-~- i >
re Wie: ~~
eee
amet af) «|
eis
oe eh ele
Raneb- Aepeletejetpers
wbetorevobave sete
seerpate
at : - roe .
Natgmrienet : ~ ; cote ete se. ober bwks
.
eI i a eer
pet) bares = ancabene! a.
4 . - cats ate =) msertenempore _
PaO A ~ ——- Pee Powter Re
Spa Oat atthe BELT EO Ata lye ENaC eee ah ee ee a cin ipa gece gee 00k Ah tet Alt
AUS a.
a :
. 9 1961
Log
Cat a>
i
ae
cae
i
if
nA.
ANWley
4 ee
Nhat ys
if ia tics
Eat
r with
4
a
as
-
anil
7 i}
ye
FW
i J
in
iH F !
my
=,
HORA EVANGELICE.
, €
ae :
\
‘
‘
2
.
» we. r
*
oe *
a z
r ‘
bd ty & s
HORH EVANGELICA:
OR,
THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF THE
GOSPEL HISTORY.
BEING AN INQUIRY INTO THE
STRUCTURE AND ORIGIN OF THE FOUR GOSPELS,
THEIR HISTORICAL CONSISTENCY,
AND THE
CHARACTERISTIC DESIGN OF EACH NARRATIVE.
BY THE REV. T. R. BIRKS, M.A.
RECTOR OF KELSHALL, HERTS 3
AND LATE FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.
Broleys.
FLEET STREET, AND HANOVER STREET,
LONDON. MDCCCLII.
L. Seeley, Printer.
PREFACE.
Tue following work has been prepared with a double object in
view. It is designed as a contribution to the historical evidence
of Christianity ; but still more, to throw a fuller light on the
mutual relation of the Four Gospels, the special design and
origin of each narrative, and their spiritual features as a Divine
Revelation.
The “‘ Horee Paulinze,”’ that master-piece of Paley, first suggested
the idea of such a treatise. In preparing an extensive supple-
ment to it, which has been lately published, with the title, «* Hore
Apostolicze,” I was desirous to extend the principle from the Acts
and Epistles of St. Paul to the Four Gospels. But a little ex-
amination proved that these required a different mode of treat-
ment, to secure any result equally valuable. The principle of
Undesigned Coincidence, which Paley so beautifully unfolds, must
here be replaced by another, of hardly inferior importance, and
which may be called the principle of Reconcilable Variation. To
apply it, however, with real success, it was needful to enter fully
on those difficult questions, which have been long debated and
variously solved, with regard to the origin, the mutual con-
nexion or independence, and the historical harmony, of the
Gospel narratives.
The notoriety of Dr. Strauss’s work, its wide influence abroad,
vi PREFACE.
and its partial circulation in England, gave a further importance
to this inquiry. Several of the answers, by foreign writers, are
based on a lax view of the gospels, both in their inspiration and
historical accuracy, which happily does not prevail to the same
extent among the Christians of our own land. However alien
the mythical theory may be from the practical common sense of
the British mind, it is never safe for poison to circulate, without
some antidote being provided. And since the same line of
inquiry, which most effectually refutes this novel form of un-
belief, leads also to conclusions of historical interest, and of
practical value to the Scripture student, I have thought that the
results to which it has led would be an acceptable offering to the
Church of Christ in these last days.
The view of the Gospel Harmony, which I have endeavoured
to establish, agrees mainly with that of Mr. Greswell, unfolded
at length in his valuable Dissertations. No other work, in my
opinion, has thrown so full and clear a light on this difficult
subject, and I wish to acknowledge my obligation to his learned
labours in the strongest terms. At the same time, the order
of inquiry pursued in this volume is totally different, even
where the general object is the same with his, and where there is
only a slight difference in our conclusions. The blemishes which
may be found in his work, and especially his grand mistake about
the week-day cycle, which vitiates the whole of the Prolegomena,
detract but slightly from the general excellence of the Disserta-
tions, as the most valuable contribution, perhaps, ever made, to a
correct and clear apprehension of the gospel narrative. The
same general results, with some important variations, are reached
here in a different order, and by a process of induction from the
internal evidence alone.
In the Second Book, the Chronology of the Acts has been
investigated anew from the original authorities. The main
eras, I conceive, are there settled on conclusive evidence, little
short of absolute demonstration. In the following chapters,
which investigate the date of the three first gospels from the in-
PREFACE. Vil
ternal evidence, the course of argument is mainly original, and
embodies the results of a minute inquiry. The conclusion,
to which I have thus been led, is, that St. Matthew’s gospel
was written only twelve or fourteen years after the Ascension ;
that of St. Mark, not at Rome, but at Ceesarea, a few years
later ; and that of St. Luke, still a few years later, or about A.D.
52, in the neighbourhood of Antioch. If the reasoning is just,
it is needless to remark the strong proof, which is thus afforded
to the Church, of their Apostolic authority.
The Third Book examines, in detail, the main objections
brought by the mythical theorists against the accuracy of the
Evangelists ; and shews that these furnish, when examined closely,
most powerful evidence for the truth of all the narratives. The
last book enters briefly upon a higher subject—the peculiar fea-
tures, and the distinctive characters of the gospels, viewed as a
Divine Revelation. We pass here into a purer region of thought,
less troubled with the sounds of unbelieving strife, and where the
children of God may catch dim glimpses of the worship of the
cherubim, and of the secret glories of their celestial home.
While the treatise was in the press, the work of Da Costa, on the
Four Witnesses, was first given to the public. The line of
thought has some partial resemblance, and the general conclu-
sions, as to the order of the gospels, their mutual dependence,
and their internal signs of authenticity, are the very same. I
have enriched the latest chapters of the present work with a few
observations, borrowed from this source. The subject is un-
folded by that excellent and able writer in a more free and
popular, and also in a more eloquent style ; while in this volume
the mode of treatment approaches more nearly to the course of
a purely scientific inquiry. It has been a deep satisfaction
in reading his work, to see that we have been led independ-
ently to the same conclusions, in nearly all the points of chief
importance, which are included within its narrower range. But,
with the highest impression of the ability and excellence of this
contribution, by our Jewish brother, to the cause of the gospel,
vill PREFACE.
I do not think that it will supersede the utility of the present —
volume, which pursues a stricter and more inductive line of
comparison, and embraces a wider range of Scriptural inquiry.
May it please Almighty God, the Giver of all wisdom, and the
Fountain of all truth, to bless this humble and imperfect effort
to vindicate the authority of His own word; that His children
may be enriched with larger supplies of heavenly wisdom, and
a new bulwark be reared against the spreading tide of infidelity —
in these latter days.
Kelshall, December, 1851.
HORA EVANGELICA :
OR THE
INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY.
INTRODUCTION.
Inripexity has latterly assumed a new form. The vulgar
scoffs, or dull criticisms, of earlier adversaries of the gospel, have
been largely replaced by the speculations of a Pantheistic philo-
sophy. The idea of Christianity has been treated with nominal
respect, that the truth of its great facts may be more successfully
denied. The gospels, according to writers of this school, are not
real histories, but a collection of early legends, and had their origin
in ideal conceptions of the Messiah, which gradually assumed a
definite form, and were made to cluster around the person of
Jesus of Nazareth.
Such a view of the gospels, to be tenable for a moment, implies
that their composition must be referred to a date very considera-
bly removed from the events they profess to record. And hence
it is maintained, by the patrons of this new theory, that they
were not written until the fall of Jerusalem, or even the close of
the first century, and that an interval of sixty or seventy years
from the crucifixion is enough to account for the rise of such
legends, and their reduction into that definite shape in which the
history now appears.
B
lo
INTRODUCTION.
An hypothesis of this extreme kind, however it may startle by
its novelty, or dazzle by its boldness, is too unnatural to last.
In our own country at least, there is too much instinctive com-
mon sense to offer any favourable soil for its propagation. Yet
the shew of learning and philosophy, in its chief advocates, may
give them, among ourselves, some power to deceive. Even
those who reject the theory, as a whole, may not entirely escape
its poisonous influence. Admissions respecting errors and in-
consistency in the gospels, which abound in the replies of
foreign critics to the mythical theory, are perhaps only one
degree less dangerous than the system they are used to over-
throw. Some of the premises, on which the infidel scheme of
explanation pretends to be founded, are received by many of its
opponents in Germany as the certain results of critical inquiry.
And no doubt, even if the gospels were as imperfect as these
writers maintain, the substantial truth of the history would still
be clear, and the essentials of Christianity might remain unim-
paired. But a closer search will prove how questionable are the
claims of this negative criticism. The very parties who reject
the plenary inspiration of the gospels, and charge them with
anachronism, error, and contradiction, differ in their judgment
on almost every particular question on which these charges are
founded, and betray continually a looseness of conjecture, and a
rashness of hasty inference, which may well destroy all faith in
their most confident decisions.
Two of the principles which are very commonly admitted by
German critics, are the total irregularity of the gospels, and the
late period of their composition ; so that the earliest would barely
precede the fall of Jerusalem. The interval of time, even on
this view, is far too short for the copious introduction of mere
legends, and the truth of the facts might be clearly proved,
although their real order of succession had been neglected by the
historians. Still the tendency of these opinions is to give some
partial countenance to the new school of infidelity. Tradition is
a very faithless keeper of historical truth. If the life of our
INTRODUCTION. 3
Lord was unwritten for nearly forty years, and the writers, who
recorded it, paid no respect to the order of time, their narratives
are laid open to many suspicions, and it may seem not very
unlikely that facts and legends, to a certain extent, might be
confounded together.
The object of the following work is to extend the argument from
internal evidence, which Paley has applied with such power to the
Acts and St. Paul’s Epistles, in connexion with the four Gospel
Histories. The nature of the subject, however, requires here a
very different mode of development. We have to compare four
narratives of the same life, very similar in their structure, in order
to detect the causes of their agreement or disagreement, and
thereby to establish the genuineness of each narrative, and the
substantial truth of the whole history. The relations of the
Gospels to each other will first be deduced, by a careful and
minute comparison. Their probable dates will then be assigned,
by a reference to the Book of Acts, and the history of the early
church there given, and to their own features of minute distinction
from each other.
The whole subject will be arranged in four parts. The first
book will inquire into the mutual relation of the Four Gospels,
so as to establish their order of succession, and historical con-
nexion, by the external evidence alone. The result thus obtained
will be found to be in entire agreement with the current of early
tradition. The second book will investigate the chronology of
the Book of Acts, the probable date of the Gospels, and the
evidence of their authenticity. The third will inquire into the
contradictions alleged to exist between them, and will shew that
these constitute, for the most part, a deeper evidence of their
common veracity. The fourth and last will enter on a higher
field, and briefly treat of the Gospels in their true ideal, as a
Divine revelation ; with especial reference to their miraculous
character, the alleged fulfilment of Old Testament prophecies,
and the great and glorious doctrines of the Incarnation, the
Atonement and the Resurrection, of the Son of God.
B 2
4 INTRODUCTION.
May He, who is the Giver of all wisdom, direct and prosper
this attempt to vindicate the authority of His own word, and
unfold some of its hidden treasures, that it may minister to the
glory of His blessed name, and the good of His Church in these
latter days !
BOOK I.
ON THE MUTUAL RELATION OF THE FOUR GOSPELS.
Tue usual tradition of early times refers the four gospels to the
Apostles Matthew and John, to Mark, the companion of Peter,
and Luke, the companion of Paul, as their respective authors.
The most general opinion was, that they were written in the
order in which they now stand, but Clement has a statement,
that the gospels which contain the genealogies were written first.
In early, as well as in later times, opinions have varied as to their
absolute date. Irenzeus seems to refer St. Matthew’s Gospel to
the time of St. Paul’s imprisonment at Rome ; while later writers,
Cosmas, Isidore of Seville, and Theophylact, place it only eight
or ten years after the Ascension. St. Mark, according to
Clement, Epiphanius, Athanasius, and Jerome, published his
gospel at Rome, after a visit of St. Peter to that city. St. Luke,
according to Gregory Nazianzen and Jerome, published his in
Achaia; while that of St. John, according to Irenzeus, was
written and published at Ephesus, at the close of Domitian’s
reign. There is, however, in each instance, some diversity of
judgment, even in writers of the four first centuries, with regard
to the place and time of their composition.
When we refer to the internal evidence, the three first gospels
present very peculiar features, both of resemblance and diversity.
In some passages there is a complete and verbal agreement,
while they differ considerably in the order of the events, or in
minor details of the history. Three explanations have been pro-
6 ON THE MUTUAL RELATION
posed by modern writers, to account for this peculiar structure.
Some affirm them to have been derived from common documents,
which the Evangelists merely combined in a different manner,
in composing their own works. Others conceive them to have
arisen, quite independently of each other, from the oral teaching
of the Apostles, which they view as the common source of the
narratives, and as sufficient to explain their partial agreement.
Others, again, maintain them to be successive, and that each
writer was acquainted with the gospels previously written, so as
to make use of their contents, besides having access to distinct
and original sources of information.
The first of these views prevailed in Germany towards the
close of last century, and Bishop Marsh’s Dissertation gave it a
currency in England. The general opinion, both in Germany
and America, has latterly inclined much more to the second
view; and the independent origin of the gospels, from oral
traditions of the Apostles, has been the favourite theory with
critics of eminence. It was held by Drs. Mill and Lardner in
the last century, and more recently by Strauss, and the mystical
theorists, and by Neander, Olshausen, Tholuck, Norton and
Alford, among the critical champions of historical Christianity.
All of them seem to agree that the three earlier gospels are
irregular and fragmentary memoirs, and partially inaccurate,
though substantially true; and that they were composed sepa-
rately from the oral statements of the Apostles, about thirty or
forty years after the date of the crucifixion.
The third opinion, which was prevalent among the Fathers,
has also its advocates in modern times. In our own country,
Dr. Townson in the last century, and Mr. Greswell in the present,
have maintained it with much force of argument. Use will be
made of their labours in the following work, but it will be
endeavoured to confirm the explanation of the gospels, thus
offered, by a strictly inductive and comprehensive inquiry. For
this end it will be needful, first, to compare St. Matthew and St.
Mark, then St. Luke with both of them; and, lastly, the gospel
of St. John with all the three earlier narratives.
be Pp |)
OF THE FOUR GOSPELS.
6
4
To facilitate the comparison, it is desirable to begin with
exhibiting a numbered syllabus of the three first gospels, in the
part which is common to them all, or from the Baptism of John
to
the resurrection.
The gospel of St. Mark, as the shortest,
will be taken for the basis, and the numbers borrowed from it
are applied to the answering portions in the others ; while the parts
peculiar to St. Matthew will be denoted by Italic, and those in
St. Luke, by Greek letters, in the order of their occurrence.
SSDAONAMTE WN
. Simon’s wife’s mother 41.
. Cures at even 42.
. Departure
11. Cireuit of Galilee 43.
12. Cure of Leper 44,
13. Paralytic 45,
14. Call of Levi
15. Feast with Publicans 46.
16. Corn-fields 47.
17. Withered Hand 48.
18. Retirement to the Sea 49.
19. Ordination of Apostles 50.
20. Resort of Multitudes 51.
21. Discourse on Blasphemy52.
32
. The Temptation
. Baptism of John 34.
. His Preaching #35.
. Baptism of Jesus 36.
Return to Galilee _»@8.
Call of Four Apostles 39.
Dispossession 40.
. Visit of his Mother
. Parables of Sower, &c. 53.
54.
. Demoniacs of Gadara_ 55.
. Ruler’s daughter
Tempest stilled
Visit to Nazareth
Five thousand fed
. Walking on the Sea
33. Scribes and Pharisees 62.
efi
37.
56.
SY.
. Mission of the Twelve 58.
. The Baptist’s death
. Twelve return
31.
59.
60.
61.
Sr. Marx.
Woman of Canaan 63
Deaf man cured
Four thousand
Leaven of Pharisees
Blind man healed
Peter’s confession
Transfiguration
Cure of child
Journey through Ga-
. Warning against
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
. Warning to Judas
- Lord’s Supper
the
Scribes and Pharisees.
Widow’s mite
Prophecy on the Mount
Anointing in Bethany
Treachery of Judas
Passover prepared
lilee 71. Warning to Peter
Dispute of Apostles 72. The Agony
John’s inquiry 73. The Apprehension
Warning against of- 74. Malchus
fences 75. The Young Man
Divorce
Young children
Young rich man
Prediction of sufferings 79
The sons of Zebedee 80.
Lesson of humility 81.
Cure of blindman at 82.
Jericho 82.
The ass’s colt
Curse on the fig-tree
Fig-tree withered 87.
Question of authority 88.
The Vineyard 89.
The Tribute Money 90.
The Sadducees 91.
The great command- 92.
ment
Christ, Dayid’s Son
84.
85.
Cleansing of the temple 86.
. Jesus before high-priest
. Jesus mocked
78.
. Jesus and Pilate
Peter’s denial
Barabbas
Jesus mocked
Crucifixion
Scoffs and reyilings
The Darkness
Death of Jesus
Women at the cross
Joseph of Arimathea
Women at the tomb
Mary Magdalene
The Two Disciples
The Eleven
Last Commission
93, Ascension
8 ON THE MUTUAL RELATION OF THE FOUR GOSPELS.
Sr. Marruew.
1—6. Matt. iii. l—iv. 22 27. Visit to Nazareth
1]. Cireuit of Galilee 29—32. Matt. xiv
A.Sermon on Mount © 33, 34. Matt. xv. 1—28
12. Cure of Leper 36. Four Thousand
6. Centurion’s servant 37. Leaven of Pharisees
8, 9. Matt. viii. 14—17 3942. Matt. xvi. 13 :
ce. Answer to disciples xvii. 23
24, 25. Matt. viii. 23; ix. 12. Tribute money
13—15. Matt. ix.2—17 | 43. Dispute of Apostles
26. Ruler’s daughter 45. Warning against of-
d, e, f. Matt. ix. 27—38 fences
28. Mission of Twelve
g. Message of John
h. Warning, xi. 20—30
16—18. Matt. xii. 1—21
21, 22. Matt. xii. 22
23. Parables
46—48. Matt. xix
n. Parable of Labourers
53, 55, 54. xxi, 1—22
56—58. xxi. 23 —46
Sr. Luxe.
1, 2. The Baptist
a. His Imprisonment
3. Baptism of Jesus
8. Genealogy
4,5. Luke iy. 1—15
y. Visit to Nazareth
7—11. Luke iv. 33—44 55. Cleansing of Temple
5. Miraculous Draught §57—60. Luke xx. 1—40
12—17. Luke y. 12; vi. 1] 62—64. Luke xx, 41 3
19, Ordination
e—. Luke vi. 20; viii, 4
23. Parables
22. Visit of Mother
24—26. Luke viii. 22 —f
28—31. Luke ix. 1—17
39—44, Luke ix. 18—50
A. Luke ix. 5] ; xviii. 14
52. Cure of Blind Man
mu. Zaccheus
v. Parable of Talents
é. Lamentation
xxi. 4
65. Prophecy on Mount
67. Treachery of Judas
68. Preparation
70. Lord’s Supper
69, Warning to Judas
o. Dispute of greatness
71—74. Luke xxii. 31—53
o. Parable of Wedding
59—62. xxii. 15—46
63. Warning against Pha-
risees
65. Prophecy on Mount
p. Parables, Matt. xxv
66—74. Matt. xxvi. 1—56
76—78. Matt. xxvi. 57—75
q. Repentance of Judas
79, 80. Matt. xxvii. 11—18
7. Pilate’s wife
k, l,m. Matt. xviii. 10—35 81—87. xxvii, 27—61
s. The Watch
88. Women
49—52. Matt. xx. 17—34 ¢. Appearance of Jesus
w. Report of Watch
v. Galilee.
47 —49, Luke xviii. 15— 34 78. Peter’s denial
77. Jesus mocked
a. Jesus before council
79. Jesus and Pilate
53. Entrance to Jerusalem p. Jesus and Herod
80. Barabbas
a. Discourse to Women
82, 83.
Tv. Penitent Thief
84—87. xxiii. 44—56
88 Women at Tomb
v. Peter at Tomb
90. Two Disciples
91. Eleven
92. Last Commission
93, Ascension
CHAPTER I.
ON THE RELATION OF ST. MATTHEW AND ST. MARK’S GOSPELS.
Ture are four main particulars, in which the gospels may be
compared together, in order to illustrate their origin by internal
presumptions. These are, the selection of events, the order of
arrangement, the historical details, and the distinctive features of
phraseology and style.
In such a comparison, each of the three hypotheses, before
mentioned, will naturally yield a different result. The gospels,
if they arose out of common documents, variously combined,
might differ greatly in the selection and arrangement of the events ;
but the details and phraseology, wherever the same event was
recorded, would be the same. If they arose independently from
oral tradition, not only the selection and arrangement, but still
more the details and the phraseology, would be almost certain to
differ widely. On the other hand, if each writer had access to the
previous gospels, and made use of this knowledge in composing
his own work, so important an element in their structure could
hardly fail to reveal itself, either by a close resemblance, where
the incidents recorded are the same, or by a supplementary rela-
tion to each other, when they differ ; and this character will be
more apparent, with every fresh narrative that we include in the
inquiry.
Let us begin with the gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark,
BS
10 ON THE RELATION OF
the two first in order in the actual arrangement, and the two which
bear the closest resemblance to each other. Their contents, from
the baptism of John, are expressed by the two numbered lists,
just given; and the letters denote those portions of the first,
which are wanting in the second gospel.
It appears, by this comparison, that of 99 portions in St. Mat-
thew, and 93 in St. Mark, about 78 are common to both, or in
number, just four-fifths of the whole. Also, that of 65 parti-
culars in St. Mark, 29—93, fifty-five appear in the other gospel,
with one single variation only, in the same relative order.
This deviation is found in the cursing of the fig-tree, which St.
Mark mentions before, and St. Matthew after, the cleansing of
the temple.
In the presence of this simple fact, it is surprizing how modern
critics could ever assert that the gospels are alike unchronological
in their structure, and independent in their origin. Two writers,
unacquainted with each other, may agree in the order of their
narratives, if each adheres to the true succession of events; or
their arrangement may be the same, while different from the
true order, if one has borrowed from the other. But if they
write independently, from loose traditions, and neglect the real
order of time, such a close agreement, without a miracle, seems
ineredible. And yet many critics have fallen into this great
inconsistency ; and offer, as the ripest result of learned inquiry,
an hypothesis which leaves the most prominent feature in the
mutual relation of the gospels entirely unexplained.
Since, however, this view of the gospels, as irregular and
independent, is held by eminent writers, let us test it more
closely. The ministry of our Lord lasted, we infer from the New
Testament, about three years. Itisa moderate estimate, that each
day of such a life would produce one event, whether miracle,
discourse, or journey, worthy in the abstract of a distinct notice.
Of these thousand particulars, if each apostle retained a hun-
dred in his oral teaching, it would be probable that more than
700 would be retained in the collective tradition. Or if there
ST. MATTHEW AND 8ST. MARK’S GOSPELS. 11
were fifty events so prominent, as to be preserved by all the
Apostles, still the total number, in case of an independent choice
for the rest, would amount to 400. Two gospels, framed from
such traditions alone, could never exhibit the agreement which
actually appears between those of St. Matthew and St. Mark,
unless the tradition were confined to one or two eye-witnesses.
But this limitation changes the very nature of the hypothesis ;
since an oral tradition, as full in its contents and definite in
arrangement as a written document, would be thus assumed for
the common basis of the two gospels. The hypothesis of oral
tradition, in its simple and natural form, can never explain the
actual correspondence between them.
Let us now test the other hypothesis, of a common document,
transcribed by both writers, with varying interpolations. It may
be supposed that there was a primitive gospel, which contained
the seventy particulars, common to both, in their actual order ;
and that the rest was added, either from other documents, or from
general tradition. In this case, however, the parts transcribed
from the common source would be almost verbally the same.
If a latitude of alteration be supposed, the hypothesis falls to the
ground ; since no common document can be required to account
for the existence of two accounts of the same event, different both
in language and in details. The only presumption for a common
derivation from such a written source, would be a resemblance
in these borrowed portions hardly differing from complete identity.
Now in the gospels this feature is almost entirely wanting.
The same events are recorded in more than seventy cases, but
the phraseology, and the choice of details, in most of these, are
very distinct. The differences are not such as could be explained
by the further hypothesis of two translations from the same
Hebrew original. Thus, for instance, in No. 34, the account
of the Syrophenician has only one clause, out of fourteen, where
there is an approach to identity, and the details and arrangement
are quite different.
The notion of two extracts or transcripts from the same ori-
12 ON THE RELATION OF
ginal document is here quite untenable. And since the remark
applies to a large proportion of those particulars, where the main
event is the same, the hypothesis of a primitive document from
which these two gospels might both have been derived, fails
entirely to account for their agreement.
But the same facts are equally adverse to the opinion, held by
so many recent critics, that the evangelists pay little or no regard
to the true order of time. When fifty or sixty distinct events
are recorded by two writers in the very same order, the only
reasonable explanation must be in one of two alternatives. Each
of them must have adhered to the order of time, or one of them
has followed the other’s arrangement. If we confine our view
to the later portions, No. 29—93, Matt. xiv.—xxviii, _ Mark vi.
14; xvi, either view would account for the agreement. But
since the order is different in the previous chapters, it is plain
that one writer has not adopted implicitly the other’s arrange-
ment, and hence their agreement in the later portion is a strong
presumption, if not an absolute proof, that both of them have
there adhered to the true order of succession in the events
themselves.
II. This question of arrangement is the next subject for com-
parison. Here, in the earlier chapters, there is a serious dis-
cordance, which will be seen if we distinguish the successive parts
of St. Matthew by the numbers borrowed from St. Mark’s
Gospel. The series runs as follows :—1, 2, 3, 4,5, 6, 11,-A;
12, b, 8, 9, c, 24, 25, 13, 14, 15, 26, d, e, f, 28, g, h, 16, 17,
18, 21, 22, 23, 27, 39. Either both narratives are irregular, or
one has observed, and the other has departed from, the real suc-
cession. On the former view it is difficult to explain the same-
ness of order in the rest of the narrative. Why should both
neglect it up to the same point, and then begin to adhere to it
together? It is far simpler and more natural to suppose that
one of them has transposed the events in a limited part of the
history, and restored the true order elsewhere ; and that the
other has rectified this partial transposition.
ST. MATTHEW AND ST. MARK’S GOSPELS. 13
In which of the gospels, then, has the true order been ob-
served? The most natural test will be, a comparison with a
third gospel, that of St. Luke, in the same portion of the
narrative. The sequence will there be as follows, where the
numbers denote the order in St. Mark, and the Greek letters the
portions found in St. Luke only.
He Des cig, 28, 98) Ay BYP yy cs Bs De TOS UD, V5 1H V4, Woy WGPY,
19, e-x, 23, 22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30.
It is plain that, although several insertions are made, the
order is the same in both, with one slight exception, in the visit
of the mother of Jesus, No. 22. If the call of the disciples,
No. 6, be identified with the Miraculous Draught, 8, this would
prove a second inversion. But in 22 or 23 out of 24 instances,
the agreement is complete. There is thus a most weighty pre-
sumption that St. Mark has observed the true order, and St.
Matthew in part forsaken it. The agreement of St. Mark and
St. Luke in this portion, as of St. Matthew and St. Mark in
the other, implies that one has copied the other’s arrangement, or
that both have adhered to the real sequence. But if St. Luke had
access to St. Mark’s Gospel, he would probably have access also
to that of St. Matthew, and there seems no reason why he should
prefer one order to the other, except his conviction that it was
more agreeable to the actual order of the history. This con-
clusion from the evidence of the third gospel is confirmed by
the words of its preface, where the writer apparently states his
intention of adhering to the order of the events themselves.
This explanation, however, is still imperfect, unless a sufficient
reason can be suggested for the irregularity in St. Matthew.
But such a reason presents itself at once in the structure of his
gospel. The irregular portion, on this view, is chap. v—vxiii.
inclusive. Two thirds of the whole consists of discourses of our
Lord, and less than one-third is direct narrative. The writer
brings prominently forward the Sermon on the Mount, and the
Apostolic commission, or the fundamental code of Christian
morality, and the great charter of the Christian ministry. It
14 ON THE RELATION OF
can neither be surprising nor unusual, therefore, if, like other
historians, he has partially sacrificed the order of time to secure
amore important object. At chapter xiv. simple narrative begins
to predominate, and from this point the order is the same in
both gospels. St. Mark has omitted those two long discourses,
and has reported the parables more briefly than St. Matthew, while
the narrative is given with fuller details. The first part of his
gospel is thus homogeneous in character with the rest ; and hence
it would be natural for him to rectify any transpositions of St.
Matthew, since the occasion of them was entirely removed.
A more detailed examination will confirm the view, that the
second gospel has restored the true order of time, where the first
had departed from it. The agreement in No. 1—6 is complete,
for here no discourse intervenes to occasion irregularity. But the
writer of the first gospel, hastening to record the sermon, which
is one of its main features, has passed over four particulars,
which appear in St. Mark, and comes at once to the general
circuit of Galilee. The cure of the leper has the same position
in both, after that circuit. The healing of the Centurion’s
servant is not found in the second gospel. Hence the cures in
Simon’s house, Nos. 8, 9 are the first positive divergence. And
it seems clear that St. Mark has restored these to their true
place. He marks the day when they occurred, the first Sabbath
of our Lord’s public teaching in Capernaum after the call of
Simon, and when the demoniac had just been publicly healed.
He notes equally the events that followed the evening cures,
namely, the retirement of Jesus for prayer, before it was day, and
the eager search made for him by Simon. In the first gospel,
on the contrary, there is no necessary connection between these
cures and the events which are mentioned before and after them,
the healing of the centurion’s servant, and the voyage across the
lake of Tiberias. In their first deviation, it is thus plain that
St. Mark has rectified a transposition in the first gospel.
The voyage itself is the next divergence, since it is placed
much later in St. Mark than the cures at Capernaum on the
ST. MATTHEW AND ST. MARK’S GOSPELS. 15
Sabbath evening. Now, just as he has precisely fixed the place
of those cures, by the events which precede and follow them,
he has done the same with the voyage. After his mention of
the teaching in parables, he has added, with unusual precision,
(Mark iv. 35.) “‘And the same day, when the even was come,
he saith unto them, Let us pass over unto the other side.” The
note of time is so express, as to favour the supposition that
the writer intended to fix the true order of an event, which
had been much transposed in the earlier gospel. The link
is hardly less definite in the return from the voyage, Mark v.
21, 22. “And when Jesus was passed over again by ship unto
the other side, much people was gathered unto him, and he was
nigh unto the sea. And behold there cometh one of the rulers
of the synagogue, Jairus by name, and he fell at his feet, and
besought him greatly.”
The next deviation in St. Matthew, compared with the two
other gospels, is in the cure of the paralytic. Accordingly its
place is fixed by St. Mark in very definite language, immediately
after an absence from Capernaum, which had lasted many days,
and during which our Lord had continued to seek retirement in
desert places. The same attention to the order of time appears
in the Ordination and Mission of the Twelve, which the first gos-
pel has not distinguished, but which appear in St. Mark at a con-
siderable interval, Mark ii. 14—19. vi. 7—13, in agreement with
internal probability, and with the testimony of the third gospel.
There are many signs, again, in these chapters of St. Matthew,
that a different object is kept in view than the mere sequence of
the events. After the call of the disciples, the writer proceeds
at once to the Sermon on the Mount, and for this purpose a
whole circuit of Galilee, with a multitude of cures and dispos-
sessions, is briefly summed up in two verses. After the sermon,
and a selection of particular miracles, the writer again hastens to
the mission of the Apostles, and entirely overlooks their ordina-
tion, to which he merely alludes as a notorious fact, which had
occurred before. The events Matt. viii, 2, 5, 14, 18, have no
16 ON THE RELATION OF
formal links of connexion in the narrative. They might be merely
selected specimens of our Lord’s miracles, without reference to
strict sequence in time. They present a moral gradation, from
the personal supplication of the leper, through the vicarious re-
quests of the centurion and of Peter, to the sullen adjuration of
the demoniacs of Gadara, refusing and. resisting the mercy which
they received. It may be inferred, also, from a comparison of
the gospels, that the mission of the Twelve did not occur till near
the Baptist’s death, a little before the third Passover, in the later
half of our Lord’s ministry. Yet here it is preceded by only
three chapters of narrative, while eight others follow it, before
the last visit to Jerusalem. It seems clear, then, that the
writer has hastened over the previous interval, because he in-
tended that the discourse, of such importance to the Church,
should have an early and conspicuous place in his gospel.
There is another circumstance which strongly confirms the
view here maintained. If a writer deviates from the order of
time for special reasons, in an early part of his narrative, and
then resumes it, there will naturally be a portion which has an
intermediate character. Events will have to be given, which had
been omitted in their true place, from the designed anticipation
of others ; and these will be irregular, when compared with what
precedes, but regular, when compared with all that follows. Now,
on the present view, this very feature appears in St. Matthew’s
gospel. The twelfth and thirteenth chapters are irregular, com-
pared with those which precede them, and regular when com-
pared with those which come after. This will be seen at once
by giving the numbers in Matt. viii—xiv. as below :—
12, b, 8, 9, ¢, 24, 25, 13. 14, 15, 26, d, e, f, 28, g, h.
16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 27,
29, 30, 31, 32, 33.
Here the numbers 16—27 are regular as regards all those which
follow, but irregular with reference to numbers 24, 25, 26, 28,
which have come before them. The cause is thus precisely ade-
quate to the effects, and minutely explains them.
ST. MATTHEW AND ST. MARK’S GOSPELS. 17
There are two reasons, however, which may be urged in oppo-
sition to this view of the real order. The first is the character of
St. Matthew asan Apostle and eye-witness, whose testimony may
therefore claim a superior weight to the other two writers. But
there is no reason to think that an eye-witness would be more
likely, than a diligent investigator, to adhere to the exact order of
the events themselves. The relation of time has nearly the same
weight for all persons ; but place, circumstance, and external as-
sociations, are more vivid with an eye-witness than with others,
and more likely to divert the mind from the relation of mere
sequence alone. The house of Matthew was probably near to
the sea, and to the place where he received the tribute. Hence
it is likely that the request of Jairus would be made in the same
place, where the discourse on fasting had been spoken; and an
association of circumstance and place might be a substitute, in the
mind of the writer, for direct and immediate succession.
The other difficulty is, at first sight, more serious, as an ob-
jection to the regularity of the second gospel. The words of
Mat. ix. 18. ‘‘ While he spake these things, there came a certain
ruler,” seem to establish a close connection between the discourse
on fasting, and the cure of the ruler’s daughter, numbers 15, 26,
which are widely separated both by St. Mark and St. Luke.
Three or four solutions of this contrast have been proposed.
First, that the discourse is anticipated in these gospels, or placed
too early. But all the three writers make the events successive,
and apparently continuous, from the curing of the paralytic to the
close of the discourse. And hence, if we attach the feast in all
of them to the history of Jairus, we leave the hiatus undi-
minished in St. Matthew, introduce a great irregularity into the
two other gospels, and separate events, which all of them place
together in the same order. :
Dr. Townson, again, thinks the cure of the ruler’s daughter
post-dated in the two other gospels, and that St. Mark preferred
affinity of subject to the order of time. When the course of
events has brought him again to the place where Jairus lived, he
18 ON THE RELATION OF
reverts to mention the miracle in his house, though it had been
wrought before. But the scene had returned to Capernaum much
earlier, Mark ii. 9, or iii. 19. Also two difficulties are made in re-
moving one ; for in all the gospels this cure follows the disposses-
sion in Gadara, and our Lord’s return to the other side. The
event is also clearly linked by St. Mark with the visit to Nazareth.
Besides these explanations, which assume St. Mark to be ir-
regular, Mr. Greswell, who holds his gospel to be strictly regular,
offers another, and views the feast and discourse in St. Matthew
as distinct from the one recorded by the two other evengelists.
This hypothesis, it can scarcely be denied, is harsh and violent.
The accounts in Mark and Luke differ as much from each other as
either of them from that of St. Matthew, and the agreement in all
three is unusually close and full. Though St. Luke alone says ex-
plicitly that the feast was in the house of the publican, this is im-
plied in the two other gospels. On the view of the Dissertations,
that the gospels are supplementary, the objection to this hypothesis
is still more decisive. If the two later evangelists have substituted
an earlier feast and discourse for the one in Matthew, from their
exact likeness to each other, they would have constructed a per-
plexing enigma, for which no conceivable motive can be assigned.
The whole difficulty will be at once removed, if the clause in
St. Matthew, ‘while he spake these things,’ admits of a
wider and less exact meaning, than at first sight it seems to
convey. If the connexion in time was only apparent, and an
interval of a few months really separated the feast from the cure,
it would be quite natural for the later gospels to restore the
true order, and to fix the place of each event in its real context.
One example in St. Matthew, of this looser construction, is
found in the very same verse, ix. 18. He thus reports the
address of the ruler, ‘‘ My daughter is even now dead ; but come
and lay thine hand upon her, and she shall live.” Yet the other
Evangelists shew us, that his real request was for her recovery
from a mortal sickness, (Mark v. 43. Luke viii. 41, 42.), and
that the news of her death only came after the cure of the
ST. MATTHEW AND ST. MARK’S GOSPELS. 19
woman with the issue. St. Matthew, then, has plainly used
considerable latitude of expression in this latter clause of the
verse. It must be allowable to use the like freedom, in explain-
ing the true sense of its opening words.
The eighth and ninth chapters of this gospel are only a brief
selection out of the events of nearly a year and half, in which
every day must have been busily employed. The former
exhibits a brief series of simple miracles. The cure of the
Paralytic introduces doctrinal statements, that reveal the grace
and compassion of Jesus. It might be the design of the Evan-
gelist to mark the connexion between striking declarations,
and equally impressive acts of grace. It was while Jesus was
uttering gracious declarations, like those of which specimens
have just been given, that the ruler applied to him, and the
doctrine was sealed by a still more splendid miracle of Divine
power and love. The whole passage, ix. 2—17, will thus be
viewed as a parenthesis, designed to illustrate the gracious and
compassionate tone of our Saviour’s teaching. The return from
Gadara to Capernaum would be a fit occasion for introducing
these earlier incidents, which took place in or near the city ; and
the account is then resumed from the time of that return, by the
request of Jairus, and hastens onward to the public mission of
the Twelve Apostles.
We have only to suppose, then, that our Lord was uttering
similar words of love on his return from Gadara, as at the feast
in Matthew’s house, and that the reference is not to the parti-
cular sentence, in Matt. ix. 17, but to the whole tenor of his
teaching, and the difficulty will be removed. A sufficient ex-
planation will be thus given of the clause itself, and a clear reason
why the other gospels should restore each event to its proper
place in the history.
A close enquiry has thus led to the following results. The
first and second gospels, in all the latter part, agree in their
arrangement, with scarcely one exception in nearly sixty parti-
culars. Hence either one has borrowed the order of the other,
20 ON THE RELATION OF
or both have followed the order of time. But that one has
borrowed his arrangement from the other is very improbable,
because the order is different in their earlier portion. Hence it
is almost certain that both of them, in No. 29—93, adhere
to the real succession of the history. Their difference, in the
other part, is most naturally accounted for by the supposition,
that the earlier departed here from the true order, and the
later has restored it. But the order of St. Mark is entirely
confirmed by that of St. Luke, and therefore is probably the
actual order, for the same reason as before. Also there is a
sufficient reason for the irregularity of St. Matthew in this por-
tion, because one third of it only is narrative, and the strict
succession might be departed from, to give greater prominence
to the Sermon on the Mount, and the Apostolic Commission.
The details of the comparison fully confirm this view ; and the
only difficulty of real weight in the opposite scale is removed by
due attention to the style and scope of the first Evangelist, and
the rapid transition which he here makes from the beginning to
the later part of our Lord’s ministry.
III. The third subject for comparison is the historical details
of each event. Two gospels, merely compiled from a common
document, would record the same event in almost the very same
words. Onthe other hand, if they were formed independently
from loose traditions, a close verbal resemblance could rarely
exist between them. If one were later than the other, and the
second writer knew the work of the first, and had also original
materials of his own, the results would be of an intermediate
kind. He might sometimes adopt the earlier narrative, almost
without a change, sometimes he might interweave partial addi-
tions, while in other cases the whole structure of the second
narrative might be original and independent. Hence repeated
examples of close verbal resemblance between two gospels will
exclude the hypothesis of their origin from oral tradition alone ;
great divergence in their accounts of the same event will equally
forbid an explanation by a common document ; and both features,
ST. MATTHEW AND ST. MARK’S GOSPELS. 21
when combined, will become a powerful evidence for the successive
origin of the gospels, their mutual dependence, and their separate
authority.
The first instance of close resemblance is in the account of
the Baptist.
Marruew iii. 4—6. And the same
John had his clothing of camel's hair,
and a leathern girdle about his loins;
and his meat was locusts and wild
honey.
Then went out to him Jerusalem,
and all Judea, and all the region about
Jordan, and were baptized of him in
Jordan, confessing their sins.
Marxi. 5, 6. And John was clothed
with camel’s hair, and a leathern girdle
about his loins, and did eat locusts and
wild honey.
And there went out to him all the
country of Judea, and they of Jeru-
salem, and were baptized of him in the
river Jordan, confessing their sins.
The two verses occur in an opposite order, and contain a few
slight variations.
Yet still the general agreement is so close, that
it is hard to account for it, if the gospels were entirely independent.
The resemblance in the call of the disciples is still more
striking.
MarrueEw iv. 18. And walking be-
side the sea of Galilee, he saw two bre-
thren, Simon called Peter, and An-
drew his brother, casting a net into the
sea; for they were fishers.
And he saith unto them, Come after
me, and I will make you fishers of men.
And they straightway forsook their
nets, and followed him.
And going on from thence, he saw
other two brethren, James the son of
Zebedee, and John his brother, in the
ship, with Zebedee their father, mend-
ing their nets. And he called them.
And they straightway left the ship and
their father, and followed him.
Marx i. 16—20. And walking be-
side the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon,
and Andrew the brother of Simon,
casting a net into the sea; for they
_ were fishers,
And Jesus said unto them, Come
after me, and I will make you to be-
come fishers of men.
And they straightway forsook their
nets, and followed him.
And going on from thence, a little
further, he saw James the son of Ze-
bedee, and John his brother, them-
selves also in the ship, mending their
nets. And straightway he called them.
And they left their father Zebedee in
the ship with the hired servants, and
went after him.
Here also there are a few slight alterations, but the arrange-
22 ON THE RELATION OF
ment of the particulars, and even the phraseology, is in general
the very same.
our Lord’s teaching.
Matruew vii. 28, 29. The multi-
tudes were astonished at his doctrine;
for he was teaching them as one who
had authority, and not as the scribes.
A briefer instance follows, in the description of
Mark i. 22. And they were aston-
ished at his doctrine; for he was teach-
ing them as one who had authority,
and not as the scribes.
The resemblance in the account of the feast is equally close.
MatrHeEw ix. 10—138. And it came
to pass, as he sat at meat in the house,
behold, many publicans and sinners
came and sat down with Jesus and his
disciples.
And the Pharisees, when they saw
it, said to his disciples,
Why eateth your master with pub-
licans and sinners ?
But when Jesus heard it, he said
unto them,
They that be whole need not a phy-
sician, but they that are sick. But
go ye and learn what that meaneth, I
will have mercy and not sacrifice :
For I came not to call the righteous,
but sinners to repentance.
Marx ii. 15—17. And it came to
pass, as he sat at meat in his house,
many publicans and sinners also sat
down with Jesus and his disciples ;
for there were many, and they followed
him.
And the Scribes and Pharisees, when
they saw him eating with publicans
and sinners, said to his disciples,
Why is it that he eateth and drink-
eth»with publicans and sinners?
And when Jesus heard it, he saith
unto them,
They that be whole need not a phy-
sician, but they that are sick :
I came not to call the righteous, but
sinners to repentance.
The account of the miracle of the loaves, with its sequel,
amidst more numerous variations, presents another example of
extensive verbal agreement.
Marruew xiv. 13—27. And when
Jesus heard of it, he departed thence
by ship into a desert place apart, and
when the people heard, they followed
him on foot out of the cities.
Marx vi. 32—50. And they de-
parted into a desert place by ship
apart. And the people saw them de-
parting, and many knew him, and ran
on foot thither out of all the cities, and
out-went them, and came together
unto him.
ST. MATTHEW AND ST, MARK’S GOSPELS. 23
And Jesus went forth, and saw a |
great multitude, and was moved with
compassion towards them, and he
healed their sick,
And when it was evening, his disci-
ples came to him saying, This is a
desert place, and the hour is now past:
send away the’multitude, that they
may go into the villages and buy them-
selves victuals.
But Jesus said unto them, They need
not depart ; give ye them to eat.
And they say unto him, We have
here but five loaves and two fishes.
And he said, Bring them hither to me.
And he commanded the multitude to
sit down on the grass.
And he took the five loaves, and the
two fishes, and looking up to heaven,
he blessed and brake, and gave the
loaves to his disciples, and the disci-
ples to the multitude.
And they did all eat, and were filled,
and they took up the fragments that
remained, twelve baskets full.
And they that did eat were about
five thousand men, besides women and
children.
And straightway he constrained his
disciples to enter into the ship, and to
go before him to the other side, while
he sent the multitudes away.
And when he had sent away the
multitudes, he went up into the moun-
tain apart to pray: and when the
evening was come, he was there alone,
but the ship was already in the midst
of the sea.
And Jesus went forth, and saw a
great multitude, and was moved with
compassion toward them, because they
were as sheep not having a shepherd,
and he began to teach them many things.
And when a late hour was now come,
his disciples came to him and said, This
is a desert place, and it is now a late
hour: send them away, that they may
go into the fields and yillages round
about, and buy themselves loaves; for
they have nothing to eat.
But he answered and said unto them,
Give ye them to eat.
And they say unto him, Shall we go
and buy two hundred penny worth of
bread and give them toeat? He saith
unto them, How many loaves have ye?
go and see. And when they knew,
they say, Five, and two fishes.
And he commanded them to make
all sit down by companies on the green
grass. And they sat down in ranks,
by hundreds and by fifties.
And he took the five loaves and the
two fishes, and looking up to heaven,
he blessed, and brake the loaves, and
gave to the disciples to set before them,
and the two fishes he divided among all.
And they did all eat and were filled,
and they took up of fragments twelve
baskets full, and of the fishes.
And they that did eat the loayes
were about five thousand men.
And straightway he constrained his
disciples to enter into the ship, and to
go before him to the other side to Beth-
saida, while he sent the multitude away.
And when he had sent them away,
he departed into the mountain to pray :
and when the evening was come, the
ship was in the midst of the sea, and
he alone on the land.
24 ON
THE RELATION OF
Another very exact coincidence occurs in the dispute of the
ten with the sons of Zebedee.
Mattruew xx. 24—28.
And when the ten heard it, they
were moved with indignation against
the two brethren.
But Jesus called them unto him, and
said, Ye know that they which rule
over the Gentiles exercise dominion
over them, and they that are great
exercise authority upon them,
But it shall not be so among you ;
but whosoever will be great among you,
let him be your minister, and whoso-
ever will be chief among you, let him
be your servant.
Even as the Son of man came, not
to be ministered unto, but to minister,
and to give his life a ransom for many.
Marx x, 4]—45.
And when the ten heard it, they
began to be moved with indignation
against James and John.
But Jesus called them unto him, and
said to them, Ye know that they which
are accounted to rule over the Gentiles
exercise dominion over them, and they
of them that are great exercise autho-
rity upon them.
But it shall not be so among you ;
but whosoever will be great among you,
let him be your minister, and whoso-
ever will be chief among you, shall be
servant of all.
For even the Son of man came, not
to be ministered unto, but to minister,
and to give his life a ransom for many.
In the parable of the sower, the resemblance is very nearly as
complete.
MarrueEw xii. 1—9.
The same day went Jesus out of the
house and sat by the sea side.
And great multitudes were gathered
together to him, so that hé went into
the ship, and sat, and the whole mul-
titude stood on the shore.
And he spoke to them many things
in parables, saying,
Behold, a sower went forth to sow:
And when he sowed, some fell by
the way-side and the fowls came, and
devoured them up.
And some fell on stony ground,
where it had not much earth; and im-
mediately it sprang up, because it had
no deepness of earth :
Marx iy. 1—9.
And he began to teach by the sea-
side, and a great multitude was ga-
thered together to him, so that he went
into the ship, and out in the sea; and
the whole multitude was by the sea on
the land.
And he taught them many things in
parables, and said unto them in his doc-
trine, Hearken,
Behold, a sower went forth to sow.
And it came to pass, when he sowed,
some fell by the way side, and the
fowls came, and devoured it up.
And some fell on stony ground
where it had not much earth ; and im-
mediately it sprang up, because it had
no deepness of earth :
ST. MATTHEW AND ST. MARK’S GOSPELS. Do
And when the sun was risen, it was |
scorched; and because it had no root,
it withered away.
And some fell among thorns, and the
thorns sprung up, and choked them.
But others fell on good ground, and
did yield fruit, some a hundred, some
twenty, some thirty.
Whoso hath an ear to hear, let him
hear.
Here only a few slight changes are made.
And when the sun was risen, it was
scorched, and because it had no root, it
| withered away.
And some fell among thorns, and
the thorns sprung up and choked it,
and it yielded no fruit.
And other fell on good ground, and
did yield fruit, springing up, and in-
creasing ; and yielded, some thirty,
some sixty, some a hundred.
And he said unto them,
Whoso hath an ear to hear, let him
hear.
Where St. Mat-
thew uses the plural, St. Mark uses the singular, in speaking of
the seed, and conversely ; while in v. 8 the order is inverted.
These changes, and a comparison with St. Luke, prove that a
close verbal agreement was not at all essential to a faithful report
of the parable. And hence it follows, that one writer must have
been partly guided by the other, or else both by a common
prototype.
In the account of the question respecting our Lord’s authority,
there is rather more variation; but still, in the main, there is a
minute and verbal agreement.
Martruew xxi. 23—27.
And when he was come into the
temple, there came to him, as he taught,
the chief priests and the elders of the
people, saying,
By what authority doest thou these
things ? and who gave thee this au-
thority ?
And Jesus answered and said to
them, I also will ask you one word,
which if ye tell me, [ also will tell you
by what authority I do these things.
The baptism of John, whence was
it? of heaven, or of men?
And they reasoned among themselves,
Mark xi. 27—33.
And as he was walking in the temple,
there came unto him the chief priests,
and the scribes, and the elders, and say
unto him,
By what authority doest thou these
things? and who gave thee this au-
thority, to do these things ?
And Jesus answered and said to
them, I also will ask you (in return)
one word, and do ye answer me, and
I will tell you by what authority I do
these things.
The baptism of John, was it of hea-
ven, or of men? answer me,
And they reasoned among themselves,
26 ON THE RELATION OF
saying, If we say, From heaven, he | saying, If we say, From heaven, he
will say to us, Why then did ye not | will say, Why then did ye not believe
believe him ? him?
But if we say, Of men; we fear the But if we say, Of men, they feared
people; for all account John asa pro- | the people; for all accounted John,
phet. that he was indeed a prophet.
And they answered Jesus, and said, And they answered and said to
We cannot tell. Jesus, We cannot tell.
And he also said to them, Neither And Jesus answering saith to them,
do I tell you by what authority I do | Neither do I tell you by what au-
these things. thority I do these things.
Another instance of the same, or a still closer resemblance,
occurs in the double report of the parable of the fig-tree, in the
Prophecy on the Mount.
Martruew xxiy. 32—35. Mark xiii. 28—31.
Now learn its parable from the fig- Now learn its parable from the fig-
tree: When its branch already be- | tree: When its branch already be-
comes tender, and the leaves put forth, | comes tender, and the leaves put forth,
ye know that the summer is nigh. ye know that the summer is nigh.
So likewise ye, when ye shall see So likewise ye, when ye shall see
all these things, know that ve is near, | these things coming to pass, know that
even at the doors. he is near, even at the doors.
Verily I say unto you, This genera- Verily I say unto you, This genera-
tion shall not pass away, until all these | tion shall not pass away, until all these
things be done. things be done.
Heaven and earth shall pass away, | Heaven and earth shall pass away,
but my words shall not pass away. but my words shall not pass away.
But of that day and hour knoweth But of that day, or hour, knoweth
no man, no, not the angels of heaven, | no man, no, not the angels that are in
but my Father only. heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
These examples, to which others might be added, are enough
to prove that the two gospels could not have been formed
independently, and from oral tradition alone. Such a minute
agreement, even in the phraseology, and throughout many suc-
cessive verses, would on this view be inexplicable.
The instances, however, of partial or total divergence, where
the same events are narrated, are still more numerous, and
disprove, with equal force, the hypothesis of the gospels being
ST. MATTHEW AND ST. MARK’S GOSPELS. 27
derived from some common document. Let us notice a few
passages in the order of their occurrence.
The account of our Lord’s baptism differs almost entirely in
the details. The conversation is omitted; the dramatic form
is exchanged for the historical, the word oy:foxevous is substituted
for avewxOncay, and the voice itself is not given in the same words,
The account of the temptation is still more varied. St. Mark,
who often enlarges, here contracts the narrative to a single verse ;
while mention is made, here only, of the wild beasts, and only
one clause resembles the other gospel.
The opening of our Lord’s ministry is very differently given.
The formal transfer of its scene to Capernaum from Nazareth
is not mentioned. The prophecy of Isaiah is passed over in
silence, while the brief passage, “‘ Repent, for the kingdom of
heaven is at hand,”’ is considerably enlarged and modified. ‘‘ The
time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand—Repent,
and believe the gospel.”
The account of the cure in the synagogue is an addition, since
no mention of it occurs in St. Matthew’s gospel; and even the
cure of Simon’s wife’s mother, which follows, is given with fresh
circumstances, and a considerable variation in the phrase. The
cures of the leper and the paralytic, while one or two clauses
are retained, are also given with fuller detail, and with several
important alterations in the words of the description. A colla-
tion of the two accounts, in this last instance, will shew how
few of the clauses retain a verbal correspondence.
MarTrueEw ix. 2—8, Mark ii. 3—12,
And behold, they brought to him a And they came unto him, bringing a
paralytic, laid upon a bed. paralytic, who was borne by four men.
And when they could not come nigh
to him because of the crowd, they un-
covered the roof where he was; and
when they had broken it up, they let
down the couch wherein the paralytic
lay.
And when Jesus saw their faith, he But when Jesus saw their faith, he
C2
28 ON THE RELATION OF
said to the sick of the palsy, Son, be of
good cheer, thy sins are forgiven thee.
And behold, some of the scribes said |
in themselyes, This man blasphemeth.
And Jesus, knowing their thoughts,
said,
Why think ye evil things in your
hearts ? for whether is easier to say,
Thy sins are forgiven thee? or to say,
Arise and walk ?
But that ye may know that the Son
of man hath power on earth to forgive
sins, (theu he saith to the sick of the
palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed and go
unto thy house.
And he arose and went to his house.
But when the multitudes saw it they
marvelled, and glorified God, which
had given such power to men.
saith to the sick of the palsy, Son, thy
sins be forgiven thee.
Now there were some of the scribes
sitting there, and reasoning in their
hearts, Why doth this man thus speak
blasphemies ? who can forgive sins, but
God only ?
And immediately Jesus, perceiving
in his spirit that they are so reasoning
in themselves, said unto them,
Why reason yé these things in your
| hearts? whether is easier to say to the
sick of the palsy, Thy sins are forgiven
thee? or to say, Arise, take up thy
couch, and walk ?
But that ye may know the Son of
man hath power on earth to forgiye
sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy, )
I say to thee, Arise, and take up thy
couch, and go unto thy house.
And immediately he arose, took up
the couch, and went forth before them
all ;
Tnsomuch that they were all amazed
and glorified God, saying, We never
saw it in this fashion.
A similar collation, extended through the rest of the gospels,
will shew how vain it is to explain their resemblances and diffe-
rences by recourse to the once popular invention, of an earlier and
shorter document, from which both were derived by translation
or interpolation. For if we were to separate those clauses which
retain an almost verbal identity, the common portion thus
abstracted would hardly furnish, in three or four events out of a
hundred, an unbroken narrative, such as would be required in
the most brief and meagre history.
We are thus led irresistibly, by the evidence of these partial
resemblances, and more numerous variations, when combined
with the fact that sixty particulars are the same in both gospels,
and given in the same order, to this general conclusion: The two
gospels are neither independently formed out of oral traditions,
ST. MATTHEW AND ST. MARK’S GOSPELS. 29
nor composed from a common document ; but the later Evangelist
has made use of the earlier gospel, in his own selection of inci-
dents to record, and has in some cases adopted the very phrase-
ology, while he has usually varied the narrative, and embodied
the results of independent and original information.
CHAPTER II.
ON THE REGULARITY OF THE THIRD GOSPEL.
Turee different opinions have been held on the relative date of
St. Luke’s Gospel. Many critics, as Beza, Gomar, Basnage,
Walch, Harenberg, and Macknight, have maintained that it was
the first written. Others, from the statement of Clement, that
the gospels with the genealogies were the earliest, have placed it
second in order, next to that of St. Matthew. This is the view
of Griesbach, who supposes that the gospel of St. Mark was
compiled from the two others; and Strauss, in his Life of Christ,
has adopted it implicitly, as an ascertained truth. But the most
usual view has always been, that St. Luke’s is the third gospel,
not only by its place in the canon, but in the actual date of its
composition. ~
The opinions as to its origin have been equally diverse. Some
have endeavoured to explain its features by assuming five or six
primitive documents, that were variously used and combined
by the three Evangelists. Others, as Schleiermacher, have
asserted it to be a compilation out of many short fragments,
early committed to writing, which the Evangelist threw toge-
ther with little regard to the order of time. A direct inquiry,
pursued with due caution, will hardly fail to throw light on
the truth or falsehood of these and similar hypotheses of
modern criticism, and to discover the real structure of the gospel.
Before we examine its direct relation to the two others, it is
ON THE REGULARITY OF THE THIRD GOSPEL. 31
needful first to determine its regularity, or how far the writer has
adhered in it to the real order of events, as they actually occurred.
Here many eminent critics of our own day give their verdict
confidently against the Evangelist. Thus Neander, in his Life
of Christ, remarks, that “the gospel history did not originate
in any design to give a connected account of the public ministry
of Christ, as a whole, but grew out of traditional accounts of
separate scenes in his history, partly transmitted by word of
mouth, and partly in written memoirs. Our three first gospels
resulted from the compilation of such separate materials, as Luke
himself states in his Preface.’ In like manner Olshausen
affirms, that ‘“ the three first Evangelists, while composing their
works, never thought of stating events according to the succession
of time in which they occurred.”’ Dr. Robinson observes, much
to the same effect, that ‘‘the three first gospels can in no sense
be regarded as methodical annals. There is often no definite
note of time, and we can only proceed upon conjecture.” The
latter part of St. Luke, he further states, “is almost entirely
wanting in chronological arrangement.”
If, however, we turn from these critical decisions to the state-
ments of the Evangelist himself, and consider the most promi-
nent features in both his works, we shall find strong reasons for
coming to a directly opposite judgment, and maintaining the
substantial, if not the complete regularity, of the whole gospel.
I. First of all, the Preface supplies very weighty evidence.
The writer there states, in few words, the object and plan of his
own narrative. The following appears to be the most exact version.
“ Forasmuch as many have undertaken to compose a narrative
concerning the things which are confidently believed among us,
even as they delivered them to us, who from the beginning were
eye-witnesses and ministers of the word; it seemed good to me
also, having traced all things accurately from the very first, to
write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou
mayest know the certain truth respecting the accounts wherein
thou hast been instructed.”
32 ON THE REGULARITY
The other questions which have been raised on these words
will be considered afterwards. For the present, one remark is
enough, that the writer announces his purpose of writing in order
(xabeEnc). The terms e&y¢ and xabe&nc”? as Mr. Greswell
justly remarks, “are peculiar to St. Luke, in whose writings
each of them occurs five times, either as descriptive of the suc-
cession of time or of events, but always of a direct, continuous,
and orderly succession. There is one instance where he employs
the word, as in his Preface, to describe the course of a narrative,
and it is plainly regular. ‘ But Peter rehearsed the matter from
the beginning, and expounded it in order to them,’ (Acts xi. 4.)
Nor can the meaning be better illustrated than by the passage in
Thucydides. ‘These things Thucydides, the Athenian, has
written in order, (¢& ;) as each happened.’ To write, then, in
order, and to write ‘ as each happened,’ were in his view synony-
mous phrases, and why not in the estimation of St. Luke?”
A collation of the passages Luke viii. 1; Acts iii. 24; xi. 24;
xviii. 23; Luke vii. 11; ix. 37; Acts xxi. 1; xxv. 17; xxvii.
18, seems to establish the justice of this conclusion, since a
regular sequence, either of time or place, is clearly intended by
the writer in each instance. Hence the Preface ought to be
expounded in the same sense, and implies that the writer intended
to narrate the events, for the most part, in the actual order of
their occurrence.
II. Tue Boox or Acts yields another argument for the same
view. It has the same author with the gospel, of which it may
be considered as the continuation. Now its regularity admits of
no reasonable dispute. From first to last, hardly one instance
of departure from the true order of the events can be discovered.
Its three main divisions close with the death of Herod, the
mission of Paul and Silas, and the imprisonment of the Apostle
at Rome, and are strictly successive. The separate events, in
the two later divisions, are just as plainly in their exact order,
and not a single inversion is to be found. In the first division it
is possible that the part referring to Saul’s conversion and
OF THE THIRD GOSPEL. 30
ministry, may slightly overlap the previous and following portions.
But even this is very doubtful; and if true, it would be quite
reconcileable with the laws of regular history, which does not
follow the rule of a chronological table, but merely requires that
each connected series of events shall be given in the place which
corresponds to the date of its main events. The rest of the
book is certainly regular, in the full sense of the term. And
hence there must be a strong presumption that the gospel, of
which it is a continuation, is also written with a careful regard to
historical succession.
III. Tue marn pivistons of the gospel itself clearly answer to
the statement of the Preface, in its simple and natural meaning.
It begins with the message to Zacharias, and the conception
of the Baptist, and then records the Incarnation, and the infancy
and childhood of Jesus, before -it enters on his public ministry.
In its middle portion, it evidently places the main events in their
true order—our Lord’s baptism, his return to Galilee, his removal
to Capernaum, the Ordination of the Twelve, their Mission, the
Transfiguration, and the later Mission of the Seventy—events of
which the real sequence is clearly the same as in the gospel. In
its close, and the history of Passion Week, the true order is also
plainly observed, unless there may be some exception in the
minuter details. And thus the main outlines of the gospel con-
firm the previous reasoning, and disprove the notion that the
Evangelist, in spite of the plain words in the Preface, paid little
or no regard to the order of time.
IV. THe spPEcIAL NOTES OF TIME in this gospel, are a further
proof that it was designed to be a regular history. The vision
to Mary is said to be “in the sixth month,” after the previous
vision to Zacharias. The visit of Elizabeth to Mary is next
stated to have lasted for three months. The birth of John
must then have followed, where it is placed, a few weeks later.
The circumcision is noted to have been on the eighth, and the
presentation on the fortieth day, and the later visit to Jerusalem
at the age of twelve years. Six marks of time are given, to fix
C5
34 ON THE REGULARITY
the opening of the Baptist’s ministry—the year of Tiberius, the
name of the Roman Governor, of three tetrarchs, and of the
Jewish high-priests. Last of all, the baptism of Jesus is placed
towards the close of John’s ministry, and his age is specified
when it occurred. These are not the marks of a composition,
where events are grouped arbitrarily together, or where the writer
employs unrevised fragments of tradition, without caring to
dispose them in their proper places, so as to form a connected
and orderly narrative.
V. Let us now pursue the same inquiry more in detail. The
first main portion of the gospel to be examined is iil. 1—ix. 50,
or from the baptism of John to the discourse at Capernaum,
after the Transfiguration.
This interval, which answers to No. 1—44, in the numbered
list, contains 44 particulars in St. Mark, and 42 in St. Luke.
Of these 32 are common to both writers. In all these the order
is the very same, except one transposition of the simplest kind.
The visit of the mother of Jesus, in St. Luke, is mentioned after
the parables ; in St. Matthew and St. Mark, before them. But
since both events were clearly on the same day, and there is no
term in St. Luke to fix the precise order, the true succession
is easily restored, and involves hardly any breach of strict
regularity.
The force of such a coincidence, great in itself, is further in-
creased by the circumstance, that each writer has introduced
particulars, not found in the other gospel. Ten of these are
added in St. Luke,jand twelve in St. Mark. An arrangement
which is not historical will commonly be disturbed, when fresh
materials are introduced into the history. No succession but
the true one, will allow every event to be inserted, without the risk
of its irregularity being detected, and some inconsistency coming
to light. Hence the fact that fresh particulars are given by each
writer, and still that all the events which are common to both are
in the same order, renders the proof of regularity as strong,
perhaps, as can possibly be drawn from internal comparison alone.
OF THE THIRD GOSPEL. 35
The greater part of this portion is the very same, in which the
first and second gospels vary from each other. From the alarm of
Herod, however, to the dispute at Capernaum, the third gospel
agrees, not only with the second gospel, but with the first also,
as will be seen from the following list, (Matt. xiv. 1—xviii. 6.
Mark vi. 14—ix. 37. Luke ix. 7—48.)
29, 30, 31, [82, 33, 34, 36, 37,] 39, 40, 41, 42, 1, 438, 44™.
Here nine events are common to all, and in the same order,
while five are omitted in the third gospel only. This agreement,
in three writers, is a strong evidence that they all observe the
true succession of time.
VI. There is another portion, where the comparison is still
more decisive. In No. 47—93, or from the blessing of the
young children to the close of the gospels, there are 40 particu-
lars common to St. Matthew and St. Mark, and in all these,
with one slight exception in the account of the fig-tree, the order
is the very same. St. Matthew also has more particulars, not
found in the other gospel, and yet their presence has had no
effect, to disturb the common arrangement of both gospels.
How then does St. Luke’s gospel bear the comparison in this
part of the narrative? The interval, in the second and third
gospels, has 46 or 47 particulars, of which thirty-seven are
common to both. Yet there are only two examples of apparent
inversion, in Nos. 69, 70, and 77, 78. In each instance, the
two events, which appear in an opposite order, were closely suc-
cessive, or strictly contemporaneous. The warning to Judas took
place just before or after the celebration of the Lord’s Supper,
and the three denials of Peter occurred during our Lord’s trial
before the high-priest, (Mark xiv. 18—25, 64—72. Luke xxii.
19—23, 55—65.)
The dispute concerning precedence (Matt. xx. 24—28. Mark
x. 41—45. Luke xxi. 24—27.), may seem to be a third in-
stance, and to involve a greater inversion. The words in St.
Luke resemble so closely those in the other gospels, that many
have thought them to refer to the same event. But a close
36 ON THE REGULARITY
examination seems to justify an opposite opinion, that the occa-
sions were distinct, and that the warning, given a week or ten
days earlier, was repeated at the time of the last supper. For
the words, Luke xxii. 27, which are not found in the earlier
gospels, appear to be a direct allusion to the event recorded by
St. John xiii. 1 —10, when Jesus washed the feet of his disciples.
Thus it appears that the third gospel, both in its earlier and
later portions, has adhered closely to the order of time. Out of
seventy events that are common to it with the second gospel,
there are only three cases of very slight transposition, and each
in the case of events, either strictly contemporary, or occurring —
on the same day or hour, in immediate succession.
To estimate the force of this argument, we have only to apply
the laws of probability. The events, until our Lord’s return
from Galilee, fix their own order, and may be excluded from
the comparison. There remain, from that return to the dispute
at Capernaum, No. 7—45, twenty-seven particulars common
to both gospels, Let us admit that every pair, on the average,
are so closely linked together that they could not easily be parted,
or that only thirteen would admit, in irregular narratives, of a free
transposition. The chance will then be 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
10. 11. 12. 13, or more than 6000 millions to one against the
actual agreement, unless one has copied the other, or both have
adhered to the true order. If we repeat the same inquiry in the
later portion, No. 47—93, and reduce the 37 instances, where
all the writers agree in their arrangement, to ten only, because the
order is here less arbitrary, the chances against such coincidence,
in irregular narratives, would be more than ten millions of millions
to one. It seems thus to be almost mathematically certain,
_ either that the later gospel adopted the order of its predecessors,
or that each adhered to the true succession of the events them-
selves.
VII. The irregularity of St. Luke, if it exist at all, must thus
be limited to the middle portion, ix. 51—xviii. 14, or from the
journey through Samaria to the parable of the publican. Even
OF THE THIRD GOSPEL. 37
if inversions were proved to exist in these chapters, two-thirds
of the whole have been shewn to answer the description in the
Preface. They are not a cento of fragments, thrown loosely to-
gether, but an orderly and connected narrative. The difficulties,
however, in this middle portion, require a fuller examination.
The general opinion of recent critics has been unfavourable,
with regard to the accuracy of the writer in this part of the
gospel. Neander, Olshausen, and Wieseler, in Germany, and
Dr. Robinson in America, all agree that two or three journeys
have been confounded into one, and mixed with extraneous
‘matter. The last of these, in his Harmony, disposes it into
sections, the numbers of which, 80, 81, 89, 86, 87, 88, 48, 49,
51, 52, 53, 94, 95, 96, 97—101, 82, 102, 103, are a sufficient
index to the latitude of transposition. Most German writers,
of late, appear to holda similar view. Let us endeavour to test
its truth by a direct inquiry.
The third gospel has been already shewn to be regular from
the baptism of John to the dispute at Capernaum (iii. 1—ix. 50.)
and again from the blessing of the little children, where it rejoins
the two others, to the close (xviii. 15—xxiv). The middle portion,
if also regular, must be included between these limits of time,
or relate to the last half-year of our Saviour’s ministry.
Now the opening verse, ix. 51, agrees evidently with this con-
ception of the true place of the narrative, and apparently refers
the whole to the last journey to Jerusalem. ‘‘ And it came
to pass, when the days were fulfilling of his being received up,
he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem.” So far as this
verse can be a key to the structure, the history from this point
must belong to that final journey, which issued first in our Lord’s
death, and then in His resurrection and ascension into glory.
Starting from this first presumption, we find several other
statements, which seem to confirm the same view. The Seventy
Disciples are sent by Jesus ‘‘ before his face, into every city and
place whither he himself was about to come.’ He was there-
fore about to journey in a route clearly defined and well known.
38 ON THE REGULARITY
Soon after we are told that “as they journeyed, he entered into
a certain village.” (x. 88.) Still later, xiii. 22. the writer tells us
that “ he journeyed through the cities and villages, teaching, and
making a journey towards Jerusalem.” His reply to the Phari-
sees, xiii. 33. reports the same fact. “I must journey to-day
and to-morrow, and the day following, for it cannot be that a
prophet perish out of Jerusalem.”’ In the next chapter it is said
that ‘‘great multitudes journeyed along with him,” xiv. 25. A
further notice of the same kind occurs, xvii. 11. “And it came
to pass, as he journeyed to Jerusalem, he passed through the
midst of Samaria and Galilee.” There seems also a distinct
allusion to the unusual publicity of this journey in the charge
against him before Pilate, xxiii. 5. ‘‘ He stirreth up the people,
teaching throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee even unto
this place.” The words would naturally refer toa recent journey,
attended by great multitudes, which had begun in Galilee, and
was just ended in Jerusalem.
Several parts, again, in this series of events, are clearly con-
nected in their time of occurrence. The Mission of the Seventy,
x. 1., was after the incident in Samaria, and ‘the same hour’ they
returned from it, our Lord uttered the subsequent discourse and
thanksgiving. The whole passage, xi. 14—xiil. 9, though its
contents are various, has plain marks of immediate sequence.
While Jesus was speaking, the Pharisee asked him to dine; and
while the scribes were laying wait for him in the Pharisee’s house,
the crowds of hearers were assembled, to whom the following
discourse was addressed. ‘In the same season’ the fate of the
Galileans was reported to him, and the parable of the fig-tree
was given. No transition appears in the form of the narrative,
where it unites again with the other gospels, xvii. 15; and it is
plain that our Lord, at that time, was really in his last journey.
All these are further presumptions that these chapters are the
regular narrative of one single journey, ending at Jerusalem.
There are four or five serious difficulties which stand in the
way of this arrangement.
OF THE THIRD GOSPEL. 39
First, St. John tells us that our Lord went up secretly to Jeru-
salem at the Feast of Tabernacles, or the October before his cru-
cifixion ; that he was there at the Feast of Dedication, or in
December ; that he then retired beyond Jordan, returned for a
single day to Bethany, retired again to Ephraim, near the
wilderness, and finally reached Bethany six days before the last
Passover. No mention is found here of any return to Galilee
in this interval of time. Yet if none took place, the last journey
was secret and not public, through Samaria direct, and not
through Perea, as in the three first gospels, and full six months
before the last Passover. This secret, hasty journey, could never
answer to the description given by St. Luke in the third gospel.
Again, the passage, Luke ix. 51—62. seems to imply a direct
route on the last journey through Samaria to Jerusalem. Yet
the two other gospels, and St. Luke in other chapters, agree
that the last journey was by way of Perea.
Thirdly, after the return of the Seventy, our Lord is said to
have entered the village of Martha and Mary. It is inferred
from the fourth gospel that this was Bethany. If so, the journey
has already reached the immediate neighbourhood of Jerusalem.
Yet we find no allusion here toa close of that journey, and
seven chapters follow before the arrival at Jericho, followed by
the last entrance into the city.
Fourthly, in chapter xi., after the return of the Seventy, we
have a discourse on blasphemy, almost verbally the same as in
Matt. xii. and which is there said to have been spoken on the
same day with the Parable of the Sower. But this, in all three
gospels, is earlier than the Mission of the Twelve Apostles. How
then could it occur after the far later mission of the Seventy, and
their return ?
These appear to be the chief reasons which have led many
writers to impeach the regularity, and even the accuracy and in-
formation, of the Evangelist. They therefore suppose him to
have compiled oral or written fragments, with no real insight
into their real sequence and historical connexion.
40 ON THE REGULARITY
1. The two first of these difficulties have a common source.
If St. Luke, xi. 51—62. implies that our Lord, in his last
journey, passed from Galilee through Samaria to Jerusalem, three
contradictions appear unavoidable. The route is inconsistent
with the former gospels, and even with Luke xix. 1—20. The
Mission of the Seventy, either in Samaria or Judea, clashes with
the account of St. John ; while the interval on the journey, after
passing through Samaria, is far too brief for the various inci-
dents in the eight chapters which follow.
There seem only two ways in which the difficulty can be re-
moved. Either this was not the last journey, but the last but
one, and before the Feast of Dedication, or else the actual route
must have been the reverse, through Samaria into Galilee.
To the former view there are two weighty objections. It de-
stroys the emphasis of the phrase, ix. 51., which seems to affirm
that the journey, so stedfastly resolved upon, was the same which
Jesus foresaw would issue in his rejection and death ; and after
the journey has been so distinctly announced, no mention will be
found of its further continuance and completion, but the writer
will recur at once to earlier events, before it began.
The other hypothesis, which Mr. Greswell has adopted, re-
moves all these difficulties. Our Lord, it is thus supposed, re-
turned through Samaria into Galilee, on purpose to commence a
public and final journey to Jerusalem, the consummation of his
whole ministry. He then sent out seventy heralds through
Galilee and Perea, to announce his approach “ in every city and
place whither he was about to come.” On their return he set
out at once, and journeyed in a fixed route, with great publicity,
towards Jerusalem. He first left a parting message to the cities
of Northern Galilee, then travelled along the border between
Galilee and Samaria, crossed over into Perea, being still within
Herod’s jurisdiction, (xvii. 11. xiv. 31.) and at length arrived at
Jericho, and travelled westward to Bethany and Jerusalem.
It may be urged, however, that such a return northward
through Samaria, is inconsistent with the words, “he stedfastly
OF THE THIRD GOSPEL. 4]
set his face to go to Jerusalem.”” Why should the enmity of the
Samaritans be thus aroused, if our Lord were retiring further from
Jerusalem, at the very hour when they refused to receive him ?
A reference to the actual circumstances will remove this for-
midable objection. The case was not that of an ordinary Jew,
simply travelling through Samaria to one of the annual feasts.
The fame of Jesus had now reached its height. His miracles must
have been notorious throughout Samaria. The question would
have been raised there, as well as in Judea and Galilee, whether
he were the Messiah, or some great prophet, or a deceiver of the
people. His authority, if he had lent it to the Samaritan
worship, would doubtless have been hailed by them with eager
exultation, and his claims have only been the more freely re-
cognized, because they had been resisted and denied by the Jews.
Yet our Lord was now about to pass by Samaria, and to propose
himself once more to the Jews, in the most public manner, as a
prophet sent from God. He announced his purpose of journey-
ing for this end from Galilee to Jerusalem, so as to arrive there
at the ensuing Passover. Such a journey would be a public con-
demnation of the Samaritans, since it proclaimed Jerusalem, and
not Sychem, which he was passing by without notice, to be the
true centre of divinely-appointed worship. If this purpose were
announced by the disciples as clearly as it was formed by our
Lord deliberately, it would fully explain the enmity excited by
the journey, though he were then passing into Galilee, and not
into Judea.
That such is the real meaning of the passage may be inferred
from the Mission of the Seventy, which follows. The addresses
ix. 57—62. imply that a renewed and public proclamation of the
kingdom was now to begin. Where, then, is it meant that we
should place their mission? Certainly not in Samaria, which
would contradict the uniform and settled law of our Saviour’s
ministry. ‘I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of
Israel.” Not in Judea, since we find that several chapters later
he is still in the dominions of Herod. The mention of Chorazim
42 ON THE REGULARITY
and Capernaum, the resemblance to the former mission of the
Twelve, and the moral congruity of one last public warning,
where Jesus had laboured from the first, are proofs that they
were sent out in Galilee, to the places in that province and in
Perea. The account is thus harmonized with the fourth gospel,
which traces our Lord’s course till he reaches Ephraim. Before
a last journey from Galilee, our Lord must have returned through
Samaria from Ephraim, which lay on its southern border.
2. The village of Martha and Mary occasions a second diffi-
culty. If this were Bethany, as generally inferred from John
xi. 1, the account of the last journey must be very irregular, or
two journeys have been thrown into one; since the narrative
would have brought our Lord to Jerusalem, nine chapters before
the mention of his arrival at Jericho, and his final entry.
The words of St. John, however, when closely examined, are
by no means a clear proof of this assumed identity, and lie open
to a very different interpretation. They may be strictly rendered
as follows : ‘‘ Now a certain man was sick, namely Lazarus, of
Bethany, out of the village of Mary and her sister Martha.
It was that Mary, who anointed the Lord with ointment,
and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was
sick.” The latter clause is a reference, either to the gospels of
St. Matthew and St. Mark, who relate the anointing in Bethany,
or to the fact as widely known by oral tradition. The former
seems to be a similar allusion to the village mentioned by St.
Luke. But the use of two distinct prepositions leaves it rather
doubtful, in itself, whether this were the same as Bethany. And
this doubt seems confirmed by the similar passage in John i. 45,
where it is said: “Now Philip was of Bethsaida, out of the city
of Andrew and Peter.” It is clear, from the two first gospels,
that the home of Peter at this very time, was Capernaum, and
not Bethsaida. If then the city of Andrew and Peter is distinct
from Bethsaida, the village of Martha may equally be distinct
from Bethany, and the two prepositions have a different meaning.
It is a further reason for supposing the two places distinct, that
OF THE THIRD GOSPEL. 43
St. Luke mentions Bethany more than once in his gospel, and
leayes this village of Martha without a name.
The reasoning of Mr. Greswell, from John i. 46—48, and vii.
41, 42, to prove the contrast in the meaning of the two prepo-
sitions, does not appear to be equally just. On the contrary,
these alone would rather tend to shew their equivalence. They
would imply that, in the view of Nathanael, one who was of
Nazareth was also out of it; and that, in the opinion of the
objectors, to be out of Galilee, and of Bethlehem, were incom-
patible. If, however, we suppose ex to be used, not absolutely
for the native place, but for an earlier, as distinct from an
actual residence, the natural scope of these passages will be
retained, and yet the distinctness of the two expressions, in
John i. 45; xi. 1, will be equally justified. One will signify
that Philip had resided at Capernaum, before he removed to
Bethsaida; and the other, that Lazarus had once had his home
at the village mentioned by St. Luke, before he removed to
Bethany.
