¦ ¦ '! ; ¦':•'¦
. ¦ ¦ .
'. . . .,':•-¦•¦ • ¦¦;.¦¦:
.. .

wuBai^aWMf*iaqiwi'ir

¦'¦? .¦'¦¦¦

.. :'.:-.- ' ¦' ¦ ¦¦ u ¦ .: ' ¦ '¦¦¦ ":
. ¦: ¦ ., . .., ..iv .¦:.¦;¦¦:¦¦, :-
ItiPtfflPlt

||gj|J

»YAILJE-,,$fMV]EKSinnr-

DIVINITY SCHOOL
TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY

GIFT OF
Prof. George Dahl

INTRODUCTION TO THE
LIFE OF CHRIST

INTRODUCTION TO THE
LIFE OF CHRIST

BT
WILLIAM BANCROFT HILL, D.D.
PBOFESSOB OV BIBLICAL LITERATURE IN VASSAB COLLEGE

CHARLES SCBIBNER'S SONS
NEW YORK :^—±~~^: : 1916

FT

Copyright, 1911
Bt Charles Scribnek's Sons

TO
E. W. H.
WHOSE DEEP AND REVERENT INTEREST
IN ALL THAT RELATES TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
HAS BEEN AN INSPIRATION

PREFACE
This book was written for my own college classes to
aid them in gaining the preliminary information neces
sary for an intelligent study of the life of Christ. It
deals with a variety of topics, all bearing upon the one
important question, What are the sources from which
we gain a knowledge of that life, and how far are they
trustworthy ?
There is no lack of literature upon this question;
indeed, the very abundance of information and dis
cussion is the chief difficulty for a beginner. Many of
the books are minute and learned treatises suited only
for the specialist. Others are written to defend special
theories, and presuppose a general knowledge of the
subject. Most of them deal with but one or a few of
all the topics to be considered. The only book with
which I am acquainted that covers much of the field
in a brief, simple, uncontroversial way is Anthony's
"Introduction to the Life of Jesus"; but this does not
treat of the text or the canon, and was published in
1896, since which time new and valuable contribu
tions have been made to our knowledge.
I have endeavored to present in a clear and concise
manner the facts which should be borne in mind as
the Four Gospels are studied, and the problems — as
yet only partly solved — which these Gospels present.
With no theories of my own to advocate, I have aimed
vii

viii PREFACE
to make possible a comprehension of theories pre
sented by scholars of various schools. And while I
have frankly stated my own conviction that a search
ing criticism of the Gospels only reveals more clearly
their essential trustworthiness, I hope I have treated
with fairness and full appreciation those writers who
maintain the contrary.
A few years ago I prepared a "Guide to the Lives of
Christ for English Readers." Its purpose was to give a
general view of the course of modern thought concern
ing the life of Christ, and especially a brief description
of each of the more important Lives, written in Eng
lish or accessible in translation. The need of some
such guide for the inexperienced student is evident,
when one realizes how many Lives of Christ, written
from various stand-points and differing greatly in
scholarship, are presented for his choice. This work
is now out of print; so I have added it, somewhat
condensed and brought down to date, as an Appendix
to the present volume.
If this book shall furnish to my students an intro
duction to the broad and fascinating fields of Gospel
criticism, I shall be satisfied. If it shall be of service
to others who may wish to know what these fields
contain, I shall be greatly pleased.
W. B. H.
Vassab College, May, 1911.

CONTENTS
CHAPTEB FAGS
I. Heathen and Jewish Writings  1
II. Christian Writings Other Than Gospels . 11
III. The Apocryphal Gospels  21
IV. The Canon of the Gospels  35
V. The Text of the Gospels  45
VI. The Text of the Gospels (Continued) . . 69
VII. The Date of the Gospels  84
VIII. The Synoptic Problem  102
IX. The Johannine Problem  118
X. Characteristics of Each Gospel  145
XI. The Trustworthiness of the Gospels ... 171
XII. The Use of the Gospels for a Life of Christ 185
Appendix. Lives of Christ  203
Index  223

INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE
OF CHRIST
CHAPTER I
HEATHEN AND JEWISH WRITINGS
In studying the life of Christ, as in studying any other
chapter of history, we must begin by considering what
are the sources from which we gain our information,
and to what degree are they trustworthy. Evidently
the Four Gospels of the New Testament are the chief
source, and questions that bear upon their trustworthi
ness are of supreme importance. But the life of Christ
is of such vital interest to the world that every possible
source of knowledge is eagerly examined to see both
what additional facts it may give us, and in what way it
may confirm or disprove the facts given in the gospels.
We turn first to heathen writers. Jesus lived in a
century when able historians were ready to record any
thing of importance that happened in the realm of the
Csesars. And certainly they could select no subject
more important and more sure to make their writings
immortal than the deeds and words of Him from whose
birth we now date the reigns of the Caesars. If Christ
1

2 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
really lived, and was what the evangelists report, shall
we not find some account of him by Roman historians ?
Two facts make such a supposition improbable.
The first is that very little has come down to us from
those historians who lived in the days of Christ and
wrote the history of their own times. Indeed, with the
exception of the writings of Tacitus and Suetonius,
all Roman history of the first century that can in any
sense be called contemporaneous has disappeared.
And the second fact is that no Roman historian would
think it worth while to write about Jesus of Nazareth.
Though Judea was a province of the Roman Empire,
it was a petty one in a remote corner; and its people
were regarded with contempt or aversion. Their stub
born, rebellious character often brought them to the
attention of the emperor; but that attention was de
voted to the task of holding them in subjection. As for
Jesus, the historian would have smiled at the thought of
devoting even a paragraph to him. His ministry was
very brief; his work was mainly among the common
people — peasants and fishermen; his miracles were
easily confounded with the mass of imposture in which
the age abounded; and above all, the refusal of his
own nation to accept him as its leader, and his igno
minious death, seemed abundant proof that he was be
neath consideration. For a Roman historian of the
first century to record the career of Jesus was as un
likely as it would be for a Russian historian of to-day

HEATHEN AND JEWISH WRITINGS 3
to record the career of some brief leader of a little band
of fanatics in the obscure regions of Daghestan.
The only place, therefore, where we might find a
notice of Jesus in heathen history, is in the pages of
Tacitus or Suetonius; and the only possibility is of
some incidental mention of him. Such mention we
do find. Tacitus, who ranks as one of the greatest of
Roman historians, wrote his annals not long after A. D.
100. In this work (XV, 44), when telling how Nero
was suspected of having set fire to Rome in A. D. 64,
he writes as follows:
"In order to suppress the rumor, Nero falsely ac
cused and punished with the most acute tortures per
sons who, already hated for their shameful deeds, were
commonly called Christians. The founder of that
name, Christus, had been put to death by the procura
tor, Pontius Pilate, in the reign of Tiberius; but the
deadly superstition, though repressed for a time, broke
out again, not only through Judea, where this evil had
its origin, but also through the city [Rome] whither all
things horrible and vile flow from all quarters and are
encouraged. Accordingly, first those were arrested
who confessed; then on their information a great multi
tude were convicted not so much of the crime of incen
diarism as of hatred of the human race."
Suetonius was a contemporary of Tacitus, but an
historian of much less ability. In his lives of the
twelve Caesars (Claud. 25) he says:

4 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
"He [Claudius] expelled from Rome the Jews, be
cause they were constantly raising a tumult at the in
stigation of Chrestus."
The expulsion is the one referred to in Acts 18: 2, and
took place probably about A. D. 50. We know noth
ing more about it. Possibly the Jews quarrelled over
the claims of Christ, and Suetonius — confusing the
strange name Christus with the familiar Greek adjec
tive Chrestos, often used as a proper name— supposed
the person who bore it to have been in Rome when the
quarrel broke out.
One further mention of Christ, though not by an
historian, is worth quoting, Pliny the Younger was
governor of Bithynia, in Asia Minor, about A. D, 112;
and he wrote a letter (Epistles X, 97) to the emperor,
Trajan, telling what he had learned about the Chris
tians in his province, and asking how he should
deal with them. The letter is most valuable as a
picture of Christian life at the beginning of the sec
ond century; but for our present purpose we need
only note that many of the Christians were ready to
undergo torture rather than renounce Christ, and
that those who did renounce him made the following
statement: "They affirmed that the sum of their guilt or error
was to assemble on a fixed day before daybreak, and
sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to
bind themselves with an oath not to enter into any

HEATHEN AND JEWISH WRITINGS 5
wickedness or commit thefts, robberies, or adulteries, or
falsify their work, or repudiate trusts committed to
them: when these things were ended it was their cus
tom to depart, and, on coming together again" (prob
ably in the evening for the love-feast), " to take food,
men and women together, yet innocently."
The statements of these three writers are practically
all that is of value in heathen literature concerning
Christ. They wrote fully three quarters of a century
after his death, but Tacitus and Suetonius doubtless
gained their information from earlier documents.
They state but little, yet that little is enough to give
Jesus a place in secular history. From it alone we
should know that he lived in Judea in the reign of
Tiberius, that he was put to death by Pontius Pilate,
that he founded a sect which continued after his death,
and that his followers in later days worshipped him
as a god, and were willing to endure torture rather than
renounce their faith.
Turning next to possible Jewish sources, we find that
they are few in number. Philo was the ablest Jewish
writer of the first century, and was a contemporary of
Jesus; but he lived in Alexandria, his interests were
philosophical, and there was no special reason why be
should mention Jesus in any of his writings that are
preserved. We are not surprised to find that he is
silent about him; indeed, he probably knew little or
nothing about the Christians.

6 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
Josephus, who was born A. D. 37 or 38, and died
after A. D. 100, is the one Jewish writer who might be
expected to tell about Jesus; for he spent his early
life in Jerusalem, where he must have known the Chris
tians; and his greatest historical work, " Jewish Anti
quities," tells the story of his nation from its beginning
to the outbreak of the rebellion against the Romans, in
A. D. 66, thus including the period when Jesus labored
and died. But we must bear in mind two facts about
Josephus — he wrote after the fall of Jerusalem, when
the feeling of the Jews against the Christians was bitter,
and he wrote to laud his nation to the Romans, who
considered the Christians a despicable and pestilential
sect. There was little likelihood, therefore, that he
would mention Jesus, if he could avoid it, or say any
thing good of him if he did mention him.
In this connection it is instructive to notice what
Josephus has to say about John the Baptist (Ant.
18:5:2): " Herod slew him [John] who was a good man, and
commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to
righteousness toward one another, and piety toward
God, and so to come to baptism, for that the baptism
would be acceptable to him if they made use of it, not
in order to put away some sins, but for the purification
of the body — supposing still that the soul was thor
oughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now,
when others came in crowds about him, for they were

HEATHEN AND JEWISH WRITINGS 7
greatly moved by hearing his words, Herod, who feared
lest the great influence John had over the people might
put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebel
lion — for they seemed to act in all things according to
his advice — thought it beat, by putting him to death, to
prevent any mischief he might cause."
The omission of the fact that John preached the im
mediate coming of the Messiah leaves the excitement
caused by his preaching wholly unexplained. Possibly
Josephus omitted it because any allusion to Messianic
expectations would arouse Roman suspicions; but
more probably he felt that by mentioning it he would
be put in the same dilemma in which the chief priests
were put by Jesus when he questioned them about
John (Matt. 21 : 25).
In Ant. 20 : 9 : 1 Josephus tells how Ananus, the
high-priest, about the year A. D. 62, caused several per
sons to be stoned to death, one of whom was James,
"the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ."
This mention of Jesus and his claims, if genuine (and
the argument to the contrary is not strong), is the more
emphatic because it is purely incidental. Almost in
spite of himself Josephus has brought Jesus into his
narrative. The fullest notice of Jesus is in Ant. 18 : 3 : 3, as
follows: "Now about this time lived Jesus, a wise man, if in
deed one should call him a man; for he was a worker

8 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
of miracles, a teacher of such men as receive the truth
with joy. And he drew to himself many of the Jews,
and also many of the Greeks. This was the Christ.
And when at the instigation of our chief men Pilate
had sentenced him to the cross, those who had loved
him at the first did not fall away. For he appeared
unto them alive again on the third day, as the holy
prophets had declared these and ten thousand other
wonderful things concerning him. And even now the
race of Christians called after him is not extinct."
If this passage were genuine, Josephus would be a
most clear witness to Christ; but unquestionably it is
not genuine — no Jew who rejected Jesus could write
it. It is found in all existing manuscripts, but none of
these are early; and Origen, who died about A. D. 253,
evidently did not have it in his manuscript, for he says
expressly that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was
the Christ. How the passage originated, we can only
surmise. Josephus was a favorite author in Christian
circles in early days as well as later. It is possible
therefore, that when they found in his book no account
of Christ, they inserted this passage to supply the de
ficiency. Or it is possible that Josephus did give some
slurring account of Christ, which Christian copyists
changed, as they certainly would, to a favorable one.
In support of this latter possibility we notice that in the
section immediately following, Josephus tells a story
that has no connection whatever with his narrative.

HEATHEN AND JEWISH WRITINGS 9
unless he had cast a slur on the divine birth of Christ,
and wished to suggest a parallel to it. But whatever
the origin of this famous passage, it is of no value as
contemporaneous Jewish testimony.
One more Jewish work should be examined, and that
is the Talmud. The name means a "teaching" or
" inference," and is the general term for a huge collec
tion of works upon the traditional law, i. e., the law
which was developed by the scribes and handed down
orally, as distinguished from the written law found in
the Old Testament. It consists of two main divisions
— the Mishna, containing these traditional laws, and
the Gemara, containing discussions, interpretations,
illustrations, etc., of the Mishna. It is a vast store
house of all sorts of things, ranging from sayings that
remind us of teachings of Jesus down to those that are
the dreariest of rubbish. Edersheim says: "If we
imagine something combining law reports, a Rabbin
ical Hansard, and notes of a theological debating club,
— all thoroughly Oriental, full of digressions, anec
dotes, quaint sayings, fancies, legends, and too often
of what, from its profanity, superstition, and even ob
scenity could scarcely be quoted — we may form some
general idea of what the Talmud is." ("Life of Jesus,"
1 : 13.) The Talmud is the product of centuries; and
the Mishna probably was not put into writing until
at least the end of the second Christian century, while
the Gemara, of which we have two forms (the Jerusa-

10 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
lem and the Babylon), is two and three centuries
later. In the Talmud are only a few allusions to Christ,
and these exhibit great prejudice and hatred. Accord
ing to them, Jesus was born of adultery, learned magic
in Egypt, led the people into sin, was entrapped by
witnesses, tried, kept for forty days that a witness might
appear in his favor, and then — when none appeared —
was stoned and afterward hanged, and in Gehenna
was plunged in boiling filth. Evidently the Talmud
is worthless as a source for the life of Christ; and its
statements are valuable only as showing the later feel
ing of the Jews toward the founder of the hated Chris
tian sect.

CHAPTER II
CHRISTIAN WRITINGS OTHER THAN GOSPELS
From heathen and Jewish sources, which give us so
little, we turn to the more promising Christian sources.
And before considering the various gospels, we ex
amine other early writings in search of any possible
mention of Jesus. J. New Testament Books
In the New Testament, besides the Four Gospels, we
have twenty-three other books, all of which were writ
ten in the first century or, at the latest, early in the sec
ond century. Whatever they tell us about Jesus is,
therefore, of high value as coming from the age of the
apostles or of men who could personally have known
the apostles.
The first interesting fact about them is that they give
us very little about Jesus in addition to what is in the
Four Gospels. We find one new and beautiful saying
of his, "It is more blessed to give than to receive"
(Acts 20 : 35); and, if the shorter form of Luke's ac
count of the institution of the Lord's Supper be cor
rect, then in I Cor. 11 : 24 we have for the first time
the words, "This do in remembrance of Me." In I
11

12 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
Thess. 4 : 15-17 there seems to be the substance of
some teaching of Jesus about his second coming. In
I Cor. 15 : 5-8 we have a list of his resurrection ap
pearances, more complete than that in the gospels, while
Acts 1 : 1-14 gives the fullest account we have of his
ascension and his instructions preceding it. These
few sayings and facts, all given by Paul or Luke, com
prise practically the only additional information in
the New Testament. It seems strange that there
should be no more. Of course the epistles were writ
ten to readers who already had been instructed in the
facts of the Christian faith (I Cor. 11 : 23, 15 : 3; II
Thess. 2 : 5, et al.). So there was no need of rehears
ing these facts. Moreover, the intense realization of
a present, unseen Christ, and the earnest expectation
of his speedy coming again in the flesh, made all Chris
tians less disposed to dwell upon the historical past.
Yet the epistles are full of allusions to the recorded facts
of Christ's earthly years; and since there must have
been many facts told by the witnesses besides those pre
served in the gospels (c/. John 20 : 30), it is remark
able that such facts are ignored.
The second interesting fact about these New Testa
ment books is that when we bring together their scat
tered allusions to incidents in the life of Christ, we have
a mass of information from which we can frame a fairly
complete outline of that life. And if this is done (see
Gilbert, "Life of Jesus," 402) we find that the outline

CHRISTIAN WRITINGS OTHER THAN GOSPELS 13
agrees perfectly with the history given us in the Four
Gospels. This should be borne in mind when sceptics
try to prove that our gospels are a late invention, full of
legendary matter. Here is another record of the life of
Christ — a "gospel outside the gospels" — which would
still remain, if the Four Gospels were wholly set aside.
It is true that some of these New Testament books
are of disputed date and origin, so that sceptics may
bring the same charge of late invention against them
as against the gospels. But there are four great
epistles — viz., I and II Corinthians, Galatians, and
Romans — which practically all critics agree were writ
ten by Paul and before A. D. 60. Whether Paul ever
met Jesus before the crucifixion is doubtful; but he
was in Jerusalem soon afterward; he became a Chris
tian within a few years; and he had every opportunity
to learn about him. Natural curiosity, the hatred of
a persecutor, the perplexities of an inquirer, the glow
ing love of a convert, and the increasing responsibilities
of a teacher, would make Paul eager to learn all that he
could — the more so because it was his practice, like
that of the other apostles, to begin missionary work
in any new field by telling the story of Jesus, especially
of his crucifixion and resurrection (See I Cor. 15 : 1-9.
Cf. Acts 13 : 16-41).
What, then, can we gather from Paul's four undis
puted letters ? We must not expect too much. They
are written to Christians who already know the story

14 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
of Jesus, having learned it— most of them— from Paul
himself. Whatever he says about that story will be
by way of allusion and not of narration; and silence
on any point will be no proof of ignorance unless there
is imperative need of allusion. In simply this inci
dental way we learn that Paul knows (to give only one
reference for each fact):
The birth of Jesus under the law (Gal. 4 : 4), of
the seed of David after the flesh, but the Son of God
and the Messiah (Rom. 1 : 1-4).
The public ministry, with its limitation to the Jews
(Rom. 15 : 8); its humiliation (II Cor. 8 : 9); its band
of apostles, whom Paul calls by the early name of the
twelve (I Cor. 15 : 5), and the miracles which were
wrought by them (II Cor. 12 : 12).
The teachings of Jesus, which Paul had evidently
taken pains to learn exactly and which he treats as
authoritative (I Cor. 7 : 10), distinguishing carefully
between them and his own opinions (I Cor. 7 : 25).
The character of Jesus, as the ideal of wisdom (I Cor.
1 : 30); truth (Rom. 9:1); self-sacrificing service
(Rom. 15 : 1-3); gentleness and sweet reasonableness
(II Cor. 10 : 1), and love (Gal. 2 : 20).
The details of the Last Supper, which Paul gives
more exactly than the synoptists (I Cor. 11 : 23-25);
the attitude of the rulers (I Cor. 2:8); the betrayal
(I Cor. 11 : 23); the crucifixion (II Cor. 13 : 4); the
burial and resurrection on the third day (I Cor. 15:[4).

CHRISTIAN WRITINGS OTHER THAN GOSPELS 15
The appearances to the disciples after the resurrec
tion, of which there is given a fuller list than by the
evangelists (I Cor. 15 : 5-8).
These references — which might be increased —
show that the earthly life of Jesus was well known by
both Paul and his readers; indeed, such incidental ref
erences are more suggestive than fuller statements
would be, for they presuppose a larger acquaintance
with the facts in order to make them intelligible. And
not only do the facts thus indicated agree perfectly with
the gospel story, but Paul's whole conception of Jesus
harmonizes with that presented by the evangelists.
Keim sums up the matter by saying: "The life of Jesus,
as presented to us by Paul, is indeed rich in material —
a gospel of the first days — and one which, in spite of
its insoluble difficulties, would enable us to dispense
with any further gospel; or rather, one which prom
ises illustration and assistance of every kind to our
gospels." II. The Apostolic Fathers
The term Apostolic Fathers is used to designate the
earliest Christian writers whose works are not in the
New Testament. They all wrote before A. D. 150, and
might be considered in a general way as pupils of the
apostles. "They were good men rather than great
men, and excelled more in zeal and devotion to Christ
than in literary attainments " (Schaff); and while their

16 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
writings were often read in the early church, and some
of them are found in the same manuscripts with the
New Testament books, we feel that it was a sound
instinct which finally set them aside as uninspired. In
deed, one proof of the inspiration of the New Testa
ment is the marked contrast in spiritual elevation,
wisdom, and power, between its books and those of the
Apostolic Fathers. Their writings, of which few have
been preserved, were simple, earnest Christian mes
sages to readers whose faith in Christ was already
established. The only exception is Justin Martyr,
who belongs to this period, but whose able defence of
Christianity entitles him to be ranked more properly as
first of the Apologists who in the next half century
wrote long and powerful replies to heathen assailants
of the faith.
While the Apostolic Fathers, especially Justin Mar
tyr, tell much about the life of Christ, they tell almost
nothing in addition to what is in the gospels. Justin
Martyr says that he was born in a cave, that his work
as a " carpenter" was to make yokes and ploughs, and
that the Jews when mocking him set him on the judg
ment seat and said, " Judge us" — all of which seems
credible. He also says that as Jesus was baptized in
the Jordan, " When he stepped into the water, a fire
was kindled in the Jordan," which adds to the scene
a theophany similar to those described in the Old Tes
tament. There are, also, in the Apostolic Fathers and

CHRISTIAN WRITINGS OTHER THAN GOSPELS 17
still later writers, a few sayings attributed to Jesus
which are not found in the gospels, and which — from
that fact — are often designated as the Agrapha, i. e.,
unwritten. None of them can compare in beauty or
importance with Acts 20 : 35. The following are a
sample: " They who wish to behold me and lay hold on my
kingdom, must receive me by affliction and suffering."
"Be approved money-changers; disapproving some
things, but holding fast to that which is good."
" In whatsoever things I may find you, in these shall
I also judge you."
"Ask for the great things, and the small shall be
added unto you; ask for the heavenly things, and the
earthly shall be added unto you."
"Never rejoice except when ye have looked upon
your brother in love."
" He that wonders shall reign, and he that reigns
shall rest."
It is doubtful whether any of these sayings are genu
ine, though the best of them may contain some reminis
cence of Christ's teaching.
In this connection it is worth while to notice the
newly discovered sayings of Jesus which Grenfell and
Hunt unearthed at the site of Oxyrhynchus, in lower
Egypt, in 1897 and 1903. The first to be discovered
were on a single leaf of papyrus, somewhat broken
and illegible and beginning with the middle of a say-

IS INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
ing continued from a previous leaf. They were as
follows: "... and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out
the mote that is in thy brother's eye."
" Jesus saith, Except ye fast to the world, ye shall in
no wise find the Kingdom of God; and except ye keep
the Sabbath, ye shall not see the Father."
" Jesus saith, I stood in the midst of the world, and
in the flesh was I seen of them; and I found all men
drunken, and none found I athirst among them; and
my soul grieveth over the sons of men because they are
blind in heart. ..."
" Jesus saith, Wherever there are . . . and there is
one . . . alone, I am with him. Raise the stone and
there thou shalt find me; cleave the wood, and there
am I."
" Jesus saith, A prophet is not acceptable in his own
country, neither does a physician work cures upon them
that know him."
" Jesus saith, A city built upon the top of a high hill
and established can neither fall nor be hid."
The later discoveries were on the back of a survey-list
of various pieces of land, and have suffered still greater
mutilation. Grenfell and Hunt give the following trans
lation of them, with their own conjectural restoration
of parts of the missing text indicated by brackets:
"These are the [wonderful] words which Jesus the
living [Lord] spake to . . . and Thomas; and he said

CHRISTIAN WRITINGS OTHER THAN GOSPELS 19
unto [them], Every one that hearkens to these words
shall never taste of death."
" Jesus saith, Let not him who seeks . . . cease un
til he finds, and when he finds he shall be astonished,
and astonished he shall reach the kingdom, and hav
ing reached the kingdom he shall rest."
" Jesus saith [Ye ask ? who are those] that draw us
[to the kingdom, if] the kingdom is in heaven ? . . .
the fowls of the air, and all beasts that are under the
earth or upon the earth, and the fishes of the sea [these
are they which draw] you, and the Kingdom of Heaven
is within you, and whosoever shall know himself shall
find it. [Strive therefore ?] to know yourselves, and ye
shall be aware that ye are the sons of the [almighty?]
[Father,] [and] ye shall know that ye are in [the city
of God ?], and ye are [the city]."
"Jesus saith, A man shall not hesitate ... to ask
. . . concerning his place [in the kingdom. Ye shall
know] that many that are first shall be last, and the
last first and [they shall have eternal life ?]."
" Jesus saith, Everything that is not before thy face,
and that which is hidden from thee, shall be revealed
to thee. For there is nothing hidden which shall not be
made manifest; nor buried which shall not be raised."
" His disciples question him, and say, How shall we
fast and how shall we [pray]? . . . and what [com
mandment] shall we keep . . . Jesus saith . . . dd
not . . . of truth . . . blessed is he . . . "

20 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
These two groups of sayings seem to have belonged
to one original collection, whose date critics put some
where in the first half of the second century. The
source of this collection, and consequently its value,
cannot with the present data be determined. The say
ings may be based upon those in the Four Gospels, in
which case the new material is the product of later
speculation, and is of little value except as revealing
the development of Christian thought in the second
century; or the sayings may present one form in which
the teaching of Jesus was handed down by tradition,
in which case they could be used as a source, though not
a first-class one, for his words. In a minute study of
the problems connected with the origin and character
of the Four Gospels these new sayings may give a little
help; but they are of small importance otherwise, ex
cept as their discovery draws our thought to the treas
ures that may yet be found in that wonderful land of
Egypt, where the things of yesterday seem old and
crumbling, while the things of centuries ago are fresh
and perfectly preserved.

CHAPTER III
THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS
The word apocryphal has had a long and interesting
history through which it has gained several distinct
and widely unlike meanings. Uncanonical is one
meaning; and any gospel that failed to gain a place in
the list (canon) of the New Testament books may for
that reason be called an apocryphal gospel. Spurious
and, therefore, untrustworthy, is another meaning; and
a gospel that is a mere fabrication with no historical
value may for that reason be called an apocryphal gos
pel. This gives rise to confusion and unfair treatment
when apocryphal gospels are discussed. All of them
are uncanonical, but only some of them are worthless;
yet they are spoken of sometimes as if they all were
beneath serious attention, and at other times as if they
all stood on a level with the canonical gospels, and had
been kept out of the New Testament by accident or
prejudice. We may avoid this confusion, and under
stand what basis there is for each of these opinions, by
dividing the apocryphal gospels into two classes, and
considering each separately. 21

22 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
7. The Rejected Gospels
There are certain chapters in the history of Jesus
that are passed over in partial or complete silence by
the New Testament writers, which appeal deeply to
human curiosity. We should like to know more about
Mary and Joseph, and the home in Nazareth, and the
years which Jesus as a boy and man spent there; and
we should like to know something about the mysterious
period between his death and resurrection, when,
though his body was lying in the new sepulchre, his
spirit must have been active somewhere and in some
way. Reverence and a recognition of the hopelessness
of the task keep us from any serious attempt to fill in
these unwritten chapters. But there were early writers
who were not thus restrained; and they set forth in the
form of gospels their ideas as to what these portions of
the life of Jesus must have been. Such gospels are, of
course, apocryphal in the sense of wholly untrust
worthy; and because intelligent readers never took
them seriously, we may call them rejected gospels.
Still, as religious romances — the Ben Hurs of their day
— they had a wide circulation; and ignorant people
undoubtedly gave them more or less credence. A num
ber of them are preserved and will be found in any col
lection of the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers.
A list of them, with a hint of their contents, is as
follows:

THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS 23
The Protevangelium of James — a history of the Vir
gin Mary from the incidents connected with her birth
to Herod's murder of the babes at Bethlehem.
The Gospel of Thomas — incidents in the boyhood of
Jesus in the years from five to twelve.
The Gospel of Nicodemus — in two parts, usually
known as The Acts of Pilate and The Descent into
Hades; the former gives various incidents of the trial,
death, and resurrection of Jesus, and the latter de
scribes the scenes in the world of the dead when he
appeared there after his death.
The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew — a history of Mary
and of Jesus' boyhood.
The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary — practically an
orthodox revision of the first part of Psuedo-Matthew.
The Arabic Gospel of the Infancy — partly a repro
duction of the Protevangelium of James and the Gospel
of Thomas, and partly wild legends resembling the
tales in the Arabian Nights.
The History of Joseph the Carpenter — an account
of his life, and more fully of his death, supposed to be
told by Jesus to his disciples.
The Passing of Mary — an account in several forms
of the death and assumption of Mary.
Of the above works the first two were probably writ
ten between the middle and the end of the second cen
tury; part of the Acts of Pilate may be of as early a
date, though the evidence is weak; the other books are

24 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
a century or two later. They are directly valuable as
the storehouse from which popular thought and pic
torial art drew largely in the Middle Ages, especially
as regards the Virgin Mary. To understand the story
of the Madonna, as portrayed by the great artists, one
must study these gospels. They are indirectly even
more valuable as a proof of the trustworthiness of our
Four Gospels. When it is said that what the New
Testament tells us about Jesus is mainly the invention
of later days, we have only to turn to these rejected gos
pels if we would know what the invention of later days
would produce. Their stories of Jesus' boyhood, for
example, are either silly or monstrous. The Gospel of
Thomas tells how he made pigeons of clay, and by a
miracle caused them to fly; how he overwhelmed his
school teachers with shame by displaying his superior
knowledge; how he was angry with Joseph when he
corrected him; how he cursed his playmates, caus
ing one to become impotent, and another to fall dead,
so that "no one dared to make him angry"; and the
other gospels contain stories equally or even more re
pulsive. If such things are what Christians of the sec
ond century would invent, when they tried their im
agination upon the life of Christ, we may rest assured
that the story told in the Four Gospels is not of their
invention.

THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS 25
II. The Discarded Gospels
The preface to the Gospel of Luke begins with the
statement that "many have taken in hand to draw up a
narrative concerning those matters which have been
fulfilled among us, even as they delivered them unto us
who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and min
isters of the word." As we shall see later on, Luke
probably knew of Mark's gospel and of some writing
by Matthew, but these alone would not be enough to
justify his statement that " many" were writing gospels.
Evidently Luke lived at a time when there was a gen
eral demand for some written account of Christ's
words and deeds, and when authors who could draw
up such an account were busy in doing so. It is worth
while to consider briefly just how such a demand arose.
In the early part of the Apostolic Age there was little
incentive to write a biography of Jesus. He was ex
pected to return very soon; his spiritual presence was
deeply realized; and his brief earthly ministry seemed
only a necessary preliminary of the glorious Kingdom
of God. To dwell upon the Jesus of the past would
be disloyalty to the Jesus of the present, and disbelief
in the Jesus of the glorious future. Nevertheless,
there were many inducements to tell something about
his earthly life. In preaching to the Jews that Jesus
was the Messiah, any events fulfilling prophecy would
be rehearsed; in preaching to the Gentiles that Jesus

26 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
was the Son of God, his miracles and his words of
superhuman authority would be strong arguments;
and in preaching to any class of hearers, the story of
his death and resurrection would be the best means
of winning converts. And in their own daily life the
Christians would be constantly turning back to the
example and teachings of Jesus for guidance and com
fort, or pondering upon his deeper sayings for light
upon the mysteries of the present and the future. So
the story of Jesus, or at least portions of it, would be
in constant circulation from the earliest days.
At the outset the story was, of course, wholly oral.
The presence of eye-witnesses obviated the necessity of
resorting to written documents; and, moreover, the
Jews shared the Oriental feeling, that religious truth
ought to pass from teacher to learner by word of mouth
and not by writing. All the great mass of the Talmud
was for generations handed down orally, and its final
reduction to writing was opposed by many. And the
same preference for oral teaching is expressed by Pa-
pias, a Christian of the second century, when speaking
of learning about Christ's life: "I did not think that
what was to be gotten from the books would profit
me as much as what came from the living and abiding
voice." Such oral accounts of what Jesus said and
did would have a more or less stereotyped form, partly
because any account often repeated grows stereotyped
in form, and still more because the tenacious Oriental

THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS 27
memory reproduces exactly whatever has been deliv
ered to it.
As time went on, and Christianity spread, the need
of written records would be felt, especially by Gentile
converts, who were away from the eye-witnesses, and
did not share the Oriental feeling about books. In
response to it there would be produced, not biogra
phies of Christ, but written copies of these oral group
ings of his teachings on some special subject, or of his
deeds as illustrating or confirming some point of Chris
tian faith. His words would naturally be put in writ
ing first, because it is more important, and also more
difficult to retain them exactly in their original form.
Accordingly, we may suppose that by the middle of the
Apostolic Age there had come into existence in various
places little books of Christ's sayings upon various
topics (e. g., his parables about the kingdom, his
teachings about the second coming, his missionary
instructions, his lessons on the greatness of service),
with or without some brief statement of the circum
stances under which they were spoken, and also little
books telling of certain of his deeds that bore upon
some special matter of interest ( e. g., miracles that
displayed his love or his divinity, acts that showed
his attitude toward the Sabbath, the story of his
passion or of his resurrection), all put together with
no thought of chronology and no aim at a complete
history. The decade A. D. 60-70 wrought a marked change in

28 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
Christian thought. Nero's persecution of the Chris
tians in A. D. 64 was the first great act of hostility on
the part of the Roman government; and while it was
brief and confined to Rome, it must have caused a
shock of horror and a sense of fear in every Christian
circle. And the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70
both made an end of the church which had stood as the
mother of them all, and forced a reconstruction of Mes
sianic ideas and expectations.
It was at this period that the importance of putting in
permanent form some record of Christ's earthly years
seems to have been suddenly and strongly felt. The
expectation of his speedy second coming had grown
less keen, so that men began to arrange for the pro
longed existence of the church before that event. The
sense of his spiritual presence was perhaps less strong,
so that the guidance to be drawn from his earthly
words and deeds assumed new importance. And,
above all, the apostles and eye-witnesses were rapidly
dying off; and unless means were taken to preserve
their story, it might soon be garbled or wholly lost.
So men began to write gospels, impelled to this not
by the historical spirit, but by practical wants, aiming
not at completeness or exact chronology, but at the
preservation of whatever they considered most im
portant and helpful in the life of Christ.
They took the material that lay at hand — the written
records that they possessed and the oral accounts that
were in their memories — and they wove it together as

THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS 29
best they could. And when their work was completed,
they offered it to the Christian circles in which they
lived as their humble contribution toward keeping
alive the memory of what the Lord had said and done
in the precious years of his earthly ministry. There
was no thought that in thus writing down the story of
Jesus they were doing a work more sacred or requiring
more inspiration than the work of their companions,
who simply told orally the same story. And Luke
sets forth very clearly what he considered the essential
qualifications and also the purpose of an evangelist,
when he says, " It seemed good to me, also, having
traced the course of all things accurately from the first,
to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
that thou mightest know the certainty concerning those
things wherein thou wast taught by word of mouth."
How many such gospels were written, both before
and after Luke wrote his, we shall never know. Of
some we have fragments or quotations in early writers;
of some we have only the names; and doubtless there
were still others. There is always the hope that some
where in the sands of Egypt they may be waiting dis
covery; but probably they have served their day and
wholly passed away. For a time they had more or
less circulation — indeed, some of them were popular;
but eventually they were discarded for our canonical
gospels. The reason for this was because either they
contained nothing except what could be found in bet-

30 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
ter and more complete form in the canonical gospels,
or else there had crept into them statements and teach
ings which the good judgment of the orthodox church
could not endorse. When thus discarded, their dis
appearance was natural. Copies would not be mul
tiplied, and those in existence would be worn out or
lost. And in the time of Diocletian, when a special at
tempt was made by Roman persecutors to destroy
the Christian sacred books, these discarded gospels
would be cheerfully surrendered to the inquisitor's
fire, if by so doing the canonical gospels could be
kept back.
The Gospel according to the Hebrews is the most
famous of these discarded gospels. It is quoted by
writers from the end of the second century to the fifth
century; and there is some evidence that it was in ex
istence five centuries later. Possibly we may yet find
a copy of it; but all that we know about it now is from
the quotations and statements in these writers. It
seems to have been a gospel written in Aramaic, and
circulating among the Hebrew Christians. Apparently
there were various forms of it — revisions and additions
from time to time; and it was eventually translated into
Greek. There has been much discussion as to its
origin and value, and it still remains " one of the prob
lems and enigmas of early Christian literature" (Mof-
fatt). Some scholars set it aside as a compilation from
the first three canonical gospels, with worthless addi-

THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS 31
tions and changes; others emphasize it as completely
independent of our gospels and of equal value with
them (e. g., Holtzmann, "Life of Jesus," 51). An early
tradition says that Matthew wrote his gospel in He
brew (probably Aramaic); and an attempt has been
made to prove that the Gospel according to the He
brews was Matthew's Hebrew gospel; but this is now
abandoned. To-day scholars are fairly well agreed
that in its original form this gospel may be as early as
those in the New Testament; and if we had it in this
form, it would be a valuable source for the life of Christ.
But as we only have a couple of dozen quotations, and
no means of telling whether these are from an early or
a late form of the book, the gospel is of little value.
Nevertheless, its fragments are interesting, if only to
show why the church finally refused to accept it as an
authoritative work. Some of them are as follows :
(Before the Baptism.) "Behold the Lord's mother
and brothers said to him, John the Baptist is baptizing
for remission of sins; let us go and be baptized by him.
But he said to them, What sin have I done that I should
go and be baptized by him — unless, perhaps, what I
have now said is ignorance."
(At the Baptism.) " It came to pass when the Lord
had ascended out of the water, the whole fountain of
the Holy Spirit came down and rested upon him, and
said to him, My son, in all the prophets I was looking
for thee, that thou shouldst come, and that I should

32 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
rest in thee. For thou art my rest; thou art my first
born son, who reignest to eternity."
(At the Temptation?) "The Holy Spirit, my
mother, took me just now by one of my hairs, and car
ried me away to the great Mount Tabor."
(The appeal to Jesus by the man with a withered
hand, Mark 3 : 1-6.) "I was a builder, seeking my
living with my hands; I pray thee, Jesus, restore to
me my health, that I may not basely beg my bread."
(After the Resurrection.) "The Lord, after hand
ing over the linen cloth to the servant of the high-priest,
went to James and appeared to him; for James had
sworn he would eat no bread from the hour at which
the Lord had drunk the cup till he should see him rising
again from those who are asleep. . . . Bring, the Lord
says, a table and bread. ... He took bread and
blessed and broke it, and gave it to James the Just, and
said to him, My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of
Man is risen from those who are asleep."
(In the Lord's Prayer.) " Give us to-day bread for
to-morrow." In the parable of the talents the man who had hid
his talent is simply rebuked; and it is another servant,
one who has spent his talents upon harlots and flute-
players, that is cast into the outer darkness.
Eusebius (3 : 29) tells us that the Gospel according
to the Hebrews contained the story of a woman who
was accused of many sins before the Lord. Possibly

THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS 33
this was the story of the woman taken in adultery,
which certainly does not belong in John's Gospel,
where we now have it.
The Gospel according to the Egyptians is first men
tioned about A. D. 200, and is named by only three
writers, though possibly others may have quoted from
it. One theory about the new-found sayings of Jesus
(see p. 17) is that they are extracts from this gospel.
The Gnostics were fond of it; but whether it origi
nated among them, or was adapted by them from an
earlier source, cannot be determined. The few quota
tions we have from it are not worth citing.
The Gospel of Peter is a work about which we knew
but little until a fragment of it was discovered in Upper
Egypt in the tomb of a monk a few years ago. Judg
ing from this fragment, which begins with Pilate's
washing his hands and breaks off with Simon Peter's
going afishing, the book was written in the second cen
tury, using our gospels as its basis, and was intended
to support certain forms of heretical thought which
then flourished. The fragment is too long to quote;
and its numerous variations from the gospel story,
while interesting as a revelation of later thought, are of
no historical value.
There are references in early writings to other gos
pels about which we know little or nothing more than
the names, e. g., Gospel of Andrew, Gospel of Barnabas,
Gospel of Bartholomew, Gospel of theJ&ff^TaPif

34 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
possibly twenty others. Any conjecture concerning
their contents, and any attempt to classify them as re
jected or discarded, would be idle.
This completes our examination of the sources other
than the canonical gospels, and we cannot fail to be
impressed with the meagreness of its results. " It is a
significant fact," says Keim, "that, as far as can be
discovered from these [apocryphal] gospels and from
the untenable notices in the writings of the Fathers, at
the end of a hundred years after Christ, every indepen
dent and really valuable tradition concerning this life,
outside of our gospels, was extinguished; and that
nothing more than a growing mass of fables runs, as a
pretended supplement, by the side of the latter"
(Jesus of Nazara, 1 : 45).

CHAPTER IV
THE CANON OF THE GOSPELS
Our examination of the sources has shown us that
practically all our knowledge of the life of Jesus must
be derived from the New Testament, and also that the
other books of the New Testament simply confirm and
to some extent repeat the story given in the Four Gos
pels. Accordingly our investigation must henceforth
centre upon these gospels; and every problem pre
sented by them becomes most important. Do we have
them in their original form, or — if they have been al
tered — can we recover that original form ? When were
they written and by whom? What were the sources
from which the authors gained their information ? Do
they give us authentic history, or history mixed with
later legends and myths, or almost nothing that is his
torical? How far are they trustworthy? — that is the
supreme question.
It is worth while to notice, however, that the ques
tion whether we shall believe in Christ does not de
pend altogether upon the question whether the gos
pels and the whole New Testament are trustworthy.
Unlike Mohammedanism, Christianity is not a religion
35

36 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
based upon a book. Jesus neither wrote a book nor
commanded his disciples to write one. Christianity
lived and spread for many years without any sacred
writings of its own. It accepted as a precious inheri
tance from the Jews their sacred writings — the Old
Testament — and used them with profit " for teaching,
for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in
righteousness" (II Tim. 3 : 16); but certainly it did
not draw its life and spiritual strength and wisdom
from the Jewish writings. The promise of Christ on
the night before his crucifixion, when he told his little
flock about the future, was not that they should have a
book in which they could read about him, but that he
would send the Comforter to teach them, and that he
himself would be with them and manifest himself
unto them. Relying upon that promise the apostles
went forth to win the world to faith in him. He was
to be proclaimed not by a book but by a church that
was his continued incarnation, and by a sacrament that
showed forth his divine sacrifice. And if the New
Testament never had been written, still the work of
winning men to Christ would have gone steadily on;
and belief in Christ would have survived and spread
through the centuries. For even to-day such belief
rests for its ultimate foundation not upon proofs that
the gospels are trustworthy, but upon the outward
manifestation of his presence and power by faithful fol
lowers whose lives and words are a proclamation of his

THE CANON OF THE GOSPELS 37
gospel, and upon the inward revelation experienced
by a soul that puts its trust in him. If through some
miracle of hostile criticism, the gospels should be en
tirely destroyed, the Christian world would doubtless
cry in sore distress, " They have taken away my Lord " ;
but the cry would be just as ignorant and needless as
when Mary Magdalene first uttered it.
Nevertheless, when we consider what the gospels
have been to the church throughout the centuries,
there seems little danger of overestimating their im
portance. They may not be absolutely indispensable,
but they certainly are most helpful for a knowledge of
what the Christ once was and therefore still is. We
may reverently believe that the impulse which led the
early Christians to record Jesus' words and deeds, was
a divine one; and that the same divine prompting was
the real cause of the setting apart of our Four Gospels
as sacred books. This latter work is the subject of the
present chapter. In treating of the discarded gospels
we briefly pointed out the reasons why they were put
away, and why the Four Gospels of the New Testament
alone were retained. But it is worth while to consider
the process of selection a little more fully, and espe
cially how these Four Gospels, when thus selected,
came to be considered inspired books. The technical
term for this process is the formation of the canon; and
the term itself may require a preliminary paragraph of
explanation.

38 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
The word canon is derived from the Greek word for
a reed, and its original meaning was a measuring stick
— a carpenter's rule. All its later meanings, which are
several, have grown out of this original one, and have
either the active signification of a measure or standard,
or else the passive one of something measured or pre
scribed. A canonical book is so called because it gives
the measure or rule of Christian faith, or more probably
because it has been declared by the church to come up
to the measure or standard of inspiration required of a
sacred book. In other words, a canonical book is a
book that is entitled to a place in the Bible. A list of
such books is called a canon, e. g. the canon of the Old
Testament and the canon of the New Testament.
The formation of the canon of the gospels, therefore,
is the process by which the church came to regard cer
tain lives of Jesus as authoritative and inspired, and
placed them in the list of sacred books that constitute
the New Testament.
The Christian church began, as we have just noticed,
with no sacred books except those of the Old Testa
ment. Indeed, it could have no others because at the
beginning it did not realize that it was anything other
than one part of the Jewish church — namely, the part
that accepted Jesus as the promised Messiah. It ob
served the Jewish Sabbath — Saturday — as a sacred
day, and worshipped in the synagogues, if the Jews
did not object. It also had its own meetings for wor-

THE CANON OF THE GOSPELS 39
ship and Christian instruction; and very early it came
to hold them on Sunday, a day made precious by the
resurrection of Jesus. At these meetings the central
theme, of course, was the oee which could not be dwelt
upon in the synagogue. The Old Testament was here
studied for the light it threw upon Christ's mission ; and
the recollections of those who had known Jesus per
sonally, or had gathered from others some precious
knowledge of his life, were rehearsed for the cheer and
instruction of all present. Later on, when there were
books or booklets containing the words or deeds of
Jesus, these would be read aloud for the same purpose.
The individual church or some wealthy member of it
would count such books a choice possession, and when
a new one was heard of that was fuller or better would
be desirous to obtain a copy of it.
Still these written accounts of Christ were thought
to be in no way different, except in form, from the oral
accounts; and the preference was rather for the oral.
Papias, who was born about A. D. 70, doubtless ex
presses the feeling and practice of the majority of the
Christians of his time, when he says, in a passage from
which we have already quoted:
"If any one came who had been a follower of the
elders" (i. e., of the apostles and their immediate dis
ciples) " I questioned him in regard to the words of the
elders — what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was
said by Philip or by Thomas or by James or by John

40 INTRODUCTION TO THE LD7E OF CHRIST
or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the
Lord; and what things Aristion and the presbyter
John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not
think that what was to be gotten from the books would
profit me as much as what came from the living and
abiding voice" (Eusebius 3 : 39).
Unless we suppose that these oral accounts were
deemed inspired and sacred, which is evidently absurd,
the books which were acceptable simply as a substitute
for them, could not have been esteemed more highly.
The teachings of Jesus were regarded as divine and,
therefore, at least as authoritative as anything in the
Old Testament; but there was no thought that a book
in which they were recorded became from that fact a
divine book. If a Christian of the time of Papias or
even later had been asked, What is your canon of the
Sacred Scriptures ? he would have answered by giving
the list of those books alone that make up the Old Test
ament. Meanwhile a process of selection was going on.
When a church, whose gospel contained only the say
ings of Jesus, obtained another that contained the
deeds as well as the words, it would discard the former
for the latter. So, likewise, it would prefer a gospel
that was supposed to tell the story as gathered directly
from the lips of an apostle, to one of more doubtful
authority. And if, perchance, the gospel it was read
ing contained certain statements that its spiritual sense

THE CANON OF THE GOSPELS 41
declared not consistent with the Christ it knew by
personal experience, such a gospel would be set aside
when a better one came to hand. In this way the
promise of Jesus concerning the Comforter's mission
as teacher (John 14 : 26) was being fulfilled. By the
middle of the second century or a little later, practi
cally all Christians in orthodox circles were accepting
the Four Gospels now in the New Testament as the
only authoritative ones. The others were either
quietly discarded, or else were cherished by those only
who held views that the church pronounced heretical.
As a matter of fact the church now had a canon of the
gospels, though it did not yet realize this because it
had not begun to call these books sacred writings.
In the last quarter of the second century a great
change came over the church. Circumstances forced
the rapid development of creed and church govern
ment and the idea of Christian Scriptures. Enemies
appeared in the bosom of the church itself, and their
heretical teachings had to be combated. On the one
hand were teachers who broke with the past entirely,
and claimed that they themselves were the recipients of
new and wonderful revelations: these were the Montan-
ists. On the other hand were sects who professed to
have esoteric knowledge and mysterious books, handed
down from the first century, in which new meanings
were given to the teachings of Christ: these were the
Gnostics;

42 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
The church thus confronted and put on its defence,
seems to have felt that its present inspiration was not
enough. These enemies also claimed to be inspired,
and must be met by something stronger than mere
counterclaims; so the church emphasized the inspira
tion that was in the apostles. And because the heretics
had their own sacred books, or claimed the right to re
ject any Christian books that did not agree with their
own teachings, the church was compelled to emphasize
the sacredness and consequent authority of the writ
ings it had accepted. Almost unconsciously and be
fore they were aware of it, these Christians of A. D.
180-200 had put their treasured volumes on the same
level with the Old Testament, and were quoting from
them as inspired and authoritative. The canon of
the New Testament, which includes the canon of the
gospels, was set forth. It is a remarkable change; and
yet it came about very simply and naturally. The
books were there, and the church was constantly using
them; the hour had come when their divine authority
needed to be clearly proclaimed, and the church pro
claimed it. The sword of the spirit had been fash
ioned long before; but it was not recognized to be a
weapon until this time of danger when the church
seized it and used it for battle.
We call the writers of this period the Apologists,
because their chief labor was the defense of the faith
against its enemies. They were able men, and many

THE CANON OF THE GOSPELS 43
of them had been heathen scholars and philosophers
before they were converted to the Christian faith. We
have much of their writings still preserved, and can tell
just what books they thought should have a place in
the canon of the New Testament. And while there
was not full agreement as to certain books, of which
some later on were placed in the New Testament and
others were not, there was full agreement as to the gos
pels. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were the lives
of Christ, and the only lives of Christ, that the Apolo
gists, speaking for the church of their day, proclaimed
sacred. And the church at no later period of its his
tory has ever shown a disposition to question that de
cision, or a desire to change it. Of course, there are,
as there have always been, individual scholars who
assail the inspiration and authority of some one gos
pel or of all four; but such assaults produce little im
pression. The church patiently meets the objections
urged, though none of them are new, and sets itself to
the task of answering them; but it is never seriously
disturbed; for its faith in the sacred authority of the
Four Gospels rests on a deeper foundation than any
that these critics can undermine, namely, on the wit
ness of the Spirit of Christ, testifying to the things con
cerning himself.
By whom, then, was the canon formed ? A popular
opinion is that certain great councils of the church,
especially those at Hippo, in A. D. 393, and at Carthage,

44 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
in A. D. 397 and A. D. 419, definitely determined the
New Testament canon. But really all that these coun
cils did (as also the one at Laodicea, in A. D. 363, if it
took any action) was to publish in an authoritative
manner the list of the twenty-seven books which the
church, independent of the council, was using and
deeming sacred. The canon was already made, and
it was not made by any council or any one leader: the
whole body of Christians had a voice in the matter.
And we may push our conclusion one step further.
Deissmann, speaking of the New Testament as litera
ture, says, " The fact that scarcely any but popular and
primitive Christian writings found their way into the
nascent New Testament, is a brilliant proof of the un
erring tact of the church that formed the canon." Is
this not equivalent to saying — whether Deissmann
would admit it or not — that the Spirit of God working
in the church, guiding the selection of its sacred books,
and endorsing their spiritual power and authority,
was the real agent in the formation of the canon ?

CHAPTER V
THE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS
In a critical study of the Four Gospels, the first ques
tion properly is, Have these books come down to us
without alteration so that we possess the text in its orig
inal form? And that the answer must be no, is evi
dent from the fact that among all the existing manu
scripts no two exactly agree. Such a lack of agreement
is not surprising, because the very earliest of these
manuscripts was written long after the Apostolic Age,
and is the result of copying the original we know not
how many times. Until after the middle of the second
century, as we have seen, no special sacredness was
attached to the books, such as would lead a copyist to
take unusual pains with his work; and the men who
did the copying were often without special training.
A humble Christian who felt that he would like to pos
sess a gospel would set himself in his spare hours to
making a copy of the one his church or some friend
owned, or would hire an acquaintance more skilful with
the pen to copy it for him; and later on this copy might
serve as the original for another copy made with similar
freedom. How great, then, the possibility that in the
45

46 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
course of time all sorts of errors — omissions, altera
tions, insertions, transpositions — might creep into the
text I Even in later centuries, when a recognition of
the sacredness of the books caused more care in secur
ing correct copies, errors would not be wholly avoided,
for copying is a process always liable to errors.
Now, can we by any means correct these errors,
and thus secure a text which reproduces the original
words of the evangelists ? This is a far more difficult
question to answer, yet the answer may confidently be
yes. The work of securing a correct text belongs to
that department of Biblical study known as textual
criticism or (because it furnishes the foundation for
all further critical work) the lower criticism. The
material at hand for this work is three-fold; first, ex
isting early copies of the gospel in Greek, which was
probably their original language; second, existing
early copies in other languages into which the gospels
were soon translated; and third, any early Christian
writings containing quotations from the gospels. All
three, of course, are in manuscript form; but we usu
ally call only the first the manuscripts, and the other
two the versions and the fathers.
I. The Manuscripts
In the early Christian centuries the cheapest, hand
iest material for writing, was bits of broken pottery —
potsherds. Ostraca is the Greek name for them — fa-

THE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS 47
miliar to us through the word ostracize. They would
be used only by the poorest people, and would seldom
be large enough to contain more than brief documents
— a receipt, a memorandum, a short letter, a quotation
and the like. Since the Christians largely belonged
to the poorest classes, they were accustomed to use
ostraca; and if they wished to preserve for their own
use or send to another a little story about Jesus or a
saying of his, they would write it down upon a pot
sherd. Once written upon this material the document
was almost imperishable; and when it presently found
the way to a city rubbish heap, it would wait through
the centuries for the spade of the explorer. Unfortu
nately the explorer has, until recently, scorned such
humble documents, and thrown them away without
examination. Now he has grown more appreciative,
and large collections of ostraca are being made. Some
of these (see Deissmann, "Light from the Ancient
East," 41/.) contain verses from the gospels; and
though nothing of great value has yet been found,
there is the possibility that at any time we may run
across ostraca most precious because giving gospel
passages in the form in which they circulated freely in
the earliest days.
The ordinary material for books and letters in the
first three Christian centuries was papyrus — from
which name is derived our word paper. It was made
by cutting the pith of the papyrus reed into thin slices

48 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
of any desired length, and placing upon one layer of
these slices another layer at right angles to the first,
with glue or paste between the two to hold them to
gether, and then pressing them and smoothing them.
This formed a page; and if the document was to be a
long one, the right-hand side of one page was glued to
the left-hand side of another, until a long strip was
formed; and the whole was rolled around a stick, to
which the last page was fastened. The writing on a
single leaf might be on both sides; but on a roll or
volume it was only on the inner side (which would be
the one where the fibres ran horizontally), and was
arranged in columns a few inches in breadth so that
they could be conveniently read as the manuscript
was unrolled with the right hand and rolled up with
the left. Papyrus was fragile — especially as it grew
dry from age — and, unless carefully handled, would
crack and crumble. A roll would not endure many
years of use: so we need not be surprised that, with the
exception of a few fragments found in Egypt, no papy
rus manuscripts of the New Testament are known to
exist. The loss of the original ending of Mark — about
which we will speak later — may have been caused by
some accident to the last page of the roll on which the
gospel was written; or that page, which was next the
stick, may have become hopelessly worn and broken
before any one roused to the necessity of making a
new copy.

THE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS 49
The other material for books was parchment, the
finer forms of which are called vellum. It was made
from the skin of sheep, goats, calves, and other animals,
by removing the hair, and stretching, scraping, and
rubbing with chalk the skin until it became thin, flexi
ble, and suited for receiving ink. Parchment was
vastly superior to papyrus in durability, but it was
too expensive for ordinary use by poor people. Paul
owned some parchments which he valued highly (II
Tim. 4 : 13); probably they were books of the Old
Testament. And when Christian churches began to
recognize that the books of the New Testament were
their most precious treasure, they would seek to have
copies on parchment, if they could afford it. By the
third or fourth century, the use of parchment had
generally supplanted that of papyrus.
A manuscript with leaves like a modern book is more
convenient than a roll, especially if the reader wishes
to compare different portions of his text, as he often
does when reading the New Testament. A manu
script in this book form is called a codex, because its
shape is like that of the wooden tablet smeared with
wax, which was used for writing (Luke 1 :63), and
bore this name. Some papyrus manuscripts were cod
ices, though the leaves were too brittle for frequent
turning; but when parchment came into use the codex
form became universal. In a codex both sides of the
page were used; but the influence of the roll form is

50 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
shown in the fact that the writing is still arranged in
columns — usually two on a page, though sometimes
one or three or four.
Manuscripts were very rarely dated; so their age
has to be determined in various ways. The material
on which they are written is one aid; for papyrus, as
we have noted, went out of use early, while paper made
of cotton and later of linen rags, did not come into use
until about the 14th century. A greater aid is the style
of writing; for fashions in penmanship flourished and
passed away then as they do now; and an expert can
determine pretty closely the time when a manuscript
was written from the style of its writing.
A broad division of manuscripts according to style
of writing is into uncials or majuscules and cursives
or minuscules. Uncials have the letters unconnected
and of the same size, usually rather large, with no
divisions between the words, and very little punctua
tion. They remind one of the epistle a small boy
prints in capitals, beginning MYDEARFATHER.
Their failure to punctuate and to separate the words
may sometimes make the sense doubtful; even as the
English sentence, GODISNO WHERE, may be most
devout or atheistic. The cursives, as the name would
imply, are written in a running hand, i. e., with the let
ters connected; and they have the words separated.
In the early centuries the cursive writing was used for
business and incidental purposes, and was not con-

THE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS 51
sidered fine enough for books; but in the ninth century
a beautiful cursive hand was invented, and thenceforth
it was used for all manuscripts. The earliest copies of
the epistles and possibly of the other New Testament
books were probably written in the cursive hand, as
being only incidental writings and for circulation
among poor people; but when they rose to the dignity
and value of sacred books they were copied in uncials;
and these are our earliest extant manuscripts.
The gradual development of a system of punctuation
furnishes another means of determining the age of
a manuscript; and the arrangement of the lines, the
division into chapters (though not our present one),
and the notations upon the margin of the page, are still
other means which we need not describe in detail.
Enough to say that, in spite of the absence of dates,
a trained scholar can in most cases tell within less than
a century the exact age of any manuscript.
At first, of course, each book of the New Testament
circulated as a separate manuscript; and even when
they were brought together, they were rarely all put
into one manuscript, since with papyrus this would be
impossible, and with parchment the book would be
too bulky for convenient use except as a church Bible.
Usually they were put into four groups, each forming
a separate manuscript, viz. the Gospels, Acts and the
Catholic Epistles, the Pauline Epistles including He
brews, and the Apocalypse. In addition to these there

52 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
were, as early as the fourth century, though most of
the extant manuscripts are much later, lectionaries,
i. e., books of Scripture lessons arranged for reading
in church services — the extracts being at first from the
gospels, and later on also from Acts and the Epistles.
In reckoning the number of existing manuscripts we
count each separate one, whether it contains the whole
New Testament, or one group, or a single book, or
merely a fragment. Thus reckoning we have, besides
the lectionaries, over one hundred and sixty uncials,
and fully three thousand cursives. Of course, the
number of manuscripts containing the gospels, either
alone or with the other portions of the New Testament,
is much less; nevertheless, the gospels were the most
often copied, and constitute a majority of existing
manuscripts. In order to distinguish these manu
scripts for enumeration and discussion the cursives are
designated by Arabic numerals, and the uncials by let
ters of the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew alphabets. And
as each of the four groups is treated separately, the
same manuscript, if it contains more than one group,
may be designated by different numerals. Recent
scholars are seeking a new system of enumeration that
shall avoid the use of so many alphabets for the un
cials, and shall give the same designation always to a
particular manuscript.
No scholar professes to have a knowledge of all this
great number- 6f manVseripts--nj fact, toWy* of Ihfe

THE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS 53
cursives have never been carefully examined. But
even a tyro in Biblical criticism ought to know some
thing about the most famous of the uncials. They are
the following:
Codex Alexandrinus (designated by A), so-called
because it once belonged to the patriarch of Alexandria,
is in the British Museum. Its date is in the fifth cen
tury. It has two columns to the page; and while it
contains most of the Old Testament, it lacks in the
New Testament all of Matthew to 25 : 6; and John
6 : 50-8 : 52, and II Cor. 4 : 13-12 : 7. As its des
ignating letter would indicate, it was the first of the
great manuscripts to become accessible to scholars.
Codex Vaticanus (5) is at Rome in the library of
the Vatican. Its date is in the fourth century. It has
three columns to the page; and it lacks some portions
of the Old Testament, and Hebrews after 9 : 14, the
Pastoral Epistles, Philemon, and the Apocalypse.
The Vatican has counted this manuscript among its
treasures for more than four hundred years; it was
carried off to Paris by Napoleon, and afterward re
turned; but only very recently has it been made acces
sible to scholars.
Codex Ephraemi (C), now in the National Library
at Paris, is of the fifth century. It is a palimpsest, i. e.,
a parchment upon which the original writing has be
come very dim by fading or by deliberate erasion, and
a second writing has been placed over the first. The

54 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
second writing in this case is the works of Ephraem
the Syrian — hence the name of the manuscript. It
has but one column on a page, and is badly stained by
the use of chemicals to brighten the under writing.
Originally it contained the whole Bible; but it has been
pulled to pieces; and the monk who wrote on it the
works of Ephraem took only disconnected leaves; so
most of the Old Testament and about one third of the
New Testament are missing. Portions remain of every
book in the New Testament except II Thess. and II
John. Codex Bezae (D) was given by Beza, A. D. 1581, to
the University of Cambridge, England, in whose library
it still remains. Its date is early in the sixth century.
It has one column to the page, and contains only the
gospels and Acts, with some leaves missing. Oppo
site each page of the Greek is a Latin translation; and
both present certain peculiarities of text which must be
considered later on.
Codex Sinaiticus (S) was discovered by Tischendorf
about fifty years ago in a monastery on Mt. Sinai, and
is now in the Imperial Library at St. Petersburg. The
story of its discovery is most interesting, but too long to
be rehearsed here. It has four columns to a page, and
contains much of the Old Testament and all of the
New Testament, as well as some other early Christian
writings. Its date is in the fourth century — about the
same as that of the Codex Vaticanus. Gregory thinks

THE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS 55
that both of these codices may have been among the
fifty fine copies of the Bible which the Emperor Con-
stantine in A. D. 331 asked Eusebius to prepare for
him that he might give them to the churches.
Possessing this multitude of manuscripts, no two of
which exactly agree, how shall the scholar use them to
secure the correct text? At first thought it might
seem that the best way would be to decide which manu
script is the earliest, and to adopt the text it gives.
But that will not do because the earliest manuscript
we possess is comparatively late, and may be the last of
a series of copies in which, by carelessness or by deliber
ate choice, numerous changes have been made in the
text. A much later manuscript, if it was copied care
fully from a very early one, will really be nearer the
original. Nor will it do simply to count manuscripts
and follow the majority, accepting a certain reading,
if, for example, out of forty manuscripts thirty support
it and ten are against it. There may be reasons why
an erroneous reading is a popular one, or why a poor
text has been copied more times than a good one.
Neither age nor numbers can be taken as the guide
to the correct text.
Errors in manuscripts are due to one of two causes,
— either to carelessness in copying, or to deliberate
changes made by the copyist. These two classes of
errors must be treated separately in any discussion
of how to discover and correct them. And while our

56 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
subject is simply the gospels, whatever is said concern
ing them applies equally to the other books of the New
Testament. No manuscript is wholly free from mistakes made
by the carelessness of the writer. In fact, if we had
the original autograph of one of the gospels, we might
find in it some error caused, as we say, by a slip of the
pen. The statement in Matt. 23 : 35 that Zachariah
was the son of Barachiah, instead of the son of Jehoiada,
may possibly have been such a slip. Copyists in old
times made exactly the same blunders that copyists in
the present day make — omitting, transposing, or re
peating words, changing spelling, confounding one
word with another and the like. In the case of the
gospels two other possible causes of error in copying
existed. When the owner of a manuscript wished to
preserve some item of interest, such as an additional
fact or an interpretation, he would make a note of it
next to the text on the margin; and a copyist might
suppose it was something accidentally omitted, and so
insert it in the text. Again, if the copyist was more
familiar with one of the other gospels, he might un
consciously put down a passage, especially some say
ing of Jesus, in the form he already knew rather than
in the form given in the manuscript before him.
Errors arising from carelessness are usually not dif
ficult to correct, because they are evident. Inspection
soon reveals whether a manuscript has been made by

THE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS 57
a blundering copyist; and if it has, its value is cor
respondingly diminished. As a matter of fact, the
mere process of copying has not increased errors in
the text to the extent that might be expected. If it had,
the manuscripts of the fourteenth century would be
widely different from those of the fourth, and indeed
from one another; whereas the reverse is the case.
Even a student who knows no Greek can perceive this
when he takes the King James version, which was
based on a text made by Erasmus from a few late man
uscripts, and compares it with the revised version,
whose Greek text was constructed mainly from that of
the great uncials. The difference between the two is
not so very much, and is due far more to other causes
— which we shall next consider — than to copyists'
blunders. The other class of errors arises from changes in the
text made deliberately, and is a far more serious mat
ter, which must be considered at some length.
In the first century doubtless many copies of the
gospels were made. And, as we have noted when dis
cussing the formation of the canon, there was no
thought that the books were sacred, or that they were
vitally necessary for the church : there was simply the
recognition that they were helpful in a Christian life as
supplying the place of the oral story originally told
by eye-witnesses. Accordingly the single aim of a
copyist was to reproduce the original manuscript; the

58 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
only changes he might make would be unintentional
ones; and, barring mistakes and omissions, these
copies would give the original text. If we can dis
cover any of them, or any exact reproduction of them
in later centuries, we may feel that we are in possession
of substantially the identical words of the evangelists.
The second century brought a change. The eye
witnesses were gone; and the gospels, though not yet
deemed sacred writings, were recognized as of greater
importance. There was a natural wish to make them
as full and accurate as possible. The oral tradition
had not yet wholly disappeared, for men were still
living who at first-hand or second-hand had received
it from the apostles; and while that tradition was prac
tically the same as the written story, there were dif
ferences of various sorts. A Christian making a copy
of a gospel would incorporate in its text such changes
or additions drawn from the oral tradition as seemed
to him worth preserving. Thus it came about that the
text of this period lacked uniformity. It was treated
with a freedom such as neither the earlier nor any later
period encouraged. The differences between different
manuscripts were not great or important, but they were
numerous. Additions or omissions, explanatory
clauses, interpretations, and the like were considered
justifiable. Toward the end of the second century, as we have
seen, the church awakened to the fact that the gospels

THE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS 59
and other New Testament writings were as sacred as
the Old Testament. This put an end to the free man
ner of copying them, but gave rise to another kind of
deliberate alteration. The evangelists were men of
limited education, and their writings bore traces of this
fact. So long as the readers also were without special
literary training, this made no difference. But now
Christianity claimed many scholars, and was assailed
by others. If the gospels were to be set forth as
sacred books, it was important that literary blemishes
be removed from them. Reverence might check any
change in their contents, but it did not go so far as to
forbid improvements in style and diction. To sub
stitute a classical word for a colloquial one, to mend
faults in grammar, to smooth away the roughnesses
that offended educated readers, seemed no more a
tampering with the sacred text than to translate it from
Greek into Latin or Syriac. Indeed, what was such
improvement but a translation from the language of
the ignorant into the language of scholars? Only a
scholar, however, would feel the need of such a revision,
or venture to undertake it. And there is no indication
that it was ever done extensively.
A much more general need was created by the fact
that manuscripts differed from one another. Before
the gospels were canonized, this was felt to be no ob
jection, — perhaps, indeed, an advantage; but now that
their words were used as final authority, it was impor-

60 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
tant to have one definite accepted form of those words.
For example, in John 7 : 8 the words of Jesus prob
ably were "I go not up unto this feast"; nevertheless,
the account shows that he did go up later on. Some
copyist, noting this inconsistency, removed it, and gave
what he thought was Jesus' real meaning, by transform
ing " not" into " not yet" through a simple change in a
single Greek word. As a result there now were some
manuscripts reading " I go not up," and others, " I go
not up yet." Which of the two readings was correct ?
There was need of an authoritative text. Such need
would be felt in the third century, and apparently at
tempts were made to supply it; but not until the fourth
century, when Christianity had become the state re
ligion, was the church in a condition to adopt and em
phasize such a text.
If we were constructing a final, authoritative text
to-day, our one aim would be to reproduce the exact
words of the evangelists. But this did not seem so im
portant to the men of that age. What they wanted was
a text containing all the matter found in the various
manuscripts, and avoiding any perplexing disagree
ments and difficulties, and suited in style and diction
to attract readers. To frame such a text was not the
work of one man or of one generation; but by the mid
dle of the fourth century it was framed and came to be
generally adopted. This was the last stage in the his
tory of text development. Thenceforth the work of

THE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS 61
copyists was simply to reproduce the manuscript that
lay before them. And manuscripts down to the age
of printing are fairly faithful copies — usually of the
text last described.
In the preceding sketch of the history of the text
so much has been said about deliberate changes that a
word of reassurance may be profitable. In whatever
way copyists altered the text, there is little indication
that they did it in order to establish new doctrines or to
give a different picture of Christ. Such a change as
that in John 7: 8 might be ascribed to a desire to de
fend the truthfulness of Jesus; and there are a few
similar ones; but the ablest critics agree that they can
find " no signs of deliberate falsification of the text for
dogmatic purposes " (Westcott and Hort, N. T. in
Greek, 2 : 282). We can see this for ourselves by
comparing the Authorized Version with the Revised
Version, which is a translation of an earlier and better
text. We discover little changes in every chapter and
almost every verse; but the picture of Christ and the
teachings he gave are the same in both. The early
church may have foolishly thought it could improve
the form of the gospels; but it recognized the truth
of their message too plainly to attempt any change or
improvement in that.
Having thus seen how the changes in the manuscripts
originated, we are prepared to understand how critics
go at the task of working back through the multitude

62 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
of manuscripts to the original text. The first step is
to divide the manuscripts into groups according to
their origin and character as described above. West
cott and Hort were two English scholars who led the
way in this. One group is made up of manuscripts
reproducing the text adopted finally in the fourth cen
tury. This is called the Syrian group because its text
seems to have originated in Syria, or the Antiochian
group because Antioch was, perhaps, the special Syrian
city where it originated. The Codex Alexandrinus
would, so far as the gospels are concerned, be put
mainly in this group, and so — to a less degree — would
the Codex Ephraemi.
Of the writers who prepared this Syrian or Anti
ochian text, Westcott and Hort say (id., 134): "They
were evidently anxious to remove all stumbling blocks
out of the way of the ordinary reader, so far as this
could be done without recourse to violent measures.
They were apparently equally desirous that he should
have the benefit of instructive matter contained in all
existing texts, provided it did not confuse the context or
introduce seeming contradictions." They so wrought
at the text that "it presents the New Testament in a
form smooth and attractive, but appreciably impover
ished in sense and force, more fitted for cursory peru
sal or recitation than for repeated and diligent study."
Gregory (Canon and Text of the New Testament, 501)
bluntly says of it: "This text is the worst text in exist-

THE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS 63
ence." Our own interest in it is great, since the King
James Version reproduces it. It was the general char
acter of the text, rather than any special faults of the few
and late manuscripts used by Erasmus, who prepared
the printed Greek text which the King James transla
tors followed, that made a Revised Version necessary.
The second group is called the Alexandrian because
its text possibly originated in Alexandria where at
the beginning of the third century the finest Christian
scholarship was to be found. This presents the purely
literary revisions of the manuscripts. In this text " the
changes made have usually more to do with language
than with matter, and are marked by an effort after
correctness of phrase. They are evidently the work
of careful and leisurely hands, and not'seldom display
a delicate philological tact which unavoidably lends
them at first a deceptive appearance of originality"
(Westcott and Hort, id., 131). The group is small and
of minor importance; in fact, some scholars would not
recognize it as a separate group.
The third group is called the Western, though the
name is somewhat misleading, since its origin was no
more in the West than in the East. Its text is that
free rendering of the gospels which seems to have been
usual everywhere in the second century. The most
famous manuscript of this group is the Codex Bezae,
which illustrates the characteristics of the group.
When Beza presented it to the University of Cam-

64 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
bridge, he asked that it be preserved but not published,
because it contained many variations from the text
then accepted as accurate, which was the Syrian one.
Most of these variations are unimportant, but some are
very interesting. After Luke 6 : 4 there is the follow
ing incident concerning Jesus: "On the same day he
saw a certain man working on the Sabbath; and he
said to him, Man, if indeed thou knowest what thou
doest, thou art blessed; but if thou knowest not, thou
art accursed and a transgressor of the Law." There
is little reason to question the genuineness of this say
ing of Jesus; in a striking way it expresses his attitude
toward the Sabbath, which was also the attitude of
St. Paul (Rom. 14 : 5/). In Luke 23 : 53 it adds
to the account of how Joseph laid the body of Jesus in
the tomb: "And when he was laid there he put against
the tomb a stone which twenty men could scarcely
roll." Matthew says the stone was great; but this
description of it has a true Homeric flavor. To Jesus'
words about the greatness of service we have this ad
dition in Matt. 20 : 28. " But seek ye to increase from
little, and from greater to be less," which seems a genu
ine saying (c/. James 1:9). Besides these and other
additions there are also omissions. Examples of them
can be seen by taking the Revised Version, and noting its
marginal statement, " Some ancient authorities omit,"
concerning Luke 22 : 19-20, and various passages in
Luke 24. All these are omitted in the Codex Bezse.

