<<■■•',■ •Axt^^^i ^^ i\xt Iheolagial ^ /. 20 %/ ^ PRINCETON, N. J. :v. 5A^^ Diviiion Section __ Number , 4.,..&5fe INTRODUCTION THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS PRINTED BY MORRISON AND 01 BB T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH LONDON : SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, AND CO. LIMITED NEW YORK: CHARLES SCRIBNER's SONS TORONTO: THE WILLARD TRACT DEPOSITORY INTRODUCTION J THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS PATON J. GLOAG, D.D. AUTHOR OB- A COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES AN INTRODUCTION TO THE PAULINE EPISTLES AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES AN INTRODUCTION TO THE JOHANNINE WRITINGS ETC. ETC. EDINBURGH T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE SJREET 1895 THIS WOEK IS DEDICATED TO MY WIFE, WHO HAS TJNWEAFJEDLY ASSISTED ME IN THIS AND IN ALL MY OTHEK LITERARY LABOURS PREFACE This Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels completes a series of Introductions to the books of the New Testament, in the preparation of which I have been engaged for a quarter of a century. The Introduction to the Acts of the Apostles, with a commentary, was pubHshed in 1870; the Introduction to the Thirteen Pauline Epistles, along with the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews, in 1874; the Introduction to the Seven Catholic Epistles in 1887 ; the Introduction to the Johannine Writings, especially the Fourth Gospel and the Apiocalypse, in 1891 ; and now the Intro- duction to the Synoptic Gospels in 1895. The design of these Introductions was not to give any explanation of or com- mentary on the sacred text (that to the Acts of the Apostles forming an exception), but to examine the genuineness of the writings, their authorship, the readers to whom they were primarily addressed, their design, their sources, — especially the sources of the historical books, — the language in which they were written, their peculiar style and diction, their charac- teristic features, the integrity of the text, the time when and the place where they were written, and their contents, in short, all that is necessary for their full understanding and intelligent perusal. Several controversial points have been discussed in all these Introductions ; but none of them has presented so many difficulties and perplexities as this Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels. Critical controversy and inquiry have, in recent years, in a great measure passed from the investigation of the Pauline Epistles, to which they were directed by the VUl PREFACE ingenious investigations of Baur and the Tubingen school con- cerning Petrine and Pauline Christianity, and from the import- ant question concerning the authorship of the Fourth Gospel, which recent discoveries of patristic documents and a more rigid examination of the writings of the Fathers have in a great measure settled, to the great problems connected with the origin and sources of the Synoptic Gospels. I do not allude to the mythical theory promulgated by Strauss, which, at least in its original form, may now be regarded as antiquated, but to the question whence the Synoptists derived their information, and to the causes of the remarkable coincidences and equally remarkable differences which are found in their writings. This so-called " Synoptic problem " is one of the great disputed questions in the biblical criticism of the present day. In this Introduction I have discussed it at considerable length, first giving the most im- portant theories that have been advanced, and then stating what I consider the most probable approaches to the truth. I am very far from supposing that I have arrived at any satisfactory conclusion, and am perfectly aware of the objec- tions to which the theory advanced is exposed, and to which I can only give an imperfect answer : all that I have been able to do is to state what appear to me to be the most probable results of the inquiry. The complete solution of the problem is, I fear, for the present unattainable. Another (question, about which it is still impossible to pronounce an opinion with confidence, has regard to the original language of the Gospel of Matthew. Here the external and internal evidences confiict. Dean Alford observes : " I find myself constrained to abandon the view maintained in my first edition, and to adopt that of a Greek original." My experience has been precisely the reverse. At first, giving weight to tlie internal evidence, I considered that this Gospel was originally written in Greek, and could not have been a translation ; but, owing to the overwhelming weight of the external evidence, as seen in the unanimous and unopposed testimony of the Fathers, I have been led to change that opinion, and now consider the hypothesis of a Hebrew or Aramaic original as upon the whole the more probable ; unless, PEEFACE IX indeed, the hypothesis be adopted that there were two originals written by Matthew, the one in Hebrew and the other in Greek. With regard to two other points of much difficulty, I have come to the conclusion, in opposition, it must be confessed, to some of our greatest biblical scholars, that the last verses of Mark's Gospel (xvi. 9—20) are genuine and formed an original portion of that Gospel ; and that the variations in our Lord's genealogies, as given in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, can only be accounted for on the supposition that Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph and Luke that of Mary. It is, I trust, wholly unnecessary to say that in this work I have endeavoured to exercise strict impartiality. I have practised that candour which I have so strongly recommended as an indispensable qualification in all interpreters of Scrip- ture. I am not conscious of having given undue preference to any preconceived opinions or traditional views. On the contrary, I have been led in the course of my investigations to modify and alter several of my former views, although, I con- fess, with some reluctance, and only after careful and repeated examination. A notable instance of this may be seen in the view maintained in this Introduction of the origin of the " Sermon on the Mount." Certainly the opinion, that this was one connected discourse delivered at one time, is that which a perusal of it in the Gospel of Matthew most naturally suggests ; but I have been led to think that whilst a large portion of it was delivered on a single occasion, yet other sayings of our Lord, given at different times and on different occasions, were added by the Evangelist, as is suggested by the fact that the same statements are found in different portions of the Gospel of Luke, and there mentioned in their historical connection. This Introduction may be regarded by different classes of readers from different points of view. Some may look upon it as too conservative, and as not making proper allowance for those advanced critical views which are now so prevalent ; while others may regard it as too rationalistic, yielding too much to the views of those who are considered by many as deniers of inspiration. All that I can say is that I have endeavoured to be honest to my own convictions. X PREFACE 111 recent years great progress has been made in the text and criticism of the New Testament, and new light has in conse- quence been cast on many controverted problems. Manu- scripts and versions have been carefully collated, and the various readings compared. We have now a more certain text : the additions to the original, inserted in the tcxtus rcccptus, are now removed, and omissions are now supplied. The result is that we have now obtained a text almost approaching to a restoration of the original. Of course, the readings of the oldest and uncial manuscripts still occupy the first place, but more attention has recently been paid to the cursive manuscripts and to the readings of the versions, especially the Old Italic and Syriac, which have perhaps hitherto been too much undervalued, seeing that they were made from Greek manuscripts much older than any which we now possess. A more accurate scholarship is now applied to the elucidation of Scripture ; and the peculiar character of the dialect of New Testament Greek is now better understood. In the Eevised Version, whatever may be its defects, we have undoubtedly a much better translation than in the Authorised Version. Within the last half century there have been several discoveries of remarkable manuscripts, which have had an important bearing upon various questions connected with biblical criticism, especially upon the genuineness and age of the different scriptural books. The Philosophoumena, or Refutation of all Heresies, by Hippolytus, in whicli the references of the early Gnostics to the books of the New Testament are quoted, was discovered at ]\Iount Athos in 1841, and printed by the Clarendon Press, Oxford, in 1851. A complete manuscript of the Clementine Homilies was found in the Vatican by Dressel in 18. 'J 7, and published at Gottingen in 1853. In 1858, Canon Cureton published a Syriac manuscript containing fragments of tlie Gospels, found by Archdeacon Tattam in a Syriac monastery in the Nitzian desert in Egypt, and which is now regarded by many as tlie oldest Syriac version. This version was last year nearly completed by the important discovery of the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript l)y ]\Irs. Lewis, if the supposition be PREFACE xi correct that it is a variant copy of the Curetonian. The important Sinaitic manuscript, being, next to the Vatican, the oldest in existence, and materially affecting the reading of the received text, discovered by Tischendorf in the monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai in 1859, was published in 1862. A complete copy of the Epistle of Barnabas, hitherto imper- fect, was attached to the Sinaitic manuscript, and another copy was among the documents discovered by Bryennios. But, next to the Codex Sinaiticus, the most important of all these discoveries is the Diatessaron of Tatian. A translation in the Armenian language of Ephra?m's commentary on that work was found in the Armenian convent at Venice, and was printed in that city in 1836 ; a Latin translation was pub- lished in 1876, from which it was proved beyond the possibility of doubt that Tatian's Harmony was made up of the four canonical Gospels ; and only a few years ago another manuscript was found by Professor Ciasca in the Vatican Library containing an Arabic translation of the whole work. Another very important document, the " Didache," or the " Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," was discovered by Philotheos Bryennios, Metropolitan of Nicomedia, in the Jeru- salem convent in Constantinople, and published in 1883, which is considered by competent authorities to have been written about the close of the first century and to be the oldest post-apostolic document extant, except the Epistle of Clemens Eomanus, and possibly the so-called Epistle of Barnabas. Bound in the same volume with the Didache was the only complete manuscript of the famous Epistle of Clemens Romanus, the copy in the Codex Alexandrinus being defective at the close. In 1889, J. Ptcndel Harris of Cambridge discovered in the monastery of Mount Sinai the Apology of Aristides to the Emperor Hadrian. A very important fragment of the apocryphal Gospel of Peter, found in a tomb at Akhman, in Upper Egypt, by the French Archaeological Mission at Cairo in 1886, was published in 1892. And only last year the discovery of an important Syriac version of the four Gospels was made by Mrs. Lewis in that Sinaitic monastery which has yielded so many important biblical manuscripts. These documents have l^een Xll PKKFACE discovered in different quarters — the Sinuitic manuscript and the new Sinaitic Syrian version in the monastery of St. Catherine, Mount Sinai ; Ephnem's commentary on the Diatessaron in the Armenian convent at Venice ; the Arabic version of Tatian, partly in Egypt and partly in liome ; the riiilosophoumeua of Hippolytus in Mount Athos ; the Didache, and the complete copy of the Epistle of Clemens liomanus, in Constantinople ; and the fragment of the Gospel of Peter in Egypt. The Vatican Library has also yielded many important treasures. These recent discoveries of biblical documents fill us with the hope of still more important discoveries in the future, when the libraries of the monasteries shall have been more care- fully examined by competent scholars. The discovery of the writings of Papias, of the Grospel of the Hebrews, and of the Gospel of Marcion would be an enormous gain to biblical criti- cism, and might elucidate many unsolved problems ; and who, viewing the past discoveries so unexpectedly made, can affirm that such discoveries may not be within the bounds of prob- ability ? At the same time, we do not beheve that such discoveries will materially affect the main conclusions already arrived at, but rather that they will elucidate questions which still remain unsolved or doubtful. The present work forms a companion volume to the other Introductions formerly published, and completes the series of Introductions to the New Testament. The scriptural (J notations are taken from the Eevised Version, except on tliose rare occasions when the Authorised Version or an inde- pendent translation appears preferable. The patristic quota- tions are taken from Kirchhofer's Quelloisammlung zur Geachichte dcs 7ieutcs(aiiicn( lichen Canons. Appendices are attached, referring to certain special difficulties and disputed points which seem to require special discussion. A list of the most important books read or consulted is appended at the end of this work, with references to the editions in my possession, so that tlu^ ([notations made from tluou may l)e referred to and verified. A vast amount of literature lias been collected around the Syno]itic prol)lem, and the nu)st important works on the sul)ject have ])een care- PiiEFACE xiii fully read whenever they could be obtained. It would, of course, be an endless task to refer to periodical literature on the subject, but I may mention several important articles which appeared in the Expositor for 1891. As in almost all theological discussions, we must betake ourselves to the great German theologians, whose works on the Synoptic problem have been carefully studied. Of these, I would especially mention the works of Holtzmann, Weiss, Wendt, and Paul Ewald. Of English theologians, the researches of Professor Sanday of Oxford on the Synoptic question call for special notice. They are distinguished alike by patience, caution, and logical acumen, and in point of learning and exhaustive investigation are unsurpassed by the above German theolo- gians. It would not be right to omit special reference to the Introductions of the venerable Dr. Samuel Davidson, however much we may dissent from his conclusions. His two Introductions, — that entitled Introduction to the Nao Testament, published in 1848, and that entitled Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, published in 1868, the third edition of which appeared last year (1894), when the author was in his eighty-eighth year, — though written from different standpoints, are most valuable, and exhibit a learn- ing and research seldom equalled by any biblical critic in our country. I have found several commentaries very helpful, especially those of Meyer, Godet, and the late Dr. Morison, whose commentaries on ]\Iatthew and Mark are deserving of careful study. Several monographs on particular subjects have also to be mentioned, from which I have derived con- siderable assistance, as that of Dean Burgon on The Last Ttoelve Verses of St. Mark, Bishop Hervey on the Genealogies of our lord, Eesch's Agiripha, and Zumpt's Das Gehurtsjahr Christi. The value of Eushbrooke's Synopticon is acknow- ledged in the body of the work. Last year (1894) I wrote six articles in the Thinker on the Synoptic problem. These, with the kind permission of the editor, the Eev. Joseph Exell, I have freely used in writing this work : they have, however, been rewritten and much altered both by additions and omissions. It is my pleasing duty to acknowledge my obligations to XIV PREFACE several friends who have kmclly assisted me in this work — to the Rev. William Hastie, D.D., Professor of Divinity in the University of Glasgow, and to my brother, Lord Kin- cairney, for perusing the manuscript before the work went to press, and for valuable hints and suggestions ; and to the llev. David Hunter, D.D., of Galashiels, and the Eev. John Patrick, D.D., of Greenside, Edinburgh, for the verification of my references, and assistance in the correction of the press. CONTENTS GENERAL INTRODUCTION. Literature. I. The Title : Synoptic Gospels — Use of the term Gospel — Difl'erence between the Synoptics and the Fourth Gospel — Number of the Gospels — Uncanonical Gospels — Frag- mentary nature of the Gospels. II. Authors of the Synoptic Gospels — Evangelical Symbols. III. Genuineness of the Synoptic Gospels — The Testimony of the Fathers — The Gospel of Peter — The Muratorian Canon — Tatian's Diatessaron — Testimony of Justin Martyr — Statement of Papias — Versions — The Old Latin ■ — The Syriac — Credibility of the Narrative. IV. Relation of the Sj'noptic Gospels to each other — Points of Agreement — Rush- brook's Synoptico7i — The Threefold Narrative — The Twofold Narrative — -'The Single Narrative — Summary of Resemblances — Existence of Doublets — Points of Difterence — Narrative of the Birtli of Christ — The Sei-mon on the Mount as given by Matthew and Luke — The Passion — The Resurrection — ChronologicalOrder. V. Sources of the Synojitic Gospels — The Problem stated : A. The theory of Mutual Dependence — The originality of Mark — Relation of Matthew and Luke to Mark — Relation of Luke to Matthew ; B. The theory of an Oral Gospel — Wright's hypo- thesis of Catechetical Schools — Modification of this theory by Alford ; C. The theory of an original Document or Documents — Modification of this theory by Eichhorn, Bishop Marsh, Schleiermacher, Ewald, Abbott, and Smith of Jordanhill — Sup- position of an Aramaic or Hebrew Document ; D. The theory of two Documents — Nature of this theory — Statement of Pajiias — Meaning of the term Logia used by him — Modification of this theory by Holtzmann, Weiss, Wendt, Resch, and Sanday — Result of this Discussion. VI. Interpretation of the Synoptic Gospels — Critical Ajjparatus — Editions of the Greek Text — The Revised Version — Necessity of Candour — Acquaintance with the times of Christ — Nature of Inspiration — Alleged discrepancies in the \ XVI CONTENTS Gospels — Instance of the Blind Man at Jericho — Sympathy between the Reader and the "Writings — Sjnritual Discernment — Teaching of the Synoptics compared with that of the other New < Testament Writings — Distinctive peculiarities of the Synoptics. J VII. Harmony of the Synoptics, ...... THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. Literature. I. Genuineness of the Gosjael — External Evidence — Internal Evidence— B}' whom disputed — Examination of Objec- tions. II. The Author of the Gospel — Notices of Matthew in Scripture — Supposed distinction between ilatthew and Levi — Notices of Matthew in Ecclesiastical History. III. Sources of the Gosijel — Three Sources stated : Personal Observation, Oral Tradition, W^ritten Documents. IV. The Design of the Gospel — Written for Jewish Christians — Proofs of the Messiahshij) of Jesus. V. Original Language of the Gospel — Difficulty of this Subject — Theory of a Hebrew Original — External Evidence in favour of it — t'^niform Testimonj- of the Fathers — This Evi- dence disputed — Internal Evidence against a Hebrew Original — The Greek Text not a Translation — Translation of Aramaic expressions — Identity of Greek expressions in Matthew with those in the other Synoptic Gospels — Hypothesis of two original Gosjiels, the one Hel)rew and the other Greek — Opinions of Critics. The Gospel according to the Hebrews^An inter- polated Gospel of Matthew — Additions found in it — Language of Judtea in the Days of Christ — Style and Diction of Matthew. VI. Integrity of the Gospel : 1. Narrative of our Lord's Birth, "^latt. i.-ii. — Evidence in its favour — Objections to it — The Visit of the Magi — The Slaughter of the Infants of Bethlehem — Apjiarent discrepancies witli St. Luke's Narrative — Chronological order of events ; 2. Doxology to our Lord's Prayer. VII. Date of the ( rospel — Different Opinions — The early Date before a.d. 60 — The later Date after a.d. 60 — Reconciliation of these two Dates — Place of Composition. VIII. Contents of the Gosjiel — Disser- tation : Quotations from the Old Testament. List of Quotations — Use of the Septuagint — Formuhe and Modes of Quotation — Examination of some difficult Passages : 1. Matt. ii. 15, "Out of Egypt have I called my sou" ; 2. Matt. ii. 17, 18, Slaughter of the Infants of Bethlehem — In what sense the Prophec\' of Jere- miah is applicable to that event ; 3. Matt. ii. 23, "He shall be called a Nazarene" — Different explanations : a lost Projihecy, a despised Person, a Nazarite, the Brancli (Nazir) ; 4. Matt, xxvii. 9, 10, "The word spoken by Jeremiali the projihet" — The quota- tion from Zech. xi. 12, 13 — Different explanations : in the original Jeremiah omitted ; a lost Propliecy ; Zech. ix.-xi. consti- tuted a part of Jeremiah; Jeremiah the first Book of the Pro- V CONTENTS XVll etical Division ; the quotation from Jereniiali ; a quotation ■m two Prophets ; designed to show the unity of Prophecy ; iiistake of the Author ; a mistake of the Copyist, . . 90-166 THE GOSPEL OF MAEK. erature. I. Genuineness of the Gospel — External Evidence — Internal Evidence — By whom disputed — Examination of Oljjec- tions. II. The Author of the Gospel — Notices of Mark in Scrip- ture : Supposition of two Marks ; the one the Disciple of Paul, the other the Disciple of Peter — Supposed to be the young man who followed Christ (Mark xiv. 51, 52) — Notices of Mark in Ecclesiastical History. III. Sources of Mark's Gospel — Nega- tively, not the Gospels of Matthew and Luke — Positively, the Preaching of Peter — Statements of the Fathers — Connection Ijetween Mark and Peter — Meaning of expression " Interpreter of Peter." IV. Design of Mark's Gospel— Written for Gentile Christians. V. Language of Mark's Gospel — Greek the original Language — Style and Diction — Quotations from the Old Testa- ment—Characteristics of Mark's Gospel : its brevity, vividness, realistic character. VI. Integrity of the Gospel— Genuineness of Mark xvi. 9-20 — By whom disputed and defended — The External Evidence against and for its genuineness — Internal Evidence against and for its genuineness — On the abrupt Con- clusion— Result arrived at — Opinions of Critics. VII. Time and Place of Writing — Conflicting Opinions of the Fathers— Written before the Destruction of Jerusalem — Probaljle Date — Place of Composition — Probably Ca^sarea. VIII. Contents of the Gospel —List of Miracles and Parables, . . . . . . 167-2,08 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. Literature. I. Genuineness of the Gospel — Testimonies of the Fathers — Argument drawn from the Acts of the Apostles — Statement of Objections : 1. An amplification of the Gospel of Marcion — Views of Marcion — The Gospel of Marcion — Its rela- tion to the Gospel of Luke— A mutilation of it ; 2. Luke's Gospel, the work of an Elnonite. II. The Author of the Gospel — Notices of Luke in Scripture and in Ecclesiastical History — —Connection between Luke and Paul. III. Sources of Luke's Gospel— The Preface (Luke i. 1-4) : 1. Oral Tradition ; 2. Written Documents— Relation of Luke to Matthew and Mark. IV. Design of Luke's Gospel— Addressed to Theophilus— Written for Gen- tile Converts. V. Language of Luke's Gospel — Purity of the Greek Style and Diction. VI. Characteristics of Luke's Gospel —Its universality— The Gospel of the Humanity of Christ- Prominence given to Women — Contrasts in Luke's Gospel — Spiritual Songs— Value of Luke's Gospel. VII. Integrity of XVlll CONTENTS PAGE Luke's Gospel : 1. Tlie Narrative of our Lord's Birth, Luke i.-ii. ; 2. Different Readings of Luke ii. 14 ; 3. The Lord's Prayer, Luke xi. 2-4 ; 4. The Bloodj^ Sweat, Luke xxii. 43, 44 — Evi- dence for and against its genuineness. VIIL Time and Place of Writing — Date inferred from tlie Acts of the Apostles — Sup- posed to he written after the Destruction of Jerusalem — Place of Composition. IX. Contents of the Gospel — List of Parables and Miracles — Dissertation I. : Tlie Genealogies. Literature on the subject — Points of Agreement and Difference between the Genealogies of Matthew and Luke — The Sinaitic Palimpsest of Mrs. Lewis — Its bearing on the Genealogies — Its importance overestimated — The Genealogical Lists — Peculiarities in Mat- thew's Genealogy — Genealogy from Salmon to David — Omission of three Kings — Omission of Jehoiakim — The threefold Division of Matthew's Genealogy — The Genealogy in Luke's Gospel — On Shealtiel and Zerubbabel — Three theories of Reconcilia- tion of the two Genealogies : 1. The hypothesis of a Levirate Marriage — Statement of Julius Africanus ; 2. The hypothesis that both are the Genealogy of Joseph — No Evidence from this that Jesus is the Son of David — On the Davidic Descent of Christ ; 3. The hypothesis that Matthew gives the Descent of Joseph and Luke the Descent of Mary — Critical Interjiretation of Luke iii. 23 — Conclusion arrived at — Genealogy among the Jews. Dissertation II. : The Census of Quirinius : Luke ii. 1, 2. Literature on the subject- — Critical remarks — On the Census of the Roman Empire — Different methods of Chronology — The Census emljraced Judaea — Date of our Lord's Birth — Herod alive when Christ was born — ^The Census of Quirinius — State- ment of Josephus in conflict with Luke — Different solutions : 1. Conjectural emcnidations ; 2. The enrolment was made l)efore Quirinius was Governor ; 3. Completed l)y Quirinius ; 4. Quir- inius an extraordinary commissioner ; 5. Called by his well- known official name — Investigations of Zumpt — Quirinius was twice Governor of Syria — Arguments in support of this fact — Sepulchral Inscription found at Tivoli — Results of the Investi- gation, 208-284 ERRATA. Page 1, 1. 12, /or 1862 read 1802. „ 6, 1. 24, for Synoptists read Synoptics. „ 15, 1. 15, for imcanonised read uncanonical. „ 4G, last line, /or Mark read Mattlu-w. „ 51, 1. 4, /or beforehand read before him. ,, 53, 1. 20, for consistencies read coincidences. „ 55, 1. 11, for Gusj)el read (Jospels. „ 72, 1. 11, for collected read collated. „ 280, hist line, omit (Dionysian era, n.c. 14). THE SYKOPTIC GOSPELS. GENEEAL INTRODUCTION. Literature. — The Literature on the Synoptic Gospels, taken conjointly, is very extensive, as the subject has of late attracted much attention in this country, in Germany, and in America. The Genuineness of the Synoptic Gospels is treated in the special sections in the Introductions to the New Testament. The most important of these by German critics are those of Bleek (translated 1869; the last German edition much altered by Mangold, 1886), Credner, De Wette, Eichhorn, Guericke, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Hug (translated 1827), Michaelis (translated by Bishop Marsh, with valuable notes and dissertations, 1802), Eeuss (translated 1884), Weiss (translated 1887). Of works by English critics may be mentioned Alford's Prolegomena to his Greek Testament ; the two very different Introductions of Dr. Samuel Davidson, the one entitled Introduction to the Nevj Testament (1848), and the other Introditction to the Study of the Nevj Testament (1868; third edition 1894); Dod's Introductioyi to the Netv Testament, 1888; Home's Introduction to the Scriptures, with additions by Davidson and Tregelles, 1874; M'Clymont's The New Testament and its Writers, London, 1893 ; and Salmon's In- troduction to the New Testament, 1885. To these have to be added Professor Sanday's Gospels of the Second Century, 1876 ; Westcott's Canon of the New Testament, 1860 ; and Andrews Norton's (of Harvard University) Evidences of the Genuine- ness of the Gospels, 1847. Jones On the Canon, Lardner's 2 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. Credibility, Kirchhofer's Qitellensammlunff, and Charteris' Ganonicity, contain the references to the Synoptic Gospels in the writings of the early Fathers. The special references in the works of Justin Martyr are discussed at considerable length by Purves in his Testimony of Justin Martyr to early Christianity (New York, 1888), and Sadler in his Lost Gospel (London, 1876). Tischendorf's tractate, Wann vnirden unsere Evangellen verfasst ? (4th ed. 186G ; translated 1867) has never been refuted. The important question as to the origin of the Synoptic Gospels has been much discussed during the latter half of this century, and at no period more so than in the present day. The following are the most important works on this sub- ject, given alphabetically : the article on the Gospels by Dr. Abbott in the Encyclopaedia Britannica; Baur's Marcus- evangelium, 1881 ; Badham on the Formation of the Gospels, London, 1892; Bleek's Synoptische Erkldrung der drei ersten Evangelien (Leipzig, 1862); Eichhorn's theory is contained in his Einlcitung in das N.T., and the remarks on it by Bishop Marsh in his translation of Michaelis' Introduction ; Paul Ewald's Hauptprohlem der Evangelienfrage (Leipzig, 1890); Ewald's Die drei ersten Evangelien, 1871; Gieseler's Historisch- kritischer Versuch iiber die Entstehung und die friihesten Schick- sale der schriftlichen Evangelien (Leipzig, 1818); Godet, "The Origin of the Four Gospels," in his Studies in the N.T. 1873; Holtzmann's Die synoptischen Evangelien, 1863; Hilgenfeld, Die Evangelien nach ihrer Entstehung und geschicht- lichen Bedeutung, 1854; Jolley, The Synoptic Problem for English Readers (London, 1893); Keim's Jesus of Nazara (translated 1876-1883); Morison's Commentary on St. Mark's Gospel (3rd ed. London, 1882); Norton's GeMuine- ness of the Gospels, already adverted to ; Eesch, Agrapha : ausserkanonische Evangclienfragmente, 1893; Koberts, Language of Christ and His Apostles, 1888; Sabatier's Sources de la Vie de Jesus, Paris, 1866 ; Schenkel's Das Char- akterbild Jesu (1864; translated 1869); Sclileiermacher's St. Luke, especially tlie introduction to it by the translator, Bishop Thirlwall (London, 1828) ; Scholten's Das dltestc Evan- gclium, 1869; Smith's Dissertation on the (rospc/s, Edinburgh, ) THE TITLE : SYNOPTIC GOSPELS, 3 1853 ; the Introduction to the Gospels in the Speakers Com- mentary, by Archbishop Thomson, and his article on the Gospels in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible (in the new edition there is a valuable supplement to that article by Professor Sanday) ; Volkmar's Marcus und die Synopse der Evangelien, 1876; Weiss, Das Marcus Evangelium tmd seine Synoptisehe Parallelen, 1872 ; Wendt, Evangel. Quellenherichte ilber die Lehre Jesu, 1886 ; Weizsacker, Untersttchungen uber die evangelische Geschichte, 1864, and his Apostolisches Zeitalter, 1890, now translated 1894 ; Wright's Composition of the Four Gospels, London, 1890. Besides these, there are many im- portant articles on the origin of the Synoptic Gospels by Dr. Sanday, Professor Marshall, and others in the Exjwsitor, fourth series, vol. iii. The subject is also discussed by Dr. Schaff in his History of the Christian CMcreh (vol. i, pp. 575-612). To these also is to be added Eushbrooke's Synopticon ; or an Exposition of the common matter in the Synoptic Gospels, where the matter common to the three Gospels and the matter common to two of them are so distinctly indicated by different types and colours as to be recognised at a glance. Other important works will be mentioned in the course of this Introduction. A list of the chief Harmonies of the Gospel will be given when the Harmony of the Synoptics is discussed. I. The Title: Synoptic Gospels. The word Gospel is a translation of the Greek evayyeXiov. It probably came into use through Wicklif's translation. It is a contraction for Godspel, God's word, or more probably for Goodspel, good news (from spellian, to tell). The English version is the only European one in which the Greek word is translated ; in other modern languages it is reproduced after the modified form of the Latin evangelium, as in German Evangelium, in French cvangile, in Italian evangelo, etc. EvajyeXiov, as used in the New Testament, is correctly rendered good neivs, and primarily denotes a good message ; hence the glad tidings of salvation announced to the world in connection with Jesus Christ. Thus the angel on the plain 4 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. of Bethlehem proclaimed : " Behold, I bring you good tidings (evayyeXl^ofiai,) of great joy" (Luke ii. 10). Hence the usual phrase, " the Gospel of Jesus Christ " ; because Christ was the subject of these good news. Taken in a general sense, the word came to denote the whole revelation of salvation by Christ. Thus Paul speaks of " my gospel " (2 Tim. ii. 8), that is, the system of salvation which he preached. It was only at a later period that the term came to be applied to a written record, and especially to denote the record of the sayings and doings of Christ, as in its application to the four historical Lives of Christ whicli form our canonical Gospels. We have a trace of this application in the introductory words to St. Mark's Gospel : " The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ " {o-pxh rov evayyeXiov 'Irjaov Xptarov, Mark i. 1), where perhaps the evangelist entitles his work a Gospel. In the writings of Justin Martyr we have the first undoubted use of the term in this sense : " For the apostles," he observes, " in the memoirs composed by them which we call Gospels, have thus declared." ^ The superscriptions to the Gospels in the manuscripts of the Greek Testament are : evayyeXiov Kara MarOalov, Kara MdpKov, Kara Aovkuv, Kara 'Iwdvvrjv} We cannot tell when these titles were affixed to our Gospels ; but as these titles are all similar, it is probable that it was not until they were collected together in a volume. The force of the preposition Kara has been variously explained. It may denote that the traditions collected by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, i.e. their oral teaching, were committed to writing or edited by others, so that, according to this view, these evangelists were only the indirect authors of their Gospels. It is thus under- stood by Credner ^ and others. But the general testimony of the Fathers is opposed to this meaning of the preposition ; for ^ A2)ol. i. G6 : o/ yeip aTroVroXo/ ev roi; yivof/.iuot; vtt uvtojv oi'Trou.VYif/.oviv- f^xaiv (86 KXhiirui iiioc/yi'htu. ovto; TupeOUKXv. Kai'lior ilistiUlces tit the use of the term are found in the Didache, and in tlie Ejji.stle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians, v. 2 The important codices k and B have simply x.ut» 'Mmrdctiov, etc. 3 Einleitmuj, § 89, note. De Wette observes : " The titles jcxtx. 'M»r6»io», etc., do not definitely indicate these men as their authors ; but the ojjinion of all anticpiity attests the commonly accepted sense." Einlcit uiuj, § 78. THE TITLE: SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 5 the evangelists are always regarded as the direct authors of their Gospels. The oneness of the Gospels is implied by the use of the preposition instead of the genitive.^ There are not, strictly speaking, four Gospels, but one given in four different forms ; the Gospel not o/, but according to Matthew, the Gospel according to Mark, etc. The term sy7i02')tic is a recent critical designation. As the adjective from Synopsis (which is compounded of avv and o-^c'i, parallel to the Latin conspectus), it denotes that in these Gospels we have a narrative of the life of Christ which may be arranged into sections, so as to afford us a general view or conspectus of His sayings and doings. The term is used to distinguish the first three Gospels from the fourth, which is more concerned with the discourses than with the actions of Christ. It is com- paratively modern,- and does not occur in the writings of the Fathers. The specific difference between the Synoptic Gospels and the Fourth Gospel is obvious. It is not necessary to enter upon it here in detail, as it has already been fully discussed in a former Introduction.^ We would only notice four points of difference. 1. They differ in regard to the locality of the events narrated. In the Synoptics the scene of our Lord's ministry is chiefly laid in Galilee. Until the period of His last sufferings there is little mention of Judaea, and we would hardly have known that He frequently visited that country.^ On the other hand, in John's Gospel the scene is chiefly laid in Judsea. The visits of Christ to Jerusalem at the great annual feasts, His conversation with the Jews on these occa- sions, and the miracles which He then performed, form the chief contents of that Gospel ; whilst His ministry in Galilee is seldom, and only incidentally, alluded to.^ 2. They appar- ^ TO iiimyyihiov rirpoe,f^op(pov, Ireiiseus. 2 According to Archdeacon Farrar, it was brought into general use by Griesbach. See also Holtzniann's Einleitung, p. 370. 3 Gloag's Introduction to the Jolmnnine JFritiwjs, i)p. 130-147. * Luke ix. 41 would seem to intimate a journey to Jerusalem in the middle of His ministry : it may, however, allude by anticipation to His last journey. 5 Allusions to a Galilean ministry in John's Gospel are found in John ii. 12, vi. 1, 4, 59, vii. 1. 6 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. ently differ as to the duration of Christ's ministry. In the Synoptics our Lord's ministry would seem to be comprised within the short space of one year. There is mention only of one visit to Jerusalem, at the Passover when He suffered ; and nothing would lead us to suppose that three Passovers occurred during the course of His ministry. Whereas in John's Gospel three Passovers are recorded/ so that His ministry must have extended over two or three years. 3. They differ in the events narrated. There is little in common between the facts and discourses recorded in the Synoptics and those recorded in the Fourth Gospel. Excluding the narrative of our Lord's last visit to Jerusalem when He suffered, and tlie narrative of His resurrection, there are only three incidents which John relates in common with the other evangelists — the miraculous feeding of the multitude, the walking on the Sea of Galilee, and the anointing by Mary the sister of Lazarus. The miraculous birth of Christ, His baptism and temptation, the transfiguration, the institution of the Supper, the agony of Gethsemane, narrated by the Synoptists, are omitted in John's Gospel ; whilst the cure of the man who was born blind, the healing of the impotent man at the pool of Bethesda, and the resurrection of Lazarus, mentioned by John, are omitted by the Synoptists. 4. They differ in the character of the teaching or discourses of Jesus. In the Synoptists the discourses of our Lord are chiefly given in parables : His teaching is brought down to the comprehension of the multitude. On the other ?iand, in the Fourth Gospel this mode of instruction is entirely \wanting, except where there is an approach to it in the allegories of the Good Shepherd and of the Vine and its branches : the dis- courses are for the most part of a subjective and mystical character, relating to the deep things of God. These differ- ences have been variously accounted for, and reasons have been assigned for them ; but still tliey notably exist, and are sufficient to justify the distinction which has been made between the Fourth Gospel and the other three. The Fathers have always recognised only four Gospels, namely, the three Synoptics, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and the Fourth Gospel, that of John. Thus Irenjeus, in a well- ^ John ii. 13, vi. 3, 4, xii. 1. THE TITLE : SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 7 known passage, observes : " Since there are four regions of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, and since the Church is spread over all the world, and the gospel is the pillar and ground of the Church, it is fitting that it should have four pillars breathing out immortality and imparting life to men. From which it is evident the Word, the Creator of all men, and who sitteth above the cherubim, and is the Sustainer of all, has given us the gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one Spirit." ^ We have nothing to do with the fanciful illustrations of Irenajus, but only with the fact which he attests, that there are four Gospels, neither more nor less. These Gospels he afterwards declares to be those of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. No other Gospel was admitted among the sacred books of the early Christians : neither in the writings of the Fathers, nor in the manuscripts of the New Testament, is any other Gospel mentioned as having received the authority and sanction of the Church. Thus Clemens Alexandrinus, when referring to a passage taken from an apocryphal Gospel, says : " We do not find this statement in the four Gospels that have been handed down to us, but in that according to the Egyptians." - But although there were only four Gospels received as of any authority by the Church at the close of the second century, namely, those which we now possess, yet numbers of non-canonical Gospels were written and disseminated chiefly in the second century.^ Most of them are of no importance, and are full of the most trivial and extravagant incidents. Three may be mentioned which for certain reasons have attained notoriety, but which, although frequently referred to by the Fathers, were never regarded as of any authority. The Gospel to the Hebrews (EvayyeXiov Ka6' 'E/Spaiov;) was used by the Ebionites, Nazarenes, and other Jewish- 1 Irenaeus, Adv. Hcer. iii. 11. 8 ; Charteris' Canonicitij, pp. 68, 69. Dr. Taylor supposes that this statement of Irenaeus about the fourfold Gospel was anticipated by Hernias, a.d. 143. 2 Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom, iii. 13. 3 For a succinct account of the non-canonical Gospels, see Guericke, Isacjocjik, pp. 225 ff. ; De Wette, EinUitung, §§ 63-74 ; translation, pp. 87- 124 ; and Baring-Gould, Lost and Hostile Gospels. 8 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. Christian sects. It appears to have been closely related to the Gospel of Matthew, and will occupy our attention when we come to the special consideration of that Gospel. The Gospel of Marcion, an anti-Judaistic-Gnostic Gospel, con- structed by Marcion for the propagation of his opinions, was the subject of much controversy toward the close of the second century, and was fiercely attacked by Tertullian.^ It was closely related to the Gospel of Luke, which was mutilated and corrupted by Marcion from dogmatic considerations.'^ It will also occupy our attention when we consider the third Gospel. The Gospel of Peter, which has recently obtained additional interest from the discovery of an important fragment, and which is especially valuable, as thaC frag- ment contains an account of the trial and death of Christ. The four Gospels, whilst they contain an account of the life and teaching of Christ, record only a small portion of the events of our Lord's life. There must have been numerous other works done by Christ, and numerous other discourses delivered by Him, which are not recorded ; we have at best only selected deeds and discourses narrated. St. John expressly asserts the fragmentary nature of his Gospel : " Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book " (John XX. 30; comp. John xxi. 25). When we reflect on the fulness of such a life as that of Jesus, that He must have been ever actively engaged in His Father's business, and ever teaching the multitude in public and His disciples in private, we cannot but conclude that the accounts which we possess are of a most fragmentary nature. We have, for example, only a few incidents of the early life of Jesus before He attained to the age of thirty, when He entered upon His ministry. Luke only states one incident. His converse with the doctors in the temple (Luke ii. 41-51), when He was about twelve years of age. And after He commenced His pul)lic ministry, tlie C»()S])els themselves suggest the fiag- raentary nature of their accounts. By comparing the Fourth ^ Contra Marcion. 2 Irenasiis, Adv. Ilor. i. 27. 2 ; Tcrttilliaii, Contra Marcion, iv. 2. THE AUTHORS OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 9 Gospel with the Synoptics we see what important events and discourses they have omitted.^ In the accounts given us there is also a want of chronological order.^ The Synoptists do not follow the same order in the events they record ; so that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to form a harmony of their accounts. II. The Authors of the Synoptic Gospels. The authors of the Synoptic Gospels were Matthew, Mark, and Luke ; one an apostle, the other two disciples of the apostles. The author of the Fourth Gospel was " the beloved disciple." They wrote for different readers, as we shall see when we examine the Gospels seriatim. It has been held that St. Matthew's is the Gospel for the Jews ; St. Mark's is the Gospel for the Romans ; St. Luke's is the Gospel for the Greeks ; St. John's is the Gospel for the universal Church. These Gospels have been symbolised in accordance with the description of the cherubim in the prophecy of Ezekiel, and of the living creatures in the Apocalypse. In Ezekiel the cherubim are described as having each four faces — the face of a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle (Ezek. i. 10); whilst in the Apocalypse the living creatures are thus described : " The first creature was like a lion, the second like a calf, the third like a man, the fourth like a flying eagle " (Rev. iv. 7). These symbols were, at a very early period, taken to represent the Gospels, and have been enshrined in Christian art. Irenseus thus explains theSe evangelical symbols. The first living creature, the lion, the symbol of strength, dominion, and royal power, represents the Gospel of John, relating the glorious generation of Christ from the Father, as the Word by whom all things were made. The second living creature, the ox, the symbol of sacrifice and priesthood, represents the Gospel of Luke, commencing 1 See Alford's Greek Testament, vol. i. Prolegomena, cli. i. § v. ; Arch- bishop Thomson in Speaker's Commentary N. T. vol. i. p. vii f . ; Westcott's Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, jj. 20. ' See Eiclihorn's Einleitung in das N.T. § 136 10 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. with Zechariah the priest offering up a sacrifice to God. The third Hving creature, the man, the symbol of humanity, represents the Gospel of Matthew, proclaiming the human birth of Christ, and commencing with His generation as a man. The fourth living creature, the flying eagle, pointing to the gift of the Spirit, hovering with His wings over the Church, represents the Gospel of Mark, testifying to the prophetic Spirit which comes from above by referring to the prophet Isaiah.^ So that, according to Irenteus, the lion is the symbol of John, the ox of Luke, the man of Matthew, and the eagle of Mark. These symbols are given in a different order by other Fathers. According to Athanasius, the man denotes Matthew, the ox Mark, the hon Luke, and the eagle John. Augustine assigns the lion to Matthew, the man to Mark, the ox to Luke, and the eagle to John. The symbolism now generally adopted and found in paintings and sculptures is that given us by Jerome. " The first form, that of a man," he observes, " denotes Matthew, because he at once begins to write of the man. The form of the lion denotes Mark, the voice of the roaring lion in the wilderness being heard in his Gospel. The third, that of the ox, represents Luke, who begins with the priest Zechariah. The fourth form, that of the eagle, represents John, who soars above as on eagle's wings, and speaks of the divine Word." ^ These analogies are, no doubt, fanciful, and of no importance in themselves, still they bear upon tlie question as to the number of Gospels regarded as canonical and authentic. IIL Genuineness of the Synoptic Gospels. The external aiul internal evidences accrediting each of these Gospels will be examined when we consider them separately. Here we take the Synoptic Gospels together as a whole. We sliull commence with the period when they were universally acknowledged by the Churcli, and trace the proofs of their existence backwards as near to tlieir source as possible. Irenieus (a.d. 180) thus mentions the four ^ IrenoQUs, Adv.Hcrr. iii. 11. 8 ; Kirchhofer's Qucllensammlu7Uf, p. 40. 