
(literally, 'catechized')."
Here S. Luke clearly distinguishes between oral
tradition and " writings," and insists that these un-
known Gospel-writers equally with himself are only
trying to embody the Apostolic oral tradition. They
wish to add nothing to it, merely to draw it up and
arrange it afresh in a connected form. S. Luke
speaks of the work of his predecessors as " attempts "
(eVe^et'pT/o-az/), but this does not necessarily imply an
unfavourable criticism of their narratives. The words
" it seemed good to me also " indicate that he places
himself on the same footing. Equally with them, he
bases his narrative on oral tradition, but he con-
siders his "attempt" superior to theirs because he
claims a continuous, complete, and exact knowledge
of this Apostolic Teaching from the first, and, there-
fore, he can write " in order."
The fact remains, however, that before S. Luke's
day, there had been " many " Gospel -narratives
written, and our present canonical Gospels are only
The rise of written Gospels. 1 2 1
a few among these " many." Several other indi-
viduals besides the " most excellent Theophilus,"
and not a few Gentile Churches, must have equally
desired " to know the certainty concerning those
things which are most surely believed among us,
even as they delivered them unto us which from the
beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the
Word." They would wish to have a copy of their
own, and the number of independent translations
must have been great a .
(V) Perhaps we should rank only second to (b)
another prolific cause of the rise of Gospel-narratives,
viz. the rapid growth of false doctrine in the early
Church, especially among Greek converts.
From the very first, as i Cor. i. 12 shows, S. Paul
found it hard to keep versatile Greeks in hand. In-
tellectually alert and fond of speculation (cf. Acts xvii.
21), the Greek claimed freedom of thought as his
birthright. He loved new doctrine, asserted his right
of private judgment, disliked monotonous uniformity.
Thus he was anything but amenable to control.
Such a temperament naturally soon evolved count-
less heresies out of Christianity. They appear only
in the germ in S. Paul's Epistles, but he foresaw that
this was bound to come ; while S. John wrote his
Gospel partly as a counterblast to Gnosticism, the
child of Greek philosophy wedded to Christianity.
a In this multiplicity of different versions of the same Oral Tradition,
we doubtless have one clue to the multiplicity of various readings
in our Gospel-Text.
122 The rise of written Gospels.
Heresy is an exaggeration of a partial truth, and
as Christianity is many-sided, presenting the Truth
from every point of view, it was only too easy for
would-be heretics to find a peg in Apostolic Teach-
ing on which to hang their false systems, "wresting
the Scriptures to their own and others' destruction."
Heresy is not always the outcome of presumption
and self-will ; often it may be due to a real wish to
serve God in a more excellent way. Thus there
were good and bad heretics in the early Church, but
both the one and the other buttressed their new
tenets by the supposed discovery of new aspects of
Christian truth which had hitherto strangely escaped
others' notice, so they imagined.
Take the Ebionites, for instance. They were strict
Jewish Christians, more or less like the Essenes, very
ascetic in spirit. They believed poverty in itself to
be a passport to heaven, and riches the highway to
perdition. They had not far to seek for a Christian
foundation on which to build their creed. The mate-
rial was ready to hand. Christ Himself distinctly
said in His Sermon on the Mount : " Blessed are ye
poor : woe to you rich." Had He not also startled
His disciples with the hard saying: "How hardly
shall they that have riches enter into the Kingdom
of Heaven"? Did not the parable of Dives and
Lazarus, as well as endless passages both in the Old
Testament and the New point to the same conclu-
sion ?
In the same way, because S. Paul had said that
The rise of written Gospels. 123
" faith " was the one thing needful for salvation
(Gal. ii. 16), the Antinomians and Nicolaitans seized
upon this doctrine, and indulged in fearful excesses.
S. Paul had openly stated : " All things are lawful " ;
he had also given Christians permission to eat meat
offered to idols (i Cor. x. 27). Faith was the one
passport to heaven, according to him. On the
strength of this, and in defiance of his warnings,
these Antinomians lived lives of unrestrained indul-
gence, frequented heathen idol-feasts and shared in
the licentious dissipation that accompanied them.
They taught that adultery and fornication were
matters of indifference to Christians who have faith
in Christ. Of course, this was a travesty of S. Paul's
teaching, but they claimed him as their prophet.
Now it was to combat such false teaching, even in
the germ, that many of the early gospels came into
existence. They were what we should now call
" apologetics," or writings expressly composed to
wean men from wrong views and confirm them in
the true faith.
We shall see that heretics produced gospels of
their own in support of their peculiar tenets. They
adhered so closely to the Apostolic Teaching in the
main, merely introducing slight alterations here and
there, that even Bishops found it hard to detect the
errors in them.
(d] We quoted as a fourth cause of the origin of
gospels : The natural demand for chronological
124 The rise of written Gospels.
" Lives of Christ," setting forth the Oral Tradition
" in order," and supplementing it in portions where
it had been silent in its earliest form.
In dealing with S. Luke's preface in the preceding
section, we have said enough for the present on the
first clause of this sentence. We shall proceed at
once to the second.
We know that the Apostolic Teaching bore testi-
mony to those things of which the Apostles had
themselves been eye-witnesses (S. Luke i. 2). Christ
had no disciples till after His Baptism (S. Mark i.).
In Acts i. 21, 22 there is a very significant piece of
corroborative evidence. To take the place of Judas,
the Apostles have to select a new Apostle. What
is to be his qualification? He must be one ''of
those which have companied with us all the time that
Jesus 'event in and out among us, beginning from the
baptism of John"
Therefore we should naturally infer that oral
tradition would " begin from the baptism of John,"
the first occurrence in our Lord's Life of which the
Apostles could speak as eye-witnesses.
Now it is a remarkable fact that in the earliest of
our Gospels, S. Mark, this is precisely where the
narrative does begin. On this point, the Bishop of
Ripon writes : " In the common-stock Gospel, the
miraculous accessories connected with the birth of
Jesus Christ do not find any place. These acces-
sories are found in the group of secondary witnesses,
The rise of written Gospels. 125
i.e. the narrative common to S. Matthew and S. Luke."
S. John does not refer to the miraculous Birth
either h .
In saying this, we do not wish to minimize the
miraculous element in the New Testament or to call
in question the accuracy of S. Matthew's and S. Luke's
versions of the Birth. The Incarnation is a fact, and
yet it is the greatest of all miracles. All we wish to
imply is that the Apostolic Tradition almost certainly
began with the Baptism.
It is noticeable that even S. Matthew and S. Luke
give us but the barest account of the period between
the infancy and the Baptism of our Lord. But there
was evidently, from very early times, a natural desire
to know more about these unrecorded portions of our
Lord's Life. With the best of intentions and in-
spired by the highest of motives, there originated
in the primitive Church many " gospels of the child-
hood of Jesus." They contained pious stories told
in all good faith to edify and instruct good simple
Christians. Often they are little more than a literal
interpretation of the poetical word-pictures used by
Old Testament prophets in speaking of the coming
Messiah (e.g. Isaiah xi.). As S. Matthew (e.g. ii. 15
and 23) shows, primitive Christians read between the
lines of prophecy in a way that is passing strange to
us. They saw the fulfilment of prophecy in a most
b No stress can be laid on this fact. S. John omits, e.g. the
Temptation, Agony and Transfiguration. Throughout he supplements
and transfigures the historic Synoptic Gospel-tradition.
126 The rise of written Gospels.
extraordinary manner. Every poetical allusion to
Messiah must be literally accomplished in Christ.
Zechariah had said : " Behold thy King cometh unto
thee sitting upon an ass and a colt the foal of an ass."
This, of course, is the Hebrew poetical way of speaking
of one animal, and so S. Luke and S. Mark interpret it.
Not so S. Matthew. In his wish to keep close to the
prophecy, he speaks of two : " They brought tJie ass
and the colt^ and set Him on them " (eVavw av-rwv)
(S. Matth. xxi. 7).
It was in this way that many Gospel-stories of our
Lord's childhood arose. The best-known extant
" Gospel of the childhood of Jesus " is the Protevan-
gelium of James, to which Zahn assigns the date
100 no A.D., though most scholars place it later.
By the end of the first century, nay, even earlier,
oral tradition had already gathered round its nucleus
of solid truth a goodly array of fictitious embellish-
ments. We should be deeply grateful that this
solid mass of truth was crystallized in our written
Gospels at such an early date as 65 75 A.D.
We should rightly call the majority of these early
Gospels "apocryphal," if we are to judge by the
greater number of those that have survived. But
we are not in a good position to form an impartial
opinion, for those that have come down to us are
mostly of a comparatively late date, after oral tradi-
tion had become more or less legendary and inventive.
Of one fact, however, we may be sure, that several f
The rise of written Gospels. 127
the earlier Gospels must have been good, for they
contested the field with our four canonical Gospels
for many a day.
Moreover, we should be careful not to put too heavy
a strain on the plausible argument that all the good
ones have survived. S. Matthew the Apostle wrote
a Gospel, and it is lost, and, at one period, we were
within an ace of losing our S. Mark. It was thought
so little of, by the side of the more complete
S. Matthew and S. Luke, that there was only one
available copy of it left at one time, and this had lost
its last leaf.
Even the heretical Gospels were not all without
merit. Serapion, bishop of Antioch (191 213 A.D.),
a noted divine of the second century, says of one
which he has examined : " We have been able to
read it through, and we find very many things in
full accordance with the true doctrine of our Saviour,
but also some things added to that doctrine ."
Our space does not allow us to enter into a detailed
account even of those non-canonical Gospels which
have survived to our own day. They are too
numerous. We shall briefly glance at a few samples.
(i) The Gospel according to the Hebreivs is a work
of considerable value. It is in a fragmentary state as
we have it, but the early Fathers knew it intimately
c This was the Gospel of Peter ; while at Rhossus, Serapion's atten-
tion was called to it as a doubtful gospel. Not suspecting its heretical
leanings, he authorized it to be read. On further information, he
procured a copy with the above result.
128 TJic rise of written Gospels.
and liked it so much that they quote it extensively,
almost as if it were Scripture. It is of the Synoptic
type. It certainly included the Baptism, Tempta-
tion, Lord's Prayer, the healing of the man with
the withered hand, the woman taken in adultery,
the injunction to forgive until seventy times seven,
the Rich young Ruler, the parable of the Pounds,
the entrance into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, the
Trial, Peter's denial, our Lord's appearances after
the Resurrection, and several sayings of Jesus not
recorded elsewhere.
The moral and spiritual teaching of this Gospel
bears the clear stamp of the mind of Christ,
stress being laid on brotherly love and forgiveness.
It exhibits Jesus as the Messiah sent direct from
God, the long-expected King of David's race, in
Whom prophecy finds its fulfilment. It does not
appear to have contained any record of our Lord's
miraculous Birth.
It was written in Aramaic, and many eminent
scholars believe that it is the original Aramaic
Gospel mentioned by Papias as having been written
by the Apostle Matthew in that language about
50 A.D. In any case, it is generally acknowledged
to be independent of our Synoptic Gospels, and
seems to be based on an earlier and even more
reliable oral tradition. It is closer to S. Matthew
than to the other canonical Gospels.
In the Lord's Prayer one petition runs : " Give us
this day our bread for to-morrow." This is interest-
The rise of written Gospels. 1 29
ing and valuable, for no one at the present day
can state definitely how this particular clause in
S. Matthew is to be translated. He uses a Greek
word never employed by anyone else, " epiousion."
Lightfoot and several other eminent scholars had
already suggested " for to-morrow," " for the coming
day," as its real meaning. The Revised Version
gives this as an alternative rendering.
The Gospel according to the Hebrews was origin-
ally written for Jewish readers. Harnack assigns it
a very early date, about 65 A.D., and others place it
even earlier. In any case, it is a most important
document.
(2) The Gospel according to tJie Egyptians has also
reached us in a fragmentary state. Clement of
Alexandria held it in high esteem. It was con-
sidered heretical by some because, amongst other
things, it regards God as essentially One and
indivisible. Therefore it represents the Son and the
Holy Spirit as identically the same as the Father,
only manifestations of Him under another form. It
also inculcates celibacy even more strongly than
S. Paul (cf. i Cor. vii.). Harnack attaches the
highest value to this gospel, and a very early
date.
(3) The Gospel of S. Peter, also fragmentary.
In its present form it only covers the period
from the trial before Pilate to the visit of the
women to the Tomb. It is of this Gospel that
Serapion says : " we find many things in full accord-
K
1 30 The rise of written Gospels.
ance with the true doctrine of our Lord, but also
some things added." Justin Martyr (150 A.D.) also
quotes it.
In tone, it is anti-Jewish. It also favours the
Docetic heresy. The Docetae held, like the Gnostics,
that God could neither be born nor die d . Therefore
they made the Godhead descend upon Christ, in the
shape of a dove, at His Baptism, and fly back to
heaven before the Crucifixion. According to this
gospel, the words uttered by Christ on the Cross
are : " My Power, My Power, why hast Thou for-
saken Me ? " (fj 8ui/a/u'<? fjiov, 77 Swa/up, aTe'A,en/ra5 //,e).
Outside this heretical bias, this gospel is valuable
and adds new material to our knowledge, which
Harnack considers authentic and drawn from sound
tradition. It is a gospel of the Synoptic type.
Indeed, some modern scholars believe that it is
based on our four Gospels. Harnack assigns it
a date between no 130 A.D., and speaks of it
as " of the highest importance."
(4) " The Sayings of Jesus" This is another
fragmentary gospel discovered at Behnesa, the an-
cient Oxyrrhynchus, in Central Egypt, in 1897.
It consists of " sayings of our Lord " very much on
the type of those in the Sermon on the Mount, but
differently worded. These "sayings" constitute a
very interesting problem in Biblical criticism, which
cannot at present be said to have found a satis-
d The Docetae (56icTj<ris?* phantom) also held that the Body of Jesus
was only apparent, not real.
The rise of written Gospels. 131
factory solution. It is easier to ask " Whence did
they originate?" than to supply the answer. We
know that our canonical gospels do not nearly
include all that our Lord said and did, as the last
verse of S. John's Gospel assures us. Consequently
the whole of the true oral tradition is not for one
moment supposed to be enclosed between the four
walls of our Canonical Gospels. It is therefore
extremely likely that in the large collection of
" sayings " scattered up and down the pages of early
Church literature, we have many true "sayings of
our Lord " not recorded by our Evangelists. But
we have no sure clue yet in hand to enable us to
speak on this subject with certainty.
Upon one point, however, there seems to be a
general agreement among scholars, viz., that these
Oxyrrhynchus " Sayings " belong to a very early
date, and preserve early elements of genuine oral
tradition of intrinsic value. We know that it was
in the form of " Sayings of Jesus " that oral tradition
first crystallized, and that there were local varieties
of these as of the rest of Apostolic Teaching.
On the subject of these "local varieties" in oral
tradition we have already spoken in these pages.
But another word of caution is needed. When we
come to deal with our four Gospels, we shall find
so many unfair inferences drawn from quotations,
in early ecclesiastical writers, which resemble pas-
sages in our Gospels, that we feel called upon
132 The rise of written Gospels.
here to put in a word of warning suggested by
these " Sayings of Jesus."
On the strength of a quotation in Clement of
Rome, Polycarp or Ignatius, closely resembling a
parallel passage in S. Matthew or S. Luke, many
scholars at once jump to the conclusion : here is
a first-century quotation from our Gospels, therefore
they were regarded as Scripture before the end of
the first century. As we shall hope to show in our
next chapter, this does not follow in the very least.
The Apostolic Father in question may have drawn
his quotation from any one of half-a-dozen other
sources. In all probability he drew it from the
only New Testament he recognized, Oral Tradition.
Apart from the fact that the Apostolic Father was
quoting from memory, there is another probable
reason for his quotation being so like yet so dif-
ferent to the parallel passage in our Gospels. It
is more than likely that the oral tradition from which
he quotes does not originate from the same locality
as that of our Evangelists.
S. Paul's Epistles give us a good illustration of
this. His version of the words of consecration at
the Institution of the Last Supper is like S. Luke's,
but totally different from S. Mark's or S. Matthew's.
In i Tim. vi. 13 (R.V.), again, S. Paul writes : "Christ
Jesus, Who before Pilate witnessed the good con-
fession." Now our Lord's answer, "Thou sayest,"
to Pilate's question : " Art Thou the King of the
Jews? " is the only confession named in our Synoptic
The rise of written Gospels. 1 3 3
Gospels 6 , and, important as it is, it hardly satisfies
the requirements of S. Paul's solemn phrase. Over
and over again do we find that S. Paul's knowledge
of the Gospel-story does not tally with the Synoptists
in details, though it proceeds on the same lines. In
I Cor. xv. 4 sqq., S. Paul gives us a list of the
appearances of our Lord after His Resurrection. Of
the five appearances there mentioned, two,' that to
James and that to the 500 brethren, are quite new
to us. They are not mentioned in our Gospels, though
the appearance to James is recorded in the " Gospel
according to the Hebrews"
In precisely the same manner, S. Paul records
many sayings which are not worded in the same
way as in our Gospels, and some new altogether.
Yet he says, " I delivered unto you that which I
also received." We are aware that many will at once
remind us that S. Paul did not derive his knowledge
from oral tradition at all, or from any human source,
but direct from Christ Himself, as he explicitly tells
us (Gal. i. n ; I Cor. xi. 23), and that therefore our
argument breaks down.
But what does S. Paul's statement, " I received
from the Lord," really mean ? When we read in
Acts xiii. 2, " The Holy Ghost said, Separate Me
Barnabas and Saul," or in Acts xvi. 7, " The Spirit
of Jesus suffered them not to go into Bithynia," we
naturally ask, " How did the Holy Ghost speak?"
It is ever best to interpret Scripture by Scripture.
e In S. John there is a "good confession," but S. John did not
write till thirty or forty years after S. Paul wrote this passage.
134 The rise of written Gospels.
In Acts xxi. n, Agabus, a prophet, thus begins his
words of warning to S. Paul, " Thus saith the Holy
Ghost." This is how the Lord spake to men in
S. Paul's day, through His human mouthpieces, the
prophets.
Therefore when S. Paul tells us that " he received
his gospel of the Lord," he does not mean that his
knowledge of the gospel -story came to him without
human intervention. All he implies is that he is
convinced he derived it from an accredited and
thoroughly reliable source. Further, he himself tells
us that after his stay in Arabia, he went up to
Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen
days f . It is not necessary to ask what would be
the subject of their conversation. In short, whether
S. Paul derived his knowledge from " prophet " or
" Apostle," or from a written document, directly or
indirectly it comes back to the same point. It was
based on Apostolic Teaching, and the same thing
is true of oral tradition.
Therefore S. Paul proves what these non-canonical
gospels suggest, and what has been believed all
along, viz. that oral tradition was immensely vaster
and contained more materials than our canonical
Gospels would lead us to infer. Hence, when
these non-canonical gospels supply us with new
facts, if they bear the stamp of Christ's Spirit, we
are not in a position to assume that they are not
f This was about 36 38 A.D., and this may account for many of his
divergences from the Evangelists. He represents a stage of Oral
Tradition far earlier than theirs.
The rise of written Gospels. 135
genuine simply because our Gospels do not record
them.
Enough, we trust, has been said to prove that, from
50 A.D. onwards, there was a large mass of gospel-
narratives of varying value. It took time to sift the
chaff from the wheat, and our four Gospels were not
at once recognized as inspired, to the exclusion of
others. The formation of a Canon of the New
Testament was a slower process than we commonly
imagine. Not all at once did the early Christian
Church perceive what a treasure she possessed in
S. Matthew, S. Mark, S. Luke and S. John.
For one reason, the living voice and oral tradition
more than replaced books ; but there was another
cause. In those days, the Old Testament and the
Old Testament only, was Holy Scripture. Greatly
as the primitive Church revered the Apostles, it took
many years before she could look upon the writings
of any disciples of the Apostles, or even of the
Apostles themselves, as being holy in the same way
that the recognized Word of God, the hallowed books
of the Old Testament, were sacred. At the time that
S. Paul was writing his Epistles, he little thought
that one day they would rank with the Law and
the Prophets. He probably would have been
intensely shocked had any one suggested the bare
idea.
In our next chapter we shall endeavour to show
when our four Gospels established their claims and
were admitted into the Canon of Holy Scripture.
CHAPTER VIII.
WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS CANONIZED ?
THE question before us in our present chapter is
this : When did our Gospels come to be looked
upon as sacred books of the Bible, inspired writings
worthy of being placed in the Canon of Holy
Scripture, side by side with the Old Testament ?
Our New Testament books did not leap into
their present canonical position at one bound. It
was a very gradual process, marked by several
stages. We must endeavour to trace these stages,
to fix their approximate dates. We must try to
ascertain the causes which promoted or retarded
the inclusion of these New Testament books in the
Canon.
Our previous chapters will at once suggest some
answers to these questions, (a) The sacrcdness of
the Old Testament in early Christian days.
The Christians of the Apostolic Church of Jeru-
salem were Jews. All Jews so deeply revered
" Holy Scripture," held it in such awe, that they
jealously viewed the slightest alteration, the least
addition to it as a grievous sin. After our Lord's
Death, the Old Testament continued to be the one
Bible of the Christian Church, and there was no
other. For generations, it never even entered their
When were out' Gospels canonized? 137
heads to place Apostolic writings on the same level.
It would have been little short of sacrilege in their
eyes.
The Apostles themselves had not the least in-
tention of making Scripture. They " preached
Christ " with the living voice, and it was only
under a sort of compulsion that the first Christian
writings were produced. These were originally of
a purely occasional nature to supplement oral
tradition. We have seen this in the case of the
Gospels, so it was with the Epistles. For instance,
S. Paul had under his immediate charge a large
number of Gentile Churches. He had planted and
organized them in the usual way, personally by word
of mouth. But, from time to time, during his
absence, questions arose in one or other of these
Churches requiring his authoritative decision. He
therefore issued in writing what we should now
call a Bishop's " charge." These were " occasional"
documents, not prized nearly as highly as oral
tradition. At the moment of their writing, there
was not the remotest idea that they would one day
form part of the Bible. The prevalent reverence
for the Old Testament would banish such a thought ;
so would the current conviction that the end of the
world was imminent. That the New Testament
should have been written at all by men who shared
these views has been well characterized by Dr.
Westcott as a " moral miracle."
(b) The vitality and sacredness of oral tradition.
138 When were our Gospels canonised?
This also stood in the way of new Scriptures. We
have so often insisted on this point that it need not
detain us here. Books certainly did not supersede
it till 1 20 A.D. at the very earliest.
(c) TJie multiplicity of written Gospel-narratives.
It took a very long time before the Church was
able to draw a sharp line between Apostolic and
non-Apostolic writings, even when it began to lay
any stress on literary documents. Readers in those
days were surprisingly uncritical. Gospel-versions
of greatly varying value were widely scattered,
and Christians used such books as were accessible
with little discrimination, as the Serapion extract
shows (p. 127 sup.). We shall see that from the
end of the first century onwards, passages from
Christian writings began to be read in Churches for
edification, somewhat like our " homilies." This
" Church use " conferred a certain dignity on the
book in question, and formed a possible stepping-
stone to its eventual canonization. In this way,
books like the Gospel according to the Hebrews, the
Gospel of Peter, the Epistle of Clement, and the
" ShepJierd of Hermas " fought hard for inclusion
in our New Testament.
Hence it is that, although the books of our New
Testament (except 2 S. Peter) were all probably
written by 100 A. D., their recognition by the Church
as canonical was very much later than this date.
Strange as it may sound, heretics seem to have
paved the road for the formation of a New Testa-
WJicn were our Gospels canonised? 139
ment Canon. So far as we know, the heretic
Marcion, about the middle of the second century,
led the way.
Marcion detested Jews, and, therefore, their Old
Testament. Only in Christ was the true God re-
vealed, not in the Old Testament Jehovah. S. Paul
alone had grasped the significance of Christ's Gospel ;
the older Apostles had misunderstood it. Into his
Canon, therefore, Marcion only admitted ten Epistles
of S. Paul and one Gospel, the Pauline Gospel of
S. Luke. But he omitted large portions both from
Epistles and Gospel so as to still further purify them
from Jewish colouring. The fact, however, remains
that Marcion is apparently the first to come before
us with a collection of Christian writings regarded
as Scripture.
Similarly, the Gnostics and other heretics had
favourite Gospels (under the names of S. Peter and
other Apostles), to which they confidently appealed.
This forced the hands of the Church. It became
absolutely necessary to define clearly which Chris-
tian writings were orthodox and genuine, which were
not. Thus, from about the middle of the second
century, we see traces of the formation of a Canon,
but it was not till the fourth century that absolute
uniformity and agreement on the subject was at-
tained.
We shall now pass in rapid review the evidence on
which these conclusions are based.
140 IV hen were our Gospels canonised?
Evidence may be roughly defined as consisting of
facts presented to the mind of a person to enable
him to decide a disputed point. Evidence may be
direct or indirect, and, in the case of documents,
internal or external. Direct evidence is information
from persons who were present and saw what hap-
pened. Indirect evidence falls short of this, but
supplies us with facts from which we can draw an
inference as to whether a thing did happen or not.
Internal evidence is the testimony borne to the
genuineness and authority of a document from
within the book itself. External evidence is the
witness borne to the genuineness and authority of
a document by testimony drawn from outside the
document in question.
From the nature of the case, we can derive no
information from internal evidence as to the dates
when our Gospels were canonized. We must rely
entirely on external evidence for our facts in this
matter.
Happily for us, the first centuries after Christ
produced a rich crop of ecclesiastical Christian
writers supplying us with invaluable facts, and on
their evidence we are enabled to draw many re-
liable inferences. But we must remember that
much of this evidence is indirect. Extremely valu-
able so far as it goes, it is not always easy to
interpret, and we cannot cross-examine our wit-
nesses as we could wish. Still worse, in the case
of one or more of our best witnesses, e.g. Papias,
When were our Gospels canonized ? 141
we only possess their evidence as quoted by Euse-
bius, writing some 150 years later a .
Repetitions weary ; but the matter is all-im-
portant, for the date, and often the authenticity,
of our Gospels depends on external evidence. We,
therefore, make no apology for repeating certain
cautions which should be borne in mind in weigh-
ing the evidence supplied by Apostolic and sub-
Apostolic literature.
(a) Oral tradition was in full force certainly till
1 20 A. D. (b] There were many other written
Gospels beside our four, (c} Quotations are made
mostly from memory in early days, (d) Gospel
is a general term for the substance of the oral
Gospel-story, (e) Authorities 1 * are not quoted by
name till a very late date (e.g. 150 A. D.).
Therefore, (i) when, e.g. Clement of Rome or
Justin Martyr quotes a passage which occurs (exactly
or approximately) in one or more of our Gospels,
he need not be referring to our Gospels at all. He
may be quoting directly from oral tradition, as is
probable, or possi'bly from some other written Gospel.
(2) The " Gospel says," a phrase constantly re-
a Eusebius had the books of earlier ecclesiastical writers (now lost)
open before him. His quotations from them are invaluable to us, but
his comments are of little value. He merely reflects contemporary
(265 339 A.D.) opinion, and loves to record anything honourable
to the Church.
b i.e. for the Gospels. S. Paul's Epistles are quoted by name.
c We have seen that, in Palestine, oral tradition was more or less
stereotyped.
142 When were our Gospels canonized?
curring in these writers, need not and probably does
not, till 1 50 A. D., refer to a written Gospel.
(3) " It is written " always implies that the pas-
sage quoted forms part of Holy Scripture. Yet we
shall see that the writer of the Epistle of Barnabas
quotes one passage, at least, as Scripture which is
not found in our Bible at all.
On the other hand, the fact that a passage in
our Gospels is quoted, but not word for word, is
no proof that it is not a direct quotation from our
Gospels. These early writers quoted from memory,
and laid no stress on verbal exactitude, but aimed
only at giving the substance of a passage.
External evidence.
Apostolic Fathers. The ecclesiastical writers of
the generation immediately following that of the
Apostles are called Apostolic Fathers because they
were* supposed to be disciples of the Apostles, and
their intimate associates. This tradition cannot
bear close critical investigation and the name is
a misnomer.
They are five in number, Clemens Romanus, Barna-
bas, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Hermas. Clemens, Bar-
nabas, and Hermas were long believed to be persons
actually mentioned by name in the New Testament.
This hypothesis breaks down utterly in the case of
Barnabas and Hermas, and is questionable even of
Clemens. On the other hand, some of them (e.g.
Polycarp) had certainly known individual Apostles.
When were our Gospels canonized? 143
Their writings (80 120 A. D.) breathe a spirit of
deep piety, but make no attempt to formulate the
truths of Christianity. As a rule, they are as devoid
of genius and originality as a modern sermon, but
the simple faith and childlike receptivity of these
Fathers is very beautiful.
Their chief value to us, here, lies in the close
parallelisms with our canonical Gospels, parallelisms
that are to be found scattered up and down their
writings. Their familiarity with the Gospel-story
is evidenced by their frequent allusions to it, yet
there is hardly a single passage in their works
suggesting the use of a written Gospel, though
there are direct references to S. Paul's Epistles.
Clement of Rome (Bishop of Rome 93 101 A. D.)
wrote an Epistle to the Corinthians in 95-96 A. D.,
urging them to be more of one mind. He quotes
S. Paul i Cor. by name. This Clementine epistle
contains also three passages often cited as indicating
a direct use of our Gospels. Two of these are of
questionable value. Thus he tersely blends together
the matter of S. Matth. v. 7, vi. 14, vii. 2 and 12 ;
S. Mark iv. 24 and xi. 25 ; S. Luke vi. 31, 36, 37, 38
into one compact expression bidding the Corinthians
pity that they may be pitied, forgive that they may
be forgiven, &c. Dr. Sanday infers that the " round-
ness, compactness, and balance of style " in this
passage, and a similar one later on, make it prob-
able that Clement was quoting our Gospels. Other
scholars advance precisely the same reason for alleg-
ing that it is oral tradition crystallized.
144 When were our Gospels canonized?
What is more to the point is that in S. Matth. xv. S
and S. Mark vii. 6 occurs a quotation from Isaiah
very much sJiortened : " This people honoureth Me
with their lips, but their heart is far from Me," and
Clement reproduces it exactly in its shortened form d .
Clement also quotes some " sayings " of our Lord
not found in our Gospels.
Ignatius (Bishop of Antioch 109 1 16 A D. e ), whose
seven shorter letters are now admitted to be genuine,
has several parallelisms with our Gospels and re-
markable coincidences of thought, but this is all.
It is noteworthy that the only words of our Lord
expressly quoted by Ignatius are words not found in
any of our Gospels : " And when He came to those
about Peter, He said, Take, handle Me, and see that
I am not a bodiless demon " (cf. S. Luke xxiv. 39).
Origen tells us these words occur in the " Preaching
of Peter" ; Jerome, in the " Gospel according to the
Hebrews."
Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna (who lived between
76155 A.D. f ), wrote a letter to the Philippians.
He quotes a passage very similar to the compact
expression of Clement mentioned above : " Remem-
d We must, however, remember that Oral Tradition contained
a collection of Old Test, "proof-texts" as well as of our Lord's
"Sayings." "To collect and apply the Oracles of the O.T. in the
light of the New Dispensation was the first literary task of the
Christian Church. Several such collections survive." Btirkitt,
Transmission of the Gospel-Story, p. 127 sq.
8 Zahn and Lightfoot have established the genuineness of the seven
Ignatian Epistles, but throw back their date to no 130 A.D.
f The exact date of Polycarp's martyrdom (at age of 86) is not
known. It is generally fixed at Feb. 23, 155 A.D.
When ivere our Gospels canonised? 145
bering the things which the Lord said while teaching,
'Judge not, that ye be not judged, remit that it may
be remitted unto you,'" &c. He likewise has a
passage identical with S. Matth. xxvi. 41 and
S. Mark xiv. 38: "Asking the all-beholding God
not to lead us into temptation, even as the Lord
said, ' the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesJi is
weak.' "
Barnabas is really not an Apostolic Father at all.
Harnack and others prove his date to be nearer
130 A.D. than 100 A.D. His Epistle gives us the
first reference (if we except the reference in the
spurious 2 Pet. iii. 16) to any book of the New
Testament as " Scripture." " Let us beware lest we
are found, as it is written, ' many called, but few
chosen'" (cf. S. Matth. xxii. 14). But he also quotes
as Scripture passages which are nowhere in our
Bible. " The Scripture saith, And it shall come to
pass in the last days that the Lord will deliver up
the sheep of His pasture, and their sheepfold and
tower to destruction. And it so happened as the
Lord had spoken." Similarly, the only words he
expressly assigns to Jesus are not found in our
Gospels: "Even so, saith He, they that would see
Me and touch My kingdom, must take Me, through
persecution and suffering."
Hennas, the Shepherd of, was the most popular
religious book in the early Church, somewhat like
our '' Pilgrim's Progress." Indeed, the Pastor of
Hernias, as well as the Epp. of Clement, of Barnabas
L
146 When were our Gospels canonised?
and of Polycarp are all quoted as Scripture during
the second century, and were publicly read in the
Churches. The Shepherd of Hennas (100 140 A.D.)
contains no distinct traces of the writings either of
the Old or New Testament. The nature of its
subject does not well admit of quotations.
To sum up. In the Apostolic Fathers, S. Paul's
Epistles are quoted by name, but our Gospels never.
Once only, in the latest of these writers, Barnabas,
a passage occurring in one of our Gospels, " many
are called, but few are chosen," is cited as Scripture.
Clement quotes, without acknowledgment, one pas-
sage found in Matthew, so does Polycarp. There
are scores of close parallelisms with New Testament
books. On the other hand, many passages are
quoted as Scripture, and sayings of Jesus cited,
which occur nowhere in our Bible.
In weighing the evidence, remembering our
cautions, the only inferences which the evidence
before us allows us to draw are these: (i) Some
of these writers may have been acquainted with
our S. Matthew and S. Mark, but (2) Oral tradition
may equally cover all their quotations. They con-
sist of short pithy sayings, which would stamp
themselves indelibly on men's hearts. (3) These
Fathers were also familiar with other gospel-sources
not known to us. (4) Our Gospels had not yet
established their claim and superseded others. (5)
At the same time, the general tendency of that day
When were onr Gospels canonized? 147
to care more for the substance than the letter, to
quote from memory, and combine several passages
into one, may veil many direct quotations from our
Gospels.
The Didache, or "Teaching of the XII. Apostles."
This is a document of such supreme importance that
we give a very brief analysis of it in the Appendix.
There is absolutely nothing in the Didache (70
100 A.D.) which can be cited as a quotation from our
Gospels. The words " as ye have it in the gospel
of our Lord " have been quoted as referring to one
of our written Gospels. They prove nothing. This
phrase in earliest Christian literature is a constant
formula for "as our Lord said to His disciples."
There are in the Didache the usual parallelisms and
coincidences of thought, but that is all.
Sub- Apostolic writers up to 150 A.D.
Pctpias (70? 156?) was Bishop of Hierapolis in
the early second century. He wrote his " Expositions
of the ' sayings,' ' oracles ' or ' scriptures ' of the Lord "
about 130 140 A.D. By reason of the intrinsic value
of his evidence special interest is attached to his
words by scholars of every school of Bible criticism.
There has been more wrangling over his words than
over any other statements in connection with the
Gospel-evidence, for a very great deal hangs on
their interpretation.
He begins by telling us that he has collected his
148 When were our Gospels canonised?
evidence at first hand, obtaining it from those who
were disciples of the Apostles. " / shall not scruple
to place side by side with my expositions all the things
(solemnly affirming their trutlifulness) that I ever
rightly learned from the Elders and rightly remem-
bered.'"
He then goes on to tell us that he was indifferent
to idle gossip and hearsay, seeking only for direct
evidences as to the words of Christ, and he con-
tinues : " If, at any time, anyone came who had been
acquainted with the Elders, I used to enquire about
the discourses of the Elders, what Andrew or what
Peter said, or what Thomas or James, or what John
or Matthew, or any of the disciples of the Lord ; and
what Aristion and John the Elder, the disciples of
the Lord, say. For I thought that information derived
from books would not be so profitable to me, as that
derived from a living and abiding utterance'.'
He then quotes the following words on the
authority of an Elder in whom he placed implicit
trust : ''And this Elder used to say that Mark,
indeed, having been Peter's interpreter, wrote down with
acctiracy, yet not in order, everything he bore in mind,
the things, namely, either said or done by Christ.
For neither did Mark himself listen to the Lord or
follow Him, but later on, as I have said, Mark
followed Peter, who gave him all such instruction
as was required, yet witJiout intending to make a
connected account of our Lord's sayings. Accord-
ingly, Mark was no way in fault in so writing certain
When were our Gospels canonized? 149
tilings as Jic recalled tJiem. For of one tiling lie took
precaution, not to omit anything that he had heard, or
therein to state it falsely "
Papias is also our authority for the statement :
" Matthew, then, for his part, compiled the sayings in
Hebreiv : but each man interpreted them as he was
abler
Our Papias' quotations reach us through Irenaeus
and Eusebius. Irenaeus (180 A.D.) speaks of him as
a " hearer of John," a companion of Polycarp, and
" a man of the old time," that is, a man of the
primitive days of Christianity.
Papias wanted to get at the fountain-head, to
obtain first-hand evidence of the facts of the Gospel-
story. There were scores of so-called gospels floating
about. Some contained erroneous details and con-
tradictory matter such as would create much con-
fusion and uncertainty in the minds of contemporary
Christians. Papias felt that he would be rendering
a service to the Church if he collected from eye-
witnesses all the authentic information still available,
so he brings to a focus the last glimmerings of direct
Apostolic tradition.
His evidence has, indeed, proved invaluable, but
his mention of two Johns, John and John the Elder
has made confusion worse confounded. Eusebius
(300 A.D.), Papias' reporter, makes out that there
were two Johns, and that their two tombs existed
in Ephesus to his own day. He further implies that
it was "John the Elder" who wrote the Apocalypse,
150 When were our Gospels canonized?
and modern critics have made free use of this state-
ment in support of their theory that the Fourth
Gospel is not by John the Apostle.
We shall have to return to this large question in
dealing with S. John's Gospel. For the present, it
is more to our purpose to note that Papias, writing
in 130 140 A.D., (i) was familiar with S. Mark's
Gospel, (2) also with a S. Matthew's Gospel "in
Hebrew," (3) and a number of " interpretations " or
gospel-narratives based on it.
Eusebius adds, " Papias also quotes the former
Epistle of John and that of Peter likewise. He has
also set forth a narrative concerning a woman charged
before the Lord with many sins, which the Gospel
according to the Hebrews contains."
We are not to infer from Papias' silence about
S. Luke and S. John that he did not know of their
existence simply that " he had nothing to say about
them " (Lightfoot). He seems to have had no con-
ception of canonical authority attaching to any part
of what we now call the New Testament.
Justin Martyr, the ablest Christian of his genera-
tion, and an Apologist of note. Tatian calls him
" The most wonderful Justin." He wrote about
150 A.D. In his works he speaks of the narratives
of our Lord's Life and Ministry, which he has con-
sulted, as " memoirs of the Apostles."
In these early days we seldom hear of "the
gospels." Even when the four gospels had fully
established their claim to canonicity, they are still
WJien were our Gospels canonized? 15 i
grouped together as if they formed one document,
and spoken of in the singular as " the gospel."
Justin is the first, in one passage of his Apology
(possibly a gloss), to use the plural form " gospels " ;
but as a rule he speaks of " The memoirs composed
by the Apostles and those who followed them," a
phrase, by the way, which exactly describes our four
Evangelists.
In five places where he introduces a quotation
with the formula " it is written," he agrees with
S. Matthew and S. Luke almost word for word.
Indeed, in Justin, for the first time, the direct
quotations from our Gospels can be counted by
scores. They are not verbally exact, but they can
no longer be called mere parallelisms, though Justin
is nothing if not an inexact quoter, and combines
passages drawn now from one, now from another of
the Synoptic Gospels. He hardly seems to refer to
S. John, but this is a moot question. At any rate,
he makes much more sparing use of the Fourth
Gospel than of the Synoptists.
Justin still makes free use of what we should now
call " apocryphal " gospels. Harnack and Sanday
believe he largely used the " Gospel of Peter " ;
Swete denies it. He certainly weaves in traits
which he has derived from gospel-narratives un-
known to us. S. Paul's Epistles are never men-
tioned. The Apocalypse, I Peter and I John he
esteems highly. Hebrews and the Acts he ignores.
Evidently Justin had no sympathies with Paulinism
152 When were our Gospels canonized?
and attached his belief to the teaching of the older
Apostles.
Justin is on the threshold of a Canon of the New
Testament, but no absolute sanctity is as yet
attached to the respective books. In his day none
of the Gospels had yet been canonized. Justin,
like the Church of his day, set a special value on
certain Christian writings publicly read in the
churches, but we know that this public reading
does not imply canonicity, for non-canonical books
were so read.
In Justin's " Memoirs of the Apostles " it is all
but certain that we have S. Matthew, S. Mark,
and S. Luke, possibly S. John. At the same time,
oral tradition is still in force, the Gospels are not
yet canonized, and Justin still gleans freely from
apocryphal Gospels.
Marcion see above, p. 139.
Tatian composed (172 173 A.D.) a harmony of
the Gospels. This is the first emphatic indication
that our four Gospels have established their claims
and are accepted as of unique authority, to the ex-
clusion of others. The value of Tatian's evidence is
enhanced by the fact that he uses the Fourth Gospel
as much as the other three. He begins his book
with S. John's Prologue : " In the beginning was
the Word," &c.
Shortly after this date, we have the clearest indi-
cation to the canonicity of our four Gospels in the
Muratorian Canon (175 200 AD.). This contains
When were our Gospels canonized? i 53
the first formal list we possess of New Testament
Books by name. It includes (in this order) S.
Matthew, S. Mark, S. Luke, S. John, Acts, xiii
Epistles of S. Paul, I, 2 S. John, S. Jude, Apo-
calypse, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle to the
Laodiceans, and the Epistle to the Alexandrians.
Now our Gospels cannot thus have leapt at one
bound into unquestionable canonicity at the date
of Tatian and the Muratorian Fragment. They
must have occupied this position for at least a
generation previously, in spite of the paucity of
evidence to this effect.
IrencEus (Bishop of Lyons, 180 A.D.), a famous
theologian ; TheopJiilus, Bishop of Antioch, 180 A.D. ;
Tertnllian, Clement of Alexandria, and Hippolytus
(all about 200 A.D.) speak of the canonicity of our
four Gospels as established beyond dispute. Irenaeus
is so convinced that there are, and can be, but four
canonical Gospels that he adduces a strange reason
for their particular number: "There are four chief
winds, therefore four Gospels."
No evidence after 200 A.D. need be called. It is
superfluous. We wish, however, to mention here
two later ecclesiastical writers of note to whom we
shall often have to refer :
Origen (185 254 A.D.) is one of the most eminent
men of his day as a writer, philosopher, and apolo-
gist. He has been called " the father of Bible
criticism and of exegesis in Christendom."
Eusebius (265 339 A.D.), a most careful and
154 When were our Gospels canonized?
deeply-learned Church historian. His "Ecclesias-
tical History " contains skilfully selected quotations
from some fifty different authorities. His evidence
is specially valuable because he had access to autho-
rities and materials of first-rate importance which
would have been quite lost to us had he not utilized
them just when he did.
Recapitulation .
(a) The Apostolic Fathers afford us little more
than parallelisms with our Gospels. Papias (130
140 A.D.) is familiar with S. Mark, and speaks of
an Aramaic Gospel by S. Matthew the Apostle.
Marcion (140 A.D.) mutilated S. Luke and based
his Gospel on our third Evangelist. Justin's " Me-
moirs of the Apostles " (150 A.D.) seem to be
identical with our Synoptists.
(fr) Up to 150 A.D. our Gospels had not been
canonized, oral tradition was still in force, though
rapidly on the wane, and apocryphal gospels were
freely used.
(c) Tatian's " Harmony of the Gospels " (173 A.D.)
is a land-mark showing that our four Gospels are
now accepted as unique, and others rejected.
The Muratorian Canon and Irenaeus (180 A.D.)
prove that our four Gospels are canonized and on
a level with the Old Testament, in their day.
(d} Church-reading seems to have been a factor
in canonization, but "apostolicity " was apparently
the final test.
WJicn were our Gospels canonized? 155
(e) The formula " it is written " is first used of
Gospels by the author of the Epistle of Barnabas.
The general term " Gospel " is also in vogue till
Justin Martyr, the first to use " Gospels." Not till
Papias do we hear of any of our Gospels by name,
and he only refers to our S. Mark. Irenaeus is the
first to name all four, and also the first to make use
of the term " New Testament," in our sense of the
word.
(/") The Muratorian Canon is the first formal or-
thodox list of New Testament books. In Athanasius'
Canon (365 370 A.D.) we meet for the first time
with a list of New Testament books identically the
same as our own. This Athanasian Canon was con-
firmed by the third Council of Carthage (397 A.D.),
though the Eastern Church still refused to accept it
In 692 A.D. East and West combined and confirmed
the decision of the Council of Carthage.
CHAPTER IX.
THE TEXT OF OUR NEW TESTAMENT.
Higher Criticism is so called because it deals
* with questions " higher " than those of the mere
Text of the Bible, and, strictly speaking, Textual
Criticism does not enter within our province. With
Francisco, we say, " For this relief much thanks."
The Textual Criticism of the New Testament Scrip-
tures, in spite of the years of devoted labour be-
stowed upon it, is a study still in its infancy. The
very principles on which it is based are still imper-
fectly understood, and it is an open question whether
its true foundations have yet been at all adequately
laid. The leading textual critics of one school flatly
and contemptuously contradict the conclusions and
methods adopted by the champions of another
school, and the subject is still treated rather after
the fashion of a polemical controversy than of
a purely critical investigation. The state of things
is so bewildering that it is exceedingly difficult for
the student who is not a specialist in this branch
to grasp or convey a clear idea of the results
achieved. Yet the subject embraces such a wide
province, and is in itself of such absorbing interest,
The Text of our Neiv Testament. 157
that some attempt must be made to define its scope
and some of the conclusions to which it seems to
point.
There are still a considerable number of Bible-
readers who fancy that the text of our New Testa-
ment represents the exact words used by its original
authors. Till comparatively recent times, even
scholars were of this opinion. Erasmus, and still
later, the Elzevir publishers, in their editions of the
Greek Testament, felt so confident of the absolute
accuracy of their versions that they openly called
their publications " the original Greek text, in all
its purity, correctness, and integrity."
We can no longer dream these dreams. The
original text of our New Testament is hopelessly
lost. There is hardly a passage about which there
is not some slight doubt as to the exact wording.
If we wished to place the matter in a startling light
and unsettle our readers, we might put it in this
way. The New Testament consists of 7,959 verses.
In 1892, there were said to be more than 150,000
various readings, or an average of twenty variations
for each verse.
Such a statement would be literally true, but
absolutely misleading, and for this reason : the most
minute and trifling details all reckon as variations.
Take, for instance, the last verse of our Bible :
(a) The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you all.
Amen.
158 The Text of our New Testament.
(b] The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you all.
Amen.
(V) The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you
all. Amen.
(d) The grace of Christ be with you all. Amen.
(V) The grace Amen. Amen.
(/) The grace us all. Amen.
() The grace with all. Amen.
(h} The grace with all men.
Amen.
(2) The grace with the saints.
Amen.
(/) The grace with all t/ie saints.
Amen.
&c., &c., &c.
Every single one of these minute variants counts,
and, as we may imagine, the total soon mounts up.
With few exceptions, the variants do not affect the
sense of the passage in the least, even when the
words differ more materially, e.g. S. Matth. xxiv. 31,
" with a great sound of a trumpet," " with a great
trumpet."
It is in proper names that serious variations often
occur. Thus in Matth. x. 3, the name of the tenth
Apostle is variously given as (a) Thaddaeus, (fr) Leb-
baeus, (c) Thaddaeus who was called Lebbaeus, (d)
Lebbaeus who was called Thaddaeus, (e] Judas Zelotes,
(/) Judas, the son of James, (g) Judas, who was
called Thaddaeus, who was called Lebbaeus, (//) Thad-
daeus Zelotes.
The Text of our New Testament. 159
At times, the variation in the readings does make
a sensible difference in the meaning, e.g. :
S. Matth. xix. 17 (R.V.) : (a) " Why askest thou
Me concerning that which is good ? One there is
Who is good."
(<) " Why callest thou Me good ? None is good
save One, even God" (cf. S. Mark x. 18).
A glance at the margin of our Revised Version
will supply hundreds of these variants, and we need
not multiply them here.
There is another striking fact to be noted. In
our New Testament pages occur passages here and
there which are now generally admitted to be inter-
polations. Thus, in the margin of our Revised
Version, we find notes of this nature :
(a) S. John viii. I II ("story of the woman
taken in adultery ") : " Most of the ancient authori-
ties omit S. John vii. 53 viii. n. Those which con-
tain it vary much from each other."
(&) S. Mark xvi. 920 : " The two oldest Greek
manuscripts, and some other authorities, omit from
verse 9 to the end. Some other authorities have
a different ending to the Gospel."
(c} S. Matth. vi. 13 ; the Revised Version omits
" For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the
glory, for ever. Amen," but states in the margin :
" Many authorities, some ancient, but with variations,
add ' For Thine is the kingdom,' " &c.
This may tempt some readers to say in their haste:
160 T/te Text of our New Testament.
Then, what becomes of Inspiration ? If there are
these interpolations, as well as 150,000 various
readings, some of considerable importance, in our
various versions of the New Testament, where is
the correct or inspired wording to be found in them
all ? The whole idea of Inspiration goes overboard
in this bewildering maze of uncertainty.
Nothing of the kind ! The theory of verbal
Inspiration goes overboard. This is precisely what
we should expect from that Holy Spirit which
assures us that " the letter killeth, it is the spirit
which giveth life."
Had the variations been largely, instead of very
rarely, of a nature to alter the sense or the spirit
of a passage, then our confidence in the Inspiration
of the disputed passages might be affected. But
what do we actually find ? In ninety-nine out of
a hundred cases, the sole difference created by these
variants is purely verbal, and not of the slightest
account to the sense. Knowing, as we do, that our
Lord and His Apostles discouraged the worship of
the letter, though they were most careful of the
substance of their message, it would be straining
at a gnat to question the Inspiration of our New
Testament on such absolutely trivial grounds.
We may go even further. If the slight verbal
inaccuracies of our present text teach us to build
on the general sense and not on the mere letter of
Scripture, what result can be happier? It is a
practical and salutary lesson which we sadly want
The Text of our New Testament. 161
to learn nowadays, and if these verbal discrepancies
can only wean us from this extreme form of Biblio-
latry, the outcome of our 150,000 variants will indeed
be blessed and providential.
We may also look at the matter in another light
which is very suggestive and reassuring. Will any
one venture to assert that for the last 1,500 years
our New Testament has lost its power to comfort,
strengthen or inspire men, to draw them nearer to
God ; in a word, to do all that fully inspired Holy
Scripture should do ? Yet our text is substantially
the same now as in 400 A.D., Chrysostom's day.
Dr. Hort assures us as an incontrovertible fact that
the worst corruptions to which the New Testament
has ever been subjected originated within a hundred
years after it was composed. Irenaeus, in 180 A.D.
complains that in his day the text is hopelessly
corrupt, so does Origen some years later.
If we had been living in 400 A.D., the problem ot
various readings would in all essential points have
been the same as it is now. Indeed, we are in a far
more favourable position than was S. Chrysostom.
In such excellent manuscripts as Codex Sinaiticus
and Codex Vaticanus, we possess a far purer text
than any within his reach. His collection of manu-
scripts generally was limited, and derived from feu-
sources, while we have access to thousands upon
thousands representing the various texts in use at
Antioch, Jerusalem, Rome, Alexandria and elsewhere.
Yet, admittedly imperfect as was the Received
M
1 62 The Text of our New Testament.
Text in 400 A.D., it has been through it that the
Holy Spirit has blessed and fed the Church of
Christ for 1,500 years. During all these centuries,
the New Testament, in spite of its verbal inaccuracies,
has been man's spiritual guide and has divinely in-
fluenced his life. Imperfect, then, as our Text may
be, it bears the true impress of the seal of the Holy
Spirit. It conveys its divine message to our hearts
with a power which can come from none other than
God Himself speaking in its words. If we examine
the letter of our New Testament through a critic's
microscope, we may perhaps be bewildered, just
as we should be if we did the same thing with the
water we drink, or the food we eat to our comfort
and sustenance.
There is another consideration which should not
be lost sight of. There are about 6,000 MSS. of the
New Testament. Each of these contributes its full
share towards the 150,000 variants. In fact, the
later the MS. the more numerous the various readings
it contains. Each copy naturally perpetuates the
verbal errors of its original, and adds more of its
own.
But Westcott and Hort have also convincingly
shown that three-quarters, if not more, of these 6,000
MSS. sprang from four main original sources. They
are mere copies, echoes of these four originals.
Therefore, when we speak of 6,000 MSS., imposing
as the number sounds, the bare figures mean very
little. Like the signatures to a petition, it is only
The Text of our New Testament. 163
the 6 that counts, and the ooo after it are almost
a negligeable quantity.
However numerous the progeny of an original
manuscript may be, their united value can never
be greater than that of their common parent. This,
of course, does not mean that all our extant MSS.
can be traced back to four or six actually existing
autograph manuscripts. All that is implied is that
MSS., like men, naturally fall into groups or
families.
One set of MSS. is clearly of Alexandrian origin,
another set comes from an Antioch source, and so
forth. Each group has a marked family likeness,
with pronounced features all its own, and a close
examination of a MS. soon reveals whether its text
has been cast in a Roman or Alexandrian mould.
It may be asked : How has it come about that
such important documents as the originals of our
New Testament books are lost ? Even then, how
is it that all copies from these originals are not as
verbally exact as are the copies of an author's books
nowadays ?
The answer is not far to seek. The original New
Testament books, as they left the hands of a S. Luke
or a S. Paul, were written on papyrus, or paper made
from the pith of a tall reed. This writing-material
was very perishable. Some papyri have reached us;
but these were mostly found in tombs or other places
where they had not been much in use, whereas our
164 The Text of our New Testament.
Gospels would of necessity have been constantly
handled.
The ink used was lampblack, mixed with gum,
dissolved in water. The pens were reeds. The
writing was altogether in capitals (or uncials),
without division of words, punctuation, or marks
of any kind, and the words were often abridged.
In the fourth century, parchment or vellum again
came into use, and the oldest MSS. of the Bible
we possess are two of these fourth-century parchment
writings. But parchment was scarce and dear, so
the original manuscript was often rubbed out by
monks and others, and something else written in its
place. Many valuable Bible MSS. were thus sacri-
ficed to perpetuate some miserable theological
composition instead. Fortunately, by means of
chemicals, it is possible to restore the original
writing, and thus has been recovered the very valu-
able fifth-century Codex Ephraemi. These doubly-
written MSS. are technically called "palimpsests.''
In course of time, capitals were replaced by a
cursive or running hand in ordinary small letters,
and with the words more or less divided. Our
earliest extant dated cursive MS. is of 835 A.D.
In the fifth century, Euthalius began the system of
dividing the Bible into chapters, but there was no
uniformity in this matter. Our present Bible-
chapters are the work of Stephen Langton (thirteenth
century), and Robt. Stephens introduced our verse-
divisions in 1551.
TJie Text of our New Testament. 165
If we are to judge from existing first-century
MSS., our Gospels left their authors' hands written
in capital letters, without any word-divisions, and
with words often abridged, after this style,
INTBGNGWASf YVD (" In the beginning was the
word"). Every new book had to be copied from
the original by hand. It requires little thought or
experience to show how easily errors would creep
into the text.
It must also be borne in mind that, as we have
seen, the earliest New Testament writings were
occasional productions, written just to meet the
requirements of the moment. The Apostles and
their disciples, at the moment of writing, had no
idea that they were making Scripture or even writing
autographs which Christians, twenty centuries later,
would give half a kingdom to possess.
Similarly, the copyists of their works, copying
them for private use, or for some friends or local
churches, were not as careful as we could have
wished. Of course, writing about their Lord and
their God, they did their work conscientiously, but
not as if they had been conscious that they were
writing for all ages.
There were, we know, in those days, regular
professional publishers and copyists of literary works.
The Sosii at Rome were doing this work in S. Paul's
day. They could turn out a book in graceful and
enduring form, and as accurately as we do. But
Christians would not employ such men for their
1 66 The Text of our New Testament.
writings. At this period, Christ's followers were
suspected as a dangerous and hateful sect. So
much so that S. John in his Apocalypse, and S.
Peter in his Epistle, veil their allusions to Rome
in terms of studied enigma. Therefore Christian
writings would be copied by Christians, unpro-
fessional writers, who did their work reverently, we
may be sure, yet not with the perfect accuracy of
an expert.
Even in these days of printing, misprints arc not
by any means infrequent, and when books were each
copied one by one by hand, for local use, by un-
skilled persons, the wonder is that the text has safely
survived at all.
Slips in copying would naturally arise in various
ways. There would be slips of the eye, the ear, the
memory, for copying was often done from dictation.
Literary piety, as we have so often said, was not a
virtue in those days, -and a transcriber would occa-
sionally omit what he considered trifling details.
Or, if he were a learned man, corrections would be
made in grammar or style, slight changes adopted
to make a S. Mark conform more closely to a S.
Matthew, or even to render the meaning of a passage
clearer. Quotations from the Old Testament would
be made more exact or complete. Morever, it was
a common practice to add marginal notes or glosses,
and these often came to be embodied in the text by
a later copyist.
All this was done in perfect good faith, simply
The Text of our New Testament. 167
because transcribers seldom aimed in those days at
that minute accuracy which is expected of a modern
critical editor. Their conscientiousness in other
respects is clear from the fact that there is an
almost complete absence of any deliberate alteration
of the text to suit peculiar theological vie\vs.
We must also remember that till 150 A. D., cer-
tainly, there was no New Testament Canon. A
complete New Testament would not have been
found anywhere, probably, till after the middle of
the second century. No one, before Marcion, seems
to have formed a collection of the Pauline Epistles.
The colour of theology varied in the Churches East
and West. Some Churches would treasure one set
of writings, others another. S. Paul's Epistles, and
S. Luke's Gentile Gospel would specially appeal to
the Gentiles for whom they were written, but hardly
at all to Palestinian Jews. These had their S.
Matthew, S. James, and S. Peter. Hence portions
of our New Testament found a home in one locality,
other portions in another, but a complete New Tes-
tament would be practically unknown till 150 A.D.
In other words, from the very first, there was
a Jerusalem " use," an Antioch " use," an Alexan-
drian " use," a Roman " use." The portions of the
New Testament which each possessed would be the
standard books in that locality. These would be
copied over and over .again, and find their way from
the mother-Church to newly-formed communities all
around it. Naturally, a general similarity of text
1 68 The Text of our New Testament.
prevailed in groups of copies thus locally associated.
In this way we are able to speak of an Alexandrian,
a Western, and a Syriac text.
But, even in ancient times, no local text could long
remain uninfluenced by copies from other regions.
As the Church grew more and more compact and
united, the comparison of copies would become more
and more extended in range. Old readings, which
had struck deep root in certain localities, were not
eradicated, in all likelihood. In religion, then as
now, men are all conservatives by nature. But it
became now almost impossible for any important
new variation to escape detection. Hence it is that
since the fourth century no variants of any conse-
quence have crept into the text.
We shall conclude this chapter with a rough
epitome of Textual Criticism conclusions generally
accepted at the present day, taking Westcott and
Hort as our authorities.
Our own Authorised Version of the New Testament
is based on a Greek Text which was used by Chry-
sostom and Syriac Churches generally, from the
fourth century onwards. So acceptable was it to
Christendom at large, until modern criticism called
its accuracy into question, that it still goes by the
name given it in the Elzevir edition of 1633, Textus
Receptus (TR), the " received text " or " acknow-
ledged text."
Simultaneously, there has always existed a text
The Text of our New Testament. 169
technically known as the " Western " use, though the
term is not strictly applicable in a geographical sense.
It is so called from the fact that the Churches of the
West read the Gospels in the Latin translation of
Jerome (384 A.D.). This is based on a Greek text
substantially different from the " Received Text."
There is also an Alexandrian " use " which, so far
as we can judge, is exclusively confined to Alex-
andrian Churches.
Finally, there is a fourth group called Neutral
because it is a comparatively pure text, free from
the distinctive and faulty readings of the other
groups, even though it may have peculiar errors of
its own. Under this group are placed the two
famous fourth-century MSS., Codex Sinaiticus (X)
and Codex Vaticanus (B) a . Their text of the
Gospels in particular is supposed to be very pure.
Which of these four groups are we mainly to trust?
Over this question a battle-royal is still being fought
between the two great rival schools, the Burgon-
Miller and Westcott-Hort camps.
The late Dean Burgon was the recognized cham-
pion of the school which pins its faith to the " Re-
ceived Text " that underlies our Authorized Version.
Burgon and his followers even go so far as to say
that "faith in the Inspiration of Scripture carries
with it, as a corollary, faith in a special Providence
watching over the transmission of the Text ; and
!v B is purely neutral, S is "mixed," but its Gospels are largely
neutral.
170 TJic Text of our New Testament.
the authority of the Church which gave us these
books guarantees the text of these holy books as
well."
This ex cathedra pronouncement overlooks the fact
that another large and enlightened portion of the
Catholic Church read the Scriptures from 384 A.D.
onwards in Jerome's text, and equally regarded it
as the one and only true inspired Text.
Dogmatic assertion is no proof, and much as we
may honour Dean Burgon's spirit of reverence, his
theories can hardly be cited as evidence based on
verified facts. Westcott and Hort, on the other
hand, have laboriously collated and weighed practi-
cally every iota of available evidence that can be
brought forward on either side, and we may accept
the matured conclusions of two such experts with
some confidence.
Their estimate of the four groups is as follows :
(a) The Textus Receptus is not an original text.
It is a revision which deliberately introduced correc-
tions, and interpolated passages that found no place
in the original text on which TR is based. S. John
viii. i n, S. Mark xvi. 9 20, S. Matth. vi. I3b b are
instances of such interpolations, though Westcott and
Hort admit that these new passages may be derived
from some other trustworthy source.
(#) The Alexandrian Text shows a tendency to
very slight paraphrase, and betrays signs of skilful
b " For thine is the kingdom, &c."
T/ie Text of our New Testament. 171
assimilation and a careful attention to language, but
there are no interpolations.
(V) The Western Text has two chief characteristics,
boldness of paraphrase and a readiness to adopt ex-
traneous matter.
(d) The Neutral is a comparatively pure text.
Here we leave this knotty subject. Westcott and
Hort's conclusions are, after all, only very probable.
The Burgon-Millerites flatly contradict them ; Salmon
calls (b] and (V) one group (Alexandrian) ; others sup-
port the Western " use." The whole matter seems
a Gordian knot and apple of discord combined, likely
to remain a cause of endless strife, unless some first-
century manuscript turns up to settle it.
D
CHAPTER X.
APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE.
R. CHARLES truly says : " No attempt to study
Christianity in its origins can dispense with
a knowledge of Apocalyptic literature. If we wish
to reconstruct the world of ideas and aspirations
which filled the heart of an earnest Jew at the be-
ginning of the Christian era, it is to this literature
that we must have recourse for our materials."
Strictly speaking, this chapter does not logically
belong to this section (Part II.) of our book, a section
which deals with the history of Gospel literature pure
and simple. But we shall so often have occasion to
refer to Apocalyptic literature in the succeeding
chapters that we feel constrained to give it a place
here.
Apocryphal and Apocalyptic literature of the two
centuries before Christ.
The New Testament is the flower of which the
Old Testament is the seed and growing plant.
Separate them we cannot, for they are essentially
one and the same, an organic whole. " Think not
that I am come to destroy the Law and the Pro-
phets," says our Lord, " I am come, not to destroy,
but to fulfil."
Apocalyptic Literature. 173
Yet, intimate as is the relationship between the
older and newer revelations, there is also a striking
contrast between the two. It is as though one met
an intimate friend of former days after a twenty
years' interval fraught to him with experiences of
far-reaching significance. It has been the critical
period of his life and character. He is the same,
yet so altered, improved in tone, developed in
moral and mental fibre. Physically and morally,
he has grown almost past recognition. Great possi-
bilities in him there always were, they are now
actual realities.
This is the kind of feeling we experience as we
turn from the Old Testament to the New. It is
the same old friend, the same voice, yet so different.
How are we to account for it all ? We can do so
in one of two ways, or, rather, in both. First and
foremost, as with every epoch-making movement,
the new environment is itself due to a great Per-
sonality, Jesus, " The Word made Flesh." This
explains almost everything.
But there is also another factor of which we cannot
afford to lose sight. Between the last book of the
Old Testament and the Birth of Christ comes an
interval of 160 years, a period of immense import-
ance in the history of the Jews. Of its historical
significance we shall speak hereafter ; what chiefly
concerns us here is the intrinsically valuable religious
literature it produced, the Apocrypha.
We have unduly belittled the Apocrypha and
Apocalyptic Literature.
allowed it to fall into oblivion, yet it has played
a most important role in moulding Christian thought
and character. Up to the time of the Reformation,
the Apocryphal books formed an integral part of the
Christian Bible, and portions of it are read in our
Church to-day. The writers of the New Testament
often quote it, and are very familiar with it. The
line which separates some of the Apocryphal books
from the Canon of Holy Scripture is very thin and
faint, hard to define. Indeed, on purely spiritual
grounds, many Christians feel that the Apocryphal
books of Sirach and Wisdom might profitably re-
place either Ecclesiastes, Esther, or Canticles.
But, waiving all question of its spiritual value, and
turning to what is more to our present purpose, the
Apocrypha is of supreme importance to us from
a religious history point of view. Dr. Sanday truly
says that the close study of its literature during the
last twenty years has revolutionized New Testament
criticism. All of a sudden our eyes have been opened
to the fact that the imaginary gap between the Old
Testament and the New is of our own making. It is
not there. God's Revelation of Himself did not end
with Ezra or Daniel. He was not thus silent for
four hundred, three hundred, or even one hundred
and fifty years. The two centuries immediately pre-
ceding Christ's Advent are not the mere blank we
supposed. Is it likely that God should have left
Himself without a witness to His people on the very
eve of the Advent of Messiah ? As a matter of fact,
Apocalyptic Literature. 175
it was precisely this period which most effectually
paved and prepared the way for our Lord's Coming.
The Chosen People then passed through a political
and religious crisis which made the age ready and
ripe for Christ's appearance, and deeply affected the
life and thought of the infant Christian Church.
The Apocrypha consists of fourteen books, and
forms a small library in itself. The general name
Apocrypha is commonly given to the whole series,
but, strictly speaking, it subdivides into two parts
(i) the Apocrypha proper, (2) Apocalyptic writings.
The Apocrypha -proper deals with the, history and
the moral and religious education of the Jews during
this period. It is of a much more sober character
than the Apocalyptic literature. The Apocalypses,
on the other hand, mainly consist of prophetic visions
into the future, which strongly recall the weird pic-
tures and bold imagery of Daniel or the Revelation
of S. John the Divine. As their name implies, they
lift the veil that hides the future both here and here-
after from human eyes. They reveal the whole counsel
of God. Such revelations satisfy man's innate craving
to pry into the future, and naturally always appeal
to the popular imagination.
But Apocalypses do more than this. They are
ever a source of great comfort to many pious souls
in dark days of trial and persecution. They keep
alive the hopes of those who are on the verge of
despair. This is why they sprang up so profusely
in the period we are discussing. The yoke of
176 Apocalyptic Literature.
foreign oppressors rested continually on the land.
Jehovah their King seemed to have forgotten His
People, and Israel appeared to be lying under God's
ban. " When will God again visit and redeem His
people ?" men were asking, for the present was a
dismal blank. Hearts were crying in their anguish :
" We see not our signs : there is no more any pro-
phet ; neither is there among us any that knoweth
how long."
Had God cancelled His everlasting Covenant with
Israel ? The mere thought was blasphemy, for every
word God had spoken up to now He had fulfilled to
the very letter.
But what did God's silence and the present dismal
state of things mean ? Once more men opened the
books of the old prophets, and studied them even
more closely than before to see if they had over-
looked anything. To their joy, there they found
a number of still unfulfilled promises which buoyed
up their hopes. The woes and judgments of the
prophetic predictions, these they knew by heart, for
they had not only read them in books, they had
realized them all in the Exile and after. But what
of the glorious promises of the restoration of the
Kingdom to Israel, what of the golden era of joy,
plenty, peace, and comfort in the prophets' pages ?
There they were staring them in the face in God's
Word ; they had not yet arrived, but they were
certainly coming.
Here was the clue, here the answer for which their
Apocalyptic Literature. 177
hearts yearned. In the mass of these unfulfilled
prophecies a vast amount of material was at hand
on which to build their hopes. By turning what
was poetry into prose ; by transforming what was
literal into figures of speech, and converting what
was figure of speech into literal fact ; by subtle har-
monizing and rearranging of- this passage and that,
they were easily able to use this mass of material
in such a way as to map out the future according
to their wishes, even in the matter of arriving at
precise dates. In this spirit Daniel kept Israel's
hopes alive by showing that the seventy years fore-
told by the prophet for the nation's glorious restora-
tion had been misunderstood. The real seventy
years were seventy weeks of years, so that the
longed-for time was only just now drawing near.
Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah, Haggai had
all embodied visions in their writings, but Daniel
was the first to compose an Apocalypse on a large
scale. He comforts the Jews in their affliction with
the assurance of the speedy restoration of the king-
dom to Israel in all its Davidic splendour here on
earth. He also gives the first clear picture in bold
outline of the personal Messiah as Israel's King, to
Whom is given " dominion, and glory, and a king-
dom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should
serve Him." More than this, so that the good Jews
who have died unrequited may receive the reward
of their good lives, Daniel ushers in this glorious
kingdom by a partial resurrection of the dead :
N
1/8 Apocalyptic Literature.
" many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth
shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to
shame and everlasting contempt." This may be
said to be the first undoubted statement in the
Bible of a resurrection of the wicked as well as of
the just, and also of future retribution, though, of
course, the key-note of immortality had been struck
before The Book of Daniel is the model on which
all Apocalyptic after-writers shape their predictions.
Apocalypses differ from Scriptural Prophecy in
many respects. The Old Testament Prophets were
what we should now call " preachers." They were
essentially moral and religious reformers. The pre-
dictive element in their prophecy was quite secondary.
In the Apocalypses the predictive element is every-
thing.
Again, the prophets still firmly believe that this
world is God's world, and that in this world His
goodness and truth will be justified. The Apocalyp-
tic writer, on the other hand, looks upon the present
as almost past praying for. All his interests and
hopes lie in the hereafter, on earth or in heaven.
The Apocalypses have been well called " tracts for
hard times." The darker the outlook, the brighter
and stronger the ray of hope that breaks through it
and sees a glorious day at hand. But it is an im-
patient hope. It cannot wait for the coming of this
Kingdom of God on earth by the slow working of
moral forces gradually bringing about this splendid
consummation. The Apocalyptist wants and expects
Apocalyptic Literature. 179
it to come very soon. He sees the Golden Age
suddenly bursting forth upon an astonished earth,
with Messiah appearing on the clouds of heaven to
redeem and avenge His Chosen People.
In the main, all Apocalypses agree on certain
points :
(1) On a definite " Day of the Lord," Messiah will
come. Sometimes the date is stated, at others it is
spoken of as " known only to God " (e.g. 2 Esdr. vi.).
(2) Messiah's coming will be immediately preceded
by an epoch of unparalleled wickedness, like Daniel's
'' Abomination of Desolation." Satan, in human
form, is the leader of Messiah's enemies, and " His
great adversary."
(3) There will be a period of great tribulation,
such as was not since the beginning of the world,
accompanied by many signs in heaven and on earth,
earthquakes, famines, wars ; the sun will be darkened,
the moon will not give forth her light, and the stars
shall fall from heaven.
(4) This great tribulation will last for a fixed
season, then shall Messiah suddenly appear in the
clouds of heaven. But Elias must first prepare the
way for Him. Messiah, at His Coming, will crush
all His adversaries, and Satan with his hierarchy of
devils will fall. Messiah does not need the ordinary
weapons of warfare. He smites His enemies with
the word of His mouth.
(5) Messiah then sits as a Judge on the throne of
His glory, and metes out punishment to Satan and
i8o Apocalyptic Literature.
his angels and to all godless and wicked men, who
are cast into a fiery abyss, " a lake of fire." " Accord-
ing to their deeds," the righteous Judge pronounces
sentence on all men, good and bad alike.
(6) Heaven and earth are transformed, and a mil-
lennium of peace and righteousness begins on earth.
Messiah gathers unto Himself His elect from all
nations, and over these He reigns in holiness, for
there is no more sin or sorrow.
(7) The righteous dead are raised to share in His
glory as a reward for their past tribulation.
In most Apocalypses, a universal resurrection is
declared, and judgment is passed on all. men one by
one for the deeds done in the body.
Clearly, then, these Apocalypses pour a flood
of light upon our New Testament pages. We do
not imply that the New Testament merely borrows
bodily from the Apocalypses, and repeats all they
said in exact form and language. Very far from
this. We might just as well suggest that the Apo-
calypses from Daniel onwards borrowed all their
ideas from Persia. For it was there, almost cer-
tainly, that the Jews, during the Captivity, got their
notion of a hierarchy of angels and archangels with
God at their head, and a hierarchy of demons and
archdemons under Satan's captaincy. It was from
Persia, too, that came the picture of war in heaven,
followed by the binding of the Fiend, the overthrow
of evil, and the establishment of a millennium on
earth, as well as the ideas of a new heaven and a
Apocalyptic Literature. 181
new earth, a personal resurrection, and a final
judgment.
But, in Persian theology, these ideas were buried
under a mass of crude, coarse, childish materialism.
The Jews borrowed the ideas ; they came as sugges-
tions stimulating Hebrew thought, and left their
hands purified and spiritualized past all recognition.
In precisely the same manner, the New Testament
borrows the suggestions and ideas of Apocalyptic
literature, and turns its clay into gold.
It is the easiest thing in the world to detect a
close parallel between the Apocalyptic description
of Messiah's Coming and our Lord's own picture of
the end of the world in S. Matth. xxiv. Yes, and it
is also the easiest thing in the world to say that most
of Christ's teaching may be found scattered through
the Old Testament. Jewish scholars think that all
Jesus said is found in the Talmud. Various attempts
have even been made to prove that much of the
material in the Gospel narratives may be traced to
Buddhist sources.
There have always been two classes of people in
the Christian world. One set delights in ransacking
ancient Hebrew literature in order to discover any-
thing which resembles our Lord's sayings or teaching,
so as to prove that He said little, if anything, that
was new. The other class thinks it honours Him by
affirming His teaching to be absolutely new, with no
roots in the past.
Both the one and the other are equally on the
1 82 Apocalyptic Literature.
wrong tack. To begin with, there can be no new,
except by the help of some old. Originality does
not mean an entirely new start, snapping off all the
threads that link the present with the past. Such
originality is the figment of a deranged brain. It
never has existed, and it never can exist. It is not
only a moral and physical impossibility, it would be
the height of folly even if it were feasible. If our
Lord had spread out before His Jewish hearers
a novel field of unfamiliar truths, He would have
spoken in a language that conveyed no sort of
meaning to them. We have already seen that Christ
was a Jew by birth and education. His whole
thought and teaching were cast in Jewish moulds.
He so loved the Jewish Scriptures that He lived in
them, and He spoke to Jews who were steeped to
the lips in the words of their Old Testament. He
may be the world's Teacher, but He spoke first of
all as a Jew to Jews, and naturally used the modes
of thought and speech familiar to them.
But Christ's teaching is new in this sense, as He
Himself points out, it perfects that which in His
predecessors was imperfect. He gathers up their
scattered thoughts, frees them from the alloy of error
blended with them, harmonizes, developes, completes
them. " I am come, not to destroy, but to fulfil."
He also adds very much of His own that is abso-
lutely new, for few will be found to deny that the
original element in Christ's teaching is enormous.
For Christians, we might adopt another line of
Apocalyptic Literature. 183
argument which to our own mind is even more con-
vincing. Christ was among men before " the Word
was made Flesh." There never was a time when
He was not "that Light which lighteth every man
that is born into the world." He was that Light by
which Buddha, Confucius, Socrates, and all heathen
sages caught glimpses of the truth, that Light by
which Hebrew seers gazed more steadfastly into the
same Truth. But, if all their light came from Him,
is not He more than they ? Is not the " Light of the
World " brighter than His scattered beams ?
Therefore we may admit the fact that Apocalyptic
literature furnishes much of the form, language,
material, the very atmosphere of the New Testament,
without in any way detracting from the originality of
Christ's Teaching. It simply means that, as a True
Teacher, He links on His new doctrine to the hopes
and beliefs which the Jews already cherish. He
places Himself for the moment on the level which
His contemporaries have attained, and gradually
raises them nearer to His own.
To return to the Apocalypses ; it is especially in
the matter of " life after death " that the advance in
the Apocrypha is most marked. In the Old Tes-
tament there are very few, if any, clear indications
of a future state of personal immortality, with its
rewards and punishments. According to the Hebrew
conception, man at death descends into Sheol, a dreary
region of darkness, a land of silence and forgetful-
184 Apocalyptic Literature.
ness (Ps. Ixxxviii. 10 sq., cxv.), a kind of vast sub-
terranean tomb, in which the ghosts of the departed
do not even flit about, but lie like corpses in a sepul-
chre. In this shadowy, listless existence, persons
cannot be said to live ; they only vegetate, cut off
from all fellowship with the living, either man or God
(Ps. vi. 5 ; Is. xxxviii. 18). They have nothing to
fear, nothing to hope for. Good and bad lie there all
huddled together without moral distinction. True,
many pious Hebrew souls rebelled against this con-
ception of life after death. They had higher aspira-
tions, which at times (e.g. Pss. xlix , Ixxiii.) amount
almost to personal conviction. But they had nothing
certain to go upon.
As soon as we come to the Apocalypses all this is
changed. In Daniel, we already have a picture of
a partial resurrection both of the good and the bad,
and very soon Daniel's " many shall rise, some to
everlasting life, some to shame and everlasting con-
tempt" becomes " all shall rise." In the Apocalyp-
tic revelation of a general Resurrection, immediately
followed by a great Day of Judgment, when the
" sealed " books are opened, and, out of their records,
each man is judged upon his own merits according
to his good or evil deeds done in the body we have
a clear anticipation of Christian eschatology.
Thus did Apocalyptic vision find a solution for
the problem which had so long exercised Old Tes-
tament saints, and hitherto received no answer. At
last the righteousness of God is vindicated in the
Apocalyptic Literature. 185
eyes of men. The righteous may go to the wall in
this life, while the wicked prosper, but, at the resur-
rection, all wrongs will once and for all be set right
by God Himself.
Naturally, during this Apocalyptic period, Sheol
itself undergoes a radical change in accordance
with these enlarged ideas of life after death. Good
and bad are no longer huddled together without
moral distinction. Sheol is now divided into separate
compartments. The souls of all men still have to
go to Sheol at death, and there await the final Judg-
ment Day that shall usher in Messiah's Kingdom ;
but, in the intermediate state, they have distinct
habitations assigned them according to their merits.
Sheol becomes a half-way house between death and
judgment, where the departed already have a fore-
taste of their final bliss or doom. In some Apo-
calypses it is a place of purification as well, and the
possibility of moral improvement after death is
clearly implied.
The various departments of Sheol even have dis-
tinct names. Now, for the first time, we hear- of
"Abraham's bosom," "Paradise," "Gehenna," and
" the lake of fire and brimstone."
Messianic expectations also undergo a radical
change during this period, and in two opposed di-
rections. One set of Apocalyptic writers maintains
that earth cannot possibly be the scene of an
eternal Messianic Kingdom. With these, the Final
1 86 Apocalyptic Literature.
Judgment is placed, not at the inauguration, but
at the close of the reign of Messiah on earth, and
heaven is the true sphere both of the Kingdom and
the Judgment.