THE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS 65
If the Codex Bezas stood alone, it could be disre
garded — as Beza thought it should be; but though
there are few existing manuscripts resembling it,1
there is abundant proof that it represents a form of
text widely prevalent in the second century — a form
characterized by additions and paraphrases in which
no two manuscripts exactly agree. How valuable is
this text? That is a question which critics to-day are
busily discussing. It cannot yet be answered; but the
general tendency is to attach much more importance
to the Western text than formerly. For the life of
Christ it does not seem — at least, so far as we now
have it — to furnish special aid; but when we study
the Book of Acts it is — as Ramsay shows in his Life
of Paul — full of suggestive hints.
One more group of manuscripts remains, and is most
important of all. Westcott and Hort call it the Neu
tral Group because in it we seem to have a text more
free from deliberate changes than in the rest; in other
words, its manuscripts seem to have been copied
directly or in direct descent from the faithful manu
scripts of the first century. The great representatives
of this group are the two fine uncials, B and S. These
two uncials, especially B, were used by Westcott and
1 A fine uncial manuscript of the Four Gospels, recently dis
covered and now owned by Mr. Freer of Detroit, promises to be
an important addition to the Western group. Scholars who have
examined it declare that in age and value it is the equal of Co
dex Bezae. Its text will soon be published.

66 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
Hort as chief authorities when preparing their edition
of the Greek New Testament; and much importance
was attached to them by the scholars who gave us the
Revised Version.
These, then, are the four groups. Their character
istics are briefly indicated by the names Gregory has
suggested for them, viz., the Official Text, the Polished
Text, the Rewrought Text, and the Original Text.
The task of determining in which group a particular
manuscript should be placed is not always an easy one,
for no manuscript has a text belonging altogether to one
group. A manuscript is like a man whose blood may
be comparatively pure, or may be mingled with that of
one or more alien races up to a point where his nation
ality is not readily discerned. When, however, a manu
script has been assigned to its proper group, we have
thereby gained a most valuable aid in determining its
general worth and the importance of its special varia
tions. Its text will display the characteristics of the
group, and must be valued accordingly. For exam
ple, a characteristic of the Western group is additions:
if, therefore, we find in Western manuscripts an addi
tion found nowhere else, we set this down as probably
not belonging to the original text of the evangelists.
The work of the textual critic is by no means finished
when he has classified and valued his manuscripts, and
has done his best to correct errors evidently caused by

THE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS 67
careless copying or deliberate change. There still re
main passages in which manuscripts of equally good
authority do not agree; and he must decide what read
ing to accept. In doing this the rule he follows is one
adopted by all textual critics, no matter in what field
of literature they work, viz., "That reading is prob
ably genuine from which the origin and diffusion of the
others may be most readily explained." In accord
ance with this rule a difficult reading is usually pre
ferred to an easy one, since a copyist would be more
likely to simplify an obscure passage than to do the
reverse. For example, in Matt. 6 : 1, "righteousness"
is probably the correct reading, though "alms" is sim
pler. Also a shorter reading is preferred to a longer
one, since the tendency is to enlarge rather than to con
dense. For this reason, in Matt. 6 : 4, 6, 18, the word
"openly" is to be omitted: we can understand why
it should be added but not why it should be omitted
by a copyist. A second rule is : " The text should never
be constructed by pure conjecture; some respectable
manuscript must contain the reading that is to be
adopted." This rule is peculiar to New Testament
criticism, and arises from the fact that the New Testa
ment differs from all other ancient books in the vast
number of its manuscripts still extant. Of most Greek
and Latin classics there are only a few manuscripts,
sometimes only one. Of the Old Testament there are
many Hebrew manuscripts, but none of them is early,

68 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
and they all reproduce but one form of the text — a
form fixed by the rabbis after the destruction of Jeru
salem. In both cases, therefore, the critic is obliged
to depend largely upon conjecture, if he would push
back from the text before him to the original. Though
this makes his task more simple, the results are not
satisfactory: concerning many passages he has to con
fess that the text is undoubtedly wrong, but that there
is no possibility of correcting it. The New Testament
critic is in a much more advantageous position. It is
true that he is confronted with a multiplicity of read
ings which might at first sight make him despair of ever
determining the correct text; but the very cause of
despair is also the assurance of success. While every
manuscript adds to the number of variations, it is also
a fresh witness to the original text. And from the
testimony of such a multitude of witnesses the facts
he is seeking can nearly always be ascertained. Some
where among the manuscripts the original reading
is almost certainly retained.

CHAPTER VI
THE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS
(continued)
If the importance of ascertaining the original text of
the gospels were less great, the testimony of the manu
scripts would be sufficient. Indeed, in the case of other
ancient books, no one would think of seeking further
evidence. But because the gospels are far more im
portant than other books, we seek and welcome testi
mony from every possible witness.
II. The Versions
The second source of knowledge is the versions.
These are translations of the gospels made as Chris
tianity spread among peoples who knew little or no
Greek, and wished to read the gospels in their own
language. They are of various dates; but for textual
criticism only those are valuable that were made be
fore our earlier Greek manuscripts. A later version
might simply follow a text we already have in the man
uscripts; but an earlier version must have been made
from a manuscript earlier than any we now possess,
and may throw light upon the text of that earlier
69

70 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
manuscript. For example, when we are trying to
determine what was the original text of Luke 2 : 14,
if we find in a version made in the third century the
reading, "And on earth peace among men in whom
he is well pleased," we infer that the translator found
this reading in the manuscript he used, and are cor
respondingly disposed to believe that it was the orig
inal reading.
Of course, a version is in manuscript form, and the
existing copies are much later than the time when the
version was made. There may be errors of copyists,
and there may be deliberate changes to make the text
agree with that of some Greek manuscript which a
copyist knew. We have also to reckon with the prob
lem of how correct the translation was. In our Eng
lish Old Testament the changes in the Revised Version
arise mainly from the fact that the King James trans
lators were not as familiar with Hebrew as are modern
scholars, and so made mistakes in their work. The
versions of the gospels may in like manner be faulty.
Moreover, when we are seeking to secure the exact
words of the Greek text, a version is but an imperfect
help because evidently the only way to get back to the
Greek from the version is by retranslation of it into
Greek; and there are many possibilities of change in
words and order when so doing. If the best of Greek
scholars should translate a chapter of our English
New Testament back into Greek, the result would

THE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS 71
not be the exact text which was before the transla
tors when they made that English version. Despite
all these difficulties, "the value of versions is still
considerable; and in the matter of determining the
authenticity of whole clauses or sentences inserted
or omitted by Greek manuscripts, it is sometimes
very great" (Mitchell, "Critical Handbook," 114).
In the work of carrying Christianity throughout the
Roman Empire the apostles and early missionaries
needed no other language than Greek, so long as they
kept to the great highways of commerce and civiliza
tion. Along the western part of the Mediterranean,
on both the northern and southern shores, the native
language was Latin; at the eastern end it was Aramaic;
in the Valley of the Nile it was Egyptian or Coptic;
and in each petty region there was also a local dialect
peculiar to that region. But the great language of
intercommunication, read and spoken by educated
men all around the Mediterranean, was Greek. In
this language a merchant of Corinth would write to
his correspondent in Antioch; and a strolling teacher
from Alexandria would lecture to his classes in Rome.
This is the reason why the gospel story, first in its oral
form and later in its written form, was put into Greek.
The Greek of the New Testament is evidently not
the same as that of the classics or of contemporaneous
books modelled after the classics; and the cause of the
difference has been a subject of much debate among

72 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
scholars. Formerly it was supposed that New Testa
ment Greek was a special dialect arising from the
influence of the Septuagint, or from the fact that its
writers were men whose native tongue was Aramaic.
But recently an increased knowledge of the Greek in
common use during the first century has shown that
New Testament Greek is practically the ordinary
Greek of that day. The evangelists and apostles wrote
as they preached, in the language familiar to every one
who used Greek at that time; and, although it some
times seemed novel, this was mainly because they had
a new message to proclaim, and the language must be
shaped to express it.
Despite the advantage of having the gospels in
Greek, the need of having them in other languages
would soon be felt. The majority of Christians were
of lowly position, and could read or understand no
other than their native tongue. Until the Gospels
were translated into that tongue, they could become
acquainted with them only at second hand. It might
be too much to ask for a translation into a local dialect;
but very soon demand would be made for translations
into Latin and Aramaic and Coptic. Just when the
demand was made in each case and how it was met, we
do not know. Undoubtedly it was made as early as
the second century; and probably, since the New
Testament books had not yet been formed into one
collection, the translations were of separate books in

THE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS 73
different places and at different times. A very brief
account of what we know about these versions is
enough to show their bearing upon the problems of
textual criticism.
In the Latin language the most famous version,
which after various revisions became the authorized
text of the Roman Catholic Church and still holds that
place to-day, is the Vulgate — a name given to it in later
days because then it was the version in common use.
It was made by the great scholar, Jerome, who com
pleted that part of it which contains the gospels about
A. D. 383. Long before that time, however, the gos
pels had been translated into Latin; and one reason
why Jerome was asked to undertake his version was
because the text in different manuscripts was not the
same. There are still existing, mostly as fragments,
more than forty manuscripts giving us these earlier
texts — one of which is the Latin portion of Codex D —
and we can see how much they differ. Scholars are
not yet agreed as to whether all these manuscripts are
based upon one original version, and the differences
arose through errors and alterations by copyists; or
whether there were several versions differing from one
another originally. And in case the theory of one
version be adopted, it is disputed where that version
was made — in Northern Africa, in Italy, or elsewhere.
The name Old Latin or Itala has been given to the
earlier version or versions by way of distinction from

74 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
the Vulgate. The text of this Old Latin is of the type
already described as the Western, and represented by
Codex D. In fact it was the prevalence of this type
of text in early Latin manuscripts and in quotations by
Latin Fathers, that led scholars to call it the Western,
because they supposed it to be peculiar to Latin-speak
ing lands. A fuller knowledge has shown that it pre
vailed generally in the second and third centuries.
In the Aramaic language, which was spoken through
out the great land of Syria, there were many distinct
dialects, among them that of Palestine; but the one in
use at Edessa was the most literary, and is usually
meant when we speak of the Syriac. The chief Syriac
version is called the Peshitta, i. e., the " simple," and
holds a place in the Syrian language similar to that
which the Vulgate holds in the Latin. It used to be
extolled as " the Queen of Versions," and tradition de
clared that it was made by the evangelist Mark. Its
supposed antiquity and the fact that its text was of
the Syrian type, were arguments used in proof that the
Syrian or Antiochian text, which our Authorized Ver
sion follows, is the original text. To-day it is generally
agreed that the Peshitta is not much, if at all, earlier,
than the fifth century, and that, like the Vulgate, it is
a revision of earlier versions. Only two manuscripts
of these earlier versions have been discovered, viz.,
the Curetonian Syriac, so called from Dr. Cureton who
discovered and edited it some fifty years ago, and the

THE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS 75
Lewis Syriac or Sinaitic Syriac, a palimpsest discovered
in 1892 by Mrs. Lewis and Mrs. Gibson on Mt. Sinai
in the same convent where Tischendorf discovered
Codex X. The latter seems to be the earlier of the two
versions; but their relation to one another and to the
Diatessaron of Tatian is a vexed problem.
The text of these earlier Syriac versions is Western.
In the Lewis manuscript certain readings in the first
chapter of Matthew have attracted attention and been
much quoted in recent discussions about the virgin
birth of Christ. The readings are: " Joseph, to whom
was espoused the virgin Mary, begat Jesus who is
called the Christ" (verse 16), "She shall bear thee a
son" (verse 21)," She bare him a son, and he called His
name Jesus" (verse 25). These readings would tend
to support the theory that the original text of Matthew
represented Joseph as the father of Jesus; yet in the
same manuscript we find unchanged the other state
ments of this chapter about the supernatural con
ception of Jesus. How shall we explain it? The
translator or some later copyist may have deliberately
altered the text, in which case the question arises, Were
his alterations in the direction of orthodoxy or the
reverse ? — Did he seek to make the birth of Christ more
divine or more human ? But the theory of deliberate
alteration fails to explain why the changes were not
more thorough-going. Why should evident contra
dictions be left ? Possibly the writer did not consider
them to be contradictions, in which case the statement

76 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
of Joseph's fatherhood would be, like those in Luke
2 : 48 and Matt. 13 : 55, an ordinary way of speaking,
which could not deceive the reader because the divine
fatherhood was so clearly stated.
The Egyptian language (also known as the Coptic,
a corruption of the word Egyptian) has several dialects,
with versions in each of them. The age and origin of
these versions and their relation to one another are
problems still unsolved. The most important version
is the Bohairic, which seems to be connected in origin
with Alexandria. It is unique among the early ver
sions in that it represents a Neutral and Alexandrian
text. This fact has its evident bearing upon the ques
tion of the origin of the Neutral text.
III. The Fathers
The third source of knowledge of the text is the
Fathers, or, more exactly, Patristic Quotations. There
is a great body of Christian literature older than
any existing New Testament manuscript, and full of
quotations from the New Testament. Such quota
tions ought to throw some light upon the text which
each writer knew. Two difficulties, however, have to
be reckoned with. First, the quotation may have been
changed by a copyist to conform to a text with which
he was familiar. This is most natural, whether done
unintentionally or as a deliberate correction of a sup
posed mistake. Second, the author himself may not
have quoted the Scriptures correctly. Sometimes his

THE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS 77
intention may have been to give nothing more than the
substance of a Scripture passage; and at other times,
when he intended to give the precise words, his memory
may have been faulty. Nothing is more common to
day than to hear misquotations of familiar Scripture
passages even by well-educated Christians. But while
the testimony of Patristic Quotations has to be taken
with discrimination, it is of much value in determin
ing both the date and the locality of various texts.
" For instance, if we find a certain well-defined type of
text in the Old Latin manuscripts and also in the quo
tations of certain African Fathers of the second and
third centuries, we are obviously justified in saying that
this form of Latin version was used in Africa in the
second and third centuries. Whereas, if we had not
the quotations, we should have very little certain
evidence either as to date or place" (Lake, Text
of New Testament, 48).
There is no need of entering upon a consideration
of the testimony of the Fathers. Enough to say that
in general the earlier ones bear witness to the use of the
Western text everywhere, except in Alexandria where
there is some evidence for the Neutral text. The later
Greek Fathers seem to have used the Syrian text, while
the Latin Fathers seem to have used the Vulgate.
Having considered the methods which critics adopt
to secure a correct text of the gospels, we look with in-

78 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
terest to see what measure of success they have gained.
However, in our emphasis of the subject we must not
develop an exaggerated idea of the magnitude of their
task. Westcott and Hort point out (and Gregory
endorses their statement) that in seven-eighths of the
New Testament there are no variations of text and no
grounds for doubt. The problems of the greater part
of the remaining eighth are wholly unimportant, aris
ing from changes in order, differences in spelling, and
the like. And in the field, thus restricted, where the
textual critic must labor, the great majority of varia
tions are comparatively trivial, since they do not change
the meaning of the passage. "The amount of what
can be called substantial variations can hardly form
more than a thousandth part of the entire test."
Concerning this debatable part of the text the agree
ment among critics is greater than might be expected.
If we take Westcott and Hort's text as a standard for
comparison, we shall find a few scholars who believe
that it departs too far from the Syrian text, and many
who think that it ought to incorporate more of the
Western text. Nevertheless, the difference between it
and the texts adopted by other modern scholars is
inconsiderable. For working purposes it makes but
little difference which one of the recent texts is fol
lowed. Moreover, no changes brought about in the
text by critical study affect any of the doctrines of the
New Testament. This is evident to the English reader

THE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS 79
when he compares the Authorized Version with the
Revised Version. In spite of all changes the two are
practically the same book, giving the same facts, and
teaching the same truths in the same way. If we wish
to get close to the exact words which the New Testa
ment writers used, we do well to study the Revised
Version, especially the American Revised Version; but
if we are seeking simply to lay hold upon the facts and
doctrines of the New Testament, it makes little differ
ence which version we take. With but few and minor
exceptions they are the same in both.
In closing we may notice briefly the chief changes
in the text of the gospels adopted by the best textual
critics of to-day. They are interesting in themselves,
and they illustrate the processes of textual criticism.
Mark 16 : 9-20.— While this ending to Mark's Gos
pel is found in most of the manuscripts, including Co
dices A, C, and D, it is omitted in B and N, both of
which end abruptly with verse 8, "For they were
afraid." In B the copyist has left a blank column after
this verse, thereby indicating that he knew of a further
ending, but did not give it because it was not in the
manuscript he was following. A very few manu
scripts have a shorter ending which, with slight varia
tions, is as follows: "And they reported briefly to those
around Peter all the things commanded. And after
these things Jesus himself (appeared to them and) sent

80 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
forth through them from the East, and as far as the
West the holy and incorruptible proclamation of eter
nal salvation." But these manuscripts also add the
longer ending with the note that it, too, is found after
the words " For they were afraid." The later versions
all give the longer ending; but the Lewis Syriac ends
with verse 8, two manuscripts of the Bohairic Version
give the shorter ending in the margin, and one Old
Latin manuscript has only the shorter ending. There
is also some testimony of the Fathers that doubt existed
as to the genuineness of verses 9-16, though mostly
they are silent about the passage.
The internal evidence, i. e., the evidence from vo
cabulary and style, is not pronounced, but tends rather
against Mark's authorship. The passage certainly is
joined most awkwardly to what precedes, as if it
originally stood independent of it. Add to this its em
phasis of the necessity of baptism, and its description
of miracles as mere marvels (both of which are charac
teristic of the thought of the second century rather
than of the apostolic age), and we have strong reasons
for rejecting the passage as not genuine, and for re
fusing to use it as an authority upon the events after
Christ's resurrection. Whether the original ending of
Mark was destroyed by some accident or was sup
pressed by the early church for some reason, or
whether the book never was finished or was ended
most abruptly at 16 : 8, we never shall know. From

THE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS 81
some cause the book was incomplete; and the present
longer and shorter endings are attempts to complete it.
When and by whom they were made we can only guess.
An Armenian manuscript was found recently in which
the longer ending is separated from the preceding
verses by a space and some flourishes, and bears the
heading " Of the presbyter Ariston." There was an
Aristion who lived at the beginning of the second cen
tury, and from whom Papias says he gained informa
tion about the Lord (see p. 40). Possibly he may
have been the author of the passage, though we have
only this single and late testimony to that effect. The
shorter ending seems to have originated even later
than the longer one, and we know nothing about its
authorship. John 7 : 53-8 : 11. — This story of the woman taken
in adultery is precious to the Christian church, and
harmonizes so completely with the character and work
of Jesus that there is little question of its truth. Yet
textual criticism shows plainly that it was not in the
original gospels. It is absent from all the earliest
manuscripts except D; and some of those which con
tain it, mark it with asterisks or obeli as suspicious. It
wanders from place to place like an intruder, being
found in the margin, or after 7 : 36, or at the end of
the gospel, or in Luke after 21 : 38. The text varies
considerably — the most curious reading being (8 : 8/) :
" He wrote upon the ground the sins of each single one

82 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
of them, and they, when they read it, being convicted
by their conscience went out." It is found in none of
the early versions except the Latin, and only some of
the Latin Fathers know it. The evidence is con
clusive against its belonging to the original text. And
yet the story is undoubtedly a very early one. Euse
bius (3 : 39 : 16), describing the writings of Papias,
says: "He has likewise set forth another narrative
concerning a woman who was maliciously accused be
fore the Lord touching many sins, which is contained
in the Gospel according to the Hebrews." Probably
it should be put among the Agrapha as a true story of
Jesus, which came down at first orally or in the dis
carded gospels, and finally was given a place in the
canonical gospels.
John 5 : 3-4. — The angel troubling the waters of
the pool of Bethesda is given by many authorities;
but it is omitted by A, B, C, D, and K, and seems to be
evidently a note of some copyist, which afterward crept
into the text. Without it there is need of explanation
why the crowd gathered around the pool, and why a
sick man must be the first to step into the troubled
waters if he would be healed. The note gave the
popular explanation, and is interesting for that reason.
Luke 22 : 43-44. — The evidence for and against
this passage, which tells of the angelic ministry and
the bloody sweat at Gethsemane, is pretty equally di
vided. If the passage was in the original text, its

THE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS 83
omission in some manuscripts is hard to explain.
But without it Luke's account is so lacking in emphasis
of Christ's struggle and anguish that a copyist might
well be led to insert the passage to supply the lack.
Even so it may possibly be trustworthy. Westcott and
Hort say: "It would be impossible to regard these
verses as a product of the inventiveness of the scribes.
They can only be a fragment from the traditions, writ
ten or oral, which were for a time, at least, locally cur
rent beside the canonical gospels, and which doubtless
included matter of every degree of authenticity and in
trinsic value."
Luke 23 : 34a. Very much the same may be said
of this cry of Christ upon the cross as of the preceding
passage, though the evidence in its favor is more strong.
Certainly no one can question the truth of the narrative,
whether we owe it to Luke or to a later writer. And if
it was preserved for us by a later writer, then Westcott
and Hort are right when they say of this and of Luke
22 : 43-44 that they " may safely be called the most
precious among the remains of this evangelic tradition
which were rescued from oblivion by the scribes of the
second century."

CHAPTER VII
THE DATE OF THE GOSPELS
No one of the canonical gospels is dated or bears the
name of its author. The present titles are late, and
the nearest approach to a statement of authorship is
John 21 : 24. In this they differ from the apocryphal
gospels, which usually make prominent the name of the
author, and often state the circumstances under which
the book was written. The difference is a valid argu
ment for the genuineness of the canonical gospels,
since a forger would have taken special pains to make
an early date and apostolic authorship unmistakably
evident. Concerning the date of the gospels there has been,
and still is, a great deal of dispute. Were they written
in the lifetime of the apostles or, at least, of their im
mediate disciples, when the facts they narrate were
fresh in mind, and many witnesses were still living to
confirm the narrative; or were they written sometime
in the second century, long after all witnesses were
dead, and when the oral tradition had become dis
torted and unreliable ? This is the problem we must
discuss in the present chapter. As we take it up we
shall do well to bear in mind that it never would have
84

THE DATE OF THE GOSPELS 85
arisen if the gospels had contained no account of mira
cles and no claim of divinity for Jesus. The arguments
for an early date would be accepted without question
were the supernatural left out of the books. But those
who deny that miracles ever happen, and refuse to see
in Jesus anything more than a human teacher, must
in some way explain away these portions of the gospel
narrative; and the easiest way to do so is to say that
the gospels themselves were written too late to be
trustworthy. Church history has been likened to a road in which,
soon after leaving the starting-point, we enter a dimly
lighted tunnel, and have to proceed some distance be
fore we emerge into the full light. The tunnel portion
is the first half of the second century. For the apos
tolic age we have the writings in the New Testament,
which — even if some of them are rejected as being of
later date — throw a great deal of light upon the his
tory of that period, though not enough to answer all the
questions we would like to have answered. For the
last half of the second century we have the voluminous
writings of the apologists, which set forth clearly the
condition of the church in that period. But for the
first half of the second century we have only the scanty
writings of the apostolic fathers, and possibly a few
of the New Testament books; and from these we can
gain little knowledge of how the church was progress
ing during those years.

86 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
There is no doubt whatever that the apologists had
our gospels, and believed them to have been written in
the first century. But proof that they really were writ
ten in the first century, and not, as sceptics affirm, in
the first half of the second century — that tunnel period
— is less overwhelming; indeed, it could not be other
wise, the period is so obscure.
The evidence for an early date must be cumulative:
there is no singlefact thatcan be adduced as conclusive,
but there are numerous facts pointing toward such a
date; and when combined their force is vastly greater
than when taken separately. These facts may be
grouped under two heads, viz., external evidence, or
what is gathered from any source other than the gos
pels, and internal evidence, or what the gospels them
selves indicate. Each group is far too large for us to
attempt even an outline of its contents. All we can do
is to give a few items — enough to serve as a sample of
the whole — and thus to indicate the way in which the
proof is slowly built up, fact on fact, as a mason builds
a wall by placing stone on stone.
7. External Evidence
If we could find in the apostolic fathers — those
writers of the first half of the second century — some
mention of our gospels by name, or even some quota
tions that were unquestionably from our gospels, this
would be the best possible proof that the books were

THE DATE OF THE GOSPELS 87
then in existence and in use by the church. But such
proof is lacking. There is no mention of the gospels
by name; and though there are statements that seem
like loose quotations from them, they are not exact
enough to be unmistakably such. For example, in
I Clement 46 — written perhaps about A. D. 97 — is the
following passage: "Remember the words of Jesus
our Lord, for he said, Woe unto that man : good were
it for him if he had not been born than that he should
cause one of my elect to stumble. It were better for
him that a millstone should be hanged about him, and
that he should be sunk in the sea, than that he should
cause one of my little ones to stumble." This reminds
us very strongly of Matt. 26 : 24 and 18 : 6, but we
cannot be sure that Clement took it from that gospel.
He may have used some other gospel or collection of the
sayings of Jesus, or it may have come down to him by
oral tradition. The same uncertainty as to the use of
our gospels characterizes all the apostolic fathers.
This is not surprising, if the canon was not yet formed.
There was no reason why they should refer to the Four
Gospels as recognized authorities, or quote their state
ments with literal exactness as inspired utterances.
All this was to come later on.
Justin Martyr may be reckoned as the last of the
apostolic fathers or the first of the apologists. He
died about A. D. 166. He was a voluminous writer,
though but few of his works remain. In them he

88 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
often quotes from what he calls the " Memoirs of the
Apostles," which, he says,"are called gospels." These
were books in general use by the church; for he tells
us that " on the day called Sunday all who live in cities
or in the country gather together to one place, and the
memoirs of the apostles, or the writings of the proph
ets are read, as long as time permits; then when the
reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs,"
etc. (First Apology 67). Were these memoirs our
gospels ? The evidence that they were is strong (see
Fisher, " Grounds of Theistic and Christian Belief,"
new edition 211). While Justin, as we have seen, tells
certain things about Jesus that are not found in the
gospels, he never refers to the memoirs for these;
they seem to have been gathered from other sources.
But in general his story of Christ is the same as that
in the gospels; and though his quotations are not ver
bal reproductions of the gospel words, they are as
nearly exact as his quotations from the Old Testament.
Tatian, who became a Christian in middle life, was
a disciple and admirer of Justin Martyr. Somewhere
about A. D. 170 he compiled a life of Christ which he
called the Diatessaron (i. e., "by means of four") be
cause it was made by weaving together four accounts.
If not originally in Syriac, it was soon translated into
that language, and became very popular among the
Syrian churches. In the fourth century Ephraem
(from whom the Codex Ephraem i was named) wrote

THE DATE OF THE GOSPELS 89
a commentary upon it. But in the fifth century it was
put under the ban because it was taking the place of
the canonical gospels; and, though it was mentioned
with more or less favor down to the fourteenth century,
finally all traces of it and of the commentary upon it
were lost. What could the book have been? Not
many years ago hostile critics were confidently declar
ing that it certainly was not a compilation of the canon
ical gospels; and though one old writer had stated that
it began with " In the beginning was the Word," which
would indicate that Tatian used the Gospel of John,
they jeered at this, because they were sure that the
Gospel of John was not written until just about the
time when Tatian was compiling the Diatessaron.
They said that probably the Diatessaron was only a
brief and imperfect life of Christ compiled from some
of the apocryphal gospels; and as for Ephraem's com
mentary, they pointed out reasons for believing that it
was not upon the Diatessaron at all but upon another
book. It is instructive to mark their discomfiture.
In the suburbs of Venice was, and still is, an old
Armenian convent whose monks were scholars. They
had a library of manuscripts and a printing press; and
in A. D. 1836 they printed one of their manuscripts —
the works of Ephraem the Syrian translated into
Armenian. In the book was the long-lost commentary
on the Diatessaron. But no one seemed to notice this
fact, probably because the book was in Armenian and

90 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
had no table of contents. Then forty years later they
published the book in a Latin translation; and now
one of our American scholars — Ezra Abbot — called at
tention to the commentary. Immediately it excited
much interest; and Zahn undertook to reconstruct the
Diatessaron itself from the quotations in the commen
tary. He did a fine piece of work; but something still
better was in store. The publication of Zahn's work
stirred up the librarian of the Vatican to examine
his manuscripts; and he found to his delight that he
had a copy of the Diatessaron itself, not indeed in the
Greek or Syriac, but in an Arabic translation. He set
to work to prepare this for publication, and while
doing so learned from the Vicar Apostolic of the Coptic
Church, who paid him a visit, that there was a similar
manuscript owned by an Egyptian scholar. This sec
ond copy was secured for the Vatican; and in A. D.
1888 the Arabic text was published, and has since been
translated into English. Now that we have the long-
lost Diatessaron, what does it prove to be? A life of
Christ, compiled from the canonical gospels, and from
no other source, opening with "In the beginning was
the Word," and containing the greater part of the first
three gospels and nearly the whole of John. In other
words', it is exactly the book that certain critics declared
positively it could not be!
What conclusion should be drawn from the fact that
Tatian used the canonical gospels and no others for

THE DATE OF THE GOSPELS 91
his Diatessaron ? Evidently this, that in his day these
gospels were generally known and accepted as
authoritative by the church; otherwise he would not
have selected them in preference to all others; and his
book would not have been so popular. But for the
gospels to gain such recognition requires time; and
it is not easy to suppose that they had been written only
a few decades earlier. Moreover, as we said, Tatian
was a pupil of Justin Martyr, and he must have de
rived his idea of the value of the gospels from Justin
Martyr. This confirms our belief that when Justin
speaks of the memoirs of the apostles that were read
everywhere in the churches, he means the canonical
gospels. And it is equally hard to believe that if they
were written during Justin's lifetime, he would have
been of the opinion, as he was, that they " were drawn
up by Christ's apostles and those who followed them"
(Dialogue 103). As his lifetime goes back to the be
ginning of the second century, the argument is strong
that the books were written in the apostolic age.
Irenseus, one of the most famous of the apologists,
wrote, sometime before A. D. 190, a great volume in
five books entitled "Against Heresies." In this he
says: "Matthew issued a written gospel among the He
brews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were
preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the
church. After their departure [i. e., death] Mark, the

92 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
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. Afterward, John, the
disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his
breast, did himself publish a gospel while he abode at
Ephesus in Asia" (Book 3, chap. I).
All scholars agree that by these four books are meant
our Four Gospels; and Irenseus argues, in a way that
seems to us fanciful, that it is not possible that the gos
pels can be more or less than four in number. But
where did Irenseus gain his information ? Some of it
came from Polycarp, who died as a martyr in A. D. 155.
Before he was put to death, he was told that his life
would be spared if he would revile Christ; and he
replied: "Eighty and six years have I served him, and
he has never done me a wrong; how then can I speak
evil of my king who saved me?" If by eighty and six
years Polycarp meant the whole of his life, he was born
in A. D. 69; if he meant the time from his conversion,
which is more likely, he was born still earlier. Poly
carp lived in Smyrna and was a disciple of the Apostle
John, who died, it is generally agreed, about A. D. 100,
when Polycarp was at least thirty years old. Irenseus,
when a boy, met Polycarp; and this is what he says
concerning him and his teaching:
" I could even describe the place where the blessed
Polycarp sat as he discoursed, and his going out and

