PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 Division J5S2-5S5^ 
 
 Shelf 
 
 Section 
 
 Number 
 
THE COMPOSITION 
 
 OF 
 
 THE FOUR GOSPELS 
 
THE COMPOSITION 
 
 OF 
 
 THE EOUB GOSPELS 
 
 A CRITICAL INQUIRY 
 
 Rev. ARTHUR* WRIGHT M.A. 
 
 FELLOW AND TUTOR OF QUEENS' COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE 
 
 Hontion 
 MACMILLAN AND CO. 
 
 AND NEW YOEK 
 
 1890 
 
 All rights reserved 
 
iva emyvcos ncpl a>v KaTij^drjs \6yoav ttjv dcr(f)aA€iav. 
 
 S. Luke i. 4. 
 
 CAMBUIDOB: PKINTKD BT 0. J. CI.AY. M.A. AM) SONS, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRK3S. 
 
PEEFACE. 
 
 fTlHESE chapters were written during the leisure of 
 -*- a sea voyage in the long vacation of the year 1889. 
 I had with me Mr Rushbrooke's Synopticon, Drs 
 Westcott and Hort's Greek Testament and a pocket 
 concordance, but no other books bearing on the subject 
 nor even my own notes. I mention these facts to 
 account for the paucity of reference to the works of 
 other writers. A few passages I revised after landing 
 in England. 
 
 The publication of Mr Rushbrooke's Synopticon in 
 1880 greatly facilitated the study of the Gospels. I 
 only regret that the necessarily high price keeps this 
 book out of the libraries of many young students. 
 Those who wish to work out for themselves the line of 
 study suggested in these chapters should if possible 
 procure the Synopticon, but, if that is out of their 
 reach, Tischendorf s Synopsis Evangelica is cheap and 
 useful. 
 
 Though my opinions differ widely from some of Dr 
 Abbott's, I owe much to his work and critical insight. 
 
 aS 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 Dr Bernhard Weiss I have often found suggestive. 
 Dr Westcott and the late Bishop Lightfoot have been 
 my chief guides during residence at Cambridge. My 
 obligations to other authors I have tried, as far as 
 possible, to indicate in the course of the book. 
 
 Some readers, I fear, will regard this work as an 
 attack upon the Gospels, rather than a defence of 
 them. They will think that it surrenders too much, 
 that its teaching is arbitrary and likely to produce 
 doubt and perplexity. They will prefer the certainty 
 which older expositors offer to the probability with 
 which criticism bids us to be content. 
 
 To such objectors I would say that the acceptance 
 of the oral theory of the origin of the Gospels, which 
 has been general amongst English scholars for at least 
 the last thirty years, involves the admission of most of 
 the principles which are expounded in this book. 
 Being convinced that the theory is true and adequate, 
 
 I have endeavoured to show how it is supported by 
 allusions in Scripture, how it explains and justifies the 
 language of the earliest Fathers of the Church, and 
 what results necessarily follow from it. 
 
 We live in anxious times. An effort is making to 
 minimise or get rid of the supernatural in revelation. 
 The Incarnation and the Resurrection are called in 
 
 I I in •stion or denied. The resources of scholarship arc 
 used to propagate a Christianity without a Divine 
 Christ. 
 
PREFACE. Vll 
 
 Now, scholarship can only be met by scholarship 
 and criticism by criticism. The old method of ignoring 
 or explaining away difficulties will no longer suffice. 
 Difficulties must be acknowledged, faced and their 
 lessons learned. In this book I have endeavoured 
 to define the conditions under which I think the 
 defence of the Gospels can be maintained. Our citadel 
 may be immeasurably strengthened by abandoning a 
 few untenable outposts. The critical study of the 
 Gospels is still in its infancy. All that I can hope to 
 do is to assist and guide my juniors in bringing it to 
 maturity. " We are powerless against the truth, but 
 we can do something to defend the truth " (2 Cor. 
 xiii. 8). I am confident for the ultimate result, 
 because I believe in the reality of the work of the 
 Holy Spirit and because I see a growing earnestness 
 and honesty of purpose in those whose duty it will be 
 to maintain for the next generation the cause of our 
 most holy faith. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 The work of the eatechists 1 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 The status of the eatechists 8 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 S. Mark a catechist 14 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 Analysis of the first three Gospels 25 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 The first cycle of oral gospel : S. Peter's memoirs ... 32 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Genealogy of the three extant editions of S. Peter's memoirs . 41 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 Deterioration in the oral teaching 48 
 
X CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 The second cycle of oral gospel : S. Matthew's Utterances of 
 
 the Lord 60 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 The third cycle of oral gospel : Anonymous. Current in Gentile 
 
 Churches only 85 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 The dates of the compilation of the three cycles ... 92 
 
 CHAPTER XL 
 
 Fragments of oral gospel outside the three cycles : Anonymous. 
 
 Current locally only 100 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 Non-oral gospel : Anonymous. The result of local inquiry . 112 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 Editorial notes 116 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 The dates of the writing of the Gospels 128 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 The First Gospel 133 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 S. Luke's Gospel 141 
 
CONTENTS. XI 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 S. Mark's Gospel 149 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 S. John's Gospel 153 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 On the Inspiration of the Gospels 160 
 
 Index of subjects 165 
 
 Index of texts 173 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE WORK OF THE CATECHISTS. 
 
 Education in the East, I am told, still consists 
 largely in learning by heart the maxims of the wise. 
 The teacher sits on a chair, the pupils arrange them- 
 selves at his feet. He dictates a lesson, they copy it 
 on their slates and repeat it till they have mastered it. 
 Then the task is over, the slates are cleaned and put 
 by for future use. 
 
 Substitute for the slates and pencils a writing tablet 
 and stylus, and you will have a scene which must have 
 been common in the days of the Apostles. The teacher 
 is a catechist, the pupils catechumens, the lesson a 
 section of the oral gospel ; for we are thinking of a 
 time when written gospels were not yet contemplated. 
 
 Nor must we deem it strange, if many catechists 
 could repeat an amount of oral narrative considerably 
 longer than one of our Gospels. S. Paul, when he 
 sat at the feet of Gamaliel, could do more than this, 
 
 W. G. 1 
 
2 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 for "he made progress beyond many of his class 
 mates, being zealous of the traditions of the fathers " 
 (Gal. i. 14). At that date those traditions were not in 
 writing, and every scribe who was "catechised out 
 of the law" (Rom. ii. 8) could repeat large portions 
 of matter by no means so easy to remember as the 
 gospel sections. Indeed the memory, if you care to 
 train it, is capable of great feats. S. Augustine ex- 
 pected candidates for Holy Orders to know in some 
 degree all the Scriptures, because in those days when 
 manuscripts had no intervals between the words, it 
 was impossible to read aloud in church without hesita- 
 tion unless you knew the chapter. And many of the 
 Maori of New Zealand now, I am told, would satisfy 
 S. Augustine's requirements in this particular. 
 
 S. Luke represents the work of catechising as 
 commencing soon after the great day of Pentecost. 
 The converts, he writes, "were persevering in their 
 attendance upon the teaching of the Apostles" (Acts 
 ii. 42). And S. Peter, Papias indirectly tells us, was 
 the teacher, as indeed that Apostle took the lead in 
 everything in those earliest days. 
 
 We may picture his meeting the first class of 
 learners. On his tablet, as I suppose, is written in his 
 native Aramaic some short gospel narrative. We must 
 not think that he had anxiously consulted his fellow 
 Apostles about the exact wording of the lesson. We 
 cannot assert that he had a full idea of the importance 
 
THE WORK OF THE CATECHISTS. 3 
 
 of what he was doing. Expecting daily the return of 
 their Lord, the early Christians took little heed of the 
 distant future. Enough for them to supply the press- 
 ing need of the moment. The class may have been 
 small, the learners obscure, the lesson of comparatively 
 little present interest to them. It was some time before 
 even the Apostles seem to have realised what was most 
 important in the message with which they were en- 
 trusted. S. Peter did not think his manuscript worth 
 preserving. The same tablet sufficed for all his lessons. 
 None of his pupils inscribed the words on vellum, 
 which might have been legible to this day. They had 
 the living witness amongst them and could consult him 
 at any moment. His presence was worth more to them 
 than anything which he could write. And so the 
 opportunity was lost. We do not possess the hand- 
 writing of any Apostle, nor do we possess the first and 
 freshest recollections of S. Peter's memoirs of our Lord. 
 Day by day and week by week the lessons were 
 continued. Unsystematic and incomplete they neces- 
 sarily were, for each one was perfect in itself and 
 probably had no connexion with any other. Certain 
 parts of our Lord's life, such as the Passion, were 
 pretty fully detailed : other parts, as the early Judaean 
 ministry, were almost untouched. S. Peter's work at 
 Jerusalem appears to have been cut short before he had 
 either completed his narratives or reduced them to 
 order. Many pupils would become irregular and stay 
 
 1—2 
 
4 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 away, but others would take their place. Many would 
 prove forgetful, carrying away imperfect and distorted 
 recollections. But while all would learn something, a 
 few young men with retentive memories and unflagging 
 zeal would form the crown of the undertaking. These 
 were " instructed in the word " (Kar^^/jbivot rov \6joi>, 
 the tense indicating the completion and permanence of 
 their knowledge). From them was organised the new 
 order of catechists, who were not only the recognised 
 repositories of gospel history, but were ordained and 
 authorised to teach others also. 
 
 S. Peter then was the author of the first cycle of 
 oral teaching, which, though incomplete, covered more 
 ground than any other and formed the framework of the 
 first three written gospels. S. Matthew, we shall see, 
 was the author of the second cycle, which was supple- 
 mentary and originated also in Jerusalem. An unknown 
 Christian, perhaps at Antioch, was the author of a third 
 cycle which obtained currency in Pauline churches only. 
 The catechists of the first school could only teach the 
 first cycle. A later school perhaps could teach the 
 second cycle only, but, as time went on, it was found 
 necessary for a catechist to master both the first and 
 second cycles or he could not do the work required of 
 him. S. Paul at first drew his catechists from Jeru- 
 salem, but in course of time he employed local catechists 
 who had mastered as much of all three cycles as was 
 current in the Gentile churches. 
 
THE WOEK OF THE CATECHISTS. 5 
 
 The name catechist does not occur in the New 
 Testament, for it was not as yet invented. The 
 technical term for the new order was 'the catechisers' 
 {ol Karrj^ovvre^). Participles however are inconvenient 
 for daily use. They do not freely admit of a vocative. 
 And in ordinary language the pupils addressed their 
 master as 'Teacher' (w ScSdcrfcaXe), and 'teachers' with 
 the verb 'to teach' and the noun 'teaching' are in 
 frequent use. S. Luke in his preface uses a new phrase 
 "ministers of the word" {vir^peraL rod \6you, Luke 
 i. 2), and if this was a usual name for them in the West, 
 it would certainly be abbreviated into 'ministers,' as we 
 shall have occasion to remark hereafter. 
 
 Of the number of catechists we can form no certain 
 estimate. There must have been at least one in every 
 considerable church, but the smaller communities may 
 have been served by itinerant teachers. In large churches 
 daily classes must have been required and weekly 
 classes for the less leisured members. It was hard 
 work. "Toil" (kottos) is the term applied to it by 
 S. Paul. And if we would picture to ourselves the life 
 of the church of the earliest time, the catechetical 
 classes must form a prominent feature in it. It may 
 well be that the Gentiles preferred S. Paul's lectures, 
 which resembled more closely the teaching of their 
 own philosophers and which we are told in an interest- 
 ing Western reading (Acts xix. 9) which is credible 
 though not authentic, S. Paul delivered daily from 
 
6 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 the fifth hour to the tenth — 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. But 
 S. Paul himself did not encourage his disciples to shirk 
 the wholesome labour of committing gosjDel narratives 
 to memory. From his frequent mention of the catechists 
 it is plain that he valued and upheld their work. 
 
 'Toil' it certainly was: not perhaps carried on five 
 hours a day like S. Paul's, nor making such demands on 
 the intellect. The word 'catechise' (Karrj^eay) is derived 
 from ?J%o<>, which with its collateral forms fyr/ and 
 i]%oq (our 'echo') signifies an irrational noise or din, 
 a sound apart from its meaning. And KaTrj^elv is to 
 din a thing into a person by noise and repetition. 
 Scarcely was this an intellectual operation. It de- 
 manded none of the higher spiritual gifts, but only 
 fidelity, sympathy and patience. It testifies also that 
 learners were dull then as now, and that teaching had 
 its drudgery as well as its rewards. 
 
 Many of the scholars must have been older and 
 richer than the teacher who dictated to them: men 
 of position like Theophilus, dignified burghers little 
 accustomed to submit to a junior, grey-headed men 
 who despaired of mastering the lesson. But as years 
 rolled on and Christianity had passed its infancy, the 
 catechumens would be more confined to the children 
 of Christian parents. And at all times there would be 
 one great difference both in East and West between 
 the modern Sunday-school and the ancient catechetical 
 class. No girls would be present. To educate a 
 
THE WORK OF THE CATECHISTS. 7 
 
 woman was considered superfluous. "Let them ask 
 their husbands at home" is S. Paul's advice in a similar 
 case to such as wanted instruction. And so closely were 
 they kept within doors, at least those of the wealthier 
 classes, that they had no desire for better treatment. 
 Though S. Paul taught that "in Christ there is... 
 neither male nor female" time was needed to break 
 down the barriers of sex. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE STATUS OF THE CATECHISTS. 
 
 To understand the position which the catechists 
 held amongst church workers in the early days, it is 
 necessary to sketch briefly the different orders of clergy, 
 premising that changes and developements were ex- 
 ceedingly rapid at first. 
 
 The Apostles during their life actively superintended 
 everything. Next to them are placed the Prophets, on 
 account of the high spiritual gifts which they possessed 
 for preaching. But prophets were few in number and 
 the routine work of preaching was mostly done by itine- 
 rants of lower rank who are called Evangelists, and who, 
 coming from Jerusalem, were often out of sympathy 
 with S. Paul and even corrupted the faith of his con- 
 verts : for the same zeal which " had compassed sea 
 and land to make one proselyte " distinguished the 
 Pharisees for good and for evil when they became 
 Christians. It is not improbable that these evangelists 
 
THE STATUS OF THE CATECHISTS. 9 
 
 went on circuit, never staying long at one station. 
 The Presbyters of the earliest period were, I apprehend, 
 churchwardens rather than clergy. They were, I mean, 
 local governors, prosperous business or professional 
 men, of sixty years old and upwards, chosen for their 
 dignity and probity. Their duty was — not to preach, 
 teach or officiate ; they were too old to learn a new 
 profession — but to suppress disorder, superintend money 
 matters, preside at church councils, and above all see 
 that a regular supply of evangelists and catechists was 
 provided to conduct the services of their church. 
 Amongst the Gentiles, however, a patriarchal form of 
 government like this was not popular. Greeks pre- 
 ferred in their rulers the activity of youth to the 
 conservatism of age. As in politics, so in religion, they 
 often appointed men under forty to govern and ad- 
 minister. And as it would be absurd to call such men 
 ' presbyters ' or ' elders ', they used the title ' overseers ' 
 (iirlaKOTTOL, commonly translated 'bishops') instead. 
 This I take to be the true distinction between "elders" 
 and " bishops " in the New Testament. In all other 
 particulars the terms are quite interchangeable. With 
 the later developement of the meaning of the word, I 
 am not now concerned. Deacons and deaconesses were 
 chiefly engaged in visiting the sick, carrying round 
 doles to the widows and poor, giving counsel and ad- 
 monition privately, nursing and helping. The deacons 
 also prepared the room for public worship, handed the 
 
10 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 books and otherwise assisted. They were not, as is 
 commonly thought, finance officers and had no con- 
 nexion with " the seven " (Acts vi.), who are never 
 called 'deacons' in Scripture. Lastly, the catechists 
 were the teachers. 
 
 When we remember the high esteem in which 
 teaching and teachers were held in the East, such men 
 as Gamaliel who were " teachers of the law " being 
 honoured above all their contemporaries, we must not 
 be surprised that the Christian catechist, though he had 
 none of the judicial functions of the Jewish, but had 
 merely the simplest of stories to remember and repeat, 
 received some of the honour which was freely lavished 
 on his class. None of the gospels having been written, 
 he was the sole authority to most converts for the 
 mysteries of their faith. S. Paul always ranks the 
 catechists high amongst Christian workers, but the 
 exact place assigned them is different at different 
 periods according to the changes which were rapidly 
 taking place. 
 
 In the Epistle to the Ephesians (iv. 11) S. Paul 
 gives the order thus: (1) Apostles, (2) Prophets, (3) 
 Evangelists, (4) Presbyters and Catechists (irotfieve^ 
 real SiSdaKaXot.) Here presbyters and catechists are 
 counted as one class, because already at that period the 
 presbyters were " stirring up the gift that was in them 
 by the laying on of hands" and entering the list of 
 church workers. They are not yet preachers, for evan- 
 
THE STATUS OF THE CATECHISTS. 11 
 
 gelists still remain: but they are becoming teachers. 
 They have not quite superseded the catechists, but so 
 many presbyters had qualified as catechists, so many 
 catechists had been elected presbyters, that in this 
 encyclical letter addressed to a great variety of churches 
 S. Paul groups them together. 
 
 At an earlier period (1 Cor. xii. 28) S. Paul writes 
 before this change had taken place, and arranging them 
 once more not according to social standing but to 
 spiritual gifts, puts presbyters and catechists in a quite 
 different order : (1) apostles, (2) prophets, including 
 perhaps the evangelists, who only differed in degree, 
 (3) catechists, (4) workers of miracles, (5) healers of 
 the sick, (6) succourers of the aged, the sick and the 
 poor {avTL\r}fjLy\rei<i, deacons and deaconesses are proba- 
 bly meant), (7) governors, that is to say, presbyters 
 (fcvftepvrjo-ets), (8) speakers with tongues. 
 
 In Komans xii. 6 f., S. Paul gives a list of spiritual 
 gifts in a slightly different order : " Having gifts differ- 
 ing according to the grace which has been given us, 
 whether the gift be prophecy, let us prophesy according 
 to the due proportions of the Christian faith, or whether 
 it be the office of a deacon, let us exercise it in the 
 diaconate, or the office of a catechist in catechising, or 
 the preacher (the evangelist) in preaching, let the giver 
 of alms give without favouritism, let the presbyter 
 preside with diligence, the doer of deeds of pity (allud- 
 ing to the ' gifts of healing ') with cheerfulness." 
 
12 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 Further back still in 1 Thess. v. 12, S. Paul speaks 
 of those " who toil among you and preside over you 
 and admonish you," that is to say, the catechists, the 
 presbyters and evangelists. He couples the words 
 under the vinculum of one article to show that they 
 belonged to one class. "Esteem them," he continues, 
 " very highly in love for their work's sake." 
 
 In Galatians vi. 6, he shows how much he valued 
 the catechists' work by singling them out for special 
 mention : " Let him that is catechised in the word give 
 a share in all good things to him that catechiseth." 
 Presbyters at that time had no need of money, 
 evangelists may have been subsidised by the church 
 which sent them out, but, no clerical stipends having 
 been as yet provided, the catechists were unpaid and 
 frequently very poor. S. Paul would not have written 
 thus of them, if their work had not made great demands 
 upon their time and energy. 
 
 It is at first sight surprising that in the Pastoral 
 epistles there is no mention of the catechists. There, 
 if anywhere, we should have looked for a definition of 
 their position and their duties. But the reason for this 
 omission is not far to seek. If already in the Ejnstle 
 to the Ephesians the presbyters were taking the place 
 of the catechists, five years later they had quite sup- 
 planted them. Indeed the position of a presbyter was 
 altogether changed. From being a wealthy lay ruler 
 he has become a poor stipendiary clergyman. Drawing 
 
THE STATUS OF THE CATECHISTS. 13 
 
 the pay he must do the work. He has therefore taken 
 upon himself the functions of the evangelists and the 
 catechists. Both these orders have become extinct. 
 
 The churches must have been greatly strengthened 
 by this revolution. Instead of lay governors, glad 
 to accept volunteer workers, whose orthodoxy they 
 had no means of testing, and sure to fall a prey to 
 the proselytising teachers from Jerusalem, responsible 
 clergy, who understood controversy and were trained in 
 the whole cycle of Christian literature — gospels, creeds 
 and hymns — guided the flock with the sobriety which 
 comes of responsibility. One of the qualifications there- 
 fore of a presbyter now is that he should be a good 
 catechist (StScucTtfcos, 1 Tim. iii. 2), and S. Paul writes 
 " Let the presbyter receive twice the stipend (of a 
 widow on the list) especially those who toil in preach- 
 ing and catechising " (1 Tim. v. 17). 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 S. MARK A CATECHIST. 
 
 It may be well first to state briefly who S. Mark 
 was from the accounts given of him in the New 
 Testament. 
 
 When S. Peter was released from prison by the 
 angel at midnight (Acts xii. 12) he went "to the house 
 of Mary the mother of John whose other name was 
 Mark." It would appear from the house being called 
 hers that she was a widow at that time. She and her 
 son, whom he calls "his son" or convert (1 Pet. v. 12), 
 were not perhaps singled out above all others at that 
 crisis so much for their known fidelity, as because their 
 house being a large one (for it had a porch, a portress 
 and an upper chamber over the gateway, as only the 
 houses of the wealthy had) was a common meeting 
 place for the church. 
 
 S. Mark was first cousin (dve\jno<;) to Barnabas 
 (Coloss. iv. 10) who also once at any rate had been a 
 man of property (Acts iv. 37). 
 
S. MARK A CATECHIST. 15 
 
 The number of wealthy Christians at Jerusalem 
 must always have been small, and it has therefore been 
 conjectured with some probability that this same house, 
 S. Mark's father being then alive, was that in which 
 our Lord ate the Last Supper and in which the disciples 
 assembled at the following Pentecost. If, as is com- 
 monly supposed, S. Mark was the young man with the 
 linen cloth (Mark xv. 51 f.), this conjecture is somewhat 
 confirmed. 
 
 Though not a personal disciple of our Lord, S. Mark 
 must have been one of S. Peter's early converts. He 
 attended the catechetical classes and learned the 
 gospel direct from S. Peter's lips. He was amongst 
 the most successful pupils, and having, as a well- 
 educated man, a knowledge of Greek beyond most 
 of his countrymen, who only spoke it colloquially, 
 was "commissioned (Papias tells us) to translate the 
 records into Greek" for the benefit of the Hellenistic 
 Jews, who, although a small minority in Jerusalem, 
 were at that time a majority in the church (Acts vi. 
 1 ff.). The words of Papias (Tlerpou ep/nrjvevrrjs yevo- 
 txevos) clearly indicate a duly authorised appointment. 
 As a bilingual catechist of the earliest school he 
 accompanied SS. Paul and Barnabas on their first 
 missionary journey in the capacity of " minister" (vTrrj- 
 perr)?, Acts xiii. 5). We have seen that in S. Luke's 
 vocabulary "minister of the word" means catechist, and 
 we have said that so cumbrous a phrase would inevit- 
 
16 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 ably be shortened into " minister ". I think this is so 
 here, and that S. Mark went as a catechist ; for the 
 natural meaning that he went as a servant to wait 
 upon them is unworthy alike of their poverty and of 
 his social position. 
 
 For S. Paul himself was not a catechist. S. Luke, 
 it is true, once writes of him that " he taught the facts 
 concerning the Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts xxviii. 31), a 
 phrase which strictly interpreted would imply cate- 
 chising. But in early times before technical terms 
 become fixed they are frequently used in a non -tech- 
 nical sense. Elsewhere S. Luke correctly describes 
 S. Paul as a lecturer or disputer (Acts xix. 9) and he 
 must mean that here. For S. Paul himself disavows 
 all acquaintance with the oral gospel, " Neither was I 
 taught" (Gal. i. 12), and in his summaries of his labours 
 he never includes the toil of catechising, but rather 
 acknowledges the debt which he owes to those humbler 
 workers. His epistles would surely have more fre- 
 quently contained quotations from, or allusions to, the 
 gospel sections, if he had been intimately familiar with 
 them. S. Barnabas also who is always called an apostle, 
 can have had no time for routine work. If therefore 
 SS. Paul and Barnabas were to found churches, they 
 must provide a catechist, or their preaching would be as 
 insufficient for the propagation of the faith as S. Peter's 
 preaching in the day of Pentecost had been over those 
 strangers from all parts of the Roman Empire, who 
 
S. MARK A CATECHIST. 17 
 
 returned immediately to their homes and although 
 many of them had been baptized, found themselves too 
 ignorant to undertake missionary work. And what 
 better catechist could be taken than S. Mark who not 
 only belonged to the earliest school, but himself was 
 the author of that Greek version, which would be most 
 needed amongst the Gentiles ? 
 
 But whether "minister" here means catechist or 
 otherwise, there is reason to think that S. Mark was a 
 qualified catechist, for he could hardly have translated 
 S. Peter's memoirs into Greek, except by first learning 
 the Aramaic form of them. They did not exist in 
 writing, unless the Apostle submitted his tablet daily 
 for inspection ; which is not probable. 
 
 But S. Mark did something more than translate, 
 he edited S. Peter's memoirs and adapted them for 
 use amongst Greek-speaking Jews. For example in 
 S. Peter's Aramaic the Old Testament quotations must 
 have been taken from the Hebrew text or from one of 
 the oral paraphrases. Our Lord himself would so give 
 them ; for we have no reason to suppose that he used 
 the version of the Seventy, and S. Jerome expressly 
 testifies (de viris illustr. in.) that in the Gospel 
 according to the Hebrews (on which see chapter vin.) 
 he found all the quotations, whether put into our 
 Lord's mouth or not, agreeing with the Hebrew and not 
 with the LXX. But the Septuagint version was the 
 Bible of the Greek-speaking Christians, and to meet 
 w. g. 2 
 
18 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 their case S. Mark, instead of giving a literal rendering 
 of his own, deliberately in most cases borrowed the 
 renderings of the LXX., which from him passed all over 
 the Greek-speaking Christian world. These renderings 
 therefore are found in the Petrine memoirs in all three 
 Gospels and (since the same example was followed by 
 the translators of the second cycle) in the Matthsean 
 Utterances of the Lord ; but those parts of the first 
 Gospel, which were never in the hands of the catechists, 
 follow the Hebrew text. 
 
 Once more, did S. Mark write the Gospel, which for 
 so many centuries has been attributed to him ? 
 
 First we have the testimony of Papias who must 
 have been born while the first century had still many 
 years to run, for he was bishop of Hierapolis in the 
 earlier part of the second century. What he says is so 
 important that I transcribe it at length, as it is pre- 
 served in Eusebius (H. E. in. 39). Papias appears to 
 be quoting from the oral witness of John the presbyter, 
 whose pupil he was and whose words he carefully 
 treasured. 
 
 "And thus the Presbyter used to say: Mark, having 
 been constituted (<yev6[xevos) translator of Peter wrote 
 (eypayfre) with accuracy what he (Peter) recollected. He 
 did not however write in (chronological) order either 
 the words or the deeds of Christ, for he had not 
 heard the Lord nor been his follower but in later time 
 (as the Presbyter said) had followed Peter, who used to 
 
S. MARK A CATECHIST. 19 
 
 compose his lessons to meet the need of the moment, 
 and not as though he were compiling a set record of 
 the words of the Lord. Thus Mark made no errors, 
 though he only wrote down certain things, as (Peter) 
 recollected them. For he paid attention to one point 
 only, that he should not pass by anything of what he 
 had heard or be guilty of falsehood therein." 
 
 If we couple with this the almost equally trust- 
 worthy statement of Irenseus, that S. Mark did not 
 write until after S. Peter's death, we shall better 
 understand S. Mark's position in this matter. 
 
 We have in these two very early fathers the express 
 statement that S. Mark wrote something. That our 
 second Gospel is what he wrote is not only the belief 
 of all antiquity, as far back as we can discover that 
 belief, but is very strongly supported by an examination 
 of the nature and contents of our second Gospel. See 
 more on this point in chapter VI. 
 
 But in assigning the authorship of our second 
 Gospel to S. Mark, as we confidently do, we must be 
 careful not to weaken our case by claiming too much. 
 Probably thirty or forty years intervened between the 
 time when S. Mark first heard the gospel and that at 
 which he committed it to writing (chapter xiv.), during 
 which period his memory must have lost much of its 
 freshness. 
 
 If S. Mark was the author of the second Gospel, we 
 can see why, when he came to write, he put down 
 
 2—2 
 
20 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 nothing but S. Peter's memoirs. Not only would 
 fidelity to his old master incline him to do this, but his 
 own limitations of knowledge may have left him no 
 choice. For S. Mark did not long accompany SS. Paul 
 and Barnabas on their first missionary journey. Not 
 approving, it may be, of the unconditional admission of 
 Gentiles into the Christian Church, or for some other 
 reason which appeared unsatisfactory to S. Paul, he 
 deserted them and returned to his mother's home in 
 Jerusalem (Acts xiii. 13). Later on his scruples were 
 overcome or the cause for them had disappeared, and 
 he volunteered to join the Apostles on their second 
 journey. His relative S. Barnabas gladly welcomed 
 him, but S. Paul refused (Acts xv. 37 ff.). A bitterness, 
 of which S. Paul afterwards repented (1 Cor. xiii. 5 ; 
 Eph. iv. 26), arose and separated him from his earliest 
 Christian friend, whose death appears to have prevented 
 the reconciliation which S. Paul afterwards took pains 
 to effect with S. Mark. SS. Barnabas and Mark sailed 
 away to Cyprus. There in their native place they 
 lived as it seems to me in obscurity, out of the reach of 
 the later developments in Christian teaching. It is 
 true that S. Mark was with S. Peter once more when 
 that Apostle wrote his first Epistle, and was at Ephesus 
 when S. Paul just before his martyrdom begged S. 
 Timothy to bring him to Rome. But this does not 
 prevent a lengthy residence in Cyprus. And when S. 
 Mark came to write, S. Peter's memoirs may well have 
 
S. MARK A CATECHIST. 21 
 
 been the only records which he had ever committed to 
 memory. 
 
