¦ ¦.-.-,.:-- "- . -.'. '

"I give thefe JBaaAsiJ^, u
fpr. pie founding of a. College ui iftlfCoionfy"

FROM THE LIBRARY
OF
JOHN PUNNETT PETERS
YALE 1873

THE CHURCHMAN'S LIBRARY
Edited by J. H. Burn, B.D.

SOME NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS

THE CHURCHMAN'S LIBRARY
EDITED BV
JOHN HENRY BURN, B.D.
Examining Chaplain to the Lord Bishop of Aberdeen.

THE BEGINNINGS OF ENGLISH CHRISTIANITY. By W. E.
Collins, M.A., Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Kings College,
London. Crown 8vo, 31. 6d. [Ready.
THE CHURCH AND THE SACRAMENTS. By G. W. Gent, M.A.,
Principal of St. David's College, Lampeter.
THE CHURCHMAN'S PRIMER. By G. Harford-Battbrsby, M.A.
OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROME. By J. M. Danson, D.D.
THE LITERARY AND HISTORICAL INTEREST OF THE
PRAYER BOOK. By John Dowden, D.D., Lord Bishop of
Edinburgh.
A POPULAR INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT.
By Angus M. Mackay, B.A.
A POPULAR INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT.
By J. H. Shepherd, M.A.
AN INTRODUCTION TO TEXTUAL CRITICISM. By A. M.
Knight, M.A , Fellow and Dean of Gonville and Caius College,
Cambridge.
SOME OLD TESTAMENT PROBLEMS. By John P. Peters,
D.D., D.Sc.
SOME NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS. By Arthur Wright,
M.A., Fellow and Tutor of Queens' College, Cambridge. Crown
Svo, 6s.
BIBLE REVISION. By J. J. S. Perowne, D.D., Lord Bishop of
Worcester.
DEVOTIONAL ANALYSIS OF THE PAULINE EPISTLES. By
John Gott, D.D., Lord Bishop of Truro.
ENGLISH HYMNS AND HYMN TUNES. By H. C. Shuttle-
worth, M.A., Professor of Pastoral and Liturgical Theology, King's
College, London.
THE WITNESS OF ARCHEOLOGY. By C. J. Ball, M.A.,
Chaplain of Lincoln's Inn.
ENGLISH ECCLESIOLOGY. By J. N. Comfer, F.S.A.
CONFIRMATION. By H. T. Kingdon, D.D., Lord Bishop of
Fredericton.
INSPIRATION. By Canon Benham, B.D.
MIRACLES. By Thomas B. Strong, M.A., Student of Christ Church,
Oxford.
PROVIDENCE AND PRAYER. By V. H. Stanton, D.D., Pro
fessor of Divinity, Cambridge.
EVOLUTION. By Frank B. Jevons, D.Litt., Principal of Hatfield
Hall, Durham.
THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN AND A FUTURE LIFE. By Canon
Winterbotham, M.A., B.Sc.
FOREIGN MISSIONS. By Allan B. Webb, D.D., Lord Bishop of
Grahamstown.
PREACHING. By Frederic Relton, A.K.C.

SOME
NEW TESTAMENT
PROBLEMS

REV. ARTHUR WRIGHT, M.A.
FELLOW AND TUTOR OF QUEENS* COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE

METHUEN & CO.
36, ESSEX STREET, STRAND
LONDON 1898

CONTENTS

n.
hi.
IV. V.
VI.
VII.
VIII. IX. X.
XI.
XII.
XIII. XIV. XV.
XVI.
XVII.
XVIII. XIX. XX.
XXI.
XXII.

First, Second and Third Editions of S. Mark's
Gospel .
S. Mark's Order ,
S. Matthew's "Logia"
S. Luke's "Travel Narrative"
Identical Passages
Conflations On the Proper Names in S. Mark's Gospel
On the Proper Names in S. Luke's Writings
On Oral Teaching
On the Precept to Sell your Cloak and Buy
a Sword . . . .
S. Mark's Testimony to the Resurrection
The Camel and the Needle's Eye .
The Origin of the Lord's Supper
On the Date of the Crucifixion .

Mr. Halcombe's Strictures on Modern Criticism 195

Theories of Messrs. Badham and Jolley
Papias on S. Matthew
The Gift of Tongues
The Beautiful Gate of the Temple
Apollos ....
That Prophecy is Conditional

1
1116
2330
40 56
74
91
104
"5
1 25
134
147

243265277 303
309323

The Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews 331

PREFACE
' I "HE chief use of the New Testament is, and
-*- always should be, devotional. We approach
it best in the sanctuary, when our minds have been
prepared by confession, prayer, and adoration to
learn of Him who has said, "Whosoever shall not
receive the kingdom of God as a little child, will not
enter therein."
But when we have come to love the book as the
revelation of JESUS Christ, we find that it appeals
to our intellect as well as to our affections. The
proper preparation for the pulpit is conscientious work
in the study, and even laymen will find that their
apprehension of Scripture truth is assisted by some
acquaintance with the history of the first century
and its immediate precursors, with the geography
of the Holy Land, and with Semitic modes of thought
and expression. Grammar is the first essential in
exegesis. Textual criticism is indispensable. His
torical criticism, with which the present volume
chiefly deals, is still more fundamental. Without

viii NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
it the commentator is at fault and the apologist loses
his most effective weapons. Destructive it may be —
like every other weapon — if unfairly used ; but as it is
a true science, it must in the long run prove the
supporter of truth.
It is impossible that " the higher criticism," as it is
called, should so rapidly gain ground in the domain
of the Old Testament, and yet the New Testament
remain in the grasp of mediaeval harmonists. They
served their time and served it well, but their methods
will not suffice for ever. We must keep pace with
the age, if we would hand down the truth to future
generations. It is in the hope of contributing something to that
end that the present work is written. No attempt
has been made to cover the whole ground. The
problems which are discussed arise, with one ex
ception, out of the Synoptic Gospels and the Acts
of the Apostles. Not that S. Paul's writings or
S. John's yield no problems, but in these days it is
impossible for one man to deal adequately with the
whole range of New Testament study. I, at any
rate, have found it better to concentrate my attention
on one or two small departments.
I have recently published a Synopsis of the
Gospels, and I am now engaged on a critical edition
of S. Luke's Gospel for use in the lecture-room.

PREFACE ix
The work of preparing these volumes has suggested
many of the problems which are here propounded,
and, at the same time, has made it possible to collect
the statistics which have facilitated their solution.
I have added some expository papers for the
purpose of showing how criticism may assist in
interpretation and apologetics. I have also at times
defended my own position against opponents of
various kinds, not from any love of controversy, but
in the hope of contributing towards the settlement
of many questions which in the infancy of the new
science are necessarily debated.
What I have written in defence of the oral
hypothesis may be read in connexion with the
Introduction to my Synopsis, in which I have
summarised the arguments, some of which are
produced at length here • — some, but not all ; the
argument from the assimilation of doublets, which
I think the most convincing of all, has been deemed
to be sufficiently expressed there. Yet, as I have
some misgivings on that point, perhaps I may be
pardoned for lingering on it a moment now.
The term " doublets" is used in the widest sense to
include all similar passages. My contention is that
in oral teaching, owing to a well-known trick of the
memory, similar passages are sure to become more
similar ; whereas, if documents were slavishly copied

x NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
the original differences would in all probability be
maintained. Now it seems to me that in the Gospels according
to S. Matthew and S. Luke the process of uncon
scious assimilation is very frequently to be observed.
We may take as an illustration the Feeding of the
Five Thousand and the Feeding of the Four
Thousand. Many critics have held these to be mere
doublets, i.e., two records of one and the same event.
For is it conceivable (they ask) that the Twelve, after
witnessing the former miracle, should have been
totally unprepared for the latter? Should have felt
the same difficulties, asked, the same questions, and
reported the occurrence on the same lines ?
There would be force in these objections if we held
that the conversations in the Gospels are verbatim
reports. But if they are only summaries of what
was really said, and if gaps in the narrator's recollec
tions were supplied from conjecture or by conflation,
then we must remember the biblical method, which
is so strongly marked in Amos and other Old Testa
ment writers, of telling similar things in similar
language. And when this had once been done, the
effect of oral repetition (if there was such a thing)
would be to make the two narratives still more alike.
S. Mark's accounts of these two parallel events
although originally sufficiently resembling each other,

PREFACE xi
have probably been still further assimilated to
some extent ; S. Matthew's unquestionably to a very
much greater extent, for in the latter part of the
sections he makes the words practically identical.
Another case in which he has done the same thing is
given on page 48, but there are scores of passages in
which this process, which we would attribute to
unconscious cerebration, may be perceived. S. Luke
exhibits it to a less degree, but a striking example of
it in his Gospel is pointed out on page 1 1 1. No dull
copyist with documents before him would, I main
tain, be at all likely to produce these effects ; no oral
teaching could be carried on for forty years without
them. These arguments, I believe, will have to be
reckoned with. It is of little help for the supporters
of the documentary hypothesis to admit that oral
teaching is a vera causa, as they now frequently do,
and then to pronounce in favour of documents without
removing one of the objections which have been
shown to lie against them. That is not the way
to advance the cause of truth, which is what we
all alike desire.
The papers on the Acts of the Apostles deal with
hermeneutics. I do not as yet feel prepared to
analyse that book into its sources. The materials
for doing so are insufficient. We have four Gospels,

xii NEW- TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
which can be compared with each other, but we have
only one Acts of the Apostles. The comparative
method cannot be directly applied to the book.
Certain broad outlines are plain, but I reserve dis
cussion of them for a future occasion.
The paper on the Epistle to the Hebrews is tenta
tive and suggestive rather than exhaustive. Perhaps
it may stir up others to pursue a fascinating study.
A correct theory of the Scriptures is an immense
aid to their interpretation, but it does not supply the
inward illumination, which makes them the salvation
of our souls. And therefore I invite all students of
Holy Writ to join with me in using the ancient
prayer : — Veni, Creator Spiritus,
Mentes tuorum visita,
Imple superna gratia
Quae Tu creasti pectora.

NEW TESTAMENT
PROBLEMS

FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD EDITIONS
OF S. MARK'S GOSPEL
THE priority of S. Mark's Gospel is an axiom
with the great majority of critics. Those who
accept the documentary hypothesis respecting the
origin of the Gospels are forced, sooner or later, to
admit that not our S. Mark, but an earlier Ur-
Marcus lies at the basis of the synoptic records. We
who hold to the oral hypothesis have a much freer
hand. We are not bound to postulate the existence
of one, or indeed several, primitive and priceless re
cords, which had once a wide circulation, but never
theless were permitted by the supposed carelessness of
the early Christians to perish. We know of one S.
Mark, and only one. But we believe that the written
S. Mark was preceded by an oral S. Mark, and that
the oral S. Mark took many years in forming. We
are not tied to a document beginning with John the
Baptist and ending with 6<j>of$ovvro yap, or any other
B

2 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
formula. We believe that a single lesson, perhaps
connected with the Passion, was the. first small
origin of the book, and that other lessons, one at
a time, collected round that centre, the whole record
expanding by degrees, sometimes in one chapter
sometimes in another, till it reached its present
dimensions. What I want to insist upon in the present paper is
that we may still trace three stages in the formation
of S. Mark, and that they may be said to constitute a
first edition, a second, and a third.
In S. Luke's Gospel we shall find, embedded
amongst other matter, the first edition ; in S. Mat
thew's the second; while S. Mark himself may be
said to have written the third.
If these three editions had all proceeded direct
from S. Mark's pen, the problem would be simple.
The first edition would have been — as far as it went
— the nearest to the primitive oral teaching; the
second and third, though useful for corroboration,
would have been chiefly valued for their new matter.
At present the case is different. S. Luke's edition,
though the first, had been modified before it reached
him, by passing through the minds and memories of
perhaps a dozen teachers, all of whom were men of
mature age, who had lost the freshness of verbal
memory. Although they learned the lessons -by
heart, and so did not materially or consciously
change them, they unconsciously — especially at the
first — substituted synonyms, omitted details, occa
sionally improved the diction. And so, before the
Gospel reached S. Luke, its wording had been a

EDITIONS OF S. MARK'S GOSPEL 3
good deal modified, as we may see by comparing his
edition of it with S. Mark. Not only so, but nearly
forty years passed between his first undertaking to
teach and his final resolution to write. And during
these forty years a certain amount of change in his
own teaching also must be allowed for.
The second edition, embedded in S. Matthew,
exhibits the same process. Verbally it is more in
agreement with S. Mark, but the desire for brevity
has often led to great curtailment. And so the
third edition — S. Mark's own — as a rule best repre
sents the original oral teaching. Except when the
other Evangelists are agreed against it in the chpice
or addition of a word, we rightly prefer S. Mark's
testimony. But in one important particular S. Luke's evidence
is of the greatest value. It helps us, I maintain, to
fix the relative date at which S. Mark's sections were
produced. If S. Luke contains a section of Marcan
matter, we may feel sure that that section belonged
to the first edition of S. Mark ; if he omits it, there is
a strong presumption that it did not.
I therefore append a list of those sections of S.
Mark which are absent from S. Luke. In the margin
I give such scraps of them as S. Luke has neverthe
less preserved. For in some cases, which it is most
important to distinguish, the section is omitted from
S. Luke, but a small fragment, or scrap, of it is
given. This curious phenomenon will be explained
afterwards. At first it seems fatal to our theory, but
in the end it will be seen to yield the strongest
confirmation.

NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS

Sections belonging to the later,
or second, edition of S. Mark.
I. The Baptist's clothing and dress
2. The Baptist's preaching (?) .
3. The calling of SS. Simon, Andrew
James and John .
4.*" He is mad."
5. " He hath Beelzebub."
6. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit
7. " Who is my mother ? " (?) .
8. *The seed growing secretly
9. The grain of mustard seed .
10. Nothing without a parable
1 1. A visit to Nazareth .
12. The death of John the Baptist
'13. The walking on the sea .
14. The landing at Gennesaret ¦
15. Eating with unwashed hands
16. The Syrophenician woman's
daughter
' 17. *The deaf man who had an impedi
ment in his speech
18. The feeding of the four thousand
19. A sign from heaven demanded
20. The leaven of the Pharisees .
\2i.*The blind man of Bethsaida .
22. S. Peter rebukes our Lord .
23. Descent from the Mount of Trans
figuration .
/24- The cup of cold water in the name
of a disciple
25. Of causing scandals .
26. Salt is good
27. On the question of divorce .
28. The ambitious request
29. The fruitless fig tree .
30. The question put by the scribe
31. " Lest He find you sleeping "
32. The anointing at Bethany
33. "I will smite the shepherd "

Scraps of
them found in
S. Mark. S. Luke.

7-8 iii. 16

i. 16-20
iii. I9b-2i
iii. 22-27
iii. 28-30
iii. 3I-3S
iv. 26-29
iv. 30-32
iv. 33-34
vi. l-6a
vi. 17-29
vi. 45-52
vi. 53-56
vii. 1-23
vii. 24-30

v. IO-II
xi. 14-15,
17-18, 21-22
xii. iob
viii. 19-21
xiii. 18-19
iv. 1 6, 22, 24
iii. 19-20 (?)

xi. 38 (?)

vn. 31-37
viii. 1-10
viii. 11-13 xi. 16, 29
viii. 14-21 xii. I
viii. 22-26
viii. 32-33
ix. 9-13 ix. 36b

ix.ix.ix.

12-14, xii.
xiii. xiv.

41
42-49 xvii. 2
50 xiv. 34
1-12 xvi. 18
35-45 xxii. 25-26
20-25
28-34 x. 25-27
34-37 3-9 vii. 36-38,
4o(?)

xiv. 27-28

EDITIONS OF S. MARK'S GOSPEL 5
S. Mark.
34. " I will destroy this temple " . xiv. 55-61
35. Mockery by the soldiers . . xv. l6-20a
36. Elahi, Elahi, lema sebhaqtani . xv. 34-36
Cases about which there is some doubt are marked thus (?)
Sections which are found in the third edition only are marked thus *
To the above should probably be added a few words, lines, or para
graphs embedded in other sections, e.g. S. Mark xiv. 38b — 42.
I will now produce some reasons for believing
that the sections here catalogued are of later date
than the rest of S. Mark's Gospel, so that we may
reasonably speak of them as belonging to the second
edition. And first this supposition corresponds with certain
facts which are narrated in the Acts of the Apostles
and in the earliest Fathers of the Church.
We are told by Papias* that S. Mark's Gospel is
S. Peter's work, which S. Mark translated (from
Aramaic into Greek). We accept this statement as
generally true and therefore believe that both S.
Peter's and S. Mark's presence were necessary for the
production of a Gospel section in Greek. Now
S. Peter — except during certain missionary journeys
— lived and laboured in Jerusalem from the great
day of Pentecost until he took up his residence in
Joppa (Acts ix. 43). During this period we believe
the first edition of S. Mark's oral Gospel to have
been composed. Then came a considerable gap,
during which S. Mark also left the Holy City and
became S. Paul's companion to teach the Gospel to
the Gentiles (Acts xii. 25, xiii. 5). But S; Mark
* Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., iii., xxxix. 15,

6 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
gave up this work and returned to Jerusalem (Acts
xiii. 13). Other catechists had to be found for S.
Paul's Gentile Churches, and undoubtedly they were
brought from Jerusalem, like the prophets and
evangelists, for so only can we account for the rapid
Judaising of S. Paul's converts. My point is that
the oral Gospel, which was carried to the West and
became the basis of all subsequent teaching there,
must have been S. Mark's Gospel at this particular
stage of its growth, which I have called the first
edition. When S. Mark returned to Jerusalem (Acts xiii.
1 3) he either found S. Peter there or was soon joined
by him (Acts xv. 7). How long the pair remained in
Jerusalem we do not know ; but probably long
enough for the completion of the second edition.
As for the third edition we need not feel troubled,
because it only added four new sections and these
may be of very much later growth. At any rate S.
Peter in his first epistle, which is generally admitted
to belong to the closing period of his life, calls S.
Mark "his son" (1 Pet. v. 13), and sends a saluta
tion from him, showing that the early associates
were once more united and may even then have
composed these four sections.
Secondly, by our hypothesis we sweep away at a
single stroke the stupendous difficulty which beset the
question of S. Luke's omissions. Few people face
that difficulty as they ought ; to me it was a stum
bling block for many years, but it has been removed.
S. Luke is seen to have omitted little or even
nothing. We thus make him a reasonable man and

EDITIONS OF S. MARK'S GOSPEL 7
a conscientious worker. The gain in this respect can
hardly be exaggerated.
Thirdly, internal evidence supports our contention.
It will be seen that many of the new sections fall
together so as to form a group. I have bracketed
five such groups, one a particularly long one. Now
we see from the parallel case of the "Travel
Narrative" in S. Luke (paper iv.) that new materials
are apt to be aggregated together. When once a
gap is made, it has a tendency to increase in size.
The huge addition, Mark vi. 45 — viii. 26, is only a
striking illustration of this tendency.
Fourthly, we must notice the eighteen scraps.
The first thing to observe is that they are short ; they
are scraps and not sections. Next, they are put by
S. Luke into a different context from that which they
occupy in S. Mark. Lastly, they are always taken
from what I have called S. Mark's second edition,
and therefore frequently agree with S. Matthew
against S. Mark.
From these facts we conclude that they reached
S. Luke in the same way in which we shall see (paper
iii.) that S. Matthew's Logia reached him. That is to
say, they were sent to him by correspondents, who
quoted them because of their intrinsic value, but did
not at the same time give the necessary information
about the occasions on which they were spoken. S.
Luke, therefore, misplaced them through imperfect
knowledge. If we are right in supposing that all S. Paul's
churches, and many others, possessed an oral Gospel,
which was jealously guarded by the authorities,* none
* See Critical Review (T. and T. Clark), vol. i. p. 370 f.

8 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
but experts would know which portions of it were
S. Peter's work, which S. Matthew's, and which were
supplied from other sources. S. Luke, therefore,
would often receive from his various correspondents
some sayings which he possessed already. And
although the great majority of new sayings came
from S. Matthew's logia, a few would be sure to
belong to the earlier cycle. If, then, no Marcan
scraps had been utilised by S. Luke, we should have
had to explain why it was so. At present the simple
fact that he misplaces them is an indication that our
explanation is correct.
S. Mark's Gospel — if reckoned without the last
twelve verses which textual critics reject — contains
666 verses. The second edition adds 192 verses, and
the third edition 18. The first edition, therefore,
contained 456 verses ; probably, however, a good
many words, lines, and paragraphs which now figure
in these 456 verses were really absent from the first
edition, being later expansions.
Now, if we may look to S. Matthew's Gospel for
the second edition of S. Mark, we notice, as has been
said already, that S. Matthew presents it in an
abbreviated form, much curtailed by riddling out
words which were not essential. The same process,
perhaps, has sometimes been carried a little farther,
and has^swept away sections as well as lines. At
any rate the following sections, though present in
S. Luke and reappearing in S. Mark, are absent from
S. Matthew :—
(1) The healing of the demoniac in the synagogue
at Capernaum (Mark i. 23-28 = Luke iv. 33-37);

EDITIONS OF S. MARK'S GOSPEL 9
(2) The stranger who exorcised in Jesus' name
(Mark ix. 38-40 = Luke ix. 49-50) ;
(3) The widow's mites (Mark xii. 41-44 = Luke
xxi. 1-4).
The third edition contains four new sections which
according to our hypothesis are the latest additions
to S. Mark :—
(1) The suspicion that our Lord was mad (Mark
iii. I9b-2i);
(2) The parable of the seed growing secretly
(Mark iv. 26-29) '¦>
(3) The healing of the deaf man who had an
impediment in his speech (Mark vii. 31-37) ;
(4) The healing of the blind man of Bethsaida
(Mark viii. 22-26).
One more topic deserves consideration. S. Mark's
wealth of words has long been noticed. The more
closely we test it, the more convinced we are that it
is characteristic of his style, derived in part perhaps
from S. Peter's oriental redundancy. The longest
phrases with him, the most graphic and picturesque,
give the oldest form of the narrative. Even when
S. Matthew and S. Luke agree in omitting a word or
a line, and S. Mark gives it, S. Mark is generally
original. Nevertheless there may be some exceptions to this.
S. Mark, during forty years of oral teaching, may
have gathered new information from divers quarters
and used it to expand his already long expressions.
When words which are not merely picturesque, but
convey additional information, are found in S. Mark,

10 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
but not in the parallel passages in the other Gospels,
we may allow that they belong to the third edition.
For example, in a few cases S. Mark agrees with
S. John, while the others are silent ("200 denarii,"
Mark vi. 37 = John vi. 7; "Pistic nard" Mark xiv.
3 = John xii. 3). If S. John's oral teaching at Ephesus
preceded the writing of the fourth Gospel by many
years, as we believe it to have done, there is no
difficulty in supposing that S. Mark during visits to
Ephesus derived something from it. On the oral
hypothesis we are perfectly free to think so if the
facts require.
Let no one suppose that the minute examina
tion to which we have subjected the synoptic
Gospels in this and in the following chapters is
unprofitable. Anything which throws light upon
their genesis is valuable to the apologist. We
accept the Gospels because they speak direct to
our hearts as no other books do. We know
them to be living, to be the work of the Holy
Spirit, and to reveal Him who is the Life; but
they have a human side as well as a divine ; they
appeal to our intellect as well as to our heart,
and anything which will make them more real to us,
or will uphold them in the presence of objectors,
demands our earnest consideration.
In the papers which follow we shall find many
places where the hypothesis of S. Mark's second
edition will explain serious difficulties. It has all
the advantages of an Ur-Marcus, without any of
the improbability.

II.
S. MARK'S ORDER
IN the last paper we saw reason to believe that
S. Mark's Gospel admits of analysis. To a
certain extent, we can distinguish between its
earliest sections, its later additions, and its final
touches. Papias complains that it is not written " in order."
If we carefully examine his indictment in the light
which his own words immediately throw upon it,
we shall see it to be a very serious one. The
chronology of S. Mark's Gospel (he says) is in a
more or less chaotic state, because S. Peter did not
attempt to write history, but to supply a few lessons
for the immediate need of the Church.
Now the Church stood in need of teaching, and
we believe this teaching, in accordance with the
custom of the day in the East, to have consisted in
learning by heart. In that way the lessons would
become a permanent possession ; in that way we
can account for the strange variations and stranger
similarity of identical sections in the synoptic
Gospels. Those Gospels were the work of ex
perienced teachers or " catechists," who were highly
proficient in their lessons, yet did not copy a
document, but derived their information from the
more fluctuating processes of tradition.

12 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
But while we place the genesis of our Gospels in
the schoolroom rather than in the congregation,
we think it highly probable that Gospel sections
were recited in public worship as well as in the
classes of catechumens. It was so in the earliest
times of which we have record (Justin Martyr,
Apology, i. § 6y), and it may well have been so much
earlier than that, yea, even in Apostolic days.
The Christians inherited from the Jews, a division
of time into weeks of seven days each. At first
Christian assemblies met in the synagogue, and
on the Saturday (James ii. 2 ; Acts be 20, etc.).
When the Christians separated' themselves from
the Jews they met on Sunday (Acts xx. 7). And
although week-day services were not unknown, and
Good Friday with other holy days became sacred,
the " Lord's Day " retained its peculiar pre-eminence,
and Easter Day was the greatest of all Sundays in
the year.
Can we doubt that on Easter Day, Good Friday,*
Palm Sunday, and Passion Sunday (to use modern
terms), those Gospel sections which narrated the
events which all Christians were thinking of, were
selected for repetition?
In the warmth of their first love services were
held every day, celebrations of the Eucharist at
every meal, and catechetical classes were always
at work. But as time went on daily business
demanded attention, and the religious standard of
the synagogue became the religious standard of the
Church. Catechizing would gradually be confined
* The name Quartodeciman proves this. See page 172.

S. MARK'S ORDER 13
to the young, and the recitation of Gospel sections
in public worship would meet the wants of the old.
Now in the synagogue the Law was divided into
sections, one for every Sabbath in a cycle of three
years. The Christians, whether they adopted the
Jewish table of lessons or not, certainly read the Old
Testament in public worship. At whatever date
they began to recite the Gospel sections also — and
I think it must have been at a very early date —
there would be a tendency to take them in regular
course ; in fact, sooner or later every Sunday would
be provided with what we call a " Gospel " of its own.
Greek lectionaries provide a Gospel for every day
in the year. Western liturgies provide one for every
Sunday and high-day. The practice of doing this
goes back, as far as we can trace, into the unknown
past. It may have extended a good deal further
back than the time at which our four Gospels were
received as canonical, into the older period, when
every church had an oral Gospel of its own.
If this were so, we should expect to see some
traces of the old divisions in our present Gospels.
It ought to be possible to divide them easily and
naturally into fifty or fifty-one lessons ; for a lunar
year consists of about 354^ days, and therefore con
tained fifty or oftener fifty-one Sundays.*
Now it is remarkable that S. Mark's Gospel in the
Westcott and Hort text is divided into forty-eight
paragraphs, two or three of which are long and readily
admit of division.
* Intercalated months (see page 1 68) would be provided for by
repetition.

14 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
In the case of S. Matthew and S. Luke those
editors have divided the Gospels into a large number
of paragraphs, some of which consist of a single
verse, and could not have formed a lesson. But
if we turn to the revised Table of Lessons now
used in the Church of England, we find S. Matthew's
Gospel divided into fifty-one lessons, S. Luke's into
forty-seven. As far as S. Matthew goes, nothing
could be more satisfactory. With S. Luke the case
is not so favourable. His is the longest Gospel of the
four, and I have for some time contended that chapters
i., ii., iii. 23-38 are comparatively late additions to
it, which never formed part of the primitive oral
teaching. It would, however, be quite easy to
divide this Gospel somewhat differently from the
way adopted by the revisers of the Table of Lessons,
whose design was to serve the present age, and not to
discover the ancient landmarks.
If it be true that at a comparatively early date S.
Luke's Gospel was already divided into fifty-one
lessons, each of which was connected with a par
ticular Sunday of the year, it is plain that whatever
additions were subsequently made in his work, must
have been done by lengthening some of the lessons.
And as this could obviously only be permitted within
narrow limits, he would be compelled to distribute
any new logia which reached him, over a large
number of the lessons. And this consideration will
help to explain their present position in his Gospel,
which, as we shall shortly see, is so different from that
which they occupy in S. Matthew.
If there really was an attempt to provide every

S. MARK'S ORDER 15
Sunday with a Gospel of its own, we shall under
stand why the formation of Gospel sections pro
ceeded rapidly at first and then ceased ; we shall
understand why all our Gospels are so short and
contain so little which is not essential ; we shall
understand how S. Mark's order became fixed. And
although I am very far from insisting that the idea
is more than a speculation, I claim that it should not
be dismissed as unworthy of consideration. We
must not allow our own prejudices to obscure our
perception of truth.
If the Gospels for the day in the English Book of
Common Prayer, from Christmas to Ascension Day,
were put together into one volume, with the aid of a
few editorial notes, they would present the reader
with a work which would be very similar to what
Papias declares S. Mark's Gospel to be. It would
give a rough approximation to the true sequence of
events in the main particulars, but it would not be
chronological in detail. The bulk of it would be
arranged for edification, rather than for history.
How completely unchronological S. Mark's Gospel
is, I have shown in the introduction to my Synopsis
of the Gospels. I need not, therefore, pursue the
subject now, save only to impress on the reader the
supreme importance of this fundamental question.
The ordinary commentator assumes that our Gospels
are arranged chronologically, and in his endeavours
to harmonize one with the other, produces so many
tortuous explanations as to do violence to the faith of
the simple. Once admit that our Gospels are arranged
on a different plan, and all these difficulties cease.

III.
S. MATTHEW'S LOGIA
THE recent discovery and publication of the
papyrus containing "Sayings of Jesus," if it had
done nothing else, would have been useful as an
object lesson in the meaning of the word logion.*
S. Matthew's logia, of which Papias speaks, were
probably similar in form to those on the papyrus.
There is good reason to think that they possessed no
more clue to the occasion of utterance than the
simple preface "Jesus saith," which is there used.
And they were probably often as little connected
with each other in subject-matter or sequence of
thought, as are these sayings.
S. Matthew (Papias writes, according to the well-
attested Vulgate reading) "procured their compila
tion" {uweTa^aTo). That is to say, he superintended
the work, rather than produced it. Multitudes of eye
and ear witnesses contributed their recollections. He
sifted and arranged them, tested them from what he
personally remembered, and authorised their recep
tion into the body of Church teaching.
If the various reading avveypdyfraro be correct,
Papias will have committed himself to the assertion
that S. Matthew caused them to be written. This,
* On this question see below, page 270.
16

S. MATTHEW'S LOGIA 17
according to my belief, is less probable ; and Papias,
if he really said that, may have been mistaken. For
there was a prejudice against writing in Jerusalem,
and the variations between S. Matthew and S. Luke,
both in wording and in order, are best explained by
oral teaching.
As to the general scope and contents of these logia,
I see no reason to doubt that they correspond to
what I have put into the second division of my
Synopsis, where they can be conveniently studied.
At the same time I fully admit that the lines which
separate my fourth division from the second are very
faint. In no case can we feel certain that any
particular logion belonged to the one division rather
than the other.
Papias continues, that "each man translated S.
Matthew's logia as he was able." This important
statement need not imply that the logia were read
aloud in Aramaic during divine service, and rendered
into Greek by a viva voce translator, like the Old
Testament lessons in the Hebrew synagogue. Nor
need it imply that many translations of varying
merit were in use. The verb is in the singular, and
" each man " does not necessarily imply very many.
Papias means that several persons essayed the task.
To me his curious wording conveyed the idea that
he himself, in his younger days, had been one of
them. His great work in five books, consisted, I
understand him to say, of translations of these logia,
accompanied by a running commentary, and inter
spersed with numerous, and often apocryphal
additions, which he obtained from oral sources. But
C

18 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
there is nothing in what Papias says to prevent us
from supposing that in or about 50 A.D., an oral
Greek version of the logia was in use at Jerusalem
in Hellenic circles.
Translation implies a certain amount of sacrifice.
The precise meaning of the original words can never
be reproduced. And if the two oral editions — the
Aramaic and the Greek — circulated side by side for
nearly twenty years in Jerusalem, it is certain that
modifications and corrections would be made.
Generally the Greek would be corrected from
the Aramaic, but sometimes the Aramaic would be
influenced by the Greek. All these complications
must be taken into account by anyone who would
understand the formation of our Gospels.
Certain logia, notably those connected with John
the Baptist, our Lord's baptism, and His temptation,
required some historical setting to make them intelli
gible. And it is not surprising that they borrowed
from S. Mark's oral Gospel a few words for that
purpose. But whether the logia in the Church of
Jerusalem were ever combined with S. Mark's oral
Gospel so as to form one body of teaching, we cannot
say. There is much to incline us to believe that to
the last they circulated there as a separate cycle of
oral teaching. All that we can see our way at
present to affirm, is that in S. Matthew and S. Luke
they are blended with other matter into one history,
yet in such a way that the process of blending has
been done by, or for, these evangelists independently
and quite differently.
Let us take S. Luke first. He at any rate had no

S. MATTHEW'S LOGIA 19
personal knowledge of the sequence of events to
guide or hamper him. Unless a logion contained
internal evidence which settled its date, he could not
decide of himself to which period of our Lord's
ministry it belonged.
Now, judging from their present condition, and from
the degree of their verbal agreement with S. Matthew,
I infer that the logia reached S. Luke a few at a
time, and in different ways. (1) Some came over
land through Asia Minor, as S. Mark's Gospel had
done. These would pass from church to church.
The process would take several years, and the words
would be a good deal disturbed. (2) Others came
by sea, being either (a) brought by a Christian
passenger from Palestine ; or (J?) sent by letter.
The majority of them came in Greek, but certainly
(c) a few in the original Aramaic*
These various modes of transport will account for
the fact that some logia of great length are almost
verbatim the same in two Gospels, others vary,
sometimes considerably, while a few are clearly new
translations of the same original.
Now if these logia had come all at once, S. Luke
might have felt overwhelmed by them and might
have written to Jerusalem for further information
about their chronology. But receiving them, as he
probably did, a few at a time, he would be the more
likely to deal with them on his own responsibility.
He was in this dilemma ; either he must omit
them from his teaching, or he must find a place
* For examples see Introduction to the Synopsis of the Gospels,
page viii.

20 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
for them in. his lessons. The facts indicate that
he chose the latter course. A certain number^ of
them were sufficiently ear-marked by their subject
and were put into their proper places, but the great
mass were crowded into that "Travel Narrative,"
which we shall examine in the next paper. Suffice
it now to say that the "Travel Narrative" is, in
my opinion, simply a collection of undated materials,
arranged roughly for convenience of teaching.
S. Luke was a Gentile and worked for Gentiles.
More literary methods were in favour with his pupils
than were tolerated in Palestine. Writing materials
were not tabooed ; and so, though he can hardly have
finally written his Gospel before 80 A.D., his materials
once received were well preserved. His edition of
the logia, though very incomplete, seems in many
cases to be more original than S. Matthew's. In
S. Matthew the sentences are smoother and more
rotund, the effect of oral repetition during a much
longer period. Thus belief in the oral hypothesis
gives us freedom in the face of facts. We have
to consider (1) at what stage in its formation and
after what amount of attrition an evangelist received
a section ; (2) what further modification it under
went in his hands. A period of thirty or forty
years, during which the records were in a more
or less fluid state, will account for the facts. In
one particular S. Matthew may be nearer the original,
in another S. Luke, and that in the same logion.
They both remain reasonable men and honest
workers. We do not know in what Church S. Matthew's

S. MATTHEW'S LOGIA 21
Gospel was formed. A community of Greek-
speaking Jews is demanded, at some distance from
Palestine, for geographical details were not familiar
to the compilers. Alexandria satisfies the con
ditions ; and there are some things — such as the
flight into Egypt, and the prophecy, " Out of Egypt
did I call My Son " — which favour that direction.
More than this we cannot say.
The second edition of S. Mark forms the ground
work of S. Matthew's oral Gospel, and indicates the
date at which the Church was founded which used it,
considerably later than the foundation of the Church
at Philippi in which S. Luke laboured.
The same difficulty which had confronted S. Luke
about arranging the logia into the Marcan frame
work, appears to have confronted the authorities at
Alexandria (or whatever other place is the true one) ;
but they settled it in a different way. Instead of
one great gap into which they accumulated undated
materials, they had five smaller gaps, viz., (1) the
Sermon on the Mount; (2) the Charge to the Twelve;
(3) the Parables in Matthew xiii. ; (4) the woes on the
Pharisees; (5) the eschatological discourses. Amongst
these most of the logia have been distributed.
We cannot undertake to say whether S. Luke or
S. Matthew comes nearest to the truth in these
arrangements. We only warn the reader against the
common assumption that one or other of them, if not
both, has always, or even usually, given us the real
occasion of utterance.
Our reason for believing in a literary rather than a
chronological setting, will be given further in the

22 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
papers which follow. They arise from a comparison
of the order in S. Matthew and S. Luke. Enormous
difficulties will be overcome by the frank acceptance
of the fact that imperfect knowledge has led to its
natural consequences. Modern commentators admit
this grudgingly and in a few cases. But if the
principle is conceded, there is no reason why its
extension should not be carried as far as the facts
demand.

IV.
S. LUKE'S "TRAVEL NARRATIVE"
(S. Luke ix. 51— xviii. 14.)
O LUKE'S Gospel consists, roughly speaking, of
vJ • four parts, viz. :
Preliminary matter, chapter i., ii.
First Marcan portion, chapters iii. — ix. 50.
"Travel Narrative," chapters ix. 51 — xviii. 14.
Second Marcan portion, chapters xviii. 15 — xxiv.
In the Marcan portions I do not mean to [imply
that all the materials are derived from S. Mark.
. Much non -Marcan matter is interspersed. But
S. Mark furnishes the groundwork. His history
and chronology are S. Luke's guide.
But in the great "Travel Narrative" this is no
longer the case. Here at last S. Mark is entirely
deserted. Except an occasional brief "scrap"
nothing is taken from him, and S. Luke, I hold, is
left without a guide.
The facts are startling, and should be fully appre
ciated. This huge slice — consisting of nearly nine
chapters, or more than one-third of the whole
Gospel — is inserted between what probably were in
the first edition of S. Mark two consecutive verses.
23

24 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
For S. Luke ix. 50 corresponds to S Mark ix. 40
and Luke xviii. 15 to S. Mark x. 13. The twenty-
two verses of S. Mark which intervene have every
mark of belonging to the second edition of his
Gospel. S. Luke, therefore, having closely followed
S. Mark for seven chapters, abruptly abandons him.
Nine chapters later on he abruptly returns to him at
the very point of severance, and never leaves him
again for any length of time.
Harmonists account for the facts in the following
way: These nine chapters .of S. Luke narrate, they
say, a ministry in Peraa, which S. Mark for some
reason omitted to notice, but S. Luke has recorded at
great length. The Peraean ministry (they continue)
lasted about six months, and included one or prob
ably several visits to Jerusalem prior to that last
journey which is described by S. Mark.* This ex
planation, I submit, satisfies none of the conditions
of the problem.
The nine chapters are introduced by the remark
able words, " And it came to pass that as the days of
His assumption were being fulfilled He hardened
His face to go to Jerusalem." No one questions that
" His assumption " means His ascension into heaven.
The phrase, " the days were being fulfilled " occurs
again in S. Luke, " When the day of Pentecost was
being fulfilled " (Acts ii. 1), the only difference being
that " day " there is in the singular, " days " here is in
the plural. Admitting fully the vagueness of the
Hebraic use of the word "days," I nevertheless ask any
candid reader whether a space of six months is sug-
* Ellicott's Lectures on the Life of our Lord, p. 236 ff.

S. LUKE'S "TRAVEL NARRATIVE" 25
gested, or indeed is to be tolerated by the expression.
No ; a space of time not greatly exceeding a fort
night is in S. Luke's mind, and the journey of which
he makes so much is certainly the final departure from
Galilee. On that point we can hardly be mistaken.
S. Luke, in short, has crowded into one brief
fortnight a whole mass of the most weighty teaching.
His conception is that as our Lord approached the
end of His ministry, His greatest wisdom was poured
forth, His perfect love was manifested, and the
approaching departure colours everything which
intervened. This is a noble conception. S. Luke was a great
artist and a consummate historian. But his personal
knowledge of the events which he describes was
small, and his informants generally spoke at second
hand. Let us consider whether his arrangement is
chronological. The division consists of discourse matter. For
although it contains three miracles and two other
historical incidents, these are all subordinated to the
discourse which accompanies them.
In the division there are 20 scraps from S. Mark
belonging to the first division in my Synopsis, 58
logia from S. Matthew belonging to the second
division, 15 Lucan narratives belonging to the third
division, 35 fragments from anonymous sources (where
of six are common to S. Matthew and S. Luke; of the
rest, three are historical and 26 are sayings). These
belong to ray fourth division. The whole is blended
together by about 50 editorial notes, of which 14 are
something more than mere literary connecting links.

26 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
It is important to collect all the notices of time
and place which these nine chapters contain sub
sequent to the introductory verse, which has already
been considered.
And first, those of place :
(i) "They come to a village of Samaritans." (ix.
S2.)
(2) " They went to another village." (ix. 56.)
(3) " And as they went, He entered into a certain
village." (x. 38.)
(4) " And it came to pass, as He was in a certain
place." (xi. I.)
(5) "And He was journeying through cities and
villages, teaching, and making journey to
Jerusalem." (xiii. 22.)
(6) "And it came to pass, as He was journeying
to Jerusalem, that He passed between
Samaria and Galilee." (xvii. 11.)
Persea, the supposed scene of this hypothetical six
months' ministry, is neither mentioned nor hinted at.
Jerusalem is the only city, Galilee and Samaria the
only countries named. S. Luke, who in the Acts of
the Apostles shows a perfect passion for geographical
details, and gives the name of nearly every city and
village through which S. Paul passes, does nothing
of the kind here. "A certain place," "a certain
village," is the reiterated formula. A certain village !
Every schoolboy knows that one of those villages
was Bethany (S. Luke x. 38), and that it was within
two miles of Jerusalem. But S. Luke, it would seem,
does not know, and the harmonists are obliged to
assume visits to Jerusalem, of which he makes no
mention, to account for What he says.

S. LUKE'S "TRAVEL NARRATIVE" 27
Now consider his notices of time :
(1) "After these things." (x. 1.)
(2) "At that very hour." (x. 21.)
(3) "And it came to pass, while He was saying
these things." (xi. 27.)
(4) "While He spake"* (xi. 37.)
(5) "Meanwhile." (xii. 1.)
(6) "At that very time." (xiii. 1.)
(7) "At that very hour." (xiii. 31.)
There are thirty- two sections in the division,
twenty-five of which have no note of time or place,
except an occasional "after these things," "at that
very hour," which, like S. Mark's "and imme
diately," are, I maintain, only literary connecting
links. When section after section is introduced by
the simple phrase "And He said," to one who can
read between the lines S. Luke is professing that he
does not know the date. My contention is, that both
S. Luke and the writer of the Gospel according to
S. Matthew, had S. Mark's oral Gospel as their
groundwork and their guide to arrangement. I will

* I cannot agree with Dr. Plummer {Commentary on S. Luke, iii. 21)
that this must be translated "After He had spoken." Except in the
Indicative or the Participle, and in oblique narration the Infinitive or
Optative, where these stand for the Indicative of direct, the Greek
tenses are timeless ; in fact they are not tenses, strictly speaking, but
moods, for they indicate the quality of the action, whether it is
momentary and complete, or continuous and repeated ; time is more
frequently expressed by the mood. The difference between iv tQ
XaXeo' and iv tQ \o.\tjo-m I take to be hardly more than that between
" while He was speaking " and " while He spake," of which the former
is the more natural expression, though S. Luke is fond of the latter.
See Professor Burton's excellent manual, The New Testament Moods
and Tenses, § 109.

28 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
not say to chronology, for it is very slightly chrono
logical. But, besides this, they had a large quantity
of undated materials, chiefly logia, the great mass of
which contained nothing which to that age would
indicate the date or the occasion on which the words
were spoken. Their task was to blend the two sources
of information into one narrative. S. Matthew chose
one plan for arrangement, S. Luke another. If S.
Mark furnished a convenient peg on which to hang
materials, S. Matthew availed himself of it. Every
logion which at all corresponded to it in thought was
put there. And thus in his Gospel the non-Marcan
matter is, for the most part, grouped into five great
discourses : — (i) The Sermon on the Mount ; (2) the
Charge to the Twelve ; (3) the seven parables (chapter
xiii.); (4) the woes against the Pharisees; (5) the
eschatological discourses ; every one of which we
shall hereafter show to be conflations.
S. Luke did not, as a rule, care to avail himself
of the opportunities which S. Mark gave him. He
had one great gap at the end of his ninth chapter,
and into this he gradually collected most of the
non-Marcan sections which he decided to accept.
Hence, this " Travel Narrative " teems with teach
ing which really belonged to every stage in our
Lord's ministry. If we are capable of judging from
internal evidence, much of the discourse which is
there accumulated appertained to the earliest days.
S. Luke has put it there, not because he thought,
much less knew, this to be its real occasion of
speaking, but because he did not know.
That this is the true view is shown by the fact

S. LUKE'S "TRAVEL NARRATIVE" 29
that S. Luke differs so widely from S. Matthew in
his arrangement of these sections ; but with this
subject and the questions which it involves we shall
deal in the next two papers. Only I would warn
the reader against making the common but un
warranted assumption that, whereas the materials
which are common to S. Matthew and S. Luke are,
to a great extent at least, misplaced, those materials
which are peculiar to S. Luke are always in the
correct place. If S. Luke adopted a literary arrange
ment in the one case, it is reasonable to suppose that
he has done the same in the other. To speak of
a great trilogy of parables, and suppose that they
were all uttered at the same sitting, seems to me to
be a fatal misapprehension. If the parables of the
Prodigal Son, the Unjust Steward, the Rich Man
and Lazarus, were spoken on the same day to the
same audience, the utterance of one would surely
have the effect of checking meditation on the others,
that is to say of defeating the very purpose for which
a parable was spoken.

IDENTICAL PASSAGES
I PROPOSE in the present paper to compare
S. Matthew vi. 25-33 with S. Luke xii. 22-31.
I shall give the results in English where possible,
but for facility of comparison I shall use my own
Synopsis of the Gospels, in which the passages are
arranged side by side in thirty parallel lines on
pages 108, 109.
Eight out of these thirty parallels are verbally
identical, but the remaining twenty-two present
certain differences which may be classified thus :
(1) Five times the order of the words within a
line is not quite the same. (2) Seventeen lines are
somewhat shorter in one Gospel than in the other,
S. Matthew presenting the longer recension in
twelve cases, S. Luke in five. For example, S.
Luke writes, " If ye therefore are not even capable
of that which is least," but S. Matthew reduces this
line to the single monosyllable "and." Again, S.
Luke gives " Who have no storehouse nor barn,"
where S. Matthew has " Nor gather into barns."
On the contrary, S. Matthew's twice-repeated " Your
heavenly Father," becomes in S. Luke on one
occasion "God," on another "Your Father." For
30

IDENTICAL PASSAGES 31
S. Matthew's "Be not anxious for your life what
ye must eat or what ye must drink" S. Luke gives
" Be not anxious for life what ye must eat." In the
twenty-ninth verse, however, he alludes to drinking
as well as eating. S. Matthew mentions "the lilies
of the field" when S. Luke has "the lilies," but S.
Matthew speaks of "the nations," S. Luke "the
nations of the world!' (3) Twice S. Matthew puts
a sentence into the form of a rhetorical question,
where S. Luke is content with an assertion. S.
Matthew bids us "Look at the fowls," "Learn the
lesson of the lilies." S. Luke, with better effect,
repeats the same verb "consider." (4) Instead of
S. Matthew's vague expression, " the fowls of the
heaven," S. Luke specifies " the ravens." S. Matthew,
however, makes the whole argument turn on three
definite necessaries of life — food, drink, raiment —
recurring to these again and again ; S. Luke is more
discursive : " Why are ye anxious about the other
things ? " " Do not live in a state of suspense'.' (5) In
the twenty-seventh verse S. Luke has written singular
verbs after the neuter plural subject according to
Greek rule ; S. Matthew puts the verbs into the
plural in accordance with the sense. (6) Lastly, S.
Matthew has the classical form a/uKpiivwa-iv, while
S. Luke gives the Hellenistic form a/u.dHaget.
Such are the principal variations. Lest the reader
should carry away an exaggerated notion of their
number, I have deemed it desirable to count the
words as well as the lines. I find that S. Matthew
has used 169 words tand S. Luke 156. Of these 124
are the same in both Gospels, while only twenty-two

32 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
are different. S. Matthew, however, has added
twenty-three words which have no parallels in S.
Luke, and S. Luke ten words which have no parallels
in S. Matthew.
It is important to observe that the general sense
is the same in both Gospels. Such divergences as
occur touch only its expression. Nor are these
divergences greater than is usual in the Synoptists.
On the contrary, it may be safely affirmed, that
wherever three Gospels narrate what all commen
tators admit to be the same event, greater dis
crepancies in the wording are to be found than exist
in these verses. I have therefore selected this as a
test case for the comparison of the critical with the
harmonistic view of the structure of the Gospels. How
ever widely critics differ from each other in detail,
they would unite with me in maintaining that the
passage of S. Matthew which we are considering is
identical with that in S. Luke, that it came from the
same original source, and from the same Greek version
of that source ; but harmonists are constrained by
their principles to assert that our Lord repeated His
words, and that S. Matthew has given us what He
said upon one occasion, S. Luke what He said upon
another. Our task is to discover which of these rival views
is true. And the matter is one of serious importance,
because this is a typical case. The same question
arises in scores of other cases, and it must be decided
one way or other by every one who undertakes to
expound the Gospels.
The divergence between S. Matthew and S. Luke

IDENTICAL PASSAGES 33
respecting the occasion on which this logion was
spoken is almost as great as it can be; for S. Matthew
puts it into the Sermon on the Mount, close to the
beginning of our Lord's ministry, S. Luke puts it
into the " Travel Narrative," which he assigns to the
close of His ministry. According to the common
view a period of about three years intervened
between these two dates.
Now when two evangelists differ respecting the
time and place of one of our Lord's utterances, three
alternatives present themselves. (1) Our Lord may,
as the harmonists assume, have repeated His words,
and one evangelist has recorded the first occasion,
the other the second. (2) One evangelist has placed
the saying into its historical setting, the other has
arranged it on some different plan. (3) Neither
evangelist has given the true chronology, but both
have adopted (presumably for lack of better informa
tion) a literary arrangement.
Of these hypotheses the first appears at the outset
to be the simplest and most probable. That our
Lord repeated many of His sayings is almost certain.
Why, therefore, should we hesitate to accept that
solution of the difficulty in the present case?
We should have to believe that a complex utter
ance, thirty lines in length, was spoken twice with,
at any rate, a long interval between the times of
speaking. Our Lord was perfect man, and spoke
to us as man. Such a feat is possible for man
under either of two conditions ; (1) if he write
down his sermons and read them from the manu
script ; (2) if he learn them by heart and repeat
D

34 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
them frequently. No one claims that our Lord
used either of these devices. Yet it would seem to
be a denial of the Incarnation to think that during
His earthly sojourn He could, or at any rate would,
reproduce long speeches without them.
But in arguing about our Lord's knowledge as
man and His state of subjection and obedience
when He wore our flesh upon earth, we are out of
our depth, and dare not pronounce with confidence.
Granted, therefore, that He may have willed to
speak the same words twice after so long an
interval, the further question arises about the re
collection and preservation of His utterances. How
was that effected? There is good reason to think
that he spoke in Aramaic ; how comes it that the
Greek of these logia is the same ? and how could
two spectators recall so long and elaborate a
speech, years after it was uttered, with so few
variations ? If they were supernaturally helped to
do so, why are there any variations at all? The
extreme advocates of verbal inspiration would say :
Because when our Lord repeated His sayings He
deliberately made certain changes, and these have
been faithfully reproduced in the Gospels. But
few now would care to plead for such a Judaic
and mechanical theory of inspiration, against which
every page of Scripture appears to most of us to
protest. This case does not stand alone. It must be
considered in connexion with others. For in the
non-Marcan sections of S. Luke there are seventy-
five passages which are parallel to passages in S.

IDENTICAL PASSAGES

35

Matthew, and I have deemed it important to give
a complete list of them, following S. Matthew's
order, that the reader may see for himself at a
glance how systematically S. Luke diverges from
it. Indeed, it may be said that unless a logion is
very definitely fixed to a particular date by its
subject-matter, S. Luke invariably arranges it in a
way quite different from S. Matthew's.

S. Matthew.
Hi. 7-10, 12
iv. 2-1 1
v. 3-12
v. 13 .
v. 15 .
v. 18 .
v. 25-26
v. 32 .
v. 39-42
v. 42-48
vi. 9-13
vi. 19-21
vi. 22-23
vi. 24
vi. 25-33
vii. 1-2
vii. 3-5
vii. 7-1 1
vii. 12
vii. 13

vii. 16-18 1 (douMets)

xii. 33-35
vii. 21-23 .
vii. 24-27 .
viii. 5-10, 13
viii. 11-12 .

S. Luke.
= iii- 7-9. 17
= iv. 2-13
= vi. 20-23
= xiv. 34-35
= | ""• l6 (doublets)
i ix. 33
= xvi. 17
= xii. 57-59
= xvi. 18
= vi. 29-30
= vi. 27-28, 32-33, 35-36
= xi. 2-4
= xii. 33-34
= xi. 34-35
= xvi. 13
= xii. 22-31
= vi. 37-38
= vi. 41-42
= xi. 9-13
= vi. 31
= xiii. 24
= vi. 43-45
!vi. 46
xiii. 26-27
= vi. 47-49
= vii. 1-10
= xiii. 28-30

36 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS

S. Matthew.

S. Luke.

viii. 18-22 . . . =

ix. 57-60

ix. 37-38

=
X. 2
x. 7 .
=
. ix. 2
i x. 9
x. 10 .
=
x. 7
A. 1213
=
x. 5-6
A. 15.
=
X. 12
x. 16 .
=
x. 3
x. 24-25
=
vi. 40
x. 27-33
=
xii. 3-9
x. 34-35
=
xii- 5 '-S3
x- 37-39
=
xiv. 26-27
x. 40 .
=
ix. 48
xi. 2-1 1
=
vii. 18-28
xi. 12-13
=
xvi. 16
xi. 16-19
=
vii. 31-35
xi. 20-24
=
x. 13-15
xi. 25-27
=
x. 21-22
xii. 11-12
=
xiv. 5
xii. 27-28
=
xi. 19-20
xii. 30
=
xi. 23
xii. 32
=
xii. 10
xii. 38-40
=
xi. 29-30
xii. 41
=
xi. 32
xii. 42
=
xi. 31
xii. 43-45
=
xi. 24-26
xiii. 16-17
.
x. 23-24
xiii. 33
rr
xiii. 20-21
xv. 14
=
vi. 39
xvii. 20
=
xvii. 5-6
xviii. 7
=
xvii. 1
xviii. 12-14
=
xv. 3-7
xviii. 15, 21-22 .
=
xvii. 3-4
xix. 28
=
xxii. 28-30
xxii 1-14 .
=
xiv. 15-24
xxiii. 4
=
xi. 46
xxiii. 11
=
xxii. 26
xxiii. 12
.
=
*!:. " id*
. xvui. 14
(doublets)
IDENTICAL PASSAGES"

37

S. Matthew.

S. Luke.

xxiii. 14 .

=

xi. 52

xxiii. 23

=

xi. 42

xxiii. 25-26

=

xi. 39-41

xxiii. 27

=

xi. 44

xxiii. 29-36

=

xi. 47-51

xxiii. 37-39

=

xiii. 34-35

xxiv. 26-27

=

xvii. 23-24

xxiv. 28

=

xvii. 37

xxiv. 37-39

=

xvii. 26-27, 30

xxiv. 40-41

=

xvii. 34-35

xxiv. 43-44

=

xii. 39-40

xxiv. 45-51

=

xii. 42-46

xxv. 14-30

=

xix. 12-27

When the reader has examined this list, and
formed from it some conception of the extraordinarily
different grouping adopted by these two evangelists,
I would ask him to consider these questions : If the
variations in order are due to the fact that our Lord
repeated very many of His sayings, as harmonists
maintain, how comes it that S. Matthew's informant
always recollected one occasion, S.. Luke's another?
Why did not they at times recollect the same occa
sion ? or one informant recollect both ? The idea of
repetition — though so popular and convenient when
the reader's attention is fixed on an isolated case —
breaks down when applied to seventy-five cases,
particularly when we keep in mind the infirmities
of the human memory, the necessary variations
made in translating from Aramaic into Greek, and
the long period which elapsed between the time
when our Lord spoke and the Gospels were finally
committed to writing.
Nor is it probable that when evangelists differ,

38 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
one of them always gives the historical occasion, the
other departs from it. As long as our first Gospel
was believed to proceed from the pen of S. Matthew,
it was naturally thought that he, an eye-witness, had
a special claim to be heard ; but when it was per
ceived* that our first Gospel is a composite work,
and that neither internal evidence, nor external
testimony, permit it in its present form to be
attributed to one of the Twelve, the case is altered.
If the logia circulated in the Church as "Sayings
of our Lord," apart from dates, persons, and places,
we have no reason to think that the editor of the
first Gospel was in a better position than S. Luke to
discover their true chronology. If the evangelists
were more anxious to record, in a readable and con
venient form, the utterances of our Lord, than to
discover lost dates and occasions, we must accept
what they have given us. To be wise above that
which is written is mere folly. Our Gospels are not
formal histories but Gospels.
The harmonistic view is not the ancient view.
Tatian, Ammonius, and Eusebius identify similar
passages as fearlessly as a modern critic. We are
only sweeping away some mediaeval traditionalism
when we invite the reader to do the same. Too
long have our commentators wasted their strength
in harmonizing. The first step towards better work
is to recognise the impossibility of their task. Nor
is it enough to admit, as modern commentators
generally do, that a few speeches in S. Luke or S.
Matthew may possibly be misplaced. The harmonists
* Composition of the Four Gospels, p. 61.

IDENTICAL PASSAGES 39
have too long had their way. It is time that the
critic superseded them on entirely different lines.
The synoptic Gospels, I hold, are seldom arranged
chronologically. Their divergences from each other
abundantly prove that. And even when they agree,
they do so by following S. Mark's order, which is
unchronological. We have in the synoptists a series
of "recollections" rather than a formal biography.
Further illustration of this will be given in the next
paper.

VI.
CONFLATIONS
LET the reader compare S. Mark i. 7-8 with
^ S. Matthew iii. 7-12 and S. Luke iii. 7-17,
in which passages we are presented with the Synoptic
account of John the Baptist's preaching. S. Mark
has devoted two verses to it, S. Matthew six, and
S. Luke eleven.
That S. Mark's record is the primitive nucleus,
round which the later additions circulated, is proved
(1) from the well-established priority of S. Mark in
general ; (2) from the brevity of S. Mark's narrative
here ; (3) from the fact that it figures not only in
three Gospels, but (with a few variations) in the
fourth ; nay, quotations of it are found in several
passages of the Acts of the Apostles. The non-
Marcan portions, on the other hand, are found in
one Gospel or in two at the most ; clearly they were
not so widely known.
At a later date in the Church of Jerusalem S.
Mark's record was supplemented by the addition
of two logia, and in the Western Church by the
further addition of a third. It is reasonable to
suppose that the two earlier logia (which are found
in S. Matthew and S. Luke) were collected under
40

CONFLATIONS 41
S. Matthew's guidance, and are therefore rightly
classed under my second division. But, of course,
they may be of later date, and so belong to my
fourth. In any case, all three logia may with some
confidence be assumed to proceed from some disciple
or disciples of John the Baptist. The two, which
are found in two Gospels, are unusually alike in
both. Nine out of the fourteen lines are verbatim
the same. The order of the words is maintained.
One line reads "fruits" instead of "fruit," another
" begin " instead of " think," a third adds " also,"
and the two remaining lines use infinitives instead
of the future indicative ; so slight and immaterial
are the variations. Plainly S. Luke received the
passage in writing, or by an express messenger, and
not after passing through many minds and memories.
It is to be noticed further that the close resem
blance between S. Matthew and S. Luke in these
logia extends also into the Marcan portion, in which
these evangelists agree with one another against
S. Mark in the order of the lines and in the
wording, except in one remarkable instance, in which
S. Matthew differs from S. Mark, S. Luke, S. John,
and the Acts of the Apostles in writing "Whose
shoes I am not worthy to carry" instead of "the
latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop
down and untie."
We are presented therefore with a case of
"mixture" possessing much interest. Some critics
have proclaimed that S. Matthew's account must be
primary and S. Mark's secondary, but we are by
no means compelled to admit that; indeed the

42 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
weakened metaphor about the shoes seems to me
to be fatal to such an assumption. Under the oral
hypothesis it is easy to urge (i) that S. Mark him
self, during forty years of oral teaching, sometimes
unconsciously altered his original wording, so that
one of the other Gospels occasionally retain the
older reading ; and indeed, when they both unite
against him, there is a presumption that this is the
case ; (2) in several instances S. Luke, upon receiving
a fuller account, has discarded S. Mark in favour
of the later teaching. For the friend who sent him
these new logia sent the whole section in which they
were embedded, and not the new portions only, and
S. Luke has adopted it entire ; (3) it is probable
that Mark i. 7-8 was no part of the first edition
of S. Mark's oral Gospel, but, like the account of the
Baptist's food and clothing, first appeared in the
second edition with which, as we have seen, S. Luke
was not acquainted. We are, therefore, at full liberty
to gather from the passages themselves the lessons
which they teach respecting their origin, being in no
way fettered to the idea of S. Matthew's priority.
S. Luke, in the course of his travels, must have
come in contact with some of John the Baptist's
disciples. There was Apollos, and the twelve men
at Ephesus, "who had been baptized into John's
baptism." Doubtless there were many others, and
all would preserve recollections of their martyred
leader's teaching.
Probably from one of them S. Luke obtained the
further logion which he has incorporated into his
Gospel. It runs thus:

CONFLATIONS 43
"And the multitudes asked him, saying, What
must we do? And he said, Let him that hath
two tunics impart one of them to the poor man,
and let him that is rich in food do likewise. And
taxgatherers also came to be baptized, and said
to him, Teacher, what must we do? And he said
to them, Collect no more than that which is
appointed you. And soldiers on service asked him,
And what must we do? And he said, Buffet
no man, nor play the informer, and make both
ends meet with your pay." *
This logion S. Luke inserted in the midst of the
others. But as he dislocated the speech in doing so,
he pieced it together again by an editorial note, after
his habitual manner, viz. : " And as the people were
expecting, and all men were reasoning in their hearts
concerning John, whether he was the Messiah, John
answered them all, saying — ."
There is one other point to be noticed. We have
drawn attention to the close verbal correspondence
between S. Matthew and S. Luke in the logia: it
is important to show how widely they differ in the
historical fact. S. Matthew says that John's outburst
of denunciation was occasioned by the advent of
certain Pharisees and Sadducees, and that it was
* The translation, " Be content with your wages," is wrong. Con
tentment is not a Christian virtue, but a Mahommedan vice. No
man should be satisfied with his attainments, temporal, intellectual,
or spiritual. Progress is our watchword. S. John bids the soldiers
not to get into debt. Similarly S. Paul did not mean " I have learned
in whatsoever state I am therewith to be content," but "I have learned
to make the best of things, to live within my income, however small
it be." This meaning alone satisfies the context, as well as is required
by the word. (Phil. iv. II.)

