[* MAR 1 5 1S07 *j 
 
 Division SSZ55S 
 Section .-4 . nib 
 
<N 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS^ 
 
" That thou maycst have culditional assiirance of the correctness of those 
 Logoi, concernimj which thou hast been instriKted." — Luke i. 4. 
 
 " The foj-mer Logos have I ivritten unto thee." — Acts i. 1. - 
 
 " Hold fast tht exact form of the sound Logoi." — 2 Tim. i. 13. 
 
 "As neio-horn habes, desire the sincere milk of Ike Logos, that ye may grow 
 thereby." — 1 Pet. xi. 2. 
 
WHAT thi:nk ye of 
 
 THE GOSPELS? 
 
 A HANDBOOK OF GOSPEL STUDY 
 
 Eev. J. J. HALCOMBE, M.A. 
 
 RECTOR OF BALSHAM, CA.MBS. 
 AUTHOR OK "tHK HISIORIC RELATION OF TH?; GOSPELS' 
 
 EDINBUEGH 
 T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEOEGE STEEET 
 
 1893 
 
MiiRRISON AXD GIBB, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH. 
 
UNITY IN DIVERSITY 
 
 The evidence given in the following pages will show that then' is 
 an almost incredible similarity ])etween all the diU'erent parts of the 
 Fom'fold Gospel record. 
 
 How is such close and sustained similarity to l)e reconciled with 
 the existence of that endless and multiform variety which is nnv of 
 the most characteristic features of the Gospel story ? 
 
 May we not answer, that in all great works Unity in Dix'crsity 
 is ever the sign of the highest excellence, alike of conccptioii aii<l 
 execution ? 
 
 The similarity is simply due to the as-nearly-as-i>ossililf nniforiu 
 adoi)tiou by all four writers of the same principles of narration, 
 whilst the variety is the necessary effect of these prinriplo 1 icing 
 constantly applied to widely different circumstances. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 rAC.F. 
 
 Introduction ......... 1 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 The same Definition applies with equal Exactness to 
 every one of forty samples op the joint authorship 
 OF Four Writers ....... 4 
 
 CHAPTER II 
 
 The same Branches of Evidence apply equally to every 
 ONE OF Forty Samples of the Joint Authorship of 
 Four Writers 7 
 
 CHAPTER III 
 
 The same Analysis yields Results corresponding in Fif- 
 teen Particulars in every one op Forty Samples of 
 THE Joint Authorship of Four Writers . . .27 
 
 CHAPTER IV 
 
 The extent to which the Synoptists omit or repeat Johan- 
 NEAN Subjects dominates the Construction of every 
 one op Forty Samples of Gospel Construction . . 35 
 
 CHAPTER V 
 
 Fourteen Sectional Histories . . . . • .39 
 
 CHAPTER VI 
 Ten Fourfold Narratives ^'^ 
 
VI 11 CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER VII 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Sixteen Fourfold Statements 88 
 
 CHAPTER VIII 
 How THE Gospels were produced ..... 95 
 
 CHAPTER IX 
 The "Claimaxt" Gospel IKj 
 
 APPENDIX 
 I. Analysls of Incidents in Sectional Histories . .121 
 
 II. Analysis of Details in Fourfold Narratives . .122 
 
 III. Analysis of Facts and Details in Fourfold Statements 123 
 
 IV. Verbal Analysis of Sectional Histories . . .124 
 V. Verbal Analysis of Fourfold Narratives. . . 125 
 
 VI. Verbal Analysis of Fourfold Statements. . .126 
 
 VII. Evidence of Papias 127 
 
 VIII. Evidence of Tertullian 128 
 
Diagram of Gospel Construction 
 
 /( 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 = = = = 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1/ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ f L S 1^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 = E = B ___ ^-^=^==E^_Z1= 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1// 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 l/y/ :;;: ; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 /v 
 
 
 
 ^ = 
 
 __: 
 
 ;J =^ 
 
 A 
 
 " III Ml 
 ll„ 
 
 A/ - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \// 
 
 A/// 
 
 v/r 
 
DIACJIJAM: EXPLANATION AND REFERENCES 
 
 1 line =St. John. 
 
 2 lines = St. Matthew. 
 
 3 lines = St. Mark. 
 
 4 lines = St. Luke. 
 Scale — 30 verses to 1 inch. 
 
 The lowest stratum represents — 
 
 («.) Matter found in one Gospel only ; and 
 
 (h) Matter which, according to the assumed secpiencc, first occur? 
 in the Gospel indicated. 
 Tile upi)er strata represent the repetitions made by subsecpient writers. 
 In Section III. the order of events given by St. Matthew is adapted ti 
 that given by St. Mark and St. Luke. 
 
 N.B. — Luke xi. 14-xiii. 21 has been removed from Section YI. and 
 placed (after Luke viii. 21) in Section III. But for this alteration Sec- 
 tions III., IV., v., and VI. would all be mixed up together. 
 
 SECTIONS 
 I 
 
 THE INCARNATION, BIRTH, AND EARLY LIFE OF JESUS 
 
 St. .Tohii i. 1-5. St. Matthew i. and ii. St. Luke i. and ii. 
 No repetition. 
 
 II 
 
 THE MINISTRY OF THE BAPTIST 
 
 St. John i. 6-34. St. Matthew iii. 1-iv. 11. St. Mark i. 1-1.3. 
 St. Luke iii. 1-iv. 13. 
 
DIAGRAM : EXPLANATION AND REFERENCES 
 
 FROM THE MINISTRY OF THE BAPTIST TO THE FEEDING 
 
 OF THE FIVE THOUSAND 
 
 St. Jolin i. 35-vi. 21. St. Matthew iv. 12-xiv. 34. St. Mark i. 14-vi. 53. 
 
 St. Luke iv. 14-ix. 17 and xi. 14-xiii. 21 inserted after viii. 21. 
 
 IV 
 
 FROM THE FEEDING OF THE FIVE THOUSAND TO OUR LORD'S 
 
 FINAL VISIT TO CAPERNAUM 
 
 St. .lohn vi. 22-vii. 1. St. Matthew xiv. 35-xvii. 23. St. Mark vi. 54-ix. 33. 
 
 St. Luke ix. 18-45. 
 
 V 
 
 JESUS' FINAL VISIT TO CAPERNAUM 
 
 St. .John vii. 2-11. St. Matthew xvii. 24-xviii. 35. St. Mark ix. 33-50. 
 St. Luke ix. 46-50. 
 
 VI 
 
 FROM LAST VISIT TO CAPERNAUM TO LAST VISIT TO 
 JERUSALEM 
 
 St. John vii. 12-xi. 55. St. Matthew xix. 1-xx. 34. St. Mark x. 1-52 
 St. Luke ix. 51-xix. 27, omitting xi. 14-xiii. 21. 
 
 VII 
 
 FROM THE FINAL ENTRY INTO JERUSALEM TO THE 
 LAST SUPPER 
 
 St. John xi. 55-xii. 50. St. Matthew xxi. 1-xxvi. 16. St. Mark xi. 1-xiv. 11. 
 St. Luke xix. 28-xxii. 6. 
 
 VIII 
 
 THE LAST SUPPER 
 
 St. John xiii. 1-xiv. 31. St. Matthew xxvi. 17-30. St. Mark xiv. 12-26. 
 ' St. Luke xxii. 7-39. 
 
 IX 
 
 FROM THE LAST SUPPER TO OUR LORD'S ARREST 
 
 St. John XV. 1-xviii. 11. St. Matthew xxvi. 30-56. St. Mark xiv. 26-52. 
 St. Luke xxii. 39-53. 
 
THE APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS xi 
 
 X 
 
 FROM OUR LORD'S ARREST TILL EARLY MORNING 
 
 St. John xviii. 12-27. St. Matthew xxvi. 57-xxvii. 10. St. Mark xiv. 
 r)3-xv. 1. St. Luke xxii. 54-xxiii. 1. 
 
 XI 
 
 THE TRIAL BEFORE PILATE 
 
 St. John xviii. 28-xix. 16. St. Matthew xxvii. 11-31. St. Mark xv. 2-20. 
 
 St. Luke xxiii. 2-25. 
 
 XII 
 
 THE CRUCIFIXION 
 
 St. John xix. 17-30. St. Matthew xxvii. .32-56. St. Mark xv. 21-41. 
 St. Luke xxiii. 26-49. 
 
 XIII 
 
 THE BURIAL 
 
 St. John xix. 31-42. St. Matthew xxvii. 57-61. St. Mark xv. 42-47. 
 St. Luke xxiii. 50-56. 
 
 XIV 
 
 THE RESURRECTION AND SUBSEQUENT APPEARANCES 
 
 St. John XX. and xxi. St. Matthew xxvii. 62 and xxviii. St. Mark xvi. 
 St. Luke xxiv. 
 
 THE APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS 
 
 The Apostolic Constitutions are included by Epiphuniu.s in a list 
 of the Scripture.s, though he elsewhere speaks of their scriptural 
 authority as doubtful. (See Bampton Lectures, 1890, p. 117.) 
 
 " Let a deacon or elder read the Gospels which we, I, j\Iatthew, 
 and John, have handed over to you, and which the fellow-labourers 
 of Paul, Mark, and Luke, having received by hearsay, left to you." 
 
 Here St. John's Gospel is affirmed to have been presented to the 
 Church during the lifetime of St. Matthew. (See evidence of 
 Muratorian Canon, p. 96, and of Papias and Tertullian, Appen- 
 dix VII. and YIII.) 
 
Xll IREN.-EUS : CHRYSOSTOM : A CRUCIAL DIFFERENCE 
 
 IREN^US 
 
 As against the Montauists who rejected St. John's Gospel, and so 
 liy redncing the number of the Gospels destroyed their fourfold 
 character, Irenseus argues that any one who does not admit the 
 (luadriform construction of the Gospels is "an empty-headed and 
 impertinent ignoramus " {vani ef indodi et i7isuper audaces), and 
 that he destroys alike "the (Gospel and the Prophetic Spirit." 
 {A. H. iii. xi. 8 and 9.) 
 
 Like Eusebius {see p. 6), Irenseus assmned that St. John's Gospel 
 Avas the last written, and that the constructive relation which the 
 Synoptic Gospels bore to it must have been wholly miraculous. 
 
 CHEYSOSTOM 
 
 " And, like as if thou shouldest take any part from the side of an 
 animal, even in that part thou shouldest find all the things out of 
 which the whole is composed, — nerves and veins, bones, arteries, 
 and blood, and a mrnple, so to apeak, of the whole lump, — so likewise 
 [in the Gospels] in each portion of what is stated one may see the 
 connection of the whole clearly appearing." — Hom. on Matt. i. 
 
 By substituting words for verses any one can construct a diagram 
 showing the exact construction of any of the sixteen shorter 
 " samples " dealt with in the following pages. Such diagram will 
 in every case exactly reproduce all the main characteristics of a 
 diagram, {a) of the history as a whole, (h) of each sectional history, 
 and (c) of each fourfold narrative. Every diagram will then be " a 
 sample, so to speak, of the whole lump." 
 
 A CRUCIAL DIFFERENCE 
 
 Define the difference between (A) the Synopticism of Irenseus or 
 iCusebius, and (B) the Synopticism of the nineteenth century. 
 
 A was combined with, whilst B is divorced from, what would 
 generally be held to be a wholly exaggerated view of Inspiration. 
 
 Synoptist A, though he placed St. John's Gospel last, did not 
 thereby separate it from its companion Gospels. Thus by a mental 
 tour-de-force he was able to recognise all the then well-known con- 
 structive facts of the four documents without any reference to the 
 order in which they were placed. 
 
 Synoptist B, on the other hand, by placing St. John's Gospel last 
 entirely separates it from the other Gospels, and so obliterates and 
 virtually renders non-existent all the constructive facts which bind 
 the throe and the one together. Thus when he seeks to discover the 
 relation of the several Gospels to each other, he is like a man groping 
 in the dark, and not even knowing what it is he is searching for. 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 I HAVE for many years made the constructive facts of the 
 complete Gospel record a subject of special study. 
 
 In the first instance I aimed at proving that the only true 
 harmony of the Gospels must necessarily be inherent in the 
 documents themselves, i.e. a harmony to be verified, not 
 created. In other words, I held that any harmony arrived at 
 by arbitrary alterations of the origmal text was worse than 
 useless, and that, consequently, no alterations of the text were 
 admissible unless they could be clearly traced to some prob- 
 able or demonstrable alteration of tlie original manuscripts. 
 
 The light which this investigation seemed to me to throw 
 upon the whole subject, led me to a further and closer 
 examination of its details. 
 
 The result of this examination may be oml)odied in the 
 following conclusions : — 
 
 1. That the popular idea of tlie fragmentary construction 
 of the Gospels, and their want of sustained and close adjust- 
 ment to each other, was an error. 
 
 2. That the construction of the Gospel record is every- 
 where of a distinctly fourfold character. 
 
 3. That in every history, every incident, and every detail, 
 there are signs of the closest union. 
 
 4. That each successive writer must have known what liis 
 predecessor, or predecessors, had already narrated. 
 
 5. That in order to avoid the once current but unnecessary 
 theory, that this was the result of the miracidous inter\'ention 
 of the Holy Spirit, it is essential that we should place that 
 Gospel which is universally allowed to contain the most 
 
 I 
 
2 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 
 
 prominent teaching of Christianity and its Founder in the 
 most prominent position, namely, first. 
 
 In a former work I traced the processes by which I myself 
 was irresistibly led to these conclusions. In the following 
 pages I propose to show the means which I have since taken 
 to verify them. 
 
 I propose then — 
 
 1. To break up the whole Gospel record into as many 
 complete samples of the joint authorship of four writers as it 
 can be made to furnish ; and 
 
 2. To show that in every one of these samples the Evan- 
 gelists have adopted a closely similar principle and method of 
 narration. 
 
 I must first ask the reader to give at least a momentary 
 glance at the Diagram prefixed to these pages. 
 
 To all intents and purposes it is a facsimile of Gospel 
 construction. 
 
 The order of the Gospels I have taken to be John, 
 Matthew, Mark, Luke : the first being represented by a 
 single line, the second by two, and so on. 
 " Original matter, that is to say, matter which occurs first in 
 any particular writer, according to our sequence, is placed as 
 the lowest stratum. All matter repeated is then represented 
 by the upper strata. 
 
 It is obvious that in whatever order we assume the Gospels 
 to have been produced, the constructive facts must remain the 
 same. All that our assumption decides is — (a) to which of the 
 writers originality is in any given case to be attributed, and 
 (h) the sequence in which the events were orginally related. 
 
 It will be at once seen that the two facts which our 
 diagram demonstrates most clearly are — 
 
 1. That the method of Gospel construction is everywhere 
 of a fourfold character ; and 
 
 2. That this fourfold method of construction applies not 
 only to the history as a whole, but to all its parts, and is 
 therefore of continual recurrence. 
 
 Thus it naturally suggests the plan of examining the whole 
 record by samples. 
 
 In doing this I have first divided the main history into 
 fourteen sections ; I have next taken ten separate fourfold 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 3 
 
 narratives; and then, to make the exammation as complete 
 as possible, have isolated sixteen shorter fourfold statements 
 or portions of narratives. 
 
 We thus get forty complete samples of the joint-authorshij) 
 of four writers. For all practical purposes these are as mucli 
 independent specimens of authorship as if we had forty 
 separate documents, each of which was the work of four 
 writers acting in concert. 
 
 In order to enable the reader to verify the alleged mechanical 
 similarity between these samples, I have given in an Appendix 
 both a subject and a verbal analysis of each group of samples. 
 
 I shall also show — 
 
 1. That the same definition applies to each of the samples. 
 
 2. That the same branches of evidence are illustrated in 
 each of them. 
 
 3. That in no fewer than fifteen crucial particulars the 
 same method of analysis yields closely corresponding results 
 in every sample. 
 
 4. That in every sample the Synoptists omit and repeat 
 Johannean subjects in the same systematic, though intensely 
 unique, manner. 
 
 5. That in all these samples there is not even a solitary 
 instance in which a priority either of time or importance can 
 be assigned to either of the Synoptic Gospels. 
 
 To enable the reader still further to verify these statements 
 for himself, I shall also place before him the main constructive 
 facts which each sample in turn presents to us. 
 
 We may safely say that apart from design, i.e. according 
 to the ordinary laws of probability, such extraordinary and 
 nniltitudinous ramifications of similarity as we shall be able 
 to define could not possibly exist even in any two independent 
 samples of construction. 
 
 How wholly incredible it would be that tliis same similarity 
 should be found apart from design in every one of forty 
 samples, I leave to the common sense of the reader to judge. 
 
CHAP TEE 1 
 
 THE SAME DEFINITION APPLIES WITH EQUAL EXACTNESS TO EVERY 
 ONE OF FORTY SAMPLES OF THE JOINT AUTHORSHIP OF FOUR 
 WRITERS 
 
 In my former work I endeavoured to prove that St. John's 
 Gospel must certainly have been the first written, and that 
 the other three Gospels were based upon and grew out of St. 
 John's in a very unusual but perfectly natural manner. 
 
 An Oxford critic ^ has pointed out that this contention is 
 based entirely upon a statement or definition of what the 
 several Evangelists have done, and must therefore stand or 
 fall by the correctness of such definition. 
 
 I will now restate this definition, and show that it applies, 
 not only to the Gospel record as a whole, but to every one of 
 its component parts, i.e. to every one of our samples. 
 - The definition I formulate as follows : — " St. John and St. 
 Matthew always divide the historical area between them, and 
 deal with two distinct sides of their common subject. St. 
 Mark and St. Luke always deal with the same side of the 
 subject as St. Matthew. At the same time, as an almost 
 invariable rule, they treat St. John's Gospel just as St. 
 Matthew treats it, i.e. whatever parts of St. John's Gospel 
 St. Matthew leaves out they leave out, and whatever parts 
 St. Matthew repeats they repeat." 
 
 As to the exact extent to which this definition applies to 
 every one of our samples, the reader will readily be able to 
 satisfy himself. 
 
 In strict accordance with the definition, it will be found to 
 
 1 Tlie Eev. F. W. Bussell, Fellow of Brazenose College, Expository Times, 
 llAy 1892. 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 5 
 
 be a matter of verifiable fact that St. John always records one 
 half — the word being used in a broad sense — of every sample, 
 whilst the three Synoptists, taken collectively, record the other 
 half. 
 
 Thus in every sample there is always a Johannean half and 
 a Synoptic half of the history which it comprises. At the 
 same time, the Synoptic half necessarily varies according as 
 St. Matthew has either entirely or only partially omitted St. 
 John's narrative. Where St. Matthew entirely omits St. 
 John's record, the effect of St. Mark and St. Luke doing the 
 same is that the Synoptic half is entirely independent of the 
 Johannean. The two halves do in fact cover different ground, 
 and deal, not with the same, but successive periods of time. 
 On the other hand, where St. Matthew reproduces portions 
 of St. John as the basis of his own narrative, the effect of St. 
 Mark and St. Luke doing the same is that the whole Synoptic 
 half always contains a larger or smaller Johannean element. 
 Here both of the two halves cover the same ground, though 
 in a different manner. 
 
 All, then, that our definition really does is to explain this 
 mutual one-sidedness on the part of St. John's Gospel taken 
 separately, and of the Synoptic Gospels taken collectively. 
 
 If St. John's and St. Matthew's Gospels had stood alone, 
 their mutual one-sidedness, i.e. their forming two sides of the 
 same history, would have been patent to the most casual 
 observer. 
 
 Equally so would it have been if St. John had stood alone 
 with either St. Mark's or St. Luke's Gospel. 
 
 The fact which we are apt to overlook is this : as the three 
 Synoptic Gospels all stand in the same relation to St. John's 
 Gospel, if one of them forms a second half to St. John's 
 record the other two necessarily do the same. 
 
 Merely because they are taken collectively, they do not for 
 that reason lose a relationship to St. John's Gospel, which is a 
 de facto peculiarity of each of them taken separately. 
 
 That the relationship must have been an original relation- 
 ship in the case of one of the Synoptic Gospels, and that 
 through this one a derived relationship extended to the other 
 two, seems to me a self-evident fact. 
 
 Supposing this relationship between St. John and the 
 
6 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 
 
 Synoptists can be established, the explanation of it will be an 
 altogether independent question. 
 
 If St. John wrote first, it would manifestly be explainable 
 in a perfectly natural and simple manner. There could then 
 have been no reason why St. Matthew should not have 
 supplied, as he has done, what St. John omitted, nor could 
 there have been any reason why St. Mark and St. Luke should 
 not, as they have done, enlarge upon St. Matthew's record, 
 and yet, in their intense respect for St. John's Gospel, treat it 
 as far as possible just as he treated it. 
 
 If, on the other hand, at the time when the Synoptists 
 wrote, St. John's Gospel was yet in the womb of time, 
 the only logical and scientific conclusion would be that the 
 late-early Church must have been right in assuming that 
 the facts could not be otherwise than miraculous. The 
 Synoptists must all with one consent have left out, not only 
 in the history as a whole, but in all its component parts, the 
 most intrinsically important half of the history, — and that 
 simply because they knew that it was " reserved by the 
 Divine Spirit for St. John as for a superior." ^ 
 
 ■ Eusebius links the inspiration of the Synoptists and the 
 date of St. John's Gospel together as cause and effect. We 
 have rejected the cause, and are surprised that our attempt to 
 retain the effect — the date and position of St. John's Gospel — 
 has involved us in inextricable confusion. 
 
 All I contend is — 
 
 1. That there can be no possible reason for attributing the 
 relation between the Synoptists and St. John to supernatural 
 causes when it can be perfectly well explained by natural 
 causes ; and 
 
 2. That the two statements of Eusebius must either stand 
 or fall together, and that to attempt to reject the cause and 
 to accept the effect is to expect that a house will stand after 
 the only basis on " which it ever rested, or ever could rest, 
 has been knocked away. 
 
 1 E. H. Bk. iii. c. 24. 
 
CHAPTEE II 
 
 THE SAME BEANCHES OF EVIDENCE EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO EVEKY 
 ONE OF FOKTY SAMPLES OF THE JOINT AUTHORSHIP OF FOUR 
 WRITERS 
 
 The conditions of an investigation which claims to be of a 
 strictly scientific character are necessarily to the last degree 
 stringent. 
 
 Let us pause for a moment to see what in the present case 
 these conditions are. 
 
 It will be admitted that, having regard to the comparatively 
 limited area of observation, there is probably no department of 
 scientific study which supplies a larger number of separate and 
 often apparently contradictory facts than the Holy Gospels. 
 
 These facts can readily be divided into some six branches 
 of evidence. 
 
 Each of such branches will then mclude facts numbered 
 by the thousand, and contributed in about equal proportions 
 by each of four writers. 
 
 Now it is clear that a very considerable number of these 
 facts taken separately may admit of being explained in 
 various and, provided the remaining facts are not taken in, 
 very plausible ways. 
 
 But a scientific explanation has to account, not for a given 
 number of selected facts, but for all the facts. 
 
 Out of the, say, 10,000 facts to be accounted for there 
 literally must not be one which is inconsistent with the 
 explanation put forward. They need not, and indeed could 
 not, all suggest the explanation ; but that they should be 
 consistent with it, is an absolute necessity of the case. 
 
 There must, of course, always be a limited number of 
 
8 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS? 
 
 exceptional facts which will have to be excluded at least from 
 a first investigation, as, for instance, where a difficulty is 
 created by various or conflicting readings in the text of our 
 manuscripts, or again where parallel narratives cannot even 
 be intelligently discussed until the previous question, whether 
 the writers had seen each other's writings, has been settled. 
 
 Apart, then, from these rare and wholly exceptional cases, 
 the condition which our inquiry has to fulfil is — 
 
 1. That every one of our branches of evidence should 
 point to absolutely the same conclusions ; and 
 
 2. That these conclusions should be capable of explaining all 
 the facts of the case, no matter how superficially contradictory 
 they may at first sight appear. 
 
 A critic of my former work has certified that in his opinion 
 " the positions taken are supported by evidence of every kind, 
 the evidence of subject, of variations, of additions and omissions, 
 of repetitions, of arrangement, of construction " ; and, further, 
 that 
 
 " This new theory, at first sight very startling, places the 
 authenticity of John on an unassailable foundation, and makes 
 the other Gospels, miscalled Synoptic, to be not mere frag- 
 mentary collections, but deliberately planned and carefully 
 executed works" {Exjjository Times, May 1893). 
 
 Both these statements are intended to apply to the ex- 
 planation which I have already given of the construction of 
 the Gospel history as a whole. What I am anxious to show 
 now is, that we can go a great deal further than this, and 
 that even a very cursory study of the evidences will show that 
 both statements are true, not only of the construction of the 
 history as a whole, but of every sample of construction which 
 that history can be made to render. 
 
 To a great extent our diagram and tables would enable the 
 reader to verify this statement. But the task will be easier 
 still if, in the first - instance, he has at least a general im- 
 pression of the exact character of each of the branches of 
 evidence into which our facts may be grouped. 
 
 I will therefore briefiy enumerate these. 
 
 The Evidence of Subject claims our first attention. Not 
 only is it in itself of the highest evidential value, but it clearly 
 dominates every other branch of evidence. For each Evan- 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 9 
 
 gelist has manifestly done what he has done with the single 
 view of presenting the particular aspect of the common 
 snbject in the manner best suited to his own purpose in 
 writing. 
 
 The evidence of subject requires us to examine — 
 
 1. The manner in which the main mcidents of the history 
 are distributed amongst the several Evangelists ; and 
 
 2. The manner in which, when all four Evangelists deal 
 with the same incident, the details of such incident are dis- 
 tributed amongst them. 
 
 We shall, of course, have to go still further and examine 
 also the way in which in turn the details of incidents are 
 themselves treated. But this can be done most effectually 
 when we come to deal with the evidence of variations. 
 
 Evidently the first point on which we shall need to satisfy 
 ourselves is whether the same method of distribution and 
 allocation which has been adopted with regard to the incidents 
 has also been adopted with regard to the details of incidents. 
 
 The importance of settling this question is far greater than 
 might at first sight appear. 
 
 If each Evangelist has chosen his own set of incidents and 
 dealt with them in a wholly independent manner, his choice 
 of subjects might represent either the limits of his own know- 
 ledge or a cycle of teaching with which he was himself 
 familiar, or even the range of his own sympathies. Under 
 such circumstances it would be at least conceivable that save 
 for a comman bond, whether of general tradition or of some 
 common original document, the Gospels might have been 
 produced quite independently of each other. The manner in 
 which the mcidents were distributed might raise a strong 
 presumption against this view, but it might still appear that 
 on the whole it was the most tenable theory which could be 
 advanced. If, however, we can show that precisely the same 
 method of distribution which apphes to the main incidents of 
 the history applies also to the details of these incidents, the 
 whole case assumes a totally chfterent aspect. 
 
 Clearly an explanation which might cover the supposed 
 fact of each Evangelist being acquainted with a particular set 
 of main incidents, and with no others, would not cover the 
 further fact of his always bemg acquainted with only a 
 
10 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS? 
 
 particular set of details connected with the same incidents. 
 The presumption of knowledge and design, which can never be 
 wholly separated from the first fact, is so confirmed by the 
 second as to become, apart from all other evidences, an absolute 
 certainty. 
 
 That, as a matter of fact, the distribution of details is regu- 
 lated by the same principles as that of incidents, will be 
 sufficiently indicated by the tables printed in the Appendix. 
 
 But the more detailed study of this branch of evidence will 
 furnish a still further proof in the same direction. 
 
 It is especially observable that in the case of details their 
 distribution is continually determined by the extent to which 
 they have to do either with our Lord Himself personally, or 
 with subordinate actors in the scenes described. Thus St. 
 John alone records the command, " Gather up the fragments." 
 The Synoptists only record the fulfilment of the command. 
 If we place St. John last, we have to suppose that all three 
 Synoptists in turn not only leave out the originating command, 
 but do this at the expense of leading their readers to suppose 
 that the idea of acting as they did originated with the 
 di-sciples themselves. 
 
 The same thing is constantly observable as between St. 
 Matthew and the other two Synoptists. 
 
 For instance, in giving an account of the healing of the 
 paralytic at Capernaum, St. Matthew merely speaks of Jesus 
 " seeing their faith " ; the other two Synoptists alone tell of 
 the four bearers, and of the manner in which their faith was 
 exhibited. 
 
 The instances of this principle of narration are simply 
 endless. But we shall seek in vain for instances of the 
 reverse process, i.e. in which the non-Apostolic Evangelists 
 concentrate attention upon our Lord, whilst the Apostolic 
 Evangelists concentrate it on subordinate actors. 
 
 What may be termed the ideality of each Gospel will, of 
 course, be patent to the most ordinary observer. St. John 
 always deals according to his avowed intention with matters 
 essentially personal to our Lord and with His doctrinal teaching. 
 
 St. Matthew deals altogether with the more historical side 
 of his sul:)ject, with our Lord's moral teaching, and with the 
 kingdom which He proposed to establish. 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS? 11 
 
 St. Mark supplies historical, circumstantial, and ministerial 
 details. 
 
 St. Luke, whilst he always aims at completing the historical 
 picture, ever represents our Lord as engaged in active ministerial 
 labours. At the same time the character of the incidents 
 which he relates continually serve to bring into prominence 
 the fulness and all-embracing character of the Gospel message. 
 St. Mark and St. Luke both dwell with far greater fulness 
 than the Apostolic Evangelists upon everything which con- 
 cerned the future conduct and fortunes of the disciples. 
 
 The object which each Evangelist thus shows that he had 
 in writing could not but continually affect, not only his choice 
 of incidents in the main history, but his choice of details when 
 he had to reintroduce the same incident as a previous writer. 
 
 The Evidence of Construction is from a purely mechanical 
 point of view sufficiently represented by our diagram. 
 
 This evidence proves that, though at irregular intervals, 
 and under continually varying conditions, the same plan of 
 fourfold construction is continually reproduced. 
 
 There are two points which it is specially important to 
 observe. 
 
 1. Each Gospel is not a continuous narrative, but a 
 selection of narratives. In no case does the mere fact of 
 one narrative following closely upon another necessarily 
 indicate, as it would in an ordinary document, any immediate 
 sequence of time. On the contrary, not only are there con- 
 tinual historical lacunae between the narratives, but these 
 lacunee are of continually varying length. 
 
 Thus it is only when we consider the incidents, apart from 
 the way in which they may be repeated, that we can see, as 
 in our diagram, how the narratives of one Gospel fit into the 
 lacunse of other Gospels. 
 
 It has been said that to attempt to form a harmony of the 
 Gospels must necessarily produce "a mosaic of disjointed 
 fragments." 
 
 This has, of course, been urged in disparagement of all such 
 attempts. 
 
 But the saying is not only literally true, but the truth of 
 it lies at the very root of any true conception of tlie dc facto 
 relation in which the Gospels stand to each other. 
 
1 2 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 
 
 As a matter of fact, each Gospel is in construction much 
 more alHed to a collection of the separate articles of a creed 
 than to a continuous history. 
 
 These articles, so far as they are repeated and separately 
 treated, we have to study in turn. That they do, as a matter 
 of fact when duly arranged, furnish us with a consecutive 
 composite history, is merely the result of the extreme care 
 with which all questions of historical sequence have been 
 treated. 
 
 As it is in each Gospel with regard to the incidents of the 
 main history, so it is again with regard to the details of such 
 incidents as are the subject of reintroduction. We can never 
 assume such continuity in any narrative as would prevent our 
 inserting in their proper place any such further details as a 
 second, third, or fourth writer may supply. 
 
 Here again the composite history must necessarily be " a 
 mosaic of disjointed fragments," albeit in every case a mosaic 
 of incomparable beauty. 
 
 2. The next point which we have to observe is that all 
 samples of Gospel construction fall into one or other of two 
 classes, i.e. their construction is regulated either (a) by the 
 fact that the Synoptic writers omit what St. John has related, 
 or (b) by the fact that they to a greater or less extent repeat 
 what he has recorded. In the one case, the Johannean and 
 the Synoptic halves of the section are wholly mdependent. 
 In the other, they are more or less concurrent. 
 
 The division of the history between St. John and St. 
 Matthew is always regulated by the extent to which St. 
 John did or did not treat the subject in hand exhaustively. 
 St. John avowed his intention of making such a selection 
 from the materials at his disposal, as would sufhce for the 
 double purpose of proving Jesus to be the Christ, the Son of 
 God, and to provide by this means an adequate basis of 
 saving faith. 
 
 Such a history would naturally consist, not only of the 
 most important parts of the history itself, but of the most 
 important details of such parts of the history as St. John 
 did not find it necessary to deal with exhaustively. 
 
 Thus St. John's avowed principle of selection, not only 
 obliged him to omit a large number of incidents in the 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 1 3 
 
 main history, but an equally large proportion of the details 
 of the incidents which he does chronicle. Hence he not 
 only left lacuna in the main history, but no less conspicuous 
 lacunar in his record of the great crises of the history. 
 
 These lacunae St. Matthew everywhere fills in. It is 
 therefore by the extent and character of these lacunse that 
 St. Matthew's contribution to the history is regulated. 
 
 We see then that St. John's and St. Matthew's records 
 taken together always make up a complete twofold primary 
 representation of our Lord's ministry and teaching. They 
 leave much unrecorded, but so far as they go they are 
 completeness and simplicity itself. There is absolutely no 
 room in any one of our samples, either for misunderstanding 
 or adverse criticism. 
 
 It is true that the subordination of St. Matthew's Gospel 
 to that of St. John is of the most marked character. But 
 if St. John, when he wrote, really had the field so entirely 
 open to him as he implies, and if, as he states, his Gospel 
 was intended to be essentially the creed - material Gospel, 
 how could any other record be otherwise than subordinate 
 to his, and that even in the most marked degree ? 
 
 With regard to the non-Apostolic Gospels of St. Mark and 
 St. Luke, when we have once ascertained that the framework 
 of their construction is due solely to their always treating St. 
 John's Gospel just as St. Matthew treats it, we have really 
 mastered the only point about which any serious difficulty 
 can arise. 
 
 Both Gospels are then seen to be distinctly supplemental 
 to, and both based on the ApostoHc Gospels of St. John and 
 St. Matthew. St. Mark shows where St. Matthew has and 
 where he has not arranged his history in a strictly chrono- 
 logical order. He also supplies those circumstantial details 
 which go so far to give an air of reality to any recorded 
 incident. 
 
 In doing this, St. ]\Iark always bases his narrative on 
 that of St. Matthew. Taking one portion of St. Matthew's 
 record after another, he, as it were, pegs it down into the 
 soil of his own narrative, and straightway it throws out fresh 
 shoots and fresh flowers, albeit of a very different kiiul. 
 
 That this is a method of narration wholly alien to our 
 
14 WHAT THIXK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 
 
 modern ideas may be admitted. But inasmuch as it represents 
 the de facto relation between the two Gospels, it clearly cannot 
 be set on one side by any mere subjective prejudices of our 
 own. 
 
 That Gospels by disciples of Apostles must, as a matter 
 of fact, gain authority by being constantly and unmistakably 
 grafted on to Gospels by Apostles, is obvious. 
 
 It may seem to us that the gain achieved by this grafting 
 is but small. 
 
 But this evidently was not the view of the early Church. 
 For Tertullian expressly says of St. Luke's Gospel, that it 
 was accepted by the Church because it was in accordance 
 with what the Apostolic Gospels laid down. 
 