 If S. Mark, as the authorised translator of S. Peter, 
 was the original instructor of all the Greek catechists, 
 it follows that S. Luke and the author of the first 
 Gospel were his pupils, though not directly but with 
 many teachers intervening. Hence even when they 
 are united against him, they can only prevail when 
 they either produce his earlier recollections as op- 
 posed to his later memory, or when by direct appeal 
 to S. Peter or other eye-witnesses they have modified 
 his statements, or when by reference to the Aramaic 
 catechists they have improved upon his translation. 
 All these cases occur, but so seldom that S. Mark's 
 Gospel remains by far our safest guide to the first cycle. 
 
 Papias states that S. Mark's Gospel is not arranged 
 in the true chronological order. He would not have 
 made so much of this, if the fault had not been, as it is, 
 glaring. According to S. John, our Lord's ministry 
 lasted three years or more — possibly ten (see Westcott 
 on S. John viii. 57), — during which He visited Jerusalem 
 several times. But S. Mark only takes Him to Jerusalem 
 a week before His death, and certainly leaves us under 
 the impression that His ministry was concluded within 
 a year. It is scarcely credible that S. Peter, if he 
 had completed his work, would have left the chronology 
 thus. 
 
 The truth seems to me to be that S. Peter taught 
 
22 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 his memoirs, as Papias says, in sections, a lesson at a 
 time, as the occasion required. One day he might 
 narrate some incident connected with the Passion, the 
 next he might relate the Baptism or the Transfiguration. 
 Variety and edification would be his main guide, as it 
 is a modern preacher's. But about twelve years after 
 the Ascension S. Peter's work was suddenly interrupted 
 by his departure from Jerusalem. What reason led 
 to his withdrawal from the city we are not told. 
 Suddenly we find him in retirement at Joppa (Acts ix. 
 38, 43), and S. James the Lord's brother in his place 
 (Acts xii. 17, xv. 13). S. Paul confirms this by 
 an incidental remark (Gal. i. 19, ii. 9). Henceforth 
 S. Peter only went to Jerusalem occasionally and as a 
 visitor. It is possible that the church at Jerusalem, 
 which had accused him of favouritism (Acts vi. 1), and 
 of improper behaviour (Acts xi. 1), had become im- 
 patient of his rule. His opinions were too liberal, his 
 conduct too hasty (Gal. ii. 11) for the majority of the 
 Christians of that church. 
 
 * S. Mark therefore as the chief catechist appears to 
 me to have put the fragments into the best order he 
 could, with a view sometimes to symmetry rather than 
 chronology. There is a rough attempt at chronology 
 in obvious matters, but little more ; and S. Mark's 
 arrangement was accepted by the other Greek catechists 
 and is therefore followed almost without change in our 
 first three Gospels. 
 
S. MARK A CATECHIST. 23 
 
 If S. Peter had completed his work, he would 
 doubtless have narrated more of Christ's ministry in 
 Jerusalem. But, as it is, he has told us so little, that 
 the three Gospels crowd it all into the one last week. 
 
 When therefore the author of the first Gospel in a 
 non-Petrine note tells us that " the blind and the lame 
 came to Christ in the Temple courts and He healed 
 them " (Matt. xxi. 14), I would suggest that, although 
 he puts this into Holy Week, he is really alluding to 
 the well known cases of the man blind from his birth 
 (John ix. 1 ff.), and of the lame man at the pool of 
 Bethzatha (John v. 1 ff.). On the first Gospel's use of 
 the plural in such cases, see chapter XIII. The cleansing 
 of the Temple is placed by S. John at the beginning of 
 Christ's ministry (John ii. 13 ff.), by the other three 
 during Holy Week (Mark xi. 15, Matt. xxi. 12, Luke 
 xix. 45). It is hardly probable that there were two 
 cleansings, and if not, surely S. John's date is the right 
 one. 
 
 If in future we are to make progress in recovering 
 the true sequence of events in the gospel history, it must 
 be by freely acknowledging that the first three Gospels 
 are not safe guides in chronology. It is unreasonable 
 to contend that the testimony of three men is necessarily 
 true when we can see that they owe their unanimity to 
 following the same leader. And it is melancholy to 
 think of the time which has been lost in the endeavour 
 to construct exact chronological tables by men who have 
 
24 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 taken as their guide S. Luke's Gospel, which we shall 
 endeavour to show is the least chronological of the 
 four. 
 
 I cannot close this chapter without anticipating an 
 objection which may be raised. Why, it will be asked, 
 if S. Peter could write excellent Greek himself, as his 
 first Epistle shows that he could, did he employ S. Mark 
 as a translator ? The answer is supplied by S. Peter 
 himself, who tells us plainly that he did not write the 
 Greek of that Epistle, but employed Silvanus to do 
 so, although S. Mark also was with him (1 Pet. v. 12). 
 It is not in the least degree probable that a Galilean 
 fisherman was master of literary Greek. If S. John's 
 case be quoted to the contrary, I would reply that 
 S. John is generally admitted to have been a much 
 younger man and therefore more likely to learn. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 ANALYSIS OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. 
 
 Before we proceed further it may be convenient 
 to state briefly the six component parts into which the 
 three earlier Gospels may be analysed and the method 
 of ascertaining them. For the present, difficulties and 
 exceptions may be ignored ; the time to discuss them 
 will be when we examine the six parts separately. We 
 have already mentioned the three great cycles, and we 
 will now consider them first. 
 
 I. Take S. Mark's Gospel as a basis, place in 
 parallel columns by its side, as Mr Rushbrooke has done 
 in his Synopticon, the corresponding sections of the first 
 Gospel and of S. Luke with a very few passages from 
 SS. John and Paul, and you will have what is left 
 us of the first cycle of oral teaching, which consisted 
 of S. Peter's memoirs. For further particulars see 
 chapter v. 
 
26 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 II. Take chapters iii — xxv of the first Gospel, 
 subtract from them all those sections which you have 
 already assigned to the first cycle, and you will have as 
 a remainder very little else but a collection of parables, 
 discourses and sermons with their settings. Place 
 parallel to these the corresponding sections of S. Luke 
 which frequently add much new matter, and you will 
 have what is left to us of the second cycle of oral 
 gospel which consists of S. Matthew's 'utterances of 
 the Lord '. For further particulars see chapter VIII. 
 
 III. Take the great central section of S. Luke (ix. 51 
 — xviii. 14), subtract from it the few verses which belong 
 to the first cycle and the considerable sections which 
 belong to the second cycle, and you will find as the 
 remainder a remarkable collection of discourses, parables 
 and stories. Add to these one narrative of the woman 
 anointing Jesus' feet in the house of Simon the leper, 
 which is found in the first third of the Gospel (vii. 36- 
 50) and three narratives, that of Zacchaeus (xix. 1-10), 
 that of the penitent thief (xxiii. 39-43) and that of 
 the two men journeying to Emmaus (xxiv. 13-53), 
 which are found in the last third of the Gospel, and you 
 will have what is left to us of the third cycle of oral 
 gospel, which is the work of a pupil of S. Paul. For 
 further particulars see chapter IX. 
 
 These three cycles form the main sources of the 
 first three Gospels, of which S. Mark's Gospel may be 
 called simplex, as making use of the first cycle only, the 
 
ANALYSIS OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. 27 
 
 first Gospel duplex, as making use of the first and 
 second cycles, S. Luke's Gospel triplex, as making use 
 of all the three cycles. 
 
 IV. But certain sections in the first Gospel in- 
 cluding the two introductory chapters, and a few 
 sections in S. Luke, do not belong to any of the 
 three great cycles, but were obtained by the catechists 
 from other authorities unknown to us. These are 
 sometimes added to enrich the cycles, sometimes super- 
 sede them. I have styled them 'Fragments of oral 
 gospel outside the cycles '. For further particulars see 
 chapter XL 
 
 V. Again some parts of S. Luke's gospel were not 
 derived through the catechists but, as S. Luke tells 
 us in his preface, directly from eye-witnesses or other 
 persons. Such are the two introductory chapters, the 
 genealogy and a few other sections. The sections of 
 this class I have styled ' non-oral gospel '. For further 
 particulars see chapter xn. 
 
 VI. Lastly the writers of the Gospels necessarily 
 added a few words or sentences of their own by way of 
 introduction or conclusion or to connect together the 
 sections. All these with whatever else is the writer's 
 original contribution to his work I have styled 'editorial 
 notes '. For further particulars see chapter xui. 
 
 S. Luke's Gospel contains specimens of all the six 
 component parts and is therefore the most interesting 
 to study from our point of view. The first Gospel omits 
 
28 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 the third and the fifth ; S. Mark contains only the first 
 and the last. S. Mark's Gospel we may further describe 
 as neutral, the first Gospel as theological, S. Luke's 
 as cosmopolitan. 
 
 Of the six classes, which are enumerated above, 
 the first consists of sections which are frequently com- 
 mon to three evangelists, sometimes to four ; the second 
 consists of sections which are generally common to two, 
 but the last four classes consist of sections which are 
 peculiar to one. 
 
 We are apt to assume that everything in the last 
 four classes is verbally accurate. Doubt and difficulty 
 are supposed to begin when we have two records, and 
 to increase as we have three or four. A little reflexion 
 however will show that the absence of difficulty in 
 the cases of single attestation is no real guarantee 
 of accuracy. There is no discrepancy, because there 
 is only one account. If we had other accounts, the 
 difficulties might be expected to begin. The very fact 
 that we have only one account usually shows that the 
 record was compiled at a comparatively late date and is 
 therefore the less likely to be exact in verbal accuracy. 
 
 It is the province of criticism, in the case of singly 
 attested facts, to examine the authority on which they 
 rest, and in the case of doubly or trebly attested tacts 
 to classify the authorities and show their relative im- 
 portance, that the reader may not pick and choose at 
 haphazard according to caprice or for subjective reasons, 
 
ANALYSIS OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. 29 
 
 but may have some fixed principles to guide him, for 
 it is plain that the more authorities are multiplied, 
 the better hope he will have of discovering the truth, 
 if he knows how to use them. 
 
 We shall endeavour in the following chapters to lay 
 down a few principles of criticism, which for the most 
 part will speak for themselves, believing that Inspira- 
 tion does not supersede or materially alter the laws of 
 human thought. For as in the person of Christ, the 
 Incarnate Word, there was not only a human body, but 
 also a human mind with all its limitations and needs, 
 existing mysteriously and incomprehensibly in union 
 with the fulness of the Godhead, so in the written Word 
 we have human language and human thought, both of 
 which have full scope though they are pervaded by the 
 influence of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 But though this comparison is useful, the analogy 
 must not be pushed too far. We believe that in the 
 person of Christ there was perfect God and perfect man: 
 in the Scriptures we acknowledge the human element to 
 be present in perfection, but not so the divine. That 
 was granted "in different measures and different ways" 
 (Heb. i. 1.) according to the capacity of the prophet and 
 the need of the church ; only "by the Son was the 
 Spirit given without measure " (John iii. 34). 
 
 A few remarks on Revelation and Inspiration are 
 necessary here, to make my meaning clear. Revelation 
 is objective, Inspiration subjective. Revelation draws 
 
30 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 back the veil, which covers from our sight either future 
 events or the mysteries of the invisible world. When 
 once the veil has been drawn back and the prophet has 
 seen and described what he saw, the revelation becomes 
 a possession for all time. 
 
 Inspiration quickens the spiritual perception. Al- 
 though the veil be withdrawn, the vision may be 
 obscure or complex. "We see through a glass and 
 in a riddle" (1 Cor. xiii. 12). The prophet needs help 
 to interpret for us what he has seen. The obscurity 
 of the book of Revelation may illustrate this fact. 
 
 Now in the New Testament the person of Christ 
 was the great revelation. They who had seen, heard 
 and handled Him (1 John i. 1) had something 
 to say, which no prophet had ever had before. They 
 were inspired, that they might be able to grasp 
 something of His work, of the meaning of His death, 
 the power of His resurrection and the significance 
 of His teaching. Pontius Pilate or Caiaphas might 
 have written a life of Christ, but it would not have 
 been a gospel. SS. Peter, John, Matthew and Paul 
 received in greater measure than others the help of the 
 Holy Spirit, if we are to judge by the records of their 
 teaching which remain, in "bringing all things to their 
 ivinombrance " (John xvi. 13) for this purpose. But 
 their gifts varied in degree ; some were enabled to see 
 one thing, some another ; for the Holy Spirit " divides 
 to every man severally as He will" (1 Cor. xii. 11); 
 
ANALYSIS OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. 31 
 
 and thus the manifold needs of the Church were 
 met. 
 
 This was not all. When the gift was granted, 
 providential guidance, we firmly believe, preserved it. 
 During all the time that the gospel was in the hands 
 of the catechists, the Holy Spirit watched over it, not 
 with such absolute constraint, as to preserve it from all 
 circumstantial change ; the changes, as we shall see, 
 were great and rapid; but so that the truth should 
 be handed down to the Church in a form suited to her 
 need. 
 
 The same providential guidance directed the three 
 first evangelists in their writing. By them was needed 
 no new revelation ; they did but record what they had 
 received from others (Luke i. 1 ff.). To them there 
 was no high measure of inspiration ; that was needed 
 rather when the oral gospel was first composed. But 
 the Holy Spirit guided and directed them to write 
 what was helpful. 
 
 Their writings therefore must be regarded as human 
 histories, though they are the Revelation of God. And 
 it is only from the human side that scholarship can 
 approach them. But it is our duty to do this, boldly, 
 though with reverence, for the more we understand the 
 human, the more are we in a position to search into the 
 deep things of God. 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE FIRST CYCLE OF ORAL GOSPEL. 
 S. PETER'S MEMOIRS. 
 
 Three editions, all nearly complete, of S. Peter's 
 memoirs have been preserved for us, one in each of 
 the first three Gospels. But that given by S. Mark 
 is so much nearer the original in form than the others, 
 that for the purpose of the present chapter we shall 
 consider it alone. In chapter VII. we shall discuss the 
 divergences from it presented in the other Gospels. 
 
 Papias draws particular attention to the care which 
 S. Mark took to give us the whole of S. Peter's memoirs. 
 And this praise, as far as we can tell, is well deserved. 
 Only one section — the healing of the centurion's servant 
 (or son?) (Matt. viii. 5-13, Luke vii. 1-10)— is omitted 
 by S. Mark, though it appears to me plainly to be 
 Petrine. 
 
 Papias tells us that S. Mark wrote because he had 
 been constituted S. Peter's translator. We have no 
 
THE FIRST CYCLE OF ORAL GOSPEL. iVo 
 
 reason to think that he wrote till, as Irenseus affirms, 
 after S. Peter's death; but as his translation was current 
 East and West wherever Greek was spoken, it must 
 have been made many years before it was committed 
 to writing. Indeed as Greek-speaking Jews were at 
 first a majority in the church at Jerusalem and were 
 not backward in letting their influence be felt (Acts 
 vi.), S. Mark's translation was probably made for them 
 almost as soon as the Aramaic original was composed. 
 
 That S. Peter's work was really finished and trans- 
 lated within twelve years after the Ascension we shall 
 endeavour to prove in chapter x. Suffice it now to say 
 that the relative antiquity of the first cycle, as com- 
 pared with the other two, is abundantly shown by the 
 meagreness of its contents. There is a singular absence 
 in it of all that is most interesting and popular in our 
 Lord's teaching. S. Mark, in short, never has been a 
 favourite author in the Church, and however much 
 critics may extol him for historical fidelity, they will 
 never win for him the admiration of the common 
 people. Except the Catena, no patristic commentary 
 on his Gospel has been preserved. The fathers of the 
 Church most falsely regarded it as a mere epitome of 
 S. Matthew. Most of those writers who in ancient or 
 modern times have commented on all the Gospels, treat 
 S. Mark slightingly, referring their readers to the notes 
 upon the parallel sections in S. Matthew. Until our 
 own day, few commentators have singled him out for a 
 w. G. Q 
 
34 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 separate treatise. And he has been as much neglected 
 in the pulpit as the study. 
 
 Nor is this surprising. A gospel which omits the 
 Sermon on the Mount, the Lord's Prayer, all the 
 parables except four, and all the longer discourses 
 except that on the Second Advent, must needs seem 
 an inadequate record of our Lord's teaching. It has 
 none of the attractive narratives of His birth, His infancy 
 and boyhood ; nothing of the manger at Bethlehem, of 
 the shepherds watching their flocks by night or the 
 Magi visiting the cradle ; nothing of the tears shed 
 over Jerusalem, or the Father's yearning for the prodigal 
 son, nothing of the Samaritans, nothing of the penitent 
 thief on the cross or of the woman who had been a 
 sinner, none of the sublime discourses of S. John. 
 
 The Petrine memoirs are comparatively cold and 
 deficient in theological and spiritual teaching. If we 
 wished to prove the law of progress in Revelation, 
 we could not do better than compare the first cycle 
 with the second and third and these again with S. John. 
 The developement is like the change from childhood 
 through youth to manhood. For thus was the promise 
 fulfilled " When the Spirit of truth shall come, he shall 
 guide you into all the truth; he shall glorify me, for 
 he shall take of mine and shall show it unto you " 
 (John xvi. 13, 14). It is not so much that S. Peter's 
 spiritual insight was less than S. Matthew's, but that 
 he wrote at an earlier date, when the Church under 
 
THE FIRST CYCLE OF ORAL GOSPEL. 35 
 
 the guidance of the Holy Spirit was learning the 
 meaning of her message. History also necessarily comes 
 before doctrine. The fact of the crucifixion and resur- 
 rection must be established, before their purport could 
 be understood. 
 
 Nor is the priority of the Petrine memoirs attested 
 only by internal considerations like these, but still 
 more plainly by their universal acceptance. They were 
 current everywhere, as no other cycle was. They are 
 given almost complete in each of our three first Gospels. 
 They had, we shall see, a formidable rival in the second 
 cycle, and a still more formidable rival in the third. 
 But though the third cycle succeeded in preventing 
 large portions of the second cycle from circulating in 
 the West, it had no such power against the first, which 
 remained almost intact amongst Jews and Gentiles 
 alike. No one ever thought of committing the second 
 or third cycle separately to writing in Greek : it is our 
 greatest loss that no one did : but S. Mark did deem 
 it important thus to distinguish the first, as containing 
 the historical facts on which our faith is based. 
 
 We need not here give a list of the sections of the 
 first cycle, as we have thought it necessary to do with 
 the second and third, because the reader will find them 
 ready to hand in S. Mark's Gospel, of which any good 
 commentary will give an analysis ; but it may be 
 useful to point out some of the general character- 
 istics. 
 
 3—2 
 
36 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 The chief glory of the Petrine memoirs is the full 
 account which they contain of the last Passion, written 
 however from the human side and appealing chiefly to 
 our sense of pity and shame. The Resurrection — that 
 cardinal fact of Christianity— is not only thrice predicted 
 (Mark viii. 13, ix. 9, 31), but in the last chapter an 
 account is given of the empty tomb and the words " He 
 is risen, he is not here." S. Mark gives no more, 
 because the last page of his Gospel (xvi. 9 ff.), which like 
 the other New Testament writings was through the 
 writer's poverty written upon impyrus, was apparently 
 torn away before it came into circulation. 
 
 For the rest we may notice that, though some 
 of the greater miracles — such as the healing of 
 the man born blind, the raising of Lazarus, and the 
 raising of the widow's son at Nain — find no place 
 in the Petrine memoirs, yet the miraculous element 
 is as strong as it is weak in the second and third 
 cycles. 
 
 Thus we have the raising of the daughter of Jairus, 
 the cure of the Gadarene demoniac, the stilling of the 
 storm, the walking on the sea, the feeding of five 
 thousand and of four thousand, the restoration of sight 
 to Bartimseus, and the healing of the epileptic boy at 
 the foot of the mount of Transfiguration. 
 
 But if the acts of Christ are vividly detailed, His 
 words are treated as still more important. Indeed 
 many miracles appear to be narrated for the sake of the 
 
THE FIRST CYCLE OF ORAL GOSPEL. 37 
 
 conversation which attended them or the controversy 
 to which they gave rise. Only one considerable section — 
 that of the murder of John the Baptist (Mark vi. 14- 
 29) — does not centre round the person of our Lord. 
 Prominence is given to the Sabbath controversy, which 
 first raised popular feeling against Christ (ii. 23-28, 
 iii. 1-6) ; to the disputes with the Pharisees about 
 eating with unwashen hands (vii. 1-7), about the 
 Corban (vii. 9-13), about divorce (x. 1-12), about the 
 blasphemy of claiming to forgive sins (ii. 7-12), about 
 the nature of the baptism of John (xii. 27-33), paying 
 tribute to Caesar (xii. 13-17), and to the dispute with 
 the Sadducees about resurrection (xii. 18-27). 
 
 Although the sayings of our Lord which are pre- 
 served in the Petrine memoirs are short, and seldom 
 touch His higher teaching, many of them are striking, 
 and were evidently intended to arrest the attention of 
 non-Christians or neophytes. Such especially are, " There 
 are some standing here who shall not taste death..." 
 (ix. 1). "Whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy 
 Spirit..." (iii. 29). "If thy hand offend thee, cut it 
 off..." (ix. 47). "What shall it profit a man...?" 
 (viii. 36). 
 
 Our Lord's sayings in the Petrine memoirs are 
 seldom enigmatical. We should hardly have gathered 
 from S. Mark that at one stage of His teaching " with- 
 out a parable spake he not unto the people " (iv. 34). 
 But we have at least one example of this : " Beware of 
 
38 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 the leaven of the Pharisees and of the leaven of Herod." 
 (viii. 15). 
 
 The Petrine memoirs, though meagre and incomplete, 
 sketch for us in outline a considerable part of our 
 Lord's history. They form in this way the historical 
 framework of the three Gospels. The other cycles, 
 though full of His teaching, contribute hardly any- 
 thing to a knowledge of His movements. It is only 
 when we come to S. John that we get new informa- 
 tion on this important head, except such notices of 
 His earlier life as we find from sources outside the 
 cycles. 
 
 And surely it is most important for us as serious 
 historical students to know that we have so firm a 
 foundation for the facts which so nearly concern us. 
 It is better in the controversy against unbelief to bring 
 into prominence the unique attestation of S. Mark's 
 Gospel, than to take up the untenable position that all 
 the Gospel narratives are equally exact and can be 
 verbally reconciled with each other. If we can vindi- 
 cate S. Mark's claim to be heard the other Gospels will 
 vindicate themselves. Let the facts of Christ's life be 
 once assured, and His teaching will necessarily be ac- 
 cepted. 
 
 Let us not, however, claim too much even for S. 
 Mark's Gospel. Recollections of recollections are not 
 the same thing as facts. There is room for subjective 
 opinion. But even S. Peter's original memoirs did not 
 
THE FIRST CYCLE OF ORAL GOSPEL. 39 
 
 convey absolute truth, which is not attainable by us. 
 Inspiration does not confer infallibility. The Old Testa- 
 ment was fully inspired, yet our Lord pronounced some 
 of its precepts to be transitory (Mark x. 5), and some of 
 its morality to be wrong (Matt. v. 21-48). S. Paul 
 will not admit that the fuller revelation of the New 
 Testament is perfect. " We know in part and we 
 prophesy (i.e. preach and teach) in part " (1 Cor. xiii. 
 9). He contrasts our present knowledge with that for 
 which we look hereafter. " Now we see by means of a 
 mirror and in a mystery, but then face to face ; now I 
 know in part, but then shall I know even as also I was 
 known" (1 Cor. xiii. 12). 
 
 S. Mark's Gospel may narrate facts in an imperfect 
 form. Take for example the case of demoniacal pos- 
 session which the Petrine memoirs teach in its naked 
 and literal simplicity, for they appear to attribute such 
 maladies as mania, melancholy, epilepsy, nay even 
 deafness, to the indwelling of a malignant spirit. They 
 say that these spirits on one occasion went forth from 
 a man and entered a herd of swine. 
 
 Most English commentators maintain the literal 
 truth of this teaching. Some hold that demoniacal pos- 
 session is possible, and not uncommon now ; others 
 that Satan had unusual activity during our Lord's 
 ministry. 
 
 This may be the true view of the case, and in 
 support of it I would plead our complete ignorance of 
 
40 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 things beyond our ken. But the Dean of Wells 
 suggests delay and suspension of judgement about this 
 difficult question. It may be our true wisdom to act 
 on this advice. At any rate a Christian teacher may 
 hesitate to force his own view of this matter upon 
 those who look to him for guidance. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 GENEALOGY OF THE THREE EXTANT EDITIONS OF 
 
 s. peter's memoirs. 
 
 If I have three manuscripts A, B and C of a work 
 X, full of various readings of great divergence and 
 perplexity, my first task is to examine their genealogy ; 
 and if after an exhaustive comparison I find that A 
 presents by far the oldest type of text, and that B and 
 C may have descended from A, but have little in 
 common except what they derive from it, I conclude 
 that A is either the exemplar from which B and C are 
 descended or an early copy of that exemplar. I conclude 
 that B is the remote descendant of A in one line, and 
 that C is the remote descendant of A in another. As 
 for A, it may be either the original work X itself, or it 
 may be an early or a remote descendant from it, 
 according as the time at my disposal is long or short. 
 
42 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 The principal possible genealogies may be represented 
 thus, each stroke standing for a manuscript. 
 
 (1) A ( = X) (2) A ( = X) 
 
 / 
 
 \ 
 
 / 
 
 / \ / \ 
 
 \ ' x 
 
 \ / \ 
 
 c 
 
 / 
 
 / \ 
 
 / \ 
 
 (3) X (4) X 
 
 A /l 
 
 / 
 
 / 
 
 \ / l\ 
 
 \ / « \ 
 
 / \ / \ 
 
 8 c s \ 
 
 c 
 
 By the same process we may trace the genealogy of 
 the three widely different editions of the Petrine 
 memoirs which are preserved in our three first Gospels. 
 And we find that the second Gospel (S. Mark) presents 
 a very early type of text, from which the first and third 
 Gospels may have been derived; the first Gospel 
 presents a much later type of text, diverging in one 
 
GENEALOGY OF EXTANT EDITIONS. 43 
 
 direction, and the third Gospel a much later type of 
 text, diverging in another direction. 
 
 The first Gospel could not have been derived from 
 the third, nor the third from the first ; neither could 
 the second Gospel have been derived from the first or 
 the third or from both combined. 
 
 Any one may test these facts for himself by a few 
 hours' careful study of the Greek text. He must 
 however be prepared to find much greater changes than 
 he would in manuscripts, because the living catechist 
 exercised far greater power to alter than the scribe 
 whose work is mechanical. 
 
 Thus, if you grant, what I shall try to establish in 
 chapter xiv., that our present three Gospels were 
 written in the decade 71-80 A.D., we get the following 
 diagrams, in which I have used ordinary type for oral 
 gospels and capitals for written Gospels. For brevity 
 I have put matthew to represent the first Gospel. 
 
 (1) Here S. Mark is S. Peter's immediate disciple 
 and is the author in his old age, represented by the long 
 stroke, of the second Gospel. 
 
 (2) Here S. Mark is S. Peter's immediate disciple, 
 but a pupil of his, once or twice removed, is the author 
 of the second Gospel. 
 
 (3) Here S. Mark is S. Peter's disciple indirectly, 
 receiving the oral gospel at third or fourth hand, but 
 he is the author of the second Gospel. 
 
 (4) Here S. Mark is S. Peter's disciple indirectly, 
 
44 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 (2) Peter 
 Mark 
 
 /"I 
 
 / 
 / 
 
 (1) Peter 
 
 Mark 
 / 
 
 / 
 / 
 
 / 
 
 / 
 
 / 
 
 / 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 M/ 
 
 MARK 
 
 (3) Peter 
 
 (4) Peter 
 
 Mark 
 
 / 
 
 A 
 
 / i 
 
 / l 
 / i 
 / i 
 
 Mark 
 
 MATTHEW 
 
 receiving the oral gospel at third or fourth hand, and 
 
GENEALOGY OF EXTANT EDITIONS. 45 
 
 pupil of his once or twice removed is the author of the 
 second Gospel. 
 
 No. 1 is both supported by the testimony of the 
 Fathers of the Church, and best fits into what we know 
 of the history of the time. 
 
 No. 2 supposes that Papias and the other Fathers 
 confused S. Mark's oral work with a written Gospel. 
 
 No. 3 supposes that the Hellenistic Christians at 
 Jerusalem were neglected for some time. 
 
 No. 4 labours under all the difficulties. 
 
 Nos. 3 and 4 leave less time for the changes in 
 the tradition and for the working in of the other 
 cycles. 
 
 Although therefore any of the above four is possible, 
 the first seems decidedly the most probable and alone 
 has proper historical attestation. 
 
 A few more remarks on the diagrams may be ac- 
 ceptable. 
 
 It will be seen that all the Greek catechists were 
 ultimately instructed by S. Mark, and that the 
 Gentiles received the Gospel from the Church at 
 Jerusalem, but soon broke their connexion with that 
 Church. 
 
 The length of the strokes represents the period 
 during which any particular catechist controlled the 
 tradition before handing it on to his successor. S. Mark 
 therefore in the first and, as I hold, true diagram 
 has a stroke nearly equal in length to eight or ten 
 
46 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 of the others. Of course a catechist did not retire 
 from work as soon as he had instructed a pupil ; many 
 catechists may have continued to work as long as S. 
 Mark himself, and these must have exercised a conserv- 
 ing influence to check rapid changes. Some catechists 
 had many pupils, and all catechists were more or less 
 affected by the teaching of their fellows, so that much 
 mixture in the tradition arose. But it is undesirable 
 to attempt to represent all this in a diagram. 
 