As a rule, however, the Apocalypses echo the
more popular idea which seized people's fancy just
before Christ's Advent, and revive the old concep-
tion of Messiah as a great Davidic Prince who
should really and actually restore the Kingdom to
Israel here on earth. Jewish political hopes had
been greatly buoyed up of late. In former days,
the political horizon loomed so black that a spiritual
Messiah was all they could perhaps hope for. Now
they wanted a Messiah of a more tangible kind,
a real King of their own on earth, with all the
pomp, magnificence, and power of a David or
a Solomon, only on a very much larger scale.
Indeed, it was precisely this material seculariza-
tion of Messianic expectation that so alienated
the masses from our Lord. A suffering and meek
Messiah, even though an Isaiah might so have pic-
tured Him, was not at all in harmony with the
views of the main body of the Jews of our Lord's
day, or to their liking. His own disciples, even,
were unprepared for such a spiritual Messiah : " We
had trusted that it had been He which should have
restored the Kingdom to Israel" (S. Luke xxiv. 21).
Not that the " spiritual Messianic hope " was
entirely dead when Christ appeared. It was not.
Many pious and enlightened souls still yearned
Apocalyptic Literature. 187
for Messiah, picturing Him not as a great con-
quering King, but as a strong and tender Consoler,
Who should comfort them for all their sorrows
and deliver them from the bondage of sin. " May
I see the consolation of Israel," was a common
formula of aspiration with hundreds of enlightened
Jews besides Simeon. This was their idea of the
" salvation which God had prepared before the face
of all people ; a light to lighten the Gentiles, and
to be the glory of His people Israel."
But not so with the masses. They expected and
wanted a Messiah who should lead them to universal
victory and crush all their foes ; a Messiah who
should inaugurate an era of great material pros-
perity.
Two other points should be noted in connection
with this prolific period :
(a) It brought into prominence, if it did not
actually create, the various Jewish sects (e.g. Sad-
ducees, Pharisees) of which we hear so much in
the Gospels (see Chapter XXV.).
() It produced just that combination of circum-
stances which made the world ripe for Christ's
Advent at the precise moment when He did come.
It was not by mere chance that our Lord was born
in Palestine, the very centre of the then known
world, at the exact time when the Greek language
prevailed everywhere as a common means of uni-
versal intercourse, and when the whole world was
but one country under Rome.
1 88 Apocalyptic Literature.
It has been truly said : " The City of God is
built at the confluence of three civilizations." Three
several lines of historical development converged to
a meeting-point when Christ appeared, and each
contributed to the spread and success of His
Gospel, Palestine, Greece, and Rome.
Palestine. The Jews had for many centuries
been specially trained to a knowledge of the One
true and perfectly righteous God. They were now
scattered all over the civilized ancient world, paying
the way for Christ by spreading this conception of
God everywhere. Morally and religiously, they pre-
pared the world for the entrance of Christianity.
" Salvation is of the Jews."
Greece. Alexander the Great had established the
supremacy of the Greek tongue over all lands, made
it the common medium and vehicle of thought every-
where. The commercial enterprise of the Greek-
speaking peoples since his day had still further
extended the scope of the Greek language. Thus
was provided a universal language calculated to
facilitate immensely the evangelization of the world.
Rome. A still more momentous factor was the
fact that the entire known world was then embraced
under Rome's imperial sway. The narrow barriers
of nationality had been broken down. From the
Euphrates to the Atlantic there was settled govern-
ment, order, and law, and, by the splendid system
of Roman roads, lines of easy communication lay
open in every direction.
PART III.
THE GOSPELS.
(1) Christianity and Gospel-Criticism. (Chap. XI.)
(2) The Synoptic Problem. (Chap. XII.)
(3) Source of S. Mark's Gospel. (Chap. XIII.)
(4) Is S. Mark the Interpreter of S. Peter ? (Chap.
XIV.)
(5) S. Mark's own witness to its Petrine origin.
(Chap. XV.)
(6) Outline-sketch of S. Luke and his Gospel,
(Chap. XVI.)
(7) S. Luke's sources Matthaean Logia. (Chap.
XVII.)
(8) S. Matthew. (Chap. XVIII.)
(9) S. Matthew (continued}. (Chap. XIX.)
(10) S. John Introductory the problem stated.
(Chap. XX.)
(u) S. John Inconclusiveness of the external evi-
dence. (Chap XXI.)
(12) S. John a Gospel transfigured by its leading
idea : " the Word was made Flesh." (Chap.
XXII.)
(13) S. John The internal evidence examined.
(Chap. XXIII.)
(14) S. John Data for solution of problem : Who
is its author? (Chap. XXIV.)
A rgument.
A CRITICISM of the Gospels is not an attack on the
Christian Faith. Modern criticism wondrously substan-
tiates the traditional view of the age and value of our
Gospel-records. The most unassailable proof of the truth
of Christianity is the existence of the Christian Church
itself, with its Sacraments. Recapitulation of the main
conclusions arrived at by Higher Critics in connection
with the origin and growth of Gospel-literature. Dates
of our New Testament books.
CHAPTER XI.
CHRISTIANITY AND GOSPEL-CRITICISM.
IV yf ANY people who are ready to admit that
^l Criticism is permissible in the Old Testament,
resent it in the New. They protest that here it is
\\rong and out of place, certainly in the Gospels.
Before the shrine of the Christian Faith, the critic
should at least pause and stay his hand.
Such protests are both unworthy and vain.
Unworthy, for it is the confession of a weak and
faltering faith to wish to evade honest investigation ;
vain, because, whether we like it or not, criticism
has long since entered the New Testament field.
For seventy years and more, the Gospels have been
subjected to the most searching criticism by friend
and foe alike. With what result ? The authority
of our New Testament books stands on a firmer
basis than ever ; the Gospels have gained fresh force
and strength by the attacks made upon them a ;
a As Westcott has pointed out, the Bible, like the Church, gains
by its trials. As long as it is unassailed, an unquestioning traditional
view accepts it all alike as one inspired Word of God, and does not
appreciate the variety of its component parts. The union of our four
Gospels in one New Testament, together with the mechanical Jewish
dogma of Inspiration, blind our eyes and blunt our feelings for the
great variety and distinct individuality of the separate works thus
united. It wanted the assaults of the Tubingen School to open
our eyes that were holden.
1 92 Christianity and Gospel-Criticism.
more than this, the objections once raised by the
Tubingen School against the genuineness and his-
toricity of New Testament books have been
shattered by the Higher Criticism itself.
Twelve years ago, Dr. Harnack wrote to this
effect : There was a time when people felt obliged
to regard the oldest Christian literature, including
of course the New Testament, as a tissue of de-
ceptions and falsifications. That time is past. In
the whole New Testament, there is probably but
a single writing which can be called, in the strictest
sense of the word, pseudonymous, the second
Epistle of Peter. The number of interpolations in
the New Testament books is very slight and harm-
less. Baur and his School believed themselves able
to disprove the traditional views of the development
of early Christianity by throwing over the testimony
of the New Testament writings, and by bringing
down their date of writing several decades. The
assumptions of Baur and his School are now, one
may say, disproved. A time will come, it is already
drawing nigh, when men will not trouble themselves
much about these New Testament critical problems,
because the essential accuracy of tradition as to the
history of primitive Christianity will have acquired
general assent, with but few unimportant exceptions.
No doubt this remarkable declaration would not
be fully endorsed by many theological scholars in
England or abroad. Indeed, such an unfair and
exaggerated interpretation was put upon his words
Christianity and Gospel-Criticism, 193
that Harnack himself has been compelled, in self-
defence, considerably to modify them in a recent
work which itself establishes the truth of his original
statement 1 '. The plain fact remains, however, that
S. Mark, never a favourite author in the Church, has
been reinstated in his rightful position as the writer of
a Gospel of the first rank and value, while Harnack
has convincingly proved that the traditional stand-
point of Christianity is right in assigning the third
Gospel to " Luke, the beloved Physician." We may
no longer believe S. Matthew or S. John to be Apos-
tolic works, but the Higher Criticism has established
their genuineness, their first-century date and their
claims to be regarded as works embodying Apostolic
teaching. It is therefore true that the total result
of modern critical work on our Gospels has been
to substantiate in a remarkable degree the view
which has always been held in the Church as to their
age, their spiritual character, and their inestimable
worth. The New Testament has a wondrous way
of vindicating itself.
More than this. There is another great considera-
tion which is too often overlooked. Many Christians
think and speak as if the Truth of our Christian
Faith stands or falls with the truthfulness of our
b "Luke the Physician" "My friends have taken offence at my
.tatement. I here offer them a new proof of it. I am not responsible
for the misapprehensions to which my statement has given rise.
I guarded myself against them, as it seems, to no purpose. I now
express my conviction that many traditional views are untenable."
O
1 94 Christianity and Gospel-Criticism.
four Gospels. It does nothing of the kind. Were
criticism to do to-morrow what it has never yet
done, nor is likely to succeed in achieving, were it to
invalidate the historicity of any one. of our Gospels,
or of all four of them, actually banishing the records
of our Evangelists to the realms of romance, this
would not relegate Christianity or its Faith to the
same region. In the genuine Epistles of S. Paul,
with or without the Acts of the Apostles, we should
still have ample evidence for a reconstruction of our
Lord's Life, Death and Resurrection c .
We may go even further. Assuming for the
moment that there never had been a New Testa-
ment at all, the best credentials of Christianity would
still remain intact The best, soundest and most
unassailable proof of the truth of Christianity is the
existence of the Christian Church itself, which is
worth more than all the book-evidence in the world.
In this Church, or Society of the followers of Jesus,
we have an actual, living, historical institution which
c e.g. from the speeches of the Acts alone, Westcott quotes for the
last Week and the 40 days : The betrayal (Acts ii. 23) ; the con-
demnation by the Sanhedrin (xiii. 27) ; the failure of the charge
(xiii. 28) ; the conduct of Pilate (iii. 13) and of Herod (iv. 27) ; the
choice of Barabbas (iii. 14) ; the urgency of the people and rulers
at Jerusalem (xiii. 27, 28) ; the Crucifixion (iv. IO, v. 30, x. 39) by
the hand of Gentiles (ii. 23) ; the Burial (xiii. 29) ; Resurrection on
the third day (x. 40) ; the manifestation of the Risen Christ to fore-
ordained witnesses (x. 41) for many days (xiii. 31), how He did
eat and drink with them after He rose (x. 41); the charge to the
Apostles (x. 42) ; the Ascension to the right hand of God (ii. 33 ;
iii. 21).
Christianity and Gospel-Criticism. 195
has existed without a break ever since the days of
its Founder.
The Church of Christ is a fact, a stupendous fact
based on events which happened in the first century.
It is built, not on written documents, but on the
Person of Christ as its bed-rock foundation. It was
already in existence and thriving long before the
records of a single book of the New Testament were
written. In spite of all obstacles, it has come
through twenty centuries in unbroken succession
and continues to live with extraordinary vitality.
Of this Church we can give no explanation what-
ever, if we deny that the earliest Christians firmly
believed the Life, Death, and Resurrection of our
Lord to be actual facts.
Therefore, however unhistorical the Life of Jesus,
as narrated by our Evangelists, may be declared
to be by advanced critics, no amount of adverse
criticism can shake the solid fact that we have
actually here with us now the Church of Christ,
built on the Person of Jesus, and on the personal
conviction of His followers from earliest days that
He is the Son of God. Of this conviction on the
part of the Apostles there cannot be a shadow of a
doubt. If anything could have shattered the Church,
it was our Lord's ignominious Death. Yet His
handful of followers, so convinced were they of
Christ's Messiahship, stood this tremendous test,
and the Church came through this crisis safely
and survived the shock of the Crucifixion. It was
196 Christianity and Gospel-Criticism,
our Lord's Resurrection, however, that rallied and
wondrously quickened the faith and spirits of His
followers. Even critics who deny the Resurrection
itself admit that the disciples most firmly believed
that our Lord had risen from the grave and visibly-
appeared to them after His Resurrection. Christ's
followers were so fully persuaded of this fact that
they were prepared to lay down their lives in pro-
claiming and attesting it. This evangelization they
achieved with such success that, long before a single
Gospel had been composed, the Church numbered
tens of thousands of Christians all over the civilized
world, who shared the Apostles' convictions and
accepted their beliefs.
It was this Church, founded by Christ Himself and
built by Apostles and Prophets, that gave us our
Gospels, not the Gospels that created the Church.
For 150 years, it was the living voice of the Church,
and not books, that formed the Christian New Tes-
tament. Our Gospels even then only replaced the
living voice because they faithfully embodied it.
We may go still further. If our Evangelists had
not crystallized Apostolic Teaching at this early
date, by thus reproducing it in a fixed documentary
form, it would not have been lost to us. The main
facts of the Gospel-story would still have continued
to be handed down by word of mouth from generation
to generation after, as before, 150 A.D. They
inevitably must have been thus transmitted, for the
life of the Church is indissolubly bound up with the
Christianity and Gospel-Criticism. 197
essential facts of the Life, Death, and Resurrection
of our Lord. Apart from them, the Church has no
raison d'etre.
Hence it is that, if we were robbed to-morrow
of our Gospels, if they were proved historically
valueless, we should be greatly the losers d , but
Christianity would in nowise be undermined. The
critics would still have to account for and explain
away the Church and her Sacraments. Our Gospels
are not the foundation of our Faith, they only
confirm it.
Our preliminary investigations arc now ended.
This is the sum of them :
(1) The Bible of the primitive Church was the
Old Testament, and the Old Testament only, but
they read Christ between every line of it.
(2) There was no New Testament, in our sense
of the word. Oral tradition, or Apostolic preaching
and teaching, took its place.
(3) Oral tradition passed through three stages
between 30 70 A.D. (a) early stage: this is very
d "The very first generation of Christians created for itself an
invaluable literature. Its value cannot be overrated. To these its
most ancient scriptures, next to the Person of its Founder, Christianity
owes the faculty of self-recollection which has prevented this religion,
amid the maze of history, from ever quite losing its own peculiar
character ; which has indeed ever again enabled it to renew its youth
and to preserve itself inwardly independent of the changing factors
of human development." Von SoJen.
198 CJiristianity and Gospel-Criticism.
pure, but somewhat informal and unsystematic ; (b}
middle stage : pure, fully developed and systematic ;
(c) late stage : identical with (b} but slightly inter-
polated and adapted.
(4) Oral tradition had one type, but local
varieties.
(5) The Apostles wrote Epistles and Gospels, but
regarded them in the light of occasional writings, and
had not the least intention of " making " Scripture.
(6) Many genuine Apostolic writings are lost,
e.g. S. Matthew's Gospel, S. Paul's Epistle to the
Laodiceans, and one to the Corinthians.
(7) Written Gospels abounded from 60 A.D.
onwards. Passages from them and other writings
were read aloud in churches, but for edification only,
not as Scripture.
(8) Papias (130 140 A.D.) refers to. the Gospel of
S. Matthew, and to a e S. Mark, but with this ex-
ception, none of our Gospels is mentioned by name
before 150 A.D.
(9) No Gospel was regarded as "Scripture" till
1 20 130 A.D., if as early.
(10) Our four Gospels were probably written
between 65 100 A.D.
(11) S. Paul died before 65 A.D. f , and never saw
one of our Gospels. His own Epistles were written,
e See note, 208 c .
f The dates of S. Paul's conversion and martyrdom are thus given :
Ilarnack. Kamsay. Lightfoot.
Conversion 30 33 34
Martyrdom 64 65 67
Christianity and Gospel-Criticism. 199
quoted and officially recognized long before our
Gospels. He had planted Churches all over Southern
Europe before our earliest Gospel (S. Mark) was
composed.
(12) Our four Gospels are probably among the
latest New Testament books .
s The following list fairly represents the modern view of the chrono-
logical order of our New Testament books :
(Hastings, D.B.) Dr. Plummer *.
James
40-50 A.U.
45-49 or 60-62 A. D.
S. Paul's 1-2 Thess.
51-53 A. D.
47-53
Galatians
53
51-53
1-2 Cors.
55
52-56
Romans -
55-56
54-57
Philippians, Ephes.
Coloss. Philemon
} 59-6i ' .
54-62
S. Paul's (??) Pastoral Epistles
1-2 Timothy Titus
} 67-68
59-67
I Peter -
6 4 ?-75
60-75
S. Mark -
67-70
65-75
Hebrews
70
64-67
Jude
67-80
62-80
Apocalypse
?
69-96
S. Matthew
68-70
67-80
S. Luke -
75-80
79-89
Acts
70-80
78-90
S. John -
70-90
80-100
S. John's Epp.
70-90?
80-100
2 Peter -
140^160
65-175
* For Plummer's dates, see " Guardian," June 12, 1907, " The Bible and Modern
Criticism."
CHAPTER XII.
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM.
A rgument.
S. MATTHEW, S. Mark and S. Luke agree, in language
and matter, in a way that no three absolutely independent
writers possibly can agree. They all three embody a
" common-stock Gospel," which is almost identical with
the Gospel of S. Mark, admittedly the earliest Evangelist
of them all. There are three ways of accounting for the
strong synoptic family likeness : (i) All three Synoptists
copy an earlier document; (2) They reproduce the same
stereotyped oral tradition ; (3) S. Matthew and S. Luke
copy S. Mark. Reasons for believing that the first two
hypotheses break down, while the third apparently covers
all the facts.
CHAPTER XII.
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM.
.-,
T^VEN the most casual reader of our Gospels must
-' have been struck by the glaring fact that the
first three Gospels are closely and intimately related
to one another. They bear the strongest possible
family likeness. The Fourth Gospel, on the other
hand, stands in a class by itself; it is so markedly
different in almost every respect.
For the moment, therefore, we may leave the
Fourth Gospel out of view, and approach what is
called the Synoptic Problem. The term " Synop-
tic " a is commonly applied to S. Matthew, S. Mark,
and S. Luke by reason of their pronounced resent
blance. They present nearly everything from the
same point of view, see eye to eye, narrate the self
same events almost in the self-same words.
We shall see that a closer examination reveals
another striking fact. S. Matthew and S. Luke each
embody S. Mark. They have additional matter of
* ffwoiniKus " seeing the whole together," said of books containing
parts that can he brought under the eye in parallel columns as virtually
identical.
2O4 The Synoptic Problem.
their own, but the substance of S. Mark's Gospel
forms the backbone of S. Matthew's and S. Luke's as
well. Or, to put it in another way. If we compare
the Synoptic Gospels to a building, S. Mark supplies
practically all the stones. It is only the gaps be-
tween the stones that are filled up with new material
in S. Matthew and S. Luke. The literary mortar
filling up these interstices may vary in each of the
three Synoptists, but the stones are identically the
same. They come from the same quarry, they have
been hewn and shaped by the same hand.
Thus it has been shown that if S. Mark is divided
into 1 06 sections or paragraphs, S. Matthew borrows
93 of these, S. Luke 81. There are only 5 which
one or the other of these two Evangelists has not
bodily incorporated in his narrative. Or if we take
S. Mark's 674 (R.V.) verses, only 50 remain when
S. Matthew and S. Luke have made their loans.
A glance at Rushbrooke's Synopticon and Sir John
Hawkins' Horcs Synoptical, two invaluable, nay, in-
dispensable works will prove convincingly that this
extraordinary coincidence between the three Gospels
is not limited to their matter, it extends even to
words and phrases and turns of expression, e.g. b :
b The following passages, taken at random, will show the same
verbal coincidence : S. Matth. xvi. 13 28, S. Mark viii. 27 sqq.,
8. Luke ix. 18 sqq. ; S. Mark iv. 3 sqq., S. Matth. xiii. 3 sqq.,
S. Luke viii. 5 sqq. ; .S. Mark ii. 1322, S. Matth. ix. 917, S. Luke
v - 2 739 J S- Mark i. 24, 25, S. Luke iv. 34, 35 ; S. Mark iii. 4, 5,
S. Luke vi. 9, 10 ; S. Mark x. 1419, S. Luke xviii. 1620; S. Mark
xii. I ii ; S. Matth. xxi. 33 44, S. Luke xx. 918.
The Synoptic Problem.
205
S. Mark i. 40 44 (R.V.).
" If Thou wilt, Thou
canst make me clean.
And being moved with
compassion, He stretch-
ed forth His hand, and
touched him, and saith
unto him, I will ; be
thou made clean. And
straightway the leprosy
departed from him, and
he was made clean. And
He strictly charged him,
and straightway sent him
out, and saith unto him,
See thou say nothing to
any man ; but go thy
way, show thyself to the
priest, and offer for thy
cleansing the things which
Moses commanded, for
a testimony unto them."
S. Markii. 23sqq.(R.V.)
" He was going on the
sabbath-day through the
corn-fields, and His dis-
ciples began, as they
went, to pluck the ears
of corn.
And the Pharisees said
unto Him, Behold, why
do they on the sabbath-
day that which is not
lawful ?
And He said unto
them, Did ye never read
what David did, when
he had need, and was an
hungred, he, and they
that were with him ?
How he entered into the
house of God, when Abia-
thar was high-priest, and
did eat the shewbread
which it is not lawful to
eat save for the priests,
and gave also to them
that were with him ? And
He said unto them, The
sabbath was made for
man, and not man for the
sabbath ; so that the Son
of Man is Lord even of
the sabbath."
S. Matth. viii. 2 4.
"Lord, if Thou wilt,
Thou canst make me
clean. And He stretch-
ed forth His hand, and
touched him, saying, I
will : be thou made clean.
And straightway his lep-
rosy was cleansed. And
Jesus saith unto him, See
thou tell no man ; but go
thy way, show thyself to
the priest, and offer the
gift that Moses com-
manded, for a testimony
unto them."
S. Matth. xii. I sqq.
"Jesus went on the
sabbath-day through the
corn-fields, and His dis-
ciples were an hungred,
and began to pluck ears
of corn and to eat.
But the Pharisees.when
they saw it, said unto
Him, Behold, Thy dis-
ciples do that which it
is not lawful to do upon
the sabbath.
But He said unto them,
Have ye not read what
David did, when he was
an hungred, and they that
were with him ?
How he entered into
the house of God and did
eat the shewbread, which
it was not lawful for him
to eat, neither for them
that were with him, but
only for the priests ?
* * * *
For the Son of Man
is Lord of the Sabbath."
S. Luke v. 12 16.
"Lord, if Thou wilt,
Thou canst make me
clean. And He stretch-
ed forth His hand, and
touched him, saying, I
will : be thou made clean.
And straightway the lep-
rosy departed from him.
And He charged him to
tell no man ; but go thy
way, and show thyself to
the priest, and offer for
thy cleansing, according
as Moses commanded, for
a testimony unto them. "
S. Luke vi. I sqq.
"On a sabbath, He
was going through the
corn-fields ; and His dis-
ciples plucked the ears
of corn and did eat, rub-
bing them in their hands.
But certain of the Pha-
risees said, 'Why do ye
that which it is not law-
ful to do on the sabbath-
day?
And Jesus answering
them said, Have ye not
read even this, what
David did, when he was
an hungred, he, and they
that were with him ? How
he entered into the house
of God, and did take and
eat the shewbread, and
gave also to them that
were with him ; which it
is not lawful to eat save
for the priests alone ?
And He said unto them,
The Son of Man is Lord
of the Sabbath."
2OO The Synoptic Problem.
Prof. Norton has calculated that one-sixth of
S. Matthew is word for word the same as S. Mark,
and one-tenth of S. Luke ; also that this word-
likeness is most pronounced in discourses, less so
in the narration of events.
But the agreement and coincidences in word and
matter taken together are so remarkable that some
explanation of this strange phenomenon must be
sought for. All the more so because of another
striking fact. If we allow for the moment those
details of the story which are peculiar to one Gospel
to remain out of sight, and fix our attention simply
and solely on what is common to S. Mark and at
least one other Gospel, we get a connected Gospel-
story and a perfect Portrait of the Christ.
In other words, underlying the three Synoptic
Gospels there is a "common-stock Gospel," and it
is almost identical with S. Mark.
But the question will ever recur : How are we
to account for the striking family likeness in matter
and wording so apparent in the Synoptists ?
The old " verbal inspiration " theory will not give
us the clue. That answer will not do. If the Holy
Spirit had dictated the very words to the Evange-
lists, then their Gospels should be exactly alike, and
a single one would suffice. Again, on this hypo-
thesis, how are we to account for a large number
of passages, even in the Synoptists, and still more
in S. John, which are so different, so inconsistent,
that it is often impossible to harmonize them ?
How then are we to account for the strange family
The Synoptic Problem. 207
likeness ? The verbal-inspiration explanation is out
of court, and accidental coincidence is still more un-
satisfactory. If any three perfectly independent
reporters were to sit down to write an account of
the same event of which they had each been an
eye-witness, possibly two or three consecutive words
might here and there happen to be alike in some
paragraphs, but certainly not six or seven in one
short clause or sentence after another. If we knew
for a positive fact that these writers had penned
their report of the event absolutely independently,
and yet discovered that considerable verbal coinci-
dences had crept into their narrative not only here
and there, but repeatedly, what then ? We should
naturally conclude that each writer, at the time of
drawing up his report, had before him some common
document, directly bearing on that event, from which
all three reporters extensively copied. This would
be the only answer that would actually cover the
facts.
Now, this precisely represents the Synoptic prob-
lem. S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. Luke agree in
a way that no three independent writers possibly
can agree. Did they copy each other's work? In
early days, S. Augustine thought so, for he speaks
of S. Mark as the " copyist and epitomizer " of
S. Matthew. This dogmatic assertion is a simple
way out of the difficulty, only, unfortunately, it is
not true. It was a mere guess, and a wrong one.
S. Augustine had neither the comprehensive know-
ledge, nor the soundness of method to solve such
2o8 The Synoptic Problem.
a hard problem, He judged mainly by the actual
contents of the two Gospels, and greatly preferred
the completeness and definite teaching of S. Matthew
which he believed to be an Apostolic work, to
the unstudied outline, the cropped and curtailed
character of S. Mark. The shortness, simplicity,
and rough style of the latter naturally gave the
impression that the second Gospel represents the
notes of a copyist or disciple rather than the direct
and original work of an Apostle. All this is changed
now since Lachmann showed that the solution of the
problem is purely a question, not of the complete-
ness of the contents, but of literary criticism. It is
not till quite recently, however, after years of patient
research and the sifting of a vast mass of evidence,
that it has been possible even to suggest a probable
answer to the Synoptic Problem.
On one point all scholars are agreed. Every-
thing in S. Mark tends to prove, not only that it
is the first of our Gospels in point of time, but
that it represents a far earlier cycle of oral tradi-
tion. Even Von Soden is of opinion that in S. Mark
we have " a narrative due to the combined effort of
S. Peter and his assistant S. Mark, composed not
later than 64 A.D., while the reminiscences of S. Peter
embodied in Mark belong to a much earlier date c .
c Von Soden, however, is convinced that our S. Mark is not the
original S. Mark. lie holds that the first edition was characterized
by a striking brevity, and the absence of narrator's notes, or "any
religious phraseology or oratorical ornament. In the original S. Mark
the facts alone speak, and Jesus is very human, deeply stirred by feeling.
Few miracles occur in it. The second edition is years later. The
The Synoptic Problem. 209
To quote but a few of the more striking evidences
of S. Mark's antiquity :
Matter, (a) S. Mark begins, as did the Apostles
(cf. Acts i. 22, x. 37, xiii. 24, 25), with John's Bap-
tism. There is no mention of the Virgin Birth d .
The Temptation is dismissed in one short verse.
(H) S. Mark's references to the Resurrection are
extremely meagre. S. Paul, I Cor. xv. 5 8, written
in 55 A.D., gives us a list of six Resurrection-appear-
ances, so we cannot attribute S. Mark's silence to
the fact that oral tradition itself was silent on this
point. The loss of the final leaf of S. Mark's
Gospel may account for much, but it is also prob-
able that his notes were written at a time when
Christians were profoundly convinced of the Resur-
rection, and needed no elaborate statistics of all our
Lord's appearances after this stupendous event.
(c) S. Mark contains many passages and expres-
sions which would be likely to prove stumbling-
Evangelist has caught the spirit of the original, but he works up his
pictures and is concerned with deeper truths, while Jesus is now very
superhuman, so miracles abound.
Von Soden's conjecture is plausible. That in Mark we have two
editions, seems clear, but why assume two editors? S. Peter gave
S. Mark his reminiscences ; S. Mark embodied them in a Gospel
long after, when S. Peter was dead (Irenceus). Much had happened
in the interval and S. Mark's own experience had ripened. Is it
surprising that in his "Memoirs" of S. Peter, which had formed
the basis of S. Mark's catechizing for a lifetime, S. Peter's remi-
niscences are expanded and coloured here and there by a strong
christological interest and bear the impress of S. Mark's own vivid
style ?
d Dr. Sanday questions whether Mary's secret was generally known
till it was embodied in S. Luke's Gospel (Hastings' D.B. "Jesus
Christ," II. 643).
P
2io The Synoptic Problem.
blocks in the way of weak believers, and such as
would not have been tolerated except in a Gospel
of great antiquity. The best proof of this is that
S. Matthew and S. Luke either suppress or tone
them down, e.g. :
S. Mark i. 32 34, and esp. vi. 5, seem to limit
our Lord's power.
S. Mark iii. 5, x. 14, -xiv. 33 ascribe to our Lord
emotions which seem too purely human.
S. Mark iii. 21, x. 18 speak of our Lord as " beside
Himself," and refusing to be called " good." Simi-
larly, S. Mark xv. 44, and xvi. 4 (" Pilate marvelled
if He were already dead," and " They see that the
stone is rolled away") might be used by our Lord's
enemies to support their allegation that Christ was
not really dead, but in a faint, and that His disciples
came by night, stole the Body, and finding Him still
alive, gave out that He had risen again.
(cT) S. Mark also speaks very disparagingly of
the Twelve, e.g. their dulness of understanding
(viii. 16 22, ix. 32) ; their selfish ambition (ix.
33 sqq.)-
Style. The style and diction of S. Mark equally
bear witness to its antiquity.
(a) The Greek is poor, rude, colloquial, full of
Aramaisms, Latinisms, and other barbarisms, for
which S. Matthew and especially S. Luke substi-
tute a more tasteful and classical vocabulary.
(/8) The grammar is very bad and irregular.
Broken constructions also abound. " And " seems
to be the only conjunction with which S. Mark is
The Synoptic Problem. 211
familiar, while his vocabulary is so limited that
" forthwith," " straightway," " immediately " recur at
every other verse.
(7) (If the hypothesis of a " lost leaf" is rejected)
S. Mark ends his Gospel e in the most awkward and
abrupt manner with the ill-omened words at the
Grave, " for they were afraid."
All these peculiarities may be summed up as
exhibiting what Prof. Burkitt calls S. Mark's
" unecclesiastical unconventionally, a characteristic
which we might expect to find in a primitive
document coming from the circle of the earliest
Christians and written before it had been considered
what style of writing was appropriate for telling
the story of our Lord's Ministry."
Now, in the face of the admitted fact that S. Mark's
written Gospel was already in existence years before
S. Matthew's and S. Luke's were composed, if these
two Evangelists wrote independently of his Gospel,
is it not passing strange that they adhere so closely
to S. Mark in the following respects ? e.g. :
(a) Subject-matter. Our Lord's Life may have
been short, but it was very full of incidents of
absorbing interest. S. Paul's Epistles show that
Oral Tradition, even before S. Mark's day, recorded
many sayings and events of our Lord's Life not
embodied in our Mark. Oral Tradition was a rich
mine only very partially exploited by the second
Evangelist (cf. S. John xxi. 25). S. Mark contains
e xvi. 9-20 is admittedly an interpolation.
212 The Synoptic Problem,
a typical and masterly selection of some of these
incidents, but only of a few. He only summarily
refers to the journeys and teaching of our Lord, and
confines himself (except for the Last Week) to the
Galilean Ministry. It would have been the easiest
task, out of the large mass of available material,
to make a totally different selection for a " Life of
Christ." Why, then, do S. Matthew and S. Luke
adopt S. Mark's facts almost word for word?
(fr) Chronological order. Precisely the same remark
applies to S. Mark's chronological order. Strictly
speaking, there is none, except for the Last Week.
The only fixed land-marks are the Baptism, Temp-
tation, Confession of S. Peter, and Transfiguration.
The events of the ever-memorable Last Week are,
of course, indelibly stamped on the memory, and
repeated in their exact order ; so, in all probability,
are S. Peter's recollections of the eventful day
on which he left all to follow Christ (S. Mark,
chap. i.). Other events of the Ministry are " viewed
in the light of its end, the crowning facts of the
Passion and Resurrection, so that the whole period
was one in essence, undivided by years or festivals,
and the record would be marked not so much by
divisions of time as by groups of events f ." Over
and over again, in S. Mark, incidents, journeys,
conversations of our Lord are introduced by such
vague phrases as : " in those days," " and they were
by the seaside," " He arose and came to another
place." S. Mark, as was natural, is no longer in a
f Westcott.
Tlie Synoptic Problem. 213
position to assign to each tradition or reminiscence
its right place in the chronological order of events,
though he still knows the critical epochs of the
Ministry and their characteristics, and is admirably
guided by these in the arrangement of his material.
Yet S. Matthew and S. Luke adopt S. Mark's
order. The common order is S. Mark's order s, and
where one departs from it, the other follows it. This
is not merely the case where there appears to be
some historical connection, but even in sections
which are not so linked together. Constantly do
v/e find S. Matthew and S. Luke dropping awhile
the thread of S. Mark's narrative, interpolating a
new passage of their own, sometimes of great length,
and then taking up the thread again just where they
dropped it.
(c] Language^. We have already noticed that
the resemblance in wording, structure of sentences,
even in turns of expression and particles, is so striking
that it clearly points to the use of a common written
e Lachmann : "There is not that diversity of order in the Gospel-
narratives which people suppose. The diversity is there if you compare
Mark with Matthew, but, if you compare Mark with both the others,
it is very small."
h We know that there are about 21 passages cited by Sir J.
Hawkins where S. Matth. and S. Luke agree as against S. Mark.
Prof. Burkitt has shown that this evidence amounts to very little
indeed. But there is another important consideration. We have
seen that we narrowly escaped losing S. Mark altogether, only one
copy (probably mutilated) being left at one period. We also know
how corrupt the text of our Gospels was even in 180 A.D. If we had
the original S. Mark, would there be in these 21 passages any variation
from his text ?
214 The Synoptic Problem.
document in the composition of the Synoptic Gospels.
No other hypothesis will cover the facts, not even
the most stereotyped oral tradition.
(c 2 ) Dual expressions. S. Mark's style is charac-
terized by a fondness for such dual expressions as
" the leprosy departed from him, and he was made
clean." " He hath Beelzebub : he hath an unclean
spirit," " she cast in all she had, even all her living,"
" no man could bind him, no not with chains." It
is perfectly clear that this is a characteristic of
S. Mark's own style and not a loan. Some com-
mentators have tried to make out that S. Mark
copied from S. Luke and S. Matthew, borrowing
here a piece from one, and there a piece from another ;
hence these dual passages. A reference to the fol-
lowing passages which are peculiar to S. Mark will
convincingly prove that S. Mark's dual expressions
are his own ; e.g. S. Mark ii. 19 ; iii. 5 ; iii. 27 ;
iii. 22, 30 ; v. 3, 5 ; xii. 44.
Now we constantly come across this curious fact
in connection with S. Mark's dualisms, S. Matthew
takes one half of a dual expression, S. Luke the
other ; e.g. :
'S. Mark i. 32, " At even, when the sun did set.''
S. Matth. viii. 16, "When the even was come."
. Luke iv. 40, " When the sun was setting."
'S. Mark i. 42, "the leprosy departed, and he
was cleansed."
S. Matth. viii. 3, "his leprosy was cleansed."
S. Luke v. 13, "the leprosy departed,"
&c., &c., &c.
The Synoptic Problem. 2 1 5
On two points the evidence seems clear. S. Mark
is an earlier Gospel than the other two, and S.
Matthew and S. Luke embody the same material
as S. Mark. Thus far the modern rival schools of
critics agree. But here they part company. One
set of scholars insists that the "common-stock
Gospel " which they all three incorporate is oral
tradition pure and simple. A second school main-
tains that the Synoptic family likeness is due to
their use of a common document, earlier than them
all, which they each copied independently, only S.
Mark was more anxious than the other Evangelists
to omit nothing.
In England, till quite recently, the oral tradition
view was most in favour ; elsewhere, scholars sup-
ported the " common-document " hypothesis. For
convenience sake, a name has been given to this
imaginary document. It is technically known as
Ur-M circus, because S. Mark follows it so closely.
Serious attempts have even been made to reconstruct
Ur-Marcus. We have seen that there are certain
Gospel-portions which are common to all three
Synoptics ; other portions common to two Gospels,
but lacking in the third ; and lastly each Gospel
has a portion peculiar to itself. It is maintained
that if you collate all the matter common to S.
Mark and at least one of the other two, then you
have Ur-Marcus. This resultant " common-stock "
Gospel does certainly form a more or less connected
narrative, and the " common document " advocates
insist that it approximates far more closely to the
216 TJie Synoptic Problem.
original Aramaic Apostolic tradition than any of
our three Gospels.
This Ur-Marcus hypothesis was very popular a
few years ago, but at the present day the prevailing
view seems to be that Ur-Marcus never existed.
It is an uncalled-for legendary fiction. At any rate,
it is so indistinguishable from our S. Mark that
the diversity between the two is a distinction without
a difference, and S. Mark itself is now almost uni-
versally admitted to be the original document.
If we eliminate Ur-Marcus, the other question
still remains to be answered : Docs S. Mark repro-
duce oral tradition pure and simple, or is Papias'
statement correct when he tells us that in S. Mark
we have the reminiscences of S. Peter written by
Mark his convert, disciple and interpreter ?
The " oral tradition " school is confident that
tradition and tradition alone lies at the foundation
of all three Synoptists, and supplies all their common
material. They deny that S. Matthew and S. Luke
copied S. Mark. Their plea is this : Oral tradition
was there in Palestine ready-to-hand, and in a
stereotyped form. The author of S. Matthew,
certainly, and S. Mark and S. Luke in all prob-
ability, were catechists, and the catechetical in-
struction of Christians, as S. Paul's Epistles prove,
was most systematic. True, the Apostolic teach-
ing, or oral tradition, was not learnt by heart, but
the Jews had wonderful memories. Apart from
Jewish reverence for tradition, it is characteristic of
The Synoptic Problem. 217
people who write but little, and repeat the same
story often, seldom to vary their narrative. Hence
the close resemblance in the three Gospels. Oral
tradition fully covers all the phenomena of the
Synoptists. It adequately accounts for their family
likeness, while the new material contained in S.
Matthew and S. Luke is similarly explained. It
proceeds from the same "tradition" source, but
tradition of a later date 1 .
Can we reasonably accept this view ? Oral
tradition was quite competent faithfully to transmit
by word of mouth a Gospel-record as long and
complete as our S. Mark. It is quite possible that
S. Mark does represent oral tradition in an undiluted
form. But the majority of modern scholars are
1 "The simple and natural solution of the problem is indicated
in Acts ii. 42 and v. 42. There we have the teaching of the Apostles
as one of the foundations on which the Church of Jerusalem was built.
In this primitive apostolic teaching, the life and death of Jesus certainly
occupied the first place. These narratives, daily repeated by the
Apostles, and by the evangelists taught in their school, must have
quickly taken a more or less definite form, not only as to the tenor
of each account, but also the connecting of several accounts in a single
group ordinarily forming the matter of one lesson. S. Luke's Preface
proves this. Primitive apostolic tradition, such then is the type, at
once firm and yet within certain limits malleable, which has left its
ineffaceable impress on our first three Gospels. Thus are satisfactorily
explained their resemblances and their differences. S. Matthew,
writing for Jews, adheres most closely to the Palestinian type.
S. Luke, writing for cultivated Gentiles, omits Jewish details and
collates oral tradition to meet the needs of Pauline Churches. S. Mark,
writing both for Jews and Gentiles, forms as it were the link of union
between Matthew and Luke. Still drawing from the riches of oral
tradition, and his own memories, S. John supplements the elementary
records of the Synoptists." (Godet. )
218 The Synoptic Problem.
not prepared to accept the same view of S. Matthew
and S. Luke for reasons already given in this chapter.
The coincidences of selection, language, order, &c.,
are too remarkable to be thus explained away.
The "common-stock Gospel" narrative, if taken
by itself, might easily be accounted for on the oral
theory. The long string of words and phrases
exactly alike in such passages as those quoted at
the commencement of this chapter would also be
satisfactorily covered by a more or less stereotyped
oral tradition. Even the variations present no
obstacle to this view, for " literary piety " was not as
highly-valued then as now.
The oral traditionists present a plausible brief;
their theory is very tempting, but their case seems
to break down for the following reasons.
(i) They assume that S. Mark is a pure and simple
reproduction of oral tradition, whereas Papias, on
the authority of a personal friend of the Apostles,.
distinctly assures us that S. Mark's Gospel consists
of personal reminiscences of S. Peter.
Now the second Gospel, on the face of it, seems to
bear out Papias' statement to the letter, and it docs
not appear to support the " tradition " hypothesis.
With its biographical details, its omission of practi-
cally everything outside the Galilean Ministry, its
scanty allusions to our Lord's sayings (which, as we
know, form the nucleus of tradition), its strange re-
ticence on Christ's moral teaching and discourses,
its omission of the Lord's Prayer, its rare reference
to prophecy, its meagre account of the Resurrec-
The Synoptic Problem. 219
tion, does S. Marie look like a faithful reproduction
of Oral Tradition ? We think not.
If we are wrong here, if the argument in the last
section is not valid, if S. Mark is a true record of oral
teaching, then we at once admit that two of our former
objections must also go overboard. The arguments
which we based on the extraordinary identity of
chronological arrangement and of language break
down. The Synoptists all three merely follow the
order and wording of tradition more or less closely.
It is true that the Apostolic oral teaching was not
arranged in strict chronological order, but the Apostles
remembered the epochs of the Ministry, and were
guided by that knowledge in their arrangement of
the material. Naturally, the Synoptists would follow
the order as given in oral tradition, and the strange-
ness of the chronological coincidence vanishes ; so
does the similarity of the wording in many a passage,
especially as this similarity is most pronounced in our
Lord's own discourses.
(2) But what are we to say of the other two strik-
ing facts which we noted ? How does it come about
that in dealing with the "dual expressions" peculiar
to S. Mark, S. Matthew so often takes one half of the
double formula and S. Luke the other ?
Once more. How is it that S. Matthew and S.
Luke so faithfully reproduce the structure of the
sentences found in our S. Mark, even to the merest
turns of expression ? Why do we find such constant
and remarkable identity in many insignificant words,
220 77/i? Synoptic Problem.
such as conjunctions, particles, prepositions, trivial
details which are not of the slightest importance ?
Over and over again, where S. Mark has a particular
particle or conjunction, there it is in S. Matthew and
S. Luke in exactly the same place, even though
these two Evangelists may have broken the connec-
tion by adding new material of their own in the
interval. Surely, these small connecting links might
have been expressed in half-a-dozen other ways with
equal ease.
Jewish memories may have been phenomenally
retentive, but there is a limit even to this gift,
especially when we remember that oral tradition
was not learnt by heart, and letter-worship was
discouraged. It could never, therefore, become ab-
solutely stereotyped in its words, nor be reproduced
with that sort of uniformity which this tenacious
adherence to conjunctions, and such trivial words,
implies.
Does not this place the oral traditionists on the
horns of a dilemma ? The oral theory, consistently
driven to its logical conclusions, must mean one of
two things. Either oral tradition was systematic-
ally taught word for word, or it was not. If it was
learnt by heart, then the verbal differences in parallel
passages of the Synoptists arc inexplicable.
If, on the other hand, and as the evidence seems
to show, a certain latitude was allowed in the choice
of words, then the extraordinary coincidences in
conjunctions, and other minute details, are again
TJic Synoptic Problem. 221
inexplicable. The oral school must make their
choice, but they cannot have it both ways.
To sum up. Here, as elsewhere, the conclusions
of criticism attain to nothing more than a greater or
less degree of probability. No absolutely convincing
solution of the Synoptic Problem has yet been offered.
We have indicated the considerations which seem to
justify the abandonment of the oral hypothesis. The
oral school, however, has not yet called all its wit-
nesses or said its last word, and is still very far from
being put out of court. An answer on their side is
already forthcoming to the two chief objections of
their opponents.
They account for the extraordinary parallelism in
the Synoptic subject-matter by pointing out that it
contains precisely those characteristics which we
should expect in oral tradition of an early date.
History necessarily comes before doctrine, for it is
on historical facts that faith is based. Therefore,
the earliest oral tradition reproduced by the Sy-
noptists naturally embodies a vast amount of bio-
graphical details, while it omits moral teaching,
discourses, and all but four parables.
They also find no insuperable difficulty in Papias'
statement that S. Mark's Gospel contains the re-
miniscences of S. Peter. *' S. Peter, as Papias him-
self indirectly tells us, was the chief catechist of
the early primitive Church, as indeed that Apostle
took the lead in everything in those earliest days. . . .
222 TJie Synoptic Problem.
He was the author of the first cycle of oral teaching-,
as the Apostle Matthew was of the second k ." The
similarity in S. Peter's reminiscences and in primi-
tive tradition is thus explained.
In answer to the extraordinary verbal coincidences
in minor words, such as conjunctions, they readily
reply k : " This, again, is just what one should expect.
These little connecting links act as ' cues.' A man
who commits poetry or any passage to memory
would instantly break down if he forgot such links.
Besides, the identity is only occasional. Quite
enough of them have been changed to make the
oral school suspicious about the use of documents."
We believe we have stated their case as fairly as
traditionists themselves could wish. Readers must
form their own judgment. All that is meant to be
implied in this chapter is that the hypothesis which
sees in our S. Mark the original "common docu-
ment" seems to cover the whole ground more satis-
factorily than any other theory at present in the
field \ *
k A. Wright.
1 It is, of course, admitted (i) that the Eschatological Discourse
in S. Mark xiii. is drawn from a source not used by S. Mark else-
where ; (2) also that, over and above their loan from S. Mark, at
least two other sources of information must be postulated for the
additional matter found in S. Matthew and S. Luke.
CHAPTER XIII.
SOURCE OF S. MARK'S GOSPEL.
A rgument.
PAPIAS (140 A.D.) places on record a tradition that S.
Mark wrote his Gospel as "the interpreter of S. Peter."
Is this tradition true ? External evidence, subsequent to
Papias, merely echoes and embellishes Papias' statement,
and adds nothing to our knowledge. If we would solve
this problem we must collate evidence from other quarters ;
e.g., a knowledge of S. Mark's life and character, or evi-
dence derived from the contents of the Gospel itself,
may furnish helpful clues. Biography of S. Mark. Ana-
lysis of S. Mark i. x.
CHAPTER XIII.
SOURCE OF S. MARK'S GOSPEL.
WHO was the author of S. Mark ? The second
Gospel itself gives us no clue to its writer.
S. John professes to be written by the " beloved
disciple " (xxi. 24), and the opening paragraph of
S. Luke conveys clear hints of the personality of its
author, but, on this point, S. Matthew and S. Mark
are absolutely silent. Here, external evidence is our
sole authority, but it supplies us with information
which may prove valuable.
We know that Papias, who flourished about the
middle of the second century, reports as an estab-
lished tradition of his times that S. Mark wrote his
Gospel as " the interpreter of S. Peter." Tradition,
in these matters, is often most misleading a and
worse than valueless. We shall, however, see that
this notice of Papias admirably suits^the character
and contents of our second Gospel, and this coinci-
dence in itself forms a strong witness to the accuracy
of the primitive tradition.
We have already quoted Papias' statement at
length, and need not repeat it here. This most
a Harnack distinctly says of this very tradition: "This piece of
information does not seem reliable. It looks rather like a story that
was invented to excuse the deficiencies and omissions of this Gospel."
Harnack himself is convinced that S. Mark is based on different strata
of oral tradition pure and simple.
Q
226 Source of S. Mark's Gospel.
important piece of testimony lays stress on five
points :
(1) Mark wrote as S. Peter's interpreter.
(2) He recorded S. Peter's reminiscences accu-
rately, but not "in order."
(3) He was a disciple of S. Peter, but not an
original " eye-witness."
(4) S. Peter framed his teaching to suit his hearers'
needs, and " did not give a connected narrative of the
Lord's discourses."
(5) Mark reports S. Peter faithfully and omits
nothing.
Now if we bear in mind that Irenaeus (180 A.D.)
describes Papias as a " man of old time " (i.e. of the
primitive days of Christianity), a " hearer of John,"
and a "companion of Polycarp" (70 155 A.D.), we
cannot but recognize in Papias' testimony a most
valuable piece of external evidence. Papias himself
assures us that he obtained his information from an
Elder personally known to the Apostles in whom
he placed implicit trust. We cannot, therefore,
lightly lay aside Papias' very ancient tradition. We
shall only be justified in rejecting it if we find that
the internal evidence of the Gospel itself does not
harmonize with it and consistently bear it out.
On the other hand, however much weight we may
attach to tradition, internal evidence must be our one
final court of appeal. A tradition may be absolutely
genuine and very ancient, but neither its genuine-
ness nor its antiquity guarantees that it is a true
Source of S. Mark's Gospel. 227
record of actual facts. Tradition crystallizes the
opinions, judgments, beliefs of an earlier age. These
judgments and beliefs may be accepted or disputed.
They represent the views or theories of primitive
and uncritical men. The historian must get behind
the tradition, if he can, to the evidence and actual
facts on which the original tradition is based. He
must consider how far the tradition stands the test of
intrinsic probability and supplies valuable historical
information, or how far it was coloured and influenced
from the beginning by the aspirations and prejudices
of the day. In the making of tradition, the wish is
often unconsciously the father to the thought. Apos-
tolicity, for example, was a potent factor contribut-
ing to the acceptance or rejection of a Gospel at
the time of its canonisation. Our four Gospels
actually owe their inclusion in the Canon of Holy
Scripture to their own intrinsic merits, but it is
passing strange that, certainly before the end of the
second century, the tradition of their Apostolic origin
was firmly established, even though we have every
reason to believe that in this respect, at any rate,
tradition is wrong.
We may therefore accept tradition as a witness,
but we must ever remember that it is a witness which
repeatedly breaks down under cross-examination, and
its unsupported testimony is not worth much. We
may go still farther and say that even when it is
supported and corroborated by a long string of wit-
nesses, this does not materially add to its value or
228 Source of S. Mark's Gospel.
credibility. Papias' evidence concerning S. Mark is
endorsed by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alex-
andria, Eusebius, Origen, and many other ecclesias-
tical writers. This proves that the tradition quoted
by Papias is genuine and of ancient date, but, in
other respects, their corroborative evidence adds
nothing to our knowledge. They merely repeat
Papias' original statement, with additions or varia-
tions of their own. Each improves on his prede-
cessor in the wish to enhance S. Mark's Apostolic
value by making S. Peter directly responsible for
the second Gospel, e.g. :
Irenceus echoes Papias' words, and adds, " Mark
committed to writing the things preached by Peter."
Clement of Alexandria writes : " The hearers of
Peter at Rome desired Mark, the follower of Peter,
to leave them a record of Peter's teaching : upon
which Mark wrote his Gospel, Peter neither hinder-
ing nor urging the undertaking."
Eusebius expands this by saying that " Peter
sanctioned Mark's Gospel with his authority."
Jerome goes still further, and tells us that " Peter
dictated and Mark wrote." He also informs us that
Peter directed that this Gospel should be publicly
read in the Churches.
In the face of all this later evidence, it is interesting
to note that Irenaeus assures us Mark's Gospel ivas
not written till after S. Peter's death b .
b " Since the decease (el-oSov, cf. Luke ix. 31 ; 2 Pet. i. 15) of these
(Peter and Paul), Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself
Source of S. MarKs Gospel. 229
As soon as we turn from external evidence and
tradition to the New Testament the first question
that naturally suggests itself is this : does the
description of the character and personality of S.
Mark himself, as portrayed in New Testament pages,
throw any light on the vexed question we are con-
sidering ? Who was this Mark who is said to have
acted as S. Peter's interpreter ?
The name Mark occurs nine times in the New
Testament, viz., Acts xii. 12, 25 ; xiii. 5, 13 ; xv.
37 ; Col. iv. 10 ; 2 Tim. iv. 1 1 ; Philem. 24 ; I Peter
v. 13. In the Acts, he is called John Mark, some-
times simplyjohn. It was to his house that S. Peter
went immediately after his delivery from prison
(Acts xii. 12). He was evidently a constant visitor
there, for the servant, Rhoda, at once " knew Peter's
voice, and opened not the gate for gladness." The
name of Mark's mother was Mary. She seems to
have been a woman of some wealth, for she kept
servants, and her house was a large one d where
Christians were wont to assemble.
In Col. iv. 10 we read that Mark was "sister's son
to Barnabas" (avt-fylos = cousin), and immediately on
the return of Barnabas and Saul from Jerusalem,
before they received their special commission to go
also has handed down to us in writing the things which were preached
by Peter." Iren. c. Hcer. III. i. i. (Westcott.)
c It is now generally accepted that the Mark mentioned in these
nine passages is one and the same.
d It also had a porch, or covered colonnade, only to be found in
rich houses.
230 Source of S- Mark's Gospel.
to the Gentiles, they " took with them John, whose
surname was Mark," as their companion (Acts xii. 25).
When Barnabas and Saul were definitely "separated
unto God for the work to which He had called them "
(Acts xiii. 2) Mark accompanied them on their first
missionary journey as their " minister " (7777/36x77$),
but on their arrival at Perga, he forsook them (xiii.
13) and returned to Jerusalem. On the second mis-
sionary journey, " Barnabas determined to take with
them John Mark. But Paul thought not good to
take him with them, who departed from them from
Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work.
And the contention was so sharp between them, that
they departed asunder one from the other, and so
Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus "
(xv. 37^40).
Now from Acts iv. 36, 37 we know that Barnabas
was a native of Cyprus, and a Levite. Hence Chase
suggests that Mark, Barnabas' cousin, was also
a native of Cyprus and a Levite, a Hebrew of the
Hebrews, out of all sympathy with the Gentile
mission which began at Perga. This he assumes
to be the reason why Mark there forsook Paul and
Barnabas. It may [be so, but it is only a probable
conjecture e .
S. Paul was reconciled to Mark later on, for, some
ten years later, during this Apostle's imprisonment
in Rome, he speaks of S. Mark as " my fellow-
e Wcstcott is inclined to agree with Chrysostom and writes, "Mark
left them, being unprepared, as it would seem, for the more arduous
work of the mission." cf. Findlay, Mast. D.B. III. 7O4 d , 7o6 b .
Source of S. Mark's Gospel. 231
worker," "a great comfort unto me," and " profitable
to me for the ministry." He urges the Colossians to
receive him kindly, and is anxious to have Mark with
him in Rome, for he cannot spare him.
Later still, I Peter v. 13 shows us Mark once more
associated with S. Peter (who calls him " Marcus my
son ") at Babylon (i.e. Rome ?) f .
S. Mark was thus intimately acquainted with S.
Paul, S. Barnabas, and S. Peter. The expression
" Marcus my son " in I Peter v. 13 is generally taken
to imply that Mark was S. Peter's convert, but some
scholars prefer to see in this tender phrase a proof of
S. Peter's intimacy with Mark in earlier days. Be
this as it may, from youth upwards, S. Mark was in
full touch with three of the best exponents of Christi-
anity, a liberal-minded cosmopolitan Paul, a warm-
hearted Barnabas, " the son of Consolation," and
a Peter who stood half-way between two extreme
sections (Acts xv.), and mediated between the
opposed schools of thought represented by S. James
and S. Paul. S. Mark could hardly have been
trained in a better school for his special work of
Evangelist.
It is perhaps desirable to note that on each occa-
sion when S. Mark is mentioned he seems to occupy
a somewhat subordinate position. In Acts xii. 25
' From earliest times the common opinion has been that S. Peter
speaks here of Rome under the veiled name of Babylon, but Westcott
thinks "it is more natural to suppose that Mark accompanied him on
an unrecorded Eastern journey."
232 Source of S. Mark's Gospel.
and xiii. 5 he seems to have acted as " minister " to
S. Paul and Barnabas. What the exact meaning of
this word (vTrrjperr)?') may be it is not easy to define.
It is possible, as has been suggested, that he assisted
them in his capacity of " catechist." Swete, from
S. Paul's words in 2 Tim. iv. 1 1 (" he is profitable to
me for the ministry" ei's Siaicovtav), thinks that S.
Mark was rather the travelling companion, i.e. per-
sonally serviceable to S. Paul, than his spiritual
fellow-worker. Similarly, from the familiar words
of Papias, " the interpreter of Peter," " he attended
Peter," Swete suggests that he acted merely as
Peter's dragoman. If we accept this view, S. Mark
was a practical man with a large capacity for being
useful, but holding rather a secondary place. Swete
may be right, but Westcott and Harnack are prob-
ably nearer the truth in expressing a much more
favourable opinion of him and his work, and regard-
ing him as an able " minister of the Word."
The incident at Perga, and his readiness shortly
after to rejoin the two men whom he had previously
forsaken, prove that in early manhood Mark was un-
decided and impulsive,\but, like S. Peter himself, he
made ample amends later in life. S. Paul would not
have come round to the more lenient view of S. Mark
always entertained by Barnabas had Barnabas' judg-
ment not been fully justified. A man who could
serve S. Paul and S. Peter equally loyally and be so
highly appreciated of both, a Jew of Jerusalem who
could write a Gospel to Gentiles, must have been
Source of S. Mark's Gospel. 233
possessed of many excellent traits, inspired with the
true spirit of Christ, and admirably qualified for
fulfilling his special task of Evangelist towards the
end of a life spent for God and his fellow-men s .
We are attempting to get behind the tradition
quoted by Papias, to establish its truth or falsehood.
This we wish to do without overstepping the bound-
aries of historical research. The question before us
is apparently simple : Does Papias' statement repre-
sent the actual facts ? yet it is a difficult and com-
plex problem, and the answer can only be reached
by stages. Our first step is to collect all the available
evidence, the next, to discuss the meaning of this
evidence, and then we may be in a position to decide
the case on its merits.
As a modern writer happily puts it, the historical
critic has to play in turn the parts of solicitor, bar-
rister, and judge. In this introductory chapter on
S. Mark we are doing the preliminary work of the
solicitor, drawing up the case. We have already
given the testimony of Papias, and stated all that is
historically known of John Mark.
One other source of information still remains,
but it is by far the most valuable, and worthy
of our serious attention. Our chief witness is
s Even if Swete is right, and S. Mark was a man of limited in-
dividuality and force of character, this is not all our loss. His very
lack of originality would even then make him eager faithfully to
reproduce S. Peter's reminiscences, omitting nothing.
234 Source of S. Mark's Gospel.
unquestionably S. Mark's Gospel itself. It is on the
internal evidence supplied by the second Gospel that
our verdict must ultimately be based. In value and
importance this witness stands head and shoulders
above all the rest put together. S. Mark's own
evidence will more than repay the closest study, and
must be subjected to the severest cross-examination.
This must be our apology for subjecting our readers
to the tyranny of dry and tedious details. The fol-
lowing pages have all the appearance of the dull
headings that were to be found in our Bibles twenty
years ago. They are summaries of the same type, if
somewhat more complete. Clearly the solution of
this problem is purely a question of internal evi-
dence. It will, therefore, materially help us to weigh
our evidence if we have before us a clear analysis of
the main body of S. Mark's Gospel, (the Galilean
Ministry section), i.e. the first nine chapters of S. Mark.
Chap. I. The Baptism of Christ by John ; the descent of the
Holy Spirit; a voice is heard from heaven (112). The
Temptation (12, 13). The Galilean Ministry' begins ; Christ
preaches the Gospel of the Kingdom of God (14 16). Call
of Simon and Andrew, James and John (1621). Capernaum
visited ; Christ teaches in its synagogue on the Sabbath, and
there heals a demoniac who recognizes in Jesus the Holy One
of God (21 27). The people are greatly impressed by this
miracle (27 29). Simon's wife's mother healed (29 32).
Crowds flock to Christ with their sick, of whom Christ heals
many (32 35). Christ seeks solitude, but the people clamour
for Him (35 38). Other Galilean towns visited ; Christ
preaches in their synagogues, and casts out devils (38 40).
Healing of the leper, who is straitly charged to tell no man,
Source of S. Mark's Gospel. 235
but to show himself to the priest and to carry out to the letter
all that the Mosaic Law prescribes for his cleansing. The
leper so blazes the matter abroad that Christ is importuned
everywhere, even in desert places (40 45).
Chap. II. Capernaum again visited; a great crowd as-
sembles, so that no one can "come nigh Christ for the
press"; He preaches to them. A paralytic is brought, and
his bearers have to break the roof of the house to set him
before Christ. Christ forgives him his sins. The scribes are
shocked; Christ gently reasons with them, and, in proof of
His divine authority, heals the sick man. All are amazed at
this miracle, and glorify God (i 13). Crowds follow Christ
to the seaside (13). Christ calls Alphasus a tax-gatherer, and
dines at his house with other " publicans and sinners," whereat
Scribes and Pharisees murmur. Christ reasons with them
(16, 17). The Pharisees ask Christ why His disciples fast
not like other religious Jews including John's. Again Christ
reasons with them, and also when they ask why His disciples
break the Sabbath by plucking ears of corn.
Chap. III. Christ in a synagogue on the Sabbath; a man
with withered hand also present. Pharisees makes this a test
case, and watch Christ, resolved to accuse Him if He dare
break the Sabbath by healing him. Christ grieved and really
angry at their hardness of heart " looks round about on them,"
and instantly heals the man. The Pharisees straightway quit the
synagogue, take counsel with the Herodians, and henceforth
the two combine to destroy Christ (i 6). Christ withdraws
to the seaside, great multitudes follow Him there from every
quarter of Palestine, "for He had healed many," and the sick
" press on Him for to touch Him." Christ addresses them from
a boat, because of the throng (7 10). Unclean spirits worship
Him, crying, Thou art the Son of God. Christ silences them
(n, 12). Call of the Twelve that "they might be with Him,
and go forth to preach, and heal, and cast out devils" (13 20).
Multitudes again collect " so that they could not so much as
eat bread " (20). Christ's friends hear all this, and try " to
lay hold on Him: for they said, He is beside Himself" (21).
The Jerusalem scribes share this view but go further and
236 Source of S. Mark's Gospel.
declare : " He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the
devils casteth He out devils " (22). Christ's reply to this
charge, which He denounces as the sin against the Holy Ghost
(21 30). Christ's brethren and mother try to seize Him.
Christ's answer to His own question, " Who is My mother,
or My brethren ? " (31 35).
CJiap. IV. Christ teaches great multitudes by the seaside.
Parable-of-the- sower sermon (i 9). The Twelve privately
ask its meaning. Christ's hard saying about His parabolic
teaching. His explanation of this Parable (10 20). Parables
of the candle, the seed growing secretly, the grain of mustard-
seed, and " many other such parables " (30 34). " Without a
parable spake He not unto them ; and when they were alone
He expounded all things to His disciples :} (34). Christ asleep
in the sea-storm, which He stills. His disciples afraid and
awe-struck at this miracle (35 41).
Chap. V. Graphic word-picture of Gadarene demoniac, who
worships Christ and loudly proclaims His Divinity; "Thou
Son of the Most High God." Christ heals him. Legion of
devils enter herd of swine. Gadarenes thereupon request Christ
to depart out of their coasts, which He does (117). The
cured demoniac begs to accompany Christ, who gently declines,
urging him to go and tell his friends what God has done for
him (17 20). Crowds await Christ on the other side of the
Lake (21). Cure of woman with issue of blood. Jairus'
daughter restored to life (22 43).
Chap. VI. Christ teaches in the Nazareth synagogue on
Sabbath-day. The Nazarenes, though amazed at His words
of wisdom, are "offended at Him." "A Prophet without
honour in his own country "(i 4). "He could there do no
mighty works." Christ marvels at their unbelief (5, 6). Mission
of the Twelve ; our Lord's Charge to them ; they preach re-
pentance, cast out devils and heal the sick (7 14). Popular
opinion of Christ as Elias or a prophet ; Herod declares :
" It is John, whom I beheaded." Detailed account of John
the Baptist's imprisonment and execution by Herod (14 29).
Return of the Twelve from their mission. Christ and the
disciples retire into the desert because of the constant impor-
Source of S. Mark's Gospel. 237
tunity of the people, who will give them no " leisure so much
as to eat" (30, 31). The crowds " saw them departing and ran
afoot out of all the cities and outwent them/' Christ, " moved
with compassion," teaches the multitudes all day and after-
wards miraculously feeds 5,000 (32 44). Christ " constrains "
the disciples to cross the Lake to Bethsaida while He remains
to pray. A storm arises. Christ sees the Twelve toiling in
rowing, and comes to them walking on the sea ; He hushes
the storm (45 53). The Twelve amazed and awed, and, still
unbelieving, because of their hardness of heart (52). Crowds
again flock to Christ with their sick (53 56).
Chap. VII. Pharisees and Jerusalem scribes find fault with
Christ's disciples for eating with unwashen hands, thus breaking
the tradition of the elders, and make a formal complaint on
this matter to Christ. Christ openly denounces tradition as
making God's Word of none effect (i 10). By way of proof,
He appeals to Isaiah and further shows that tradition cancels
the Fifth Commandment (10 13). Christ turns to the people
present and explains to them that defilement is from within
and not from without. This saying He still more fully ex-
pounds to the Twelve privately (14 24). Christ withdraws
to Tyre and Sidon ; cure of the Syro-Phcenician woman's
daughter (24 30). Thence He proceeds to Decapolis where
He cures a deaf-dumb man. This miracle produces a deep
impression.
Chap. VIII. Christ full of compassion for the great multi-
tude who have been with Him three days, and have nothing
to eat, feeds the 4,000 on seven loaves, and straightway crosses
the Lake (i 10). Pharisees " seek of Him a sign from heaven,
tempting Him." Christ sighs deeply and replies, " There shall
no sign be given unto this generation," and immediately re-
crosses the Lake (10 14). In the boat He cautions His
disciples against the leaven of the Pharisees and the Herodians.
They misunderstand and whisper, " It is because we have no
bread." Christ reads their thoughts and marvels at their
dulness, especially after the recent feeding of the 4,000 (14 21).
Cure of blind man, at first partial then complete (22 25).
Jesus bids him tell no man (26). At Cassarea Philippi Christ
238 Source of S. Mark's Gospel.
asks the Twelve " Whom say men that I am ? " They answer,
John, or Elias, or a prophet. " But whom say ye that I am?"
Peter replies, " Thou art the Christ." Christ charges them to
tell no man (27 30). He openly foretells His coming suffer-
ings, rejection, death and Resurrection on the third day. S.
Peter, incredulous, rebukes Christ. Christ sees in Peter's
words a temptation of Satan, and sternly rebukes Peter
(31 34). Christ teaches the people and disciples the meaning
of "Take up thy cross, and follow Me." He also refers to
His Second Coming.
Chap. IX. Christ's declaration that some present shall not
taste death till they see God's Kingdom come with power.
The Transfiguration six days after, where Elias and Moses
appear. Peter's bewildered exclamation. The voice from
heaven. Christ charges them to tell no man till after His
Resurrection. " They question one with another what the rising,
from the dead means." They ask Jesus why the scribes say
Elias must first come. Christ endorses the saying explaining
it, and also proves from Scripture His own death and rejection.
He adds that Elias has already come (i 13). Christ rejoins
the other disciples, and finds them in a crowd, with scribes
questioning them. Christ asks the scribes the reason of the
questioning. Thereupon a father brings to Christ his son
possessed of a powerfully evil spirit whom the disciples had
tried to cure and failed. Christ's deep sympathy. The father's
appeal ; Christ's gentle rebuke of his half-faith elicits a whole-
hearted confession of faith from the broken-hearted father.
Full and touching account of the cure. In answer to His
disciple's question, Christ explains the cause of their failure
(14 29). Secretly passing through Galilee, Christ again fore-
tells His Passion and Resurrection on the third day. "His
disciples understood not, and were afraid to ask Him " (3032).
Christ at Capernaum asks His disciples why they disputed by
the way. " They held their peace, for they had disputed among
themselves which of them should be the greatest " (in Christ's
Kingdom). Christ sets a little child in their midst as an object-
lesson (33 38). Christ's teaching on toleration in religion ;
"he that is not against us is on our part" (38 41). Christ's
Source of S. Mark's Gospel. 239
teaching on the danger of any course of action or conduct
which leads self or others into temptation or sin (41 50).
[The Galilean Ministry ends here, Chap. X. begins : " And
He arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judasa,
by the further side of Jordan." Henceforth the scene is trans-
ferred to Judasa and Jerusalem.]
We have now collected our evidence ; its inter-
pretation will form the subject of our next chapter.
CHAPTER XIV.
IS S. MARK THE INTERPRETER OF
S. PETER?
Argument.
THE internal evidence of S. Mark does not seem, at
first sight, to support the Papias tradition. In a Petrine
Gospel we should expect a strong spiritual element,
whereas S. Mark is apparently a fragmentary, anecdotal,
myth-loving, unspiritual chronicle. In favour of the
traditional view, much stress is usually laid on S. Mark's
special references to S. Peter, but this argument is utterly
inconclusive. If we wish to establish S. Mark's Petrine
origin, we must found our plea on a broader basis. We
must show, to begin with, that S. Mark is not unspiritual,
nor anecdotal merely, nor more myth-loving than his
contemporaries (Apostles included). Two main reasons
why the charge of " unspirituality " utterly breaks down ;
(i) S. Mark is essentially spiritual ; (2) Spirituality was not
his real aim. Written Gospel-records, like oral tradition,
were intended to supplement Apostolic " preaching," not
to supersede it. The earliest Gospels are records of
facts, not declarations of faith. They lay the foundation
on which the spiritual edifice is to be built.
CHAPTER XIV.
Is S. MARK THE INTERPRETER OF S. PETER ?
TN the preceding chapter the attempt has been
- made to collect and set forth the evidence
external and internal, which has any serious claim
to give historical information as to the truth or
falsehood of the early tradition that S. Mark wrote
his Gospel as S. Peter's interpreter. The next step
is to weigh, interpret and apply this evidence, to
consider what inferences may logically be drawn
from it. In other words, do the actual facts before
us warrant the conviction that S. Mark gives us
such a presentation of the Life and Ministry of our
Lord as we should expect to find in a Gospel-story
inspired by S. Peter and crystallizing his reminis-
cences ?
At first sight, one is strongly disposed to answer
No. A review of the evidence leaves a first im-
pression that tradition is wrong, and that Papias'
statement does not cover the facts.
True, everything in S. Mark suggests a very early
date for his Gospel. Its freshness of colouring, its
life-like portraiture, its simple terse style, above all,
the complete humanity of its Christ, the dulness of
heart of the Twelve, make this early date clear. As
we read S. Mark's simple, direct, living narrative we
244 Is S- Mark t/ic Interpreter of S. Peter ?
instinctively feel that it is drawn from life. We are
listening to the words of an eye-witness. The nar-
rator is in such close touch with his subject, so rapt
in it, that his facts speak for themselves without any
comment of his own. S. Mark is without doubt the
work of a Christian of the first generation, a uniquely
valuable contribution to our data for the Life of
Christ, but it does not at first sight look like " S.
Peter's work." (See Tertull. c. Marc. iv. 5.)
The main features we should a priori expect to
find in a gospel inspired by S. Peter, judging from
his recorded speeches a , would be precisely those which
are lacking in our S. Mark. We naturally fancy he
would have laid great stress on our Lord's Cruci-
fixion and Resurrection, on the fulfilment of prophecy
in the Person of Christ & , on His definite teaching, e.g.
the Sermon on the Mount and the more important
of the longer discourses. We expect none but words
of a deeply spiritual import in a S. Peter, the intimate
friend, servant and herald of Christ the Messiah,
Saviour and Judge of the world.
Therefore, with Papias' words, " Mark is Peter's
interpreter," ringing in our ears, we open S. Mark's
pages looking for what we have been taught to regard
as the saving and vital truths of our Christian Faith.
To our surprise they are not there. The doctrine
a Crucifixion, e.g. Acts ii. 23, iii. 18, cf. iv. 28; Resurrection and
exaltation, e.g. v. 30, 31, iv. 10, ii. 24, 32, 33, 36, iii. 13, 15, 21,
x. 40, cf. iv. 2 ; Prophecy, iii. 18, 24, x. 43 ; Remission of sins, ii. 38,
iii. 19, 26, v. 31.
Is S. Mark the Interpreter of S. Peter ? 245
of the Atonement is only hinted at once, in three
words, and these are of questionable interpretation ;
while the glorious truths of the Resurrection are
conspicuous by their absence.
We are disappointed. In a Petrine Gospel we
expected a S. Peter to speak to us words of life
that would penetrate into the innermost depths of
our hearts, to kindle within us the fire that burned
in his own soul, and what do we actually find in
S. Mark ? Apparently, a mere series of more or less
disconnected biographical anecdotes, an abundance
of miracles, and little or no spiritual teaching at all.
His pages read like so many chapters of a myth-
loving chronicler who revels in the miraculous. It
is one endless repetition of the same refrain : " they
brought unto Him all that were diseased out of
every city, and He healed them," or " the multitude
thronged Him, so that He had not leisure so much
as to eat, because of the miracles which He
didV
The miraculous healing of the sick and the casting
out of devils. these are the " mighty works " which
impress Mark, just as, according to him, they im-
pressed the crowds. Even when S. Mark reports
the mission of the Twelve, what he emphasizes as
its main result is : " they cast out devils and healed
the sick." In fact, he assures us that this was one
b But we shall see that S. Peter does lay stress on our Lord's
miracles, "works" or "signs," e.g. Acts ii. 22, x. 38, cf, iv. 10
and 30.
246 Is S. Mark the Interpreter of S. Peter ?
of the essential reasons of their call and ordination
(iii. 15).
As already hinted, we need not look for definite
teaching in S. Mark ; it is not there. In the whole
Gospel, there are only five parables, the Sower, the
lighted candle, the seed growing secretly, the grain
of mustard-seed, the wicked husbandmen. There is
not a single one of our Lord's longer discourses,
if we except the prediction of the Second Coming
in chapter xiii., which is clearly derived from an
independent source not used elsewhere by S. Mark.
There are a number of our Lord's sayings in
S. Mark, but they are mostly short, abrupt, con
versational, of a polemical rather than religious
type. Even our Lord's Prayer is omitted. Our
Lord's disputes with the scribes, five parables, and
some conversations with the disciples are the only
hints in Mark of any systematic spiritual teaching
on the part of our Lord.
On these grounds, the critical reader is at the outset
naturally tempted to question the historicity of the
Papias tradition, to suspect that it has no foundation
in fact, though probably uttered in all good faith. We
know that Papias was not infallible. Thus he re-
ports as an established tradition of his times that the
Apostle S. Matthew had written an Aramaic Gospel
containing the sayings of our Lord. This Gospel he
apparently identifies with our S. Matthew, and here
he is decidedly mistaken. At the best, tradition and
external evidence are frail reeds to lean on. If we
Is S. Mark the Interpreter of S. Peter ? 247
relied on them, \ve ought to ascribe S. Luke's Gospel
to S. Paul, for its Pauline origin has even stronger
external evidence in its favour than S. Mark's.
Eusebius expressly refers S. Paul's words " according
to my Gospel " (2 Tim. ii. 8) to S. Luke's Gospel,
and this view was generally accepted c .
In his preface to " Luke the Physician," Harnack
writes : " Let me now express my absolute conviction
that historical criticism teaches us ever more clearly
that many traditional positions are untenable and
must give place to new and startling discoveries."
This caution the seeker after truth cannot possibly
take too much to heart.
\Ve have seen that Papias is by no means infallible,
yet he is our sole authority for our tradition about
S. Mark. All ecclesiastical writers after him quote
it on his authority. More than this, the writings of
Papias no longer exist. We have only extracts
from his writings as quoted by Eusebius and Irenaeus.
Therefore, this early tradition reaches us in the form
of a quotation of a quotation. It is only Eusebius'
version of a passage in Papias reporting some in-
formation that Papias had learnt from hearsay. It
is probable that it is a genuine remnant of correct
tradition. No doubt the Elder who was Papias' in-
formant did tell him that " Mark was Peter's inter-
preter," but this need not have meant that Mark
acted as Peter's interpreter in writing his Gospel.
c cf. Iren. c. Hrer. III. J. i. "Luke, the follower of Paul, set
clown in a book the Gospel which he (Paul) used to preach."
248 Is S. Mark the Interpreter of S. Peter?
We have every reason to believe that S. Peter
almost invariably spoke Aramaic and was a poor
Greek scholar d , requiring an interpreter in his
mission-work to Greeks. S. Mark, after accom-
panying S. Paul up to the time of Paul's death,
may well have rejoined S. Peter, the intimate friend
of his youth, the New Testament tells us that he
did, and acted as his interpreter in his mission-
sermons, thus becoming still more familiar with his
teaching and preaching.
Of course, we are not now in a position to get
behind Papias' statement to the actual words of
Presbyter (John ?) on which it is based. Papias may
have reported them perfectly correctly. In any case,
his evidence is a valuable clue, but there is always
the bare possibility that Papias' interpretation of
the Presbyter's words may be wrong, and this is
a consideration that must be taken into our reckon-
ing. Harnack openly rejects the tradition, " This
piece of information," he writes, "does not seem
reliable : it looks rather like a story that was in-
vented for the purpose of excusing the deficiencies
and omissions of this gospel 6 ." It savours of pre-
sumption, verging on impertinence, to question
d Even if i Pet. is S. Peter's, I Pet. v. 12 openly states that
S. Peter did ndt write it himself, but employed Silvanus to do it
for him. At the same time, Silvanus may only have been Peter's
amanuensis, and it is only fair to add that many eminent scholars
deny -this allegation of S. Peter's ignorance of Greek : see esp.
Chase, Hastings' D.B. III. 7873.
e " Luke the Physician," p. 160.
Is S. Mark the Interpreter of S. Peter ? 249
Harnack's judgment, but there is reason to believe
that he is wrong here. At the same time, we must
take Papias' statement with caution, or it may
prejudice and mislead us at the outset. If we un-
reservedly adopt his tradition, and start with the
conviction that S. Peter was behind our Mark, we
shall readily find Petrine touches in Mark's Gospel
which we should otherwise never have detected,
which may not be there at all.
For instance, with Papias' suggestion of Mark's
Petrine origin simmering in their minds, modern
theologians have collated all the passages referring
to Peter himself in this Gospel, and thereby proved
to their own satisfaction that all Mark's information
about S. Peter can have but one source, Peter him-
self. There is no denying that Mark's Gospel is
extremely Petrine in this respect. Peter's call,
Peter's confession, the message of the risen Christ
to Peter, these are the great turning-points in Mark's
Gospel-story. Such incidents as the cure of Peter's
mother, or the statement that Peter's home was at
Capernaum (i. 30 sqq.) would most naturally come
from Peter himself. We mid still clearer indica-
tions of first-hand knowledge (derived from one like
S. Peter) in those instances where Peter is expressly
named though there is no special reason for the
mention of his name (e.g. S. Mark i. 36 ; ix. 5 ;
xi. 20 26 ; xiv. 54). It may also be noted that
in the three scenes where Peter, James and John
alone were present, the raising of Jairus' daughter,
the Transfiguration, and the Agony, S. Mark's
250 Is S. Mark the Interpreter of S. Peter ?
picture in each case is so much more graphic than
S. Matthew's or S. Luke's, that the natural tempta-
tion is to ascribe his fuller knowledge to S. Peter's
prompting.
On the other hand, if this were the sole point at
issue, most critics would be ready to hold the same
brief for S. Matthew and S. Luke. It would be
comparatively easy to draw up a strong case proving
that their information about S. Peter was at least as
complete as S. Mark's.
Few scholars are now prepared to deny the fact
that Matthew and Luke had our Mark, or its equiva-
lent, before them at the time of writing their Gospels.
It therefore follows that they had a perfect know-
ledge of all his facts. Their own Gospels prove that
the first and third Evangelists made the fullest use,
not only of the matter, but even of the words of S.