THE DATE OF THE GOSPELS 93
coming in, and his manner of life, and his personal
appearance, and his discourses to the people, and the
accounts he gave of his intercourse with John and the
others who had seen the Lord, and how he remembered
their words. Whatever he had heard from them about
the Lord, about his miracles and his teaching, having
received them from eye-witnesses of the Word of life,
all this Polycarp related in harmony with the scriptures.
These things, through the mercy of God which was
upon me, I then listened to attentively, noting them
down, not on paper, but in my heart; and continually,
through God's grace, I recall them accurately " (Eu
sebius 5 : 20).
Polycarp, therefore, stands as a connecting link be
tween Irenseus and the apostolic age. What he learned
as a disciple from the apostle John, he passed on to his
own eager boy disciple, Irenseus. To set aside the
statement of Irenseus about the authorship of the gos
pels and their consequent date, involves the rejection
of testimony as direct and weighty as any that could
be imagined. Moreover, we must not speak of Poly
carp as if he were the only link between the apostolic
witnesses and later generations: he is simply one of a
great number just as important, though their names
are unknown.
These are but samples of the external evidence for
the early date of the gospels. A full treatment of the
subject would involve a careful examination of all the

94 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
writings preserved from the second century, an esti
mate of the historical value of each, and a due consider
ation of every statement they contain which in any way
seems to bear upon the origin of the gospels. Like
many of the topics we are studying, it would require a
volume to itself. Enough for our purpose if we gain
an idea of the way in which scholars pursue the in
vestigation. II. Internal Evidence
By internal evidence is meant whatever indications
of the time when they were written are found in the gos
pels themselves — in other words, what " water-marks
of age" they bear. It is by no means easy — so literary
criticism has repeatedly shown — to compose a docu
ment professedly of an earlier age, and hide all traces
of its true date. Even the most careful and learned
writer will make some slip that reveals the forgery.
Especially difficult, as we shall see, would it have been
in the second century to forge a document of the first
century; and there is no probability that any of the
Christians between A. D. 100 and 150 possessed the
knowledge and literary skill to meet the difficulties.
Of course, in an uncritical age a very clumsy forgery
might pass unquestioned; but no books have ever been
subjected to such searching examination as have the
gospels in recent years. Friends and foes have gone
over them minutely, scrutinizing every line, seeking to

THE DATE OF THE GOSPELS 95
determine whether they really are what the church has
always supposed; and it would be indeed marvellous
if they were late forgeries and remained still unexposed.
The internal evidence that they were written in the
first century is two-fold:
(1) Their freedom from errors in historical facts.
The revolt against Rome which broke out in A. D.
66 and was crushed in A. D. 70, wrought a great trans
formation in Palestine. Jerusalem was destroyed, the
temple worship was henceforth impossible, the San-
hedrin was dissolved, the sect of the Sadducees dis
appeared, the character of the Roman rule changed,
and customs and manners were greatly altered. For
a man of the second century to write a life of Jesus, in
which all the details of his environment should agree
accurately with a period so unlike that of the writer,
would be a task involving much historical research.
Present interest has led scholars to undertake such re
search; and every detail concerning Palestinian life in
the time of Jesus that can be found anywhere has been
carefully collected, so that now we know that period
better than any writer since the apostolic age possibly
could. And the result of the research has been to con
firm the accuracy of the gospels. The statement by
Luke concerning the first census under Quirinius (Luke
2 : 2-3) remains still a matter of sharp discussion,
and its truth or error is not yet established; but Luke's
trustworthiness as an historian, shown not only in his

96 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
gospel, but especially in the Book of Acts, was never
more clearly recognized than to-day. In no other state
ment concerning the times of Jesus do we find it easy
to maintain that the evangelists were in error. They
give us a large mass of facts, and some of them very
minute facts, about Judea and Galilee, the temple and
its worship, the synagogue, the Sanhedrin, the different
sects, the Messianic expectations, and other matters
pertaining to political, social, and religious life in the
time of Jesus. There is every opportunity for them to
make a slip in their statements; but they never do.
The inference, then, is fair either that they lived in the
times about which they write, or else that they gained
their story from faithful reporters who themselves
lived in those times.
(2) Their freedom from anachronisms in theological
thought. The teaching of Jesus is the seed of all later Christian
doctrine; but the development of doctrine was so
rapid in the apostolic age that sometimes it is difficult
to trace the connection between the theological thought
of even the New Testament epistles and the teachings
of Jesus. More than one scholar has boldly main
tained that it was Paul and not Jesus who was the real
founder of Christian theology; and some have gone
still further and asserted that Paul and his compan
ions misunderstood and perverted the simple doctrines
of Jesus. Evidently, then, it would be difficult for a

THE DATE OF THE GOSPELS 97
writer whose whole training had been in the later theo
logical atmosphere to avoid reproducing the thought
familiar to himself and his associates, when he un
dertook to compose a life of Christ. Yet the gospels
are remarkably free from such anachronisms. A few
examples will make this evident.
(a) The use of terms.
In the gospels the word Christ is never a proper
name; it is always a title, " the Christ," i. e., the Mes
siah. But even Paul began to use it as a proper name,
and soon that use was as common as it is to-day.
The Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Heaven
was a term that the apostles rarely used, because of the
danger that it would be misunderstood by political
authorities (c/. Acts 17 : 7); but the gospels represent
Jesus as using it repeatedly.
On the other hand, the church is a term constantly
found in the epistles; but it is found only twice in the
gospels (Matt. 16 : 18 and 18 : 17), and its presence
in these two passages is by some thought a later inter
polation. The Son of Man is a title which was seldom used
in later days, probably because it seemed to emphasize
the human side of Jesus; but in the gospels it is Jesus'
favorite title for himself.
(6) The attitude toward miracles.
To the apostles, and still more to those of later days,
the miracles of Jesus seemed the greatest proof of his

98 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
divinity; and they were accustomed to point them out
and emphasize them. But the gospels represent
Jesus as taking a totally different attitude toward
them. He refuses to perform them simply as a proof
of his divinity (John 6 : 30); he enjoins silence con
cerning them (Mark 5 ; 43); he warns his disciples
against overvaluing them (Luke 10 : 20); and he
seems to regard them as sometimes a hindrance rather
than a help in his work. Such an attitude would be
almost beyond the power of a later disciple to imagine.
(c) The emphasis of the humanity of Jesus.
The worship of Jesus led to a constant emphasis of his
divinity, and a reluctance to admit that he in any way
shared human limitations and weakness; but we find
little of this in the gospels. " The strongest argument
against the view that the gospels are a product of the
second century lies in the fact that no writer of that
period would have ventured to represent Jesus in so
thoroughly a human way as the evangelists represent
him in the gospels. In these documents he is seen
tempted as we are, subject to all the infirmities of the
flesh; not laying claim to omniscience, since he frankly
says he knows not the day or the hour of his return;
nor yet to omnipotence, since he affirms that to sit on
his right hand and on his left is not his to give. Nay,
startling as it sounds to dogmatic orthodoxy, he de
clines even the title of 'good,' which is incidentally
addressed to him — not, of course, that any one could

THE DATE OF THE GOSPELS 99
convince him of sin, still less that he was conscious of
it himself, but because he was so thoroughly aware
of his humanity and of the divine nature that stood
over against it, that he could not allow for himself
an appellation which is only appropriate to God. — It
would have been impossible for him in any way to ex
press more emphatically his true humanity " (Hor-
ton, "Teaching of Jesus," 55).
(d) The lack of reverence for the apostles.
In the second century the apostles were set forth as
models of wisdom and saintliness; all their human
weaknesses and sins were ignored as being impossible
for the wondrous founders of the church. The first
trace of this process of idealizing can be found in
Matthew and Luke. There is evident reluctance on
their part to put down facts to the discredit of the
apostles, and they sometimes offer excuses for apostolic
conduct when such facts have to be put down. This
will be pointed out more fully in a later chapter. But
in all the four gospels, we find the apostles represented
as far indeed from ideal saints. Peter denies his mas
ter with curses; James and John wish to call down
fire on a village that will not receive them; all are slow
to grasp Christ's teachings, jealous of each other, lack
ing in faith and courage. They are very human men,
with plenty of very human faults. There is no indica
tion of the second century attitude toward them in
the story of the gospels.

100 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
(e) Statements that seem contradicted by later his
tory. For example, in the missionary instructions to the
twelve (Matt. 10 : 5-23), there are directions as to
where and how they shall go, and what they shall take
with them, that do not seem at all to agree with later
apostolic missionary work. And again, in the proph
ecy about the destruction of Jerusalem, there is the
declaration that Jesus will return soon after that event,
and in the lifetime of the present generation (Matt.
24 : 29, 34). Such statements are puzzles requiring
study and explanation to harmonize them with the
actual facts: if the gospels had been written in the sec
ond century, they would have been altered or omitted.
These are but samples of the great mass of evidence,
external and internal. Putting it all together, the con
clusion seems well supported that the gospels were writ
ten in the first century. Nearly all critics to-day accept
this conclusion. Probably the latest of the four gos
pels was John; and concerning its date there has been
prolonged discussion. Fifty years ago Baur and others
were positive that John was not written before A. D.
170. But the advocates of a late date have been forced
to draw back nearer and nearer the first century, until
now the most strenuous would hardly try to defend a
date later than 110-120 A. D., which would be cer
tainly in the lifetime of John's immediate disciples, and

THE DATE OF THE GOSPELS 101
possibly in the lifetime of John himself, since tradition
declares that he was but a lad when he followed Jesus
and that he lived to extreme old age.
The desire is strong to go still further and fix an
exact date in the first century for each gospel; but this
is far more difficult. The evidence is entirely inter
nal, and comes from emphasizing a few minute details.
We are not surprised, therefore, to find that there is no
general agreement among scholars. Perhaps the
opinion of the majority would be that Mark was writ
ten before the destruction of Jerusalem, *. e., before 70
A. D., Matthew shortly before or shortly after that
event, Luke somewhat later, and John about the end of
the century. But exact dates are not of supreme im
portance. It is enough to be assured that the gospels
were written sometime in the first century. For down
to the very end of that century there would still be liv
ing some eye-witnesses of Jesus' ministry, and a great
multitude who had heard the story of that ministry
from the apostles or other eye-witnesses. And it is im
possible to suppose that these would receive and use
our gospels, unless the facts therein reported agreed
with the story of Jesus' life as they had learned it from
these other sources.

CHAPTER VIII
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
The word gospel is the modern form of the Anglo-
Saxon godspell, which is often explained as meaning
good-story, but more probably means God-story. It
is used as a translation of a Greek word (transliter
ated into English as evangel) meaning good news or
glad tidings — a word which in many of the manu
scripts is part of the title of each of the first four books
in the New Testament. Accordingly we usually call
each of those books a gospel. But the word properly
denotes not a book, but the message contained in the
book — the good tidings originally proclaimed by Jesus
and published to the world by his disciples. Some
thing of this meaning still remains in the word when
used as a title; for instead of the gospel by Matthew,
i. e., the book written by him, the full title is the Gospel
According to Matthew, i. e., the good tidings as Mat
thew has sent them forth.
Whether each gospel originally had a title is doubt
ful. If it had, we cannot know what that title was;
for in the oldest manuscripts "The Gospel" seems
to have been the name for the whole collection, since
102

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 103
the separate books are headed simply "according to
Matthew," "according to Mark," and so on, which
shows that these headings were not given until the col
lection was formed. In any discussion, therefore, of
the authorship of a gospel, we cannot use the title as
conclusive evidence; it merely indicates who was sup
posed to be the author at the time when the title was
adopted. It may represent a very early and reliable
tradition; but it must be taken as nothing more than
the opinion of some early scribe.
If the authorship assigned by the titles is correct the
first gospel and the fourth were written by apostles,
the second by a Jewish Christian, whose early home
was in Jerusalem, and the third by a Gentile physician
who never met Jesus, but was a companion of Paul, and
must have known intimately many who had known
Jesus. In this case all four evangelists had abundant
opportunity to become acquainted with the facts they
narrate, and every inducement to state them correctly;
and their gospels ought to be first-class historical docu
ments. It would seem, then, that all we have to do is
to seek evidence confirming or disproving the tradi
tional authorship.
The matter, however, is not as simple as it seems.
A comparison of the first three gospels with one an
other brings before us a problem peculiar and very dif
ficult; while a comparison of the fourth gospel with
the first three discloses another problem quite different

104 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
but equally difficult. The former problem will be
sufficient to occupy us in the present chapter.
The first three gospels seem to have been written by
three different men at different times, and for different
classes of readers. Each is so brief that at the utmost
it can give only a few of Jesus' deeds and sayings,
selected from a great mass of apostolic recollections,
concerning which the naive statement is made by the
fourth evangelist, " There are also many other things
which Jesus did, the which if they should be written,
every one, I suppose that even the world itself would
not contain the books that should be written " (John
21 : 25). We naturally expect, therefore, to find that
the three gospels are made up of different selections,
and have little in common. The fact is just the re
verse. For example, Mark has comparatively few of
the teachings of Jesus, but gives various important
incidents in his life, from the imprisonment of John the
Baptist down to the resurrection. Now these same
incidents, often arranged in the same order and told
sometimes in almost identical words, form the main
part of the narrative in Matthew and in Luke. In
deed, the whole of Mark except two miracles (7 : 31-
37; 8 : 22-26), one short parable (4 : 26-29), and
various scattered verses, is to be found in Matthew or
Luke or both. So great is the similarity of the three
that in modern discussions they are called the synoptic
gospels, or more briefly the synoptics; by which is

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 105
meant gospels giving a common view of the life of
Christ, or gospels that for profitable study should be
placed side by side and viewed together; and their
authors are called the synoptists. Moreover, com
mon to Matthew and Luke are many sayings of Jesus
not given by Mark; and these sayings are even more
exactly identical than the record of incidents.
As a result of this remarkable agreement we have to
study the first three gospels as if they were to a large
degree simply different forms of one book. We ar
range their contents in parallel columns so that they
can be constantly compared, and call such an arrange
ment a harmony of the synoptics. If we add John,
and thus make a harmony of the Four Gospels, the
peculiarity of the synoptics becomes still more evident,
for John has very little matter in common with the
other three; and parallel columns are usually impos
sible. In fact, there is nowhere else in biographical
literature an instance of three books so similar and yet
distinct. For, with all their close resemblances, the
synoptics are distinct. Each relates or omits certain
incidents and sayings not related or not omitted by one
or both of the other two; and in a passage common to
two or to all three the phraseology may be identical for
a little ways, and then vary without any apparent rea
son. Each book has its individual character, its own
way of treating a topic, and its special purpose; there
is no possibility of identifying one with another.

106 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
Illustrations of all this are not necessary; any har
mony of the gospels will give them. Of course, if the
text is in English instead of Greek, the agreements and
disagreements in phraseology are much concealed; yet
some idea of them can be gained, even in English, by
studying such a passage as the plucking of grain on the
Sabbath (Matt. 12 : 1-8, Mark 2 : 23-28, Luke 6 : 1-5),
especially if the text used is the revised version. As
for the matter that is common to all three gospels, a
very convenient collection of it is given by Lindsay
as a prologue to the New Testament, published in
" Everyman's Library."
The problem which this comparison of the synoptics
forces upon the student is, How did these resemblances
and differences arise ? What theory of the origin and
interrelation of the first three gospels will best explain
why they are so remarkably alike and yet so evidently
different? This is the synoptic problem which has
confronted scholars as far back as the days of St.
Augustine, and over which they still are working.
Some of the proposed solutions of it we must now con
sider. Of course, if we accept what is called the " dictation
theory" of inspiration, and believe that the evangelist
had no part in the composition of his gospel other than
to write down word for word what the Holy Spirit sug
gested, there is no synoptic problem. For some in
scrutable reason it was the will of the divine author

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 107
that these three books should thus agree and differ;
no further explanation is necessary. But the dictation
theory is held by few, if any, thoughtful men to-day.
In whatever way the Holy Spirit aided the evangelist
in his work (and that such aid was given is evident,
when the canonical gospels are contrasted with the
apocryphal), it is agreed that the human author had
his own active and intelligent part to perform. He
had to gather his information as other authors do, and
to use his mental powers in sifting it and arranging it
and putting it into words. And the synoptic problem
centres in the question, From what source or sources
did the synoptists gain their knowledge of the life of
Christ, so that they wrote precisely the books we have ?
One theory, advanced by St. Augustine, we may call
that of mutual dependence. When the first evangel
ist, whichever he was, had written his gospel, the sec
ond used it as the basis of his work, following its order
when this seemed best, adding new material or omit
ting what he did not care to repeat, copying the exact
words or changing them at his pleasure. Then the
third evangelist had one or both of the earlier works
before him, and used them in the same way. This
would seem to account very simply and naturally for
the agreements and also for the disagreements. But
as a matter of fact it does not; for when we seek to de
termine which gospel was first and which was second
or third, serious difficulties arise. For example, Mat-

108 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
thew is much longer than Mark: then evidently — ac
cording to this theory — if it was written later, it is an
enlargement of Mark: or if it was written earlier, it is
condensed in Mark. But if it is an enlargement, why
does it omit some important portions of Mark ? Or, if
Mark is a condensation, why does Mark give some of
the common facts in much fuller form ? And in either
case, why should the copying be in one place very exact
and in another full of alterations? There may be a
measure of truth in this theory of mutual dependence;
but it does not fully solve the synoptic problem. This
is shown by the fact that scholars who adopt it cannot
agree as to the order of writing of the gospels, or their
relation to one another. Each of the three gospels has
been given a first or second or third place in time, and
each has been supposed to be dependent upon one or
upon both of the other two; and yet none of these ar
rangements has fully solved the problem.
Another theory we may call that of common origin.
This supposes that all three gospels are based upon a
gospel now lost, and derive from it the matter they
have in common. The lost gospel may have been a
written one, for the opening statement of Luke,
" Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up
a narrative concerning those matters which have been
fulfilled among us," seems to refer to written gospels
already in existence, though it is barely possible that
the drawn-up narratives were oral. Was this lost gos-

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 109
pel in Greek, and did our evangelists simply take ex
tracts from it; or was it in Aramaic, or even in He
brew, so that our evangelists each had to translate from
it? Both suppositions have been advanced — the
former to explain the way in which the synoptics agree;
the latter, the way in which they disagree. Evidently
neither supposition is wholly satisfactory. Indeed, the
advocates of the theory are forced to fall back upon
the suggestion that the original gospel appeared in suc
cessive editions, and our evangelists made use each of
a different one. But if there was a written gospel, the
source of all three synoptics, we are puzzled to explain
why so important a book — used by three evangelists
as an authority — should have utterly disappeared.
More probably the lost gospel was an oral one, or, in
other words, the synoptists each made use of a com
mon tradition concerning Jesus, which the church of
their day possessed.
How this tradition or oral gospel came into existence
can easily be imagined. The apostles remained in
Jerusalem for comparatively a long time after the
Day of Pentecost; and their preaching consisted
mainly in telling the story of Jesus in such a way as to
make men believe that he was the Messiah. The fre
quent repetition of this gospel story would tend to give
it a stereotyped form; and the tenacity of Oriental
memories would preserve that form when the hearers
passed the story on to others. Thus unconsciously

110 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
before long there would arise a definite oral gospel.
It would be a story of Jesus dwelling upon such inci
dents and teachings as were specially suited for evan
gelistic purposes. The deeper sayings of Christ, such
as those recorded in the Fourth Gospel, would have no
place in it, because they were not suited to an audience
of unconverted men. When the Christians were scat
tered abroad, after the death of Stephen, they took the
oral gospel with them. And when the synoptists
undertook to write memoirs of Jesus, they naturally
used the oral gospel as the foundation of their gospels,
adding such additional information as they possessed,
or thought to be important, and arranging the narrative
according to their individual plans.
This theory is certainly correct in its supposition
that the gospel originally must have been passed along
in oral form, and doubtless was somewhat of the char
acter described. But it does not solve the synoptic
problem. For example, this oral tradition, since it
originated in Jerusalem, must originally have been in
Aramaic: how, then, does it happen that the synoptics,
which are all in Greek, often agree " to the very finest
shades of the Greek idiom" ? Again, while the theory
fails to account for the resemblances, it increases the
difficulty of accounting for the variations; since, if the
oral gospel was so stereotyped that it passed from
hearer to hearer without any change of form, we can
hardly suppose an evangelist would alter it when writ-

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 111
ing it down. Especially, what shall we say of the nu
merous passages common to Matthew and Luke, but
not found in Mark: were they part of the oral tradi
tion; and if so, why did Mark omit them? Moreover,
there are indications that some written source was used
by the synoptists. As an example of this, note how
each account of the healing of the paralytic (Matt.
9 : 6, Mark. 2 : 10, Luke 5 : 24) has the same parenthet
ical explanation inserted in the midst of Jesus' words
in a manner that is awkward even in a written account,
and would be almost unintelligible in an oral, ac
count. These and other objections have caused most
scholars to abandon the oral theory, though a few still
advocate it.
The theory most popular at present is called the
double source or two-document theory; and it posses
ses the strong points of both the preceding theories. It
is based upon a passage in Eusebius which gives us two
quotations from Papias, who wrote somewhere between
A. D. 130 and 160:
"Mark, having become interpreter of Peter, wrote
down accurately, though not indeed in order, whatever
he remembered of the things said and done by Christ.
For he had neither heard the Lord nor accompanied
him; but afterward, as I said, he accompanied Peter,
who used to suit his teachings to the needs of his hear
ers without attempting to give an orderly arrangement
of the Lord's words, so that Mark cannot be blamed

112 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
for thus having written down some things as he remem
bered them. For of one thing he was careful — to omit
nothing of what he had heard, and to state nothing
falsely. These things are related by Papias con
cerning Mark. And about Matthew he says as
follows: Matthew wrote [or compiled] the Logia in
the Hebrew language; and each one translated [or
interpreted] them as he was able" ("Church His
tory, " 3 : 39).
The word Logia means sayings, and is often used
for divine utterances, i. e., oracles; it may have
been the term chosen for the utterances of Jesus as
suited to their divine character. In the present dis
cussion it may be left untranslated and used as a
proper name.
We have already noted that the first things to be
written concerning Jesus would be his sayings — both
because they are not so easily remembered as his deeds,
and because it is important to preserve their exact form.
Matthew's early training as a tax-collector would ac
custom him to make memoranda: and it is very prob
able that, either when he was with Jesus or afterward,
he made such a collection of sayings, and naturally
they would be in Hebrew — i. e., Aramaic, the language
in which they were spoken. Whether this Logia of
Matthew contained simply the sayings of Jesus (like
the papyri recently unearthed in Egypt), or whether
some sayings were prefaced by accounts of the cir-

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 113
cumstances that called them forth, is disputed. The
latter seems more likely, as often a saying would lose
its force or its meaning apart from the circumstance.
So far as we can judge, the sayings seem to have been
arranged in groups, each related to some practical
topic of Christian life, and intended for the use of
Christians who wished to know and follow the teach
ings of Jesus on that topic. Perhaps these groups
were circulated separately, as little manuals of Chris
tian teaching, before they were brought together in one
collection. In any case the Logia was not a gospel, but
only a collection of Christ's sayings; it cannot, there
fore, be identified with our Gospel of Matthew. How
ever, the fact that it was written in Hebrew may ex
plain the early and universal tradition that Matthew
wrote his gospel in Hebrew; for that gospel in its pres
ent Greek form bears little indication of being a trans
lation from a Hebrew original.
The book which Papias describes as written by Mark
would be a gospel, and practically a reproduction of the
oral gospel. It was the story of Jesus as Peter used to
tell it for evangelistic purposes — such a story as that
which he told Cornelius: indeed, the outline of Peter's
story, given in Acts 10 : 37-41, would serve as an out
line of Mark's gospel. Mark doubtless added to it
details gained from other sources; in fact, the question
most strongly discussed at present is, How far did
Mark reproduce Peter's direct testimony? Whether

114 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
this book was our present gospel according to Mark,
as Eusebius and Papias apparently believed, or was
an earlier work of which our present gospel is a revi
sion, is another question over which scholars dispute.
Many think that the synoptic problem is more easily
solved by supposing an earlier work — an Ur-Marcus;
but others are disposed to accept the gospel in its pres
ent form as the original. Thus we account for one of
the three synoptics, and give Mark special value as
being the earliest of all our gospels.
The theory next supposes that these two documents
— the Gospel of Mark and the Logia of Matthew (the
latter, perhaps, already translated into Greek) — were
used as the main sources of our other two gospels.
The person who wrote the present Gospel of Matthew
had come into possession of the two documents, and
had also gathered, from either written or oral sources,
other important facts about Jesus. It was natural
that he should bring them together into one book. He
was not trying to write a biography of Jesus; and he
liked to arrange his material topically rather than
chronologically. So in his book we find chapters
devoted to the sayings of Jesus, such as the Sermon on
the Mount and the Parables by the Lake, and other
chapters devoted to the deeds of Jesus, such as the
group of miracles in chapters eight and nine. There
was no feeling on his part that the documents he was
using were sacred; so, as he copied, he changed the

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 115
order or the wording to suit his purpose. Nor was
there the feeling that when he used the words of an
other he must make it evident, or else be guilty of
plagiarism. In that age, as we see from other books,
the sin of plagiarism was not recognized: an author
felt at liberty to use as much of another's production
as he wished without any acknowledgment. Who
the writer of the First Gospel was, we never shall know.
Possibly it was Matthew himself. More probably it
was a later author; and the name of Matthew was
given to the gospel because it was considered to be
simply an amplification of Matthew's Logia.
The theory also assigns a similar origin to the Gos
pel of Luke. In early days, all scholars supposed that
the author of this gospel was Paul's companion, " the
beloved physician," Luke. This is questioned by
many recent critics, but all agree that he was the per
son who wrote the Book of Acts, and that he had more
of the modern historian's spirit than any other evan
gelist. His preface states the care with which he col
lected his material; and his book shows an attempt to
arrange it in something of a chronological order. His
main sources, like those of Matthew, were the Gospel of
Mark and the Logia; but he has drawn more from
other sources than did the author of Matthew. He,
too, follows Mark's order in his general arrangement
of incidents, but he tries to put Jesus' sayings in an
historical rather than a topical setting.

116 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
This in broad outline is the solution of the synoptic
problem most popular with scholars to-day. They
are by no means agreed as to its details. Was the
source we have called the Logia really the book men
tioned by Papias, or was it some other collection of
Jesus' words? There is really nothing to connect it
with Papias' statement except that it contained many
sayings of Jesus, and Logia originally meant sayings.
The recent tendency is to call it simply the source
(Quelle) document, and refer to it as Q. Did Mark
make any use of this source? Were there other
sources common to Matthew and Luke? Did Luke
have the Gospel of Matthew? How far were there
successive revisions or editions of Matthew and Luke
as well as of Mark ? Questions like these are easier
to ask than to answer; they are constantly discussed in
the endeavor to account for all the complex phenomena
presented by the synoptics; but even to state the min
ute details involved in such discussions would take
too much space, and pass beyond the purpose of this
book. The fascination of the synoptic problem arises from
the fact that it is an attempt to get behind our present
gospels, and recover the earlier form of the gospel story
out of which they grew. For centuries we have used
the synoptics as original sources; now we find that
common sources lie behind them, and we are eager to
ascertain what these contained. For every step back-

THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 117
ward brings us closer to the original statements of those
who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word,
and to the story of Jesus as it used to be told by the
church in Jerusalem.

CHAPTER IX
THE JOHANNINE PROBLEM
No book in the Bible, unless it be Genesis, has given
rise to so much discussion and controversy as the
Gospel of John. The literature it has called forth is
enormous; merely the titles of books and pamphlets
would make a large volume. The main question, of
course, is, How far can we accept this gospel as trust
worthy? A few years ago critics seemed to be ap
proaching an agreement about the answer; but recent
writers are again far apart.
This is not surprising. Differences of temperament
cause the book to make different impressions as to its
value. For example, Dr. Philip Schaff feels it to be
"the most original, the most important, the most in
fluential book in all literature"; while Mr. John
Stuart Mill contemptuously dismisses it — especially the
speeches of Jesus, and in particular the speech after
the Last Supper — as "mystical — poor stuff — matter
imported from Philo and the Alexandrian Platonists,
and put into the mouth of the Saviour." Evidently
these two critics would never agree, because the book
appeals to the one and does not to the other.
118

THE JOHANNINE PROBLEM 119
Still more dividing are differences in theological
attitude. John sets forth the pre-existence and divine
claims of Jesus far more plainly than do the other gos
pels. It is possible to accept the synoptics as in the
main trustworthy, and yet see in Jesus simply a human
teacher — one remarkable indeed, perhaps unique, but
not divine. This is impossible with John: if the
Fourth Gospel is trustworthy, we must believe that
Jesus clearly showed himself to be the Son of God, the
Saviour of the world. If, therefore, we have already
come to some decision about the claims of Jesus (and
no man can live in a Christian world without some
decision, conscious or unconscious) we have thereby
taken a definite attitude toward the Gospel of John —
an attitude which, in spite of all attempts to weigh the
evidence honesdy and without prejudice, will influence
our decision as to its trustworthiness.
This almost inevitable difference of opinion is best
shown in a discussion of the authorship of the gospel.
What was the relation of the Apostle John to the book ?
The answer, as in the question of date, must be de
termined by external and internal evidence.
The external evidence that the apostle was the
author is strong. The earliest is at the end of the
book itself: "This is the disciple that beareth witness
of these things, and wrote these things; and we know
that his witness is true" (21 : 24). This verse im
mediately follows the story accounting for the origin of

120 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
the report that Jesus had said John should not die;
and it purports to be a declaration by some persons
who knew John — possibly the elders of Ephesus — that
the book is by him and is trustworthy. It is like the
attestation clause to a will; and, like such a clause, it
must be either a forgery or genuine. If it be a forgery,
it is put in such a form as to weaken its force, since it
omits names entirely. A forger would have put the
matter clearly: "This book was written by the be
loved apostle John, and we, the elders of Ephesus,
bear witness to its truth." If it is not a forgery, then
it is very early and strong evidence for John's author
ship. Possibly it was an endorsement placed origi
nally on the margin of the manuscript, and later trans
ferred to the text itself.
There is abundant evidence that in the latter half
of the second century — that period where we begin to
have clear light upon church life and thought — every
body supposed the apostle John to be the author of the
fourth gospel, except a few who rejected the teachings
of that gospel. The statement of Irenseus, already
quoted (p. 92), is a good example of such evidence.
But hostile critics refuse to accept the external evi
dence or find various ways of diminishing its force.
For example, in reply to the argument from Ire
nseus they point out that according to Papias (see
p. 40) there was a presbyter John as well as an apostle
John, and argue that Irenseus may have meant the

THE JOHANNINE PROBLEM 121
presbyter, or at least have confounded the apostle
with him.
The internal evidence is also strong. Dr. Westcott
in the introduction to his commentary on John shows
from the book itself that the author must have been (1)
a Jew; (2) living in Palestine in the first century; (3)
an eye-witness of what he describes; (4) an apostle; and
(5) no other than the apostle John. It is a fine piece
of critical work, in which other scholars have followed
him; and the argument should be studied as a whole
for a due appreciation of its force. Nevertheless,
critics who do not wish to be convinced by it, are not
convinced: and a recent one (Jiilicher) declares that
the one unassailable proposition from internal evidence
concerning the fourth gospel is that its author was
not the apostle.
With the same external and internal evidence before
them, we see that scholars reach very unlike conclu
sions. The majority, perhaps, would say that John
himself wrote or dictated the gospel; but others hold
that some disciple, before or after John's death, wrote
down the story as he had gathered it from the apostle,
or else made use of some narrative prepared by John
as the basis of the present gospel. Others would ad
mit of no connection between the apostle and the book,
and suppose that the author was another John — whom
later thought confounded with the apostle — or else
some unknown person who tried to give his work a

122 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
semblance of apostolic authorship. "Possibly the
question may never get beyond this unsatisfactory con
dition; possibly it may be settled conclusively by the
discovery of some lost book. Meanwhile, pending
such happy discovery, men will continue to differ ac
cording to their intellectual and religious idiosyn
crasies (Bruce, "Apologetics," 467).
After all, the authorship does not determine the
trustworthiness of the book as fully as we might at
first suppose. If a disciple of John wrote it, he may
have given with great accuracy the facts he learned
from John. And even if the author had nothing to do
with John he may himself have been a disciple of Jesus,
as Papias says the presbyter John was, or the sources
on which he relied may have been just as good as John's
reminiscences. For, on the other hand, it is possible
that with John himself as author, the book is not trust
worthy. He may have idealized his Master to such a
degree that his account is really a romance; or in his
old age he may unconsciously have adopted myths
and legends, then current in the church, so that his
testimony is little better than that of a later historian.
It is easier, of course, to dispute John's authorship than
his accuracy; but the real problem is presented by
the book itself, and authorship is only one step toward
solving it.
The problem presented by the Fourth Gospel — the
Johannine problem— is precisely the opposite of that

THE JOHANNINE PROBLEM 123
presented by the first three gospels — the synoptic prob
lem. As we have seen in the preceding chapter, the
synoptic problem, is Why are the first three gospels so
remarkably alike ? The Johannine problem is, Why
is the Fourth Gospel so remarkably unlike the first
three ? Two biographies or two sketches of the same
subject may properly be expected to differ: but John
differs so greatly from the synoptics that we are forced
to ask, Have we, indeed, the same Christ in John as in
the other gospels; and if we have, how are the dif
ferences in these accounts of him to be explained ?
The differences must be considered somewhat fully.
And for convenience we may put them in three groups,
viz., the details of the public ministry, the teachings
of Christ, and his self-revelation.
I. Differences in the Details of Christ's Ministry
(1) Its Locality. — According to the synoptics, Jesus
remains in Galilee and the coasts until he comes up to
Jerusalem to die; according to John, he is mainly in
Jerusalem and Judea, though occasionally he with
draws into Galilee or across the Jordan.
(2) Its Beginning. — The synoptics all date this from
the time when the Baptist was cast into prison; but
John describes a period of work before the imprison
ment, a part of which was occupied in doing very much
the same as the Baptist was doing — preaching and
baptizing.