 On the other hand, we must not be surprised that 
 the older catechists did not check changes more than 
 they did. Events move rapidly, and individuals must 
 move with them or make way for younger men. S. 
 Mark himself, if he had reappeared in Jerusalem in his 
 old age, could not I presume have held his own as a 
 catechist. He would have been thought old-fashioned. 
 For there is a fashion in teaching as well as in manu- 
 scripts. Theoretically it is supposable that a thirteenth 
 century cursive manuscript is a direct copy of a fourth 
 century uncial, but in practice this could only be clone 
 for some scholar or pedant. In the thirteenth century 
 the spelling, the grammar, the readings were different, 
 and men demand that to which they are accustomed 
 and which they think correct. A bookseller who did 
 not give the latest ' improvements ' could not sell his 
 manuscripts. 
 
 So with catechists. The introduction of the second 
 cycle at Jerusalem and of the second and third cycles 
 
GENEALOGY OF EXTANT EDITIONS. 47 
 
 in the West had greatly extended the knowledge of 
 Christ's teaching. The catechist who would hold his 
 own must master the new sections. And to keep 
 abreast with the age it was necessary for a man not to 
 indulge too freely any taste which he may have had for 
 the older form of teaching. 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 DETERIORATION IN THE ORAL TEACHING. 
 
 The ideal catechist would be one, who could boast 
 like the Rabbi that he had never said anything new, 
 but had scrupulously repeated the very words that he 
 had been taught. 
 
 Unhappily such catechists were not common, least 
 of all so in Gentile Churches. The desire to improve 
 upon the original by correcting its supposed mistakes, 
 improving its style or adapting it to the special needs 
 of your class had a strong hold on the fertile Hellenic 
 mind, and produced a gradual deterioration in oral 
 teaching. Even at Jerusalem a contempt for inter- 
 esting but unimportant details was reducing the 
 picturesque Petrine memoirs to a jejune chronicle. 
 
 Thus we observe the existence of two schools of 
 catechists, who deviated in opposite directions from the 
 primitive text. First came the Jewish school, which 
 
DETERIORATION IN THE ORAL TEACHING. 49 
 
 was verbally exact but endeavoured to make work 
 easier for the pupil by reducing its length. Nex1 
 came the Gentile school, which was careless about 
 verbal precision and endeavoured to present the work 
 in a more attractive literary form. Both these changes 
 seem to be due to popular demand in the different 
 Churches. 
 
 The Petrine memoirs therefore have come down to 
 us in three forms. In S. Mark we have a neutral text 
 representing the original with a considerable degree of 
 precision ; in the first Gospel we have an abbreviated 
 text, some parts of which are reduced to less than half 
 the original length; in S. Luke we have an altered 
 text, not much shorter, but full of slight changes which 
 irritate the reader, who has been trained, as most 
 Christians are, on the first Gospel, producing that kind 
 of impatience which is unfortunately felt by most 
 persons on reading the revised English version. 
 
 S. Mark's text is that of a primitive catechist ; the 
 first Gospel's that of a late catechist of the Jewish 
 school ; S. Luke's that of a late catechist of the Gentile 
 school. For it is almost certain that all these authors 
 were themselves catechists. Their work would be ex- 
 tremely difficult if they were not. 
 
 And the changes which we observe in the two later 
 Gospels, I mean the first and third, are not the work of 
 one mind but of many. The extraordinary similarity 
 of the narratives amid a multitude of minute and often 
 
 w. g. 4 
 
50 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 unaccountable divergences could only be produced by 
 transmission through a long line of catechists, each of 
 whom contributed something to the general result. 
 
 Great as the deterioration is in the two later Gospels, 
 it must have been still greater in the least efficiently 
 served Churches. 
 
 These remarks must now be justified by a few 
 examples. And first let us take an alteration for the 
 better, obtained by correcting the Greek version. 
 
 S. Mark, owing to an imperfect knowledge of Greek 
 and slight acquaintance with classical literature, had 
 used the word " metamorphosed " (fiere/jLopcpcoOr]) to 
 denote the change which came over our Lord at the 
 Transfiguration (Mark ix. 2). There was however, no 
 change in the permanent form (/xo/x^tJ), but only in 
 the outward appearance {a^rjixa). The narrative de- 
 scribes a glory and a brilliancy, but no alteration in 
 the features. MeTea^/jbarcadT] would have been the 
 right word ; both " metamorphosed " and its Latin 
 equivalent "transfigured" are clearly wrong, though 
 " transformed " would have been worse. The Jerusalem 
 catechists, however, knew less Greek than S. Mark and 
 did not feel the difficulty. In the first Gospel therefore 
 "metamorphosed" remains (Matt. xvii. 2). But the 
 Gentile catechists knew that a metamorphosis would 
 suggest wrong ideas to a Greek mind. It would recall 
 the fables of Zeus changing into a bull or a swan, or 
 would suggest to the Latins Ovid's fifteen books of 
 
DETERIORATION IN THE ORAL TEACHING. 51 
 
 Metamorphoses. In S. Luke accordingly we find the 
 word removed and a new rendering substituted, "the 
 form of his countenance became different" (Luke 
 ix. 29). 
 
 And now let us consider some changes of another 
 character. 
 
 First arise some which may be placed to the account 
 of defective memory. Thus S. Mark puts the cursing 
 of the barren fig-tree on the morning of the second day 
 in Holy Week, and says that the disciples first noticed 
 and called attention to its withering twenty-four hours 
 later. This is evidently the primitive record. S. Luke 
 omits the whole section, but the first Gospel makes the 
 withering follow suddenly, and its very suddenness 
 becomes the ground for remark (Mark xi. 1 2 ff. ; 
 Matt. xxi. 19 ff.). 
 
 Again, in the healing of Bartimseus, S. Mark writes, 
 "And they come to Jericho, and as he and his dis- 
 ciples and a great crowd were journeying forth from 
 Jericho...." The first Gospel in its usual way con- 
 denses this without altering the sense : " And as they 
 were journeying forth from Jericho a great crowd 
 followed him." But S. Luke writes, " And it came to 
 pass as he was drawing nigh to Jericho." Here the 
 scene of the miracle is changed. Some persons indeed 
 have suggested that as there was an old town in ruins 
 at Jericho, and a new town recently built, Christ may 
 have been leaving the one and entering the other ; but 
 
 4—2 
 
52 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 we have only to test such an explanation by applying 
 it to-day to Nice or Rome, to feel that there is more 
 ingenuity in it than probability (Mark x. 46; Matt, 
 xx. 29; Luke xviii. 35). 
 
 Sometimes the first Gospel's condensations alter the 
 meaning. Thus S. Mark in his glowing account of the 
 Baptist's murder tells us that Herod imprisoned John 
 " on account of Herodias," not, it would seem, to gratify 
 her hate, but to protect John from the assassins whom 
 she was likely to employ, for "Herodias set herself 
 against him and desired to kill him, but could not, for 
 Herod... kept him safe, paid him visits, was much 
 disturbed in conscience by what he said and yet 
 listened to him with pleasure" (Mark vi. 17 ff.). 
 S. Luke omits the narrative, but the first Gospel 
 reduces it to this, that " Herod wished to kill John, 
 but feared the multitude, because they held him as a 
 prophet." All allusion to the action of Herodias in 
 the matter is passed by ; yet this Gospel testifies to the 
 truth of the original record when it says that Herod 
 " was pained " when the stratagem of Herodias suc- 
 ceeded (Matt. xiv. 3 ff.). 
 
 So in the Petrine section which is not preserved 
 in S. Mark, S. Luke writes that the centurion sent to 
 Jesus some elders of the Jews, saying that he did so 
 because he held himself unworthy to come in person. 
 Again, seeing Jesus approaching, he sent a second 
 embassy of friends, entreating Him not to take an 
 
DETERIORATION IN THE ORAL TEACHING. 53 
 
 unnecessary trouble. Finally, Jesus granted his re- 
 quest without either visiting or seeing him. But the 
 first Gospel omits all this unquestionably authentic 
 matter and makes the centurion come and present his 
 petition in person (Luke vii. 1 ff. ; Matt. viii. 5 ff.). 
 
 Deterioration takes place much less in conversations 
 than in narratives. And this was to be expected. 
 Reverence for our Lord's sayings would naturally tend 
 to preserve them intact. Still it has not always done 
 so. Thus in the parable of the new cloth and the old 
 garment, S. Mark represents Christianity as new cloth, 
 not yet made up into a garment, but, as it was in our 
 Lord's time, still in the piece. No one, he continues, 
 would use it to patch up the worn and threadbare 
 robe of Judaism, or a worse rent to that robe 
 would ensue, the strength of the uncarded material 
 actually tearing the old. The first Gospel exactly 
 reproduces the thought, but with its favourite com- 
 pression reduces the number of words employed from 
 twenty-four to twenty. But the Gentile catechists 
 altered this. Perhaps they were over-anxious to pro- 
 duce something which no one ever does, forgetting that 
 in a parable the spiritual thought is uppermost and the 
 literal words cannot always be pressed. Perhaps they 
 wished to adapt the saying to the altered conditions of 
 their own day, in which Christianity had been already 
 made up into a garment. At any rate they tell us that 
 no man cuts a piece out of a new coat in order to patch 
 
54 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 up an old one ; otherwise the new coat is destroyed and 
 the old one is scarcely improved, for it receives an 
 unsightly patch, the pattern of the cloths being 
 different (Mark ii. 21 ; Matt. ix. 16 ; Luke v. 30). 
 
 Take finally the prophecy of the destruction of 
 Jerusalem (Mark xiii. 14; Matt. xxiv. 15; Luke xxi. 20). 
 S. Mark gives the obscure words, "When ye see 
 the abomination of desolation standing where it ought 
 not — let the reader mark ! — then &c." The first Gospel 
 informs us that the enigmatical words are quoted from 
 Daniel, and assuming a licence which is perhaps com- 
 moner in Old Testament prophecy than the English 
 reader generally is aware, slightly interprets the pre- 
 diction after the event, " When ye see the abomination 
 of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing 
 on holy ground (iv tottco ayla)) — let the reader mark ! — 
 then" &c. But S. Luke carries this licence much further, 
 rewriting the passage, " But when ye see Jerusalem 
 surrounded with armies." All mystery, all reference 
 to the Old Testament is removed. In chapter xix. 43 f. 
 his description is even more precise. 
 
 The above examples are sufficient for our present 
 purpose. The reader will find instances multiplied in 
 future chapters. But enough has been written to show 
 that the oral gospel was already deteriorating, and that 
 we have good reason to be thankful that it was com- 
 mitted to writing as soon as it was. 
 
 Still mure thankful must the Christians of that age 
 
DETERIORATION IN THE ORAL TEACHING. 55 
 
 have been, or at least such part of them as did not 
 cling too tenaciously to the old ways, and fear that 
 possession of the written word would make men care- 
 less about learning and treasuring up its truths. For 
 the memory is treacherous, and it was intolerable that 
 when you wished to have your recollections refreshed, 
 you must go to school again with the catechist. Yet 
 there was no other way. Busy men, like Theophilus, 
 had been catechised (/carrj^OTj^, Luke i. 4) in their 
 youth, but later occupations had driven out many of 
 the lessons, and, unless a man could secure the same 
 catechist whom he had attended as a boy, the frequent 
 discrepancies in the ever-changing tradition would jar 
 on the precision of youthful memory, and produce a 
 general sense of disappointment and uncertainty. 
 
 But even after the Gospels were written and had 
 come into circulation, the work of catechising by no 
 means stopped. Christian children needed education, 
 and, while learning by heart was still regarded as the 
 proper method, the records of our Lord's life and 
 teaching were best worth learning. Some of the 
 presbyters, who were now taking the place of the 
 catechists, would wisely make use in their teaching of 
 the written records. Still more would cling to their 
 own recollections, in which the process of deterioration 
 was rapidly going on. And so it comes to pass that 
 the earliest Fathers of the Church sometimes quote as 
 Scripture words that are different from anything found 
 
56 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 in our Gospels. Perhaps sometimes they are quoting 
 the Gospel according to the Hebrews (see chapter vin.). 
 
 One ill result followed upon the writing of the 
 Gospels. A number of our Lord's sayings, which there 
 is every reason to believe genuine, were lost because 
 they were not enshrined in any of the Gospels. One 
 such, " It is more blessed to give than to receive," is 
 preserved in Acts xx. 35. Another, " Father, forgive 
 them ; for they know not what they do," has been falsely 
 inserted into Luke xxiii. 34. A few more, like " Show 
 yourselves approved money-changers," have been handed 
 down in the Fathers or in the fragments of the Gospel 
 according to the Hebrews. The rest are forgotten. 
 
 To illustrate what has been said about the number 
 of traditional sayings which were in existence at the 
 beginning of the second century, and the feelings which 
 religious men entertained towards them, I translate 
 here a very interesting passage from the preface of 
 Papias's " Exposition of the Utterances of the Lord," 
 a work in five books, which was known to Eusebius, 
 and which consisted, as I gather from the words below, 
 of a translation of S. Matthew's lost Aramaic Gospel 
 interspersed with much traditional matter which Papias 
 had collected from pupils of the Apostles, the whole 
 being accompanied by a running commentary. Papias 
 then thus addresses his reader : 
 
 11 1 shall not hesitate in your behalf to combine 
 with my translations (epiirjveiais) [of S. Matthew] such 
 
DETERIORATION IN THE ORAL TEACHING. 57 
 
 things as I learned by heart from time to time and 
 treasured up in memory, having obtained them from 
 the Fathers of the Church. The truth of these things 
 I warrant, for I did not like the majority of men take 
 pleasure in those who make long speeches but in those 
 who teach [catechetically] the truth. Nor did I take 
 pleasure in those who hold in their memory the com- 
 mandments of men, but in those who hold the com- 
 mandments which were given to the Christian faith 
 by our Lord. And if at times I was visited by one of 
 the pupils of the Fathers, I would examine him ivpon 
 the discourses of the Fathers, as to what Andrew, 
 Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, Matthew or any 
 other of our Lord's disciples once had said, or what 
 Aristion or the presbyter John, our Lord's disciples, 
 still said. For I used to think that what I obtained 
 out of books did not help me so much as what I 
 obtained from the living and abiding voice." Eusebius, 
 H. E. in. 39. 
 
 It is plain that Papias is speaking of his younger 
 days, which fell within the first century. While the 
 opportunity lasted and men came fresh from contact 
 with the Apostles, he had eagerly collected their 
 lessons. He valued catechising, or learning by heart, 
 more highly than preaching or written commentaries, 
 many of which were of questionable orthodoxy. (See 
 Bishop Lightfoot on the passage.) But this feeling 
 had its dangers. The living voice was becoming un- 
 
58 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 trustworthy. It was a mistake to cling too fondly to 
 the old order. The work of Papias was neglected and 
 perished, perhaps because of the apocryphal nature 
 of many of his anecdotes. 
 
 If it be asked why I assign a meaning to ep^veia 
 which is not justified by its derivation or by its use in 
 Plato or other classical authors, my answer is that all 
 the words which are derived from Hermes originally 
 meant explanation and not translation. Hermes was 
 the messenger of the Gods, who were supposed to speak 
 Greek like mortals. His function therefore was to carry 
 the message of Zeus and make it plain to human 
 intelligence, not to translate it. 
 
 But when trade extended and brought the Greeks 
 into contact with foreign nations, the necessity of 
 translation made itself felt and the words of this group 
 were taken to express translation. For a time they 
 would, like our word ' interpret ', have a double mean- 
 ing. But in bilingual countries and in all places 
 where translation was a matter of daily occurrence, 
 the specific meaning was sure to gradually supersede 
 the more general meaning. 
 
 In short the £p/jLr]vev<; was the dragoman, whose 
 duty is first to point out the road and show places 
 of interest in a new country ; secondly, to explain 
 folk-lore, novelties and difficulties or peculiarities ; 
 thirdly to act as interpreter between his employer and 
 the natives. 
 
DETERIORATION IN THE ORAL TEACHING. 59 
 
 In the New Testament the first meaning occurs 
 once, "He pointed out to them (Sajp/jur/vevaev) in all 
 the Scriptures the passages concerning Himself" (Luke 
 xxiv. 27). Compare Ignatius ad Philipp. VI. and Ori- 
 gen c. Celsum III. 58. The second meaning, which is 
 the prevalent one in classical authors, does not occur 
 in the New Testament at all, but the third meaning 
 — that of translating — occurs no less than eighteen 
 times in the forms ep/ubrjveva), Step/JL^vevo), /bbedep/jLTjvevo), 
 epjJLTjvevTrjs and epfnjveia. 
 
 In the very few fragments of Papias which are 
 preserved, words from this group occur three times. 
 Of these ypfjurjvevaev unquestionably means " trans- 
 lated", kpfX7]vevrr]^ with almost equal certainty means 
 "translator", being applied to S. Mark who was "S. 
 Peter's translator". 'Epfirjveia I regard as meaning 
 " translation ", in which sense S. Paul uses it twice, 
 rather than "a commentary", as is usually supposed. 
 It is true that epfjbrjveia means a commentary in later 
 Greek, as in the titles to S. Chrysostom's commentaries. 
 But as Papias has used the older word igrjyrjais to 
 describe his commentary, there is reason to think that 
 he uses kpy^vela in what at that epoch appears to have 
 been its natural meaning. 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 THE SECOND CYCLE OF ORAL GOSPEL. 
 
 s. Matthew's "utterances of the lord". 
 
 The most difficult problem to solve in the criticism 
 -of the Gospels is S. Matthew's relation to them. 
 
 We have the apparently independent testimony of 
 three witnesses in the second century — Papias, Irenaeus 
 and Pantsenus — that S. Matthew wrote in "Hebrew". 
 Nor is there any ancient authority to the contrary. 
 The Fathers of the Church are agreed that it was 
 so, and only since the Reformation has the fact been 
 seriously, and, as I think, most unjustifiably called in 
 question. 
 
 Nevertheless the Fathers, as far back as we can 
 trace their opinions, unreservedly accept our first 
 Gospel, which is in Greek, as S. Matthew's work. 
 While they uphold the Aramaic or " Hebrew " (as they 
 call it) original, they equally uphold the Greek repre- 
 sentative as though it were an exact translation made 
 either by S. Matthew himself or by some authorised 
 
THE SECOND CYCLE OF ORAL GOSPEL. 61 
 
 interpreter. And it is in my opinion impossible to 
 ignore this consensus of belief. 
 
 And yet upon close examination nothing appears 
 more certain than that our first Gospel is not imme- 
 diately a translation. In the first cycle, which it gives 
 almost complete, not only is S. Peter's narrative adopted, 
 but the most numerous and minute agreements prove 
 that S. Mark's version has been used. In the second 
 cycle also the same Greek text is followed which we 
 find in S. Luke. And even those parts, which are 
 peculiar to the first Gospel, do not (like S. Luke's two 
 preliminary chapters) read like a direct translation 
 from the Aramaic. They are a translation, as indeed 
 the whole Gospel is, but a translation which has been 
 rounded and smoothed by passing through a long line 
 of Greek catechists. 
 
 Our first Gospel therefore is a composite work. 
 S. Peter must be called the author of a considerable 
 part of it. S. Matthew cannot even have written down 
 this part — I mean the first cycle — unless we are to 
 suppose that he, an Apostle and eyewitness, set aside 
 his own recollections and went to school for his facts 
 with the later Hellenic catechists. Even if he had 
 done this, he would be the editor, rather than the 
 author of that considerable portion, which indeed forms 
 the historical framework of the whole. 
 
 Let us endeavour to trace, as far as may be, 
 S. Matthew's position and work. 
 
62 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 S. Matthew I maintain was the author of the 
 second cycle of oral gospel. We may assume that he 
 imitated S. Peter in composing it, a section at a time, 
 and teaching it to a class of pupils, some of whom 
 became catechists and handed it down. I think that 
 his teaching was at first esoteric, or intended only for 
 an inner circle of advanced scholars, and he probably 
 began to teach some years before S. Peter left Jeru- 
 salem. His original lessons were in Aramaic. 
 
 Clement of Alexandria tells us that S. Matthew was 
 a vegetarian, like S. James the Lord's Brother. This 
 fact may have increased his hold on the esteem of the 
 Church at Jerusalem. But his apostolical office must 
 have brought him to the front after S. Peter's with- 
 drawal. And thus he may not only have continued to 
 give his own new lessons, but he may well have 
 exercised a general superintendence over the catechists 
 and perhaps assisted them in the important work of 
 piecing the two cycles together to form one compact 
 course of instruction for practical use. For the second 
 cycle appears never to have been written down sepa- 
 rately or to have formed a perfect work by itself. 
 
 When the task was but half completed, there came 
 the demand for catechists to teach in those Gentile 
 churches, which S. Paul was founding. For S. Mark 
 had turned back from the work and others must be 
 had to take his place. Such teachers might no doubt 
 have been obtained at Antioch, but it is evident that 
 
THE SECOND CYCLE OF ORAL GOSPEL. 63 
 
 S. Paul drew his main supply of evangelists and 
 catechists from the energetic proselytising church at 
 Jerusalem, or his converts would not so soon have been 
 tinged with Judaism. 
 
 These missionary catechists took with them the 
 course of instruction then current. That is to say, they 
 took the first cycle, in a form by no means so much 
 curtailed as it afterwards became in the East. And 
 intermingled with it they took such parts of the second 
 cycle as had been completed. Thus the later portions 
 of the second cycle, except a few fragments carried 
 from time to time by occasional visitors, never reached 
 the West and accordingly are not found in S. Luke's 
 Gospel. For communication between the East and 
 the West was not encouraged in later time, S. Paul 
 preferring to educate local catechists for his own use 
 rather than run the risk of occasionally introducing a 
 "false brother". It seems more satisfactory to account 
 for S. Luke's omissions in this way, than to suppose 
 that the sections which he does not give, were less 
 suitable for Gentile readers, although this latter reason 
 too may to some extent have operated. 
 
 After this for some years S. Matthew continued his 
 work at Jerusalem. Having once been employed as a 
 tax-gatherer, he must have possessed at least a collo- 
 quial knowledge of Greek. Jerusalem was a bilingual 
 church. At one time the Greek-speaking Jews had 
 formed a majority in it (Acts vi.). At all times they 
 
64 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 must have been numerous. And they were not men 
 who suffered themselves to be forgotten or ignored. 
 Either S. Matthew himself, or more likely some cate- 
 chist chosen (like S. Mark) for the purpose, translated 
 into Greek the sections of the second cycle, as soon as 
 they were compiled, for use amongst the Hellenist 
 Jews. And thus in the same church two sets of 
 teachers — the Aramaic and the Greek — were labouring 
 side by side under S. Matthew's direction. 
 
 Time passed on. The second cycle was completed, 
 as far as it ever was completed, and S. Matthew leaving 
 Jerusalem went to labour in the East. Here the 
 Aramaic Gospel was written, while (as Irenaeus says) 
 SS. Peter and Paul were still living. It was probably 
 the first written Gospel. It was that Gospel which 
 Papias translated and commented on ; with which 
 Irenaeus was acquainted; and which Pantaenus found 
 in "India", written in the square Hebrew character, 
 and left there (he says) by S. Bartholomew. 
 
 This is what Papias says: "Matthew accordingly 
 caused the Utterances to be compiled in the Hebrew 
 dialect and individuals translated them to the best of 
 their ability." If he himself (as I have supposed) was 
 one of those who had translated them, the curiously 
 apologetic way in which he speaks of the efforts of 
 translators is accounted for. The translators were 
 numerous and active at the time, but long before he 
 wrote this account of them, their activity had ceased. 
 
THE SECOND CYCLE OF ORAL GOSPEL. 65 
 
 Can we trace the later history of this Gospel ? Not 
 unless we identify it, as I think there is good reason to 
 do, with that "Gospel according to the Hebrews " which 
 is so frequently mentioned by some of the earliest 
 Fathers. If we may do this, it continued to have a 
 small circulation for about three centuries amongst the 
 orthodox Christians of the East, until it was finally 
 superseded by the Syriac translations of our first 
 Gospel which had always pressed it hard. Perhaps it 
 became loaded with a certain amount of apocryphal 
 matter. In a mutilated form it was adopted by the 
 heretical sect of the Ebionites, who declared it to be 
 the only true Gospel, much as the Marcionites treated 
 S. Luke. The Greek versions of it obtained little 
 currency and were soon forgotten. Even S. Jerome's 
 labours in translating it into Greek and Latin did not 
 bring it into much notice. It slowly disappeared and 
 we have no trace of it left except a few quotations 
 chiefly in SS. Epiphanius and Jerome. 
 
 Was the Apostle S. Matthew the author of this 
 book ? Not exactly, if it is identical with the " Gospel 
 according to the Hebrews." For in the first place that 
 Gospel contained 2,200 lines as against 2,500 in the 
 first Gospel. It was therefore longer than S. Mark's 
 Gospel and not so very much shorter than the other 
 two. This circumstance makes us think that it must 
 have contained the Petrine cycle as well as S. Matthew's 
 peculiar work. That it really did so, is attested by the 
 w. g. 5 
 
66 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 fragments which are preserved, some of which belong 
 to that cycle. Such a thing is moreover probable in 
 itself. For the second cycle, if taken alone, could 
 hardly form a complete Gospel ; it has no historical 
 framework and it stops short of the Passion, some 
 account of which would surely be essential to a true 
 Gospel. The phrase "Utterances of the Lord" by 
 which Papias designates the book, though it plainly 
 indicates that discourses formed the distinctive feature, 
 yet, as Bishop Lightfoot has shown (Essays reprinted 
 from the Contemporary Review), does not preclude a 
 considerable intermixture of historical matter. 
 
 Now even if the work in question had contained the 
 second cycle only, a catechist with a strong youthful 
 memory practised by daily use, would have had less 
 difficulty in writing it, than the original author, who 
 must have forgotten much of what he had drawn up 
 and would be compelled to perform his task a second 
 time. It was easier for S. Mark to write our second 
 Gospel, than for S. Peter to have done so ; and S. 
 Matthew would naturally turn to his trusted band 
 of catechists, if he wanted to commit to writing his 
 own recollections. Still more must this have been 
 the case, if he wished to record the whole body of 
 teaching as it was then current amongst Hebrew 
 Christians. Looking at the matter from the human 
 side, we must hold the employment of a catechist to 
 write to be the natural, if not the necessary, course. 
 
THE SECOND CYCLE OF ORAL GOSPEL. 67 
 
 And that some catechist really was employed, is 
 indicated by the exact wording of the testimony of 
 Papias. "S. Matthew" he writes "procured the 
 composition of the Lord's Utterances." The middle 
 voice avveypdylraro, so different from the plain eypayjre 
 which the same Papias uses of S. Mark, indicates to me 
 something more than the employment of an amanuensis. 
 It shows that the Apostle authorised and superintended 
 the execution of the work, rather than actually per- 
 formed it. 
 
 Still if it was written under S. Matthew's guidance 
 and if its distinctive feature was that second cycle, of 
 which S. Matthew was the author, it would naturally 
 and properly be called "the Gospel according to S. 
 Matthew". 
 
 Such appears to have been the outcome of the 
 labours of the Hebrew catechists at Jerusalem. Let us 
 next consider the activities of their brethren, the Greek 
 catechists of that Church. 
 
 The Gospel of which they were the custodians had 
 the same origin and was once identical with the other. 
 But time must have produced divergences. Additions 
 were considerable and alterations not unimportant. 
 
 Were the Greek catechists at Jerusalem more 
 faithful than their Hebrew brethren had been in 
 preserving the integrity of the records committed to 
 their keeping ? If we compare the surviving fragments 
 of the Gospel according to the Hebrews with the 
 
 5—2 
 
68 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 parallel passages, where there are such, in the first 
 Gospel and in S. Luke, we shall at first sight be 
 disposed to think so, for we find strange changes in the 
 text of the fragments. But it would be most unreason- 
 able to conclude that similar variations extended over 
 the whole of the lost Gospel. Nay, it is clear that 
 many of the fragments owe their preservation to their 
 unusual novelty. The general resemblance between 
 the two works in other passages both in respect of 
 language and contents must have been close, or S. 
 Jerome would not, after he had read and transcribed 
 the Gospel according to the Hebrews have called it 
 the original S. Matthew's Gospel, of which our first 
 Gospel was a translation by an unknown author. (De 
 viris illustribus in.) To argue that the two books 
 must have been widely different or S. Jerome would 
 not have undertaken a new translation, for which there 
 could be no need, is to misunderstand his temper 
 and ambitions. The man, who translated the whole 
 of the Old Testament direct from the Hebrew in 
 the hope of superseding the common Latin version 
 which had been made from the LXX. — a hope which 
 brought him not a little vexation during his life and 
 in the case of the most important part, the Psalms, 
 was not justified even after his death — had no mean 
 conception of the importance of exact translation or 
 diffidence about his own capacity to produce it. It 
 would almost seem as if at one time he had expected 
 
THE SECOND CYCLE OF ORAL GOSPEL. 69 
 
 that his version of the " Hebrew original " would 
 supersede the Greek S. Matthew. Else why should 
 he have translated it into Greek as well as into Latin — 
 a thing which he did not attempt for any book of the 
 Old Testament ? But if he had this expectation for a 
 time, he soon abandoned it. In his commentary on 
 S. Matthew he follows the ordinary text, contenting 
 himself with an occasional reference to " the Hebrew 
 original ". 
 
 For my part I feel confident that if the Gospel 
 according to the Hebrews could ever be recovered, we 
 should find in it not only an extraordinary resemblance 
 to our first Gospel but in many places there would be 
 an older and original text, from which it would be easy 
 to see how the variations in the first Gospel and 
 S. Luke were derived. 
 
 For the Greek catechists wrote nothing until close 
 upon, or more probably after, the destruction of Jeru- 
 salem (chapter xiv.). By that terrible event they were 
 scattered and their work for a time paralysed. It may 
 be that one of them went for consolation and advice to 
 his former chief, the Apostle S. Matthew, in the distant 
 East, and was authorised and encouraged to write a 
 Greek Gospel, as S. Matthew had authorised a Hebrew 
 catechist to write a Hebrew Gospel. Or, as the Fathers 
 know nothing of such authorisation, a Greek catechist 
 more probably wrote the Gospel under direct prompt- 
 ings from the Holy Spirit. 
 