Mark, whenever it suited their purpose. If they did
not avail themselves of his information about S. Peter,
it was for reasons of their own. It was there at their
disposal.
There is more than this. It would be possible to
defend the position that S. Mark really knew less of
S. Peter than S. Matthew or S. Luke. Matthew-
alone notes our Lord's blessing pronounced on S.
Peter, his walking on the sea, and Peter's special
connection with the tribute-money, while Luke refers
to our Lord's special prayer for S. Peter (S. Matth.
xiv. 29 ; xvi. 17 19; xvii. 24 27; S. Luke xxii.
31, 32).
True, from Eusebius onwards, the very omission of
Is S. Mark the Interpreter of S. Peter? 251
these striking facts in S. Mark respecting S. Peter
has been urged as one of the strongest pleas of its
Petrine origin. Peter's natural humility and self-
effacement in matters honourable to himself would
instinctively prompt him to make no reference to
them. This plea is undoubtedly strong, but the
argument from silence must not be pressed too far.
S. Peter's self-effacement is by no means consistently
carried out even in S. Mark. Besides, there is no-
thing specially honourable in S. Peter's faith failing as
he walked on the sea, nor in his connection with the
tribute-money.
We have seen that great stress is also laid by the
advocates of the Petrine origin of S. Mark on those
passages in which S. Mark names S. Peter without
any special reason for the mention of his name.
Here again the argument breaks down. Precisely
the same thing occurs in S. Matthew and S. Luke.
e.g. ( S. Matth. xv. 15 : "Then answered Peter,
declare unto us this parable."
S. Mark vii. 17 : "His disciples asked Him
concerning this parable."
S. Luke xxii. 8 : " He sent Peter and John,
saying, prepare us the Passover."
S. Mark xiv. 13 : " He sendeth forth two of
His disciples," &c.
cf. ( S. Matth. xxvi. 75 ; S. Luke xxii. 62 :
" Peter went out and wept bitterly' 1
S. Mark xiv. 72 : " When Peter thought,
thereon, he wept."
252 Is S. Mark the Interpreter of S. Peter?
If we see in the occasional mention of S. Peter's
name in S. Mark a proof of immediate personal
knowledge derived from Peter himself, then, by
parity of reasoning, the same plea holds good of the
other two Evangelists.
We shall be accused of special-pleading, and
rightly so, but it is done of set purpose. We do
not deny S. Mark's Petrine origin. Personally we
are convinced that the majority of modern critics are
right in accepting the substantial truth of Papias'
tradition. All the evidence seems to point in that
direction. No doubt S. Mark developed the original
material derived from S. Peter, lie also had other
sources of information (e.g. chap. xiii.). The fact
remains, none the less, that the Petrine reminiscences
form the nucleus of his Gospel, as we hope to be in
a position to show later.
Our sole contention is that, if we are to establish
Mark's Petrine origin, it must be on a broad basis.
External evidence by itself, without corroboration, will
not do ; neither will any number of special references
to S. Peter or scattered incidents in the second Gospel.
If our plea is to be consistent, logical, and convinc-
ing, it must be framed on sound principles. Exter-
nal evidence is helpful, but we cannot cross-examine
Papias, we must take his words on trust. Allusions
in S. Mark to S. Peter are also valuable, but we
have seen that such evidence is very inconclusive.
Our witnesses must come into court not only with
Is S. Mark the Interpreter of S. Peter? 253
a good character for trustworthiness, but ready to
submit to cross-examination. The only witness we
can call who will meet all our requirements and
really supply the testimony we want is S. Mark
himself. The whole problem under discussion
resolves itself purely and simply into a question of
internal evidence. We must let the Petrine origin
of S. Mark stand or fall on its own merits, and
pass our verdict on the evidence which the contents
of the second Gospel, taken as one consistent whole,
may be able to supply.
On reviewing this internal evidence, our first feel-
ing is one of disappointment. We have already
characterized S. Mark as an anecdotal and more
or less legendary biography, full of vivid touches,
pleasing in its simplicity and freshness, but lacking
in spirituality and unity of purpose ; while the
scientific historian would view it in the light of
a document which lies at the opposite pole to our
modern conception of what constitutes history.
Curtailed, fragmentary, unspiritual S. Mark this
is the all but unanimous verdict of ancient as of
modern times. S. Augustine can only speak of
Mark as the " copyist and epitomizer of Matthew."
We have seen that at one period this Gospel was
so little valued that only one mutilated copy of it
was extant. The ecclesiastical writers of early days
did not consider it worth their while to write a com-
mentary on S. Mark, and even now few except
scholars value it as highly as the other Gospels.
254 I s $ Mark the Interpreter of S. Peter?
Men are now awakening to a sense of the in-
justice of this verdict. A closer study of S. Mark
has revealed the fact that this disparagement of
the second Gospel is due to a total misconception
of its aim and scope. It is now realized that it is
not a mere series of disjointed anecdotes, for there
is a deep underlying unity of purpose running
through it all. Far from being unspiritual, Mark
is nothing if not spiritual. He preaches Christ as
no other Evangelist does. True, he does not deal
in theology, he does something better : he lets the
facts speak for themselves, without comment of his
own. Unhistorical he certainly is not. On the con-
trary, he is now our one main authority for the re-
construction of the times and the Life of the Christ.
If we ever do get back to the Christ of history, it
will have to be through Mark. So completely has
the verdict on Mark been reversed that even his
chronology is recognized as superior to that of any
of the other Evangelists. In this matter, the state-
ment of Papias' informant, " Mark did not record the
facts in order*" is so untrue and inapplicable to our
Mark, that it has been made a basis for denying that
our second Gospel was the Mark's Gospel to which
the Presbyter referred.
In all this, we are anticipating, giving our conclu-
sions before stating our premises. The grounds on
which these statements are based will form the sub-
ject of the next chapter.
f ou ntvroi T<it TO virb rov iinov V\ A?^ f VTa
Is S. Mark the Interpreter of S. Peter ? 255
Before we examine S. Mark's Gospel from within,
there is one other consideration which claims our
attention and should be discussed here. It involves
a long and tedious digression, but it is inevitable,
for it will throw a strong side-light on our problem.
S. Mark has been severely criticized for his omis-
sion of our Lord's definite teaching, in a word, for
his unspirituality. We have already partially
answered this charge in our suggestion that his
Gospel is altogether spiritual, but the charge can
be rebutted on quite other grounds. This indict-
ment of S. Mark overlooks the causes which gave
rise to the production of written Gospels, the con-
ditions of Christendom at the time of their compo-
sition, the temporary needs which called Gospels
into existence.
It may be advisable here, even at the risk of
tedious repetition, to summarise in a few lines the
stages through which the first generation of Chris-
tians passed in their evolution of a Gospel-literature.
(a) At first, the only Bible of the Christian Church
was the Old Testament. It was interpreted Christo-
logically.
() The oral preaching and teaching of the Apos-
tles formed the New Testament of the primitive
Church.
(c) The Apostles not only " preached Christ " as
the Messiah, Saviour, and Judge of mankind ; they
also " catechized," that is to say, carefully taught
converts the historical facts of our Lord's Life.
256 Is S. Mark the Interpreter of S. Peter ?
(cT) The three subjects of all-absorbing interest to
primitive Christians were these :
(1) What does the Bible, i.e. the Old Testament,
prophesy of Christ ?
(2) The " Sayings of Jesus."
(3) The " Life of Christ."
In course of time, as Apostles and trained teachers
gained experience, the catechizing would become
more complete and systematic, and the raw material
of oral tradition would naturally group itself under
these three headings.
(e) Still later, the rapid spread of Christianity
would necessitate a further development. Men
began to ask for written documents embodying this
oral tradition. Naturally, these written Gospels
would also in the first instance assume the same
three forms : (i) collections of Old Testament pro-
phecies pointing to Christ ; (2) collections of the
" sayings of Jesus " ; (3) " Lives of Christ ."
(/") Christians of the first generation fully expected
Christ's return in Glory in their own lifetime. This
expectation rendered superfluous the composition of
any but occasional writings serving the immediate
need of the present.
If we bear (c] (d] (e) well in mind, we shall see
K The "Gospel or Login of Matthew" is an example of (2) ;
S. Mark of (3); of (i) no clear trace survives, but that such a "col-
lection of O.T. prophecies" once existed is now established almost
beyond a doubt. See Burkitt, " Gospel Transmission," p. 126.
Is S. Mark the Interpreter of S. Peter ? 257
that the earliest Gospel - literature would not be
" spiritual " in the strict sense of the word. This
was not its aim or scope at all. It reproduced one
side of the Apostolic " Ministry of the Word," and
not the spiritual side.
The Apostles, we have seen, were both preachers
and catechists. As preachers of Christ, they pre-
pared men for the speedy coming of the Lord Jesus :
they proclaimed Him as Messiah, Saviour, and Judge:
they focussed men's gaze on the risen and eternal
Christ. (Acts ii. 36.) As catechists, they carefully
taught converts all the historic facts concerning
Christ which were essential to a right understanding
of the saving truths they proclaimed. (Acts v. 42 ;
ii. 42.)
The teaching and preaching from the very first
went hand in hand, and dovetailed one into the
other. The catechizing laid the foundations, and in
the sermons and Epistles we have the superstructure,
the spiritual edifice built thereon. As teachers, the
Apostles told the story of the Life of Christ exactly
as He lived it here on earth ; as preachers, they in-
terpreted that Life in terms of the Godhead.
Naturally, all the interest centred in the crowning
facts of the Crucifixion and Resurrection, while the
earlier Ministry of the Lord was regarded mainly as
leading up to this final issue. In other words, the
Apostles were much more concerned with Christ as
God than with the facts of His earthly life. The
Resurrection convincingly proved Him to be God,
s
258 Is S. Mark the Interpreter of S. Peter ?
and the Resurrection is the cardinal truth, the
crowning event, the victory which these Apostolic
preachers proclaim. But this victory was the issue
of a long battle, or, rather, of a long campaign.
Every single incident not only in the Life of Christ
Himself, but in what had gone before it, contributed
to this final triumph. The knowledge of the previous
Life of Christ, and of the Old Dispensation paving
the way for Him, was an essential factor to a right
understanding of the Resurrection.
The Apostles knew this and acted upon it. The
Acts of the Apostles proves that the historic facts of
the life of Christ formed the essential groundwork
of the faith preached. Westcott has clearly shown,
for example, that in S. Peter's short address to
Cornelius, summarised in ten verses by S. Luke
(Acts x. 34 43), we have a short " Life of Christ "
and the outline of a creed. " S. Peter marks the
date of Christ's appearance (' after the baptism which
John preached'}, the place from which He came
and -the inauguration of His work ('how God
anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and
with power'}, the geographical point from which
His Ministry began and the extent to which it
spread (' throughout all Judcetf, beginning from
Galilee '), the signs by which His Presence was
attended (' who went about doing good and healing
all that were oppressed of the devil'}, the different
localities in which His mighty works were shown
(' in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem '), His
Is S. Mark the Interpreter of S. Peter ? 259
Crucifixion (' whom tliey slew and hanged on a tree '),
His Resurrection and after-appearances (' Him God
raised up the third day, and shewed Him openly, net
to all people, but to chosen witnesses, even to us, who
did eat and drink with Him after He rose from
the dead'}, His great charge (' and He commanded
us to preach ttnto the people '), His Coming to Judg-
ment (' it is He wliicli was ordained of God to be
the Judge of quick and dead'}, the fulfilment of
scripture (' To Him give all the prophets witness ') h ."
The last words of the Acts tell us the same thing
of S. Paul, i.e. he was both a preacher and a catechist.
It was in his capacity of catechist, as well as preacher,
that for " two whole years Paul dwelt in his own hired
house, and received all that came unto h\m, preaching
the Kingdom of God and'teaching those things which
concern the Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts xxviii. 30, 31).
Now in the earliest Gospel-literature we have the
teaching, and not the preaching of the Apostles,
the raw material which was worked up into the
sermons and Epistles of the Apostles and other
evangelist preachers. It may not have the spiritual
interest, the converting power, the soul-stirring
energy of a S. Paul's Epistles or a S. John's
Gospel, this was not its aim, but a S. Paul or
a S. John could not have done their work without
this raw material. These early gospels were records
h " Study of the Gospels," p. 176.
260 Is S. Mark the Interpreter of S. Peter ?
of facts, not declarations of faith. They supplied
the stones without which the spiritual edifice could
never have been built. Thus it is no disparagement
to an early gospel-record that it is not a spiritual
Pauline Epistle.
At the outset, the " collections of Old Testament
prophecies," the " collections of sayings of Jesus "
and the " brief Lives of Christ" were merely written
and regarded as " aids to faith." The first genera-
tion of Christians were daily, hourly expecting the
return of their Lord in Glory to receive them
unto Himself as sharers in His Kingdom. Apostles
and converts alike were straining their eyes eagerly
awaiting the dawning of the glorious " day of the
Lord." They were convinced that, in their own life-
time, "the same Jesus, taken up from them into
Heaven, should so come in like manner as they had
seen Him go into Heaven." The time was very short.
Little heed need be taken of the distant future.
Enough for them to supply the pressing needs of the
moment. Their one duty was to watch and be ready,
to prepare for this all but immediate Coming of their
King. Such a conviction may build up saintly
lives, but it is not conducive to the writing of books.
This was the age that created for itself the earliest
Christian literature. Can we wonder that this litera-
ture only took the form of letters, and the briefest
of gospel-records ? Short as the time was before
the Day dawned, Epistles had to be written by
a S. Paul to warn, encourage or edify Christians
Is S. Mark the Interpreter of S. Peter? 261
at a distance. Until the Lord came, it was an
aid to faith to open the Scriptures and read them
in the light of the collected prophecies, to ponder
over the " Sayings of the Lord," and the chief events
of His Life, for comfort and guidance.
As time went on, year after year, and Apostles
and other brethren " fell asleep," it began to dawn
even on the first generation of Christians that Christ
tarried and might not return in their own lifetime 1 .
The Christian outlook began to widen. The im-
mediate future no longer absorbed all their interest.
They gaze less heavenward, and turn their eyes
more to the claims which life here has on them,
their social responsibilities, the organization of the
Church and its future welfare. The earthly Life of
Jesus is of living interest to them now, not merely
viewed in its relation to His speedy return, but
because they want to have the Image of Jesus
before their eyes as their Pattern. They would
see how He walked here on earth so that they may
follow in His steps. They wish to hear His very
words, not only as a guarantee for their heavenly
hopes, but as a guide in their daily conduct here
in this world.
Thus, even in the first generation of Christians,
events moved rapidly. S. Paul's Epistles prove
4 e.g. Findlay thinks that, at the time of writing 2 Cor. iv. 16 v. 10,
" for the first time S. Paul realises that he will die before the Lord's
Return. We do not find him subsequently speaking of the -napovaia,
in the 1st pers. plur. of I Thess. and i Cor." (Hastings' D.B. III.
262 Is S. Mark the Interpreter of S. Peter ?
what a change had taken place in his own views
in fifteen or twenty years. This change of outlook
is reflected in the Christian literature of the day.
Occasional writings to serve the immediate needs
of the present no longer suffice. Men now ask for
more. In our Gospels we have a new kind of
literature adapted to this wider outlook. We no
longer get letters, or mere brief collections of pro-
phecies or of sayings, mere summaries. They are not
occasional writings at all, but real literary works at-
tempting, as S. Luke tells us in his preface, to
set forth the Life and Ministry of our Lord " in
order" in complete form. The authors take their
subject seriously. They take pains to collect, choose
and arrange their material. They produce a litera-
ture, books, in fact, addressed not to one particular
Church but to all Christians, narratives which are
not mere creations of the moment, but of a more
or less permanent character. Their writers may not
have had this intention of writing for all peoples and
all times in their minds at the time, but they wrote,
none the less, better than they knew.
Our S. Mark is the connecting link between the
old and the new. He represents the transition
stage between the earliest phase of primitive Chris-
tian thought and its later development, and overlaps
them both. A close study of his Gospel, written
towards the end of his life, about 65 A.D., reveals
the strange fact that in his views S. Mark is still
in sympathy with the Christianity of 40 50 A.D.
Is S. Mark the Interpreter of S. Peter ? 263
For years he has been the companion of liberal-
minded S. Paul, with him he has seen many lands,
and his horizon has certainly broadened since the
day that he forsook Paul at Perga. He, a Jew, can
now write a Gospel intended for Gentiles. True ;
yet to the end he remains a Jew of Jerusalem, the
disciple of Peter, " Marcus, my son."
We are not yet saying that S. Mark's Gospel is
Petrine. This still remains to be proved. But,
whether Mark reproduces S. Peter's reminiscences
or not, its internal evidence shows that it belongs
in matter, style, and tone to a very early date,
a very early cycle of oral tradition. It stands at one
end of the scale just as S. John at the other, and
in the four Gospel-narratives we can clearly trace
the early Christian spirit in the normal course of
its natural development, ever striving towards clearer
expression. And if the close study of our Gospels
teaches one fact more clearly than another, it is
that the Christianity of the first generation took
far less interest in theology than its immediate
successors. It was far more concerned with correct
conduct than correct doctrine. The preaching of
Apostles in very early days laid stress on the
Messiahship of Jesus and His speedy Coming, but
it cared very little for dogmatic theology k .
S. Mark reflects this outlook. His Gospel is
history, yet more than history. He narrates his-
k This is admirably illustrated by Chase in his article on S. Peter,
Hastings' D.B. III. j6jn, cf. Headlam, ibid. i. 333.
264 Is S. Mark the Interpreter of S. Peter ?
torical facts, not for their own sake, but rather as
a means to an end, to prove that Jesus is the
Son of God. Doctrine he eschews.
It is only later that we have the ecclesiastical
colouring of a " S. Matthew," or the spiritual and
theological interpretations of a " S. John." S. Mark
is content with a simple, direct, living picture of
the Person, character and life of the Man Jesus,
a Portrait of the Christ just as the eye-witnesses saw
Him, a simple tale told in such a way that the
facts speak for themselves. He gives us the bare
words of Christ, the bare events of His Life. The
narrator is still in such close touch with the earthly
Christ and the Jewish background of His day that
the colouring of Palestine stands out clearly. At
times, we see Jesus Himself stirred by the feelings
and emotions of His complete humanity. We
breathe the very atmosphere of the day and enter
fully into its religious prejudices and love of the
marvellous. We share the awe of the crowds, the
narrowness of the scribes, the questionings and
dulness of the Twelve. But we have not caught
the true spirit of the age if we look for a developed
Christology, or any religious phraseology in S. Mark.
Even the well-known passage, which so many theo-
logians treasure above all else in Mark : " The Son
of Man came to give His Life a ransom for many V
seems out of place in this Gospel.
1 But see Burkitt in " Transactions of the International Congress
for the History of Religions," Vol. II., pp. 321 328.
Is S. Mark the Interpreter of S. Peter ? 265
The objection may be urged : What of S. Paul's
theology ? Is it not systematic, dogmatic, fully de-
veloped by 50 A.D. ?
This is a fair criticism, but there are two answers to
it. (i) S. Paul, like S. John, was a man of a peculiar
temperament, history and genius ; one of those men
met only once in a lifetime. It would be a grievous
mistake to regard him as typical of the Christians
of his day. He was a creative genius, metaphysician
and theologian, a thinker of extraordinary spiritual
and psychological insight. He rose to heights and
lived in an atmosphere far too ethereal for most of
his Christian contemporaries, and, even now, none but
kindred souls can follow him. Most people to-day
endorse the happy phrase and subtle irony of 2 Peter
iii. 15, 16 : "As our beloved brother Paul, according
to the wisdom given unto him, has written ... in
his Epistles ... in which are some things hard to
be understood." S. Mark and S. Luke were com-
panions and disciples of S. Paul, yet their writings
prove that neither of them had the power to gaze
into the heart and mind of the author of the Epistles
to the Galatians and Corinthians. Their Paulinism
is extremely superficial. Their theology moves in
a lower sphere far removed from the soaring heights
and profound depths of Pauline " soteriology " with
his difficult doctrines of the problem of sin, the
theory of Redemption, the dialectics of Justification
by Faith, and the mysteries of the Atonement on
the Cross. The majority of early Christians would
266 Is S. Mark the Interpreter of S. Peter?
have sympathized with S. Luke and S. Mark. S.
Paul struck a note too high for them.
(2) We must also remember that S. Paul was
addressing intellectual Greeks who revelled in
dialectical subtleties, while the Palestinian Jewish
mind was of a totally different type. The
average religious Jew was strongly moral, essenti-
ally practical, somewhat deficient in depth, and of
such was the Christian Church of the Synoptic
Gospels. The Church of Palestine was still very
much at home in Jewish systems of religious
thought. In fact, Christianity in Palestine was a
sect of Judaism. A S. James and a S. Peter, as
Acts x. 9 1 6, xv., and Gal. ii. show, were still very
strict Jews, adhering to the Mosaic Law, differing
only in this from other Jews, that they believed in the
Messiahship and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. To
such practical, common-sense, and somewhat narrow
Jewish Christians, neither the Pauline dialectics nor
Pauline liberalism would appeal in the very least ;
if anything, it would repel them. The plain teaching
of a S. Peter, the practical morality of a S. James,
the simple Gospel-story of a S. Mark were more
within their grasp and to their liking than the deep
theological conceptions of a S. Paul, which pierce
to the very depths of the moral consciousness and
enter into the mysteries of the Divine Counsel.
Indeed, even S. Paul's own Greek Churches seem
to have found him too deep for them. Harnack
notes the curious fact that, even in Gentile Churches,
Is S. Mark the Interpreter of S. Peter ? 267
S. Paul and Paulinism were very soon overshadowed
by the most Jewish of the Synoptic Gospels, S.
Matthew. " The gospel which in contents and bias
is farthest removed from the Hellenic spirit, the
gospel which in its every trait bears witness to its
origin from Jerusalem was soon seized upon by
the Greeks themselves as the gospel most to their
mind."
This, then, is our answer to the charge of
" unspirituality " brought against S. Mark: (a) It
is not true. He is essentially spiritual, only he
preaches Christ by letting his facts speak for them-
selves without comment. (<) Spiritual teaching was
not his aim. He represents one side of the Apostolic
" ministry of the word," the catechizing and not the
preaching section of it. (c] The first generation of
Christians cared more for correct conduct than
correct doctrine. (d) It is no disparagement or
defect of S. Mark that he does not copy or reflect
Pauline theology.
In the next chapter we shall endeavour to define
the real aim and scope of S. Mark's Gospel.
CHAPTER XV.
S. MARK'S OWN WITNESS TO ITS
PETRINE ORIGIN.
A rguinent.
IF S. Mark is not unspiritual, neither is he merely
anecdotal. The leading ideas in S. Mark, viz. (i) Christ
the Strong Son of God ; (2) Christ's love and tender com-
passion ; (3) Christ's impatience with ecclesiastical con-
ventionalism ; prove that there is a definite unity of
purpose pervading his Gospel. But if Mark's Christ
is perfect God, He is also perfect Man, with waves of
human feeling passing through His soul. Clear traces
in S. Mark of a development (i) in our Lord's teaching;
(2) in the disciples ; (3) in Jewish hostility to Him, but
no development in our Lord's consciousness of His
Mission. Realistic style of S. Mark. Great historical
value of S. Mark. S. Mark's miracles ; their credibility.
Is S. Mark the " interpreter of S. Peter " in this Gospel ?
Where, when, and for whom this second Gospel was
composed.
CHAPTER XV.
S. MARK'S OWN WITNESS TO ITS PETRINE
ORIGIN.
T^ACH Evangelist writes his gospel-narrative from
*-* his own standpoint and perspective. It is no
valid criticism to say that others might have treated
the subject differently, or that a Mark and a "John "
do not deal with it as truly or historically as a Luke
or a " Matthew." This begs the whole question.
No two men see, or can see, the Son of God from
the same point of view. As well might we expect
t\vo independent artists to approach and give us the
same rendering of the Alps or any other overwhelm-
ing panorama. Each has the same immense theme
before him, and gives us his partial view of it. Each
is struck by some leading lines which specially ap-
peal to him, and he moulds his picture accordingly,
yet their partial views of the large reality may in
each case be true to life.
Thus it is that our four Evangelists represent the
God-Man Jesus from four points of view. The
opening sentence of each of the four Gospels cor-
responds with the standpoint from which the
Evangelists survey that life. S. Matthew's genealogy
prepares us for the Child of promise and prophecy,
the heir of David. S. Luke's preface indicates his
272 5". Mark's own witness to its Petrine origin.
intention of giving us a strictly historical narrative
preserving the order of events and addressed to
Gentiles. S. John's prologue strikes the note of the
Divine Glory of Christ from all eternity with its
first words : " In the beginning was the Word."
Similarly, the whole of the second Gospel is but
an expansion of the title in the first verse: "Jesus
Christ, the Son of God." We shall soon see that
he developes this leading idea by sketching in bold
outline a Christ majestic in His power and sympathy,
a Christ in action.
Over S. Mark's Gospel might be inscribed as its
motto the first line of Tennyson's " In Memoriam " :
" Strong Son of God, Immortal Love."
(i) Christ, the strong- Son of God, strong to draw
men to Himself, strong to subdue the spirit of evil,
strong to comfort and to heal, strong to make nature
obey Him.
Carlyle has well said : " There is in man an
inborn spirit of Hero-worship : a quite indestructible
reverence for whatever is strong and holds of Heaven.
He instinctively bows before the Higher, and in
reverently bowing does he feel himself exalted."
If man thus admires power, even when it is but
the counterfeit of the true strong soul that "holds
of Heaven," we are prepared for the attractive power
of the strong Son of God as seen in Mark's Gospel.
Wherever Christ goes, He is the magnet of the
human soul. " All men seek for Thee " (i. 37). At
6". Mark's own witness to its Petrine origin. 273
His bare word : " Come ye after Me" (i. 17), Simon
and Andrew, James and John, straightway forsake
all and follow Him, At His rebuke and command :
"Hold thy peace, and come out of him" (i. 25), the
evil spirit obeys at once, so that all are amazed,
saying : " What new thing is this ? for with authority
commandeth He even unclean spirits, and they do
obey Him." Simon's wife's mother is sick of a fever ;
Christ comes, " takes her by the hand, and lifts her
up, and immediately the fever leaves her, and she
ministers unto them" (i. 31).
With a master's hand, and with a few rapid bold
lines, Mark sketches a complete outline-Portrait of
the strong Son of God. In that one opening chapter,
we already see the Christ as S. Mark sees Him
" mighty in word and deed." A Christ strong in
His readiness to abase Himself and accept baptism
at the hands of one who confesses he is not worthy
to unloose His shoes (i. 7 10) ; strong in His
victory over Himself in the hour of Temptation
(13); strong in His magnetic power to draw men
to Himself, whether individuals (17 20) or whole
masses (37) ; strong to cast out the power of evil
(23 25); strong in word: "He taught as one
that had authority, and not as the scribes " (22) ;
strong in His power to heal (30 sqq. ; 34 ; 40
sqq.). In this first chapter the outline is already
complete ; all that the rest of the Gospel does is to
fill in the details.
Throughout, at every turn in S. Mark, Christ is
T
274 & Mark's own witness to its Petrine origin.
ever the " strong Son of God." This is his leading
idea, the total impression Christ has made upon him
personally. It is surely more than a coincidence
that, in S. Mark iv. 36 v., we have three successive
tempests quelled at Christ's strong word. The
storm of nature on the Lake, the storm in the de-
moniac's soul, the storm of sorrow in a bereaved
home, hear Him say : " Peace be still," and there
is a great calm.
(2) Christ's Immortal Love. If S. Mark is the
Gospel of Strength, it is the strength of a Heart
ever full of love and tender compassion. A leper
comes to Christ, "beseeching Him, and kneeling
down to Him, and saying unto Him, If Thou wilt,
Thou canst make me clean. And Jesus, moved witJi
compassion, put forth His hand, and touched him, and
saith unto him, I will ; be thou clean a ." Or see the
Love that makes His heart go out to publicans and
sinners (ii. 15 18); note how it grieves and hurts
His tender feelings to witness the hard-heartedness
that will not even let Him succour a man in his
affliction for fear of breaking the Sabbath-day (iii. 5).
Note, too, the exquisite tenderness of our Lord which
makes Him not only raise Jairus' daughter to life,
but, remembering the little girl's weakness after her
recent illness, also prompts Him to see that " some-
thing be given her to eat " (v. 43).
a None but a Jew can understand what that touch of Love meant
to the unclean leper. It meant more than the cure itself.
S. Mark's o^vn witness to its Pe trine origin. 275
S. Mark's Portrait of the Christ is the picture of
the Son of God moving among men with power, but
also with a heart intensely tender and human. He
is moved with compassion for the crowds starving
in body and soul (vi. 34 sqq.). His disciples are
" in the midst of the sea, and Christ alone on the
land praying" yet " He sees them toiling in rowing,"
breaks off His prayer and comes to them, walking on
the sea (vi. 48). Note His love for the rich young
ruler (x. 21), His appreciation of the loving heart of
the woman who was a sinner (xiv. 9), above all, His
love of little children (ix. 36 ; x. 14).
This is the Christ of Mark. Is it a mere coinci-
dence that it is also exactly the Christ of S. Peter ?
After all, what is Mark's " Strong Son of God,
Immortal Love," but an expansion of Peter's theme :
" How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the
Holy Ghost and with power ; who went about doing
good, and healing all that were oppressed with the
devil : for God was with Him " ?
One other leading idea pervades Mark's Gospel b :
(3) Christ's impatience ivith Jewish ecclesiastical
conventionalism.
At the outset of the Ministry the attitude of scribes
and Pharisees toward our Lord seems to have been
more or less friendly, and He certainly dealt gently
with them. He was loyal to all their religious insti-
b It naturally flows from (2), for religious conventionalism must
needs stunt and choke all warmth of heart in our relation to God or
man.
2/6 S. Mark's own witness to its Petrine origin,
tutions. He invariably enters their synagogues on
the Sabbath-day and teaches there, both in Caper-
naum (i. 21) and in all the other towns throughout
Galilee (i. 39). He straitly charges the leper after
his cure to speak to no man by the way, but at once
to "show himself to the priest and offer for his
cleansing those things which Moses commanded "
(i. 44).
Very soon, however, the scribes and Pharisees
begin to be suspicious of our Lord. They know
not what to think of Him. Throughout Israel there
was a general feeling that the Day of the Lord was
at hand. John had been preaching the speedy
Coming of Messiah, and had borne witness that Christ
was He. Everyone knew this. The scribes and
Pharisees were convinced He was not Messiah, but
He might be a prophet, as the populace fully be-
lieved. They watched Him closely, and their per-
plexity increased. He acted in such a strangely
unconventional manner. Already, in the second
chapter of S. Mark, we read of Him doing two
things which would conflict entirely with Jewish
religious prejudices. He (i) claims power to forgive
sins, thus shocking the Pharisees by assuming pre-
rogatives encroaching upon the honour of God ; and
He (2) associates with publicans and sinners, out-
casts whom Pharisees regarded as loathsome to God
and defiling to man. Worse still, in the eyes of
scribes and Pharisees, was another feature in our
Lord's conduct. Although Jesus outwardly professes
vS. Mark's own witness to its Petrine. origin. 277
to observe the Sabbath and keep it holy, yet, in
actual practice, He is constantly breaking the Sab-
bath by working cures, and encourages His disciples
to copy His example (iii. 6 ; ii. 23). This is done,
not in secret, but openly, nay in the very House of
God, and He actually dares to justify His conduct
by asserting that " The Sabbath was made for man,
and not man for the Sabbath."
Christ is equally revolutionary in His method of
dealing with the sacred traditions of the elders. In
practice, He daily sets tradition at nought by
associating with publicans and sinners and ignoring
fasting. He goes much further still, for He de-
liberately denounces all traditions as irreligious,
demoralising, and contrary to the whole spirit of the
Bible (vii.).
He makes little or no distinction between Jew and
Gentile, but defies Jewish religious public opinion in
this matter. He goes to the people of Tyre and
Sidon, or the half-heathen population on the other
side of Jordan, and there heals their sick and casts
out devils just as if these Gentiles were Jews.
To crown all, Christ makes personal attacks on
the recognized leaders of Judaism, the upholders of its
religion. He tells chief-priests, scribes, and elders to
their face that they are false teachers and traitors to
their God (xii. I sqq.). He warns His disciples against
the leaven of the Pharisees (viii. 15). He forces even
a scribe to own that the whole " Law and the Prophets"
are contained, not in what scribes and Pharisees
278 S. Mark's oven witness to its Petrine origin.
traditionally teach, but in simple love to God and
to our neighbour, which is worth more than any
amount of burnt-offerings and sacrifices (xii. 28 34).
Finally, He condemns the whole scribal system in
a scathing analysis of their character (xii. 38).
Such is the Portrait Mark draws us of the Christ,
a Christ strong, loving, unconventional, strong with
the superhuman energy of a hidden force that works
from within outwards and manifests itself in character,
word, and deed. But it is a strength guided by the
loving Heart of One Who is tender and compas-
sionate as a woman. It is a strength, too, that is
aweary of all the littlenesses of which the world is
so full, the littlenesses of custom which cramp the
soul's freedom, the littlenesses of those who seem to
themselves and others to rule, while they are the
slaves of the petty routine which robs the moral
and spiritual life of all its vitality and worth.
But the Christ of Mark is not only " The strong
Son of God, Immortal Love," He is a Christ Who
is also intensely and completely human, deeply
stirred by feeling and emotion. We have already
seen how constantly our Lord was moved with com-
passion, but there is much more than this. "He
looked round about with anger, being grieved for
the hardness of their hearts " (iii. 5). " He marvelled,
because of their unbelief" (vi. 6). "He was muck
displeased" because little children were kept from
vS. Mark's oivn witness to its Petrinc origin. 279
Him (x. 14). " He is sore amazed, and very heavy,
and His soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death"
(xiv. 33, 34). " He sighed deeply in the spirit "
(viii. 12 ; cf. vii. 34). He is so wearied that He sleeps
in an open boat in a great storm at sea (iv. 38).
He is keenly touched by others' kindness to Him-
self or their trust in Him (xiv. 9; vii. 29 ; i. 40, 41).
And there is that most intensely human cry of all
on the Cross : " My God, My God, why hast Thou
forsaken Me ? " (xv. 34).
Thus the Christ in Mark is perfect God but perfect
Man as well. At times, He walks among men as if
He were God in Heaven. At other times He acts
and speaks as though He were a mere Man, earth
His home, and His powers bounded by our own
limitations. Thus, of the last day, He implies that
He knows no more than we do : " Of that day and
hour knoweth no man, neither the Son, but the
Father only " (xiii. 32). Under certain circumstances
His power of healing varies, and depends for its suc-
cess on the co-operation of the patients themselves.
Occasionally the cures are only partial at first (viii.
24, 25), and, on one occasion, at least, " He could
there do no mighty works " (vi. 5 ; cf. i. 32).
So faithful is S. Mark in his portraiture of Christ
that he goes so far as to record an event and an
impression which the other Evangelists have refused
to repeat : " And when His friends heard of it, they
went out to lay hold on Him, for they said, He is
beside Himself''
280 S. Mark's oivn zu it ness to its Pctrine origin.
Thus Mark's Portrait of the Christ is inspired by
a conviction of the love, the strength, the glory of
"Jesus Christ, the Son of God," but it is a plain,
straightforward, sober account of the actual Christ.
Unity of Ptirpose in S. Mark. Enough has been
said in the preceding sections to show that Mark's
Gospel is not a " series of disconnected anecdotes."
To say that there is no unity of purpose in Mark
is utterly to misunderstand his aim and scope.
Throughout, his history is written as a means to an
end, to prove that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
This was S. Mark's leading motive in the compo-
sition of his Gospel-story, but he had also two sub-
sidiary themes which he wanted to develope, viz.
(i) How came it that Messiah died at the hands of
His own Chosen People? (2) What is the history of
the origin of the Christian Church ? Hence the stress
Mark lays on our Lord's feud with scribes and
Pharisees, on His call and training of the Twelve.
Development of the plot in S. Mark. The question
has often been asked : Can we trace in S. Mark
a development in the Consciousness of Jesus, a de-
velopment in the disciples, a development in our
Lord's relations with the scribes and Pharisees ?
Modern theology wants to make good this develop-
ment in S. Mark's pages, but is it really there ?
On this point the critic is bound to speak with
some diffidence. There is a considerable substratum
S. Mark's own witness to its Petrine origin. 281
of truth in Schweitzer's remark that modern theology
is apt to read too much between the lines of our
Gospels, artificially to fill up gaps in them and
supplement their silence by a free use of purely
speculative conjecture to suit our own presupposi-
tions.
At the same time, we very much question whether
an impartial reader who approaches Mark critically
as a whole, and comes to it with an open mind, as
if reading the story for the first time, will quite
agree with Schweitzer. S. Mark's account of our
Lord's Galilean Ministry does seem to subdivide
Christ's public life into two or three great epochs
which clearly reveal a historical development in the
Ministry itself and its external circumstances.
Of a development in our Lord's own conscious-
ness of His Divine Mission we believe that S. Mark
knows nothing, and hints at nothing of the kind,
though many scholars persist in seeing clear traces
of this Jesus development in the second Gospel.
Their idea is that, even before His Baptism, our
Lord was in a sense conscious of His Messiahship,
but it was the opening of the heavens, the descent
of the Holy Spirit, the voice from Heaven as He
was coming out of the water that confirmed this
inner conviction and converted it into an absolute
certainty. Then follows the Temptation which, in
S. Mark, parabolically represents a terrible struggle
in our Lord's own soul as He weighs the various
courses open to Him if He would persuade the
282 S. Mark's own witness to its Petrine origin.
Jews of His Messiahship and win their loyal allegi-
ance. At first, say these critics, our Lord started
with a conception of the Messianic kingdom more
or less in harmony with current Jewish eschatological
expectations. It was only after His rejection by
the religious leaders of His nation He realized that
the Day of the Lord had already dawned here on
earth, that the Kingdom of Heaven had already
begun to be established in the hearts of His dis-
ciples, and that, for its advancement, it was necessary
for Him to suffer and to die.
Now this may fairly represent the various stages
through which our Lord raised His disciples to the
true view of His Messiahship ; but it certainly does
not represent the evolution of the idea in His own
Consciousness. From the outset, according to S.
Mark, our Lord knew positively that He was the
Son of God ; He equally knew that His Kingdom
was a spiritual one, and that only through suffering
and the portal of Death could He ascend to the
Throne of His Glory. Already in ii. 20 He declares
that " the day will come when the Bridegroom shall
be taken away from His disciples," and He openly
prophesies that it will be a day of mourning.
The idea of an Apocalyptic earthly Messiah was
in the disciples' minds and in the hearts of the
multitudes, never in Christ's own consciousness (cf.
vi. 45 47 ; with S. Matth. xiv. 23, 24, and S. John
vi. 15). Christ's full realization of His Mission and
all it involved was already perfectly clear to Him
6". Marks own witness to its Petrinc origin. 283
at His Temptation. There He faced the whole
situation calmly in all its bearings, and once and
for all mapped out His course. Four times, at
least, did the suggestion come to Him to adopt
another course, to follow a line of less resistance, to
fall in with current popular eschatological views, viz.
(i) at the Temptation; (2) after feeding the 5,000;
(3) after S. Peter's confession ; (4) again at the Agony.
On each occasion He brushed this suggestion aside
without a moment's hesitation. Throughout, from
start to finish, He knew what awaited Him, and
never swerved a hair's-breadth from the course He
had mapped out till all was accomplished.
There is an undoubted development in Christ's
proclamation of His Messiahship, but this is quite
another matter. At the outset, our Lord was abso-
lutely reticent on the subject. A public declaration
of the Messiahship would have defeated its own
ends, for it would only have raised earthly hopes
which our Lord did not share or wish to encourage
in any way . S. John the Baptist had more than
hinted at Christ's Messiahship, but neither he him-
self nor others realised the full meaning of his
testimony to Christ's Personality. According to
Mark, the very devils in the demoniacs proclaimed
the fact from the very first (i. 24, 34 ; iii. n ; v. 7).
Christ instantly silenced them. " He suffered not
S.John, at all times a shrewd interpreter of our Lord's actions,
distinctly supplies us with a telling piece of evidence to this effect in
S. John iv. i 3 ; cf. vi. 14, 15.
284 S. Mark's own ^witness to its Pet fine origin.
the devils to speak, because they knew Him."
Still the disciples and others did not understand.
Our Lord, already in ii. 5, had claimed God's own
prerogative of the power to forgive sin. Even
this does not open the disciples' eyes. Everyone
was convinced that our Lord was a heaven-sent
messenger of God, the Elias who was to pave the
way for Messiah, or, at any rate, one of the prophets.
More they knew not.
It is not till after many a day that at last, at
Caesarea Philippi, S. Peter guesses our Lord's secret,
and even then the disciples only half understand.
Over and over again, after Peter's great confession,
does our Lord expressly and emphatically tell them
in so many words that Messiah must suffer, be
rejected of men, that He must die, be buried in
the grave, and rise again, ascending the throne
of His Glory through the gates of Death. On
every single occasion they misunderstand Him, so
worldly are they, so slow of understanding, so
steeped in Jewish Messiah-expectations. As the
time of His decease drew near, our Lord reiterated
these warnings again and again : e.g. after the Trans-
figuration, and immediately before the last visit to
Jerusalem (ix. 9, 31); "but they understood not
these sayings, and were afraid to ask Him."
A miraculous and sudden Coming of their King
in Glory as Messiah to reign on earth in their own
lifetime, with themselves next to Him in His King-
dom (ix. 34), this was what the disciples expected.
6". Mark's otvn witness to its Petrine origin. 285
When Christ tries to disillusion their minds and
assures them that it is as a suffering, not a conquer-
ing Messiah He is here, " Peter takes Him and begins
to rebuke Him." Believe this they will not. Is it
any wonder that after His death the empty tomb
is inexplicable to His followers ? " they trembled
and were amazed, for they were sore afraid."
Is it any wonder that even when the Resurrection
has convinced them that their Lord is God and
King, they still consider His Mission incomplete,
and look for His speedy Return in the clouds of
Heaven to establish His Kingdom here on earth ?
A development in our Lord's teaching is apparent
in other ways as well. Till the day of His final
breach with scribes and Pharisees, He had taught
in the synagogues, and proclaimed the Kingdom
of God to the multitudes and disciples alike. From
Chapter iii. onward, our Lord still preaches to the
multitudes in the wilderness and by the lake-side,
but it is on the instruction and organization of the
Twelve that He now mainly concentrates His
attention. It is then that He calls, ordains and
sends this chosen band of Twelve on their first
Mission. He knows it is on them He has to
depend for the nucleus of His Church and the
carrying on of His work when He, the Bridegroom,
is taken away. He takes immense pains with their
training. Constantly does He retire with His dis-
ciples into desert places to be alone with them, away
from the importunity of the crowds (vi. 31). It is
286 6". Mark's own witness to its Petrine origin.
when they are alone that the Twelve ask Him to
explain His teaching (iv. 10), and " He expounds
all things to His disciples " (iv. 34).
Thus we can clearly trace in Mark a develop-
ment in the teaching of our Lord, a development
in the disciples, a development in the hostility of
the scribes and Pharisees, but in Christ Himself
there is not a hint of any development at all.
S. Mark has no conception of such a thing.
Style of S. Mark. Was S. Mark a literary artist ?
Does his work look like the bare reproduction
either of oral tradition or other Apostolic teach-
ing, exactly as the material reached him ? or can
we say that the Second Gospel bears clear traces
of conscious preparatory labour in the collection,
choice and arrangement of the material ? A great
deal hangs on our answer to this question, the
Petrine origin of S. Mark among other points. The
question whether S. Mark gives us the reminiscences
of S. Peter is one that we cannot answer till we have
brought to a focus all the scattered rays in S. Mark
that help to throw light upon it, and in S. Mark's
style we have one of these side-lights.
On S. Luke's showing, S. Mark is to be ranked
among the pioneers in the field of gospel-story
writing (Luke i. I 4), and as may be expected in
all pioneer - work, the results appear somewhat
rude and inartistic. S. Mark suffers from the
necessity of having had to compose his work at
vS. Mark's oivn witness to its Petrine origin. 287
a time when there were no models before him of
the appropriate form into which the history of our
Lord's Ministry should be cast. He had to mould
an appropriate form for himself as best he could.
He is very far from being a literary artist like
S. Luke. His vocabulary is extremely limited, his
composition rude, yet, although he wrote with no eye
to artistic effect, his work is a gem of simple art.
With no preliminary introduction of genealogy,
preface or prologue, he goes straight to the heart
of his subject, " beginning from the baptism of
John." As if expanding S. Peter's theme in Acts
x. 34 39, he throws on his canvas scene after scene
right up to the Resurrection morning, and never
lets our interest flag. The spectator sees the whole
drama acted before his eyes, the majestic Figure
" going about doing good," the impressed multitudes
crowding around Him, the scowling scribes and
Pharisees, the Twelve so dull of understanding and
questioning among themselves in petty ambition,
the outcasts and sinners irresistibly attracted to their
compassionate Friend. We see it all as disciples,
scribes and crowds saw it then. We have the same
facts before us as they had, and we are left to draw,
as they did, our inferences of the Christ.
Mark is thus very far from being the mere
chronicler of anecdotes some critics see in him.
True, there is none of the studied and artificial
grouping of facts as in Matthew, no loud profession
of chronological order as in Luke, none of the
288 S. Mark's oivn witness to its Pe trine origin.
meditative reflection of a John, and certainly no-
thing of the systematic theology of a Paul. S. Mark
never meant that there should be. He just wants
us to see the Portrait of the Christ he himself so
clearly sees, and with a few bold yet simple strokes
he gives it us in all the glow and energy of life.
Perhaps no words can describe Mark's graphic
portraiture better than Lowell's appreciation of
Carlyle : " He is great in single figures and striking
episodes, but wants gradation and continuity. He
sees history as it were by flashes of lightning.
A single scene, a single figure is minutely photo-
graphed. Every tree and stone, almost every blade
of grass, the attitude or expression of a principal
figure, the gestures of a momentary passion, every-
thing leaps into vision under that sudden glare."
These words might have been expressly written
of S. Mark. The narrative is so full of these vivid
pictorial touches, the details which drop from his
pen are so life-like, the liveliness of his language
is often so dramatic, while the central Figure which
towers above all is so majestic, that the more we
read S. Mark the more we come under the spell
of his realism. He tells us a story of the long-
forgotten past, and it springs into life before our
very eyes. We hear the actual words of the poor
leper speaking with beating heart : " Lord, if Thou
wilt, Thou canst make me clean." We see the
epileptic boy, who wallows groaning and foaming
at the mouth, and the father appealing to Christ
.S. Marks own witness to its Petrine origin. 289
with tears in his eyes. No other Gospel equals
S. Mark in exquisite word-pictures (e.g. S. Mark
v. 2 sqq. ; ii. 2 sqq. ; vi. 39, 40 ; x. 17 sqq., 46 sqq.,
&c., &c.).
Historicity of S. Mark. S. Luke as Harnack
shows " does not express an altogether favourable
opinion of his predecessors we may even say that
he wrote his Gospel to supplant the Gospel of S.
Mark, which he condemns as wrong in its order
of events, too unspiritual, and imperfect and in-
correct" ("Luke the Physician," 158). Many modern
students and scientific historians side with S. Luke
and do not place Mark, his companion and fellow
Evangelist, very high on their list. They regard
him more in the light of a credulous chronicler
than a sober historian. Modern scientific criticism
is more and more reversing this verdict. It is coming
round to the conviction that Mark is a historian of
the first importance both in the amount and the
kind of material supplied. The life-like portraiture
and fresh colouring can have come from none but
an eye-witness, and the contents of the narrative
are in themselves so intrinsically probable.
We do not say that it is all exact and accurate
history, free from all trace of legend, for this would
not be true. S. Mark at times treats his subject
with considerable freedom, and it reaches us coloured
with the writer's personality and limitations. He
revels in the miraculous. But precisely because
of these apparent defects, Mark's pages reflect
u
290 5. Mark's own witness to its Petrine origin.
and breathe the spirit of his age. Let them con-
tain what inaccuracies they may, they are a truer
picture of the period than any modern historian
with all his researches could present to us.
We believe it is no exaggeration to say that
the simple, direct, vivid narrative of S. Mark fits
in so perfectly with the atmosphere of Christ's day,
and with the actual sequence of events, that, in spite
of Luke's criticism, Mark brings us far nearer the
Christ of history than any of the other Evangelists.
Miracles in S. Mark. The historical value of
S. Mark has been questioned on the plea of the
exaggerated importance he attaches to miracles.
But why attack S. Mark specially ? Every gospel-
writer is full of miracles, and not least the so-called
historical S. Luke. So is the Acts, so are S. Paul's
Epistles. The Apostles and the primitive Church
fully believed in miracles. In i Cor. xii. S. Paul
includes miracles in his list of spiritual gifts : " to one
is given the gifts of healing : to another, the working
of miracles," and he looks upon them as being on
the same level with the gifts of wisdom or of know-
ledge or of preaching. S. Paul himself, on one
occasion, is reported to have restored to life a young
man called Eutychus who had been " taken up dead,"
though S. Paul seems to correct this statement by
assuring those present that they need not be alarmed
for "his life is in him" (Acts xx. 8 sqq.). Of one
fact we may be sure, that the writers of the New
vS. Mark's oivn witness to its Petrine origin. 291
Testament were convinced that miracles happened.
They assure us not only that Christ Himself worked
miracles, but that ordinary Christians constantly did
so too.
Modern scientists and historians, on the other
hand, equally emphatically assure us that miracles
do not occur and never did happen. On this point
we shall have more to say in a separate chapter d .
For the present, enough to say that scientific critics
themselves are more and more coming round to the
view that it is unscientific in the last degree for us
to dogmatise on the subject without the exact data
before us. We are not in possession of all the
evidence we should require to pass impartial judg-
ment. Even if we believe, as we do, that there is
exaggeration of statement in many of the miraculous
episodes of the New Testament, we remember that
we are being taught strange psychological facts
to-day which make us pause before we deny the
apparent breaches of Nature's Laws, which we call
miracles.
We are beginning to realize the immense power
of telepathy, the subtle psychic force exercised by
mind upon mind, spirit over spirit. Smile super-
ciliously as we will at Faith Healing and much of
its charlatanism, we are not quite certain, any of
us, that there is not much more method in its mad-
ness than we care to own. The enormous latent
power of Consciousness or Personality, the power
d See Appendix.
292 5. Mark's own witness to its Petrine origin.
of telepathy and suggestion, are psychological forces
which we are now only just beginning to gauge,
forces which will have to be taken very much into
our reckoning in the immediate future if we would
interpret every-day phenomena.
If in Christ we have to deal with an abnormal
Personality, what then ? We may rationalize
many of the miracles, relegate many more to the
limbo of legend, but, after due allowance made for
exaggeration and human error, an irreducible resi-
duum remains which we cannot eliminate, even
though we refuse to accept it on the plea that we
cannot explain it. But, is it truly scientific to reject
as an exploded fiction in past history whatever does
not fit in with our own theory of life and nature ?
We should rather call it, in our present state of
half-knowledge, the height of un-science. There
can be a scientific dogmatism which is just as
unscientific and untrue as the religious superstition
or bigotry it condemns.
Conclusion. The charges brought against S. Mark,
from the days of S. Luke onward, on the score of
his incompleteness and anecdotalism, his unspiritu-
ality and love of the miraculous, break down at
every point. We have seen that there is nothing
if not a clear unity of purpose running through the
whole of his Gospel. S. Mark gives us no definite
teaching because there is no place for theology in
his clear scheme, yet he preaches Christ as no other
S. Mark's own witness to its Petrine origin. 293
Evangelist does. Far from not being " in order,"
as S. Luke hints, S. Mark is the most correct of the
Gospels in its chronological arrangement ; while the
miraculous element is not only in the spirit of the
age, but may be more real and true to fact than we
have hitherto been ready to concede.
It is a remarkable testimony to the authenticity
and reliability of Mark's historical facts that Luke,
his critic, and " Matthew," writing some twenty years
later, can find no better course to adopt in composing
their own narratives than to incorporate S. Mark
bodily. Thus do they set their seal to the truthfulness
of his history, and the soundness of his judgment in the
collection, choice and arrangement of his material.
All the evidence tends to prove that S. Mark
either follows authentic Apostolic tradition of a very
early date, or obtained his information at first-hand
from a most reliable eye-witness or eye-witnesses.
The freshness of the colouring, the wondrous force
and originality of the ideas, the simplicity of style,
the Aramaic tinge, the absence of religious phrase-
ology, the life-like portraiture of the principal
characters, one and all bear record to an eye-
witness of the first generation of Christians. This
eye-witness is, moreover, in close touch with the
Person of our Lord, the points of view and interests
which prompted His actions, the forces which in-
fluenced His career. There is nothing in the
contents of this Gospel conflicting with the tradi-
tion that S. Mark embodies the reminiscences of
294 S- Mark's o^vn witness to its Petrine origin.
S. Peter, indeed, the general trend of the internal
evidence is in perfect harmony with this view. On
the strength of the first chapter alone, a very strong
case could be made for Mark's Petrine inspiration.
It cannot be a mere accidental coincidence that
Mark begins his Galilean Ministry with full details
of Peter's call, Peter's birth-place, Peter's home, the
cure of Peter's wife's mother. It is also remarkable
that in this chapter, as nowhere else, he gives us an
extraordinarily complete account of the incidents of
one single day, and that day the most eventful in
Peter's life, the details of which would most naturally
be deeply impressed on his mind.
On the other hand, if the material is in the main
supplied by S. Peter, or one like S. Peter, S. Mark
has so assimilated, developed, recast it, added to it,
that he has wholly transfigured the raw material
furnished by S. Peter. Papias spoke more truly than
he knew when he said S. Mark was Peter's inter-
preter. The reminiscences may be Peter's, but their
interpretation is all Mark's own, and probably as
like, yet unlike, the original as a play of Shake-
speare is to the historical passage in Hollinshed on
which it is based.
It was S. Peter who put the first touch to Mark's
education. It was S. Peter who catechized " Marcus,
my son," devoting much time and care to the Christian
training of his beloved young friend, giving him all
his reminiscences of our Lord's Life and Ministry.
It was Peter again, many years later, at the end of
S. Mark's own witness to its Petrine origin. 295
his life, who gave S. Mark's education its finishing
touches as well, when they were together "in the
Church that is at Babylon" (i Peter v. 13). S. Peter's
influence was undoubtedly the first, the last, and in
every way the supreme influence in S. Mark's life. At
the same time, we must remember with Harnack that
Mark had gone through other experiences as well.
" Why," asks Harnack, "should a native of Jerusalem,
whose maternal home had formed the centre for the
primitive Church, and who knew the whole com-
munity, the fellow-worker for many years of Barnabas
and Paul, have taken S. Peter's reminiscences ex-
clusively as the basis of his Gospel?"
From the nature of the problem, this is a question
to which no positive answer can be given. The
intrinsic probability is that in our S. Mark we have
the reminiscences of S. Peter as supplying the whole
foundation and most of the stones of S. Mark's
superstructure. But S. Mark has travelled far in
body and mind since the days in which S. Peter
told him the story of Jesus' Life. He has heard
much, and thought still more in the interval. His
experience and outlook have broadened. The
Christian Church and its needs have also changed
greatly meanwhile. His finished work bears clear
traces of all these influences. It is impossible now
to eliminate these other factors, to lay one's finger
on this passage or that and say : this is S. Peter's
contribution, or, this we owe to his interpreter
S. Mark.
296 5. Mark's own witness to its Petrine origin.
Place of writing. We do not know. Tradition
points to Rome, and nothing in S. Mark contradicts
this view, while there is much in the internal evidence
to confirm it. At any rate, there is more to be said
for Rome than for Chrysostom's belief that this
Gospel was composed at Alexandria.
For what class of readers was Mark intended ?
Here again we have few facts to go upon. All we
can safely say is that it was originally addressed to
readers who knew Alexander and'<Rufus (xv. 21), for
their names are brought in without any apparent
reason. We know that Rufus dwelt at Rome (Rom.
xvi. 13). It was clearly intended mainly for Gentiles.
This conclusion " follows from the explanation of
Jewish customs (ii. 18 ; vii. I 4; xiv. 12; xv. 6),
opinions (xii. 18), localities (xiii. 3), no less than from
the general character of the Gospel " (Westcott).
One point, however, is clear. It was not written
for Christians of any particular school of theological
thought. It is a calm, sober statement of fact so
presented as to suit all the world alike. There is in
it no ulterior partisan purpose of any kind. The in-
consistent and self-contradictory statements of critics,
who try to find a theological bias in S. Mark, prove
this fact convincingly. Thus Baur affirms that S.
Mark's Gospel was intended to present the case for
the intermediate section of Christians standing half-
way between Judaizers and Paulinists. Hilgenfield
holds that it leans towards Petrinism ; Volkman,
.$. ft I ark's own witness to its Petrine. origin. 297
towards Paulinism, and so forth. When these
various critics can thus readily detect leanings in
all directions, it is a clear proof that Mark had no
special leanings at all. As a matter of fact, we
have already seen that his subject and aim relieved
him from all necessity of burdening his simplicity
of doctrine with any dogmatic theology whatever.
Date. The absence of any clear reference to the
P'all of Jerusalem supports the conclusion of a very
early date elsewhere advocated in this chapter.
Irenaeus places the date at 63 A.D., and is probably
not far wrong. It lies somewhere between 63 69
A.D., in all likelihood.
CHAPTER XVI.
OUTLINE-SKETCH OF S. LUKE
AND HIS GOSPEL.
Argument.
HARNACK'S re-establishment of S. Luke as the author
of the Acts and also of the third Gospel, or "former
treatise," thus endorsing the unanimous verdict of early
tradition from 140 A.D. Biography of S. Luke, the
companion and " beloved physician " of S. Paul, and his
fellow -worker, but not an eye-witness of the Ministry.
S. Luke's is the Gospel (a) of Humanity and (b) of
universal forgiveness, (c) It assigns a prominent place
to women; (d) leans towards the poor; (e) is full of
song and rejoicing ; (/) and the work of a poet-painter.
CHAPTER XVI.
OUTLINE-SKETCH OF S. LUKE AND HIS GOSPEL.
'T'HE Preface to S. Luke's Gospel tells us that it
* was composed by its author to supply the
" most excellent Theophilus " with a full and reliable
account of the historical facts of the Faith in which
Theophilus had already been instructed. Now, if
we turn to Acts i., we find a similar preface : " The
former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all
that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day
in which He was taken up." Naturally, this implies
that the third Gospel and the Acts are two consecu-
tive volumes by one and the same hand, the Gospel
being the first instalment, and the Acts the second
part of this historical work. From earliest days,
tradition has endorsed this view, and unanimously
ascribed both books to S. Luke.
Till quite recently, however, by far the greater
number of competent critics maintained that in this
matter tradition was all wrong. Both the third
Gospel and the Acts are anonymous works, and,
although these critics were ready to admit that the
Gospel might possibly be the composition of a com-
3O2 Outline- sketch of S. Luke and his Gospel.
panion of S. Paul, they absolutely refused to follow
tradition and accept S. Luke as the author of the
Acts. They insisted that there were historical
blunders and endless other features in the Acts,
which made it inconceivable that the author of this
book was a companion of S. Paul, or a man who
lived in the Apostolic age : the internal evidence
clearly showed that he belonged to a later gener-
ation. He was, so they maintained a , a man of
culture living towards the end of the first century,
who had set himself the task of showing how
Christianity had spread itself over the world, from
Jerusalem to Rome. He had collected a vast
amount of material for this purpose, but such a con-
siderable period of time separated him from the
events he records, that he was personally quite out
of touch with the condition of things in Apostolic
days, and had to depend entirely on documents and
late tradition for his facts. Therefore, although he
professes to give us a picture of the primitive Apos-
tolic Church and the actual words and speeches of
S. Peter, S. Paul, and other heroes of the first
generation, the results are meagre and colourless ;
artificial to a degree. There are, doubtless, frag-
ments of genuine speeches, and one original docu-
ment of the first rank, a short contemporary
travel-diary in the Acts, but as a whole, the Acts,
on the face of it, bears clear traces of the lack of
* The whole of this paragraph expresses the views of these adverse
critics, not our own. J. R. C.
Outline-sketch of S. Luke and his Gospel. 303
accurate and detailed information. Historical re-
miniscences may probably lie in the background,
but it is no longer possible to sift the wheat from
the chaff, to disentangle the historical facts from
the accretions and embellishments of late oral tradi-
tion and legend.
One school of critics included the third Gospel in
the same category as the Acts, the other did not.
The former recognized in the Acts and Gospel com-
bined a great historical work, of unique character,
a historical document of the first importance for our
knowledge of the conditions and ideas of the time
(end of the first century) when it was composed,
but of no great historical value for the Apostolic
period it professed to portray. It was the work
of one hand, not Luke's, and crystallized tradi-
tion at a time when oral tradition had degenerated
and become more or less legendary and idealized.
The third Gospel they regarded as the more trust-
worthy of the two books, simply because the oral
tradition relating to Christ was more fixed and
stereotyped, less liable to any great modifications.
It was otherwise with the second part (Acts) dealing
with the primitive Church and the spread of Chris-
tianity. Here tradition was more fluid, less trust-
worthy, and therefore the record does not tally so
closely with the reality.
The other school of critics compromised with the
traditional view of a Lukan authorship. They accepted
the common opinion that the Gospel proceeded from
304 Outline-sketch of S. Luke and his Gospel.
S. Luke's pen, while they rejected the Acts as
a palpable " literary forgery."
Harnack, in his "Luke the Physician," has dealt
these theories a deadly blow, and convincingly
proved that tradition is right in assigning a Lukan
authorship both to the third Gospel and the Acts.
He bases his arguments on the well-known " we "
sections of the Acts.
Certain sections in the Acts, viz. Acts xvi. 10 17 ;
xx. 5 15 ; xxi. i 18 ; xxvii.-xxviii. 16, use the
first personal pronoun " we." This " we " first
appears in xvi. 10, replacing the " they " of the
previous verses and chapters : " We endeavoured to
go into Macedonia."
In these " we " sections, as already stated, German
and other critics see the private diary-notes of some
companion of S. Paul. These notes the editor of
the Acts has bodily incorporated in his work.
Why, then, did the editor leave the " we " sections
in the first person, thus giving the reader the definite
impression that the writer of the Acts was himself
S. Paul's companion ? To this question the answer
of these critics is twqfold. (i) The author retains
the " we," simply because it already existed in
a document which he wishes to embody in his
narrative in its original form. (2) It was a literary
artifice constantly employed in those days. We find
a parallel to it in the pseudonymity of several Old
Testament books. This literary device is as char-
acteristic of the literature of the period as the
Outline-sketch of 5. Luke and his Gospel. 305
practice (e.g. in Thucydides and Acts b ) of intro-
ducing- fictitious speeches, in which the author's own
words were placed in the mouth of his characters.
The dramatic impersonation was palpable, and de-
ceived nobody.
It is against such theories as these, and in defence
of the Lukan authorship both of the Gospel and the
Acts, that Harnack has entered the field and firmly
re-established the truth of the early traditional views.
Others before him had taken up the brief for the
defence, both in Germany and England. It wanted,
however, a Harnack's comprehensive knowledge,
open mind and balanced judgment to marshal the
evidence on both sides, and impartially sift and
weigh the actual facts. He has now placed the
whole case before us in such a clear dry light that
there can be but one verdict on the point at issue.
On literary and historical grounds Harnack has
proved up to the hilt that the " we " sections are the
work of a companion of S. Paul, and an eye-witness
who is no other than Luke " the beloved physician."
He has also convincingly shown that the rest of the
Acts and the third Gospel are by the same hand.
This is self-evident from the style, vocabulary, and
internal evidence generally.
It is impossible for us to compress into a few lines
the arguments of Harnack, but the cogency of his
plea will be patent to anyone who takes the trouble
b cf. Macchiavelli, Grotius, and Bacon (H. VII.) in more modern
days.
X
306 Outline-sketch of S. Luke and his Gospel.
to study his scholarly treatment of facts. His
analysis of the vocabulary and style of the " we "
sections, the Gospel, and the rest of the Acts ; his
searching cross-examination of their internal evi-
dence ; the chain of evidence he forges link by link
to prove that the author of the Acts arid Gospel
must have been a physician, form a masterpiece of
historical criticism c .
It may therefore now be regarded as established
beyond the possibility of a doubt that the traditional
view of the authorship of the third Gospel and the
Acts is right. They are the work of " Luke, the
beloved physician," an eye-witness of S. Paul's
doings, his companion during a portion of his mis-
c Harnack's argument may be briefly put thus : (i) Tradition, as
early as 140 A.D., assigns the third Gospel and Acts to S. Luke.
The following facts support tradition : (a) S. Luke was a Greek,
a physician, and a fellow-traveller of S. Paul, so was the author
of the Acts ; (It) no mention of S. Luke is made in the Acts.
(2) Linguistic evidence proves that (a) the writer of the "we"
sections in the Acts wrote the whole book ; (b) was a physician ;
(r) and also composed the third Gospel. (3) The anther's historical
inaccuracies and his un-Pauline theology " do not show that the
Acts cannot have been written by a fellow-worker with S. Paul."
S. Paul : s companionship did not confer upon his companion in-
fallibility of insight into Paul's character and doctrine, or absolute
veracity and a perfect memory ; neither did it eliminate Luke's
individuality. S. Luke obtained his information from others besides
S. Paul. As to the Gospel, Harnack believes S. Luke wrote his
Gospel in Achaia or Asia Minor (Ephesus?) about 80 A.D., basing
it mainly on S. Mark, but interpolating Palestinian traditions of.
a legendary character. The feminine and Samaritan elements in
S. Luke's writings were derived, so Harnack thinks, from Philip
the Evangelist and his daughters, while the songs in the Gospel
and the speeches in the Acts are S. Luke's own composition.
Outline-sketch of S. Luke and his Gospel. 307
sionary journeys. These two treatises together are
therefore of unique value as emanating from a man
of culture who had every opportunity of obtaining
first-hand information.
Harhack's re-establishment of S. Luke as the
author of the Acts is also valuable in another way,
which concerns us more closely here. If "the
former treatise" refers to S. Luke's Gospel, as it
clearly does, this establishes an early date for the
composition of the Gospel. In its turn, the early
date of S. Luke's Gospel involves a still earlier date
for the Gospel of S. Mark embodied in it. We thus
indirectly obtain a remarkable corroboration of the
conclusion arrived at in our last chapter.
In dealing with S. Luke, we shall proceed on the
same lines as with S. Mark. We shall begin with
the external evidence, following it up with a short
biography of S. Luke and a brief sketch of the
leading ideas of his Gospel, and finally draw such
conclusions from our premises as the internal evi-
dence may justify.
(i) External evidence. The common consent of
ecclesiastical tradition, ascribing the third Gospel
to S. Luke as its author, can be traced back to
the middle of the second century. Before that
date, the Gospel is not mentioned by name. We
have, however, clear proof that our Greek Gospel
of Luke existed before Marcion's day (about
140 A.D.). We have already seen that Marcion
308 Outline-sketch of S. L tike and his Gospel.
was a pronounced Paulinist, and a confirmed anti-
Jewish Christian. He is generally accounted a heretic
because he openly rejected all that did not fit in
with his views. S. Paul's Epistles were His Bible,
and Luke his Gospel, but he would only accept
the third Gospel partially, omitting 309 verses.
For a long time, critics were disposed to invert
the relationship of Luke and Marcion, alleging that
Luke had expanded Marcion, not Marcion mutilated
Luke. Dr. Sanday, however, has convincingly
proved that S. Luke was the first in point of
time. This position he has established on pre-
cisely the same kind of reasoning as that whereby
Harnack has proved the Lukan authorship of the
Gospel and the Acts.
Our S. Luke Gospel was fully recognized in
Tatian's day (circ. 160 170 A.D.), for it is to be
found in his Diatessaron, or "Harmony" of the
four Gospels, practically in the exact text in which
we now have it.
It is in the Mnratorian Fragment (175 200 A.D.)
that we first meet with distinct references to S. Luke,.
as the author of the third Gospel, by name. It em-
phatically states the fact.
Before 140 A.D., it is impossible to say with
certainty whether gospel-quotations in ecclesiastical
writers are drawn from our gospels, for reasons
already stated. Our Gospels were not yet recog-
nized as canonical ; other written gospels were in
common use locally ; oral tradition had not yet
Outline-sketch of S. Luke and his Gospel. 309
been superseded ; the quotations are anonymous
(i.e. no Evangelist's name is mentioned, for the
four gospels are still spoken of as u the gospel"),
and in most cases these quotations amount to little
more than parallelisms.
Justin Martyr (140 A.D.) was evidently familiar
with S. Luke, for his works contain several obvious
references to it d .
Irenaeus (180 A.D.) tells us: "Luke, the follower
of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel which Paul
used to preach."
Eusebius informs us some were of opinion (<acri)
that S. Paul referred to S. Luke's Gospel in the
allusions he makes to " my Gospel " (" according
to my Gospel"), e.g. Rom. ii. 16 ; xvi. 25; cf.
2 Tim. ii. 8). Origen alludes to S. Luke's Gospel
as that praised by S. Paul.
(2) Biography of S. Luke. S. Luke is mentioned
in Col, iv. 14; 2 Tim. iv. u, and Philem. 24 as
S. Paul's " beloved physician " ; companion and
fellow-worker. We must, of course, not confound
" Lucas" of Col. iv. 14 with " Lucius, my kinsman "
of Rom. xvi. 21.
From Col. iv. 10 12 it may be inferred that
S. Luke was not " of the circumcision," that is to
d Harnack adds, "Indeed a further slep backward is permissible :
for those who first formed a collection of the four Gospels, before the
middle of the second century, gave this Gospel the inscription
' According to S. Luke.' "
310 Outline-sketch of S. Luke and his Gospel.
say he was a Gentile, and presumably a Greek.
From Acts xvi. we learn that he joined S. Paul at
Troas (about 50 A.D.) (" and after he had seen the
vision, immediately we endeavoured to go into
Macedonia" 6 ) on S. Paul's second missionary jour-
ney, and accompanied him as far as Philippi. There
he seems to have helped S. Paul in preaching the
Gospel (xvi. .13). On this occasion, S. Luke appar-
ently stayed at Philippi, not accompanying S. Paul
on the rest of his journey. Some years later (about
57 A.D.) he rejoined the Apostle either at Philippi
or Troas (xx. 5), and went in his company by way
of Miletus and Caesarea to Jerusalem. There they
saw "James and all the Elders " (xxi. 18). S. Luke
accompanied S. Paul on his voyage to Rome. At
" Melita," S. Luke the physician seems to have helped
S. Paul in healing the many " which had diseases,"
for the words :" others also, which had diseases,
came and were healed, who also honoured its with
many honours," can bear no other interpretation.
S. Luke stayed with S. Paul in Rome during his
imprisonment, and Philemon 24 speaks of him as
S. Paul's " fellow-labourer." The last we hear of
him is in 2 Tim. iv. n, " Only Luke is with me."
From Acts xx. 4, 5 we know that S. Luke had
as Pauline fellow-companions on the journey to
Jerusalem (besides Silas), Sopater, Aristarchus, Se-
cundus, Gaius, Timothy, Tychicus and Trophimus.
e Ramsay thinks Luke himself to have been the Macedonian man
of Acts xvi. 9 ("S. Paul the Trav." ix. 3).
Outline- sketch of S. Luke and his Gospel. 31 1
At Rome, Tychicus, Onesimus, Aristarchus, Mark,
Demas, Jesus surnamed Justus, Epaphras and others
were also in S. Paul's company, besides Luke
(Col. iv. 10 sqq.). At Csesarea S. Luke became
acquainted with "Philip the Evangelist, one of the
seven, into whose house we entered, and abode with
him f ." (Acts xxi. 8.)
Tradition says that S. Luke's birthplace was
Antioch, and Harnack adduces strong reasons in
support of this tradition.
S. Luke was not an " eye-witness of the Ministry,"
but, like S. Mark and S. Paul himself, obtained his
information from others. He is the only non-Jewish
writer in the New Testament, so far as we can
judge.
S. Luke's Preface (i. 2) clearly proves that S.
Luke was not " an eye-witness from the beginning."
His dedication shows a desire to impress Theo-
philus with the conviction that his information
is in every way trustworthy. Now, had he himself
been an " eye-witness," he would certainly have laid
stress on the fact. When S. Luke was converted
we do not know. As a physician, he must have
been a man of considerable culture. This is borne
out by the exceedingly high literary standard of his
Gospel and the comparative excellence of his Greek,
f Harnack seems convinced that S. Luke obtained a considerable
portion of his information from S. Philip and his " four daughters,
virgins which did prophesy," and he thus accounts for the large
feminine element in his Gospel.
312 Outline-sketch of S. Luke and his Gospel.
especially in the Preface. The dedication of this
historical work to the " most excellent Theophilus "
seems to imply that the two treatises were in the
first instance intended for the instruction and con-
firmation in the Faith of cultured men of high rank.
Origen and others, however, see in " Theophilus "
("beloved of God") merely a symbolic title of
the true " godly " disciple. One thing is certain :
S. Luke, as his writings show, was a born philan-
thropist, very tender-hearted to the weak and poor,
and a man of consummate literary taste and skill.
His visit to Jerusalem was in all probability the
first occasion on which he entered that city or
Palestine itself. In Jerusalem, they met S. James,
but apparently none of the other Apostles.
S. Luke was intimately acquainted, not only with
S. Mark's Gospel, but with S. Mark himself. They
were constantly together as companions of S. Paul,
especially during the Roman imprisonment (Col.
iv. 10 and 14 ; Philem. 24; 2 Tim. iv. 11). S. Luke
knows all about Mark's home, even to the name
of Rhoda the servant, and he describes the house
and its outer porch.
For some inexplicable reason, S. Luke seems not
to have been prepossessed with S. Mark. As Har-
nack points out, not only does Luke in his Preface
unfavourably criticize his predecessors' attempts at
gospel-writing, including S. Mark's, but "the only
Apostolic man about whom something unpleasant
is recorded in the Acts is Mark, whom he accuses
Outline-sketch of S. Luke and his Gospel. 313
of breach of faith (xiii. 13, cf. xv. 37 sqq.) and makes
him answerable for the separation of Paul and
Barnabas, a bitter reproach which Luke has not
shrunk from perpetuating." Even Irenaeus detected
this, and thought it strange.
The vivid and detailed picture in the prophecy
of the siege and destruction of Jerusalem (S. Luke
xix. 43, 44 ; xxi. 20, 24) implies that Jerusalem
had been reduced to a heap of ruins before these
passages were written f . S. Luke therefore survived
the Fall of Jerusalem.
Late tradition adds the doubtful details that S. Luke
was a skilled painter, one of the Seventy, and the un-
named companion of Cleopas on the way to Emmaus
(S. Luke xxiv.). The two last-named facts would
make S. Luke an " eye-witness " and are inconsistent
with the wording of the Preface. The painter-tra-
dition is of exceedingly late date. On the other
hand, the tradition that S. Luke ended his days in
Achaia seems trustworthy, though Harnack is dis-
posed to favour the other view which makes him
take up his permanent abode in Asia, near Ephesus,
after leaving Rome. S. Luke certainly displays
an exceptional interest in connection with Ephesus
and its Church. From Asia or Achaia, S. Luke
seems to have written his Gospel between 75
80 A.D. f
f Blass, however, thinks there is little in Luke xxi. 20 not already
contained in Dan. ix. 26. Schmiedel and Burkitt detect loans from
Josephus in S. Luke. If so, this necessitates a late date, but see
Headlam, Hastings' D. B. I 30.
314 Outline-sketch of S. Luke and /its Gospel.
(3) Leading- ideas of S. Luke's Gospel.
Before \ve proceed to a,n examination of the
sources of the third Gospel, and its historical or
doctrinal value, it may be advisable to make a brief
survey of its chief traits.
(a] Universality of S. Lukes Gospel. Both in the
Acts and the Gospel S. Luke's evident design is to
set forth the universality of the Gospel of Christ.
In his Gospel-story, Luke presents our Lord as the
universal Saviour of the world, and dwells on Christ's
glad tidings of mercy, hope and love as addressed
to all nations. In the Acts we see Christianity
fulfilling its' Founder's original design in a remark-
able way. There we have the picture of the gradual
development of the Church " from Jerusalem to
Rome," as well as the universal proclamation and
equally universal acceptance of the Gospel all over
the civilized world, in the face of much opposition
and innumerable dangers and obstacles.
S. Luke's Gospel has been well described as the
Gospel of Humanity. He is more of a universalist
even than S. Paul. Not only is the third Gospel
dedicated to a Gentile, but, throughout S. Luke's
narrative, the barrier between Jew and Gentile is
broken down. If anything, there is a preference of
Gentiles to Jews. S. Luke's object is apparent from
the outset. It is to preach "the knowledge of
salvation, by the remission of sins, through the
tender mercy of our God ; whereby the dayspring
from on high hath visited us. To give liglit to them
Outline-sketch of S. Luke and his Gospel. 315
that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death "
(i. 77 79) ; to proclaim the " salvation which Thou
hast prepared before the face of all people ; a light
to lighten the Gentiles, and to be the glory of Thy people
Israel" (ii. 30 32) s.
By reason of the universality of his Gospel, S.
Luke traces back our Lord's genealogy, not to
Abraham the father of Israel, but to Adam the
father of all men. We see this principle consist-
ently followed throughout the whole Gospel, as a
few illustrations will show. S. Matthew lays em-
phasis on the mission of the Twelve, the repre-
sentatives of the twelve tribes ; S. Luke lays the
stress on the mission of the Seventy, emblematic
of the 70 (or 72) nations of the earth (Westcott).
In the sermon at Nazareth (at the outset of our
Lord's public Life, according to S. Luke), our Lord
emphatically exalts Gentiles over Jews. " I tell you
of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days
of Elias .... but unto none of them was Elias sent,
but unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman
that was a widow. Many lepers were in Israel in
the days of Eliseus the prophet, and none of them
was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian " (iv.
25 28). Several passages in S. Luke are concerned
with the despised Samaritans (ix. 51 56 ; x. 25 37;
f In the two first chapters only is stress laid on the fulfilment
of the Law ; there Luke traces the exact fulfilment of the Law
e.g. ii. 22, 23, 24, 27, 39), not only by the parents of Jesus, but also
by the parents of His messenger. The word " Law " only occurs in
four other places in S. Luke (x. 26 ; xvi. 16, 17 ; xxiv. 44).
316 Outline-sketch of S. Luke and his Gospel.
xvii. ii 19), and he invariably speaks of them most
favourably and tenderly. The sons of Zebedee are
sternly rebuked for wishing to bring down fire from
heaven upon the Samaritans. It is a Samaritan who
is chosen as the embodiment of charity and puts the
heartless Jewish priest and Levite to shame ; just as
the heartfelt gratitude of the one Samaritan leper is
made to stand in strong contrast to the meanness of
the eight lepers who are Jews. On the journeys of
our Lord from Galilee to Jerusalem, S. Luke repre-
sents Christ as invariably going through Samaria,
contrary to Jewish custom, while S. Mark makes
our Lord adopt the usual Jewish practice of going
round through Peraea to avoid Samaria.
Similarly in x. 13, 14 Tyre and Sidon are favour-
ably contrasted with Chorazin, Bethsaida and
Capernaum. The parables of the Lost Sheep and
the Prodigal Son can also, without any stretch of
the imagination, be seen to refer to the tender love
of God towards the Gentiles who had gone away
from a Father yearning for their return. Almost
the last words of the third Gospel re-echo its earliest
proclamation, for in Luke xxiv. 47 we have Christ's
own charge that "repentance and remission of s'ins
should be preached in His Name among all nations,
beginning at Jerusalem " (cf. ii. 30, 32). These words
also form the connecting link between the Gospel
and the Acts, for the latter is but an expansion of
this theme. (Acts i. 8.)
On the other hand, care should be taken not to
Outline-sketch of S. Luke and his Gospel. 317
read anti-Jewish teaching into the third Gospel.