2 Prulogue to liis Comment, in Ev. Matthcei. GENUINENESS OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 11 Gospels : " Matthew issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preachmg at Eome, and laymg the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia." ^ And we have already mentioned his reference to those four Gospels in assigning to each of them the prophetic symbols. The testimony of Irenseus is very important, as he ministered both in the East in Proconsular Asia, and in the West in Gaul. He was also the disciple of Polycarp, and accordingly only one step removed from the apostles. His testimony is corroborated by his contempo- raries, Clemens Alexandrinus and Tertullian. Clemens Alexandrinus (a.d. 190) repeatedly alludes to the four Gospels. ■ He states that the Gospels containing the genealogies were written first ; and that the Gospel of St. John came last, that apostle writing at the instigation of his friends a spiritual Gospel.^ In a passage already quoted, he speaks of the four Gospels committed to us.^ Tertullian (a.d. 200) is equally explicit: "Of the apostles, John and Matthew instil faith into us, whilst of apostolic men Luke and Mark afterwards renew it." ^ These testimonies are not only of importance as the testimonies of these early Fathers, but as being the testi- monies of the Churches which they represented ; so that in Asia Minor, in Gaul, in Egypt, and in Ptoman Africa, we have the assurance that toward the close of the second century the four Gospels which we possess were in circula- tion, and accepted by the whole Christian Church as authori- tative histories of the life of Christ. In the forcible words 1 Irenaeus, Adv. Hmr. iii. 1.1; Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. v. 8. 2 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. vi. 14. ^ Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom, iii. 13. * Tertullian, Gontra Marcion, iv. 2 : Nobis fidem ex apostolis Joannes et Mattlieeus insinuant, ex apostolicis Lucas et Marcus instaurant. 12 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. of Professor Norton : " About the end of the second century the Gospels were reverenced as sacred books by a community dispersed over the whole world, composed of men of different nations and languages. There were, to say the least, sixty thousand copies in existence.^ They were read in the assemblies of Christians ; they were continually quoted and appealed to, as of the highest authority ; their reputation was as well established among believers from one end of the Koman Empire to the other as it is among Christians at the present day. The general reception of the Gospels as books of the highest authority at the end of the second century necessarily implies their celebrity at a much earlier period, and the long operation of causes sufficient to produce so remarkable a phenomenon." ^ A remarkable fragment of the so-called Gospel of Peter has lately been brought to light. This Gospel, seldom alluded to by the Fathers, is adverted to by Eusebius.^ He mentions among the spurious writings ascribed to Peter, " the Gospel which bears his name." ^ He also informs us that this Gospel is mentioned by Serapion, the bishop of Antioch (a.d. 190), as in use in the church of Khossus in his diocese, and that it was rejected by him on account of the heretical doctrines which it contained. At first the bishop permitted it to be read, because, not having seen it, he was ignorant of its erroneous teaching ; but this having been brought to his knowledge, he forbade its use : " Having obtained this Gospel from others who have studied it dili- gently, namely, from the successors of those who first used it, whom we call Docetae, we have read it through, and find many things in accordance with the true doctrine of the 1 Professor Norton hases tins calculation on tlie fact that at the end of the second century there would be three millions of believers, anxious to obtain cojiies of the Gos2)els; and supposing one copy for every fifty Christians, this would give sixty thousand coi)ies. Tlie number is some- what exaggerated, but it must have been very great. We have very little information as to the cost of books in ancient times. 2 Norton, 77i,e Genuineness of the Gospcl.i, vol. i. \\ 123. See also pp. 31, 32. ^ Mentioned also by Origen, Ad Matth. xiii. 51. * Eusebius, Hist. Ecrl. iii. 3. GENUINENESS OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 13 Saviour, but some things added to that doctrine which we have pointed out to you further on."^ In 1886 a fragment was discovered in a tomb near the town of Akhman, the Panopolis of Strabo, in Egypt, containing an account of the sufferings and resurrection of Christ, which has with extreme probability been supposed to be a part of this Gospel.- It completely agrees with the description given by Serapion, being in general accordance with the orthodox doctrine of Christ, but tinged with Docetism ; as, for example, it states that when Christ hung upon the cross He was free from pain, and that He was deserted by the Power at the moment of His death.^ The latest date that can be assigned to it is a.d. 170, having been referred to by Serapion in a.d. 190 ; pro- bably it belongs to the middle of the second century.^ Some imagine that it may possibly have been one of the documents referred to by Luke in his Gospel ; but this is extremely improbable, as from the nature of its contents it is to be classed among the spurious Gospels, The fragment we possess is taken from our Gospels with several additions. The trial of Jesus is transferred from Pilate to Herod. There are references in it to all the Synoptic Gospels ; as, for example, it is stated that Pilate washed his hands, which is mentioned only in Matthew's Gospel ; that our Lord was tried before Herod, to which Luke only alludes ; and although no incident is recorded peculiar to Mark, yet this is accounted for by the similarity of this Gospel to the other two. In this fragment, then, we have a proof that the Synoptic Gospels were current in the Church before a.d. 170.^ ^ Eusebius, Hist. Ecd. vi. 12. See also Jones On the Canon, vol. i. pp. 284-290. ^ Along with this fragment of the Gospel of Peter were found portions of tlie Book of Enoch and the Apocalypse of Peter. ^ Instead of the evangelic words, " My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me 1 " the Gospel of Peter has, " My power, my power. Thou hast left me," — ^ ^vvec[/.ig [/.ov, ^ Zvvxfug i/,ov Kot-rihitipctg f^e. * Zahn fixes the date about a.d. 140 or 150 ; Sanday, hardly later than the end of the first quarter of the second century ; Harnack, about a.d. 115. It has been supposed that Justin makes use of this Gospel. Sanday's Bampton Lectures, p. 310. * See TJie Akhman Fragment of the Apocryphal Gospel of St. Peter, by Professor Swete, 1893 ; The Gospel according to Peter, two lectures by J. 14 GENERAL INTKODUCTION, The next testimony to which we advert is the Mura- torian Canon. This celebrated and valuable fragment, mutilated both at the beginning and at the end, was dis- covered in the Amljrosian Library in Milan, and first published by Muratori in 1740. It professes to have been written by a contemporary of Pius, bishop of Eome, and is therefore to be placed about the year a.d. IGO. Its genuineness has been generally acknowledged. Owing to its mutilation, the first two Gospels are not named ; but there is no doubt that the canon recognised the four Gospels, as the Gospel of Luke is mentioned as the third, and the Gospel of John as the fourth ; and we may therefore infer that the first and second Gospels were mentioned in that part of the canon which is wanting.^ Tatian (a.d. 160) is another hnportant witness to the existence of the Synoptic Gospels in the middle of the second century. He was, as he himself informs us, born in the land of Assyria, and was a disciple of Justin Martyr. After the death of Justin he fell into heresy, having adopted the errors of the Encratites, a Gnostic sect of an ascetic natiu-e, related to Marcion.- His Diatessaron, or Harmony of the Four Gospels, was his great work, and was probably written before his lapse into heresy.^ Eusebius informs us that " Tatian com- posed a certain combination and collection of the Gospels, to which he gave the name Diatessaron, and which is current Ariiiitage Robinson and M. R. James ; BruchstUcke des Evamjelium und der Ajyocalypse des Petrus, by Harnack, 1893 ; Das Evangelium des Petrus, by Zahn, 1893 ; Gebliart, Das Evangelium und die Apocalypse Petrus ; Schnljert, Die Composition der pseudopetrinischen Evangelien-Fragmente ; Dr. Salmon's (of Dulilin) Introduction to the N.T., 7tli edition, Ajipendix, Note III., The Gospel of Peter, pp. 581-589; The Ncniii- Discovered Gospel of St. Peter, by J. Rendel Harris, 1893. 1 The fullest account of the Muratorian canon is given by Tregelles in his " Canon Muratorianus, the earliest catalogue of the books of the New Testament, edited with notes, and a facsimile of the MS. in the Ambrosian Library at Milan." A transcript of it is given l)y Kirchhofer in his Quellen- sam 111 lung, pp. 1, 2 ; l)y Westcott in his Canon of the Ncv) Testament, pp. 466-480 ; and by Dr. Charteris in his Canonicity, pp. 3-8. 2 Ireuajus, Adv. Hwr. i. 28. 1, iii. 23. 8. 3 Besides the Diatessaron, Tatian wrote an "Address to the Greeks," entitled, 'Yxriot.v'jv '7rp6;"E>^7.rrjetc, a work of great merit. GENUINENESS OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 15 with some persons even in the present day."^ And Epiphanius says : " The Diatessaron Gospel is said to have been composed by Tatian." - This harmony of the Gospels was in great repute in the fifth century among the Syrian Churches. Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus (a.d. 420), informs us that " Tatian composed the Gospel which is called the Diatessaron, omitting the genealogies and whatever other passages show that our Lord was born of the seed of David according to the flesh ; " and he tells us that in his diocese there were more than two hundred copies of it.^ Dionysius Bar-Salibi, an Armenian bishop of the twelfth century, informs us that Ephrsem Syrus (a.d. 370) wrote a commentary upon it.* Its existence was called in question, and it was asserted that Tatian's Diatessaron was not a harmony of the four Gospels, but was to be ranked among the uncanonised or spurious Gospels.^ This assertion has been recently proved to be unfounded. The commentary of Ephr^em Syrus has been discovered in an Armenian version in the Armenian convent near Venice, in two manuscripts, bearing the date A.D. 1195, and agreeing with what we know of Tatian's harmony ; and a Latin translation of it by Aucher, one of the Armenian monks, was corrected and published by Moesinger in 1876.*" But more recently still two manuscripts have been discovered by Professor Agostino Ciasca, the one in the Vatican and the other in the Borgian Museum, containing Arabic translations of the Diatessaron itself."^ A note attached 1 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iv. 29. ^ Epiphanius, Hcer. xlvi. 1. 3 Theodoret, Hcer. Fab. i. 20, ii. 158 ff. Theodoret regarded the Diatessaron with prejudice. He says that he collected and jnit away all the copies and substituted the Gospels of the four evangelists in their stead. He is mistaken in asserting that Tatian purposely omitted passages which referred to Christ being born of the seed of David. * Assemanni, Biblioth. Orient, ii. p. 158 ff. * Swpernatural Religion, vol. ii. p. 152 ft'. ^ Evangelii concordantis expositio facta a Sancto Ephrsemo Doctore Syro. In Latinum translata a J. B. Aucher. Edidit Mcesinger. Venetiis, 1876. See on the discovery of Ephrsem's commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron two interesting articles by Professor Wace in the Expositor for 1882, and Zalm's Tatian^s Diatessaron, p. 240 ff. '' At the end of the Vatican MS. is written : " Here endeth by the help of God the sacred Gospel which Tatian collected out of the four Gosisels, 16 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. to each asserts that it is Tatian's Diatessaron. A trans- lation was published by Ciasca in 1888, based upon the two Arabic manuscripts, accompanied by introductory explana- tions.^ An English translation has been made by the Eev. J. Hamlyn Hill (1894), with an important introduction and several ap})endices.- It has also been proved that the Codex Fuldensis, a Latin version of the New Testament belonging to the sixth century in the form of a harmony, is probably based on the Diatessaron.^ The importance of this discovery is very great. There is no doubt whatever that we have here manu- scripts of the translation of the Diatessaron ; and accordingly it is now demonstrated that Tatian composed a harmony of the four canonical Gospels."^ He used our Gospels only : there is no trace of any non-canonical Gospels. The difference is but slight between it and our Gospels : there are few addi- tions and omissions. The most important omissions are the genealogies of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, as Theodoret testifies, and as is found to be the case in the Borgian Arabic manuscript.^ It is very valuable as a harmony, and, indeed, can bear a comparison with recent harmonies.^ It is not improbable that the Diatessaron was written, as Professor Zahn surmises, in Syriac, and that the version which was employed was the Curetonian version.'^ This will account for and wliicli is commonly called the Diatessaron " ; and at the beginning of the Borgian MS. : "With the assistance of the Most High God we begin to translate the holy Gospel entitled the Diatessaron, which Tatian, a Greek, compiled out of the four Gospels." 1 Tatiani Evanr/eliorum Harmonice Arabice, 1888. 2 " The earliest life of Christ ever compiled from the Four Gospels, being the Diatessaron of Tatian, literally transcribed from the Arabic Version, and con- tainimj the Four Gospiels woven in one story," by the Rev. J. Hamlyn Hill. Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark, 1894. The translation is from the Latin translation of the Arabic versions by Ciasca compared with the Arabic. 3 See article by II. Wace in Expositor for 1881. ■• See Rendel Harris' Diatessaron of Tatian ; IlemjjhiU's Diatessaron. 5 The Vatican MS. contains the genealogies, but in the Borgian MS. they are absent from the body of the work, and are inserted in an Appendix. " See Hamlyn Hill's translation, and the A]ipendices attached to it. The variations between the Diatessaron and the tiospels are wonderfully small. ^ Zahn's Tatian's Diatessaron, pp. 18, 229. Zahn, before the discovery of the Arabic MSS., attempted a reconstruction of Tatian's works, chiefly from Ephrajm's commentary. GENUINENESS OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 17 the comparative ignorance of it in the Latin and Greek Churches, and for its use in the Syriac Churches. It was looked upon with suspicion by the early Fathers, on account of the heretical views of the author.^ Next in order is the important testimony of Justin Martyr (a.d. 150). The extant works of Justin consist of two Apologies and a dialogue with Trypho the Jew. The Apologies were addressed to Antoninus Pius, and are assigned to the middle of the second century. In them he speaks frequently of the Memoirs or Memorabilia of the Apostles. The Gospels are not named, but there are various quotations from them ; and the incidents of our Lord's life mentioned by Justin are in accordance with them. It is true that in the quotations the precise words are not given ; Justin appears to have quoted from memory ; but that is also the case with his quotations from the Old Testament. Justin informs us that the Memoirs of the Apostles were read publicly in the churches, and were regarded with as much reverence as the writings of the prophets. The quotations and references to our Gospels are exceedingly numerous ; and whatever dubiety there may be as regards St. John's Gospel,^ there is no doubt whatever that the Synoptic Gospels are repeatedly quoted. Thus Matthew is directly quoted in these words : " Christ when on earth told those who said that Elias would come before Christ, Elias will indeed come and restore all things ; but I say unto you that Elias came' already, and they knew him not, but did to him all that they listed. And it is written. Then understood the disciples that He spoke to them of John the Baptist " ^ (Matt, xvii. 13); Mark is directly quoted in the following words: " It is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter ; and it is written in the Memoirs of Him that He changed the name of other two brothers, the sons of ^ See an elaljorate article on Tatian by Professor Fuller of King's College, London, in Smith's Dictionary of Biography, and another by Miiller in Herzog's Real-EncyclopUdie, vol. xv. pp. 208 ff. ^ That Justin used the Gospel of John is now generally admitted. See Ezra Abbot's work on the Authorship of the Fourth Gospel. ^ Dial. ch. xlix. 18 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means the sons of thunder " ^ (Mark iii. 16, 17); and Luke is directly quoted in these words : " For when Christ was giving up His spirit on the cross, He said, Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit, as I have learned from the Memoirs " ^ (Luke xxiii. 46). It is true that there are one or two incidents mentioned by Justin which are not recorded in our Gospels, and which have given rise to the assertion that Justin did not quote from the Synoptics, but from some uncanonical Gospel.^ Thus Justin says that " Christ being regarded as a worker in wood, did make while among men ploughs and yokes, thus setting before them symbols of righteousness, and teaching them an active life ; " * and that " when Jesus came to Jordan, where John was baptizing, upon His entering the water a fire was kindled in the Jordan."^ But these extra-canonical incidents are few, and ma^ be accounted for either as inferences which Justin drew from the state- ments of the evangelists, or as traditions of the life of Jesus which at that early period survived in the Church. As Paley remarks : " In all Justin's works, from which might be extracted almost a complete life of Christ, there are but two instances in which he refers to anything as said or done by Christ which is not related concerning Him in the present Gospels ; which shows that these Gospels, and these alone, were the authorities from which the Chris- tians of that day drew the information on which they depended." ® We now come to the important and much controverted statement of Papias (a.d. 120). Papias, bishop of Hiera- polis in Phrygia, may well be regarded as an apostolic Father, as he was either, along with Polycarp, a disciple of the Apostle John,'^ or a disciple of John the Presbyter.*^ He ^ Dial. ch. cvi. - Dial. cli. cv. 3 Thus De Wette mentions among the uncauonical Gospels the Gospel of Justin, §§ 66, 67. •* Dial, cum Try^jh. ch. Ixxxviii. " IcUm. ^ Paley's Evidences of Christianity, pt. i. cli. ix. § I. ' Irenseus, Adv. Hcer. v. 33. 4. 8 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iii. 39. It is a question whether John the Presbyter ever existed, or whether this is merely another name for GENUINENESS OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS, 19 professes to have conversed with those who were intimate with several of the apostles. He was a voluminous writer, his chief work being an exposition of the discourses of our Lord (koylcov KvpiuKwv i^iTyrjaea) ; but only a few fragments of his works remain preserved by Eusebius.^ We have the followmg important testimony to the Gospels of Matthew and Mark : " John the Presbyter also said, Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not indeed in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed Him ; but afterward, as is said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error, while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely. These things are related by Papias concerning Mark Concerning Matthew he writes as follows : Matthew composed his dis- courses (koyia) in the Hebrew language, and everyone interpreted them as he was able."^ This statement will, in the course of our Introduction, frequently occupy our attention ; much has been made of it in the question regarding the origin of the Synoptic Gospels. It proves John the apostle. Gloag's Introduction to the JoJiannine Writings, pp. 268-270. ^ On the fragments from Papias, see Holtzmann's Sijnopt. Evangel, pp. 248 ff. ; Weizsacker, Untersuch. iiber d. evang. GeschicJde ; Steitz in Herzog's EncyTd. 1st ed. vol. xi. pp. 79 f. 2 Eusebius, Hist. Ecd. iii. 39. The words of Papias are so very important, and will be so often referred to, that we give this quotation from Eusebius in full : K«( rovro 6 ■rrpsrjfivrepog 'i'Ai'ys' Mocpx.og f^iv sp/^nvivr^s nirpov yivo/iiivo; oaa. ii^m^ovivmv ix,x.pt(iZ)g 'iypxi^iV ov /xhroi tcc^h rx vtto rou 'KptiTTOv '/} 'Kix^ivtoi, »j Trpx^Siurot. Oinri yoip i]KOvas rov x.vpiov, ovrs Tcctpnx.o'Kov- Syjuhi avru, varspov "hk, ug i(pyiv, Uerpa, og -yrpog recg x^s/a? I-Tvoiuro rxg ^loaa- xxKiag, tiXfC ovx ua-TTip avvrx^iu ruv icvpiXKUv Trotovfuvog "Koyuv, aan ovoiv yifi.xpTi M.»p>cog, ovroig hiot, ypocipotg ug oi7r£f/,VYift,6vev(rsv. EvoV y»p eTrotviaccTO '^poi'oicc!/, roll fiYihiu av ^x-ovas ■KxpotT^iTrilv, vj ypsvaocirdxi ri Iv xvroig. Txurx fciv ovv iirrcpYirxi ru Uxttix Trspl rou Mxpx.ov. liipi Ss rot/ Mxrdxiov rxvr itpnrxr MxrdocJog /u,iv ouv ''Elipxi'di lixT^iuro) rx 'hoyix nvviypx-^xro. Hpfit]- vivai 0 xvrx ug ijdvuxro iKXarog. 20 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. that in the time of Papias writings did exist which bore the names of the first two evangelists, Matthew and Mark.^ We do not carry our investigation further back. In the writings of the apostoUc Fathers there are alhisions more or less distinct to the Synoptic Gospels, and especially in the Didache there is a distinct correspondence to the Sermon on the Mount; but as such evidence relates to particular Gospels rather than to the Synoptic Gospels collectively, it will be considered in its proper place. Besides these quotations from the Fathers, there is also the evidence derived from the ancient versions, especially the old Latin and the Syriac. The old Latin (Vetus Latino) must have existed about A.D. 170, because it is quoted and used by Tertullian and in the Latin translation of Irenaeus. It was made, not for the use of the Church of Eome, which was at first Greek, but for the Christians in the lioman province of Africa, of which Carthage was the capital. All the manuscripts contain the four Gospels. The Syriac is probably the earliest version, as it would be the first required ; and the probability is that Tatian made use of it in the composition of his Diatessaron. There are good reasons for fixing its date about the middle of the second century (a. D. 150).- Although some of the books of Scripture are omitted, yet in all the Syriac manuscripts the four Gospels are found. Some suppose that the Peshito, the well- known Syriac version, is not the original form of the Syriac, but a revised version from an older form, of which the ' It lias l)ceu asserted that Papias does not here s^jeak of our C4os])els, l)iit of an original Mark (Ur-Marcus) and an original Matthew (Ur-Mattha;us), from which our Gospels were derived ; or else he mentions two distinct documents, "the teaching of Peter," as given by Mark, and "the logia of Matthew," which formed the chief sources of the Synoptic Gospels. These opinions will afterwards form the sul)ject of discussion. Others assert that there is no reason to suppose that Pai)ias does not refer to our canonical Gospels then existing. See Lightfoot's Essays on Supei-- natural Religion, \\\i. 1G3-1G8. Papias does not refer to Luke ; and, of cour.se, his testimony has no bearing \\\nni the gi'niiineiiess of that Go.si)el. ^ " There is no sufficient reason," observes Westcotl, " to desert the opinion, which has obtained the sanction of the mo.st com])etent .scholars, that its formation is to be fixed within «lie first half of the .second century." Westcott, On the Canon, p. 211. GENUINENESS OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 21 Curetonian manuscript is a fragment ; and that the Peshito bears the same relation to the ancient Syriac as the Vulgate does to the old Latin.^ Such is the evidence for the genuineness of the Synoptic Grospels as a whole. No classical writing of the ancients has the same amount of testimony. When we consider the universal acceptance of these Gospels toward the close of the second century, the reverence shown to them as sacred books, their wide distribution throughout all the provinces of the Koman Empire, the explicit testimony of Justin Martyr to them in the middle of that century, their translation into the Latin and Syriac languages, we cannot fail to be con- vinced that they are the genuine records of the life of Christ. The hypothesis that they were inventions is inadmissible in regard to documents written so soon after the events they purport to record, and they were of an importance too vital to those to whom they were addressed, to be received on insufficient evidence. The theory of Strauss, that the Gospels contain myths and legends, which half a century ago made such a noise, and was regarded as a formidable objection, is now generally discarded as utterly baseless ; the time between the events recorded and the publication of these Gospels is too short to admit of such a prolific growth of legends or myths.^ And so, also, the more acute and ingenious theory of Baur, that the Gospels and other books of Scripture were written with a tendency-design, either as statements of Pauline or of Petrine Christianity, or with a view to mediate between two antagonistic systems, has now few adherents.^ Hilgenfeld and Holsten, and perhaps we may also include Pfleiderer, are almost the only real representatives of the Tubingen school, and yet their opinions differ materially from ^ See on this i^oint Westcott and Hort's Greek Testament, vol. ii. p. 84. The Syriac version, found by Mrs. Lewis in 1893 in the monastery of St. Catherine at Mount Sinai, is supposed to be a variation of the Curetonian version. 2 Row's Jesus of the Evangelists, ch. xvi. ; Fairbairn's Clirist of Modern History, pp. 232-242. ^ According to Baur, Matthew contained Petrine and Luke Pauline Christianity ; whilst Mark was conciliatory, and John contained the full reconciliation of Petrine and Pauline Christianity in the Catholic Church. 22 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. those of Baur. Even according to their own admission such tendency - designs are hardly recognisable in the Synoptic Gospels ; because, before these Gospels were written, the antagonism of Pauline and Petrine Cln-istianity had been smoothed down, and the Gospels were composed chiefly with a conciliatory design. In short, we are led from all evidence, external as well as internal, to accept the Synoptic Gospels as credible records of the deeds and words of Christ.^ There are certainly great, perhaps insoluble, difficulties con- nected with their origm ; but these, as we shall afterwards see, are not sufficient to shake our confidence in the credi- bility of the history. IV. Relation of the Synoptic Gospels to each other. Until recent times it has been generally supposed that the three Synoptic Gospels were wholly independent narra- tives ; that the evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, infallibly guided by the Spirit of God, each made a selection of the incidents of our Lord's life and of His discourses, without having seen the writings of the other two, or without having recourse to any common oral tradition or written document. Such an opinion, however, has not been con- firmed by an examination of their contents. A perusal of the harmony of these Gospels, whether drawn up in English or in Greek, and especially an attentive consideration of the coincidences between them, both in the events recorded and in the language employed, must convince every unprejudiced reader that common materials must have been used in their construction, that absolute independence is by the facts of the case excluded, and that to a large extent there was a ' " Wc ought," observes Holtzniann, " at least with regard to the Synoptic Gosjiels, to maintain definitely that they contain as their kernel nothing else than the genuine, and in the chief features clearly recognis- able Y)ortrait of Jesus of Nazareth." Holtzniaun's Kovimentar : die Synryptikcr, ]). 14. "I look," says Goethe, "upon the four Gospels as thoroughly genuine ; for there is in them a reflection of a greatness which emanated from the ])ers()n of Jesus, and which w;vs of as divine a kind as ever was seen upon earth." ConverMitions of Goeihc m'th Eckermann, p. 567. Bohn edition. RELATION OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS TO EACH OTHER. 23 source or sources common to all three. But, along with these coincidences, there are points of difference, especially in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, which prove that the writers of these two Gospels must on these points have drawn their information from different sources. The Synoptic problem — which is the great question at present in the criticism of the New Testament — has to take account of these coincidences and differences, and to explain them by reference to the source or sources of the Gospels themselves. It is proved that there is a dependence between them, and the question is, What is the original basis of this dependence ? But before we attempt to answer this question, and to con- sider the different theories that have been advanced, or to suggest any probable solution, it is essential that we should understand the conditions of the problem. 1. Points of agreement. — The Synoptic Gospels agree as to the locality of our Lord's ministry. They narrate chiefly the ministry in Galilee, omitting the ministry in Judaea, until the period of our Lord's passion ; they are all Galilean Gospels ; the references to the earlier Judsan ministry are only indirect and inferential. They agree as to the duration of the ministry. There is only mention of one Passover, that at which our Lord suffered ; and, were it not for the informa- tion afforded in John's Gospel, we might be led to infer that our Lord's ministry did not extend beyond one year. They agree as to the order of the ministry. Although there is a considerable variation in the chronological order of particular mcidents, yet the general order, in its main features, is the same. In their accounts of Christ's public ministry they all commence with the preaching of the Baptist and the baptism and temptation of Christ, relate the ministry of Galilee in a somewhat similar order, mention the great crises that occurred in the middle of that ministry, — the confession of the Messiah- ship of Jesus by the disciples, and the Transfiguration, — and close their narratives by an account of our Lord's death and resurrection. They agree, to a large extent, in the incidents recorded. Although the works and discourses of Jesus must have been far more numerous than those related, as the Gospel of John proves, yet more than a half of the incidents 24 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. mentioned in the Synoptics are the same in all three. " If," observes Holtzmann, " Jesus doubtless delivered unrecorded sayings, how is it that the narrators have limited themselves to the same selection ? If Jesus healed so many sick, why do all three record almost only the same examples ? If He pronounces a woe on Chorazin and Bethsaida, as Matthew and Luke record, how is it that neither of these evangelists mention the conduct which merited such a denunciation ? " ^ But there is not merely a similarity in the selection of incidents and discourses, but what is even more remarkable, there is a similarity in the language in which these incidents and discourses are expressed. In the examination of this point we are greatly assisted by Eushbrooke's Synopticon, a work of immense labour and utility.^ 1. The threefold narrative. — As already observed, there is a remarkable sameness in the incidents recorded by all the three Synoptists. The following sections are common to all three : — Ministry of the Baptist, Matt. iii. 1-12 ; Mark i. 2-8 ; Luke iii. 1—18. Baptism of Christ, Matt. iii. 13-17; Mark i. 9-11; Luke iii. 21, 22. Temptation of Christ, Matt. iv. 1-11 ; Mark i. 12, 13 ; Luke iv. 1—13. Call of the four apostles. Matt. iv. 18-22; Mark i. 16-19; Luke v. 1, 2, 9-11. 1 Holtzmanu's Einleitwng, p. 331. See also Salmon's Introduction to the N.T. p. 139: "The Synoptic Gospels," he observes, "agree in the main in their selection of facts — all travelling over nearly the same ground, though independent narrators would be sure to have differed a good deal in their choice of subjects for narration out of a public life of three years. In point of fact, we find exactly such a dilference between the life of our Lord as related by St. John and by the Synoptics." 2 Synopticon, an exposition of the common matter of the Synoptic Gospels, by W. G. Rushbrooke, Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge. London : Macmillan & Co., 1887. Rushbrooke first gives us what he calls " the triple tradition of the Synoptics," in imrallel columns, tjiking the Gospel of Mark as the type, marking in red colour the words in which all three agree ; and then in an appendix the twofold edition of Matthew and Luke, with distinctive types marking their Jigreements and differ- ences, and lastly, the single tradition of Matthew and Luke. EELATION OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS TO EACH OTHER. 25 Cure of Peter's mother-in-law, Matt. viii. 14-17; Mark i. 29-34; Luke iv. 38-43. Cleansing of the leper, Matt. viii. 1-4 ; Mark i. 40-45 ; Luke V. 12-16. Cure of the paralytic man, Matt. ix. 1—8 ; Mark ii. 1—12 ; Luke V. 17-26. Call of Matthew, Matt. ix. 9-17; Mark ii. 13-22; Luke V. 27-39. Our Lord's discourse on the Sabbath, Matt. xii. 1—8 ; Mark ii. 23-28 ; Luke vi. 1-5. Cure of the man with the withered hand, Matt. xii. 9—1 5 ; Mark iii. 1-6 ; Luke vi. 6-11. Confutation of the statement that Christ cast out devils through Beelzebub, Matt. xii. 22-45; Mark iii. 20-30; Luke xi. 14-23. Parable of the Sower, Matt. xiii. 1-23 ; Mark iv. 1-20 ; Luke viii. 4-15. Stilling of the tempest, Matt. viii. 18-27; Mark iv. 35-41 ; Luke viii. 22-25. Cure of the Gadarene demoniac, Matt. viii. 28-34; Mark v. 1-20 ; Luke viii. 26-39. Eaising of the daughter of Jairus, Matt. ix. 18—26 ; Mark v. 21-43 ; Luke viii. 40-56. Mission of the twelve. Matt. x. 1-15 ; Mark vi. 7-13 ; Luke ix. 1-6. Feeding of the five thousand. Matt. xiv. 13—21 ; Mark vi. 31-44; Luke ix. 10-17. Confession of the apostles that Jesus is the Messiah, Matt. xvi. 13-28 ; Mark viii. 27-33 ; Luke ix. 18-27. The transfiguration, Matt. xvii. 1—10; Mark ix. 2—9; Luke ix. 28-36. Cure of the demoniac boy, Matt. xvii. 14—21 ; Mark ix. 14-29 ; Luke ix. 37-43. Dispute among the disciples concerning precedence. Matt, xviii. 1-5 ; Mark ix. 33-37 ; Luke ix. 46-48. Blessing pronounced on children. Matt. xix. 13—15 ; Mark x. 13-16 ; Luke xviii. 15-17. Our Lord's address to the rich ruler. Matt. xix. 16—30; Mark x. 17-31 ; Luke xviii. 18-30. 26 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. Cure of the blind man at Jericho, Matt. xx. 29-34 ; Mark x. 46-52 ; Luke xviii. 35-4:3. Entrance into Jerusalem, Matt. xxi. 1-11 ; Mark xi. 1-11 ; Luke xix. 29-44. Expulsion of the buyers and sellers from the temple, Matt. xxi. 12-14; Mark xi. 15-17 ; Luke xix. 45, 46. Parable of the Vineyard, Matt. xxi. 33-46 ; Mark xii. 1-12; Luke xx. 9-19. Refutation of the Sadducees, Matt. xxii. 15—33 ; Mark xii. 18-34; Luke xx. 20-40. Our Lord's appeal to Ps. ex., Matt. xxii. 41-46; Mark xii. 35-37 ; Luke xx. 41-45. Prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem, Matt. xxiv. 1-36 ; Mark xiii. 1-36 ; Luke xxi. 5-36. Institution of the supper, Matt. xxvi. 17-29 ; Mark xiv. 17-26; Luke xxii. 14-23. The agony in Gethsemane, Matt. xxvi. 30-46 ; Mark xiv. 26-42 ; Luke xxii. 39-46. Arrest of Christ, Matt. xxvi. 47-58 ; Mark xiv. 43-54; Luke xxii. 47-58. Denial of Peter, Matt. xxvi. 69-73 ; Mark xiv. 66-72 ; Luke xxii. 54-62. Narrative of the Passion, Matt, xxvii.; Mark xv.; Luke xxiii. Narrative of the Resurrection, Matt, x xviii. ; Mark xvi. ; Luke xxiv. In the narration of these incidents there is frequently a close identity of language. We give two examples in the words of the Revised Version, in which the nature of the resemblance may be as clearly seen as in the Greek. The first example is the words spoken by Jesus to tlie Pharisees when He cured the paralytic man. Matt. ix. 4-8. Mark ii. 8-11. Luke v. 22-26. Wherefore think ye Why reason ye tliesc Wliat reason ye in evil in your hearts ? For things in your hearts? your hearts? Whether wliether is easier, to say, Whether is easier, to say is easier, to say. Thy Tliy sins are forgiven ; to the sick of the palsy, sins are forgiven thee ; or to say, Arise, and Thy sins are forgiven ; or to say, Arise, and walk ? But that ye may or to say, Arise, and walk ? But that ye may know that the Son of take up thy bed, and know that the Son of Man liatli power on caith walk ? But that yc may Man hath jiower on earth RELATION OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS TO EACH OTHER. 27 to forgive sins (then saitli He to the sick of the palsy), Arise, and take up thy bed, and go unto tliy house. know that the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins (He saith to the sick of the palsy), I say unto thee. Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thy house. to forgive sins (He said unto him that was palsied), I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy couch, and go unto thy house. The other example is taken from our Lord's prophecy concerning the destruction of Jerusalem. Matt. xxiv. 32-35. Now from the fig tree learn her parable : when her branch is now become tender, and putteth forth its leaves, ye know that summer is nigh ; even so ye also, when ye see all these things, know ye that He is nigh, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished. Heaven and earth shall pass away : but my words shall not pass away. Mark xiii. 28-31. Now from the fig tree learn her parable : when her branch is now be- come tender, and putteth forth its leaves, ye know that summer is nigh ; even so ye also, when ye see these things coming to pass, know ye that He is nigh, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you. This genera- tion shall not pass away, until all these things be accomplished. Heaven and earth shall pass away : but my words shall not pass away. Litre xxi. 29-33. Behold the fig tree, and all the trees : when they now shoot forth, ye see it and know of your own selves that the sum- mer is now nigh. Even so ye also, when ye see these things coming to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh. Verily I say unto you. This generation shall not pass away, till all things be accomplished. Heaven and earth shall pass away : but my words shall not pass away. But these passages are only examples of a similarity of language, approaching to identity, which pervades the accounts of the three evangelists. Numerous other examples might be given: as the call of Matthew (Matt. Lx. 9-17; Mark ii. 13-22; Luke v. 27-39), the parable of the Sower (Matt, xiii. 1-34; Mark iv. 1-34; Luke viii. 4-18), the stilling of the storm and the cure of the Gadarene demoniac (Matt. viii. 18-34; Mark iv. 35-41, v. 1-20; Luke viii. 22-39), the feeding of the four thousand (Matt. xiv. 13-21 ; Mark vi. 30-44 ; Luke ix. 10-17), the transfiguration and the cure of the demoniac boy (Matt. xvii. 1-21 ; Markix. 2-8, 14-29 ; Luke ix. 28-43), and the entrance into Jerusalem (Matt. xxi. 1-11 ; Mark xi. 1-10 ; Luke xLx. 29-44). Such similarities, not merely of incident but of expression, with only slight variations, would in other writings demon- 28 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. strate an inherent dependence.^ If we heard three discourses which although in some respects dissimilar, yet were inter- woven with passages almost identical, we would rightly infer that in these passages the preachers copied from each other, or that they plagiarised from the same discourse. If, in the writings of the Fathers, we found passages almost identical with those contained in the Epistles of St. Paul, we should be justified in inferring that there was a distinct reference to the writings of that apostle. Three eye-witnesses in recording the same facts, if their reports were independent of each other, would not express themselves in the same words. And the case is still stronger if the general opinion be correct, that our Lord spoke, not in Greek, but in Aramaic,^ and that con- sequently the words of His discourses given us by the evangelists are translations ; and it is highly improbable that in translating they would use precisely the same words. We are then constrained to adopt one or other of three supposi- tions : either that the evangelists copied from each other ; or that they all had recourse to some common document ; or that there was an oral or traditional Gospel — a collection of the sayings of Christ and of the incidents in His life which had in many points become stereotyped. These suppositions are reserved for after consideration. The twofoldnarrative. — But there is not onlya threefold nar- rative,— an agreement of all three evangelists in the incidents recorded, and often almost an identity of language, — but there is a twofold narrative, where two of the evangelists agree — Matthew and Mark, Mark and Luke, and Matthew and Luke. The principal incidents and discourses common to Matthew and Mark and not found in Luke are : — The mode of the Baptist's martyrdom, Matt. xiv. 1-12; Mark vi. 14-29. Our Lord's walking on the water, Matt. xiv. 22—33 ; Mark vi. 45-51. ^ " Tlie verl);il and material agreement," observes Archbishop Thomson, of the first tliree evangelists " is such as does not occur in any other authors who have written independently of one another." ^ The ordinary language of our Lord and His apostles will afterwards form the .subject of discussion. RELATION OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS TO EACH OTHER. 29 The discourse on the traditions of the elders, Matt. xv. 1-20; Mark vii. 1-23. The cure of the daughter of the Syro-Phoenician woman, Matt. XV. 21-28 ; Mark vii. 24-30. Feeding of the four thousand, Matt. xv. 32-38; Mark viii. 1-9. Discussion on the Mosaic law concerning divorce, Matt. xLx. 3-10; Mark x. 2-11. Petition of the sons of Zebedee and their mother. Matt. XX. 20-28; Mark x. 35-45. The withering of the fig tree. Matt. xxi. 18-22 ; Mark xi. 13, 14, 20. The anointing of our Lord before His passion,^ Matt. xxvi. 6-13 ; Mark xiv. 3-9. The utterance of Jesus on the cross. My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me? Matt, xxvii. 46-49 ; Mark xv. 34, 35. Here also there is often a close identity of language. We take as an example the anointing of our Lord before His passion, an incident which is also recorded, but in very different language, by St. John. Matt. xxvi. 6-13. Mark xiv. 3-19. Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in And while He was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, there the house of Simon the leper, as He came unto Him a woman having an sat at meat, there came a woman alabaster cruse of exceeding precious having an alabaster cruse of ointment ointment, and she poured it upon His of spikenard very costly ; and she head, as He sat at meat. But when brake the cruse, and poured it over the disciples saw it, they had indigna- His head. But there were some that tion, saying, To what purpose is this had indignation among themselves, waste ? For this ointment might have saying, To what purpose hath this been sold for much, and given to the waste of the ointment been made ? poor. But Jesus perceiving it, said For this ointment might have been unto them. Why trouble ye the woman ? sold for above three hundred pence, and for she hath wrought a good work given to the poor. And they murmured upon me. For ye have the poor always against her. But Jesus said, Let her with you ; but me ye have not always, alone ; why trouble ye her ? she hath For in that she poured this oint- wrought a good work on me. For ment upon my body, she did it to ye have the poor always with you, and prepare me for burial. Verily I say whensoever ye will ye can do them ^ We consider this anointing different from that by the sinful woman mentioned in Luke's Gospel. 30 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. unto you, Wheresoever this gospel good : liut me ye have not always. She shall be preached in the whole world, hath done what she could ; she hath that also which this woman hath done anointed my body aforehand for the shall be spoken of for a memorial of her. burying. And verily I say unto you, Wheresoever the gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, that also which this woman hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her. This example is perhaps not so convincing an argument in favour of a conimou source, as it is just possible that two witnesses might have expressed themselves in terms somewhat similar ; but compare with it the narrative in St. John's Gospel, where the difference is much more marked. The incidents common to Mark and Luke, but omitted by Matthew, are not numerous. They are as follows — The casting out of an unclean spirit, Mark i. 23—28 ; Luke iv. 33-37. Declaration of our Lord that He must preach the gospel in other places, Mark i. 35—38 ; Luke iv. 42, 43. The apostles forbidding a man to cast out devils in Christ's name, Mark Lx. 38-40 ; Luke Lx. 49, 50. The incident of the widow's mite, Mark xii. 41-44; Luke xxi. 1-4. We take this last as an example of identity of language — Makk xii. 43, 44. Luke xxi. 3, 4. Verily I say unto you, This poor Of a truth I say unto you. This widow cast in more than all they poor widow cast in more than they which arc casting into the treasury : all : for all these did of their super- for they all did cast in of their super- fluity cast in unto the gifts : but she fluity ; but she of her want did cast in of her want did cast in all the living all that she had, even all her living. that she had. The coincidences in the twofold narrative of Matthew and Luke are still more remarkable. These two evangelists agree in recording the following particulars : — Address of tlie Baptist to the scribes and Pharisees, Matt. iii. 8-10; Luke iii. 8, 9. Threefold temptation of our Lord, ]\fatt. iv. 1-11 ; Luke iv. 1-13. Cure of the centurion's servant, Matt. viii. 5-13; Luke vii. 1-10. EELATION OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS TO EACH OTHEK. 31 Our Lord's address to those who professed a desire to follow Hmi, Matt. viii. 19-22 ; Luke ix. 57-60. His exhortations to His disciples, Matt. x. 5-16, 24-26 ; Luke X. 1-12, xii. 2-9, 51-53. Mission of the disciples of the Baptist to Christ, Matt, xi. 2-19; Luke vii. 18-35. The woe pronounced on the cities of Galilee, Matt. xi. 20-24; Luke x. 12-15. The gospel hid from the wise and prudent, Matt. xi. 25-27; Luke x. 21, 22. Our Lord's answer to the Pharisees when they asked of Him a sign from heaven, Matt. xii. 38-45 ; Luke xi. 29-32. The parable of the Leaven, Matt. xiii. 33; Luke xiii. 20, 21. The parable of the Lost Sheep, Matt, xviii. 12-14 ; Luke XV. 3-7. The parable of the Marriage Feast, Matt. xxii. 1-10; Luke xiv. 15-24. The woe pronounced on the Pharisees, Matt, xxiii. 1 3—3 6 ; Luke xi. 37-80. The woe pronounced on Jerusalem, Matt, xxiii. 37—39 ; Luke xiii. 34, 35. The faithful and unfaithful stewards, Matt. xxiv. 45—51 ; Luke xii. 42-48. The parable of the Talents and of the Pounds, Matt. XXV. 14-30 ; Luke xi. 11-28.^ The instances of identity of language in these two Gospels are very numerous and striking ; sometimes the identity is absolute, as in the two following examples : — Matt. vi. 24. Luke xvi. 13. No man can serve two masters : for No servant can serve two masters : either he will hate the one, and love for either he will hate the one, and the other ; or else he will hold to love the other ; or else he will hold to one, and desjiise the other. Ye cannot one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. serve God and mammon. Matt. xi. 25-27. Luke x. 21, 22. I thank thee, 0 Father, Lord of I thank thee, 0 Father, Lord of heaven and earth, tliat Thou didst heaven and earth, that Thou didst ^ These parables, notwithstanding tlieir resemblances, are generally- considered as different. See Trench on the Parables. 