The chief objection which seems to lie against this construc-
tion, is the double journey of Martha and Mary, which it would
imply, first to their own village in Galilee, after the resurrection
of Lazarus, and again to Bethany, where they received our Lord
at the close of his journey, six days before the crucifixion. But
if the village, on this account, were held to be no other than
Bethany, the exception to the regularity of St. Luke’s narrative
may still be of a very partial kind. For in this case we may
suppose the feast to be the same, which St. John has recorded,
and in which he notes that Martha served. Some incidents of
the last journey might have reached St. Luke, without their
exact time and place being specified, and these might be inserted
in its course, where they would least interrupt its continuity, and
still the character of the whole work, as an orderly and successive
narrative, be retained. But the passage, John i. 45, where the
idiom is just the same as in John xi. 1, perhaps inclines the
44 ON THE REGULARITY
weight of evidence in favour of the other view, that the village
of Martha and Mary was really situate in Galilee.
3. A third difficulty relates to the discourse on blasphemy,
Luke xi. 14—36, which is the same, for the most part, with the
one in St. Matthew xii. 22—45. If the events were the same,
St. Luke’s gospel will be convicted here of great irregularity.
~ But besides the different arrangement of the two main portions,
the time is so clearly marked in each gospel, that they can be
identified, only by charging one writer with positive error and
misstatement. The discourse, Matthew xii. was followed by a visit
of the mother and brethren of Jesus, and then the same day by
a series of parables, while in the evening our Lord crossed over
the lake, and returned the next day. In St. Luke, the discourse
is followed by a morning meal in the house of the Pharisee,
and then by a long discourse to the multitudes, entirely different
from the parables in Matthew xiii. Mark iv. and one which
implies that teaching by parables had been often adopted before.
Our Lord announces also the near approach of his own sufferings,
and the rapid completion, to the Jews, of their time of national
probation. The slaughter of the Galileans, which was now
reported to him, it is most probable, was the secret cause of that
feud between Pilate and Herod, which was appeased just before
the crucifixion. Thus all the marks of time prove that the
events were distinct, though the two discourses have so great a
resemblance.
It is a further mark of distinction, that the demoniac, in St.
Matthew, was both blind and dumb, and his dispossession was
attended with a double cure ; but in St. Luke dumbness alone is
mentioned. This was a common feature of possession, but
blindness was altogether distinct and unusual, and St. Luke
would therefore not be likely to have omitted so remarkable a
feature in the cure. Also dispossessions, and the charge of a
. league with Beelzebub, were clearly of frequent occurrence in our
Lord’s public ministry, Matthew iv. 24; ix. 32—34; xii. 22,
BOs kvl 3 Ko wo. 8 Cerna222)
OF THE THIRD GOSPEL. 45
If we now resume the analysis of these intervening chapters,
after the main objections have been removed, we find still further
evidence that they form a regular narrative of one and the same
journey. After the return of the Seventy, who were sent out
expressly as forerunners of our Lord, we see in x. 38, that a
journey was now begun. The whole passage, xi. 14—xiii. 9, is
inseparably connected by marks of time, and includes further
proofs that it belonged to the closing part of our Lord’s ministry.
The reproof of the Pharisees and lawyers is nearly the same as
in Matt. xxiii., with the same warning of approaching retribution.
Hence its natural place is in the last journey to Jerusalem, rather
than in the middle of the previous year, to which it would be-
long, if it took place the same day with Matt. xii, xiii. The appeal,
xii. 35—48, is also nearly the same as in Matt. xxiv., and would be
specially appropriate, only at the approach of the crucifixion. The
passage, xii. 50, implies that our Lord’s sufferings and death were
now very near at hand. The fifty-sixth verse, with its warning
inquiry— “ How is it that ye do not discern this time ? ’’—seems
to prove that our Lord’s ministry had now assumed the form
of a parting appeal to an unbelieving people. The anecdote
respecting the Galileans, when compared with Luke xxii. 6—12,
bears the marks of having occurred very shortly before the
crucifixion, since it would be a natural explanation of the variance
between Pilate and Herod, and of the presence of the latter with
an armed force in Jerusalem. The parable of the fig-tree also
intimates that the season of probation to the Jews was now near
its close.
A Sabbath next intervenes, when the journey would of course
be suspended. After this the notice follows immediately that
“he journeyed through the cities and villages, teaching, and
pursuing his journey toward Jerusalem.” But he is still in
Herod’s district, and his journey so public, and so numerously
attended, as to excite the jealousy of the tetrarch, as well as of
the Pharisees. The words of xiii. 32, 33, seem to imply that
our Lord was distant three days’ journey from Jerusalem, and
46 ON THE REGULARITY
shew that he professed publicly to be travelling thither. We
have next another Sabbath, the events of which seem to extend
to xiv. 24. We have then immediately another notice that the
journey is resumed, for we are told that ‘“ great multitudes jour-
neyed along with him.”” The concourse of publicans and sinners
leads to a series of parables, and the covetousness of the Phari-
sees to further discourses and warnings, which reach as far as
xvii. 10. Then, in the very next verse, we have a renewed
notice, that he was still on his way to Jerusalem, and even a
general statement of the route which he was following. “‘ And it
came to pass, as he journeyed to Jerusalem, that he passed
through the midst of Samaria and Galilee.’ The words, in
themselves, might admit of two meanings, either that he jour-
- neyed through the central portion of both provinces, or along
the border line between them. On the former view, since he
was journeying toward Jerusalem, the words must naturally have
appeared in the opposite order, “through the midst of Galilee
and Samaria.” Hence we may infer that the Evangelist means
to express that the route of our Lord was along the border
line of the two provinces, which best explains the incident that
Jewish and Samaritan lepers were found together. The course,
since it led to Jerusalem, and by the way of Jericho, must have
been eastward towards Perea. The inquiry of the Pharisees,
which follows, implies that the journey led to a general im-
pression of our Lord being about openly to claim kingly au-
thority, which is further confirmed by the verse xix. 11. The
incident of the little children, which soon follows, is fixed by
the other gospels to have occurred in Perea. In xviii. 31,
we see that the journey was drawing to its close, and our Lord
therefore again predicts to his disciples its tragical issue, with
a renewed promise of His resurrection. And now the narrative
brings us to Jericho, and by way of Bethany to Jerusalem,
Thus it appears that, if we assume Ephraim, south of Samaria,
for the starting-point in Luke ix. 51, the eight chapters which
follow will exhibit, with slight exceptions at the most, a regular and
OF THE THIRD GOSPEL. 47
continuous account of the last journey; which was preceded by
the Mission of the Seventy, began with a parting circuit of
Galilee, continued through Perea, and ended with the final entry
into Jerusalem. The statement of the writer in his Preface
will thus have been verified here, as in the rest of the gospel, and
he will have written the events of our Lord’s ministry, as he
promised to Theophilus, in orderly succession.
CHAPTER III.
ON THE RELATIVE ORDER OF ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL.
GENERAL ARGUMENTS.
Tue regularity of the third gospel, in two of its main portions,
has now been clearly proved; and has been shewn to be highly
probable, even in that middle portion, which has often been held to
establish an opposite view. The notion of Schleiermacher and
others, that it has been compiled loosely from separate fragments,
is found to be inconsistent with the most prominent facts in the
comparison of the three gospels. We may now safely regard it
as one connected whole, and inquire into its relative date, with
reference to St. Matthew’s and St. Mark’s narratives.
On this subject, also, opinions have differed widely. Many
writers, as Beza, Gomar, Harenberg, Vogel, and Macknight,
have maintained that St. Luke’s is really the first gospel in
point of time. Others place it second, and suppose that St.
Mark compiled his own from the two others. Olshausen
suggests that some fragments of it existed before St. Mark,
and were used by him, though as a whole, he places it later.
A recent author has advanced the opinion that it is later than
St. Matthew, and also than an Aramaic form of St. Mark, which
was the original gospel of St. Peter; but that St. Mark’s Greek
gospel was published after it, and was simply a translation.
The most usual opinion, however, places St. Luke after the two
others, while some conceive that its origin was quite independent
ON THE RELATIVE ORDER OF ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 49
of them, and others that the writer made free use of their
histories.
Let us first examine briefly those views which are least usual,
and appear to be most easily disproved. The first is the opinion
of Griesbach, that St. Mark’s gospel is a mere compilation from
the two earlier narratives of St. Luke and St. Matthew. Dr.
Strauss, in his Life of Jesus, reasons on this assumption as a
certain truth (i. 59.) Yet, perhaps, of all the hypotheses, this
is the most untenable.
The sum of the argument may be stated in few words. The
whole of St. Mark’s gospel, except twenty-four verses, is con-
tained in one of the two others. Consequently, it might be
compiled from them, and whoever believes that a later Evangelist
copied from the earlier, must conclude that such was its real
origin. Ifthe writer drew from any other source, how are we to
explain the fact that all, except twenty-four verses, is found in
their gospels only ?
It is clear, however, that the same fact may be equally explained
in a different way. If St. Luke wrote after both the others, and
was careful to insert most of the incidents peculiar to the shorter
and less familiar gospel, the very same result would follow.
Nearly every part of St. Mark would then be found, either in
the earlier or later gospel. To decide between the two explana-
tions, we must consider which is more probable in itself, and
will account for special features in the relation they bear to each
other.
And first the question must arise—What could be the possible
motive for the supposed compilation? The two gospels, from
which it would be made, must have been of authority in the
church, and actually in circulation. The mere introduction of
two cures, of a single parable, and a few brief passages of the
same kind, could never be the main reason for entering on a
work, in the view of the writer himself, so important as a formal
narrative of our Lord’s ministry. Whatever the source from
which these twenty-four verses were derived, it is impossible to
D
50 ON THE RELATIVE ORDER
believe that they would supply him with such scanty materials
only, wherewith to enrich his narrative, and give it a distinct
and individual importance to the Church of Christ.
On the other hand, if the gospel of St. Luke followed the two
others, a sufficient motive for the composition of each is readily
found. St. Mark, compared with St. Matthew, has not only a
considerable amount of original matter, but a distinct character
and object, to amplify the details of the narrative, while abridging
the discourses, and at the same time, to remove transpositions,
and restore the true order of time. St. Luke’s again, besides
adopting the rectified order of the second gospel, incorporating
some of its graphic details, and most of its peculiar incidents,
has so much that is peculiarly its own, as to form a sufficient and
weighty reason for its publication. All is consistent and natural
on this view, while on the other, the composition of St. Mark’s
gospel admits of no reasonable explication. For its main ex-
cellence is the vividness of its details, which indicates the pre-
sence of an eye-witness, and is quite inconsistent with the notion,
that it is a mere compilation.
But another reason, equally decisive against Griesbach’s
hypothesis, will be found in a close observation of those parts of
the second gospel, which are wanting in the first, and which one
of the two later Evangelists may be supposed to have borrowed
from the other. These are mainly the following, Mark i. 21—
28, 835—39 ; iii. 13—19; vi. 10, 11; ix. 3883—40; xii. 38—44,
besides the closer agreement in several passages common to the
three gospels, as the account of the demoniac of Gadara, and the
raising of the daughter of Jairus.
Now in the first of these passages, if St. Mark had borrowed
additional incidents from St. Luke, while following the general
outline of St. Matthew, he would most naturally have copied
or abridged the account, in the third gospel, of the visit to
Nazareth, which appears there in close connection with the
abode at Capernaum, and the first act of dispossession. On the
other view of the succession, nothing can be more simple and
OF ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 51
natural than their relation to each other. St. Mark, restoring
the cure in Simon’s house to its true order, is led to mention the
cure in the synagogue, which took place immediately before it ;
while St. Luke goes still further in supplying the connecting
links of the narrative, and describes that visit to Nazareth,
implied in Matt. iv. 13, which led to the first public exercise of
our Lord’s ministry at Capernaum.
The next passages which nearly correspond, while absent in
Matthew, are Mark iii. 13—19. Luke vi. 12—17. In St.
Mark, this wears the appearance of a simple Jink in the chain of
St. Matthew’s narrative, xii. 15—24, pointing out the time when
the Apostles were ordained, as distinct from that of their mission ;
and it still leaves a considerable interval, before the occurrence
of the discourse on blasphemy. If St. Mark had borrowed
from St. Luke, he would naturally have introduced one or more
of the other incidents in the third gospel, the cure of the Cen-
turion’s servant, the raising of the Widow’s son at Nain, or the
message of the Baptist, or the attendance of the Galilean women.
Since he has passed all these by in silence, it must be far more
probable that St. Luke has here given a second supplement of
larger extent, than that St. Mark has selected only a few verses
from this portion of Luke, and neglected other incidents of higher
interest.
Again, the most distinctive portion of St. Luke’s gospel is
contained in the middle chapters, ix. 51—xviii. 14, which follow
after the dispute at Capernaum, and the reply to the address of
John. That address itself is given by both Evangelists, almost in
the same words, and either might have borrowed it from the other.
But if St. Mark merely compiled his gospel from the two others,
how is it that he entirely passes over these intervening chapters,
and leaves the same hiatus here as the first gospel? This is a
cardinal feature in the comparison, and decisively refutes the
hypothesis, that the second gospel has been compiled from the
two others ; since there is not one verse in it which answers to
the most characteristic portion of St. Luke. On this ground
D2
52 ON THE RELATIVE ORDER
alone, Olshausen is led to admit that the view of Griesbach is
quite untenable.
The same feature appears in the narrative of the Crucifixion.
The incidents peculiar to St. Luke, compared with St. Matthew,
the appearance of the angel in the garden, the trial before Herod,
and the penitent thief, are none of them found in St. Mark’s
gospel, and hence a further proof that this was not compiled
from the two others. 2
Olshausen, however, has supposed that one or two sections of
St. Luke, though not the whole gospel, were earlier than St.
Mark, and used by him in his own narrative. This remark
seems afterwards limited to the section, Luke x. 3—9, in which
the harmony is said to be specially apparent. Yet when we
compare the mission of the Twelve in St. Mark with the mission
of the Twelve and of the Seventy in St. Luke, (Mark vi. 7—13.
Luke ix. 1—6; x. 1—12.), the two former agree in about ten
clauses, and the first and third in about three only. The hypo-
thesis, therefore, that St. Mark has borrowed his account of the
mission of the Twelve from Luke’s account of the later mission
of the Seventy, highly improbable in itself, becomes utterly im-
possible when the passages are closely examined. The relation
is fully explained, if we suppose that St. Luke followed St. Mark
in the mission of the Twelve, but reserved one or two sentences,
which were twice uttered, that he might give them on their
second occurrence, in the mission of the Seventy, which he alone
has placed on record.
Another hypothesis has been lately proposed by Mr. Smith,
in his valuable and conclusive work on the voyage and shipwreck
of St. Paul; that St. Mark has merely translated an Aramaic
original, written by St. Peter, and that the gospel of St. Luke is
later than this original and the Greek gospel of St. Matthew,
but earlier than the translation ; so that it bears to St. Matthew
a verbal resemblance in many parts, and is elsewhere related to
St. Mark as two versions from the same original. The passages
appealed to in evidence are the accounts of the Storm, and of the
OF ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 53
healing of the Ruler’s daughter, Matt. viii. 23—27; ix. 18—26.
Mark iv. 35—41; v. 22—43. Luke vill. 22—25, 41—56.
The real evidence, however, even in these selected portions,
appears adverse to such a view. In Luke viii. 22, the two
clauses are modified, one from Matthew, and the other from
Mark; but the former is not a verbal copy, and the latter is not
a varied translation, but a copy with an added circumstance,
and where a provincial idiom has been removed. The phrase,
‘a squall of wind,”’ is verbally the same as in Mark, and the sea
in St. Matthew is paraphrased by ‘‘ the lake”’ in the third gospel.
The words ‘they were filled and were in jeopardy” are neither
a transcript nor a varied translation from either, but a new and
distinct phrase, less dramatic, and more historical. In v. 24,
the resemblance to each gospel is exactly of the same kind. In
the exclamation at the close, St. Matthew and St. Mark agree
more closely with each other, than either of them with St. Luke.
Similar remarks will apply, with equal truth, to the narrative of
the cure ; and thus the very passages on which the conjecture
has been founded, seem really enough to disprove it. In other
passages its entire inability to account for the actual resemblances
and variations, would be still more apparent.
We may now return to the main question, the comparative
priority of St. Luke and St. Matthew. In the present chapter
the general arguments will be considered, several of which have
been claimed, with equal confidence, in favour of the two opposite
views, and will therefore call for double caution in the enquiry.
I. The words of the preface have been urged by Macknight
and others, as a strong reason for the opinion, that St. Luke’s
gospel was the first written. The many writings alluded to can-
not denote the gospels of Matthew and Mark ; and still, when
St. Luke was referring to histories of our Lord, previously
written, he could not pass over these in silence, if he were aware
of their existence. Still less could he mix them with apocry-
phal and defective accounts in one common description, to their
serious disparagement. Hence his gospel must have been com-
54 ON THE RELATIVE ORDER
posed earlier than theirs, or at least before he was aware of their
existence.
The reply of Dr. Townson is as follows. The two other
gospels are referred to in the second clause of the preface, for
the word there used applies equally to written and oral tradition.
Also St. Luke had no motive for naming them more fully, since
he could neither mean to use them as vouchers for his facts, nor
to justify his work by their example, and he could not make an
encomium on their gospels, without starting inquiries into the
motives of his own, quite inconsistent, in the reply they would
need, with the brevity and modesty of his introduction. Hug
has carried this view still further, and offers the following para-
phrase. ‘Many have composed histories of the actions of our
Lord, such as those which the eye-witnesses and ministers of
the doctrine have published. It will therefore be permitted me
also to enumerate the events for thee, according to their succes-
sion, that thou mayest be acquainted with the truth and cer-
tainty of the different relations delivered to thee ; especially as
I have carefully followed the events on their theatre, when they
began to be developed.”
The contrast of these explications proves the need of caution
in all reasonings from the words of the preface. The following
remarks, however, seem to make it probable that St. Luke here
implies his actual acquaintance with the two other gospels.
First, the clause respecting the tradition of eye-witnesses re-
fers in some way to the many compilations, and is not linked
directly with St. Luke’s own work, which is’ first mentioned in
the clause that follows. Three meanings are possible; that the
confident belief of Christiaas was guided by those reports of the
eye-witnesses ; that the many narratives were based on the oral
tradition of the apostles ; or lastly, that their plan was borrowed ¢
from actual narratives, given by eye-witnesses and ministers of
the word.
The first view, which Olshausen adopts, is hardly consistent
with the structure of the original words. The order should then
OF ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 55
have been (twy reaynartwr, tov ev nav, Kabws Tapedocay K.T. A,
nemangopoonwevov.) As they now stand, the second clause must
refer to the leading fact or idea of the first, and not belong to
the dependent participle at its close. It is the composition of
the narratives, and not the confident belief of Christians, of
which the rule and manner are defined.
The two other constructions, in point of grammar, are equally
admissible. The choice will depend either on historical pro-
bability, or on the purpose of the apology.
If oral traditions alone are meant, the sequence will be as
follows. First, many apocryphal and imperfect gospels, now lost
and forgotten. Secondly, the narrative of one who was neither
an eye-witness nor an early minister of the word, but learned the
facts at second hand. Thirdly, the gospel of St. Matthew, an
eye-witness, and one of the Twelve. We must then suppose that
the need of a written account had become so manifest as to lead
to the composition of many works, before any of the eye-
witnesses thought fit to place the facts on record, and thereby
to secure the Church against the spread of falsehoods ; and that
even after they appeared, a writer of secondary and more remote
authority was left to supply the want, while all the apostles and
early companions of the Lord maintained a dead silence with re-
gard to any written testimony. Such an opinion is hard to re-
concile with the wisdom of inspired teachers, or with the natural
instincts of the human heart. The eye-witnesses of such works
could not but speak, and when once there was need and occasion
for written teaching, surely they could not but write, of those
great things which they had seen and heard.
On the other view we have this order. First, the gospel of
St. Matthew, by one of the Twelve, having the double authority
of an eye-witness and an inspired ruler of the church. Next,
that of St. Mark, under the guidance of another apostle, the
foremost of the Twelve, in which further and more graphic de-
tails were supplied with like authority. Thirdly, many narratives
of a similar kind, composed with reference to the wants of new
56 ON THE RELATIVE ORDER
circles of converts, as the gospel spread more widely, and in
which other traditional facts were imperfectly set forth, though
designed to meet a real want of the Church of Christ. Fourthly,
the gospel of St. Luke, which fulfilled the idea of a gospel,
framed by accurate investigation, in contrast to the immediate
testimony of eye-witnesses, and thus answered the objects the
others failed to satisfy, while it became an important supplement
to the two gospels that had already appeared.
On this view the apology is perhaps even more suitable than
on the other. If no authentic gospel had yet been published,
the apostles would seem, either purposely to have deferred the
work, and then to attempt it would be to impugn their wisdom
or zeal; or else to have resigned it to others, and no reference to
imperfect narratives would then be required, to justify a well
qualified writer in supplying a clear want of the Church of
Christ. But if two gospels, or even one only, was already extant,
some explanation would seem required of the motives for writing
another. In this case, the composition of many other narratives
on their model would prove the desire for still fuller information,
while the fact that these were inaccurate would justify St. Luke
in publishing another account, supplementary to the two earlier
gospels, and more authentic and complete than the narratives to
which he alludes.
Again, the term eye-witness, which occurs here only, is very
appropriate if referred to St. Matthew, one of the twelve apostles.
The other term, izyperys, is also rare in the New Testament, and
is applied by St. Luke elsewhere to two Christian teachers only,
the apostle Paul, and John Mark, the traditional writer of the
second gospel. Hence a tacit reference to each gospel is no im-
probable interpretation. The eye-witnesses were all ministers of
the word; but all the ministers of the word were not eye-
witnesses. Without distinguishing the terms too widely, or
excluding a reference to the oral teaching of the apostles and
their companions, it seems not unlikely that the double phrase
OF ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 57
may contain an implied allusion to the authors of the two first
canonical gospels.
But how could it be a motive for the composition, in this case,
that Theophilus might know the certainty of the things wherein
he had been instructed? With regard to Theophilus himself, it
is probable that his instruction hitherto had been by oral teaching
only. He needed, then, more distinct information in a written
form ; and the evangelist was able to furnish it in the very shape
and manner which the case required. With reference to the
Church at large, the additional narratives were a proof that the
two authentic gospels had not exhausted the fund of truth, ac-
tually current among Christians, and which it was desirable to
embody in a permanent form. Accurate knowledge, careful in-
vestigation, and a Divine call to the task, were alone needed to
justify a further narrative, and of all these St. Luke was con-
sciously in possession. The very same reasons which have made
the work a lasting benefit to the Church, would clearly warrant
its composition, even although the writer were fully aware that
two other gospels were already written.
II. The account of the ascension in St. Luke’s gospel, has
also been thought a sign of its earlier date. How could St.
Matthew, if he wrote first, have neglected to mention a fact of
such importance? Its omission by St. Matthew, and by St.
Mark in direct narrative, is held to prove that it had been re-
corded before. Dr. Townson, on the contrary, numbers this
omission among the signs that St. Matthew wrote very early.
“If he had not written while the ascension was fresh in
memory, and the spectators of it continued together at Jerusalem,
he could scarce have failed to notice it.”
The real question seems to be whether an eye-witness in
the midst of the scenes, or a later inquirer, would be likely to
give the history in the most complete and continuous form. A
written gospel, by any of the apostles, would be a selection out
of more abundant materials, and the nature of the choice would
be partly determined by the position of the writer, and the circle
D5
58 ON THE RELATIVE ORDER
of readers to whom it was first of all addressed. Now the
last chapter in Matthew has for its central fact the appearance
in Galilee, while the facts in St. Luke, after the resurrection, are
all confined to the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. The former
character suits a gospel written for the Church in Judea, while
the events of our Lord’s life in and near Jerusalem were fresh in
their minds. The latter character would suit a later gospel, for
converts at a distance from Palestine. The view of Dr. Townson
seems therefore to be a fair inference from the probable motives,
that would guide an earlier or a later evangelist in the composi:
tion of his narrative. The ascension is plainly implied, also, in
the gospels where it is not fully expressed, so that the detailed
account of it in St. Luke’s gosp el is no proof at all of its earlier
composition.
III. The gospel of St. Luke, compared with that of St.
Matthew, gives a still fuller account of our Lord’s infancy. This
also has been thought a sign of its priority. Especially it has
been urged that St. Matthew, had he written earlier, would have
given the true genealogy, and not merely that of Joseph, our
Lord’s supposed father. His accurate mention of dates and in-
tervals in these chapters is alleged in proof of the same opinion.
In the other gospels, it is said, there is scarcely a single date to
fix the time of any event, a circumstance very improbable, if
they were composed earlier.
An opposite conclusion, however, seems more reasonable. A
Gospel, written early for Jewish Christians, would be likely to
select those facts in our Lord’s infancy, which proved the fulfil-
ment of the Jewish prophecies, his descent from David, and his
birth at Bethlehem. Just so it is in St. Matthew’s gospel, which
begins with the legal genealogy from Abraham and David, and
then confirms the birth at Bethlehem by a fact, public in its
nature, which must have been notorious at Jerusalem. St.
Luke, on the contrary, gives details in exact and careful sueces-
sion ; the very way in which an investigator, who was not an
eye-witness, and who wrote for converts at a distance both in
OF ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 59
time and place, might be expected to compose. His mention of
dates and intervals is certainly an argument rather for the later
than the earlier origin of the work.
A similar remark applies to the genealogies. Assuming for
the present that the one in St. Luke is really that of Mary, this
would rather evince its later origin. The main purpose of the
genealogies must have been practical, to prove that Jesus was
the promised Son of David. With unbelievers this would be
effected only by his legal genealogy, through Joseph, his reputed
father, and with believers, by his actual descent, through Mary
his real mother. Hence the former would be suitable im an
earlier gospel, designed for the conversion of the Jews, but the
latter in a subsequent narrative, intended for the instruction of
believing converts among the Gentiles.
IV. The accounts of the Resurrection are another sign of
St. Matthew’s priority. In his gospel the whole converges
plainly on that appearance in Galilee, which our Lord had
promised before he suffered,—a promise twice repeated after
his resurrection, Matt. xxvi. 32; xxviii. 7, 10. It was evi-
dently the same, which St. Paul mentions, to more than five
hundred brethren at once, 1 Cor. xv. 6, and took place on a
particular mountain, by express and repeated appointment.
Matt. xxviii. 16. Hence St. Matthew’s gospel has precisely the
features we should expect in the one first written. It singles
out the most prominent appearance of our Lord, which had
the most numerous witnesses. The motive becomes clearer
by a comparison with St. Mark. For he also has recorded
the double promise of the appearance in Galilee ; but since it
was already notorious, and reported by St. Matthew, he replaces
it with a brief account of the earliest appearances, in their order
of occurrence. The second and third of these are afterwards
unfolded by St. Luke, and the first of them by the beloved St.
John in the fourth gospel. There is thus a tolerably clear indi-
cation of the true order of the gospels, in this one comparison
alone.
60 ON THE RELATIVE ORDER OF ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL.
V. St. Matthew, again, compared with St. Luke, is more
copious in doctrinal discourses, while in St. Luke the incidents
are more numerous. It is evident that the longer discourses
would be likely to be soonest forgotten in the keeping of mere
tradition, while miracles and striking incidents would survive
in the memory of our Lord’s disciples, or of those who heard
them from the lips of the apostles. There is thus a strong
presumption from this feature of St. Matthew’s gospel, exem-
plified in the Sermon on the Mount, the Apostolic Commission,
the Parables, the Discourse on Humility, the Woes on the Pha-
risees, and the Discourse on the Mount of Olives, that its
composition was earlier than those of St. Mark and St. Luke.
VI. Another difference between St. Matthew and St. Luke
consists in the comparative development of the earlier part of our
Lord’s public ministry. From the Baptism of John to the Dis-
course at Capernaum, Matt. iii.—xviii. Luke iii—ix. 50, there
are in the former sixteen chapters, and in the latter less than
seven, or 570 and 326 verses respectively. In other words, the
length of this portion, in St. Luke, is only three-fifths of that
which it occupies in the other gospel. It is natural to suppose
that an earlier writer would dwell rather on the former part of our
Lord’s long continued labours, and that another, whose memoir
was, in a certain sense, supplementary, would compress it in the
parts already recorded, and give a fuller development to the later
and omitted portions. And, accordingly, the third gospel, while
its total length is greater even than St. Matthew’s, and nearly
double that of St. Mark, is actually, between these limits, more
brief than the narrative contained in the second gospel.
All these general reasons concur in the same result, that the
gospel of St. Luke did not precede the two others, which are
placed before it in the canon, but really followed them in the
order of its publication.
CHAPTER IV.
ON THE RELATIVE ORDER OF ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL.
THE FIRST YEAR OF THE PUBLIC MINISTRY.
THE way is now prepared for the inductive examination, which
proves that St. Luke wrote after the date of the two other
gospels, and made use of them in the composition of his own.
Before instituting this inquiry, in detail, it is needful to preface
with a few general observations.
The principle, then, that each later Evangelist knew the
writings of his predecessors, will by no means imply, as some
have hastily assumed, that he would become a mere copyist,
even in the parts common to both writers. Each of them was
an original authority, possessed of independent information, and
might either use it independently, or combine it with the previous
accounts, according to the plan and object of his own work.
We may assume, as certain, that each later gospel would have a
double purpose ; to furnish a new testimony of facts already on
record, or to communicate new facts and discourses, and place
those in a new light, which had been previously given. The
former object would require that many particulars should be the
same; and the latter, that many should be different. The
proportion of these might depend on several causes, but the
simplest of them would be, the amount of testimony by which
the events were confirmed already. Thus, in a second gospel,
direct confirmation of the first would be the most prominent
62 ON THE RELATIVE ORDER
object. In a third gospel, while it would still be an important
end to confirm the two others, the design of completing their
information by new incidents and discourses would naturally be
much more prominent than before. In a fourth gospel, the
second object would be likely to supersede the first almost
entirely, and its chief character be the record of new particulars,
unnoticed by the previous writers. «
Such is precisely the relation of the four gospels to each other,
as they now stand. The gospel of St. Mark contains very few
facts, additional to St. Matthew, and is for the most part like a
second witness of the same events. The discourses are abridged
or omitted, while the narratives are confirmed with a greater
fulness of connexion and detail. The gospel of St. Luke fulfils
the same purpose with regard to both the others. It includes a
large proportion of the facts in St. Matthew, and nearly all those
which are peculiar to the second gospel. But then it also con-
tains a large portion of distinct and original matter, amounting
to nearly one half of the whole gospel. The principle is carried
still further in the fourth and last gospel of St. John. Except
the events of Passion Week, and the feeding of the five thousand,
the whole is new and original history. This entire harmony
between the natural design of four successive narratives, and the
broad features of their mutual relation, as the gospels now stand,
is a strong presumption that such was their real purpose, and
that they are now placed in their true order of succession.
The nature of the agreement between a later and an earlier
gospel, it follows from the same principle, will be most various,
and baffle any technical scheme of explanation. In some cases,
the second writer might content himself with adopting the state-
ment of the first, either by transcription, or the indirect influence
of an account which was already familiar. The relation, here,
would resemble that of two copies from the same document.
Sometimes he may record the same event more freely in his own
language, and there will thus be an imperfect resemblance to two
translations from the same original. Sometimes he may combine
OF ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 63
two previous accounts, with selection and omission, to suit his
own style of thought, or point of view ; and here there will be an
appearance of compilation, but perplexed by anomalies, which
no artificial or mechanical hypothesis can ever explain. At
other times, fresh incidents will be introduced along with the
main fact, and thus imply the distinct authority of the new
record. Last of all, entirely new incidents will be given; and,
perhaps, for the sake of brevity, others omitted, and especially
those which resemble them most nearly. - Hence a series of half
resemblances between similar events, differently placed, which
will tempt the critic to a process of arbitrary dislocations, and
complicate the whole problem of a gospel harmony.
All these characters actually appear in the four gospels.
There are passages so much alike, that one seems a verbal copy
of the other. There are resemblances verbally defective, but
historically complete, which might suggest the theory of a double
translation from the same document. There are compound
resemblances, where the details of two gospels seem woven into
one. There are imperfect correspondences, with omission, inser-
tion, and transposition of incidents. Finally, there are duplicate
events, occurring at widely different places in the narratives, but
which wear a great resemblance to each other. A common
Greek document would explain tolerably a few cases, a Syriac
original, more imperfectly, several others, and there is so much
diversity as might seem to justify the idea that the narratives
were quite independent. But none of these views will explain
the facts, as a whole. The agreements are so numerous and
definite in the events, their arrangement, and even the phraseo-
logy, as to disprove their independence, and the verbal agree-
ments are too partial and limited, for any common document or
documents to account for the remaining diversity. Only the
view above will explain the opposite features of resemblance and
variety, which actually appear.
Let us now pursue the comparison, more in detail, through
successive periods of our Lord’s public ministry.
64 ON THE RELATIVE ORDER
I. The Baptism of John (Matt. ii. Mark i.1—J1. Luke ii.
1—22) is the first subject for comparison. St. Mark has here
compressed the account into one half the length of the two other
gospels. A simple reason may be assigned, if we suppose him
to have written under the direction of St. Peter, or with infor-
mation derived from him. In this case he would naturally
hasten to the point of time, where this testimony became
available. Accordingly, the call of Simon meets us as early as
the 16th verse of this gospel, and the events where he was
present, and not all the Twelve, are given in it with peculiar
fulness of description.
The features of St. Luke are those which mark the regular
historian, in contrast with an eye-witness of the events. Thus
the date of John’s ministry is fixed by various references, so as
to mark the time for general readers. His imprisonment by
Herod is mentioned, before the writer passes on to the baptism
of our Lord, and his public ministry. This is not the instinctive
style of an eye-witness, but the reflective manner of a careful
historian. He also specifies the age of our Lord at his baptism,
and traces up his genealogy to Adam, so as to indicate his relation
to the whole race of mankind, and not to the Jews alone.
The account of St. Matthew, on the contrary, seems intended
for those who were familiar with the name of the Baptist,
while the impression of his ministry still survived in great
strength. ‘‘In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in
the wilderness of Judea.” The substance of his message is first
given, and then its prophetic warrant, an order more vivid and
graphic, but less historical, than that of St. Mark. Their
resemblance, however, is very close, and implies that one of them
knew the work of the other.
MartrHew ii. Marx i.
1. In those days came John the 4, John did baptize in the wilder-
Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of | ness and preach the baptism of re-
Judea, and saying, pentance for the remission of sins.
2. Repent ye, for the kingdom of
heayen is at hand.
OF ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 65
3. For this is he that was spoken of
by the prophet Esaias,
The voice of one crying in the wil-
derness, prepare ye the way of the
Lord, make his paths straight.
4, And the same John had his cloth-
ing of camel’s hair, and a leathern
girdle about his loins; and his meat
was locusts and wild honey.
11. I indeed baptize you with water
unto repentance, but he that cometh
after me is mightier than I, whose
shoes I am not worthy to bear.
He shall baptize you with the Holy
Ghost and with fire.
13. Then cometh Jesus from Galilee
to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of
him.
16. And Jesus, when he was bap-
tized, went up straightway from the
water :
And lo, the heavens were opened to
him, and he saw the Spirit of God des-
cending like a dove, and lighting upon
him :
And lo, a voice from heaven, saying,
This is my beloved Son,in whom I am
well pleased.
2. As it is written in Esaias the
prophet :
3 The voice of one crying in the
wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the
Lord, make his paths straight.
6. And John was clothed with
camel’s hair, and a leathern girdle
about his loins: and he did eat locusts
and wild honey.
And preached, saying, I indeed bap-
tize you with water. There cometh
one mightier than I after me, the
latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy
to stoop down and unloose.
But he shall baptize you with the
Holy Ghost.
9. And it came to passin those days,
that Jesus came from Nazareth of
Galilee, and was baptized of John in
Jordan.
And straightway coming up from the
water,
he saw the heavens parted and the
Spirit, like a dove, descending upon
him.
And a voice came from heaven,
Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I
am well pleased.
The agreement here bespeaks a common origin, or a direct
derivation of one account from the other, while an examination
of the transpositions and minute changes will make it clear that
St. Mark is the later Evangelist.
And first, since the gospel of St. Mark begins with John’s
ministry, the prophetic warrant of that ministry takes precedence
of all the details, and the two prophecies, in Matt. ii. 3, xi; 10;
are both placed in the forefront of the narrative. If the reading
of Scholz and Griesbach be correct, the mention of Esaias is
retained, although another prophecy from Malachi is inserted
before the original quotation.
66 ON THE RELATIVE ORDER
The next change is a consequence of the first. The title of
the Baptist is changed into a direct assertion of the fact, which
fulfilled the prophecy— John did baptize in the wilderness.’ The
description of John, and the effects of his ministry are transposed,
which renders the order less dramatic and more historical. The
warning to the Pharisees and Sadducees is omitted, but the
testimony to the great dignity of Christ is retained, and a change
in the order of the clauses results from that omission. Instead
of the general expression, ‘‘from Galilee,” which is explained
in Matthew by the former chapter, St. Mark, who has not the
previous history, adds the specific statement, ‘‘ from Nazareth of
Galilee,” and records only the baptism itself, omitting the con-
versation between the Baptist and Jesus. Lastly, the account
of the voice is less dramatic than in the narrative of the first
gospel.
When the third gospel is compared with both the others,
there are many signs that the writer was familiar with the first,
and some indications of a correspondence with the second gospel.
The first passage varies as follows :—
L. “ And he came into all the country about Jordan, (M. L.)
preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
[M. For this is he that was spoken of by M. As it is written
in JZ. As it is written in the book of the words of, Esaias the
prophet] M. M. L. The voice of one crying in the wilderness,
Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight. L.
Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain aud hill shall
be brought low, and the crooked shall be made straight, and the
rough ways made smooth, and all flesh shall see the salvation of
God.”
Here one clause is verbally the same as in St. Mark. In the
next there is a gradation. St. Matthew, writing for Jews, makes
use of the colloquial form of quotation—‘‘ This is he that was
spoken of.” St. Mark, writing for others also, employs a stricter
phrase—“as it is written.” St. Luke, for Gentiles less familiar
with the prophets, gives a fuller description, ‘in the book of the
OF ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 67
words of Esaias the prophet,” and also adds a further quotation,
to shew the opening of a wide message of grace to the Gentiles,
*« And all flesh shall see the salvation of the Lord.”
The next passage is slightly modified from St. Matthew.
M. “ But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees
come to his baptism, he said to them,
L. ‘Then said he to the multitudes that went forth to be
baptized of him ;
M. L. “ O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee
from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for
repentance. And think not, (Z. begin not) to say unto your-
selves, We have Abraham to our father ; for I say unto you that
God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
And now also the axe is laid to the root of the trees: therefore
every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and
cast into the fire.”
There is here an exact coincidence through seven or eight
clauses, which clearly proves that one has used the very words
of the other, either directly or in some common source. But
the latter view is refuted by other facts, since the parts verbally
alike are too few and too unconnected, to have formed a distinct
document. Hence one isa recension of the other. The changes,
though slight, prove that St. Luke’s is the later gospel. The
definite expression, ‘‘many of the Pharisees and Sadducees,”’
is changed to another, more intelligible to Gentile converts,
“the multitudes that went forth to be baptized ;” and, in the
other case, a more exact replaces a more colloquial expression.
There follows next, in St. Luke, a supplement, which proves
that the writer had immediate sources of knowledge, and did not
merely borrow from the others, though he prefers sometimes to
retain their very words. Then. we have a statement of the
views of the people, which gives new clearness and force to the
saying repeated from the former gospels.
L. “ And as the people were in expectation, and all men reasoned
in their hearts concerning John, whether perhaps he himself
were the Christ, John answered them all, saying,
68 ON THE RELATIVE ORDER
M. M. L. “I indeed baptize you with water ; but there cometh
one mightier than I, (M. L.) the latchet of whose shoes I am
not worthy (M. stooping down) to unloose. M. Z. He shall
baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire; whose fan is in
his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and will gather
the wheat into his garner, but will burn up the chaff with
unquenchable fire.”
Here there is an exact coincidence, first with both gospels,
then with Mark in one clause, and Matthew in five others.
An
addition follows in St. Luke only, which makes this agreement
more striking.
preached to the people.”
Our Lord’s baptism stands thus in the three gospels.
Then cometh Jesus
from Galilee to Jordan
unto John, to be baptized
of him.
And Jesus, when he
was baptized went up
straightway from the
water.
And lo, the heavens
were opened unto him,
and he saw the Spirit of
God, descending like a
dove and lighting upon
him.
And lo, a voice from
heaven saying, This ismy
beloved Son, in whom I
am well pleased.
And it came to pass in
those days
Jesus came from Naza-
reth of Galilee, and was
baptized of John in
Jordan.
And coming up straight-
way out of the water,
he saw the heavens
parted and the Spirit,
like a dove, descending
upon him.
And there came a voice
from heaven, Thou art
my beloved Son, in whom
I am well pleased.
“And many other things also, exhorting, he
And it came to pass,
when all the people were
baptized,
Jesus also being bap-
tized, and praying,
That the heaven was
opened, and the Holy
Spirit descended in a
bodily shape, like a dove,
upon him ;
And that a voice came
from heayen, which said,
Thou art my beloved Son,
in thee I am well pleased.
The resemblance of St. Matthew and St. Mark is here very
striking.
Nazareth is mentioned by the latter, because the
previous history of our Lord’s residence is not given, and a
OF ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 69
distinct allusion to it was natural in the first appearance of the
Messiah. The other slight changes, besides the omission of the
dialogue, render the account less dramatic, and more historical,
and thus imply a later composition. The form is still more
historical in St. Luke. The indirect construction removes it
further from the tone and colouring of an eye-witness. The
prayer of Jesus is a fresh incident, and a mark of independent
information. The rest is verbally the same, either with St.
Matthew or St. Mark, except the one change from direct to in-
direct narrative. There is thus a plain presumption that the
writer simply recast the previous accounts of the baptism, to
suit the style of his own history.
II. The History of the Temptation is given in brief by St.
Mark, and more fully by St. Matthew and St. Luke. The chief
difference is in the arrangement of the second and third tempta-
tions. If we were to judge from the connectives alone, St.
Matthew would seem to give the true order. But there are
several reasons for an opposite view. The three kinds of tempta-
tion are the same which appear in the history of the Fall, Gen.
iii. 6, and in the statement of St. John, (1 John ii. 16,) and in
both of these the order is the same as in St. Luke, and the
pride of life occupies the third place. This is also clearly the
most subtle and dangerous temptation, and therefore is likely to
have been the last. The prominence, also, given in St. Matthew
to the kingly office of our Lord, would explain a departure from
the actual order. The connective, ror<, is often used by him for
a sequence not immediate, and the word rad may refer to the
narrative, rather than the action, and signify merely a further
incident to be recorded, without fixing its succession. It seems
then, on the whole, at least not improbable that the third gospel
has restored the true order. The two accounts, in other respects,
are as follows :—
70 ON THE RELATIVE ORDER
Then was Jesus led up by the Spirit
into the wilderness to be tempted by
the devil.
And having fasted forty days and
forty nights, he afterwards hungered.
And when the tempter came to him,
he said, If thou be the Son of God
command that these stones be made
loaves.
But he answered and said, It is
written, man shall not live by bread
alone, but by every word proceeding
out of the mouth of God.
Again, the devil taketh him up into
a very high mountain, and sheweth
him all the kingdoms of the world and
the glory of them,
And saith to him, All these will I
give thee,
if thou wilt fall down and worship
me.
Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee
behind me, Satan,
For it is written, Thou shalt worship
the Lord thy God, and him only shalt
thou serve.
Then the devil taketh him into the
holy city, and setteth him on the pin-
nacle of the temple, and saith unto him,
If thou be the Son of God, cast thy-
self down ;
For itis written, He shall give his
angels charge over thee,
And in their hands they shall bear .
thee up, lest ever thou dash thy foot
against a stone.
Jesus said unto him, It is written
again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord
thy God.
And Jesus, being full of the Holy
Ghost, returned from Jordan, and was
led by the Spirit into the wilderness,
being forty days tempted of the devil.
And in those days he ate nothing ;
and when they were ended, he after-
wards hungered.
And the devil said unto him, If thou
be the Son of God, command this stone,
that it be made a loaf.
And Jesus answered him, saying, It
is written, that man shall not live by
bread alone, but by every word of God.
And the devil, taking him up into a
high mountain, shewed unto him all the
kingdoms of the habitable world in a
moment of time.
And the devil said to him, All this
power will I give thee and the glory of
them; for it is delivered to me, and to
whom I will I give it.
If thou therefore wilt worship be-
fore me all shall be thine.
And Jesus answered and said unto
him, Get thee behind me, Satan,
For it is written, Thou shalt worship
the Lord thy God, and him only shalt
thou serve.
And he brought him to Jerusalem,
and set him on the pinnacle of the
temple, and said unto him,
If thou be the Son of God, cast thy-.
self down from hence;
For it is written, He shall give his
angels charge over thee,
And in their hands they shall bear
thee up, lest ever thou dash thy foot
against a stone.
And Jesus answering, said to him,
It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the
Lord thy God.
——<—.
OF ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 71
Then the devil leaveth him, and lo, And the devil, having ended every
angels come and minister to him. temptation, departed from him for a
season.
Here the brief expression, ‘“‘ having fasted forty days,” &c.
is replaced by a paraphrase in St. Luke. The present tense is
exchanged throughout for the past, which suits a more distant
narrator. The phrase, Matt. iv. 4, which might be perverted
by Gentile readers, and lower their conception of the true God
to a resemblance of false divinities, is altered to a simpler
expression. Instead of xécy0s, we find the more classical term,
or oixovyevy, and the temptation is exhibited more fully, so that
its apparent grossness is removed, and the tempter is seen to
have asked only for a subordinate homage, as a permitted vice-
gerent of the Almighty. Lastly, instead of “the holy city,” a
title natural in the lips of a Jew, writing for Jews at an earlier
date, we have the simple name, Jerusalem. The closing sen-
tence, in St. Luke, is also less dramatic, and has the tone of
connected history, since it plainly refers to the time of the agony
and the crucifixion. With these exceptions the agreement is so
full and close, as almost to require the admission that one writer
knew the account of the other. The variations cannot be ex-
plained, either by a common Greek nor Hebrew document, but
are accounted for simply by the point of view in each writer. St.
Matthew is more dramatic and idiomatic ; while the third gospel
is more classical in style, and more historical in its tone.
The brief account in St. Mark, by its last clause, shews its
closer relation to the account in St. Matthew.
III. The opening of the ministry in Galilee is thus stated in
the three gospels :—
Matt. iv. 12—17. “Now when Jesus heard that John was
given up, he departed into Galilee. And leaving Nazareth, he
came and dwelt by Capernaum, by the sea coast, &e. &c. From
that time Jesus began to preach and to say, Repent, for the
kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
Mark i. 14, 15. Now when John was given up, Jesus came
#/ Pe. ON THE RELATIVE ORDER
into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and
saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand.
Repent, and believe the gospel.”
Luke iv. 14—31. “* And Jesus returned in the power of the
Spirit into Galilee, and there went out a fame of him through
all the region round about ; and he taught in their synagogues,
being glorified by all. And he came to Nazareth, where he had
been brought up, &c. &. And he came down to Capernaum,
a city of Galilee, and taught them on the Sabbath-days.”
Here, in the two former gospels, the brief allusion to St.
John’s imprisonment, which has not been mentioned, implies
that they wrote for a class of readers to whom it was familiarly
known. St. Luke, on the contrary, has briefly mentioned it
before, in its natural place, at the close of John’s public ministry.
We have here, then, a sign of the early date of the two first
gospels, or of their adaptation to readers in Palestine.
The next difference in St. Mark, the omission of Nazareth, is
very soon explained. He had not mentioned the long residence
of Jesus in that city, and it was therefore needless to specify
his removal from it. But his use of the word, gospel, absolutely,
for the doctrine of Christ, of which there is no example in St.
Matthew, is a clear sign that he wrote at a later period.
The quotation from Isaiah, in the first gospel, is another
striking feature. Thirteen instances are found in St. Matthew,
where the writer himself points out the fulfilment of prophecy,
two only in St. Mark, and one solitary instance in St. Luke.
This is a proof that St. Matthew wrote more directly for
Jewish readers, and a presumption that his gospel was early,
while Jewish converts were the main body of the Church of
Christ.
St. Luke, again, evidently supplies an hiatus in the first gospel.
We were there told that Jesus left Nazareth, but no reason for
the removal, and no account of its circumstances, was given.
The third gospel sets these before us, and shews us why he
forsook the home of his early years, and chose another centre
OF ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 73
for his public ministry. The supplementary character is here
very apparent.
The two descriptions of Capernaum are equally instructive, as
to the special purpose of each gospel. The phrase ‘‘ Capernaum,
which is by the sea,’’ could be appropriate only in one whose
home was near the lake of Tiberias, when writing for the dwellers
in Palestine. On the contrary, ‘“‘Capernaum, a city of Galilee,”
is just as clear a token that the writer was addressing a circle of
readers out of Palestine, and little acquainted with the minuter
features of its geography.
IV. The Call of the Four Disciples, compared with the
Miraculous Draught, Luke v. 1—11, is the next subject of com-
parison, and has occasioned a great division of judgment. Most
recent critics, as Neander, Olshausen, Wieseler and Robinson,
affirm the event to. be the same, but others, as Mr. Greswell,
believe them successive and distinct. The decision of this point
has an important bearing on the mutual relation of the three
gospels, and especially on that of St. Luke to the two others.
The features of contrast are thus stated by Mr. Greswell. In
one case, Jesus was walking by the shore; in the other, he was
standing by the lake, and purposing to teach the people. In
one, he never quitted the land; in the other, he put out to sea.
In one, the ships were seen on the sea, in the other, drawn up
on the shore ; in one, apart, in the other, close together. In
one case, Simon and Andrew were first seen in one ship, and
then James and John in theirs; in the other, both ships were
empty, and the fishers had left them. In one, Andrew and
Simon were letting down their net, and James and John preparing
to do the same; in the other, all were washing their nets toge-
ther. In one, Simon and Andrew were first called by themselves,
then, after an interval, the others ; in the second account, all were
seen and called together. In one, the call was from the land, in
the other, from the midst of the sea, and the words used were
quite distinct. In one, they forsook only their nets and ship, in
the other, they abandoned the large capture of fishes also. In
E
74 ON THE RELATIVE ORDER
one case, they were invited to follow Jesus, in the other, they
did so, under the impression of the miracle, of their own
accord.
To remove these contradictions, several suppositions have been
made ; that Jesus was first walking by the lake, and then, in
consequence of the throng, entered the ship of Simon; that the
miraculous draught followed, and afterwards the call took place,
while Simon and Andrew were washing their nets after the
draught, and James and John were repairing that which was
broken. But besides the wide departure from the natural
meaning of St. Matthew’s words, the difficulties that remain
appear insuperable. It is clear from St. Luke that the words of
Jesus to Simon were spoken in the ship, while the impression of
,the miracle was deepest, and the four disciples were present
together. In the other account, Jesus walks some distance along
the shore, after the call of Simon and Andrew, before he speaks
to the sons of Zebedee. We have thus to assume that he left
the ship, after the miracle, and Simon and Andrew stayed in it,
washing one of their nets; that James and John withdrew from
their partners to some distance, taking Simon’s net which was
broken, and set about repairing it ; and that last of all, our Lord
returned after a short absence, and called first Simon and
Andrew, and then James and John, from their unseasonable
employment. The significance and beauty of each narrative is
thus completely destroyed. The deep impression of the miracle
would have disappeared, as soon as it was wrought; while the
power of a simple call from Jesus, and the prompt obedience of
the disciples, is converted into a tardy compliance with his in-
junctions, after an unnatural and unseemly delay. For St. Mark
has told us that hired servants were present in one of the ships,
so that there could be no need, on the lowest view, for Simon
and Andrew to wash one net, and for James and John to repair
the other. We have the further incongruity, that the net and
ship were Simon’s, and one only employed; while the sons of
Zebedee must be supposed to have carried it away with them, in
OF ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 75
order to repair it. The solution, then, is quite incredible and
untrue.
The difficulties, on the other hypothesis, may be easily
removed. ‘The first is drawn from the fact, that each gospel
records only one such call of the Four Apostles by the lake of
Galilee. But there are many instances, in the gospels, of two
similar events, where the same Evangelist records one only.
This Miraculous Draught is itself a case in point, since another
is reported in the fourth gospel, which greatly resembled it, and
still is quite distinct in time, being after the resurrection, and in
many other circumstances. St. John, also, records another call
of these same Apostles, earlier than the one by the sea of
Galilee.
The nearness of the two events in time, if not the same, has
been further held a proof of their identity. The transposition,
in St. Luke, would be only through twelve verses. The real
question, however, is of the historical interval, and not of the
number of verses in which intervening events are described.
According to all the three gospels, a circuit of Galilee came
between them, besides the first public opening of the ministry at
Capernaum. Hence, on the shortest view of its length, the
distance between them would be two or three months. But
since only the cure of the leper and the paralytic, the call of
Levi, and the feast in his house, are recorded by St. Mark and
St. Luke before the second Passover, it is clearly quite possible,
from these dates alone, that the interval might be six or seven
months, and quite enough to render the second call natural and
consistent.
It is further objected that the Apostles, after the first call,
would never return so soon to their usual occupation. But the
statement in the fourth gospel removes this objection also. That
call, we there see, was not the first beginning of their disciple-
ship, and after attending Jesus some time, they had returned to
their usual occupation. Even after the resurrection, they are
found once again, while waiting for the appearance of their
E 2
76 ON THE RELATIVE ORDER
Lord, still employing themselves as fishermen. Having, then,
accompanied our Lord throughout his first circuit of Galilee,
they might naturally feel at liberty to do the same, on his return
to Capernaum, their own home, until he summoned them for
another journey. And since their first call was without a miracle,
they might understand very imperfectly the purpose of the
invitation. After the miraculous draught they would begin to
see its full import, and attach themselves permanently to their
Lord through the rest of His ministry.
There are other indications, in the two accounts, that they
refer to distinct events. It has been shewn how carefully St.
Mark has restored the true order, when St. Matthew had de-
parted from it, and hence we may infer that the call, in those
gospels, is in its true place. But the miraculous draught was
occasioned by the crowds who pressed on our Lord. This might
naturally occur at the close of a first circuit of Galilee, but is
hardly probable, before his. public teaching at Capernaum had
begun. The cure of Simon’s wife’s mother has been mentioned
by St. Luke before, and hence he cannot intend the narrative to
be that of his first introduction to Jesus, which, as we know also
from St. John, was much earlier. Indeed the name, emerata,
Master, is a clear sign that he was already a disciple. St. Luke
adheres so regularly, in this part, to the order of St. Mark, that
there is no reason why he should here forsake it, if he purposed to
describe the same event. Jt might just as easily have been given
in the right order, at iv. 31. The call, again, seems to have
been in an evening, when the fishing was just begun, while the
other event was plainly in the morning, after the night’s toil was
over. The words “casting a net into the sea, for they were
fishers,” cannot without violence be expounded “ washing their
nets, because they were abandoning their occupation for ever.”
The words of our Lord, after the miracle, seem also to imply
that it was later in time than the call in St. Matthew. “ Follow
me, and I will make you to become fishers of men,’ was simply
a promise to fit and prepare them for a higher office. But the
OF ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. oh)
words ‘‘ Fear not, from this time thou shalt be capturing men,”
is a further promise, of success in a work for which He had
already prepared them. The contrast is just the same as be-
tween the act of casting a net, uncertain of the result, and the
spectacle of a large draught of fishes, actually secured.
The distinctness of the two events being established, important
inferences will follow. St. Matthew and St. Mark, who relate
the original call, must have been earlier than St. Luke, who
passes it by, to record a later event of a similar nature ; just as
the fourth gospel, which was plainly later still, passes by the
miraculous draught here mentioned, and recounts another, which
took place after the resurrection. Next, we have here a sign
that the writer of the third gospel had access to direct and
original sources of information. No common document can here
help in the least to explain the relation of the three gospels.
Further, we have a proof that the Evangelist used a principle of
wise selection, and purposely avoided introducing too many
events, closely resembling each other, even when aware of their
actual occurrence. These maxims are fully confirmed by other
examples, that will appear later in the narrative.
V. The dispossession in Capernaum is not given by St.
Matthew, but is found in both St. Mark and St. Luke. Mark
i. 21—28. Luke iv. 31—37.
Marx i. 21—28.
And they enter into Capernaum, and
LuKE iy. 3]—327.
And he went down to Capernaum,
straightway on the Sabbath he entered
into the synagogue and taught.
And they were astonished at his doc-
trine ; for he was teaching them as one
having authority, and not as the
scribes.
And there was in their synagogue a
man with an unclean spirit, and he
cried out, saying,
Let alone ; what have we to do with
thee, Jesus of Nazareth ? art thou come
acity of Galilee, and was teaching them
on the Sabbath-days.
And they were astonished at his
doctrine ; for his word was with power.
And in the synagogue there was a
man having a spirit of an unclean de-
mon, and he cried out with a loud
voice; saying,
Let alone; what have we to do with
thee, Jesus of Nazareth ? art thou come
78 ON THE RELATIVE ORDER
to destroy us? I know thee, who thou
art, the Holy One of God!
And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold
thy peace, and come out of him.
And the unclean spirit having torn
him, and having cried with a loud voice,
came out of him.
And they were all amazed, so as to
question among themselves, saying ;
What is this ? what new doctrine is
this? that with authority he command-
eth even the unclean spirits, and they
obey him.
And his fame went forth immediately
into all the neighbouring districts of
to destroy us? I know thee, who thou
art, the Holy One of God! |
And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold
thy peace, and come out of him.
And the devil, having thrown him in
the midst, came out of him, and hurt
him not.
And there was amazement upon them
all, and they spoke together among
themselves, saying ;
What a word is this! that with
authority and power he commandeth
the unclean spirits, and they go out.
And arumour concerning him went
forth into every place of the neigh-
Galilee. | phouring country.
Here the resemblance is so close as almost to prove that one
writer has adopted the narrative of the other, with a few altera-
tions of style. And there are several indications that St. Luke
has revised St. Mark’s narrative, and not the reverse. Its intro-
duction, in the second gospel, is simply explained by the reasons
already given. When the cure of Simon’s mother-in-law was
restored to its true place, it was natural to supply the intermediate
link, which connected it with the call of the disciples. Again,
the third gospel, if one purpose of it were to confirm the
authority of both its predecessors, would naturally repeat most
of the few incidents which were peculiar to the second. But
the slight variations equally imply the order of two narratives.
Capernaum is described by St. Luke as a city of Galilee, which
shews that he wrote for readers beyond the limits of Palestine.
The verse, Mark i. 22, is verbally the same as Matt. vii. 28, 29,
and when the Sermon was omitted, is transferred to its fittest
place, at the first public exercise of our Lord’s ministry. In
St. Luke the allusion to the Scribes is omitted, as less adapted
to the Gentile readers. The fuller phrase, “a spirit of an
unclean demon,” seems designed to meet the classic usage, in
which demon is used ambiguously, either for a good or an evil
———e
OF ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 79
power. The other variations are also explained by the tendency
in the writer of the third gospel to a style more purely Greek
and classical than that of the two other Evangelists.
VI. The account of the cures, Matt. viti. 14—17; Mark i. 29—
39 ; Luke iv. 38—44 yields another proof of the connexion of the
three gospels, and of their relative order. The record in St. Mat-
thew is very brief. In St. Mark nearly every phrase is retained,
but many other particulars are given. The whole description is
also that of an eye-witness, and the succession of events is clearly
determined, the cure in the house, the cures after sunset, when
the Sabbath was over, and the departure from prayer early in
the morning, followed by a circuit of Galilee. The verbal
resemblance is close—eA8wy exg ty aikiay Merpav—nrbey ess Tqy o1Kvay
Lipwvoc—eide thy mevOepay avtov, wupercovcayv—n TevOepa Tipwvoc
KATEKELTO TUPeccovTa—yWato THs XEtpos AUTNS—KoaTHTaS THS HELpoC
autnc—nyepOy—nyerpev avTny—Kas OenKover aUTOKG—Kas Oinkover AUTOIC
Oyias Se yevomerns—maytas TOVSs KAaKwS EXovTac—oasroviloprevavgs—
eBepamevoe—efeBare. But St. Mark alone mentions that the house
was that of Andrew, as well as Simon, that James and John
were present, that the disciples requested Jesus to effect the
cure, and that after sunset, the whole city were gathered at the
door ; while the subsequent retirement for prayer, and its
immediate result in the first circuit, are entirely additional. St.
Matthew had not stated that the sick were brought to Jesus, as
well as the possessed, but simply implies it by his mention of
both alike as cured. St. Mark has supplied this omission, and
tells us that both were brought, and both were healed.
St. Luke, again, retains the additional facts of St. Mark,
except those which are most dramatic, and least essential to the
history,—the presence of James and John, and the crowding of
the whole city to the door. But the phraseology is greatly
modified, and most of the terms which are common to the former
gospels are here replaced by others. For 7Aéoy, or Away, we have
aonrdey ; for TUGETTOUTH, KATEXOMEVY TUPETM MKEYAA® 5 for osac
yevouerns, Svvovtog Tov yAsou ; for waytas Tove KaKWs EXOVTAS, TAYTEC
80 ON THE RELATIVE ORDER
Goon Erxoy acGevovyTas vorass TOLKLAOLS 5 for e&eBare TVEVKATO, eEnpyeto
daiwovrz. The transition, in some clauses, is evident. Thus St.
Matthew fixes the time of the cures, “‘ when the even was come,”
owias de yevouwerns. St. Mark retains the phrase, and adds
another to explain it more fully, when the sun did set, ére edv 6
jduos. St. Luke retains only the second, and puts it in a more
classical form, dvvevtos de Tov nAsov.
In the added particulars, while St. Luke adheres closely to
the substance and order of St. Mark’s statements, the language is
freely changed, and rendered more classical. The brief expres-
sion, ‘* because they knew him,” is simply expounded, ‘‘ because
they knew him to be the Christ.” The provincial phrase, zg:
evvvxov vay, is also replaced by another of pure Greek usage,
* vevouevns nuepas, or ‘ when the day broke.’ This difference is
very observable in Mark i. 38, and Luke iv. 43, 44, where a
somewhat harsh and idiomatic is changed into an elegant and
classical phraseology.
VII. The Cure of the Leper, Matt. viii. 2—4. Mark 1. 40—
44, Luke vy. 12—14, exhibits signs of the connexion and order
of the three narratives. That of St. Matthew is brief and simple
in the extreme. St. Mark has added graphic details, and noticed
the historical result. The worship, Matt. viii. 2, is expounded
by its visible features, “‘entreating him, and falling on his knees
before him.”’ The charge is described more fully. ‘He strictly
charged him, and forthwith sent him away.” The speediness
of the cure is further noted by the clause ‘as soon as he had
spoken,”’ and the motives of Jesus by a single word, “moved
with compassion.’ he briefer phrase in St. Matthew, “his
leprosy was cleansed,” is given more fully. ‘‘ His leprosy
departed from him, and he was cleansed ;”” while the gift receives
a similar paraphrase. ‘Offer for thy cleansing what Moses ap-
pointed.” The language, in most other respects, is verbally
the same.
St. Luke has retained the chief additions of St. Mark, but
abridged his narrative, and adopted a more historical and classical
OF ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. gl
style. He begins with the general description of the place,
where the cure was wrought. ‘It came to pass, when he was
in a certain city.” The description of the leper becomes ‘a
man full of leprosy.” The worship of St. Matthew, and the
peculiar term of St. Mark, yovuretwy, are replaced by the classic
idiom, “he fell upon his face.’’ The words of the request, and
the reply, are the same in all the writers; but the account of
the parting charge is more gracefully blended with the words
themselves, by passing from the indirect to the direct construc-
tion. The explanatory words, “ for thy cleansing,” are retained.
The final statement, while the same in substance as that of St.
Mark, has clearly been moulded from a more dramatic, into a
more historical form.
K. But he went out, and began to L. But there went abroad the more
publish it much, and to blaze abroad | a fame concerning him; and great
the matter; so that Jesus could no | multitudes came together to hear and
more openly enter into the city, but | tobe healed by him of their infirmities ;
was without in desert places; andthey | but he kept retiring in desert places,
came to him from every quarter. and praying.
VIII. The Healing of the Paralytic is a still more striking
proof of the relation which connects these three gospels. The
short account of St. Matthew is plainly the basis of the two
others, and St. Luke has modified slightly the fuller narrative of
the second gospel.
M. « And behold, they brought to him a paralytic, laid upon a
couch. And Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the paralytic, Son,
be of good cheer, thy sins are forgiven thee. And behold,
certain of the Scribes said within themselves, This man blas-
phemeth. And Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, Why do
ye think evil things in your hearts? For which is easier, to say,
Thy sins are forgiven; or to say, Arise and walk? But that ye
may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive
sins, (then he saith to the paralytic,) Arise, take up thy couch,
and go to thine house. And he arose and went to his house.
E 5
82 ON THE RELATIVE ORDER
But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified
God, who had given such power to men.”
K. And straightway many were
gathered together, so that there was no
room to receive them, even at the door,
and he preached the word to them.
And they came unto him, bringing
a paralytic, carried by four men.
And being not able to draw near to
him for the crowd, they uncovered the
roof, where he was, and having broken
it, let down the couch on which the
paralytic was laid.
But when Jesus saw their faith, he
saith to the paralytic, Son, thy sins are
forgiven thee.
But there were some of the Scribes
sitting there, and reasoning in their
hearts,
Why doth he thus speak blasphe-
mies? who can forgive sins but God
only ?
And immediately Jesus perceiving
in his spirit that they so reasoned
within themselves, said to them,
Why reason ye these things in your
hearts ?
Whether is it easier to say to the
paralytic, Thy sins are forgiven thee ;
or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed
and walk ?
But that ye may know the Son of
man hath power on earth to forgive
sins, (he saith to the paralytic, )
I say unto thee, Arise, and take up
thy couch, and go thy way into thine
house.
ZL. And it came to pass on a certain
day, as he was teaching, that there
were Pharisees and lawyers sitting by,
who were come out of every town of
Galilee and Jordan and Jerusalem,
and the power of the Lord was present
to heal them.
And behold, men brought in a beda
man who was palsied, and they sought
to bring him in, and set him before
him.
And not finding how they could bring
him in for the crowd, climbing upon the
house, they let him down through the
tiles, with his little couch, into the
midst before Jesus.
And when he saw their faith, he
said to him, Man, thy sins are forgiven
thee.
And the Scribes and Pharisees began
to reason, saying,
Who is this that speaketh blasphe-
mies? who can forgive sins, but God
only ?
And Jesus perceiving their reason- .
ings, answered and said to them,
Why reason ye in your hearts ?
Whether is it easier to say, Thy
sins are forgiven thee; or to say,
Arise, and walk ?
But that ye may know the Son of
man hath power on earth to forgive
sins, (he said to the palsied,)
I tell thee, Arise, and take up thy
couch, and go thy way into thy house.
——
OF ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 83
And immediately he arose, took up And immediately he arose before
the bed, and went forth before themall. | them, took up that on which he lay,
and went to his house, glorifying God.
So that they were all amazed, and And amazement seized on all, and
glorified God, saying, We never saw | they glorified God, and were filled with
it in this fashion. fear, saying, We have seen strange
things to-day.
The shorter account of St. Matthew is much amplified in the
two other gospels. On the other hand, these agree in all the main
particulars, but St. Luke omits the minuter details of St. Mark,
and gives the whole a more complete and historical form. The
opening verses are a picture in the one, such as an eye-witness
might supply ; in the other, a comprehensive statement of the
circumstances, most important for the general reader to under-
stand, that he might see the scope of the narrative. The words
of our Lord are almost verbally the same in all the three writers.
The last verses in St. Luke are variations of those in St. Mark,
and differ from them chiefly by a more classical tone. Every
feature is satisfied by the hypothesis, that St. Mark has ampli-
fied St. Matthew, and that St. Luke has adopted in the main St.
Mark’s fuller account, but moulded it into a style and form,
adapted for Greek readers and for general history.
IX. The call of Levi or Matthew is placed, in each gospel,
after the cure of the Paralytic, and throws light on their con-
nexion. It is given by them as follows, where the translation
adheres closely to the form of the original.
M. “ And Jesus, passing by from thence, saw a man sitting at
the place of custom, called Matthew, and saith to him, Follow
me; and he arose and followed him.
** And it came to pass, as he sat at meat in his house, behold,
many publicans and sinners came and sat at meat along with
Jesus and his disciples.”
K. “ And he went forth again by the sea; and all the multitude
came to him, and he taught them.
«‘ And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alpheus, sitting
84 ON THE RELATIVE ORDER
at the place of custom, and saith to him, Follow me; and he
arose and followed him.
** And it came to pass, as he sat at meat in his house, many
publicans and sinners sat at meat along with Jesus and his dis-
ciples ; for there were many, and they followed him.”
L. “ And after these things he went forth, and saw a publican,
by name Levi, sitting at the place of custom, and said to him,
Follow me. And he left all, rose up, and followed him.
‘«‘ And Levi made him a great feast in his own house ; and there
was a great multitude of publicans and others, who were set at
meat with them.”
The phrase in Matthew, “‘ passing by,” is retained by Mark,
who gives a fuller description of the circumstances of the call.
St. Luke omits the phrase of St. Matthew, and several details
of St. Mark, but adopts from him the sequence “‘ after these
things,” the expression “he went forth,’ the name, ‘ Levi,”
instead of Matthew, and the order of its introduction, before and
not after the place where the call occurred. No other arrange-
ment of the narrative will account so well for their slight varia-
tions. Again, the place of the entertainment is clearer in St.
Mark than in St. Matthew, and in St. Luke than in either.
That it was a special feast, given by the publican in gratitude to
our Lord after his call, appears in this gospel only. There is
thus a plain mark of their relative succession, and that the later
Evangelist has rendered the statement of the earlier more per-
spicuous for general readers.
The change of the name, which has led some to a most un-
reasonable theory, that two different persons were meant, admits
of a satisfactory solution. St. Matthew tacitly marks his own
authorship, by the modest addition he makes in the list of the
Apostles—Matthew the publican. The two others drop this
humbling epithet, and place his name before that of Thomas in
their lists. This account of his call, in the first gospel, fixes
the reader’s attention strongly on the nature of the Apostle’s
former occupation. The other Evangelists, by mentioning him
OF ST, LUKE’S GOSPEL. 85
here under another name, leave him to be the sole informant of
the church respecting a fact odious and humiliating to Jewish
ears. This moral delicacy, on their part, is the exact counter-
part of the humility which the Apostle displays in his own
statements ; and it implies that their narratives were designed
in their use by the church at large, to be supplementary to the
first gospel.
The words of St. Mark seem to imply that Levi was the
usual name of the Apostle at the time of his call. Its displace-
ment afterwards, by another, has an exact parallel in ‘‘ Lebbeus,
surnamed Thaddeus,” whom St. Luke calls Judas, and St. John,
‘¢ Judas, not Iscariot,” where no trace of his former name appears.
It seems that St. Mark, or his authority, knew Levi familiarly
under that name before his call, and Peter would certainly know
the name of the tax-gatherer at the place of custom near
Capernaum.
X. The Discourse in the Publican’s house is a striking in-
stance of the verbal correspondence between all the three gospels,
and a disproof of their absolute independence.
MatrueEw.
And when the Phari-
sees saw it, they said to
his disciples,
Why doth your master
eat with publicans and
sinners ?
But when Jesus heard,
he said to them, The
whole have no need of a
physician, but they that
are sick.
But go and learn what
it meaneth, I will have
mercy, and not sacrifice.
For I came, not to call
the righteous, but sinners
to repentance.
Mark.
And when the Scribes
and Pharisees saw him
eat with publicans and
sinners, they said unto
his disciples.
How is it that he eat-
eth and drinketh with
publicans and sinners ?
And when Jesus heard,
he saith to them, The
whole have no need of a
physician, but they that
are sick.
I came, not to call the
righteous, but sinners to
repentance.
LUKE.
But the Scribes and
Pharisees of them mur-
mured against his disci-
ples, saying,
Why do ye eat and
drink with publicans and
sinners ?
And Jesus answering,
said unto them, The
whole have no need of a
physician, but they that
are sick,
I came, not to call the
righteous, but sinners to
repentance,
86
Then came to him the
disciples of John, saying,
Why do we and the pha-
risees fast often, but thy
disciples fast not ?
And Jesus said to
them, Can the children of
the bridechamber mourn,
while the bridegroom is
with them ?
But days will come,
when the _ bridegroom
shall be taken from them,
and then will they fast.
But no man putteth a
piece of unwrought cloth
on an old garment.
For its filling up taketh
from the garment, and a
worse rent is made.
Nor do they put new
wine into old bottles.
But if not, the bottles
burst, and the wine is
spilled, and the bottles
perish.
But they put new wine
into new bottles, and both
are preserved.
And the disciples of
John and of the Phari-
sees used to fast.
And they come to say
to him, Why do the dis-
ciples of John and of the
Pharisees fast, but thy
disciples fast not.
And Jesus said to
them, Can the children
of the bridechamber fast,
while the bridegroom is
with them ?
As long as they have
the bridegroom with
them, they cannot fast.
But days will come,
when the _ bridegroom
shall be taken from them,
and then will they fast
in that day.
And no man seweth a
piece of unwrought cloth
on an old garment.
But if not, its new
filling up taketh from the
old, and a worse rent is
made.
And no one putteth
new wine into old bottles.
But if not, the new
wine bursts the bottles,
and the wine is spilled,
and.the bottles perish.
But new wine must be
put into new bottles.
ON THE RELATIVE ORDER
And they said unto
him, Why do the disci-
ples of John fast often,
and make prayers, and
also of the Pharisees, but
thine eat and drink?
And he said to them,
Can ye make the children
of the bride fast, while
the bridegroom is with
them ?
But days will come,
when the _ bridegroom
shall be taken from them,
and then will they fast
in those days.
And he spake also a
parable unto them.
No man putteth a piece
of a new garment upon
an old.
But if not, both it cuts
up the new, and the piece
from the new agreeth not
with the old.
And no one putteth
new wine into old bottles.
But if not, the new
wine will burst the bot-
tles, and itself will be
spilled, and the bottles
will perish.
But new wine must be
put into new bottles, and
both are preserved.
And no one having
drunk old, at once desires
new, for he saith, The
old is better.
OF ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 87
Amidst the close resemblance, amounting almost to identity, in
the three narratives, the variations illustrate their mutual rela-
tion, and their successive order of composition.
The murmuring, in St. Matthew, is against our Lord himself,
‘Why eateth your Master &c.?”’ In St. Mark, less explicitly,
‘* How it is that he eateth and drinketh &c.?” In St. Luke,
against the disciples, “‘ Why do ye eat and drink, &e.?” It is
probable that the last was the actual form of expression, but this
implied a direct charge against our Lord himself, and St. Matthew
records the inquiry in its spirit, rather than its precise words.
In St. Mark this difference is made less prominent, and in St.
Luke the direct words of the inquiry are restored. Our Lord then
replies to the charge insinuated, rather than expressed, and
justifies his own conduct as the Physician of souls. The quota-
tion in St. Matthew is omitted in the two other gospels, as this
appeal to the prophets is the distinctive feature of a narrative,
designed more expressly for Jewish readers. The rest of the
answer is verbally the same, in all the three writers. The
opening of the next passage exhibits a slight variation. If we
suppose that some one or more of John’s disciples put the ques-
tion to Jesus, in the words given by St. Mark, the difference
may be simply explained. St. Matthew modifies the phrase
from his own knowledge of the parties, ‘‘ Why do we,” &c. St.
Mark gives the words more accurately, and prefixes a short ex-
planation of the circumstances. St. Luke gives the inquiry
from St. Mark, slightly paraphrased, so as to dispense with his
formal explanation. The word, mourn, which St. Matthew has
introduced, as expressing the scope and spirit of our Lord’s re-
mark, is replaced in the other gospels by the exact phrase,
which it is probable that our Lord would employ. The parable
exhibits a close verbal agreement between Matthew and Mark,
and in their slight variations St. Luke adheres sometimes to one,
and sometimes to the other; while in the precise form of the
illustration he varies from both, and adds a further parable in
the closing verse, which, even where he copies so closely the
88 ON THE RELATIVE ORDER OF ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL.
phraseology of his predecessors, reminds us of his distinct and
independent authority.
There are thus, in every part of these chapters, clear signs
that the Evangelists were not independent of each other, but that
St. Mark freely made use of St. Matthew, and St. Luke of both
the previous gospels ; while the evidence is equally full and
strong, that the later did not merely copy from the earlier, but
moulded their narrative with reference to a definite purpose of
their own, enriching it with fresh details, and a great variety
of original information.
CHAPTER V.
ON THE RELATIVE ORDER OF THE GOSPELS.
FROM THE SECOND PASSOVER TO THE TRANSFIGURATION.
Tue second main division of the history, with reference to the
structure of the gospels, is that which commences at the passage
through the Corn-fields, and ends with the Transfiguration, or
more exactly, with the discourse which followed not long after at
Capernaum. The third gospel, after this point, diverges from
the two others through nine chapters, and proceeds alone. The
comparison of the three narratives, in this second portion, leads
to the same results as before ; but its extent will render it needful
to select some particulars only.
I, The passages to be first compared are Matt. xii. 1—21.
Mark i. 23—ii. 19. Luke vi. 1—18, which include the discourse
on the Sabbath, the cure of the withered hand, and the Ordina-
tion of the Apostles.
The opening words, in St. Matthew, are general. ‘ At that
time Jesus went on the sabbath through the corn-fields.” It
seems to imply a time not very distant from the Baptist’s
message, in chap. xi. St. Mark does not report that message,
and states the time more generally. St. Luke places the message
of John not much later, and adds here a peculiar note of time,
‘It came to pass on a second-first sabbath.” The meaning is
probably, the first of the seven numbered Sabbaths, after the
morrow of the sabbath in the Passover feast. St. Luke has
thus added another: of those notes of time, which prove the
90 ON THE RELATIVE ORDER
orderly nature of his gospel, and places the event at the opening
of the second year in our Lord’s ministry. St. Mark has
restored the order of time, which was neglected by St. Matthew,
and St. Luke has added a fuller indication of the real date.
The mention of the shewbread also indicates the order of the
gospels, by a very slight change.
if, And did eat nes kK. And did eat the; JZ. And took the shew-
shewbread, which was | shewbread, which it is | bread and ate, and gave
not lawful for him to eat, | not lawful to eat, but for | also to them that were
neither for them that were | the priests, and gave also | with him, which itis not
with him, but for the | to them that were with | lawful to eat, but only
priests alone. | him. for the priests.
St. Matthew implies, but does not clearly affirm, that the
companions ate the shewbread, as well as David. St. Mark
states it more clearly, but adds it as a supplement at the close.
St. Luke adopts his words, but transfers them to their natural
place in deliberate history, before the legal prohibition is given.
The allusion to the temple, and the quotation from Hosea, are
both peculiar to St. Matthew, and are another sign that his
gospel was intended specially for the Jews. The answer, abridged
by St. Mark, is still further abridged in the third gospel.
In the cure which follows, St. Luke’s account has several
traces of its later composition. He states from the first, what
the others leave to be inferred from the narrative, that it took
place on a sabbath; and instead of the phrase in St. Mark,
‘that they might accuse him,” gives another, more explicit and
classical, ‘‘that they might find an accusation against him.”
The last sentence vi..11, differs from both the other gospels, by
omitting all allusion to the Jewish parties, and by the classical
elegance of the whole phrase.
In the verses that follow, St. Matthew states briefly the retire-
ment of Jesus, the healing of the multitudes, the charge of
silence imposed on them, and the fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecy,
which he quotes in the Jewish form, ‘‘ which was spoken by
Esaias the prophet,” xii. 17—2].. St. Mark omits the pro-
OF THE GOSPELS. 91
phecy, but gives many other details ; that Jesus withdrew with
his disciples, to the sea of Galilee, that the multitudes came
from Jerusalem, Idumea and Perea, and even from Tyre and
Sidon, that he ordered a small vessel to wait on him, that the
diseased pressed on him, to touch him, and that many dispos-
sessions took place at the same time. In St. Matthew the
Mission of the Twelve is anticipated, for a special purpose, and
their ordination is merely alluded to, as already past. St. Mark
has here restored it to its true place, which he fixes by the pre-
vious ascent into the mountain, and the entrance afterwards into
the house—two particulars that imply an exact and full know-
ledge of the event. In Matthew, Simon is called-the first ; but
in Mark’s gospel, as writing under Peter’s own direction, this
honour is merely implied, and not openly expressed, and the
distinction of his surname is made less conspicuous, by mention
of the common title given to the sons of Zebedee. Matthew is
named before Thomas, the title of publican is omitted, and the
name Lebbeus is replaced by Thaddeus, which in Matthew is
simply a surname.
St. Luke, again, having confirmed the order of the two others,
in the passage through the corn-fields and the cure of the withered
hand, omits the third event, which they have in common, and con-
firms St. Mark, where he stood alone, in the ascent into the moun-
tain, and the place and time of the Apostle’s Ordination. Yet
his account is too distinct to have been borrowed from the other.