Luke's Gospel is, not a party document or an apolo-
getical treatise, but a history. He is writing mainly
for Gentile readers, as the dedication indicates, and
naturally omits much about Jews which would not
be of interest to Gentiles. Appeals to the Old
Testament, especially to prophecy, and references
to the Jewish Law are therefore few. As it is,
S. Luke shows great reverence for the Law, e.g.
" it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one
tittle of the Law to fail" (xvi. 17): "they have
Moses and the Prophets, let them hear them "
(xvi. 29 ; cf. xviii. 20 sqq., v. 14 ; x. 26 ; xvii. 14).
To say that there are no anti-Jewish sentiments
in S. Luke would not be true. They abound in
S. Matthew and S. Mark, while Christ evidently
denounced the Jews in no measured terms on more
than one occasion, therefore S. Luke, if he is a
faithful historian, is bound to place them on record.
But there is no need to ferret out beneath his plain
words a hidden meaning and a Jewish antipathy
which are not there. It would be a libel on the
tolerant universalist Luke, who preaches the glorious
tidings of forgiveness to all without distinction, to
say that he excludes the Jews from this universal
pardon.
(b) S. Lukes is the gospel of forgiveness. This
naturally follows as a corollary from the univer-
sality of his Gospel of glad tidings. Forgiveness
is the key-note of his Gospel, and specially is this
318 Outline-sketch of S. Luke and his Gospel.
the case in the passages which are peculiar to Luke
himself. We see this trait in the story of the woman,
a sinner, who washed and anointed our Lord's feet
(vii. 36 50), and it is immediately followed by a
parable to the same effect, the story of the two
debtors. In S. Luke xv. I 32 we have a series
of parables illustrating the love and forgiveness of
God in seeking that which was lost, culminating in
that "pearl of parables," the Prodigal Son. The
same fundamental idea is patent in the story of the
Publican, in the prayer on the Cross, " Father, forgive
them, for they know not what they do," and in the
pardon of the penitent thief.
(c) Prominence given to women in S, Luke. In
our Lord's day, women were very inadequately
appreciated. Woman, among the Jews, did not
hold a high place, and in Greece it was the same.
In Rome, there were signs of better things, and
Lightfoot says that in Macedonia women stood far
higher in the social scale than elsewhere. Hence it
is, perhaps, not surprising to see ladies of birth and
rank (e.g. Lydia) at Philippi, Thessalonica and
Beraea taking an active part with S. Paul in his
evangelical work. Possibly this experience may
have influenced S. Luke in his estimate of women ;
more probably his respect for the sex is due to his
own gentle loving nature.
Be this as it may, S. Luke herein follows in
our Lord's footsteps. It was our Lord Who, both
by His teaching and example, for the first time
Outline-sketch of S. Luke and his Gospel. 319
raised woman to the position and dignity which is
hers by right. Similarly, Luke is the first Evangelist
to assign her the prominent place she occupies in
the Gospel-story, both as ministering to our Lord
and in other respects.
It is S. Luke alone who mentions :
(a) The songs of Mary and Elizabeth, and the
words of Anna, the prophetess (i. ii.).
($) The widow of Nain (vii.).
(c) The sinful woman who loved much (vii.).
(d} The names of the band of noble women, Mary
called Magdalene, Joanna the wife of Chuza, Susanna
and many others, who ministered unto Him of their
substance (viii., but cf. S. Matth. xxvii. 55 h ).
(Y) The devoted service of Mary and Martha
(x. 3842).
(/) The woman who exclaimed " Blessed is the
womb that bare Thee " (xi. 27).
(g} The afflicted daughter of Abraham, who had
a spirit of infirmity eighteen years (xiii. n).
(//) The parable of the " Widow and the unjust
judge " and of " the woman and the lost pieces of
silver " (xv. and xviii.).
The following are also to be found in other
Gospels :
(?) The widow's mite (cf. S. Mark xii.).
(_/) The daughters of Jerusalem weeping over our
h S. Mark partly refers to this ministration in Mark xv. 40.
320 Outline-sketch of S. Luke and his Gospel.
Lord's sufferings but the words "Daughters of
Jerusalem, weep not for Me," &c., are Luke's alone.
(k) The women who followed Jesus from Galilee,
and stand afar off beholding the Cross, and go to the
sepulchre to see how His Body is laid.
(/) According to S. Luke alone, Mary Magdalene,
Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women
are the first to tell the Apostles of the Resurrection.
On the other hand, unlike the other Evangelists,
S. Luke records no appearance of. our Lord to any
woman '.
(if) S. Lukes leanings towards tJie poor. "It is
noticeable how much of the teaching preserved for
us only by S. Luke deals with the use of riches "
(Bebb). S. Luke's warm heart is full of a great
sympathy with the suffering poor, and a great horror
of the temptation to selfishness which besets the rich.
He is sad at heart, like the Christ, at the sight of so
much luxury and display side by side with abject
poverty and want. Therefore his large-heartedness
has unconsciously given a slight bias and colouring
to his version of the many warnings of our Lord
against the " deceitfulness of riches k . ;> Similarly it
has prompted him to lay great stress on our Lord's
* It has been noted by Von Soden that in the additions peculiar
to S. Luke we find three passages concerned with Samaritans (ix. 51
56 ; x. 25 37 ; xvii. II 19) ; three with sinners (vii. 36 50 ; xviii.
9 14; xix. I 10), and three with women (vii. 36 50; viii. I 3;
x. 38-42).
, k See Burkitt, "Transmission of Gospel," p. 2iosqq.
Outline-sketch of S. Luke and his Gospel. 321
text in His Nazareth Sermon : " The Spirit of the
Lord is upon Me, because He hath anointed Me to
preach the Gospel to the poor: He hath sent Me
to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to
the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to
set at liberty them that are bruised " (S. Luke iv. 18).
Thus it is that S. Luke's Gospel is full of words of
comfort for the poor, of warning to the rich. The
key-note is already struck in the Magnificat. Mary's
psalm, modelled largely on Hannah's, is a hymn of
praise in exaltation of the lowly, and this note per-
vades the Gospel. It is S. Luke alone who has
preserved for us the parables of Dives and Lazarus,
the Rich Fool, and the Unjust Steward. He alone
records the following sayings of our Lord : " Take
heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be
overcharged with surfeiting," &c. (xxi. 34) ; " When
thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not
down in the highest room," &c. (xiv. 8) ; " When
thou makest a feast call not thy friends, nor thy
rich neighbours but the poor, the maimed, the
lame, the blind" (xiv. 12, 13). It is Luke again who
gives a material sense to our Lord's spiritual words :
" Blessed be ye poor ; blessed are ye that hunger
now ; woe unto you that are rich : woe unto you
that are full " (vi. 20 26) \
1 Yet he exactly reports Christ. In our Lord's day, the phrases
"the poor," "the humble," "the meek," "the hungry," mean the
" poor in spirit," &c. They are O.T. phrases used, as in the Psalms,
in a religious sense, and so are their opposites : "the rich," "the
proud," "the full," "the wicked," "the scornful," &c.
Y
322 Outline- sketch of S. Luke and Ids Gospel.
(e) S. Luke is the Gospel of rejoicing and triumph.
''What a trumpet-note of joy, courage, and triumph
sounds through the whole Lukan history from the
first to the last pages ! Vexilla regis prodennt. We
listen in vain for this note in the other Evangelists"
(Harnack).
Thankful hearts, in Luke's pages, are constantly
rinding vent in songs of praise, e.g. the Angels' Song,
Magnificat, Benedictus, Nunc Dimittis ; " Rejoice
with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost,"
&c. (xv. 4 n) ; " Let us eat and be merry, for this
my son was dead and is alive again," &c. (xv. 23 sqq.) ;
" And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy,
praising and blessing God" (xxiv. 52, 53).
(/") 5". Luke is the Gospel of a poet and painter.
A late tradition speaks of S. Luke as a skilled
painter. This is probably only a legend, but it is
true in idea, if not true to fact. There is a literary
finish and wealth of colouring, a rhythm and sym-
metry in the third Gospel which make it the most
perfect in form of them all, a Gospel of poetry and
beauty, full of a soft atmosphere of love, compassion,
and joy. It is only the lucidity and simplicity of
the artist's style that mask the consummate art of
his finished composition.
To S. Luke we owe the exquisite picture of the
large-hearted Christ moved with infinite compassion
for a fallen race, leaving the ninety and nine to go
and seek the one lost sheep, "and when He hath
found it, He layeth it on His shoulders, rejoicing."
Outline-sketch of S. Luke and his Gospel. 323
S. Luke, throughout his Gospel, portrays the Son of
Man with a form and comeliness fairer than the
children of men.
The whole of the third Gospel is a gallery of
pictures brilliant in colouring and finish, e.g. the
Mother and Child ; Mary and Martha ; the sinful
woman with the long flowing hair ; the Prodigal
Son ; the daughters of Jerusalem weeping over the
suffering Christ on His way to the Cross ; the two
disciples going to Emmaus ; the Lord ascending with
hands uplifted to bless.
" S. Luke," says Harnack, " was a Greek, and he
possesses the mind and sense of form of a Greek."
His artistic soul rejoices in the word-picture parables
of our Lord. He alone of the Evangelists could
appreciate the perfect literary form in which Christ
instinctively clothed these parables, and he alone
reproduces it faithfully. Hence he has sometimes
been accused of consciously embellishing our Lord's
parables.
Naturally, to a man of Luke's refined taste, with
a real feeling for what is true, beautiful, and correct
in style and form, the composition of S. Mark must
have seemed rude, uncouth, fragmentary yet diffuse,
the work of an illiterate, and altogether distasteful.
If we may venture on Arnold's phrase in this con-
nection, S. Luke was a " child of light," and S. Mark,
in his eyes, a " Philistine."
Perfectly acquainted as was S. Luke with the
canons of literary composition; a "poet-painter";
324 Outline-sketch of S. Luke and Jiis Gospel.
writing, moreover, for educated readers (" most excel-
lent Theophilus ") of high position ; sensitive of the
effect which correct form must produce on such
minds, he feels it to be his first duty severely to
edit S. Mark, meanwhile adhering as closely as he
can to the original document before him. Thus he
constantly finds himself compelled to substitute
classical words for Mark's vulgar Greek, to revise
the style generally, to suppress passages which seem
superfluous, lacking in interest to his readers, offen-
sive, or better recorded in his other sources of in-
formation.
Above all, S. Luke is anxious to present a narra-
tive not only perfect in form, but connected and
complete in itself, and with its historical facts set
forth in their proper chronological order.
The literary skill and tact with which S. Luke
approaches this delicate and difficult task is beyond
all praise, but, as we shall see, it is more than ques-
tionable whether he does not at times sacrifice
historicity to form.
CHAPTER XVII.
S. LUKE'S SOURCES MATTH^EAN LOGIA.
A rgument.
ANALYSIS of S. Luke's Preface. His reasons for claim-
ing exceptional completeness and accuracy for his Gospel.
S. Mark forms the backbone of S. Luke's narrative, but
the third Evangelist also makes free use of S. Matthew's
Logia, and has private sources of information for a large
number of passages peculiar to this Gospel. Tentative
reconstruction of the Matthaean Logia. Difficulty of the
task. Conclusions to be drawn from a comparison of the
Logia common to S. Matthew and S. Luke : (i) Q is
almost entirely discourse-material ; (2) ethical, but free
from dogmatic theology ; (3) full of Messianic colouring ;
(4) contains few miracles ; (5) consists of mosaics of
independent sayings; (6) belongs to the first cycle of
tradition. Reasons for believing that our S. Matthew
adheres more closely than S. Luke to the original.
S. Luke's private sources of information. Examination
of the sections in the third Gospel peculiar to S. Luke.
S. Luke's historicity. Note on S. Mark's possible use
of the Logia.
CHAPTER XVII.
S. LUKE'S SOURCES MATTH/EAN LOGIA.
TF we turn to S. Luke's Preface, it clearly brings
A out the following points directly bearing on the
sources of his information in the composition of his
Gospel.
(a) S. Luke was not an " eye-witness " of our
Lord's Ministry. He has to depend on the evidence
of others and on his own careful research for his
facts.
(b) He writes his Gospel because he considers
his information to be far more reliable and com-
plete than that of any of the gospel-writers before
him, whom he proposes to supersede.
(c} He claims this superior knowledge for himself
on the plea that "he has traced the course of all
things accurately from the first " (i. 3 R.V.). As
Westcott points out, each word in this sentence
tells its tale. S. Luke implies that he has watched,
step by step, the gradual unfolding of Christianity
and its teaching, and that he has a knowledge
of the whole cycle of " tradition " from first to last,
without a break. He also lays stress on the special
care (aKpi{3<o$) he has taken to be accurate, and on
the orderly arrangement (:a#ef?7?) of his material.
328 5. Lukes sources Matthcean Login.
His treatise is continuous from start to finish, com-
plete, exact and orderly.
(d) In the clause "even as they delivered'' the
tense of the verb " delivered " (TrapeSoaav) suggests
that the eye-witnesses who originally handed down
the history are no longer present. Be this as it
may, the internal evidence proves that S. Luke
wrote after S. Mark, for he embodies his Gospel.
It is also clear that at the time of S. Luke's com-
position, Jerusalem was in ruins (i.e. after 70 A.D.).
Thus S. Luke was writing his Gospel at least
forty years after the events it records. He was not
an eye-witness, yet he claims for his Gospel an
exceptional completeness and accuracy on the plea
that he has been in a position to obtain complete
knowledge from the very first, and that he has
carefully consulted all available authorities.
What, then, were these eminently trustworthy
sources of information on which S. Luke so implicitly
relies ?
6". Mark. One of these sources is absolutely
certain. The contents of S. Luke clearly prove
that he (like S. Matthew) pays Mark the well-de-
served compliment of regarding the second Gospel
as quite satisfying his critical ideas of authentic
tradition at first hand, so far as the material is
concerned. S. Mark is the backbone of both the
first and third Gospels, though there are omissions
and interpolations both in Luke's and Matthew's
versions of Mark's Petrine Memoirs.
S. Lukes sources MattJicean Logia. 329
Logia. Now, if we subtract S. Mark from S. Mat-
thew, we obtain a remainder consisting of a large
amount of dist0urse-m&ten&\ and a very small and
insignificant portion of narrative-material.
Apply the same process to S. Luke and a totally
different result ensues. S. Luke minus S. Mark
yields, not only a vast amount of discourse-material
bearing the closest possible family likeness to that
in S. Matthew, but an almost equally large pro-
portion of narrative- material entirely new and
peculiar to S. Luke. This new material S. Luke
evidently obtained by his own research from pri-
vate sources not available to the other two Evan-
gelists.
In the new discourse-material in S. Matthew and
S. Luke, the parallelisms are so obvious, the matter
and even the wording are often so identical, that
there is but one conclusion to be drawn. This
discourse-material is directly or indirectly derived
from one common original source, and the close
verbal agreement further suggests a common written
source.
This common original document is now generally
believed by scholars to be the famous " Logia,"
" oracles," or " sayings of Jesus," collected by the
Apostle S. Matthew, about 50 A.D.
So far, our analysis of the first and third Gospels
has produced the following results :
S. Matthew = S. Mark + Logia + a small re-
mainder.
330 S. Luke's sources MattJicean Logia.
S. Luke = S. Mark + Logia + a very large
remainder.
At first sight, it would seem to be the easiest
thing in the world to reconstruct the original
" Logia " document by means of what is known
in Logic as the " Method of Agreement and Dif-
ference." The problem seems to invite a very
simple solution. Place the Logia sections of S.
Matthew and S. Luke respectively side by side,
collate all that the two Evangelists have in common
in these sections, and there you have the original
Matthaean Logia.
Simple and plausible as this method may sound
in theory, it entirely breaks down in practice. It
is a valuable clue, but its thread is incomplete
and only acts as our guide half-way through the
maze, and then fails us.
These common Logia sections are often tanta-
lizingly alike in the two Evangelists, yet seldom
tally. In S. Matthew the "sayings " are temptingly
collected into five large cognate groups, each com-
prising one, two or even three chapters, while in
S. Luke they are scattered all over the gospel in
twenty or more places and, moreover, in short pas-
sages, never filling one chapter. Even when we have
carefully collated the parallel sections and placed
them side by side, another difficulty arises. They
do not coincide. One Evangelist may have ten
verses where the other has six : worse still, each
Evangelist has clearly treated the original material
^". Ljtkes sources Mattlicean Logia. 331
with considerable freedom. He has impressed upon
the matter and wording his own stamp, recasting
many of the phrases and approaching the material
from his own point of view.
Any serious attempt at a complete reconstruction
of the original Logia is therefore purely conjectural
and doomed to failure. For example, one school
of critics is positive that our S. Matthew's five large
groupings of the " Sayings " are artificial conflations
of his own, while S. Luke's numerous and more
compact discourse-passages preserve the original
order and true historical setting of our Lord's
" sayings." On the other hand, other critics, equally
eminent, insist that our Matthew's groupings already
existed in the original Matthaean Logia, and that
it is precisely his fidelity to this document, in the
matter of grouping and otherwise, that gives the
work of our first Evangelist the right to be called
the Gospel according to S. Matthew.
Again, when one Evangelist devotes twenty lines
to a passage from the Logia and the other only
ten or twelve, how are we to decide which of the
two omits, which interpolates?
Scholars have brought an immense amount of
patience and learning to bear upon the task of the
reconstruction of the original Logia. The most
elaborate and minute analysis has been made of
the extant Logia passages in our Matthew and Luke.
More than this, in the desire to restore the original
still more thoroughly, the Greek form of words has
332 S. Luke's sources MattJicean Logia.
been retranslated into Aramaic ; yet without success.
The problem is too complicated to be solved. In
subject-matter, the substance of the original Logia
has been restored, but in other respects we know
no more than we did at the start. Q a probably
contained some narrative-material (e.g. the healing
of the Centurion's servant), but nine-tenths of the
original document apparently consisted entirely of
" sayings " or discourses. Elsewhere, we are in a fog.
Where our S. Matthew and S. Luke differ, no one
can tell us whether one interpolates or the other
omits. We do not know which is the nearer in word-
ing or material to the original, or whether S. Luke's
order and historical setting is more true to the
Matthsean Logia than S. Matthew's groups.
We can no more reconstruct the lost Gospel of
S. Matthew the Apostle than we could restore
a lost S. Mark from S. Matthew and S. Luke. With
S. Mark actually before us, we can clearly see with
what freedom the other two Evangelists treated the
second Gospel in incorporating it. We can also see
how impossible it would be to reconstruct it from
their narratives alone with anything approaching to
completeness. Here we are in a far worse plight, for
the original Logia is no longer extant. Fascinating
as these schemes of reconstruction undoubtedly
are, they are too precarious and conjectural to be
of any real use. The only co'urse open to us is to
a The lost document used by Matthew and Luke is commonly
known among scholars as Q.
5. Lukes sources MattJicean Log-in. 333
collate as complete a list as possible of the Logia
passages in Matthew and Luke, draw the conclusions
which the evidence of these passages seems to justify,
and leave it to the reader to accept or reject these
inferences with all the facts before him as his guide.
The honest critic is bound to interpret the evidence
to the best of his ability, but, if he is wise, he will be
careful to return an open verdict.
Omitting many single-verse parallels, the following
passages fairly represent the common material in
S. Matthew and S. Luke, after we have deducted the
S. Mark source :
Matth. iii. 7 12; Luke Hi. 7 9, 16, 17; (John
the Baptist's preaching).
Matth. iv. I ii ; Luke iv. I 13 (Temptation).
Matth. v., vi., vii. = Luke vi. 20 sqq. (Sermon on
the Mount.)
[A dd in S. L uke :
Law eternal Luke xvi. 17 = Matth. v. 18.
Agree with
adversary Luke xii. 58, 59 = Matth. v. 25, 26.
Divorce Luke xvi. 18 = Matth. v. 32.
Prayer Luke xi. 2 4 = Matth. vi. 9 13.
Luke xi. 9 13 = Matth. vii. 71 1.
Heavenly
treasure Luke xii. 33, 34 = Matth. vi. 19 21.
Light of body Luke xi. 34 36 = Matth. vi. 22, 23.
Two Masters Luke xvi. 13 = Matth. vi. 24.
Take no
thought Luke xii. 22 32 = Matth. vi. 25 34.]
334 $" Lukes sources MattJuean Logia.
Matth. viii. 5 13; Luke vii. I 10 (Healing of
centurion's servant).
Matth. viii. n, 12 = Luke xiii. 28, 29 (Inclusion
of Gentiles in kingdom).
Matth. viii. 19 22 ; Luke ix. 57 62 (Christ's
answer to two men who offer to follow Him).
Matth. ix. 37, 38, x. I 15 ; Luke x. I 12 (Mission
of thef^- e ).
Seventy/
Matth. x. 19, 20= Luke xii. 1 1, 12 (Premeditate not).
Matth. x. 26 31 ; Luke xii. 2 7 (Fear not them
that kill the body).
Matth. x. 32; Luke xii. 8,9 (Confessing Christ
before men) ; Matth. x. 34 36 ; Luke xii. 51 53
(Christ not come to send peace, but a sword) ;
Matth. x. 37 39; Luke xiv. 26, 27 (Loving Christ
more than parents).
Matth. xi. 2 14, 16 19; Luke vii. 19 28, 31 35
(John the Baptist's message, Christ's words about
him).
Matth. xi. 12, 13 = Luke xvi. 16 (The kingdom
of heaven suffereth violence).
Matth. xi. 21 25; Luke x. 12 15 (Woe unto
thee, Chorazin, &c.).
Matth. xi. 2527; Luke x. 21, 22 ("I thank
Thee, Father, that Thou hast hid," &c.).
Matth. xii. 22 30 ; Luke xi. 14 23 (Christ ac-
cused of casting out devils through Beelzebub).
Matth. xii. 35 = Luke vi. 45 (Heart-treasure).
Matth. xii. 43 45 ; Luke xi. 24 26 (The unclean
spirit returns to its home).
5. Lukes sources MattJicean Logia. 335
Matth. xii. 38 42 ; Luke xi. 29 32 (The signs
of Jonah, queen of Sheba, Nineveh).
Matth. xiii. 16, 17 = Luke x. 23, 24 (Ye are blessed
above prophets and kings).
Matth. xiii. 31 33 = Luke xiii. 19 21 (Mustard
seed).
Matth. xvi. 2 4- Luke xii. 54 57 (Asking for
a sign).
Matth. xviii. 12 14; Luke xv. 4 sqq. (The one
lost sheep).
Matth. xxii. I 14 ; Luke xiv. 16 24 (Wedding
Feast).
Matth. xxiii. 12 = Luke xviii. 14 and xiv. n.
Matth. xxiii. 23 39 ; Luke xi. 37 52 ; xiii.
34, 35 (Woes on the Pharisees), (cf. Luke xiii. 22
35, which seems to be made up of separate sayings
found in Matth. vii. 13 sq., xxv. n, 12, vii. 23, viii.
11, 12, xiii. 42, xix. 30, xxiii. 3739-)
Matth. xxiv. 26 28. ] 37 41. ) 42 51.
Luke xvii. 23 25. J 26 29. j xii. 3946.
(Sudden Coming of the Son of Man.)
Matth. xxv. 14 30 ; Luke xix. 12 27 (Parable of
talentsX
pounds'
Matth. xxv. I 13, cf. Luke xii. 35 sqq. (Waiting
for the bridegroom).
An analysis of Q (Logia) yields the following main
results :
A. Historical:
(a) The Temptation.
(b] Allusion to the imprisonment of John, and
his sending two messengers to Jesus.
336 .. Lukes sources Matthaan Logia.
(c] Healing of the centurion's servant.
(d] Mission of the Twelve (Matth.), Seventy
(Luke).
(e] Allusions to two (Matth.), three (Luke) men
who offer to follow Christ without having
counted the cost.
B. Discourses :
(a) S. John the Baptist. The Baptist proclaims
the speedy coming of the Messianic Kingdom, and
sternly summons all classes to repent and prepare
for it.
The Baptist's message to Christ. Christ's reply ;
also Christ's estimate of the Baptist's mission and
person.
(b} Christ's teaching on character and conduct. Our
Lord's analysis of the character of the true citizen
of the Kingdom of God (Beatitudes). Rules of
conduct. Christ makes all true character and con-
duct flow from sincere unselfish love of heart, a love
revealing itself outwardly in active kindness, self-
denial, and the service of our fellow-men. Christ
teaches that implicit trust in God is a note of
the child of God ; also that all prayer has three
elements: viz. (i) The advancement of God's King-
dom ; (2) personal petitions ; (3) kindly thought for
our fellow-men's welfare. Christ condemns those
who are hearers only of His words and not doers.
Our Lord defines our proper attitude towards
enemies and worldly goods.
S. Lukes sources Matthcuan Logia. 337
(c] Christ's teaching" on disciplesJiip. The Messianic
Kingdom must be preached (" The harvest is plen-
teous, but the labourers are few "). For this great
work Messiah's disciples must be prepared to give
up everything the world values, go to their work ab-
solutely unhampered, spend themselves in Messiah's
service, and expect no thanks but only persecution.
(ct) Predictions of the Coming of the Messiah in
judgment. The " Son of Man " will come suddenly
like lightning, when men least expect Him, there-
fore " watch and be ready." Signs of the coming
storm. The terrors of the judgment in store for
the unwatchful and unready.
(e] Pharisees. Christ's repudiation of the calum-
nious charge which the Pharisees bring against Him :
"He casteth out devils through Beelzebub the prince
of devils." Our Lord's woes pronounced against the
Pharisees. He cautions His disciples against the
leaven of the Pharisees. The Pharisees ask Christ
for a sign ; His reply.
(/") Jews and Gentiles. The Gentile Centurion
puts Israel to shame. Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom
favourably contrasted with Chorazin, Bethsaida, and
Capernaum. The Queen of Sheba and Nineveh
more praiseworthy in Christ's eyes than the Jews of
His day. Our Lord's tears over Jerusalem. The
inheritance of the Kingdom is taken away from
Israel. Many shall enter the Kingdom of God
from East, West, North, and South, while the
children of Abraham shall be thrust out of it.
z
338 5. Lukes sources Matthcean Logia.
(g) Parables. The mote and beam (Matth. vii.
35 ; Luke vi. 41, 42. The good tree (Matth. vii.
!7 20 ; Luke vi. 43, 44. The two builders (Matth.
vii. 24 29 ; Luke vi. 47 49). Children playing
in the market-place (Matth. xi. 16 sqq. ; Luke vii.
31 sqq.). The Leaven (Matth. xiii. 33; Luke xiii.
20, 21). The blind leading the blind (Matth. xv. 14 ;
Luke vi. 39). The lost sheep (Matth. xviii. 12, 13 ;
Luke xv. 4, 5). Parable of the great feast (Matth.
xxii. I 14 ; Luke xiv. 16 24). Parable of the
^ (Matth. xxv. 14 sqq.; Luke xix. 12 sqq.).
(cf. similes of the " unclean spirit " ; " light of the
body " ; " treasure in heaven.")
Conclusions. With the exception of the Tempta-
tion (and Baptism ?) ; the healing of the cen-
turion's servant ; the allusion to John the Baptist's
imprisonment, preaching and mission of the two
messengers to Christ ; and the bare mention of two
aspirants to discipleship ; there is literally nothing
but discourse-material in Q. Even in these pas-
sages, the historical facts merely serve as the barest
introduction to the conversations that follow. Only
once does a saying require for its right understand-
ing a fuller story, and this is briefly and simply told
(S. Matth. viii. 5 13 = 8. Luke vii. 2 10). This
is invariably the case in Q. It is essentially a
collection of " Sayings of Jesus" with here and
there the slightest and most colourless narrative-
setting. The compiler prefaces his "sayings" with
the most meagre introduction, e.g. " Jesus said,"
5. Luke's sources Matt/uean Logia. 339
" Another parable spake He unto them," " When
the people were gathered together, He began to
say," " He said to the people." We may, therefore,
safely state that Q consisted of discourses with
an infinitesimal fraction of historical fact. The
parallel passages in S. Matthew and S. Luke
suggest this and nothing more.
Q, like the Petrine Memoirs, and for a similar
reason, takes little or no interest in dogmatic
theology b . All the emphasis is laid on the moral
requirements of our Lord's teaching. As in S.
James and the first cycle of Palestinian tradition,
the teaching of the Logia is essentially ethical and
practical. It inculcates a religion of action, a
religion of character and conduct, a religion of
men who are doers of the Word and not hearers
only.
On the other hand, great stress is laid on the
Coming of Messiah in Glory and judgment. We
meet with the expressions " Son of Man," " Kingdom
of God c " at every turn. In Q, we are living in an
b Matth. xxviii. 18, "All power is given unto Me in heaven and
in earth " ; = Luke x. 22. " All things are delivered unto Me of my
Father," seems to be the one exception. In the Logia there are no
" It hath been said to them of old, but / say unto you " declarations,
as in Matthew, prefacing Christ's utterances.
c Except in S. Matth. xii. 28, S. Matthew invariably speaks of
" the Kingdom of Heaven," S. Luke as constantly calls it " the
Kingdom of God." The Jewish colouring of Matthew's phrase
makes it more than probable that he retains the phraseology of
Q ; while the Gentile Evangelists substitute for it the formula more
intelligible to Greeks.
34O S. Luke's sources Matthcean Login.
atmosphere of Messianic expectations. Man's earthly
life is viewed mainly as a preparation for this Coming
in the immediate future. " The Kingdom of God is
at hand " is the consideration that gives the present
its vital importance, and the Christian watchword is,
" Be ye ready also ; for the Son of Man cometh at an
hour when ye think not."
Miracles are conspicuous by their absence in Q,
for obvious reasons. We have seen that the Petrine
Memoirs abound in "mighty works" and have
hardly any discourses because S. Mark sets before
us a Christ in action, not a teaching Christ. On the
same principle, Q is full of discourses, and contains
but two miracles d (centurion's servant and the dumb
demoniac), Matth. ix. 32 sqq. ; cf. xii. 22 sqq. = Luke
xi. 14 sqq.), because it is mainly a collection of the
" sayings " and not the " doings " of our Lord.
Once more, Q does not profess to arrange the
discourses in their chronological order. In all pro-
bability the compiler of the collection, at the time
of its composition, was not in a position to assign
to each utterance its proper chronological place in
our Lord's Ministry. Even if he could have given
each "saying" its original historical setting, it is
more than questionable whether he would have
done so. He had nothing to do with history or
chronology. This was not his aim at all.
Thus Q has all the characteristic notes of a very
d That Jesus worked other miracles is clearly stated in the Logia,
e.g. S. Matth. xi. 21 S. Luke x. 13.
vS. Luke's sources Matt/uzan Logia. 341
primitive Jewish-Christian compilation. It is steeped
in the atmosphere of Palestine, strongly anti-Phari-
saic, essentially Messianic and eschatological. Q
still considers the Mosaic Law as binding (Matth.
v. i8 = Luke xvi. 17). No reference is made to the
Passion 6 . In Q, Christ is not regarded as Redeemer,
but as the Teacher and Prophet of the Kingdom f .
The Coming in Glory is daily expected. Everything
is viewed from this eschatological standpoint.
The sayings in Q are so fresh, simple and original
that they bear Christ's own stamp on the face of
them. They are all Christ's own, and nothing is
borrowed from the Old Testament. We find no
parallel to them except in the Petrine Memoirs of
S. Mark. Where Q and Mark agree in their word-
ing of these sayings, we may feel certain that we
are as near to the actual words of Christ as can be.
Q was in Aramaic. The Matthew-Luke Logia
still retain the Aramaic tinge. Possibly the Pales-
tinian author of our S. Matthew may have borrowed
his Logia direct from Q, while S. Luke would
naturally copy them from a translation ; or they
may have used different Greek translations of Q.
Something of this nature is needed to account for
the agreement and disagreement in the Logia
versions of S. Matthew and S. Luke.
e But see Burkitt, "Transmission of the Gospel-History," 133 sqq.
* Hence Ramsay's assumption that Q could not have been written
after Christ's death, but iii our Lord's lifetime. Why so ? Q repre-
sents Christ's sayings, and has nothing to do with history or theology.
342 S. Lukes sources MattJi&an Logia.
S. Matthew's groupings of the Logia are often
characterized by critics as arbitrary and jjrtificial.
Is this strictly true ? /^M
In dealing with S. Mark, we have tried to\ show
that the earliest Gospel-literature crystallized oral
tradition at a time (about 50 A.D.) when catechizing
had already become very systematic. Converts
wanted to know (i) what the Old Testament had
to say concerning Christ; (2) what Christ Himself
had said ; (3) what He had done. As they gained
in experience, catechists would naturally meet these
three requirements. In this way, oral teaching, and
the written documents which afterwards embodied
it, took three forms : (i) collections of Old Testa-
ment prophecies, (2) collections of " sayings " of
Jesus, (3) brief " Lives of Christ."
But, if the utterances of Jesus were to be of prac-
tical use in catechizing, it was not enough to collate
our Lord's separate sayings. They must be grouped
under appropriate headings so that converts might
know what our Lord had taught on such subjects as
Prayer, Christian character and conduct, the Second
Coming, and so forth. Christ's scattered sayings
would therefore, at a very early date, be " conflated,'*
i.e. independent sayings of allied meaning would be
massed into groups, scattered utterances would be
pieced together so as to form more or less continuous
discourses.
^low if we could recover Q, it is very probable
that we should find our Lord's utterances collected
vS. Lukes sources Matth&an Logia. 343
into a number of such groups. These groupings
would probably be like those in our S. Matthew,
except that the latter has carried this principle
still further and massed several of the original
groups into one. The first Evangelist has at the
same time added new material of his own. He
has also developed the original Logia to meet the
theological and ecclesiastical needs of a much later
day; but he has left the "sayings" as he found
them, without any historical setting.
On the other hand, S. Luke seems to have adopted
the opposite course. He has split up the original
Q groups, scattered their contents here and there
all over his Gospel, and given them a historical and
chronological setting by blending the "sayings"
with his historical narrative.
In this way, S. Luke naturally conveys the impres-
sion that, true to his promise in the Preface, he is
giving us the Life in its strict chronological order.
His connected narrative gives an idea of complete-
ness, and of a close adherence to the original, lack-
ing in S. Matthew, who is sacrificing chronology
and historical accuracy to his artificial massing of
kindred material into groups.
If our contention is correct, and the earliest Gospel-
literature reproduces the three forms of systematic
oral teaching, S. Luke's superiority is a delusion 8 .
s It is easy to understand why scholars who support the view that
S. Luke's version of the Logia is closer to the original than S. Mat-
thew's also insist that the Logia contained many historical facts.
344 ^- Luke's sources Matth&an Logia.
It is S. Matthew and not S. Luke who is the truer
to the original Q arrangement of the sayings, while
in S. Luke we have the literary artist's hand at
work. The third Evangelist may have had good
reasons for rearranging the Logia. His careful
private research may have placed him in a posi-
tion to restore the "sayings" to their original set-
ting, but Harnack gives good reasons for thinking
otherwise. "S. Luke is an author whose writings
read smoothly, but one has only to look somewhat
more closely to discover that there is scarcely another
writer in the New Testament who is so careless an
historian as he ; ... in chapter after chapter, where
he is not an eye-witness, he affords gross instances
of carelessness, and often of complete confusion in
the narrative " (" Luke the -Physician," 112 sqq.) ''.
If we compare the accounts of our Lord's last
journey as given in S. Matthew, S. Mark and S. Luke,
what do we find? In Mark it occupies 52 verses,
64 in Matthew, and 408 in Luke! (Luke ix. 51
xix. 28). Some explain this by saying that S. Luke
gives us a Samaritan journey (ix. 51, 52) while Mark
S. Luke places the "sayings" in a historical setting, therefore, say
they, narrative entered largely into the original Logia. But if
S. Luke reproduces the Logia so faithfully, why then does tradition,
from the earliest times, ascribe to our first Gospel the distinctive
title : " according to S. Matthew?"
h For a vindication of S. Luke's historicity see Ramsay's " S. Paul
the Traveller"; " Was Christ born in Bethlehem?" and his recent
criticism of Harnack's "Luke the Physician.'" In support of Luke's
historicity as proved by Arclueological Evidences, see also Hastings'
D.B., I. 32.
5. Luke's sources Matth&an Logia. 345
records a Peraean journey (x. i). Prof. Burkitt
gives excellent reasons for believing that it is the
same journey in both Evangelists. He suggests
that possibly one section of our Lord's followers
went by way of Peraea, while our Lord and the
remainder proceeded through Samaria, but he truly
adds: "that Luke has inserted a quantity of ex-
traneous matter into his story, which belongs to
other times and places, cannot be doubted. This
is certainly the case with the sayings about Beel-
zebub (Luke xi. 15 sqq.), and it is hardly likely
that Jesus would be taking a meal with Pharisees
(xi. 37 ; xiv. i), and that myriads of the people
would be gathered together (xii. i) in the midst of
the Samaritan country," which the Jews so loathed.
There is only one way of satisfactorily accounting
for (i) the vast mass of the discourse-material in
this last journey account of S. Luke (2) as well as
the extraordinary discrepancies between Matthew
and Luke in their respective versions of the Sermon
on the Mount, and (3) the general disagreement of
Matthew and Luke in the historical setting of these
discourses, viz., Q had no historical setting of any
kind.
This is precisely the impression left on our minds
by Papias' statement. He tells us that Matthew the
Apostle collected together a number of the logia
of our Lord in the Hebrew language, and " each
(reader) interpreted tkeni as he could'' What do the
last words imply ? Surely this, that the Matthaean
346 vS". Liikes sources Matth&an Login.
Login did not form a connected Gospel-story at
all, but consisted of mere " sayings " without any
indication of the place or time of their original
utterance.
In spite of his consummate literary skill, even
S. Luke fails to remedy this defect. If we look at
his narrative of the last journey we see that it is
artificially arranged. We are supposed to have in
it an account of our Lord's journey to Jerusalem,
yet not a single town or village is named till we
reach Jericho, and Luke only knows of Jericho from
S. Mark. All the other localities on the way arc
left absolutely vague, e.g. " They went to another
village" (ix. 56); "as He entered into a certain
village" (x. 38), "as He was praying in a certain
place" (xi. i), "He went through the cities and
villages teaching and journeying towards Jerusalem."
It is just the same with the prefaces with which
S. Luke introduces the Logia all through the last-
journey narrative: "After these things" (x. i),
"And it came to pass as He was praying in a
certain place" (xi. i), "In the mean time" (xii. i),
" There were present at that season some that told
Him" (xiii. i), " He was teaching in a synagogue'*
(xiii. 10, cf. xiv. I ; xv. i ; xvi. i ; xvii. I ; xiii. i).
S. Luke is perfectly justified in his attempt to give
a narrative perfect in its literary form. The subject-
matter demanded all the ability, skill and literary
powers he possessed. He lovingly and unsparingly
devoted himself to his task. The Logia, in all
S. Luke's sources Matthcean Logia. 347
probability, had no historical setting \ and early
Christians recognized the fact. S. Luke was at
liberty to arrange them in one way, S. Matthew
was equally justified in arranging them in another.
Which of the two is the more artificial in his re-
arrangement of Q we cannot tell, but we believe
it is not Matthew k .
Why then does S. Luke profess to give us his
narrative " in order " ? why does he expressly claim
superiority over his predecessors on this score, if his
chronological arrangement is no better, and probably
at times worse, than that of those who have gone
before him ? Or are we wrong in our interpretation
of his word tenders. " in order " ? Does it mean
(i) "in order of time" at all? May it not equally
correctly be translated (2) " in logical order," or, as
Blass maintains, (3) "in its completeness"? In
either case, this would be much more in keeping
with S. Luke's Gospel and cover all its actual facts.
There is a distinct unity of purpose running through
it all. It is also a more complete record than any
of the others, for it does not omit any important
fact which the other Synoptics contain, while S.
Luke's new material is very considerable both in
amount and value.
' A document recently discovered the Oxyrrhynchus Fragment
gives us a very old collection of our Lord's sayings, all simply pre-
faced by "Jesus says," and this was probably the case with Q.
k A priori, which is the more likely to depart from the original,
the matter-of-fact ecclesiastical Jewish author of our S. Matthew,
or the imaginative Greek poet-painter Luke?
348 S- Lukes sources Matthcean Login.
S. Lukes private sources of information. Over
and above the Mark plus Logia sources, S. Luke
has a considerable collection of material peculiar
to himself, which has reached him through other
channels. From a historical point of view, this new
element in S. Luke cannot be placed on the same
level as the Petrine Memoirs or the Matthaean Logia,
which represent the earliest cycle of oral tradition.
At the same time, we must not forget that our
Gospels only give us a very small selection out of
the immense amount of material embodied in oral
tradition. " There are also many other things which
Jesus did, the which, if they were written every one,
I suppose that even the world itself could not contain
the books that should be written " (John xxi. 25)
is an Eastern hyperbole, but it is true in idea. The
new material in S. Luke, the result of patient original
research, may therefore be perfectly true to fact and
crystallize oral tradition equally as correctly as the
Petrine and Matthaean documents. But in dealing
v/ith the new element in Luke we have always to
take one fact into consideration. S. Luke was
a Greek and a literary artist, and the indelible
impression which his writings leave on the critic's
mind is that he was somewhat careless about verbal
precision and paid undue attention to attractive
literary form.
The new sections in S. Luke consist o-f a whole
series of incidents and parables, e.g. :
(a) Infancy stories, and Songs. S. Luke i. 5 25,
S. Luke's sources MattJuzan Logia. 349
An angel announces to Zacharias the coming birth
of John the Baptist ; Luke i. 26 38, Gabriel sent
from God to announce to Mary the birth >f Christ ;
Luke i. 39 56, Mary's visit to Elisabeth ; the
Magnificat ; Luke i. 57 So, nativity and circum-
cision of John, the Benedictns ; Luke ii. i -20,
Nativity of Christ, and the episode of the angel
appearing to the shepherds ; Luke ii. 21 40,
Circumcision of Christ, purification of Mary, pre-
sentation of Christ in the Temple, Simeon's and
Anna's addresses, Nunc Dimittis ; Luke ii. 41 52,
Jesus accompanies His parents to Jerusalem at the
age of 12, scene in the Temple ; Luke iii. 23 38,
The genealogy.
(b} Incidents, e.g., The penitent thief, the penitent
harlot, Zacchaeus, the ministering women, the Sa-
maritan leper, the crooked woman, the widow of
Nain, the sons of Zebedee wish to call down fire
from heaven, the Seventy appointed, Galileans slain
by Pilate, walk to Emmaus.
(c} Parables, e.g., Prodigal Son, Good Samaritan,
Dives and Lazarus, Pharisee and Publican, the two
debtors, the rich fool, the importunate friend.
(d] Short sayings. Of these there are a very large
number, e.g., " No man having drunk old wine
straightway desireth new ; for he saith, the old is
better" (v. 39); "Woe unto you that are rich," &c.
(vi. 24 26) ; " No man having put his hand to the
plough," &c. (ix. 62) ; " I beheld Satan as lightning
fall from heaven" (x. 18) ; "When a strong man
35O S. Lukes sources Mattluean Logia.
armed," &c. (xi. 21, 22) ; " Blessed is the womb that
bare Thee," &c. (xi. 27, 28) ; " Fear not, little flock,"
&c. (xii. ^, 33) ; " Let your loins be girded about,"
&c. (xii. 3538); "Are there few that be saved,"
&c. (xiii. 23 27) ; ' Go ye, and tell that fox," &c.
(xii.i. 32 34) ; " As it was in the days of Lot," &c.
(xvii. 28 30) ; " Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath
desired to have you," &c. (xxii. 31 34); "Take
heed to yourselves lest at any time your hearts be
overcharged with surfeiting," &c. (xxi. 34 38) ;
" Betrayest thou the Son of Man with a kiss"
(xxii. 48) ; "Daughters of Jerusalem," &c. (xxiii. 28),
&c., &c.
The portion of this new material which has been
most severely handled by modern scholars is (a]
The infancy stories, and the Songs. The genealogy
data have also been subjected to a fierce search-light,
and, on the whole, both S. Matthew's and t S. Luke's
genealogies are regarded as extremely artificial.
Prof. Ramsay has attempted to establish S. Luke's
credibility in connection with the Census of Quirinius,
with some success. In the matter of the " Songs "
Harnack suggests that S. Luke composed them him-
self. The majority of English critics, however, are
inclined to prefer Dr. Sanday's view: " S. Luke
always impresses his own signature upon his
documents, and no doubt he has done so in his
first two chapters, but (i) there are here a number
of minute allusions to Jewish Law and ceremonial
5". Lukes sources Mattkeean Logia. 351
so unlike S. Luke's manner, and (2) these chapters
so exactly hit the attitude of expectancy which
existed before the public appearafice of Christ,
that I venture to maintain that these two chapters
and their Songs are essentially the most archaic
thing in the whole New Testament."
It is impossible for us to say whence S. Luke
derived his new information. There is a strongly
Pauline character stamped on much of it l . This
does not necessarily mean that S. Luke derived it
directly from S. Paul. It rather suggests that some
one in sympathy with Pauline teaching had formed
a special collection, from oral tradition, of utter-
ances of our Lord (e.g. the Prodigal Son, the
Pharisee and Publican, the Good Samaritan), a col-
lection of sayings which preached a Gospel of free
grace and abounding pardon. On the face of them,
these parables are genuine utterances of Him Who
spake as never man spake.
Harnack, on the other hand, makes out a strong
case for the hypothesis that a very considerable
portion of the matter peculiar to S. Luke (especially
1 Harnack has noted the close connection in thought and language
between S. Luke and S. Paul. Even their vocabulary is extra-
ordinarily alike. Mark and Paul have 20 words in common ;
Matthew and Paul 29 ; John and Paul 17 ; Luke and Paul, 84.
More striking still, from a theological point of view, is the use made
by Luke and Paul of the words "grace" (x*P ts ) an d "faith"
(iriirris). The former occurs 146 times in the N.T., and only 21 times
outside these two ; the latter 243 times, and only 50 times outside
Luke and Paul.
352 ,S. Lnkcs sources Mattluean Logia.
the feminine and Samaritan elements in the Gospel)
represents a body of tradition which rests upon the
authority of S. -Philip the Evangelist and his prophe-
sying daughters. We know for a fact that S. Luke
" abode with Philip at Caesarea, and tarried there
many days " (Acts xxi. 8 sqq.) ( vide " Luke the
Physician," 155 sqq. and 3^).
Dr. Sanday, again, believes that in the infancy
chapters : " S. Luke's knowledge is ultimately trace-
able to the Virgin Mary herself, in all probability
through the little circle of women who were for some
time in her company."
But all this is more or less conjectural. There
are really no solid grounds on which to base these
theories. All we know is that S. Luke tells us he
consulted every available authority. We also know
he was in the closest possible touch with Apostles
and other reliable eye-witnesses, preachers and
catechists who would supply him with valuable
information.
Be his sources what they may, S. Luke has made
excellent use of his information and produced a
Gospel of supreme importance. In many respects
it is unique. At the same time, we cannot conceal
from ourselves the plain fact that he deals with his
material with considerable freedom and indepen-
dence. There is one hand and only one running
through S. Luke, and it is Luke's ; or as Dr.
Sanday puts it : "He always impresses his own
signature upon his documents." Therefore, as may
S. Lube's sources Matthcean Logia. 353
be expected, his editorial contributions are many,
and sometimes questionable.
As a literary composition, S. Luke is infinitely
superior to S. Mark, but in spite of the loud pro-
fession of his Preface, S. Luke has not superseded
S. Mark as a liistorical work. The Second Evan-
gelist still remains, in Prof. Burkitt's words, " our
main source for the Gospel History."
Note.
The question has often been asked : Did S. Mark use the Logia?
Most scholars answer in the negative, alleging that he probably did
not know of the existence of the Matthrean Logia. This may be so.
At the same time, we have seen that there is every reason to believe
that the earliest Gospel-literature (copying oral tradition) assumed the
three-fold form of (i) Collections of prophecies; (2) "Sayings of
Jesus " ; (3) Short Lives of Christ. If this view is correct, and if
S. Mark represents the transition stage between these earlier
occasional writings and the later systematic Gospel-records in book
form, he can hardly have been unaware of the existence of these
earlier "aids to faith." Is it likely that "a native of Jerusalem*
whose maternal home had formed the centre of the primitive Church,
and who knew the whole community " (Harnack), can have been
unacquainted with the Logia of S. Matthew the Apostle, composed
as early as 50 A. D. ? No doubt, for S. Mark's purpose, S. Peter's
reminiscences supplied practically all his needs. Our analysis of
S. Mark's Gospel tends to prove that his main aim is to show a Christ
in action, not a teaching Christ. Therefore there is little room for
Logia in his Gospel-story. But such passages as iii. 23 29 ; vi.
7 it ; x. 20 31, 42 45, which bear the strongest possible family-
likeness to the Logia, may well have been derived from this source.
They may, of course, equally well come direct from the oral tradition
which lies behind the Matthasan Logia. It is impossible to go beyond
mere conjecture in this matter, but there is no apparent reason why
S. Mark may not have known and used the Logia. He undoubtedly
incorporates some written source in his Chap. xiii.
A a
CHAPTER XVIII.
S. MATTHEW.
Argument.
REASONS why our S. Matthew is not the Apostle
Matthew's work. Explanation of the title " according
to S. Matthew."
Introductory. S. Matthew is (i) the Gospel of Pro-
phecy; (2) it is addressed to Jewish readers, (i) Early
Palestinian Christians, like all Jews, often interpreted the
Old Testament in a strangely artificial manner. S. Mat-
thew gives a Christological interpretation to everything in
the " Law and the Prophets." (2) S. Matthew, writing
as a Jew for Jews, shows great reverence for the Mosaic
Law. (3) S. Matthew's discourses are " conflations," or
artificial groupings.
CHAPTER XVIII.
S. MATTHEW.
IN dealing with S. Matthew, we cannot follow the
course hitherto adopted in the case of the other
Synoptists, and begin with a biography of our
author, or a review of the external evidence.
Details of neither are forthcoming. We do not
know the name of the author of the first Gospel,
and the external evidence material is of no value.
On the strength of Papias' oft-quoted state-
ment : " the Apostle Matthew composed the Logia
of Jesus in the Hebrew tongue," tradition, from the
second century onward, has assigned our first Gospel
to S. Matthew the Apostle.
In this one instance, all scholars are agreed that
tradition is wrong, and for the following (among
other) reasons : (i) The evidence is clear and
unanimous that the Apostle Matthew wrote his
Gospel in the Hebrew (Aramaic) tongue ; and the
evidence is equally clear that our first Gospel is not
a translation from Aramaic, but was composed in
Greek from the outset. (2) S. Matthew the Apostle's
Logia consisted almost entirely of discourse-material.
(3) Our Gospel cannot possibly be the Logia of
50 A.D. referred to by Papias, for the internal
358 S. Matthew.
evidence clearly indicates that our S. Matthew was
not written till at least twenty years after the date
named by Papias.
We know how apt tradition is to convert indirect
into direct authorship. When our Gospels were at
last included in the Canon of Holy Scripture, about
130 140 A.D., any piece of evidence supporting their
Apostolic authorship or inspiration would instantly
be welcomed and pressed into service. Thus we
have seen how readily it was believed that S. Mark
wrote at the dictation of S. Peter ; S. Luke, of
S. Paul.
Now, those who first formed the collection of four
Gospels, and this, according to Harnack, " was
done before the middle of the second century,
perhaps long before," gave this Gospel the in-
scription " according to S. Matthew? This title
in itself shows that our first Gospel, in tone, style,
and especially in its discourse-matter, was based
upon and closely followed the lines of the Matthaean
Logia. In those uncritical days, it was the easiest
thing to take one short step further and call it the
" Gospel of S. Matthew."
In the face of the unreliability of external evidence
and our ignorance of the author of the first Gospel,
only one course is open to us. We must cross-
examine the only witness that remains, but it is the
best of all the witnesses, the internal evidence.
We must form our estimate of the value and his-
toricity of S. Matthew's Gospel on its own merits.
5. Matthew. 359
We shall, therefore, analyse the contents, give an
outline-sketch of the chief characteristics of the
Gospel according to S. Matthew, and build our
arguments and inferences upon that basis.
Before we do this, however, we must enter upon
a troublesome but necessary digression. If we would
read S. Matthew intelligently and interpret him
aright, there are one or two preliminary questions
that must occupy us awhile, for their investigation
will throw much light upon his pages.
S. Matthew is writing as a Jew to Jews. He
wants to show believing and unbelieving Jews alike
that Jesus is the Messiah of Prophecy, and Himself
a true Jew. Therefore, as one who is personally
steeped in the spirit of Judaism, our author addresses
himself to the one authority recognized by all Jews
as the final court of appeal, the " Law and the
Prophets," or the Old Testament.
But, in order to appreciate at their true value
Matthew's arguments from prophecy, we must ever
bear this fact in mind. Jews were in the habit of
interpreting Holy Scripture in a way that often
seems to us arbitrary and artificial. They con-
stantly read into Old Testament passages a meaning
and purpose quite foreign to the original intention of
the inspired writer whose words they interpret. The
first question, therefore, that demands our careful
investigation is this :
(a) S. Matthew's treatment of the Old Testament.
360 vS. Matthew.
The Jews were a people of one book, the Old Testa-
ment, but they knew it thoroughly. Their conviction
was that the Old Testament was the repository of
all wisdom. It gave full information, and was the
one and final court of appeal on every single topic
and in every department of human activity, whether
moral, political, scientific or religious. All that was
needed was the patience and skill to bring out its
hidden treasures.
The Jewish interpretation of Holy Scripture
proceeded on various principles. The words of
the Old Testament were regarded as either literal,
poetical, parabolic, allegorical, mystic or symbolical.
A distinguished rabbinic school employed no less
than thirty-two of these methods of interpretation,
some of them sound, others fantastic.
Matthew was a Jew, and like all his fellow-
countrymen, he often interprets the Old Testament
in what we should call a forced and artificial manner.
He reads between its lines, and sees veiled and un-
derlying meanings in a most extraordinary fashion.
In the eyes of all Christians of the first generation,
the Old Testament was a fore-shadowing of Christ
and the Gospel-story, a book of types and prophecy
throughout. Its official personages and its saints,
its ordinances and its events are real though im-
perfect exhibitions of Messiah and the Messianic
Kingdom. Christians viewed Christ as the one end
and goal to which all Old Testament history, law,
prophecy, worship pointed. Old Testament charac-
5. Matthew. 361
ters and institutions were mere types of Him. Even
the most trivial occurrences and incidental utter-
ances were anticipations which found their realiza-
tion in Christ.
This hankering after Christological interpretations
of the Old Testament constantly leads to an artificial
and arbitrary exegesis. Old Testament passages
are treated apart from and in defiance of their his-
torical setting, pure poetry is turned into prose,
what is literal is transformed into figure of speech,
and figure of speech is converted into literal fact.
At times the wording of the original quotation
is changed so as to secure a more complete ful-
filment.
For instance, Zechariah (ix. 9) had said : " Behold,
thy King cometh unto thee, sitting upon an ass, and
a colt the foal of an ass." This, of course, is the
poetical Hebrew way of speaking of one animal, and
S. Luke and S. Mark so interpret it. Matthew,
however, in his eagerness to keep close to the wording
of prophecy, turns the one animal into two ! " They
brought the ass. and the colt, and set Him on them "
7rdvci) avrfav (Matth. xxi. 7).
So, again, we read in Matth. ii. 23, " He dwelt in
Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken
by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene,"
a prophecy which cannot be traced in the Old
Testament. In spite of several ingenious but un-
convincing attempts to find some parallel for it in
Scripture, it is merely a play on words based on the
362 S. Matthew.
accidental resemblance of the word Nazareth and
the Hebrew word for " branch."
In Matth. xxvii. 9 Jeremy the prophet is made to
predict the giving of the thirty pieces of silver for
the potter's field. To begin with, we have here
a slip of the memory, for it is Zech. xi. 12, 13,
and not Jeremiah, who is the prophet in question.
More than this, the Evangelist has also altered the
words of the prophet (" cast them unto the potter ")
so as to make them suit the facts he relates (" gave
them for the potter's field ") a . Moreover, the word
he translates " potter " does not probably mean
"potter" at all, but "treasury," though this last
mistake is not Matthew's own. It was a popular
misconception of the original Hebrew word, current
in his day.
Similarly it is only by wrenching the original
words from their true original setting and intention
that the passage " when Israel was a child, I loved
him and called my son out of Egypt " can be con-
strued into a prophecy referring to the return of the
child Jesus from Egypt : " Out of Egypt have I
called My Son" (Matth. ii. 15).
These strained and artificial interpretations of
Scripture were universal among Jews of that day,
: * cf. the anointing of our Lord's Y~~ by the woman who was
a sinner. S. Luke agrees with S. John in saying that the feet, not
the head, were anointed. In S. Matthew and S. Mark the feet have
been changed into the head, because the Psalmist wrote: "Thou
anointest my head with oil " (I's. xxiii. 5).
5. AT a ft hew. 363
and therefore perfectly legitimate and convincing in
their day. They served their age ; but it requires
an intellectual tour dc force for us to understand
a state of mind which saw clear prophecy in such
mere accidental coincidences of word or fact.
This spirit pervades the whole of the New Testa-
ment and prompts much of its actual wording.
Every syllable of the Old Testament was regarded
in the light of veiled or explicit prophecy, and not
one jot or tittle of its foreshadowing could be unful-
filled in Christ. Scripture was divinely ordained
to usher in the Gospel. Its one aim was to act as
tutor to bring men to Christ. Hence it is that S. Paul
finds no difficulty in allegorizing Hagar and Ishmael
into the covenant of Sinai and the old Law, or Sarah
and Isaac into the New Jerusalem and the new Law
(Gal. iv. 22 sqq., cf. Eph. v. 32), while the Rock
in the wilderness is nothing if not a type of Christ
(i Cor. x. 4). (cf. I Cor. x. 6, 11.)
Only in the case of our Lord's quotations do we
find real historical insight and an interpretation
which satisfies all modern requirements b .
b Only in a very few cases do our Lord's quotations raise points
of difficulty, e.g. His use of God's words to Moses at the bush
(Mark xii. 26) ; " Is it not written ... Ye are gods" (John x. 34) ;
His assigning Ps. ex. to David (Mark xii. 36) ; His allusion to Jonah's
story in reference to His own Resurrection on the third day (Matth. xii.
40). " The last is probably a gloss, and the other three are ad
hominem arguments." (Garvie. ) But see Sanday, Hampton Lect.,
p. 414, and Gore, Bampton Lect., p. 198. In regard to the O.T.,
Christ shared and accepted the current views of His age.
364 5. Matthew.
In defence of the early Christian tendency to see
prophecy in every line of the Old Testament, it
may be argued that the Old Testament does fore-
shadow the New Testament. The whole develop-
ment of Israel's history may be conceived as a
movement towards Him in Whom all its types,
hopes, aspirations were realized and found their
consummation. Thus the New Testament writers
would be fully justified in interpreting all Scripture
Christologically. Generally speaking, this is true,
but it must be candidly owned that they carried
this principle too far in their application of it to
minor details. Our Lord did not heal the sick, so
that a prophecy of Isaiah might be fulfilled (Matth.
viii. 16, 17), neither did He dwell in Nazareth because
it had been prophesied He should be called a
Nazarene (ii. 23), and it was not " that it might be
fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet," that our
Lord spoke in parables (Matth. xiii. 35).
The quotations in the New Testament are seldom
exact, and they are drawn sometimes from the
Hebrew, sometimes from the Septuagint (Greek
version). In S. Matthew, it has been noted that his
own quotations from the prophets are from the
Hebrew or Aramaic. On the other hand, his O.T.
quotations placed in the mouths of the persons
mentioned in the narrative (e.g. Jesus said, Have
ye never read : Out of the mouth of babes and
sucklings Thou hast perfected praise ? (cf. iii. 3,
xiii. 14) ) are quoted from the Septuagint.
5. Mattheiv. 365
It is almost certain that just as there were " col-
lections of logia or ' sayings,' " so there were " col-
lections of Old Testament prophecies or ' proof-
texts ' " (in Hebrew) containing Scripture passages
specially bearing on the Gospel-story. From these
most of our New Testament quotations are drawn.
(b} In reading S. Matthew, we have not only to
bear in mind the peculiar method of interpreting
Scripture then in vogue, but we must orientalize
ourselves in another direction as well. We must
look at Mattheivs attitude to the Mosaic Law
through Jewish eyes.
We do not always sufficiently grasp the fact that
Jewish Christians were essentially Jews as well as
Christians. They were Jews whose religious views
differed from those of other Jews in little else except
that they accepted Christ as the long-promised
Messiah of prophecy. In the constant feud between
Judaizers and Paulinists ; in the shock S. Peter
received when he was told of God to go to the
Gentile centurion (Acts x.) ; in the agenda of the
Council of Jerusalem (Acts xv.) ; in the rebuke ad-
ministered by S. Paul to S. Peter at Antioch
(Gal. ii.), we clearly see that Jewish Christians still
continued to regard the obligations of the Mosaic
Law as binding upon themselves.
This reverence for the Mosaic Law runs all
through Matthew. He is at immense pains to prove
to his fellow-countrymen that our Lord was nothing
if not a Law-abiding Jew. He not only echoes
366 S. Matthew.
S. Luke's words that not one jot or tittle of the Law
shall be unfulfilled, but it is Matthew alone who
adds : " whosoever shall break one of these least
commandments," &c. (v. 19, 20).
Indeed, so eager is Matthew to remove Jewish
prejudice against our Lord in this matter of the Law
that he rewrites Mark's passages on divorce, clean
and unclean meats, &c., and makes them assume
quite a different complexion.
Thus, as regards divorce, S. Mark and S. Luke
represent Christ as making the marriage-tie abso-
lutely indissoluble. S. Matthew, by adding the words
" except for fornication," brings our Lord's verdict
on Deut. xxiv. into perfect harmony with the best
Jewish views of His day.
In the matter of clean and unclean meats, S. Mark
has laid great stress on Christ's utterance, " purging
all meats." He so words the whole passage that we
clearly understand our Lord to teach that the dis-
tinctions of the Mosaic Law between clean and
unclean meats are cancelled. S. Matthew, on the
other hand, omits the clause " purging all meats "
altogether, and closes our Lord's utterance with the
words : " but to eat with unwashen hands defileth
not a man." Thus he leaves the impression on the
reader's mind that the whole question at issue was
not one of " clean or unclean meats," a matter on
which all Jews and even a Christian S. Peter (Acts x.,
Gal. ii.) felt strongly, but merely a question of the
traditional "washing of hands."
Once more, it is Matthew alone who mentions :
5. Matthew. 367
" pray that your flight be not on the Sabbath-day,"
thus assuring the Jews that they have misunderstood
our Lord on the subject of Sabbath-breaking, for He
insisted on its rigid observance.
No doubt S.Matthew records our Lord's own words.
At times we may detect a tendency to take our
Lord's sayings too literally or to over-emphasize
them. His artificial groupings and occasional slight
modifications of the actual words may also give our
Lord's utterances here and there a meaning which
Christ did not originally intend to convey. But
S. Matthew always speaks and writes from deep
inward conviction. All we wish to imply is that,
in reading the first Gospel, we must remember that
S. Matthew was first and foremost a Christian but
also a confirmed Jew. He did not for a moment
entertain the idea that Christ had abrogated the
obligations of the Mosaic Law.
(c) Only one other preliminary point do we intend
to examine in the first Gospel : Matthew's Discourses.
We have already spoken at some length, in the
preceding chapter, on S. Luke's and S. Matthew's
use of the Logia. Till comparatively recently, it
would have been dangerous to hint that the dis-
courses of our Lord in the Evangelists were not
uttered exactly as they stand in our Gospels : e.g.
the " Sermon on the Mount." Even popular opinion
nowadays, however, is gradually coming round to
the view which scholars have long since entertained.
368 S. Matthew.
A comparison of the two accounts of our Lord's
" Great Sermon " (Matth. v., vi., vii. ; Luke vi. 20
sqq.) at once proves that the two versions cannot
be harmonized. There is a common foundation or
nucleus which may well represent the base-idea of
the actual Sermon. Both versions, however, are
probably " conflations," or mosaics. Several sayings
of our Lord, of allied meaning but independently
uttered on different occasions, are grouped together
so as to form one discourse. It is more than open
to question whether any of the longer discourses of
our Lord recorded in our Gospels faithfully re-
produce Him. The sayings are Christ's, but the
grouping is man's composition, and the connecting-
links are artificial and often clearly discernible.
CHAPTER XIX.
S. MATTHEW (CONTINUED.)
Bb
A rgumeni.
LEADING ideas in S. Matthew, (i) The Gospel of
Prophecy. All threads of Old Testament prophecy are
gathered together in Christ. (2) The Gospel of the King-
dom. Jesus is the promised Messianic King, the " Son
of Man." Matthew's eschatology. (3) The Gospel of the
New Law. Matthew's attitude to the Mosaic Law. The
Law of the Kingdom as applied to (a) the citizens of the
Kingdom, (b) the preachers of the Kingdom, (c) the
Church as a corporate body. Why the Kingdom is taken
away from the false Judaism and given to the true Israel
(Christian Church). Ecclesiasticism of S. Matthew. Its
theology and historicity examined. Style of S. Matthew.
By whom, for what readers, and when was S. Matthew
written? Recapitulation. "The Gospel" is one and not
fourfold, and mainly Apostolic in its origin.
CHAPTER XIX.
S. MATTHEW (continued}.
Leading ideas
'i. Christ as the promised Messiah
of prophecy.
2. Christ as the promised King.
in S. Matthew. , . . .
3. Christ as Law-Giver the true
Moses.
(i) S. Matthew, the Gospel of Prophecy. The
Evangelist begins his book with the words : " The
book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of
David, the son of Abraham."
His object is to show the unbelieving and calum-
niating Jews, as well as others, that Jesus is the
Messiah of Prophecy, the promised King of David's
line. He therefore proceeds to prove, from the
outset, that in Christ are gathered together all the
threads of prophecy. Christ, and Christ alone, fulfils
to the letter every single word in the Old Testament
that can in any way be interpreted Messianically.
Thus the watchword of S. Matthew's Gospel is :
" that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the
prophet" (e.g. i. 22; ii. 15, 17, 23; iii. 3; iv. 14;
viii. 17 ; xii. 17 ; xiii. 14, 15 ; xxi. 4 ; xxvi. 56 ;
xxvii. 9). Matthew detects in the Old Testament
clear predictions even of the merest details in our
372 6". Matthew (continued}.
Lord's Life. This scheme pervades the whole book.
He accumulates a whole series of wondrous coinci-
dences round the Birth and Life of Christ all foretold
plainly or in dark sayings in the Old Testament, if
only the Jews to whom the prophecies were addressed
had had eyes to see, or ears to hear.
A brief summary of our Lord's Life, drawn from
this Gospel, will help to show how completely Mat-
thew finds prediction realized in Christ.
Jesus is born of a virgin (i. 22, cf. Is. vii. 14), in
Bethlehem (ii. 6, cf Mic. v. 2), and as a child returns
from Egypt (ii. 15, cf. Hos. xi. i). Herod slays the
Innocents, as had been foretold (ii. 17, cf. Jer. xxxi.
15). Christ dwells in Nazareth (ii. 23, cf. ? ?). John
the Baptist prepares the way for Him (iii. 3, Is. xl. 3).
Jesus begins His work in Galilee and dwells at
Capernaum (iv. 14, 15, cf. Is. ix. i, 2), so that the
land of Zabulon and Nephthalim, Galilee of the
Gentiles, the people which sit in darkness, see a
great light. He heals the sick, thus Himself taking
our infirmities, and bearing our sicknesses (viii. 16, 17,
cf. Is. liii. 4). He is the Servant of the Lord, gentle
and meek, Who does not strive nor cry (xii. 17 sqq.>
cf. Is. xlii. i sqq.). He opens His mouth in parables
(xiii. 13, cf. Ps. Ixxviii. 2 ; Is. vi. 9, 10). He enters
Jerusalem meek, and sitting upon an ass, and the colt
the foal of an ass (xxi. 5, cf. Zech. ix. 9, and Is. Ixii.
n), and, as Ps. cxviii. 26 had predicted, is hailed
with the words : " Blessed is He that cometli in the
Name of the Lord" (xxi. 9). That the scriptures
S. Matthew (continued}. 373
might be fulfilled (xxvii. 54), He is rejected, and
betrayed and forsaken by His disciples (xxvi. 31 and
56 ; cf. Zech. xiii. 7). With the thirty pieces of silver,
the price of His betrayal, is bought the potter's field
(xxvii. 8, 9 ; cf. Zech. xi. 12, 13). His garments are
parted, and upon His vesture they cast lots (xxvii. 35 ;
cf. Ps. xxii. 1 8).
In all these instances, S. Matthew refers expressly
to prophecy by name. But there are, over and above
this, an immense number of allusions to prophecy
without any express reference to it : e.g. in chapter
xxvii. 26 sqq. : Jesus is scourged (Is. 1. 6 and liii. 5),
mocked (cf. Ps. Ixix. 19, 20), spat upon (Is. 1. 6).
They give Him vinegar to drink, mingled with gall
(Ps. Ixix. 21). He is numbered with the transgressors
(Is. liii. 12), passers by wag their heads at Him and
revile Him (cf. Ps. xxii. 7; cix. 25 ; xxxv. 15). The
sun is darkened (Am. viii. 9). As Ps. xxii. I had
foretold, our Lord cries out : My God, My God,
why hast Thou forsaken Me ? The dead rise from
their graves (Is. xxvi. 19 ; cf. xxv. 8 and Hos. xiif.
14). Christ makes His grave with the rich in His
death (Is. liii. 9).
S. Matthew is steeped to the lips in his Old
Testament. Indeed, at times, he gives the im-
pression of adapting his narrative to its wording in
his zeal to detect fulfilment of Scripture everywhere.
(2) 5. Matthew, the Gospel of the 'Kingdom of
heaven.
374 $" Matthew (continued ).
Christ is the promised King, lineally descended
through David from Abraham (I. i.). He is, how-
ever, not a mere earthly King, for He is also the
Son of God, born of a Virgin by the operation of
the Holy Spirit, as Isaiah had prophesied (i. 23)*.
Matthew reminds unbelieving Jews that the Jesus
Whom they reject because He does not fulfil their
carnal expectations, even Gentile Wise Men from
the East hail as the royal Heir of David's Throne
(ii. 2), and bring Him their tributes of gold, frankin-
cense and myrrh. He is not a mere son of David,
for David himself calls Him Lord (xxii. 43 ; cf. Ps.
ex. i). Not only Gentile Magi, but their own Jewish
prophet John the Baptist, the " Elias that should
first come," had borne witness to Christ as the
Divine Messiah-King (iii. i 3, n, 12, 16, 17);
so did Pilate, when he wrote over Christ's head on
the Cross : This is Jesus the King' of the Jews
(xxvii. 37).
One of the main aims of S. Matthew is to convince
unbelieving Jews that they have all along misunder-
stood Jesus. He is the true King, the full "blossoming
of Israel's prophetic ideal of the Messiah-King, ruling
11 It has been suggested by Zahn, with some plausibility, that, in his
Genealogy, Matthew also gives an answer to Jewish calumny. The
humble birth and the alleged virgin-birth of our Lord gave rise
to Jewish scandal. Matthew shows by the instances of Tamar,
Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba, how humble women had figured in
royal Jewish history, and how God had overruled even adverse
circumstances for good ; also that the royal Davidic line had had
its vicissitudes.
S. Matt /tew (continued}. 375
in righteousness, and in wondrous gentleness too."
It was their false, earthly, material Messianic ideal
that had made the Jews as a nation reject this true
King, when He came to His own. S. Matthew
therefore writes his Gospel to correct the false
Messianic expectations of his fellow-countrymen.
He shows them that the Messiah of Prophecy is not
an earthly conquering King, but One Who is a
Servant, meek, lowly, suffering, dying, Whose reign
is heavenly, not earthly, a King Who rules by love
and not by force.
But it would be a grave mistake to fancy that
S. Matthew entirely spiritualizes the Kingdom of
Heaven. He shares the Messianic eschatologial
expectations of his generation. He is as convinced
as any Jew of his day that the " Son of Man " is very
speedily coming to establish His Kingdom. He is
very soon " to come on the clouds of Heaven," " sit
upon His Throne of Glory"; "all power is given
Him in heaven and in earth " ; ' He shall judge all
men," " divide the good from the bad," " reward each
according to his deeds," and " rule with the good in
righteousness."
The date of this Coming is known only to the
Father (xxiv. 36). A period of great tribulation
will precede it (xxiv. 6 sqq.). Then the Son of Man
will appear suddenly like lightning on the clouds
of heaven (xxiv. 27 30), and send His angels with
a great sound of a trumpet to gather together the
elect from all quarters (31). All nations shall be
376 5. Matthew (continued}.
gathered together (xxv. 32) before their Judge. His
disciples will be Christ's assessors on that Day,
"sitting upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve
tribes of Israel " (xix. 28). The righteous shall reign
with their King in righteousness ; the bad are cast
into Gehenna (xxiv. 33 46).
Christ had clearly foretold that this " Day of the
Lord " should not be in His own Lifetime. He must
ascend the Throne of His Glory through the portals
of Death. But their Lord's Coming was to be in
His followers' lifetime, so they understood Him to
say (xvi. 28 ; xxiv. 34 ; x. 23 : " ye shall not have
gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of Man
be come") b .
Meanwhile, the King's disciples must preach the
Gospel of the Kingdom to all nations (x. 7 ; xxiv.
14), baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (xxviii. 19). The
citizens of the Kingdom, including many from the
north and south, the east and west, are the true Israel
of God, the Church of the King in Whom " all the
families of the earth are blessed," as distinguished
from the false Israel of a degenerate Judaism.
b Christ may well have wished that His Return should be, as
it has been, the soul's pole-star of His true followers in every age,
and purposely left the period of His Coming vague, veiled in language
conveying to His hearers' minds the impression that it was to be
very soon.
e S. Matth. x. 5, 6; 23 show, according to S. Matthew, that our
Lord had in view for his disciples (a) a present ministry to the Jews
only, as well as (b) an ulterior ministry to the whole world (xxiv. 14,
xxviii. 19),
5. MtittJiciu (continued). 377
We shall see, in our next section, that the King
has also promulgated a new Law for His Kingdom
and His Church. S. Matthew formulates it for us
in the Sermon on the Mount, and in Christ's Mission-
Charge to the Twelve. Like King, like people. Even
as the true Messiah is meek, lowly, gentle, suffering,
loving, so must His subjects be lowly in spirit, pure
in heart, merciful, rejoicing in persecution, and full
of compassion ; while the Church must not only be
the light and leaven of the earth, but spread the glad
tidings of the Kingdom among all nations. Both
the citizens of the Kingdom, and the Church itself,
must "watch and be ready," fixing their eyes on
things above, eagerly looking for the Coming of the
Messiah-King to bring all things to perfection.
This was the conception S. Matthew entertained
of the King and His Kingdom. According to the
first Evangelist, so far as we can judge, the scene of
this Kingdom was to be the present earth, renewed,
regenerated, transfigured. Christ may not have in-
tended to convey the meaning, in every instance, that
the author of the first Gospel places upon His words,
Christ's words, as originally spoken, may have
occasionally taught something totally different,
but this is how S. Matthew interpreted our Lord's
utterances.
(3) 6". MattlieW) the Gospel of t/ie New Law.
Deuteronomy xviii. 15 17 had foretold that "The
Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from
378 6". MattJuw (continued}.
the midst of thee, like unto thee (Moses), and will
put His words in His mouth, and He shall speak
all that I shall command Him." S. Matthew (cf.
S. John i. 45 ; vi. 14) is convinced that Jesus is of
a truth that Prophet of which Moses spake in the
Law. Christ is a new and a greater Moses, Who
has come to fill up (7r\?7p<ucrcu) the faint sketch of the
Law, to give a new Law to men endowed with a
new spirit. In the Sermon on the Mount of S. Mat-
thew, we have the counterpart of the giving of the
Law on Mount Sinai. The first Evangelist is so
conscious of the fact that he constantly sets the one
over against the other, by way of contrast, with his
repeated : " It hath been said to them of old . . .
but / say unto you." We shall see that this formula,
in which Christ asserts His authority to transcend
the old Law, is peculiar to S. Matthew, and possibly
one of his editorial innovations. But it is significant,
for it gives us a valuable clue to S. Matthew's own
outlook and attitude to the old Law.
In the previous chapter, we saw that S. Matthew
was most loyal to the Mosaic Law. He is always at
immense pains to remove the prejudices of the Jews
against our Lord in this matter, to prove to them
that our Lord Himself was nothing if not a Law-
abiding Jew. But Matthew was equally convinced
in his own mind that, without in any way tramp-
ling upon or abolishing the Old Law, Christ had
entirely reformed it. He had so developed and
transfigured it that, in His hands, the Mosaic Law
S. Matthew (continued}. 379
had been transformed into a new and far higher
law.
To Matthew, Moses is the imperfect type, Christ
the perfect fulfilment ; Sinai is the foreshadowing
of the Mount ; Jesus is the Law-giver' of the true
Israel and far greater than Moses ; the Sermon on
the Mount is the flower of which the Decalogue
was the bare seed. But there is no snapping of
the threads connecting the old with the new. Christ
has come, not to destroy, but to fulfil ; not to cancel
the old Law, but to fill it full of a new meaning
and a new spirit quickening it into fresh and active
life. The new Table of the Law for Christians does
not make the two old tables null and void. On the
contrary, it makes them ever so much more binding :
" except your righteousness shall exceed the right-
eousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no
wise enter into the Kingdom of Heaven."
What, then, according to S. Matthew, are the new
principles and rules of the New Law of Christ for
the citizens of His Kingdom ? We can be at no loss
for an answer. S. Matthew has carefully collected
them for us in his groups of discourses. When we
examine them later more closely, we shall see that
a comparison with Mark and Luke reveals a new
element an ecclesiastical factor in S. Matthew.
He constantly interprets our Lord's utterances in
the light of the experience and needs of the Christian
Church of his own generation. For the present,
however, we shall content ourselves with a bare
380 S. Matthew (continued}.
analysis of the Law of the Kingdom as presented
in the Matthaean groups.
Law of the Kingdom.
A. Matth. v., vi., vii. The " Sermon on the
Mount."
(1) The New Law for the citizens of the Kingdom.
Character. In the Beatitudes we have the eight
traits which go to form the character of the members
of the Kingdom of Heaven. In the "Golden Rule"
(v. 44) is struck the key-note of the New Law, and
we at once discover that its ruling principle is the
unfeigned love of a sincere and pure heart, ever
ready to serve others and blot out self.
Conduct. Christ not only teaches that Love, active
Love, is the alpha and omega of His New Law, He
shows us how we can leaven the Old Law with this
new principle and quicken it into life. He takes one
commandment of the old Decalogue after another
and shows us how to keep the old law in the new
way, in spirit and in truth, inwardly as well as out-
wardly, probing beneath the surface of the old
teaching on murder, adultery and so forth, right to
the heart of the moral ideal there set before us.
(2) The new Law for the visible Kingdom of
Heaven on earth. In S. Matthew, far more than
in S. Mark or S. Luke, the Kingdom of Heaven
approaches the modern idea of the visible Church,
or Society of the members of Christ's Kingdom here
>$. Matthew (continued}. 381
on earth d . In S. Matthew vi. we are told what are
the fundamental principles which should guide the
Church in her life of piety. To obey is better than
sacrifice^ and heart-service is better than any amount
of outward ceremonial. Here again, love unfeigned
is the end of the commandment and the fulfilling
of the Law. A secret and modest goodness of heart
is better than all scrupulous and ostentatious obser-
vance of religious rules. As an object-lesson, Christ
illustrates this principle in the case of alms, fasting
and prayer. The parables at the end of the
" Sermon " prove that creed and life, precept and
practice, must go hand in hand.