32 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. hide these things from the wise and liide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them understanding, and didst reveal them unto babes : yea. Father, for so it was unto babes : yea, Father, for so it was well-pleasing in Thy sight. All things well-pleasing in Thy sight. All things have been delivered unto me of my have been delivered unto me of my Father : and no one knoweth the Son, Father : and no one knoweth who the save tlie Father ; neither doth any Son is, save the Father ; and who the know the Father, save the Son, and he Father is, save the Son, and he to to whomsoever the Son willeth to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal reveal him. him. Numerous other passages might be given where the identity of language is also striking ; for example, compare Matt. iii. 7-10, 12 with Luke iii. 7-9, 13; Matt. vii. 7-11 with Luke xi. 9-13 ; Matt. vi. 25-33 with Luke xii. 22-31 ; Matt. xiii. 33 with Luke xiii. 20, 21; Matt. xxiv. 43-51 with Luke xii. 39-46. Now this greatly complicates the problem. If the fact were that only the three Gospels agreed, or if only Matthew and Mark, and Mark and Luke agreed, we might refer them to a common source or an original Gospel, either the Gospel of Mark or one closely resembling it. But when Matthew and Luke also agree in incidents and discourses not found in Mark's Gospel, and where there is an identity of language in their statements, we are constrained to conclude, either that Matthew copied from Luke, or conversely, — an hypothesis which we shall afterwards see cannot be maintained, — or that there was a common source, whether oral or written, which contains the sayings found in both. 3. The single narrative. — But besides the coincidences common to these Gospels, each Gospel has its own peculiar incidents and discourses ; there is a single as well as a twofold and threefold narrative. The following incidents and discourses are peculiar to the Gospel of Matthew : the genealogy of Jesus from David (i. 1-17); the annunciation to Joseph (i. 18-25); the adora- tion of the Magi, the massacre of the infants in Bethlehem, and the flight nito Egypt (ii. 1-23); the Sermon on the Mount, given as a whole (v., vi., vii.) ; the cure of two blind men (ix. 27-34); the invitation to the weary and heavy laden (xi. 28-30); the parables of the Tares, the Hidden Treasure, the Merchant seeking goodly Pearls, and the Drag Net RELATION OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS TO EACH OTHER. 33 (xiii. 24-53); the attempt of Peter to walk on the sea (xiv. 28-33) ; the blessing pronounced on Peter (xvi. 17-19) ; the parables of the Unforgiving Servant (xviii. 21-35), the Householder hiring Labourers for his Vineyard (xx. 1-16), the Ten Virgins (xxv. 1-13), and the Sheep and the Goats (xxv. 31-46); the resurrection of the saints after Christ's death (xxvii. 52, 53); the bribery of the soldiers to say that the disciples stole the body (xxviii. 11—15); the appearance of Christ on a mountain in Galilee, and the institution of Christian baptism (xxviii. 16—20). The Gospel of Mark has little that is peculiar. Nearly the whole of it is contained in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke ; about two -thirds of it are common to these Gospels, whilst the other third is contained partly in the Gospel of Matthew and partly in the Gospel of Luke, — a mere frag- ment, in all about seventeen verses, is peculiar to Mark. These peculiarities are the parable of the inperceptible Growth of the Seed (iv. 26—29), the cure of a deaf man who had an impediment in his speech (vii. 32-37), the cure of a blind man at Bethsaida (viii. 22—26), and the account of the man who followed Christ from Gethsemane, having a linen cloth cast about him (xiv 51, 52). It may be thought that Mark's Gospel is a compilation, and that the incidents are borrowed from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. But we are pre- vented from adopting this solution ; a careful examination of Mark's Gospel proves that he is more graphic in his descriptions than the other two evangelists ; that his account is more like that of an eye-witness than of a compiler, and that the incidents recorded are more expanded than those found in the other Gospels. Mark's Gospel is shorter, because it relates chiefly the incidents of the life of Christ, and gives only a few of His discourses. The Gospel of Luke contains the following incidents and discourses peculiar to it: — The vision of Zacharias (i. 5-25); the annunciation (i. 26—38); the meeting between Elizabeth and Mary (i. 39-45) ; the song of Mary (i. 46-56) ; the birth of the Baptist and the prophecy of Zacharias (i. 57-80) ; the journey of Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem (ii. 1-7); the angel's message to the shepherds (ii. 8-20); the song of 3 34 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. Simeon (ii. 25-35); Anna the prophetess (ii. 36-40); Christ and the doctors (ii. 41-52); the genealogy of Jesus from Adam (iii. 23-38); the rejection of Jesus by the inhabitants of Nazareth (iv. 14—30); the miraculous draught of fishes (v. 1—11); various sayings of Jesus scattered througliout the Gospel, and which are contained in Matthew's Sermon on the Mount; the raising of the widow's son at Nain (vii. 11—17); the anointing of the woman who was a sinner, and the parable of the Two Debtors (vii. 36—50) ; the wish expressed by James and John to call down fire on the Samaritans (ix. 51—56); the parable of the Good Samaritan (x. 25—37); our Lord's reception by Mary and Martha (x. 38—42); the parable of the Eich Man who boasted of his Goods (xii. 13—21); the parable of the Barren Fig Tree (xiii. 6-9) ; the cure of the woman with the spirit of infirmity (xiii. 10—17) ; the cure of the dropsical man on the Sabbath (xiv. 1—6); the parables of the Marriage Feast (xiv. 7-24), the Lost Piece of Money (xv. 8-10), the Prodigal Son (xv. 11—32), the Unjust Steward (xvi. 1—13), and the Eich Man and Lazarus (xvi. 19—21); the ten lepers and the grateful Samaritan (xvii. 1 1—1 9) ; the parable of the Unjust Judge and the Importunate Widow (xviii. 1-8) ; the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican (xviii. 9—14); the visit to Zacch?eus (xix. 1—10); our Lord's examination before Herod (xxiii. 8—12); the address to the daughters of Jeru- salem (xxiii. 27-31); the disciples going to Enimaus (xxiv. 13—35), and the ascension (xxiv. 50, 51). There is a considerable passage in the middle of the Gospel of Luke, including at least three chapters (xiv., xv., xvi.),^ which has only a very few resemblances to the other two Gospels. There are in it a few sayings and incidents which are common to all the Synoptics, and a few which are common to Matthew and Luke, but by far the larger portion is peculiar to Luke. It contains the important parables of the Marriage Feast, the Lost Piece of Money, the Lost Sheep,- the Prodigal Son, the Unjust Steward, and the Eich Man and Lazarus. It has received various name*, being called " the ^ Most critics consider the great insertion as inchiding Luke ix. 51- xviii. 41. - The i)aral)le of the Lost Slieep is also conUiined in MattheVs GospeL RELATION OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS TO EACH OTHER. 35 Journal of Travel " (Reisehericht), " the great interpolation or insertion " (die grosse Einschaltimg), and " the Persean section." It would appear that Luke here made use of a source of in- formation which was not possessed by the other two evangelists. The amount of agreement between the three evangelists has been given in various forms by different writers. Thus, Archbishop Thomson says : " If the history be harmonised and then divided into 89 sections, it will be found that in 42 of these (nearly a half) all the narratives coincide, that 1 2 more are given by Matthew and Mark only, that 5 are common to Mark and Luke only, and that 14 are found in Matthew and Luke. To these should be added 5 peculiar to Matthew, 2 to Mark, and 9 to Luke, and the number is complete." ^ Bishop Westcott observes : " If the total contents of the several Gospels be represented by 1 0 0, the folio wing table is obtained : — Peculiarities. Concordances. " Mark, . . 7 93 Matthew, . 42 58 Luke, . 59 41 "2 Another peculiarity, proving the mutual dependence of the three Synoptists, is the coincidence between them in their quotations from the Old Testament. In general, the quota- tions are made from the Septuagint ; and in these cases the verbal agreement between them is easily accounted for, as these quotations are from the same version. But there are a few quotations from the Old Testament, in which the evangelists verbally agree, which are taken neither from the Hebrew nor from the Septuagint, and which accordingly seem to indicate that they were found in the document or docu- ments which were common to them. Thus, for example, the quotation from Isa. xl. 3 is thus given in the three Synoptics: (^(ovr) ^oa)VTO<; ev tt) iprjixw, 'EroL/jidaare rrjv oSov Kvpiov, ev6eiations of the repetition or confusion of similar events — to bring all into agreement. . . . It is from the iirst unlikely that writings which do not aim at completeness should observe with scrupulous exactness the order of time" ()>p. 32.3, 324). SOURCES OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 43 Indeed, it is the most difficult problem in the criticism of the New Testament. The recent literature upon it, both in Germany and in our country, in special works, monographs, and periodicals, is not only extensive,^ but confusing. Each author advances a theory of his own ; and one is perplexed with their number and variety, and with the plausibility of antagonistic theories. The task of weighing the different arguments is great ; and the problem is so complicated and involved that one almost despairs of a solution which would meet all the points of the case. Still some approach to a solution has been made. There are points which are now re- garded by most writers on the subject as settled: although there are others still under discussion, and perhaps a full explanation is not yet attainable. Four hypotheses have been advanced 1 to account for the points of agreement in the Synoptic Gospels : the hypothesis of mutual dependence ; the hypo- thesis of oral tradition ; the hypothesis of an original docu- ment or documents ; and a variety of this last hypothesis, the so-called two document-hypothesis. Each of them is com- pHcated by different forms of presentation ; thus the theory of mutual dependence admits of no less than six variations, each of which has been supported ; the hypothesis of oral tradition is complicated by the different languages in which the tradition may have been transmitted, whether Greek or Aramaic ; the hypothesis of an original document or docu- ments admits of an almost endless number of variations ; and the two document-hypothesis is complicated by the different views of the nature and extent of these documents. These! hypotheses are not mutually exclusive ; the adoption of one does not necessarily assume the rejection of the other three. There may be an element of truth in each ; hideed, the true settlement of the question may be the result of a 1 Of recent books may be mentioned Abbott and Euslibrooke's Common Tradition of the Synoptic Gospels, 1884 ; Carpenter, TJie First Three Gospels, 1890 ; Badliam, The Formation of the Gospels, 1892 ; Jolly, The Synoptic Problem for English Readers, 1893 ; Barnes, Canonical and Uncanonical Gospels, 1893 ; Wright, Composition of the Four Gospels, 1890. Besides the able articles by Dr. Sanday and Professor Marshall in the Expositor for 1891, and Dr. Sanday's article on the Gospels in the new edition of Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, 1893. 44 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. combination of all four. The Gospels may be mutually dependent : much of their contents may have their origin in oral tradition : some common document or documents may have been used : and there may have been one fundamental original Gospel and a collection of the sayings of our Lord which may have been the primary sources of the Synoptics. The examination of the subject requires the greatest caution, and complete freedom from preconceived opinions. A. THE THEORY OF MUTUAL DEPENDENCE. The most natural solution of the problem is to suppose that the evangelists copied from each other. The similarities between them may be accounted for on the supposition that one Gospel was a compilation from the other two, and that one of the two borrowed from the other ; for example, it may be supposed that Mark is an abbreviation of Matthew and Luke, and that Luke is indebted to Matthew. Thus Augustine, assuming the priority of Matthew, asserts that Mark was dependent on him. " Mark," he observes, " follows Matthew as if he were his attendant and abbreviator.^ In his narrative he has nothing in concert with John, he has very little peculiar to himself, he has still less in concert with Luke alone ; but in concert with Matthew he has a very large number of passages. He relates much in words almost identical with those used by Matthew, or by him in connection with the other Gospels." ^ This theory has in recent times been brought into prominence by Griesbach,^ and was formerly accepted as the true solution by many eminent critics. It was adopted and ably supported by Bleek.^ It has now, however, been generally abandoned, as insufficient by itself alone to account for all the difficulties of the problem. ' Marcus t-uui (MiiUluciiiii) .siibsecutns, lanquiiiii pL-dissiMjuus et breviator ejus videtur. 2 Augustine, Consensvs evangelistarum, i. 2. ^ Hutorisch-Kritischer Versuch iiber die Entstchung der schriftlichen Evan- (jelien. Tlie hypothesis has received the name of Griesbach's theory. ■• Bleek's Introduction to the N.T. vol. i. j). 2^>d 11". translation. SOUECES OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 45 The three Gospels admit of six possible arrangements, each of which has been supported by different critics. 1. There is the order in the canon, Matthew, Mark, Luke. Matthew wrote first, Mark made use of his Gospel, and Luke was indebted to both.^ This order was adopted, although on different grounds, by Bengel, Credner, Grotius, Hug, Hilgenfeld, and Hengstenberg. 2. Matthew, Luke, Mark. Mark's Gospel has been supposed to be a compilation drawn from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, whilst Luke is supposed to have drawn from Matthew. This was the theory advanced by Griesbach, and adopted by De Wette 2 and Bleek. 3. Mark, Matthew, Luke. Mark has been regarded as the original Gospel, whilst Matthew is supposed to have made use of Mark, and Luke both of Mark and Matthew. The theory adopted by Eitschl, Eeuss,^ Meyer, Smith of Jordanhill ; and with various modifications by Ewald, Holtzmann, Weiss, and Weizsacker. 4. Mark, Luke, Matthew. Mark has been supposed to be the original Gospel, Luke copied from him, and Matthew from both Gospels. The theory adopted by Hitzig and Volkmar.^ 5. Luke, Matthew, Mark. Luke has been held to be the original Gospel followed by Matthew, whilst Mark is supposed to have copied from both. This arrangement has been adopted by Evanson ^ and Stroud.*^ 6. Luke, Mark, Matthew. Luke has been supposed to be the original Gospel followed by Mark, whilst Matthew copied from both. The theory adopted by Vogel and Schneckenburger. The directly opposite theory has been maintained by other critics : that the three Gospels are all independent of each other : that the Gospel of Mark, although most of its contents are contained in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, was never seen by these writers, but that the agreement is 1 The order of the Gospels generally found in manuscripts and versions, and which would seem to presupjiose the order in which they were written, gives plausibility to this theory. 2 De Wette's Einleitumj in das N.T. § 82. 3 Eeuss, History of the N.T., translated by Houghton. * Volkmar's Markus. ^ Evanson's Dissonance of the Fo%ir generally received Gospels. ^ Stroud, Greek Harmony of the Gospels, Introduction, p. lix. V 46 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. to be accounted for from other causes, as the preaching of the apostles, forms of catechetical instruction, or oral tradi- tion. This opinion is supported, thougli for different reasons, by Alford, Ebrard,i Schaff, Abbott,- and Kow.^* Thus Alford observes : " There is no reason from their internal structures to believe, but every reason to disbelieve, that any one of the three evangelists had access to either of the other two Gospels in its present form." ^ And Schatt" remarks : " There is no dii'ect evidence that any of the three Synoptists saw and used the work of the others ; nor is the agreement of such a character that it may not be as easily and better explained from antecedent sources."^ But it is difficult to see how the resemblances in the Gospels, extending not only to incidents and discourses, but even to verbal expressions, can be accounted for on the supposition of mutual independence. If three writers had such a close resemblance in their writings as the evangelists have, we would naturally conclude that they depended upon each other. At least it is evident that there must be some common groundwork. If the evangelists did not see each others' writings, there must have been either an oral Gospel which had become stereotyped, or some connnon document or documents used by all of them. The Gospel of Mark cannot be considered as a compila- tion from Matthew and Luke. That it is a compilation has been often asserted by those who hold the theory of mutual dependence. It was first brought forward by Augustine, and is the hypothesis advanced by Griesbach. Almost all the contents of Mark's Gospel, with a few exceptions, are to be found either in the Gospel of Matthew or in that of Luke. This theory has been ably supported by Bleek. He adduces several passages where it would appear that Mark combined the statement of Mark and Luke. Thus in the narrative of ^ Ebrard, The GospeTliistory, § 120, translation, p. 554 ff. 2 Abbott and Ruslibrooke's Common Tradition of the Synoptic Gospels, p. vi. " Row, The Jesus of the Evangelists, p. 242. ■* Alford's Greek Testament, vol. i. Prolegomena, p. 12, last edition. " Scliaffs History of the Church, \o]. i. p. 598. Dr. Scliafl' afterwards changed his opinion ; see farther on. SOURCES OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 47 the miracles of Christ, Matthew states that they were per- formed "when even was come" (Matt. viii. 16); and Luke: " when the sun was setting" (Luke iv. 40): Mark combines the two: "at even when the sun did set" (Mark i. 32). So also in the cleansing of the leper, Matthew says : " Straight- way his leprosy was cleansed " (Matt. viii. 3); Luke: "Straight- way the leprosy departed from him" (Luke v. 13); Mark combines the two : " Straightway the leprosy departed from him, and he was made clean " (Mark i. 42). In the account of the Lord's entrance into Jerusalem, Matthew writes : " And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and came unto Beth- phage, unto the Mount of Olives" (Matt. xxi. 1); Luke: " When He drew nigh unto Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount tliat is called the Mount of Olives" (Luke xix. 29); Mark combines the two : " And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, unto Bethphage and Bethany, at the Mount of Olives " (Mark xi. 1 ). From those and similar examples Bleek draws the inference : " This is best explained by sup- posing that Mark had both Matthew and Luke before him, and used them both." ^ On the other hand, Mark has not the characteristics of a compiler or epitomiser. Although his Gospel is much shorter than the other two, and may at first glance be considered as an abbreviation, yet when it is attentively studied it is found that this cannot be the case. What Mark does narrate is recorded at greater length than by the other evangelists, and he adds a variety of particulars and little touches which are wanting in the other Gospels ; so that in many of the incidents recorded by him, instead of epitomising, he enlarges. There is a peculiar freshness and originality in his descrip- tions. However we may account for it, Mark has more of the characteristics of an eye-witness than the other two. He descends to particulars, and describes the events as if he had actually seen them. Thus, to take a few examples: in describing the case of the demoniac boy, whom our Lord cured after His descent from the Mount of Transfiguration, Mark tells us of the scribes disputing with the disciples, of 1 Bleek's Introduction to the N.T. vol. i. ijj). 260-262. For a similar opinion, see Davidson, Introduction to the N.T. 4th ed. vol. i. jip. 481 fF. 48 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. the amazement of the people when they saw the Lord, of the conversation between the father of the boy and Christ, and of the paroxysm that seized the lad (Mark ix. 14—29). It is Mark who tells us that the amiability of the rich ruler, who came to our Lord asking what he must do to inherit eternal life, excited the love of Christ : " Jesus, beholdmer him, loved him" (Mark x. 21). It is Mark who tells us that when our Lord cured the deaf and dumb man, He took him aside from the multitude, put His fingers into his ears, and spit and touched his tongue ; and looked up to heaven, and sighed, saying, Ephphatha (Mark vii. 33, 34). It is Mark who tells us that when the Pharisees manifested their unbelief and hostility, demanding a sign from heaven, Jesus sighed deeply in spirit, filled with indignation on account of the hardness of men's hearts (Mark viii. 12). Mark relates the incident of the young man rising from his bed and in his night clothes following Jesus, and those who apprehended him (Mark xiv. 51); and he informs us that Simon the Cyrenian, who carried the cross of Christ, was the father of Alexander and Kufus (Mark xv. 21). We have here the account of an eye-witness, recording minute particulars, imparting vivid touches to the narrative.^ The omissions of Mark also prove that he could not have had the other Gospels before him. There are events recorded in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke which an abbreviator would not have omitted ; for example, the account of the supernatural birth of Christ. But whilst we maintain the originality of Mark, it is a much more difficult question to determine the relation of his Gospel to those of Matthew and Luke. That the relation is intimate, is undoubted ; but does it extend so far as to imply that these two evangelists used the Gospel of Mark as one of their authorities ? The negative has been strongly main- tained by many eminent critics,^ and the agreement between the Gospels has been referred entirely to oral tradition. 1 Many other instances might be given ; compare the healing of the paralytic, Mark ii. 3-12, with Matt. iv. 2-8 ; also the accounts of the murder of John the Baptist, and of Peter's denial. See Salmon's Introduction tothe N.T. pp. 185-187. 2 Alford, Westcott, Schaff, Plumptre. SOUECES OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 49 But the resemblances are too minute, exact, striking, and numerous to be attributed to this source alone. Not only- are the mcidents the same, but there are long sentences where the words are almost identical. In ordinary literature, if two writings were found to agree in incident and in form of expression with a third, and if that third writing bore all the marks of originality, we would naturally infer that the authors of these two writings borrowed from the third. There is, of course, another alternative, that all three bor- rowed from a connnon document ; but that document, on account of the nature and extent of the similarities, could not have rested on oral tradition, which in its nature is diversified, but must have been written. This is the third hypothesis of solution, that of a written document, which we shall afterwards consider. Besides, the order of the narrative followed in the three Gospels is a presumption in favour of the use of Mark's Gospel by Matthew and Luke. There is often a difference in the chronological order in which the events are recorded by the evangelists ; but the order laid down m Mark's Gospel is that which has been generally followed. " There are," observes Professor Sanday, " a few cases where all three Gospels diverge from each other ; but, as a rule, if Matthew deserts Mark, Luke agrees with him ; and if Luke deserts Mark, Matthew agrees with him. There is no case in which the order of a section common to all three is supported by Matthew and Luke against Mark." ^ There are, however, various difficulties connected with the assumption that Matthew and Luke saw and made use of the Gospel of Mark. It is difficult to account for Matthew omitting certain portions of Mark's Gospel which are found in Luke, and, conversely, for Luke omitting certain portions of Mark's Gospel which are found in Matthew. A difficulty also arises from the omission, both in Matthew and Luke, of those few passages which are peculiar to Mark.^ Yet although 1 Tlie Expositor for 1891, vol. iii. fourth series, p. 189. 2 It has been considered as derogatory to the evangelists to suppose that they used each other's writings ; that Luke, for example, should be dependent on Mark. But if he used other documents, as is admitted, why might he not also have used a canonical Gospel ? 4 50 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. the facts of the case do not permit us to arrive at a positive conclusion, the presumption is that both Matthew and Luke saw and used the Gospel of Mark. They did not slavishly and mechanically copy from it ; the language, though similar, is not precisely the same ; but they made a free use of it as one of their authorities. In this manner the coincidences of all three G-ospels, in incident and expression, so far as we see, can be explained. But there are not only coincidences between all three Gospels, but also between Matthew and Luke in events and discourses not recorded by Mark. In order to account for these, can we postulate a mutual dependence between those two Gospels ? This has been done by several eminent theo- logians. Ritschl, whilst he asserts the priority of the canonical Mark, further maintains the dependence of Luke upon Matthew.^ This view has also been maintained, though on different grounds, by Holtzmann, Weiszacker,^ Wendt, and Paul Ewald.^ It is essential to this theory to suppose that the use which Luke made of Matthew's Gospel was not slavish, but very free and untrammelled. Now, if this opinion is correct, we certainly have a remarkable approach to the solution of the problem. The points of agreement in the Gospels are thus, in a measure, all accounted for. The coincidences between the three Synoptists arise from the use of Mark as a fundamental Gospel ; and the coincidences between Matthew and Luke from the use of the Gospel of Matthew by Luke. But there are great, and probably insuperable, objections to the adoption of this hypothesis. Whilst it may account for the points of correspondence, it does not account for the points of difference in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The diversities in the narrative prove that the one Gospel must have been independent of the other. Take, for example, the variations in the genealogies of Christ as given by Matthew and Luke. " If no other proof," observes Dean Alford, " were in existence of the total independence of the present Gospels > Godet'.s Co)iimcntar>j on LiiMs Gospel, vol. i. p. 41, transliition. 2 Apontolisrhes Zeitalter, p. 414. ^ Evangelienfrcuje, p. 1G9. SOURCES OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 51 of Matthew and Luke, their genealogies would furnish what I conceive to be an undeniable one. Is it possible that either of these evangelists could. have set down his genealogy with that of the other beforeK^ScT? Would no remark have been made on their many, and on such a supposition unaccountable, variations ? " The same is the case with the variations in the narratives of the birth, the passion, and resurrection of Christ. If these Gospels were mutually dependent, there would certainly have been a greater agreement. So also in Matthew, in the " Sermon on the Mount," there is a collection of the sayings of Jesus ; whilst in Luke the same sayings are scattered throughout his Gospel. If Luke used Matthew's Gospel, we can hardly think that he would have cut up that wonderful discourse into different portions. These facts convince us that the Gospel of Matthew was not one of those documents which Luke employed in the composition of his Gospel.^ B. THE THEORY OF AN ORAL GOSPEL. According to this theory, the oral teaching of the apostles and the oral traditions of the actions and discourses of our Lord are the main sources of the Synoptic Gospels. This theory has been denominated the hypothesis of Gieseler, because that eminent theologian was the first who brought it into prominence. He svipposes that without any preconceived plan an oral Gospel gradually resulted from the preaching of the apostles in Jerusalem ; and that from this oral Gospel the three Synoptic Gospels were composed about the middle of the first century.2 This view, with different variations, has been adopted by Neudecker, Guericke, Thiersch, Lange, and Ebrard in Germany; by Archbishop Thomson,^ Afford, 1 So Meyer, Reuss, Thiersch, and Weiss. The results of our examina- tion of the hypothesis of mutual dependence are : 1. Mark is an original Gospel. 2. in all prol)al)ility, though not certainly, Matthew and Luke make use of the Gospel of Mark as one of their sources. 3. Matthew and Luke wrote independently of each other. 2 Gieseler's Hist.-krit. Versuch uber die Enstehimcj und die frUhesten Schiclcsale der schriftlichen Evangelien. 3 In his introduction to the Gospels in the Speaker's Commentary, and in the article on the Gospels in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible. 52 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. Westcott, Plumptre, Lumby, and Farrar ^ in England ; by Godet '-^ in Switzerland ; and by Norton ^ and Schaff in America. Thus Bishop Westcott observes : " The primary Gospel was proved in life, before it was fixed in writing. Out of the countless multitude of Christ's acts, those were gathered in the ministry of twenty years, which were seen to have the fullest representative significance for the exhibition of His divine life. The oral collection thus formed became in every sense coincident with the ' Gospel ' ; and our Gospels are the permanent compendium of its contents."* So also Schaff remarks : " The chief and common sources from which the Synoptists derived their Gospels was undoubtedly the living apostolic traditions or teaching. This teaching was nothing more or less than a faithful report of the words and deeds of Christ Himself by honest and intelligent eye- witnesses." ^ The great office of an apostle was to narrate the history of the life and death of Christ. Thus, on the election of a successor to Judas Iscariot, the apostles resolved that, " of the men who have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and went out among us, beginning from the baptism of John unto the day when He was received up from us, of these must one become a witness with us of His ^ Farrar's Messages of the Books, p. 26. 2 Godet's Commentary on Luke's Gospel, vol. i. pp. 33 ff. 3 Norton, The Genumeness of the Gospels, pj). 284-289. * Westcott, Introduction to the Gospels, p. 158, 1st edition. * Schaff 's History of the Church, vol. i. p. 602. Dr. ScliaflF appears lately to have modified his opinions. In a private letter to the author, written shortly before his death, he says : " I am pretty certain that there must have been various fragmentary Gospels l)efore the canonical Gospels, as is evident from the preface to Luke ; I am also convinced that the tradi- tion of Papias concerning an original Hebrew Matthew is well founded, and it would l)e a great help to critics if this Hebrew Matthew could be discovered, which is by no means imjiossible in view of recent experience in this age of discovery. I am also settled in my mind as to the originality and priority of Mark, who has so many pictorial traits, which can only l)e e.xplained by a personal eye-witness-ship. He was the interjireter of Peter, and in his rapid movements reflects the sanguine impulsive temperament of his master. I have no settled opinion as to how far Matthew and Luke have used the Hebrew ' Logia,' but Matthew and Luke are certainly independent of each other." SOUKCES OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 53 resurrection" (Acts i. 21, 22). The apostles, in their dis- courses to the people, and especially in the instructions given to their converts, would dwell upon the actions and teaching of their Master, — the miracles He performed, the parables with which He taught the multitude, His divine utter- ances and discourses. By degrees this teaching would become to a considerable extent stereotyped : the same incidents would be dwelt upon, the same discourses re- peated, especially the most striking parables and the most weighty sayings, and thus gradually an oral Gospel would be formed. But with this similarity there would coexist a consider- able diversity. There would be different centres of tradition in Galilee and in Jerusalem, and these local traditions would necessarily vary. The oral Gospel in Galilee would be different from the oral Gospel in Jerusalem ; and thus different collections of traditions might be made. When the Gospel extended beyond the boundaries of Judaea into Samaria, Phoenicia, and the neighbouring provinces, the preachers would carry with them a variety of traditions ; one uniform Gospel would not be promulgated. This theory of oral tradition, admitting both of a general uniformity, and of variations, is supposed to account both for the o^tstslienetes and the diversities in the Synoptists. " In the oral narratives of the apostles," observes Norton, " we find the common archetype of the first three Gospels, — an archetype, from its very nature, partly fixed and partly fluctuating, and such, therefore, as is required to account at once for their coincid- ence and their diversity." ^ The Eev. A. Wright of Queens' College, Cambridge, in a valuable contribution to the literature of the Synoptic Gospels, lays great stress on this theory of an oral Gospel. He supposes that among the early Christians, catechetical schools were established in which the converts to Christianity were instructed in the life of Christ. We are informed that those baptized on the day of Pentecost continued steadfastly in the apostles' teaching (Acts ii. 42). This teaching (SiSa'xr]) would consist chiefly in imparting oral instruction in the life ^ Norton, The Genuineness of the Gospels, p. 289. 54 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. and discourses of Christ ; in slioiL, in matters resembling in substance and form the contents of our canonical Gospels. So also Luke, in dedicating his Gospel to Theophilus, says that he wrote that he might know the certainty of the things wherein he was instructed, literally, catechised {Karrj'^^fjdri'i)} These schools were established in all places where the Christian religion was planted, in Asia Minor as well as in Palestine. Over these schools qualified teachers would be appointed, men who were instructed by the apostles or primitive disciples of Christ in the events of His life ; some of them, as Mark, belonging to the Petrine school, and others, as Luke, belonging to the Pauline school. These instructions were at first given in an oral form, and it was not until the removal of the apostles from Jerusalem that the necessity for a written Gospel was felt. According to Mr. Wright, there were six sources from which the Gospels sprung — 1. The Petrine teaching, contained chiefly in St. Mark's Gospel, and found also in Matthew and Luke, being an oral Gospel. 2. " The utterances of our Lord," mentioned by Papias as the Logia of Matthew, also orally communicated, embedded in Matthew's Gospel, and found also in Luke. 3. The peculi- arities of Luke's Gospel, being an oral Gospel, the work of an unknown pupil of Paul, and collected by Luke. 4. Frag- ments of an oral Gospel outside of these, as the two intro- ductory chapters in Matthew, and a few sections in Luke's Gospel. 5. Written documents collected by Luke, as the first two chapters and the genealogy. 6. Editorial notes written by the writers of these Gospels.^ This theory of oral tradition has much to commend it. The ultimate sources of the Gospels, before anything was committed to writing, must have been the oral teaching of the apostles and primitive disciples. There must have been an oral before there was a written Gospel. The oral element is an important factor in the formation of our Gospels which must not be overlooked. It must enter largely into any ^ Mr. Wright puts special weight on GaL vi. 6, where the verb KXTn^cia is employed. 2 Wright's Composition of the Four Gospels, London, 1893 ; also article in the Thinker fur February 1895. SOURCES OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 55 theory which professes to be a solution of the Synoptic problem/ But this theory by itself is inadequate to account for all the coincidences and diversities of the narrative. There are at least three objections to it. 1. It cannot account for the similarity or agreement which pervades the Gospels. If the Grospels arose from oral tradition, we should not have expected so great an identity of particulars in a life so full as that of Christ. Nor is this agreement confined to events, but extends to expressions and words. Tradition does not express itself in the same terms ; even in the description of the same event by eye-witnesses, there is always a variety in the expressions employed. It has indeed been said that there might be set phrases and current expressions ; but not to speak of the mechanical formation of the Gospels which such a view involves, and which is opposed to freedom of composition, the agreement which pervades the Gospeh is of such a minute nature as cannot be accounted for by tradi- tion. " It extends," as Professor Sanday observes, " to phrases which are mere connecting links between the sec- tions, and which are just of a kind that on a purely oral tradition would be the first to vary."^ 2. It is difficult to suppose that in a general oral Gospel which dwelt on the actions and discourses of Jesus, the account of the ministry in Jerusalem, as given in the Johannine narrative, would be entirely absent. The ministry of our Lord in Judsea would have occupied in an oral tradition, if not so large a space as the ministry in Galilee, owing to the shorter period of time which it embraced, yet a proportionate space. 3. The specimens of the teachmg of the apostles which we have in the Acts do not bear out the supposition that their teaching consisted almost entirely in the narratives of Christ's life or in the repetition of His parables and discourses. In the discourses of Peter, Stephen, and Paul, as recorded in the Acts, we find that these preachers dwelt almost entii'ely on the advent of Christ, on His sufferings and death, and 1 " At bottom all the Gospels rest on oral tradition or anecdotal remin- iscences." Holtzmann, Einleihmg, p. 340. 2 Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, 2nd ed. p. 1220. 56 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. especially on the crowning miracle of His resurrection, as the authorisation of His mission, without mentioning the particulars of His life. And the same remark is true of the Epistles of the several writers : there are in them few traditionary sayings of our Lord. The record of the life of Christ gathered from the speeches and Epistles of the apostles is surprisingly meagre. An important modification of this theory was made by Dean Alford, which lessens, if it does not remove, many of the objections brought against it. He supposed that besides the mere oral Gospel, which had in a measure become stereotyped, there were also written statements em- bracing both the incidents in the life of Christ and His teaching, and that these were independently used by the evangelists, and, it may be, incorporated in their Gospels. " I maintain," he observes, " the probability of a very early collection of portions of such oral teaching into documents, some of which two or three of the evangelists may have used." ^ This combination of traditional narratives with written documents would account for the identity of the expressions frequently used by the evangelists. C. THE THEORY OF AN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT OR DOCUMENTS. According to this theory, there lies at the foundation of the Gospels an original document or documents, which all the three evangelists made use of ui the composition of their writings ; the source of the Synoptic Gospels is not so much oral tradition as written documents. We learn from the prologue to Luke's Gospel that many such writings, purport- ing to convey a narrative of the life of Christ, or giving a collection of His discourses, did exist in the early days of Christianity (Luke i. 1-3). Luke does not pass any approval or disapproval of such documents, he merely testifies to their existence. This theory of an original document or docu- ments is the prevalent theory in the present day, and has given rise to a great number of suppositions. Eichhorn, at the close of last century (1794), was the ^ Alford's Greek Testwmcnt, vol. i. Prolegomena, ]>. 11. SOURCES OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 57 first to give prominence to this theory.^ He gave great offence by the boldness of his criticism, coming into direct collision with the then traditional view of the Gospels as independent narratives. At the time the work was regarded as a direct attack on the genuineness and credibility of the Gospels.^ He supposed that there was an original Aramaic Gospel, which lay at the foundation of the Synoptic Gospels. This document was soon translated into Greek. In process of time additions were made to it and inserted in the nar- rative. There were three translations and three sets of traditions, and these constituted the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. In addition to this original Aramaic Gospel there was another document containing a collection of precepts, parables, and discourses delivered by Christ, which was used by Matthew and Luke, and accounts for the similarities in their Gospels.^ Bishop Marsh adopted this theory of Eichhorn, and endeavoured to improve it. He gives the following state- ment of his theory : " Matthew, Mark, and Luke used copies of the common Hebrew document, the materials of which Matthew, who wrote in Hebrew, retained in the language in which he found them ; but Mark and Luke, besides their copies of the Hebrew document, used a Greek translation of it, which had been made before any additions had been inserted. Lastly, as the Gospels of Mark and Luke contain Greek translations of Hebrew materials which were incor- porated into Matthew's Hebrew Gospel, the person, who translated Matthew's Hebrew Gospel into Greek, frequently derived assistance from the Gospel of Mark, where Mark had matter in common with Matthew ; and in those places, but in those places only, where Mark had no matter in common with Matthew, he had frequently recourse to Luke's Gospel."* 1 Eichhorn's Einleituncj in das N.T. vol. i. §§ 78-88. Le Clerc (1716) appears to have been the first critic who suggested it ; afterwards it was maintained by Michaelis and Lessing, but it was left to Eichhorn to develop this hypothesis, and to draw it out into a regular theory. 2 There was certainly some reason for this opinion, as Eichhorn con- siders that our first three Gospels did not come into use l)efore the end of the second century. 3 Eichhorn's Einleitung, § 84. ■* Marsh's Michaelis, vol. v. p. 361. 58 GENERAL INTKODUCTION. This hypothesis does not commend itself ; it is intricate and complicated. Besides, it is very mechanical, and makes the evangelists mere compilers. Although at the time embraced by several eminent critics,^ it is now as a whole generally rejected, though many of its particulars are still adopted ; indeed there is often a striking resemblance between it and some of the more recent hypotheses. Much more plausible is the theory of Schleiermacher.^ Instead of one original Hebrew document lying at the foundation of the several Gospels, he supposes that there were several documents. There must have been, at an early period, many evangelical fragments dispersed throughout the Churches, — traditions floating about, — of which writings had been made. These the evangelists worked into their Gospels, along with materials which each had himself collected ; and in this manner Schleiermacher accounts for the coincidences and differences. " Why," he asks, " should the harmony of the three evangelists admit of no other explanation than that they either borrowed from each other, or drew from one common source. Subsequently, at all events, there appear several common sources. Why should we not content our- selves with a plurality of them from the beginning, as some eminent critics have done ? For, in itself, surely this often- repeated alternation of common and peculiar portions of history points to nothing else than the previous existence of several sources, some of which the evangelists had in com- mon, some not." ^ Heinrich Ewald supposes that there were nine distinct elements which entered into the formation of the Synoptics. The first was an original Gospel, containing a brief account of the chief events of Christ's life from His baptism to His death, used by Paul, and which he strangely attributes to 1 Esijecially by Bertholdt of Erlangen in his Historisch-Kritischc Einleitu)uj in sdmmtliche kanotnsche und apokryphisclie Schrifteii des alien und neuen Testaments. ^ See Schleierniaclier, Commentary on St. Lulce, and a valuable intro- duction to it by the tran.slator, Bishoj) Thirlwall. '^ Ibid. p. 7. "It is more natural," he observes, "to imagine many circumstantial memorials of detiiched incidents, than a single connected but scanty narrative." SOUKCES OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 59 Philip the deacon. The second is the collection of our Lord's sayings made by Matthew, as mentioned by Papias. The third is Mark's Gospel, made up of these two. The fourth is what he calls " the book of the higher history," being an enlargement of the original Gospel. The fifth is our canonical Gospel of Matthew, based upon the preceding writings. The sixth, seventh, and eighth are three lost works — detailed accounts of special events in our Lord's life. The ninth is the Gospel of Luke, based on all the other documents, with the exception of the fifth document, namely, the Gospel of Matthew.^ Such a theory, though ingenious, is very fanciful, and without much ground to rest upon. Dr. Edwin Abbott has brought forward a new theory. He marks all those passages where Matthew, Mark, and Luke agree, which he calls the common or triple tradition.^ This tradition constitutes a kind of narrative ; and this he supposes to have formed the original Gospel, from which the three evangelists borrowed independently of each other. " Is it not possible," he observes, " that the condensed narrative which we can pick out of the three Synoptic records repre- sents the ' elliptical style ' of the earliest Gospel notes or Memoirs, which needed to be expanded before they could be used for the purposes of teaching, and which might naturally be expanded with various and sometimes divergent ampli- fication ? " 3 According to this theory, the Gospels are independent expansions of notes taken down of the teachings of the apostles. Such a hypothesis has met with no favour from any critic* It does not account for the twofold tradition of Matthew and Mark, of Mark and Luke, and of Matthew and Luke ; whilst it leaves the diversities found in the Gospels without explanation. There is one other theory which, on account of its ingenuity, plausibility, and originality we would not omit, 1 Bleek's Introduction to N.T. vol. ii. pp. 256, 257. 2 Article on the Gospels in the Encydopcedia Britannica ; Abbott and Rushbrooke, Common Tradition of the Synoptic Gospels. ^ Abbott and Rushbrooke, p. 11. * For adverse remarks on the hypothesis of Dr. Abbott, see Salmon, Introduction to the N.T. p. 177. It is in its main features a revival of the hypothesis of Eichhorn. 60 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. that of Mr. Smith of Jordanhill.i He supposes — (1) That several of the apostles, especially Matthew, Peter, and John, committed to writing accounts of our Lord's life, in the Ai-amaic language. (2) That Matthew drew up, from the origmal Memoirs a life of Christ, botli in Hebrew and in Greek. (3) That Luke composed another life, founded upon the authority of eye-witnesses and ministers of the word, including the Hebrew Memoir of Peter and the Greek Gospel of Matthew. (4) That after Peter's death, Mark translated the Memoir written by Peter into Greek.^ This hypothesis he illustrates in a most ingenious manner. He takes three histories of the Peninsular War — those of Suchet, Napier, and Alison. Suchet's history was the testimony of an eye- witness, and was translated into English, and used both by Napier and Alison ; whilst Napier's history was known and made use of by Alison. He places three quotations from their histories in parallel columns, showing the remarkable resemblance between them — a resemblance containing some- times a sameness of expression in all three, and at other times extending only to two of the histories.^ He draws a parallel between these resemblances and the resemblances in the three Gospels, and in this manner explains their verbal coincidences. Certainly the parallel is very striking in these histories ; there is the same mixture of variety and identity of expression as is found in the Gospels. Pecently much has been made of the theory of an original Aramaic or Hebrew document lying at the root of the Synoptic Gospels. This theory has been unfolded in several interesting and valuable articles by Professor Marshall in the Exj)ositor,^ and especially by Eesch in his work, entitled, Tlic Agraj^ha.