44 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
addressed to them ; S. Luke says that it was
spoken to the multitudes, and this he supports in
another editorial note when he reverts to the history
of John. " All the people when they heard it, and
the taxgatherers* justified God, having been baptized
with John's baptism; but the Pharisees and the
lawyers rejected the counsel of God towards them
selves, having not been baptized by him." (vii. 29-30.)
Now S. Matthew's narrative is a " conflation," for
the primitive account has been welded with two new
logia, until the whole forms one complete section.
Still more is S. Luke's narrative a conflation, for the
primitive account has been welded with three new
logia, by the aid of a long editorial note, which
solders them together.
The result of this welding is that fragments cease
to be fragmentary. As flints can be fitted together
and with the help of mortar make a solid wall, so
isolated logia were compacted into a Gospel section.
S. Luke shows considerable artistic skill in piecing
his materials together, and uses plenty of cement
when there is need for it. But in the case which we
are now considering no one is deceived by the process.
No one supposes that these speeches of the Baptist
were all spoken to the same audience, and on the
same day. It is clear that they are fragments, mere
samples of addresses which were delivered daily for
many weeks or months.
So far we have explained what a conflation is, and
we have shown that there are conflations in at least
two of our Gospels : now let us see whether there is
* S. Luke iii. 12

CONFLATIONS 45
reason to think that any of the speeches attributed
to our Lord are conflations.
In Luke xi. 14-28 we have a Gospel section. It
begins with the cure of a demonized mute. The
spectators are divided. Some admire the miracle,
others attribute it to Satan. Our Lord replies to the
latter, maintaining that it was improbable that Satan
should cast out Satan ; nay, rather the exorcism was
an indication that Messiah was stronger than Satan.
Some of the people were convinced by this appeal to
their reason, but many wavered and suspended their
judgement. To them our Lord addresses a warning.
Neutrality, in this case (He said) was impossible.
Anyone who attempted it would become Satan's
slave more than he was before. A woman from the
audience thereupon congratulates the Teacher's
mother on the possession of such a son, but our Lord
makes light of mere human ties. True happiness is
to be sought, He affirms, in finding out and doing
God's will.
Who can deny that the whole section, as S. Luke
presents it, coheres most closely? The sequence of
thought could hardly be more natural ; the actors
seem to stand before us. And yet when we examine
the other Gospels, we are forced to the dilemma
that either our Lord has repeated His words in the
way which was discredited in the last chapter, or
else S. Luke has welded together a number of isolated
utterances into one conflation. For the saying about
Satan casting out Satan is found in S. Mark
{Synopsis, pages 16, 17); not, however, in the first
edition of S. Mark which S. Luke used. The order

46 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
of the sections in S. Luke is decisive on that point,
still more so is the wording, in which S. Luke agrees
with S. Matthew against S. Mark.
S. Mark, as usual, has given us the earliest form of
this saying, which afterwards was expanded at
Jerusalem, under S. Matthew's superintendence, by
the addition of some new matter, for which room
was made by the curtailment of the original narrative.
Then the section in its Matthsean form was carried to
S. Luke without information about its date, and he
put it into a niche in his oral Gospel quite different
from that which it occupies in S. Mark or S. Matthew.
At a later date he expanded it by conflation with new
materials. S. Mark's historical setting, which is obscured in
the other Gospels, is of the highest importance, for it
explains the process of that loss of popularity which
undoubtedly befell our Lord and enabled His enemies
ultimately to effect the crucifixion. He cannot be a
good man (it was argued) because He breaks the
Sabbath. His miracles, therefore, are not the works
of God. There remains but one other way to
account for them. He has sold Himself to Satan
and has received power from him.
In an age which firmly believed Satan to be
second only to God in wisdom, power, and ubiquity
this argument would come with a force which we
can hardly realise. We should infer from S. Luke
that it was casually made by one of the spectators ;
from S- Matthew that a local Galilean Pharisee
brought it; it is only from S. Mark that we hear
pf a special delegation from the Pharisees at

CONFLATIONS 47
Jerusalem. They, the trusted leaders of the people,
the divinely appointed guides of the blind, took upon
themselves to pronounce our Lord to be Satan's
vassal ; and we can understand the effect which their
words had. Thousands of simple folk would, sooner
or later, believe that you could only accept healing
from Christ at the price of losing your soul.
S. Mark says nothing about the cure of the mute
demoniac, nor can we feel at all sure that it really
happened on this occasion. It somewhat helps the
narrative. The sinister accusation would be more
pointed if made when an exorcism had just excited
popular feeling ; but this, of course, does not settle
the question. If the text be genuine, S. Matthew
by a doublet says that the speech about the prince
of the demons helping to cast out demons was made
twice (ix. 34 = xii. 24) ; but Westcott and Hort
bracket it in the former case, and its removal would
much reduce complexity.
S. Matthew adds two logia which treat of the same
subject, but need not necessarily on that account
have been spoken at this time. "If I by Beelzebub
cast out demons, by whom do your pupils cast
them out?" And, "He that is not with Me is
against Me." These additions were made before the
sections were carried to S. Luke, for they appear
also in his Gospel in the same relative order, and
with nearly the same wording. One other logion
reached him afterwards in an isolated form, for
S. Matthew gives it as a fragment in a different
context (Matt. xii. 43-45) very slightly welded with
what precedes. S. Luke has found a much more

48 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
suitable place for it here, for it speaks of the exor
cized demon seeking rest and finding none, but
returning to the house from which he had departed ;
but, of course, its suitability does not prove that
S. Luke has given it in its real position.
Probably at a later date, S. Luke made three other
changes in his narrative. First he inserted the six
teenth verse, "And others, tempting, sought from
Him a sign from heaven." This scrap comes from
S. Mark viii. 1 1 = Matt. xvi. i, and has a complex
history which may be unravelled thus : On one
occasion our Lord was asked for a sign from heaven,
i.e. a clap of thunder or a voice from the sky ;
this He positively refused to grant, as S. Mark tells
us. On another occasion He was asked for a sign,
i.e. a miracle, and He replied enigmatically that
He would give them the sign of Jonah. S. Mark
narrates the former occasion with the positive refusal.
S. Luke gives both cases (xi. 16, 29), S. Matthew
gives both, but confuses them by a doublet, for he
intrudes the words, " except the sign of Jonah," from
the second into the first also (xvi. 4 ; xii. 39) by a
not unusual mixture, produced unconsciously by the
assimilation of doublets.
Next S. Luke remodels verses 21, 22. Whether
he has done so on his own responsibility, to put
them into better literary form, or whether he has
received information from other spectators who had
heard them spoken, we need not now pronounce.
The general sense is the same, but the wording
is quite different from S. Matthew's, though S.
Matthew's order is observed.

CONFLATIONS 49
Thirdly, S. Luke appends the incident of the
woman from the multitude exclaiming on the happi
ness of His earthly mother. This he obtains from
some private source. There is no trace of it in
the other Gospels, though its general meaning is
paralleled in Mark iii. 33-35 = Matt. xii. 48-50 = Luke
viii. 21.
Such is a conflation. It is a literary expedient,
justified by the lack of historical knowledge. If
S. Luke had been an eye-witness and had recollected
the exact occasion on which every utterance of our
Lord was published, he would not have resorted to
conflations, for historical veracity had much greater
attraction for him than dramatic suitability. But
his knowledge being imperfect, and a heap of
undated logia lying before him, he was induced to
take refuge in conflation as the nearest approach
to the truth which was possible for him.
We felt no difficulty when we saw that John the
Baptist's speech was a conflation. We must recog
nise the same principle in our Lord's utterances also.
For this is not an isolated case. If it were, we
might be content to account for it by supposing
that there was a repetition of the same sayings.
But, if we set aside the longer parables, which form
complete discourses in themselves, we shall find that
all the other sayings of our Lord in S. Luke (except
those which He obtains from S. Mark) are worked
up into conflations. There are in this Gospel just
twenty of these conflations. Sometimes they are
very loosely strung together, as in xvi. 13-18,
xvii. 1-10; sometimes they are most elaborately
E

So. NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
compacted, as in xiv. 1-24. But conflations they
are, admirably adapted for oral teaching or public
recitation, but not to be pressed in the matter of
chronology. It is on comparing them with the other
Gospels that we discover their present form to be
due to independent editorial work. As the subject
is fundamental, and has not been pointed out before,
I append a detailed analysis of these twenty dis
courses. 1. A Visit to Nazareth (Luke iv. 16-30). —
Here much new material has been welded with a
few sentences from S. Mark (Mark vi. 1-4= Matt.
xiii. 53-5/0-
2. The Call of SS. Simon (Andrew), James,
and John (Luke v. 1-11). — Here some new
material containing the " draught of fishes " has been
welded with Mark i. 16-20= Matt. iv. 18-22.
3. The Sermon on the Mount (Luke vi.
20b-49). — One Marcan scrap (Mark iv. 24*) is welded
with eleven logia from S. Matthew, and two from
other sources. Of the eleven Matthaean logia nine
come from S. Matthew's "Sermon on the Mount,"
one of them is a doublet (Matt. vii. 16-18 = Matt. xii.
33-35), one comes from the Charge to the Twelve
(Matt. x. 24-25), and one from a fragment (Matt. xv.
14). How completely both Sermons are conflations
is shown by the fact that S. Matthew's contains 107
verses, of which only fifty-eight have parallels in
S. Luke. Of these fifty-eight, however, only twenty-
six have parallels in S. Luke's "Sermon on the
Mount," the remaining thirty-two are scattered over
seven other chapters of S. Luke.

CONFLATIONS 51
4. Discourse at the Anointing of our
LORD'S FEET (Luke vii. 36-50). {Synopsis, pages 82,
83.) — Two explanations of this very difficult section
compete for our acceptance. The former is simpler,
and is supported by Tatian's Dia Tessardn ; the
latter is on the whole more probable, and has the
sanction of the Ammonian sections, (i) There
were two anointings, one of our Lord's head, the
other of His feet; the one in love, the other
in penitence; and S. John has confused the two.
(2) There was only one anointing, and S. John has
deliberately corrected, as well as supplemented, the
Synoptic account of it, which first appeared in S.
Mark's second edition, and therefore was not carried
westwards at first, but came, as far as it did come,
in a fragment afterwards. Here S. Luke has entirely
misplaced it, putting it far too early. He has like
wise blended it with much new discourse. S. Luke
on the latter supposition has borrowed the name of
Simon from S. Mark, but the details of anointing
from S. John, misplacing the whole as usual.
5. The Charge to the Seventy (Luke x.
2-16). — Here one saying from S. Mark (Mark vi. 11
= Matt. x. 14) and some scraps are worked up with
ten Matthsean logia, of which one is put by S.
Matthew independently (Matt. xi. 20-24) ; the others
form part of the " Charge to the Twelve," which
itself is a great conflation. Only one scrap (Luke
x. 4b) is new, but there are four doublets, viz., Luke
x. 4a=ix. 3a; x. 5a, 7a = ix. 4; x. io-n = ix. 5 ; x. 16
= ix. 48, and some editorial additions in x. 7-1 1.
Some critics have concluded that the Mission of

S3 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
the Seventy is therefore unhistorical, but it is
more scientific to insist on S. Matthew's "Charge
to the Twelve" being a conflation. Doubtless S.
Luke had excellent authority for the appointment
of the Seventy, however uncertain he was left
about the limits of the Charges addressed to them
and to the Twelve.
6. Exultation and Congratulations (Luke
x. 21-24). — A conflation of three logia (Matt. xi.
25-26, 27 ; xiii. 16-17) which S. Matthew arranges
differently.
7. The Story of the Good Samaritan (Luke
x. 25-37). — A conflation of Lucan matter with frag
ments borrowed from S. Mark. (Mark xii. 28-33.)
8. Prayer (Luke xi. 1-13). — A conflation of two
Matthsean logia (Matt. vi. 9-13; vii. 7-1 1) with one
Lucan section. S. Matthew has put these logia into
different chapters of the Sermon on the Mount,
but in doing so has broken the sequence of thought.
The editorial note with which S. Luke introduces
the section shows how S. Luke collected information
from all quarters. Apollos or any other of John
the Baptist's disciples may have furnished the in
formation which it contains.
9. On Casting out Demons (Luke xi. 14-28). —
A conflation which we have fully unravelled already.
10. This is an Evil Generation (Luke xi.
29-36). — A conflation of five logia, and one Lucan
saying. One of the logia is a doublet occurring
also in S. Luke viii. 16, which is parallel to S. Mark
iv. 21. The first three logia cohere closely together,
and are found together, but in inverted order, in

CONFLATIONS S3
Matthew xii. 38-42. The next two have no real
connexion with what precedes, nor with each other
(Matt v. 15; vi. 22-23). S. Luke's new logion (xi. 36)
coheres closely with what precedes, and welds the
whole collection into one speech.
11. Discourse at a Pharisee's Breakfast-
table (Luke xi. 37-53). — This should be compared
with the discourse at the Pharisee's dinner-table.
(Luke xiv. 1-24.) S. Luke stands alone in telling
us that our Lord on three occasions accepted
hospitality from Pharisees. We may feel sure that
he had excellent authority for this, and yet doubt
whether the speeches which he connects with these
visits were always spoken on the occasion. The
machinery of the breakfast-table is not much used,
and S. Matthew gives the whole discourse in his
twenty-third chapter with a different setting and in
inverted order, with frequent diversity in wording.
12. An Address to the twelve in Presence
of a Multitude, with two Apostrophes to the
CROWD (Luke xii. 1-59). — A conflation of twenty
sayings, of which six are peculiar to S. Luke,
fourteen are taken from S. Matthew's logia, but two
of the latter have certain parallels with S. Mark.
S. Matthew has distributed the logia thus : (1) Three
in the Sermon on the Mount ; (2) six in the Charge
to the Twelve ; (3) three in the eschatological
discourse ; (4) two in other chapters. S. Luke
binds the conflation together by, six editorial notes,
five of which demand notice ; but none indicates
special information. There is no conclusion. Verses
35-51 appear to be an expansion of Mark xiii.

54 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
33-37, but from another eye-witness, and in another
translation. 13. The Miseries of the Lost (Luke xiii.
22-30). — A conflation of three logia with a Lucan
scrap and a refrain. S. Matthew puts one of these
logia into the midst of the healing of the centurion's
servant. (Matt. viii. 11.)
14. Jerusalem the City of Martyrdoms
(Luke xiii. 31-35). — A conflation of a logion, which
occupies a more suitable position in S. Matthew, with
some new matter.
15. Discourses at the dinner-table of a
PHARISEE (Luke xiv. 1-24). — Three logia, including
a parable, are welded with three new fragments.
16. We must give up all if we would
follow Christ (Luke xiv. 25-35).— A conflation
of two logia with some new matter.
17. Five disconnected Apophthegms (Luke
xvi. 13-18) — A conflation of four logia with one
new scrap. S. Matthew gives the logia in widely
different contexts, and each with an appropriate
setting.
18. Four disconnected Apophthegms (Luke
xvii. 1-10). — Four logia, two of which are found
in the second edition of S. Mark, are followed by a
new section. The five sayings are worked up with
some editorial notes into four apophthegms.
19. Discourse about the last days (Luke
xvii. 20-37). — Our Lord's sayings about the last days
were probably uttered on many different occasions
scattered over His ministry. He also spoke parables
on this subject. S. Matthew, after his usual manner,

CONFLATIONS 5S
has massed "the sayings into chapters xxiv., xxv.,
except that a few of them are inserted strangely into
the Sermon on the Mount and the Charge to the
Twelve. S. Luke has divided them into four
speeches. The first of these (Luke xii. 35-48) forms
part of a longer discourse. The other three are Luke
xiii. 22-30, xvii. 20-37, xx'- 7~3^- The last of these
is taken from Mark xiii., the other three were either
logia or doublets. S. Matthew's arrangement is much
more effective for reading aloud in church, S. Luke's
is better adapted for oral teaching. This discourse
consists of four new scraps, three doublets, and five
logia welded together by three editorial notes into
nine sentences, three of which have parallels in
S. Mark.
20. The Coming of the Son of Man (Luke
xxi. 7-38). — This discourse has been already de
scribed. Its basis is Marcan, but it has a few new
scraps.

VII.
ON THE PROPER NAMES IN
S. MARK'S GOSPEL
HITHERTO I have assumed the truth of the
oral hypothesis. I have assumed, that is, that
S. Matthew and S. Luke did not copy from S. Mark's
written Gospel, nor from any other Ur-Marcus, but
that they derived their knowledge of his teaching
from oral tradition.
Any other hypothesis so fetters the critic that it
does not leave him the necessary freedom to explain
the existing state of things in the synoptic Gospels.
In this and the next two papers I propose to bring
forward some arguments in defence of the oral
hypothesis. And in this paper I deal with the
proper names in S. Mark, comparing S. Mark's list
of them with the lists preserved in the parallel
passages of S. Matthew and S. Luke.
I have not reckoned as proper names God, Lord,
Son of Man, Son of God, or Holy Spirit. Neither
have I admitted Satan, the devil, or Beelzebub. The
name fesus occurs so frequently, and its repetition in
many passages is so much a matter of literary feel
ing, that I have given the numbers first with, then
without it. 56

PROPER NAMES IN S. MARK 57
I find that in S. Mark's Gospel eighty-six* proper
names occur, many of which are repeatedly given
until the sum total amounts to 341. In the Marcan
sections of S. Matthew they amount to 270, and in
the Marcan sections of S. Luke to 175.
Excluding the name fesus, we find in S. Mark 261
proper names, in S. Matthew's parallel passages 194,
and in S. Luke's 128.
Further details are shown in the following tables :

s.

Mark.

S. Matthew

S. Luke.

Common to all three Gospels .

I?5

... 105 .

. 105

Common to S. Mark and S. Matthew.

III

... Ill

Common to S. Mark and S. Luke .

35

...

• 35

In one Gospel only

90

... 54 .

• 35

34i

270

175

Omitting the name fesus :

s.
Mark.
S. Matthew
S. Luke.
Common to all three Gospels. .
85
... 85 .
. 85
Common to S. Mark and S. Matthew.
82
... 82 .
.
Common to S. Mark and S Luke .
21
...
21
In one Gospel only . . . .
73
... 27 .
22
261
194
128
It must, however, be remembered that S. Matthew
omits five of S. Mark's sections containing in all
7 proper names, and S. Luke omits 14 sections
containing 36 proper names. The corrected pro
portion, therefore, will be for S. Mark, 341 ; for
S. Matthew, 275 ; and for S. Luke, 196.
It is evident, however, on examination that, as we
should have expected, the 54 names peculiar to
S. Matthew, and the 35 peculiar to S. Luke are,
* I reckon Jacob and Israel, Simon and Peter, Levi and Matthew,
James, John, and Boanerges as distinct names. I allow three Maries,
four Jameses, and two each of Joses and Judas.
58 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
except in one instance, editorial additions possessing
no claim to be considered part of the Petrine
Memoirs. We may deduct them all but one, and
the result will then be, S. Mark, 341 ; S. Matthew,
222 ; S. Luke, 162.
The first thing that strikes us on inspecting these
figures is the large proportion of proper names (105
out of 341) which have resisted all the attrition of
years of catechizing, and all the changes of widely
diverging literary styles, and still keep their place
in three Gospels. Secondly, we notice that more
than double the number (216, i.e., 105 + 1 11) are
found in the two Gospels S. Mark and S. Matthew ;
but when we come to the other pair, S. Mark and S.
Luke, there is a great falling off. Only 140 (105 +
35) are common to these.
As with the proper names, so fared it with the
other words generally. The catechists of Jerusalem,
who were responsible for the safe keeping of the
Marcan portions of S. Matthew's Gospel, were, as
their oriental training and sympathies inclined them
to be, very jealous for the precise wording of the
narratives which they taught. They abbreviated
them, sometimes considerably ; but they did not
often change them. The Gentile catechists, inherit
ing a Greek love of liberty, were not so closely tied
to their original. As long as the general sense was
retained, the words were altered with no little free
dom. S. Luke supports S. Mark in only 35 cases
beyond those which are common to three evan
gelists, and several of these are where S. Matthew
has omitted the section.

PROPER NAMES IN S. MARK 59
Lastly, in only one case — exclusive of "editorial
notes" — does S. Matthew support S. Luke against
S. Mark. For in Mark i. 5 the word f ordan, accord
ing to the united testimony of S.. Matthew and S.
Luke, ought to have been written twice instead of
once. In all other cases in which S. Matthew and S.
Luke agree S. Mark agrees with them. Even in
this case the meaning is not affected. Whether the
word should be given once or twice is a question of
literary propriety.
It is of course theoretically possible, if the docu
mentary hypothesis be true, that S. Mark wrote later
than S. Matthew and S. Luke, and diligently in
corporated into his work the whole of the proper
names which he found in them, adding many more
from external sources. But it seems to me very
much simpler and more probable to hold that S.
Mark gives us S. Peter's teaching in its fullest form,
the other Gospels in a curtailed form. The priority
of S. Mark is generally admitted by all classes of
critics, and the facts which we have just stated most
strongly confirm it.*
Professors Sanday \ and Marshall % have recently
been calling upon us to abandon the oral theory of
the origin of the Gospels, and to recur to the
hypothesis of written documents (which have un-
* In Matthew xxvi. 50-52=Luke xxii. 48-51, the word Jesus is
twice inserted on the united authority of S. Matthew and S. Luke only.
But the clauses in which it occurs, though they have Petrine words
embedded in them, are, both of them, "editorial notes." They have
no real resemblance with each other, nor is there anything correspond
ing to them in S. Mark. They come from other sources.
t Expositor, vol. iii. p. 180. X Ibid., p. 17.

6o NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
accountably perished and left no trace behind) as
the foundation of the common matter in the synoptic
Gospels. Professor Sanday's reasons for urging this
are different from Professor Marshall's. Professor
Sanday holds fast to the unity of S. Mark, and
accepts his Gospel as the historical framework of the
other two. He believes, as I do, that S. Matthew's
Logia, or "utterances of the Lord," were unknown
to S. Mark, or, at least, not used by him.
Professor Marshall, on the other hand, requires us
to believe that S. Mark had before him, and de
liberately rejected from his Gospel, the Lord's Prayer,
the Sermon on the Mount, the longer parables and
discourses. In fact, on Professor Marshall's showing,
S. Mark becomes a mere editor of other people's
work, and one who had so decided a preference for
what I had almost called the chaff to the wheat, that
the comparative neglect into which his Gospel has
fallen is excusable.
Professor Marshall also asks us to believe that
with Aramaean scribes writing was so uncertain an
art that one letter was constantly misread for
another. In a single line of three words he would
have us maintain that six letters were confused and
one dropped altogether!* Now I admit that the
square " Hebrew " characters in which Aramaic was
written in the time of our Lord, being without vowel
points and having no spaces between the words, did
often, in spite of final letters, lead to misreading.
But writing would have been of little use in trade
* Expositor ; vol. iii., p. 3S7.

PROPER NAMES IN S. MARK 61
if it had not been tolerably trustworthy. The
scribes knew which letters were liable to be mis
taken, and shaped them with corresponding care. A
modern teacher has no difficulty in writing Hebrew
letters distinctly. It is one thing for mistakes to
have been made in deciphering a manuscript of the
Old Testament, which might be centuries old with
many letters frayed or rubbed away ; it is quite
another thing to blunder in reading a manuscript
which, according to Professor Marshall, can hardly
have been ten years old.
Moreover, if it be true — as it surely must be — that
S. Peter's Memoirs as well as S. Matthew's Logia
were originally composed in Aramaic, and continued
to circulate in that language amongst the " Hebrews "
of the Church at Jerusalem ; if also both the
Memoirs and the Logia were translated into Greek
(as Professor Marshall allows the Logia to have
been), and freely circulated amongst the " Hellenists,"
how can his linguistic test distinguish between them ?
The most that it can do is to discover the places
where the oral Greek of either the one or the
other has been revised through changes in the oral
Aramaic. And thus Professor Marshall's main
contention falls to the ground.
Professor Marshall himself is obliged at last to
admit* the fact of a Greek oral version existing side
by side with his supposed Aramaic documents. And
this amounts practically to a surrender of his posi
tion, for the existence of such a version would
* Expositor, vol. vi. p. 93.

62 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
inevitably prevent the numerous corruptions and
mistakes which his theory requires. And if the
version was oral, why should not the original have
been oral also? And why should not S. Peter's
Memoirs have been current in both languages, as
well as S. Matthew's Logia? S. Peter spoke
Aramaic : his knowledge of at least literary Greek
was small : else why did he use S. Mark or Silvanus
to translate his words into Greek ? But if both
cycles existed in both languages, what becomes of
the linguistic test ?
Professor Stanton appears to agree with me in
holding that the documentary hypothesis entirely
fails to account for the multitude of minute dis
crepancies in the identical portions of the synoptic
Gospels. Nothing but years of oral teaching can
have produced them. Oral teaching also alone can
account for the present state of the Logia. He has
done excellent service in insisting on these important
points. Nevertheless, certain minute resemblances
in language and in order seem to him to make it
probable that the authors of the first and third
Gospels had a copy of S. Mark before them when
they wrote, though pressure of local opinion in the
Churches for which they wrote prevented them
from using it except in unimportant details. This
assumes that two men treated an almost apostolic
document with equal timidity, and that S. Mark's
Gospel had a wider circulation in early times than
the loss of the last verses indicates. But our present
paper points to what I consider a more serious diffi
culty.

PROPER NAMES IN S. MARK 63
If S. Matthew and S. Luke had had before them,
as Professor Stanton supposes, a written copy of S.
Mark's Gospel or of its prototype, is it credible that
they would have treated the proper names in it as
they have done ?
S. Luke, in his Gospel and in the Acts of the
Apostles (as we shall show in the next paper), writes
as an historian. In his " editorial notes " he masses
proper names as an historian would. He knows the
importance of giving dates, places, and persons. Is
it conceivable that with S. Mark's 341 proper names
in front of him he should have omitted all but 175 ?
Or if he had only a mutilated copy of S. Mark, from
which passages containing 36 proper names were
absent, still the reduction of even 305 to 175 is im
possible to account for, and, as we have seen, the
reduction really is to 140.
Grant, however, that S. Luke was a catechist, en
gaged for many years in teaching "the facts con
cerning Jesus"* to the Christians at Philippi, and
is it not certain that with ordinary prudence and
kindness he would avoid burdening the memory
of his pupils with obscure and unfamiliar foreign
names ? Such places as Jerusalem, Nazareth,
Capernaum ; such persons as S. Peter, Mary of
Magdala, Judas Iscariot, were essential to his
narrative, and must be learned : but Caesarea
Philippi, Magadan, Decapolis, Bartimaeus, Herod
Philip, and the Herodians, had either disappeared
from the oral teaching before S. Luke received it, or
* Acts xviii. 25.

64 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
slipped out of his lessons at an early date. When,
therefore, he came to write his Gospel, he did not
produce them, because he was no longer able to do
so, though, if I understand his aims aright, he would
have given almost anything for the recovery of just
such proper names as these.
Our belief in the oral theory is greatly strengthened
when we find that new investigations so decidedly
confirm it. It has enabled me, in the simplest way,*
to account for S. Luke's omissions, which had puzzled
me for twenty years ; it has forced upon me an easy
answer to the question about the day of the Cruci
fixion f which was becoming a difficulty of the first
magnitude. And while supporters of the docu
mentary hypothesis sooner or later speak of dis
appointment, despair, and insoluble problems, those
who adopt the oral hypothesis are full of hope.
Professor Sanday, for example, confesses % his
inability to account for the extraordinary dis
crepancies which exist between S. Luke's preface
to the Sermon on the Mount and S. Matthew's
(Luke vi. 17-26 = Matt. v. 1-12), when compared
with the close resemblance between them in the
later sections of the same sermon. To me the ex
planation is easy. S. Luke was a diligent collector
of evangelical facts and sayings. During his long
residence at Philippi, his wanderings over S. Paul's
churches, or his visit to Palestine, he received by
word of mouth or by letter — in Greek or Aramaic §
* See above, p. 3 ff. f See below, p. 179.
J Expositor, vol. iii. p. 311 ff.
\ This will account for some of the traces of translation which
Professor Marshall observes. '

PROPER NAMES IN S. MARK 65
— not merely the important contributions which
make up the third cycle, but an abundance of
words or works of Christ collected by many private
Christians. Some of these were parts of the second cycle,
which was being slowly compiled at Jerusalem ;
more were sent by independent witnesses. Most of
them reached S. Luke without note of time or place.
He found room for them in his oral lessons one by
one as they came, to the best of his ability. Often
he arranged them according to subject-matter rather
than by their true chronology. The present state
of his Gospel confirms what I say. Only thus can
we account for the many boulders in it, deposited in
places which are certainly not their own.
Now some of these private contributions S. Luke
actually preferred to S. Peter's Memoirs. In chapters
xxii. and xxiii. he has substituted several of them
for S. Peter's records. What more natural than that
one of the spectators should have furnished him with
an independent account of the opening words of the
Sermon on the Mount ? His edition of these open
ing words, besides showing signs of literary polish,
differs from S. Matthew's account, as S. John's
feeding of the five thousand, or S. John's and S.
Luke's version of S. Peter's denials differs from
S. Mark's. There are some additions and much
change, but the same scene is plainly described. It
is possible, of course, that S. Luke never received
S. Matthew v. 1-12 : it is more probable that he
set it aside in favour of his private information.
The argument from the order of the narratives in
F

66 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
the three Gospels, which Mr. F. H. Woods* has
worked out in detail, so far from being fatal to the
oral hypothesis, as Professor Stanton and many
others suppose, appears to me to be a strong support
of it. For experience shows that if you are to learn
by heart a large quantity of loosely connected matter
with a view to daily repetition, you must be as care
ful in preserving the order as in preserving the words. ,
You must even resort to artificial means to assist you
in doing this. For memory is so constituted that
a variation in order would lead to the loss of matter.
Every system of mnemonics is based on association
and order. The catechists could only perform their
duty by dividing their subject into lessons, and
taking each lesson in its proper sequence.! The
addition from time to time of new matter would not
disturb the order of the old sections. A few minor
changes would be made, as they have been, in the
several Churches on first starting, for each consider
able Church must have had its own oral Gospel ; but
when once the order was fixed in any Church, it
would remain.
Lastly, the contention that the first cycle, if pub
lished in Jerusalem, must have contained a Judsean
ministry ,$ does not appear to me decisive. In the
first place more than a third — three-eighths— of
S. Mark's Gospel is taken up with events which
happened and discourses which were delivered in
* Stadia Biblica, series ii. pp. 59-104. For further development of
this subject see my Synopsis of the Gospels, Preface xi.-xiii.
t See above, p. 14.
% Expositor, vol. iii, p. 187.

PROPER NAMES IN S. MARK 67
Jerusalem. Several of these, I maintain, though
placed in Holy Week by S. Mark, belong really
to the earlier years of our Lord's ministry* And
if, as becomes increasingly probable, a Johannine
course of oral teaching was extant in comparatively
early times, it is not strange that, as S. John dealt
chiefly with the Judsean ministry, S. Peter should
have refused to intrude into his brother Apostle's
domain. They may have agreed at the outset to
divide the work thus between them.
" Mr. Wright," Professor Sanday writes,! " knows
the ins and outs of his friends the catechists' pro
ceedings more intimately than most of us." I admit
that I have collected for the first time and put
together the obscure hints scattered over the New
Testament, which indicate the existence and work
of a noble band of men who have been hitherto
strangely neglected, but to whom the Church is under
infinite obligation. And in filling up the picture I
have no doubt made some use of the historical
imagination, as every one must do who would
present a vivid picture of bygone ages ; and to
a certain extent at least I have been successful.
The existence of the catechists is no longer denied.
An effort is sometimes made to belittle them and
minimise their work. Not so did the learned author
of the Clementine homilies estimate them when he
called the catechist of the Apostolic age the officer
in command at the prow of the ecclesiastical ship.
That was a post of dignity and responsibility second
* See Synopsis of the Gospels, Preface xi.
! Expositor, vol. iii. p. 83.

68 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
only to the position of the Bishop in the poop.
And the catechists, if I mistake not, are regaining
it. We have seen how Professor Marshall flies for
refuge to them from a serious difficulty. Even
Professor Sanday is forced to admit* that the
catechists lived and laboured in all parts of the
Christian world. The contention between us is re
duced to this, whether they taught (as Apollos, who
was one of them, taught) "the facts concerning
Jesus,"! which facts alone their pupils would be
willing to learn, or only moral precepts and " the two
ways," which belong, I contend, to the less earnest
times of the second century, when the Gospels were
a written possession. Theophilus, at any rate, had
been catechized in the very facts about which S.
Luke wrote in his Gospel.
But, to return to the proper names, the first cycle
speaks of the exercise of miraculous power on
twenty-eight occasions. Four times it tells us
generally that many were healed, twice definite
numbers-*-5ooo and 4000 — were fed. Eight miracles
concerned our Lord Himself. The recipients of the
remaining fourteen were individuals. Now it is very
remarkable that only one of these individuals is
mentioned by name — Bartimseus, the son of TimaeuS
— and that by S. Mark only. S. Peter's mother-in-
law and Jairus's daughter are designated by the
name of a relative. Eleven are anonymous.
If S. Peter had been writing history for the re
futation of adversaries, he would have taken pains
* Expositor, vol. iii. p. 84.
t Acts xviii. 25. % Luke i. 4.

PROPER NAMES IN S. MARK 69
to discover (if he had forgotten or never known)
the names of these eleven persons, and he would
have appealed to them as witnesses in his support.
But S. Peter was teaching Christians who accepted
his testimony. They wanted information, not proof.
They were little disposed to burden their memory
with proper names of persons whom they did not
know. They expected the end of the dispensation
very shortly, and knew nothing of the claims of
posterity. On the other hand, S. Peter's knowledge of places
might be expected to be fuller. And we find that
he fixes the locality of fourteen miracles. Four
others are said to have been wrought " in the desert,"
"in a desert spot," "on a lofty mountain," or at its
foot. The remaining ten have no local clue.
Seven Old Testament saints are mentioned —
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob or Israel, Moses, David,
Elijah, Isaiah. S. Mark adds Abiathar, and S.
Matthew Jeremiah and Daniel, in what are probably
"editorial notes." It is noteworthy that the seven
are mentioned in all the three Gospels. The
common idea that Gentile Christians took little
interest in the Old Testament is not supported.
S. Luke's quotations from the Old Testament in the
Acts of the Apostles completely refute it.
The name of Jesus is mentioned 80 times in
S. Mark, John the Baptist 16 times, the Boanerges
and Pilate 10 times, Peter and Herod (Antipas)
8 times. So truly is the first cycle described as
"the facts concerning Jesus."*
* Acts xviii. 25.

70 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
Something is told concerning nine faithful men
of that age, John the Baptist, Simon Peter, the sons
of Zebedee, Matthew (if indeed he is identical with
Levi, which is more than doubtful), Jairus, Bartimaeus,
Joseph of Arimathaea, Simon the Cyrenian ; and of
three holy women, the Virgin Mary,* Mary of Mag-
dala, Salome. Then come four unbelieving men —
Herod, Pilate, Barabbas, Judas Iscariot, and one
unbelieving woman, Herodias.
Very little is recorded of the above persons. If
it were not for the dramatic vividness of S. John's
Gospel, we should be singularly in the dark about
the Apostles and leaders of the Church. Except
in the one tragic scene of the Baptist's murder, our
Lord is the central figure in every section of the
first cycle. Other characters are entirely subordinate
to Him.
Names and nothing more are given of twenty-
three other persons, of whom seven were Apostles
and four "brethren of the Lord." The rest are
Alphaeus, Zebedee, James the Little and his brother
Joses, Simon the leper, Timasus, Alexander and
Rufus (these two I regard as an editorial addition
of S. Mark's), Mary (who is once described as the
mother of James the Little and Joses, on another
as the mother of Joses, and on a third as the
mother of James), (Tiberius) Caesar, Herod Philip
(in Caesarea Philippi), and apparently another Herod
Philip in the narrative of the Baptist's murder.
* Nothing more is said of her than that our Lord spoke slightingly
of earthly relationships. It is only S. John who tells us that she was
present at the crucifixion.

PROPER NAMES IN S. MARK 71
Geographical details are scanty. Five countries
are mentioned — Judaea, Galilee, Gennesaret, Beyond
Jordan, and Decapolis. Eleven cities or villages —
Jerusalem, Capernaum, Nazareth, Bethsaida, Caesarea
Philippi, Jericho, Bethphage, Bethany, Magadan,
Tyre and Sidon. I might have given Dalmanutha
instead of Magadan, but, as Professor Rendel Harris
has shown,* it is probably a "primitive error," in
which S. Matthew has preserved the true Petrine
word. If, as I have long suspected, Bethphage and
Bethany are two names of the same village, all
difficulty about them disappears. Captain Conder
does not admit the existence of two Bethsaidas on
the shore of the same lake. And such a thing is
hardly credible in itself. Either, therefore, S. Luke !
has unwittingly transposed the name from the end
of the narrative to the beginning, or some private
informant has told him the locality of the feeding
of the four thousand — for which Bethsaida is
singularly well suited — and he, knowing nothing
of that event, has transferred the word to the feeding
of the five thousand. S. Mark J only knows of a
"desert spot" as the scene of the miracle, and S«
John's narrative does not at all suit the north end
of the lake. It is true that S. John in another place §
* On the Codex Beza, p. 178. t Luke ix. 10. Cf. Mark vi. 45.
X Harmonists require us to beheve that 5,000 men, women, and
children crossed the Jordan at a place where no ford nor bridge
existed, in the month of April when the river would be in flood. It
is to be remarked that " the city Bethsaida " is clearly a late addition
to S. Luke's narrative, for in the sequel the disciples propose to send
the people for food, not to the city, but to the villages and homesteads
round about them.
§ xii. 21.

72 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
speaks of a " Bethsaida in Galilee," whereas the only
Bethsaida of which we know was on the east shore
of the Jordan, and therefore just out of Galilee in
Gaulanitis. But S. Luke has once interchanged
Gaulanitis* with Galilee, and it may well be that
the word Galilee had a wider application in addition
to its strict geographical use.
S. Mark tells us that Nazareth was in Galilee,!
S. Matthew that Capernaum was by the sea-side, J
and S. Luke that Tyre was on the shores of the
Mediterranean^ and that Capernaum was a city
in Galilee. || But all these additions seem to be
"editorial notes." Knowledge on the part of the
reader is generally assumed.
Five other places are mentioned — the river Jordan,
the Sea of Galilee, the Mount of Olives, the Garden
of Gethsemane, Golgotha. S. Luke omits Geth
semane, and translates Golgotha "a skull." IT So
he translates Cananaean "Zealot."** To prevent
mistake he calls the Sea of Galilee the Lake of
Gennesaret. He defines the "two disciples" (Mark
xi. i = Matt. xxi. i) to be Peter and John. He de
scribes John as " the son of Zechariah." (iii. 2.) For
Thaddaeus he puts "Judas the (son) of James."
(Luke vi. 16; cf Acts i. 13, John xiv. 22.) He adds
Joanna (xxiv. 10) to the list of women who visited
the sepulchre.
Again, twelve adjectives derived from proper
names are found— Jews, Pharisees, Sadducees,
Galilaeans, Jerusalemites, Herodians, Gerasenes,
• Acts v. 37. f i. 9- X iv. 13. § iv. 17.
II >v. 3«- IT xxiii. 33. ** vi. 15.

PROPER NAMES IN S. MARK 73
Idumaeans, Nazarene, Cyrenian, Greek, Syrophce-
nician. S. Matthew, at least in the present text,
changes Gerasenes into Gadarenes,
Finally, we may observe that of the eighty-six
proper names which occur in the first cycle, the
following twenty-five are absent from S. Luke's
parallels: Abiathar, Thaddaeus, Boanerges, the
names of the four brethren of the Lord, James
the Little, Joses, Bartimasus, Timseus, Alexander,
Rufus, Salome, both the Herods Philip (if indeed
there were two), the Herodians, Jerusalemites, Greek
woman, Syrophcenician, Gennesaret, Beyond Jor
dan, Decapolis, Caesarea Philippi, Magadan. These
names, I submit, are exactly the kind of names
which we should expect to be riddled out of the
tradition in forty years of catechetical teaching
amongst persons who were not resident in Palestine.
But if we look at the proper names in the non-
Petrine portions of S. Luke's Gospel, or at the
remarkably rich array of famous and obscure
persons and places mentioned in the Acts of the
Apostles, they will be seen to be just the kind of
names which S. Luke would have wished to record
in a written Gospel.

VIII.
ON THE PROPER NAMES IN
S. LUKE'S WRITINGS
OF the three synoptists, the second writes as a
catechist, the first as a theologian, the third
as an historian. S. Mark's aim is to record what he
had been daily teaching, as nearly as possible in the
form in which he had learned it from S. Peter. The
writer of the Gospel "according to S. Matthew"
gives us the same record as S. Mark, with large
additions, which tend to explain and justify the ways
of God to men, especially in the mystery of the
Incarnation, the Messiahship, and the teaching of
Jesus. S. Luke desires to connect his Divine reve
lation with the ordinary course of this world; to
show that the record was true and would bear
scrutiny ; to satisfy the demands of the intellect as
well as the cravings of the heart.
It is of S. Luke's right to be considered an
historian that we propose to treat in this paper.
Not only is he seen to be such by the care with
which he prefixes to his sections an introductory
sketch to describe the historical situation, or con
cludes them with a few remarks to point out the
historical result, though these "editorial notes" of
74

PROPER NAMES IN S. LUKE 75
his form quite a feature of his Gospel ; but he essays
to arrange the narratives in chronological order, and
inserts a number of dates. He is also at pains to
substantiate the record with the names of the persons
who are described, and of the places where the
events happened.
I. Let us glance first at his dates. It was not
till the sixth century of our era that the convenient
practice of naming the year by its numerical distance
from the birth of Christ was first invented. Before
that period there was no system of chronology uni
versally accepted, but every nation had a method of
its own. The Greeks reckoned by Olympiads ; the
Latins, from the building of Rome ; the Syrians,
from the victory of Seleucus Nicator ; while many
cities had one, and sometimes two or three epochs
of their own. Not only is it necessary to discover
and distinguish between all these, but we must find
whether the year was solar or lunar, or a mixture of
both, and whether it began in January or March, or
at any other season, Indeed, the facts are so obscure
and complex that precision in dates is often unattain
able. In the time of Christ, however, even these reforms
had not been generally adopted. The vulgar did not
reckon the years numerically, but by the names of
their annual magistrates — by the archon of Athens,
the ephor at Sparta, the. consuls at Rome, the high
priest at Jerusalem ; while for cosmopolitan purposes,
emperors, kings, proconsuls, and propraetors were
freely made use of.
S. Luke, therefore, is giving dates after the common

76 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
practice of his time, when he states that John
the Baptist was born "in the days of Herod the
king of Judaea " ; that Christ's birth took place
"when Quirinius was propraetor of Syria"; that
His ministry began "in the fifteenth year of the
Emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was procu
rator of Judaea, and Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his
brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and Trachonitis,
Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, in the high priesthood
of Annas or Caiaphas " ; that S. James was martyred
under Herod Agrippa I,; that a famine took place
in the time of Claudius ; and that various parts of
S. Paul's history fell under the proconsulship of
Gallio, or the procuratorship of Felix or Festus.
These, as well as the name of Ananias the high
priest, are so many dates, and would be reckoned
as such by the readers of the day. Compared with
the other New Testament writers, who seldom give
a date at all, S. Luke is seen to be the true historian.
We could wish that he had told us more clearly
whether our Lord's ministry lasted one year, as he
seems to have held* or several ; what was the date
of S. Paul's birth, the duration of his first missionary
journey, and one or two other details. But speaking
generally, S. Luke gives us very important help
towards determining the chronology ; the other New
Testament writers seldom do so.
II. With respect to the arrangement of the narra
tives in the true chronological order, we must
distinguish between those periods, like S. Paul's
* See below, page 185.

PROPER NAMES IN S. LUKE 77
journeys, in which S. Luke accompanied the apostle
or obtained information directly* from him, and
those other periods, especially our Lord's ministry,
where he depended upon second-hand information.
In the former case, his arrangement, as far as we
can test it, is perfect; in the latter case, I am con
vinced that it is not so. The Gospel begins, indeed,
and ends with the true sequence, just so far as the
events narrated indicate their own order; in other
parts S. Luke simply follows S. Mark, whose order
Papias rightly declares to have been made for the
convenience of teaching, and not as the facts
occurred. In the unique section, chs. ix. 51-xviii.
14, where S. Luke has no one to guide him, the
sections are massed together on no discovered
principle. In the first half of the Acts of the
Apostles there appears also to be some misplace
ment. Not only does ch. xi. 19 ff. resume the
history left off at ch. viii. 1, but the Acts of the
Seven (chs. vi.-viii.) are grouped together for unity
of subject, it would seem, rather than proximity of
events. At any rate, the conversion of the Ethiopian
eunuch (chs. viii. 26 ff.) must have happened sub
sequently to the conversion of Cornelius (chs.
x., xi.), for the religious status of the two men was
exactly the same,t and the fact is repeatedly em
phasized that Cornelius was the first Gentile to
receive baptism.
Partly, therefore, for artistic reasons, but oftener, I
* That he did this for the first journey is shown by Professor Ramsay,
The Church in the Roman Empire.
t The eunuch cannot have been a full proselyte (Deut xxiii. i).

78 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
think, from inability to recover the true order, S.
Luke's arrangement is defective. We have no
reason to think that inspiration was a guide in
matters chronological. Many incidents reached him
without any clue to the time of their occurrence.
His authorities also were not, like himself, Gentiles —
Greek students of Herodotus and Thucydides* —
but Orientals to whom "in those days" or "after
these things" were satisfactory connecting links.
S. Luke had seldom the means of testing their
arrangement, even if it were desirable to raise doubts
by disturbing the stereotyped order of catechetical
teaching. S. Luke promised, in his preface, to write "in
order," and it is simplest to suppose that he meant
"in chronological order," as his historical instinct
would direct. But harmonists have been too ready
to assume that he succeeded in accomplishing his
purpose. Recent investigations make it daily more
clear that he did not. His Gospel is by far the least
orderly of the three. He had not the opportunities
to recover the true sequence of events, and it is most
important to admit this.!
III. In examining S. Luke's list of proper names,
I set aside those which belong to ancient days,
whether obtained from the Old Testament or from
family genealogies, and consider only the names of
contemporary persons, of which fifty are introduced
to us in the Gospel, and ninety-five in the Acts of
* Many coincidences of expression indicate S. Luke's acquaintance
with these authors.
t See above, page 40 ff.

PROPER NAMES IN S. LUKE 79
the Apostles. Eighteen out of the fifty are not
mentioned by the other synoptists; sixty-two out
of the ninety-five are not mentioned by any other
New Testament writer.
A religious teacher speaks but seldom of those
whom the world considers great. To him S. Paul
is a more important person than Tiberius, Dorcas
than Drusilla. But the historian is obliged to take
note of temporal rulers, and accordingly a large
number of unbelievers find a place in S. Luke's
chronicles. He names four Caesars — Augustus,
Tiberius, Claudius, and Nero * ; five Herods — Herod
the Great, Antipas, Philip, Agrippa I., and Agrippa
II. ; three royal ladies, Candace, Berenice, and
Drusilla ; seven Roman governors — Quirinius, Gallio,
Pilate, Felix, Festus, Sergius Paulus, and Publius ;
three officers of the army — Lysias, Julius, and
Cornelius ; three high priests — Annas, Caiaphas, and
Ananias. Besides these, we have Lysanias the
tetrarch, Chuzas the house steward of Antipas,
Blastus the keeper of Agrippa's harem, Gamaliel
the doctor of the Law, Tertullus the advocate,
Demetrius the coppersmith, Theudas the Zealot, and
Elymas the sorcerer.
Some of these are mentioned cursorily to fix a
date or brighten a page. Some play no mean part
in the sacred drama. But there is a singular
historical calmness in dealing with them. There is
no raking up the foul deeds of their past lives, none
of the sensational stories about Tiberius or Berenice,
* He calls Nero simply Caesar. Caius is the only emperor of
the time that he omits.

80 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
in which the modern commentator delights. Full
justice is done to the political fairness of Gallio, and
the honest purpose of Festus. No censure is pro
nounced on the weakness of Pilate or the meanness
of Felix. The facts are stated, and the reader is left
to draw what conclusions he pleases. Thucydides
himself is not more impartial. "Those that are
without God judgeth."
Far more interesting to us are the names of the
faithful whom S. Luke enumerates. " Not many rich,
not many noble, are called." Of that class, however,
are Sergius Paulus, Barnabas, Dionysius, Theophilus,
and Joanna. " But the weak things of this world
hath God chosen to confound the mighty." Many
who were honourable in the Church were unknown
outside of it. It is in dealing with them that S.
Luke writes with the hopefulness \yhich is so pain
fully absent from the pages of contemporary heathen
authors. How much poorer should we be without
his pictures of Zacharias and Elizabeth, Simeon and
Anna, Martha and Mary, Zacchseus, Cleopas, S.
Matthias, S. Stephen and S. Philip, Cornelius,
Dorcas, Lydia, Rhoda ! What tragedies centre
round the names of Simon Magus or of Ananias
and Sapphira! How frequently, too, S. Luke fills
in the gaps left by S. Paul ! How little should we
know about Aquila and Priscilla, Apollos, Timothy,
Barnabas, and Silas, if we depended upon the great
apostle only !
The names in the Gospel are as follows. An
asterisk is prefixed to names not mentioned by
S. Mark or S. Matthew:—

PROPER NAMES IN S. LUKE

81

A. Unbelievers.

(a) Men.
•Augustus Caesar
*Tiberius Caesar
Herod the Great
Herod Antipas
Herod Philip
?Lysanias
?Quirinius

Pontius Pilate
?Annas Caiaphas
*Simon the Pharisee
Barabbas
?Chuzas (6) Women.
Herodias

B. Believers.

(a) Men.
Jesus Christ
Apostles- Simon Peter
Andrew
JamesJohn Philip BartholomewMatthew Thomas
James the son of Alphaeus
Simon the Zealot
*Judas the son of James
Judas Iscariot
Before Christ —
?Zacharias •Simeon•Phanuel JosephJohn the Baptist
During the Ministry —
Zebedee

AlphaeusLevi
Jairus
•Zacchaeus Simon the Cyrenian
Joseph of Arimathaea
*Cleopas
After Christ—
?Theophilus (o) Women,
Before Christ —
Mary the mother of Jesus
Elisabeth
Anna
During the Ministry —
Mary the mother of James
Mary of Magdala
*Mary the sister of Lazarus
?Martha ?Joanna
*Susanna

The names in the Acts of the Apostles are as
follows. An asterisk is prefixed to those who are
not mentioned by other sacred writers :—
G

82 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS

A. Unbelievers.

(a) Men.
•Claudius Caesar
*(Nero) Caesar
Herod Antipas
?Herod Agrippa I.
*Herod Agrippa II.
? Gallio
Pontius Pilate
*Felix?Festus
•Ananias, high priest
?Alexander, chief priest
*John, chief priest
?Gamaliel'Claudius Lysias

*Julius•Blastus
*Bar-Jesus
?Dionysius•Alexander
*Demetrius
?Scevas
*Elymas ?Judas of Galilee
?Theudas (b) Women.
?Candace?Berenice
?Drusilla

B. Believers.

(a) Men.
Jesus Christ
The Twelve Apostles —
Simon Peter
John James AndrewPhilip
Thomas
BartholomewMatthew
James son of Alphoeus
Simon the Zealot
Judas son of James
?Matthias

Apostles —
Paul (Saul)
Barnabas

Church workers of various
grades —
James the Lord's brother
Apollos Silas
Timothy
John Mark
Sosthenes
*Agabus (prophet)
?Joseph Barsabas
•Judas Barsabas
Lucius
?Symeon Niger
*Manaen Aquila
Del/gates of the Churches—
?Sopater Aristarchus
*Secundus*Gaius of Derbe
Tychicus
Trophimus

PROPER NAMES IN S. LUKE

83

The Seven—
•Stephen (prophet)
?Philip (evangelist)
•Prochorus ?Nicanor
?Timon
•Parmenas •Nicolaus
Connected with S. Peter —
•/Eneas
?Simon the tanner
?Cornelius •Ananias?Simon Magus
Connected with S. Paul—
•Ananias of Damascus
•Judas of Damascus
•Sergius Paulus
•Mnason

*Gaius of Macedonia
•Tyrannus•Titius Justus
Crispus
Jason
?Eutychus Erastus
Alphseus
•Pyrrhus
?Theophilus {b) Women.
Mary the mother of Jesus
?Mary the mother of S. Mark
•Tabitha (Dorcas)
?Rhoda
?Lydia?Damaris Priscilla (Prisca)
?Sapphira

Still more remarkable is the geographical know
ledge exhibited by S. Luke. From Babylon in the
east to Rome in the west, from Bithynia in the north
to Ethiopia in the south, he takes us at pleasure.
In the Acts of the Apostles alone he mentions
thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine of
the Mediterranean islands. At a time when there
were no maps deserving the name, no systematic
geography except Strabo's, which is incomplete,
few books of travel or of reference, he takes us over
no inconsiderable part of the inhabited world. We
need not suppose that he had anything beyond a
vague idea of the situation of Parthia, Persia, or
the Soudan. He probably would not have set Ur
of the Chaldees where modern geographers have

84 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
discovered it ; but his knowledge of the places which
he describes is correct and minute. The more his
statements are tested, the more their accuracy is
seen. Mr. Smith, of Jordanhill, spent years in inves
tigating the shipwreck. Subsequent workers have
followed on his lines, with the result that S. Luke's
account is seen to be as true as it is graphic.
Professor Ramsay has devoted a large part of his
active life to the study of Asia Minor. He corrects
tlie German commentators, and finds mistakes even
in Bishop Lightfoot, but not in S. Luke.
In the Gospel the sweep is, of course, much more
confined. Our Lord's work was carried on within
the province of Syria, and, except the incidental
mention of Cyrene as the home of Simon, no place
outside of Syria is alluded to. S. Luke adds from
his own researches three countries — Abilene, Ituraea,
Trachonitis — and four places — Sarepta, Nain, Em-
maus, Siloam — which are not in the other synoptists.
But his authorities had cared little for geography.
Seven cities in Galilee and nine in Judaea are all
that he could collect At the time when he wrote
it was not easy to recover the neglected facts. The
poverty of the Gospel in topography is as remark
able as the wealth of the Acts of the Apostles.
The following is the list of places mentioned in S.
Luke's Gospel. An asterisk is prefixed to the names
of places which are not mentioned by the other
synoptists. Adjectives are given only when the
corresponding noun does not occur:- —

PROPER NAMES IN S. LUKE

85

A. Names op Cduhtrie&

In Syria —

In the Holy Land-

?Abilene•ituraea
?TrachonitiS

Judsea SamariaGalilee

Syria

In Africa —
Cyrenian
B. Names of Towns.
In Syria —
Chorazin
TyreSidon
?Sarepta
In Galilee—'
NazarethCapernaumBethsaida
,
Injudcea —
Jerusalem Bethlehem
("Bethany
\ Bethphage
Jericho
?Emmaus
•Nain
?Siloam
Gerasene
Arimathaea
Magdalene
Sodom
C. Names of Lakes and Rivers.
Lake of Gennesaret | Jordan
The following is the list of places mentioned in
the Acts of the Apostles. An asterisk is prefixed
to the names of places which are not mentioned by
any other New Testament writer. Adjectives are
given only when the corresponding noun does not
occur : — A. Names of Countries.
(a) In Europe.
(b) In Asia Minor.
Italy
Achaia GreeceMacedonia
Roman Provinces —
AsiaGalatiaCappadocia
86 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS

Cilicia

Judaea

•/Lycia
*\Pamphylia

Syria

•Phoenicia

/Bithynia IPontus

•Midian

Arabians

districts —

(d) In Africa

•Phrygia

?Libya

•Pisidia

Egypt

?Lycaonia

•Ethiopian

?Mysia

(e) Islands.

(«¦) In Syria and the East.

•Cyprus

•Elamites

?Rhodes

•Medes

•Cos

•Chaldees

•Samos

?Mesopotamia

•Chios

?Parthians

•Samothrace

?Chanaan

Crete

Galilee

?Cauda

Samaria

?Melita

B. Names of Towns.

(«) In Europe.

?Adramyttium

Rome

Thyatira

?Tres Tabernae

Ephesus

?Appii Forum

Miletus

?Puteoli

•Patara

•Rhegium

•Myra

Corinth

•Attalia

Cenchreae

?Perga

Athens

Antioch

•Bercea

Iconium

Thessalonica

Lystra

•Apollonia

•Derbe

•Amphipolis

?Tarsus

Philippi
?Neapolis

(c ) In Syria and the East
In the Holy Land —

(£) In Asia Minor.