B. Chap. x. The ordination and Mission Charge.
In the Sermon on the Mount S. Matthew placed
before us the principles which should guide the
Church in her services. Here we find rules for her
guidance in her missionary-work, the raison d'etre of
her existence. Christ commands his disciples to
begin with the Jews before they go to the Gentiles,
and " as ye go, preach, saying, The Kingdom of
Heaven is at hand." The labourer is worthy of his
hire, and the missionary has the right to demand and
expect the ungrudging hospitality of those amongst
whom, and for whom, he works. Therefore they are
d The ecclesiastical colouring is patent in S. Matthew, e.g. (a) The
custody of the keys (xvi. 19) ; (i>) The famous baptismal formula
(xxviii. 19); (c) The thrice repeated term "Church"
(xvi. 18 ; xviii. 17) are all peculiar to this Gospel.
382 5. Matthew (continued}.
to take nothing with them for their journey. After
giving them these rules for their conduct, Christ
warns them of the persecution and hardships that
await them. He, however, assures them of God's
protection, and that if they are ready to confess
Him before men, to lay down their lives for His
sake, they shall in no wise lose their reward.
In x. 23, S. Matthew reports our Lord as saying :
" Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till
the Son of Man be come."
C. Chap. xiii. The parables of the Kingdom.
These deal with the planting and growth of the
Church. Not all who hear the glad tidings of the
Kingdom, as it is preached among men, have hearts
prepared to receive the good news. Therefore the
Church must expect much of its sowing to yield no
apparent fruit (" Sower "). But we must not judge
results here and now, for it is not in man's power to
say who are good wheat and who are bad tares in
the visible Church. The King is coming speedily,
and He will gather and remove the wicked out of
His Kingdom, so that the righteous alone may reign
with Him (" Tares "). The Church will grow rapidly
and eventually embrace all nations (" Mustard seed"}.
But it is the inward penetrating spirit more than the
outward superficial increase in numbers that betokens
healthy growth and shows that the Gospel of the
Kingdom has struck deep root into human society
(" Leaven "). Men with receptive hearts value the
.S. Mattliew (continued}. 383
glad tidings of the Kingdom as good news of price-
less worth, and are capable of great sacrifices for its
sake (" Hidden Treasure and Pearl of Great Price ").
It is the Church's duty to preach the Gospel of the
Kingdom to good and bad alike, without exception.
The King and His angels will separate the good
from the bad at the Coming of the Son of Man "to
inaugurate His Kingdom (" The Drag-Net ").
D. Chap, xviii. Duty of the members of the King-
dom to weaker brethren.
The King tenderly loves His " little ones." There
are " little ones " in the Kingdom as well as in the
iamily, and the King watches over these weak
babes with a jealous care. Anyone in the Church
who slights or in any way hurts these " little ones "
in the faith, or the " little ones " in character (out-
casts) is a " stumbling-block " and doing untold harm,
impeding " the coming of the Kingdom." We must
deal very gently with the lambs or stray sheep, as
well as with all who sin against ourselves. Charity
is the Law of the Kingdom, and we must do all in
our power to be reconciled with our brother who
offends against us. We should first approach him
privately in a loving spirit ; if this fails, our next
step is to try and effect a reconciliation through our
mutual friends ; as a last resource we must appeal to
the Church to heal the breach. Above all things,
the citizens of the Kingdom should live in a spirit of
unbounded forgiveness one toward another, so that
384 -S. Matthew (continued}.
when the King takes account with His servants on
that Day we may obtain that mercy which we our-
selves have extended to others.
S. Matth. xviii. 17 sqq. represents Christ as making
the Church a supreme court of appeal, with absolute
disciplinary powers. More than this, Christ, Who is
ever present "where two or three are gathered to-
gether in His Name," promises to ratify all the
decisions of His Church, as if the sentence had been
passed by Himself.
E. Chap, xxiii. Why the Kingdom has been taken
away from the false Israel and given to the true
Judaism.
Taken in connection with the parables of the
"wicked husbandmen," and the "King's wedding
feast " (xxi., xxii.), we see in this discourse that
the Jews are outside the Kingdom of Heaven be-
cause they abused or spurned the great privileges
granted them as God's peculiar and chosen people.
In the "Woes," Christ shows that the scribes and
Pharisees display a spirit of pride and self-seeking
diametrically opposed to the unselfish love which
is the note of the citizens of the Kingdom. They
are canting hypocrites, who " say, and do not."
They are exacting towards others but very lenient
to themselves, covetous and ambitious to a degree,
blind leaders of the blind, preachers of a demoralizing
religion, straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel,
^. Matthew (continued}. 385
whited sepulchres outwardly fair but inwardly full of
rottenness, a race of vipers who have stung and killed
the prophets sent to save them. They call them-
selves Moses' representatives, but they have shame-
fully betrayed their trust. Therefore their house is
left unto them desolate, and, at the King's Coming,
how can they escape the damnation of hell ?
F. Chaps, xxiv., xxv. The Coming of the King.
At the beginning of this chapter ( 2), we have
already analysed this great eschatological discourse.
On the appointed " day of the Lord," known only to
the Father, the Son of Man is to come suddenly
like lightning, in His Glory, to judge the world. All
nations will be gathered before the King; He will
gather out the bad, cast them into outer darkness,
and reign with the righteous in His perfect Kingdom.
The greatest stress is laid on the great crisis of
distress preceding the Coming, and the terrible trials
in store for Christians.
Conclusions. In these five discourses S. Matthew
expounds the new Law of the Kingdom, or Church
of God.
He formulates the clear and definite duties of the
individual Christian as to the formation of his char-
acter, his conduct in daily life, his duty to God and
to his neighbour.
For the Apostles, and other ministers of God's
C c
386 5. Mattliew (continued}.
Word, S. Matthew gives us their "breviary" in
Christ's ordination Charge.
For the Church, as a corporate body, he has words
of exhortation, warning and encouragement. S.
Matthew lays particular stress on the Church's mis-
sionary-work, its chief privilege and duty, but he
also gives it clear instructions respecting the proper
performance of its religious services, its disciplinary
powers and its pastoral work. He reminds the
Church of its exalted and authoritative position, its
high functions, the constant presence of God in His
Church, God's promise to ratify its decisions.
By way of warning, S. Matthew faithfully places on
record the causes which have led to the rejection of
the Jewish Church. He also comforts the Church of
God in its present evil days of trial and persecution,
by reminding it that Christ had clearly foretold this
time of trouble. He bids Christians be of good
courage, to watch and be ready, to endure to the
end, for the very trials they deplore are " signs of
the times " pointing to the speedy Return of the
King to gather His own unto Himself.
Thus, in S. Matthew, we already see a fully
organized Christian Church, with canon laws of its
own. The Apostles have plenary absolving and dis-
ciplinary authority. S. Peter's position and authority,
in particular, is almost supreme. S. Matthew displays
the greatest reverence for the person of S. Peter.
e.g. Matth. xvi. 18 : " Thou art Peter, and upon this
S. Matthezv (continued}. 387
rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell
shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee
tlie keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever
thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven ;
and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be
loosed in heaven e ."
It is in S. 'Matthew, again, that we find the first
beginnings of the formularies of the Catholic Church
in the baptismal formula contained in xxviii. 19 :
" teach all nations, baptising them in the Name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"
S. Matthew is essentially a " Church " Gospel.
The instinct of the Church in all ages, Roman
Catholic, Protestant, and Nonconformist aHke has
seized upon the first Evangelist's Gospel-story as the
Gospel most to its liking.
Harnack rightly says : "The Gospel of S. Matthew
is not the least a book which reflects the views of one
man or of a small circle. It was compiled for the use
of the Church. It may be called the first liturgical
book of the Christian Church. Hence even the
Gentile Church, as soon as it became a teaching
Church, preferred the Jewish S. Matthew to its own
S. Luke. Wherein lies the strength of S. Matthew ?
S. Matthew also gives us two other new facts about S. Peter:
(a) his walking on the sea (xiv. 28 sqq.) and (/) the tribute-money
incident (xvii. 24 sqq. ). In the latter, the words "for me and thee"
(excluding the other Apostles) seem again to give prominence to
Peter.
388 S. MattJitw (continued}.
It answers all the requirements of the universal
Church, (i) It is an apologetic Gospel with replies
to the opponents of Christianity. (2) It alone has
a distinct interest in teaching as such. (3) S.
Matthew instructs, he proves, but all the while he
keeps the Church well in the foreground " (" Luke
the Physician" 167 sqq.).
TJieology of S. Matthew. Like all Jews, he is essen-
tially practical ; therefore, apart from the ecclesi-
astical colouring, there are few questions of dogma.
S. Matthew is a Gospel of Christian character and
conduct. The first evangelist is a masterly teacher
of morality, who places before us a kind of practical
code for^the guidance of Christians in general.
The only two passages which lay any emphasis
on the atoning significance of our Lord's Death are
incidental rather than fundamental. They merely
prove what has been said more than once before,
that dogmatic theology in Jewish Christianity is
conspicuous by its absence. S. Matthew xx. 28,
" The Son of Man came to minister, and give His
life a ransom for many " : and xxvi. 21, " My blood
of the new testament which is shed for many for
the remission of sins ; " are the only two verses
which reflect anything approaching to the Pauline
system of theology.
Historicity of S. Matthew. S. Matthew is de-
servedly the most valued of the Synoptists by reason
S. MattJicw (continued}. 389
of the excellence of his teaching. From a historical
point of view, however, he is far inferior to S. Mark,
and perhaps of less value than even S. Luke for
a reconstruction of the facts of the Ministry. Many
causes contribute to this defect. Writing from a
particular standpoint, S. Matthew enjoys all the
benefits of his perspective ; at the same time, he
is subject to the limitations it involves. His chief
interest lies in Prophecy and teaching. His pre-
dilection for seeing Old Testament prophecy every-
where makes him frequently diverge from his original
sources of information ; so does the pronounced
didactic tendency of this doctrinal gospel.
S. Matthew is a born teacher. For practical
teaching purposes he naturally classifies his .material
according to its subject-matter, massing together
into groups utterances or parables of our Lord
which are allied in meaning. In this way, he forms
one continuous logical sermon or discourse out of
sayings of Christ which were originally indepen-
dent and separate stories. These artificial groupings
are admirably adapted for di-dactic purposes, but
they dislocate S. Mathew's narrative and the true
chronological order of events. Hence his didac-
tic, apologetic, and ecclesiastical scheme naturally
influences and colours his narrative, and we cannot
trust him historically as we do a S. Mark who has
no such ulterior purposes to serve.
In other ways, S. Matthew is less historical than
S. Mark. Not only does he (a) adapt his narrative
390 S. Matthew (continued'}.
to the ecclesiastical needs of his day ; (b) introduce
editorial changes here and there, correcting his ori-
ginal sources in his zeal to bring them nearer to Old
Testament prophecy ; but (V) he represents the latest
cycle of Apostolic tradition. We see traces of this
in some of the new facts which S. Matthew introduces
into the narrative of the Passion. S. Matthew is
our sole authority for : the dream of Pilate's wife ;
the washing of Pilate's hands ; the appearance of
saints risen from their graves after the death of
Jesus and seen walking in the streets of Jerusalem ;
the story of the Guard at the Tomb and the seal-
ing of the Grave ; the purchase of the potter's field
with Judas' thirty pieces of silver. His new facts
also include the coin in the mouth of the fish,
the walking of S. Peter on the sea, the genealogy
and infancy details. Once more, in the Resur-
rection scene, the " young man " of S. Mark has
become " an angel from heaven " of dazzling bright-
ness, who rolls away the stone, " and for fear
of whom the keepers did shake and fell back as
dead men." The great fear of the women (S. Mark
xvi. 8) has also been toned down into " with fear
and great joy" ; while S. Mark's "neither said they
anything to any man," has now become "and they
did run to bring His disciples word."
Style of S. Matthew. His Greek is rather better
than S. Mark's, but not good. Matthew's style
generally is very prosaic. He has none of the vivid
S. Matthew (continued}. 391
imagery or freshness of colouring, none of the poetry
or feeling of S. Mark's simple naive art or S. Luke's
conscious word-pictures. In a sense, however, Mat-
thew is a skilful artist. He knows well how to
arrange the scattered material of his original sources
in a way to set before his readers a literary whole,
consistent and complete. His narrative may be
deficient in movement and colour but there is a
decided unity of purpose running through it all.
He is, above all else, an apologist.
He has also a strange predilection for the number
seven, a sacred Hebrew number. Thus he gives us
seven petitions in his version of the Lord's Prayer ;
seven parables of the Kingdom ; seven Beatitudes.
The generations from Abraham to Christ are six
times seven ; S. Peter is told to forgive up to
" seventy times seven," &c. (cf. Matth. xii. 45 ;
xxii. 25 ; xv. 3437)-
By whom, and for wJiat readers, was S. Matthew
written ? The internal evidence clearly proves that
the first Gospel was written by a Jew for Jews. For
him, as for them, the Hebrew Scriptures are the final
court of appeal. His one aim is to convince his
fellow-countrymen, out of their own Old Testament,
that Jesus is the Messiah of prophecy. The purely
Jewish mould in which Matthew's great Eschatolo T
gical Discourse is cast also indicates that the author
is a Jew in full sympathy with current Jewish Mes-
sianic expectations. Indeed, throughout the Gospel,
392 .S. Matthew (continued}.
we see that Matthew largely shares the hopes and
antipathies of the Jews. He endorses their belief
in the obligations of the Mosaic Law. Like them,
he is still under the impression that " salvation is
of the Jews," though eager to welcome Gentiles
into the true Israel as proselytes of the Jewish
Christian Church (cf. Matth. x. 5, 6, and xviii. 17 f ).
Date. The fully - organized development of the
Christian Church at the time of the composition of
S. Matthew points to a late date. The references to
the destruction of Jerusalem in the great Eschato-
logical Discourse also prove that this Gospel was
written some years after that event, and the internal
evidence generally supports this view.
In favour of an early date after the Fall of Jeru-
salem is the expression in x. 23 : "Ye shall not have
gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be
come."
On the other hand, the use of the phrase, " up to
this day" (e.g. xxvii. 8; xxviii. 15), and the late
baptismal formula of xxviii. 19 point to a compara-
tively late date. Probably 75-80 A.D. covers all the
facts.
f cf. S. Mark vi. 10, which sets no bounds to the mission of the
Twelve, with S. Matth. x. 5, 6, 23, where it is expressly limited to
the "lost sheep of Israel." cf. also Jesus' words to the Syrophenician
woman in Mark vii. 27, "Let the children first be filled"; with
Matth. xv. 24, " I am not sent but to the lost sheep of Israel." As
a Jew, Matthew still thinks it is only as Jewish proselytes that
Gentiles can enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
S. Matthew (continued}. 393
Recapitulation.
A review of the three Synoptists leaves the im-
pression that S. Mark is the Evangelist who most
truly brings us " back to Christ." His narrative may
look more like an unstudied outline-sketch than
a completed history, but it brings us nearest to the
primitive form of oral tradition, while his simple
statement of fact, without any comment, preaches
Christ better than any amount of theological inter-
pretations. At the same time we cannot possibly
do without S. Luke's Gospel of the Saviour of Sin-
ners or S. Matthew's " Teaching of Jesus."
After all, the instinct of the Church is right in
recognizing one Gospel and not four Gospels. If we
want a complete Portrait of the Christ we must look
to " the Gospel," and not to any individual Gospel
exclusively. S. Mark makes known to us the Christ
" in part," so does S. Matthew, so does S. Luke,
so does S. John. We must unconsciously blend
and combine them if we would gain that complete
portraiture which, through the fourfold Gospel, the
Divine Providence has designed to convey to the
mind of the Church.
Thus only does the record stand four-square to
every wind that blows, solidly built on a bed-rock
foundation that no amount of adverse criticism can
shake. Now as ever, if we will but focus our gaze on
the spirit and substance of " the Gospel " and not on
its letter and minor details, we may safely trust
394 ^- Afiitt/tciv (continued},
a record broad-based upon the willing acceptance of
the primitive Church and endorsed by the witness of
the Holy Spirit in our own hearts.
As we have seen, the bulk (two-thirds, at least)
of the Synoptic Gospel-story goes back to 50 A.D.
and earlier, that is to say, within twenty years of
our Lord's Death. If our analysis of the second
Gospel is correct, it requires no stretch of the
imagination to see in S. Mark the Memoirs of
S. Peter. Similarly, in the common discourse-
material of S. Matthew and S. Luke we have S.
Matthew the Apostle's collection of the sayings of
Jesus. In all probability, it is simply because the
first and third Evangelists enshrined the Logia so
completely in their own work that the Matthsean
collection is lost to us in its original form. There
was no further need for it when its "sayings of
Jesus " were combined in these two Gospels with
the description of our Lord's Ministry as given by
S. Mark. The new work was more complete and
naturally superseded the original Logia.
Therefore in the main portion of the Synoptic
story we have the sketch of the Life of Jesus of
Nazareth, the Portrait of the Son of God even as
the Apostolic eye-witnesses have drawn it. It is
a Portrait of such incomparable moral beauty that
it is the best witness to its own truthfulness.
CHAPTER XX.
S. JOHN INTRODUCTORY THE
PROBLEM STATED.
Argument.
STRIKING contrast between the Fourth and Synoptic
Gospels. Idealization in S. John. Why the author of
S. John omits the Birth, Baptism, Temptation, Trans-
figuration and Agony. His superhuman Christ. Every-
thing and everyone, in this Gospel, subordinated to the
majestic central Figure. All minor details are eliminated.
There is movement but no development in the narrative.
Judaea, and no longer Galilee, is the scene of action. The
scene, incidents and dramatis persona are unfamiliar.
Can this be the work of S. John the Apostle, an eye-
witness? Importance of the question of authorship.
CHAPTER XX.
S. JOHN INTRODUCTORY THE PROBLEM STATED.
ON no other question, probably, has modern criti-
cism been so puzzled and so self-contradictory
in its verdict as on the origin and historical value of
the fourth Gospel. We cannot wonder at it, for the
book itself is a perfect enigma. No other Gospel is
so fresh, natural, simple, so full of charm and sweet-
ness, yet under the semblance of transparent simpli-
city it hides unfathomable depths a . So marvellously
natural and delicate are the Evangelist's touches, his
details are so lifelike that in his pages the past
springs into life, yet we soon discover that our author
reads history as a seer to whom the ideal is the only
real b .
When we pass from the Synoptists to S. John we
are in such a totally different atmosphere that the
contrast could hardly be more complete. We are in
another world. In one point, both John and they
agree. All four Evangelists alike place Christ's
sublime Figure at the very centre of their canvas.
But, in the Synoptists, we feel that the scene is on
a "The still waters run deep, flowing along with the easiest words,
but the profoundest meaning" (Herder],
b "To S. John, history is the invisible translated into the visible"
(Haupf).
398 <S- John Introductory the problem stated.
earth. Earth is our Lord's home, for the moment.
His acts and Life are bounded awhile by our lower
horizon.
In John, on the other hand, we are ever conscious
of Eternity. The Son of God moves in and out
among men even as He does in the other Gospels,
yet He acts and speaks as if He were in Heaven.
He looks upon all things in the calmness of the
perfect and eternal Light. He is altogether glorified,
transfigured. He passes through the midst of men
like a being from another world (cf. Luke iv. 30),
on this earth yet not of it.
If we may be allowed the simile, the portraits in
the Synoptists are photographs, in John they are the
idealized pictures of an impressionist painter. The
Synoptists show us the God-Man as He outwardly
appeared in the Flesh during the three years of His
earthly Ministry among men. The fourth Gospel
has caught the impression of the inner, real, eternal
Christ Whom the Evangelist saw and understood at
the Transfiguration, when our Lord revealed Himself
as He truly is. From that moment, S. John's motto,
like S. Paul's, is : " Though we have known Christ
after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no
more." Therefore, from the very first, in S. John's c
c For the sake of brevity we shall use the term "S. John" to
express the author of the fourth Gospel, though this fact still remains
to be proved. Every student in quest of strong pleas, both external
and internal, in support of the view, which still holds its ground,
that the Fourth Gospel is the actual work of S. John the Apostle,
should read Godet's " S. John's Gospel," also Westcott's (1908),
S. John Introductory tlic problem stated. 399
picture, we see the Christ invested with the aureole
of Divine Messianic splendour.
The Synoptists have told us of " earthly things,"
John tells us of " heavenly things." They have
viewed the Life from without inwards, he views it
from within outwards. Even though their interest
was not purely historical, the Synoptists have used
the historical facts of our Lord's earthly Life as the
bed-rock on which they have built their whole
spiritual edifice. S. John takes no interest at all
in the bare facts of history as such. He interprets
the facts in the light of the eternal ideas which are
the only absolute realities. He lights up these
facts from above and from within, and so brings
out their full and hidden significance d .
It may make our meaning clearer if we turn from
abstract generalizations to concrete instances. We
shall have to dwell on the whole subject again later,
so we need only hint at the main points here.
and Sanday. Godet's is not quite " up to date," and occasionally
rhetorical, but it is still in many ways the best work, and generally
excellent.
d We shall deal more fully later with S. John's idealization, but, to
avoid misunderstanding, we may at once define the term. Every
great historical fact is the expression of some idea which constitutes
its soul and makes it intelligible. Thus we might say that the leading
idea of Luther was to reform the Church. The raying of an idea
across a biography does not impair its historical character or resolve it
into a romance, unless Ike idea is thrust upon the facts and does not
naturally spring from them. S. John's Logos idea, if it is true to fact,
does not make the Fourth Gospel less historical than the other three.
Each of them has its ruling idea, and this feature is not peculiar to
S. John. S. Mark, equally with S. John, is express'y written with
an edifying purpose. Its motto might well be S. John xx. 31.
400 S. John Introductory the problem stated.
(a) In S. John, there is no mention of the Virgin
Birth, nor of Christ's Baptism by the Baptist, no
Temptation, no Transfiguration, no Agony. They
no longer possess their Synoptic significance to one
whose eyes have been opened to see Christ as He is.
Behind or beneath the historical Jesus, S. John sees
the spiritual eternal Christ, the Divine Word, pre-
existent from all eternity, pre-eminent above all that
is in Heaven or in earth.
There is no Virgin Birth, because the " Word was
made Flesh " seems to S. John's mind a far truer and
more adequate expression of the Incarnation than
the Immaculate Conception as given in S. Matthew.
There is no Baptism, for the true Baptism is the
Incarnation of the Word. There is no Temptation,
because John knew that our Lord's description of it
was a symbolical and parabolic word-picture, while
the current material presentation of the scene in
the wilderness conveyed a wrong impression, dero-
gatory to our Lord's Divinity.
In S. John, we have no allusion to one solitary day
of Transfiguration, for he can conceive of no moment
in the Life of Christ when the " Word made Flesh '.'
is not transfigured. There is no Agony, for the only
picture of this spiritual struggle that human pencil
could sketch must needs suggest a weakness and
hesitancy in our Lord incompatible with the com-
plete voluntariness of our Lord's sufferings, and the
dignity and glory that is ever His.
(b] Needless to say, in S. John's Gospel there is
5. JoJin Introductory the problem stated. 40 1
not the slightest trace of such purely human feelings
as S. Mark attributes to our Lord . He is still full
of love and tenderness. On the Cross His heart goes
out in loving care to His Mother, and He weeps at
Lazarus' graveside. But there is now no allusion to
our Lord's anger, no expression of surprise, no in-
ability to work cures as in the Synoptists.
(c) All the characters on John's stage are sub-
ordinated to the majestic Christ. Throughout the
Gospel, Jesus, very God of very God, is the One
and only Figure that really matters. He towers
high above all the rest, and beside Him there is no
other. Round the sublime Figure, everything, every-
body else revolves. All the other actors in the drama
appear, we know not whence, and vanish, we know
not whither, as soon as they have borne their witness
unto Him and served the purpose the author has in
view in introducing them. Our Lord's disciples ever
realize He is their King, and treat Him with the
reverence and awe due to a King. He does not
need the confession of a Peter, any more than He
needed the testimony ofr any man : " for He knew
c Here again, to avoid misconception, we shall anticipate what we
say more fully later. S. John pre-eminently emphasizes our Lord's
humanity. Jesus is " wearied with His journey " (iv. 6) ; troubled in
soul (xii. 27) ; vehemently disturbed in spirit (xiii. 21) ; He groans, is
troubled and weeps (xi. 33 35). He thirsts (xix. 28). He avoids
ludrea, for fear of the Jews who seek to kill Him (vii. i). He says He
will not go yet to the Feast, but eventually goes, "not openly, but as
it were in secret " (vii. 10). Thus S. John makes Christ intensely
human in body, soul and spirit. " The Word 'was made Flesh " in
S. John's Christ.
Dd
402 S. John Introductory the problem stated.
what was in man." All who come near the Christ,
priest, disciples, rulers, crowds, at once recognize His
superhuman greatness. The very soldiers and their
officers, as soon as our Lord tells them, " I am He,"
" go backward, and fall to the ground."
(d) We have none of the limited scenery of the
Synoptic stage. All minor distinctions of Pharisees
and Sadducees, scribes and elders, Herodians,
Galilee, Samaria, Judaea, vanish. There is no room
on the canvas for such details, neither can John see
them. Think of the immensity of John's subject.
" In the beginning was the Word .... all things were
made by Him The Word was made Flesh, and
came unto His own, and His own received Him not."
The Evangelist has to take into his perspective the
whole panorama from Eternity to the year 30 A.D.
and beyond it, for the Life covers all this ground.
Christ is in it all. Naturally, so as to take in his
whole subject, John's standpoint is so distant that
all details are blotted out. He can only focus the
grand outline.
(e) Jesus is ever the same in S. John's picture.
From beginning to end of the Gospel, John's theme
has the stamp of finality impressed upon it ; so his
narrative admits of movement but of no develop-
ment. Christ is known to Himself and acknowledged
by others (i. I 14, 26, 29, 33) as very God of very
God quite as fully in the first chapter of this
Gospel as in Thomas' confession in its very last
verses : " My Lord and my God " (xx. 28). Between
6". Jo/in Introductory the problem stated* 403
these two scenes of the entrance and exit of the
Incarnate Word on our earthly stage, there is no
development in thought or plan in the chief actor in
the drama. While others around Him are gropin-g
in darkness, Christ all along walks in full Light.
He realizes every detail of His universal plan from
the beginning, calmly, from a lofty height, regarding
His earthly Life as one short, if very important, act
in His eternal existence.
(/) Naturally, viewing the Life .from a standpoint
all his own, the whole form and spirit of S. John's
narrative is altogether different from anything to
which we have been accustomed in the other Gospels.
Even when John gives us his facts of our Lord's
Ministry, the course of events does not follow the
Synoptic main lines. The incidents are unfamiliar,
the persons different.
In the Synoptists, Galilee is the scene of our
Lord's Ministry from start to finish. True, it closes
with a brief visit to Jerusalem at the very end of our
Lord's Life, the first and the last He made to the
Holy City. In S. John, we are always in Judaea and
Jerusalem. The Holy City is the proper scene of
action, while Galilee is only an occasional place of
retreat.
The points of contrast with the Synoptists might be
indefinitely multiplied. The actors on John's stage,
Nathanael, Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman and
many others, who are these new people ? Where
are the pithy sayings, the parables, the practical
404 5. John Introductory tlie problem stated.
moral utterances with which we are so familiar in the
other Gospels ? Whence come John's " Discourses
of our Lord," theological meditations strangely new
in style and matter, though occasionally echoing
sayings recorded in the Synoptists? The whole
vocabulary of the fourth Gospel is characteristic.
We are confronted with a complete series of new
words full of symbolic meaning, such as Word, Life*
Light, Truth, World.
When we come to the last great Week, the whole
crisis hinges on a marvellous raising of Lazarus from
the dead of which the Synoptists know nothing. On
the other hand, familiar incidents reappear in such
an entirely new form that we scarcely recognize
them, e.g. the Last Supper is without its Eucharist.
Is it any wonder that scholars ask : Can an
Evangelist so lacking in the historic sense really be
S. John the Apostle, an eye-witness? They admit
that the John who appeared to the learned Sanhe-
drists to be an " unlearned and ignorant man "
(Acts iv. 13) may have become in his old age the
deeply contemplative divine we see him in this
intensely spiritual Gospel. It may be, too, that the
spirit of the Son of Thunder, who wished to flash
down fire from Heaven upon the insolent Samaritans,
may have mellowed later into the sovereign calm of
the Apostle of love. These points they are ready to
grant Their contention is that there is so much
in the fourth Gospel which is strange, unhistorical
6". John Introductory the problem stated. 405
utterly at variance with anything we should expect
HI an Apostolic eye-witness, that the internal evidence
seems altogether against its Johannine authorship.
It rather suggests that we should seek the author
of S. John in some sympathetic Jewish Christian
of a later date, " who has grown up among Greek
surroundings, and has been trained in the philosophy
of Alexandria, a man of thought, and a mystic,
a symbolist and a painter, a character of calm and
simple morality yet burning through and through
with the sacred fire of religious emotion."
This is the problem before us. Did S. John, the
Apostle, write the fourth Gospel, or who is its author ?
The question is one of more than academic or anti-
quarian interest. S. John xxi. 24 expressly states
that this Gospel comes direct from the hand of " the
disciple whom Jesus loved," i.e. an eye-witness of our
Lord's Ministry, an intimate and specially beloved
disciple of the Christ. It is this assurance, in the
main, that makes many readers implicitly trust its
portraiture of the Incarnate Son of God. To
many people, it would seriously detract from the
value of S. John's Gospel if it could be proved, as
so many modern critics allege, that it is the work
of some exceptionally devout but philosophic mystic
of the second century, who wrote long after the facts,
and not as an eye-witness. In their eyes, it would
still be, as it ever must be, a unique, sublime, magni-
ficent and masterly performance, but not authentic
history.
Fortunately, this is a difficulty which does not
406 6". John Introductory the problem stated.
greatly trouble the majority of educated Christians
nowadays. The question of the authorship of S.
John naturally interests them, but the intrinsic value
of the book itself is independent of and far outweighs
the problem of its authorship, which is, perhaps,
insoluble at the present day.
There is one easy way of cutting this Gordian
knot. It is open to anyone to make the simple
assertion that for all Christians, and, indeed, for any
but wilful sceptics, the author's own statement in
S. John xxi. 20, 24 conclusively clinches the whole
question. " Then Peter, turning about, seeth the
disciple whom Jesus loved This is the disciple
which testifieth of these things." What further proof
can we want than the Apostle's own signature ?
Unfortunately, this argument proves a broken reed,
and for the following reasons, among others : (a)
Many books in the Bible profess to be written by
authors who never wrote them, e.g. the Mosaic
books, many of the Psalms, Proverbs. Pseudony-
mity was a recognized and, therefore, perfectly
legitimate device among the ancient Jews, (b)
S. John xxi. does not form part of the original
Gospel. Even Westcott says of this last chapter :
" differences of language, no less than the abruptness
of its introduction and substance, seem to mark it
clearly as an addition to the original narrative d ."
d It is only fair to add that Westcott believes this last chapter
to be S. John's own, only written at a much later date. This view,
however, is open to serious question.
S. John Introductory the problem stated. 407
It is clearly an appendix of a later date, and
probably by another hand.
There is, then, only one course open to us, if we
would solve our problem. As in the other Gospels,
we must examine the external, and, above all, the
internal evidence, and see if these will supply us
with any clues.
CHAPTER XXL
S. JOHN INCONCLUSIVENESS OF THE
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE.
Argument.
EXTERNAL evidence clearly proves the early existence
and recognition of the Fourth Gospel, but is utterly
inconclusive as tp its Apostolic authorship. From 180
A.D. onwards, John, " the beloved disciple of the Lord,"
is named as the author, though even thus early the Alogt
disputed the Apostolic authorship. Before 180 A.D., we
have no evidence on this point. Reasons for suspecting
the commonly accepted tradition. Most modern critics
suspend their judgment or are openly adverse. Papias'
famous piece of evidence, together with Eusebius' com-
ment on it, complicate the problem still further. " John
the Presbyter." Note on "The disciple whom Jesus
loved."
CHAPTER XXI.
S. JOHN INCONCLUSIVENESS OF THE EXTERNAL
EVIDENCE.
IMMENSE pains has been taken to collect the
A external evidence in any way bearing on S. John's
Gospel, and it is admitted on all hands that the
chain of evidence is remarkably complete and strong
so far as it goes. It establishes the existence and
recognition of the fourth Gospel at a very early date
(80 no A.D.) almost beyond the possibility of a
doubt. This is proved on the authority of a large
mass of evidence of an unusually substantial char-
acter, gathered from a large number of second-
century ecclesiastical and other writers.
But it is one thing to prove the early existence
of S. John's Gospel, and quite another to establish
its Apostolic authorship. On this latter point the
external evidence is very thin and slight. Indeed,
there is none forthcoming till 180 A.D.
Apostolic Fathers. The quotations from S. John
in the Apostolic and sub-Apostolic Fathers seem
to be more than mere parallelisms. In Ignatius
the resemblance in words and ideas is often very
striking, while in Polycarp there are at least two
passages which indicate familiarity with Johan-
nine literature, though they may possibly be re-
412 S.John Incojiclusiveness of
ferred to a common " oral tradition " source. For
instance, " Everyone who shall not confess that
Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is Antichrist."
Even Harnack admits the strong resemblance in
many passages of the DidacJie with parallel sections
in S. John.
Justiti Martyr (140 160 A.D.) had read S. John's
Gospel and quotes it. This is nowadays admitted
by Harnack and almost all critics. There is, for in-
stance, the well-known passage in Justin (in 151 A.D.) :
" For Christ also said, Except ye be born again, ye
cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Now,
that it is impossible for those who have once been
born to enter again into their mother's womb, is
manifest to all" (cf. S. John iii. 3, 4). By itself,
this single passage would be inconclusive. It might
easily be a quotation which had reached both " S.
John " and Justin independently from a common
source. It is, however, supported by a very large
number of other Johannine parallels in Justin Justin
says of the Apocalypse, " a man amongst us named
John wrote it a ."
Tatian (173 A.D.) composed a " Harmony of the
Four Gospels." He uses the fourth Gospel as much
as any other, even beginning his book with S. John's
" Prologue." Indeed, he quotes the fourth Gospel
almost in its entirety.
) Bishop of Antioch in 180 A.D., quotes
a The words, " the Apostle," ("one of the Apostles of the Christ,")
after John are supposed by many to be a later addition.
the external evidence. 413
JoJin by name, and gives S. John the epithet "spirit-
bearing," alluding to the Inspiration of his Gospel.
Irenceus (180 A.D.) also quotes John by name ;
so does Clement of Alexandria shortly after him.
Clement states that " John, moved by the Holy
Spirit, wrote a spiritual Gospel on observing that
the things obvious to the senses (ra aajfjLcniKti, the
external facts) had been set forth in the earlier
Gospels."
The Muratorian Fragment (175 200 A.D.), con-
taining the first formal list extant of New Testament
books, includes S. John's Gospel by name. The
author of this Fragment tells us this Gospel was
written by S. John at the request of contemporary
Christians, and with the concurrence of the other
Apostles. The last clause of this statement, how-
ever, has thrown considerable doubt on this piece of
evidence.
The Alogi, a (heretical?) Christian sect (about 180
A.D.), living in Asia Minor, bear full testimony to the
existence of the fourth Gospel, and also to the fact
that in their day it was commonly ascribed to S.
John. They themselves, however, on the ground of
S. John's inconsistency with the Synoptists, denied
its Johannine authorship, as well as that of the Apo-
calypse, and attributed these books to Cerinthus,
a Jewish-Christian Gnostic.
After 1 80 A.D., tradition is unanimous in assigning
the fourth Gospel to " John, the beloved disciple."
It is a remarkable fact, in connexion with the external
414 S. Jo Jin Inconclusiveness of
evidence, that none of the second-century ecclesiastical
writers ever calls John " the Apostle," but invariably
"the disciple b ."
Thus the early existence and recognition of the
fourth Gospel is almost indisputably established, but
the external evidence for its Apostolic authorship is
not strong. We have none at all till 180 A.D., and
the evidence of late ecclesiastical writers of the
second century carries little weight in the matter of
authorship. They were very uncritical, and over-eager
to seize upon any casual piece of evidence supporting
a Gospel's Apostolic claims. Thus we have already
seen that the same authorities who ascribe our Gospel
to S. John assure us that our S. Matthew was written
by the Apostle Matthew, a testimony which is
admitted on all hands to be wrong and of no value.
Now, even if there had been no other grounds for
adopting such a course, the palpable incongruity
between S. John and the Synoptists must sooner or
later have raised the whole question of the Johannine
authorship of the fourth Gospel. It was on this very
plea that the Alogi, in 180 A.D., refused to ascribe it
to S. John the Apostle. The discrepancy is so glaring
that many conservative scholars, in the interest of
b It is possible to lay too much stress on this fact, which is only
in keeping with the title claimed in the Gospel itself by its writer.
The word " Apostle " only occurs once in the fourth Gospel, and then
not in its ordinary sense. The term /taflTjTTjs rov nvpiov is applied by
Papias to all the Apostles, and over and over again by Irenaeus to John
himself; yet Irenseus believed the John who wrote the Fourth Gospel
to be the Apostle himself.
the external evidence. 415
historical truth, feel the greatest hesitancy in accept-
ing the author of S. John as an Apostolic eye-witness.
What still further complicates the problem and
renders it even more difficult to assign the Gospel to
S. John is a well-known passage of Papias. He tells
us that he carefully inquired into what " the elders,
what Andrew or what Peter said (eZ7rei>), or what
Thomas or James, or what John or Matthew, or any
one of the disciples of the Lord ; and what Aristion
and JoJm the Elder (6 TT pea {3v7 epos 'lanivvr)?*), the dis-
ciples of the Lord, say (\eyov<ri) c ."
Here we have a second John, John the Elder (or
Presbyter), a disciple of the Lord, coming upon the
scene. Moreover, the change of tense (" what the
elders (including John} said ; and what Aristion and
Jolm the Elder say ") clearly proves that, at the time
of Papias' writing, the former elders were dead,
while John the Elder and Aristion, two of the
immediate disciples of the Lord, were still living d .
c Why are the Apostles named by Papias in this unnatural order ?
Is it a mere coincidence that S. John i. 40 43 also gives the same
order (i) Andrew (2) Peter (3) Philip? Next, in Papias, comes
Thomas, who plays a prominent part in S. John (xi. 16; xiv. 5;
xx. 24 28 ; cf. xxi. 2). James and John, two of the select three,
come very late in the list. So they do in John xxi. 2, and in the
Fourth Gospel, they are very subordinated, never mentioned by name,
only as " sons of Zebedee."
d It has been ingeniously suggested that, after writing the first
clause, Papias a loose writer, " a man of very small intelligence, as
one may clearly see from his own writings'' (Eusebius) suddenly
recollects that two of the immediate disciples of the Lord, John the
Elder already mentioned and Aristion not an Elder, are not dead but
still alive. He therefore corrects himself and adds: "or (rather),
416 S.John Inconclusiveness of
There is more than this. This statement of Papias
is quoted by Eusebius, who disliked the millenarian
views of the Apocalypse. Possibly on this account
he disbelieved in the Johannine authorship of the
Revelation, and assigned it to this " John the Elder,"
the disciple of the Lord, whom Papias quotes. Euse-
bius drops no hint of his own belief that the Gospel
was written by John the Elder as well. But the
natural inference is to that effect, for the Gospel and
Apocalypse have always, from earliest days, been
commonly accepted as the work of one and the same
author.
Here, as elsewhere, Papias' evidence has been seized
upon as a valuable clue. For reasons already alleged,
the Apostolic authorship of S. John seemed to many
scholars an incredible hypothesis. Why should
Eusebius not be right, they ask, in assigning the
Johannine writings to this John the Elder, the dis-
ciple of the Lord, who lived at Ephesus, and whom
Papias had met and heard ? John the Presbyter,
they maintain, covers all the facts of the fourth
Gospel far better than John the Apostle. He is
a man held in high esteem as the immediate disciple
of the Lord, who has grown up at Ephesus amid
Greek surroundings and culture, and of a later date
than the Apostle. True, ancient tradition has always
associated the name of the Apostle S. John with the
fourth Gospel, but " historical criticism teaches us
what Aristion and John the Elder say." Thus the two Johns would
be one and the same.
tJie external evidence. 417
ever more clearly that many traditional positions
are untenable, and must give place to new and
startling discoveries c ." Tradition, they say, is wrong
in the case of our S. Matthew's Gospel, why not
here ? None of the other Gospels is the work of
an Apostle, though tradition has tried hard to
make us believe that S. Mark is S. Peter's, and
S. Luke S. Paul's Gospel. In the matter of S.
John's Gospel tradition has been more successful,
but is it based on sound foundations ? One can
readily understand how tradition would soon con-
vert "John, the disciple of the Lord," into John
the Apostle of the Lord.
On these grounds, Harnack, and a great many
modern scholars, have adopted Eusebius' conclusion f .
They are convinced that tradition has confused the
Apostle John with John the Presbyter, a dweller at
Ephesus, whose existence is affirmed by Papias. To
this John the Elder, the disciple of the Lord, they
therefore assign the fourth Gospel.
The advocates of the Johannine authorship natu-
e Harnack, " Luke the Physician," Preface vi.
f Eusebius, after stating that Papias mentions the name John twice,
(i) with Peter and the rest of the Apostles, (2) with others who were
not Apostles, calling hirn an Elder, and placing Aristion before him,
adds : "so that even in this way he indicates the truth of the state-
ments of those who have said that there were two who had the same
name in Asia, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus, and that
each is still called a ' tomb of John. ' We ought to attend to these
facts, for it is probable that it was the second John who saw the
Apocalypse which passes under the name of John, unless anyone
wishes to believe that it was thejirst" (H.E. III. 39).
EC
4 1 8 S. Jo/in Inconclusiveness of
\
rally endeavour to disparage and discredit Papias'
evidence on this point. Eusebius speaks of Papias
in strangely contradictory terms. Usually he is, in
Eusebius' eyes, " a man in all respects of the greatest
erudition and well acquainted with the Scriptures g ."
But when Eusebius disagrees with him, Papias be-
comes " a man of exceedingly small intelligence, as
one may infer from his own writings h ."
Conservative critics have seized on the last state-
ment, and promptly called into question Papias'
accuracy in the matter of the two Johns. They
maintain that Papias was evidently a loose and care-
less writer who has spoken of " John the Presbyter "
and " John the Apostle " as if they were two distinct
persons, whereas they are really one and the same.
It should, however, not be overlooked that these
same conservative scholars are more than ready to
accept Papias as a most reliable authority when he
assures us that " Mark was the interpreter of Peter,"
or, "the Apostle Matthew made a collection of the
logiaot the Lord in the Hebrew tongue." We cannot
well follow Eusebius' example and blow hot and cold
with the same breath. The existence of two Johns,
John the Apostle and John the Elder, both " disciples
of the Lord," may now be generally regarded as an
established fact. Few critics are to be found ready
to dispute it at the present day.
8 avrtp TO travra. on t*.a\tff-ra \oyi<araTos. Eus. H.E. III. 36.
k <r<f>6$pa (ruiKpbs &v rbv vovv u>s &v tic ruv auroC \6~ytat> Tf
IT?J/. HI. 39.
the external evidence. 419
To sum up. The external evidence for the early
existence of S. John's Gospel is exceptionally com-
plete, even within the compass of the second century.
This testimony is also drawn from an unusually large
number of most trustworthy authorities from all
quarters. More than this ; there is more than suffi-
cient evidence to establish the fact that, at a very
early date, the conviction of the sacred character of
this Gospel-story was widespread.
On the other hand, it is quite another matter when
we impartially examine the external evidence in sup-
port of the Johannine authorship of the fourth Gospel.
Here candour compels us to admit that the evidence
is very slight ; indeed, there is none in the proper
sense of the word.
All the traditional pieces of evidence converge to
one and the same point : viz. all writers up to the
end of the second century declare the author of the
fourth Gospel to have been "John, the disciple of the
Lord V No one calls him " Apostle " or says that
1 Critics adverse to the Johannine authorship admit that second
century writers declare the author to be " the beloved disciple -who
leaned on Jesus' breast at supper." But they explain this fact away
on two grounds, (a) It is palpably copied from the spurious appendix
(S. John xxi. 20). (3) The conclusion that "the disciple whom Jesus
loved " must be one of the Twelve rests entirely upon the assumption
that the Twelve Apostles alone participated with our Lord in the last
Supper, a highly improbable idea, " entirely based on Markxiv. 17."
It may be well here to collate some of the internal evidence on this
point, though we refer to it again later. Who was the disciple whom
Jesus loved? He was in the place of honour at the last Supper
(xiii. 23). At the Cross, it is to him our Lord confides His mother
(xix. 26). He is S. Peter's companion to the Tomb (xx. 2, 3). In
420 5. John Inconclusivensss, &c.
he was one of the Twelve, till the third century.
From the third century onwards, practically all
writers know the author as John the Apostle, and
ignore John the Elder.
We shall now turn to the internal evidence and see
if it has any light to throw on the points at issue.
Chap. xxi. he is twice a prominent actor (7, 20 sqq.). A tradition has
had time to grow in the Church that " this disciple should not die "
(xxi. 23). If the "other disciple" of xix. 16 is the same, he is
"known unto the high-priest."
Now the only natural inference is that "the beloved disciple" is
(i) one of the Twelve ; (2) one of the specially intimate three. He
cannot be Peter, for Peter is constantly mentioned along ivith him ;
nor James, for he died about 44 A.D., too early for the tradition of his
never dying to have arisen. Thus only John remains.
We must also note that fohn, though one of the three intimate
disciples, is not once named in this Gospel, and only in xxi. 2 are the
"sons of Zebedee " even referred to. This speaks volumes. If
reference to John xxi. is allowed, a similar result follows. This
disciple must be one of the seven named in xxi. 2. Three are
excluded for they are mentioned by name. The choice thus lies
between the two "sons of Zebedee," and "two other disciples,"
not named probably because they are not of the Twelve. Can we
hesitate in our choice?
[Weisse and Sabatier think that John can hardly have written of
himself: "the disciple whom Jesus loved." It lacks humility and
savours of vainglory. Hase more justly remarks : " Weisse did not
understand the joyous pride of being in all humility the object of the
most unmerited love." [cf. S. Paul speaking of himself (2 Cor.
xii. 25.)]
CHAPTER XXII.
S. JOHN A GOSPEL TRANSFIGURED BY
ITS LEADING IDEA:
"THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH."
Argument.
S. JOHN'S leading idea, " The Word was made Flesh,"
the key to the Fourth Gospel. The author is a philo-
sopher-theologian, not a historian. He takes little interest
in pure history or biography ; his aim is something different
and higher. " Truth of idea " (cf. Carlyle's " the poet is
the only seer") an important factor in the writing of Jewish
history. To S. John (a) Truth of idea is more real than
truth of fact ; (b) his main aim is to edify (xx. 31) ; (c}
his Gospel is an epic poem ; (d) he writes to combat
Gnostic and other speculative heresies and uses their own
weapons.
CHAPTER XXII.
S. JOHN A GOSPEL TRANSFIGURED BY ITS
LEADING IDEA: "THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH."
IN dealing with the Synoptists, we have noted that
each Evangelist moulds and arranges the material
at his disposal according to certain leading and
fundamental ideas, peculiar to himself.
The Gospel of S. John is pervaded by one leading
thought, and the opening sentence in this Gospel, as
in the other three, strikes its key-note : " In the
beginning -was the Word" The fundamental con-
ception and object of S. John is ever one and the
same : The Divine Glory of Christ, the Incarnate
Word.
S. John's Prologue thus gives us the standpoint
from which S. John surveys the Life of Christ. He
explains everything that Christ says and does in
terms of what He is. He works from within out-
wards. He asks himself the question : Given the
facts of Christ's Life, how shall we bind them into
unity and read them as an organic whole? He
promptly answers : " The Word was made Flesh."
Here, for John, is the key which fits into all the wards
of the lock, the one principle which harmonizes all
the facts of the Life.
424 S.John a Gospel transfigured by its leading idea :
In other words, S. John approaches the Life of
Christ as a philosopher and theologian, not as a
chronicler. He takes little or no interest in the
events of the Life from a purely historical point of
view. From the outset, his aim is something different
and higher. He has a supreme object in view which
far transcends mere historical accuracy of details.
The facts of the Life of Christ are already perfectly
familiar, household words, to his readers a . He is not
writing a biography. A great life cannot be rendered
by a simple agglomeration of facts, however com-
plete. S. John's wish is to probe to the very soul
of the history of Christ, to give the clue which will
guide men into the full and unspeakable significance
of the words and deeds in the Life of Jesus which
they already know so well. As a means to his end,
S. John is even ready to make a conscious and de-
liberate sacrifice of historical accuracy for higher ends.
In this connexion, Dr. Inge aptly quotes a passage
from Origen's writings : "In one place of his Com-
a Did " S. John " presuppose a knowledge of our Synoptic Gospels?
It has often been noted that the Fourth Gospel is both scrappy, yet,
at times, detailed, e.g. (i) The author introduces facts and characters
in his pages as if they were already well-known, whereas he himself
has told us nothing about them. (2) He is strangely complete and
detailed where the Synoptists are silent. Many scholars still explain
this strange phenomenon on the principle that S. John assumes
a knowledge of the Synoptists and simply fills up their blanks, so that
the two dovetail. Unfortunately, this plausible theory does not cover
the facts. S. John more often contradicts than supplements the
Synoptists. Of course, he was familiar with the oral tradition which
underlies our Synoptists, but the internal evidence proves nothing
more.
"TJie Word was made Flesh" 425
mentary on S. John, Origen says that when the
writers of Holy Scripture were unable to speak
the truth ' at once spiritually and bodily ' (i.e. at once
literally and with a deeper spiritual meaning), it was
their practice to prefer the spiritual to the corporeal :
' the true spiritual meaning being often preserved in
the corporeal falsehood.' "
In this respect, John is the most Jewish of Jews,
so convinced is he that truth of idea is infinitely
more true than truth of fact.
In the eyes of a generation like ours, which insists
on the strictest conformity of statement to actual
fact, this apathy in historical accuracy of detail may
seem a serious indictment, derogatory to S. John,
altogether detracting from his value and credibility
as an Evangelist. Still it may occur to thinking
minds that there is another side to the picture, and
that a S. John and the Jews of old, to whom we often
do less than justice, have much to say in their defence.
Truth is one, but it has many modes of expression.
There is a truth of poetry as well as of prose. Indeed,
poetry is often the only medium of expression for
the highest, noblest, largest truths which are too
deep, subtle and far-reaching to be revealed other-
wise. At certain altitudes, feeling is the surest
guide. The matter-of-fact prosaist defines poetry as
the dreams of a visionary, closely akin to the untruths
of pure fiction. We prefer Carlyle's : " the poet is
the only true seer, the only true historian, inter-
preting events, interpreting the universally visible,
426 S.John a Gospel transfigured by its leading idea :
entirely ///dubitable Revelation of the Author of
this Universe. How can Dryasdust interpret such
things, the dark chaotic dullard, who knows the
meaning of nothing cosmic or noble, nor ever
will know ? Poor wretch, one sees what kind of
meaning he educes from man's history, this long
while past, and has got all the world to believe of
it, along with him." " Unhappy Dryasdust, thrice
unhappy world that takes Dryasdust's reading of
the ways of God V Yes, Carlyle is right. An Isaiah
and a Plato prove that all prophets are seers, all
seers are poets, and history itself at its best is the
daughter of poetry. Say what we will, in spite of,
or rather because of this sacrifice of truth of fact to
truth of idea, there is, to quote Carlyle again :
" a terrible Hebrew veracity in every line of the
Hebrew Bible."
Therefore it is not derogatory to S. John to say
that he is a poet. As Dr. Westcott well puts it :
" This Gospel is in the highest sense a poem, because
it is the simple utterance of a mind which received
into itself most deeply, and reproduced most simply,
absolute truth. The other Gospels are memoirs
because they present the Life of Christ under limited
relations : S. John is a poem because it presents the
Life uniformly in its relation to the Infinite, and
poetry is the power of giving Infinity to things."
In another sense we moderns are apt to misunder-
b " Frederick the Great," I. 14.
" The Word was made Flesh." 427
stand and misjudge Jewish writers. They were more
concerned with making saints than recording bare
historical facts. This comes out in strong relief all
through Old Testament history. Few people now
believe that the biographies of Abraham, Isaac
and Jacob give us the actual facts about these
patriarchs. Tradition supplied the Hebrew biogra-
phers with a slight outline for their sketches of these
Hebrew heroes. They filled in this outline with
details of their own creation so as to present
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as spiritually perfect
types, models for after ages to copy.
In other words, truth, in Hebrew eyes, was not
only truth of idea, but as a corollary flowing from
this, truth was that which edified the heart and
ennobled the character. It was a matter of motive
and character rather than of literal accuracy. This
conception of it was a peculiarly Jewish feature even
in our Lord's day. Romans did not understand it,
any more than we do. When, in answer to our
Lord's words : " for this cause came I into the
world, that I should bear witness unto the Truth.
Every one that is of the Truth heareth My voice,"
Pilate replied, "What is Truth?" he was looking at
Truth, as we do nowadays, in a hard matter-of fact
logical way, and moving in a totally different realm
of thought from that of the Jews.
S. John's Gospel is a poem. His aim is to edify ;
" these (things) are written that ye might believe
that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God " (xx. 31).
42 8 5. Jo Jin a Gospel transfigured by its leading idea :
Truth of idea is more real to him than truth of fact.
Only if we bear these three axioms in mind shall we
understand S. John's Gospel, for a twentieth-century
scientific generation has far less in common with
this Hebrew seer than with the matter-of-fact
Synoptists.
The Synoptists are professedly historical. It suits
their purpose. It suited a S. Mark, a S. Luke, and
a S. Matthew to base the superstructure of their
narrative on the actual events of our Lord's Ministry,
and they were perfectly justified in following that
course. S. John strikes out a new line of his own,
and consciously forsakes the historical method. He
prefers to follow the plan he has mapped out for
himself as best calculated to serve his purpose.
Every Evangelist has a perfect right to deal with
his subject in his own way, and it is not a valid
objection to urge that another has thought fit to
treat it differently. We must judge the artist by
the finished picture. On that alone does he stand
or fall.
We often do less than justice to S. John in
another way. We isolate his Gospel from the time
and place that gave it birth. Every word in it
derives something of its significance from the
moment and locality at which it was spoken.
Whether the author be John the Apostle, or John
the Elder, all scholars admit that, at the time of
writing, he was living amid Greek surroundings and
culture, probably at Ephesus, the meeting-place of
" The Word ivas made Flesh." 429
East and West. The trend of modern critical
opinion also consistently points to the end of the
first century as the date of the composition of
S. John's Gospel.
Here we have the clue to almost everything in
S. John's writings. Christianity was still in its
infancy, and face to face with the gravest dangers
within the Christian Church itself.
In John's day, Christianity had come into close
touch with Greek philosophy and eastern specula-
tion. The questions agitating the minds of Christian
thinkers were now of quite a different type from the
difficulties of S. Paul's or even the Synoptic genera-
tion. Men were no longer interested in the contro-
versies as to circumcision, the obligation of the
Mosaic Law, or any of the old disputes which had
raged thirty years before. Far different were the
controversial topics which were now keenly and
hotly discussed. They were questions of a more
abstract character, more in harmony with the Greek
speculative temper, questions relating above all to
the nature of Christ. These speculations proved the
hotbed of numberless heresies.
There were, for example, the Gnostics. Gnosti-
cism is the child of Christian thought wedded to
Greek philosophy. It drew largely from the
c True, S. Paul had foreseen the advent of speculative heresies.
In Acts xx. 29, 30, he forewarns the elders of the Church of Miletus
and Ephesus that after his "departure" the very heresies with which
S. John has to contend will arise.
43O 6". John a Gospel transfigured by its leading idea :
philosophic systems of Plato and the Stoics, but
it also borrowed from Persian and Oriental re-
ligions. Gnosticism regarded matter as gross and
impure, God as an unknowable Spirit, the body
as the prison of the soul and the source of all
evil. The Gnostic creed is that God and material
beings are poles apart. The only possibility of
communication between them is by a series of in-
termediate " principalities and powers," kinds of
angels, with the " Word of God " at the head of
the hierarchy and second only to God Himself d .
With their idea that matter is impure and the
body the source of all evil, the bare suggestion
of the Incarnation was sacrilege. Therefore they
rejected the teaching that Jesus was born the
Son of God. They maintained that it was only
at His Baptism that the Godhead descended on
Him in the form of a dove, while on the Cross
the Divine Christ flew back into Heaven, being
incapable of suffering. The Gnostics (" they who
know") were so called, because they were puffed
up with an inflated sense of their own superior
knowledge which elevated them far above their
simpler brethren. Knowledge in their system took
the place of " charity " in S. Paul's.
Then there were the Docetists e . They maintained
d cf. Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 32, " The first power, after God, the
Father and Master of all, is the Son, the Word, Who, having been
made flesh in a certain way, became Man " (tj itvo. rpdirov <rapKoiroiri-
6fls &v0piM>iros yeyovtv).
e Early Gnosticism and Docetism have many points of contact.
" The Word was made Flesh." 43 1
that the human form of Christ was a mere phantom,
and not a real body. They denied, in fact, the
humanity of Christ altogether.
The Ebionites, on the other hand, denied Christ's
Divinity and said that He was a mere man.
Nay more, men speculated about God Himself.
He could not possibly be the source of evil. This
was the work of a rival power, the Demiurge, the
creator of matter. Thus we get a return to the
Persian Ormuzd and Ahriman, the God of Light
and the God of Darkness, with the final triumph
of Ormuzd.
Such were the errors S. John had to combat,
and it was to counteract these heresies that he
wrote his Gospel. He fights heretics with their
own weapons. He uses the very language of
Pm'lo f the Gnostic, and by means of his own terms
" Word" " Life" " Light" " Fulness" " only-begotten
Son" overthows Gnostic errors by his magnificent
presentation of the counter-truth. These heretics
had denied that the Man Jesus was born the Son
of God, and S. John says in every possible form of
words, "Jesus is Christ, Christ is Jesus, Jesus is
God, God was made Man, the Word became Flesh.
He who denies that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of
God, is Antichrist."
Is it any wonder, then, that S. John throughout
f Philo was a Jew, not a Christian, but his system lies at the basis
of all Gnosticism.
432 vS\ John a Gospel trans/loured, &c.
the Gospel refuses to look upon the Man Jesus
in any other light than as the Incarnate Word,
very God of very God, or that he consistently
enhances His Divine Majesty? Have we not also
here the key to the striking contrast, the dis-
crepancy between S. John and the Synoptists which
is often so glaring ?
In our next chapter, in dealing with the internal
evidence, we shall see how this leading idea, " The
Word was made Flesh," pervades every verse of
the fourth Gospel.
CHAPTER XXIII.
S. JOHN THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE
EXAMINED.
Ff
Argument.
S. JOHN'S Gospel is pervaded by one fundamental con-
ception : " The Word was made Flesh." Christ is perfect
Man, but perfect God. The Incarnate Word is God from
all eternity, hence (a) the deep impression made by Jesus
on all who come near Him ; (b) Contrasts with the Synop-
tists, e.g. S. John's bare allusions to the Birth, Baptism,
Temptation, Transfiguration and Agony ; (c} the new light
in which S. John regards Miracles ; (d) S. John's treatment
of the " Discourses." Various theories suggested in
explanation of the contrast between S. John's " Discourses
of our Lord " and the Synoptic version of them. S. John
idealizes and spiritualizes the familiar facts of oral tradi-
tion. He assumes a knowledge of our Lord's Life and
Sayings, and brings out their spiritual inner meaning.
Intrinsic value of S. John. The Synoptists are wanted to
supplement spiritual S. John, S. John is needed to interpret
the matter-of-fact Synoptists.
CHAPTER XXIII.
S. JOHN THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE EXAMINED.
\\ 7"E have said that the leading idea of S. John's
* * Gospel is : " The Word was made Flesh." It
has also been pointed out that in John's day, at the
end of the first century, in a Greek land, men all
around him were denying the eternal Godhead of
Jesus. Gnostics made the Divinity "come and go
to Jesus like a bird through the air," descending upon
Him in the form of a dove at His Baptism, flying
back to heaven at His Crucifixion. The Docetists
actually made Christ cry from the Cross : " My God-
head, My Godhead a , why hast Thou forsaken Me ? "
(p. 130 sup.). Ebionites denied the Divinity of Jesus
altogether.
Against such errors John writes his inspired Gospel.
He sees that all these heresies begin and end with
a denial of the eternal Divinity of Christ. Therefore,
in every possible form of words, he asserts that in the
historical Man Jesus dwells the fulness of God. Jesus
is the Word. The Word is God from all eternity.
This Word was clothed in real flesh and blood and,
in the person of Jesus, dwelt among men. The God-
head was in Christ continuously and inseparably
* lit. " My Power, My Power" (ij Swjim /uou).
436 -S. Jo/in The internal evidence examined.
before His Birth, at His Birth, throughout His Life,
on the Cross, at His Resurrection and Ascension.
It is His from all Eternity to all Eternity. Jesus is
not a separate being from God. He and God the
Father are one. He who denies that the Man Jesus
is the Christ, the Son of God, is Antichrist. The
Divine Glory of God is revealed in the Personality,
in the sayings, in the deeds of the Man Jesus, the
Incarnate Word.
This is S. John's whole theme. It remains to
apply it practically, to show by illustrations from his
Gospel how this fundamental conception moulds the
entire arrangement of his material, leaves an unmis-
takable impress upon it, pervades every portion of
his book. We shall take, by way of examples, S.
John's (a] account of the impression made by Jesus
on all who come near Him, (b} his contrasts with the
Synoptists, (c] his miracles, (d) his discourses.
(a) Impression made by Jesus on all who come near
Him. It matters not who come into contact with
Jesus, one and all, in S. John's Gospel, instantaneously
recognize His superhuman Personality and are awed
by it. Not men of one class only, but in every grade
of life, from the outcast to the Sanhedrist, from the
peasant to the Roman governor.
The Baptist exclaims : " Behold the Lamb of God,
which taketh away the
sin of the world " (i. 29).
Natlianael: " Rabbi, Thou art the Son
of God " (i. 49).
S. John The internal evidence examined. 437
The Samaritan woman
The Samaritans
Peter
The people
Tiie blind man
The soldiers
Pilate :
Thomas
: " Is not this the Christ ? "
(iv. 29).
" We have heard Him our-
selves, and know that
this is indeed the Christ,
the Saviour of the world "
(iv. 42).
" We believe and are sure
that Thou art that Christ,
the Son of the living
God " (vi. 69).
" When Christ cometh, will
He do more miracles
than these?" (vii. 31).
" Lord, I believe " (i.e. that
Thou art the " Son of
God ") (ix. 3538).
" I believe that Thou art
the Christ, the Son of
God, Which should come
into the world " (xi. 27).
" As soon as He said, I am
He, they went backward
and fell to the ground "
(xviii. 6).
" I find no fault in Him "
(xix. 6) ; " Whence art
Thou ? " (xix. 9).
" My Lord and my God "
(xx. 28).
43^ 6". John The internal evidence examined.
On the other hand, if S. John is careful to prove
that Jesus is Christ, he is equally at pains to show
that Christ is Jesus. " The Word was made Flesh "
(cf. i John iv. 2, 3 ; 2 John 7, " for many deceivers
are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus
Christ is come in the flesh "). S. John looks upon
the Docetists, equally with Ebionites, as deceivers-
and Antichrists. The real humanity of Jesus Christ
is emphasized in the fourth Gospel : e.g., at the
Samaritan well, Jesus was tired and thirsty (John iv.
6 sqq.). He wept by Lazarus' graveside (xi. 35).
On the Cross He cried out, " I thirst " (xix. 28) b .
(ft) Contrasts with the Synoptists. We have already
seen (p. 400 sqq.) that John omits such critical
events as our Lord's Virgin Birth, Baptism, Tempta-
tion, Transfiguration, Agony, the Institution of the
Eucharist.
These omissions are due to two main reasons :
(a) S. John assumes and knows that these historical
facts are perfectly well known to his readers. Like
the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, S. John, for
the moment, says to them : " Let us cease to speak
of the first principles of Christian doctrine and press
on unto perfection." He wishes, even as S. Paul, to
feed his hearers " with meat, and not with milk."
This is one reason ; here is another : (7;) S. John con-
sidered the ordinary material representations of many
b See fuller details of our Lord's humanity, p. 401 n.
S.John The infernal evidence examined. 439
of these events, in their current form, as derogatory
to the majesty and dignity of the eternal Christ, the
Incarnate Word.
Yet a closer study of the fourth Gospel soon reveals
the fact that S. John is not ignorant of these incidents
in our Lord's Life, nor indifferent to them. For many
of them are actually referred to incidentally in other
parts of his Gospel.
Our Lord's human Birth. The human parentage
of our Lord is passed over in silence. To some
minds, S. John's Incarnation of the Word is difficult
to grasp. They find S. Matthew's or S. Luke's
accounts of the Birth easier to receive. Is it so ?
To thinking men, which is the more adequate expres-
sion of this greatest of all mysteries ? Place the two
side by side : S. Matthew's, " When as His Mother
Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came to-
gether, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost " ;
S. John's : " In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was God ....
and the Word was made Flesh." Which is the easier
of the two to receive ? There have been saintly and
profound Christian intellects who have confessed that
the statement in S. Matthew almost repels them. No
one can say that of S. John's infinitely higher and
truer idea of the Incarnation.
Even in S. John, however, there are hints that he
was well aware of our Lord's human parentage. He
constantly alludes to the Mother of Jesus (e.g. S.
John ii. i, 3, 5, 12 ; vi. 42 ; xix. 25, 26, 27), though
440 S- John The internal evidence examined.
he never mentions her by name. In vii. 42 he also
tells us : " Hath not Scripture said, That Christ
cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of
Bethlehem, where David was ? "
Baptism by John the Baptist, Several good reasons
have been alleged for this omission on the part of an
Evangelist who had such an exalted conception of
the Divine Majesty of Jesus: (i) The true Baptism
is the Baptism of the Incarnation of the Word.
(2) Docetists appealed to the oral-tradition state-
ment of the Holy Spirit's descent upon our Lord at
His Baptism, in the shape of a dove, in support of
their theory that it was only then that the Godhead
came to the Man Jesus. (3) There was an exagger-
ated reverence in many minds for the Baptist, as
S. Luke tells us in the Acts (e.g. xix. I 5). Now
baptism was generally received at the hands of
a Master by his disciples. Many might argue that
Jesus was, after all, only a disciple of the Baptist
whom He followed, and whose work He took up.
The Baptism is significantly hinted at in S. John i.
32, 33 : " John bare record, I saw the Spirit descend-
ing from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon Him.
And I knew Him not ; but He that sent me to bap-
tize with water, the same said unto mej Upon Whom
thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining
on Him, the same is He Which baptizeth with the
Holy Ghost. And I saw, and bare record that this
is the Son of God."
Temptation. In no other way has our Lord's
6". John The internal evidence examined. 441
Teaching so suffered and been misinterpreted as by
converting His word-pictures into bald prose, His
figures of speech into literal facts (e.g. hell-fire). The
Temptation is a case in point. It is one of the most
instructive passages in the New Testament illustrating
the symbolism of the Bible. As Dr. Sanday truly
writes, the three scenes in which the Son of God is
assailed by the Tempter are essentially parabolic.
" The change of place by levitation to the Temple
and the ' exceeding high mountain ' recalls to us
especially the words of Ezekiel (viii. 2, 3) : ' And he
put forth the form of an hand, and took me by a lock
of mine head ; and the Spirit lifted me up between
the earth and the heaven, and brought me in the
visions of God to Jerusalem, to the door of the inner
gate that looketh toward the north.' " c
S. John instinctively felt and history has proved
he was right, that the material presentation of our
Lord's Temptation, current in his day, was wrong
and likely to convey a false impression, derogatory
to our Lord's dignity.
S. John seems to omit altogether any allusion to
the Temptation. Attempts have been made to find
parallels to it in events narrated between the Bap-
tist's testimony to Christ and his imprisonment, the
period within which the Temptation occurred. The
essence of the first temptation lies in our Lord's pos-
session of Divine power, and His refusal to use it for
c "Life of Christ in recent research" p. 28.
442 S. Jo/in The internal evidence examined.
selfish ends. It has been suggested that in S. John's
account (ii.) of the miraculous conversion of water
into wine for the good of others, we have the parallel
to Christ's refusal to turn stones into bread for His
own sake. Similarly in John's record of our Lord's
descent upon the Temple as a reformer (ii. 13), we
are supposed to find the parallel to our Lord's second
temptation : " Cast Thyself down from the pinnacle
of the Temple." Again, in John iv. I we read the
strange words : " When therefore the Lord knew how
the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized
more disciples than John, He left Judcea and departed
again into Galilee" Why this sudden departure for
such a reason ? John vi. 15 suggests an answer. On
the strength of the rumour that a greater than John
the Baptist was among them, the people might take
Him by force, and make Him king. Here, say some
scholars, we have the parallel to the third temptation.
These suggestions, however, are more ingenious
than convincing. True, it would be thoroughly in
keeping with S. John's general method thus to
spiritualize the three temptations and dissociate
them from their original context.
Transfiguration. In S. John's eyes, the whole of
our Lord's Life on earth is a Transfiguration. There
is never a moment in it all when the " Word made
Flesh " is not revealed in the fulness of His Divine
glory. There is, therefore, no occasion for any
reference to a solitary and momentary Trans-
figuration on one particular day only.
S.John The internal evidence examined. 443
Agony. S. John's sublime conception of Christ
forbids him to approach such a scene. The only
picture of it man can draw must needs be poor,
unintelligent, suggestive of weakness and hesitancy
in our Lord. Therefore, S. John shrinks from it.
The idea of a Christ exceedingly sorrowful, afraid
of death, physically exhausted, is repellent to a
S. John. It is utterly incompatible with his con-
ception of the Divine Jesus Who knows beforehand,
and has Himself mapped out, every step of the road
He means to tread.
In John xii. 27 29 we read : " Now is My soul
troubled, and what shall I say ? Father, save Me
from this hour : but for this cause came I nnto this
hour. Father, glorify Thy Name. Then came there
a voice from heaven saying, I have both glorified it,
and will glorify it again."
Here we have the same scene, with the same
conflict of heart, the same prayer to be saved from
this hour. The same, yet how very different. All
trace of weakness or hesitancy is gone. The same
facts are still there, but with an exquisite o/elicacy
of touch, John has transfigured the picture. True,
he has altered the context and deliberately sacrificed
truth of fact to truth of idea, but few will say that
his is not the truer portraiture. We grant that S.
John's pictures are idealized d , in the sense that they
d We speak here of S. John's pictures as idealized, but let us again
(cf. 399 n.) define the word. We look at the portrait of a well-known
friend, an ordinary face we usually think it, yet we see it now lit up
444 S- Jo Jin The internal evidence examined.
are interpreted in the light of an idea, but, if this
idea is true, the ideal is the only real.
Institution of the EucJiarist. In S. John we have
a Last Supper without its Eucharist Can anything
more convincingly prove how thoroughly S. John
takes for granted in his readers a full knowledge of
those very incidents which he himself passes over in
silence ? (see p. 424 n.) A Christian Church without
a weekly or daily Eucharist is a moral impossibility.
Now, why does a celebration of the Eucharist take
place at all, if it be not because from the very begin-
ning Christ was believed to have done a similiar act
the same night in which He was betrayed (cf. i Cor.
xi. 23 sqq.) ? We might as well assume that S. John
does not know of the Lord's Prayer because he
nowhere records it.
As a matter of fact, S. John omits the Institution
of the Eucharist at the Last Supper for the same
reason that he says nothing of the Transfiguration
with a strange beauty. At once we recognize the likeness, and say,
" It is he, only rather idealized." No ! it is the man himself, only the
artist with his keen insight has eyes to see what we see not. To us,
the face is a mask : he has had a vision of the soul breaking through
the outer covering. He has seized the expression at the moment
of the man's inspiration by some soul-stirring thought, aglow with
some deep emotion, lit up by the fire that comes from the individual's
inmost self. This is the man's true self; the ordinary face we see
is his mask. Hence Carlyle's words : " Often I have found a portrait
superior in instruction to half-a-dozen biographies, or rather, I have
found the portrait was a lighted candle, by which the biographies could
for the first time be read, and some human interpretation be made
of them.
6". Jo/in The infernal evidence examined. 445
usually assigned to a particular day. The whole of
the fourth Gospel is sacramental. The wine-miracle
is Eucharistic, so is the feeding of the five thousand.
Is it any wonder that a S. John, who idealizes and
spiritualizes everything, introduces the Institution of
the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord
at the beginning, and not the end of the Ministry ?
These are a few of the more striking contrasts
between S. John and the Synoptists. But it would
be easy to draw up a long list of other incidents in
the fourth Gospel, illustrating S. John's freedom and
independence in his treatment of the oral-tradition
material which he and the Synoptists use in common.
To take only a few instances by way of example,
compare : S. Peter's confession in John vi. 68, with
Matth. xvi. 16, Mark viii. 29, Luke ix. 20. The
healing of the nobleman's son : John iv. 46 sqq. with
Matth. viii. 5 sqq., Luke vii. 2 sqq. The story of the
arrest: John xviii. 4 sqq. with Matth. xxvi. 47 sqq.,
Luke xxii. 47 sqq., Mark xiv. 43 sqq. In each case,
the same characteristic features of differences in details
will be palpably apparent. In every instance the in-
cidents are the same in S. John as in the Synoptists,
but the treatment is so different. More than this,
the motive is always transparent, for every detail of
difference in S. John heightens the dignity of our
Lord as compared with the Synoptic account.
(c] Miracles. These, again, are viewed by S. John
in the light of his glorified conception of the Incarnate
446 S. Jo/in Tke internal evidence examined.
Word. Jesus is no mere Wonder- Worker. Our
Lord's miracles are, to a S. John, only " signs." He
sees in 90 100 A.D. what we have only just dis-
covered in 1900 A.D., that we must reason from
miracles up to Christ, not from Christ down to
miracles. In the presence of a Personality like
Christ, the " Word made Flesh," " by Whom all
things were made, and without Whom was not any-
thing made that was made," the Creator of the
Universe, the Life-giver Who knows the secret of
Life, how can we any longer wonder at the healing
of the sick, the turning of water into wine, the rais-
ing of Lazarus from the grave? All these things at
once cease to be strange. The supernatural becomes
the natural. It is only our limitation of knowledge
that makes us call it supernatural. The Word, " by
Whom all things were made," works with a knowledge
of a great Chapter of which we only know a few
verses or letters here and there. Therefore a S. John,
conscious of the truth of Christ's words, " I and the
Father are one," (S. ]Q\\\\ passim, but cf. x. 30, xiv. 8
sqq. ; xvii. 21, 22) also grasps the meaning of those
other words of His : " The works that I do bear
witness to Me, that the Father hath sent Me " (v. 36 ;
x. 25).
Yet in no other Gospel are so few special miracles
recorded. This may be due to the fact that S. John
assumes they are already well known (cf. xx. 30).
Another reason for their omission is that S. John
evidently attached very little weight to miracles,
S. John The internal evidence examined. 447
except as signs. He was not ignorant of them :
" Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence
of His disciples, which are not written in this book,"
but he does not care to lay the stress on them so
common in his day. He will not give them an
exaggerated value. Hence this Gospel alone places
them on a comparatively low plane, within human
reach, " he that believeth on Me, the works that I
do shall he do also, and greater works than these
shall he do" (xiv. 12).
The miracles recorded by S. John are : the turning
of water into wine ; the healing of the nobleman's
son ; the impotent man at the pool of Bethesda ;
the feeding of 5,000 ; walking upon the waters ;
sight restored to the blind man ; the resurrection
of Lazarus ; the miraculous draught of fishes.
In every single instance, S. John's miracles are
types. At all times, they have been interpreted in
a symbolical and spiritual sense, as well as literally,
by scholars who recognize the symbolism, the spiritual
inner meaning, which pervades S. John's reading of
the Life of Christ. The miracles in this Gospel have
well been called : " acted parables."
According to this Evangelist, our Lord Himself
gives a spiritual and sacramental interpretation to
the feeding of the five thousand : ll / am the Bread
of Life'' In the same manner, our Lord irr this
Gospel spiritualizes Jacob's Ladder (i. 51), the
Temple (ii. 21), the Brazen Serpent (iii. 14).
May we not, then, in this spiritual and symbolic
448 S.John The internal evidence examined.
Gospel, without any stretch of the imagination, inter-
pret the miracles in this wise ? e.g. :
The giving of sight to the blind = "I am the
Light of the World."
The raising of Lazarus = "I am the Resurrection
and the Life."
The miraculous draught of fishes = " Come ye after
Me, and I will make you to become fishers of men "
(S. Mark i. 16, 17).
Similarly, in the turning of water into wine, men
have ever detected a far deeper spiritual meaning
than meets the eye.
A significant feature in S. John, which still further
confirms this view, is the fact that he seldom stops
at the bare mention of the miracles. He shows Christ
going beyond the miracles themselves to something
more important. For instance, the sick man at the
pool, and the " man which was blind from his birth,"
after they are healed, are not allowed to steal away
with the mere restoration of their bodily health.
Christ promptly finds them again and leads them
to higher spiritual blessings still.
(d) Discourses. If ever Evangelist was " spirit-
bearing " (i.e. inspired), we should say it was the
author of S. John. But in his discourses of our Lord
his most fervent admirer and disciple must feel that
S. John is treading on ground where it is hard to
follow him.
We have already seen that, among the ancients,
S, John The internal evidence examined. 449
it was a well-recognized and therefore perfectly legi-
timate literary device for historians to place fictitious
speeches in the mouth of their characters. Thucy-
dides gives us the tenor only of Pericles' funeral
oration, yet he professes to report its actual words.
Similarly, " the great discourses throughout the
Acts are composed by S. Luke " (Harnack 6 ), though
they fairly represent the gist of what was actually
said. At any rate, " he makes S. Peter speak differ-
ently from S. Paul " (Harnack e ). Once more, Plato's
" Socrates " is truer to life and far more historically
real than Xenophon's, though no one can well assert
that Plato wished all to be taken as historical which
he puts into the mouth of Socrates. Many of the
situations are clearly of his own invention. No one
would ever dream of blaming Plato for adopting such
a course. On the contrary, Plato's truth of idea is-
so infinitely more true than Xenophon's truth of fact
thatj we are more than grateful to him for the mag-
nificent Life he has written of his sublime Master
whom he so perfectly understood.
So with S. John, " the Plato of the Twelve." He
knows and understands the true inner Christ as our
Synoptists do not. To him, our Lord is the out-
ward Jesus Whom the Synoptists see, but He is
infinitely more. Indeed it is precisely because
S. John has eyes to see the Christ behind and
beneath the outward Jesus, that he writes a life
e Harnack, "Luke the Physician," p. 129.
450 S.John The internal evidence examined.
of our Lord for all times and all peoples. None
the less, candour compels us to own that S. John,
in the intensity of his love and reverence for his
Divine Master, is zealous overmuch in his version
of our Lord's Discourses. He treats Christ's utter-
ances with too much freedom, and idealizes them
almost beyond recognition f .
The whole Synoptic atmosphere is changed. The
style of our Lord's utterances, the matter of their con-
tents, the tone of thought, the platform, the audience
are all new, totally different from anything with
which we are familiar. The simplicity of our Lord's
gnomic style is gone, the parables have vanished, so
has the plain direct moral teaching &. In the place of
f We are well aware that many will protest against this view as
untrue. We can but refer them to Prof. Burkitt's " Gospel History
and its Transmission,", p. 227 sq., where the case is well argued.
Cf. Westcott, "it is often impossible not to feel that the Evangelist
is in fact commenting on and explaining the testimony which he
records."
* The following 27 passages have been collated in which S. John's
" sayings of Jesus " are said almost to coincide with the Synoptists' :
John ii. i9=Matth. xxvi. 6l, Mark xiv. 58 ; John iii. i8=Mark xvi.