124 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
(3) Its Length. — The synoptics tell of but one Pass
over (the final one) which would indicate a ministry
of not more than one year; but John tells of three
Passovers, and possibly of four, which would indicate
a ministry of at least two years and perhaps three.
Three is the popular view; but I think two is held by
the best scholars to-day.
(4) Its Success. — According to the synoptics, Jesus
at first meets with great success; multitudes flock to
him; his words are heard with approval; he carries
everything by storm; and it is not until later on that
popular favor deserts him, after he has refused to be
come the kind of king the people clamor for. Then
he seems to recognize that his work is all in vain, and
begins to prepare his disciples for the cross which
awaits him. According to John, he meets with bitter
opposition from the very outset, and in his first teach
ing at Jerusalem speaks of the death which his enemies
will inflict upon him; and this opposition continues,
growing only more bitter till the end.
(5) Its Characters. — Many of the leading characters
in John's story are not mentioned by the synoptics.
We may identify Nathanael with Bartholomew; but
nowhere in the first three gospels do we hear of Nico-
demus, or Lazarus, or the Woman of Samaria; while
Thomas, who is so well known to us from the Fourth
Gospel, is only a name in the first three.
(6) Seeming Contradictions. — Certain particular

THE JOHANNINE PROBLEM 125
statements in John are hard to reconcile with those in
the synoptics. The most noteworthy of these is that
concerning the day of our Lord's death. From the
first three gospels we should conclude without doubt
that Jesus ate the Passover at the time when the other
Jews did, and died the following day; but John seems
to state with equal clearness that he died on the day
when the Jews were preparing their Passover, at the
time when the Paschal Lamb was slain to be eaten
that evening, and, therefore, his Last Supper was on
the evening before the Passover.
II. Differences in the Teachings of Christ
(-1) In Form. — (a) Instead of short, incisive sayings
or groups of sayings loosely connected, John gives
elaborated addresses on particular themes, e. g., the
Bread of Life, the Departure of Jesus, and the Coming
of the Comforter. And instead of parables there are
allegories such as the True Vine, the Good Shepherd,
the Door of the Sheepfold.
(6) The key words of Christ's teachings are unlike
those in the synoptics, but identical with those in the
Epistles of John; e. g., light, darkness, life, death,
witness, the world, to know and to believe. Moreover,
the style is exactly the same as that of the epistles or
the prologue of the gospel — a Hebrew style in which
the statements are brief, simply framed, and connected
with the constantly repeated copula "and." Indeed

126 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
it is not always easy to tell where the statements of
Jesus end and those of the evangelists begin. What
portions of the third chapter, for instance, should be
assigned to Jesus and what to John?
(2) In Subject-Matter. — (a) Certain topics empha
sized in the synoptics are hardly mentioned in John.
For example, the Kingdom of God is nowhere found
except in the talk with Nicodemus; and instead of the
second coming of Christ is usually the coming of the
Comforter. There is complete silence about demoni
acs, save as the charge is made that Jesus has a demon.
(b) The mission of Christ, instead of being re
stricted, as in the synoptics, to the Jews, is a universal
and eternal one. He has other sheep not of this fold:
he is the light of the world: he will draw all men unto
him. (c) The teachings of Christ in the synoptics are
simple and generally practical; in John they are
theological and most profound. For this reason, John
even in the early centuries was called "the Spiritual
Gospel," and has been likened to the inner sanctuary
of the temple. It presupposes an intuitive perception
of the deepest religious truths when these are pre
sented without explanation or comment.

THE JOHANNINE PROBLEM 127
III. Differences in the Self-revelation of Christ
(1) Progress in the Revelation. — In the synoptics
we find a slow and orderly advance in Christ's unveil
ing of his mission and claims. He begins by preach
ing the Kingdom of God, but says nothing about him
self as the King — the long-expected Messiah. He
checks the demoniacs when they would proclaim him
the Son of God. He waits patiently for the time when
there shall dawn upon his disciples a recognition of
what he is; and he rejoices greatly when Peter — far
along in the course of the ministry — pronounces him
to be the Messiah, the Son of God; but even then he
charges them to say nothing publicly about it. And
only in the last week of his life does he throw away all
reserve, and announce his divine claims to any who
may listen.
In John there is no such progress: all is evident from
the outset. The Baptist points out Jesus as the Lamb
of God that taketh away the sin of the world (1 : 29).
His disciples at the very outset hail him as the Son
of God, the King of Israel (1 : 49). To the woman of
Samaria, looking for the Messiah, he says: "I am
He" (4 : 26). And in his public discourses from the
very beginning he emphasizes his divinity. Even the
sacramental teachings concerning eating his flesh and
drinking his blood are given in the discourse on the
day after the feeding of the five thousand; and John

128 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
wholly omits any institution of the sacrament in con
nection with the Last Supper.
(2) The Means of the Revelation.^-ln the synoptics
the miracles are primarily a manifestation of the sym
pathy of Jesus, or, at the utmost, of his power and
authority. In John they are a revelation of his
divine, pre-existent glory (John 2 : 11). The very
first one — the changing of water into wine at Cana —
causes his disciples to believe on him. They are
wrought in harmony with his eternal nature — the blind
man is given sight because he is the Light of the
World (9 : 5); Lazarus is raised from the dead because
he is the Resurrection and the Life (11 : 25). So, too,
his other deeds are related to the heavenly world to
which he belongs; e. g., he washes the disciples' feet,
" knowing that he came forth from God and returned
to God" (13 : 3).
(3) The Fulness of the Revelation. — In the synoptics
Christ reveals himself as the Messiah; but whether this
means more than that he is the one whom God has
specially chosen and anointed with his spirit to bring
in the Kingdom of God, is debatable. In John no
ground is left for such debate. He plainly proclaims
himself as existing before Abraham (8 : 58), as the
Way, the Truth and the Life (14 : 6), as one with the
Father (10 : 30). The Jews are ready to stone him for
blasphemy because he makes himself God (10 : 33).
No cleaKs;: fulfey revelation of his unique divine re-

THE JOHANNINE PROBLEM 129
lationship to the Father could be demanded. The dis
ciple who comes to Jesus through accepting John's
representation of him, must say with Thomas, " My
Lord and my God" (20 : 28).
Can these many differences between John and the
synoptics be explained, and the two accounts be so
harmonized that we may accept both as trustworthy ?
Able critics answer no; and reject John as historically
worthless. It is well to notice, in considering their de
cision, that most of them are likewise dubious about
the trustworthiness of the synoptics, and are unwilling
to accept without modification the picture of Christ
there presented. From this we may infer that the
real difficulty with John is not its difference from the
synoptics, but its clearer presentation of the divinity
of Christ, which they refuse to recognize even in the
synoptics. Equally able critics, however, accept and
defend John, finding the same divine Saviour of the
world in it and in the synoptics. Their explanation
of the differences between the two must now be con
sidered. Before we take up the solution of the Johannine
problem offered by defenders of the Fourth Gospel, we
should notice that, perhaps, the problem is not quite
as difficult as some would make it appear. The dif
ferences between John and the synoptics are some
times exaggerated. Though the style of Christ's

130 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
words in the synoptics is usually unlike that in John,
yet there are passages in which it is identical; e. g.,
"All things have been delivered unto Me of My Father;
and no one knoweth the Son save the Father, neither
doth any know the Father save the Son, and he to
whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him " : this is from
Matthew (11 : 27), yet nothing could be more like
John. Concerning the difference in the teachings of
Christ, the opinion of Wendt is valuable, not only
because his book, " The Teaching of Jesus, " is a very
able one, but because he approaches the subject
as a hostile critic, refusing to grant apostolic author
ship for much of the narrative in the Fourth Gospel.
Stalker summarizes Wendt's conclusions as follows:
"St. John has a peculiar vocabulary; but its leading
catchwords are simply equivalents of the leading catch
words of the synoptists; and the circle of Christ's
teachings in John when laid above the circle found in
the synoptists, corresponds with it point by point, al
though, of course, at some points St. John is more ex
pansive and goes deeper" ("Christology of Jesus,"
252). In regard, also, to the revelation of himself
the difference may be less than it seems. The slow
development which we trace in the synoptics is in the
hearers and not in himself; for we believe that Christ
was as fully aware of his Messianic nature at the
beginning of his ministry as at the close. And the
Gospel of John indicates just such slow development.

THE JOHANNINE PROBLEM 131
Far on in the second year of his preaching the Jews
come to him saying, " How long dost thou hold us in
suspense? If thou art the Christ, tell us plainly"
(10 : 24; cf. 7 : 40-41). Evidently the proclamation
to them had not been as unmistakable as we might
think. Nevertheless, serious difficulties in the attempt to
harmonize John with the synoptics remain and cannot
be ignored. Two facts, however, are helpful because
they throw light upon the character of the Fourth Gos
pel. The first is that its author was acquainted with
the synoptic account, and intended his work to be
supplementary to it. This is what early writers state;
e. g., Clement of Alexandria, who wrote about A. D.
200, says : " John, perceiving that what had reference
to the body [i. e., the external facts] was clearly set
forth in the other gospels, and being urged by his friends
and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual gos
pel" (Eusebius, 6 : 14 ). And this is what the book
itself indicates at the very outset, where the early work
of John the Baptist and his baptism of Jesus, and the
persons who form the first band of disciples, are treated
as well-known to its readers. With the exception of
the early Judean ministry, which the synoptics omit,
there is no attempt at a continuous narrative: typical
scenes are given without their connection. The sec
ond fact is that the purpose of the book is unlike that of
the synoptics. This we must consider more at length.

132 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
The synoptics were written, as we have noted,
mainly to preserve and spread the oral gospel. They
are not attempts at biography, but precious memora
bilia which practical experiment had found most valu
able in making converts to the Christian faith or in
fashioning the daily Christian life. The purpose of
John is plainly stated at the close of the book (20 : 30):
" Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence
of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but
these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the
Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have
life in his name." Why there was need to write such
a book is evident. The church at first had no theory
concerning the way in which the human and the divine
were joined in Christ. It accepted him as the Son of
God without seeking to explain the nature of that Son-
ship. But before a great while there was forced upon
it the problem over which men have pondered ever
since, In what sense was Christ one with God — the
Godman? And various theories were propounded
that, without rejecting him as Saviour, diminished
either his perfect humanity or his perfect divinity.
The prologue of John (I : 1-18) has reference to these,
and shows what the book wishes to prove, viz., that
Jesus was God become flesh, dwelling among us with
the evident glory of the Only Begotten from the Father,
and that in him alone is spiritual life. The whole
book is a sermon on this text. Its object is to supple-

THE JOHANNINE PROBLEM 133
ment the synoptics by setting forth the divinity of Christ
more plainly than they had done, and thus to furnish
an answer to those within the church itself who were
questioning whether Jesus was, in a full sense of the
term, the Son of God. Indeed, the prologue to John
seems an appropriate introduction rather to a theolog
ical discussion than to a biography.
When we fairly recognize the supplementary and
special character of the Fourth Gospel, its peculiarities
cease to be remarkable. Consider first its difference
from the synoptics in the details of the public ministry.
There is no indication that the synoptists did not know
of Jesus' work in Judea at the beginning, and of his
visits to Jerusalem later on. Indeed, such a state
ment as his cry over Jerusalem, " How oft would I have
gathered thy children" (Matt. 23 : 37), would be unin
telligible if the final Passover visit was the first one.
Nor is it fair to infer from their failure to mention any
Passover except the last that they supposed the min
istry to be limited to one year. Mark expressly states
that the feeding of the five thousand took place in the
time of green grass — the time of the Passover; and
since he tells of a long ministry after that miracle, he
cannot have supposed that it was in the springtime of
the last Passover.
The synoptists, as we have noted, do not give or pro
fess to give a complete record of Christ's words and
deeds; nor do they attempt (though this is not entirely

134 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
true of Luke) a chronological arrangement of their
narratives. Why they omit all mention of the work in
Judea and Jerusalem, except during Passion Week
and possibly some isolated incidents such as the visit
with Mary and Martha (Luke 10 : 38-42), we can only
surmise. But that work was comparatively brief; it
seemed a complete failure; and probably the synoptists
or their sources saw in it nothing of special interest
and importance — at least, nothing that should be re
lated in preference to other portions of the ministry.
The writer of the Fourth Gospel, on the other hand,
saw in the Judean work much that suited his purpose
exactly. He wished to set before his readers the di
vinity of Jesus; and, as we shall presently see, there
was no place where Jesus proclaimed his divine nature
and mission so clearly and boldly as at Jerusalem, " the
theological centre of the nation," in the great feasts
where representatives of the Jewish race were assem
bled from every quarter.
It was natural, therefore, that incidents from the
work in Judea should constitute the chief part of the
Fourth Gospel. And, this being the case, it was in
evitable that the story should differ as to characters,
incidents, and measure of success from that which the
synoptists related. Any harmony of the gospels will
show how the two narratives fit into each other. A
discussion of special instances in which they seem at
first sight to be contradictory would take too much

THE JOHANNINE PROBLEM 135
time. The commentaries on John will suggest how
these can be harmonized. Even the most difficult of
all — the time of the Last Supper as related to the Pass
over — is simply explained, if we suppose that because
of the great number of pilgrims coming to the Pass
over, it was allowable — indeed, would seem to be neces
sary — for some to sacrifice and eat the Passover lamb
in advance of the regular time, and that Jesus was one
of those who thus anticipated the regular day and hour
in eating the Passover meal.
In regard to the differences in the form of the teach
ings of Christ, I suppose we must agree that the style
and keywords are those of John rather than of Jesus.
And the natural conclusion is that though John gives
us the thought of Jesus, he clothes it in his own words.
In one way that is true of all four gospels. They are
written in Greek; but Jesus spoke in Aramaic — the
common language of the people of Palestine; so we
do not have his original words when we read the Greek
gospels any more than we do when we read our Eng
lish revised version; in both cases we are using a
translation. The cry on the cross, "Eli, Eli, lama
sabachthani," the command to Jairus's daughter,
"Talitha cumi," are exact reproductions of Christ's
own words; but such examples are rare. Moreover,
in the long discourses in which John's gospel abounds,
we probably have not simply a translation of Christ's
words, but a summary of them without any attempt

136 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
to reproduce their exact form. True, they are put on
Jesus' lips in what rhetorically is called direct dis
course. But we must remember that the Hebrew
language never developed indirect discourse, and used
the first person just as much when giving only the gen
eral meaning of a speaker as when giving his precise
words. (See Robertson, "Early Religion of Israel,"
2 : 176.) So it would seem perfectly proper to a
man who was more familiar with Hebrew than with
Greek, to write, e. g., " Jesus said ' I am the Bread
of Life,'" where another writer would express it,
"Jesus said that he was the Bread of Life." We
ought not to accuse John of putting into Christ's
mouth words that he never spoke, for that is something
John had no intention of doing. Nor ought we to be
troubled if we have not the precise words of Jesus. If
we had them, they would be unintelligible except to
scholars who could read Aramaic; and most of us
would still have to depend upon the words of a trans
lation. Enough if we possess in Greek or English the
exact teachings of Jesus, though the words are those
of John or of English translators.
How, then, about the teachings themselves?
Granting that Wendt is right when he says that they
cover exactly the same circle of truth as those in the
synoptics, why are they so much deeper and more
spiritual in John ? Several facts may explain this.
First, the synoptics and John were for different

THE JOHANNINE PROBLEM 137
readers. The synoptics, as we have seen, are drawn
from sources that were purely evangelistic — like Peter's
oral gospel, or that were for the guidance and cheer of
beginners in the Christian way — like Matthew's Logia.
Evidently in such sources there would be little place
for the deeper things of Christ. An unconverted audi
ence would not be interested in these deeper things;
and those who had advanced but a little way in the
Christian life would not profit by them. But John
was written for maturer Christians — for those who al
ready were pondering such subjects as the union of
the human and the divine in Christ; evidently such
readers were ready to profit by a teaching that set forth
the deepest truths. Even in the present day, the
Fourth Gospel appeals rather to the Christian of ripe
experience and full spiritual development than to the
beginner or the unbeliever.
Second, the apostle John — if the Fourth Gospel
comes directly or indirectly from him — may have been
more receptive of deep truths than the other apostles.
The teachings of Jesus varied according to the char
acter of his hearers, being sometimes hidden in para
bles and sometimes open (John 16 : 29), now dwelling
on the simple truths and duties of daily life, and again
interpreting the mysteries of the Kingdom of God
(Mark 4 : 11). He spake to the people and to his own
intimate disciples as they were able to hear (Mark
4 : 33, John 16 : 12). This was natural, and is ex-

138 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
actly what all wise teachers do. The difference in
the teachings of Jesus would be no greater than that
between a sermon by a modern preacher to an audience
gathered from the streets, and a quiet talk by the same
preacher to his own church people at a Lenten service.
Now, it is certain that Jesus gave his deepest teachings
to the little band of apostles; and it is probable that
John was by nature more appreciative of these teach
ings than were the others. He was the nephew of Mary
who pondered such things in her heart (Luke 2 : 19,
51); when he became a disciple he was, so we suppose,
scarcely more than a lad, and correspondingly recep
tive: and he was the disciple whom Jesus loved, and
who leaned upon his bosom. If any gospel was to
reveal the heart of Christ, it would be one prepared by
such an apostle. And the difference between the
teachings of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel and in the
synoptics is explained in part by the difference be
tween the biographers.
Third, the deeper meaning in Jesus' teachings may
have become evident to John in later years. John
wrote his gospel long after the others and in his old
age. For years he has been meditating upon the
teachings of Jesus, and interpreting them according
to his own deepening spiritual experience. Christ's
promise of the Comforter who should teach his dis
ciples all things and bring all things to their remem
brance has been fulfilled to John. So in the words of

THE JOHANNINE PROBLEM 139
Jesus he sees meanings that he failed to see at first;
they have grown more clear and wonderful as the years
have gone by. How natural, then, that as he writes
them down, he should try to give their full significance
as it now appears to his mind illumined by the Holy
Ghost. Indeed, Browning, in his " Death in the Des
ert" (concerning which Sanday says, " As an imagina
tive reproduction of the circumstances and frame of
mind in which the gospel was written, it is the best that
I know"), makes the aged apostle declare that this was
the main reason why he wrote:
" Since much that at the first, in deed and word,
Lay simply and sufficiently exposed,
Had grown (or else my soul was grown to match, —
Fed through such years, familiar with such light,
Guarded and guided still to see and speak)
Of new significance and fresh result;
What first were guessed as points, I now knew stars
And named them in the gospel I have writ."
The third group of differences — those found in
Christ's self-revelation — may be accounted for along
the lines already indicated. Whether his divine nature
and Messianic mission were known to Jesus before his
baptism is a question open to debate: but few, except
those who reject the story of the baptism, can doubt
that from the time of the baptism he had full knowl
edge of his nature and work. His disclosure of that
knowledge to others would depend upon their con
dition. If their idea of the Messiah was a misleading

140 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
one, the statement "I am He" would be harmful
rather than helpful. For example, in Galilee the peo
ple seem to have been expecting a Messiah who would
gratify their longings for material prosperity, idleness,
and self-indulgence; the five thousand whom he fed
one springtime afternoon were quick to decide that
this was a king after their heart's desire; and even the
twelve sympathized with them. Accordingly, the
work in Galilee had to be restricted to teaching the true
nature of the Kingdom of God; not until the Galileans
should grasp that truth — and they never did — could
he proclaim himself the king. On the other hand,
the Samaritans, who drew their idea of the Messiah
wholly from the Pentateuch, were looking for a teacher
like Moses (Deut. 18 : 15, John 4 : 25), who should
lead them into all truth; and there was no reason why
Jesus should not say plainly to the woman at the well,
"I that speak unto thee am he" (John 4 : 26).
The degree, then, to which Jesus would reveal him
self to the Judeans and especially to the Sanhedrin,
who controlled all Judean thought, would depend up
on their preparation for that revelation. Evidently
they were not ready toTeceive such a Messiah as Jesus;
but there seems to have been no preliminary work of
preparation lacking to make them ready. The priests
who had turned the temple into a robber's den needed
no further instruction before they should be confronted
with the question whether they would accept one who

THE JOHANNINE PROBLEM 141
would treat it as the Father's house. The rabbis who
claimed the authority that came from professing to sit
in Moses' seat knew well enough that when the Mes
siah appeared their proud prerogative must be sur
rendered. And the Pharisees, whose sweet sense of
self-righteousness was fostered by emphasis of every
jot and tittle of the law, looked forward to a king
who should be the new lawgiver. There was no need
to wait for further preparation — except, indeed, the
preparation of repentance which the Baptist preached
— before Jesus should proclaim his Messiahship to the
Judeans. The work in Judea began with the cleansing of the
temple — an act that called immediate attention to the
claims of Jesus, and challenged the authorities to do
their duty as leaders of the people by passing upon
those claims. And at every subsequent visit to the
home of the Sanhedrin there was a fresh challenge, in
the form of further Messianic work or teachings. Very
probably Jesus, from the beginning, had little hope that
the Sanhedrin would accept him; but they must not be
left in ignorance of what he was and what he sought
from them. When they at last, in the name of the
nation, should pronounce him an impostor worthy of
death, their act must be without the excuse that he had
not clearly set before them his credentials. The dif
ference, then, between his self-revelation, here and
elsewhere, is natural.

142 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
And yet there are various indications in this same
Gospel of John that the revelation was not as unmis
takable as at first we might suppose. For example,
Nicodemus, despite the cleansing of the temple, sees
in Jesus only a teacher come from God. And far
along in the ministry, as we have noted, the Jews
(by which term John designates the leaders at Jeru
salem) come round about him with the question,
"How long dost thou hold us in suspense? If thou
art the Christ, tell us plainly" (John 10 : 24). Here,
again, we must recognize that the Fourth Gospel is not
a biography, but an interpretation. John sets forth
the inner meaning which lies beneath the outward act.
He shows us Jesus, not as the Jews actually saw him,
but as they might have seen, had they in spirit been
prepared to see. For example, when the Baptist,
pointing out Jesus, says "Behold the Lamb of God,"
— a term taken from Isaiah 53 : 7 — John puts into
that term its fulness of meaning by adding "that
taketh away the sin of the world" (1 : 29). Or, again,
in the enigmatical words of Jesus, "Destroy this tem
ple, and in three days I will raise it up" (2 : 19) —
whose surface meaning seems to have been the one
indicated by Mark (14 : 57)— John finds a deeper
meaning revealed by meditation upon his death and
resurrection. The conversation with Nicodemus illus
trates clearly the way in which, when John reports
the teachings of Jesus, "reminiscence deepens uncon-

THE JOHANNINE PROBLEM 143
sciously into reflection," till we can hardly tell where
he ceases to be the reporter and becomes the expositor.
With such treatment of the ministry of Jesus there can
be little progress in his self-revelation, because the at
tempt is to show, not the development of faith in his
disciples, but the grounds for their faith; and these
existed unchanged from the beginning.
Such are the lines along which those who accept the
Fourth Gospel as trustworthy arrive at a solution of
the Johannine problem. To many critics the solu
tion seems unsatisfactory; and in their opinion the
difference between the picture of Jesus in John and
in the synoptics arises from the fact that John is al
most wholly unhistorical — a product of theological
speculation at the close of the first century. It is well
to notice, however, that usually the factor most influ
ential in shaping this opinion is the conclusion, reached
in advance, that the main thesis of John — the divin
ity of Jesus — cannot be accepted. Certainly many
of the arguments used by hostile critics have little
weight apart from such a decision. Illingworth points
this out forcibly in one instance: " An eminent critic
[Holtzmann, 'Life of Jesus,' 40; see also Jiilicher,
'Introduction to New Testament,' 421], after con
trasting the Sermon on the Mount with a passage in
one of the Johannine discourses, says, ' It is a psycho
logical impossibility that these two things should have
proceeded from the same person.' This has all the air

144 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
of a scientific statement; but mark what the assertion
involves — the adequate capacity of the critic to judge
what was or was not possible in another person's mode
of thought and speech. Now we should hardly be
disposed to concede such a degree of insight to the
ablest of critics in a case where the person criticised
was a man of supreme genius like Plato or Shake
speare or St. Paul; for it is the characteristic of such
men to baffle ordinary expectation, and scatter the
prosaic tests of weight and measure to the winds.
But would any man, with the faintest reputation for
sanity to maintain, claim this insight if he believed
the person in question to be God incarnate, or even
possibly to be God incarnate ? Obviously not. It is
plain, therefore, that the incarnation had been ruled
out of court before the assertion in question was
made" ("Doctrine of the Trinity," 25).
After all, the strongest proof that the Jesus of the
synoptics is the same as the Jesus of John, lies in the
fact that the Christian Church has never been conscious
of any real difference. Knowing him by personal ex
perience, and convinced of his divinity by proofs far
stronger than any fragmentary record of what he did
and said almost nineteen hundred years ago, it has
studied that record in the first three gospels and again
in John, and found throughout them all, the same
elder brother, Saviour and Son of God, whom to know
is life everlasting.

CHAPTER X
CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH GOSPEL
The Four Gospels give four different pictures of
Jesus. The early church recognized this and sym
bolized the four by the four living creatures standing
around the throne of God in the apocalyptic vision
(Rev. 4:7; cf. Ezek. 1 : 10), viz., the man, the lion,
the ox, the eagle. There was some disagreement about
the assignment of these symbols, though usually Mat
thew was the man because it pictures Jesus as the Son
of David, the Messiah; Mark was the lion because it
pictures him as the mighty miracle-worker; Luke was
the ox because it shows him as the patient, self-sacrific
ing Saviour; and John was the eagle because in it he
is most plainly revealed as the sublime Son of God.
Unless the gospels differ entirely from all other
biographies, they must have each its own characteris
tics which might properly be symbolized. Even when
two authors have equal opportunity to gain a knowledge
of their subject, and equal ability to state it, there will
be a difference in their books arising from tempera
ment. Things that appeal to the one and are put in
the foreground, may be almost ignored by the other
145

146 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
because they do not appeal to him. From what we
know of Peter and John — two apostles so unlike in
temperament — we cannot expect that the Gospel of
Mark, which is practically Peter's story of Jesus, will
contain the same incidents or give the same emphasis
as the Gospel of John. Then, again, the same material
may be treated very differently by a writer who has one
purpose in writing or one audience in mind, and an
other writer who has a different purpose or audience.
Matthew wrote for the Hebrews and to set forth Jesus
as the Messiah; Luke wrote for the Gentiles and to set
forth Jesus as the Saviour of all men: evidently their
two books will not give the same picture of Jesus.
Each gospel, therefore, must differ from the others:
and its account of Jesus must be interpreted in the
light of its authorship before it can convey its full
meaning. All this is familiar to us in the case of other biogra
phies, but we sometimes forget it in the case of the
gospels. Nevertheless it is just as important to dis
cover and bear in mind individual characteristics when
we study the Four Gospels as when we study any other
books of history. Only in this way can we fully ap
preciate the record. We must learn where to put the
emphasis in our reading, and how to read between the
lines. As we note concerning photographs that this
was a snapshot and this a careful pose, or that for this
the negative was not retouched, while for this the wrin-

CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH GOSPEL 147
kles and blemishes were rubbed out; and after thus
valuing our photographs decide about the actual ap
pearance of the person they portray; in like manner we
must note the character of the four pictures of Jesus
before we can determine what manner of person he
was. The foregoing statements are not equivalent to say
ing that the gospels are untrustworthy, but only that,
like all biographies, they are limited by the limitations
of their authors or of those from whom the material
was gained. None knew Jesus thoroughly, not even
the disciple who leaned upon his breast; and no evan
gelist could write about him without personal bias and
purposes that would shape his narrative.
Moreover, when we know and bear in mind the
characteristics of a gospel, we not only read it with new
intelligence, but often we find new grounds for trusting
its statements. For example, in Luke — as we shall
presently notice — there are plain indications that its
author looked upon the twelve with much reverence,
and disliked to state anything to their discredit; any
record, therefore, of their shortcomings and failures
in Luke (and there are many such) is specially impres
sive and credible, since we are sure Luke would have
omitted it could he have found good excuse for so do
ing. Again, Matthew is so eager to point out fulfil
ment of prophecy in Jesus' life that sometimes he seems
to strain the prophecy in order to make it foretell the

148 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
particular event; but the very far-fetchedness of his ful
filments shows how careful he was to treat his facts
honestly. The temptation to change them, more or less,
in order to make them meet the prophecy, was evidently
great, yet he stoutly resisted it.
Let us look, then, at the four evangelists and their
four pictures of Christ, considering specially those facts
that reveal the characteristics of each gospel.
Matthew
Very little is known of Matthew the apostle except
the fact that he was a collector of customs at Caper
naum, and the circumstances of his call to follow Jesus.
In each list of the apostles he stands seventh or eighth,
which gives a hint of the estimate put upon his ability
by the evangelists. The uniform tradition is that he was
the author of the First Gospel, and that he wrote it in
Hebrew, by which probably is meant Aramaic. Some
truth must lie behind this tradition; for if the apostolic
authorship has been purely an invention to give author
ity to the gospel, a more important apostle would have
been selected. But the author of this gospel has incor
porated in it nearly the whole of Mark: and, as W. C.
Allen observes, " It is indeed not impossible, but it is
very improbable, that an apostle should rely upon the
work of another for the entire framework of his narra
tive." Nor could the First Gospel have been written
in Hebrew, because it reproduces the Greek phraseol-

CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH GOSPEL 149
ogy of Mark often almost exactly. The origin of the
tradition is most simply explained by supposing that
Matthew did write in Hebrew or Aramaic some book
which was used by the author of the First Gospel as
the basis of his work: and for this reason the whole
compilation was called the Gospel According to Mat
thew. This has already been pointed out in discus
sing the synoptic problem.
Though the author of the First Gospel must remain
unknown, the strongly Hebraic character of his book
makes it evident that he was a Jew; while the broad
view he takes of the mission of Christ — beginning his
story with the visit of the Gentile magi to the young
child and ending with the commission of the apostles
to make disciples of all nations — both found only in this
gospel — would indicate that he had a wider horizon
than most Jews who lived in Palestine. He has, as
Moffatt notes, given an unconscious portrayal of him
self in the saying of Jesus, recorded in his gospel alone,
"Every scribe who hath been made a disciple to the
kingdom of heaven, is like unto a man that is a house
holder, who bringeth forth out of his treasure things
new and old" (13 : 52). Where his home was, of
course, we cannot know. A favorite guess is Southern
Syria — say Phoenicia — in which were many Jewish
Christians. That Matthew (to use the established name for the
book) was written primarily for Jews is unmistakable.

150 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
It contains more than forty quotations from the Old
Testament: it traces the genealogy of Christ back to
Abraham: it takes special pains to point out the ful
filment of prophecy: it is the only gospel to record
Jesus' declaration that the law is permanent (5 : 17-
19) ; and, indeed, its whole presentation of Jesus is as
the Jewish Messiah. Most fittingly it is placed as the
beginning of the New Testament, for it forms a natural
transition from the messages of the Old Testament
prophets. The Jewish readers, however, for whom
Matthew was written, must have lived outside of Pal
estine; otherwise there would have been no need to fol
low Mark in translating Aramaic words (27 : 33, 46)
and in stating a custom of the Passover (27 : 15), or a
Sadducean belief (22 : 23).
It is generally held that the book was written not far
from the year A. D. 70; and, if so, the character of the
times explains the purpose of the author. In that mad
revolt against Rome, which ended with the destruction
of Jerusalem, the patriotism of the Jews became a
frenzy; and many Jewish Christians turned back from
Christ to the national religion, or wavered in their be
lief that he was really the promised Messiah. When
Jerusalem fell, those who remained steadfast had to un
dergo another testing of their faith, because this sore
calamity was so contrary to all their expectations of
the Messianic kingdom. During these trying hours,
when Jewish Christians, as they thought about Jesus,

CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH GOSPEL 151
were repeating the question which John the Baptist in
an hour of trial once asked, " Art thou He that cometh
or look we for another?" the Gospel of Matthew was
written to reassure them by telling the life of Jesus in
such a way as to answer that question once more. The
book is a narrative; but, as Dr. Burton has shown
("Introduction to the Gospels" 12/.), it is a narrative
with an argumentative purpose. What Matthew seeks
to prove, so as to establish the faith of the perplexed
and wavering Jewish Christian, may be summed up
under four heads:
First, Jesus was the long expected Messiah. This
is proved by pointing out how exactly and minutely
the Old Testament Messianic prophecies were ful
filled in his birth, life, and death. Such proof would
be to Jews most convincing, and was repeatedly used
by the apostles when they preached to Jewish audi
ences, beginning with Peter's sermon at Pentecost. It
seems, as we have already said, that, in his eagerness to
find fulfilments of prophecy, Matthew sometimes gets
far away from the literal sense of the Old Testament
passages; e. g., how can the statement that God called
Israel out of Egypt (Hos. 11 : 1) be a prophecy that
the infant Jesus should be brought back from that
same land ? Is the prediction that Ramah would mourn
over its people carried away to Babylon (Jer. 31 : 15)
in any sense fulfilled by the sorrow of Bethlehem over
the babes murdered by Herod ? And who can say cer-

152 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
tainly what prophecy is fulfilled in the fact that Jesus,
because he dwelt in Nazareth, was called a Nazarene ?
But if these fulfilments seem far-fetched, then, evi
dently, the writer was not— as some critics have sup
posed — inventing incidents to fit the prophecies;
rather he was hunting hard to find prophecies that
would fit the incidents.
Second, the kingdom of Jesus was the true Mes
sianic kingdom. This fact is set forth, among other
ways, by four groups of Jesus' own sayings, viz.:
(5-8) the Sermon on the Mount, which is like an
inaugural proclamation stating who are the subjects,
and what are the laws, the life, etc., of the kingdom;
(10) the instructions to the apostles as to how they are
to proclaim the kingdom; (18) the conduct of members
of the kingdom to each other; (24-25) the final con
summation of the kingdom. It is noteworthy that the
transition from each of these groups to the narrative
is by practically the same formula, " And it came to pass
when Jesus had finished these words," which some
think to be an indication by the evangelist that all the
groups were taken from the same collection of sayings,
i. e., that they formed a part, or Wendt would say the
whole, of the so-called Logia or Quelle.
Third, Jesus offered the kingdom to his own nation;
but, despite his warnings, they refused it, and put him
to death. In no other gospel is there such a clear pict
ure of the attitude of the Jews toward Jesus, or such

CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH GOSPEL 153
a full answer to the objections with which they sought
to justify their attitude. Nor have we elsewhere such
utterances of warning and denunciation. The most
emphatic condemnation of the Pharisees (23), and the
clearest predictions of the doom of the nation (8 : 11-
12, 21 : 43) are peculiar to Matthew.
Fourth, because the Jews rejected their Messiah they
have lost their place in his kingdom; and it is now
open to all nations. Many of the parables peculiar to
Matthew emphasize the exclusion of unworthy Jews
from the kingdom, e. g., plants rooted up (15 : 13),
tares burned (13 : 30), bad fish cast away (13 : 48),
foolish virgins shut out (25 : 11), the guest without a
wedding garment cast out (22 : 13). And this gos
pel alone gives the plain statement of Christ, "The
Kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and
given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof"
(21 : 43). Henceforth, the field is the world (13 : 38),
and the laborers in it are to make disciples of all na
tions (28 : 19). "The author's aim is by no means
attained when he has advanced evidence that Jesus is
the Messiah. He reaches his goal only when, with this
as the first step of his argument, he has shown that
Jesus the Messiah founded a kingdom of universal
scope, abolishing all Jewish limitations" (Burton).
When the gospels were being brought together in one
manuscript, Matthew was generally supposed to have
been written first, and so it was placed first in the col-

154 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
lection. This position, which it has held ever since,
has increased its importance. Readers of the gospels
usually begin with Matthew, and are more familiar
with it than with the other gospels. Its abundance
of material, its attractive style and its convenient
arrangement for memorizing, secure its popularity.
Julicher pronounces it, "the principal gospel of
Christendom, the gospel by which the picture of Jesus
has been engraved on all our minds . . . the most
important book ever written."
Mark
If, as early tradition states and the majority of
modern scholars agree, the author of this gospel was
the John Mark of Acts, who is usually identified with
the Mark of the Epistles, we know considerable about
him. He was a cousin of Barnabas (Col. 4 : 10), and
probably like him a Levite. Early writers call him
"the maimed-fingered"; if this indicates a physical
defect, he would not be allowed to serve in the temple.
His home was in Jerusalem, and was evidently one of
some wealth (Acts 12 : 12-13). He may have known
Jesus, despite the statement of Papias that he had
neither heard nor accompanied him; indeed, there is
ground for supposing that the Last Supper was in his
house, and that he himself, roused from sleep by the
noise of soldiers outside, was the "certain young man"
who followed the armed band to Gethsemane. The

CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH GOSPEL 155
incident is given only in Mark (14 : 51-2), and there
seems no reason for its narration except personal in
terest. While at times he worked with Barnabas and Paul
(Acts 12 : 25; 15 : 39, Col. 4 : 10), he was most closely
associated with Peter, who calls him " my son " (I Peter
5 : 13). His boyhood in Jerusalem had probably given
him a knowledge of Greek and Latin, which were
sealed tongues to the Galilean fishermen; so Papias
may be right when he says that Mark acted as inter
preter for Peter. In general he seems to have been a
good assistant rather than a leader — not a prophet
or teacher, but "useful for ministering" (II Timothy
4: 11). All this agrees with the impression as to its
author which we gain from the gospel itself, viz.: " that
he was a born Jew, familiar with the circle of the original
aposdes, and especially interested in Peter, but also a
much-travelled person, rejoicing in the fact that the
gospel was to be preached to all nations" (Jiilicher).
According to Papias, as we have seen, Mark's story
of Jesus is largely that which Peter used to tell. This
seems probable. There certainly are abundant marks
of an eye-witness — graphic touches that are given sim
ply because the scene remains in memory (e. g., 4 : 38;
5:5; 6 : 39; 10 : 32, 50); and they are what Peter
might have seen. Also, in the incidents where Peter,
James, and John were the only apostles present (5 : 37 jf. ;
14 : 33^F.), as well as in the story of Peter's denial

156 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
(14 : 54, 66-72), there are details not found in the
other gospels. At the same time some incidents are
omitted which Peter from modesty or shame would not
narrate, e. g., the walking on the water, the promise
about the rock and keys, the stater in the fish's mouth,
and the question about forgiving a brother (all told in
Matthew 14 : 24#.; 17 : 4; 16 : 18/.; 18 : 21/.); also
the miraculous draught of fishes and the sifting by
Satan (both told in Luke 5 : 1/.; 22 : 31). The limits
of the story, too, are those laid down by Peter when, at
the choice of Matthias, he said an apostle must be a
witness, "beginning from the baptism of John until
the day he was received up from us " (Acts 1 : 20).
Doubtless Peter was not the only source of informa
tion. The book falls naturally into two main divisions
viz.: the Galilean ministry (chaps. 1-9) and the final
days in Jerusalem (chaps. 11-16), connected by a brief
account of the Perean ministry (chap. 10). The sec
ond main division is much the fuller, and has more of
Jesus' sayings. One part of it (chap. 13) seems to
have been taken from a written source; and Mark's
residence in Jerusalem would acquaint him with what
Jesus said and did there.
The Gospel of Mark evidently was written for
Gentiles rather than for Jews. There are no quota
tions from the Old Testament except in conversations
and in the opening verses (1 : 2-3). Jewish customs,
etc., are explained (7 : 2-4; 12 : 18; 13 : 3; 14 : 12;

CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH GOSPEL 157
15 : 42). And though he loves to quote the Aramaic
words of Christ, he always translates them (3 : 17;
5 : 41; 7 : 11, 34; 14 : 36; 15 : 34). In Christ's state
ment that the temple should be a house of prayer
Mark alone has the words " for all the nations," thus
putting the Gentile side by side with the Jew (11 : 17).
Whether the Gentile world for which Mark wrote
was, in particular, the Roman world, is not so evident;
but there are indications that this was the fact, e. g.,
Jewish money is given its Roman equivalent (12 : 42),
Latin words are sometimes used (6 : 27; 15 : 39, 44),
and the teaching about divorce recognizes the wife's
putting away her husband, which was a Roman but
not a Jewish practice (10 : 12). Most scholars accept
as true the tradition that Peter spent his last days in
Rome; then Mark may have written his gospel there,
as various early writers declare. The fact that Rufus
and Alexander were sons of Simon of Cyrene (15 : 21),
which Mark learned through his residence in Jeru
salem, may have been mentioned by him because he
knew them personally, or possibly because Rufus was
known to the Roman Christians (Rom. 16 : 13): the
other synoptists saw no reason for repeating the state
ment. We have already noticed when discussing
dates that this gospel seems to have been written before
A. D. 70; but whether Peter was still living, as Clement
of Alexandria says, or whether both he and Paul were
dead, as Irenseus affirms, we cannot tell.