The surname of Simon the Canaanite is given in its Greek form.
Thaddeus is called Judas, as he is still later by St. John. He
is called the brother of James (for that is certainly the true, as
well as the usual supplement) ; and this implies that James the
Less had become more prominent in the church, when St. Luke
wrote, than at the date of the two other gospels. All these
minute features confirm the true place of his narrative, as_ the
third in order of time.
II. The Sermon in St. Luke, compared with the one in St.
Matthew, is the next subject for inquiry. Most recent critics,
92 ON THE RELATIVE ORDER
as Neander, Olshausen, Wieseler, and Robinson, view them as the
same. Neander remarks further, that if Luke vi. 13, is meant
to recite the choosing of the Apostles, it is clearly not in chrono-
logical order. But if the Evangelist be a credible witness, the
very reverse is perfectly clear. No sentence could be framed so
as to mark an immediate sequence more evidently, and a com-
parison of the whole context with the two other gospels proves
decisively the regularity of this whole chapter of St. Luke.
The following reasons are given for the identity. The choice
of the Twelve was a fit occasion for the discourse in St. Matthew,
and the passages Matt. v. 13, 14—vii. 6, seem to allude to their
appointment. The beginning and end of. the sermon, and the
general course of thought, are the same in both gospels. The
entrance into Capernaum follows in each case, and the cure of
the centurion’s servant. Two opposite explanations are also
proposed of the difference between them. Some have thought
that St. Luke omits the exposition of the Mosaic law, as less
suitable to Gentile converts ; while others suppose that Matthew
has grouped together many sayings, that were really uttered at
other times, and which St. Luke has given elsewhere in their
true place. The expression ‘on the plain” should rather be
translated “on a level spot,” and hence the contrast in the place
where the discourse was spoken, disappears; since that spot
might be on the mountain side. For these reasons the more
general opinion of recent critics has been, that we have two
reports of the same discourse, and that St. Luke has given it in
its true order.
The following reasons may be offered for the opposite view,
which maintains the distinctness of the two sermons. First,
there is nothing improbable in the recurrence of similar discourses
in our Lord’s ministry. On the contrary, a partial repetition,
in many cases, is morally certain. Almost every day, for three
years, was employed in teaching his disciples or the multitudes.
His journeys had a wide circuit, through hundreds of towns or
villages, and the hearers must have been often changing. Three
OF THE GOSPELS. 93
or four circuits of Galilee are expressly named in the gospels.
Many shorter sayings are repeated, even in the same gospel, and
still more, when different gospels are compared together. Hence
the same principle may well apply to longer discourses, if many
of the hearers were different, and a considerable time had inter-
vened.
The sermon in St. Luke is clearly in its true place, and the
question is whether the account in St. Matthew be an anticipa-
tion of the realtime. In this case, St. Matthew will have passed
over more than a year of our Saviour’s ministry, without record-
ing more than one fact, the call of the four disciples, and the
general remark, that Jesus made a circuit through Galilee. This
seems very improbable.
The context, in the first gospel, seems to place the discourse
at the close of a first circuit of Galilee. No time could be more
suitable for a formal and open proclamation of our Lord’s doc-
trine, and of its relation to the law of Moses and the prophets.
On the contrary, such an explanation would come very late, when
the second Passover had been past for some time, and our Lord
had completed more than a whole year of his public ministry.
The arrangement, also, as it now stands, seems to be confirmed
by the two other gospels. After the return to Galilee in all, the
visit to Nazareth in Luke only, and the removal to Capernaum,
we have this succession :—
M. Call of the Four K. Call of the Four
Disciples. Disciples.
Dispossession at Caper- £. Dispossession at
naum. Capernaum.
Simon’s wife’s mother, Simon’s wife’s mother,
&e. &e.
Circuit of Galilee. Circuit of Galilee, and Circuit of Galilee, and
preaching. preaching.
Sermon on the Mount. Miraculous Draught.
The Leper cleansed. The Leper cleansed. The Leper cleansed.
Thus the events before and after will refer the Sermon to a
much earlier place than the one in St. Luke, and which would
94 ON THE RELATIVE ORDER
answer to Mark i. 29; Luke iv. 44, in the two other gospels.
The astonishment of the multitudes at the close, also confirms
this earlier date. We find its counterpart in Mark i. 22; Luke
iv. 32, after the first instance of public teaching at Capernaum.
If the Sermon belonged really to the first circuit of Galilee, the
remark would be far more appropriate than if upwards of a
year had now passed from the opening of our Lord’s ministry.
The resemblance in the occasion of each discourse will not
prove them the same, though each were given on the side of the
mountain, near Capernaum. The natural impression left by the
two accounts is different. In one case, our Lord seems to have
retired, simply to avoid the pressure of the multitude. Having
seated himself in a convenient place, his disciples drew near,
and the rest stood at a greater distance, while he taught them.
In St. Luke the whole night had been spent in the mountain ;
the disciples drew near at day-break, and the Twelve were
chosen. Our Lord then came down to a lower and level place,
and addressed his disciples, standing, in audience of the multi-
tude. The discourse in St. Matthew is three times as long as
in St. Luke; and it is clear that the posture of sitting and
standing, in each case, agrees thoroughly with this difference
between them.
The variations might be explained, in part, by the special
object of each writer, but are scarcely explicable by this reason
alone. They suit well with two successive periods in our Lord’s
ministry. In St. Matthew, the beatitudes are nine in number,
abstract in their form, and stand alone. In St. Luke they are
only four, are concrete and personal, being a direct address to
the disciples, and are followed by as many woes. After the first
year, the opposition of the Jews to our Lord was more overt
and persevering, and hence it was natural that warnings should
be more prominent, along with invitations and blessings. It is
not likely that St. Luke would insert woes that were not then
uttered, or that the woes did not answer to the blessings, or that
St. Matthew has doubled the number of our Lord’s beatitudes,
OF THE GOSPELS. 95
or that nine woes followed nine blessings. If none of these
alternatives be true, the discourses must clearly have been
different. The portion in Matt. v. 17—43, beginning with the
words, ‘‘ Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the
prophets” is suitable to an early period, when Jesus had not
yet stated clearly the relation in which he stood to Moses and
the previous dispensation, and would be less likely to appear in
any later repetition. Again, Luke vi. 27—38, compared with
Matt. v. 42—48—vii. 1, 2, is not at all like a verbally altered
extract of the same discourse, but a selection of two main ideas
out of many, which are then amplified, and combined in a
different order. The tone, in St. Matthew, is one of calmness
and royal majesty ; in St. Luke, of deep earnestness, prophetic
energy, and pressing entreaty. In one we see a lawgiver deliver-
ing public statutes ; in the other, an affectionate teacher, who
redoubles his exhortations to beloved disciples, and warns them
against urgent and threatening evils. This contrast is very clear
in Luke vi. 32—34, 37, 38, compared with the passages in the
first gospel. Even the caution at the close, Matt. vil. 21, is
turned from an abstract lesson into an earnest reproof of actual
disobedience, Luke vi. 46. The parable in Luke vi. 39, has
every mark of being inserted, because it was actually spoken at
the time, though its connexion is rather obscure at first sight.
In St. Matthew it is only found much later, and in a context still
more plainly historical.
From these remarks it seems to follow that the two discourses
were really distinct ; that the earlier of them, in St. Matthew,
took place in the middle of the first year, at the close of the
first general circuit of Galilee; that the other took place late in
the spring, or early in the summer, of the second year, after a
partial circuit around the sea of Tiberias ; that the first of them
was followed by the miraculous draught, and the healing of the
leper ; and the second by the cure of the Centurion’s servant,
when our Lord returned from the mountain to Capernaum.
Hence it will follow that St. Luke, who passes by the first, and
96 ON THE RELATIVE ORDER
records the second, wrote after St. Matthew, and was acquainted
with his gospel, so as purposely to select the later discourse,
because the earlier and fuller, of the same general character, had
- been already given.
II. The seventh chapter of St. Luke contains four events, two
of which have been also recorded by St. Matthew, and the two
others are found here only. The healing of the Centurion’s
servant is the first incident, omitted by St. Mark; and St. Luke
has restored it in its true place, after the Ordination of the
Twelve, and is careful to mark its order, by mentioning the
occurrences of the very next day. The purpose of confirming
the two other gospels would clearly require the insertion of the
chief events, which were peculiar to one of them only. The
message of John the Baptist has this character, as in previous
chapters, the dispossession at Capernaum, the early retirement
the next morning, and the ordination of the Apostles, are common
to St. Mark and St. Luke only.
In the first of these portions Luke vii. 1—10, we see the
freedom of the writer, in revising and amplifying the brief state-
ment in the first gospel. The words of Jesus, and of the ©
message, are almost exactly the same, but the rest is quite
different in phraseology, and the fresh details modify the account
of St. Matthew by a very important change. The Centurion,
according to St. Luke, did not apply in person, but by elders of
the Jews, who reported his good deeds to the Jewish people.
«For he loveth our nation, and himself built us the synagogue.”
He also sent another message, when our Lord was drawing near
to his house, and the description which closes the whole narrative
is cast in a form entirely new. Yet the message and reply are
nearly word for word the very same.
M. Lord, ZL. Lord, trouble not thyself.
I am not worthy thou shouldst come For I am not worthy thou shouldst
under my roof, come under my roof,
But only speak in a word, and my But speak in a word, and my servant
servant shall be healed. shall be healed.
OF THE
For I myself am a man under
authority, having under myself sol-
diers,
And I say to this, Go, and he goeth,
and to another, Come, and he cometh,
and to my servant, Do this, and he
doeth it.
But when Jesus heard, he maryelled,
and said to them that followed,
Verily I say unto you, I have not
found such faith, even in Israel.
GOSPELS. 97
For I myself am a man set under
authority, having under myself sol-
diers.
And I say to this, Go,and he goeth,
and to another, Come, and he cometh,
and to my servant, Do this, and he
doeth it.
But when Jesus heard, he marvelled
at him, and turning, said to the multi-
tude that followed him,
I say unto you, I have not found
such faith, even in Israel.
Here it seems plain that the third ‘gospel has retained the
very words of the first, with scarcely an alteration.
But in the
details which precede and follow, the writer has expounded
what was obscure in the brief account of St. Matthew, and
enlarged it into a fuller narrative.
The resemblance is equally close in the account of John’s
message, and is the more remarkable from the greater length of
the whole passage.
MarruHew xi. 1—19.
Now when John heard in the prison
the works of Christ, he sent two of his
disciples, and said unto him,
Art thou the coming one, or look we
for another ?
And Jesus answering said unto
them, Go and report to John what ye
hear and see.
The blind receive sight, and the lame
walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf
hear, the dead are raised up, and the
LUKE vii. 19—35.
And when he had called two of his
disciples, John went to Jesus, saying,
Art thou the coming one, or look we
for another ? ,
When the men were come unto him,
they said, John the Baptist hath sent
us unto thee, saying,
Art thou the coming one, or look we
for another ?
And in the same hour he healed
many of diseases and plagues, and evil
spirits, and to many blind he gave
sight.
And Jesus answering said unto
them, Go and report to John what ye
have seen and heard,
That the blind receive sight, the lame
walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear,
the dead are raised up, the poor have
98 ON THE RELATIVE ORDER ~
poor have the gospel preached to them,
and blessed is he, whosoever is not
offended in me.
And when these were departing,
Jesus began to say to the multitudes
concerning John,
What went ye out into the wilder-
ness to behold? a reed shaken by the
wind?
But what went ye out to see ? aman
clothed in soft garments ? behold, they
that wear soft garments are in king’s
houses.
But what went ye out to see? a pro-
phet ? yea, I say to you, and much
more than a prophet ?
For this is he concerning whom it is
written, Behold, I send my messenger
before thy face, who shall prepare thy
way before thee.
Verily I say to you, Among them
that are born of women, there hath not
risen a greater than John the Baptist :
yet he that is less in the kingdom of
heaven is greater than he.
And from the days of John the
Baptist until now, the kingdom of
heaven suffereth violence, and the vio-
lent take it by force.
For all the prophets and the law
prophesied until John; and if ye will
receive it, this is Elias, who is to come.
But whereunto shall I liken this
generation ?
They are like children sitting in the
market-places, and calling to their
companions, and saying,
We have piped to you, and ye have
not danced; we have mourned to you,
and ye have not lamented.
For John came, neither eating nor
drinking, and they say, He hath a
devil.
the gospel preached to them, and
blessed is he, whosoever is not offended
in me.
And when the messengers of John
was departed, he began to speak unto
the multitudes concerning John.
What have ye gone out into the
wilderness to behold? a reed shaken
by the wind ?
But what have ye gone out to see?
a man clothed in soft garments ? behold,
they that use gorgeous clothing and
live in luxury are in the royal houses.
But what have ye gone out to see ?
a prophet ? yea, I say to you, and much
more than a prophet.
This is he concerning whom it is
written, Behold, I send my messenger
before thy face, who shall prepare thy
way before thee.
For I say to you, Among them that
are born of women, no one is a greater
prophet than John the Baptist : yet he
that is less in the kingdom of God is
greater than he.
And all the people that heard him,
and the publicans, justified God, being
baptized with the baptism of John.
But the Pharisees and lawyers re-
jected the counsel of God against
themselves, not being baptized of him.
Whereunto shall I liken the men of
this generation ? and to whom are they
like ?
They are like children sitting in
the market-place, and calling one to
another, and saying,
We have piped to you, and ye have
not danced; we have mourned to you,
and ye have not wept.
For John the Baptist came, neither
eating bread, nor drinking wine ; and
ye say, He hath a devil.
= OF THE GOSPELS. 99
The Son of man came eating and The Son of man is come, eating and
drinking, and they say, Behold, aman | drinking; and ye say, Behold a glut-
gluttonous and a winebibber, a friend | tonous man and a winebibber, a friend
of publicans and sinners. of publicans and sinners.
And wisdom is justified by her And wisdom is justified by all her
children. children.
The verbal resemblance in these passages, extending through
many verses, and to the minutest terms of expression, is so
close, as to prove that one writer has adopted the account of the
other. In thirty-five clauses the only difference consists in two
verses being changed, two verses and four single words inserted,
and one phrase and one word being substituted for another
synonymous. The mutual connexion of the two accounts is thus
perfectly clear.
The slight changes, however, all indicate that St. Luke’s is
the later narrative. The introduction in St. Matthew, where the
passage is out of order, is abrupt. ‘‘ Now when John had heard
in the prison the works of Christ.” In St. Luke it flows out
of the connection with the previous incidents. ‘‘ And the dis-
ciples of John shewed him of all these things. And John call-
ing two of his disciples,’ &c. St. Matthew, with his usual
brevity, puts the message into the mouth of the Baptist
himself. St. Luke distinguishes the message and its actual
delivery, and reports the very words by which the messengers
introduce it. St. Matthew leaves it implied, from the answer
of Jesus, that cures were wrought in their presence. St. Luke
states the fact distinctly, before the reply is given. ‘‘ In the
same hour he cured many of diseases and plagues and evil
spirits, and to many that were blind he gave sight.” The
present tense of Matthew is changed for the past, the proper
tense of history. ‘‘Tell John the things ye have seen and
heard.” The phrase “ they that wear soft clothing,” is elegantly
paraphrased: “‘they that are gorgeously apparelled, and live
luxuriously.” The word, Amen, so thoroughly Hebrew, is
omitted. It occurs only eight times in St. Luke, and more than
thirty times in St. Matthew. The remarkable statement, Matt.
F2
100 ON THE RELATIVE ORDER
xi. 11, is expounded to Gentile readers, who were less familiar
with the character of the Baptist, by the addition of a single
word, ‘There is not a greater propuET than John the Baptist.”
The four next verses, in St. Matthew, allude to the law, the
prophets, and a prediction of Malachi respecting Elijah. In their
stead St. Luke introduces a parenthesis of his own, to explain
the reproof of Jesus which follows them. Since he had before
mentioned the general acceptance of John’s ministry, his state-
ment ch. iii. 15, and the rebuke of our Lord, might have seemed
inconsistent, without such an explanation. Again, the account of
the Baptist, that he came ‘‘neither eating nor drinking,” is
partly explained in St. Matthew by ch. il. 4., ‘his meat was
locusts and wild honey.” St. Luke, who has not alluded to this
circumstance, gives here a brief exposition of our Lord’s mean-
ing: “For John the Baptist came neither eating bread, nor
drinking wine.” It seems thus clear, from the whole passage,
that St. Luke has revised and slightly altered the earlier narra-
tive of St. Matthew.
The two other portions of the same chapter, the raising of
the Widow’s Son, and the anointing in the house of the Pharisee,
are equally conclusive for the originality of the third gospel.
They shew that the writer, while proved otherwise to be ac-
quainted with the two earlier gospels, was not dependent on
them, but had direct and separate sources of information. The
former has all the marks of regular and orderly history, in its
first opening. ‘‘ It came to pass, the day after, that he journeyed
to a city called Nain.” And the notice is the more striking, as
the name of the place, though little visited, has survived to the
present day. The account has the vivid features, which imply
the report of an eye-witness ; while the clause in the answer to
John’s disciples, ‘‘ the dead are raised,’ receives from it a di-
rect explanation. For here the raising of the Ruler’s Daughter,
placed earlier than that message by St. Matthew, though really
later, has been restored, as in St. Mark, to its true historical
position.
OF THE GOSPELS. 101
The anointing has some features of resemblance to the one at
Bethany, recorded in the three other gospels, and hence some
have sought to identify them, so that the accuracy of all the
accounts might be disproved. But in reality, the diversity is
more striking than the partial resemblance. In time, in place,
in the character of the woman, the person of the complainant,
the answer of our Lord, the parting promise to the woman, and
even in the extent of the anointing, there is an entire contrast.
No single gospel has recorded both of these events, and their
general similarity will account for the omission. The more im-
portant of them would be likely to be first put on record, and a
later gospel would then, for variety, be just as likely to insert
the other only. Now the anointing at Bethany, though later in
time, was far more prominent in our Lord’s history. It occurred
in the week before his Passion, was an occasion for the treachery
of Judas, and was joined with a direct promise to Mary of
lasting honour. The promise would naturally secure a place for
the event in the earliest gospel. After St. Matthew and St.
Mark had both recorded it, St. Luke might well prefer to men-
tion the earlier anointing, itself also full of deep interest ; and
St. John, last of all, supplies further details of the more im-
portant event, to complete the account in the earlier gospels.
III. The events of the Circuit, with the Teaching in Parables,
are the next portion to be compared. After the ordination of
the Twelve, St. Mark recounts the gathering of multitudes again,
the message of our Lord’s relatives, the Discourse on blasphemy,
though in an abridged form, the visit of our Lord’s mother and
brethren, and the teaching in Parables, in all which events the
order is the same as in St. Matthew. Of the seven Parables,
however, in the first gospel, only two are given, and two other
new ones are added, ‘The agreement in the general succession
is complete.
The interval, however, must have been considerable, between
the second-first Sabbath, when the corn was ripening, and the
seed-time, which we may reasonably presume to have come,
102 ON THE RELATIVE ORDER
when the parable of the sower was given. St. Luke, ac-
cordingly, after the Ordination of the Twelve, and the sermon of
that day, supplies other events; the healing of the Centurion’s
servant, the visit to him, the message of John the Baptist,
the anointing in some city, and last of all, another circuit of
Galilee, through every city and village. This last explains the
interval of time, which is not filled up in the earlier gospels ;
while the mention, by name, of the women who attended our
Lord, is a fresh proof of the writer’s original and independent
information.
The discourse on blasphemy would follow next, since both St.
Matthew and St. Mark place it earlier in the same day with the
parable of the sower. But St. Luke has a similar event to re-
cord considerably later, and therefore passes it in silence. The
omission leads to another slight change, as the visit of our Lord’s
mother and brethren is placed, as in a parenthesis, after the
teaching in parables, though it occurred a little earlier on the
same day. The words of the gospel, however, have just the
form we might expect in an exact writer, when the precise order
of time was not meant to be specified. ‘ Now there came to him
his mother and his brethren.”
The account of the parables, in the third gospel, accords with
the principle, that one main purpose was the confirmation of both
the earlier narratives. The first’ and most prominent of those
in St. Matthew is given, and one of the two which is peculiar to
St. Mark, but no others. In phraseology, St. Mark follows St.
Matthew closely, but St. Luke varies from both in almost every
clause, and the parable, common to him with St. Mark only, is
expressed with a classic elegance of style.
In the parable of the Sower, St. Mark adheres, word for word,
to St. Matthew, with only two or three slight variations. The
singular and plural, in the Greek, are interchanged, and the
order, in verse 8, is reversed, so as to exhibit a climax :—“ some
thirty, some sixty, and some an hundred.” This clearly in-
creases the emphasis of the passage. St. Luke, who here
OF THE GOSPELS. 103
studies brevity, gives only the highest number—“‘ and bare fruit
an hundred-fold.”’
IV. The Voyage and the Return, with the raising of the
Ruler’s Daughter, are found in all the three gospels, but with
important differences between St. Matthew and the two others.
The whole account, Matt. viii. 18—ix. 1, 18—26. Mark iv. 35
—v. 43. Luke viii. 22—56, will throw much light on the mutual
relation of the three narratives.
It has been already shewn, by weighty reasons, that St. Mark
has here restored the true order, from which St. Matthew had
deviated, by inserting the Cure of the Paralytic, and his own
call, between the return from Gadara and the healing of Jairus’
daughter. Accordingly, though St. Luke does not fix the
voyage to the same evening when the parable of the sower was
given, he is equally clear with St. Mark in stating the direct
sequence of the voyage, the return to the western side of the
lake, and the miraculous resurrection. The passages in the two
gospels are these :—
Mark vy. 21, 22. ‘‘ And when Jesus was passed over by ship
unto the other side, much people gathered unto him, and he
was nigh unto the sea. And behold, there cometh one of the
rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by name.”
Luke vui. 40. * And it came to pass that, when Jesus was
returned, the people welcomed him, for they were all watching
for him. And behold, phere came a man named Jairus, and he
was a ruler of the synagogue.”
The copious details, in both ees and the precision of
these statements, are a strong proof that the Evangelists have
restored the events to their true order, and thus rectified the
transposition in St. Matthew’s gospel. The close resemblance
of St. Mark and St. Luke, throughout, is a clear sign that one
was acquainted with the work of the other, while a minute com-
parison will prove that St. Luke’s is the later and revised
narrative.
1. In the account of the storm, Luke viii. 22—25, the en-
104 ON THE RELATIVE ORDER
trance into the ship is given in the words of St. Matthew, the
order to cross over in those of St. Mark, but with a slight
change, indicative of a later composition. St. Matthew, who was
present, and St. Mark the interpreter of St. Peter, mention de-
finitely “the boat,” but St. Luke, as a mere historian, and not
an eye-witness, drops the article. St. Matthew says that the
disciples followed Jesus; St. Mark, that they took him into the
ship, as he was. Probably St. Peter and the sons of Zebedee
would be already in the vessel, and St. Matthew and the rest
would follow. St. Luke, avoiding this minute contrast, says
simply that ‘‘ he entered the ship, and his disciples,” and makes
the addition, to remove a provincial idiom, that would be obscure
to readers out of Palestine—“ Let us cross over to the other
side oF THE LAKE.’ He mentions the sleep of Jesus in the order
of its occurrence, while the others notice it only at the moment
of the disciples’ alarm. His description is combined from theirs
—the squall of wind (AaAay avenov) from St. Mark, its effect
on the water from St. Matthew, the participle, ‘coming to him ”
(xpoceAOovres) from St. Matthew, the verb, dinyerpay, intermediate
between yyerpay and %eye:pove: in the others. The graphic ac-
count of their situation, “the ship was covered with waves,”
“the waves kept beating into the ship, so that it was now full,”
are replaced by the simpler statement, “they were filled, and
were in danger.”’ The place of the rebuke is the same as in St.
Mark, after the storm is laid. The words, “he arose and re-
buked the wind,” are common to all, but St. Luke substitutes
for the mention of the sea, a name which he never gives to the
lake of Tiberias, a classical paraphrase, “the raging of the water
(kAvdou tov vderoc.) The wonder, in St. Matthew (cbavuacay),
and the fear, expressed by St. Mark in a Hebrew idiom (ego8yOycav
goBov weyay) are both combined in the classical phrase (goByOevres
be ebavuacay.) The first part of the exclamation is exactly the
same as in St. Mark, who varies slightly from the first gospel.
There is no part of St. Luke’s description, which is not found in
one of the others, and words are borrowed from each, with
OF THE GOSPELS. 105
very slight variation. But the minuter details of St. Mark are
omitted, one incident is restored to its actual order, a more
classic title is given to the lake of Tiberias, a Hebraism is
dropped at the close, and the fear and wonder, separately re-
ported by the others, are here combined together. All these
are signs that St. Luke was acquainted with the two other
gospels, and used them freely, though without a servile de-
pendence on them, in the composition of his later and more
finished narrative.
2. The account of the dispossession is given with much fuller
details by St. Mark and St. Luke, than by St. Matthew. There
is also another remarkable difference. For St. Matthew reports
the cure of two demoniacs, while the other Evangelists are agreed
in speaking of one only. Several explanations have been pro-
posed of this difficulty. It is certainly highly improbable that
two demoniacs should thus by concert, address the same words
jointly to our Lord, or that if two were present at the same time,
the other gospels should both speak of one, and in a manner
quite distinctive. ‘‘ He that was possessed besought Jesus, that
he might be with him,” &c. On the other hand, the explanation
of Da Costa, in his recent and interesting work, seems equally
harsh and violent, that the demoniac, and some one who was
seen attacked by him, were viewed together by the Evangelist,
and thus led him to speak of a double cure. A usual idiom
and license will permit the use of the plural for the singular,
in many cases, but not that two should be specified, when there
was really but one. Instances, however, will appear, in which
St. Matthew groups events, not occurring strictly at the same
moment, but of a common character, and thus compresses his
narrative, retaining only the main features of the occurrence.
We have only to suppose another dispossession, which might
occur during the interval before the return of the Gadarenes
from the city, without the same peculiar features as the first,
and it will be quite agreeable to the style of this Evangelist, to
unite both events in one, and to ascribe jointly to the two demo-
FP 5
106 ON THE RELATIVE ORDER
niacs the incidents which, in strictness of speech, belonged to
one of them alone. It would then be in harmony with the
purpose of the later gospels, to single out the more important .
and characteristic event, and give it with full detail, and to omit
entirely all reference to the other. In the two thieves we have
a very similar instance. Had only one thief been crucified with
our Lord, the phrase would be most unnatural; but it is easy
to understand how a fact might be ascribed to the two conjointly,
which really belonged to one of them alone.
3. The comparison of the two accounts in St. Mark and St.
Luke, will serve to prove their connexion, and ascertain their
real order.
Marx y. 1—21,
And they came to the other side of
the sea, into the country of the Gada-
renes.
And when he was come out from the
ship, straightway there met him out of
the tombs a man with an unclean spirit,
who had his dwelling in the tombs.
And no man could bind hin, no, not
with chains, because he had often been
bound with fetters and chains, and the
chains had been plucked asunder by
him, and the fetters broken in pieces,
and no man was able to tame him : and
continually, night and day, in the
tombs and the mountains, he kept
crying, and cutting himself with stones.
But having seen Jesus from afar, he
ran and worshipped him, and cried
with a loud voice, and said,
What have I to do with thee, Jesus,
the Son of God most high? I adjure
thee by God, torment me not.
For he said to him, Come out, thou
unclean spirit, from the man.
And he asked him, What is thy
name? And he saith to him, Legion
is my name, because we are many.
LUKE viii. 26—40.
And they sailed over into the coun-
try of the Gadarenes, which is over
against Galilee.
And when he was come out to the
land, there met hima certain man from
the city, who had devils for a long
time, and put on no garment, and abode
in no house, but in the tombs.
[For many times it had seized on
him, and he was bound, guarded with
chains and fetters, and breaking the
bands, he was driven by the deyil into
desert places. ]
But having seen Jesus, he cried out,
and fell down before him, and with a
loud voice said,
What have I to do with thee, Jesus,
the Son of God most high ? I beseech
thee, torment me not.
For he charged the unclean spirit to
come out from the man.
And Jesus asked him, saying, What
is thy name? And he said, Legion:
because many devils were entered into
him.
ee ae
OF THE
And they besought him much, that
he would not send them away out of
the country.
Now there was there near the moun-
tain a great herd of swine feeding, and
all the devils besought him, saying,
Send us into the swine, that we may
enter into them ; and Jesus straightway
suffered them.
And the unclean spirits, having gone
out, entered into the swine: and the
herd rushed down the cliff into the sea,
(now they were about two thousand,)
and were choked in the sea.
But they that kept them fled, and
reported it in the city and in the fields:
and they went out to see what was
done.
And they come to Jesus, and behold
the man that was possessed, sitting,
and clothed, and in his right mind,
even him that had the legion; and
they were afraid.
And they that had seen, reported to
them how it befel the possessed, and
concerning the swine.
And they began to entreat him to
depart out of their coasts.
And when he was entered into the
ship, he that had been possessed en-
treated him, that he might be with him.
And he suffered him not, but saith
to him, Go away to thy home, to thy
friends, and report to them what things
the Lord hath done for thee, and hath
pitied thee.
And he departed, and began to pro-
claim in Decapolis what things Jesus
had done for him: and all men did
marvel,
GOSPELS. 107
And they .besought him, that he
would not command them to depart
into the deep.
Now there was therea herd of many
swine, feeding on the mountain: and
they besought him that he would suffer
them to enter into them; and he suf
fered them.
And the devils having gone out of
the man, entered into the swine; and
the herd rushed down the cliff into the
lake, and were choked.
But they that kept them (having
seen what happened) fled, and reported
it in the city and in the fields: and
they went out to see what was done.
And they came to Jesus, and found
the man from whom the devils had gone
forth, sitting, clothed, and in his right
mind, close by the feet of Jesus: and
they were afraid.
They also that had seen, related to
them how the man possessed had been
healed.
And all the multitude of the country
of the Gadarenes besought him to
depart from them : for they were seized
with great fear.
And he entered into the ship and
returned. Now the man, out of whom
the devils were gone, begged of him,
that he might be with him.
But Jesus sent him away, saying.
Return to thy home, and relate what
things God hath done for thee.
And he departed, proclaiming through
all the city what things Jesus had done
for him.
108 ON THE RELATIVE ORDER
Here, with one slight exception, the order of every clause is
the same from first to last. The verbal correspondence is
always considerable, and in sixty or seventy words, is exact.
Yet the variations are not such as to be explained by translation
from a common original. They indicate rather a free revision,
with a view to some special purpose of-the later narrative.
The first change is in the geographical phraseology. Instead
of “the other side of the sea, the country of the Gadarenes,”
we have an expression freed from the provincial idiom—‘ the
country of the Gadarenes, which is over against Galilee.’ It is
clear that the phrase in St. Mark is natural for a Galilean writer,
but the one in St. Luke is better suited for readers, remote from
Palestine.
The next change is the omission of the adverb, evbews, which
is so frequent in St. Mark, as to be idiomatic. The mention of
the tombs, to a stranger, would be very abrupt. Hence St. Luke
first describes the man by his original home, ‘a man from the
city,” then by his distressing state, “‘ he had devils a long time,”
and then by consequence of this possession, his naked condition,
and mournful dwelling in the tombs.
The other variations tend to the same object, and adapt the
narrative for readers, less familiar with the idiom of Palestine.
Instead of ‘‘ he worshipped him” we have the equivalent, ‘he
fell down before him.” Instead of the adjuration, we have the
simpler address, ‘‘I beseech thee.’ The charge to the unclean
spirits is given in the indirect form, which is more usual in
general history. The unhappy state of the man is brought into
causal connexion with the words of our Lord by a slight trans-
position, so as to shew the urgency of the case, and the com-
passion of Jesus. The number of the devils is stated by the
writer, instead of being given as part of their reply. The
request, not to ‘‘send them out of the country,” receives a
striking exposition of its true meaning, “that he would not
command them to depart into the abyss.”’ The mountain is
named, in its historical connexion, as the feeding place of the
a a
OF THE GOSPELS. 109
swine, which removes the seeming abruptness in the second
gospel. The exact number of the herd is omitted, as a need-
less detail; the phrase, ‘‘ having gone out,” is rendered plainer ;
sea is changed to lake, or omitted; and all besides is verbally
the same. The double description, ‘the man possessed, and
that had the legion”? is replaced by one of a simpler kind,
“the man from whom the devils had gone out,” and a minute
grace is given to the narrative, by the remark that he was sitting
‘close by the feet of Jesus.” All these changes imply a revi-
sion of St. Mark’s narrative, by which it is rendered more
suitable for general readers out of Palestine; but will not agree
with the hypothesis of two translations from the same original,
and still less with their derivation, quite independently of each
other, from oral tradition alone.
In the narrative of the Ruler’s Daughter, it is clear that St.
Mark and St. Luke wrote after St. Matthew, whose brief account
undergoes an important modification. But the minute differences
_also prove, as Dr. Townson has remarked, that St. Luke fol-
lowed after St. Mark, and revised his narrative.
The name of the Ruler is not given in St. Matthew, and he
is called apywy, a general term. St. Mark not only gives his
name, Jairus, but a more definite title (agyicvvaywryos.) St. Luke
retains the name, and renders the title still more distinct, aeywy
rs cvvayoyys. Also in St. Mark the Jewish office of the ruler
is in the foreground, while in St. Luke it seems a mere ac-
cessory, and is thrown into the shade. In the passage that fol-
lows, St. Luke has varied the arrangement, and thus added to
the clearness of the narrative.
K. And he suffered no man to follow ZL. And when he came into the
him, save Peter and James, and John | house, he suffered no man to go in,
the brother of James: and he cometh | save Peter and James and John, and
to the house of the ruler of the syna- | the father and mother of the maiden.
gogue.
The words of St. Mark might be thought to signify that our
Lord stopped the multitude on the way to the house, a circum-
110 ON THE RELATIVE ORDER
stance not easy to explain without a miracle. St. Luke, by a
simple change of order, removes the difficulty, and shews that all,
except the three Apostles, were restrained from entering the
house, and from that alone.
The request of Jairus, in St. Mark, has the direct, in St. Luke
the indirect form. The age of the damsel, in St. Mark, appears
incidentally, upon her recovery. It is stated by St. Luke, as in
regular history, when she is first mentioned, in the application
for her cure. A further and touching circumstance is added,
that she was an only child. The description of the woman,
rather inartificial in St. Mark, is given by St. Luke in a more
terse and elegant form of expression. The changes in verse
49 indicate a delicate revision, to secure greater elegance and
perspicuity. The plural is replaced by the singular, since the
message was probably brought, and clearly delivered, by one
person. Amo is altered to tage, since the former, in strict-
ness, would imply that the message came from the ruler,
instead of coming to him, and from his house, while he was ab-
sent. The aorist azefave is replaced by the perfect, reOyvyxe,
which more forcibly implies her death, as complete and irre-
versible. The promise, only implied in St. Mark, is distinctly
expressed by St. Luke in our Lord’s answer :—‘“‘ she shall be
saved.” The scornful laugh of the minstrels has its reason
assigned—‘ knowing that she was dead.” The cause of her
revival is more clearly stated—“ her spirit came again;”’ while
the charge to give her food is brought into connexion with her
recovery. The prohibition to divulge the miracle is thus made
to close the account, and forms the moral application of the
whole. The Hebraism of St. Mark, in describing the parents’
astonishment, is also removed. All these changes, though
separately slight, imply a later and revised composition.
V. The following chapter of St. Luke ix. 1—50, gives many
proofs of its later origin, which deserve separate notice.
1. The next event in St. Matthew and St. Mark, is the visit
to Nazareth. Of this no trace is left in the third gospel. And
OF THE GOSPELS. ae!
a simple explanation can be given of this omission. St. Luke
already supplied an account of an earlier visit, which preceded
the call of the disciples, and the public teaching at Capernaum ;
and the same motive, which is elsewhere apparent, of avoiding
the repetition of similar events, will thus explain the present
omission. As for the visits themselves, which some have con-
founded together, the contrast between them is very manifest in
many particulars.
2. The Commission of the Twelve, which is given at length
in St. Matthew, is related by St. Mark more briefly, but re-
stored to its historical place, after the visit to Nazareth, and be-
fore the death of the Baptist. The account in St. Luke is very
similar to that in St. Mark, but some clauses resemble rather the
words of the first gospel. The whole appears like a brief sum-
mary derived from the two others, as will be seen by comparing
them in the original.
M. Kal mpockadreoduevos tovs 50-
dexa pabntas avTod,
eOwkev auTois etovclay mvevudtwv
aKabdpTwv, F
Kal Ocparevety macav vdoor.
Tovrous Knpvacere,
Aeyov7es,
Ori hyyixev N Bactréa THY odvpavar®
aobevovvtas Oepamevere.
K. Kal wapiyyéaev
mndev aipwow eis dd5dv,
et py paBdov mdvorv, wh whpay, uy
&ptor,
bh eis Thy Sdvynv xarndv,
Kou wy evddonobe Sv0 XiTHVaS.
Ss td
aMWEoTELAEV. .
see ae
autéis iva
Kau Omov édy eicéAOnTte é1s oiktay
eel weveTe, Ews ay eEeAOnTE exeOev.
Kau door av wh SéfwvTar buds
M. éepxouévos THs oikias A Tijs
midews exelvns
extTivdtare Tov KoviopToy TaY Today
Duar.
L. Svynadcoduevos Sé Tous Sébdexa
Madntas avTou,
Edwkev GuTots Sivamiw Kor ef, él
mavTa TH Sapdria,
Kat vdoous Ocpamevew.
Kat dméoreiAev adtod’s knypiooew
Thy Bacirciay Tod Beod,
Kat idoOa Tods aoOevovvTas.
Kau €ume mpds dutovs’ undtv kipere
éis Thy dddv,
BATE pdBdous, wre mhpay, pyre
&proy,
MATE apyupioy,
mate ava Sto xiTa@vas Exe’
Kau éis hv ay dtkiay eiceAOyTe,
exet mevete, Kal excibev eEepxeade.
Kat dco dy ph SetwvTar vues,
eEepxduevot ard THs WéAGws eKeivns,
Kat Toy KoviopToy amd TaY Today
buav arotwdtare.
hy. ON THE RELATIVE ORDER
*
K, Kau eterddvtes, *Efepxduevor 5€ FenpxovTo kata TAs
Kopas,
éxnpvocoy iva petavoncwot evaryyeACduevor
Kat Sayudvia moAAG e&€BarAov
Kal HAeipov EAaiw moAAbus appwo-
Tous, Kat éOepamevov.
kal OepamevovTes mayTaxod.
This comparison agrees well with the supposition, that St.
Luke has freely combined the accounts of this charge in the two
other gospels, retaining the brevity and general outline of St.
Mark, but adopting some of the phrases of St. Matthew’s fuller
narrative.
3. The account of Herod’s alarm is the next section of the
history. Here it is plain that St. Mark has adhered closely to
St. Matthew’s outline, and has supplied fuller details. St. Luke
states simply the perplexity of Herod, and does not digress, like
the other Evangelists, to report the cireumstances of the Baptist’s
death, but alludes to it as a fact already known. There is also
an observable difference in the statement of Herod’s feelings.
K. And king Herod heard of him, , JZ. Now Herod the tetrarch heard of
for his name was spread abroad, and he
said that John the Baptist was risen
from the dead; and therefore mighty
works are wrought by him. Others
said, that it is Elias: and others said,
It isa prophet, or as one of the prophets.
But when Herod heard it, he said,
It is John whom I beheaded, he is
risen from the dead.
all that was done by him, and was
perplexed, because it was said by some
that John the Baptist was risen from
the dead; and of some, that Elias had
appeared ; and of others, that one of the
old prophets was risen again.
And Herod said, John have I be-
headed ; but who is this, of whom I
hear such things? and he desired to
see him.
Here St. Mark represents it as the deliberate opinion of Herod,
that Jesus was the Baptist risen from the dead. In St. Luke
this opinion is said to be current among the people; but Herod
is described as merely perplexed what judgment to form respect-
ing the real character of Jesus. In the first surprise of these
wonderful reports, a guilty conscience might lead him to sup-
pose that St. John was indeed risen again ; and when his habitual
OF THE GOSPELS. Lis
scepticism revived, he still might not be able to avoid a feeling
of doubt and perplexity, which made him desirous to see Jesus.
One account will thus have a dramatic, and the other, an histo-
rical truth. St. Mark will refer to the first moment of wonder
and alarm; St. Luke to the tetrarch’s habitual feeling, which is
more suited for the record of a regular history. The closing
sentence, Luke ix. 9, evidently has a prospective reference to
the latter incident, xxii. 6—10, and shews how far this gospel is
removed from the character of a piece-meal composition. The
phrase, ‘‘ one of the old prophets is risen again,” is a brief com-
ment on the opinion of the people, which makes it more per-
spicuous to Gentile readers.
4. The miracle of the Five Thousand has been quoted before,
to prove the intimate connexion between the two first gospels.
The account in St. Luke is also very similar, but the changes,
though slight, agree well with the idea of its later composition.
St. Mark had observed, only at the close, that the disciples were
sent over before unto Bethsaida. Here we read, at the opening,
that Jesus “went aside into a desert place of a city called
Bethsaida.” This implies a circle of readers, to whom Bethsaida
of Galilee was unknown. St. Matthew has mentioned that Jesus
healed the sick among the people, and St. Mark, that he taught
them many things; but St. Luke has combined both particulars,
in a more classical style. ‘And receiving them, he spake to
them of the kingdom of God, and healed them that had need of
healing.” The time of day is expressed by a more elegant
Greek idiom, and the number of those who were fed is given
earlier, when the inquiry about provision was first made.
5. This miracle is followed by many events, occupying sixty-
six verses in St. Matthew, and seventy-five in St. Mark, of which
no trace is found in the third gospel. For this omission, the
principles already laid down will give a sufficient reason. The
object of confirming the testimony of the two former witnesses
has now been amply fulfilled, especially as the accounts of Passion
Week are naturally the same, in substance, in all the gospels.
114 ON THE RELATIVE ORDER
The other purpose, of supplying fresh information, becomes there-
fore more prominent in the rest of the gospel, and to combine
this with brevity, it is natural to omit some of those portions,
in which the consent of the two earlier writers renders a third
witness less important. Such is eminently the character of the
passages, Matt. xiv. 22—xvi. 12. Mark vi. 45—vii. 26. And
besides, the similarity of the second miracle, in the feeding of
the four thousand, and the special reference to Jewish customs
in the discourse on tradition, would be further reasons for pass-
ing them over in this gospel for Greek converts. But the con-
fession of Peter, the discourse on self-denial, and the trans-
figuration, were cardinal elements in the gospel history. If St.
Luke wrote after the others, and as a supplement to their ac-
counts, the omission of one portion, and the retention of the
other, is equally explained.
6. The confession of Peter, with the discourse on self-denial,
is given in all the three gospels, but with considerable variations.
The language of St. Luke, however, is mainly identical with that
of St. Mark, though one portion is omitted, and the alterations
in the third gospel prove its later composition.
K. And by the way he questioned
his disciples, saying to them, Whom
do men say that I am?
«ind they answered, John the Bap-
tist; and others, Elias; but others, one
of the prophets,
And he said to them, But whom say
ye that I am?
And Peter answering, saith to him,
Thou art the Christ.
And he charged them, that they tell
no one concerning him : and he began
to teach them,
The Son of man must suffer many
things, and be rejected by the elders,
and chief priests, and scribes, and be
killed, and after three days rise again.
And when he had called the people to
him, with his disciples, he said to them,
L. And he questioned them, saying, —
Whom do the multitude (oxAo1) say
that I am ?
And they answering, said, John the
Baptist; but others, Elias; but others,
that one of the old prophets is risen.
And he said to them, But whom say
ye that I am ?
And Peter answering, said, The
Christ of God.
And he charged them, and com-
manded to tell it no man, saying,
The Son of man must suffer many
things, and be rejected by the elders,
and chief priests, and scribes, and be
killed, and in the third day be raised up.
And he said unto all,
OF THE
Whoever desires to follow after me,
let him deny himself, take up his cross, _
and follow me.
For whosoever will save his life,
shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose
his life for my sake and the gospel,
shall save it.
For what will it profit a man, if he
gain the whole world, and lose his own
soul ? or what shall a man give in ex-
change for his soul ?
For whoever shall be ashamed of me
and my words in this adulterous and
sinful generation, the Son of man also
will be ashamed of him, when he shall
come in the glory of his Father, with
the holy angels.
And he said to them, Verily I say to
you,
There are some of those standing
here, who shall not taste death, until
they haye seen the kingdom of God
come in power.
GOSPELS. 115
If any one desires to come after me,
let him deny himself, take up his cross,
and follow me.
For whosoever will save his life,
shall lose it ; but whosoever shall lose
his life for my sake, he shall save it.
For what is a man profited, having
gained the whole world, and having
destroyed himself, it being lost ?
For whosoever shall be ashamed of
me and my words, of him will the Son
cf man be ashamed, when he shall
come in his own glory and the Father’s,
and of the holy angels.
But I tell you of a truth,
There are some of those standing
here, who shall not taste death, until
they have seen the kingdom of God.
St. Matthew, in this part of his gospel, has recorded fully the
honourable promise made to Peter; while St. Mark, as writing
under Peter’s own direction, has passed it by, and mentions only
the severe rebuke he presently received. St. Luke gives the
confession briefly, as in St. Mark, and omits both the rebuke
and the promise. The Hebraism “ after three days,”’ is replaced
by the more exact definition of time, ‘on the third day.” The
popular notion, that Jesus was one of the prophets, is again
explained more clearly, ‘‘that one of the ancient prophets is
risen again.” The allusion to that particular generation of the
Jews, as sinful and adulterous, is omitted, and the Hebrew term,
Amen, is replaced by the answering Greek expression. With
these exceptions, which indicate an explanatory revision, the
agreement is almost entire, from first to last. A clearer proof
could scarcely be given, that one writer knew and adopted the
116 ON THE RELATIVE ORDER
account of the other, and that St. Mark was the earlier of the
two writers.
7. The account of the Transfiguration is very nearly the same
in St. Mark and St. Matthew. The variations in St. Luke are
considerable, and the conversation about Elias is omitted alto-
gether. The interval, instead of six, is said to be ‘as it were
eight days.” The Apostles are named in a different order,
* Peter, and John, and James,” implying a later date, when the
younger Apostle was better known. The expression ‘‘ trans-
figured,’ which the heathen applied so often to their fabulous
gods, is replaced by a paraphrase, ‘‘the fashion of his coun-
tenance was different.’ Moses and Elias are introduced, as
names less familiarly known than in the other gospels. “There
talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias.”? The
subject of their conversation is reported, the approaching death
of Jesus at Jerusalem. The sleepiness of the disciples is noticed,
and their success in resisting it, which adds a fresh moral beauty
to the description. The succession of incidents is also given
with touches of minute accuracy, more than in the other gospels.
These characters seem to imply, not a simple revision of their
accounts, but a further and original report, which must probably
have been obtained from another of the three Apostles. It may
be viewed as almost certain, that Matthew and Mark derived
theirs from St. Peter, and this may account for the want of
fuller expansion in the second, compared with the first gospel.
When St. Luke wrote, James had certainly been dead many
years, and hence the only other informant would be St. John.
The character of St. Luke’s narrative appears to, agree well with
the supposition, that it was drawn from this new source.
8. The account of the dispossession, in St. Luke, differs from
those in St. Matthew and St. Mark, either by the omission of
the sequel, or by greater conciseness. But the portion that
follows, exhibits the close relation between the second and third
gospels.
OF THE
K. But they understood not (7yvd-
ovv) that saying, and they feared to
question him.
And he came to Capernaum, and in
the house he asked them,
What reasoned ye among yourselves
by the way ?
But they were silent, for by the way
they had reasoned among themselves,
who was greatest.
And he took a child, and sat him in
the midst of them ; and taking him in
his arms, he said to them.
Whoever shall receive one such chil-
dren in my name receiveth me, and
whoever receiveth me, receiveth not me,
but him that sent me.
And John answered him, saying,
Master, we saw one casting out
devils in thy name, and he followeth
not us, and we forbad him, because he
followeth us not.
But Jesus said, Forbid him not.
For he that is not against us, is for us.
GOSPELS.
117
L. But they understood not that
saying, and it was hid from them that
they perceived it not, and they feared
to question him of that saying.
Then there entered a reasoning
among them, who was greatest.
And Jesus, when he knew the rea-
soning of their hearts, took a child,
and set him by him, and said to them,
Whoever shall receive this child in
my name, receiveth me: and whoever
receiveth me, receiveth him that sent
me.
And John answering said,
Master, we saw one casting out
devils in thy name, and we forbad him,
because he followeth us not.
And Jesus said unto him, Forbid
him not.
For he that is not against us, is for us.
Here, except that one clause is omitted, and another transposed
and slightly varied, and the preface thrown into a new form, the
correspondence is verbally complete. This is the more observ-
able, because from this point St. Luke’s narrative begins to
proceed entirely alone, and the conversation with St. John does
not appear at all in St. Matthew’s gospel. If St. Mark had
followed St. Luke, and borrowed the passage from him, there
seems no reason why he should abstain entirely from introducing
any part of the seven following chapters. It appears, then, that
St. Luke has here adopted the incident from St. Mark, with no
change, but a slight compression. He has thus given a parting
confirmation to the testimony of the second gospel, in one of
the four portions which are peculiar to it, before he enters on
the other main purpose of his narrative, of imparting to the
118 ON THE RELATIVE ORDER OF THE GOSPELS.
Church a variety of information, which neither of his predecessors
had supplied. There is thus a powerful and convincing sign
that he wrote after the two other Evangelists, with the double
design of ratifying more fully their statements, and of enlarging
the circle of the gospel narrative, by further miracles and dis-
courses, which occurred towards the close of our Sayiour’s
ministry.
a
CHAPTER VI.
ON THE RELATIVE ORDER OF ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL.
THE LAST CIRCUIT AND JOURNEY.
Arter the dispute at Capernaum, (Luke ix. 50.) the gospel of
St. Luke, through many chapters, appears to diverge entirely
from the two others, and proceeds alone. The events of this
portion, if regular, must belong to our Lord’s last journey ; and
even if partly irregular, they are placed between the dispute,
Matt. xviii., and the blessing of the little children, Matt. xix. 10,
where there is some interval of time implied in St. Matthew’s
and St. Mark’s narratives. Many of the discourses, however, or
separate sayings of our Lord, are nearly the same as occur else-
where in the first gospel. And thus a double inquiry will arise,
whether the events themselves are different ; and if different,
how this frequent correspondence between the two writers is to
be explained.
I. First we have to inquire whether or not the discourses in
that part, which resemble those in St. Matthew, are really the
same. In this case, one or both of the gospels must be highly
irregular. If the discourses, however, be different, each gospel
may still be regular, and the comparison of similar discourses
will throw further light on the order in which the two gospels
were composed.
The nature and extent of the transposition, assuming the dis-
courses to be the same, will be perceived at once from the follow-
120
ON THE RELATIVE ORDER
ing summary, where the order in St. Luke is the basis of
comparison.
The Caution to three Disciples,
Matt. viii. 18—22.
The Harvest and Labourers, ix. 37,
38; x. 7—16.
Woe on Galilean cities &c. xi. 21—
24, 25—27.
The Disciples’ Privilege, xiii. 16, 17.
The Lord’s Prayer, vi. 9—13; vii.
7-11.
Discourse on Blasphemy, xii. 24—30.
Unclean Spirit’s return, xii. 43— 45.
Sign of Jonas, xii. 38—42.
The Light of the Body, y. 15; vi.
22, 20.
Woes on the Pharisees, xxiii. 25, 26,
23, 6, 7, 27, 4, 29, 31, 35, 36, 13.
Warning against hypocrisy, x. 26—
Ba, xii. 32, 19, 20.
Carefulness, vi. 25—38, 20, 21.
Watchfulness, xxiv. 43—50.
Strife caused by the Gospel, x. 34—
36.
Signs of the Times, xvi. 2, 3.
Reconciliation, v. 25, 26.
Mustard Seed and Leaven, xiii, 31
—33.
The Strait Gate, vii. 138, 14, 22,
23; viii. 11,12; xix. 30.
Doom of Jerusalem, xxiii. 37—29.
Self-abasement, xxiii. 12.
Self-denial, x. 37, 38.
Salt without savour, v. 13.
Two Masters, &c. vi. 24; xi. 12, 13.
Endurance of the Law, v. 18, 32.
Offences, xviii. 7, 6.
Days of Noah, xxiv. 37—4l1.
Selfexaltation, xxiii. 12.
It is clear from this list that one or both of the gospels must
be thoroughly irregular, if those discourses which resemble each
other are the same. This alone, after the evidence already
adduced, is a strong presumption for their real diversity. But
we have also many instances in the same gospel, of sayings
repeated by our Lord at different times, almost in the very same
words, as Matt. xii. 39—xvi. 4. Mark ix. 34—xii. 24. Luke
vili. 16—xi. 33.
A further presumption may be drawn from the nature of our
Lord’s ministry. It lasted three years, and was carried on in
hundreds of places throughout Palestine, before assemblies of
hearers who were changing from day to day. Hence it is morally
certain that many of his discourses would be often repeated,
though in each instance there might be partial variations, to suit
the varying circumstances of each audience. If the whole of
our Lord’s sayings had been recorded, it would certainly have
;
OF ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 121
been a hundred times longer than what is now left us in the four
gospels. Hence the mere resemblance of two passages, without
further evidence, can be no proof that the discourse is actually
the same. Yet it must be probable that any discourse or saying
would be varied in the repetition, and abstract reasons alone
will hardly teach us the usual extent of such variation.
In the present case, St. Luke, who professes to write an
account in order, has included the whole within a period of our
Saviour’s ministry, which is entirely omitted in the two other
gospels. Now it is morally certain that, in the last six months
before his death, our Lord would repeat many things, which he
had spoken earlier in his ministry. The only reasonable doubt
will be, whether St. Luke, if he knew the other gospel, would
have included in his own selection so much that was already
recorded by St. Matthew at an earlier date. There is, how-
ever, a most weighty reason why this course should have been
preferred. While the character of the third gospel, as an addition
to the evangelical history, rendered it desirable to insert many
fresh facts and discourses, the object of confirming the greater
part of the record by two witnesses would be best secured, by
selecting many which were the same, in substance, with others
recorded by St. Matthew. There would thus be a substantial
confirmation of the message by two writers; while fuller light
would be derived from the mention of two distinct events, where
the same truths are presented, according to the varying circum-
stances of the hearers, in new combinations.
Again, some of the passages which most nearly resemble each
other, have notes of time, in each gospel, which forbid us to
confound them together, and a relation to their context, in each
instance, which forbids their dislocation. The prayer for labourers
is exactly the same as the mission of the Twelve Apostles in St.
Matthew, and of the Seventy Disciples in St. Luke. The words
« Blessed are your eyes,’’ &c. in St. Matthew, are closely linked
with the Parable of the Sower, and in St. Luke with the return
of the Seventy, events more than a year apart, and are so appro-
G
122 ON THE RELATIVE ORDER
priate in both cases, as to vindicate the truth of their position in
each gospel. The woes on the Pharisees appear in St. Matthew
on the last day of our Lord’s public ministry ; but in St. Luke,
during a private dinner in a Pharisee’s house, somewhere in the
dominions of Herod. A passage of some length, resembling
part of the Sermon on the Mount, follows the same day. Again,
chap. xiii, in Herod’s dominions, ends with the same warning to
Jerusalem, which in St. Matthew is the appropriate and emphatic
close of our Lord’s public ministry. In all these cases the
words are nearly the same, and still the occasions on which they
were uttered are clearly different. It is a natural inference that
the same remark still applies, even where the evidence is less
decisive, since the order of St. Luke’s gospel, in all the instances
alike, requires the separation. Let us examine a few of these
parallel passages, which have been usually confounded together.
II. Tae Caution to Discirtes, Matt. viii. 18—22. Luke
ix. 57—62. i
The verbal resemblance between these passages is very great,
and still there are many marks that the occasions were quite
different. The voyage to Gadara is given by St. Luke, with a
plain reference to the account in St. Matthew. If the events
were the same, and took place at that time, there is no reason
why St. Luke should not have retained the true order, which he
found in St. Matthew. Again, one event took place when Jesus
was preparing to cross the lake of Gennesaret, and retire from
the crowds ; the other, when he had lately passed a Samaritan
village, and was preparing for the most public part of his whole —
ministry. Two disciples are addressed in one case, three in the
other. Two of them, in St. Luke, have the charge to go and —
preach the gospel : no such charge is mentioned by St. Matthew.
And this agrees with the context, since one event was earlier
than the first Mission of the Twelve, while the other is placed —
just before the Mission of the Seventy. The self-denial, in one
case, was in the stormy voyage to the desert side of the lake;
in the other, it lay clearly in the summons to take part in a
%
OF ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. Wa:
public ministry, of much odium and some real danger. One
party, in St. Matthew, was a scribe, but no such peculiar character
is given to the first applicant in St. Luke’s gospel.
III. Tut Lorpv’s Prayer, Matt. vi. 9—13; Luke xi. 1—4.
It has been usual, with recent critics, to maintain that this
prayer was only once given; and the greater number, as Schleier-
macher, Sieffert, Olshausen, and Neander, and more recently Da
Costa, imagine that St. Luke alone has given it in its true place.
It is certainly there placed in a very natural and appropriate
connexion ; while the short parable that follows unites it closely
with the general command and promise in verses 9—13 of the
same chapter. But then the connexion in St. Matthew is not
less appropriate. Three practical subjects are there treated in
succession, alms, prayer, and fasting. Under the first and last
a warning is given against hypocrisy ; under the second, a further
caution against vain repetitions, to avoid which this brief pattern
is set before them. It is followed, not as in St. Luke, by a di-
rect encouragement to prayer, but by a statement to justify the
peculiar form of the petition for forgiveness. One connexion is
just as suited to the public instructions of a Lawgiver, as the
other to the private admonitions of a most loving Saviour and
Friend. That this prayer should be repeated once more, after an
interval of more than two years, cannot surely have the shadow
of difficulty with any reasonable mind. Besides, the occasion of
the request in St. Luke makes it highly probable that the dis-
ciples both desired and expected a much longer formulary. Our
Saviour, by repeating simply the brief prayer he had already
given, as well as by the parable and the promise, recalls their
thoughts from the tendency to mere formalism, and reminds
them that earnestness and faith were the grand requisites to be
kept in view. It was indeed very fitting that those words, so
precious to the whole Church through long ages, should be
uttered once near the beginning, and once again, near the close
of our Saviour’s ministry.
G2
124 ON THE RELATIVE ORDER
IV. Tut Discours—E on Buaspuemy, Matt. xii. 22—45;
Luke xi. 14—35.
These two passages, from their great resemblance, are held
by most harmonists to refer to the same event. But besides
the utter dislocation of St. Luke’s narrative which this view
requires, there are other reasons which seem to be decisive
against it.
The order appears thus in St. Matthew. First, one who was
possessed, blind and dumb, is brought to Jesus, and healed. The
Pharisees, upon this, charge him with casting out devils by Beelze-
bub. He defends himself from the charge, and warns them of the
fearful guilt of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. They next
ask him for a sign, and he answers them by an allusion to Jonah
and the Queen of Sheba, and closes by the parable of the un-
clean spirit, and the solemn threatening, ‘‘ Even so shall it be
also unto this wicked generation.”
The order is different in St. Luke. First, Jesus casts out a devil
from one “ possessed and dumb,”’ and the people wonder at the
cure. Some of the crowd then charge him with casting out
devils by Beelzebub, and others demand a sign. He defends
himself from that charge, and adds the parable of the unclean
spirit. A woman from the crowd praises him, and he briefly re-
plies. The multitudes crowd together, and he then replies to
the demand for a sign, and closes by another parable, of the
lighted candle, with a final caution and encouragement. While
he yet spake, we are told in one case, that his mother and bre-
thren came to call him, and in the other, that a Pharisee asked
him to dine, and our Lord instantly complied with the request.
The occurrence, in the two first gospels, has its place clearly
fixed ; since the parable of the Sower, as each of them states, fol-
lowed on the same day. Now St. Luke has given the same para-
ble, and after the many proofs that he was acquainted with the
two other gospels, it must be highly improbable, if the event
were the same, that he should thus have torn it away entirely
from its true historical connexion. But there are other dif-
OF ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. + 125
ferences beside. The demoniac in St. Matthew was both blind
and dumb. Its peculiarity lay in the triple cure at the same
moment. Even in the very same gospel, another cure is men-
tioned, “ of a dumb man possessed with a devil.” Matt. ix.
32—34 ; and it adds that, “ when the devil was cast out, the
dumb spake, and the people wondered ; but the Pharisees said,
He casteth out devils through the prince of the devils.” Again,
we learn from St. Mark, that the child, who was healed after the
Transfiguration, “ had a dumb spirit.” Hence we have repeated
instances of dumbness being healed along with dispossession, but
only one in which blindness was cured at the same time. This
peculiar combination seems to have been one reason why St.
Matthew records the cure at length, with the discourse that imme-
diately followed. Butthe cure in St. Luke was one of dumbness
alone, with possession ; for if blindness had been cured at the same
time, this would have been more remarkable than the other part
of the cure, and would not have been omitted. There can be
no doubt, from comparing the three gospels, that cases of the
dispossession of a dumb spirit were very numerous. If the
present one is distinct, four will have been actually specified,
two in St. Matthew ix. 32—34. xii. 21—24, one in St. Mark
ix. 17, and one here in St. Luke also.
Again, the wonder of the people, and the charge of casting
out devils by Beelzebub, were events which frequently occurred.
They are mentioned by St. Matthew as clearly in the instance
where no discourse is recorded, as in the dispossession of the
blind and dumb. The surprise at our Lord’s miracles is of perpe-
tual recurrence, aud the other circumstance, or one closely akin
to it, is alluded to in the Commission of the Twelve, Matt. x.
25, as one standing feature of our Lord’s ministry. The de-
mand for a sign is also frequent, being mentioned twice by St.
Matthew, and twice on distinct occasions, by St. John, besides
this passage, and it is referred to by St. Paul as the characteristic
temptation of the Jewish people. Hence the occurrence of a
126 , ON THE RELATIVE ORDER
dispossession during the last journey, along with such a demand
for a sign, cannot involve the slightest improbability.
The order of the two discourses is clearly different, and in
neither case is a transposition possible without violence. In St.
Matthew the charge of a conspiracy with Satan is first made and
answered, then the demand for a sign is made by the Scribes and
Pharisees and repelled in its turn, while the parable of the un-
clean spirit, and the consequent warning, terminate the whole.
In St. Luke the charge and the demand are first made together,
and the charge is repelled, with the parable of the unclean spirit
at the close. The exclamation of the woman is then interposed,
and presently, the people gathering more thickly together, the
demand for a sign is answered, and the reply closed by a new
parable, enforcing the need of spiritual discernment. Thus the
passage in St. Matthew ends with a stern denunciation, but
the one in St. Luke with an affectionate warning, and a cheer-
ing encouragement to those by whom the warning should be
obeyed. If the events were the same, and St. Matthew has
given rightly the order of the demand for a sign, then the trans-
position in St. Luke, of the verses xi. 24—26, from their natural
place at the close, appears unaccountable. And if the demand
for a sign took place before the discourse began—the words of
St. Matthew, “Then answered some of the Scribes and Phari-
sees, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee,” are equally
unnatural, and would convey an erroneous impression of the
motive which prompted them.
On the other hand, itis not in the least unlikely that when
the same charge was made, and the same demand repeated by
distinct parties, and on different occasions, our Lord would meet
it again and again with nearly the same answer, though varied
in each case according to his insight into the character and
motives of those whom he addressed. If the actual resemblance
between two such discourses were great, it would perhaps become
still greater, when the second of them was reported by one who
knew familiarly the record of the other, already given by an
OF ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 127
Apostle and eye-witness. Instead of freely resorting to a peculiar
version of his own, he might probably content himself with in-
troducing only such changes, as were essential features of the
later discourse, so that some specific cause might be discovered
for each of them by a careful observer.
Again, the discourse in St. Luke is there linked inseparably
with the meal in the Pharisee’s house. Now the denunciations
of woe, then uttered, are precisely similar to those in Matt. xxiii.
A discourse which followed the same day exactly answers, in two
of its parts, to the Sermon on the Mount, and to the close of
the Prophecy on Mount Olivet. Hence, if resemblance proves
identity, the series in St. Luke will be referred in St. Matthew
to four different points of time; one at the beginning, one near
the middle, and two at the very close of our Lord’s ministry.
Lastly, while the discourse on blasphemy in St. Matthew was
followed by the first public teaching in parables, that in St. Luke
is itself connected with three parables, and with a clear intima-
tion, xii. 41, that this mode of teaching was now quite familiar to
the disciples. On all these accounts, the events must have been
distinct. And since this is the case where the verbal resem-
blance is perhaps the most extensive and complete, the same
conclusion may be extended to other passages, in which the same
feature appears.
V. The comparison of these parallel sayings, now that they
are shewn to be really distinct, will further evince the later com-
position of the third gospel. In six or seven instances, St. Luke
will thus be seen to have omitted sayings of our Lord, on their
first occurrence, though he gives the event which occasioned
them, and to have reserved them fora later time, when they
were repeated once more. The mention of the harvest and the
labourers, the woe on the Galilean cities, and its attendant
thanksgiving, the declaration of the disciples’ blessedness in
seeing the works of Christ, the discourse on Blasphemy, the
parables of the Leaven and Mustard-seed, the warning against
hypocrisy, the woe on those who cause offences, the rebuke on
128 ON THE RELATIVE ORDER
those who neglect the signs of the times, are all examples of this
usage. If St. Luke wrote after the two others, this circumstance
may be very simply explained. He omits these particulars in
his earlier chapters, because he purposed to introduce them on
their later recurrence, in the original portion of his own narra-
tive. The solution applies even to those cases, where the order
is the reverse. These relate exclusively to some parts of the
discourses in Passion Week, a full record of which was essential
in every gospel. Hence in the case of duplicate events, one in
Passion Week, and the other in the course of the general min-
istry, it is the later which would be likely to be first recorded.
Two such instances are the anointing at Bethany, compared with
Luke vii. 36—50, and the denunciations in Matt. xxi. com-
pared with Luke xi, xiii.
In one passage this peculiar relation of the two histories may
be seen very clearly. The accounts of the Baptist’s message,
Matt. xi. 2—19; Luke vii. 19—23, have a minute verbal cor-
respondence. Three passages, however, of that chapter are
omitted by St. Luke, and appear, with little or no change, in
this later portion of his gospel.
From the days of John the Baptist
until now, the kingdom of heaven suf-
fereth violence, and the violent seize
upon it.
For all the prophets and the law
prophesied until John.
Woe to thee, Chorazin! woe to thee,
Bethsaida! for if the mighty works
that have been done in you, had been
done in Tyre and Sidon, they would
have repented long ago, in sackcloth
and ashes.
But I say unto you,
It shall be more tolerable for Tyre
and Sidon in the day of judgment,
than for you.
And thou, Capernaum, exalted unto
heaven, shall be thrust down to hell.
The law and the prophets were until
John, since that time the kingdom of
God is preached, and every man is
pressed into it.
Woe to thee, Chorazin ! woe to thee,
Bethsaida! for if the, mighty works
that have been done in you, had been
done in Tyre and Sidon, they would
have repented long ago, sitting in
sackcloth and ashes.
But it shall be more tolerable for
Tyre and Sidon in the judgment, than
for you.
And thou, Capernaum, exalted unto
heayen, shall be thrust down to hell.
OF ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL.
For if the mighty works done in
thee, had been done in Sodom, it would
haye remained until this day.
At that time, Jesus answered and
said,
I thank thee, O Father, Lord of
heaven and earth, because thou hast
hid these things from the wise and
prudent, and hast revealed them to
babes; even so, Father ! for so it seemed
good in thy sight.
All things are delivered unto me of
my Father, and no man knoweth the
Son, but the Father; neither knoweth
any man the Father, save the Son, and
he to whomsoever the Son will reveal
hin.
129
In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit,
and said,
I thank thee, O Father, Lord of
heaven and earth, because thou hast
hid these things from the wise and
prudent, and hast revealed them to
babes; even so, Father! for so it seemed
good in thy sight.
All things are delivered unto me of
my Father, and no man knoweth who
the Son is, but the Father; and who
the Father is, but the Son; and he to
whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
The passage Matt. xi. 2—11, 16—19, is found in Luke vi.
19—35, with scarcely a verbal change, and with its historical
place clearly defined. The three portions, however, which in-
tervene and follow, xi. 12, 13, 20—23, 25—-27, are omitted
there, and appear with little change, on two distinct occasions
near the close of our Lord’s ministry, Luke xvi. 16. x. 13—15,
21, 22. Yet the whole discourse in St. Matthew is linked to-
gether by a natural connexion. We may therefore conclude that
St. Luke has made use of the earlier record, but has purposely
omitted sayings that were afterwards repeated, to record them in
their place at a later period of the history.
VI. The title of our Lord in these chapters, Luke ix. 51—
xviii. 6, when compared with the two other gospels, is a clear
sign of a later composition. In St. Matthew, the name Jesus
is always used, when the writer speaks in his own person.
In St. Mark the same rule is observed, except in the last verse
alone. The same is true of the earlier part of the third gospel,
where it runs parallel with the others, though here there are two
or three exceptions. The first is in the healing of the Paralytic,
Luke v.17. ‘And the power of the Lord was present to heal
them.” The second, in the raising of the widow’s son, vil. 13.
G5
130 ON THE RELATIVE ORDER
‘“« And when the Lord saw her he had compassion on her.” The
third, which is more doubtful, since the clause is rejected by
Griesbach and Scholz, occurs in the same chapter. ‘* And the
Lord said, Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this genera-
tion?’ It may also be observed that the first exception appears,
where a fresh detail is introduced, and the second, in the narra-
tive of an event which is not found in the two other gospels.
When we pass on, however, to the latter part of the gospel,
and especially to this middle portion, where it stands alone, there
is a remarkable variation of style. The title, Lord, is sub-
stituted thirteen times for the simple and purely historical name,
Jesus. Of these instances no less than eight are found in the
report of the last journey, peculiar to St. Luke; while of the
five others, three occur in the narrative of events which are
found in this gospel alone.
The substitution, in the Church of Christ, of this title of re-
verence for the historical name, Jesus, would plainly be gradual,
and would probably be more rapid in their case, who had never
seen their Lord in the flesh, while it must have been completely
established, as we infer from the Epistles of St. Paul, in the
course of one generation. Hence the contrast in this respect is
a clear sign that St. Luke wrote later than the two others; or
else that his gospel, while later than St. Matthew’s, was, less
than that of St. Mark, moulded by the information of a present
eye-witness. And since, even in those chapters, where the title
of honour is most largely used, the name Jesus occurs three
times as often, this will be a further presumption that the ab-
solute date lay within the limits of the first generation.
It may seem at first to interfere with this argument, that St.
John, whom all allow to have written later than St. Luke, uses
the name 250 times, and the title only seventeen times in his whole
gospel. But one simple remark will remove the difficulty, which
this fact might seem to create. St. John was himself an eye-
witness, and the most intimate personal companion of our Lord in
the days of his flesh. His language, therefore, whenever he wrote,
SES ae
OF ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 131
would’ be moulded by the vividness of his own personal recollec-
tions, and also by a constant recollection of the express object
of his work, which was to bear witness that Jesus was the Christ.
And hence the very fact of the title being introduced seven
times, which appears only twice in St. Mark, and seven times in
St. Luke, excluding this middle and peculiar portion, agrees well
with the later date of the fourth gospel, when due allowance has
been made for the difference between a younger convert and the
beloved Apostle of the Lord.
It may be observed that the part of the gospel, where this
frequent use of the title appears, commences with the mission of
the Seventy Disciples, and closes xviii. 6, where the narrative re-
unites itself to those of St. Mark and St. Matthew. Now it
seems highly probable that, during most of the incidents thus
recorded, not only the Twelve Apostles, but the greater part of the
Seventy Disciples, would be present. The Evangelist might
therefore have access to many believers who could recount the
incidents and discourses of these last months of our Lord’s
ministry, though they had not been present through its whole
course ; while the same circumstance would render it less need-
ful that these incidents should be recorded early, from the
greater number of surviving witnesses.
The last portion of the gospels to be compared, extends from
the blessing of the little children, to their close, and the ascen-
sion of our Lord into heaven. Here there is a general agree-
ment in the events which are recorded, and in their arrangement,
but several minor variations. From the extent of the previous
remarks it will be enough here to select three particulars for
comparison, the request of the ruler, the cure of the blind man,
and the gifts to the treasury.
VII. The account of the Ruler’s question occurs thus in the
three gospels :—
132
And behold, one came
and said to him,
Good master, what good
thing shall I do, that I
may have eternal life ?
And he said unto him,
Why callest thou me
good ? there is none good
but one, even God: but
if thou wilt enter into life,
keep the commandments.
He saith unto him,
Which ?
Jesus said, Thou shalt
not kill,
thou shalt not commit
adultery,
thou shalt not steal,
thou shalt not bear false
witness,
honour thy father and
mother,
and, thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself.
The young man saith
to him,
All these have I kept
from my youth.
What lack I yet ?
Jesus said to him,
If thou wilt be perfect,
go, sell that thou hast,
and give to the poor.
And thou shalt have
treasure in heaven, and
come, follow me.
And when he was gone
forth into the way, one
ran and, kneeling to him,
questioned him,
Good Master, what
shall I do, that I may
inherit eternal life ?
But Jesus said unto
him,
Why callest thou me
good ? none is good but
one, even God.
Thou knowest the com-
mandments.
Do not commit adul-
tery,
do not kill,
do not steal,
do not bear false wit-
ness,
honour thy father and
thy mother.
And he
said to him,
Master, all these have
I kept from my youth.
answering,
' And Jesus, beholding
him, loved him, and said
to him,
One thing thou lackest,
go, sell whatsoever thou
hast, and give to the poor.
And thou shalt have
treasure in heayen, and
come, follow me, haying
taken the cross.
ON THE RELATIVE ORDER
And a certain ruler
questioned him, saying,
Good Master, what
haying done, shall I in-
herit eternal life ?
And Jesus said to him,
Why callest thou me
good? none is good but
one, even God.
Thou knowest the com-
mandments.
Do not commit adul-
tery,
do not kill,
do not. steal,
do not bear false wit-
ness,
honour thy father and
thy mother.
And he said,
All these have I kept
from my youth.
Now when Jesus heard
those things, he said unto
him,
Yet one thing is want-
ing to thee, sell all what-
soever thou hast, and
distribute to the poor.
And thou shalt have
treasure in heaven, and
come, follow me.
OF ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 133
But when the young But he, being sad at But when he heard
man heard the saying, he | the saying, went away | these things, he became
went away sorrowing, for | sorrowing, for he had | very sorrowful, for he was
he had great possessions. | great possessions. rich exceedingly.
All the three gospels have here a close, and in some clauses, a
verbal agreement, but St. Mark and St. Luke agree more exactly
with each other, than with St. Matthew. This is apparent in
the opening clause—‘ thou knowest the commandments ’—in the
form of the precepts, where «» with the conjunctive replaces the
future tense of St. Matthew,—in their order, adultery being
named before murder,—and in the absence of the precept—‘ thou
shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.’ It appears further in the
omission of the inquiry, ‘‘ What lack I yet?’ and the substitution
of the answer, ‘‘ One thing thou lackest ; ”’ and thus extends to six
minute particulars. It seems almost certain, then, that one has
made use of the other’s narrative. There are, however, two or
three slight changes, which seem to imply that St. Luke has
revised the other account. The construction, in the third line,
is rendered more classical. In the answer of Jesus, a compound
verb is used, which is more expressive, and the two last clauses
are expressed in a more elegant form. These changes, though
slight, all agree with the view that St. Luke wrote after the two
other Evangelists, and freely combined their statements with his
own materials.
VIII. The Cure of the Blind near Jericho is an event, in
which the gospels have been thought to contradict each other,
and various explications have been proposed. Matt. xxv. 29—
34. Mark x. 46—52. Luke xviii. 35—43.
St. Matthew here speaks of two blind men, and the two others
of one only. St. Matthew and St. Mark place the cure, when
Jesus had passed through Jericho ; St. Luke, on his approach to
it, before he had entered the town. Several expedients to recon-
cile them have been proposed ; that the verb in St. Luke means
simply ‘to be near,” or that our Lord made short excursions
from the city and returned, or that there were two towns of the
134 ON THE RELATIVE ORDER
name, an old and a new, ata very short distance. It has been
supposed, again, that St. Matthew, by an idiomatic license, has
mentioned two blind men, when it was really one, attended by
his guide ; that St. Mark has rectified the number, and St. Luke
restored it more accurately to its true place, just before the
entrance into Jericho.
A simpler solution, adopted by Origen, and more recently by
Lightfoot and Greswell, is that St. Luke and St. Mark record
two successive cures, which St. Matthew, from their similarity,
and nearness in place and time, had grouped together. The
hypothesis that the first Evangelist has mentioned the blind man
and his conductor, as two persons cured, is harsh in itself, and
directly opposed to the statement, Luke xviii. 36. It would be
needless for him to inquire from strangers, if he had a conductor
by his side, and the illustration of his faith and hope, in St.
Mark, that he cast away his garment, would lose its force
entirely. On the other hand the license of reporting the two
cures, as if they were at the same moment, when they were
successive, is in- full harmony with many examples in the first
gospel. St. Mark, also, has given the name of the blind man,
whose cure he reports on leaving Jericho—Bartimeus, the son of
Timeus. But St: Luke, though he retains the name of Jairus,
which Mark has introduced, has no name in the cure he records,«
on the approach of Jesus to Jericho. Let us suppose that
Matthew has really grouped two cures into one, and placed
them where the second alone, strictly speaking, occurred. It
is agreeable to the constant rule of St. Mark, that he should
rectify this departure from exact order, and mention only the
second cure, the subject of which was better known, and probably
still living among the Christians of Judea. If St. Luke wrote
still later, it is equally natural that he should record in its place
the earlier cure, which St. Matthew, in his brief account, had
joined with that of Bartimeus and connected with the departure
of Jesus from Jericho.
OF 8T. LUKE’S GOSPEL.
135
IX. The Casting of the Gifts into the Treasury is another
proof of the relation between the second and third gospels.
K. And he said unto them in his
teaching,
Beware of the scribes, that love to
walk in robes, and greetings in the
markets, and chief seats in the syna-
gogues, and the uppermost couches in
feasts, who devour widows’ houses, and
for shew make long prayers ; these shall
receive a greater damnation.
And Jesus sat over against the trea-
sury, and beheld how the people cast
money into the treasury, and many rich
men cast in much.
And there came also a certain poor
widow, and cast in two mites, which
are a farthing.
And he called to him his disciples,
and said,
Verily I say to you, that this poor
widow hath cast in more than all who
have cast into the treasury.
For all they did cast in from their
abundance, but she from her want hath
cast in all whatever she had, even all
her living.
ZL. Thén, in the audience of all his
people, he said to his disciples,
Take heed of the scribes, that love
to walk in robes, and love greetings in
the markets, and chief seats in the
synagogues, and the uppermost couches
in feasts, who devour widows’ houses,
and for shew make long prayers ; these
shall receive a greater damnation.
And looking up, he saw rich men
casting their gifts into the treasury.
And he saw also a certain poor
widow, casting in thither two mites.
And he said,
Of a truth I say to you, that this
poor widow hath cast in more than all.
For all these out of their abundance
cast into the offerings of God, but she,
out of her want, hath cast in all the
living that she had.
The resemblance here is the more striking; because the first
part is only an abridgment of the actual discourse, as recorded
fully by St. Matthew, and the other incident is not found in his
gospel. There is an entire verbal agreement in the first part,
varied only by three slight changes. The insertion of gidovytay
removes one solecism from St. Mark’s style, and the substitution
St. Luke, then, has
adopted the words of his predecessor, and simply adapted them
to the ear of more classic readers.
The changes in the latter part are more numerous. The open-
ing statement is freed by St. Luke from a repetition that might
seem inelegant. The Hebrew word, Amen, is replaced by its
.
of of OéAcvc. for 4: 0éAovrTes removes another.
1386 ON THE RELATIVE ORDER OF ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL.
Greek equivalent, «A76#<, while the Roman synonym for two
mites is not given. Another pleonasm of the verb and its par-
ticiple is removed, a more expressive term, arayres, introduced,
and the nature of the gifts expounded for Gentile readers, “ the
offerings of God.” The closing sentence also receives a more —
finished structure. Every feature is thus explained, if we suppose
that the third Evangelist has adopted, and slightly revised, the
statement of the second, so as to adapt the style to a more
classical taste. The independence of the accounts, without some-
thing like a miracle, is incredible, while every variation indicates
that St. Luke has given us the later narrative.