70 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 It would be easier for him to do this, than to 
 translate the existing Aramaic Gospel into Greek. 
 And it would be wiser, because religious people highly 
 value accuracy in sacred things, and the Greek-speaking 
 Jews would much prefer the lessons to which they were 
 habituated, rather than a new translation. 
 
 Even without S. Matthew's sanction both these twin 
 Gospels — the Aramaic and the Greek — might properly 
 be called the " Gospel according to S. Matthew ", if not 
 the " Gospel of S. Matthew ", for they contained the 
 Gospel as it had been shaped under his hand and 
 in large part had been composed by him. With his 
 sanction, which the Aramaic Gospel at any rate seems 
 to have had, they would go forth in his name and 
 would soon be regarded as his work. 
 
 And they were regarded as identical works in the 
 Church at large. Tatian's Diatessaron proves by its 
 very title that he only acknowledged four Gospels. 
 Irenseus argues that there were four Gospels and four 
 only. Yet he affirms that S. Matthew wrote in Hebrew. 
 Did he himself use the Aramaic edition or any of its 
 Greek translations ? I cannot think so. But probably 
 few of the earliest Fathers were acquainted with both, 
 and none before S. Jerome took much pains to compare 
 them. They circulated as a first and second edition 
 of the same work (see Mr E. B. Nicholson's "Gospel 
 according to the Hebrews"), the second edition being 
 about one eighth longer. Like the longer and shorter 
 
THE SECOND CYCLE OF ORAL GOSPEL. 71 
 
 recension of the Ignatian epistles, they existed side by 
 side. In the West the second edition soon drove out the 
 first and all its versions, though Papias was the author of 
 one. Before S. Jerome's day they had all been forgotten. 
 S. Jerome's efforts to excite interest in it were quite 
 unavailing. S. Augustine was either unacquainted 
 with it or did not approve of it. Origen had pro- 
 nounced it to be of doubtful authority. This view 
 ultimately prevailed, partly perhaps on account of the 
 difficult verse "My Mother the Holy Ghost took me 
 by one of my hairs and carried me up the great moun- 
 tain Tabor", which I cannot but regard as an apocryphal 
 interpolation. 
 
 Even in the East the case was not different. Syriac 
 versions of our first Gospel existed side by side with the 
 original Aramaic. The Ebionites used the older work, 
 cutting off the two introductory chapters and sub- 
 stituting a short editorial preface of their own. But it 
 was impossible for the orthodox Christians of the East 
 to use a different S. Matthew from that which was 
 sanctioned in the West, and so the Gospel according to 
 the Hebrews perished. 
 
 If any one is reluctant to admit that the Gospel 
 which was more closely connected with S. Matthew has 
 perished, while that which was more remotely his, has 
 been preserved, I would have him ask himself how 
 many of S. Paul's epistles have perished ? We must 
 believe not only in the inspiration of Holy Scripture, 
 
72 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 but also in the Providential ordering of God, in pre- 
 serving to His Church what He has seen to be good 
 for it. 
 
 It is time now to say something about the character 
 of the second cycle of which I conceive S. Matthew to 
 have been the author. 
 
 1 have enumerated its sections below, that the 
 reader, who is interested in such study, may investigate 
 them for himself and on comparing them with the first 
 cycle may decide whether I am right in claiming for 
 them a unity of their own and clearly marked charac- 
 teristics. 
 
 But in framing his sections S. Matthew was not 
 entirely original. He had no wish to be so. He 
 occasionally borrowed some portions of the first cycle 
 as a skeleton or framework into which he inserted our 
 Lord's Utterances. Thus would I account for the 
 expansion of certain narratives, as for example that of 
 the Baptist's ministry, or that of the Baptism of Christ 
 by S. John, or that of the Temptation. The added 
 verses seem to me to be decidedly Matthaean, yet the 
 bulk of the narrative is Petrine. In the charge to the 
 Twelve (Matt, x.), and in the treatment of the question 
 of divorce, S. Peter's memoirs are again drawn upon. 
 The woes against the Pharisees (Matt, xxiii.) begin with 
 two Petrine verses, and the Petrine speech on the 
 second Advent is reproduced at full length with much 
 new matter. Of course these blendings may be the work 
 
THE SECOND CYCLE OF ORAL GOSPEL. 73 
 
 of the catechists rather than of the Apostle. And it is 
 supposable that S. Mark himself borrowed the speech on 
 the second Advent — the only speech which he gives — 
 from S. Matthew rather than S. Matthew from S. Mark : 
 but if S. Mark began to borrow, I fail to see why he 
 did not take more. And when I consider how anxiously 
 the subject of Christ's Return was debated in the first 
 days, I see no difficulty in supposing that S. Peter 
 compiled the speech respecting it. 
 
 The second cycle consisted almost wholly of speeches, 
 sermons and parables. There are two miracles, the 
 healing of the deaf and dumb demoniac (Matt. ix. 
 32-34) and the healing of the blind, deaf and dumb 
 demoniac (Matt. xii. 22-37). But these are perhaps 
 two different accounts of the same act, as S. Luke 
 treats them (xi. 14-26). They seem to be introduced 
 for the sake of the discourse to which they gave rise. 
 
 The chief glory of the second cycle is the Sermon on 
 the Mount, which has always been regarded as the 
 essence of Christ's teaching. But the parable of the 
 Unmerciful Servant and the description of the Son 
 of Man in glory proclaiming "I was an hungred and ye 
 gave me no meat ", have done more than any other 
 passages to humanise the age in which we live. 
 
 The discrepancies between the first Gospel and 
 S. Luke, which are both numerous and striking, 
 should warn us against supposing that we have verbatim 
 reports of any of these discourses. Even if S. Matthew's 
 
74 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 original text had been verbally exact, the two editions 
 of it which have reached us are not so. But there is 
 no reason to think that S. Matthew was able after a 
 lapse of from ten to fifteen years to recollect precisely 
 what was said. If it had been necessary for the 
 Church that he should have done so, the Providence of 
 God would have preserved his original manuscript in 
 its integrity. But not only is that not done, but we 
 have no primitive text of his work. The first Gospel's 
 edition is on the whole more exact than S. Luke's, 
 but both have been much altered by transmission 
 through a long line of catechists. We never feel that 
 confidence which S. Mark inspires and which the Gospel 
 according to the Hebrews, if it had been preserved, 
 perhaps might have inspired. The discourses of the 
 second cycle seem to us greatly superior in literary power, 
 theological interest and spiritual value to anything which 
 is contained in the first, but they have not the same 
 historical attestation. Much may be done by further 
 study to discover the original form, but many difficulties 
 seem likely to remain insurmountable. 
 
 If there is much discrepancy between the first 
 Gospel and S. Luke about the exact wording of the 
 sections, there is still greater difference about their 
 arrangement. The first Gospel masses them together 
 into magnificent wholes like the Sermon on the Mount 
 (Matt. v. — vii.), the Charge to the Twelve (Matt, x.), the 
 seven parables (Matt, xiii.) or the eschatological dis- 
 
THE SECOND CYCLE OF ORAL GOSPEL. 75 
 
 courses (Matt. xxiv. — xxv.) ; S. Luke also groups sec- 
 tions together, though in a much less convincing way 
 (Luke xi. and xii.), but he oftener breaks up a section, 
 putting a few verses here and a few there. 
 
 I cannot think the first Gospel's arrangement to be 
 the true one. The Sermon on the Mount is too long 
 and too full of matter to have been delivered at one 
 sitting. The section which contains the Lord's Prayer 
 (Matt. vi. 5-15) is plainly out of place, for it disturbs 
 the order. The seven parables, two of which are Petrine, 
 are not likely to have been spoken at once, or one 
 would have drawn attention from the other. And the 
 Charge to the Twelve is a manifest conflation, composed 
 of a charge to the Twelve (Luke ix. 1-5) blended with 
 the charge to the Seventy (Luke x. 2-10), an address 
 to the Twelve (Luke xii. 2-9), an extract from the 
 Petrine speech on the Second Advent (Mark xiii. 9-13, 
 Luke xxi. 12-17) and some other fragments. 
 
 But S. Luke's order appears to me to be still further 
 removed from the true one. Such portions of the 
 Sermon on the Mount as he gives at all, are spread over 
 six chapters, a single verse sometimes standing by itself. 
 The Charge to the Tw T elve he not only gives in three 
 considerable sections (in which I think him right) but in 
 five detached fragments. And so with other discourses. 
 But it is surely essential to oral teaching, that it should 
 consist of lessons and not of isolated verses. Many of 
 the sections, especially in S. Luke, appear to have 
 
76 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 become disintegrated, the historical introduction being 
 lost. The truth may well be that many of these 
 fragments belong to the later sections of the second 
 cycle and were brought into the West by occasional 
 visitors, who remembered one or two detached sayings, 
 but neither the context nor the chronology. Such 
 sayings were worked by the catechists into their 
 ordinary lessons. But the arrangement of many of the 
 perfect sections appears to be due to the catechists, 
 one arrangement being followed in Jerusalem, and quite 
 another among the Gentiles. 
 
 If I am right in supposing that most of the sections 
 which are not found in S. Luke's Gospel are of later date, 
 it becomes important to the student of the develope- 
 ment of Scripture to notice what the general character of 
 the later sections is. One large class of them may be de- 
 scribed as theological. Thus there is that important part 
 of the Sermon on the Mount in which Christ contrasts the 
 morality of the Old Testament with the higher morality 
 which He demanded of His disciples (Matt. v. 21-48). 
 Then there is the promise of the Keys to S. Peter, the 
 power given to the Twelve of binding and loosing, and 
 the distinction between the obedience due to the Scribes 
 by virtue of their office and the detestation of their 
 conduct. But the parable of the Unmerciful Servant, 
 of the Two Sons who were ordered to work in the 
 Vineyard, of the dissatisfied Labourers, of the Ten 
 Virgins, and the description of the Son of Man sitting 
 
THE SECOND CYCLE OF ORAL GOSPEL. 77 
 
 in the last Judgement, prove to us that much of the 
 simpler and most attractive teaching belongs to the 
 later developement. 
 
 Lastly, if the first cycle became loaded, as time 
 went on, with a considerable number of accretions fsee 
 chapter XI.), which we can detect by their absence from 
 S. Mark and often from S. Luke, we have reason to 
 suppose that the second cycle also has been affected in 
 this way ; not perhaps to so great an extent as the first 
 cycle, because it was neither so many years in circulation 
 before it was committed to writing, nor was it so widely 
 known. Still these non-Matt hsean additions may be 
 numerous. And we have not the means of detecting 
 them with any certainty, because we have no pristine 
 edition of the second cycle. Further critical ex- 
 amination may do something to settle such con- 
 troversies : but arguments from internal evidence must 
 always be regarded with great distrust, and in any case 
 it would be most unjustifiable to cast suspicion upon 
 every saying which was not doubly attested : for even 
 in the first cycle S. Luke's omissions are numerous and 
 hard to account for, much more so must they be here, 
 if I am right in supposing that the second cycle was 
 only half finished when it was taken to the West. 
 
 It may be well at this stage to offer an explanation 
 of the phrase " Utterances of the Lord " which I have 
 used to describe the second cycle. It was first suggested 
 to me by my colleague, the Rev. Dr Campion, as a 
 
78 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 rendering of the expression in Papias Xoyua Kvpiafcd. 
 Properly speaking \6yta is an adjective, the neuter plural 
 of \6yios which is derived from \6yos. If ^070? means a 
 speech, \6yio$ means a man who is capable of, or is in 
 the habit of, making speeches. Thus it is said to have 
 been applied by Aeschines to Demosthenes after the 
 death of the latter. When one decried his ancient 
 rival, hoping to gratify him, he replied \6ytos (ivrjp, 
 a> iral, \6yios /cat <J)l\67to\i<;. " The man was eloquent, 
 my good sir, eloquent and patriotic." In the New 
 Testament it is used of Apollos who was an "eloquent" 
 man (Acts xviii. 24). The neuter plural will mean 
 "eloquent words", "oratorical passages". When S. 
 Peter writes "If any man speak, let him speak as the 
 \6yia of God" (1 Pet. iv. 11) he means, let him speak 
 with the fervour and force which marked the ancient 
 prophets. The common rendering " oracles " (oracula) 
 is correct, oraculum being connected with orare and 
 orator ; but in English " oracles " has too definite and 
 restricted a meaning. "Discourses" would represent 
 the sense better, but this also is too distinctive a 
 word. 
 
THE SECOND CYCLE OF ORAL GOSPEL. 
 
 79 
 
 LIST OF THE SECTIONS OF THE SECOND CYCLE. 
 
 FIEST GOSPEL. 
 John the Baptist's ministry. 
 Petrine framework. 
 
 iii. 1-12. 
 
 S. LUKE. 
 Adds five verses (10-14) and 
 writes out the quotation at full 
 length. iii. 7-17. 
 
 Christ baptized by John. 
 Petrine framework. 
 
 iii. 13-17. 
 
 Gives only the Petrine narra- 
 tive slightly altered. 
 
 iii. 21-22. 
 
 The Temptation. 
 Petrine framework. 
 
 iv. 1-11. 
 
 Adds verse 6, reverses the order 
 of 5-8 and 9-12. Makes the fast 
 absolute. iv. 1-13. 
 
 The Sermon on the Mount. 
 
 A conflation of several dis- 
 courses. 
 
 v.-vii. 
 
 N.B. Matt. xii. 33-37 is per- 
 haps a repetition, with some addi- 
 tions, of Matt. vii. 15-20. The 
 two are blended together in Luke 
 vi. 43-45. 
 
 Adds four woes (vi. 24-26), 
 omits several sections and verses, 
 adopts often quite a different 
 order, and distributes the Sermon 
 over six chapters, viz. vi. 20-23, 
 25, 27-38, 41-46, xi. 1-4, 9-13, 
 34-36, 47-49, xii. 22-36, 57-59, 
 xiii. 13-14, 23-27, xiv. 34-35, xvi. 
 13, 17. 
 
 The two aspirants. 
 
 viii. 19-22. 
 
 Adds a third aspirant. 
 
 ix. 57-62. 
 
 DUMB DEMONIAC\ 
 
 Deaf and 
 
 HEALED. 
 
 ix. 32-34. 
 Blind, deaf and dumb demoniac 
 healed, with discourse on 
 Satan casting out Satan. 
 
 xii. 22-37.7 
 
 Treats these two narratives as 
 one and adds verses 21-22 from 
 the Petrine Gospel. 
 
 xi. 14-26. 
 
80 
 
 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 FIRST GOSPEL. 
 The harvest plenteous, the 
 
 LABOURERS FEW. ix. 36-38. 
 
 S. LUKE. 
 Gives the same words, but in 
 quite a different context. x. 2. 
 
 Charge to the Twelve Apo- 
 stles. 
 Petrine framework. 
 
 x. 1-42. 
 A conflation of several dis- 
 courses. 
 
 Splits this up into (1) The 
 charge to the Twelve, ix. 3-5 ; (2) 
 The charge to the Seventy, x. 
 1-12 ; (3) Another charge to the 
 Twelve, xii. 2-9; (4) The frag- 
 ments, vi. 10, xii. 51-53, xiv. 
 26-27, xvii. 33, x. 16. Omits 
 Matt. x. 1-6, 16-23. 
 
 John sends two disciples ; a 
 discourse follows. 
 
 xi. 1-19. 
 
 Inserts two verses 29-30 ; con- 
 denses Matt. xi. 12-14 into Luke 
 xvi. 16 with a different context, 
 vii. 18-35. 
 
 Woe to Chorazin and Bethsaida. 
 xi. 20-24. 
 
 Gives different order and quite 
 different context. x. 12-15. 
 
 Omits. 
 
 The dropsical man healed ; a 
 discourse on the Sabbath fol- 
 lows. 
 Possibly a repetition of the 
 
 Petrine account of the man with 
 
 the withered hand (Luke vi. 
 
 6-11). xiv. 1-6. 
 
 Omits. 
 
 The woman with a spirit of 
 infirmity healed ; a discourse 
 on the Sabbath follows. 
 
 xiii. 11-17. 
 
 Hidden from the wise and pru- 
 dent. 
 
 xi. 25-30. 
 
 Gives almost the same words 
 in a quite different context. 
 Strangely omits "Come unto me 
 all ye, Ac." x. 21-22. 
 
SECTIONS OF THE SECOND CYCLE. 
 
 81 
 
 FIEST GOSPEL. S. LUKE. 
 
 A sign fkom heaven demanded. Changes order. 
 
 xii. 38-42. xi. 29-32. 
 
 This passage is repeated xvi. 1. 
 
 (The enigmatical saying is diversely explained in the two Gospels 
 by two independent editorial notes.) 
 
 The unclean spirit returning 
 with seven others. 
 
 xii. 43-45. 
 
 Gives almost the same words 
 in a quite different context. Adds 
 "Blessed is the womb that bare 
 thee, &c." xi. 24-28. 
 
 Blessed are the eyes which see 
 the things that ye see. 
 
 xiii. 16-17. 
 
 Gives almost the same words 
 in a quite different context. 
 
 x. 23-24. 
 
 Parable of the tares and its 
 interpretation. 
 
 xiii. 24-30, 36-43. 
 
 Omits. 
 
 Parable of the Leaven. 
 
 Gives almost the same words 
 xiii. 33. in a quite different context. 
 
 xiii. 20-21. 
 
 Parable of the hidden Trea- 
 sure, xiii. 44. 
 
 Omits. 
 
 Parable of the Pearl of great 
 price. xiii. 45-46. 
 
 Omits. 
 
 Parable of the Draw-net and 
 its interpretation. 
 
 xiii. 47-50. 
 
 Omits. 
 
 The Pharisees blind guides 
 W. G. 
 
 Gives the parable only in a 
 xiv. 12-14. quite different context. vi. 39. 
 
 6 
 
82 
 
 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 FIRST GOSPEL. 
 
 S. Peter's confession ; the pro- 
 mise of the Keys follows. 
 Petri ne framework. 
 
 xvi. 13-20. 
 
 S. LUKE. 
 Gives the Petrine narrative 
 only, omitting the Keys. 
 
 ix. 18-20. 
 
 Parable of the Lost Sheep. 
 
 xviii. 12-14. 
 
 Gives the third cycle edition 
 which is fuller. xv. 3-7. 
 
 Whatsoever ye bind on earth 
 shall be bound in heaven. 
 
 xviii. 18-20. 
 
 Omits. 
 
 If thy brother sin against 
 
 thee tell the church. 
 
 xviii. 15-17. 
 
 HOW OFT SHALL MY BROTHER SIN 
 AGAINST ME AND I FORGIVE 
 HIM? 
 
 xviii. 21. 
 
 Blends these paragraphs into 
 
 one, much curtailed and altered. 
 
 xvii. 3-4. 
 
 Parable of the unmerciful ser- 
 vant, xviii. 23-25. 
 
 Omits. 
 
 Is Divorce lawful ? 
 
 Petrine framework with ad- 
 dition of the Paragraph of the 
 Eunuchs. 
 
 N.B. Both here and Matt. v. 
 32, the first Gospel permits 
 divorce to a man in case of his 
 wife's unfaithfulness, xix. 3-12. 
 
 Omits all except one Petrine 
 verse which prohibits divorce, as 
 the Petrine memoirs do, abso- 
 lutely. 
 
 xvi. 18. 
 
 Omits. 
 
 The servant plowing or shep- 
 herding REQUIRED TO PREPARE 
 HIS MASTER'S DINNER BEFORE EAT- 
 ING his own. xvii. 7-10. 
 
SECTIONS OF THE SECOND CYCLE. 
 
 S. LUKE. 
 
 83 
 
 FIRST GOSPEL. 
 
 Parable of the Labourers in 
 
 the Vineyard complaining of 
 
 their pay. xx. 1-16. 
 
 Omits. 
 
 Omits. 
 
 Parable of the two sons bid- 
 den TO WORK IN THE VINEYARD. 
 
 xxi. 28-32. 
 
 Tears shed over Jerusalem 
 and prophecy of its fall. 
 
 xix. 41-44. 
 
 Omits. 
 
 Parable of the King making 
 a marriage feast for his son. 
 
 Omits the various excuses 
 given for riot coming. 
 
 xxii. 1-14. 
 
 Parable of the man who gave 
 a great feast. 
 
 Omits the episode of the man 
 without the wedding garment. 
 
 xiv. 15-24. 
 
 (These parables have so much in common that they seem 
 to be the same.) 
 
 Omits. 
 
 The tower and the war be- 
 gun BUT NOT FINISHED. 
 
 xiv. 28-33. 
 
 The woes against the Phari- 
 sees. 
 
 Petrine framework (Mark xii. 
 38-40). 
 
 xxiii. 
 
 The coming of the Son of 
 Man. 
 
 Petrine framework (Mark xiii.) 
 with additions. 
 
 Gives portions only, in differ- 
 ent order and quite a different 
 context, once with the preface 
 Depart, for Herod wisheth to 
 kill thee. 
 xi. 37-52, xiii. 31-35, xiv. 10-11. 
 
 Gives three different speeches, 
 two of them in quite a different 
 context and with additions, e.g. 
 The Kingdom of God is within 
 you ; The servant beaten with 
 many or few stripes ; as it was 
 
 (3—2 
 
84 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 FIRST GOSPEL. 
 
 S. LUKE. 
 in the days of Lot. Rewrites 
 the prophecy of the fall of Jeru- 
 salem, 
 xvii. 20-37, xii. 33-48, xxi. 5-36. 
 
 Parable of the Ten Virgins. 
 xxv. 1-13. 
 
 Omits. 
 
 Parable of the Talents. 
 
 xxv. 14-30. 
 
 Parable of the Pounds. 
 
 xix. 11-28. 
 
 The Son of Man in Glory 
 separates the sheep from the 
 goats. xxv. 31-46. 
 
 Omits. 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE THIRD CYCLE OF ORAL GOSPEL. 
 ANONYMOUS. CURRENT IN GENTILE CHURCHES ONLY. 
 
 The demand for Christ's teaching rather than His 
 acts gave rise to a third cycle of oral narratives, which 
 was not current in Jerusalem or the East, and was 
 never taught in Aramaic. Who the compiler was, it is 
 vain to attempt to discover. Had it been one of the 
 Twelve, I cannot see why the work was not received in 
 Jerusalem. But if it was a private member of the 
 church at Antioch, the jealousy of the Eastern Church 
 might easily rob it of the new treasure. Pauline 
 teaching is so prominent in this cycle, that I cannot 
 but attribute it to a Pauline teacher. If so, he cannot, 
 like SS. Peter or Matthew, have simply related what 
 he remembered, but by diligent inquiry amongst the 
 Galileans, must have reaped the harvest which was 
 abundant there. For though Galilee as a whole was 
 abandoned by the Apostles, its day of grace being past, 
 
86 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 many individual Galileans must have remembered and 
 treasured up the lessons which had been taught them. 
 That the cycle is the work of one compiler is clearly 
 shown by uniformity of thought and style. For even 
 in collecting the teaching of Christ, much depended on 
 the collector. In Revelation, more than in wealth or 
 intellect, it is true that " to him that hath shall be 
 given ". And a cycle so full of spiritual truth as this 
 could not have been compiled by one who had not 
 himself drunk deep of the fountain of life. 
 
 It is practically certain that the sections of this 
 cycle were taught orally, and that S. Luke, who alone 
 records them, learned them from the catechists. Not 
 only are they singularly well adapted for oral teaching, 
 but they have a certain rotundity of style, the result 
 of constant repetition, as different as possible from 
 the marked Orientalisms of S. Luke's two first chapters. 
 
 This cycle contains only one miracle, the cleansing 
 of the ten lepers, which is chiefly told to enforce the 
 duty of rendering thanks to God by the contrast 
 between the conduct of the Samaritan and that of the 
 nine Jews. 
 
 A novel feature is introduced in this cycle when 
 stories are substituted for parables. Thus the story of 
 the Good Samaritan teaches directly the duty of kind- 
 ness to all who are in distress, irrespective of nationality 
 or their relation to ourselves. The story of the Rich 
 Fool points out the danger of a selfish life. The story 
 
THE THIRD CYCLE OF ORAL GOSPEL. 87 
 
 of the Rich Man and Lazarus enforces by the most 
 solemn considerations the folly of an Epicurean self- 
 indulgence and closing our eyes to the misery around 
 us. But the crowning glory of this cycle is the Parable 
 of the Prodigal Son, for a parable it certainly is ; and 
 yet it is not as a parable that we value it. Every 
 preacher, every commentator, instinctively turns rather 
 to the attractiveness of the story. 
 
 We shall better understand the parable of the 
 Unjust Steward, if we remember the absolute power 
 wielded by an Oriental steward in consequence of the 
 luxurious indolence of his lord. Witness Joseph in 
 Potiphar's house, when Potiphar "knew not aught 
 that he had save the bread which he did eat ". The 
 readjustment of payments was but a righteous relaxa- 
 tion of his own excessive exactions, which themselves 
 had been caused by his wasteful administration. But 
 whatever difficulty may be felt about the parable, the 
 lesson is plain enough, that money may be wisely used 
 to purchase friends, some of whom having gone before 
 shall be ready to welcome us into the eternal habita- 
 tions. 
 
 The power of Christ's love to avail in desperate 
 cases is nowhere so well set forth as in the narratives 
 of Zacchseus the publican, of the penitent thief on the 
 cross, or of the woman who had been a sinner and 
 whose penitential tears are contrasted with Simon's 
 coldness. 
 
88 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 Prayer is much dwelt on in S. Luke's Gospel, in 
 which our Lord's habit of prayer is especially and 
 frequently mentioned. The true nature of prayer is 
 taught in the story of the Pharisee and Publican, and 
 the duty of daily, definite and urgent petitions in that 
 of the importunate friend who applies for bread at 
 midnight, and of the widow who persecuted the unjust 
 judge. 
 
 The cosmopolitan spirit of the third cycle may be 
 seen in its treatment of the Samaritans. 
 
 The Petrine Memoirs make no mention of this 
 hated and alien race. The Matthsean Utterances con- 
 tain only the injunction " Into any city of the Samari- 
 tans enter ye not." If we had these cycles only, we 
 might have thought, what is impossible, that Christ 
 shared in the prejudices of His countrymen. But the 
 third cycle not only rebukes SS. James and John for 
 proposing to call down fire to consume a Samaritan 
 village which had not welcomed them, but gives the 
 account of the ten lepers, in which the thankful one 
 was a Samaritan, and the story of the Good Samaritan, 
 whose behaviour to the wounded Jew was such, that he 
 has frequently been regarded as a type of Christ. If 
 we add S. John's account of the woman of Samaria at 
 Jacob's well and the evangelisation of the village in 
 which she dwelt, we shall have a complete record of our 
 Lord's work amongst them. 
 
 The verbal accuracy of the narratives in this cycle 
 
THE THIRD CYCLE OF ORAL GOSPEL. 89 
 
 we have no means of testing, but when we consider 
 their origin, it is reasonable to suppose that they are 
 even less exact than those of the second cycle. But 
 if the words are not always a precise rendering of 
 what Christ said, but betray the idiosyncrasies of 
 the author's style and a certain polishing under the 
 hands of many catechists, the teaching is unquestion- 
 ably Christ's. 
 
 If we care to go below the surface of things and 
 stand face to face with reality, eternity and the absolute ; 
 if we care to have our conscience probed and the deepest 
 motives of our hearts laid bare ; in short, if we wish 
 to live in that atmosphere of truth, in which S. Paul's 
 thoughts habitually moved, we shall nowhere be so 
 much helped to do this, as in the fascinating narratives, 
 parables and stories of the third cycle. The historical 
 attestation may be less, but the spiritual value is of the 
 highest. And as for literary power, what is there in 
 the Pe trine or even in the Matthsean cycle to match 
 the account of the two men journeying to Emmaus, 
 itself by no means the first in these attractive narra- 
 tives ? 
 
 Subjoined is a list of the sections of the third cycle 
 in the order in which they stand in S. Luke's Gospel. 
 It will be noticed that they nearly all fall in that 
 great section of the Gospel in which S. Luke leaves for 
 a time the Petrine memoirs (Luke ix. 51 — xviii. 14). 
 That section is certainly not arranged in the true 
 
90 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 chronological order (see chapter xvi.) and it is im- 
 possible now to ascertain the relative chronology of the 
 narratives of the third cycle. Something may be done 
 by considering the internal evidence, but that is too 
 precarious a thing for certainty. 
 
 The woman who had been a sinner anoints Jesus' feet in the 
 house of Simon ; a discourse follows on forgiveness. 
 
 vii. 36-50. 
 
 James and John wish to call down fire to consume a village of 
 Samaritans. ix. 51-56. 
 
 The story of the good Samaritan. x. 25-37. 
 
 Martha and Mary contrasted. x. 38-42. 
 
 The story of the importunate friend. xi. 5-8. 
 
 The story of the rich fool. xii. 16-21. 
 
 The Galileans murdered and the tower in Siloam falling. 
 
 xiii. 1-5. 
 
 The parable of the barren fig tree. xiii. 6-9. 
 
 The parable of the lost sheep. xv. 1-7. 
 
 The outline of this parable is Matthaean (Matt, xviii. 12). 
 
 The parable of the lost piece of silver. xv. 8-10. 
 
 The parable of the prodigal son. xv. 11-32. 
 
 The parable of the unjust steward. xvi. 1-12. 
 
 The story of the rich man and Lazarus. xvi. 19-31. 
 
 The ten lepers and the thankful Samaritan. xvii. 11-19. 
 
 The parable of the widow and the unjust judge. xviii. 1-8. 
 
 The story of the Pharisee and the publican. xviii. 9-14. 
 
 The narrative of Zacch.eus. xix. 1-20. 
 
 The narrative of the penitent thief. xxiii. 39-43. 
 
 The narrative of two men journeying to Emmaus. xxiv. 13-53. 
 