 The exact manner in which the grafting process has been 
 carried out will be shown in the evidence of variations. 
 
 To pass on for a moment to the construction of St. Luke's 
 Gospel. This, again, sufficiently explains itself. 
 
 As to repeated matter, it falls naturally into two distinct 
 divisions. 
 
 1. He repeats for the third time incidents introduced 
 primarily by St. Matthew and repeated by St. Mark, thus 
 l3ecoming the third factor in an abnormal threefold portion 
 of the narrative. 
 
 2. He repeats for the fourth time incidents introduced 
 primarily by John, and repeated both by St. Matthew and 
 St. Mark, thus becoming the fourth factor in all normal four- 
 fold portions of the history. 
 
 In the first case he repeats incidents related by both St. 
 Matthew and St. Mark in such a manner as to show that St. 
 Mark's arrangement represented the true order. What other 
 repetitions (and they are few) he allows himself, generally 
 serve to show where his narrative breaks off from or rejoins 
 that of Matthew and Mark. 
 
 In the second ease he is dealing with incidents remtro- 
 duced from John both by Matthew and Mark. 
 
 It will be seen that St. Luke's Gospel is original to a far 
 greater extent than St. Mark's, consisting as it does of three- 
 fourths of original matter, whereas the original matter in St. 
 Mark is only one-half. 
 
 The one-fourth of non-original or repeated matter in St. 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 1 5 
 
 Luke, which consists mainly of isolated words and sentences 
 reintroduced in his own narrative, may be thus divided. 
 
 1. In the first place, he traverses ground already occupied 
 by St. Matthew but neglected by St. Mark. 
 
 2. In the second place, he traverses ground already 
 occupied both by St. Matthew and St. Mark. 
 
 The point to be noticed here is that in the first of these 
 two cases his verbal agreement with St. Matthew is extremely 
 close ; so close, indeed, as in places almost to amount to 
 verbal identity, and incomparably closer than that of St. 
 Mark. In the second case, however, his verbal agreement 
 with St. Matthew is far less pronounced. 
 
 Now we notice also that, whereas St. Mark's agreement 
 with St. Matthew is everywhere of a perfectly uniform 
 character, that of St. Luke is, as we have shown above, of a 
 distinctly dual character, bemg influenced by the interposition 
 of St. Mark. Thus we are compelled to infer that whereas 
 there was nowhere any disturbing cause between St. Mark 
 and St. Matthew, St. Mark himself was the disturbing cause 
 between St. Luke and St. Matthew ; and the natural ex- 
 planation of that fact can only be found in the supposition 
 that St. Luke wrote with both St. Matthew's and St. Mark's 
 Gospels before him. 
 
 An overwhelming amount of corroborative evidence on 
 this point will be found to be supplied by the evidence of 
 repetitions. 
 
 As bearing on the general relation of the Gospels to each 
 other, one point deserves especial notice. 
 
 In all portions of the record in which essentially historical 
 matter predominates the Synoptic narratives are always longer 
 than that of St. John. In these cases a larger portion of the 
 subject lies outside St. John's avowed purpose m writing. 
 
 But this is by no means the case when we approach the 
 crises of the history and the great creed facts of the record. 
 Here St. John's record is not only usually the longest, but often 
 incomparably longer than either of the Synoptic narratives. 
 
 Thus to talk of St. John's Gospel being in these cases 
 supplemental to the Synoptic Gospels, is simply a misuse of 
 language, and as complete a misrepresentation of the facts of 
 the case as could well be imagined. 
 
16 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS? 
 
 There is, of course, a danger lest, whilst examining the 
 construction of separate samples of the Gospel record, we should 
 lose sight of the symmetry of the construction as a whole. 
 
 For instance, it is very easy to lose sight of the wide 
 difference between the manner in which the Evangelists deal 
 with the main history, and the manner in which they deal 
 with its opening, and still more its concluding, portions. 
 
 In both cases the principle of construction is the same, i.e. 
 there is the same independence between St. John and the 
 Synoptists, coupled with a given amount of repetition between 
 them. 
 
 But in the main history the plan of narration, though the 
 same, is on an infinitely larger scale. 
 
 Thus, if we take the whole of the main history, we see that 
 St. John alone gives the record of the beginning and the end ; 
 whilst the Synoptists all agree in supplying the middle and 
 longer portion of the period. Only at one point — the feeding 
 of the five thousand — do St. John and the Synoptists meet 
 on common ground. 
 
 Apart from this one repeated incident, St. Matthew and St. 
 Mark both begin where St. John leaves off, and both leave off 
 where he begms. But for his filling in the lacunoe left in 
 St. John's later narrative precisely the same facts would be 
 equally conspicuous in St. Luke. 
 
 Thus in the main history the evidence of designed adjust- 
 ment between the four writers is in reality quite as conspicuous 
 as in any of the later and shorter narratives. 
 
 The Evidence of Eepetitions presents us with an array of 
 facts of so remarkable a kind that, even if they stood unsup- 
 ported by other evidence, they would go very far to prove 
 that nothing but a fixed design in writing could have produced 
 them. Let us first deal with Johannean incidents. 
 
 Judging solely by the laws of probability we should 
 naturally expect tlmt the repetitions between any two writers 
 would be more numerous than between any three, and incom- 
 parably more numerous than between any four. 
 
 But this natural expectation is wholly falsified. What we 
 actually do find is exactly the reverse. Thus, as between St. 
 John and the Synoptists, the combinations which we should 
 expect to be the most rare {i.e. the fourfold) are the standing 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS? 17 
 
 rule ; whilst the combmations which we should expect to 
 be most frequent (viz. those between St. John and any one of 
 the Synoptists separately) are conspicuous only by their 
 absence or comparative rarity (see Chap. IV.). If we were 
 asked to assign the most reasonable and logical cause for this 
 most unexpected effect, we should be compelled to state it 
 thus : Save m very exceptional circumstances, the incidents 
 from St. John, which St. Matthew chose to repeat, must have 
 been repeated of set purpose by both St. Mark and St. Luke. 
 
 Let us take another instance. Still dealing with Johannean 
 incidents, we find the following remarkable circumstance : — 
 
 In the Table of Incidents there are twenty-three incidents 
 in which St. Luke repeats what has already been narrated by 
 the other three. Omit St. Mark, and not one smgle incident 
 does St. Luke repeat wdiich has been narrated by the first two. 
 
 The same thing happens in the Table of Details ; twenty- 
 nine details are repeated by all four. Omit St. ]\Iark, and 
 again we find not one smgle repetition between the remaining 
 three. Again we ask. Could any possible combination of 
 chances produce this result ? 
 
 Turn now to details mentioned first by St. Matthew. We 
 should expect here that the repetitions, as between St. 
 Matthew and St. Luke, would be more numerous than between 
 St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke collectively. But the 
 very reverse of this is the case. 
 
 In the Tal)le of Incidents the threefold repetitions number 
 sixty-nine, the twofold are only ten. 
 
 In the Table of Details the threefold repetitions are fifty- 
 one, and the twofold only one ! ! 
 
 In other words, save under such exceptional circumstances 
 as we have mentioned elsewhere, St. Luke scarcely ever 
 repeats St. Matthew unless St. Mark also repeats him. 
 
 It seems to me that this fact, once ascertained, cannot but 
 speak for itself. Unless either St. Luke wrote with St. 
 JNIatthew's and St. Mark's Gospels before him, or St. IMatthew 
 wrote with St. Mark's and St. Luke's Gospels before him, how 
 can this fact possibly be accounted for ? Both writers act in 
 one way when St. Mark covers the same ground, and in 
 another way when he does not do so. Thus he is always a 
 disturbing cause between the two. 
 
1 8 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 
 
 In sharp contrast with the facts thus established, we have 
 to consider the twofold repetitions as between St. Matthew 
 and St. Luke only, i.e. where St. Mark does not cover the 
 same ground. 
 
 A comparatively small number of these repetitions occur 
 in the case of main incidents of the history, as the Sermon on 
 the Mount and the healing of the centurion's servant. 
 
 In these cases the verbal identity between St. Luke and St. 
 Matthew is very great, but it is incomparably less than is 
 observable in the more normal occurrence of such repetitions. 
 In these cases St. Luke repeats apparently in its true historical 
 connection some more or less short sayings of our Lord which 
 St. Matthew has incorporated in his longer addresses. In all 
 these cases the verbal agreement is of the closest, not infre- 
 quently attaining to sustained identity. That no such verbal 
 identity is ever observable in any repetitions when St. Mark 
 covers the same ground, our tables will sufficiently prove. 
 
 With regard to repetitions as between St. Mark and St. 
 Luke only, we need only say that they are comparatively rare, 
 and are practically confined to those cases in which St. Mark, 
 having expanded some portion of St. Matthew's narrative, St. 
 Luke in turn expands St. Mark's expansion. 
 
 With regard to the fourfold repetition alluded to above, a 
 more detailed account of the arguments based upon and the 
 deductions drawn from them will be found in Chap. IV. 
 
 The Evidence of Vakiations. If we eliminate all the 
 original and independent portions of the parallel narratives, 
 we have remaining a certain number of closely similar, but 
 still varied, statements. 
 
 Now there are two ways in which these may be treated. 
 One, and it is that which has been followed by most critics, 
 is to pick out of these passages words or sentences which are 
 identical, and try to base upon their likeness some argument 
 for a common origiii. The other is to classify the points in 
 which they vary from one another, and from that classifica- 
 tion to deduce the principles which guided the writers, not in 
 copying from one another (which they do not do), but in 
 repeating, from their own point of view, incidents already 
 narrated. By using the first method, we gather together a 
 few fragments, it may be two, it may be twenty, identical 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 1 9 
 
 words, which are merely the unaltered remnants of the pre- 
 ceding narrative, serving to show us merely what the writer 
 did not feel called upon to alter, but by no means indicating 
 what was his object in repeating the incident at all. By 
 adopting the second course we fix our attention on the points 
 in wdiich each successive narrator varies from his predecessor, 
 and so, provided the variations are sufficient in number, can 
 hardly fail to gather what the distinctive line of thought of 
 each writer was. 
 
 The first course is that wdiich would naturally be adopted 
 by an investigator already convinced that the Evangelists had 
 never seen each other's writings. 
 
 The second would be the equally natural course for any 
 one uninfluenced by such a preconception to adopt. 
 
 In my former work I have printed in parallel columns 
 947 groups of varied statements, a collection as nearly as 
 possible exhaustive. This list is, I think, amply sufficient to 
 establish three facts — 
 
 1. That these variations represent, though on the smallest 
 possible scale, the principle of reproduction accompanied by a 
 balancing amount of omission and addition which everywhere 
 lies at the root of Gospel construction. In other words, the 
 variations stand to these fragments of parallel narratives in 
 precisely the same relation as main incidents stand to the 
 whole history, and details of incidents stand to the whole 
 narratives of such incidents. 
 
 2. That the samples of variation nearly always represent 
 the same sentence altered progressively. 
 
 3. That though these alterations are often so slight that 
 their object is by no means superficially apparent, yet as a 
 general rule they indicate not only the reason of the alteration, 
 but some perfectly recognisable development in the successivi^ 
 narratives. 
 
 Thus any one looking through the list could at once jot 
 down numerous instances of development of (1) agency, 
 (2) action, (3) person, (4) place, (5) manner (6) method, 
 (7) cause, (8) time, (9) object (10) fact, (11) material, 
 (12) intention, (13) command, (14) feeling, (15) number, 
 (16) circumstance, (17) mental attitude, (18) thought, 
 (19) principle, (20) description, (21) occasion, (22) value, 
 
20 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS? 
 
 (23) purpose, (24) quotation, (25) designation, (26) quality, 
 (27) motive, (28) character, (29) intensity, and so forth. 
 
 Two or three examples of these variations will suffice to 
 show the way in which they lend themselves to careful 
 study. 
 
 Thus, in the account of the healing of Peter's wife's mother, 
 St. Matthew writes, "He saw" her; St. Mark, "they tell 
 Him of her " ; St. Luke, " they prayed Him for her." 
 
 This is only a single instance of the constantly recurring 
 manner in which St. Matthew concentrates our attention 
 upon our Lord Himself; whilst St. Mark and St. Luke con- 
 centrate our attention, in more or less different ways, upon 
 the subordinate actors in the scene. 
 
 We may, I thmk, take for granted that no one who had 
 not previously satisfied himself as to the intentional character 
 and extreme minuteness of the variations would dream of 
 even bestowing a second thought upon the different way in 
 which each writer brings this subject before us. Yet each 
 variation is a homily in itself. 
 
 Again, when in the explanation of the Parable of the 
 Sower, our Lord insists on three conditions with regard to a 
 hearer's reception of the word, St. Matthew only records that 
 he must "understand it"; St. Mark, that he must "accept it"; 
 St. Luke, that he must " hold it fast." 
 
 Three separate treatises on these conditions could hardly 
 bring out their significance more clearly than this allocation 
 of them to the several Evangelists. 
 
 Another important characteristic of the several narratives 
 is the manner in which the principle, that what a man does 
 through another he does himself, is illustrated. Thus St. John 
 says that Herod scourged Jesus ; the Synoptists say that the 
 soldiers scourged Hhn. Again, St. John says that Jesus 
 distributed the food to the multitudes ; the Synoptists, that 
 the disciples distributed it. Again, when St. Matthew tells 
 us " God said," St. Mark and St. Luke tell us " Moses 
 said." 
 
 It is only when we note these more obvious and constantly 
 recurring peculiarities that we are able to see that the same 
 principle applies in many cases in which its application might 
 not at first sight be even suspected. As, for instance, when 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS? 21 
 
 St. Matthew attributes to the centurion at Capernaum words 
 and conduct which St. Luke attributes to his agents. Or 
 when St. Matthew attributes words to Jairus which St. Mark 
 and St. Luke, m their fuller history, show were really spoken 
 by a messenger. 
 
 The Evidence of Additions and Omissions goes at once 
 to the root of the whole plan of Gospel construction. 
 
 Each Gospel is now in one way, now in another, a curtail- 
 ment of its predecessor in one direction and an expansion of 
 it in another. By no other means, so far as we can see, 
 could the relation which exists between the Gospels, especially 
 as to mere bulk, have been so consistently maintained. 
 
 As between St. John and St. Matthew, the latter always 
 omits the more intrinsically important facts, and adds those 
 of lesser importance. This is a fact which simply cannot be 
 gainsaid. It is true that it is obscured in the main history 
 by the extent to which St. Matthew's plan of narration 
 requires him to deal at certain crises of the history with 
 precisely the same episodes as St. John. But in these cases 
 it is again St. John who always gives the greater number of 
 the most intrinsically unportant details ; St. Matthew who not 
 only omits them, but always adds far less intrinsically 
 important details on his own account. The extent to which 
 St. Mark's narrative, when compared with that of St. Matthew, 
 omits the more rather than the less important incidents, is a 
 fact which needs no proof. Nor does he at all depart from 
 this custom even when he is most closely covering the same 
 ground as St. Matthew. Witness, for instance, his omission 
 
 o 
 
 of St. Peter's failure of faith when essaying to walk on the 
 water, or of the promise to St. Peter made immediately before 
 the Transfiguration. 
 
 It cannot indeed be said that the incidents related by 
 St. Luke are of less intrinsic importance than those related 
 by St. Matthew. But in this case the incidents belong for 
 the most part to an altogether different phase of teaching. 
 Their special appropriateness to a distinctly missionary or 
 preaching Gospel are patent even to the most ordniary 
 observer. 
 
 On the other hand, no one can say for a moment that the 
 details which St. Luke adds at the crises of the history are 
 
22 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS? 
 
 by any means so intrinsically important as those which he 
 omits. 
 
 Perhaps for a single example of these statements we could 
 not find more apt illustrations than are afforded by the several 
 narratives of our Lord's arrest. 
 
 Here, as usual, everythmg most essentially personal to 
 our Lord Himself is related only by St. John — as, for instance, 
 the fact that on His admitting His identity the whole of the 
 arresting band " went backward, and fell to the ground." 
 
 This incident might well have claimed a first place in any 
 history. 
 
 Again, what is there in the narratives of St. Mark and 
 St. Luke to equal in interest and importance the saying 
 recorded only by St. Matthew, " Thinkest thou that I cannot 
 now pray to my Father, and He shall presently give me 
 more than twelve legions of angels " ? As usual, St. Mark and 
 St. Luke merely add details about the actors in the scene 
 other than our Lord Himself. 
 
 The Evidence of Chronological Arrangement has to be 
 examined with reference {a) to the main history, and (h) to 
 the various component parts of the history. 
 
 The actual facts in the main history with which, so far as 
 the Synoptic Gospels are concerned, the Harmonist has to 
 deal, have been stated by Professor Birks in his Horcc 
 Evangelicm in a manner which leaves absolutely nothing to be 
 desired. 
 
 Taking numbers affixed to St. Mark's incidents as a basis 
 of comparison, he gets the following results. 
 
 In the part of the history extending to the end of the 
 third section of our diagram St. Mark and St. Luke are in 
 almost exact agreement, whilst St. Matthew's arrangement is 
 materially different. In the rest of the history all the three 
 records are to all intents and j^urposcs in ahsolnte agreement. At 
 the same time. Professor Birks only obtains this agreement 
 by treating the whole of one long portion of St. Luke (ix. 51- 
 xviii. 14) as though it were all original, or found only in 
 St. Luke, and therefore rightly to be excluded from the 
 comparison. But this is not the case. On the contrary, it 
 contains certain facts and parables which St. Matthew and 
 St. Mark relate in an altogether different part of the history. 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS? 23 
 
 Tims, though Professor Birks' harmony possesses the very 
 rare merit of presenting all the facts exactly as they stand, 
 the unexplained exclusion of the whole of this portion of 
 St. Luke's text is undoubtedly the one serious blot upon it. 
 
 It is especially unfortunate in that it avoids just the most 
 crucial of the Harmonist's difficulties. 
 
 Let 'US see then — 
 
 1. What Professor Birks' harmony really establislies ; and 
 
 2. How we can best treat this excluded portion. 
 
 LTp to the end of our third section Professor Bu'ks' figures 
 stand thus — 
 
 St. Mark's figures run in numerical order from 1 to 29. 
 
 St. Matthew's figures run 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 8, 9, 
 24, 25, 13, 14, 15, 26, 28, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 27, 29. 
 
 St. Luke's figures run 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 
 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 23, 22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29. 
 
 Thus, if we assume that the call of the four disciples and 
 the miraculous draught of fishes are different events, there is 
 so far only one exception, the visit of Jesus' mother (22), to an 
 absolutely perfect agreement between St. Mark and St. Luke. 
 
 Against the obvious presumption that St. Mark and 
 St. Luke give the historical order of the incidents, whilst 
 St. Matthew groups them after a literary fashion, there is 
 really nothing to be said. 
 
 As Professor Birks pomts out, this presumption is greatly 
 strengthened by the fact that during the rest, and by far the 
 larger portion, of the history, the agreement between all three 
 writers is, to all intents and purposes, absolutely perfect. 
 
 We have only, then, to inquire — 
 
 Can we throw any light upon the construction of the one 
 long portion of St. Luke which Professor Birks virtually 
 excludes from his harmony ? 
 
 I think we can. 
 
 The only events wdiich it contains which are clearly 
 identical with events related by St. Matthew and St. Mark 
 constitute the hegiiining and the end of tJie central portion (xi. 14- 
 xiii. 21) o/ the excluded history. 
 
 These events, and therefore presumably all that lies 
 between them, belong to the epoch of Parabolic Teaching 
 at Capernaum. Thus Luke xi. 14-xiii. 21 belongs historically 
 
24 
 
 WHAT TIIIXK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 
 
 to the early part of the eighth chapter of St. Luke's Gospel, and 
 would come in naturally between viii. 21 and viii. 22. 
 
 We have only got to recognise this fact to see that 
 though there is one very material exception to the harmony 
 shown by Professor Birks, it is at least an exception, the 
 nature of which can be very clearly defined. 
 
 St. Luke's narrative of this period stands thus — 
 
 Beginning of 
 
 Parabolic Teach- 
 
 viii. 4-21. 
 
 B 
 
 Events till long 
 after the begin- 
 ning of St. 
 Luke's longer 
 via Crucis as in- 
 dicated by ix. 50. 
 
 viii. 22-xi. 13. 
 
 C 
 
 Middle and end 
 of Parabolic 
 Teaching, 
 
 xi. 14-xiii. 21. 
 
 D 
 
 End of longer 
 via Crucis. 
 
 xiii. 22, etc. 
 
 Thus B and C are historically inverted. If we replace 
 them in what seems to be their true historical order, we at 
 once make a continuous narrative both of the Parabolic 
 Teachmg and also of the via Crucis. 
 
 , It is beyond the scope of the present work to trace out 
 all the harmonising effect of this transposition. One most 
 striking fact we will mention. 
 
 In St. Matthew and St. Mark (1) the visit of Jesus' 
 mother and brethren, and (2) the Pharisees' accusation, 
 happen on the same day and hour. 
 
 In the present order of St. Luke they are separated by the 
 whole of section B, representing several months. Place C 
 next to A, and once more the same events happen on tlie 
 same day and hour. 
 
 The new connection at the end of C and the beginning of 
 B is no less remarkable. 
 
 The result may best be seen by placing St. Mark's and 
 St. Luke's narratives in parallel columns. 
 
 St. Mark's Narrative 
 
 .After relating the Parable of the 
 Mustard Seed he continues, "And 
 the same day, when the even was 
 come, He saith unto them, Let us 
 pass over unto the other side." 
 
 St. Luke's Kevised Narrative 
 
 After relating the Parable of the 
 Mustard Seed (xiii. 19), and adding 
 the Parable of the Leaven (xiii. 21), 
 he continues (viii. 22), "Now it 
 came to pass on a certain day that 
 He went into a ship." 
 
\YHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS? 25 
 
 Thus, again, events of the same day and hour, which are 
 widely separated in St. Luke's present narrative, are in its 
 revised form brought together. 
 
 It is most important here to notice that the effect of the 
 revision extends even to the very wording. 
 
 From St. Luke we know that the Parable of the IMustard 
 Seed was spoken on the Sabbath. This at once enables us to 
 see the force of St. Mark's words when he tells us that they 
 waited for the evening, that is to say, till the Jewish Sabbath 
 was over, before they began their voyage. 
 
 Ao;ain, St. Luke's note of time, which has had to be trans- 
 lated in a vague and general way (" on a certain day," or " on 
 one of those days "), now becomes a definite and most clearly 
 connecting link (" on the first day of the week ") with the 
 previously mentioned Sabbath, and forms an explanatory 
 equivalent to St. Mark's " when the even was come." 
 
 The reader must bear in mind that, whereas we should be 
 led by St. Matthew and St. Mark to suppose that all the 
 parables were spoken on one day, St. Luke shows us that 
 they really occupied two days, the second of which w^as the 
 Sabbath. Nay more, a careful comparison of St. Luke's 
 narrative with that of St. Matthew and St. Mark will enable 
 us to identify the actual time and occasion on which eacli 
 separate parable was spoken. To suppose that this could be 
 the case if St. Luke's narrative was not intended to be in 
 this place what it is everywhere else, explanatory and supple- 
 mental, seems to me wholly unreasonable. 
 
 But we have by no means completed our case when we 
 have shown that this part of St. Luke's text is imperatively 
 demanded at an earlier part of his history. 
 
 In its present position this narrative wholly destroys the 
 otherwise singularly harmonious relation (as shown in Section 
 VI. of diagram) between St. Luke and St. John. 
 
 From w^hat has been said it will be seen that, so far as the 
 incidents of the main history are concerned, all questions of 
 " harmony " are really confined to what stands in oiu' diagram 
 as the third section. 
 
 With regard to the evidence of chronological arrangement 
 as it affects the various divisions of the history, I would only 
 ask the reader to observe two facts. 
 
2 6 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 
 
 1. It is by placing St. John first, as we do in our diagram, 
 that we obtain a narrative in which the events follow one 
 another in a natural historical order. This is generally per- 
 fectly plain, as in the third section, or when St. John records 
 the first examination before Annas, St. Matthew and Mark 
 the second examination before Caiaphas, and St. Luke the 
 third before the Council. But even where it is less plain 
 a very little reflection will generally lead to the same con- 
 clusion. For instance, in the account of the trial before 
 Pilate, St. John alone gives the successive stages of the 
 trial itself. Almost without exception the Synoptists give 
 us the results, whether direct or indirect, of the trial. 
 
 2. Again, we shall often have to observe how the symmetry 
 of the history is either made or marred by the order in 
 which its parts are read. 
 
 Take, for instance, the account of St. Peter's denials (see 
 p. 71). 
 
 Or take again the early part of the history of the 
 resurrection. 
 
 Here St. John fixes our attention upon a single woman, 
 St. Matthew upon two women, St. Mark upon three, St. Luke 
 upon a company. 
 
 Place St. John last, and instead of the order being one, two, 
 three, a company, it is two, three, a company, one. 
 
 I have now tried to indicate the general character of the 
 evidences which, with certain obvious and necessary reserva- 
 tions in particular cases, will be found to apply to every one 
 of our samples of Gospel construction. 
 
 The reader will, of course, observe that the strength of the 
 evidence is indefinitely increased by the intensely unusual 
 character of the construction shown. It is in every case a 
 sort of hall-mark, the significance of which cannot possibly be 
 called in question. 
 
CHATTEE III 
 
 THE SAME ANALYSIS YIELDS RESULTS CLOSELY CORRESPONDING IN 
 FIFTEEN PARTICULARS IN EVERY ONE OF FORTY SAMPLES OF 
 THE JOINT AUTHORSHIP OF FOUR WRITERS 
 
 We have now to show that even an exhaustive analysis of 
 construction, in spite of the vast number of details which it 
 embraces, really produces closely corresponding results in 
 every one of our forty samples, i.e. in every part of the Gospel 
 history. 
 
 Our analysis will embrace, so to speak, four ingredients, 
 and eleven combinations of these ingredients. 
 
 In other words, it will deal {a) with the portion of the 
 narrative pecuHar to each of the four writers, and {b) with the 
 portions of the narrative common to two, three, or four writers, 
 i.e. with the repetitions caused by the eleven possible combina- 
 tions of these writers. 
 
 ITEiNIS OF ANALYSIS 
 
 1. A portion of St. John's Gospel. 
 
 This portion invariably constitutes the de facto basis of the 
 sample history. It is sometimes supplemented and sometimes 
 amplified by the other writers, but it always stands as an 
 absolutely indispensable portion of the sample as a whole. 
 Always representing the most important aspect of the subject 
 with which the sample deals, it tells of matters exclusively 
 personal to our Lord Himself, and especially of His doctrinal 
 and more distmctly spiritual teaching. 
 
 But it does this in two ways. Sometimes it deals ex- 
 
 27 
 
28 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 
 
 hanstively with the portion of the subject which it treats ; 
 sometimes it leaves much to be supplied. In the one case, it 
 constitutes an entirely independent Johannean portion; in 
 the other case, it forms a framework into which the less 
 important details of the Synoptic writers are always found to 
 fit in such a way as to make an altogether fuller and more 
 circumstantial history. 
 
 Occasionally the division between the Johannean and the 
 Synoptic portion is one exclusively of time. In these cases, 
 as in our third section, St. John deals with an earlier, 
 while the Synoptists all agree in dealing with a later 
 period. 
 
 2. A portion of St. Matthew's narrative. 
 
 St. Matthew's contribution to the sample always balances, 
 and is always supplemental to that of St. John. Now and 
 again where St. John has summarised St. Matthew expands, and 
 where St. John has dealt with a subject at length St. Matthew 
 summarises. But, as a rule, St. Matthew supplies a record 
 of an entirely fresh type. If it is personal to our Lord, it is 
 also personal in a direct manner to those brought immediately 
 under His influence. But, far more generally, St. Matthew 
 gives historical and circumstantial details, and that with 
 special reference to newly-introduced actors in the scene. As 
 the representative of the Synoptists, he it is who decides 
 whether St. John has or has not dealt with any given subject 
 exhaustively ; i.e. if he does not think that St. John's record 
 needs amplifying, neither do St. Mark nor St. Luke. In this 
 respect they simply follow in his footsteps. 
 
 Nor do St. Mark and St. Luke follow St. Matthew's example 
 only in the matter of omissions from St. John's history. No 
 matter how peculiar the manner may be in which St. Matthew 
 either expands or summarises a statement of St. John, the 
 other two Synoptists almost invariably summarise or expand 
 it in the same language. (See specially the sixteen shorter 
 samples.) 
 
 The percentage of matter found in St. ]\Iatthew, but not 
 found in St. Jolm, naturally varies according to the extent to 
 which the narratives cover the same ground. 
 
 Thus, in the sections where the area embraces a consideralile 
 period it amounts to some ninety-seven per cent.; in the 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 29 
 
 longer fouifuld uarratives it falls to ninety, and in the 
 shorter fourfold narratives to eighty-two per cent. 
 
 Thus, though taken in their entirety, St. John's and St. 
 Matthew's Gospels are practically original ; yet in certain 
 parts there is a concentration of identity which is of itself 
 sufficient to constitute them closely-alhed documents. 
 
 3. The portion of St. Mark's Gospel. 
 
 St. Mark's contribution to the sample always represents a 
 version of St. Matthew's narrative, but is abbreviated in 
 matters which are either personal to our Lord or otherwise of 
 great intrinsic importance, and expanded in matters which are 
 either personal to subordmate actors or altogether of more 
 circiunstantial character and of less hitrinsic importance. 
 
 As a rule, the abbreviation in one direction is as nearly as 
 possible balanced by the expansion in the other. Thus the 
 amount of matter which is original as compared with St. 
 Matthew's Gospel always closely approxunates to fifty per 
 cent., or one half. But this is by no means tantamount to 
 saying that the non-original half is a mere reproduction of 
 St. Matthew. On the contrary, the very shortest statements 
 of St. Matthew are constantly varied and presented in a new 
 light. Thus, though, if we may so speak, one half of the 
 bricks which St. Mark uses are taken from St. Matthew's 
 edifice, they are always used for the purpose of building up 
 something new. It is remarkable that the more any subject 
 has to do with subordmate actors, the more freely does St. 
 Mark expand St. Matthew's narrative. Thus, in the case of 
 the healing of the daughter of the Syrophoenician woman and 
 of the death of the Baptist, the percentages of fresh matter in 
 St. Mark are seventy and sixty-five respectively. But in the 
 sixteen shorter samples, which have all to do with our Lord 
 personally, the percentage falls to thirty-seven. 
 
 4. The portion of St. Luke's Gospel. 
 
 St. Luke's contribution to the fourfold sample usually con- 
 tains an amount of fresh or original matter, which will be 
 sufficiently indicated by the following figures : — Li the 
 thirteen sections it is eighty, in the third section sixty, in the 
 fourfold narratives seventy-four, and in tlie sixteen shorter 
 samples fifty-three, per cent. 
 
 But, again, even more than in the case of St. Mark the non- 
 
30 WHAT THIXK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 
 
 original part of St. Luke's narrative is not by any means mere 
 repetition of one or other of the preceding narratives. With 
 regard to St. John's narrative, St. Luke simply follows the 
 example of St. Matthew and St. Mark. But with regard to 
 the narratives of St. Matthew and St. Mark, he freely com- 
 bines them. But even so he never makes use of St. Matthew's 
 narrative unless St. Mark also makes use of it. Thus his 
 additions to the sample are always either wholly original or 
 else expansions of St. Mark's expansions of St. Matthew. 
 
 In the longer samples, and notably in our third section, St. 
 Luke does continually repeat St. Matthew in cases where St. 
 Mark does not cover the same ground. But here the verbal 
 identity between St. Luke and St. Matthew becomes of the 
 most marked kind. Indeed, if it were not for two or three 
 longer repetitions, as notably the Sermon on the Mount, 
 the similarity would amount almost to sustained verbal 
 identity. 
 
 In speaking of St. Luke's contribution to the several 
 samples, we must be understood to exclude this entirely 
 abnormal relation between St. Matthew and St. Luke. It is 
 an exception which is practically confined to our third section, 
 or longest and most abnormal sample. 
 
 But here I must say a word about the four contributions 
 taken collectively, and the relation, as regards mere bulk or 
 length, in which they will be found in every sample to stand 
 to each other. 
 
 Clearly the actual amount of liistorical material which each 
 writer contributes to our several samples must necessarily 
 vary considerably. 
 
 Just in proportion as any given sample involves the record 
 of events and teaching which represent the point of view of 
 any given Evangelist, in such proportion the contribution of 
 that Evangelist will naturally be the longest. 
 
 Thus all the longer samples, i.e. the sections, contain a large 
 amount of historical matter which lies altogether outside the 
 scope of St. John's narrative. Hence out of fourteen sections, 
 St. John's is the longest contriliution only in five instances, i.e. 
 the Last Supper, the interval from the Last Supper to the 
 arrest, the trial before Pilate, the Burial, and the Eesurrection. 
 
 But in the ten fourfold narratives, where the history is 
 
WHAT TIIIXK YE OF THE GOSPELS? 31 
 
 exceptionally personal to our Lord, St. John's narrative is the 
 longest in seven instances, whilst in the most important crisis 
 of all, the Eesurrection, it is three times as long as tliat of St. 
 Matthew, four times as long as that of St. Mark, and about 
 one-fourth longer than that of St. Luke, 
 
 Again, in the sixteen shorter statements it is the longest in 
 seven instances. It will be found that, as a rule, the only 
 considerable difference between the length of St. John's and 
 of the other contributions arises either from St. John sivinji a 
 summary and the Synoptists all expanding the history, or 
 from St. John giving an unu.sually full history and the 
 Synoptists all giving a summary. 
 
 The extent to which, when St. John gives a full statement, 
 the Synoptists sunnnarise that statement in identical language, 
 is a fact which, in spite of its frequent occurrence and 
 evidential value, modern criticism has entirely overlooked. 
 
 In the case of the sLxth section — the period prior to the 
 last entry into Jerusalem — it will be remembered that whilst 
 St. John gives a full history of the leading events of the 
 period, and St. Matthew and St. Mark summarise the period, 
 St. Luke fills in the lacunae which St. John's narrative 
 creates. In this respect the sixth section constitutes a 
 wholly exceptional instance of construction. 
 
 St. Matthew's contribution to our samples is uniforndy 
 longer than that of St. John, where purely historical matter 
 predominates, and uniformly shorter where all four Evangelists 
 deal with any matter peculiarly personal to our Lord. 
 
 But for this difference the contribution of St. Matthew to 
 our samples stands, as a general rule, m a closely uniform 
 relation to those of the other Evangelists. 
 
 In only two of the longer sections is it very considerably 
 the longest. (1) In the history of the Galikvan ministry, 
 where it is nearly twice as long as that of St. ]\Iark. Here, 
 however, St, Luke's narrative is closely approximate to it in 
 length ; and (2) in the seventh section, — the events of Holy 
 Week, — where it is double the length of that either of St. 
 Mark or St. Luke, 
 
 The instances in which St. Matthew's contributicju is very 
 conspicuously shorter than that of St. John are invariably 
 supplied by the most intrinsically important narratives, viz. 
 
32 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS? 
 
 the account of the Last Supper, of the events immediately 
 succeeding it, of the trial before Pilate, of the Burial, and of the 
 Eesurrection. In these cases St. John's record is from six 
 times to three times as long as St. Matthew's. 
 