16 ; John iv. 44 = Matth. xiii. 57, Mark vi. 4, Luke iv. 24; John
v. 8 = Matth. ix. 6, Mark ii. 9, Luke v. 24; John vi. 2O = Matth.
xiv. 27, Mark vi. 50. John vi. 35 = Matth. v. 6, Luke vi. 21 ; John
vi. 37 = Matth. xi. 28, 29; John vi. 46 = Matth. xi. 27 ; John xii. 8 =
Matth. xxvi. II ; John xii. 25 = Matth. x. 39, Mark viii. 35, Luke ix.
24; John xii. 27 = Matth. xxvi. 38, Mark xiv. 34; John xiii. 3 =
Matth. xi. 27; John xiii. i6 = Matth. x. 24; John xiii. 2O=Matth.
x. 40; John xiii. 21 = Matth. xxvi. 21 ; John xiii. 38 = Matth. xxvi.
34: John xiv. i8=Matth. xxviii. 20; John xiv. 28 = Mark xiii. 32 ;
John xiv. 31 = Matth. xxvi. 46; John xv. 20= Matth. x. 25 ; John
xv. 21 = Matth. x. 22; John xvi. 32= Matth. xxvi. 31; John xvii. 2
= Matth. xxviii. 18 ; John xviii. n = Matth. xxvi. 52; John xviii. 20
vS. John The internal evidence examined. 45 1
our Lord's pithy sayings and homely illustrations we
have a series of elaborate and systematic theological
meditations or disputations. More than this, in
S. John's discourses the human subjective element
is so apparent that frequently, as Westcott notes,
we are not able to say where our Lord's utterances
end and S. John's own words begin.
Many attempts have been made to get over these
difficulties. Among others, the following reasons
have been advanced in defence of S. John's method
in his report of the Discourses.
(1) Here, as elsewhere, he knows that the sub-
jective element in his discourses will deceive no one.
Our Lord's utterances are perfectly familiar to all
his readers, they are household words in the Christian
Church.
(2) S. John, a deep spiritual thinker, is writing his
Gospel expressly to combat the speculative errors
of heretics of his own day. He fights these false
philosophies with their own weapons, uses their own
vocabulary, and moves in a region of abstract thought
even as they do.
(3) S. John is writing sixty years after the events,
and he can hardly be expected to remember the
exact words of the original sayings. Our Lord's
= Matth. xxvi. 55; John xviii. 37 = Matth. xxvii. II ; John xx. 23
= Matth. xviii. 1 8.
But a comparison of these passages reveals only a spiritual, seldom
SL literal coincidence. If the Synoptists' version is trustworthy, S. John
treats our Lord's utterances very freely, and it is not true that in these
27 sayings the words of S. John and the Synoptists " are almost
identically the same."
45 2 S.John The internal evidence examined.
utterances had sunk deep into his soul at the time.
They are now " memories which have grown with his
growth, and ripened from the seed into the fruit."
He has so lovingly made Christ's words his own,
that he has thoroughly assimilated them, and they
are part and parcel of his very being. He has for-
gotten their letter, but he is steeped in their spirit.
For fifty years and more, he has used our Lord's
sayings in his daily teaching and preaching. All
unconsciously, he has allowed his own meditations
on them to colour the words themselves. Therefore,,
in S. John, we see our Lord's discourses shaped by
years of reflection, illuminated by the experience of
a lifetime, blended with that spiritual interpretation
which is so characteristic of this Evangelist.
Two other pleas have been advanced in support of
the view that our Lord's discourses are historically
true :
(4) The style and matter of the Johannine dis-
courses are new, and for this reason. The discourses
themselves were delivered by our Lord under perfectly
new circumstances, in an environment of which our
Synoptists know nothing. In the Galilean ministry,
which alone is recorded by the Synoptists, our Lord
is addressing simple people who " hear Him gladly"
as a great Prophet. In the Judasan Ministry of
S. John's Gospel, He is speaking to educated Jeru-
salem Jews and learned theologians, born and bred
in the school of the scribes, men who do not welcome
our Lord, like the friendly Galileans, but view Him
S. John The internal evidence examined. 453
with suspicion and hatred as a revolutionary reformer.
Naturally, then, our Lord adapts Himself to His
hearers. In Galilee, His Teaching is simple, homely,
sympathetic. In Judaea, in the presence of learned
but bigoted Jews, He stands on the defensive and
adopts the subtle dialectical methods of His op-
ponents.
This plea is ingenious but, unfortunately, it does
not cover the facts. The one discourse which is
singled out in this very Gospel as a " hard saying "
(vi. 60) is precisely an address which was delivered,
not to Jerusalem scribes or Pharisees, but to
Galilean multitudes (vi. i).
(5) The second plea seems more to the point. It
is this. In Christ's Teaching there were always, it
is alleged, two elements, an exoteric and an esoteric
form of doctrine. The one was popular and prac-
tical, the other more or less mystical. " If I have
told you earthly things and ye believe not, how shall
ye believe if I tell you of heavenly things ? " (John
iii. 12). Naturally, the earthly things (i.e. things
connected with our every day conduct and prac-
tical experience,) would sink into thousands of
hearts and appeal to the general hearer and to
the simple-minded Synoptists. The deeper dis-
courses on heavenly things (i.e. things connected
with the nature of God and His relation to the
human soul,) would, on the other hand, be imperfectly
understood from the first, and fall on soil not ready
to receive such seed. None but minds of deep
454 S. John The internal evidence examined.
spiritual insight would grasp and treasure the full
significance of these utterances. Therefore it is
only a S. John of peculiar depth and intensity of
soul who records them, and only after long medi-
tation, when experience has thrown light upon
them.
But this plausible plea also breaks down. Some
of our Lord's deepest and hardest sayings are pre-
cisely those recorded in the Synoptists, e. g. in
the Sermon on the Mount. To some minds, the
" heavenly things " may seem more impressively
set before us in S- John, but nothing in the fourth
Gospel transcends, if it equals, the sublimity of
S. Matth. xi. 25 30 (cf. S. Luke x. 21 sqq.). The
Synoptists abound in these " heavenly " sayings, and
reveal to us a Christ every whit as sublime in char-
acter and prerogatives as anything in S. John h .
We must seek our clue to the Johannine discourses
elsewhere. We have already likened the Synoptic
h It has often been urged that the Synoptists know nothing of
S. John's: (i) soteriology. In the Synoptists, say these critics, Christ
preaches the Kingdom of God and its righteousness. In S. John,
Christ preaches Himself as our personal Saviour (but see S. Matth.
xi. 25 30, xx. 28, xxvi. 28). (2) John's doctrine of Christ's pre-
existence (but all the Synoptists preach Christ the "Son of God").
(3) John's spiritual eschatology. In the Synoptists, say they, the
Coming of Christ is to be a visible and material Coming, in John it is
a coming of Christ in the Spirit (but see i John ii. 28 ; iii. 2 ; cf. John
xxi. 23). In all these instances, S. John's theology shows a great
advance, a marked development, but these doctrines are all contained
in the germ in the Synoptists, and pronouncedly in S. Paul. (On the
close connection between S. John and S. Paul see Harnack, and
B. W. Bacon especially.)
S.JoJin The internal evidence examined. 455
picture to a photograph, and S. John's to an im-
pressionist portrait. The simile may prove helpful
in this connection. The success of a photograph
depends mainly upon the perfection with which it
will correctly depict upon the plate images of objects
standing at different depths within the photographer's
field of view. The impressionist artist cannot do
this. The physical structure of the eye forbids it.
He has to survey his field, select what he considers
the point of view of chief importance for his purpose,,
enforce that, lay all the emphasis on it, and allow
everything else to fall more or less out of focus in
a kind of blur.
Now S. John throughout his Gospel has concen-
trated his attention on the Divine Glory of the In-
carnate Word and made that his leading line. It is
the one point of view that matters in his eyes, and.
there the result achieved is immeasurably superior to
anything in the Synoptists. His presentation of the
Eternal Christ appeals to all hearts. For century
after century, this masterpiece of extraordinary
intrinsic merit has brought counsel, conviction and
comfort to multitudes. But S. John has been forced
to limit his field of view to attain this supreme end,
and we must not look for the elaboration of detail
in his picture which we are accustomed to find in
the Synoptists. It is not there.
We said in a previous chapter that we must judge
the artist by his finished picture ; on that he stands
or falls. Let us apply that test to S. John.
456 S. John The internal evidence examined.
There is an old tradition, quoted by Clement of
Alexandria and Origen, it is a legend, but it is true
in idea, telling us that "John last, having observed
that the bodily things had been set forth in the
Gospels, and exhorted thereto by his friends, and in-
spired by the Spirit, produced a spiritual Gospel."
In John's day, oral tradition, the New Testament
of the Christian Church, fully recorded all the facts
of the Life of Jesus, and far more completely than do
our four Gospels. S. Paul's Epistles show that even
Gentile Christians in early days were so thoroughly
catechized that they knew the Scriptures generally,
and the facts of the Life of Christ in particular, a
great deal better than we do nowadays. There were
also scores of written historical gospels of varying
value, our three among the number, scattered broad-
cast here and there in various localities. There was
no need to add one more to their number.
What the Christian world did need was some guide
to the full and unspeakable significance of these
familiar facts. Men yearned for some clue to the
profound eternal meaning of the Life of our Lord,
and especially of the sayings of Christ, which were
household words. The teaching of our Lord, His
pithy sayings, His parables, His practical moral
utterances had long since been collected. They were
as well known to his readers as to S. John himself.
But the deeper spring of spiritual thought which
they enclosed, their veiled inner meaning, wanted
bringing out. This was the task S. John set him-
S. John The internal evidence examined. 457
self. Who was so fit to cope with it as he? We
see how admirably he does it in his discourses.
S. John's age was a philosophic age. He lived
among thoughtful Greeks. Their spiritual needs
were more exacting than those of earlier Christian
generations, when a more elementary presentation of
the facts sufficed. No doubt, many of the questions
discussed in John were already being asked in former
days, but only by a few Christians confined to a
comparatively limited circle. Now speculation was
rife and the spirit of Gnosticism was in the air.
The age was ripe for a new presentation of the
Gospel-story which should meet the deepest needs of
its day. The crisis called for a philosopher-theologian
who should voice and interpret the eternal Gospel
truths to living men in their own living language.
On all hands heretics were denying Christ. All
true Christians felt that a full answer to the errors
of these intellectual false teachers was ready to hand
in the Apostolic Gospel-story. But they themselves
lacked the power to express it adequately in words.
The new era cried for a good and great man, a
thinker with clearness of vision and greatness of
soul, who could probe to the heart of things and
overthrow error by his irresistible presentation of
the eternal counter-truths. His witness must be
true. He must " testify that he hath seen " and
speak with inspired authority.
Such a man was " S. John." By Heaven's pre-
appointment, he comes forward as the redeemer of
45$ S.John The internal evidence examined.
his time and to pave the road to Christ for all times
and all peoples. He combats error by exposing its
falsehood, and (testifying that he knows and has
seen) he lays down positive truths in its stead. At
once he instinctively probes to the root of all
spiritual error, and sees its one remedy. He is
convinced that all error proceeds from a wrong
conception, in some shape or form, of the true nature
of Christ. If men could only see Christ rightly in
the true light, see Him as the God He actually is,
it woul.d at once sap the very foundations of error.
' The Word was made Flesh," the Incarnation of
God, this, to a S. John, is the corner-stone of all
faith, the solvent of all unbelief.
! On this central fact, therefore, S. John focuses his
gaze. How is he to develope his theme ? He has
no laboured process to go through, no constructive
scheme to develope. . He falls back on what he
knows best of all, his own personal experience.
" That which we have heard, which we have seen
with our eyes, which we have looked upon and our
hands have handled of the Word of life : that which
we have seen and he'ard declare we unto you 1 "
(cf. John i. 14).
Be the " bosom disciple " whom he may, the author
of S. John is now generally admitted to have been
a " disciple of our Lord," even by the most advanced
1 There is no need of an apology for quoting i S. John. It is
on all hands admitted to be an Appendix to the Gospel, and part
and carcel of it.
S.Jo Jin The internal evidence examined. 459
critics adverse to the Johannine authorship. In this
Gospel the disciple reveals to us the Christ as he,
an eye-witness, knows Him and has seen Him. He
gives us the total impression which our Lord stamped
upon his own mind and heart. He does not argue,
like S. Paul ; he simply bears witness. He con-
vincingly brings the truth home to our hearts by
the plain direct statement of his own knowledge of
Christ, his own personal experience of the God-
Man as he, the " beloved disciple," a deeply-thought-
ful eye-witness, knows Him.
True, the point of view which S. John has deliber-
ately chosen lays his Gospel open to what many may
consider to be two serious objections, (i) He has
concentrated the whole of his attention on one object,
the Personality of Christ. Therefore he sacrifices
everything else as secondary, and the historical facts
fall out of focus and are blurred. (2) More than this,
we have to reckon with another factor in this Portrait
of the Christ as sketched by John. The subjective
element comes in largely. His Gospel is a spiritual
appeal to men's inmost hearts, based on his own
personal experience. We have the presentation of
the Personality of Jesus, it is true, but only as seen
through John's eyes. This is a fair criticism and we
candidly admit its force. But, if we press this argu-
ment home consistently, and drive it to its logical
conclusions, we must eye all Scripture with suspicion.
Throughout the Bible " we have this treasure in
earthen vessels." The human factor peeps through
460 6". John The internal evidence examined.
Bible pages everywhere. Isaiah and the Psalms
are full of the subjective element. As we have
seen again and again in Bible-books, the truth
which they reveal comes to us tinged with the
individuality of the writers. Before reaching us,
the Divine message has passed through the mind
of a David or an Ezekiel, a S. James or a S. Paul.
A subjective element there undoubtedly is in S.
John as in all other inspired writers. No amount
of inspiration can exempt a man from this limita-
tion. Every artist has his predilections. These he
reads into all he sees and introduces them into his
picture. The true artist is he who can combine with
this personal factor the keenest power of seeing
things as they actually are. We believe John has
this divine gift.
The best proof that John's Portrait is true in
itself lies in the unchallengeable fact that the
universal consent of mankind has endorsed his
portraiture of our Lord. In the words of our
Westminster Confession : " our full persuasion and
assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority
of Holy Scripture is from the inward work of
the Holy Spirit bearing witness in our own hearts."
Judged by this test, S. John's witness to Christ bears
God's own stamp and mint-mark.
We may also test its intrinsic value in another
way. Carlyle, in a passage already quoted, says
that " a true portrait is as a lighted candle by which
the biographies of t the man portrayed can for the
5. John The internal evidence examined. 461
first time be read intelligibly, and some human
interpretation be made of them." It is by the light
of the candle of John's Portrait of the Christ that
we can best and most intelligibly read the biogra-
phies of the Christ in the Synoptists. We can ask
for no better proof of the historical truth of John's
work. His ideal is the real.
With S. John's clue to the Personality of Christ
as our guide, " The Word was made Flesh " we
can now for the first time understand how it was
that Jesus exercised such a marvellous power and
attraction over all who came into His Presence, the
hold He had on His generation, the effect He has
had on history. Although they do not give us the
key to it, all the Synoptists agree on the stupendous
impression Christ made, the magnetic influence He
exercised on His contemporaries of all classes and
grades. Here are a few instances taken at random
from the Synoptic pages. A scribe comes to Christ
and says : " Master, I will follow Thee, whithersoever
Thou goest " (Matth. viii. 19). A rich young man
runs, and kneeling says, "Good Master, what shall 1 do
to inherit eternal life ? " (Mark x. 17 = Matth. xix. 16).
The multitudes are convinced He is Elijah or one
of the great Prophets (Mark viii. 28). The Roman
officer at the Cross exclaims, " Truly, this man was
the Son of God " (Mark xv. 39 ; cf. Matth. xxvii. 54).
The scribes and Pharisees are awed by His amazing
Personality, and can only explain it away by ascrib-
ing His Power to Satanic agency (S. Matth. xii. 24).
462 S.John The internal evidence examined.
At sight of His mighty works, the people are amazed
and glorify God saying, " We never saw it on this
fashion" (Mark ii. 12). Herod is certain Christ is
John the Baptist risen from the dead (Mark vi. 16).
The demoniacs everywhere exclaim : " I know Thee
Who Thou art, the Holy One of God " (Mark i. 24 ;
cf. v. 7). The blind man calls out " Jesus, Thou
Son of David, have mercy upon me " (Mark x. 47).
Sinners and outcasts are instinctively drawn to Him,
feeling that He is their friend.
What was there in Jesus to produce such a
tremendous and universal impression ? What was
the secret of Christ's magnetic power? His Per-
sonality and nothing else, not His works, not His
words, but the psychic force within Himself from
which they sprang. Christ's words and works, as
S. John truly says, were but the outward and visible
signs of the inward and spiritual Godhead within.
It was the Divine Fire in Christ's own soul that
" made the hearts of others burn within them as
He spake with them by the way." It was because
His own character was so full of Light and Love
and Life that He could call out all that was best in
others. It was because the fulness of God dwelt in
Him that, consciously or unconsciously, all who came
near Him were inspired by His influence, while those
who opened their hearts to this influence of His
Spirit were conscious of a new birth and a con-
secration.
Now what is this but reading the Synoptists by
S. Jolin The internal evidence examined. 463
the light of S. John's revelation : " The Word was
made Flesh " ? John's Portrait of the Christ is, indeed,
a lighted candle pouring a flood of new light upon
the other three Evangelists. He does more than
this, he brings a key to open many of the closed
doors of history and of our everyday life.
A S. Mark is infinitely more true to historical fact
than a John. Mark's portrait of the Strong Son of
God, immortal Love, is a masterpiece. We cannot
possibly do without it, for it brings us back to the
historical Christ as men saw Him here on earth, the
Christ seen from without inwards. But the spiritually
enlightened " bosom disciple " equally brings us " back
to Christ," the Christ we all want to know, the Christ
seen from within outwards.
We want both the Synoptists and S. John for the
true and complete historical picture of our Lord. In
themselves, they are each perfectly intelligible wholes.
True, but the matter-of-fact Synoptists are needed
to supplement spiritual S. John, while S. John is
wanted to interpret the Synoptists and guide us
into the full significance of their Gospel-story.
CHAPTER XXIV.
S. JOHN DATA FOR SOLUTION OF
PROBLEM: WHO IS ITS AUTHOR?
Hh
A rgument.
Two reasons which enhance the value of S. John's
spiritual Gospel for us to-day Clues to its author fur-
nished by the internal evidence: (i) He is a Jew, (2)
writing for non-Jewish readers. (3) He is familiar with
Palestine (and especially Jerusalem), and its Jewish
customs and institutions. (4) He is evidently an eye-
witness of the Ministry, (5) a man of Greek culture and
a philosopher, with a working knowledge of Philo's phi-
losophy The Philonic element in S. John examined and
explained.
Is tradition right in ascribing this Gospel to S. John the
Apostle? Three objections considered. The solution of
the problem largely resolves itself into the question whether
S. John left Jerusalem and resided at Ephesus or not. The
external evidence on this point is inconclusive. On the
whole, the balance of evidence seems to dip slightly in
favour of tradition. Note on the style of the Fourth
Gospel.
CHAPTER XXIV.
S. JOHN DATA FOR SOLUTION OF PROBLEM :
WHO IS ITS AUTHOR ?
IF the interpretation of the fourth Gospel, as given
in the preceding chapter, be correct, the question
of its authorship is a secondary matter. The value
of the book lies in its intrinsic worth and is indepen-
dent of its author. The Gospel is professedly a
spiritual, not a historical document, and this enhances
its value to us to-day, for two reasons.
(a) The author expressly tells us he is writing to
confirm believers (xx. 31). In John's day, as now,
many there were who envied the first generation of
Christians their great privilege of having seen Christ
in the flesh. They were inclined to regard their own
position in that respect as a loss and a hindrance. In
his Gospel S. John points out to them a better way
of facing the situation. The whole tenor of his
teaching in it is this : " Blessed are they v/hich have
not seen and yet have believed " (xx. 29). As if he
had adopted S. Paul's motto, " Though we have
known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth
know we Him no more," S. John all but ignores the
historical Jesus in the emphasis he lays on the
spiritual Christ. He has taken to heart our Lord's
words to Thomas. John proclaims aloud to his
468 S. John Data for solution of problem :
readers, and through them to us, that it is infinitely
better to see Christ with the eye of the soul than
with the eye of the body. He assures us it is far
better to have a personal knowledge of the Christ
Whom we have not seen, than to have companied
with Him all the time He was on earth or to be able
to describe with the accuracy of an eye-witness every
detail of His Ministry.
(b} Another lesson this spiritual Gospel brings
home to us to-day. To a great many Christians, the
religion of Christ seems to consist mainly of historical
facts. They assure us that if this or that historical
detail in a Gospel is proved to be false, or if the inci-
dents in S. John cannot be made to harmonize with
what is recorded in the Synoptists, then Christianity
is threatened a . The Church of Christ, says S. John
in so many words, is not committed to a Faith
dependent upon a multiplicity of historical incidents,
each of which every man must know and believe to
his soul's health. It is founded on belief in a Person,,
and on nothing else.
On these grounds, the question of the authorship of
S. John becomes a matter of purely academic interest,
and in no way affects its value. A book dealing with
the Gospels would, however, be incomplete without
some discussion of this moot point, and we shall treat
it as briefly as we can.
See esp. "The entangling alliance of History and Religion. >r
Hibbert Journal, Jan. 1907.
Who is its author ? 469
From the Gospel itself the following facts may be
gleaned respecting its author :
1 i ) His intimate knowledge of Scripture argues Jiim
a Jew b .
He sees prophecy fulfilled in Christ's Life in a way
that reminds us forcibly of S. Matthew. There are
a large number of direct quotations from the Old
Testament, and they are close to the original Hebrew,
and not the Greek Septuagint c . In the nineteenth
chapter alone, there are four direct references to
prophecy, viz. xix. 24, 28, 36, 37 ; but they pervade
the whole Gospel. " The Scripture cannot be broken "
(x. 35) is one of the author's keynotes.
(2) He is a Jew, writing- for readers not dwelling
in JewisJi lands.
b Is the author of S. John anti-Jewish ? Yes, decidedly, say e.g.
Reuss, Hilgenfield, Renan, Baur. He speaks of "the Jews" and
"your law" as if Judaism were a foreign and semi-pagan religion.
(1) True, S. John at times does use the term " the Jews'' in a hostile
sense ; but is it not a fact that, throughout, the Jews were hostile to
his Master, Christ ? Besides, 5. John speaks favourably of the Jews,
e.g. i. 47, "an Israelite, indeed, in whom is no guile"; cf. iv. 22,
"salvation is of the Jews"; and "we know what we worship."
(2) In S. John's pages, Christ does not belittle the Law ; e.g. " Is it
not written in your Law .... and the Scripture cannot be broken "
(x. 34, 35), cf. v. 39, 46, 47, where Christ appeals to the Mosaic Law
itself as testifying of Him. John viii. 19, 44; xv. 21, &c., do not
attack Jews or the Jewish religion as such, but only the false and
carnal Judaism, and almost in the very words of the older Jewish
prophets.
c See esp. John vi. 45 (Is. liv. 13); xii. 40 (Is. vi. 10) ; xiii. 18
(Ps. xli. 9) ; xix. 37 (Zech. xii. 10).
47 $" John Data for solution of problem :
He is fully acquainted with Jewish customs and
institutions, but frequently explains them for the
benefit of readers not familiar with them : e.g. " There
were set there six water-pots of stone, after the
manner of the purifying of the Jews" (ii. 6). " How
is it that Thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me,
which am a woman of Samaria ? for the Jews have
no dealings with the Samaritans" (iv. 9). "They
took the Body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes,
as the manner of the Jews is to bury" (cf. i. 41 ; ix.
7; xix. 13, 17).
From vii. 23 27 we see that he was not only
acquainted with the detail that circumcision could
be performed on the Sabbath-day, though no heal-
ing could be done on that day (ix. 14), but that he
also knows all the varying verdicts about Christ,
current among the populace of Jerusalem. He is
aware of the decision of the Jews to expel Christ's
followers from their synagogues (ix. 22) ; the
scruples of the Jews about going into Gentile
houses (xviii. 28) ; the fact that a Rabbi does not
talk to a woman (iv. 27) ; the contempt of Scribes
and Pharisees for those who " know not the Law "
(vii. 49) ; the addition of an eighth day to the Feast
of Tabernacles (vii. 37) ; the selling of oxen and
changing of money in the Temple (ii. 14).
(3) He knows the topograpJiy of Palestine generally ' y
and of Jerusalem in particular.
He displays a personal knowledge of the topo-
Who is its antJior ? 47 1
graphy of the Bethesda pool, with its five porches, by
the sheep-market (v. 2) ; the pool of Siloam (ix. 7) ;.
the Solomon porch of the Temple (x. 23) ; the
Temple - treasury (viii. 20). He knows that the
Temple was forty-six years abuilding, and that it is
" a place whither the Jews always resort " (xviii. 20).
He is acquainted with ynon near Salim (iii. 23) ;
and two Bethanys d (i. 28 R.V.). He is aware that
there is a slope from the high ground on which Cana
stood to Capernaum (ii. 12). He knows Bethany
is "nigh about 15 furlongs" from Jerusalem; that
25 30 furlongs bring you half-way across the Sea
of Galilee (vi. 19, cf. Matt. xiv. 24) ; that the city
Ephraim is near the wilderness (xi. 54) ; that one
must cross the Cedron from Jerusalem to the Mount
of Olives (xviii. i). He speaks of Cana of Galilee
(ii. i) and Bethsaida of Galilee, because he is aware
that there are other places of the same name. The
picture of the Samaritan scenery in Chapter IV. is
so true to life that Renan declares : " Only a Jew
who has often passed the entrance of the valley of
Sichem could have written that."
(4) He is familiar with the various JewisJi Feasts .
The passover, and its customs (ii. 13 ; vi. 4 ; xii. I ;.
xviii. 39) ; the feast of Tabernacles (vii. 2) ; the feast
d This point has been brought against "S. John" as a proof of
topographical ignorance, on the plea that there was only one Bethany.
If there were two Csesareas, two Antiochs, two Canas, two Bethsaidas,
why not two Bethanys ?
e These Jewish Feasts in S. John are a valuable clue. From the
472
. Jo Jin Data for solution of problem :
of Dedication " in the winter " (x. 22). More than
this, John vii. 37, 38, " If any man thirst, let him
come unto Me and drink," uttered " on the last day,
the great day of the Feast of Tabernacles," shows
that our author was familiar with the ceremonial
drawing of water from the pool of Siloam at that
Festival. Similarly, it is not without significance
that Christ's announcement : " I am the Light of the
World," is made to coincide with the Feast of Dedi-
cation, when the illuminations were so brilliant that
it was called the " Feast of Lights V
Up to now, we have drawn our inferences only
Synoptists we should gather that our Lord's Ministry lasted but little
over a year ; from S. John we see it covered three years. The latter
is the more probable. John's key-dates are therefore worth noting :
(Eng. month. \
Approximately. /
(1) John ii. 12, 13, a first Passover, marking the (April.)
inauguration of the Ministry. Jesus went
up to Jerusalem for this Passover.
(2) John v. I, "a feast of the Jews" (Purim). (March.)
Jesus was in Jerusalem.
(3) John vi. 4, a second Passover, which Christ
spent in Galilee, because of Jewish hos-
tility.
(4) John vii. 2, Feast of Tabernacles. Jesus (Oct.)
goes up secretly to Jerusalem.
(5) John x. 22, Feast of Dedication. Jesus is in (Dec. )
Jerusalem.
{6) John xii. I, The third Passover. Jesus is
crucified (xviii. 39).
f It may be urged that these utterances of our Lord are placed
where they are, because these were precisely the occasions when they
were spoken. But we have seen that oral-tradition chronology is
arbitrary and artificial, and on no other point do Evangelists so differ.
Who is its author ? 473
from the indirect witness of the internal evidence of
the Gospel itself, because it is unintentional testimony,
and therefore all the more trustworthy.
If we turn to the direct evidence, our conclusions
are the same. The author speaks of himself anony-
mously, but "the other disciple" of xviii. 15 g is
generally admitted to be the author himself, so is
" the other disciple, whom Jesus loved " of xix. 26,
and xx. 2. From these passages we gather the fol-
lowing facts : The author was (i) presumably one of
the Twelve, and therefore a Jew by birth. (2) He was
personally known to the high-priest, went in with
Jesus into the palace, and it was through his inter-
cession for S. Peter with the door-keeper that Simon
was also allowed to enter the palace. (3) It was to
his care that our Lord from the Cross committed
His Mother. (4) He was an eye-witness of our
Lord's appearances after the Resurrection.
On two occasions in this Gospel (i. 14 ; xix. 35)
its author expressly assures us that he was an eye-
witness, and the indirect internal evidence seems to
bear out his statement. He frequently gives us the
day and the hour when a particular incident occurred
(e.g. i. 39 ; iv. 6 ; iv. 52 ; xix. 14 ; ii. i ; iii. 2). His
picture of the melancholy moods of Thomas and
the simplicity of Nathanael ; his intimate knowledge
of the innermost thoughts, fears, and questionings
of the Twelve, and their constant ignorance of Jesus'
8 v. sup. p. 419 n. xviii. 15 is now questioned by some scholars.
4/4 John Data for solution of problem :
meaning (e.g. ii. 21 ; iv. 33 ; xi. 16; xii. 16 ; xvi. 17) ;
also show clear traces of the eye-witness. In fact
the whole Gospel is so full of minute and precise
details that its author must either have been an eye-
witness or a consummate romancer.
Thus everything in the Gospel points to a Jewish
author who is an eye-witness of our Lord's Ministry,
and a native of Palestine. At any rate, he is inti-
mately acquainted with the Holy Land and especially
Jerusalem.
(5) The author of the Fourth Gospel is a man of
Greek culture and a philosopher.
A Jew philosopher- theologian is rare. The Hebrew
intellectual and moral temperament is too practical
to take any interest in pure philosophy. Semites are
by nature essentially men of action, full of ardour and
passion, with a superhuman power of adaptability.
Hebrew literature fully bears this out. It is the
literature of a people of a passionately emotional
character, subordinating everything to action. The
Jews have produced the finest lyrical poetry and
some of the best moral writings in the world.
They may have no genuine philosophy of their
own, because their intellectual sympathies do not lie
in that direction, yet their literature clearly proves
that "they could an if they would." With a practical
eye on the facts that stare them in the face, their
motto is " do the next thing," the duty that lies
nearest thee. Yet they have at times seen all the
Who is its author ? 475
farther, above and beyond mortal ken, beholding
" unspeakable things which it is not lawful for a man
to utter," e.g. Job and S. Paul.
Always endowed with an immense reserve of
power, acquired through ages of undaunted persist-
ence under hard conditions in the infancy of the
Semitic race, the Hebrew is gifted with a remarkable
faculty of thriving amid strange surroundings and
adapting himself to his environment. If occasion
arises, the Jew has an innate genius of proving him-
self equal to any emergency and developing the most
unexpected traits. Like the great Jew-Apostle, he
can become " all things to all men," and meet even
Greeks on their own philosophic ground.
In the Fourth Gospel we have an extremely inter-
esting and rather singular illustration of these Jewish
traits, (i) S. John has all the passion of a Jew. His
is a great heart, and he yearns to kindle in others the
fire of enthusiasm burning in his own soul. (2) He is
also essentially a man of action, with a practical aim.
His one wish is to build up his hearers in the Faith
(xx. 31). He sees that Gnosticism and all heresy
are built on a lie, the denial of the God-Man Jesus
Christ. He means to expose that lie, and sap the
foundations of error by a simple presentation of the
truth. (3) But he combines with the passionate
ardour and practical aims of the Jew an essentially
un-Jewish characteristic. He has a deep insight
into the heart of things, and the philosophic tone
of thought of the Greek mind. True, he does not
5". John Data for solution oj problem :
see things altogether in the cold "dry light" of
the pure philosopher ; his deepest thoughts throb
with feeling, and make him all the truer " seer."
At certain altitudes of thought, feeling is the surest
guide. A philosopher must also be a poet.
John's deep and yet clear feeling, his practical
aims, the keenness and depth of his power of insight,
the intensity of his nature, all these make him the
creative genius that can express in simple words the
eternal truths which his soul has felt more deeply
and keenly than others. These, too, are the gifts
that make his Gospel-story strike such a responsive
echo in sympathetic hearts.
S. John's Gospel is the first step, and a long step,
towards the Philosophy of Christianity. As we have
seen, it is ultimately based on historical facts, but it
deals almost exclusively with eternal truths. S. John
ignores contingent and temporal matters of fact,
except in so far as they illustrate larger principles
which give them a universal interpretation and bind
them together into an organic whole. We have
already laid so much stress on this feature in the
Fourth Gospel that we need not dwell on it here.
There is, however, more than this. The whole
tone of thought, even the vocabulary of S. John, is
cast in a peculiar mould which seems to suggest that
he was intimately acquainted with the philosophical
terms and ideas of the Alexandrian school of Philo,
and appropriated them.
The Philonic element in S. John. Philo (born
Who is its author ? 477
about 20 B.C.) was an Alexandrian Jew, a cultured
Greek philosopher, and a devoted student of Plato h .
He was not a Christian, as early legends assert, but
a confirmed and devout Hebrew of the Hebrews.
He had to reconcile two creeds in which he firmly
believed, (i) the Inspiration of the Bible, (2) the
truths of Greek philosophy. This he achieved by
wedding Judaism to Greek thought, but he also bor-
rowed largely from Oriental religions. He paved the
way for Gnosticism by teaching, in the language of
Platonic idealism interpreted in the light of Oriental
dualism, that matter is altogether negative and im-
pure, God is absolutely perfect but unknowable,
while the body is the prison of the soul and the
source of all evil.
In his book on the Creation, Philo sets himself
a hard task. As a devout Jew, he has to keep in
sight two facts : (i) a formless chaos (Gen. i. 2),
(2) a God essentially perfect, but so unknowable
that we only know that He is, not what He is.
How is the gulf between the two to be bridged ?
How, in the words of Plato, is the mortal to be woven
into the immortal ?
The devout Philo reads his Bible, and there finds
his clue. In the Old Testament he discovers three
distinct groups of passages clearly indicating that
h Hence the proverb : "either Philo platonizes or Plato philonizes."
In one instance, Philo speaks of " the immortal ideas (AOdvaroi \6yot)
which we (Jews) call angels" and Godet rightly seems to see here
Philo's own acknowledgment of his loan from Plato.
4/8 5. John Data for solution of problem :
there were subordinate fellow-workers with God in
the work of Creation.
(a) In Gen. i. 3, Scripture expressly says that God
created the world through His Word. In Ps. xxxiii.
6, and cxlvii. 15 18, the Word of God is all but
personified for the same creative purpose : " By the
Word of the Lord were the Heavens made."
(&} The Wisdom of God of Prov. viii. 22 sqq. is
still more distinctly personified : " I was set up from
everlasting, or ever the world was. The Lord pos-
sessed Me in the beginning of His way. When
there were no depths, I was brought forth, .... before
the hills was I brought forth, while as yet He had
not made the earth. . . . Then I was by Him, as
one brought up with Him : and I was daily His
delight, rejoicing always before Him " (cf. Job xxviii.
20 sqq.).
(c~) This personification of One Who is in a sense
the same as God, yet distinct, is also clearly seen in
the Angel of the Presence, the Angel of Jehovah, in
and through whom God manifests Himself to men
throughout the Old Testament (e.g. Gen. xvi. 7 14 ;
xviii. I ; xxii. II 15 ; xxxii. 24 30; Exod. iii. 2 ;
Judg. ii. i 4; v. 23 ; vi. II 24; xiii. 3). In Exod.
xxiii. 20 sqq. we read of this Angel of the Presence :
" Mine Angel shall go before thee (23), beware of
Him and obey His voice. ... for My Name is in
Him "(21).
Here, in the Old Testament itself, are three fellow-
workers together with God explicitly mentioned by
Who is its author ? 479
name: (i) The Word of God; (2) the Wisdom of
God ; (3) the Angel of the Presence ; three Beings
identical with Him, yet distinct from Jehovah Himself.
There, for Philo, is the key to the problem of
Creation, for it solves the apparently insoluble
mystery : " How can the mortal be woven into the
immortal ? " God and matter are poles apart, but
the connecting link is now clear to Philo. God
created this material Universe, but without in any
way coming into personal touch with impure and
defiling matter. The Universe is one whole : God
is the meaning of it : but between God and matter
there is a whole series of intermediary agents, sub-
ordinate to Him, through whom He pervades the
Universe and quickens everything into life. At the
head of this hierarchy, and next to God, is " God's
Word," "by Whom God made all things." Under
the Logos or Word come a number of lower agencies,
forming a complete chain in a descending scale of
dignity and authority : " thrones, dominions, princi-
palities, powers," kinds of angels acting as links be-
tween God and matter. One and all of these had their
share, under God, in the work of Creation. Hence
the plural form in Gen. i. 26 : " Let us make man."
Thus the whole Universe is bound together into
a harmonious cosmos. God, the First Cause, comes
first as the source of all things. Next to Him is the
Logos, or Word. He is of the same essence with
God Himself, yet subordinate to Him, as proceeding
from God. In its turn, the Word is the cause of all
beneath it, and so on with the rest.
480 5. John Data for solution of problem :
Now, seeing that the Word is the agent " by
Whom all things were made," it naturally follows,
according to Philo, that "the Word was with God
before all things were made." " In the beginning
was the Word." Similarly, since the Word is part
and parcel of God's essence, yet secondary to Him,
Philo calls the Word " the Son of God " ; His " first-
begotten Son " ; " the image and likeness of God " ;
the " fulness of God."
In Philo's writings we read that the Word dwells
in Heaven, but also in the souls of men. He is
eternal. All power and knowledge is given unto Him,
and He reveals God unto men. He is ever at work.
He instructs, reproves, purifies men. He is free from
all taint of sin. He is High-Priest towards God, and
Paraclete or Comforter to men ; the source of all
joy and peace ; the Bridegroom, Guide, Shepherd,
Physician. The Logos is also constantly spoken of
as : The Light, the Life, the Truth ; the cause of
our oneness with God and with one another. He is
the giver of the Heavenly Bread.
Sometimes Philo speaks of the Word as if
He were a Person, at other times as if He were
not a Person, and he often vacillates between the
two.
Thus there clearly exist the most striking points
of likeness between Philo's and S. John's " Word V
1 "Word," as a title of Christ, is found in the three Johannine
writings, and in them only in the N.T. (e.g. John i. I ; I John i. I ;
Rev. xix. 13). This fact in itself is a strong connecting link between
them.
Who is its author ? 48 r
We may draw the link between Philo and John
still closer by noting two other main features in Philo,
(a) P kilo's love of allegory and symbolism. Follow-
ing in the steps of Jewish rabbis, Philo gives the
reins to his imagination in his interpretation of
Scripture. The anthropomorphism of the Bible
repels him. He eliminates it by teaching that all
Scripture has a lower or literal meaning and a higher
or allegorical interpretation. Thus Abram leaving
Haran for the Promised Land is a symbol of the
soul imprisoned in the body seeking for reunion
with God. Adam is the figure of our carnal nature,.
Egypt the emblem of our bodily prison, Canaan
the type of the enfranchised soul. Similarly, when
Jacob says : " with my staff I passed over this Jordan,"
Philo remarks that it would be a poor thing to take
the words literally. Jordan typifies all that is
material and base, the "staff" stands as an emblem
of discipline, and Jacob's meaning is that by keeping
his body in subjection he has won the mastery over
his lower nature.
According to Philo, it is the task of wisdom to-
penetrate through the husk of the letter of the Bible
to the kernel of its secret inner meaning. All details
must be spiritualized, especially if anything in Scrip-
ture appears to be trivial (e.g. Sarah's laughter) or
derogatory to God (e.g. His eating a meal in Abram's
tent).
(b) Pliilo"s predilection for numbers. Philo reduces
the symbolism of number to an art, and attaches a,
I i
482 S.John Data for solution of problem :
mystic sacred virtue to the number seven. This
number is the image of God. It is everywhere
imprinted upon Creation. There are seven stars in
the Bear and the Pleiades. There are seven planets,
and seven zones marking the divisions of the sky ;
seven days in the week ; seven parts in the human
head (two eyes, two ears, two nostrils, one mouth).
It would be idle to deny the patent fact that there
is the closest affinity, in many respects, between
Philo and S. John. John's phraseology, symbolism
and spiritualizing of historical details all betray a
familiarity with Philonic conceptions.
On the other hand, Philo's and John's Logos-
creeds are as wide apart as light and darkness.
Philo's doctrine of God starts from the idea that
God is a Being of Whom we can know absolutely
nothing. We can only say that He is not like
anything we can conceive, for to predicate any
quality of God would be to reduce Him to the
sphere of beings like ourselves. We are thus left
with a thin, lifeless, philosophic conception of God,
mostly unintelligible.
So it is with Philo's terms " Word, Light, Life," and
so forth. Philo is so vague and self-contradictory in
his definition of them that we have but the faintest
conception of what he really means. At times we
fancy that it is only a primitive and picturesque way
of describing what we should now call the laws of
Nature according to which God rules the universe.
Who is its author ? 483
At other times Philo's " logoi " or " words " seem
to be nothing but Plato's Ideas in a new and
more dramatic form. It is all a weird medley of
mysticism, symbolism, Scripture, Platonic philosophy
and Oriental dualism. We are moving in a world
peopled with beings which evaporate into thin misty
abstractions and dead philosophical generalisations
as soon as we approach them.
S. John takes these dead things, breathes life into
them, and they stand before us as real, living, inspir-
ing truths.
We need only instance one fact to show how
utterly unlike is S. John's " Word" to Philo's "Logos."
In S. John we read ; " the Word was made Flesh."
Philo would have stared aghast at the bare sugges-
tion of such an idea. In his eyes, matter was gross
and impure, while the body was the source of all
evil. S. John's " Incarnation of the Word," embody-
ing the Logos in negative and impure matter, would
have seemed to him nothing short of blasphemy and
sacrilege.
To sum up. S. John uses the expression Logos,
and many other Philonic terms, because Philonism
was in the air in his day. The " Word " of Philo
admirably suited S. John's purpose as a vehicle to
convey his leading idea : " I (Christ) and the Father
are one."
S. John was probably not well versed in Philo's
philosophy, but it was as much in the minds and
mouths of thinking men of that generation as *' Evo-
484 <S. John Data for soltrtion of problem :
lution " nowadays. Even as we naturally avail our-
selves of such rich and suggestive phrases as " natural
selection," " survival of the fittest," " adaptation to
environment," "struggle for existence," &c., without
necessarily subscribing to Evolutionism as commonly
interpreted, so it is with John's use of Philonic
phraseology. He found the Philonic terms " Word,"
"Life," "Light," "Truth," "World," household
words among his Greek contemporaries and neigh-
bours. Like a wise teacher, he availed himself of
this material ready to hand, admirably adapted to
his purpose, and turned its clay into gold.
We therefore gather the following facts from the
indirect testimony of the internal evidence of the
Fourth Gospel. Its author is a Jew familiar with
Palestine and its institutions. He is apparently
writing for non-Jewish readers. He is also a philo-
sopher-theologian with a good working knowledge
of the Alexandrian philosophy of Philo.
If we add to this indirect evidence the testimony
which the author bears to himself in this Gospel, we
obtain other valuable clues as to his identity. He
professes to be an eye-witness of our Lord's Ministry
and a personal disciple of our Lord (i. 14, xix. 35).
He also seems to speak of himself as " the disciple
whom Jesus loved."
Indeed, a further step forwards is permissible.
Lightfoot, Westcott, and Sanday are convinced that
the las chapter of S. John is by the same hand as
W/to is its author? 485
the rest of the Gospel, though added at a later date.
If this point be conceded, the author in John xxi.
makes a direct claim to be " the disciple whom Jesus
loved, which also leaned on His breast at supper."
The majority of critics, however, are not prepared
to go so far as these three eminent scholars. They
are of opinion that the present form of the Gospel
has been reached after an editing process, and that
the last chapter, or Appendix, belongs to the period
of final revision and recasting of the Johannine
writings. Even if this be so, S. John xxi. contri-
butes external evidence of the first rank and value.
It is a ratification of the Gospel and a valuable testi-
mony to its Apostolic authorship by an editor who
cannot well be separated by more than thirty years
or so from the date of the original composition of
S. John.
Who, then, is this Jewish philosophic eye-witness,
familiar with Palestine, a disciple of our Lord, writing
for non- Jewish readers ?
Tradition unanimously replies: S. John the Apostle.
Is there anything in the Gospel itself, or in the Jo-
hannine writings generally, inconsistent with this
traditional view ?
Many critics answer : Yes, there is a great deal in
the internal evidence which forbids us to ascribe the
Fourth Gospel to S. John. Tradition, in this matter,
is wrong, for the following reasons amongst others :
(#) John, son of Zebedee, was not a man of suffi-
-cient culture to write such a Gospel.
486 vS". John Data for sohition of problem :
(b] John, the " Son of Thunder/' can hardly be the
author of this Gospel of Love.
(c) It is inconceivable that the Fourth Gospel and
the Apocalypse can come from the same hand. (See
Appendix}.
These objections look formidable, yet they are not
unanswerable. But before we approach them, there
is one preliminary question S. John's residence in
Ephesus which claims our attention. The main
point at issue hinges on it to a great extent.
The upholders of the Johannine authorship labour
under a great disadvantage. To begin with, the
whole burden of proof lies with them. They are
compelled to prove that their hypothesis covers all
the facts, while their critics have merely to point out
that it fails to cover satisfactorily some of the facts,
and it is much easier to point out flaws in a general
statement than to establish a principle universally.
But there is more than this. Our knowledge of S.
John the Apostle is so slight that we have not suffi-
cient data to enable us to rebut the pleas brought
forward by the opposite side. The evidence bearing
on S. John's later biography that can be brought into
court seldom amounts to absolute certainty, only to
great probability.
Outside the Gospel-story, very little is known of
John, the son of Zebedee. Soon after Pentecost his
name disappears entirely from the Acts. What be-
came of him ? We are told by ecclesiastical writers
that he lived to a very advanced age. Did he
WJio is its autJior ? 487
remain in Jerusalem ? If so, why is he not men-
tioned in the Acts after the opening chapters ? Did
he leave Jerusalem, as tradition asserts, and, after
a short interval, take up his residence permanently
in Ephesus, one of the centres of Greek culture ?
If S. John never left Jerusalem, it becomes all but
a moral impossibility for him to have composed the
Fourth Gospel, while the Apocalypse is precisely the
kind of book we should a priori expect him to have
written.
On the other hand, if S. John dwelt for any con-
siderable length of time at Ephesus, his residence in
that cultured Greek city might fully account for the
great development in his character. It would also
satisfactorily explain the breadth of mental horizon
so apparent in the author of the Fourth Gospel.
We have seen that a Jew is by nature remarkably
adaptive. He evolves new and unexpected traits in
response to new surroundings. Now a prolonged
stay in Ephesus would in itself be a liberal educa-
tion. Such a sojourn in the broadening light of
Greek culture could easily transfigure the son of
Zebedee into the S. John of the Fourth Gospel, even
as his travels contributed largely to the transfiguration
of Saul the bigoted persecutor into S. Paul the most
liberal-minded and cosmopolitan of Christians. His
conversion alone would never have given S. Paul his
width and attractiveness. S. James was a confirmed
Christian, yet his Christianity left him bigoted
and narrow all his days. Is it a mere freak of fancy
488 6". John Data for solution of problem :
to suppose that it was mainly by reason of the fact
of his never leaving Jerusalem after the Ascension
that S. James remained so extremely Jewish in his
views to his life's end ?
True, in our estimate of the character of the
Apostles, too much emphasis may easily be laid on
the power of environment, and far too little weight
attached to the man's own personality or to the
work of the Holy Spirit in his heart. Few, however,
will be ready to deny that a S. Paul's character was
immensely influenced and enlarged by his travels.
Living in daily contact with the rich culture of
Greek cities, and learning the thoughts of many
men, it was impossible for S. Paul to view things
from the limited Jewish standpoint of a S. James
whose thoughts were full of Jerusalem and Jerusalem
alone.
If S. Paul owes so much of his liberal comprehen-
siveness to his travels, why may not a similar cause
produce a similar effect in a son of Zebedee ? His
prolonged stay in Ephesus would be more than
enough to mellow the stern Boanerges into the
Apostle of love, even as it was largely his Greek
environment that enabled S. Paul to write I Cor. xiii.,
that magnificent Psalm on charity. S. John's resi-
dence in Ephesus, again, would also go far to convert
the narrow Jewish writer of the Apocalypse into
.the broad-minded author of the Fourth Gospel.
This is why so much hangs on the answer to the
question : Did S. John dwell at Ephesus for any
Who is its author ? 489
considerable length of time, or did he not ? Even if
this question is settled in the affirmative, it by no
means rebuts all the arguments on the other side,
neither does it establish the Johannine authorship on
a foundation that cannot be shaken. On the other
hand, unless S. John made a prolonged stay in some
centre of Greek culture, he can hardly have written
the Gospel traditionally ascribed to him.
Thus, by a kind of tacit consent on both sides, the
point at issue is now generally reduced to a very
small compass. It resolves itself into the question
whether S. John left Jerusalem and resided among
Greeks or not.
The upholders of the traditional view rely mainly
on the evidence of Irenaeus, Polycrates and espe-
cially Polycarp, in support of their contention that
S. John resided very many years at Ephesus.
Irenczus (180 A.D.) says that John "the disciple of
the Lord, which leaned upon Jesus' breast " lived up
to the time of Trajan J (emperor 98 117 A.D.) and
published his Gospel in Ephesus \ He adds that
he wrote the Apocalypse under Domitian, towards
the end of his reign (emperor Si 96 A.D.). It is
generally admitted that Irenaeus- identifies the " dis-
ciple whom Jesus loved " with John the Apostle.
Polycrates (circ. 190 A.D.), Bishop of Ephesus, says
that John worked in Ephesus and was buried there.
He names among the pillars of the Church who lie
buried in Asia Minor, Philip the Apostle (whose
virgin-daughters he mentions) ; John the " witness "
J H.E. III. 23. 3 ; Iren. III. I. i (Eus. V. 8. 4).
490 vS. John Data for solution of problem :
and " teacher," " the disciple who leaned upon the
breast of the Lord," and " was made a priest
wearing the sacerdotal plate k "; also* Polycarp, to-
gether with many others of lesser note.
From our knowledge of Irenaeus and Polycrates,
there is only one natural interpretation of which
their words are capable. They were personally
convinced that John had worked as a minister of the
Word at Ephesus. The statement of Polycrates in
particular should carry special weight, for he was in
a position to speak with a full knowledge of the
facts. He was himself Bishop of Ephesus, and
65 years old at the time of giving the evidence just
quoted ; that is to say, he belonged to the genera-
tion immediately succeeding S. John. His memory
would hardly play him false after such a short
interval.
But we must not overstate our case. We should
like above all things to establish the Apostolic
authorship of S. John, in which we personally
believe. Yet the critic is a truth seeker, and not
a special pleader. Strong as the evidence of
Irenaeus and Polycrates may seem, it is not so con-
vincing as it appears. The advocates on the other
side remind us that it really helps us not at all. It
only confirms what the direct evidence of the Gospel
and its Appendix have already told us respecting
the personality of the author of S. John. Polycrates
(Eus. V. 24. 3. cf. III. 31. 3). Some translate it : ' who was high-
priest and wore the plate of gold " (i.e. mitre), e.g. Godet and Von
Soden. It implies this.
WIio is its autJior ? 49 1
and Irenaeus both speak of him in the Gospel's own
language as " the disciple of the Lord, which leaned
on His Breast." What is passing strange is that
Polycrates, in his description of him, adds many
other titles, e.g., "witness" (this is also from the
Gospel), " teacher," " high-priest wearing the mitre,"
but not a word is ever said of his greatest title of
all, " Apostle."
Apart from this, say these critics and not without
reason, the testimony of late writers of the second
century must be received with extreme caution in
any question bearing on the Apostolic authorship of
our Gospels. We have seen over and over again how
very eager these ecclesiastical writers are to seize
upon any piece of evidence, however weak, pointing
in that direction. These Fathers confidently assure
us that our S. Matthew is by the Apostle Matthew,
and that S. Peter dictated S. Mark's Gospel and
ratified it. Polycrates himself, in his statement
about S. John, also speaks of the Apostle Philip
and his virgin-daughters, whereas we only know of
the virgin-daughters of Philip the Evangelist.
Therefore they maintain that all the evidence of
Polycrates and Irenseus really proves amounts to
this. There was a current ecclesiastical tradition
at Ephesus that John, "the disciple of the Lord,"
a " witness," " teacher " and " mitred priest V the
man who had written the Gospel and Apocalypse,
lived and died at Ephesus. Papias, in 140 150
1 This is evidently a legendary trait and considerably weakens
Polycrates' evidence.
49 2 $ John Data for solution of problem :
A.D., had told us practically the same facts forty
years before of ''John the Elder?
Polycarp. Let us now turn to Polycarp's evidence.
He was Bishop of Smyrna, near Ephesus, and died
about 155 A.D., at the age of 86 ; that is to say, he
was born about 70 A.D. Polycarp is rightly called
an Apostolic Father. How great was his reputation
is best shown by the fury of the heathen and the
Jews in his martyrdom. He was arrested amid
shouts of " This is the teacher of Asia ; this is the
father of Christians ; this is the destroyer of our
gods." His Epistle to the Church of Philippi shows
us how fully his apostolic spirit, his wisdom and
justice, must have been recognized even in Mace-
donia. Even the Church at Rome specially honoured
and revered this venerable apostolic Father.
Polycarp's evidence will therefore be of priceless
worth if it is material to the point at issue. We are
indebted to Irenaeus for our information, so we only
have it at second-hand.
This is what Irenaeus writes in a letter addressed
to Florinus :
" I saw you, when I was yet as a boy in Asia Minor, with
Polycarp I could even now point out the place where
the blessed Polycarp sat and spoke, and describe his going out
and his coming in, his manner of life, his personal appearance,
the addresses he delivered to the multitude, how he spoke of
his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the
Lord) and how he recalled their words. And everything that
he had heard from them about the Lord, about His miracles
and His teaching, Polycarp told us, as one who had received
it from those who had seen the Word of Life with their own
eyes, and all this in complete harmony with the Scriptures. To
Who is its autJior? 493
this I then listened, through the mercy of God vouchsafed to
me, with all eagerness, and wrote it not on paper but in my
heart, and still by the grace of God I ever bring it into fresh
remembrance."
Again, in a letter to Victor, Bishop of Rome,
Irenaeus speaks of Polycarp as following the example
of " John, the disciple of the Lord, and the rest of
the Apostles with whom he associated."
In the passage first quoted, Irenaeus is at great
pains to impress upon his readers the deep, vivid,
personal impression Polycarp made on him ; how
eagerly he treasured every word that fell from his
master's lips, and observed his every gesture and
action. It is difficult to know what words would
convey the suggestion that Irenseus distinctly heard
Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna near Ephesus, say that
he had companied with S. John, if these words do
not. The second passage : " Polycarp followed the
example of John, the disciple of the Lord, and the
rest of the Apostles with whom he associated," seems
to set the matter beyond the possibility of a doubt.
Here S. John is evidently identified with the Twelve,
though the title adopted by the Evangelist, " disciple
of the Lord," is naturally still retained.
But, here again, a very strong case is made out
by the other side, rebutting most of this evidence.
We may analyse their counter plea somewhat as
follows :
(i) Residence at EpJiesus. What is there, they ask,
in Polycarp's testimony to prove that he supports the
494 *$" John Data for solution of problem :
theory of S. John's residence, in Ephesus ? All that
Irenaeus, as a boy, heard Polycarp say was that he
was personally acquainted with " John and with
others who had seen the Lord." This does not prove
John's residence in Asia Minor any more than it
establishes S. Peter's or S. James' stay there, or that of
any of the others who had seen the Lord. Are we
to suppose that Polycarp never left Smyrna? We
know he went to Rome, why not to Palestine ?
(2) Identity of Jolin. Polycarp met John. Which
John? Papias assures us that a "John the Elder"
undoubtedly lived near Ephesus. He was a "disciple
of the Lord " and highly esteemed, or Papias would
not have mentioned him in the same breath and on
the same level as the Twelve.
(3) Veracity of Iren<zus. Irenaeus himself tells us
he was a mere boy when he heard Polycarp. There
is not a particle of evidence to show that Irenaeus
stood in any other relationship to Polycarp than that
of a very youthful hearer listening to his sermon like
any other member of a mixed congregation, and at
a very impressionable age. Zealous overmuch,
Irenaeus read more into Polycarp's words than they
actually meant. He himself personally identified
John, the disciple of the Lord, with S. John the
Apostle, but it by no means follows that, when
Polycarp spoke of "John and others who had seen
the Lord," he referred to the Apostle John. We
know how easily the wish is father to the thought.
Irenaeus was persuaded in his own mind that
Wlio is its author ? 495
Polycarp's "John" was the John whom he himself
identified with the author of the Fourth Gospel, and
he consistently adhered to this mistaken opinion all
his life.
This is not mere conjecture. Irenaeus, in another
place, expressly tells us that Papias was a hearer
of the Apostle John. Eusebius, with the book of
Papias open before him, plainly refutes Irenaeus and
proves that Irenaeus has confused John the Apostle
with John the Elder.
(4) Silence of Ignatius. There is an even stronger
argument still. Ignatius, an Apostolic Father, writing
to the Ephesians in the year 115 A.D., makes not the
slightest allusion to S. John's residence in Ephesus,
but calls the Ephesians comrades in faith of S. Paul m .
This is inconceivable if S. John the Apostle was
head of the Ephesian; Church for many years.
Clement of Rome, in his Epistle to the Corinthians,
naturally reminds the Corinthian Church of the
words which their own Apostle S. Paul had spoken
unto them. We are, then, not a little surprised to
find in Ignatius' letter to the Ephesians no hint,
no reference whatever to their own Apostle S. John,
if it be true that the son of Zebedee ever ministered
amongst them.
We have here endeavoured to state the whole
case as fairly, strongly and candidly as even adverse
critics could wish. We must leave it to our readers
m " For Ignatius and Polycarp, Paul, not John, is still the Apostle
of Asia." (Bacon.)
496 .S. John Data for solution of problem :
to draw their own inferences. The evidence is of
a nature which does not admit of dogmatism, and
the question is not likely to be settled beyond
possibility of dispute till new data throw fresh and
stronger light on the subject. At the same time,
if the point be conceded that the. author is "the
disciple whom Jesus loved," still more if he is " the
disciple whom Jesus loved, which leaned upon His
Breast at supper," it seems to require some ingenuity
and special pleading to identify him with " John the
Elder " and not with the Apostle John whom the
words instinctively and naturally suggest.
We have little more to add. The preceding pages
contain practically all we have to say in answer to
the objections of those who reject the Johannine
authorship of the Fourth Gospel on the plea that
the son of Zebedee had neither the learning nor the
temperament of its author. We may, however, be
allowed to add a supplementary note on each of
these points.
(a) Learning. John was of a higher social position
than the other Apostles. His father Zebedee (S.
Mark i. 20) employed hired servants. The request of
his mother that her two sons should have precedence
in Messiah's Kingdom also seems to imply that
she considered their social position gave them that
right. John would therefore be better instructed than
the other disciples. He was a disciple of the Baptist's
even before he joined Jesu.s. We know that he was
Who ts its author ? 497
with our Lord from the very outset of His Ministry,
and one of the select Three. To a man of John's
insight, this was more than a liberal education in
itself.
True, the members of the Sanhedrin perceived
that Peter and John " were unlearned and ignorant
men" (Acts iv. 13). But we have already seen
(p. 98) that a man might have perfect knowledge
of the Scriptures, yet if he had not been " a pupil
of the wise " (i.e. scribes or Rabbis), he was looked
upon as an ignoramus. " This people, who knoweth
not the Law, are cursed " (John vii. 49).
Thus the words of the Jewish rulers mean nothing
more than that John had never attended the lectures
of the scribes or been instructed in their cumbrous
system of scholastic pedantry. This does not cast
the slightest reflection on his intellectual capacity,
perhaps rather the reverse.
(#) Temperament n . The " sons of Zebedee," Boa-
n If the "other disciple" of the Fourth Gospel is the John of the
Synoptists, we see him at once reserved yet ambitious, tender yet
passionate. In " S. John," he only speaks thrice : " Master, where
dwellest Thou ? " (or does Andrew say this ?) (i. 38. ) " Lord, who i&
it?" (xiii. 25.) "It is the Lord" (xxi. 7). In the Synoptists, he
wishes to call down fire on those who welcome not his Master (Luke
ix. 54) ; he forbids a man to work miracles in Christ's Name, because
he has not openly joined his Master (Luke ix. 49) ; he himself wants-
to be nearest his Master's Person in His Kingdom (Mark x. 37). Yet
this strange blend is all the outcome of devoted enthusiasm. He is
intensely jealous for his Master's honour. John's motto was : "All
or nothing: a whole-hearted following of Christ or none at all."
Trap de zcU was the source of his intolerance and ambition (Luke
ix. 49 ; Mark x. 37). Hence it is that our Lord selects John as one
Kk
498 S.John Data for solution of problem :
nerges, " sons of Thunder," are certainly represented
in the Synoptic Gospels as strong natures, full of
zeal and jealous for the honour of our Lord, now
and again apt to allow their pent-up feelings to
burst forth like the sudden eruption of a volcano.
But the strongest natures are precisely those which
are a blend of passionate vehemence and loving
gentleness, only it requires time and care to develope
such a character, and it is often an open question
which of the two traits will gain the mastery. Such
men become either great saints or great sinners. No
doubt S. John had much to learn and to unlearn,
but he was in the best of schools under the best of
Masters.
Besides, S. John, up to the end of his days, was
never the absolutely placid, weakly mild, almost
effeminate character he is commonly pictured. There
was ever a strong dash of sternness in his temperament,
an uncompromising hatred of all that is evil or un-
true. The youth with whom Italian art has made
us familiar, the youth of unearthly beauty, "with
features of almost feminine softness, with the long
bright locks streaming down his neck and a perfectly
.smooth face," is neither the John of the Apocalypse
and the Synoptists, nor of the Fourth Gospel and
the Epistles.
of the Three, though he checks h ; s exaggerated zeal. Timid, tender,
ardent by nature, John's was one of those temperaments (to his life's
end) whose profound pent-up emotions are liable to unexpected
momentary eruptions.
Who is its author ? 499
There is a tone of severity running all through
the Johannine writings as well as a spirit of intense
Love, a seventy even more intense than that of
S. James. "He that doeth sin is of the Devil"
(i John iii. 8 R.V.) " If we say that we have fellow-
ship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie"
(i John i. 6). " If any one come to you and bring not
this teaching, receive him not into your house, and
give him no greeting " (2 John 10. R.V.). " Who is
a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ.
He is Antichrist" (i John ii. 22 ; cf. 2 John 7).
The Boanerges element is in S. John still, but it is
transfigured and purified into that righteous hatred
of all that offends against Divine Love. He is stern
but only with the sternness of His Master Christ,
and such sternness must ever be a note of all true
and strong manhood.
Note.
S. John's style is simple and apparently poor, yet very deep and rich.
Vocabulary, (i) Its apparent monotony, e.g. the words Light, Life,
Word, glory, truth, darkness, grace, world, to testify,
to know, to believe, recur over and over again, yet
their intrinsic richness and unfathomable depth
more than atone for their repetition.
(2) The same remark holds good of S. John's pet
particles : and (xal), ncm> (5<=), as (us), then (ow), in
order that ('Iva) .
Syntax* Simple sentences are placed side by side, co-
ordinated and not subordinated. Often conjunctions
are dispensed with altogether, or only the simplest
particles are used (e.g. viii. 23, i. i 5)-
Parallelisms. e.g. viii. 23: "Ye are from beneath, I am from
above ; ye are of this world, I am not of this world."
5oo 6". John Data for solution oj 'problem , &c.
Symbolism. e.g. to /mnger, to thirst, used spiritually.
Repetition. A key-word is taken up again and again in the
same passage ; the leading thought, meanwhile, con-
stantly advancing and gaining in weight, like a snow-
ball (e.g. Chapters x., xvii.).
Hebraisms. There are no Aramaisms proper in S. John, but
all the above instances prove that the whole Gospel
is cast in a Hebrew mould. Indeed, S. John's style is
the best possible proof of its Jewish authorship. The
Greek of this Gospel may be pure, but as Luthardt well
puts it : it is a Hebreiv soul in a Greek body .
(See Appendix, "Apocalypse of S. John" for a fuller discussion
of S. John's style, and the pronounced family-likeness existing between
the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse).
PART IV.
PALESTINE IN OUR LORD'S DAY.
(1) Judaism and Jewish parties, from the modern
historical standpoint. (Chap. XXV.)
(2) Palestine : its political geography, customs and
institutions. (Chap. XXVI.)
CHAPTER XXV.
JEWISH PARTIES IN OUR LORD'S DAY.
JEWS of the present day often complain, and not
without reason, that we do their ancestors less
than justice. We are too easily content to see the
Jews of our Lord's time through His disciples' eyes,
and the portrait we form is out of proportion. It is
a fairly true picture, but it wants some toning down
of light and shade.
If we would intelligently read our Gospels, and
judge Christ and Jews alike from the right stand-
point, we must reconstruct the whole contemporary
background of the Palestine of 30 A.D. Thus only
can our Western minds, 1900 years after the events,
correctly view the whole scene in its original Eastern
setting, as it actually appeared to the spectators.
We must see the tragedy and its chief actors
through Jewish eyes, or we shall not be fair to the
Jews. We are too apt to sum up our verdict of
Pharisees, Sadducees and other Jewish sects in a
pregnant epigram. It is not enough to dismiss the
Pharisees in two words as canting hypocrites, or to
think that we have said all when we speak of the
worldly ambition of the Sadducees, the pedantry of
504 Jewish parties in our Lord's day.
the Scribes, the rough stern rule of the Romans, the
fickleness of the crowd.
A few such strong colours do paint a picture, but
the colours do not blend as they should. The values
are wrong and the result is a totally false impression,
a distorted interpretation of the facts.
Our aim in this chapter is to sketch in broad
outline the secular conditions under which the Life
portrayed in the Gospels was lived, the state of
parties in our Lord's day, the elements that favoured
His mission, the antagonistic factors which acted as
a foil.
The Pharisees and Sadducees are naturally the
first to claim our attention. We know that the
Sadducees consisted of aristocratic families who
favoured Greek culture, while the Pharisees were
Hebrews of the Hebrews who loathed and despised
all foreign ways, looking upon Gentiles as enemies of
God. But this general statement loses half its
meaning for the educated reader till he sees its raison
d'etre, and we cannot trace the distinctive characteris-
tics of these two Jewish parties to their true source
without passing in rapid review the political history
of the Jews during the two or three centuries before
Christ's Advent.
The Old Testament history (e.g. Esther) brings us
down to the days of the Persian yoke. When the
Persian Empire was broken up by Alexander the
Great (333 B.C.), Palestine passed under Greek rule.
At his death, Alexander's Empire was divided into
Jewish parties in our Lord's day. 505
an Egyptian and a Syrian monarchy, with Palestine
as a buffer-state between the two. The Holy Land
at the outset fell to the share of the Egyptian
Ptolemies, but, about 200 B.C., Syria succeeded in
wresting Palestine from Egypt.
The Jews sided with Syria" against Egypt. It
soon became clear to them that they had made a
poor bargain by the exchange. Taxes were doubled.
Worst of all, the new government encouraged im-
migration into Palestine, while Greek civilization
was forced upon the newly-conquered nation. Greek
cities sprang up all over Palestine, except in Judaea,
where the purer Jews resisted Greek influence and
settlements, and closed the gates of Jerusalem
against foreigners.
At last a Syrian King arose who determined to
Europeanize even Jerusalem. Greek rulers, like our
own Government, were remarkably tolerant of other
people's prejudices, and invariably respected the
religion of their subjects. An oracle of Delphi had
well expressed Greek ideas on this point when it said
that the proper religion for each man was the faith of
his fathers.
On the other hand, Greeks would not, any more
than ourselves, allow their subjects' religious preju-
dices to interfere with their civil duties, nor to stand
in the way of the expansion of the Greek empire or
the spread of its civilization. Therefore, when Jeru-
salem closed its gates against all Greek trade,
Antiochus Epiphanes (175 164 B.C.) resolved to
506 Jewish parties in our Lord's day.
remove this boycott and had recourse to severe
measures. He determined to force European civi-
lization upon the Holy City itself. The peculiar
religion of the Jews and their Mosaic law were at the
root of their obstinate exclusiveness. They must go.
He therefore promulgated a decree throughout his
whole Syrian kingdom that " in religion, law and
custom all should be one people."!
Antiochus Epiphanes was an enlightened ruler,
and not so black as he is painted. But he was
moved to take this unwise step by two considera-
tions : (i) Jewish exclusiveness closed Palestine to
foreign trade, and this could not be tolerated. (2) In
Jerusalem itself, there was a strong Greek party
among the Jews who misled him.
The Greek party arose in this way. The Syrian
overlord retained in his own hands the appointment
to the chief and most lucrative Jewish posts. He
had much to say even in the matter of the high-
priesthood. Now, personal advancement was a
potent factor among the priestly nobility and
aristocratic families in Jerusalem. These " oppor-
tunists" vied with each other in their attempts to
curry favour with the Syrian king. Little by little,
Greek manners and customs gained entrance into
Jerusalem itself. The upper and cultivated classes
of Jewish society began to feel ashamed of their
Jewish singularity in the presence of refined Greeks
at home and abroad, and did all in their power to
conceal it.
JewisJi parties in our Lord's day. 507
This Greek party misled Antiochus Epiphanes
into believing that, with a little forcible persuasion,
all Palestine was ready to accept Greek civilization,
even the Greek language and religion. With his
heart set on his pet scheme of knitting the various
peoples of his] kingdom into a compact whole,
Antiochus was ready to believe them. In this way,
he was drawn into extreme measures of religious
persecution which he afterwards bitterly regretted,
but which have gained him the reputation of a
Nero. Sabbath-observance, circumcision, and absti-
nence from pork were forbidden under penalty of
death. The possession of a copy of the Law was
also made a capital offence. He set up a pagan
altar to Zeus in the Holy of Holies, and pigs were
sacrificed upon it ! All circumcised children were
hurled headlong from the walls with their mothers,
and any who refused to eat pork were put to death,
while Bibles were burnt wholesale.
Antiochus had overshot his mark. From the first
there had been riots here and there. A day came
when the Jews no longer raised riots, they rebelled.
No sooner had Antiochus set up the abomination of
desolation in the Temple than an invincible spirit of
religious patriotism was evoked, and under the
gallant Maccabees the independence of Judaea was
achieved.
A grateful nation made the Maccabees "leaders,
high-priests and governors," and these offices were
to be hereditary in their family. These rulers are
508 Jewish parties in our Lord's day.
known as the Hasmonean dynasty, which lasted
about 100 years (circ. 160 60 B.C.).
The Jews are at their best only in times of
adversity. As soon as they obtained Home Rule,
they abused their privilege. One would have thought
that the Greek, or Hellenizing party, would have
received its death-blow with the fall of its patron,
Antiochus Epiphanes. Far from it. The Has-
moneans aimed at conquest and aped the royal
splendour of kings around them. They copied the
Greek manners of their powerful neighbours, and
patronized the priestly aristocracy, or Hellenist
section, with whom they had much more in common
than with the Hebrews of the Hebrews who had
gained them their proud position. The Hasmonean
family was soon torn with feuds from within, while
their worldly foreign policy estranged the " pious "
and the nation generally.
A civil war broke out. Both sides appealed to
Rome, and the Roman senate placed Herod the
Great, an Idumaean prince, upon the throne. The
entire influence of these Herodian usurpers was cast
on the side of Hellenism. Herod the Great rebuilt
the Temple. Even into the Temple Greek archi-
tecture found its way. He placed above its gates
a golden eagle in honour of the Romans. He also
built a theatre, amphitheatre and hippodrome, for
Greek plays and heathen games, in or near Jeru-
salem, and a theatre at Caesarea, which he made
his head-quarters.
Jewish parties in our Lord's day. 509
On his death, Augustus divided Palestine between
Herod's three sons, but greatly restricted their power.
Archelaus, governor of Judaea, after nine years of
misrule, was removed and banished to Vienne. From
this time to 41 A.D. Judaea was made a dependency
of Syria, and placed under a procurator. These
procurators were high Roman officials, like our
lieutenant-governors, who were appointed to main-
tain order and collect the revenues ; for the Jews
had to pay tribute, of course, to the Romans. This
was so galling to a nation which only recognized
God as their King, that the very tax-gatherers were
looked upon as unclean creatures. No self-respect-
ing Jew would eat with them or pray with them.
We have dwelt at considerable length on these
dry historical details because it makes it so much
more easy to give an intelligible account of the
Sadducees, Pharisees, Herodians, and Jewish parties
generally in our Lord's day.
The Pharisees were the strictest sect of the
Hebrews, an offshoot of that intensely patriotic
and ultra-conservative party which, under Judas
Maccabaeus, waged a truceless and successful war
against Hellenism. The preservation of Judaism
in its narrowest exclusiveness was their programme.
The strict Pharisee considered it a sin to live abroad,
or to speak a foreign language. Pharisees regarded
all Gentiles as outside the pale of God's Kingdom,
and, in their eyes, those of their own nation who
Hellenized were as guilty as the Jews of old who-
5io Jewish parties in our Lord's day.
" sat down to eat and drink, and rose to play "
around the golden calf. The literature of the Gentiles
was taboo. When an old Rabbi was asked at what
hour Greek literature might be studied, he replied
that it could only be studied at an hour which
belonged neither to the day nor to the night, for
Scripture saith that God's Law is to be a Jew's
meditation night and day (Ps. i. 2).
The intolerance and aloofness of the Pharisees
were extreme. Their own religion was wholly true
the religions of others wholly false. They believed
themselves to be in everlasting league with the
Creator of the Universe, Who had elected the Jews
as His Chosen People, and made them a peculiar
people, a nation of priests and holy men (Deut.
xiv. 2). It was for their sake that God raised and
humbled other nations. Babylon, Persia, Syria had
triumphed awhile, because God used them as a rod
wherewith to chastise and discipline His people for
their sins. Babylon, Persia and Syria had fallen as
soon as they had served the Jewish purpose for
which they were called into existence. Rome was
God's rod now, but merely for a short season. In
its turn, this rod would be broken as soon as it
had done its work of educating the Jews. Then
Messiah would come, the Kingdom of David would
be restored, and Jerusalem would become the head-
quarters of God on earth. All Gentiles should be
subject unto the Jews, and Gentile Kings should
minister unto them. Was^ it not for Jews that
Jewish parties in our Lord's day. 511
God had made the sea dry land, rained manna from
heaven, stayed the Sun and Moon? Was it not
for them that prophets had revealed the oracles and
whole counsel of God? Salvation was of the Jews,
and of the Jews alone.
No wonder that such men are represented by our
Lord as " thanking God that they are not as other
men are."
Christ, a Jew, coming to His own people whom
He so dearly loved as their Saviour and Reformer
might say that of the Pharisees, not we. Of every
Christian Church it maybe said: mntato nomine de
te fabula narratur. Bigoted and narrow as we may
call the Pharisees, they had excellent rede3mtng
features. They had a most implicit faith in God,
and were zealots in patriotism. The voice of the
people is often the voice of God, and the Pharisees
were beloved of the masses. The Jews as a nation
admired their inflexible orthodoxy, and sympathized
with their national exclusiveness, their exaltation of
God with Israel as His people, Jerusalem His City,
and Moses His Prophet.
There is no denying thai: the Pharisaic religionism
of the time of our Lord sadly needed reforming.
Otherwise Christ would not have spoken as He
did in the Sermon on the Mount, neither would
He so uncompromisingly denounce the official
leaders of Judaism as " Scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites." Over and over again does our Lord
tell these teachers of Israel that their whole life and
512 Jewish parties in our Lord's day.
creed are a hollow sham, radically wrong, and hateful
to God. Their motto was : " so much keeping of
the Law, so much merit." In their pride of race,
they boasted " we are children of Abraham." Christ
admits neither of these claims. He tells them in
so many words : the mere keeping of the Law will
profit you not at all. What God demands is a right
life, not mere orthodoxy, correct services, or costly
sacrifices. Do you think God will overlook your
shortcomings simply because you are His children ?
Precisely because you are His chosen people, there-
fore will He visit your sins upon you all the more,
for "to whom much is given, of him is much
required."
All this is more than true, yet let us be fair to
these Pharisees. They had faults in plenty, but two
virtues, at least, they certainly possessed intense
patriotism, and an equally intense belief in God.
If we condemn the Pharisee's pride of race, we must
also denounce our own, yet we rightly call it almost
a virtue. We do not wish to suggest for one moment
that the Puritans whom Carlyle rightly calls: "the
last of all our heroes, the last glimpse of God vanishing
from this England " were Pharisees at heart, or in
religion and character, but Pharisees and Puritans
alike had one divine virtue none too common now.
Diametrically opposed as are the two in reality, they
had one feature in common over and above their long
prayers, austere looks, love of Scripture texts, upturned
eyes, and gloomy Sabbatarianism an unshaken and
fezvish parties in our Lord's day. 513
unshakable faith in God. To quote Carlyle once
more, the Pharisee world, like the Puritans', was
" a practical world based on Belief in God ; a Reign
of God ; very great, very glorious ; now giving place
to the Reign of the No-God, whom men name Devil.
A very stupendous phenomenon, tragical enough to
all thinking hearts that look on it from these days
of ours."
We hold no brief for the Pharisees, but do let us
remember that they are not limited to one period,
one nation, one church, and that, here as elsewhere,
" all Scripture is written for our learning." Hypo-
crites there were among them by the score, but it
was the outcome of exaggerated zeal. The excellent
aims and intentions with which they originally
started had in course of time degenerated into
a hollow, formal, dead routine. The Jews returned
from their captivity imbued with an intense zeal for
God and reverence for His Law. It was because
they carried this zeal too far and were "righteous
overmuch," " making a fence about the Law " in
trivial details, that they eventually became so puri-
tanical and rigid in their observance of the Mosaic
Law. What was a virtue at the outset degenerated,
through exaggeration, into a vice. Animated, at the
start, by a living inspiring loyality and heart-felt
devotion to God and His Will, little by little the
Pharisaic attitude became more and more hardened
into a cold theological creed, clothed in a web of
minute ceremonial formalities, till the life all but
Ll
5 14 Jewish parties in our Lord's day.
went out of it. They overlaid the Law of Moses
with endless traditions of their own so as to keep
it better, and kept aloof as their name implies
even from orthodox Jews who were not equally strict
as to foods and cleansings. They strained the water
they drank lest they should swallow the forbidden
gnat. They wore broad phylacteries and gave alms
so as to be seen of men. But, to the end, their
" Belief in God " was intense.
On entering their order, a candidate had to take
two vows in the presence of three witnesses. One
bound him to tithe everything he ate, bought or
sold ; the other, not to be the guest of the " am-
haarets," or people of the land, who did not know
and keep the law oral and written. They regarded
themselves as the saints, the true Israel. The others
were the ungodly, for " the people which know not
the law are accursed," said they.
Politically, they disliked Roman rule and bitterly
resented the paying of tribute to pagan Gentiles, but
they submitted to it. It was a rod for their sins.
In the fulness of time God would restore the kingdom
to His people. This would come to pass not by
man's agency, but by the direct interposition of God
Himself. Messiah, David's Son, would be God's
Viceroy on earth, and the Law of Moses would be
the rule of the Divine Kingdom.
In their religious views, the Pharisees believed in
the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the
body, and in rewards and punishments after death.
Jewish parties in our Lord's day. 515
They also believed in angels and spirits, both good
and bad. Their faith in Divine Providence was so
pronounced that it almost bordered on fatalism and
a denial of man's free-will.
The Pharisees formed by far the most powerful
and popular party in the Jewish state. The people
respected them for their intense patriotism and
inflexible orthodoxy. Hence, although they were
socially and intellectually inferior to the Sadducees,
their influence was infinitely greater.