Thus, finally, it results from the whole inquiry, by a great
variety of evidence, that the three first gospels have a close
mutual relation to each other, that each later Evangelist used
the work of his predecessor, but combined it with original sources
of information, and that the gospel of St. Luke is really the
third, not only as to its actual place in the Canon, but in order
of publication.
CHAPTER VII.
ON THE HISTORICAL RELATIONS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL.
Ir was a maxim of the Divine law, that in the mouth of two or
three witnesses every word should be established. The direct
bearing of this principle on the mutual relation of the gospel
witnesses, does not appear to have been sufficiently observed.
To satisfy this rule, it would be needful that a second Evangelist
should repeat and ratify the testimony of the first, with regard
to all the main events contained in the earlier history. When
two witnesses had thus been secured, a third would not be abso-
lutely necessary, but still desirable. Hence it would be natural
that a third Evangelist should give his testimony to many of the
same events, which had been reported by the others ; but not so
necessary to confirm the whole, as to exclude the admission of
a large variety of fresh and original information. There would
then be little need to multiply further testimonies, when enough
had been already supplied. The chief object of a fourth
writer would naturally be, to communicate further information.
The second gospel would be confirmatory of the first ; the third
in part confirmatory, in part supplementary, to the first and
second ; the fourth, almost entirely, a supplement to its three
predecessors. And such precisely is the relation which the gospel
of St. John sustains to the three others.
This very feature, however, of the distinctness of its events
from those previously recorded, has concurred with its fulness of
138 ON THE HISTORICAL RELATIONS
doctrinal statement, and the simple majesty of its style, to conceal
from many readers the internal evidence of its historical reality.
And hence the mythical theorists have sought to disparage it, as
a mere dream of high-wrought fancy, designed to glorify Jesus,
with hardly any ground-work in his actual history. It has been
endeavoured to prove its statements contradictory to those of the
other Evangelists, and thus either to set it aside as a Christian
legend, or to throw doubt on their consenting testimony, and
involve the whole life of our Lord in utter uncertainty and
confusion. It becomes, then, of great importance to unfold the
supplementary character of this gospel, and to shew that the —
indirectness of its relation to the others only deepens the force
of their combined evidence, by a series of undesigned and exact
coincidences, the more impressive because they lie beneath the
surface, and entirely escape the notice of a superficial and careless
reader.
On the first and general view of St. John’s gospel, we should
be ready to suppose that it was a doctrinal, rather than an
historical supplement to the others, and that the writer, occupied
with those sublime discourses of our Lord, and those wonderful
glimpses of his Divine glory, had lost sight entirely of the
lower elements of time and place, which would ensure its
authority as real history. But whether we ascribe it to a con-
scious purpose, or to the secret overruling of the Spirit of God,
we shall see that both objects are harmonized together, and that
there is a striking unity and completeness in its purely historical
relations to the other gospels.
I. The three first gospels agree in confining themselves,
almost entirely, to the record of our Lord’s ministry in Galilee.
This transfer of its scene from Judea stands prominent in the
opening of St. Matthew, and is justified by the direct appeal to
an inspired prophecy. ‘The land of Zabulon and of Naphthali,
by the way of the sea, in Galilee of the Gentiles,’ was the place
appointed for the first dawning of this light from heaven. The
only exception is that of the last journey to Jerusalem, which
OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 139
they all record very fully in its closing portion, because the sub-
stance of the whole gospel was comprised in the atoning death
and glorious resurrection of the Lord Jesus.
It might be inferred, however, from several passing hints, even
in these gospels, that our Saviour’s ministry was not entirely
confined to Galilee, and that he paid more than one visit to
Jerusalem. To say nothing of the presumption from the law of
Moses, which prescribed attendance at the yearly feasts, the
passages Matt. xxiii. 37. Luke xiii. 34, are alone decisive on
this point. Accordingly, the fourth gospel derives its historical
unity from this systematic omission in the others, and records
distinctly, and almost exclusively, the ministry of Jesus in Judea
and Jerusalem.
There are only two exceptions to this general law, with regard
to the theatre of the fourth gospel, in chap. vi., xxi. And in
these very exceptions the supplementary character may be clearly
traced. The scene in both of them is the sea of Galilee, to
which the prophecy of Isaiah referred our Saviour’s ministry,
in the foresight of his rejection at Jerusalem, the natural seat
and centre of Messiah’s kingdom. The occasion, in each instance,
illustrates the principle on which the transfer was made. In the
former case, it was near the Jewish Passover, when our Lord
would have gone up to Jerusalem, unless restrained by the mur-
derous malice of the Jews. In the latter instance, it was after
his resurrection, when his rejection by the rulers and people of
Jerusalem was complete, and when he was about to crown his
ministry by the last solemn message to his Apostles and all his
disciples, on a mountain in Galilee.
II. The first interval, omitted in the former gospels, extends
from the close of the temptation to the return into Galilee, when
our Lord’s public ministry in that province began. The fourth
gospel punctually supplies the intervening events; and yet the
links are so simple and inartificial, that scarcely one reader in a
hundred would observe, how precisely the limits tally with those
of the previously omitted portion. The narrative begins with
140 i ON THE HISTORICAL RELATIONS
the testimony of the Baptist to Jesus, occasioned by a message of
inquiry on the part of the Pharisees, and no statement could appear
more widely removed from any purpose of mere chronology.
The writer then continues :—‘‘The next day John seeth Jesus
coming to him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which
taketh away the sin of the world. . . And I knew him not, but
he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me,
Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining
on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
And I saw and bare record that this is the Son of God.”
From these words it is plain that the Baptism of Jesus was
now past. But the other gospels tell us that the Temptation
followed immediately, and since Jesus was now on the banks of
the Jordan, and the next day but one, verses 35, 44, returned
into Galilee, the Temptation also must plainly have been ended.
And further, since the scene of John’s baptism was clearly on
the route between the wilderness and Galilee, it is plain that
Jesus had just returned from the wilderness, when the Baptist
gave this noble testimony to his character, as the Lamb of God.
And hence it follows that the message of the Pharisees, with
which the gospel begins its history, must have been on the last
day of the Temptation, or else the very day after its close.
From this point four successive days are marked, till a return
into Galilee, which might at first sight be confounded with the
return in the former gospels. But the writer does not leave us
long exposed to this mistaken impression. He mentions the
marriage in Cana on the third day, a short abode at Capernaum,
a visit to Jerusalem at the Passover, and then a ministry of Jesus
in the land of Judea, while John also was baptizing at Enon.
He then adds the brief remark—‘ for John was not yet cast into
prison.’ It follows that the return into Galilee, in chap. 1., was
earlier than that which all the other gospels mention after John’s
imprisonment. And accordingly, in chap. iv., St. John mentions
a second return into Galilee, occasioned by the jealousy of the
Pharisees, which has all the features required by the statements
OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 141
of the other Evangelists. Having conducted our Lord to Cana,
where a second miracle occurs, the writer abruptly suspends his
continuous narrative just before the visit to Nazareth, mentioned
by St. Luke, and that later abode at Capernaum, which is recorded
alike in all the three gospels. The dovetailing of the two narra-
tives is thus complete.
III. The next chapter is introduced with the words, “ After
these things there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up
to Jerusalem.” The comparison with other passages of the
gospel yields of itself a strong presumption that this feast was a
Passover. For in every other case the feast is specified by name,
whether the Passover, the Feast of Tabernacles, or the Dedi-
cation. Hence the simplest reason for the omission here will be,
that the feast was virtually specified, in the view of the writer ;
since he has repeatedly named the Passover, and referred to it
by the general title, the feast, and hitherto has alluded to no
other. Thus in chap. iv., it is said of the Galileans, “ they also
went up to the feast.” Also it is clear from the other gospels
that there was an interval of two years between the Passover
which preceded the teaching in Galilee, and that which followed
the miracle of the five thousand, Hence it results naturally
that this feast was the very next Passover, and that St. John
notes our Lord’s attendance, just as he notices the reason why
he forbore to attend on its next recurrence.
Now there is here an indirect coincidence with the other
gospels. For the main feature of the account is the deep resent-
ment of the Jews against our Lord, for an alleged breach of the
Sabbath ; and from this time the Evangelist dates a systematic
persecution. But in St. Luke, we find the same controversy
renewed on a second-first Sabbath, or the Sabbath next after the
Passover, and then continued on another Sabbath, when a council
was held how they might destroy him, and Jesus withdrew to
the sea, to avoid their malice. The historical agreement, though
far from self-evident, is thus perfect in its kind. With the
second year, a stage of more deliberate and malicious opposition
142 ON THE HISTORICAL RELATIONS
had begun, and the main excuse of it, in the eyes of the
Pharisees, was our Lord’s supposed breach of the Sabbath, and
impious claim of Divine honour.
IV. The Miracle of the Five Thousand is the only event,
before Passion Week, which is common to St. John with the
other gospels. It serves thus to bind the fourth gospel into
close historic unity with the others. But it also supplies a link
of the chronology, for St. John alone tells us distinctly that the
Passover was then near at hand. The main object, however,
seems to be, that he may introduce the striking discourse in the
synagogue of Capernaum. But besides several minute particulars,
such as an eye-witness alone would be likely to give, there is at
the close a striking indirect agreement with the other gospels.
‘‘Have not I chosen you twelve? and one of you is a devil.”
No allusion has been made in this gospel to the selection of the
Twelve Apostles, but the statement of the other three Evangelists
is thus confirmed, as a notorious truth. The agreement is indeed ©
still more complete, since the other gospels state that the Twelve
had just returned from their first public mission, before the
miracle of the five thousand. There is thus a secret, but em-
phatic appeal, to the recent proof of his especial choice, which
our Lord had given them in that solemn embassy.
V. The next portion of the gospel relates to a visit to Jeru-
salem at the feast of Tabernacles, viii. 1—x. 21, in the last year
of our Saviour’s ministry. Now, from the language of the Evan-
gelist, vi. 4, vil. 1, it results clearly that an interval of eighteen
months occurred between this and the former visit. And this
evidently agrees with the statements in the other gospels, who
represent Galilee as the main scene of our Lord’s public labours.
In fact, St. John, whose purpose is to record the visits to Jeru-
salem, is led here, from the long interval between them, to recount
the miracle and attendant discourse, which happened at the time
when such a visit would naturally have occurred, and then to
specify at the close the reason why Jesus still abode in Galilee.
During this last year, after the Transfiguration, there is an —
OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 143
hiatus in the two first gospels, and distinct allusions to a transfer
of the ministry from Galilee, Matt. xvii. 22. The fourth gospel
concurs with this view. For it mentions the presence of Jesus
at the feast of Tabernacles (October), and of Dedication (Decem-
ber), and then remarks that ‘“‘he went away again beyond
Jordan, to the place where John was baptizing at the first, and
there abode.’ The simplest construction is, that he had previously
retired thither after the feast of Tabernacles, and now returned
again after the feast of Dedication. There was thus a considerable
interval, from October to the end of December, during which the
ministry of Jesus was in Perea and not in Galilee, a transfer
which is probably intended, Matt. xix. 1. Mark x. 1.
VI. The Resurrection of Lazarus is like a distinct episode in
the fourth gospel. Yet even here we have several links of
historical connection with the three other Evangelists. ‘The
village of Martha and Mary” is a clear and definite allusion to
the passage, Luke x. 38—42; while the words that follow are
an allusion, not less clear, to the account given by St. Matthew
and St. Mark of the anointing in Bethany, joined with the pro-
mise to Mary of perpetual honour. The miracle itself, when
compared with the two others, of the widow’s son and the
ruler’s daughter, forms a climax of Divine power; and the lan-
guage of Jesus, “our friend Lazarus sleepeth,” finds its exact
parallel in the words of the three other gospels, ‘‘ Give place, for
the damsel is not dead, but sleepeth.” The narrative is sus-
pended, when our Lord arrives at Ephraim, on the southern
border of Samaria, and is resumed when he reaches Bethany,
six days before the last Passover. There is thus room for the
successive events recorded by St. Luke, and in part by the other
Evangelists ; a journey through Samaria, a mission of the Seventy
in Galilee, and a circuit through Galilee, along the border of
Samaria and Galilee, and then through Perea, and by way of
Jericho, to Bethany and Jerusalem.
VII. In the accounts of the Resurrection, the fourth gospel
equally confirms the previous narratives, and supplies their
144 ON THE HISTORICAL RELATIONS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL.
omissions. St. Mark had stated that Jesus appeared first of all
to Mary Magdalene, and here we have a distinct account of that
appearance. St. Luke had stated that Peter ran to the sepul-
chre, after a report from the women. We are taught here that
the report was brought by Mary Magdalene, and that John ac-
companied Peter in his visit to the tomb. St. Luke had
recounted the appearance to the eleven the same evening ;
and here a varied report of it is given. We have then an
appearance, a week later, which is peculiar to this gospel, and
relates to the Apostle Thomas, of whom no mention is made
in any of the earlier gospels, except in the list of the Twelve.
Last of all, St. Matthew had recorded briefly the main appear-
ance of Jesus on a mountain in Galilee, while St. Mark and St.
Luke mention only those in or near Jerusalem. And the fourth
gospel confirms and completes their statements, by exhibiting the
Apostles in Galilee after the resurrection, and recording an
appearance to seven of them, probably just before the public
appearance to all the Twelve and the five hundred brethren. At
the same time, the account may be viewed in another light, as a
supplement to St. Luke, since the two miraculous draughts are
beautifully related to each other, both in their strong resemblance
and partial contrast. In the former, the net is broken; in the
latter no injury is sustained from the immense draught. In the
former, Peter offers the prayer, ‘‘ Depart from me,” in the other
he casts himself into the sea, in his ardent desire to be near
his Lord and Saviour. The contrast, as well as the resemblance
to the former miracle, is very striking, and serves to complete
their common, significance.
The fourth gospel, then, although the events which it records
are supplementary to the other gospels, contains numerous links
of connexion, which evince their common truth, and bind the
whole into one harmonious and consistent narrative of the chief
events in the life of Jesus.
BOOK II.
INTRODUCTION.
ON THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE GOSPELS.
Tuer mutual relation of the Gospels, established by the internal
evidence, is an important help towards fixing the date of
their publication, and thereby proving their just claim to the
character of authentic history. The third gospel and the Book of
Acts were both addressed to the same person, Theophilus, whose
name appears in the preface to each of them, and are plainly
two successive works of the same author. Hence, if we can
ascertain the date of the book of Acts, it will follow that three
of the gospels must have been published earlier; and so much
earlier, that the first was in circulation before the second was
written, and the first and second before the composition of the
third. We have now to determine the chronology of the
book of Acts, its date and authorship, and the probable occasion
when it was published ; and we may then infer, by a comparison
with its contents, the probable occasion and date of the three
earlier gospels. The authenticity of St. John’s gospel is directly
proved by external evidence, of the strongest kind, and its autho-
rity is almost independent of the date when it was written. In
the present book this inquiry has therefore been omitted, as less
important ; but the objections urged against it will be examined
afterwards, and its Apostolic origin confirmed, so as to form a
keystone to the arch of historical testimony.
H
CHAPTER I.
THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE BOOK OF ACTS.
Berore we can ascertain the date of the book of Acts, it is need-
ful to determine, as nearly as possible, the chronology of the
events themselves. Such an inquiry is interesting for its own
sake, and serves to illustrate and confirm the reality of the
whole narrative. There is a divergence of six or seven years,
even among recent chronologers, which calls for a renewed and
careful examination of the evidence.
The Ascension of our Lord, and the Release of St. Paul from
his imprisonment at Rome, are the limiting events of the history.
Their dates, according to Usher, with whom Professor Hug
agrees, are A.D. 33, and A.D. 65, while others place the Apos-
tle’s release one or two years later. Mr. Greswell fixes the ©
limits at A.D. 30. and A.D. 61, while Dr. Burton contracts the
whole within a narrower compass, A.D. 33—58. Several writers,
however, as Tillemont, Pearson, Tomline and Townsend, adopt
the intermediate date A.D. 63, for the close of the history.
There is a similar variety in the date assigned to the council,
Acts xy. as will appear from the following scheme :—
CRrvucIFIXxION.
March A.D. 29. Ideler, Browne, Benson, Clinton.
April A.D. 30. Africanus, Greswell.
March A.D. 31. Epiphanius, Petavius, Hales, Burton.
April A.D. 33. — Scaliger, Usher, Cuninghame.
April A.D. 34. — Sir I. Newton.
THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE BOOK OF ACTS. 147
Tue~CounciL, Acts xv.
A.D. 46. Dr. Burton.
48. Browne, Greswell.
49. Petavius, Pearson, Lardner, Michaelis, Townsend.
52. Usher, Hug.
ReeAseE or Sr. Paut.
-A.D. 58. Dr. Burton, Browne.
61. Greswell.
63. Pearson, Tillemont, Townsend.
65. Usher, Hug.
I. The first question relates to the date of the Crucifixion and
Ascension. This, however, is more closely connected with the
chronology of the gospels; since the notes of time in Acts i—vi.
are so few, that a difference of two or three years in the Ascen-
sion would have little influence in fixing the date of the later events
after Saul’s conversion. The date of Eusebius and Usher, A.D.
33, has been very generally received in the last century. But
recent chronologers, with one or two exceptions, incline to an
earlier date. Ideler, Benson, Browne and Clinton, place it
A.D. 29, Dr. Jarvisin A.D. 28, Mr. Greswell, and Foster, in
A.D. 30, and Dr. Hales and Dr. Burton in A.D. 31.
The date of Africanus and Greswell, April A.D. 30, seems to
be established, with high probability, by the following reasons.
First, the death of Herod the Great, from the direct and indirect
statements of Josephus, may be assigned to the beginning of
A.C. 3. This agrees with the length of his reign, as twice men-
tioned, and computed from a double origin, with the reign and
deposition of Archelaus, the years of Philip the tetrarch, and
the date of the eclipse, if we suppose that Herod’s disease was
lingering, and lasted about a whole year. The birth of our Lord
must have been nearly a year earlier, and may thus be placed
between the limits December A.C. 5, and April A.C. 4. The
gospels of St. Luke and St. John, compared, imply that thirty
years of our Lord’s life were complete at the Passover, John ii.
H 2
148 THE CHRONOLOGY OF
12, or shortly before it. This will fix it, consequently, to A.D.
27. And this agrees with Luke ii. 1, if the years of Tiberius
are reckoned from his proconsular dominion, or supreme power
over the provinces. Now for this reckoning we have an exact pre-
cedent in Scripture, in the case of Nebuchadnezzar, whose reign is
dated two years earlier, in Judea, than by the Canon of Ptolemy,
or by Daniel at Babylon. Again, the gospels imply an interval
of just three years from that Passover to the Crucifixion. One
of these closes at the time of the second-first Sabbath, Luke vi.
1; another soon after the miracle of the five thousand, John vi.
1; and the last at the Crucifixion, which is thus referred to April
A.D. 30. Now this date satisfies also the test from the Pass-
over week-day, if the feast were fixed by the phasis of the moon.
For if the moon was visible when twenty-two hours old, the
Passover-day would be Thursday, which seems to have been the
real day of its occurrence. If, however, the day were Friday,
which many have inferred from the fourth gospel, we should only
have to suppose that the new moon was not visible, so near to
the extreme limit of her possible appearance. This date differs
also very little from the year of the Gemini, A.D. 29, which has
the most traditional evidence in its favour; and the interval of
forty years, to the fall of Jerusalem, has many analogies in Jewish
history.
The dates of the Roman emperors, within the Apostolic
period, are as follows :—
Tiberius, Aug. 19, A.D. 14. Nero, Sep. 13, A.D. 54.
Caligula, March 16,.A.D. 37. Galba, June, A.D. 68.
Claudius, Jan., A.D. 41. Fall of Jerusalem, Aug. A.D. 70.
One writer only, Dr. Jarvis, has recently departed from these
well-established dates, placing them all one year higher ; but his
reasoning is erroneous in every part, and the usual chronology
rests on a variety of proofs, which amount to absolute demonstra-
tion. We may infer from these dates, that the history, Acts
xli—xvii. was included within the reign of Claudius, or Jan. A.D.
41—September, A.D. 54; but beyond this general limit, they
THE BOOK OF ACTS. 149
yield us no direct information of the exact time when each event
occurred. Our data must be borrowed mainly from the history
of Josephus, though one important link is supplied by St. Paul
himself, in the Epistle to the Galatians.
The time of the death of Herod Agrippa is the first and car-
dinal date. The second is the interval of fourteen years, Gal. ii.
1, either from the conversion of St. Paul, or from his first visit
to Jerusalem, until some later visit, of which several particulars
are there given. When this double ambiguity has been removed,
a third datum is still requisite, in order to decide how much of
the interval lies before, and how much follows after, the death
of Herod, previously ascertained. And here the adjustment is
constructive, and requires us to combine several data, each of them
separately inadequate, before we can arrive at a correct decision.
II. The Death of Herod Agrippa, Acts xii, furnishes the most
definite mark of time in the whole narrative. It may be fixed,
by the express testimony of Josephus, to A.D. 44. Since, how-
ever, Mr. Greswell assigns it to A.D. 43, and Dr. Burton half
inclines to the same date, it is needful to vindicate the common
view of nearly all chronologers by placing that testimony clearly
before the reader.
First, Josephus tells us in Ant. xix. 8. 2, that Claudius, on his
accession, invested Agrippa with the dominion over Judea and
Samaria, in addition to the tetrarchy of Antipas, which he had re-
ceived before from Caligula. After the third year of this reign was
completed, he held the festival at Czesarea, when he was smitten
with disease, and died within afew days. His appointment,
then, at the earliest, was January A.D. 41, and the festival must
have been later than January A.D. 44. Now Peter was im-
prisoned at a Passover, and the history in Acts seems to imply
_ that the audience of the Tyrians and the death of Herod were
very soon after, before the return of Paul and Barnabas to Antioch.
Hence the Passover must have been that of A.D. 44, and Herod’s
death was probably not later than the Pentecost of that year.
Again we are told (Ant. xviii. 6, 10.) that Caius invested him
150 THE CHRONOLOGY OF
with the tetrarchies of Philip and Lysanias, soon after his own
accession, or April—June, A.D. 37. The next year Agrippa
sailed to Judea. Upon this Herodias prompted Antipas to set out
for Rome, in order to solicit the same title of king, and prevailed
on him with difficulty, after some delay. He sailed evidently the
next year, or A.D. 39, and met the Emperor at Baiz in Cam-
pania, where Caius is known from other evidence to have been, not
long before his birth-day, August 31, A.D. 39. Antipas and
Herodias were then banished into Gaul, and the tetrarchies were
given to Herod Agrippa. Claudius, on his accession, confirmed
to him this government, and added Judea and Samaria. (Ant.
ex; 5. 1.)
Now Josephus (Ant. xix. 8. 2.) places the death of Herod
“in the seventh year of his reign, for he reigned four years
under Caius, three of them over Philip’s tetrarchy alone, and in
the fourth that of Herod was added; and besides these, he
reigned three years under Claudius.’’ If his appointment were in
May or June A.D. 37, his death, soon after the Passover A.D.
44, would be at the close of his seventh year. From May A.D.
37 to the close of A.D. 39, when tidings of the deposition of
Antipas would reach Judea, are more than two and half years, or
three years current. From that time to the death of Caligula
.would be little more than one full year, after which three full
years were completed before his death.
In the Wars (ii. 11. 6.) we are told that Herod had reigned
three years at his death, as he had also governed his tetrarchies
three other years. Here, again, three complete years are dis-
tinctly assigned to him, after the accession of Claudius, and the
only divergence is in reckoning three years, instead of four, for
his previous rule. But this may be explained very simply by the
fact that he sailed from Rome, and actually assumed the govern-
ment, only in the second year of Caligula, or A.D. 38, whence
three years only are current to the end of that Emperor’s reign.
Thus all the notes of time in Josephus evidently agree, and
fix the death of Agrippa to the first half of A.D. 44, while the
THE BOOK OF ACTS. Loe
book of Acts would lead us to place it not very long after the
Passover. The reasoning of Mr. Greswell, by which he would
place it a year earlier, involves a rejection of the express statement
of Josephus, twice repeated, that three years from the accession
of Claudius had been completed at the time of its occurrence.
III. The next help towards the fixation of the dates is the
passage in Galatians iii. 1. We are told by St. Paul in that
Epistle, that three years after his conversion he went up to Jeru-
salem (Acts ix. 28), and then that “after fourteen years” (&
etoy dexateccagwy) he went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas
and Titus, on account of certain false brethren, who were
troubling the Church at Antioch. Three questions may here be
raised,—which is the visit thus referred to, whether the two in-
tervals are successive, or both measured from the same date, and
lastly, whether the years are current or complete. Since the in-
tervals after the council at Jerusalem may be nearly determined
from St. Luke’s narrative, the relative dates of the whole series
will be also fixed, when the above questions have been solved ; but
their absolute dates will vary, as more or less of the fourteen years
is placed between the death of Herod and the council at Jerusalem.
Four opinions have been held with regard to the visit in Gala-
tians, that it was the second, third, or fourth of those mentioned
by St. Luke, or else a visit not recorded by him, and supposed
to have been shortly before the time of the council. The view of
Mr. Browne, who refers it to the second, and of Mr. Greswell,
who identifies it with the fourth visit, may be disproved by
a direct comparison of the letter with the history, and the only
presumption in favour of Paley’s hypothesis, that it was a private
visit shortly before the council, vanishes on a closer examination.
Three-fourths of the ablest writers agree that the visit at the
time of the council Acts xv, is the one of which the Apostle is
here speaking, and their opinion has been established, in the
Hore Apostolic, by the internal evidence of the passage alone.
Next, are the two periods, of three and fourteen years, suc-
cessive, or do they alike date from Saul’s conversion? Opinions
152 THE CHRONOLOGY OF
are much divided on this point. Petavius, Usher, Hug, Dr.
Burton, adopt the former view, while Browne, Greswell and
many others, prefer the latter. Even on internal grounds, the
supposition of a common date for the two periods seems to me
at least as probable as the other. Dr. Burton thinks, indeed,
that there is no reason for supposing that St. Paul reverted in
his mind to the period of his conversion, and that the word,
again, compels us to refer back to the date of the former journey.
My own impression is just the reverse. The word, again, would
be just as applicable, whether the period were reckoned from his
conversion, or from his former visit, while the scope of the pas-
sage almost requires us to refer it to the earlier event. For his
object is to remind the Galatians how long he had continued, after
he was commissioned by Christ, without any formal or official in-
tercourse with the other Apostles; and thus to exalt the im-
portance of his original call, and shew the unimportance, in a
question of Apostolic authority, of that brief visit which lasted
only fifteen days. Now this object would naturally lead him to
date his second visit, like the first, from the time of that mira-
culous revelation at Damascus, which was the source of all his
Apostolic authority.
When we compare the history in Acts, the reasons pre-
ponderate still more in favour of this view. Only one year is
there specified between the first and third visits. The rest of the
interval must be distributed into four parts,—the stay at Tarsus,
the stay at Antioch before the circuit, the circuit itself, and a
renewed stay after the close. Dr. Burton infers from the text that
these latter amounted only to two years; and yet it is clear that
the two former, so far as the text alone is concerned, do not re-
quire a longer time than the others. Yet, if we adopt his view of
the period in Galatians, these four intervals amount collectively
to thirteen years. Hence it is plain that the construction of the
intervals in Galatians, as parallel, agrees better with the indica-
tions of St. Luke’s narrative, and ought to be preferred. For the
same reason, as well as from the grammatical form of the phrase,
ee
THE BOOK OF ACTS. 153
it is probable that the years were current. It will follow that the
council was held at Jerusalem in the fourteenth year from the
Apostle’s conversion.
We have next to inquire how large a part of this period fol-
lows the second visit, and the death of Herod. Dr. Burton con-
fines the interval to two, while Professor Hug extends it to eight
years. The chief reason assigned for the shorter period is the
assumption, that the book of Acts does not naturally imply a
longer space than one year to have elapsed during the circuit.
But in this reasoning there is a great inconsistency. The nar-
rative does not require a longer space than one year for the stay at
Tarsus. We might even infer, from the entire silence of St. Luke
about the Apostle’s labours in that place, that his stay there
occupied a shorter time than his extensive and laborious circuit
through Asia Minor. Yet the reasoning now examined, while it
would limit the circuit to four or five months, enlarges the stay
at Tarsus to nine or ten years. Now since we have no record of
the Apostle’s labours during this period, and hardly an allusion
to them, such a protraction of its length is unnatural and in-
credible. No distribution of the time could well do greater
violence to common sense ; since the historian has twice specified
‘along time’ in connexion with the latter period, but never
implies that the former was of any long continuance.
On the view here preferred, the whole interval from Saul’s
first visit to the council, exclusive of the year at Antioch, will
be nine complete, or ten current years. It is natural to conclude
that about half the time, which would be four complete, or five
current years, followed the second visit ; and this leaves five com-
plete years for the double stay at Tarsus and Antioch before the
death of Herod.
To determine the arrangement upon fuller evidence, the data
from the rest of the history must be combined. Each of them
separately is indefinite, and even when they have all been
consulted, the result continues in some measure indeterminate.
The chief events to be considered are the martyrdom of Stephen,
H 5
154 THE CHRONOLOGY OF
the commission to Damascus, the time of the escape, and of the
jurisdiction of Aretas, the time of rest to the Churches, the
length of the stay at Tarsus, compared with the first circuit, the
succession of Roman governors, and especially the appointment
and deposition of Felix, the decree of Claudius, the priesthood
of Ananias, and the probable time of the liberation from Rome.
IV. The martyrdom of Stephen is the first cardinal event of
the history, after the Ascension. The ancient preface of St.
Paul’s Epistles seems to place itin the same year, a view adopted
by Petavius, Tillemont, Cave and Burton. On the other hand,
the chronicle of Hippolytus, and the Recognitions of Clement,
place it seven years after the Ascension, which is also the view
of Mr. Greswell in his Dissertations. It seems quite in-
credible that, while the whole book of Acts comprises a space
of more than thirty years, the first nine chapters should be con-
tracted within the narrow limits of seven or eight months.
When we consider the advice of Gamaliel, with the forbearance
of the rulers to which it led, the great increase in the number of
the disciples, the feud in the Church, the appointment of the
seven deacons, and their labours before the trial began, we can-
not reasonably allow for these events a shorter space than two
years, while it is clearly possible that the period was still longer.
The chief help to a decision, beyond mere conjecture, seems to
be found in the reasoning that now follows.
Vitellius, as we learn from Josephus, visited Jerusalem at the
Passover, A.D. 36, having superseded Pilate not long before ;
and then deprived Caiaphas of the high-priesthood, which he
gave to Jonathan, the son of Ananias or Annas. He also granted
the Jews their request, to have the priestly garments in their
own custody, and wrote to Tiberius for a confirmation of that
privilege. The next year he visited it again at the time of some
feast, while marching against Aretas. While there, he received
the news of the Emperor’s death, administered the oath of
fidelity to Caius, deposed Jonathan from the priesthood, and
appointed Theophilus in his stead. Mr. Greswell supposes
THE BOOK OF ACTS. 155
both visits to have occurred in A.D. 37, at the Passover and
Pentecost. But this is clearly erroneous, for two reasons. The
interval is too short for the events which come between the visits
in the history, including a return of Vitellius to Antioch, an
expedition against Artabanus, the preparation for a campaign
against Aretas, and a second journey by land to Jerusalem. The
deposition, also, of Jonathan, so soon after his appointment, is
highly improbable, and the interval from the death of Tiberius
to the Pentecost is too long. For Tiberius died March 16, and
the date of the Passover that year would be almost certainly
April 18, and not March 18, which is three days before the
equinox, and therefore a month too early. Onthe other hand
from March 16 to April 25, which would be the close of the
feast, leaves an interval just sufficient for the news to arrive, and
is therefore in exact harmony with the statement of Josephus.
Now the account of Stephen’s death implies an assumption of
authority, by the high-priest and Sanhedrim, the very reverse
of their conduct at the time of the crucifixion. In both cases
there was an unanimous condemnation on a charge of blasphemy.
Here, however, there is no appeal to a Roman governor, and no
scruple expressed as before, “ It is not lawful for us to put any
man to death.” The stoning of Stephen was the legal Jewish
punishment, not the act of a mere rabble, and was done with
attention to legal forms. ‘‘ The witnesses laid down their clothes
at a young man’s feet, whose name was Saul.” We can hardly
avoid the inference, that Pilate had been already removed from
office, and that there was a kind of interregnum in the Roman
government, which seemed to favour the Sanhedrim in their bold
resumption of the power of life and death.
These indications are satisfied, if we refer the event to the
high-priesthood of Jonathan. There was then no actual procu-
rator, but only a temporary substitute. Upon a complaint of
the Jews, Pilate had been sent to Rome in disgrace, and a pri-
vilege been granted them, which removed, in their eyes,
a very odious badge of their own subjection. This might
156 THE CHRONOLOGY OF
embolden them to resume the prerogative of life and death,
while the high priest might wish to signalize his office by some
act of severity against the growing sect of the Nazarenes. This
usurpation of a power, which the Romans guarded with extreme
jealousy, may also account for the conduct of Vitellius, in de-
posing Jonathan so soon after he had appointed him. The
death of Stephen, if the above reasoning be just, would fall be-
tween the Passovers of A.D. 36, and 37. If we place it about
Pentecost, there is time for the mission of Philip in Samaria
before the Feast of Tabernacles, which, as the greatest of all,
might probably be the festival from which the eunuch was on
his return.
If we consider the general scale of the history, a space of six
years for the seven first chapters, or less than one fifth of the
whole period, for one fourth of the whole narrative, cannot seem
excessive. There are four intervals mentioned, each of which
might possibly, and one of them must certainly, have been of —
considerable length. At the same time, since there is nothing
in the text which we might not conceive, on the shortest estimate,
to have been compressed into about two years, the date, Pentecost
A.D. 36, seems more probable on this account than that of
Mr. Greswell, who defers the event one year later, or until seven
full years from the Ascension.
V. The conversion of Saul, and his first visit to Jerusalem,
furnish the next imperfect criteria, as they are connected with
the rule of Aretas in Damascus, and that rest of the Churches
which followed the removal of the Apostle to Tarsus.
From the account of St. Luke, it seems a reasonable inference
that the journey to Damascus was not less than half a year, nor
more than a whole year, after Stephen’s death. During the in-
terval, Saul had continugd the persecution both in Jerusalem and
other towns of Judea, while Philip had preached the gospel in
Samaria, Peter and John had visited them, had preached the gospel
in many villages of the Samaritans, and returned to Jerusalem.
The conversion of the eunuch, which happened in the same
THE BOOK OF ACTS. 15:7
interval, seems to have followed one of the main festivals. And
hence, if the date proposed for the death of Stephen, the early
summer of A.D. 36, be accurate, the journey to Damascus
could not well be earlier than the following spring.
Now St. Paul, in his defence at Jerusalem, seems to refer to
the very high priest, who gave him the commission to Damascus,
as present, and still alive. Jonathan, however, who was deposed
at the Passover, A. D. 37, had been slain at the time of that
address, or else Ananias could not have held the office. Hence
it is probable that the commission was given by Theophilus,
the next high priest ; and consequently after the Passover, and
before the Pentecost, A. D. 37. On this view, the public ministry
of St. Paul would probably begin about the time of Pentecost,
or exactly seven years after the first preaching of St. Peter
at Jerusalem.
The return of St. Paul to that city took place after three
years, (wera ery tTox,) and the form of the phrase more naturally
implies that these years were complete, And since we find that
two other visits, as well as the first beginning of the gospel, were
at the feast of Pentecost, this return may be assigned to that
festival A. D. 40. The escape from Damascus would either be
a little before, or if it preceded the journey into Arabia, one or
two years earlier.
It is usually assumed that the escape from Damascus, Acts
ix. 23—25, was at the close of the three years mentioned in
Galatians, and immediately before the visit to Jerusalem. This,
however, is by no means clear. The Apostle may have continued
preaching at Damascus, till this conspiracy was formed against
him, and on his escape have retired into Arabia, and after a stay
of one or two years, have returned to Damascus ; and then have
left it finally, not so much from immediate persecution, as for
the sake of intercourse with Peter, his brother Apostle. On one
view the escape from Damascus would be at the close of the
three years ; on the other, about midway in their course, and it
158 THE CHRONOLOGY OF
seems difficult to decide, from the Acts and Epistle, which
arrangement is to be preferred.
Now we are told, (2 Cor. xi. 32, 33,) that when St. Paul
escaped from Damascus, the ethnarch of Aretas the king
guarded the city gates, desirous to apprehend him. Since
Damascus was usually under the Roman government, the ques-
tion arises, when it was that Aretas held such a jurisdiction over
it. Mr. Browne conceives, indeed, that this mention of the
ethnarch does not imply an actual government of Aretas. But it
is hard to see on what ground such a doubt can be raised. Why
should the Apostle mention the ethnarch of Aretas, unless to
signify that the ‘authorities who then governed the city were
arrayed against him? The guarding of the city gates, in this
formal manner, would certainly require the assent of the actual
governor. It must be clear from the passage that Aretas, and
not the Roman president of Syria, actually held the supreme
authority.
Dr. Burton, again, thinks it probable that Aretas was at war
with Rome in the year A. D. 33, and might then have gained
possession of Damascus. But this view is opposed to the testi-
mony of Josephus. After the defeat of Herod, he tells us that
Tiberius sent orders to Vitellius to make war upon Aretas. This
war, therefore had not begun before. Vitellius was on his march
in consequence of this order, and had reached Jerusalem at the
time of the Emperor’s death. Josephus tells us that the diviners
of Aretas encouraged him not to fear the invasion, because either
the Emperor or the general would die before it began. On the
news of this death, Vitellius abandoned the expedition. Hence
the defeat of Herod, at the earliest, would be late in A. D. 35,
and the war only determined on in the close of A. D. 36, after
the deposition of Pilate, and the former visit of the president
to Jerusalem.
Professor Hug conceives that this retreat of Vitellius was the
very occasion, on which Aretas was encouraged to seize upon
Damascus. Caius, however, he observes, disposed the affairs
THE BOOK OF ACTS. 159
of Arabia before the end of his second year, when he gave a
king to the Iturean Arabs, and severed other parts from Arabia.
Aretas, therefore, could have held Damascus, only from the
accession of Caligula to the end of his second year. The Pro-
fessor refers the flight of Saul to the middle of this period, or
about Pentecost A. D. 38, and places his conversion three years
earlier.
Mr. Greswell, again, observes that the tetrarchy of Lysanias,
of which Damascus was a part, was conferred on Agrippa by
Claudius in the first year of his reign. He thinks it probable
that the tetrarch had not been long dead, and that Damascus
would not have fallen into other hands while the tetrarch was
alive ; and hence, that the last year of Caius is the one in which
we have the strongest assurance that it was subject to Aretas. In
this year he places the flight of Saul, and his visit to Jerusalem.
This view, it is evident, rests on a mere conjecture, since Jose-
phus gives no account of the time when Lysanias died. He
tells us, in one place, that Caius, on his accession, gave Herod
Agrippa the tetrarchy of Lysanias, as well as of Philip; and in
another place, that it was added by Claudius on his accession.
Hence it seems not unlikely that it was only promised by Caius,
and was actually received at the latter date, having been recovered,
perhaps, towards the close of Caligula’s reign. And hence it is
not easy to define the jurisdiction of Aretas over the city, by a
narrower limit than the first and last years of that Emperor, or
A.D. 37—40. Hence, whether the flight of St. Paul from
Damascus were at the close of three years from his conversion, or
half-way in their course, it appears to satisfy this criterion, unless
our knowledge of the history of Damascus were more exact. On
the other hand, if his conversion were dated earlier than the
summer of A. D. 34, his flight would be too early, so far as we
can form a probable judgment, for the jurisdiction of Aretas to
have begun.
When the Apostle had left for Tarsus, we are told that the
churches had rest (e:xov e+oqvqv) throughout all Judea and
160 THE CHRONOLOGY OF
Galilee and Samaria. The conversion of Saul alone would not
account for this pause in the Jewish persecution, but it is fully
explained by another concurrent event, in the attempt of Caligula
to set up his statue in the temple at Jerusalem.
The time of this event may be clearly deduced from the
Antiquities. After the deposition of Herod Antipas, which took
place in the latter half of A. D. 39, the writer tells us that Caius
managed affairs with moderation in the two first years of his
reign, but afterwards began to claim Divine honours. In the
next chapter he recounts his impiety, and the hazard of the Jews.
First came the embassy from Alexandria, then the mission of
Petronius, with orders to invade Judeaa, and erect the statue.
He wintered at Ptolemais, proposing to commence the war in
the spring. Then followed the petitions of the Jews, the march
of Petronius to Tiberias, and their renewed petition for forty
days, which Josephus places in the seed-time, but Philo, when
the corn was ripe. Petronius, upon this, consented to write to
the Emperor, and there followed abundant showers of rain.
Soon after, the first letter of the Emperor arrived, yielding to
Agrippa’s request, and then the second, which threatened Petro-
nius with death ; but the vessel was outsailed by another, which
brought the tidings of the death of Caligula. This took place
January A. D. 41. It is therefore clear that the winter passed
at Ptolemais, was the one of A. D. 39—40, and that the matter
was in suspense throughout the whole of the following year.
Consequently, if St. Paul visited Jerusalem, and sailed away to
Tarsus, as we have inferred above, about the Passover or Pentecost
of A. D. 40, it would be at the very time that Petronius and his
forces were at Ptolemais, or Tiberias, when the consternation of
the Jews was at its height ; and hence the pause in the
persecution of the Christians, at this period of the sacred
history, is fully explained. We have also, conversely, a further
presumption that the visit in question really belonged to one of
the years A. D. 39, 40, and consequently that the conversion of
the Apostle should be referred either to A. D. 36, or A. D. 37.
THE BOOK OF ACTS. 161
VI. The next question to be examined is the comparative
length of the two intervals, between the first, second, and third
visits of St. Paul to Jerusalem. The whole interval, according
to Dr. Burton’s construction of the passage in Galatians, would
be thirteen, but on the view here preferred, ten complete years.
Two years only are assigned by him to the second interval, and
eleven to the stay at Tarsus and Antioch, a most unnatural
disparity, which does violence to the tenor of the whole history.
Let us examine the details in order.
The disposition of the whole period, proposed by Dr. Burton,
is as follows. The first visit A. D. 33; nine years in retirement
at Tarsus; the return to Antioch A. D. 42; the second visit,
March A. D. 44; the first missionary journey, May A. D. 45;
one day to Seleucia, two to Cyprus, a week in the island, two
sabbaths at Antioch, or perhaps three weeks or a month, two days
to Iconium, a stay there of one week, three weeks at Lystra and
Derbe, and about three weeks on their return, so as to reach
Antioch by the end of September. They stayed there ‘ no short
time,’ that is, they spent the winter there, and the next Easter
attended the council at Jerusalem.
It is difficult to conceive how any reader of the history could
arrive at a conclusion so unnatural, with regard to the relative
length of the earlier and later portions of this main period.
The words of xi. 26, ought alone to suffice for its refutation.
How could the writer speak with emphasis of this interval, as a
whole year, if he had just passed by no less than nine years of
St. Paul’s labours at Tarsus without one word of notice? There
are certainly as few traces of a long interval in Acts x. xi., as in
xiii. xiv.; for the whole history of Cornelius, and the conference
that followed, must have occupied a few weeks only. Any
impartial reader would be disposed to regard the two intervals,
from the internal marks alone, as of nearly equal length, and
would probably conjecture the first of them to be the shorter.
Yet the chronology of Dr. Burton extends the former to eleven,
and contracts the latter to less than two years.
162 THE CHRONOLOGY OF
Let us now compare the words of the narrative. ‘‘ They who
were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about
Stephen, travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch,
preaching the word to Jews only.” Some of them, however,
Cyprian and Cyrenean Jews, ‘‘when they came to Antioch,
spake unto the Greeks, preaching the Lord Jesus.” Many
believed and turned to the Lord. The report of their conversion
reached the church at Jerusalem, who sent Barnabas on a mission
of inquiry. On his arrival, he rejoiced at the grace of God, and
presently departed to Tarsus, that he might bring Saul to be
his helper in the work. ‘And it came to pass, that a whole
year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught
much people. And the disciples were called Christians first at
Antioch.’
On the scheme of Dr. Burton, eleven years must have elapsed
between the latest date of the above dispersion on the death of |
Stephen, and the journey of Barnabas, to bring Saul to Antioch. —
Such an interval is tenfold more unnatural than the one against
which he has argued, of three or four years being spent in the
first missionary circuit. Nine years of unmentioned labour, or
unseasonable rest, in a single province, following a two years’
rest in Arabia, does violence to all common sense, as a true ac-
count of the early labours of this great Apostle. A stay at Tarsus,
even of four years, and much more of nine, is too long to suit the
character of St. Paul, or to agree with the evident connexion, in
the history, between the persecution at the death of Stephen,
and the arrival of Barnabas at Antioch. Accepting the shorter
interval of ten years from the first to the third visit, a division
into four and six years before and after the death of Herod,
seems to agree best with the natural proportion of the sacred
narrative. Seven years complete will then intervene between the
conversion of Saul and the first visit with Barnabas; which
leaves a space quite as long as seems compatible with the above
statement, between the death of Stephen, and the first origin of
the Gentile church at Antioch.
THE BOOK OF ACTS. 163
The arrangement thus obtained appears to be natural and con-
sistent. The voyage of Saul to Tarsus would be probably about
Pentecost, A. D. 40. That year was one of alarm to the Jews
from the madness of Caligula, and of consequent rest to the
churches, during which Peter carried on his pastoral visitation
in Judea. The winter was spent in Joppa, and the next spring,
probablyp would be the date of his mission to Cornelius. The
discussion at Jerusalem, which follows, would thus be in the first
half of A. D. 41. The same summer the preaching to the
Gentiles at Antioch might begin. The tidings might reach the
church at Jerusalem early in the next spring, when Barnabas
would be sent at once on his mission to them. It is unlikely
that he would delay long in seeking the help of Saul, who
might thus arrive at Antioch about the Pentecost of A.D. 42,
_ after an absence in Cilicia of two years, spent partly in Tarsus,
and partly in preaching throughout the whole province. Then
a stay of a whole year is specified, in Antioch alone. Before its
close, or in the spring of A.D. 43, the prophets came down from
Jerusalem, and gave warning of the famine then at hand. The
collection, we may infer from later examples, would not be the
work of a day, but the result of weekly offerings, continued
through nearly a whole year, and thus would be ready against
the Passover of A.D. 44, when the visit took place, and the
famine really began. In this arrangement all the details harmo-
nize well together, and the only difficulty is the length of time
from Stephen’s death to the rise of the Gentile Church at
Antioch. That five years might really elapse is however quite
explicable, while a protraction of the interval to more than twice
that length, as in Dr. Burton’s chronology, involves a thorough
dislocation of the whole connexion of events pointed out in the
narrative.
The contraction of the missionary circuit to four months
only, is equally incredible, and contradicts evident marks in the
narrative of repeated and prolonged delay. To assign only one
week to the stay in Cyprus is the first departure from the text.
164 THE CHRONOLOGY OF
For we are told that, ‘‘ when they were in Salamis, they preached
(xatnyyedaov) the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews,”
which clearly implies a stay of several weeks in that one city
alone. We are next informed that they went through the island
as far as Paphos ; which cannot denote a simple journey from one
town to the other, but a full proclamation of the gospel in the
intermediate places, until at length they arrived at the latter city,
when perhaps the lateness of the season might lead them to cross
over to the continent, before the winter setin. Hence it is
tolerably clear that the first summer, and perhaps part of the
autumn, was spent in the island. It is not likely that they
would omit to preach the gospel in Perga, on their arrival, or
that John would leave them there, and return to Jerusalem, un-
less they had made some stay in the place, before proceeding fur-
ther. They ‘went through” (8:«A6ovres) the country from Perga,
an expression which St. Luke has used five times in the later chap-
ters for a missionary circuit, and never for a mere journey without
stopping, for which another term is employed (Acts xvii. 1.
iodevcaytes). Hence we may safely infer that its meaning here
is the same, and that some weeks, perhaps months, were passed on
their way to Antioch from Perga. Two Sabbaths at Antioch are
specified, before their expulsion, and a longer interval is clearly
implied, since the word of God was published throughout all the
region. Two months, instead of three weeks, is only a reasonable
allowance for their stay. At Iconium, their next missionary
station, we are told that they abode a long time, speaking boldly
in the Lord, which it is ridiculous to expound of one week only.
Clearly it denotes a period considerably longer than the stay at ~
Antioch, and hence may be reckoned at four or five months. If
their journey began at Pentecost, and they sailed from Cyprus at
the close of September, they might reach Antioch a month later,
remove to Iconium about the end of the year, and continue there
till the following Passover or Pentecost. They next fled to
Lystra and Derbe, and the region round about, and there “ they
continued preaching the gospel (joa evayyeACouevor). Their
THE BOOK OF ACTS. 165
labours here might very possibly employ them till the close of
the summer. On their return they stayed at each place, to con-
firm the disciples, and appointed elders in every church, a work
that called for deliberation, passed throughout Pisidia, and
preached in Perga and Attalia, before they embarked for An-
tioch. Hence their return could not well be earlier than the
spring, and might probably be delayed until the autumn, of the
third year.
Now since the return from Jerusalem A.D. 44, was about the
time of Pentecost, it is not probable that the Apostles would be
sent out ona fresh journey immediately on their arrival at Antioch;
and there is nothing in the passage to oppose the construction that
their circuit began in the following year. In this case, it might
close in the spring or autumn of A.D. 47. After this they
abode at Antioch ‘no little time’ before the council. To refer the
expression to one single winter, considering that the history oc-
cupies at least fifteen, and probably more than twenty years, up
to the time of the council, of which one year only is expressly
mentioned, is certainly a strained and unnatural estimate. The
whole interval, from the first to the third visit, is at least ten
years, occupied by the conversion of Cornelius, the spread of the
gospel to Antioch, the stay there of one year, the time of the
collection, and the visit, the delay before the circuit, and the
circuit itself, and lastly this delay at its close, which alone is
stated to be ‘no little time.’ The term must naturally denote more
than a whole year. And hence the interval from the autumn of
A.D. 47 to the spring of A.D. 50, agrees well with the tenor of
the history. There is nothing whatever in the text to justify
the assertion that the visit, Acts xv. ‘‘ certainly took place in the
year after their first tour,” for the words tend to the very
opposite conclusion. A stay of one winter only, after such a
circuit, would have been no warrant for the emphatic statement
of the historian, which, when compared with their previous
absence, and their first residence at Antioch, can hardly denote
less than two years’ delay.
166 THE CHRONOLOGY OF
VII. The previous reasoning leads us to date the council six
complete, or seven current years, after the second visit to Jeru-
salem, which is fixed to the Passover, A.D. 44, by the testimony
of Josephus on the reign of Herod. This conclusion depends —
on a combination of several data, the most probable view of the
-period in Galatians, the presumptive date of Stephen’s death
and Saul’s conversion, the occasion of the churches’ rest from
persecution under Caligula, and the most reasonable distribution
of the time between the stay at Tarsus, the length of the first
circuit, and the long abode at Antioch after its close. If we
abandon the evidence arising from the death of Stephen and the
rest of the Churches, we might prolong the joint stay at Tarsus
and Antioch before the second visit, and diminish the joint length
of the circuit and the later residence, possibly two years. Beyond
this limit, the disproportion becomes too great to have the least
plausibility, and the circuit and long stay at Antioch would be
contracted into a space too narrow to satisfy the scope of the
history. On the other hand, it is possible to defer the council
one or two years later, if we suppose the fourteen years to be
complete, not current, and the stay at Tarsus and Antioch three
years only before the second visit. And thus any year from
A.D, 48 to A.D. 51, might possibly be reconciled with the evi-
dence hitherto adduced, though A.D. 49 or A.D. 50, are the
dates which will suit best with the whole narrative.
To remove, if possible, this uncertainty, we have next to ex-
amine the succession of the Roman procurators, and especially
the appointment and recall of Felix. The history connects the
latter event with the council by marks of time, which hardly
admit of greater uncertainty thana single year. Thus Dr. Burton
places them in A.D. 46 and 55, Mr. Greswell in A.D. 48 and 58,
and Usher and Hug in A.D. 52 and 60. It is clear that St.
Paul sailed to Rome the same year that Felix was recalled, and
reached it in the following spring, and that his release was not
until two full years later. And hence the succession of the pro-
curators, if their time can be exactly determined, will nearly fix
THE BOOK OF ACTS. 167
the chronology, and confirm or modify the date of the council, as
provisionally derived from the passage in Galatians, and the out-
line of the previous history. Subsidiary marks of time are
found in the decree of Claudius for the expulsion of the Jews
from Rome, the appointment of Gallio, the appearance of the
Egyptian, the high-priesthood of Jonathan and Ananias, and
the pretorian prefects of Rome. The date of the appointment
of Felix has first to be ascertained.
VIII. After the death of Herod Agrippa, there were three
governors before Felix, Cuspius Fadus, Tiberius Alexander, and
Cumanus. The first must have arrived in the summer after Herod’s
death, or A.D.44. After mention of the famine, which took place
during his administration and that of Alexander, Josephus con-
tinues: ‘‘ But now Herod, king of Chalcis, removed Joseph,
son of Camydus, from the highpriesthood, and made Ananias,
son of Nebedus, his successor. And now Cumanus came as suc-
cessor to Alexander, as also Herod, brother of Agrippa, departed
this life, in the eighth year of Claudius Cesar, who bestowed his
dominions on the younger Agrippa.’ Then, after mention of
the tumults under Cumanus: “So Claudius sent Felix, the
brother of Pallas, to take charge of Judea, and having already
completed the twelfth year of his reign, he bestowed on Agrippa
the tetrarchy of Philip, and Batanea, and added Trachonitis
with Abila, the district of Lysanias ; but took from him Chalcis,
when he had governed four years.”’
The accession of Claudius was January A.D. 4]. And hence
we may infer from the above statement, as most probable, that
Felix was appointed A.D. 52, which was the twelfth of Claudius,
and Chalcis taken from Agrippa in the spring of A.D. 53, when
the twelfth year had closed. Since he held it four years, he
would receive it not before the spring of A.D. 49. Herod, how-
ever, died in the eighth of Claudius, or A.D. 48. This is quite
consistent, if the death of Herod were towards the close of that
year, since his nephew could not then be appointed until the
following spring. Cumanus, it appears from Josephus, was
168 THE CHRONOLOGY OF
governor of Judea a little before Herod’s death, and his arrival
may therefore be placed about midsummer A.D. 48. Now the
arrival of Fadus was just four years earlier, and hence that of
Alexander may be dated midsummer A.D. 46, so that he and
Fadus would respectively hold their office for two full years.
On this view the government of Cumanus would occupy four
years, from midsummer A.D. 48 to A.D. 52. This inference is
certain with regard to his appointment, but not as to the time of
his removal, which might possibly have been earlier. Yet the
mention of the appointment of Felix, and of the younger
Agrippa, in the same sentence, with only the completion of the
twelfth of Claudius interposed, renders this construction much
the most natural. At the least, since two Passovers are men-
tioned by Josephus during the time of Cumanus, the earliest
date of the former is A.D. 49, of the later A.D. 50, and of his |
removal, the summer of this latter year, while a date two years
later seems, from the words of Josephus, to be more probable.
Tacitus, again, mentions the appointment of Felix under the
consuls Sulla and Otho, at A.D. 52, but in terms not very easy
to reconcile with Josephus.
“‘ His brother, Felix, however, did not act with equal modera-
tion, having been some time before (jampridem) appointed
over Judea, and thinking all his crimes secure of impunity, since
he had such influence to sustain him. The Jews indeed had
risen in a kind of tumult and sedition, even after they had re-
fused to obey, on hearing of the death of Caius; they continued
to fear lest some other emperor should give the same commands.
Meanwhile Felix inflamed their tumults by unsuitable remedies ;
Ventidius Cumanus being his rival in the worst deeds, to whom
part of the province was given; so that the Galileans were under
him, the Samaritans under Felix, nations long at variance, and
whose passions were then less restrained through their contempt
for their rulers. Hence they began to plunder each other, to
form bands of robbers, to lay ambushes, and at length to hold
battles, and bring the spoil to the procurators. These ai first
THE BOOK OF ACTS. 169
rejoiced, but as the evil increased, when they interposed with
troops, the soldiers were slain, and the province would have burst
into open war, if Quadratus had not stepped in. He did not
hesitate long in punishing with death those Jews who had slain
the soldiers. Cumanus and Felix caused some delay, since
Claudius, on hearing the causes of the rebellion, gave him au-
thority to punish the procurators also. But Quadratus dis-
played Felix among the judges, receiving him upon the tribunal,
that the zeal of his accusers might be cooled. Cumanus was
thus condemned for the crimes of which both were guilty, and
quiet was restored to the province.”
Josephus gives no hint of this divided government, shared by
Felix with Cumanus, still less, that the former was ever ap-
pointed separately over Samaria, and he represents the cause to
have been decided by Claudius himself at Rome. Yet since he
states that Felix was appointed through the solicitation of the
high-priest Jonathan, this may perhaps imply that he had previ-
ously held some office in Palestine, and was known in Judea. The
statement of St. Paul, that he had been many years a judge to the
Jewish nation, leans to the same view. On the otber hand, since
Cumanus favoured the Samaritans, and the cause was decided
against them, it is hard to believe that Tacitus was correctly in-
formed as to their respective provinces, and the true nature of —
the dispute. Josephus, a native of the country, who was about
fourteen years old at the time of the occurrence, is clearly a better
authority than Tacitus ; while even from the latter we may infer
that the removal of Cumanus, and the sole procuratorship of
Felix, took place in the year of Sulla and Otho, or in A.D. 52,
where Josephus places that appointment.
Four Passovers, on this view, would occur during the govern-
ment of Cumanus. The tumult, though it might possibly be at
the first, seems most naturally referred to the second, or A.D.
50. In either case, it is about the date assigned to the council
by the previous evidence. And hence the slaughter of the Jews,
and the troubles of Judea at that Passover, may account for the
I
170 THE CHRONOLOGY OF
influx of Christian Jews to Antioch from Jerusalem, which led
soon after to the Apostle’s visit. If this connexion be admitted,
the council could not well be earlier than midsummer A.D. 49,
nor later than the autumn of A.D. 50.
IX. From the appointment of Felix, let us proceed to ex-
amine the date of his removal, which Professor Hug fixes as
late as A.D. 61, but Dr. Burton, following Scaliger, as early as
A. D. 55. Since both appeal to the authority of Josephus, it
is needful to examine accurately the whole testimony of that
historian.
The reasons alleged for each date are briefly these. Josephus
tells us that Felix, after his recall, owed his escape to the inter-
cession of Pallas, who was in particular favour with Nero at the
time. But Tacitus informs us that Pallas lost the favour of
Nero in his first, and was put to death in his eighth year. Hence
Dr. Burton has inferred that A.D. 55 is the latest possible date,
which the histories of Josephus and Tacitus will allow; and,
reckoning backward from this year as a fixed point, he obtains
A.D. 46 for the date of the council. On the other hand, Professor
Hug infers, from the Life of Josephus, that the recall was in
the seventh of Nero, or A.D. 61, since eight years and four
months of Nero’s reign were complete, before the voyage of |
Josephus, to obtain the liberation of the priests whom Felix had
sent prisoners to Rome; and this commission could not be de-
layed, as on the other hypothesis, seven or eight years after the
procurator had been recalled. To decide between these opinions,
we must take a fuller view of the whole evidence.
After the appointment of Felix, Josephus records in succes-
sion the following events, which are a summary of this part of
the Antiquities ; the appointment of the younger Agrippa over
Iturea, Trachonitis, and Abila, and his removal from Chalcis,
after a four years’ rule, and the completion of the twelfth of
Claudius ; the marriage of Drusilla, Herod Agrippa’s daughter,
who was six years old at his death, with Azizus, king of Emesa,
and her later marriage with Felix, while he was procurator ; the —
THE BOOK OF ACTS. Ali
death of Claudius and accession of Nero; the death of Azizus,
and succession of Soemus, in Nero’s first year, with the gift to
Agrippa of Tiberias and some parts of Galilee; the growing
troubles of Judea, where Felix caught and destroyed’ many
robbers, and Eleazar, one of the most notorious; the assassina-
tion, suborned by Felix himself, of Jonathan the high-priest ;
the crimes and insolence of the Sicarii; the appearance of the
Egyptian false prophet, and the dispersion of his followers ; the
seditions of Czesarea ; the appointment of Ishmael to be high-
priest, and the disorders of the whole priesthood; the coming
of Porcius Festus as the successor of Felix, the accusations of
the Jews against him, and his escape through the intercession of
his brother Pallas; the decree pronounced by Burrhus against
the Jews of Ceesarea ; the increase of the Sicarii, and the activity
of Festus against them; the petition about the palace of Herod,
granted through Poppzea, Nero’s wife, and the transfer of the
priesthood to Joseph Cabi; the appointment of Albinus, when
‘Nero heard of the death of Festus ; the transfer of the priest-
hood to Ananus, son of Ananus, and the condemnation of James
the Just ; the deposition of Ananus, after only three months, on
the arrival of Albinus, and the appointment of Jesus, son of
Damneus ; the boldness and crimes of the Sicarii, the enlarge-
ment by Agrippa of Ceesarea Philippi, which he calls Neronias ;
the priesthood of Jesus, son of Gamaliel ; the voyage of Florus
from Rome, the finishing of the temple, and the transfer of the
priesthood to Matthias, son of Theophilus.
In the Life of Josephus we are further told that he was born
in the first of Caius, that in his 26th year he took a voyage to
Rome, in order to procure the liberation of certain priests, his
own acquaintance, whom Felix, when governor, had sent prisoners
on a trivial charge, and that he succeeded through the. interces-
sion of Poppeea, the wife of Nero. Also at the close of the
Antiquities we are told that his 56th year was then current, in
the 13th of Domitian.
The accession of Caligula was March 16, A.D. 37, and that
12
17 THE CHRONOLOGY OF
of Domitian September 13th, A.D. 81. Since Josephus was
less than 56 years old at the beginning of Domitian’s 13th year,
or September 13, A.D. 93, he must have been born later than
September 13, A.D. 37, and before March 13, A.D. 38, the
close of the first year of Caligula. His birth must therefore be
placed about December A.D. 37, and the time of his voyage, in
his 26th year, was the spring or summer of A.D. 63, the ninth
of Nero, and not the previous year.
Hence one evident presumption results against the palin date
for the recall of Felix. In that case the priests must have been
detained more than eight years at Rome, before Josephus under-
took the voyage for their liberation, an interval very unlikely to
have occurred.
We have a more decisive proof in the age of Drusilla. Jose-
phus states that she was six years old at the death of her father,
Herod Agrippa, that is, in A.D. 44. After the twelfth of Clau-
dius her brother Agrippa gave her in marriage to Azizus. Not
long after, Felix prevailed on her to forsake her husband, and to
become his own wife. Now, by the express words of Josephus, —
the appointment of Agrippa over the tetrarchies of Philip and
Lysanius was later than January A.D. 53. The first marriage
of Drusilla was later than this appointment, and some interval,
probably half a year at least, must be allowed, before she forsook
Azizus, and became the wife of Felix. Indeed she would be
only 15 years old in the year A.D. 53. And hence the scheme
of Dr. Burton, which places the visit of Paul to Jerusalem in
that year, is disproved fully by this one test alone. At the —
Pentecost of that year, most probably her marriage was not —
complete, and it is not likely that St. Luke would call her simply —
the wife of Felix, when she was only living in adultery, and had —
just before forsaken her lawful husband. We may infer that the —
visit was not before the death of Azizus, which itself took place —
in Nero’s first year, and hence that the Pentecost of A.D. 55 is ~
its earliest possible date, and A.D. 57, the earliest year for the ‘
recall of Felix.
THE BOOK OF ACTS. 173
Again, if we adhere to the order of Josephus, the death of
Jonathan the high-priest was not earlier than the first of Nero.
The appearance of the Egyptian was still later, and A.D.
56 seems the earliest date that we assign to that disturbance.
The words of the chief captain, Acts xxi. 38, imply that some
time had then elapsed since his appearance. And hence, on
this ground, A.D. 56 is the earliest date for the visit, and A.D.
58, in like manner, the earliest year for the governor’s recall.
Again, if we place that recall in A.D. 60, we have still a
reasonable space for his successor, Festus. For Albinus seems
to have held office during four years previous to the war, or A.D.
62—66. Now Festus was not recalled, but his successor was ap-.
pointed because of his unexpected death. And since both Fadus
and Alexander were recalled after two years, it is more natural
to assign the same interval, than a longer space, for Festus also.
Further, in A. D 58, Felix would have been procurator six
years, and if the statement of Tacitus has a partial truth, he
had held some office in Palestine since the first year of Cumanus,
A. D. 48, or for the total space of ten years. This agrees with
the words of St. Paul, that he had been for many years a judge
to that nation. But in A. D. 53, the date of the visit in Dr.
Burton’s and Scaliger’s chronology, he would have been procurator
only one or two years, and only the fifth year would be current
from the arrival of Cumanus, his predecessor in office. This
note of time is equally conclusive in favour of a considerably
later date.
In these remarks it has been assumed that two years elapsed
between the visit of St. Paul, and the recall of Felix, which
results from the usual and natural construction of Acts xxiv. 27.
Some, however, have supposed that these two years relate, not to
the time of St. Paul’s imprisonment, but only to the government
of Felix, reckoned either from its origin, or from some renewal,
until his recall. But it is very unlikely that St. Luke should adopt
so vague an expression, and date from an event nowhere specified
in his history. If referred to the first appointment of Felix,
174 THE CHRONOLOGY OF
the words would openly contradict those of St. Paul, in the
beginning of the same chapter, where he states his government
to have lasted many years, and not for two only. On the other
hand, to date from some unknown renewal of his office would
be in every way most unnatural. And besides, a simple compa-
rison of verses 10, 27, will prove clearly that the historian was
not referring, in any sense, to the length of Felix’s government,
but simply to the long delay, before the cause of the Apostle
came to a real decision. And though we have no letters of St.
Paul that can be referred to this period, this is no proof that
the two years at Czesarea were barren in labours. No town was
so well suited for intercourse with converted Jews from all the
countries of the dispersion, and consequently with all the Chris-
tian Churches, while Jews formed their nucleus in almost every
city ; for Ceesarea, it is well known, was the main seaport of
Palestine, and the principal seat of the Roman power in that
province.
Two reasons, alleged for the earlier date of the recall of Felix,
have still to be examined. He was accused by the Jews at Rome,
immediately on his return, and spared only by the entreaties of
Pallas, who, according to Josephus, was then in favour with
Nero. Now Tacitus affirms that the favourite was removed by
Nero in his first year, or A. D. 55, whence Dr. Burton infers
that this year is the latest date for the recall of Felix, consistent
with the testimony of Tacitus and Josephus.
This argument, though such reliance has been placed upon it,
as to make it the main pillar of the whole chronology, has no
weight whatever, aud depends for its seeming force on a care:
less perusal of these two testimonies, and an inaccurate calcula-
tion of the times. The removal, of which Tacitus speaks, was
not only in the first year of Nero, but earlier than the birthday
of Britannicus, which, we know from clear evidence, was in
February. And hence, if the recall of Felix were in the summer
of that year, where Dr. Burton and Scaliger have placed it,
instead of being in the time when Pallas was highest in power,
THE BOOK OF ACTS. Wes
it would be in the first crisis of his dishonour and public dis-
grace. A date a few years later would thus be more probable
even on this ground. After the death of Agrippina, Nero might
perhaps be less jealous of the favourite, who had then lived some
years in retirement, and to whom he really owed his own eleva-
tion to the throne. It is true that Pallas died in the eighth of
Nero, and the Emperor was suspected of poisoning him. But
the only reason assigned is Nero’s avarice, because, by living to
such an age, his former favourite detained from him an immense
property. This is quite consistent with the supposition that he
had influence enough with Nero, two years before, to obtain the
pardon of Felix, against a people so despised as the Jews. The
favour of the tyrant was eminently capricious ; and, with regard to
Pallas, would be likely to experience several fluctuations. In fact,
the confirmation of Felix in his government by Nero, which
Josephus expressly mentions, could not be earlier than January
or February A. D. 55, the very time at which Tacitus places the
removal of Pallas. Hence it is perfectly clear that the time of his
influence, to which Josephus alludes, could not possibly be the
same which Dr. Burton has assumed it to be, and must refer to
some later period of partially recovered favour, which might be
only two years before his death.
Another argument for the earlier date has been stated as
follows. The deputies who accused Felix after his recall, bribed
Burrhus also to procure the decree against the Jews of Cesarea.
Now Burrhus died in A. D. 62, and declined in favour after
A. D. 55, and hence it is inferred that the recall of Felix could
not be at the later, but might be at the earlier date. But this
rests upon a manifest error, for the deputation was not the same.
It was the Greeks of Czesarea, who had been sent to Rome by
Felix before his recall, who are said to have bribed Burrhus,
and thus procured the decree against the Jews ; while the other
deputation was actually composed of Jews, and only set out to
Rome after Felix had returned. And besides, Burrhus remained
in full possession of influence until near the time of his death,
176 THE CHRONOLOGY OF
and hence the date A. D. 60 is fully consistent with the facts
relative to the embassy from Ceesarea.
The reasons, then, for placing the recall of Felix i in A. D. 60,
instead of five years earlier, are as follows. First, we avoid the
hypothesis, in itself highly improbable, that St. Paul stayed at
Tarsus eight or nine years, in comparative inaction, before he
began his mission to the Gentiles. Next, the council is thus
referred to A. D. 50, and the troubles in Judea at the pre-
vious Passover will account for an unusual resort of Jewish
Christians from Jerusalem to Antioch. Thirdly, the visit of
St. Paul is thus placed three years after the death of Drusilla’s
first husband, instead of being, as with the other date, a few
months before the probable time of her first marriage, and two
years before her union with Felix ceased to be adulterous, while
her age will thus be twenty, instead of only fifteen years.
Fourthly, Felix would then have been procurator eight years, and
if Tacitus be correct, have held some office in Palestine four
years longer, which agrees with the statement of the Apostle,
that he had been many years a judge to that nation. On the
other view, little more than one year would have passed from the
recall of Cumanus, his predecessor, and less than five years
from that predecessor’s first appointment. This objection, like
the third, is quite fatal to the earlier dates, even when standing
alone. Fifthly, two years instead of seven, are thus allowed for the
government of Festus, which agrees with the fact that he was
not recalled, but died unexpectedly. Sixthly, there is thus an
interval of three years, instead of eight, between the voyage of
the priests, sent by Felix to Rome, and that of Josephus, to
procure their liberation, an interval far more consistent with
probability. Seventhly, it agrees with the statement of Jose-
phus, that Nero, in his first year, confirmed Felix in his govern-
ment. ‘To suppose him recalled in that very year, is therefore a
flat contradiction to the testimony of the historian. Lastly, it
maintains the natural order of time in these chapters of Josephus,
since all the actions of Felix, except his marriage with Drusilla,
THE BOOK OF ACTS. ZZ
are evidently placed by him under the reign of Nero. If he
was governor under Claudius for two years only, and for six
under Nero, this order is quite natural, but is irreconcilable with
_the earlier chronology.
X. The intermediate dates may now be adjusted, if not with
exactness, at least with high probability, and a near approach to
the truth. The council, in the fourteenth year from the Apos-
tle’s conversion, and soon after the troubles had begun under
Cumanus in Judea, will be referred to the summer of A. D. 50.
The remainder of that year, which would be far advanced on
their return to Antioch, might be spent in that city ; and the
plan of revisiting the churches may be referred naturally to the
early spring of A. D. 51, when seven years were nearly complete
from the death of Herod, and fourteen from Saul’s conversion.
One year must have been spent in the circuit of four provinces,
Syria, Cilicia, Phrygia, and Galatia. It would be quite incon-
sistent with the purpose of the Apostle, to pursue a very rapid
and hasty journey. He went first ‘‘ throughout Syria and Cilicia,
confirming the churches,” and then throughout Phrygia and the
country of Galatia, in the last of which provinces many churches
were evidently formed for the first time. He might thus
arrive at Troas on the sea-coast early in the spring of A. D. 52.
Six months may be allowed for th@ stay in Macedonia, three
months at Philippi, where the stay seems to have been the
longest, and about six weeks respectively at Thessalonica and
Berea. The Apostle would then arrive at Corinth about October
A. D. 52, and his stay of eighteen months would terminate
about the Passover A. D. 54, when the season would be
favourable for his voyage. The feast, Acts xviii. 21, would be the
Pentecost of the same year, so that the interval would allow
only a short delay at Ephesus, and that feast was chosen else-
where for a similar visit, being a natural epoch to the church
after the first Pentecost. The rest of the year would be occu-
pied with the short stay at Jerusalem, the voyage to Antioch, a
stay of some time in that city, and a second visit to all the
I 5
178 THE CHRONOLOGY OF
churches of Galilee and Phrygia, and the eastern parts of Asia
Minor, so that St. Paul would probably reach Ephesus just at its
close. Three months, before the separation of the disciples, and
two years afterwards, will bring us to the Passover of A. D. 57.
At that time, or soon after, the tumult arose, and the Apostle left
a little before Pentecost, which was the intended limit of his stay,
1 Cor. xvi. 8. He stayed in Macedonia until late in the autumn,
passed the three winter months in Greece, returned to Macedonia
about the beginning of March, and set out from Philippi for
Jerusalem immediately after the Passover of A.D. 58, arriving
punctually at the time of Pentecost. There he remained a prisoner
for two full years, or till the Pentecost of A.D. 60, which has been
fixed already to be the time when Felix was recalled. Towards
August he sailed for Rome, but did not arrive till the winter was
past, about February or March A.D. 61 ; while his release would
be two years later, or in A. D. 63, somewhere in the spring.
All the dates recorded by the Evangelist fall in with this arrange-
ment. The whole history thus disposes itself, without violence,
into four portions, each of seven years; from the Pentecost
A. D. 30, to the conversion of Saul, about the Pentecost A. D.
37; from his conversion to the return of Paul and Barnabas from
Jerusalem, after the death of Herod, Pentecost A.D. 44 ; thence
to the opening of the second missionary circuit, early in A. D.
51; and thence to the arrival at Jerusalem for the last time, at
the Pentecost of A. D. 58.
During this interval, however, there are other notes of time
which require to be considered, as they may tend either to
weaken or confirm the previous chronology. These are the
decree of Claudius, the arrival of Gallio at Corinth, the mention
of Narcissus in the Epistle to the Romans, the Egyptian false
prophet, the high priesthood of Ananias, and the Pretorian
Prefects of Rome.
1. When St. Paul reached Corinth, Aquila and Priscilla had
lately arrived from Rome, in consequence of a decree of Claudius,
banishing all the Jews from that city. If there were clear data
THE BOOK OF ACTS. 179
to fix the time of that decree, it would serve to test the
chronology. But we are left to mere conjecture. Mr. Greswell
refers it to January A.D. 50, and ascribes it to the report at
Rome of disturbances in Judea, which rendered it unsafe to
leave so many Jews in the capital. Suetonius, however, seems to
account for it by local tumults among the Jews at Rome.
*‘ Judzeos, impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes, Roma expulit.”
This is most naturally explained of internal dissensions, which
followed the introduction of the gospel at Rome. The name,
Chrestus, here assigned to the author of the disturbances, seems
to imply that they arose among Jews of the dispersion, in con-
flicts occasioned by Christianity, and not among the Jews of
Palestine. The troubles in Judea seem also to have reached
their height a little before the recall of Cumanus, early in A.D.
52, and if the decree were referred to that period, it will be six
months before the arrival of St. Paul at Corinth, as determined
above. Indeed it is not improbable that this decree first became
publicly known during the stay at Phillippi, and gave encourage-
ment to that tumultuous outery—‘‘ These men being Jews, do
exceedingly trouble our city,” which led to the Apostle’s impri-
sonment. If the troubles in Judea were at their height in the
winter before Cumanus was recalled, or at the close of A.D. 51,
the decree published in the early spring, and known at Philippi
in May, and St. Paul reached Corinth in the following autumn,
all the facts will be found in entire harmony with each other.
2. Again, the persecution of the Jews against St. Paul at
Corinth reached its height, “ when Gallio was the deputy of
Achaia.’ The words of St. Luke evidently imply that Gallio was
not in office when St. Paul arrived there, and had only been ap-
pointed a few months before the close of that long residence. Now
Gallio was the brother of Seneca, who was recalled from exile in
A.D. 49, and made the tutor of Nero. Hence his appointment
cannot reasonably be placed earlier than A.D. 50. If, however, the
council had been held, as Dr. Burton supposes, in A.D, 46, the
Apostle would leave Corinth, at the latest, in the spring of A.D.
180 THE CHRONOLOGY OF
49. Dr. Burton dates his departure in the previous year, when
Seneca was certainly an exile ; and, consequently, when it is most
unlikely that Gallio would have been appointed over Achaia. On
the other hand, it was A.D. 53 when Nero married Octavia, and
his prospect of succession to the throne was sccured by the acts
of Agrippina. The time would thus be very natural for the
appointment of Gallio, the brother of Nero’s tutor, to a lucrative
and honourable post. Nero completed his sixteenth year on
December 15, A.D. 53, and then married Octavia. The appoint-
ment of Gallio may be not improbably referred to that celebration,
so that he would enter on his office in January or February
A.D. 54, about three months before the Apostle set out from
Corinth. It is plain that the harmony with St. Luke’s statement,
on this view of the dates, will be complete.
3. The salutation (Rom. xvi. 11) to the household of Nar-
cissus had been made a reason for a different chronology. The
letter, on the above arrangement, was written about February
A.D. 58, but on the other scheme, five years earlier. Now
many have supposed this Narcissus to be the celebrateed freedman
of Claudius. In this-case, since he was slain at the very opening
of Nero’s reign, it ifetgued. that the Epistle must have been
written earlier. It is, however, a mere conjecture that the freed-
man of Claudius is the person to whom St. Paul alludes. And
even were this conjecture a certain fact, it is surely possible that
converts in his family, during his lifetime, might be designated
from their former master, even three years after his death. Dr.
Burton, indeed, affirms that such a salutation would be impos-
sible, unless during the lifetime of Narcissus, but without reason.
If several of the household of that freedman and favourite had
become converts while he was alive, no other mode of designation
would be equally brief and appropriate, in this brief series of
Apostolic salutations. But since it is impossible to determine
whether the freedman of Claudius, or some other Narcissus is
spoken of, the argument can have no weight in a question of
exact chronology.
THE BOOK OF ACTS. 181
4. When St. Paul visited Jerusalem, the Sicarii were in full
activity, and the Egyptian, not long before, had led four thousand
of them into the wilderness. Now Josephus mentions, in order,
the accession of Nero, the confirmation of Felix in his office,
his exertions in capturing Eleazer, and clearing the country of
the robbers, the rise of another class of robbers, called Sicarii,
the murder of Jonathan, the rise of false prophets: and lastly,
the appearance of the Egyptian, who did more mischief than
even these, with his overthrow by Felix and the Roman soldiers.
Since the confirmation of Felix could not well be earlier
than the spring of A.D. 55, the rise of the Sicarii, after the
extirpation of other robbers, could hardly be earlier than the
following year ; and some interval must still be allowed, before
the appearance of the Egyptian. Hence this tumult may be
probably assigned to the close of A.D. 57, or the opening of
A.D. 58. This agrees perfectly with the question of Lysias.
* Art thou not then that Egyptian, who before these days made
an uproar, and led out into the wilderness four thousand men of
the Sicarii?”’ If we adhere to the order of Josephus, the spring
A.D. 56 is clearly too early for this event, though either A.D.
57 or 58 would agree well with the history.
5. At the same visit, Ananias seems to have exercised the
function of high-priest, and still St. Paul was not aware of his
claim to the office. Some have proposed to translate his words
—‘ I knew not, brethren, that there is a high-priest.” But
this has no warrant in the Greek idiom, and is clearly disproved
by the rest of the verse. St. Paul explains why he had used so
sharp a rebuke against Ananias. Now his ignorance that Ananias
was high-priest would be a direct and simple explanation ; while
his ignorance of there being any high-priest in office could only
serve as an excuse, by resolving itself into the more precise affir-
mation, which our translators have so justly preferred.
Now it is clear from Josephus, that Ananias was sent to Rome,
along with Cumanus, and that, after the appointment of Felix,
Jonathan held the office till his death. Afterwards the priest-
182 THE CHRONOLOGY OF
hood was vacant, until Agrippa gave it to Ishmael, the son of
Cabi, very shortly before the recall of Felix. The death of
Jonathan can hardly be placed earlier than the latter half of
A.D. 56, since his long expostulations with Felix on his misgo-
vernment occasioned his murder. The visit, then, if at Pentecost
A.D. 58, would be at a time when the office was vacant, and
‘Ananias would not be the real high-priest.