 St. Mark's contriliution is the longest in only one of our 
 longer samples — the fourth. Here it is considerably longer 
 than that of St. Matthew, — though closely covering the same 
 ground, — and nine times as long as that of St. Luke. 
 
 This section deals with our Lord's final circuit in the heathen 
 districts of Tyre and Sidon and the coasts of Decapolis. 
 
 It is remarkable that this circuit is introduced by the 
 Parable of Defilement, or of clean and unclean meats, — a parable 
 which was practically repeated in the vision granted to St. 
 Peter under closely analogous circumstances, viz. just before 
 his first preaching to the Gentiles. 
 
 It seems difficult to avoid connecting the exceptional 
 position occupied by St. Mark's record in this section with 
 the alleged Petrine origin of his Gospel. 
 
 Nor can we forget that so far as the subject of the section 
 is concerned, it is the very section in which we should have 
 expected St. Luke's Gospel to be the longest. Yet save for 
 the account of the Transfiguration and one or two incidents 
 immediately preceding and following it, St. Luke passes over 
 this period in silence. 
 
 St. Luke's contributions to our samples are conspicuously 
 long in three instances only — (1) in the introductory section, 
 (2) in the account of our Lord's teaching during the 
 journeys involved in the visits to Jerusalem or Bethany as 
 related by St. John, and (3) in the twelfth of the shorter 
 samples — the final examination before the Council prior to 
 our Lord's being delivered up to Pilate. 
 
 For their brevity St. Luke's contributions to our samples 
 are conspicuous only in the following cases : — 
 
 1. In the case- already mentioned of the final ckcuit 
 prior to the Transfiguration. 
 
 2. In the account of the last recorded visit to Capernaum. 
 Here St. Matthew's record is eight tuues, and St. Mark's 
 
 three times as long as St. Luke's. At the same time, it is 
 observable that St. Luke covers the same ground, but merely 
 gives a sufficient record to identify his own narrative with 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS? 33 
 
 those of St. Matthew and St. Mark. Thus out of u hundred 
 words only seventeen are fresh in St. Luke. 
 
 In all other samples the relation in which St. Luke's 
 narrative stands to that of the other three Evangelists is of 
 a closely uniform character. 
 
 5. Eepetitions as between all four Evangelists. (See next 
 chapter.) 
 
 6. Eepetitions between St. John and St. Matthew only. 
 These are for the most part conspicuous only by their 
 
 absence ; but even so, they are far more numerous than 
 between either St. John and St. Mark only, or St. Jolni and 
 St. Luke only. 
 
 7. Eepetitions as between St. John and St. Mark only. 
 These, again, are far ^-arer than between either St. John 
 
 and St. Matthew, or between St. John and St. Luke. 
 
 8. Eepetitions as between St. John and St. Luke. 
 
 These, again, are of wholly exceptional occurrence. On 
 the other hand, when they do occur, as notably in the account 
 of Peter's denials, of the trial before Pilate, and of the 
 appearance to the assembled apostles, they are always con- 
 spicuous instances of the supplemental and explanatory rela- 
 tion which St. Luke's Gospel always bears to that of St. John. 
 
 9. Eepetitions as between St. John, St. Matthew, and St. 
 Mark. 
 
 Contrary to all laws of probability, these are far more 
 numerous than the repetitions as between St. John and any 
 other Evangelist taken separately. Again, and equally in 
 opposition to the laws of probability, they are far less 
 frequent than the repetitions between St. John and the other 
 three Evangelists. 
 
 10. Eepetitions as between St. John, St. Matthew, and 
 St. Luke only. 
 
 These are everywhere so rare as to be practically non- 
 existent. 
 
 11. Eepetitions as between St. John, St. ]\Iark, and St. 
 Luke only. 
 
 These, again, are very rare, but by no means so much so 
 as the last named. 
 
 12. Eepetitions as between St. Matthew, St. Mark, and 
 St. Luke. 
 
 3 
 
34 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 
 
 Here, contrary to all the laws of probability, the repetitions 
 are some seven times more numerous than between St. 
 Matthew and St. Luke only. Apart from design, we should, 
 of course, expect them to be far less numerous. 
 
 13. Eepetitions as between St. Matthew and St. Mark. 
 These are uniformly the most numerous of any other 
 
 repetitions ; but even so, do not greatly exceed those between 
 St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke. 
 
 14. The repetitions as between St. Matthew and St. Luke 
 only. 
 
 These, contrary to all the laws of probability, are far less 
 numerous than the repetitions between the same writers, 
 when St. Mark is also included. 
 
 15. The repetitions as between St. Mark and St. Luke 
 only. 
 
 Here, again, all expectations based on the laws of pro- 
 liability are wholly falsified ; the repetitions under this head 
 being far less numerous than when St. Matthew is included. 
 
 -No argument will be required to prove that, apart from 
 a consistently followed design, there could be no possible 
 reason for supposing that there would be any kind of sus- 
 tained similarity in all these particulars, even in two of our 
 samples. How much greater, then, the improbability of the 
 similarity extending to them all ? 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE SYNOPTISTS OMIT 01? REPEAT JOIIAX- 
 NEAN SUBJECTS DOMINATES THE CONSTRUCTION OF EVERY 
 ONE OF FORTY SAMPLES OF GOSPEL CONSTRUCTION 
 
 The plan of Gospel construction is everywhere dominated 
 by the extent to which all the Synoptic Evangelists concur, 
 both in leaving out and in repeating the same portions of 
 the Gospel of St. John. 
 
 This being so, nothing can be more important for the 
 student than to have an accurate knowledge of the actual 
 facts by which this dominating influence is represented. 
 
 The figures which concern the main incidents of the history 
 stand thus — 
 
 Incidents recorded liy St. John 128 
 
 „ omitted by all three Syno])ti.sts ..... 94 
 
 Johannean incidents repeated .separately or collectively by the 
 Synoptists 
 
 Incidents common to St. John and St. [Matthew only . . 1 
 
 „ „ St. Mark only ... 1 
 
 „ „ St. Luke only ... 4 
 
 „ St. Matthew, and St. M;\vk only 4 
 
 „ „ „ St. Luke only . 
 
 „ St. Mark, and St. Luke only . 1 
 
 Common to all four Evangelists -3 
 
 With perhaps two exceptions, the Transfiguration and tlie 
 Ascension, the 128 incidents related by St. Jolm represent 
 just those incidents which any independent historian woidd 
 be most likely to chronicle. 
 
 Under these circumstances we should naturally expect that of 
 such incidents there would be very few mdeed which would not 
 be recorded by one or other of three independent historians. 
 
36 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS? 
 
 Yet 94 out of these 128 incidents are passed over in 
 total silence, not by one or by two, but by all three of the 
 Synoptic writers. 
 
 No matter when St. John wrote, how can this be ex- 
 plained except by design and concerted action ? 
 
 But this is not all. 
 
 Apart from design, it would be natural that a larger number 
 of the same incidents should be common to St. John and any 
 one of the Synoptists than to St. John and any two, and 
 incomparably larger than to St. John and all three Synoptists. 
 Yet the very reverse of this is the case. 
 
 So much so, indeed, that the fourfold combinations are 
 more than five tunes greater than any one of the six twofold 
 or threefold combinations. 
 
 Such is the state of things in the sections constituting the 
 main history. 
 
 We have next to observe a closely similar state of things 
 in the smaller areas of observation represented by the separate 
 fourfold narratives. Here the figures are — 
 
 Details recorded hj St. .John 616 
 
 ■ Details omitted Ijy all three Syno2)tists 528 
 
 Johannean details repeated separately and collectively by 
 the Synoptists — 
 
 Details common to St. John and St. Matthew only ... 12 
 
 „ „ „ St. Mark only ... 4 
 „ „ „ St. Luke only .- . .20 
 
 „ „ „ St. Matthew, and St. Mark only . 16 
 
 „ ,, „ St. Matthew, and St. Luke only . 
 
 „ „ „ St. Mark, and St. Luke ... 7 
 
 Connnon to all four Evangelists 29 
 
 It is clear that the same arguments which we have applied 
 to the main incidents apply also to the details of incidents, 
 and in some respects with even greater force. 
 
 The mere fact that each Evangelist adopts the same prin- 
 ciple of narration in each smaller as he does in each larger 
 area, makes it the more impossible to attribute what they do 
 to anything like chance. 
 
 Again, explanations, which miglit at first appear to account 
 for the peculiar treatment of a limited number of main 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 37 
 
 incidents, become wholly untenable when applied to the 
 treatment of the details of incidents. Each narrator is mani- 
 festly dealing with a subject about which he has the fullest 
 information. 
 
 Again, in every separate instance each writer contributes 
 a considerable number of non-Johannean details, all of which 
 are confessedly of less importance, and far less essential to 
 the completeness of the record, than the Johannean facts 
 which he omits. 
 
 Looking, then, at both the above classes of phenomena, let 
 us ask, To what cause can we attribute them ? The popular, 
 but, as I maintain, the essentially superficial explanati<jn is, 
 that St. J(jhn designedly supplemented the Synoptists, supply- 
 ing just those incidents and details which they omitted. 
 
 It is quite true that this explanation would account for 
 what St. John does. But this is only half the problem. It 
 offers no sort of solution of what the Synoptists do. It does 
 not explain either why at every point they all omit so 
 large a proportion of the most important facts, or why they 
 all agree in making the same omissions. 
 
 Thus the explanation which may seem possible with regard 
 to St. John is practically impossilde with regard to tlie 
 Synoptists. If it stands with respect to one half of tlie 
 problem, it breaks down with regard to the other half. 
 
 But if it is difficult to reconcile the omissions of the 
 Synoptists with the supposed fact of their not having seen 
 John's Gospel, how much more impossible must it be 
 to account for their systematic repetition of Johannean 
 subjects. 
 
 If our evidence affected main incidents only, it would be 
 easy to suggest that these were so manifestly of an excep- 
 tionally important character that no historian could dream 
 of omitting them. 
 
 But in the face of the list of incidents which the Synoptists 
 do omit, this would, after all, be an exceedingly halting and 
 improbable explanation. 
 
 But it simply cannot apply to their uniform repetition of 
 the same details. It would be wholly untrue to say that 
 those which they all select are marked by any pre-eminence 
 of importance over those which they all omit. They simply 
 
38 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS? 
 
 represent just those facts about which the Synoptists had 
 mformation to give which is not found in St. John. 
 
 In the matter of details, we must remember that the 
 systematic repetition of Johannean details is wholly without 
 parallel in the case of what may be termed Synoptic details. 
 Twofold repetition with regard to these there is, but three- 
 fold repetition is the rarest possible exception. With regard 
 to Johannean subjects, it is the rule. 
 
 So far as the Synoptists are concerned, if other evidence 
 would permit, it might be urged that they either wrote from 
 some common source, traditionary or documental, or else that 
 two of them copied from the third. 
 
 But this would not account for just these details which are 
 the subject of threefold Synoptic repetition being found in St. 
 John, and save in exceptional cases no other Synoptic details. 
 
 However this exceptional threefold repetition by the 
 Synoptists was caused, could any one seriously allege that St. 
 John went through the Synoptic narratives and picked out 
 just those which they had already related three times, and 
 almost invariably preferred those to details which had only 
 been recorded once or twice ? 
 
 Surely a more manifest rcdudio ad absurdum can hardly 
 be imagined ! Yet if St. John wrote last, how could these 
 thrice repeated details, to say nothing of the incidents, attain 
 to such wholly exceptional distinction at his hands ? 
 
 On the other hand, how absolutely simple is the solution 
 of both classes of phenomena if we accept the fact to which 
 it may be shown that every other branch of evidence points, 
 viz. that the Synoptists all wrote with St. John's Gospel before 
 them. 
 
 In this case we have only got to accept proved and per- 
 fectly simple and intelligible facts. 
 
 Though the figures supplied by the sixteen shorter samples 
 are not included above. Table III. in Appendix will show that 
 they are of a closely analogous character. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 FOURTEEN SECTIONAL HISTORIES 
 
 FIRST SECTIONAL IIISTOKV 
 
 The Incarnation, Birth, and Earbj Life of Jesiis 
 
 The opening words of St. John's Preface remind us of the 
 opening words of the Old Testament, and are manifestly cal- 
 culated to stand as a Preface not to a single Gospel only, hut 
 to the whole of the New Testament. 
 
 St. John begins by setting before us the essential Divinity 
 of Him who is to be the subject alike of the Gospel narratives 
 and of the whole of the New Testament teachuig. He was 
 " in the beginnmg " ; He was God ; He was the Creator ; He 
 was the Light of the world ; and bemg such. He was made 
 flesh and dwelt among us. 
 
 It seems impossible to help seeing that, short as St. John's 
 record is, it would suffer greatly in effect were it mixed up 
 with the details given by the other two writers. 
 
 The considerations already suggested would of themselves 
 suffice to suggest the appropriateness of St. John's Gospel 
 being placed first. But we cannot overlook the fact that St. 
 John alone tells us the real character of Him of whom the 
 Gospels treat. 
 
 That three writers in succession all published biographies 
 of a particular person without ever stating that He was in 
 reality very God of very God, and Himself the Creator of the 
 world, is a fact only explainable on the assumption that the 
 information had already been given, and that in some docu- 
 ment, acquaintance with which was presupposed. 
 
40 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 
 
 Nor is it here only, ])ut everywhere, that the Synoptists 
 clearly presuppose a knowledge on the part of their readers of 
 facts which they could only have known through St. John's 
 Gospel. They do so everywhere. 
 
 St. Matthew, dealing with the human side of our Lord's 
 character, traces His descent from David and Abraham. He 
 dwells upon the supernatural means by which the Incarnation 
 was lirought about, and only incidentally alluding to the 
 birth, proceeds to notice how the several successive events of 
 His infancy were all according to prophecy. 
 
 St. Luke gives precise notes of time ; connects the birth of 
 Christ with that of His great Forerunner ; notes the time and 
 circumstances accompanying and following the bh-th, thus 
 expanding what is a mere summary in St. ]\Iatthew ; and 
 covers the period otherwise left blank between the return to 
 Nazareth and the commencement of the Ministry. 
 
 The reader will not fail to call to mind the many passages 
 in this part of St. Luke's history which serve to prepare us for 
 the essentially missionary character of his Gospel, alike as to its 
 message and to the persons to whom it was to be addressed. 
 
 The distinct character of each record — the Divine in St. 
 John, the Divinely-human in St. Matthew, the historical in 
 St. Luke— could not possibly stand out in more perfect 
 contrast than it does. 
 
 But this evidence of subject does not by any means stand 
 alone. 
 
 We shall show elsewhere that not only is St. Luke's Preface 
 a natural and appropriate introduction to a last Gospel, but that 
 its wording does in itself prove that his Gospel was the last. 
 
 Again, the construction of this part of St. Luke's narrative 
 shows that even at this early stage he was beginning to carry 
 out the explanatory purpose indicated in his Preface. 
 
 The fact of there being no actual repetition whatever between 
 his narrative and that of St. Matthew, would of itself raise the 
 strongest presumption that he was writing a supplementary 
 narrative. 
 
 But this presumption is raised almost to a certainty when 
 we observe how his narrative fits in with, and explains, that 
 of St. Matthew. 
 
 Take two instances. 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 41 
 
 A careless reader of St. Matthew's Gospel might assume 
 that he represented Joseph and Mary as travelling to Betli- 
 lehem on the very eve of our Lord's birth — a supposed fact, as 
 to which hostile critics have always had much to say. But 
 St. Luke shows that they went up for a certain taxing, and 
 that this took place at a time coincident with the circumcision 
 of the Baptist, i.e. some six months before our Lord's birth. 
 
 Again, in strict accordance with this statement, he says, 
 " And it came to pass, luhile they ivere there, the days were ful- 
 filled that she should be delivered." Thus there is no scriptural 
 ground for supposing that when St. Luke speaks of the small- 
 ness of theu' lodging, he was making any reference to an " inn." 
 
 Again, taking St. Matthew's and St. Luke's narratives 
 together, we are compelled to assume that the residence at 
 Bethlehem extended to about two years and a half, i.e. from tlie 
 time of their first settlement there until the slaughter of the 
 children "from two years old and under." 
 
 St. Luke, as he does a hundred times elsewhere, simply 
 interpolates the account of the Purification and passes over 
 the events related by St. Matthew which really intervened 
 between the Purification and the final return to Nazareth. 
 
 The hostile critic again quotes from St. Matthew : " And 
 being warned of God in a dream that they should not return 
 to Herod, they departed to their own country another way." 
 
 Tliis, he says, shows that Joseph and Mary intended to 
 return to Bethlehem, and that St. Matthew is therefore at 
 variance with St. Luke, who only recognises a merely 
 temporary sojourn at Bethlehem. 
 
 But reading the two Gospels together, i.e. assuming the 
 relation between them wdiich everywhere else exists, the 
 whole story confirms what St. Matthew implies, viz. that 
 Joseph had made Bethlehem his adopted home, and but for 
 the angelic warning would have returned there. 
 
 SECOND SECTIONAL HISTORY 
 The Ministry of the Baptist 
 
 This section gives us the first instance of St. John and the 
 Synoptists dealing with the same subject, but at the same 
 time with entirely different aspects of it. 
 
42 WHAT THIXK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 
 
 St. John deals exclusively with the Baptist's ministry of 
 witness; the Synoptists deal exclusively with his ministry of 
 baptism and preaching. 
 
 That the ministry of witness was alike the most personal 
 to our Lord and the most intrinsically important, is obvious. 
 
 St. John alone records the predicted sign by which the 
 Baptist was to recognise Jesus, viz. the descent upon Him of 
 the Holy Spirit. Clearly we should expect the announce- 
 ment of a prediction to precede its fulfilment. Accordingly, 
 the Synoptists record, not the prediction, but only the fulfil- 
 ment. At the same time, though the fact of its being a 
 predicted sign was all-important, not one of them mentions it. 
 
 This section affords a striking instance of the manner in 
 which the verbal agreement between St. Matthew and St. 
 Luke varies according as St. Mark does or does not cover the 
 same ground. 
 
 It will be seen that whereas in the whole narrative the 
 verbal agreement between all three narratives is of the 
 slightest, yet when St. Luke records certain preaching which 
 St. Mark leaves out, he suddenly, and throughout several 
 verses, falls into an exact repetition of St. Matthew's narrative. 
 
 The section also furnishes us with a very characteristic 
 fourfold repetition. 
 
 The only part of the prediction about the Baptist which 
 St. John relates is related by all three Synoptists. 
 
 According to St. John, the Baptist said, " I am the voice 
 of one crying in the wilderness. Make straight the way of the 
 Lord, as said the prophet Isaiah." All three Synoptists 
 repeat this part of the prophecy. 
 
 St. Matthew adds the words, " And make His paths 
 straight," — these words being repeated by St. Mark and St. 
 Luke. 
 
 St. Mark alone records the words, " Behold, I send my 
 messenger before ■ Thy face " ; whilst St. Luke makes the 
 peculiarly characteristic addition, " Every valley shall be 
 filled, . . . and all flesh shall see the salvation of 
 God." 
 
 The relation between St. Matthew and St. Mark is of the 
 usual kind, whilst the supplemental and expansive character 
 of St. Luke's Gospel is everywhere conspicuous. 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 43 
 
 THIRD SECTIONAL HISTOKY 
 
 From the Ministry of the Baptist to the Fecdiiuj of the 
 Five Thousand 
 
 The division of the history as between St. John and the 
 Synoptists is nowhere more conspicuous than in this section. 
 
 As usual, St. John relates not only the most intrinsicalh' 
 important events, but those which were also first in point of 
 time. The notice of the earliest intercourse between our 
 Lord and the four specially favoured disciples, the first and 
 second miracles at Cana, and the Jerusalem ministry, all 
 properly precede the Galikean ministry which the Synoptists 
 relate. 
 
 The only possible difficulty with regard to the Johannean 
 half of this section turns upon the question whether the 
 " Feast of the Jews " in John v. was the Feast of I'entecost 
 either immediately preceding or coincident with the imprison- 
 ment of the Baptist. 
 
 This question again turns upon whether we suppose this 
 chapter to be covered by the notes of tim.e, " For John was 
 not yet cast into prison" (iii. 24), and "When therefore the 
 Lord knew how that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was 
 making and baptizing more disciples than Jolm ... He left 
 Judaea, and departed again into Galilee" (iv. 1-3). 
 
 The time between the Passover and Pentecost would allow 
 ample time for this intervening visit to Galilee. It has often 
 been urged that when our Lord says of the Baptist, " He was 
 a bright and shining light, and ije were u-illimj for a season to 
 rejoice in his light" (v. 35), He was regarding him as already 
 in prison. 
 
 But it seems to me that this reference to a past state of 
 things exactly fits in with the notices above quoted. 
 
 At the same time it seems difficult to imagine that there 
 was not an uitentional contrast between St. John's and the 
 Synoptic notes of time, i.e. between " Now John was not yet 
 cast into prison " (John iii. 24), and " Now when He heard 
 that John was delivered up" (Matt. iv. 12). 
 
 With regard to the Synoptic half of the section, one main 
 point to which our attention cannot but be directed is the 
 
44 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 
 
 difference in the order in which St. Matthew and his co- 
 historians relate the events of this period. 
 
 To understand this we must realise the essential difference 
 between the standpoint of the Apostolic records of St. John 
 and St. Matthew, and the non-Apostolic records, of St. Mark 
 and St. Luke. Centralisation is the keynote of the former, 
 decentralisation of the latter. 
 
 St. John's narrative centres round Jerusalem and the 
 Jewish festivals. St. Matthew's centres round Capernaum, 
 St. Mark's and St. Luke's narratives both concentrate our 
 attention upon the actual ministerial labours of our Lord as 
 something distinct from His main teaching. 
 
 St. Matthew states that our Lord " dwelt at Capernaum." 
 By this I understand that He made Capernaum His head- 
 quarters and place of residence to a much greater extent than 
 a mere casual reading of the several narratives would seem to 
 indicate. His circuits of teaching could not possibly have 
 been carried on through the periodical rainy season. At 
 the same time, either St. Mark or St. Luke always shows that 
 these circuits started from and ended at Capernaum. 
 . Nor, again, must we suppose that the period during which 
 St. Matthew, at the expense of mere chronological arrange- 
 ment, groups events into one grand picture, is by any means 
 arbitrarily chosen. 
 
 On the contrary, it is exactly coextensive with what can 
 alone be properly termed the Galilsean ministry. It dates 
 from our Lord's leaving Nazareth, and ends with the return 
 to Nazareth, the sending the Apostles on an independent trial 
 mission, and the subsequent Feeding of the Five Thousand. 
 
 After this our Lord's following was broken up. It seemed 
 for a moment as if even the chosen Twelve would desert Him. 
 As Herod had just killed the Baptist, so the Jews now sought 
 to kill Jesus. Thus the Galilean ministry had come to an 
 end. 
 
 And with the Galihiean ministry comes to an end also St. 
 Matthew's unique method of narration. For a time he had 
 departed from the more prosaic method of strict chronological 
 arrangement. Having justified this departure by the pro- 
 duction of a picture which for grandeur alike of subject and 
 of treatment must ever stand unrivalled in the world of 
 
"WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 45 
 
 literature, he returns to the ordmary method of the historian. 
 Thus both the departure from and the return to this method 
 serves to throw hito bolder relief the exceeding beauty of his 
 wholly exceptional narrative. 
 
 The adaptation of St. Mark's and St. Luke's records to 
 that of St. Matthew is nowhere more conspicuous than at the 
 beginning of this section. 
 
 The ;pUce de resistance of St. Matthew's narrative was the 
 Sermon on the Mount. 
 
 To carry his readers swiftly over the period which preceded 
 the Sermon on the Mount, he tells of Jesus leaving Nazareth 
 for Capernaum, of His carrying on from there a work of 
 preparatory teaching, of His choosing four of the future 
 Apostles, and with them preachhig in many and widely separ- 
 ated districts. 
 
 To this period St. Mark and St. Luke give more chapters 
 than, so far, St. Matthew gives verses. St. Matthew's record 
 is confessedly the briefest of summaries. St. Mark shows 
 that the confidential intercourse with the four dated from the 
 very day on which Jesus had first taken up His abode at 
 Capernaum. Nay, that their first call actually took place 
 before His settling there, and that on that occasion they had 
 followed Him into Capernaum. He then tells of certain 
 miracles which marked our Lord's early residence there, 
 speaks of an invitation to St. Peter and others to join Him 
 in visiting neighbouring towns, and without mentioning any 
 intermediate return to Capeimaum, goes on to describe the 
 circuit, the close of which was rendered memorable by the 
 healing of the leper and its immediate results. 
 
 So far the comparison of St. Matthew's and St. Clark's 
 narratives would present one obvious difficulty. According to 
 the former, the first preparatory teaching took place before 
 the first calHng of the four, to whom, up to this point, St. 
 Matthew does not allude. Yet, according to St. Mark, they 
 had not only been called, but St. Peter at least had accom- 
 panied Hun in this preparatory teaching. 
 
 St. Luke's is everywhere a Gospel of missing links. It is 
 so in this case. He explains St. Matthew's expression, " and 
 leaving Nazareth " by an account of our Lord's rejection at 
 that place immediaLely priur to His first settlement at 
 
46 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 
 
 Capernaum, and presumably in the autumn of the first year 
 of the ministry. 
 
 He accepts St. Mark's statement as to the first call of the 
 four, and leaves us to assume that it took place on the 
 occasion of the journey between Nazareth and Capernaum. 
 He then confirms St. Mark's narrative as to the mkacles 
 which marked the earliest residence at Capernaum, and by 
 the mention of the same preliminary circumstances confirms 
 St. Mark's account of St. Peter having accompanied our Lord 
 in His first preparatory teaching. 
 
 But here again he supplies missing links. He shows that 
 the preparatory teaching extended not only to the neighbour- 
 ing towns, but, according to the most authoritative reading 
 of Luke iv. 44, to Jud?ea, and, as St. Matthew implies (by 
 placmg it before the call of the four), was followed by a 
 return to Capernaum. 
 
 This return would presumably have been about the Feast 
 of Pentecost. But at whatever time it took place, it was 
 signalised by the miraculous draught of fishes, and by the 
 now instructed and attached four leaving all and following 
 Jesus, not as on the occasion of the first call into, but aivaj/ 
 from, Capernaum. 
 
 We can now see the exact extent to which St. Matthew's 
 and St. Mark's narratives, if read apart from St. Luke's, 
 would mislead us. St. Matthew described the first call, not 
 when it really happened, but when it first became operative, 
 i.e. at the time of the miraculous draught of fishes. The two 
 events were as much alike as an ordination of deacons is to 
 an ordination of priests, but they were not therefore the 
 same. It is difficult to see how, in so brief a summary, St. 
 Matthew could have conveyed the actual facts of the case 
 more accurately than he does. 
 
 Again, with regard to St. Mark, we see that though his 
 narrative was a great expansion of St. Matthew's summary, it 
 was still itself an exceedingly condensed history. So much 
 so that it merges two entirely separate circuits of teaching, — 
 the preparatory circuit, and the later circuit following the 
 draught of fishes when all four disciples were with Him, — and 
 makes no mention of the return to Galilee by which as usual 
 the spring and summer circuits were separated. 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 47 
 
 This portion of the history is all the more worthy of close 
 study, because the way we understand it will necessarily 
 make the difference of a clear year in the duration of our 
 Lord's ministry. 
 
 The next distinct note of time is afforded by the incident 
 of the disciples plucking the ears of corn, which would be ripe 
 about May. 
 
 Thus we have two alternatives to choose between. We 
 must either place all the events above noticed, and many 
 that followed them, between the first settlement at Caper- 
 naum and the following May, say a period of some eight 
 months ; or, 
 
 As the alternative, we must suppose the residence at 
 Capernaum, after the main Galiliean circuit, closed by the 
 healing of the leper,^ was a second winter residence, and that 
 the events which followed carry on the history to another 
 May, i.e. a period in all of about twenty months. 
 
 The first of these alternatives has always been adopted, 
 but without discussion, and as a simple matter of course. 
 
 The facts which seem to me against it are — 
 
 1. It greatly weakens the natural meaning of the expres- 
 sion as to Jesus " dwelling " at Capernaum. 
 
 2. Unless we entirely ignore the necessity for the winter 
 and rainy season being spent at headquarters, we have to 
 compress the following events into a space of some five 
 months ; the preparatory preaching in the neighbouring 
 towns and in Juda-a ; a fresh sojourn at Capernaum, the 
 evidently long circuit subsequent to the miraculous draught 
 of fishes, another apparently prolonged visit to Capernaum, 
 and a considerable series of events which followed it. The 
 case is confessedly one of probability rather than proof. 
 But it seems to me that the above view does not make 
 sufficient allowance, either for the extremely compressed 
 character of the records of this part of the history, or for the 
 extent to which they are supplemental to each other. Thus 
 it seems to me far more natural to suppose that our Lord's 
 
 1 The reader will observe that St. Matthew does not really s;iy that the 
 leper was healed immediately after the Sermon on the Mount. The 
 verse with which the eighth chapter commences should really conclude 
 the preceding chapter. 
 
48 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS? 
 
 first winter residence at Capernaum lasted well on into the 
 early part of the next year. 
 
 We read in Kobinson's Palestine (vol. i. p. 429): — 
 
 " During the months of November and December the 
 rains continue to fall heavily. Snow often falls in Jerusalem 
 in January and February to the depth of a foot or more. 
 The traveller at this season is subjected to the utmost dis- 
 comfort and inconvenience." 
 
 Could the Evangelists have supposed that their readers 
 would entirely ignore these standing conditions ? If so, 
 why did they not explain the command, " Pray ye that your 
 flight be not in the winter " ? 
 
 As I read the Gospels, St. Mark and St. Luke together 
 always enable us to fix a winter residence of some months at 
 Capernaum, followed by a short spring and a longer summer 
 circuit of teaching. 
 
 I suppose, then, that the events arrange themselves thus — 
 
 Our Lord made His circuit of preparatory teaching in the 
 spring. Eeturning to Capernaum some time in the early 
 summer, He inaugurated the permanent discipleship of the 
 four. With them He made the long circuit in Galilee, which 
 ended with the healmg of the leper and the subsequent 
 retirement into the desert. 
 
 He then entered on a second winter residence at Capernaum. 
 After this, again, in the early spring, He commenced the 
 circuit which was interrupted by the plot against His life, 
 when He again returned to the Sea of Galilee, where the 
 multitudes flocking to Him were so great that He had to 
 speak from a boat. He then, having ascended a mountain 
 for prayer, chose the twelve Apostles. After this He, for a 
 time, healed on the plain, and again ascending the mountain, 
 preached " the Sermon on the Mount." 
 
 The spring circuit of this second year was then closed by a 
 return to Capernaum. 
 
 The longer summer circuit of this year is then briefly 
 described by St. Luke, and we once more come to a third 
 winter residence at Capernaum, and the epoch of parabolic 
 teaching by which it was marked. 
 
 Either at the beginning or the close of this winter 
 residence Jesus crosses the Sea of Galilee, stills the storm 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 49 
 
 SO characteristic of the season, heals the Gadarenc demoniacs, 
 and immediately returning, raises the daughter of Jairus. 
 
 The next spring circuit then begins, and extends to 
 Nazareth, from whence our Lord despatches the Apostles on 
 an independent mission. 
 
 The reported death of the Baptist bringing the Apostles 
 back to Him suddenly, our Lord retires to the other side of 
 the Sea of Galilee, and spends the Passover season there, 
 signalising it by the Feeding of the Five Thousand. 
 
 The next section will give us the further history, and show 
 another and final summer circuit extending from the Passover 
 season to a time immediately subsequent to the Transfigura- 
 tion, and immediately prior to the Feast of Tabernacles. 
 
 In the Parable of the Barren Fig-tree, the words occur, 
 " Behold these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig- 
 tree, and find none " ; and, again, " Lord, let it alone this 
 year also." 
 
 It is commonly argued that though the " three years " 
 would seem naturally to apply to our Lord's ministry, they 
 cannot really do so, because a fourth year is not mentioned. 
 
 But if the above arrangement of events be adopted, we 
 not only have to account for four years, but this parable, 
 when the historical transposition of the passage of St. Luke 
 which contains it is allowed for, has to be placed as nearly 
 as possible at the end of the third year. 
 
 In his Horce Evangelica\ Professor Birks has given au 
 extremely careful and exhaustive analysis of a large propor- 
 tion of the threefold narratives which constitute the Synoptic 
 half of this section. In every instance he considers that the 
 proof of the narratives having been written in the order, 
 Matthew, Mark, Luke, is as nearly decisive as such i)roof 
 ever can be. 
 
 The reader is asked to bear in mind tliat the Synoptic half of 
 this section is in this matter of threefold repetition essentially 
 different from the Synoptic half of any other of our samples. 
 
 Yet it is on this half-section that modern criticism has 
 always concentrated its attention, not, indeed, entirely, but 
 almost entirely to the exclusion of all the normally con- 
 stituted sections. Thus each critic in turn has practically 
 based his theories on one abnormal half-section, and left his 
 
50 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS? 
 
 opponents thirteen complete and normal sections out of which 
 to refute him. 
 
 The reader is especially asked to observe the fact that 
 continuous, and as nearly as possible invariable, threefold 
 repetition commences at the point at which St. Matthew 
 and St. Mark begin to differ in the historical sequence of 
 events, and abruptly ceases where they cease to differ. 
 
 FOURTH SECTIONAL HISTORY 
 
 From the Fcecliwj of the Five Thousand to our Lord's Fined 
 Visit to Cci'pernaum 
 
 The Johannean half of this section, though it attracts our 
 attention far less than the Synoptic half, is really a longer 
 record than is given by either St. Matthew or St. Mark, whilst 
 it is nearly double as long as that given by St. Luke. 
 
 As usual, St. John gives an account of our Lord's spiritual 
 teaching. But he by no means neglects to chronicle certain 
 facts which really constituted this teaching a great turning- 
 point in the history. It led, he tells us, to the effectual 
 breakmg up of our Lord's following, and even to the 
 threatened desertion of the Twelve. 
 
 With regard to the main history, instead of passing it by 
 as usual in absolute silence, St. John covers the period by 
 the briefest summary (vii. 1): As to the Synoptic half of 
 the section, St. Matthew and St. Mark deal with the main 
 current of events, and alone supply the full history of the 
 period. But whereas up to this point they have differed as 
 to the sequence in which they have arranged events, here 
 they are at one in this matter. St. Luke therefore has no 
 cause to go again over the ground which they have suffi- 
 ciently covered, and thus persistently omits nearly everything 
 which they record. 
 
 Clearly a knowledge of the events related by St. Matthew 
 and St. Mark is absolutely essential to enable any one to 
 read St. Luke's narrative with intelligence ; nor without 
 postulating design can we easily imagine why St. Luke 
 should all of a sudden have left so large a gap in his history 
 as at this point he does. 
 
 It is true he repeats much which St. Matthew and St. 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 51 
 
 Mark relate in connection with tlie Transfiguration. But 
 here he has fresh and explanatory matter to add. 
 
 Nor can we fail to observe that liis repetition in tliis case 
 serves to keep his narrative in toucli with the other narratives, 
 i.e. to mark where his record rejoins theirs, and so to pre- 
 pare the way for his again breaking off from them, and for a 
 considerable period covering entirely new ground. 
 