: Jerusalem

Troas

?Gaza

•Assos

*Azotus

PROPER NAMES IN S. LUKE

87

?Lydda
?Joppa•Caesarea

?Haran Babylon

Ptolemais
•Antipatris
?Sychem Nazareth

[d) In Africa.
Cyrene
?Alexandrian
Outside the Holy Land-
{e) In Islands
•Salamis
TyreSidonian
?Paphos
?Lasea
•Seleucia
•Phcenix
AntiochDamascus
•Mitylene
?Syracuse
C.
Seas,
Harbours, Promontories.
Red Sea
•Adriatic?Fair Havens
?The Syrtis
?Salmone •Cnidus
D.
Local Names.
?Aceldama
?Areopagus
About three-fourths of S. Mark's Gospel is found
embedded in a considerably altered form in S. Luke's,
and it is a burning question of the day how it came
there. Had S. Luke a copy of S. Mark's Gospel
before him when he wrote, or did both evangelists
obtain their information from oral tradition ?
Our present subject will throw some light on
that exceedingly dark question. We have seen S.
Luke's enthusiasm for proper names. His Gentile
birth, his Greek education, his literary models, his
historical insight, had taught him their importance.
He cannot but have noticed the extraordinary lack
of proper names in the Gospel, for he draws upon
88 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
his own knowledge to increase the stock upon every
available opportunity.
How, then, has he treated S. Mark? S. Mark (as we
saw in the last paper) gives eighty-six proper names
of persons and places — a miserably small number
indeed, but S. Luke reduces it by omitting twenty-
five of them. Had he possessed a written copy
of S. Mark, I cannot but think that he would
carefully have made full use of every one of them.
But in oral tradition amongst Gentiles, who were
unfamiliar with the localities or the people, proper
names would inevitably disappear. Important
places, like Bethlehem, Nazareth, Jerusalem, would
remain ; but Bartimaeus, Salome, Decapolis, Magadan,
Caesarea Philippi, would one by one be left out. In
a written book these names Would be both useful
and ornamental-; when the lesson was learned by
heart, they would needlessly cumbef the memory.
We notice next the evidential value of proper
names, especially in the Acts of the Apostles. We
consider them the strongest proof of the authenticity
of the book. A man who would venture to intro
duce ninety-five persons and a hundred and three
places into a history of his own times must have been
pretty sure of his ground. The majority of those
persons were still living when he wrote ; into every
one of these places his volume shortly penetrated.
If the story was not substantially true, could it
possibly have survived? If he had misrepresented
a single person or misplaced a single village, would
not the whole neighbourhood have denounced him ?
The magnitude of the interests at stake, the eternal

PROPER NAMES IN S. LUKE 89
value of the doctrines proclaimed, Would have made
men insist upon a scrupulous adherence to the truth.
To him it might with good reason have been said —
" Inceclis per ignes-
-Suppositos cineri doloso." (Hor., Odes, ii., 1, 7.)
The only way to deal successfully with geography
is to travel, and either S. Luke himself or his
informants had visited the places and been present
at the scenes which are described. The correctness
of his geography upholds the truth of his history.
The Gospel, as we have seen, has but little of this
external confirmation. God's ways are not as our
ways. The less important work of the apostles is
abundantly attested, the infinitely more important
work of the Master stands alone.
It might easily have been otherwise. If only S.
Luke had been one of the Twelve, and had accom
panied them as their chronicler, in what a different
way would the Gospel have been written! We
should not have been left in doubt whether the
ministry lasted one year, two, three, or as many as
ten. Our Lord's journeys would have been as
clearly defined as S. Paul's. Every incident would
have been set in its proper surroundings. The
miracles would have been confirmed by the name
and abode of the recipient ; the parables would have
been illustrated by their geographical surroundings.
The gain to the student would have been enormous j
to the faith of the Church, perhaps very little.
Our Lord's words speak to the heart and the

oo NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
conscience. It is not well that our attention should
be drawn from them by the picturesqueness of the
scenery. Have we ears to hear? Then it matters
little to us who first received the message, or in what
place or at what time it first was spoken. The words
are for us,

IX.
ON ORAL TEACHING
WE propose in this paper to attempt to remove
some of the objections which many men feel
to the oral hypothesis, objections which, we believe,
arise chiefly from the imagination, through the
difficulty which all men feel in picturing a state of
things which Js widely different from anything
existing now. The objections to the use of docu
ments appear to me to be much more serious.
When a man copies from a written document, he
may easily omit words or verses through carelessness
or design. He may easily add an occasional comment
of his own, or a few verses from another source. He
may correct the grammar, polish the style, and
remove barbarisms. But he cannot readily invert
the order, still less can he habitually change from
thirty to forty per cent, of the words, where he gains
nothing by doing so, but rather blunts the sharpness
of the original narrative. This last, as a literary
feat, we may fairly pronounce to be impossible. It
would require an almost infinite effort. And for
what conceivable purpose should that effort have
been made? To give a semblance of originality? But
by these multitudinous variations the author irritates
91

92 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
those who are familiar with the original document,
and wastes his labour on those who are not That
one evangelist should have been guilty of this petty
conceit is a shock to our moral sense. That two
men, working independently in different parts of the
world, should have hit on the same preposterous
expedient for magnifying their task and diminishing
its credit, is surely inconceivable. But with the oral
hypothesis this stupendous difficulty disappears.
The very changes which one man, copying direct
from a document, could not have sufficient versatility
to make, are made naturally and unconsciously by
an army of catechists during thirty or forty years
of oral tradition. This Is the chief argument for
the oral hypothesis, and the upholders of the
documentary hypothesis are, as a rule, very reluctant
to face it
It is often assumed that S. Luke asserts in the
preface to his Gospel that he had read and was
making use of those narratives which "many" of
his contemporaries had "undertaken to draw up."
It seems to me that his language, when carefully
examined, decidedly favours the opposite conclusion.
He asserts that both they and he derived their
information through tradition handed down by the
regular catechists from the original eye-witnesses.
He does not affirm that his precursors had actually
published anything, but rather implies that they
undertook the task of writing, and abandoned it. If,
however, they did publish Gospels, his own was
intended to supersede theirs, not so much by its
greater comprehensiveness, as by its stricter accuracy

ON ORAL TEACHING 93
— a result which he could not have attained if he
had copied from them.
Again, it is often tacitly assumed that the twelve
apostles were all engaged in narrating their re
collections of the words and deeds of Christ. But
this cannot have been done officially to any great
extent, or a diversity of tradition would have arisen
instead of the one stereotyped record which we
possess. S. Peter is the only member of the Twelve
who is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles to have
originated anything. The activity of S. John we
gather from his own writings, that of S. Matthew from
tradition. And these three are the only eye-witnesses
who are said to have produced Gospel history. A
number of anonymous authors, some of whom may
have been apostles, contributed chapters or verses in
S. Matthew and S. Luke, notably the great section
Luke ix. 51-xviii. 14; but the other members of the
Twelve have left no known record.
Again, it is essential to distinguish sharply between
S. Peter the preacher and S. Peter the teacher. In
the former capacity he dealt with the fulfilment of
prophecy, exhorted his converts to live up to their
high calling, or reproved them for their failings ; in
the latter it has long been my contention that he
made them commit to memory a Gospel section,
repeat it every day, with the addition of new
sections, until a considerable body of teaching was
acquired, which was frequently recited, and always in
the same order, until the order became as much fixed
as the subject-matter.
In assuming this-, I only assume that S. Peter was

94 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
wise in his generation, and acted as everyone in
his circumstances and in that time and place must
have acted. He had several thousands of converts
to educate, who were all ignorant, and many of them
eager to learn. Preaching would not satisfy them
nor supply their need. The fashion of the day was
to store the memory. There was an unreasoning
prejudice against religious books. " Commit nothing
to writing " was a maxim with the Rabbis. Neither
S. Peter nor his fellows had any literary instincts.
Believing that the end of the age was at hand, they
had no sense of duty to posterity.
In the unchanging East the habit of committing to
memory is still strong, and it may confirm what I
have written if I produce some examples from
ancient and modern times in illustration of the
practice. The first quotation is taken from A Buddhist
Catechism, published by Messrs. Redway, in London,
1890. "151. Were these holy books composed and written
by the Buddha himself?
" Neither by him nor by any of the brethren who
were the Buddha's first disciples. It was not the
custom in India in those times to set in writing any
religious or philosophic truths. They were taught
by word of mouth from master to pupil, and im
pressed on the memory by incessant repetition of
words and whole passages. In this way they were
handed down from one generation to another."
The next quotation is from Professor Max Muller,
in the Christian Commonwealth for October 4th,

ON ORAL TEACHING 95
1894. It was kindly furnished to me by the Rev.
Joseph Twidale.
" At a time when writing did not exist the human
memory was infinitely superior to what it is now.
People could remember an enormous amount of
what we call poetry, and even prose ; nay, they
could compose without any writing materials." This
is very difficult for us to believe, but we have in
Sanskrit literature an accurate description of how a
man who was being educated had to learn every day
so many lines, and how he learned them and
repeated them, going on day after day, always
repeating what he had learned, and adding to it.
That system is described in books of the fourth
century B.C. I have had people in this room who
knew by heart the whole of the Rig- Veda, which
consists of more than a thousand hymns of about ten
lines each, and who could take it up at any point.
That is not at all an uncommon thing among
educated men in India, but women are not usually
educated up to the point. I have had, however,
staying here a lady, Ramabhai, who had committed
to memory pretty well what would correspond in
extent to our Bible. Her father, evidently an
enlightened man, had allowed her to be present at
the lessons of her brother, and in that way she
learned all that he learned. When she was staying
with us I asked some of my friends, professors in the
university, who are always somewhat sceptical about
this faculty of memory, to come and test this young
lady, who was only twenty-two. I gave them the
Rig-Veda, the Bhagavad-geta, and other books,

.96 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
telling them they might open them where they liked,
and she would go on till they were tired, And so
she did, never hesitating for a word."
The third witness is the Ven. Archdeacon Moule,
of Mid-China, who said, at a public meeting in
Chelmsford, that there is a school at Ning-po to
which orphans are taken when twelve years old and
taught. He was asked to examine it, and promised
to give an hour. "That will not do," was the
answer ; " it must be a morning." So he gave a
morning. He discovered that the children knew
the whole of the four Gospels by heart. They could
be put on anywhere, and would go straight away, the
beginning, middle, or end of a chapter, of the
beginning, middle, or end of a verse. And it was no
mere parrot-learning. They could explain in their
way what they had been taught
These examples, which I could easily multiply,
will show that the memory is capable of the work
which I have attributed to it, and that the men of
that time and century would be likely to make use
of it But if the teaching was to be carried into
distant lands, a band of teachers must have been
prepared and set forth, taking S. Peter's Memoirs
with them. These, I maintain, were the catechists,
about whose existence and work so much incredulity
has been expressed in certain quarters. The Provost
of Trinity College, Dublin, Dr. Salmon, objects that
I use the word " catechist " in an unusual sense, to
signify an instructor of the baptized, whereas, in the
third century and afterwards, the catechist Instructed
the catechumens who were candidates for baptism.

ON ORAL TEACHING 9;
Dr. Salmon, however, admits that in the first century
neophytes were baptized immediately on their
profession of faith in Christ, without either in
struction or probation. Does it not follow from this
that a catechumen, in the apostolic age, was a newly
baptized person ? And must not his education have
been in accordance with the pressing necessities of
the time? When no written Gospel existed, a
knowledge of the words and works of Christ was
the one thing which was indispensable, and the one
thing, therefore, which the catechists may be
supposed to have taught.
But neither the catechists nor their work are
inventions of mine. I have good warrant for what I
have written about them. (1) S. Paul says, "Let
him that is catechized in the Word give a share in
all good things to him that catechizeth." (Gal. vi. 6.)
From this verse it is clear that the catechist was
an unpaid agent, engaged in a highly important
work, and that he taught "the Word," by which I
understand the Gospel sections; for (2) S. Luke
states that Theophilus had been catechized in
that very Gospel history which S. Luke himself
proposed to reduce to writing (Luke i. 4); and (3)
Apollos " taught with precision the facts concerning
Jesus." (Acts xviii. 25.)
Many, like Professor Sanday, feel a strong
objection to the oral hypothesis, not only in the
order of the narratives (which we have already
explained), but in the fact that so many insignificant
words, such as conjunctions, remain unaltered in all
the three Gospels. Surely, they say, such trivial
H

98 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
words as these would be the first to disappear in oral
teaching. Have we, however, any reason to think
that it would be so? The human memory is
particularly tenacious of connecting links. A man
who recites poetry would break down if he neglected
them. When once he has thoroughly mastered his
lesson, they become as fixed as the weightier words.
It is only during the process of learning, as the
records passed from catechist to catechist, or by
deliberate effort, as often in S. Luke's Gospel, that
they would be changed. Quite enough of them have
been changed to make us suspicious about the use of
documents. If my view of the whole matter is right, the proper
persons to write Gospels were the catechists, and the
natural thing for them to write was that particular
form of oral Gospel which had gradually grown up
in their own Church, and which they had long been
in the habit of frequently repeating to their pupils.
To such persons the labour of writing a Gospel
would be small. And we may well believe, as
S. Luke tells us, that many of them attempted the
task. Why they did not complete it, or why, if they
did, their work never gained general acceptance, we
are no longer in a position to examine.
S. Mark was a primitive catechist of the earliest
type, a pupil of S. Peter, and the translator into
Greek of his Aramaic sections, He has given us in
his Gospel S. Peter's Memoirs, with a very few
remarks and additions of his own. Historical
criticism has brought to light the extreme value of
his Gospel, as being the nearest approach to S.
Peter's actual teaching.

ON ORAL TEACHING 99
Our first Gospel must have been written by a
catechist also. It is called the Gospel "according
to S. Matthew," because its distinctive feature is
S. Matthew's " utterances of our Lord," which, how
ever, are not given as S. Matthew taught them, but
massed together into long discourses or collections
of parables for the greater convenience of teaching.*
S. Peter's Memoirs, however, are the backbone of
this Gospel also. And a considerable number of
fragments from other sources are embedded in the
narrative, but there is very little comment or
explanation. It is usual to say that this Gospel
was intended for Jewish readers : it would be truer
to say that it had been formed in a Jewish Church.
Where that Church was situated I do not venture
to assert. Not in Judaea, for there is no local
colouring, no additional geographical knowledge,
such as a Palestinian must surely have contributed.
Moreover, the Rev. Thomas Barns points out to me
that the Holy Land is called " Syria " (Matt. iv. 24),
which is the name of the Roman province of which
it formed part. I infer that some Greek-speaking
community within the Roman empire is indicated.
Alexandria answers to the conditions, but I cannot
at present pronounce anything definite.t The cradle
of this Gospel was Jerusalem, but it grew to maturity
elsewhere. S. Luke was both a catechist and an historian.
The earlier part of his Christian life was spent at
Philippi, and it is there that he must have formed
* See above, p. 21. + See above, p. 20.

ioo NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
the main part of his Gospel, though he had rare
opportunities for collecting new matter while he
waited on S. Paul for two years at Caesarea. His
first two chapters are direct translations from a
written document, the original of which my colleague,
the Rev. R. H. Kennett, lecturer in Aramaic to the
University of Cambridge, suggests was in New
Hebrew rather than Aramaic. They can be retrans
lated into Hebrew much more readily than into
Aramaic, and Hebrew was used by the learned as
Latin is still used in University life. The Rev.
Prof. J. Armitage Robinson contends that they were
originally composed in Greek to imitate the style of
the Septuagint. Certainly a tendency to follow the
Septuagint is perceptible wherever S. Luke has a
free hand in writing his Gospel. Biblical facts were
naturally expressed in Biblical language, and the
Septuagint was his only Bible. The original narrator,
however, must surely have told the story in Aramaic,
not, however, perhaps reduced to literary form.
S. Luke was taught the Memoirs of S. Peter when
about two-thirds of them only had been composed,
and thus his omissions are easily accounted for.
Into them he inserted such portions of S. Matthew's
" utterances of our Lord " as reached him piecemeal
in his distant home, finding places for them according
to their subject-matter rather than by their strict
chronology, which he had not the means of dis
covering. His arrangement of them, therefore, differs
widely from that of the first Gospel, and is probably
even further removed from the true order. The
"third cycle" he inserted for the most part bodily

ON ORAL TEACHING 101
into the middle of his work, without any attempt at
chronological arrangement. Finally, he interspersed
throughout his work a large number of comments and
historical notes, thus making his book more complete
as a work of art than either of the other Gospels.
Such, according to the oral hypothesis, was the
genesis of our three Gospels. It was strictly in
accordance with the habits of the time and the place
of their birth. All the overwhelming difficulties
about omissions and variations in order and language
which beset the documentary hypothesis disappear.
The Gospels were written for local use; in God's
providence they were fitted for universal acceptance.
They were written for the need of one generation ;
they have satisfied the requirements of sixty. They
were published anonymously ; the authors' names
we gather from tradition. They rapidly pushed their
way over the Christian world, not by an apostolic
edict or Church Council, but because they com
mended themselves as faithful records to the
universal Christian conscience. Out of weakness
they became strong.
The oral hypothesis receives very strong con
firmation from the writings of the earlier Christian
Fathers. These writings teem with quotations from
the Gospel history, but it is the rarest exception for
such quotations to agree verbatim with any one of
our Gospels. No doubt the Fathers quoted from
memory, but even that will not account for the facts.
We hold that they found it easier to quote that oral
Gospel which they had learned in their childhood,
rather than these written Gospels which had become

102 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
the treasure of their old age. Even though they
read our four Gospels aloud in the Church services,
their sermons and writings were embellished with the
older reminiscences* For every considerable Church
must, under the oral hypothesis, have had a tradition
of its own, differing both in contents and wording
from that of other Churches, and in particular
exhibiting much mixture and many sayings of Christ
which are not in our Gospels at all.
Now, contrast with this simplicity the difficulties
which beset the documentary hypothesis. And first
its advocates, as far as they venture upon any definite
statements, are at variance between themselves. One
school repudiates the catechists, the other gladly
avails itself of their teaching. The former school is
compelled to hold, either that the discourses in S.
Matthew are free inventions, based on a few scanty
reminiscences, in which case they could hardly have
gained the sanction of the Church Catholic ; or else
that certain documents, which have perished, were
written within a few years or even months of the
Ascension, while the recollection of our Lord's
teaching was still fresh. In either case they do not
account for the divergence in wording between
S. Matthew and S. Luke, nor for the still wider
varieties in patristic quotations, nor for the loss of
these pristine documents.
The other school holds, either that a hypothetical
batch of documents based on oral tradition sprang
• Where the English Revised Version is read in Churches, ex tempore
preachers continue to quote the old Authorised Version, because from
youth they have been familiar with it.

ON OrAL teaching 103"
into existence about A.D. 70, rapidly spread over the
world so as to reach all our evangelists, were used as
sources of our three Gospels, and then perished,
leaving no trace behind; or else that S. Mark's
Gospel alone was used as a source by S. Matthew
and S. Luke, oral tradition doing the rest.
It is here that the problem becomes so complex
as to be the despair of the most able and clear
headed thinkers.
To suppose that some of the documents were in
Aramaic will not do, unless, as Professor Marshall
holds, an oral Greek version accompanied them.
The multitudinous varieties in wording are in
explicable unless we hold, with Dr. Stanton, that,
if the evangelists had documents, they dared not use
them. The circumstances of the time compelled
them to prefer the oral tradition which was stored in
their own memory to the most venerable records by
apostolic men. And if so, why should we postulate
the existence of these documents at all ? If the
memory of the catechist supplied so much, why
should it not have been equal to everything?
Lastly, the reluctance to use the name of God,
which is a remarkable feature of S. Matthew's
Gospel, and may be noticed also in S. Mark, will
be appreciated if we realise the irreverence of a large
class of thoughtless boys shouting out the sacred
name after the oriental way of learning by heart.
Let no one think that this is a barren controversy.
Much depends upon it in establishing the truth, the
trustworthiness, and the inspiration of God's precious
gift to the Church.

ON THE PRECEPT TO SELL YOUR
CLOAK AND BUY A SWORD
CRITICISM is not only essential to establish the
historic truth of the Gospels, but it is of practical
importance for their exegesis and in apologetics.
I shall attempt to illustrate this in the present and
following papers.
I propose to examine here one of the most interest
ing sections of those which are peculiar to S. Luke.
It runs thus : " And He said, When I sent you forth
without purse, or wallet, or shoes, lacked ye any
thing? And they said, Nothing. And He said to
them, But now let him that hath a purse take it, like
wise also a wallet ; and let him that hath no money
sell his cloak and buy a sword ; for I say unto you
that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me,
And He was numbered with lawless men ; for my
course is drawing to a close. And they said, Sir,
behold, here are two swords. And He said, It is
enough." (Luke xxii. 35-38.)
I. The section is introduced by the phrase, " And
He said," not "Then said He," nor "After these
things said He," nor by any of those longer prefaces
which form quite a feature in S. Luke's Gospel.
104

SELL YOUR CLOAK, ETC. 105
I infer from this that S. Luke wished us to under
stand that he was not quite sure that the paragraph
belonged to the place where he has put it.
S. Luke, I hold, began to work as a catechist —
probably at Philippi — at so early a date, that his first
lessons did not contain even the whole of S. Peter's
Memoirs. Indeed, the greater part of the latest
portion of these Memoirs, lying chiefly between S.
Mark vi. 14 and viii. 10, never reached him at all.
And the second cycle of oral teaching, commonly
called S. Matthew's Logia, was as yet scarcely begun.
In his distant Gentile home S. Luke received from
time to time, either by letters from friends or by
word of mouth from travellers, detached parts of it,
as well as a few narratives like this, which were no
part of it, but he seldom had any other clue to the
chronology of these new sections than was contained
in the passages themselves. It was S. Luke's task, I
maintain, upon receiving a contribution to find a
suitable place for it in that ever-expanding course of
oral instruction which he gave to his pupils and
finally stereotyped in his written Gospel. By this
simple explanation, and by no other, we can account
for the extraordinary difference between S. Luke's
arrangement of conversations and S. Matthew's.
The conversations are the same, though with vary
ing degrees of divergence, according to the precision
with which they were reported, but the context is
widely different. And S. Luke's chronology is far
less likely to be correct than S. Matthew's.
Suppose then that this paragraph is one of those-
jewels, if I may so call them, which came to S. Luke

106 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
broken loose from its original setting. He must
make a new setting for it, if it was to add its
lustre to his Gospel. And on proceeding to examine
it, he could have little doubt to which part of our
Lord's ministry it belonged. A time of persecution
is indicated. Hospitable homes were no longer open
to Christ's emissaries. Henceforth the disciples must
take with them a purse to buy bread and a wallet
to carry it. A sadness pervades the passage, a
melancholy, almost a despair. The shadow of the
cross rests upon it. The evangelist, therefore, has
put it between the prediction of S. Peter's denials
and the account of the agony in Gethsemane. In
no other place would its meaning have been so
heightened. To us, however, who have four Gospels before us,
teeming with words spoken and deeds done on that
last overwhelming night, it is a task of no small
difficulty to piece them harmoniously together, and
find the right place for each. And it is a relief to
the historical critic to find that he is under no
obligation to do so. The Gospel narratives are
seldom presented to us in their true order. Even
" straightway," " then," or " after these things," cannot
always be pressed. Much lese can a plain " And He
said " be decisive of the date. Many words assigned
by one or other of the evangelists to that supreme
night may have been spoken at some other time
during the preceding week. S. Luke's paragraph
would suit any stage in the last journey. From its
mournful tone we are disposed to refer it to that time
of anxiety when our Lord first set out for Jerusalem.

SELL YOUR CLOAK, ETC. 10;
The student of the Gospels will be saved many hours
of anxious labour if he learns how unchronological
the synoptic Gospels are. How could S. Luke,
arranging detached narratives at Philippi for the
immediate need of his pupils, have discovered the
true order ? Why should he have thought it of any
great importance to do so ?
II. "When I sent you forth without purse, or
wallet, or shoes, lacked ye anything ? " There is an
allusion to the first mission of the Twelve, when
Christ " sent them forth two by two into every city
and village into which He himself would come." An
account of this mission was given in S. Peter's
Memoirs, for it was an important epoch in that
apostle's life. And as S. Peter's narrative is
reproduced in each of the synoptic Gospels, it is
interesting to observe the variations which have been
made in it by the catechists. These variations are so
curious, that no hypothesis of copying from a written
document, whether Greek or Aramaic, can account
for them. The changes must be due to the un
conscious working of human memory during a long
period of oral transmission.
S. Mark, preserving as usual S. Peter's words with
much precision, writes, "Take nothing for your
journey save a staff only, not bread, not a wallet,
not copper for your belt, but be shod with sandals,
and do not put on two tunics." (vi. 8.) S. Matthew,
with more than his customary changes, gives,
" Provide no gold nor silver nor copper for your
belts, not a wallet for the road, nor two tunics, nor
shoes, nor a staff." (x. 9, 10.) St. Luke, with un-

108 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
wonted brevity, has, " Take nothing for your journey,
neither staff nor wallet, nor bread, nor silver coin, nor
two tunics to wear." (ix. 3.)
The only coins minted in Palestine during the
Roman period were of copper. Being of small value,
and free from idolatrous symbols, they circulated
freely amongst the poor. S. Mark's "Take no
copper" is probably the original precept. But to
prevent mistake, S. Matthew has expanded it into
" no gold nor silver nor copper." S. Luke has
altered it into "no silver coin," because silver in
imperial times was the only legal tender at Rome,
until "silver," like the Scotch "siller," became the
ordinary expression for " money."
Here then we have examples of changes made by
the catechists in the wording of S. Peter's Memoirs,
either to prevent misunderstanding or to suit the
different environment of their pupils.
A more serious difficulty arises about the shoes
and the staff. S. Mark enjoins the use of both, S.
Matthew prohibits both, S. Luke prohibits the staff,
and says nothing about the shoes. In his instruc
tions, however, to the Seventy in the next chapter,
he bids them go forth "without purse or wallet or
shoes." (x. 4.)
This discrepancy was observed in very early times.
The first harmonist with whose works we are
acquainted is Tatian, who wrote about A.D. 160.
In his Dia Tessardn, written in Syriac, but translated
into Arabic, of which version a copy has been recently
discovered, he undertook to construct a complete Life
of Christ by piecing our four Gospels together into

SELL YOUR CLOAK, ETC. 109
one continuous narrative. In this way he produced a
book of considerable interest, but dull and heavy,
overloaded with words, and possessing none of the
literary charm which characterizes our Gospels. It
became, however, so popular that the Bishop
Theodoret was obliged to prohibit its use in the
churches of his diocese, because it was actually super
seding the Gospels.
Tatian deals with the passage thus : " Provide not
gold nor silver nor copper for your belts, not a wallet
for the road, not bread, nor shoes, nor a staff but a
cane only ; be shod with sandals, and do not put on
two tunics." Tatian evidently assumes (as later
commentators have strangely done) that there was
such a difference between sandals and shoes that
the one must be forbidden as a luxury, the other
enjoined as necessary ; and although the Greek word
for a " staff" (pa/360?) is the same, he seems to think
that the original Aramaic must have been different.
A staff to walk with would be an unwarranted
indulgence to the flesh, a stick to chase away the
dogs which encompass the traveller's path in an
Eastern village must be conceded.
All honour to Tatian for his conscientious attempt
to serve his day and generation, but when a Scotch
writer of the present time, working on similar lines,
suggests that pd/38os in S. Mark means a " staff," but
in S. Matthew a " tent-pole," we must protest against
such trifling with sacred records. It is true that
pdfiSos, like " stick," may have many meanings, but,
as in English, if you told a man who was setting out
on a journey to take a stick, he could only under-

no NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
stand you to mean a walking-stick, so also in Greek
the context is decisive. It would be absurd to speak
of a tent-pole without mention of a tent. And
the divergence in narrative could only be accounted
for in this way, if S. Peter's Memoirs had originally a
double sentence, " Go shod with sandals, but not with
shoes, and take a cane, but not a staff," of which
S. Mark in each case has preserved the first member
and the other evangelists the second. Such a sup
position is altogether improbable. Rather, therefore,
must we admit that oral tradition is not always to
be trusted in preserving these complex regulations.
There is a tendency towards severity. The priests
in the temple went bare-foot when performing their
sacred duties, why should not Christ's servants do
the same ? Mankind are fond of imposing irksome
rules on those who are engaged in specially sacred
work. III. It is further to be noticed as an indication of
the light esteem in which S. Luke held verbal
precision that, although he has exactly reproduced
the three words, " purse, wallet, shoes," from his own
Gospel, he has not taken them from our Lord's
instructions to the Twelve, but from His instructions
to the Seventy.
S. Luke could easily have turned back his own
pages and verified the reference, correcting either the
one passage or the other until he made them agree,
but he has not done so. The self-contradiction
remains, as in several passages in the Acts of the
Apostles (ix. 3-9 = xxii. 6-n= xxvi. 12-18; x. 1-48 =
xi. 1-18).

SELL YOUR CLOAK, ETC. in
If what we have advanced above is a true account
of the matter, it evidently follows that the two words,
"or shoes," were no authentic part of our Lord's
saying on this occasion, but arose from that assimi
lation of doublets which is a necessary feature of
oral tradition. That this is so is seen on a close
examination of the passage ; for not only do these
two words destroy the balance of the sentence, but
there is nothing corresponding to them in the next
clause, which is constructed with precise parallelism :
" But now let him that hath a purse take it, likewise
also a wallet."
Lastly, the word " purse " is another adaptation to
local requirements. S, Peter had said, " Take no
copper for your belt," a phrase which S. Mark and
S. Matthew retain, because the tunic of a Jew was
fastened round the body with a belt (Acts xii. 8),
which, whether made of leather or raw hide (Mark
i. 6), was doubled and stitched till the hollow thus
produced formed an excellent purse. But this
custom, though known to Roman soldiers (Hor. Ep.
ii. 2. 40), does not seem to have prevailed in the
civil life of Gentiles. They carried their coins
(which were of silver) in their mouth or in a pouch.
Hence S. Luke's alteration.
I venture to press these facts upon the student,
because most commentators take pains to obscure
them. Yet surely they are full of significance.
They teach us to value the general sense more
than the words, the spiritual lesson more than the
picturesque surroundings.
IV. "And let him that hath no money sell his

112 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
cloak and buy a sword." No doubt this precept
means that every Christian missionary must provide
himself with a sword, even though it be at the cost of
parting with his cloak.
The extreme urgency of the order will be seen if
we remember how important a part the cloak played
in the dress of a Jew. It was not indeed a necessity.
It was laid aside during the hours of work. But if
the climate of Palestine, a country the main ridge of
which on an average is 2500 feet above the sea-level,
made it necessary for the aged and infirm to wear
two tunics in cold weather ("Then the high priest
rent his tunics," Mark xiv. 63), much more was a
cloak needful for everyone in the winter evenings.
By the poor it was also used as a blanket. And the
humane legislation of the Old Testament enjoined
upon even the money-lender that he should in any
case restore it at sunset when it had been given as a
pledge, for else " wherein was its owner to sleep ? "
(Ex. xxii. 26, 28.)
But Christ's messengers must not think of bodily
comfort. "If they have no money, they must sell
their cloak and buy a sword."
Three notable interpretations are offered of this
startling paradox — the mystical, the allegorical, the
literal. The mystics said that the " two swords " which
the disciples produced in reply are the temporal and
the spiritual power, without which the Church is not
perfect. According to this explanation, our Lord's
rejoinder, "It is enough," signifies His approval,
whereas any other explanation requires that it should
signify disapproval, as though He had said, " I will
say no more : you have not understood Me."

SELL YOUR CLOAK, ETC. 113
Mystical interpretation was once universal in
dealing with the Old Testament and common in
dealing with the New. It is the glory of our age
to have thrown discredit on so fanciful and phantastic
a device,, which we would not tolerate in the interpre
tation of any except sacred books. Few persons now
would admit it here.
The allegorizer says that the sword in Christ's
thought was not of steel, but referred rather to
intellectual weapons. The missionary of the future
would have to face antagonists, and must be
prepared to do battle with them on their own
ground. Education was henceforth essential for him.
Rhetoric, oratory, philosophy, could not be dispensed
with. A S. Paul would succeed where a S. Peter
might fail to secure a hearing.
. This is true, and contains a useful lesson for those
who are preparing for holy orders. Let them as a
matter of duty do their utmost to acquire the best
possible training. Especially let them investigate
the pressing questions of the day.
But this interpretation does not lie on the surface.
It is an extension rather than the original meaning.
We come therefore to the literal sense.
In the quiet easy times of prosperity Christ's
messengers had had a simple task. Their glad
tidings had found a way to ready minds and hearts.
Loving disciples had vied with one another in
supplying their bodily needs. But a different day
was dawning now. The 53rd chapter of Isaiah,
which says of the Messiah, " He was numbered with
lawless men," and goes on to speak of death and
burial, would soon be fulfilled. And "if they
\

114 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
persecute Me, they will also persecute you." You
must take nothing from them. You must earn your
own money and provide your own food. You will
be brought before kings and rulers. You will
encounter brigands and assassins. For your defence
you must learn to wield a sword.
This is the only interpretation which satisfies the
context. It was when the disciples understood Him
too literally that He cut them short. Oriental figures
of speech were not to be taken in their strict sense.
No servant of Christ could really go forth with a
sword. " They that take the sword shall perish by
the sword." Rather he must go expecting opposition,
with the martyr spirit, but as a good soldier of the
cross. Does anyone think it impossible that Christ could
thus positively have made a command and then
immediately on second thoughts explained it away
by a kind of recantation? Let him beware of
denying the reality of the Incarnation. That our
Lord should have had a human mind is an essential
part of that inexplicable mystery. And impossible
though it be for us to understand the union of so
finite and limited a thing with the fulness of the
Godhead, we must not on that account deny it.
And we have at least one, and that a more striking
example of its presence, when Christ said, "It is
easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle
than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of
God," that is, " It is absolutely impossible for a rich
man to be saved," and yet presently added, " With
men this is impossible, but not with God ; for with
God all things are possible." (Mark x. 27.)

XI.
S. MARK'S TESTIMONY TO THE
RESURRECTION
THE present paper shows the importance of
criticism in apologetics.
In our own day the witness of S. Mark to the
Resurrection has been thought to be somewhat im
paired by the rapid growth of the doubt which has
always rested upon the last twelve verses of his
Gospel. Many persons have upheld the genuineness of
these verses, chiefly from a conviction that they are
genuine, but partly, perhaps, from a fear that if we
surrender them we should be doing violence to our
idea of what Holy Scripture is and ought to be,
should be opening the door to the adversary, and
giving occasion for stumbling to those who are timid
and weak in the faith.
To the former feeling we would wish to do full
justice, against the latter we would enter a protest.
If the Church is the custodian of Holy Writ, those
of her members who by education or official position
have the responsibility of guiding opinion are bound
to face the facts, and not yield to their wishes or
fears. "5

116 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
If internal evidence is— as we believe it to be—
decisive against the said verses, and external evidence,
when properly examined, is almost equally fatal, it is
our duty fearlessly to proclaim the state of things.
We need not tremble lest the truth should suffer by
the avowal of truth. Our own ideas about the canon
may have to be readjusted. But it is better to stand
upon a foundation which cannot be moved, than to
insist on holding ground which in the day of struggle
will crumble away beneath our feet.
If, however, we take this view about these verses, it
becomes our duty to examine the real extent of our
loss. And therefore in this paper I propose to say
something about S. Mark's witness to the Resurrection
apart from these twelve verses, for some persons have
hastily assumed that if these verses are set aside the
Resurrection itself might be allowed to disappear from
the Christian creed.
In the first half of S. Mark's Gospel, immediately
after S. Peter's confession of the Messiahship of
Christ, stand these words : " And He began to teach
them, that the Son of Man must suffer many things,
and be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests,
and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days
rise again." (Mark viii. 31.)
These words, in the same context, and with no
alterations of any consequence, were transferred from
S. Mark's oral teaching into S. Luke's, and at a
somewhat later date into S. Matthew's also. They
therefore, we have good reason to believe, must have
formed part of the earliest edition of S. Mark's oral
Gospel. They must have been taught in the Church

S. MARK AND THE RESURRECTION 117
of Jerusalem before S. Paul's first missionary journey
began, within at least seventeen years after the cruci
fixion ; nay, probably within twelve years, before S.
Peter took up his residence at Joppa. They were,
therefore, most firmly believed in the very place
where the events had happened, and while hundreds
of Christians were living who knew what could be
known about it. They were accepted in Judaea,
Samaria, Antioch, and all other churches in which S.
Mark's Gospel, in its oral form, was the sole exponent
of the faith.
In the next chapter we read that as the disciples
descended from the Mount of Transfiguration Jesus
"charged them that they should tell no man what
things they had seen, save when the Son of Man
should have risen again from the dead." (Mark ix. 9.)
These words did not pass into S. Luke's Gospel,
but they did into S. Matthew's, (xvii. 9.) We infer
that they were not yet part of S. Mark's Gospel
when that Gospel was first carried westward. They
belong to what we have called the second edition of
S. Mark, i.e., to those sections which were added to
the oral teaching at Jerusalem after the year 47 A.D.
In the early stages of Christianity the apostles
had been popular with the masses ; but as time
went on a change came over the public feeling.
" Herod the king slew S. James with the sword.
And when he saw that it pleased the fews, he pro
ceeded further to take S. Peter also." (Acts xii. 3.)
Persecution became the rule. To profess Christ was
not only to be excommunicated from the synagogue,
but was to incur the wrath of the civil ruler. The

118 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
officers of the Church were men whose lives were in
danger. Did that make them untrue to their trust ?
Did they give up or conceal their principles ? On
the contrary, they only sought occasion for further
avowing them. Instead of removing the prediction
of our Lord that He would rise again from the dead,
they recalled to memory other occasions on which
He had foretold it ; and thus this paragraph was
added to the cycle of teaching.
Further on in the same chapter we read, "Jesus
taught His disciples, and said unto them, The Son of
Man is delivered up into the hands of men, and they
shall kill Him ; and when He is killed, after three days
He shall rise again." (Mark ix. 31.)
This, the second prediction of the Passion, is found
also in S. Matthew (xvii. 23) ; but in S. Luke (ix. 44)
the last clause about rising again is not found. Either,
therefore, that clause is a later addition, made, when
the love of many was growing cold, to strengthen
those who remained, or it has dropped out of S.
Luke because it was regarded by him as superfluous.
S. Luke's Gospel was used in Pauline churches ; and
wherever S. Paul taught, belief in the Resurrection
was so foremost an article of the creed, that the
constant assertion of it was unnecessary.
In the tenth chapter we read the third prediction
of the Passion, and this time all three Gospels unite
in their witness to the Resurrection. For S. Mark
writes, in words of unusual solemnity, "And they
were in the way going up to Jerusalem ; and Jesus
was going before them : and they were amazed ; and
they that followed were afraid. And He took again

S. MARK AND THE RESURRECTION 119
the twelve, and began to tell them the things that
were to happen unto Him, saying, Behold, we go up
to Jerusalem ; and the Son of Man shall be delivered
unto the chief priests and the scribes ; and they shall
condemn Him to death, and shall deliver Him
unto the Gentiles: and they shall mock Him, and
shall spit upon Him, and shall scourge Him, and
shall kill Him ; and after three days He shall rise
again." (x. 32-34.)
The unique solemnity of the opening words not
only indicates the effect upon our Lord's human mind
of the truths which He was announcing, but also the
abiding impression which they made upon those who
heard Him ; for though at the time " they understood
not the saying," it is abundantly plain that they were
awe-stricken by our Lord's manner.
Lastly, on the Mount of Olives, after the last
supper, Jesus said to His disciples, " Howbeit, after
I am raised up, I will go before you into Galilee."
(xiv. 28.)
Now is it possible, I ask, that if S. Mark had
denied or doubted the Resurrection, he would have
preserved these sayings — five times repeated — of his
Lord concerning it? Would he not have forgotten
them, or kept them back? He had abundance of
time to reflect on this question, for he can hardly
have finally committed his teaching to writing before
the destruction of Jerusalem, and yet all five of the
predictions are deliberately recorded in it.
It is certain from the whole tone of his Gospel
that he was writing an account of One whom he
regarded as an altogether supernatural Being. It

120 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
will not suffice to say that S. Mark held our Lord
to be superior to Moses, or to Elijah, or to John the
Baptist. It is as clear as he can make it that he
regarded Him as the Son of God, in the highest
sense in which those words can be understood. He
is second to none in thus bearing witness.
Why, then, should he five times put into our
Lord's mouth the prediction that He would rise from
the dead, unless he was as firmly convinced, as
Christians always have been, that the Resurrection
was an actual fact ?
If the whole of his last chapter had been lost, and
not merely the concluding verses, we should have
felt sure that S. Mark agreed with S. Peter, S. Paul,
S. John, S. Matthew, S. James, and every other New
Testament writer, that Christ was proved to be the
Son of God with power by the Resurrection from the
dead. We now come to his last chapter. "And when
the Sabbath was passed " {i.e., about seven o'clock on
Saturday night), "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the
mother of James, and Salome, brought spices, that
they might come and anoint Him."
Then, after the night's rest, " very early on the first
day of the week " {i.e., about four o'clock on Sunday
morning), " they come to the tomb when the sun had
risen "—such is the MSS. reading ; and that it has
stood so long, in face of the assertion of S. John
that it was still dark, is a proof of the fidelity of
scribes. But assuredly a negative {fxnirtc) must be
inserted: "When the sun had not yet risen." Not
so much to bring S. Mark into agreement with the

S. MARK AND THE RESURRECTION 121
testimony of all the other Gospels — for discrepancies
of this kind are frequent in the New Testament —
but to reconcile him with himself; for by "very
early in the morning " no ancient writer could mean
after sunrise. This, we may feel confident, should
be added to the list of primitive errors.
"And they were saying among themselves, Who
shall roll us away the stone from the door of the
tomb? and looking up, they see that the stone is
rolled away : for it was exceeding great. And enter
ing into the tomb, they saw a young man " (S. Luke
and S. John say TWO angels) "sitting on the right
side, arrayed in a white robe ; and they were amazed.
And he saith unto them, Be not amazed : ye seek
Jesus, the Nazarene, which hath been crucified : He
is risen ; He is not here : behold, the place where
they laid Him ! But go, tell His disciples and Peter
that He goeth before you into Galilee : there shall
ye see Him, as He said unto you. And they went
out, and fled from the tomb ; for trembling and
astonishment had come upon them ; and they said
nothing to any one ; for they were afraid."
Does any candid student of this passage doubt
that S. Mark believed in the Resurrection ? Observe
how he draws attention to our Lord's prediction
of it. Observe how he repeats the order that the
Twelve should go into Galilee. But because he stops
there, and does not record any appearance of Christ,
therefore we are told by certain persons that S. Mark
knew of no such appearance — the disciples were
put off with prophecies and promises ; they never
beheld their risen Lord.

122 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
But can any one really suppose that S. Mark
stopped here ? Is it not certain that his last sentences
have been obliterated? And, if so, what did they
contain ?
We can have very little doubt on that question.
Throughout his Gospel S. Matthew has adhered
most closely to S. Mark. He has many discourses,
parables, and sayings which are not found in S. Mark,
but only on the rarest occasions does he omit any
historical narratives which S. Mark has given. It is
to S. Matthew, therefore, and not to S. Luke (as some
contend), that we must turn if we would supply the
lost verses. S. Luke says nothing from beginning to
end about the returning to Galilee, but S. Mark has
made this a feature in the story, and most certainly
must have told us how the disciples went there
and were met by their Lord.
In S. Matthew, therefore, we find this continuation:
"They ran to bring His disciples word. And behold,
Jesus met them, saying, All hail ! And they came
and took Him by His feet, and worshipped Him.
Then saith Jesus unto them, Fear not : go tell My
brethren that they depart into Galilee, and there
shall they see Me."
Then after a few verses from another source, S.
Matthew continues : " But the eleven disciples went
into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had
appointed them. And when they saw Him, they
worshipped Him: but some doubted. And Jesus
came to them and spake unto them, saying, All
authority hath been given unto Me in heaven
and on earth. Go ye therefore, and make dis-

S. MARK AND THE RESURRECTION 123
ciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the
name of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Ghost : teaching them to observe all things
whatsoever I commanded you : and lo, I am with you
alway, even unto the end of the world."
Such, in substance, must have been the last verses
of S. Mark's Gospel.
We have five accounts of the Resurrection. First,
that which is common to S. Mark and S. Matthew ;
then S. Paul's ; next, some facts peculiar to S.
Matthew; after that S. Luke's ; and, finally, S. John's.
These accounts differ considerably from one another,
and are so difficult to piece together, that some
persons condemn them as unhistorical, and declare
that they must be given up.
Entirely, different from this is the verdict of
scientific criticism. The more divergent narratives
are, and the more difficult to reconcile, so long as
they are not absolutely contradictory, the more
valuable is their testimony; for the differences
prove that they are independent, and not mere
repetitions from the same source.
From the very earliest Christian times, as recorded
in the Acts of the Apostles, to the latest the Resur
rection is the chief fact attested. Indeed, Christianity
is built upon it. The existence of the Church during
all the centuries is an expression of the confidence
in its truth. History, as well as criticism, leaves us
no room to question this. On so sure a foundation
is our most holy faith erected.
But the best witness to the Resurrection is its
power over the hearts of those who believe it. "If

124 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
ye then be risen with Christ," S. Paul writes, "seek
those things which are above, where Christ sitteth
on the right hand of God. Set your affections on
things above, and not on things upon the earth.
Mortify your affections which are upon the earth.
For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ
in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear,
then shall ye also appear with Him in glory."
(Col. iii. 1-4.)

XII.
THE CAMEL AND THE NEEDLE'S EYE
FEW of our Lord's sayings obtained an earlier
or a wider recognition than this. It was freely
circulated in the first days of the Church, or it would
not have appeared in S. Mark's Gospel. It retained
its hold on the memory of the Church at Jerusalem
when S. James, the Lord's brother, succeeded to S.
Peter's chair, or it would not be found in S. Matthew.
It spread among the Gentiles, and was often on the
lips of S. Paul, or we should not read it in S. Luke.
If it is lawful to look for earthly reasons to account
for this triple attestation, we may surmise that its
place in S. Mark is due to its startling nature ; for
in the earliest days the chief endeavour of the new
teachers was to arrest attention. Its place in S.
Matthew may be due to its Rabbinical form. The
Jews would be attracted by the oriental hyperbole.
Its place in S. Luke may be assigned to its philo
sophical depth. The " Greeks sought wisdom," and
might find it here.
But who shall say with what different feelings the
words have been repeated through the ages by
different men ? At one time the rich man may have
found in them an excuse for gainsaying, while with
*25

126 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
no real earnestness he muses, as Shakespeare re
presents :
" My thoughts of things divine are intermixed
With scruples, and do set the Word itself
Against the Word :
As thus, ' Come, little ones,' and then again,
' It is as hard to come, as for a camel
To thread the postern of a small needle's eye.'"
{Richard II, Act V., Scene 5.)
At another time the poor man may have repeated
the verse with unholy satisfaction. Let us make
every allowance for him. He had a hard lot, and
felt its bitterness. He was filled with envy and
malice and wrath, not knowing that these were
the works of the evil one. He grasped at the
words because their outer form gratified his excited
feelings ; but he knew not — he could not fathom —
the depth of sorrow in the Saviour's heart, of which
they were the sad expression.
And a similar want of sympathy with Christ may
lie at the root of those numerous attempts to soften
down the severity of the saying which have been
made in different ages by the scribe, the critic, the
commentator. First came the scribe, who, with that wanton
boldness which happily expired at the end of the
second century, presumed to alter the words of the
evangelist. According to the true text, S. Mark's narrative ran
thus : " And Jesus looked round about and saith unto
His disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches
enter into the kingdom of God ! And the disciples

THE CAMEL AND NEEDLE'S EYE 127
were amazed at His words. But Jesus answereth
again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard a
thing it is to enter into the kingdom of God ! "
Then follows the saying.
But this simple and striking sentence, " How hard
a thing it is to enter into the kingdom of God ! "
was altered by a very early scribe through an inter
pretation of his own, " How hard a thing it is for
them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom
of God"; and this false reading has obtained gradual
currency, because it seems at first sight to sustain the
argument and to explain it, though on closer
examination it will be found to spoil it.
Still less happy was the work of the critic. Theo-
phylact tells us that one such conjectured that
Ka/j.Tj\oo, a camel, should be altered into /cayuiAo?, a cable,
because a camel has nothing to do with a needle,
but a cable might be threaded, if it were not too thick,
and the pronunciation of the two words would be
almost identical in the first century. I pass over
the question whether the word k<x[m\o$ was invented
for the occasion ; it is certainly of doubtful authority.
But surely the close resemblance between Ka/j.rj\os and
Ka/j.i\os exists only in Greek, whereas our Lord spoke
in Aramaic, in which the saying must have been a
proverbial one, for the Talmud reproduces it in a
slightly altered form : " It is easier for an elephant
to go through a needle's eye."
It has been reserved for the commentator to
suggest a more plausible explanation.
In the description of a journey through Hebron,
Lord Nugent wrote : " We were proceeding through

128 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
a double gateway .... there was one wide-arched
road, and another narrow one for foot passengers by
its side. We met a caravan of loaded camels. The
drivers cried out to us to betake ourselves for safety
.... to the smaller arch. They called it the hole, or
eye of the needle. If ... . this name is applied, not
only to this gate at Hebron, but to all similar gates,
it may give an easy solution of what has appeared
to some the strained metaphor ' of the camel going
through the needle's eye.' A camel could not be
made to pass through the smaller gate except with
great difficulty, and stripped of the encumbrances of
its load, its trappings, and its merchandise."*
Many people have gladly adopted this suggestion.
In the Revised Version you will find that the words
" the eye of a needle " have in each case been altered
to " the needle's eye," out of deference, no doubt, to
this interpretation.
The explanation, however, appears not to be a new
one. It is thought that Shakespeare was acquainted
with it when he wrote in the passage which I have
just quoted, " To thread the postern of a small needle's
eye " ; for a " postern " is a little back door, or back
entrance, of a castle. And although the language is
reduced to chaos by the combination of the literal
meaning with the figurative, it is difficult to account
in any other way for the poet's words.
Now it is notorious in the East that whenever the
Arabs discover that European travellers are on the
look-out for certain words or names, no opportunity
is lost of repeating them. Whatever you want to
* Lands Classical and Sacred, i. 326.

THE CAMEL AND NEEDLE'S EYE 129
hear you will hear. And therefore it is no argu
ment to say that the phrase "needle's eye" is now
universally current in the Holy Land for a postern
gate unless you can show that the phrase is really
ancient, and was not first suggested by a too simple
traveller. And this interpretation is not so probable as at
first sight it appears; certainly it removes all ex
aggeration from our Lord's words, reducing them
indeed to a feeble commonplace. But are there no
other sayings of His which are exaggerated ? Did
He never say that the Pharisees devoured widows'
houses? that a man cannot add one cubit (half a
yard) to his stature, as if half an inch were not
enough? Is it possible literally to have a beam in
the eye ? Can you strain out the intrusive gnat and
then swallow the camel ?
In all these cases our Lord spoke to Orientals in
an oriental manner. Western logic may think the
language unnatural ; but a poet's fancy feels little
difficulty about it. Southey, at any rate, seems to
have caught the spirit of the passage when he wrote:
" I would ride the camel,
Yea, leap him flying, through the needle's eye,
As easily as such a pampered soul
Could pass the narrow gate."
But, the reader may object, there is something
more than hyperbole here. Explain the words as you
will, they cannot amount to less than this, that " it is
impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom."
That, I maintain, is precisely what they do mean.
They were wrung from the Saviour's human heart
K

130 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
by the smart of a great disappointment. The young
man over whom He had yearned had gone away
sorrowful, because he had great possessions. And in
the first blow of this grief our Lord exclaimed, " A
rich man cannot enter the kingdom." Immediately
afterwards He modified the expression. It was hard
for anyone, it was inexpressibly hard for a rich man,
to enter. But God's grace could enable him to do
so. " For the things which are impossible with men,
are possible with God."
Thus interpreted, the text will be a good example
of the reality of our Lord's human mind, for we
see second thoughts correcting a too sweeping
expression. So far we have dwelt on the form of the saying.
Now let us add something to the teaching itself, that
it is peculiarly hard for a rich man to enter the
kingdom of God.
There is a passage in Plato* where Socrates is
represented as asking a rich old man what he had
found to be the chief advantage of wealth. And the
man replies : " I am getting old, and I am forced to
think about death and the coming world. Riches
have enabled me to offer to the gods an unusual
abundance of sacrifices ; I have also had no tempta
tion to steal from my fellow-men. And so I can
contemplate the future with complacency."
Whether Plato himself meant any irony here may
be matter of opinion, but it is certain that the mass
of his readers would detect none, for he was but
giving expression to the common opinion.
? Republic, i, cap. v.

THE CAMEL AND NEEDLE'S EYE 131
The Jewish system of sacrifices had inevitably
fostered the same belief. Sacrifices were costly, and
the rich alone could offer them properly. In vain
had the prophets extolled the piety of the poor. In
vain had our Lord said, " Blessed are ye poor, for
yours is the kingdom of heaven." Such teaching
had already been forgotten by the disciples. If the
rich could not be saved, who then could ?
It was necessary to teach in a more incisive
manner ; and our Lord did so when He spake
the parable of the rich fool and the rich man and
Lazarus, when He declared that the poor widow
with her two mites had cast into the treasury more
than all, but not least when He pronounced the
paradox, " It is easier for a camel to go through
the needle's eye than for a rich man to enter into
the kingdom of God."
But why was it specially difficult for the rich to
follow Christ? Because their whole education had
taught them to value what He considered unim
portant. Gold with them is the measure of all
things, but it will not purchase heaven. The
almighty, omnipotent God is altogether superior
to bribery.
In that single sentence the whole fabric of false
religion is overthrown ; the righteousness of God
is vindicated. Nothing will avail with Him but a
broken heart, a consecrated life, a perfect self-
surrender. No wonder that it is hard to enter the
kingdom !
Happy they who enter it in infancy, who carry
out their baptismal vows as fast as their childish

132 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
intellect develops, who learn to love God before they
discover the attractions of the world or know the
worth of money.
For them riches, like everything else, may be
made a means of grace. For with Christ " all .
things are ours." Riches as well as poverty may
become a blessing. S. Paul expressly says, " Charge
them that are rich in this world, that they be ready
to give and glad to distribute . . . laying up in
store for themselves a good foundation against the
time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life" *
Christ has made this possible. He has shown
that there is a Gospel for the rich as well as for the
poor. Was not Barnabas rich ? t Was not Zacchaeus
rich? J Did not Joseph of Arimathaea devote large
wealth to the honour of his Master's burial ?§
And were not all these men following — however
remotely — the example of Him who, though He was-
rich, yet for our sakes became poor ?
Yes, that absolute surrender of the only perfect
wealth has not only set us an example, the spirit
of which has been wonderfully followed, but it has
altered for us the very notion of wealth. Men have
not merely sought to be "rich in good works" and
" rich towards God," but they have come to recognize
the responsibilities of material wealth. It is im
possible now to ask, " May I not do what I will
with mine own ? " Men have learned — stern facts
in modern history have wonderfully quickened the
lesson — that nothing is our own. We hold every-
* I Tim. vi. 17-19. t Acts iv. 37.
X Luke xix. 2. § Mark xv, 46.

THE CAMEL AND NEEDLE'S EYE 133
thing in trust, to be used for the common good.
Not only do we owe duties to our family, but to
our town, our nation, to Greater Britain, yea, to the
human race. Each and all of them have claims
upon us which the world in Christ's time never
recognised, but which He has opened our eyes to
see ; and if we will not learn the lesson peacefully
from Christ, it will be forced upon us by the uprising
of a down-trodden people.
The words are true enough still, but they are
not so bitterly true as when first they were spoken.
A wealthy man then was almost as a matter of
course a slave-owner. From his youth he had been
trained to crush and keep down his servants, to hold
cheap their lives and their honour, to despise the
very notion of their rights.
No wonder that "not many rich, not many
mighty, not many noble were called."* Still, the
apostle did not write " not any." Even in his day
the camel, by God's help, had passed the needle's
eye. Men had learned (as they may still learn)
"not to trust in uncertain riches, but in the living
God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy." t
* I Cor. i. 26. + I Tim. vi. 17.

XIII.
THE ORIGIN OF THE LORD'S SUPPER
PROFESSOR GARDNER'S pamphlet on this
subject* is very attractive. The tone is modest
and conciliatory ; the scholarship is of the highest ;
the difficulties have been carefully considered and
the objections anticipated. With much of what he
writes, all who have studied the subject will agree —
nay, more, they will be grateful for the illustrations
which his special knowledge gives ; and yet from his
main conclusions we feel bound to dissent.
Some persons will retort that all criticism tends in
the same direction, and that our only safety lies in
the strict conservatism of the late Dean Burgon, who
laid down the rule that if a single word in the Bible
fall short of being in the fullest sense the Word of
God, the whole of our Christianity must be aban
doned. Being unwilling to leave any excuses for such
counsels of despair, we proceed to examine these new
proposals. Dr. Gardner offers us the choice of two positions.
One, to which he apparently inclines, makes the
scene of breaking bread, which the synoptists unite
in placing at the Last Supper in or about the year
* Macmillan and Co., London, 1893.
'34

ORIGIN OF THE LORD'S SUPPER 135
29, to be antedated by almost a quarter of a century.
Our Lord did not say while He was upon earth,
" This is My Body',' but S. Paul in a trance at
Corinth in the year 53 heard Him say the words in
heaven. More timid or cautious readers are offered
an alternative, according to which Christ broke bread
and gave it to His disciples upon earth, but nothing
further was done. No sacrament of the Lord's
Supper was instituted until S. Paul in a vision beheld
the scene repeated, and heard a new command, " This
do in remembrance of Me!' He thereupon founded
the Eucharist, partly in obedience to the command,
partly in imitation of the Eleusinian mysteries, by
which he had recently been impressed.
Dr. Gardner, like most of what I may call the
more advanced critics, rejects the oral hypothesis
respecting the origin of the synoptic Gospels. And
no wonder ; for this hypothesis is fatal to his specu
lations. For example, it is essential to his first
proposal to hold that S. Paul's Epistle to the Corin
thians, which is generally allowed to have been
written in the year 58, is far earlier than any of our
Gospels. But the advocate of the oral hypothesis
replies, " I admit that the synoptic Gospels were not
written before the eighth decade of the first century,
but I insist that a large part of them, including the
account of the Last Supper, existed in an oral form
a generation earlier. The bulk of S. Peter's Memoirs,
which constitute the first cycle of oral Gospel, must
have been composed within twelve years of the
Ascension, or I cannot account for their wide dis
tribution and their multitudinous variations. And

136 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
whatever is found in all three Evangelists belongs to
the earliest part of S. Peter's work."
Now, there is no question between us that the
account of the Last Supper in S. Paul, S. Mark, S.
Matthew, and S. Luke comes in great measure from
the same source. Dr. Gardner insists upon that fact
as strongly as I do. Whether S. Paul or S. Peter is
the ultimate authority for it is simply a question of
dates. Dr. Gardner, in saying that S. Paul was the
author, is ignoring the primitive oral teaching, the
existence of which in the first age few people who
have examined the subject will venture to deny, how
ever much they may seek to minimise its influence.
And I must hold him to that point, as the one
essential contention between us.
The truth of the oral hypothesis is established
partly by the habits and prejudices of the age, partly
by minute study of the resemblances and divergences
of the same sections in the three Gospels. The very
paragraph about the institution of the Lord's Supper
furnishes some interesting examples. For S. Luke
has some curious reversals of order. He puts the
prediction of Judas Iscariot's treachery after the
institution of the Lord's Supper, whereas the other
two evangelists have put it before the Supper; and,
according to the true text, he represents that the cup
was given before the bread. Nor is this unparalleled.
He presents us with an exactly similar transposition
in the early part of his Gospel, where he reverses the
order of the second and third temptations. (Luke iv.
5-12; Matthew iv. 5-10.) Such transpositions are
easily accounted for, on the supposition that men

ORIGIN OF THE LORD'S SUPPER 137
learned the Gospel sections by heart, and stored
them in a memory which was trustworthy enough
when it had mastered the lesson, but was apt to be
treacherous during the initial stages. They are
almost impossible to account for if the evangelists
were copying from a document.
Much of the wording also is strangely altered, not
more so than in most passages of the triple tradition ;
but we should have expected to find this less altered,
for it has long been observed that the words of Christ
have been more scrupulously preserved in the Gospels
than the rest of the narrative. Reverence for the
Master's sayings has checked, as I hold, the care
lessness or presumption of catechists. Why should
it not have done so here? The answer may seem
paradoxical, but the very gravity of the occasion
would appear to have been the cause for increased
changes. At any rate, the same thing has happened
in two other utterances of the first importance — the
Lord's Prayer and the baptismal formula. S. Luke's
recension of the Lord's Prayer, according to the true
text (xi. 2 ff), is much shorter than S. Matthew's
(vi. 9 ff.). And S. Matthew's Gospel directs baptism
to be administered in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (xxviii. 19) ; but
S. Luke and S. Paul invariably represent it as adminis
tered in the name of the Lord Jesus. (Acts ii.38, viii. 16,
x. 48, xix. 5 ; Rom. vi. 3 ; Gal. iii. 27 ; Col. ii. 12.)
It appears to me that we may account for these
changes by the reflex action of the liturgies upon
the oral Gospel. Lengthy liturgies certainly did not
exist in the first days ; but short formularies, at first

138 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
elastic, but gradually hardened and stereotyped,
would connect themselves with the administration of
the Sacraments in the several churches. It may be
thought strange to believe that in the Church for
which S. Luke wrote his Gospel (whether it was
Antioch on the Orontes, or any other) the cup should
have been regularly given before the bread,* and both
the Lord's Prayer and the words used at baptism
should have been abbreviated ; but on any other
supposition I am unable to account for S. Luke's
variations. The further you can push the matter
back, the easier it is to believe in the existence of
diversity of usage ; and the less you are encumbered
with written documents, the more reasonable will
your deductions appear.
My belief in the oral hypothesis is based upon the
cumulated results of many years' study; such con
siderations as these only strengthen it. But a theory
which is unwaveringly upheld by the Bishop of Durham
must not be lightly set aside out of deference to the
opinions of certain critics on the Continent.
It is well known to students of textual criticism
that Luke xxii. ig^-20, have been rejected by Drs.
Westcott and Hort as an early interpolation. A
copy of S. Luke's Gospel must have reached Corinth,
or some other Pauline Church, at an early date.
What wonder if the Church authorities, finding in it
so strange an inversion of their own custom of
administering the Eucharist, should have inserted
into the margin from their liturgical formula (which
* S. Paul (1 Cor. k. 15-21) supports this custom, but not in I Cor.
xi. 23-25.