^ It is in some respects a revival of Eichhorn's ' Dissertation on the Origin and Connection of the Gospels ; the author of that classical work, The Voyage of St. Paul. 2 Ibid. p. XXV. 3 Ibid. pp. xxix.-xxxi. ■* These articles are to be found in the Expositor for the year 1891. ^ This is a work of enormous labour and erudition, the result of upwards of twenty years' research. It proceeds on the assumptions that there was an original Gospel in the Hebrew lanffuage, that this was chiefly composed of the sayings of our Lord, and that it not only formed one of the main sources of our Synoptics, but was used by Paul and quoted by him. SOUKCES OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 61 theory, though not so mechanical and rigid in its nature. These writers suppose that there was an original document, an Ur-Evangelium, written according to Professor Marshall in Aramaic, and according to Eesch in Hebrew. This document was used by all the evangelists. The variation in the words and clauses in the Gospels is accounted for by the different translations given to the Aramaic or Hebrew words. Both Professor Marshall and Eesch give examples of how this may be done, and, if the vowel points are neglected as not belonging originally to the languages, how variations in the sense might easily have occurred. Eesch gives a list of fifty- nine cases in point, where, as he supposes, Hebrew words in the original document are translated by different words in our Gospels.^ This theory, if admitted, certainly accounts in many instances for variations in expression ; but, when put to the test, it leaves most of these variations unexplained. It is, indeed, asserted by the Fathers that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew ; ^ but the Gospel, to which these critics allude, is an entirely different Gospel from our canonical Matthew : it is an Aramaic Gospel which lies at the founda- tion, not of Matthew only, but of all the three Synoptics. D. THE TWO DOCUMENT THEORY. According to this theory, not one but two documents form the main sources of the Gospel narrative. One docu- ment is a narrative of the events in the life of Christ — a statement of His actions, and the other is a collection of His sayings — a statement of His discourses. This hypothesis, it is supposed, affords a complete solution of the Synoptic problem. " The narrative of events " accounts for the great sameness of the incidents recorded by all three evangelists ; 1 Kesch's Agrapha, pp. 59-64 ; as, for example, st»>3 is rendered by ?^otfi(ionisiv (Matt. X. 38), ui'psiv (Mark viii. 34), (iccrrxS^uv (Luke xiv. 27), in the same address of our Lord to His disciples that they must take up His cross. 2 The language in which Matthew's Gospel was written is the subject of future discussion ; so also is the " Gospel according to the Hebrews." 62 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. whilst " the collection of sayings " accounts for the striking resemblance in the expressions employed. But although this hypothesis is apparently simple, it is in reality highly com- plicated, and has given rise to great differences of opinion and to several distinct theories. This hypothesis is supposed to be supported by the state- ment of Papias,' where, according to those critics who adopt this theory, these two documents are mentioned. Papias first affirms of Mark's Gospel, on the authority of John the Presbyter, that " Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatever he remembered of the things said and done by Christ, and that he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of our Lord's discourses." In this record, containing the preaching of Peter, edited by Mark, we have one of these fundamental documents, whether this be the canonical Gospel of Mark or a previous Gospel (Ur-Marcus), from which our canonical Mark is derived.'^ Concerning Matthew, Papias—'^ writes : " So then Matthew wrote the oracles (Xoyia) in the Hebrew language.^ In this collection of the XSyia of Christ made by Matthew we have the other primary document — whether this is the canonical Gospel of Matthew or a primary Gospel (Ur-Matthseus) used by some unknown person in the composition of our Matthew, and also used by Luke in the composition of his Gospel. This hypothesis of two documents has been adopted by Eeuss,'' Weizsiicker,^ Holtzmann, Weiss, Weudt, Beyschlag,*^ 1 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iii. 39 ; see svjjra, j). 19. - Dr. Sanday remarks : " It is not improbable that our St. Mark is descended from a copy which did not exactly reproduce its predecessor, even after the Gospel had cvssumed substantially its jjresent form." Bamijton Lectures, p. 295. ' The words i/.iu ovv, so thru, show that this sentenre in regard to Matthew doesnoL immediately follow the j)assngi' in rogard lo Mark, (pioted above. ■* History of the Neio Testament. " Apost. Zeitalter and Untersuchuiujen iiber die cvangcli^clie GeschichtCf ihre Quelleji und der Gang ihrer Entvnckhmtj. " Leben Jesu. SOURCES OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 63 Eesch, Dr. Paul Ewald, Pfleiderer/ Sanday, and other recent writers on the Synoptic problem. " All things considered," observes Holtzniann, " the two source hypothesis appears the most probable solution of the Synoptic problem." Dr. H. Holtzniann of Strasburg, who is regarded as the great authority on the Synoptic question, and has devoted much attention to the subject, supposes that these two docu- ments— the record of the preaching of Peter given by Mark, and the Logia, or the collection of the sayings of our Lord compiled by Matthew — were the main sources of the Synoptic Gospels. He supposes the first document to be, not the canonical Gospel of Mark, but an earlier document (Ur- Marcus), fuller than the present Mark ; and the second document to be, not the canonical Gospel of Matthew, but a collection of the discourses of Christ compiled by the Apostle Matthew (Ur-Mattha^us). The canonical Mark is a revision of the Ur-Marcus, without any intermixture of the Logia of Matthew ; whilst the canonical Matthew and Luke are formed from both documents, and from other written and oral sources. Recently Professor Holtzmann has somewhat moSTRed and altered his views, and supposes that Luke had access to the canonical Gospel of Matthew, and made a free use of it, and, consequently, that all the discourses in Luke's Gospel need not necessarily be referred to the Logia ; and he observes : " So that at least most of the reasons for distinguishing between an Ur-Marcus and the present Mark have been removed." ' The view of Weiss of Berlin differs from that of Holtz- mann as to the prominence to be given to Matthew. He supposes that Mark not only used the " notes of Peter's preaching," but had also access to the Logia collected by Matthew. According to him, " the Logia of Matthew " is the oldest Gospel, and next to it is the Pe trine Gospel, or the tradition transmitted by Mark from Peter's preaching. All three Gospels are composite, and these documents were used in ^ Gifford Lechires, vol. ii. p. 27. 2 For Holtzman's views, see Die Sijnoftischen Evanrjelien, 1863 ; Ein- leitwig in das N.T. 1885 ; commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, Die Synoptiker, 1889. 64 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. different proportions. The original Gospel was a Matthew (Ur-Matthoeus), containing the Logia, with a small number of incidents. The canonical Mark is a combination of the Memoirs of Peter and a portion of the Logia of Matthew : the canonical Matthew and the canonical Luke are dependent on Mark and on the Logia.^ Wendt, of Heidelberg, also adopts the two document hypothesis. He asserts the priority of Mark to Matthew and Luke, and supposes that the series of narratives reported by Mark consists chiefly of the oral evangelical discourses of Peter. Both Matthew and Luke used Mark's Gospel. The Logia of Matthew lies at the foundation of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, and Wendt attempts the reconstruction of the text of the Logia from these Gospels. He restricts the Logia to the discourses of Jesus.^ Eesch, in his Agrapha, maintains the following points : — 1. The priority of the Gospel of Mark. 2. The existence of a Hebrew original Gospel containing chiefly the discourses of Jesus, written before the canonical writings, and lost at an early period. 3. The two document hypothesis. From these two documents — the Gospel of Mark and the pre-canonical Gospel — the first and third canonical Gospels were chiefly composed. 4. The secondary character of the first Gospel. The Gospel of Matthew is in no sense an original Gospel, also not a translation of the original Hebrew Gospel ascribed to that apostle, but a combination of Mark's Gospel with a Hebrew Gospel source, and that by an author who personally was not an eye-witness, but was in a position to add several traditionary facts to the two chief sources. 5. The use of the pre-canonical Gospel of Mark.^ Dr. Sanday of Oxford, in a series of valuable articles in the Expositor,^ and in his elaborate article on the Gospels in the new edition of Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, gives what is the present state of the Synoptic problem. He himself adopts, or, at least, greatly favours, the two document hypo- 1 For Wc'iHs' views, see Ikis Marcus Evangelmm und seine Synoptischen Parallelen, Lehen Jesu, and Einleituiig in (la.t N.T. 2 Weiidt's Die Lehre Jesu. ^ Rescli's Aijrajiha, j). 27. ■• Expositor for Ihe year 1891, fourtli series, vol. iii. SOUKCES OF THE SYNOrTIC GOSPELS. 65 thesis. He considers the following particulars as practically proved : — 1. That there was a fundamental document. 2. That it is represented most nearly by the Gospel of Mark. 3. That it is highly probable that the common foundation of the three Gospels was a document, strictly so called, written, and not oral. 4. That the exact relation of this document to our present Mark must be regarded as still an open question.^ With regard to the second document, or the Logia of Matthew, Dr. Sanday thinks that it was chiefly restricted to the sayings of Christ, and that these sayings or discourses were employed in the first and third Gospels. He considers that the Apostle Matthew did not write the first Gospel as we have it, but that it was called by his name, because it contained the Logia collected by him, a section so important that the name passed from that to the whole.^ One great point of dispute regards the meaning to be affixed to the term Xo7ta as used by Papias when referring to the writings of Matthew, — whether it is to be restricted to the sayings and discourses of Jesus, or whether it also includes the incidents of His life. The critics above mentioned, as Holtzmann and also Meyer, restrict the term chiefly to the sayings of Jesus ; whilst other critics, as Bleek and Zahn, assert that it was not so restricted, but included the whole life of Jesus — His actions as well as His discourses. This opinion has also been maintained by Bishop Lightfoot.^ The term in the New Testament is used for the Scriptures (of course, of the Old Testament), and is not restricted to mere sayings. Thus Paul, speaking of the privileges of the Jews, says that unto them were committed " the oracles of God " (ra Xoyta Tov deov, Rom. iii. 2).* And the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews refers to " the first principles of the oracles of God" (Heb. v. 12). In both passages the reference is to the Scriptures of the Old Testament.^ The word, then, as applied ^ Expositor, vol. iii. fourtli series, p. 180. 2 Ibid. p. 303. ^ Essays on Supernatural Religion, pp. 173, 174. * See Pliilippi, Commentary on the Romans, vol. i. p. 105, translation. ^ The word occurs only in two other passages in the New Testament, and there also the reference appears to be to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, Acts vii. 38 and 1 Pet. iv. 11. 5 66 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. to the New Testament, would be nearly equivalent to euayyekiov ; and in this sense it is used by the early Fathers.^ " There is nothing," observes Bleek, " in the manner in which Papias expresses himself to justify this supposition (namely, that the expression simply refers to a writing wherein Christ's discourses only were collected) ; he would certainly have expressed himself as he does, if he meant an historical work like our New Testament Gospels, if he were referring to a writing the contents of which were those of our Greek Gospel according to Matthew. Papias uses the name ra Xojia of the entire Gospel, without making any distinction between the historical narrative and the discourses of Christ." - Some progress in the solution of the Synoptic problem has been made. It is now generally agreed by those critics who have studied the question, that the Gospel of Mark, or a writing closely resembling it, and a collection or collections of the sayings of Jesus, are among the main sources of the Synoptic Gospels. A theory which embraces these two points, forming a modification of the two document hypothesis, is now regarded as the probable solution of the Synoptic problem. 1. The canonical Gospel of Mark, or at least a document closely resembling it, is supposed to be the primitive or original Gospel — one of the main sources of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke — used by them either directly or indirectly. For reasons already stated, we inferred the probability that the first and third evangelists were cognisant of the writing of the second. In order to remove certain difficulties, to which we have already alluded, attending the assumption of the use of Mark's Gospel by Matthew and Luke, some critics affirm that not our canonical Mark, but an original Mark, an Ur-Marcus, of which our Mark is a recension, containing a narrative of our Lord's life, is the common foundation of the three Synoptics.^ Some suppose that the original Mark was of larger compass than the present ]\Iark, and embraced those 1 Irenseus, Adv. Jlwr. i. 8. 1 ; Polycarp, riiU. 7. 2 Bleek's Introduction to the N.T. vol. ii. jip. 109, 110. ^ Thisopinien has 1 teem adopted liy Kns^tlin, Volkinar, Woizsiickcr ; and was at one tinier advocated l)y Holtzniaim, tli(nigh afterwards al)andoned bv liini. SOUKCES OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 67 sections in which Matthew and Luke agree almost verbatim. Others think that it was shorter. Those who do so, argue that the statement of Papias, that Mark wrote down accurately though not in order (ou fjbivrot Tci^ec), that is, not consecutively, is only suitable to a shorter Gospel than that which we now possess, inasmucli as the canonical Gospel of Mark is generally considered the most systematic of the three Synoptics. But, so far as we can see, there exists no reason for this supposition. The Fathers mention no such previous Gospel. They speak of the Gospel of Mark, but never indicate that this was only an edition or recension of a former Gospel now lost. Papias distinctly asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel from the teaching of Peter ; and Irenasus aihrms that the second Gospel was written by Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter. The substitution of the canonical Gospel of Mark for a lost Gospel must have occurred either before Papias wrote (a.d. 116) or between the time of Papias and Irenseus (a.d. 180). It could not have occurred before the time of Papias, for there is not the least indication given by him of a previous Gospel, and the time between the composition of the Gospel of Mark and Papias is too short to admit of a silent, unnoticed substitution of one Gospel for another. Still more incredible is it to suppose that it disappeared after Papias wrote and before Irenaus composed his work against heresies ; for we have an almost unbroken chain of testimony between these two periods, alluding to the Gospel of Mark ; so that the Gospel mentioned by Papias could not possibly have been superseded by a different Gospel, without some statement or intimation of this fact in the writings of the early Fathers.^ We conclude, then, that our canonical Gospel of Mark, as we have it, is the primitive Gospel which the other two evangelists saw and used, and which was one of the chief sources of their Gospels.2 The use of this Gospel by Matthew and Luke ^ Tliis argument against the existence of an Ur-Marcus is well put by Barnes in his Canonical and Uncanonical Gospels, p. 68. 2 This opinion is now adopted by most critics. " The testimony of Papias," observes Meyer, "regarding tlie work of Mark furnishes no reason for regarding this work as different from our second canonical Gospel." Commcntarij on Matthew, vol. i. p. 38, translation. 68 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. accounts for the similarity of incidents in the three Gospels, and also of expressions where all three agree, and where Matthew and Mark, or Mark and Luke agree. 2. The collection or collections of the sayings of Christ, partly oral and partly written, was the other main source of the Synoptic Gospels. It was most natural, indeed in- evitable, that the apostles and early Christians would treasure up the sayings of Christ. These sayings would be often repeated by them in their pu])lic assemblies, and become indelibly fixed in their memories, and would soon be reduced to writing. The shorter sayings, as that quoted by Paul, " It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts xx. 35), would be retained in the memory ; but there would also be written collections of the longer sayings or discourses of our Lord which would be taken down at an early period, before the recollection of them had faded away. We cannot suppose that twenty or thirty years would have elapsed before there were any written documents containing the parables of our Lord, or the words with which He taught the nmltitudes. " A few detached aphorisms," observes Professor Salmon, " of a great teacher may be carried by the memory for some time, and be passed from one to another ; but discourses of the length we find in the Gospels would, in the ordinary course of things, have perished, if they had not been from the first either committed to writing or, if committed to memory, kept alive by constant repetition. It is surprising how little of spoken words ordinary memories are able to retain. ... If Boswell has been able to give a vivid representation of Dr. Johnson's Table-Talk, it is because he used to stand behind the chair of the object of his veneration with note-book in hand."i Different collections of these sayings would be made in different localities for the use of different Churclies. Some would be written in Aramaic for the use of the Hebrew converts, and some in Greek for the use of the Hellenistic converts. Such collections of the sayings of Christ, both oral and written, l)oth in Aramaic and in Greek, woulil be used by all three evangelists in the composition of their Gospels. ^ Introduction to the New Testament, \k 137. SOURCES OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 69 This hypothesis accounts for the similarity, often amounting to identity of expression, found not only in all the three Gospels, but especially in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Thus, for example, the thanksgiving of our Lord to the Father, when the disciples recorded the success of their mission, found in almost identical words in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (Matt. xi. 25-27 ; Luke x. 21, 22), is one of those sayings of Christ which these evangelists incorporated in their Gospels. We have already seen that the identity of expression occurs chiefly in the sayings or discourses of Christ. It has been objected that no such collections of sayings are mentioned by the early Fathers. But their existence was inevitable ; the early Christians would feel constrained to collect the words of the Lord, and their incorporation into our Gospels may account for their disappearance. Besides, we do not suppose that there was any single authorised document containing the sayings of Christ, but only that fragmentary writings or detached narratives were dispersed throughout the Churches. We do not consider that the Logia of Matthew, mentioned by Papias, was one of these collections of sayings, because, as we have already observed, the term \6yia there employed is not used in a restricted sense ; but, at the same time, it must be admitted that the Gospel of Matthew is remarkable among the other three Gospels for its collections of the sayings of Christ. We do not know whether these collections of the sayings of Christ entirely disappeared in the apostolic age in con- sequence of their incorporation in the written Gospels. A collection of sayings attributed to our Lord, not recorded in the Gospels, but dispersed through the writings of the early Fathers, and preserved in the apocryphal writings, has been made by Bishop Westcott.'- Wendt, in a valuable appendix to his Die Lehre Jesu, adverts to several indications of the words of Jesus in the Epistles of Paul ; for example, he adduces the command of the Lord, that the wife should not depart from her husband (1 Cor. vii. 10); the injunction of the Lord, that they which preach the gospel should live of the 1 Westcott's Introduction to the St^tdy of the Gospel, 1st ed. Apiiendix C, pp. 424-438. 70 GENERAL INTKODUCTION. gospel (1 Cor. ix. 14); the institution of the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. xi. 23—25); and the announcement of the second coming of the Lord, which Paul introduces with the words : " This I say unto you by a word of the Lord " ( 1 Thess. iv. 15). Kesch in his great work, the Agraplta, supposes that " sayings of Christ," contained, as he thinks, in the Logia of Matthew, written in the Hebrew language, are to be found in the Epistles of Paul and other canonical writings, as well as in the writings of the Fathers. He gives a list of sixty- two Logia found in the canonical Epistles and in the writings of the Fathers, which he considers to have been the words of Christ — Agrapha not contained in the Gospels.^ We shall, when we come to the investigation of the three Synoptic Gospels separately, consider at length the sources from which each Gospel is derived ; but it may be advisable before we close this discussion to advert to these sources in a general manner. Many suppose that the Gospel of Matthew is a compila- tion, and that Matthew's name is attached to it because he wrote a section so important that his name passed from that to the whole ; an opinion which we shall afterwards consider. The sources of Matthew's Gospel, according to our hypothesis, are the Gospel of Mark, the sayings or discourses of our Lord either handed down by tradition or in written fragments, and Matthew's own personal observation as an apostle, and his communications with his fellow apostles — of those who were " eye-witnesses and ministers of the word." Papias, on the authority of John the Presbyter, informs us that Mark, being the interpreter of Peter, wrote down whatever he (Peter) remembered of the things said or done by Christ : nor is there any reason to discredit this statement, as it is confirmed and attested by the Fatliers. But, besides the oral teaching of Peter, the general oral tradition of the Church would form another source of Mark's Gospel. Mark appears to have been a native of Jerusalem, and to have been intimately connected with the apostolic Church. Luke, in his preface, informs us how his Gospel was ^ The most remarkable of these found in the Epistles of Paul are 1 Cor. ii. 9, vii. 10, ix. 10 ; Eph. v. 14 ; 1 Thess. iv. 15 ; 1 Tim. v. 18. INTEKPKETATION OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 71 composed. He used his utmost diligence in the collection of authentic facts and sayings of our Lord, " tracing the course of all things accurately from the first." One of the documents which he would employ was the Gospel of Mark. He would, no doubt, make a careful selection of the evangelical fragments in circulation containmg the sayings of Christ. He might have learned the account of the birth of our Lord either from the brothers of Christ, or it may be from Mary herself. His intercourse with Paul, and perhaps his residence in Judaea during Paul's imprisonment in Ctesarea, afforded him exceptional opportunities of ascertaining the incidents in our Lord's life. And perhaps also there was an additional narrative or document to which he had access, the so-called great insertion or Peraean section (Luke ix. 51-xviii. 14), which does not appear to have been used by the other two evangelists. The subject is still beset with difficulties ; there are still many points not ascertained or settled ; many objections to which no satisfactory answers have been given. Especially the relation of Mark's Gospel to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke requires to be more closely examined. We reject the theories of an Ur-Matthseus and an Ur-Marcus as not supported by the statements of the Fathers, and in themselves improbable. And with regard to the statement of Papias, we do not think that it refers to a previous Mark, or to a document containing a collection of the sayings of Christ by Matthew, but to the canonical Gospels of Matthew and Mark then existing, and which came under his notice. At the same time, we must leave the question concerning the sources of the Synoptic Gospels in a considerable measure unanswered, but we look hopefully forward to a satisfactory solution by future critics. VI. Interpretation of the Synoptic Gospels. In the interpretation of the Synoptic Gospels, as of all other ancient writings, the first prerequisite is to secure as correct a text as the nature of the case will permit. For the attainment of this we have the greatest advantages. 72 GENEKAL INTRODUCTION. The materials for forming such a text are numerous : there are more than two thousand manuscripts of the Greek New Testament, besides numerous versions and quotations from patristic writings. Eminent scholars have expended much labour in a critical examination of these materials, and have published carefully studied critical editions of the Greek Testament. Griesbach arranged the different manuscripts into families, and formed a new text on the basis of the textus receiJtus} Lachmann advanced a step farther, by forming a new text from the most ancient manuscripts, giving no preference to the textus receptus, and thus made it his object to restore the text to the state m which it was in the fourth century.^ Tischendorf, by the discovery of numerous manuscripts, especi- ally the Codex Sinaiticus, and by the collation of the most important, formed a text which may be regarded as perfect as can possibly be made, almost a restoration of the originals.^ Tregelles, in our own country, carefully collected additional manuscripts, and published a Greek Testament, vying in accuracy with the editions of those illustrious German scholars.* And Westcott and Hort, profiting by the labours of their great predecessors, conjointly published a critical edition,^ which by many is considered as a standard work, almost rendering all additional research unnecessary, unless new materials for examination should be discovered. The result of these investigations has been thus stated by Dr. Hort, in terms certainly not too strongly expressed : " In the variety and fulness of the evidence on which it rests, the text of the New Testament stands absolutely and unapproachably alone among ancient prose writings." '^ * Griesbach, Novum Testamentum grcece, Londini, 1818. 2 Lacliniann's Novum Testamentum grcece et latine, Berlin, 1832. * Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum grcece, editio sejitima, Leipsic, 1889 ; editio octava, 1873. * Tregelles, The Greek New Testament, edited from ancient authorities with their various readings in full, London, 1857-1879. ^ The Neio Testament in the original Greek. The text revised by Dr. Westcott and Dr. Hort. By the recent death of Dr. Hort, the Church of England lost one of its ablest scholars, and one of the most amiable of men. " The manuscripts of the New TesUiment are divided into two classes, those written in uncial characters, which are the most ancient, and those INTEKPEETATION OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 73 Having obtained a correct text, the next task is to trans- late it. Whatever modification the element of inspiration may necessitate in giving to the text a higher and more spiritual meaning, yet, in the first instance, the ordinary methods of interpretation must be employed to ascertain its literal sense. As the late Professor Jowett observes : " Inter- pret the Scripture like any other book. There are many respects in which Scripture is unlike any other book ; these will appear in the results of such an interpretation. The first step is to know the meaning, and this can only be done in the same careful and impartial way that we ascertain the meaning of Sophocles or of Plato." " Scripture is to be interpreted like other books, with attention to the character of its authors and the prevailing state of civilisation and knowledge, with allowance for peculiarities of style and language, and modes of thought and figures of speech." ^ written in cursive characters, which are the most recent. No manuscript has been discovered older than the fourth century. Of ancient manuscrijits there are five which have pre-eminence on account of their age and the consequent value of their readings ; these are the Codex Sinaiticus (s), discovered by Tischendorf, and now in St. Petersburg ; the Codex Alexandrinus (A), now in the British Museum ; the Codex Vaticanus (B), now in the Vatican ; the Codex Ephrsem (C), a palimpsist, containing fragments of the New Testament, now in the Imperial Library of Paris ; and the Codex Bezae, now in the University Library of Cambridge. Perhaps Westcott and Hort, in their critical edition, have ranked too highly the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus to the disparagement of the Codex Alexan- drinus. The cursive manuscripts are much more numerous than the uncial; and it has been thought by Dean Burgon, Canon Cook, and others, that their value has been underestimated, and an undue preference given to the uncial, inasmuch as many of these cursive manuscripts are doubtless transcripts of older manuscripts than any which we possess ; but as it is impossible to prove this, the only course left open to us is to form our text chiefly from the readings of the most ancient codices. Of the versions of the New Testament the most valuable are the Old Latin and the Syriac, both of which were formed about the middle of the second century, and thus contain readings older than those of our oldest Greek manuscripts. The quotations from the Fathers are for critical purposes of inferior value, unless on those rare occasions when a peculiar reading is mentioned, because most of these quotations were made from memory. ^ Jowett's essay on the Interpretation of Scripture in Essays and Reviews, 8th ed. pp. 377, 404. The whole essay is well worthy of a careful perusal ; some of the statements are of doubtful tendency. 74 GENERAL INTKODUCTION. The result of all these scholarly investigations has in our age been the publication of the Revised Version, a work which occupied for several years the attention of the most distin- guished biblical scholars, both of this country and of America. It has not, it must be admitted, answered the expectations either of those engaged on it or of its admirers. The Authorised Version has not, as was fondly expected, been superseded by it, nor are there any symptoms of this ever being the case ; yet it is a great gain to Christians in our country, and a great advantage to biblical scholars. The translation possesses the weight of authority. It is formed on the most approved text, the nearest approach that has yet been made to the original, and hence several passages which are inserted in the Authorised Version are now, after a careful examination of authorities, regarded as interpolations, and a few which were omitted are now inserted as genuine. The chief omissions are the doxology to the conclusion of the Lord's Prayer (Matt. vii. 13), and the testimony of the heavenly witnesses (1 John v. V); in 1 Tim. iii. 16, He is substituted for God ; whilst the incident of the woman taken in adultery (John viii. 1-11), and the concluding verses of Mark's Gospel (Mark xvi. 9-20), are marked as doubtful. The additions to the Authorised text are few ; in 1 John ii. 23, the clause : " He that confesseth the Son hath the Father also," is no longer printed in italics, as if it were doubtful. The translation is also distinguished for its accuracy ; and thus many obscure passages are elucidated, and many misapprehen- sions corrected. The great fault of the Eevised Version is that it often departs unnecessarily from the fine old English of the Authorised Version, which has endeared itself to the hearts of the people, and has had almost a sanctity imparted to it. Some of the alterations are also of doubtful advantage, as the substitution of " the evil one " for " evil " in the petition in the Lord's Prayer : " Deliver us from evil." A number of words used in the Synoptic Gospels may be considered as translations either from the Hebrew or from the Aramaic. We have already alluded to the hypothesis of a Hebrew or Aramaic Gospel, advanced by Professor Marshall and Eesch, as one of the main sources INTERi'EETATION OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 75 of the Synoptics.^ Bvit although we do not think that there is much or any ground for this hypothesis, yet we have the testimony of Papias, followed by many of the early Fathers, that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. This important statement will afterwards be considered ; but, if we admit its truth, it follows that the Gospel of Matthew, as we now have it, is a translation from Aramaic or Hebrew into Greek. There may also have been Gospel-fragments in Hebrew used by all three evangelists. If this is the case, it would account for many verbal variations which occur in the Synoptics, in describing the same events and recording the same discourses. As already observed, it never happens that two translators of a passage use precisely the same words ; and this is especially the case when translating from the Hebrew and Aramaic, owing to the peculiarities of these languages with regard to their vocalisation ; the omission or change of vowel points, which are of comparatively recent origin, occasions a variation of meaning. On account of its importance, we repeat what has already been said in our Introduction to the Pauline Epistles, that an essential prerequisite for the interpretation of Scripture, and of the Synoptic Gospels in particular, is candour. This is a quality in which many biblical scholars and exegetes are sadly deficient. From sectarian or doctrinal bias we are apt to err in this particular, and to come to the study of the Synoptic Gospels with preconceived opinions, and seek to read into them our doctrinal views. This is especially seen in the numerous and conflicting interpretations which are given to the Sermon on the Mount.^ We must reverse the process, and come to the study of the Scriptures as much as possible without prepossession ; not asserting dogmatically that such must be the meaning of a passage because such are the views we have adopted ; but that such are our views, because such is the obvious meaning of Scripture.^ 1 See supra, p. 60. 2 Besides tlie interpretations given in the diflferent commentaries, the reader is especially referred to the suggestive views of Count Tolstoi. ^ Introduction to the Pauline Epistles, p. 54. 76 GENEKAL INTKODUCTION. Another prerequisite for the interpretation of the Syn- optic Gospels is to put ourselves as much as possible in the times when these Gospels were written. We must acquire a knowledge of the circumstances of tlie times, of the political condition of Judaea, of the opinions of the various parties into which the Jews were divided, — the Pharisees and the Sadducees, — and of the feelings which actuated the mass of the people. We must try and under- stand the disposition of the Jews toward Christ ; His popularity with the people at first, and its gradual decline ; and the reason of the hostility of the chief rulers which culminated in His death.^ We must, with the spirit of a historian, live over in thought that period. " If," says Cardinal Wiseman, " we wish to understand an author, we must transplant ourselves from our age and country, and place ourselves in the posture of those whom our Saviour addressed. We must invest ourselves with their knowledge, their feelings, habits, opinions, if we wish to understand the discourses which were addressed primarily and immediately to them. For the true meaning of a word or phrase is that which was attached to it at the time when the person whom we interpret wrote or spoke." It has been objected, that if the evangelists had not written their Gospels independently, but either used each other's Gospel, or incorporated other written documents, or had recourse to oral traditions ; especially if there were original Gospels, now lost, tliat lay at the foundation of our canonical Gospels, they cannot be considered as inspired; the evangelists are left entirely to the use of their own mental powers, and in many respects are mere compilers. " The inspiration of the Gospels," says ]\Ir. Sadler, " is incom- patible witli tlie theory that they were all taken from one document, for in such a case that unknown and lost docu- ment must liave been the only one tliat could be called the work of the Spirit ; and the alterations which each one made in it, which their mutual discrepancies show, prove 1 See especially on this point the great and exhaustive work of Schiirer, The Jewish People in the Time of Christ ; also Hausrath's History of the New Testament Times : The Time of Jesus. INTEEPRETATION OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 77 that in altering it they individually were not so far guided by the Holy Spirit." ^ It is foreign to an Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels to enter into any discussion of inspiration, either in proof of its truth or in explanation of its nature and extent ; this belongs to the sphere of dogmatic theology. The inspiration of the Grospels does not affect the mode of interpretation, nor the consideration of the sources from which they were derived. The Gospel-fragments, used by the evangelists, or incorporated into their writings, may have been inspired documents ; of course of this we have no direct evidence, except that which arises from the nature of their contents. Luke, for example, in his preface, indicates that he had access to several traditionary accounts or written documents, and among them might be the Gospel of Mark and these Gospel-fragments. The Holy Spirit might influence him in the choice of his materials, and might guide and direct him to what was true and important. Our Lord, on the eve of His departure, promised the gift of mspiration to His apostles. The Holy Spirit was to enlighten their minds in the knowledge of the truth, to guide them into all truth, to show them things to come, to reveal those " many things " which Christ had not disclosed, and to assist them in their apologies before kings and rulers. " These things have I spoken unto you, while yet abiding with you. But the Comforter, even the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said unto you " (John xiv. 25, 26). "When He, the Spirit of truth, is come. He shall guide you into all truth : for He shall not speak from Him- self ; but what things soever He shall hear, these shall He speak : and He shall declare unto you the things that are to come" (John xvi. 13). The Fathers repeatedly assert the inspiration of the sacred writers. Tertullian speaks of them as having their minds flooded with the Holy Spirit ; ^ and Origen affirms that the sacred books are not the works of men, but were written by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.^ 1 QuoLed in Salmon's Introduction to the N.T. p. 156, note. - Apol. 18. 3 De Princif. iv. 9. It is difficult, if not impossible, to define the 78 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. It has, however, been asserted that there are discrepancies in the Synoptic Gospels of such a nature as disprove their inspiration. Whether these discrepancies exist is one question ; and whether, granting their existence, they are of such a character as to disprove the inspiration of the Gospels, is another. We have already admitted, what is indeed un- deniable, that there are great differences in the Gospels, especially in those of Matthew and Luke, in their narratives of the birth of our Lord, of His sufferings and death, and of His resurrection ; and we have dwelt upon these differences in considering the nature of the Synoptic problem. But many of these differences are not inaccuracies or discrep- ancies, but additions to the history or variations in the state- ment of the same incidents seen from different points of view.^ It is also to be observed that there may have been a repeti- tion of the same incidents. Thus to take a notable example : we learn from Matthew and Mark that there were two occasions on which our Lord miraculously fed the multitude, with points of similarity and dissimilarity in the accounts, whilst only one of these instances is recorded by Luke. Now, supposing that Matthew and Mark had only recorded one of those miracles, the feeding of the four thousand, whilst the other miracle, the feeding of the five thousand, was only recorded by Luke, it would be asserted that there were numerous discrep- ancies in the accounts of the evangelists ; the one account asserting the number of those fed to be four tliousand, and the other five thousand ; according to the one the supply of food was seven loaves, according to the other four loaves and two fishes ; the fragments gathered, according to one narra- tive, were seven baskets full, and according to the other, twelve baskets. Whereas all these discrepancies are at once nature of iusi)ii'ation ; and hence in confe.s.sions of faith, Avhilst the inspira- tion of Scrii)ture is asserted, it is generally left unexplained. It implies that the sacred writers were infhienced by the S])irit of God. But this general assertion does not admit of being iiarticularised. See Sanday's Bam'pton Lectures on " Insi)iration," pp. 31 ff.; Row's Bampton Lectures, pp. 443-448. 1 For the consideration of these dill'erences in the Synoptic Gospels the reader is referred to the various commentaries, especially these of Meyer, Godet, Alford, Morison, M'Clellan, etc. INTEKPRETATION OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 79 removed and disappear by the information we possess, that our Lord fed the multitude, not on a single, but on two occa- sions. A similar solution may solve other difficulties ; as, for example, in the case of the anointing of our Lord ; one anointing is related by Luke (vii. 36—40), and another by Matthew (xxvi. 6, 7) and Mark (xiv. 3). Both agree in the facts that the person who anointed was a woman, and that the name of the person in whose house it occurred was Simon, one of the most common Jewish names. But in all other particulars they differ essentially ; the one occurred during the course of our Lord's ministry in Gralilee, the other in Bethany shortly before His passion ; in the one case the woman was a penitent sinner, in the other she was the saintly Mary, the sister of Lazarus. All these differences disappear on the reasonable supposition that the anointing occurred on two different occasions. So also there is nothing improbable in the supposition that the disciples twice dis- puted among themselves which of them should be the greatest (Luke ix. 46, xxii. 24); and that our Lord twice purified the temple by casting out the buyers and sellers, once at the beginning (John ii. 13-17), and a second time at the close of His ministry (Matt. xxi. 12, 13). Many of the sayings of our Lord might have been repeated, as they partook of the nature of proverbial expressions, as " He that humbleth him- self shall be exalted ; and he that exalteth himself shall be humbled" (Luke xiv. 11, xviii. 14). "Whosoever shall save his life shall lose it " (Luke ix. 24, xvii. 33). So also much of the Sermon on the Mount may have been twice repeated, and our Lord may have given to His disciples on two occa- sions a similar form of prayer.^ The alleged discrepancies in the Gospels are greatly diminished in number by these considerations, and the differences which do still exist are proofs of the comparative independence of the writers ; ^ In Matthew's Gospel, the Lord's Prayer constitutes part of the Sermon on the Mount, whilst in Luke's Gospel our Lord is represented as giving it in answer to the request of the disciples to instruct them in the mode of prayer (Luke xi. 1). There are also considerable verbal variations in the two forms. See on doublets in the Gospels, swpra, p. 37. 80 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. indeed, the marvel is that so few alleged discrepancies exist.^ There is one incident, however, which requires special consideration owing to the extreme difficulty of harmonising the accounts. We allude to the incident of the cure of the blind man at Jericho, as given by all three evangelists (Matt. XX. 29-34; Mark x. 46-52; Luke xviii. 35-43). In tlie accounts given there is a twofold variation as regards the number of those cured, and as regards the locality where the miracle was performed. Matthew affirms that there were two men,^ whilst Mark and Luke seem to intimate that there was only one. Luke tells us that the cure was performed as our Lord entered Jericho, whilst Matthew and Mark say that it happened when He departed from Jericho. The attempted solutions of these discrepancies have hitherto been forced and unnatural, mere evasions of the difficulty. M'Clellan supposes that as our Lord entered Jericho two blind men sat by the wayside begging, but made no applica- tion ; and, on the next day, when our Lord was departing, they cried out, " Jesus, Thou Son of David, have mercy on us!" and were cured ; ^ which is certainly at variance with the account given us by Luke. Greswell supposes that two miracles were performed in Jericho, but at different times and on different individuals ; that Mark relates one of the miracles performed when Jesus was departing from Jericho, and Luke relates the other as Jesus was entering Jericho, and that Matthew embraces both cures in one narrative.* But the language employed by the blind men and our Lord, as recorded by all the evangelists, was the same, thus indicatmg that the miracle was the same. Surely it is ^ Other apparent discrepancies, as the genealogies, the census of Quirinius, the prophecy of Zechariah referred to Jeremiah, are discussed farther on. The diflerence between the Synoptics and St. John as to the day of our Lord's death is di.scussed in the Introduction to the Joh(innine Writiwjs. 2 In Matthew's Gospel the nunilxT cured is oftt'n douliled : as here the two blind men at Jericho, tlie two demoniacs at Gadara (Matt. viii. 28), the two lilind men at Capernaum (Matt. ix. 27). 3 M'Clellan's New Testament, vol. i. p. 467. ■♦ Greswell's Dissertations, vol. ii. p. 569. INTERPRETATION OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 81 better frankly to admit the discrepancy than to have recourse to such forced methods of conciliation. There may be some method of reconciliation of which we are ignorant, owing to the scantiness of our information. Even admitting the discrepancy, it is evidently of a slight nature, and does not at all affect the principal fact, that a miracle of healing was performed at Jericho.^ It is an obvious remark, that in interpreting any writing there must be a certain sympathy between the reader and the writing : a poetical spirit can only understand and appreciate poetry ; a mathematical mind can only solve the problems of mathematics ; a philosophical mind can only follow the discussions of metaphysicians ; an historical mind can only fully enter into the great political and social questions of the age. This is especially the case with the interpretation of the Scriptures : the word of God can only be truly understood by a religious mind. There must be an inspiration within us, an indwelling of the Holy Spirit, to correspond with the inspiration of the Scriptures without us. In this sense we may understand the words of the apostle : " The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God : for they are foolishness unto him ; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged" (1 Cor. ii. 14). In order, then, to interpret the Synoptic Gospels aright, to fathom the depth of their meaning, to grasp the fulness of spiritual truth which they contain, we must have spiritual discernment : we must feel the truth in our hearts." The Synoptic Gospels to the religious mind possess internal evidences of their inspiration ; they bear impressed upon them the mark of their supernatural origin. The ^ See on this subject some excellent remarks by Row, Bampton Lectures, pp. 472, 473. Tatian mentions only one blind man, Bartimoeus, who was cured when Jesus was departing from Jericho. 