 Contrasting the construction of this section with tlie next 
 but one, we observe that whereas here St. Jolni summarises 
 the history and St. Matthew and St. Mark expand it, tliere 
 St. Jolni gives the fuller history, whilst St. Mattliew and St. 
 Mark sunnnarise it. 
 
 On no point liave commentators differed more widely than 
 as to the date and tlie position in the history whicli they 
 assign to the Transfiguration, a fact which has greatly tended 
 to lessen the significance really belonging to it. 
 
 This has been manifestly due to the extent to wliicli the 
 whole history has been confused by tlie position of Luke xi. 
 14-xiii. 21. 
 
 When this is read as part of the earlier Parabolic Teach- 
 ing at Capernaum, tlie Transfiguration falls natui-ally into its 
 place as the grand closing scene of our Lord's ministerial 
 labours, and the singularly appropriate " beginning of the end " 
 spoken of in Luke ix. 50. 
 
 That the time of year assigned to the Transfiguration in 
 our Calendar (Aug. 6) is proximately correct, we can well 
 imagine. It was certainly some little time before the Feast 
 of Tabernacles, and could not therefore have been much latei-. 
 
 That the events related could possibly have happened in 
 midwinter or in the height of the rainy season, as so many 
 harmonists would have us believe, seems as improbable in 
 itself as it is inconsistent with the requirements of the several 
 narratives. 
 
 FIFTH SECTIONAL UlSTOKY 
 
 Jesus Final Visit to Capernaum 
 
 The Johannean half of this section records only the incidents 
 immediately affecting our Lord's contemplated visit to the 
 Feast of Tabernacles. 
 
52 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS? 
 
 That a knowledge of this proposed journey was necessary 
 to make the Synoptic narratives intelhgible is obvious. Yet 
 all three in succession fail to make any allusion to it. 
 
 St. Matthew alone gives the full record of the teaching 
 specially characteristic of the occasion, and alone mentions 
 our Lord's remarkable definition of His relation to the Jews, 
 and the miraculous payment of the tribute money by which 
 it was enforced. 
 
 Thus the two Apostolic Evangelists practically exhaust the 
 history. 
 
 St. Mark merely reintroduces a few minor incidents about 
 the subordinate actors. 
 
 St. Luke merely makes the briefest allusion to the period, 
 and that in a record half of which is peculiar to his own 
 history. 
 
 Here we have a conspicuous instance of the way in which 
 both St. Mark and St. Luke omit the more and not the less 
 important portions of St. Matthew's narrative. 
 
 The extreme brevity of St. Luke's narrative is also a 
 striking illustration of his repeating St. Matthew and St. 
 Mark merely for the purpose of showing where his narrative 
 breaks off from theirs. 
 
 We are all familiar with the discussions arising from our 
 Lord's supposed declaration that He did not intend to go up 
 to the Feast of Tabernacles. 
 
 It is interesting therefore to note that in an early com- 
 mentary on Tatian's Harmony, it is specifically stated that 
 Jesus did not say " I go not up to," but I go not up " at " 
 this feast. The commentator must therefore have had before 
 him a reading of this text not now extant in any manuscript. 
 If our Lord really said, " I ascend not at this feast," the say- 
 ing would merely represent a " play upon words " by no means 
 without parallel in other sayings. 
 
 The expression, " My time is 7iot yd come," would also 
 present a striking contrast to the note of time with which 
 St. Luke introduces the next journey, " When the time icas 
 come that He should be received up." 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS? 5o 
 
 SIXTH SECTIONAL HISTOKY 
 
 From the Feast of Tahcrnadcs to the Last Entry into 
 Jerusalem 
 
 In the present section St. John's record is the longest, and, 
 apart from the incidents of certain journeys, entirely covers 
 the area of narration. 
 
 St. Matthew and St. Mark, abruptly ceasing from what up 
 to this point had been a full history of events, cover nearly 
 the whole of the area of narration occupied by St. John by 
 the briefest of summaries. Having done this they at once 
 pass on to describe events, all of which, according to St. Luke, 
 immediately preceded the final entry into Jerusalem. Thus 
 they repeat nothing found in St. John, though, as we shall 
 see, their summaries imply that they knew of much which 
 might have been recorded. 
 
 St. Luke deals in succession with the several portions of 
 the area of narration which St. John leaves blank. Omitting 
 the designedly " secret " journey to the Feast of Tabernacles, 
 he records the events of journeys which in everything corre- 
 spond with the journeys implied in St. John's narrative. 
 
 Without St. John's narrative St. Luke's would be unintel- 
 ligible ; nor is it easy to conceive that unless he was inten- 
 tionally supplementing St. John's record, he would have given 
 an account of successive journeys without any mention of the 
 object for which they were undertaken. 
 
 At the end of the section St. Luke repeats a small portion 
 of the records of St. Matthew and St. Mark. He thus not 
 only shows where his own narrative rejoins theirs, but explains 
 what greatly needed explanation, viz. the actual time at which 
 tlie events which they record took place. 
 
 The whole history of this section has been confused by the 
 unhistorical position of Luke xi. 14-xiii. 21. It will there- 
 fore be especially desirable at this point to show exactly how, 
 apart from this source of confusion, the several narratives fit 
 into each other. 
 
 I will first state very shortly what the contributions are 
 which the several Evangelists make to the history. 
 
 St. John (vii. 12-viii. 59) tells us that Jesus having gone 
 
54 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS? 
 
 up privately to the Feast of Tabernacles, taught m the temple ; 
 and that though the Pharisees and chief priests sought to 
 arrest Him, He continued His teaching until an attempt was 
 made to stone Him, when He escaped and " hid Himself." 
 
 St. Matthew deals with the events of the whole period. 
 Some six months, in the following words : " And it came to 
 pass, when Jesus had finished these words, He departed from 
 Galilee, and came into the borders of Judsea beyond Jordan ; 
 and great multitudes followed Him ; and He healed them 
 there" (xix. 1,2). 
 
 St. Mark's record is to the same effect. 
 
 It is only at quite the end of the period that St. Matthew 
 and St. Mark take up the history exactly where St. John 
 leaves it, and tell of Jesus' last return to Jerusalem. 
 
 St. Luke (ix. 51), entirely ignoring the intervening visit 
 to the Feast of Tabernacles, and presumably taking up the 
 history exactly where St. John first leaves a blank, says, 
 " And when the time came that He should be received up, 
 Jesus set His face steadfastly to go to Jerusalem " (ix. 50). 
 
 The main events of this journey are the sending out of 
 and the instructions given to the Seventy, and the delivery 
 of the Parable of the Good Samaritan. The journey would 
 presumably be completed before the winter rams of November 
 and December set in. 
 
 To this latter season, therefore, we must apply the state- 
 ment that " Martha received Him into her house." 
 
 Here then we must picture our Lord residmg until the 
 Feast of Dedication. 
 
 St. John then carries on the history. 
 
 After telling how Jesus had excited the anger of the 
 Pharisees by healing a blind man on the Sabbath day and by 
 a subsequent discourse on their own blindness, St. John says, 
 " And at that time it was the Feast of the Dedication. It 
 was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple in Solomon's 
 porch." Here the Jews challenge Him to declare His true 
 character ; and on His declaring Himself to be one with the 
 Father, they take up stones to stone Him ; and on His further 
 declaring, " The Father is in me, and I in the Father," they 
 again seek to take Him, but " He went forth out of their 
 hand." 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS? 55 
 
 Jesus now, leaving the house of Martha and ^lary, goes 
 " AGAIN " beyond Jordan, " into the place where John was at 
 the first baptizing ; and there He abode. And many »ime unto 
 Hun, and they said, John, indeed, did no sign : but all things 
 whatsoever John spoke of this man were true. And many 
 believed on Him there." 
 
 By the word " again " St. John unplies that tliis was the 
 same district to which Jesus had retired after the Feast of 
 Tabernacles. We may therefore suppose this to be the scene 
 of the Healing noticed in St. ^Matthew's summary, and of the 
 Teaching recorded in St. Mark's summary. 
 
 St. Luke (xi. 1—13) now comes in with a record which, even 
 if its sequence did not imply it, would manifestly suggest that 
 it belonged to this time and place. 
 
 One of the disciples, he tells us, asked Jesus to teach them 
 to pray, " as John also taught his disciples." And Jesus 
 having first taught them the Lord's Prayer, proceeded t<> 
 deliver the Parable of the Three Loaves, and to enlarge upon 
 the certainty of their prayers being heard by God. 
 
 St. John (xi 1-16) again shows us how this teaching was 
 interrupted, and yet another visit to Jerusalem brought about. 
 
 There came to Jesus a message from His late hosts, 
 Martha and Mary, saying, " Lord, behold, he whom Thou 
 lovest is sick." 
 
 For two days Jesus apparently took no notice of tlie message; 
 but at the end of that time He announced that Lazarus was 
 dead, and proposed to the disciples that He should go into 
 Juda\a again and restore him to life, — a proposal whicli seemetl 
 to Thomas to involve certain death, aUke to Himself and His 
 followers. St. Luke (xiii. 22-xvi. 31) again takes up the 
 narrative. Jesus, he tells us, " went on His way tln-ough cities 
 and villages, teachmg, and journeying on towards Jerusalem." 
 
 It must have been during the first stages of this journey 
 that, being told of Herod's intention to kill Him, Jesus sent 
 the message that He should perform cures on that and the 
 followmg day, and that on the tliii'd day He should be 
 perfected. 
 
 Can we reasonably refuse to connect this saying with tlie 
 time which we know, as a matter of fact, this journey 
 occupied ? 
 
56 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS? 
 
 One of the days included in the journey being a Sabbath, 
 Jesus, having gone into the house of one of the chief Pharisees 
 to eat bread, healed a man with the dropsy, and spoke the 
 Parable of the Great Supper. 
 
 On resuming His journey, seeing the multitudes which 
 flocked round Him, He specially addressed them on the 
 difficulties and trials which His service would involve. 
 
 And the Pharisees, being angry at the manner in which 
 he welcomed publicans and sinners, Jesus addressed to them 
 the Parables of the Lost Sheep, of the Piece of Silver, of the 
 Prodigal Son, of the Unjust Steward, and of Dives and 
 Lazarus. 
 
 Thus the last recorded words spoken at the conclusion of 
 this journey, undertaken for the purpose of raising Lazarus, 
 were, " Neither will they believe though one rose from the 
 dead," — a prophecy which could not well have been more 
 strikingly fulfilled than by the events which immediately 
 followed upon the raising of Lazarus. 
 
 Once more St. John (xi. 17-46) takes up the history when 
 Jesus arrived at Bethany. 
 
 He found that Lazarus, having been buried immediately 
 after death, had already lain in the grave four days, i.e. the 
 time occupied by the journey which St. Luke describes. 
 And when Jesus had raised Lazarus from the dead the chief 
 priests and Pharisees, exactly fulfilhng the prediction just 
 alluded to, " gathered a council," and from that day forward 
 took counsel together to put Him to death. 
 
 " Jesus therefore went thence unto a country near to the 
 wilderness, into a city called Ephraim, and there He tarried 
 with His disciples," 
 
 For the last tim.e St. Luke (xvii. 1-xviii. 14) fills in the 
 history. 
 
 Either on His way to Ephraim, or during His residence 
 there, Jesus discourses on offences, and the duty of ungrudg- 
 ing forgiveness, lessons which might well have been suggested 
 by the recent action of the Pharisees ; and on the disciples 
 asking Him to increase their faith, speaks of the power of 
 faith, and warns them that even when tliey have done all 
 they must still count themselves unprofitable servants. 
 
 And as they were again on the way to Jerusalem, and 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 57 
 
 passing between Samaria and Galilee, Jesus healed ten men 
 that were lepers. 
 
 And being asked of the Pharisees when the kingdom of 
 God should come, He discoursed at length on the coming of 
 the Son of Man, and spoke the Parables of the Unjust Judge, 
 and of the Publican and Pharisee going up together into the 
 temple to pray. 
 
 It is at this point that St. Luke's narrative once more 
 rejoins that of St. Matthew and St. Mark, and with theirs 
 carries the history on to the entry into Jerusalem. 
 
 We are now in a position to consider two or three of the 
 more important points of agreement between St. John's and 
 St. Luke's narratives. 
 
 All four Evangelists recorded the last visit to Capernaum. 
 
 St. John alone tells of the visit to the Feast of Tabernacles. 
 
 This journey being made " as it were in secret," it was 
 perfectly natural that St. Luke should have nothing to say 
 about it. 
 
 But the journey which he does record was pre-eminently 
 a public one, whilst its distinctly missionary character marks 
 it out as specially suited to the genius of St. Luke's history. 
 
 "We are bound to suppose that this journey ended before 
 the rainy season (November and December) set in. 
 
 That at the close of this journey our Lord was received 
 into the house of Martha and Mary we know. 
 
 Apart from the extreme improbability of our Lord's having 
 travelled in the rainy season, the indications of this visit 
 being a prolonged one are numerous. 
 
 " Martha received Him into her house" 
 
 " Martha was cumbered about much serving." 
 
 " Mary sat at Jesus' feet and heard His word." 
 
 " Behold, he whom Thou lovcst is sick." 
 
 " I am glad for your sakes that / loas not there." 
 
 " Lord, if Thou hadst been here." 
 
 " Behold, how He loved him." 
 
 The wording of all these notices raises a strong pre- 
 sumption in favour of the idea that the connection between 
 Jesus and the family at Bethany was such as might naturally 
 arise from long and repeated visits made to them. 
 
 It is therefore no matter of surprise that a truthful record 
 
5 8 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 
 
 of events should only be comprehensible on the supposition 
 that the visit mentioned by St. Luke (x. 38—42) was one of 
 some duration. 
 
 From St. John we learn how this visit was suddenly 
 brought to an end, and how shortly afterwards those who had 
 so recently entertained Him at once took steps to make 
 known to Him the ti'ouble which had overtaken them. If 
 St. John's and St. Luke's narratives were meant to " fit in " to 
 each other as closely as they appear to do, Jesus may have been 
 actually discoursing on the efficacy of prayer at the very 
 time at which His late hosts made their distress known 
 to Him. Whilst the manner in which He acted upon the 
 message received, would be a singularly striking commentary 
 upon the purposes for which an answer to such a prayer may 
 be delayed. 
 
 Once more St. Luke's narrative of a journey fits in exactly 
 with the journey only alluded to in St. John's narrative. 
 
 In order to understand the perfect adjustment between St. 
 John's and St. Luke's narratives, it is essential that the reader 
 should bear in mind one remarkable but clearly defined and 
 -constantly recurring peculiarity of Gospel construction, viz. 
 the constant breaks in the contmuity of narration which 
 every Gospel exhibits. 
 
 In our present section this peculiarity becomes the stand- 
 ing rule of St. Luke's construction. 
 
 The commencement of three separate journeys are marked 
 indeed by three separate notices. But otherwise there is 
 nothing save St. John's Gospel to indicate either the object of 
 the journeys or the fact of more than one journey being dealt 
 with. The separate notices are as follows : — 
 
 1. Luke ix. 51: "And it came to pass when the time 
 was come that He should be received up. He steadfastly set 
 His face to go to Jerusalem." 
 
 2. Luke xiv. 22 : " And He went through the cities and 
 villages, teaching, and journeying towards Jerusalem." 
 
 3. Luke xvii. 11: " And it came to pass as He went to 
 Jerusalem, that He passed through the midst of Samaria and 
 Galilee.," 
 
 The three separate notices of destination would, of course, 
 be rather suggestive of separate journeys. AYhilst the fact that 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 59 
 
 the visit to Martha and Mary intervenes between the first 
 and second notice, would of itself be inconsistent with the 
 theory of a smgle journey. But otherwise we have absolutely 
 nothing save the Gospel of St. John either to tell us that 
 there were three journeys, or to enable us to understand the 
 object of the first two of them. 
 
 In no other section is the fact of St. Luke having written 
 with St. John's Gospel before him more clearly proved than 
 in the present. 
 
 To believe the contrary, we must not only suppose all the 
 marvellous and consistently maintained concordances between 
 the narratives to be purely accidental, but we must suppose 
 that St. Luke gave an account of at least two journeys without 
 the slightest reference to the purpose for which they were 
 undertaken, and that he trusted in some future writer supply- 
 ing the mformation so conspicuously withheld and yet so 
 essential for the miderstanding of his own history. 
 
 Scarcely less strong is the evidence that St. Matthew 
 wrote with St. John before him. Why, if he had not, should 
 he abruptly break off his detailed narrative and cover the 
 period treated by St. John by a brief summary ? 
 
 The events which St. Matthew thus ignores — the visits to 
 Jerusalem, the teachmg and events there, the attempts on our 
 Lord's Hfe, the raising of Lazarus — stand unsurpassed for 
 their intrinsic importance. Why did St. Matthew not only 
 ignore them, but go out of his way to change his plan of writhig 
 in order to do so ? That St. Mark should have followed St. 
 Matthew's example in this respect is only another instance of 
 the pecuhar connection between his and St. Matthew's records. 
 
 But apart from this connection, the evidence of his having 
 written with St. John's Gospel before him would be equally 
 strong in his case. 
 
 SEVENTH SECTIONAL HISTORY 
 From the Anointing at Betliany to the Last Passover 
 
 This section presents a striking contrast to that which we 
 have just been considering. 
 
 In the last section St. John's was the longest narrative, 
 and dealt at great length on our Lord's teaclung in the 
 
60 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS? 
 
 temple, — this teaching being as usual of an eminently 
 doctrinal and personal character. 
 
 ■ In this section St. Matthew's narrative is the longest, and 
 in turn deals with teaching which, whether given in the 
 temple or elsewhere, was of a totally different character to 
 that recorded by St. John. 
 
 Here, as usual, St. John records the first event and distinct 
 starting-point of the history — the anointing at Bethany. It 
 is true that St. Matthew and St. Mark relate this incident in 
 connection with the action of Judas. 
 
 But supposing the incident to have been already recorded 
 by St. John, it was perfectly natural that they should have 
 omitted it in their abbreviated history. 
 
 At the same tune, the fact of their briefly reintroducing 
 it in the .connection they do, is amply accounted for by their 
 manifest desire to show the bearing of this event on the 
 ultimate conduct of Judas. 
 
 The actual entry into Jerusalem is naturally mentioned by 
 all four writers. 
 
 The visit of certain Greeks, and the teaching and incidents 
 •connected with that visit, thus constitute the only portion of 
 St, John's narrative which is wholly unnoticed by the 
 Synoptists. 
 
 Again the balance of the history as between St. John and 
 St. Matthew is perfect. 
 
 St. Mark, though he gives a good deal of fresh information, 
 presents us with a narrative little more than half the length 
 of St. Matthew. 
 
 Here, too, St. Luke finds the area of narration so much 
 preoccupied, that his narrative is little more than a third of 
 the length of St. Matthew, and considerably shorter than that 
 of St. Mark. 
 
 Thus the narratives of St. Mark and St. Luke are only just 
 long enough to " serve the purposes of corroboration and 
 identification. 
 
 Yet even in this section, expansion in the direction of 
 subject-matter peculiarly characteristic of St. Mark and St. 
 Luke is not entirely wanting. 
 
 The instruction of the disciples by the example of the 
 widow casting her mite into the treasury is found only in St. 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS? 61 
 
 Mark and St. Luke. Whilst the discourse followincr the 
 prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem is greatly enlarged 
 by them in the direction of the conduct and future fortunes 
 of the disciples. 
 
 EIGHTH SECTIONAL HISTORY 
 
 The Last Su2)2)er 
 
 Once more St. John and St. Matthew divide the area of 
 narration between them. 
 
 St. John's narrative is longer than all the other narratives 
 put together, behig more than twice as long as St. Matthew's, 
 and more than four times as long as either St. ]\Iark's or St. 
 Luke's. 
 
 Hence to call St. John's a supplemental narrative would 
 simply be a misuse of language. 
 
 The fact that St. John omits all reference to the actual 
 Institution of the Lord's Supper, however remarkable it may 
 seem, is strictly in accordance with his invariable reticence 
 as to all matters of a distinctly ministerial kind. 
 
 So far as St. John meant to deal with tlie subject, he dealt 
 with it by recording the discourse at Capernaum. The 
 practical application of that teaching he treats as lying outside 
 his purpose of proving Jesus to be the Christ, whilst the 
 former teaching was clearly all-sufficient to constitute the 
 basis of saving faith which he desired to provide. 
 
 St. Luke's narrati^■e is here especially remarkable for tlie 
 large amount of entirely new history with which it supplies 
 us, and also for the explanatory character of his account of 
 the Institution of the Lord's Supper. 
 
 He alone mentions the " first Cup," and in connection with 
 it records w^ords of our Lord which St. Matthew and St. Mark 
 in theh' more compressed narrative relate in connection with 
 " the Cup after Supper." 
 
 The suspicion of discrepancy between St. Luke's and the 
 other two narratives at this point may well have been the 
 cause why St. Paid should have given what is virtually a 
 fourth account of the Institution. 
 
 Again, supposing St. John's to have been the first Gospel, 
 the fact of his passing the subject over in silence may well 
 
62 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS? 
 
 have acted as a further reason for St. Paul adopting the 
 exceedingly exceptional course which he does. 
 
 Clearly when out of all the events in the Gospel history 
 St. Paul singles out one only and records it in Gospel 
 language as though himself an Evangelist, we may well 
 assume that he had some reason for doing what he does. 
 
 Nor would it seem reasonable to resist the inference that 
 his not dealing in the same way with other Gospel incidents 
 was not because he was not acquainted with the Gospels, but 
 because, save in this one exceptional case, their records needed 
 neither supplementing nor explaining. 
 
 NINTH SECTIONAL HISTORY 
 
 From the Last Supper to our Lord's Arrest 
 
 Again St. John and St. Matthew divide the historical area 
 between them, whilst St. Mark and St. Luke amplify St. 
 Matthew's side of the history. 
 
 Manifestly the agony in the garden has to do exclusively 
 -with the human side of our Lord's character, and is therefore 
 as alien to St. John's point of view as it is consistent with 
 that of St. Matthew. 
 
 As is so often the case with the closing scenes of the 
 history, St. John's is incomparably the longest narrative. 
 
 As the history of our Lord's arrest forms the subject of one 
 of our fourfold narratives, we may pass it by for the present. 
 
 TENTH SECTIONAL HISTORY 
 
 From our Lord's Arrest to the Early Morning 
 
 Here St. John alone records the first examination of our 
 Lord before Annas, and only briefly alludes to His being sent 
 to Caiaphas. 
 
 St. Matthew gives the supplementary record of the second 
 examination, and of incidents connected with it, and carries 
 on the history so as to include an account of the remorse and 
 death of Judas. 
 
 St. Mark also deals with the second examination, adding, 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 63 
 
 as usual, further particulars about the accusers and other 
 details. 
 
 St. Luke alone mentions the third examination, viz. tluit 
 before the Council, and its conclusive result. 
 
 The particular distribution of events amongst the several 
 evangelists constitutes this section a peculiarly striking 
 illustration of the ncjrmal construction of the fourfold record. 
 
 ELEVENTH SECTIONAL HISTORY 
 The Trial Icforc Pilate 
 
 It seems wholly impossible to deny the fact that we have 
 only one account of Jesus' trial by Pilate, and of Pilate's 
 conduct as a judge, and that this account is given by St. John. 
 The other records leave nearly all the main facts of the trial 
 mitouched. As usual they deal with supplemental details, 
 and with the conduct of outside and subordinate actors in the 
 scenes, of which St. John alone enables us to form any 
 adequate conception. 
 
 It is not only that St. John alone gives all the chief events 
 of the trial, but he alone supplies the framework into which 
 the other narratives have to be fitted. Xor can we forget 
 that in doing this he does precisely what he does in tlie main 
 history. 
 
 Even if we could see our way to explain St. ^Matthew's 
 treatment of this section of the history, and were to assume 
 that the same explanation extended to St. Mark's record, we 
 should still have to account for the form of St. Luke's narrative. 
 The extent to whicli it is supplemental to the others seems, 
 of itself, sufficient to prove that had all the ground covered 
 by St. John been unoccupied, he would not have allowed -it to 
 remain so. 
 
 Eegarded as a supplemental and explanatory record, St. 
 Luke's method of treating the history is transparently sinqjle. 
 As an independent narrative, or a narrative influenced only 
 by St. Matthew's and St. Mark's records, it seems wholly 
 unintelligible. 
 
 The reader will doubtless observe that in their greatly 
 abbreviated histories, both St. Matthew and St. Mark only 
 
64 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS? 
 
 mention the scourging and mocking incidentally, and in con- 
 nection with the final sentence. 
 
 They thus really mention these incidents " out of order." 
 
 Why then does not St. Luke, according to his otherwise 
 almost invariable custom, so write as to make the true order 
 of events plain ? 
 
 I answer, this is just one of those exceptions which prove 
 the rule. 
 
 The true order of events having been given by St. John, 
 the abbreviated records of St. Matthew and St. Mark could 
 not be misunderstood. Instead, therefore, of dealing with 
 their narratives, he deals with St. John's, and gives an 
 additional means of fixing the exact time of the scourging 
 and mocking by recording the preliminary sentence, " I will 
 therefore chastise Him, and let Him go." 
 
 Clearly, the extent to which St. Luke's is a fresh narrative 
 nuist be considered with due reference to its subject-matter. 
 
 Out of 372 words, 257 give fresh details. 
 
 The meaning of this fact is (1) that just where the ground 
 is uncovered by either of the other Evangelists, St. Luke 
 covers it ; and (2) that where the ground is covered, there 
 St. Luke is either wholly silent, or just makes his narrative 
 hold together by the briefest of summaries. 
 
 Let us forget that this fact represents the relation always 
 existing between St. Luke's and the other records, and examine 
 the fact as it stands in this section alone. 
 
 By what conceivable hypothesis could any one even then 
 suggest that the fact in this instance could be accidental ? 
 
 TWELFTH SECTIONAL HISTOKY 
 
 The Crucifixion 
 
 Let us define the documents making up the record of this 
 section. 
 
 St. John's is a document giving a full record of the most 
 important events connected with the Crucifixion. In tlie 
 main it is confined to strictly personal details. 
 
 St. Matthew's is a document almost exclusively dealing 
 with the conduct of persons present at the Crucifixion. 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 6 o 
 
 Thus St. Matthew descJribes the conduct (a) of Simon «»f 
 Gyrene, (b) of those that passed by, (c) of the chief priests, 
 (d) of the thieves, (c) of those who heard the cry. Eh, EH, 
 (/) of the centurion, (g) of those who beheld the earthquake, 
 (h) of the Galiloean women. 
 
 The two documents together thus give a twofold primary 
 representation of the event. 
 
 St. Mark's is a document wholly corroborative of St. 
 Matthew's record. Tlie fresh information contained in it 
 is, without exception, given by the alteration or expansion of 
 sentences found in St. Matthew. 
 
 St. Luke's is a document in which details, given by St. Jolni 
 or St. Matthew, are either greatly abbreviated or wholly 
 omitted. But it contains a large amount of supplementary 
 information. In two mstances (the prayer for His uuirderers, 
 and the commendation of His Spirit to the Father) the 
 additions are strictly personal to our Lord. Otherwise, like 
 St. Matthew's, they tell of the conduct of outside actors in 
 the scene, i.e. (a) of the women of Jerusalem, (h) of tlie rulers, 
 (c) of the soldiers, (d) of the penitent thief, (r) of the 
 centurion, (/) of Jesus' acquaintance, (;/) of the multitude. 
 
 Thus the mere definition of the documents at once estab- 
 lishes what is practically the same relation between tliem as 
 is observable between the Gospels considered in their 
 entirety. 
 
 That the relation of the documents indicated by the above 
 definition extends to matters of detail, may be shown by two 
 exceptionally striking illustrations. 
 
 St. John records both the cry " I thirst" and the action of 
 the bystanders which resulted from it. 
 
 St. Matthew and St. ]\Lirk both record the action resulting 
 from the cry, but both assume that the cause of the action 
 was known. 
 
 Again St. John alone records the saying, " It is finished." 
 The other Evangelists all omit the cry, but all relate the 
 manner in which it was uttered. 
 
 In both the above instances it seems inconceivable that 
 
 unless the main fact on which their narratives turn had 
 
 been already on record, three writers in succession would all 
 
 fail to mention it. Clearly, unless in each case it was assumed 
 
 5 
 
6 6 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 
 
 to be known, their narratives would be at least comparatively 
 unintelligible. Thus in both cases each of three writers 
 would be found leaving out the very point most required 
 to make what he says intelligible. 
 
 THIRTEENTH SECTIONAL HISTORY 
 
 The Burial 
 
 Here St. John alone gives the complete evidence of the 
 reality of our Lord's death. 
 
 It again seems inconceivable that unless it was already on 
 record, the whole of such evidence should be passed over in 
 silence by three successive writers. St. John also is the only 
 one w^ho gives the full history of the burial and records the 
 part taken by Nicodemus. 
 
 St. Matthew merely summarises in the briefest possible 
 terms, and in St. John's language, certain facts connected 
 with the burial. He also adds the purely supplemental facts 
 {a) of a stone being rolled against the door of the sepulchre, 
 and (h) of the presence of Mary Magdalene and the other 
 Mary. 
 
 St. Mark explains the term " the Preparation," gives 
 further particulars about Joseph of Arimathea, tells of Pilate 
 questioning whether Jesus were already dead, alludes to the 
 evidence of the centurion, mentions the purchase of the fine 
 linen, and relates the fact of Mary Magdalene and Mary the 
 mother of Jesus seeing where the body was laid. 
 
 St. Luke again gives further and altogether fresh particulars 
 about Joseph of Arimathea and the Galiliean women. 
 
 FOURTEENTH SECTIONAL HISTORY 
 
 The Resurrection 
 
 It may be safely assumed that if the four Gospels were 
 wholly independent documents, each writer, no matter what 
 He left out elsewhere, would be anxious not to omit anything 
 which was essential to the establishing the truth of the 
 Pesurrection. 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE CxOSPELS ? 67 
 
 It was essentially " the Gospel " of the early Clmreh. 
 
 Hence each writer would have been anxious above all 
 things to record instances of our Lord's having appeared to 
 persons able to testify to such appearances. 
 
 Let us see what the several writers really do. 
 
 St. John gives details of our Lord's appearing to Maiy 
 Magdalene, of His appearing twice to the assembled Apostles, 
 and again of His appearing to five of the Apostles at the Sea 
 of Tiberias. With reference to the last appearance he says 
 specifically, "This is now the third time that Jesus showed 
 Himself to His disciples after He was risen from the dead " 
 (xxi. 14). Thus lie shows that he was specially anxious to 
 make up a cycle of appearances supplementing the appearance 
 to Mary, and with it constituting evidence which, if admitted, 
 no one could possibly gainsay. 
 
 Compare this with what St. Matthew does. St. Matthew 
 does not make the very slightest allusion to any one of the 
 above appearances. 
 
 Whereas in St. John the account of them occupies the 
 greater part of two chapters, St. Matthew only finds 
 material to occupy two verses. Whilst in these he only 
 records a second appearance to Mary Magdalene. 
 
 At the same time, he does here just what he does in every 
 parallel case, he sup})lies the historical details which St. John 
 omits— events wliicli liappened prior to, at the time of, and 
 subsequent to, the Kesurrection, viz. the earthquake, the 
 appearance of the angel of the Lord, the sealuig of the 
 sepulchre, and the bribing of the Koman guard. 
 
 As usual, both St. Mark and St. Luke follow tlie lead of 
 St. Matthew. St. Mark, however, adds a brief reference to 
 the first appearance to Mary and tlie first appearance to the 
 assembled Apostles. 
 
 St. Luke, again, after making the briefest allusion to Peter's 
 visit to the tomb, shows that the appearance to the assembled 
 Apostles was not merely an apparition, and relates in det;iil 
 an appearance to two of the outer circle of disciples. 
 
 It can hardly he necessary to point out how greatly St. 
 John's narrative would be discredited if we were compelled to 
 suppose tliat tlie other three Evangelists wrote first, and left 
 out nearly all that he relates. 
 
CHAT TEE VI 
 
 TEN FOURFOLD NARRATIVES 
 I. THE FEEDING OF THE FIVE THOUSAND 
 Jn. vi. 1-21. Mt. xiv. 12-33. Mk. vi. 29-53. Lk. ix. 10-17 
 
 In this narrative St. John alone records a number of facts 
 which belong to the very essence of the history, as — 
 
 1. The season at which the miracle took place — the 
 Passover. 
 
 '2. The fact that Jesus knew what He would do. 
 
 3. The part played by Philip and Andrew. 
 
 4. The command to gather up the fragments. 
 
 5. The effect of the miracle upon the multitude. 
 
 6. The design to make Jesus a king. 
 
 7. The reason why Jesus sent the disciples away and 
 remained Himself on land. 
 
 8. The instantaneous arrival of the boat at its destina- 
 tion. 
 
 These are all facts which would not only liave occupied 
 the very forefront of the consciousness of any independent 
 historian, but they are absolutely essential to an intelligent 
 comprehension of what really happened. 
 
 Omitting all these facts, St. Matthew partly abbreviates 
 and partly expaiids certain details of St. John's record, and 
 adds the important incident about St. Peter. 
 
 St. Maik follows St. Matthew's narrative so closely that his 
 omission of the incident about St. Peter can hardly be other- 
 wise than intentional. 
 
 St. LidvC follows St. Matthew closely up to a certain point, 
 l)ut omits all reference to the return voyage. 
 
 68 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 69 
 
 As to the whole of the narrative, both the number and 
 the unportauce of the incidents related only by St. John 
 make the one-sidedness of St. Matthew's record unusually 
 conspicuous. 
 
 At the same time, in spite of their having such materials 
 as those supplied by St. John at their disposal, St. Mark and 
 St. Luke both reproduce the one-sidedness of St. Matthew. 
 
 II. THE ENTRY INTO JERUSALEM 
 Jii. xii. 9-19. Mt. xxi. 1-11. Mk. xi. 1-10. Lk. xix. 29-44 
 
 Here St. John alone records — 
 
 1. That it was to see Lazarus that the people came 
 together. 
 
 2. That it was the effect upon the multitude of the raising 
 of Lazarus that enraged the chief priests. 
 
 3. That a multitude assembh.^d at Bethany, and that 
 anotlier multitude came out from Jerusalem. 
 
 4. That the disciples did not at the time understand the 
 significance of all that happened. 
 
 St. Matthew covers the same area of narration as St. Jolni 
 more closely than usual. 
 
 But when St. John abbreviates, St. Matthew expands the 
 narrative ; whilst, where St. John expands, St. Matthew 
 abbreviates. 
 
 Thus St. John writes, " And Jesus having found a young 
 ass, sat thereon." St. Matthew, on the other hand, explahis 
 at length, though not nearly at such great length as St. Mark 
 and St. Luke, what really happened in connection with this 
 incident. 
 
 Again St. John writes, " The multitude therefore that was 
 with Him when He called Lazarus out of the tomb, and raised 
 him from the dead, bare witness. For this cause also the 
 multitude went and met Him, for that they heard that He had 
 done this sign." 
 
 St. Matthew abbreviates this into, " the multitudes that 
 went before and that followed," and then proceeds to expand 
 St. John's statement that they " bare witness." 
 