ORIGIN OF THE LORD'S SUPPER 139
was based on 1 Cor. xi. 25) the words which in the
common text distort the whole passage ? Their
doing so will but illustrate what I have written
about the effect of local liturgies upon the local
editions of the Gospels.
But if, as I maintain, S. Paul has borrowed from
S. Mark (with the usual variations and additions),
not S. Mark from S. Paul, how do I account for S.
Paul's language : " For I received from the Lord that
which I also delivered unto you " ?
In the first place, it is to be noticed that the words
"receive" and "deliver" {Trapd\a/3eiv, irapaSovvai) are
regularly used of tradition {TrapdSoo-is), in which a
man receives from the Lord, but through a long line
of oral teachers. (Mark vii. 4 ; John i. 1 1 ; 1 Cor. xv.
1, 3 ; Gal. i. 9, 12 ; Phil. iv. 9, etc.). And it is quite
possible that S. Paul merely meant : " I derived from
the Lord, through S. Peter and other eye-witnesses."
In the passages which Dr. Gardner produces to prove
the contrary, this particular word does not occur,
and I contend that he has too readily rejected this
interpretation. But even if we allowed that S. Paul alleged in
these words a special supernatural revelation, we are
not bound to think that he was independent of S.
Mark. It is reasonable to suppose that, after his
first Communion or his first administration of the
Communion to others, being impressed by the
solemnity of the occasion and with the words fresh
in his mind, he fell into a trance, or had a dream on
the following night, in which he saw heaven opened
and the Lord Jesus at the Supper -table breaking

140 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
the bread and delivering it to the apostles. The
formulae, the manual acts, the whole surroundings,
would in that case have been projected into the
vision from the earthly scene at which he had been
so recently assisting. To S. Paul's mind it would
bring confirmation of faith; and, unless we deny alto
gether that God spake in past times in visions unto
His saints, we may allow that his belief was warranted.
But the historical fact would be the basis of the vision,
not the vision the basis of the Eucharistic service.
Dr. Gardner holds that the agape", or love-feast, is
older than the Eucharist, and at first was simply a
social meal partaken by the whole body of Christians
together, without any special religious ceremonies.
The Eucharist afterwards was grafted upon it. And
that when we read (Luke xxiv. 30 ; Acts ii. 42) of
the breaking bread, nothing more than the agape" is
intended. To this I object, first that we have no
evidence that agapw were ever established in the
primitive Church of Jerusalem. The Christians in
the first days had no synagogues, nor houses large
enough for a joint festival. Nor were such feasts
known to the Jewish synagogue, whose practices
they largely followed. S. Luke's words, "breaking
bread at home " (Acts ii. 42), indicate a multitude of
small gatherings, not a congregational meal. When
S. Jude (12) writes "your love feasts," he perhaps
points to the fact that love-feasts were unknown to
his own Church. Secondly, the phrase "breaking
bread " is not, I think, the proper one to describe an
ordinary meal. It is an expression never found in
the Old Testament, nor, I believe, in any pre-Christian

ORIGIN OF THE LORD'S SUPPER 141
author. The cause for this is obvious. The loaves
of the ancients were flat cakes, each of which would
generally satisfy one person's appetite. To hand
round the loaves, not to break them, would be the
office of the master of the house. For to give broken
bread was a mark of poverty or slight. (Ezek. xiii.
19.) It was our Lord who introduced a new custom.
On two occasions He took some loaves of bread and
brake them into pieces to distribute to the multitudes.
At the Last Supper He took one loaf, divided it into
twelve pieces, and gave one piece to each of the
apostles. In imitation of this S. Paul says that all
the Corinthians at the Eucharist partook of one loaf,
which symbolized their unity. So completely was
this ceremony peculiar to Christ that the disciples at
Emmaus recognised Him in the breaking of bread.
Let us turn next to S. John. It is well known
that he omits all reference to the institution of the
Lord's Supper, but, nevertheless, in the sixth chapter
uses Eucharistic language, as though the Communion
had already at that early date been established. Dr.
Gardner infers from this that he did not accept S.
Paul's account, but yet elaborately expanded his
phrases. I have for some time suspected that a
simpler explanation is the true one. If we had the
¦synoptists alone, we should have gathered that
baptism was first instituted after the Resurrection;
we learn from S. John iv. 1 that it had been practised
by the Twelve throughout our Lord's ministry. May
not the same thing be true of the Eucharist ? It was
solemnly administered on the night of the betrayal,
but not for the first time. It had been a covenant

142 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
of union between Christ and His disciples during
their sojourn together. Ready though I am to admit
that the discourses in S. John's Gospel have been
moulded in the apostle's mind and influenced by the
teaching of his life, I cannot allow that they are so
altogether an invention as Dr. Gardner teaches. And
if not, the language of the sixth chapter receives its
simplest solution from the suggestion which I have
made, which in itself is highly probable. Hence, too,
we understand better how Jesus was recognised in
the breaking of bread.
But, setting aside all other considerations, let us
boldly meet Dr. Gardner in his own domain of
history. At the date when the synoptic Gospels
were written (probably 70 to 80 A.D.), the celebration
of the Eucharist in Christian congregations was so
general, that in each of three Gospels the account of
its institution is given, yet in the year 52 Dr. Gardner
maintains it was unknown. Soon after that S. Paul
first started it at Corinth, then introduced it at Troas
(Acts xx. 7), and in other churches of his founding.
After that it spread over the East and became
universal. The belief also was established that it
dated from the Crucifixion. So much was the
genius of one man capable of accomplishing !
Is not Dr. Gardner crediting S. Paul with much
greater influence than that apostle possessed during
his life, or for some time after his death? We are
far from admitting, with the Tubingen school of
historical criticism, that S. Peter, S. James, and S.
John were his enemies. But he was disliked or
deserted in many of his own churches. (Gal. iv. 16 ;

ORIGIN OF THE LORD'S SUPPER 143
2 Tim. i. 15.) At Jerusalem the prejudice against
him was inveterate. (Acts xv. 5 ; xxi. 21.) The
Jews of the dispersion detested him. ( 1 Thess. ii. 15;
Phil. iii. 2.) And no wonder. It is strange that the
author of the Epistle to the Galatians was able to
mix with Jews at all. If any man was compelled by
the activity of enemies to adhere strictly to the truth,
it was the great apostle of the Gentiles. He was
not able even to force his own form of institution
upon his faithful henchman, S. Luke. In spite of
his alleged revelations, the other evangelists also
adhered to their own formula. By what means was
such a man to foist a new ordinance upon the
churches and persuade them to believe that it was
primitive ? What energy and frequency of exhorta
tion must he have used to preserve it when once
started ? Yet the fact is that in all his extant
writings, except the first epistle to the Corinthians,
he never so much as alludes to it.
Dr. Gardner thinks that S. Peter and the other
apostles, though they knew that Christ had never
said, " This is My body," nor solemnly broken bread
and given it to them, would have acquiesced in the
pious fraud, and given S. Paul that support in his
innovation, without which he could not have sucT
ceeded. Many Christians will feel a difficulty in
accepting this startling supposition, notwithstanding
the reasons which are given for it. Nor is it very
credible that the Eleusinian mysteries suggested
the Last Supper. These mysteries were celebrated
annually. The gorgeous pageant owed its attractive
ness to its rarity. A weekly or daily fair would pall

144 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
on the taste of the gayest. But S. Paul contemplated
a more frequent repetition. " This do," the command
runs, "as often as ye drink." Strictly interpreted, the
words mean, " as often as you take ja draught of any
kind"; and in the Acts of the Apostles, S. Luke
apparently describes the Church in the days of its
first love as "breaking bread" at every meal, the
head of the family acting as priest in his own house,
according to the Christian idea. A looser, but in
telligible, interpretation is, "As often as ye drink
wine" Just when the temptation to self-indulgence
is strongest, let appetite be restrained by sacred
associations. Let the thought of Him who died
hallow your earthly enjoyments.
The resemblance between the Christian ordinance,
and both ancestor worship and the Eleusinian
mysteries, is no doubt real, but I should account for
it by the similarity which exists between all ancient
religious rites amongst civilised peoples. Our Lord
did not found anything absolutely new in kind. It
would be His design, we may believe, to establish
a sacrament which would be generally intelligible,
because it appealed to old ideas and inherited pre
possessions. To eat bread or salt with a person has
been, and amongst Arabs still is, to make a sacred
bond of friendship with him. Hence in the books
of Genesis and Judges so much is made of asking
a visitor to eat bread. Hence the Psalmist sees in
violated hospitality the climax of ingratitude : " Yea,
mine own familiar friend, whom I trusted, who did
also eat of my bread, hath laid great wait for me."
(xii. 9.) Hence, also, "every sacrifice is salted with

ORIGIN OF THE LORD'S SUPPER 145
salt." Nor must we forget the ancient custom of
sending out portions, whether carried out on a large
scale, as with the Spartan kings,* or on quite a small
scale in mere dainty bits, the size of which, however,
indicated the measure of your esteem. Oceanus says
to Prometheus :
Ovk kttiv 0T<j> p.eitpva. /jwipav veifmip.' rj (roL T
Joseph sends messes to his brethren, " and Benjamin's
mess was five times so much as any of theirs." (Gen.
xliii. 34) And in the same manner our Lord gave
the sop to Judas. "The blood is the life" (Gen. ix.
4), and wine is an ancient surrogate for blood ; it is
called in Ecclesiasticus the "blood of the grape." %
To make blood-brotherhood is a common custom
still with African tribes. "Whoso eateth My flesh
and drinketh My blood, abideth in Me and I in him "
(John vi. 56) is not borrowed from Hellenic thought,
but from the common ideas of primitive man. I
believe that this covenant of union was made between
Christ and the Twelve frequently during His earthly
sojourn. I believe that, as in the feeding of the five
thousand, it was to some extent offered occasionally
to a larger circle. I believe that it was solemnly
repeated on the night of the betrayal, and that S.
Luke is right in representing it as practised in the
earliest days of the Church. For long examination
has convinced me that the opening chapters of the
Acts of the Apostles are based upon ancient (pro
bably oral) records. And surely if so strange, so
* Hdt. vi. 57. + tEschylus, P. V., 291.
X Prof. W. R. Smith, The Religion of the Semites, p. 213.
L

146 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
simple a ceremony was started from the first and
never discontinued, there is no difficulty about it.
But if it was neglected for upwards of twenty years,
we fail to imagine a power which within the next
twenty years could have made it practically universal.
We freely admit, or, rather, have long insisted, that
the words, " Do this in remembrance of Me," stand
on a lower level in point of historical attestation
than the words, "This is My body." They are not
guaranteed by S. Peter, but come to us only on the
authority of S. Paul. But we are very far indeed
from casting suspicion on all our Lord's reputed
deeds and words which S. Peter has not recorded.
Other persons who were present at the Last Supper
had memories besides the coryphceus of apostles. In
spite of all that Dr. Gardner has urged, we think it
simplest to believe that at the Last Supper Christ
Himself used both these sentences, although in the
churches, which depended for their information on
S. Peter, only one of them was preserved.
POSTSCRIPT
In Isaiah lviii. 7, " Deal thy bread to the hungry " may
be literally translated, "Break thy bread," etc.; but this
would only be the exception to prove the rule. In the
case of starving beggars it is proper to give broken meat,
but no one might do so in ordinary social life.

XIV.
ON THE DATE OF THE CRUCIFIXION

IT has been noticed from very early times that
there are difficulties about the date of the
crucifixion of our Lord. Did it take place (i) in
the forenoon or the afternoon? (2) On Thursday
or Friday ? (3) On the fourteenth day of the month
Nisan, or the fifteenth? (4) In the year 29 A.D.,
or any other year between 27 and 35 ? We propose
to consider these four questions in the four chapters
of this paper.
Our principal authorities are ultimately, as I
believe, S. Peter and S. John. S. Peter's account
is found in S. Mark's Gospel, and is followed by
S. Matthew and S. Luke. S. John's is peculiar to
the fourth Gospel. But there are other authorities
to be considered, as we shall see presently.
Let us begin with the difficulty about the hour.
S. Peter says : " It was the third hour, and they
crucified Him."* "And when the sixth hour had
come there was darkness over the whole land until
the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried
? Mark xv. 25.
147

148 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
with a loud voice . . . and yielded up His life."*
S. John says : " They bring, therefore, Jesus from
Caiaphas to the praetorium, and it was early." t
Again, at the close of the trial, just before sentence
was passed, we read : " And it was the preparation
of the passover ; the hour was about the sixth." J
In the ancient world hours were not a uniform
period of sixty minutes, but one-twelfth of the space
between sunrise and sunset, so that it could always
be said, " Are there not twelve hours in the day ? " §
In Palestine the hours in winter might, therefore,
be as short as fifty minutes ; in summer, as long
as seventy; but at the passover (March-April),
the time of the year when our Lord was crucified,
the hours would average sixty minutes, and the sun
would rise and set about six o'clock. The last hour
is not called "the twelfth," but "the late hour"
o^p-la. Ancient sun-dials were necessarily different from
ours. The hours were traced on the section of a
sphere scooped out of a block of stone, and the
gnomon was placed horizontally at the top. The
only fixed hour was noon. If you consult a standard
work on the subject, like Smith's Dictionary of
Antiquities, you will find the statement that noon
was the seventh hour. But this is an error. Noon
was the sixth hour; for sunrise was called vrpwta,
"the early (hour)." The "first hour" was when the
sun had been shining for an hour, just as with us
"one o'clock" is an hour after noon or midnight.
* Mark xv. 33, 34 = Matt, xxvii. 45, 46 = Luke xxiii. 44.
t John xviii. 28. J John xix. 14. § John xi. 9.

DATE OF THE CRUCIFIXION 149
Anyone may see this in the parable of the dis
contented labourers,* in which the master went
forth to hire workmen at early morning, at the
third hour, the sixth, the ninth, and the eleventh,
paying wages at sunset, at which time those who
had been hired at the eleventh hour had worked
one hour, and not two, as the other hypothesis would
require. According to S. Peter, then, Christ was crucified
at 9 a.m., the agony upon the cross lasted six hours,
the darkness began at noon and lasted till 3 p.m.
At 3 p.m. Christ yielded up His life. But according
to S. John, sentence was passed about noon, and
as some time would be required for preparation,
the crucifixion began in the afternoon. In short,
there is a discrepancy of more than three hours.
Here is work for the harmonist. And that in
genious person's versatility does not forsake him.
Consult almost any commentary that you please,
from the Bishop of Durham's to a Sunday-school
treatise, and you will find it stated with more or
less of positive assertion that the ancient world
had two ways of reckoning the hours : one from
sunrise to sunset, which the synoptists have followed ;
the other, like our own plan, from midnight to mid
day, which S. John has followed. The latter plan
is also called the Roman. It is said to have been
in use at Ephesus, where S. John wrote. Martyr-
ologies are quoted to prove this. And so when
S. John says "the hour was about the sixth," he
means 6 a.m., and all discrepancy vanishes.
* Matt. xx. 1-16.

ISO NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
There are three objections to this attractive ex
planation. First, it was unknown to the ancient fathers.
Irenaeus was a native of Asia Minor, so were Poly
carp and Papias. Through them so simple a solution
of the difficulty would have passed into the Church
if there had been any ground for it But though
all kinds of reasons are given, from the symbolical
meaning of the number six in Irenaeus, to the ful
filment of Daniel in Hippolytus, and the interval
which must have lapsed between passing sentence
and nailing to the cross in Hesychius,* no one
suggests a different reckoning of hours.
Secondly, we should only escape one difficulty
by creating another. Christ was brought before
Pilate "early." The phrase is an elastic one, as
we shall see hereafter. But it is fixed here. Before
He was taken to the praetorium our Lord had been
brought before the Sanhedrin in their chamber gazith
on the temple mount "when the early (hour) had
come."t True, there had been two examinations
the night before — one before Annas, which was
merely to pass the time, the other before Caiaphas,
in which some energetic committees of the Sanhedrin
had, in the formal dvdicpi<Ti<;, procured sufficient
material for condemnation ; but for all that, the trial
before the Sanhedrin proper must be gone through.
According to the Talmud, the meeting to try capital
cases must be held by daylight. And although
Talmudic rules belong to a later date, common sense
* Unfortunately S. John gives the time of passing sentence,
S. Mark that of nailing to the cross.
t Matt xxvii. I.

DATE OF THE CRUCIFIXION 151
as well as S. Matthew's language forbid us to think
of the assembling of the Sanhedrists much before
6 a.m. At any rate, Christ could not have reached Pilate
before that hour. And if so, the discussion before the
procurator began at 6 a.m., or later, and ended about
6 a.m. Yet there is abundant evidence that it was a
long one. S. John takes a large part of two chapters
to describe it. S. Matthew gives many details which
would lengthen it. S. Luke adds that it was inter
rupted by a visit to Herod, which can hardly have
taken less than an hour. From two hours and a
half to three hours appears to me to be the mini
mum time required.
But in the third place, this double reckoning of
the hours is in itself a very suspicious thing. Cer
tainly it is possible. In Italy twenty-four hours
used to be counted on the clock, so that you dined
at nineteen and went to bed at twenty-three, and
some reformers wish to restore this way of reckoning
now. But railways and through trains compelled
the Italians to conform to the use of their neighbours,
and it is not easy to go back.
In the ancient world, with no telegraphs or railways,
and only slow communication by sailing ships, there
would be less need for uniformity. Still, the Rev.
J. A. Cross* has called in question this supposed
second method of reckoning the hours, and Pro
fessor W. M. Ramsay declares that it is "a mere
fiction, constructed as a refuge of despairing harmo-
nisers, and not a jot of evidence for it has ever been
? Classical Review, June, 1891.

152 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
given that would bear scrutiny."* He himself cuts
the Gordian knot in heroic fashion by declaring with
Professor Godet that the apostles had no watches.
"About the sixth hour" with them would signify
anywhere between n and I. If the crucifixion
really took place at half-past ten, S. Peter might
call it the third hour and S. John the sixth without
admitting greater inaccuracy than we should feel
between 12.5 and 12.10, or than an astronomer would
feel about tenths of a second. All is a matter of
habit and education.
This is fascinating, and to a great extent true.
Divisions of time are rough and few amongst
primitive people. Day and night come first, in
which the day includes all the twilight ; the night
is darkness. Then for military purposes the night
is divided into three watches, t The officer on duty
decides by the position of the stars when the watch
is over. On cloudy nights he guesses, for water-
clocks and sand-glasses are a later invention. The
day is divided into morning, noon, and evening.
Then "the heat of the day "J (n a.m. to 2 p.m.),
when food is taken and a siesta, the "time of the
evening meal-offering " § (3 p.m.), the "verge of the
evening "|| (5 p.m.), when supper is made ready—
these with sunrise and sunset complete the divisions.
"Steps" in the sun-dial of Ahaz were introduced
by that savant from Damascus to Jerusalem, but
scarcely affected popular language, which was con
tent with the above-mentioned simple indications
? Expositor, March, 1893. t Judges vii. 19.
X Gen. xviii. 1. § 1 Kings xviii. 29.
I Gen. iii. 8.

DATE OF THE CRUCIFIXION 153
until the heathenish Greeks invaded the Holy Land
and polluted it with their abominations. Then
for the first time do we read of the " hour,"* which,
nevertheless, in the days of Christ had thrown out
the old reckoning. The night, also, was now divided
into four watches instead of three,! it was, however,
occasionally divided into hours.
But even astrology had not broken up the hour
into minutes. Astrologers were satisfied with cal
culating horoscopes. S. Augustine has no notion
that twins might have a different horoscope. J People
said : " I will come in the course of an hour," where
our forefathers said, " in a minute," we, " in a second,"
and our children or grandchildren will say, "in the
tenth of a second."
Professor Ramsay holds that plain people were
perplexed by these minute subdivisions of time, and
did not use them. They talked of " the early (hour),"
the third, sixth, ninth hours, and "the late (hour),"
but neglected the others.
Let us examine the evidence of the New Testa
ment on this interesting question.
There are two adverbs in very common use,
" early " and " late " {irpuil and o^re), and two adjec
tives, derived from them, "the early (hour)," it-pwta,
o o'clock or sunrise, and "the late (hour)," oyp-la,
12 o'clock or sunset, o^p-ia entirely supplants the
twelfth hour.
Now we must first observe that the adverbs are
? Daniel iii. 6; iv. 16 (the time indicated is still vague as in Sipa
originally). + Mark xiii. 35. X De civitate, 2, 6.

154 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
used in a double sense, according as they apply to
the night or the day. The first watch of the night
was called " late " (6>e), and the last watch " early "
{irpm), because they contained the period of twilight.
But in common use, unless the context decides
otherwise, we may be sure that " early " and " late "
do not mean the watches of the night, but are said
with reference to the day. " Early " means anything
between the first streak of dawn (or, indeed, long
before that) and seven or eight o'clock in the
morning. "Late" means from five or six till mid
night or beyond. For as it is now, so was it then.
" I sat up very late last night " may mean till 4 a.m.
'' I got up very early this morning " may mean at
3 a.m., or to an Alpine club man 1 a.m. And so the
terms overlap. For, although the day legally ended
when darkness was established and three stars
were visible, popular language necessarily disre
garded legal absurdities. "To-morrow"* in the
Bible always means after the night's sleep is over.
"Yesterday" is divided from to-day by the night.
And S. Matthew writes, quite naturally as we may
do, "Late on Saturday night, as it was dawning
for Sunday/'f to signify 4.30 a.m., or somewhere
thereabouts, on Sunday morning.
But the adjectives, the " early (hour) " and " the late
(hour) " are not quite identical in meaning with the
adverbs. Being hours, they do not intrude on the
night, probably never extending into real darkness.
On the other hand, they trespass much further into
the day. "The early (hour)" probably lasted, in
* Acts iv. 3. f Matt, xxviii. 1.

DATE OF THE CRUCIFIXION 155
popular language, till nearly 9 a.m. ; "the late (hour)"
certainly was often reckoned from 3 p.m.*
All this proves that the word "hour," in its popular
use, retained its original meaning of an indefinite
division of time, as distinguished from the strict
meaning of one-twelfth of the day, which science
was fastening upon it.
But I cannot persuade myself that a serious
historian, who gave dates by the hour at all, would
follow the carelessness of country people. S. John,
as a matter of fact, mentions the seventh! hour and
the tenth, J S. Matthew the eleventh, § a Western
reading in Acts xix. 10 the fifth and the tenth. So
far were the New Testament writers from being tied
to the third, sixth, and ninth. S. Luke speaks of an
interval of about an hour,|| and about three hours, U
and S. Mark, "Could ye not watch with Me one
hour?"** These objections are serious ; the following, I
submit, is fatal. Of all divisions of the day none
is so well marked as the dinner -hour. Even in
modern life "morning" popularly means the period
before dinner, " afternoon " the period after dinner.
In the New Testament we have indications of two
substantial meals in the day and one slight refection.
Breakfast, as we should call it, is alluded to in
Acts xx. 11 ; dinner in Matt. xxii. 4, Luke xi. 37,
38 xiv. 12, John xxi. 12, -Acts x. 10; supper in
* Matt. xiv. 15, 23. ! John i. 40.
X John iv. 52. § Matt. xx. 6, 9.
|| Luke xxii. 59. IT Acts v. 7.
* » Mark xiv. 37.

156 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
the "Lord's supper," and in many Other passages.
In Acts x. 10 the dinner-hour is the sixth ( = noon),
and although the time doubtless fluctuated a little
in various grades of society, we can hardly be wrong
in saying that for working-men it would not fall later
than midday. The apostles had no watches, but men
who have lived without watches in the backwoods in
form me that they could tell the dinner-hour to within
ten minutes, and I feel sure that most of us with a
little practice could do the same. The sixth hour,
therefore, being either the dinner-hour or falling, in
popular phrase, into the afternoon, would never, I
maintain, be put loosely for 10.30 a.m., and although
Professor Ramsay has done good service, I cannot
accept his explanation in this particular.
I incline myself to the old view of a false reading,
either in S. Mark or, more probably, in S. John.
Eusebius suggests it in the latter, S. Jerome in the
former. In manuscripts, except those of the most
expensive kind, numerals were expressed for brevity's
sake by letters of the alphabet, as we express them
by figures. "Third" would be written with a
gamma (T), "sixth" with a digamma {F). And
these two letters were so very much alike that they
were peculiarly liable to be confused. Perhaps
S. John really wrote or intended to write " third " (T),
but a primitive copyist read " sixth " {F).
In the expensive Constantine MSS. and their
derivatives numerals are written out at full length,
but in the Cambridge Codex Beza (D) letters of
the alphabet are generally used ; and that this was
the ancient practice, and that it led to confusion

DATE OF THE CRUCIFIXION 157
from the similarity of the digamma to other letters
is proved by Acts xxvii. 37, where the true reading
is, "We were in all on board the ship about
seventy-six souls," though the common text has,
"We were in all on board the ship two hundred
and seventy-six souls." Now C stands for two
hundred, o for seventy, and F for six. The ori
ginal text ran, eWTUnTAOICUlWCSF- But the
second a> having been accidentally or purposely
omitted, the words became eHTtOTTAOlUJCOF*
The British Museum manuscript (A) gives another
reading, e KITWTTAOI W C&& , "two hundred
and seventy-five," the digamma {F) having been
altered into epsilon (E).
At any rate, our general conclusion is that the
common explanation of two methods of calculating
hours must be abandoned. It is legitimate for any
one to admit that S. Mark differs from S. John,
and that, having acknowledged this discrepancy,
it is not our province to seek for explanations which
cannot now be obtained with any certainty. It is
not legitimate, I maintain, to assert any longer that
there were two ways of reckoning bours. The
controversy has been unnecessarily confused by
introducing into it the question of the point in the
twenty-four hours at which the day legally begins.
But that is an entirely separate matter. The Roman
day, like our own, legally began at midnight, the
Jewish day at sunset ; but the Romans reckoned
the hours from sunrise, exactly as did the Jews,
the Greeks, and the rest of the civilized world. At
the University of Cambridge the year begins on

158 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
October ist, the week on Friday, the day at noon; but
these local peculiarities do not affect popular speech.
If S. John had known that his Ephesian readers
reckoned the hours from midnight he could not have
recorded without comment the saying of our Lord,
"Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any
man walk in the day he stumbleth not," for the
longest day would have contained 14 hours 38 min
utes, and the shortest day 9 hours 22 minutes.
That S. Mark is right, and that the crucifixion
really took place in the forenoon, is rendered
probable by two further considerations. First, time
was needed to make this lingering torture fatal.
It was no uncommon case for criminals to expire
at length from mere hunger on the cross.* Besides
the breaking of the legs, various other methods were
used to accelerate death. They were suffocated by
the smoke of fires lighted below, or were torn in
pieces by wild beasts. Now Pilate, who was re
quired by the Romans to respect Jewish law, knew
that the bodies could not remain suspended beyond
sunset on any day,t much less on a Friday. He
would, therefore, be anxious to secure as long a time
as possible for the law to take vengeance. Secondly,
the scene plainly consisted of two parts, the first of
which was characterized by gibes, merriment, and
triumph, the next by dread, silence, and misgivings,
The darkness will account for the change. Three
hours of brutal enjoyment were succeeded by three
of superstitious terror. For the wicked are super-
* Trench, Studies in the Gospels, p. 313.
t Deut. xxi. 23.

DATE OF THE CRUCIFIXION 159
stitious beyond the understanding of good men, and
nature seemed, with its heavy storm-clouds at mid
day, to be conspiring against them. We need not
believe that they carried lanterns about, as the
unimaginative author of the recently - discovered
" Gospel according to S. Peter " supposed. But
they confessed, " Truly this Man was a Son of God,"
they smote their breasts, and returned, saddened and
solemnised, to their homes. II.
Was Christ crucified on a Friday or a Thursday ?
Let us first look at our authorities. S. Peter's
account is, " For it was Preparation, which is the
day before a Sabbath." * S. John's, " For it was Pre
paration " ; and again, " It was Preparation of the
passover." f With this S. Luke agrees, " And it was
a day of Preparation, and a Sabbath was approach
ing." I S. Matthew also describes the next day thus,
" On the morrow, which is after the Preparation." §
According to the common and, I believe, unques
tionably true view "Preparation" is the Jewish
name for Friday, as preparation was on that day
made for the coming Sabbath. But the Bishop
of Durham (Dr. Westcott) holds that in this particu
lar case it means Thursday, || the next day, Friday,
being the great festival of the "first day of un
leavened bread, on which the paschal lamb was
killed." Special preparations would have to be
* Mark xv. 42. t John xix. 31, 14.
X Luke xxiii. 54- $ Matt- xx™- 6z-
l| Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, chap. 6, note.

i6o NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
made for that day by killing the lamb and searching
for leaven with a view to the complete destruction
of every particle of it, and this preparation on
Thursday would take the place of the ordinary
preparation on Friday.
Let us see what arguments can be brought to
support this view.
It is stated that the term "Sabbath" need not
always mean the seventh day of the week. The
great day of atonement is called a " Sabbath of
rest,"* and the Jews were ordered to rest on some
of the greater festivals ; notably on the first day of
unleavened bread " no manner of work might be
done save that which every man must eat." ! Now if
the first day of unleavened bread was itself a Sabbath,
it would necessarily be preceded by a Preparation.
S. Luke's language, " It was a day of Preparation,
and a Sabbath was approaching," but still more
S. John's, which may fairly be translated, " It was
Preparation for the passover," are held to indicate
that the ordinary Preparation is not meant, but the
special Preparation for the passover. This indication
is strengthened by S. John's further observation,
" For the day of that Sabbath was great." % Why
should he have said this if the weekly Sabbath was
intended ?
Again, S. Matthew's circumlocution, "On the
morrow, which is after the Preparation," is difficult
to account for except on the supposition that he was
going to write, "Which was the first day of unleavened
* Lev. xxiii. 32. t Exodus xii. 16.
X John xix. 31. -

DATE OF THE CRUCIFIXION 161
bread," but, recollecting that he had already * used
that term in a popular! or Galilean sense (it is
supposed) to describe the day before, felt precluded
from using it in its proper Pentateuchal sense now.
Had an ordinary Sabbath followed, he would have
written, " On the morrow, which was the Sabbath."
Again, there are numerical calculations which are
claimed distinctly to favour Thursday. S. Mark,
following S. Peter, writes, "The Son of Man must
.... rise again after three days" ; and again, " After
three days He shall rise again." J But the strongest
passage of all is found in S. Matthew, "As Jonah was
three days and three nights in the sea monster's
belly, so shall the Son of Man be three days and
three nights in the heart of the earth." § If other
passages are neutral or only slightly favour the
longer period, this, it is claimed, demands it. One
day and fractions of two nights cannot be extended
into three days and three nights. The crucifixion,
therefore, must have taken place on a Thursday.
Now I have shown elsewhere, || that there are
strong reasons for holding that the verse which
speaks of the Son of Man being three days and
three nights in the heart of the earth, though put
into our Lord's mouth, was not really uttered by
Him, but is one of those later accretions which
* Matt. xxvi. I?.
t According to the law of Moses there were only seven days of
unleavened bread ; in the New Testament there are eight, one day
having been added at the beginning, thus disturbing the reckoning. It
is most probable that this had been done by the scribes in their zeal to
" set a hedge about the law." Cf. page 170.
X Mark viii. 31 ; ix. 31. § Matthew xii. 40.
II The Composition of the Four Gospels, Macmillan.
M

162 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
gathered round the primitive Petrine Gospel during
its oral stage. I have shown that a group of thirteen
or fourteen of these accretions is concerned with the
fulfilment of Scripture by Christ as the Messiah ; that
this group is peculiar to the first Gospel ; that it was
due to the Aramaic preachers or catechists, for
the quotations never follow the Septuagint version
as the rest of the Gospel quotations do; and that
there was often much straining of evidence to make
these fulfilments good. Sometimes the words of the
prophet are altered in what we should consider
important respects, sometimes S. Peter's Memoirs
are altered, to obtain the desired result All this
is undeniable and highly suggestive. It shows
that Jewish Christians, educated in Rabbinic methods
of exegesis, regarded these distortions as legitimate.
Such a trifle as adding a third night to the recog
nised three days would not appear to them worthy
of account.*
Does anyone think this novel and startling? Let
him read what the learned Dr. Lightfoot wrote in his
Horce Hebraica, published A.D. 1644. Briefly It
amounts to this : There Is In Aramaic a word 'dnah
of doubtful meaning. The following definitions of
it are given in the Talmud: (i)"How much is the
space of an 'dnah ? ' R. Jochanan says, either a day
or a night.' ' R. Akiba fixed a day for an 'dnah and
a night for an 'dnah' But the tradition is that
R. Eliezer Ben Azariah said, 'A day and a night
* If S. Matthew's Gospel was finally written in Alexandria, where
the exact date of the crucifixion might well be obscured, we shall
better understand the change.

DATE OF THE CRUCIFIXION 163
make an 'dnah and a part of an 'dnah is as the
whole.' It is said of a period of three days, 'R.
Ismael saith, Sometimes it contains four 'dndth,
sometimes five, sometimes six.'"
Now if the Aramaic catechists said, "As Jonah was
three 'dndth in the sea monster's belly, so shall the
Son of Man be three 'dndth in the heart of the earth,"
all inconsistency with the common date of the
Resurrection would disappear; and yet the Greek
catechists who moulded our "Gospel according to
S. Matthew" would, from their knowledge of the Sep
tuagint, naturally translate it in both cases "three
days and three nights," though S. Paul uses a word,
wx^vp-epov, which might have served their purpose
better. I do not give this as the true explanation. I do
not think it is so. But Lightfoot's authority may
help to remove some prejudices.*
It is to be noticed that S. Mark's "After three
days I shall rise again," is usually altered in the
other Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and S. Paul
into, " On the third day." And in course of time this
change reacted on the text of S. Mark. In the
Syrian recension, which the English Authorised
Version follows, "On the third day" is found in
S. Mark also. Now to our ideas a man speaking
on Friday of an event which is to happen on
Sunday, might describe it as about to happen "on
* S. Mark omits "Jonah" altogether, following S. Peter's Memoirs.
S. Luke gives the explanation contained in the logia. S. Matthewgives
the explanation contained in the logia, modified to fulfil Scripture the
better. Unquestionably S. Luke's explanation is more original than
S. Matthew's.

1 64 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
the third day," but not " after three days." We must
not, however, intrude our mathematical prejudices
into ancient thought, for there exists a passage
which proves decisively that the evangelists saw
no distinction between these two phrases. " Sir,"
writes S. Matthew, " we remember that that Impostor
said, while He was yet alive, After three days I will rise
again. Command therefore that the sepulchre be
made sure until the third day." *
It is not, I think, impossible that the Jewish care
lessness about numbers was partly due to the
symbolic meaning which they attached to certain
numbers. Three, four, seven, ten, and multiples
of these figures, occur in the Bible far oftener than
they would do if there were no symbolism to be
sought. " Forty " probably signifies one generation
of human life, otherwise its frequent occurrence in
the Bible is hard to account for. The number three
is exceptionally suitable here to one who symbolizes.
But I certainly do not think that if no symbolic
meaning had been sought " two " would have taken
its place. The difficulty is deeper.
In fact, we have to deal with the curious custom
of inclusive reckoning. It appears to me that
inclusive reckoning was the inveterate habit of the
vulgar, but that the lawyers in legal documents,
where ambiguity would be fatal, avoided it. Hence
in the Pentateuch numbers are used as we use them.
" Seven days of unleavened bread," for example, are
calculated from " the fourteenth day of the month at
even until the twenty-first day of the month at
* Matt, xxvii. 63.

DATE OF THE CRUCIFIXION 165
even."* Assyrian cuneiform inscriptions, I am told
by my colleague, the Rev. C. H. W. Johns, exhibit
both uses : in legal documents exclusive reckon
ing prevails, but in ordinary life great confusion
and ambiguity exists from the preference for in
clusive figures. How inveterate the error was is
shown by the Roman method of calculating the days
of the month. They reckoned backwards and always
inclusively. Thus the last day of April, for example,
was called the day before the Kalends of May, and
the last day but one the third day before the Kalends
of May, though it surely ought to be called the
second. The same with the nones and the ides.
Even older than this was the weekly market. It was
held every eighth day, but was called nundinae, " the
ninth day," instead of "the eighth." Anyone may
see by consulting a concordance that the common
Biblical expression, " On the third day," signifies,
"the day after to-morrow." Our Lord used it thus
in the verse, " Behold, I cast out demons, and accom
plish healings to-day and to-morrow, and the third
day I am perfected." The Hebraist knows that
"heretofore" is expressed by two nouns, "yesterday
and the day before," literally "yesterday and the
third day." In Latin nudius tertius, "it is now the
third day," means " the day before yesterday."
On the whole, I submit that the argument from
arithmetic is decidedly in favour of Friday.
Again, although in deciding between Thursday
and Friday S. Luke, especially as his evidence is only
given in an " editorial note," cannot be put on a level
* Exodus xii. 18.

166 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
with eye-witnesses like S. Peter and S. John, yet at
least he may be used to show what was the belief of
the Western Church, which on so interesting a ques
tion can hardly have been mistaken. After describing
our Lord's burial, S. Luke says that the women
" rested the Sabbath day according to the command
ment, and on the first day of the week"* came the
Resurrection. Plainly he regards Friday as the day
of burial and therefore of crucifixion, Saturday as the
Sabbath, and Sunday as the Resurrection day. It is
an intolerable straining of his words to suppose that
by " the Sabbath " he meant forty-eight hours, two
" Sabbaths" coming consecutively. Such an interpre
tation is the fruit of sheer desperation.
But I fail to find any authority for the supposition
that the Jews in the time of Christ would have
applied the name " Sabbath," without some qualifica
tion, to any festival except the seventh day, or
"Preparation" to any day but Friday. In the Old
Testament the Sabbath is not often mentioned,
hardly so often as it is in the Gospels and the Acts
of the Apostles. But under the Rabbis the sanctity
of the day had been made a chief article of faith.
The Maccabean patriots had allowed themselves
to be cut down to a man sooner than defend them
selves on the Sabbath. The Talmudic rules for
Sabbath observance form a life study in themselves.
There is not a trace in the New Testament of sharing
the honour of the day with any other festival how
ever great. Modern Jews draw a distinction between
Sabbaths and festivals, much as churchmen do
* Luke xxiii. 56.

DATE OF THE CRUCIFIXION 167
between Sundays and holy days. The very phrase
"twice a week," "first day of the week," where
"week" is "literally "Sabbath," shows how fixed
the language had become.
When S. John wrote, "For the day of that Sabbath
was great," I believe he simply meant to remind his
Gentile readers how sacred a day the Sabbath was in
the eyes of the Jew. For if it be true that S. John,
when he wrote in Greek, thought in Aramaic (and I
hold that the structure of his sentences proves this)
he would not feel any difference between the expres
sions, "The day of that Sabbath" and "That Sabbath
day." Still, I am ready to admit that if (as is practi
cally certain) the Sabbath on this particular year
coincided with the festival, such a Sabbath would
be superior to ordinary Sabbaths, much as Easter
day with churchmen is superior to an ordinary
Sunday. *
S. John's expression, " It was Preparation of the
passover," will therefore mean, "It was passover
Friday," by which phrase I do not mean the seventh
day of unleavened bread, for, though that also
on this occasion would be a Friday, it was too far
removed from the slaying of the paschal lamb to
be so designated. "Passover Friday" will be the
day on the afternoon of which the paschal lamb was
slain, and in the night of which, according to popular
language, it was eaten.
The ancient Christians uniformly held that Friday
was the day of Christ's death. Modern Greeks still
call Friday " Preparation." There seems to be no
* See Lightfoot's Apostolic Fathers, i. 1690.

168 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
break in the chain of evidence, and I feel very
confident that all the arguments to the contrary are
unavailing. ill.
Did the crucifixion take place on the fourteenth
day of the month Nisan or on the fifteenth ?
Nisan (or Abib, as it was called in olden time) was
the first month of the Jewish year, and corresponded
roughly to our March-April. We cannot fix it more
precisely, for in the first place the months were lunar,
and were therefore continually varying with respect
to the year ; in the next place they were settled by
observation merely. If some ripe ears of barley
could be found as the new moon was expected, the
new year was declared to have begun ; if not, a
month was intercalated. In critical cases therefore
a late or early spring might just make the difference.
Similarly, if the moon's thin crescent was visible on
the expected night, the ensuing day was proclaimed
holy as the first day of the month ; if not, even
though the moon's absence was caused by clouds or
rain, a day was intercalated, but of course only one.
By these simple expedients, the calendar was kept
fairly accurate without any of those elaborate calcu
lations by which Julius Caesar put the matter on its
present basis. Modern precision, however, was never
thought of. The year did not begin on the right
day, but on the nearest new moon to the right day,
or one month later ; the month did not begin at the
true new moon, but when the moon was first visible,
which would be a day and a half or two days later.
The day itself did not begin at sunset, but when

DATE OF THE CRUCIFIXION 169
from one to three stars were visible. Everything
was vague and empirical.
It is impossible, therefore, for us now to recover
an ancient Jewish date with any certainty. We
cannot be sure to a day, sometimes not to a month.
It is however probable that already in the time of
Christ contact with Greek civilization had introduced
some more systematic methods of calculation.
The Jews were not seriously inconvenienced by
the uncertainty of the calendar. Those who lived
in the Holy Land received a fortnight's notice of the
passover's approach, ten days' notice of the time for
selecting the paschal lamb. If therefore they in
tended to keep the feast in Jerusalem, there was
ample time for preparation. The Jews of the dis
persion came to pentecost rather than to passover.
On the fourteenth day of Nisan the paschal lamb
was slain " between the evenings " (3-5 P.M. accord
ing to Josephus), and was eaten the same night. In
legal language (as the day legally began at sunset)
it was eaten on the fifteenth, but in popular language
it was eaten on the night of the fourteenth. To pre
vent misconception I shall adhere to popular language
throughout the rest of this paper, and reckon the
days, as we do, from midnight to midnight.
Next day, the fifteenth, was the first day of un
leavened bread, one of the greatest festivals in the
year, for it commemorated the deliverance from Egypt.
Josephus, however, tells us that in the time of Christ
the fourteenth was commonly called the first day
of unleavened bread, and we find it so styled in
the Gospels. We must not suppose that the great

170 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
festival had been shifted: that was certainly not
the case ; but the Rabbis in their endeavour " to set
a hedge about the law" had required all leaven to
be destroyed one day sooner than the law directed,
and so there were practically eight days of un
leavened bread now. The numbering therefore was
altered, the festivals being on the second and the
eighth instead of the first and the seventh.
The question is, Did Christ assemble His disciples
to eat the passover on the evening of the fourteenth
or was He at that time already resting in the grave,
the last conflict being over? Strange to say this
question has been long debated. Various makeshift
answers have been given. But with the increasing
sense of honesty which marks our age, some of the
best scholars have dared to say, " I do not know."
Let us first read S. Mark's testimony : " Now
after two days was the passover and the feast of
unleavened bread. . . . And on the first day of un
leavened bread when (the Jews) used to sacrifice
the passover, the disciples say unto Him, Where wilt
Thou that we go and prepare that Thou mayest eat
the passover ? . . . Say ye to the master of the house,
The Teacher saith, Where is My lodging where I
must eat the passover with My disciples? . . . And
they prepared the passover."
S. Matthew and S. Luke fully confirm this. The
latter adds that Jesus said, " I have earnestly desired
to eat this passover with you before I suffer."
If we had the synoptists alone, no one would
doubt that Jesus ate the passover the night before
the crucifixion, and that He was therefore crucified
on the fifteenth.

DATE OF THE CRUCIFIXION 171
But now let us look at S. John.
"Before'' (not "at") "the feast of the passover
Jesus" partook of the last supper, (xiii. 1.) During
the meal Judas went out, and the cause of his
departure being secret, some supposed, since Judas
held the bag, that Jesus said unto him, " Buy what
we need for the feast." (xiii. 29.) They were not
therefore already concluding the feast, but were
looking forward to it. " Judas went out, and it was
night." Yet the shops were not shut, as they would
have been on the night of the fourteenth, for legally
next day's festival would have begun on which no
work was allowed. Next morning S. John tells us
that the chief priests "themselves entered not into
the praetorium, that they might not be defiled; but
might eat the passover." (xviii. 28.) They had not,
therefore, eaten the passover the night before, but
looked forward to doing so that night. " And it was
the preparation of the passover " when they crucified
Him. (xix. 14) "The Jews, therefore, since it was
preparation, that the bodies might not remain on
the cross upon the Sabbath" . . . applied to Pilate
that they might be taken down. (xix. 31.) We have
seen that the preparation almost certainly means
Friday, in which case these verses do not affect the
question. They count neither way. Still we have
a singularly long list of dates, some of which seem
to demand the fourteenth, all permit of it. If we
read S. John's Gospel alone, no one would doubt
that our Lord was crucified on the fourteenth, and
therefore did not partake of the passover.
Exceedingly early tradition favours the fourteenth,

172 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
for the Quartodecimans, who kept Good Friday on
the fourteenth of Nisan, date from Polycarp, who
claimed to follow the practice of S. John.
Let us first glance at some of the solutions which
have been offered of this difficult problem at various
times. i. Eusebius suggested and S. Chrysostom developed
the idea, which has been very generally held, that
the chief priests had been so busily employed in
compassing Christ's arrest and conducting His trial,
that they had found no time to eat the passover on
the proper night, but had put off the duty of doing
so till the fifteenth.
But Christ's arrest appears to have taken place
after midnight. The passover was eaten when the
sun had set. The chief priests were rigid legalists,
and would have abundance of time for celebrating
the most solemn of their ordinances. Moreover,
this supposition leaves two out of S. John's three
statements unexplained, i.e. it totally fails.
2. The majority, therefore, of modern interpreters
have inclined rather to the view that Christ Himself
anticipated the passover, eating it one day sooner
than usual because He knew that His hour was
come, and because He "earnestly desired to eat it
with them before He suffered."
But S. Mark distinctly writes that it was the
disciples who suggested to Him that the time for
eating the passover had come, and that they did so
"on the first day of unleavened bread when (the
Jews) sacrificed the passover." Nothing can be
clearer than this. The usual day, the usual hour,

DATE OF THE CRUCIFIXION 173
was come. They fancied that He had overlooked
it, and they call attention to the necessity of making
preparations for the universal religious duty.
Moreover, although the law directed every master
of a house to kill the paschal lamb himself, no
restriction about place being given, the later centrali
sation required that the lamb must be slain in the
temple. The Jews of the dispersion could not eat
the passover except when they went up — perhaps
once in their lives — to the Holy City. Now the
priests would have refused to sacrifice the lamb a
day before the usual time. And the advocates of
this view are obliged to maintain that no lamb was
obtained. They point out that in the narrative of
the last supper neither lamb nor bitter herbs are
mentioned. There seems to have been nothing on
the table but bread, wine, and one bowl containing
fish or salad or other condiment. It was (as S. John
describes it) an ordinary supper. This difficulty we
shall consider presently. Meanwhile S. Mark's words,
"Prepare that Thou mayest eat the passover," and
" They made ready the passover," must surely mean
the paschal lamb.
3. Rabbinic students have suggested an entirely
new explanation which in recent times has gained
wide acceptance. They contend that by " eating the
passover" S. John meant something quite different
from what S. Mark meant by the same expression.
S. Mark plainly intended the paschal lamb, but S.
John refers to a festal meal which is not mentioned
in the Pentateuch but was prescribed by the tradition
of the elders. Commonly called the Chagigah, it

174 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
could be eaten on any of the seven days of the feast,
but was usually taken on the second — the old " first "
— day. It was considered of equal or even greater
importance than the paschal lamb, and the term,
"eating the passover," included it or sometimes
alluded to it alone. In S. John, they argue, the
expression "eat the passover" must refer to the
Chdgigah, for if the chief priests had defiled them
selves by entering the praetorium, such lesser defile
ment, caused by the presence of Roman eagles and
other idolatrous signs, possibly also of leavened
bread, would always be removed by washing the
body at sunset. There was nothing after such purifi
cation to prevent them from eating the passover.
The feeling against idolatry and idolaters was
particularly strong in that age, when the Jews were
daily brought into contact with it. I can hardly
believe that such pollution was so lightly got rid
of. Moreover, the Scribes would wish to attend the
sacrifice as well as the supper. If the Chdgigah
could be eaten on any of the seven days, why should
not the chief priests have postponed it till the third
or fourth day, since their presence in Pilate's court
was so imperatively demanded. But, indeed, I am
rather suspicious about these later Jewish cere
monies. The destruction of Jerusalem, which altered
the whole procedure of sacrifice, created a revolution
In the observance of the Law. The Talmud, from
which our knowledge of the Chdgigah is derived,
was not written until five centuries after the city was
destroyed, and is no sure guide to Jewish customs
in the time of Christ. No ancient authors imagined

DATE OF THE CRUCIFIXION 175
that "eating the passover" in S. John meant something
quite different from "eating the passover" in S. Mark.
And there is another difficulty. S. John tells us
that all our Lord's adherents were excommunicated.
(ix. 22 ; xii. 42.) And if so, it would, I presume, be
Impossible for them to get a lamb sacrificed except
by intrigue, to which they would not stoop.
Professor Hort, a few months before his death,
had a correspondence with Professor Sanday on
this subject. Only a few extracts from Dr. Hort's
letters have been published, but Dr. Sanday, who
had advocated the Chdgigah, acknowledged himself
convinced. He admitted that there is a real dis
crepancy between the synoptists and S. John, and
that none of the explanations which had been
offered could be considered satisfactory.*
Meanwhile, my own examination of the synoptic
problem had forced upon me another solution on
entirely new lines.
When you look at the synoptic Gospels from an
historical point of view the first thing that strikes
you is the extraordinary fact that they do not bring
Christ to Jerusalem until He entered it to be crucified.
Now the more you consider this, the more remark
able It becomes.
It cannot represent the whole truth. Even if we
rejected the fourth Gospel altogether, we should feel
certain, both from antecedent probability and from
certain casual expressions in the synoptists (as "O
Jerusalem . . . how often would I have gathered thy
children together . . ."), that Christ was no stranger
* The Expositor, vol. v. p. 183.

176 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
In the Holy City. A Judean ministry is quite as
necessary as a Galilean.
Whence then came the omission? Did S. Peter
entirely pass over the work done in Judaea? I do
not think so. The very fact that S. Mark devotes
six chapters out of sixteen to events which took
place in the precincts of Jerusalem makes me
suspicious. Important though the passion was, it
seems to be narrated at undue length. The pro
portions of the history are destroyed.
And when we look closer, there are many things
in those six chapters which have no particular affinity
to the passion, but would decidedly gain in signifi
cance if they were put a year or more before it.
They show how public feeling was educated ; but
that very education could scarcely be completed in
a fortnight. Events in real life move much more
slowly. And there is one incident — the cleansing of the
temple — which S. John has placed at the beginning,
and not at the close, of our Saviour's ministry. It
is very much to be noticed that S. John describes the
cleansing of the temple as happening at a passover ;
not at the final passover which is the only one
known to S. Mark, but at an earlier passover which
Christ passed in Jerusalem, some say three years,
some two, those who consider John vi. 4 to be
spurious, one year before the crucifixion.
It has been usual to suppose that there were two
cleansings of the temple, one at the earlier passover,
one at the last. Such a repetition is, to say the
least, highly improbable. That Christ should cleanse

DATE OF THE CRUCIFIXION 177
the temple once, is intelligible ; that He should do
so when He first came forward as the Messiah, to
test the obedience of the Jews and appeal to their
religious feelings, I can understand. But to what
end would a repetition serve ? And if repeated, why
should not S. Mark or S. John have told us so ?
I know that many persons object to admit so
serious a chronological discrepancy in S. Mark,
who was S. Peter's interpreter. But let us look at
the facts calmly, S. Mark only brings Christ to
Jerusalem at the last. Anything which happened
at Jerusalem during an earlier visit must therefore
either be omitted by S. Mark, transferred into Galilee,
or inserted into holy week. The structure of his
Gospel permits no other alternative. In short, the
Gospel is not arranged on a chronological but on a
topical plan.
If you ask how this is, my answer is that S. Peter
did not give a complete course of lessons, nor did
he arrange them in order. S. Mark, as Papias tells
us, did not write in order, because S. Peter's lessons
had been adapted to the immediate wants of the
pupils, one lesson being given at a time as the
occasion demanded. S. Peter left them so, and S.
Mark could not supply the defect. He was not an
eye-witness, and could not recover the true sequence.
Professor Sanday fully agrees with me on this
point. "The simple fact is," he writes, "that the
synoptic Gospels are only a series of incidents loosely
strung together, with no chronology at all worthy of
the name."* • Expositor, vol. v. p. 16.
N

178 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
I earnestly exhort all biblical students to examine
into this question of the chronology of the synoptists
for themselves. If I am right, the exhausting labours
and tortuous explanations of the harmonists, in their
endeavour to reconcile what cannot be reconciled,
have been wasted.
I wish heartily that any words of mine could save
future students of the Gospels from what I am con
vinced is a useless task. There is so much to be
done in more profitable researches, that I grudge the
time and energy spent on harmonies. When three
evangelists narrate the same events in the same
order, we are not entitled to infer that they follow
the true chronology, but only that they follow S.
Mark, whose order is not chronological.
Now if it be conceded that the cleansing of the
temple belonged to the earlier passover, it is clear
that the section in which Christ was asked, " By
what authority doest Thou these things?" (Mark
xi. 27-33) must be transferred to the earlier passover
also. And if so, I should transfer several sections
which are found in the next chapter, not, perhaps
to the first passover, but rather to one or other of
those subsequent visits which our Lord paid to
Jerusalem. These are Mark xii. 13-17, "Is it lawful
to give tribute to Caesar?"; 18-27, the seven brethren
marrying; 28-36, the great commandment of the
law; 38-40, the warning against the Scribes. All
these sections have no real connexion with holy
week, but will gain in significance if we put them
into an earlier period.
And I should then carry these suggestions one

DATE OF THE CRUCIFIXION 179
step further. S. Peter seems to me to have narrated
how Christ, who was obedient to the law for our
sakes, ate the passover in the Holy City with His
disciples on His earlier visit, when He was not yet
excommunicate. Then they " made ready the pass-
over," ate the paschal lamb and the bitter herbs,
drank the wine, sang the hymn with all the customary
ceremonies. One, two, or more years later, Christ again
assembled His disciples for the Last Supper, On this
occasion He gave them the sign of the man bearing
the pitcher of water. On this occasion He instituted
the Eucharist at the close of the meal, and spoke
those discourses which S. John has recorded. It was
the thirteenth of the month Nisan, and, therefore,
not the passover.
S. Mark has fused the two significant suppers into
one, by transferring to the latter what really belong
to the former. The other evangelists have followed
him in this, as in all the rest of his chronological
confusions. Some one may object that S. Luke records this
sentence, " I have earnestly desired to eat this pass-
over with you before I suffer," thus connecting the
two meals together, which I separate by a year or
more. This sentence, I reply, is peculiar to S. Luke,
and if anyone will read what I have written about
S. Luke's "editorial notes,"* and will then examine
S. Luke's Gospel to ascertain whether I have not
good grounds for what I say, he will not think that
verse a serious objection. The thought pressing
* Composition of the Four Gospels, pp. 1 16-127. Macmillan.

180 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
hard on our Lord's human mind was, " This is My
last meal." The Western catechists have slightly
modified the expression of it, or S. Luke himself has
inserted the word " passover," as is his wont.
It is possible, however, that there was no such
blending of narratives as I have supposed, but that
the whole scene should be transferred to the earlier
passover, and rehearsed at the Last Supper. Averse
though I am to vain repetitions, there is one re
petition which I admit would have been full of
significance. What if Christ made the personal
covenant by the breaking of bread between Himself
and His disciples at the first passover in Jerusalem,*
renewed it at His second passover (?) in Capernaum
(John vi. 4) with a larger company than the Twelve,
and in close connexion with the feeding of the five
thousand, and finally repeated it a third time on the
night on which He was betrayed, with perhaps the
additional word that His body, which they were to
eat, would soon be broken for them ; His blood,
which they were to drink, would soon be shed ? In
this way we shall both make the sacrament more
intelligible as a covenant of brotherhood between
Himself and His people ; we shall explain and
justify the mysterious language of S. John vi. 51,
which has always been a difficulty with interpreters ;
we shall justify S. Paul's statement that our Lord
Jesus Christ on the same night in which He was
betrayed took bread, and we shall reduce S. Mark's
chronological error to a minimum.
If we understand the Eucharist as originally a
* See above, pages 141, 145.

DATE OF THE CRUCIFIXION 181
covenant of personal allegiance, there is reason to
think that it was frequently celebrated during our
Lord's ministry. That it was so is indicated by the
narrative of the journey to Emmaus, in which our
Lord was known by breaking of bread. The two
disciples in question had not been present at the
Last Supper, yet they understood the act. " Breaking
of bread " is quite a new phrase, invented to express
a new ceremony.
Our records of Christ's life are fragmentary. If it
were not for a single incidental statement in S. John*
we should have concluded confidently that the sacra
ment of holy baptism was first instituted after the
Resurrection. And if we now know that it had been
practi? d by the apostles from the commencement
of Christ's ministry, what wonder if the other sacra
ment had been celebrated too? We might have to
modify our conception of it, and regard it as a
covenant of union rather than a commemorative
sacrifice ; in short, as a sacrifice according to the
ancient conception of the word rather than the
modern, but we should, I think, only understand
its real meaning the better for such a change.
The question discussed in this paper is a very
serious one. Scholars are beginning to acknow
ledge freely that there is a contradiction between
the synoptists and S. John respecting the day of the
month of the crucifixion. The old explanations of
the difference are failing or have already failed. The
genuineness of the Fourth Gospel is at stake. Under
these circumstances I have pointed out that the con-
? John iv. I, 2.

182 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
tradiction does not lie between S. Peter and S. John,
both of whom must have known the facts, but between
S. Mark and S. John, of whom S. Mark did not know
the facts, and may have confused the records, as S.
John shows him to have done on other occasions.

iv.

Did the crucifixion take place in the year 29 A.D.,
or in any other year between 27 and 35 ?
To argue this question at length would take a
volume. Those who wish to see what has been done
at It can read Wieseler's Synopsis, Salmon's Intro
duction to the New Testament, McClellan's New
Testament, and an article in the Church Quarterly
Review for January, 1892. I will try to state the
facts briefly, and make some observations upon them.
Christ suffered (1) at the passover, (2) under
Pontius Pilate, (3) while Caiaphas was high priest,
but (4) while his father-in-law, Annas, who had been
high priest several years before, was still living and
exercising paramount influence.
We do not know the date of the death or decline
in power of Annas, but Pilate resided as Procurator
in Judaea ten years (27-37 A.D.). Caiaphas began
and ended his term of office sooner. The last pass-
over at which he can have officiated was in A.D. 35.
The period, therefore, in which the crucifixion must
have taken place is narrowed down to the nine years
27-35 A.D.
Astronomical calculations have been several times

DATE OF THE CRUCIFIXION 183
made with a view to eliminate some of these years.
For as the crucifixion took place on Friday, the 14th
(or possibly the 1 5 th) of Nisan, all those years in which
the 14th of Nisan cannot have fallen on Friday (or
Thursday) may be set aside. By this method the
years 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, and 35 have been got rid of,
and there remain only 27, 30, and 33, of which 27 is
too early and 33 probably too late. Most of the
authorities accept the year 30 A.D.
But, as I pointed out in the last chapter, we are
never sure to a day which is the first day — or any
other day — of the month, and often we cannot be
sure to a month when the new year began. Thus
an element of uncertainty is introduced which may
vitiate all our calculations.
The writer in the Church Quarterly, to whom I
alluded, takes advantage of this to plead for the year
29. If in that year Nisan fell a month earlier than
modern astronomy would allow, Friday, the 14th of
Nisan, would coincide with March 18. And it is
remarkable that March 18, 29 A.D., was given
(Epiphanius tells us*) in some MSS. of the apocry
phal Acts of Pilate as the true date of the crucifixion.
Dr. Lipsius has written a treatise on the Acts of
Pilate {Die Pilatus-Acten, Kiel, 1886). The text of
these acts,! as it exists now, has been tampered with
by some scribe who adhered to the chronology of our
Lord's ministry, which was compiled by Eusebius.
The result is a confused medley. But there is no
reason to doubt that Epiphanius gives us the read-
• C. Hcereses, li. I.
+ Published in Studia Biblica, vol. iv.

i84 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
ing of the Acts which was current in his day, and
the very strangeness of the date is considered to be a
proof that we have here a genuine tradition.
How far is it supported by the Gospels and by the
opinion of the ante-Nicene fathers?
S. Luke and S. John are the only evangelists who
give us any further clue to the date. Let us look at
S. John's statements first.
(i) ii. 13. "The passover of the Jews [March-
April] was nigh and Jesus went up to Jerusalem." Cf.
ii. 23. [This visit was shortly after His baptism.]
(2) ii. 20. "In forty-six years was this temple
built." (3) iy- 35- "Say ye not, Four months more and
harvest comes ? "
(4) v. 1. " After these things was a feast [name
not given] of the Jews, and Jesus went up to
Jerusalem." (5) vi. 4. " And the passover [March-April], the
feast of the Jews, was nigh." [Jesus spent this feast
in Galilee.]
(6) vii. 2. " And the feast of the Jews, tabernacles
[October], was nigh."
(7) viii. 57. " Thou art not yet fifty years old."
(8) x. 22. "Then came the dedication [Decem
ber] in Jerusalem ; it was winter."
(9) x. 55. "And the passover of the Jews [March-
April] was nigh." [At this passover the crucifixion
took place.]
Of these nine passages, however, it is probable
that the second and third ought to be ruled out as
irrelevant. For (1) Dr. E. A. Abbott has shown

DATE OF THE CRUCIFIXION 185
{Classical Review, viii. 89) that Zerubbabel's temple,
and not Herod's, must have been intended by the
Jews ; and (2) although John iv. 35 might mean
" Harvest is four months distant from the present
moment" in which case our Lord must have been
speaking in or near December, for the Jewish harvest
began in April, it is almost certain that the verse is
a proverb, " Say not ye [when you have planted your
barley], ' Four months more and harvest comes' ? " for
four months was about the minimum interval between
sowing and reaping in Palestine.
S. Luke's list is shorter.
(1) i. 5. "In the days of Herod" the Great [who
. died B.C. 4, spring] John's birth was promised.*
(2) ii. 2. "There issued a decree from Augustus
Caesar that all the civilized world should be enrolled.
This, a first enrolment, was made when Quirinius
was propraetor of Syria."
[Quirinius was propraetor of Syria A.D. 6-10. It
is not improbable that he had been propraetor once
before, in B.C. 4 ; not, however, before Herod's death.]
(3) iii. 1. "In the fifteenth year of the reign of
Tiberius Caesar [A.D. 28-29] John the Baptist began
to preach."
(4) iii. 23. " And Jesus Himself was beginning to
be about thirty years old " at His baptism.
When we look at these dates, the first question
that strikes us is, How long did our Lord's ministry
last? The earliest answer is that of Irenaeus, who
* According to S. Luke, therefore, our Lord may have been born
during Herod's reign, or shortly after his death. S. Matthew ii. 4
asserts that He was born during Herod's life; S. Luke leaves the
question open. This fact is not generally noticed.

186 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
puts it at about twenty years, for he began to teach
when about thirty years old (Luke iii. 23), and con
tinued till nearly fifty (John viii. 57), and "as he
came to save and to sanctify every time of life, it was
fitting that he should pass through age as well as
youth." Now Irenaeus was born in the province
of Asia, the very centre of church life in the sub-
apostolic age. No one had a better opportunity of
getting correct information than he ; and he declares
that " all the elders who had known John the disciple
of the Lord in Asia witness that he gave them this
tradition."* The Bishop of Durham (Dr. Westcott), in his
Commentary on fohn (viii. 57), writes : " However
strange it may appear, some such view is not incon
sistent with the only fixed historical dates which we
have with regard to our Lord's life, the date of His
birth, His baptism, and the banishment of Pilate."
Suppose the crucifixion to have taken place at the
latest possible date, viz., A.D. 35. Fifty years from
that would bring us to 16 B.C. Our Lord, if born
then, would have been twelve years old at Herod's
death, and the flight into Egypt (Matt. ii. 13) must
either be rejected as unhistorical or must have lasted
several years, and would thus come into conflict with
S. Luke ii. 39-41, in which we read that Joseph
and Mary, after performing all the requirements of
the law respecting Mary's purification, returned to
Nazareth and dwelt there, except that they annually
visited Jerusalem to keep the passover. Again,
Tiberius celebrated his decennia, or tenth year
* Adv. Haer. xi. 22, 4 ft*., v. xxxiii. 3.