2 The Scriptures address themselves not so nuich to man's rational nature, the ypv^vl, as to man's spiritual nature, the ttusv/hu. We require the assistance of a higher spirit than our own, even the Spirit of God, the great Inspirer, to understand His word ; we miist be in sympathy with the great Author. There is great truth in Neander's famous adage : Pectus est quod theologum facit. See some excellent remarks on Insj^iratiou in the IFestminster Confession, ch. i. 5. 6 82 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. discourses recorded in them are the words of One who spoke as never man spoke. The parables of our Lord, for example, are full of inspiration. Those wonderful discourses, linking the world of spirit with the world of matter, transfiguring with a divine glory the phenomena of nature, at once so simple and so profound, so natural and so supernatural, so many-sided, awakening a response, not merely in the hearts of those to whom they were primarily addressed, but in the heart of humanity, are revelations of the Spirit of God. So also that wonderful discourse of our Lord to which we have already adverted, the so-called Sermon on the Mount, whether we consider it as given on a single occasion in one discourse as is recorded in Matthew's Gospel, or whether we consider it as given in detached portions on different occasions as related in Luke's Gospel, has been almost universally acknowledged to bear upon itself the impress of inspiration.^ It is the most wonderfully inspired discourse that ever was uttered. It is the revelation of the laws of the Gospel — not the destruction, but the fulfilment and completion of the law — rescuing it from the formal interpretation of the scribes and Pharisees, bringing its precepts to bear upon the heart, declaring that it relates not to outward actions, but to the disposition. It is the inauguration of the kingdom of God. There was doubtless, after the completion of our Lord's work by His death and resurrection, and after His departure from the world, a subsequent development of Christianity by the apostles ; but the germs are found in this discourse ; it is tlie fountain from which all subsequent streams of spiritual truth liave issued. Plato and Socrates never uttered truths so profound, so living, so transforming, so universal in their application, as those given in this discourse by Jesus of Nazareth. ' In all })rol)iibility the large portion of it given hy Luke, the so- called Sermon on the Plain (Luke vi. 20-49), is identical with the occasion when the Sermon on the Mount was delivered. The circumstances attending both discourses are similar, there being in both cases multi- tudes of liearers from Galilee and Judica and from beyond Jordan ; and the time w-hen they were spoken appears to coincide. So Stroud, Thohick, Ewald, Alford, Wordsworth, Westcott, M'Clellan, and Ellicott. See supra, p. 39. INTERPRETATION OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 83 It has been maintained that the Sermon on the Mount and the other discourses and parables of our Lord contained in the Synoptics form the main truths of Christianity — the funda- mentals of the religion'of Jesus. We have been, it is said, too long deriving our Christianity from the teaching of Paul, we must return to the Christianity of Christ. We must draw the living water, not from the stream, but from the fountain- head. On all sides the cry is : " Back to Christ ! " ^ It is from His teaching, as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels chiefly, that we derive our knowledge of the way of salvation. Even the Gospel of John, long regarded as " the spiritual Gospel," as disclosing the heart of Jesus, must, it is said, yield the palm to the Synoptics, and occupy a secondary place. " The heart of the man Jesus in its rich fulness of grace and spiritual truth, is more adequately shown in the first three Gospels than in the fourth.^ And with regard to the Epistles of Paul, the view of Christianity, as there exhibited, must be regarded as inferior to the revelation in the Synoptic Gospels. " Paul's point of view is individual ; Christ's is social." " It is the business of theology to determine the affinities between the Galilean and the Pauline Gospels, but it is the privilege of religious faith to enter into life by the door which Jesus has opened, without stopping to inquire whether Paul's key fits . the lock. The words of Jesus are ' words of eternal life,' and no truth not spoken by Him can be essential to salvation, how- ever helpful for upbuilding in faith." ^ Even with regard to the death of Christ, whilst Paul insists on it as the great atonement for sin, yet he has not " presented in all its aspects the meaning of Christ's death ; he has not taught with breadth and emphasis the precious doctrine of Christ's temptations and priestly sympathy." ^ Now this exaltation of the Sermon on the Mount and 1 Bruce, The Kingdom of God, p. 329. See also this thought developed in Principal Fairbairn's recent suggestive work, Christ in Modern Tlieology. 2 Bruce's Apologetics, pp. 485-490. See, on the contrary, Tholuck's Sermon on the Mount, trans, p. 35 ; here he states : " In the further development of Rationalism, the ground it took was most jilainly indicated by its preference of the Epistle of St. James to those of St. Paul, and of the Sermon on the Mount to the Gospel of St. John." 3 Bruce's Afologetics, pp. 427, 428. ■* Ihid. pp. 426, 427. 84 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. the Synoptic discourses above other parts of Scripture, appears to us erroneous. Most certainly the teachmg of Christ is of primary importance ; but it did not contain the full revelation, it was necessarily of a preparatory character. Jesus Himself said : " I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when He, the Spu'it of truth, is come, He shall guide you into all the truth " (John xvi. 12, 13). The apostles during the life of their Lord were not capable of receiving the full revelation of salvation ; the atoning nature of the death of Christ could not be fully declared until Christ had died and the atone- ment had actually been made : the Holy Spirit was not given until Jesus was glorified (John vii. 39). He by His teaching laid the foundation of the spiritual temple, but the apostles under the guidance of the Holy Spirit were the instruments employed in rearing the superstructure. Paul and the other sacred writers unfolded truths which Jesus had only revealed in part. They explained the way of salvation more distinctly ; the agency and work of the Holy Spirit was not clearly made known until the outpouring of His influences on the day of Pentecost. The three Synoptic Gospels have their distinctive peculi- arities. There are properly not three Gospels, but one Gospel under different aspects. It is one Person who is described ; they contain memorabilia of Christ. They are three photo- graphs of one original, shown in different lights, and placed in different positions. Yet there is no unvaried uniformity ; the characteristics of each writer are impressed upon his writing : there is no slavish copying of one from the other : inspiration does not obliterate the personality of the evan- gelists. Matthew, writing to the Jews, dwells upon Jesus as the Messiah ; he heaps proof upon proof that the prophecies of the Old Testament were fulfilled in Him ; he does not dwell so much as the other evangelists on the incidents of our Lord's life, but groups His discourses and gives them in a compact form : he imparts to us the teaching of Him who came to redeem Israel and establish the kingdom of God. Mark, writing perhaps to the Ivomans, dwells upon Jesus as the Imperator, the great King of men, the Son of God : he THE HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS. 85 dwells chiefly on His miracles and less on His discourses ; he writes with the freshness of an eye-witness, and gives graphic and lifelike descriptions of the incidents he records. Luke dwells on the human nature of Jesus : he discloses His divine compassion and condescension ; he describes Him, not so much as the Son of David, but as the Son of Man; he indicates the universality of His mission, and reveals Him as the Saviour, not of the Jews merely, but of the world, as the Friend and Eedeemer of the human race.^ VII. The Harmony of the Gospels. It is natural to endeavour to arrange the statements of the three evangelists into a harmony ; to represent the life of Christ as a unity. This was attempted at a very early period. Many suppose that Justin Martyr (a.d. 150) in quoting from the Gospels, as the memorials of Christ, used a harmony. It is certain that shortly afterwards (a.d. 160) Tatian drew up his celebrated Diatessaron, or the four Gospels in one (evayyiXiov Bta Twv reaadpcov)} He was followed by Ammonius (dpfioviov, a.d. 230) and Augustine (De consensu evangelist- arum). Calvin drew up a harmony of the Gospels in a liberal manner, making full allowance for their variations : according to him, in Matthew the greatest attention is paid to consecutive order ; in Luke, the least. Osiander in his Harmonia evangeliorum proceeded on an entirely different principle. His dogmatic assumption was that as the evan- gelists were inspired, the discourses of Jesus, when there was any considerable difference, must have been repeated, and His actions must have been related in the exact order in which they occurred ; hence the same events were represented as having 1 For tlie distinctive peculiarities of the Gospels, see EUicott's Hulsean Lectures on the life of our Lord Jesus Christ, Lecture V. ; Westcott's Introductio7i to the Study of the Gospels, pp. 308-313 ; Fairbairn's Christ in Modern Theology, pp. 334-338. 2 We have now (1894) the great advantage of perusing the Diatessaron of Tatian in a translation from the Arabic, and have to exjiress our high admiration of it. As a harmony it is not inferior to many of modern times. 86 GENEEAL INTKODUCTION. happened twice or even three tiines.^ Modern harmonies of the Gospels are exceedingly numerous, and some of them of great value. Greswell's Dissertations 7(po7i the priiicijyles and arrangement of the Harmony of the Gospels^ contain matter of high importance, well deserving of attentive study. Stroud, arranging the Gospels in parallel columns, formed out of them a combined Greek text.^ Wieseler's Synojms of the Four Gospels,'^ is chiefly a series of important discussions on the chronology of our Lord's life. The value of Paisli- brooke's Synojiticon has already been adverted to.^ But the question meets us : Is a harmony of the Syn- optic Gospels possible ? If the evangelists do not follow a chronological order, how can we draw up a harmony of their accounts ? Alford denies this possibility, and asserts that all attempts at arrangement are fruitless labours. The endeavours of harmonists to force into agreement the different accounts, he asserts, have been most prejudicial, and have given occa- ^ Schaff asserts that according to Osiander, Peter's wife's mother was healed three times. 2 Published at Oxford, 1830. ^ Stroud's Greek Harmony of the Four Gos'pels, London, 1853. This is a work of great labour and erudition. There is a long introduc- tion or dissertation of 216 pages. Stroud was not a clergyman, but a physician. •* Translated by Venables, Cambridge, 1864. ^ We giv^e a list of the principal Harmonies of the Gosjiels given alphabetically : Anger's Synopsis Evawjelioruni ; Bengel's Richtiye Harmnnie dcr vier Evawjelien, Tubingen, 1736; Calvin on the Gospels; Camiibell, Dr. Colin, Greek of the Three First Gospels, Glasgow, 1882 ; Caspari's Life of Christ, trans. T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1876 ; Chemnitz, Harmonia qiuttuor Evamjelistarum, Hamburg, 1704 ; Credner's Einleitung, pp. 161 ff.; Doddridge's Family Expositor ; Greswell's Harmonia Evamjelicn, Oxford, 1840 ; Griesbach, Synopsis Evanycliorum, Halle, 1776 ; Lightfoot's Harmony, Ltjndon, 1655 ; Macknight's Harmony of the Gospels, London, T7G3; Micluelis, Introduction, translated ])y Marsh, vol. iv. pp. 40-84 ; M'Clellan's New Testament, pp. 539-621 ; Newcome, Harmony of the Gospels, Dublin, 1778 ; Ilulunson, Harmony of the Four Gospeh, Boston, 1848; Rcjcdiger's Synopsis Evamjeliorum, Halle, 1739; Rushbrooke's Synopticon, London, 1880 ; Stroud's Greek Harmony of the Gospels, London, 1853; Tischendorf's Synopsis Evawjclica, Leipzig, 1851; Thomson (Arch- Ijishop), Table of the Harmony of the Gospels in Smith's Didioimry of the Bible ; article, " The Gospels " ; Wieseler's Vhronoloyische Sympisis der vier Evawjelien, Hamburg, 1843. THE HAKMONY OF THE GOSPELS. 87 sion to objections to the Gospel narrative.^ But although a minute harmony, embracing details, is perhaps impossible, yet there is a general harmony ; the great events of our Lord's life can be arranged in the order of their occurrence, although the subordinate events cannot. Luke, in his preface, states that having traced the course of all things accurately from the first, he intended to write them in order (/ca^e^?}?) ; but this order is only generally maintained. On the other hand, Papias declares that Mark followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of our Lord's discourses {ov^ oxrirep avvra^Lv twv KvpiaKwv iroLov^evo'i \6' / manual, drew many of the precepts contained in it from the first Gospel. The parallels are much closer than those found in the writings of the apostolic Fathers or of Justin Martyr.^ The Gospel of Matthew is referred to or quoted by all the apostolic Fathers. Thus Clemens Eomanus (a.d. 96) says : " Eemember the words of the Lord Jesus which He spoke concerning gentleness and longsuffering. For thus He said. Be ye merciful, that ye may obtain mercy. Forgive, that it may be forgiven you : as ye do, so shall it be done unto you ; as ye judge, so shall ye be judged ; as ye are kind, so shall kindness be shown to you ; with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you." ^ And again : " Eemember the words of the Lord Jesus Christ, how He said. Woe to that man ; it would be better for him that he had never been born, than that he should offend one of My elect. It were better for him that a millstone should be hung about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the sea, than that he should offend one of My little ones." ^ ^ Ch. vii. 1 ; comp. Matt, xxviii. 19. 2 Ch. viii. 2 ; comp. Matt. vi. 5, 9-13. 3 Ch. ix. 5 ; comp. Matt. vii. 6. * The opinion of Lechler. ^ It is, however, to be observed that Dr. Salmon supposes that the Didache of Bryennios had been preceded by a shorter form which did not contain the references to the Sermon on the Mount ; Introdiidion to the N.T. 7th ed. p. 559. ^ Clemens Komanus, ch. xiii. ; comp. Matt. vi. 12-15, vii. 2. 5" Ibid. xlvi. ; comp. Matt, xviii. 6. 94 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. One of the earliest of the Christian writings is the so- called Epistle of Barnabas. The whole Greek text of this Epistle is found in the Sinaitic manuscript (a), not, however, as if it were one of the canonical books of the New Testament, but as an extra - canonical book, being placed after the Apocalypse. Another manuscript of this Epistle was one of f4^ the important discoveries of Bryennios.^ It is of doubtful origin. Clemens Alexandrinus repeatedly quotes it, and expressly attributes it to the Apostle Barnabas, the com- panion of Paul.2 Elsewhere he states that he was one of the Seventy. Origen quotes it twice, and calls it the Epistle of Barnabas.^ Jerome also assigns the authorship of the Epistle to Barnabas.^ Eusebius, on the other hand, ranks it among the spurious books.^ In the present day it is generally regarded by biblical scholars as not the work of Barnabas.*^ But whether genuine or not, its great antiquity is universally admitted. Such high authorities as Bishop Lightfoot"^ and Weizsacker, arguing from a passage found in it giving an enumeration of the Koman emperors, infer that it was written in the reign of Vespasian, shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem^ (a.d. 70). But the inference ^ In the same volume wliicli contained the Didache. The documents contained in that volume are as follows : — 1. A Synopsis of the Old and New Testaments by Chrysostom ; 2. The Epistle of Barnabas ; 3. The First Epistle of Clement ; 4. The Second Epistle of Clement ; 5. The Didache ; 6. The Spurious Epistle of Mary of Cassoboli ; 7. Twelve Pseudo-Ignatian Epistles. 2 Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom, ii. 6. ^ Origen, Be Principiis, iii. 2 ; Contra Gelsum, i. 63. * Jerome, De Vir. III. 6. ^ Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iii. 25. ^ Its genuineness has been defended by Professor Milligan, Smith's Cliristian Biograjilirj, article " Barnabas." Its genuineness is also main- tained by Gieseler, Guericke, Bleek. '' Lightfoot's Ajjostolic Fathers : St. Clement of Rome, vol. ii. p. 506. With Lightfoot and Weizsiicker, Professor Sanday also agrees. See Sanday's Bampton Lectures, p. 235, and also Dr. Salmon's Introduction to the N.T. 7th ed. p. 518. ^ The passage is as follows : — " Ten kingdoms shall reign upon the earth, and a little king shall rise up after tliem, who shall subdue three of the kings under one. In like manner Daniel says concerning the same : And I saw the fourth l)east, wicked and strong and savage beyond all the beasts of tlie earth, and how from it sprang up ten horns, and out of GENUINENESS. 95 which they draw from this passage is doubtful. The most generally received opinion is that the Epistle of Barnabas was written by an unknown author toward the close of the first century (a.d. 100). The following quotations from Matthew's Gospel are found in it : " Let us beware, lest we be found (fidfilling the saying) as it is written (yeypaTrrat), Many are called, but few chosen." ^ "But when He chose His Pyyti^ apostles who were to preach the gospel. He did so from among those who were sinners above others, that He might show that He came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." ^ The next Father, in order of date, is Ignatius (a.d. 118). The genuineness of his Epistles has long been the subject of dispute. They exist in two recensions, the larger and smaller or Vossian recension. Cureton discovered a Syriac manuscript containing only three Epistles, and these in a more abridged form than the smaller recension. After the learned investigations of Bishop Lightfoot, it is now generally acknowledged that the seven Epistles found in the smaller recension are genuine, though perhaps containing several inter- polations, and that the Curetonian recension is an abridgment.^ Now, in the Epistle of Ignatius to the Komans, the best at- tested of all his Epistles, we have the following distinct quota- tion from Matthew : " It is better to die for the sake of Jesus Christ than to reign over all the ends of the earth : for what shall a man be profited if he gain the whole world, but lose his own soul." * And in the Epistle to Polycarp we have the fol- lowing words : " Mitigate violent attacks by gentle applications. ^ Be in all things wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove." ^ them a little horn, an offshoot, and how it subdued under one three of the great horns," Barnabas, ch. iv. According to Lightfoot, the three great horns are VesjDasian, Titus, and Domitian, who ruled conjointly ; and the little horn who was to subdue them was Nero revived. See also Ramsay's The CJiurch in the Roman Empire, p. 307. ^ Barnabas, ch. iv.; comp. Matt. xx. 16. ^ Barnabas, ch. v.; comp. Matt. ix. 13. ^ The reader is referred to Bishop Lightfoot's learned and exhaustive work, Apostolic Fathers : St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp. See also Zahn's Ignatius von Antioch ; Gloag's Introduction to the Johannine Writings, pp. 100 f. * Ep. ad Romanes, ch. vi. ; comp. Matt. xvi. 26. ^ Ep. ad Polycarp, ch. ii. ; comp. Matt. x. 16. The words here are 96 THE GOSPEL OF iMATTHEW. The Epistle of Polycarp (a.d. 116) was written shortly- after the martyrdom of Ignatius. Its genuineness is attested by Irenaeus, who was one of his disciples : " There is also a powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith and the preaching of his truth." ^ In this Epistle of Polycarp there are two quotations from the Gospel of Matthew. " Eemember what the Lord said in His teaching, Judge not, that ye be not judged : forgive, and it shall be forgiven unto you : be merciful, that you may obtain mercy. With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And once more, Blessed are the poor and those that are persecuted for righteousness' sake : for theirs is the kingdom of God." ^ " Beseeching the all-seeing God in our supplications not to lead us into temptation ; for as the Lord has said. The spirit truly is willing, but the flesh is weak." ^ We have already had frequent occasion to allude to the testimony of Papias (a.d. 120). "So then Matthew wrote the oracles (Xoyia) in the Hebrew language, and everyone interpreted them as he was able."* We have endeavoured to show that Papias here does not, as many biblical scholars affirm, speak of some original document which lay at the foundation of Matthew's Gospel — the nucleus of that Gospel ; but that he alludes to the canonical Gospel as we possess it, and which was in existence in his days.^ It is unnecessary to refer to the testimony of the early post-apostolic Fathers ; for it is now hardly disputed that the Gospel of Matthew was received as authentic by the Christian Church in the middle of the second century. Justin Martyr (a.d. 150), when he speaks of the Memoirs or Memorabilia of Christ, frequently refers to this Gospel, with- out, however, naming it, often quoting the precise words, but nearly identical with those in the Gospel of Matthew : (Pp6vif<,o; yivov ug S(pi; iv oi-Tretaiv kxI ctKipettog uael TTipianpu, the singular being employed. 1 Irenoeus, Adv. Hwr. iii. 3. 4. 2 Polycarp, Ep. ad Phili]). ch. ii. ; conip. Matt. vii. 1, 2, v. 3, 10. ^ Ibid. ch. vii.; conip. Matt. vi. 13, xxvi. 41. * Eusehius, Hist. Eccl. iii. 40. '" Hupra, i)p. 18-20. GENUINENESS. 97 more frequently quoting from memory, thus occasioning a slight difference between the words of Jesus as quoted by Justin and those found in the Gospels. It is unnecessary to give instances of the quotations which are scattered throughout all the writings of Justin. Jeremiah Jones gives twenty-seven quotations from the Gospel of Matthew by Justin/ whilst Kirchhofer increases the number to thirty- one.^ Professor Sanday gives us a table of all the references -of Justin to our Gospels, and observes : " The total result may be taken to be that ten passages are substantially exact, while twenty -five present slight, and thirty -six marked variations." ^ Irenteus (a.d. 180) is the first Father who names Matthew J as the author of the first Gospel. " Matthew, the apostle, I declares that John, when preparing the way for Christ, said to those who were boasting of their relationship to Abraham : O generation of vipers, who hath shown you to flee from the wrath to come ? Brmg forth therefore fruit meet for repent- ^mce." * And again : " Matthew, when speaking of the angel, says : The angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in sleep." ^ But the genuineness of Matthew's Gospel is not only attested by the early Fathers, but also by the early Gnostic heretics. Basilides (a.d. 125), Valentinus (a.d. 150),^ and Heracleon (a.d. 160), in the fragments of their works pre- served in the writings of the Fathers, have references to or citations from it.'^ Besides, there are the Old Latin and Syriac versions made about the middle, or at least before the jclose of the second century. It is more than probable that the Gospels were the first books which were received by the Christian Church as canonical and divinely inspired, and were read, as Justin informs us, in their public assemblies. This would naturally be the case, as the life of Christ, His dis- courses and actions, would be regarded by the early Chris- ^ Jones, On the Canon, vol. iii. ]). 27. - Kirchhofer's Quellensammlung, pp. 89-104. ^ Sanday's Gospels of the Second Century, pp. 113-116. ■* Irenseus, Adv. Hcer. iii. 9. 1 ; coinp. Matt. iii. 7. ^ Ibid. iii. 9. 2 ; comp. Matt. i. 20, 21. « Ibid. i. 8. 2. '■ See Davidson's Introduction to the N.T. 1st ed. vol. i. pp. 70, 71. Sanday's Gospels of the Second Century, pp. 188 ff. 7 \v' 98 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. tians of primary importance. This consideration sufficiently accounts for references to them being of such early date. Although, certainly, the genuineness of Matthew's Gospel rests chiefly on the external evidence, which is in itself per- fectly sufficient, yet there is not wanting internal evidence which confirms the external, though we do not place the stress of the argument on it. The attributing of the Gospel to Matthew, a comparatively unknown and obscure apostle, is in itself a presumption in its favour. If the design were to palm a Gospel upon the Church, it would not be attributed to an apostle who is never mentioned, except in the narrative of his call and in the lists of the apostles, and of whom there are hardly any records in ecclesiastical history ; but to some more distinguished apostle, such as Peter, James, Andrew, Thomas, or Philip, whose names occur in the Gospels in connection with events in the life of Jesus. Besides, this Gospel contains within itself the evidences of its authenticity ; it bears upon it the impress of truth. The discourses of our Lord, especially the parables and the Sermon on the Mount as there recorded, are beyond the capacity of the human intellect to compose ; they are divine utterances, and all attempts to imitate them end in failure. Even those inspired writings which follow the Gospels are cast in a different mould ; they want the simplicity, the freshness, the naturalness, the impressiveness of the parabolic element. As Professor Salmon says : " In point of style we travel into a new country, when we pass from the Synoptic Gospels to the Apostolic Epistles " ; ^ whilst the writings of the apostolic Fathers are mere dross compared with the gold found in the Gospels. But, notwithstanding this strong attestation in favour of the Gospel of Matthew, its genuineness has been disputed on various grounds. The doubts as to its apostolic origin are drawn from the nature of the work, and not from any defect in the external evidence. They arise chiefly from the exigencies of the case in the attempts of critics to solve the Synoptic problem. It has in recent times been disputed by 1 Salmon's Introduction to the N.T. p. 136. GENUINENESS. 99 Schleiermacher, Sieffert/ Eichhorn,^ Meyer, Eeuss, Holtzmann, TDe Wette,^ and Davidson. 1. It is affirmed that the Gospel, as we now have it, cannot be the original Gospel of Matthew, but must be a compilation ; that there was a previous Aramaic Gospel, or a collection of Logia, probably written by Matthew, which formed the groundwork or nucleus of the canonical Gospel ; that this Aramaic Gospel was increased by subsequent additions at different periods, and was translated by different persons, and that from this our canonical Gospel was gradually formed ; that the original Gospel is now lost, and that what we now have is a translation or recension of it with additions by an unknown author or authors. This is the opinion of those who hold the two document hypothesis. Thus Meyer observes : " In the form in which the Gospel now exists, it cannot have originally proceeded from the hands of the Apostle Matthew." ■* Professor Sanday, in his article in the Exjjositor, already referred to, says : " This at least is a point on which there is increasing unanimity, that the Apostle Matthew did not write the whole of the first Gospel as we have it. That he wrote a section of it, so important that his name passed from that to the whole, is by most writers willingly conceded ; but analysis reveals the composite nature of our Gospel too clearly for it to be probable that we have in it the original work of our apostle, as it left his pen."^ And so also Dr. Marcus Dods observes : " In the present state of criticism, it is impossible to speak with certainty of the origin of the first Gospel. That the apostle, by whose name it is still called, had some- thing to do with its composition is tolerably certain, but it is also certain that it passed through more hands than his before it reached its present form." *^ Now it is admitted that in a certain sense the Gospel of ^ TJeher den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen Evangeliums. 2 According to his theory of the original Gospel, which regards the canonical Gospel as a later edition. So also all those who adopt his theory or the modern modification of it. « See De Wette's Einleitung, § 98a. * Meyer, Mattheiv, vol. i. p. 3, translation. * The Expositor, vol. iii. fourth series, p. 303. ^ The Supernatural in Christianity, p. 83. 100 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. Matthew may be regarded as a compilation. How far it is so will be more fully determined when we come to consider the sources of the Gospel. But it is not a compilation in the sense of those objectors, namely, that there is only a nucleus which can primarily be referred to Matthew, whilst the rest has arisen from subsequent additions or accretions. A change of Gospels, the substitution of one for another, or the enlargement of a previous Gospel, is not only never hinted at by the Fathers, but its occurrence is difficult to conceive, considering the sacredness attached to these records of the life of Jesus ; it would involve time, and the early formation of Matthew's Gospel does not give sufficient time for such a growth and development. This Gospel was certainly recognised before the close of the first century, and time must be allowed even for this early recognition. Besides, the uniformity of style and expression in our Gospel proves the unity of authorship. There are the same expressions, as, for example, " That it might be fulfilled," " the kingdom of heaven," ^ " the end of the world," continually recurring, and marking the individuality of the author.^ 2. It has been maintained that the first Gospel, at least as we now have it, could not possibly be the work of an apostle who was the constant follower of our Lord, because it wants all the characteristics of an eye-witness. Many of the most important incidents of our Lord's life are omitted. ^''^' There is no mention of the Judaean ministry which, as we y Y v^ learn from the Gospel of John, formed so important a part .\y of our Lord's mission. In the narrative there is a complete V* want of graphic description ; it is a narrative of incidents without anything to suggest that the narrator himself was present when these incidents occurred. To this objection it is replied that it was not the design of Matthew or of any of the evangelists to compose a complete biography of Christ, but merely to give a sufficient ^ "Whilst elsewhere in Scripture the phrase is the kingdom of God, s) jiot.ai'hiiec toD 6iov, Matthew uses the phrase, the kingdom of heaven, ^ liecatMix ruv ovpxuuu, more than tliirty times. "^ A full list of these i)ecuHavities in Matthew's Gosj)ol is given by Crcdner, Einkitumj in das N. T. j). 63. A GENUINENESS. 101 selection of facts from a life so full and beneficent. The Judsean ministry is omitted probably because that ministry occupied so small a portion of the life of Christ ; it was only occasionally, at the annual festivals, that He went up to Jerusalem ; by far the greater portion of His life was spent in Galilee. Besides, there are indications in this Gospel that our Lord, during the course of His public ministry, did visit JudcTa. Thus we read : " It came to pass, when Jesus had finished these words. He departed from Galilee, and came into the borders of Judtea beyond Jordan" (Matt. xix. 1). And with regard to the want of graphic details, this has been greatly exaggerated, although it is admitted that in this particular the Gospel of Matthew is surpassed by the Gospel of Mark. This, however, is no objection to the genuineness of the Gospel. "^ write in a graphic manner depends upon the idiosyncrasy of the writer ; ^ and, as has been well remarked : " This is a phenomenon which meets us every day ; it is not the contemporary and the eye-witness, but the historian of a succeeding age who takes the keenest interest in minute detail, and records with faithful accuracy the less prominent circumstances of a great event." ^ 3. The want of chronological order is frequently adduced as an argument against the genuineness of Matthew's Gospel. We have already had occasion to advert to the chronological order of the evangelists.^ It is seldom that the three evangelists are at variance on this point. The most obvious case is the stilling of the storm and the cure of the Gadarene demoniac recorded by all three.^ In Matthew these inci- dents are stated as having occurred before our Lord had ^ " It is," observes Dr. Davidson, " a weak argument to adduce tlie want of graphic description in one who was an eye-witness like Matthew. The power of vivid description is a talent which does not depend on an external call. ... If the writer had not the gift of picturesqvieness before he became an apostle, he did not get it afterwards." Introduction to N.T. 3rd ed. vol. i. p. 343. 2 Carr's Gospel of Matthew, p. 11. He illustrates this by Macaulay's graphic description of the reign of James ii. ^ See snpra, p. 41. ■* Matt. viii. 23 ; Mark \y. 35 ; Luke viii. 22. See Norton, Genuine- ness of the Gospels, vol. i. pp. 293, 294. 102 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. delivered the parable of the Sower and the other kindred parables ; whilst Mark and Luke reverse the order, and inform us that it was after our Lord had delivered these parables on " that day when the even was come tliat He said unto them, Let us go over unto the other side " (Mark iv. 35^ But we cannot see how this is any objection against the genuineness of the Gospel ; the difference is very slight and unimportant. The evangelists do not seek to follow a chronological order in their narrative ; there are undoubtedly variations on this point between them. The order laid down in the Gospel of Mark is in general the order to which Matthew and Luke adhere ; but it is doubtful if even this order is correct. Exact chronology was a mere secondary consideration with the evangelists. 4. It has further been objected that there are mythical incidents recorded in the Gospel of Matthew which render his whole narrative suspicious. The incidents alluded to are those which are stated to have occurred at the death of Christ — the rending of the vail of the temple, the earthquake, and the saints coming forth from their tombs (Matt, xxvii. 51—53). The rending of the vail of the temple is mentioned by the other two evangelists, so that it is to the resurrection of the saints, which is recorded by Matthew only, that the objection applies. Many admit the legendary nature of this incident, and suppose that it was not an original part of Matthew's Gospel, but an insertion by a later hand. Thus Meyer calls it " a mythical apocryphal addition," and sup- poses that the Greek editor of Matthew inserted it in trans- lating from the Hebrew Matthew.^ Similarly Norton observes : " The story must be regarded as a fable, probably one which, in common with others now utterly forgotten, was in circula- tion among the Hebrew converts after the destruction of Jerusalem. Some possessor of a manuscript of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel may be supposed to have noted it in the margin of his copy, wlience it found its way into the text of others, one or more of which fell into the hands of the Greek translator." - There is, however, no critical ground to justify 1 Meyer, in loco. ^ Norton's Genuineness of tJie Gospeh, vol. i. pp. 214, 215. GENUINENESS. 103 this supposition. The incident is omitted in no Greek manuscript. It is adverted to by Ignatius when, speaking of our Lord's descent into Hades, he says : " He whom they rightly waited for being come, raised them from the dead." ^ Others suppose that the passage is not to be understood literally, but symbolically, as an emblem of Christ's victory ■over death and the grave ; but for this supposition there is no ground : it is recorded as part of a narrative. It is one of those supernatural incidents which meet us in every page •of the Gospels. It is true that this wonderful and miraculous incident is only recorded by Matthew ; but there are other supernatural events, equally wonderful, which are recorded in only one of the Gospels : as the raising of the son of the widow of Nain by Luke, and of Lazarus by John. 5. Another objection to the genuineness of the Gospel according to Matthew is, that there are in it frequent re- petitions of the same events, showing that the author of the Gospel incorporated without revision two documents, each of which gave a narrative of the same incident. Thus Dr. Davidson observes : " Other particulars are wrongly narrated, as is the case with the miraculous feeding of the four thousand men in the wilderness very soon after a similar •event (comp. xv. 32-38 with xiv. 16—21). In like manner, the same transaction is repeated in xii. 22—30 and ix. 32-34, which passages are so similar that we must assume a double narrative of the same event. A similar repetition of the same thing appears in xvi. 1, where the event in xii. 38 is re-enacted. The number of these duplicates is considerable, so much so as to show carelessness, forgetfulness, or needless accumulation of material." ^ We have already alluded to this subject when we con- sidered the existence of doublets in the Synoptic Gospels, and need not repeat what was then said.^ In the instances stated by Dr. Davidson there is a similarity, but not an identity of particulars. The two accounts of the miraculous feeding of ^ Ignatius, EiJ. ad Magnes. ch. ix. It is also referred to in the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemvis. Jones, 0?i the Canon, vol. ii. p. 255. 2 Davidson's Introduction to the N.T. vol. i. pp. 339, 340, 3rd ed. ^ See supra, p. 37. 104 THE GOSPEL OF .MATTHEW. the multitude differ in many points, in the amount of provisions, in the number fed, and in the quantity of fragments afterwards gathered ; in the two miraculous cures, in the one case the man possessed with a devil was blind and dumb, in the other case he was only dumb but not blind ; and the demand of the Pharisees for a sign from heaven might have been twice repeated, as such signs were regarded by them as the credentials of the Messiah. II. The Author of the Gospel. Irengeus is the first Father who assigns our first Gospel to Matthew. We have an account of his call to the apostle- ship given us by all the Synoptists.^ The name Matthew in Hebrew (i^lJJiinD) signifies the gift of Jehovah, similar to the Greek ©eoBcopa. In the list of the apostles given by Mark he is called "the son of Alphseus " (Mark ii, 14), and as another apostle is called " James the son of Alphseus " (Luke vi. 15), it is inferred that these apostles were brothers. Others, inferring from various indications in Scripture that Alphseus is the same as Clopas the husband of Mary, the sister of the Virgin,^ suppose that Matthew was nearly related to our Lord. And others from his frequent con- junction with Thomas, called Didymus or " the twin," that he was his brother. All these are idle conjectures. Matthew was by occupation a publican or tax-gatherer, a member of a class hated and despised by the Jews, as collectors of a hateful tax and standing memorials of their subjection to the Eomans. Hence the phrase " publicans and sinners." As, however, Capernaum was in the province of Galilee, the dominion of Herod Antipas, it is not improbable that IMatthew was an officer under that monarch, and not under the IJomans. The promptitude with which he obeyed tlie call of Christ is an indication that there had been a previous preparation going on within him, and that he had been impressed with the teach- 1 IMatt. ix. 9-13 ; Mark ii. 14-17 ; Luke v. 27-32. ^ The Apostle James the Less is mentioned as the son of Alphajiis (Mark iii. 18) and as the son of Mary (Mark xv. 40), supposed to be the same as Mary the Avife of Cleophas or Clopas (John xix. 25). AUTHOR. 105 ing of Jesus. Matthew made a great feast in honour of Christ, at which many publicans and sinners sat down with Jesus and His disciples. In the account given by Mark and Luke, Levi appears as the name of the publican who was called ; ^ whilst in the lists of the apostles given by the same evangelists the name is Matthew, without any notification that he is the same as Levi formerly mentioned."^ Hence it has not unreasonably been inferred that we have the account of the call of two different persons, of Matthew who afterwards became an apostle, and of Levi who was only a disciple. Some suppose that Levi was a superintendent publican and that Matthew was his subordinate, and that our Lord called both at the same time. This distinction between Matthew and Levi was recognised by the Fathers. Clemens Alex- andrinus, quoting from Heracleon the Gnostic, mentions Matthew, Philip, Thomas, Levi and many others who did not suffer martyrdom, but died a natural death.^ So also Origen in his answer to Celsus, who taunts the Christians with the low condition of the apostles, inasmuch as they were publicans and fishermen, observes that Matthew and Levi, or as he calls him Lebes (o Ae^rjs:), were publicans.'* The same opinion was held by Grotius, Michaelis, Neander, Sieffert, Hase, Hilgenfeld, and Eeuss.^ As, however, the incidents are recorded by the three evangelists in almost precisely the same words, it is highly probable that their narratives relate to the same event ; and consequently that the Levi of Mark and Luke is the same as the Matthew of Matthew's Gospel. The use of two names was not un- common among the Jews at this time ; for example, Simon was called Peter, Lebbaeus was surnamed Thaddaeus, Thomas was called Didymus, Joses was called Barnabas, John was sur- named Mark, Simon was called Niger, Judas was surnamed Barsabas, and Saul was also called Paul. 1 Mark ii. 14 ; Luke v. 27. ^ ]yj[ark iii. 16 ; Luke vi. 15. ^ Clemens Alex. Strom, iv. 9. * Origen, Contra Celsum, i. 62. It is, however, possible that by Lebes, Origen might intend the Apostle Leliba?us, Matt. x. 3. ^ De Wette's Einleituny in das N.T. § 97rt. 106 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. We have hardly any notices of Matthew in the patristic writings and in ecclesiastical history, and what we have are of a legendary nature. Clemens Alexandrinus tells us that he led an ascetic life : " The Apostle Matthew partook of seeds and nuts and vegetables without flesh " ; ^ and he has preserved the following saying of Matthew recorded in some Gnostic writing: "They (the Gnostics) say in the traditions that Matthew the apostle constantly said, ' If the neighbour of an elect man sin, the elect man has sinned. For had he conducted himself as the Word prescribes, his neighbour also would have been filled with such reverence for the life he led as not to sin.' " ^ Eusebius informs us that Matthew, after he had preached the gospel to the Hebrews, that is, to the Jews in Palestine, went forth to other lands, but without mentioning any particular country.^ Socrates, in his Church history, says that he went to Ethiopia.* Other writers mention Parthia, India, and Macedonia. Some affirm that he died a natural death, whilst Nicephorus states that he suffered martyrdom in Ethiopia.^ III. The Sources of the Gospel. It is a very difficult question to answer, Whence did Matthew obtain the materials out of which he formed his Gospel ? We may distinguish three sources : 1. Personal observation. If the author of this Gospel was the Apostle Matthew, he would be one of the constant followers of Christ, a witness of many of His actions, and a listener to many of His discourses. He would also come into intimate contact with his fellow-apostles, and thus from their narra- tives would supplement his own. Matthew then would not be merely a compiler of the sayings or writings of others, but a narrator of what he himself saw and heard. 2. Oral tradition. This must have been the source of much of the Synoptic narratives. As we have already seen reason to ^ Clemens Alex. Pcvdag. ii. 1. 2 Clemens Alex. Strom, vii. 13. 3 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iii. 24. •* Socrates, Hist. Ecd. i. 19. ^ The Catliolic Churcli keeps Sejitember 21st as the anniversary of his martyrdom. See Cave's Lives of the Apostles. SOURCES. 107 believe, that before anything was reduced to writing there was a certain stereotyped form of an oral Gospel which constituted the teaching of the apostles for the use of catechumens. 3. Written documents. We have stated that it is probable that at a very early period there were Gospel fragments. To the use of these written documents we attribute the great similarity that exists in many portions of the Synoptic Gospels. There was a historical framework common to all three. The account of the birth of our Lord, the visit of the Magi and the flight into Egypt, in the first two chapters of this Gospel, was probably an early document derived from Mary or from the brethren of our Lord, and treasured up by the primitive Church. The discourses and parables of our Lord were perhaps collections made of the sayings of Christ which would be distributed throughout the churches. We have also seen that it is extremely probable that Matthew made a free use of the previously written Gospel of Mark. According to Papias, Matthew composed his oracles (Xoyia) in the Hebrew language. We have already seen that the term \6yia is not to be restricted to the discourses of Jesus, but includes also the incidents of His life, in short, that it is equivalent to Gospel. It is, however, undoubtedly true that this Gospel, more than the other two, contains long ■discourses of our Lord, and in this particular resembles the 'Gospel of John ; whether these discourses were delivered in full at one time, or whether they are collections of the sayings of Jesus delivered at different times. Examples of these are the Sermon on the Mount (v.— vii.), the apostolic •commission (x.), the testimony concerning the Baptist (xi.), the series of early parables (xiii.), the characteristics of disciplesbip (xviii.), a second series of parables (xxi. 28— xxii. 14), disputes with the Pharisees and Sadducees (xxii. 15—40), the denunciation pronovmced against the scribes and Pharisees (xxiii.), the prediction concerning the destruc- tion of Jerusalem (xxiv.), and the so-called parables of the passion (xxv.). The designation Xoyia, applied to the Gospel •of Matthew, is highly appropriate. It is a plausible and attractive idea that these sayings or discourses of Jesus formed the original Gospel of Matthew, and that the other portions 108 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. were subsequent additions made by unknown editors.^ Thus Weiss supposes that the discourses of Matthew formed the original Gospel, and were the groundwork of the three Synoptics. But such an idea is extremely problematic and incapable of proof. As already stated, the same style and language, the same favourite expressions, pervade the whole Gospel, and prove the unity of authorship. Matthew,, it would appear, was a collector of the sayings of Jesus, and united in one discourse many utterances which were spoken at different times, and many parables which were delivered on difierent occasions. In all probability these collections were made by Matthew himself of the sayings of Jesus, which were either handed down by tradition, or existed in written documents, or were heard by himself. Matthew drew them from Galilean tradition, whether oral or written, or from actual knowledge. IV. The Design of the Gospel. It is the uniform testimony of the Fathers that Matthew wrote his Gospel for the use and benefit of the Hebrew Christians ; that is, not only for those who were resident in Palestine, but for Jewish converts scattered throughout the world. Thus Origen, as quoted by Eusebius, observes : " Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Churches of God, I have learnt by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was pre- pared for the converts from Judaism and published in tlie Hebrew language." - Its chief design was evidently to prove that Jesus was the Christ; that the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament received their accomplishment in Him. The ^ View of Godet, New Testament Studies, ]>. 