 Owing to the closeness with which they both cover the 
 
70 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 
 
 same ground, the division of subject between St. John and 
 St. Matthew is somewhat less obvious than usual. 
 
 On the other hand, owing to their all adopting the same 
 methods of abbreviating and expanding St. John's narrative, 
 the agreement between the three Synoptists is even more 
 marked than usual. 
 
 in, THE BETRAYAL 
 .Jn. xviii. 2-11. Mt. xxvi. 47-56. Mk. xiv. 43-52. Lk. xxii. 47-53 
 
 Here St. John alone tells us — 
 
 1. That the scene was a garden. 
 
 2. That Judas knew the place to be the usual resort of 
 Jesus and the disciples. 
 
 3. That the arrest was an official act, carried out by a band 
 of soldiers accompanied by the officials of the chief priests and 
 Pharisees. 
 
 4. That Jesus knew what would happen. 
 
 5. That He at once declared His identity. 
 
 6. That His would-be captors fell to the ground. 
 
 7. That a second time He admitted His identity, and asked 
 that His disciples might go free. 
 
 8. That the wounded servant's name was Malchus. 
 
 9. That Jesus said, " The cup which my Father hath given 
 me, shall I not drink it ? " and, finally, 
 
 10. That Jesus was not only seized, but bound. 
 
 St. Matthew speaks only of the accompanying multitude. 
 
 As to the conduct of Jesus Himself, though it belongs to 
 the very essence of the history, St. Matthew passes it over 
 in absolute silence, and enlarges only on subsidiary details, or 
 on matters which concerned subordinate actors. 
 
 In spite of the wholly exceptional importance of the events 
 left unrecorded by St. Matthew, both St. Mark and St. Luke 
 follow the latter closely. 
 
 Thus the present narrative affords an unusually striking 
 instance alike of the division of the subject between St. John 
 and St. Matthew, and of the extent to which St. Mark and 
 St. Luke deal with the same side of it as St. Matthew. 
 
AVHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 
 
 71 
 
 IV. ST. PETER S DENIALS 
 
 Jn. xiii. 36-38. 
 
 Lk. xxii. 33, 34. 
 
 Mt. xxvi. 33-35. 
 
 Mk. xiv. 29-31. 
 
 First Prediction of 
 Denial 
 
 Simon Peter said un- 
 to Him, Lord, whither 
 goest Thou ? Jesus 
 answered him. Whither 
 I go, thou canst not 
 follow me now; but thou 
 shalt follow me after- 
 wards. 
 
 Peter said unto Him, 
 Lord, Why cannot I 
 follow Thee now? I 
 will lay down my life 
 for Thy sake. 
 
 Jesus answered him, 
 W^ilt thou lay down 
 thy life for my sake ? 
 Verily, verily, I say 
 unto thee, The cock 
 shall not crow, till thou 
 hast denied me thrice. 
 
 And he said unto 
 him. Lord, I am ready 
 to go with Thee, both 
 into prison, and to 
 death. 
 
 And He said, I tell 
 thee, Peter, the cock 
 shall not crow this day, 
 before that thou shalt 
 thrice deny that thou 
 knowest me. 
 
 Second Prediction of 
 Denial 
 
 Peter answered and 
 said unto Him, Though 
 all men should be 
 offended because of 
 Thee, yet will I never 
 be offended. 
 
 Jesus said unto him, 
 Verily I say unto thee, 
 That this night, before 
 the cock crow, thou 
 shalt deny me tlirice. 
 
 Peter said unto Him, 
 Though I should die 
 with Thee, yet will I 
 not deny Thee. Like- 
 wise also said all the 
 disciples. 
 
 But IVter said unto 
 Him, Althongli all shall 
 be offended, yet will 
 not I. 
 
 And Jesus said unto 
 
 Jn. xviii. 15-17 
 
 Mt. xxvi. 60, 70. 
 
 Mk. xiv.66-68rt. 
 
 him. Verily I say unto 
 tliee, Tliat this day, 
 even in this niglit, ln;- 
 f ore the cockcrow twice, 
 thou shalt deny me 
 thrice. 
 
 But he spake the 
 more vehemently. If I 
 should die witii Thee, 1 
 will not deny Tiiee in 
 anywise. Likewise also 
 said they all. 
 
 First Denial at Entrance 
 Door 
 
 And Simon Peter 
 followed Jesus, and so 
 did another discijile : 
 that disciple was known 
 unto tlie higli piicst, 
 and went in with Jesus 
 into the palace of the 
 high priest. 
 
 But Peter stood at 
 the door without. Tlien 
 went out that other dis- 
 ciple, which was known 
 unto the high priest, 
 and spake unto her tliat 
 kept the door, and 
 brought in Peter. 
 
 Then saiththedamscl 
 that kept the door unto 
 Peter, Art not tliou also 
 one of this man's dis- 
 ciples ? He saith, I am 
 not. 
 
 Second Denial to a cer- 
 tain Maid, " Womaii, 
 I know Him not " 
 
 Now Peter sat witli- 
 out in the palace : and 
 a damsel came unto 
 him, saying, Tiiou also 
 wast with Jesus of 
 Galilee. 
 
 But he denied before 
 them all, saying, I know- 
 not what thou sayest. 
 
 And as Peter was 
 beneath in the palace, 
 there cometh one of 
 the maids of the iiigh 
 priest ; 
 
 And when she saw 
 Peter warming himself, 
 she looked upon him 
 
•rz_ 
 
 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 
 
 Lk. xxii. 55-57. 
 
 Jn. xviii. 25. 
 
 Lk. xxii. 58. 
 
 .III. xviii. 26, 27a. 
 
 .In. xviii. 27i. 
 Alk. xiv. 68(!), 
 
 Mt. XX vi. 71, 72, 
 
 and said, And thou also 
 wast with Jesus ol' 
 Nazareth. 
 
 But he denied, say- 
 ing, I know not, neither 
 understand I what thou 
 sayest. 
 
 And when they had 
 kindled a fire in the 
 midst of the hall, and 
 were set down together, 
 Peter sat down among 
 them. 
 
 But a certain maid 
 beheld him as he sat by 
 the fire, and earnestly 
 looked upon him, and 
 said. This man was also 
 with Him. 
 
 And he denied Him, 
 saying, Woman, I know 
 Him not. 
 
 Third Denial, ' ' Man, 
 I am not " 
 
 And Simon Peter 
 stood and warmed him- 
 self. They said there- 
 fore unto him. Art thou 
 not also one of His dis- 
 ci^Dles ? He denied it, 
 and said, I am not. 
 
 And after a little 
 while, another saw him, 
 and said, Thou art also 
 of them. And Peter 
 said, Man, I am not. 
 
 Fourth Denial to Mai- 
 
 chus's Kinsman 
 
 One of the servants of 
 
 the high priest, being 
 
 his kinsman whose ear 
 
 Peter cut ofi", saith, Did 
 
 not I see thee in the 
 
 garden with Him ? 
 
 Peter then denied 
 
 The First Cock-Croio 
 And immediately the 
 
 cock crew. 
 
 And he went out into 
 
 the porch : and the cock 
 
 crew. 
 
 Fifth Denial to a Maid 
 
 in the Porch 
 
 And when he was 
 
 gone out into the porch, 
 
 another maid saw him, 
 
 Mk. xiv. 69. 
 
 Mt.xxvi. 73, 74. 
 
 Mk. xiv. 70, 71. 
 
 Lk. xxii. 59, 60. 
 
 Mt. xxvi. 74. 
 
 Mk. xiv. 72. 
 
 and said unto them that 
 were there. This fellow 
 was also with Jesus of 
 Nazareth. 
 
 And again he denied 
 with an oath, I do not 
 know the man. 
 
 And a maid saw him 
 again, and began to say 
 to them that stood by, 
 This is one of them. 
 
 And he denied it 
 again. 
 
 Sixth Denial ivith Curs- 
 ing and Swearing 
 
 And after a while 
 came unto him they that 
 had stood by, and said 
 to Peter, Surely thou 
 also art one of them ; 
 for thy speech bewray- 
 eth thee. 
 
 Then began he to 
 curse and to swear, say- 
 ing, I know not the 
 man. 
 
 And he denied it 
 again. And a little 
 after they that stood 
 by said again to Peter, 
 Surely thou art one 
 of them : for thou art 
 a Galilfean, and thy 
 speech agreeth thereto. 
 
 But he began to curse 
 and to swear, saying, I 
 know not this man of 
 whom ye speak. 
 
 And about the space 
 of one hour after, 
 another confidently 
 atWrmed, saying, Of a 
 truth this fellow also 
 was with Him ; for he 
 is a Galil.a^an. 
 
 And Peter .said, Man, 
 I know not what thou 
 sayest. 
 
 The Second CocJc-Croiv 
 
 Then began to curse 
 and to swear, saying, I 
 knownottheman. And 
 immediately the cock 
 crew. 
 
 And the second time 
 the cock crew. And 
 Peter called to mind 
 the word that Jesus 
 said unto him, Before 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 
 
 the cock crow twice, 
 thou shalt deny me 
 thrice. And when he 
 tliought thereon, he 
 wept. 
 Lk. xxii. 60, 61. And immediately, 
 while he yet s[iake, 
 the cock crew. 
 
 And the Lord turned, 
 and looked upon Peter. 
 And Peter remembered 
 the word of the Lord, 
 how He had said unto 
 him. Before the cock 
 crow, thou shalt deny 
 me tlirice. 
 
 Here St. John's and St. Matthew's narratives do not touch 
 each other at a single point. 
 
 St. John records a first prediction, three denials, and the 
 fulfilment of an appointed signal. 
 
 St. Matthew records a second prediction, three denials, all 
 different from those recorded by St. John, and the fulfilment 
 of an appointed signal, also different from tliat mentioned by 
 St. John. 
 
 Thus, if the Gospels of St. John and St. Matthew had 
 stood alone, there would have been no room for doubt that 
 there were two separate predictions, and, unless standing and 
 sitting meant the same thing, six separate denials. At tlie 
 same time, as only one signal is mentioned, we should naturally 
 have assumed that the cock-crowing recorded after the three 
 denials mentioned by St. John was identical with the cock- 
 crowing recorded after the three denials mentioned by St. 
 Matthew. 
 
 St. Mark's narrative makes two distinct additions to St. 
 Matthew's record — 
 
 1. He not only gives the full text of the second prediction 
 as spoken on the way to Gethsemane, but he repeats the same 
 version of it in connection with the final denial ; and 
 
 2. He not only mentions both a first and second cock-crow, 
 but he records the first cock-crow ui a manner which clearly 
 identifies it with the cock-crow also recorded by St. John. 
 
 Thus, St. Mark's two additions, slight as they are, at once 
 serve to remove the only difficulty which a comparison of St. 
 John's and St. Matthew's record would tend to suggest. 
 
 The explanatory effect of St. Luke's record turns entirely 
 on the extent to which it enables us — 
 
 1. To identify the first prediction as recorded by St. John; 
 
 2. To identify the different denials as recorded respectively 
 by St. John and St. Matthew ; and, 
 
 3. To account for the apparent insufficiency of the time 
 
74 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 
 
 which St. Matthew's narrative would seem to allow for the 
 last two denials recorded by St. John. 
 
 St. Luke's testimony clearly supports St. John's as to the 
 terms and the time of the first prediction. 
 
 We have next to see how St. Luke enables us to identify 
 the different denials. 
 
 Apart from his testmiony there would have appeared to 
 have been strong reason for supposing that what we may term 
 the two fireside denials were only different versions of the 
 same incident. 
 
 St. Luke furnishes three reasons why this could not be so. 
 
 1. He records both incidents. 
 
 2. He strongly emphasises the fact omitted by St. Matthew, 
 but mentioned by St. Mark, that the first fireside denial was 
 spoken by St. Peter whilst sitting by the fire, whereas the 
 fireside denial recorded by St. John took place when he was 
 standing. 
 
 3. He shows that whilst the first fireside denial was ad- 
 dressed to a woman, the second was addressed to a man — the 
 denial in one case being, " Woman, I know him not," and in 
 the other, "Man, I am not." 
 
 Again, we have to observe how St. Luke disposes of the 
 merely apparent difficulty of there not having been tune to 
 allow for all that is recorded. 
 
 The narratives of St. Matthew, and to a less extent that of 
 St. Mark, seem to imply that the fifth and sixth denials fol- 
 lowed almost immediately upon the first fireside denial. The 
 last two denials especially are closely linked together by the 
 note of time, " after a little while." 
 
 St. Luke transfers this note of time to the second fireside 
 denial, i.e. the third denial in all ; whilst in his account of the 
 sixth denial he substitutes for it the more express note of 
 time, " after the space of about an hour." 
 
 Thus he not only indicates the quick succession of the two 
 fireside denials in the same way that St. Matthew and St. 
 Mark indicate the quick succession of the last two denials, but 
 he leaves the space of one hour for the fourth denial (i.e. the 
 last mentioned by St. John), for the incident of the first cock- 
 crowing, for the closely-connected fifth and sixth denials, and 
 for the second cock-crowing. 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 75 
 
 If we had to select any one concrete example of the extent 
 to which the Gospel record is simplified by placing St. John's 
 narrative first, and recognising the manner in which the main 
 history is divided between St. John and St. Matthew, we could 
 not, I think, possibly select a better than that which the above 
 narrative affords. 
 
 The division of subject between St. John and St. IMatthew 
 is of the most complete kind. They give not only ditl'erent 
 predictions, but different denials. St. Mark and St. Luke 
 simply explain the Apostolic records. 
 
 V. TRIAL BEFORE PILATE. (FIRST PART.) 
 Jn. xviii. 28-38. Mt. xxvii. 1, 2. Mk. xv. 1-5. Lk. xxiii. 1-12 
 
 St. John alone gives all the main facts of the history. 
 
 St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke all make the same 
 brief reference to a portion of a conversation between Jesus 
 and Pilate, which St. John gives at length. 
 
 Otherwise St. Matthew and St. Mark merely tell of the 
 conduct of the chief priests and elders, and of Pilate's surprise 
 at Jesus refusing to answer them. 
 
 St. Luke gives particulars («) of the first and more formal 
 accusation otherwise alluded to only by St. John, and (h) of 
 the more tumultuous accusations otherwise only briefly alluded 
 to by St. Matthew and St. ]\Iark. In the latter case he gives 
 the key to the conduct of Pilate m sending Jesus to Herod, 
 an incident which he alone relates. 
 
 It will thus be seen that although Pilate's conduct forms a 
 connecting link between St. John's and the other narratives, 
 the latter are not only incomparably briefer than St. John's, 
 and in every sense supplementary, but they are as nearly as 
 possible independent of St. John's record. Apart from Pilate, 
 Jesus Himself is the main suliject of St. John's narrative, whilst 
 the chief priests and elders, the multitude, and finally, in the 
 case of St. Luke, Herod, are the main subjects of the other 
 historians. 
 
 As usual, St. Luke is silent as to matters related by tlie 
 other Evangelists, but finds fresh details of singular import- 
 ance to record. 
 
7 6 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 
 
 At the same time, where an explanatory purpose can be 
 served, he does not fail partly to repeat and partly to supple- 
 ment St. John's narrative. 
 
 VI. TRIAL BEFORE PILATE. (SECOND PART.) 
 Jn. xviii. 39-xix. 16. Mt. xxvii. 15-31. Mk. xv. 6-20. Lk. xxiii. 13-25 
 
 St. John alone relates — 
 
 1. Pilate's statement about the custom of release, i.e. the 
 statement to which all the details given by the other Evan- 
 gelists are supplementary. 
 
 2. The summary which the Synoptists expand, " now 
 Barabbas was a robber." 
 
 3. The scourging of Jesus in its historical connection. 
 
 4. Pilate's conversations with Jesus. 
 
 5. The stages by which Pilate was at last brought to give 
 in to the popular clamour. 
 
 St. Matthew gives particulars as to (a) the custom of 
 release ; (&) Pilate's controversy with the chief priests ; (c) 
 the motives which influenced the chief priests ; (d) the 
 conduct of Pilate's wife ; (e) Pilate's handwashing ; and (/) 
 the imprecation of the people, " His blood be upon us and our 
 children." 
 
 St. Mark gives details as to (a) Barabbas ; (i) the scene of 
 the mockery, and (c) Pilate's motives for yielding to the people. 
 
 St. Luke, conspicuously ignoring both facts and details 
 recorded by his co-historians, again gives just that information 
 which was required to enable us to form the other narratives 
 into a complete whole. 
 
 Thus he alone tells (a) of Pilate's reassembling the Jews 
 after the trial before Herod, so explaining St. Matthew's 
 " when, therefore, they were gathered together " ; (b) of 
 Pilate's verdict and his reference to that of Herod ; (c) of his 
 determination to chastise Jesus and release Hun ; (d) of the 
 second occasion on which he announced the same intention, and 
 (e) of the judicial character of the sentence finally acted upon. 
 
 Without St. Luke's narrative it would be impossible to see 
 how the other narratives fitted in to each other, or what 
 really was the course which events took. With it everything 
 is perfectly plain. 
 
AVHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 77 
 
 This is specially the case with regard to the double notice 
 of Pilate's declaration of his intention to chastise and release 
 Jesus. Without these notices, we should be wholly \nial)le 
 to reconcile St. John's record of the scourging with the later 
 allusion to it made by St. Matthew and St. Mark. 
 
 We naturally ask, Why did not St. Matthew and St. Mark 
 mention the scourging in its historical connection ? 
 
 The obvious answer appears to be — 
 
 The scourging was an integral part of tlie death sentence. 
 Thus in greatly abbreviated narratives they are naturally 
 mentioned together. Had the scoui'ging been mentioneil in 
 its order, it would have necessitated the recital of all that we 
 learn from St. John's record. There we see that the fixed 
 idea in Pilate's mind was to make the punishment of scourg- 
 ing serve as a compromise between the sentence of acquittal, 
 which he would have preferred, and the death sentence 
 demanded by the Jews. 
 
 The reader is asked to note especially— 
 
 1. That St, John alone relates the whole of Pilate's 
 private examination of Jesus, i.e. the whole of what really 
 constituted " the trial." 
 
 2. That the other Evangelists only show their acquaintance 
 with the circumstances of this trial by the reference which 
 they make in identical language to the two questions, " Art 
 thou the King of the Jews ? " and " Art thou a King then ? " 
 Each of the Synoptists combme and abbreviate the two parts 
 of St. John's record in absolutely identical language. They 
 all combine the first question with the beginning of the 
 answer to the second question. 
 
 3. That the Synoptists' narratives all alike deal, not with 
 tlie trial itself, but with the incidents which directly or 
 indirectly were the result of the trial. 
 
 VII. THE PARTING OF .lESUS GAKMENTS 
 
 Jii. xix. 23, 24. Matt, xxvii. .35. Mk. xv. 24. Lk. xxiii. 34 
 
 From its very brevity this narrative affords a singularly 
 crucial test of the statement of modern criticism, tliat St. 
 John's Gospel is " the supplement of the three." 
 
7 8 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 
 
 St. John alone tells us — 
 
 (a) Who were the actors m the scene. 
 
 (&) How many of them there were. 
 
 (c) Of the manner in which the garments were prepared 
 for division. 
 
 (d) Of the reason for castmg lots, viz. : because the 
 addition of the coat made one set of garments more valuable 
 than either of the other sets ; and 
 
 (e) Of the designed fulfilment of Scripture. 
 Two points are especially noticeable. 
 
 1. It seems inconceivable that, save by design, three 
 separate writers could all abbreviate such a narrative as St. 
 John gives in precisely the same manner, and practically in 
 identical language. 
 
 2. Neither of the Synoptic narratives apart from St. John's 
 record would convey the faintest conception of the various 
 circumstances which took place. Yet read in the light of 
 his record, and as the briefest of abbreviations, they are seen 
 to be minutely correct. 
 
 It would be quite conceivable that one writer should have 
 made a brief allusion to the episode, and that a second writer 
 should have supplemented his record by a full account of it. 
 But we have to do with three writers, and with the fact that 
 both St. Mark and St. Luke, when St. John does not cover 
 the same ground, make a constant habit of supplementing and 
 expanding St. Matthew. 
 
 VIII. THE WRITING UPON THE CROSS 
 Jn. xix. 19-23. Matt, xxvii. 37. Mk. xv. 26. Lk. xxiii. 38 
 
 Jn. And Pilate wrote a title 
 
 also, and put it on the 
 
 cross. 
 Mt. And they set np over 
 
 His head His accusation, 
 
 written. 
 Mk. and Lk. And the superscription 
 
 of His accusation was 
 
 written over. 
 Jn. And there was written, 
 
 Mt. andLk. This is 
 ,Tii. and Mt. Jesus 
 J 11. Of Nazareth, 
 
 J 11. Mt. Mk. The King of the Jews, 
 and Lk. 
 
 Jn. This title then read 
 
 many of the Jews ; for 
 the place where Jesus 
 was crucified was nigh to 
 the city : and it was 
 written in Hebrew, and 
 Greek, and Latin. Then 
 said the chief priests of 
 the Jews to Pilate, Write 
 not, The King of the 
 Jews ; but that He said, 
 I am the King of the 
 Jews. Pilate answered. 
 What I have written I 
 have written. 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 79 
 
 All the inferences suggested by the constructive facts of 
 the last narrative equally apply to the present one. 
 St. John alone mentions — 
 
 (a) Who was the author of the superscription. 
 
 (b) The languages in which it was written. 
 
 (c) The offence which it caused ; and 
 
 (d) The remonstrance of the chief priests, and Pilate's 
 answer. 
 
 The facts as to the wording of the title exactly illustrate 
 the principle of narration everywhere else observed. 
 
 St. John gave the title with the omission of the words, 
 " This is." 
 
 St. Matthew supplied the omission, and left out what he 
 thought it unnecessary to repeat, viz. : the expression " of 
 Nazareth." 
 
 St. Mark abbreviates the title down to the point of 
 identification, repeating the fewest words possible. 
 
 St Luke merely reuitroduces and so confirms the " this 
 is " of St. Matthew, and otherwise hkewise repeats the fewest 
 words possible. 
 
 Thus all the elaborate explanations to which the wording of 
 the superscription has given rise are seen to be unnecessary. 
 
 Again, each of the Synoptists omits all the main incidents 
 which make up the superscription episode. 
 
 IX. THE BURIAL 
 Ju. xix. 38-42. Mt. xxvii. 57-61. Mk. xv. 42-47. Lk. xxii. 50-5G 
 
 St. John alone mentions — 
 
 (a) The important part which Nicodemus took in the 
 burial ; and 
 
 (h) The locality of the tomb. 
 
 Both these facts belong to the very framework of the 
 story. 
 
 Again, though St. John mentions butli how the spices were 
 provided and how they were used, the Synoptists all alike tell 
 only of their use. 
 
 In other words, St. John alone mentions the primary fact, 
 the other Evangelists the secondary. 
 
 It is clearly just the same prmciple of narration which we 
 
80 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 
 
 saw governing the record of the trial before Pilate, and 
 which leads St. John to relate both the cry " I thirst " and 
 its results, whilst each of the Synoptists alilce dwell only on 
 the results. 
 
 In these, as in a multitude of similar though less striking 
 instances, the Synoptists, unless they assumed the existence 
 of St. John's record, not only act in a manner wholly in- 
 explicable, but convey to their readers a singularly incomplete 
 and even an erroneous impression. 
 
 At the same time, the character of the incidents omitted, 
 no less than their close connection with what is related, 
 renders it wholly impossible to attribute this reticence to 
 want of knowledge. 
 
 St. Matthew, save for his mention of the rolling a stone 
 against the sepulchre, practically gives nothing more than an 
 abbreviation of certain parts of St. John's narrative. 
 
 St. Mark adds — 
 
 (a) An explanation of the term. The Preparation. 
 
 (h) Particulars about Joseph ; and 
 
 (c) Pilate's interview with the centurion. 
 
 Thus, whilst his usual omissions of parts of St. Matthew's 
 record are conspicuous only by their absence, his expansion of 
 that record is precisely of the character which everywhere 
 else distinguishes his Gospel. 
 
 St. Luke, as usual, expands St. Mark's expansion about 
 Joseph. But otherwise has no fresh information to give, 
 save that the company of women who followed to the tomb 
 was larger than would have been supposed from St. Matthew's 
 and St. Mark's narratives. 
 
 X. THE RESURRECTION 
 
 .Tn. XX., xxi. Mt. xxvii. 62-xxviii. 20. Mk. xvi. 1. Lk. xxiii. 56-xxiv. 53 
 
 Analysis 
 
 Mt. Oil the morrow, that is, 
 
 the sabbath, the chief 
 priests and Pharisees ob- 
 tain a guard from Pilate and 
 make the sejtulchre sure. 
 
 Lk. But the women who fol- 
 
 lowed Jesus from Galilee 
 rested according to the com- 
 mandment. 
 
 Mt. And in the afternoon of 
 
 the sabl)atli day, as it 
 began to draw on towards 
 the first day of the week, 
 Mary ilagdalene and the 
 other Mary visit the se- 
 pulchre. 
 Mk. And when the sabbath 
 
 was over, they and Salome 
 brought spices to anoint 
 Him. 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 
 
 fil 
 
 Mt. Now [some time before 
 
 morning] a great earth- 
 ([iiake took ])lace, and an 
 angel rolled away the stone, 
 and sat upon it. And for 
 fear the guards became as 
 dead men. 
 
 •hi. And while it was yet 
 
 dark Mary Magdalene comes 
 to tiie tomb. 
 
 Lk. At early dawn she is 
 
 joined by the women from 
 lialilee, bringing the spices 
 which they had i)repared ; 
 
 Mk. and after sunrise by Mary 
 
 the mother of James, and 
 Snlome. 
 
 Then while they are ask- 
 ing one another how they 
 can get the stone rolled 
 away, they look up and see 
 
 Jn. Jlk. Lk. that it has been rolled 
 away, 
 
 Lk. And they entered in, and 
 
 found not the body of Jesus. 
 And as they were perplexed 
 thereabout, behold, there 
 appeared over against them 
 two men ; 
 
 ]\Ik, one of them, a young 
 
 man, sitting on the right 
 side of the tomb, and ar- 
 rayed in a white robe, 
 
 Lk. and both in dazzling ap- 
 
 parel. 
 
 And as they were af- 
 frighted, 
 
 Mk. and amazed, 
 
 Lk. and bowed down their 
 
 faces to the earth, they said 
 unto them, 
 
 Mt. Fear not ye, 
 
 Mk. and be not amazed. 
 
 ]\It. and Mk. Ye seek Jesus, 
 
 i\lk. Tiie Xazarene, 
 
 Mt. and Jlk. which liath been cruci- 
 fied. 
 
 Lk. But wliy seek ye the liv- 
 
 ing among the dead ? 
 
 Mt. Mk. Lk. He is not liere, l)Ut is 
 risen, 
 
 Mt. even as He said. 
 
 Mt. and Mk. Behold the place where 
 the Lord lay. 
 
 Lk. Remember how He spake 
 
 unto you when He was yet 
 in Galilee, saying, that tlie 
 Son of man must lie deli- 
 vered up unto the hands 
 of sinful men, and be cruci- 
 fied, and the third day rise 
 again. 
 
 Mk. But go tell His disciples 
 
 and Peter, 
 
 i\lt. and Mk. he goeth before you into 
 Galilee, there shall ye see 
 Him, 
 
 Jlk. as he said unto you. 
 
 Mt. Lo, 1 have told you. 
 
 Mt. and Mk. and they went out and 
 fled from the tomb 
 
 Mt. With fear, 
 
 Mk. For trembling and aston- 
 
 ishment had come ujiini 
 them ; and they said no- 
 thing to any one, for tiiey 
 were afraid. 
 
 Lk. But when they remem- 
 
 bered Jesus' words, tliey 
 returned from the tomb, 
 
 Jit. and with great joy ran 
 
 to bring His disciples word ; 
 
 Lk. and told all these things 
 
 to the eleven, and to all the 
 rest. 
 
 Here St. John introduces into his picture one prominent 
 figure, St. Matthew two, St. JVIark three, St. Luke a conipan}-. 
 
 When St. John is placed last, these figures run two, three, 
 a company, one. All idea of design and development disap- 
 pears. 
 
 That St. Matthew's two include St. John's one, that St. 
 Mark's three include St. Mattliew's two, and that St. Luke's 
 company includes all the three mentioned l)y St. John, St. 
 Matthew, and St. Mark, is at least as manifest as it can be 
 without the fact being stated in so many words. 
 
 Whilst mentioning the women who came with Jesus out of 
 6 
 
82 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 
 
 Galilee, St. Luke is careful not to seem to throw doubt either 
 upon St. John's or St. Matthew's narratives. Both Mary 
 Magdalene and Mary the mother of James are specified by 
 name as forming part of the larger company of women of 
 which he has been speaking. 
 
 At the same time, he introduces a fresh and important 
 witness, Joanna, elsewhere described as the wife of Chuza, 
 Herod's steward. 
 
 Clearly, if St. Luke's intention were to extend the circle of 
 witnesses and yet not m any way to interfere with the other 
 narratives, he could not have accomplished his purpose more 
 successfully than he has done. 
 
 Precisely the same result is still further obtained by his 
 full record of Jesus' appearance to the two disciples — not 
 Apostles — on their way to Emmaus. 
 
 St. Luke's notices, (a) of Peter's visit to the tomb, and (h) 
 of Jesus' appearance to the assembled Apostles, both violate 
 his usual custom of not relating any incident otherwise only 
 mentioned by St. John. Both are explanatory and essentially 
 supplemental notices. So far as we can see there was only 
 one fact in connection with Peter's visit to the tomb as to 
 which St. John's fuller narrative would, in spite of its fulness, 
 necessarily convey a wrong impression, and, therefore, one 
 requiring to be corrected. From his account we should have 
 supposed that while he hunself saw "the Imen clothes lying" 
 and yet feared to enter, St. Peter entered boldly and at once, 
 and only after entering, saw what had failed to influence St. 
 John, But St. Luke tells us that before he entered, St. Peter 
 as well as St. John had stooped down and looked in, and seen 
 " the linen clothes by themselves." 
 
 That St. Luke should mention just this one point and 
 otherwise only so far allude to the wdiole episode as to make 
 this point clear, is just one of those sKght and incidental items 
 of the evidence which so continually corroborate the more 
 decisive evidences of the relation existing between St. Luke's 
 and St. John's narratives. 
 
 In St. Luke's record of Jesus' appearance to the assembled 
 Apostles the evidence is again of exactly the same character. 
 Everything found in St. John, but not absolutely necessary to 
 make his own additions intelligible, is wholly omitted. 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 83 
 
 That the additions of St. Luke make it clear that tlie 
 appearance was not a mere apparition is obvious. Not less 
 obvious is it that this was not only in itself an important fact 
 to establish, but one about which it is quite possible that an 
 erroneous impression was known to have existed before St. 
 Luke wrote. 
 
 We must now say a few words about the notes of time 
 marking the starting-point of the several narratives. They 
 stand thus : — 
 
 St. John — " On the first day of the week while it was yet 
 dark." 
 
 St. Matthew — " Late on the sabbath day, as it begun to 
 draw on toward the first day of the week." 
 
 St. Mark — (a) " And when the sabbath was passed," and 
 (5) " Very early on the first day of the week." 
 St. Luke — " At early dawn." 
 
 St. John's and St. Matthew's notes of times are wholly 
 distinct, and refer to two entirely separate visits to the tomb, 
 one made on the sabbath afternoon, the other made early the 
 following morning. 
 
 To place this fact wholly beyond doubt, St. ]\Iark tells us 
 what the same women did between the two visits. 
 
 There does not seem to be any room for doubt as to the 
 connection and contrast between the note of tune by which 
 St. Matthew introduces the visit of contemplation paid to tlie 
 tomb, and the note of time with which St. ]\Iark prefaces his 
 account of the way the women spent the evening of the same 
 day. 
 
 The visit of contemplation took place "late on tlie sabbatli 
 day as it began to draw on towards the first day of the 
 week," i.e. six o'clock in the evening. It therefore presumably 
 occupied the hours intervenhig between three or four and six 
 o'clock on the sabbath afternoon. 
 
 In the strictest and most obvious order of progression, St. 
 Mark tells us what happened " when the sabbath was passed." 
 The women who at the earlier time had been to visit the 
 tomb, at the later period, and as soon as the sabbath restric- 
 tions ceased to affect them, went and bought spices. 
 
 It is not a little remarkable that both the authors of the 
 Authorised and the Ke vised Versions should render St. 
 
84 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 
 
 Matthew's expression when used m Luke xxiii. 54, ''and the 
 sahbath dtxw on" and in Matt, xxviii. 1, "as it began to daivn 
 toivards the first day of the week." 
 
 To have said in St. Luke " the sabbath — i.e. six o'clock in 
 tlie evening — began to dawn," would have been impossible. 
 
 Why then make St. Matthew say that " it began to dawn " 
 towards six o'clock in the evening ? 
 
 The only possible result of so translatmg St. Matthew is to 
 gloss over an alleged mistake on his part, and to bring about 
 a sort of spurious and half-and-half harmony between his 
 statement and St. Mark's second note of time, which really 
 refers to an altogether different incident. 
 
 Clearly the whole difficulty arises from an assumption 
 that in spite of the highly-condensed character of his nar- 
 rative, the note of time prefixed by St. Matthew to the first of 
 a series of mcidents necessarily applies to them cdl, and that 
 merely because the same actors are spoken of throughout. 
 
 To go on to the events of the early morning. 
 
 St. Mark says that the two Marys and Salome came to the 
 tomb " very early, when the sun was risen." 
 
 To reconcile this with St. John's statement, that Mary 
 Magdalene arrived at the tomb " while it was yet dark," we 
 must suppose that she was the only one of the women whose 
 eagerness and anxiety brought her from her home at an 
 exceptionally early hour, that she was shortly joined by the 
 other women, and that it was only when the sun was risen 
 that, in common with them, she first perceived that the stone 
 was rolled away. 
 
 St. Luke's " at early dawn " seems to indicate a point of 
 time somewhat later than that mentioned by St. John and 
 somewhat earlier than that mentioned by St. Mark. If so, it 
 would, of course, indicate that Mary Magdalene was first 
 joined by the women from Galilee and almost immediately 
 afterwards by Mary the mother of James, and Salome. 
 
 Tt is obvious that so large a number of women coming from 
 diflerent quarters would not be likely to arrive altogether. 
 Nor can anything be more natural than the manner in whicli 
 they are represented as arriving — Mary coming first, the 
 larger company of women almost immediately afterwards, and 
 the other Mary and Salome arriving when it was very nearly 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 85 
 
 but not quite light enough to see that the stone was rolled 
 away. 
 
 What they did in the interval between theii- arrival and 
 their seeing that the stone was rolled away, St. Mark tells us 
 — they were discussing the question how they could obtain help 
 to deal with the stone, which from its " exceeding greatness " 
 would manifestly be beyond their powers to remove. 
 
 We pass on to consider the angelic appearances. 
 
 St. John mentions two angels seen by Mary, and described 
 as " sitting one at the head and one at the feet, where tlie 
 body of Jesus had lain." 
 
 St. Matthew mentions one angel only, viz. the Angel of the 
 Lord, who some time during the night had rolled away the 
 stone, and who at a subsequent period addressed the women 
 inside the tomb. 
 