 I do not think that the third cycle stopped here. 
 It probably contained also several sections about the 
 day of Pentecost and the foundation of the Christian 
 Church. It is clear to me that in the Acts of the 
 
THE THIRD CYCLE OF ORAL GOSPEL. 91 
 
 Apostles S. Luke is frequently making use of oral 
 sections, and the West would naturally be eager to 
 know something about the history of the first days. 
 It is certain also that the record in those chapters 
 is different from what it would have been, if the account 
 had been first composed when the fulness of Christian 
 teaching had been developed. 
 
CHAPTER X. 
 
 THE DATES OF THE COMPILATION OF THE 
 THREE CYCLES. 
 
 I HAVE hitherto assumed that the first cycle was 
 compiled by S. Peter, and within twelve years of the 
 Ascension. I shall now give some reasons in support 
 of this assumption. The reader cannot expect demon- 
 stration in such a matter. It will be enough if 
 different lines of evidence converge that way and there 
 be no serious evidence to the contrary. 
 
 If, as ]• hold (see chapter XIV.), our first three 
 Gospels were written within the decade 71-80 A.D., 
 the very early date of the first cycle becomes a 
 necessity, or we shall not have time to account for 
 the great divergencies which confessedly exist in our 
 three editions of it. Those divergencies, we have 
 maintained, were formed by the inaccuracies of cate- 
 chists. They are such that no one catechist, or two, or 
 three, could by any amount of carelessness or reckless 
 
DATES OF THE THREE CYCLES. 98 
 
 change have produced them. A considerable number of 
 men are essential to account for the state of things, and 
 thus many years are required. 
 
 Now Papias states that S. Peter was the author 
 and S. Mark the translator of the first cycle, or, if you 
 please, of S. Mark's Gospel. Papias was the pupil of 
 the presbyter John and took every opportunity for 
 obtaining information from the pupils of the Apostles. 
 We could scarcely have a better authority than he. 
 But in a matter of such importance, it is well to 
 examine how his testimony agrees with that of others. 
 
 S. Luke tells us that the catechetical teaching 
 began immediately after the day of Pentecost, for the 
 disciples, he writes, tb were persevering in their attend- 
 ance upon the teaching of the Apostles " (Acts ii. 42). 
 
 S. Luke however was writing many years after the 
 event, and supposably may be reading into the past the 
 usage of his own day. Contemporaneous writers are 
 always the best evidence. Let us see what S. Paul 
 says on the subject. 
 
 We have shown (chapter II.) that S. Paul probably 
 alludes to the catechists in 1 Thess. v. 12. "Remem- 
 ber those who toil among you and preside over you and 
 admonish you", and again in 2 Thess. ii. 15, "Hold 
 fast the traditions which ye were taught either by word 
 of mouth or by a letter of mine ". The authenticity 
 however of these epistles has been — though, as I think, 
 on no good grounds — impugned, and the reference is not 
 
94 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 quite certain. But when we come to the Epistle to the 
 Galatians five years later, we find in a universally 
 acknowledged letter an unquestionable allusion, " Let 
 him that is catechised in the word give a share in all 
 good things to him that catechiseth " (Gal. vi. 6). The 
 date of the Epistle to the Galatians is about 58 a.d., 
 and thus S. Paul, quite incidentally and therefore the 
 more surely, shows that within thirty years of the 
 Ascension the order of catechists was firmly established 
 in some remote provincial churches. Much earlier 
 therefore must their first introduction have been in the 
 metropolitan church of Jerusalem. 
 
 But what did they teach ? 
 
 Plainly they taught what their pupils were anxious 
 to learn. S. Paul calls it "the word", which in his 
 mouth can only mean distinctly Christian teaching of 
 some kind or other. A work like our Church Cate- 
 chism, or the Westminster Confession, might satisfy his 
 language. But few persons will give the precedence to 
 such compositions over gospel narrative. And we may 
 with considerable confidence affirm that they taught 
 " the facts concerning the Lord Jesus ". 
 
 But, it may be replied, the particular oral Gospel 
 which they taught was of a simpler kind than our 
 Petrine memoirs. The miraculous element was wanting 
 or reduced to a minimum. The person of our Lord was 
 that of an ordinary teacher. His doctrine was the law 
 of universal brotherhood. The new and marvellous 
 
DATES OF THE THREE CYCLES. 95 
 
 accounts became more popular and thrust out the 
 old. 
 
 My answer is that the very reverse of this is the 
 true order. The simpler teaching exists in abundance 
 in the second and third cycles, but it does not consti- 
 tute the first. Trust in God, love to man, the practice 
 of duty, humility and prayer stood first, I believe, in 
 the true chronological order of our Lord's teaching, but 
 almost last in the recollection of His Apostles, who 
 were more anxious to teach the historical facts of the 
 crucifixion and the resurrection, the present glory and 
 the future reign of their ascended Lord, than to repeat 
 the old eternal truths which men would only accept 
 when they were satisfied of the authority of the Teacher. 
 If modern research has established anything, it has 
 established the priority of the first cycle. And the 
 earliest part of the first cycle would undoubtedly be 
 that, which most demands a belief in the supernatural. 
 
 Again, if the first cycle is the earliest record of 
 Christ's life, who is so likely to have been its author, as 
 S. Peter who took the lead in everything in the earliest 
 days? Papias assigns it to S. Peter. 
 
 And if S. Peter compiled the Memoirs, at what date 
 did he do so ? At a time, I reply, when his name was 
 honoured over the Christian world, and above all when 
 an open door lay before him in the city of Jerusalem. 
 This ceased to be the case, when S. James took his 
 place, about twelve years after the Ascension. The 
 
96 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 incomplete state of his work points to a sudden break. 
 The meagreness of its teaching attests its relative 
 antiquity. And, if S. Mark did not retain his position 
 as chief of the catechists long after S. Peter's departure, 
 we understand the undoubted fact that the first cycle 
 rapidly deteriorated in the East and became, as it did 
 (see chapter XI.), loaded with non-Petrine matter. We 
 see also why S. Mark having no other engagement 
 was free to accompany SS. Paul and Barnabas on 
 their first missionary journey and afterwards. Lastly 
 S. Matthew's awakened energy and the birth of the 
 second cycle is accounted for, — if it had not begun 
 already, — since the removal of one of God's workmen 
 usually stirs up the zeal of another. 
 
 Some persons, however, who vindicate the priority 
 of the first cycle with the greatest confidence, are 
 reluctant to admit my contention that our second 
 Gospel is the work of S. Mark and contains his version 
 of the first cycle, only slightly impaired by the ravages 
 of time on his recollections. They will not accept the 
 second Gospel, but only the " triple tradition ", that is 
 to say the portion of the Gospels which is printed in 
 red type in Mr Rushbrooke's Synopticon, because it is 
 common to the three Gospels. 
 
 First let me draw attention to the fact that of the 
 148 subdivisions into which for convenience of com- 
 parison Mr Rushbrooke has broken up the second 
 Gospel, red type occurs in 122. Therefore 122 out of 
 
DATES OF THE THREE CYCLES. 97 
 
 148 contain some portion of " triple tradition". Of the 
 rest 23 contain " double tradition " and only three are 
 composed of single tradition. You get rid of very few- 
 statements, and those of little importance for your 
 purpose, in rejecting everything but the " triple tra- 
 dition". 
 
 Next let me point out that the red type or " triple 
 tradition", if taken alone, does not make a single 
 section coherent. It gives a chaos of sentences, words, 
 or even letters, which cannot ever have stood alone. 
 The detached bones must once have formed a perfect 
 skeleton, clothed with flesh and skin. Such necessary 
 complement S. Mark's Gospel supplies, and, as I have 
 shown in chapter IV., the other two Gospels may be 
 derived from S. Mark, if we make allowance for the 
 action of the catechists. 
 
 While therefore I admit that the red type has 
 certain claims upon our acceptance, which the other 
 types have not, I protest earnestly against any unneces- 
 sary suspicion being cast upon the spaced type and 
 capitals (" double tradition ") or even upon the black 
 type ("single tradition"). According to my view, the 
 red type simply indicates those portions of the Greek 
 version of the Petrine memoirs, which for some reason 
 withstood the disintegrating action of time and the 
 work of the catechists. But of those parts which from 
 some inherent weakness or accident did not remain 
 unaltered, the great proportion are not only original but 
 w. G. 7 
 
98 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 even necessary to account for the later variations; a few 
 only are mere editorial notes. 
 
 Take for illustration a parallel case. Dr Scrivener's 
 Greek Testament gives the so-called textus receptus in 
 two types. Plain type indicates those words or parts of 
 words which have not been rejected by any modern 
 critical editor; bold type indicates those which have 
 been altered. It would be absurd to publish an edition 
 of the Greek Testament in which all the bold type 
 portions were omitted and nothing put in their place. 
 The worst edition would be preferable to a mutilated 
 text. 
 
 If the early date of the first cycle be conceded, 
 there need be no great discussion over the dates of 
 the second and third. They must have been formed 
 contemporaneously, the second cycle beginning pro- 
 bably a little the sooner. Another twelve years may 
 well have seen the completion of them both. We only 
 require sufficient time to account for their diffusion, 
 and for the grave deterioration which marks the second 
 cycle. 
 
 The importance of the subject discussed in this 
 chapter will be obvious to all. The early date of the 
 Petrine Memoirs concerns closely their historical trust- 
 worthiness. If S. Peter really compiled them, and 
 within twelve years of the Ascension, and if the second 
 Gospel is a fairly adequate edition of them, few events 
 are better attested. For S. Peter narrates nothing which 
 
DATES OF THE THREE CYCLES. 99 
 
 had not come under his own observation. He does not 
 go back to the early years of our Lord's life, of which 
 he had no personal knowledge. He does not describe 
 such things as the details of the Temptation, of which 
 he was not a witness. He begins with the ministry of 
 the Baptist, whose disciple he had been. The events 
 which he narrates fall within a period of three years 
 and a half according to the common reckoning. His 
 latest lessons, therefore, whichever they were, concern 
 facts which were only separated by fifteen years and a 
 half at furthest from the time at which he described 
 them, and the bulk of his work, and especially the 
 more important part of it, concerns facts which were 
 much nearer. He wrought also amidst a multitude of 
 eye-witnesses. If his narratives had not commanded 
 general approval, they could not have held their ground. 
 So firm is the historical foundation upon which the 
 Christian faith is built. 
 
 7—2 
 
CHAPTER XL 
 
 FRAGMENTS OF ORAL GOSPEL OUTSIDE THE THREE 
 CYCLES. ANONYMOUS. CURRENT LOCALLY ONLY. 
 
 There is one section of oral gospel — the finding of 
 the coin in the fish's mouth (Matt. xvii. 24-27)- for 
 which I cannot find a place in any of the three cycles. 
 Its absence from SS. Mark and Luke declares it to be 
 non-Petrine. Its subject matter does not suit the 
 second cycle, and its presence in the first Gospel only, 
 as well as its subject matter, differentiate it from the 
 third. I consider it to be the contribution of one of 
 those anonymous compilers, who must always have 
 been numerous in Palestine. 
 
 To the same head must be referred the draught of 
 fishes and the mission of the Seventy in S. Luke (v. 4 ff., 
 x. 1 ff.), though the charge given to the latter is largely 
 borrowed from the Matthgean charge to the Twelve. 
 Such admixture of narratives was common in the later 
 times. 
 
OKAL GOSPEL OUTSIDE THE CYCLES. 101 
 
 To this head also I would assign the paragraphs 
 "Simon, Simon, Satan hath desired to have you that 
 he may sift you as wheat &c." (Luke xxii. 31-34), and 
 "Let the poor man (6 fir) ex^v) sell his overcoat and 
 buy a sword" (Luke xxii. 35-38). 
 
 There are moreover, especially in the first Gospel, 
 many fragments, which in local churches were added by 
 the catechists to the older cycles or even were suffered 
 to supplant them. The account of S. Peter's walking 
 on the sea (Matt. xiv. 28-31) appears to me to be one 
 of these. Others are the mention of more than twelve 
 legions of angels (Matt. xxvi. 53), Judas Iscariot's death 
 (Matt, xxvii. 3-10), Pilate's wife's dream (Matt, xxvii. 
 19), Pilate's washing his hands (Matt, xxvii. 24-25), 
 the tombs opening and the bodies of the dead appearing 
 (Matt, xxvii. 52-53), the sealing of the sepulchre and 
 the sequel of doing so (Matt, xxvii. 62-66, xxviii. 11-15), 
 the meeting in Galilee and the final commission (Matt. 
 xxviii. 16-20). Many of these may have been con- 
 tributed by S. Matthew himself. 
 
 S. Luke also has several of these fragments or even 
 whole sections in his last chapters. Thus his account 
 of S. Peter's denials (Luke xxii. 54-62) is plainly 
 obtained from an eye-witness, and is quite distinct 
 from that in the Petrine memoirs which is given in 
 S. Mark and followed by the first Gospel. The whole 
 account of our Lord's trial before the Sanhedrin, Pilate, 
 and Herod (Luke xxii. 66 — xxiii. 25), is from a similar 
 
102 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 source. So is the saying "Daughters of Jerusalem, 
 weep not for me &c." (Luke xxiii. 27-31). His account 
 of the Resurrection (Luke xxiv. 1-12) is equally 
 original, and his conclusion (Luke xxiv. 36-53) is quite 
 distinct from anything in the cycles. 
 
 To this class also belong the two preliminary 
 chapters of the first Gospel, which for convenience of 
 comparison I have considered in the next chapter. 
 They may, in their oral form, have been added to the 
 tradition by S. Matthew himself or under his direction. 
 
 There is nothing in the nature of things to prevent 
 these fragments from possessing the highest historical 
 value. Abundance of eye-witnesses must have existed 
 in Jerusalem, who were ready and anxious to tell 
 what they knew about the events of Holy Week. And 
 it would be wanton incredulity to reject what they say. 
 But still the obscurity of the origin of these fragments 
 and the late date at which they were probably added 
 to the tradition lead us to put them upon a lower 
 historical level than the Petrine memoirs. 
 
 We have moreover the means of proving that one 
 of them lies under some suspicion. S. Luke (Acts i. 
 18-19) has preserved for us a fragment giving an 
 account of Judas Iscariot's death, which differs materially 
 from the fragment in the first Gospel. " He purchased 
 for himself an estate {xwpiov) with the wages of his 
 crime." (Acts i. 18.) "The chief priests bought the 
 potter's field with his money after his death, to be a 
 
ORAL GOSPEL OUTSIDE THE CYCLES. 103 
 
 cemetery for aliens." (Matt, xxvii. 7.) In the one case 
 the field was bought as a pleasure ground for his 
 gratification, in the other its purchase by others after 
 his death was the final outcome of conscientious scruples. 
 "He fell flat upon his face, burst asunder in the 
 midst and all his bowels gushed forth." (Acts i. 18.) 
 "He went out and hanged himself." (Matt, xxvii. 5.) A 
 mysterious and horrible death is described in the one 
 narrative, a vulgar suicide in the other. The field was 
 called The bloody farm, says S. Luke, because it was 
 stained with his blood. It was so called, says the first 
 Gospel, because it was bought with blood-money. The 
 attempts to reconcile these accounts from the earliest 
 times till our own must be pronounced unsatisfactory. 
 One or both of them plainly consist of late recollections, 
 coloured by the horror which attached to his crime, 
 rather than contemporaneous history. 
 
 According to the mediaeval and reformation view of 
 Scripture these fragments are equally inspired, equally 
 infallible, and equally binding on the conscience of 
 Christians with the best attested of the Petrine 
 Memoirs. And those who cling to this view, which is 
 not the ancient view, must either decline to examine, 
 or will find a frequent conflict between their reason 
 and their faith, which if allowed to work itself out, will 
 either end in unbelief or in such tortuous shifts of 
 explanation as go far to justify the taunt that clergy 
 do not care for truth. Surely the historical method 
 
104 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 has its value. If it makes us willing to admit that in 
 some secondary matters we cannot decide between con- 
 flicting accounts, it also shows on how firm a foundation 
 the main facts of our faith rest. 
 
 In the first Gospel, besides the ordinary quotations 
 of Scripture in the sections, we find eleven passages in 
 which special attention is drawn to the fulfilment of 
 prophecy. Sometimes these are inserted as sections 
 by themselves (Matt. iv. 12-16), more frequently they 
 are attached to the end or inserted in the middle of 
 other sections. Their entire absence from S. Luke 
 proves that they are either no part of the Matthsean 
 Utterances or were added after the second cycle was 
 taken to the West (see chapter viii.). For though it 
 might be thought that S. Luke omitted them purposely 
 as unsuited to Gentile readers, that would misrepresent 
 the feeling of the Gentile churches towards the Old 
 Testament. It is certain from the frequency with 
 which the fulfilment of Scripture is alluded to in the 
 Acts of the Apostles and in S. Paul's epistles, that the 
 Gentile Christians were almost as much interested in 
 the study of prophecy as the Jews. These passages 
 therefore originated in Jerusalem, and at a comparatively 
 late date ; the presence of at least two of them in the 
 Gospel according to the Hebrews proves that they were 
 in oral circulation. Owing to their Eastern origin, 
 they usually follow the Hebrew rather than the Septua- 
 gint. 
 
OKAL GOSPEL OUTSIDE THE CYCLES. 105 
 
 The following is a list of them : 
 
 (1) Matti. 23. "Behold the virgin shall be with 
 child, and shall bring forth a son, and men shall call 
 his name Emmanuel." (Isaiah vii. 14.) 
 
 (2) Matt. ii. 15. "Out of Egypt did I call my son." 
 (Hosea xi. 1.) 
 
 (3) Matt. ii. 18. "A voice was heard in Eamah, 
 lamentation and great mourning ; Kachel bewailing her 
 children, and she would not be comforted because they 
 were not." (Jeremiah xxxi. 15.) 
 
 (4) Matt. ii. 23. "He shall be called a Nazarene." 
 (Isaiah xi. 1). 
 
 (5) Matt. iv. 15-16. ". . .land of Zabulon and land of 
 Nephthalim, land towards the sea, land beyond Jordan 
 and Gentile Galilee ; the people which lives in darkness 
 saw a great light, and to those who live in a country 
 the very shadow of death, hath light sprung up." 
 (Isaiah ix. 1-2.) 
 
 (6) Matt. xii. 18-21. "Behold, my servant whom 
 I chose, my beloved in whom my soul delighted ; I will 
 put my spirit upon him and he shall give sentence to 
 the nations. He shall not strive nor cry, nor shall any 
 one hear his voice in the broadways. A bruised reed 
 he shall not break, and smoking flax he shall not quench, 
 until he bring his sentence to victory. And in his 
 name shall nations trust." (Isaiah xlii. 1-4.) 
 
 (7) Matt. xii. 40. [For as] "Jonah was in the belly 
 of the sea-monster three days and three nights " [so 
 
106 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 shall the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three 
 days and three nights]. (Jonah i. 17.) 
 
 (8) Matt. xiii. 14-15. "With your hearing ye shall 
 hear and not understand, and looking ye shall look 
 and not see ; for the heart of this people hath been 
 hardened and with their ears they have heard heavily 
 and their eyes have they closed, lest at any time they 
 should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and 
 understand with their heart and turn ; and I will heal 
 them." (Isaiah vi. 9-10.) 
 
 (9) Matt. xiii. 35. "I will open my mouth in 
 parables, I will utter things concealed from the founda- 
 tion." (Psalm lxxxiii. 2.) 
 
 (10) Matt. xxi. 5. "Tell the daughter of Zion, 
 Behold, thy King cometh to thee, meek and seated upon 
 an ass and upon a colt the foal of a beast of burden." 
 (Zechariah ix. 9, with some words borrowed from 
 Isaiah lxii. 11.) 
 
 (11) Matt, xxvii. 9-10. "And they took the thirty 
 pieces of silver, the price of him who was priced, whom 
 the sons of Israel priced, and gave them for the potter's 
 field, as Jehovah appointed me." (Zechariah xi. 13.) 
 
 That these passages are not the original contributions 
 of S. Matthew or of the author himself is made probable 
 by the fact that the eleventh is falsely assigned to 
 Jeremiah and the ninth to "a prophet" with the various 
 reading "Isaiah". The sixth and the tenth borrow 
 words from other passages. The eleventh alters " I cast 
 
ORAL GOSPEL OUTSIDE THE CYCLES. 107 
 
 them to the potter" into "they gave them for the 
 potter's field". These facts indicate that the passages 
 were slowly collected by private searchers and im- 
 perfectly remembered, as they became the common 
 property of preachers. 
 
 As fulfilments of Scripture candour compels us to 
 admit that some of them would be more convincing 
 in the first century of Christianity and amongst un- 
 educated Jewish Christians, than they are now. Thus 
 " Out of Egypt did I call my son " can only refer to the 
 return of the Infant Christ from Egypt if the words 
 are separated from their context, which is "When 
 Israel was a child I loved him and called my son out of 
 Egypt." " I will open my mouth in a parable" can 
 only be made Messianic on the principle that every 
 expression in Scripture has a secondary Messianic sense. 
 The context is : " Hear my law, my people : incline 
 your ear unto the words of my mouth. I will open 
 my mouth in a parable : I will declare hard sentences 
 of old, which we have heard and known, and such as our 
 fathers have told." "He shall be called a Nazarene" 
 is a mere play upon the accidental resemblance of the 
 word Nazareth to the Hebrew netzer "the branch". 
 
 Surely it is an advantage for Christian evidences to 
 distinguish between the solid historical foundation of 
 the three cycles, and the theological opinions of these 
 Jewish collectors. We no longer make the strength 
 of the chain depend on the weakest link. The men who 
 
108 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 searched out these Scriptures and saw in them Messianic 
 predictions, served the age in which they lived. Nay 
 more, they testified to the unity and continuity of 
 Revelation. Under the Holy Spirit's guidance they 
 showed that "whatsoever things were written aforetime 
 were written for our learning " (Rom. xv. 4), for we 
 Christians are the heirs of the ages and Christ fulfils 
 all Scripture, so that " how many soever be the promises 
 of God, in Him is the Yea » (2 Cor. i. 20). 
 
 A father speaks to his child in very different lan- 
 guage at different stages of its growth. In infancy 
 caresses and blandishments are the highest teaching 
 that can be understood. In childhood promises of 
 immediate temporal pleasure and threats of punish- 
 ment are necessary. In youth follow larger hopes and 
 nobler aspirations. But when the child has become a 
 man and looks back upon the whole course of training 
 he knows that a higher purpose and a deeper meaning 
 pervaded all that his father said and did. 
 
 Nor is it otherwise in the religious education of 
 the world. Progressive instruction from the less to 
 the greater marks every stage. God speaks from time 
 to time as men are able to hear. He has ever been 
 declaring, as Christ did to the twelve, "I have yet 
 many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear 
 them now" (John xv. 12). The promise made to 
 Abraham " In thy seed shall all the nations of the 
 earth be blessed" (Gen. xxii. 18) was a very simple 
 
ORAL GOSPEL OUTSIDE THE CYCLES. 109 
 
 one. To the patriarch it can have meant little more 
 than that his descendants should in some way prove 
 a blessing to the world. But to S. Paul's inspired 
 mind the seed of Abraham was first the Christian 
 church (Gal. iii. 29) and in its highest fulfilment was 
 Christ himself (Gal. iii. 16). So the promise made to 
 David spoke only of a temporal ruler. Time, disap- 
 pointment and further teaching converted it into the 
 Messianic hope. Inspiration made the prophets feel 
 that God meant more than He had been understood 
 at the moment to say. The religious teachers in the 
 period of silence between the closing of the Old 
 Testament canon and the birth of Christ had searched, 
 by no means fruitlessly, into the divine purposes. But 
 the Apostles had in Christ the solution of all difficulties. 
 Inspiration led them to apply the facts of His life to 
 illuminate the dark prophetic page. They did not deny 
 the historic truth of the Old Testament, as Philo had 
 done, but they were sure that the literal meaning did 
 not exhaust its teaching. They searched for and they 
 found Christ everywhere. 
 
 And if in some details they pushed this principle 
 too far, as we hold they did, that was because Inspira- 
 tion, though it quickens the perceptions to see truth, 
 does not confer infallibility, and providential guidance 
 does not always extend to minutiae. Other things in 
 Scripture besides the Levitical ritual were transitory and 
 destined to "wax old" (Heb. viii. 13), for the writers 
 
110 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 held the " treasure in earthen vessels, that the exceed- 
 ing greatness of the power might be of God (2 Cor. iv. 7). 
 It is well for us to observe how their age dealt with the 
 theological problems presented to it. But we cannot 
 expect our age to give an unqualified assent to all their 
 solutions. If even S. Paul's interpretations of the Old 
 Testament are not always convincing, but sometimes 
 betray the bias of his Rabbinical education (1 Cor. ix. 9), 
 and if he himself claims only to know in part and to 
 prophesy in part (1 Cor. xiii. 9), and sometimes to write 
 without any command from the Lord (1 Cor. vii. 12), 
 much less are we bound to ascribe finality to all the 
 interpretations of unknown thinkers in the church of 
 Jerusalem. 
 
 But we shall return to this subject in chapter XIII. 
 Meanwhile it is important to observe that though 
 S. Luke's account of the mystery of the Incarnation 
 is entirely distinct from that in the first Gospel and 
 has no reference either direct or implied to Isaiah's pro- 
 phecy, yet both evangelists attest the same fact. The 
 Incarnation, like the Crucifixion and the Resurrection, 
 presents one of the very few cases in the Gospels, in 
 which we really have the testimony of two men. Nay 
 more, its presence in the first Gospel declares it to have 
 been accepted in the East, its presence in S. Luke 
 proves its acceptance in the West. The fact itself 
 indeed transcends human experience, and must always 
 remain a matter of faith. Still to admit it is easier than 
 
ORAL GOSPEL OUTSIDE THE CYCLES. Ill 
 
 to deny it, for without it the very existence of the 
 Gospels and of Christianity is inexplicable. S. Peter's 
 Memoirs imply, quite as much as S. John's Gospel 
 records, that "the Word was made flesh and dwelt 
 among us ". 
 
CHAPTER XII. 
 
 NON-ORAL GOSPEL. ANONYMOUS. THE RESULT 
 OF LOCAL INQUIRY. 
 
 S. Luke's Gospel begins with a short preface 
 followed by some narratives which occupy the rest 
 of his two first chapters and certain sections of later 
 chapters, concerning which we can pretty confidently 
 affirm that they were never in the hands of the 
 catechists, at least in their present Greek dress. They 
 may be divided into sections thus: (1) The Baptist's 
 birth promised (Luke i. 5-25). (2) The annunciation 
 (i. 26-38). (3) Mary's visit to Elizabeth : the Magni- 
 ficat (i. 39-56). (4) The Baptist's birth : the Benedictus 
 (i. 57-80). (5) The birth of Christ and the visit of the 
 shepherds (ii. 1-20). (6) The circumcision of Christ 
 (ii. 21). (7) The presentation of Christ in the Temple : 
 Simeon's address: the Nunc dimittis: the visit of 
 Anna (ii. 22-40). (8) The journey of the boy Jesus 
 to Jerusalem: the conversation with the doctors (ii. 
 
NON-ORAL GOSPEL. 113 
 
 41-52). (9) The genealogy (iii. 23-38). (10) The 
 sermon preached at Nazareth (iv. 16-30). The raising 
 of the widow's son at Nam (vii. 11-17). 
 
 It is convenient to class with these the corresponding- 
 sections of the first Gospel, though properly they should 
 have been ranged under the preceding chapter, because 
 they certainly were taught orally, as is shown by the 
 suitable length of the sections, by the division of the 
 genealogy into three parts arranged into decatessarads 
 to assist the pupil's memory, and above all by the fact 
 that they were present in the Gospel according to the 
 Hebrews as well as in our first Gospel. 
 
 The first Gospel has no preface, but like the books 
 of Chronicles begins with a genealogy i. (1-17). Then 
 follow (2) The birth of Christ (i. 18-25). (3) The 
 visit of the Magi (ii. 1-12). (4) The flight into Egypt 
 (ii. 13-23). 
 
 The known inaccuracies in the first Gospel's genea- 
 logy, in which Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin are confused, 
 and three consecutive kings, Ahaziah, Joash and Ama- 
 ziah, are omitted, to say nothing of the improbability 
 that so many kings were all related as father and son, 
 which is more than the Hebrew "his son" warrants, 
 might have warned men against looking for verbal 
 infallibility here. S. Luke's genealogy, (except the Old 
 Testament period from Abraham to David and the two 
 names of Zorobabel and Salathiel which cover the time 
 of the captivity), is entirely different. Both genealogies 
 w. g. 8 
 
114 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 give the descent of Joseph, and neither of them is 
 scientific. 
 
 For the rest, we may notice that the above-mentioned 
 sections of the first Gospel are entirely independent of 
 those in S. Luke, and we cannot with any certainty 
 piece the two sets of narrative together in chronological 
 order. The author of the first Gospel seems not to 
 be aware that Nazareth was Joseph's home before 
 Christ's birth. In fact S. Luke's account of the Holy 
 Family is much the more complete. 
 
 For convenience I have spoken in this book of " the 
 East " to represent the Petrine churches and " the 
 West" to represent the Pauline. But it must be 
 remembered that Antioch, though situated in Syria 
 and founded by Petrine evangelists, came at an early 
 date under the influence of S. Paul and probably used 
 on the whole the Western oral Gospel. The church at 
 Rome on the other hand appears to have been founded 
 by Petrine or perhaps I should rather say Jacobean 
 missionaries who would bring with them teachers of 
 their own. In these and similar cases, as time went 
 on, considerable admixture in the tradition must have 
 resulted. But even in Pauline churches we must not 
 suppose the teaching to have been identical. It is 
 improbable that in such centres as Corinth, Ephesus, 
 Philippi, precisely the same Gospel was taught. S. 
 Luke's Gospel preserves the teaching which was currenl 
 at Philippi, if we are right in assuming from the change 
 
NON-ORAL GOSPEL. 115 
 
 of pronouns in the Acts of the Apostles that S. Luke 
 spent the years 52 — 58 A. D. at Philippi. For 
 
 Quo semel est imbuta recens servabit odorem 
 
 Testa diu, 
 and S. Luke must have learned and taught the Gospel 
 in that church. 
 
CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 EDITORIAL NOTES. 
 
 When an editor undertakes to work up a number of 
 detached sections into one treatise, he must use some 
 connecting links. These may be of the meagrest kind, 
 like S. Mark's "and" or "and immediately", or they 
 may be long and important. In any case they are 
 additions to the record and do not possess its authority. 
 
 Some of these additions to the Gospels are easy to 
 discover. S. Mark's preface "The beginning of the 
 gospel of Jesus Christ" is one. S. Luke's four pre- 
 fatorial verses are another. But sometimes we cannot 
 be quite sure whether a change is due to the editor or 
 to the catechists whom he is following. 
 
 Thus the first Gospel deliberately writes "the 
 kingdom of the heavens" instead of "the kingdom 
 of God." It does so thirty-one times, putting the 
 phrase constantly into the mouth of our Lord himself. 
 Was this change made by the catechists of Jerusalem 
 
EDITORIAL NOTES. 117 
 
 in their fear of using God's name too familiarly, or was 
 it made by the editor for the same reason ? As the 
 expression "the kingdom of God" does occur four 
 times in this Gospel, I incline to think the change an 
 editorial one, which the editor four times omitted 
 to make. I cannot admit that the expression "the 
 kingdom of the heavens " is, as Professor Stanton 
 thinks, the original phrase. S. Mark's testimony to 
 the contrary would have satisfied me, but S. Mark 
 is supported by SS. Luke, John and Paul. 
 
 On the other hand when S. Luke writes "lake of 
 Gennesaret " for " sea of Galilee ", or " Master" (eTTLard- 
 Trjs) instead of Rabbi (Mark) or " Sir " (/cvpie, Matt.) or 
 when he puts "Judaea" to signify not Judaea proper 
 but the whole of Palestine, I have no doubt that he is 
 following the Gentile catechists. 
 
 Editorial notes are few and unimportant in S. Mark 
 (see chapter xvil), more frequent in the first Gospel, but 
 most frequent in S. Luke. 
 
 S. Luke has a habit of prefixing to a narrative a few 
 words of introduction to explain to his reader the 
 historical situation, or he affixes a few words to describe 
 the sequel. I am unable to assign the importance 
 to these notes, which Professor Godet sees in them, 
 or to think them the result of patient original research. 
 Take the following examples chosen at random from 
 one chapter : " And it came to pass as the crowd pressed 
 upon him and was hearing the message of God " (Lnke 
 
118 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 v. 1) ; " And it came to pass when he was in one of their 
 cities" (v. 12); "And it came to pass on one of those 
 days" (v. 17); "And after these things" (v. 27). Such 
 additions are too vague to command assent. The follow- 
 ing is more interesting — I have inclosed in brackets the 
 words which belong to the Petrine memoirs — "And it 
 came to pass in those days that he went forth [into the 
 highland] to pray and was spending the night in the 
 chapel (7rpoaeuxv) °f God, and when day broke [he 
 called to him] his disciples" (vi, 12-13). 
 
 S. Luke in an editorial note gives us a list of rulers 
 over various countries and the year of the Roman 
 emperor's reign, to fix the date of the Baptist's ministry 
 (Luke iii. 1-2). In a more famous instance he places 
 our Lord's birth within the proconsulship of Quirinius 
 (ii. 2). In these and similar cases we have but the 
 result of his own historical researches. If he could 
 be shown to be wrong, he would be a less accurate 
 historian than is commonly supposed, but the records 
 which he proceeds to write down would not be affected. 
 Quirinius may have been proconsul of Syria twice, 
 which would set S. Luke right. There is some reason 
 to suppose that he was, but at present no proof. If future 
 research should show S. Luke to be wrong, it is well for 
 us to know the difference between the historical value 
 of an editorial note and that of the section to which it 
 is prefixed. 
 
 Take a clearer case. The three hours' darkness at 
 
EDITORIAL NOTES. 119 
 
 the Crucifixion is mentioned in the Petrine memoirs 
 (Mark xv. 33 ; Matt, xxvii. 45) without any explanation 
 of its degree or its cause. But S. Luke in an editorial 
 note ascribes it to a failing or eclipse of the sun (rod 
 rjXiov itcXeiirovTos Luke xxiii. 45, according to the true 
 reading), a thing which would not last longer than eight 
 minutes and could not occur at the Paschal full moon. 
 
 S. Luke prefaces that remarkable division of his 
 Gospel ix. 51 — xviii. 14 with the following editorial 
 note : " And it came to pass when the days of his 
 assumption were being fulfilled, that he stedfastly set 
 his face to journey to Jerusalem." Several sections 
 which follow are also connected with this journey. 
 Commentators therefore have assumed that S. Luke 
 from his ninth chapter onwards is narrating the events 
 of the last few weeks of our Lord's ministry. We shall 
 see in chapter XVI. that there is reason to doubt this. 
 
 The question of divorce is treated at full length in 
 the Petrine memoirs (Mark x. 1-12) in which the 
 remarriage of divorced people, whether man or woman, 
 is absolutely forbidden and the whole argument vindi- 
 cates this as the original precept, for the laxity of 
 the law of Moses is contrasted with the strictness 
 required by Christ. S. Luke gives the precept without 
 the context in a single verse (xvi. 18), confining it to 
 the case of men, and forbidding them absolutely either 
 to marry a divorced woman or to put away their wives 
 and marry another. But the first Gospel restores the 
 
120 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 Mosaic rule as interpreted by the stricter school of 
 Shammai by inserting the words "save for adultery" 
 (Matt. xix. 9) and "except in case of adultery" (Matt, 
 v. 32). On what authority this change was made I 
 cannot say, but I would venture to suggest that the 
 church of Jerusalem, exercising the power to bind 
 and loose (i.e. to forbid or permit, in other words, to 
 legislate) which our Lord conferred, may have authorised 
 the insertion of the qualifying words, on the ground 
 that the hardness of men's hearts continued, and that 
 Jewish Christians were not capable of any higher law. 
 The Western Church, under the guidance of S. Paul, 
 preserved the strictness of Christ's rule. I know of no 
 other ground on which the divorce laws of modern 
 times can be defended, than the hardness of men's 
 hearts. The world is only partially Christianised, and 
 it is the duty of teachers to set before men the higher 
 standard, which Christ erected amongst us. 
 
 In the last chapter we mentioned the first Gospel's 
 references to the fulfilment of prophecy, and pointed out 
 that in one case the author had altered the wording of 
 the prophecy to make it suit the history (Matt, xxvii. 
 10). We shall now see that in another place he alters 
 the wording of the Petrine memoirs, to make them 
 better suit the prophecy. 
 
 S. Mark writes that " the foal of an ass upon which 
 never yet man sat" was procured by our Lord's di- 
 rections for the triumphal entry into Jerusalem. (Mark 
 
EDITORIAL NOTES. 121 
 
 xi. 1-11.) 8. Luke exactly repeats the words. (Luke 
 xix. 29-38.) S. John briefly says that our Lord 
 " found a young ass and sat thereon " (John xii. 
 12-19). We have therefore the double testimony of 
 SS. Peter and John that only one animal was used. 
 But the first Gospel, quoting Zechariah, in which two 
 animals, an ass and its colt, appear to be mentioned, 
 " Behold thy king cometh to thee, meek and seated 
 upon an ass and upon a colt, the foal of a beast of 
 burden" (Zech. ix. 9), makes the disciples bring a 
 she-ass and its foal, says that the disciples caparisoned 
 both animals with their overcoats and that Jesus sat 
 alternately on each animal (Matt. xxi. 1 ff.). Thus 
 the dignity of the procession is spoiled. The English 
 reader, in whose version Zechariah's " and " is correctly 
 rendered " even " would hardly discover the reason for 
 this change. It is worth noting in this connexion that 
 on two other occasions — that of the Gadarene demoniac 
 and of blind Bartimseus — the first Gospel again doubles 
 the number, giving " two " where the Petrine memoirs 
 gave "one " (Matt. viii. 28, xx. 30). 
 
 Another passage has evidently been altered out of 
 deference to a Psalm, though no express reference to 
 the Psalm is ever made. The case is worthy of detailed 
 examination, because it will illustrate many of the 
 previous statements. 
 
 Twice, according to the Petrine memoirs, was wine 
 offered to our Lord during the crucifixion. The first 
 
122 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 draught, tendered to him immediately before the nails 
 were driven in, is usually and I think correctly, sup- 
 posed to have contained an opiate. The second 
 draught was presented immediately before He yielded 
 up His spirit. It was unmixed. One of the spectators 
 took it from a jar of wine, provided perhaps for the 
 refreshment of the soldiers during their watch (if 
 Roman discipline permitted such indulgence). The 
 height of the cross prevented the man from reaching 
 our Lord's lips. He therefore filled a sponge with the 
 wine, set the sponge on a reed of hyssop, and so effected 
 his purpose. Our Lord refused the first draught, 
 probably because it would becloud the brain. He 
 accepted the second as the offering of compassion, 
 although He had recently declared " Verily, I say unto 
 you, I shall not drink any more of the product of the 
 vine until that day when I shall drink it new in my 
 Father's kingdom" (Mark xiv. 25). But both these 
 gifts of wine were made in pity to alleviate suffering. 
 
 Now in Psalm lxix. 21 there is a verse "They 
 gave me gall to eat and when I was thirsty they gave 
 me vinegar to drink." The word translated " gall " is 
 in the Hebrew rash ($J«n), which signifies some plant 
 or class of plants or berries, such as hemlock, night- 
 shade, colocynth or poppies, which look bright and 
 tempting but are really nauseous or noxious. This 
 meaning of the word rush became obsolete, and in 
 Aramaic " they gave me bitters (m'r&ri) to eat " took 
 
EDITORIAL NOTES. 123 
 
 its place. Thus the Targum on the passage in question 
 
 has: ♦mi-raSi ^arnn ^n mno ■ Tniyon nm 
 
 • tfSn W | w pVK And the Peshitta: T^K^l IIIT 
 
 .Wp8T« SOM "Pll&i KTt& The LXX. also give 
 %o\?7, intending thereby no doubt not an animal, but a 
 vegetable bitter. In all cases the evident meaning of 
 the Psalmist is made to be " They mocked my hunger 
 with food which I could not eat ; they mocked my 
 thirst with a draught which I could not drink." 
 
 Let us take the case of the vinegar first. 
 
 Vinegar is much too sharp and sour to drink 
 (Proverbs x. 26), but small quantities of it are grateful 
 as a condiment. The reapers in Ruth ii. 14 dipped 
 their bread in vinegar. And when plentifully diluted 
 with water, it forms a refreshing beverage. Hence it 
 was forbidden to the Nazirites (Numb. vi. 3). 
 
 But in Aramaic the word halld "vinegar" was 
 used, at first (I suppose) jestingly, but afterwards 
 seriously, to designate the thin sour wine used by the 
 peasants. In the Peshitta it occurs in Matt, xxvii. 34, 
 and elsewhere to represent olvo<;. Its Greek equivalent 
 also (of 09) came to be similarly employed in Palestine, 
 as it perhaps was in Greek comedy (Aristoph. Acli. 35). 
 
 S. Mark therefore writes in this sense " A certain 
 man having filled a sponge with vinegar placed it 
 upon a reed and gave him to drink" (xv. 35). Here 
 there is no direct reference to the Psalm, though the 
 peculiar wording of the Greek would suggest it. 
 
124 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 S John more closely connects the action with the 
 Psalm, for he says that the "vinegar" was offered in 
 response to a cry from our Lord " I am thirsty," which, 
 he adds, was spoken " that the Scripture might be 
 fulfilled". S. John also tells us that the reed was 
 made of hyssop, and that Jesus accepted the wine. 
 He confirms S. Peter's 'statement that this occurred 
 immediately before Christ gave up the ghost (xix. 
 2cS ff.). 
 
 The first Gospel has nothing new to add. It 
 simply follows the Petrine records, though somewhat 
 inaccurately. S. Mark had said that the man who 
 offered the vinegar called to his companions " Let be, 
 let us see whether Elijah is coining to take him down " 
 (xv. 36 f), but the first Gospel says that the spectators, 
 seeing what the man was about to do, called upon him 
 to desist, saying " Let be, let us see whether Elijah is 
 coming to save him " (Matt, xxvii. 48 f.). 
 
 S. Luke only speaks of one of the two draughts of 
 wine and apparently not this one. 
 
 Now let us turn to the case of the opiate which is 
 Dot mentioned by S. John. 
 
 S. Peter's memoirs appear to have run " They gave 
 him wine mingled with myrrh " (murrd, or, if the 
 Jerusalem text really gives the ordinary Palestinian 
 form, mird). By this he seems to have meant, not 
 " drugged with myrrh," for myrrh is not an opiate or 
 anodyne, but as S. Mark correctly renders iafjLvpvuT- 
 
EDITORIAL NOTES. 125 
 
 /jiivop oivov " myrrhed wine," that is to say wine in the 
 preparation of which a small quantity of myrrh had 
 been used to fortify it and improve the flavour, as was 
 usual with the ancients. 
 
 If this be the true account, there is nothing said 
 about an opiate. We only infer the presence of such 
 an ingredient in the cup from the probability of the 
 case, from the humane custom which is said to have 
 prevailed amongst the Jews at a crucifixion, and from 
 the fact that our Lord tasted the draught before 
 refusing it, and that the persons who had furnished 
 it, thereupon pressed it again and again upon Him 
 (iSlSovv, imperfect tense) in their desire to mitigate 
 His bodily pain. At any rate the offering was made 
 in compassion if not in love. The disregard of expense 
 would suggest the latter feeling. 
 
 In the first Gospel " mingled with myrrh " becomes 
 " mingled with gall." 
 
 I cannot think that by " gall " an opiate is intended. 
 For though it be granted that " gall " (x°~^v) simply 
 stands for rosh and that rosh means " poppies" as 
 Gesenius thought: still an opiate would have been 
 expressed by " extract of poppies " (fc^SO '£) and not 
 by the simple name of the plant. 
 
 Plainly " gall " stands for " bitters " (m e rdre). And 
 the draught, from being a pleasant and beneficial one, 
 is altered into a nauseous one. The Saviour, according 
 to the first Gospel, did not drink because He could not 
 
120 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 drink. They offered what seemed a tempting draught 
 but on tasting it He found it undrinkable. All is 
 thought to be done in the most brutal mockery and 
 the spirit of the Psalm is fulfilled as well as the 
 letter. 
 
 But how came the change to be made ? Murrd or 
 mini " myrrh " has been altered into the very similar 
 word m e rdre or marrird "bitters." For myrrh was 
 popularly supposed to be a bitter, being referred to 
 the same root marar "to be bitter" whereas Semitic 
 scholars now assign it to another marar to " drop " or 
 " distil ". 
 
 Those who are acquainted with the Jewish litera- 
 ture of those ages, will not think such a change, as this, 
 unlikely to have been made in the anxiety of the early 
 Christians to multiply fulfilments of Scripture, but by 
 the catechists the word was probably altered with no 
 such intent, but for the simple purpose of correcting a 
 supposed false reading in the tradition. 
 
 In S. Luke the two draughts of wine are confused 
 together and both the order of events and the circum- 
 stances are distorted. All mention of myrrh or gall is 
 omitted. And " vinegar " is apparently understood 
 literally, for we read that the soldiers offered it in 
 mockery (xxiii. 36). 
 
 For the references to the Targum and the Syriac 
 versions in the above passage I am indebted to one of 
 the Fellows of my College, the Rev. R. H. Kennett, 
 
EDITORIAL NOTES. 127 
 
 who also suggested the connexion between murrd and 
 mfrdre in which I now discover that he has been partly 
 anticipated by the late Professor Nicoll. 
 
 Serious difficulty has been felt about the statement 
 that our Lord should be three days and three nights in 
 the heart of the earth (Matt. xii. 40), whereas the 
 common reckoning gives but one day and two nights. 
 On comparing the parallel passage in S. Luke (xi. 
 29-32) we see that two very different interpretations 
 are given us, evidently in two " editorial notes ", of the 
 " sign of the prophet Jonah " of which the verse in 
 question is an explanation. Plainly our Lord left the 
 mysterious saying unexplained; that He did so is 
 shown by Matt. xvi. 4, where the same saying is 
 repeated without comment. Thus the words in question 
 are not His and are not primitive. 
 
 According to our theory these editorial notes are 
 the weakest links in the historical chain. They contain 
 the opinions or explanations of writers who were not 
 eye-witnesses, and who were writing, perhaps in distant 
 lands, about events which had happened long before. 
 But it is well to remember that these editorial notes 
 include everything, which the writers contributed to 
 their work. It is therefore surprising that they should 
 be so few. The writers were willing to keep them- 
 selves continually in the back-ground. They give us 
 no hint of their names and no clue to their identity. 
 They were content to remain unknown. 
 
CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 THE DATES OF THE WRITING OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 We read in 1 Tim. v. 18 li The Scripture saith 
 'Thou shalt not muzzle an ox when it treacleth out 
 corn ' and ' The workman is worthy of his wages ' ". 
 Now the latter quotation appears at first sight to come 
 from S. Luke x. 7, and some commentators have actually 
 concluded that S. Luke's Gospel was therefore not only 
 written, but circulated and accepted as Scripture, in 
 the year 65 A.D. 
 
 An historical critic would be slow to admit that. 
 Indeed many critics have argued that S. Luke's Gospel 
 with its precise language about the destruction of 
 Jerusalem (chapter vn.) cannot have been written till 
 after the siege in 70 A.D. and that as S. Paul died under 
 Nero, who committed suicide in June G8 A.D., S. Paul 
 cannot have been the author of the first epistle to 
 Timothy. 
 
 We would plead for a middle course. The proverb 
 in question belongs, according to our theory, to the 
 
DATES OF THE WRITING OF THE GOSPELS. 129 
 
 second cycle of oral gospel, and S. Paul has preserved 
 it in the Western form with which he was familiar. 
 The first Gospel gives the Eastern form, " The workman 
 is worthy of his food " (Matt. x. 10) which better suits 
 the context and is so much the less likely to be original. 
 
 Now it is plain from the numerous quotations in 
 the Pastoral Epistles, that a considerable Christian 
 literature of psalms, hymns, creeds &c. was forming. 
 Why may not some sections of oral gospel have been 
 committed to writing also ? S. Luke in his preface 
 testifies that this had been done before he wrote, and if 
 so, it is from them and not from S. Luke's Gospel that 
 the quotation was taken, unless indeed it comes from 
 the Gospel according to the Hebrews. In support of 
 this supposition it is to be noticed that when S. Paul 
 in these Epistles alludes to the Old Testament, he finds 
 the usual term " Scripture " insufficient to distinguish 
 them, but invents the new phrase " the holy writings " 
 (ra lepd ypd/jL/jbara 2 Tim. iii. 16). In the unique 
 expression "Every inspired Scripture" (2 Tim. iii. 17) 
 I have no doubt that Christian writings are included. 
 
 The fact is that so long as Apostles and eyewitnesses 
 were living, and the teaching of the catechists, though 
 becoming divergent and wanting in precision, was 
 sufficiently near to the original accounts not to excite 
 distrust in an age when intercommunication between 
 distant churches was slow, there was no demand for 
 written gospels. But when SS. Peter and Paul were 
 w. g. 9 
 
130 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 dead, and the first generation of catechists was fast 
 disappearing, while the hope of the Second Advent was 
 receding, I cannot say that a demand for writings arose, 
 but some of the leading catechists, moved we believe 
 by the Holy Spirit, and following the example of 
 S. Matthew and of others who had written a few 
 sections, awoke to a sense of their duty to future 
 generations and undertook to write the whole of what 
 they taught. 
 
 The destruction of Jerusalem may well have given 
 the necessary impulse to a long projected movement. 
 However ill at times that church had discharged its 
 duty, it had always been rightly regarded as the head 
 quarters of Christianity. Two of the three cycles of oral 
 gospel had originated in it, and when distant churches 
 had needed catechists, they had always been able to 
 obtain them there. But now it was annihilated, and 
 Christendom had no metropolis. 
 
 Soon therefore after the year 70 A.D. we may 
 suppose S. Mark, who was now an old man, to have 
 written his Gospel. But it was not widely published 
 or generally known. If it had been, copies would have 
 been multiplied, and the last page would not have been 
 lost. It can hardly have come into circulation till after 
 S. Mark's death. Still the rumour that he had written 
 may have spread, and would suggest to others to follow 
 his example. 
 
 S. Luke says that many undertook to write, perhaps 
 
DATES OF THE WRITING OF THE GOSPELS. 131 
 
 before this, perhaps after (Luke i. 1). He does not 
 speak slightingly of their efforts, far from it ; but 
 neither does he speak as though he had read them, 
 though I am fully persuaded that he had before him 
 some written Aramaic documents which he used in 
 writing his two first chapters. He certainly had not 
 seen S. Mark's work or the first Gospel, but his two 
 prefatory chapters are plainly translations from AramaiG 
 originals. We have seen already (chapter VII.) that 
 the precision of his language about the destruction of 
 Jerusalem, as contrasted with the enigmatical prophecies 
 in the Petrine memoirs, indicates that he wrote with a 
 full knowledge of the history of the siege. But though 
 he introduces much more editorial matter than do the 
 other two Gospels, he does not, either in the Gospel or 
 the Acts of the Apostles, introduce any of the ideas of 
 the next generation. I see good reason to think that 
 he wrote before the year 80 a.d. 
 
 The first Gospel is evidently written while the 
 horrors of the destruction of Jerusalem were still fresh 
 if not actually going on, and while the casting away of 
 the Israelites, the abolition of the ancient ritual and 
 the breaking of the covenant demanded explanation. 
 We can scarcely realise the shock which the faith of 
 religious men, Jews and Gentiles alike, had received at 
 that terrible " coming of the Son of Man ". 
 
 The unknown author therefore accentuates the guilt 
 of the rulers of his nation. He masses together the 
 
 9—2 
 
132 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 warnings and the denunciations of Christ. He insists, 
 as no other writer does, on the moral inferiority of the 
 teaching of the Pentateuch to that of Christ, leading 
 the reader to infer its transitory nature. He details 
 the prophecies of pending judgement, and the deafness 
 of the ears upon which they fell. He narrates the 
 reckless levity which cried " His blood be on us and on 
 our children ". In short, his Gospel, though he does 
 but record what he had received from others, arraigns 
 the Jewish rulers before the bar of God's just judge- 
 ment, and pronounces them guilty. This Gospel was 
 probably written a few years earlier than S. Luke's. 
 
 And if the three Gospels were written between 70 
 and 80 A.D., none of the authors being privy to the 
 work of the others, S. John's Gospel will fall into the 
 next decade or soon after. I do not stay to prove that 
 the Apostle S. John was the author. That question 
 has been fully discussed in Dr Westcott's introduction 
 to S. John's Gospel in the Speaker's Commentary. If 
 S. John were only fifteen years old when he was called 
 to follow Christ, he would be approaching the extremity 
 of age in 90 A.D. If he wrote the Gospel, as so fearless 
 and excellent a critic as Ewald unhesitatingly affirmed 
 that he did, he cannot have written it much later than 
 this date. And if that be conceded, the earlier date of 
 the other three Gospels will scarcely be denied. In 
 fact the Johannine authorship of the fourth Gospel 
 involves the date of all the four Gospels. 
 
CHAPTER XV. 
 
 THE FIRST GOSPEL. 
 
 We have already considered the very difficult 
 question of the authorship of the first Gospel and 
 have given reasons for our belief that a Greek catechist 
 of S. Matthew's school, rather than S. Matthew himself, 
 must be considered to have written it in its present 
 form. 
 
 S. Matthew, according to the undivided testimony 
 of antiquity, first wrote, or caused to be written, a Gospel 
 in Aramaic. Then, perhaps ten years later, the Greek 
 Gospel was written by a Greek catechist who reproduced 
 S. Matthew's teaching, the most striking part of which 
 is the second cycle of oral gospel, perhaps doing so 
 under S. Matthew's guidance. 
 
 That S. Matthew himself is not the author appears 
 to us to be fully substantiated by an examination of the 
 Gospel itself. For first it is not a translation. Most of its 
 contents, I admit, were once in Aramaic and still retain 
 
134 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 an Oriental colouring. But they had been extensively 
 used in a Greek dress before they were written down in 
 Greek. This is plain enough in the case of the second 
 cycle which obviously reproduces the same version 
 which S. Luke follows ; but still plainer from the way 
 in which the Petrine memoirs are treated. S. Mark's 
 version is used, but S. Mark's simple Semitic coordi- 
 nated sentences have been broken up. A considerable 
 variety of conjunctions has displaced the monotonous 
 " and ". The same sentences, the same words, are there, 
 but Greek catechists have to a considerable extent 
 introduced Greek periods. 
 
 Again, if S. Matthew wrote the first Gospel, he was 
 an Apostle and an eye-witness. We should expect 
 therefore that, like S. John, he would sometimes 
 differ from S. Peter, sometimes add new sections, or 
 new words to the old sections. Compare S. John's 
 account of the feeding of the five thousand with 
 S. Mark's, and you will see what I mean. But what 
 do we find here ? The Petrine memoirs are simply 
 adopted, and almost in their entirety. Four sections 
 are omitted which S. Luke also omits, but only two 
 others, viz. the healing of the demoniac in the Syna- 
 gogue at Capernaum (Mark i. 23 ff.) and the narra- 
 tive of the widow casting two mites into the treasury 
 (Mark xii. 41 ff.). But how does he treat the sections 
 which he retains ? He reduces their bulk, sometimes 
 to less than half, by striking out nearly every word which 
 
THE FIKST GOSPEL. 135 
 
 is not essential. It is scarcely possible for one man to 
 have altered the sections, as he has done ; it must have 
 been a long process, continued by many catechists. In 
 fact he has learned the memoirs in a late form, as we 
 can hardly imagine an Apostle to have done. 
 
 And such additions as he makes, read more like the 
 work of a collector than of an original spectator. For 
 example, he gives us no new descriptions of persons, 
 places or things. He does not, like S. John, throw any 
 fresh light upon the characters of the Apostles and 
 disciples. Nor does he correct the chronology. Even 
 his account of S. Matthew's call — beyond the difficult 
 change of name from Levi to Matthew — is less original 
 than S. Mark's. 
 
 In fact, if a reasonable degree of weight is to be 
 assigned to internal evidence, we have here the work of 
 an unknown member of the Church at Jerusalem, 
 which Church probably produced another anonymous 
 work of the first order — the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
 
 That S. Matthew was not the author is shown by an 
 examination of the characteristics of the Gospel, which 
 indicate the work of catechists. 
 
 Thus S. Mark's Gospel occasionally preserves a 
 certain audacity of expression, which timid catechists 
 would be likely to alter for the sake of their pupils, 
 who might draw wrong inferences from it. S. Mark 
 writes for example that Christ " was not able to work 
 any miracle at Nazareth except that He laid His hand 
 
136 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 upon a few sick persons and healed them ; and He 
 marvelled because of their unbelief" (vi. 5 ff.). The 
 first Gospel gives " He did not work many miracles 
 there, because of their unbelief" (xiii. 58). S. Mark 
 says that our Lord's friends {pi irap avrov) came to lay 
 hold of Him on suspicion of insanity (iii. 21). The 
 other Gospels omit this. S. Mark writes " Is not this 
 the Carpenter?" (vi. 3); the first Gospel, "Is not this 
 the carpenter's son?" (xiii. 55). S. Mark says that SS. 
 James and John came and made a selfish and ambitious 
 request which our Lord refused (x. 35) ; the first Gospel 
 says that the mother of Zebedee's sons came with her 
 sons and that she made the request (xx. 20). SS. Mark 
 and Luke say that a certain young man said to Jesus 
 " Good master, what must I do to inherit the life of the 
 world to come ? And Jesus answered, Why callest thou 
 me good ? there is none good save one, that is God " 
 (Mark x. 17 ff. ; Luke xviii. 18 ff.) ; but the first Gospel, 
 according to the reading which is now universally 
 acknowledged by the critics to be true, gives " Master, 
 what good thing must I do, to inherit the life of the 
 world to come ?" And Jesus answered, " Why ashest 
 thou me about the good thing? One is good, that is 
 God " (Matt. xix. 16 ff.). This is more than a lapse of 
 memory. It is a deliberate change, made evidently for 
 a theological purpose, lest any doubt should be engen- 
 dered amongst pupils of tender age about the perfect 
 sinlessness of Christ. Far be it from me to pass 
 
THE FIRST GOSPEL. 137 
 
 judgement on such action: I merely point out the 
 grounds on which I pronounce S. Mark's to be the 
 original account. We have already seen that the first 
 Gospel differs from the others on the question of 
 divorce (chapter xin). Other theological changes, if I 
 may so call them, are these : S. Mark represents our 
 Lord saying to the Syrophenician woman "For this 
 saying go thy way; the demon is gone out of thy 
 daughter" (vii. 29). The first Gospel interprets this 
 speech, " O woman, great is thy faith, be it unto thee 
 even as thou wilt. And her daughter was healed from 
 that hour " (xv. 28). S. Peter's confession according to 
 S. Mark was, "Thou art the Christ" (viii. 29), according 
 to S. Luke " The Christ of God " (ix. 20) ; but the first 
 Gospel has " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living 
 God" (xvi. 16), and some commentators have actually 
 maintained that the essence of the confession lies in the 
 words which are an editorial note of the first Gospel. 
 According to S. Mark, our Lord, when asked by the 
 disciples why they could not cast out the demon from 
 the epileptic boy at the foot of the mount of Transfigu- 
 ration, replied " This kind goeth not out save by prayer" 
 (ix. 29) ; the first Gospel writes, " Because of your small- 
 ness of faith ; for verily I say unto you, if ye have faith 
 like a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say to this moun- 
 tain, Depart from hence to yonder place, and it shall 
 depart, and nothing shall be impossible to you " (xvii. 
 20), a saying which S. Luke gives in a different context 
 
138 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 (xvii. G). The catechists have, apparently, first for- 
 gotten the original forcible answer in S. Mark and 
 then supplied its place by borrowing from another 
 passage ; as is very commonly done in the Gospels. 
 