The Sadducees stood at the opposite pole to the
Pharisees, in almost every respect. They were the
descendants of the priestly nobility who had belonged
to the Greek party in Antiochus' day. Aristocrats by
birth, and essentially men of the world, they were ever
born diplomats and strangely lukewarm in religion.
Politics was their true sphere. Typical opportunists,
they espoused the cause of their Syrian overlords,
and of the ambitious Hasmoneans who succeeded
them, because such a policy was admirably calculated
to advance their own interests and personal comfort.
With the fall of the Maccabees, their day of power
waned. Herod never forgave them for siding against
him. Forty-five of their number he put to death,
but he did not stop there. Hitherto the higher ranks
of the priesthood had been confined to a closed circle
of aristocratic families. It was also from these
families alone that the Saducees' ranks were re-
cruited. Herod changed aH this. He flooded the
516 Jewish parties in our Lord's day.
higher priestly ranks with persons of obscure birth,
thus replacing the old aristocracy with creatures of
his own. Not content with this, his masterly stroke
of diplomatic policy was to abolish the life-tenure
of the high-priest's office.
In this way, the Sadducees were relegated to com-
parative insignificance. They were driven out of the
sphere of politics, in which they were thoroughly at
home, into the region of religion and theological dis-
cussions for which they cared far less.
Secondary as religion was to the Sadducees, they
had distinct religious tenets of their own. Liberals
and progressives in politics, they were ardent con-
servatives where Scripture was concerned. They
were, in fact, strict-Bible Jews. They would accept
nothing that could not be shown them in the Old
Testament, and especially in the Books of Moses.
Therefore they rejected the traditions of the elders
altogether. They likewise refused to believe in
angels or in the resurrection of the dead, because
there was nothing written about either in the Mosaic
Books.
Their moral and intellectual views were cold, but
enlightened, and reflected their common-sense and
worldly-wisdom. As their creed debarred them from
a belief in future rewards and punishments, they
taught that men should be virtuous without the fear
of punishment or the hope of reward, and that such
virtue alone is of any worth.
They repudiated the fatalism of the Pharisees,
Jewish parties in our Lord's day. 5 1 ?
maintaining that man is, under God, master of his
own fortunes and absolutely free to choose this
course or that, good or bad, at his will.
Consistently with this view, they laughed to scorn
the Pharisaic idea that the Kingdom was to be
restored to Israel by the direct and miraculous
interposition of God Himself. Far from expecting
anything of the kind, the Sadducees insisted that, if
this Kingdom was ever to come, the Jews must
establish it for themselves by human wisdom and
human hands. God would only help them if they
helped themselves. Personally, they did not place
much faith in this Messiah-Kingdom. They were
too sober, practical, matter-of-fact statesmen to
entertain wild hopes of a brilliant political future
for Palestine.
As may be expected, their influence with the
people was very small. The Sadducees despised the
vulgar herd, and Jews were not likely to feel much
respect for the extremely secular views of these rich,
indolent aristocrats with their indifference to religion.
Indeed, it was their essentially worldly spirit against
which Christ warned His followers when He said
" Beware of the leaven of the Sadducees."
They seem to have ignored our Lord during the
first part of His ministry. Like Gallic, they cared
for none of these things so long as Christ confined
Himself to purely religious questions. But they
resented His cleansing of the Temple as an imper-
tinent interference with the prerogatives of the
518 JeivisJi parties in our Lord's day.
Sanhedrin. They also looked with displeasure on
His claim to be Messiah, the Son of David, because
they foresaw that a Messianic movement might
involve grave political consequences.
The Scribes were the Jewish "men of letters"
(ypafA/jLareis). In Ezra's day, their function was to
copy, edit, study and interpret the Scriptures, and
especially the Mosaic Law. Ere long, they were the
only officially recognized religious teachers. Their
chief men had a seat in the Sanhedrin, acted as
Judges, and were the real leaders of Israel.
Their motto was : Be cautious in judging, train
many scholars, and set a fence about the law. And
a fence about the law they did set with a vengeance.
To a pious Jew of our Lord's day, the Law of
Moses was a perfect revelation of God's Will. In
it He had made known the perfect way of life, so
that whoever walked before God according to its
rules would be richly blessed both here and here-
after. Therefore a pious Jew was painfully eager
punctiliously to obey the Law (see pp. 28 sqq.).
But it was impossible for an average man to do
this without special guidance. The Law of Moses
had been written hundreds of years before our Lord's
day. Times and circumstances had entirely changed
since then, while the law had remained the same.
How were new cases, or difficulties which Moses had
never contemplated, to be met ? Not a word had
Jewish parties in our Lord's day. 519
the Law to say on just those points where a Jew of
30 A.D. most wanted enlightenment.
We know how Christ solved this problem : Fulfil
the Law by probing down to its underlying spirit, and
act on that. Not so, said the Scribes. Within the
four walls of the Mosaic Law there is, explicitly or
implicitly, a positive rule which will meet every
possible case imaginable. This rule must be obeyed
to the very letter. To go outside the letter of the
Law for guidance is a mortal sin.
With a hair-splitting ingenuity which the most
pronounced Jesuit casuists might envy, they busied
themselves in applying the Mosaic Law so as to
meet beforehand all conceivable contingencies that
could ever arise. Every one of their decisions was
treasured. It was "one of the words of the wise."
To run counter to it was sin, a crime worthy of death.
It was a common saying among pious Jews : an
offence against one of the sayings of the Scribes
is worse than an offence against the words of
Scripture ; for " their words are as wine, while the
Law is as water."
In course of time, as may be expected, the accu-
mulation of these "decisions" of the wise grew to
enormous dimensions. Now, as the tradition of these
Elders was revered above Scripture, it practically
made the Word of God of none effect. The cases
brought up for their decision became more and more
delicate and intricate, their solutions more and more
subtle and hair-splitting. Step by step the Scribes
520 Jewish parties in our Lord's day.
were led to conclusions at which the earlier repre-
sentatives of their order would have stared aghast.
They devised the most ingenious means of evading
the plainest duties of the moral Law while still
adhering to its letter (e.g. S. Mark vii. 10 sqq.). As
a natural consequence of this holy quibbling, con-
science was blunted. The blight of indifference
and hypocrisy fell upon morality and religion, till
piety was reduced to an external and mechanical
formalism.
We shall see that there were splendid exceptions.
Even here there is a bright as well as a dark side
to the picture.
Like Ezra himself, the Scribes were originally
found among the priests and Levites ; later they
became an independent order, open to all. It was
a Rabbinical axiom that " the crown of the kingdom
is deposited in Judah, the crown of the priesthood is
in the seed of Aaron, but the crown of the Law is
open to all Israel." It needed a life-long study to
become a scribe, but scribes who gained distinction
as expounders of the law had freely accorded to them
all the power and honour which they claimed as
their right. They claimed and obtained first rank
everywhere, while their influence over the people was
supreme.
In the Gospels, they are called " scribes,"
" lawyers," " doctors of the law " or " teachers of the
law." They were usually addressed as Rabbis.
The Zealots were an offshoot of the Pharisees. In
Jewish parties in our Lord's day. 521
modern phrase, the Sadducees were the Cavaliers,
the Pharisees the Puritans or Roundheads, and the
Zealots the Ironsides of Judaism. The majority of
the Pharisees stood aloof from politics. They devoted
themselves to the cultivation of their moral and
religious influence with the people. Yet they con-
tributed in no small degree to the terrible war which
destroyed Jerusalem and the nation about 70 A.D.
It was in this way. We have seen that they regarded
Roman or any foreign yoke as a necessary evil and a
discipline for the nation's sins. One only was their
King, God. In their heart of hearts, they bitterly
resented Roman rule and Roman taxes. The
"tribute-money" was gall and wormwood to them.
It implied that Caesar was their King, and not God.
In the hearts of some of their followers, this idea
(Matth. xxii. 17), was quite enough to fan the spark
always dormant in patriotic breasts into a flame.
Up sprang a new sect, the Zealots. They were rabid
nationalists, who regarded it as a duty both to their
faith and their fatherland to shake off the Roman
yoke. It was the stumbling-block in the way of the
fulfilment of Messianic hope, and by the sword must
it be removed. Zealotism was in fact a revival of the
Maccabean movement.
Their founder was Judas the Galilean (A.D. 6
or 7) who headed a popular revolt " in the days of
the taxing when Cyrenius was governor of Syria"
(S. Luke ii. 2, cf. Acts v. 36, 37). As a rule, they
carried on a clever guerilla warfare, but gradually
522 JeivisJi parties in our Lord's day.
degenerated into Sicarii (" murderers "). Galilee
was the home of the party.
Josephus writes of them : "These men agree in all
things with the Pharisees ; but they have an
inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is
to be their only Ruler and Lord."
They are also called " Cananeans ", (wrongly
Canaanites), a late Hebrew word meaning "jealous"
or " zealot." One of our Lord's disciples was a
Zealot.
The Herodians were rather a political than a
religious party. They were Jews who looked upon,
the Idumaean Herods as of Jewish descent. There-
fore, they had an idea that the Herods were to be
the human means in God's hands for the restoration
of the kingdom to the Jews. Thus it is not strictly
correct to say they were friends of Rome ; neither
did they share the general Messianic expectation of
a Kingdom of God on earth, with Jerusalem as His
head-quarters. But they did hope that Israel would
again become a great nation, of Jews and for Jews,
under one or other of the sons of Herod. They
united with the Pharisees in the attempt to entrap
Jesus over the question of paying tribute to Caesar,
not because they had any sympathy with Pharisaic
views, but because our Lord's Messianic claims
clashed with their own ideas.
The Essenes are not mentioned by name in the
Gospels, yet they were a large (4,000) and highly-
respected Jewish sect, eminently pious and strict,
Jewish parties in our Lord^s day. 523
living an extremely simple life, and confining their
industry solely to agricultural pursuits. They dwelt
in separate communities of their own, had all goods in
common, and were most temperate in all things.
Levitical purity was so sacred in their eyes that
they passed much of their time in water and their
idea of cleanliness developed into a mania. They
carried their dread of impurity so far that they
would not taste food cooked, or touch implements
or clothes made, by any outside their own sect.
They shunned all contact with others as : if they
were infected with the plague. Celibacy was the
rule of their order ; therefore they had constantly
to recruit their ranks by adopting children whom
they carefully trained in their ways. Their ob-
servance of the Sabbath was so strict, that not even
the most common necessities could be done on that
day. It was wholly devoted to religious exercises.
But it would be a gross libel to brand them merely
as ascetic fanatics. They were the first people in the
world to denounce slavery and war both in theory
and practice. They practised " moderation in all
things " to such perfection that not only were they
most temperate in their food and drink, but they
considered all loudness bad taste, even in speech and
certainly in dress. Noise or confusion was unknown
in their settlements. None wished to be above other,
neither did any desire to usurp more than his share
of anything, even conversation.
The only two things in which there was any spirit
524 Jewish parties in our Lord's day,
of emulation amongst them were brotherly kindness
and deeds of mercy. They daily, hourly practised
that charity which others only admire, and instantly
relieved and comforted all and any to whom they
could lend a helping hand.
Oaths were strictly forbidden. Their word was
their bond. The rules of their order were very
simple : to revere God and be just to all men ; to
hurt no man willingly by word or deed ; to be
temperate in all things, the guardians of good faith
and the ministers of peace ; to cherish the truth and
unmask liars ; to subordinate self to the common
weal, and to transmit their creed unchanged.
Such a virtuous life carried with it its own reward.
They were intensely respected and trusted, lived in
peace and happiness, knew not the meaning of pain
or fear, and their days were long in the land. In
their temperance, justice, humanity and spiritual-
mindedness they represent the moral ideal of
antiquity.
They held many views in common with the Jews,
but did not share their belief in a Resurrection of tJie
body. They taught that "the body is corruptible,
but the soul is immortal and rejoices when released
from the bondage of the flesh." They paid special
reverence to Moses and his Law, but would not
sacrifice in the Temple, though they sent gifts to it.
The strangest thing about their creed is that they
paid great reverence to the Sun ; some even say
they worshipped it. Their beliefs certainly show
Jewish parties in our Lord's day. 525
signs of contact with the philosophy both of Greece
and Persia.
From the nature of their creed and character, the
Essenes are not found in the ranks of our Lord's
opponents. They would have much in common
with Him. At any rate, we never hear of them
directly in the Gospels.
We can thus see that there is a bright as well as
a dark side to the picture of the Jews of our Lord's
day. There were many Pharisees who led pure and
gentle lives, who loved and served God from their
inmost heart : men to whom " do unto others as you
would that they should do unto you " (a Rabbinic
adage), was not merely the language of the lips a .
Unlovely as is our picture of the Scribes, there were
members of their order of whom Christ could say
and did say, "Thou art not far from the Kingdom
of God" (S. Mark xii. 34), even as there were
" rulers " whom Jesus, beholding, loved (S. Mark
x. 21 =S. Luke xviii. 18).
So with the Mosaic Law. It is all very well for
us to say that the Law, in the hands of the scribes,
became hardened into a Priestly Code, a cold, lifeless,
theological creed. But we should not be blind to its
virtues. Our Lord Himself tells us it was admirably
a We are told that Hillel one day replied to a man, who asked
if he could teach him the whole Torah (Law) while he stood on one
leg : " What is hateful to thyself do not to thy fellow ; this is the
whole Torah, and the rest is commentary."
526 Jewish parties in our Lord's day.
suited to its day and generation, but its day was
past (Matth. xix. 7, 8). S. Paul (Gal. Hi. 24) ex-
pressly says : " The Law was our schoolmaster to
bring us unto Christ." We are apt to overlook
the immense amount of good the Mosaic Law has
done in the world's civilisation ; the important part
played at all times by such rules of holy living
as it prescribes ; the immense revelation it was in
its day ; the moral sense it developed ; the noble
and saintly lives it fostered. If we are to judge
of the use of an institution by its abuse, it will go
very hard by much that we ourselves hold most
sacred.
We have seen that even the traditions with which
the scribes overlaid the Law were originally prompted
by the highest motives. Mistaken and deluded we
may rightly consider the scribes and Pharisees now,
but we may at least give them credit for the
reverence of their original scruples.
There is more than this. We do the Jews a vast
wrong when we judge them in the bulk by the
standard of that militant and extreme minority
which looms so large in our New Testament pages.
In religion especially, as we see daily, it is not wise
to judge a Church by the members of it who catch
the public ear and eye. Elijah thought he was the
only servant of God left in Israel. But what was
God's answer to him ? " I have left for Myself 7,000
men, who have not bowed the knee to Baal " (Rom.
xi. 4; cf. I Kings xix. 10, iS).
Jewisii parties in our Lord's day. 527
We concentrate our eyes on the Jews whom our
Lord rightly denounced. We forget the multitudes
who always " heard Christ gladly " and towards
whom our Lord was " moved with compassion,"
the simple, open-minded, receptive 'common people
in whom He ever found responsive hearts, and to
whom His own Heart went out in love.
We forget, above all, that large class of " meek/'
" humble/' quiet religious souls, " Israelites indeed
in whom there is no guile/' represented by Joseph
and Mary, Zacharias and Elizabeth, Simeon and
Anna, to mention only those members of this
large group who appear in the first two chapters of
S. Luke. Would we know more about them ? Then
let us study the Magnificat, for no better picture of
the spirit and character that was in these " poor in
spirit" can possibly be drawn. Nathanael, Nicodemus,
Mary, Martha and many more, the very Essenes
prove that there were thousands of these devout
souls scattered up and down Palestine, men and
women who were watching for the " Consolation of
Israel."
The " Consolation of Israel," this suggests another
false indictment which we are constantly bringing
against the "Jews. We imagine that their idea of
Messiah was of a purely material kind, something
of this nature. Suddenly there would appear a
King of David's line, who should redeem Israel
from its oppressors, and reign in Jerusalem with
royal pomp and splendour. All nations would
528 Jewish parties in our Lord's day.
instantly bow down before Him, and the Jews
would possess the riches of the Gentiles, who would
be their ploughmen and vinedressers and lick the
dust off Jewish feet.
No doubt, many Jews held these material views.
Our Lord's own disciples did so up to the day of
His death (S. Luke xxiv. 21). Listen to their de-
spairing cry : " We trusted that it had been He
Which should have redeemed Israel."
But among the nobler class of religious minds, the
expectation of Messiah, though equally ardent, was
of a far more spiritual kind. Besides Simeon, there
were very many " righteous and devout " men, who
were " looking for the Consolation of Israel " in the
light of an Isaiah's Prophetic teaching.
There again, we forget that the Law did not form
the whole Jewish Bible. The Jews had the ' Law and
the Prophets." The Law was only one of the parts of
the Bible read every Sabbath day in their synagogues,
and " meditated day and night" in their homes. The
lofty inspiring teaching of Deuteronomy and the
Prophets with their heart-searching moral and
spiritual demands, ever insisting on the recognition
of God as a loving but righteous Father, formed,
equally with the Law, the Israelite's rule of life.
The later Psalms abundantly show that, in the case
of the better portion of Israel, this deep, inward,
heartfelt, spiritual life was part and parcel of the
very being of many a Jew.
These righteous and devout souls had corrected
Jewish parlies in our Lord's day. 5 29
the materialism, not only of the Law, but of the
current Messianic hope as well, by the light of the
Prophets and the Psalms. Their Messianic expecta-
tions pointed to One Who should comfort them in
their sorrow and save them from their sins, and
other nations as well. " Mine eyes have seen Thy
salvation, which Thou hast prepared before the face
of all people ; a light to lighten the Gentiles, and
the glory of Thy people Israel " (cf. Is. xlix. 22,
xlii., 1. and Hi.).
Let us be fair to the Jews. Who has made us
judges over them ? We condemn the casuistry of
the scribes : have we ever read the annals of the
Jesuits, or the pages of some of our earnest but
bigoted Reformers ?
We hold up our hands in horror at the cruelty
and persecutions with which they hounded Christ
and His followers. Do we forget the Christian
Inquisition, the awful atrocities that have been done
by Christian nations, Churches and individuals in
the Name of Christ ? Do Christians shut their eyes
to the way in which they have out-Heroded Herod
in their abominable persecution of the Jews them-
selves b ?
Before we sit in judgment on the Jews, let us
first put ourselves in their place, orientalize our-
selves, see Christ as they saw Him through Jewish
eyes. Then we shall better understand Christ's
b See G. F. Abbot's " Israel in Europe." (Macmillan.)
M m
53 Jewish parties in our Lord's day.
own dying words : " Father, forgive them, for they
know not what they do." S. Peter, a Jew, knew
his own nation better than we do. He grasped
the truth of Christ's words, and they sunk deep in
his heart. He had caught the true Spirit of Christ
when, almost in Christ's own words, he says to his
fellow-countrymen : " I wot, brethren, that through
ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers." S. John
and S. Paul say the same thing (Acts iii. 17 ; cf. S.
John xvi. 3 ; I Cor. ii. 8).
CHAPTER XXVI.
THE HOLY LAND IN OUR LORD'S DAY.
TN a former chapter (II.) we said that we cannot
1 dissociate our Lord from the place and time of
His appearance on earth. Everything in connec-
tion with Him derives some of its significance from
the locality and circumstances which gave it birth.
Dr. Dale truly says : " Many people suppose that
they may approach the Gospel-story as if the Lord
Jesus Christ had appeared in Spain or in China,
instead of in Judaea and Galilee."
We, therefore, propose to pass in rapid review the
political, social and intellectual state of things in
Palestine in Christ's day.
(i) Political Geography.
Palestine is a very small country. So true is this
that one often wonders how such epoch-making
events could have happened in so small a place.
Palestine barely covers the area of one-sixth of
England and Wales. But the Holy Land had the
advantage of being almost in the very centre of
the ancient civilized world. It formed the natural
meeting-ground for the caravans, or trunk-lines of
trade-communication between East, North and South.
532 The Holy Land in our Lord's day.
The sea-coast is without good harbours except in
the North. Consequently the Phoenicians monopo-
lized the sea-trade, till the Jews got Joppa into
their hands and converted it into the seaport of
Jerusalem. This connection with the Mediterranean
opened out a route to the West by sea, which was
always available except for the winter months. In
this way, through the great caravan routes, through
Joppa its seaport, and by means of the excellent
Roman roads, free avenues of intercourse were
opened between Palestine, the centre of the then
known world, and every civilized country.
It was, however, only its position that gave Pales-
tine any importance in the ancient world. As a
buffer-state, the Jews always found themselves sand-
wiched between two powerful neighbours who made
the Holy Land their bone of contention. In early
days, Babylon and Egypt disputed this prize, so did
Syria and Alexandria afterwards, and finally Rome
and Parthia fought for its possession.
In itself, Palestine was not only very small, but
consisted rather of villages than towns. We have
to disabuse our minds of all that the modern world
means by a city when we meet the word in our
Bible. Jerusalem, Tyre and Sidon were real towns
in our sense of the word, both in point of size and
importance, but most of the other places of note were
only large walled villages or little country-towns.
Palestine is essentially a hill-country. Apart
from the great trade-routes, roads have at all times
The Holy Land in our Lord's day. 533
been very bad in the Holy Land and travelling
difficult. (Cf. Luke x. 30.)
Palestine may be roughly divided into four
counties. West of Jordan lie Judaea, in the South ;
Galilee, in the North ; Samaria between the two.
Jtidcea was ever the home of the pure-blooded Jews,
the Jews proper, and especially was this the case in
our Lord's day. Just below it lay the district of
Idum&a. The Idumaeans were really a mixed race,
but were regarded as Jews in New Testament times.
True, Josephus speaks of Herod, an Idumaean prince,
as only half a Jew. On the other hand, when his
grandson, Agrippa.L, once resented the application
to himself of the epithet in Deut. xvii. 15,
"foreigner," the Jews cried out: "thou art our
brother."
Samaria was loathed by all true Jews ; so were its
inhabitants, and for this reason. During the
captivity, Babylon had planted a number of heathen
colonists there. On their return from exile, the Jews
were treated in a very spiteful manner by the
Samaritans. From that day forth, the Jews would
have no dealings with the Samaritans and never
allowed themselves to forget their impure origin.
The Samaritans retaliated in a way which cut the
Jews to the quick. They set up a rival temple and
worship of their own on Mount Gerizim, thus sever-
ing themselves from all connection with Jerusalem.
This was an open declaration of war, and all com-
munications of any kind between the two districts
534 The Holy Land in our Lord's day.
were cut off. The Jews insulted the Samaritans by
word and deed on every possible occasion, and the
compliment was returned with interest.
Galilee shared the same fate as Samaria at the
time of the Captivity. So few Jews were to be found
in it in the early part of the second century B.C.
that they had to be brought to Jerusalem for their
own safety (164 B.C.). At the beginning of the first
century B.C., the people of Galilee were compelled
by Aristobulus I. to become Jews, like the Idu-
maeans, and at the time of our Lord, Galilee was
mainly Jewish. From the admixture of foreign
blood in their veins, and the .number of Greeks
dwelling in their midst, the Galileans were always
regarded with a certain amount of patronizing con-
descension by the stricter and purer-blooded Jews
of Judaea : e.g. " can a prophet come out of Galilee ?"
At the same time, the Galileans were very religious,
made frequent pilgrimages to Jerusalem, and were
ever ready to break into open revolt at the slightest
hint of an insult to their Jewish religion.
By reason of its 240 cities and villages, and its
closer proximity to the civilized world, Galilee was
the home of commerce. As a natural result, the
Galileans were the broadest-minded and most Greek-
speaking section of the Jewish nation.
Percea, east of the Jordan, was also a Jewish
district, though the Jewish element was less pro-
nounced than in Judaea, or even Galilee. Con-
siderable tracts of Peraea were peopled by pure
The Holy Land in our Lord's day. 535
Greeks, while others were half-Gentile, half-Jewish.
On the whole, however, the Hebrew element prevailed.
Consequently, Jews journeying between Galilee and
Judaea preferred to go by way of Peraea. There,
they were among their own countrymen. Samaria
would have been a far more direct route, but passing
through Samaria involved the certainty of insult
(cf. Luke ix. 53), if not danger to life or limb.
(2) Social conditions and occupations.
Agriculture and pastoral occupations were still
extensively practised in our Lord's day, but people
were beginning to devote themselves far more to
commerce, for which the Jew has a remarkable
aptitude.
Rabbi Eleazar -and Rabbi Rab well expressed
Jewish views when they said : Commerce is worth all
the harvests of the world, for there is no worse trade
than agriculture. High-priests, like John Hyrcanus,
and the Herodian princes after them, who personally
engaged in trade, greatly raised the status of the
trader in Jewish eyes.
In the New Testament there is not a word in
disparagement of commerce, rather the reverse. The
Essenes alone abjured trade on principle, but the
rest of the Jews soon proved themselves the best and
shrewdest men of business in the world. Everything
was in their favour. All caravan-routes converged
on Palestine. In Joppa they had one of the best
seaports for shipping Eastern wares to the West,
536 The Holy Land in our Lord's day.
while Palestine had valuable products of its own to
sell. Thus Palestine could soon boast of its own
merchant-princes, and its small traders were in-
numerable.
It was a common Jewish saying : Teach thy son a
trade, or thou trainest him to be a thief; also : He
that hath a trade in his hands is as a vineyard that is
fenced. Many of the great Jewish Rabbis are
known by their trade-surname, e.g. Rabbi Johanan
the shoemaker, Rabbi Isaac the blacksmith. The
two most illustrious Jewish Rabbis, Hillel and
Shammai, were mechanics. Shammai was a mason
by trade. He took a practical interest in his craft
even when he was vice-president of the Sanhedrin
and had an immense school of pupils of his own.
The principal trades in Christ's day were : smith,
carpenter, mason, baker, weaver, tailor, tent-maker,
potter, fuller, perfumer, jeweller. Tanners and
butchers were the only occupations not highly
respected. Spinning, sewing and weaving were
mostly confined to women.
In Galilee, fishing was one of the leading occupa-
tions. The Sea of Galilee teemed with good fish.
Day-labourers, who had no land or fixed employ-
ment, hired themselves out at so much a day. The
" penny " wage of the Gospels is really ten pence,
and represented a purchasing-value of about two
shillings. Josephus tells us that, when the Temple
was at last finished, 18,000 artisans were thrown
out of work. Employment, however, was somehow
The Holy Land in our Lord's day. 537
found for them, and they received a day's pay even
if they " only wrought one hour."
Slaves were practically unknown among the
Jews in Christ's time. Field-work was done by
hired labourers. In Jewish houses, free service was
the rule for men. Girl-slaves were allowed, but they
were treated as members of the family. It was only
in Roman or Greek households in Palestine, or
among the Jewish nobles who had adopted foreign
ways of life, that slaves were to be found. It had
become a fundamental rule in Jewish practice that
no Jew should be held as a slave by another Jew.
Although Roman taxes were very heavy, the Jews
were such a thrifty, energetic, shrewd, temperate
people that they throve and prospered in all grades
of life. No doubt there were social extremes (e.g.
Dives and Lazarus), but the majority belonged to
neither of these classes, and, in peaceful times, led
a happy and contented life.
Houses. Eastern houses are not like ours. People
in Palestine lived much more in the open than we
do. Artisans and merchants plied their trade in the
streets or in open shops looking out on the street.
A sheltered place for sleeping and a quiet spot for
eating was all the home a Jew needed.
Nothing could be cruder or more primitive than
the house of the ordinary Jew. Richer men, of
course, had grand houses, but the humbler abodes
of the plain man were very simple. They often
had but one room, which sheltered both man and
538 The Holy Land in our Lord's day.
beast. The roof merely consisted of rough beams t
three feet apart, with reeds across, and mortar and
earth on top. Thus it would be easy work for the
friends of the paralytic to "uncover the roof where
Jesus was, break it up, and let down the bed wherein
the sick of the palsy lay " (S. Mark ii. 4).
The furniture of such a house was also very
simple : a table, some rude chairs, a few sleeping-
mats, and large jars for grain, water, wine or oil.
These homes must have been dark, comfortless,
and neither clean nor sanitary, as a rule. The main
aim was apparently to secure coolness in summer and
heat in winter, so the openings were few. In the
parable of the " lost pieces of silver/' the woman,
even in the daytime, has to light a candle to search
for them.
In the East, people live so much out of doors that
there is no such thing as private life. All is publicity.
Everyone knows all about his neighbour, so that
literally " what is told in the chamber is soon pro-
claimed on the housetop." The crowded streets and
the market-place are the Oriental's true home.
The Jews of old were very temperate, and their
food simple. Bread was the staple of every meal,
and over it was the blessing pronounced. Wine,
very much diluted, formed the main drink. Parched
corn and fish grilled on charcoal commonly accom-
panied the bread as articles of food. The usual
posture at table was reclining. The door was
generally left open during the meal, and, at a feast,
The Holy Land in our Lords day. 539
passers-by might enter the room and join in the
conversation (cf. S. Luke v. 29 sqq., vii. 37 sqq).
Oriental hospitality is proverbial. Even when
multitudes came from afar to the Passover, it was
a boast of the Jews that no one could say : I
have not found a bed in Jerusalem to lie in. Our
Lord tells the Seventy that they are to take no
money or anything with them, but to accept hospi-
tality in every city which they enter. This innate
spirit of Eastern hospitality explains why James and
John wanted to call down fire from heaven even
upon Samaritans for their churlish refusal to give
them free food and lodging.
Inns, in the modern sense of the word, were
therefore little needed in Palestine. But, as a rule,
Jews were only hospitable to Jews. Now there was
a very large foreign element in the Holy Land.
Romans, Greeks, merchants, workmen, men engaged
in the caravan trade, and so forth, were constantly
going to and fro. Inns of various grades, for rich
and poor, would therefore be a necessity.
The " inn " mentioned in the account of our
Lord's Birth was one of the " caravansaries," or large
buildings reared along the main caravan routes.
There the many merchants, their suite and beasts,
as well as the travellers in their company, could
rest for the night. These khans, as they are called,
were ordinarily in the form of a hollow square
(with a fountain in the centre), open above, and with
a wall or arches all round it. Over this wall or these
54-O The Holy Land in our Lord's day.
arches ran a series of rooms approached by a stone
staircase. The rooms were for the merchants and
travellers. Muleteers, animals and baggage shared
the arches and open space below. The apartments
were mostly unfurnished, and lodgment for strangers
could be had without cost, but the inn-keeper re-
ceived a small gratuity.
Joseph and Mary probably arrived late, and found
their proposed guest-chamber at a friend's house
already occupied. Bethlehem is a very small place,
and, on such an occasion as the great enrolment,
there would be an exceptionally large crowd gathered
there from afar. The parents of our Lord naturally
went to the khan, but this was also full, and they
had to find room among the muleteers.
Worship*. In every village there was a syna-
gogue. In Jerusalem, the number of them is said
to have exceeded 400. They were more numerous
everywhere than our Churches.
There were two officials connected with every
synagogue, a " ruler of the synagogue," and an
attendant. The " ruler " did not conduct the service
personally, but it was his duty to choose or invite
some of the members present to do so in turn. The
" ruler " corresponded more or less to our church-
warden. The attendant, or " minister " (S. Luke
iv. 20), who was under him, somewhat resembled
our parish-clerk.
a Our space does not permit us to deal with the Temple. The
subject is too large, and also too well_known.
The Holy Land in our Lord's day. 541
Every synagogue had an ark, or press, in which
were kept the sacred writings. Near this ark was
a platform, with a lectern for the reader, and a chair
for the speaker.
The principal service was on the Sabbath morning,
but there were others during the week. The service
opened with the reading of the proper sentences
(Deut vi. 4 sqq., xi. 13 21 ; Numb. xv. 37 41).
Then came a prayer spoken by one of the congre-
gation. This was followed by the reading of the
Law, a lesson which was divided into sections,
each read by a different member of the congregation.
Anyone who knew Hebrew could be asked to read
it. Next came a lesson from .one of the Prophets b ,
also read by any individual selected by the ruler.
Originally, the verses of the Law and the Prophets
were translated one by one, as they were read, by
an interpreter who paraphrased them into the current
Aramaic tongue. In our Lord's day, however, the
reader of the lesson, after reading it aloud, ex-
pounded the passage in a sermon. Thus our Lord,
at Nazareth, first selected and read a chapter of
Isaiah, then closed the book, gave it back to the
minister (attendant), sat down, and explained in an
address the words He had read aloud.
Ten Jews, at least, must be present for the holding
of public worship in a synagogue, and they must be
b The Prophets were only read on the Sabbath morning, not at
the afternoon service.
54 2 The Holy Land in our Lord's day.
ten men, for women did not reckon c . The strange
thing to us in the synagogue service is that, even
when a priest was present, the only part of the
service which none but he could perform was the
benediction at the end of it. The other portions of
the service were open to all competent members of
the congregation.
For moral and religious offences, a member of a
synagogue could be excommunicated, i.e. excluded
from all its services: e.g. S. John ix. 22, xii. 42, xvi.
2; S. Luke vi. 22 (cf. S. Matth. xviii. 17 for the
Christian Church practice based on this Jewish
precedent). There was also a minor punishment
of scourging (Matth. x. 17 ; cf. Acts v. 40).
Education. The synagogue was not only a place
of worship, it was also a school d . The Jews had
organized a splendid system of elementary education,
but mainly on religious lines. Every village had its
elementary school in the synagogue or an adjoining
room. Attendance was compulsory. The teachers
almost invariably belonged to the order of the
scribes.
A child's first school was his home, his first
It is said that even a woman could take part in the reading of the
.Sabbath lesson as one of the seven persons required for that purpose.
It was, however, considered very objectionable for her to do so, except
in cases of extreme urgency. (Tos. Meg. IV. 226-* ; Bab. Meg. 233..)
d Indeed, even in its Sabbath-worship, "the main idea of the
synagogue service was originally instruction rather than worship,
for which in its associated forms the Temple was provided, and in
its intimate forms privacy could be secured."
The Holy Land in our Lord's day. 543
teachers his parents, in accordance with Deut. vi.
6, 7. Jewish parents did not shirk this duty.
A father, according to Rabbi Salomo, might
as well bury his son as neglect his instruction.
Josephus tells us that " from the very dawn of
his understanding, a Jewish child learned the Law
by heart."
At the age of six, the boy went to the elementary
school. There the only text-book was the Old Tes-
tament in Hebrew e . Reading, writing, and probably
arithmetic, were the subjects taught. Everything
was learnt by " repetition drill." The idea was not
so much to impart general knowledge as to give
a sound moral training on a purely religious basis.
Girls were only taught at home, by their mother.
They learnt to read and write, but above all "to
fear God and keep His commandments." Their
education was not confined to mental training, for
they were soundly instructed in the care and man-
agement of a household. The Jewish mother placed
before her daughter a noble ideal of womanhood :
" Look well to the ways of thine household, and
eat not the bread of idleness." " Let thy children
8 Buhl questions this. He maintains it only refers to the more
educated classes and not to the masses. For if children learned in
the boys' school to read the Law in Hebrew, and if this accomplish-
ment was general, it would have been superfluous to translate the
Hebrew lessons in the synagogue into Aramaic, as was invariably done.
(Cf. the astonishment of the people at Jesus' learning, when they
saw He was able both to read and expound the Hebrew text (Matth.
xiii. 55 ; Luke iv. 16 sqq.) )
544 The Holy Land in our Lord's day,
rise up and call thee blessed ; thy husband also,
let him praise thee saying : many daughters have
done virtuously, but thou excellest them all f ."
There were, of course, higher grades of education
as well. Thus Josephus made a special study of
Greek and classical authors. This was, however,
discouraged by strict Jews. " It is not our way,"
says Josephus himself, " to accord any great appre-
ciation to those who have learnt many languages.
This is an accomplishment of which slaves are as
capable as freemen. Among us, those alone are
regarded as wise who thoroughly understand the
law, and can expound the Holy Scriptures."
In Jewish eyes, the Bible contained all that was
worth knowing : " Turn it over, again and again,
for everything is in it."
As may be expected, it was only in the sphere
of religious knowledge that the standard of Jewish
f In O.T. times women were held in high esteem, and they play
an important part in Hebrew history. They were accorded much
more freedom than in other Oriental countries. Although the husband
was the "master," and the wife the "owned one" (Heb.), she held
at all times the position of "helpmeet to man" assigned her in
Gen. ii. 20 24. Strange to say, in the three centuries B.C., woman's
freedom and the respect for her seem to have become less. In the
Apocrypha we read, e.g. "the badness of men is better than the
goodness of women." It is also said that Pharisees veiled their faces
lest they should behold a woman or some unclean thing. But the
free access of women to the synagogues, and the frequent honorable
mention of women in the N.T. , prove that their rights were respected
among Jews, and that they moved freely in society. Although Christ
and Christianity have immensely enhanced the dignity of woman,.
no Eastern (or even Greek) nation respected women as did the Jews.
T/ie Holy Land in our Lord's day. 545
education was high. They were people of " one
Book," and outside Biblical facts they knew little
or no history. Their geography was most rudi-
mentary and their acquaintance with science was
nil*.
In art, they excelled in music and lyric poetry h .
These formed an essential part of their religion.
The Jews would, however, have nothing to do with
the sculpture or painting of living creatures. The
second commandment expressly forbade it. Their
idea of medicine was extremely primitive. They
pinned their faith to simples, drugs, amulets and
magic, for they were fully convinced that most
diseases were due to " possession " of evil spirits,
or demons, which had to be exorcised.
Language. The Hebrew tongue of the Old Tes-
tament had long ceased to be the vernacular of Pales-
tine by our Lord's day. After the Exile, Aramaic
began to force its way among the Jews. The old
Hebrew language yielded only gradually to the new
allied idiom, but, from the second century B.C., pure
Hebrew ceased to be a living tongue, and sub-
8 " It was not till 200 years after the destruction of Jerusalem that
the Jews began to fix the new moon on astronomical grounds. The
Rabbinic idea of rain was that the clouds, like sieves, had holes-
through which the water fell. Thunder was ' as the splitting of ice
in clouds when struck by the hot lightning.' Earthquakes were ' God
clapping His hands, or sighing, or treading upon His footstool.' The
heavens were a round dome over the flat earth : to this dome some
stars were fixed, others moved along ways made in it for them."
h See Article " Poetry " in Appendix.
N n
546 The Holy Land in our Lord's day.
sequently played the same role as Latin in the
Middle Ages.
In the New Testament, therefore, the phrase " in
Hebrew" means "in Aramaic." But Palestine was a
bilingual country 1 . It may be generally stated that
every Jew who made any claim to higher culture
understood Greek and spoke it fairly well. Even
ordinary Jews, living in Galilee or in the vicinity of
places where Greek was spoken, would doubtless
acquire some familiarity with it from childhood. All
the more so, as the Scriptures had been translated
into the Greek tongue in the Septuagint version ; and
the frequent quotations from the Septuagint prove
that even Jews found the Greek version more
accessible than the original Hebrew.
Still, Aramaic was the prevalent tongue, especially
among the masses ; while some ultra-conservative
Jews of high position would have nothing to do with
a pagan language. Even Josephus, the great Jewish
historian, says of himself : " I am acknowledged by
my countrymen to excel them far in national
learning, and I did my best to obtain a knowledge of
Greek, though native habit prevented me from attain-
ing accuracy in the use of it." Now if Josephus (37
100 A.D.) speaks of Greek as a borrowed tongue,
1 Palestine was a Roman province, and John xix. 20 speaks of the
inscription over the Cross "in Hebrew and in Latin and in Greek,"
so we might naturally expect Latin to be spoken in Palestine. But
the Romans never imposed their language on their subjects in the
East, and Latin in Palestine seems only to have been used in official
documents.
The Holy Land in our Lord's day. 547
and experiences some difficulty in its use, this is as
clear evidence as we need to show that Aramaic was
the vernacular of Christ's day. Josephus gives us
additional evidence of this fact, for he tells us that
Titus had to avail himself of his help as interpreter
when he delivered a Greek address to the people of
Jerusalem.
What language did our Lord Himself speak ? All
the evidence points to Aramaic. In some of the most
touching incidents in His Life (e.g. on the Cross) it is
in Aramaic that He gives expression to His. feelings
{cf. S. Mark v. 41). S. Paul, again, in describing his
conversion to Agrippa, says : " I heard a voice saying
in the Hebrew (i.e. Aramaic) tongue." Now that the
ascended Christ should have spoken to S. Paul in
Aramaic is unintelligible except on the supposition
that this was the tongue He spoke on earth.
On the other hand, there is nothing to show that
our Lord was not familiar with Greek. As a
Galilean, our Lord must have known it. Besides,
how could He otherwise have conversed with the
Syro-Phcenician woman, or with Pilate ?
Political Constitution. As a Roman dependency
Judaea was placed under the proconsul of Syria, who
appointed a procurator, or lieutenant-governor, to
govern and administer it. This procurator generally
resided at Caesarea on the sea-coast, but came up
to Jerusalem for all great Jewish festivals, when riots
might be expected. A Roman garrison occupied
Caesarea and many other towns, notably Jerusalem,
548 The Holy Land in our Lord's day.
where the soldiers had barracks in the Temple-
citadel of Antonia k .
The Roman taxes were farmed, or sold for a
lump sum to the highest bidder, who had to recoup
himself as best he could. This naturally led to much
extortion.
The lieutenant-governor was the highest legis-
lative and judicial authority, and all the most im-
portant cases came before him. No sentence of
death could be passed except with his express
sanction.
In other respects, Judaea enjoyed Home Rule.
This was administered by the high-priest and the
Sanhedrin, or council of elders over which he
presided.
The members of the Sanhedrin were composed of
the high-priest, as president, supported by the chief-
priests (i.e. " ex-high-priests, as well as members
of those aristocratic and privileged families from
which the high-priests were taken." Sckurer.} and
" elders " of the people. These " elders " were pro-
bably for the most part aristocratic Sadducees.
The Pharisee element in the Sanhedrin was mainly
represented by the scribes, though individual mem-
bers of the other two classes may also have been
Pharisees.
k The Turris Antonia was on an acropolis, separated from the
Temple but overlooking it, and connected with it by passages and
stairs. During the festivals, the garrison kept constant watch over
the Temple, &c., in case of tumults (cf. Acts xxi. 35 40). In this
The Holy Land in our Lord's day. 549
It is extremely difficult to define the functions of
the Sanhedrin. In Maccabaean days, the Sanhedrin
had the supreme powers of an imperial parliament.
It was the highest judicial and legislative authority.
Under Roman rule, the powers of the Sanhedrin
were greatly curtailed, yet the Romans cleverly
veiled the glaring fact. Roman imperial policy
accommodated itself to the utmost limit to the
national pride and prejudices of subject races, never
interfering with the make-believe of Home Rule,
so long as local authorities kept within reasonable
bounds, and did not abuse their privileges.
Rome found the Jews with a peculiar government
of their own. They considered themselves the chosen
people of God, and knew no laws but the Law of
Jehovah as formulated by Moses His Prophet. The
Sanhedrin were the administrators of this Law.
Tolerant Rome accepted the situation, and declined
to interfere. The inhabitants of Judaea were allowed
to govern themselves in their own manner provided
that they acted peacefully, paid their tribute, and
were loyal to their civil duties. The Sanhedrin was
permitted to retain much of its old influence as an
aristocratic assembly and high-court of justice. It
dealt with all such cases as were not reserved by
the Romans for their own decision or which did not
fall within the province of the smaller local councils.
Although its authority was now rather of an ecclesi-
fortress was stationed the one cohort (600 men or so) which formed
the permanent garrison of Jerusalem, under Roman rule.
550 TJie Holy Land in our Lord's day.
astical than civil nature, it was held responsible for
the maintenance of order, From the Gospels and
the Acts, we learn that the Sanhedrin had the
power of arrest (e.g. Jesus ; cf. S. Peter and S. John
(Acts v. 40)) and of scourging (Acts v. 40), but
it could not sentence to death. The stoning of
Stephen was a case of lynching.
The wisdom of this Roman policy of toleration
and non-interference is nowhere better illustrated
than in Palestine. Jews were convinced that the
Council of the Seventy at Jerusalem (Sanhedrin)
were the direct lineal descendants of the Seventy
of Moses' day (Numb. xi. 16) appointed by Jehovah
Himself. The Sanhedrin ruled by divine right.
Therefore its every word was law, and its moral
authority far exceeded its actual legal powers. The
instructions of this august Body were regarded by
all pious Jews all the world over as equivalent to
commands. S. Paul, armed with letters from its
president, the high-priest, addressed to the syna-
gogues at Damascus, is enabled to hale Christian
Jews " bound " to Jerusalem. A Jewish nation which
acknowledged no King but Jehovah, no laws but the
precepts of its own holy books, was, as may be
imagined, a race not easy to govern. It was a
master-stroke of diplomatic policy for Rome to
retain all the actual power in its own hands while
pretending to give Judaea Home Rule through its
Sanhedrin. This diplomatic policy also explains
Rome's readiness occasionally to sacrifice one of the
The Holy Land in our Lord's day. 551
Herods, or even a Roman governor, to pacify the
Jews.
Money. Roman and Greek coins were current in
Palestine in our Lord's day, possibly also native
copper coins. Sacred dues had to be paid in coins
of still another standard, viz. the Phoenician tetra-
drachm corresponding to the Hebrew shekel.
Palestine, and Jerusalem in particular, were visited
by vast numbers of Jews "out of every nation under
heaven." Bankers, or money-changers, were there-
fore an absolute necessity. They not only changed
foreign money into Palestine currency, but also took
sums on deposit at high interest (Matth. xxv. 27).
In their ordinary " exchange " transactions and loans,
they were not over-scrupulous as to the commission
they charged, but in the case of the sacred "half-
shekel" the commission was legally fixed at 4%.
Gold, as well as silver and copper coins, circulated
in Palestine in the time of our Lord : " provide neither
gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses " (S. Matth.
x. 9), but no gold coin is mentioned in the Gospels \
1 Nine different terms for money are used in the New Testament :
(1) A talent = ^240 \
, ... r \ These were sums of money, not coins.
A mma ("pound ) = A4 )
(2) Silver coins.
Denarius (" penny ") = lorf. i really ^
Drachm (" piece of silver ") = lod. )
Didrachm (A.V. "tribute-money; R.V. " half -shekel ")= I s. %d.
Stater (A.V. " piece of money ;" R.V. " shekel ") = 3*. 4^. (circ.)
(3) Copper coins.
Assarion (" farthing ")= \d. ('4^.)
Kodrantes (" farthing ") = rf.
Lepton (" mite ")= ^d. (?)
APPENDIX.
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES.
(I.) New Testament Miracles. A 555
(II.) The Kenosis. p. 563
(III.) Is the New Testament the last word
of God's Revelation to man ? P- S7 l
(IV.) Resurrection of the Body. p. 577
(V.) Poetical element in Hebrew literature. /. 580
(VI.) The Didache. /. 584
<VII.) S. John's Apocalypse. /. 587
APPENDIX.
I.
New Testament Miracles a .
THERE is no denying the plain fact that the
Gospel-miracles are as much a stumbling-block to
the scientifically trained mind nowadays as they were
aids to faith to our more simple-minded forefathers.
They run counter to all our experience and ap-
parently contradict the established Laws of Nature.
Therefore many readers will have none of them.
Every age has its intellectual virtues and vices.
Ours is essentially a scientific age, and its chief
intellectual infirmity is the fixed idea that whatever
does not tally with our pet scientific theories is to
be discredited. Unless a phenomenon can be sub-
jected to a laboratory test, scientifically analysed ac-
cording to certain prescribed methods, each element
in its composition exactly determined by our finely-
graduated rod or delicate weighing-scales, it is not
worthy of acceptation. So scientific materialism
decrees.
Needless to say, this notion is only a weakness of
the scientific mind and utterly contrary to the true
principles of science. Indeed, the greater and the
a See also p. 290 sqq. supra.
556 Appendix.
more scientific a man is, the more free is he likely
to be from this " idol." There is nothing so un-
scientific as a refusal to recognize facts because
they seem to conflict with some theory to which we
have pinned our faith, nothing so unscientific as a
bias against evidence which favours some kind of
fact that the investigator does not wish to believe.
The pet scientific theory of to-day is that such
wonderful things as are constantly recorded in the
Gospels, e.g. faith-healing, casting out spirits of evil,
reappearances of the dead, extraordinary instances of
control over the forces of nature, do not happen
and never did happen. Therefore some so-called
scientific men have a most unscientific prejudice
against the miracles of the New Testament. Un-
scientific because we all know that wonderful
things daily happen, and that our theory of life is
so hampered by our extremely limited knowledge
that it does not nearly cover things as they actually
are in themselves.
No doubt, the Evangelists lived in a very
credulous age. No doubt, legends abound in their
pages. No doubt, as Dr. Sanday remarks, " if
miracles of the first century had been wrought before
trained spectators of the nineteenth, the version of
them would be quite different." No doubt, the
application of a true scientific method to miracles of
primitive days generally, would result more often in
disproof of the miraculous element therein than in
its proof. Still, this is no reason why it should be
New Testament Miracles.
called more scientific invariably to attach more
weight to evidence that tells against a wonderful
occurrence than to evidence which tells in favour
of it.
There are scientific men to-day who implicitly be-
lieve in telepathy, faith-healing and spiritualism.
There are great thinkers in almost every department
of knowledge, men to whom we look up as experts in
their respective branches, who believe that some men
and women to-day can read the unspoken thoughts of
others, or can cure disease by the power of their
spirit and their will, even as Christ did, only in a
lesser degree. There are others of equal note who
are persuaded that departed spirits can materialize
and appear to us after death. They may be deluded
visionaries, but till we have solved the psychological
problems which the Psychical Research Society
for instance, is now studying, it is unscientific to
dogmatize either way.
Science disbelieves in miracles because they are
isolated events not preceded by material conditions
sufficient to produce them. But does not this beg
the whole question ? Are material conditions a sine
qua non ?
One of the foremost scientific theories of the
present day echoes the Christian belief that " the
Universe is one whole, and God is the meaning of it..
It proclaims the great truth which the Bible has
declared all along : God is immanent in His world
as well as transcendentally above it. He is not only
558 Appendix.
its Creator and Controller, guiding the Universe as a
helmsman who never leaves the tiller for one single
instant, but it is His constant Presence in every
particle of it that quickens it into life and binds the
entire Universe into a living organic whole V
If this is true ; if, as the President of the British
Association (1908) says, "There is in all living
things a something psychic, a faint copy of what we
know as consciousness in ourselves ; " if this con-
sciousness of our own, in its turn, is a faint copy of
the Consciousness of God, what then ? Materialism
is bankrupt, and the gulf between the natural and
supernatural vanishes with it. The chasm which
we pictured to ourselves as existing between God
and His World is not there. From the lowest form
of organic life right up to God there is an unbroken
line of continuity, and Plato's ideal is realized, " the
mortal is woven into the immortal." The whole
Universe becomes spiritual and is explained in terms
of the consciousness of God, the Secret, Source, First
Cause of all that is. If the Divine God-Soul calls
into being, quickens and binds compactly together
every single thing in God's Universe ; if man, animals,
plants, matter itself are what they are simply be-
cause the God- Soul present in them creates, vivifies
and unifies them one and all, then All that is is
the self-utterance, the self-expression of the Eternal
I AM, I WILL, the self-existent, eternal, universal
b See Oremus (Parker, 1908), where the present author has at-
tempted to develope this thesis more or less fully.
New Testament Miracles. 559
Spirit whom we call God. T. H. Green was right :
" The Universe is a World of thought-relations." It
is spiritual and not material. All that we see is
but God's Thought, God's Will, God's Spirit, God's
Love actualized. All that our eyes perceive is the
visible body in which the eternal Spirit is clothed
for the time being, but strictly this body of in-
organic matter has no reality. Moment by moment
this clothing body " decayeth and waxeth old and
is ready to pass away." It is no essential part
of the true self of things ; it is a negative element,
a practical fiction of the natural intelligence.
Here, if anywhere, lies for us the secret of miracles,
of the Universe-riddle, if only we can guess or solve
it. Personal spirit or consciousness, in God or our-
selves, is the only factor that need be taken into
our reckoning. God's Consciousness, His self-direct
ing, creative, all-perfect Personality, Love Divine,
is the driving-power behind evolution, and the
key to it all. Creation is a never-ending process
going on at the present moment. Every moment
God is guiding His World-evolution, expressing
Himself ever more and more. This he does so
perfectly, and therefore so simply, that even we
finite beings with our infinitesimal knowledge can
detect and classify some of God's simple methods
and we call them Laws of Nature. Here and there
we laboriously spell out a word in -God's great
chapter, and conceitedly fancy we have solved the
eternal mystery and carry the key to the Uni-
560 Appendix.
verse in our own pocket. All the while we seize
on the husk and call it the kernel ; we translate
everything into terms of non-existent matter and
exalt that into the only real ; we have eyes to see the
body and declare there is no soul ; we are sure all is
material and nothing spiritual.
No wonder we refuse to believe in Gospel-
miracles. To the materialist, they are isolated
events not preceded by material conditions sufficient
to produce them. But even the man in the street
can see that materialism is not the last word of
modern philosophy. Even he can grasp the truth
that there is practically no limit to the power of
spirit over matter. By the mere exercise of his own
will, he sets into motion, not only his own material
limbs, but other people's as well. Through the
power of his own personality, his own " I am and I
will," he can and does produce a change in himself
and his environment ; he changes, alters, modifies
persons and events.
If the absence of antecedent material conditions
sufficient to produce a given event constitutes a
miracle, every man is a miracle-worker. It is will-
power, spirit acting on spirit and matter, that makes
history. We see it dimly in ourselves ; we see it
" writ large " in truly great men. The magnetically
telepathic force of a Napoleon can hardly be
exaggerated. Great wills take the world as they
find it, and, with a definite purpose in view, so
combine and blend the human and material
New Testament Miracles. 561
elements at their disposal as to produce the result
they intend.
Such geniuses certainly exist. Their achieve-
ments no man can scientifically analyse. They are
psychological facts which can be explained in terms
of spirit alone, not of matter, the only thing science
knows. Such men are born into the world with a
superhuman force. They produce incalculable results
equal to these more than human powers. The
scientific historian cannot explain them, neither
can he deny them. They are " miracles."
There are human geniuses in every department
of life. In the way of mechanical inventions and
physical healing, human genius has triumphed over
inanimate nature and the human body in a way
that, before the fact, would have been incredible.
The bare suggestion of such achievements would
have been laughed to scorn.
Yet the " miracles " of to-day are not " super-
natural." They do not run counter to the Laws of
Nature. They are only the cunning application of
known Laws.
Or do we mean to say that we know all the Laws,
or rather all the forces that are at work in the Uni-
verse ? When we say that " miracles are a breach
of the order of nature," would it not be wiser and
more scientific to add "so far as we understand the
order of nature " ?
God knows the whole Chapter of which we only
know a few verses. Therefore if we wish to speak
O o
562 Appendix.
with scientific accuracy we shall not dogmatize.
Like Augustine, we shall content ourselves with the
assertion, not that miracles are contrary to nature,
but contrary to nature as we ourselves interpret it.
Psychology is still in its infancy. We are only
just beginning to realize that psychology is a key
fitting into the wards of many a lock hitherto baffling
us, and, therefore, likely to open many a closed door
in the future. It is impossible to assert anything
with confidence on this deep subject, for we are
still groping in the dark there. Still, that new
province of knowledge seems to be a land of great
promise. Meanwhile, till new light comes, it is well
to suspend our judgment.
All we can safely say at present is that a miracle
is an event which happens in a puzzling sort of way,
contrary to our expectations : expectations them-
selves founded on our present knowledge of the
course of nature. We do not know the links in the
chain of cause and effect which have produced it, and
because some of these links are missing, the whole
thing does not hang together intelligibly. Many
people will not believe what they themselves do
not understand, therefore they argue, and cavil, and
are out of all patience with all and any who question
their verdict.
We do not know enough about the details of
Gospel-miracles to speak dogmatically. Prof. Burkitt
is of opinion that the evidence goes far to prove
that " wonderful cures such as the healing of the
The Kenosis. 563
leper actually took place." Till our data are more
complete, it is not unscientific to define a miracle
as " an uncommon event, manifesting purpose, which
cannot be accounted for by any causes known to us
sufficient to produce it, and, therefore, we ascribe
it to a higher intelligence."
II.
The Kenosis.
(" Christ emptied Himself," Phil. ii. 7, R.V.)
How far did Christ strip Himself of His Divine
prerogatives when the " Word was made Flesh " ?
The classical passage on this subject is Phil. ii.
6, 8 : " Who being in the form of God . . . emptied
Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made
in the likeness of men : and being found in fashion
as a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient
unto death, yea, the death of the Cross " (R.V.).
Surely, if this means anything, it means that
when our Lord took our flesh upon Him He
voluntarily emptied Himself of the prerogatives of
His Godhead, and became in all things like as we
are, subjecting Himself to the limitations of the day
in which He lived c .
c cf. Dr. Sanday : " When we speak of Christ ' accommodating
Himself to the ideas of His day,' we do not mean a merely politic
assumption of a particular belief for a particular purpose. We mean
that the assumption was part of the outfit of His Incarnate Manhood.
There was a certain circle of ideas which Jesus accepted, in the same
564 Appendix.
There are other passages supporting this inter-
pretation : e.g. Heb. iv. 15: "For we have not an
high-priest that cannot be touched with the feeling
of our infirmities ; but one that hath in all points
been tempted like as we are, yet without sin." Cf.
Heb. ii. 17, 18: "Wherefore it behoved Him in all
things to be made like unto His brethren. . . . For
in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He
is able to succour them that are tempted."
What natural interpretation can possibly be put
upon these explicit passages except that our Lord's
was an intensely real Humanity ? Within the purely
human sphere of His activity, He of His own accord
laid aside His Divine Omnipotence and Omniscience,
so as to allow a real normal growth of human will,
and human knowledge, and human experiences in
Himself. Thus alone could He " be touched with
the feeling of our infirmities," sympathize with us in
all things, understand us thoroughly in all our ex-
periences, feel with us to the utmost in all our own
trials and temptations. Thus alone could He show
us that it is possible for a man to live on earth the
life of God Himself, since He, Jesus Christ, " a man
in all points like as we are," has done it.
To take one instance by way of illustration. It is
this consideration, this literal " emptying of Himself"
on Christ's part, which alone can give any value and
reality to our Lord's Temptation. " In that He
way in which He accepted a particular language with its grammar
and vocabulary " (Hastings' D.B. II. 624).
The Kenosis. 565
Himself suffered being tempted, He is able to
succour them that are tempted." The whole point
lies in the fact that the struggle was a real one,
that, as the writer to the Hebrews puts it, " He
suffered'' because the struggle within Him was so
severe.
If we eliminate this struggle between the higher
and lower nature in our Lord, the spirit and the
body, then we fall back into Docetisni and make
our Lord's human nature unreal, His Body a mere
phantom.
If our Lord was "tempted in all points like as we
are," then, like ourselves, He must have inherited
from His human parentage a tendency to do wrong.
We ourselves certainly inherit it. On the other
hand, unlike us, Christ from the very first triumphed
over this tendency. It was there, but He would not
yield to or indulge it for one moment by thought or
deed. Thus the tendency never had the least scope
for growth. It atrophied and died : " tempted in
all things like as we are, yet without sin."
That the susceptibility to human temptation was
present in Christ is clear from the form which the
temptations assumed. As Dr. Sanday well puts it :
<( For us the story of the Temptation has a deep
spiritual meaning : for us it expresses, if we may so
say, the problem that presented itself to the mind
of our Lord at the first outset of His Ministry how
He is to exercise the wonderful endowment of which
He was conscious, how He is to discharge His
Messianic mission."
566 Appendix.
The first Temptation is an appeal to satisfy
natural cravings by supernatural means. The second
comes in the form of a suggestion to prove the Son-
ship of God, just revealed to Him at His Baptism
(hence the " if Thou be the Son of God "), by putting
it to a supernatural test. The third prompts Him to
make it easier for the Jews to accept Him as their
Davidic King by falling in with their Messianic views
of a triumphant Messiah.
By a deliberate and immediate act of self-assertion
and renunciation, our Lord brushes aside one and all
of these suggestions without a moment's hesitation.
None the less, " He suffered being tempted" He felt
for that moment the pain and the pressure to moral
evil, the struggle of resistance to it. We know that
the Temptation came again after S. Peter's confes-
sion, and once more in an aggravated form at the
Agony. In the strength of the God-Soul within
Him, as it is in us all, He was enabled to face these
Temptations, to come out of the fearful struggle
more than conqueror, perfected through His very
sufferings (cf. Heb. v. 7), " tempted in all points like
as we are, yet without sin''
Phil. ii. 6 8 also implies that when our Lord took
upon Himself our flesh ("taking the form of a
servant, being made in the likeness of men, and
being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Him-
self, becoming obedient unto death "), He, at the
same time, voluntarily divested Himself of His
Omniscience.
Indeed, it is impossible to read the Gospels with
The Kenosis. 567
an open and unbiassed mind, without coming to the
conclusion that no claim is made there for the om-
niscience of Christ. On the contrary, facts are
recorded by the Evangelists which decidedly tend to
disprove such a claim.
S. Luke ii. 52 (cf. ii. 40), " Jesus advanced in
wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and
man " (R.V.), shows that our Lord's intellectual
and spiritual faculties expanded side by side with
His physical growth according to the universal
laws which govern mental development all the world
over d . As Westcott says in his commentary on the
Hebrews, there is no period in the life of Jesus where
we can say " at this point, He ceased to learn or to
advance towards perfection."
S. Matth. xxiv. 36 tells us " Of that day and
hour knoweth no one .... neither the Son, but the
Father only " (R.V.). This saying of our Lord so
precludes the possibility of ascribing omniscience to
Him that many ancient MSS. of S. Matthew have
omitted the words " neither the Son."
A careful study of our Lord's own teaching on the
subject of His Second Coming leaves a decided im-
pression on the reader's mind that the expectation of
d It has often been pointed out that, in the whole of His earthly
life, physical and intellectual, our Lord was subject, even as we are,
to the ordinary laws of nature. "If he violated these laws, even
in the interests of His work, He had to pay the penalty which nature
inexorably demands," e.g. Matth. iv. 2, Luke iv. 2, He fasted, and
therefore hungered (cf. Mark xi. 12, Matt. xxi. 18) ; if He made a long
journey, He was wearied (John iv. 6, cf. Matth. viii. 24).
568 Appendix.
His own speedy Second Coming was held and
taught by our Lord Himself, e.g. : S. Matth. x. 23 :
"Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till
the Son of Man be come " ; cf. S. Mark ix. r : " There
be some of them standing here, which shall not taste
of death, till they have seen the Kingdom of God
come with power." Christ's words on the sudden-
ness of the Coming are equally clear, e.g., Matth.
xxiv. 27, " as the lightning cometh out of the East,
so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be" (cf.
37 ; and Luke xvii. 20, 24). At any rate Christ
gave utterance to words which left upon the minds
of those who heard Him the clear and decided im-
pression that He was coming again speedily and
suddenly. This belief not only pervades the Synop-
tists, but is to be found on almost every other page
of the New Testament writings.
In the matter of the current belief in demons and
" demoniacal possession " there can be no doubt,
says Dr. Sanday, that Jesus Himself shared the
views of His contemporaries. Similarly, precisely
because the " Word was made Flesh " in Judaea at
a particular time and amid a particular environment,
the reality of the Incarnation involves the limitation
of knowledge which we find in Matth. xxii. 41 45 ;
Mark xii. 35 37 ; Luke xx. 41 44, where our Lord
assigns Ps. ex. to David, even as He accepts (Matth.
xxiv. 37 ; Luke xvii. 26) the genuine historicity of
Noah and the Flood, and the story of Jonah and the
whale (Matth. xii. 40, xvi. 4 ; Luke xi. 29).
The Kenosis. 569
We know that our Lord constantly read the
unspoken thoughts of His disciples and others, but
some of our Lord's questions are also of the nature
of ordinary enquiries, asking for information which
He does not already possess, e.g. He asks of the
father of the epileptic boy : " How long is it ago
since this came unto him ? " (Mark ix. 21 ; cf. John
xi. 34 ; Mark v. 9, 30 ; vi. 38 ; viii. 5).
In all this there is nothing in any way derogatory
to the majesty and Divinity of our Lord, while we
do deny our Lord's perfect Humanity if we make
claims for our Lord as man which He does not
make for Himself.
Christ came to reveal the Father unto us. All
questions about God, His Will, His purpose, His
relation to man, man's relation to Him, Christ
answers with full and absolute authority. " All
things have been delivered unto Me of My Father:
and no one knoweth the Son, save the Father ;
neither doth any one know the Father, save the Son,
and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal
Him. Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are
heavy laden, and I will give you rest " (Matth.
xi. 27, 28).
As a moral and spiritual Teacher and Revealer of
the Father, Jesus claims to speak with absolute
authority, and the witness of our own hearts un-
reservedly acknowledges that authority as final.
But questions about the date or authorship of a
Psalm, the absolute historicity of an Old Testament
570 Appendix. Is the New Testament
event, the diagnosis of a disease, it was not part of
Christ's mission to answer. The truth which Jesus
came to reveal to us is not a knowledge of facts of
science, or history, it is a revelation of God as
our Father, our duty to Him and to our fellow-man.
Our scientific and historical information we must
obtain for ourselves by the exercise of our human
powers of observation and inference, just as all that
our Lord Himself knew in such matters He had
learnt in the same way as any man of His day. Of
His Divine omniscience in knowledge of that kind,
our Lord "emptied Himself" when He took our
human nature upon Him. There He must be in-
terpreted through the thought and life of His genera-
tion, as Son of Mary, brought up in the home, and
doubtless in the school, of Nazareth in the know-
ledge of His day.
And why should these limitations of Christ's
omniscience in pure questions of literary, historical
or medical information wound Christian feelings?
Does this make Christ's Personality one whit less
Divine ? We might as well ask : Does His taking
upon Himself our human body with its infirmities of
hunger (Matth. iv. 2), thirst (John iv. 10, xix. 28),
weariness (Mark iv. 38 ; John iv. 6), disappointment
and anger (Mark viii. 12, vi. 6, iii. 5), astonishment,
(Matth. viii. 10), temptation (Matth. iv.), or His being
born as a babe of a mortal woman, wrapt in swad-
dling clothes, dependent on an earthly mother for
the very means of His subsistence does all this
the last word of God's Revelation to man ? 571
make Him less Divine ? No limitation can be more
complete than our Lord's Incarnation, yet it is
precisely the reality and intensity of our Lord's
Humanity that appeals most thoroughly to our
hearts. Not only does it assure us that we have One
Who can be " touched with the feeling of our own
infirmities" ; but there is much more than this. The
self-humiliation of our Lord in his Incarnation is one
of the most Divine traits in His uniquely Divine
revelations. It convinces us, as few other things
can, that in this self-humiliation we have a loving
God revealing Himself to man as none but a God of
Infinite Love would have ever thought of doing.
Reverent as their motives undoubtedly are, men do
harm and not good when they refuse to ascribe to
Christ the true manhood which is His. God is not
least God when, in that supreme moment of His
Infinite Love, He for our sakes becomes perfect Man
in the Incarnation 6 .
III.
Does the New Testament say the last zuord of God's
revelation to man ?
God is infinitely patient. From the Creation of
the world, it was His Eternal Purpose to establish
His Kingdom of Love on earth, but it took many
e To the present writer, the lower the depth of the self-humiliation
of Divine Love in the Incarnation, the more supremely Divine does
it become. Were the Virgin-Birth disproved to-morrow, it would
not shake his faith one whit, but confirm it all the more.
572 Appendix. Is the New Testament
thousands of years to prepare the way for Christ its
Founder. It will take as many more before we
really grasp the truths of the Kingdom which Christ
revealed.
Christ knew this well. He concentrated His main
attention during His Ministry on the education of
the Twelve, explaining to them what this Kingdom
really is, and its Laws. But they were dull of under-
standing, as they themselves tell us, and oft did not
understand. As He was parting from them, our
Lord said to them : " I have yet many things to say
unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit
when He, the Spirit of Truth is come, He will guide
you into all truth."
Was this gracious promise of the abiding presence
of the Holy Spirit the Enlightener in Christ's King-
dom made only to the Twelve, or is it addressed to
all followers of Christ ever since ? If this Holy Spirit
the Enlightener, guiding men into all truth, has been
present in the Church of Christ for 1,900 years, do
we, or do we not see more truly into the meaning
and teaching of our Lord's words than even His
disciples did ? Or, in God's Universe, is it in the
Kingdom of God alone that there is no development,
no growth, no evolution from the seed into the
perfect flower ? Is it there alone that to stand still
does not mean stagnation and death ? In other
words, has no fresh light, no revelation from
God come to us men since the Apostolic days ?
Or is not Revelation, even as Creation, a never-
tlie last word of God's Revelation to man ? 573
ending process going on now at the present
moment ?
Even the most conservative Christians find a
"progressive revelation" in the Bible. Does it end
there ? The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews
tells us that " God, Who at sundry times and in
divers manners spake in times past unto the fathers
by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto
us by His Son." Has He never spoken to man since,
or guided him into any further truth by His Holy
Spirit ? Can we believe that clearer and ever
clearer shines the light as we come down the ages,
and then God's Light to usward suddenly goes out
about 100 A.D. ? Is it a fact that with the last page
of S. John, all that God had to say to man has been
said, and Revelation ceases ? In short, is the Revela-
tion of God one small chapter in the world's history
or does it pervade the whole of it ?
In the light of after events, and guided by the
Holy Spirit, the Apostles understood much in our
Lord's words which had been dark at the time of
their utterance, for their eyes were holden (John xii.
16; Mark ix. 10). Even after God" had opened
S. Peter's eyes to the fact that Jew and Gentile
were equal in His sight (Acts x. 15), he forgot it
at Antioch (Gal. ii. usq.), and St. Paul had to
rebuke him openly. In later life, in the light of
history, S. Paul modified the views about our Lord's
Second Coming which he had hitherto preached.
Now, none of us can ever hope to be the spiritual
574 Appendix. Is the New Testament
giants the Apostles were, but even a dwarf can climb
on to a Gfiant's shoulders and see further than he does.
&
For 1,900 years we have had the Old and New
Testaments, and the Holy Spirit has been pouring
light upon their pages from every quarter all the
while. He has actualized Christian truths, and
guided us into their deeper meaning. Strange would
it be, if, with all the advantages bestowed upon us
during all these centuries, we did not in many
respects see further into their own revelations than
the inspired writers themselves, even though we have
not a tithe of their zeal, loyalty and faith.
For instance, the prophets of the Old Testament
are full of Messianic prophecies. At the time of
their utterance these prophets themselves were, in
most cases, only thinking and speaking of events
which they expected in their own times, not six
or seven hundred years after. Their prophecies
had a twofold application, one near at hand, the
other afar off. Their own vision was limited to
the former. God saw further than they did, and
made them say more than they knew. The Apos-
tles, centuries later, interpreted the prophets' words
better than the prophets themselves.
An Isaiah was probably far greater than a S. Mark
or the author of S. Matthew, but, by the light of
history, God's best interpreter, these New Testament
writers saw further than Isaiah. So it is with us.
We can read our New Testament in the light of
history. There we have an open page in which we
the last word of God 's Revelation to man ? 575
can clearly read God's own handwriting. In history,
God unfolds before our eyes His purpose and Will,
i.e., the regeneration of mankind. As the world-
drama is enacted before us, there, as clearly as in
the Bible, we obtain an insight into the plan and
ways of God, the righteous moral Governor of the
Universe, the champion of right and truth, the
avenger of wrong, our loving Father.
This is all we mean to imply when we say that
we see further into their own revelations than the
inspired writers themselves. New Testament writers
expect and preach a speedy and sudden Second
Coming. They look forward to see the Kingdom
of God suddenly bursting forth upon an astonished
earth, with Messiah appearing on the clouds of
heaven to reign on earth awhile, and establish
His righteous Kingdom. History has opened our
eyes to truer views. We now see that the Apos-
tles' words were truer than they knew. They were
watching for a speedy and sudden coming in the
future. It was already in their midst. There has
never been a moment since Christ's day when His
Kingdom has not come, only it is not, as they
thought, a material and visible coming. God's King-
dom is establishing itself ever more and more on
earth by the slow working of moral forces gradually
bringing about the splendid consummation God
intends. The heart of the new Kingdom is new
men and new women.
It is the same thinsr with much else to be found
576 Appendix.
in New Testament pages. The Evangelists seem to
have taken Christ's word-picture of Hell-fire as
literally as they did His word-picture of the millen-
nium. Similarly, S. Paul may have been perfectly
clear in his own mind as to what he meant by
"election" and " predestination," but his language,
to say the least, is apt to mislead, and has misled
thousands of others besides good Calvin. The Holy
Spirit has poured His light into men's hearts and
made them see what S. Paul tried to say. Once
more, if we adopted S. Paul's views on marriage in
I Cor. vii., it would soon mean the suicide of the
race. He wrote as he did because at that period of
his life he expected Christ's return in his own life-
time. Here again, history has enabled us to correct
his views.
The Apostles stood too near in time to Christ.
The seed He had planted had not yet sufficiently
developed, the principles of His teaching had not
yet leavened men's hearts enough to produce the
rich fruits of His harvest which we are only now
beginning to reap. For instance, the full bearing of
our Lord's Gospel of Love in its relations to such
questions as slavery, war, social questions, has only
just begun to dawn on men's hearts.
But there is another side to the picture. If the
Apostles had their limitations, so have we. If the
first century had its infirmities, they are equally
pronounced in the twentieth, only they are of a
different kind. Our own subjective element is
Resurrection of the Body. 577
abnormally prominent in our Bible-reading, and we
too often read between its lines what is not there,
finding in its pages what we wish to find. The
Socialist discovers ajl his views there, so does the
individualist ; so does the fatalist and the free-will
advocate, the Sabbath-breaker and the Sabbath-
keeper, the Bibliolater and the Higher Critic. This
is the natural boon or bane of our Protestant " free-
dom of judgment " which is the spirit of the age.
We cannot escape this limitation.
On the whole, however, we have entered on a
goodly heritage. There is no denying the huge
strides made in morals and religion in the nineteenth
century, the growth of toleration, the advance in
knowledge. Still more, " the change of emphasis
from a Christianity of right belief to a Christianity
of right character and right social service has brought
us infinitely nearer to Christ, has made us both
more able and more willing to learn of Him."
IV.
The Resurrection of the Body.
[We had written an Essay on the Resurrection
and Resurrection-appearances of our Lord, basing
our argument on the evidence furnished by the
Evangelists and S. Paul, when Kirsopp Lake's
admirable book on the subject came into our hands.
In his " Resurrection of Jesus Christ," the whole
subject is so admirably and exhaustively discussed
Pp
578 Appendix.
that we must refer our readers to his book. He
has anticipated all we wished to say, and stated it
much better.
The Resurrection-appearances are now historically
established on a foundation that can hardly be
shaken. A Christian who does not accept these
appearances as historically verified facts rejects
them in the face of overwhelming evidence.
But, as Kirsopp Lake convincingly shows, the
evidence for the Resurrection of the Body on the
third day is not adequate to make belief in the
resuscitation of Christ's material Body an article of
the Christian Creed. The manifestation of Christ's
Personality after death to His disciples and' others
is one thing, the resurrection of His material Body
is quite another. The former we all fully believe to
be a historical and indisputable fact. The latter is
more than open to question, and the Gospel-testi-
mony on the subject is most conflicting : e.g. cf.
Mark xvi. 5 sqq. ; Matth. xxviii. 2 sqq. ; Luke
xxiv. 4 sqq.
A Resurrection of the Body there will be. Some
vehicle or mode of manifestation we must have if
we are to remain our true real individual selves,
and not be absorbed completely into God. But, as
Sir Oliver Lodge well shows, not one atom of the
material body will there be in the heavenly body in
which we shall be clothed. Moreover, all material
bodies imply resistance, and Christ passed through
closed doors after the Resurrection. S. Paul's w ords
Resurrection of the Body. 579
on the subject point to the conclusion we wish to
establish. " We shall all be changed : flesh and
blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God : neither
doth corruption inherit incorruption." S. Paul did
believe that Christ was raised on the third day
according to the Scriptures. But Kirsopp Lake
clearly proves that, in his views on the Resur-
rection, S. Paul shared the current Jewish belief
of his day. It was of this nature. " At the re-
surrection the body was changed from one of flesh
and blood to one which was spiritual, incorruptible
and immortal, in such a way that there was no trace
left of the corruptible body of flesh and blood which
had been laid in tJie grave." It was a complete
transubstantiation of the material into the spiritual.
Every atom of the material body was used up and
converted into its spiritual equivalent.
Such a book as Kirsopp Lake's is specially needed
nowadays, if only for the reason quoted by a recent
writer in the Hibbert Journal. " A recent curious
episode in English and American Protestantism
would be amusing, if it were not pitiable. The plot
of an ill-written and meretricious popular romance
turns upon the supposition of the discovery in
Palestine of an actually forged but seemingly
genuine inscription, calculated to disprove the reality
of the Resurrection of Christ's Body. As soon as
the knowledge of this discovery is spread abroad,
the masses lose faith in the Resurrection, and with
it in Christianity and its moral teaching. Moral
580 Appendix.
anarchy sets in, and the bonds of social order are
only saved by the timely discovery that the inscrip-
tion is spurious. Now this romance, instead of being
taken as an elaborate joke, was received by the
religious public with fervent enthusiasm, was preached
about in the pulpits, and even canonised by an
episcopal recommendation, as an edifying argument
in favour of Resurrection-belief" (Prof. Lovejoy r
Hibbert Journal, Jan. 1907).
If the Body of Jesus were to be discovered to-
morrow in its original tomb, what would it matter?
Our bodies are discovered in our own graves long
after our burial, yet we know that our personality,
our true self, is not there but risen. The sooner
we persuade Christ's followers that " the Word "
tabernacled here in the flesh, but that Christ's
material Body is no essential part of Christ's true
self, the better it will be. It is passing strange
how the Jewish belief in the resurrection of the
body has so indelibly stamped itself on the Chris-
tian mind that it has survived up to the present day
as an article of Faith.]
V.
The poetical element in Hebrew literature.
Hebrew literature is full of word-pictures. The
Jewish writers of the Bible look at the world through
the atmosphere that floats before the poet's eyes.
Their literature can only be appreciated by readers
Poetical element in Hebrew literature, 581
whose poetic intelligence is in sympathy with its
word-pictures, which enshrine its deepest thoughts.
Matthew Arnold defined religion as " morality
touched with emotion." This is a totally inadequate
conception of religion, yet there is a large element of
truth in it. Religion, if it is true and real, is of the
heart, and the emotional element in religion allies it
with poetry.
Hence the Bible is full of poetry. The Psalms,
the " World's Great Lyric "and the " Song of
Songs," are artistic gems and the purest of poems.
In Lamentations we have exquisite elegiac poetry.
Job is a dramatic poem, so is Ecclesiastes. Ruth,
Esther, Daniel, Jonah, are of the nature of poetical
Jewish romance. Isaiah and most of the Prophets
have all the fire and passion, the artistic form and
rhythmical language of the truest poetry ; while
Genesis and the earlier historical books possess the
poetic charm of Froissart or Homer. If we turn to
the New Testament, it has already been noted that
our Lord's biographers, certainly S. Mark, S. Luke
and S. John, are poets and often set the story of His
Life deep in poetry. Far be it from us to suggest
that our Lord took any interest in mere literary
form, but His ideal thoughts instinctively found
expression in ideal language, and His parables alone
prove Him the perfect poet.
Hebrew inspired writers were poets even in their
actions. They not only thought but acted in vivid
word-pictures. Isaiah walks, for three years, naked
582 Appendix.
through the streets of Jerusalem to sho\v that
Jehovah is going to strip and make her bare.
Ezekiel takes a razor, cuts off his hair and beard,
carefully weighs them in a pair of scales, burns a
third of the hairs, cuts another third to pieces with
the sword, and scatters the last third to the four
winds thus giving his spectators a graphic picture
of the fate awaiting Judah. Jeremiah wears a
wooden yoke round his neck, just as Agabus, 600
years later, binds his own hands and feet with
S. Paul's girdle, as a warning of coming trouble
(cf. Jer. xiii., xix., xliii. 9 ; Ezek. iv., xii., xxiv. 3).