 St. Mark mentions a young man sitting on the right side 
 of the tomb. 
 
 St. Luke mentions two men in dazzling apparel who 
 suddenly became visible to the women after they had entered 
 the tomb, and whilst their perplexity at not finding the body 
 was at its height. 
 
 Having regard to the usual relation between the four 
 narratives, there is a strong presumption that of the two 
 angels mentioned by St. John, St. Matthew mentions one, St. 
 Mark the other, and St. Luke both. 
 
 Nor is there anything in the Synoptic narratives to militate 
 against this presumption. On the contrary, everything con- 
 firms it. 
 
 As usual, the Synoptic records exactly fill up the gap left 
 by St. John's narrative, and, as usual, in all respects expand 
 and explam each other. 
 
 St. Matthew does not state that after sitting on the stone 
 the Angel of the Lord disappeared and subsequently re- 
 appeared inside the tomb ; but he clearly implies it by saying 
 tliat after he had addressed the women they " issued forth " 
 from the tomb,— an implication which St. Mark confirms l)y 
 using the same word in the same connection. Nor does the 
 wording of the address less clearly mdicate that the speaker 
 was speaking from the actual place where the body of Jesus 
 had lain. 
 
8 6 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 
 
 St. Mark, after telling how the women had acted before 
 entermg the tomb, describes the actual entrance, and at once 
 goes on to speak of the young man sitting at the right side of 
 the tomb. 
 
 St. Luke, after abbreviating the explanatory matter given 
 by St. Mark as to the entrance to the tomb, relates what 
 liappened after the women had entered and before any 
 ANGELIC APPEARANCE WAS VISIBLE. They were greatly per- 
 plexed at not finding the body as they expected. It was at 
 the very height of their perplexity that "two men in dazzling 
 apparel" suddenly appeared. 
 
 St. Luke does not say, as both the Authorised and Eevised 
 Versions make him say, that the two men " stood " before 
 them. He merely says that they " appeared." As apphed 
 to visions the word has no necessary reference to posture. 
 It is, in fact, the same word used to describe the appearance 
 of the angel to the shepherds of Bethlehem, with whom is 
 immediately associated a multitude of the heavenly host. 
 
 To represent St. Luke as saying that both angels were 
 " standing," when St. Mark says that one of them was " sit- 
 ting," is simply to introduce a contradiction which in the 
 original has no existence. 
 
 We must remember that the two angels mentioned by St. 
 John as seen by Mary Magdalene were sitting. The pre- 
 sumption is that the posture attributed to them by St. John 
 was the same that they had assumed at the earlier period 
 mentioned by the Synoptists. 
 
 That St. Luke mtends to identify the two speakers separately 
 mentioned by St. Matthew and St. Mark, is shown by his 
 attributing to both of them an address which, though as usual 
 it is partly abbreviated and partly expanded, is manifestly 
 the same address as that recorded alike by St. Matthew and 
 St. Mark. 
 
 As the result of the address, St. Matthew speaks of the 
 women being affected by " fear and great joy." 
 
 St. Mark enlarges upon the effect of the fear, and tells how 
 for a while it filled them with panic and rendered them 
 speechless. St. Luke, enlarging upon the state of mind whicli 
 succeeded this panic, tells how it was caused by the recollection 
 of the words which he alone quotes, and how it led them to 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 87 
 
 do what St. jMatthew says they did — run with great joy to 
 bring His disciples word. 
 
 To conclude — 
 
 It will be admitted that the best test of the correctness of 
 any theory as to the relation of the Gospels lies in the success 
 with which it can be applied to any parallel records present- 
 ing exceptional difficulties. 
 
 I submit that the composite history which the apjjlication 
 of our theory produces in the present case really leaves 
 nothing for the hostile critic to take exception to. 
 
 Here, as in the case of Peter's denials, the method of 
 nirration adopted by the Evangelists is, indeed, intensely 
 uiusual; but here as there the formation of a composite 
 nirrative is simply a matter of the most absolutely mechanical 
 amplication of rules established by innumerable precedents in 
 e^ery part of the Gospel history. 
 
CHAPTEE VII 
 
 SIXTEEN FOURFOLD STATEMENTS 
 
 The following analyses afford perfectly normal samples of tit 
 relation in which the Gospel narratives stand to each othe.-, 
 and of the way in which they invariably combine to foim a 
 composite history. 
 
 Can any one seriously contend that the Synoptic portiore 
 of these narratives could by any possibility be the result o? 
 the fossilisation of the mere driftwood, so to speak, of oral 
 tradition, or that the close connection everywhere observable 
 between them and St. John's Gospel could be the result of 
 accident ? 
 
 To comment upon each analysis separately would only 
 involve needless repetition. 
 
 Jn. vi. 2, 3. Mt. xiv. 13, 14. Mk. vi. 33, 34. Lk. ix. 11 
 
 Mt. 
 
 Mk. 
 
 And the jieople, 
 
 Mt. 
 
 Mk. 
 
 And He came forth and 
 
 Jn. 
 
 Lk. 
 
 a great multitude, 
 
 
 
 saw a great multitude, 
 
 Mk 
 
 
 saw them going, and 
 
 Lk. 
 
 
 and He welcomed them, 
 
 
 
 many knew them. 
 
 Mt. 
 
 Mk. 
 
 and He had compassion 
 
 Lk. 
 
 
 And perceiving it, 
 
 
 
 on them, 
 
 Jn. 
 
 Mt. Lk. 
 
 they followed them, 
 
 Mk 
 
 
 because they were as 
 
 Jn. 
 
 
 because they beheld the 
 signs wliich He did on them 
 that were sick ; 
 
 
 
 sheep not having a she])- 
 herd: and He began to teach 
 them many things, 
 
 Mk 
 
 
 and they ran there 
 
 Lk. 
 
 
 and spake to them of the 
 
 Mt. 
 
 Mk. 
 
 on foot 
 
 
 
 kingdom of God ; 
 
 Mt. 
 
 
 from all 
 
 Mt. 
 
 Lk. 
 
 and He healed 
 
 Mt. 
 
 Mk. 
 
 the cities, 
 
 Mt. 
 
 
 their sick, 
 
 Mk 
 
 
 and outwent them. 
 
 Lk. 
 
 
 theih that had need of 
 healing. 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 
 
 89 
 
 II 
 
 Jn 
 
 Mt. 
 Mk, 
 
 Lk. 
 Mt. 
 Lk. 
 Mt. 
 Jii. 
 
 Jn. vi. 4, 9. Mt. xiv. 15-18. 
 
 Now the Passover, the 
 feast of the Jews, was at 
 hand, 
 
 and when even was come, 
 
 and the day was now far 
 spent, 
 
 and began to wear away, 
 Mk. the disciples, 
 
 the twelve, 
 Mk. Lk. came unto Him. 
 
 Jesus therefore lifting up 
 His eyes and seeing that 
 a great multitude cometli 
 unto Him, saith unto 
 Philip, Whence are we 
 to buy bread, that these 
 may eat ? 
 
 And He said this to 
 prove him : for He Himself 
 knew what He would do. 
 
 Philip answered Him, 
 Two hundred pennyworth 
 of bread is not sufficient 
 for them, that every one 
 may take a little. 
 Mt. Mk. Lk. send the multitudes away 
 [Mk. send them] that 
 they may go into the 
 A-illages, 
 . Lk. and into the country 
 
 round about, and lodge, 
 Mk. Lk. and buy themselves food 
 [Mk. something to eat, 
 Lk. get victuals]. 
 Lk. For we are here 
 
 Mk 
 Lk. 
 Mt. 
 
 Mk. 
 
 vi. 
 
 Mt. 
 
 Uk 
 
 Mt. 
 
 
 Mk. 
 
 
 Mt. 
 
 
 Uk. 
 
 
 Mt. 
 
 Mk 
 
 Mt. 
 
 
 Mt. 
 
 Mk. 
 
 Mk. 
 
 
 Lk. 
 
 Lk. 
 
 Jn. 
 
 35-38. Lk. i.x. 12, 13 
 . Lk. in a desert place, 
 
 and the time is already 
 past, 
 
 and the day now far spent. 
 
 But Jesus 
 
 answered and 
 
 said unto them, 
 
 They have no need to go 
 away. 
 
 Give ye them to eat. 
 
 And they say unto Him, 
 Shall we go and buy two 
 hundred pennyweight of 
 bread, and give them to eat ? 
 
 And He saith unto them, 
 How many loaves have 
 ye ? Go and see. And 
 when they knew, 
 
 one of His disciples, An- 
 drew, Simon Peter's 
 brother, saith unto Him, 
 There is a lad here which 
 hath 
 
 Jn. 
 
 Mk. 
 
 Jn. 
 
 Jn. 
 
 Mk. 
 
 Lk. 
 
 Mt. 
 Lk. 
 
 Mt. 
 Lk. 
 
 I five 
 
 ) 
 
 barley 
 
 loaves and two fishes ; 
 
 we have no more excei)t 
 we should go and buy 
 food for all this people ; 
 
 Jn. but what are these 
 
 amongst so many ? 
 
 Mt. And He said. Bring them 
 
 hither unto me. 
 
 Ill 
 
 Jn. VI. 10. Mt. xiv. 19. 
 Jn. Jesus 
 
 Jn. Lk. said 
 
 Lk. unto His disciples, 
 
 Jn. Lk. Make the people [Lk. 
 
 them] sit down 
 Lk. in companies about fifty 
 
 each ; 
 Ju. and theydid so, and made 
 
 them all sit down. 
 
 Mk. 39, 40. 
 Jn. 
 
 Mt. 
 
 Mk. 
 Mt. Mk. 
 
 Lk. ix. 14, 15 
 
 Xow there was much 
 grass in the place. 
 
 [Thus, by means of the 
 disciples, Jesus] com- 
 manded the multitudes to 
 sit down 
 
 by companies on the 
 gi-een 
 
 Krass. 
 
 IV 
 Jn. vi. 10. Mt. xiv. 20. Mk. vi. 40, 44 
 
 Jn. Mk. So the men [Mk. they] Jn. Mt. Lk. 
 
 sat down Jn. Mt. 
 
 Mk. in ranks by hundreds and Mk. Lk 
 
 fifties. Mt. Mk. Lk. 
 
 Mt. Mk. And they that had eaten Mt. 
 
 Mk. the loaves 
 
 Jn. [were] in number 
 
 Lk. ix. 13 
 
 about 
 
 five thousand 
 
 men, 
 
 besides women and chil- 
 dren. 
 
90 
 
 AVHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 
 
 Jn. vi. 11. Mt. xiv. 19. Mk. vi. 41. Lk. ix. 15 
 
 ,Tn. 
 
 
 Jn. Mt. 
 
 \ 
 
 Mk. Lk. 
 
 s 
 
 Mt. Mk. 
 
 Lk. 
 
 J 11. Mt. 
 
 ) 
 
 Mk. Lk. 
 
 ^ 
 
 Mt. Mk. 
 
 Lk. 
 
 Mt. Mk. 
 
 Lk 
 
 Mk. Lk. 
 
 
 Mk. 
 
 
 Jii. 
 
 
 Jesus therefore 
 took 
 the five 
 loaves 
 
 and the two fislies, 
 
 and, looking up to 
 heaven, He blessed them, 
 
 and brake 
 
 the loaves. 
 
 And having given thanks, 
 He distributed to them that 
 were set down 
 
 Mt. Mk. Lk. [not personally, but] He 
 gave 
 
 Mt. the loaves 
 
 Mt. ]\Ik. Lk. to the disciples 
 
 Mk. Lk. to set before the multi- 
 
 tude [Mk. them] ; 
 
 Mt. and tlie disciples gave to 
 
 the multitude. 
 
 Jn. Likewise also of 
 
 Mk. the two 
 
 Jn. Mk. fishes, 
 
 Jn. as much as they would 
 
 Mk. divided He among them 
 
 all. 
 
 YI 
 
 Jn. vi. 12, 13. Mt. xiv. 20, 
 
 Mt. Mk. And all 
 
 Mt. ilk. Lk. did eat, 
 
 Lk. and all 
 
 Mt. Mk. Lk. were filled. 
 
 Jn. He saith unto His dis- 
 
 ciples. Gather up the 
 broken pieces which re- 
 main over, that nothing 
 be lost. So they gathered 
 them up, 
 
 Mt. Mk. Lk. and they took up 
 
 Mt. Lk. that which remained over 
 
 Mk. vi 
 
 42, 
 
 43. Lk. ix. 17 
 
 Lk. 
 
 
 to them 
 
 Mt. Mk. 
 
 Lk. 
 
 of the broken pieces. 
 
 Jn. 
 
 
 And they filled 
 
 Jn. Mt. 
 Mk. Lk. 
 
 j 
 
 twelve baskets 
 
 Mt. Mk. 
 
 
 full 
 
 Jn. 
 
 
 with broken pieces from 
 the five barley loaves 
 which remained over 
 nnto them that had 
 eaten, 
 
 Mk. 
 
 
 and also of the fishes. 
 
 YII 
 
 Jn. 
 
 Lk. 
 
 Mt. Mk. 
 Mt. Mk. 
 Mt. 
 
 i\lt. Mk. 
 Mk. Lk. 
 Lk. 
 
 Lk 
 
 Lk 
 
 ilt. Mk. Lk 
 
 Mt. Mk. 
 Mt. Mk. 
 
 ]\Ik. Lk. 
 
 Mt. Mk. 
 Mt. Mk. 
 
 Mt. 
 
 Jn. xii. 14, 15. Mt. xxi. 1-6. 
 
 And Jesus, having found 
 a young colt, sat thereon. 
 
 [And He found it in this 
 wise. ] 
 
 It came to pass 
 
 when they drew nigh 
 
 unto Jerusalem, 
 
 and came 
 
 unto Bethphage 
 
 and Bethany, 
 
 at the mount that is 
 called 
 
 the mount of Olives ; 
 then Jesus sent two dis- 
 ciples, saying 
 
 unto them. 
 
 Go your way into the 
 village that is over 
 against you. 
 
 In the which as ye enter 
 into it, 
 
 straightway 
 
 ye shall find 
 
 an ass tied, and 
 
 Mk. xi. 1-6. Lk. xix. 21-34 
 
 Lk. 
 
 Lk. 
 
 Mt. 
 
 Mk. 
 
 Lk. 
 
 a colt 
 
 Mk. 
 Mt. 
 
 Lk. 
 
 
 whereon no man ever yet 
 sat tied 
 with her. 
 
 Mt. 
 
 Mk. 
 
 Lk. 
 
 Loose 
 
 Mt. 
 
 
 
 them []\Ik. Lk. him] 
 
 Mt. 
 
 Mk. 
 
 Lk. 
 
 and bring 
 
 Mt. 
 
 
 
 them unto me [Mk. Lk, 
 bring him]. 
 
 Mt. 
 
 Mk. 
 
 Lk. 
 
 And if any one 
 
 Mt. 
 
 
 
 say ought unto you. 
 
 Mk. 
 
 Lk. 
 
 
 [and] ask you. Why do 
 ye loose him ? [Mk. say 
 unto you, Why do ye this ?] 
 
 Mt. 
 
 Mk. 
 
 Lk. 
 
 Ye shall say the Lord 
 hath need 
 
 Mt. 
 
 
 
 of them [Mk. Lk. of 
 him], 
 
 Mt. 
 
 Mk. 
 
 
 and straightway he will 
 send them [Mk. him] 
 
 Mk 
 
 
 
 back hither. 
 
 Mt. 
 
 
 
 And the disciples 
 
 Lk. 
 
 
 
 that were sent 
 
 Mk 
 
 Lk. 
 
 
 went away, and found 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 
 
 91 
 
 Mk. a colt tied at tlie door 
 
 without, ill the open 
 street, 
 Lk. even as He had said unto 
 
 them, 
 ilt. And they did even as 
 
 Jesus appointed them, 
 Mk. and they loose him. 
 
 Lk. And as they were loosing 
 
 the colt, 
 Mk. certain of them that stood 
 
 there said unto them, 
 What do ye loosing the 
 colt? 
 Lk. and the owner thereof 
 
 said unto them, Why loose 
 ye the colt ? 
 
 And they said unto them 
 even as Jesus had said, 
 The Lord hath need of 
 him. 
 
 And they let them go. 
 Lk. And they brought 
 
 Mk. 
 
 Lk. 
 
 Mk 
 
 
 Lk. 
 
 
 Mk. 
 
 
 Mt. 
 
 Mk. 
 
 
 Jn. 
 
 Jn. 
 
 Mt. 
 
 Mk. 
 
 Lk. 
 
 Lk. 
 
 Jn. 
 
 
 Mt. 
 
 Mk. 
 
 Lk. 
 
 
 Mt. 
 Mk 
 Mt. 
 
 Mk. 
 Lk. 
 Mk. 
 
 Lk 
 Lk 
 
 Jn. 
 
 Mt. 
 
 Mk. 
 
 Mk 
 
 
 
 Mt. 
 Mk. 
 Mt. 
 
 
 
 Mt. 
 Mk. 
 
 Mk. 
 
 
 VIII 
 
 Lk. 
 
 Mt. Mk. 
 
 i. 1, 2. Mt. xxvi. 30, 36. 
 And He came out 
 
 and went as He was wont 
 with His disciples over 
 
 the brook Kedron 
 
 unto the mount of Olives, 
 and His disciples also 
 
 followed Him. 
 
 Then cometh Jesus unto 
 
 a place 
 
 Mk. 
 
 Jn. 
 .Alt. 
 Jn. 
 
 Mk. 
 
 IX 
 
 Jn. 
 
 Mt. Mk 
 Mt. 
 
 xviii. 3. Mt. xxvi. 47. 
 
 Judas then, 
 
 one of the twelve, 
 
 having received the band 
 of soldiers and officers 
 from the chief priests and 
 the Pharisees, 
 Mt. Mk. cometh thither 
 
 with lanterns, and 
 torches, and weapons, 
 
 and with him 
 
 a great 
 
 Jn. Jit. Mk 
 Mt. Mk. 
 Jn. 
 
 Jn. 
 Jn. 
 
 Mk. xiv. 
 Mt. Mk. 
 
 Mk. 
 
 Mt. Mk. 
 Mk. 
 
 the ass and 
 
 the colt 
 
 unto Jesus, 
 
 and put on them their 
 garments [Mk. on him ; 
 Lk. upon the colt], 
 
 And He sat thereon [Lk. 
 they set Jesus thereon]. 
 
 Now this is come to jiass 
 that it might be fulfilled 
 which was spoken by the 
 prophet, 
 
 as it is written, 
 
 saying, 
 
 Fear not, daughter of 
 Zion [Mk. Tell ye the 
 daughter of Zion], 
 
 Behold thy King cometh 
 
 unto thee, meek and 
 riding upon an ass, and 
 upon a colt the foal of an 
 ass [Mt. sitting upon an 
 ass's colt]. 
 
 26, 32. Lk. xxii. 39, 40 
 where was a garden 
 named Gethsemane, 
 into which He entered, 
 Himself and His dis- 
 ciples. And Judas also, 
 which betrayed Him, knew 
 the place ; for Jesus oft- 
 times resorted thither with 
 His disciples. 
 
 43. Lk. xxii. 47 
 
 multitude, with swords 
 and staves, from the chief 
 priests, 
 
 and the scribes, 
 
 and the elders 
 
 of the people. 
 
 [Lk. l»ehold, a multi- 
 tude, and he that was called 
 Judas, one of the twelve, 
 went before them.] 
 
 Jn. 
 
 Jn. 
 Jn. 
 Jn. 
 Jit. Mk 
 
 Mk. 
 
 xviii. 5. Mt. xxvi. 48-50. 
 And Judas also, 
 Mt. Jlk. which betrayed Him, 
 
 was standing with them, 
 
 and had given them a sign, 
 
 saying. Whomsoever I shall 
 
 kiss, that is He, take Him, 
 
 and lead Him away 
 
 safely. 
 
 X 
 
 Mk. xiv. 44-46. Lk. xxii. 47, 48 
 
 Mt. Mk. And straightway he came 
 
 Lk. and drew near unto Jesus 
 
 to kiss Him. 
 Mt. Mk. And he said, Hail Rabl)i ! 
 
 and kissed Him. 
 Lk. But Jesus said unto him, 
 
 Judas, betrayest thou the 
 
 Son of Man with a kiss? 
 
92 
 
 WHAT TlilXK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 
 
 XI 
 
 Jn. xviii. 10, 11. Mt. xxvi. 
 
 Lk. And when they 
 
 were about Him saw 
 
 would follow, they 
 
 51-56 
 
 that 
 what 
 said. 
 
 Lord, shall we smite with 
 the sword ? 
 Mt. Mk. Lk. And behold one of them 
 Mt. that were with Jesus, 
 
 Mk. and stood by, 
 
 Jn. Simon Peter, having 
 
 Jn. Mt. Mk. a sword, 
 Mt. stretched out his hand 
 
 and drew it, 
 Mt. I and struck the high 
 
 Lk. \ priest's servant, and cut off 
 his 
 rieht 
 
 Mt. 
 Lk. 
 
 Jn. 
 
 Mk. 
 
 Jn. 
 Jn. 
 Mk, 
 Jn. 
 
 Lk. 
 
 J 11. Mt. 
 
 Mt. 
 Jn. 
 
 Mk. 
 Jn. 
 
 Mt. 
 
 Mt. 
 
 And the servant's name 
 was Malchus. 
 
 But Jesus answered and 
 said. Suffer yc thus far ; 
 and touched his ear, and 
 healed him. 
 
 Jesus therefore said unto 
 Peter, Put up the sword 
 
 again 
 
 into the sheath [Mt. its 
 place] : 
 
 for all they that take 
 the sword shall perish with 
 the sword. 
 
 The cup which the Father 
 hath given me, shall I not 
 drink it ? 
 
 Or thinkest thou that 
 I cannot beseech my 
 Father, and He shall 
 even now send me more 
 than twelve legions of 
 angels ? How then should 
 the Scriptures be ful- 
 
 Lk. 
 
 Mk. xiv. 47-52. Lk. xxii. 49-53 
 
 filled that thus it must 
 be? 
 Mt. In that hour 
 
 Mt. Mk. Lk. Jesus 
 Mk. answered 
 
 Mt. Mk. Lk. and said 
 Mt. to the multitudes 
 
 Lk. [and] to the chief priests 
 
 and captains of the tem- 
 ple, and elders, which 
 were come against Him, 
 
 Are ye come out as 
 against a robber, with 
 swords and staves 
 
 to seize me ? 
 
 when 
 
 I was 
 
 daily in the temple 
 
 with you, 
 
 [and] sat teaching, 
 
 ye took me not, 
 
 neither stretched ye 
 forth your hands against 
 me ; but this is your hour, 
 and the power of dark- 
 ness. 
 
 But all this is come to 
 pass that the Scriptures 
 [Mk. this is done] 
 
 of the prophets 
 
 might be fulfilled. 
 
 Then all the disciples 
 left Him and fled [Mk. they 
 all]. 
 Jlk. And a certain young 
 
 man followed with Him, 
 having a linen cloth cast 
 about him over his naked 
 body ; and they laid hold 
 of him, but he left the 
 linen cloth, and fled 
 naked. 
 
 Mt. Mk. Lk. 
 
 Mt. Mk. 
 Lk. 
 
 Mk. Lk. 
 Mt. ]Mk. 
 Lk. 
 Mt. 
 
 Mt. Mk. 
 Lk. 
 
 Mt. Mk. 
 
 Mt. 
 
 Mt. Mk. 
 Mt. Mk. 
 
 XII 
 
 Mt. Mk. 
 
 Lk. 
 
 Mt. 
 Mt. Jilk. 
 
 Jn. xviii. 28. Mt. xxvii. 1, 2 
 
 Now when morning was 
 come [Mk. straightway in 
 the morning], 
 
 as soon as it was day, 
 the assembly of the elders 
 of the people was gathered 
 together, both chief priests 
 and scribes, and they led 
 Him away into their 
 council ; 
 
 [and] all 
 
 the chief priests and 
 elders of the people, 
 
 Mk. XV. 
 
 1. Lk. xxii. 66-71 
 
 Mk. 
 
 and the scribes, and the 
 
 
 whole council, 
 
 Mt. Mk. 
 
 took counsel 
 
 Mt. 
 
 against Jesus to put Him 
 
 
 to death, 
 
 Lk. 
 
 saving, If Thou art the 
 
 
 Christ, tell us. But He 
 
 
 said unto them, If I tell 
 
 
 you, ye will not believe ; 
 
 
 and if I ask you, ye will 
 
 
 not answer. But from 
 
 
 henceforth shall the Son 
 
 
 of Man be seated at the 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 
 
 93 
 
 Mt. Mk. 
 
 right liaiid of the power 
 of God. And they all 
 said, Art Thou then the 
 Son of God ? And He 
 said unto them, Ye say 
 that I am. And they 
 said. What further need 
 have Ave of witness ? for 
 we ourselves have heard 
 from His own mouth. And 
 the whole company of them 
 rose up, 
 
 and they bound Him, 
 and led Him away 
 
 Jn. from Caiaphas into the 
 
 palace, 
 
 Mt. ilk. Lk. and delivered Him up 
 to [Lk. brought Him be- 
 fore] Pilate 
 
 Mt. the governor. 
 
 Jn. And it was early ; and 
 
 they themselves entered 
 not into the palace, that 
 they might not be de- 
 filed, but might eat the 
 Passover. 
 
 .In. 
 
 Mt. 
 
 Mt. Mk. 
 
 Jn. Mt. 
 iAlk. Lk. 
 Ju. 
 
 XIII 
 .Tn. xviii. 33-37. Mt. xxvii. 11. Mk. xv. 3. Lk. xxiii. 2, 3 
 
 Pilate therefore entered 
 again into the palace, and 
 called Jesus. 
 
 And Jesus stood before 
 the governor ; 
 Lk. and the governor asked 
 Him, 
 
 saying, Art Thou the 
 King of the Jews ? 
 
 Jesus answered, Sayest Jn. Mt. 
 thou this of tliyself, or Mk. Lk. i 
 did others tell it concern- Jn. 
 
 ing me ? Pilate answered. 
 Am I a Jew ? Thine own 
 nation and the chief priest 
 delivered Thee unto me : 
 what hast Thou done ? 
 Jesus answered, My king- 
 dom is not of this world : 
 
 if my kingdom were of 
 this world, then would 
 my servants tiglit, tliat 
 I should not be delivered 
 to the Jews ; but now is 
 my kingdom not from 
 hence. Pilate therefore 
 said unto Him, Art Thou 
 a king then ? 
 
 Jesus answered, Tiiou 
 sayest 
 
 that I am a King. To 
 this end have I been born, 
 and to this end am I 
 come into the world, that 
 I should bear witness unto 
 the truth. Every one tluit 
 is of the truth hearetli my 
 voice. 
 
 XIV 
 
 Jn. xix. 17. Mt. xxvii. 32. 
 
 Jn. And He went out, bear- 
 
 ing the cross for Himself. 
 
 Lk. And when they led Him 
 
 away, 
 
 Mt. as they came out they 
 
 found a man 
 
 Mt. .Mk. Lk. of Gyrene, Simon 
 
 Mt. by name, 
 
 Mk. passing by, 
 
 Mk. Lk. coming from the country, 
 
 Mk. XV. 21. Lk. xxiii. 26 
 
 Mk. tlie father of Alexander 
 
 and Rufus ; 
 Lk. and they laid liold on 
 
 liim, 
 Mt. ilk. and compelled him to go 
 
 with them. 
 Lk. And they laid on him the 
 
 cross, 
 ilt. ilk. Lk. that he might bear it 
 Lk. after Jesus. 
 
 XV 
 
 Jn. xix. 23, 24. Mt. xxvii. 33-36. Mk. xv. 22-26. Lk. xxiii. 34, 35 
 The present is only one of many instances of tlie Synoptists 
 
 giving a summary in almost identical language of an incident 
 
 fully recorded by St. John. 
 
 The evidential value of tliese instances cannot be exaggerated. 
 
94 
 
 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 
 
 The Synoptists do in these cases, on a small scale, just what they 
 do on a larger scale with regard to the history as a whole. They 
 all agree in adopting a method of narration which, apart from 
 the hypothesis of their presupposing the existence of St. John's 
 Gospel, would be wholly inexplicable. 
 
 In this, as in other instances, the cause of the action is found 
 only in St. John ; the action itself only in the Synoptists. 
 
 Ju. The soldiers therefore, 
 
 when tliey had crucitied 
 Jesus [Mt. And wlien they 
 had crucitied Him; Mk. 
 And they crucify Him ; 
 Lk. There they crucified 
 Him], took His garments, 
 and made four parts, to 
 every soldier a part ; and 
 also the coat. Xow tlic 
 coat was without seam, 
 
 Mt. Jlk 
 Mk. 
 
 Lk. 
 
 woven from the top 
 throughout. They said 
 therefore one to another. 
 Let us not rend it, but 
 cast lots for it, whose it 
 shall be. 
 
 And they parted His 
 garments among them, 
 casting lots 
 
 upon them what each 
 should take. 
 
 XVI 
 Jn. xix. 30. Mt. xxvii. 50. Mk. xv. 37. Lk. xxiii. 46 
 
 Jn. When Jesus therefore 
 
 had received the vinegar, 
 
 Mt. Mk. Lk. He cried again with a 
 loud voice, 
 
 Ju. and said, It is finished. 
 
 And He bowed His head 
 
 Lk. 
 
 Jn. Mt. } 
 Mk. Lk. \ 
 
 and said. Father, into 
 Tliy hands I commend my 
 spirit ; and having said 
 this, 
 
 He gave up His spirit. 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 
 HOW THE GOSPELS WERE PltODUCED 
 
 The first condition of all original investigation is, that the 
 student shall approach his subject with his mind wholly un- 
 biassed by any assun)ptions. No matter how apparently true, 
 nor how long and universally accepted his previously conceived 
 opinions may be, they must all be placed, so to speak, in the 
 dock and tried on the capital charge of misdirection. 
 
 But when, having once arrived at his own conclusions, the 
 student desires to expound them to others, he can hardly do 
 otherwise than reverse the process by which he has himself pro- 
 ceeded. Instead of working from evidence to conclusions, he 
 must state his conclusions, show how they combine into a 
 harmonious whole, and finally show how the evidence su])- 
 ports them. 
 
 Apart from such a process as this, it may well happen that 
 even the most perfect series of scientific inductions, especially 
 when opposed to more or less universally accepted opinions, 
 may appear hopelessly disconnected and incredible. 
 
 Acting on this principle, I shall endeavour in the present 
 chapter to state the general drift of the conclusions already 
 explained, and to show how they combine to form a history 
 of Gospel production which is not only eminently simple and 
 natural, but in the case of two of the writers, St. John and 
 St. Luke, strictly consistent with their own avowed object in 
 writing. 
 
 ST. John's gospel 
 
 St. John was indisputably the one Apostle best qualified 
 to be the first Evangelist. He had enjoyed our Lord's cou- 
 
96 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 
 
 fidence and affection to an extent which in itself must have 
 given him a perfectly unique position in the ApostoHc body. 
 More than this, at the very last Jesus had conferred upon him 
 an honour which, involving as it did the residence of Jesus' 
 mother in his house, would for some years at least be a 
 standing memorial, alike to the Apostles, to the outer circle 
 of disciples, and to the Jewish rulers and public, of the pre- 
 ference which his Master had shown to him, and the conse- 
 (juent priority which such preference necessarily implied. 
 
 Thus of those possessed of the primary qualifications for 
 writing a Gospel, St. John would stand owi facile princeps. 
 
 Hence, so far from requiring any explanation of St. John 
 being the first Evangelist, rather, if he were not the first, we 
 might fairly ask for a reason how it came to pass that any 
 other of the Apostles was preferred before him. 
 
 Let us try for a moment to conceive under what circum- 
 stances St. John may have undertaken to write his Gospel. 
 
 The only trustworthy guide which we have to help us to 
 such a conception is what is termed the Muratorian Fragment 
 or Canon, — a document which cannot be later than the end of 
 the second century, which may be much earlier, and which 
 has all the appearance of representing a tradition which had 
 already become time-honoured. 
 
 It runs thus — 
 
 " At the entreaty of his fellow-disciples and overseers, 
 John said, ' Fast with me for three days from this time, and 
 whatever shall be revealed to each of us, i.e. whether it be 
 favoura])le to my writuig or not, let us relate it to one 
 another.' On the same night it was revealed to Andrew, 
 one of the Apostles, that John should relate all things in his 
 own name, aided by the revision of all." 
 
 The circumstances which the Fragment suggests are these — 
 
 1. No previous record was in existence. 
 
 2. St. John was recognised as the one Apostle of all others 
 qualified to supply best the required record. 
 
 ?>. The original idea of the Apostolic body pointed to a 
 single document dealing with the whole history so far as it 
 then required to be written. 
 
 4. The feeling which operated with the Apostolic body was 
 that whatever St. John might write would be written by him 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 97 
 
 as the representative of the other disciples, and that they, l)y 
 their final recension of his work, would officially stamp it 
 with this representative character. 
 
 How much or how little of the graphic picture whicli 
 the above quotation calls up before our minds is true, we 
 have no means of judging. But one thing we do know — 
 
 If the first idea of the Apostolic body w^as— and this seems 
 highly probable — that St. John should be the sole and repre- 
 sentative historian of our Lord's life and ministry, he himself, 
 under whatever influence, saw fit to abandon this idea and to 
 place very distinct limits to his work. 
 
 The more we realise how much turns upon this avowed 
 limitation of his subject by St. John, the more we shall realise 
 the importance of giving their fullest significance to the two 
 following statements — • 
 
 I.John XX. 30, 31: "And many other signs truly did 
 Jesus in the presence of His disciples which are not written 
 in this book. But these are written that yc might believe that 
 Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God : and that believing, ye might 
 have life through His name." 
 
 2. John xxi. 25: "And there are also many other things 
 which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every- 
 one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the 
 books which should be written." 
 
 But the very observance of the limits thus indicated 
 necessarily compelled St. John to deal exclusively with the 
 most manifestly important side or aspect of the subject, and 
 that not only with regard to the history as a whole, but with 
 regard to all the more important ci'ises of the history. 
 
 Hence, however many writers might follow St. John, the 
 area of narration open to them was clearly and sharply 
 defined. No matter what part of the history St. John had 
 already dealt with, in that part they would necessarily find 
 themselves forestalled with regard to the very facts and 
 details which any independent historian would naturally most 
 desire to place on record. 
 
 Accordmg to the limitations which St. John imposed upon 
 
 himself, he proposed to relate (not " all the things " as stated 
 
 in the above " Fragment," but) only such facts as he considered 
 
 of primary importance in their bearing — {a) on the Divinity 
 
 7 
 
9 8 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 
 
 and Messiah ship of Jesus, and (h) on the basis of saving faith 
 which he wished his Gospel to afford. 
 
 St. John plainly recognised that a purely historical view of 
 our Lord's life would afford a vast and practically unlimited 
 scope to any possible writers of the future. But his language 
 seems to raise a strong presumption that he knew of no 
 document or documents, whether with or without authority, 
 \^■hich had already dealt with that aspect of the subject. Nor 
 would it seem that he himself, at the time of writing, antici- 
 pated that any further record, however interesting it might 
 be, would really be necessary — at least for the purposes 
 ■which he had himself in view. 
 