DATE OF THE CRUCIFIXION 187
festivities, in A.D. 24 His fifteenth year, therefore,
was 28-29, at which date our Lord would have been
forty-four years old, and not, as S. Luke affirms,
about thirty. (Luke iii. 23.) In the third place, the
census under Quirinius (Luke ii. 2) will be twenty-
one years wrong and quite impossible. I wish that
the bishop had stated his exact meaning more clearly.
It seems to me that ten years is the utmost length to
which we can stretch the ministry without throwing
overboard S. Luke's chronology altogether. That it
really did last about ten years I think not impossible.
It would be natural to say " You are not yet fifty " to
a man of nearly forty, but, bad though the Jews were
as observers, they would hardly say this to a man of
thirty-two, especially when " You are not yet forty "
would be more suitable for rhetorical reasons, and
there does not seem to be any mystical significance
in the number fifty that they should choose it on
that account.
If the ministry lasted about ten years, the Gospels
are seen to be more fragmentary than ever, S. John's
feasts are not a complete list, and new significance is
given to his rhetorical hyperbole in xxi. 25 : " There
are many other things which Jesus did, and if they
be written every one, I suppose that not even the
world itself would contain the books which should
be written."
On the other hand, the Gnostics, the Clementine
homilies, Clement of Alexandria, and other ante-
Nicene authorities restrict the ministry to one year,
in defence of which opinion they quoted the verse,
" To preach the acceptable year of the Lord." (Luke

188 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
iv. 12.) These persons have some right to claim the
synoptists on their side. The entire absence of dates
from S. Mark gives the impression that no great
length of time is described in his Gospel, and that
impression is heightened by his forty-one " straight-
ways." If the events really cover a period of three
or more years, my contention of the unchronological
character of S. Peter's Memoirs* is fully established.
S. Luke seems to me either to have held that the
ministry lasted one year only, or to have put the
crucifixion about A.D. 33. When he says that the
Baptist began to preach in the fifteenth year of
Tiberius (A.D. 28-29) he cannot leave more than a
year for the ministry, unless the date of the crucifixion
be postponed. It is easy, as we have seen, to post
pone it, but commentators have not usually taken
this course. Assuming that our Lord's ministry
lasted three years and a half, and terminated in or
about A.D. 30, they have held that S. Luke calculated
the reign of Tiberius, not from the death of Augustus
in August, A.D. 14, but from a supposed partition of
the imperial power two years and a half earlier.
For this partition there is no warrant, and we can
have little hesitation in setting it aside.
I have shown that all the chronological data in S.
Luke are "editorial notes," and stand on a different
footing historically from the rest of the Gospel. They
are S. Luke's own ideas, the result of his private
investigations. In spite of Professor Ramsay's pleading,! it seems
* Composition of the Four Gospels, pp. 21, 22 ; Synopsis, p. xi.
t Expositor, April-June, 1897.

DATE OF THE CRUCIFIXION 189
to me to be impossible to get over the historical
difficulties which beset S. Luke's account of the
census. He alludes to the census again (Acts v. 37),
and by his use of the definite article there indicates,
to my thinking, that he knew of one census and only
one ; if that be so, it was certainly the census of A.D.
6, at which the riots took place. But in A.D. 6
Herod the Great had been dead nine years, and his
successor, Archelaus, had been deposed. We cannot
put the Nativity then. Moreover, the essential part
of S. Luke's narrative is that "all went up to be
enrolled, each to his own city." The language,
strictly interpreted, implies that everyone did this,
Jew and Gentile alike, the civilised world over ; but
let us suppose that S. Luke meant to say that only
the Jews did it, nay, only those Jews who dwelt in
Palestine, still, is the statement historically conceiv
able? Professor Ramsay says that the census must
have been taken by tribes, and that not in conse
quence of any order from Augustus, but to suit local
feeling. How many Jews in that day knew to what
tribe they belonged? Had not tribal distinctions
been greatly enfeebled since the return from Babylon ?
The popular belief is that ten tribes were lost, and
although that is clearly contradicted by the New
Testament, in which we find S. Paul speaking of his
" twelve-tribed nation" (Acts xxvi. 7), and read that
he himself belonged to the tribe of Benjamin
(Romans xi. 1 ; Phil. iii. 5), and that Hannah
belonged to the tribe of Asher (Luke ii. 36), never
theless tribal feeling had generally yielded to
national unity. Thousands of Jews, however, were

190 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
ashamed of their nation, and desired to be thought
Gentiles, (i Cor. vii. 18.) Who was to compel them
to journey from Galilee to Judaea to be enrolled?
But, lastly, S. Luke does not say that the Jews were
enrolled by their tribes, but each man by his own
city, according to his own family. This would
require a general exodus, which, if voluntary, would
not satisfy S. Luke's language ; if compulsory, I
cannot imagine any power which could enforce it
Riots were general and serious as it was ; what must
they have been if everyone had to discover and
remove to the abode of his remote ancestors? No,
S. Luke evidently has somewhat misunderstood the
situation. There is a similar historical difficulty about
Theudas in Acts v. 36, unless Josephus has made
a mistake, which is not unlikely. It is of the utmost
importance in apologetics to recognise different
degrees of historical attestation in the Gospels.
There are occasionally weak links. We must not
make the strength of the chain depend on them,
but deny that the Gospels are constructed on the
chain principle.
But how did those authors who reduced the
ministry to one year explain S. John ? It was
suggested by Mr. H. Browne* that the defining words
"the passover" in John vi. 4 are a mistaken gloss,
and that the verse originally ran " Now the feast of
the Jews was nigh," by which statement a Jew would
mean the feast of tabernacles (the same feast which
is mentioned in vii. 2), but a Christian would more
* Ordo sceclorum, 1844.

DATE OF THE CRUCIFIXION 191
naturally understand the passover. The words in
question are found in every extant manuscript and
version of S. John, nor is any doubt of their genuine
ness asserted by ancient writers. Nevertheless Dr.
Hort has obelized them in Westcott and Hort's Greek
Testament, rather for calling attention to ancient
chronologies than to assert that they are really
spurious. Unless they were absent from certain
manuscripts, which we no longer possess, he does
not see how they can have been overlooked.
If they were struck out, S. John's chronology
would become beautifully simple. His feasts would
run : Passover (March-April ; ii. 1 3-23), pentecost (?)
(May ; v. 1), tabernacles (October ; vi. 4, vii. 2), dedi
cation (December ; x. 22), passover (March-April ;
xi. 55), and the whole period would cover one year,
together with a few weeks which intervened between
the baptism and the first passover.
The one-year ministry would solve many difficulties.
It is the only scheme which reconciles S. Luke, S.
Matthew, and S. John. Not improbably it is true ;
the more I consider it, the more attractive it appears.
What I wish to emphasize is this consideration, that
if we cannot positively decide between one year and
ten, we must be prepared to keep our minds open on
many biblical controversies.
Eusebius taught that our Lord's ministry lasted
four years. He assumed that the unnamed feast in
S. John v. 1 was a passover. Many students at
a very early date adopted this view, for S. John's
curiously indefinite statement, " After these things
was a feast of the Jews," was altered in the second
century into the more natural " the feast," which

192 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
Christians took for the passover. The first year,
therefore (which was probably a short one), ended,
according to Eusebius, with the passover of ii. 13-23 ;
the second year with the supposed passover of
v. 1 ; the third with the passover of vi. 4 ; and the
fourth with the passover of xi. 55, at which the cruci
fixion took place. Eusebius, whose chronological
system obtained wide acceptance, argued thus: (1)
We read in S. Luke iii. 1 of the high-priesthood of
Annas and Caiaphas. Our Lord's ministry must
have begun under Annas and ended under Caiaphas.
Three high priests came between them. Allowing
them one year apiece (John xi. 49-51, xviii, 13) we
get four years. (2) Our Lord's ministry began in
A.D. 29, the fifteenth year of Tiberius, and a solar
eclipse took place during the crucifixion. Phlegon
mentions an eclipse of the sun in the year A.D. 33.
This also gives four years. (3) Daniel, ix. 27, speaks
of three and a half weeks, at the end of which the
sacrifice and meat offering should cease. Assume
that each week represents a year, and you get three
years and a half for the ministry.
The first of these arguments rests on a mistake.
S. Luke says that when the Baptist came forth
" Annas or* Caiaphas (as we should express it) was
high priest." Caiaphas was the nominee of Rome,
Annas exercised the real power. The faithful hesi
tated to give the sacred title to the puppet who
depended for his position on the will of the foreigner.!
* apxiepias is in the singular according to the true text.
f S. John's language (xi. 49-51, xviii. 13) does not necessarily imply,
though it does suggest, that the high priest held office for only one year.
Certainly, though the Romans would not tolerate life officers, they
allowed the high priest to continue for several years. Annas reigned
6-15 A.D.

DATE OF THE CRUCIFIXION 193
The second argument rests on a double mistake. A
solar eclipse cannot happen when the moon is at
the full, as must be the case during passover, nor
can it last longer than eight minutes. True, Eusebius
might quote S. Luke, who, according to the true text,
attributed the three hours' darkness to an eclipse of
the sun ; but this he did in one of his " editorial
notes," which, as we have seen, express his own
opinions, which are not always warranted. Of all
the schemes which we have examined this four
years (or rather three years and a half) scheme of
Eusebius has been the most popular because of the
prophecy of Daniel, the meaning of which is at least
uncertain. It is supposed also to be supported by
S. Luke xiii. 7, " Behold there are three years from
the time that I come seeking fruit on this fig tree,"
though the number "three" in a parable is more
likely to have a mystical meaning of completeness,
as in S. Luke xi. 5, xiii. 21-32.
Much more may be said for the scheme which
makes the ministry last two years and a fraction.
This reduces the discrepancy between S. Luke and
S. John, and accords with the Acts of Pilate.
The unnamed feast of S. John v. 1 is not in the
least degree likely to be passover, pentecost, or taber
nacles. It is much more probably a minor festival.
Wieseler, Meyer, and Godet argue for Purim (March),
Dr. Westcott for Trumpets (September).
We have passed in review a great number of
subjects of engrossing interest to all biblical students.
We have shown that many received opinions need
revision. We have pointed out places where further
o

194 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
investigation is desirable, and we have submitted
some new proposals. Our general conclusion is, that
certainty is unattainable, but unless the ministry
lasted about ten years, the most probable date for
the crucifixion is 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. on Friday, the four
teenth of Nisan, A.D. 29, and that the fourteenth of
Nisan probably fell on March 18.

XV.
MR. HALCOMBE'S STRICTURES ON
MODERN CRITICISM

MR. HALCOMBE is hard on modern criticism.
He never has a good word for modern critics.
The Bishop of Durham he has singled out for special
attack. The rest, though they are numerous and
hold widely divergent opinions, he groups together
and condemns without distinction.
Mr. Halcombe forgets that he is a modern critic
himself. He has spent years of patient toil on the
Gospels, like a critic. He has sedulously marshalled,
analysed, and interrogated his facts, like a critic.
He has startled us with his conclusions, like a critic.
And if a modern critic is not merely one who writes
at the close of the nineteenth century, but one who
ruthlessly disintegrates books which the Church has
always held to be perfect, Mr. Halcombe's treatment
of S. Luke's Gospel makes him a very modern critic
indeed. In attempting to state briefly a few of my reasons
for not agreeing with him, I have no desire to snatch
a victory for the moment. My wish is to help others,
if possible, in arriving at truth on this important
i95

196 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
question. I desire to do full justice to Mr.
Halcombe's ability, his industry, and his earnestness,
but I am unable to accept his conclusions, and I say
so with sincere regret.
Mr. Halcombe's contention is that the Gospels
were written in the following order t John, Matthew,
Mark, Luke.
Now in putting S. John first Mr. Halcombe does
not stand alone. Schleiermacher advocated the
same view in the early part of this century. But
not even his influence had any appreciable effect on
Christian belief. The common sense of the Church
refused to give way. But Mr. Halcombe contends
that this was the second century order, and appeals
to TertuUian to support him. We will not stay to
ask why we should prefer the opinion of a third
century Montanist to the testimony of the Fathers
of the Church. If Mr. Halcombe's supporters had
recollected the golden rule, " Verify your references,"
they would have been met by a more serious
difficulty. Tertullian's order, according to all the
manuscripts and editions which I have consulted,
appears to be ; John, Matthew, Luke, Mark.
Here is the Latin text: "Denique nobis fidem
ex apostolis Johannes et Matthaeus insinuant, ex
apostolicis Lucas et Marcus Instaurant."
And here is Mr. Halcombe's translation : " This
then is our position. From amongst apostles, John
and Matthew plant in us the faith ; from amongst
apostolic men Mark AND LUKE confirm this
faith." And again : " Let the Gospels, as placed by Ter-

MR. HALCOMBE'S STRICTURES 197
tullian — John, Matthew, MARK, LUKE— be repre
sented by the letters WORD."
Their meaning in this order, he argues, is plain to
every child ; but the common order, O R D W, or
the order adopted by modern critics, R O D W, is
hopelessly unintelligible.
Mr. Halcombe is fond of rearrangements. He has
transposed S. Luke viii. 22-xi. 13 and xi. 14-xiii. 21,
but he has written a volume to justify himself in doing
so. He has discovered that the Muratorian fragment
of the Canon has been tampered with by the seventh
century translator, who put S. John's Gospel last,
whereas the second century author had put it first ;
but he has given some, if not probable, reasons for
thinking so. I cannot find, however, that he has
anywhere told us on what authority he has altered
the current text of TertuUian. Until he does this
I must suppose the editors of TertuUian to be right.
And if so, W O D R will be as unintelligible as any
of the other permutations.*
Meanwhile I will give my own account of this
question of the order of the Gospels.
Let us transfer ourselves in thought to the year
90 A.D. At that time, according to my belief, the
Epistle of S. James had been in existence more than
forty years, being the oldest of the New Testament
writings ; S. Paul's Epistles to the Thessalonians
come next, with an age of thirty-eight years ; S.
Mark's written Gospel was nearly attaining its
• A first sketch of this paper appeared in the Expository Times
(T. and T. Clark), and drew from Mr. Halcombe the admission that
he was in error on this point.

198 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
majority ; S. Matthew's was not much younger ; but
S. Luke's was only ten years old ; and S. John's, if
Mr. Halcombe will allow me to say so, was an infant.
All the books of the New Testament, except,
perhaps, the Second Epistle of S. Peter, which is
of doubtful canonicity, were in existence, but all had
a limited circulation. Some Churches probably had
none of them, being still content with the old oral
teaching. S. Paul's Epistles, however, or at least the
longer ones, must have been possessed by many of
the Western Churches. Most Churches had one
Gospel ; few, I imagine, more than one. The
Epistle to the Hebrews, the Catholic Epistles, and
the Apocalypse, I cannot suppose to have been in
use over a wide area at this date.
But the death of S. John, and the rapid rernpval
of the last of the eye-witnesses, must have had a
potent effect in creating or stimulating the desire
to possess apostolic writings. During the next
hundred years the books of the New Testament
penetrated everywhere. They were translated into
Latin and Syriac. False Gospels, like the recently-
discovered Gospel according to S. Peter, or Marcion's
edition of S. Luke, or the Ebionite edition of the
Gospel according to the Hebrews, competed with
them in certain Churches. Tatian's Dia Tessardn
was beginning to supplant them in Edessa. But a
healthy scepticism arose. Questions were asked.
Was a book which claimed admission into the
Church written by an apostle? If not, where did
it circulate ? Who was its sponsor ? And so the
wheat was separated from the chaff, and the Canon

MR. HALCOMBE'S STRICTURES 199
was gradually closed ; though some books, like the
Epistles of Barnabas and Clement, the Shepherd of
Hermas, the Acts of S. Paul, and the Revelation of
S. Peter, were read as Scripture in some Churches
for two or three centuries longer.
It is plain that many years must have elapsed
before the scattered books of the New Testament
were collected into one or (more usually) two
volumes. For whenever a Church desired to secure
some Gospel or Epistle which it had not used
hitherto, the booksellers would make a copy of the
work, bind it in a separate volume, and send it in
that condition, in which it would remain. For there
was precedent for doing so. In the synagogues the
books of the Old Testament were kept in a series of
rolls. Probably the New Testament was at first
kept in rolls also, for the art of binding into a codex
had been but recently brought into use. And it
may be that the sacred books were kept secret
amongst the Christians, in which case they would
be copied and bound by such of the brethren as
could undertake the work.
The small size of the rolls, the cheap paper, the
poor binding, accounts for the loss of these primitive
books. In less than a century papyrus would be
rubbed to pieces. And no books of the New
Testament appear to have been written on vellum
until the conversion of Constantine. The poor and
persecuted Churches could not afford such luxuries,
and hence their service books have perished.
Now it is clear that when the twenty-seven books
— more or less, for the number was not exactly

200 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
fixed at first — began to be collected into one or two
volumes, some decision must have been made about
their relative order.
And it would be contrary to experience for any
great pains to be taken at first to fix the order. We
cannot suppose a Church Council to have been held
for the purpose, or even a local Synod. It is possible
that the choice was left to the purchaser or to the
scribe. But in the course of years a few principles
for arranging the books would become established.
The Gospels almost invariably stand first in
existing manuscripts. And this was right; for
though written last, they had been composed first,
and had circulated in an oral form from very early
times. Committing them to writing was indeed for
us a matter of the highest moment, but to the
primitive Church it had not been so. To the
Christians who learned them by heart, and not
merely heard them read, it mattered little whether
the catechist dictated the lesson from a book or from
his memory. Hence the Fathers, in speaking of the
Gospels, fail to distinguish between their oral stage
and the written stage. They regard them as a
product of the first days. And, at least in the case
of the synoptic Gospels, they are right in doing so,
though many changes and additions were made
during the oral period.
There was another reason for putting the Gospels
first. In the Old Testament the Law stood first,
the Prophets next, the Psalms and writings last.
Now the Gospels corresponded to the Law, the Acts
of the Apostles to the earlier Prophets (Joshua,

MR. HALCOMBE'S STRICTURES 201
Judges, etc.), the Epistles and Apocalypse to the
later Prophets. Psalms and poetical writings the
New Testament has none, so fully does the ancient
Psalter suffice for devotional needs.
But in what order were the Gospels arranged with
respect to one another? Different Churches took,
as we should have expected, different views. Most
of the Western Churches — by which term Rome and
the North African Churches are principally meant —
seem to have put the Gospels which were written by
apostles first, and then those which were written by
the followers of apostles. In nearly all other
Churches the order, as far as we can ascertain it,
was that which we adopt now.
But which of these two arrangements was the
older? I cannot positively say ; but let us look at
some early authorities. 1. The Muratorian fragment
of the Canon (about 170 A.D.) is imperfect; its
testimony concerning S. Matthew and S. Mark has
been lost, except the last six words, which appear
to apply to S. Mark; but it expressly states that S.
Luke stood third and S. John fourth. Mr. Halcombe
thinks that the seventh century translator has
reversed the second century author's order. I wish
to do justice to his reasons, but I do not think that
the learned will agree with him. 2. Irenaeus (about
180 A.D.) says that the true chronological order was :
(1) the Aramaic edition of S. Matthew ; (2) S. Mark ;
(3) S. Luke; (4) S. John. He does not, however,
say that the books were thus placed in his manuscript.
Perhaps they were not. Perhaps with him they still
formed separate volumes. 3. Clement of Alexandria,

202 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
" giving the tradition of the primitive fathers," says
that "John, last of all, observing that the material
facts had been exhibited in the other Gospels,
produced at the instigation of his acquaintances,
and under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, a
spiritual Gospel."* 4. Tatian's Dia Tessardn opens
with S. John i. 1 ff. This creates a slight pre
sumption that Tatian's New Testament put S.
John first, but nothing more ; the nature of his
harmony almost necessitated this commencement.
5. TertuUian (about 200 A.D.) gives the order John,
Matthew, Luke, Mark, and argues for it as the
necessarily true chronological order. TertuUian was
an advocate. I have had occasion to lecture on him
several times, and I have formed a poor opinion of
his literary honesty. He was a plagiarist, who copied
without acknowledgment, sometimes without under
standing his authority. If S. John stood first in his
New Testament, and that order favoured his argu
ment at the moment, he was not the man to inquire
why it stood first. He would flout the fact in the
face of his adversary, as if it were irrefutable truth.
Now in arguing, as he was, against Marcion, who
accepted S. Luke's Gospel only, it was important
to maintain the superiority of S. John and S.
Matthew. We must therefore discount his language.
He argues the question tediously through four long
chapters, bringing, after his wont, plenty of positive
assertion and plenty of abuse against his opponents,
but he never quotes an authority. If he had been
able to do so he would not have lost the opportunity.
• Eusebius, H. E. vi. 14.

MR. HALCOMBE'S STRICTURES 203
He practically confesses that he has no information.
The kind of a priori reasons which he presses, though
they were the common stock-in-trade of rhetoricians
of his stamp, vanish before a single fact, and cannot
stand against the statements of Irenaeus.
I infer, however, from his testimony that in the
Churches of Rome and North Africa, with which he
was connected, the order of the Gospels in his time
was what he states it to be — John, Matthew, Luke,
Mark. Nay, I infer that this order had prevailed at
Rome from the day when the Gospels had first been
bound into one volume. Otherwise the conviction
that this was the true order, could hardly have
prevailed so decidedly as Tertullian's arguments
prove it to have done.
But I do not believe that the Roman Christians
had any good authority for putting the Gospels in
that order, even if they had originally intended it
to be the chronological order, and not — as on the
surface it appears to be — an order according to the
dignity of the writers. They knew the date of S.
Mark's Gospel, which had probably been written in
their city, and they inferred that the other Gospels
must be earlier than S. Mark from what they heard
of their circulation elsewhere in an oral form.
For notice what follows. Although the pressure
of external opinion did not for more than a century
alter the rule that apostles should stand first, it did
vindicate the priority of S. Matthew to S. John.
It had been easy to put S. John first. It must have
been very difficult, after he had occupied that post
for thirty years or more, to exalt S. Matthew over

204 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
his head. Nevertheless this was done. All existing
manuscripts of the Western Church testify to the
order Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. So stand the
Gospels in the uncial Codex Bezce, so are they found
in the manuscripts of the old Latin version, in the
Gothic Version, and in the Apostolical Constitutions.
The instincts of religious people are intensely
conservative. S. John could not have been deposed
from the post of honour, if the reasons for putting
him first could bear examination. Many persons were
living who recollected the adoption of the order. If
there had been good cause for its retention their
voices could not have been silenced. They did
succeed in retaining for him the second place, but
not the first.
Meanwhile the common arrangement — Matthew,
Mark, Luke, John — prevailed throughout the East ;
but before we discuss it some different orders are
worthy of notice. In the Codex Claromontanus of
S. Paul's Epistles there is bound up a page which
contains an exceedingly ancient list of the books of
the New Testament (including certain apocryphal
authors now rejected), with the number of lines in
each. In this list the order of the Gospels is
Matthew, John, Mark, Luke.
The Syrian versions, the oldest of which belong to
the second century, do not give Mr. Halcombe's
order. The fragments of the Curetonian Syriac have
at present a peculiar order of their own : Matthew,
Mark, John, Luke. But nothing is extant of the
version of S. Mark except the last four of those
twelve verses with which in the common text S.

MR. HALCOMBE'S STRICTURES 205
Mark is concluded. In the newly-discovered palim
psest, however, of this version, all these twelve verses
are omitted, a most significant fact ; and S. Luke's
Gospel follows S. Mark xvi. 8 immediately on the
same page, with no space left between. The four
Gospels stand in the common order : Matthew, Mark,
Luke, John.
Finally, in the Memphitic and Sahidic versions,
the late Bishop Lightfoot detected three stages.
In the first the common order — Matthew, Mark,
Luke, John — prevailed. Next, S. John was trans
ferred from the last place to the first, Mr. Halcombe's
order being thus at last obtained. Soon afterwards
the original order was restored.
Meanwhile the practice of putting S. John's
Gospel last was becoming general. When S. Jerome
revised the old Latin versions, or possibly before
this, the Eastern order was introduced at Rome, and
from thence gradually spread over Christendom,
though two centuries passed before the Vulgate
drove out the old Latin versions.
S. Jerome could hardly have succeeded if the
arguments had not been on his side. Irenaeus was
not the only one who knew something about the
relative dates of the Gospels. Others whose names
have perished must have given their testimony;
for Origen was convinced, so were Athanasius,
Chrysostom, Augustine, and the other Fathers. The
Eastern order is adopted by a canon of the Council
of Laodicea (363 A.D.), and in later Councils, in
which Western bishops were present to plead for the
Western order. I cannot imagine any arguments to

206 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
have been used against them except those derived
from chronology. The Western order appears to me
to have been based on the precedence of the authors,
the Eastern order on the dates of the writing.
Mr. Halcombe appeals to the Lectionaries of the
Greek Church, which, though themselves not earlier
than the sixth century, he rightly regards as resting
on older usage. It is true that the Eastern Church
selected the "Gospels for the day" at Easter and
in the weeks immediately following from S. John
as a general rule ; and it is true that Easter was
reckoned the commencemeut of the ecclesiastical
year. Hence, in the volume which was prepared
for the sole use of the " Gospeller," selections from
S. John come first, and except two " Gospels " from
S. Mark and two from S. Luke, he is read daily
until Whitsunday. But this fact does not prove
much. Perhaps the men who arranged the services
put S. John first because of his apostolic rank, more
probably because the truths which he proclaims are
best suited to the most triumphant period of the
Church calendar. Certainly, while the Evangelis-
terium held the broken fragments of the Gospels in
this order, the Bible on the lectern held them un
broken in the common order. And if this is so, it
only confirms my contention that there were two
ways of arrangement, one according to dignity, . the
other according to dates.
Mr. Halcombe will retort that modern critics do
not agree with the early Fathers, but strike out for
themselves a new and unheard-of order — Mark,
Matthew, Luke, John. I reply that I fully accept

MR. HALCOMBE'S STRICTURES 207
the order of Irenaeus, who was brought up in Asia
Minor, where he had often seen and heard Polycarp,
the pupil of S. John. But I have shown that our
Greek edition of S. Matthew is a slightly later work
than the Aramaic edition of S. Matthew to which
Irenaeus alludes, and thus it becomes a little later
than S. Mark.
If, however, we go beyond the date of writing to
the time when the oral Gospel was first composed,
then the discrepancy becomes greater, and S. Mark
is much older than S. Matthew. I rejoice to have
Irenaeus on my side, and Papias and Origen and
others who have a right to be heard. But I do not,
any more than Mr. Halcombe, undertake to follow
them blindly. Church Councils are not infallible
guides in solving literary problems. Take a parallel
case. The Catholic Epistles, after some vicissitudes,
fell into the order — James, Peter, John, Jude. I
should arrange them — James, Jude, Peter, John. S.
Paul's Epistles are given in the Muratorian fragment
in this order — Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians,
Colossians, Galatians, Thessalonians, Romans, Phile
mon, Titus, Timothy. Gradually they settled down
Into their present order. But modern scholars
place them — Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians,*
Romans, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, Ephesians,
1 Timothy, Titus, 2 Timothy. Would Mr. Halcombe
propose to go back to the old order? If he did,
would anyone support him?
The ancients did their best. Their proximity to
• I am not yet convinced that the Epistle to the Galatians is the
earliest of S. Paul's epistles.

208 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
the events gave them certain advantages. Direct
testimony, like that of Irenaeus, must not lightly be
set aside. But we claim the right to review the
whole question, and decide it according to the
evidence. II.
The ruler of the feast at Cana, betraying his
vulgarity when he thought to parade his wit, made
use of the coarse epigram, " Every man at the
beginning of a banquet produces his best wines,
and when his guests are drunk, then those of an
inferior brand : thou hast kept the good wine until
now." (S. John ii. 10.)
Mr. Halcombe thinks that the Gospels were
produced according to the earthly precedent
described by the ruler of the feast, and not accord
ing to the divine plan followed by Christ. S. John,
he says, came first and culled the choicest fruits of
all ; S. Matthew followed, selecting the best of what
was left ; S. Mark and S. Luke, being evangelists,
but not apostles, did not presume to record any
thing, nor even to copy anything, of the highest
spiritual value. Indeed, the three synoptists avoided
S. John altogether, as towering above their heads.
They read, admired, and passed him by. But
S. Mark endeavoured to serve the Church by slightly
expanding S. Matthew's historical narratives, without
presuming to make use of the discourses and the
doctrinal portions. S. Luke added a few distinctly
" ministerial " details.
Thus the best wine was set forth first, afterwards
that which was worse.

MR. HALCOMBE'S STRICTURES 209
To my mind such a plan of composition seems
unworthy of God, and incredible in man. To take
a single instance, S. Mark on this hypothesis read
the words, " Come unto Me all ye that labour and
are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Was
it humility which made him deliberately omit them,
as too good for so insignificant a creature as himself
to record? Or was it a conscious or unconscious
feeling that they were unsuited to his readers ? A
man with such preposterous humility was ill-equipped
for the work of an evangelist. Readers so unchristian
would not value a Gospel.
But let us see whether Mr. Halcombe's method
is followed out in other New Testament writings.
Luther described S. James's Epistle as an epistle
of straw. It contains but little Christian doctrine.
The spirit is that of the Old Testament, caught
from Isaiah and the prophets, and only slightly
affected by the Incarnation. If Luther had but
known that S. James was the earliest of the
Christian writers, his estimate might have been
different. He would have seen in the Epistle the
pledge of future things and the assurance that the
Old Testament is not contrary to the New, but
simply earlier and less developed. S. James clings
mainly to the Old. His Epistle is Christianity in
swaddling clothes.
S. Mark's Gospel might with equal justice be
described as a gospel of straw. Give it the first
place, and its value is seen. It is the historical
basis on which the other synoptic Gospels are
built. It is the first-fruits of the Spirit, the glory
P

210 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
which led to glory. Put it second or third, and
few scholars in this age would admit its right to
exist. Again, we have thirteen Epistles of S. Paul.
Read them in their chronological order, as every
Bible student ought to do, and you trace step by
step the development of the apostle's inner life.
They may be arranged into four groups, which to
assist the memory may be roughly separated by
an interval of five years in each case.
The first group (A.D. 52) contains the Epistles to
the Thessalonians, which may almost be described
as a youthful effort. The Tubingen critics, with
singular lack of appreciation, judged these Epistles
to be unworthy of the master-mind, and it is only
as a first work that we can defend their genuineness,
but as such they are of the highest value. In the
second group (A.D. 57) we have the product of man
hood. The Epistles to the Corinthians, Galatians,
and Romans have no equal, whether we regard
them in respect of creative genius, of variety, or
of vigour. They have been accepted as undoubtedly
Pauline writings by even the most destructive and
narrow-minded critics. They are practically un
assailable. In the third group (A.D. 62) we have
the result of chastened experience. The Epistles
to the Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, and
Ephesians are the work of the imprisonment Age,
grief, and disappointment have sobered, but given
depth to, the apostle's spiritual hopes. To many
persons these writings have been the most con
solatory of his efforts. Lastly, in the Pastoral

MR. HALCOMBE'S STRICTURES 211
Epistles (A.D. 68) we see the old man retiring from
speculation, and devoting himself to organization.
The radical has become a moralist. He who boldly
trusted to great principles now descends to petty
details, for the time of his departure is at hand,
and he feels the need of providing successors and
endowing them.
Here, then, are all the stages of progress from
weakness through strength to maturity and even
the beginnings of decay. Everything shows that
inspiration quickens, vitalises, energizes, but does
not alter the laws of thought nor change the
character of the human mind.
Thirdly, let us glance at the earlier period, when
writings were, according to the common belief, un
known, and only the outlines of a few great speeches
have been preserved. S. Luke has collected in the
Acts of the Apostles such information as we possess
of the work of this period. Its meagreness and
disappointing character are the best proof of its
truth. Take S. Stephen's speech, which runs its
weary length through fifty-two verses. Except in
the last, there is not even an allusion to Christ or
to anything Christian. It was in the synagogue
that S. Stephen had learned to preach ; and if we
did not know it, we could hardly have believed that
he was an officer of the Church. But S. Paul's
sermon at the Pisidian Antioch is not so very much
better. S. Peter's speeches attest the fact of the
resurrection, and press on the Jewish conscience
the guilt of the crucifixion ; but except certain
allusions to the fulfilment of Scripture, they do

212 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
nothing more. It is only in the latter part of the
book that we find anything like developed doctrine.
No doubt the character of the speeches is largely
affected by the audience and the surroundings ; but,
I maintain, it is still more due to the immaturity
of the speaker's conceptions. The Christian leaders
had not yet attained to the fulness of their later
knowledge. Development and progress may be
discerned on every side.
For it is a law of the human mind that combating
error is the best way to advance knowledge. They
who have never joined in controversy have no firm
grasp of truth. Hateful and unchristian as theological
disputes are apt to become, they have this merit,
that they open our eyes. The Arian controversy,
though detestable at the time, left the Church richer
in the faith. And S. Paul would not have had so
sure an apprehension of truth if he had not had to
combat heresy in Corinth, Galatia, and Colossse.
But, Mr. Halcombe may reply, this is true of the
doctrinal facts of the New Testament, but the case
of the Gospels is different. The evangelists are not
theologians or historians interpreting what they
narrate, but annalists recording certain words and
deeds. Proximity to the event is the one thing
needful. The earliest narrator would be the best.
For their faces, like that of Moses, shone from their
communion with Him who is the Light, and, as
years rolled on, the glory would inevitably fade
away. This is precisely the question on which we differ.
S. Mark, I maintain, was an annalist. He recorded,

MR. HALCOMBE'S STRICTURES 213
almost without comment, what he had learned from
S. Peter. But the other evangelists were historians.
They interpret for us the facts which they relate.
By numerous editorial notes and observations they
.give us the result of their meditations. By a large
number of new sections they increase the store of
truth. For thus was Christ's promise fulfilled, that
the Holy Spirit should bring back to their remem
brance what Christ had spoken to them. In other
words, they did not at first understand the full
meaning of their trust. They did not see what
was most important in Christ's work. Their con
ceptions of Christianity were crude and one-sided.
The deeper truths were brought home to them
gradually. The glory, so far from fading away,
waxed, as S. Paul says, brighter and brighter in
proportion as they severally received the illumination
of the Spirit of the Lord.
S. Mark's Gospel, therefore, with its naked history,
came first. S. Matthew's and S. Luke's were founded
upon it (of course, while they all existed in the
oral stage), but they were slowly enriched by the
gradual accumulation of facts and teaching collected
from a great variety of sources.
All three evangelists, I hold, made it their single
aim to give their readers everything trustworthy
which they could collect. The common idea, that
they picked and selected what was specially adapted
to their readers, I most confidently reject. The
simple fact that S. Matthew's Gospel — the Gospel
of the Eastern Church — has always been more
popular amongst Gentile Christians than S. Luke's

214 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
—the Gospel of the West— upsets this most erroneous
notion. I cannot doubt that S. Matthew would have
given much to include in his Gospel the parable of
the Prodigal Son, or that S. Luke would have given
still more for the history of the Syrophcenician
woman's daughter, for that is the only recorded case
of mercy granted by Christ to a Gentile,* and is
therefore the one fact by which his readers would
be most powerfully affected. He did not give it,
because he had never heard of it. It belongs to
the second edition of S. Peter's memoirs, which never
reached the West till the Gospels were written.
But though there was no conscious selection of
what was proper, the inevitable pressure of circum
stances and locality must unconsciously have
moulded the development. S. Matthew's Gospel,
being built up in the East, deals with the inferiority
of the Law to the Gospel, the fulfilment of Scripture
in Christ, the guilt of the Jewish nation in crucifying
Him. It thus justifies and explains the destruction
of Jerusalem, which was the one event of Providence
which demanded explanation with the Jews.
If I wanted to describe the special features of
this Gospel, I should call it the proclamation of
Christianity amid the ruins of the Holy City. The
catechists, who gradually shaped it, had the coming
destruction before their eyes, and it was not finally
written until that destruction was an accomplished
fact. S. Luke, on the other hand, felt very slightly the
• The centurion's servant (Matt. viii. 5-13 ; Luke vii. 1-10) was
probably a Jew, and the centurion himself was certainly a proselyte.

MR. HALCOMBE'S STRICTURES 215
pressure of this terrible tragedy. A Gentile himself,
whose work lay amongst Gentfles, he could view
with comparative equanimity the events which were
so overwhelming to his neighbours. For him the
universality of the Gospel, and its applicability to
all ages and nations, to the poor, the sick, the lost,
the dying, was the essential thing. Brought up
under S. Paul, he teems with the Pauline spirit.
And though he delights to colour his page with
details of Jewish ritual and Semitic thought, he does
so with the feelings of an artist, and not because
he cares for such trivialities in themselves. His
Gospel is the Gospel of humanity.
But if S. Matthew's Gospel and S. Luke's show
traces of progress in spiritual and intellectual under
standing, S. John's does so sevenfold. His opening
verses reveal a depth of knowledge to which S. James
never attained. Not that S. James would have
contradicted them, or doubted their truth. But it
is one thing to see truth when it is set before you ;
it is another to set it forth yourself. There is such
a thing as latent knowledge. The grander the
truth, the more simple and obvious it is when once
enunciated ; but for all that it is long in coming.
"The Spirit divideth to every man severally as He
wills." I suppose no one now would hold that the Gospels
were written in a state of ecstasy ; that the evangelists,
scarcely conscious of what they were doing, held the
pen while the Holy Spirit directed it. Such crude
conceptions of inspiration are not favoured by Mr.
Halcombe nor by any other competent observer of

216 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
the facts. We agree that the inspired writers give
what they had learned. I hold that they had learned
it after a long search. I believe that S. John's ideas
are clear, because they are the product of a life of
thought. Christ's speeches, as he records them, must
not be regarded as verbatim reports, made as it were
by the help of a shorthand writer. What Christ
really said was, I maintain, often simpler and briefer.
The thought is Christ's, the clothing of it is S. John's.
The cast of the sentence, the choice of words, are
not seldom the evangelist's contribution. This is
proved by a strongly-marked style and a peculiar
vocabulary, not to be found in the synoptic writers.
The speeches and the narratives had been turned
over in his mind and reproduced in his oral teaching
for a generation. Every year they acquired some
new polish, some fresh illustration. He had repeated
them, till he did not sharply distinguish between the
original saying and the inspired commentary.
Indeed, these are perpetually mixed up. Sometimes
we can see the distinction, but oftener it eludes us ;
so completely is the interpretation blended with
the text.
This process demands time. Mr. Halcombe holds
that S. John's Gospel was completed, published, and
received as canonical a few weeks after the author
had been blindly asking, "Lord, dost Thou at this
time restore the kingdom to Israel?" I, on the
contrary, require at least several decades of ex
perience, meditation, and prayer for the education
of the greatest of the evangelists.
I do not believe that it was easier to write a

MR. HALCOMBE'S STRICTURES 217
Gospel than to write an Epistle. I deny that the
one was a mere effort of memory, the other the
product of thought. And, therefore, I cannot admit
that S. John when he followed S. Peter about as a
dumb companion,* never to our knowledge opening
his mouth, was engaged in composing or had already
completed and was known as the author of those
weighty chapters which have in many respects
given us a nobler conception of Christ than we can
gain from any other source, and have done more
to solace the sufferer than the other evangelists put
together. If Christ Himself during His period of humiliation
grew in wisdom as perceptibly as He grew in stature,
and needed thirty years' meditation, study of
Scripture, and prayer before He broke silence,
much more did His youthful servant need experi
ence and training before he commenced to write.
Pontius Pilate or Caiaphas might have given us a
life of Christ, which in many respects would have
been fuller and more correct, historically and legally,
than what the evangelists have given. We should
value such a document highly for critical purposes,
but it would not have been a Gospel. And why?
The consecrated thought would not have been there ;
the sympathetic insight, which we define as inspi
ration, would not have discerned the treasure which
should bless ages unborn.
It is impossible to separate S. John's Gospel from
his first Epistle. To say that the Epistle was written
as a preface to the Gospel is perhaps going too far,
* So he invariably appears in Acts iii.-viii.

218 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
but the two works teem with the same ideas, and
can hardly have been written at very different
epochs. Now the tone of the Epistle is sad. It
speaks of antagonism. The struggle against opposing
forces is constant and severe. But in the first years
of Christianity the apostles were triumphant. The
people magnified them. The attempts of the rulers
and the Sadducees to crush them failed because
they were the heroes of the hour. Their converts
were numbered by thousands. They carried every
thing before them. The Master's triumphant return
was their daily expectation.
In a few years this state of things began to change.
S. Stephen was martyred by a mob acting under
lynch law. A general persecution followed, and the
brethren were scattered. A little later Herod
Agrippa I. slew S. James the son of Zebedee. This
brutal murder brought him so much popularity that
he resolved to strike a blow at the ringleader,
S. Peter. It was long before the Roman authorities
were aroused, but they were aroused at last, and then
the outlook was black indeed.
Now if S. John wrote, as Mr. Halcombe says, in
the earliest days of Christianity, he. would have been
more or less than human, if his writings had not
reflected the triumph of the moment. They must
have been inspired with hope and the sense of
coming victory. But, on the contrary, they are
permeated with gloom, and with the feeling that
though not crushed, or capable of being crushed,
yet the revelation of Christ in many quarters was
not making way. And this is true of the Gospel

MR. HALCOMBE'S STRICTURES -219
as much as of the Epistle. Look, for example, at
the use which S. John makes of that word, " the
world," in both of them. It is not a new word.
S. Mark uses it twice ; S. Luke three times in his
Gospel, and once in the Acts of the Apostles.
SS. Peter, Paul, Matthew, James, and the author
of the Epistle "to the Hebrews employ it still more
frequently. But with S. John it is a keyword. He
repeats it twenty-one times in the Epistle, seventy-
eight times in the Gospel. And its meaning has
been deepened. S. Luke spoke of all the kingdoms
of the world. S. Paul teaches that the world by
nature knew not God. But with S. John the king
dom of the world is the antithesis of the kingdom
of God. Ignorance has been succeeded by active
hatred. No compromise is possible. "We are of
God, and the whole world lieth in the evil one."
This is the result of ripe experience. This is a
sign that the power of Rome was stirring itself.
TertuUian thought it impossible for the Roman
emperors ever to become Christian. His opinion
was the natural, if too literal, deduction from the
teaching of S. John.
Again, the fulfilment of Scripture by Christ was
an engrossing study in the first ages. It was the
subject of endless discussion with the Jews. But
it was not merely a weapon to confute or persuade
them ; it was one of the strongest means of
establishing the Christians themselves, both Jews
and Gentiles, in the faith. S. Peter began the
investigation on the day of Pentecost, and it was
continued not only in the East, as S. Matthew's

220 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
Gospel testifies, but by S. Paul in his Epistles, by
S. Luke in the Acts of the Apostles, in S. Peter's
First Epistle, and in the Epistle to the Hebrews.
S. John draws attention to four fulfilments, which
are not expressly noticed elsewhere. They all
relate to the passion, and all occur in the nineteenth
chapter, (i) They parted My garments among
them, and upon My vesture did they cast lots.
(2) When I was thirsty, they gave Me vinegar to
drink. (3) A bone thereof shall not be broken.
(4) They shall look on Him whom they pierced.
S. Mark knows nothing of these fulfilments. Some
of them, especially the third, are so recondite that
they are not likely to have been discovered in the
primitive times.
S. John not only gives the incident of the drawing
of a sword and cutting off the high priest's domestic
servant's ear on the night of the arrest, but says
that S. Peter committed the outrage and Malchus
suffered it. If both men were dead, there could
be no harm in publishing their names. Otherwise
some trouble might be apprehended, or why did
the synoptists suppress the information?
S. John, after completing his Gospel, added
another chapter by way of supplement. The object
was to correct a false opinion which was current,
that his own exemption from death had been pre
dicted by Christ. If he felt death to be drawing
near, we can understand his anxiety to remove a
stumbling-block from the faith of his friends. But
if he wrote immediately after the Ascension, what
time had there been for the rumour to spread, and

MR. HALCOMBE'S STRICTURES 221
what probability that it was not correct? It was
an inference, an extension, of Christ's words, but
at least a very reasonable extension. Lapse of time
alone was showing it to be false, and lapse of time
alone justified S. John in interpreting so positively
our Lord's obscure words respecting S. Peter. For
the prophecy, " When thou wast young, thou girdedst
thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest ; but
when thou shalt be old, another shall gird thee, and
carry thee whither thou wouldest not," does not on
the face of it point to martyrdom. Only after
S. Peter's death could S. John have unreservedly
explained it so. Again, look for a moment at the
form of the sentence : " This spake He, signifying
by what death he should glorify God." How un
natural to write thus of the departure of your
dearest friend, if he was still by your side. How
natural if the severance had taken place five years
or upwards. There is joy for the comrade who has
entered upon his rest, thankfulness that the fiery
trial has ended in triumph, regret that such honour
should be denied to himself. Here is a typical
specimen of S. John's style. The simplest words
teem with the deepest meaning.
It appears from v. 2, vii. 2, xi. 18, xviii. 40, and
other passages, that the Gospel was written for
foreigners and persons unacquainted with Jewish
customs and Jewish topography. It cannot, there
fore, have been written in the first days when
S. John himself lived in Jerusalem, and almost the
whole of the Church was resident in that city.
Indeed, if written then, it would most certainly
have been written in Aramaic.

222 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
It is objected that if S. John wrote after the
destruction of Jerusalem he ought not to have said,
" There is in Jerusalem at the sheep (gate) a pool
. . . with five porches." " There was " would have
been the necessary word. No doubt the five porches
were destroyed, and the pool filled up with the
rubbish. But S. John had never visited the city
since its destruction. He may not have known the
full extent of the demolition. It was natural for
the old man to picture the scene as he remembered
it in happier days. It is characteristic of great age
to live in the distant past. I cannot regard this
as an insuperable difficulty.
The theory of inspiration which underlies the
views advocated in this paper may seem to some
people subversive of belief. I have not found it so.
It may make belief more difficult, but it seems to
be more in accord with the facts, and therefore in
the long-run preserves faith by preventing a conflict
with reason.
God's way of revealing Himself is never exactly
what we should have expected. He chooses to
employ human agents with all their weakness and
liability to make mistakes. Inspiration quickens
their spiritual perception, but does not altogether
preserve them from errors of fact.* Christ might
have written down His own message for us on
some sheets of vellum which could have been
legible to this day. Nay, the phonograph might
have been invented before the fulness of time came,
* See. for example, Matt. i. 9, n ; Mark ii. 26; Luke ii. 2:
John xii. 3; Acts v. 36, vii. 16.

MR. HALCOMBE'S STRICTURES 223
that we might still hear for ourselves the Sermon
on the Mount in the very tones with which it was
delivered. But by granting none of these things,
God seems to warn us against putting our trust in
the flesh. After all, we are not saved by the Gospels,
but by Christ. III.
Mr. Halcombe claims to have settled the Gospel
difficulties by putting S. John first, retaining the
other Gospels in the common order, but dissecting
and reconstructing S. Luke. He is satisfied that
he has succeeded, and points out in proof that any
one, after mastering his "constructive principles,"
could tell at sight from which Gospel any particular
section came, without any previous knowledge of the
Gospels. So of old the Ptolemaic astronomers insisted that
they must be right in making the earth the centre
of the universe, and the sun a satellite revolving
round the earth, because they could account on this
supposition for all the motions of the heavenly bodies.
Their system of cycles and epicycles, processions and
recessions, was beautifully complete. Were they not
able to predict an eclipse ? Moreover, the circle was
a perfect figure, worthy of the divine perfection of the
Creator, incomparably superior to the battered and
distorted ellipse.
, It is easy to construct a system. If you carefully
analyse and arrange the facts, leaving nothing out of
consideration and exaggerating nothing, it will be
impossible to refute you. The question is, whether

224 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
your system is natural, self-evident, and capable of
asserting its own truth, or a mass of improbabilities,
strung together in defiance of law and habit and
ascertained fact.
Copernicus maintained that the sun was the centre
of the solar system. Galileo supported him. Kepler
discovered the laws of the motions in an ellipse.
Newton hit upon the idea of gravity. Gradually
an easy and natural explanation of the movements
of the heavenly bodies was produced, and the result
is that no one now believes in the Ptolemaic system,
or if anyone occasionally advocates a return to it, he
gets no hearing from scientific men.
Mr. Halcombe himself seems to be astonished
at the "constructive principles" on which the
evangelists, according to his theory, worked. He
admits that no other books were ever composed on
such literary rules. To my mind it is a sufficient
refutation of his scheme that it would be just as
easy and far more natural to adopt Tertullian's
order in reality, and put S. Mark last instead of
third. Then, at least, we should secure symmetry.
We should say that S, John came first and gathered
the choicest fruit, S. Matthew reaped the second
crop, and S. Luke the third ; but S. Mark was
too late for the harvest, and was compelled to be
content with the gleanings.
My advice to the student is, Try a simpler plan.
Give up the idea that inspiration sets aside the
laws of human thought. Look at a parallel case.
Inspiration was promised by Christ Himself to the
apostles for their speeches. "Do not premeditate

MR. HALCOMBE'S STRICTURES 225
... it shall be given you at the moment what ye
shall speak. It is not you that speak, but the
Holy Spirit." That I fully accept and believe.
Nevertheless, on examining those speeches of the
apostles which have been preserved, and which
may therefore be assumed to be in a special
manner inspired, I do not find them faultless. Take
S. Paul's speech before Ananias and the Sanhedrin.
(Acts xxiii.) The commencement, " Brethren, I have
lived with a perfectly good conscience before God
until this day," appears to me to be singularly
deficient in the meekness and gentleness of Christ.
The abusive epithet, " You whitewashed wall," seems
too insulting for a Christian to use towards any
man ; it gave the bystanders an opportunity of
retort, of which they made full and effective use.
The appeal to party rancour, " I am a Pharisee,
the pupil of a Pharisee ; I am on my trial for the
hope of the resurrection of the dead," was — I allude
to the last clause — untrue in fact and unjustifiable in
Intent. The apostle himself admitted this when the
excitement was over. (xxiv. 21.) " Compassed with in
firmity" is our verdict on him in his speeches. Human
nature is there with its faults as well as its virtues.
The same human nature may be perceived when
he took his pen in hand. That it was a noble nature,
towering high above ordinary men, I strongly main
tain. But it was not perfect. Inspiration quickened
S. Paul's perception of truth, but it did not protect
him from faults of temper, nor from using bad
grammar, broken sentences, questionable logic, and
inexact quotations. Q

226 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
And if this cannot be gainsaid, why should we
think with Mr. Halcombe that "the Gospels, as
first given to men, exhibited a perfect unity of
design and execution"? Why should we believe
that "their parts may be as nicely adjusted to each
other as the machinery of the Nasmyth hammer " ?
Was not human agency employed in their produc
tion? And where men are employed, will there
not always be an element of imperfection? Or
what did S. Paul mean when he wrote, "We have
this treasure in earthen vessels, that the exceeding
greatness of its power may be of God " ?
If Mr. Halcombe's "constructive principles" require
S. Luke to have written certain parts of his Gospel in
a way in which no man ever wrote before or since,
the conclusion which I should draw is that the con
structive principles are wrong.
Put the sun into the centre of the solar system.
Put S. Mark first among the evangelists. All will
then become plain. S. Mark will be restored to
his real post of honour. Instead of being a
miserable epitomizer of S. Matthew, afraid to copy
anything which possessed high spiritual value, he
is S. Peter's faithful interpreter, the pioneer in
producing the noblest works with which God has
been pleased to enrich the Church. S. Matthew and
S. Luke are beholden to him for the historical frame
work of their Gospels. It was their task to collect
new matter, and incorporate it with the old.
The first principle which I lay down is this, that
the original telling of a story will be the fullest
and most picturesque. Later repetitions will give

MR. HALCOMBE'S STRICTURES 227
the essential points of the story in less rugged dic
tion, but will curtail and confuse the circumstantial
details. That this principle is true in ordinary life needs
no proof. But in the Gospels the case is not quite
the same. The story was not merely told, but
learned by heart and frequently repeated. The
habits of the time made this compulsory. We
shall never understand the growth of the Gospels
unless we realise the pains taken to give every
Christian child (and every adult, as far as he was
capable of receiving it) an education in the faith,
according to the ordinary methods of the day, by
making him commit long passages to memory.
Still, though the process of reducing the bulk of
material would be carried on at a slower rate under
these safeguards, it would be in constant operation.
The catechist would unconsciously yield to the
pressure of circumstances. Why should he burden
his pupil's memory with details, to the exclusion of
important matters? Why give names of persons
and places in which the learner could take no
interest, rather than great principles which would
guide him through life? In the course of forty
years the shrinkage in narrative would be great ;
all the greater because newly-added parables and
discourses were always swelling the lessons, and
compelling the catechist to find space for them by
abbreviating the original records.
Now the process of Gospel formation was carried
on simultaneously in two districts, which were jealous
of each other, and seldom held intercommunications.

228 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
The Eastern catechists, centred round Jerusalem, pro
duced, as I hold, in oral form, S. Matthew's Gospel,
under his guidance and with his contributions ; the
Western catechists, under S. Paul, produced the third
Gospel, of which one of them, S. Luke, became
ultimately the writer. Both sets of catechists started
with S. Mark's version of S. Peter's Memoirs (except
that S. Luke received about two-thirds of it only),
and grafted into it such additional records as they
from time to time obtained from S. Matthew or other
sources. Both of them unconsciously and gradually altered
S. Mark's teaching, not only by reducing Its bulk,
but by modifying its statements. But they did this
differently, according to their national proclivities.
The Jews were strict in adhering to the facts, but
contemptuous of picturesque ornament. The Gentiles
loved the picturesque, but were not so careful of the
facts. If, then, we strike out of S. Matthew and S. Luke
all the verses which have no parallel in S. Mark, and
then compare what is left of them with S. Mark and
with each other, we shall find, if I am right, that
S. Mark is always the fullest, and that of the others
S. Matthew's is shortest, but seldom contradicts S.
Mark ; S. Luke's Is of medium length, but more
frequently contradicts S. Mark. Above all, when
ever S. Matthew and S. Luke support one another,
S. Mark must agree with them ; when they contradict
one another, S. Mark will usually agree with one of
them against the other, or give something from which
both the divergent statements have been derived.

MR. HALCOMBE'S STRICTURES 229
This would be true absolutely if S. Mark had
written his Gospel at the first, and if the East
and West held no communications with each other.
Instead of that, S. Mark did not write for about
forty years. During that time the records were
dwelling in his mind, and were continually pro
duced in his catechetical teaching. They were
therefore reduced in bulk and altered in form like
the rest, only this process was very much slower
than with the other Gospels, because one man's
memory does not make so many changes as are
made if a story passes through the minds and
memories of from six to twelve.
It is not denied that all this has been done ;
only Mr. Halcombe gives a different and (as I
think) impossible account of how it was done.
Instead of following the natural and self-evident
plan which I have sketched, he proposes another.
He holds that S. Matthew wrote first of the three ;
that S. Mark took his Gospel, struck out of it all
those passages which he thought too good for himself
to touch or for his readers to know, and then pro
ceeded to amplify the residuum. Where S. Matthew
had used six words he expanded them to ten or
twelve. Such a process in ordinary literature pro
duces prosy and insipid narratives. But here the
effect was the opposite. Not a word is unnecessary
or out of place. The dry bones of S. Matthew's
jejune chronicles have been clothed with flesh.
In the next place, S. Luke, Mr. Halcombe teaches,
took both the Gospels, but, having a less humble
estimate of himself than S. Mark had shown, retained

230 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
a number of the more valuable sections. For the
rest, he picked one word from S. Matthew, the next
from S. Mark, the third was his own. Yet, instead
of producing a patchwork, the result was homo
geneous. The world has decided that his Greek
is more classical than that of the others. Not a
sentence is out of place, not a word is superfluous.
"Dovetailing" does not usually turn out so well.
If anyone doubts this, let him read Tatian's Dia
Tessardn. But then Tatian had some respect for
his authorities, and could not bring himself to alter
or omit a sentence from any one of them. S. Luke,
according to the documentary hypothesis, had no
such scruples. Though he was not an eye
witness, but derived his information second-hand,
he capriciously altered it without misgiving. Wit
ness his account (in the Revised Version) of the
new cloth and the old garment. (Luke v. 36 = Mark il.
21 = Matt ix. 16.) Such wanton levity I cannot
attribute to S. Luke, and therefore I cling to the
oral hypothesis, which preserves the evangelists'
character, by denying that any of them had had
the advantage of seeing the Gospel of his fellows.
S. Luke's chief object in writing was, Mr. Halcombe
teaches, to correct S. Matthew's chronology, which is
confessedly wrong, and is supposed to have been
causing doubt in the Church. Now S. Luke corrects
it by following almost invariably S. Mark. If he had
told his pupils that in matters of chronology S. Mark,
when he differs from S. Matthew, is always right,
would not that have sufficed? It would seem so,
for observe the final issue of his labours. No sooner

MR. HALCOMBE'S STRICTURES 231
was his perfect adjustment of chronology published,
than some enemy, according to Mr. Halcombe, spoilt
it all. A malicious, or well-meaning but ill-informed,
person secured S. Luke's manuscript, and transposed
about a couple of chapters, with the result that Gospel
difficulties have troubled the Church ever since, until
Mr. Halcombe discovered the fraud.
Papias tells us that S. Mark's chronology is wrong.
If so, S. Matthew and S. Luke, who, I maintain,
follow it as almost their only guide, must be wrong
also.* This is, I believe, the true account of the
matter. The question is fundamental. If I am
right, Mr. Halcombe and the harmonists have spent
years of exhausting labour to very little purpose.
The Gospels, I say, were put together originally for
convenience of Church lessons, with only slight regard
for chronological sequence. S. Mark arranged the
sections in their present order, and not S. Peter.
S. Mark had not the knowledge, even if he had the
desire, to secure the correct sequence.
Whether S. Luke, when he promised in his preface
to "write in order," meant chronological order or
not we cannot decide. The words in themselves
are ambiguous. A hundred beads lying on a table
at random are not arranged in order. Put them
on a string and they become so. If you arrange
them carefully with regard to colour, you have a
better claim to have put them in order. But if
you prefer to arrange them according to size, who
will deny that you have kept your promise? So
if S. Luke strung together the sections of the
? See Composition of the Four Gospels, pp. 21-24, !4&

232 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
Gospels with suitable prefaces and conclusions, as
he has done, he wrote "in order." The Greek
word which he uses {KaOei*js) merely means " strung
in a row." If he put them into chronological order,
he did better still. But if he put them in the most
convenient order for Church services, he has surely
done well enough. Even if he intended to write
in chronological order (which is very far from
certain), we have no reason to suppose that in
spiration would prove an infallible guide in such
a matter, or that it was possible at that date for
a man in his position to arrive at the real sequence
of events. If true chronology was necessary for the
Church, would not God's providence have prevented
such a perversion of it as Mr. Halcombe supposes?
It is a poor thing to say that the Gospels once were
perfect, if we can only do so by maintaining that they
were corrupted immediately.

iv.
But, to turn to another point of the inquiry, when
a man writes in a foreign language he is apt to use
the idioms of his mother tongue.
A Frenchman seldom writes idiomatic English.
When he attempts to do so, an Englishman who
knows French can generally detect a multitude of
French idioms underlying the English words. Much
more in days of old, when a Jew undertook to write
Greek, was he likely to introduce Semitic idioms into
his work, especially if that work was a translation
from Aramaic. Semitic languages co-ordinate rather

MR. HALCOMBE'S STRICTURES 233
than subordinate their sentences. The conjunction
" and " occurs with monotonous frequency. S. John's
Gospel is a good example of this. "And," "there
fore," "because," have almost driven out the rich
array of Hellenic connecting particles ; and this
because the apostle thinks in Aramaic, though he
writes in Greek. Now S. Mark was S. Peter's inter
preter, to translate (as I have shown) his Aramaic
lessons for the Greek catechumens, not (as is com
monly supposed) to translate S. Peter's Greek into
Latin. " And " is his favourite conjunction. One of
the strongest internal arguments against the genuine
ness of the last twelve verses is the sudden reduction
in the frequency of this word.
But S. Mark has another peculiarity. To connect
narratives he writes " straightway." Forty-one times
does this word occur. It is apparently a mannerism,
arising from want of literary skill in securing variety.
S. Matthew makes short work with this " straight
way." S. Luke in nearly every instance gets rid of
it. And so their style is improved ; there is less
monotony and tediousness.
It is an axiom in such cases that the crude and
uncouth shall come first. S. Mark's translation was
used by the other Greek catechists, but every one of
them would contribute something to improve it, until
it reaches its most polished form in S. Luke's edition.
The oldest form of the Gospel is that which is fullest
in matter, but rudest in expression.
So far we have dealt with broad principles. Now
I will give two petty details, to confirm what has
been said.