6. Finally, when Paul arrived at Rome, the centurion de-
livered the other prisoners to the Prefect. The singular number,
used by St. Luke, implies naturally that the office was then held
by one, and not by two persons. Now Burrhus died in A.D. 62,
with a suspicion of poison, and Fenius Rufus and Sofanius
Tigellinus were appointed his joint successors. From the ac-
count of Tacitus the change would seem to have been early in
‘the year, since the death of Octavia, which is mentioned nine
sections later, took place on the ninth of June. Hence it seems
certain that A.D. 63, the date of Usher, is too late for the arrival
~ at Rome, and even A.D. 62, the date of Professor Hug, would
probably fail to satisfy this condition, while the date proposed
above, A.D. 61, passes unharmed through this final test.
XI. The conclusions thus obtained, when they have been com-
bined with the evidence, which fixes the Epistles to their re-
spective places in the history, will result in the following table,
where the months in brackets are only conjectural and ap-
proximate.
A.D. A.D.
30. April. Crucifixion. 41. (Pentecost.) Conversion of Cor-
May. Pentecost. nelius.
36. (June.) Death of Stephen. 42. (February.) Barnabas at Antioch.
37. (April.) Conversion of Saul. 42. (Pentecost.) Saul at Antioch.
Pentecost. First Preaching of | 43. Passover. Prophecy of Famine.
Saul. 44, Passover. Second Visit to Je-
40. (Pentecost.) First Visit to Jeru- rusalem.
salem. May. Death of Herod.
(September.) Peter at Joppa. Pentecost. Return to Antioch.
THE BOOK OF ACTS.
A.D.
45, Pentecost. First circuit begins.
(September.) Paul and Barnabas
at Perga.
46. Cireuit in Asia.
47. (September.) Return to Antioch.
50. Spring. Pharisees at An-
tioch.
Summer. Councilat Jerusalem |
Autumn. Peter and Mark at
Antioch.
51. Spring. Second Circuit be-
gins.
(September.) St. Paul in Galatia.
52. (February.) St. Paul at Troas.
(May.) St. Paul leaves Phi-
lippi.
(August.) St. Paul at Athens,
October. St. Paul at Corinth.
(November.) First Epistle to
Thessalonica.
53. Spring. Second Epistle.
Autumn. Epistle to the Gala-
tians.
54. January. Gallio in Achaia.
April St. Paul sails to
Ephesus.
May Fourth Visit to Jeru-
salem.
Autumn. Second Circuit of
Galatia.
55. January... St. Paul arrives at
Ephesus.
April. Separation of Disci-
ples.
57, April. First Epistle to Co-
rinth.
May. Departure from
Ephesus.
7. OF
58.
60.
63.
64,
65.
66.
(July.)
November.
February.
Passover.
Pentecost.
Pentecost
August.
November.
. February.
62. (July.)
183
Second LEpisile to
Corinth.
Arrival at Corinth.
Epistle to the Ro-
mans.
St. Paul at Philippi.
Fifth Visit to Jeru-
salem.
Recall of Felix.
Voyage to Rome.
Shipwreck at Malta.
Arrival at Rome.
Epistle to the Ephe-
sians.
Epistle to the Colos-
Stans.
Epistle to Philemon.
(February.) Epistle to the Philip-
(June. )
(August)
Winter.
Spring.
Autumn,
Winter.
Spring.
Summer.
Spring ?
pians.
Epistle to the He-
brews.
St. Paul in Crete.
St. Paul at Colosse.
St. Paul in Mace-
donia.
St. Paul at Corinth.
First Epistle to
Timothy.
Epistle to Titus.
St. Paul at Nico-
polis.
Dalmatia and Troas.
St. Paul prisoner at
Rome.
Second Epistle to
Timothy.
St. Paul’s Martyr-
dom at Rome.
The dates after the close of the history are derived, by pro-
bable inference, from the indications in St. Paul’s latest Epistles,
and are given as the most probable.
It is possible, however, that
184 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE BOOK OF ACTS.
the circuit to Colosse from Rome might occupy another year, so
as to bring the four last dates a little lower, and the martyrdom
might also occur before the winter, on Timothy’s arrival, though
the passage 2 Tim. iv. 13. leads naturally to an opposite view.
Since, however, the persecution of the Christians began soon
after the fire at Rome, which took place July A.D. 64, it is pro-
bable that the apprehension of St. Paul in Asia was not delayed
beyond the following summer, and his martydom might possibly
occur at the close of the same year.
CHAPTER II.
ON THE AUTHORSHIP AND DATE OF THE BOOK OF ACTS.
TuE previous inquiry, besides its direct purpose in fixing the
chronology of St. Luke’s narrative, lends a powerful confirmation
to its authority, from its entire agreement, in a large variety of
details, and in a manner the most indirect, with the best con-
temporary historians. The way is now prepared for an examina-
tion of the time when the work was written, and its claim to be
an authentic composition of St. Luke.
And first it is plain, from the book itself, that it professes to
be written by a companion of St. Paul, who was present during
his first voyage from Troas, and stay at Philippi, and who after-
wards accompanied him from Philippi to Jerusalem, and from
Jerusalem to Rome. And since the whole narrative bears every
mark of sincerity, and exact information, and is invincibly con-
firmed by its coincidences with St. Paul’s letters, we are bound
to accept its own evidence on this point, as conclusive. The only
alternative is that of deliberate forgery, and is too absurd to need
further refutation. Some German critics, indeed, have started a
middle hypothesis, that the latter part is a journal of Timothy,
which the unknown writer of the book, at a later period, inserted
without change in his own narrative. But this wild fancy refutes
itself on the least attention to the history. For the writer expressly
distinguishes himself from Timothy at the beginning of that very
journey, since he represents himself to have stayed with Paul at
186 ON THE AUTHORSHIP AND DATE
Philippi, while Timothy and others had gone before, to wait for
them at Troas (Acts xx. 4—6). And besides, there is no break
in the whole narrative, which could give such an hypothesis the
least plausibility. For the twentieth chapter is inseparably
linked with the tumult at Ephesus, and with the previous ac-
count of Paul’s ministry in Asia. In the next chapter the allu-
sion to the seven deacons is equally retrospective, and the whole of
this closing portion is evidently an integral and essential part of
' the history. Hence it follows that the writer was a companion
of Paul for several years. From comparing the negative and
positive evidence of the book itself with the salutations in the
Epistles, we obtain precisely that result, by their internal tes-
timony, which is the voice of all early tradition, that Luke the
beloved physician, and no other companion of the Apostle, was
the writer of the work.
The next inquiry relates to the date of its composition. The
last event recorded is the close of Paul’s imprisonment, which
must be referred, as we have seen, to the year A.D. 63. Hence
the last chapter, if not the whole work, could not have an earlier
date. But there has been a serious division of judgment, whe-
ther the book were written and published about that time, or
considerably later. Thus Professor Hug supposes the Gospel,
and much more the book of Acts, to have been written after the
decease of the Apostle. On the other hand, Tholuck and
Olshausen, among recent critics, with most of the earlier commen-
tators, refer its composition to the very time of the imprisonment
at Rome.
The reasons for this earlier date are simple and manifest. The
mere continuance of an imprisonment is by no means the most
natural date for the close of the history, supposing that it was
written after the Apostle’s death, or even after he was advanced
far on another journey. When the writer, therefore, ends
abruptly at this point, without any mention of the circumstances
of St. Paul’s release, the only simple explanation must be, that
he brought the history down to the date of its composition.
OF THE BOOK OF ACTS. 187
And this view is confirmed by the nature of all the later chapters,
which are simply a personal narrative of the Apostle. The ac-
count of the voyage and shipwreck bears every sign, from the
minuteness and reality of the description, of being written very
shortly after the shipwreck itself had occurred. Hence no view
can be so natural as that which dates the composition after the
arrival.at Rome, and during the course of the two years’ stay of
the Apostle.
Again, the last verses have precisely the appearance of a brief
addition, intended simply to bring down the narrative to the
time then present. They read as follows, when taken with the
previous verse :—
** And when he had said these things, the Jews departed, and
had great reasoning among themselves. And he remained two
full years in a hired house of his own, and received all that
came in unto him, preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching
the things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all con-
fidence, no man forbidding him.”
There is here just that unfinished air which a narrative as-
sumes, when the writer brings it down to the actual time, with-
out caring to select any marked epoch for its conclusion. And
hence we may reasonably infer, that the two years of imprison-
ment were just completed, and that the Apostle, if not still a
prisoner, had only just obtained his release, when the history was
brought to its close.
The opinion, which delays the work to a later time, is bur-
dened with. an inherent improbability. For since the whole
narrative, as it stands, ranges through thirty-three years, and
the writer bears the character of an eye-witness in a great part
of it, there can be no reason assigned why he shonld have pre-
ferred a long delay, instead of seizing the opportunity for com-
posing it during his sojourn with the Apostle at Rome. The
latest events would then be fresh in his memory, and the earliest
already so remote, that further delay in recording them could
answer no purpose. Whatever motive, therefore, prompted the
188 ON THE AUTHORSHIP AND DATE
composition, would naturally lead to a date not long after those
events, which constitute most graphic and personal portion of the
narrative, and which the writer had witnessed with his own eyes.
From the Epistles it is clear that St. Luke was with the Apos-
tle, at least during the main part of his imprisonment. No op-
portunity could seem better suited for such a work. It is quite
in harmony with the general law of Providence, that when the
Apostle and his companions were debarred from preaching and
missionary circuits, the occasion should be seized for another
mode of spreading the truth, and for confirming the faith of the
disciples by a record of the triumphs the gospel had already
gained.
If the book were not written at this time, we must place it
either after the death of the Apostle, or during his second im-
prisonment, or in the interval during his latest circuit. If it
were written after his death, that event would certainly have
formed the natural close. If during the second imprisonment,
it would be unnatural to specify the manner of the former ar-
rival at Rome, and to say nothing of the later visit, which
must have been fresh in the mind of the writer. Even if we
place it during the last circuit, the writer could scarcely have
avoided speaking of the Apostle’s liberation, and of his renewed
labours after his release.
An argument for a later date, after the beginning of the Jewish
war, has been drawn from Acts vill. 26. Gaza, as we learn from
Josephus (Bell. ii. 18. 1.) was assaulted and destroyed by the
Jews at the beginning of their last troubles, or about A.D. 66,
under the government of Florus, The historian is supposed to
refer to this recent occurrence, when he says—‘ This is desert ”
(airy ears eonac.)
But this construction of the words is unnatural. They refer
evidently to the road, and not to the place. There is no reason
why the later desolation of Gaza should be mentioned, and that
of Ptolemais passed by in silence, a town also mentioned by the
writer, which was destroyed by the Jews at the same time. An
OF THE BOOK OF ACTS. 189
intimation of the lonely character of the road would be suitable to
the object of the narrative, since the direction would be more
clearly supernatural, but an allusion to the later desolation of the
town could answer no purpose, and has no parallel in the rest of
the work. And while the phrase is quite appropriate for the cha-
racter of the road, which would be permanent, it is just as in-
appropriate to describe a recent change in the state of the town,
which would require either the use of the verb, or of an adverb
of time, thy viv jonwomernv, Or ATI6 nonwwrar. And hence the
argument is of no force whatever.
When we examine carefully the narrative of the voyage, and
the break which precedes it, and consider the long stay at
Czesarea, it will seem not improbable that all the work, except
the two last chapters, was composed at Cesarea, and only the
conclusion added at Rome. No place would certainly be more
convenient than Czesarea for access to the best information on
the facts recorded in the earlier part of the history, and the
presence of St. Paul would there be an equal assistance, as during
the residence at Rome. The completion of the work, however,
cannot be placed earlier than the close of two years after the
arrival in Italy, while its commencement, at the earliest, must
have been some time after the first audience at Ceesarea.
The residence of Theophilus, if it can be clearly ascertained,
will throw further light on the circumstances of the publica-
tion. His title proves that he was a person of rank, while the
preface to the gospel implies that he was already a well-
instructed convert to the faith. It is plain that he was not
a resident in Palestine, and had not even visited Jerusalem, from
Maikeoiv.: $0; (ix: 10); xix; 29°) xxi. 37 xxiv.) (51-9. xxiy...13.
Acts i.12. He was not familiar with Athens and its neighbour-
hood, Acts xvii. 21, nor well acquainted with Macedonia, xvi.
12, while it is plain that he was not a constant resident either at
Corinth or Ephesus, at least during the limits of St. Paul’s
labours. The chief alternatives are three; that he resided in
Italy, in Greece, or in the neighbourhood of Antioch in Syria.
190 ON THE AUTHORSHIP AND DATE
The first of these opinions has been held by several modern
writers, and has in its favour the testimony of Eutychius, a
writer, however, only of the tenth century, and therefore of very
little weight. Its chief ground is the absence of geographical
explanation in the last chapter, where Syracuse, Rhegium,
Puteoli, Appii Forum, and Tres Taberne, are mentioned, as
lying on the route of the Apostle from Melita to Rome. Theo-
philus, it is argued, if a resident in Italy, would be familiar with
Rome and its neighbourhood, and thus the character of this
part of the narrative would be explained. But the conclusion
will by no means follow ; since a provincial of rank, like Theo-
philus, would probably have had to pay one visit at least to Rome,
and in that case the places which are here mentioned would
equally have been well known to him. Nay, even without a
personal visit, their position would be as likely to be known, as
the position of Civita Vecchia, of Versailles, or of Dover, to any
European of rank in our own day. Indeed the same argument
would prove Theophilus to be a resident on the coast of Asia Minor,
since Assos, Mitylene, Chios, Samos, Trogyllium and Miletus,
Coos, Rhodes and Patara, are equally named without any fuller
explanation. A wider collation of the internal evidence is need-
ful, to arrive at any probable decision.
Several reasons may be urged against the above hypothesis,
which makes Theophilus an inhabitant of Rome. Throughout
the whole course of the gospel, there are no phrases, which
imply a reference to Roman, but many to Grecian habits of
thought. The political allusions are all Syrian, as in the mention
of the presidency of Cyrenius, and the tetrarchy of Abila. The
Greek inscription on the cross is first mentioned, before the
Hebrew and Latin. The Greek and not the Roman coins, are
introduced, and the Roman expression for tribute, census, which
appears in the two other gospels, is replaced by the proper
Greek term. There is the same entire absence of local explana-
tion, in the mention of Phenice, Cyprus, Antioch, Seleucia,
Salamis, Paphos, Czesarea, Joppa and Tarsus, Iconium, Troas,
OF THE BOOK OF ACTS. 191
Coos, Rhodes, Patara, Ptolemais, which there is in the account
of the last approach to Rome. And hence there seems a clear
preponderance of internal presumptions, that Theophilus was a
resident of Syria, or Asia Minor, rather than of Italy. The
name itself is that of a contemporary Jewish high-priest, and
is much more likely to have been found among the Gentile
proselytes of Syria, than among the natives or inhabitants of
Rome.
It is objected by Professor Hug, that a native of Antioch
could hardly be so ignorant as Theophilus would appear to have
been, of the geography of Palestine. But this remark has little
foundation. For St. Luke mentions without comment or expla-
nation the three districts of Iturea, Trachonitis, and Abilene,
as well as Judea, Galilee, Samaria, Jericho, Bethany, the city of
Samaria, Gaza, Azotus, Joppa and Czesarea. An explication
appears only in the inland towns and villages, as Capernaum,
Bethsaida, Gadara, Nain, Arimathea, Nazareth and Emmaus,
which might very well be unknown to the residents of Northern
Syria or of Asia Minor.
Again, it is alleged that the abrupt cessation of the history,
after the arrival at Rome, implies that Theophilus was himself
present during the Apostle’s residence in that city. But this is
equally explained, if the history were written in the course of
that residence, since the time of its composition would impose
the same limit as before. And indeed the two last verses seem
quite unnatural, if Theophilus were then at Rome, so as to be
one of those who resorted to the Apostle and received his in-
structions in the faith of Christ.
The same writer endeavours to account for the structure of
the history from the supposed change of the writer’s usual
residence. He conceives that he was in Palestine, until the gospel
reached Antioch, and that not long after he removed to Troas,
so that the first nine chapters, and the twelve last, were written
from direct, the intermediate portion from indirect information.
And hence that the book has no regular plan, or unity of idea,
192 ON THE AUTHORSHTP AND DATE_
but is moulded simply by the locality of the writer, and his more
abundant or more scanty materials. Even Tholuck in part
adopts this view, and says that the book is “in one respect
unsatisfactory as an historical work, because it wants unity of
plan.”
This notion, however, will be found on examination to be
very erroneous. The history has a perfect unity of plan. It
describes in succession all the main stages in the transfer of the
gospel from the Jews to the Gentiles, and from Jerusalem, the
holy city of the prophets, to Rome, the metropolis of the Gentile
world. A constant, regular progression, is observable in its
whole course, from Jerusalem to Judea, from Judea to Samaria,
from Samaria to Damascus, Cyprus and Antioch, from Antioch
to the whole of Syria and Cilicia, and thence to Phrygia and
Galatia, to Macedonia and Achaia, and all the remaining portions
of Asia Minor; and finally, after the deliberate resistance and
rejection of the gospel at Jerusalem, to Rome itself, which is
indicated, as early as the nineteenth chapter, to be the designed
terminus of the whole history.
Let us now consider more fully the indications, which the
narrative contains, that it was probably written, in the first place,
for a Gentile proselyte, become a convert to the Christian faith,
whose residence was in the neighbourhood of Antioch.
1. First, it appears from the previous remarks that Theophilus
had a general, but not a minute acquaintance with the geography
of Palestine. Districts, little known to the Italians, as Iturea,
Trachonitis, and Abilene, are mentioned without a word of com-
ment; but it is stated that Capernaum and Nazareth were in
Galilee, that Gadara was over against it, on the other side of
the lake, that Emmaus was sixty furlongs, and the Mount of
Olives a sabbath day’s journey, from Jerusalem. The latter
expression, with the mention of the second-first sabbath, and
of the preparation, would be most natural, if Theophilus were
already familiar with the Jewish customs and festivals. The
mention, also, of Herod the tetrarch, his brother Philip, and
OF THE BOOK OF ACTS. 193
and Lysanias, of Herod the king, of king Agrippa and Bernice,
would imply some familiarity, on the part of Theophilus, with
the political condition and changes of Palestine, which a resident
in or near Antioch would naturally possess. It appears also,
from comparing Luke xii. 59—xxi. 2, with Matt. v. 26, and Mark
xii. 42, that he was accustomed to the Greek, rather than to the
Roman coinage.
The first mention of Antioch is in the description of Nicolas,
one of the seven deacons, who was a proselyte of that city.
There is no reason apparent, on the face of the narrative, why
the fact should be specified, since all the other deacons are named
without any description. But if Theophilus were also ‘‘ a prose-
lyte of Antioch,’ it would be natural to notice the fact that
another Gentile proselyte, like himself, and of the same city,
had been so early promoted to an honourable office in the mother
church of Jerusalem.
3. The formal mention of the spread of the gospel to Antioch,
and the foundation of the church in that city, occurs at the
close of Acts xi. It is there introduced by a peculiar phrase of
transition, of ~év ody, which the context alone is hardly sufficient
to explain. It will be explained, however, if Theophilus was
familiar with the fact that the gospel had reached Antioch, and
that a flourishing church had been formed, and only needed to
have a brief explanation of the circumstances and occasion,
under which the message first arrived. It is clear that Antioch
now becomes the central point of the narrative, until the journey
into Europe begins. Yet no discourse in that city is recorded,
like those at Jerusalem, at Czesarea, at the Pisidian Antioch,
or still later at Athens, The whole character of the passage
agrees with the idea, that Theophilus, as well as St. Luke, knew
the city, and the actual state of the church; and that the latter
confined himself to a brief explanation of the cause which led
to the extension of that church, of the pre-eminence it enjoyed as
the birth-place of the Christian name, and the incident which
led to the next visit of Barnabas and Saul to Jerusalem,
K
194 ON THE AUTHORSHIP AND DATE
4. There are two other intervals in the history, of which
Antioch is the scene, after the return from Jerusalem, and before
the next visit to the council. These must have occupied toge-
ther about four years. Yet not one fact is placed on record with
regard to the labours of the Apostles, during their stay in that
city. After the historian has brought Paul and Barnabas back
again to Antioch, he passes all in silence until they leave it for
their first circuit, and on their return, he merely observes that
they abode there a long time with the disciples. There is in
each case a distinct break in the very form of the narrative.
Now if Theophilus was familiar with the local history of that
church, this silence of the writer receives its simplest explana-
tion. In the whole of this circuit, there is every sign that
Theophilus was acquainted with the localities of Asia Minor,
since no explication occurs in any one instance. For in Acts
xiv. 6, the order of the original is different from the received
version, and the more correct rendering will be, ‘and they fled
unto the cities of Lycaonia, Lystra and Derbe, and the neigh-
bourhood.’ The dialect of Lycaonia, which has exercised the
research of modern critics, is also alluded to without any com-
ment, and Iconium and Attalia are mentioned in the same
manner. The correct reading ejects the adverb, éxe?, there, from
the last verse, and thus confirms the general impression, that
Antioch was the local centre of thought to Theophilus, and was
so regarded by the historian.
5. Only one other visit of St. Paul to Antioch is recente in
the history, and with the same brevity. After he left Corinth,
‘having landed at Ceesarea, and gone up and saluted the church,
he went down to Antioch. And having spent some time, he
went forth, journeying in order over the country of Galatia and
Phrygia, strengthening all the disciples.’ The brevity of the
account, here also, is very apparent.
6. The mention of the towns of Greece and Macedonia seems
to imply that Theophilus was not familiar with that peninsula,
except with the route through Corinth to Rome. Thus Philippi
OF THE BOOK OF ACTS. 195
is explained to be “the chief city of that part of Macedonia,
and a colony.” The fact is stated, as if otherwise not known to
Theophilus, that the synagogue of the Jews was in Thessalonica,
not at Philippi, Amphipolis, or Apollonia. On the other hand,
Cenchrea, the port of Corinth, is assumed to be known. The
upper coasts are also mentioned familiarly, as a well-known
phrase for the inland and eastern part of the Asiatic peninsula,
and the places on the route from Troas to Czesarea are put down
without further comment. All this agrees well with the idea
that the residence of Theophilus was somewhere on that line of
coast.
7. Two names are introduced abruptly in the narrative, that
of Jason at Philippi, and that of Alexander at Ephesus. “They
assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to
the people.” ‘And when they had taken security of Jason
and of the others, they let them go.” ‘‘ And they drew Alex-
ander out’to the multitude, the Jews putting him forward.” It
is not easy to determine the exact reason of this peculiarity.
Of Jason we only know that he was a kinsman of St. Paul, and
sent a salutation from Corinth to the Roman Christians. Hence
the manner in which he is introduced is quite consistent with
the view which makes Theophilus a Roman resident. But since
Jason was related to the Apostle, who was a Jew of Cilicia, there
is an equal probability that he would be known to the Syrian
and Cilician churches, before his residence at Thessalonica.
Again if Alexander be the same who was excommunicated by
St. Paul at Ephesus, his name and character would be probably
known to the Eastern Christians.
8. The passage xii. 25—xiiil. 1, seems to imply that Antioch
was the local centre of thought, both to the writer himself and to
Theophilus. For the return of Barnabas and Saul is mentioned,
without naming the place to which they returned, though a whole
chapter has intervened. Again, the phrase in the following verse
is very peculiar. ‘* Now there were in Antioch, in the existing
church, prophets and teachers.” It is difficult to understand why
K 2
196 ON THE AUTHORSHIP AND DATE
the simpler expression “ in the church of Antioch,” or ‘in the
church that was at Antioch,”’ should not have been used, unless
it was meant to imply that these teachers belonged to the same
church, which Theophilus knew to exist in Antioch when the
narrative was composed. They might be thus paraphrased.
‘* There were at Antioch, in the church which is well known to
you as now existing there, prophets and teachers ; and some of
the more eminent, with whose names you are already familiar,
besides Barnabas and Saul, were Simeon Niger, Lucius of Cyrene,
and Manaen, the foster-brother of Herod.’ This last circum-
stance would be more likely to have interest for a Syrian than
for a Roman convert.
9. There is a remarkable difference between the manner of
introducing Mark and Timothy to the notice of the reader.
The former is spoken of as a person already known, Acts xii. 12,
25; xi. 5, 13, but Timothy as a stranger. Now if Theophilus
were converted at Rome, during St. Paul’s imprisonment, both
of them would, in all probability, be equally known to him, since
both were present with the Apostle at that time. But if he
resided in or near Antioch, the difference can be explained. For
Mark was twice at Antioch, once before the first circuit of the
Apostle, and again after the council at Jerusalem, and he seems
to have returned to the east in the latter part of St. Paul’s im-
prisonment (Col. iv. 10). But Timothy could not have been at
Antioch, from the time of his joining St. Paul to the date of the
history, except it were on the visit Acts xvili. 22. Even at
that time we have no proof that he was present, and if he were,
the visit seems to have been short and hasty. Hence, if Theo-
philus dwelt near Antioch, St. Mark, it is likely, would be
personally known to him, and Timothy unknown, except by
reputation.
10. The expression Acts xvii. 1, that Paul “ went through
the upper parts,” appears to indicate the residence of Theophilus
in or near the peninsula of Asia Minor. For the phrase is
elliptical, and denotes evidently the eastern portion of that
=
OF THE BOOK OF ACTS. 197
peninsula, farthest from the Aigean. Hence it would be more
likely to be used in writing to one familiar with the geography of
that peninsula, and with the terms in popular use to distinguish
the inland parts from the western provinces, than in addressing
a native or resident of Italy.
11. The account of the stay at Ephesus lends us help towards
some negative conclusions on the abode of Theophilus. Clearly
he was not a resident near Ephesus, from the mention of the
school of Tyrannus, and of Demetrius, as a place and person
unknown. He was neither a Macedonian, nor present with St.
Paul in his imprisonment at Rome, since Gaius and Aristarchus
were alike unknown to him, and have to be specified as com-
panions of the Apostle, and men of Macedonia. He was
familiar, however, with the office of the Asiarchs, of the town-
clerk, and of the Roman courts and provincial regulations. The
account of the voyage, that follows, implies a general acquaintance
with the coast line of Asia Minor, which is equally apparent in
the later part of the narrative.
12. The account of the stay at Jerusalem, though it offers no
decisive evidence, appears to indicate a Syrian rather than an
Italian locality, in the person addressed. The expression,
‘Paul went in with us unto James,” would be familiar at
Antioch, where ‘certain who came from James” (Gal. ii. 12),
had caused such dissension in the church, but would need ex-
plaining to a recent Italian convert. It seems implied that
Trophimus the Ephesian was not personally known to Theo-
philus, but that he was acquainted with the appearance of the
Egyptian false prophet, and the character of the Sicarii, the
Jewish nickname for Christians, the marriage of Felix with
Drusilla, and the relationship and government of Agrippa and
Bernice. All these indications agree better with a residence of
Theophilus in Syria than in Italy.
13. The narrative of the voyage itself will be found to agree
better with the same hypothesis, though an opposite conclusion
has been sometimes drawn from it. And first, the expression,
198 ON THE AUTHORSHIP AND DATE
“« that we should sail away into Italy,” is suited rather to a position
at Antioch than at Rome. If St. Luke and Theophilus were
actually at Rome, the simple verb, ‘‘to sail into Italy,” would
be more natural. The mention of Aristarchus shows plainly that
he was a stranger to Theophilus. ‘They sailed under Cyprus,
the winds being contrary,” which means clearly, on its eastern
and northern side. Now it seems more natural to interpret the
phrase with reference to some fixed point of comparison, than to
the variable direction of the wind, and the under side of the
island would be the north-eastern toa resident in Cilicia or Syria.
Tn like manner the eastern part of Crete, by Salmone, is re-
garded as the under side. Theophilus is plainly supposed to be
familiar with the Jewish fast, on the day of Atonement, as indi-
cative of a particular season of the year, but unacquainted with
the southern coast of Crete, the situation of the Fair Havens
and Phenice, and the very existence of the islet, Clauda. Melita
or Malta is described, if not as entirely unknown to him, at least
as unfamiliar, or else the expression would be, “ they recognized
that the island was Melita.” The term, barbarians, applied to its
inhabitants, implies that Theophilus lived in the midst of a Greek
population. The brief mention of Syracuse, Rhegium, Puteoli,
Tres Tabernze, and Appii Forum, implies only such a knowledge
of geography, in the main approach to Rome, as an educated
provincial would naturally share with the inhabitants of Italy.
The only reasonable doubt relates to Puteoli, since Josephus uses
the name Dicearchia, and adds that the Italians call it Puteoli.
Both names, however, were probably familiar, and St. Luke,
having just resided for two years in Rome, would naturally
employ the name which was current there.. The expression,
“from thence the brethren came to meet us, as far as Appii
Forum and the Three Taverns,’ implies strongly that the
writer was not actually at Rome, or else the word “thence ”
would be omitted. Again, if Theophilus resided at Rome,
he would probably be aware already that there were disci-
ples at Puteoli, while. the language of the historian clearly
OF THE BOOK OF ACTS. 199
implies the reverse. A convert, however, in Syria, while he
would know that there was a church at Rome, could not be
expected to know that there was one at Puteoli also. The
phrase, again, ‘when we came to Rome,”’ agrees best with the
supposition that neither the writer nor Theophilus were actually
there, when the words, rapayevonevwy nudv, would probably be
employed, without specifying the place, just as in the case of
the Roman Jews. The mention, also, of Paul’s residence for two
years in a hired house of his own, would be superfluous, if Theo-
philus were one of his Roman converts, and residing in the city.
All these observations converge to the same result, that the
residence of Theophilus was in or near Antioch. This agrees
perfectly with the usual tradition of early writers, that St. Luke
himself was a native or a resident of that city. In this case
the publication of the history may perhaps be fixed, within very
narrow limits. It could not have been published, until two full
years after St. Paul had arrived at Rome. St. Luke remained
with him there, until the letters had been sent to Ephesus,
Colosse, and Philemon, when the prospect of his release was so
hopeful, that Philemon was instructed to prepare him a lodging.
At the date, however, of the letter to the Philippians, St. Luke
seems to have been absent. The two years were probably then
complete, and the Apostle’s release was close at hand. The
places to which the Evangelist was most likely to return were
Ceesarea, Antioch, Troas, and Philippi. But Epaphroditus and
Timothy were both sent to Philippi, and hence it is probable
that St. Luke had gone to Czesarea or Antioch, or to both
successively. This is the more likely, as he had been absent
from Antioch, at the very least, five years. Assuming him to
have returned to the church of Antioch, the interest attaching to
the voyage of St. Paul, his persecution at Jerusalem, and his
detention at Rome, must have awakened a lively emotion in that
place, one of the chief scenes of his early labours. The pre-
sence, too, of Theophilus, to whom the gospel had been addressed,
would be a further motive to St. Luke for composing this second
200 ON THE AUTHORSHIP AND DATE
narrative, or for completing and publishing it, if already composed.
But the freshness of the style in the closing chapters, and the want
of any allusion to St. Paul’s release, make it highly probable
that it was published before any tidings of his departure from
Italy had reached St. Luke at Antioch. We may assign it, then,
to the latter half of A.D. 63, and the deviation of a single year,
earlier or later, would involve a considerable degree of historical
improbability.
The date thus ascertained will serve to throw much light on
the question respecting the time of publication of the three
first gospels. It has been shewn, by a great amount of internal
evidence, that they were composed in their actual order, and that
each later Evangelist was acquainted with the gospel or gospels
previously written. But the gospel of St. Luke was plainly
written before the Book of Acts, which refers to it in the opening
verse, and is its historical continuation. Three successive dates
have therefore to be assigned, before A.D. 63, for the dates of
these three gospels, and the first of them cannot reasonably be
placed later than about A.D. 50, or about twenty years from the
date of the crucifixion.
The history in the Book of Acts plainly separates into three
main portions. The first reaches from the Ascension to the close
of ch. xi., and to the rise of the church at Antioch. The second
is a period of transition, ch. xii.—xv., and ends with the vision
at Troas, and the passing over of the gospel into Europe, while
the third reaches onward to the close of the history. In each of
these periods the church had a different character and position.
In the first it was entirely or mainly Jewish, and only began,
towards the close of the period, to have an accession of Gentile
converts. In the second, the Gentile converts were more nume-
rous, but the Jewish element still prevailed, and the footing on
which the Gentiles were to be received had not been the subject of
a public and formal decision. In the third, after the council at
Jerusalem, the gospel was preached still more widely, larger
accessions from the Gentiles were gathered in, and many churches
consisted mainly of recent converts from heathen idolatry,
es
OF THE BOOK OF ACTS. 201
Now the first gospel, on the most general view, has clear signs
of a special adaptation to Jewish readers. The second, which
is based upon it, retains in part the same character ; but all the
modifications are such as to render it more suitable than the first
for Gentile converts, as in ch. vii., where there is a formal expla-
nation of Jewish traditions and usages. The third gospel, again,
is plainly adapted for Greeks, rather than for Jews, and for those
who were not familiar with the minute geography of Judea and
Galilee. There is thus a general and marked agreement between
the character of these three gospels, and the three successive
periods of St. Luke’s narrative, within the course of which
they must have been written, at intervals, and in succession.
And hence there will arise a considerable presumption that the
first gospel belongs to the first period A.D. 30—44, the second
to the second period A.D. 44—50, and the gospel of St. Luke
to the third and last period, or A.D. 50—63, so that each would
be specially adapted to the state of the church at the time when
it was written.
Again, the chief centres from which the gospel spread suc-
cessively, it appears from the Book of Acts, were Jerusalem,
Ceesarea, Antioch, Corinth, Ephesus, and finally Ceesarea and
Rome. But several years would probably elapse at each place,
and especially at Jerusalem, before the want would be felt of a
written gospel for the new converts. Now the first gospel was
clearly written in and for Palestine, and probably therefore in
the mother church of Jerusalem. The third gospel of St. Luke,
it results from the previous inquiry, was written in and for
Antioch, the third of these historical centres. And hence a
further presumption that the three earliest centres of the Chris-
tian Church, Jerusalem, Ceesarea, and Antioch, were really the
places where these three gospels were respectively composed.
It will be the object of the following chapters to confirm these
general presumptions, and add to their precision, by a more
complete and inductive inquiry with regard to each gospel.
K 5
CHAPTER III.
ON THE DATE AND AUTHENTICITY OF 8ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL.
Tue general review of the history in the Book of Acts, compared
with the distinctive features of the three first gospels, would
lead us to a probable inference, that St. Luke wrote his gospel
during the period A.D. 50—63, between the date of the council
at Jerusalem, and the close of his own history. We have now
to combine the evidence, which enables us to fix its date within
narrower limits.
I. First, the gospel seems to have been written at some interval
before the Book of Acts. Several writers, indeed, as Professor
Tholuck, and Greswell, in his valuable Dissertations, have held
an opposite opinion, that they were written.in immediate succes-
sion. But a close comparison will justify the assertion, just
made, of a separation between them. The gospel is evidently
complete in itself ; more complete in one respect than the two
others, since it contains a brief account of our Lord’s Ascension.
This deviation from their example would be less probable, if the
writer was then purposing to continue the history in a second
work. The first twelve verses in the Book of Acts merely
repeat and enlarge the account at the close of the gospel, before
the narrative advances one step further. This naturally implies
that there was some interval of time between the two works,
and that the writer had the distinct impression of beginning
entirely anew. The space of forty days is also mentioned only
ON THE DATE AND AUTHENTICITY ON ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 203
in the Acts, while the gospel reports the events of the first and
last days only, without any formal transition between them. This
is another feature of the same kind, which implies that the com-
position was discontinuous. Again, it is said in the gospel that
our Lord led his disciples as far as Bethany. But the Book of
Acts, instead of continuing with the words—‘ then returned
they from Bethany,” gives another statement, complete in itself,
and independent. ‘ Then returned they to Jerusalem from the
Mount, which is called the Mount of Olives, which is nigh to
Jerusalem, distant a Sabbath-day’s journey.” The Preface of
the Gospel, also, gives no trace of a purpose, at that time, to
continue the history farther than those who had written before
him. The writer intends to give Theophilus simply a narrative
of our Lord’s own ministry, death, and resurrection, which were
the essential basis of Christian doctrine. There is also a certain
difference of style between the two works, which tends to confirm
the same view, that an interval of some years occurred before the
later work was written.
II. The next mark of time is more definite. In 1 Tim. v. 17,
18, we find the following passage: ‘Let the elders that rule
well be counted worthy of double honour, especially them that
labour in word and doctrine. For the Scripture saith, Thou
shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn; and, The
labourer is worthy of his reward.” St. Paul here makes two
short quotations, to confirm his own injunction, and calls them
alike by the name of Scripture. The former is taken from Deut.
xxv. 4, and has been quoted by him before in a previous epistle,
2 Cor. vii. 9. The latter occurs verbatim Luke x. 7, in the
Mission of the Seventy, and is a sentence of our Lord on the
very subject of which St. Paul is speaking, the maintenance of
Christ’s ministers. The plain and simple inference is, that St.
Paul here quotes St. Luke’s gospel, as Scripture, on the same
footing of authority with the law of Moses. Such a quotation
implies further, that the gospel was already known to Timothy,
and accepted by Christians as part of the written code of the
204 ON THE DATE AND AUTHENTICITY
New Testament. Such a currency and acceptance may reasonably
be held to imply a previous circulation of eight or ten years.
The date of the first Epistle to Timothy may be safely fixed,
from the evidence in the Hore Paulinw et Apostolicz, to the
autumn of A.D 64, or A.D. 65. And hence we may infer, with
considerable probability, that A.D. 57 is the latest date that can
bo assigned to the gospel of St. Luke.
III. The passage, 2 Cor. viii. 18—21, has to be next con-
sidered. Origen, Jerome, and the pseudo-Ignatius, all refer these
words to St. Luke and his gospel, and the same view has been
held by Grotius, Hammond, Whitby, and many other critics in
modern times. This reference, however, has been rejected by
Lardner, Michaelis, and the majority of recent critics, being
inconsistent with their opinion of the later origin of the gospel.
But since the last argument has made it probable that it was
written as early as A.D. 57, the very year of the Epistle, if
it can be shewn that St. Luke is the person meant, it will be
a natural inference that St. Paul refers to the written gospel:
1. First, St. Luke is the person to whom St. Paul here alludes.
He is distinguished by a specific mark, that he had been selected
by the churches of Macedonia their joint trustee with the Apostle
in conveying their alms to Jerusalem. ‘‘ We have sent with him
our brother, whose praise in the gospel is in all the churches ; and
not only so, but who has been chosen by the churches to travel
along with us with this grace, which is administered by us, to
the glory of the same Lord, and declaration of your ready mind ;
avoiding this, that no man blame us in this abundance which is
administered by us ; providing for honest things, not only in the
sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men.”
It is plain, from these latter clauses, that St. Paul does not
refer to a general association of this brother with himself in
spreading the gospel, but means a special selection to be his
fellow-traveller, in conveying the alms from Macedonia to the
Church at Jerusalem.
Now the Book of Acts gives a list of all his companions on
OF ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 205
that voyage, Sopater of Berea, Aristarchus, Secundus of Thes-
salonica, Gaius of Derbe, Timothy, Tychicus and Trophimus,
and St. Luke himself, the historian. Of these Timothy is ex-
cluded, because his name is joined with St. Paul’s in the super-
scription of the letter, so that he could not have been one of the
messengers to Corinth. Sopater, Aristarchus and Secundus, and
probably Gaius, were all Macedonians, and 2 Cor. xi. 4 shows
that these messengers were not “ men of Macedonia.” Tychicus,
Trophimus, and Luke, are thus the only persons, who could be
meant by the Apostle. We have no proof in the history that
Tychicus accompanied St. Paul as far as Jerusalem, while we
know that this was the case with the two others. Both of them,
it is probable, accompanied Titus on this visit to Corinth. But
two reasons prove that St. Luke, and not Trophimus, is the
brother first named, who received a special commission to take
charge of the contribution. He alone, of all the companions,
set out with St. Paul, the others having gone before to Troas,
Acts xx. 6. But a companion, who was absent at the outset,
would not satisfy the full purpose of the appointment, which
was to provide things honest in the sight of men, and to shield
St. Paul from the malicious charge of having purloined a part of
the contribution. And again, he is the only person of whom we
can be sure that he was with the Apostle, when the charge was
resigned, and the alms reached their destination. ‘The next
day Paul went in with us unto James, and all the elders were
present.” This very care of the writer to specify bis own pre-
sence with St. Paul, at the beginning and end of the journey,
seems to imply a consciousness of the joint commission he had
received, and of his desire to record its fulfilment. Again, St.
Luke was a preacher of the gospel, when St. Paul crossed over
into Europe, two years before a church was founded at Ephesus,
while Trophimus was a Gentile of that city, and probably a
convert during St. Paul’s residence. Hence the proof seems to
be morally complete, that the commendation in the letter belongs
to St. Luke, and no other person,
206 ON THE DATE AND AUTHENTICITY
2. Secondly, the description of this brother, ‘‘ whose praise in
the gospel is in all the churches,” ought naturally to be referred
to his known character as an Evangelist, and writer of the third
gospel, which bears his name. Such was the view of Origen,
Jerome, and Chrysostom, and it has been forsaken by many recent
critics on very insufficient grounds. Besides their supposition
that the gospel was of later date, they urge that such a use of the
word, for a written composition, is also of later origin, and does
not occur in the New Testament.
This objection, however, is of no real weight. When once the
term was in general use among Christians, to denote the great
facts of Christianity, the application of it to any written narrative
of those facts would be spontaneous and inevitable. An usage so
natural, so directly resulting from the necessary laws of thought,
could not require many years for its introduction. The Lord’s
supper, the Lord’s day, and the church, as a place of worship,
1 Cor. xi. 22, are phrases which occur only once in the New
Testament, but have all become usual in later times. The cir-
cumstance that each of these, as also the gospel, for a written
work, occurs once only, is no disproof of a meaning that results
from the context in each instance. If the gospels of St.
Matthew and St. Mark had been published several years at the
date of the letter, there would certainly have been time for such
an application of the term to become frequent. In fact, the
opening words of St. Mark tend at once to this very usage, where
he speaks of “ the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son
of God.” And even if no other gospel had been written, the use
of the term by St. Paul, in referring to the composition of St.
Luke, would be quite natural. For if this were the most appro-
priate name for such a narrative, by which it was to be constantly
known afterwards, who could be more suitable than the Apostle
himself to set the example of this usage to other Christians ?
But since two gospels, as it appears from the previous inquiry,
had been written before it, both the general laws of thought,
and the heading of St, Mark’s narrative, make it highly probable
OF ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 207.
that this use of the term had actually begun, some years before
the Apostle wrote his letter to Corinth.
The passage itself, when fairly weighed, proves this to be the
true meaning. It has been shewn that St. Luke, and no other,
is the party here described. Now the words are a definition,
by which he might be identified and distinguished from all the
other companions of the Apostle. The arrangement of the two
clauses deserves notice. ‘‘ We have sent with him the brother,
whose praise in the gospel is in all the churches, and not only
so, but who has been chosen, &c.”’ First, we have a character
by which he was widely known to others, and to the Corinthians
themselves ; and next, an additional honour, and proof of general
confidence, which he had just received. The office of preaching
the gospel was shared by St. Luke with a hundred others, and
among these, with every one of the brethren who were then
present with the Apostle. But there were two persons only,
Mark and Luke, not Apostles themselves, who were honoured to
be the authors of a written gospel, received and owned by all the
churches. Of these Mark was not at that time a companion of
St. Paul, and had not been for several years ; and his gospel, if
known at all in Greece, would be far less likely to command
speedy notice and general honour, than that of St. Luke, which
contains such a large amount of original information. Since St.
Paul does not name the brother of whom he speaks, the descrip-
tion must have been, to the Corinthians, equivalent to the men-
tion of his name. ‘ We have sent,’’ not a brother, or one out
of many, but “ the brother, whose praise in the gospel is in all
the churches.” On this very journey Titus had two companions,
who were ‘‘ messengers of the churches, and the glory of Christ.”’
Since it has been proved that Luke is the person meant, and
highly probable, from the quotation, 2 Tim. v. 19, that his
gospel was already written, while the phrase is plainly a defini-
tion, the proof seems to be complete, that St. Paul alludes to
him with honour and affection, as the author of that gospel which
still bears his name.
208 ON THE DATE AND AUTHENTICITY
IV. This conclusion will be further confirmed from the history
of the Evangelist. It will thus appear to be probable that his
gospel was written about six years before the date of the letter,
so that copies of it might have been already known and read in
the churches of Macedonia and Achaia. The description, given of
him by St. Paul, would thus be most significant, and accurately
true, at the time when the letter was sent to Corinth.
St. Luke, from his own narrative, joined St. Paul at Troas,
before he crossed into Europe, to preach the gospel in Mace-
donia. He appears to have stayed behind at Philippi, while
Paul, Silas, and Timothy went on to Thessalonica and Corinth.
No hint of his presence is given, till we again find him
with St. Paul at Philippi, five years later, before the voyage
to Jerusalem. From 2 Cor. viii. 18, 19, we may infer that
he was known at Corinth by reputation, rather than by personal
acquaintance. He was chosen by the churches of Macedonia
to be joint trustee with the Apostle, which is a presumption
that he had resided some time among them. Among St. Paul’s
other companions on that voyage, we have one from Berea, and
two from Thessalonica, and we may well suppose that Philippi
had some representative in the little company, as it took prece-
dence of the other churches in his love. Acts xvi. 12. Phil. iv.
15, 16. Hence it is likely that St. Luke himself was its repre-
sentative, and had spent most of the interval in that city. Yet
he would be not unlikely to have visited Jerusalem and Antioch
again, drawn to one by the sacred festivals, and to the other by
his own conversion, and previous residence. The gospel might
thus be well known to the Churches of Greece in A.D. 57,
whether it were written before the entrance into Europe, or
during the earlier part of his residence at Philippi.
Theophilus, however, it has been shewn by probable
evidence, was a Gentile proselyte of rank, living in or near
Antioch. Hence it is likely that the gospel would be
written, while St. Luke was residing there, rather than at
Philippi; and the notes of time, Luke iii. 1, seem exactly
OF ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 209
suited to a Syrian Greek, writing at Antioch. The full details
in Acts xvi. are a clear sign that Theophilus did not reside at
Philippi, and was not acquainted with the origin of that church,
or the geography of the province. And even if St. Luke had
paid a short visit to Antioch after the first entrance into Europe,
the occasion seems less natural for the work, than a continued
residence with Theophilus in that city. Other reasons equally
forbid us to place its composition much earlier. And hence a
probable date will be A.D. 51, after the departure of Paul and
Silas from Antioch, before the Evangelist joined them at Troas
on their way to Philippi. In this case it would have been pub-
lished six years, when St. Paul alluded to it in the letter to
Corinth ; and thirteen years, when he quoted it, as inspired
Scripture, like the law of Moses, in writing to the beloved
Timothy.
The circumstances under which St. Luke joined the Apostle
agree well with this supposition. He did not travel with Paul and
Silas, when they set out from Antioch, nor during their circuit
through Syria, Cilicia, Phrygia, and Galatia, which probably
occupied nearly a whole year. By a special direction of the
Spirit, they were hindered from preaching in Bithynia, and
guided to Troas on the sea coast. Here we find St. Luke not
only in their company, but a sharer in their public commission.
** After he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavoured to
go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called
us to preach the gospel unto them.” The silence of the writer
seems to imply that Theophilus knew the circumstances under
which he joined them, and the nature of his own claim to a share
in their public commission. If he had spent the time since their
departure, in completing his gospel at Antioch, Theophilus
would clearly know what had detained him, and the call he had
afterwards received to take part in their labours. The same
Spirit, who suffered not Paul and Silas to go into Bithynia, but
guided them to Troas, might equally have directed St. Luke, by
210 ON THE DATE AND AUTHENTICITY
one of the prophets at Antioch, to go down to that seaport and
join their little company.
V. The gospel was plainly written with a special reference to
Greek converts. When their number had become large, in dis-
tricts remote from Palestine, and writing had already been used
in the instruction of the churches, a gospel suited to their wants
would hardly be long delayed. Now the first Epistle of
Paul was written from Corinth, within one year from the vision
at Troas. After ten years from the conversion of Cornelius,
A.D. 41, and the first preaching to the Gentiles at Antioch, and
seven years from the mission of Barnabas and Saul, the number
of Gentile converts must have been very considerable, throughout
Syria, Cilicia, and a great part of Asia Miner. A council had ~
been held regarding them, their exemption from the Mosaic law
proclaimed, and copies of its decree were circulated in Asia
Minor by Paul and Silas on this very journey. The importance
had thus been already felt, of setting truth before these churches
in a permanent and written form. The want of a narrative of
our Lord’s ministry and death, suited to this numerous class of —
disciples, would therefore be widely perceived. Imperfect accounts
would be sure to appear early, amidst so many educated Greek
converts, as would be found at Antioch ; and hence the date —
proposed, just before the Apostle’s passage into Europe, agrees
with the actual wants of the Church of Christ.
VI. The stay of St. Luke at Philippi, on this view of the date,
acquires a practical significance. Having joined St. Paul so
lately, and with an express call to preach the gospel in Mace-
donia along with him, why does he stay behind at the very
first place, where a church is founded? His vocation, we may
perhaps infer, was not so much to help in forming new churches,
as to confirm and strengthen those which had been formed al-
ready. Philippi had long the foremost place in St. Paul’s affec-
tion. A signal persecution was there followed by a peculiar
miracle of Divine power, not repeated elsewhere, and by a re-
markable conversion. It was the chief town of one of the four
OF ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 211
divisions of Macedonia, and a maritime city. No place could be
more suitable for the stay of St. Luke, if his special call were to
build up believers in the young churches of Europe, by a fuller
instruction in the facts and doctrines of the Christian revelation.
The written gospel, if brought with him into Macedonia, would
be diffused from a known centre, under Apostolic sanction,
through all the churches of Macedonia and Achaia. Philippi
would thus be the place from which the written gospel was dif-
fused; as Thessalonica, for six years, was the only church
favoured with an Apostolic letter. Indeed it is hard to believe that
after a charge had been given for the public reading of these two
letters, there had been as yet provided for the very same
churches no authorized record of our Saviour’s life, miracles,
discourses, death, and resurrection. On the view here proposed,
all is consistent and regular. St. Luke would bring his gospel
with him into Macedonia ; copies would be sent under his direc-
tion to the churches of Macedonia and Greece, as they were
successively formed; the direct teaching of the Lord himself
would take precedence of the letters of his Apostle, and St.
Luke would fulfil his own share in the commission to the
whole peninsula, though his residence were confined to Philippi
alone.
VII. The preface to the gospel agrees well with the proposed
date. “It informs us, that “ many had taken in hand to set forth
in order a narrative of the things that were most surely believed
among the early Christians, as these were set forth by the eye-
witnesses and ministers of the word.’’ Now this would be very
probably-true at Antioch, ten years after the church was founded
in that city. It was by far the largest of those towns which re-
ceived the gospel early, and was the very birth-place of the
Christian name. Many imperfect narratives would be likely to
spring up, in such a place, when the gospel had once begun to
spread widely among its Gentile residents, since the deepest in-
terest would be felt in their new faith, and many of the converts,
doubtless, would have received a liberal education, in that
212 ON THE DATE AND AUTHENTICITY
main seat of political power, and of Greek refinement and learn-
ing. The laws of human nature must have been suspended by
a miracle, or such writings would be certain to appear. They
would probably be written, like St. Luke’s gospel itself, to per-
sons who were recent converts, imperfectly informed on the facts of
the gospel, and would thus partake of the nature of private letters.
It was important that these more hasty and imperfect reports
should be superseded by a distinct and full narrative, suited
especially to this class of converts ; and this is precisely what
St. Luke has done. Neither the gospel of St. Matthew nor of
St. Mark, from their special purpose, could entirely supply the
want of these Christians of Antioch. Most of the teachers there
had also been intimate with one or other of the Apostles, and
there had been a continual intercourse with the mother church
of Jerusalem, so that the motives for attempting a history of
the Lord would exist early, and be in powerful operation.
The preface also mentions two distinct classes of Christian
teachers, of whom some were eye-witnesses from the beginning,
and others had only a secondary acquaintance with the gospel
history. Such would clearly be the case about twenty years
after our Lord’s Ascension. St. Luke refers himself to the
second class, and claims authority for his narrative from his dili-
gence in collecting information, and the accurate knowledge he
had gained by means of eye-witnesses. This character is pecu-
liar to the third gospel, which has the air of an history, the
fruit of research and inquiry, rather than of direct, personal ob-
servation. A writer under such circumstances would not be very
likely to delay his narrative many years after his inquiries were
complete. But from the arrival at Philippi to the close of
the narrative, the openings for such inquiries would probably
be much more limited, than during the previous residence
of several years at Antioch, when the intercourse with the
Apostles and teachers of the mother church must have been very
frequent. /
VIII. The writings of St. Luke are marked by the repeated
OF ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 913
' mention of Herod the tetrarch, and of his household. This
Evangelist alone has mentioned the trial of Jesus before Herod
in Jerusalem, the name of Chuza, the tetrarch’s steward, of
| Joanna, his wife, and of Manaen, Herod’s foster brother. If
| the gospel were written at Antioch, while Manaen was still an
eminent teacher of that church, many facts respecting Herod,
| and his intercourse with the Jews and with Jesus might be
learned from him, and Chuza and Joanna, as well as Manaen,
| might be known by name to Theophilus and many others. But
| the later we place the composition of the gospel, the less pro-
bable would be this introduction of particulars, relative to Herod,
) which are found no where else in the New Testament.
. IX. There is an allusion, Luke xiii. 1—6, to certain Galileans,
whom Pilate had slain while they were offering their sacrifices.
They are introduced definitely, so as to imply that the fact was
| already familiar to most readers. The event took place, it is
|} probable, two or three months before the crucifixion, and occa-
| sioned the feud between Herod and Pilate, which the latter
| healed at that time, by a compliment paid to Herod’s jurisdic-
| tion over Galilee. But if the history came thirty years after the
event, this definite mode of expression would be less suitable
than at the distance of twenty years, proposed above for the
date of the gospel. The memory of those earlier troubles
| under Pilate, would be revived by the slaughter at the Passover,
| A.D. 49 or 50, in the procuratorship of Cumanus, only one or
two years before the time when the gospel was probably written
at Antioch. The recollection of a similar catastrophe, which had
occurred twenty years earlier, would thus be likely to recur
| powerfully to the minds of the Syrian readers.
X. The mention of the Census, Luke ii. 2, which has been
made a chief reason for impeaching St. Luke's accuracy of know-
ledge, will be found, on inquiry, to confirm the view that his
gospel was written at Antioch, and at an early date. Its
difficulty, and the amount of discussion it has caused, require a
careful examination of its meaning,
214 : ON THE DATE AND AUTHENTICITY
The words in Greek are these, Airy 7 amoypapn mpdryn éyéveto
nyepovevoytos THs Dveiac Kuonviov, for which six or seven versions
have been proposed. 1. This taxing was first made, when
Cyrenius was governor of Syria, (E. T. and Strauss). 2. The
taxing itself was first made, when Cyrenius was governor of Syria,
(Whiston, Hales, Paulus). 3. This taxing first took effect &e.
(Calvin, Valesius). 4. This enrolment was the first that was made,
Cyrenius being extraordinary governor, (Beza, Grotius, Browne).
5. This is the first enrolment of Cyrenius, while governing
Syria, (Scaliger). 6. This is the first enrolment of Cyrenius,
the governor (i. e. who afterwards became governor) of Syria,
(Lardner, Paley). 7. This enrolment took place before Cyrenius
was governor of Syria, (Theophylact, Herwart, Tholuck, Gres-
well). Of these the first is either unmeaning, or is virtually the
same with the third, and the sixth is opposed to the plain laws
of Greek syntax, where the article is absent. The second and
thirfl are open to the same historical objection, since they
separate the decree by ten years from its execution ; while the —
context seems to imply that it took place at once, and there —
is no hint, in the other accounts of the later taxing, that it was
the execution of an earlier decree. Besides this, the fundamental —
objection applies, that aroysdégy cannot denote the taxing, as con-
trasted with the enrolment, and that éyévero cannot be rendered
“took effect”? without real violence. The fourth and fifth,
with a slight grammatical difference, involve the common suppo-
sition, that the census was during an extraordinary commission
of Cyrenius, and different from another made in his ordinary
presidency. The choice really lies between one of these, and
the last construction, which receives the words as a simple
notice, to distinguish the event from the later census in the
presidency of Cyrenius. .
]. First, it is plain that St. Luke, in these words, never meant
to identify this census with the later one to which he alludes,
Acts y- 37, and which was certainly in the presidency of Cyrenius.
This is clear from the words alone, since the word zpo7q would
OF ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 915
be unmeaning on this view, and the clause could only receive
such a sense by omitting it entirely. But historically, this is
just as plain. The census of Cyrenius and the death of Augustus
were only eight years asunder. That census was clearly familiar
to the writer, from his allusion to it in Acts v. 37, without a
word of explanation. The death of Augustus must have been
equally familiar to a writer, who names the tetrarchs of Galilee,
Trachonitis, and Abila, and numbers the years of Tiberius.
But in the next chapter, the ministry of John is referred to the
fifteenth of Tiberius, and the age of Jesus, when baptized soon
afterwards, is said to be thirty years. No writer of common sense
could place the birth of our Lord at a time, familiarly known to
be about eight years before the death of Augustus, and then say,
in a few verses after, that he was about thirty years old in the
fifteenth of Tiberius. This would not be an historical error, so
much as a gross arithmetical blunder. In both grounds, then,
of grammar and historical common sense, it is impossible that
the Evangelist can here have identified his census with the later
and more noted enrolment in the time of Cyrenius.
2. There is no historical evidence, apart from this passage,
that Cyrenius was employed in an earlier census. An inscription
with reference to the enrolment of Apamea has been quoted by
some writers, in proof that he was so employed. But the later
census, in A.D. 6, was not confined to Judea, as Sanclemente
and Browne have asserted. It is plain from Josephus that it in-
cluded the whole of Syria ; so that the inscription must naturally
be referred to this same conspicuous enrolment. It is also
doubtful whether St. Luke would have used the term “ nyenovev-
ovtos”’ for an extraordinary commission. But still further, if
Cyrenius had then been present, there seems no reason why the
writer should have specified the fact ; since it would only tend,
without fuller explanation, to defeat his purpose, and to confound
the census with another, far more commonly associated with his
name, as the president of Syria.
3. The form here used, jyeuovevevortos tH¢ Supias Kupyyéov, is
216 ON THE DATE AND AUTHENTICITY
the same which St. Luke employs elsewhere in the definition of —
time, and is constantly so employed by classic writers, both with
and without a preposition. We have instances in Luke iii. 1, 2. —
Acts xviii. 12, where the construction is precisely similar. It
is therefore most natural to infer that the words are here also —
used in the same way, and that some averment is made with
reference to the time when Cyrenius was governor of Syria, just
as elsewhere in regard to the time when Pilate was governor of —
Judea, or when Gallio was deputy of Achaia.
4. Since the census must have been distinct from that in
the presidency of Cyrenius, and still the genitives must refer
to that very presidency, the object of the writer must have
been to note, in passing, its earlier occurrence, lest a careless
reader should perplex himself by confounding them. This
purpose is exactly fulfilled, if teé¢r, be a term of comparison,
and we translate, with Theophylact, Herwart, Tholuck and
Greswell—“ This enrolment took place, before Cyrenius’ govern-
ing Syria.”
5. The use of redtoc, as an emphatic term of comparison,
instead of zpéregsy, has many precedents in Scripture and classic
writers. Thus John i. 15, 30—xv. 18. Col. i. 15, are clear
examples of this usage. In the Septuagint, 2 Sam. xix. 43, is
an instance, and 1 Mace. vil. 41, eoxary tov tidy 4 pytnp
éreaevrgce. Many other examples might be given from classic
authors.
6. The construction of a genitive of time with prepositions is
also very common in the best writers. The extension of the
same idiom to adverbs of comparison, is perhaps found in the
Septuagint only. There, at least, in Jer. xxix. 2, we have a clear
instance in the phrase “‘ forepay eFénBovrac lexovtov rod Baclrews,”
‘¢ after the going forth of Jeconiah the king.” This rendering has
indeed been disputed (Ordo Seecl. p. 43), but without any reason,
since a comparison of the Septuagint with the Hebrew shews
plainly that the above is the true construction. In like manner,
dere poy myepovevovtas Kuoyyiov would certainly mean, after the
OF ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL. 217
presidency of Cyrenius,” and rpcrepov x. t. A, “ before the same
presidency.
7. The difficulty of the passage, in this view, arises simply
from the combination of two idioms, one of which is frequent
in the best classic authorities, and the other finds an exact
_ parallel in the Septuagint, but which are not elsewhere joined
together. If the words had been apdrq eyévero tH¢ Kupyyiou
| amoypagjs, no doubt of their meaning could have well arisen.
Or again, if the phrase jyepovevoytos ris Lupiag Kupyyiov, had
occurred in St. Luke, either standing alone, or with a preposition,
no one would have doubted that they were a definition of time.
How then can the union of the two idioms, which has occasioned
so much perplexity, be explained ?
The difficulty here arises from the circumstance that, in every
other instance where «pazoc is so employed, the genitive which
follows strictly corresponds with the main subject which goes
before. If, however, St. Luke wrote at a place and time, when
the phrase jycuovevovtos t5 Zvoias Kupyyfov was equivalent, in the
minds of his readers, to a direct mention of the later taxing,
this unusual phraseology will have a sufficient explanation. The
census of Cyrenius would probably give rise, from its very nature,
to a thousand public and private documents, where this date would
be used in this precise form. In subjects which are perfectly
familiar, the best writers often consult brevity, rather than gram-
matical completeness, in their phraseology. St. Luke might
have written, airy 7 anoypagn porn Eyevero [tg aroypagns, ATI6
eyeveto] jyemovevovtos tho Supias Kupqviov. But the parenthetic
words, at the time, would be instinctively supplied, because every
| Syrian reader of those days would at once associate the presidency
of Cyrenius with the important census which he was so well known
to have made ; since it had been the beginning of a new era to the
whole province, and the occasion of a dangerous revolt in
Palestine. And conversely, the adoption of this brief and ellip-
| tical idiom is a reason for the view, already supported by other
arguments, that the gospel was written at Antioch, and addressed
L
218 THE DATE AND AUTHENTICITY OF ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL.
to a Syrian convert at an early date, or about the middle of
the first century. It is highly probable that, at that period,
iyevavevovros Kupyviov, was a law term of constant occurrence in
deeds and legal documents throughout Syria, or in Greek inscrip-
tions and records, to which that noted census had given rise.
If the work were written about forty-five years after that census
occurred, a passing notice that this earlier taxing was distinct —
from it would be natural, and almost necessary ; while the un-
studied form of it implies the fullest consciousness in the writer
of his familiar acquaintance with Syrian history. He assumes
that his readers knew of the later census, which was of great
notoriety, and gives them a passing and brief caution that they
must not confound it with the earlier and less conspicuous enrol-
ment to which his narrative alludes, at the time of the Nativity.
CHAPTER IV.
ON THE DATE AND AUTHORSHIP OF ST. MARK’S GOSPEL.
Tuer second gospel, by the unbroken testimony of early writers,
is ascribed to St. Mark, an intimate companion of St. Peter, and
the same person, it is universally allowed, whom he mentions at
the close of his first Epistle. Opinions have been more divided
on the question, whether this Mark the Evangelist be the same
with John Mark, the sister’s-son to Barnabas, who is mentioned
five times in the Book of Acts, and three times in St. Paul’s
Epistles. The more general opinion is, that they are the same ;
but some few early writers, and a considerable number of modern
critics, as Cave, Grotius, Du Pin and Tillemont, and more
recently Mr. Greswell, in his Dissertations, and Da Costa, in
his work, the Four Witnesses, hold them to be different. The
last of these has a peculiar hypothesis of his own, that the Evan-
gelist is probably the devout soldier, whom Cornelius sent to
Peter, before his conversion.
Various dates have been assigned to the gospel. According
to Irenseus, it was written after the death of St. Peter; but
according to Jerome, Clemens, Papias, and the Synopsis of
Athanasius, during his life-time; while Theophylact places it
ten years after the Ascension. Most early writers assert it to
have been published at Rome, but Chrysostom in Egypt. The
_external evidence, it thus appears, is rather imperfect. It be-
comes the more important to examine carefully the light thrown
on its origin by the internal evidence of the New Testament.
L2
220 ON THE DATE AND AUTHORSHIP
I. First, the allusions and brief notices in the Acts and
Epistles, yield a strong presumption that John Mark and the
Evangelist are the same person. For John Mark is named five
times in the Book of Acts, and the last time by his Roman
surname alone. In the Epistles he is named three times, being
identified by the description in the first passage, ‘‘ Marcus, sister’ s-
son to Barnabas,”’ which proves him to be the same who is men-
tioned by St. Luke. In these three passages, however, no trace
is left of his original name, John, and he is described simply by
his surname, Marx. In Philemon 23., and 2 Tim. iy. 11, this
name is used without any addition, as enough to identify him.
Now in the Epistle of St. Peter, the name occurs, just in the
same manner. “The church at Babylon greeteth you, and Mark
my son.” That John Mark was.a convert of St. Peter must be
highly probable from the passage Acts xii. 12, where we find
that his mother had a house at Jerusalem, in which many Chris-
tians met for prayer, and that St. Peter addressed himself first
to this company, when released from prison. On the other hand,
it is not likely that another Mark would be mentioned in this
brief manner, when John Mark was familiarly known by his
second name only, and was so prominent among the early teachers
of the gospel. Nor is it at all likely, to those who believe in
the internal harmony of Scripture, that our only notice of the
writer of one of the gospels, should be this brief expression at —
the close of one epistle alone, with no mention of his name, or
character, or labours, in any other part of the sacred canon.
The fact that the Evangelist is called the son of Peter, and is —
his traditional companion, while John Mark travelled for a time
with Barnabas and Paul, then with Barnabas only, and still later
with St. Paul again, is no proof that they are different persons.
For Sylvanus is named in the same verse by St. Peter, as his
messenger, and yet he was the companion of St. Paul in his first
visit to Europe, and his name appears in the superscription of
the two letters to the Thessalonians. Hence a similar alternation —
must be just as credible in the case of the Evangelist. In fact,
ae ne —
OF ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. PSH
it would only increase the fitness of John Mark to be the writer
of a gospel, that he was the honoured companion, not only of
one, but of the two most eminent Apostles. It may be further
observed that the moral beauty of the record is greatly obscured,
if the Mark of St. Peter’s Epistle, and of St. Luke’s narrative,
are held to be different persons. For in the narrative, when St.
Paul refused to take Mark for his companion, he chose Silas or
Sylvanus. And here, in St. Peter’s salutation, we find that Syl-
vanus is his chosen and beloved messenger, and that Mark is as-
sociated in the brotherly greeting, which Sylvanus has to convey.
** By Sylvanus that faithful brother, I have written to you. . . The
church in Babylon greeteth you, and Mark my son.’ We can
hardly fail to see here an analogy to the notice, 2 Tim. iv. 11.
* Only Lukeis with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee, for
he is profitable to me for the ministry.” Timothy and Luke, as
well as Silas, had seemed to replace Mark in the Apostle’s friend-
ship and society ; and they are joined with him here, as Sylvanus
in the other passage, in a manner which implies the most entire
harmony, and the high place which they all held alike in the
favour of the two chief Apostles.
These presumptions are met, apparently, by no counter evi-
dence. For the reasons, which have been drawn from the gospel,
to prove the author a Gentile soldier, will be found to admit of
another explanation, while there are several features in the work,
which agree better with the usual hypothesis, that the writer was
one of the circumcision.
II. The first mention of John Mark occurs in Acts xii. THis
~ mother was a sister of Barnabas, who was himself a Levite of Cy-
prus. Many, including probably her own son, were gathered for
prayer in her house, when Peter startled them by his sudden ap-
pearance. Soon after, on the return of Barnabas and Saul, he ac-
companied them to Antioch. When they began their first circuit,
in the same or the following year, Mark was still with them. He
accompanied them throughout Cyprus, but left them at Perga,
and returned to Jerusalem, and thereby incurred St. Paul’s
222 ON THE DATE AND AUTHORSHIP
serious displeasure. No mention of him is then given, till after
the council, when it appears from Gal. ii. 10, that St. Peter came
down to Antioch. Mark was now present there again, Acts xv.
37—39, and Barnabas, against the judgment of Paul, selected
him for his companion. The dispute, thus occasioned, led to
their separation, and Barnabas and Mark sailed to Cyprus, while
Paul chose successively Silas and Timothy, and visited the
churches of Asia Minor. From this point, the Book of Acts
gives us no further light on his history. We learn, however,
from Col. iv. 10, that, within the ten years that followed, he had
been restored to St. Paul’s favour, that a charge to receive him
had been given to the Phrygian Christians, and that he was
present with the Apostle in the second year of his imprisonment
at Rome, and had been a special comfort and help to him by his
labours in the gospel. At the date of St. Peter’s first epistle,
he was with that Apostle in Babylon, which seems, for several
reasons, to be the old Babylon of Mesapotamia, and neither
Rome, nor Babylon in Egypt. Still later, when St. Paul was a
second time imprisoned at Rome, Mark was in Asia Minor, not
far from Ephesus, and was sent for by that Apostle, along with
Timothy, to receive his dying instructions and commands. Early
tradition reports that he became the first bishop of the church
at Alexandria, and assigns that city for the final scene of his
labours and his death.
III. To fill up this outline, we must ascertain, if possible, the
date of St. Peter’s first Epistle. No good reason can be given
for the view, which has prevailed widely, that the Epistle was
written from Rome. To introduce a metaphor on such an occa-
sion, without the least hint in the context to explain it, would
be most unnatural in a letter of simple exhortation. And
besides, the order in which the provinces are named indicates
that the writer was in the east, and not inthe west. Accordingly,
it is now the usual opinion, that the letter was written from
Mesapotamia, either amidst the remains of old Babylon, or from
eS —— = eee Se eee
OF ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 203
Seleucia, which often borrowed the name, as it succeeded to the
local importance, of the ancient city.
The extreme dates proposed for the letter, are A.D. 48 and
65. The former may be rejected for the plain reason, that
Bethynia and Asia, two of the provinces here named, were not
evangelized till some years later, when St. Paul returned from
his first visit to Europe. When St. Peter wrote, churches were
formed in these districts, and elders presided over them. The
letter must then be later than A.D. 52, when St. Paul crossed
into Macedonia.
The close of the letter will perhaps enable us to approach
still nearer to its date. The true rendering seems to be, “ By
Sylvanus, that faithful brother, as I expect, I have written to you
briefly, exhorting and testifying that this is the true grace of
God wherein ye stand.” The slight uncertainty did not refer to
the faithfulness of Sylvanus, which the article serves to affirm
strongly, but merely to the circumstance whether he or some
other would prove to be the bearer of the letter. It was ad-
dressed to five provinces ; and even if Sylvanus set out with it
on a circuit, it would be uncertain whether it might not reach
many of them by other hands. The words toi microt aderpat
imply that St..Peter reckoned Sylvanus eminently worthy of his
confidence in the service of Christ.
Now Sylvanus or Silas accompanied St. Paul on his first circuit
in Europe, till he reached Corinth, where he continued with him
for some time, (2 Cor.i.) But after St. Paul’s next visit to
Jerusalem, no trace of his presence is found, either in the history
or the letters. It is probable, then, that from this time Silas
joined himself to St. Peter, or at least remained in Palestine,
and journeyed to the east. Galatia is one of the five provinces
to which St. Peter’s letter is addressed. The churches of that
district were founded by St. Paul during his second circuit, when
Silas was with him. False teachers had afterwards crept in, who
appealed from St. Paul to St. Peter and St. James, as higher autho-
rities, and consequently St. Paul had been compelled, while at
224 ON THE DATE AND AUTHORSHIP
Corinth, to write an urgent and sharp reproof. He would be
most likely, on his next interview with St. Peter, or by the next
messenger who was sent to him, to represent to him the abuse
of his name in these churches, so as to encourage a dangerous
perversion of the gospel. And in this case, what could be more
natural than a letter from St. Peter to these and the adjoining
churches, in confirmation of that pure gospel of grace, which
St. Paul had proclaimed ?
The words, 1 Pet. v. 12, acquire a peculiar emphasis on this
view. St. Peter writes by Sylvanus, who had been present at the
council to which St. Paul alludes in his letter, and had been sent to
confirm the Gentile converts at Antioch in the freedom of the
gospel ; and who had since been joined with St. Paul, during his
visit to Galatia, in proclaiming the grace of Christ. By the
selection of this messenger, St. Peter would distinctly approve
and testify the message which Paul and Silas had proclaimed,
and which his own name had been perverted into an excuse for
opposing. He gives to Silas an emphatic title of honour, ‘‘ that
faithful brother,’ and adds a brief statement of the special
design of the letter, “to testify that this was the true grace of
God, wherein they stood,” now that they had been humbled by
St. Paul’s rebuke, and recovered and confirmed by his second
visit. The very term employed, éex:aprupiv, denotes a further
testimony, to confirm one already given, and applies with special
force on this view of the history.
The Epistle, then, could not be written earlier than the close
of A.D. 54, when St. Paul made his second visit to Galilee, nor
in A.D. 61, 62, when St. Mark was with St. Paul at Rome, but
most probably in the interval between these limits. Perhaps the
time of St. Paul’s detention at Czesarea, half way between then,
and when he was debarred from personal intercourse with these
churches, would be a likely season for such a message to them
from his brother Apostle. Hence A.D. 58 is probably an
approximation to the real date.
We may now fill up the outline of Mark’s travels, conjecturally,
.
;
OF ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 225
as follows. When he accompanied his uncle to Cyprus, they
would be likely to extend their course southward or westward, to
Crete or Egypt. Crete had certainly been evangelized before
St. Paul’s release from Rome, and St. Mark is connected by a
very constant tradition, with the church of Alexandria. He
may then have returned to Jerusalem, and connected himself
with St. Peter, his own father in the faith, and continued with
him till the first Epistle was written, four or five years. The
instruction, alluded to in Col. iv. 10, must have been given by St.
Paul to the Phrygian churches some time before, and most
likely on his second visit to that neighbourhood, Acts xviii.
It is thus probable that at that time, Paul, Peter, Barnabas,
Mark, and Silas, had a common interview, and that the two
latter, leaving Paul and Barnabas, became associated with Peter
in his labours to the north and east of Judea.
IV. Let us now resume the direct inquiry into the origin and
date of the second gospel. It is the constant tradition of early
writers, that it was written by St. Mark, either under the inspec-
tion of St. Peter, or from the memory of the Apostle’s oral
statements. The internal evidence agrees fully with the view.
Mr. Jones, Dr. Townson, and others, have brought together a
large variety of presumptions, which tend to establish it. The
history, except a few verses, is limited to the time when Peter
had become a companion of our Lord. The house at Caper-
naum is called, here only, the house of Simon and Andrew.
The precedence of Peter among the Apostles is more indirectly
given; his honour, in the distinctive surname, is qualified by
the joint title given, as St. Mark alone informs us, to the sons of
Zebedee. The benediction, which followed his confession of
Christ, is not given, but the stern reproof that ensued is retained
at full length. His fall is stated fully, but nothing is said of
his deep repentance, or of the bitterness of his tears. No men-
tion is found of his being the first Apostle to whom the Lord
appeared after the resurrection, while the privilege of the Mag-
dalene is expressly noticed. These features, and many others of
L5
226 ON THE DATE AND AUTHORSHIP
the same kind, confirm the tradition, that St. Peter was the chief
source of the whole narrative.
V. This gospel, by most early writers, is said to have been
written and published at Rome. Chrysostom, however, says
that it was written in Egypt, and thus proves that the tradition
of its Roman origin was not universal, while there are internal
marks, which seem to prove it erroneous. Yet since Clement,
Athanasius, Epiphanius, Jerome, Gregory, Cosmas and Euty-
chius, agree in this opinion, and it is commonly received by
modern writers, it becomes necessary to account for its origin,
even if weighty evidence be given for denying its truth.
The main reason urged in its favour are the Latinisms of
this gospel. The following are specified by Mr. Greswell :—
1]. Aeyedy for Legion. 2. oxexovrdrwp, executioner. 3. xyyous,
for tribute. 4. xotpavrns, quadrans, or farthing. 5. Poauyendrody,
to scourge. 6. atdy, 6 ects mpaitepioy, the hall, that-is, the
Pretorium. 7. KEYTUDLOY, instead of EKATOYTAPK OG, centurion. 8.
wecovixtiov, for a division of the night. 9. xséPBarec, couch.
10. otal, vah, aterm of contempt. 11. ra:didbev, a puero. 12.
stconwov,atoken. 13. dyvdéoiv, a penny, where Matthew has,
tribute. 14. améxes, it is sufficient. 15. arcxropepavia, gallicinium.
16. a&ugodoc, ambivium. 17. jeOépia, confines.
Several of these words occur also in St. Matthew and St. Luke,
and hence can be no proof that the gospel of St. Mark was
specially designed for Latin readers, and still less that it was
written at Rome. Thus Aeyewy occurs in all three gospels; xodeczvrns
and gpuyedrotv, once in St. Matthew, and once only in St. Mark ;
wecovixtioy, once in St. Mark, once in St. Luke’s gospel, and
twice in the book of Acts ; xeéBParoc, five times both in St. Mark
and St. John; dyvcpiov, six times in Matthew, three times in Mark
and Luke. Me@épia is also a purely Greek word. Even xoveradia,
a direct Latinism, is common to Mark with Matthew. And
hence the distinctive Latinisms are perhaps three only, xevrupioy,
orexovaAdtwp, andotai as aterm of contempt, answering to vah,
the Latin interjection.
oe
OF ST, MARK’S GOSPEL. 227
Even the passage, Mark xv. 16, “the hall, that is, the Pre-
torium,” is no proof that the gospel was designed for Roman,
or even for Latin-speaking readers; since Pretorium is used by
the three other evangelists, in the book of Acts, and by St. Paul
in his letter to Philippi. Every Pretorium was a hall, but every
hall was not a Pretorium. Technical terms of this kind, used
by the governing power, are quickly adopted into the language
of their subjects. And hence there is no sufficient ground, in
these few words, for the conclusion that the gospel was written
in Rome or Italy.
Another presumption for the same view has been drawn from
xv. 21, where Simon is said to be the father of Alexander and
Rufus. For St. Paul salutes Rufus and his mother among the
Roman Christians. It is inferred that the Evangelist, writing at
Rome, has mentioned him and his brother, because they were
known residents of that city.
This inference, however, is very far from certain. For St.
Paul had never been at Rome, when he wrote that letter, and
still it is clear that Rufus and his mother were personally knowa
to him. Six years before, Claudius had commanded all Jews to
depart from Rome, so that Rufus must have resided elsewhere at
that time. His father, Simon, was a Jew of Cyrene, not of
Rome, and was attending the Passover at the time of the cruci-
fixion. It is almost certain that his sons, even after one or both
of them were become converts, would still frequent that city.
The only valid inference seems to be, that Simon was dead when
St. Mark wrote, but that his sons were still alive, and that they
were personally known to the Evangelist, and to many of the
converts whom he first addressed.
On the other hand, there are many signs in St. Mark’s gospel,
overlooked by those who were pre-occupied by the tradition of its
Roman origin, which prove that it was addressed to residents
in Palestine. The geographical notices all agree with this view,
and disagree with the other. St. Luke, for instance, describes
Capernaum as a city of Galilee, while St. Mark refers to it with-
228 ON THE DATE AND AUTHORSHIP
out description, as a place already known. Yet surely the re- »
sidents of Antioch were more likely to know its position than the
inhabitants of Italy. Again, he speaks of the x»pordAes or
village-towns of Galilee, a special term that implies an acquaint-
ance with the country. The lake of Tiberias is called simply
“the sea,” an usage hardly intelligible to Italians, and one which
clearly implies a reference to the dwellers in Palestine. The
phrase, ‘the other side,” is used elliptically, just as in St.
Matthew, while St. Luke, who wrote for more distant readers, is
careful to explain it by an addition, “ the other side of the lake.”