 It is quite clear that the facts best calculated to support 
 St. John's thesis, i.e. to prove the Divinity of our Lord and 
 to provide an adequate basis of faith, would all be facts of 
 primary and fundamental importance. Hence we are not 
 surprised tliat he everywhere gives, not only what are con- 
 fessedly the most important facts of the history as a whole, 
 but the most important details of those events with which he 
 deals in common with his co-historians. 
 
 Hence, of course, the problem — 
 
 Since the facts and details recorded by St. John were of 
 such manifestly fundamental importance, how is it possible 
 to conceive that, if St. Jolm wrote last, they should all have 
 l)een so systematically omitted, not by St. Matthew only, but 
 by St. Mark and St. Luke also. 
 
 But apart from the supreme importance of the facts and 
 details of facts which St. John alone relates, in three par- 
 ticulars especially his Gospel seems to possess the characteristics 
 which we should expect to belong to a first Gospel. 
 
 1. Large as St. John's omissions are, these omissions are 
 tkily accounted for. Hence, whilst its avowed incompleteness 
 has a manifest tendency to whet curiosity, if we may so speak, 
 it has no tendency whatever to create any false impression as 
 to the general bearings of the history. 
 
 Surely we may regard it as indisputable that the first 
 puljlished Gospel must have been calculated to stand alone as 
 a wholly self-contained document. 
 
 The above peculiarity of St. John's Gospel makes it fulfil 
 tliis condition. 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 99 
 
 On the other hand, no one will affirm that the same claim 
 can be made for either of the other Gospels. Apart from St. 
 John, they are not only incomplete, but their unexplained 
 incompleteness cannot but be singularly misleading, and render 
 them proportionally unsuited to stand alone. 
 
 Thus, while the ohligations of intelligent criticism compel us to 
 select one of the Gospels as the first published, St. John's is in- 
 disputably the only one which fulfils the primary condition of 
 priority, on the fulfilment of ivhich common sense naturally 
 insists. 
 
 2. " Beginning at Jerusalem " was the motto and watch- 
 word of the administrative policy of the Apostles. A first 
 (lospel which, without assigned or apparent reason, made the 
 very author of this motto himself conspicuously ignore it, 
 would be so untrue, alike to fact and to sentiment, as to be an 
 almost inconceivable anomaly. 
 
 That the Gospel, as represented by St. John, was inaugurated 
 at Jerusalem, and that it was grafted on to the law at the 
 chief Jewish festivals, are facts conspicuously in keeping with 
 all our Lord's teaching. 
 
 Hence, by dealing almost exclusively witli the Jerusalem 
 ministry and with the teaching of the Jewish festivals, St. 
 John seems to atiix the seal of priority to his own record, as 
 nuich as the other Evangelists, by omitting just these primary 
 aspects of their subject, affix to their records the seal of 
 posteriority to that of St. John. 
 
 8. That a first Gospel sliould meet certain obvious requu-e- 
 ments of the early Churcli appears to be a necessity of the 
 case. 
 
 For instance, the very manner in which at the last the 
 A})ostles had fled before the dangers which had confronted 
 them, must have made it a matter of peculiar importance that 
 some record should be available, not only of the way in which 
 their conduct had been foreseen by Christ, but of the fact 
 that in spite of this foreseen desertion they had, nevertheless, 
 so won His confidence as to have been formally appointed His 
 future representatives. 
 
 Again, in His more public teaching Jesus had scarcely 
 spoken of the gift and operation of the Holy Spirit. Unless, 
 therefore, the Apostles were to lie open to the charge of super- 
 
100 WHAT THINK YE OF THE CxOSPELS ? 
 
 adding cimningly devised fables of their own to the teaching 
 of their Master, it must clearly have been of the utmost 
 importance that our Lord's teaching on this point should once 
 for all and, as soon as possible, be placed on record. 
 
 So with regard to the cycle of appearances by which the 
 reality of the Eesurrection was attested, save for one or two 
 very partial repetitions by St. Mark and St. Luke, these are 
 given only by St. John. 
 
 In which Gospel, we may ask, was it so natural and necessary 
 that these should appear as in the first ? 
 
 What wonder, then, that all the evidence should point to 
 St. John's Gospel as the original and foundation title-deed 
 of the Church and the Christian faith ? 
 
 ST. MATTHEW S GOSPEL 
 
 The evidence does, I believe, prove that St. Matthew wrote 
 his Gospel next after and with special reference to the Gospel 
 of St. John. 
 
 We have seen that the avowedly limited scope of St. John's 
 Gospel necessarily involved his dealing both historically and 
 doctrinally with only a limited portion — practically with one 
 side only — of our Lord's life and mmistry. 
 
 Thus the very character of St. John's Gospel would of itself 
 suffcrest a further record, dealing with at least the more 
 important of the facts which represented the other side of the 
 suhject, and especially with our Lord's oral teaching on matters 
 of a less distinctly spiritual character. 
 
 But both the facts and the teaching recorded by St. John 
 were to a very large extent of a wholly private character, i.e. 
 known only to the disciples. Hence one overwhelmingly strong 
 reason for their being placed on record as soon as possible. 
 
 A moment's consideration will show that no special motive 
 for the earliest possible publication existed with regard to the 
 subjects of St. Matthew's Gospel. 
 
 Hence it would be quite natural that for some time, possibly 
 for some six or eight y^ars or even longer, St. John's Gospel 
 should have been held to meet all the actual necessities of the 
 case. 
 
 As, however, time passed, and the teaching of the infant 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 101 
 
 Church needed more and more to embrace the general outlme 
 of the whole of our Lord's ministry, the need for a supple- 
 mental Gospel, if only for public reading at Christian assemblies, 
 could hardly fail to be keenly felt. 
 
 That both the subject-matter and the structure of this 
 second Apostolic record should be systematically regulated by 
 and adapted to the first, is precisely what we should hn\e 
 expected. 
 
 That it is so regulated and adapted, and that together the two 
 records constitute a complete and exquisitely-balanced twofold 
 primary representation of Gospel facts and teaching, is found 
 to be a fact capable of the most certain demonstration. 
 
 It is obvious that supposing St. Matthew's Gospel to have 
 been thus adapted to a previously existing record, it must of 
 necessity have been conspicuously one-sided. 
 
 As no other reasonable explanation of this conspicuous and 
 universally recognised "one-sidedness" of St. Matthew's recorel 
 has ever been suggested, there seems to be an overwhelmingly 
 strong presumption that the only cause apparently adequate 
 to produce such a result, viz. the previous existence of St. 
 John's Gospel, must have been the real cause. 
 
 An objector may urge, "We grant that either St. Matthew's 
 Gospel must have been supplemental to St. John's, or St. 
 John's supplemental to St. Matthew's ; but as the latter is the 
 commonly received opinion, why should we reject it ? " 
 
 I answer that, apart from internal evidence, one proposition 
 is undoubtedly just as tenable as the other. All I maintain 
 is, that everywhere, in the history as a whole, in the parallel 
 sections, in the parallel incidents, and even in the parallel 
 verses, all the evidence without any exception points as con- 
 clusively as it does uniformly to the priority, not of St. 
 Matthew's, but of St. John's record. 
 
 One point to which I would here specially draw the 
 reader's attention is this :— Save for a limited number of 
 conspicuous repetitions, the Gospels of St. John and St. 
 Matthew are wholly independent and origmal documents. 
 
 It is true that many incidents recorded by St. John are 
 reintroduced by St. Matthew ; but such remtroductions involve 
 so exceedingly small an amount of actual verbal identity 
 between the narratives as to be wholly insufficient to detract 
 
102 WHAT -THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 
 
 appreciably from the originality — we will not- say of St. 
 Matthew, but — of whichever record was written first. 
 
 That such originality serves to give to the Apostolic'^Gos- 
 pels the greater weight always attaching to wholly original 
 and independent evidence, is simply a fact which cannot be 
 disputed. 
 
 That originality should be a special characteristic of the 
 Apostolic text of St. John and St. Matthew, is at least as con- 
 sonant with probability and the fitness of things as that the 
 non-Apostolic text of St. Mark and St. Luke should have the 
 derived authority of being conspicuously grafted on to an 
 Apostolic record. 
 
 One very conspicuous feature of St. Matthew's Gospel has 
 a manifestly important bearing upon its probable date. 
 
 St. Matthew everywhere writes for persons who were fully 
 cognisant of the general course of the events which he 
 relates. 
 
 For instance, his historical summaries, especially when 
 compared with his statement about Jesus dwelling at Caper- 
 naum, would have been wholly unintelligible to persons 
 altogether unacquainted with the general bearing of the 
 facts. 
 
 So with regard to his literary grouping of incidents 
 throughout the whole of the Galileean ministry, i.e. up to the 
 time of the Feeding of the Five Thousand. 
 
 Or to take a single matter of detail by way of illustration. 
 
 In giving an account of the trial before Pilate, St. Matthew 
 in the middle of his record, says : " Therefore when they 
 were gathered together" (xxvii. 17), but he says nothing about 
 the previous assembly having been broken up ; and it is only 
 St. Luke, writing for extra-Judaan readers, who sees the 
 necessity for mentioning what would have been so well known 
 to St. Matthew's readers, viz. the intermediate trial before 
 Herod, and the consequent adjournment for a time of the trial 
 before Pilate. 
 
 That as St. John's narrative fixes attention upon Jerusalem 
 and the teaching at the Jewish festivals, so St. Matthew's 
 fixes attention u23on Capernaum and the Galilsean teachmg, is, 
 of course, obvious to the most careless reader. 
 
 A more striking or a more consistently maintained division 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS? 103 
 
 of the history between the two writers could not well be 
 imagined. 
 
 ST. MARK S GOSPEL 
 
 With the exception of a few verses, St. Mark's Gospel does, 
 as a matter of unquestionable fact, consist entirely of reintro- 
 duced portions of St. Matthew's record. 
 
 It is, I submit, of the utmost conceivable importance that 
 this exceptionally remarkable fact should be kept constantly 
 and prominently before the mind of the student. 
 
 The evidence shows that these reintroduced portions 
 systematically exhibit the following peculiarities — 
 
 (a) To a certain uniform but limited extent they are related 
 in the very words of St. Matthew's record. 
 
 (b) They are systematically abridged in matters personal 
 to our Lord Himself, and as systematically expanded in matters 
 personal to subordinate actors, and in matters of circumstantial 
 and historical, and what may be termed ministerial, detail. 
 
 (c) In one exceptionally long section the order of chrono- 
 logical arrangement differs from, wliilst in all the others it 
 agrees with, that of St. Matthew. 
 
 Thus we have only to assume, as we are bound to assume, 
 that St. Mark intended to do just what he has done, and we 
 have a perfectly simple and intelligible reason for his Gospel 
 being just what it is and nothing else. 
 
 An objector may urge, " If you mean to imply that the 
 fact of St. Matthew having manifestly arranged a certain large 
 and important group of incidents imchronologically was the 
 main reason for St. Mark reintroducing and rearranCTino- 
 these incidents, why should not St. Mark have been contented 
 to deal only with those incidents which St. Matthew placed 
 out of order, and which therefore required rearranging ? 
 
 I answer — 
 
 1. That rearrangement was not the only or even the main 
 object of St. Mark's Gospel ; and 
 
 2. That the arrangement of St. Matthew's record being 
 partially chronological and partially nnchronological, it was 
 
 Just as necessary for St. Mark to shoio where St. Matthew has, as 
 lohere he had not, adojitcd a chronological sequence. 
 
104 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS? 
 
 That, as is very generally thought, St. Mark's Gospel may 
 have been primarily intended for foreign, and especially 
 Eoman, settlers in Palestine, seems at least highly probable. 
 The ordinary residents in the country would at least have had 
 such general knowledge of the main outline of our Lord's 
 ministry as would prevent their misunderstanding either St. 
 Matthew's arrangement of incidents or the periods included 
 in his brief summaries of events. 
 
 Not so new-comers into the country. For them St. Mark's 
 history would be in all its salient features just such an 
 explanatory supplement to St. Matthew's record as their 
 previous want of knowledge of its whole subject would require. 
 
 A current tradition preserved in an old manuscript of the 
 Gospels gives the time of St. Mark's writing as ten years after 
 the Ascension, and two years after the publication of St. 
 Matthew's Gospel. Some such date as this would seem to be 
 perfectly consistent both with the facts already stated and 
 with the general probabilities of the case. 
 
 That St. Mark's Gospel may have been published simul- 
 taneously with that of St. Matthew is, of course, possible. 
 The mere fact, which is indisputable, that it does constitute 
 a supplemental and explanatory appendix to St. Matthew's 
 history, implies that it was intended to serve this purpose ; 
 in which case there would be nothing improbable in its being 
 issued at the same time. 
 
 ST. LUKES GOSPEL 
 
 St. Luke's Preface must necessarily be regarded as the 
 designed key to his Gospel. 
 
 But it contains several expressions, as to the exact mean- 
 ing of which we have no certain information. 
 
 There can be only one way out of the difficulty in which 
 this want of information necessarily involves us. 
 
 The Preface is simply a promise of which the Gospel 
 which it introduces is the performance. 
 
 Hence, in order to ascertain what St. Luke promised to do, 
 we have only to ascertain what he has done. 
 
 Briefly stated, what St. Luke has done is this — 
 
 1. He sives an order of events which shows that St. 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 105 
 
 Mark's arrangement of these events was, and S. Matthew's 
 arrangement of them was not, designed to be ehronological. 
 
 2. In a particular portion of the history where, save by a 
 brief summary, neither St. Matthew nor St. Mark give the 
 historical side of St. John's narrative, he supplies that 
 side. 
 
 3. He everywhere gives supplementary information which 
 tends to explain the narratives of St. John, St. Matthew, and 
 St. Mark. 
 
 Eead in the light of what he has thus done, a very slightly 
 paraphrased translation of St. Luke's Preface would run as 
 follows — 
 
 " Forasmuch as many have attempted to construct a 
 harmony or fresh composite history concerning those things 
 which took place in our midst, even as they who from the 
 beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Gospel 
 recorded them in the official documents which they handed 
 over to us, it seemed good to me also, having traced the 
 course of all things accurately from the first, to write unto 
 thee in chronological sequence, most excellent Theophilus, 
 that thou mightest have additional assurance of the trust- 
 worthiness of the Gospels in which thou hast been in- 
 structed." 
 
 In order to verify this translation, what we have to do is 
 to show — 
 
 1. The circumstances which correspond with and explain 
 the cause to which St. Luke attributed his writing. 
 
 2. The connection which existed between those circum- 
 stances and the particular manner (chronological order) in 
 which he promises to write ; and 
 
 3. The extent to which his own method of writing serves 
 to re-estabhsh the asplaleia or trustworthiness of the other 
 three Gospels. 
 
 (1 and 2.) Supposing that the evidence should altogether 
 substantiate the accuracy of the account already given 
 of the relation in which St. John's, St. ]\Iatthew's, and St. 
 Mark's Gospels stand to each other, we have dealt sufficiently 
 for our present purpose with the first two of these pomts. 
 St. John and St. Matthew had provided what TertuUian 
 speaks of as " the genuine text of the xA^postolic Scriptures " ; 
 
106 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS? 
 
 whilst St. Mark had produced a supplemental and explanatoiy 
 edition of portions of St. Matthew's text. 
 
 At first, and especially when read by persons who were 
 brought into more or less direct contact with their authors, 
 these three records were sufficiently intelligible as they 
 stood. 
 
 But as time went on they had to be used by persons for 
 whom they were not primarily written, who had no such 
 special help for understanding their peculiarities, and who 
 had not even the general knowledge of the outline of our 
 Lord's history which residents in Palestine might faMy be 
 assumed to possess. In their case, the exceptional character 
 and mutual relation of the records would not unnaturally 
 create the particular difficulties and misconceptions, especially 
 with regard to the chronological order of events, which St. 
 Luke avows his intention of removing. 
 
 (3.) It remains to deal with the third point — the extent 
 to which St. Luke's record does serve to establish the trust- 
 worthiness of the other Gospels. 
 
 It may be admitted, and indeed it is an integral part of 
 our case, that at first sight St. Luke's chronological arrange- 
 ment of events does not agree with what we have given as 
 the promise of his Preface. On the contrary, in this matter 
 of chronological sequence, St. Luke seems to differ from St. 
 Mark almost as much as St. Mark often differs from St. 
 Matthew. Thus, instead of elucidating the other records in 
 this respect, St. Luke only makes them the more difficult to 
 understand. Instead of there being two Gospels exhibitmg 
 striking differences in the matter of historical order, when we 
 have added St. Luke's there are three. 
 
 Thus, as the result of adding St. Luke's Gospel, instead of 
 elucidation, we have only confusion worse confounded. 
 
 Obviously, then, we must either abandon our interpretation 
 of St. Luke's Preface as contrary to the facts of the case, or 
 else explain this apparent inconsistency between what St. 
 Luke promises to do and what apparently he has done. 
 
 Here again we have to go to our evidence. Happily this 
 is singularly decisive. 
 
 As already explained, two main central portions of St. 
 Luke's Gospel stand historically transposed. 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS? 107 
 
 As a consequence of this fact, we may adopt (ntlicr of two 
 alternatives. 
 
 We may accept the proof of designed or accidental dis- 
 placement, and place these portions on their revised order ; 
 
 Or, as the latter portion consists almost exclusively of 
 subject-matter peculiar to St. Luke, we may exclude this 
 portion from view, and so not allow it to interfere with the 
 relation in which, apart from it, St. Luke's Gospel invariably 
 stands to the other three Gospels. 
 
 Whichever course we prefer, the result will be the same. 
 
 We shall find — 
 
 (a) That in the matter of chronological sequence, the 
 agreement between St. Luke and St. Mark is perfect ; and 
 
 (b) That the manner in which St. Luke fills in the 
 successive gaps in St. John's record is so clear that he who 
 runs may read. 
 
 We thus at once show that what St. Luke promised in 
 his Preface he did in his Gospel, and what he did in liis 
 Gospel he promised in his Preface. 
 
 With the light thus thrown upon the whole subject we 
 can have little difficulty in expanding St. Luke's own state- 
 ments into a perfectly simple and natural account of the 
 origin of his Gospel. 
 
 It stands thus — 
 
 Either separately or on some special occasion, the three 
 first written Gospels had been formally and officially handed 
 over to the Church. They thus represented, and in fact 
 constituted, " the faith once for all delivered or handed over 
 to the saints." Parenthetically we observe that the expres- 
 sion " delivered or handed over " is the very expression used 
 by St. Luke in his Preface. It is also the same word which 
 is applied to the formal delivery of his own and St. John's 
 Gospel in the passage attributed to St. Matthew in the 
 Apostolic Constitutions. 
 
 Under such circumstances it would naturally happen that 
 these Gospels would at once have become the main subject of 
 the catechetical instruction of all those of whom Theophilus 
 may be taken as a type. 
 
 So long as the first three Gospels were used chiefly by the 
 " Churches of Juda?a," and were explained liy eatechists who 
 
108 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS? 
 
 had tliemselves been in constant intercourse with their 
 writers, there was no room for any niisuuderstandbig as to 
 the obviously unusual character of the Evangelists' methods 
 of dealing with their subject. But as time went on, and 
 these Gospels were not only used in places remote from the 
 actual scenes of the history, but by catechists and others who 
 had no special knowledge to guide them, there would 
 naturally arise a widely prevailmg desire to combine the 
 three authorised histories mto a single composite whole. 
 
 With this object in view, "many" (Luke i. 1) appear to 
 have attempted, m the case of these three Gospels, just what 
 for eighteen hundred years men have always been attempting 
 in the case of all four of them, i.e. to make out of them a 
 harmony — as St. Luke calls it an " anatax," or single com- 
 posite history. 
 
 In doing this, some would naturally have given preference 
 to the arrangement of St. Matthew, some to that of St. Mark, 
 whilst many would differ as to the exact manner in which 
 they made these histories fit into that of St. John. 
 
 Hence all three Gospels were to some extent discredited, 
 and, at least in the important matter of historical accuracy, 
 their perfect trustworthiness called in question. 
 
 To remedy this was, according to his Preface, the prmiary 
 object of St. Luke's Gospel. 
 
 THE COMPLETED RECORD 
 
 Let us suppose that of two historians, one has written a 
 history of England from a religious, the other from a political 
 point of view, and that in deahiig with certam matters com- 
 mon to both aspects of their sul)ject, each writer has, as far 
 as possible, treated them from the point of view which his 
 own history specially required. 
 
 The two histories would not he one whit more distinct than 
 the histories hearing the names of St. John and St. Matthew. 
 
 The suggestion that such historians, writing as above, had 
 written as they did by accident, or that either of them 
 showed ignorance by systematically ignoring what it was not 
 his province to relate, would be about the most grotesquely 
 foolish idea which could well be imaoined. 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS? 109 
 
 On what principle can we possibly say that it is not 
 equally foolish either to make the same assertion with regard 
 to St. John and St. Matthew, or to assert that what they 
 undoubtedly have done they did not do intentionally ? 
 
 But if we once recognise this relation between the Gospels 
 of St. John and St. Matthew, we have a basis of fact to go 
 upon which makes the relation of all four Gospels perfectly 
 simple. 
 
 St. John gives one side of the history, St. Mattliew gives 
 the other ; but the second side being less completely treated 
 than the first, naturally became the subject of further comple- 
 mentary records. 
 
CHAPTER IX 
 
 THE " CLAIMANT GOSPEL 
 
 The Gospel according to Syiiopticism and the Gospel in- 
 herited by the Church stand to each other in much the 
 same relation as the notorious " claimant " stood to the rightful 
 owner of the Tichborne name and estate. 
 
 To what extent and under what supposed necessity the 
 Church of this latter part of the nineteenth century has 
 already admitted this claim we need not stop to inquire. 
 
 That she has so far admitted it as to place her in the 
 wrong with the whole scientific world, and that this admission 
 has done more to undermine the faith, and to supply its adver- 
 saries with their most deadly weapons, than all other causes 
 put together, few persons will be found to deny. 
 
 Clearly the burden of proof — of making good its case in 
 every respect — rested with the claimant Gospel. 
 
 Such proof its supporters have hitherto entirely failed 
 to produce. They have neither shown on what grounds 
 the title of the inherited Gospel can be called in question, 
 nor have they made the slightest approach to proving any 
 superior claim on the part of its modern rival. 
 
 An American writer thus defines the difference between 
 the old and the new candidate for our suffrages. 
 
 Of the documents whicli represent the Church's inherit- 
 ance he says : — 
 
 " They were composed by the four authors whose names 
 tliey bear, who derived their information, two of them 
 innnediately and two of them mediately, from personal inter- 
 course with Jesus Christ during His ministry on earth." 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? Ill 
 
 Of the documents which represent the claimant Gospel 
 he says — 
 
 " The four Gospels had an ecclesiastical origin. They 
 sprang from oral teachings concerning Christ which were 
 current among the first Christian brotherhood, and were 
 gradually collected and combined by persons who are un- 
 known." 
 
 He then proceeds to state the following objections to this 
 latter and later view^ : — 
 
 1. It was not the view adopted by the Ancient Churcli, \\liich was 
 nearest in time to the composition of the Gospels. Tliat Ancient Church, 
 with an unanimity even greater, perhaps, than upon any of the ])urely 
 dogmatic questions that arose among them, belie\ed tliat the Gos])els liad 
 an Apostolical origin, not an ecclesiastical Eusebius first collected the 
 e\'idence of this fact, and it has been variously collected and restated 
 since then. The Apostolic Fathers knew nothing of a canonical and 
 connnonly accepted life of Christ composed of materials gathered from 
 oral legends current in the early Church. The apocryphal Gospels, which 
 were constructed in this way, they carefully distinguished from the 
 canonical, and rejected as not authoritative for the Church. Neither do 
 the sceptical and heretical writers of the first four centuries take any 
 different view of the origin of the Gospels. They ascribe them to the 
 four Evangelists. The efforts made to invalidate this united ojauidu 
 of the Ancient Church have ended in utter failure. 
 
 2. The Gospels do not wear the appearance of having been composed 
 of legendary materials, put together by a number of collectors and editors. 
 They read like the production of individual authors. Each Gospel has its 
 own marked and striking characteristics, indicative of an individual 
 
 MIND. 
 
 3. The Gospels are represented by their authors as remetiihered by 
 themselves, not as collected and received from others. See St. John ii. 
 22 ; xiv. 26 ; comp. St. John xii. 16, xv. 20, xvi. 4 ; St. Luke xxiv. 6 ; 
 Acts xi. 16 ; 2 St. Peter i. 16 ; Gal. i. 11, 12. The recollection by the 
 Twelve Apostles did not include all things said and done by our Lord, 
 but it did include (a) the events that were cardinal jjoints in the Redeemer's 
 life and career ; (b) those miracles that were connected with these events, 
 and (c) the most important of His discourses. In selecting, digesting, and 
 arranging the mateiials, the four Evangelists who acted for " the Twelve " 
 were under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit Avho had been 
 promised to the Apostles collectively by their Divine Lord (St. John xiv. 
 26). This Spirit does not make facsimiles. 
 
 4. The origin of the Gospels is not to be explained by the Church, 
 but the origin of the Church by the Gospels. The preacliing of the 
 Apostles made the first Christian brotherhood ; they could not, therefore, 
 have obtained the matter of their preaching from the brotherhood. It is 
 in the highest degree improbable that those twelve divinely inspired and 
 
112 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 
 
 authorised Apostles, upon whose accurate account of Jesus of Nazareth the 
 founding, progress, and jjerpetuity of the Christian religion, and the 
 eternal salvation of vast multitudes of human beings, absolutely depended, 
 would have left that account to be prepared at haphazard by their 
 converts, who not only had no inspiration or authority for the work, but 
 who had not " companied " with Christ in the days of His flesh, and could 
 not therefore draw from their recollections, and who as imperfectly 
 sanctified Christians were full of ignorance, and liable to misconception, 
 both of Christ and Christianity. 
 
 6. The composition of the Gospels would naturally have been prior to 
 that of the Epistles, because they were more needed in founding and 
 extending the Christian Church among the nations. The first Christian 
 brotherhood would have needed the Synoptist's account of the life of 
 Christ more than it would St. Paul's abstruse and analytical enunciation 
 of the Christian system in his Epistle to the Romans. But the date of 
 the Epistle is generally fixed as a.d. 58. It was plainly important that 
 the Gospels should l)e composed before the death of the Apostles should 
 make it impossible. The Apostles would naturally provide for the neces- 
 sities of the Church after their departure. Dr. Shedd thinks it is certain 
 that the Apostolic College, by the instrumentality of a part of their 
 number, prepared that threefold synoptical account of our Lord which 
 for nearly twenty centuries has been ascribed to Matthew, ]\Iark-Peter, 
 and Luke- Paul. Eusebius dates Matthew's Gospel, a.d. 41. 
 
 The unproven assumptions and almost innumerable hypotheses which 
 have characterised German schools of Biblical criticism since the time of 
 Semler, are due to the substitution of the ecclesiastical origin of the 
 Gospels for the Apostolic. There is indeed a difterence in spirit and 
 intention between the rationalistic and the evangelical critics who adopt 
 this theory ; but the fatal error of deriving the life of Christ from 
 unauthorised, uninspired, and largely unknown sources, cleaves to both 
 alike, so that the actual influence of the " evangelical " critic of this class 
 is unsettling upon the belief of the Church, though less so than that of 
 the rationalist. There will be no improvement in this class of exegetes 
 until there is a return to^the Apostolical origin of the Gospels.^ 
 
 Let IIS next consider for a moment, somewhat more in 
 detail, what the improlxtbilities are which the " unproven 
 assumptions and ahnost innumerable hypotheses " here 
 alluded to involve. 
 
 I will enumerate some of the most obvious of them. 
 
 1. It was improbable that the Apostles should neglect a 
 means of carrying on their work which the most ordinary 
 prudence and common sense would have suggested. They 
 were pittmg a new religion against established beliefs. They 
 
 1 The Thinker (Sept. 1893), from an article by Dr. W. G. T. Shedd, New 
 York. 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS? 113 
 
 were the only witnesses on whose testmiony the fundamental 
 facts and teaching of this religion rested. Merc second-hand 
 testimony, especially in distant countries, would have been 
 ridiculously inadequate to j^i'oducc conviction. Thus some means 
 of stating and verifying their own testmiony would, according 
 to all human experience, have been a necessity of then- position. 
 
 2. It was improbable that the Apostles should have made 
 use of written documents, as we know from the Acts they 
 did, ni minor matters, and yet should have neglected to make 
 use of them in matters of incomparably greater importance. 
 Thus, apart from proof of the fact, there is no more reason to 
 assume that they abstained from the natural use of their pens 
 than that they abstained from the use of their hands and eyes. 
 
 3. It was improbable that the Apostles should be insensible 
 to tlie fact that the evidential value of historical records 
 would necessarily be proportioned to the length of time which 
 elapsed between the happening of the events and the records 
 of such events being written. 
 
 4. It was improbal)le that the Apostles should have 
 neglected to prepare written records, when the need of them 
 must have been of the most urgent character, and yet have 
 prepared them when the urgency of such need had long 
 passed away. Had their work of evangelisation been lunited 
 to the country in which the main events of our Lord's life 
 were matters of notoriety, the common explanation of their 
 supposed delay in writing might be admissible. But it was 
 not so limited. Nor would the explanation apply at all to 
 the all-important and comparatively private teaching recorded 
 by St. John. 
 
 5. It was improbaljle that, if any exceptional, and under 
 the circumstances unnatural, means of equipphig catechists to 
 represent the Apostles was resorted to, no shigle reference to 
 such means should be found throughout the whole of the New 
 Testament. If nearly all extra-Judtean teachhig had depended 
 upon the memory of catechists, some allusion to the exercise and 
 cultivation of such a qualification would have been inevitable.^ 
 
 ^ In Mr. Wright's The. Comfodtion of the Gospels, it is assumed tliat the 
 labour of learning Gospel narrati\-es by heart was so great, that not even 
 St. Paul or St. Barnabas were personally qualitied to act as catechists 
 (p. 16). 
 
114 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS? 
 
 6. It was improbable that, if sufficient authoritative records 
 of all that Jesus did and taught were not in existence, St. 
 Paul and other New Testament writers would have system- 
 atically refrained from reciting some, at least, of the facts on 
 which theii' arguments altogether depended. 
 
 7. It was improbable that, if no recognised means of 
 acquiring a full knowledge of all that Jesus had done and 
 taught existed, St. Paul would have systematically insisted 
 upon his converts bemg " filled with a knowledge of His 
 will," and yet have afforded them no means of knowing what 
 that will was. 
 
 8. It was improbable that the Acts of the Apostles should 
 have represented a history of the operations of the Holy 
 Spirit, and that St. Paul's Epistles should so largely turn upon 
 the influences of the same Spirit, and yet that our Lord's 
 teaching on the subject of the Holy Spirit, as recorded by St. 
 John, should not have been in existence. Without a full know- 
 ledge of such teaching, the Acts and the Epistles would be 
 aUke unmtelligible. In this case, at least, the writers of the 
 Acts and of the Epistles would have been bound to give at 
 least some summary of St. John's teaching. 
 
 9. It was improbable that the Gospels, if they were pro- 
 duced at a late date and at different places, and were unsanc- 
 tioned by any central authority, should have been accepted 
 without controversy in all the Churches. 
 
 Their establishment side by side by Apostolic authority 
 would have been simple enough, if brought about, as Tertullian 
 asserts, when the various Churches were first founded. But 
 later on, when jealousy and party feeling were rife, no cause 
 adequate to produce such a result can even he suggested. 
 
 10. It was improbable that, if the Gospels were not 
 established " from the beginning," early Christian writers 
 should have quoted and relied upon them as they do, and yet 
 never have betrayed the smallest consciousness of their 
 authority having ever been a subject of dispute. Had they 
 been of late date, they could not have achieved the posi- 
 tion to which they attained without controversy, and that 
 early Christian literature must have shown traces of such 
 controversy. 
 
 Whatever may be said to any of these considerations taken 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS? 115 
 
 singly, it is certain tliat collectively they represent a mass of 
 improbabilities, i.e. of effects without apparent causes — the 
 acceptance of which, save on the most overwhelming evidence, 
 would imply a credulity as grotesque as it would be degrading. 
 
 On what evidence then does the present universal acceptance 
 of these improbabilities rest ? 
 
 It rests, I submit, not on evidence at all, but on a single 
 assumption, which, if correct, would naturally and necessarily 
 stand in place of it. 
 
 We have simply taken for granted that what may be termed 
 the Synoptic theory of the origin of the Gospels is beyond all 
 question correct. 
 
 A representative theologian (the Eev. G. H. Gwilliam, B.D., 
 Fellow of Hertford College, Oxford) writes : — 
 
 " Wc have heen taught, and have subsequently studied and 
 taught, from the standpoint, which ive have assumed to he the 
 one alo7ie tenaUe, that the Gospels are to be divided uito the 
 three and the one — the three Synoptists being in some way 
 related to one another (and here the theories have been many 
 and conflicting) and the one, St. John, the supplement of the 
 three" {Expository Times, A\)V\\ 1892, p. 313). 
 
 The whole case could not be more concisely or correctly stated. 
 
 The Synoptic theory is simply an assumption based upon 
 traditional teaching which has come down to us from a thne 
 when it was a matter of perfect indifference whether facts 
 were explamed naturally or supernaturally. 
 
 Speaking of the views embodied in the foregoing pages, Mr. 
 Gwilliam says: — 
 
 " If there be no real a jrriori objection to such an inter- 
 relation of the four sacred writers as Mr. Halcombe proposes, 
 then it must be admitted that a very good ease has been made 
 out for reversing the ordinary vietv of commentators." 
 
 Since this opinion was given, the editor of a leading critical 
 journal — The Expository Times— has written an article for the 
 especial purpose of proving that the Synoptic theory was 
 manifestly " a shortsighted and disastrous mistake," whilst 
 two other responsible critics have emphatically endorsed, and 
 given at length their reasons for endorsing, the view of the 
 case which Mr. Gwilliam had adopted. 
 
 The whole case is manifestly one in which the opinion of 
 
116 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 
 
 a single responsible critic, who has taken tlie trouble to go 
 into the evidence, may well outweigh the opmions of a whole 
 theatre of others who have confessedly been unable to over- 
 come the first prejudices of a not unnatural incredulity. 
 
 But for all practical purposes we may say that the matter 
 has been reported on by four independent and competent 
 referees, and that the decision arrived at has been practically 
 unanimous. 
 
 Up to the present time, in spite of these opinions and 
 the amount of attention which they have attracted, and in 
 spite also of the extent to which the whole Synoptic theory 
 strikes at the root of the authority and evidential value of the 
 Gospels, only one critic (the Eev. A. Wright, Fellow of Queen's 
 College, Cambridge) has been found to make the smallest 
 attempt to plead either in favour of the theory, or against 
 the indictment by which it has been challenged. 
 
 It can hardly be an accident that in three separate articles 
 Mr. Wright never makes the remotest allusion to the con- 
 tention that the evidential facts supplied by all four Gospels 
 certainly can, and therefore certainly ought to be included 
 in the same inquiry and analysis. This was the one question 
 at issue. 
 
 If only from the wholly unprovoked bitterness and per- 
 sonal discourtesy of Mr. Wright's articles, there is no room to 
 doubt that if he could have advanced any arguments against 
 this contention, he certainly would have done so. 
 