234 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
All the evangelists use a certain number of Latin
words, connected for the most part with Roman
money, law, or military rule. Such words were
necessarily current in countries which were under
Roman government, but to introduce them into a
Greek treatise was a disfigurement. It was false in
art and offensive to correct taste. Now S. Mark uses
the Latin centurio for a centurion. He so writes it
three times in the fifteenth chapter. But S. Matthew
and S. Luke substitute for it the Greek equivalent,
eKarovrapxis- According to Mr. Halcombe's view,
S. Mark found the correct Greek word in S. Matthew's
Gospel, and deliberately altered it into the incorrect.
This, I submit, is incredible.
Again, the word " man " is frequently expressed in
Aramaic by the phrase "son of man." Thus in
John i. 6 the Peshito Syriac gives, " There was a son
of man sent from God, whose name was John." This
expression was unknown to Greek authors, and
would mislead the Greek reader. Now in Mark iii. 28
it is written, " Verily I say unto you that all things
shall be forgiven to the sons of men, their sins and the
blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme."
This in S. Matthew's parallel (xii. 31) becomes,
" Wherefore I say unto you, every sin and blasphemy
shall be forgiven to men" (for which the Peshito, of
course, gives " to the sons of men "). Here S. Mark,
translating S. Peter's Aramaic, has evidently repro
duced the Aramaic idiom instead of substituting the
proper Greek equivalent, but some Greek catechist
has seen the mistake and corrected it. According to
Mr. Halcombe, however, S. Mark found the correct

MR. HALCOMBE'S STRICTURES 235
idiom in S. Matthew, and deliberately, without reason,
substituted for it the unintelligible Aramaic idiom.
This also I consider to be incredible.
I could bring forward some cogent proofs to show
that S. Luke had never read S. Matthew's Gospel ;
but I prefer to ask my readers to study the question
for themselves. Let them take the first two chapters
of S. Matthew, and endeavour to fit them into the first
two chapters of S. Luke, so as to secure a continuous
history of what really happened. Let them do this
honestly, without consulting a commentary or a
harmony, and if they have a strong sense of historical
truth, they will see that neither of these writers was
acquainted with what his fellow had written.
Harmonists appear to me to have no hesitation in
putting a strain upon our sense of truth, in order
to secure the " inerrancy " of Holy Scripture.
Thus in the case of S. Peter's denials, according
to Mr. Halcombe's view, S. John was the first to
write an account of what happened. He did so
within a few weeks of the events, when everything
was fresh in his memory. He knew that our Lord
had twice predicted S. Peter's fall, that S. Peter
had been guilty of six denials, and that the cock
crew twice. Instead, however, of giving us the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, he has
recorded the first prediction, the first, third, and
fourth denials, and the first cock - crowing. What
reason can be given for his suppressing one-half of
the incidents? We know of none that will bear
examination. Shortly afterwards S. Matthew, knowing the

236 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
whole truth, and having S. John's Gospel before
him, deliberately suppressed one-half of the truth,
and gave us only what his brother apostle had
omitted. Again we ask, Why should he have done
this? and we are referred to the principles on
which he is held to have constructed his Gospel,
which principles we do not admit.
Soon afterwards S. Mark, with the two Gospels
before him, wrote an account in which he followed
S. Matthew in selecting the prediction and the
denials, but recorded both the cock-crowings (there
are great textual difficulties here, of which Mr.
Halcombe takes no account), and altered S.
Matthew's simple expression "wept bitterly" into
a word the meaning of which has never been
cleared up. Some translate, " He buried his face
in his mantle and wept " ; others, " He wept pro
fusely " ; others, " He began to weep " ; others,
" When he thought thereon, he wept." Is it not
more probable that S. Matthew altered S. Mark's
obscure word into a simple one than that S. Mark
altered S. Matthew's lucid phrase into an incom
prehensible one? I should say that the priority of
S. Mark is much supported by this one case.
And whence did S. Mark learn about the
"twice"? Did our Lord really speak the word, S.
Peter recollect -it, and S. Mark record it, though
other catechists let it drop, as I hold? Or did S.
Mark infer from the context that He must have
spoken it ? And if S. Mark was indeed so anxious
to put the narrative right on the smaller matter,
why did he not correct "thrice" into "six times"

MR. HALCOMBE'S STRICTURES 237
and give us the six denials ? Or did he not perceive
that there were six ?
S. Luke comes next, and having the three Gospels
will surely at last give us the whole truth. Not so.
He picks and chooses in a bewildering way, following
S. John in recording the first prediction and the
third denial, but in other particulars preferring S.
Matthew. And why is this improbable doubling of inci
dents, which not even Tatian allows, forced upon
us ? Because " standing and sitting are not the same
thing"; because one narrative has, "Woman, I know
Him not " ; another, " Man, I am not." For the sake
of these, and a few other minute differences, the four
fold "thrice" is disregarded, the fourfold narratives
are declared to be half the truth. Historical proba
bility yields to verbal precision. Yet such a protest
against the worship of verbal accuracy do inspired
writers make, that the Shemd, which every pious Jew
in our Lord's time is believed to have repeated daily,
is given in four different forms by three evangelists,
but not once correctly. (Mark xii. 30, 33 ; Matthew
xxii. 37 ; Luke x. 27.) It may be expected that
every Jew would know the names of the twelve
tribes, yet a list of them is given in the Apocalypse
in which Joseph and Manasseh are put instead of
Ephraim and Manasseh, Levi is inserted though he
had no lot with his brethren, Dan is excluded. (Rev.
vii. 5-8.) Facts like these meet us everywhere when
we undertake a careful study of the New Testament,
and they warn us against believing in verbal inspira
tion. If we do, our faith will receive a shock every

238 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
time it encounters a difficulty, a shock from which
I would fain rescue the devout reader. Verbal
inspiration has been generally surrendered, not
because it is impossible, for of that we do not
profess to judge, but because it is not supported
by the evidence.
Again, one of the most strongly-marked narra
tives in the Gospels is, I should say, the healing of
blind Bartimaeus. It is narrated by all the synoptists
in almost identical words. Yet because S. Matthew
speaks of two men, while S. Mark and S. Luke only
mention one, and because S. Luke puts the encounter
at the entrance into Jericho, though S. Mark, in a
singularly tautological sentence, which would naturally
lead to confusion, puts it on the departure from that
city, Mr. Halcombe is compelled by his principles to
maintain that four blind men were healed on three
separate occasions. All four cried out, " Thou son of
David," an unusual phrase, not found in S. Mark
or S. Luke in any other miracle. In every case the
multitudes bade them to be silent. In every case
they cried the more or the louder. In every case
Jesus put the question, "- What wilt thou that I should
do?" In every case, after receiving sight, they
followed Jesus on the way.
Mr. Halcombe has some misgivings. In his second
volume he speaks doubtfully of the multiplication of
this miracle. I have not seen the second edition
of his first volume, and cannot tell whether he there
completes the retractation. If he does not, why does
he not insist that S. Matthew's narrative of the
Gerasene demoniacs is distinct from S. Mark's and

MR. HALCOMBE'S STRICTURES 239
S. Luke's? For not only did the one take place
at Gadara, the other at Gerasa, but in S. Matthew two
men were healed, in S. Mark and S. Luke only one.
The chronology also is different. Dr. Stanley
Leathes is more courageous. He holds that the
Gadarene and Gerasene miracles were quite distinct,
and that on two separate occasions a herd of swine
rushed down the steep and were choked in the
lake,* a necessary conclusion if " inerrancy " is to be
maintained. But Mr. Halcombe insists that the Gospels are not
fragmentary but complete records. He has divided
them into 364 sections, and is confident that our
Lord's ministry lasted four years, neither more nor
less. Now 31 of the sections apply to the period
before our Lord's ministry began, or to the ministry
of the Baptist; so only 333 remain for Christ, of
which S. John records 102. In four years there
are 1461 days, and Christ did or said some ministerial
thing on 333 out of 1461 days. He was therefore
silent on three days out of four, and did not lead the
life of incessant toil which Christians have fondly
imagined. The work of the second year consists of
fifteen incidents only. Is not the mere statement of
this fact a sufficient refutation? (John xxi. 25.)
I have considered already the very difficult
question of the duration of our Lord's ministry, and
my conclusions do not agree with Mr. Halcombe's.
The critical study of the Gospels demands more
attention from English Biblical students than it has
* See The Churchman, December, 1892, p. 121.
t See p. 185.

240 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
hitherto received. It is a fascinating pursuit in itself,
and one that leads to most important consequences.
It makes the Gospels easier to understand, and pro
tects us from treating them arbitrarily. In the
infancy of the new science alarmingly destructive
results were obtained, which appeared to threaten
the foundations of the faith. There are still writers
who advocate what I consider false views. They can
only be met by diligent and honest examination of
the facts. The truth has nothing to fear. The higher
criticism, when applied without partiality or distortion
of the evidence, strongly supports the general trust
worthiness of the Gospels. It proves that the
essential points are those best attested ; but it also
proves, what most scholars have already learned from
other facts, that what is called verbal inspiration must
be given up.
The Gospels do not preserve the exact utterances
of Christ. One example may suffice to prove this.
S. Mark writes that our Lord said to the Syro-
phcenician woman, " For this saying go thy way, the
demon is gone out of thy daughter." But S. Matthew
writes, " O woman, great is thy faith ; be it unto thee
even as thou wilt." Shall we, after the manner of
Tatian, piece these sentences together and maintain
that Christ said, " O woman, great is thy faith ; for
this saying, go thy way ; be it unto thee even as thou
wilt ; the demon is gone out of thy daughter." This
on the Nasmyth hammer hypothesis is, of course,
possible. But does any serious historian suppose that
Christ was guilty of such verbosity? My solution of
the difficulty is this: We do not know the exact

MR. HALCOMBE'S STRICTURES 241
words which Christ used. S. Mark gives us what
S. Peter recollected of them. But the catechists of
Jerusalem, aware that S. Peter's words in this case
were capable of a false interpretation — as though the
girl had been cured by her mother's merit and not by
her mother's faith— took upon themselves to alter the
phrase in the interests of truth. Their doing so,
presumptuous as it must appear to the traditional
exegete, proves that the primitive Christians, under
the guidance of the apostles, were not such slaves of
the letter as modern commentators would make them.
The same observation I hold to be true of nearly
every saying of Christ. Even where three evan
gelists agree verbatim, as they very seldom do for
more than six or seven words together, the only safe
conclusion is that they have reproduced S. Peter's
recollections with greater accuracy than usual. And
if the substance rather than the letter of Christ's
words is given us, why should we suppose that less
important matters — as dates — are to be trusted?
S. John says that the anointing at Bethany took
place six days before the passover, S. Mark two
days. S. Matthew says that while Christ was speak
ing the parable of the new wine in the old bottles
Jairus came to announce that his daughter was dead.
S. Mark and S. Luke say that Jairus came several
months after this, according to Mr. Halcombe's own
chronology, and announced that his daughter was
living, but in extremis. Are these discrepancies
"superficial appearances," or clear indications that
the adjustments of the Nasmyth hammer are not
to be expected? R

242 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
God, I repeat, has been pleased to employ human
agents for making known the truth. "We know
in part " might have been said by the evangelists as
much as by S. Paul. The diversities in their narra
tives prove that they did not possess, and therefore
could not bequeath to us, a perfect record of Christ's
words and deeds. We have what God in His
providence has been pleased to give us. We have
records which exhibit the belief of whole Churches
in the primitive days. They have sufficed for
Christians in all days. They will suffice for us, in
the power of the same Spirit who inspired the men
that wrote them, and is ready to inspire us to under
stand them, to the saving of our souls.

XVI.
THEORIES OF MESSRS. BADHAM
AND JOLLEY*
THESE books have little in common, except a
belief that the oral hypothesis does not
account for the origin of the synoptic Gospels.
Mr. Badham does not concern himself about the
oral hypothesis. He is satisfied with documents
and redactors. Mr. Jolley is more reasonable. He
admits that for forty years (oral) tradition, together
with personal reminiscences, supplied the wants of
the Churches. He admits that the (oral) tradition
grew larger as the personal reminiscences grew less,
until, on the death of the last eye-witness, our
written Gospels superseded both. But Mr. Badham
does not take account of those forty years. Until
the first document appeared — close upon 70 A.D. —
he leaves the whole question to silence.
Yet surely forty years, in which the number of
Christians amounted to myriads, and Churches,
each with its cycle of oral teaching, were estab
lished in most parts of the inhabited world, would
* The Formation of the Gospels. By F. P. Badham, M.A. 2nd
Edition. London : 1892.
The Synoptic Problem for English Readers. By Alfred J.
Jolley. London j, 1892. 243

244 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
exercise a preponderating influence upon the forma
tion of the Gospels. Tradition, I believe, was neither
so vague nor so fluctuating as some persons have
imagined. It had a distinct source in S. Peter's
teaching — not his "preaching," as Mr. Badham
says. On that point turns the whole controversy.
Preaching varies. New subjects drive out the old,
or if sometimes the same story is told, it is told
in different words. Our Gospels could not have
been formed in that way. The very existence of
the catechists proves that a compact body of
lessons was drawn up, which they taught to the
catechumens. Those who had mastered these
lessons became catechists themselves, and carried
the same teaching into every corner of the Roman
world. Thus S. Peter's Memoirs formed a framework
into which, from time to time, the personal reminis
cences of other witnesses were worked. In every
Church the oral Gospel must have had peculiarities
of its own, but at the end of forty years a broad
distinction lay between the tradition of the East
and that of the West.
Our three Gospels are the final result. S. Mark's
is neutral, giving little besides S. Peter's teaching.
S. Matthew's gives the same teaching, enriched
by the accumulations of the East. S. Luke has
gathered materials from every available source.
Having no knowledge of the subject himself, he
has been a diligent collector. Aramaic documents,
fragments of the Logia, and new contributions are
worked up into one remarkable whole.

MESSRS. BADHAM AND JOLLEY 245
The oral hypothesis has the supreme advantage
of making each evangelist give us all that he knew.
He did not pick and choose from an enormous
mass of floating amorphous matter; nor did he,
by a free use of scissors and paste, patch together
cuttings from a number of lengthy documents ; but,
as a faithful historian, he recorded all that he could
collect. And his work was not originally intended
for the use of the Church Catholic, but (as S. Luke
plainly says in his preface) for the local congrega
tion, whose oral Gospel he had committed to writing.
After these preliminary remarks, let us proceed
to our task. Professor Stanton wrote for the
Expositor of March, 1893, respecting Dr. B. Weiss's
theory of the Gospels, "Weiss does not appear to
have made any converts. There is an arbitrariness
about the explanations offered by this theory which
renders it very unattractive." Before the number
was published a convert was forthcoming. Mr.
Jolley has accepted Dr. Weiss's views, and made
them the basis of this book.
According to his theory (1) S. Mark's Gospel was
used by the other two evangelists. Mr. Badham
denies this. So, of course, do those who hold the
oral hypothesis. I think that it is refuted by an
examination of the proper names in S. Mark.
Under oral teaching I should expect a large pro
portion of those proper names to be gradually
riddled out and lost, especially in the Gentile
Churches ; for what wise teacher would burden the
memory of his pupils with foreign names in which
they could take no interest? But if an historian

246 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
like S. Luke had S. Mark's written Gospel before
him, I should expect that, whatever else he
neglected, he would preserve the whole of the
proper names, for names and dates are the back
bone of history. Well, how does the matter stand ?
I find that out of eighty-six proper names in
S. Mark, twenty-five, and these the rarest and
most interesting to an historian, have disappeared
from S. Luke's parallel passages.
(2) S. Matthew and S. Luke wrote independently,
and were not acquainted with each other's Gospels.
Mr. Jolley has no difficulty in showing this by com
paring Matt, i., ii. with Luke i., ii. ; but Mr. Badham
is forced by his theory to hold that S. Luke had
Matt, i., ii. (or rather the source from which it was
taken) before him when he wrote. In proof of this
he submits, amongst other considerations, that "the
star in the east" (6 curnip iv ry avardXii) "is surely
alluded to in the Day-spring" {dvaTokri) "from on
high ... to guide our feet into the way of peace"!
(3) All three evangelists drew largely upon an
earlier document which has perished. This docu
ment, commonly called the Logia, is styled by Mr.
Jolley the Primitive Gospel, or for brevity P.G.
He restores it on the lines of Dr. Weiss, and prints
an English version of it at full length. It con
stitutes the main feature of his book, and he
demands for it the patient examination which it
is sure to get at the hand of scholars.
I reserve my remarks on P.G. for the present, and
pass on to describe how Mr. Jolley holds our three
Gospels to have originated. (1) S. Mark wrote down

MESSRS. BADHAM AND JOLLEY 247
what he recollected of S. Peter's teachings, combin
ing with it certain portions of P.G. Out of his 666
verses, I reckon that, according to Mr. Jolley,
427 are Petrine, and 239 come from P.G. (2) S.
Matthew's Gospel — I call it so for convenience ; it
is really a composite work, as Messrs. Badham and
Jolley agree in thinking — is built, Mr. Jolley holds,
upon S. Mark, with much more copious extracts
from P.G., some personal reminiscences and tradi
tions, "the latter of which are not always
trustworthy." (3) S. Luke not only used S. Mark
and P.G, but also a document unknown to the
other evangelists, and of Ebionite tendency. Out
of S.Luke's 1 15 1 verses it certainly supplies 212,
probably 218, possibly 313. But this is not all; in
the history of the Passion and Resurrection it is
largely used in combination with S. Mark. It may
give some idea of this document to state that,
according to Mr. Jolley, S. Luke's two introductory
chapters come from it; so do the stories of the
Rich Man and Lazarus, the Good Samaritan, the
Prodigal Son, the Widow's Son of Nain, and some
other, but by no means all, nor even the most
striking, of the narratives which deal with poverty
and wealth.
Mr. Badham's account of the origin of the Gospels
is altogether different. Whereas Mr. Jolley writes,
" The Petrine character of the second Gospel is uni
versally admitted," Mr. Badham denies it. Papias,
he says, has been misunderstood from the first. S.
Mark, so far from being the author of the second
Gospel, is the author of all that is peculiar in S.

248 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
Luke's Gospel, of much that is common to S.
Matthew and S. Luke, of more than half of the
Acts of the Apostles, and of the whole of the Epistle
to the Hebrews. Of the second Gospel he only wrote
the last twelve verses, which textual critics declare
to be not genuine.
Historical criticism has done much to restore
honour to S. Mark, but Mr. Badham in this respect
surpasses everyone. Those portions of S. Luke
which we call Pauline are really Petrine; it is S.
Mark's Gospel that was written by an unknown
Pauline Christian. These views Mr. Badham pub
lished as a Bachelor of Arts in 1891 in a pamphlet
of ninety-nine pages. As a Master of Arts he pub
lished in 1892 a volume at least six times as large,
greatly Improved in tone, with new and various
pleadings, concluding with the three Gospels in
English, according to the Authorised Version, printed
in red type, black type, or italics, to indicate the
sources in detail. Earnest work like this demands
attention. We cannot afford to treat it as Mr.
Jolley does.
Mr. Badham holds (1) that the earliest document
(A) was written before the destruction of Jerusalem,
the next (B) after the flight to Pella. A and B were
speedily combined into AB. (2) Somewhat later a
Pauline Christian, with A, B, and AB in his hands,
but with little original knowledge, produced our
second Gospel. This was "an improved harmony,"
Intended to supersede AB, but not A and B. The
writer omits very large portions, especially of B.
(3) S. Mark in Rome {circ. A.D. 72) writes down

MESSRS. BADHAM AND JOLLEY 249
what he remembers of "the Preaching of S. Peter."
His work soon perished, but not before the greatest
part of it — in fact, all but forty verses — had been
incorporated into other writings. (4) S. Luke com
posed our third Gospel by combining " the Preaching
of S. Peter " with S. Mark's Gospel. He omits some
passages, especially of the latter work. He had A,
B, and AB before him, but seldom used them. (5)
Our first Gospel was made up of AB and a few
sections from "the Preaching of S. Peter." Con
trary to most critics, Mr. Badham makes this the
last of the synoptic Gospels.
It is not surprising that increased examination has
caused Mr. Badham to somewhat shift his ground.
In his second edition he includes in " the Preaching
of S. Peter" Luke i. 5— iii. 3 ; iii. 7-14, 18-20; iv. 5-8,
and many other sections, verses, or even half verses,
which he treated differently in his first edition. I
think he has rather weakened his case by these
changes. Strange to say, in both editions he
includes in the "Preaching" S. Luke's genealogy,
which would form a curious sermon. Mr. Badham's
theories are based upon doublets and inconsistencies.
Let us look at the doublets in S. Matthew. Mr.
Badham denies that the same document could have
held the following doublets. (1) "This is Elijah
which is to come," "Elijah is come already." (2)
" The sign of Jonah " (twice). (3) " More tolerable
for Sodom " (twice). (4) " Trees known by their
fruit " (twice). (5) " Unfruitful trees hewn down and
burnt" (twice). (6) "Greatest be your servant"
(twice). (7) " Every idle word that men shall speak

250 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
they shall give account thereof in the day of judg
ment," "Whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca,
shall be in danger of the judgment." It is un
necessary to continue the list. S. Matthew uses the
phrase, "There shall be wailing and gnashing of
teeth," six times ; " The end of the world," five
times ; " Eternal life," seven times. The conclusion
which Mr. Badham, it seems, would have us draw is,
that when a phrase occurs twice diversity of docu
ments is proved, when it occurs more than twice
identity. But will anyone admit that? That there
is one doublet in S. Matthew (ix. 27-34 = xii. 22-24)
is made probable by S. Luke's parallel. That there
is another (xii. 41 = xvi. 4), and several in S. Luke,
will scarcely be denied by those who have studied
the question ; but Mr. Badham's four lists, with an
aggregate of one hundred doublets, can only excite
our amazement.
Mr. Badham, however, rightly follows Dr. Weiss
and others in maintaining that the central third of
S. Luke (ix. 51-xviii. 14) Is not, as it appears to
claim to be, an account of events which happened
during the last journey to Jerusalem, but " the main-
stock of a record, covering," not " the whole period
of our Lord's life," but a considerable part of His
ministry. His arguments on this point are mostly
convincing. Chapter viii., also, is interesting in its
suggestion that " S. Peter's Preaching " is arranged
according to subject-matter. In many cases there
is good reason to think so. In chapter x. a less
successful attempt is made to show that Tatian used
"the Preaching of S. Peter," as well as our four

MESSRS. BADHAM AND JOLLEY 251
Gospels, in drawing up his Dia Tessardn. Chapter
xi. maintains that certain sections of the Acts of
the Apostles are a continuation of the " Preaching
of S. Peter." He goes further than I should go
In extending these sections over the whole book.
Chapter xii. deals with the authorship of the
Epistle to the Hebrews. Those who think the
Epistle to have been written by S. Luke will, if
they accept Mr. Badham's views, have no objection
to transfer the authorship to S. Mark. To others
Mr. Badham's reasons are not likely to be con
vincing. Chapter xv. deals with the inconsistencies.
They are weaker than the doublets. The first I
consider the only good one. " How strange it is to
hear Christ enjoining secrecy on the leper when
great multitudes are present." (Matt. viii. 1, 4.)
True, but Matt. viii. 1, I maintain, is an "editorial
note." It is absent from S. Mark and S. Luke. It
is only one of those connecting links which bind
narratives together, but are not based on the original
authority, and are sometimes demonstrably wrong.
Mr. Badham assumes that Matt. xvii. 21 is
genuine. A critic should take care to use a good
text. How strange it is, he continues, " to hear
Christ bidding certain women, All hail, when the
context (Matt, xxviii. 1) only assures us of the pre
sence of two." When Shakespeare wrote, "Caesar,
all hail," he did not imply that several persons were
present. The Greek is simply Xalpere. A critic
should work upon the Greek text and not upon the
"authorised" English version. In pages 77 and 78
Mr. Badham gives lists of words peculiar to A

252 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
and B. He derives the imperative s^erdo-are from
eKrdfav. When a writer, who is capable of such
errors, speaks about Greek style, the reader will
learn to discount his confident assertions.
The list on page 77 contains twenty-one words
peculiar to A, and the list on page 78 nineteen
words peculiar to B. What reason can be given
why we should not add the lists together and say
that they give us forty words peculiar to S.
Matthew ? They are mostly such. Kar ovap occurs
five times in Matt, i., ii., once in Matt, xxvii. 19, and
nowhere else. Would it not be fair to argue, on
Mr. Badham's principles, that the author, who has
shown such a predilection for the phrase in chapters
i., ii., cannot have written the next twenty-four
chapters? In this case the argument, I believe,
would be in accordance with the facts, but it
would wreck Mr. Badham's theory. But there are
further inaccuracies to be noticed. dOwos occurs in
Matt, xxvii. 24 only, for it is a false reading in
Matt, xxvii. 4. The same may be said of direvavri,
which is a true reading once, but false twice. The
accents ot/aa/co?, >fi\.i6$, dXd\6?, crreipa, ew$, dvdo-Taa-i?,
e/c veicpwv are wrong. irvpeTw, ci>pa (dative), and ddioos
require 1 subscript. Many of these " peculiar words "
are found in S. John, S. Paul, S. James, and other
writers; several occur in the Acts of the Apostles,
which was not written by the author of A or B.
Mr. Badham has a greater show of reason when
he argues, from the discrepancies in the order of
narration between S. Matthew and S. Mark, that two
documents, A and B, were used and pieced together

MESSRS. BADHAM AND JOLLEY 253
differently. But even so, he cannot account for S.
Matthew's order ; he only reduces the number of
variations. The explanation that the Eastern cate
chists omitted numerous sections of S. Peter's
Memoirs in order to put the Sermon on the
Mount near the beginning of the ministry, and then
turned back and gathered up the fragments that
remained, preserving in both cases the relative
order, seems to me to be far more probable.
The strange difficulty which those critics who
support the documentary hypothesis feel about the
preservation of the same order of narration in oral
tradition, extending, as it does, even to minute
particulars, -is surely unwarranted. Systems of
mnemonics were largely used by the ancients, and
they were necessarily based on order and associa
tion. There are clergy now who can repeat the
litany from beginning to end without book ; if they
changed the order of a single petition their memory
would break down.
It will be seen that both these authors deny the
unity of S. Mark, or of the " Triple Tradition," and
expand the volume of the Logia. Mr. Badham's B
corresponds in the main to the Logia. Mr. Jolley's
P.G. professes to restore it. They both hold that
the second Gospel (S. Mark) made free use of the
Logia. Herein I cannot agree with them. If S.
Mark had the Logia, why did not he make more use
of it ? An evangelist who deliberately omitted the
Sermon on the Mount, the Lord's Prayer, the longer
parables and discourses, when he had them before
him in writing, is an Incomprehensible enigma.

254 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
But the other evangelists are hardly better. What
should have induced S. Matthew to omit the parables
of the Prodigal Son, the Rich Fool, the Rich Man
and Lazarus, or the journey to Emmaus? Why
should S. Luke have omitted the healing of the
Syrophcenician woman's daughter? The critic who
accepts the oral hypothesis has an intelligible
answer. They omitted what they had never heard.
No critic who works on the documentary hypo
thesis has ever accounted for the multitudinous
diversities in the identical sections of the triple or
double tradition. Those who attempt the task say
that the evangelists, although they had documents,
and used them as guides to the order, and in a few
other respects, trusted rather for their language to
local oral tradition, because the congregation for
which they wrote would tolerate nothing else. If
that is the state of the case, apostolic authority had
sunk rather low. Cannot we dispense with these
imaginary documents if they were of so little use?
But when once you leave the triple tradition, the
question of order appears to be fatal to the docu
mentary hypothesis. Look at Mr. Jolley's order.
He divides P.G. into seventeen chapters of about
twenty-two verses each. S. Matthew copies them
in the following order (to save space the first verse
only is given) : i. i, 3, 6, 8, 9 ; ii. 1, 5 ; xv. 18 ; v.,
14 ; ii. 7 ; xiii. 6 ; ii. 1 1 ; v. 19 ; ii. 12, 15 ; ix. 5 ; xii.
18; v. 15; viii. 25 ; xii. 11; ii. 18; ix. 10; v. 17 ;
xiv. 9; ii. 21, 23; xiv. ii. ; ii. 24 I need not con
tinue the catalogue, though I have only come to the
end of Matt. vii. S. Mark's order is no better ; S.

MESSRS. BADHAM AND JOLLEY 255
Luke's is even worse. Did three men, working
independently on the same document, ever copy it
so erratically ? Does anyone believe after this that
Mr. Jolley's " hypothesis explains all the facts " ?
Mr. Badham's chief argument for identifying S.
Luke's original matter with "the Preaching of S.
Peter" is the statement of Papias, that S. Mark
wrote, " but not in order." Our second Gospel, Mr.
Badham insists, is a conspicuously orderly document,
because nearly every event follows "immediately"
after the preceding; but the central third of S.
Luke's is as famous for disorder. Without denying
the latter assertion, I protest against the former.
S. Mark's Gospel is not orderly. Papias explains
why it is not so in the next sentence. It consists of
lessons loosely strung together, because S. Peter did
not assay to write a continuous history, but adapted
his teaching to the needs of his pupils at the moment.
A better description of S. Mark's Gospel could
not be given. His fifty-six " immediately's " are
merely " editorial " connecting links, and cannot be
pressed. We are asked to believe that all the supposed
documents, and combinations of documents, came
into existence by a mushroom growth at Jerusalem,
Pella, Rome, or other places between the years 68-72
A.D., and perished, as a rule, before 80. Yet they
were so widely circulated that three evangelists,
living at widely-severed places, had a copy of all of
them, except the heretical Ebionite work.
We cannot suppose that the evangelists got copies
sooner or more surely than other men. Therefore,

256 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
at least a hundred copies must have been made and
circulated with extraordinary rapidity. Yet they all
perished. Not even at Ephesus, at Alexandria, or at
Rome did a copy remain. Nay, such was the ignor
ance of the earliest fathers of the Church that they
confused S. Mark's work with S. Luke's, and the
mistake has been continued till Mr. Badham has at
last exposed it.
I think it is time that men began to consider once
more the claims of the oral hypothesis.
Five years later Mr. Badham professes himself a
pupil of Hilgenfeld, and produces another book* in
which he essays to prove in the teeth of his former
assertions that S. Matthew's Gospel was written first,
and that S. Mark's was, generally speaking, an
abbreviation thereof.
Unfortunately he does not, like Stesichorus, begin
with the palinode —
ovk sot ervjuos Adyos oStos,
or, like an Act of Parliament, state precisely how
much of previous Acts is rescinded. It is clear from
his sixteenth chapter that he has not renounced the
whole of his scheme, but there are considerable
modifications of it. For in the "Formation" S.
Mark is a dull copyist, with little original matter ; in
the "Indebtedness" he is an artist, who develops a
picture from S. Matthew's sketch. Must we, like one
of Mr. Badham's evangelists, combine the two books
together? And what a heap of doublets and in
consistencies might we not produce in the attempt !
Or may we conclude, as he now does, with a thankful
* 5. Mark's Indebtedness to S. Matthew. London : 1897.

MESSRS. BADHAM AND JOLLEY 257
Requiescat, applied, however, to each and all of A, B,
AB, and P ?
There is nothing absurd in the contention that
S. Matthew wrote first and S. Mark abbreviated him.
Such has been the belief of the great majority of
Christians from S. Augustine to Keim. It was not
the opinion of the Early Church from Papias
onwards, nor is it generally accepted now ; but Mr.
Badham wishes to bring us back to S. Augustine's
opinion, and it is well for us to consider what he has
to say.
He possesses, I think, the advantages and dis
advantages of what I may call — without meaning
anything offensive — microscopic eyesight. He sees
ambiguities, glosses, inflations, and inaccuracies
which, to a man with normal vision, are often
nothing of the kind. His argument rests upon
them, and he fails to take a wider view.
For example, certain sections of S. Matthew —
notably chapters viii., ix., xiv. 1-12 — present a very
much shorter recension of the narrative than is found
in the other Gospels. But many parts of S. Matthew
are only slightly shorter than S. Mark, while not a
few are even longer, and contain the very glosses and
inflations which are held to be proofs of S. Mark's
posteriority. There is no attempt made to explain
this difference.
Again, it has been generally allowed that S.
Mark wrote for Gentile readers, S. Matthew for Jews.
It would be more consonant with modern ideas to
say that S. Matthew's Gospel had gradually grown
up in a Jewish community, where it had gathered
S

258 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
to itself a large number of Judaic elements, such as
allusions to the Law and fulfilments of prophecy.
S. Mark, though he was originally taught the Gospel
in Jerusalem, had lived for many years in Pauline
Churches, and had learned to provide for Gentile
congregations. He may, therefore, have allowed a
few things to drop out of his teaching which had
only attraction for Jews, and he inserted certain
explanations of Semitic customs. Concede this, and
you have replied to Mr. Badham's chapter on " The
un-Judaic character of S. Mark."
Ancient historians claimed the privilege — which is
now only conceded to novelists — of knowing the
secret motives and private conversations of their
heroes. Probably some of the speeches in the
Gospels give rather what the occasion demanded
than what was actually said. These were literary
usages which imposed upon no one. Hence there is
no call for the remarks on page thirty-nine about
Herodias and her daughter.
Mr. Badham's evangelists are the slaves of a very
few documents, but he now allows them the pleasure
of an occasional gossip with their contemporaries,
which assisted their imagination, but could not add
to their knowledge. Has he never heard of the large
and energetic Church of Jerusalem, which still
"compassed sea and land to make one proselyte"?
Did not its emissaries penetrate to Antioch, Rome,
Alexandria, and other centres of thought ? Did not
its preachers and teachers follow in the footsteps of
S. Paul, and supply the wants of his newly-founded
Churches, sometimes leavening his teaching? And

MESSRS. BADHAM AND JOLLEY 259
were there not scores of Christians in Jerusalem who
had seen our Lord, heard Him converse, and had
been witnesses of the crucifixion? Could not they
confirm or add to S. Peter's recollections? Could
not they fill in his outline sketches, explaining many
an ambiguity, and often supplying a motive ? The
Tubingen leaders placed the birth of our Gospels in
the second century. It seems unreasonable to
admit that S. Matthew and S. Mark wrote soon
after 70 A.D., and yet to surround them with the
same atmosphere of ignorance. " These things were
not done in a corner."
Mr. Badham never takes into consideration the
question whether the oral hypothesis may not be the
true key to the synoptic problem. And this is to be
regretted, because under that hypothesis most of
the difficulties which trouble him disappear. For
example, the cumbrous array of primitive documents
— supposed to have been scattered broadcast over
the Churches, and yet to have perished in spite of
their priceless value, and left not a trace behind —
vanish into thin air. Again, Mr. Badham's chief
purpose is to crush out of their phantom existence,
by argument and ridicule, those pets of the critics,
Ur-Marcus and Ur-Matthaus. In oral tradition we
seldom use these terms ; but, in spite of what Mr.
Badham has put forth, I fear that most of those who
have studied the question will agree with me that
they are indispensable under any theory of docu
ments. If S. Mark in any passage is opposed to both the
other Gospels, it is perfectly open to me, as a

260 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
supporter of the oral hypothesis, to assume that he
has consciously or unconsciously departed from his
original wording. If he has four sections which they
have not, I infer that these were the latest additions
to his Gospel. That they should, in taking their
places there, thrust out a few verses which once were
there, is highly probable ; and so Mr. Badham's fifth
chapter becomes unnecessary. If many of S. Mark's
picturesque descriptions are curtailed in both the
other Gospels, the reason may be that whatever is
not requisite to make sense, is liable to be riddled
out in oral teaching. At the same time, I am free to
admit that some of them are later accretions, and so
I deal with chapter iv.
If St. Luke omits thirty-six of S. Mark's sections,
I can point out that S. Mark's oral teaching was
carried westwards about 47 A.D., before the said
sections were incorporated into it. If he gives us
sixteen scraps out of the omitted sections, I reply
that the scraps were sent to him by his corre
spondents. Thus we secure all the advantages of
an oral Ur-Marcus, which is a very elastic thing,
without the inextricable perplexities of a docu
mentary one, which Is a rigid thing.
If S. Mark contains few of the narratives which
appear to come to us from non-Petrine sources, it Is
because he buried himself in Cyprus, out of reach
of progressive activities. If S. Matthew is rich
in such new matter, it is because his oral Gospel
continued to move, perhaps, ten years longer in
Jerusalem, before it was taken to its final habitat
(Alexandria ?). During those ten years it must have

MESSRS. BADHAM AND JOLLEY 261
been so amplified, corrected, and polished, that the
chapter on S. Mark's abruptness is not required.
S. Luke, besides keeping up communications with
Jerusalem by letter and visitors, resided in Palestine
for two years during S. Paul's imprisonment, and
doubtless used his opportunity to collect new
materials. Under the oral hypothesis we can
explain his order, his additions, and— most difficult
of all — his omissions. We can do so without the
slightest demand on the reader's credulity, and
without making any of the evangelists a literary
monster. In contrast to all this, Mr. Badham accounts for
the omissions as excisions ! And the only reason for
them offered is that a Gospel must be kept within
certain limits. Perhaps so, as we have seen above
(P- I3)> yet the omitted sections contain things
which are far too valuable to have been struck out.
The difficulty about S. Luke's order Mr. Badham
does not seem to have felt. But he does not often
consider the points which make against him. For
example, he dwells on the abruptness produced by
the omission from Mark xiv. 65 of the question,
" Who is he that smote Thee ? " but he does not tell
us how these words, on his own principle, found their
way into S. Luke.
It is desirable that a critic of the Gospels should
work upon the Greek text, and in a good edition.
Mr. Badham appears to work on the English Revised
Version, and, when he refers to the Greek, to use
the textus receptus, not even in Scrivener's edition.
How else can we account for KpdfifiaTo? instead of

262 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
Kpdfia.TTO?'} The latter form is accepted by all
modern editors, and is rendered necessary by the
line in the Moretum —
" Membra levat sensim viii demissa grabato."
How else account for evOeoos instead of evOus? How
else does he accuse S. Mark of the redundancy,
" Them that trust in riches " ? Even the Revisers in
their margin condemn this reading. Td\i9d kov/m
is not correct in Mark v. 41, but rdXetOd Kovp. For
Kovpei is the Hebrew form ; in Syriac the final
consonant is written but not vocalised, because it
was not usually pronounced. '^<p<paOd, by the way,
is not Aramaic.
Attention to Greek syntax is still more desir
able in those who would lead others. And what
shall we say of the assertion that «? to irepav 71730?
~Brj6(ralSa{v) might mean, " To the opposite side from
Bethsaida " ? To which is appended the note,
" BrjOo-alSav may just as well be a genitive as an
accusative. Cf. oval aoi ByOcralSav, Matt. xi. 21 ;
similarly X, E, Luke x. 13. Although it is more
natural to take 'BtjQaalSav in Mark vi. 45 as an
accusative, it must be remembered that S. Luke
may have been influenced by the fact above noticed,
that this interpretation is difficult to reconcile with
verse fifty-three." In the Greek Testament 71700'?
with the genitive occurs once, and then not in a
local sense ; 71700? with the accusative occurs about
seven hundred times. I do not believe that any
Greek author in any age could have used 71700'? with
the proper name of a place in the genitive to mean

MESSRS. BADHAM AND JOLLEY 263
simply " from." Liddell and Scott quote Sophocles,
Antigone, 1037, but that is a false reading. Granted,
therefore, that BijOcraiSdv is not necessarily an accu
sative, but a curious collateral indeclinable form of
BrjOa-aiSd — Dr. Hort compared it with ToXyoOdv — I
confidently assert that no native Greek could have
understood by it " from Bethsaida." What would be
the use of language if " to London " could occasion
ally mean "from London"?
Again, in Mark iii. 2 1 the various reading i£t<TTaTai
avrovi cannot be primitive, because no writer in the
first century would have put it for e^'urrricriv avrovs.
The LXX. are never guilty of such a mistake.
As a matter of fact, however, Cod. D. does not
read i^laraTai, but e^ea-Tarat, a mere blunder, which
points, however, to i^ia-rtj. The Greek of Cod. D. in
this passage, as in many others, has been altered to
correspond to the Latin, and the double error in
syntax and in accidence detects the change. Mr.
Badham's alternative suggestion that if e^icrrri be
read, perhaps oxXos is the subject to it, makes one
ask with surprise, Do you think so ?
I have not the space here to work through
the whole of Mr. Badham's objections. Many of
them are very well known of old. Many of them
appear to me forced, exaggerated, inapplicable, or
capable of being used to prove the opposite. The
cumulative effect is not what he would wish it to be.
The strongest reason for upholding the priority
of S. Mark is the difficulty of believing that any
Christian in writing a Gospel would deliberately
strike out of it what has always been dearest to

264 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
the hearts of his brethren. Put S. Mark first, and
he is invaluable ; put him anywhere else, and he is
inexplicable. What sort of Christians would desire
to purchase brevity by the excision of the story of
our Lord's birth, the Sermon on the Mount, the
account of the Son of Man in glory (Matt, xxv),
with the longer parables and much discourse matter ?
The very fact of S. Mark's comparative unpopularity
is a decisive answer.
To come to details, I find it hard to believe that
if S. Mark had had S. Matthew's eKarovrapxos
before him he would have changed it into the
Latin Kevrvplwv ; harder to believe that he altered S.
Matthew's to?? dvdpunrots into the Aramaic rots viol's
t£>v dvQp&nrwv, which misleads some of his readers
to this day (Mark iii. 28 = Matt. xii. 31) ; impossible
to believe that he habitually altered S. Matthew's
smoother and more polished sentences into the
rugged, uncouth, Semitic co-ordinations, with hardly
any other conjunction than "and." In fact, that
monotonous monosyllable does more than outweigh
what Mr. Badham has put into the opposite scale.
If S. Mark started with a small nucleus of oral
teaching, and slowly expanded it as his master
supplied new class-lessons, we should inevitably find
some of those connexions which Mr. Badham thinks
awkward, abrupt, and inconsequent. But is not this
exactly what Papias says about S. Mark? What
right has anyone to transfer the words of Papias
to some other document, and then to condemn S.
Mark as secondary, for the very reasons which most
surely establish his priority?

XVII.
PAPIAS ON S. MATTHEW*
THE writer of this book undertakes to examine
the exact meaning of Papias in the sentence,
MarQatos pev ouv E/3pai'<5i SiaXeKTw t<x Xoyia
t arvveypa^saTO, r\ppr\veu(re 8' avTa <»? fjv Svvaros
«cao-TO?, which I should render, " Matthew procured
the compilation of the Utterances (of our Lord, in
Aramaic), and each man translated them (into
Greek), according to his ability," but he would offer
something like the following : " Matthew collected
and explained the Old Testament prophecies con
cerning the Messiah; and his treatise was the
storehouse from which early Christians drew their
Messianic discussions."
There was room in English theological literature
for a new work on Papias, for above twenty years
have passed since Bishop Lightfoot penned his
famous Essays for the Contemporary Review ; and
the progress which has been made during the
intervening period in the historical criticism of the
Gospels has inevitably caused much of what he
wrote to need reconsideration. We cannot think,
however, that this treatise has supplied the want.
* London : Longmans. 1894. t v. 1. avvsTa^aro, p. 16.
265

266 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
The author does not seem to us to possess the
necessary qualifications. For example, he tells us,
" The word ypprjvevve { = interpreted) may be taken
to mean either ' explained ' or ' translated,' " and he
finally decides in favour of " explained." Now I
put it to anyone, whether "John wrote a treatise
in French and William interpreted it," can mean
anything but that William translated it, or para
phrased it, or in some way made it Intelligible to
the English reader. In Greek, where antithesis is
the backbone of composition, the necessity for so
understanding the sentence is much greater, and we
cannot think highly of the critical insight of an
author who does not feel this instinctively. But this
simple fact is fatal to our author's contention, for
even if Xo'yto might mean " (Messianic) prophecies,"
S. Matthew cannot have filled five books by merely
copying them out and writing them down, but we
know from Eusebius that such was the length of the
treatise in question.
Again, it is clear from these pages that the writer
has no knowledge of Aramaic or even of Hebrew.
This is surely a serious defect in treating of Papias,
and many a weary page does it needlessly inflict
upon us. A man cannot satisfactorily deal with the
Septuagint without some knowledge of Hebrew.
Look also at the following extract : " Aramaic was
not a learned language. The Christians of Palestine,
whose mother-tongue it was, understood it perfectly.
The Greek Christians did not understand it at all.
Where, then, is the meaning that 'everyone interpreted
it as he was able ' ? " (p. 4) Now I admit that Pales-

PAPIAS ON S. MATTHEW 267
tinian Aramaic was in a very formless and fluctuating
state, but Papias does not assert that "everyone"
translated it. The verb is in the singular, and the
distributive e/ca<rro? is used. If three or four persons
attempted the task, the language will be sufficiently
accounted for. If Papias himself was one of them —
and he talks elsewhere of his translations of the
Utterances — those who have ever tried to render
Aramaic into Greek will feel the force of the self-
depreciatory, apologetic way in which he speaks of
his efforts.
But if our author is seriously handicapped by his
ignorance of Semitic languages, what must we think
of his Greek scholarship? Examine the following
examples : —
(1) ovx &<nrep avvra^iv rasv KvpiaKwv iroiovpevoi
Xoylwv, "not as making a systematic disquisition
upon the Dominical oracles." (p. 2.)
(2) ~M.ar6aios rd Xoyia ovveypd\fraTO, " Matthew
wrote on the (Messianic) prophecies." (p. 83.)
(3) Kai o? av peOoSevfl rd Xoyia tov Kvpiov, " and
whosoever shall pervert the oracles of {concerning) the
Lord." (p. 67.)
(4) 8ia/3e/3aiovpevos virep avTwv dXrjOeiav, "having
thoroughly established the truth concerning them."
(p. 9.) Apparently he regards this word as a
reduplicated perfect.
(5) " The word exotericus has a recognised meaning
which appears very apt for the interpretation of this
passage. It means that which is contained in writing
as opposed to mere oral instruction." (p. 18.)
These translations are either careless or perverse,

268 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
and yet they are thrust on us when much depends
upon them. We shall presently maintain that our
author's main argument rests on a false rendering of
a Greek sentence, and that in another place he takes
up a most important position in defiance of the
fundamental rules of Greek syntax.
After stating the problem which he proposes to
solve by an entirely new method, the writer proceeds
to discuss the date at which Papias published his
" Exposition of the Utterances of our Lord," or, as
he calls it, " Exposition of Messianic prophecies."
This he places at " not earlier than A.D. 80, or later
than A.D. 98. About A.D. 90 would seem to be the
most probable date." (p. 31.) Bishop Lightfoot had
given "A.D. 130-140, or even later," and other
authorities, who differ widely from each other, have
accepted this. But our author argues from the
tenses of the Greek verbs which are used that
Papias must have written during the lives of
Aristion and John the Elder, who had been disciples
of the Lord, and therefore cannot have lived much
later than A.D. 100. The tenses of the verbs, how
ever, merely show that these two men were living at
the time when Papias was pursuing his inquiries.*
* The rule in English Reported Speech is that the leading verb
affects all the verbs in the speech following. Thus, " I am glad to
see you It was a fine day yesterday. You will be glad to hear that I
shall commence harvest to-morrow," becomes, " He told me that he
was glad to see me ; it had been a fine day yesterday. I should be glad
to hear that he would commence harvest to-morrow," ' ' should " and
"would" being not subjunctives but past tenses of the indicative.
But in Greek, when the leading verb is in a past tense, although the
mood of the verbs following may be changed into the optative or not
at the option of the writer, the tenses must remain the same as they

PAPIAS ON S. MATTHEW 269
The context shows that he did this in the early days
of his episcopate, or even before his consecration, a
whole generation before he began to write. Why
else should he speak of it as a chapter in his history
which had long been closed? Why else should he
insist on the pains with which he had learned the
traditions by heart, and on the excellence of the
memory by means of which he had retained them?
Here, then, we perceive a mistake so fatal to the
whole argument, that were it not for the extreme
importance of the Papias question, we might well
decline to pursue the subject any further.
The Emperor Caius is said to have expressed a
wish that the whole Roman people had but one
neck, that he might have had the pleasure of severing
it. And a certain class of critics trace everything
back to Papias, in the hope that if they can discredit
him, they may shake the foundations of early Church
history. In this chapter the real question is the date
of the apostle John's death, which our author tries to
put thirty years earlier than ancient authorities place
it. It was John the Presbyter — not John the- Apostle
— who (we are assured) lived till nearly the close of
the first century, and most people ignorantly or
wilfully confused him with the son of Zebedee. In
were in the direct speech. Therefore the only correct way to translate
the quotation from Papias is, "And if at times I was visited by one of
the pupils of the Fathers, I would examine him upon the discourses of
the Fathers, as to what Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John,
Matthew, or any other of our Lord's disciples (once) had said, or what
Aristion, or the Presbyter John, our Lord's disciples (still) said." And
upon this way of translating this crucial passage we must insist,
though it is not found in the usual text books.

270 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
particular, Irenaeus, the pupil of Polycarp, had been
led in his youth to believe that Polycarp had
conversed with the beloved apostle. In later life,
he discovered the deception. What was he to do?
If he confessed the truth, he would sink in the
popular estimation ; if he told a lie, he would
imperil his soul. He resolved at last to act a lie.
Throughout his writings he calls John the " disciple "
of Jesus, never the " apostle." Those who were in
the secret knew that John the Presbyter is some
times intended, but the mass of readers are deceived
into supposing that it was always the Apostle.
We should have thought that Irenaeus (like Papias,
the author of the Muratorian fragment on the Canon,
and other writers) borrowed the title " disciple " from
the Gospels, especially from the fourth Gospel. But
in any case we cannot allow the existence of the
Christian Church to be ignored. In 180 A.D. there
must have been hundreds of Christians in Asia
Minor and elsewhere who had derived from tradi
tion a tolerably correct idea of the date of the
apostle's decease, and who would thus have had
a guide to the meaning of Papias which we no
longer possess. It is Impossible to suppose that
Polycarp, Papias, and Irenaeus, even if they had
wished to do so, could have misled the whole
Church. The next point of discussion is the meaning of the
word Xoyia. Our author complains that the early
Latin Fathers perversely translate it by verba,
eloquia, or sermones, connecting it with the idea of
words, oratory, or discourses; not till we come to

PAPIAS ON S. MATTHEW 271
Rufinus is the proper rendering oracula given, which
connects it with oracles, prophecies, and Scripture.
Now the early writers include S. Jerome, who was
a practised translator, and possessed a competent
knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. It seems
to me that his rendering is perfectly right. For Xo'yta
is properly an adjective, the neuter plural of Xo'yto?,
which means " an eloquent man." And although in
profane authors Xoyiov is sometimes applied to an
oracle, it is rather as the utterance of the god than
as the xpl&pds- Our author confesses that he can
see no difference between Xo'yta and Xoyoi in
the Septuagint. We should as soon look for a
difference between "he spake" and "he said."
If we turn to the Hebrew, we shall find this
reasoning corroborated. Xoyiov commonly repre
sents n7?S, a poetical and rather rare word,
derived, however, from the commonest verb in the
language, ">£$, "to say." In the LXX., therefore,
Xoyiov simply recalls rdSe Xe'yet 6 Kvpios, "thus
saith the Lord" and this is the meaning which
underlies the word, not only in the LXX., but in
Philo, Josephus, and the early Christian Fathers. It
Is never used of ordinary human utterances, but
both in sacred and profane writers is confined to the
divine. The context alone can decide whether the
" Utterances of the Lord " are the Utterances of
Jehovah or the Utterances of the Lord Jesus. I
deem it therefore superfluous to examine the twenty-
six passages which our author has laboriously
collected. As well might we collect examples to
prove that text always means a verse of Scripture.

272 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
In a certain class of writers it invariably does so,
but if you look beyond them, you will find the wider
meaning asserting itself.
Papias uses the word Xoyiov three times in the few
fragments of his work which have reached us. I agree
with our author that there is a presumption that he
uses it always in the same sense, but I insist that in
the fragment about S. Mark we must translate (s.v.I.)
"not as though he were making a catena of our Lord's
Utterances" and therefore I should claim this render
ing for the two other passages also. " S. Matthew,"
therefore, "procured the compilation of the Utterances
of our Lord," and the title of the lost work of Papias
was, "An Exposition of the Utterances of our Lord,"
nor do I know of any reason why this rendering
should be called in question. Much has been said
about the silliness of Papias, but if he, on writing a
treatise upon the Messianic prophecies taken from
the Old Testament, instead of calling it i^y^am
twv irepl rov XpicrTov irpod»jTeiwv, deliberately
preferred the title e£rjyij<Tis Xoyloov Kvpiaicwv, so far
from sneering at the mental calibre of Irenaeus for
understanding him to mean " An exposition of the
words of our Lord," I should say that no Greek
could have taken the sense to be otherwise. Dr,
Resch, in his Agrapha, .has gone so far as to use
Xoyiov in the singular for every Utterance which he
can discover of extra-canonical sayings of Jesus, and
I think that he is perfectly justified in doing so.
But our author, following the early Tubingen
school, has very much to say about the heterodoxy
of this primitive bishop. Papias was not only a

PAPIAS ON S. MATTHEW 273
credulous fool, but he warned his readeus against
expecting to find any spiritual food in S. Paul's
Epistles. He wrote things which Eusebius dared
not, or would not, quote. His book perished because
it was shocking to post-Nicene orthodoxy.
Now the quotations which have reached us from
Papias are not always very pleasant or satisfactory
reading, but we have no right to suppose that they
are fair samples of the bulk of the five books.
Take a similar case. The fragments of the " Gospel
according to the Hebrews " are far from satisfactory,
but they owe their preservation to their very strange
ness. The work as a whole was so orthodox that S.
Jerome, after transcribing it, and translating it into
both Greek and Latin, pronounced it to be the
original of S. Matthew, and similarly the orthodox
divines of the post-Nicene period gave Papias the
title of the Great. Should his work ever be
discovered — and who can say that it will not be ? —
we feel sure that it will not shock the Christian
conscience. Destructive criticism, we are confident,
will profit as little by it as by the discovery of
Tatian's Dia Tessardn.
Bishop Lightfoot, following the old commentators,
argued that Papias, in his allusions to S. Matthew
and S. Mark, was describing the genesis of our first
and second Gospels. As far as S. Mark goes, he
may well have been right. Of course, our author
says that this cannot be so, for Papias complains of
lack of order, whereas S. Mark's Gospel is as orderly
as any. The answer is easy. As long as men fancy
that Papias — or his authority — preferred S. John's
T

274 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
order or S. Matthew's to S. Mark's, the observation
made by John the Presbyter will be perplexing.
But if they will look at the reasons which the
Presbyter himself produces, they will see that the
criticism is a far-reaching one. The lack of
chronology was inherent in the methods of com
pilation. The Gospel of S. Mark consists of a
number of detached lessons, issued originally by S.
Peter without any regard to chronology, and
subsequently strung together by S. Mark with only
the rudest attempt to recover the true sequence.
Long consideration of the subject has convinced me
that this is the true account of the matter. S. Mark's
arrangement is altogether wrong, and therefore the
other synoptists, who follow his arrangement, are
wrong also. John the Presbyter may well have
pointed out this from personal knowledge and con
versation with eye-witnesses.
In the case of S. Matthew's Gospel, it is not so
easy to believe that Dr. Lightfoot was right.
Historical criticism has convinced us of the priority
of S. Mark to S. Matthew. It follows from this
that S. Matthew's Gospel is a composite work, of
which the Apostle can only have written some parts,
and the Presbyter is probably speaking of those parts
only. But what parts did he write ? The Logia, we
reply, by which we understand those " Utterances of
the Lord " which go to make up the Sermon on the
Mount and other discourses and parables which are
absent from S. Mark, but are found in the first
Gospel, and large portions of them in the third.
Our author holds that S. Matthew wrote only those

PAPIAS ON S. MATTHEW 275
eleven quotations from the Old Testament which are
peculiar to the first Gospel, and are mostly introduced
by the editorial phrase, "That it might be fulfilled
which was spoken by the Lord through the prophets,
saying." Of course, our author holds that S. Matthew's
supposed collection of prophecies was larger than
this. Papias can hardly have written five books to
explain eleven texts. And other Gospels, which
have perished, may have incorporated the whole,
or nearly the whole, of S. Matthew's treatise. In
particular, the Gospel which Justin Martyr is
assumed to have used, is supposed to have been
much richer in this department.
If such a collection did exist — whoever was the
author — it seems to me more probable that Justin
quoted from it direct than from any supposed Gospel
containing it. But what I wish to point out is, that
these eleven quotations in our first Gospel are no
part of the original work. They are comparatively
late accretions, never essential to the narrative or
really blended with it. The narrative is older and
independent. If, therefore, S. Matthew died, as our
author insists, about A.D. 6^, having already compiled
this book, how much older may the other parts of
the Gospel be?
It is clear that the study of Messianic prophecy
was an absorbing topic of the time. Every preacher
would contribute something to it, and no subject was
more popular in sermons. I hold that the collection
of Messianic texts was a gradual growth, and that
the oldest narratives embedded in our Gospels may

276 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
sometimes be detected by their lack of this element.
Justin Martyr's Gospel quotations present a large
number of very interesting problems, but I see
nothing in the partial examination of a few of
them, with which our author is content, to set aside
the account of Dr. Abbott in his article on the
Gospels in the Encyclopcedia Britannica. I go even
beyond the Rev. J. A. Cross, in holding that during
the oral stage every considerable Church must have
had a Gospel of its own, identical with those of
other Churches in many points, but differing from
them, sometimes considerably, both in contents and
in wording. With S. Luke i. 1-4 before us, we can
hardly deny that some of these Gospels had been
partially committed to writing, enough perhaps to
account for the language of 1 Tim. v. 18; but we
see insuperable objections to the idea that Justin, in
the middle of the second century, when, as he informs
us, the Gospels were already read in Churches, used
any other Gospel than the four which we possess.

XVIII.
THE GIFT OF TONGUES

TWO rival interpretations, which I may call the
ancient and the modern, are usually set before
the student in this difficult subject. But the leading
commentators in recent years have so decidedly
inclined to the modern view that Dr. Schaff, in his
History of the Church (I. 232), pronounces the ancient
to be generally abandoned.
This, perhaps, is saying too much. Generally
abandoned it may be amongst those who have
seriously studied the question, but as long as the
" Authorised " Version continues to be read in
churches, the ancient interpretation is likely to com
mend itself to the mass of Christians.
I propose in this paper to examine the whole
matter ; and I may state at the outset that, though
the arguments against the ancient explanation are in
my opinion decisive, the modern is beset by difficulties
even more formidable. There remains a third inter
pretation, which has never made much way, because
it seems to possess the difficulties of both the others
with the advantages of neither. But I shall endeavour
to show that, when strengthened by some new
277

278 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
explanations, it is at least worthy of careful con
sideration. I take Dr. Wordsworth, the late Bishop of Lincoln,
as the most uncompromising advocate of the ancient
view. In his Commentary on Acts ii. 4 he maintains
that the apostles on ' the day of Pentecost were
gifted with the tongues of all nations, and retained
this gift in full force throughout the rest of their
ministry, because Christ sent them to preach to
all nations ; and they being unlettered men, not
trained to public speaking (Acts iv. 13), could not,
he argues, have done their work without this super
natural aid. S. Peter himself, with his Galilean
accent (Matt. xxvi. 73), could never have been an
acceptable speaker even to an audience of Jews.
To confirm this view the Bishop quotes S. Cyril in
Cramer's Catena, " They spake with languages which
they had never learnt, and thus was fulfilled the
prophecy : 'There is neither speech nor language, but
their voices are heard among them.'" And he insists
with S. Chrysostom and S- Augustine that "the
miracle of Pentecost is the antithesis of the confusion
of tongues at Babel. There the one language had
been divided into many ; here the many languages
are united in one man."
Now in the first place, we have no scriptural
warrant for the contrast between the gift of Pentecost
and the confusion of Babel. Nor is the rendering of
Psalm xix. 3, which S. Cyril follows, admitted to be
true. The psalmist is speaking of the stars and
other heavenly bodies, which have no speech or
language, and yet with clearest voice proclaim the

THE GIFT OF TONGUES 279
glory of God. But Professor Cheyne gives reasons
for regarding the whole verse as a gloss.*
In the second place, the ancient Fathers did not
distinguish between what is contrary to nature, and
what is simply beyond nature's unaided powers. The
more startling and stupendous a miracle was, the
more worthy it appeared to them to be of God's
working. The question, " Is anything too hard for
the Lord?" put an end for them to controversy.
They had not realised, as we have, the supremacy of
law or the uniformity of the divine operation.
They would not have understood, while they would
have rejected as blasphemous, the assertion of Meyer,
" The sudden communication of a faculty of speaking
foreign languages is neither logically possible nor
psychologically and morally conceivable." t
Far be it from me to endorse Meyer's dogmatism.
Till " man is the measure of all things," it is not for
us to say what is impossible when the human mind
is supernaturally acted upon by the Divine Spirit.
A thing may be difficult to imagine and hard to
believe, but our duty is to weigh the evidence for it,
and not to reject it for a priori reasons. But it is
when we consider the question in the light of contem
porary history that we find Bishop Wordsworth's
contention least supported.
S. Paul, who " spake with tongues more than all "
the Corinthians (1 Cor. xiv. 18), was once preaching
at Lystra when the natives " cried out in the speech
of Lycaonia, 'The gods have come down to us
* Commentary on the Psalms.
t Commentary on Acts ii. 4.

280 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
in the likeness of men.' And they called Barnabas
Zeus, and Paul Herm£s, because Paul was the leader
in speaking." And they proceeded to offer sacrifice
to them. (Acts xiv. n.) It is reasonably clear that
S. Luke, in this passage, intends to convey the
impression that it was the use of the Lycaonian
dialect which made the apostles so slow in perceiving
the intention of the barbarians.
S. Luke carefully records that S. Paul spoke in
" Hebrew " at Jerusalem : he does not tell us that he
spoke in Latin at Rome. The fact that he wrote his
Epistle to the Romans in Greek is an indication
that he used Greek in his addresses. And when
S. Luke records his sermons at other places in Greek,
without any hint that he is giving us only a translation
of what was said, there is a presumption that these
also were originally delivered in the Greek language.
Again, in the locus classicus on the question (i Cor.
xiv. i ff.) much special pleading is required to uphold
Bishop Wordsworth in his contention that the persons
of whom S. Paul is there writing always understood
what they said when they spake with a tongue. To
an unprejudiced mind it seems abundantly plain that
they did not. " If I pray in a tongue," S. Paul writes
of himself, " my spirit prayeth, but my understanding
reaps no harvest." {v. 14)
Once more, if this view be correct, why should
speaking with tongues have been granted at the
conversion of Cornelius (Acts x. 46), or at that of
the twelve men at Ephesus (Acts xix. 6)? Were
they also to become evangelists and devote them
selves to foreign work ?