 For this tendency to forget a sentence and substitute 
 another for it is inseparable from catechetical teaching. 
 Even S. Mark seems to have traces of it. For when the 
 demoniac in the Synagogue at Capernaum cries out, 
 11 What have we to do with thee, Jesus the Nazarene ? " 
 (Mark i. 23), Dr Weiss is probably right in suggesting 
 that the saying is borrowed from the better remem- 
 bered case of the Gadarene demoniac (v. 7). The Old 
 Testament writers have numerous literary '* common- 
 places" of the same kind. And when the first Gospel, 
 abandoning SS. Mark and Luke, makes the Baptist use 
 our Lord's words, " Bethink yourselves, for the kingdom 
 of the heavens hath drawn nigh " (iii. 2), the same thing 
 has been done, and there is therefore no ground for the 
 complaint that our Lord showed a lack of originality in 
 adopting the Baptist's cry. 
 
 But the most clear case of defective memory occurs 
 in the charge to the Twelve. S. Mark writes that "He 
 charged them that they should take nothing for their 
 journey, save a staff only, not bread, not a wallet, not 
 copper coins for their belt, but (should go) shod with 
 sandals, and not put on two tunics" (vi. 8f.). The 
 first Gospel has " Procure not gold nor silver nor copper 
 for your belts, not a wallet for the road, nor two tunics , 
 
THE FIRST GOSPEL. 139 
 
 nor shoes nor a staff" (Matt. x. 9 f.). S. Luke gives 
 " Take nothing for your journey, neither a staff, nor a 
 wallet, nor bread, nor money, nor two tunics to wear 
 (ix. 3), and in the charge to the Seventy he adds " not 
 shoes " (x. 4). A critic can have no doubt that S. Mark's 
 is the original narrative here. But if S. Matthew wrote 
 the Gospel, he was one of those who went, and can 
 hardly have forgotten whether he went barefoot or not. 
 Some commentators, I know, have tried to draw a 
 distinction between shoes and sandals ; but the generic 
 term shoes {viroh^ara) must include sandals, and in 
 any case the discrepancy about the staff remains. 
 
 Hitherto I have dealt with the first cycle only. In 
 the second cycle we are on less sure ground, because 
 we have no primitive edition of it. Yet, remembering 
 the first Gospel's tendency to make theological additions, 
 is there not some reason to suspect what is suggested 
 to me by a comparison of the parallel passage in S. 
 Luke, that the words which I have enclosed in brackets 
 in the preface to the Sermon on the Mount are 
 editorial additions ? — " Blessed are the poor [in spirit] 
 ...blessed are they that hunger and thirst [after 
 righteousness]. . .blessed are the pure [in heart]. . .blessed 
 are they which are persecuted [for righteousness' sake] 
 ... blessed are ye, when men... say all manner of evil 
 against you [falsely, for my sake] " (Matt. v. 1 ff.). 
 
 We have already examined those passages of the 
 first Gospel which are outside the cycles including the 
 
140 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 quotations from the Old Testament (chapter XI.), the 
 introductory chapters (chapter XII.) and the editorial 
 notes (chapter xiii.). In none of them are we able to 
 trace the work of an Apostle and eyewitness. In fact 
 throughout this Gospel we feel that we are treading on 
 less sure historical ground than in S. Mark. 
 
 And yet this is the most valued Gospel of the 
 three and deservedly so. S. Luke's alone could dispute 
 the palm. Teaching is worth more than records of fact 
 however carefully given. Spiritual truth is higher 
 than history. The glory of the later gifts of the Spirit 
 is greater than that of the former. And the instinct 
 of the Church in all ages — Catholic as well as Protest- 
 ant, Anglican, Lutheran, reformed and nonconformist 
 — has turned with devout thankfulness to this work of 
 an unknown author, whose inaccuracies perplex us, but 
 whose wealth of the highest teaching attests his true 
 inspiration and his fidelity to our common Lord. 
 
CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 S. LUKES GOSPEL. 
 
 S. Luke's Gospel is the most complex of the three, 
 and contains specimens of every one of the six varieties 
 which we have noticed in the composition of the 
 Gospels. For not only does he make use of the three 
 cycles, but of some oral gospel outside the cycles, with 
 abundance of non-oral gospel and of editorial notes. 
 If he had continued his work on the scale on which he 
 begins, it would have been very lengthy, but now it is 
 only a few verses longer than the first Gospel, for his 
 omissions are numerous, striking, and sometimes inex- 
 plicable. Yet we must not think of them as his 
 omissions; rather they formed no part of the oral 
 gospel, as it was taught by Western catechists. 
 
 The principal omissions from the Petrine memoirs 
 are : (those marked with a star are omitted in the first 
 Gospel also). 
 
142 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 The description of the Baptist's food and dress. 
 
 The ministry of angels after the Temptation. 
 
 The call of SS. Peter, Andrew, James and John. 
 
 The murmuring "Is not this the Carpenter ?". 
 
 The narrative of the Baptist's murder. 
 *The parable of the seed growing secretly. 
 
 The narrative of Christ's walking on the water. 
 
 The dispute about eating with unwashen hands. 
 
 The healing of the Syrophenician woman's daughter. 
 *The healing of the deaf man who had an impedi- 
 ment in his speech. 
 
 The feeding of the four thousand. 
 *The healing of the blind man whose cure was 
 gradual. 
 
 The dispute about divorce. (He gives the verdict 
 xvi. 18.) 
 
 The ambitious request of SS. James and John. 
 
 The cursing of the barren fig-tree. 
 
 In the Second Advent discourse he omits much and 
 rewrites much. 
 
 The anointing by Mary. (He gives another anoint- 
 ing vii. 36 ff.) 
 *The incident of the man with the linen cloth. 
 
 All allusion to destroying the Temple in three days, 
 with the taunt " Thou that destroy est &c." 
 
 In the Trial and Passion he frequently abandons 
 the Petrine memoirs in favour of others outside 
 the cycles. 
 
S. LUKE'S GOSPEL. 143 
 
 The cry u My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken 
 me? . 
 
 The promise to go before into Galilee and its fulfil- 
 ment. 
 Some of these sections would have little interest for 
 Gentile Christians. Very surprising is the omission of 
 the call of SS. Peter, Andrew, James and John, because 
 the section in which S. Peter described the call is 
 preserved almost complete, but with a strange addition. 
 According to S. Luke, Jesus sees two empty boats, 
 enters one which was Simon's, bids him thrust out a 
 little from the shore, and so taught the people from the 
 boat. Then follows the draught of fishes. At the 
 conclusion we are told that the other boat belonged to 
 SS. James and John, S. Simon's partners, and that the 
 three — no mention is made of S. Andrew — forsook all 
 and followed Christ (Luke v. I ff.). Now no draught 
 of fishes is mentioned here by any other writer, but 
 a draught of fishes is recorded by S. John in his 
 last chapter (xxi. I ff.). Are these two identical ? The 
 chronology does not settle the question, for S. John's 
 chronology is not the same as that of the three. The 
 narratives are different, but even that is not decisive, 
 for many of S. Luke's narratives have been altered. I 
 think it not improbable that they are the same. 
 
 On the other hand I have no hesitation in saying 
 that the feeding of the five thousand is distinct from 
 the feeding of the four thousand. Both are recorded in 
 
144 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 the Petrine memoirs; both are preserved in S. Mark 
 and the first Gospel. A Petrine note afterwards (Mark 
 viii. 19 f.; Matt. xvi. 9 f.) refers to them both. S. Luke's 
 omission of the latter is due to the habit, which seems 
 to have prevailed in the West, of omitting such narra- 
 tives as conveyed no new teaching. For example, the 
 cursing of the barren fig-tree may have been omitted 
 (as Dr Abbott suggests) because the third cycle con- 
 tained a parable about a barren fig-tree (xiii. 6ff.). 
 The most inexplicable omission is that of the healing of 
 the Syrophenician woman's daughter. If there is one 
 narrative in the three Gospels which we should have 
 expected to find in S. Luke, it is this. S. Luke, himself 
 a Gentile, writing for Gentiles, passes over the only 
 recorded case in which our Lord healed a Gentile. 
 Can the catechists have objected to Christ's even by 
 implication calling the Gentiles dogs ? 
 
 S. Luke's principal omissions in the Matthsean 
 utterances are : 
 
 The Matthsean additions to John's baptism of 
 Christ. 
 
 Large portions, including the theological sections, 
 of the Sermon on the Mount. 
 
 Some portions of the Charge to the Twelve. 
 
 The parable of the tares. 
 
 The parable of the hidden treasure. 
 
 The parable of the pearl of great price. 
 
 The parable of the draw net. 
 
s. luke's gospel. 145 
 
 The promise of the keys to S. Peter. 
 
 The promise that what the Apostles bound on 
 earth should be bound in heaven. 
 
 The parable of the unmerciful servant. 
 
 The parable of the two sons commanded to work 
 in the vineyard. 
 
 The parable of the labourers in the vineyard. 
 
 The parable of the ten virgins. 
 
 The description of the Son of Man in glory sepa- 
 rating the sheep from the goats. 
 Most of these sections, as we have seen, were pro- 
 bably added to the second cycle at a later date than 
 that at which it was conveyed to the West. 
 
 We have described in chapter XL the additions 
 which S. Luke obtains from the oral gospel outside the 
 cycles, and in chapter xn. the additions from non-oral 
 gospel. We observe respecting the latter that they 
 are far more Aramaic in form than even S. Mark's 
 Gospel. The reason of this we take to be the simple 
 fact that they never were in the hands of Greek 
 catechists, who inevitably and unconsciously Hellenised 
 what they taught. Dr Abbott suggests that S. Luke, 
 though certainly capable of writing Greek which ap- 
 proaches even a classical standard — witness his preface 
 and the latter part of the Acts of the Apostles in which 
 he is narrating his own recollections — may deliberately 
 have retained the Aramaic colouring of his original as a 
 literary embellishment. 
 
 W. G. 10 
 
146 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 We have commented on S. Luke's editorial notes in 
 chapter XIII. 
 
 It remains to justify our assertion that S. Luke's 
 Gospel has less of the true chronological order than any 
 other. This we may do by examining the arrangement 
 of his Gospel. 
 
 After two chapters of preliminary matter S. Luke 
 in his third chapter begins the Petrine memoirs. Till 
 ix. 50 he follows their guidance, merely interspersing 
 here and there parts of the second cycle and other 
 matter. Only twice, does he slightly vary S. Mark's 
 order. From ix. 51 to xviii. 14 he leaves S. Peter's 
 memoirs, except for a verse or two occasionally. Into 
 this remarkable division — nearly one third of his whole 
 work — he has put most of the third cycle, and some of 
 the second. If we are to accept S. Luke's chronology, 
 we must suppose that the whole of this section belongs 
 to the final journey to Jerusalem. But an examination 
 of its contents does not justify that view. It would 
 have been the latest stage of our Lord's teaching at 
 which "without a parable spake he not unto the 
 people." Nay, for the most part He had ceased to 
 address the multitudes, and had confined His teaching 
 to the education of the Twelve. But here we have all 
 those beautiful stories, which are the very plainest and 
 simplest teaching, and must, I think, belong to the first 
 period. After xviii. 15 S. Luke returns to the Petrine 
 memoirs, and follows their guidance, as far as chronology 
 
S. LUKE'S GOSPEL. 147 
 
 goes, to the end. Now we have seen that the chrono- 
 logy of the Petrine memoirs is not correct (chapter 
 VI.), neither therefore is S. Luke's order correct. 
 
 One more question may conveniently be put here. 
 Did our Lord repeat Himself in His teaching ? There 
 is no reason to doubt that He did. In the Charge to 
 the Seventy He may well have said many things which 
 He had said in the Charge to the Twelve. But when 
 commentators push this principle, and maintain that 
 whenever we have slightly different editions of a dis- 
 course, they are really two distinct discourses, I cannot 
 agree with them. That the Sermon on the Mount in 
 the first Gospel is the same as the Sermon on the plain 
 in S. Luke, is to me indisputable. For it is not a 
 question of what our Lord said and did, but of what 
 was recollected and how the recollections finally reached 
 the writers. Slightly different setting and chronology 
 count for nothing. If, by the principle of repetition, 
 we could get rid of all discrepancies or of most of them, 
 there would be reason for considering it. But though 
 some men have gone so far in this direction as to hold 
 that S. Peter denied Christ nine times, they have not 
 got rid of the difficulty about the cock crowing once or 
 twice. Did the centurion come in person to Christ, as 
 the first Gospel asserts, or did he not come, as S. Luke 
 insists? Were the Twelve commanded to wear shoes 
 and carry a staff, as S. Mark says, or were they for- 
 bidden to do so, as S. Luke and the first Gospel affirm ? 
 
 10—2 
 
148 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 Is it true that "Jehoram begat Uzziah" (Matt. i. 8)? 
 Till these and many other difficulties have been cleared 
 away, the student of the Gospels need not be too ready 
 to multiply discourses in order to avoid diversity. The 
 parable of the Talents (Matt. xxv. 14 ff.) is very dif- 
 ferent from the Parable of the Pounds (Luke xix. 11 ff.), 
 yet I think it almost certain that they are different 
 editions of the same parable. 
 
 S. Luke was a physician (Coloss. iv. 14). It is 
 interesting to observe how he vindicates his order. 
 S. Peter had written of the woman with the issue of 
 blood that "she had frequently been medically treated 
 by many physicians and had spent all her living upon 
 them, and had been nothing benefited but rather made 
 worse " (Mark v. 26). The first Gospel omits the 
 whole of this serious indictment. S. Luke rewrites the 
 verse " She had not the constitutional strength to be 
 cured by any one" (viii. 43). Surely it is a shallow 
 criticism which would see here nothing but professional 
 pride. S. Peter's charge may have been only too sadly 
 true, yet Christian kindness and forbearance demand 
 that we should be something more than just in our 
 judgements about others. S. Luke's Gospel is distin- 
 guished for that charity which hopeth all things and 
 believeth all things. 
 
CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 s. mark's gospel. 
 
 We have already said nearly all that need be said 
 about this Gospel, which contains nothing but the 
 Petrine memoirs and the briefest editorial notes. 
 
 We have seen that one Petrine section — the healing 
 of the centurion's servant or son — is absent. The fol- 
 lowing four have not been preserved elsewhere : 
 
 The parable of the seed growing secretly (iv. 
 
 26 ff.). 
 The healing of the deaf man who had an impedi- 
 ment in his speech (vii. 32 ff.). 
 The healing of the blind man whose cure was 
 
 gradual (viii. 22 ff.). 
 
 The narrative of the man with the linen cloth 
 
 (xiv. 51 £). 
 
 Of editorial notes S. Mark has (1) A brief preface 
 
 "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ." (2) An 
 
 allusion to the fulfilment of Scripture " [As it standeth 
 
150 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 written in Isaiah the prophet] 'Behold I send my 
 messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way \ 
 [The voice of one crying in the wilderness &c.]." (i. 2.) 
 
 This verse demands detailed examination. S. Peter 
 contributed the first clause 'As it standeth written in 
 Isaiah the prophet' and the latter quotation " The voice 
 of one crying in the wilderness &c." S. Mark himself 
 has inserted between them the prophecy from Malachi. 
 Whence did he obtain it ? Not himself directly from 
 Malachi, or he would not have attributed it to Isaiah. 
 Plainly he is quoting second hand. Did he get it from 
 the second cycle ? It occurs there in a different context 
 (Matt. xi. 10 ; Luke viii. 12) in the mouth of our Lord, 
 who Himself brings it forward as applicable to the 
 Baptist. I am loath to admit that S. Mark was ac- 
 quainted with the Matthsean Utterances. If he had 
 been, surely he would have made use of them. It is 
 better to suppose that a text like this was common 
 property. The fulfilment of Scripture was the engross- 
 ing study of the age. Every Christian preacher made 
 allusions to it. And it is no slight proof of the early 
 type of S. Mark's Gospel that in no other passage does 
 he draw attention (as the first Gospel so frequently 
 does) to this subject. For Mark xv. 28 is spurious, and 
 when S. Mark quotes Scripture elsewhere, it is as an 
 essential part of the Petrine memoirs. 
 
 Another editorial note possesses the highest interest 
 as a true and important theological inference. S. Mark 
 
s. mark's gospel. 151 
 
 is narrating the section in which our Lord pronounces 
 the true nature of defilement, as being moral, in oppo- 
 sition to the superficial teaching of the scribes, who made 
 it rest in eating food with unclean hands. Christ gives 
 the startling paradox " There is nothing outside a man 
 which can defile him by entering into him ; but the 
 things which proceed forth from the man are those 
 which defile him"; and in somewhat broken syntax 
 S. Mark adds a note of his own " (this spake he) making 
 all foods clean " (vii. 19). Now there is no reference in 
 the passage to the distinction between clean and un- 
 clean foods. Our Lord's controversy was against the 
 scribes who unless they could wash would not eat. But 
 S. Mark rightly judges that the principle may be 
 pushed further than its original scope, and made to 
 cover some of the Levitical rules as well as the 
 Pharisees' vow. The distinction between clean and 
 unclean food holds a prominent place in Leviticus, and 
 many Gentile Christians accepting Leviticus as Holy 
 Scripture must occasionally have been troubled with 
 conscientious scruples on the question. 
 
 It is perhaps by an editorial note that S. Mark tells 
 us that David ate the shewbread "in the high-priest- 
 hood of Ahiathar" (ii. 26). Abiathar and Ahimelech 
 are confused even in the Old Testament, and there is 
 some uncertainty about them. If these words were part 
 of S. Peter's original narrative, they were struck out by 
 the catechists at an early date to avoid the difficulty. 
 
152 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 The same uncertainty hangs about the enumeration 
 of the Ten Commandments in Mark x. 19. The Laws 
 of the second Table appear to be given, except that the 
 fifth is put last. Instead of "Do not covet" for the 
 tenth, S. Mark gives "Do not defraud" which is 
 synonymous with the eighth " Do not steal." The 
 other two Gospels omit the precept. 
 
CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 S. JOHN'S GOSPEL. 
 
 S. John's Gospel differs from the other three in 
 that it is not founded on oral teaching, but consists of 
 personal recollections of an eye-witness written by 
 himself. It therefore is in many respects of higher 
 authority than anything even in the Petrine memoirs. 
 S. Peter indeed compiled his narrative at a time much 
 nearer to the events, and in that had an advantage, but 
 S. Peter's recollections have not reached us from his 
 own hand, or complete, or correctly arranged. 
 
 Chapters i.— xx. form the body of S. John's work and 
 are complete in themselves with their own conclusion. 
 The first epistle of S. John is a preface or postscript to 
 them, explaining the persons for whom they were 
 intended and the standpoint of the writer. Chapter 
 xxi. 1-23 is an appendix added some time after the 
 completion of the book for a special reason. Verse 24 
 
154 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 is a kind of testamur attached to the whole by some 
 persons unknown. Verse 25 is of uncertain authorship. 
 The received text contains a section, vii. 53 — viii. 11, 
 which is not authentic. It is the account of the 
 woman taken in adultery, which was one of those 
 fragments of oral gospel outside the cycles which did 
 not find their way into any written gospel except the 
 Gospel according to the Hebrews. It was added at a 
 very early date to the Western edition of S. John's text. 
 The account is doubtless true, but is not S. John's 
 work. 
 
 S. John's Gospel consists more than ever of teaching 
 rather than action. The seven miracles, which are 
 narrated in the main body of the work, viz. : 
 
 The water turned into wine (ii. 1 ff.), 
 
 The healing of the nobleman's son at Capernaum 
 (iv. 46 ff.), 
 
 The healing of the lame man at the pool of 
 Bethzatha (v. 1 ff.), 
 
 The feeding of the five thousand (vi. 1 ff.), 
 
 The walking on the sea (vi. 16 ff.), 
 
 The healing of the man born blind (ix. 1 ff.), 
 
 The raising of Lazarus (xi. 1 ff.), 
 teem with teaching in themselves, and are often con- 
 nected with discourses. That these discourses really 
 contain Christ's teaching, is clearly proved by their 
 character. S. John, the Galilean fisherman, could not 
 have produced them of himself. But that they are not 
 
S. JOHN'S GOSPEL. 155 
 
 verbatim reports, is shown by the strongly marked 
 style which pervades them, and which is the Apostle's 
 own. 
 
 The Petrine memoirs are touched in the following 
 points : 
 
 The ministry of the Baptist (i. 6 ff.). 
 
 The cleansing of the Temple (ii. 13 ff.). 
 
 The feeding of the five thousand (vi. 1 ff.). 
 
 The walking on the sea (vi. 16 ff.). 
 
 The triumphal entry into Jerusalem (xii. 12 ff.). 
 
 The anointing at Bethany (xii. 1 ff). 
 
 The betrayal of Judas with its prediction (xiii. 21 
 ff, xviii. 1 ff). 
 
 The last passion, death and burial (xviii. 12 ff). 
 
 The Resurrection and subsequent appearances of 
 the Lord (xx. 1 ff ). 
 The second and third cycles are not touched at all, 
 but the miraculous draught of fishes (xxi. 1 ff) is 
 possibly the same as that fragment of oral gospel 
 outside the cycles preserved by S. Luke, who inserts it 
 strangely into the middle of a Petrine section (v. 4 ff). 
 (See chapter xvi.) If they are the same, the date is 
 different. Instead of putting it at the commencement 
 of our Lord's ministry, as S. Luke has done, perhaps 
 because he does not narrate any visit to Galilee after 
 the Resurrection, S. John correctly places it last 
 of all. 
 
 The differences between SS. John and Peter demand 
 
156 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 close examination, because the value of the Petrine 
 memoirs is affected by the result. 
 
 First of all the chronology, as we have seen (chapter 
 ill.), is entirely different. S. John spreads our Lord's 
 ministry over three years at least, and places a large 
 part of it in Jerusalem, to which city he brings Him 
 several times. The Petrine memoirs know nothing of 
 Jerusalem visits until the final journey. S. John places 
 the cleansing of the Temple at the beginning of the 
 ministry, the Petrine memoirs place it at the close. 
 S. John puts the anointing at Bethany six days before 
 the Passover (xii. 1); the Petrine memoirs put it two 
 days before (Mark xiv. 1 ff.; Matt. xxvi. 1 ff.), the sections 
 having been misplaced. In all these points, I main- 
 tain, S. John is to be followed. Nor must we think 
 that he is contradicting S. Peter, but only S. Mark's 
 arrangement of S. Peter (chapter in.). 
 
 The case of discrepancy in narrative is different. 
 S. John's account of the feeding of the five thousand is 
 quite distinct from S. Peter's ; the conversations are 
 different ; but there is no contradiction ; we have simply 
 two reports of the same event, and S. John's is the 
 longer and more vivid of the two. But in the walking 
 on the sea there are difficulties. 8. Mark makes the 
 disciples start for Bethsaida (Mark vi. 45); S. John 
 makes them go to Capernaum. If there were two 
 Bethsaidas on the shore of the lake within ten miles 
 of each other, as is commonly but most improbably 
 
s. John's gospel. 157 
 
 supposed, the difficulty is less. Otherwise S. John's 
 geography seems the better. S. Peter says that Jesus 
 entered the boat and the wind ceased (Mark vi. 51 ; 
 Matt. xiv. 32) ; S. John says that the disciples " wished 
 to receive Him into the boat and immediately the boat 
 was at the land whither they went" (vi. 21), which 
 appears to mean that He did not enter the boat. 
 
 But in the anointing at Bethany S. John's recol- 
 lections are manifestly confused. He has blended two 
 events into one. Twice do we read that our Lord was 
 anointed. Once, according to the third cycle, when 
 He was sitting at dinner in the house of a Pharisee 
 named Simon, a woman of the city " who had been a 
 sinner" came behind Him, washed His feet with her 
 tears, wiped them with the hair of her head, kissed 
 them and anointed them with oil. A conversation 
 followed on the nature of forgiveness, and the proof of 
 it as shown by love (Luke vii. 36 ff.). Secondly in the 
 Petrine memoirs, while our Lord was sitting at dinner 
 in the house of Simon the leper, a woman took an 
 alabaster box of spikenard, very costly, brake the box 
 and poured it on His head. Not a word is said of 
 contrition, nor were His feet anointed, which would be 
 unusual. A conversation followed in which our Lord 
 defended the gift against the charge of extravagant 
 waste (Mark xiv. 3 ff.; Matt. xxvi. 6 ff.). 
 
 S. John narrates the latter case only, and tells us 
 that Mary, the sister of Lazarus, was the woman who 
 
158 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 did the deed, which proves it one of love and not of 
 contrition, for Hengstenberg's romance will hardly be 
 received. But S. John makes her pour the ointment 
 not on the head, but on the feet, and she is said to 
 have wiped off, not her tears, but the ointment, with 
 the hair of her head (xii. 1 ff.). Plainly the two events 
 are confused. For the idea of commentators that she 
 poured the oil on His head and, finding some left, 
 emptied that on His feet, is not satisfactory. S. Luke's 
 account probably has some admixture also: for it is not 
 probable that in both cases the name of the giver of 
 the feast was Simon. However common that name 
 was, the coincidence is almost impossible. 
 
 S. John's account of the scene at which Christ 
 predicted Judas's treachery (xii. 21 ff.) clears up 
 for us the whole mystery in which S. Peter left the 
 matter. (Mark xiv. 18 ff.; Matt. xxvi. 21 ff; Luke 
 xxii. 21.) 
 
 S. John's account of the last days and the passion 
 (xiii.-xix.) is different in spirit from S. Peter's. S. Peter 
 had described Christ as the lamb led to the slaughter ; 
 (Mark xiv.-xv ; Matt, xxvi.-xxvii ; Luke xxii-xxiii ;) 
 S. John regards Him as a conqueror, triumphing in 
 everything and particularly reigning from the cross. 
 Much of the history also is cleared up under S. John's 
 guidance. The character of Pilate, and the motives 
 which influenced him, are made much more evident. 
 But throughout this Gospel we get vivid dramatic 
 
s. John's gospel. 159 
 
 scenes, in which persons, places and events are sketched 
 with unparalleled skill. 
 
 Of the spiritual power and sublimity of S. John's 
 Gospel, I need not speak here. There are some chap- 
 ters which have been dearer to the heart of Christendom 
 than anything else in the whole of Revelation. 
 
CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 ON THE INSPIRATION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 Man conscious of his weakness looks round for 
 guidance. Roman Catholics offer him an infallible 
 Church, Protestants an infallible Bible. We believe 
 that infallibility belongs to God, and that the universal 
 yearning for it is a sign that ' we are made for Him, and 
 in Him only can rest'. 
 
 God has revealed Himself first through His Spirit to 
 the fathers, next in His Son, lastly by the abiding gift 
 of the Spirit to the Church. The holy Scriptures are 
 one, and the most precious, result of this gift. But lest 
 we should put our trust in them, and not in God, they 
 were written by fallible men like ourselves. They are 
 not composed in the best classical Greek ; it is possible 
 to find fault with their style and their grammar. They 
 are not preserved in the hand-writing of their authors, 
 but the text is sometimes uncertain, sometimes contains 
 primitive error. And, if there is truth in the investi- 
 
ON THE INSPIRATION OF THE GOSPELS. 161 
 
 gations of this book, the writers are not always 
 unanimous, but at times differ from or contradict one 
 another. It is easy for unbelief to scoff', and for false 
 exegesis to defend them on a wrong issue. Faith will 
 take them as God's gift and use them. God has given 
 them, as they are, and not as we might have expected 
 them to be. They are not verbally infallible, but they 
 are divinely inspired. They testify of Christ, and lead 
 us by the Spirit through Christ to God. When they 
 are weakest, they are often most strong. If S. Paul 
 could call the gospel God's weakness and God's folly 
 (1 Cor. i. 25), we with all reverence would apply the 
 same terms to the Gospels and yet testify that they are 
 stronger than man and wiser than man, and that the 
 Holy Spirit may in Christ make them to us the power 
 of God and the wisdom of God. 
 
 Some of us may need to alter our theory of inspira- 
 tion. It was altered once, when men began to appeal 
 to the Greek and the Hebrew against the Latin Vulgate. 
 It was altered again, when they appealed to lexicons 
 and grammars and the usage of contemporary writers 
 against authoritative interpretation. It was altered 
 again, when the science of textual criticism shattered 
 the exclusive claims of the received text. And every 
 alteration, though a shock to the faith of some, and a 
 trial to that of all, led to closer study, clearer insight, 
 and a more reverential acceptance of the sacred 
 volume. 
 
 W. G. 11 
 
162 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 The Church most wisely has never defined Inspira- 
 tion. As easily could we define life itself. We are 
 conscious of it. Spirit speaks to spirit, and they that 
 are spiritual feel its presence. But one of the wisest of 
 modern teachers once advised us not to fetter ourselves 
 with any theory of inspiration, when making historical 
 investigations into the Scriptures. Surety the facts 
 must mould the theory, not the theory mould the 
 facts. 
 
 Deny the Incarnation, and the existence of the New 
 Testament and of the Church is an insoluble enigma. 
 Admit that, and the works of Christ cease to present 
 difficulty. His Resurrection is the natural consumma- 
 tion of His life. The Scriptures are the witnesses to the 
 past, the helps and guides to future progress. The 
 Holy Spirit in our hearts is the crowning gift here, the 
 pledge of an abiding union hereafter. 
 
 But, if the post-reformation idea of an infallible 
 Bible is not supported by the results of this inquiry, 
 the ancient and Catholic doctrine that the Church 
 is the keeper and witness of Holy Writ, and the Scrip- 
 tural and Catholic doctrine that authority is gained by 
 delegation, and power to act comes from office, receive 
 vindication. For of the four Gospels the last is the 
 personal witness to Christ of one of those Apostles to 
 whom our Lord said "As the Father hath commissioned 
 me, so do I also send you " (John xx. 21), the other 
 three are the work of catechists who by virtue of their 
 
ON THE INSPIRATION OF THE GOSPELS. 163 
 
 office were moved by the Holy Spirit to write, and 
 inspired, aided and guided in doing so. 
 