 Mr. Wright's summary of the case affords a striking illus- 
 tration of the logical chaos into which the conflicting claims 
 of evidence and prejudice may throw even an accomplished 
 disputant. He says : — • 
 
 " It is easy to construct a system. If you carefully analyse 
 and arrange the facts, leaving nothing out of consideration 
 and exaggerating nothing, it will be impossible to refute you. 
 The question is whether your system is natural, self-evident, 
 and capable of asserting its own truth, or a mass of improba- 
 bilities strung together in defiance of law and habit and 
 ascertained fact." 
 
 Mr. Wright might be quoting a ton mot culled from the 
 answers of some luckless examinee. 
 
 How can there be any " ascertained facts " which an 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 117 
 
 analysis, which " leaves out nothing," does not include ? And 
 how, if such facts be included in the analysis, can it be 
 "impossible to refute" the view which the analysis gives 
 of them ? 
 
 Again, how can any one seriously contend that in such a 
 case as the present, the final appeal lies, not to analysis, but to 
 what this or that person may regard as the probabilities of 
 the case ? 
 
 Clearly, if the first part of INIr. Wright's verdict lie correct, 
 the difficulties wliich he suggests in the way of its acceptance 
 must be purely unagmary. At the same time, they are 
 doubtless difficulties which any one first studying the subject 
 from an entirely fresh point of view might well feel. 
 
 I will therefore put them before the reader in the sunplest 
 possible form as objection and answer. 
 
 Objection 1. Though modern critics "are numerous, and 
 hold widely different views," the system proposed " groups 
 them together, and condemns them without distinction." 
 
 Ansiver. As universally held by all modern critics the 
 Synoptic theory, however little mtended as such, is unques- 
 tionably in the nature of an accusation against the authority 
 of the Gospels. 
 
 But from tune immemorial, when the witness of accusers 
 has not agreed together, the natural presumption has been 
 held to be, not that one of them must be correct, but that all 
 must be incorrect. 
 
 Objection 2. The Synoptists certainly contradict each other 
 in the matter of chronological arrangement. " The (question 
 is fundamental." 
 
 Ansiver. If the Gospels had a publisher behind them, and 
 if Mr. Wright made the statements wliich he does, and at 
 the same time wholly ignored the real facts of the case as 
 given by Professor Birks (see p. 23), his statements would 
 certainly recoil on his own head in the shape of the heaviest 
 damages which an indignant jury could award. 
 
 Objection 3. If the " constructive prmciples " which the 
 analysis would seem to establish requu-e that an Evangelist 
 should have written " in a way in which no man has ever 
 written before or since," we are entitled to suppose that the 
 '' constructive principles " are certainly wrong. 
 
118 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS ? 
 
 Ansiuer. If the analysis does not really establish the 
 " constructive prmciples," it must be possible to show how 
 and where it fails to do so. 
 
 But apart from this Mr. Wright forgets two facts — 
 
 («) That when the unusual is of perpetual recurrence — 
 and that it is so in the present case is abundantly proved — 
 the more unusual it is the more certain it becomes, that it 
 must be the result of design ; and — 
 
 (&) That inasmuch as all the Gospel phenomena are 
 intensely abnormal, to seek the explanation of such abnormal 
 effects in anything like normal causes must be a mere mid- 
 summer madness. 
 
 Objection 4. That the comparison of certain narratives in 
 the Gospels makes the idea of anything like a close adjust- 
 ment of the Gospels wholly untenable. 
 
 Answer. Even as compared with any single branch of 
 evidence, the area of investigation thus relied on is infinitesi- 
 mally small. At the same time, the question whether the 
 Evangelists had or not seen each other's writings is itself one 
 of the main points at issue. Until this point has been 
 decided the narratives in question cannot even be intelhgently 
 discussed. 
 
 Thus the area of investigation relied upon is not only 
 hopelessly inadequate in itself, but is just the very one which 
 ought in the first instance to be kept as much as possible in 
 the background. 
 
 Objection 5. The system implies that Inspiration " sets 
 aside the laws of human thought." 
 
 Answer. The system merely represents an exceptionally 
 wise and effective method of narration. Whilst all that the 
 carrying out of such a system required, was full knowledge, 
 extreme accuracy, and absolute truthfulness. 
 
 Any one who believes in Inspiration at all, may well 
 believe that so perfect a result as the evidence sets before us 
 may well be due to its influence. 
 
 But the system, or, more correctly speaking, the evidence, 
 does not in any other way presuppose Inspiration. It may 
 to many minds suggest it ; to some it may seem to prove it ; 
 but even so the effect would be, not to " set aside," but so to 
 regulate " the laws of human thought " as to bring them into 
 
WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS? 119 
 
 an unusually perfect harmony with what we may conceive of 
 the laws of Divine thouglit. 
 
 Mr. Wright Imnself says : — 
 
 " The theory of Inspiration which underlies the views 
 advocated in this paper may seem to some people subversive 
 of beHef." 
 
 No one would contradict this statement. But the real 
 difficulty seems to me to know what Mr. Wright can possibly 
 mean by Inspiration. An excess of accuracy seems to him 
 just as incompatible with it as what he holds to be an excess 
 of inaccuracy is compatible with it. 
 
 But we must turn for a moment to the side of the question 
 with which by far the greater part of Mr. Wright's articles 
 are directed, viz. his own view of a particular aspect of the 
 Synoptic theory. 
 
 Mr. Wright contends — 
 
 1. That St. Mark's Gospel was the basis of the Gospels of 
 St. Matthew and St. Luke. 
 
 2. That St. Mark obtained his facts from St. Peter, but did 
 not write them down till about forty }'ears after he had been 
 taught them. 
 
 o. That from the length of time during which his Gospel 
 thus existed in an oral form, it underwent very considerable 
 modifications. " The story was not merely told, but learnt by 
 heart, and frequently repeated." 
 
 4. That the Eastern and Western catechists " started with 
 St. Mark's version of St. Peter's memoirs (except that St. 
 Luke received about two-thirds of it only), and grafted into 
 it such additional records as they from time to time ob- 
 tained from St. Matthew or other sources. Both of them 
 unconsciously and gradually altered St. Mark's teaching, 
 not only by reducing its bulk, but Ijy modifying its state- 
 ments." 
 
 5. Mr. Wright " cannot doubt that St. Mattlicw would 
 have given much to include in his Gospel the Parable of tlie 
 Prodigal Son, or that St. Luke would have given still more 
 for the history of the Syrophoenician woman's daughter. . . . 
 He did not give it, because he had never heard of it. It 
 
120 WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS? 
 
 belongs to the last stage of St. Peter s memoirs, wJiich never 
 reached the West till the Gospels were written." 
 
 With all the realistic details as to the effects of committing 
 long passages to memory, the supposed action of catechists, the 
 " shrinkage " of St. Peter's original teaching, and the way in 
 which a semi-amalgamation between the Synoptic Gospels was 
 finally effected, I need not trouble the reader. 
 
 If the gravity of the subject did not forbid such an idea, we 
 might suppose that Mr. Wright was merely preparing to turn 
 round upon his readers, and to say that, had they possessed 
 the very smallest sense of humour, they must have known 
 that his whole conception of the case was merely intended as 
 a sort of theological rival to Alice in Wonderland and that 
 its sole object was to show the absurdities into which a 
 reliance upon a purely imaginative sense of fact would betray 
 us, and so to give the coup de grdce to the already moribund 
 theory of tradition. 
 
 But if to put forward such views as a jest would be 
 inadmissible, how far more so to promulgate them seriously ! 
 
 They cannot do otherwise than deal blows to the Gospels, 
 the effect of which must be to leave them in the eyes of many 
 wounded and half-dead. 
 
 Yet three things are certain — 
 
 1. Such views rest on no sort of evidence. 
 
 2. They are absolutely inconsistent with any one of the 
 various branches of evidence which they ought to satisfy ; and 
 
 3. No single sample of Gospel construction ever has been 
 or ever could be found wdiich they could possibly be made to 
 account for. 
 
 For eighteen centuries the Gospels have stood fast like the 
 mountains. Can any one seriously think that their time- 
 honoured title to our reve]:'end and unqualified acceptance can 
 ever be really endangered by any claimant Gospel of which 
 the above is counted as a favourable specimen ? 
 
APPENDIX I 
 
 121 
 
 w. 
 
 O 
 
 P 
 
 Ph 
 <1 
 
 Mark 
 and 
 Luke 
 
 only 
 
 OOOOOrHCNOOOOOCCD -f 
 
 Matt, 
 and 
 Luke 
 only 
 
 Or-ii>oOG^OOOOOOCO 
 
 o 
 
 Matt, 
 and 
 Mark 
 
 only 
 
 ooiC'inr-HTtijct— iTjo^-*cNi— 1 
 
 CD 
 
 Matt. 
 Mark, 
 Luke 
 only 
 
 
 
 II 
 
 3 C 
 
 OOOOOOOOOOOOCrH 
 
 I-H 
 
 John, 
 Matt. 
 Luke 
 only 
 
 oooooooooooooo 
 
 o 
 
 John, 
 Matt. 
 Mark 
 only 
 
 OOt-HOOO-^OOOr-fr-lOO 
 
 -t 
 
 John 
 and 
 
 Luke 
 only 
 
 OOOOOOOOOOf-tOOCO 
 
 "* 
 
 John 
 and 
 
 Mark 
 only 
 
 OOOOOOOOOOOOOrH 
 
 ^ 
 
 John 
 and 
 Matt, 
 only 
 
 OOOOOOOOOOOOOr-i 
 
 ^ 
 
 Common 
 to all 
 Four 
 
 Gospels 
 
 OOG^OOOi— lOr-iiCOxCCOi-H 
 
 CO 
 G-1 
 
 H 
 
 ■? 
 £ 
 
 I-H 1—1 I-H 
 
 
 6 
 
 f-HooG^iocMcoi-HQCicoicasTt^in 
 
 I-H O (Mi-H i-Hi-Hi-H I-H 
 
 cc 
 00 
 
 < 
 
 ^ 
 £ 
 
 .•Ot'OlO'Mi.tiOi-HOOOi-iOC 
 
 
 
 CCi-H ^T-H r— ^1-H ^ 
 
 r- 
 
 W 
 
 Eh 
 H 
 
 03 
 
 
 mcroo5Tj<r-i,-Hcoi>-xcj'*<y)CM 
 
 I— 1 d 1— 1 1-H T-H I-H 1-H 
 
 o 
 
 6 ic^oa5Tt<r— icooooMi.iOiC't 
 
 ^2) i-H COrH rH,-H r-rHG^ rH 
 
 00 
 
 w 
 o 
 
 
 OfMO-lfCi-HJCCOmi-HCOfyitOutt- 
 (M CM I-H 
 
 fM 
 
 C5 
 
 d 
 
 O(MOeCi-HC0>Oi0^QCC5.-HQ0-^ 
 tN (N ^ I-H ,— 1 
 
 00 
 
 f-H 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 Section I 
 
 III 
 
 V 
 
 VI 
 
 VII 
 
 „ VIII 
 
 IX 
 
 XI 
 
 XII 
 
 „ XIII 
 
 „ XIV 
 
122 
 
 APPENDIX II 
 
 I— I ^ 
 
 Mark 
 and 
 Luke 
 only 
 
 fC 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 -* 
 
 o 
 
 G^ 
 
 o 
 
 - 
 
 ^ 
 
 i^ 
 
 -t 
 CM 
 
 Matt, 
 and 
 Luke 
 only 
 
 -- 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 - 
 
 Matt, 
 and 
 Mark 
 only 
 
 05 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 t^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 CD 
 I— 1 
 
 o 
 
 rH 
 
 CO 
 
 05 
 
 Ol 
 
 00 
 
 Matt. 
 Mark 
 Luke 
 only 
 
 O 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 J> 
 
 1—1 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 ,_, 
 
 
 '"' 
 
 
 
 
 1— ( 
 
 
 
 
 
 >o 
 
 John, 
 Mark 
 Luke 
 only 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 1—1 
 
 o 
 
 ,_ 
 
 O 
 
 1^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 John, 
 
 Matt. 
 Luke 
 only 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 s's'S ^ 
 
 CD 
 
 CN 
 
 1— 1 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 lO 
 
 o 
 
 ,_, 
 
 1—1 
 
 o 
 
 CD 
 
 4|S3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 '"' 
 
 l-s^-^ 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 1—1 
 
 t^ 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 ,_, 
 
 1— 1 
 
 O 
 
 c - s 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1—1 
 
 CM 
 
 1-= =a^ o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 M-.t^ 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 (M 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 CM 
 
 '^ 
 
 ^^^o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S-5 t^.S^ 
 
 o 
 
 ■* 
 
 (M 
 
 o 
 
 1— 1 
 
 CM 
 
 I— ( 
 
 o 
 
 CM 
 
 o 
 
 G^l 
 
 ^Sgo 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 C_ j_^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Sis S ^ 
 
 CO 
 
 (M 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 (M 
 
 CO 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 iSfe o 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 u o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 lo 
 
 '^ 
 
 •o 
 
 05 
 
 CD 
 
 Gi 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 CD 
 
 CD 
 
 O 
 
 M 
 
 <M 
 
 Gq 
 
 ,-H 
 
 (M 
 
 
 CM 
 
 
 
 
 I-H 
 
 lO 
 
 ftn 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 CO 
 
 
 on 
 
 (M 
 
 CD 
 
 o 
 
 Ci 
 
 CD 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 r- 
 
 (35 
 
 l:- 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 o 
 
 ^ 
 
 (M 
 
 ** 
 
 
 '^ 
 
 
 
 I-H 
 
 CO 
 
 t^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 •^ 
 
 fctj 
 
 _^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 '• 
 
 05 
 
 CD 
 
 uO 
 
 C5 
 
 Tf 
 
 O 
 
 Gl 
 
 I-H 
 
 CD 
 
 cc 
 
 • O 
 
 < 
 
 s 
 
 Osl 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1^ 
 
 GO 
 
 &( 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 r^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 CD 
 
 CQ 
 
 ^ 
 
 J 1 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 CD 
 
 -1- 
 
 o 
 
 02 
 
 25 
 
 i^ 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 ^ 
 
 ■^ 
 
 '^ 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 C5 
 
 CO 
 
 P= 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 « 
 
 in 
 
 00 
 
 1—1 
 
 CM 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 1—1 
 
 '* 
 
 O 
 
 Ci 
 
 00 
 
 K 
 
 i^ 
 
 CO 
 
 CM 
 
 ^ 
 
 -* 
 
 I-H 
 
 »o 
 
 
 
 
 CC 
 
 
 H 
 
 fe 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 Tt< 
 
 CD 
 
 '-r 
 
 CM 
 
 t- 
 
 Ol 
 
 ^ 
 
 t- 
 
 C3C 
 
 c: 
 
 o 
 
 ^ 
 
 2; 
 
 »o 
 
 CO 
 
 "* 
 
 ^ 
 
 I— t 
 
 lO 
 
 
 
 r-H 
 
 00 
 
 I^ 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 rt 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 w 
 
 ■Td 
 
 Oi 
 
 CD 
 
 o 
 
 ^ 
 
 05 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 CM 
 
 <M 
 
 ^ 
 
 Tf 
 
 o 
 
 1— * 
 
 CM 
 
 r— 4 
 
 o 
 
 -t 
 
 o 
 
 Pi 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 o 
 
 &-' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 t^ 
 
 "^ 
 
 O 
 
 r-H 
 
 CM 
 
 o 
 
 ,—1 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 1—1 
 
 CD 
 
 
 IS 
 
 -* 
 
 CO 
 
 Ol 
 
 o 
 
 lO 
 
 CD 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 1^ 
 
 I-H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 15-1 
 
 CD 
 
 
 1— i 
 
 p 
 
 l—J 
 1— 1 
 
 h- 1 
 
 > 
 
 1— I 
 
 > 
 
 
 >- 
 
 > 
 
 d 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 •^ 
 
 *^ 
 
 '^ 
 
 •^ 
 
 '^ 
 
 '^ 
 
 "■ 
 
 •^ 
 
 '^ 
 
 a 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 !^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
APPENDIX III 
 
 123 
 
 K < 
 
 rtc-- 1 "-lOrHooooooooooi-^o— 1 a 
 S «j 3 1 ! 
 
 Matt. 
 and 
 Luke 
 only 
 
 rHOOOOOCOCO.-HOOOO'-i 
 
 cc 
 
 Matt, 
 and 
 Mark 
 only 
 
 lOT-l,-lr-l,-l,-l(y|r-lOO<M!>10r-COO 
 
 M 
 
 Matt. 
 Mark, 
 Luke 
 only 
 
 ocoo';Di-ioo?Or-iX'*«!ooc«i--i 
 
 I— 1 1— 1 
 
 CD 
 
 John, 
 Mark, 
 Luke 
 only 
 
 oooooooooooooooo 
 
 o 
 
 John, 
 Matt. 
 Luke 
 only 
 
 (MCOOOr-HOOOOOOOOOrH 
 
 '^ 
 
 John, 
 Matt. 
 Mark, 
 only 
 
 OOrHOr-H,-lO'-^'-lOOOOO(>JO 
 
 l> 
 
 John 
 and 
 
 Luke 
 only 
 
 OOrHOOOOOOOr-iOCCOO 
 
 (M 
 
 John 
 and 
 Mark 
 only 
 
 OOOriOOOOOOOOOOOO 
 
 
 John 
 and 
 
 Matt, 
 only 
 
 O O O O O O (M O rH O CN O O O O .-H C2 
 
 c 5 g 
 
 p ~ o 
 
 OOOtNOlCMO^^CCMOOOOC 
 
 o 
 
 i-I 
 
 X 
 u 
 
 fe 
 
 I—I CM ^ 
 
 C 
 
 t-eoi^cMxcDa50»oo^O'*QOTt<i>- 
 ,-1 ^ c>q fM 
 
 oc 
 
 H 
 
 a; 
 
 t^Ttlt^Tj<Oi— lO"5<lr-l^i-lrH-<#G<)(M 
 
 
 6 
 
 ,-lr-li-li-lCM >— r-i ^ 
 
 •<* 
 
 H 
 
 H 
 H 
 
 Eh' 
 
 1 l>.-J<(MTt<CX)'*0(MT)iCMOt-OCCCO(JC| 
 Em ^ 
 
 fM 
 
 c 
 
 ''A 
 
 i-H r-l <N r-^ CM 
 
 
 K 
 O 
 
 1-5 
 
 So 
 
 u 
 
 ri ^H G^J 1— 1 
 
 o 
 
 6 iCMO'^t^iCCOXt^fCO-^iO'^'^M 
 
 1^5 rH r-i r-H CM l-l 
 
 -1* 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Statement I 
 
 » 11 
 „ III 
 
 „ IV 
 V 
 „ VI 
 „ VII 
 „ VIII 
 „ IX 
 
 „ XI 
 „ XII 
 „ XIII 
 „ XIV 
 „ XV 
 „ XVI 
 
124 
 
 APPENDIX IV 
 
 w 
 
 
 Mark 
 and 
 Luke 
 only 
 
 0-t<ooi-~o(Mcro-*r--tt-i,-HO 
 
 1— iCMCOCCQCOi-* r^i-li-lr-lr-l 
 
 lO i-i 
 
 o 
 CO 
 o 
 
 
 Matt. 
 and 
 Luke 
 only 
 
 O i>l (M 00 (M CM O CO O lO O Tji (jq CC 
 
 -* ^ O .-HO i-H rH 
 
 CM 
 
 l-H 
 
 CO 
 CM 
 
 1—1 
 
 
 Matt. 
 
 and 
 Mark 
 
 only 
 
 OOr~'*'MOOOf0O05OC0iXi 
 O 00 I^ 00 1^:5 O GO O CO 00 CM CM (M 
 CD '^ CM lO (M r-l T— 1 
 
 O 
 
 CO 
 
 
 Matt. 
 Mark, 
 Luke 
 only 
 
 OOSCDOOiOfOThr-HrHCMQOOCD 
 l^TjHCO-^fMCMt-COOOiOl^CMfM 
 00 (M cq CD 
 
 1 § 
 1 CM 
 
 
 John, 
 Mark, 
 Luke 
 only 
 
 OOOOOOOOOOrHCMCMCD 
 
 CD 
 
 
 John, 
 Matt. 
 Luke 
 only 
 
 OO'^OOOOOCOr-HOOOO 
 
 00 
 
 
 John, 
 Matt. 
 Mark 
 only 
 
 OCOI^OOOi— lOOOi— iOi05(>JO 
 
 CM 00 r-l 1— 1 r-l 
 
 o 
 
 
 John 
 and 
 Luke 
 I only 
 
 OCOOOOOtMOOlCjiCO'-iOCM 
 
 CO 
 
 
 John 
 and 
 Mark 
 only 
 
 OOr-nOOOOOi-iCMOSO^Oq 
 
 CO 
 
 
 John 
 and 
 
 Matt, 
 only 
 
 O-^CMOOOOOOCMOCDrHO 
 
 
 
 
 O'OCCOOOCD'^OCDOr-^OOO 
 
 CO i-H 1— 1 l-H CO CM r-H 
 
 CD 
 
 
 1-1 
 
 1 
 &< 
 
 r^C5iCCOt-i-H'*OOrHt-CDOOC5 
 CDCOO^rHiC-^OCOOiOCOiOt— 
 OCDCMCM r-QO^r-Hr-iCMCM r^ 
 
 uq 
 
 00 
 ^" 
 1—1 
 
 
 _o 
 
 1-- lO T-H 00 O O 1— 1 --I lO O CM CO CO 1- 
 CDT-HCDCDOt^CMCq-Nt^Oir-QOOCO 
 OXCCiOt— iOt^»0(M(MC0C0i— 100 
 CM CD O r-l 
 
 CO 
 
 
 < 
 02 
 
 £ 
 
 :-t<COQOCOiOOCD(MOeO-^CiO 
 .-*Q0C5(M(M00OiCM'*Tt<QC«OCO 
 
 CO.-H(M'*rH T^ r-i &\ 
 
 (M r-l 1—1 
 
 11,743 6212 
 
 
 3 
 
 :CD.-HCM0005-t*OOCOOOCO 
 . ^ r.- O 'C .-H 1- CD CM QC -1< T-1 O O 
 CMOCSCOOiCOtM^COCMCOi-iCO 
 CO .— I CM 
 
 
 < 
 
 H 
 
 £ 
 
 -tCDCDQ0Q0C0CDt-^CDOQ0..'5,-i 
 Ot^t^OCiC0O<yiCD'-t<Q0-rtiCD(M 
 Oi'*tMLOI:^r-iOCM^'*(MCO ^ 
 
 l:^ r-l r-l -:}< 
 
 CO 
 
 OO" 
 
 
 1 
 
 '*00i-OXQ0C000r-iI^CDOi-*QCO5 
 
 o rH oj o Ci CO »o -* 00 i^ CO 00 r- oi 
 Oiicco iot^i-HOCM'*-*coeo '^ 
 
 1^ r-l I-I 'Tj* 
 
 00 
 1- 
 
 CD 
 
 r-H 
 
 
 K 
 o 
 
 1-3 
 
 Si 
 1-^ 
 
 occMi^oor-aot-CDiooqcM-t^io 
 
 00C50Ct-CDr-iQ0^Q0CDi-HiOr-O 
 
 r-i(M-*O5rHrH00CMt^G<)lO(M<jarH 
 CO Tj< i-H rH rH 
 
 CO 
 GO 
 
 
 s 
 
 OOiOt-OOt-CMrHiOCD-^rHfCfO 
 
 OC -r -* I- CD .-H i.-J CD' rH O O c:5 CO CM 
 
 r-< CO O Ci rH rH Ci CM 'X CO O (M (M r-< 
 
 CO Tf rt rH rH 
 
 o" 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 3 
 
 o 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 1— II— II— l^>^>hHHHI— ll>i>l-HHHI— 1>^ 
 
 o 
 
 m 
 
 
APPENDIX V 
 
 125 
 
 o 
 
 
 o:j uouiuioo 
 
 OOMOOOCDOtMt— iC 
 
 1— ( r— 1 r-l 
 
 s 
 
 o; tiuuiiuoo 
 
 OC Ol f-H 1— 1^ Tf C O l^l lO 
 1— 1 1— < 
 
 CD 
 
 puB A\aiiHBi\r 
 
 0% IKIUIUIOO 
 
 |>100000COO'*CO 
 1^ CO -* O rt CD 0^ Ol 
 
 CO 
 
 s^nq ptiB 
 
 'JIJBH 'AVam^Bm 
 
 01 uoiuuioo 
 
 
 fM 
 
 8>[nT puB 
 '■A-m'i. '"'{Of 
 O'j iioxuiiiog 
 
 Oi-<OC>'?'IOOOOO CX) 
 
 8Jinq puB 
 
 'A\amiBi\[ -uqof 
 
 01 uoumioo 
 
 TfOfOOOOOi-HOr-l 
 
 Ci 
 
 JfJBpC pUB 
 
 'AVaqriBitt 'uqop 
 01 uouuuoo 
 
 ir>.-iQOO(?ifooi-iOo 
 
 <M t-H 1— 1 
 
 s 
 
 aiinq piiB Tiiiof 
 
 01 uomuioo 
 
 OC0(M'*Ot-OOO'* 
 
 CO 
 
 5IJBM P't^ U^Of 
 
 01 uouuuoo 
 
 l--0.-iOOOOOi-«0 
 
 
 AvaqilBW 
 puB uqop 
 
 01 UOUIUIOO 
 
 i-<«:5C0OO^(MCMOO 00 
 
 r-l ^ CO 
 
 siaJsog .iuoj[ 
 01 uouuuoo 
 
 lOCOOOQJQOO'^COO 
 I— 1 r-H 1— I 1— 1 1— ( 
 
 CM 
 
 
 £ 
 
 (M>0(MC5i-iOO(MCCO 
 CDOCDt-"OeC lOOi 
 
 oq 1— 1 i-H t^ 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 1 
 
 r-coO'*oir-t^oooio 
 
 r-H CM r-H r-H CM r-l 00 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 '*QOe«3>r5'*CDeoO'-'CO 
 COI:-»Cil:^i-*t^ '^Tt* 
 CM oq 
 
 r— 1 
 00 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 CD CO I-H t- O O O (M i-i CO 
 
 or-'Cc^t^Oii-Hi-HOso 
 
 Tt< rH 1— 1 1— 1 ,—1 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 
 Em 
 
 .-HQOoooooc^^rt05CDc^^ 
 
 (MOCDiOl^iOi-H (»« 
 
 CO nH rH rH (N CO 
 
 
 ^ 1 
 
 r^ r^ CM 00 00 1^ 00 r- CD r-H 
 
 CDOiCrsCDOOt-OlrHt^'* 
 
 eO T-l r-l r-H <M CO 
 
 
 o 
 
 Only 
 
 in 
 John 
 
 Oi O CM .-H rH ,->! CD CD T-q 1- 
 
 CDoico-HCirrcDceo 
 
 (Mr-Hr-HCNCMtM r-^.-* 
 
 CD 
 fM 
 
 CD 
 
 
 (Nr-CiCDCDTfsq'tCOO 
 
 (NQOl^-r— leOCOCDt^r-HQO 
 
 eOi-H^<M(MCO i-Hi-H 
 
 r-H 
 
 i 
 
 CM 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 1 
 
 ^ ;^ S > > tt :::i ^ XI M 
 
126 
 
 APPENDIX VI 
 
 in 
 
 
 85lliq pill! >(.IBM 
 
 o:; nouuuoo 
 
 I— 1 
 
 
 aJinq 
 0^ uoumioo 
 
 C:)OG<l>-iCN(M^Or-iT)<iX>r-i<MO(MO 
 
 C5 
 CO 
 
 piiB AvaqilBJH 
 0^ uouatioo 
 
 r-HOfOi-HOr^-hOG^Ci'^i-lr-lT^t^lr-O 
 
 
 9>inq puB 
 
 01 UOUIUIOQ 
 
 i-HfOOCO'*«C>Ot-»OCMCDi-Hm»0000 
 GQ r-i ffCl CN 
 
 I— 1 
 
 8i[nq puB 
 'jl.iBi\[ 'miof 
 01 uommoQ 
 
 oooooooo, oooooooo 
 
 o 
 
 e^inq puB 
 
 'A\aqiiBK[ 'miOf 
 
 01 tiouimoo 
 
 fCOtM^Cr-tOOOOJCOOOOO 
 
 o 
 
 Jl.IBIM piIB 
 
 'M3mii!i,y[ 'iiqof 
 01 uouimoQ 
 
 r-lfCr-HOOOOOOOOr-lOOI^O 
 
 X 
 
 ajliil puB uqof 
 01 uouiuiog 
 
 0000000000(MOOO^O 
 
 CO 
 
 JJ.IB]^ puB iiqof 
 01 uouuuoo 
 
 rH(>l,-HrHOOOOOOr-((MOOOO 
 
 oc 
 
 AvgqiiBi^ 
 
 puB iiqof 
 
 01 uouuuoo 
 
 OtMOOOOOOO-^inCNOOOi-H 
 
 CN 
 
 SI9dS0{) JUOJ 
 
 01 uounuoo 
 
 --iCOOlfMCOfOOOCNOOOr^CNi-ii-i 
 
 Tj< 
 
 03 
 
 
 OiOt— lOOCMOCOCMT-HOOOCOOOiOty^ 
 
 .-HG<|r-l eOi-l rH'^OCM r-H 
 
 1—1 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 ^3 
 
 G-ICOt-H (Mr-4QOCNr-lr-lOiO'*rHrH,— I 
 
 
 W 
 « 
 ^ 
 
 H 
 M 
 
 (2 
 
 ^MCOt— ir-iOOO'*CNCDOOO'*OCCOO 
 
 1— isqi-HT— ii— iio CM I— 1 
 
 CM 
 
 •T. 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 £ 
 
 rH'* CNl-HQOl-ll-ICO<:Dt-Hr-l,-HCV^ 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 ^3 
 
 ^OOOt— ii0'*iCQ0rM>0OQ0i0'tt--O 
 CMcr> rH(Mi-iO5i-iCNf0tM(MCNrHeCt-i 
 1—1 
 
 fM 
 
 o 
 
 1-5 
 
 
 CNCDr-H i-HCNCOxJ*!-! CN<MSC Oi-i 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 I — t<cqQOcorMQCOfooi05i^i-i<r>-*o 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 nent I 
 
 II 
 
 III 
 
 IV 
 
 V 
 
 VI 
 
 VII 
 
 VIII 
 
 IX 
 
 X 
 
 XI 
 
 XII 
 
 XIII 
 
 XIV 
 
 XV 
 
 XVI 
 
 
 
 State] 
 
APPENDIX VII 127 
 
 VII 
 
 PAPIAS 
 
 EuSEBius speaks of Papias as a contemporary of Polycarp, "an 
 intimate disciple of the Apostles." He also mentions him with, but 
 before, Ignatius. The tradition that the title Theophoros was given 
 to Ignatius in memory of his being the child set by our Lord in the 
 midst of the Apostles, necessarily leads to the inference that Papias 
 must have been born about the year 30. 
 
 Bishop Lightfoot claims to have proved that Papias' Exegesis of 
 flie Dominical Oracles was certaiidy a commentary on the four 
 Gospels, and that it must have been written some forty years after 
 the Gos^jel Canon was completed. {Essays on Stipernatural Religion, 
 chap, v.) 
 
 If the Canon was completed by St. Luke in the middle of the 
 first century, we can accept, not only the literal meaning of the fol- 
 lowing extract from Papias' Preface to his work, but also the above 
 evidence as to the date of his birth. 
 
 " But I Avill not scruple also to give a place for you along with my 
 interpretations to everything that I learnt carefully and remembered 
 carefully in time past from the Apostles (Elders), guaranteeing their 
 truth. For, unlike the many, I did not take pleasure in those wlio 
 have so very much to say, but in those who teach the truth ; nor in 
 those who relate foreign commandments, but such as were given by 
 the Lord to the Faith, and are derived from the Truth itself. And 
 again, on any occasion when a person came in my way who had been 
 a follower of the Apostles (Elders), I would inquire about the dis- 
 courses of the Apostles (Elders) — what was said by Andrew, or by 
 Peter, or by Philip, or by Thomas or James, or by John or Matthew, 
 or any other of the Lord's disciples, and Avhat Aristion and the 
 Apostle (Elder) John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not 
 think that I could get so much profit from the contents of books 
 as from the utterances of a living and abiding voice " (Eusebius, E. H. 
 iii. 39). 
 
 From this we learn that even in the lifetime of the above-named 
 Apostles the Gospels were old enough to be a subject of general 
 inquiry. 
 
128 APPENDIX VIII 
 
 VIII 
 
 TEETULLIAN 
 
 The concessions of an opponent have always a special value. 
 
 The Rev. A. Wright having constantly lectured on Tertullian, is 
 able to assert with confidence — (a) that at Rome St. John's and St. 
 ]\Iatthew's Gospels had been placed first, " from the day when the 
 Gospels had first been bound into one volume " ; and (b) that Ter- 
 tullian's arguments prove a prevailing and decided conviction that 
 this was "the true order." {Expository Times, May 1893, p. 360.) 
 
 A reference to the Fourth Book of Tertullian's treatise Against 
 Marcion (chaps, ii.-vii.) will at once show the extent to which this 
 view of the case is true. 
 
 Tertullian treats the priority of the Apostolic Gospels as a uni- 
 versally recognised axiom, saying of it, " constituimus imprimis." 
 
 He speaks of the genuine text of the Apostolic writings as 
 " the enlightener of Paul, and by his means of Luke also." 
 
 He quotes expressions in St. Paul's Epistles as manifestly intended 
 to apply to the Apostolic Gospels. Nov does he hesitate to urge as 
 an undeniable fact that Marcion's Gospel was so much later than 
 the Apostolic Gospels that there had intervened between them "docu- 
 ments of the Christian religion," presumably the rest of the New 
 Testament, " which had been published for a hundred years." 
 
 Again, blaming Marcion for not attacking the Apostolic Gospels 
 rather than St. Luke's Gospel, he says : — 
 
 " For he altogether ignores them and takes his stand on Luke 
 in preference to them, as though they had not been received by 
 the Churches from the beginning {a primordio) just as much as 
 Luke's Gospel. As a matter of fact, it is even more credible that 
 these Gospels existed from the very foundation of the Churches ; 
 for their priority is implied, not only by their being the work of 
 Apostles, but from their forming a part of the dedication of the very 
 Churches themselves {cum ipsis ecdesiis dedicata)." 
 
 P)ishop Westcott, speaking generally of the value of Tertullian's 
 evidence, says : " His testimony is the judgment of his Church ; an 
 inheritance, not a deduction" {C. N. T. p. 312). 
 
 Yet in spite of its overwhelming importance the above evidence has 
 been wholly ignored ; so much so that the only reference to it prior 
 to ]Mr. Wright's is a brief remark by Dr. Scrivener in the notes to his 
 Codex Bezse, where he says: "Christian Hermansen, the Dane, cites 
 Tertullian as following ordinem a vidr/ari alienum of the Gospels." 
 
 So far afield is he obliged to go to find even a bare reference to 
 this testimony. 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 1 — ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CAVLORO 
 
 
 
 miNTCO INU* A. 
 
nary-Speer Library 
 
 012 00055 7449