Gadara is referred to, as already known, in striking contrast to
the third gospel. Decapolis is mentioned without the slightest
explanation. Nazareth is called our Lord’s ‘‘own country,”
though no particulars of his former residence there have been
given. Bethsaidais introduced abruptly, in the miracle of the five
thousand, and also the land of Gennesaret, without any further
hint to explain their position. Czesarea Philippi might perhaps
be known to Italian residents, but how could they be expected to
understand ‘the parts of Dalmanutha?”’ The mention of Jericho,
Bethphage, Bethany, the Mount of Olives, of the house of Simon
the leper, of Arimathea, and of the country as a general term
for the vicinity of Jerusalem, are all indications of the same kind.
They prove that a knowledge of comparatively obscure localities
in Palestine is presupposed. No one instance is found of a
geographical explanation, such as would naturally be required by
the residents and natives of Italy.
The gospel further assumes, in its readers, a general ac-
quaintance with the customs of the Jews. Thus, in i. 32,
there is an implied reference to Jewish scruples about the Sab-
bath. The Scribes and Pharisees are spoken of, as classes
familiarly known. The Jewish name, Beelzebub, is introduced
without explanation. The feast of the Passover and of un-
leavened bread are distinguished, while St. Luke comprehends
them both under the second name. The Preparation is defined
as the day before the Sabbath. In all these cases, a moderate
ee
ae a
OF ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 229
acquaintance with Jewish usages is implied. Yet it is equally
plain that this knowledge, on the part of the readers, is supposed
to be partial and limited. It is explained, for instance, that the
disciples of John and the Pharisees used repeated fasts, which
St. Matthew assumes to be well known. In chapter vii. there is
formal digression, to explain the practice of the Pharisees. The
woman of Canaan, as St. Matthew calls her, receives a name
more intelligible to Gentiles, ‘‘a Greek, a Syrophenician by race.”’
In the prophecy on the Mount, the clause in the instructions for
flight, ‘neither on the Sabbath,” is omitted. The first day of
unleavened bread is expounded by the description, “when they
used to kill the Passover.”’ Other examples of the same accom-
dation to Gentile readers may perhaps be found. The readers
are supposed to know well the localities of Palestine, but not the
minuter elements of Jewish customs and phraseology.
VI. From the previous inquiry we are led to the following re-
sults. The gospel of St. Mark was earlier than that of St. Luke,
which was itself probably composed at Antioch, just before that
Evangelist accompanied St. Paul into Europe. It was adapted,
not for residents in Italy, but for Gentiles who lived in Palestine,
and who were better acquainted with its outward features and
localities than with the rites and customs of the Jews. The
writer was also intimately connected with St. Peter, from whose
information and ocular testimony he has derived the most dis-
tinctive features of his narrative.
The history of the early church, in the book of Acts, agrees
remarkably with these indications. It naturally divides itself
into three periods. The first reaches to the origin of the church
at Antioch, and during its course the gospel was mainly confined
to Palestine, among those who were Jews by birth. The second
period, which reaches to the council, and the first journey into
Europe, was one of transition. The Jews were still the majority
of the church, but the gospel had begun to spread to the Gentiles,
and included many Roman residents in Palestine, with a growing
number of Greeks at Antioch and in Asia Minor. In the third
230 ON THE DATE AND AUTHORSHIP
and last stage, the admission of the Gentiles was solemnly rati-
fied by the council, and the gospel spread among them on every
side with great rapidity. The gospel of St. Luke, it has been
shewn, was written early in this third period, for the Greeks of
Antioch. The gospel of St. Mark has all the features of the
second, or transition period, and of a special adaptation to the
Roman converts in and near Palestine.
The first Gentile converts were Cornelius the Roman centu-
rion, with his friends and household servants, at Caesarea. Here
was the first nucleus of all the later accessions from the Gentiles.
Ceesarea, in point of time, took precedence of Antioch itself, and
was not less favourably situated as a missionary outpost for the
spread of the faith. It was the main seaport of Palestine, the
seat of the Roman government, and the resort of ten thousand
Jews from all quarters, on their way to the great festivals at
Jerusalem. A body of Roman soldiers were always present in
this important military station, and would be replaced from time
to time by new arrivals from Italy, while the former residents
would often return home to the West. Cornelius himself was a
centurion of “the Italian band.”’ After him the next Gentile con-
vert, whose name is on record, is Sergius Paulus, the Roman
deputy of Cyprus, whose conversion could not be without fruit
among his countrymen in that island. Men of Cyprus, a little
earlier, took the foremost part in spreading the gospel among the
Gentiles ; and flourishing churches, with members from among
the heathen, would be early formed in that province. The
Evangelist himself had a Jewish name, but a Roman surname,
which makes it probable that he might be a Roman citizen. We
are told that there were present, even on the day of Pentecost
eridypovrtes Poxain, or Roman Jews, who from time to time
visited or abode in Jerusalem, and some of whom were probably
among the converts of that eventful day. The sister of Barnabas,
and mother of Mark, whose house was in Jerusalem, might have
been married to one of these Roman Jews, and her son have con-
sequently received a Roman surname. In this case he would
OF ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 231
form a link of natural connexion between the Jewish believers,
and the first class of Gentile and Roman converts.
During the period, A.D. 46—50, from the time when St.
Mark returned to Jerusalem, till the visit of Peter to Antioch,
he would probably be in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, and
in frequent intercourse with that Apostle. When eight or nine
years had elapsed from the conversion of Cornelius, and four or
five from that of Sergius Paulus, a large class of converts would
most probably have been formed, among the military and civil
residents in Czesarea and Cyprus. All the notices of the Roman
soldiery in the New Testament imply a peculiar openness to im-
pressions from the faith of Christ. One centurion in the gospels
received a striking testimony of his faith, and another exclaimed
at the Crucifixion, “Truly this was the Son of God.” Philip
the Evangelist resided at Czesarea, and would doubtless be oc-
cupied in spreading the faith zealously among the Roman as
well as the Jewish residents. Many converts of this class, from
time to time, would be leaving Palestine, and returning to Italy.
The value of a record of our Saviour’s life, adapted to their
knowledge and habits of thought, would thus be felt very early.
A gospel designed for their use would be brief, that it might be
the more portable, and a record of actions, rather than words,
as more adapted to the Roman character. It would assume a
moderate knowledge of Palestine and of the customs of the Jews,
such as Gentile residents in Palestine would naturally acquire,
but not the more intimate and full knowledge possessed by Jews
themselves. It would probably assume a personal knowledge, on
the part of its readers, of several leading characters in the Jewish
church at the time of its composition. It would be sparing in
appeals to the prophets, since these would not be familiar to the
Gentile converts. Its chief character would be a vivid exhibition,
with historical accuracy and fulness, of those works of power, by
which Jesus proved his Divine authority, and of his sufferings
and resurrection, on which the whole message of the gospel was
founded. All these features are conspicuous in St. Mark’s
232 ON THE DATE AND AUTHORSHIP
gospel, and confirm the conclusion that it was written during
this interval, in the transition stage of the church’s history.
VII. On the view here maintained, the usual tradition that this
gospel was published at Rome, will admit of an easy explanation.
If it were really written at Czesarea, or for the Roman converts
in that place, about A.D. 48, it would probably be soon carried
to Rome by some of the converts of rank and education, like
Cornelius and Sergius Paulus, within two or three years from its
first appearance. The Roman soldiery of Czesarea must have
been constantly returning to Italy, either in charge of prisoners,
as the centurion Julius, or from other calls of public duty. Hence
this gospel would be not unlikely to circulate at Rome for several
years, before either the first or third gospel had reached Italy.
And since it would doubtless be known, by those who copied it,
under whose direction, or from whose information it was com-
posed, the natural result would be the growth of a tradition, that
it was written by St. Mark during a visit of St. Peter, in the
city of Rome, especially since there are a few Latinisms not
found in the other gospels.
The last verse implies that the gospel had been spread widely
by the preaching of the Apostles, when the work was published.
In the year A.D. 48, there were churches in Judea, Galilee,
Samaria, Damascus, Syria, Cilicia, Cyprus, Pisidia, Pamphylia,
Lycaonia, probably in Abyssinia, Egypt, Cyrene, Mesopo-
tamia, and doubtless in other places, of which no distinct mention
is made in the brief and condensed narrative of St. Luke. There
is nothing, then, in these words, which compels us to assign a
later origin to the second gospel.
Again, the passage Mark xi. 13, has been thought to imply
that it was written in Italy, where the seasons of Palestine would
be very imperfectly known, or else it would be clear that the
time of figs was later than the Passover. But this construction of
the words appears to be groundless. In the first place, the Pass-
over is not mentioned till three chapters later, so that a passing
monition of this kind would not be out of place, even for those
OF ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 233
who knew the seasons. And next, the words seem to refer to
that particular tree only, and not to be a general statement, or
else the search on the part of our Lord becomes unnatural.
There were three times of figs in the year, and some trees, from
their aspect &c. would certainly be earlier or later than others.
This fig-tree, as may be inferred from the curse, was not inherently
barren. One time of figs was past, another was not come, and
meanwhile its appearance was deceptive, having leaves without
any fruit. All this made it a fit emblem of the past, the future,
and the actual state of the Jewish people.
It remains now to adduce some further reasons for the opinion,
first, that the writer was John Mark, and not some unknown
companion of Peter, or a Gentile soldier; and next, that the
gospel was written before the council, about A.D. 48, with es-
pecial reference to Roman converts at Czesarea, and in the neigh-
bourhood of Palestine.
VIII. When the book of Acts was written, St. Luke had been
the companion of St. Paul during his first imprisonment. Mark,
the nephew of Barnabas, had been present at the same time, and
is honourably mentioned by the Apostle in two Epistles, along with
Luke himself. In the history, Luke appears to have speedily
succeeded Mark, as a companion of the Apostle. In the last
Epistle, just before St. Paul’s death, Luke is already with him,
and Mark is sent for with a special commendation of his worth.
This fourfold association of Mark with Luke is natural and most
significant, if these were the only two companions of the Apos-
tles, who were honoured to be authors of a written gospel.
IX. The first gospel of St. Matthew has clear marks that it
was specially intended for Jewish converts; the third, of St.
Luke, has indications equally clear, that it was addressed mainly
to Gentiles. The second gospel of St. Mark, as its order implies,
has a middle character. In its choiee of particulars it adheres
to St. Matthew, in its orderly arrangement it agrees with St.
Luke. Its notes of geography imply a special adaptation to
readers in Palestine, while the passage chap. vil. shews a partial
234 ON THE DATE AND AUTHORSHIP
exposition of Jewish rites for Gentile readers. This transitional
character is doubly fulfilled in the name and history of John
Mark. His name is Jewish, but he has a Roman surname,
which gradually supersedes it. He is linked, first with St. Peter,
the Apostle of the circumcision, then with Paul and Barnabas in
the first Gentile circuit, then with Peter, with Barnabas, with —
Peter, and lastly with Paul again. His history is one of trans-
ition, and thus answers closely to the peculiar character of the
second gospel.
X. The partial cloud, which seems to rest on John Mark in ©
the Book of Acts, may be thought a reason for denying him to
be the writer of the gospel. But a closer inquiry will turn this
objection into a presumption for the identity. The Evangelist,
it appears alike from his work, and from uniform tradition, was
the companion of St. Peter, and his son in the faith. But St.
Peter himself, with all his zeal and strong faith, repeatedly failed
with reference to the call of the Gentiles. When the vision was
given him, his answer shewed the strength of his early Jewish
associations—‘“‘ Not so, Lord, for I have never tasted any thing
common or unclean.” Again, when he came to Antioch, soon —
after the council, ‘‘he withdrew and separated himself, fearmg —
them of the circumcision.” Now the failure of John Mark
merely exhibits the same tendency, in a mitigated form. He
did not keep pace with the glowing zeal, and ever onward ~
progress of the Apostle of the Gentiles; and returned to
Jerusalem, to strengthen existing churches, instead of carrying
the gospel on to the idolatrous heathen of Pisidia and Pam-
phylia. Even Barnabas, with all his love to his nephew,
seems to have owned in practice the force of Paul’s objection,
since he sailed to Cyprus, where Mark had really accompanied
them on the former journey. The fault of Mark seems thus to
have been, a backwardness to apprehend the special glory of the —
gospel, as a message of grace to the Gentiles, and a preference
for the less arduous work of building up the churches already
formed. Yet the Apostle, at a later period, commends him as
OF ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 235
one of the few teachers of the circumcision, who had been a
comfort to him at Rome. This spiritual analogy between John
Mark and the Apostle Peter, in their main temptation, and their
final victory, tends rather to confirm the usual view, that the
former was the author of the second gospel.
XI. The associations of John Mark, if only we are allowed to
conjecture from his surname that his father was a Roman Jew,
and that he was early acquainted with many Roman residents of
Jerusalem and Ceesarea, will agree perfectly with all the features
of the gospel. The Jewish character is in some respects more
prominent than even in St. Matthew, as in the mention of
Abiathar the high-priest ii. 26, the name, Boanerges ili. 17, the
words, Talitha Cumi v. 41, the mention of Bethsaida, Gennesaret
and Dalmanutha vi. 45, 53—viii. 10, the words, Corban and
Ephphatha vii. 11, 34, the mention of Bartimeeus, the son of
Timeeus x. 46, the house of Simon the leper xiv. 3, the Syriac
word, Abba xiv. 36, and the mention of the Preparation
xiii. 42.
It has been inferred, indeed, from vii. 3, that the writer was
a Gentile. But a comparison of the gospels will prove that there
is no ground for this conclusion, since this mention of the Jews
occurs only twice in St. Luke, and more than twenty times in
St. John’s gospel. Or if stress be laid on the combination “ all
the Jews,” it occurs elsewhere only in the speech of St. Paul, a
Jew, when addressing an audience of Gentiles. It therefore
agrees best with the supposition that St. Mark was a Jew, who
was addressing himself in this passage to Gentile readers.
Again, the distinctive Latinisms of this gospel, xevtup/oy,
TMEKOVALTWP, TiToHusV, airy, O eats wpartmpsov, and Ovo Acar, @
éots xodpdyrys, all suit with the idea that St. Mark was a Roman
Jew, addressing himself to converts from among the Roman
military, like Cornelius and his household, and cannot reasonably
be held to prove that he was himself either a Gentile, ora
soldier. It may be observed, also, that the allusions to the
Apostles and the women, in this gospel, imply an early and
236 ON THE DATE AND AUTHORSHIP
familiar acquaintance, and have not at all the air we should
expect in a recent convert from among the Gentiles. But the —
home of John Mark was at Jerusalem, and he would clearly
be familiar with most of the disciples, whose names appear in
this work, with Mary the mother of James, Mary Magdalene |
and Salome, and probably with Bartimeus and Joseph of
Arimathea.
XII. The mention of the women serves, perhaps, to throw
light on the date of the gospel. ‘There were women looking
on, among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother
of James the less and of Joses, and Salome.” In St. Matthew
we read—‘‘ Among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the
mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s chil- —
dren.” Again we read in St. Mark, “And Mary Magdalene —
and Mary the mother of Joses beheld where he was laid.” It
seems probable, from the slight change, that Zebedee was known
to the first Evangelist, but not to the second ; and that Salome
was alive, or but lately dead, when the second gospel was written.
The mother of James and John must have been nearly fifty,
during our Lord’s lifetime, and hence it seems likely that the gospel
was composed within twenty years of the Crucifixion. The name, —
James the less, to distinguish the son of Alpheus from the son
of Zebedee, implies also a date not long after the elder James
had suffered martyrdom, and while both the Apostles of that —
name were alike prominent in the minds of Christians. The same
reason accounts for the title ‘“‘ the mother of Joses”’ in the other
verse. In choosing the briefest description, the writer mentions
the son whose name would have no ambiguity, since “ the
mother of James”’’ without some addition; would confound her
with Salome, the mother of the elder James, and of John his
brother.
XIII. The mention of Joseph of Arimathea, in the four —
gospels, has an instructive difference. ‘‘ There came a rich man
of Arimathea, named Joseph,” Matt. xxvii. 57. “ Joseph of
Arimathea, an honourable counsellor, who also waited for the
a
OF ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 937
kingdom of God,” Mark xv. 43. ‘And behold, there was a
man named Joseph, a counsellor, a good man and just ; he was
of Arimathea, a city of the Jews, who also himself waited for
the kingdom of God,” Luke xxiii. 50, 51. ‘And after this,
Joseph of Arimathea, a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear
of the Jews,’ &c. John xix. 30.
Here St. Mark and St. John allude to the person and place,
as equally well known. St. Matthew assumes the place to be
known, but not the person, and St. Luke implies that both alike
might be unknown to his readers. The form in St. Matthew
may perhaps be explained by the secret and constant reference
to the prophecies. He therefore mentions first his character, ‘‘a
rich man,”’ by which the words of Isaiah were fulfilled, and adds
his name, as of secondary importance, to be merely a pledge of
historical accuracy. St. Luke evidently wrote for persons, who
were not familiar with the person of Joseph, or with the minute
geography of Judea. The language of St. Mark, like that of
St. John, implies a familiar knowledge of the town, Arimathea,
and some personal acquaintance with Joseph himself. And
clearly one of the honourable counsellors, who had become
so early a disciple of Jesus, must have been known to John
Mark, whose home had been for many years in the heart of
Jerusalem.
XIV. We are told, in this gospel, that Simon the Cyrenian
was coming “out of the country’ when he was compelled to
bear the cross, and that the two disciples were “ going into the
country,’ when Jesus appeared to them. The phrase occurs
elsewhere once in St. Luke only, where it seems merely borrowed
from St. Mark (xxiii. 26). Such a phrase, for the vicinity of
Jerusalem, agrees well with the fact that John Mark had his
home in that city, not far from the prison of Herod. In St.
Matthew, who was a Galilean, the expression is not found.
XV. The mention of blind Bartimeus, the son of Timeus,
x. 46, and of Simon the leper, xiv. 3, would naturally lead us to
think that they were both alive, and known to the writer. Ata
238 ON THE DATE AND AUTHORSHIP
distance of eighteen years from the Crucifixion, this would be |
very probable, but this probability is greatly dimimished, if the |
gospel be assigned to a much later period.
All these indications agree with the view that the second
gospel was written by John Mark, about the year A.D. 48, —
and probably at Czesarea, with a reference, not only to Jewish
believers, but to Gentile Roman converts, who would have —
multiplied there in seven or eight years from the convetsion of
Cornelius. The mother of James, and Salome, Joseph of
Arimathea, Bartimeus, and Simon the leper, might all of them
be then alive, or their memory fresh and recent in the minds of
the Christians of Palestine. The Roman surname of St. Mark,
his home at Jerusalem, and return thither, and his later eminent
labours at Rome itself, make it likely that Ceesarea, the military —
station of the Romans, would be a main theatre of his ministry
at this time. His gospel, if written in A.D. 48, or 49, would
be probably known to St. Luke at Antioch, after the visit of
Peter and Mark, which followed the council, a little before the
circuit of Paul and Silas began. In harmony with this view, we
find St. Paul, with his dying breath, associate him honourably
with his brother Evangelist, as one of his choicest helpers.
** Only Luke is with me. Take Mark and bring him with thee,
for he is profitable to me for the ministry.”
An objection to this view may perhaps be raised, from the —
passage Acts xv. 38, where St. Paul, after the council, refuses
John Mark for his companion, in a second missionary journey.
Is it likely that one, thus rejected by the Apostle, should have —
been selected by the Spirit of God, shortly before, to be the
writer of a gospel, in which the main and prominent feature
is the laborious and persevering diligence of our Saviour’s
ministry ?
This difficulty has already been examined, and partly removed. —
St. Peter, whose interpreter Mark is often said to be, with all
his excellences and endowments, was yet guilty of one serious
inconsistency, nearly at the same time with the dispute of Paul
OF ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 939
and Barnabas, and his fault brought upon him a grave and public
rebuke from his brother Apostle, not long before his refusal of
Mark for his partner in the journey. If that error of St. Peter
was compatible with his high calling, as one of the very chief
Apostles, the fault of John Mark must be equally compatible with
his lower, yet important privilege, as the least conspicuous of the
four Evangelists. The source of the error, in both cases, was
evidently the same. St. Mark, a Jew of Jerusalem, like St.
Peter, his father in the faith, was too slow in apprehending the
full extent of the duties imposed on Christians by the new develop-
ment of gospel liberty, in the call of the Gentiles. As Peter dis-
sembled at Antioch, when the Christian Pharisees came down from
James, and shrank from the consistent uniformity of his former
intercourse with the Gentiles, so also St. Mark seems to have
shrunk from the course of rapid extension, which the gospel was
receiving among heathen idolaters by St. Paul’s energy, and pre-
ferred the less adventurous work of building up the converts in
Palestine. The free standing of the Gentile converts had not yet
been publicly ratified by a solemn council, and St. Mark seems to
have had the willingness for patient labour, without the prompt
discernment of the higher lessons of Providence, and of the new
era which was opening on the Church of Christ. When once
the principle of Gentile liberty had been confirmed, there is no
trace to be seen of any slackness in his zeal. He is willing to
go with Paul and Barnabas, and when rejected by the former,
with Barnabas alone. Some time, perhaps not long afterward,
St. Paul gives a charge to the Phrygian and other churches to
receive him, as being already satisfied of his zeal and fidelity. Still
later, he is found with St. Peter in the east, as one of his most
loved and honoured helpers ; and still later again, with St. Paul
at Rome, in the crisis of his imprisonment ; who mentions him,
along with two others, as the only Jewish teachers, who had been
a signal help and comfort to him in his ministry. So deep was
the impression made on the Apostle by his conduct and diligence,
that in his last imprisonment, a few months before his death,
240 ON THE DATE AND AUTHORSHIP
when only Luke was present with him, he is not content with
sending for his beloved son, Timothy, but requires him to bring —
Mark also along with him, because he found such help and—
comfort in his services and labours. The defect in St. Mark,
while it lasted, like the similar fault of St. Peter, under whose
eye he wrote, was not such as to disqualify him from great im-
mediate usefulness, or from the task of recording faithfully the —
teaching and labours of the Lord Jesus. It shewed, at the
most, some deficiency in those wider sympathies with humanity —
at large, which characterize St. Luke’s writings, or in that clear-
ness and elevation of spiritual vision, with regard to the highest
mysteries of providence and grace, which mark the beloved
disciple, that leaned once on the bosom of the Lord.
On the other hand, there are several features in the history of
John Mark, which would eminently qualify him for the task he
was selected to fulfil. He must have been very intimate with St.
Peter, who calls first at his house, when released from prison by
the angel, and who styles him afterwards his son in the faith.
He was not less intimate with Barnabas, his own uncle, the most
distinguished of all the converts added to the church, after the
day of Pentecost, and before the call of the Gentiles. It is
possible that he might be one of the brethren, who accompanied ~
Peter on his visit to Cornelius, and almost certain that he was —
present in Jerusalem, when St. Peter gave in his report to the
church. He had already, at the date to which the gospel has
just been referred, accompanied the Apostle of the Gentiles on
the outset of his first journey, and was to be presently associated,
in succession, with Barnabas, with Peter, and with Paul again.
He would thus occupy precisely a middle position, in his early
connexion with the church, and in his mixed associations, as a
Jew by birth, and a Roman by character, implied in his surname,
between the first Evangelist, who was one of the twelve Apostles,
and the third, who has been shewn to be a Gentile proselyte
of the great Gentile city, Antioch. There would thus be a
provision made, even in the choice of the writers, as well as in
OF ST. MARK’S GOSPEL. 94]
the time when each of them wrote, for the gradual development
of Christian doctrine, and the transition from the summing up
of all ancient Jewish prophecy, in the king of Israel, to the
fuller and wider view of our Lord’s character and work, as the
son of the first Adam, who was himself the second Adam, the
friend of sinners, and Redeemer of mankind.
CHAPTER V.
ON THE DATE AND AUTHENTICITY OF ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. —
From the order of the gospels, determined by their mutual
relations to each other, and the dates already assigned to those
of St. Mark and St. Luke, it will naturally follow that the first
gospel was written earlier than A.D. 48, and probably during
the first of the three periods in the church’s history, contained
in the Book of Aéts, or before the death of Herod Agrippa. .
It is not likely that a written gospel would appear within six
or seven years from the Ascension, while the Apostles were all
present in Jerusalem, and busied in the direct work of oral
instruction, and at a time when nearly all the converts in Judea
and Galilee might have a direct and personal knowledge of our
Lord’s ministry. But these reasons would no longer apply,
when the first era of the church was drawing to a close. At
the death of Herod, fourteen years would have passed since the ©
Ascension, and eighteen from the opening of John’s ministry. —
One half of the converts might have been only children, when
Jesus was on earth; so that a narrative of his discourses for
their use would become desirable, and when the Apostles were
scattered by persecution, almost necessary. The words of Peter,
on his release from prison, xii. 17, seem to imply that no Apostle
but James was then in Jerusalem. There is an early tradition
that our Lord charged his Apostles to stay at Jerusalem twelve
years, and then to go forth to the heathen, and such an idea
OF ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 943
| agrees well with the tenor of St. Luke’s history. The Apostles
were still in Judea after the conversion of Cornelius, A.D. 41,
| but three years later, at the visit of Barnabas and Saul, only
| James the Lord’s brother, beside Peter, seems to have remained.
If the conversion of Cornelius, and the call of the Gentiles,
were viewed by them as the preparation for entering on a wider
| sphere, this would form a new motive for recording the discourses
and miracles of Jesus, both for the use of the converts in Pales-
| tine, and for a testimony to the unbelieving Jews. Hence the
_ year A.D. 42 may be viewed with reason as a near approach to
| the date of this first gospel. Let us examine the external and
_ internal evidence, which either opposes or favours this conclusion.
There are several authorities, which agree in assigning the
| gospel an early date. Cosmas of Alexandria places it in the
} persecution, which followed the death of Stephen ; Isidore, in
| the reign of Caligula, which ended A.D. 41, and Theophylact
j and Euthymius, in the eighth year from the Ascension. All
these are a little earlier than the date proposed above. But
| Irenzeus seems to place this gospel much later, and his authority
| has led many modern critics, as Lardner, Mill, and Michaelis, to
| the same view. His words areas follows.
“Now Matthew, among the Hebrews, published also a written
| gospel, while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel at Rome,
| and founding the church there. But after their departure, Mark,
) the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also delivered to us in
writing what was preached by Peter, and Luke, the follower of
Paul, recorded in a book the gospel preached by him. Afterwards
| John, the disciple of the Lord, the same who leaned on his
| breast, set forth a gospel, residing at Ephesus in Asia.”
| Here it is plain that Irenzeus dates the second and third
gospels after the death of the two Apostles ; a view inconsistent
with the fact, that St. Paul quotes the gospel of St. Luke in his
| own lifetime, while the Book of Acts was evidently composed
|before his last journey and final imprisonment. The remark
|that St. Matthew wrote in Palestine, while St, Peter and St.
M 2
9440 * ON THE DATE AND AUTHENTICITY
Paul were preaching at Rome, has the air of a loose antithesis,
rather than of an exact definition of time. If Irenzeus is
wrong, where he speaks with precision, very little weight can be
reasonably given to his more indefinite statement with regard to
St. Matthew’s gospel. The general impression of early writers,
that it was first written in Hebrew, is a presumption of at least
equal force in favour of a higher date, and we are thus thrown
upon the internal evidence, to fix the time of its composition.
I. The mention of John the Baptist is a first presumption for
its early origin. He is introduced abruptly as follows.
ili. 1. “In those days cometh John the Baptist, preaching
in the wilderness of Judea, and saying, Repent, for the kingdom
of heaven is at hand. For he it is that was spoken of by the
prophet Esaias, &c.”
iv. 12. “ Now when Jesus had heard that John was delivered
up, he departed into Galilee.”
xi. 2. “ Now when John had heard in the prison the works
of Jesus, he sent two of his disciples, &c.”’
Here the person of John, and the fact of his imprisonment by
Herod, are assumed to be well known, and familiar to the reader.
This brief mention is quite natural, if his public appearance was
only sixteen years before the date of the gospel. The general
facts of his appearance, preaching, and sudden imprisonment,
would be known to every reader in Palestine. But if the gospel |
were written forty years after that imprisonment, the facts would
surely have been stated in a more distinct and historical form,
as we find them given in the gospel of St. Luke. The abrupt
introduction is more striking in the case of the imprisonment, —
and would be quite natural, if the work were published only
three or four years after Herod was deposed.
II. The three other gospels, in their account of the cruci-
fixion, constantly use the name of Pilate, and never his title of
office. St. Matthew uses the title, Governor, and the name,
Pilate, with equal frequency, since each of them occurs nine —
times. Now Pilate held the office ten years, and after his
OF ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 245
removal, A.D. 36, no successor with the same title was. ap-
pointed, until Cuspius Fadus, after the death of Agrippa A.D.
44, when three governors succeeded within five years. The use
of the name and the office, as equivalent and convertible, would
thus be natural, not only till the deposition of Pilate, but until
Agrippa’s death. But when Fadus, Tiberius Alexander, Cumanus,
and Felix, one or more of them, had held the same office, the
use of the title, governor, as equivalent to the name of Pilate,
would naturally cease. It might still be employed once or twice,
for variety, or where the mention of his rank was emphatic, but
the usage which marks the first gospel could hardly have survived
the new appointments.
This argument is confirmed by comparing Matt. xxviii. 15,
and Mark xv. 6. ‘At that feast the governor was wont to
release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would.” <‘* Now
at that feast he was wont to release them a prisoner, whomsoever
they desired. And the multitude, crying aloud, began to
desire that he would do as he had ever done to them.’’ The
word, governor, in the former gospel, is plainly equivalent to the
name, Pilate, in the second. If a governor were ruling Judea,
when Matthew wrote, and the custom still continued, the present
tense would naturally be used. If there were another governor,
and the custom was obsolete, it would be natural either to speak
of Pilate by name, or to use an adverb of time. ‘‘ At that feast
Pilate was wont,” or “the governor was then wont,” &c. As the
passage now stands, it is a strong presumption that the gospel
was written before another governor had succeeded to Pilate’s
office, or before the middle of A.D. 44, the limit already assigned
for an entirely different reason. During Herod Agrippa’s reign,
the title, governor, and the name, Pilate, would still be strictly
equivalent to Jewish ears.
III. There are two passages, which have been adduced in
proof of a later date; where it is said of the potter’s field,
‘« That field is called the field of blood unto this day,” and again
of the soldiers’ report, “This saying is commonly reported
246 ON THE DATE AND AUTHENTICITY
among the Jews unto this day.’ But an interval of twelve years
is really enough to account for each of these expressions.
First, in the case of Judas. The same field is clearly meant,
Acts 1. 18, 19, for it is incredible that two different fields, at
the very same time, should have the same new title imposed,
close to Jerusalem. It was actually bought by the priests after
the death of Judas, being the same in which he had committed
suicide, and was called Aceldama in the dialect of Jerusalem,
but dypog dimatos by Matthew, and ywotoy dimatos by St. Luke.
Now if such a singular name, occasioned by the awful end of
Judas, had continued in use for twelve years, and was current
daily among the Jews themselves when St. Matthew wrote, it
would be quite natural for him to mention the fact, just as he
has done. ‘‘ Wherefore that field has been called the field of
blood, unto this day.”” There is certainly nothing in the phrase
which requires a longer interval than ten or twelve years. In
the Book of Acts this addition is not found, so that it is quite
uncertain whether the name were still in use, when St. Luke
wrote his second work. If it were still in use, the difference
may be explained by the different place where the two works
were written. St. Matthew alone wrote in or near Jerusalem, so
that it would be more natural for him to mention that the name
was still in current use in that city.
A similar remark will apply to the other passage. “ Palpable
hes,” as Dr. Townson observes, “and new names of places, which
have had others from ancient usage, are things of such a perishable
nature, that even a single year might give propriety to the obser-
vation. It was memorable that the name had fastened on the
field, and strange that the lie had lasted so long.”
But the passage, when examined further, will even furnish
evidence in favour of the earlier date, proposed above. The
whole circumstance, of the watch at the sepulchre, with the
consultation of the Sanhedrim, the bribery of the soldiers, and
the report still current among the Jews, is mentioned in this
gospel alone. Now it is plain that, beside the direct evidence of
OF ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 947
the Apostles to the fact of the resurrection, from the repeated
appearances of their Lord, there was a further evidence in the
setting of the watch, and the disappearance of the body, with a
counter-evidence in the report of the guards, if the secret cause
of it were unknown. ‘This evidence and counter-evidence would
be limited to the vicinity of Jerusalem, and would have less and
less weight, as the minute particulars became less notorious, or
after the lapse of many years, while the direct and simple testi-
mony of the disciples would continue unaffected by these limita-
tions of place and time. And hence the fact that this gospel
alone records the watch, and the report spread among the Jews,
implies naturally that it was written earlier than the others,
when the fact of the watch being set was most likely to confirm
the evidence of the resurrection, from being familiarly known ;
and when the counter-explanation, being also well known, would
stand most in need of refutation by a simple, unadorned state-
ment, of the events themselves. The whole passage bears the
traces of a period, when the historical fact of the resurrection
was still the prominent subject of contention, and when the tide
of Jewish opposition had not begun to spend its main force on
another topic, the transfer of their exclusive privileges to the
Gentiles. As to the internal incongruities of the account,
alleged by Strauss and other neologian critics, they have no real
existence, and are based on a gross misconception of a very
clear and simple statement.
IV. The following verse, Matt. xxviii. 16, presents another
mark of an early date, very easily overlooked, but not the less
convincing, when fairly weighed. From its delicacy it is entirely
lost in the received translation. The words are these, when
rendered accurately. “‘'Then went away the eleven disciples into
Galilee, into the mountain where Jesus made appointment with
them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him; but
some doubted. And Jesus came near and spake to them, saying,
All power is given to me in heaven and earth.”
Here the Evangelist alludes to the circumstance, as already
248 ON THE DATE AND AUTHENTICITY
known, that Jesus had appointed for his disciples to meet him
in some particular mountain of Galilee. No mention of this
appointment occurs elsewhere, either in this gospel, or in the
others. But we learn from | Cor. xv. 5, that he appeared, no
doubt in Galilee, to above five hundred brethren at once; and
this appearance, as being the most public and notorious, is
doubtless the one which St. Matthew here records. It is equally
clear that so large a number could not have been gathered toge-
ther for such a purpose, without a previous appointment, and
that such an appointment could be made only by our Lord him-
self. Since most of these brethren were alive twenty-seven years
later, when St. Paul wrote, it is clear that this appearance must
have been the most prominent in the faith and memory of the
Jewish believers. Hence the exclusive reference to it in St.
Matthew’s gospel. But his allusion to our Lord’s appointment
of the place, as a fact already known, shews that he viewed his
narrative as a supplementary statement, and that many circum-
stances, from personal knowledge, or the oral communication of
the Apostles, were still fresh in the minds of.his readers. Twelve
years after the Ascension, he might reasonably assume that most
converts'in Palestine were aware of the specific appointment of
our Lord, and of the spot where it was fulfillled, since four
hundred living eye-witnesses were dispersed in every part of
the land. But at the distance of thirty years, the same assump-
tion would be out of place; and, accordingly, no trace of it
appears in any of the other gospels. A similar explanation
applies to the words that follow ; ‘‘ but some doubted.” It seems
clear, from the statement of St. Paul, that five hundred disciples
were present, besides the eleven, and to these St. Matthew
probably refers.
V. The use of the word, gospel, as Dr. Townson has remarked,
is a sign of the earlier date of St. Matthew’s narrative. It is
there used only four times, thrice in the complex phrase, the
gospel of the kingdom, and once in the words respecting Mary,
and her anointing :—‘‘ Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached
OF ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 249
in the whole world.” Hence it has clearly not assumed its
technical sense, but denotes simply, the glad tidings, or these glad
tidings. In St. Mark, however, it occurs eight times, and in six
cases in its abstract form, Mark i. 15; vill. 35; x. 29; xiii. 10;
xiv. 9; xvi. 15. It is plain that, when this Evangelist wrote,
the secondary meaning was becoming established, in which it is
a synonym for the Christian revelation.
It is true that the entire absence of the word in St. Luke may
seem, at first, to oppose this conclusion. But this contrast may
easily be explained, since he uses the verb, evayyeAGoucs ten times
in the gospel, and fifteen times in the book of Acts, which is
never used by St. Mark or St. John, and only once in St.
Matthew. This merely proves that St. Luke, writing for Gentile
converts, avoided a technical term, and preferred a more classical
equivalent, and does not prove that the technical use of the word
had not then begun. In fact, it occurs twice in the book of
Acts, and eight times in the Epistles to Thessalonica, which
must have been as early, or almost as early, as the third gospel.
And hence the conclusion remains undisturbed, that the term
had acquired its more limited acceptation when St. Mark’s
gospel was written, but had scarcely begun to receive it when the
other and earlier gospel was composed.
VI. In the phrases used to describe the Apostles, St. Mat-
thew’s gospel gives another sign of its early date. They are
called, in chapter x. the twelve disciples, the twelve apostles, and
these twelve; and afterwards they are twice named the twelve
disciples ; three times in chapter xxvi., the twelve ; once the
eleven disciples, and nearly sixty times, without further addition,
the disciples. In St. Mark, the expression, the twelve, is used
nine times, the title, Apostles, once, and the term, disciples,
about forty times. In St. Luke, the twelve is used five times,
the twelve disciples, and the twelve apostles, once, and the
apostles, five times; while in the book of Acts, the twelve is
used once, and the word, apostles, thirty times. Hence it
appears that, in all the history, before the last supper, the brief
M 5
250 ON THE DATE AND AUTHENTICITY
expression, the twelve, is used five times by St. Mark, and three
times by St. Luke, and never by St. Matthew; while the term,
apostles, without addition, is used once by St. Mark, five times
by St. Luke in the gospel, thirty times in the Acts, and never
once by St. Matthew. Now this clearly indicates, not only that
St. Matthew’s gospel was the earliest written, but that it was
composed when the new term, apostles, had not yet displaced
the earlier description of the twelve disciples, and when the
abbreviation, the twelve, was itself hardly established as the
most familiar and usualterm. Such a feature, though minute, is
entirely opposed to the date of some critics, thirty years and more
after the crucifixion, and agrees well with the time of its com-
position which is here maintained, about twelve years after the
close of the gospel history. Even this interval might appear
too long for the usage to be thus undetermined, if we did not
remember that a writer, who was himself an apostle, both from
habit and from modesty, would adhere more generally than an-
other to the original expression.
VII. The titles of honour, applied to Jerusalem in this gospel
alone, are not only a sign that it was written for Jewish readers,
but the probable indication of an early date. Twice it is called
‘the holy city,” once, ‘the city of the great King,” and once its
vicinity is called, ‘the holy place,’’ in the report of our Lord’s
prophecy. This last instance is the more remarkable, since it dis-
appears in the account of the same discourse, both in St. Mark
and St. Luke. So. long as the parting charge of our Lord, “ be-
ginning at Jerusalem,’’ was still in force, the feeling of its
sanctity would be rather increased than diminished by the new
revelation, of which it was still the chosen theatre. But when
the slaughter of prophets and apostles had begun, and the
gospel was spreading its blessed influence to other cities, in a
higher measure, it was natural that Jerusalem should more and
more decline in the estimation of believers; or to speak more
correctly, that its sin rather than its sanctity should be noted by
the Spirit of God. Hence the contrast between the first gospel
OF 8T. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 251
and the two others agrees with the view, that the persecution of
Herod Agrippa, the martyrdom of James, the miraculous escape
of Peter; and the dispersion of the other Apostles, had intervened
between the earlier and the two later narratives.
VIII. The mention of the sons of Zebedee is a further sign
that this gospel was written early. The foot-note will shew the
relative frequency of the different names in the three gospels, and
the book of Acts.*
There is here an evident progression. Zebedee, and his eldest
son, James, are most prominent in the first gospel, the two
brothers, especially James, in the second, but in the third gospel,
and still more in the book of Acts, John has precedence of his
brother. This greater prominence of James, in the second
gospel, tends to confirm the proposed date, about four years only
after his death ; while the more frequent mention of his brother,
not only in the book of Acts, but in the gospel of St. Luke, is
quite natural in a writer who lived and wrote at Antioch, after
the first council, in which Peter, and John and James the less,
were the recognized pillars of the church, and seven years after
the martyrdom of the elder bother.
Again, the frequent mention of Zebedee, in the first gospel,
agrees well with a date only twelve years after the Ascension, or
fifteen from the call of his two sons, when he was still alive. On
the other hand, it would be unnatural more than thirty years
after his death, when the Apostle John had been so long pro-
minent as one of the main pillars of the Church of Christ. At
such a date the proportion is natural, which we find in St. Luke’s
gospel, or in the book of Acts, but not the other. Why, indeed,
should the father be named so often, and,the sons and the
Mi TEVCCEES, | steven scene 6 4 1 0
Sons of Zebedee, ,.. 3 8 8 0
DAMES, adetievaceneee 6 14 5 2
FL) shi me Se ese ceceerccoree 3 10 7 9
James and John, ... 3 4 1
John and James, ... 0 0 1 0
952 ON THE DATE AND AUTHENTICITY
mother described so often by their relation to him, if Zebedee
were not better known to many of the first readers of the gospel
than the Apostles themselves? After the death of James,
new habits of thought would soon arise, the sons be more noto-
rious than their father Zebedee, and John more prominent in
the minds of Christians than his elder bother.
IX, The lists of the Apostles furnish another sign that St.
Matthew wrote very early. In his gospel, and that of St. Mark,
Simon is styled the Cananite, but in the third gospel and Acts,
Zelotes, the Greek version of the same title. As Peter replaced
Cephas, so Zelotes would probably replace ‘Cananites,’ as the more
usual appellative, and especially with the Greek converts out of
Palestine. The brother of James, in Matthew, is Lebbeus, sur-
named Thaddeus: in Mark, Thaddeus; but in St. Luke, Judas,
the brother of James, and in St. John, Judas not Iscariot. From
this last mention of him, and from his own Epistle, it is clear
that the name Judas came later into common use, and continued
to the close of the century. Since Judas is not a Greek, but a
Jewish name, this is a clearer proof than the last, that St. Luke
wrote after the two other Evangelists. While Iscariot lived, there
would be a motive for calling this Apostle by some other name,
and the fact that Judas Barsabas was an eminent prophet of the
mother church, might perhaps prolong this usage. When St.
Mark wrote, the name Lebbeus appears almost lost in the sur-
name, Thaddeus ; when St. Luke wrote, both had been replaced
by the name Judas. Hence the earlier we place St. Matthew’s
gospel, the fuller will be the explanation of this difference. The
name Lebbeus probably began to be disused after the death of
Judas, and seems quite extinct, when the book of Acts and St.
Jude’s Epistle were written.
X. The passage xxvi. 6. compared with xxvii. 32, seems to
imply an early date. Simon the leper, and his house, are in-
troduced as already well known. On the other hand, Simon the
Cyrenian is described as a stranger. This Cyrenian Jew would
be a foreigner in Jerusalem, and therefore be less likely to be
OF ST, MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 253
known to readers in Palestine. But Simon the leper might very
probably be still living at the house in Bethany, at the distance
of twelve years from the Crucifixion. After thirty, or thirty-
five years, it is most likely that he would be dead, and his person
unknown to nine-tenths of the Jewish Christians.
XI. The partial irregularity which has been shewn to exist in
the first gospel, is some guide to its probable date. An eye-
witness, writing soon after the events, would have to select out
of a very large number of incidents or discourses; and his ac-
count would therefore seem, to his own mind, less rigidly bound
by the laws of continuous narrative. He would think it more
important to give prominence to some leading features in our
Lord’s ministry, than to adhere to the order of time, when the
events he has to relate were few, compared with many others,
which he passed by in silence. This special purpose, however,
would soon cease, and the instincts of simple narrative would
resume their full influence, and dictate an adherence, wherever it
was known, to the aetual succession in which the incidents
occurred.
Now the irregular portion of St. Matthew has features, which
agree thoroughly with this supposition. First, in the Sermon on
the Mount, it exhibits at considerable length the moral code of
the Christian Church under the new revelation. Next, in the
Commission of the Apostles, it reveals the law of its progress,
and the provision made for its future development. Thirdly, in
chapter xi. it exhibits its relations, retrospeetively, to the law,
the prophets, the baptism of John, and the unbelieving people of
Israel. From this point the writer resumes the order of time,
having now placed in the fore-front the main constituent elements
of our Lord’s ministry, and of the gospel dispensation. Such
an arrangement would be more natural than a rigid adherence to
the order of the incidents, in the first written history of our Lord ;
which would be a kind of manifesto to the whole nation of the
Jews, and a manual of their faith to the first generation of
Jewish converts, It is evident, through the whole course of the
254 ON THE DATE AND AUTHENTICITY
gospel, that the exhibition of our Lord’s doctrinal teaching is a
more prominent aim of the writer, than the record of his mira-
cles and journeys, the only exception being in the cardinal facts
of the crucifixion and resurrection, on which all the higher doc-
trines of the faith would necessarily depend.
XII. There are several minute allusions in the gospel, which
prove that the readers for whom it was designed were supposed,
many of them, to be familiar with many local circumstances and
incidents of our Lord’s personal ministry. In chapter v. 1, we
are told that ‘seeing the multitudes, he went up into the moun-
tain,” although no mountain has been specified before. If how-
ever, many of the readers were present, or knew of a particular
mountain near to Capernaum, or if it were the same, where
Jesus met the disciples after his resurrection, any of these sup-
positions would account for the phrase, while they all would alike
employ an early date of the composition. In chapter vill. 18, we
are told that he “gave commandment to depart unto the other
side ;”’ and again, verse 23, that ‘‘ when he was entered into
the ship, his disciples followed him.”’ The former phrase implies
that he wrote for readers acquainted with the situation of the sea
of Tiberias, and the latter, that they were aware of the fact,
mentioned by St. Mark, that a small ship or boat was retained
for the special use of Jesus and his disciples. The same allusion
recurs, chapter xiil. 1, and xiv. 22, and the mountain is mentioned
once more, chapter xv. 29. The retirement into the coasts of
Ceesarea Philippi is not mentioned explicitly, as in St. Mark,
nor omitted entirely, as in St. Luke, but stated incidentally.
“And when Jesus was come into the coast of Ceesarea Philippi,
he asked his disciples,’ &c. In the same manner the stay in
Galilee, and the return to Capernaum, chapter xvii. 22, 24,
which the gospel of St. Mark restores to the direct historical
form. The same feature appears in the mention of the last
journey, chapter xx. 17. “ And Jesus, as he went up to Jerusalem,
took the twelve disciples apart in the way.’’ So in verse 29:
*«« And as they departed from Jericho, a great multitude followed
OF ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 255
a2
him.” And in chapter xxi. 1: ‘When they drew nigh to Jeru-
salem, and were come to Bethphage to the Mount of Olives,
Jesus sent two disciples.’ A comparison with St. Mark will
make the contrast apparent, where the events are thus given.
«And they departed thence, and passed through Galilee, and he
would not have any man know it, for he taught his disciples,”
&c. ‘And he came to Capernaum, and being in the house, he
asked them.” <‘‘ And they were on the way going up to Jeru-
salem, and Jesus went before them.” ‘‘And they came to
Jericho ; and as he went out of Jericho with his disciples,” &c.
« And when they came nigh to Jerusalem, unto Bethphage and
Bethany, at the Mount of Olives.” The form is thus changed
in each instance except the last, where the context has shewn the
direction of the journey, and there Bethany is added, as if to
make the account more perspicuous to a stranger.
This indirect mention of the events, in these journeys or local
incidents, would be quite natural, if the gospel were written when
most of the converts were personally aware of the geueral outline
of our Lord’s last journey; and hence they confirm the opinion
that it was written early, before the time of Herod’s death.
XIII. The frequent quotations from the prophets, are a strik-
ing peculiarity of St. Matthew’s gospel. The instances are very
numerous, 1. 22, 23; ul. 6, 15, 17; ii. 3; iv. 14—16; vi. 17;
xi. 10; xii. 17, 18; xiii. 14, 835; xxi. 4—6, 13, 16; xxii. 44;
xxvi. 31, 56; xxvii. 9, 10, 35,43. Such a frequent appeal to
the prophecies is most natural in a gospel addressed to the Jews,
and written early in the course of the great controversy between
the Church and the Synagogue. It appears equally in the first
sermons in the book of Acts, and would be more frequent and
impressive at an early period of the conflict. The quotations,
afterwards, turned rather on another question, whether the Gen-
tiles were to share freely in the blessings of the promised Messiah.
But on this subject not one quotation appears in the first gospel ;
they all relate to the personal history of the Lord Jesus. We
may reasonably infer that it was written, while the controversy
256 ON THE DATE AND AUTHENTICITY
with the Jews was confined mainly to the direct question of the
Messiahship of Jesus, and when the admission of the Gentiles
to share in the privileges of God’s covenant, had scarcely become
a prominent subject of contention and debate. And this would
be the case, if the gospel were composed A.D. 42, or only one
year after the conversion of Cornelius.
XIV. The mention of the Herodians, by St. Matthew and St.
Mark, is another feature which may throw light on the time of
their composition. The term is not found in Josephus, but no
explanation of it is given. There has been, in consequence, a
great diversity of judgment among modern critics as to its mean-
_ing. Some think they were a sodality in honour of Herod ;
others, his courtiers and soldiers, who paid tribute freely ; others,
a Jewish sect, who held Herod the Great to be the Messiah,
others, a party who gave the same flattery to Herod Antipas ;
others, that they were the followers of Judas of Galilee, and
others again, a sect who favoured Herod in his compliance with
heathen usages. Others, finally, that they were a portion of the
Sadducees in league with Herod.
Let us examine the four passages themselves, Matt. xxii. 16 ;
Mark iii. 6; viii. 15 ; xii. 13, and compare them with the history
of the times. In Mark viii. 15, where the disciples are told to
beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and the leaven of Herod,
the tetrarch is clearly meant, who was then alive, and not Herod
the Great, who had been dead thirty years. This Herod our
Lord elsewhere calls a fox, from his crafty policy. His exile was
caused. by Caligula’s strong suspicion, resting on weighty evi-
dence, that he was preparing for a revolt from the Romans. If
so, his interest would lead him to flatter the Pharisees, the
popular leaders of the Jews, who seem from Luke xiii. 31, 32,
to have been acquainted with some of his secret counsels. Ac-
cordingly the Herodians are always jomed with the Pharisees,
and in Matthew are plainly contrasted with the Sadducees. Two
parties successively tempt Jesus, the Pharisees and the Herodians,
then the Sadducees, and then the Pharisees alone. The second
OF 8ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 257
time they propose a riddle of theology, just as before, a question
of political duty. We may infer that the Herodians were political
Pharisees, who cared less for the law of Moses than for national
independence, and fixed their hopes on the tetrarch, as the most
hopeful leader of revolt, being probably admitted to some know-
ledge of his secret designs. Hence the double warning of Jesus
does not refer to Sadduceeism, which was not the temptation of
the disciples, but to Pharisaism religious and political. In one
class, the leaven was self-righteous hypocrisy ; in the other, the
hypocrisy of outward submission and secret rebellion, in a proud
aspiration after national independence.
It is now easy to explain why no mention of the Herodians
should be found in Josephus, or even in the two later gospels.
The exile of the tetrarch would crush their hopes, so far as they
looked to him to be their leader in revolt. On the mad attempt
of Caligula to place his statue in the temple, the conspiracy took
new forms, with new provocations, sought for itself new leaders,
and issued in a series of chronic and constant rebellions. The title
would soon expire, since the disaffected, after Herod’s exile,
would seek to dissociate their cause from his name. And hence
it would only be used, it seems likely, for a short period after
that event, at least without some explanation of its meaning.
Now this confirms the proposed date of the first gospel, only
three years after the voyage of Antipas to Rome, and his banish-
ment by Caligula. The name would then be fresh in the minds
of every Jewish reader, and continue intelligible in Palestine,
even at the date of the second gospel, about six years later. But
if we place them both, as Lardner and other critics have done,
about A.D. 64, twenty-five years after Herod was banished,
when the sect had long disappeared, and repeated revolts had
occurred under other leaders, the name would assuredly have had
some explanatory addition, as the Sadducees receive in all the
three gospels. And this would be the more needful, because the
name itself is so ambiguous, and might be derived from Herod
the Great, Herod Antipas, or Herod Agrippa.
0 ATE AND A [ED T . S) .
258 ON THE DATE AND AUTHENTICITY OF ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL
Thus all the delicate and minute indications, contained in the
first gospel, conspire in the same result, and fix its composition
shortly before the death of the third Herod. There is also, on
this view of its date, just at the time, probably, of a first disper-
sion of the Apostles, and one or two years after the conversion
of Cornelius, a beautiful agreement between the circumstances
under which it was written, and that emphatic commission
at its close, which they were about to fulfil. “Go ye and
teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; teaching them to observe
all things, whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo, I am
with you always, even to the end of the world.”
call by three of the Evangelists, and with the close resemblance
which it bears, both in its character and its results, to the call of
the four leading Apostles.
THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF JESUS. 319
<
§ 8. Tue Eartrer Mrractes or Heatine.
In the second and third gospels, four miraculous cures are
noted, in the same order of time, during the first year of our
Lord’s ministry,—the dispossession in Capernaum, the cure of
Peter’s mother-in-law, the cleansing of the Leper, and the healing
of the Paralytic. The last of these alone has been directly
charged with bearing the marks of invention and falsehood, from
the variation of the three Evangelists in their narrative. These
objections must first be removed, before exhibiting the cumulative
evidence of truth, which appears in the sequence of the four
histories.
The three accounts of this cure, it has been objected, form an
evident climax and gradation. St. Matthew is the simplest and
least elaborate. St. Luke then adds one circumstance, that the
bearers let down the sick man through the roof, by the customary
opening ; while St. Mark not only fixes their number, but makes
them form a new aperture for the express purpose of letting
down the Paralytic. This is said to be an extravagance, due
merely to the invention of the writer, who sought to place in the
strongest light the zeal and confidence of the bearers ; and even
the change in the third gospel must be explained in a similar
way. Last of all, the simpler account of the first gospel must
itself be rejected, as one invented to accord with Is. xxxv. 6,
and the general current of Messianic expectation.
This hypothesis is refuted at once by the proofs, already
given, that the third was later, and not earlier, than the second
gospel. Indeed it is hardly possible to compare them in this
very section, and not to perceive that, if one was derived from
the other, it was in the reverse order to what the objection
assumes. But the internal disproof of it, on other grounds, is
not less complete.
First, the brief account of St. Matthew, though it gives few
details, because the special purpose of the writer was to fecord
320 THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF JESUS.
the discourses of Jesus, does imply the circumstance which is
expressed by the other Evangelists. The words, “‘ when Jesus
saw their faith”? must either imply a miraculous knowledge of
their thoughts, or some overt sign, conspicuous to others. The
former view would suit best with the purpose of a mere inventor
of legends. The Evangelists, however, as faithful historians of
real events, give the latter explanation, and thus expound the
statement of the first gospel in a simple and reasonable manner,
adopting the alternative which is furthest removed — all
suspicion of a legendary origin.
In the next place, there is no difference between the two later
gospels, in their description of the event. If St. Mark declares
that the bearers uncovered part of the roof, St. Luke states, as
explicitly, that the Paralytic was let down through the tiling
(8i:é rev xepduwv). The only distinction is that one gives the
details more fully, as from the hps of an eye-witness, and the
other in the briefer style of general history.
The two statements are not only consistent with each other,
but with eastern custom. The flat roofs of houses in the East,
according to travellers, are covered with cement, and not with
tiles. But the opening of the roof must of course have had a
separate roof of its own, like the hatchway of a ship, for which
tiles would probably be in general use. The lateral entrance
would be too narrow for the descent of a patient; or rather, it
would be unsuitable to the mode in which the Paralytic was to
be let down. Hence the bearers removed the tiles from the
upper part of the opening, so as to lower the bed, vertically,
into the room below. To say that St. Mark speaks of a fresh
opening in the body of the roof, because otherwise the man
could not be let down before Jesus, unless he stood accidentally
under the door of the roof, is a curious specimen of the follies
which have been uttered in the name of searching and philoso-
phical criticism. The gospels both concur that the tilimg was
removed ; which would convey a clear meaning to all who were
familiar with the structure of eastern houses, namely, that the
THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF JESUS. om!
secondary roof was uncovered, so as to convert the lateral into a
vertical opening.
St. Matthew, intent on recording the gracious words of Jesus,
merely notes in passing that there was some peculiar sign
of faith on the part of the bearers, but leaves its nature un-
explained. St. Mark, under the instruction, or adopting the
oral descriptions of St. Peter, who was present, explains the
elliptical phrase of the first gospel. He mentions the occa-
sion of the event, in the return of Jesus to Capernaum after a
considerable absence ; describes minutely the gathering in the
house, and around the door, and the employment of Jesus, in
preaching the word ; relates the approach of the bearers, and
specifies their number, and that they were unable to draw near
because of the crowd. Lastly, he describes the uncovering of the
roof, the overt act of faith alluded to by St. Matthew, and then
continues the account almost in the words of the first gospel.
St. Luke retains the same details, but moulds them into a form
more adapted for general history. He mentions, first, the em-
ployment of our Lord, and then the presence of Pharisees and
lawyers from many places, a fact essential to the narrative, but
which comes out incidentally in the two other gospels. He then
adds a statement, which indicates the later composition of his
work—“ The power of the Lord was present to heal them.”
This doctrinal title is never given to Jesus in the narratives of
the two earlier gospels, and naturally became more frequent,
when fewer eye-witnesses remained, who had seen our Lord
in the days of his flesh ; since Jesus is the only name by which
he was then familiarly known. St. Luke then specifies the
ascent of the bearers upon the roof, which St. Mark implies,
but omits all further detail beyond the simple fact, that the
couch was let down through the tiling before Jesus. At the
close of the account, he seems to follow the words of the second
gospel, and to modify them into a more classical form. Thus,
instead of date eblctacba: mdévras we have the equivalent
exotacis éhaBey amavtas; and instead of the more vague expres-
PS
322 THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF JESUS.
sion ‘éudemore éuTac eidouev,”’ the more characteristic phrase,
“ Edouey mapadoea oxuepov. The comparison, then, of the
accounts in the three gospels, only establishes their truth and
consistency.
But the proofs of reality are multiplied, when we extend our
view to the four miracles, and the connexion in which they stand,
both in the second and third gospels. In each of them, the cure
of Simon’s wife’s mother follows the dispossession in the syna-
gogue, and occurs on the same Sabbath. After this ensue the
numerous cures in the same evening, which St. Matthew also
names, while the other gospels supply an explanation of the fact
he records, since the Jews thotght even cures unlawful on the ©
Sabbath-day. Then follows a circuit throughout Galilee, the
cure of the Leper, and a second retirement into solitary places,
before the return to Capernaum, and the cure of the Paralytic.
It is true that, in St. Matthew, this connexion does not appear,
since the dispossession is not mentioned, and the cure of Simon’s
mother-in-law, with other events, is placed between the cures of
the Paralytic and of the Leper. But this Evangelist has clearly
delayed the mention of separate miracles, till he could exhibit
fully, in the Sermon on the Mount, the nature of our Lord’s
teaching, and he consequently gives the cure without any link of
close connexion, that could fix the order of time. St. Mark, in
restoring it to its true place, has carefully noted the event which
came just before, and those which immediately followed ; and
his narrative of the four miracles, thus agreeing in every point
with St. Luke, has all the marks of accurate and continuous
history.
But the accounts contain other pledges of their own truth.
The first cure is said to have taken place in the public synagogue,
and the fame of it to have spread through all the district. The
second gospel was probably written about twenty,—-the third,
about twenty-four years, after the event. But even allowing thirty-
five years, when the later of them must have been written, thou-
sands would be alive, who were present, or heard of the miracle
THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF JESUS. 323
that same day, if it really occurred. To publish such a fiction,
at such a time, considering the malice of the Jews, would have
been a sure way to discredit the gospel, and to brand it with
the fatal reproach of imposture and wilful falsehood. The
next cure has every feature which could prove its reality. It
was wrought on Peter’s mother-in-law, and we learn, in pass-
ing, from St. Paul, that this Apostle was known to all Chris-
tians as a married man. The spectators are named, Simon and
Andrew, James and John. The time was a Sabbath evening,
after the synagogue worship, and before sunset. The events
that followed the same evening are recounted, with the pen of
an eye-witness—that all-the city was gathered at the door,
while the retirement of Jesus for prayer, before day break, the
pursuit of Simon, the popular eagerness, and the reply of our
Lord, have the same stamp of reality, and are recorded alike in
both gospels. The occasion for the cure of the Paralytic, in
the return to Capernaum, and the subsequent call of the
Publican, complete the many features of historical accuracy
and minute information, which mark the whole course of the
narrative.
° § 9. Tue Sermon on THE Mounv.
This celebrated discourse, which stands in the opening of the
first gospel, has been regarded, by most recent critics, as a
different report of the Sermon, which St. Luke has placed after
the Ordination of the Twelve Apostles, and considerably later
in the history. Starting from this assumed identity, the my-
thical theorists have brought many objections, to disparage the
truth of both accounts, and justify the bold expedient of trans-
ferring the whole, or nearly the whole, into the domain of mere
legend. The same opinion has led other writers, as Neander and
Olshausen, to represent the discourse in St. Matthew as being,
to a great extent, an artificial compilation, where many sayings
324 THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF JESUS.
are transferred from their actual historical context, in order to
give a seeming completeness to the composition.
Now it is clear that, if the discourse is one and the same,
great liberties, either of omission or interpolation, with great
varieties of arrangement in the details, have been taken by one
or both of the Evangelists. And conversely, whatever proves
the unity and connexion of each discourse, as it now stands, will
also evince them to be distinct and successive, and dissipate the
objections which have arisen from confounding two different
events together.
The differences which meet our eye at the first view, are
certainly striking. The discourse in St. Matthew seems placed
at the close of the first circuit of Galilee, or early in our Lord’s
ministry, while that in St. Luke is definitely fixed to the second
year, some time after the second Passover, and immediately after
the ordination of the Twelve Apostles. Both are delivered near
Capernaum, and after an ascent into the mountain; but in one
case our Lord re-descends to the plain, or at least to some level
place, in the other this is not mentioned ; in one case he is
seated, in the other he is standing; while the length of each
discourse answers to this distinction, since the former contains a
hundred and seven, the latter only thirty verses. The events
that follow are ambiguous, and seem to lend equal countenance
to either view. For the next event, in St. Matthew, is the
healing of the leper,.which St. Luke places immediately after
the miraculous draught, and plainly in the course of the first
year, while the next but one is the healing of the Centurion’s
servant, the very event which follows the discourse in St. Luke.
Both commence with several beatitudes, and close with the same
illustration, of the two houses built on the rock and on the sand;
while the intermediate lessons, on the love of enemies, and for-
bearance in judgment, have the same relative order in both
gospels.
It is this partial resemblance in their contents, so that five or
six clauses are almost verbally the same, which forms the chief _
THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF JESUS. 325
reason for affirming their identity. But the force of the argu-
ment is much diminished, when we reflect on the nature of our
Lord’s public ministry. In the course of three years, spent in
various places, and in circuits through Galilee, a frequent incul-
cation of the same truths, and often in the same words, would
only be a dictate of the highest wisdom. Each occasion would
probably suggest some slight variety, either in the context or
the form of the expressions thus repeated; but the repetition
itself would be a constant and essential feature of such a ministry.
In fact, all the recorded discourses, if taken as distinct, would
require ten hours, at the most, for successive and deliberate
utterance. If, then, some repetitions plainly occur, even in these
brief éxtracts from the whole amount of teaching spread over
three years, it is morally certain that such repetitions would be
far more numerous in a full report of the whole, given with
minute historical accuracy. And hence, assuming only a com-
petent knowledge, it is probable that two different writers would
prefer to select different occasions, on which sayings or discourses,
having a partial resemblance, were uttered.
In the present instance, each discourse, if we leave it in its
natural place, followed a distinct circuit. The Sermon in St.
Matthew would be at the close of the first circuit of Galilee,
and that in St. Luke, would follow a partial circuit around the
sea of Galilee, Mark ii. 7—14, and preceded a journey to a
distant part of Galilee the next day. The assembly, at this
interval of almost a year, would be only in part the same, and
a partial repetition of precepts, already given under similar cir-
cumstances, cannot be thought either unnatural or surprizing.
I. It has been urged, not only by Strauss, but by Neander
and Olshausen, that a great part of the Sermon in St. Matthew
has either no connexion, or one purely artificial, and due to the
Evangelist alone. The connection of the phrases, it is said, is
often such, as to make it highly improbable that our Lord should
have so passed from one idea to another. According to Neander,
the passages vy. 23—26, 29, 30, and the Lord’s prayer, are trans-
326 THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF JESUS.
ferred from later discourses of Jesus, as given in St. Luke, as
are also vi. 19—34, and vii. 5—11. Carrying these admissions
still further, Strauss maintains that, after vi. 19, no connexion
can be traced, that the apophthegm on earthly treasures, and on
the two masters, have no unity with their context, that vil. 6,
is equally unconnected, and also the final statement, of our duty
to our neighbour, in the twelfth verse.
In opposition to these fancies, the following remarks may prove
the integrity of the discourse, as it is given in the gospel.
1. First, the Evangelist directly asserts that the Sermon was
delivered as one connected whole. Besides the formal intro-
duction, he adds at the close—“ It came to pass when Jesus had
ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine ;
for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the
scribes.’ No words could teach us more plainly that, in the
view of the writer, the whole was uttered before the descent
from the mountain, and that he did not intend to offer us an
artificial compilation. The previous address—‘‘ Whosoever hear-
eth these sayings of mine, and doeth them,”’ will also be histori-
cally falsified, if the writer, of his one accord, has mixed other
statements, to which the caution did not originally apply. We
have thus a double pledge that he gives us the whole discourse,
as the words of Jesus before he descended from the mountain,
sealed with one common sanction in the warning at the close.
2. Next, the verse vii. 12, which has been alleged as one
proof that the writer gives a mere compilation, is a powerful
evidence for the unity of the whole discourse. If we compare it
with v. 17, the parallelism is apparent. The body of the
discourse begins with the caution—‘ Think not that I am come
to destroy the law and the prophets ; I am not come to destroy,
but to fulfil.’ And then, after a series of instructions, enforcing
and amplifying the true nature and scope of various Divine com-
mandments, we have the summing up at the close—‘“ Therefore
all things, whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you,
do ye even so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.”
THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF JESUS. 327
What can indicate more decisively that a real unity of purpose
runs throughout the whole ?
3. The opening and the peroration, which lie without these
limits, have also a marked correspondence. The former begins
with blessings and continues with exhortation ; the latter begins
with exhortation, and ends with warning. The former attracts
the hearer by sevenfold blessings, in order to stir him up, by a
double description of the Christian character, to diligence in
works of love. The close exhibits, in four different forms, the
contrast between the true and the false disciple. Thus love
opens the whole appeal, and godly fear is the motive appealed to
at the close. There is a unity of design, but a marked contrast
of tone, between the preface and the peroration.
4. The intermediate portion, or body of the discourse, falls
easily into three divisions. First, moral duties of the second
table, or towards our neighbour, cleared from the false glosses of
Pharisaic tradition, v. 17—48. Secondly, religious services, or
duties to God, in contrast with formalism, eye-service, and
covetousness, of the same false teachers, ch. vi. Thirdly, sup-
plementary duties, of forbearance and spiritual discretion towards
men, of earnest devotion towards God, which complete the former
outline, and exhibit the refined features of Christian grace. And
each of these has its own symmetry. Specific explanations of
the commands against murder, adultery, divorce, perjury, and
revenge, are crowned by an exhortation to the sum of all social
duties, pure and perfect love, like that of our Father in heaven.
Directions upon three main forms of religious service, alms, prayer,
and fasting, are crowned, in like manner, by an exhortation to
heavenly-mindedness, and filial confidence in God, so as to banish
all distracting and hurtful anxiety about worldly things. The
two contrasted duties, towards men, of charitable forbearance in
judgment, and of spiritual wisdom and discernment, are followed
by an earnest exhortation to believing prayer, as the great means
of procuring good things, and therefore, as St. James afterwards
expounds it, the grand remedy against the double sin of con-
ry
328 THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF JESUS.
tention and worldliness, and every kind of breach of the great
law of love.
5. The first interpolation, charged on the Evangelist, is ch. v.
23—26. Yet the intimate connexion of these verses as they now
stand, is very apparent, certainly not less so than in their later oc-
currence, as given by St. Luke. A similar remark applies to verses
29, 30. Itis said that our Lord was speaking of mere legislation,
not of self-discipline. But it is quite plain that he is enforcing
the real width and fulness of the Divine law, in contrast to the
restrictive glosses of Pharisaic tradition. The true law of duty
forbids, not only actual adultery, but the indulgence of inward
lust, and commands the sacrifice of things, in themselves lawful
and valuable, if they become practically our tempters to sensual
sin. Hence nothing can be more intimate than the connexion, or
more complete than the harmony of the verses with the scope of
the whole context,
6. The next passage, charged with interpolation, is the Lord’s
prayer ; partly, from its recurrence in St. Luke, and partly, be-
cause the one purpose is said to be, the contrast between reality
and appearance, and therefore an exposition of the nature of
prayer would be misplaced. The former reason has no weight,
since after more than two years, many disciples might be with
our Lord, who had not been present at the discourse ; and be-
sides the prayer is here given as a general model, but there in
answer to the request for a specific form, and the words of in-
troduction strictly correspond to this difference. The second
reason is not less erroneous. Since the duty of prayer was per-
verted, among the Jews, by two main errors, vain-glorious hypo-
crisy, and vain repetition, it was natural and reasonable that our
Lord should warn his disciples against both evils, and, for this
end, that he should give them a pattern of simplicity and earnest
reality in their private devotions.
7. The whole passage vi. 19—34, has also been charged with
interpolation, and its separate parts, according to Strauss, have
no apparent connexion. But the real connexion of the whole is
THE PUBLIC MINISTRY OF JESUS. 329
clear to any spiritual mind. ‘Seek a portion in heaven, and
therefore sit loose from all worldly cares. If you maintain
this single purpose, your course will be light and peace; if you
are double-minded, and study to keep the world under the shew
of religion, your soul will be left in darkness. No man can
serve two masters, and these two opposites can therefore never
be reconciled. If you serve God with your whole heart, he
will care for you in all the wants of this life; therefore cultivate
a heavenly mind, and entire confidence in his Fatherly love,
dismissing all vain ‘care about the trials which to-morrow may
bring.’ Thus, after rescuing special services of religion from
their prevalent abuse, our Lord enforces the crowning duties, of
a supreme regard to the glory of God, and to heavenly things.
The climax here, and in the former chapter, is of the very
same kind.
8. The caution in vii. 6, has also been charged with a want of
connexion, as a proof that it was not really uttered, where it now
stands. But, in reality, there is a connexion, practically very im-
portant ; since a precept, which forbids a habit of censorious
judgment, is guarded by another, which equally enjoins a dis-
criminating regard to the moral state and character of men.
This relation, which Bengel has seized with his usual terseness,
vindicates fully the historical accuracy of the Evangelist in this
instance. But even if the connexion of thought could not be
traced, this would be no valid reason for denying the actual
sequence. applies the description “a beast of
burden” to the colt itself, on which no burden had yet been
laid; while the more exact version in the gospel transfers the
title to the mother, in which application it is really appropriate.
The only difficulty that remains lies in the statement, that the
garments were placed both on the colt and its mother, and that
Jesus sat upon them. ‘And here the explanation, from an enallage
numeri, is simple in itself, and agreeable to several examples
in the same gospel. The difficulty still urged, that there was
no reason why both should be sent for, if only one was to be
used, has no force whatever. The presence of the she-ass, the
mother of the colt, was a visible pledge that the colt answered
to our Lord’s own description, and to the true meaning of the
prophecy, and was really one on which no man had ridden
before.
If now we compare the narratives again, the features of
reality are conspicuous, even in their slight divergencies from
each other. St. Matthew, the earliest writer, gives the incident
as it appeared to the eye, in its composite and dramatic form.
St. Mark, informed probably by St. Peter of the exact words of
Jesus, which were repeated to the owners, mentions only the colt,
and records the message itself, and its punctual repetition. St.
Luke follows the later and more exact statement. St. John,
writing still later, omits all details, and notices the event,
chiefly for the sake of one important remark, ‘‘ These things
understood not his disciples at the first; but when Jesus was
glorified, then remembered they that these things were written
of him, and that they had done these things unto him.” Not
only the substance of the narrative, but the variation of its form,
confirms the authenticity of all the four gospels.
8. The accounts of the cleansing of the temple, and of the
cursing of the barren fig-tree, come next in order, and are closely
connected in the two first gospels. The minor differences only
serve to illustrate the relation of St. Mark to the previous Evan-
3
“unotuyloy Kas THAoy yeoy,
THE LAST VISIT TO JERUSALEM. 389
gelist, whose statements he clears up and explains, when they
are at all ambiguous. Thus the two events are recorded sepa-
rately in the first gospel, because each of them possesses a moral
unity. But St. Mark restores carefully, here as elsewhere, the
exact order of time. The sentence on the fig-tree thus appears
to have preceded the cleansing of the temple, though its fulfil-
ment, and the remark of the disciples, occurred on the morning
of the next day. By this means, not only the true sequence is
made evident, but the word ‘‘immediately,’’ in St. Matthew,
receives its true explication. To suppose the withering effected
on the moment would be, in the abstract, an unlikely construction ;
for the words of Jesus did not directly portend such a change,
but were only a sentence of future barrenness. Hence the
withering of the tree in one single day was a singularly rapid
fulfilment of the doom pronounced upon it. St. Matthew has
grouped together the incidents of two successive mornings, on
the return from Bethany, because of their historical unity,
while the second gospel restores each of them to its proper place.
Such a correction of the arrangement, while the whole substance
of the narrative is unaltered, is one of the surest marks of
historical veracity.
But the words in St. Mark, descriptive of the fig-tree, have
caused much difficulty, and given rise to specious objections.
If the time of figs was not yet, why should the fig-tree, even in
symbol, be cursed for a natural result of the yearly seasons ?
To remove this objection, many glosses and forced translations
have been proposed, which are justly to be set aside as untenable.
The simplest explanation, however, is the most consistent, and
agrees best with the real scope of the passage. The words affirm
simply, of that particular tree, that it was not a time of fig-
bearing. Other trees might be already in fruit, or the same tree
might have borne fruit earlier or later in the year; but for the
present, it had a deceptive appearance, being covered with leaves,
and no fruit to be found upon it. It was thus the most fitting
390 THE LAST VISIT TO JERUSALEM.
symbol that could have been devised, to represent the actual
state and impending doom of the Jewish people.
The statement of St. Mark has been charged with folly, as
hastily invented to account for the absence of fruit, while it
makes the conduct of Jesus morally inexplicable. But the charge
is manifestly quite groundless. If the tree were barren already,
the sentence would have had no meaning—“ Let no fruit grow
on thee henceforth for ever.’ Hence it is implied, even in the
first gospel, that the absence of fruit was a result of the season,
and not of permanent barrenness. The symbolical force of the
miracle is only increased by this explanation. The character of
the tree, forward in leaves, but tardy in fruit-bearing, procured
its doom. And thus, while the more immediate purpose of the
miracle was to confirm the faith of the disciples by a new
instance of the power of Christ, it answered the further design
of predicting, by an expressive emblem, the curse about to light
on the Jewish nation. _
4. The discourses that follow, until the close of our Lord’s
public ministry, abound in marks of historical truth. Even the
most determined and systematic adversary of the Evangelists
has found only one passage, on which to ground, with any plau-
sibility, a charge of contradiction. The question of the scribe,
it is urged, is put, according to St. Matthew, in a hostile and
malevolent spirit ; while in St. Mark it is just the reverse. The
differences, it is said, are not slighter than those which dis-
tinguish both passages from Luke x. 25—37; and since three
distinct occurrences, so nearly alike, are incredible, they must all
be varied and defective traditions of one and the same event.
The asserted resemblance, however, to the account in St.
Luke, is most unreal; and the attempt to confound two events,
so totally distinct, is evidently futile. For St. Luke himself
notes the presence and assent of the scribes on the very same
occasion, where the conversation with one of them is recorded
in the first and second gospels. In the other event, which he
places much earlier, every feature is different. A different
THE LAST VISIT TO JERUSALEM. 391
question is proposed ; our Lord, instead of giving a direct reply,
proposes another question ; the lawyer himself repeats the great
commandment, and then starts a new difficulty, which our Lord
resolves by the parable of the Good Samaritan. Hence in time,
place, character, and details, no two events could well vary more
widely, than the conversation in St. Luke varies from the account
in the two other Evangelists. .
The contrast in the tone and purpose of the scribe, in St.
Mark and St. Matthew, is just as untrue as the asserted resem-
blance to the passage in St. Luke. The exact force of the term,
neipatev, must plainly depend on the context. When a question
was put on the lawfulness of tribute, it would imply, as the
writers expound it, a malevolent design to entrap our Saviour,
and make him odious to the governor or to the people. But the
question—‘*‘ Which is the first and great command?” naturally
implies a trial of a far less malignant kind, a curious desire to
test our Lord’s wisdom, or discover the real nature of his teach-
ing. It would imply, therefore, a mixture of curiosity and
suspicion. But when the reply approved itself to the conscience
of the scribe, it was natural that curiosity should be followed by
seriousness, and his former suspicious feelings subside into a kind
of imperfect reverence for the wisdom of Jesus. ‘The two state-
ments are therefore in complete harmony. St. Mark, after his
usual manner, unfolds the incident at greater length than St.
Matthew thought necessary, and proves by fresh details, at once
consistent and original, his own independent information.
5. The Prophecy of our Lord on the Mount of Olives forms
the next main portion of the sacred history. Here the objection,
chiefly raised, is of a different kind, and does not affect the
veracity of the record, but the truth of the prophecy itself. It
clearly announces, according to the objectors, that the Second
Coming of Jesus in the clouds of heaven would occur imme-
diately after the siege of Jerusalem, and during the generation
in which it was uttered. Three different alternatives, by which
this conclusion, so fatal to our Lord’s prophetic character, is
392 THE LAST VISIT TO JERUSALEM.
avoided, are then examined, and each of them is pronounced
untenable.
This objection, if well founded, would force us to one of two
admissions; that our Lord himself was fallible, and actually
deceived ; or that the Evangelists are unfaithful witnesses of his
real predictions, and the gospels an imperfect and erroneous
history. .
The adverse criticism, when it maintains that the whole dis-
course cannot be referred, without violence, either to the destruc-
tion of the Jewish state, or to the end of the world, seems to be
just, and sustained by clear evidence. But when it maintains,
further, that the prophecy excludes the idea of any long interval
between these events, and fixes them both within the existing
generation, it lies open, not only to serious doubt, but to a dis-
tinct refutation.
It is indeed quite evident that the discourse, as recorded by
St. Matthew and St. Mark, makes no formal disclosure of any
Jong interval between the earlier and the later event. Such a
disclosure would then have been premature, and contrary to the
spirit of our Lord’s repeated warnings. But in the later gospel
of St. Luke, though written before the fall of Jerusalem,—and if
the previous reasonings are just, nearly twenty years earlier,—the
fact of an interval is briefly, but plainly expressed. ‘“ Jerusalem
shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the
Gentiles be fulfilled.” There is thus a provision made, in this
third and later edition of the prophecy, for the admission of
that very interval which the Providence of God has since ex-
panded into eighteen centuries ; and the events of our own days
seem to be furnished with fresh evidence of the truth of the
prophecy, by their correspondence with the verses that follow.
If we use the words of this gospel asa key to explain the
two others, they clearly indicate that the transition is found in
verse 22 of St. Matthew, and verse 20 of St. Mark, where our
Lord alludes to the shortening of the days. If we explain the
words to mean, a suspense of the severity of the trial, while
THE LAST VISIT TO JERUSALEM. 393
Jerusalem remains trodden down, until the crisis is resumed at
the close of the times of the Gentiles, the three accounts are
harmonized together, and the actual interval, though for wise
reasons not revealed at the time, is seen to be really implied in
the sacred message.
To this explanation, the main objection that will be opposed
is the thirty-fourth verse. The word yevea, it is affirmed, in
such a context, must necessarily denote the then living genera-
tion, and that this i$ assigned as the limit, within which the
whole prophecy must be fulfilled. The verse that follows, it is
urged, does not introduce any exception to this universal state-
ment, but only affirms that the precise moment, the day and the
hour of the second coming, was not to be revealed.
There can be no doubt that the construction of yevea, on which
this objection partly rests, is the most simple and natural. The
verse has evidently the character of a mark of time, and assigns
the events to the actual generation, then already begun. But
the construction of the day and the hour is by no means equally
natural. To suppose that a day of twenty-four hours, and a
particular hour of that day, is intended, contradicts the usage of
Scripture, and the instinctive sense of every thoughtful reader.