With such intensely emotional and imaginative
temperaments, it was perfectly natural to these
religious Jews to see visions, dream dreams, and hear
heavenly voices in a way of which we know nothing.
Isaiah (vi.), Ezekiel (i), Daniel (vii., viii., x. xii!),
Zechariah (i. ; iv., v., vi.), S. Peter (Acts x.), S. Paul,
(2 Cor. xii.), see heavenly visions as clearly as we
see the most realistic earthly scene, while in the first
two chapters of S. Matthew there are no less than
five of these supernatural dreams (Matth. i. 20, ii. 12,
13, 19, 22). Again, Samuel, the Prophets, S. Paul
on his way to Damascus, the shepherds, those present
at the Baptism of our Lord and at His Transfigura-
tion, all distinctly hear voices from Heaven.
The bold imagery of the Bible is the natural
expression of these God-intoxicated children of
Jehovah. These high-wrought passionate souls, who
are in such close touch with the God-Soul, can speak
Poetical element in Hebrew literature. 583
in no other language. For them, the " stars fight in
their courses against Sisera." "The sun stands still
upon Gibeon." " The Lord opens the mouth of
Balaam's ass, and an angel stood in the way." This
is not the conscious poetry and play of fancy we
suppose it to be. This poetical imagery comes to
them as naturally as plain prose to us.
It is precisely the same thing when we open our
New Testament. Our Lord beholds " Satan falling
as lightning from heaven " (S. Luke x. 18). In His
Temptation, Christ is transported in a moment of
time to the topmost pinnacle of the Temple, or the
Devil takes Him up bodily into an exceeding high
mountain, and showeth Him all the kingdoms of
the world and the glory of them and we English
readers translate this bold imagery into bald prose !
We often marvel at the dulness of understanding
of the Apostles in not at once grasping the meaning
of our Lord's parables. We are amazed when the
Jews pervert Christ's words, " Destroy this temple
and in three days I will raise it up " ; taking the
words literally ; yet we ourselves are daily doing
precisely the same thing. By our prosaic literalism
and lack of sympathy with Christ's poetic nature we
have created endless gospel-difficulties for ourselves.
Matter-of-fact slaves to logic, we take Christ's
sayings : " Give to him that asketh of thee, and from
him that would borrow turn thou not away " ; or,
" if a man smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him
the other also " ; or the picture of our Lord's Second
584 Appendix.
Coming with its brilliantly poetical visions ; or the
imagery with which He clothes the Day of Judg-
ment, the bliss or woe of the souls in Paradise and in
Hell, and read into His words ideas that are not
there.
Thus in our pedantic literalness we turn Christ's
poetry into prose. We stupidly mistake the form
for the substance, the frame for the picture, the
garment in which truth is picturesquely dressed for
the truth itself. Very truly said Hobbes : " Words
are the counters of wise men, but the money of
fools V
VI.
The Didache.
In 1873 was discovered the DidacJie or "Teach-
ing of the XII. Apostles," a document of supreme
importance. The book falls into two parts. The
first portion, " The Two ways," is a moral tract con-
trasting the " way of life " and the " way of death,"
the path of the righteous and the path of the sinner.
In this part, Christians are urged to follow the
golden rule of love and forgiveness laid down by
Christ in the Sermon on the Mount.
The second portion of the book deals with the
customs and institutions of the Early Church, and it
is here that its supreme value lies. The reference to
f The present writer has elsewhere dealt more fully with this
subject ; see " The Old Testament in the light of Modern Research"
Chap. II., and " Sermon on the Mount " Chap. XVII.
The Didache. 585
Baptism, for instance, is very interesting. It reveals
the way in which the transition from total immersion
to mere sprinkling took place. " Baptize in running
water : but if thou hast not running water, then
baptize in other water, and if thbu art not able in
cold, then in warm. But if thou hast neither, then
pour water on the head thrice in the name of the
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. But
before Baptism, let him that baptizeth and him that
is baptized fast, and any others also who are able."
The Lord's Supper is still part of the Love Feast,
and the baptized members of the Church are to meet
together every Lord's Day for " the breaking of
bread" in Thanksgiving. But they must also first
confess their sins one to another before partaking of
the Cup and the broken Bread : (the elements are
named in this order).
It is, however, when it comes to deal with the
ministers of the Word of God that the Didache
pours a flood of fresh light upon our previous know-
ledge. It proves conclusively that Lightfoot and
Hatch were right in their conjecture that Episcopacy
was not the earliest form of Church government.
It only originated in the second century. The
N.T. bishops were rather parochial ministers than
diocesan Fathers in God. The ministers to whom
the greatest importance was attached at first were
the " prophets." These were not necessarily or
even primarily people who prophesied, they were
simply, as the word means, " mouth-pieces of God,"
586 Appendix.
preachers, we should now call them. They received
their call to office not from men by the laying on
of hands, but direct from God without any ordina-
tion at all, except that of the Holy Spirit. They
were not an order 'like bishops, priests and deacons.
They were men (and women) to whom was specially
vouchsafed the spiritual gift of preaching. They
were not, as a rule, attached to any special church,
but went from place to place preaching Christ with
wondrous power.
In the DidacJie, the influence of prophets is on
the wane, and there are already signs that their
place is beginning to be taken by bishops. The
bishops, however, are regarded as quite inferior to
prophets. Stranger still, it is the congregation that
appoints its own bishops and deacons ! " Appoint
for yourselves therefore bishops and deacons worthy
of the Lord, men who are meek and not lovers of
money, true and approved ; for unto you they also
perform the service of the prophets and apostles.
Therefore despise them not ; for they are your
honourable men along with the prophets and
teachers."
We thus see that the Didaclie bridges for us the
gap between the New Testament and the Christian
Church of the Fathers. It shows us how the organ-
ization and simple rites of the Apostolic Church were
already beginning to pass into the elaborate episcopal
system of later days.
The DidacJie was written by a Palestinian Jewish
The Didache. 587
Christian some time between 70 100 A.D. We have
abundant evidence that this book held a very high
place in the esteem of the early Church. Clement
of Alexandria (200 A.D.) quotes it as " Scripture,"
and it is mentioned in Athanasius' list of sacr.ed
writings.
VII.
A re tJie Revelation of S. John and the Fourth Gospel
tJie work of one /land?
It has become an axiom in N.T. criticism nowa-
days that the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse
cannot be by one and the same author. Their incon-
gruity in style, matter and spirit is too pronounced.
Now Justin says : " a man among us, one of the
Apostles of the Christ, has prophesied in the revela-
tion which was given by him " (eV a.7roKa\v^ret yevo/j,evy
avTo>). Therefore, if what these critics assert is true,
the Gospel is not by S. John.
But does this radical incongruity between the Apo-
calypse and the Gospel really exist ? We do not
deny that the points of difference between the two
books are very striking. Ca saute aux yeux. It
would be a miracle if it were otherwise, for the
Gospel professes to be a sober record of historic facts
in the past, while the Revelation is an ecstatic
vision of what lies beyond the veil of the future. In
the Gospel we have the calm statement of simple
historical memories viewed in the clear light of
mature reflection. In the Apocalypse we have the
588 Appendix.
dreams of a visionary in days of persecution. It is
a tract for hard times , couched in the language of
fervid imagination, fiery enthusiasm, vindictive emo-
tion. As we may expect, it is intensely figurative
and explosive. The visions find their expression in
the boldest and weirdest imagery, while the pent up
and long restrained emotions of the " son of thunder "
burst forth in the lightning and thunderbolt of his
wrath against the persecutors who would crush
Christianity.
A Gospel and an Apocalypse, a calm reflective
record of the Life and an ecstatic vision of the Last
Day, a Christ's Loving Advent as Saviour and His
Second Coming in Judgment, how can these two
themes be approached in the same spirit ? Is
it any wonder that in style, matter and spirit the
sober historian and the rapt visionary differ as they
do ? The marvel is rather that they have so much
in common. No one but the gentle-passionate,
calm-explosive John-Boanerges could do equal
justice to such diametrically opposed themes, but his
twofold temperament qualified him admirably for the
task. We believe that the alleged incongruity be-
tween the two writings merely lies on the surface.
Indeed, there is such a real and radical unity in the
two that they distinctly reveal one man's signature.
8 We have seen (p. 175) that all Apocalypses seek to revive the
drooping spirits of the faithful by revelations of a near future when,
after one last dreadful onset of a hostile world, Jehovah would appear
in the person of Messiah to crush the nations of the Gentiles and set
up the Kingdom of Glory for His true Israel.
S. John's Apocalypse. 589
There is an organic connection between them. So
much so that Baur calls the Gospel a " spiritualized
Apocalypse," while many other German critics speak
of the Johannine groups of writings as " standing to
one another in blood-relationship," " all belonging
to the same school of architecture, even though
possibly not always the work of the same architect."
One other point should be borne in mind before we
examine S. John's Apocalypse in detail. The Reve-
lation is a " survival," a purely Jewish type of litera-
ture transplanted into Christian soil.
Ever since Daniel's visions, all Jewish apocalypses
are based on his model. One and all, they have the
same stereotyped symbolic imagery in common.
It has become the traditional apocalyptic mise en
scene h . These revered symbols, the creations of rapt
religious fancy, are regarded as common property,
heirlooms. Each apocalyptic seer, as he puts on the
prophetic mantle, clothes his visions in the same bold
imagery as the Hebrew seers that went before him,
even though it may for him have lost much of its old
meaning. Indeed, the Jewish apocalyptic element is
so pronounced in S. John's Revelation that most
German critics will have it that John bodily incorpo-
rates a Jewish apocalypse in his own vision, merely
giving it a local Christian colouring.
h All Apocalypses are cryptographic, and speak in riddles. By
means of images, symbols, mystic numbers, forms of animals, and so
forth, they half conceal what they mean to reveal. In Christian days
especially, in times of persecution, any but veiled attacks on Rome
would have been fatal (cf. 2 Thess. ii. 312 ; I Peter v. 13).
59 Appendix.
Enough has been said to show that even in a
Christian Apocalypse we must expect a strong
Jewish and eschatological background. At times we
shall fancy that the Christian is altogether buried in
the Jew. A Messiah in Judgment triumphing over
His foes and championing His friends will also bring
out into relief the vindictive element present in every
Jew. In a Christ and a S. John it assumes the form
of a righteous indignation against all that is false and
wrong, but it is there. We have not caught the
spirit of early Christian eschatology if we have not
grasped the fact that the Second Coming was
regarded by Christians as a Day of Wrath as well as
a day of the. restitution of all things. Its watchword
was " Maranatha," the Lord cometh ! These prefa-
tory remarks are necessary, for it is often said that
the God of the Fourth Gospel is the God of all men
and a God of Love, while the God of the Apocalypse
is a Jewish God and all wrath.
External evidence. Jtistin Martyr distinctly as-
cribes the Revelation to the Apostle S. John.
Irenceus is of the same opinion. The Muratorian
Fragment declares it to be the work of John, the
predecessor of Paul. Melito (170 A.D.) wrote a work
on the " Revelation of John." Theophilus and Apol-
lonius quote it. In 177 A.D. the Churches of Vienne
and Lyons regard the Revelation as " Holy Scrip-
ture." Origen calls it Apostolic ("he (S. John)
wrote also the Revelation ").
Marriott and the Alogi denied the apostolic
S.Johris Apocalypse. 591
authorship of the Revelation. Dionysius of Alex-
andria (255 A.D.), in an elaborate and clever critical
treatise, argues that it cannot possibly be by the
Apostle S. John, and Eusebius endorses his views.
The Revelation is also one of the books absent from
the ancient Peshito version.
General cliaracteristics of the Apocalypse of S. John.
Its Theology. It is essentially cast in a Jewish -
Christian mould. The Apocalypse is the most
Hebrew book in the New Testament for reasons
already stated. Even more than in the Gospel, the
author thinks in Hebrew and writes in Greek. He is
still (we presume that the Apocalypse is years
earlier in date than the Gospel) steeped to the lips
in his Old Testament. The wine is the old wine of
the Hebrew Bible put into a new bottle. In politics,
certainly, he is a confirmed Jew. He hates the
heathen world with a surly hatred. His is an age of
persecution. He himself has suffered ; his race, his
religion are trampled under foot by Gentiles. In the
spirit of the Boanerges of the Synoptic Gospels
(S. Luke ix. 54), he would like to call down fire from
heaven to consume these Gentile oppressors. Hence
Rome is the " beast," the " woman," and the Roman
emperor (Nero redivivus) is the Antichrist of the
Apocalypse. The " world " of the Gospel is now
" the Gentiles " on whom God will pour the vials of
His wrath, so that they shall wail. (cf. Ps. ii. 8, 9.)
On the other hand, as soon as we come to the
592 Appendix.
religions plane, all this is changed. We breathe
a different atmosphere, the atmosphere of the
Fourth Gospel. The exclusiveness of the Jew is
gone, and the Christian gives the right hand of
fellowship to all Gentiles, not as tolerated prose-
lytes, but as full citizens of the Holy City, the New
Jerusalem. Before the Throne of the Lamb stand
" a great multitude, whom no man can number, of all
nations, and kindred, and people, and tongues, clothed
with white robes, and palms in their hands " (cf. xi.
15 ; xiv. 6 ; xv. 4 ; and xxii. 2, " The leaves of the
tree were for the healing of the nations "). The
author breathes a spirit of absolute faith in the uni-
versal forgiveness of sinners of all nations through
the Blood of the Lamb. It is a universal Christianity
he preaches, free from all bondage of the Law. The
word Law is never mentioned in the Apocalypse.
Salvation is not tied down to any chosen race, it
comes to all from the Lord our God, the Lamb now
seated on His throne in heaven (vii. 10; cf. xix. i).
There is no distinction between Jew and Gentile,
bond or free. Oneness with the Lamb is the sole
condition of salvation.
Thus it is a Christianity of the Pauline type, yet
independent of S. Paul \ Now this very element is
1 Indeed many writers see in the Apocalypse a counterblast to
Paulinism, e.g. in ii. 14, 20 (and perhaps ii. 9 ; iii. 9), S. Paul is
the Balaam, the Jezebel who teaches men (i Cor. viii. x.) to eat
meat sacrificed to idols and to commit fornication. As a matter of
fact, S. Paul (cf. Christ in S. Mark vii.) taught that meats canno t
defile a man, but he also carefully cautioned the Corinthians of the
.V. John's Apocalpyse. 593
so patent in the Gospel that, mainly on this ground,
B. W. Bacon insists that the author of the Fourth
Gospel is a Paulinist.
It would be idle to deny that the Apocalypse
is written from a Jewish standpoint. The fact is
evident. But it is the same kind of Judaism that we
find in the Gospel. Christians are the only true
Israel in both books. The author of the Revelation
does not hesitate to call the Jews, in so far as they
reject Christ, "Jews who are not Jews," and "the
synagogue of Satan " (ii. 9, iii. 9).
The Christ of the two books is also identically the
same, (i) He is pre-existent from all eternity. He
is " He which is, and was, and is to come " ; " the first
and the last " ; " the beginning and the ending " ;
''the first-begotten" ; "the Alpha and Omega" ; the
" Amen " ; " He that liveth for ever, Who created
heaven and the things that are therein, and the
earth," &c. (2) Again, even as S. John's Gospel tells
us ;. " My Father is greater than I " ; yet " I and the
Father are one," so it is in the Apocalypse. Christ
is subordinate to God (xix. 10, xxii. 9, i. I, ii. 27,
iii. 12, 14, 21), yet equal to God, for He has all
the predicates and names of God ascribed to Him.
(See (i) sup. and cf. v. 6 sqq.)
Thus the theology and Christology of the Apo-
calypse and the Gospel are completely at one. It is
dangers which participation in idol-feasts involved. S. John in the
Apocalypse and S. Paul are at one on this point. It is the heretical
caricature of S. Paul's teaching (e.g. Antinomians) that the Apocalypse
condemns.
Qq
594 Appendix.
a universal Christianity that is preached in both
books, and salvation is only through the Blood of
the Lamb, i.e., for those who are at one with Christ.
In a Revelation of the Last Day, we naturally hear
much of the wrath of God against liars, whore-
mongers, idolaters and so forth. Yet can anything
in the Gospel surpass in the beauty of its divine
Love the twice repeated " God shall wipe away all
tears from their eyes " (but see the whole passage
Rev. vii. 15 17): or "Behold, I stand at the door
and knock : if any man hear My voice, I will come
in to him, and will sup with him, and he with Me "
(cf. John xiv. 23) ? Is it also true to say that there
is no wrath of God in the Gospel, e.g. iii. 36 ;
viii. 24 ?
Style of the Apocalypse. We have already said that
the style of S. John's Gospel reveals " a Hebrew
soul in a Greek body." The same thing is true of
the Revelation of S. John, only more so. By reason
of its essentially Jewish subject-matter and its earlier
date it is Hebraic to a degree. But in the Apo-
calypse we soon discover the favourite Johannine
expressions of the Gospel.
Vocabulary. The term Logos, Word, Word of
God, constantly occurs in the Apocalypse, and it is a
term only found in the JoJiannine writings in the New
Testament. Surely, here is a clear bond of union
between the two books, which in itself should out-
weigh all differences. Again, in both these writings,
Christ is " The Lamb of God which taketh away the
sins of the world."
5. John's Apocalypse. 595
Weiss and others have made long lists of words and
phrases common to the Gospel and Revelation alike.
We may mention, by way of example, the follow-
ing, taken more or less at random : to testify,
witness (paprvpelv, papTvpia) occur thirteen times in
the Apocalypse, yet seldom elsewhere in the New
Testament except in S. John. To overcome (of evil
and the world) is used seventeen times, yet it is
almost peculiar to S. John. The same thing holds
good of : to keep the Word or the commandments, to
hunger and thirst (spiritually) ; to make a lie ; to
dwell (tabernacle} among men (CTK^VOVV) ; to confirm,
to seal (a<f)pa<yieiv} ; living water ; heavenly manna k .
Equally remarkable is the singular fact that the
Apocalypse omits words which are likewise absent
in S. John, e.g. repentance, Gehenna (perdvoia,
yeevva,') though they are so common in other New
Testament books. Similarly the word Trams (faith),
which occurs nearly 300 times in the New Testament,
is very rare in this as in the other Johannine
writings.
Much stress has been laid on the Aramaisms and
grammatical " barbarisms " of the Apocalypse, as
compared with the pure, if simple, Greek of the
Gospel and its studious avoidance of Aramaic words.
Such words and phrases as Armageddon, Abaddon,
Hallelujah, Amen, the hidden manna, " The Lion of
k Both Gospel and Apoc. give prominence to Zech. xii. 10, " they
shall look upon Him Whom they pierced," and in their rendering of
this verse both have exactly the same points of divergence from the
Septuagint.
596 Appendix.
tJie tribe of JudaJi, tJie Root of David" are more pro-
nounced Hebraisms than any in the Gospel, but
easily accounted for by the earlier date and subject-
matter of the Revelation. As it is, we may place
side by side with them the Gospel Hebraisms of
phrase and matter : " I am the living Bread which
came down from heaven " ; " the Lamb of God " \
" Moses wrote of Me " " Abraham rejoiced to see My
day," &c., &c. Many of the Hebraisms of the Apo-
calypse are only the poetic and figurative expansion
of their more simple Gospel-equivalents, e.g., S.
John's Light becomes in the Revelation "the Lamp
of the Holy City" ; Life becomes " living fountains of
waters " ; Death is " the second death" &c.
The so-called grammatical barbarisms are mainly
the creation of critics' fancy. The author of the
Apocalypse is accused of ignorance of the simplest
rules of grammar because of such expressions as :
airo TOU o wv KOI 6 rjv icai 6 ep-^of^evos O.TTO with the
nominative ! If this bold poetic stroke of genius to
express the majesty and eternity of the indeclinable
J", 6 &v, is missed by prosaic critics, the fault lies at
their door, not John's. In more than thirty instances
in this book he plainly shows them he is well aware
that d-Tro goes with the genitive. Objection is also
taken to his anacolutha and false concords, then
what of S. Paul or Plato or any imaginative mind
whose impassioned thoughts outstrip his grammar ?
Conclusion. The Apocalypse and Gospel of S.
John are creations marvellously different in character.
S.John's Apocalypse. 597
yet the unity and harmony between the two books
is strongly marked. If Justin is right in ascribing
the Revelation to S. John, the Gospel so distinctly
bears the seal of its composition by the same author
that any hesitation we may previously have enter-
tained of its Johannine origin vanishes. The Apo-
calypse was apparently written years before the
Gospel, in Asia Minor (Rev. i. n). John's religious
horizon had already broadened and his Boanerges
temperament mellowed, but not to the extent ap-
parent in the later Gospel. The Jew of Palestine is
still very evident '.
1 S. Paul's sudden transition from ultra-Judaism to cosmopolitanism
well illustrates S. John's similar experience after his residence in
Ephesus. Goethe and Carlyle have also often been quoted to ex-
plain the difference of style between the Apocalypse and Gospel of
S. John. In a published work, autobiographical notes are egotistic,
out of place, in bad taste ; but the present writer's experience is
in a sense, so analogous to S. John's, and explains so much in this
essay that he ventures to refer to it. For forty years a narrow Cal-
vinist ( = Palestinian Jew), and a local French patois his native tongue
( = Aramaic), the present author has never quite cast off these tram-
mels. He therefore readily understands the occasional Aramaisms
and Jewish "survivals" of S. John's writings.
INDEX.
[The pages are frequently given according to their reference-value,
and not in numerical order. The Chapter-numbers refer the
reader to the analyses in the contents-sheet.]
A.
" Abomination of Desolation " 179,
57
" Abraham's Bosom" 185
Acts, 301 307, 194 n.
Agabus, 134
Alexandrian text, 163, 169
Alexandrians, Ep. to, 153.
Alogi, 413, 414, 590
Amhaarets, 98
Antichrist, 179, 431, 436, 591
Antinomians, I23
Antiochus Epiphanes, 505 sqq.
Apocalypse of S. John, 587 sqq.,
149, 486
Apocalypse of S. Peter, 153
Apocalypses, ch. x., 589
Apocrypha, 173 sqq.
Apocryphal Gospels, 127, 138
Apostles, training of, 90 sqq., 284,
100
Apostolic Teaching, ch. vi., 257
Apostolic Fathers, 142, 154
Aramaic, 545 sqq.
Art, 545
Athanasian Canon, 155
Authority in religion, 12, 14
B.
"Babylon," 231, 295
Banking, 551
Baptism, 104, 585
Barnabas, 229, 313
Barnabas, Ep, of, 142, 145
Baur, 48, 53, 192, 296, 469 n.
Beloved disciple, the, 419 n.
Bible-difficulties, 15, i6n., u
Bible-reading, decay in, 14
Bible-readers, 4, 6, 10, 16, 157
Bibliolatry, 3 sqq., 17, 83
Birth, Virgin, 113 n., 124, 37411.,
439, 57 m-
Blass, 313 n., 347
Browning, 75
Burgon, 169
Burkitt, 69, 79, 82, 144 n., 211,
345, 45 n -
C.
Csesarea Philippi, 89
Cananeans (Canaanite), 522
Canons of Criticism, 54 sq.
Canticles, 1 1 , 44, 1 74
Captivity, 28
Carlyle, 272, 288, 425 sq.
Carthage, 3rd Council of, 155
Catechizing 102, 104, 257 sqq.,
Christ's conservatism, 18 sqq., 34,
41, 46
,, liberalism, 35 sqq., 17, 31,
42, 43, 276
Bible-criticism, 37 sqq.
reforms, 18, 46, 42, 32
writings, 99
originality, iSl sq.
style, 581, 99 n., 323, 80,
*3
dislike of letter-worship,
83,17
Gospel-Portrait, 71, 75,
78, 82, 92
Humanity, 563 sqq., 278,
401 n.
Index.
Christian Church, Christianity's
proof, I94sq.
Chronology of N.T. books, 199, 88
" Cistern, empty," 98
Clemens Alexandrinus, 153, 228,
456
Clemens Romanus, 143, 138,
141 sq.
Codex Ephrami, 164
" Common-stock Gospel" 206, 216
Conflations, 368, 342
Conservative theology, 19, 23, 34
Consolation of Israel, 187, 5 2 7
Continuity, religious, 13, 18, 19,
3 2 46
Copyists' errors, 166
Cornelius. 103, ill
Critical equipment, 55 sc i c l-
Critical exaggerations, 47, 52 sqq.
Criticism, Higher, ch. iii., 192 sqq.,
6
Cursives, 164
Cycles of tradition, no sqq., 197
D.
Daniel, 177, 589
Dates of N.T. books, 199
" Day of the Lord." 179, 376
Delphi, oracle, 505
Development in Christ, 281 sqq.
567
Didache, 584, 147
Disciple, the bosom, 41911., 497 n.
Dispersion, Jews of, 86
Divorce, 38, 366
Docetism, 130, 430
Dreams, 582
Dualisms, 214, 219
Ebionites, 122, 431
Ecclesiastes, II, 44, 174
Ecclesiasticism, 2931, 275, 42
,, in S. Matthew,
381 n., 386, 387,
380 sq.
Education, Jewish, 542 sqq.
Egyptians, Gospel, 129
" Elias," 179, 284, 374
Encyclical, Pascendi, 22, 41
,, Lambeth, 22, 41
Ephesus, S. John at, 488 sq., 493
" Epiousion," 128 sq.
" Epistles, living,'" 92, 99
Epistles, occasional writings, 137,
198, 260
Eschatology, 179, 177, 33, 57, 183,
284, 375> 5^9 sq.
Essenes, 522 sqq.
Esther, n, 71, 174
Eusebius, 153, 141 n., 149, 247,
250, 309, 417
Euthalius, 164
Evidence, defined, 140
Excommunication, 542
F.
Fathers, Apostolic, 142, 154, 411
Feasts, Jewish, 471 sq.
Florinus, 492
Food, Jewish, 538
" Fulness of time," 18*7, 174
Furniture, Jewish, 538
G.
Galilee, 534, 536
Gehenna, 185
Geography, 56, 531, 470
Glosses, 1 66
Gnostics, 429 sqq.
Golden Age, 27, 179 sq.
" Gospel" a general term, 150 sq.,
155, MI, 393
Gospels, Apocryphal, ch. vii.
Gospels, human element in, 71,
74 sq., 65, 68, 93 sq., 459
Gospels, late records, 88 sqq., 99
Gospels, origin of, ch. vii.
Greek of N.T., 86 sq.
H.
Harnack, 48 n., 5511., 69, H3n.,
192 sq., 225 n., 247, 248, 266,
304, 306 n., 311 n., 312, 322,
449, &c. , Pref. x. , xiii.
Index.
in
Hasmoneans, 508
Hebrews, Gospel, 127, 138
Hellenism (in Judcea), 506 sqq.
Heresy, 122
Hernias, Shepherd of, 145, 138, 142
Herodians, 522
Herods, 508, 522
Higher Criticism, ch. iii. , 6, 192 sq. ,
Pref. vi. sqq., xii.
Hillel, 525 n., 536
Hippolytus, 153
History, ancient idea of, 68, 425,
911.
" History before doctrine," 257 sqq.
History, a Bible side-light, 575,
Pref. ix. sq.
Hospitality, 539
Houses, 537
Human element in Gospels (see
Gospels)
I.
Idea, Truth of, 425427, 8, 68
Idealization, 399 n., 443 n.
Idumrea, 533
Ignatius, 144, 411, 495
Infancy of Jesus, 113, 125, 348 sqq.
Inns, 539
Inspiration, 93 sqq., Pref. vii. sqq.,
71, 74, 1 60, 5, 169, 206
Interpolations, 159
Irfiitcits, 153, 155, 228, 297, 309,
313, 413,489,494, 590
J-
James, S., 50, 488, 266, 312
James, Protevangeliuni, 126
Jerome, 169, 228
Jewish character, 474 sq., 503
Jews of Dispersion, 86
John, 496 sq., 419 n., 588
John, S., Gospel, ch. xx. xxiv.
,, contrast with Synoptists,
397 sqq., 454 n., 450
,, key to Synoptists> 460 sqq.,
424
external evidence, 411 sqq ,
489 sqq.
John, S., Gospel, internal evidence,
435 s qq-
,, leading idea, 423 sqq.
,, idealization, 399 n., 443 n.,
427 sq.
,, poetry of, 425 sq.
,, anti-Gnostic, 4,29
,, anti-Jewish, 469 n.
,, Portrait of Jesus, 436 sq.
,, humanity of Jesus, 401 n.,
438
,, subjective element in, 459
,, Feasts in, 471 sq.
,, style, 499 n.
,, and Apocalypse (see A pp. )
Miracles, 445 sqq.
,, Discourses, 448 sqq.
,, spiritualization, 456
impressionism, 455
,, Philonism, 476 sqq.
John, S., author of , ch. xxiv.
,, a Jew, 469 sq.
,, a philosopher, 474 sqq.
, , Ephesian residence, 488 496
bosom disciple, 41911.,
496 sq.
"John the Elder," 148 sq., 415
Joppa, 532
Josephus, 546, 544, 522, 313 n.
Judaea, 533, 505
Judas (Galilean), 521
Justin Martyr, 150. 141, 155, 309,
412, 590
K.
Kingdom of God, 185 sq., 575,
178, 176, 282 sqq., 339 n.,
375. 5'4, 5'7, 572
Kenosis, 563
L.
" Lake of Fire," 180, 185
Lambeth Encyclical, 22
Language of Palestine, 545
Laodiceans, Ep. to, 153* 198
Law, Mosaic, 28, 36 41, 50, 44,
17. 97, 365 sqq., 378, 5i3>
516, 518 sqq., 525
Index.
Law of the Kingdom, 377 sqq.
Legalism, religious, 29, 50
Letter-worship, 3, 17, 24, 83, 160
Leviticus, 12, 44
Liberalism, religious, 20 sqq., 6,
10, 13. 1 6, 23, 42
Lightfoot, 129, 144 n., 150, 318,
484, 585
" Living Epistles,'" 92, 99
Login, 329 sqq., 118
Luke, S., biography, 309 sqq.
poet-painter, 322, 313
,, estimate of Mark, 312, 323
Luke, S., Gospel, ch. xvi., xvii.
,, and Acts, 301 sqq.
preface, 119 sqq., 311, 327,
347, 30i
leading ideas, 314
,, attitude to Jews, 314 sqq.
,, and women, 318 sqq.
,, and poor, 320 sq.
,, sources, ch. xvii., 328 sqq.,
348
,, and Logia, 329 sqq.
,, date, 313
historicity, 344, 348, 350
M.
Maccabees, 507
MSS., groups, 162
Marcion, 139, 307 sq., 590
Mark, S. , biography, 229 sqq.
Mark, S., Gospel, ch. xiii xv.
analysis, 234 sqq.
antiquity, 209 sqq.
authorship, 228
Petrine source, 293
leading ideas, 272 sqq.
unity, 280
spirituality, 254 267
development in, 280 sqq.
miracles, 290 sqq.
historicity, 289 sq.
place of origin, 296
style, 286 sqq.
date, 297
readers, 296
and Logia, 353 n.
Materialism, 557 sqq.
Matthew, S., Gospel
,, and Logia, 329.
,, authorship, 357, 391
,, and O.T. prophecy, 359 sqq.,.
371 sqq.
,, discourses, 367
,, eschatology, 375
,, New Law, 377
,, Kingdom of Heaven, 379^
sqq-, 339 n -
, , theology, 388
historicity, 388
,, style, 390
,, date, 392
,, readers, 391
,, Fetrinism, 386
,, Ecclesiasticism, 386, 380 sqq.
Matthew's Logia, 329 sqq., 357,
118, 128
Medicine, 545
Melita, 310
Memoirs, Justin's, 151, 152, 154
Memory, Jewish, 114, 100, 220
Messiah, 179, 177, 185, 90, 281
sqq-. 375
Millennium, 179
Miracles, App., 290, 445, 49, 5, 8,,
9, 245, 340
Money, 551
Money-changers, 551
Moses, 38, 97, 378
Muratorian Canon, 152, 154, 308,.
413, 590
" My Power, My Power," 130
N.
Neutral Text, 169, 171
New Heaven, 180
N.T. Books, dates, 199, 88 ; early
list of, 153
N.T., a "moral miracle," 137,
260
N.T. Greek, 86
N.T. MSS., 161
N.T. and Tubingen, 50 sqq.
Nicolaitans, 123
Index.
O.
O.T. problems, 15, 11
O.T. interpretation, 125, 359, 372
Oral Tradition, ch. vi., 72, 108,
196, 211, 217
,, cycles of, nosqq., 197
,, threefold contents, 256 sqq.,
342
,, " uses," 113 sqq.
" Order, in," 347, 109, 254
Origen, 13, 73, 228, 309, 456, 590
Originality of Christ, 181 sqq.
Oxyrrhynchus, 130
Palestine, 531 sqq.
Palimpsests, 164
Papias, 147, 415, 107, 118, 140,
154, 225 sqq., 218, 247
Papyri, 163
Paradise, 185
Parallelisms, 141, 142, 143, 146
Parchments, 164
Paronsia (see Eschatology)
Parousia and Gospel literature,
260 sqq., 99
Pascendi, encyclical, 23
Paul, S., 50 sq., 132, 198, 265, 488,
495 "
Paul, S., gospel-sources, 133
Pauline Epp., 137, 139, 143, 146,
194, 261, 265 sqq.
Paulinism, 50, 139, 351, 592 n.
Peraa, 534
Persian eschatology, 1 80
Personality, 558, 580
Peter, Gospel of , 129, 127, 138
Peter, Preaching of, 144
Pharisees, 509
Philip, Evangelist, 311, 352
Philo, 476 sqq.
Poetry, see App., 581 sqq., 425,
545
Po/ycarp, 144, 492, 142, 411
Polycrates, 489
4< Poor, (/if," 321 n.
Presbyter John, 148, 415 sqq.
Priestly Code, 29, 33, 40
Principles and rules, 30, 42 sqq.
Procurator, 509
Progressive Judaism , 26, 33
Progressive revelation, 573
Prophecy collections, 256
Prophecy fulfilment, 359 sqq.,
371 sqq., 125
Prophets, N.T., 585, 134
Prophets, O.T., 26 sqq., 36, 41,
574
Protevangelium of James, 126
Psychology, 562, 558
Psychological history, 59, 63 sqq.
Puritans, 512
Q-
Q> 33*. 335
Quotations from O.T., 141, 147,
142, 364
K.
Reformer, Christ a, 18 sqq. 32,
276 sqq.
Religion, an organism, 19
Resurrection, 177, 180, 183 sq.,
5i6
Resurrection of Jesus, 577 sqq.
Retrogressive Judaism, 26, 28 sqq.
Revelation, 571 sqq., 6, 20, 174
Rhoda, 229, 312
Roman rule, 508, 549
Rules, a snare, 42 sq. , 30
Sabbath, 38, 44, 367, 523
Sadducees, 515 sqq.
Samaritans, 533, 315
Sanday, 13, 54, 63, 143, 308, 352,
441, 484, 556, 563 n.
Sanhedrin, 548 sq.
Satan, 179, 180
"Sayings of Jesus," 256, 130 sq.,
118
"Sayings of Jesus" (Logia) >
329 sqq., 130
Scepticism, 10, 14, 17, 19
Scribes, 518 sqq., 29, 38, 40, 42,
97, 276
VI
Index.
Septuagint, 86 sq.
Serapion, 127
Sermon on Mount, 368, 380, 378,
78
Sheol, 183, 185
Sinaiticus, Codex, 169 .
Slaves, 537
Soden, von, 9n., 9911., I97n.,
208 n., 320 n.
Specialisation, 59
Summaries, are our Gospels ? 78,
103 sq.
Synagogues, 540 sqq.
Synoptic problem, ch. xii.
T.
Tat tan, 152, 154, 308, 412
Taxgatherers, 509
Temptation, 564 sq., 583
Tertullian, 153, 228, 244
Textual criticism, ch. ix.
Textns Receptus, 168, 170
Theology, no finality in, 18, 20, 24,
3. 42
Theophilus (Bp.}, 153, 412, 590
Theophilus (S. Lk.), 312, 119, 301
Trade, 535
Tradition, oral, ch. vi.
Tradition of Jews, 96 sq., 37, 40,
366
Tradition, Church, 226, 247, 72,
192, Pref. xi.
Translations, 84 sqq., 119
" Tribulation," 179
Troas, 310
Truth, Hebrew, 425 sqq.
Tubingen School, 46, 49, 52, 73,
192
Turns Antonia, 548
U.
Uncials, 164
Un-science, 555 sqq., 47, 291
Ur Marcus, 215
Usury, 551
V.
" Various readings," 157, 121 n.,
1 66
Vaticanus, Codex, 169
Virgin-Birth, 113 n., 124, 37411.,
439. 571 n.
Visions, 582, 177
W.
" We" sections, 304, 305
Westcott, 137, 191 n., 194 n., 230 n.,
231, 258, 296, 426, 484, 567
Westcott and Hort, 162, 170
Western Text, 169, 171
" Wise" The,yj, 98, 519
Women, 54411., 3l8sqq., 54211. ,543
Word-pictures, 581 sqq.
Worship, 540
Writing materials, 163
Zealots, 520 sq.
BY THE SAME AUTHOR.
OREMUS: or the place of Prayer in Modern Religious
Life. By the Rev. J. R. COHU ; with an Introduction
by the Lord BISHOP OF WINCHESTER. 3^. net.
PRESS NOTICES.
" Oreinus is the title of a new book by the Rev. J. R. Cohu,
who lately wrote a very clever book on the Old Testament. The
Title is explained in a sub-title as ' The Place of Prayer in Modern
Religious Life.'
Mr. Cohu is an advanced critic. Now it is often urged against
the criticism of the Old Testament that its advocates are purely
naturalistic. So here is Mr. Cohu with his belief in, practice of,
and arguments for, Prayer. And who is he that believes in Prayer
and does not believe in the supernatural ?
It is again a clever and convincing book. It is doubly convincing.
For it reasons with the unbeliever, and it confirms the believer.
It has both arguments for the theory and encouragement for the
practice of Prayer." Expository Times.
"The Rev. J. R. Cohu has produced, in this thoughtful and wise
volume, a work of exhortation and exegesis which will undoubtedly be
of great assistance to many who have been perplexed and disturbed by
the apparent conflict between science and religion. . . . There is a
great lack of fervent belief nowadays in prayer. . . . ' Our prayer so
languid and our faith so dim,' is no imaginative invention of a poetic
theologian. . . . What is the reason of this ? Primarily, without doubt,
the difficulties in reconciling the Laws of physical science with a belief
in the possibility of any answer to prayer which should entail the dis-
arrangement by one iota of the natural sequence of external events.
We know now, what our fathers did not know, that physical miracles
do not occur. How then, says the man faced with such a dilemma,
shall I pray for an issue which implies the arresting of an inevitable
disease, or the disruption of an invariable chain of events ? With
great tact, and no little skill in argument and illustration, Mr. Cohu
offers a reply. It is his aim to meet the religious waverer with argu-
ments no less impregnable than those of science, and to fortify natural
instinct with the bulwarks of pure reason. Mr. Cohu is broad-minded
and well-read. As he himself premises, it is unlikely that every detail
of his thesis will secure universal assent ; but it may at least be con-
ceded that a case so thoroughly thought out and so cogently presented
deserves the consideration of every class of thinker. We gladly
endorse the generous and well-merited praise with which the Bishop
of Winchester introduces the volume to the public. ' W T e may
welcome in him,' says the Bishop, ' a writer who is in full sympathy
with the questionings of many a religious-minded and well-read lay-
man, and we may be thankful for the frank and lucid manner in
which he has endeavoured to combine the explanation of present-day
difficulties with the steady maintenance of practical and spiritual
teaching. '
This is a lofty ideal, and Mr. Cohu pursues it in a lofty and yet
very humane spirit." (W. L. Courtney in \he.Daily Telegraph.}
"The three classes whose difficulties this book is designed to
remove may be reduced to two those who will accept the guidance
of Holy Scripture, but may need to be corrected in their inter-
pretation of it ; and those whose scientific objections must be cleared
away before they will accept any guidance.
The difficulties of the first class are met almost at the outset by
the definition of prayer as ' conscious converse with God,' and the
emphatic assertion that prayer is ' something other and better and
larger than petition,' and that ' it is mainly because our idea of
prayer is low and narrow, because we have not yet risen to a large,
generous and spiritual conception of it, that prayer is so often
slighted or misunderstood.' This truth is explained, expanded and
established in the four chapters of Part I., and is well illustrated
from another point of view by a quotation from Archbishop Benson :
' What in God is Divine purpose in us is prayer, and again in Him
is fulfilment.'
For the sake of the other class, Mr. Cohu makes in Part II.
a careful examination of the present position of physical and psycho-
logical science, and he does this well. He has that sympathy with
all sincere inquirers after truth which is a necessary element of
Christian aydirrt, and is himself too much imbued with the scientific
spirit to avoid difficulties by accepting just so much science as is
obviously convenient and explaining the rest away.
He insists on the Transcendence of God as a postulate for any
theological expression of faith, and, having made this Claim, he
finds the solution of nearly all difficulties in boldly developing the
doctrine of the Divine Immanence. We do not think he has
developed it too boldly. Ps. xxxvi. with its parallels might be
Ill
quoted in defence of his suggestion that Professor Wallace's three
stages of development may be reduced to two, and that there need
be no ' chasm in organic life from the lowest form of organic life
up to man its crown;' to which he adds that he 'would welcome
a discovery that bridged the chasm between matter and life, thus
making all development consist of one stage only, with Love Divine
behind it as Evolution's key.' He confesses, with an honesty which
commends his argument, that he does not offer ' a system logically
complete, nor always uniform ; ' that ' no man can entirely escape
from himself ; ' and that, though he has ' conscientiously endeavoured
to meet scientific objections on purely scientific grounds,' he may
nevertheless have read much into God's universe which he would
never have found there had not his own spirit been steeped in
Holy Writ and the psychology of S. Paul. It is possible that he
has in fact read in something of this kind, and once or twice his
argument seems to lose its well-knit vigour. But this may easily
be excused by one who uses the book with right purpose, for the
main point is clearly made that prayer is natural to all who realise
that ' the Universe is one whole and God is the meaning of it.'
The strength of the argument is not to be measured by the weakest
link in its chain, but by the steady convergence of many thoughts
upon the reasonableness of making this venture of faith, wh;ch
remains, as Mr. Cohu would allow, a venture of faith to the last.
. . . ; ' Guardian.
Mr. Cohu is the author, among other things, of a useful book on
' The Old Testament in the Light of Modern Research.' Somewhat
in the same spirit he attacks the subject of prayer, that is, with a full
and candid appreciation of the critical side. But with the ' Higher
Critics ' of the Old Testament he is in full sympathy, whilst his object
here is to rebut the criticisms of the orthodox doctrine of Prayer.
He bases his argument on true and solid facts : a belief in the
Immanent, yet Transcendent, Consciousness always active in man
and Nature; on man being as a moral being not reducible to the in-
flexible laws of Nature : on the inadequacy of reason, created by the
soul for practical purposes : on the argument that if man can control
Nature, how much more can God, &c. He has useful chapters on the
prayer-instinct, the form of prayer, ' For what may we pray,' prin-
ciples of rjrayer, &c. His treatment is comprehensive and lucid, and
does not shirk difficulties." Times.
"... For all these reasons we warmly welcome the publication
of Oremus by the Rev. J. R. Cohu, already known as the writer of
other valuable works. . . . Although comparatively brief the book
is comprehensive. . . . The writer is completely abreast of modern
thought and accepts its main conclusions. But he shows with great
success and admirable clearness that these conclusions support, instead
of being unfavourable to, the practice of prayer understood in the
frankest and widest sense. The book is indeed more than a defence
of prayer ; within its compass it is an admirable statement of the
case against naturalism. Still better, it gives an admirable exposition
of the real meaning and true spirit of prayer. . . . We can conceive
of nothing better than that ministers, local preachers and Bible-class
teachers should master this little book. We recommend it to them
with great earnestness, not only because of its intrinsic merits, but
in order that they may take part in the most important spiritual
undertaking of our times, the reinforcement of the life of prayer
against secular encroachment, and its practice as the indispensable
means of evangelistic and social advance." Rev. J. Scott Lidgett
Leader on Oremus in Methodist Times.
"An interesting book from the pen of the Rev. J. R. Cohu. It
defends by ingenious, often philosophical, reasoning, the efficacy of
Prayer against the suggestions of agnostic criticism. It cannot but
prove edifying to devout readers of the more thoughtful sort. It is
highly recommended in a preface by the Bishop of Winchester."
Scotsman.
(This extract we quote almost in full, as coming from the leading
Jewish paper.)
" A work emanating from the pen of so thoughtful and able a writer
as the Rev. J. R. Cohu must interest not only the members of his
own Anglican community but also those of other communities, whose
religion is not one of habit and routine but of deeply ingrained con-
viction.
The book is divided into three parts, which are called separately :
I. Biblical. II. Scientific and Philosophical. III. Devotional.
Each chapter is prefaced by an argument. If the matter is difficult,
the way in which it is presented is clear and simple.
In each of the three parts, Mr. Cohu meets the difficulties that
present themselves. He does this with great ability, and is*not afraid
of tackling very thorny subjects, in vigorous and well-chosen language.
There is much originality of thought throughout the book, and the
author does not overweight his arguments with too many references
to modern writers belonging to the Higher Criticism, although he has
devoted much time and sympathy to their studies. He shows himself
throughout a diligent scholar and an earnest seeker after truth, and
it is these qualities, combined with a vigorous and lively style, that
carry his readers with him.
To his mind, the three chief hindrances to prayer are : ' Wilful sin,
selfishness and an unforgiving temper ' ; and he maintains that ' many
honest Agnostics, seekers after Truth, whose hearts are true and their
lives right, though their eyes are still holden, and they see not God,
are very near to the Kingdom of God. Therefore it may, in a sense,
'>e said that sinners, agnostics and heathen virtually can and do pray
effectually to God, even though their lips may never voice a prayer
to Him, because every man has within him a soul directly sprung from
God, His Father ; a soul which instinctively thirsts after God.' But,
he continues, there is a sense in which sinners cannot pray, and this
is explained fully.
Mr. Cohu shows us how he applies religion to the conduct of
practical life, for he holds very firmly that true religion cannot be
divorced from conduct. We feel that to him the fact is also very real
that prayer, the constant habit of reverent and intelligent prayer, does
conduce to conduct.
This short and very inadequate notice of so interesting and brilliant
a work cannot, we know, bring the contents of the book really to the
minds of those who have not, as yet, had the privilege of perusing it :
but I venture to hope that it may tempt many to do so. Members of
the Jewish community of enquiring minds and of scholarly habits must
often be confronted and baffled by difficulties springing from scientific
or other objections to this or that point connected with their religious
belief or observances. Those who are afraid and ran away from such
difficulties, may some day find themselves in the sad condition of one
who has lost shield and buckler, but those who go manfully into the
fray, who are determined not to give up all that they hold dear
precious gifts and heritages of spiritual strength and comfort will
gain help and encouragement from the book before us.
The Bishop of Winchester, a ripe scholar of broad-minded religious
views, has added to the value of the book by a sympathetic intro-
duction." -Jewish Chronicle.
"We noticed not very long ago a remarkable work by the same
author on the Old Testament in the light of modern criticism. The
book before us has a different scope. It is addressed to believers,
and it is in the main devotional. At the same time it fairly faces
R r
VI
the objections raised to prayer by philosophy and science, and attempts
to show that there is no opposition between revelation as truly inter-
preted and science as taught to know her proper limits. The recon-
cilement is found in the doctrine of immanence, and the famous lines
of the Sixth ' /Eneid ' might have been taken as a motto :
'Spiritus intus alit, totamque infusa per artus
Mens agitat molem et magno se corpore miscet.'
It need hardly be added that the pantheistic doctrine of an ani/na
mundi is supplemented by the theistic doctrine of Transcendence.
Mr. Cohu will allow no distinction between prayer for spiritual and
material blessings. Mr. Francis Gallon's proposed experimental test
of prayer he brushes aside as an impertinence. We are fully agreed
that the notion of a laboratory of prayer is abhorrent to a religious
man asking for a sign, a tempting of God, in the language of
Scripture. But there can be no profanity in an historical enquiry.
Have prayers for temporal blessings, for rain, for health, against
plagues and earthquakes, been answered in the past? This, so it
seems to us, is the only test that can satisfy science and one that
religion cannot shirk. Schaff's illustration should not have found
a place in a work generally so sane and serious." Journal of
Education.
"Mr. Cohu's work is more than a mere treatise on prayer. . . .
He has provided a section for those whose prayer-difficulties are easily
solved by a reference to the Scriptures, but the real interest of the
work is in the part in which he meets the deeper objections presented
to thinkers by science and philosophy.
In his treatment of these problems, Mr. Cohu shows a marked
capacity for grasping the prevailing intellectual difficulties, and has
the rare power in a high degree of presenting the Christian case in the
particular aspect that is required to meet them. He deals fully with
the many misapprehensions that exist as to the true nature of prayer.
He meets fairly and squarely such well-known objections as ' Why
should we pray, when God already knows what we want ? '
But he also goes further and answers the more difficult question :
' Why should we pray when the laws of Nature are immutable, and
even God Himself does not seem able to alter them ? '
Mr. Cohu strikes us as being too favourable in the way in which he
expresses the objector's position ; but for this he amply compensates
by the clearness and point of his answers.
The book reveals wide reading and much thought, especially in the
Vll
examination of scientific objections. The author shows that he is
familiar with all that can be said on behalf of the objector, and can at
the same time readily detect the weak points in the case. His section
on spiritual things being spiritually discerned is one of the most
interesting, and contains much that is most valuable in dealing with
the subtle agnosticism of our day.
The devotional tone of the closing chapter shows that Mr. Cohu
understands not only the theory but the practice of his subject.
This book ought to be especially useful to the clergy in dealing with
the doubts with which the minds of so many thoughtful laymen are
troubled. As the Bishop of Winchester says, &c., &.c." Record.
"... As the Bishop of Winchester truly says in his introductory
note, the author states his views not only clearly but reverently.
There is none of that cheap and easy dogmatism which some modern
writers, dealing with a theme at once so universal and so profound,
choose to affect. There is a true thread of devotion running through
its pages, and this we thankfully acknowledge, even when and where
we are bound to dissent from some of the writer's conclusions."
Churchman.
"Mr. Cohu has given us a very able book on a very difficult
subject. It would be unfair to say that it is too philosophical ; it
is not, for, indeed, the difficulty itself is philosophical.
The instinct of prayer, as he truly says, is ineradicable. A cry
for help to some Power not ourselves rises to the lips in times of
need. It must be a very resolute thinker that can restrain it :
' Lips cry " God be merciful"
That ne'er said " God be praised." '
We should be inclined to recommend the average reader to begin
with Chapter VII. , described as an ' alternative Chapter to Chapter
VI.' There the argument is stated in a simpler form, which he
will probably find more effective. He will then pass on more
profitably to the deeper reasoning founded on the Immanence and
Transcendence of God, and on Personality. Mr. Cohu does well,
we think, in refusing to limit the sphere of prayer. Let a man
-pray for what he wants, if he wants it with a clear conscience.
A dullard will not ask to come out top in a hard competition, but
every man may pray that he may be helped to show his own best
.self. And in cases of healing, what limits should be set? Where
are the limits to what can be done by the invigorated personality
of the sufferer or the inspired intelligence of the physician? Such
answers to prayer on God's part are but another instance of what
we see every hour, man subjecting natural powers to his own uses."
Spectator.
" Of late years, even Christian people seem to have lost sight of the
full importance and efficacy of prayer. A book calculated to restore
prayer to its true position is to be heartily welcomed, and such a book
has just been given to the public by the Rev. J. R. Cohu, and cordi-
ally recommended by the Bishop of Winchester. The plan of the
book is simple. The author deals with the Immanence (phis Tran-
scendence) of God in the Universe, and postulates that man's personality
in soul is one in essence with God's Personality, and that the Father-
hood of God involves the brotherhood of man with all its responsibilities.
He proves that the Universe is one whole, and that God is the meaning
of it. The book is most lucidly written, but it occasionally deals with
deep subjects, such as evolution, philosophically yet interestingly. It
is an excellent book for all, but especially for ministers and teachers,
and a storehouse of arguments which may be of service either in
preaching, teaching or meeting objections. The man who may have
lost faith in the power of prayer will find the work most useful. Even
the doubter and scoffer will not close it without hesitation and heart-
searching, or without admitting the great possibilities that are bound
up in prayer. All Christians will find the last chapter in the book
some helps to prayer and some hindrances most valuable." Western
Mail.
" We remember reading with much pleasure Mr. Cohu's ' Old
Testament in the light of Modern Research,' and expressing in these
columns a strongly favourable opinion of it. Mr. Cohu has continued
to keep up his deservedly high reputation for careful research and
well-balanced reasoning. The author states his views in Oremus
frankly, clearly, reverently. He does not shrink from the difficult
problems that have been raised by the discoveries of modern science.
He expresses his honest convictions, and his combination of a very
reasonable explanation of present-day difficulties with the steady main-
tenance of deeply spiritual teaching is highly commendable. The
volume deserves to have a very wide circulation. Its perusal will be
of great advantage to thinking men with honest aspirations." Perth-
shire Courier.
" Some time ago we had the pleasure of reviewing in these columns
another work by the author of this book, the Rev. J. R. Cohu, a work
which, we know, has been most helpful to many. We, therefore,
IX
took up this present volume with great hopes of finding it equally
helpful, and we have not been disappointed. The attitude of the
Determinist towards prayer is an intelligible one. He affirms that
everything has been pre-ordained ages ago, and no amount of prayer
can possibly alter the course of events by one jot or tittle. Mr.
Cohu ably attacks this position as unscientific, and, taking up the
real standpoint of modern scientific ideas, lucidly shows that true
science is not the determined opponent of the doctrine of prayer that
the cheap imitators of Haeckel, and a host of other unscientific and
inaccurate persons would have us believe. The subject of the effi-
cacy of prayer is one that touches us all, and Mr. Cohu's weighty
' Apologia ' will bring comfort to many a distressed and harassed
mind. We hope that 'Oremus' will be widely read and studied. "-
Bristol Times.
" The aim is to show that prayer is an instinct we owe to the
very nature of our being, and the writer insists on the truth that
prayer must be real and also translated into action. Then we are
shown that we may pray for any object, provided the prayer is made
in Christ's Name, with all that is implied (as explained) in that
expression. Chapter IV. has answers to objections, and the answers
are well put. To the people who are ready to pray for spiritual
blessings, but not for material, the author rightly answers that the
distinction is unphilosophical. We ask Him ' to perform as real
a miracle when we ask God to cure the soul of sin, as when we ask
Him to cure the body of a fever.' Scientific objections are treated
fully. The last chapter on helps and hindrances to prayer is most
excellent and suggestive. We do not endorse all that is advanced
in these pages, but, taken as a whole, it is a book that will help
many a doubter." Church Times.
" A very lucid apologetic of prayer in the light of modern thought.
The author's standpoint in the main is that of the Personal Idealist."
Glasgow Herald.
' ' We echo his Lordship's remark that the author has given us ' the
results of careful and devout study.' It is an admirable and well-nigh
exhaustive treatment of the subject of Prayer and its place in the
Modern Religious Life. Besides a preface of ten pages, the eight
chapters are grouped into three parts, viz. (I.) Biblical. (II.)
Scientific and Philosophical. (HI.) Devotional. . . . The reader
will find every subject in these chapters dealt with reverently and
convincingly. We trust the book may be widely read, and wish it
every success it so well deserves." Ecclesiastical Gazette and Church
of England Pulpit.
fl It will prove of incalculable worth to the prayerful, sceptical, and
wavering classes. ... It shows deep research and a scholar's able
hand. It also fills a gap, and grapples with a subject approached by
no other work, known to us, with the same thoroughness, depth, and
reverence. " Oxfordshire Standard.
" This book, by a clergyman of the Church of England, impresses
us as a really useful and suggestive contribution to its theme. The
really satisfactory book on prayer has never been, and never will
be written, for the reason that prayer is not a subject which can
be argued in the ordinary fashion. But so far as dealing with
prayer is possible, this unassuming volume deals with it most help-
fully. Mr. Cohu treats of the prayer instinct, of theological and
scientific objections to prayer, and of the devotional aspect of prayer,
and under each head says wise and very luminous things. The
author has his own way of putting things, and it is a way which
has a novel aspect. It is a pleasure highly to commend Mr. Cohu's.
book, for which the Bishop of Winchester has written an intro-
duction. " British Congregationalist.
"... Mr. Cohu argues closely and ably, and examines current
scientific objections to prayer with great acuteness and power. His
tone is broad-minded and unsectarian. The high commendation of
the Bishop of Winchester, who writes a Preface to the book, speaks
for itself. This book will repay careful reading, and prove very
useful, especially to educated young men." Methodist Recorder.
11 The chief merit of Oremus is that it achieves a thorough treat-
ment, and this in a brief form. It is not, however, the only merit,
for Mr. Cohu deals with the problems of Prayer very carefully,
and the Biblical and devotional aspects very reverently. No fault
can be found either with his arguments or conclusions, although
the author is unduly deferential to what has been pregnantly de-
fined as ' Science with a capital S.' There should be a place for
a work of this kind, and Mr. Cohu's book is decidedly well able
to fill it." Methodist Times.
" No one would care to deny the author's honesty and zeal for
the House of God, for it is stamped on every page. One may say
that the motive of the book is to get at the mind of the modern
loose thinker, shaken as he has been by modern scientific argument,
and to show him that in prayer, rightly understood, is to be found
XI
the solution of the problems that trouble him. Nor can any one
refuse to acknowledge the many practical suggestions given in order
to the bettering of prayer. Clearly the last chapter on ' Some helps
to prayer and some hindrances,' is written by one who has learnt
about prayer otherwise than by theory or speculative study." Tablet.
" A new and suggestive work, most timely and welcome. . . . The
author's statements and arguments are so lucidly and tellingly penned
that they will be readily grasped by even ordinarily thoughtful and
intelligent readers. By painstaking and tireless research, and evidently
fortified by long personal experience of the power and preciousness of
prayer, Mr. Cohu has worked out prayer's problem, and met the
scientific objections to it in a way which reveals alike in manner and
matter a scholarly and reverent grasp of the subject. It is eminently
'a book for the times,' for it approaches a vitally interesting subject,
not only in the best light of the present day, but also in a deeply
reverent and Christian spirit." Bucks Htrald.
" We noticed last month a valuable book on the Old Testament
by the Rev. J. R. Cohu ; and now we are indebted to the same
writer for an equally illuminating and useful book on Prayer, which
we hope will have a very wide circulation.
We have been waiting long for a really able exposition of the
work of Prayer from the modern standpoint, and at last patience is
rewarded.
It might be supposed that an intense conviction of the necessity
of Prayer for living the Christian life is hardly compatible with
a clear and sympathetic understanding of the difficulties (scientific
and practical) which so many earnest minds feel in regard to it ;
but this book shows that the supposition is needless.
We have never seen the difficulties more fairly stated and answered.
There is nothing in this book of the special pleading that disfigures
too much of popular apologetic." British Friend,
" Mr. Cohu's previous work prepares us for the breadth and
reasonableness that mark the book now under notice. He advances
a number of arguments that take the edge off some of the objections
so often urged, and he shows that the head, as well as the heart,
has much to urge in vindication of prayer. Mr. Cohu is well
justified in the emphasis he lays on the importance of consciousness
and personality in relation to prayer. It is along this line that the
modern mind is likely more and more to work in its endeavour to
reach the heart of the problem." Christian World.
Xll
" L'eveque anglican de Winchester presente lui-meme an public
1'ouvrage de M. Cohu sur la place de la priere dans la vie religiensc
moderne, comme un ouvrage suggestif. M. Cohu pose franchement
et nettement les problemes en face des donnees de la science et des
exigences de la pensee moderne, et il les traite avec clarte en homme
qui a le sens religieux et le respect des vieilles doctrines et des vieilles
pratiques.
... La partie vraiment personnelle du livre est la partie apologe-
tique, Chapitres IV. VII. ou 1'auteur repond aux difficultes contre
la priere. Les croyants ont les leurs. A eux surtout il est repondu
au Chap. IV. Les reponses sont bonnes et claires, les memes a peu
pres que donnent les catholiques.
Les Chapitres V. VII. ne s'adressent plus aux croyants, comme
tels, mais a ceux qu'a touches 1'objection scientifique.
Au Chapitre V., position fort nette de la question. Science et
religion ne devraient pas s'opposer : loin d'etre incompatibles, elles
se rendent de mutuels services. Et cependant, malgre des indices
serieux de rapprochement, on oppose encore la conception scientifique
du monde a la conception theologique, 1'une ne trouvant que lois
inflexibles la ou 1'autre pretend reconnaitre des traces d'une volonte
personnelle, libre et aimante. II est clair que la premiere ne laisse
aucune place a la priere. Les deux chapitres qui suivent donnent
la reponse, une reponse du fond pour savants et philosophes, en
style academique, comme fait un professeur en chaire, parlant a des
inities. Elle oppose au systeme materialiste du monde, qui n'explique
pas la vie ni la conscience, un systeme semi-idealiste, tout analogue
au systeme bergsonien de 1 'Evolution creatrice. Dieu n'y est pas
supprimS. ni sa transcendance nice ; mais c'est son action immanente
qui fait tout evoluer en ce monde, et la raison meme de 1'homme
n'est qu'une forme tardive et superficielle d'une conscience intime
et personnelle, fille de la conscience divine, de meme essence avec
elle, et sous sa dependance immediate. A ceux qui ne comprendraient
pas cette solution, 1'auteur propose celle du theisme chretien, d'un
Dieu d'oii depend la Nature avec toutes ses forces, qui nous aime
comme ses enfants, qui nous suit du regard, et qui agit en notre faveur
dans ce monde et sur ce monde. C'est la bonne, evidemment, et
le livre de M. Cohu, par ce qu'il dit fort bien, comme par ce qu'il
n'explique pas assez, peut nous aider a en mieux saisir la valeur et
la portee." Revue pratique d" apologetique.
OXFORD: JAMES PARKER AND Co.
LONDON: SIMI-KIN, MARSHALL AND Co.
The Old Testament in the Light of Modern Research.
By Rev. J. R. COHU. Crown 8vo., 4^. net.
NOTICES OF THE PRESS.
"Mr. Cohu knows the whole history of Old Testament criticism.
He is himself an ardent Old Testament critic. His book is the best
popular presentation in English of the results of the last fifty years'
study of the Old Testament, and of their reasonableness. It takes the
place on the one side of the controversy which Prof. Orr's book takes
on the other." Expository Times.
"It is rather the fashion nowadays to describe any significant
and outstanding event as ' a sign of the times,' and no doubt the
. phrase is in danger of being overworked. Nevertheless, it is im-
possible to withhold it from the publication of such a book as that
now before us ; for it is assuredly a very marked sign of the times
that a priest of the Church of England should have the courage,
and, we may add, the wisdom, to face the conclusions of the Higher
Criticism in a thoroughly sound and critical spirit, and to strike
the balance between the old-fashioned doctrine of verbal inspira-
tion and the floundering despair of uninstructecl scepticism
The author is the Rev. J. R. Cohu, and his book is a clear, succinct
and well-arranged epitome of the light which modern criticism has
thrown upon the literary history of the Hebrew Scriptures. It is the
confessed object of his book to set forth the fruits of recent research,
and then to consider how far these are compatible with the acceptation
of the Bible as a record defended by Divine sanction. This task Mr.
Cohu achieves with genuine skill and not a little eloquence
Such a book should do much to reconcile all thinking Churchmen
to the obvious conclusions which spring from an intelligent ex-
amination of the written documents of the faith." Daily 7\'legraph.
"For a compact and lucid statement of the modern view of the
Old Testament literature, Mr. Cohu's book may with confidence
be commended. It will be useful as a clear and unbiassed state-
ment of the present position of Old Testament research. While
accepting frankly the new view of revelation, the author is at the
same time a firm believer in inspiration, holding that to be un-
doubtedly proved by the unity of 1 Scripture. " Scotsman.
" This volume may be read with much profit, though it will cause,
we do not doubt, some searchings of heart. Mr. Cohu sees in the
Old Testament the indications of stages through which the conscious-
ness of the Hebrew people passed. This does not trouble him. The
divine patience, love and man's capacity are the hopeful lessons which
he draws. Our author goes through the Old Testament, and deals
with it, courageously indeed, but with moderation We would
specially mention 'The Old Testament view of Life after Death.' "
The Spectator.
"An able presentation from the point of view of the Higher
Criticism, the conclusions of which, in the author's opinion, have
proved an immense gain to faith, and opened our eyes to the intrinsic
value of the Bible message." Hibbert Journal.
" This book ought to commend a critical view of the Old Testament
to the thoughtful consideration of broad-minded readers : it is ad-
mirably adapted for that purpose." Dr. Driver.
" I have read the Assyrio-Babylonian cosmology : it is exceedingly
good." Rev. A. H. Sayce, Professor of Assyriology, Oxford.
"A readable and lucid popularisation of modern teaching by one
who, ' troubled and perplexed, has had a flood of light poured upon
the pages of his Old Testament by the Higher Criticism,' and whose
'one wish is to help others in their perplexities.' " Times.
"The book that has been brought to our knowledge to-day deals with
great subjects and momentous questions in a popular manner, and in
a style both robust and easy. It will probably and deservedly be
widely read. The author professes to follow in the footsteps of such
great masters in their art as \Vellhausen, Reuss, Knenen and others,
but we instinctively feel that, whilst professing to follow, he may
really be leading the way for those who know little of the celebrated
Bible critics, but their names Tolerant and open-minded his
book proclaims him to be The language is warm with a religious
fervour and breathes throughout an optimistic belief in ' a personal
living God of infinite love, wisdom, power and purpose, Who is guid-
ing the world and man, and Whose Hand can be clearly seen in reve-
lation and in history.' .... We cannot pretend to give anything like
a review of this clever and brilliant little volume, we would rather direct
our readers to its pages both for interest and instruction. The chapter
on Figurativeness of Bible language appeals to us very strongly ; also
those dealing with the Semitic races and the Mosaic books Whilst
recognising that the author of the book is a sincere and believing
Christian, we venture to recommend its close perusal to our Jewish
readers ; the book is full of information very pleasantly imparted,
and deeply interesting." Jtivish Chronicle.
" He has set out the answers that satisfied him and made things clear,
so that others and there must be many may profit likewise. It is
an excellent book for that purpose, and we would not alter it in any
way A study of it will do unlimited good in clarifying the con-
fused and inaccurate notions still too prevalent amongst religious people
concerning the origins and relative value of the books of the Old
Testament. It puts facts in a very lucid and intelligible manner."
Bristol Times.
"The author's excellent exposition of the results of the Higher
Criticism should find many readers, and is well calculated to give
much help." Oxford Magazine.
" The book has the advantage of covering the whole field of inquiry
historical, literary, religious, and doctrinal, and of dealing with it
in a simple, popular fashion, and so is specially fitted to be useful to
those who do not feel inclined to tackle directly the works of Wellhausen,
Davidson, Robertson Smith, Budde, Driver, &c. Mr. Cohu's general
position is that of the conservative wing of criticism, as represented by
writers like A. B. Davidson and Driver." Glasgow Herald.
" A very lucid review and classification of the results of modern
Biblical criticism. Mr. Cohu is in full sympathy with that criticism,
not, as so many modern writers are, because it undermines cherished
beliefs, but because in a large and deeper sense it is constructive, and
because it illumines and spiritualises beliefs and aspirations that have
grown with the growth of humanity His study of Babylonian
influence upon the Mosaic code, and upon Hebrew thought and
religion, shows an easy grasp of the subject. He is especially happy in
making use of Hebrew folk-lore to interpret Biblical imagery concern-
ing the Creation, the Flood, and the Fall of Man." Yorkshire Post.
"If we were asked to recommend a suitable text-book of the
Higher Criticism in convenient form and lucidly expounded, we
should certainly name The Old Testament in the light of Modern
Research, by Rev. J. R. Cohu. No better hand-book of the subject
could be desired. . . . On the whole, we repeat that if Old Testament
history is to be reset upon the basis of the Higher Criticism, the work
could not be better done than Mr. Cohu does it." Rldhodist Times.
"This volume is the result of a careful study of Scripture and the
views of scholars on the subject. ... It is a thoughtful book, and
<loes great credit to the author's clear and sound judgment." Perth-
shire Courier.
" The Rev. J. R. Cohu has done a useful bit of work conscientiously
and well." Revie-M of Revie^vs.
" The need for a clear and thoroughly informed, but devout and
reverential, presentation of the results of modern historical and literary
criticism in its relation to Old Testament Scriptures has long been
felt, and we are pleased to find that the demand has been met by
Mr. Cohu, a scholar of experience and culture. So far as we are
aware, no sympathetic statement, which is'at the same time popular
and reliable, has been brought within the reach of the ordinary reader
in so satisfactory a form as the present volume. Mr. Cohu accepts all
the assured conclusions of criticism, and presents them in so readable,
moderate and reverential a spirit as to make it impossible to quarrel
even when we disagree with him. He is most convincing .... and
the Bible itself, instead of losing value, gains enormously from the
truly religious point of view. This book will be most heartily wel-
comed by all serious students of the Old Testament." Western
Mail.
" We know of no other work of the same size that presents the
results of modern criticism of Old Testament literature so clearly and
so convincingly." Liverpool Daily Post and Mercury.
" Mr. Cohu makes no claim to onginality, but he has nevertheless
given us a most brilliant work." Jewish World.
"A clear, straightforward exposition of the results of recent
Criticism, giving the latest conclusions of Hebrew scholars. It is
well pointed out how the story of the growth and development of
religion is distorted and obsessed by the unchronological arrangement
of the books. There is an excellent chapter on the figurativeness of
Bible language.'"' -Journal of Education.
"Mr. Cohu has mastered his subject thoroughly and states the
arguments in favour of his positions with sobriety and candour. Even
those of us who cannot adopt his conclusions must admire his
thoughtful and reverent tone." Baptist Times.
" In this, his latest work, Mr. Cohu has apparently burnt his boats,
and definitely adopted the critical position of the extreme German
School. ... It must not, however, be assumed that there is no part
of his book to which we can turn with pleasure and profit. There are,
in fact, several chapters rich in suggestiveness. and of genuine value.
The archaeological student will find here a rich mine of rare information
and ingenious argument. The account given, likewise, of current
Jewish beliefs in the time of our Lord, and of the Eschatology of the
same period, will be found most illuminating in their bearing on many
obscure or difficult passages in the Gospels. We agree in the main,
too, with the author's chapters on Revelation and Inspiration, while
the Introductory Chapter, and the two which follow are deeply
interesting and suggestive." Church of Ireland Gazette.
" We welcome it cordially as a sign of the growing desire on the
part of the clergy to bring their public religious teaching into closer
accord with the results of scholarship and the growth of knowledge."
Manchester Guardian.
" A skilful and interesting account of the results of critical research.
Mr. Cohu shows a true instinct in giving his opening chapters a range
wide enough to include a view of the origin and development of religions
generally. This is, indeed, an indispensable preliminary to the proper
understanding of Israel's religion. Having laid so sound a foundation,
Mr. Cohu builds an excellent superstructure." Christian World.
"Works of this kind are by no means easy to write. The field
to be covered is wide, and there is a danger of sketchy generalization
and inexactness of statement. Mr. Cohu's book is not entirely free
from such defects : but otherwise it indicates briskly and pleasantly
the main results of modern research." Church Quarterly Review.
" In the minds of a vast number of people criticism of the
Bible has been equivalent to an attack on their faith, because
to them every word of the Bible was divinely inspired and equally
infallible. And a younger generation, finding many former views
erroneous or even absurd, are inclined to give up all belief. Some
are sensibly disturbed, and ask the old question, What then is
truth? Others simply pass to tacit agnosticism. ... . Therefore
we welcome a book which gives in short compass the main results
of the Higher Criticism from the standpoint of faith, by a student
of Wellhausen, Kuenen, Driver, and their school; who says that
criticism will not destroy the Bible's 'deep and abiding comfort
and help, for its spiritual message remains untouched.' In this
spirit Mr. Cohu treats of all the well-known difficulties, allegorical
stories, and folk-lore, &<j. . . . The moral aspect of the so-called moral
difficulties of the Old Testament is carefully differentiated from the
direct revelation of God. Human sacrifices, the universal vendetta,
the regulations for blood-revenge, the appalling cruelty of the Judaic
laws, the ideas expressed in the imprecatory Psalms have (as he shows)
a place in the development of all religions. Hitherto the average
reader of the Bible has missed the great gulf fixed between the earlier
crude religion and the later ideals of the prophets and the Christian
revelation, because he has treated the Bible as one book, instead
of many writings spread over a period of at least 1,100 years in their
authorship. . . . Mr. Cohu's book should go far to dispel the difficulties
which have arisen from that ignorant view which has treated the Bible
as a sort of infallible fetish every word of which was divinely inspired,
not only in a spiritual sense, but in all matters scientific and historical.
At the same time Mr. Cohu states clearly the modern theory as to the
true sense in which the authors of the Old Testament were inspired,
noting the remarkable unity of purpose which underlies the Divine
message throughout. . . . The book is not without inaccuracies, there
are many unnecessary repetitions, some clear comparative tables of
dates, and a good index are much wanted. These are matters for
a general revision, before a second edition (which we trust may be
called for) of this very useful little work." Academy.
"The Rev. J. R. Cohu gives a very instructive, earnest and readable
account of Biblical criticism. His book has in view the reader
ignorant of, or perhaps repelled by modern Biblical scholarship, and
its tactful and sympathetic tone should make it useful." -Journal
of Theological Studies.
"... Written in so excellent a spirit, with so much sound learning,
and with so pleasant a gift of lucid expression . . . ." Guardian.
" A successful and scholarly effort to show the reasonableness and
historical justification of the higher criticism, and at the same time
to emphasize the view that religion, so far from being endangered
by the results attained, has had a welcome amount of light shed on
it by the labours of critics The manner of presentation is often
admirable, and the eloquence of the style is calculated to attract."
Athentntm,
" Mr. Cohu has focussed the numerous lights of the Higher Criticism
with such ability as to illuminate for his fellow-labourers and for all
earnest readers many of its dark places. The author has not tried
so much to reconcile the old with the new, as to interpret the old
by the aid of the new, to indicate its spiritual worth, quietly setting
aside what is not reasonably tenable. ... In his account of the origin
and peculiar character of each of the books, Mr. Cohu displays a very
great knowledge of the scholarly research which has so marked the
higher criticism, and he has utilised his knowledge in such a way
as to make his work of great interest as well as importance. . . . The
book should prove inspiring and useful to those who are unwilling
to discard their Old Testament, yet cannot see how reasonably to
retain it." Oxford Chronicle.
" A careful attempt to gather up the scattered results of Biblical
Criticism, and to reconstruct them into a connected and intelligible
whole a helpful book towards the attainment of a clear, scientific
and intelligent view of the Bible ; and towards the recognition in its
pages of God's moral government of the world in a uniformly con-
sistent and systematic way right on from the very beginning. By
the study of this book many will be enabled to find the Bible more
intelligible, more helpful, and more spiritual than it ever was before :
to read into it a deeper meaning, a clearer understanding, a stronger
faith and to be more ' ready to give an answer to every man that
asketh a reason ' for the hope that is in them." Commonwealth.
OXFORD : JAMES PARKER AND Co.
LONDON : SIMPKIN, MARSHALL AND Co.
XX
" The Sermon on the Mount?' 1 From the modern stand-
point. (Sktffington and Co.]
"Surprisingly full of new and unfamiliar thoughts. Not all will
assent to all the writer's critical conclusions. But all will welcome the
strong ethical teaching, and the many illuminating thoughts which they
will find in these discourses, and will recognize the learning which
underlies them." Church Times.
" One might have supposed that the last word, whether exegetical or
hortatory, had already been said on the Sermon on the Mount. How-
ever, Mr. Cohu rather excited our curiosity by professing to give us his
impressions 'as viewed from the modern standpoint,' and it must be
owned that his book is considerably above the usual sermon volumes in
intellectual grasp of his subject and in its power of penetrating thought.
His guiding principle, which is to discover the sense in which Jewish
hearers would understand the discourse, frequently sheds a flood of new
light on several of its most vexed and debatable passages ; and it
strikes us that in the recognition of this principle lies the secret of
much that is otherwise obscure or inexplicable. . . . It is much to the
point to remember, as we are here reminded, that even S. Matthew's is
a highly condensed report of our Lord's actual discourse, and that our
accounts of it are very much at second-hand. . . . The " Bible Word-
Pictures" is a most delightful chapter. Of the treatment of the Great
Sermon in detail, it must suffice to say that Mr. Cohu shows the
critical skill and acumen of an accomplished linguist in his endeavour
to throw all possible light on obscure paragraphs or phrases. The
work, as a whole, is characterized by ripeness and suggestiveness of
thought, and will be found a useful commentary by all who desire
a clearer and closer knowledge of these wonderful words of the
Master." Church of Ireland Gazette.
" Mr. Cohu is an ardent disciple of the Higher Critics. The
practical parts of his exposition of the Sermon on the Mount (which
he declares to be identical with S. Luke's Sermon on the Plain) are
excellent. " Record.
" One cannot read the book without feeling in touch with a real and
helpful spiritual influence." Scottish Chronicle.
" The whole is a thoughtful comment on the deep teaching of the
Sermon. " Guardian.
" These are practical addresses." CJmrch Family Nnvspaper.
(The Aitthor has unfortunately mislaid many other reviews.)
" The Ten Commandments" and "The Morning Service"
" Two series of sermons which the author himself modestly com-
mends only for their simplicity. They are more than simple ; they
are manly and outspoken, well calculated to impress any congregation
by their seriousness, and the preacher's aptness in illustration."
Yorkshire Post.
"If all our villages had such virile and practical teaching as this,
what a difference it would make in our land ! " Churchman.
" This is so useful a book that we are glad to hear its first edition is
practically sold out. The sermons are published exactly as they were
preached, but they read exceedingly well. The author draws from
many sources for his illustrations, which are always happily chosen. "
Record.
" Two good courses of parochial sermons, which deserve to be
known and imitated." Guardian.
" Simple and effective. The book will be found very useful by
teachers and preachers as well as for general reading." Churcft
Family Newspaper.
" A set of simple, homely, straightforward addresses with admirable
hints and suggestions which cannot fail to prove useful to all who wish
clear and definite, straightforward teaching for their people." Church
Pulpit and Ecclesiastical Gazette.
" Every address is delivered with a calm vigour which carries con*
viction in its train, and with the lucidity which comes of ripe scholar-
ship. It supplies a widely felt want." Western Daily Mercury.
" The aim of this book, laudably and successfully striven after, is to>
give the plainest possible interpretation to the Book of Common
Prayer, and to derive practical twentieth-century lessons from the Ten
Commandments. The author's mature scholarship has been turned
to the purpose of this volume with the happiest effect." Newcastle
Daily Chronicle.
" The author has not the least need to apologise for bringing before
the public thoughts and ideas which are in a high degree instructive,
refreshing and invigorating, intellectually and spiritually. The subject
S S
XX11
is treated throughout with a masterly simplicity of style which could
only be commanded by one who has fully grasped its deepest meaning.
The teaching is uncompromisingly definite and very interestingly and
convincingly put." Bucks Herald.
" From cover to cover, there is not a page in the whole book which
is dull or uninteresting. These sermons are just those earnest, plain,
simple, piquant addresses which are needed every day. No one can
read this book without being forcibly impressed, and made more
steadfast in the faith." South Oxfordshire Standard.
"Among the great multitude of books of sermons recently pub-
lished, one claims special notice. . . . Mr. Cohu's addresses are simple,
fresh, pithy, full of excellent matter, and very suggestive. After
reading them it will be difficult for any intelligent man to remain
ignorant of the Church's teaching." Western Mail.
PRINTED BY JAMES PARKER AND CO.,
CROWN YARD, OXFORD.
3 1158 01058 0065
A 000106180 3