20 : " Some coiidjutor of Matthew," lie observes, " wlu) had liel])ed liim in his work of evangelisa- tion, undertO(jk tlie hxboiir of translating into (Jreek the (lisrourses which had l)een drawn up by him in their original language, and to complete this work by distributing their contents tlu't)Ugh an evangelical narrative, (•fim])lete in itself and conformable to the type of Christian instruction adopted by the apostles." - Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. vi. 25. DESIGN. 109 genealogy of Jesus is traced back, not as in Luke's Gospel to Adam, the ancestor of the human race, but to David the Messianic king, and to Abraham the father of the Jewish nation. The Gospel commences with the words : " The book of the generation of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham." In the Sermon on the Mount, where the prin- ciples of the religion of Jesus are enunciated, our Lord says that " He came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfil them " ; to impart to the commandments of the moral law a higher and more spiritual meaning. Jewish customs and localities are supposed to be known to the reader. Jerusalem is called the holy city, and Bethlehem the city of David. The teaching of Matthew's Gospel resembles that of the Epistle of James in regarding Chris- tianity not as superseding Judaism, but as its development. Hence the Gospel of Matthew, above all the other Gospels, is pervaded by the Old Testament ; there are more than seventy quotations from it, or references to it. This Gospel is interwoven with proofs of the Messiahship of Jesus. His birth is foretold under the Messianic name, Emmanuel (i. 23); He is born in Bethlehem of Judsea, because so it was foretold by the prophets (ii. 6) ; He and His parents fled to Egypt, " that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled" (ii. 15); the massacre of the children of Bethlehem took place, in fulfilment of the words spoken by Jeremiah the prophet (ii. 18) ; He came and dwelt in Nazareth, " that it might be fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet " (ii. 23); John the Baptist was His forerunner, as was foretold by the prophet Esaias (iii. 3, xi. 10); leaving Nazareth, He came and dwelt in Capernaum, that the words of Esaias the prophet might be accomplished (iv. 13, 14) ; He cured diseases, that that which was spoken by Esaias might be fulfilled (viii. 17); He was possessed of a meek and retiring disposition, according to the description of His character given by the same prophet (xii. 17—21); He taught the multitude in parables, as was foretold of Him (xiii. 35, 36); He entered Jerusalem in lowly triumph riding upon an ass, in accordance with the prediction of Zechariah (xxi. 4, 5); He appealed to the words of David, 110 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. iu proof of His Messiahship (xxii. 41-45); at His appre- hension all His disciples forsook Him, in fulfilment of the prophet's statement (xxvi. 31); He was sold for thirty pieces of silver, the exact sum stated by the prophet (xxvii. 9) ; the soldiers who crucified Him parted Hi& garments among them, and thus unconsciously fulfilled the statement of the prophet (xxvii. 35); and on the cross, in the hour of His agony. He appropriated to Himself the words of the prophetic Psalmist (xxvii. 46). The formula, "that it might be fulfilled" (ottco? irXr/pcod^), occurs eight tunes- in this Gospel.^ The life of Jesus is recorded as the fulfil- ment of prophecy ; He is portrayed as the great Messianic King, to whom all the prophets bear witness, and in whose life their predictions received their accomplishment.^ V. The Language of the Gospel. The subject which we have now to discuss is one of extreme difiiculty. In what language was the Gospel of Matthew written ? Was it Hebrew, that is, Aramaic,^ or Greek ? The difficulty consists in the conflict between the external and internal evidences : the former being in favour of an original Aramaic Gospel, and the latter tending to show that the Gospel of Matthew, as we now possess it, must have been written in Greek, and cannot be a translation. There is no difficulty in believing that some of the docu- mentary sources of the Synoptic Gospels may have been written in Aramaic ; but the question is, Was there an original Aramaic Gospel, of which the canonical Gospel of » Matt. i. 22, ii. 15, 23, viii. 17, xii. 17, xiii. 35, xxi. 4, xxvii. 35. 2 " Matthew desired to set forth Jesus to the Jews as their very Christ ; the Legislator of a new and spiritual law ; the King of a new and spiritual dominion ; the Prophet of a new and universal Churcli ; the divine Messiah who should soon resolve all doubts, returning in the clouds of heaven to judge and save." Farrar, The Mensatjcs of the Booh, p. 40. '"• We fre([uently use the term Helirew, because it is so used in Scrijv ture and in the writings of the Fathers ; but the vernacular language was Aramaic or Syro-Clialdaic, a cognate language, resembling Talmudic Hebrew, and substantially the same as that in which part of the Books of Ezra and Daniel are written. LANGUAGE. Ill Matthew is the translation ? And with this is closely con- nected another important question, What was the nature of the " Gospel according to the Hebrews " used by the Hebrew- speaking Christians, so often referred to and quoted by the Fathers, and which has for centuries been lost ? ^ Was it, as many critics suppose, the original Aramaic Gospel of Matthew, of which ours is only the translation ? With regard to the language of the Gospel of Matthew,. the external evidence is entirely in favour of an original Hebrew Gospel. The testimonies of the Fathers are unani- mous. Papias (a.d. 120), in the passage preserved by Eusebius, so often quoted, and which has proved so fruitful of conjec- tures, writes : " Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew dialect, and everyone translated them as he was able." - We have endeavoured to show that by the " oracles " is most probably meant the Gospel ; ^ and if so, we have in this testimony of Papias an assertion of its Hebrew origin. " Everyone," he says, that is, every Greek Christian who was ignorant of Hebrew, " translated them as best he could." Irena:!us (a.d. 180) writes: "Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect." * Eusebius relates that Pantaenus (a.d. 200), the chief of the catechetical school of Alexandria, having gone to the Indians to diffuse the Christian religion, found among them the Gospel of Matthew ; for Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had before his arrival preached the gospel to them, and left with them the writings of Matthew in the Hebrew language, which they had preserved till that time.^ The same statement is made by Jerome.® Origen (a.d. 230), in a passage preserved by ^ Considering the reniarkal)le discoveries wliicli have lately been made, there is nothing extravagant in siq^posing that this Gospel of the Hebrews may yet be found. This would be of great importance, would solve many difficulties, and throw a flood of light on the Synoptic problem. 2 Eusebius, Hist. JEccl. iii. 39. Vide sufra, p. 19. 3 Vide supra, p. 65. * Irenaeus, Adv. Hcer. iii. 1 ; Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. v. 8 : o /iciv I'/i MxT^xiog i'j roig 'JLfipxi'oi; rfi i^icc diotT^iKTCfi xvrojv xod ypxCpViV liyiviyyAv iijctyyiXiW. ^ Euseljius, Hist. Eccl. v. 10 : 'Elipxiuv ypx/^cfixai. •"• De Vir. Illustr. ch. xxxvi. 112 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. Eusebius, writes : " Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God, I have learnt by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who delivered it to the Jewish believers, composed in the Hebrew language."^ Eusebius (a,d, 325) also attests the Hebrew original of Matthew's Gospel. " For Matthew having first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other nations delivered to them the Gospel in their native tongue.""^ Cyril of Jerusalem (a.d. 345) says: " Matthew, the author of the Gospel, wrote it in the Hebrew language."^ Epiphanius (a.d. 348) writes: "They (the Ebionites) also receive the Gospel according to Matthew, and this is the only one they use. They call it the Gospel according to the Hebrews : for the truth is that Matthew is the only one of the New Testament writers who published his Gospel in the Hebrew language and in Hebrew char- acters."^ Augustine (a.d. 380) observes: "Of these four (evangelists) only Matthew is reckoned to have written in the Hebrew language ; the others in Greek." ^ But the most important testimony is that of Jerome / (a.d. 390), both on account of his intimate acquaintance with Hebrew, and on account of the minuteness of his \ statement. He not only asserts that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, but that he himself possessed a copy of it, and translated it into Greek. " Matthew, also called Levi, who from being a publican became an apostle, first of all wrote a Gospel of Christ in Judwa in Hebrew letters and words for the sake of those of the circumcised who believed. Who afterwards translated it into Greek is uncertain. More- over, this very Hebrew Gospel is in the library at Ca^sarea, which was collected with great care by Pamphilus the martyr. With permission of the Nazarenes, who live at Beroea in Syria, and use that volume, I took a copy." ^ And again : " The ' Euselniis, Hist. Eccl. vi. 25 : yo«,M,£*<«a/v 'EfipxiKol; avjrirx'/fiii/ov. - Ibid. iii. 24. 3 Catechet. 14. ■• Epiplianius, Hccr. xxx. 3. * Coiisciisus evaiigelutorum, i. 2. 4. " De Vir. Illustr. cli. iii. : Mattlioeus, qui et Levi, ex publicano Apostolus, primus in Jud;i>a proi^ter eos qui ex circumcisione crecli- LANGUAGE. 113 Gospel which the Nazarenes and Ebionites use, which we lately translated from Hebrew into Greek, and which is called by most the authentic Gospel of Matthew."^ The testimony of the later Fathers, of Chrysostom, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Theophylact, are to the same effect. Thus, then, the external evidence is entirely in favour of an original Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. All the Fathers, from Papias to Jerome, and from Jerome to Theophylact, attest that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Aramaic, and that the Greek Gospel, which we now possess, is only a translation. Nor is there any contrary testimony ; not one of the Fathers speaks of an original Greek Gospel. " No matter of fact," observes Greswell, " which rests upon the faith of testimony can be considered certain, if this is not so." ^ Bishop Westcott writes : " Till it can be showtl that the writers quoted are untrustworthy generally, it is purely arbitrary to reject their statement because it is not sufficiently explicit." ^ And Tregelles observes : " If early testimonies and ancient opinion unitedly are to have some weight, when wholly uncontradicted, then it must be admitted that the original language of the Gospel of Matthew was Hebrcu\ and that the text which has been transmitted to us is really a Greek translation." * Besides, it is to be observed that there is an antecedent probability that Matthew would write his Gospel in Hebrew. If he wrote chiefly for the Hebrew Christians, and if Hebrew was the vernacular language of Palestine, as we shall afterwards see was most probably the case, then the probability is that he would write in that language. devant Evangelium Christi Hebraicis Uteris verbisque composuit ; quod quis postea in Graecum transtiilerit, noii satis certum est. Porro ipsiiin Hebraicum liabetur usque liodie in Csesariensi bil^liotlieca, quam Pam- pliilus martyr studiosissime confecit. Milii quoque a Nazaraeis qui in Beroea urbe Syrise lioc volumine utuntur, describendi facultas fuit. ^ Comment, ad Matth. xii. 13 : Evangelium quo utuntur Nazareni et Eljionitae, quod nuper in Graecum de Hebraeo sermone transtulimus et quod vocatur a plerisque Mattbaei autlienticum. ^ Greswell's Harmony of the Gosi^eh, vol. i. ]). 101. ^ Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, p. 208, note 2. ■' Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, vol. iii. p. 1623. Article, "Versions, Ancient (Greek)." 8 114 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. Nevertheless, this evidence, apparently so strong and unanimous, has been disputed by the majority of modern critics. Papias, it is said, is described by Eusebius as a man of very limited understanding,^ and certainly many of his statements recorded by Eusebius seem to prove this ; that, however, is no reason why we should refuse credence to his assertion of a matter of fact, that Matthew wrote his oracles in Hebrew. Irenteus, it is suggested, may have founded his opinion on the testimony of Papias, whom he held in high estimation ; but for this there is no proof ; it is a mere con- jecture. The statement about Panta?nus, given- by Eusebius, has been discredited as mythical ; it is, however, a statement independent of Papias ; and if it be a legend, yet it presup- poses the prevalence of the belief in a Hebrew Gospel. Origen, the only onfe of the Fathers before the fourth century who was skilled in Hebrew, and thus qualified to judge, gives his testimony as a tradition : " he had learned by tradition (a)9 iv irapaSoaei fxadcov) that Matthew wrote in Hebrew " ; but this tradition presupposed the prevalent behef regarding a Hebrew Gospel in the time of Origen. The strongest testi- mony is that of Jerome. He affirms that he had the Hebrew Gospel in his possession ; and not only so, but that he took a copy of it and translated it into Greek. An attempt has been made to neutralise this statement. It has been asserted that if this Hebrew Gospel was the same as our Greek Gospel of Matthew, there would have been no reason for its transla- tion. It would appear, besides, that Jerome vacillated in his opinion. At first, when he obtained possession of the Gospel of the Nazarenes, he believed that it was the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew ; but afterwards, when he came to examine and translate it, he expresses himself hesitatingly, and gives his judgment in a modified form. " The Gospel which the Nazarenes and Ebionites use is called by most (a 2^^cris- qve) the authentic Gospel of Matthew." - " The Gospel 1 Eusebiiis, Hist. Ecd. iii. 39 : a:p6opx afUKpo; uv tov uovv (pxivi-rett. Else- where, indeed, Eusebius says : " Papias wa.s well known as a man skilled in all manner of learning, and well acquainted with the Scriptures," iii. 36. But this sentence is now regarded as spurious. 2 Comment, ad. Matth. LANGUAGE. 115 according to the Hebrews, written in the Syro-Chaldaic lan- guage, but in Hebrew characters, which the Nazarenes use,, is by most supposed {ut pleriqiie autumant) to be the Gospel according to Matthew." ^ Now, it is admitted that there i& some ambiguity in the language of Jerome, and that he appears to have confounded the Gospel of Matthew with the Gospel according to the Hebrews, regarding them as the same. But, notwithstanding this ambiguity, which certainly weakens his testimony, he still holds to tlie opinion that the original Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew. The relation of these two Gospels — the Gospel according to the Hebrews and the Gospel of Matthew — is reserved to form the subject of future consideration, in order not to interrupt the course of this discussion. But whilst the external evidence, as contamed in the testimonies of the Fathers, is wholly in favour of an original Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, the internal evidence is to the contrary effect ; and it has been affirmed that the Gospel of Matthew, as we now possess it, must have been an original document, and could not have been a translation. Some of the arguments in proof of this are not convincing, but others are undeniably strong. 1. It is affirmed that from its nature the Greek text of our Gospel cannot have been a translation from the Hebrew. It bears no marks of being a translation : the style is clear and flowing, without the slightest stiffness, bearing the impress, of originality. There are in it numerous explanations of Jewish customs which would have been unnecessary had the Gospel been written in Hebrew for Hebrew converts. Thus : " On that day came to Him Sadducees, who say that there is no resurrection" (xxii. 23). "That field was called,, The field of blood, unto this day " (xxvii. 8). " Now at the feast the governor was wont to release unto the multitude one prisoner, whom they would" (xxvii. 15). "This saying was spread abroad among the Jew^s, and continueth until this day " (xxviii. 15). Further, if the Gospel was written origin- ally in Aramaic, there would have been little use of a Syriac translation, as it would be understood by the Syrian Chris- ^ Dialog, adv. Pelagianos, iii. 2. 116 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. tians ; or at least the Syriac translation would have been made from it, and not from the Greek, which on this hypo- thesis was itself a translation. " We have," observes Professor Moses Stuart of America, " the Peshito, a version of a very early age, in a language which was twin-sister to the Hebrew of that day, yea, almost identical with it : and yet this version is demonstrably not from a Hcbrcio original of IMatthew, but from the present Greek canonical Matthew." Besides, it is the present Greek text that is uniformly (j^uoted or referred to by the Fathers, and that at a period so early as the time when the Epistle of Barnabas was written (a.d. 100). There are also paronomasiae, or plays on Greek words, which could hardly occur in a translation, as kukov'^ KaKco<: aTroXeaei (xxi. 41), acfjavL^ovai ottco? (fjavcoai (vi. 10). To these objections it is answered : that the excellence of the translation may remove all traces of its having been written in a foreign language ; that the explanation of Jewish customs was necessary for those Jewish converts who lived outside of Palestine and used the Hebrew language ; that the Fathers quoted from the Greek because it was before them, whilst they may not have seen the Hebrew original, which might not have been circulated beyond Palestine ; and that paronomasi?e are very few, and may occur in translations as well as in the original. We have a remarkable instance of a paronomasia in the Authorised Version of Jas. i. 6 : " But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering ; for he that wavereth {8aKptv6fjbevo<;) is like a wave (kXvScovl) of the sea driven with the wind and tossed." ^ 2. There are in the Gospel of Matthew several Aramaic expressions, the translations of which are subjoined. Thus : " They shall call His name Immanuel, which is, being inter- preted, God with us" (i. 23). "They came unto a place called Golgotha, that is to say. The place of a skull " (xxvii. 33). "Eli, Eli, lama sabachtliani ? that is. My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me? "(xxvii. 46). These Aramaic expressions may have been preserved in the Greek Gospel on account of their weighty character ; but the inter- pretation of them could not have formed part of a Hebrew * So also in Rom. ii. 18. LANGUAGE. 117 original. To this objection, two answers are given : The translation of these Aramaic expressions may have at first been put as a marginal note for the information of Greek readers, and afterwards have been inserted in the text. For this, however, there is no critical authority, as they are found in all manuscripts. Or the translator of the Hebrew original might himself have given the interpretation ; a supposition which is not improbable. 3. A far more formidable objection to a Hebrew original arises from the fact that there is often an identity between the Greek of Matthew's Gospel and the Greek of the Gospels of Mark and Luke. This, it is evident, could not possibly have been the case if the Greek Gospel of Matthew was an independent translation. A Hebrew original of Matthew may account for a variation in his Gospel in the narrative of the same events and discourses contained in the other Gospels, but the agreement in expression is a proof that the Gospel of Matthew could not be an independent translation. If Matthew and Luke use precisely the same words, as is often the case, it is a proof that both had the same Greek source before them. Here, undoubtedly, there is an objection to an original Hebrew Gospel of great force, and the answers given to it are somewhat unsatisfactory. Meyer gives the following answer : " The frequent identity of expression in Matthew with Mark and Luke does not necessarily point to an original composi- tion of the former in Greek, but leaves the question quite unaffected, as the translated Matthew might either have been made use of by the later Synoptics, or might even have originated from the use of the latter, or of common soiirces." ^ According to this distinguished critic, either Mark and Luke may have made use of the translation of Matthew, or the trans- lator of Matthew may have used these Gospels, or all three may ha^•e drawn from common sources. But none of these suppositions can be correct. The Gospel of Luke, we have seen, was independent of that of Matthew ; ^ and to suppose that the translator of the Hebrew Matthew drew from the ^ Meyer's Commentary on Mattheio, p. 10, translation. 2 See supra, p. 50. 118 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. same common source as Luke, may not indeed be an impos- sible, but is a highly improbable supposition, and detracts from the value and accuracy of the translation. Some attempt to solve this difficulty, arising from the conflict between the external and internal evidences regardincr the language of Matthew's Gospel, by the assumption that Matthew wrote two editions of his Gospel, the one in Hebrew, for the use of Christians who spoke Hebrew, and the other in Greek, for the use of Christians who spoke Greek. This hypothesis of a twofold Gospel of Matthew is of comparatively recent origin, and has no support from the writings of the Fathers, who never attribute the translation of the Gospel to Matthew himself. It is, however, very plausible and not indefensible, because, if adopted, it at once reconciles the declarations of the Fathers concerning an original Hebrew Matthew with the proofs that our present Gospel was written in Greek ; the external and internal evidences are brought into agreement.^ Such a theory, with various modifications, has been adopted by such distinguished critics as Bengel, Schott, Olshausen, Thiersch, Guericke, and Schaff ; and among English theologians by Townson, Whitby, Benson, Bloomfield, Home, Archdeacon Lee,^ and Bishop Ellicott. Thus Schaff writes : " If we credit the well-nigh imanimous tradition of the ancient Church concerning a prior Hebrew Matthew, we must either ascribe the Gospel of Matthew to some unknown translator who took certain liberties with the original, or what seems most probable, we must assume that Matthew himself, at different periods of his life, wrote his Gospel first in Hebrew, in Palestine, and ■afterwards in Greek. In doing so, he would not literally translate his own book, but, like other historians, freely reproduce and improve it. Josephus did the same with his history of the Jewish war, of which the Greek only ^ If we cannot positively assent to its truth, yet neither can we reject it, but, on the contrary, may favourably entertain it as a solution of difficulties. *' There seems," observes Dr. Townson, "more reason for allow- ing two originals than for contesting either : the consent of antiquity pleading strongly for the Hebrew, and evident marks of originality for the Greek." - Dr Lee, Inspiration of the Holy Scri})ture, \)\). 506-574. LANGUAGE. 119 remains.^ When the Greek Matthew once was current in the Church, it naturally superseded the Hebrew, especially if it was more complete." ^ Others, admitting that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, in order to give apostolic authority to the transla- tion, assign it to different apostles. Thus the author of the Synojjsis Scriiiturm sacrcc, in Athanasius' works, assigns it to James ; Theophylact, to John ; Anastasius Sinaita supposes that Paul and Luke conjointly translated the Gospel into Greek. Gresswell makes the strange supposition that Mark was the translator of the Hebrew Matthew.^ All these are mere fanciful conjectures. Another opinion is that the X6(7(Ta), he speaks of Greek as a foreign language {^evT} hioXeKTO'^)} When, at the request of Titus, he addressed his countrymen, it was in Hebrew : " Josephus, standing where he could be heard, declared the message of the emperor in Hebrew." ^ From all this it would appear that although Greek was well known to the Jews, and they could converse in it, yet their native language, that which they usually employed in mutual intercourse, was not Greek but Aramaic,, called in Scripture " their language" (Acts i. 19).* We have already had occasion to refer to the style and diction of Matthew, There is a frequent recurrence of peculiar expressions. The phrase, " that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophets," is of constant '^ Josephus, Bell. Jud. Preface. - Ant. Preface. ^ Bell. Jucl. vi. 2. 1, * For the extent to which Greek was spoken in Palestine, see Schiirer's Jewish People in the Time of Christ, div. ii. vol. i. pp. 47 ff. He comes to the conclusion that the lower classes in Palestine possessed either no- knowledge, or only an insufficient one, of Greek, 128 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. occurrence. The expression, " the Son of David," the Mes- sianic title of our Lord, occurs eight times. 'O Xe'yofievo'i is a favourite expression, announcing the meaning of the epithets applied to Christ and His disciples. " The kingdom of heaven " is used in this Gospel instead of " the kingdom of God " employed by the other Synoptists. The phrase, avvreXela tov alS}vot]Tov), occurs, either in full or in an abbreviated form, five times (i. 22, ii. 5, 15, 17, 23). The Messianic title used by Matthew, the son of David (uto? AavelB), occurs twice (i. 1, 20). The favourite term, Xeyo/xevo^, used in announcing the meaning of an epithet applied to the Messiah (^Ir]aovi7;Zisc/tc.s Eealworterhuch ; art. " Star of the Wise Men," by Rev. Charles Pritchard, in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible ; Alford's Greek Testament on Matt. ii. 2 ; Kepler, DeJesu Christi vero anno natalitio ; Wieseler's Syno2)sis of the Four Gosjich, pp. 86 ff., Eng. trans. ; Ellicott's Lectures on the Life of our Ljord, p. 72, note 2. 2 A distinguished Jewish rabbi, Abarbanel, states that there was a tradition that the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in the sigii Pisces was most important for the Jewish nation, that it took place at the birth of Moses, and that it will occur at the advent of the Messiah. Ebrard's Gospel History, p. 178 ; M'Clellan, On the Gospeh^ p. 400. 3 Alford's Greek Testament, note on Matt. ii. 1, 2. INTEGRITY. 135 God, and the Eedeemer of the human race, were reasons sufificient for the occurrence of extraordinary phenomena at His birth. The massacre of the infants of Bethlehem is regarded as another incident which casts a doubt on the truth of the narrative (Matt. ii. 16). There is no reference to such an occurrence in the contemporary history of Josephus. The barbarities of Herod are there minutely described, but this barbarous and apparently unnecessary slaughter of helpless infants is not even hinted at. The answer to this objection is obvious. Such an act of barbarity is entirely in conformity with the character of Herod. He waded through blood to his throne, and his whole reign was steeped in blood. He put to death his wife, Mariamne, and his three sons, Alexander, Aristobulus, and Antipater. Immediately before his death, he caused the principal men among the Jews to be arrested and collected in the Hippodrome at Jericho, and gave orders that they should be put to death immediately at his decease, so that there should be a general lamentation at his death.^ Nor is the massacre of the infants to be exaggerated. Bethlehem was a small village, and the infants slain, from two years old and under, would be few in number, — a trifling incident compared with the other enormities of Herod, who rivalled Nero in his cruelties, though on a smaller scale. Josephus might easily pass over such an act of cruelty in recording atrocities of a much more stupendous nature. But the chief objection is the apparent discrepancy between this narrative and the narrative of our Lord's birth as recorded in the Gospel of Luke. We have already had occasion to allude to the striking difference between these two narratives in proof of the statement that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke must have been written independently of each other ; it is here referred to for another reason, because it has been maintained by those who deny the genuineness of Matthew's narrative that the difference is so great as to amount to a contradiction, so that both accounts cannot ^ For a striking statement of the cruelties of Herod the Great, see Neander's Life of Christ, p. 30, Bohn's edition. 136 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. possibly be true.^ For example, it is affirmed that the resi- dence of Joseph is differently stated by these two evangelists. According to Luke, Joseph and Mary dwelt in Xazareth. " Joseph," we read, " went up from Galilee out of the city of Nazareth to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem " (Luke ii. 16). He remained there until the rites according to the law of Moses were completed, and then he and Mary returned to Nazareth, which is expressly called their own city (649 rrjv iroXiv kavrwv Na^apir, Luke ii. 39). Whereas Matthew, without mentioning any previous residence in Nazareth, relates that Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea ; that Joseph and Mary left that city in consequence of a divine warning and fled to Egypt, where they remained until the death of Herod ; that after the death of that monarch they returned, but, in consequence of another divine pre- monition, did not resume their residence m Bethlehem, but withdrew into the parts of Galilee, and came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth (Matt. ii. 23). Now, certainly, the natural impression from this narrative is that Bethlehem and not Nazareth was the residence of Joseph. This, however, is not asserted by Matthew, and the fact that Joseph came and dwelt in Nazareth is in itself a presumption that he had some previous connection with that town. The difference in the incidents recorded by the two evangelists is certainly remarkable, but they are not so much at variance as to create a distinct discrepancy. "We have only to suppose, what is in itself probable, that Joseph and Mary remained a full year in Bethlehem, and that the visit of the wise men did not follow directly after the visit of the shepherds. The Magi found Jesus and His mother, not in the stable of tlio nativity, but in a house (iXOovTc^ et? rrjp oIkIuv, Matt. ii. 11); and the age of the infants who were slaughtered was from two years old and under, according to the time which Herod had carefully learned of the wise men (Matt. ii. 16). The possible chronological order of events, which is that given in its general features by Tatian in the Diatessaron, is ^ See Meyer, in loco, and Schleiermacher'.s St. Luke, translated by Bishop Thirhvall, pp. 44 If. INTEGRITY. 137 as follows : Jesus, according to both Matthew and Luke, is born in Bethlehem of Judnea. According to Luke, He was born in a stable, and on the evening of the day of His birth He was visited by the shepherds. Soon after, Joseph with Mary and the child would remove to a house. Forty days after, accord- ing to the provisions of the law of Moses, the presentation in the temple of Jerusalem took place, where the child was recognised by Simeon and the prophetess Anna. From Jerusalem they returned to Bethlehem, perhaps with the intention of takmg up their permanent residence there, as the city of David so hallowed in their view by what had occurred. Probably about a year after this the visit of the Magi and the appearance of the star occurred. Then, warned by God of the danger which threatened the child from the jealousy of Herod, they fled into Egypt, where they remained until his death, probably for a very short period. During their absence the massacre of the children of Bethlehem occurred. On hearing of the death of Herod, Joseph and Mary returned to Judtea, possibly to resume their residence in Bethlehem ; but, in con- sequence of another divine warning, they returned to Nazareth, their former abode. By such a method any apparent dis- crepancy is obviated ; at least it is shown that there does not exist any antagonism between the two narratives. We have only to suppose that Luke omits in his narrative the events which occurred during the temporary residence in Bethlehem. The return to Nazareth which he mentions (Luke ii, 39) is the same which Matthew mentions as taking place on their commg back from Egypt (Matt. ii. 23).^ 2. Another passage, which has been and is still disputed, is the doxology attached to the Lord's Prayer : " For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen " (Matt. vi. 13). The argument for the omission or retention of these words rests entirely on external evidence : there is nothing in the words themselves which can be adduced as an argu- ment either for or against their insertion. The argument in favour of the genuineness of this doxology is that it is found 1 See Wieseler's Synopsis of the Four Gospels, p. 136, chap. iii. Succes- sion of events in the history of our Lord's childhood. 138 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHE^Y. in scveical important uncial MSS. (E, G, K) ; in all the cursive MSS. except five ; in all the Syriac versions ; in the Codex Brixianus (/), an important manuscript of the Old Latin, in the Ethiopic and Armenian versions, and in the two Egyptian versions, the Sahidic and the Coptic. It is found in Tatian's Diatessaron, and in the Didache, though only in part, rj jBacrCkeia being omitted.^ It is quoted by Chrysostom and subsequent Fathers. The argument against its insertion is that it is not contained in the principal uncial MSS., the Sinaitic, the Vatican, and the Codex Bezse ; the Alexandrian and the Codex Ephraemi are here defective. It is wanting in the MSS. of the Old Latin, with the exception of the Codex BrLxianus, and in the Vulgate. It is not quoted by any of the Greek Fathers until Chrysostom, and is omitted by the great Latin Fathers — Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, and Jerome. It occurs with several variations, as : " Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." It is omitted in the form of the Lord's Prayer as given in the Gospel of Luke.- The words are rejected by the vast majority of the critical editions of the New Testament, by the Complutensian editors, Erasmus, Bengel, Mill, Wetstein, Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort. Scrivener is almost the only one who expresses any dubiety. " It is right to say," he observes, " that I can no longer regard this doxology as certainly an integral part of St. Matthew's Gospel ; but I am not yet absolutely convinced of its spuriousness." ^ The words are regarded as spurious by Grotius, Luther, Melanchthon, De Wette, Tholuck, ]\Ieyer, Olshausen, Alford, Davidson, Wordsworth, M'Clellan, Morison, ^ Didachu, ch. viii. 2 For discussions on tlie genuineness of the doxolog\-, see Alford's Cheek Testament, in loco ; Davidson's i)z6KfaZ Criticisin, vol. ii. pp. 427-430 ; Scrivener, Introduction to the Criticism of the N.T.yol. ii. pj). 323-.3i28, 4th ed.; Cook, Revised Version of the First Three Gospels, pp. 57 fl'.; M'Ck^llan's New Testament, p. 647 ; Westcott and Hort, Neio Testament in Greek : Notes ou select readings, pp. 9, 10 ; Roediger, Syno2)sis Evanijelionnn, Appendix iii. p. 229. 3 Scrivener's Introduction to the Criticism of the N.T.vo\. ii. 323, 4tli edition. DATE. 139 and the most noted commentators. It is expunged in the Eevised edition without any marginal note expressive of hesitation,! " There can be little doubt," observes Dr. Hort, " that the doxology originated in liturgical use in Syria, and was thence adopted into the Greek and Syriac Syrian texts of the N.T. It was probably derived ultimately from 1 Chron. xxix. 1 1 (Heb.), but, it may be, through the medium of some contemporary Jewish usage; the people's response to the prayers in the temple is said to have been : ' Blessed be the name of the glory of His kingdom for ever and ever.' " ^ VII. The Date of the Gospel. The time when the Gospel of Matthew was written is still a point of great dubiety. There is much diversity in the statement of the Fathers. Irenseus places it after a.d. 60; Eusebius, about a.d. 44, when the apostles were dispersed; Theophylact, at A.D. 41; and Nicephorus, at a.d. 48, fifteen years after the ascension. Different years, between a.d. 37 and A.D. 100, have been assigned by critics.^ The question may be put in this form, Was the date of this Gospel before or after a.d. 60 ? The early date, before a.d. 60, has been adopted by Townson, Michaelis, Eoberts, and Davidson (1st edition of his Introductio7i). Those who fix upon this date have the support of Eusebius, who says : " Of all the disciples (apostles) of the Lord, only Matthew and John have left us written memorials; and they, tradition says, were led to write only under the pressure of necessity. For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to ! We, however, think that there shoukl have been a marginal note stating that the passage is not altogether devoid of support. 2 Westcott and Hort's Greek Testament : Notes on select readings, p. 9. 3 The Tiibingen school assign a much later date to Matthew's Gospel : Pfleiderer supposes that it was written about the middle of the second century. Dr. Davidson, in the last edition of his Introduction, says : " The Gospel may be dated about 105 a.d." vol. i. p. 370. 140 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. leave for the loss of his presence." ^ According to tliis state- ment, whilst the apostles remained in Judsea, there was an oral communication of the Gospel ; the actions and the discourses of Christ formed the subject of theh^ preaching, and of the instructions given to the disciples ; the want of a written Gospel was not then felt ; but when they had to leave Judiea and go to other nations, the loss of their oral communications had to be supplied by some written documents ; and, according to Eusebius, this was the occasion of Matthew's writing his Gospel. It is difficult to determine the date of the departure of tlie apostles from Judiea, but it could not have been long after the ascension. At the council of Jerusalem (a.d. 51) there were only present Peter, John, and James the Lord's brother ; and on a previous occasion (a.d. 40), on his visit to Jerusalem, Paul saw none of the apostles save Peter and James the Lord's brother (Gal. i. 18, 19). The probability is that the persecution by Herod Agrippa (a.d. 44) drove the apostles from Jerusalem. According to an ancient tradition, the apostles were com- manded by our Lord to remain for twelve years in Jerusalem. Thus Apollonius, who wrote in the second century, states that it was handed down by tradition, tliat our Saviour com- manded His disciples not to depart from Jerusalem for twelve years.- And the same tradition is recorded in an apocryphal work, quoted by Clemens Alexandrinus, entitled. The PrcacMwj of Fetcr. " The Lord said to His apostles, ' If anyone therefore of Israel repent, and through My name be willing to believe in God, liis sins shall be forgiven him. After twelve years, go ye out into the world, lest any say, We have not heard,' " ^ This period coincides with the persecution by Herod Agrippa. As, however, Peter, Jolm, and James were present at the council of Jerusalem, a.d. 51, the final dispersion of the apostles must have taken place some years later. According to this view, we fix the date of Matthew's Gospel between a.d. 55-60. There are several presumptive reasons in fa\'our of this date. So long as the apostles remained in Jerusalem, and J Eusebius, Hid. Ecd. iii. 24. - Und. v. 18. ^ Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom, vi. 5. DATE. 141 the disciples were privileged with their instructions, the oral Gospel was sufficient. But when the apostles left, and the Church was unprovided with qualified teachers, — with those who were personally cognisant of the life of Jesus, and were the eye-witnesses of His actions and the hearers of His discourses, — a written Gospel was indispensable. And especi- ally would this be the case when we consider that in a short time Christianity overstepped the boundaries of Judsea, the Gospel was diffused throughout the adjacent countries, the Gentiles were admitted into the Church of Christ, and before A.D. 50 Paul had founded Churches in Phoenicia, Syria, Cyprus, and Pisidia. The apostles could no longer supply the wants of the times : it was essential that the actions and discourses of Christ should be committed to writing. We cannot suppose that no Gospel was written until thirty years after the death of Christ, and that the life of Christ, His words and actions, were left to the uncertainties of tradition. Early Gospel fragments would be dispersed throughout the Churches, — probably different in different Churches and localities, — and many of them would be collected and authenticated by apostolic men. And we know, as a matter of fact, that authoritative Gospels were at an early period recognised by the Church. The later date, after a.d. 60, appears not so probable; but nevertheless it is the one that has been adopted by the majority of modern critics. It is the opinion of Eichhorn, Credner, Hug, Michaelis, Lardner, Bertholdt, Bleek, Davidson (3rd ed.), and Weiss. Those who fix upon it have the support of Irenteus. " Matthew," observes that Father, " issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel at Eome, and laying the foundations of the Church." ^ As Paul did not reach Eome until a.d. 61, the date here assigned must have been after a.d. 60. It is argued that there are in the Gospel of Matthew itself intimations of a late date. Thus we read that the field purchased by the treason money of Judas is called the field of blood ^lnto this day (Matt, xxvii. 8) ; that the report of the soldiers about the stealing of the 1 Irenaeus, Adv. Hair. iii. 1.1; Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. v. 8. 142 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. body of Jesus was spread abroad among the Jews and continued until this day (Matt, xxviii. 15), — a phrase which implies that there must have been an interval between the occurrence of these events and the writing of the Gospel. ]jut, so far as we can see, an interval of fifteen years is sufficient to answer the requirement. Another argument on which some critics ground the later date of Matthew's Gospel, is the mention of Zachariah, son of Barachiah, who is said to have been slain between the sanctuary and the altar (Matt, xxiii. 35). Hug, Credner, Eichhorn, and apparently Weiss,^ suppose that this Zachariah is Zachariah the son of Baruch, whose murder at the com- mencement of the Jewish war by the Idumeans in the temple is mentioned by Josephus ; ^ and hence they argue that the Gospel was not written until after this event ; that it was an assertion put into the mouth of our Lord by the writer of this Gospel. Hug attempts to escape the objection drawn from this anachronism by supposing that our Lord spoke of the death of Zachariah in a prophetic spirit, although in the Gospel it is mentioned as a past event (ov ecftoi/evaare).^ But the supposition is wholly fanciful. The Zachariah of Josephus is the son of Baruch, not of Barachiah. There is indeed a difficulty in identifying the person of whom our Lord speaks with any prophet mentioned in the Old Testa- ment ; but the common opinion is probably correct, that the allusion is to Zachariah the son of Jehoiada, who was murdered in the court of the temple by order of King Joash* (2 Chron. xxiv. 20-22). The statement of Irenteus, which has given rise to this opinion of the later date, is of doubtful credibility. He speaks of Matthew's Gospel being written when Peter and 1 Weiss, Einlcitumj in das N.T. § 47, trans, vol. ii. p. 288. - Josephus, Bell. Jud. iv. 5. 4. 3 Hug's Introduction to the N.T. vol. ii. p. 12, Eiig. trans. •' The diflerence of name, .Jehoiada instead of Barachiali, is a dilliculty. In the Gospel according to the Heljrews, Zachariah is caUed, not tlie son of Barachiah, but the son of Joiada. Ebrard, taking into account the extreme age of Jehoiada, supposes that Zachariah was his grandson. Is it not possible that it might have been the prophet Zechariah who is called the .son of Barachiah ? (Zech. i. 1). DATE. 143 Paul were in Eome preaching and founding the Church.^ But the Eoman Church was not founded by Peter and Paul : it was in existence long before either Peter or Paul arrived in that city. Paul, when he came to Eome, found Christians already there, and had several years before written an Epistle to them. It is very doubtful whether Paul and Peter were ever in Eome together ; indeed it is a question whether Eome was ever visited by the Apostle Peter. His first Epistle is written from Babylon (1 Pet. v. 13), and the fact of his residence in Eome greatly depends upon the answer to the question, whether by Babylon is meant the renowned city on the Euphrates, or whether it is a metaphorical name for Eome.^ Some critics endeavour to reconcile these two dates — the earlier and the later — by the supposition that two editions of Matthew's Gospel were written, the one in Aramaic and the other in Greek, and that these editions were written at different times. The Aramaic Gospel, being at first the most requisite, was written earliest, about a.d. 44, on the departure of the apostle from Judsea. Afterwards, when the disciples became more numerous, and were composed for the most part of Greeks, it became necessary that it should be trans- lated into Greek ; and this was done, either by Matthew himself or some other person, about a.d. 60. "I can," says Michaelis, " see no impropriety in beheving that both the early and the later date, assigned to St. Matthew's Gospel, are consistent with truth ; that it was originally written in Hebrew in the beginning of the year 41, before Herod Agrippa was appointed king of Judaea, but that the Greek translation of it was not made until the year 61 or later." ^ That there were two such editions, an Aramaic and a Greek Gospel, is a supposition perfectly admissible, indeed has presumptive evidence in its favour. The place of composition was most probably Jerusalem ^ rdi) nsTjOoy xsei tov Wa.v'Kav Iv Vuf^'fi siiw/ys'ht^ofiii/cou x-otl difisKtovvruv TTIV iKX.'KmiOtU. 2 See Gloag's Introduction to the Catholic Epistles, pp. 144-161 : Dis- sertation, " Peter's residence in Rome." 3 Marsh's Michaelis, vol. iv. p. 112, 2nd ed. 144 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. or some part of Judtea. Everything in the Gospel points to this : the references to the customs of the Jews, the mention of localities, the Hebrew garb of the narrative, are all re- concilable with the supposition that it was written in Palestine. In Judaea also Matthew would find his authorities and the sources of his narrative. VIII. Contents of the Gospel. It is unnecessary to give a table of the contents of the Gospel of Matthew ; this is given in every commentary, and may be easily gathered from a survey of the Gospel. At the same time, the Gospel can only be studied in connection with the other Gospels in the form of a harmony, as they mutually supplement each other. The Gospel of Matthew may be conveniently divided into six imequal parts. 1. The birth of Christ (i., ii.). This part contains the genealogy of our Lord and the narrative of His birth. 2. The xjreparation for His ministry (iii.-iv. 11). This part includes the ministry of John the Baptist, the baptism of Jesus, the descent of the Spirit upon Him, His in- auguration as the Son of God, and the temptation in the wilderness. 3. The Galilean ministry (iv. 12-xviii. 35). This part, which forms the main body of the Gospel, contains the call of the apostles and the first missionary journey in Galilee, the Sermon on the Mount, a narrative of several miracles performed by Christ, instructions given to the apostles when sending them forth to preach the gospel, the deputation from the Baptist, our Lord's dispute with the Pharisees, a series of miracles, the fate of the Baptist, the twofold feeding of the multitude, the confession of the Messiahship of Jesus by His disciples, the transfiguration, various instructions imparted to the disciples. 4. The journey to Jerusalem and residence there (xix. 1- XXV. 46). This part contains His departure from Galilee, His gradual progress to Jerusalem and His triumphal entrance, the denunciations pronounced on the scribes and Pharisees, CONTENTS. 145 the prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem, and a series of parables delivered toward the close of His ministry. 5. The Passion (xxvi., xxvii.). This part includes the anointing of our Lord at Bethany, the institution of the Supper, the agony in Gethsemane, the examination of Jesus before Caiaphas, the trial before Pilate, the crucifixion, death, and burial. 