THE GIFT OF TONGUES 281
And why should the gift have been so freely
bestowed at Corinth, that S. Paul was constrained to
lay down the rule that not more than three persons
must exercise it at any one assembly? There was
no missionary purpose there. "No one hearkens"
(ver. 2) or listens to what is said. For when the
novelty was gone, the manifestation was not inter
esting. I have shown elsewhere* that we have good evi
dence that S. Peter employed S. Mark to translate
his " Memoirs of the Lord " into Greek for the use of
the Hellenists at Jerusalem, and that Silvanus per
formed a like service for S. Peter's first Epistle (p. 24 ;
1 Peter v. 12). Yet if S. Peter possessed the gift
of languages to the degree which Bishop Wordsworth
supposed, no such need of extraneous help could
have arisen. Nay, instead of the Hebraic style and
strong provincialisms which mark some of the
apostolic writings, we should have expected the
purest Greek of the age, or even a polyglot edition.
S. Paul bids those who had the gift of speaking
with a tongue to "pray that they might interpret."
This can only mean that ordinarily they could not
interpret. It would be meaningless, if not blas
phemous, to pray for this power if they had always
a full, conscious grasp of what they were uttering.
Lastly, it has been held to be one of the most
marvellous providential orderings which attended the
" fulness of the times " that the widespread use of
the Greek language made the acquisition of foreign
tongues less necessary to a missionary of the first
* Composition of the Four Gospels, pp. 15, 32.

282 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
century than it has been at any other age. Yet this
" preparation of the way of the Lord " would have
been wasted if the apostles had been supernaturally
endued with the gift of languages.
Contemporary history, therefore, gives little support
and many contradictions to the ancient interpretation ;
and, in the face of these, we do not feel justified
in throwing the burden of belief in this unparalleled
marvel on the faith of the brethren.
But before we come to the modern view, let us
glance at some other less important attempts to solve
the problem.
S. Luke's language in Acts ii. 4 ff. readily admits
of the explanation that the miracle did not lie in
the tongue of the speaker, but in the ears of the
listener. The speaker may have used his own mother
tongue, and the several hearers heard the words in
the language of their birth.
One speech on the day of Pentecost would thus
have sufficed for the fifteen dialects which S. Luke
enumerates. And Dr. Schaff actually maintains this
view. He holds that the Holy Spirit directly inter
vened and interpreted the words during their passage
through the air, so as to present them to the ears
of the numerous listeners, to each in his native
tongue.* But in this way the whole of S. Peter's speech
in Acts ii. 14 ff. might have been heard in divers
languages, whereas it evidently was not. For S.
Peter alludes to those who had been " speaking with
a tongue " in the third person. " These are not
* Hist. Church, i. 231.

THE GIFT OF TONGUES 283
drunken, as ye suppose." {v. 15.) Which fact, if it
does not prove that S. Peter had not exercised the
gift himself, at least shows that the manifestations
had ceased before he began his address. The very
name, "speaking with a tongue," shows that the
miracle lay in the tongue of the speaker, and not
in the ear of the listener, and this extravagant view
may be set aside.
Others have pointed out that the simpler emotions
are expressed by sounds which are readily com
prehended. Laughter, crying, sobs, sighs, huzzas,
the shrieks of frenzy and the groans of despair, are
either identical in all languages, or at least require
no interpretation. There are songs without words.
Music is a kind of language. Rhapsody does not
need definite expression. The primitive language of
Paradise may have been intelligible to all.
But this explanation, while it comes very far short
of satisfying S. Luke's words, " They began to speak
with other tongues," is finally set aside by S. Paul's
testimony that interpretation was the custom. Not
only was a man to "pray that he might interpret,"
but he was to keep silence if none of those who were
present could do so. " Interpretation of tongues "
is classed as a spiritual gift by the side of speaking
with tongues (1 Cor. xii. 10), but a universal language
would not need interpretation.
Some, therefore, have pleaded that instead of
reverting back to the simple language of Paradise,
we have here a foretaste of the complex language of
heaven, where all will understand, because all lan
guages will be united into one comprehensive whole.

284 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
These, however, are speculations with which It is
impossible to deal. Language itself may be un
necessary in the future state. We do not know and
it is vain to argue on such a subject. At any rate,
we cannot imagine anything of the kind being
anticipated on earth.
We turn, therefore, at last to what I have called
the modern view.
If the ancient view was founded on S. Luke, and
scarcely took account of S. Paul, modern teachers
plead with much force that, if we wish to understand
what the gift really was, we must concentrate our
attention on S. Paul's words, as those of one who
himself possessed it, and had frequently witnessed
its manifestations in others, whereas it is not certain
that S. Luke enjoyed either of these advantages.
The late Dean Stanley discussed the whole question
in his Commentary on the First Epistle to the
Corinthians, and concluded that speaking with a
tongue was a trance or ecstasy, which in moments
of great religious fervour, especially at the moment
of conversion, seized the early believers ; and this
fervour vented itself in expressions of thanks
giving, in fragments of psalmody, or hymnody,
or prayer, which to the speaker himself con
veyed an irresistible sense of communion with
God, and to the bystander an impression of some
extraordinary manifestation of power; but not
necessarily any instruction or teaching, and some
times even having the appearance of wild excitement,
like that of madness or intoxication.
He compares with it the ecstatic states amongst

THE GIFT OF TONGUES 285
the Montanists in the second century, and amongst
the Irvingites of the nineteenth, giving some valuable
illustrations. The Dean of Canterbury, Dr. Farrar,* is more ex
plicit. The gldssolalia, or ' speaking with a tongue,' is
connected with ' prophesying,' that is, exalted preach
ing and magnifying God. The sole passage by which
we can hope to understand it is the section of the
first Epistle to the Corinthians, (xii.' — xiv. 33.) It
is impossible for anyone to examine that section
carefully without being forced to the conclusion that
at Corinth, at any rate, the gift of tongues had not
the least connexion with foreign languages. , . .
They did not speak as men ordinarily speak. The
voice they uttered was awful in its range, in its tone,
in its modulations, in its startling, penetrating, almost
appalling power."
For myself, I must confess that I have done what
Dr. Farrar pronounces to be impossible ; for I have
read through the section in question with all the care
that I could command, and have been forced to the
conclusion that, though some of S. Paul's illustrations
undoubtedly favour the theory of incoherent noises,
yet his application of them does not do so, and, on
the whole, foreign languages are certainly implied.
Again, I see nothing to indicate the awe-inspiring
tones which Dr, Farrar imagines. S. Paul's dis
paraging words, "Sounding brass or clanging cymbal,"
"A trumpet giving an uncertain sound," seem to
me to be directed against the folly of using foreign
languages when no foreigners were present. Concrete
* Life of S. Paul, i. 95.

286 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
languages are certainly implied in the eulogistic
rhetorical description, "The tongues of men and of
angels." But "no one hearkens" {v. 2) does not
imply an overwhelming, irresistible, spirit-stirring
appeal, but the contempt of familiarity. It is because
" I do not understand the speech " that " the speaker
is a foreigner to me, and I am a foreigner to him."
It is " the private man," and not the expert, who will
be at a loss how to say "Amen" to your prayer,
and will think you must be mad. All difficulty
will vanish if a version be supplied. And the
apostle's sole advice is, keep silence, or "pray that
ye may interpret."
If the word "new" were not in all probability
a false reading in Mark xvi. 17, we should have the
testimony, not of S. Mark, for the passage is not
genuine, but of a first century record, that the
apostles were to " speak with new tongues." Irenaeus*
understood foreign languages to have been used, for
he writes, " They spake with all kinds of tongues "
{iravroSairais yXaxra-ais), and adds that the gift was
possessed by many in his day, though he does not
claim to have heard any of them. S. Paul's illustra
tive quotation from Isaiah, " By men of strange
tongues" (eTe/>oyXc«Woi?) " and by the lips of strangers
will I speak unto this people," naturally implies
diversity of language.
But all these objections, important though they are,
become as nothing to my mind compared with the
rejection of S. Luke's testimony in the Acts of the
Apostles. * Adv. Hcer., v. 6, 1.

THE GIFT OF TONGUES 287
S. Luke writes that men of fifteen nations or tribes
expressed their astonishment in the words, "Are
not all these which speak Galileans ? And how hear
we them every one in our own language, wherein
we were born ? " Dr. Farrar replies, " We have been
taking too literally S. Luke's dramatic reproduction
of the vague murmurs of a throng who mistook the
nature of the gift of which they witnessed the reality."
But S. Luke himself endorses their view, for he writes
in calm history, "They began to speak with other
tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." We
have here something different from " dramatic repro
duction." Either we must admit that diversity of
language was employed, or we are forced to accept
the contention of Meyer, that S. Luke's account is
"not historical." And if we once admit that S.
Luke's account is not historical, I do not see how
we are to hold that the Acts of the Apostles was
written by S. Luke or by anyone of the first century.
For this is a different case from that of an " editorial
note" in the Gospels. Inaccuracies in those were
caused by the imperfect knowledge in the editor ; *
but S. Luke was a companion of S. Paul, who
possessed the gift in a high degree. S. Luke also
regarded the gift as one of the greatest wonders
of those wondrous days. Even if he had never
heard it exercised, he must, at least, have conversed
about it with S. Paul, or with some other person who
possessed it. For, though it had probably become
rare at the time when he wrote, it had been in full
force during the first days of his discipleship. The
* Composition of the Four Gospels, p. 116 ff.

288 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
historian of the Church, collecting materials, can never
have been so entirely mistaken on a point of the
greatest interest and importance.
But further, if it be true, as I have maintained,*
that the early sections of the Acts of the Apostles
are based on oral teaching, the case is still more
difficult ; for the oral sections must have been drawn
up at a very early date, when hundreds of Christians
were living who had been present at the Pentecostal
manifestation. There is no reason to doubt that the
oral sections were taught at Corinth, and even stirred
up the Corinthians to covet earnestly the gift. The
Corinthians themselves would have corrected the
accounts if they differed so widely from their own
experience of the truth.
In short, if the narrative in the Acts of the
Apostles be not historical but "dramatic," it will
be difficult to maintain that the whole book as we
now have it was not put forth early in the second
century, the former part of it being based on oral
teaching altered and adapted to suit the false and
exaggerated notions respecting the nature of the gift
of tongues current in that age, the latter part on a
journal kept by some companion of S. Paul, which
journal the editor somewhat carelessly embedded
in his work. According to such a supposition, S.
Luke cannot have been the author of the book.
This view I am not prepared to admit, least of all in
support of a theory which S. Paul's words are so far
from demanding that they appear to me absolutely to
exclude it. * Composition of the Four Gospels, p. 91.

THE GIFT OF TONGUES 289
Must we, then, hold that the gift of tongues at
Pentecost was different in kind from " speaking with
a tongue" at Corinth? Were the apostles at first
endowed with the power of using language which
they had never learned, but, as love grew cold or
men neglected to put the gift to a proper use, did
it degenerate into rhapsody? Had the Corinthians
heard of the miracle of the first days, and were they,
in their ambition, falsely emulating it? Is there
something more in S. Paul's disparaging words than
appears on the surface ? Can it be that he is repress
ing the indignation of his heart ?
It may be so. Some view of this kind appears to
be accepted by the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol,
Mr. Lias, and other recent English commentators.
To those who cannot accept the solution which I
shall presently propound (and there must be many
such), I would commend this as the best escape from
the difficulty. The question how such power could
have been bestowed will then remain unanswered.
It was simply the gift of God. But in any case the
evidence shows that the gift was granted on rare
occasions for a few moments to a select number of
persons by the unknown operation of the Holy
Spirit. Those who used it, at least at Corinth and in
the case of S. Paul himself, neither understood what
they were saying nor had any power of controlling
the flow of words, save perhaps that of ceasing to
speak. And it was simply a sign to unbelievers. It
arrested the attention of those who could not other
wise be induced to listen. When it had done that
its utility departed. U

290 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
n.
Having now settled preliminaries, let us turn to
the opinion of the late Dean Alford, which is
different from both the ancient and the modern view.
S. Luke's "speaking with other tongues" he held
to be identical with S. Paul's "speaking with a
tongue," and in both cases there was, he maintained,
"a sudden and powerful inspiration of the Holy
Spirit, by which the disciples uttered, not of their
own mind, but as mouthpieces of the Spirit, the
praises of God in various languages, hitherto, and
possibly at the time itself, unknown to them." *
Change " possibly " into " certainly," and this view
will meet the facts of the case. The utterances were
spoken, as Dean Stanley said, "in ecstasy," the
speaker being as unconscious of what he was saying,
and as incapable of recollecting what he had said
and done when the ecstasy was over, as one who
talks in his sleep or in the hypnotic state.
If the reader asks how this could be done, I would
first refer him to the mysterious phenomenon of
demoniacal possession. If this was something more
than brain or nerve disorder, and was the effect of
an external power so completely taking hold of a
man as to control his thoughts and his words, how
much more may have been accomplished by the
Holy Spirit? The very term "speaking with a
tongue" may have signified that the tongue was the
human member used, the thoughts and words were
supplied from elsewhere. * Commentary on Acts ii. 4.

THE GIFT OF TONGUES 291
But as the real nature of demoniacal possession
is unknown, I would point out that another and
simpler explanation Is at least possible. The
phenomenon of "speaking with tongues" may
have been the result of an abnormally excited
memory. That people should under certain conditions speak
passages of considerable length in a language which
they do not understand, by recalling and repeating
what they have heard others say, it may be years
before, Is a well-tested fact.
In certain abnormal states — as madness, febrile
delirium, somnambulism, catalepsy, etc. — "a multi
tude of facts," writes Mr. E. H. Lecky, "which are
so completely forgotten that no effort of the will
can revive them, and that the statement of them calls
up no reminiscences .... may be reproduced with
intense vividness."
Persons during delirium have been heard to speak
in a language which they had known in their child
hood, but which for many years had passed from
their memory. And It cannot be shown that any
impression once made on the tablet of the mind is
ever fully forgotten, for sensations long dormant
may be awakened by some startling crisis.
Sir Francis Beaufort, In describing his experience
when rescued from drowning, said that "every incident
of his former life seemed to glance across his
recollection in a retrograde succession, not in mere
outline, but the picture being filled with every minute
and collateral feature," forming " a kind of panoramic
view of his entire existence, each act of it being

292 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
accompanied by a sense of right and wrong."*
This fact is confirmed by numerous other examples.
But to return to the question of unknown languages.
A case is narrated by S. T. Coleridge of a young
woman of four or five and twenty, who could neither
read nor write, and who was seized with a nervous
fever, during which she continuously talked Latin,
Greek, and Hebrew in very pompous tones and with
a most distinct enunciation. Sheets of her ravings
were taken down from her mouth, and at last it
was found that she had been for some years servant
to a Protestant pastor, who was in the habit of
walking up and down a passage of his house adjoin
ing the kitchen and reading aloud to himself portions
of his favourite authors.
In the Contemporary Review for January, 1886,
Mr. Richard Heath has collected a number of
instances of abnormal memory, quite apart from
fever, in an article on " The Little Prophets of the
Cevennes." A girl of seven years, who, when awake, was dull,
awkward, and without any taste for music, warbled in
her sleep in a manner exactly resembling the sweetest
tones of a small violin. She performed, in a clear
and accurate manner, elaborate pieces of music. A
year or two passed away, and she began to discourse
on a variety of topics in a way which excited the
astonishment of those who knew her limited means
of information. She was known to conjugate
correctly Latin verbs, and to speak several sentences
in French. * Kay, Memory, p. 237.

THE GIFT OF TONGUES 293
The case of the Little Prophets is still more to the
point, because we have not isolated instances, but as
many as six hundred affected in the same way at once.
The manifestation lasted over thirteen years, bursting
out at intervals from the year 1688 to 1701 A.D. It
did not take place during sleep, but in broad daylight.
Children of three years old and upwards preached
sermons in correct French, which they could not
ordinarily use, with appropriate emphasis and gestures
impossible to a child. Some of the sermons were
three-quarters of an hour long. The Prophets " first
swooned and appeared without any feeling, then
broke out into exhortations — fervent, eloquent,
correct, well-chosen, appropriate, mostly in good
French." There was nothing hysterical or wildly
excited about their manner, only they were insensible
to pain and could not be induced to stop. "The
boldness of the young boy astonished me," writes
an eye-witness. " It was, indeed, a marvel to see
an ignorant and timid child undertake to teach
the people, to preach in a language he was incapable
of speaking at another time, expressing himself
magnificently, and presiding like a bishop in an
assembly of Christians."
All these phenomena, which a few of the priests
at the time attributed to demoniacal possession, are
confidently put down by Mr. Heath to a memory
unduly excited by the most appalling persecutions.
The children were one and all repeating the sermons
which had been preached by their pastors long
before. If this can be done, it is enough for my
purpose. We need not follow Mr. Heath into his

294 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
further contention, that some at least of the children
were reproducing what their parents or ancestors had
heard long before the children were born. Or, if we do
so, it shall be to show that science also demands faith,
and that the supposable possibilities of the memory
are greater than is commonly thought. Individuals
die, but their offspring carry on the memory of all
the impressions which their ancestors acquired or
received. What we call instinct in animals — for
example, the faculty by which a bird not only always
builds the same kind of nest, but without any teach
ing knows how to set about it — is probably to a great
extent inherited memory, which is strongest in those
who are intellectually weakest. " We are one person
with our ancestors." And " if we are unable to
conceive memory working at such a pitch," as it
did in the Little Prophets, " it is because our imagina
tion, not being adequately sustained by knowledge,
is unequal to conceive the degree to which this sacred
lore had been burnt into the soul of a long-suffering
people." But I leave this question to the men of science.
It is enough for my purpose that they maintain that
" it is impossible to put any limits to the power of
memory." For if only the more ordinary manifesta
tions of an abnormally excited memory be conceded
me, the gift of tongues will cease to be, as Meyer
said, impossible and inconceivable. Exercised within
the limits which the evidence shows it to have been
confined, it becomes so simple and natural, that some
persons, who do not greatly value the removal of
a stumbling-block from the way of the Faith, will

THE GIFT OF TONGUES 29S
accuse me of rationalistically explaining away what
the Church has always held to be a stupendous
miracle. Such a charge would surely be more fairly brought
against those who advocate what I have called the
" modern view," according to which there was neither
miracle nor mystery in the matter, but all the
phenomena were due to excitement or hysteria (real
at Pentecost, sometimes simulated at Corinth),
which the ignorance of the age attributed to super
natural causes.
According to my view, though the means used may
have been in large measure natural, yet the provi
dential ordering which brought the event about at
that particular crisis was miraculous. It was a
miracle, not of power, but of providence. As in
the draught of fishes or the stilling of the storm,
there may have been little or nothing supernatural
in the occurrence itself; the miracle lay in its occur
ring at the precise moment when it did. The choice
of time, the preparation of the speakers beforehand,
the selection of suitable words, the restriction of the
gift to particular persons betoken the work of Him
who 'moves in a mysterious way His wonders to
perform.' But the exciting cause may finally have
been, not mere mental tension, but the direct impulse
of the Holy Spirit working in that way. We do
not necessarily destroy the miracle when we point
out the means by which it may have been wrought.
If it be objected, that according to my showing
there was some degree of deception about it, for the
ignorance of the age magnified its mystery, and even

296 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
S. Paul cannot have known its real cause : that, I
reply, is true of God's working in every age. Our
ignorance necessarily increases or diminishes its
mystery. If God is to communicate with men at
all, we cannot see how He can do so without making
use of the state of human knowledge at the time.
He who made the bow in the cloud a sign to the
patriarchs could not have done so in an age which
familiarly calls it the rainbow and explains its origin by
the laws of optics.
At no time or place were there better opportunities
for men to overhear religious addresses in foreign
languages than in Jerusalem at the time of Christ
Pilgrims from all parts of the world filled the city
with foreign speech. Many earnest preachers must
have seized on the opportunity to make what to many
was their only visit to the Holy City a turning point
in their religious lives. Such a discourse, overheard
but not comprehended, while some foreigner in the
market-place or street corner addressed a small knot
of his compatriots in his native tongue, would suffice.
The words, the intonations, the impassioned appeals
of the orator could be reproduced by this marvellous
power which we have been describing, as accurately
as by the latest discoveries in modern electricity.
In support of this hypothesis, it is to be noticed
that they " who spake with tongues '' are never said
to have given utterance to distinctly Christian teach
ing. They did but record "the mighty works of
God " as any Rabbi would have done. It is plain
that the words spoken in the ecstatic state, even
when interpreted or understood, were of no special

THE GIFT OF TONGUES 297
utility to Christians. Accustomed to the higher tone
of S. Paul and his evangelists, the Corinthians found
little profit in these Rabbinic exhortations. Even the
apostle's utterances " in a tongue " were deficient in
spirituality. "As it is, brethren, if I come to you
speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, unless
I speak to you by revelation or by knowledge or
by prophecy or by teaching ? " The words spoken
"in a tongue" must be derived from some better
source than they ever yet had been, if they were,
when interpreted, to appeal successfully to the
conscience of Christians. S. Peter's speech, delivered
in his native Aramaic on the day of Pentecost, has
been preserved to us at least in outline, but all the
utterances of the tongues, both there and elsewhere,
have perished. They contained no new revelation to
keep them alive.
Some mockers, we read, attributed the utterances
to intoxication. These, as Dean Alford pointed out,
might be the native Jews, to whom the strange
languages would be unintelligible, while the words
spoken in their own language would contain no
sign. We are told that some of the hundred and twenty
spoke more than others, " in proportion as the Spirit
enabled them to speak." Some, perhaps, used several
languages in succession, some only one. They appear
to have burst out all at once, mixing with the crowd,
and speaking simultaneously. So they did afterwards
at Corinth. But what had been effective amongst
a multitude in the open air ill-suited the four walls
of a church. The assembly became such a Babel

298 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
that a stranger coming in and not understanding the
languages would be likely, S. Paul feared, to account
them all as mad.
The rapt ecstatic state, the unconscious utterances,
the blank of memory when the speaker regained his
faculties will account for S. Paul's classing this as the
lowest of spiritual gifts. The recipient was entirely
passive. Some assurance he obtained : " He esta
blished himself" ; but if all our gifts are multiplied
for us when we share them with others, speaking with
tongues brought no such blessing. When the novelty
was worn off, it became a weariness to the Church, an
occasion for discontent and jealousy. There was
danger that it would cease to be a spiritual power and
degenerate into nothing but ecstasy. "In the church
I had rather speak five words with my understanding,
that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words
in a tongue."
We read that the gift of tongues was granted
on the day of Pentecost, at the conversion of
Cornelius, and of the twelve men at Ephesus, in the
Church of Corinth, and in the case of S. Paul. We
have no indication of its presence in other churches,
nor are we entitled to regard it as anything but rare
and exceptional. When, however, it was granted, it
was, as is usual with God's gifts, granted with pro
fusion. At Corinth " every one had .... a tongue."
But S. Paul's prediction, " As for tongues they shall
cease," was probably very soon fulfilled. If, as
Irenaeus affirms, isolated cases occurred even in the
second century, they were few and final. For the
incoherent cries of the Montanists, the Irvingites, and

THE GIFT OF TONGUES 299
others, I take to be different in kind, as it has been
usual to regard them.
One difficulty remains. What must we understand
by the " gift of interpretation " ?
There were no interpreters on the day of Pentecost.
The several nations heard their own language spoken,
and needed not the assistance of a translator. But
S. Paul in the first Epistle to the Corinthians alludes
six times to the class of interpreters. First, in xii.
10 he reckons "interpretation of tongues" as one
of the spiritual gifts. Secondly, in xii. 30 he asks,
"Do all interpret?" Thirdly, in xiv. 5 he writes,
" Greater is he that prophesieth, than he that speaketh
with tongues, except he interpret." Fourthly, in
verse 13 he directs, "Let him that speaketh with
a tongue pray that he may interpret." Fifthly, in
verse 26 he says, " Every one hath .... an inter
pretation " ; and lastly, in verse 27, "If any man
speak with a tongue, let it be by two at a time,
or at the most three, and in turn, and let one
Interpret." We have seen that if, according to the ancient
view, the speaker understood what he was saying,
the office of the interpreter was unnecessary ; and
if, according to the modern view, speaking with
tongues consisted of incoherent cries, interpretation
was impossible.
According to our view, interpretation would be
both possible and necessary ; but, as it is contrary to
God's usual working to supply supernaturally what
can be readily produced by human effort, we should
expect it to be assigned to one who understood

300 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
the language. And when S. Paul writes, "Let one
interpret," he perhaps means no more than this. For
at a port like Corinth, all languages would be spoken
and few languages would not be understood by some
member of the Church, which was largely composed
of slaves, the very class of persons who in ancient
days undertook this kind of work. The "gift of
interpreting" may thus have depended on a know
ledge of the language, supplemented by the power to
speak boldly and acceptably in public.
If anyone thinks that a "spiritual gift" must
necessarily convey to him who was endued with it
some more distinctly miraculous power than this, let
him remember that S. Paul in the same list classes
among spiritual gifts " faith," " the word of wisdom,"
and " the word of power."
But S. Paul contemplates the case of a man acting
as his own interpreter, for he writes, " Greater is he
that prophesieth, than he that speaketh with tongues,
except he interpret," and again, "Let him pray that
he may interpret."
We need not suppose that the apostle expected
that, though the " speaking with a tongue " was done
in ecstasy, the interpretation was to be made con
sciously when the ecstatic state was over. S. Paul
" spake with tongues " himself, and knew the limita
tions under which the gift was exercised. If my
theory is right, the speaker on recovering conscious
ness had no recollection of what he had said. And
it is not probable that S. Paul, knowing this, bids him
seek and pray for a new power : a power which
appears, at least to us, to be different in kind. Much

THE GIFT OF TONGUES 301
though S. Paul wished to rebuke the spiritual pride
of the Corinthians, he would hardly take this means
of doing so.
Did he, then, intend that both the speech and
the interpretation should be spoken in ecstasy?
This is possible, and may have been brought about
by the providential ordering of the Holy Spirit,
though it is difficult for us to see the necessity of
it. As, however, we do not know the extent to
which the "interpretations" were exact translations
of what had been said, an utterance in a foreign
tongue, followed immediately by an utterance in
the vernacular, might be popularly mistaken for a
speech and its interpretation, provided no one was
present who understood both languages ; for the
general tenor of these utterances must usually have
been much the same. Moreover, S. Paul is not
describing anything which (as far as we know) ever
had been done, or was done, but something which he
(perhaps from imperfect knowledge) supposes to be
attainable. But I incline myself to a simpler explanation.
The term " interpretation " may not only have been
applied to bond fide translations of utterances in a
tongue, but to any utterance made in the vernacular
during the state of ecstasy, so that when S. Paul
writes " Pray that ye may interpret," he merely means
"Pray that your utterance may be granted in the
vernacular," that thus it may be directly profitable to
the hearers. That utterances in the vernacular were
made in ecstasy, we know from the account of the
day of Pentecost, where natives of Judaea are

302 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
enumerated amongst those who heard the disciples
speak in their own language. And even the Little
Prophets sometimes preached in their native patois,
reproducing, as I suppose, the words which had been
used by the peasants in family worship.
I have written this paper chiefly from a sense of
the very serious danger of calling in question the
historical truth of the Acts of the Apostles, but also
in the hope of helping those who find the common
views on this difficult subject a trial to their faith.
My prayer is that the truth in this, as in all other
matters, may ultimately prevail, whether it be found
to accord with my own ideas or not.

XIX.
THE BEAUTIFUL GATE OF
THE TEMPLE
Acts iii. i-io.
THE translation " beautiful " gate or door {wpala
irvXt), dvpa) is not correct according to deriva
tion or classical usage, wpaios coming from &pa
should mean "timely," and is applied to fruits in
their season or human beings in their prime. The
idea of beauty is foreign to it, except as an infer
ence ; that must be expressed by /caXo'?. However,
already in the Septuagint the meaning " beautiful " is
established, and S. Luke, over whom the Septuagint
exercised a paramount influence, naturally used the
word in this sense. We may therefore set aside the
conjecture favoured by Lightfoot, the learned author
of Horce Hebraicaz, that wpala is a translation of
mbirt. Nothing is known of such a name, and
the Vulgate rendering speciosa points to the sense in
which S. Luke's word was understood traditionally.
No other author is known to mention any gate
or door of the Temple bearing the name of
" beautiful." We are therefore left to inference and
conjecture In determining its locality. Opinion has
fluctuated, and still fluctuates, between four gates —
3°3

304 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
two external and two internal, (i) The gate leading
to the city over the Tyropceon Bridge, at the south
west corner of the outer court ; (2) the gate
"Shushan" or "the Lily," leading from the centre
of Solomon's Porch on the east side of the Temple
to the brook Kidron, Gethsemane, and the Mount of
Olives ; (3) Nicanor's Gate, leading from the Court of
the Women, through the Court of Israel, into the
Court of the Priests ; (4) the eastern gate of the
Court of the Women. That this last is the true
position it will be my endeavour to show.
It is well known that there are two words in the
Greek Testament which are indifferently translated
"Temple" in the Authorised English Version, viz.,
6 rao'?, which is the house proper ; the sanctuary, the
church as opposed to the churchyard ; and to lepov,
" the holy ground," which includes the whole of the
sacred precincts. And as the church could only be
entered by officiating priests, the churchyard alone
was trodden by our Lord and by the people in
general. Herod, however, had surrounded it with
highly decorated porticoes, in which people were
sheltered from sun and rain in those latter days.
Now when we examine S. Luke's narrative closely,
we see that the beggar was lying outside " the holy
ground " ; he asked alms of those who were entering
" into the holy ground." After the miracle was per
formed he entered with S. Peter and S. John " into
the holy ground," and when the service was over the
people retired into Solomon's Porch, where S. Peter
addressed them.
Hence Captain Conder and others have argued

THE BEAUTIFUL GATE 305
that the "Beautiful Gate" was that which led into the
Court of the Gentiles from the city by way of the
Tyropceon Bridge, while yet others have fastened on
the gate " Shushan " ; and for many years I con
sidered that one or other of these gates must be
intended. Captain Conder's position seemed much
the better of the two, because S. Peter and the great
mass of the worshippers would enter from the city
by the Tyropceon Bridge, whereas only a few
villagers from outside would be likely to approach
by Shushan. And the lame man would be sure to
select a frequented spot, if he could find an un
occupied corner. "Nulla crepido vacat?"— ; fuvenal v. 8.
It is, however, much to be noticed that S. Luke
fluctuates between " gate " {irvXr/) and " door " {dvpa).
(Acts iii. 2, 10.) If "gate" in the ancient world
belonged to a wall, and " door " to a house, we may
be sure that " beautiful door " would not be applied
to any of the outer gates of the Temple, which
were highly fortified. Indeed, the Temple was the
strongest fortress in the city, and its approaches were
defended with all the means known to ancient war
fare. A "door" points to some internal entrance
leading from room to room. A variation so slight
and incidental is surely full of significance.
There is good a priori reason to think that the
expression " holy ground " would be used sometimes
in an exoteric sense to include all of the thirty-five
acres which constituted the " mountain of the house,"
sometimes in an esoteric sense to designate those
X

306 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
portions only of the Temple which were really
holy, because no Gentile foot might tread them on
penalty of death. To these alone, I maintain, could
the grander word olyto? be applied.
There are seven degrees in holiness according to
Jewish reckoning: (i) All the world is holy, for
" the earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof " ;
(2) Jerusalem is the holy city; (3) the Temple
precincts are holy ground ; (4) the sacred enclosure
within them is in a special sense holy; (5) the
Court of the Priests is holier still ; (6) the vaot, or
sanctuary, surpasses all these ; but (7) yields to the
part beyond the veil — the holy of holies, the very
dwelling-place of Jehovah.
Now when a Jew boasted of his greatness,
Palestine is the holy land, Jerusalem the holy city,
the Temple the holy place — he magnifies and ex
pands everything in the exuberance of his heart.
But the narrower exclusive feeling is always close
in the background. " This people which knoweth
not the Law is accursed." " All are not Israel which
are of Israel." " Israel after the flesh " is distinct
from " the Israel of God " ; and assuredly the Court
of the Gentiles was profane and not holy.
Indeed, there was much to make him think so.
Apart from the occasional presence of Gentiles this
court was a mart for the sale of oxen, sheep, and
doves, and for the purchase of the half-shekel for
the Temple tax : sacred transactions indeed ; but
anyone who knows how barter is conducted in
the East will appreciate the feelings of scruple.
The loud chaffering of purchasers, the lowing of

THE BEAUTIFUL GATE 307
oxen, the stench and dung, made this part of the
Temple profane indeed.
Now there Is no question that the Court of the
Gentiles is regularly called "holy." Indeed to lepov
in most cases undoubtedly points to it or its porticoes.
But we have a good deal more than d priori reasons
for holding that sometimes the stricter sense prevails.
Thus in Acts xxi. 28 the charge is brought against
S. Paul that he had brought Gentiles " into the holy
ground," els to lepov. This cannot mean the whole
Temple area, for Gentiles might freely roam over
the greater part of this at all times of the day,
even during the most solemn festivals. The sense
must be restricted to the inner enclosure, viz., the
Court of the Women or the Court of the Priests,
from which Gentiles were rigorously excluded. In
the next verse the same restricted meaning is
plainly required. It is probable also in xxi. 30 ;
xxii. 17; xxiv. 6, 12, 18; xxv. 8; xxvi. 21. And
if these passages, or any of them, be granted there
can be no difficulty in extending it to the third
chapter and the Beautiful Gate.
If, then, it be granted that some inner door,
leading from the Court of the Gentiles to the more
holy parts, is intended, how shall we determine
which door? Nicanor's Gate, made of Corinthian
bronze, is especially extolled for beauty by Josephus,
and hence has been selected by the late Professor
Lumby and others. But there seem to be insuper
able objections to this view. Nicanor's Gate did
not lead from profane into holy ground, but
from the Court of the Women into the Court

308 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
of the Priests*; nor is it probable that a beggar
would be placed where few people passed. More
over, as S. Peter was "going up to catch the hour
of prayer" he was not going into the Court of the
Priests to offer sacrifice, but into the Court of the
Women for worship. Now worshippers entered by
the eastern gate, and thus we are brought to that
position. For the Court of the Women was the regular place
of assembly for the services. Women sat in a
gallery above, the men stood on the ground-floor
below. There was, I estimate, standing ground for
about 15,000 people, which, except at the great
festivals, would be ample accommodation.
Many authorities, e.g. Dr. Edersheim, agree with
me about the position of the Gate, but not for the
reason which I have given, nor with the degree of
assurance of which the case admits. The fact that
to lepov is used in the New Testament in two
senses, has, I believe, hitherto escaped notice,
although it is intrinsically probable, and on exami
nation certain.
* The so-called "Court of Israel," or "Court of the Men,'' was not
a court at all, but the narrow space between the walls, which were
double everywhere.

XX.
APOLLOS
A STUDY IN PRE-PAULINE CHRISTIANITY
WHEN S. Paul in his third missionary journey
settled down at Ephesus, he found that a
Christian Church had long been established there.
Possibly it dated from the great day of Pentecost,
when " Jews from Asia," of which province Ephesus
was the capital, had been present at the Feast.
(Acts ii. 9.) His old acquaintances, Aquila and
Priscilla, were amongst the members. His future
helper, Apollos, had but recently departed. There
were twelve other brethren, of whom we shall have
something to say presently, and doubtless there were
a few more of whom nothing is known. That it was
a small and struggling community is indicated by
the fact that it had never separated from Judaism.
Whatever of special love-feasts, eucharists, and other
Christian ordinances were kept, must have been cele
brated, as they usually were in those earliest days
(Acts ii. 46), in the private houses of the brethren.
Public services were supplied by the synagogue. S.
Paul, on his first visit, joined himself to that syna
gogue and preached on the Sabbath. (Acts xviii. 19.)
On his second visit he did so again. It was his rule
309

310 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
" to become a Jew to the Jews, that he might gain
the Jews." And either experience had taught him
how to avoid giving offence, or the Jews of that
synagogue were unusually docile. Perhaps, having
welcomed the Christians from the first, they had in
curred the enmity of other synagogues, and did not
like to recede. For in a city like Ephesus there
must have been several synagogues. Anyhow, three
months elapsed before the apostle found it advisable
to separate the brethren.
The first thing which struck S. Paul, on his second
visit, and has perplexed the interpreters of the Acts
of the Apostles ever since, was the existence of the
twelve brethren, who " had been baptized into John's
baptism." (Acts xix. I.)
These men were in the same condition in which
Apollos had recently been. The two cases are
placed together by the historian, and will throw
light upon one another.
What, then, was exactly the position of Apollos,
when Aquila and Priscilla "took him unto them,
and expounded to him the way of God more
accurately " ? (Acts xviii. 26.)
He was, we read, "an eloquent man and mighty
in the Scriptures." So much might be predicated of
many a Jewish Rabbi. But he " had been instructed
in the way of the Lord, and spake and taught accu
rately the facts concerning Jesus." He was there
fore a Christian, and, indeed, In some sort, a
Christian minister. He was "fervent in spirit," but
he had this defect that "he knew only the baptism
of John."

APOLLOS 31 i
Now when we combine this statement with S.
Paul's question to the Twelve, "Unto what then
were ye baptized ? " and their answer, " Unto John's
baptism," it becomes evident that the words are not
to be taken in any transcendental sense, but as a
plain allegation of fact. Apollos and the others had
received, not Christian, but pre-Christian baptism.
It is usually assumed that they had all been bap
tized by one of John's disciples, and not a few
have inferred that the twelve had been baptized by
Apollos himself. To me it seems almost certain
that the rite had in all cases been administered by
John the Baptist in person.
For these men were Jews, and every true Israelite
recognised the moral obligation of going on pil
grimage to the city of David at least once in, his
life. A place like Ephesus sent many scores of
Jews every Pentecost to keep the Feast. Jews of
Jerusalem also migrated to the city of Artemis, and
settled down there for the purpose of trade. It is
practically certain that there would be at least
twelve men then living at Ephesus, who in their
youth had shared in the general enthusiasm, when
"all Jerusalem and all Judaea and all the region
round about Jordan" had gone forth to John's
baptism. For a short season John had in very truth been
"a burning and a shining light." But I see no
indication that his work was continued by his dis
ciples after his death. Already in his lifetime he
had begun to "decrease." Jesus "made and bap
tized more disciples than John." And when once

312 new Testament problems
John had pointed out the Lamb of God, his work
was accomplished. It was impossible that he
should appoint any other successor than our Lord.
Moreover, if these twelve men had been baptized
by Apollos, why did he not impart to them his
more perfect knowledge before leaving Ephesus?
He was in no hurry to go. According to the
Western text of the Acts, certain Corinthians, who
were sojourning in Ephesus, invited him to return
with them to their country. To leave his converts,
without so much as introducing them to Aquila, is
a more heartless thing than we like to suppose him
guilty of. No one can have had such claims upon
him as these firstfruits of his ministry.
Aquila, if I read his character aright, was no
orator. He could not stand up in the synagogue,
like Apollos, and address the congregation. But
he had worked side by side with S. Paul at their
common trade. And he invited to his house and
held private conversations with such as were willing
to hear a plain man talk on religious questions.
He had initiated Apollos into certain mysteries of
the faith, and he would gladly have initiated the
others, if they had consulted him.
But we have yet to grapple with the central diffi
culty of this remarkable narrative. How comes it
that Apollos, a Christian minister, " knew only the
baptism of John " ?
Dr. F. Blass, Professor of Classical Philology in
the University of Halle, put forward in his Com
mentary on the Acts of the Apostles the idea that
Apollos had learned what he knew of Christianity

APOLLOS 313
from some written book, and not from the mouth
of a Christian teacher.
If such a book existed at that early date (about
50 A.D.), we should all agree with Dr. Blass that it
must have been S. Mark's Gospel, or some first
edition thereof.
It is much to be noticed that of late years inde
pendent investigators, working on different lines and
from different standpoints, have been forced to the
conclusion that our Gospels, or their component
parts, were in existence at a very early date. We
who remember the time when the most strenuous
efforts of our apologists were needed to prevent the
Gospels from being relegated to the second century,
cannot but rejoice at the change which has come
over critical opinion. Far be it from me to quarrel
with anyone who, being a competent scholar, puts
forth opinions so exceedingly welcome.
But still it is our bounden duty dispassionately to
examine the grounds for this opinion, and to reject
it, or at least postpone its acceptance, if we are not
satisfied. Hence the editor of the Expository Times * perti
nently pointed out that the word " instructed " in the
sentence : " Apollos was instructed in the way of the
Lord (Jesus)," is the rare and significant KaTrjxelcrdai,
"to be catechized," which is expressly assigned to
oral teaching.
If this objection could not be removed, Dr. Blass's
theory must fall to the ground. And therefore he
soon replied to it, and argued that KaTnxe'(T^ai ^as
* Expository Times (T. and T. Clark), vol. vii. p. 241.

314 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
not a very strict meaning as to where the Instruction
comes from, whether from a book directly or from
a person. He continues that in Rom. ii. 18,
KaT>ixei<r6ai, and in John xii. 34, aKovw, "to hear,"
are used of book knowledge, even as Plato {Phadrus,
268 c.) writes « /3i/3Xtov troOev aicovo-as, "having
caught up from some book." Thus, he concludes,
even aicovco itself does not necessarily imply oral
instruction. I find myself unable to agree with these exposi
tions. To begin with the last, Plato is describing a
quack doctor, a mere ignoramus, who sets up for a
physician because he has happened upon a few
pills and "has heard [some prescriptions] from a
pamphlet." It seems to me that there is a sting in
the condensed phrase : " Heard from a pamphlet."
Plato wishes to insinuate that the impostor can
neither read nor write, but has employed some one
to decipher the MS. for him.
Again, the accomplished Jew of Rom. ii. 18, who
poses as a guide to the blind, an instructor of fools,
a teacher of infants, "cannot be one of the vulgar
crowd of Jews, but must be able to study the law
for himself, like the Jews of Bercea." True, but
even such a Rabbi was once an unconscious babe,
and began, like Timothy, "to know the Holy
Writings," with other boys at the feet of the
Chazzan, who "catechized them out of the law."
Learning by heart, as I have shown above,* was
almost the only conception of education in the East.
And the catechumens were certainly not allowed to
* See page 94.

APOLLOS 315
finger the sacred rolls. Their teacher read a passage
to them ; they (probably) copied it down upon their
tablets, and then recited it, like modern Chinese
boys, at the top of their voices, until by noise and
repetition it "was dinned into them," as the word
implies, and so became a life possession.
Learning the law by heart is so contrary to
modern habits that a Western reader does not
readily grasp the idea. Yet when the Pharisees
said, " This multitude which knoweth not the law
is accursed" (John vii. 49), they were speaking of
men who, from their tender years, had habitually
heard the Pentateuch read in the synagogue, and
were far better acquainted with it than most devout
Englishmen are with the New Testament. Only
as they could not repeat it verbatim, they fell short
of the standard which the Pharisees expected.
To come to the next passage (John xii. 34), " We
have heard out of our Bible that the Messiah abideth
for ever." The Pharisees, who speak thus, may
either be recalling the catechetical lessons of their
youthful days, or they may be proudly boasting of
their regularity in attendance at the synagogue.
Or, as our Gospels are not built upon the reports of
shorthand writers, but on the free recollections of
" illiterate men," the exact words which the Pharisees
used may have been altered into what a layman
would say. There are plenty of ways of escape
for those who question whether "heard" can ever
mean " read."
But, indeed, as dvayvwvai, "to read," means strictly
" to read aloud," the familiar phrase, " Did ye never

316 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
read?" points, I think, to the public reading of
Scriptures in the synagogue rather than to private
study. Copies of the Septuagint may have been
fairly common amongst Greek-speaking Jews, but
the Hebrew Bible was not so accessible. In the
face of " Ye search the Scriptures " (John v. 39), we
can hardly doubt that some Rabbis possessed the
sacred rolls, but at a later date touching them
" defiled the hands," and must have been dis
couraged both at that time and long before, or
such a notion would never have arisen.
I freely admit that the sentence " I heard from
Mr. Smith this morning that he had been ill " con
veys to the educated Englishman the idea that you
had received a letter from him in which the fact was
stated. But the transference is due to the penny
post, which has superseded the verbal message of
the courier. My contention is that oral teaching in
the time of the apostles was so familiar an institu
tion that the word which denotes it must be sup
posed to have its proper meaning, unless the context
demands some other rendering. Now KaTijxetcrdai
occurs only eight times in the New Testament.
And in six of these (Luke i. 4, Acts xviii. 25,
Rom. ii. 18, 1 Cor. xiv. 19, Gal. vi. 6 bis) it seems
to me to have its full meaning. Twice (Acts xxi.
21, 24) it is used in its primitive sense respecting
the Church at Jerusalem, which "has had dinned
into its ears" the falsehood that S. Paul induced
the Jews of the Dispersion to give up circumcising
their children and offering sacrifices in the temple
when they became followers of Christ.

APOLLOS 317
It may be that clearer examples of dicovaai, in the
wider sense of paOeiv, can be produced from classical
authors. These would require to be examined on
their own merits. I only ask for delay and con
sideration before we accept the laxity of use for
which Dr. Blass contends. I find nothing to
correspond to it in the Septuagint, which has very
great weight in determining the meaning of New
Testament words.
Dr. Blass admits that S. Mark's Gospel already
at that early date must have reached Apollos in its
present mutilated form, the concluding verses being
lost, which I think probably corresponded to Matt.
xxviii. 8-10, 16-20, in the latter of which the
disciples are ordered to baptize into the name of
the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
But this admission throws immense difficulties in the
way. For if the Gospel circulated so many years
during S. Mark's lifetime, why did he not replace
these lost verses ? He was alive when 2 Tim. iv. 1 1
was written (A.D. 66), and even when 1 Peter v. 13
was written — probably a much later date.
Again, if S. Mark's Gospel had been widely circu
lated in primitive times, how came S. Matthew and
S. Luke to present so many variations from it?
Much longer time is needed for the oral stage to
produce the state of text which we actually find in
the synoptists.
For these reasons, although I strongly hold that
St. Mark's Gospel — or about two-thirds of it —
existed in oral form some years before A.D. 50, I
do not see my way to concede that the written

318 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
Gospel was in existence at that date. I shall offer
some further reasons for this reluctance below.
But to return to Apollos. He had been baptized
by John. He had been taught to expect the
Messiah at once. Possibly Jesus had been pointed
out to him as such. He then, according to the
Western text of Acts xviii. 25, returns to Alexandria,
where rumours would reach him from time to time
of what was happening in Palestine. He would
hear of our Lord's ministry, of His mighty works,
His rejection, crucifixion, and resurrection. For a
long time report would give him only the broad
outlines of the facts, but in the course of twelve or
fifteen years one of those catechists, whom the
Church of Jerusalem sent out in large numbers,
visited the metropolis of Egypt. This itinerant was
neither apostle, evangelist, nor preacher. He had
learned by heart, and was anxious to teach others,
" the facts concerning Jesus," and he formed a class
for that purpose. Apollos became one of the pupils,
and, like Theophilus, was " orally instructed " in the
way of the Lord, until he became perfect and was
able to teach others also. For when he came to
Ephesus, " being fervent in spirit," he could not keep
silence, but " repeated by rote, and taught accurately
the facts concerning Jesus."
I once more adopt the Western reading, a7reXaXe<,
but I have ventured to assign to it meo periculo a
new interpretation. The word is so rare that it is
only known to occur again in Lucian, Nigrinus,
sec. xxii., where the authorities explain it "to
chatter much." But this rendering does scant

APOLLOS

319

justice to Lucian, and is plainly unsuited to S.
Luke. It seems to me that as the ordinary sense,
" to forbid," found in dirayopevw and in diretirov, is
out of the question, it is not impossible that in the
silver age diroXaXw may have been used for diro
o-TopaTOg XaXS) or a7ro yXwcrcnis XaXto, both of which
phrases signify " to repeat by rote." If " to speak
off the mouth " and " to speak off the tongue " were
English phrases to denote ex tempore discourse, " to
speak off" would be likely soon to acquire the same
meaning. My interpretation, if true, will give new point to
the quotation from Lucian, who is describing the
miseries of parasites at their patron's dinner table,
and complains, amongst other things, that they are
called upon for recitations of passages unfit for
publication, to amuse the company. At the same
time, it is so admirably adapted to what S. Luke,
according to my view of the situation, wanted to say,
that I feel bound, for that very reason, not to press
it too strongly. It is something, however, to have
found a meaning which gives point to both passages,
and if only the rendering, "glibly recite," be con
ceded, I shall be content.
Apollos had been baptized by John : ought he to
seek rebaptism ? His master had told him, " I
baptize with water . . . but the Messiah will
baptize with the gifts of the Holy Spirit'' But
the Messiah's ministry was over. He had ascended
into the heavens. Apollos could not approach Him.
Was it necessary, or desirable, or indeed of any use,
to apply to one of His disciples ? The question, like

320 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
many questions which agitated the Church in the
first age, was a difficult one. Christ Himself had
been baptized by John, and in this had " fulfilled all
righteousness." What was enough for our Lord may
well have been thought enough for His servants.
The catechist, who had taught Apollos, had not been
sent to baptize. Like S. Paul, he preferred to keep
to his own department. I can well believe that even
evangelists were wont to keep the question of
baptism in the background, lest in their haste they
should introduce false brethren and informers into
the fold. Rebaptism is never popular. The Ana
baptists were particularly hated. Roman Catholics
now on receiving a man insist only on conditional
rebaptism, or they would find great difficulties in
imposing it. For it is a slur on your original
baptism, a confession that your first teacher was
incapable. I can well believe that Apollos, knowing
the efficacy of John's baptism, and not yet having
experienced the superiority of Christian baptism,
deliberately decided to abide as he was. And if he
felt thus, what wonder if the other twelve men, who
were only laymen, should follow his example?
Neither Alexandria nor Ephesus had been visited
by an apostle, by the laying on of whose hands the
gifts of the Spirit were bestowed. And, until he
met Aquila, Apollos had seen no one who had
received those gifts.
Much difficulty has been introduced into the situa
tion by the assumption that the case of these men
was exceptional. The truth I suspect to be that S.
Paul was exceedingly familiar with such cases.

APOLLOS 321
John's disciples were scattered everywhere over the
Roman Empire, and S. Paul, in the course of his
journeys, must have encountered them repeatedly.
Nor were the converts of the great day of Pentecost
less numerous or much more grounded in the faith.
They had received Christian baptism, and had
witnessed some of the gifts of the Spirit ; but they
had been imperfectly instructed, and their Christ
ianity was defective in doctrine.
When S. Paul met Christians in Churches which
no apostle had visited, his desire was to " impart to
them some spiritual gift." (Rom. i. 1 1, etc.) To this
end he asked, " Did you receive any spiritual gift
when you were made Christians?" This means,
" Have you ever come in contact with an apostle ?
Did he ever lay his hands upon you ? " The twelve
replied, " We did not even hear that gifts of the
Spirit were granted." By this they admit the possi
bility of such gifts, for the saying of the Baptist had
taught them so much ; but they were not aware that
the gifts were already obtainable. They probably
expected to have to wait for them until they reached
the other world. S. Paul — no doubt after a good
deal of instruction — baptized them into the name of
the Lord Jesus, and then laid his hands upon them,
and their faith was confirmed by the possession at
last of these gifts.
There is something attractive in the picture of the
unity of early times, when the ordinary Jew, the
disciple of the Baptist, and the full-grown Christian
could worship in the same synagogue, and felt no
call to excommunicate and curse one another. Let
Y

322 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
us remember that this was only possible because
Christianity was at a very low ebb. These
Christians believed that Jesus was the Christ, but
in nothing else did they, as a rule, differ from the
Jews. They insisted on the necessity of circumci
sion. They upheld sacrifices as the only atonement.
They regarded the crucifixion as a stumbling-block.
They ignored it as far as possible, holding that it was
only a necessary prelude to the resurrection. They
did not preach Christ crucified. The sermons of
Apollos differed very little from the sermons of
an ordinary Rabbi. The catechetical teaching of
Apollos was accurate, but his doctrine was griev
ously defective. Aquila, who had been trained
under S. Paul, felt its hollowness. S. Paul's activity
inevitably led to disruption.
We, in these days, may pray for unity and strive
for unity, but let us remember that unity may be
bought too dear. If we got it by renouncing all
that is valuable in our creed, we should have
reason to regret that the old days of cursing have
passed away.

XXI.
THAT PROPHECY IS CONDITIONAL
WHEN the storm was at its height, S. Paul
had stood up as a prophet amongst the
shivering passengers, and inspired them with new
hope by proclaiming in the name of the Lord,
"There shall be no loss of life amongst you ....
for there stood by me this night an angel of God,
whose I am, and whom also I serve, saying, Fear not,
Paul ; thou must stand before Caesar : and, lo, God
hath granted thee all them that sail with thee.
Wherefore, sirs, be of good cheer : for I believe
God, that it shall be even as it was spoken unto
me. Howbeit we must be cast upon a certain
island." (Acts xxvii. 22-26.)
But now the wished-for island, whose name and
locality, be it observed, had not been revealed to the
apostle, is at hand. They have cast anchor upon its
shores, and are only waiting for daybreak to thrust the
ship aground and make their final venture. Mean
while the selfish and cowardly Phoenician sailors,
taking advantage of the ignorance of the passengers
about naval tactics, proceed to lower into the sea the
solitary boat which the ship possesses, and which at
the beginning of the storm they had secured with so
323

324 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
much difficulty, pretending that they were going
to make the ship safer and steadier by extending
some anchors from the prow.
A more dastardly deed was never heard of. We
may thank God that in these days the British sailor
makes it a point of honour to be the last to leave the
sinking ship, not the first to make off with the boat
and secure his own safety.
S. Paul, however, had been shipwrecked before.
He had acquired by experience some knowledge of
practical navigation. He saw that when you have
four anchors at the stern it was folly or madness
to stretch other anchors from the prow. He looked
through the lying pretext to the infamous design
which underlay it, and appealed to the arms of the
soldiers to stop the rascality of the sailors. " Except
these abide in the ship, ye cannot be saved."
A period of intense anxiety and peril is a test of
character, and the apostle, during this fortnight of
storm, had been steadily rising in the estimation
of his fellows. The centurion accepts his advice ;
the soldiers cut the ropes, and let the boat fall into
the sea. At that stage it was probably impossible
to do anything to save it. And so the men who
possessed the requisite knowledge to handle the
ship were forcibly kept on board, and by their
advice and assistance the seventy-six* souls escaped
safe to land.
But now what are we to say of S. Paul's con
sistency? Had he forgotten the promise of God?
Had he lost faith in his own prophecy? Did he
* See above, page 156.

PROPHECY IS CONDITIONAL 325
believe that the reckless wickedness of a dozen
men would change the divine purpose towards the
remaining threescore ?
S. Paul, it may be, held a different theory of
prophecy from that which prevailed in heathen
lands, and is too often accepted in modern Christian
circles. Let us look at a similar case in his own history.
He was journeying towards Jerusalem on that
very visit which led to his present imprisonment,
and very nearly terminated in his death.
At Caesarea, in the house of Philip the Evangelist,
he was met by a certain prophet of the name of
Agabus. This man took S. Paul's girdle, bound with
it his own hands and feet, in imitation of the symbol
ism of the ancient prophets, and said, " Thus saith
the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind
the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver
him into the hands of the Gentiles."*
The Christians who heard these words had the
fullest belief in prophecy and in the power of God,
but they did not therefore say, " This prediction must
be fulfilled, and will be fulfilled, whatever steps we
take to hinder it."
Such a view of prophecy is to be found in
Herodotus and the Greek tragedians, who learned
it from Persia and the oriental fatalists.
The Christians, having been trained on the Old
Testament, were better instructed, and looked upon
this prophecy as a kindly warning whereby the
disaster might be set aside. " Both we," writes S.
* Acts xxi. 11.

326 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
Luke, "and they of that place besought him not
to go up to Jerusalem."
So then the biblical view of prophecy is that a
prediction is not necessarily a statement concerning
the future which must at all hazards be fulfilled.
On the contrary, a prediction of disaster is a hint, that
you may take the proper steps to avert the disaster,
a prediction of blessing is an encouragement, that
you may persevere in the right steps to secure it.
Repentance may turn aside the punishment ; wicked
ness may forfeit the reward.
This is no unwarranted inference. Jeremiah writes,
" At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation
.... to pluck it up, and to break it down, and
to destroy it ; if that nation . . . turn from their
evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do
unto them. And at what instant I shall speak
concerning a nation .... to build it and to plant
it; if it do evil in my sight .... I will repent of
the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them."*
And in accordance with this principle, although
the prophets for more than a century had been
unanimous in predicting captivity for Judah, at the
very last hour before the siege began Jeremiah went
down to the house of the king with the promise that
if he would execute judgement and do righteousness
the city should be spared.
Look again at the prophecy of Jonah. He made
the proclamation, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall
be destroyed."t There was as definite a prediction as
could be desired, and upon it the whole book of
* Jeremiah xviii. 7-10. t Jonah iii. 6.

PROPHECY IS CONDITIONAL 327
Jonah turns. But the forty days passed, and
Nineveh was not destroyed. The prophecy was not
fulfilled. Jonah was very angry, but not surprised.
On the contrary, it was what he had all along
expected. He was certain that he would never have
been sent if Jehovah had not a gracious purpose
towards the hated foreigner. " I knew that Thou art
a gracious God, and full of compassion, slow to anger,
and plenteous in mercy, and repentest Thee of the
evil."* Hence, very needless difficulty has been felt about
our Lord's parable of the unmerciful servant, in
which the master of the house, after forgiving his
slave the debt of ten thousand talents, changed his
mind when that slave showed no pity towards his
fellow-slave, and cast him into prison until he should
repay the whole of the money.t
To one who remembers the biblical idea of
prophecy and divine promises this is perfectly
normal. The promise was conditional, and the
conditions not being fulfilled, the promise was with
drawn. The doctrine of God's repentance has been almost
forgotten in popular theology. Our notions of God's
sovereignty have driven it out of view. It seems so
much easier to regard God as absolutely unchange
able, irresistible in might, working out His own
purposes in spite of the puny efforts of man, that we
end in making Him a tyrant, implacable, unmerciful,
as far removed as possible from that Heavenly
Father which our Lord came to reveal.
* Jonah iv. 2. t Matthew xviii. 34.

328 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
S. Augustine was the first to emphasize this side
of the truth, which at one time became so exag
gerated that everything upon earth, every incident in
our lives, our deeds, yea, even our thoughts were
held to have been predestined from all eternity.
Yea, a certain definite number of privileged persons
had been elected to salvation. And no effort
of the individuals themselves, or of their friends
or fellow-Christians, could alter the numbers either
way in a single case.* Missionary zeal was therefore
folly, and a dreary fatalism ate out the heart of
evangelistic endeavour.
This was but a one-sided exaggeration of the
truth. There is a sense in which God's electing love
is true. It is taught by S. Paul, and is recognised in
our Thirty-nine Articles. But we must not let it
destroy the other side of the question.
Granted that the conflicting truths are irrecon
cilable by the human understanding. That was
to be expected, for God is beyond us, and above us.
He is infinite, eternal, past finding out, and not to be
measured by our puny thought.
It is therefore necessary when we think of Him
to acquiesce in much which we cannot understand.
It is easy to believe in the absolute freedom of
the human will ; it is easy to insist that everything is
fixed by fate and unalterable. It is difficult to com
bine what is true in both systems, and be content to
wait for the solution of the mystery until we know
even as we are known.
* This perversion of truth culminated in the Lambeth Articles,
which are truly blasphemous, A.D. 1595. They never possessed full
authority.

PROPHECY IS CONDITIONAL 329
Meanwhile, let us hold fast to this doctrine of God's
repentance. The language in which it is expressed
may be only an adaptation to our human intelligence,
but it contains a great truth. It makes prayer a
reality, it opens a door of hope to the returning
penitent, it encourages us to work for the good
of mankind, it restores to us a loving Father, to
whom we can turn with confidence in our perplexities
and our sorrows, it opens the way for the Incarnation.
"God sent not His Son into the world to condemn
the world ; but that the world through Him might be
saved." *
When our Saviour stood before the High Priest on
His last trial the Levitical police blindfolded Him
and struck Him on the face, saying, " Prophesy unto
us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote Thee?"t That
is a good example of the vulgar idea of a prophet.
But, setting aside the question of our Lord's unique
nature, and not pretending to decide what He could
say and what He could not during the period of His
voluntary earthly humiliation, we must insist that the
prophets, as prophets, had no such power as these
police attributed to Him, and as the uneducated
mind is apt to attribute to every prophet. Prediction
was but rarely conceded them. They were preachers
of righteousness, not guides as to the future. And
when prediction was granted them it was not con
cerned with trivial matters of no consequence, but
with the welfare of nations or of individual souls.
The prophets did not speak as soothsayers, but as
they were moved by the Holy Ghost ; and their
* John iii. 17. + Matthew xxvi. 68.

330 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
utterances were conditional, and not the declaration
of an unalterable fate.
Nothing is so destructive of faith as a false or one
sided view of God. The Christian teacher must
always be anxious to vindicate God's character.
And while we insist most that the problem is
insoluble, we most earnestly protest against those
easy methods of solving it which end in degrading
the idea of God, and exaggerating or denying the
liberty of man.
God is supreme, and God has created man in His
own image. He seems to have willingly and
mysteriously given up some part of His own omni
potence in acting thus, for He created a being
who could disobey Him and thwart His gracious
purposes. It rests with ourselves whether we will
do this. We may become like God by setting Him
always before us, by letting the thought of Him
rule our hearts, our affections, and our thoughts ; by
seeking in Christ for the true glorification of human
nature, by working in the power of the Spirit till
every thought is hallowed, every act sanctified.