158 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
If we look at Mark as largely reproducing the story
Peter was accustomed to tell those who asked him
about Jesus — a story of which we have the outline in
the report of what Peter said to Cornelius, Acts 10 : 37-
42 — and as also representing the oral gospel which those
who were scattered abroad after the death of Stephen
told when they went about preaching the Word (Acts
8 : 4), we shall see the explanation of its characteristics.
" The story is told as it would be in conversation : dia
logue plays a large part in it, and the utterances of
speakers are introduced in the plainest way and gen
erally by 'he saith' and 'they say' with no further dis
tinction of the interlocutors" (Robinson, "Study of the
Gospels," 40). It is a plain story, such as an unlettered
man would tell, with a use of colloquial terms and a
lack of literary finish, which led even the writers of
Matthew and Luke to make some changes when they
incorporated the gospel in their own books. "There
is something fresh and strong and primitive about the
whole presentation, particularly in its very awkward
nesses." It is an unbiased story, setting forth the facts
concretely without theological speculations or senti
mental touches — a story possible only in those earliest
days when the apostles felt that their great work was
simply to be faithful witnesses to what they had seen
and heard. While the divinity of Christ is clearly set
forth, his humanity is made equally evident: indeed,

CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH GOSPEL 159
some of Mark's statements are omitted or toned down
in the other gospels, apparently for fear that such plain
revelations of human limitations might be stumbling
blocks in the way of accepting the divinity of Jesus.
For example, that he was a carpenter himself as well as
a carpenter's son (6 : 3), that at one stage of his min
istry his friends thought him insane (3 : 21), that in
opening the eyes of a blind man he had to proceed by
stages (8 : 22-26), and that in curing the deaf and
tongue-tied man he put forth prolonged effort (7 : 32-
37): these facts are omitted by Matthew and Luke;
and while Mark says that at Nazareth " He could do
no mighty work save that he laid his hands upon a few
sick people and healed them" (6 : 5), Matthew shades
down this statement of his inability into " He did not
many mighty works there" (13 : 58).
It is an evangelist's story, arranged to bring out
gradually the disclosure of Christ's divine claims, em
phasizing his miracles as proofs of divinity, and giving
large space to the final scenes in Jerusalem — just such
a story as would hold the attention and touch the heart
of an audience not yet won to faith, and make them
confess, as did the centurion beside the cross, "Truly
this man was the Son of God" (15 : 39). While fre
quent mention is made of the fact that Jesus taught,
very few of his teachings are given: what he was, as
proved by what he did and suffered, is the great lesson
of the book..

160 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
In reading this story we come nearest to seeing
Jesus as the men of his day saw him. We have, not
a portrait carefully painted to show the inner nature,
as in the Fourth Gospel, nor even a photograph with
certain lines softened or erased, as in the other two
synoptics: we have in Mark a photograph printed from
a negative as yet untouched. Whether such a picture
is really more true and satisfying may, perhaps, be
questioned; but its strict literalness makes it most
valuable. And whereas Mark formerly was the least
prized of all the gospels, because it contained so little
not found in the others, to-day it receives special at
tention as not only the most primitive but also the
most fresh and vivid and objective of them all.
Luke
The Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts are by
the same author. This is undisputed, and is evi
denced not only by the opening verse of Acts, but also
and more strongly by vocabulary, style, and arrange
ment, which are the same in both books. Luke, the
companion of Paul, was probably the author. Such
was the early and uniform tradition, and since Luke
was by no means a prominent character in the apostolic
age, there seems to be no reason why the tradition
should have arisen unless it was based on fact. More
over, certain passages in Acts, written in the first person
plural, are unquestionably by an eye-witness; and the

CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH GOSPEL 161
argument is strong that this eye-witness was Luke,
and that these passages are by the same person who
wrote the rest of the book. We know that Luke was
a Gentile physician (Col. 4 : 14), and we note his
trained use of medical terms, and the fact that he alone
records Jesus' use of saying, "Physician, heal thyself"
(4 : 23). His gospel shows literary finish, and an
historical sense much beyond the other gospels, as
might be expected from a man of broader educa
tion. His sources of information are various. He knows
about written records (1 : 1-4), and — as we have seen
— made use of Mark's gospel (whose author he knew
personally, Phile. 24) and of the Logia. Probably his
source for the story of the infancy was a written one —
the style indicates this — and he may have used other
similar sources. Then he may have learned much
from Paul; for there are plain indications that Paul,
though he never met Jesus during his ministry, was
well acquainted with the facts of that ministry (e. g.,
Acts 20 : 35; I Cor. 15 : 1-8; 9 : 14). Also, in his
travels with Paul he must have met many early dis
ciples (e. g., Philip the evangelist at Csesarea, Acts
21 : 8) who could give him first-hand information
about Jesus. We notice that he seems to have had
special information about the court of Herod (3 : 1, 19;
8 : 3; 9 : 7-9; 13 : 31; 23 : 7-12) gained, perhaps,
from Manaen (Acts 13 : 1) or from Joanna (8 : 3).

162 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
In all, more than one-half of his gospel is not found in
the other synoptics.
His two books are dedicated to Theophilus, whom
some suppose to be any "Lover of God," but who
was probably a real person — a Roman of rank (so the
title "most excellent" would indicate: cf. Acts 24 : 3;
26 : 25; 23 : 26). Of course, he intended them for
others besides Theophilus, and many things indicate
that the readers he had in mind were Gentiles and
especially Romans. He substitutes Gentile terms for
Jewish — e. g., master or teacher for rabbi, the skull
for Golgotha (23 : 33), zealot for Canansean (6 : 16);
he tells of "the feast of unleavened bread which is
called the Passover" (22 : 1); he explains that Caper
naum is a city of Galilee (4 : 31) and that Arimathea is
a city of the Jews (23 : 51) ; he calls the little sheet of
water in Galilee a lake and not a sea; he even states
that the Mount of Olives is nigh unto Jerusalem (Acts
1 : 12). On the other hand, he takes for granted that
his readers know just where the Market of Appius and
the Three Taverns are, and so will understand how far
out from Rome the brethren came to meet Paul (Acts
28 : 15).
Luke plainly states the purpose of his writing: it is
that Theophilus may know that the Christian faith,
which he has embraced, is founded on facts that can
not be shaken (1 : 4). These facts are not alone those
set forth in his gospel: the Book of Acts is a continua-

CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH GOSPEL 163
tion of them: and there is reason to think that Luke
intended to write still another book — alas! that it was
left unwritten — carrying on further the story of the
work of Christ as it was wrought through his apostles.
Other writers already have recorded some of these facts ;
but it seems to Luke that, having special opportunities
for investigation and giving special care to his task,
he can improve upon their work (1 : 3). He writes,
therefore, as an historian, and Dr. Ramsay, who is
specially qualified to pronounce upon Luke's other
book, Acts, declares that for trustworthiness, skill in
arranging his material, and sympathetic historical in
sight, he should be reckoned " among the historians of
the first rank." He writes, also, as a literary artist —
showing this not only in his command of Greek and
his versatile style, but still more in his artistic treatment
of each subject, his "rare combination of descriptive
power with simplicity and dignity," and his "insight
into the lights and shadows of character, and the con
flict between spiritual forces " (Plummer).
Prompted by his historical instinct, Luke tries to
arrange his material in chronological order. He takes
from the Logia practically the same extracts as those in
Matthew; but instead of giving them in a few large
collections, he breaks them up and puts them, so far
as possible, in their original setting. In his use of
Mark he follows Mark's order very closely in the first
part; even as Matthew does in the last part. But

164 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
Luke has a long passage (9 : 51-18 : 14) inserted
into Mark's narrative and consisting largely of matter
peculiar to himself. The indications of time for the
events in this passage are few and vague, and the in
cidents seem to be gathered from various periods of
Jesus' ministry. Where to place them is a difficult
problem, and gives rise to the chief disagreements be
tween various harmonies of the gospels or chronol
ogies of the life of Christ. Possibly Luke himself did
not know just where to put them, and threw them to
gether as disconnected stories he had gathered from
various sources; indeed, some critics would call this
portion of his gospel "Luke's scrap-basket." Possi
bly, however, the section — which has its peculiarities —
was taken by Luke from some written source, not used
by Mark or Matthew.
Luke, with the great Gentile world in mind, sets
forth a universal gospel. Jesus, whose genealogy is
traced back to Adam instead of stopping with Abra
ham, is the Saviour for all men — for Samaritans, Gen
tiles, publicans, sinners, outcasts, as well as for Jews.
Most of the parables peculiar to Luke's gospel are
evangelistic; e. g., the great supper, the good Samari
tan, the Pharisee and the publican, the lost sheep, the
lost coin, the prodigal son. There is special interest in
women and in the life of the home. There are numer
ous teachings about riches — not in condemnation but
in warning; possibly this was because Theophilus was

CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH GOSPEL 165
wealthy, or possibly Paul, when taking up his great
collection for the poor at Jerusalem, emphasized Jesus'
teachings about riches and poverty, and this impressed
Luke who was with Paul part of the time. There is
much emphasis of prayer, both by direct teachings and
by references to Christ's example. The catholic spirit
of this gospel, harmonizing as it does with the teachings
of Paul, is a better reason than the mere fact that Luke
at times travelled with Paul, for calling it " the Gospel
of Paul."
Luke, more than Matthew, in following Mark's ac
count of Jesus, omits details that might seem incon
sistent with sinlessness and full divinity; e. g., the
violent acts in cleansing the temple; such emotions as
anger, grief, groaning, vehemence; the strange sorrow
and homesickness of Gethsemane, and the cry on the
cross, " My God, My God, Why hast thou forsaken
me?" He also shows deep respect for the apostles
(a title he uses frequently while Matthew and Mark
use it rarely), and dislikes to record anything to their
discredit; e. g., he omits the rebuke to Peter (Mark
8 : 33), the censure of the twelve (Mark 8 : 17/.), the
ambitious request of James and John (Mark 10 : 35/.),
and the flight at Jesus' arrest (Mark 14 : 50) ; he tones
down the denial by Peter (22 : 54-62), and the rebuke
to the twelve on the lake (8 : 25); he excuses the
sleep at Gethsemane as "for sorrow" (22 : 45), and
Peter's proposal to build three tabernacles on the

166 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
mount as "not knowing what he said" (9 : 33). In
all this the spirit of a Christian of the second generation
is shown. His picture of Jesus needs Mark's picture
as its complement.
John
The Fourth Gospel has been so fully considered in
the discussion of the Johannine problem that little
need be added here.
There is reason to believe that the present arrange
ment of the contents of this gospel is not in all places
the original one. Certainly it is not in all places the
probable one. For example, if chapter 5 is placed
after chapter 6, then the notes of locality become
harmonious: Jesus in Galilee (4 : 54) goes across the
lake (6 : 1) and, after feeding the five thousand, goes
up to the feast in Jerusalem (5 : 1) where his life is in
danger (5: 16) which causes him to return to Galilee
again (7:1). Such a rearrangement, also, puts all the
visits to Jerusalem, except that of 2 : 13, in the last
year of his life, after the close of his popular ministry
in Judea. This, too, seems probable. While the
work in Galilee still promised success, there was no
reason for his stirring up the hostility of the rulers by
appearing in Jerusalem; but when the Galilean work
had failed, and the shadow of the cross grew more
evident, Jesus seems deliberately to have sought every
opportunity to place his claims clearly before the San-

CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH GOSPEL 167
hedrin, that they might act upon them with full knowl
edge. The unnamed feast of 5 : 1, if the two chapters
are transposed, would naturally be Pentecost.
Another passage that seems out of place is 7 : 15-24.
If it is placed directly after chapter 5, it forms a fit con
clusion to it. The reference to the miracle of Bethesda
as if it had just been performed (7 : 23) ; the astonish
ment at his rabbinical teaching as if this was his first
display of it (7 : 15); the ignorance of the multitude
that his life was threatened (7 : 20), though at the
Feast of the Tabernacles this was well-known (7 : 25);
and the references to Moses and the law (c/. 5 : 45^17)
— all suit the earlier feast far better than tabernacles.
A simple transposition of this passage and 7 : 1-14
removes many difficulties.
Still again, chapter 14 with its closing words, " Arise,
let us go hence," seems properly to conclude the ad
dress after the Last Supper. It will have that position
if we put chapters 15-16 immediately after the pref
atory statement of 13 : 31 ; and we shall no longer have
the contradiction between 16 : 5 and 13 : 36. The
change will also make the opening words of chapter
15 follow directly after Judas' departure to which
they seem to refer; e. g., 15 : 6.
Further rearrangements have been suggested, some
of which are worth considering. The main difficulty,
however, with all such changes in the order of the text,
is to explain how the disarrangements could have
arisen. It has been suggested that the leaves of the

168 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
original papyrus roll became unglued and were fast
ened together again, but not always in their original
order-, and in proof of this it is pointed out that, if we
take a page containing a certain number of words as
the unit, these dislocated passages all prove to be multi
ples of that unit. It is not easy to accept this explana
tion, but nothing better has been offered.
The theme of the Fourth Gospel is the self-revelation
of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God (20 : 31). Its
main divisions are:
Prologue and Preliminary Testimony, 1 : 1-2 : 12.
The Self-revelation to the World, 2 : 13-12 : 50.
By the Ministries of Jesus.
In Judea, 2 : 13-3 : 36.
In Samaria, 4 : 1-42.
In Galilee, 4 : 43-54; 6 : 1-71.
By the Conflicts at the Feasts.
At Pentecost, 5 : 1-47; 7 : 15-24.
At Tabernacles, 7 : 1-14, 25-52; 8 : 21-59.
At Dedication, 9 : 1-10 : 39; 8 : 12-20.
By the Last Public Labors.
In Perea and Bethany, 10 : 40-12 : 11.
In Jerusalem, 12 : 12-50.
The Self-revelation to the Disciples, 13 : 1-20 : 31.
By the Last Supper, 13 : 1-17 : 26.
By the Last Sufferings, 18 : 1-19 : 42.
By the Resurrection, 20 : 1-31.
Appendix, 21 : 1-23.

CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH GOSPEL 169
If the style is the man, that of John merits special
attention. Gloag says of it, "There is a remarkable
simplicity in the style of John. His vocabulary is
small; the same words — love, life, light, the world —
continually occur and are interwoven together. The
sentences are simple in construction, being in the terse
aphoristic Hebrew manner, and not in the involved
structure conformable to the genius of the Greek lan
guage, and illustrated in the Epistles of Paul. Con
necting particles are also very sparingly employed.
Hence, of all the writings of the New Testament, none
are so easily read and translated as those of John.
There is also a peculiar kind of repetition. The same
thoughts, or, at least, thoughts with little variation of
meaning, are repeated for the sake of emphasis. Often
the same idea is expressed both positively and nega
tively. . . . With the simplicity in style and diction,
and even in the thoughts and sentiments of the Johan
nine writings, there is combined a real profundity
which no human intellect can fathom. The Fourth
Gospel especially is remarkable for its depth; it has
been well called by the fathers ' the spiritual gospel,'
as compared with the synoptical gospels. It opens
the deepest recesses of the spiritual life; it discloses the
very heart of the incarnate God; it reveals the divine
human nature which Christ possessed; it lifts up the
veil, and lets us see into the holy of holies. The two
preponderating ideas are life and light; and these

170 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
are embodied in Christ: he is at once the life and the
light of man, the source of all spiritual life, and the
essence of all spiritual truth, the sun of the moral
universe. The writings of John may be compared to a
well of water, so clear and sparkling that at first one
thinks he sees to the bottom; but that well is so deep,
that the more one gazes into it, the deeper does it ap
pear, and no one has yet been able to fathom it.
"The interpretation of the Johannine writings is
peculiarly difficult by reason of their profundity.
Hence, one essential element of interpretation is sym
pathy with John's spirit. It is only a Johannine Chris
tian who can truly understand and interpret John's
writings. It requires such a spiritual insight, as is
rarely possessed, fully to fathom the deep things con
tained in them. Hence, a religious and spiritual nature
is essential; we must have largely imbibed the spirit
of Jesus Christ before we can enter into the spirit of
John's writings. This well is deep; and, if destitute of
a spiritual mind, we have nothing wherewith to draw.
As Origen strikingly puts it: 'The gospels are the first-
fruits of all the Scriptures, and the first-fruits of the
gospels is that of John, into whose meaning no man can
enter unless he too has reclined upon the bosom of
Jesus.'"

CHAPTER XI
THE TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THE GOSPELS
All the topics we have considered bear directly or in
directly upon the great question whether the gospels
are trustworthy; and the main arguments for or
against an affirmative answer are drawn from them.
But some additional arguments deserve a place in a
special chapter.
The story of Jesus, as given in the gospels, must be
treated as either fact or fiction. Few if any scholars
would pronounce it wholly fictitious. They would
agree that probably there was such a person as Jesus of
Nazareth, an earnest, high-minded Galilean peasant,
who gathered a little band of disciples to whom he
taught some simple but noble truths about God and
man, and who finally was put to death by the Roman
authorities. But they would no more treat the gospel
story as sober history of this peasant than they would
treat Tennyson's " Idylls of the King" as sober history
of the British King Arthur. In their opinion it is
mostly fiction. If they are right the problem at once
arises, Who invented it ? For we cannot fairly refuse
to accept the story as fact unless we can find some satis
factory explanation of how it originated, if a fiction.
171

172 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
The deists of the eighteenth century declared that
the apostles deliberately lied about Jesus. But no
one to-day accepts that explanation; it is too evidently
absurd. The apostles by such fraud could gain only
hardship, suffering, loss, and death; a man does not
spend his life in proclaiming what he knows to be a lie
for these rewards. The story they told was in many
ways not to their own credit, for it recorded their stu
pidity, selfishness, cowardice; if they were adepts at
invention, they certainly would have made their con
duct appear more praiseworthy. Moreover, the re
ligion which they preached with all earnestness had in
it nothing but denunciation for deception, and eternal
doom for liars; how could they proclaim it when con
science told them that they themselves were under its
condemnation? An apostolic band of fiction-makers
and mongers is inconceivable.
The theory usually advanced to-day is that the gos
pel story was a product of the reverent and practically
unconscious invention of the early church. To the
simple story of Jesus, as originally told by the apostles,
constant additions were made by ignorant, enthusiastic,
imaginative Christians of the first century. Because
they accepted him as Messiah, they believed he must in
all respects have fulfilled the Messianic prophecies,
and performed the mighty works expected of a Mes
siah. Because he was the hero of their faith, they gave
to him the legendary greatness which increasingly

THE TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THE GOSPELS 173
gathers about a hero. Around his head they placed a
halo of miracles; in his lips they put discourses of
supernatural self-assertion and wisdom. It was not
done deliberately and with intent to deceive; they hon
estly believed all that they delighted to proclaim — it
was the self-deception of love.
Against this theory we may bring the objection that
so long as the apostles and other companions of Jesus
were alive, they would be witnesses to the real facts,
and hindrances to the growth of fiction. Indeed,
Strauss and the other framers of the theory started with
the supposition that the gospels were written well on in
the second century, and set forth the thought of the
church about Jesus a hundred years after his death.
But, as we have seen, it is agreed to-day that certainly
three of our gospels were written in the first century —
and at least one of them as early as the middle of the
first century — before the original witnesses had passed
away, and when there had been little time for the de
velopment of myths and legends. Nevertheless, we
must remember that among an ignorant, enthusiastic
body of followers, myths and legends do develop
quickly and persist most stubbornly. The lives of
saints and founders of sects — heathen or Christian,
ancient, mediseval or modern — are usually embellished
with details that will not endure historical criticism.
And the mere fact that these lives were written by im
mediate disciples does not guarantee their accuracy.

174 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
Accordingly, in considering the trustworthiness of the
gospels, it is not enough to show that we have them in
their original form, that their date is in the first cen
tury, and that their sources are the recollections of the
apostles. We must also consider the qualifications of
the apostles as witnesses, and the character of the story
they tell.
The fact that the gospel narrative is full of the
miraculous does not justify an immediate rejection of
it as evidently false, or a contemptuous judgment of
the apostles as superstitious, credulous witnesses.
This is the treatment often given by men who deny
miracles; but it is most unfair. The question of
miracles is a comprehensive one, starting with the
philosophical problem of the existence of a personal
God and his relations to the universe, passing next to
the religious problem of the attitude of God toward
man and the function of miracles in his self-revelation,
and ending with the historical problem of the sufficiency
of evidence that certain miracles were actually per
formed. If the student of the gospels is fully convinced
that there is no personal God, or that the universe is
independent of his will, or that he does not wish man
to know him, or that sufficient knowledge of God is
given in natural ways, then the miraculous is ruled out,
and any report of it is absurd. In other words, the
atheist or the deist is justified in affirming that miracles
do not happen. But the agnostic, and still less the

THE TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THE GOSPELS 175
theist, has little right to make that affirmation until he
has carefully examined the historical evidence that
miracles have taken place. And no evidence is so im
portant and worthy of serious consideration as that
presented in the gospels; for no miracles are in such
evident harmony with the noblest conceptions of God
and man as the miracles of Christ.
The gospel story comes to us either directly or almost
at first-hand from the apostles. This holds true what
ever may be the solution of the synoptic and Johan
nine problems. The apostles were not the only per
sons who accompanied Jesus during at least a part
of his ministry (Acts 1 : 21-26) ; but they were the men
who spoke with authority concerning it, and who
considered witness-bearing to be one of their special
duties. Were they trustworthy witnesses ? They cer
tainly had abundant opportunity to learn the facts
which they proclaimed; no one disputes this. And,
as we have already noted, their character and lack
of inducement to deceive makes us believe that they
would report the facts exactly as they had learned
them. But were they competent witnesses; or did
their ignorance and prejudices and enthusiasm make
them, as some critics affirm, wholly incompetent?
Before answering this, notice just what we ask of the
apostles. We do not demand that they deal with the
miracles as a twentieth-century scientist would, and
give us their verdict concerning the supernatural.

176 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
Nor do we demand that they interpret Christ's teach
ing as a twentieth-century theologian would, and give
us their opinion of its meaning. All we ask of them is
a correct statement of just what Jesus did do and say;
then we ourselves can supply the scientific explana
tion or the theological interpretation. Did they see
five thousand men fed with a few loaves and fishes?
Did they hear Jesus say, " I am the light of the world " ?
Or were they so incompetent to see and hear that we
cannot accept their testimony, though they honestly
try to tell the truth ? Would men like the aposdes be
believed in their statement of facts if on the witness
stand to-day?
The answer to this is well put by Dr. Gore: "The
apostles will take very high rank among the world's
witnesses. As represented in the gospels they were
men not of the poorest but of the more independent
trading class; simple, literal-minded men; not super
stitious and still less romantic; free from all traces of
morbidness; slow of belief through lack of imagination;
as individuals strikingly different in character, so as
not easily to be led in the same way; with the ex
ception of St. John not well adapted to be theolo
gians, and none of them (like St. Paul) controversial
theologians; but singularly well qualified as witnesses.
They were qualified as witnesses because, free from
all preoccupation with ideas and systems, they were
plain men who could receive the impress of facts; who

THE TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THE GOSPELS 177
could tell a simple, plain tale, and show by their lives
how much they believed it. And they were trained
to be witnesses. Jesus Christ intended his gospel to
rest on facts; and, in correspondence with this inten
tion, the whole stress in the apostolic church was laid
on witness. The first thing the church had to do,
before it developed its theology, was to tell its tale
of fact. 'We are witnesses of these things'" ("The
Incarnation," 81/.).
The presence of errors and discrepancies in the gos
pels would not overthrow our belief that the apostles
were trustworthy witnesses if we saw that these arose
from (a) limitations in knowledge common to their land
and century, e. g., the belief that certain diseases were
caused by demons — provided, of course, that demonia
cal possession is proved an error; or (b) misunder
standings on the part of the apostles or their reporters
of statements evidently open to misunderstanding,
e. g., Christ's teaching about his second coming; or (c)
the natural variations of different persons telling the
same story, e. g., the opening of the eyes of the blind
at Jericho. Nor are the gospels discredited by the
fact that each writer has his own way of treating the
subject. This is true of all historians; the personal
equation must be taken into account in estimating the
value of their testimony. In the case of the evange
lists, however, we are surprised to find how little
change that equation makes. Their reverence for the

178 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
truth kept them from yielding to personal preferences
and prejudices in reporting the facts.
The frequent allusions in other New Testament
books to facts about Christ furnishes another test of
the trustworthiness of the evangelists and their sources.
We have already noticed (p. 13) that from such un
disputed works as Paul's four great epistles we can
gather enough to make a valuable outline of the life of
Jesus, and that this outline agrees completely with the
record given in the gospels. Now, unless the story
thus outlined in Paul's letters is true, we must suppose
that, less than thirty years after the death of Jesus, the
real facts had been so completely lost that a scholar
most eager and competent to recover them could not
do so; and also that a fictitious story had been so cun
ningly framed as to deceive the keenest mind of the
apostolic age. But if we accept the testimony of
Paul as trustworthy, we have new and independent
confirmation of the trustworthiness of the witnesses
whose testimony is recorded in the Four Gospels.
A much stronger objection to the theory that the
story of Jesus is fiction reverently framed by the early
church, lies in the character it portrays. The gospels
are four sketches of the life of Jesus, made at different
times and for different purposes. The first three have
most material in common, yet each has its independent
contribution; the fourth is almost entirely indepen
dent and supplementary. They may be compared to

THE TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THE GOSPELS 179
four pictures painted by different artists from different
stand-points. Notice first, that all are pictures of the
same person. Some critics dispute this, declaring that
the Jesus of the synoptics is not the same as the Jesus
of John; but the Christian Church throughout the
centuries has never perceived any difference save that
John portrays more clearly the inner, divine nature of
the Lord. The pictures are composed of a multitude
of details, each adding its touch to the portrait; yet
all are in perfect harmony, so that at no point in the
story can we pronounce an act or saying of Jesus to be
out of keeping with his character. Captious critics
have tried to do this, but have not succeeded.
The character of Jesus, as thus portrayed in the
gospels, is certainly most remarkable. It is symmetri
cal, sinless, unique: it is the noblest ever placed be
fore human contemplation: it is a perfect blending of
the human and the divine. The evangelists do not
try to impress this upon us by laudatory epithets:
they do not even state it in abstract form: they simply
give us a plain narrative of deeds and words, and leave
us to form our own opinion of Jesus. What opinion
has been formed, even by men who reject the miracles,
is well stated by Lecky in words often quoted: "It
was reserved for Christianity to present to the world an
ideal character, which through all the changes of eigh
teen centuries has inspired the hearts of men with an
impassioned love; has shown itself capable of acting

180 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
on all nations, ages, temperaments, and conditions;
has been not only the highest pattern of virtue, but the
strongest incentive to its practice; and has exercised so
deep an influence that it may truly be said that the
simple record of three short years of active life has done
more to regenerate and soften mankind than all the
disquisitions of philosophers, and all the exhortations
of moralists. This has indeed been the well-spring of
whatever is best and purest in the Christian life"
("History of European Morals," 2:8).
If the story of Jesus is fiction, it is the most wonder
ful fiction in all literature. "The inventor of it," as
Rousseau declared, " would be more astonishing than
the hero." Shakespeare is not worthy of comparison
with the unknown man who had the genius to imagine
such a character as that of Jesus and such a life as he
lived. " It takes a Newton to forge a Newton. What
man could have fabricated a Jesus? None but a
Jesus," said Theodore Parker. But according to the
theory of sceptics the transformation of the historical
figure of a simple Galilean reformer into the wonder
ful God-man, the Lord and Saviour of the world, was
accomplished not by the genius of any one man, but
by the collective thought of the early church dwelling
reverently upon its Master. If we accept this theory
we must believe:
(1) That a body of ignorant, self-deluded men and
women of the first century, some of them reared in the

THE TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THE GOSPELS 181
narrowness of Judaism and others in the low morality
of heathendom, invented an ideal character free from
all local, racial, and temporal limitations, harmoniously
combining compassion with justice, humility with
conscious greatness, the human with the divine — a
character which the world has ever since pronounced
unique and unsurpassable;
(2) That they imagined a series of deeds by which
such a character found remarkable and always ap-
propriate expression, including among them miracles
so full of grace and meaning that even a sceptic con
fesses "the halo of the miracles is worthy of the
figure" (Goldwin Smith);
(3) That they put into the mouth of this fictitious
character the purest and sublimest teachings, free
from the fanaticism that fired their own souls, and in
strong contrast to the religious ideas they had been
taught in childhood — teachings whose rich contents the
world has by no means yet exhausted; and
(4) That they did all this by no deliberate co-opera
tion or conscious effort, but simply by allowing their
imaginations to have free play, and offering the various
results as contributions to the gospel story.
Such a theory, when we realize what it involves, is
evidently incredible. We could more easily believe
that the house-painters in some obscure town trans
formed a tavern sign into a rival of the Sistine Madonna
by adding touches of paint from time to time as they

182 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
passed on their way to work. It would never have
been seriously advocated had not those writers who
pronounce the gospel story a fiction felt, with good
reason, that they must in some way explain the origin of
the fiction, and that the theory of deliberate invention
by the apostles or evangelists was even more incredible.
If we want to know what the imagination of the early
church would probably have produced, we may look
at such a book as the Gospel of Thomas which is a
fiction of the second century. It is an attempt to fill in
by imagination the period of Jesus' history between
his infancy and his visit to the temple at the age of
twelve — a period that naturally arouses curiosity, but
is passed over in the gospels with a single verse. It
seems to have been popular in its day, and to have
aroused no objections, but to us it is a monstrous pro
duction. The child Jesus works miracles, of which
some are absurd, as carrying water in his cloak, while
others are vindictive, as striking blind those who ac
cuse him. He is disrespectful to his teachers, angry
with his parents and companions, ready to injure or
kill by a curse any who offend him. The whole village
is in constant fear of him, and with good reason they
say to Joseph: "Since thou hast such a child, either
leave the village or teach him to bless and not to curse;
for he is killing our children." There are other apoc
ryphal gospels of the same century or later; but they
all are on the same low level. Worthless in other re-

THE TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THE GOSPELS 183
spects, these gospels are valuable as a revelation of the
historical imagination possessed by the early church;
and they render still more improbable the theory that
the story recorded by the evangelists was the product
of that imagination. Though John Stuart Mill re
jects all miracles and pronounces much of the Fourth
Gospel to be "poor stuff," he sums up the situation
correctly when he says, " It is of no use to say that
Christ, as exhibited in the gospels, is not historical,
and that we know not how much of what is admirable
has been superadded by the tradition of his followers.
. . . Who among his disciples or among their pros
elytes was capable of inventing the sayings ascribed
to Jesus, or of imagining the life and character revealed
in the gospels?" ("Three Essays on Religion," 253).
Or, as van Dyke puts it, " He is such a person as men
could not have imagined if they would, and would not
have imagined if they could" (" Gospel for an Age of
Doubt," 59).
If it is impossible to account for the gospel story as
fiction, we must take it as history, and treat it accord
ingly. This does not mean that we must accept all its
details without question, refusing to admit the possi
bility of error; even the most extreme believer in the
inspiration of the Bible would not take such a position.
If the gospels are historical documents, they must be
submitted to historical criticism; the demand is just,

184 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
and in the present day it cannot be denied. In fact, in
proportion as we are persuaded that they are trust
worthy, we are glad to have them submitted to the most
searching tests — provided the tests are fair and honestly
applied. All that we ask is that the story of Jesus be
not contemptuously waived aside as preposterous fic
tion, but be treated with respect and serious considera
tion. And if thus treated, we can wait with confidence
the verdict of the honest seeker after truth.