6. The Eesurrection (xxviii.). Perhaps the most characteristic portions of this Gospel are the Sermon on the Mount (v.— vii.), and the two series of parables on the nature of the kingdom of heaven, the one delivered about the middle of our Lord's ministry (xiii.), and the other toward its close (xxv.). DISSERTATION. QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT. The consideration of the quotations made by the writers of the New Testament from the Old Testament is a very wide subject, and can only be touched upon in this dissertation. It is complicated by the fact that there are two sources from which these quotations have been derived, — the original Hebrew and the Septuagint or Greek translation, — and these often differ from each other. In general the difference is trivial, but sometimes it is important, and alters the sense. The subject has been carefully examined by the late Dr. Turpie in his book, entitled. The Old Testament in the Neio} a work of much learning and labour. He arrives at the following results. There are 275 undoubted quotations from the Old Testament by writers of the New. These are arranged under five divisions. 1. Those passages in which the Hebrew, the Septuagint, and the New Testament all agree, of which there are fifty-three. 2. Those in which the New Testament agrees with the Hebrew, but differs from the Septuagint, of which there are ten. 3. Those in which the Hebrew and the Septuagint agree, but differ from the New Testament, of which there are seventy-six. 4. Those in which the New Testament agrees with the Septuagint, but differs from the Hebrew, of which there are thirty-seven. 5. Those in i"A contrilmtioii to Biblical Criticism and Interpretation. Tlie quotations from tlie Old Testament in tlie New classified according to their agreement with, or variation from, the original." London, 1868. This was followed by a companion volume, entitled, The New Testament View of tlie Old. London, 1872. 140 OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS. 147 which all three — the Hebrew, the Septuagint, and the New Testament — differ, of which there are ninety-nine. To those have to be added three passages (John vii. 38, 42 ; Eph. V. 14) which are only doubtful quotations.^ The Gospel of Matthew has, in proportion to its length, a greater number of quotations from the Old Testament than any other New Testament writing, with the exception of the Epistle to the Komans. The reason is obvious, because the special design of this Gospel was to prove the Messiahship of Jesus, and for this purpose the evangelist had to draw his proofs from the Old Testament. The number of quotations has been variously estimated. Dr. Davidson, who includes a number of coincidences which are not strictly citations, gives the number at sixty-one ; ^ whilst Dr. Turpie, restricting him- self to undoubted citations, reduces it to forty-one. Taking Dr. Turpie's book as guide, though not strictly following it, we give the list of quotations in Matthew's Gospel with the following distinctive marks : a, denoting those which agree both with the Hebrew and the Septuagint ; /3, those which agree with the Hebrew, but dijffer from the Septuagint ; 7, those which agree with the Septuagint, but differ from the Hebrew; and S, those which differ both from the Hebrew and the Septuagint. N.T. 8 Matt. S ft 8 8 8 8 8 a 8 8 i. 23 . ii. 6 . ii. 15 . ii. 18 . ii. 23 . iii. 3 . iv. 4 . iv. 6 . iv. 7 . iv. 10 iv. L5, 16 O.T. Isa. vii. 14. Mic. V. 1, 2. Hos. xi. 1. Jer. xxxi. 15. Isa. xi. 1 ? Isa. xl. 3. Deut. viii. 3. Ps. xci. 11, 12. Deut. vi. 16. Deut. vi. 13. Isa. ix. 1, 2. 1 Turpie's Old Testament in the Neio, p. 267. See also Farrar's Life of Christ, vol. ii. pp. 483 f . 2 Davidson's Introduction to the Stiuhj of the N.T. 3rd ed. vol. i. p)p. 375, 376. See also Davidson's Hermeneutics, pp. 334 ff. 148 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. N.T. O.T. 8 Matt. viii. 17 . . . Isa. liii. 4. 8 „ ix. 13 Hos. vi. 6. 8 „ xi. 10 Mai. iii. 1. 8 „ xii. 7 Hos. vi. 6. 8 „ xii. 18-21 . Isa. xiii. 1-4. 7 „ xiii. 14, 15 . Isa. vi. 9, 10. 8 „ xiii. 35 Ps. Ixxviii. 2. 8 „ XV. 4 . Ex. XX. 12. 8 „ XV. 8, 9 Isa. xxix. 13. 8 „ xviii. 16 Deut. xix. 15. 8 „ xix. 4 Gen. i. 27. 8 „ xix. 5 Gen. ii. 24. a „ xix. 18, 19 Ex. XX. 12-16. 8 „ xxi. 5 Zech. ix. 9. 8 „ xxi. 13 Isa. Ivi. 7. a „ xxi. 16 Ps. viii. 2. a „ xxi. 42 Ps. cxviii. 22, 23 8 „ xxii. 24 Deut. XXV. 5. 8 „ xxii. 32 Ex. iii. 6. 8 „ xxii. 37 Deut. vi. 5. a „ xxii. 39 Lev. xix. 18. a „ xxii. 44 Ps. ex. 1. 8 „ xxvi. 31 Zecli. xiii. 7. 8 „ xxvii. 9, 10 Zech. xi. 13. a „ xxvii. 35 Ps. xxii. 18.1 P „ xxvii. 46 Ps. xxii. 1, 2. From this list of quotations it appears that there are six in which the Hebrew, Septuagint, and New Testament agree (iv. 7, xix. 18, xxi. 16, 42, xxii. 39, 44); two which are taken from the Hebrew original, but which differ materially from the Septuagint (ii. 15, xxvii. 46); and one which agrees verbatim with the Septuagint and differs from the Hebrew (xiii. 14, 15).^ By far the larger number, amounting to twenty-seven, differ both from the Hebrew and the Septuagint, These differences are, however, in general immaterial. They consist in a different arrangement of the words, in the 1 This passage is not considered genuine, and is omitted in the R.V. 2 In this class also iv. 7 and xxi. 42 are placed by Dr. Turpie, but the difference from the Hebrew is very slight. OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS. 149 omission or insertion of connecting particles, and in the change of tenses ; the meaning remains in general unaltered. It would appear that the New Testament writers frequently quoted from memory, without examining either the Hebrew original or the Septuagint. In the same manner the early Fathers quoted from the Scriptures both of the Old and New Testaments, as is seen in the numerous quotations in the writmgs of Justin Martyr and Clemens Alexandrinus, in which there are many deviations from Scripture. The same is the case in the present day : theologians often do not quote accurately ; they give the sense of a passage, without using the precise words. Different opinions have been adopted regarding the quotations from the Old Testament in general. Some hold that the New Testament writers quoted always from the Hebrew, giving their own free translation ; others, that they made use of the Septuagint, quoting from it in a free and general manner ; and others, that they adhered uniformly to neither, but frequently quoted from memory, and made a free use of their sources.'^ Bleek asserts, with special reference to the Gospel of Matthew, that in the citations which occur in the body of the narrative the Septuagint was used, whilst in those which the evangelist introduces in his own reflections, the Hebrew original is employed. But this statement is not borne out by fact, as may be seen by an examination of the passages. It would rather appear that the Septuagint lies at the root of most of the quotations, even of those which differ from it. The extent to which the Septuagint was used in the days of our Lord is a matter of dispute. Some affirm that it had superseded the Hebrew original, and was used in the Jewish s}Tiagogues.^ Hebrew was then a dead ^ Davidson's Introduction to the Study of the N.T. 3rd ed. vol. i. pp. 375, 376 ; Bpeaker^s Commentary, " Introduction to the Gospels," by Archbishop Thomson, p. xxviii ; Westcott's Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, Appendix A, " On the Quotations in the Gospels " ; Bleek's Introduction to the N.T. vol. i. p. 295 ; Davidson's Hermeneutics, pp. 334- 516. 2 " Every available source of evidence," observes Professor Roberts, " which is worth anything, points to the conclusion that the Greek transla- 150 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. language, and was not understood by ordinary Jews, and, so far as we know, there was no Aramaic translation. Besides, copies of the Hebrew Bible would be exceedingly expensive, whereas copies of the Septuagint would be more easily pro- cured, owing to the abundance of Greek slave labour employed in transcription. Most probably in the synagogues the original Hebrew, being the sacred language, would be used, even as in the present day ; whilst Jews, for their own private reading and edification, would possess copies of the Septuagint, owing to its comparative inexpensiveness. When our Lord appeared in the synagogue of Nazareth, there was delivered to Him the roll of the prophet Isaiah, most probably in the original Hebrew. The passage which He read, as quoted in the New Testament : " The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He anointed Me to preach good tidings to the poor ; He hath sent Me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord " ^ (Luke iv. 18, 19), differs both from the Hebrew and the Septuagint. The difference is immaterial, but we cannot say from which source the quotation is made; so that no inference can be drawn from it as to the comparative use of the Hebrew or the Septuagint in the Jewish synagogues. On the other hand, the quotations made by the New Testament writers are in general pervaded by the spirit of the Septuagint, whilst the Hebrew is very seldom literally translated. Dr. Turpie mentions only ten passages which agree with the Hebrew but differ from the Septuagint,^ and thirty-seven which agree with the Septuagint but differ from the Hebrew. All those far more numerous passages, amounting to 175, which differ alike from the Hebrew and the Septuagint, in general approach more nearly to the Septuagint ; so that there appears reason for Professor Eoberts' remark: tion of the Old Testament Scriptures was then regularly used in the syna- gogues of Palestine," Greek, the Language of Clirist and His Apostles, p. 453. ^ Revised Version. The words liaxadxi roiig avvTirptftftivovs r^y Kccphiuv, " to heal the broken-hearted," are omitted, as not found in the best manuscripts. 2 These passages are Matt. ii. 15, xxvii. 46 ; Mark ii. 29, 30, xv. 28, 34 ; Luke xxii. 37 ; 1 Cor. iii. 19 ; 2 Cor. viii. 15 ; 2 Tim. ii. 19 ; Heb. v. 12. OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS. 151 " In the vast majority of these quotations the Septuagint is either exactly followed, or the resemblance is so close as to be virtually identical." ^ There is little variation in the formulae of quotation used by Matthew. In general it is 'iva TrXrjpwOfj to pi]dev, " that it might be fulfilled which was spoken " ; to which is added, i/tto Kvplov Sia rod irpocjiTjTov, " by the Lord, through the prophet" (i. 22, ii. 15), or simply Bca tov irpoj)i]Tov, "through the prophet" (xiii. 35, xxi. 4), or hia rcov TrpocpT]- Toov, " by the prophets," or Sta 'Haatov, Bia 'lepefitov, " by Isaiah," "by Jeremiah" (ii. 17, iv. 14, viii. 17, xii. 17, xxvii. 9) ; or the simple fyeypairTai, " it is written," is used (iv. 4, 6, 7, 10, xi. 10, xxi. 13, xxvi. 31). This last form is generally employed by our Lord in His quotations from the Old Testament. In general the quotations are given as direct proofs, stating that the prophecies were fulfilled in the events recorded. Sometimes the connection between the prediction and its fulfilment is not clearly discernible, and in these cases it has been supposed that the evangelist quotes the words of the prophet by way of accommodation or illustration.^ And sometimes words are given in the form of a citation, which are not to be found in these precise terms in the Old Testament, so that there is a difficulty in knowing to what prophecy the evangelist refers.^ In the Gospel of Matthew there are four quotations which in themselves are either of doubtful application or obscure in meaning. I. The first is Matt. ii. 15: tva irXTjpcoOr] rb pr]6ev viro Kvplov Sia rod irpocpTjrov Xe'yovro'i' e^ Al'yvirrov eKoXecra tov vlov jxov : " that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt did I call My Son." The words are quoted with special reference to the flight of Mary and Joseph into Egypt, and are stated as a pre- diction of that event. The quotation is from Hos. xi. 1, and is taken from the Hebrew, with which it literally agrees. It differs from the Septuagint, which reads : " Out of Egypt 1 Roberts' Greek, the Language of Christ, p. 135. 2 See Matt. ii. 15, 17, 18. ^ gee Matt. ii. 23. 152 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. did I call His children."^ Some suppose that the difference between the Hebrew and the Septuagint arose from the difference in the Hebrew vowel pointing ; but it would rather appear that the Septuagint translators must have read V33p instead of V??- The allusion by the prophet Hosea was probably to the message of Moses to Pharaoh, being the only passage where Israel is called the son of God : " Thus saith the Lord, Israel is My son. My firstborn : and I have said unto thee, Let My son go, that he may serve Me " (Ex. iv. 22, 23). The nation of Israel was God's adopted son, chosen from among the nations of the world. The words of the prophet are rather a historical state- ment than a prediction. They refer to a past transaction rather than to a future event.^ The deliverance of the Israelites from Egyptian bondage is evidently the event alluded to. Hence it is asked, How can this historical event, which refers to the nation of Israel, possibly be a prediction which has received its fulfilment in our Lord's sojourn in and return from the land of Egypt ? The solutions which have been given of this difficulty are manifold. Dr. Lindsay Alexander supposes that the passage is not a citation from the Old Testament, but one of the traditions of the elders handed down among the Jews, namely, that the Messiah should sojourn in Egypt.^ Others think that it is used by way of illustration, being a pro- verbial expression to denote deliverance from any impending danger.* And others suppose that the words are spoken by way of accommodation : that as Israel was brought out of Egypt, so was the Messiah.^ But it seems more correct to regard it as a secondary or typical prophecy.'' Israel was a type of Christ : he is called God's son, because the Messiah, God's true Son, was to spring from him. In God's dealings ^ II AjyvTTrov ^iziKcthiaa, rot. riKvot alrw. 2 v/.etKirjtx.^ did I call, or I called. ^ Connexion of the Old and New Testaments, p. 48G. ■* Chandler's Defence of Christianity. ^ Hill's Divinitii Lectures, vol. i. p. 177. " Matthew was a strict Hebrew, deeply imbued with Jewish notions, and saw in the incidents of Jewish history tyi)es and foreshadowings of the Gospel. OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS. 153 with Israel there is a typical reference to Christ : the Old Testament is but a prediction of the New : ^ Christ is the Alpha and Omega of revelation. As all the sacrifices under the law were but types and emblems of the great sacrifice of Christ for sin, as the Levitical ritual prefigured the gospel dispensation, so the dealings of God with Israel had a spiritual reference, and were fulfilled in Christ. There are what have been termed secondary prophecies : predictions which are capable of a twofold application, which receive a primary but partial fulfilment in some person or event in Jewish history, and a secondary and more complete fulfilment in the Messiah : prophecies which, as Lord Bacon says, " are not fulfilled punctually at once, but have springing and germinat- ing accomplishment." ^ Of course this infusion of a spiritual meaning into the Old Testament quotations must be made with the greatest caution ; and perhaps it is only justifiable when such a meaning is given by the inspired writers them- selves. II. Another quotation, which has given rise to much dispute, is from a prophecy of Jeremiah, which is said to have received its fulfilment in the slaughter of the infants of Bethlehem : Tore eifXripdiOr} to prjdev Sia 'lepe/nlov rov '7rpo(])7]Tov XeyovTO^' (f)cov7] ev 'Papbd '^KOvaOr], K\av6/jbo<; Kol oSvpfMO^ 7roA,u9" 'Paj(7]\ KKalovaa to, reKva avTrj<;, kol ovk rjOeXev irapaKkrjOrjvaL, on ovk elalv. " Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, A voice was heard in Eamah, weeping and great mourning, Eachel weepmg for her children : and she would not be comforted, because they are not" (Matt. ii. 17, 18). This quotation, taken from Jer. xxxi. 15, differs from the Hebrew and the Septuagint ; but the variations are of no importance. It is impossible to say from which of the two sources it has been taken. In all probability the words are quoted from memory ; for there is no reason to assert, with certain critics, that they are taken from some other translation. This is also one of those prophecies which admit of a 1 " In the Old Testament, tlie New Testament lies concealed ; in the New, the Old lies revealed." Augustine. 2 Bacon's Advancement of Learnimj. 154 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. twofold application : a primary application to the event which occurred at the time when it was uttered, and a secondary application to the Messicih. In its primary sense it is not a prediction, but a historical statement. It has been referred to two events in the history of Israel. Some suppose that the reference is to the captivity of Israel by Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, when the Israelite captives were assembled at Eamah, where a number were put to death, and the rest led captive to Nineveh. But there is no mention of this fact in history. Others, with more prob- ability, refer it to the assembling of the Jewish captives by Nebuzaradan, the general of Nebuchadnezzar, at Eamah, from which they were led bound in chains to Babylon (Jer. xl. 1). It refers to the lamentation which was then made on account of the destruction and captivity of the nation. Eachel is by a bold personification represented as rising from her tomb,^ deploring with bitter wailing the great calamity which had befallen her offspring. But whilst the words may have a primary application to the deportation of the Jewish captives from Eamah to Babylon (Jer. xl. 1), it received, according to the evangelist, a secondary application in the slaughter by Herod of the infants at Bethlehem. In its first application it is a historical statement ; in its secondary application it is a prediction which has received its fulfilment. There are, undoubtedly, difficulties connected with this view. Bethlehem was a town of Judeea, and the Jews were the direct offspring of Leah, not of Eachel ; on the other hand, the Benjamites, who were her descendants, were identified and bound up with the Jews so as to become one nation, and thus the nation, as a whole, might well be considered as the descend- ants of Eachel ; and a certain allowance must be made for a bold poetical personification. Nor was Eamah the same as Bethlehem, but a village a short distance from it ; ^ but the slaughter of the infants might have extended to it, as we read that Herod slew all the children in Bethlehem, and in all the borders thereof (Matt. ii. 16). ' Rachel was buried at Betlilulieiu, Gen. xxxv. 19. 2 Only about a mile distant. OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS. 155 The question which here meets us is, How can that which refers to the captivity of the Jews by Nebuchadnezzar be applied to the massacre of the children of Bethlehem ? It has been shown that the Jews refer the prophecy to a much later period than the Babylonish captivity, and apply it to the disasters which befell their country under Vespasian and Hadrian.^ Josephus refers the prophecies of Jeremiah, not only to the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, but to the similar destruction by Titus.^ The Babylonish captivity was a striking incident in Jewish history, and made such a deep and lasting impression on the nation, as to be often referred to by them, and applied to other similar calamities. In this way, according to many commentators, it has been applied to the massacre of the children of Bethlehem. Thus Calvin says : " The prediction of Jeremiah having been accomplished at that time (the time when it was given), Matthew does not mean that it foretold what Herod would do, but that the coming of Christ occasioned a renewal of that mourning which had been experienced many centuries before by the tribe of Benjamin." ^ We consider this, then, as a secondary prophecy ; and if we admit the inspira- tion of the evangelist, we must also admit the propriety of this application. III. The next passage which claims attention is Matt. ii. 23 : ottco? TrXrjpcoOf} to pr]6ev Sia rwv irpoi^rjjoiv, otc ]Sa^(opalo<; K\7]9i](7eTaL " : " that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, that He should be called a Nazarene." ■* The reference here is to our Lord's residence in the town or village of Nazareth. This is said to be in accordance with the predictions of the prophets. But these words are to be found verbatim in no prophetical writing of the Old Testament. Nor does the evangelist refer to any particular 1 Marsh's Michaelis, vol. i. pp. 210, 211. 2 Josejjlius, Antiquities, x. 5. 1. 3 Calvin's Commentary on the Gospels, in loco. * The Christians were at an early period called Nazarenes, as in the address of the orator Tertullus (Acts xxiv. 5). Most probably in this instance the name is taken from the town of Nazareth. 156 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. prophet or prophecy ; the word is in the plural {irpojy-qrwv), as if the statement referred to the general consensus of the prophets. Chrysostom and Theophylact suppose that it is a lost prophecy, either handed down by tradition, or contained in some prophetical work which is no longer in existence. This view has been adopted by Bengel.^ Nor is there anything unreasonable in such a supposition. We learn from the Old Testament that many prophetic writings have perished : what remains may be a mere fragment of what was written. But it is improbable that Matthew would appeal to a lost prophecy, because in his time the canon of the Old Testament had been fixed. Besides, the words 8ta twv 'Kpo<^r)roiv would seem to have a wider reference than to a single prophecy. Another hypothesis is that the reference is to the lowly condition of the Messiah — that He was a despised person (Isa. liii. 3). The allusion was to the suffering character of the Messiah, in opposition to the view then prevalent among the Jews of an exalted Messiah. The whole province of Galilee was looked upon by the Jews in a depreciatory light. " Search, and see : that out of Galilee ariseth no prophet " (John vii. 52). And Nazareth was the despised town of a despised province : it appears to have become a proverbial expression : " Can any good thing come out of Nazareth ? " (John i. 47). Hence it is supposed that when it is said, " He shall be called a Nazarene," that is, an inhabitant of Nazareth, the reference is to His despised condition. Such is the interpretation adopted by Michaelis, Kuinoel, Olshausen, Ebrard, Lange, Home. But it does not appear that the inhabitants of Nazareth as such were pre- eminently despised : the above-mentioned words of Nathauael may refer, not to the inhabitants, but to the obscurity and smallness of the town. Nazareth was a poor town : it is mentioned neither in the Old Testament nor by Joseplms. Can any good thing come out of Nazareth ? Can such an obscure town give rise to such an exalted person as the great Messiah ? ^ Bengel's Gnomon, in loco, trans, vol. i. p. 135. OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS. 157 A third explanation refers the term Nazarene, not to the town of Nazareth, but to the order of the Nazarites. Thus it was said of Samson : " The child shall be a Nazarite unto God " (Judg. xiii. 5). In the Septuagint the words are Na^lp Oeov, or, according to the reading of the Alexandrian manu- script, Na^ipalov Tft) 0€a>. This is the view adopted by Tertulliau, Jerome, Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Hilgen- feld, and others. Thus Calvin says : " Matthew does not derive Nazarene from Nazareth, as if this were its strict and proper etymology, but only makes an allusion (a play upon the word). The word "i\T^ or Nazarite signifies holy and devoted to God, derived from "iTJ, to separate." ^ The Nazarites were men separated or consecrated to God. Thus, among the Jews, Samson and Samuel were Nazarites, and so also was John the Baptist. Those who hold this view refer this prophecy to the consecration of the Messiah. But our Lord was not a Nazarite in the strict sense of the term. He did not take upon Himself any Nazarite vows : His character and conduct were in this respect a contrast to the Nazarite John the Baptist. He was not an ascetic : " the Son of Man came eating and drinking" (Matt. xi. 19). He did not, like His forerunner, withdraw into the desert, and live the life of a recluse ; but He mingled freely in human society, and thus could not be regarded as a true Nazarite.^ The majority of expositors see in the appellation Nazarene an allusion to i-^J {Nezer), a Branch, the title conferred by the prophets on the Messiah. Thus Isaiah says : " There shall come forth a shoot out of the stock of Jesse, and a Branch (nVJ) out of his roots shall bear fruit " (Isa. xi. 1 ).^ And a similar title is applied to the Messiah in other prophecies (Isa. iv. 2 ; Jer. xxiii. 5, xxxiii. 15 ; Zech. iii. 8, vi. 12), though in these prophecies the word employed is HD^iT {Zemach). This hypothesis is adopted by Gieseler, Bleek, De Wette, Meyer,^ ^ In loco. 2 The term 'Nx^upxlos is not identical with Nazarite. ^ In the Septuagint the word is xvdog. * Thus Meyer observes : " In Isa. xi. 1 the Messiah, as the offspring of David, is called IVJ, shoot, with which in the representation of the evan- gelist this designation was identified." 158 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. Hengstenberg, Davidson, Schaff, and Mansel.^ According to this view we have a direct reference to the prophecy of Isaiah. But it is to be observed that "i^'J is only used by Isaiah, and the references to the Branch in the other prophecies cannot be employed, as it is an entirely different word that is used, which has no resemblance to Nazarene. IV. The fourth example of a doubtful quotation is still more difficult, as it would seem that Matthew makes an erroneous quotation, giving the name of one prophet, whilst he quotes from another : rore eirXrjpcoOr) to prjdev Bia ^lepefiLov Tov 7rpo(f)rjTov XeyovTO^, Kal eka^ov ra TpcaKOvra apyvpia, ttjv rifir]v tov TeTLfiijfjLevov, bv eTLjxricravTO airo viS>v ^IcrparjX' kov eScoKav avTo. et? tou aypov tov Kepafxeco^' Kava j i. 3 . Isa. xl. 3. >> iv. 12 Isa. vi. 9. j> vii. 6, 7 . Isa. xxix. 13. )j vii. 10 Ex. XX. 12, xxi. 17. jj X. 6 . Gen. i. 27. 5> X. 7, 8 Gen. ii. 24. 5J X. 19 . Ex. XX. 12-15. J3 xi. 9 Ps. cxviii. 25, 21. >> xi. 17 Isa. Ivi. 7 ; Jer. vii. 1 1 5> xii. 10, 11 . Ps. cxviii. 22, 23. J> xii. 19 Deut. XXV. 5. 51 xii. 26 Ex. iii. 6. ^ See Credner's Einleitung in das N.T. 102-105 ; Davidson's Introduc- tion to the N.T. vol. i. pp. 150-152 ; and his Introdndion to the Study of the N.T. vol. ii. 3rd ed. pp. 521-523 ; Guericke's N.T. Iswjogik, pp. 162, 163 ; and Schaflfs History of the Church, vol. ii. pp. G37-639. LANGUAGE. N.T. O.T. Mark xii. 29, 30 . Deut. vi. 4. „ xii. 31 Lev. xix. 18 „ xii. 36 Ps. ex. 1. „ xiii, 14 Dan. ix. 27. „ xiv. 27 Zech. xiii. 7 ,, XV. 34 Ps. xxii. 1. 185 One peculiar feature of the Gospel of Mark is its brevity. \ It is of much smaller compass than the other Gospels ; there is little that is peculiar to it — only one parable and two miracles. Most of the discourses which are in the other Gospels are omitted. And yet this brevity consists rather in the omission of particulars than in condensation. What is common to the other two is often expanded by Mark by the addition of minute particulars. The chief characteristic of this Gospel is its vividness. The narrative is picturesque, so as to secure for the evangelist the name of a " word-painter." The transactions are de- scribed as if we saw them with our own eyes ; minute touches lighten up the whole subject. One scene may be selected for illustration. If we compare the account of the cure of the demoniac lad, when our Lord descended from the mount of transfiguration (ix. 14-29), with the narratives in the other two Gospels (Matt. xvii. 14-21 ; Luke ix. 37-48), the graphic nature of Mark's description will at once be seen.-^ Mark alone tells us that when our Lord came down from the mount. He saw a great crowd about the disciples, and the scribes disputing with them. And when all the people beheld Him they were greatly amazed, probably because some vestiges of His glory were still seen on His countenance, and running to Him they saluted Him. Mark alone tells us that when they brought the lad to Jesus the spirit tare him grievously, and he fell to the ground, and wallowed, foaming. He alone gives us, in a most graphic manner, the conversation between the father of the lad and our Lord. " And He asked his father. How long time is it since this hath come unto him ? And he said, From a child. And oft-times it hath cast him both into the fire 1 This is well exhibited in Eushbrooke's Sijnofticon, p. 60 ; also Abbott and Rushbrooke's Common Tradition of the Gospels, j)p. 70-72. 18G THE GOSPEL OF MAKK. and into the waters to destroy him ; but if Thou canst do anything, have compassion on us, and help us. And Jesus said unto him. If thou canst, all things are possible to him that believeth. Straightway the father of the child cried out, and said, I believe ; help Thou mine unbelief." Then we are told the crowd came rushing together ; and when Jesus com- manded the unclean spirit to come out of the lad, the spirit cried and rent him sore, and the lad fell into such a death-like faint that the greater part of the crowd said he was dead. But Jesus came and took him by the hand and raised him up. The whole scene is graphically described, as by the hand of a painter ^ — the epileptic fit that seized the boy, the crowd rushing together, the agony and earnestness of the father, and the dignity and majesty of Christ, are all vividly portrayed before us. 1 Mark, more than the otlier evangelists, represents Jesus I as He actually lived and walked on this earth. There is a peculiarly realistic character about this Gospel ; Jesus Christ, the Son of Man and the Son of God, is evidently set forth before us. His feelings are disclosed : how He grieved for the hardness of men's hearts (ui. 5); how, looking up to heaven, He sighed (vii. 34); how He loved the rich young man who came asking what he should do to inherit eternal life (x, 21); how He was. moved with indignation with His dis- ciples when they sought to prohibit little children to be brought to Him (x. 14) ; how He was moved with compassion for the people who followed Him (vi. 34); and how He marvelled at the unbelief of His hearers (vi. G). So also His actions and gestures are described : He turned about and looked on His disciples when He administered the severe rebuke to Peter (viii. 33); He took up tlie little child in His arms (ix. 3G); He put His Ihigers into the ears of the deaf-mute, and did spit and touched his tongue (vii. 33); when the woman with the issue of blood touched His garment. He looked round to see who had done it (v. 32); He fell asleep from fatigue in the stern of the boat (iv. 38). Tlio very words which He spoke in Aramaic are given. We almost hear the accents of His ^ Raphael's great i)icture of the Transtiguration is chiefiy taken from the description in Mark. INTEGRITY. 187 voice. All is brought vividly before us ; the scenes are photographed, so that we see them. Jesus is followed by the multitudes of Galilee ; He can find no place for retirement ; there is no room even about the door of the house where He was ; the multitude come together, so that they cannot so much as eat bread (iii. 20, 21).^ The Gospel of Mark is, as we have seen, no abbreviation of Matthew and Luke. In neither of these Gospels is Jesus so vividly displayed before us. He is in this Gospel seen to be in all points tempted like as we are, with the notable exception of being without sin ; He is actuated by human feelings ; He is subject to human wants ; He is a great Per- sonality whom we see and know. " I regard," observes Dean Alford, " the existence of the Gospel of Mark as a gracious and valuable proof of the accommodation by the Divine Spirit of the records of the life of our Lord to the future necessities of the Church. While it contains little matter of fact which is not related in Matthew and Luke, and thus, generally speak- ing, forms only a confirmation of their more complete histories, it is so far from being a barren duplicate of that part of them which is contained in it, that it comes home to every reader with all the freshness of an individual mind, full of the Holy Ghost, intently fixed on the great object of the Christian's love and worship, reverently and affectionately following and recording His positions, and looks, and gestures, and giving us the very echo of the tones with which He spoke." ^ VI. Integrity of the Gospel. In considering the integrity of Mark's Gospel, we come to the important discussion on the genuineness of its last twelve verses.^ Some of the most distinguished critics suppose that Mark ended his Gospel at the close of the eighth verse of the 1 See Maclear on the Gosioel of Mark, pp. 16-20 : Cambridge Bible for Schools. ^ Alford's Greek Testament, vol. i. p. 39, Prolegomena, last ed. ^ This subject is discussed at considerable length by Dean Burgon in his able monograph, The last twelve verses of St. Mark ; by Dr. Hort in The New Testament in the Original Greek by Westcott and Hort, Notes on Select Headings, vol. ii. pp. 28-51 ; by Scrivener in his Introduction to the 188 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. sixteenth chapter with the words, ij>o^ovvTo yap, " for they were afraid," and that what follows (Mark xvi. 9-20) was an addition by some other writer. This is the view taken in the Eevised Version : a space is put between the eighth verse and the rest of the chapter, along with the footnote : " The two oldest Greek manuscripts and some other authorities omit from ver. 9 to the end. Some other authorities have a dif- ferent ending to the Gospel." The first critic who called in question the genuineness of these verses was Griesbach, and he has been followed in recent times by several distinguished critics. Tischendorf, who has been justly called " the first biblical critic in Europe," says " that these verses were not written by Mark is proved by sufficient argument."^ Dr. Tregelles says : " The Book of Mark himself extends no farther than e(j)o^ovvro yap, xvi. 8." " I look on this section (xvi. I 9—20) as an authentic anonymous addition to what Mark j himself wrote down from tlienarrative of St. Peter,-and that it jought as much to be received as part of our second Gospel as ithe last chapter of Deuteronomy, unknown as the writer is, is received as the right and proper conclusion of the books of Moses." ^ Dean Alford gives the following as the result of his examination of the passage : " The inference seems to me to be that it (Mark xvi. 9-20) is an authentic fragment, placed as a completion of the Gospel in very early times, by whom written must, of course, remain wholly uncertain ; but coming to us with very weighty sanction, and having strong claims on our reception and reverence." ^ Meyer expresses his view of the subject in the following terms : " The entire section, from vers. 9-20, is a non-genuine conclusion of the Gospel, not composed by Mark." "^ Its genuineness is also denied by Bishoj) Westcott : " The original text, from whatever cause it may have happened, terminated abruptly after the account of the angelic vision. The history of the revelations of the Criticism of the New Testament, pji. 429-432, 1st ed.; vol. ii. pp. 337-444, 4tli ed. ; and by Tregelles on the Printed Text of the New Tcstxnnent, pp. 246-261. ^ Hicc nou a Marco scripta esse argumentis probatur idoneis, in loco. ^ Tregelles, Printed Text of the Greek Testament, pji. 258, 259. 3 Alford's Greek Testament on Mark xvi. 9-20, last ed. vol. i. p. 438. ■• Meyer's Commentary on Mark, critical notes on vv. 9-20. INTEGRITY. 189 Lord Himseli' was added at another time, and probably by another hand." ^ Opposed to the views of these distinguished critics are the opinions of other critics of great eminence. Lachmann inserts the passage in his critical Kcio Testament, with the remark that from avaara^ to the end is found in A, C, D, Irenaeus, bnt omitted in B, Eusebius.^ Scrivener, perhaps our greatest biblical critic in recent times, with the possible exceptions of Bishop Lightfoot and Dr. Hort, says : " We engage to defend the authenticity of this 'long~and important paragraph without the slightest misgiving." ^ And Dean Bur- gon has written an elaborate work in defence of the passage, in which he gives at great length the external and internal evidences for and against these verses, and claims to have demonstrated their genuineness : " It shall be my endeavour to show, not only that there really is no reason whatever for calling in question the genuineness of this portion of Holy Writ, but also that there exist sufficient reasons for feelmo- confident that it must be genuine." * 1. The external evidence against and for the genuineness of Mark xvi. 9-20. ■ \ External evidence against its genuineness. The paragraph is omitted in the two oldest manuscripts, the Vatican (B) and the Sinaitic (x). In both, after the words ij)oj3ovvro o^ovvTo yap, ought to seem incredible to all." 2 " It would be," says Michaelis, " a wonderful con- clusion of a book." 2 " Few Greek scholars," observes Dr. > Abbott, " will be induced to believe that the author of the j Second Gospel deliberately chose to end a book on the good ^ In ver. 19 the true reading is 6 Kvpio; 'Imovg. 2 Com. Grit. p. 199. 3 Michaelis, Einleikmg, p. 1060 ; Marsh's Michaelis, vol. iv. p. 210. 198 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. news of Christ with the words ej)o^ovvTo yap. From a literary point of view the yap, and from a moral point of view the ecjio^ovvTo, make it almost incredible that these words represent a deliberate termination assigned by an author to a composition of his own." ^ And even Dr. Hort says : " It is incredible that the evangelist deliberately con- cluded either a paragraph with €(f)o/3ovvTo yap, or the Gospel with a petty detail of a secondary event, leaving his narra- tive hanging in the air." ^ If, then, the Gospel once had a conclusion, actual or intended, we are entitled to ask the objectors to this passage. What has become of it ? Two answers have been given to this question. The one, favoured by Norton,^ is that Mark was prevented finishing his Gospel ; either because Peter, to whom he was indebted for his information, perished at this Itime in the persecution by Nero (Michaelis), or because Mark |mmself died (Davidson). Both of these are merely gratuitous suppositions. Mark was not so entirely dependent on Peter that he could not finish his Gospel without his aid ; and it would be most extraordinary that he himself should die at the very time when he was about to finish his Gospel. The .other supposition, favoured by Griesbach and adopted by Alford,'* is that the last leaf was torn away.^ This is certainly a strange hypothesis, the resorting to which can only be accounted for by the impossibility of otherwise explaining the fact of such an abrupt conclusion. The Gospel, when written, would be committed to the custody of some particular Church, and by them it would be most carefully preserved. Surely the supposition is far more reasonable, that the present con- clusion of Mark's Gospel is genuine, and was written by the evangelist himself. ^ Encydojxedia Britannica, article "The Gospels," vol. x. p. 801. 2 Westcott and Hurt's Greek Testament, vol. ii. notes, p. 46. 3 Norton's Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. i. p. 221. * " The most prolmble supposition is that the last leaf of the original Gospel was torn away." — Alford. " " Two contingencies," observes Dr. Hort, " have to be taken into account — either the Gospel may never have been finished, or it may have lo.st its last leaf l)efore it was multiplied by transcription." Westcott and UorVa N.T. Notes, I). 41. INTEGRITY. 199 This may be the most appropriate place for adverting to a most ingenious hypothesis recently advanced by Mr. Cony- beare in the The Expositor, and which has received the support of such distinguished critics as Zahn and Eesch.^ In an Armenian manuscript found in the patriarchal library of E(fmiadzin, at the foot of Mount Ararat, written about 986, which Mr. Conybeare collated, he found the Gospel of Mark copied out as far as " For they were afraid " (ver. 8), and between vv. 8 and 9 the words Ariston Eritzon, equivalent to ^AplaTwvoq Tvpea^uTepov. The last twelve verses then follow, written in the same hand. From this he inferred ' that it is here affirmed that these last verses were written, tnot by Mark, but by the Presbyter Ariston. Eesch and 'Sanday suppose that by Ariston is here meant Ariston of Pella, otherwise known to us, who lived about a.d. 140-150 ; but Conybeare and Zahn think that this is too late to permit of the passage being so generally inserted in the manuscripts and quoted by Tatian and Irenseus. Mr. Conybeare there- fore supposes that the person meant is Aristion, the name being wrongly spelt, one of the disciples of the Lord, from whom Papias, according to Eusebius,^ derived his traditions. According to Conybeare, the same mistake in spelling occurs in the Armenian version of Eusebius, where the name Ariston occurs for Aristion. Hence it has been inferred that the last verses of Mark's Gospel were taken from the lost work of Papias, and ultimately from the oral tradition of Aristion. It has been supposed that some one, wishing to attach a befitting conclusion to the Gospel, incorporated an extract from the work of Papias containing a tradition of the presbyter Aristion. This hypothesis is most ingenious, and fully accounts for all the anomalies of the passage ; and is also in accordance with the opinion of those critics who assert that it is some ancient fragment inserted for the completion of the Gospel (Alford, Hort, Tregelles, Bishop Lightfoot, Archbishop Thomson, etc.). It can, however, hardly be adopted. It occurs only in an obscure Armenian 1 Expositor for October 1893, pp. 241-254 ; and for September 1894, pp. 219-232. 2 Hist. Eccl. iii. 39. 200 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. manuscript of no authority, and is destitute of all other confirmation. Such, then, is the evidence for and against the genuine- ness of Mark xvi. 9—20. The external evidence is strongly in its favour. The whole external evidence against the passage amounts to its omission in the Vatican manuscript, to state- ments annexed to the conclusion of the Gospel in Codex L and in three unimportant cursive MSS., and to an exaggerated assertion of Eusebius, which has been followed by Jerome and Hesychius. The Sinaitic manuscript n is considered as the same testimony as the Vatican : or if this be called in ques- tion, then there are only three uncial manuscripts (n B L ^) against the passage. On the other hand, with these excep- tions, all the Greek manuscripts, both uncial and cursive, all the Fathers who refer to the passage, and all the versions except the recently discovered Sinaitic Syriac, are in its favour. It may be that the internal evidence is against its retention, though this is a matter of opinion which may be and has been questioned. But in all critical questions, unless there are decided reasons to the contrary, which in this case do not exist, the internal evidence must yield to the external. With regard to the external evidence, we have facts to go upon, whereas the internal evidence is almost purely sub- jective. As Dr. Hort himself observes in his elaborate examination of this passage : " We do not think it necessary to examme in detail the intrinsic evidence supposed to be furnished by comparison of the vocabulary and style of vv. 9—20 with the unquestioned parts of the Gospel. Much of what has been urged on both sides is, in our judgment, trivial and intangible." ^ The internal evidence against it is certainly not so strong or so clear as to counterbalance the external evidence for it. We therefore feel constrained to come to the conclusion that Mark xvi. 9-20 is a genuine portion of the Gospel. We are perfectly aware that in arriving at this conclusion we may be accused of undue confidence in opposing the views of critics of such pre-eminence as Tischeu- dorf, Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort, who, in their critical ^ Even in L the i)a.ssage is inserted as an alternative reading. 2 The Greek New Testament Notes, p. 48. INTEGRITY. 201 editions of the New Testament, all reject this passage. But they had not the data which we now possess in the important testimony of Tatian, and the authority of these great names does not destroy our private judgment, or cause us to relin- quish our convictions ; nor are we unsupported in this conclusion by other eminent critics, such as Scrivener ^ and Burgon. The opinions of biblical critics are much divided, although we at once admit that the preponderance of authority, though not so great as is generally supposed, is unfavourable to the genuineness of this passage. Wetstein, Storr, Mill, Grotius, Bengel, Scholz, Kuinoel,^ De Wette, Hug, Bleek,^ Guericke, Schleiermacher, Principal Campbell of Aberdeen,* Ebrard, Hilgenfeld, Keil, Stier, Lange, Scrivener, Burgon, Bishop Wordsworth, Dean Bickersteth, Canon Cook,^ M'Clellan, Edersheim, Salmon,^ Morison, Wace, and Bishop Ellicott declare in favour of its genuineness. Whereas Michaelis, Griesbach, Credner, Wieseler, Ewald, Norton,'^ Tischendorf, Tregelles, Meyer, Alford, Westcott and Hort, Klostermann, Bishop Lightfoot,^ Archbishop Thomson,^ Davidson, Warfield, Farrar, Abbott, Zahn, Kesch, and Holtz- maun decide against its genuineness. ^ Scrivener thus states the result at which he arrives : " All oiDposi- tion to the authenticity of the paragraph resolves itself into the allegation of Eusebius and the testimony of X B. Let us accord to these the weight which is their due ; but against their verdict we can ajjpeal to a vast body of ecclesiastical evidence reaching back to the earlier part of the second century ; to nearly all the versions ; and to all extant manuscripts excepting two, of which one is doubtful." Introduction to the Criticism of the N.T. vol. ii. p. 344, 4th edition. ^ Kuinoel, Novi Testmnenti Lihri Historici, in loco. 3 Bleek, Introduction to N.T. vol. i. p. 312, Eng. trans. ^ Campbell, On the Gospels, vol. iii. p. 178. ^ Cook's Revised Version of the first three Gospels, pp. 120-125. G Salmon's Introduction to the N.T. pp. 190-193, 1st ed. 1885. '' Norton's Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. i. pp. 217 ff. 8 Lightfoot ascribes it to " that knot of early disciples who gathered about St. John." Revision of the N. T. p. 28. ^ He says : " It is probable that this section is from a different hand, but was annexed to the Gospels soon after the time of the apostles." Smith's Bible Dictionary, vol. ii. p. 239. 202 THE GOSPEL OF MAEK. VII. Time and Place of Weiting. The date of this Gospel is a point of great dubiety, on which the most contradictory opinions prevail ; indeed, it is a point on which we have not data sufficient to warrant any definite or even proximate decision. There are conflicting testimonies with regard to it, and it is interwoven with other questions, as, for example, with the synoptic problem on the sources of the Synoptics. Whilst external evidence is defective, there are in the Gospel itself few indications of time. The opinions of the Fathers are here not in agreement. Some assert that Mark wrote his Gospel after, and others before, the death of Peter. Irenaeus, in a passage already quoted, asserts that it was written after the death of Peter and Paul. " Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching and laying the foundations of the Church at Eome. After their departure {^lera r-qv tovtcov e^oZov) Mark, the dis- ciple and interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing those things which Peter had preached."-^ Some, as Mill, Kuinoel, and others, suppose that by e^oBov is meant departure, as is the evident meaumg of the word in Heb. xi. 22 — after the departure of Peter and Paul from Eome ; but such a statement would be useless and insignificant. Others, as Hug, Credner, Guericke, and Ebrard, interpret tlie expres- sion as denoting death — after the decease of Peter and Paul, that is, after a.d. 64^ the year of the persecution by Nero, when it is supposed that these two apostles were put to death ; and this seems to be the usual scriptural meaning of the word,^ and is an important statement. Some connect with this statement the words of Peter in his Second Epistle : " I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease (the same word e^oBov) to have these things always in remembrance " (2 Pet. i. ,15). " Here," observes Professor Warfield, "is a promise by I iPeter that he will see to it that his readers shall be in a position 1 ^fter his death to have his teaching always in remembrance ; ^ Irenseus, Adv. Hwr. iii. 1.1; Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. v, 8. 