“The day ” is plainly the great day of the Lord, or the period
of the second coming, and cannot be justly referred to one
natural day alone. Again, the hour, in the same context, must
either be an equivalent to “the season,” as implied in the parable
of the Fig-tree, or the figurative hour of the night, as expounded
in the parable of the Householder, that immediately follows.
And hence the contrast of the pronouns, “all these things,” in
the one passage, and “that day and hour,’’ in the other, leads
naturally to the idea of two sets of events, distinct, though con-
nected, of which the first alone is assigned to that generation,
while the time of the other is emphatically declared to be un-
known and unrevealed.
It confirms this interpretation, that in St. Matthew two ques-
tions are proposed—‘‘ When shall these things be, and what
$5
394 THE LAST VISIT TO JERUSALEM:
shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?”
Also, down to verse 19, where the doom of Jerusalem is an-
nounced, one pronoun is used, but afterwards the other. Thus
verse 8—‘‘ All these things are the beginning of sorrows.”
Verse 14—<‘‘ This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in
all the world.”” But afterwards—‘“ Woe to them that give suck
in those days.” verse 19. Verse 22—‘‘ Except those days were
shortened, there should no flesh be saved.’ Verse 29—‘‘ Im-
mediately after the tribulation of those days.” There is thus
an evident distinction of nearer and more remote events, of
which one class are named before, the others after, the compass-
ing of Jerusalem. And hence we may infer, with the strongest
reason, that the expression, “ all these things,’ corresponds
strictly with the first inquiry of the disciples, and terminates
with the fall of the temple, when one stone would not be left
upon another; but the contrasted phrase, “that day and that
hour,”’ relates to the coming of Christ and its attendant troubles,
which are parted in St. Luke from the rest of the prophecy, and
of which the time is excepted from the previous statement,
being solemnly declared to be hidden deep in the secret counsel
of God.
It may still be urged, that the construction which naturally
results from the whole discourse, is of the return of Jesus in
glory, within the limits of the actual generation, or soon after
the overthrow of the temple, and that this has been completely
falsified by the events, so that our Lord was either ignorant
of the truth, or purposely deceived his followers. But this
objection overlooks the plain fact, that our Lord enforces the
duty of continual watchfulness, and expressly refuses a definition
of the time. The whole discourse implies that his return might
possibly take place in that very generation, or might possibly be
long delayed ; (Matt. xxv. 19,) that God had reserved the time
in His own keeping; that the Saviour himself was not commis-
sioned to reveal it, and that whether it was near or remote, was
a mystery which only the event could unfold. A revelation thus
THE LAST VISIT TO JERUSALEM. 395
limited, could only appear in the actual form. Events, certainly
to occur in that generation, would be first narrated in their order,
and the Advent with its attendant circumstances, be appended at
the close, without any precise indication of the unknown interval,
which it was neither intended nor desirable then to reveal.
But a further objection has been raised, from the comparative
silence of the fourth gospel upon the visible Advent. It has
been alleged to be- inconceivable that the writer, if an Apostle,
could have passed over so important a feature in the public
teaching of our Lord; and it is inferred that this gospel had its
rise in an Hellenistic and theosophic school of thought, in which
the idea had been divested of its material form. But the
closing verses of the gospel exclude this critical fiction. The
words there recorded— If I will that he tarry till I come,”
evidently imply the notoriety of this very doctrine, of the return
of Jesus, both when.they were uttered, and at the date of the
composition. It was a great principle, assumed by the writer to
be fully known, and which required no further explanation. The
comparative silence respecting it, in the course of the gospel, is
easily explained by the fact that the writer had received, just be-
fore, a series of visions, which he had sent to the same churches,
and in which this great truth received its fullest development.
6. The next events to be considered are the anointing at
Bethany, and the treachery of Judas. Here there is a divergence
in the apparent order of the events between the two first and
the fourth gospels. Other difficulties have been started, produced
by an attempt to confound the anointing in Bethany with the
earlier one in St. Luke, as varied and defective traditions of the
same event. Hence three topics have to be considered; the
time of the anointing by Mary, its distinctness from the one
which took place in the house of Simon the Pharisee, and its
connexion with the treachery of Judas, with the historical con-
sistency of the whole narrative.
In St. Matthew and St. Mark, the anointing is mentioned
after the consultation of the chief-priests, which is placed two
396 THE LAST VISIT TO JERUSALEM.
days before the Passover, and immediately before the treachery
of Judas. But in St. John it occurs rather earlier, after the
arrival at Bethany, six days before the Passover, during a supper
which they made for him, at which Lazarus was present, and
one or two days before the public entrance into Jerusalem. That
this is its true place in the history seems proved by the defini-
tion of time which follows, John xii. 12—‘ The next day much
people that were come to the feast . .. . took branches of
palm-trees,” &c. On the other hand, the incident is isolated in
the two other gospels, and nothing forbids the idea of a reversion
in the narrative to events a few days earlier, of which the conse-
quences and the significance now began to appear. The state-
ment of St. Matthew is as follows : ‘‘ It came to pass when Jesus
had finished all these sayings, he said to his disciples, Ye know
that after two days is the Passover, and the Son of man is be-
trayed to be crucified. 'Then were assembled the chief-priests,”
&e. ‘Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon
the leper, there came to him a woman, having an alabaster box
of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head as he sat at
rikeaty (Feet Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went
unto the chief-priests . . . . and from that time he sought oppor-
tunity to betray him.” The account in St. Mark is nearly the
same. ‘* Now the Passover, and the unleavened bread was after
two days, and the chief-priests and the scribes were seeking how
they might take him by craft, aud put him to death; but they
said, Not in the feast, lest there be an uproar of the people. And
he being in Bethany,” &c. And Judas Iscariot, one of the
twelve, went unto the chief-priests, to betray him unto them.”
Neither the arrangement of these gospels, nor that of St.
John, involves in itself any real difficulty. One Evangelist,
having brought our Lord to Bethany, and not designing to men-
tion the place again, might insert the incident a little before the
time of its occurrence. On the other hand, St. Matthew and
St. Mark, when about to record the treachery of Judas, and the
crucifixion and burial of Jesus, might revert to this earlier event,
THE LAST VISIT TO JERUSALEM. 397
which gave occasion to the traitor’s wicked purpose, and contained
a touching prophecy, by our Lord, of his approaching death.
But since the historical connexion is much closer in St. John,
there seems little doubt that he has restored the true order, and
that there is a slight trajection in the two other gospels. The
reason of the inversion is very plain, since the incident would be
totally isolated, and break the order of the narrative, if it were
inserted at the opening of Matt. xxi. or of Mark xi. which
would be the chronological place, as deduced from the history in
the fourth gospel. The interval between the event, and the actual
treachery of Judas, forms no real objection. The rebuke he re-
ceived could only have been a secondary motive of his crime,
while the chief one was evidently the backwardness of our Lord,
even after his public entrance into the city, to assume temporal
power, and distribute honours and rewards to his disciples.
His covetous desires were thwarted by this delay, and he hastened
to make his peace with the opposite party, as soon as he sus-
pected that the inactivity of Jesus would lead to their triumph.
The attempt to confound this anointing at Bethany with that
recorded by St. Luke, and thus to involve all the records of it
in uncertainty and confusion, is really preposterous. Except the
name of the host, and the fact of the anointing, there is in
every other feature an absolute contrast. The time differs
more than a year and half, and is clearly defined in each case.
The anointing in St. Luke took place after John’s message, and
before the circuit, which closed with the parable of the sower,
and the stilling of the tempest on the sea of Galilee. The
anointing in Bethany was punctually on the Friday or Saturday
evening, before our Lord’s death. The woman, in St. Luke,
was a notorious sinner, or one branded with open immorality ;
in the other case, Mary, the sister of Lazarus, a character
marked everywhere by faith, purity, and love. The host, in one
case, is a Pharisee and a stranger ; in the other, Martha herself
is the entertainer, and her brother Lazarus one who sits at meat
with Jesus. The anointing, in St. Luke, is of the feet alone,
398 THE LAST VISIT TO JERUSALEM.
but Mary anointed both the feet and head, or virtually, the whole
body beforehand for burial. The plentiful tears of the woman
are the main feature, in one case ; but no mention occurs of any
such tears in the other. The murmuring, in one case, is of the
host against our Lord himself, for suffering such a woman to
touch him; in the other, it is Judas and the disciples, who
complain of the woman for her excessive prodigality. The
rebuke and the promise differ just as widely. In one case there
is simply an assurance of pardon for many sins; in the other,
of lasting honour for a work of love to the Saviour. That such
a token of love and reverence should be twice offered to Jesus
in the course of a three years’ ministry, cannot, with any shew
of reason, be thought improbable; and the main action being
the same, no two events could be more thoroughly in contrast
with each other. Even the place is widely different, since the
former anointing evidently occurred somewhere in Galilee, either
at Nain or one of the adjoining cities.
The variations between the account of St. John, and the two
other gospels, unlike those just examined, are slight and evan-
escent. The anointing of the head is mentioned in one case, of
the feet in the other ; but the words of Jesus reconcile the two
partial statements. ‘‘She is come beforehand to anoint my body
for the burial.”” The anointing of the head denoted the friendship
of Mary for Jesus, as an honoured guest ; the anointing of the
fect, her own sense of unworthiness, as a forgiven sinner. The
union of both could alone fully express the relation of the family
of Bethany to their Divine Saviour and gracious Friend. The
estimated worth of the ointment, in St. Mark and St. John, is
the same, and comes to light in the same manner, by the mur-
muring of the disciples. The allusion in John xi. 2 proves how
notorious the event had become, when the fourth gospel was
written, and thus agrees with the promise which the two other
Evangelists have put on record. The allusion to his own burial,
which our Lord makes in his reply, fixes the time of the event
THE LAST VISIT TO JERUSALEM. 399
to his last visit, and thus confirms the truth of the whole
statement.
It has been urged, as a double objection to the truth of the
narrative, that the host, in one gospel, is Lazarus, and in the
two others, Simon the Leper; and that if St. Matthew and St.
Mark had known Mary and Judas to be the two parties con-
cerned, their names could not have been passed over in silence.
The former statement is untrue. St. John tells us, indeed, that
Lazarus sat at meat with Jesus; but this description could not
apply to the host, but to one of the guests who were present in
a different capacity ; while the house might belong to Simon the
Leper, either as husband to Martha at the time of the event, or
as its actual owner when the gospels were written, in entire
consistency with the account in the fourth gospel.
Again, since neither Martha nor Mary is named in the two
first gospels, the name of the latter, without a digression, would
have answered no purpose of instruction. The anointing itself,
as we may infer alike from each writer, was the distinction by
which she was most honourably and widely known; but the
name was too common to be any distinction whatever. If this
woman, it is said, were Mary of Bethany, how could the event
be severed from so celebrated a name? The objection springs
only from a childish illusion, since it was this very anointing
which gave her celebrity. Hence it is natural that it should
first be recorded alone, as her chief honour; and afterwards the
subordinate circumstances, that her name was Mary, her home
at Bethany, and her brother Lazarus, who was raised from the
dead. In like manner, if several disciples joined in the censure,
there would be no reason why Judas alone should be mentioned
in the earlier and simpler account, while some connexion between
the fact and his treachery seems implied by the order of the
narrative. Indeed this connexion, as explained by the fourth
gospel, is a clear example of undesigned coincidence, which
derives all its force from the omission of his name in the earlier
gospels.
400 THE LAST VISIT TO JERUSALEM.
7. The next, and more serious inconsistency, alleged against
this part of the narrative, relates to the time of the Passover,
and of the last supper. According to the three first evangelists,
our Lord partook of the Passover on its appointed day, and in
the evening before he suffered. But according to St. John, the
Passover was still future at the hour of his condemnation, and
took place on the Friday when he suffered. The problem, how
to reconcile these statements, has divided critics and divines,
almost in balanced numbers, from the early times of the church
until now. Thus, of recent critics and harmonists, Lucke,
Meyer, Ideler, Greswell and Browne, refer the crucifixion to
the fourteenth of Nisan; but Olshausen, Benson, Jarvis,
Wieseler, and Robinson, to the fifteenth, or the first day of
unleavened bread, and a similar variety of judgment exists
among earlier writers. It is urged, by recent mythical theorists,
that the difference is irreconcilable, whence they would infer
the fictitious and merely traditional character of all the four
narratives.
Viewed as an argument against the historical character of the
gospels, this objection is really a positive evidence on the other
side. In fictitious narratives, or traditional compilations at a
later period, it would have been easy to avoid all dangerous
minuteness of detail on the time of the events, or to have
adapted the later to the earlier gospels. The circumstance, that
the three gospels appear quite consistent with themselves, and
that the fourth, evidently written later, seems to vary from
them, is only a proof of its independent authority. Neither
the agreement nor the divergence is such as would result from
fragmentary composition, or from artificial compact among the
writers, or the authors of the traditions. The solution of the
apparent discrepancy must be sought in some very. different.
explanation.
But a closer inquiry will remove the difficulty, and shew that
St. John is really consistent with the other evangelists, in his
allusions to the time of the Crucifixion and the Passover. Their
’
THE LAST VIS€T TO JERUSALEM. 401
statement is plainly that on the first day of unleavened bread,
which St. Mark expounds to be the day when they sacrificed the
Passover, and St. Luke more plainly still, the day when it ought
to be killed, the disciples asked Jesus where they should prepare
the Paschal supper. They followed his directions, and when
evening was come, or the proper hour for its celebration, he sat
down with the twelve. That it was a Paschal meal is clear from
his own words in St. Luke—‘ With desire I have desired to eat
this Passover with you before I suffer, for I will not any more
eat of it, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” Nor do
the words of our Lord in St. Matthew prove an anticipation of
the proper time. They are occasioned by the inquiry of his
disciples, when the day for the feast was already come,—‘ Where
wilt thou that we prepare for thee, to eat the Passover?” To bear
the proposed construction, they ought to have preceded such an
inquiry. Their real force may be seen, if we remember that our
Lord had been absent from the last Passover, and the early part
of the Feast of Tabernacles, because of the malice of the Jews,
and, during his present visit, had retired from Jerusalem every
night, in order to avoid the machinations of his enemies. And
hence to celebrate the Passover in the heart of the city, was a
resolution explained only by the knowledge that the time of his
sufferings was really come.
It is very unlikely in itself that the writer of the fourth
gospel, even if he were not the Apostle, would intentionally
depart from the consenting statement of three gospels, which
must have already gained a wide circulation in the church. A
minute analysis of his statements will prove the alleged incon-
sistency to be only apparent.
The first allusion is in John xi. 55, and only confirms the
general fact, that the last visit of Jesus was at the Passover.
The second is more precise, John xii. 1, and fixes the arrival at
Bethany six days before the feast. The proper time of the feast
was the evening, between the fourteenth and fifteenth days, when
the sacrifice was offered, and the feast began. Six days earlier,
402 THE LAST VISIT TO JERUSALEM.
if Thursday night was the time of the Passover, would answer
to the previous Friday evening. It is natural that our Lord
should arrange his journey, so as to reach Bethany at sunset on
Friday evening, when the rest of the Jewish Sabbath began.
The next statement of time is in xiii. 1. ‘ Now before the
feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come,
&c., and supper being ended, the devil having now put into the
heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him.” It has
been inferred that this implies the judgment of the writer, that
the Passover was held on Friday, and not on Thursday evening.
But this is au unwarranted inference. The seven days’ feast
began with the evening, which followed the fourteenth day, when
the Paschal supper was held. And hence an event which took
place at the very commencement of that evening, and before
the actual participation of the Paschal meal, would answer
strictly to the force of the phrase, “ before the feast of the Pass-
over.” Itis clear that the words, “‘demvov yevouevov,” should
be translated, ‘‘ supper being come,” and that the incident was
at its commencement, not at its close. Again, the mention of
supper, in such a context, implies that it was the Paschal supper,
the well known commencement of the seven days’ feast.
The next allusion is in the mention of Judas. ‘“ Some of
them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said
unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the
feast, or that he should give something to the poor.” Since the
Paschal sacrifice itself only began on the afternoon of the
fourteenth day, there would be no need to make purchases late
at night, if the evening were that which introduces the fourteenth
Jewish day. But if the fourteenth day was past, and the first day
of the feast was to dawn with the morrow, the need would be
urgent, if any part of the proper supply was still wanting. Hence
this hint rather confirms, than disproves, the agreement of St.
John with the other evangelists in the time of the feast.
The next mark of time, and that which is usually thought to
be most decisive, to prove that St. John places the Passover a
THE LAST VISIT TO JERUSALEM. 403
day later, is in xviii. 28. ‘ Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas
unto the hall of judgment ; and it was early, and they themselves
went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled, but
that they might eat the Passover.’ It is urged that this phrase
can only apply strictly to the Paschal sacrifice itself, and hence
that it must have been still future, and held by the Pharisees,
not on Thursday, but on Friday evening. It is alleged, on the
other hand, by Lightfoot and Dr. Robinson, that the term may
be used more loosely for the Chagigah, or thank-offerings of
the first day of the unleavened bread, the fifteenth of Nisan.
This solution certainly seems open to much difficulty. To eat
the Passover might apply to the Paschal supper, either inclusive
or exclusive of other sacrifices in the feast, but could not apply,
so far as usage is a guide, to other sacrifices exclusive of
that supper. This passage has therefore been always the
stronghold of those critics, who maintain, from St. John, the
true date to have been Friday evening. But I conceive that the
words admit of another explanation, which removes the necessity
of any violent departure from general usage, and also brings to
light the real emphasis of the phrase. The Apostle tells us
that “it was early, and they went not into the judgment hall,
lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Pass-
over.”” The whole context proves that it was before the sunrise,
though after the cock-crowing, or between three and six in the
morning. Now the appointed time for the Paschal supper was
the night which followed the fourteenth day. It is true, the
chief celebration was in the evening after sunset ; but the morning
was the limit assigned, after which the remains were to be con-
sumed with fire. It is possible that, in the plan for the seizure
of our Lord, some had been delayed from partaking at the usual
hour, or that most of them intended, before daybreak, to fulfil
the command, “ Ye shall let nothing of it remain until morning.”
And hence the mention of the early hour is emphatic, and serves
as a key to the remark. A pollution then contracted would
hinder any of them from completing the celebration, by con-
404 THE LAST VISIT TO JERUSALEM.
suming the remains of the Paschal supper, before the sun-rise,
which was then near at hand. The words are thus a proof that
the night of the apprehension was really that of the Paschal
celebration.
The next allusion is in the words of Pilate, xviii. 39. ‘* But
ye have a custom that I should release unto you one in the
Passover.” If the day were the fourteenth, the expression
would not be strictly true, since the Passover was sacrificed in
the afternoon, and the words of Pilate were uttered at day-break.
But if the day were the fifteenth of Nisan, the release of the
prisoner would punctually concur with the real opening of the
feast, or the beginning of the first day of unleavened bread.
On the other view the more natural phrase would be, ‘‘ before the
Passover.”
In xix. 14, we have another statement, which has been thought
to prove the anticipation. ‘It was the preparation of the
Passover, and about the sixth hour.” This has been expounded,
by many critics, “the day before the Passover,” that is, the
fourteenth of Nisan. But the Evangelist explains his own
meaning, in vy. 31. ‘The Jews therefore, that the bodies
might not remain on the cross on the Sabbath, since it was
the preparation, for the day of that Sabbath was great, besought
Pilate that their legs might be broken.” ‘There then, on
account of the preparation of the Jews, because the sepulchre
was near, they laid Jesus.” In the other gospel, the same
phrase occurs repeatedly. Matt. xxvii. 62. ‘‘ Now the next
day, which is after the preparation, the chief priests and
Pharisees came together unto Pilate.” Mark xv. 42. “ And
when even was already come, since it was the pgeparation, that
is, the fore-sabbath.”” Luke xxiii. 54.“ And the day was the
preparation, and the Sabbath drew on.”
From these words of the Evangelists, and the two later
passages of the fourth gospel, it is plain that ‘ the preparation”
was used elliptically, as an equivalent to Friday, or the day of
the week before the Sabbath. This usage was so frequent, that
THE LAST VISIT TO JERUSALEM. 405
St. Matthew actually calls the Sabbath itself, “ the day after the
preparation.” St. John evidently uses the term in this sense,
and with strict reference to the weekly Sabbath, in both of the
later passages where it occurs. He even calls it absolutely “the
preparation of the Jews,” a term which evidently applies to a
period of weekly, and not of annual recurrence. And hence it
follows that ‘‘the preparation of the Passover”? means simply
“the Friday of the Passover,” or the day of the Passover
week before the ordinary Sabbath. On the other construction
of these words, and of John xviii. 28, they would convey no
fresh information, and be a simple tautology ; but nothing has
been said before by the Evangelist, to mark the week-day of the
occurrence.
The last allusion to be considered has been quoted just before.
“For the day of that Sabbath was great,” or “‘a high day.” It
is urged that this applies only to the coincidence of the common
with the extraordinary Sabbath, on the fifteenth of Nisan. But
the words, fairly weighed, give no warrant for this construction.
St. John tells us, first, that the object of the Jews was “ that
the bodies might not remain on the Sabbath,” where the common
weekly Sabbath is evidently meant. He explains the reason of
their application ‘‘ because it was the preparation”? where it is
just as plain that he means Friday, or the day of the week before
the common Sabbath. He then adds, as a further reason for
their desire to remove the bodies—‘‘ the day of that Sabbath
was great.” It was specially sacred and solemn, since it was
the Sabbath of the Passover-week, and only one such Sabbath
could occur in each year. This would render it specially sacred
to the Jews, whatever the day of the festival on which it hap-
pened to fall. Indeed, if we consult the Scriptures alone, the
first and seventh days of the feast never once receive the name
of Sabbath, but only -that of holy convocations, and the time of
Pentecost is properly reckoned from the morrow after the Sab-
bath in the Passover-week, and not from the sixteenth of Nisan,
as is proved from Ley. xxili. 16, where the feast of Pentecost is
406 THE LAST VISIT TO JERUSALEM.
referred expressly to ‘‘the morrow’after the seventh Sabbath.”
But the seventh recurrence of the week-day on which Nisan 15
might fall, would not be a Sabbath, either ordinary or extra-
ordinary. And hence, by the very tenor of the law of Moses,
the Sabbath in Passover-week, whatever its place in the festival,
would be eminently “a high day.”
It results, from this whole inquiry, that there is no real dis-
crepancy between St. John and the other Evangelists; that our
Lord arrived at Bethany on Friday evening, just six days before
the time of the last supper; that at the opening of the Paschal
meal, when the festival itself was still future, but just ready
to begin with that very supper, he washed the feet of his dis-
ciples; that the Pharisees forbore to enter the hall of Pilate,
through fear of defilement, because the hour was early, so that
the night appointed for eating the lamb of the Passover had not
completely closed, and the remains were to be consumed, by the
law, before the morning arose; that the time of the crucifixion
was the Friday in the Passover-week ; that a prisoner was wont
to be released in the course of the festival, when it had only
just begun, and that the bodies were taken down, because the
Sabbath was always sacred, and the one which fell within the
Passover-week was of peculiar celebrity.
There is thus no proof that St. John varies from the consenting
testimony of the three first gospels, who all make the Thursday
night, after sunset, the time of the Paschal supper, and place
the type at the beginning, and the antitype at the close of the
same Jewish day, the Friday before Easter day. On this view,
the three days and nights assigned to our Lord’s sufferings, are
the three first days and nights of the Passover festival, beginning
with the last supper, and ending with the first appearance of
Jesus to the Apostles after the resurrection. The comparison,
therefore, serves only to establish the truth and consistency of
the four gospels, in their various minute allusions to the time of
our Lord’s death.
The same agreement may be traced in their independent state-
THE LAST VISIT TO JERUSALEM. 407
ments, with regard to the events of that last week. Six days
before the Passover, St. John tells us, our Lord arrived at
Bethany. This would be Friday evening at sunset, when the
Sabbath had just begun. On the Sabbath, many Jews resorted
to Bethany, which St. Luke places a Sabbath-day’s journey from
Jerusalem. The next day, which would be the tenth of Nisan,
the day when the Paschal lamb was to be set apart for sacrifice,
our Lord made his public entry into Jerusalem, delaying it till the
afternoon, so as to reach the temple at the hour of the evening
sacrifice, at which the Passover was to be slain four days later.
The next day, or Monday, St. Mark states that he returned from
Bethany, when the second cleansing of the temple occurred. The
day following, or Tuesday, occurred the conversation on the fig-
tree, and the various parables, in which our Lord denounced the
sin and judgment of the Jews. The discourse on the Mount of
Olives took place, either the same evening, on his return from
the temple for the last time, or the next morning. ‘‘ After two
days was the Passover,” the complete interval from one date, or
the current interval from the other, since one complete Jewish
day intervened before the last supper. Thus the intervals
dovetail exactly into each other.
9. The events of the last supper have also been made an
occasion for various charges of inconsistency, especially be-
tween St. John and the other Evangelists. Some of these are
manifestly futile, as for instance, that St. John makes no mention
of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, nor the others, of the
washing of the feet of the disciples. Nothing but the mere
perversity of unbelief can make a various selection of incidents a
_ ground for imputing falsehood to any one of the sacred writers.
Unless there had been a partial change in the selection of events,
the later gospels must have been superfluous and unmeaning.
Why, it is asked, should the writer give another account of the
miraculous feeding, in which there is no emendation of con-
sequence, and omit the important institution of the Lord’s
Supper? Such a critical canon is truly ridiculous, that the
408 THE LAST VISIT TO JERUSALEM.
statements of a writer shall have no credit, unless we can assign
the motives which have led him to retain one incident, and to omit
another, in every instance throughout the course of his work.
But here abundant reasons may be given why the miracle of the
loaves should find a place in the fourth gospel. First of all, it
is there made a distinct key to the whole chronology, by the
added statement—‘‘ The Passover, the feast of the Jews, was
nigh.” Next, it is connected with many particulars, not re-
corded elsewhere ; the conversation with Philip and Andrew, the
conclusion drawn from it by the multitudes, and their wish to
take Jesus by force and make him a king. But above all, it is
the necessary key to the whole discourse that follows, and which
appears only in the fourth gospel. Indeed the part which is
common with the previous gospel is hardly more than one tenth
of the whole chapter. On the other hand, the reason alleged
why St. John should have given an account of the last supper,
if his gospel were a supplement to the others, that he might
correct their mistake in the time of the event, rests upon an error
which has been already disproved. The supplementary character
of his thirteenth chapter is apparent on the most cursory perusal.
It is alleged, further, that there is no part of the narrative,
where the institution of the Lord’s Supper can be introduced
without violence. But this merely proves how far an infidel
hypothesis may be carried, in defiance of all common sense. The
twenty-first verse evidently is in verbal agreement with Matt-
xxvi. 21; Mark xiv. 21, and in substantial harmony with Luke
xxii. 21. The institution of the Lord’s Supper appears to follow
that warning in the two first gospels, but is placed earlier in St.
Luke. Yet this Evangelist seems to furnish a key to the dif-
ference, when he says, of the cup, that it was given “ after
supper.” Hence it is probable that the bread was distributed,
where St. Luke places it, before that warning of treachery, and
while Judas was present ; but the cup at the close of the supper,
after he was gone. The three gospels, however, bring the two
parts of the ordinance together, St. Matthew and St. Mark de-
THE LAST VISIT TO JERUSALEM. 409
ferring one part, and St. Luke anticipating the place of the other,
though careful to note its real time. The distribution of the
bread may therefore be. placed after verse 20, and that of the
cup after verse 30, without any interference with St. John’s nar-
rative. It has been affirmed indeed, that verse 31, unquestion-
ably has immediate reference to the retiring of Judas. But it is
surely still more unquestionable that the words would continue
equally appropriate, five, or ten, or twenty minutes after his de-
parture, as at the moment when he left. The words do not relate
to any special feature of that moment of time, but to the whole
of our Lord’s sufferings, now in immediate prospect. Hence
nothing can be more futile and groundless than the attempt to
-exclude the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, on the plea of an
inseparable connexion between the successive verses of St. John’s
narrative. An interval and pause is equally possible, and even
probable, from the form of the expression, after the twentieth
verse. The bare supposition that the writer was ignorant of the
rite, or of the well-known time of its appointment, is one of
those extravagancies which refute themselves.
The motive for the comparative silence about this rite is very
clear, on a little reflection. When St. John wrote, the institu-
tion itself, and the time of its occurrence, were matters of per-
fect notoriety. Besides the account in the three gospels, St.
Paul had announced it to the Corinthians, as one main part of
the gospel which he had proclaimed in all the churches. In xiii.
2, 4, St. John evidently alludes to this Paschal supper, as well
known to his readers, and his whole account presupposes that
the other circumstances, of the compact of Judas, the preparation
of the guest-chamber, and the presence of the twelve apostles,
were already notorious. He therefore confines his narrative, as
was natural, to those incidents and discourses, which the other
Evangelists had omitted to record.
Other objections have been raised against the narrative of St.
Luke. And first, the contention for preeminence is said to be
evidently misplaced, and due only to a contrast of ideas in the
T
410 THE LAST VISIT TO JERUSALEM.
mind of the writer. But the very reverse is plainly true. The
words of the rebuke contain a direct allusion to the touching in-
cident recorded by St. John, the washing of the disciples’ feet,
which was at the beginning of the meal, and we have thus a
plain example of undisguised coincidence, and a pledge for the
veracity of both narratives.
It is objected, further, that Luke xxii. 28—30, is incongruous
with a scene, in which our Lord had just announced his betrayal,
and in which the temptations were yet future. After such a re-
mark, no amount either of ignorance and misconception with
regard to the facts, or of blindness to the moral beauty of our
Lord’s sayings, can excite any surprise. The temptations, to
which allusion is made, continued through the whole of the
public ministry of Jesus, while the kingdom of heaven suffered
violence, and the earnest-hearted took it by force. The promise
has a double force and beauty, from the time when it was made,
in the very midst of plain warnings of their partial apostasy, and
of the weakness of their faith.
Again, it is alleged, by Schleiermacher, as well as Strauss, that
the incident of the two swords is introduced as a mere fictitious
prelude to the anecdote of Peter’s hasty boldness in the verses
that follow. The connexion between the two statements is
clear, but their common truth is sealed by a delicate and in-
direct coincidence. The words of our Lord to Pilate, ‘‘ then
would my servants have fought,” or ‘‘ continued to fight,” allude
to the fact of Peter’s attempt to defend his Master, and of the
prohibition he received, while the miraculous cure explains
the silence of our Lord’s enemies with regard to this par-
ticular ground of accusation. The incident, indeed, contains the
evidence of its own reality, in the misconception of the disciples,
the deep significance of our Saviour’s warning, and the mistaken
effort of Peter, which followed so quickly after the words were
uttered.
Another divergence is said to exist, in the mode by which the
traitor was discovered. St. Matthew reports that Judas put the
e
THE LAST VISIT TO JERUSALEM. 4)1
question, ‘‘Is it 1?”’ and received an affirmative answer ; while
St. John makes the revelation a secret imparted to himself and
Peter only. It is further objected that the words, ‘‘ He that
dippeth with me in the dish, shall betray me,” and the giving
of the sop to Judas, are only two inconsistent reports of the
same tradition.
One part of the difficulty is removed at once by the words of
St. John. ‘‘ He then, falling back upon the bosom of Jesus,
saith to him, Lord, who is it?” He reclined backward, for the
very purpose of inquiring privately. But the answer in St. Mark
to the common inquiry of the disciples, is a more general designa-
tion—‘‘ One of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish.”
The Apostles, when they first heard the warning, might be in
doubt whether it applied to one of themselves, or only to that
wider circle of disciples, among whom they held the foremost
place. Our Lord first limits the warning to the Twelve, and
then privately, in reply to John, points out the individual
traitor. There is thus a climax, and not an identity, in the two
successive indications, while both allude to a special aggravation
of the traitor’s guilt.
But St. Matthew says that Judas himself put the question, “ Is
it I?” and received the answer, ‘“Thou hast said.’’ How, then,
could it be true that no one at the table knew the meaning of
those words—“ What thou doest, do quickly,” or what meaning
can be attached to the private communication, mentioned by St.
John? If we suppose St. Matthew to express the substantial
meaning of our Lord’s reply, rather than its precise words, the
two accounts are easily reconciled. The question of Judas
might concur with St. John’s private inquiry, and the same ac-
tion, which revealed the traitor to the beloved disciple, would be
an affirmative reply to himself, equivalent to the words in the
gospel—*‘ Thou hast said.”
Indeed, every part of this affecting narrative has the stamp of
deep reality. The intense desire of Jesus, to partake the Pass-
over before he suffered; the deep humility of the act which in-
r2
412 THT LAST VISIT TO JERUSALEM.
troduced it; this minute distinction in St. Luke, between the
time when the bread and the cup was given ; the ambitious dis-
pute renewed even at the last, and the reproof drawn from our
Lord’s own conduct, as related in another gospel only; the
verbal agreement in the first warning of treachery ; the harmony
between the second statement, which confined it to the Twelve,
and the private sign, by which the traitor was discovered to St.
John; the truth-like minuteness of detail, in the reclining of the
Apostle on the Lord’s bosom, that he might put the inquiry in
secret ; the perplexity of the other disciples ; the agreement with
the time of the supper, on the eve of the great feast-day, and
with our Lord’s precepts on almsgiving ; the confidence of St.
Peter, and its infectious influence on the rest of the disciples ;
the gracious promise given them, in the very hour of their
coming desertion; the mysterious warning of their future ex-
posure to affliction, with their misconstruction of its meaning,
and the false use of the sword in the garden, to which their error
led—these are all so many concurrent signs of truth, and give an
air of reality, not to be mistaken, to every part of the solemn
narrative.
8. The events of Thursday night after the last supper, both
in the garden, and before the high priest, have given rise to
various objections, which call for a brief notice. The first relates
to the vision of the angel, and the bloody sweat recorded by St.
Luke. The peculiar nature of the incident, and its absence in
the other gospels, have been held to be a sufficient proof that
it is a mythical embellishment. How, otherwise, could St.
Matthew and St. John pass it by without notice, or whence
could St. Luke derive his information ?
Now here it is important to observe the language of the
Evangelist himself, which serves to instruct us in the true source
of the statement he has made. He does not profess that the
angel was witnessed by the Apostles, but by Jesus only, ‘* There
was seen by him an angel from heaven, strengthening him.”
And hence it is plain that the writer does not profess to have
THE LAST VISIT TO JERUSALEM. 413
learned it through external testimony, since he adds further that
the disciples were sleeping for sorrow. The statement, therefore,
evidently professes to be the result of a higher or supernatural
communication, made by Jesus himself after the resurrection.
Is there, then, any key in the New Testament, to explain its
origin? . The answer is very simple. The third gospel was
written by a companion of St. Paul, the one Apostle, who had
no knowledge of Christ after the flesh, but received his com-
mission later, and by supernatural revelation. The account of
the last supper in this gospel is almost verbally the same, as St.
Paul has given in the Epistle to the Corinthians, and which he
says that he received directly from the Lord Jesus. It is there-
fore quite consistent, that St. Luke’s account of the night of
agony should embody particulars, derived from this great Apostle,
and which he had received by direct revelation, because they
were important for the instruction of the Church, and the know-
ledge of them could be gained in no other way. The presence
of one or two brief incidents of this kind is thus an indirect
confirmation of the traditional authorship of the gospel, as
composed by the beloved St. Luke, the bosom friend of St. Paul ;
while the sparing introduction of them shews the severely
historical, and thoroughly practical character, which the Spirit
of God has wisely impressed on these fundamental records of
the Christian revelation.
It is urged, next, that the account of the agony, which St.
John has omitted, is inconsistent with the tone of the discourses
he has given, and which, in their turn, are absent in the other
zospels. Such a relapse from lofty confidence into deep dejection
is said to be fatal to the ideal perfection of the Lord Jesus, or
else to prove that one or other description is mythical and untrue.
The further assertion, that St. John places the arrest immediately
after the arrival in the garden, so as to exclude any interval,
however brief, is manifestly untrue.
The contradiction, here charged upon the gospels, is nothing
else than a deep and secret harmony, though not obvious to the
414 THE LAST VISIT TO JERUSALEM.
careless or prejudiced reader. For St. John records, in the open-
ing of the discourse, the trouble which seized upon our Lord, while
he warned his disciples of his own betrayal. In the middle of the
same discourse, we find a prediction of the conflict and agony,
referred to its spiritual cause. ‘‘ Hereafter I will not talk much
with you, for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing
inme.” The spiritual conflict, through which he was about to
pass, would lead him to observe a comparative silence. And
after the discourse was ended, at the very time of his appre-
hension, his words, given in the fourth gospel only, are a plain
allusion to the prayer, which the other gospels ascribe to him
during his bitter agony. ‘“ Put up thy sword into its sheath ;
the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? ”’
Thus it appears that our Lord, at the time those discourses were
uttered, was looking forward to a speedy access of strong
temptation, of the severest kind, before his deliverance ; and
hence the partial contrast between their tone, and the prayer in
the hour of agony, with the subsequent allusion to that prayer,
constitute one of the deepest and most beautiful harmonies of the
word of God.
St. Luke, again, has been charged with a, gross error, when he
says that the chief priests were present at the apprehension of
Jesus. The charge is groundless and very superficial. The
term applies, in all the gospels, to a class including many indi-
viduals, the higher order of the Jewish priesthood, whether
from family or public influence. When we observe how the
hierarchy were all interested in the seizure of our Lord, which
they thought essential to their own safety, it is most unlikely
that so important a task would be entrusted to underlings alone,
and the uncertain fidelity of the traitor, without the presence of
some members of the Sanhedrim. Hence the statement of St.
Luke is confirmed by its inherent probability, and there is no
counter evidence whatever.
But the mode of apprehension has caused a serious difficulty.
According to the three first gospels, its signal was the kiss of
THE LAST VISIT TO JERUSALEM, 415
Judas. But in the fourth gospel, the revelation is made by
Jesus himself, while Judas stood with the band, and it was fol-
lowed by a proof of our Lord’s Divine power, when the whole
company fell backward to the ground. How can these state-
ments be reconciled with each other ?
This difficulty, like the rest, is apparent and not real. We
may suppose that Judas went before the band, while they were
at a short distance, to give the appointed sign, that on the rebuke
of our Lord, he retired back to them again; and at the same
moment our Lord advanced to meet them, as they drew near,
put the inquiry, whom they were seeking, and after the proof of
his power, resigned himself into their hands. That his death
was an act of voluntary surrender, and long foreseen, is stated
as clearly in the other gospels, as by St. John himself, and is
only a mark of their consistency with each other. The mention
also, of the servant’s name who was wounded, since he was a
servant of the high priest, agrees with the notice, that the
beloved disciple was known to the high priest ; and since it is
elsewhere stated that this was the disciple who wrote the gospel,
there is here another specimen of undesigned coincidence.
9. The narratives of Peter’s denial require a distinct notice.
Here the writers are said to be irreconcilably at variance.
If their separate accounts are retained, there must have been
from six to nine separate offences, which destroys the agree-
ment between the fact and the reported prediction. Thus
Paulus would specify eight different events; the denial before
the portress, before several at the fire, before a damsel at the
fire, before one without name in St. Luke, before a damsel in
the porch, before the relative of Malchus, before one who detects
him by his speech, and before several others. It is made a
further difficulty, that Peter was without at the last denial, and
hence it was impossible that he should see Jesus, and that his
look should occasion the repentance of the sinning disciple.
A little attention to the details will soon remove the chief
difficulty. The two first of the three denials are distinguished
416 THE LAST VISIT TO JERUSALEM.
by the place where they occurred, the hall and its outer porch,
and the third, by the interval of rather less than an hour, before
its occurrence. But it is not at all necessary to suppose that one —
questioner alone was concerned in each denial. The first,
according to St. John, was in reply to the damsel who kept the
door, soon after the entrance of Peter into the hall of the high
priest, and is referred to a damsel, though in more general terms,
by the three other evangelists. The second denial, in the porch,
is referred by St. Matthew to another maid, by St. Mark to the
same with the first, and by St. Luke, to one of the by-standers.
Three different parties might very well concur in the same
inquiry. At the interval of nearly an hour St. Luke places the
third denial, which he refers to one person, who confidently
affirmed that he was a Galilean. St. Matthew and St. Mark
assign the remark ; more generally, to “them that stood by,”
who also detect him by his Galilean dialect. Their accounts,
therefore, agree well with each other.
St. John, however, seems to vary from their report, in the
second and third denials. For the second is referred to nameless
parties, while Peter stood and warmed himself; and the third
appears to be its continuation, not on the ground of his Galilean
dialect, but of his actual presence in the garden. The party is
also said to have been a kinsman of Malchus, whose ear Peter
had cut off.
This difference seems to be explained by the observation, that
St. John was within the hall, and does not appear to have left it,
till the trial was at an end. Hence the second denial, as it is
numbered by the others, did not occur in his presence, while the
third, which took place just before the cock-crowing was itself
two-fold. Several persons took part in it, according to the
common statement of the two first gospels. The detection is
there ascribed simply to the dialect of the Apostle, asa Galilean.
St. John, however, notices a distinct assertion, by a kinsman of
Malchus, that he had seen Peter in the garden, at the appre-
hension of Jesus. There seems, then, to be a latitude in the
THE LAST VISIT TO JERUSALEM. 417
enumeration of the three denials. St. John omits the second,
which took place without, where he could not witness it, and
distinguishes two separate incidents in the third denial, which
took place in his own presence, just before the cock-crowing.
This variation, while it illustrates the absence of artificial concert,
confirms the historical accuracy of both the divergent narratives.
10. The death of Judasis another event, upon which plausible
objections have been raised. St. Matthew and St. Luke agree
in the statement that a field was purchased near Jerusalem with
the price of his treachery, and called Aceldama, or the field of
blood. But in the Book of Acts the purchase is ascribed to
Judas himself, in St. Matthew to the Sanhedrim ; and the death
itself is referred in the gospel to suicide, by hanging ; in the
other statement, to the bursting asunder of his bowels, as if by
a heaven-sent judgment.
The difference in the manner of the traitor’s death has been
removed by an easy supposition ; that the branch from which he
suspended himself having broken, he was precipitated headlong,
as described by St. Peter, and so perished. But how does it
happen, the objector replies, that each Apostle should record one
half only of the events, and omit the other? The context
supplies an easy explanation. The object of St. Matthew is to
describe the remorse of Judas, and hence he dwells exclusively
on his voluntary share in hastening his own wretched end. But
the purpose of St. Peter is to record the fulfilment of a Divine
judgment, which was more signally seen in the revolting issue of
his half-finished suicide, and the visible appropriation, by the
expiring traitor, of the field of blood. He took possession, as it
were, of his fatal purchase in that very moment, when his body
was precipitated upon the ground, and his bowels gushing out,
his unhappy spirit passed away to its final account.
But this leads to the second difficulty, with regard to the
author of the purchase. And this too, on close observation,
reveals a positive, though secret harmony. For what is implied
in St. Matthew’s statement? Why did the chief priests, on
T5
418 THE LAST VISIT TO JERUSALEM.
taking counsel, purchase that field, and for this special purpose,
the burial of strangers? Clearly, because Judas, himself a
stranger in Jerusalem, had died in that very field, and either
was already, or presently after was to be buried therein. They
combined an equitable design, of securing to him his own burying
place, with an object of public utility, since deaths would be not
infrequent during the resort of strangers to the annual feasts at
Jerusalem.
Now the words of St. Peter acquire a peculiar emphasis on
this view of the history. The purchase, by a bold, but impressive
irony, is referred to Judas himself. It was he who provided the
purchase-money, when he cast down the pieces in the temple ;
and it was he who pointed out its destined purpose, and took
possession in his own person, when, falling headlong, he was
precipitated upon the ground in that very field. The use to
which the spot was then assigned, and the name which it
popularly received, were a strict fulfilment of the burden—‘‘ Let
his habitation be desolate.” The only portion he gained by his
covetousness was a desolate and ignominious burial-place, a
proverb of reproach to all the dwellers in Jerusalem. The
whole statement, on this view, agrees with that in the gospel,
and adds to it the solemn irony of a righteous indignation, and
a fuller reference to the uplifted hand of retributive justice, in
the traitor’s unhappy death.
11. The accounts of our Lord’s trial contain many features,
which establish their common truth, while the difficulties are
only such as naturally arise, where different witnesses give a
detailed narrative of a long series of events. Among the marks
of truth may be noticed, the charge of blasphemy on which our
Lord was condemned by the Sanhedrim, and the substitution of
another, that of sedition, when he is brought before Pilate ; the
language of the false witnesses, compared with the words of
Jesus, three years before, at the first cleansing of the temple ;
the repeated allusion to the custom of releasing one prisoner at
the feast ; the superstitious care of the Jewish priests, not to
THE LAST VISIT TO JERUSALEM. 419
defile themselves, by entering the Roman judgment-hall; the
contemptuous tone of Pilate, when he disclaims being a Jew, and
his wish to avoid the shame of becoming a tool of the priests,
by executing a sentence, which he believes to be unjust ; his fear
to displease the Emperor, which makes him yield at the last ; his
desire to oblige Herod, by owning his jurisdiction over the
Galileans, when compared with the offence he had given him by
a contrary conduct, not long before, (Luke xiii. 1,) and the result,
in their reconciliation; the curiosity of Herod himself, and its
disappointment, and the scourging of Jesus, the usual antecedent
of crucifixion. All these features bear the clearest impress cf
historical fidelity.
In the crucifixion itself, the chief difficulty which has been
urged relates to the offering of vinegar. This is related with
some variety, and it has been argued, as probable, that it arose
from an attempt to meet the language of the prophecy, which is
referred to by St. John as then fulfilled.
It is usually allowed by commentators that three distinct events
are put on record, the offering of vinegar, or wine mingled with
myrrh, before the crucifixion, the offering of vinegar by the
soldiers in derision, during its course, and again, the actual tasting
of it, just before our Lord expired. To this it is objected, that
if every divergence is to constitute a distinct event, then the
beverage in St. Matthew must be distinguished from that in St.
Mark, from the opposite design, and that in St. John from both,
because it follows a totally different exclamation. Such a plea,
however, is utterly groundless. In the first place, there is no
proof of a different purpose in the later offering, as recorded
by St. Matthew and St. Mark. In each the purpose appears
to be benevolent. There is no evidence that the mention of
Elias was derisive, and not rather the language of expiring
hope among those who had been impressed by the miracles of
Jesus, and whose awe returned upon them with the miraculous
darkness. The divergence, in St. John’s account, is just as
ill-suited to prove a distinct occurrence. The event, in all
420 THE LAST VISIT TO JERUSALEM.
three writers, immediately precedes the death of Jesus, and is
therefore evidently the same. The only difference is that St.
John records a single word of Jesus, uttered after the loud ex-
clamation in St. Matthew, and before he received the vinegar.
Now it is very probable that he was the only disciple within
hearing when it was uttered, while the loud cry, just before,
would be audible to many ; and hence the added circumstance,
while quite consistent with their statement, is a fresh pledge
for the authenticity of the fourth gospel. Again, the fact
that the two first gospels relate two events of the kind, isa
clear sign that they drew from real facts, and did not invent,
with a mere view to create a fulfilment of prophecy. With
regard to the beverage first administered, it was evidently sour
wine, drugged with bitter ingredients, and probably a stupifying
draught. It is quite possible that gall might be mixed with it
by the soldiers, in derision ; and that St. Mark has been content
to notice the general character of the draught, as containing
bitter drugs ; or else we must suppose that St. Matthew has used
the word in a looser sense, which maintains the substance and
spirit of the prophetic statement.
12. The last topic affecting the consistency of this part of the
narrative, relates to the exact time of the trial and crucifixion.
According to the three first gospels, the darkness which attended
the crucifixion, lasted from the sixth to the ninth hour, and St.
Mark further specifies the third hour, as the time when the
crucifixion began, St. John, on the contrary, tells us that it
was about the sixth hour, when Pilate sat down on the tribunal,
to pass the final sentence. It seems a just remark, in the Leben
Jesu, that attempts to reconcile the difference are fruitless, unless
it can be shewn that the fourth gospel adopts a different reckon-
ing of time from the others. But it is equally plain that if such
a variation is proved to exist, and to reconcile completely the
several accounts, it becomes a key-stone in the arch of that
internal evidence, which establishes the veracity of the gospel
narrative.
THE LAST VISIT TO JERUSALEM.. 421
The proof of this variation, in the reckoning of the fourth
gospel, is cumulative in its nature, but appears to be complete.
First, in John i. 39, we read of two disciples—‘ They came and
saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: now it was
about the tenth hour.” But the same day Andrew found his
brother Simon, and brought him to Jesus ; and the other disciple,
as the word pros implies, did the same with his own brother.
This is less probable, if the interview were at four in the after-
noon, but quite consistent, if it were ten in the morning.
Next, in John iv. 6, we read that “ Jesus, being wearied with
his journey, sat on the well: it was about the sixth hour.” The
woman of Samaria came, immediately after, to draw water. It
is well known that the morning and evening were the two
customary times for drawing water, as was natural in those hot
climates. The same hour is also a likely close for a wearisome
day’s journey. Hence all the features agree with the hour of
six in the evening, rather than with noon-day.
The cure of the nobleman’s son at Capernaum took place at
the seventh hour. If this were seven in the evening, it accounts
fully for the parent’s delaying his return till the next day. But
if it were 1 p.m., there was time enough for the messengers to be
sent to him at once, or for his own return.
The last instance occurs in this very account of the crucifixion.
And here the context alone fixes the mode of reckoning. He
tells us that it was rpw:2, or the time between daybreak and sun-
rise, when the high-priests brought Jesus to Pilate. But when
Pilate sat down on the judgment-seat, after the private discussion
with the priests was ended, the writer continues—‘‘ It was the
preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour, and he
saith unto the Jews, Behold your King.” Then, after some
further discussion, he delivered him to be crucified, and they led
him away. The actual crucifixion is assigned by St. Mark to
the third hour. And hence, if we suppose the public decision of
Pilate to be soon after six a.m., the sentence of the two male-
factors, the mockery of the soldiers, the preparations for the
422 THE LAST VISIT TO JERUSALEM.
crucifixion, and the slow procession, might well occupy an
interval of two or three hours. Indeed, the first and second
cock-crowing, the coming on of day, and the time of pwc, or
the season before sunrise, the sixth hour in the modern reckoning,
the third, the sixth, and the ninth Jewish hours, when collated
together, form a consistent record of the hourly events of this
ever-memorable day, by which the reality of the four narratives
obtains a most powerful, though indirect confirmation.
CHAPTER III.
THE HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION.
Tue leading events, in this part of the sacred history, are sub-
stantially the same in all the four gospels, or combine easily to-
gether. But there is still so much diversity, as to have given
rise to multiplied objections, and to have exercised the diligence
of many harmonists, whose explanations differ considerably from
each other.
The general outline of the events is this. On Friday evening,
when our Lord expired on the cross, Joseph of Arimathea went
in to Pilate, and gained permission for the burial. He then took
down the body from the cross, wrapped it in linen, and laid it in
a new tomb of his own, in a garden, near to the place of cruci-
fixion. The women from Galilee, especially Mary Magdalene,
and Mary the mother of James, beheld where he was laid. They
returned, and prepared spices and ointments for the burial,
resting, however, during the Sabbath day. Joseph, on departing
had rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre. On
Saturday the Sanhedrim applied to Pilate, and gained leave to
guard the sepulchre, sealing the stone, and setting a watch
around it. Early on the first day of the week, when it was
morning twilight, the women set out to the sepulchre, whether
in one or two companies. Meanwhile there was an earthquake,
an angel rolled away the stone, and sat upon it, the guard
were struck down to the earth with fear, and Jesus rose from the
dead. The women, on arriving, received one or more messages,
424 THE HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION.
from one or two angels, who appeared to them, that Jesus was
risen, and would go before them into Galilee. Jesus himself ap-
peared, first of all, to Mary Magdalene, while she was alone at the
sepulchre, having returned to it again, and afterwards to others
of the women. They report his appearance to the Apostles,
who believe them not. The same day two disciples set out to
Emmaus, and the Lord appears to them on their journey.
During their return, he appears to Simon Peter; and after their
return, while they are reporting what has happened in their
journey, Jesus suddenly appears in the midst of them, and re-
proves their previous unbelief, while he confirms his own resur-
rection by shewing his hands and feet, and by eating before
them. The Apostle Thomas was then absent ; but, after a week’s
interval, when he is present with the rest of the Apostles, the
Lord appears again, shews him his hands and side, and chides
his unbelief. In obedience to their Lord’s directions, the dis-
ciples repair to Galilee ; and, while waiting the time of his more
public appearance, he reveals himself to seven of them by the
sea of Galilee. Soon after, he appears to five hundred disciples
at once, on a mountain in Galilee which he had appointed for
that purpose. Another vision, as we learn from St. Paul, was
to St. James alone, and last of all a parting appearance to the
Eleven at Jerusalem, when he had led them out to the mount of
Olives and Bethany, and while he blessed them, was parted from
them, and received up into heaven.
But while this general outline results from all the four narra-
tives, there is far too much variety in their accounts, to leave any
suspicion that they are copied from each other. On the contrary,
the diversity is so great, as to have exposed them to the opposite
charge, of being irreconcilable. Such is the line of argument
which Dr. Strauss has adopted from a long line of assailants of
the gospel. Instead of beginning with a formal harmony, it
will be more convenient to examine the difficulties as they arise,
and to point out the easy solution, by which they are converted
into fresh proofs of historical reality.
THE HISTORY OF- THE RESURRECTION. 425
1. The first objection is raised against the accounts of Joseph.
First, he is called simply a rich man and a disciple, then
by Mark and Luke, an honourable counsellor ; and lastly, by St.
John, he is said to be a secret disciple, for fear of the Jews.
Hence it is inferred that we have a personal description, deve-
loped into more and more preciseness, and that the accounts are
legendary, not historical.
It is difficult to meet objections, so shadowy as these. The
four accounts are perfectly consistent and definite. Had they
occurred elsewhere, the critic would be accounted mad, rather
than subtle, who should pretend to discover in these simple
statements the marks of a legend. The signs of reality multiply
upon us here, the more closely we compare the gospels. St.
Luke alone, writing for Greek converts out of Palestine, supposes
Arimathea to be unknown, and describes it as a city of the
Jews. St. Matthew, writing probably for Galilean Christians,
speaks of the place as known, but the person, unknown.
Lastly, St. John assumes a knowledge both of the place and
person, and merely adds an explanation, implied in the former
gospel, that he was, like Nicodemus, a secret disciple. The
description in Mark and Luke, that he was a counsellor, or
member of the Sanhedrim, would be suitable for the Latin and
Greek converts, but almost superfluous in St. Matthew, writing
directly for Jews at an early date, or in St. John, whose gospel
was many years later than the rest.
2. A more serious objection relates to the part of Nicodemus
in the burial. It is urged, first, that he is named only in the
fourth gospel, and hence his very existence doubtful, since the
church was careful to record every other who took part in the
obsequies of our Lord. Next, that his embalming of the body,
with so copious a store of spices, is inconsistent with the facts
related of the women, who must have known of it, had it really
occurred. Thirdly, that the varieties are legendary, being clearly
progressive. St. Matthew makes the anointing at Bethany a
substitute for the due rites of sepulture. The second and third
496 THE HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION.
gospels add the circumstance of an intended embalmment, which
is not really performed. The fourth proceeds further, and makes
mention of an actual embalmment; but still, ‘“‘ after the manner
of legendary formations,” leaves the original anointing to co-exist
with the rites of interment.
Here, first of all, nothing is plainer than the historical con-
sistency of St. John’s statement. There is no room for the
expedient of a legend: the account is either an historical truth,
or a flagrant and wicked falsehood. But besides the character
of the whole gospel, which refutes the monstrous calumny, the
passage alone disproves it. ‘There came also Nicodemus (who
before came to Jesus by night) bringing a mixture of myrrh
and aloes, about a hundred pounds’ weight.’’ Such a brief
allusion, and equally brief statement, bears the stamp of truth
on its face. When we look below the surface of the narrative,
we meet with further evidence of reality. How, it may be asked,
came Nicodemus to be so forward in his faith and love to Jesus,
at such a moment, when his most favoured disciples were in deep
perplexity and sorrow? He seems to have had only one inter-
view with our Lord, and this occurred three years before. But
a seed was then sown, which might well bear fruit at the present
moment. For our Lord had, even then, predicted the very
manner of his death. ‘‘As Moses lifted up the serpent in the
wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up.” And
hence the fact of the Crucifixion would explain to Nicodemus
what had probably exercised his thoughts for months and years,
and complete in him the conviction, which it shook in others,
that Jesus of Nazareth was a true prophet, and the very Messiah
of God.
The idea of fictitious development, in the anointing of our
Lord’s body, is utterly groundless. For the fourth gospel re-
cords alike the anointing of Mary, before the burial, and the
actual embalming by Joseph and Nicodemus. The two middle
gospels are more explicit than St. Matthew and St. John as to the
preparation of spices by the women, but it is naturally implied
THE HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION. 427
in every narrative. It could not be merely to see the tomb, that
Mary Magdalene visited the sepulchre, but clearly with a view to
some offices of love to the lifeless remains. A mere visit was law-
ful on the Sabbath, since the sepulchre was nigh the city. Nay,
the very words, in Mark xiv. 8. imply that the sister of Lazarus
had only anticipated that office of love, which others would be
ready to complete in its due season.
The only real difficulty is to explain, why the women prepared
spices and ointments, when the body had been already embalmed.
The simple answer seems to be, that they were not aware of the
circumstance. It is objected that they were present, and saw,
not merely the place, but the manner in which he was interred,
Luke xxiii. 55. The criticism has plainly no warrant in the
words of the gospel, which refer entirely to the position of the
body within the tomb. The women had no license from Pilate,
but only Joseph, with whom, as a counsellor, and only a secret
disciple, they could have had no previous intercourse. The
same remark applies to Nicodemus. There was no room, then,
for concert between the two parties. It is implied, in all the
three gospels, that the women saw the body laid in the linen
robe, when taken from the cross, and its actual deposition in the
tomb. But it is not likely that the intermediate process of
binding in the othonia, with the spices, would be equally public.
The arrival of Nicodemus, with the spices, would seem to have
been unexpected by Joseph, who had brought only the fine linen
for the burial. And since no communication could take place
with the two counsellors, the women, whether this part of the
ceremony was done in secret, or whether they supposed it to be
done imperfectly, from the evident signs of haste which attended it,
would naturally prepare spices and ointments against the first day.
3. Here a third difficulty arises, on which frequent stress
has been laid. St. Mark tells us that “when the Sabbath was
past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and
Salome, bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint
him.” St. Luke, however, says that the women from Galilee,
428 THE HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION.
after they beheld the burial, “returned and prepared spices
and ointments, and rested the Sabbath-day, according to the
commandment, but on the first day of the week came early to
the sepulchre.’’ Hence the preparation of the spices seems
referred, by the writer, to Friday afternoon, before sunset ; but
by the other, to Saturday evening, when the Sabbath was past.
It is clear, from St. Mark, that the two Maries and Salome
prepared their ointments after the close of the Sabbath, and the
received version cannot be sustained. It is not so clear that St.
Luke fixes the preparation to an earlier date, since the mention
of the Sabbath-rest may be an historical parenthesis. But it is
a simpler solution of the difference, that the two Maries and
Salome are specified by St. Mark, while St. Luke may refer to
the other women, who had followed from Galilee. After the
burial, the two Maries continued watching opposite the sepulchre,
and hence they might be too late to obtain spices before the Sabbath
began. The others, including Joanna, might retire earlier to the
city, and thus prepare spices and ointment, before the sunset on
Friday evening. This explanation, which may be confirmed by
the following narrative, illustrates the minute accuracy of the
sacred history, which is found consistent even in details that
appear to be at variance.
4. The place of the buyial has been thought to present
another difficulty. According to St. Matthew, the body was
placed in Joseph’s own tomb. But in St. John a different reason
is assigned for the choice. ‘ There laid they Jesus, therefore, on
account of the Jews’ preparation-day, because the sepulchre was
nigh at hand.’ The vicinity, it is thought, when alleged as a
motive, excludes the fact of possession. A house in which a
person takes shelter, simply because it is near, is evidently not
his own.
This objection can have no force, unless it were self-evident
that the same tomb must have been chosen, because it belonged
to Joseph, apart from the near approach of the Sabbath, and its
convenience in a hurried burial. But thisis not true, for several
THE HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION. 429
reasons. And first, St. John, who alone assigns the special
reason for the choice, alone associates Nicodemus with Joseph,
and ascribes to him the more costly share of the preparations.
Hence the site may be mentioned to explain why the tomb of
Joseph was preferred to one of Nicodemus, who probably had a
more honourable place in the Jewish council ; while a tomb more
distant from the scene of public disgrace might appear to them
both more worthy of the Messiah of God. -Or again, it is quite
possible that Joseph might have intended to bury our Lord in
some sepulchre, not appropriated, rather than in one designed to
receive his own remains, and that only the convenience of the
site prevailed over his original purpose. Or finally, it might be
the remembrance how near his own tomb was to the place of
crucifixion, which emboldened him to apply to Pilate, and court
a privilege, dangerous in itself, and less appropriate, it might
seem, to a merely concealed disciple. But the nearness of the
sepulchre would enable him to perform the due rites, without
awakening needless jealousy, or the risk of opposition, either
from the Pharisees, or the attendants and disciples of Jesus.
On any of these views, the two statements will be fully reconciled,
5. The whole history of the watch, in St. Matthew, has been
violently assailed, as an incredible fiction. It is urged, that the
Sanhedrim could not remember any such saying of Jesus, about
his resurrection, since he never spoke of it plainly before his
enemies, while they could not understand figures too dark even
for the disciples, and the predictions, even before these disciples,
are unhistorical ; that no appeal is ever made to the fact after-
wards, and no trace of it found, except in the first gospel ; that
the women could not have failed to be aware of it, had it really
occurred ; that the soldiers would not have been so easily led to
a confession, very dangerous under the Roman discipline; and,
finally, that the Sanhedrim would hardly, in fuil conclave, have
bribed the soldiers to a direct lie, and least of all, have credited
their assertion, and thus actually admit the truth of the resur-
rection of Jesus.
430 THE HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION.
All these difficulties, insisted on with so much confidence,
disappear like shadows upon a close and exact inquiry. And
first, the gospels do record an express prediction of the very
kind, which might awaken the suspicion of the priests. It was
in a public discourse, and in answer to a question of the Scribes
and Pharisees, that Jesus uttered the words—‘ As Jonas was
three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the
Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the
earth.” With all truth, therefore, might the Pharisees say to
Pilate—‘‘ We remember that deceiver said, while he was yet
alive, After three days I will rise again.” The impression,
derived from the more direct prediction, would probably be
deepened by the charge of the false witnesses, which it would
require no great penetration to interpret as a garbled account of
a similar declaration.
The ignorance of the women is no difficulty whatever. For
the permission was only gained on the Sabbath, and the guard
would be placed at sunset, or rather later, when the Sabbath was
over. The excitement of the crucifixion would then, with the
great body of the people, have died away, and the women,
intending to visit the sepulchre early, would have no motive for
intruding on it in darkness. The night which belonged to the
third day was the season, when they feared a collusive attempt
of the disciples, and hence there would be no object in setting
the watch till the sun was down, and the Sabbath already past.
The silence about the watch, in the Book of Acts, and in the
other gospels, is of no weight to disprove its occurrence. For
this gospel bears the marks, throughout, of being written in
Palestine, for Jews; and hence the insertion here is more
natural, and a more direct pledge of its reality, than in all the
others, of which two were clearly written beyond the limits of
Palestine. There is no passage in Acts, where the mention of
it would be natural, since the direct evidence of all the Apostles,
attested by many miracles, that they had eaten and drunk with
him after he arose, was far more conclusive and striking, than
THE HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION. 431
the mere perplexity of the guards, when the body had disap-
peared, they knew not how.
But the soldiers, it is thought, would not have been so easily
bribed to accuse themselves of a dangerous breach of discipline.
The answer is very simple. The report was intended for the
ears of the Jewish commonalty, from whom the soldiers had
nothing to fear. That Pilate should hear of it was a remote
contingency ; and, besides the good offices of the chief priests,
of which the bribes alone were a full assurance, they would
always have it in their power to clear themselves, by disclosing
the bribery of the council, and recanting their own confession,
as a mere tale to amuse the people. Had they been bribed to
make a confession of similar neglect, while in the governor’s own
service, the objection would then have some validity, but at pre-
sent it is quite groundless.
Lastly, the conduct of the Sanhedrim, which has been thought
incredible, is very natural, and easily explained. It is ridiculous
to suppose that the writer imputed to them a real faith in the
resurrection, when that was clearly the grand question at issue
between the Christians and the unbelievers. The whole difficulty
rests on the secret assumption, which is palpably false, that there
could be no middle state of mind, between the admission that
Jesus was risen, and the conviction that the guards had all slept,
and then invented a story to hide their own negligence. But this
is entirely to overlook the clearest statements of the gospels. The
Sanhedrim were persuaded that Jesus had wrought many mira-
cles, and still held him to be a deceiver, who had wrought them
by magic, or by some compact with the powers of evil. Hence
the report of a fresh wonder, a stupor and amazement of the
guards, an earthquake, and a seeming angelic vision, would by
no means appear incredible. They might regard it as another
unfortunate coincidence, or magical display, very likely to revive
the delusion of the commonalty, and thus to work mischief to
the state. Obstinate in their own unbelief, in spite of earlier
miracles, or of these unexpected wonders, their sole aim is to
432 THE HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION.
prevent any mischievous influence on the ignorant common
people. Hence the story, which they put into the mouth of the
soldiers, would not be, in their view, a direct falsehood: it
would be the exact truth, with a mere omission of unaccount-
able circumstances, which might disturb the unbelief of others,
though not their own. The soldiers, by their own account,
had sunk together in a sudden stupor, and during this interval,
the Sanhedrim inferred, since the body was plainly missing,
the disciples must have contrived to steal it away. We have
thus an early specimen, in these chief priests, of a rationalistic
interpretation ; and both the suppressio veri, and suggestio
falsi, find many parallels among our philosophical critics in
modern times.
6. The Visits of the Women are the next main subject, on
which the narratives appear to diverge. St. Luke, it is said, speaks
of many women, not only three whom he names, but certain
others; Mark has only three, and Salome instead of Joanna ;
Matthew simply the two Maries, and John, the Magdalene alone.
The time in St. Mark, at the rising of the sun, contradicts the
other descriptions, that it was yet dark, and very early in the
morning. St. Matthew seems to assert that the women saw the
stone rolled away by the angel; the other gospels, that it was
done already, before they came in sight of the sepulchre. In
St. Luke they are accosted by two angels, in St. Matthew and
St. Mark by one only ; in St. Matthew, without, in St. Mark,
within the sepulchre. In St. John, Mary Magdalene returns,
without having seen any such appearance. In Mark, the women
are silent, through fear; in St. John, Mary reports only the
removal of the body, to two disciples ; in St. Luke the report is
made to all the eleven; and in St. Matthew, it includes a vision
of Jesus. In St. Luke, Peter visits the sepulchre alone ; in the
fourth gospel, attended by John; in one case after, in the other
before, any report of the angels having appeared. These are
some of the main contradictions, which have been thought to
discredit the sacred narratives.
THE HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION. 433
Several of these difficulties are easily removed, on a close
comparison of the gospels. And first, the discordance in the
time of the visit is apparent, not real. For St. Mark himself
places it, Asay pws, or very early in the morning, a phrase quite
equivalent to those in St. Luke (00800 Baess) and St. John
(omotias ots ovens), and inconsistent with the idea, that the sun
had actually arisen. Doubtless the rendering “when the sun
was about to rise,” is grammatically untenable, but it is equally
clear that the sun is used, not for the disc, but the hight, and
that the phrase might be rendered ‘‘ when the daylight had
broke.” The very same usage appears, Judges ix. 33; Psalm
civ. 22. And hence all the accounts fix the visit to the hour be-
fore the real sun-rise, when the darkness was not quite ceased,
but the dawning of the day had already begun, or in one word,
to the interval of morning twilight.
The contrast, with regard to Mary Magdalene, is not less easy
to explain. That others were with her is clear, even in St. John,
from her words to the Apostles: ““We know not where they
have laid him.” She evidently left her companions, as soon as
she saw the stone was removed ; and therefore her report to Peter
and John was earlier than that of the other women, made to all
the Apostles.
A more doubtful question remains, whether the visit in
Matthew and Mark, and the one in Luke, are the same or
distinct ; and if distinct, whether in close succession, or with the
visit of Peter and John interposed between them. The first
view is that of most early writers, revived by Dr. Robinson; the
last is adopted by West, in his Treatise on the Resurrection, and
by Dr. Townson, in his Dissertations. The intermediate view,
preferred by Mr. Greswell, may be established, I think, by
decisive arguments. The chief points to be confirmed, on this
hypothesis, are the consistency of the accounts in St. Matthew
and St. Mark, the distinctness of the visit in St. Luke, the
sameness of the visit of Peter, in St. Luke and St. John, the
explanation of the appearance of the women, in St. Matthew,
U
434 THE HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION.
compared with that to the Magdalene alone; and finally, the
practical consistency of the whole series in point of time.
7. The harmony of the accounts in St. Matthew and St. Mark
is easily shewn. The parties are the same, except that Mark
alone specifies the presence of Salome, who is never introduced
by name in the first gospel. The precision of the second gospel
is very striking. First, the two Maries alone are said to have
watched, on Friday evening, how the body was laid. Next, the
two Maries, with Salome, bring spices when the Sabbath is past,
and come early the.next morning to the sepulchre. Lastly, our
Lord appears, first of all, to Mary Magdalene alone. There is
here the minute accuracy of a well-informed and careful historian.
The contrast, as to the angelic vision, is apparent only. St.
Matthew does not affirm that the women witnessed the descent
of the angel, or the rolling away of the stone, but only that it
took place about the time when they were on their way to the
sepulchre. According to St. Mark, they perceived first, at some
distance, that the stone was removed, and only after they entered
in, saw the angel. This account is confirmed both by the first
and the fourth gospels. For St. John tells us that Mary Mag-
dalene returned, to inform Peter and John, as soon as she saw
the stone was taken away ; and plainly at that time no angel had |
appeared. Again, St. Matthew tells us that, when the angel had |
done speaking, the women departed quickly out of the sepulchre, ,
a clear proof that the vision must have occurred within. It has}
been objected, indeed, that there is interposed the invitation of
the angel, to come in with him into the grave, and see the.
place where the Lord had lain. But this gloss is inconsistent!
with the force of the words, and with the whole keeping of the
vision. The phrase is not “come along with me,” as if the
angel would lead them the way into the tomb, but ‘‘come ye:
hither,” which implies that he was already at the spot where
the body had lain. This agrees punctually with the statement
of St. Mark, that the angel was seen on the right side as they
THE HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION. 435
entered the tomb, and said to the women—‘“ Behold the place
where they laid him.”
8. The distinctness of the visit in St. Luke, on which the
charge of contradiction has chiefly been made to rest, may be
shewn by several concurrent reasons. And first, the whole
number of women must have been six at least, and might pro-
bably amount to twice the number. For the two Maries, Salome
and Joanna, are expressly named, and certain others with them.
Also St. Mark informs us that there were many others, besides
the Maries and Salome, who had come up with Jesus from
Galilee. But St. Luke mentions, besides all the women from
Galilee, certain others, residents probably at Jerusalem. Hence
the total number must have been from eight to twelve or up-.
wards. But St. Matthew mentions two only, and St. Mark only
adds Salome, at the visit they record ; while the successive men-
tion of the two Maries and Salome, and of Mary Magdalene alone,
seems to prove that the list is not partial, but complete. Hence
the rest of the women, not fewer than five, and perhaps twice as:
many, must have come separately to the tomb.
Again, the Maries and Salome, according to St. Mark, pre-
pared their spices after the Sabbath was past, but the women in
St. Luke, unless we strain the passage, before it was begun.
This is another sign that they were a distinct company.
The events at the tomb confirm this difference. The Maries
and Salome inquire, as they draw near, ‘“‘ Who shall roll us away
the stone from the sepulchre? for it was very great.” No such
perplexity is intimated in St. Luke; and if Joseph rolled the
stone to the door, the larger company, of not less than five, and
perhaps of ten women, might certainly roll it away, without seek-
ing aid from others. When the Maries and Salome enter the
sepulchre, they see at once “‘a young man sitting on the right
side, clothed in a long white garment, and they were affrighted.”
The other party enter in, and are perplexed by the absence of
the body, before any vision appears, and then “two men stood
by them in shining garments.” It might be possible, with some
U2
436 THE HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION.
harshness, to explain the term, not as descriptive of a standing
posture, but of a sudden appearance; but the other features of
contrast remain, the interval of perplexity, the two angels, in-
stead of one, and the total diversity of the message. The tone,
in one case, is that of encouragement, in the other, of gentle and
serious rebuke. In one case, there is a direct message given,
to the Apostles; in the other, an admonition to the women
themselves.
Again, the two accounts, when viewed as supplementary, have
a remarkable harmony amid their partial contrast. The angel
appeared to the Maries and Salome at the instant when they
entered the sepulchre, to give them the appointed message to
the Apostles. And hence their first impression was one of over-
powering fear and surprize. He invites them to a closer view of
the place where the body had lain; but their fear overmasters
them, they flee at once from the sepulchre in amazement, and
it is after some interval that they recover from their conster-
nation. The second company, being more numerous, would be
less liable to the influence of terror. But the angels, aware of the
alarm, which the appearance of one of them had caused to Mary
and Salome, remain concealed; until these others have had full
time to examine the sepulchre, and the very place where the body
lay, the napkin and the linen clothes, and to infer from these facts
the resurrection of Jesus, which he had so often foretold. It is
only when their survey is complete, and perplexity, instead of
faith, is the result, that two angels appear to them, and chide
their unbelief. No direct message is given to the Apostles,
since one had been sent already. The whole aim of the address
is to confirm the faith of the women in the fact of the resurrection,
by an appeal to the words of Jesus in Galilee. Though fearful
at first, the main effect of the discourse is not to increase their
terror, but to refresh their memory; and there is no sign of
consternation, but rather of calm thoughtfulness, in the deserip-
tion of their return from the sepulchre. It is plain that two
women would be more likely to feel alarm and terror, than a
much larger number, who composed the second company.
THE HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION. 437
A similar contrast appears in the result of each visit. The
company of Joanna, according to St. Luke, return at once to the
eleven, and bring tidings of the vision. But St. Mark reports
of Mary and Salome, ‘They fled from the sepulchre, for they
trembled and were amazed, and they said nothing to any one,
for they were afraid.’”’ How long this silence lasted, we are not
told; but it seems clearly implied that they did not return at
once, like the others, to impart their message.
Two objections alone have to be removed, which stand in the
way of this explanation. The first relates to the time of the visit
in St. Luke, which is ‘very early in the morning.’ Hence it
seems impossible that it could have occurred much later than the
one in St. Matthew and St. Mark ; and, the time being the same,
the visits themselves could hardly be different. This objection
seems decisive against the view of West and Townson, who in-
terpose the return of Mary, the visit of Peter and John, and the
appearance of Jesus to the Magdalene, before the later visit of
the women. On this view the description of the time, in St.
Luke, would seem altogether inaccurate, and the sun must have
actually risen, and open day have begun, before their arrival. But
the objection has no force against the present arrangement. Five
minutes would suffice for the visit of Mary and Salome, after
the Magdalene had left them, and an interval of a quarter of an
hour would be amply sufficient, to put asunder the two visits
from each other. Hence both alike might occur, Asay pot, or
opOpav Pabeos, early in the morning, before full daylight had begun.
The other objection rests on the words of Luke xxiv. 10. “It
was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of
James, and other women that were with them, which told these
things unto the Apostles.” This seems, at first sight, to imply
that all these women formed one company, and made their re-
port together.
A closer observation of the whole passage will set aside this
inference, and establish a different view. The Evangelist has
completed his account of the visit, without mentioning a single
428 THE HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION.
name ; and the verse in question is a recapitulation, to introduce
the statement of the disciples’ unbelief, and of the visit of Peter
to the tomb. It is certain, again, from St. John, that Mary
Magdalene made a separate report to Peter and John, earlier
than the rest, and before the angels had appeared. Hence two
reports at least are grouped together in one general statement.
But why should Joanna be mentioned between the two Maries,
since she does not appear in St. Matthew and St. Mark, and
they certainly visited the tomb together? The simplest ex-
planation is that these are named, because each of them, alone or
with others, made a distinct report to the disciples. The first
was by Mary Magdalene alone. The second would have been
by Mary, the mother of James, and Salome, if they had returned
at once to the Apostles. St. Mark, however, intimates some
delay, before their message was given; and thus Joanna and her
companions might make their report, before Mary and Salome
had recovered from their alarm, and fulfilled the angel’s direct
commission.
The difficulty involved in the double visit, without mutual in-
terference, is not hard to remove. If we admit, what is highly
probable, that there were two routes from the sepulchre to dif-
ferent parts of the city, the whole narrative is quite consistent.
Mary and Salome might flee from the sepulchre in the same di-
rection in which Mary Magdalene had gone, and by which Peter
and John returned, while the rest of the women, about a quarter
of an hour later, might come and return by a distinct route, that
led from the heart of the city. In the absence of fuller informa-
tion, we cannot tell whether half an hour, or an hour would
elapse, before the two Apostles arrived. Hither interval, how-
ever, would be enough for the second party to have left the
sepulchre, and to be on their way to the city again.
9. The visit of Peter has next to be considered. In the ar-
rangement of West and Townson, which several others have
~ adopted, and even in Macknight, who admits only one visit of
the women, the accounts in St. Luke and St. John are held to
THE HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION. 439
be distinct and successive. Yet the resemblance, even in the
phrases, is so close, as to lead naturally to an opposite view.
> Thus Peter “ran unto the sepulchre,’ and Peter and the
other disciple ‘ran both together.’ Peter stooped down and
saw the linen clothes lying; in the other gospel the very same
words are used of John. Peter ‘‘ saw the linen clothes lying by
themselves ;” and again, “he saw the linen clethes lying, and the
napkin that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes,
but wrapped together in a place by itself.’ Peter “ departed to
his home,” and the two disciples, ‘departed to their homes.”
The identity in the phrases is almost complete. It is a further
reason for this view, that St. Luke would not be likely to omit
a first, and record a second visit of Peter, when the object was to
shew the partial effect produced by the messages of the women,
and when the second visit led to no fresh discovery, beyond the
first. Further, the words of Cleopas, verse 24, imply clearly
that more than one disciple took part in the visit, mentioned
by St. Luke just before.
The main objection to this view is thus stated by Dr. Townson.
‘There is good reason to believe that the Evangelists have dis-
posed what each of them writes on the subject of the resurrec-
tion in exact order of time. But this is an exception, if St.
Luke and St. John describe the same visit of Peter to the sepul-
chre, since Peter and John went together before any report of a
vision of angels, and this is related after such a report.”
This ground for distinguishing two visits has clearly no weight.
For, in the view of the same author, St. Luke has grouped together
in one three distinct, successive reports, in the previous verse. And
hence, if the visit of Peter followed alike the visit of Joanna, and
the report of Mary Magdalene, it is mentioned in the very place,
where it involves least deviation from the strict order of time.
Greater accuracy could only be gained by recasting the whole
narrative, and recounting separately each visit of the women, and
each partial report that was made to the Apostles. In short, St.
Luke, after summing up the tidings of the women, states the
440 TIE HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION.
general fact of the unbelief of the disciples. He notes, how-
ever, one partial exception; that Peter was sufficiently stirred by
what he heard, to run and visit the sepulchre, without attaining
a full belief of the resurrection. He leaves it to be stated more
explicitly by St. John, that he attended Peter in this visit, and
that it took place upon the first report of Mary Magdalene, and
not after the fuller tidings of the other women.
10. Another difficulty arises from the appearance of Jesus to
the women, recorded by St. Matthew. If he appeared just be-
fore to Mary Magdalene alone, how came she to have a second
vision so soon after? Or again, if he appeared to them so
quickly after their visit, while on their way to the disciples, how
could his appearance to the Magdalene be the first.
It cannot be denied that this passage presents greater dif_i-
culty than any other in the four histories of the resurrection. The
fact, that Dr. Robinson places the vision’ before the appearance
to Mary, which St. Mark emphatically styles the first, and that
Mr. Greswell delays it seven days after the resurrection, proves
clearly the embarrassment which it has caused. One of these
views does violence to the evident force of St. Mark’s statement,
and the other, to the whole context in St. Matthew. Let us
consider the account more narrowly.