CHAPTER XII
THE USE OF THE GOSPELS FOR A LIFE OF CHRIST
Practically all that we know concerning the life of
Jesus is what is recorded in the four canonical gospels.
There is bare mention of him in heathen writers and
possibly in Josephus: some incidents or sayings of
doubtful genuineness are found in the Apostolic
Fathers and the Apocryphal Gospels: a very few but
precious items may be gleaned from the Book of Acts
and the New Testament Epistles; but nowhere is there
anything that really adds to the story of the four
evangelists or takes away from it. Some of the Lives
of Christ fill bulky volumes, but they reach their great
size either by describing minutely the environment
in which Jesus lived and worked, or by discussing at
wearisome length the statements in the gospels. They
may make the gospel narrative more intelligible: they
cannot bring any further facts to supplement it. And
not infrequently they are open to the criticism that we
almost lose sight of the central figure in the mass of ir
relevant details they heap about him.
The great question, then, concerning any Life of
Jesus is, What is the author's attitude toward the gos»
185

186 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
pels? How far does he consider them to be trust
worthy history? And upon examination it will be
found that he has adopted one of three possible opin
ions: (1) All four gospels are trustworthy. They give
the testimony of honest men and competent witnesses.
There may be minor errors or discrepancies, such as
are found in the best of testimony, but as a whole
their record is true and harmonious.
(2) The synoptics are trustworthy, but John is not.
Its picture of Jesus and its record of his words must be
taken with qualifications or rejected entirely as being
late in origin and deeply influenced by theological ideas
of the second century. In John we see Jesus, not as
he really was, but as a later age thought he must have
been; and, therefore, the actual life of Jesus must be
constructed from the synoptics alone or with very cau
tious use of John.
(3) No one of the gospels is trustworthy. Either
they were written too late for actual knowledge of the
facts, or they are full of natural misconceptions and
errors. All we can do is to take their statements as the
basis of our work, and alter and reconstruct according
to our best judgment. We may end by accepting the
larger part of their narrative, or by going as far in
scepticism as Schmiedel, who views with suspicion all
except nine brief passages emphasizing the human
weakness and ignorance of Jesus, and pronounces these

THE USE OF THE GOSPELS 187
nine " the foundation pillars for a really scientific life
of Jesus" (see his article on the gospels in Encyc.
Biblica) ; but in any case our attitude toward the gos
pels is one of hostile criticism.
Logically a fourth position is possible, viz., that
John is trustworthy, while the synoptics are not. But
though certain critics give John the foremost place for
accuracy, and would follow it rather than the synop
tics in settling a vexed question, e. g., the time of the
Last Supper, I know of none who accepts John but
rejects the synoptics. The reason is evident — the
problems presented in the synoptics are of the same
character as those in John, but by no means as difficult;
and the student who finds a solution for the latter is not
troubled by the former.
A writer's attitude toward the gospels will affect his
work at every point. For example, if he adopts the
second of the three positions, it will influence his con
clusion not only as to such a vitally important matter
as the divinity of Christ, which is most clearly pro
claimed in the Fourth Gospel, but also as to the
comparatively unimportant question of the length of
Christ's public ministry. For, while John distinctly
mentions three Passovers, so that the ministry could
not have been less than two years, the synoptics men
tion only the Passover of the crucifixion; and the
writer who follows them alone is apt to put the whole
ministry into the space of one year. It is necessary,

188 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
therefore, before accepting a writer's conclusions, even
upon matters of chronology, to ascertain his position
concerning the gospels. Usually he begins his work
by definitely stating and defending it; and fairness
to the reader would demand that he should always
do so.
Evidently a critic's philosophical and practical atti
tude toward the supernatural will largely shape his
opinion of the trustworthiness of the gospels. As Dr.
Bruce says, " It is the miraculous element in the gos
pels that chiefly raises the question as to their historical
trustworthiness. Eliminate that element, and hardly
a doubt would remain; the residuary words and deeds
of Jesus would be welcomed as a proof that in Judea
there once lived a sage and philanthropist of unpar
alleled wisdom and goodness." In regard to the
miracles of Christ, we may divide writers into a left
and a right group, and also make a subdivision of each
group, as follows:
Left. — Those who deny all miracles, and who there
fore reject the gospel record of them as untrustworthy,
the product of a credulous, unscientific age. They
may explain the recorded miracles as myths and leg
ends that sprang up after the death of Jesus and gained
ready credence among the early Christians, or else
as events for which a natural explanation may be
found, and parables and sayings of Jesus that were
misunderstood and distorted into miracles. But,

THE USE OF THE GOSPELS 189
whatever the explanation, they insist that because
miracles do not happen, the account must be untrue.
Left Centre. — Those who deny all miracles, but be
lieve that Jesus possessed some power or knowledge
by which he could perform deeds beyond the ability
of other men. Possibly the psychic power which he
exerted is latent in all of us, or the knowledge he
possessed may some day be the common property of
mankind, but up to the present time his wonderful
deeds are unparalleled. Nevertheless, they were not
supernatural; and whatever is related concerning them,
that is evidently supernatural, must be rejected as
unhistorical. Right Centre. — Those who admit that Jesus per
formed real miracles — acts beyond not only present
human power but all human power. Nevertheless,
either from an unconscious aversion to the miraculous
or from a desire to propitiate sceptics, these writers
seek to diminish the number of his miracles as much
as possible, by explaining away some of them as
natural events or misreported parables, and question
ing the reliability of the report concerning others.
Right. — Those persons who recognize without re
serve the power of Christ to work miracles. They may
not accept all the miracles in the gospel record, but
they do not question them simply because they are
miracles. For example, certain writers of this group
decline to believe that saints came forth from the grave

190 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
and went into Jerusalem after Christ's resurrection;
but they do this, not because the story involves a
miracle, but because it is found only in Matthew, and
is of a very different character from the other miracles,
and seems like a later invention arising from a mis
understanding of such teachings as I Cor. 15 : 20 and
John 5 : 25. The supernatural in the gospel story is
not a stumbling block to these writers, for it harmon
izes with their conception of God and his attitude tow
ard man.
It is impossible to deny miracles and yet accept the
gospels as the report of honest eye-witnesses. Paulus
stands as a proof of this. In 1828 he wrote a book
striving to show that the gospel story is from the apos
tles and is true, though none of the events in it were
really supernatural. For every apparent miracle he
found a natural explanation, " though the explanation
is often more remarkable than the miracle." In some
instances he thinks we read a miracle into the story,
when the apostles themselves did not intend to relate
one; e. g., the fish which Peter caught to pay the temple
tax did not have a stater in its mouth, but was sold by
him for that sum. In other instances he thinks the
apostles honestly mistook a natural event for a miracle;
e. g., when they thought Christ was walking on the
water, he was in fact walking along the shore so close
to the lake that it looked as if he were on the water;
the paralytic borne by four supposed himself to be

THE USE OF THE GOSPELS 191
helpless, but really had strength enough to walk when
roused to the effort; the resurrection of Jesus was
caused by the effect of the myrrh and spices in restor
ing his vital forces, which had not been destroyed by
the crucifixion. A book filled with such remarkable
explanations is decidedly entertaining: as Fairbairn
remarks, " One of the driest of books, it has yet come
to be one of the most amusing." No later writer has
fully repeated the attempt of Paulus, but some of his
explanations are still brought forward by rationalists;
e. g., that the daughter of Jairus was not really dead but
only seemed so (Holtzmann) ; and that Jesus did not
expect to feed the five thousand with his little supply
of food, but was ready to share it as far as it might
go, and this display of generosity shamed others into
bringing forward their own hidden supplies which
amply sufficed for all (Keim). Such attempts to keep
the gospel story, and yet reject the supernatural, are
ingenious but unsatisfactory: it is much simpler and
more logical to throw out the miraculous events en
tirely. The discarding of the miracles, however, not only
makes great gaps in the gospel narrative, but also
renders that which remains almost valueless for a Life
of Jesus. And this for two reasons: (1) The career
of Jesus becomes unintelligible without certain miracles
which shaped its course; e. g., what caused the crisis
that practically ended his work in Galilee, if there

192 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
was no miraculous feeding of the five thousand ? No
multitude would ever be roused to a wild enthusiasm
and an attempt to crown him king, if Jesus simply
shamed them into sharing their food with one another.
What happened at Bethany to alarm the Sadducees
and make them join with the Pharisees in the decision
that Jesus must be put to death ? Even Renan feels
that something like a miracle must have taken place
— "some motive proceeding from Bethany helped to
hasten the death of Jesus": it was, he thinks, either
some saying of Jesus to the sisters which was dis
torted into a report of a resurrection of Lazarus, or
else there was a fraudulent miracle. What happened
at Jericho to arouse the popular Messianic enthusiasm
that led up to the triumphal entry? Even Keim is
disposed to believe that in some way — perhaps through
the intense power of faith working on the physical
system — the blind actually was made to see; "at any
rate this healing is by far the best attested among all
the accounts of the blind in the gospels" (5 : 63).
Above all, what happened to revive the faith of the
disciples after it had been destroyed by the crucifixion
of Jesus ? Every critic, though he may deny the resur
rection, admits that the church from the outset be
lieved it, since otherwise the existence of the church at
all is inexplicable. And (2) the teachings of Jesus are
often inseparable from miracles; e. g., the discourse
in the synagogue at Capernaum (John 6 : 26/.) pre-

THE USE OF THE GOSPELS 193
supposes the miracle of the loaves and fishes. Such
an utterance about the Sabbath as Mark 3 : 4 is hard
to explain unless some miracle of mercy performed on
that day had called forth the censure of the Pharisees.
The story of the temptation in the wilderness — which
originally was his own account of a profound spiritual
experience — loses all its significance unless Jesus really
supposed he had the power to work miracles, and here
at the threshold of his public ministry was pondering
on the problem how that power should be employed.
" On the whole," says Gore, " miracles play so im
portant a part in Christ's scheme that any theory which
would represent them as due entirely to the imagination
of his followers or of a later age, destroys the credibility
of the documents not partially but wholly, and leaves
Christ a personage as mythical as Hercules" ("The
Incarnation," 54). Dr. Gore's statement ends in
exaggeration. Even without the gospels Jesus would
be more than a mythical personage: the Christian
Church, the Lord's Supper, and the Lord's Day bear
witness to his historic existence. But without the
gospels the story of his life and work would have to
be reconstructed almost wholly by imagination: and,
indeed, that is the way in which rationalistic writers
do reconstruct it.
Most influential of all the factors that determine a
critic's use of the gospels as sources for a life of Christ,
is his attitude toward the divinity of Jesus. It might

194 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
seem that since the gospels are practically the sole
record of what he was or claimed to be, our opinion of
the gospels would shape our opinion of Jesus: but in
actual experience the reverse proves true. No one
takes up the study of the gospels without some mental
— not to say spiritual — bias for or against his divinity.
This is created in part by the influences of childhood
and early years; for life in a Christian land cannot be
lived without some definite attitude toward the Founder
of the Christian faith. But it is created even more by
the system of philosophical thought accepted by a stu
dent. What we think about God and his attitude tow
ard man, and about man himself and his spiritual
needs and possibilities, will shape our whole opinion of
the credibility of an incarnation, and therefore of the
proofs that Jesus of Nazareth was God incarnate.
The student of the gospels having thus already — con
sciously or unconsciously — framed an opinion concern
ing the divinity of Jesus, will be inclined to accept
in them only those facts that confirm his opinion.
Though his miracles formerly were set forth as the
first and chief proof that Jesus was divine, they are
rarely used in this way now. In fact, their position
has been almost completely reversed. Instead of say
ing "We believe that Jesus was divine because we
know that he worked miracles," the defender of the
Christian faith to-day says, "We believe that Jesus
worked miracles because we know that he was divine."

THE USE OF THE GOSPELS 195
And for the main proof of the divinity he points not
only to his character as portrayed in the gospels (see
p. 179), but also to his teachings concerning himself —
in which would be included his attitude toward God
and men. The sceptic, therefore, who has settled to
his own satisfaction the matter of miracles, has still to
meet the far more important evidence of the teachings
of Jesus. And in his endeavor to explain away the
statements of Jesus that seem to be proclamations of
his divinity, he is not as ready as were his predecessors
to pronounce the gospels late and worthless, and their
record of Jesus' words pure fabrication. He rec
ognizes the strength of the proofs that they, or their
sources, are early, and reproduce the teachings of Jesus
with, at least, a considerable degree of accuracy. He
seeks accordingly some way by which the record may
be accepted without admitting the divinity. One of
these ways is so new and also just now so popular that
a brief statement of it must be given.
The Revelation of St. John and the latter part of the
Book of Daniel are examples of a special class of writ
ings, called sometimes apocalyptical because they pro
fess to unveil the future, and sometimes eschatolog-
ical because they deal with events in the last days of
the present age or eon. Mark 13 and other passages
both in the New Testament and in the Old belong to
the same class, as also do a number of uncanonical
books, some of which have only recently been dis-

196 INTRODUCTION TO THE LITE OF CHRIST
covered. Scholars are studying all these writings care
fully, and through the increase of material are able to
understand them better than in former days. They
are highly valued, not because they reveal the future
to us, but because they show what the general Jewish
thought about the future was in the first century.
For we know that apocalyptical books were very pop
ular and influential in Palestine, and that from them
were drawn the current ideas concerning the being and
advent and work of the Messiah, and the nature of
his Kingdom. In general their teaching was that in a
time of stress and trial the Messiah would suddenly
appear as a superhuman being, though not divine, who
would crush all foes by his miraculous power, and set
up a kingdom of marvellous plenty and glory.
Now when Jesus began his work — so the sceptic
would say — he found himself everywhere confronted
with these eschatological ideas and expectations, and,
doubtless, to a large extent he shared them himself.
Accordingly, when he undertook to teach his country
men the simple but precious truths of the Kingdom of
Heaven, he used increasingly the popular apocalyptic
forms of thought concerning the Messianic Kingdom,
and presently adopted the titles and claims of the
apocalyptic Messiah. Whether the Messianic r6le was
one he voluntarily assumed, or whether it was forced
upon him by his followers, may be disputed; but in
neither case did he really claim to be divine, for both

THE USE OF THE GOSPELS 197
to him and to his Jewish followers such a claim would
be blasphemous. What is meant by The Son of Man,
which was his own favorite title, and The Son of God,
which was the title others delighted to give him, can
be understood only by studying their meaning in the
apocalypses. And all his teachings about his present
and future power and mission should be interpreted by
the same means. Of course, the teachings in the gos
pel of John are to be rejected as a later development
when these Jewish eschatological ideas came into con
tact with Greek thought.
To discuss this way of interpreting the teachings of
Jesus about himself is beyond our present purpose.
That apocalyptical ideas prevailed in his day, is un
doubtedly true; and a recognition of that fact may
throw new light upon his words and work. For ex
ample, the temptation in the wilderness becomes in
telligible, if we bear in mind the popular expectation,
gained from apocalypses, of how the Messiah would
use his miraculous power. It was generally thought
that when the Messiah appeared he would work mir
acles to accomplish at least three objects, (1) to prove
beyond doubt that he was the Messiah, (2) to provide
his followers abundantly with material, sensuous bless
ings, and (3) to overthrow his foes and seat himself
upon the throne of universal empire. Out of Jesus'
natural desire to draw men to himself arose the tempta
tion to use his power as the Son of God to work

198 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
miracles that would meet these expectations. In sym
bolical form he describes it as the temptation (1) to
descend from the pinnacle of the temple borne by
angels, (2) to turn the very stones of the wilderness
into bread for the hungry, and (3) to bow down to
Satan. Such temptations confronted him not only at
the outset but all through his ministry, and their
origin was in the eschatological ideas that filled the
minds of those who thronged about him wondering if
he really could be the expected Messiah.
It is one thing, however, to recognize that in his work
Jesus was constantly confronted with apocalyptical
ideas, and quite another thing to hold that he shared
or even adopted those ideas. For this latter opinion
there is little evidence. When we consider the char
acter of his ministry, the difficulty with which men
grasped his teachings, the bitter opposition he aroused,
and the slowness with which even the twelve recog
nized him to be the Messiah, it seems evident that he was
far from fulfilling the popular Messianic expectations.
And if the apocalyptical writings were the source of
those expectations, they certainly cannot be used to
explain the teachings of Jesus about himself.
In the use of the first three gospels for a life of
Christ, a recognition of the synoptic problem and its
generally accepted solution ought to bear fruit in
various ways. For example, if these gospels make use
of a common source, the fact that an incident is given

THE USE OF THE GOSPELS 199
by all three does not increase its trustworthiness except
as strengthening the evidence that it was in the com
mon source and not added later. And if the details
of an incident vary in the three, such variations are to
be treated no longer as those of different eye-witnesses
but as those of different writers using a common source.
Above all, the common sources, if they can be restored,
are the real authority. The synoptists used them —
whether faithfully or not critics must determine: and
certainly present day writers are as competent as the
synoptists to quote their statements or arrange their
facts. The difficulty, of course, is in recovering the
sources; and, despite all toil of critics, the results thus
far are indefinite — at least, they have borne little fruit
in the lives of Christ. The biographer of Jesus who
undertakes to go behind the synoptics does not differ
very much from his brother of fifty years ago: he may
make a far more elaborate display of scholarship, and
talk much more about Ur Marcus and Q and Evangelia
infantiat and Jewish-Christian apocalypses, and the
like; but when he comes to reconstruct the story, he
usually follows pretty consistently his own prejudices
for or against the miraculous and divine in deciding
what to include and what to omit.
If the gospels are taken as trustworthy records,
there still remains the problem how they are to be used.
Two methods of treatment are possible. On the one
hand they may be looked upon as brief biographies,

200 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
written from the stand-point of an historian. In this
case, we construct from them a chronological outline,
and fill this in with the various recorded events.
There are evident gaps in the record, and there are
sometimes apparent duplicates of events; what Jesus
did, e. g., in the period between his return from the two
days' sojourn in Samaria and the beginning of his work
in Galilee after John's imprisonment, must remain un
known, and whether he was rejected in Nazareth once
or twice is an open question. But a careful study of
the gospel record ought to result in a fairly definite and
complete history which will trace the progress of Jesus
step by step from the baptism to the ascension.
On the other hand, the gospels may be considered as
memorabilia of what Jesus was and taught, preserved
by the disciples for guidance in fashioning their own
lives after his example, for light upon the truths most
important in their thought, and for use in persuading
others that he was indeed the Saviour of the world.
If such is the character of the gospels, it is impossible
to gain from them a chronological history; thfcy do not
contain it. As well try to gain a history of Socrates
from Xenophon's " Memorabilia." Some chapters can
be reconstructed: a general idea may be gained of the
progress of events that led to the creation of apostolic
faith and also to the culmination of Jewish hostility;
but a biography of Jesus is beyond attainir^nt. The
most recent lives of Christ are fashioned according to

THE USE OF THE GOSPELS 201
this view. Bousset says : " We are no longer in a posi
tion to reconstruct an historical picture of the ministry
of Jesus in Galilee, according to its chronological de
velopment; for the narrative of our gospels, with its
prevailing timelessness and its frequent arrangement
of the words and deeds of Jesus in a designedly material
order, does not provide the means necessary for such a
picture." In this connection we may notice that recent lives
of Christ devote much less space than formerly to de
scriptions of Palestinian life and thought in the first
century — that which Garvie calls "the scenery, the
upholstery and drapery of the life of Jesus." Un
questionably there was a close connection between
Jesus and his environment: all modern critics recog
nize this. Those who see in him only a remarkable
Galilean Jew of the first century declare that his sur
roundings, social, political, intellectual and religious,
had large influence in fashioning his character and
thought. Those who accept him as divine recognize
that these surroundings necessarily shaped the immedi
ate fashion of his teachings and his work. In either
case a knowledge of his times is important for the study
of his life. But the matter may be overdone. Bulky
volumes crowded with minute and curious details of
Palestinian life, drawn from all sources, do not set Jesus
more clearly before us: they simply bewilder the reader
and turn his thoughts away from the real subject of his

202 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST
study. And the minor value of such details is well ex
pressed by Garvie when he says, " An exaggerated im
portance is attached to a knowledge of contemporary
custom and costume: even the ideas and ideals of his
environment — important as a knowledge of these is —
do not explain Jesus."

APPENDIX
LTVES OF CHRIST

In the Mediaeval Age the human nature and life of Christ were
largely ignored. Popular thought emphasized his divinity, and
any attempt to portray the manner in which he lived as man
among men would have seemed irreverent or even blasphemous.
In their longing for one who had been tempted in all points like
themselves and could be touched with the feeling of their infirm
ities, men turned to the Virgin and the saints. Lives of these
were plenty and popular, but lives of Christ were almost lacking,
and were largely poetical and legendary.
After the Reformation the main interest was in theology, and
thought concerning Christ centred upon his work as Redeemer
rather than upon his earthly history. Harmonies of the gospels
were produced to explain seeming discrepancies in the sacred
story, but the Lives of Christ were simple repetitions of the
Scripture narrative for devotional purposes. A work by Jeremy
Taylor (1635) was worthy of that great divine, and is still of
value; but its character is well indicated by its title — "The Great
Exemplar of Sanctity and Holy Life according to the Christian
Institution; described in the History of the Life and Death of
the Ever-Blessed Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the World; with
Considerations and Discourses upon the several parts of the
Story, and Prayers fitted to the several Mysteries." In 1767
John Fleetwood (probably a pseudonym) published a Life of Christ
which became remarkably popular, passing through edition after
edition in later years, and still on sale to-day. As a scholarly
work the book has no value, but it ministered to a want which
men were beginning to recognize, and for which there was a3 yet
scanty provision. 203

204 APPENDIX
Modern interest in the record of Christ's earthly years springs
from many causes; but, as Fairbairn points out, the main one
is "the growth of the historical spirit." That spirit, which has
led us to explore so carefully and critically all records of the past,
could not be content to scrutinize the other great characters of
antiquity and "ignore the Supreme Person of history." Rever
ence might hold back the critical student for a season, but sooner
or later he would proceed to apply historical methods of investi
gation to the question, What do we really know concerning Jesus
of Nazareth? Who was he, and what did he do?
H
Although the historical spirit had begun to develop, and Nie-
buhr and others were reconstructing in most radical fashion the
history of Rome and of Greece, the immediate impulse that pro
duced the book, initiating a new epoch in the study of the life
of Christ, was philosophical rather than historical.
Strauss was a young professor at Tubingen, and an enthu
siastic disciple of Hegel. In 1835 he published a Life of Jesus,
which was translated in 1846 by Miss Evans, "George Eliot,"
from the fourth German edition. His aim was to use the prin
ciples of Hegelian philosophy in explanation of the Christian
teachings concerning Jesus. God is not a Person; therefore,
miracles are impossible. The full incarnation of God is not in
any individual, but in Humanity. "Humanity is the child of the
visible Mother and the invisible Father — of Nature and Spirit;
it is the Miracle-worker, in so far as in the course of human
history the Spirit becomes ever more perfectly the Master of
Nature; it is the sinless, inasmuch as the process of its develop
ment is blameless — defilement cleaves to the individual, but is
abolished in the species and its history; it is the One that dies,
rises again, and ascends to heaven, since from the negation of its
natural there proceeds always a higher spiritual life." These are
the absolute truths that are wrought into the story of Jesus. The
historical facts of his life, so far as we can recover them, are
few and simple. He was reared in Nazareth, baptized by John,
had disciples, went about teaching, introduced the Messianic
kingdom, roused the hatred of the Pharisees, and was crucified.

APPENDIX 205
The rest of the story, as told in the gospels, which were written
late in the second century, is mythical. By a myth Strauss does
not mean a deliberately invented falsehood; it is a story embody
ing popular theological and philosophical ideas, which is framed
almost unconsciously by simple-hearted believers and incor
porated in the history of the person to whom they feel it fitly
belongs. The early Christians believed that Jesus was the Mes
siah (though Strauss fails to account for the rise of that belief),
and so mey took it for granted mat he must have done whatever
they supposed the Messiah would do. They had gained their
Messianic ideas largely from the Old Testament; therefore, what
ever they found there, they transferred to the life of Jesus. For
example, they inferred from Isaiah 35 : 5-6 that when the Mes
siah came the eyes of the blind would be opened, the ears of the
deaf unsealed, etc., and so such miracles became part of their
conception of the deeds of Jesus. Moreover, they supposed that
all the wonderful incidents in the lives of the Old Testament
saints must have been paralleled or surpassed in the life of the
Messiah; so the shining of the face of Moses gave rise to the
myth of the transfiguration on the mount; the feast of Elisha
(II Kings 4 : 42/.) was magnified into the feeding of the five thou
sand; the ascension of Elijah suggested the ascension of Jesus,
etc. Thus a large part of the supernatural incidents in the life
of Jesus can readily be accounted for. As regards the rest, the
myths are an attempt to express eternal verities concerning the
union of God with man and its manifestations — verities which
the Christian church perceived, but which were supposed to have
been revealed in Jesus instead of in Humanity. These events
in the life of Jesus should be interpreted, not as history, but as the
picturesque thought of a simple age concerning the manifestation
of the Spirit in the life of mankind.
This was the famous mythical theory of Strauss. He wrote
his book, as he states in its preface, for theologians and not for
the laity, and with the conviction that it would help rather than
injure the Christian faith. Many years later, in 1864, he pub
lished another Life of Jesus (translated in 1865) more popular in
form, in which he largely abandoned the mythical theory, and ex
plained the gospel story as a deliberate falsehood of the early
Christians. Finally, in his latest work, "The Old Faith and the

206 APPENDIX
New," he rejected Christianity entirely, thus showing the legiti
mate result of his original undertaking.
The book by Strauss at onee aroused much excitement, and
brought upon him a storm of orthodox indignation. It called
forth a host of replies, among which were two Lives of Christ
deserving notice.
Neander was originally a Jew named David Mendel, and he
took the name Neander ("a new man") when converted to
Christianity. He was now a prominent church historian in Ber
lin, a man of great learning and piety. He answered Strauss by
publishing in 1837 a Life of Christ, which was translated in 1848.
It is keen and devout, accepting the four gospels and defending
the miracles, but it is inclined to go as far as possible in yield
ing to the objections of sceptics in order to win them back from
following Strauss. The book is valuable, but in many ways fails
to meet the needs of the present day.
Lange, best known as a famous commentator, held at Zurich
the chair of theology which would have been given to Strauss
had he not roused the opposition of the orthodox. In 1844-7 he
published a Life of Jesus (translated in 1864) which was his con
tribution to the controversy then waging. It is a voluminous
work, devout in spirit and accepting all four gospels, but vague
and fanciful in its treatment of Christ's divinity and its theory
of the relation of miracles to natural law. The average reader
will find himself wearied and befogged in its pages.
Ill
A myth requires time for its development;' therefore, if the
gospels are full of myths, they must have been written far down
in the second century. Strauss in his first work simply took the
late date for granted, thereby leaving the weakest point in his
theory undefended. But a group of scholars, like him Hegelian
in their philosophy and desirous of explaining the origin of Chris
tianity by purely natural causes, soon undertook the task he had
slighted. The Tubingen School is the name given to this group because
its leader, Ferdinand Christian Baur, was professor at Tubingen,
and there gathered around him many brilliant younger men as

APPENDIX 207
his disciples and supporters. In their opinion Christianity at the
beginning was simply one form of Judaism with Jesus as the
Jewish Messiah. Paul was the first to develop the broader view
that Jesus is the Messiah of the whole world, and that Chris
tianity is wholly distinct from Judaism. Thereupon arose a bitter
and prolonged conflict between the two parties — the Jewish form
of Christianity fiercely opposing the Pauline. Later on, the two
were reconciled; and still later the fact that there had ever been
a conflict was covered up. In this way the Tubingen School ex
plained Christianity as a purely natural evolution according to the
regular Hegelian process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis — posi
tion, opposition, and reconciliation. Accepting this view, they
had a test by which to determine the date of New Testament
writings. Books that show the conflict in actual existence — in
particular, Galatians, Corinthians, and Romans for the Pauline
side, and Revelation for the Jewish — belong to the Apostolic Age;
books conciliatory in spirit, and striving to promote harmony by
showing real agreement underneath seeming differences, are post-
apostolic; books which ignore the conflict altogether are late in
the second century. Applying this test to the gospels, John is
found to be neither Jewish nor Pauline, but wholly Catholic —
before it was written the conflict had ceased and been forgotten;
the other three gospels are conciliatory, Matthew being written
from the Jewish stand-point and Luke from the Pauline, while
Mark is chiefly a compilation from the other two. John, there
fore, must have been written so late in the second century as to
be worthless historically; the synoptics must be placed earlier
in that century, and are imperfectly trustworthy, Matthew being
the earliest and most reliable. In making use of the gospels we
must not treat them as books of history, but rather as Tendenz
Schrif ten — writings shaped by party feelings — and we must bear
in mind the special object of each writer and the late date at
which he wrote.
The Tubingen School produced no Life of Jesus, but set forth
its conception of his life in works on Paul and the Apostolic Age,
of which Baur's Paul (1845, translated in 1875) and Church His
tory of the First Three Centuries (1853, translated in 1879) were
the beginning. It now has few if any followers, because careful
study has shown that the New Testament books were written at

208 APPENDIX
an earlier date than would be consistent with its theory. Un
doubtedly there was a struggle in the apostolic church between
the Jewish and the Gentile parties concerning the Law and the
freedom wherewith Christ had set them free; but it was neither
so long and wide-spread nor so dominant over all church life as
the Tubingen theory supposes. But the Tubingen School for a
season exerted a strong influence, felt by every writer upon the
life of Christ; and it rendered one lasting and valuable service —
henceforth no writer could ignore the problem of the date and
origin of the gospels.
Ewald, a most learned Oriental scholar at Gottingen, devoted
the fifth volume of his great work on the History of Israel to
the life and times of Christ (1854, translated in 1865). He
was strongly opposed to Baur, and accepted all four gospels as
written in the Apostolic Age, ably defending John as the work
of the apostle. As regards miracles he is Left Centre, for, while
he believes Jesus to be " the sole, unfailing instrument of the
salvation of this world," he rejects the virgin birth, and sees in
him simply a human being elevated to a unique and perfect union
with God, and in his miracles a revelation of what the spirit of
man thus elevated can accomplish. The life of Christ is the
culmination of the religious history of the Jews — the full revelar
tion of God to man. Jesus combined in himself all the pro
phetic, priestly, and kingly power that had previously been ex
hibited in Israel; "thus he became the Son of God as no one
hitherto had been — in a mortal body and in a fleeting space of
time the purest and most perfect image of the Eternal Himself;
thus he became the Word of God, speaking from God by his
human word no less than by his whole appearing and work; and
thus the one, true Messiah, the undying King of the Kingdom of
God which was in him first attaining its perfection amongst men
— the one man to whom as Guide and Lord every one must con
stantly look up and aspire." The book is by no means easy
reading, and Ewald is stronger in Old Testament study than in
New.

APPENDIX 209
IV
According to the theories of Strauss and Baur, the part which
Jesus played in the origin of Christianity was really an insignifi
cant one. Almost any high-minded, earnest teacher might have
given the feeble initial impulse that set the Christian church in
motion, and have served as the figure around which the later con
ceptions of a divine founder were to cluster. Indeed, instead of
recognizing that Jesus created Christianity, these writers practi
cally maintain the exact opposite — that Christianity created Jesus;
for, without the later additions to his story, he remains a shade
as thin and unsubstantial as that described in Arthur Clough's
poem, "The Shadow."
Return, the brilliant French Semitic scholar, saw this funda
mental mistake, and set himself to correct it. "History is not a
simple play of abstractions; in it men are more than doctrines":
hence all attempts to explain the origin of Christianity by philo
sophical principles and tendencies and parties and conflicts, apart
from the creative personality of its Founder, are doomed to fail
ure. Accordingly, Renan in his " Vie de Jesus " undertook to pre
sent Jesus as "a man of great religious genius who, through his
daring originality and the love he had the gift of inspiring, became
the object and fixed the point of departure of the future faith of
humanity." The book was published in 1863, and at once aroused
so much attention that its publication was called one of the
events of the century. Eleven editions were exhausted within
six months, and it was translated into English the same year.
Some of its great popularity was due to the charm of its liter
ary style, so unlike the heavy, tedious chapters of the German
writers; but what attracted readers still more powerfully was its
novel and vivid picture of Jesus. Renan rejected the super
natural entirely, declaring that "miracles are things that never
happen": though the gospel story is full of them, they are to be
treated as simply legends which, after the death of Jesus, grew
up rapidly in an age of childish credulity. Having thus con
temptuously cast away a large part of what the evangelists record,
he treated the rest of their narrative with the utmost liberty, re
constructing the history according to his own theories and fancy.
Jesus was a pure, high-minded Galilean peasant upon whom had

210 APPENDIX
dawned the mighty truth that God is our Father. He gathered
about him a little band of disciples, drawn by the charm of his
presence and the novelty of his teaching; and these he taught
to live in simplicity and joyousness as children of the Father.
Presently he came under the influence of John the Baptist, an
influence which on the whole was harmful, since through it he
was led to believe that his mission was that of a universal re
former, and that the Kingdom of God must be introduced by an
overthrow of existing conditions. His disciples increased rapidly
after the imprisonment of John, and, because they believed him
to be the Messiah, he was forced against his will into an attempt
to fulfil Messianic expectations. He had to make claims that
he knew were unfounded, and in support of them he had to
adopt or, at least, to acquiesce in fraud and sham miracles. His
career grew more fanatical and desperate until, when he was
put to death, "it was time for death to relax the tension of a situ
ation strained to the utmost — to remove him from the impossi
bilities of a path that had no issue." Had he died in the first
period of his career, "there would not have been in his life a
single page that could wound us"; but, as it was, we often have
to make excuses, to confess that "he adopted, because they were
popular, many things with which he did not agree," and "some
times one might have said that his reason was unbalanced."
The book abounds in professions of deepest admiration, and
closes with the statement, "Whatever unlooked-for events the
future may have in store, Jesus will never be surpassed; his wor
ship will unceasingly renew its youth; his story will call forth
endless tears; his sufferings will subdue the noblest hearts; all
ages will proclaim that among the sons of men no one has been
born who is greater than he." And yet it repeatedly describes
Jesus as doing things that shock a keen moral sense, though the
writer does not always seem to realize that they are shocking.
When the multitude at Jerusalem were discussing Jesus, "some
said, He is a good man; others said, Nay, but he deceiveth the
people" (John 7 : 12); Renan would combine both opinions as if
they were not contradictory. Of the book, Weiss says very prop
erly, "It is not history, but a romance," and H. B. Smith adds,
"It can not be read without the risk of marring the moral sense."
Pressense, a, French clergyman and author, in 1865 published

APPENDIX 211
his " J^sus Christ, son Temps, sa Vie, son CEuvre," as an answer
to Renan. Though somewhat florid in style, it is a full, clear, and
orthodox life of Christ, accepting the gospel record and defend
ing the miracles. At the time it was, perhaps, the best book on
the subject from an orthodox stand-point, and it passed through
many editions. Though translated into English in 1866, it has
not been widely circulated here because we have other Lives of
Christ of the same character written with equal or greater ability.