2 Luke X. 21 : 2 Pet. i. 15. DATE. 203 and in this he has special reference to the facts of the hfe of Christ, witnessed by him, as is proved by the purpose which he expresses for so arranging, namely, that they may know that they have not followed cunningly devised fables, but facts autoptically witnessed. Surely this seems to promise a Gospel." ^ The truth of this statement of Irenseus is, however, extremely doubtful. It is uncertain that Peter and Paul were together in Eome : they certainly did not lay the foundation of the Church of Eome ; that Church was founded years before their arrival, as is evident from the fact that Paul at an earlier period wrote an Epistle to the Eomans, and that on his arrival at Eome he found a Christian Church already existing. The implied coincidence of the time of their martyrdom is legendary. This statement of Irenseus is counterbalanced by that of Clemens Alexandrinus, who informs us that Mark published his Gospel, not after the death of Peter, but in his lifetime, and with his knowledge and approval. Thus in a passage ' quoted by Eusebius, Clement says : " As Peter had preached the word publicly at Eome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many that were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel, he gave it to those who had requested it. When Peter learned this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it." ^ The same opinion was adopted by Eusebius and Jerome. Jerome i speaks as if Peter had actually dictated the Gospel to Mark, j These testimonies contradict each other ; Irenseus assert- 1 ing that Mark wrote his Gospel after the death of Peter, and Clemens Alexandrinus that it was written before that event. / All critics, except those belonging to the Tlibingen school, agree that this Gospel was written before the destruction of Jeru- salem, that is, before A.D. 70. There is no reference in it to that event : on the contrary, there are in the prediction of our Lord indications that it had not yet occurred (Mark xiii. 13, 24, 30, 33). The catastrophe was impending, but had not taken place. There were the symptoms of the coming storm, but it 1 Quoted in Kerr's Introduction to N. T. Study, p. 37. 2 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. vi. 14. 204 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. had not burst upon the land. So, also, there is an intimation that this Gospel was written after the dispersion of the apostles and after the diffusion of Christianity beyond Jerusalem, that is, after a.d. 44. " And they (the disciples) went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the signs that followed " (xvi. 20). 1 Thus, then, between these two limits, A.D. 44 and a.d. 70, 1 the composition of this Gospel is to be placed. If Mark's Gospel is the earliest, constituting one of the chief sources of the other two, for which opinion there are plausible reasons, then it must have been written before A.D. 55, the date which we found most probable to ascribe to the Gospel of Matthew. But, if Mark's Gospel is not the earliest, if, as many critics suppose, the Gospel of Matthew preceded it, then a later date must be adopted. Several objections have been made to the earlier date. If, it has been said, the Gospel of Mark was written before Paul's first Eoman imprisonment (a.d. 63), Paul in his Epistle to the Colossians, written at that time, would have mentioned Mark by a much higher designation than merely as the cousin of Barnabas (Col. iv. 10); he would have alluded to him as the author of the Gospel. But this is a mere con- jectural statement ; it proceeds on the doubtful supposition that Mark, the disciple of Peter, the author of the Gospel, was the same as Mark the companion of Paul and the cousin of Barnabas : and, besides, the argumentum e sikntio is always precarious. It is also affirmed that this early date contradicts the testunonies of Irenreus and Clemens Alex- andrinus ; but we have seen that their testimonies are .conflicting, and cannot be relied upon for fixing a precise date for the writing of Mark. Accordingly, no arguments can be drawn from the statements of the Fathers with regard to the date of the Gospel of Mark ; and the indications of time in the Gospel itself are slight and ambiguous. The opinions of critics are very diverse, varying from a.d. 40 to A.D. 170. The Paschal Chronicle and Hosychius fix on A.D. 40 ; Eusebius in his Chronicon gives the third year of the reign of Claudius, A.D. 43 ; Birks fixes on a.d. 48 ; Schenkel, on A.D. 45-58 ; DATE. 205 Hitzig, on a.d. 55-57; Lardner, on a.d. 64; Guericke, on A.D. 67 or 68; Alford, " after the dispersion or even the death of the apostles, and before the destruction of Jerusalem by the Eoman armies under Titus, in the year a.d. 70." The critics belonging to the Tiibingen school generally place the composition of the Gospel after the destruction of Jerusalem ; Hilgenfeld, about a.d. 8 1 ; Kostlin, about a.d. 110; Keim, about a.d. 115-120 ; Davidson, in the last edition of his Introduction, about A.D. 120 ; and Baur himself, about A.D. 130-170. The place of composition has been as much disputed as the time. The most common opinion is that this was Rpme. This is the uniform assertion of the Fathers — Irenaus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Eusebius, Jerome, and Epiphanius. It is stated in the subscription to several cursive manuscripts. In the Peshito there is the following subscription : " Here ends the holy Gospel, the announcement of Mark, which he spoke and preached at Eome in the Eoman language." The same opinion is adopted by most recent critics. The fact that the Gospel was written for Gentile readers, and the Latinisms which are found in it, are favourable to this supposition. An argument has been drawn from Eom. xvi. 13, where it is written : " Salute Eufus, the chosen in the Lord." In the Gospel, Simon the Cyrenian, who carried the cross of Jesus, is called the father of Alexander and Eufus (Mark xv. 21). Now, if this Eufus who, being thus saluted in the Epistle to the Eomans, was evidently an important member of the Church of Eome, was the son of Simon the Cyrenian, it was natural that Mark, when writing his Gospel at Eome, should allude to him. To this supposition there is, however, a formidable objection. If Mark wrote his Gospel at Eome and for the Eomans, there was not sufficient time for its transmission to Palestine, in order to its being used by Matthew at such an early period as A.D. 55.^ Other places have been fixed on. Chrysostom mentions a tradition which fixes on Alexandria as the place of com- position. " Mark is said (Xeyerai) to have composed his Gospel in Egypt at the solicitation of his friends there." ^ 1 See sufra, p. 140. ^ Clirysostom, Horn, in Matt. i. 206 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. This statement is also found in some cursive manuscripts to which the subscription i'ypd(f)r} iv AlyvirTO) is attached. Some (Simon, Lardner, Eiclihorn, Michaelis) suppose a double place of composition : that the Gospel was written partly in Eome and partly in Alexandria, Jerome says that Mark, taking the Gospel with him which he had composed, went into Egypt.^ Michaelis supposes that Mark wrote his Gospel at Rome, but finished it at Alexandria, which accounts for the difference which exists between Mark xvi. 9—20 and the rest of the Gospel.^ There is no ground for this supposition : it is mentioned by none of the Alexandrian Fathers. Storr^ conjectures Antioch to be the place of com- position, because Mark was residing there, near the seat of apostolic tradition, and in contact with the GentUe converts. The Church of Antioch was also visited by Peter (Gal, ii. 11), whose companion and interpreter Mark was. Storr also enforces his argument by the combination of Acts xi. 19, 20 and Mark xv. 21. In the Acts we learn that men of Gyrene came to Antioch : in the Gospel we are told that Simon, the father of Alexander and Eufus, who bore the cross, was a Cyrenian. He thinks it probable that Alexander and Eufus were among the men of Gyrene who came to Antioch. More plausible is the supposition of Birks, that Ctesarea was the place of writing. " The second Gospel," he observes, " was written by John Mark about the year 48, and probably at Csesarea, with a reference not only to Jewish believers, but to Gentile Eoman converts, who would have multi})lied there in seven or eight years from the conversion of Cornelius."* This wovild afford Matthew easy access to the Gospel of Mark, and that at an early period. IMark's connection with Peter may have been, not in Eome, but in Palestine. ^ Assumpto ita'i^ominence is given to women. It has not inappropriately been termed the " Gospel of womanhood." It opens with the mention of Elizabeth the mother of the Baptist, who with her husband Zacharias walked in all the command- ments and ordinances of the Lord blameless (i. 6). Luke alone adverts to the pious character of the blessed Virgin, and records her song of thanksgiving. He alone mentions Anna, the aged widow of fourscore and four years, who departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day (ii. 36). He, with John, mentions the sisters of Bethany ; Martha, careful and troubled about many things, and Mary, sitting at the Saviour's feet and listening to His words (x. 38—41). He alone tells us of the widow of Nain, and of the compassion of the Lord (vii. 11). It is in this Gospel that we read of the penitent woman, who anointed our Lord's feet, and bathed them with her tears (vii. 36—39). It is from Luke that we learn that many pious women followed our Lord in His missionary journeys through Galilee, ministering to Him of their substance (vii. 1—3), and accom- panied Him on His last journey to Jerusalem, and who, when all His male disciples forsook Him and fled, remained faithful to the last (xxiii. 49). It is Luke who records our Lord's address to the women who followed Him to the cross bewail- ing and lamenting Him : " Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for Me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children" (xxiii. 28). There are in the Gospel of Luke numerous striking and instructive contrasts; lights and shadows are mingled 236 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. throughout the narrative. Thus, for example, the doubting Zacharias the father of the Baptist, and the humble and confiding Mary the mother of our Lord ; the anxious and busy Martha, and the humble and devout Mary; the proud and self-righteous Pharisee, and the abased and penitent puljlican ; the rich man clothed in purple and fine linen, and faring sumptuously every day, and the beggar Lazarus, full of sores, and fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table ; the priest and the Levite who passed by, and the Samaritan who had compassion on the wounded traveller ; the ungrateful nine lepers, and the tenth, a Samaritan, who alone returned to render thanks ; the elder son, who never left his father's house, and the younger son, who turned prodigal, and was restored to his father's love and confidence ; Simon the self-righteous Pharisee who loved little, and gave the Lord no water to wash His feet, and the woman who was a sinner, who loved much and washed His feet with her tears ; the penitent thief on the right hand, and the impenitent thief on the left. It is from Luke's Gospel that those ^iriiuaLso^ms are taken which have been used in all ages in the worship of the Christian Church ; as the Ave Maria, the song of the Annunciation (i. 28—31); the Magnificat, the song of Mary (i. 47-50); the Benedictus, the song of Zacharias (i. 68—79); the Gloria in Excelsis, the song of the Angels (ii. 14) ; and Nunc Dimittis, the song of Simeon (ii. 29-32). All these spiritual songs are contained in the first two chapters of Luke's Gospel ; indeed, it is only in this Gospel and in the Apocalypse that spiritual songs are to be found. They are all Hebraic in their sentiment and diction, and have been rendered into Hebrew without any loss of their beauty. We have in the Gospel of Luke the last of the Hebrew Psalms and the first of the Christian hymns. Such are the characteristics of the Gospel of Luke. It is, as Dean Farrar remarks, " the Gospel of the Greek and of the future ; of catholicity of mind ; the Gospel of hymns and of prayers ; the Gospel of the Saviour ; the Gospel of the universality and gratuitousness of salvation ; the Gospel of holy toleration ; the Gospel of those whom the religious world regards as heretics ; the Gospel of the publican, and the INTEGRITY. 237 outcast, and the humble poor, and the weeping Magdalene, and the crucified malefactor ; the Gospel of the lost piece of money and the lost sheep ; the Gospel of the good Samaritan and of the prodigal son ; the Gospel of the saintly life, of pity, of forgiveness obtained by faith, of pardon for all the world ; the Gospel of grace and of the glad tidings of free salvation ; the Gospel of Him who was, as we all are, the son of Adam, and who died that we all might be the sons of God." ^ VII. The Integeity of the Gospel. As the first two chapters of the Gospel of Matthew, especially the account of the birth and infancy of Christ, have been disputed ; so, in like manner, the narrative of the miraculous conception and of the infancy of Christ in the Gospel of Luke (i. 5— ii. 52) has been called in question. The first who cast doubts on this passage was Evanson, toward the close of last century (1792), in his Dissonance of the four generally received Evangclistsr- In this he was followed by Eichhorn ^ and Baur.* On the other hand, the genuine- ness of the passage has been defended by such rationalistic critics as Ammon, Paulus, Credner, Kuinoel, Volkmar, and Kostlin. The chief objections were its omission in the Gospel of Marcion, and its supposed irreconcilability with the nar- rative of the birth and infancy of Christ as given by Matthew. These objections are of no force. The genuineness of the passage is demonstrated beyond dispute by its presence in all the Greek manuscripts and in all versions of the New Testa- ment, and by the repeated references to it in the writings of the early Fathers. It is true that the section was wanting in Marcion's Gospel ; but, as we have seen, Marcion mutilated and abbreviated the Gospel of Luke to suit his own pre- conceived dogmatic opinions. We have already discussed the differences between the accounts of the infancy given by ^ Farrar's Messages of the Books, p. 86. 2 This work was answered by Priestley, Letters to a Young Man, 1793, and by the Rev. Thomas Falconer in the Bampton Lectures for 1811. ^ Einleitung in das N.T. vol. i. p. 630. * Baur's Markusevangelium, p. 218. 238 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. Matthew and Luke, and shown that these differences are capable of reconciliation, and do not amount to a discrepancy in the accounts themselves.^ As already remarked, Luke might have obtained his information, either from Mary herself, whom it is not improbable he may have met in Jerusalem, or from James the Lord's brother, whom he certainly did meet (Acts xxi. 18), or from the other brethren of the Lord. An important difference in reading is found in the Gloria in Excelsis (Luke ii. 14): ho^a ev vy^la-roi^ dea>, koI iirl yrj'i elpt'jvr}, iv avdpcoTToi^ auhoKLa {evhoKia^)r The difference arises from the addition of one letter — €vBoKia<; instead of evhoKia. The Revised Version adopts the reading €v8oKia<;, and translates : " Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men in whom He is well pleased " ; with the footnote : " Many ancient authorities read ' Peace, good pleasure among men ' ; and instead of ' Men in whom He is well pleased,' a footnote gives the alternative rendering, ' Men of good pleasure.' " The reading euSo/cia9 of the Revised Version is supported by the principal ancient manuscripts x A B D : C (the Codex Ephrffim) is defective. The combined testimony of such valuable and independent manuscripts as the Vatican and the Alexandrian is very strong. Among the versions the old Latin and the Vulgate also have this reading ; the Vulgate renders the clause in hominihus bonce voluntatis. The Latin Fathers adopt the reading of their own version ; whilst among the Greek Fathers, Origen alone is favourable, although he also uses evhoKia. On the other hand, the rest of the uncials and all the cursives are in favour of evSoKia, tlic reading of the Authorised Version ; such also is the reading of the Syriac, Armenian, and Ethiopic versions ; the Greek Fathers may be considered as unanimous in their testimony ; even Origen, in his work against Celsus, adopts this reading : " At the birth of Jesus a multitude of the heavenly host praised God, saying : ^ See supra, pp. 115 fF. 2 This hardly belongs to the discussion on the integrity of the Gospel, but is here given on account of tlic interest attaclied to this reading. INTEGRITY. 239 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill towards men." ^ But whilst the external evidence, owing to the combined testimony of the most important of the uncial manuscripts, is in favour of the reading euSo/cta?, the internal evidence is in favour of evSoKta. The expression eV av6poo7roi<; evhoKia^ is certainly the more difficult reading, and this is so far in its favour ; yet it is very obscure, and so difficult of translation, that a reasonable sense can hardly be made out of it ; literally rendered it is " among men of good pleasure." The Eevisers render it " among men in whom He is well pleased " ; others, " to the men of goodwill, " ; others " to men who are the object of goodwill " ; and others, " peace on earth to those who will have it." Origen, in those places where he adopts the reading euSo/c/a?, unites the word with elprjvq, and renders the whole passage : " Glory to God in the highest, and on earth the peace of good pleasure to men," — a meaning which, Dr. Hort says, " would deserve serious attention, if no better interpretation were available." ^ In short, as Scrivener observes of these and such like interpretations, they " can be arrived at only through some process which would make any phrase bear almost any meaning which the translator might like to put upon it." ^ Such a reading also narrows the expression " goodwill " to a certain class of men, instead of making it embrace the whole human race, as is natur- ally suggested by the preceding words, " on earth peace." On the other hand, the reading evSoKia gives a plam and intelligible sense — goodwill to men : the goodwill being the goodwill of God — His mercy and good pleasure. This also better preserves the parallelism of the passage, divided into three sentences : " Glory to God in the highest ; on earth peace ; goodwill toward men." According to the other rendering, the parallelism consists of only two members : " Glory to God in the highest ; on earth peace to men of goodwill." Others render it : " Glory to God in the highest and on earth ; peace to men of goodwill." 1 Contra Celsum, i. 60. ^ Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament, Select Readings, vol. ii.p. 56. " Scrivener's Biblical Criticism, vol. ii. 4tli ed. p. 347. 240 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. The rendering euSo/tta? is adopted by the principal biblical critics — Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Meyer, Westcott and Hort; whilst Scrivener, Biirgon, and Cook give the preference to evSoKia. Another important passage where there is a remarkable difference in the reading, is Luke's version of the Lord's Prayer (xi. 2-4). In many authorities the prayer is given in an abbreviated form, and this is the reading adopted in the Eevised Version : " Father, Hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins ; for we ourselves also forgive everyone that is indebted to us. And bring us not into temptation." The reading of the Authorised Version is relegated to the footnotes. The reading here adopted by the Eevisers is that of the Vatican and the Sinaitic ; ^ whilst the Alexandrian has the reading of the Authorised Version. The other manuscripts vary ; some agree with the Vatican and others with the Alexandrian ; and some, omitting one or two clauses, give the prayer in a partially abbreviated form. The same is the case with the different versions ; for example, the Vulgate omits the words : " And deliver us from evil." It is argued that the internal evidence is in favour of the abbreviated form, because transcribers would be induced to supply the omitted petitions from the Gospel of Matthew. At the same time, in this form the prayer certainly appears to want com- pleteness. The occasions when the prayer was delivered were, according to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, very different. In Matthew it occupies part of the Sermon on the Mount, and stands in close connection with what precedes, being attached to our Lord's injunction against hypocrisy in our prayers ; whilst in Luke it is given in answer to the ret^uest of the disciples : " Lord, teach us to 1 The following is the reading of the Vatican : llccrsp, otytuaHrc-' ro ouofiot aoV i'hdiTa 7i (iocai'Kiix aoV rov oiprov i)fiuti t(tly handed down by tradititm from the gi-andsons of Jude, the brotlier of the Lord, mentioned in this passjige by Julius Africanus. - See Farrar On Luke, p. 372. THE GENEALOGIES. 263 the descent of Joseph, the one his legal and the other his real descent, they cannot properly be considered as genealogies of Jesus, who was only supposed to be the son of Joseph ; an objection which we shall more fully consider. The second hypothesis is that both Matthew and Luke give the genealogy of Joseph, neither of them giving the genealogy of Mary. This hypothesis has been adopted with some variations by Calvin, Grotius, Hug, Winer, Bleek, De Wette, Meyer, Bishop Hervey, Dr. Morison, Mansel,^ Dr. Samuel Davidson, Alford, Bishop Wordsworth, Carr,^ Bishop Ellicott,^ M'Clellan, Farrar,* and Geikie. According to this hypothesis, Matthew gives the royal line of succession from Solomon to Joseph, whilst Luke gives the natural or lineal line from Nathan to Joseph. Their conjunction in Shealtiel and Zerubbabel is generally explained on the supposition that the royal line failed in the person of Jehoiachin, as he, according to the prediction of Jeremiah, had no children, and that Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, descend- ants from Nathan, succeeded as the heirs of Solomon. This may account for the difference of names from David to Zerub- babel, but does not account for the difference of names between Zerubbabel and Joseph.^ The great, and to us insuperable, objection to this theory ^ Speaker's Commentary. ^ Commentary on Matthew: Cambridge Bible for Schools j p. 29. ^ Historical Lectures on the Life of our Lord, 3rd ed. j). 96, note. * Farrar On Luke, Excursus ii. : " The Double Genealogies of Christ as the Son of David," pp. 369-375. ^ Attempts have been made to prove that several of the names that occur after Zerubbabel are merely variations of the same name. Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, according to Luke (iii. 26), is supposed not to be a proper name, but an appellative signifying a head or chief, ajiplied to Zerubbabel as the prince of the Captivity. Abiud ('A/3/oi/S) in Matt. i. 13, and Joanna (^lui/va) in Luke iii. 27, both reckoned as the sons of Zerubl;)abel, are regarded as the same name. After this it is supposed that the lines again diverge from Abiud and Joanna ; Matthew gives the elder branch from Eliakim, probably the eldest son of Abiud, and Luke from Joda a younger branch. It is further supposed that the genealogies meet again in Matthan, who on the failure of Eliakim's line became the head of the house of David. See Hervey's Genealogies, j^i?. 115 ff. and p. 343. 264 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. is that neither of the genealogies gives that of Jesus. Jesus was, according to both Matthew and Luke, by reason of His miraculous birth, only the supposed son of Joseph and the real son of Mary.^ We have then according to this theory, so far as the genealogies are concerned, no proof that Jesus was the son of David. The Davidic descent of Jesus is repeatedly affirmed in Scripture. The title which the Jews appHed to the Messiah, " The son of David," and the pre- dictions of the prophets, tliat " a Branch should arise from the root of David," all imply His Davidic descent ; but unless Mary were descended from David, this could not be the case. Peter, in his discourse on the Day of Pentecost, affirms that of the fruit of the loins of David, according to the tlesh, God would raise up Christ to sit upon his throne (Acts ii. 30). Paul, in his discourse in Pisidian Antioch, makes the same declaration, that of the seed of David, God, according to His promise, raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus (Acts xiii. 23). In his Epistles he twice affirms the Davidic descent of Jesus: " Jesus Christ our Lord was made of the seed of David according to the flesh " (Rom. i. 3). " Jesus Christ, of the seed of David, was raised from the dead " (2 Tim. ii. 8). And in the Apocalypse our Lord is called " the root and the offspring of David " (Rev. xxii. 6). But no conclusion of this nature can be drawn from the Davidic descent of Joseph, and consequently the genealogies, if they refer to Joseph only, do not prove that our Lord was descended from David. They are divested of their importance and interest. The Davidic descent of Mary is asserted by the Fathers, as Justin Martyr {Dial. c. Tryph. xlv.), Irenieus {Adv. Hccr. iii. 21. 5), Tertullian, and others. As Meyer says : " The Davidic descent of Jesus is established as certain by the predictions of the prophets, which, in reference to so essential a mark of the Messiah, could not remain without fulfilment, as well as by the unanimous testimony of the New Testament." ^ This objection is thus met by Bishop Hervey : " If the ' Matt. i. 18 ; Lukt- iii. 35. ^ Meyer's Commentary on Matthew, vol. i. p. 61. At the same time, Meyer asserts that there is no evidence of tliis from the genealogies, as according to him the genealogy in Luke is not that of Mary. THE GENEALOGIES. 265 Matthan of Matthew is the same individual as the Matthat of Luke, it follows that Jacob and Heli were brothers. And if Mary were the daughter of Jacob, and Joseph the son of Heli, Joseph and Mary would be first cousins, grandchildren of the same grandfather Matthat. And if Jacob had no son, but only daughters, and his male heir and successor, as head of the tribe of Judah, were Joseph the son of his brother Heli, we are quite sure, from the constant practice of the Jews, that Joseph would marry Mary ; just as the five daughters of Zelophehad married their five cousins."^ But such an answer to the objection cannot be maintained ; it is founded not on one, but on four suppositions, not one of which can be proved. The third hypothesis is, that whilst Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, Luke gives that of Mary. This theory has been adopted by Luther, Dr. John Lightfoot, Hottinger, Bengel,^ Kidder, Kuinoel, Michaelis, Yardley, M'Kuight, Gres- well,^ Lange,* Auberlen, Wieseler, Ebrard,^ Holmes,^ Olshausen,'^ Smith of Jordanhill, Dean Spence, Andrews,^ Plumptre, Schaff,^ Godet,^*^ and Weiss.^^ According to this theory, Jesus is by the genealogy of Matthew shown to be the legal heir of David's throne, whilst by the genealogy of Luke He is shown to be the seed of David according to the flesh, by His being the son of Mary. The genealogy of Matthew is the genealogy of Joseph, whilst the genealogy of Luke is that of Heli. Mary's name is omitted in the genealogy, because it was not the custom of the Jews to mention women in their genealogical tables. That in one of the genealogies the descent of Mary is ^ Hervey's Genealogies, pp. 56, 57. ^ Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament on Matt. i. 16. ^ Greswell's Dissertations, vol. ii. p. 103. * Lange's Life of Christ, vol. i. p. 380, translation. ^ Ebrard's Gospel History, p. 159. '• Kitto's Cyclopedia, article, " Genealogy." '' Olshausen, On the Gospels, vol. i. p. 39. * Andrews' Life of Christ, p. 56. ® Schaff on " Matthew " in the Popular Commentary on the New Testa- ment. 1" Godet's Commentary on Luke, vol. i. p. 201, translation. ^1 Weiss' Life of Jesus, vol. i. p. 220, translation. 266 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. given, is affirmed by Clemens Alexandrinus, although he fixes, as we think erroneously, on that given by Matthew. " In the Gospel according to Matthew the genealogy which is begun with Abraham is continued down to Mary the mother of our Lord." ^ And it is a curious circumstance that in the Talnnid, Mary the mother of Jesus is called the daughter of Heli, — a statement which could only be made from Luke's Gospel, or more probably from tradition.^ But here we are met with what appears to be a formidable objection : that as it is distinctly stated by ]\Iatthew that Joseph was the son of Jacob, so it is as distinctly stated by Luke that he was the son of Heli. It is not disputed that Joseph was the son of Jacob ; the words are cleai , " Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ " (Matt. i. 16). But that Joseph was the son of Heli is not so distinctly stated. According to the best attested reading, the words are : wv u/09 w? ivofxi^ero 'I(0(Ti]vo, price. lO.s. Qd., COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. By Rev. JOHN MACPHERSON, M.A., Findhorn. ' It is an advance, and a groiit one, on anything wo yet possess. . . . The author goes to the root, and neglects nothing that usually comes under the oye of a careful student, . . . Besides all this, the book is a living book. One is conscious of the heart of a man in it, as well as the brains.' — Methodist Times. * "This is a very handsome volume which Mr. Macpherson has given us, and without any doubt it will take the first place among the commentaries devoted to this EJpistle. The Introduction is fuller far than wo liavo over had. It is quite in touch with the latest literary and archroological results — results which, in this j)articidHr Epistle, have recently conui in with unusual richness. That alone is sufficient to give this volume the pro-eminence.' — The Expository Times. PUBLICATIONS OF T. &o T. O Xj J^ I^ KI, 38 GEORGE STREET, EDINBURGH. LONDON: SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, & CO. LIMITED. Adam (J., D.D.) — An Exposition of the Epistle of James. 8vo, 9s. AloLfeld (Dr.), etc. — The Voice from the Cross. Cr. 8vo, price 5s. Alcock (Deborah) — The Seven Churches of Asia. Is. Alexander (Prof . W. Lindsay) — Biblical Theology. Two vols. 8 vo, 2 1 s. Allen (Prof. A. V. G.) — Life of Jonathan Edwards. Fcap. 8vo, 5s. Andrews (S, J.) — The Life of our Lord. Large post 8vo, 9s. Ante-Nicene Christian Library — A Collection of all the Works OF THE FaTIIEKS OF THE CuilISTIAN CllURCH PRIOR TO THE COUNCIL OF Nic^A. Twenty-four vols. 8vo, Subscription price, £6, 6s. Augustine's Works— Edited by Marcus Dods, D.D. Fifteen vols. 8vo, Subscription price, £3, 19s. uett. Balfour (E. G-., D.D.) — Central Truths and Side Issues. Crown 8vo, 3s. 6(1. Bannemian (Prof.) — The Church of Christ. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. Bannerman (D. D., D.D.) — The Doctrine of the Church. 8vo, 12s. Baumgarten (Professor) — Apostolic History. Three vols. 8vo, 27?. Bayne (Peter, LL.D.) — The Frek Church of Scotland: Her Origin, Founders, and Testimony. Post 8vo, 3s. 6d. Beck (Dr.) — Outlines of Biblical Psychology. Crown 8vo, 4s. ■ Pastoral Theology in the New Testament. Crown 8vo, 6s. Bengel — Gnomon of the New Testament. With Original Notes, Explanatory and Illustrative. Five vols. 8vo, Subscription price, 31s. 6d. Cheaper Edition, the jive, volumes bound in three, 24s. Besser's Christ the Life of the World. Price Gs. Eeyschlag (W., D.D.) — New Testament Theology. Two vols. demy Svo, 18s. nett. Bible-Class Handbooks. Crown 8vo. Forty Volumes, lid. to 3s. each. Edited by Frof. Marcus Dods, D.D., and Alex. Whyte, D.D. Detailed List free on application. Bible-Class Primers. Twenty-Eight now issued in the Scries. Edited by Prof. S. D. F. Salmond, D.D. Paper covers, 6d. each; free by post, 7d. In cloth, 8d. ; free by post, 9d. Detailed List free on application. Blaikie (Prof. W. G., D.D.) — The Preachers of Scotland from the 6tii to the 19tii Century. Post Svo, 7s. 6d. Blake (Buchanan, B.D.) — How to Read the Prophets. Part I. — The Pre-Exilian Minor Prophets (with Joel), 4s. Part II. — Isaiah (ch. i.- xxxix.), 2s. 6d. Part III.— Jeremiah, 4s. Part IV.— Ezekiel, 4s. Part.V. — Isaiah (ch. xl.-lxvi. ), and the Post-Exilian Prophets. Bleek's Introduction to the New Testament. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. Briggs (Prof.) — Biblical Study. Fourth Edition, post Svo, 7s. 6d. American Presbyterianism. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d. Messianic Prophecy. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d. The Messiah of the Gospels. Post Svo, 6s. 6d. The Messiah of the Apostles. Post Svo, 7s. 6d. Whither"? ATheologicalQuestionfortheTimcs. Post8vo,7s.Gd. The Bible, the Church, and the Reason. Post Svo, 6s. Q>d.. Brockelmann (Dr. C.) — A New Syrfac Lexicon. With a Pra''aco by Professor T. Noldeke. Cro\vn 4to. 30s. nett. T. and T. Clariis Publications. Brown {David, D.D.) — Christ's Second Coming : "Will it be Pre- Millcniiiiil? Seventh Edition, crown 8vo, 7.s. 6(1. Bruce- (A. B., D.D.) — The Training of the Twelve ; exhibiting the •"; ' "I .Twplve Disciples under Discipline for the Aiiostlcship. 5tli Kd., 8vo, 10s. 6d. ' ' The Humiliation of Christ. 3rd Ed., 8vo, 10s. 6d. The Kingdom of God ; or, Christ's Teaching according to the Syiioptical Gospels. New Edition, 7s. 6d. Bruce (A. B., D.D.)— Apologetics ; or, Christianity Defensively Stated. Post 8vo, Second Edition, 10s. 6d. St. Paul's Conception of Christianity. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d. Bruce ( W. S., M. A.) — The Ethics of the Old Testament. Cr. Svo, 4s. Buchanan (Professor) — The Doctrine of Justification. Svo, 10s. 6d. On Comfort in Affliction. Crown Svo, 2s. 6d. On Improvement of Affliction. Cro-svn Svo, 2s. 6d. Buhl (Prof.)— Canon and Text of the Old Testament. 8vo, 7s. 6d. Bimgener (Felix) — Rome and theCouncil in 19™Century. Cr.8vo,5s. Burton (Prof. E.) — Syntax of Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek. Post Svo, 5s. 6d. nett. Calvin'slNSTiTUTESOFCKRisTiAN Religion. (Translation.)2vols.8vo,14s. Calvini Institutio Chiistianse Religionis. Curavit A. Tholuck. Two vols. Svo, Subscription price, 14s. Candlish (Prof. J. S., D.D.) — The Kingdom of God, Biblically and HlSTOKtCALLY CONSIDERED. SvO, lOs. 6d. Caspar! (C. E.) — A Chronological and Geographical Introduc- tion TO THE Life of Christ. Svo, 7s. 6d. Gaspers (A.) — The Footsteps of Christ. Crown 8vo, 7s. 6d. Cassel (Prof.) — Commentary on Esther. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Cave (Principal A., D.D.) — The Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice AND Atonement. Second Edition, Svo, 10s. 6d. • An Introduction to Theology. Svo, 12s. Chapman (Principal C, LL.D.)— Pre-Organic Evolution and the Biblical Idea of God. Crown Svo, 6s. Christlieb (Dr.) — Modern Doubt and Christian Belief. Svo, 10s. Gd. Cremer (Professor) — Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testa- ment Greek. Third Edition, with Supplement, demy 4to, 38s. Crippen (Rev. T. G.) — A Popular Introduction to the History of Christian Doctrine. Svo, 9s. Cunningham (Principal) — Historical Theology. Two vols. Svo, 21s. Curtiss (Dr. S. I.) — The Levitical Priests. Crown Svo, 5s. Franz Delitzsch : A Memorial Tribute. TorlmH. Cr. Svo, 3s. Davidson (Professor) — An Introductory Hebrew Grammar. V>'ith Progressive Exercises in Reading and Writing. Twelfth Edition, Svo, 7s. 6d. A Syntax of the Heurew Language. Svo, 7s. Gd. Deane (Wm., M.A.) — Pseudepigrapha : An Account of Certain Apocryjthal Writings of the Jews and Early Christians. Post Svo, 7s. 6d. Delitzsch (Prof.)— System of Biblical Psychology, Svo, 12s.; New Commentary on Genesis, 2 vols. Svo, 21s. ; Psalms, 3 vols., 31s. 6d. ; Proverbs, 2 vols., 21s. ; SoNo of Solomon and Ecclesiastes, 10s. 6d. ; Isaiah, Fourtli Edition, rewritten, 2 vols., 21s. ; IIf.urews, 2 vols., 2Is. Doedes — Manual of New Testament Hermeneutics, Cr. Svo, 3s. Dollinger (Dr.)— Hippo lytus and Callistus. Svo, 7s. 6d. Declarations and I/Ktters on the Vatican Decrees, 1860-1887. Authorised Transhition. Crown Svo, .Is. 6d. Domer (Professor) — History of the Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Ciiulst. Five vols. Svo, £2, 12s. 6d. Zl and T. Clark's Pudlications. Dorner (Professor) — System or Christian Doctrine, 4 vols. 8vo, £2, 2s. System of Christian Ethics. 8vo, 14s. Driver (Prof. S. E.)— An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. Fifth Edition, with Appendix, 8vo, 12s. Deuteronomy : A Critical and Exegetical Commentary. 8vo, 1 2s. Duff (Prof. David, D.D.)— The Early Church. 8vo, 12s. Eadie (Professor) — Comjientaries on St. Paul's Epistles to the EriiEsiANS, PHiLirpiANs, CoLossiANs. New and Eevised Editions, Edited by Rev. Wm. Young, M. A. Three vols. Svo, 10s. 6d. each ; or set, 18s. nett. Ebrard (Dr. J. H. A.)— The Gospel History. Svo, 10s. 6d. Apologetics. Three vols. Svo, 31s. 6d. Edgar (S. M 'C, D. D. )— The Gospel of a Risen Saviour. Post Svo, 7s. 6d. Elliott — On the Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. Svo, 6s. Ernesti — Biblical Interpretation of New Testament. Two vols., 8s. Ewaid (Heinrich) — Hebrew Syntax. Svo, Ss. 6d. Revelation : Its Nature and Record. Svo, lOs, 6d. Old and New Testament Theology. Svo, 10s. 6d. Fairbairn (Prin.) — The Revelation of Law in Scripture, Svo, 10s. 6d. EzEKiEL AND the Book OF his Prophecy. 4:thEd.,8vo, 10s. 6d. Prophecy. Second Edition, Svo, 10s. 6d. Pastoral Theology. Crown Svo, 6s. Forbes (Prof.) — Symmetrical Structure of Scripture. 8vo, 8s. 6d. . Analytical Commentary on the Romans, 8vo, 10s. 6d. Studies in the Book of Psalms. Svo, 7s. 6d. The Servant of the Lord in Isaiah xl.-lxvi. Cr. Svo, 5s. Frank (Prof. F. H.) — System of Christian Evidence. Svo, 10s. 6d. Funcke (Otto) — The World of Faith and the Everyday World, As displayed in the Footsteps of Abraham. Post Svo, 7s. 6d. Gebhardt (H.) — The Doctrine of the Apocalypse, and its relation TO THE DOCTEINE OF THE GoSPEL AND EpISTLES OF JoHN. 8v0, lOs. 6d. Gerlach — Commentary on the Pentateuch. Svo, 10s. 6d. Gieseler(Dr.J. C.L.) — Ecclesiastical History. FourvoIs.Svo,£2,2s. Gilford (Canon) — Voices of the Prophets. Crown Svo, 3s. 6d. Given (Ptev. Prof. J. J.) — The Truth of Scripture in connection WITH Eevelation, Inspikation, and THE Canon. 8vo, 6s. Glasgow (Prof.) — Apocalypse Translated and Expounded. 8vo, lo/6. Gloag (Paton J., D.D. ) — Commentary on the Acts. New Ed. jn-eparing. The Messianic Prophecies. Crown Svo, 7s. 6d. Introduction to the Pauline Epistles. Svo, 12s. Introduction to the Catholic Epistles. Svo, 10s. 6d. Exegetical Studies. Crown Svo, 5s. Godet (Prof.) — An Introduction to the New Testament: 'The Epistles of St. Paul.' Authorised Trandation. 8vo, 12s. 6d. nett. Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel, Two vols. Svo, 21s. Commentary on St. John's Gospel. Three vols. Svo, 31s. 6d. Commentary on Epistle to the Romans. Two vols. Svo, 21s. Commentary on 1st Epistle to Corinthians. 2 vols. Svo, 21s. Lectures in Defence of the Christian Faith. Cheap Ed., 4s, Goebel (Siegfried) — The Parables of Jesus. Svo, 10s. 6d. Gotthold's Emblems ; or, Invisible Things Understood by Things that are Made. Crown Svo, 6s. T. and T. Clark's Publications. Grimm's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Trans- lated, Revised, and Enlarged by JosEi'ii H. Tiiavkh, D.D. Deiiiy 4to, 36s. Guyot (Arnold, LL.D.) — Cre.vtion; or, The Biblical Cosmogony in the Light of Modern Science. With Illustrations. Crown 8vo, 5.s. 6d. Hagenbach (Dr. K R.) — History of Doctrines. 3 vols, Svo, 31s. 6d. History of the Reformation. 2 vols. 8vo, 21s. Halcombe (Rev. J., M.A.)— What Think Ye of the Gospels? A Handbook of Gospel Study. 8vo, 3s. 6d. Hall (Newman, D.D.) — The Lord's Prayer. Crown 8vo, 6s. Gethsemane ; or, Leaves of Healing from the Garden of Grief. Crown 8vo, 5s. Divine Brotherhood. Crown 8vo, 4s. Hamilton (T., D.D.) — Beyond the Stars; or, Heaven, its Lihabitants, Occupations, and Life. Third Edition, crowTi Svo, 3s. 6d. Harless (Dr. C. A.) — System of Christian Ethics. Svo, 10s. 6d. Haupt (Erich) — The First Epistle of St. John. Svo, 10s. 6d. Havemick (H. A, Ch.) — Introduction to Old Testament. 10s. 6d. Heard (Rev. J. B., M.A.)— The Tripartite Nature of Man — Spirit, Soul, and I^ody. Fifth Edition, crown Svo, 6s. Old AND New Theology. AConstructiveCritique. Cr. Svo, 6s. Alexandrian and Carthaginian Theology Contrasted. The Ilulseau Lectures, 1892-93. Crown Svo, Cs. Hefele (Bishop) — A History of the Councils of the Church. Vol. L,toA.n. 325. Vol. IL, a.d. 326 to 429. Vol. IIL, a.d. 431 to the close of the Council of Chalcedon, 451. Vol. IV., a.d. 451 to 680. Svo, 12s. each. Hengstenberg (Professor) — Commentary on Psalms, 3 vols. Svo, 33s. ; Ecclesiastes, eit., Svo, 9s. ; Ezekiel, Svo, 10s. 6d. ; The Genuixexess OF Daniel, etc., Svo, 12s. ; History of the Kingdom of God, 2 vols. Svo, 21s. ; CiinisTOLOGY of the Old Testament, 4 vols. Svo, £2, 23. ; St. John's Go.si'el, 2 vols. Svo, 21s. Hill (Rev. J. Hamlyn, B.D.)— The Earliest Life of Christ EVER CoMPiLKi) EiioM THE Foui! GosPELS : Being 'The Diatessaron of Tatian ' Literary Translated from the Arabic Version, and containing the Four Gospels woven into one Story. With an Historical and Critical Introduction, Notes, and Appendix. Svo, 10s. 6d. Hutcliison (John, D.D.) — Commkntary on Thessalonians. Svo, 9s. Commentary on Philippians. Svo, 7s. 6d. Our Lord's Signs in St. John's Gospel. Demy Svo, 7s. 6d. Janet (Paul) — Final Causes. Second Edition, demy 8vo, 12s. The Theory of Morals. Demy Svo, 10s. 6d. Johnstone (Prof. R.. D.D.) — Commentary on 1st Peter, Svo, 10s. 6d. Jones (E. E. C.) — I-^lements of Logic. Svo, 7s. 6d. Jouffroy — Philosophical Essays. Fcap. Svo, 5s. Kaftan (Prof. Julius) — The Truth of the Christian Keligion. Authorised Translation. 2 vols. Svo, 16s. nett. Kant — The Metaphysic of Ethics. Crown Svo, 6s. Philosophy of Law. Trans, by W. IIastie, B.D. Cr. Svo, 5s. Principles of Politics, etc. Crown Svo, 2s. 6d. Keil (Prof.)— Pentateuch, 3 vols. Svo, 31s. 6d. ; Joshua, Judges, and Kith, Svo, 10s. 6d. ; Samuel, Svo, 10s. 6d. ; Kings, Svo, 10s. 6d.; CiiRONicLKS, Svo, 10s. 6(1. ; EzKA, Nehk.miah, Estiieu, Svo, 10s. 6d. ; Jeiiemiah, 2 vols. Svo, 21s.; Ezekiel, 2 vols. Svo, 21 s. ; Daniel, Svo, lOs. 6d. ; Minor Pkophets, 2 vols. Svo, 21s. ; Introduction to the Canonical Sckiitures of the Old Tf.stament, 2 vols. Svo, 2l8. ; Handbook of Hiulical AurH.i:<)i.ooY, 2 vols. Svo, 21s. T. and T. Clark's Publications. Kennedy (H. A. A., D.Sc.) — Sources of New Testament Greek. Post 8vo, 5s. Keymer (Eev. N., M.A.) — Notes on Genesis. Crown 8vo, Is. 6d. Kidd (James, D.D.) — Morality and Religion. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Killen (Prof.) — The Framework of the Church. 8vo, 9s. The Old Catholic Church. Svo, 9s. TheIgnatian Epistles Entirely Spurious. Cr. Svo, 2s. 6d. Konig (Dr. F. E.)— The Religious History of Israel. Cr. Svo, 3s. 6d. Krummacher (Dr. F. W. ) — The Suffering Saviour ; or, Meditations on the Last Days of the Sufferings of Christ. Eighth Edition, crown Svo, 6s. David, the King of Israel. Second Edition, cr. Svo, 6s. Autobiography. Crown Svo, 6s. Kurtz (Prof.)— Handbook of Church History (from 1517). Svo, 7s. cd. History of the Old Covenant. Three vols. Svo, 31s. 6d. Ladd (Prof. G. T.) — The Doctrine of Sacred Scripture : A Critical, Historical, and Dogmatic Inquiry into the Origin and Nature of the Old and New Testaments. Two vols. Svo, 1600 pp., 24s. Laidlaw (Prof.) — The Bible Doctrine of Man; or, The Anthro- pology and Psychology of Scripture. New Edition Revised and Rearranged, post Svo, 7s. 6d. Lane (Laura M.) — Life of Alexander Vinet. Crown Svo, 7s. 6 J. Lange (J. P., D.D.) — The Life of our Lord Jesus Christ. Edited by Marcus Dods, D.D. 2nd Ed., in 4 vols. Svo, price 28s. nett. Commentaries on the Old and New Testaments. Edited by Philip Schaff, D.D. Old Testament, 14 vols. ; New Testament, 10 vols. ; Apocrypha, 1 vol. Subscription price, nett, 15s. each. St. Matthew and St. Mark, 3 vols. Svo, 31s. 6d.; St. Luke, 2 vols. Svo, 18s. : St. John, 2 vols. Svo, 21s. Lechler (Prof. G. V., D.D.) — The Apostolic and Post- Apostolic Times. Their Diversity and Unity in Life and Doctrine. 2 vols. cr. Svo, 16s. Lehmann (Pastor) — Scenes from the Life of Jesus. Cr. Svo, 3s. 6d. Lewis (Tayler, LL.D.) — The Six Days of Creation. Cr. Svo, 7s. 6d. Lichtenberger (F., D.D.) — History of German Theology in the 19th Century. Svo, lis. Lilley (J. P., M.A.) — The Lord's Supper: Its Origin, Nature, and Use. Crown Svo, 5s. Lisco (F. G.) — Parables of Jesus Explained. Fcap. Svo, 5s. Lotze (Hermann) — Microcosmus : An Essay concerning Man and his relation to the World. Third Edition, 2 vols. Svo (1450 pages), 36s. ; Cheaper Edition, 2 vols. Svo, 24s. Luthardt, Kahnis, and Bruckner — The Church, Crown Svo, 5s. Luthardt (Prof. ) — St. John the Author of theFourth Gospel. 7s. 6d. — Commentary on St. John's Gospel. 3 vols. Svo, 31s. 6d. . History of Christian Ethics. Svo, 10s. 6d. . Apologetic Lectures on the Fundamental (7 Ed^, Saving (5 Ed.), Moral Truth.s of Christianity (4 Ed.). 3 a'oIs. cr. Svo, 6s. each. Macdonald — Introduction to Pentateuch. Tavo vols. Svo, 21s. The Creation and Fall. Svo, 12s. Macgregor (Rev. Jas., D.D.) — The Apology of the Christian Religion. Svo, 10s. 6d. The Revelation and the Record : Essays on Matters of Previous Question in the Proof of Christianity. Svo, 7s. 6d. Studies in the History of New Testament Apologetics. Svo, 7s. 6d. T. iiJid T. Clark' s Pitblications. Macgicgor, (Bev, G. H. C.)— So Great Salvation. 12mo, cloth, I3. Macphcison (Rev. Jolui, M.A.)— The 1':pistle to the Ephesians, Coiumentary on. 8vo, 10s. 6d. ' ' ' M'Sealsh?au (E. D.)— Komans Dissected. A Critical Analysis of the Epistle to tlie IJonian.s. Crown 8vo, 2s. Mair (A., D.D.)— Studies in the Christian Evidences. Third Eilition, Revised ami Enlarged, erown 8vo, 6s. Martensen (Bishop)— Christian Dogmatics. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Chkistlus^ Ethics. (General — Individual — Social.) Tluee vols. 8vo, 10s. 6d. each. Matheson (Geo., D.D.) — Growth of the Spirit of Christianity, from the First Centuiy to tlie Dawn of the Lutheran Era. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. Aids to the Study of German Theology. 3rd Edition, 4s. 6d. Mover (Dr.) — Critical and Exegetical Commentaries on the New Testament. Twenty vols. 8vo. SuUcripllon Prke, £5, 5s. nett ; Non-Stibscription Price, 10s. 6d. each volume. St. Matthew, 2 vols. ; Mark and Lvke, 2 vols. ; St. John, 2 vols. ; Acts, 2 vols. ; Roman.s, 2 vols. ; Cokintiiians, 2 vols. ; GALATiANS.one vol. ; Ei'jiEsiANs AND Philemon, one vol. ; pHiMPriANs and Colossians, one vol. ; Thessai.onian.s {Dr. Lilncmann), one vol. ; The Pastoral Epistles [Dr. Blither), one vol. ; Hebrews {Dr. Lnnemann), one vol. ; St. James and St. John's Epistles {Ihither), one vol. ; Pktek and Jude {Dr. Ilulher), one vol. Michie (Charles, M.A.)— Bible Words and Phrases. 18mo, Is. Millig-an (Prof. W., D.D.)— The Resurrection of the Bead. Scoond Edition, crown 8vo, 4s. 6d. Monrad (Dr. D. G.)— The World of Prayer. Crown Svo, 4s. 6d. Morgan (J., D.D.)— Scripture Testimony to the Holy Spirit. 7s. 6d. Exposition of the First Epistle of John. Svo, 7s. 6d. MUIler (Dr. Julius)— The Christian Doctrine of Sin. 2 vols. Svo, 21s. Miu-phy (Professor)— Commentary on the Psalms. Svo, 12s. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Exodus. 9s. Naville (Ernest)— The Problem of Evil. Crown Svo, 4s. 6d. ■ The Christ. Translated by Rev. T. J. Despres. Cr. Svo, 4s. 6d. Modern Physics. CroAvn Svo, 5s. Neander (Dr.)— Church History. Ei^ht vols.' Svo, £2, 2s. nctt. Nicoll (W. R., LL.D.)— The Incarnate Saviour. Crown Svo, 6s. Novalis— Hymns and Thoughts on Religion. Crown Svo, 4s. Oehler (Prof.)— Theology of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Svo, 21s. Olshausen (Dr. H.) — Biblical Commentary on the Gospels and Acts. Four vols. Svo, £2, 2s. Cheaper Edition, four vols, crown Svo, 24s. Romans, one vol. Svo, 10s. 6d. ; Corinthians, one vol. Svo, Os. ; Philippians, Titus, and First Timothy, one vol. Svo, 10s. 6d. Oosterzee (Dr. Van)— The Year of Salvation. 2 vols. Svo, 6s. each. — IVlosES : A Biblical Study. Crown Svo, 6s. OreUi — Cld Testament Prophecy; Commentary on IsaiAii; Jekkmiah ; The Twelve Minor Prophets. 4 vols. Svo, 10s. 6d. each. Owen (Dr. John)— Works. Be.'st and only Complete Edition. Edited by Kev. Dr. Goold. Twenty-four vols. Svo, Subscrijition price, £4, 4s. _, . . The 'IMircw.i' nmy be had separately, in seven vols., Cl'. 'Js. nett. Philippi (F. A.) — Commentary on the Romans. Two vols. Svo, 21s. Piper — 1j1 VES of Leaders of Church Universal. Two vols. Svo, 21s. Popular Commentary on the New Testament. Edited by Philip SCHAFF, D.D. With Illnstrntions and Maps. Vol. I.— The SyxorTiCAL ^;. - --^"''^-:$; 'i^'y,