 And if we can no longer say that the Gospels are 
 the independent witness of four men, for their component 
 parts appear on analysis generally to depend on the 
 testimony of one man — S. Peter, S. John, S. Matthew, 
 or some unknown worker — yet on the other hand they 
 are the witness of the faith of churches. For S. Mark, 
 the authorised translator of S. Peter's Memoirs, writes 
 as S. Peter's vicar, and gives us the simplest witness to 
 Christ of the primitive and undivided Church. The 
 first Gospel gives us the witness to Christ of the 
 churches of the East, S. Luke gives us the witness to 
 Christ of the churches of the West. 
 
 Christ might have left us His own teaching in His 
 own handwriting. Most men would think that more 
 satisfactory, than leaving His friends to give so much 
 as they recollected. But by passing through so many 
 human hands, the Gospel has been moulded to suit 
 the variety of human minds. Thus ever is the 
 truth of God presented mediately to the human heart. 
 Parents, teachers, preachers do more to convert man- 
 kind than the private study of Scripture, from which 
 we all ultimately derive our power. It has pleased 
 God "through the folly of the proclamation to save them 
 that believe" (1 Cor. i. 21). 
 
 A robuster faith in the Gospels is needed, which 
 instead of always seeking to deny the existence of 
 
 11—2 
 
1G4 THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 difficulties or to explain them away, shall freely confess 
 them, and learn the lessons which they teach. That 
 this book should in some degree contribute to the 
 better understanding of the Gospels, and so should in- 
 crease the reverential study of them, to the confirmation 
 of faith in their real inspiration and the quickening of 
 the power to obey their precepts, is the humble prayer 
 of the author. And to God, the Father, Son and Holy 
 Ghost, be all the glory. 
 
INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 " Abiathar, in the high-priesthood of " 
 
 151 
 
 Adultery, woman taken in 
 
 154 
 
 Advent, discourse on the second 
 
 73 
 
 Anointings of Christ, the two 
 
 157 
 
 Aramaic, the original language of the first cycle 
 
 2 
 
 the original language of the second cycle 
 
 62 
 
 the original language of the Gospel according to the 
 
 
 Hebrews 
 
 65 
 
 Baptism of Christ 
 
 72 
 
 Baptist, ministry of the 
 
 72 
 
 murder of 
 
 37,52 
 
 Bartirnasus 
 
 51 
 
 Beatitudes 
 
 139 
 
 " Behold I send my messenger " 
 
 150 
 
 Bishops, New Testament use of the term .... 
 
 9 
 
 Catechists, work of the 
 
 1 
 
 method of teaching 
 
 1 
 
 began to teach soon after the great day of 
 
 
 Pentecost 
 
 2, 93 
 
 initiated by S. Peter 
 
 2 
 
 first Aramaic lessons lost 
 
 3 
 
 usually taught more than one cycle 
 
 4 
 
 obtained from Jerusalem 
 
 4 
 
 called " the catechisers " 
 
 5 
 
 called " ministers of the word " . . . . 
 
 5 
 
 called teachers 
 
 5 
 
 number of 
 
 5 
 
166 
 
 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 Catechists, derivation and meaning of the term 
 
 did not teach women .... 
 
 status of 
 
 held in high esteem .... 
 
 were often poor 
 
 not. mentioned in the pastoral epistles . 
 S. Paul not one of them 
 all Greek catechists pupils of S. Mark . 
 the older catechists conservative . 
 the older catechists could not stop changes 
 Eastern — used an abbreviated text 
 Western — used an altered text 
 the three first Evangelists were Catechists 
 continued to teach when Gospels were written 
 S. Paul's allusions to 
 established in Galatia in 58 a.d. 
 Centurion's servant healed 
 Charge to the Twelve 
 Chronology of the first three Gospels defective 
 
 of S. John's Gospel 
 Cleansing of the Temple . 
 Coin found in the fish's mouth 
 Commonplaces, literary . 
 Cycle I 8t — S. Peter's memoirs 
 incomplete . 
 
 forms the framework of three Gospels 
 three editions extant 
 S. Mark's edition most trustworthy 
 early date shown by meagre contents 
 universally accepted 
 characteristics of 
 Kesurrection attested by 
 Miracles prominent in . 
 Christ's words prominent in . 
 date of composition of . 
 narrates events soon after their occurrence 
 contains only one discourse . 
 
 PAGE 
 
 6 
 7 
 8 
 
 10 
 
 12 
 
 12 
 
 16 
 
 45 
 
 46 
 
 46 
 
 49 
 
 49 
 
 49 
 
 55 
 
 10, 93 
 
 94 
 
 32, 52 
 
 74 
 
 21 
 
 156 
 
 156 
 
 100 
 
 138 
 
 3,25,32 
 
 3, 21 
 
 4 
 
 32 
 
 32 
 
 33 
 
 33 
 
 34, 36 
 
 36 
 
 36 
 
 36 
 
 92 
 
 98 
 
 73 
 
INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 167 
 
 Cycle II nd . S. Matthew's Utterances of the Lord . 
 S. Matthew wrote in Aramaic 
 the Fathers accept the first Gospel as his 
 the first Gospel is not a translation 
 S. Matthew composed in sections . 
 S. Matthew's position in Jerusalem 
 Gentiles receive 2nd cycle when incomplete 
 Completion of the 2nd cycle . 
 S. Matthew leaves Jerusalem 
 
 writes Aramaic Gospel abroad 
 Gospel of the Hebrews related to it 
 Greek Gospel written by a catechist 
 how far it was S. Matthew's work 
 unity of the second cycle 
 borrows framework from the first 
 consists of speeches and parables . 
 S. Luke's edition of it . 
 difficulties about arrangement 
 S. Luke's omissions 
 " Utterances of the Lord"— phrase explained 
 difficult to detect accretions in 
 detailed list of sections 
 date of . . • • 
 Cycle III rd . Anonymous, but Pauline . 
 
 current only in the West . 
 
 extant in S. Luke only 
 
 contains only one miracle . 
 
 the stories a new feature 
 
 detailed list of sections 
 
 extends into the Acts of the Apostles 
 
 date of . • • 
 
 introductions to sections in 
 
 Darkness, the three hours of . 
 
 Dates of the composition of the three cycles . 
 
 of the writing of our Gospels 
 Deacons and deaconesses, position and duties of 
 
168 
 
 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 "Defraud not" 
 
 Demoniacal possession .... 
 Deterioration in oral teaching and its causes 
 Divorce, the teaching of Christ about 
 Draughts of fishes — were there two or one ? 
 
 Editorial notes 
 
 Education in the East, method of . 
 Evangelists, position and duties of . 
 
 Fig tree, withering of the barren 
 
 First Gospel, duplex .... 
 
 doubles numbers on three occasions 
 not written by S. Matthew the Apostl 
 not a translation from Aramaic 
 not the work of an eye-witness 
 alters bold expressions 
 introduces theological changes 
 causes for popularity of 
 
 Fish, finding of coin in the mouth of a . 
 
 Fishes, were there two draughts of? 
 
 Five thousand, the feeding of . 
 
 not identical with the feeding 
 
 " Foods, cleansing all" .... 
 
 PAGE 
 
 152 
 
 39 
 
 48 
 
 119, 137 
 
 100 
 
 27, 116, 149 
 1 
 
 8 
 
 51, 144 
 
 27 
 
 23, 121 
 
 133 
 
 133 
 
 134 
 
 135 
 
 136 
 
 140 
 
 100 
 
 143, 155 
 
 143, 156 
 
 of 4000 143 
 
 151 
 
 " Gall, wine mingled with " .... 
 Genealogies, in S. Luke and in the first Gospel 
 Genealogy of the three extant editions of S. Peter's 
 method of ascertaining . 
 the possible varieties of . 
 Gospel, the primitive not non-miraculous 
 
 early date of Greek oral 
 Gospels, analysis into component parts . 
 
 changes in, the work of many minds 
 written, a blessing to the first age 
 written, drawbacks of 
 causes for writing .... 
 some sections early committed to writinj 
 
 memoirs 
 
 121 
 
 113 
 
 41 
 
 41 
 
 43 
 
 94 
 
 33 
 
 25 
 
 49 
 
 55 
 
 56 
 
 130 
 
 129 
 
INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 169 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Inspiration of the Gospels 29, 160 
 
 does not produce infallibility .... 39 
 
 Irenasus, testimony about S. Mark 19 
 
 Jerusalem, prophecies of the destruction of ... 54 
 
 destruction of, caused our Gospels to be written . 130 
 
 John, S., 1st Epistle of, an introduction to the Gospel . . 153 
 
 Gospel of 153 
 
 date of writing 132 
 
 not founded on oral teaching . . . 153 
 
 contains seven miracles .... 154 
 
 discourses not verbatim reports . . . 154 
 
 contact with first cycle .... 155 
 
 no contact with second or third cycle . 155 
 
 chronology of 23, 156 
 
 cleansing of the Temple .... 156 
 
 account of the Passion .... 158 
 
 vivid dramatic power .... 158 
 
 "Judasa" used to signify "Palestine" 117 
 
 Judas Iscariot's death 102 
 
 betrayal of Christ foretold .... 158 
 
 " Kingdom of the heavens" or " Kingdom of God" . . 116 
 
 "Lake of Gennesaret" or " Sea of Galilee" .... 117 
 
 Lepers, the cleansing of the ten 86 
 
 Lost sayings of Christ 56 
 
 S. Luke's Gospel 141 
 
 "triplex" 27 
 
 preface of 130 
 
 precise accounts of the siege of Jerusalem . 54, 131 
 
 commences on a grand scale . . . 141 
 
 omissions in Petrine Memoirs . . . 142 
 
 the draught of fishes 143 
 
 omissions in S. Matthew's Utterances . . 144 
 least chronological of the four Gospels . . 24, 146 
 
 Magi, visit of the 
 
 113 
 
170 
 
 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 Mark, S., life of 
 
 a bilingual catechist 
 translator of S. Peter's Memoirs 
 editor of S. Peter's Memoirs . 
 author of our second Gospel . 
 date at which he wrote . 
 retires to Cyprus 
 refused by S. Paul . 
 instructor of all the Greek catechists 
 leaves Jerusalem with S. Peter 
 writes his Gospel 
 Gospel of, high historical value 
 faulty chronology . 
 "simplex" 
 written after S. Peter's death 
 causes of unpopularity of 
 coordinated sentences 
 sections peculiar to . 
 editorial notes in 
 Matthew, S., Gospel of, See "First Gospel." 
 Utterances of, See " Cycle II nd " 
 
 Memory, feats of 
 
 "Metamorphosis" 
 
 " Ministers of the word " and " Ministers " 
 
 Mount, Sermon on the 
 
 "Myrrh, wine mingled with" .... 
 
 PAGE 
 
 14 
 
 15 
 
 15, 32 
 
 17 
 
 18 
 
 19 
 
 20 
 
 20 
 
 21, 45 
 
 96 
 
 130 
 
 21 
 
 21 
 
 26 
 
 33 
 
 34 
 
 116, 134 
 
 149 
 
 149 
 
 2 
 
 50 
 
 5, 15 
 
 74, 147 
 
 122 
 
 " New cloth and old garments" 
 Non-oral gospel 
 
 53 
 27, 112 
 
 Opiate, offered to our Lord on the cross . 
 Oral gospel outside the cycles .... 
 
 see "Cycle I st " &c. 
 Orders of clergy in the primitive church, various 
 
 122 
 27, 100 
 
 Papias, position of 
 
 work on the Utterances of the Lord 
 
 18, 93 
 56 
 
INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 171 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Papias, testimony about the first cycle 18, 93 
 
 testimony about the second cycle . . . . 64, 67 
 
 Parables, group of seven in the first Gospel .... 74 
 
 the Prodigal Son 87 
 
 the unjust steward 87 
 
 of the talents and the pounds identical . . . 148 
 
 Pastoral Epistles do not mention catechists .... 12 
 
 Paul, S., not a catechist himself 16 
 
 testimony about catechists 10, 93 
 
 Peter, S., Memoirs of, see " Cycle I st " 
 
 narrative of his walking on the sea .... 101 
 
 narrative of his denials 101 
 
 narrative of his confession of Christ . . . 137 
 
 initiated catechising . . . . . . 2 
 
 author of the first cycle 2 
 
 could not write literary Greek 24 
 
 date of composing the first cycle .... 95 
 
 Pharisees, the woes against the 72 
 
 Prayer, much dwelt on in S. Luke's Gospel .... 88 
 
 Presbyters, position and duties of 9, 12 
 
 take the place of catechists and evangelists . . 12 
 
 Prodigal Son, parable of the 87 
 
 Progressive revelation 34, 108 
 
 Prophecies of the destruction of Jerusalem .... 54 
 
 Prophets, position and duties of, in the Christian Church . 8 
 
 Quirinius, proconsulship of ... 
 
 Repetition of teaching in the gospel, is there any? 
 Revelation progressive . 
 
 nature of 
 Rich fool, story of the 
 Rich man and Lazarus, story of the 
 Ruler, the young .... 
 Rusbbrooke, Mr, The Synopticon . 
 
 Samaritans, how treated of in the four Gospels 
 
 118 
 
 147 
 
 39, 108 
 29 
 86 
 87 
 136 
 96 
 
172 
 
 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 Sandals, the Twelve to be shod with 
 Septuagint, quotations from .... 
 Sermon on the Mount 
 
 identical with the Sermon on the plain 
 
 Seventy, mission of the 
 
 Staff only, the Twelve to go forth with a 
 
 Steward, parable of the unjust 
 
 Story of the good Samaritan .... 
 
 of the rich fool 
 
 of the rich man and Lazarus 
 Synopticon, Mr Eushbrooke's .... 
 Syrophenician woman's daughter healed 
 
 Temptation, the 
 
 " Three days and three nights in the heart of the 
 " Transfigured ", difficulty about the word 
 " Triple tradition ", value of .... 
 Triumphal entry into Jerusalem 
 Twelve, charge to the . 
 
 Walking on the sea, narrative of Jesus' . 
 
 S. Peter's . 
 Wine twice offered to Christ on the Cross 
 Woman having an issue of blood, narrative of the 
 Women, not catechised 
 
 Zacchaeus, narrative of 26 87 
 
 earth : 
 
 PAGE 
 
 138 
 
 17 
 
 74 
 
 147 
 
 100 
 
 138 
 
 87 
 
 86 
 
 86 
 
 86 
 
 96 
 
 144 
 
 72 
 
 127 
 
 50 
 
 97 
 
 120 
 
 72, 74 
 
 156 
 101 
 121 
 148 
 
 7 
 
INDEX OF TEXTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Genesis. 
 
 xxii. 18 108 
 
 NUMBEKS. 
 
 vi. 3 123 
 
 BlJTH. 
 
 ii. 14 123 
 
 Psalms. 
 
 lxix. 21 122 
 
 lxxxiii. 2 106 
 
 Proverbs. 
 
 x. 26 123 
 
 Isaiah. 
 
 vi. 9 f. 106 
 
 vii. 14 105 
 
 ix. 1 f. 105 
 
 xi. 1 105, 107 
 
 xlii. 1 f. 105 
 
 lxii. 11 106 
 
 Jeremiah. 
 
 xxxi. 15 105 
 
 HOSEA. 
 
 xi. 1 105 
 
 Jonah. 
 
 i. 17 106 
 
 Zechariah. 
 
 ix. 9 106, 121 
 
 xi. 13 106 
 
 S. Matthew. 
 
 i. 1 ff. 113 
 
 8 148 
 
 18 ff. 113 
 
 23 105 
 
 ii. 1 ff. 113 
 
 13 ff. 113 
 
 PAGE 
 
 S. Matthew. 
 
 ii. 15 105 
 
 18 105 
 
 23 105 
 
 iii. — xxv. 26 
 
 Iff. 79 
 
 2 138 
 
 13 ff. 79 
 
 iv. 1 ff. 79 
 
 12 ff. 104 
 
 15 ff. 105 
 
 v.— vii. 74, 79 
 
 1 ff. 139 
 
 21 ff. 39, 76 
 
 32 82, 120 
 
 vi. 5 ff. 75 
 
 vii. 15 ff. 79 
 
 viii. 5 ff. 32, 53 
 
 19 ff. 79 
 
 28 121 
 
 ix. 16 54 
 
 32 ff. 73, 79 
 
 36 ff. 80 
 
 x. 72, 74, 80 
 
 9 f. 139 
 
 10 129 
 xi. 1 ff. 80 
 
 10 150 
 
 20 ff. 80 
 
 25 ff. 80 
 
 xii. 18 ff. 105 
 
 22 ff. 73, 79 
 
 38 ff. 81 
 
 40 105, 127 
 
 43 ff. 81 
 
 xiii. 74 
 
 PAGE 
 
 S. Matthew. 
 
 xiii. 14 f. 106 
 
 16 f. 81 
 
 24 ff. 81 
 
 33 81 
 
 35 106 
 
 36 ff. 81 
 
 44 81 
 
 45 f. 81 
 47 ff. 81 
 55 136 
 58 136 
 
 xiv. 3 ff. 52 
 
 12 ff. 81 
 28 ff. 101 
 32 157 
 
 xv. 28 137 
 
 xvi. 4 127 
 
 9 f. 144 
 
 13 ff. 82 
 16 137 
 
 xvii. 2 50 
 
 20 137 
 
 24 ff. 100 
 
 xviii. 12 ff. 82, 90 
 
 15 ff. 82 
 
 18 ff. 82 
 
 21 82 
 
 23 ff. 82 
 
 xix. 3 ff. 82 
 
 9 120 
 
 16 ff. 136 
 
 xx. 1 ff. 83 
 
 20 136 
 
 29 52 
 
 30 121 
 
174 
 
 INDEX OF TEXTS. 
 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 S. Matthew 
 
 . 
 
 S. 
 
 Mark. 
 
 S. Mark. 
 
 
 xxi. 1 ff. 
 
 
 121 
 
 iii. 1 ff. 
 
 37 
 
 xi. 12 ff. 
 
 51 
 
 5 
 
 
 106 
 
 21 
 
 136 
 
 15 
 
 23 
 
 12 
 
 
 23 
 
 29 
 
 37 
 
 xii. 13 ff. 
 
 37 
 
 14 
 
 
 23 
 
 iv. 26 ff. 
 
 149 
 
 18 ff. 
 
 37 
 
 19 ff. 
 
 
 51 
 
 34 
 
 37 
 
 27 ff. 
 
 37 
 
 28 ff. 
 
 
 83 
 
 v. 7 
 
 138 
 
 41 ff. 
 
 134 
 
 xxii. 1 ff. 
 
 
 83 
 
 26 
 
 148 
 
 xiii. 
 
 83 
 
 xxiii. 
 
 72, 83 
 
 vi. 3 
 
 136 
 
 9 ff. 
 
 75 
 
 xxiv. — xxv. 
 
 
 75 
 
 5 ff. 
 
 136 
 
 14 
 
 54 
 
 xxiv. 
 
 
 83 
 
 8f. 
 
 138 
 
 xiv. — xv. 
 
 158 
 
 15 
 
 
 54 
 
 14 ff. 
 
 37, 52 
 
 Iff. 
 
 156 
 
 xxv. 1 ff. 
 
 
 84 
 
 45 
 
 156 
 
 3 ff. 
 
 157 
 
 14 ff. 
 
 84 
 
 148 
 
 51 
 
 157 
 
 18 ff. 
 
 158 
 
 31 ff. 
 
 
 84 
 
 vii. 1 ff. 
 
 37 
 
 25 
 
 122 
 
 xxvi. — xxvii 
 
 
 158 
 
 9 ff. 
 
 37 
 
 51 f. 
 
 149 
 
 Iff. 
 
 
 156 
 
 19 
 
 151 
 
 xv. 23 
 
 121 
 
 6 ff. 
 
 
 157 
 
 29 
 
 137 
 
 28 
 
 150 
 
 21 ff. 
 
 
 158 
 
 32 ff. 
 
 149 
 
 33 
 
 119 
 
 53 
 
 
 101 
 
 viii. 13 
 
 36 
 
 35 
 
 123 
 
 xxvii. 3 ff. 
 
 101 
 
 103 
 
 15 
 
 38 
 
 36 f. 
 
 124 
 
 9f. 
 
 105 
 
 120 
 
 19 f. 
 
 144 
 
 51 f. 
 
 15 
 
 19 
 
 
 101 
 
 22 ff. 
 
 149 
 
 xvi. 9 ff. 
 
 36 
 
 24 
 
 
 101 
 
 29 
 
 137 
 
 S. Luke. 
 
 
 34 
 
 
 123 
 
 36 
 
 37 
 
 i. 1 ff. 5, 31 
 
 , 131 
 
 45 
 
 
 119 
 
 ix. 1 
 
 37 
 
 4 
 
 55 
 
 48 f. 
 
 
 124 
 
 2 
 
 50 
 
 5 ff. 
 
 112 
 
 52 f. 
 
 
 101 
 
 9 
 
 36 
 
 26 ff. 
 
 112 
 
 62 ff. 
 
 
 101 
 
 29 
 
 137 
 
 39 ff. 
 
 112 
 
 xxviii. 11 ff. 
 
 
 101 
 
 31 
 
 36 
 
 57 ff. 
 
 112 
 
 16 ff. 
 
 
 101 
 
 47 
 
 37 
 
 ii. 1 ff. 
 
 112 
 
 S. Mark. 
 
 
 x. Iff. 
 
 37, 119 
 
 2 
 
 118 
 
 i. 2 
 
 
 150 
 
 5 
 
 39 
 
 21 
 
 112 
 
 23 
 
 134, 
 
 138 
 
 17 ff. 
 
 136 
 
 22 ff. 
 
 112 
 
 ii. 7 ff. 
 
 
 37 
 
 19 
 
 152 
 
 41 ff. 
 
 113 
 
 21 
 
 
 54 
 
 35 
 
 136 
 
 iii. 1 f. 
 
 118 
 
 23 ff. 
 
 
 37 
 
 46 
 
 52 
 
 7 ff. 
 
 79 
 
 26 
 
 
 151 
 
 xi. 1 ff. 
 
 121 
 
 21 f. 
 
 79 
 
INDEX OF TEXTS. 
 
 175 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 s. 
 
 LiUKE. 
 
 S. Luke. 
 
 
 S. Luke. 
 
 iii. 23 ff. 
 
 113 
 
 x. 12 ff. 
 
 80 
 
 XV. 
 
 8 ff. 
 
 90 
 
 iv. 1 ff. 
 
 79 
 
 16 
 
 80 
 
 
 11 ff. 
 
 90 
 
 16 ff. 
 
 113 
 
 21 ff. 
 
 80 
 
 xvi. 
 
 Iff. 
 
 90 
 
 v. Iff. 
 
 117, 143 
 
 23 ff. 
 
 81 
 
 
 13 
 
 79 
 
 4 ff. 
 
 100, 155 
 
 25 ff. 
 
 90 
 
 
 16 
 
 80 
 
 12 
 
 118 
 
 38 ff. 
 
 90 
 
 
 17 
 
 79 
 
 17 
 
 118 
 
 xi. — xii. 
 
 75 
 
 
 18 82 
 
 , 90, 119, 
 
 27 
 
 118 
 
 1 ff. 
 
 79 
 
 
 
 142 
 
 36 
 
 54 
 
 5 ff. 
 
 90 
 
 xvi] 
 
 . 3 f . 
 
 82 
 
 vi. 6 ff. 
 
 80 
 
 9 ff. 
 
 79 
 
 
 6 
 
 138 
 
 10 
 
 80 
 
 14 ff. 
 
 73,79 
 
 
 7 ff. 
 
 82 
 
 12 f. 
 
 118 
 
 24 ff. 
 
 81 
 
 
 11 ff. 
 
 90 
 
 20 ff. 
 
 79 
 
 29 ff. 
 
 81, 127 
 
 
 20 ff. 
 
 84 
 
 24 
 
 79 
 
 34 ff. 
 
 79 
 
 
 33 
 
 80 
 
 25 
 
 79 
 
 37 ff. 
 
 83 
 
 xviii. 1 ff. 
 
 90 
 
 27 ff. 
 
 79 
 
 47 ff. 
 
 79 
 
 
 9ff. 
 
 90 
 
 39 
 
 81 
 
 xii. 2 ff. 
 
 75,80 
 
 
 18 ff. 
 
 136 
 
 41 ff. 
 
 79 
 
 16 ff. 
 
 90 
 
 
 35 
 
 52 
 
 vii. 1 ff. 
 
 32, 53 
 
 22 ff. 
 
 79 
 
 xix 
 
 Iff. 
 
 26, 90 
 
 11 ff. 
 
 113 
 
 33 ff. 
 
 84 
 
 
 11 ff. 
 
 84, 148 
 
 18 ff. 
 
 80 
 
 51 ff. 
 
 80 
 
 
 29 ff. 
 
 121 
 
 36 ff. 
 
 26, 90, 142, 
 
 57 ff. 
 
 79 
 
 
 41 ff. 
 
 83 
 
 
 157 
 
 xiii. 1 ff. 
 
 90 
 
 
 43 f. 
 
 54 
 
 viii. 12 
 
 150 
 
 6 ff. 
 
 90, 144 
 
 
 45 
 
 23 
 
 43 
 
 148 
 
 11 ff. 
 
 80 
 
 xxi 
 
 . 5 ff. 
 
 84 
 
 ix. 1 ff. 
 
 75 
 
 13 f. 
 
 79 
 
 
 12 ff. 
 
 75 
 
 3ff. 
 
 80, 139 
 
 20 ff. 
 
 81 
 
 
 20 
 
 54 
 
 18 
 
 82 
 
 23 ff. 
 
 79 
 
 xxii. — xxiii 
 
 101, 158 
 
 20 
 
 137 
 
 31 ff. 
 
 83 
 
 
 21 
 
 158 
 
 29 
 
 51 
 
 xiv. 1 ff. 
 
 80 
 
 
 31 
 
 101 
 
 51 ff. 
 
 90 
 
 10 ff. 
 
 83 
 
 
 35 
 
 101 
 
 51— xviii. 14 26, 
 
 15 ff. 
 
 83 
 
 
 54 
 
 101 
 
 
 89, 119, 146 
 
 26 f. 
 
 80 
 
 xxiii. 27 ff. 
 
 102 
 
 57 ff. 
 
 79 
 
 28 ff. 
 
 83 
 
 
 34 
 
 56 
 
 x. Iff. 
 
 75, 80, 100 
 
 34 f. 
 
 79 
 
 
 36 
 
 126 
 
 4 
 
 139 
 
 XV. 1 ff. 
 
 90 
 
 
 39 ff. 
 
 26,90 
 
 7 
 
 128 
 
 3 ff. 
 
 82 
 
 
 45 
 
 119 
 
INDEX OF TEXTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 S. Luke. 
 
 xxiv. 1 ff. 102 
 
 13 ff. 26, 90 
 
 27 59 
 
 36 ff. 102 
 
 S. John. 
 
 i. — xx. 153 
 
 6 ff. 155 
 
 ii. 1 ff. 154 
 
 13 ff. 23, 155 
 
 iii. 34 29 
 
 iv. 46 ff. 154 
 
 v. 1 ff. 154 
 
 vi. 1 ff. 23, 154, 155 
 
 16 ff. 154, 155 
 
 21 157 
 
 vii. 53 ff. 154 
 
 viii. 1 ff. 154 
 
 57 21 
 
 ix. 1 ff. 23, 154 
 
 xi. 1 ff. 154 
 
 xii. 1 ff. 155, 156, 158 
 
 12 ff. 121, 155 
 
 21 ff. 158 
 
 xiii. — xix. 158 
 
 21 ff. 155 
 
 xv. 12 108 
 
 xvi. 13 f. 30, 34 
 
 xviii. 1 f. 155 
 
 12 ff. 155 
 
 xix. 28 124 
 
 xx. 1 ff. 143, 155 
 
 21 162 
 
 xxi. 1 ff. 153 
 
 24 154 
 
 25 155 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Acts. 
 
 i. 18 f. 102 
 
 ii. 42 2 
 
 iv. 37 14 
 
 vi. 1 ff. 10, 15, 22, 
 
 33, 63 
 
 ix. 38 22 
 
 43 22 
 
 xi. 1 22 
 
 xii. 12 14 
 
 17 22 
 
 xiii. 5 15 
 
 13 20 
 
 xv. 13 22 
 
 37 20 
 
 xviii. 24 78 
 
 xix. 9 5, 16 
 
 xx. 35 56 
 
 xxviii. 31 16 
 
 Romans. 
 
 ii. 8 2 
 
 xii. 6 11 
 
 xv. 4 108 
 
 1 COBINTHIANS. 
 
 i. 21 163 
 
 25 161 
 
 vii. 12 110 
 
 ix. 9 110 
 
 xii. 11 30 
 
 28 11 
 
 xiii. 5 20 
 
 9 39, 110 
 
 12 30, 39 
 
 PAGE 
 
 2 Corinthians. 
 
 i. 20 108 
 
 iv. 7 110 
 
 Galatians. 
 
 i. 12 16 
 
 14 2 
 
 19 22 
 
 ii. 9 22 
 
 11 22 
 
 iii. 16, 29 109 
 
 vi. 6 12, 94 
 
 Ephesians. 
 
 iv. 11 10 
 
 26 20 
 
 COLOSSIANS. 
 
 iv. 10 14 
 14 148 
 
 1 Thessalonians. 
 v. 12 12, 93 
 
 2 Thessalonians. 
 ii. 15 12, 93 
 
 1 Timothy. 
 
 iii. 2 13 
 
 v. 17 13 
 
 18 128 
 
 2 Timothy. 
 
 iii. 16 f. 129 
 
 Hebrews. 
 i. 1 29 
 
 viii. 13 109 
 
 1 Peter. 
 iv. 11 78 
 
 v. 12 14, 24 
 
 1 John. 
 i. 1 30 
 
 CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, MA. AM) sons, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRS8& 
 
ip. 
 
 £>at< 
 
 Due 
 
 4/> 
 
 o^