First, it seems quite clear that the appearance to Mary Mag-
dalene was the earliest. This results naturally from the words
of St. Mark: ‘* Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of
the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he
had cast seven devils.”” Itis an evident straining of the words, to
make them comparative, with reference merely to the three appear-
ances that next follow. They stand between an appearance of
angels only, and three appearances of Jesus, and form the emphatic
link of transition between them. Again, since Mary has just
before been named with two others, it must be as much in con-
trast to them, as to the other disciples, that this priority is as-
serted. And hence the view of Dr. Robinson is certainly un-
tenable. It is unnatural on another account, because Mary
THE HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION. 44]
'
Magdalene takes precedence of the others in each gospel, where
their common visit is named; and the eminence of her love is
evidently crowned by this privilege, of witnessing her Lord's first
appearance.
But the opposite extreme, which delays the vision in St.
Matthew until seven days later, is still more unnatural. The
message would have lost its meaning and emphasis, when our
Lord had repeatedly appeared to the Apostles in His own
person. And besides, we have the express statement, that while
they were carrying this message, the watch went into the city,
and reported to the priests what was done. Hence the vision
must have been early on the morning of Easter day, or the
account will have to be rejected altogether as a spurious addition.
A comparison of the gospels seems to fix, almost exactly, the
time of this appearance. It was later than the first appearance
to Mary Magdalene alone, mentioned by St. Mark, and detailed
by St. John. Hence it must be probable, that like the message
of the angel, it was given to the other Mary and Salome, and to
them alone. It was not much earlier than the journey to Em-
maus, or else Cleopas, the husband of Mary, would have known
of it before his departure. It was still so early, that the report
of the watch to the chief-priests was made about the same time.
Hence it seems probable that Mary and Salome were delayed by
their terror, in imparting the angel’s message. After some de-
lay, they might perhaps report it first to Peter and John, after
their return from the sepulchre. They might then set out to
find Mary Magdalene, who had parted from them, and who, as
they would learn from those Apostles, had returned from the
sepulchre ; and the vision might be given to them not far from
the tomb, and very soon after Mary had left it, to carry the
tidings to the rest of the disciples.
It is urged, however, by Dr. Townson, that St. Matthew and
St. John both imply the presence of Mary Magdalene at the time
of this second appearance. The words of St. John, however,
rather imply the reverse. Instead of any hint, that she paused
U5
442 THE HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION,
on her way, and rejoined her companions, he speaks of her, as
if she returned at once, and without delay, to report the vision
to the Apostles. ‘‘ Mary Magdalene cometh, reporting to the
disciples, that she hath seen the Lord, and that he hath spoken
these things to her.” Again, her presence is implied in St. Mat-
thew, only in the same manner as it is implied during the message
of the angels. But since it is clear from the second gospel that
Salome was of the party, and from the fourth, that Mary Mag-
dalene was absent, when the two others entered the sepulchre,
and saw the angel, it is clearly the most natural to suppose that
the same women were present at the time of each message, that
is, the wife of Cleopas and Salome, but not the Magdalene. It
is most unlikely that she would be favoured by two visions in
quick succession.
11. We are now able to trace the connexion of the events,
and their mutual consistency. About an hour, probably before
sunrise, or when it was still dark, though day had begun to
dawn, Mary Magdalene, the other Mary, and Salome, in one -
party, and Joanna with more numerous companions, set out,
either at a slight interval, or from a less and greater distance, to
visit the sepulchre, intending to meet there before sunrise, and
complete the burial. At this time there is an earthquake, an
angel descends and rolls away the stone, and the guards around
the tomb fall, as if lifeless, with astonishment and terror. The
angel does not remain visible from without, but retires within
the sepulchre. As they approach, the two Maries and Salome
see the stone rolled away, and Mary Magdalene runs back in
haste, to tell Peter and John of this unexpected occurrence.
Meanwhile Mary and Salome enter the tomb, and the angel ap-
pears to them at once on the right side, where the body had lain.
He seeks to remove their fear, tells them that Jesus is risen, in-
vites them to view the place more closely, and bids them tell the
Apostles and Peter, that he would go before them into Galilee,
and reveal himself there, as he had promised. But their fear
overpowers them, and they flee hastily from the sepulchre, and
THE HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION, 443
are some time before they recover from their amazement, so as to
seek out Peter or the other Apostles. Very soon after, Joanna
and her party arrive, find the stone rolled away, and enter the
sepulchre, when they find to their surprise that the body is gone.
After some delay, that their search may be complete before any
alarm confuses their minds, two angels appear to them, perhaps
because these are a more numerous company, chide their un-
belief, and remind them of the repeated predictions of Jesus,
that he would rise from the dead. With feelings of solemnity
and joy, rather than terror, these women retire from the sepulchre,
and report the tidings to the eleven Apostles, who were in their
usual place of assembly, since the day was now begun. Soon after,
Peter and John run to the sepulchre, followed by Mary. The
angels do not appear to them, but leave them to examine calmly
the condition of the tomb, and reason upon it for themselves.
Mary remains behind, weeping. On looking down into the
sepulchre, the same angels appear to her, as to the previous
company ; and on turning round, Jesus speaks to her with words
of comfort, being His first appearance after the resurrection.
While she conveys her message to the Eleven, her two com-
panions are favoured with a like vision, which they also report
to the disciples. Before these latest tidings, sometime in the
forenoon, Cleopas and his companion set out for Emmaus. Jesus
meets with them on the way, and after making himself known,
vanishes away suddenly, probably about the ninth hour. They
return at once to Jerusalem. During their absence, the Lord
appears to Simon Peter. On their return, they find the Eleven
gathered together, and conviction beginning to force itself on
their minds. Yet still, when Jesus appears in the midst of
them, they are terrified, and relapse into unbelief, supposing it
to be a spirit, until Jesus himself chides their incredulity, and
reassures them by fresh proofs of his resurrection.
On this arrangement the sequence, which is prominent in each
gospel, is maintained. The appearances of the angels all precede
those of our Lord himself ; and those of our Lord to the women
444 THE HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION.
precede those to the men; while Mary Magdalene brings the
first report, and receives the first message. John is the first
of the Apostles who believes in the resurrection, and Peter the
first of them who receives a direct vision of the Lord.
12. Qne or two objections still remain to be considered. And
first, the running to and fro of the disciples, the appearance,
disappearance, and reappearance of the angels, is thought to be
fantastic and unnatural. But the only running to and fro, on
this arrangement of the events, is that of Mary, Peter, and John,
and is highly true to nature in every part; while the hurried
flight of Mary and Salome is equally truth-like, and has all the
marks of reality. The appearance and disappearance of the
angels has to be weighed by its moral purpose, since a power of
becoming visible at pleasure is involved in the very nature of
such a vision. Now in this point of view, every particular is
natural and appropriate. When two women enter the tomb at
first, one angel alone appears, and gives them an encouraging
message. When their terror hinders their obedience to his in-
vitation, and endangers the clearness of their evidence to the
facts, the heavenly visitants, for more than one was present, re-
main invisible, on the arrival of the second company, until their
search and their perplexity are complete. Then, and not before,
two angels appear, in a different posture, a double vision because
.of the larger company, so as to dispel every idea of illusion, and
render the evidence of reality complete. When the Apostles
arrive, the angels are invisible again, because it was important to
give free scope for the use of their reason on the fact reported
by Mary, and on the condition of the grave-clothes within the
tomb. In the case of St. John, the evidence suffices, and “he
saw and believed.’ The slower, but more reasoning and manly
faith of the Apostles, was to be formed without any help of di-
rect angelic visions. To Mary again, in her deep love and sor-
row, both angels appear, and thus prepare her, by a kind of
transition, for the vision of their Lord, which presently follows.
THE HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION. 445
There is thus a moral unity and appropriateness in every part,
which deepens the sense of historical reality.
Another difficulty has been raised against every attempt to
combine the separate narratives. How comes it, the objector
asks, that of the many visits and appearances, not one writer
mentions all, and scarcely one the same as his neighbour, but
each has chosen a different part for ‘representation? The solu-
tion, by the hypothesis of different informants, is then examined,
and affirmed to be untenable.
Now first, a general supply may be found in the natural
sequence of the events themselves. The proofs of the resur-
rection were threefold, in evident gradation, appearances of angels
to the women, appearances of Jesus to the women, and appear-
ances of Jesus to the male disciples. Each gospel exhibits this
essential progress, except that of St. Luke, where the silence
about the appearance of Jesus to the women is balanced by the
fuller record of the journey to Emmaus, and the preparatory
vision of the two disciples, with the parenthetic mention of the
vision to Peter also. The leading succession being thus main-
tained, variety of selection in the details is only a proof of
independent information in each writer.
But on closer inquiry, the motives of selection become appa-
rent, and merge in the general features of each gospel. St.
Matthew, writing nearer to the events, when the question was
mainly one of oral testimony, makes his whole account centre
on the appearance in Galilee, which Jesus had solemnly ap-
pointed, and at which, as we leara from St. Paul, five hundred
disciples were present. Of all the appearances, this was the
most decisive and notorious. Hence that visit of the women,
and that appearance of Jesus on Easter-day, are alone selected,
_ where a reference is made to this future manifestation. Intent
on this main object, the Evangelist overlooks minor details, the
presence of Salome, the return of Mary Magdalene, and the
vision which she separately received. ‘The meeting in Galilee is
the one object of the whole narrative.
446 THE HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION.
St. Mark, as usual, fills up and expands, and in a certain
sense, corrects, the account of St. Matthew, without varying
from his selection. Yet, mindful of the purpose of his gospel
as a supplement, instead of following out the history of his
predecessor, he gives a brief list of three successive appearances
of Jesus, which all occurred on Easter-day. He mentions the
presence of Salome, omitted by St. Matthew. He explains their
approach to the sepulchre, of which we might easily have had a
false impression, from the brevity of St. Matthew, and shews
that they entered the tomb, before the angel appeared to them.
He notes the distinct mention of Peter in the angel’s message.
He affirms a delay in the report of the women, from their terror,
which serves to remove a difficulty in other parts of the narrative.
Lastly, he mentions briefly the three appearances, which are
given at greater length in the two later gospels.
The choice in St. Luke is equally explicable. He records
that visit, in which Joanna, the wife of Herod’s steward, had a
leading part. This agrees with the many signs, which indicate
his special acquaintance with Herod’s household. Among the
converts at Antioch, her testimony would probably rank the
highest, since Manaen, a foster brother of Herod, was one of
the teachers of the church, and no other of the women was
likely to rank so high in worldly station. Besides, this company
was the most numerous, the vision it received in the tomb was
doubly impressive, its report the earliest given to the Apostles
of any supernatural appearance, and allusion is evidently made
to it in the following discourse of Cleopas. The visit of Peter
is recorded, as a partial exception to the general statement, that
the Apostles gave-no credit to the tidings of the women. The
chief distinction of the gospel, however, is the full account of
the journey to Emmaus, which unfolds the brief mention of it
in the supplementary verses of the second gospel, while the third
appearance is equally expanded in the verses that follow. Lastly,
St. John fills up the outline by a most graphic supplement,
containing these particulars—the first rise of faith in his own
THE HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION. 447
heart, the earliest vision to Mary Magdalene, and the last reproof
of unbelief, in the case of the Apostle Thomas, with the charge
of Christ to Peter and himself, by the sea of Galilee. The first
part is an expansion of the brief statement in Luke xxiv. 12,
the second, of the earliest appearance in St. Mark, xvi. 9—11 ;
the third, alike of St. Mark and St. Luke, by a second appear-
ance to the Eleven, when Thomas was present, on the octave of
the Resurrection ; while the last is just as clearly a supplement
to the brief record, in St. Matthew, of the main appearance in
Galilee.
13. But further objections have been brought against the
whole series of manifestations, from the morning of the Resur-
rection to the day of Ascension. Many of these arise from the
mere perversity of criticism, resolved to find or invent difficulties
at all hazards. The order, resulting from a comparison of the
gospels, and of St. Paul’s statement, is very clear and simple.
First, on the day of resurrection were the successive appearances
to Mary, to the two other women, to the two disciples, to Peter,
and to the eleven, when Thomas was absent. Next, on the
following Lord’s day, was a further appearance to the Apostles,
when Thomas was present. Next, after their return to Galilee,
was an appearance to seven of the disciples by the sea of Tiberias.
Then followed the most public appearance, to five hundred
disciples at once, of which the place, and perhaps the time, were
appointed before leaving Jerusalem. Next followed an appearance
to James alone, and lastly, one to all the Apostles in Jerusalem,
on the very day of the Ascension. It seems probable that there
might be others, but these are placed distinctly on record.
14. The first charge is brought against St. Matthew. His
mention of the appearance in Galilee is said to be inconsistent
with the statements in the other gospels. No one would appoint
a distant interview by a third party, when he was intending to
hold one in the same place, and on the very same day.
The main fact, however, which it is sought to involve in doubt,
is established by a concurrence of witnesses. St. Mark, as well
448 THE HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION.
as St. Matthew, reports the same message; while the actual
journey of the disciples into Galilee, is fully attested by St.
John, whose last chapter records a manifestation of Jesus by the
sea of Tiberias. St. Paul, again, records an appearance to more
than five hundred brethren at once, and so large a number of
disciples were to be found only in Galilee. And hence, instead
of isolation, there is here an almost unanimous consent of the
sacred writers.
But why should St. Matthew three times refer to this vision
in Galilee, and record no other, if he were aware of two or three
previous appearances in Jerusalem? A double answer may be
given. This vision was by far the most conspicuous and im-
portant, from the number of disciples who were present ; and it
was also the time of that direct commission, to preach the gospel
in all nations, on which the Apostles were about to act, when the
narrative was written. Ifa selection of one appearance were
made, this was the most suitable to be placed early on record.
And besides, since the gospel omits entirely the ministry in Judea,
except during the last visit at the Passover, it is part of the same
unity of design, which leads the writer to mention the public
appearance in Galilee alone. Thus the continued fulfilment of the
prediction, placed at the very opening of our Saviour’s ministry,
is rendered more striking and conspicuous.
Still it may be asked, Why should the angels, or our Lord
himself, observe this silence about appearances, that were to
occur much sooner in Jerusalem? It may be answered, first,
that the double message was in the nature of a sign, since the
women were not present when our Lord made the prediction, and
were not likely to have heard it from the Apostles. The message
itself was the proof of some Divine messenger. And if a reason
be required for the prediction itself, probably a key may be
found in the carnal hopes of the disciples. They had looked
for the immediate setting up of a theocratic kingdom, of which
the metropolis would be Jerusalem. When their hopes were
revived by the resurrection, it would be natural for their thoughts
THE HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION. 449
to revert into their old channel. But this message of our Lord,
which still recognized Galilee as the main scene of his ministry,
would be a clear sign to them that the Galilean character of the
kingdom was still to continue, and that, even after the resurrec-
tion, they were called to a testimony involving reproach and
disgrace, and not to the assumption of theocratic rule and worldly
honours. There is thus a moral reason, of the deepest kind,
for the stress laid on the appearance in Galilee, while it was also
distinguished above the rest, because the place and time were
previously appointed, and a share in it was granted to all the
disciples.
15. The account in St. Mark has next to be examined. It is
said to be incoherent, and hastily compiled out of heterogeneous
elements, which the writer, having no clear idea of the facts and
succession of events, knew not how to manage, and hence to be
guilty of exaggeration in its statements of the disciples’ obsti-
nate unbelief.
The true secret of this censure is the fatal opposition of this
narrative to the sceptical theory, which asserts an irreconcilable
contrast between Matthew, and the third and fourth gospels.
For it is plain that St. Mark, in the first part of his account,
adheres closely to St. Matthew, while in the rest he gives a brief
summary of three successive appearances at Jerusalem, which
are detailed at greater length by St. Luke and St. John. Hence
his alleged incoherency is nothing more than his thorough des-
truction of those castles in the air, which a sceptical criticism
rears ingeniously out of its own false surmises, without any
real foundation. In the view of the writer, early appearances
in Jerusalem are clearly consistent with the message, that
Jesus would meet his disciples in Galilee, and the whole con-
tradiction between St. Matthew and the later gospels falls to
the ground.
But this peculiarity in St. Mark, when thoughtfully examined,
becomes a new proof of the historical reality of the’ whole
narrative, and of the genuineness of the first gospel. As far as
450 THE HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION.
xvi. 8, his account is like a simple paraphrase, or careful revision,
of the freer and more dramatic statement of St. Matthew. Here
he suddenly pauses, and instead of the appearance of Jesus to
the women, and the repeated message, the episode of the watch,
and the return of the disciples into Galilee, he recounts three
visions of Jesus, that very day, in or near Jerusalem. He thus
implies that the first gospel contained here a special selection of
events, with a special purpose ; and that it was needful to diverge
from it, in order to resume, however briefly, the character of
simple and continuous history.
Now if St. Matthew wrote in Palestine only twelve or fourteen
years after the resurrection, this feature of his gospel is soon
explained. There could be no need, at that early period, when
four hundred witnesses of the resurrection were still alive, to
give a full and continuous history, in order of time, of all the
appearances of the risen Saviour. A selection, with direct
reference to the objections current among the Jews, or the
present duties of the church, would alone be natural and appro-
priate. It was important to exhibit the resurrection, in contrast
with the calumny of Jewish unbelief, and with its strongest and —
most conclusive evidence, in its connexion with foregoing pro-
phecy, and with the future development of the Church of
Christ.
All these characters meet and are harmonized in the brief
record of St. Matthew. He alone exposes the true source of
the fable, that the disciples had stolen away the body of Jesus,
and shews how the malice of the priests had turned to the fuller
proof of the resurrection. He selects for notice that one
appearance, which had been witnessed by five hundred disciples,
and of which four hundred witnesses must have been still alive.
He evinces the fulfilment of the prophecy of Christ, in the time
of the resurrection, confirmed even by the voice of the Sanhedrim ;
and of another, in the place of his public appearance, first
uttered in private, but afterwards supernaturally revealed to the
women by the angel, as a pledge for the reality of the vision.
THE HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION, 451
He thereby illustrates the continued fulfilment of the pro-
phecy of Isaiah, from the opening’ to the very close of the
ministry of Jesus, that the special scene of the great light, which
the Messiah was to bring to his people, would be by the way of
the sea of Tiberias, in Galilee of the Gentiles. On the borders
of that sea, where the disciples were called to his side, the main
public manifestation of the risen Saviour took place, on a
mountain in Galilee. Finally, the same selection explained and
justified the new course, on which the Apostles were just entered,
or were now entering ; and proved that, in separating from each
other, and preaching throughout the Gentile world, they were
only fulfilling a solemn commission which their Lord had given
them. But the perfection of the narrative for this special
purpose, left it most unfit for a complete record of the appear-
ances of Jesus ; and hence St. Mark, when the peculiar motive
for selection was past, prefers to mention three of the earliest
visions in the order of their occurrence.
But St. Mark is further charged with exaggeration, and a
direct contradiction to St. Luke, in his statement of the unbelief
of the Eleven, upon our Lord’s third appearance. For in St.
Luke, Cleopas and his companion are greeted at once with the
words, ‘The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared unto
Simon.’’ This contrast, indeed, has led Maldonatus, Dr. Townson,
and others, to refer this passage in St. Mark to the appearance
a week later, when Thomas was so directly reproved. But the
difficulty is not at all lessened by this supposition, since the
reproof in St. Mark is addressed to the Apostles and disciples
in general, and not merely to one out of the whole number.
The contrast, when examined, is apparent only. The words
of our Lord, even in St. Luke, imply a direct censure of unbe-
lief. ‘‘ Why are ye troubled, and why do reasonings arise in
your hearts? Behold my hands and feet, that it is I myself:
handle me and see.” We cannot suppose, however, that the
third gospel contains all the particulars of this interview. The
rebuke of their actual doubts and terror would be naturally
452 THE HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION.
attended with a censure on their previous unbelief. And, in
fact, the words addressed to the two disciples before, ‘‘O fools,
and slow of heart to believe,’? render such a further rebuke to
the whole company of disciples highly probable, from this gospel
alone.
But how can this agree with the greeting in the third gospel—
“The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared unto Simon?”
Simply, by a reference to the various characters of the disciples,
and the various degrees, even of real faith. St. John had
believed on the first view of the sepulchre; St. Thomas, not
until the fourth vision, on the octave of Easter-day. One or
two disciples might use the words in St. Luke, though even their
faith was shaken by the suddenness of our Lord’s appearance
soon after; while others might continue to question whether
Peter and the two disciples had not been deceived. The peculiar
circumstances, that occurred on the way to Emmaus, were likely
to renew questionings in those of weaker faith, and of a more
sceptical disposition. And hence the two accounts are only
contrasted views of the same facts, thoroughly consistent with
each other, and confirmed by the very circumstance of their
outward diversity. The distinct mention of Peter in the angel’s
message in this gospel alone, is another proof of reality ; and
agrees with the mention, by St. Luke alone, of a distinct vision
granted to him before the other Apostles.
There are no objections, against the narrative in the two later
gospels, that deserve further notice. It will be enough, in closing
the subject, to point out some proofs of reality, that result from
a comparison of the four narratives.
And first, St. Matthew alone furnishes no full key to the
remarkable fact, that he has singled out for notice one interview
in Galilee, since he mentions only the presence of the eleven
disciples. But St. Paul, in his letter to the Corinthians,
removes the whole difficulty, where he states that more than
five hundred brethren were then witnesses of the appearance of
Jesus, and the greater part of them still alive. The reason why
7
THE HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION. 453
this one interview should be selected for record in the earliest
gospel, becomes hereby palpable and conspicuous to every
thoughtful mind.
The exclusive mention, again, of this meeting in Galilee,
might seem at variance with St. Luke’s narrative, who alludes to
no appearance, except in or near Jerusalem. But St. Mark’s
gospel, as it is intermediate in its date, supplies the wanting
links of union. It equally affirms the reality of the message
to the disciples, that they were to return to Galilee, and the fact
of repeated appearances, soon after the resurrection, in and near
Jerusalem.
From the account in St. Luke, we might have supposed that
Peter was the only disciple who visited the tomb in consequence
of the report of the women. But this leaves the words of
Cleopas unexplained, who uses the plural number. <“‘ They
found it even so as the women had said, but him they saw not.”
The fourth gospel reconciles the two statements, since it tells us
that John accompanied Peter in this visit, and gives more
precisely its occasion, and the time when it occurred.
St. Paul, in his brief list, affirms that our Lord “ was seen of
Cephas, then of the twelve.’’ No trace of this first appearance
is found in three of the gospels. But in St. Luke we are told
that, when the two disciples returned from Emmaus, “they
found the eleven gathered together, saying, The Lord is risen
indeed, and hath appeared unto Simon.” It is observable that
the very words which appear, on a careless view, to contradict
the second gospel, are precisely those in which we find this
clear evidence of historical reality.
These are some of the most striking correspondences, of an
indirect nature, which we find in the details of the narratives.
But beyond all these, there is a tone of simple reality in every
part, which carries its own witness to every honest and ingenuous
reader. The humbling description of the disciples’ persevering
unbelief ; the slow and gradual manner in which it gave way before
evidence, constantly growing in clearness; the wise gradation
454 THE HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION.
in the evidence itself, first, in angelic visions, of one, and of two —
angels, to two women, and to many ; the appearance of our Lord
to the women, then to one and to two disciples ; then to the ten,
and again, to the eleven Apostles, and lastly, to five hundred
brethren at once; the ardent zeal of Peter, both at the visit to
the sepulchre, and at the sea of Tiberias, and St. John’s greater
readiness of spiritual discernment; the mention of Joanna,
the wife of Herod’s steward, by the one Evangelist, who
wrote for the church where Herod’s foster-brother was a leading
minister ; the graphic power of the discourse on the way to
Emmaus; the wonder and perplexity of the disciples, and the
flash of joy when they suddenly recognize their Lord ; the cor-
respondence between the three denials of Peter, and the separate
message he receives, the searching inquiry thrice made, and the
charge, as often given him, to feed the sheep of Christ; the
touching interview with Mary Magdalene ; and the parting invi-
tation to the Apostle, to fulfil his own promise, and follow his
Lord, even to prison and death; all these are a moral evidence
of reality, which scarcely admits of increase, and will leave those
self-condemned, who refuse the full testimony which God him-
self has given, in these lively oracles, to the glorious truth of
our Lord’s resurrection.
BOOK IV.
ON THE IDEALITY OF THE GOSPELS.
Tue four gospels have been examined, hitherto, as merely human
narratives ; and their mutual consistency, and the internal signs
of their authenticity have been deduced from a close observation
of their agreements and differences, by the ordinary rules of
historical evidence. The result has been to shew their close
connexion and distinct authority, their successive origin, the
early date of those which were first written, and their consistency
and truthfulness, as genuine records of the life of Jesus.
This alone, however, would be a very imperfect view of their
real character. They have claims of a higher and nobler nature.
They are a message of truths the most deeply momentous, on
which the welfare of the immortal soul depends. They are a
Divine revelation to sinful men from the God of heaven. To
estimate them aright, we must examine how far these writings
justify a claim so lofty, and satisfy the reasonable tests of a
Divine revelation. For when God speaks to men, He must
speak to them as men; that is, as creatures endowed with
reason, who still retain some power of discerning between good
and evil; between religious imposture in its various forms of
guilt and folly, and the wisdom, holiness, and love, which befit a
real message from heaven.
But here the greatest caution is needed on either side. If we
neglect the duty, which Scripture itself enjoins, to judge of our
own selves what is right, and to try the spirits whether they are
456 ON THE IDEALITY OF THE GOSPELS.
of God, we abandon the reins of our conscience, and may become
the victims of any delusion, that falsely claims a Divine origin.
On the other hand, a corrupt and sinful heart will be prone to
set up erroneous tests of Divine truth, and to make the messages
of God plead, like suspected culprits, at the bar of a perverse and
darkened understanding. All that reason can claim, at the out-
set, before it submits to a revelation as Divine, is a prevailing
impression of holiness and moral beauty, and historical proofs
of a supernatural origin. The gospels satisfy these tests, and
thus have a solid claim on the acceptance and submission of
every child of man. Where the evidence of their truth is
honestly received, there will be a growing insight into the moral
grandeur of the Christian revelation, and a deepening experience
of its transforming efficacy, and of its power to comfort and
ennoble the human heart. But those who wait for noon-day
light, before they will walk in the pathway of obedience, already
made plain to their view by the dimmer lhght of a newly
awakened conscience, may be left to stumble on the dark moun~
tains; and will never attain that clear and peaceful vision of
heavenly truth, which is given, in due season, to the humble
believer in the Son of God.
The gospels, then, since they claim to be a revelation from
God, ought to fulfil the tests of such a revelation. But they
may claim, in return, to be tried by these tests alone, and not
by their agreement, in all things, with the proper characters of
a common history. A message from God must have several
features, which cannot be found in a merely human record. It
must include the credentials of its origin, in its works of Divine
power, or words of Divine foreknowledge, which would be absurd
or incredible in the ordinary narratives of human historians. It
will contain mysteries, since the nature of God is unsearchable ;
and difficulties, for a mystery, not explained, must be difficult
and perplexing. It will vary from the impressions of natural
conscience ; for revelation would be needless, if the unenlightened
conscience of man were a perfect and infallible guide. It will
ON THE IDEALITY OF THE GOSPELS. 457
be simple, that it may be suited for general use. But still it is
probable that we shall find in it obscure statements, half hidden
meanings, and darkly revealed glimpses of lofty truths; so that
the full comprehension of it may prove beyond the reach of the
wisest men, and leave them, after years of meditation, oppressed
with the sense of their own ignorance, in listening to these
messages of God, as in the presence of surpassing and infinite
wisdom.
Such is the character of the four gospels. It is this union of
opposite characters, extreme simplicity, and surprising depth and
fulness, which has made them the stumbling-block of learned
infidels, as well as the unfailing treasury of comfort, peace, and
‘wisdom, to every humble and pious mind. Their assailants,
from the necessity of the case, have been divided into two rival
sects. Some of them, perceiving how inseparably the human
element in the gospels is linked with all the history of that age,
have striven to free it from those supernatural features, in the
miracles of Christ and His apostles, in His resurrection and
ascension, and the gifts of the Spirit, which form the glory of
the New Testament. ‘Their perverse diligence gave birth to a
series of strained expositions, the most senseless that ever ven-
tured into the light of day. The angel, who announced the
birth of Christ to the shepherds, was expounded into a flash of
lightning, a messenger bearing a torch, or a Jewish youth ; and
the angelic hymn, into the notes of a Jewish pleasure party,
coming from Bethlehem. The walking on the sea was either.
swimming in the sea, or walking along the shore. The miracle of
the loaves was merely an example set by the disciples to those
who had an excess of provision, of giving to those who had
none, so that all fed out of a previously hoarded store. These
are a few specimens of the attempts made by the older rational-
ists to retain the human reality of the gospels, and still to reject
that supernatural element, which is their life and glory.
In the reaction from such monstrous critieisms the mythical
theory had its birth. There were many whose unbelief was too
x
458 ON THE IDEALITY OF THE GOSPELS.
deep and strong, to permit their return to the old paths of!
Christian faith and obedience, but whose common sense recoiled
from such learned follies. They could not shut their eyes to.
the fact, that a supernatural element does pervade the gospels,
and cannot be separated from the narrative, unless by criticism
at once dishonest and absurd. To get rid of a Divine revelation,
it was needful, at all hazards, to get rid of the entire history.
The gospels were therefore proclaimed, as a great discovery
of improved critical science, to be early Christian legends.
It was some relief, when men were resolved to reject the Chris-
tian revelation, to replace the countless follies of the rationalists
by one simple, but gigantic falsehood, which allowed the laws of |
language their free course, and once more accepted the Christian
meaning of the records, but denied altogether their historical |
reality. The facts most deeply engraven in the hearts of |
millions, most fruitful in public results, and sealed by the whole
course of later history, were thus gravely pronounced to be the
inventions of ardent fancy, and either cunningly devised fables,
or a series of unreal and cloudy dreams.
Such a thesis required no little skill, to make it appear less
absurd than the older theory, on which it claimed to be so great
an improvement. The objections of earlier infidels to the con-
sistency of the gospels, were therefore brought diligently together, ,
with an air of seeming candour, and calm philosophical inquiry ; ;
and yet with due care to make the scales weigh, in every case,
on the negative side of uncertainty or contradiction, and thus to)
prepare for the final expedient of resolving the whole into a;
dream of fancy. But the main argument, without which it was:
foreseen that these objections would fall to pieces of themselves, |
or perhaps recoil in overwhelming evidence of truth and sincerity,
was the assumption, made at the outset, that a supernatural)
revelation is impossible. From such a premise it was easy to
draw the inference, when other objections failed against any
narrative in the gospels, that it clearly partook of a supernatural
character, and was therefore incredible and untrue.
ON THE IDEALITY OF THE GOSPELS. 459
The greater part, then, of the reasoning on which the mythical
theory has been made to rest, is simply a reductio ad absurdum
for infidels themselves. It proves clearly to the unbeliever, that
consistency requires him to deny, root and branch, all the facts
in the New Testament; and that the existence and the death of
Jesus of Nazareth, are almost the only remnants of truth that
can be safely allowed in the whole history, without incurring
imminent danger that this goodly temple of unbelieving philo-
sophy, like that of Dagon, may fall suddenly to the ground, and
bury the adversaries of the truth under its ruin. The history
of Christ and the Church, for sixty years, must be upheaved
from the ground, where it has struck ten thousand roots, and
interlaced itself with all other history, and be transferred whole-
sale into the land of shadows, before the learned infidel can find
himself at ease in his rejection of the authority of Divine re-
velation.
In this last book it is my purpose to consider these more
abstract objections to the gospel history, which relate to its
supernatural character, and to shew that they furnish in reality,
new and striking proofs that we have here authentic messages
from the God of heaven. With this object in view, it will be
needful to consider, first, the miracles, and then the prophecies,
in the four gospels; their harmony with the lessons of con-
science, or their moral beauty ; and the marks of spiritual unity in
each separate gospel, by which they form collectively a consistent
and harmonious, but varied revelation, of the true character and
Divine glory of Christ our Lord.
CHAPTER I.
ON THE MIRACULOUS CHARACTER OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY.
Tue Gospel of Christ, since it claims to be a revelation from
God, must be expected to contain the credentials of its own
origin, or tokens of supernatural power, and Divine wisdom,
confirmed by reasonable and sufficient evidence. The sacred
writers repeatedly offer this simple explanation of the miracles
they record, that they were the suitable and adequate tests of a
Divine message. It was God himself, who thus bore witness to
the word of salvation, ‘‘ by signs and wonders, and divers miracles,
and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to his own will.’ What
might be incredible, then, in a common history, is not only
credible, but essentially requisite, in the sacred narrative, if it is
to satisfy the natural tests of a revelation from heaven.
Modern philosophy, however, professes to have discovéred a
principle, which supersedes all further inquiry, and at once dis-
poses of the whole question between the infidel and the Christian.
Miracles, it is said, are impossible in their very nature, and every
narrative where they appear is certainly untrue. The conviction
has now been attained, that all things are linked together by
a chain of causes and effects, which suffers no interruption; and
the belief in any immediate intervention of God may therefore
be referred at once to ignorance or imposture. To suppose
that God, in most cases, acts mediately, through the law of ©
consecutive causes, but sometimes immediately, is said to be
ON THE MIRACULOUS CHARACTER OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. 461
a double error, which breaks the chain of nature, against all
experience, and also introduces a changeable element into the
action of God. The only consistent view is that the Divine
agency is always both immediate and mediate, and therefore
neither ; or more clearly, that he acts immediately on the whole,
but on each part, mediately, or only by means of his action on
all the rest.
Such is the foundation of the new creed, which is to displace
historical Christianity. It is in truth, the predicted creed of the
scorners in the last times, clothed in the garb of a learned phras-
eology. ‘ Where is the promise of his coming? for since the
fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the
beginning of creation.” But whatever the drapery it may as-
sume, it is as superficial as false, and will not endure the test of
a moment’s thoughtful examination.
And first, the statement, as propounded above, is a logical
contradiction of the plainest kind. For clearly, if a whole is
acted upon immediately, then either every part, or some part, is
acted upon immediately also, and the first proposition excludes
the second. Again, if each part is acted on, only in a mediate
manner, then the whole is excluded from being the object of
immediate action, and there must be something, apart from
God, and from the whole creation, which is the medium of the
Divine agency on that creation ; another evident contradiction.
The main pillar, on which the whole building of philosophical
infidelity is raised, yields to the first touch of serious inquiry,
and crumbles into rottenness and dust.
Let us attempt to gain a clearer view of the subject, which
this pretended philosophy only wraps in absurdity and contra-
diction. ‘Two extreme theories are possible, and have sometimes
been held, with regard to the mode of the Divine agency. The
first of these recognises, in God, the Sole Cause of all things, and
hence reduces every action, of every creature, into a varied, but
direct action, of God himself. This may be called the mystical
theory of the universe, and seems almost inseparable from direct
462 ON THE MIRACULOUS CHARACTER
Pantheism. The other supposes that God has established certain
laws and powers at the creation, in virtue of which the whole
system continues to move on, like a clock that has been wound
up, without any further call for Divine interference. This view
reduces the universe to one vast machine, and God himself to
a mere mechanician, the perfection of whose work would be
impaired, if there were any need for his continued operation.
These two extremes are alike unsatisfactory and erroneous.
The first annuls the idea of creation, and makes God the sole
agent, and by consequence, the only being. The second destroys
the ideas of Providence and moral government, and banishes the
Almighty from the universe He has made. Only at an equal
distance from these errors is it possible to attain a just view of
this mysterious and lofty theme, the operation of the Most High.
Let us see whether a simple course of reasoning will not clear
away the doubt and obscurity, and present to us the outline of a
more consistent theory.
Creation, then, and our own consciousness, alike prove, that
there is a real power, derived from God, of which the creature is
participant, and a limited sphere of agency, resulting from the
power thus bestowed. Our thoughts are not the same as the
thoughts of God, our actions not the same as the actions of
God; though all our power of thought and action is a gift,
originally derived from His creative energy. On the other hand,
to suppose this derived power, when once given, entirely inde-
pendent, so as to need no sustentation, is a view which shocks
all our instincts of reverence towards the great Preserver of men,
and does violence to all just conceptions of the Divine supremacy.
But this sustentation, is the sustentation of a power already im-
parted, and not a direct and immediate agency ; or else we should
be involved once more in the error just exposed, and creation
would be reduced, as in Buddhism, to an unreal and deceptive
dream. Hence we may infer that the action of God upon the
universe is both immediate and mediate; not in the contra-
dictory sense already disproved, as if the action on the whole
OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. 463
could be of one kind, and on every part, of a kind entirely
different ; but that the whole, and every part, is immediately sus-
tained and upheld by the Divine Providence, in the faculties and
powers originally bestowed ; while every action, and consequently
every passion, is from God, through the medium of these powers,
laws, and properties which He himself has created, instituted, or
bestowed, when His powerful word called the universe into being.
Now here the question must arise—Does the double work, of
immediate sustentation of all existing powers, and of mediate
action, in all the various results of the powers thus upheld,
exhaust the conceivable modes of Divine agency? Is every
other mode of Divine action a contradiction in terms, and there-
fore impossible and incredible? Have the gifts exhausted the
fulness of the Giver, so that nothing more is in His power to
bestow; or do the laws He has instituted fetter the Supreme
Lawgiver, so that all action beyond their limits is interdicted, even
to God himself for ever? The answer must surely be self-evident.
He who sustains the powers of nature, must be able to vary them
at His pleasure. And since all these powers, though real, are
only gifts derived from the Creator, they cannot have exhausted
the Divine energy ; but He must ever be free to act, as at the
first, with no restraint beyond the secret lessons of His own
infinite wisdom. Such agency, above and beyond the existing
powers of nature, implies no variableness in the Divine Being.
The same philosopher who admits that the power of God, under
various and innumerable forms,
Warms in the sun, refreshes in the breeze,
Glows in the stars, and blossoms in the trees ;
may admit, with as little impeachment of the Divine unity, that
the same power, thus varied in its usual operations, works
sometimes by a direct and immediate agency, resembling the
direct volition of the human will. We must otherwise accept
the impious notion, that the Almighty, in the act of creation,
disinherited Himself of all power. ‘The universe, on this view,
464 ON THE MIRACULOUS CHARACTER
like the kingdom in Shakespeare’s tragedy, will have been
parcelled out among the children of the Most High, the crea-
tures of His bounty ; most of whom repay the gift with ingra-
titude, and insult the weakness of a God, rendered power-
less, by His own abdication, in the government of His own
world.
The possibility, then, of miracles is a demonstrable truth.
No second cause can be absolute and unchangeable, but must
depend, for its origin and continuance, on the will of God.
Creation, with its actual laws, cannot have exhausted the power
of His Infinite Being. Nay, even in the higher spheres of
creation, we witness a spontaneity, which serves to image forth,
however dimly, the Divine freedom. And hence to restrict the
agency of God to the simple maintenance of natural laws and
mental processes, is to degrade Him below the level, which His
more exalted creatures, by His own bounty, have been enabled to
attain.
Since miracles are thus possible in their own nature, what are
the limits which reason would assign for their probable occur-
rence? The constancy of natural laws is the only ground of
prudent foresight, and is thus essential to the full development
of human intelligence, and to a system of moral probation
among the creatures of God. Yet since the very aim and purpose
of such a system is to raise the creature into holy.and delighted
fellowship with the Almighty and All-wise Creator, whenever
the constancy of those laws obscures from the minds of men
His presence and dominion, and leads them to substitute a blind
fate for a Moral Lawgiver, His wisdom seems to require that some
remedy should be found for this great evil. Now this can only be
some direct and immediate exhibition of Divine power, beyond
the ordinary limits of natural causes, so as to force upon the mind
the recognition of a superior Will. Whether this be done by a
direct act of power, irrespective of all existing laws of nature ; or
by the impartation, to a creature, of a new power, thenceforth to
be exercised, but never bestowed before ; or lastly, by a combina-
OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. 465
tion of existing powers, beyond the reach of human foresight, in
which the moral purpose is as plain, as the natural agencies are
obscure and unknown, in all these cases the same result will be
practically attained. The first is a true miracle, the second a
miraculous gift, which afterwards ceases to be miraculous by its
continuance ; and the last is an extraordinary Providence, not
always easy to distinguish, with our imperfect knowledge, from a.
strictly supernatural event, and which fulfils the same design, of
reawakening the dull conscience to a sense of the power and
dominion of the living God.
The occurrence, then, of miracles, is just as probable as the
occurrence of a Divine revelation. And this, again, is just as
probable as the two facts, that man is sinful and ignorant,
needing the gift of spiritual light ; and that God is gracious and
wise, as well as holy, and willing to supply the deepest wants of
the creatures He has made. Hence the attempt to discredit
and discard the Bible, on the simple ground that it contains
miracles, is one of the greatest of all conceivable follies. Reason,
starting from the simple premises, that mankind are evidently
sunk in great moral ignorance, and that God, the All-perfect,
must delight in mercy, may infer safely that, some time or other,
a revelation from God must have been given; and consequently
that miracles must have occurred, under this very character, as
the tests, and pledges, and reasonable proofs of a true revelation.
When we find them recorded in this connexion, there is no im-
probability whatever to surmount. The inquiry must reduce
itself to two points, whether the testimony be full and decisive,
and such as we look for in any record of high practical im-
portance, not miraculous; and next, whether the message,
professing to be from God, commends itself, in its broader and
substantial features, to the conscience and the heart. If this
double test be satisfied, the submission of faith is the only course
consistent with enlightened reason, or that will stand the final
inquiry before the bar of the Supreme Governor of the universe.
Now the gospels clearly satisfy this double requirement of
X 5
6
466 ON THE MIRACULOUS CHARACTER
sound reason. That their main substance, as a moral message,
commends itself to the conscience, is plain from the admissions
of modern infidelity, which boasts of retaining the inner essence
of the gospel, and its pure morality, while it would sweep away
the miraculous history as an antiquated legend. That the
evidence, apart from the supposed improbability of miracles, is
sufficient, nay, overwhelming in their favour, is clear from the
laborious efforts of the natural interpreters, who have felt it
easier to resort to the wildest absurdities of criticism, than to
abandon the truth of all those portions, which do not involve
the supernatural element. It is equally clear from the notorious
fact, that events in the same age, far less amply verified, and by
witnesses far less severely tested, are received as undoubted
truths by every one, who is conversant with ancient history.
And hence it is clear that unbelief rests upon one ground alone,
a rooted aversion to the thought of God’s immediate interference
in the government of His own world, and to the binding authority
of the truths He has thus revealed to mankind.
But a closer review of the miracles, recorded in the gospels,
will discover in them internal marks of reality, and of the Divine
origin of the message to which they belong. They are not only
exhibitions of supernatural power, but also of the wisdom and
goodness of the Almighty.
The first object of a true revelation must be, to restore to
men that consciousness of the dominion of God, of His holiness
and goodness, which has been obscured from them by their own
pride and sensual corruption. Now the great hindrance which
obscures from us the Divine dominion, is the unbroken constancy
of natural laws; while the dark shadow which veils the Divine
goodness, is the equal constancy and universal dominion of
death. And hence, that a revelation may fulfil its main purpose,
it should exhibit some suspension, by Divine power, of the laws
of nature, and some victory of Divine goodness over mortality
and corruption. How deep and rooted the evil to be overcome,
the slavish prostration of the human will before a blind fatality,
OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. 467
hurrying them hopelessly to the tomb, is clear from the reason-
ings of our infidel philosophers themselves. ‘They tell us that
“the proposition, a dead man has returned to life, is composed
of two such contradictory elements, that in the attempt to main-
tain the one, the other threatens to disappear. If he has really
returned to life, it is natural to conclude that he was not wholly
dead ; if he was really dead, it is difficult to believe that he has
really become living.’ And thus that unbelief, alike in the
Divine power and the Divine goodness, which it must be the
great purpose of revelation to remove, is found to centre in one
gloomy doctrine, the omnipotence of death.
Now the Christian revelation, by its foremost miracle, the
resurrection of Jesus, directly meets this grand evil, and satisfies
in the highest degree the moral conditions of a message from
God. For indeed a revelation would be a mockery, and unworthy
of credit, which left men at liberty to continue perfect Sadducees,
worshippers of the powers of nature, and believers in no supre-
macy but of death and the grave. The resurrection of our
Lord, the cardinal fact of the gospels, reveals to us a Divine
power, supreme above all physical law, and triumphant over the
grand evil, which has enslaved mankind with the terror of its
approach, and desolated the world from the beginning of time.
The medicine is precisely suited to the nature of the disease to
be overcome ; for Jesus, by rising from the grave, has destroyed
the power of death, and ‘delivered those who, through fear of
death, were all their lifetime subject to bondage.’
The nature, then, of the main gospel miracle, is eminently
worthy of the Divine wisdom. That would have been a sorry
revelation, which left our learned Sadducees at full liberty to
receive it, and still to remain blind worshippers of fate and death,
as they were before. Nothing else could so powerfully have
broken the charm, in which men lay spell-bound, ignorant of
the living God, their heavenly Father, and setting up in his stead
for their worship a hideous spectre, whose shadow brooded over
their hearts from the cradle to the grave. But it is not less
468 ON THE MIRACULOUS CHARACTER
worthy of the holiness of God, than illustrative of his wisdom.
It teaches us plainly that death is no fatal necessity of our being,
but simply the wages of disobedience, and that the way is now
open before us, by penitence and faith, to a final and lasting
victory. The sole example, in the world’s history, of a sinless
perfection, has thus become the sole example of triumph over
the grave. Tested by the ordinary course of human experience,
the fact is indeed a miracle of the highest kind. But when
viewed in another light, it loses its miraculous character, and
links itself with a universal law of Divine government, twofold
in form, and ceaseless in operation; but which, in its brighter
aspect, has never besides been able to manifest itself here below ;
that supreme law which declares that the wages of sin is death,
and that the commandment of God is life everlasting. Itisa
singular, solitary point, in the history of our fallen world; but
flows from the same law, which is receiving a continuous and
infinite development in myriads of immortal and sinless spirits,
who surround the throne of God in heaven.
Let us now turn from this crowning miracle, to the cluster of
Divine wonders, which attended the public ministry of our Lord.
The same principle still appears conspicuous. The miracles,
which he is declared in the gospels to have wrought, are not
casual, arbitrary, and lawless ; but while they transcend the
physical laws of nature, conform to a higher and nobler law of
Divine wisdom and goodness. Their leading character is one of
mercy and compassion. They are the handmaids of a message
of love, to which they minister, and in which they lose them-
selves, as streams in the ocean. ‘“‘ Go and tell John again the
things ye do hear and see. The blind receive their sight, the
lame walk, the deaf hear, the lepers are cleansed, the dead are
raised—to the poor are proclaimed glad tidings.” Such is the
Saviour’s own beautiful summary of his works of power. Love
rules amidst the miracles, that rule in their turn over all the
elements of nature. Each of them seems, by anticipation, to
wrest from death a part of his sting, before the final miracle of
OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. 469
the resurrection, by which his power is overcome and destroyed
for ever.
But while such is the dominant character of these miracles,
the other attributes of God, His power over all creatures, and
His hatred of evil, receive also their due illustration. The fishes
of the sea own the dominion of their Lord, and the untamed
colt yields Him instinctive obedience. The winds and the waves
are hushed by a single word of Divine power, and the tossing
sea bears up the footsteps of the Son of God. The water is
turned into wine, the bread is multiplied a thousand-fold, by the
simple fiat of His will; while the spiritual world is alike subject
to his control, and evil spirits, and wicked men, yield him a
reluctant and compulsory submission.
The gospel, again, though it is preeminently a message of
grace, contains, even in its miracles, some instructive lessons of
the Divine holiness, and of the righteous anger of God against
all iniquity. Such evidently was the death of Ananias and
Sapphira, and the sudden blindness inflicted on the sorcerer
Elymas. And though our Lord, that his grace might be the
more conspicuous, wrought no direct miracle of judgment upon
men, the same truth was twice exhibited in a milder form,
and for man’s sake, the lower creatures were miraculously visited
with judgment. Such was the miracle in Gadara, where two
thousand swine perished in the sea of Galilee, a warning to
swinish and sensual men; and such also was the sentence on the
barren fig-tree, a significant emblem of the desolation soon to
come on the Jewish people, for their barrenness in all the fruits
of righteousness. The very miracles, which have most excited
the cavils of the infidel, serve thus to complete the moral harmony
of the gospel message ; while the abundant exhibition of Divine
grace, in all the other miracles of Christ, is thus tempered by
the solemn lesson, that the same power is equally available for
the work of righteous judgment.
The history of our Lord’s infancy has seemed, in the eyes of
modern critics, more open than the rest of the narrative to the
470 ON THE MIRACULOUS CHARACTER
charge of a fabulous origin. We are told, for instance, that the
prodigality of miracles, in St. Matthew i. i. is rather to be
ascribed to human imagination than to Divine Providence. Now
it is true that, in their eyes, with whom all miracle is an impos-
sibility and contradiction, the charge may seem to be well
founded, though it is hard to see why five or six impossibles
should be more incredible than one only. But if we recur to the
only true test, the design which miracles are to fulfil, as the
credentials of a Divine message, the reverse may be maintained
with far greater truth. The sparing exhibition of miracles, before
our Lord’s public ministry began, is a clear mark of contrast
between every spurious legend, and the true revelation in the
word of God. For let us compare the doctrine with the record,
and we shall rather admire the Divine parsimony of the Holy
Spirit, than detect the prodigality of human invention. The
Word of God, by whom all things were made, is declared to have
come down from heaven, to have assumed human nature, and
tabernacled among men, for thirty years before His public labours
began. During this long season, how many wonders or signs of
Divine power are recorded, in connexion with an event of such
surprizing and mysterious grandeur! Three angelic visions, four
intimations of the will of God in a dream, one sign from an
unborn infant, two messages to aged Jewish believers, and one
heavenly sign for the guidance of the distant Gentiles :—these
form the whole array of wonders by which it pleased God to
attest the greatest of all marvels, and the noblest of all Divine
messages, the incarnation, the birth, and infancy of the Son of
God. Surely we have more cause to admire the frugality evinced
in the display of miraculous power, during the first years of our
Saviour’s life, than to admit the senseless charge, that the pro-
digality of wonders, in this part of the gospels, is suspicious
and incredible. Instead of the supernatural events being multi-
plied, in proportion to their remoteness from the date of the
history, we find rather the very opposite. In the book of Acts,
during a space of little more than thirty years, more than forty
OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. 47]
distinct examples are detailed or affirmed ; or nearly four times
as many as are recorded to have happened in thirty years of
our Saviour’s life, before his public ministry began.
Again, in the distribution of these wonders, a Divine wisdom is
no less apparent. One angelic vision is given to predict the birth
of our Lord’s forerunner, with an infliction on Zacharias, answering
to the severer tone of the Baptist’s ministry. Two such visions
announce the birth of our Lord himself, one addressed to Mary,
before the Incarnation, and the other to the shepherds, at the
very time of the birth. Four communications are made to
Joseph, to teach him the will of God under circumstances so
unexampled ; one directing him to his espousal with Mary, and
removing a natural suspicion, one to shield the child from Herod,
by a flight into Egypt, one to direct his return to Palestine, and
one to assign the province where Messiah was to spend his
infancy, away from his natural home in Bethlehem or Jerusalem.
But all these, as the relation of Joseph to the holy child was
less intimate than that of Mary, or of Zacharias to the Baptist,
were revelations of the lowest order, not in waking vision, but
only by adream. The other signs, to the Jews, were direct
monitions or impulses of the Spirit, as in the case of the infant
Baptist, of Simeon and Anna; and were barely enough to point
out the infant Jesus as the promised hope of Israel. The only
remaining sign, which was intended for believers in distant lands,
and for a pledge of the future triumphs of the gospel through-
out the Gentile world, was naturally more splendid and august ;
but even here there is seen the same Divine simplicity. One
solitary star, or starlike meteor, became the fitting herald of the
King of heaven, and Lord of the universe. There was enough
of miracle, to usher in the Advent of the long-promised Messiah
with due solemnity ; but the fulness was reserved for His actual
proclamation of the holy and heavenly message, which He was
commissioned to bear to the sinners of mankind.
Thus a calm review of the gospel miracles, in connexion with
the purpose they were professedly designed to fulfil, discovers in
a
472 ON THE MIRACULOUS CHARACTER OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY.
them the clearest traces of Divine wisdom and goodness. Instead
of presenting an insuperable objection to the credibility of the
narrative, they lend it a powerful confirmation, from their evident
contrast with all the fables of human invention, and their entire
adaptation, without exhibiting any waste of Divine power, to
fulfil their main object, and seal the heavenly commission and
Divine glory of the Son of God.
CHAPTER II.
ON THE FULFILMENT OF PROPHECY IN THE GOSPELS.
Tue alleged fulfilment of Divine prophecy in the life of our
blessed Lord, no less than his works of Divine power, is a
stumbling-block to the infidel philosophy of modern times. The
theory which its patrons advance may be summed up as follows ;
that the so-called prophecies were later than the events, or else
refer merely to occurrences close at hand, which the prophet
could foresee {by his own wisdom; that they were afterwards
applied to a coming Messiah by popular error alone ; that these
popular misinterpretations gave birth to an idea of the Messiah,
which in its turn gave birth to the gospel narratives, so that
these were entirely originated by the preconceived idea of what
the promised Messiah was to be and to do. And hence, when-
ever a correspondence is found between the predictions of the
Old Testament, and the narrative in the New, this is held to be
a clear sign, that such part of the narrative is unreal and
legendary. On the Christian view, all these statements are
exactly reversed. The life of Jesus and his shameful death are
asserted to have been so diverse from the popular expectation of
the Jews, as to have been the chief occasion of their stubborn
unbelief; and still to have agreed so remarkably with various
prophecies, received by the Jews themselves as Divine, that it
proves the predictions to be inspired messages of God, and Jesus
the true Messiah, of whom the prophets had spoken from the
beginning of time.
474 - ON THE FULFILMENT OF
Here the first inquiry must be—Did the history of our Lord,
as related in the gospels, agree so closely with the national
expectations concerning the Messiah, that it could possibly have
been created, as a legend, out of these popular ideas and
impressions of the Jewish people? This is the main postulate
of the infidel theory now examined, and it is totally, nay even
preposterously, untrue. The leading fact in the whole history
of the New Testament, confirmed by the palpable evidence of the
nation’s history for eighteen hundred years, is the entire contrast
between the popular expectation of the Jews, and the Divine
reality in the life and death of Jesus. It is far easier that grapes
should come from thorns, and figs from thistles, than that our
Lord’s history should have been formed out of popular and
floating traditions of the Messiah, to which, in all the main
features, it stands out in marked and conspicuous contrast.
Even the disciples themselves, as the gospels clearly teach us,
were delivered, only by slow and painful steps, from the mighty
hindrance, which their preconceived notions opposed to the very
possibility of their faith in the Messiahship of Jesus.
Nor is this the only falsehood in the infidel hypothesis. It
assumes that a series of entire misinterpretations, having no ground
in the text of the prophecies, could yet assume such consistency
of outline, as to create the conception of a character, almost of
superhuman excellence. Nay, more, that they led to an attempt,
in the Augustan age, to pass off the conception as an historical
fact, realized in the character and conduct of an obscure Jewish
peasant ; of one who had no Divine mission, and wrought no
miracle, but was received as Messiah by tens of thousands, because
they ascribed to him works he never wrought, and words he never
uttered, that they might embody in his person their own view of -
Scriptures, which they never understood, and which had no
reference to him whatever. Surely, among all the follies of
science falsely so called, none can exceed this monstrous claim
on the credulity of mankind.
But let us now inquire what must be the character of prophecy
PROPHECY IN THE GOSPELS. 475
and of its fulfilment, in order to give the utmost weight to the
evidence it yields for its own Divine origin, and its real accom-
plishment in the events ; and then see whether this test, in spite
of the cavils of unbelief, is not precisely satisfied in the gospel
history.
A prophecy, then, which gives a detailed prediction, whether
of an individual life, or a nation’s history, in regular order, with
minute and specific circumstances, so that every one must see, at
the first glance, the series of events required for its fulfilment,
must be exposed, in later times, to two grave suspicions. It may
be urged, with some plausibility, either that it was written after
the events, and thus is no real prophecy whatever, or else that it
has received an artificial fulfilment, by the direct and concerted
efforts of many interested parties, to bring it to pass. On the
other hand, predictions so vague, that they will bear almost any
meaning, become useless as evidence for an opposite reason ;
since they may be accommodated, with almost equal plausibility,
to any series of events whatever. And hence the evidence,
resulting from fulfilled prophecy, must have the greatest force,
when it bears an intermediate character: when it is sufficiently
disconnected and obscure, to exclude the idea of a concerted and
artificial fulfilment ; and so perspicuous, after the events have once
occurred, is to prove that no other series of events could have
answered so remarkably to the statements of the Divine record.
Now the fulfilment of prophecy, in the gospels, has exactly
this character, in which the evidence of truth, all things con-
sidered, is the most powerful ; and is equally removed from the
‘possibility of collusive conspiracy, and of strained and violent
accommodation. That the former is here excluded is proved by
the fact, that the main feature in our Lord’s history, his violent
death was not the work of his disciples, but resulted, to their
utter grief and dismay, from the malice of his bitterest enemies.
That the predictions were not so clear as to give any handle for
plausible suspicion on that side, is plain from the admission of
the adversaries themselves, who deny that they mean at all
476 ON THE FULFILMENT OF
what the Evangelists assume. It only remains to shew that
the real correspondence is far too clear and striking, and too
various in its elements, to be explained by any other means than
the inspiration of the prophecies, and a real fulfilment in the
life of the Lord Jesus.
The passages in the gospels, where a fulfilment of prophecy is
directly asserted, are these: Matt. 1. 22, 23; ii. 5, 6; ii. 15; ii.
17, 183 ii. 23 5 i. 8; v. 15,165 vi: 17 ; xi. 10,145 xi. 17—
21; xii. 39, 40; xi. 14, 15, 35; xvi. 4; xxi. 4, 5, 42—44;
xxvi. 31, 54; xxvii. 9, 10, 34, 35. Mark ix. 12, 13; xv. 28,
34. Luke i. 17, 31—383; ii: 4—6; iv. 17—21; viii. 27; xi.
29, 30; xviii. 31—33 ; xx. 17; xxii. 37; xxiv. 44. Johni.23;
vil. 42; xii. l14—16, 37—41; xiii. 18; xv. 25; xix. 24, 28—
80, 36, 37 ; xx, 9, and the chief of those to which reference is
made, are Psalm xxii. 1 ; xix. exvili. 22. Isa. vii. 14; vi. 9,10;
ix. 1, 2,3; xl..3; xlii. 1—4; lui. lxi. 1, 2. Jer. xxxi. 15. Hos.
xi ul. don. ‘ade yi Maesy.2.. Zeehaix19% xa aS ia
10% manee7 2") Mal.an./4:
In some of these, the reference is so plain, and the fulfilment
so exact, as to require no comment, as in Psalm xxii. Isa. liii.
Mic. v. 2. Zech. ix. 9. Isa. xlii. 1—4, which are all expressly
applied to our Saviour in the gospels. To prove the folly and
perplexity of those who attempt to disguise this fact, it is enough
to quote the explication of Mic. v. 2, in the Leben Jesu. The
words of the prophecy read as follows: “‘ But thou, Bethlehem
Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah,
out of thee shall he come forth unto me, that shall be ruler in
Israel, whose goings forth have been from of old, from ever-
lasting. Therefore will he give them up, until the time that she
which travaileth hath brought forth.” Here we are assured that
the prediction can only be applied to Messiah’s birth-place, ‘by
forcing the words from their true meaning, and all relation to
the context. For whether or not the Messiah be intended, the
context shews the meaning to be, not that the expected governor
would be born in Bethlehem, but that he would be a descendant
PROPHECY IN THE GOSPELS. 477
of David, whose family sprung from Bethlehem.” In proof we
are referred to Paulus and De Wette, the former of whom, by
the shewing of the writer himself, has perpetrated more critical
follies, in defence of rationalism, than almost any one could have
deemed possible ; and the Jatter is nearly of the same school,
and of equal authority. In deference to their absurd gloss, we
are required to renounce the express words of the text, that the
governor himself, and not some distant forefather, was to come
out of Bethlehem, the meaning which every reader, Jew or
Christian, except these two German unbelievers, has always seen
in the passage for more than two thousand years. The context,
instead of justifying the proposed gloss, directly excludes it,
since it counects the mention of Bethlehem with the actual birth
of Messiah in days to come; when “she that travaileth”’ shall have
brought forth, and the son whom she bears shall feed his people
in the strength of the Lord, and shall be great unto the ends of
the earth.
There was thus a clear fulfilment, in the Lord Jesus, of the
predictions, that Messiah should be born at Bethlehem; that he
should be despised and rejected ; that he should be gentle, meek
and lowly ; that the Spirit should rest upon him, to preach the
gospel to the poor, and comfort the broken hearted ; that the eyes
of the blind should be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped ;
that he should enter Jerusalem, riding on a colt, the foal of an
ass ; that the builders or rulers of the people should reject him ;
that his hands and feet should be pierced; that he should be
numbered with the transgressors, and receive gall and vinegar in
his sufferings ; that a messenger, crying in the wilderness, should
prepare the way before him; and that his coming should be
followed by a message of peace to the heathen, even to the ends
of the earth. These are main, essential parts of the gospel
history, and their agreement with express predictions of the Old
Testament is clear and demonstrable, so that only the blindness
of prejudice can deny it. If all the fulfilments were equally
clear, and if the events were of a different nature, dependent
478 ON THE FULFILMENT OF
merely on voluntary actions of our Lord or his disciples, the
evidence would be weakened, not by the ambiguity, but rather
by the extreme plainness of the predictions themselves. The
passage in Micah was so plain to the Jews, who knew their own.
| language, that it was made an objection, in in their ignorance of
1 Fe reel: facts, to the Messiahship of Jesus, Joh John xiii. Al, 42.
~A second class of predictions are of a middle kind, more open
to plausible dispute, yet still capable of being vindicated, in the
gospel sense, by plain and convincing evidence.
The first of these is Isa. vii. 14. The true reference ; it is
confidently urged by the mythical theorist, is to some unknown
child, to be born in the time of Ahaz, in the usual course of
human generation. And hence it is argued that the Evangelist
has wrested and misapplied it ; though, when the origin of the
history is to be explained, we are told that a belief prevailed
among the Jews, in conformity with this very passage, that
Messiah was to be born of a virgin, by Divine agency ; and thus
it was taken for granted that what was to be must have really
occurred. It is owned, however, that traces of this belief are
found with difficulty in the early Jewish writings ; while to infer
its prevalence before the actual birth of Jesus, from St. Matthew’s
gospel alone, begs the whole question in dispute, and is an open
defiance to all sound historical reasoning.
That the prophecy in Isa. vii. 14, does refer, in the first place,
to the birth of a child at the time when the invasion occurred,
may be admitted without hesitation. It is required, not only by
the immediate purpose of the sign, but by the double reference
to vii. 21, 22, and to viii. 1—4, 18. A child was to be born, whose
knowledge of good and evil was an appointed limit, before which
Pekah and Rezin should both of them be overthrown and slain.
The siege would be raised, and the culture of the land be restored,
within this limit of time, so that curds and honey might be used
for the food of the infant, before it came to know good and evil.
The formal record, in vill. 1—4, and the statement in the last
verse, proves that this son of Isaiah did, in a certain sense, fulfil
i |
PROPHECY IN THE GOSPELS. 479
the prophecy. But that this is not the full meaning is equally
plain. A sign is offered to Ahaz in the height above, or in the
depth beneath, that is, a miracle of the most extraordinary kind,
to be a pledge of the Divine protection. On his refusal, the
Lord promises to give freely what Ahaz had declared to ask,
which implies, therefore, some remarkable miracle, beyond the
usual course of nature. Such would be the pregnancy of a virgin,
if the word retain its strict and proper sense, but on no other
supposition. Again, in villi. 14, the land of Israel is called, by
God himself, the land of Immanuel. It is forced and strained
to suppose this title given, unless Immanuel were the king of
Israel, and not merely a private and obscure person. But above
all, the words in Isa. ix. 7 are decisive. ‘For unto us a child
is born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be on
his shoulder ; and his name shall be called, Wonderful, Coun-
sellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of
Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall
be noend.” It is clear that a child is promised, whose very
name shall be Wonderful, because of his miraculous mode of
birth, who shall be the owner of the land of Israel, having the
government on his shoulder, who shall be honoured under the
mysterious and exalted title of the Mighty God, the very name
of Jehovah (x. 21,) and who shall enjoy a lasting and eternal
dominion. And thus, if we would not degrade this sublime
prophecy into a mere piece of wretched bombast, we are compelled
to admit the justi¢e and accuracy of the interpretation in St.
Matthew’s gospel. On this view alone, the whole becomes
consistent and harmonious, befitting the largeness of the offer
made to the unbelieving monarch, and the grandeur of the
description at the close.
Another prediction of the same class is Isa. ix. 1—38, quoted
by St. Matthew, as indicating the scene of Messiah’s ministry.
This has caused some perplexity, when the whole context is
examined, since the construction appears to be different in the
gospel and in the prophecy. The true rendering seems to connect
480 ON THE FULFILMENT OF
ix. 1 with the previous chapter, and to make it one part of the
threatening on the Jews. But the inference of St. Matthew is
equally just, when the history has been examined, and the
allusion correctly explained. The prophet threatens a sore
judgment, far exceeding the earlier afflictions, when Israel was
first cut short by the Assyrian kings. ‘“ For the dimness shall
not be such (so slight) as in her vexation, when at the first he
lightly afflicted the land of Naphthali, and afterwards did more
heavily afflict her, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in
Galilee of the Gentiles.’ Then suddenly a transition is made
from the affliction to the deliverance, and it is implied that the
place where the affliction began to be felt, shall be the earliest to
see the dawning of the promised redemption. ‘The people that
sat in darkness have seen a great light; they that sat in the
region and shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.”
The prophet thus intimates, what the event more fully explained,
that the same district which first underwent sore distress, in the
darkening of the Jewish theocracy, would also be the first to
enjoy the dawning light of Messiah’s public ministry.
There is a third class of predictions, quoted in the gospels,
where the reference to the life of our Lord seems still more
open to dispute, so that Christian writers have often regarded |
them as simple accommodations, while sceptics have turned
them into charges of error, or even of deception, against the
sacred writers. In these cases there can be no suspicion that
the event was garbled, to suit the prophecy, but an opposite cen-
sure is advanced, with the more confidence, that the passage is
wrested to suit the event. This clearly implies, however,
that the events are real, and not legendary. And if, even in
this class of allusions, it can be shewn that the quotations
are apposite, and rest on a true and real connexion between
the event and the prophecy, the evidence derived from these
various classes of predictions will be complete. It will thus
appear that prophecies, too plain to be misunderstood without
the utmost violence, and too obscure to be understood without
PROPHECY IN THE GOSPELS. 481
the greatest care, and the fullest insight into the analogy of
Scripture, all concur in the life of Jesus ; and thus bring to light
a harmony, so full and various, between the events and the pre-
dictions, as can result only from Divine inspiration.
The first passage of this kind is Hosea xi. 1, quoted Matt. ii.
15. Here the sacred writer is charged with a gross perversion
of the meaning. The convenient method of double interpreta-
tion, itis said, is inapplicable, because the only point of re-
semblance is the bare fact of a sojourn in Egypt. This is
quite untrue. The passage in Hosea is indeed evidently retro-
spective and historical in its primary meaning. But this is so
plain, as to make the supposition that the writer did not observe
it, purely ridiculous. His remark could have no force with any
reader, unless it were first assumed that the personal history of
Messiah was designed to correspond, in many of its features,
with the history of the nation. And that this is the Scriptural
view, appears even from the two titles, the seed of Abraham, and
Israel, which are given alike to the nation and to the Messiah
himself. (Isaiah xlix. 3. Gen. xxii. 17). Viewed in this light, the
entire change in the political relations of Egypt with Palestine,
only renders the analogy more striking, when the infant Jesus,
like the nation in its own infancy, became a sojourner in Egypt,
and from the same general reason, an imminent danger of ex-
tinction which threatened each of them in the land of Israel.
The next passage, on which a similar charge is founded, is
Jer. xxxi. 15, quoted in Matt. ii. 17, 18; which is said to refer
exclusively to the deportation of the Jews to Babylon, and to
have no connexion at all with the event to which it is referred in
the gospel. That the immediate reference is to the captivity, is
certainly very plain. But this does not exclude the further
application, which looks to a mightier enemy than the earthly
king of Babylon, and a mightier and more glorious deliverance
than the political return to Judea. It is clear that death, in the
whole Bible, is described as the first, the last, and mightiest
enemy, of the people of God; and to overcome death, and open
Y
482 OF THE FULFILMENT OF
the gate of everlasting life, is the crowning work and victory of the
Redeemer. And hence the mourning of Rachel for her children,
because they were not, and the promise that they shall return
from the land of the enemy, and that there is hope in her end,
though deceased long ago, of meeting her children again, re-
stored from the hand of the destroyer, is a lively picture of de-
liverance, given to the martyred innocents, in the great day of
resurrection.
The same charge is brought against Matt. ii. 23, since the
words, “ He shall be called a Nazarene,” are found in no extant
prophecy, and to coin one for the purpose is a desperate expe-
dient. But here a little attention will suffice to vindicate the
writer, and disclose his real meaning, Wherever he alludes to a
particular prophecy of Isaiah, the name of the prophet is given,
and in other cases the singular number is invariably used. But
here he adopts a different phrase, and one quite indefinite—“ That
it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, that he
shall be called a Nazarene. Now the change in the form of ex-
pression evidently implies a contrast, in the view of the writer
himself, between this prediction and the others. If there had
been, in his opinion, any one passage, where this circumstance
was distinctly foretold, he would doubtless have quoted it, as he —
does elsewhere. Hence his meaning must be, that there were
several prophetic statements, none of them explicit enough for
direct quotation, but which, being compared by a serious and
humble inquirer, would prove how entirely this Galilean nick-
name agreed with the predestined character and description of —
Messiah. ‘The term was used in contempt, and it was foretold
that he would be ‘despised and rejected of men.’ ‘The term ©
Nafopasc, is used in the Septuagint for a Nazarite, and there —
applied to Samson, a type of the great Deliverer ; ‘so that the
popular use of this term unconsciously fulfilled one minor cir-
cumstance in the prophetic types of Messiah. The words in
Isaiah xi. 1, where the same title, netser, is applied as a name of
Christ, is a third fact of the same kind. A fourth passage im-
:
De nL Let A
PROPHECY IN THE GOSPELS. 483
plies that his ministry would begin in the land of Zebulun and
Naphthali, to the former of which tribes Nazareth belonged.
These statements, when combined, justify the remark in the
gospel, and also account for its indefinite form. It was designed
for the use of believers, to exercise their inquiries into the allu-
sive predictions and secret fulness of Scripture; and hence it is
not surprising that captious infidels should first mistake its
purpose, and then condemn it as a direct falsehood. There are
heights and depths in the word of God, beyond the reach of
their dim-sighted visicn.
Another passage, which may be classed with the above, is
Matt. xii. 39, 40, where Jonas is made a typical prophecy of the
death and resurrection of Jesus. Tere it is maintained, first,
that Jesus himself could not have uttered these words, because
the disciples would not have been taken so unprepared, when
the event arrived; that the disciples would certainly have
questioned him on the meaning of the statement, and could not,
in this case, have acted as they are said to have done; and
finally, that whoever ascribes a typical meaning to the history
mistakes its true sense, and the evident design of the author.
These remarks merely pile one error upon another. The
gospels have a far more correct view of human nature than our
modern sceptics, when they represent the disciples to have been
still unprepared, and utterly despondent, after so many predictions
by our Lord of his own death. The truth was highly distaste-
ful in itself, and entirely opposed to all their expectations ; and
hence they would be little disposed to question our Lord upon his
meaning, and would rather provide themselves with some strained
exposition, that suited their own prejudices. The fact, that our
Lord uttered this prediction, is confirmed by the statement in
Matt. xxvii. 68, where the enemies of Christ remember it at
the very time when it was forgotten by the disciples, and no fact
in the gospels rests on surer evidence.
The remark, which denies all typical meaning in the history of
Jonah, is not less groundless, though the disproof is less easy.
YZ
484 ON THE FULFILMENT OF
A history so remarkable might well be supposed, of itself, to
contain some further and deeper lesson. Now the leading facts
are the judgment on the prophet, where he is left three days and
nights in the great deep, his miraculous restoration by the word
of God, and his later mission to be the preacher of righteousness
to the metropolis of the Gentile world. In all these points the
analogy is full and close with our Lord’s own history. He also,
when he bore the load of judgment, was three days and three
nights, in the Jewish reckoning, in Hades, was miraculously
restored to life on the third day, and then, by his Apostles, began
the great work of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, which
has continued ever since to the present hour. We have thus every
token, which the nature of the subject allows, that the typical
relation does really exist, and that our Lord referred to the
history with perfect truth, as a concealed prophecy of his own
resurrection, and of the subsequent preaching of the gospel
throughout the heathen world.
To sum up the whole, the gospels contain the fulfilment of
many prophecies, some of them so clear and distinct, as to
defy the violent efforts of unbelieving critics to wrest them from
their proper meaning ; others, though less plain, capable of de-
monstrative proof that the Evangelists have interpreted them
justly, when their full scope is examined; and others, more
obscure, which require for their explanation a deeper view of the
harmonies of revealed truth and Divine Providence than un-
believing spirits can ever attain. Now this variety, in the degrees
of clearness, renders the collective evidence of the whole the
most powerful and impressive, It excludes the opposite supposi-
tions, that the events, from the plainness of the predictions, have
been artificially made to correspond with them, or that the pre-
dictions have been forced from their true sense, to meet the facts
of history. This agreement between the life of Jesus, and such
various statements of the prophets, some of them clear as the
noon-day sun, and others, dimly deciphered by minute inquiry
alone, aided by the analogies of Providence, could result only
|
|
PROPHECY IN THE GOSPELS. 485
from the Divine inspiration of the writings and their real fulfil-
ment in the promised Messiah. Jesus of Nazareth, and He
alone, is the true Seed of the Woman, the Son of the Virgin,
the pierced Saviour, the meek and lowly King of Israel, the
Prince of Peace and Redeemer of Mankind.
CHAPTER III.
ON THE MORAL BEAUTY OF THE GOSPELS.
Tere are three tests, of a moral nature, which must be satisfied
by every true revelation. In its main features, and substantial
outline, it should commend itself to the awakened conscience
of men, as good, and not evil. Yet since the need for such a
message implies the existence of moral disease, we must expect
that it will contain many difficulties, and statements which the
understanding does not easily apprehend, nor the conscience at
first approve ; as a sickly palate often rejects a bitter, though
healing medicine. With every step, however, of moral recovery
and progress, these difficulties will melt away, and the exceptions
to the approval of the conscience disappear. The fancied defects
will then turn into real beauties, and the obscurity, that once
perplexed us, resolve itself into the harmony of deeper truth and
higher wisdom. In short, those who reach the highest attain-
ments in love to God and to their fellow-men, if the claims of
the message are just and well-founded, will be the foremost to own
its Divine authority; and will perceive, even in its more obscure
and difficult portions, a wise adaptation to the wants of the
human heart, and a real harmony with the glorious perfections
of its Divine Author.
All these tests are eminently satisfied by the four gospels.
The most careless and prejudiced reader can hardly fail to be
impressed by the tone of moral purity and heavenly love, which
pervades the whole narrative of the life of Jesus. Yet, along
ON THE MORAL BEAUTY OF THE GOSPELS. 487
with this Jofty tone of pure and holy thought, there are several
things, from which the natural man turns aside, at first, with
secret perplexity, and sometimes, perhaps, with positive dislike
and disgust. But when the heart has once learned to breathe the
atmosphere of purity and truth, and to hunger and thirst after
righteousness, with every step of moral advancement these
clouds disappear, or else are lit up with an inward glory. The
character of our Lord, the longer we gaze upon it, becomes the
more surpassingly beautiful and Divine. Mysterious doctrines,
which once repelled us, are found to be elements essential to the
completeness of the message, and one main secret of its moral
power ; and those who approached at first with suspicious doubt,
and cautious inquiry, join at length in the experience of the
Samaritans of old, and learn, on a closer and fuller observation,
that “ this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.”
Simplicity and authority are two main features, which may
be looked for in the moral teaching of a true revelation. The
former adapts the message to the great body of mankind; the
latter befits the majesty of its author. In the Sermon on the
Mount, which stands in the forefront of the earliest.gospel, these
two characters receive their fullest exhibition. How simple, and
how earnest is every part! From the blessings which allure the
listening crowd by the attractions of heavenly love, to the warn-
ings at the close, which terrify and alarm the disobedient hearer,
all is clear and plain, like the lessons given to a child, yet marked
by atone of regal majesty, as the voice of the King of kings.
We feel at once how true to nature is the remark at the close—
** And when he had ended these sayings, the multitude were
astonished at his doctrine; for he taught them as one having
authority, and not as the scribes.”
The same Divine simplicity, in the moral teaching of the
gospels, is not less conspicuous in their promises and invitations,
than in the direct precepts. How many hearts have been
touched by that brief appeal of the loving Saviour, which is like
balm to the sorrowing spirit—‘‘Come unto me, all ye that
488 ON THE MORAL BEAUTY
travail and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my
yoke upon you, and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in
heart, and ye shall find rest to your souls. For my yoke is
easy and my burden light.” Place these few words side by side
with the boastful sayings of pretended philosophy in our own
days, and what a contrast do we feel! We read, for instance,
the followig summary of their improved version of the Chris-
tian faith, to suit the advancement of modern times. “ Humanity
is the worker of miracles, in so far as in the course of human
history the spirit more and more completely subjugates nature,
both within and around. It is the sinless existence, for the
course of its development is a blameless one; pollution cleaves
to the individual only, and does not touch the race or its history.
It is humanity that dies, rises, and ascends into heaven, for from
the negation of its phenomenal life, there ever proceeds a higher
spiritual life ; from the suppression of its mortality as a terres-
trial spirit, arises its union with the infinite spirit of the heavens.
By faith in this Christ man is justified before God, that is, by
the kindling within him of the idea of humanity, the individual
participates in the divinely human life of the species.’ How
deep is the contrast between these swelling words of vanity, and
the simplicity, the tenderness, the soul-piercing and _heart-
comforting power, of that one gracious saying from the lips of
the Son of God!
If we turn to another gospel, how striking is the simplicity of
those parables, in St. Luke, where the Lord reveals his own
compassion to guilty and wandering sinners! The laboured
declamations of philosophy pass over the heart like the idle
wind, and leave behind them no trace of their presence ; but these
words of a Saviour’s love pierce into the spirit, like the gentle
dew, and the showers of heaven. Who can read the description
of the lost sheep in the wilderness, and the care of the shep-
herd, who lays it on his shoulder, and returns rejoicing to his
friends, or the solemn declaration, at the close, of the joy of
angels over one penitent sinner, or the touching account of the
OF THE GOSPELS. 489
lost predigal, his lonely and sorrowful reflection, and the greeting
of his loving father, and not feel—These are the words of one who
spake as never man spake—the Saviour and Redeemer of our
fallen world? We need no laborious research of minute criticism,
to vindicate their authenticity, and clear the Evangelist from the
charge of imposture or deceit. This voice is not the voice of a
deceiver. It proceeds from one who has sounded the depths of
the human heart, and, while he is touched with the feeling of its
sorrows, is conscious that he can offer a Divine remedy for its
darkest griefs and deepest miseries. For two thousand years
these simple words have been the solace of weary and desolate
hearts; and long after the laborious trifling of learned infidels
has been lost in oblivion, they will retain their healing and hal-
lowing power, and reveal to ransomed prodigals the rich mercy
and grace of their Father in heaven.
If these, however, were the sole contents of the gospels, it
may be thought that there would be less difficulty in admitting
their claims. But what, then, shall we say of these portions,
which betray mere Jewish prejudice, and cross the dictates of
enlightened reason? Why should a Divine revelation begin
with a barren genealogy, a list of names of no interest whatever ?
How comes it to describe a personal appearance of the devil, and
to make possession by devils a frequent and usual occurrence ?
How can we believe that the Creator of all things should become
a creature ; that He should assume the form of a Jewish peasant ;
that He should then confine His labours to one insignificant pro-
vince, and end His course by a shameful death? How can we
suppose that the God of love should need to be appeased by a
human sacrifice? How is it that, at one time, open adultery is
sheltered from its deserved punishment ; at another, every jot
and tittle of the Jewish law is enforced; and at another, its
express enactments are set aside? How can we believe that a
legion of devils entered into a herd of swine, or that a fig-tree
was cursed, because it did not bear fruit out of the due season,
W.5
490 ON THE MORAL BEAUTY
or that hatred of our dearest friends should be the real test of
every true and genuine disciple of a gospel of peace and love?
These difficulties, and others of the same kind, prove that
the gospels have the second mark of a true revelatjon—partial
obscurity to the mind and conscience of fallen man.