Though the attempt of Renan to explain the origin and char
acter of Christianity through the influence and teachings of its
Founder was far from successful, it opened a line of study which
has been followed with great profit in late years. What was the
secret of the influence of Jesus ? What was the aim that he had
in view when establishing the Kingdom of God ? What were the
methods and the laws he laid down for his followers ? Questions
like these, when once forced upon men's attention, are too in
teresting and profitable to be left unanswered.
"Ecce Homo" was an attempt to answer them. The book was
published anonymously in 1866, and the secret was kept for
many years that its author was J. R. Seeley, who later was an
eminent professor of modern history at Cambridge, England. In
his preface he says that he had been led to the study of his sub
ject, "because, after reading a good many books on Christ, he felt
still constrained to confess that there was no historical character
whose motives, objects, and feelings remained so incomprehen
sible to him"; and what he has written is an endeavor "to fur
nish an answer to the question, What was Christ's object in found
ing the Society which is called by his name, and how is it adapted
to attain that object?" For his purpose only the general out
lines of the life of Christ are necessary, and these he takes with
out question from the gospels; also he recognizes that "the fact
that Jesus appeared as a worker of miracles is the best attested
fact in his whole biography." The book, as the title indicates,
confines itself to the human side of Christ, and considers in detail
the call he gave to his disciples and the legislation he gave to
his Society. A second volume, in which the divine side of Christ

212 APPENDIX
and his personal relations as Judge and Master to all men
should be discussed, was promised, but never written. "It was
a fresh and powerful book; it went, as it were, unweakened by
metaphysical or critical hesitancies, straight to the moral heart
of the matter, and asked the meaning of the person and message
and society of Jesus" (Fairbairn). F. G. Peabody says of it:
"The extraordinary insight of this book into the spirit of the
gospels, and its beauty and vigor of expression make its publi
cation an epoch in the interpretation of the teaching of Jesus."
Modern study of the social and ethical teachings of Jesus, which
is constantly increasing, may be said to date from its appearance.
Of course, the restriction of the discussion to the human side of
Jesus made the book — reverent though it was and wholly unlike
Renan in moral tone — seem to many a pitifully inadequate pict
ure of the Godman; and it aroused much criticism and many
replies, among them the "Ecce Deus," 1868, of Joseph Parker, a
prominent London preacher. VI
Another result of Renan's work was to make students recognize
the importance of a careful investigation of the environment in
which Jesus lived and labored. Renan in his introduction de
scribes his surprise at the light upon the life of Jesus which was
gained by a sojourn in Palestine: "before my eyes I had a fifth
gospel, torn, but still legible; and from that time, through the
narratives of Matthew and Mark, I saw, instead of an abstract
being who might be said never to have existed, an admirable
human figure living and moving." And in his book Renan had
endeavored to follow the rule which he himself lays down — "The
first task of the historian is to sketch well the environment in
which the events he relates took place." Of course, if Jesus was
simply a man, the influences that surrounded him go far tow
ard explaining his career; and if we recognize his divinity, still
we must approach it, as did the first disciples, by first becoming
acquainted with his humanity as displayed under special condi
tions of race and age and thought. In no case can we ignore
the land and the times in which Jesus lived.
Keim, professor of historical theology at Zurich, gave us the

APPENDIX 213
first of the great environmental biographies in his "History of
Jesus of Nazara in its Connection with the National Life of His
People." It appeared in three large volumes in 1867-72 with an
English translation in six volumes, 1873-83. It is full and admi
rable in its treatment of all the facts of Jewish life and thought
that bear upon its subject. Keim, like Renan, also sees that
"no religion depends upon the person of its founder so fully as
the Christian religion: in other instances faith is based chiefly on
the founder's teachings, but here rather upon a life in which men
have found not merely a voice from heaven but a divine advent."
In his use of the gospels he rejects John entirely, and gives pref
erence to Matthew as the earliest of the synoptics, written about
A D. 68. On miracles he is Left Centre, rejecting all the nature
miracles, and holding that the cures wrought by Jesus were by
the action of spirit upon spirit — the product of high spiritual life
and intense sympathy on the part of Jesus, and of faith in him
on the part of the sufferer. While he denies the bodily resurrec
tion of Jesus, he ably refutes the theories of earlier sceptics, and
holds that there was granted to the sorrowing disciples a spiritual
vision of their living Lord — "a telegram from heaven" — to as
sure them that he had conquered death. Keim was unwilling
to accept the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ; yet he was
deeply impressed with the sublimity of his life "which makes the
impression of mysterious loneliness, superhuman miracle, divine
creation." Dr. S. M. Jackson says of his book: "Nothing like it
had hitherto appeared. Immense learning, tireless energy, ner
vous force, deep convictions, cautious judgment, reverence — these
united give the work a lasting importance. It was and remains
the Life of Jesus from a rationalistic stand-point."
Fovard, professor of theology in Rouen, wrote in 1879 a Life of
Jesus (translated in 1890), which is interesting as being the work
of a Roman Catholic abbe. Naturally, he gives a place in it to
the traditions handed down by the church, and interprets certain
sayings of Jesus from the Roman Catholic stand-point; but there
is little in it to distinguish it from similar works by devout, ortho
dox Protestants. It is the production of a scholar, and is written
in an easy, attractive style.

214 APPENDIX

VII

Continued study of the dates for the gospels slowly forced back
the Tubingen School until scholars generally agreed that the sy-
noptics must have been written in the first century and that John
could not be later than the opening years of the second century.
If so, they were written in the lifetime of either the apostles
themselves or of those who were the immediate disciples of the
apostles; and the objection that they are too late to be trust
worthy is overthrown. But, with this problem out of the way,
others took its place. The most important were the Synoptic
Problem and the Johannine Problem. Neither of these was new;
but they now began to push to the front, where they remain till
the present day. Any critical Life of Christ has to take them up,
and to determine, not merely whether our four gospels are of
early date, but what are the sources, if any, that lie behind them
and give the story of Jesus as it was originally told.
Weiss, professor of theology at Berlin, published in 1882 a Life
of Christ (translated in three volumes in 1883-84) in which these
problems and their bearing on the history of Jesus are clearly
recognized. He regards John as more trustworthy than 'the
synoptics, or at least as correcting them in certain instances. He
also adopts one form of the "double source" or "two-document"
theory of the origin of the synoptics. This theory in one form
or another is largely accepted to-day, and Weiss should be studied
as an introduction to it. His book was a reply to Keim, and is
able and suggestive. As to miracles, he is Right Centre, holding
that Christ wrought true miracles and rose from the dead, but
he is inclined to rationalistic explanations when possible. For
example, the feeding of the five thousand may have been nothing
more than "a miracle of providence" by which, in some purely
natural though unexplained way, the food was divinely supplied
at the precise hour of need. The book is one for careful study
rather than for popular reading; but it well repays the time
spent upon it. For Weiss is one of the greatest of critics and
exegetes, and his spiritual insight is profound. Dr. Sanday's
advice that a student of the life of Jesus should take Weiss as
his principal commentary would be endorsed even by those who
are unable to accept all its conclusions.

APPENDIX 215
VIII
The works we have thus far considered, much as they differ,
all agree that our opinion of Christ must depend upon the his
torical facts of his life and upon our philosophical attitude tow
ard the supernatural. But in the last quarter of a century a new
school of theology has developed — called Ritschlianism, from its
founder, Albrecht Ritschl — which seeks to make religion entirely
independent of science and metaphysics by confining one to the
realm of faith and the other to the realm of knowledge. For
example, concerning any fact we may ask, what evidence is there
for it ? and what explanation can be given for it ? — these are ques
tions of science and philosophy; or we may ask, what is its moral
value? and what does it signify to us as spiritual beings? — these
are questions of religion. The answers in the one instance should
not, according to Ritschlianism, at all affect the answers in the
other. Science may refuse to accept an event as a miracle be
cause natural causes for it can be discovered; nevertheless re
ligion may treat it as miraculous because it has the practical
value of a miracle. Philosophy may be unable to accept the
divinity of Christ because it involves an incredible union of God
and man; but religion, ignoring such perplexity of metaphysical
thought, may still recognize his divinity because he has for men
the practical value of God incarnate.
Such an attempt to combine doubt and faith, scepticism and
belief, is, to say the least, somewhat bewildering to the ordinary
man; and yet it has greatly attracted some of the keen thinkers
of the present day. We see its influence in Harnack, whose
"What is Christianity?" has been widely read; and in Wendt,
whose book on the Teaching of Jesus is a remarkably able one.
And we have a Life of Christ written from the Ritschlian stand
point. Staffer, professor of theology in Paris, gives us this in " Jesus
Christ, His Person, His Authority, His Work," published in
1895-6 and translated soon after. In his treatment of the sources
he accepts the "two-document" theory concerning the synoptics,
and regards John as the recollections of the apostle, written
down by some disciple, perhaps under his personal supervision.
The work is divided into three parts.

216 APPENDIX
Part I treats of Jesus Christ before his ministry. Jesus was a
man of his time, and received the ordinary training of a Jewish
youth, which is minutely described. In his thought he accepted
the best that there was in the teachings of both the Pharisees and
the Essenes. His originality consisted in "a very clear and full
consciousness of a union with God, which nothing in the past
had ever troubled, and which nothing troubled in the present."
Like all Jews, he was expecting the Messiah, and the question,
what if I were the Messiah? often presented itself to him. The
influence of John the Baptist over him was strong, and led him
to baptism, where he received the Messianic consciousness. He
began his public work in accordance with popular Messianic con
ceptions, in which John shared; but after a time, through an inner
experience indicated by the story of the temptation in the wilder
ness, he rose above this ideal to a higher one.
Part II treats of Jesus Christ during his ministry. The sub
ject is discussed topically, and no clear idea is given of the par
ticular events or of the course and development of the ministry.
One chapter is devoted to a discussion of the miracles. They
were no part of the Messianic work, but belonged simply to
Christ's vocation as a rabbi, since one work of a rabbi was to
cure diseases and cast out demons. Whether Stapfer regards
them as supernatural or not, it is hard to say; for on the one
hand he lays down the axiom, "the laws of nature are inviolable,"
hence it follows that the so-called miracle, if it really took place,
can only be something which lies outside of the present known
forces of nature; yet on the other hand he says, "By prayer one
acts upon God, and through Him upon nature itself; this is why
Jesus certainly performed true miracles, and did it often; for
God certainly gave him the answer to his prayers."
Part III, which is the largest of the three, treats of the Death
and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Up to the very hour of his
arrest, though he saw the dangers thickening about him, Jesus
hoped to escape death; and the betrayal by Judas was a surprise
to him. Yet he died with the assurance that his cause would
triumph even by means of his death. As to the resurrection,
there were spiritual appearances to the disciples, but no resur
rection of the body, though how the tomb became empty we can
not say. Really what took place on the third day we never can

APPENDIX 217
know, and it is a matter of little importance; concerning the
resurrection "the true believer has no need of historic proofs; he
has intuitions of heart and conscience, and those eternal reasons
which lie in the depths of his soul, and which the abstract rea
son knows not of." This is a typical Ritschlian conclusion.
IX
Two other lives of Jesus, both written in German but accessible
in translation, may be briefly described.
Holtzmann, professor at Giessen, published a Life of Jesus in
1901. He holds the "two-document" theory concerning the
synoptics, and finds in John little of historical value. The Gos
pel of the Hebrews he considers as "on the whole similar to our
synoptic gospels, but at the same time completely independent
of mem, while yet possessed of an equal value"; and he makes all
possible use of it. He thinks the duration of the ministry "can
not be reliably fixed," but inclines to one year and some months.
Jesus was born at Nazareth, and the stories that cluster around
Bethlehem are imhistorical. He grew up conscious of no sinful
action, yet consented to be baptized by John because he might
have sinned unconsciously. (As a matter of fact, in later life he
does display occasional bursts of ill temper; e.g., in his treatment
of the Syrophcenician woman and his cursing of the fig tree.)
In a spiritual vision at the baptism he gains the Messianic con
sciousness and at the same time the Holy Spirit endows him
with Messianic attributes. At a comparatively early stage of
his ministry he foresees by purely human wisdom that death is
the inevitable end; but he nobly labors on in sublime confidence
that his labors will not be in vain. As to miracles, Holtzmann is
Left Centre. The healings were the effect of mind upon mind;
the nature miracles were in some instances "remarkable coinci
dences," in others exaggerations or poetical accounts of natural
events. There was no resurrection. The tomb was empty be
cause Joseph of Arimathaea had quietly removed the body, not
wishing "to permit a crucified man to lie permanently beside
the dead of his own family." The disciples were expecting Jesus
to rise on the third day, i. e., in a very short time; hence in Galilee
Peter first and then the others had visions of the risen Lord.

218 APPENDIX
"The formula which sums up the historical significance of Jesus
Christ's appearance is this: the highest moral end in life com
bined with the joyful assurance of eternal salvation." Evidently
the book is not at all an advance upon Renan, and it lacks the
literary charms of that popular writer.
Bousset, professor of theology at Gottingen, in his "Jesus"
(1904, translated in 1906), reminds us in style and thought still
more strongly of Renan, though his attitude is more serious and
reverent. He does not attempt to construct a narrative life of
Jesus, for which he holds that the gospels do not provide the
necessary means; but he gives us a study of his work, teachings,
and person. The son of Joseph as well as of Mary, performing
no miracles, but only works of healing, "entirely within the
bounds of the psychologically conceivable," looking forward to
his death as no more sacrificial than that of any martyr for the
truth, he "never overstepped the limits of the purely human." He
did appropriate to himself the Messianic expectation, because he
was confident that the Kingdom of God was at hand, and "ac
cording to the popular ideal this was inconceivable without the
Messiah." Yet he did this reluctantly. "The Messianic idea
was the only possible form in which Jesus could clothe his inner
consciousness, and yet an inadequate form; it was a necessity,
but also a heavy burden which he bore in silence almost to the
end of his life; it was a conviction which he could never enjoy
with a whole heart." The uniqueness of Jesus and the secret
of his life and work lay in the fact that he "felt that he stood
in such closeness of communion with God the Father as be
longed to none before or after him. He was conscious of speak
ing the last and decisive word. He felt that what he did was
final, and that none would come after him." But if this be so,
we are left in perplexity as to how it can be true that Jesus "never
overstepped the limits of the purely human."

Translation is a winnowing process, so that Lives of Christ
which have been translated may be reckoned among the best
of the foreign works. When we turn to works by English writers
we must ourselves make the selection from a large number, some

APPENDIX 219
of which are of slight value, though no book upon such an impor
tant subject can be wholly valueless. Many are the work of busy
pastors— the outgrowth, perhaps, of a series of sermons— and,
while not lacking in scholarship, their aim is chiefly devotional.
Such, for example, are Lives by Beecher, Crosby, Deems, Eddy,
Hanna. They are not intended for the student, and may be
omitted from our list
Almost without exception the English lives are written from
an orthodox stand-point, using all four of the gospels as reliable
sources, recognizing the divinity of Jesus, and taking the Right
as their position on miracles. Having so much in common, they
need no detailed description. We mention only the more im
portant in chronological order.
Ellicott, afterward Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, gave as the
Hulsean Lectures at Cambridge in 1859 a course on the life of
Christ. This was published with voluminous notes. The lect
ures are rhetorical and diffuse, but the notes are compact, keen,
and scholarly, and, though written half a century ago, are still
valuable. Andrews (1862, new edition thoroughly revised, 1891) confines
himself to chronological, topographical, and historical details,
discussing their problems with great minuteness. In this field
his work has no equal, and is indispensable for the student. His
divisions of the ministry, with a statement of the leading purpose
and general character of each division, are suggestive and helpful.
These and the other more important parts of the book are dis
tinguished by the use of a larger type.
Abbott (1869) aims "to give the life and teachings of Christ that
significance which is afforded by a knowledge of his times and
circumstances — to present the life of Christ in its appropriate
setting." At the time it was written this was a valuable work;
but the later environmental Lives have largely superseded it, and
the book is out of print.
Farrar (1874) designed his book for popular reading, and it
certainly has attained its object, having been more widely circu
lated than any other English Life of Christ. It is diffuse in style
and marred by attempts at fine writing. In this book and ''The
Life of St. Paul" and "The Early Days of Christianity" he
covers the whole of New Testament times. In popularity the

220 APPENDIX
three books stand in the order above given, which is the order of
their publication, but in scholarly worth they stand in exactly the
reverse order.
Grikie (1877) gives another popular Life written along the same
lines as that by Farrar. He has brought together in a huge and
indiscriminate mass all the information that he could gather con
cerning the environment; and we are overwhelmed by it, and
sometimes almost lose sight of the central figure. He also presents
in diffuse paraphrase all of Christ's teachings. The book would
be greatly improved by selection and condensation.
Stalher (1879) wrote his Life as one of a series of hand-books
for Bible classes. His endeavor was "to throw into prominence
the great masses of our Lord's life, and point out clearly its hinge
events, details being as much as possible curtailed." He has
succeeded admirably, and his little book gives a clear and interest
ing outline which every student will find of great value at the out
set of his studies. It is the book for a beginner.
Edersheim (1883) is probably the best of the popular writers.
He was reared as a Jew, and is therefore familiar with the details
of Jewish life and the lore of the Talmud, both of which he uses
to illustrate his subject; Though somewhat mystical, he is very
helpful in his reverent interpretation of Christ's words and deeds.
His book is one which all general readers should own.
Fairbairn (1889), in his "Studies in the Life of Christ," takes
only the leading topics, and has in mind the needs of the scholar.
Though prepared originally as a series of pulpit discourses, it
ranks among the most thoughtful and suggestive of English works
and will well repay careful study. It should be better known.
Gilbert (1896, new edition largely rewritten, 1900) fitly describes
his book by calling it "The Student's Life of Jesus." It is a well-
arranged text-book, taking up in detail the incidents in Christ's
life (the teachings are reserved for his later work, "The Revelation
of Jesus"), and discussing them with frank recognition of scepti
cal objections and with able defence of orthodox conclusions. It
needs to be supplemented by some work which gives the environ
ment and brings out more clearly the divisions and progress of
Christ's ministry.
Rhees (1900) gives us another text-book which in method is the
exact opposite of Gilbert Without discussing separate incidents

APPENDIX 221
minutely, he offers a broad view of the historical setting and
progress of Christ's life, and the problems it presents. Gilbert
and Rhees taken together make an excellent combination for the
student's purpose.
Dawson (1901) states that his object is " to depict the human life
of Jesus as it appeared to his contemporaries, with a purposed
negligence, as far as it is possible, of the vexed problems of theology
and metaphysics." He rearranges events with great freedom and,
though recognizing the miraculous in Christ's life, minimizes it as
much as possible. The book is graphically written, but its atti
tude will hardly please either the devout or the sceptical.
Sanday (1905) is the writer of the article on Jesus Christ in
"Hastings's Bible Dictionary," and this article has been reprinted
as a separate volume with the title "Outlines of the Life of
Christ" It is a very able production, replete with the latest
scholarship, and it makes us look forward eagerly to the larger
work on the same subject in preparation by the author. The
average reader will probably find the book too condensed and pre
supposing too much familiarity with its subject; but the student
who is prepared to profit by it will be charmed with its fresh,
stimulating and broad treatment of the problems it discusses.
Smith (1905), under the title "The Days of His Flesh," treats
the life of Jesus along the lines of Edersheim and Farrar, but with
much freshness and occasional fancif ulness. He prefaces his work
with a discussion of the sources, in which he makes the synoptics
depend upon the oral tradition rather than upon any earlier
documents. The book is an excellent one for the general reader.
Schmidt (1905), in "The Prophet of Nazareth," discusses many
topics that bear upon the origin of the belief, which he rejects, that
Jesus was divine, but devotes only one chapter to an account of
the life of Jesus as it may be constructed after discarding all the
supernatural. The book is intended for students rather than for
popular use, and is the ablest work from a rationalistic stand
point that has been put forth by an English or American author.
Garvie (1907) says of his "Studies in the Inner Life of Jesus" :
"The title indicates the purpose and the method of the book. It is
the mind, heart, and will of Jesus as revealed in his words and
work that the writer seeks to understand." It is a very careful
and illuminating treatment of the questions that arise in connec-

222 APPENDIX
tion with the chief points in Christ's ministry. The student who
has made himself familiar with the details of Jesus' life, and wishes
to go further and study their full significance will find this book
most helpful and suggestive. It is the work of a scholar who
recognizes present-day problems and sets himself sympathetically
to aid those who are seeking their solution. The critical introduc
tion, discussing the value of the sources, is also to be commended.
XI
"To write the Life of Christ ideally is impossible. And even to
write such a Life as should justify itself either for popular use or for
study is a task of extreme difficulty." So says Sanday at the close
of his Outlines, and he adds: "Great as are the merits of these
modern works, there is none (at least none known to the writer)
which possesses such a balance and combination of qualities as
to rise quite to the level of a classic." Our review of the literature
shows that his opinion is well-founded. The demands which a
Life of Christ makes upon its author are greater than we can hope
to have met by any one man. He must be a profound scholar,
a keen critic, an unbiased judge, a master of literary style, and,
above all, an earnest, reverent disciple of the Master: the Christ
of history is best known through the Christ of personal experience.
"Taken as a whole," says Fairbairn, " though it is a whole that
admits remarkable rather than weighty exceptions — we may say
that the more recent Lives are distinguished by a growing sense
of being on firm historical ground, and of using sources that the
more they are critically handled can be the more intelligently
trusted." This is a great gain, and encourages us to look forward
with hopefulness to works yet to be produced. There never was
a time when the life of Christ was more eagerly and enthusiastically
studied, and when a work upon that subject reached as large a
body of careful readers. And though the ideal Life may never
be written, we can confidently expect that the present century will
give us something better than the past has ever produced. To
forecast its form is impossible, but everything indicates that its
conclusions concerning the Founder of our religion will be in
harmony with the story of the evangelists and the faith of the
Christian church.

INDEX

Abbot, Exra, place in discovery of
the Diatessaron, 90.
Abbott, Lyman, Life of Christ, 219.
Acts of Pilate, 23.
Agrapha, 17 f.
Alexandrian text, 63.
Alexandrinus, Codex, 53.
Allen, W. C, on authorship of
Matthew, 148.
Andrew, Gospel of, 33.
Andrews, Life of Christ, 219.
Antiochian text, 62.
Apocalypses, influence on Jewish
thought, 195 f .; relation to career
of Jesus, 196 ff.
Apocryphal gospels, 21 ff.; apologetic
value, 24.
Apologists, 42; their canon of gos
pels, 43, 86.
Apostles, attitude toward miracles,
97; not idealized in gospels, 99;
could gain nothing by fraud, 172;
competent witnesses, 175 ff.
Apostolic Fathers, 15; their account
of Jesus, 16; use of our gospels,
86.
Arabic Gospel of the Infancy, 23.
Ariston, possible author of Mark
16:9-20, 81.
Augustine, solution of synoptic
problem, 107.
Barnabas, Gospel of, 33.
Bartholomew, Gospel of, 33.
Baur, F. C, leader of Tubingen
School, 206; test of the date of a
gospel, 207; little part assigned
to Jesus, 209.
Beecher, Life of Christ, 219.
Bezae, Codex, 54; peculiarities, 63 /.
Bohairic version, 76.
Bousset, on chronology of gospels,
201; Life of Christ, 218.
Browning, "Death in the Desert,"
139.

Bruce, A. B., on authorship of John,
122; on miracles and trustworthi
ness of the gospels, 188.
Burton, E. D., purpose of Matthew,
151 if.
Canon, meaning of the term, 38;
formation of, 37 if.
Character of Jesus, the same in all
four gospels, 178; unique, 179;
impossible to invent, 180 ff.
Christianity, not based on a book,
35 f.
Clement of Alexandria, John the
spiritual gospel, 131; Peter living
when Mark wrote, 157.
Clement of Rome, possible quotation
from Matthew, 87.
Codices, origin, 49; description of
the most famous, 53 /.
Councils of the church, action on the
canon, 43 /.
Crosby, Life of Christ, 219.
Curetonian Syriac version, 74.
Cursives, 50 f.
Dawson, Life of Christ, 221.
Deems, Life of Christ, 219.
Deissmann, on the canon, 44;
ostraca, 47.
"Descent into Hades," 23.
Diatessaron of Tatian, 88 if.
"Ecce Deus," by Joseph Parker,
212.
"Ecce Homo," by J. R. Seeley,
211.
Eddy, Life of Christ, 219.
Edersheim, description of Talmud,
9; Life of Christ, 220.
Egyptian versions, 76.
Egyptians, Gospel of, 33.
Ellicott, Life of Christ, 219.
Ephraem, commentary on the Dia
tessaron, 88 /.
Ephraemi, Codex, 53.
Erasmus, text of N. T., 57.

223

224

INDEX

Errors, in manuscripts, 55 ff.; in
apostolic testimony, 177.
Eusebius, about woman taken in
adultery, 32, 82; quotes Papias,
40, 111; possible relation to early
codices, 55.
Ewald, Life of Christ in his History
of Israel, 208.
Fairbairn, on Paulus, 191; opinion of
"Ecee Homo," 212; Life of Christ,
220; judgment of recent Lives, 22.
Farrar, Life of Christ, 219.
Fathers, quotations in the, 76 /.
Fisher, G. P., 88.
Fleetwood, John, Life of Christ, 203.
Fouard, Life of Christ, 213.
Freer, manuscript of gospels, 65 n.
Garvie, A. E., on environment as
explaining career of Jesus, 201 /.;
" Inner Life of Jesus," 221.
Geikie, Life of Christ, 220.
Gilbert, Life of Christ, 220.
Gloag, on style of John, 169 f.
Gnostics, used Gospel of Egyptians,
33; influence on canon, 41 /.
Gore, on the apostles as witnesses,
176 /.; on miracles of Jesus, 193.
Gospels, probable origin, 25 ff.; early
opinion of their sacredness, 29, 45,
57; not the basis of belief in
Christ, 35 f.; canon, 37 ff.; oral pre
ferred, 26, 39; originally copied
with little care, 45; text, 55 ff.;
date, 84 ff.; accuracy in historical
facts, 95; freedom from anachron
isms, 96 /.; original titles, 102 /.;
synoptic problem, 103 ff.; Johan
nine problems, 118 ff.; character
istics, 145 ff.; symbolized, 145;
trustworthiness, 171 ff.; use for a
Life of Christ, 185 ff.; attitude
of critics toward them, 186 f.;
biographies or memorabilia, 199 f.
Greek of New Testament, 71 f.
Gregory, C. R., opinion of Syrian
text, 62; groups of text, 66; ac
curacy of text, 78.
Grenfell and Hunt, new sayings of
Jesus, 17 ff.
Hanna, Life of Christ, 219.
Heathen writers, little reason to
mention Jesus, 1 f.; Tacitus, 3;
Suetonius, 3; Pliny the Younger,
4; value of their testimony, 5.

Hebrews, Gospel of, 30 ff.
Hegelianism, used by Tubingen
School in early church history,
207.
Holtzmann, value of Gospel of
Hebrews, 31; criticized by Illing-
worth, 143; Life of Jesus, 217.
Illingworth, criticism of Holtzmann,
143/.
Irenseus, on authorship of the gos
pels, 91 ff., 120; on Polycarp, 92/.;
Peter and Paul dead when Mark
wrote, 157.
Jackson, S. M., on Keim's Life of
Jesus, 213.
John the apostle, teacher of Poly
carp, 93; author of gospel, 119 ff.;
motives for writing, 132 /.; re
ceptivity, 137 /.
John the Baptist, account by Jo
sephus, 6.
John the presbyter, 40, 120.
John, Gospel of, date, 100; impres
sions of its value, 118; author
ship, 119 /.; trustworthiness, 122,
129; Johannine problem, 123 ff.;
purpose, 132 /., 137; an interpre
tation, 139, 142; arrangement,
166 /.; analysis, 168; style, 169 /.
John 5 : 3-4, 82.
John 7 : 8, 60 f.
John 7 : 53—8 : 11, 32, 81 /.
John 21 : 24, 84, 119.
Joseph the Carpenter, History of, 23.
Josephus, account of John the Bap
tist, 6; mention of Jesus, 6 ff.
Julicher, authorship of fourth gos
pel, 121; Johannine problem, 1«3;
on importance of Matthew, 154.
Justin Martyr, account of Jesus, 16;
" Memoirs of the Apostles," 87 /.,
91.
Keim, on Paul's account of Jesus,
15; on apocryphal gospels, 34;
opinion of miracle at Jericho, 192;
Life of Christ, 212.
Lake, value of patristic quotations,
77.
Lange, Life of Christ, 206.
Lecky, on character of Jesus, 179 /.
Lectionaries, 52.
Lewis Syriac version, 75.

INDEX

225

Lives of Christ, by Abbott, 219;
Andrews, 219; Beecher, 219; Bos-
suet, 218; Crosby, 219; Dawson,
221; Deems, 219; Eddy, 219;
Edersheim, 229; Ellicott. 219;
Ewald, 208; Fairbairn, 220; Far
rar, 219; Fleetwood, 203; Fou-
ard, 213: Garvie, 221; Geikie,
220; Gilbert, 220; Hanna, 219;
Holtzmann, 217; Keim, 212;
Lange, 206; Neander, 206; Par
ker, 212; Pressense', 210; Renan,
209; Sanday, 221; Schmidt, 221;
Seeley, 211; Smith, 221; Stalker,
220; Stapfer, 215; Rhees, 220;
Strauss, 204; Taylor, 203; Weiss,
214; lacking in Medieval Age,
203; a task of extreme difficulty,
222.
Logia, 112 /.; use in Matthew, 114,
152; use in Luke, 115, 163.
Luke the evangelist, preface to his
gospel, 25, 29; author of gospel,
160/.; sourcesof information, 161;
purpose, 162 /.; literary and his
torical skill, 163.
Luke, Gospel of, origin, 115; read
ers, 162; characteristics, 164 /.
Luke 22 : 43-44, 82.
Luke 23 : 34a, 83.
Manuscripts, material, 46 ff.; age,
how determined, 50 /.; number and
designation, 52; errors, 55 ff.
Mark the evangelist, statement by
Papias, 111; personal history,
154 /.; relation to Peter, 155.
Mark, Gospel of, based on Peter, 113,
155 /.; purpose, 156 /.; character
istics, 158 ff.; importance, 160.
Mark 16: 9-20, 48, 79/.
Matthew the apostle, 148; his
Logia, 112; probably not author
of First Gospel, 148 /.
Matthew, Gospel of; origin, 114 /.;
authorship, 148/.; purpose, 149 ff.;
importance, 154.
Messianic proclamations of Jesus, in
Synoptics and in John, 127, 139 ff.;
influence of apocalyptical ideas,
196 ff.
Mill, John Stuart, opinion of John,
118; gospel story not an inven
tion, 183.
Miracles, relation to credibility of
gospels, 85, 188 ff.; attitude of
Jesus, 98; deserve fair treatment,
174; harmonize with character of
Jesus, 181; treatment of them by
critics, 188 /.; career and teach

ings of Jesus vitally connected
with them, 191 ff.; use as proof of
Christ's divinity, 194; theory of
Strauss, 205; attitude of Ritsch
lianism, 215.
Mistakes of copyists, 56 /.
Mitchell, on value of versions, 71.
Montanists, influence on canon, 41 /.
Myths, develop rapidly, 173; theory
of Strauss, 205.
Nativity of Mary, Gospel of, 23.
Neander, Life of Christ, 206.
Nero, persecution of Christians, 3,
28.
Neutral text, 65.
New Testament books other than
Gospels, give few additional facts
about Jesus, 11 /.; confirm the gos
pel story, 12 ff., 178.
Nicodemus, Gospel of, 23.
Old Latin versions, 73 /.
Oral gospel, preferred to written,
26, 39; origin, 109 /.
Origen, testimony about Josephus,
8; on gospel of John, 170.
Ostraca, 46; value for text of gos
pels, 47.
Oxyrhynchus papyri, 17 /., 33.
Papias, preference for oral teaching,
26, 39/.; story of woman taken in
adultery, 82; on Mark and Mat
thew, 111 /.
Papyrus, manufacture, 47 /.; manu
scripts, 49.
Parchment, 49.
Parker, Joseph, " Ecce Deue," 212.
Passing of Mary, 23.
Passover, relation to Last Supper,
125, 135.
Patristic quotations, 76 /.
Paul, knowledge of Jesus, 13; con
firms the gospel story, 14 /., 178.
Paulus, treatment of miracles, 190 /.
Peabody, F. G., opinion of "Ecce
Homo," 212.
Peshitta, 74.
Peter, Gospel of, 33.
Philo, silence about Jesus natural,
5.
Pliny the Younger, letter to Trajan,
4.

226

INDEX

Plummer, on literary skill of Luke,
163.
Polycarp, link between Irenseus and
John, 92 /.
Pressense", Life of Christ, 210.
Protevangelium of James, 23.
Pseudo-Matthew, Gospel of, 23.
Q, the source document, 116.
Quotations, in the Fathers, 76 /.
Ramsay, W. M., opinion of Luke,
163.
Renan, opinion of miracle at Beth
any, 192; Vie de Jesus, 209; em
phasis of environment, 212.
Rhees, Life of Christ, 220.
Ritschlianism, treatment of the Life
of Christ, 215.
Robertson, J„ no indirect discourse
in Hebrew, 136.
Robinson, J. A., conversational tone
of Mark, 158.
Sanday, on Browning's "Death in
the Desert," 139; opinion of
Weiss, 214; Life of Christ, 221;
estimate of modem Lives, 222.
Schaff, Philip, on the Apostolic
Fathers, 15; opinion of the Fourth
Gospel, 118.
Schmidt, Prophet of Nazareth, 221.
Schmiedel, sceptical treatment of
the gospels, 186.
Seeley, J. R., "Ecce Homo," 211.
Sinaitic Syriac version, 75.
Sinaiticus, Codex, 54.
Smith, D., Life of Christ, 221.
Smith, Goldwin, opinion of the mir
acles of Jesus, 181.
Smith, H. B„ criticism of Renan,
210.
Sources for a Life of Christ, heathen
writers, 1 ff.; Jewish writers, 5 ff.;
Acts and N. T. epistles, 11 ff.; Apos
tolic Fathers, 15 ff.; apocryphal
gospels, 21 ff.; N. T. Gospels, 35 ff.
Stalker, Life of Christ, 220.
Stapfer, Life of Christ, 215.
Strauss, Life of Christ, '204; myth
ical theory, 205; little part as
signed to Jesus, 209.

Suetonius, mention of Chrestus, P /.
Symbols for the Gospels, 145.
Synoptic gospels, 104 /.; their prob
lem and its proposed solutions,
106 ff.; use for a Life of Christ,
198/.
Syriac versions, 74 /.
Syrian text, 62.
Tacitus, mention of Jesus, 3.
Talmud, origin, 8; allusions to
Jesus, 9 /.
Tatian's Diatessaron, 88 ff.
Taylor, Jeremy, Life of Christ,
203.
Text of Gospels, sources of error,
55 ff.; Syrian or Antiochian, 62;
Alexandrian, 63; Western, 63 /.;
Neutral, 65; correctness, 78; im
portant changes, 79 ff.
Thomas, Gospel of, 23; repulsive in
cidents, 24, 182.
Tubingen School, view of early
church history, 207; later in
fluence, 207 /.
Twelve, Gospel of the, 33.
Uncials, 50 /.
Ur-Marcus. 114.
Van Dyke, Jesus not an imaginary
person, 183.
Vaticanus, Codex, 53.
Versions, 69 /.; Latin 73; Syriac.
74; Egyptian, 76.
Vulgate, 73.
Weiss, Life of Christ, 214.
Wendt, teachings of Jesus alike In
John and synoptics, 130, 136;
Logia, 152.
Westcott, B. F., on authorship of
John, 121.
Westcott and Hort, on falsification
of text, 61; grouping of manu
scripts, 62 /.; opinion of correct
ness of text, 78.
Western text, 63 /.
Zahn, reconstruction of the Diates
saron, 90.

3 9002