XXII.
THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE EPISTLE
TO THE HEBREWS
IT has been pointed out by one of our greatest
theologians, who has recently been taken to his
rest (Dr. Hort), that if we would understand the
difficulties which S. Paul had to encounter and the
helps which he received in his work, if we would
penetrate to the meaning of his Epistles and realise
the errors against which he is contending, we must
find out something about the religious condition of
those Jews in the Dispersion who in God's good
providence had prepared the way for his teaching,
but in most cases did all that they could to prevent
the Gentiles from going further upon it than their
prejudices and slowness of heart permitted them to
go themselves.
For example, it has now been held for a gener
ation that the heresy which meets us in the Epistle
to the Colossians originated from the Essenes. And
a flood of light has seemed to be thrown upon the
extreme obscurity of that Epistle by this assumption.
So teaches Bishop Lightfoot in his work on Colossians.
There is, however, one objection which appears to
be fatal. The monastic communities which the
33«

332 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
Essenes founded were most of them round the shores
of the Dead Sea. A few were scattered over Judaea,
and perhaps in Galilee, but certainly not in Asia
Minor, much less in Europe. The Essenes did not
send missionaries abroad, and were too exclusive
and bigoted to influence perceptibly the thought of
distant countries. The Colossian heresy is probably
to be found in the ordinary beliefs of the Jews of
the Dispersion, who, as we know from the case of
Philo in Egypt, had often departed very far from the
teaching of the Pharisees in which S. Paul had been
trained. Now it seems to me that in the Epistle to the
Hebrews we may find something of what is wanted.
That Epistle for a long time was but hesitatingly
admitted into the Canon, because it is anonymous,
and not even a tradition existed respecting its
authorship. We may put the matter thus : Of all the New
Testament authors S. Luke alone was capable of
writing it. S. Paul, who was rude in speech, could
not have produced its smoothly-written, rhetorical
periods. Of extra-canonical writers who have come
down to us S. Clement of Rome is the most probable.
But, as Origen says, who wrote the Epistle in very
truth God knoweth.
A less discerning age began to advocate the
Pauline authorship, which in the Western Church,
where the Epistle was generally read in a version, has
been extensively held. By this means its admission
into the Canon was made easier. We may be
thankful for the result, although we cannot admit

AUTHORSHIP OF THE HEBREWS 333
the cause. Luther pleaded for Apollos, a suggestion
which it is impossible to deal with, for Apollos to us
is little more than a name.
Internally the treatise contains very few and slight
indications of persons, or time, or place. We cannot
suppose that the superscription, "To Hebrews,"* is
original, and it would be quite easy to maintain that
the Epistle was written by a Gentile, and was
addressed exclusively to Gentiles, f We should only
have one more proof of what S. Paul and S. Luke
abundantly indicate, that the Gentile Christians of
the first days accepted the Old Testament, and
studied it and valued it as highly as they have done
ever since.
On the whole, however, it is perhaps more probable
that we have here the exhortation of a Jew to his
fellow-countrymen. And as he not only wrote in
Greek, but gives the clearest proof that Greek was
his mother tongue and the Septuagint his Bible, we
may be certain that he was a Jew of the Dispersion.
What I wish to point out is that there is reason
to believe that he had never paid a visit to Palestine
or seen the Temple and its services.
For, in the first place, how comes it that not even
once in the whole treatise is the Temple mentioned or
alluded to ? The argument turns on the high priest
hood of Christ, a most valuable and stimulating idea,
* By " Hebrews " Aramaic-speaking Jews are intended. This
Epistle is in Greek, and is certainly addressed to Hellenists. The idea
that the Epistle was originally written in Hebrew cannot be upheld.
t The persons addressed are not so much warned against lapsing
back into Judaism as of giving up religion altogether, " forsaking the
assembling of themselves together" and "falling away."

334 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
which is not merely novel in itself, but is not even
hinted at in any of the other books of the New
Testament, although in subsequent days it was made
much of, and has been used to explain the work of
Christ far more than the common conception that
He is the Messianic King or even the True Prophet.
The writer, therefore, deals with the holy place
and the holy of holies, with the altars, the high
priest, the priests ; none of them, however, does he
connect with the Temple, but always with the " Tent
of Meeting," the Tabernacle in the wilderness.
It has been suggested that he deliberately ignored
the Temple, regarding the building of it as a
retrograde movement, a mistake due to the decline
in spirituality which marked the period of David
and Solomon.
But this is not convincing. I cannot think that
the building of the Temple was a mistake, or
that the regal period was inferior to that of the
judges. Surely it was very far superior, and the
Temple was a real necessity. The nation could not
have done without it.
Now it would not have been easy for a resident in
Jerusalem, who was familiar with the imposing
structure of the Temple and with the solemnity of
its services, to have shut his eyes to it altogether when
he was writing on such a topic. But suppose that
our author had never seen it; suppose that his
acquaintance with Judaism was derived from hearing
the law read, as it was read at every service of the
synagogue ; and it becomes natural for him to think
in the language of the Pentateuch. He cannot

AUTHORSHIP OF THE HEBREWS 335
Indeed have been wholly ignorant of the existence
of the Temple. Every Jew was proud of it, every
pious Jew paid taxes to support it, and every
Christian had heard how Christ visited it; but as
he derives his facts from the Pentateuch, his thoughts
turn more readily to that humbler edifice of which
the Pentateuch makes mention.
There are several other things which seem to me
to indicate a literary rather than a practical acquain
tance with the Jewish ordinances.
First comes the extraordinary assertion that the
innermost sanctuary of the Tabernacle, the holy
of holies, contained the golden altar of incense.
(Heb. ix. 4.)*
We know that the holy of holies in Herod's
Temple contained nothing at all, for the sacred
vessels which used to be stored there had been lost or
melted down in Babylon, and no attempt was made
to replace them. But anyone who had attended the
Temple services, and seen the priest enter twice
every day to burn incense on the golden altar, could
never have forgotten that most impressive sight,
as S. Luke describes it in the first chapter of his
Gospel. This writer knew perfectly well — for he insists
•That Bviua.riipt.av means "a censer" here is rightly rejected by
Bishop Westcott in his commentary on the passage. The texts which
he produces (Exodus xxx. 6, xl. 5; Leviticus iv. 7, xvi. 12-18; and
especially 1 Kings vi. 22, " The altar which belonged to the sanctuary,"
i.e. the holy of holies), explain how the author of the Epistle may
have been misled if he derived his knowledge from books ; but to my
mind it is clear that he believed the "holy of holies" to "hold" the
altar of incense in exactly the same sense in which it "held" the Ark
of the Covenant.

336 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
upon it— that the holy of holies could only be
entered once a year, and by the high priest alone.
He seems to have supposed that incense also was
burnt once a year only, instead of being the most
conspicuous feature of the daily ritual.
Again, he tells us, "And every priest indeed
standeth day by day ministering and offering often
times the same sacrifices." (x. u.) A man who only
read the Pentateuch might well believe that every
priest was on duty every day ; but we know that the
priests in the time of Christ were divided into
twenty-four courses, which served a week at a time,
only therefore twice in the year. We know that the
great mass of priests never offered sacrifice at all,
and that to all of them doing so was a comparatively
rare occurrence.
The writer makes no mention of the Levites, of
the musical services, or the chanting of the psalms.
These things, which impressed the visitor more than
anything, are not mentioned in the law.
And though it would be most unfair to conclude
from his silence that our author was not aware of
their existence, a Jew of the Dispersion, who only
read his Bible, would not be likely to think of
them. In xiii. 10, which is confessedly difficult, I think
we have another example of want of personal
acquaintance with contemporary Jewish ritual.
The thesis of the Epistle is that Christ is the true
High Priest, the only Priest who satisfies our
aspirations. In order to prove this, the writer deals with the

AUTHORSHIP OF THE HEBREWS 337
ceremonial of the great day of atonement, which fell
once a year.
Why did he fasten on that day ? Because it is the
only day on which the high priest was especially
ordered to officiate.
As a matter of fact, the high priest, if he valued
his sacerdotal office, took part in the services (we are
told) every Sabbath and festival. But in the evil
days of Sadduceeism, when the high priest was
a prince first, a prelate afterwards, the religious
duties were often disliked and ignored. And in any
case, one who only read the law would never gather
that it was usual for him to officiate oftener.
Now the law briefly directs that on the day of
atonement "the bullock of the sin-offering, and the
goat of the sin-offering, whose blood was brought
in to make atonement in the holy place, shall be
carried forth without the camp ; and they shall burn
in the fire their skins, and their flesh, and their
dung." (Leviticus xvi. 27.)
These were burnt — not as sacrifices ; the Hebrew
word is different* — not on an altar, there was but
one altar for burnt sacrifice in our Lord's time, but as
refuse outside the camp. In the time of the Temple,
we are told, the place selected for the purpose was
that where the ashes of the altar were thrown.
But in earlier times the notion of one altar was
unknown. Elijah, Elisha, Samuel, and other leaders
of religion built or rebuilt altars on every hill and
under every green tree. It is, therefore, natural
* B^S f|"lK>, to consume with fire. Ttjpfl, to burn incense, fat,
etc., sacrificially. Z

338 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
that our author should — perhaps truly — suppose,
as he certainly seems to me to do, that in primitive
times an altar of earth was built outside the camp
for burning these victims.
That altar, he says, was very different from the
altar inside the camp. The latter was connected
with mirth and jollity. The worshipper came before
it to feast with Jehovah, to eat flesh and drink wine.
His family and friends came with him, portions were
sent to favoured persons, and the priests got their
share. But the altar outside the camp had none of those
symbols of joy. No flesh was eaten, no cakes were
baked, no wine or oil was poured forth. All was
sadness and fasting and mourning, symbolical of
God's wrath against sin.
On this interpretation the whole passage becomes
coherent. '' It is good," the context says, " that
the heart be established by grace, not by meats,
wherein they that occupied themselves were not
profited." The oldest form of sacrifice, that in
which the worshipper came to feast, and to invite
Jehovah to partake with him, was not satisfying.
The human heart which has once awoke to its
need demands something of a more serious nature.
Our altar — the Christian altar — is one at which
neither worshipper nor priest nor Levite was ever
permitted to eat or to make merry. The victims
offered upon it were entirely consumed. Not even
their skins became the perquisite of the priest
The carcases were carried, as if under a curse,
outside the holy precincts. No room was found

AUTHORSHIP OF THE HEBREWS 339
for them in the assembly of God's people. They
were taken outside to be wholly consumed by fire.
" Wherefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify
the people through His own blood, suffered without
the gate." The cross — the true altar — was not
erected upon holy ground. Calvary was, as we
now know it to have been — though no other
ancient author gives us any clue to its locality —
outside the walls of Jerusalem. And He, " who
became a curse for us," endured thereon mysteriously
the wrath of God, Himself the Victim and Himself
the Priest
" Let us therefore," the writer continues, " go forth
unto Him without the camp, bearing His reproach."
In the early days of Christianity thousands of
Jews had enrolled themselves under the banner
of the cross, because they could be Jews first,
Christians afterwards.
But now a different state of things existed. The
Jewish authorities had decisively pronounced against
Christianity. The Christian Jew had to consider
whether he valued Christ enough to endure excom
munication for His sake. Was he willing to go
forth with Him outside the city, bearing His
reproach ?
Many baptized Christians found that they could
not do so. They had not the burning faith, the
true insight of this most highly inspired man. They
looked at things temporal, and were attracted by
them. Their heart-strings were tied to the Temple
and its services. They had loved the altar from
their childhood, had felt its consolation, and were

340 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
satisfied with it. They could not believe that God
would break His covenant, destroy the city, burn
the Temple, and overthrow the altar. They were
proud of the walls of Zion. They were ready to
die in defence of Jerusalem. And so they had
their desire, and perished in the breaking of their
idol. It was not every Jew that had so deep a sense
of sin, so strong a desire for holiness, as to be
dissatisfied with his religious opportunities. To
S. Peter the law was a " yoke which neither we
nor our fathers were able to bear." To S. Paul it
was "the schoolmaster to bring us to Christ," but
of itself it made him cry, "O wretched man that
I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this
death?" To this writer it was weak and unprofit
able, incapable of satisfying the longing of the soul.
But to less exalted natures it was perfectly sufficient.
You committed a sin, you offered the duly-appointed
sacrifice, Jehovah was appeased, and everything was
well for time and for eternity.
This writer goes far beyond even S. Paul in
spiritual discernment on this point. The law is " old
and decaying, ready to vanish away." " It is im
possible that the blood of bulls and goats should
ever have taken away sin." They were but a
symbol, an earthly counterpart of the true heavenly
sacrifice. Christ, the eternal High Priest, has come,
and by the one offering of Himself, once for all, has
made the true, the only possible atonement

INDEX

Abbott, Dr. E. A., 276.
Abnormal Memory, 291 f.
Acts of the Apostles, oral sections
in, 288.
— date of composition of, 287 f.
— of Pilate, 183.
Aeschylus quoted, 145.
Agabus, 325.
Agape, 140, 3°9-
Alexandria, 21, 99, 162, 260.
Alford, Dean, 290.
Allegorizing, 113.
Altar of burnt offering, 337.
— incense, 335.
Ammonian sections, 38, 51.
Anabaptists, 320.
Ananias, S. Paul's rebuke of, 225.
Annas, date of his influence, 182.
Anointing of our Lord's feet, 51.
Anonymous sections of the Gos
pels, 105, 146.
Apollos, 42, 52, 68, 309-322, 333.
Apophthegms, disconnected, 54.
Aquila and Priscilla, 309 ff. , 320 ff.
Aramaic, the language spoken by
our Lord, 34.
— the language of the earliest
oral teaching, 18.
— idioms in Greek translations,
234-
— writing legible, 60.
Assimilation of doublets, ix, 48, ill.

Assyrian inscriptions, 165.
Astronomical calculations, 182,
223.
Athanasius, S., 205.
Atonement, Day of, 337.
Augustine, S., 153, 205, 257, 278,
328.
Badham, Mr., Formation of the
Gospels, 243-256.
— Indebtedness of S. Mark, 256-
264.
Baptismal formula, variations in
the, 137, 321.
Barnabas, Epistle of, 199.
Barns, Rev. T., 99.
Bartimseus, healing of, 238.
Beaufort, SirF., on drowning, 291.
Beautiful Gate of the Temple,
303-308.
Bethany, the Anointing at, 51,
241.
— the unnamed village in Luke
x. 38., 26.
— same village as Bethphage?
7i-
Bethsaidas, were there two? 71.
Bezse Codex, 263.
Blass, Prof. F., 312.
Breaking of bread, 140, 142, 144,
181.
Browne, H., 190.

342 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS

Burgon, Dean, 134.
Burton, Prof., 27.
Caesarea, S. Luke's residence at,
100.
Caiaphas, 217.
— date of his power, 182.
Calendar, the Jewish, 168, 183.
Call of SS. Peter, Andrew, James,
and John, 50.
Camel and needle's eye, 125-133.
Catechists, defence of their exist
ence, 67, 96.
— Eastern and Western, 228,
— modify the tradition, 2, 58.
— wrote our Gospels, 11, 98.
Catholic Epistles, order of, 207.
Census under Quirinius, 188 ff.
Centurio, Latin word in S. Mark,
234, 264.
Cevennes, Little prophets of the,
292 ff.
Chagigah, 173.
Charge to the Seventy, 51, 108.
— Twelve, 21, 28, 51, 107.
Chazzan, 314.
Cheyne, Prof., 279.
Christ our High Priest, 333 f.
Chronology, defective, 15, 21, 33,
38, 105, 273 f.
Chrysostom, S., 172, 205, 278.
Church lessons fix the length of
the Gospels, 12 ff.
Churches, Gospels attest the belief
of, 117.
Claromontanus Codex, 204.
Cleansing of the Temple, 176.
Clement of Alexandria, 187, 201.
— of Rome, 199, 332.
Clementine Homilies, 67, 187.
Cloak used as blanket, 112.

Coleridge, S. T., 292.
Conder, Captain, 76, 305.
Conditional prophecy, 323-330.
Conflations, 40-55.
— list of, in S. Luke, 50-55.
Confusion of tongues, 278.
Contentment ,a false translation, 43.
Converts ill instructed, 321 f.
Copernicus, 224.
Corinth, speaking with tongues at,
281.
Cornelius, conversion of, 77, 280.
Court of the Gentiles, 306.
— men, 308.
— priests, 307.
— women, 307 f.
Cramer's Catena, 278.
Cross, Rev. J. A., 151, 276.
Crucifixion, date of, 147-194.
Cyril, S., 278.
Dalmanutha, 71.
Daniel, prophecy of weeks, 150,
193-
Dates in S. Luke's writings, 75.
— from internal evidence, 106.
— of the Crucifixion, 147-194.
Demons, on casting out, 45.
Denials, S. Peter's, 235.
Dinner hour, 155 f.
Divergences a proof of originality,
123.
Divisions of time, 152.
Documentary hypothesis, 1, 59,
64, 91, 101, 102, 136,
230.
Doublets assimilated, ix, 48, m.
— meaning of the term, x.
" Early," " Early hour," 153.
Eclipse of the sun, 192 f.

INDEX

343

Edersheim, Dr. A., 308.
Editions of S. Mark, three, i-io,
42, 105, 117.
Editorial Notes, 43, 58, 72, 179.
Eleusinian mysteries, 135, 143.
Ellicott, Bishop, 24, 289.
Ephesus, Church at, 309.
— S. Paul at, 309.
— the twelve disciples at, 42,
310 ff.
Ephphatha, 262.
Epiphanius, 183.
Eschatological discourses, 21, 28,
54, 55-
Essenes, 331 f.
Ethiopian Eunuch, 77.
Eucharist, when first instituted,
141, 180.
— in private houses, 309.
— at Troas, 142.
— resemblance to Eleusinian
mysteries, 144.
Eucharistic language in John vi.,
141, 180.
Eusebian canons, 38.
Eusebius, 172, 183, 191, 273.
Excommunication, 117, 339.
Exultation of our Lord, 52.
Farrar, Dean, 285.
Fatalism, 325 ff.
Feeding of the five thousand,
locality of, 71.
Fulfilments of Scripture, 219.
Gadarene miracle of the swine, 239.
Gardner, Prof. P., on the origin
of the Lord's Supper, 134-
146.
Gates of the Temple, 304 ff.
Gaulanitis, 72.

"Generation, this is an evil," 52.
God, reluctance to use His name,
103.
Gnostics, 187.
Godet, Prof., 152.
Gospels for every Sunday, 13.
— limited in length, 14.
— read in Church, 13, 17, 55,
231.
— Greek oral version of, 62.
— bound in a codex, 199 f.
— order of, in a codex, 200 ff.
Greek syntax, 27, 262, 268.
Halcombe, Rev. J. J., strictures
on modern criticism, 195-
242.
— dissects and reconstructs S.
Luke, 195, 223.
— in error about TertuUian,
196 f.
— puts S. John's Gospel first,
208, 223.
— multiplies S. Peter's denials,
235-
Harmonists' duplicate speeches,
32. 33-
— tortuous explanations of, 24,
38, 149. 178. 235-
Heath, Mr. R., 292.
Hebrews, Gospel according to the,
273-
— Epistle to the, 33l-34°-
— meaning of, 333.
Hellenists, 61.
Hermas, Shepherd of, 199.
Herod the Great, 185.
— Agrippa I., 2 18.
Hesychius, 1 50.
High Priesthood of Christ, 333.
Hilgenfeld, Prof., 256.

344 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS

Hippolytus, 150.
Holiness, degrees of, 306.
Holy of holies, 334 ff.
Horace quoted, 89.
Hort, Prof., 175, 331.
Hour, meaning of the word, 148.
— of the crucifixion, 147-159,
Hours, two ways of reckoning?
149.
Hyperbole, 125, 129, 187.
Identical passages, 30-39.
Inclusive reckoning, 164.
Intercalated months, 13, 168.
Inspiration, 34, 78, 215, 222, 238,
242.
Interpretation, the gift of, 281,
299 ff.
Irenneus, 150, 185 f., 201, 207.
Jairus, 241.
James the Apostle martyred, 1 1 7,
218.
James, S., the earliest Christian
writer, 209.
Jeremiah, 326.
Jerome, S., 205.
Jerusalem, 54.
— church of, 258.
John the Baptist, 310 ff.
— preaching of, 40 ff.
— disciples of, 41, 42, 52, 311.
— the Presbyter, 269, 274.
John, S., oral teaching of, 67.
— writes for foreigners, 221.
— corrects S. Mark's dates, 171 f,
182.
— speeches not verbatim reports,
216.
— fulfilments of Scripture, 220.
— Jewish feasts in, 184, 191.

John, S., the sheep (gate), 222.
— on S. Peter's martyrdom, 220.
— first epistle of, 217 f.
Johns, Rev. C. H. W., 165.
Jolley, Mr. , The Synoptic problem;
243-256.
Jonah, 161, 163, 326.
Joppa, 117.
Justin Martyr, 275 f.
Juvenal quoted, 305.
Keim, Prof., 257.
Kennett, Rev. R. H., 100.
Kenosis, doctrine of, 33, 114, 130,
329-
Kepler, 224.
Lambeth Articles, 328.
Laodicea, Council of, 205.
" Late," " Late hour," 153.
Law, the, a burden or a comfort ?
34°-
Learning by heart, 94, 137.
Leathes, Prof., 239.
Lecky, Mr. E. H., 291.
Lectionaries, 13, 206.
Lias, Rev. J. J., 289.
Lightfoot, Horce Hebraicce, 162,303.
— Bishop, 205, 265, 273, 331.
Lipsius, Dr., 183.
Liturgies, 137, 139.
Logia, meaning of, 16, 270 ff.
— contents of, 274.
— Aramaic, 17, 19, 61.
— borrow Marcan scraps, 18.
— how they reached S. Luke, 7,
19, 105.
— undated, 16, 18, 28, 49.
— differently arranged by SS.
Matthew and Luke, 19, 28,
35-

INDEX

345

Lord's Supper, Origin of, 134-146.
— when first instituted, 141, 180.
Lucian quoted, 318 f.
Luke, S., artist and historian, 25,
49. 63, 74, 80.
— knowledge of geography, 83.
— a Catechist, 63.
— used S. Mark's oral Gospel,
2, 27, 105.
— sometimes discards S. Mark,
42, 65.
— used the log ia, 19, 28, 35, 49,
65, 105-
— how he got the logia, 7, 28, 41,
64.
— travel narrative, 20, 23-29, 77,
93. 250.
— literary methods of, 20, 27,46.
— analysis of his Gospel, 23.
— proper names, 74-90.
— omissions, 3, 64, 245, 261.
— dates, 75, 185.
— editorial notes, 179.
— meaning of preface, 68, 78,
92, 231, 245, 274.
— first two chapters, 235.
— characteristics of his gospel,
214 f.
— limited information, 49, J8,
104 f.
Lumby, Prof., 307.
Luther, M., 209, 333.
Lycaonia, language of, 279.
Mark, S., connexion with SS.
Peter and Paul, 5, 6, 281.
— lived at Cyprus, 260.
— an annalist, 74, 212.
— a Catechist, 98.
— picturesqueness of, 9.
-r- priority of, I, 41, 59, 209,
213, 226, 236, 264.

Mark, S., oral gospel a gradual
growth, 1, 317.
— various editions of, 1,42, 105,
117, 214.
— list of second edition sections, 4.
¦ — contents of third edition, 8, 9,
260.
— not acquainted with the logia,
60, 253.
— wrote for Gentiles, 258,
— date of his Gospel, 313, 317.
— unchronological, 15, 39, 176,
188, 273.
— misplaces cleansing of the
Temple, 176.
— groundwork of SS. Matthew
and Luke, 23, 27, 77.
— SS. Matthew and Luke agree
against him, 3, 41 f., 46,
59-
— agreements with S. John, 10.
— describes Jesus as Son of God,
119.
— testimony to the Resurrection,
1 15- 124.
— proper names in, 56-73.
— xvi. 9-20 not genuine, 62,
115 f., 233, 286, 317.
 whence to be supplied, 122,
3'7-
Marcion, 202.
Marshall, Prof., 59, 64, 103.
Matthew, S., a theologian, 74.
— peculiarities of, 214.
— some parts abbreviated, 257.
— reluctance to use God's name,
103.
— Gospel a composite work, 38,
99, 247, 274-
 written at Alexandria? 21,
99, 162, 260.

346 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS

Matthew, S., written for Hellenistic
Jews, 257.
 popular among Gentiles,
213-
— logia, how arranged, 21, 35.
— first two chapters, 235.
— contains second edition of S.
Mark, 3.
Meals, hour of, 155.
Memory, abnormal, 291 f,
Memphitic version, 205.
Meyer, Prof. , 279, 287, 294.
Ministry, length of our Lord's, 89,
•85, 239.
Miseries of the lost, 54.
Mixture, 41, 48.
Mnemonics, 66, 253,
Moretum quoted, 262.
Moule, Ven. Archdeacon, 96.
Muratorian fragment, 197, 201.
Mystical interpretation, 1 13.
Nain, widow's son of, 247.
Nasmyth hammer, 226, 241.
Nazareth, 50.
Needle's eye, 127 ff.
New cloth and old garment, 230.
Newton, Sir I., 224.
Nicanor's gate, 307.
Nisan or Abib, 168.
Nugent, Lord, quoted, 127.
Numerals expressed in MSS. by
letters, 156.
Oral teaching during forty years,
243-
— modern instances of, 94.
— learning by heart, 137.
Oral hypothesis, arguments for :
(1) Gives freedom, 1, 20, 56,
138, 259 f-

(2) Accounts for variations and
resemblances, 91, 107, 135.
(3) Accounts for omissions, 64,
245.
(4) Preserves the Evangelist's
good character, 230.
(5) Does not postulate lost
documents, I, 59, ioz, 259.
(6) Proper names in S. Mark,
56 ft".
(7) - S. Luke, 74, »7 ff.
(8) Assimilation of doublets,
ix, 48, in.
(9) Patristic quotations, 101.
— objections considered, 91.
— value in apologetics, 103, 135.
Order, variations in, 17, 22, 35,
254.
— accordingtosubjectmatter,65.
 locality, 67.
— essential in mnemonics, 66.
Origen, 205, 332.
Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, a
native of Asia Minor, 1 50.
— says that S. Mark was S.
Peter's translator, 5, 247,
257-
— • — did not write in order, II,
77, 177, 231, 255.
— that S. Matthew wrote the
logia in Hebrew, 16, 265-
276.
— his "expositions," 17.
Papyrus used for MSS., 199.
Parables, the seven, in Matt, xiii.,
21, 28.
Paschal Lamb, 169, 173.
Passion, history of the, 2, 106.
Passover, 179.
Patristic quotations, 101.

INDEX

347

Paul, S., order of his epistles,
207, 210.
— speech before the Sanhedrin,
225.
— shipwreck, 323 f.
— Acts of, 199.
— unpopularity of, 143.
Pella, 248, 255.
Pentecost, speaking with tongues
at, 383.
Persean Ministry, 24.
Peter, S. , his denials, 235.
— resides at Joppa, 117.
— speeches in the Acts, 211.
— Herod tries to murder, 218.
— connexion with S. Mark, 5 6,
93, « 77, 244.
— his "Memoirs" in Aramaic,
61, 98, 105.
— — defective in dates and
proper names, 68.
— Gospel according to, 159, 198.
— Revelation of, 199.
Pharisees accuse our Lord of being
in league with Satan, 46.
— our Lord eats with, 53.
— discourse at breakfast table of,
S3-
 dinner table, 54.
— woes against, 21, 28.
Philip the evangelist, 325.
Philippi, S. Luke's home, 99, 105.
Philo, 332.
Phoenician sailors, 323 f.
Pilate, 217.
— date of, 182.
— Acts of, 183.
Plato quoted, 130.
Plummer, Dr., 27.
Polycarp, 150, 172, 207.
Popularity of the early Christians,
117, 218.

Prayer, 52.
"Preparation,'' meaning of, 159.
Pre-Pauline Christianity, 309-322.
— beliefs, 322, 339 f.
Priests seldom officiated, 336.
" Primitive Gospel," 246 ff.
Prodigal Son, 29, 247.
Progressive revelation, 217.
Proper names in S. Mark, 56-74.
— S. Luke, 74-90.
Prophecy conditional, 323-330.
"Prophesy, thou Christ," 329.
Ptolemaic astronomy, 223.
Purse, 111.
Quart odecimans, 12, 172.
Quirinius, census of, 187.
Ramsay, Prof., 77,84, 151, 188 ff.
Rebaptism, 320.
Repentance, God's, 327.
Repetition of utterances improb
able, 32, 33, 37, 49, 176.
Resch, Dr. A., 272.
Resurrection, an historical fact, 123.
— five accounts of, 1 23.
— S. Mark's testimony to, 115-
124.
Revelations, S. Paul's, 139.
Rich man and Lazarus, 29, 131,
247.
Robinson, Pro£ J. A., 100.
Sabbath, 160.
— synonym for festival ? 166.
Sacrifices, ancient idea of, 145,
181, 338.
— favour the rich, 131.
Sahidic version, 205.
Salmon, Rev. Provost, 96.
Salt, ceremony of eating. 144.

348 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS

Samaritan, the Good, 52, 247.
Sanday, Prof., 59, 68, 97. 175-
Satan, our Lord's miracles attri
buted to, 46.
Schaff, Dr., 277.
Schleiermacher, 196.
Scraps of S. Mark, 7.
"Sell your cloak and bay a
sword," 104-114.
Semitic co-ordination of sentences,
264.
Sermon on the Mount, 21, 28, 50.
Shakespeare quoted, 126.
Shipwreck, S. Paul's, 323.
Shoes and staff forbidden ? 108 ff.
Shushan, 305.
Sign from heaven demanded, 48.
Silvanus, 62, 281.
Silver coins, 107 f.
Smith, Mr., of Jordanhill, 84.
— Prof. W. Robertson, 145.
Son of Man, 234, 264.
Southey quoted, 129.
Spiritual gifts, 321.
Stanley, Dean, 284.
Stanton, Prof., 62, 66, 103, 245.
Stesichorus quoted, 256.
Sunday services, 13.
Synagogues used by Christians,
3°9-
Synoptists differ from S. John
about the day of the cruci
fixion, 170 ff.
— misplace cleansing of the
Temple, 176.
— are not chronological, 177.
Syria, 99.
Syrian versions, 204 f.
Syrophcenician woman, 240.
Talitha cumi, 262.

Tatian's Dia Tessar&n, 38, 5 1, 108,
198, 202, 230, 250, 273.
Temple, Beautiful Gate of, 303-
308.
— not mentioned in the Epistle
to the Hebrews, 333.
— not a retrogression, 333.
— Zerubbabel's, 185.
TertuUian, 1 96 f., 202, 224.
Theodoret, 109.
Theophilus, 68, 97.
Theudas, 1 90.
Thursday, day of crucifixion?
159 ff.
Tiberius, 186.
Tongues, the gift of, 277-302.
— confusion of, 278.
Tradition, oral, 139.
Translation never exact, 18.
Travel-narrative, S. Luke's, 20,
23-29, 77, 93-
Trilogy of parables, 29.
Troas, the Eucharist at, 142.
Tubingen critics, 259, 272.
Twelve, an address to the, 53.
Twelve tribes, names of the, 237.
Twidale, Rev. T, 95.
Unconscious cerebration, 107,
Unchronological arrangement, 22,
5°-
Unity may be bought too dear, 322.
Unjust Steward, 29.
Unleavened bread, eight days of,
161.
Unmerciful servant, the, 327.
Ur-Marcus, I, 259 f.
Ur-Matthaus, 259.
Weiss, Prof. B., 245, 250.

INDEX

349

Westcott, Bishop, supporter of
oral tradition, 138.
— on reckoning of hours, 149.
— crucifixion on Thursday, 159.
— length of our Lord's ministry,
186.
— abused by Halcombe, 195.
Western order of Gospels, 204.
— readings, 312, 318.
Woods, Rev. F. H., 66.
World, teaching respecting the,
219.
Wordsworth, Ch., Bishop, 278.
Year of the crucifixion, 182-194.
iyairri, 140.
0710s, 306.
a8i3os, 252.
axoia, 314, 317.
apupca^ei, 31.
apupi4vvv<riv, 31.
avayv&vcu, 315.
iv6.Kpi.<ris, 150.
draToXi}, 246.
airayopeiw, 319.
d?reXdXet, 3 1 8.
aireiirov, 319.
farhavn, 252.
iirb y\iitr<rris XaXeiv, 319-
iirb oT6/ia.TOS XaX«e, 319.
airipKtis, 43.
SiajSejSaiou/Uei'os, 267.
iKaTovrapxtis, 234, 264.
iv t$ XaXijoxu, 27.

inertia-are, 252.
i^yriats, 272.
i^lararai, 263.
irepoyXtitraois, 286.
i<po(2ovvTo y&p, I.
Tjpfi-^vevae, 2.66.
8v1ua.H1p1.ov, 335.
86pa, 305.
Iep6v, 304, 307.
KaBe^ijs, 232.
na\6s, 303.
K&fu\os, 127.
Karrjx^ta-eai, 3 1 3, 3 16.
ko.t 6mp, 252.
/cpdjSarro?, 26 1.
Kvpianuv \oylav ain>ralc.ix, 267.
Xiyioy, 266, 270, 272.
fi-iproj, 120.
fiotpav vi/ieiv, 145.
yo6s, 304, 306.
vvx^VP^epov, 163.
8^e, (5f£a, 153.
vapadocris, 139.
irapaSovvai, 1 39.
irapa\afietv, 139.
7rpAs TsrjSaalSav, 262.
irpoit irputa, 148, 153-
T1/X7;, 3°5-
pd/38os, 109.
^oe7 157-
aweypd^aro, 16, 264.
o-werdfaTo, 16, 264.
to« i/lo« 7W i,v8pinrtjiv, 264.
Xa-tpere, 251.
lipaios, 303.

PLYMOUTH
WILLIAM BRBNDON AND SON
PRINTERS

A CATALOGUE OF BOOKS
AND ANNOUNCEMENTS OF
METHUEN AND COMPANY
PUBLISHERS : LONDON
36 ESSEX STREET
W.C.
CONTENTS

FORTHCOMING BOOKS,
POETRY,
BELLES LETTRES,
ILLUSTRATED BOOKS, .
HISTORY, .
BIOGRAPHY,
TRAVEL, ADVENTURE AND TOPOGRAPHY,
NAVAL AND MILITARY,
GENERAL LITERATURE,
SCIENCE,TECHNOLOGY,PHILOSOPHY, THEOLOGY,
FICTION, .
BOOKS FOR BOYS AND GIRLS, .
THE PEACOCK LIBRARY,
UNIVERSITY EXTENSION SERIES,
SOCIAL QUESTIONS OF TO-DAY
CLASSICAL TRANSLATIONS
EDUCATIONAL BOOKS,

17

2334 34
35 363737

FEBRUARY 1898

February 1898.
Messrs. Methuen's
ANNOUNCEMENTS

Poetry
THE POEMS OF WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE. Edited
with an Introduction and Notes by George Wyndham, M.P.
Demy Svo. Buckram, gilt top. ior. 6d.
This edition contains the 'Venus,' 'Lucrece' and Sonnets, and is prefaced with an
elaborate introduction of over 140 pp. The text is founded on the first quartos,
with an endeavour to retain the original reading. A set of notes deals with
the problems of Date, The Rival Poets, Typography, and Punctuation ; and the
editor has commented on obscure passages in the light of contemporary works.
The publishers believe that no such complete edition has ever been published.
Travel and Adventure
THREE YEARS IN SAVAGE AFRICA. By LIONEL Decle,
"With an Introduction by H. M. Stanley, M.P. With 100 Illus
trations and 5 Maps. Demy Svo. 21s.
Few Europeans have had the same opportunity of studying the barbarous parts of
Africa as Mr. Decle. Starting from the Cape, he visited in succession Bechuana-
land, the Zambesi, Matabeleland and Mashonaland, the Portuguese settlement on
the Zambesi, Nyasaland, Ujiji, the headquarters of the Arabs, German East
Africa, Uganda (where he saw fighting in company with tlie late Major ' Roddy'
Owen), and British East Africa. In his book he relates his experiences, his
minute observations of native habits and customs, and his views as to the work
done in Africa by the various European Governments, whose operations he was
able to study. The whole journey extended over 7000 miles, and occupied
exactly three years.
EXPLORATION AND HUNTING IN CENTRAL
AFRICA. By Major A. St. IT. Gibbons, F.R.G.S. With 8 full-
page Illustrations by C. Whymper, photographs and Map. Demy
Svo. 1 5 j.
This is an account of travel and adventure among the Marotse and contiguous tribes,
with a description of their customs, characteristics, and history, together with the
author's experiences in hunting big game. The illustrations are by Mr. Charles
Whymper, and from photographs. There is a map by the author of the hitherto
unexplored regions lying between the Zambezi and Kafukwi rivers and from i8"
to 150 S. lat.
WITH THE MASHONALAND FIELD FORCE, 1896.
By Lieut. -Colonel Alderson. With numerous 'Illustrations and
Plans. Demy Svo. 12s. 6d.
This is an account of the military operations in Mashonaland by the officer who
commanded the troops in that district during the late rebellion. Besides its
interest as a story cf warfare, it will have a peculiar value as an account of the
services of mounted infantry by one of the chief authorities on the subject.

Messrs. Methuen's Announcements 3
CAMPAIGNING ON THE UPPER NILE AND NIGER
By Lieut. Seymour Vandeleur. With an Introduction by Sir g'
Goldie. With two Maps, Illustrations an^ Plans. Large Cr. S-vo
10s. 6d.
A narrative of service (i) in the Equatorial Lakes and on the Upper Nile in 1895 and
1896; and (2) under Sir George Goldie in the Niger campaign of January
1897, describing the capture of Bida and Ilorin, and the French occupation of
tfoussa. The book thus deals with the two districts of Africa where now the
i rench and English stand face to face.
THE NIGER SOURCES. By Colonel J. Trotter, R.A.
With a Map and Illustrations. Crown 8vo. $s.
A book which at the present time should be of considerable interest, being an
account of a Commission appointed for frontier delimitation.
LIFE AND PROGRESS IN AUSTRALASIA. By Michael
Davitt, M. P. With two Maps. Crown 8vo. 6s. 500 pp.
This book, the outcome of a recent journey through the seven Australasian colonies,
is an attempt to give to English readers a more intimate knowledge of a continent
colonised by their own race. The author sketches the general life, resources,
politics, parties, progress, prospects, and scenery of each colony. He made a
careful examination of the West Australian goldfields, and he has paid special
attention to the development of practical politics in the colonies. The book is
full of anecdotes and picturesque description.
History and Biography
A HISTORY OF THE ART OF WAR. By C. W. Oman,
M.A., Fellow of All Souls', Oxford. Vol. II. Mediaeval War
fare. Demy Svo Illustrated. 21 s.
Mr. Oman is engaged on a History of the Art of War, of which the above, though
covering the middle period from the fall of the Roman Empire to the general use
of gunpowder in Western Europe, is the first instalment. The first battle dealt
with will be Adrianople (378) and the last Navarette (1367). There will appear
later a volume dealing with the Art of War among the Ancients, and another
covering the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries.
The book will deal mainly with tactics and strategy, fortifications and siegecraft, but
subsidiary chapters will give some account of the development of arms and armour,
and of the various forms of military organization known to the Middle Ages.
RELIGION AND CONSCIENCE IN ANCIENT EGYPT.
By W. M. Flinders Petrie, D.C.L., LL.D. Fully Illustrated.
Crown Svo. 2s. 6d.
This volume deals mainly with the historical growth of the Egyptian religion,
and the arrangement of all the moral sayings into something like a handbook.
But far larger interests are also discussed as the origin of intolerance, the
fusion of religions, the nature of conscience, and the experimental illustration
of British conscience.
SYRIA AND EGYPT FROM THE TELL EL AMARNA
TABLETS. By W. M. Flinders Petrie, D.C.L., LL.D. Crown
8vo. 2s. 6d.
This book describes the results of recent researches and discoveries and the light
thereby thrown on Egyptian history.

4 Messrs. Methuen's Announcements
the decline and fall of the roman empire.
By Edward Gibbon. A New Edition, edited with Notes,
Appendices, and Maps by J. B. Bury, M.A., Fellow of Trinity
College, Dublin. In Seven Volumes. Demy Svo, gilt top. 8s. 6d.
each. Crown 8vo. 6.r. each. Vol. V.
THE EASTERN QUESTION IN THE EIGHTEENTH
CENTURY. By Albert Sorel of the French Academy. Trans
lated by F. C. Bramwell, M.A., with an Introduction by R. C. L.
Fletcher, Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford. With a Map.
Crown Svo. 4s. 6d.
This book is a study of the political conditions which led up to and governed the
first partition of Poland, and the Russo-Turkish war of 1768-1774. _ It is
probably the best existing examination of Eastern European politics in the
eighteenth century, and is an early work of one of the ablest of living historians,
THE LETTERS OF VICTOR HUGO. Translated from the
French by F. Clarke, M.A. In Two Volumes. Demy Svo.
ios. 6d. each. Vol. II, 1815-35.
A HISTORY OF THE GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY,
'S45-95- By C. H. Grinling. With Maps and many Illustrations.
Demy Svo. \os. 6d.
A record of Railway enterprise and development in Northern England, containing
much matter hitherto unpublished. It appeals both to the general reader and to
those specially interested in railway construction and management.
ANARCHISM. By E. V. ZENKER. Demy Svo. Js. dd.
A critical study and history, as well as trenchant criticism of the Anarchist movement
in Europe. The book has aroused considerable attention on the Continent.
THOMAS CRANMER. By A. J. MASON, D.D., Canon of Can
terbury. With a Portrait. Crown Svo. t,s. 6d. [Leaders of Religion.

Theology

THE MINISTRY OF DEACONESSES. By CECILIA Robin
son, Deaconess. With an Introduction by the Lord Bishop of
Winchester, and an Appendix by Professor Armitage Robinson.
Crown Svo. 3^. 6d.
This book is a review of the history and theory of the office and work of a Deaconess
and it may be regarded as authoritative.
DISCIPLINE AND LAW. By H. HENSLEY Henson, B.D.,
Fellow of All Soul's, Oxford ; Incumbent of St. Mary's Hospital,
Ilford ; Chaplain to the Bishop of St. Albans. Fcap. Svo. 2s. 6d.
This volume of devotional addresses, suitable for Lent, is concerned with the value,
method, and reward of Discipline ; and with Law — family, social and individual.
REASONABLE CHRISTIANITY. By Hastings Rashdall,
M.A., Fellow and Tutor of New College, Oxford. Crown Svo. 6s.
This volume consists of twenty sermons, preached chiefly before the University of
Oxford. They are an attempt to translate into the language of modern thought
some of the leading ideas of Christian theology and ethics.

Messrs. Methuen's Announcements 5
THE HOLY SACRIFICE. By F. Weston, M.A., Curate of
i>t. Matthew's, Westminster. Pott 8vo. is.
A small volume of devotions at the Holy Communion, especially adapted to the
needs of servers and of those who do not communicate.
Gbe Cburcbman's XlbravB.
Edited by J. H. Burn, B.D.
A series of books by competent scholars on Church History, Institu
tions, and Doctrine, for the use of clerical and lay readers.
THE BEGINNINGS OF ENGLISH CHRISTIANITY. By
W. E. Collins, M.A., Professor of Ecclesiastical History at King's
College, London. With Map. Crown Svo. p. 6d.
An investigation in detail, based upon original authorities, of the beginnings of the
English Church, with a careful account of earlier Celtic Christianity. The larger
aspects of the continental movement are described, and some very full appendices
treat of a number of special subjects.
SOME NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS. By Arthur
Wright, Fellow and Tutor of Queen's College, Cambridge. Crown
Svo. 6s.
This book deate with a number of important problems from the standpoint of the
' Higher Criticism, ' and is written in the hope of advancing the historico-critical
study of the Synoptic Gospels and of the Acts.
Gbe Xlbrars of Devotion.
Messrs. Methuen have arranged to publish under the above title a
number of the older masterpieces of devotional literature. It is their
intention to. entrust each volume of the series to an editor who will not
only attempt to bring out the spiritual importance of the book, but who
will lavish such scholarly care upon it as is generally expended only on
editions of the ancient classics.
The books will be furnished with such Introductions and Notes as may
be necessary to explain the standpoint of the author, and to comment on
such difficulties as the ordinary reader may find, without unnecessary
intrusion between the author and reader.
Mr. Laurence Housman has designed a title-page and a cover design.
Pott Svo. 2s. ; leather y.
THE CONFESSIONS OF ST. AUGUSTINE. Newly Trans
lated, with an Introduction and Notes, by C Bigg, D.D., late
Student of Christ Church.
This volume contains the nine books of the ' Confessions ' which |are suitable for
devotional purposes.
THE CHRISTIAN YEAR. By John Keble. With Intro
duction and Notes, by Walter Lock, D.D., Warden of Keble
College, Ireland Professor at Oxford.

6 Messrs. Methuen's Announcements
THE IMITATION OF CHRIST. A Revised Translation with
an Introduction, by C. Bigg, D.D., late Student of Christ Church.
Dr. Bigg has made a practically new translation of this book, which the reader
will have, almost for the first time, exactly in the shape in which it lelt the
hands of the author.
A BOOK OF DEVOTIONS. By J. W. STANBRIDGE, M.A,
Rector of Bainton, Canon of York, and sometime Fellow of St. John's
College, Oxford. Pott Svo.
This book contains devotions, Eucharistic, daily and occasional, for the use of
members of the English Church, sufficiently diversified for those who possess
other works of the kind. It is intended to be a companion in private and public
worship, and is in harmony with the thoughts of the best Devotional writers.
General Literature
THE GOLFING PILGRIM. By Horace G. Hutchinson.
Crown Svo. 6s.
This book, by a famous golfer, contains the following sketches lightly and humorously
written : — The Prologue — The Pilgrim at the Shrine— Mecca out of Season — The
Pilgrim at Home— The Pilgrim Abroad— The Life of the Links— A Tragedy by
the Way— Scraps from the Scrip— The Golfer in Art— Early Pilgrims in the West
— An Interesting Relic.
WORKHOUSES AND PAUPERISM. By Louisa Twining.
Crown Svo. 2s. 6d. [Social Questions Series.
Educational
THE ODES AND EPODES OF HORACE. Translated by
A. D. Godley, M.A., Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford.
Crown Svo. 2s. [Classical Translations.
PASSAGES FOR UNSEEN TRANSLATION. By E. C.
Marchant, M.A., Fellow of Peterhouse, Cambridge; and A. M.
Cook, M.A., late Scholar of Wadham College, Oxford: Assistant
Masters at St. Paul's School. Crown Svo. 3s. 6d.
This book contains Two Hundred Latin and Two Hundred Greek Passages, and
has been very carefully compiled to meet the wants of V. and VI. Form Boys at
Public Schools. It is also well adapted for the use of Honour men at the
Universities.
EASY LATIN EXERCISES ON THE SYNTAX OF THE
SHORTER AND REVISED LATIN PRIMER. By A. M. M.
Stedman, M.A. With Vocabulary. Seventh and Cheaper Edition.
Crown Svo. is. 6d. Issued with the consent of Dr. Kennedy.
A new and cheaper edition, thoroughly revised by Mr. C G. Botting, of St. Paul's
School.
TEST CARDS IN EUCLID AND ALGEBRA. By D. S.
Calderwood, Headmaster of the Normal School, Edinburgh. In
a Packet of 40, with Answers. Is.
A set of cards for advanced pupils in elementary schools.

Messrs. Methuen's Announcements 7
Byzantine Texts
Edited by J. B. Bury, M.A., Professor of Modem History at
Trinity College, Dublin.
EVAGRIUS. Edited by Professor Leon Parmentier of
Liege and M. Bidez of Gand. Demy Svo.
PSELLUS (HISTORIA). Edited by C. Sathas. Demy Svo.
Fiction
SIMON DALE. By Anthony Hope. Illustrated by W. St. J.
Harper. Crown Svo. 6s.
A romance of the reign of Charles II., and Mr. Anthony Hope's first historical novel.
TRAITS AND CONFIDENCES. By The Hon. Emily Law
less, Author of ' Hurrish,' ' Maelcho,' etc. Crown Svo. 6s.
THE VINTAGE. By E. F. Benson, Author of ' Dodo.' Illus
trated by G. P. Jacomb-Hood. Crown Svo. 6s.
A romance of the Greek War of Independence.
A VOYAGE OF CONSOLATION. By Sara Jeanette
Duncan. Author of 'An American Girl in London. ' Crown Svo. 6s.
The adventures of an American girl in Europe.
A NEW NOVEL. By B. M. CROKER, Author of 'Proper Pride.'
Crown Svo. 6s.
ACROSS THE SALT SEAS. By J. Bloundelle-Burton.
Crown Svo. 6s.
MISS ERIN. By M. E. Francis, Author of ' In a Northern
Village.' Crown Svo. 6s.
WILLOWBRAKE. By R. Murray Gilchrist. Crown Svo. 6s.
THE KLOOF BRIDE. By Ernest Glanville, Author of
' The Fossicker. ' Illustrated. Crown Svo. y. 6d.
A story of South African Adventure.
BIJLI, THE DANCER. By JAMES BLYTHE PATTON. Illus
trated. Crown Svo. 6s.
A Romance of India.
JOSIAH'S WIFE. By Norma Lorimer. Crown Svo. 6s.
BETWEEN SUN AND SAND. By W. C. Scully, Author
of ' The White Hecatomb. ' Crown Svo. 6s.
CROSS TRAILS. By Victor Waite. Illustrated. Crown
Svo. 6s.
A romance of adventure in America and Australia.
THE PHILANTHROPIST. By Lucy Maynard. Crown
Svo. 6s.
VAUSSORE. By Francis Brune. Crown Svo. 6s.

A LIST OF
Messrs. Methuen's
PUBLICATIONS

Poetry

RUDYARD KIPLING'S NEW POEMS
Rudyard Kipling. THE SEVEN SEAS. By Rudyard
Kipling. Third Edition. Crown Svo. Buckram, gilt top. 6s.
1 The new poems of Mr. Rudyard Kipling have all the spirit and swing of their pre
decessors. Patriotism is the solid concrete foundation on which Mr. Kipling has
built the whole of his work.' — Times.
' The Empire has found a singer ; it is no depreciation of the songs to say that states
men may have, one way or other, to take account of them.' — Manchester
Guardian. x
' Animated through and through with indubitable genius.' — Daily Telegraph.
' Packed with inspiration, with humour, with pathos.' — Daily Chronicle.
' All the pride of empire, all the intoxication of power, all the ardour, the energy,
the masterful strength and the wonderful endurance and death-scorning pluck
which are the very bone and fibre and marrow of the British character are here.'
—Daily Mail.
Rudyard Kipling. BARRACK-ROOM BALLADS. By
Rudyard Kipling. Twelfth Edition. Crown Svo. 6s.
1 Mr. Kipling's verse is strong, vivid, full of character. . . . Unmistakable genius
rings in every line.' — Times.
1 The ballads teem with imagination, they palpitate with emotion. We read them
with laughter and tears ; the metres throb in our pulses, the cunningly ordered
words tingle with life J and if this be not poetry, what is ? ' — Pall Mall Gazette.
'Q." POEMS AND BALLADS. By "Q." Crown Svo. 3s. bd.
' This work has just the faint, ineffable touch and glow that make poetry.' — Speaker.
"Q." GREEN BAYS : Verses and Parodies. By "Q.," Author
of ' Dead Man's Rock,' etc. Second Edition. Crown Svo, 3s. 6d.
E. Mackay. A SONG OF THE SEA. By Eric Mackay,
Second Edition. Fcap. Svo. $s.
' Everywhere Mr. Mackay displays himself the master of a style marked by all the
characteristics of the best rhetoric.' — Globe.
Ibsen. BRAND. A Drama by Henrik Ibsen. Translated by
William Wilson. Second Edition. Crown Svo. 3s. 6d.
'The greatest world-poem of the nineteenth century next to "Faust." It is in
the same set with "Agamemnon," with "Lear," with the literature that we now
instinctively regard as high and holy.' — Daily Chronicle.

Messrs. Methuen's List 9
"A.G." VERSES TO ORDER. By "A. G." Cr. Svo. is.bd.
net.
A capital specimen of light academic poetry. These verses are very bright and
engaging, easy and sufficiently witty. St. James's Gazette.
Cordery. THE ODYSSEY OF HOMER. A Translation by
J. G. Cordery. Crown Svo. Js. 6d.
' This new version of the Odyssey fairly deserves a place of honour among its many
rivals. Perhaps there is none from which a more accurate knowledge of the
original can be gathered with greater pleasure, at least of those that are in metre. '
— Manchester Guardian.
Belles Lettres, Anthologies, etc.
R. L. Stevenson. VAILIMA LETTERS. By Robert Louis
Stevenson. With an Etched Portrait by William Strang, and
other Illustrations. Second Edition. Crown Svo. Buckram. *]s. 6d.
(Few publications have in our time been more eagerly awaited than these "Vailima
Letters," giving the first fruits of the correspondence of Robert Louis Stevenson.
But, high as the tide of expectation has run, no reader can possibly be disappointed
in the result.' — St. James's Gazette.
Henley. ENGLISH LYRICS. Selected and Edited by W. E.
Henley. Crown Svo. Buckram gilt top. 6s.
' It is a body of choice and lovely poetry.' — Birmingham Gazette.
' Mr. Henley's notes, in their brevity and their fulness, their information and their sug-
gestiveness, seem to us a model of what notes should be. ' — Manchester Guardian.
Henley and Whibley. A BOOK OF ENGLISH PROSE.
Collected by W. E. Henley and Charles Whibley. Crown Svo.
Buckram gilt top. 6s.
' A unique volume of extracts— an art gallery of early prose.'— Birmingham Post.
' An admirable companion to Mr. Henley's " Lyra Heroica." 'Saturday Review.
' Quite delightful. A greater treat for those not well acquainted with pre-Restoration
prose could not be imagined.' — Athen&um.
H. 0. Beeching. LYRA SACRA : An Anthology of Sacred Verse.
Edited by H. C Beeching, M.A. Crown Svo. Buckram. 6s.
' A charming selection, which maintains a lofty standard of excellence.'— Times.
"Q." THE GOLDEN POMP : A Procession of English Lyrics
from Surrey to Shirley, arranged by A. T. Quiller Couch. Crown
Svo. Buckram. 6s.
' A delightful volume : a really golden ' ' Pomp. " 'Spectator.
W. B. Yeats. AN ANTHOLOGY OF IRISH VERSE.
Edited by W. B. Yeats. Crown Svo. 3s. 6d.
' An attractive and catholic selection.' — Times.
A 2

10 Messrs. Methuen's List
G. W. Steevens. MONOLOGUES OF THE DEAD. By
G. W. Steevens. Foolscap Svo. 3s. 6d.
A series of Soliloquies in which famous men of antiquity — Julius Cffisar, Nero,
Alcibiades, etc., attempt to express themselves in the modes of thought and
language of to-day.
' The effect is sometimes splendid, sometimes bizarre, but always amazingly clever.'
—Pall Mall Gazette.
Victor Hugo. THE LETTERS OF VICTOR HUGO.
Translated from the French by F. Clarke, M.A. In Two Volumes.
Demy Svo. ios. 6d. each. Vol.1. 1815-35.
C. H. Pearson. ESSAYS AND CRITICAL REVIEWS. By
C H. Pearson, M.A., Author of 'National Life and Character.'
With a Portrait. Demy Svo. ios. 6d.
W. M. Dixon. A PRIMER OF TENNYSON. By W. M.
Dixon, M.A., Professor of English Literature at Mason College.
Crown Svo. 2s. 6d.
1 Much sound and well-expressed criticism and acute literary judgments. The biblio
graphy is a boon.' — Speaker.
W. A. Craigie. A PRIMER OF BURNS. By W. A. Craigie.
Crown Svo. 2s. 6d.
' A valuable addition to the literature of the poet.' — Times.
'An admirable introduction.' — Globe.
Magnus. A PRIMER OF WORDSWORTH. By Laurie
Magnus. Crown Svo. 2s. 6d.
' A valuable contribution to Wordsworthian literature.' — Literature.
' A well-made primer, thoughtful and informing.' — Manchester Guardian.
Sterne. THE LIFE AND OPINIONS OF TRISTRAM
SHANDY. By Lawrence Sterne. With an Introduction by
Charles Whibley, and a Portrait. 2 vols. <]s.
'Very dainty volumes are these; the paper, type, and light-green binding are all
very agreeable lo the eye. Simplex tnunditiis is the phrase that might be applied
to them.' — Globe.
Congreve. THE COMEDIES OF WILLIAM C0NGREVE.
With an Introduction by G. S. Street, and a Portrait. 2 vols. Js.
Morier. THE ADVENTURES OF HAJJI BABA OF
ISPAHAN. By James Morier. With an Introduction by E. G.
Browne, M.A., and a Portrait. 2 vols. Js.
Walton. THE LIVES OF DONNE, WOTTON, HOOKER,
HERBERT, and SANDERSON. By Izaak Walton. With
an Introduction by Vernon Blackburn, and a Portrait. 3s. 6d.
Johnson. THE LIVES OF THE ENGLISH POETS. By
Samuel Johnson, LL.D. With an Introduction by J. H. Millar,
and a Portrait. 3 vols. ios. 6d.

Messrs. Methuen's List ii
Burns. THE POEMS OF ROBERT BURNS. Edited by
Andrew Lang and W. A. Craigie. With Portrait. Demy Svo
gilt top. 6s.
This edition contains a carefully collated Text, numerous Notes, critical and textual
a critical and biographical Introduction, and a Glossary.
'Among the editions in one volume, Mr. Andrew Lang's will take the place of
authority.' — Times.
F. Langbridge. BALLADS OF THE BRAVE: Poems of
Chivalry, Enterprise, Courage, and Constancy. Edited by Rev. F.
Langbridge. Crown Svo. 3s. 6d. School Edition. 2s. 6d.
'Avery happy conception happily carried out. These "Ballads of the Brave" are
intended to suit the real tastes of boys, and will suit the taste of the great majority.'
—Spectator. ' The book is full of splendid things.'— World.

Illustrated Books
Bedford. NURSERY RHYMES. With many Coloured Pictures.
By F. D. Bedford. Super Royal Svo. $s.
An excellent selection of the best known rhymes, with beautifully coloured pictures
exquisitely printed.' — Pall Mall Gazette.
1 The art is of the newest, with well harmonised colouring.' — Spectator.
S. Baring Gould. A BOOK OF FAIRY TALES retold by S.
Baring Gould. With numerous illustrations and initial letters by
Arthur J. Gaskin. Second Edition. Crown Svo. Buckram. 6s.
'Mr. Baring Gould is deserving of gratitude, in re-writing in honest, simple style the
old stories that delighted the childhood of " our fathers and grandfathers.1"—
Saturday Review.
S. Baring Gould. OLD ENGLISH FAIRY TALES. Col
lected and edited by S. Baring Gould. With Numerous Illustra
tions by F. D. Bedford. Second Edition. Crown Svo. Buckram. 6s.
'A charming volume. The stories have been selected with great ingenuity from
various old ballads and folk-tales, and now stand forth, clothed in Mr. Baring
Gould's delightful English, to enchant youthful readers.' — Guardian.
S. Baring Gould. A BOOK OF NURSERY SONGS AND
RHYMES. Edited by S. Baring Gould, and Illustrated by the
Birmingham Art School. Buckram, gilt top. Crown Svo. 6s.
' The volume is very complete in its way, as it contains nursery songs to the number
°f 77> game-rhymes, and jingles. To the student we commend the sensible intro
duction, and the explanatory notes.' — Binningham Gazette.
H. C. Beeching. A BOOK OF CHRISTMAS VERSE. Edited
by H. C. Beeching, M.A., and Illustrated by Walter Crane.
Crown Svo, gilt lop. $s.
A collection of the best verse inspired by the birth of Christ from the Middle Ages
to the present day.
'An anthology which, from its unity of aim and high poetic excellence, has a better
right to exist than most of its fellows.' — Guardian.

12 Messrs. Methuen's List
History
Gibbon. THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ROMAN
EMPIRE. By Edward Gibbon. A New Edition, Edited with
Notes, Appendices, and Maps, by J. B. Bury, M.A., Fellow of
Trinity College, Dublin. In Seven Volumes. Demy Svo. Gilt top.
os. 6d. each. Also crown Svo. 6s. each. Vols. I., II., III., and IV.
' The time has certainly arrived for a new edition of Gibbon's great work. . . . Pro
fessor Bury is the right man to undertake this task. His learning is amazing,
both in extent and accuracy. The book is issued in a handy form, and at a
moderate price, and it is admirably printed. ' — Times.
' This edition, so far as one may judge from the first instalment, is a marvel of
erudition and critical skill, and it is the very minimum of praise to predict that the
seven volumes of it will supersede Dean Milman's as the standard edition of our
great historical classic.' — Glasgow Herald.
' The beau-ideal Gibbon has arrived at last.' — Sketch.
'At last there is an adequate modern edition of Gibbon. ._ . . The best edition the
nineteenth century could produce.' — Manchester Guardian.
Flinders Petrie. A HISTORY OF EGYPT,fromthe Earliest
Times to the Present Day. Edited by W. M. Flinders
Petrie, D.C.L., LL.D., Professor of Egyptology at University
College. Fully Illustrated. In Six Volumes. Crown Svo. 6s. each.
Vol. I. Prehistoric Times to XVIth. Dynasty. W. M. F.
Petrie. Third Edition.
Vol. II. The XVIIth and XVIIIth Dynasties. W. M. F.
Petrie. Second Edition.
1 A history written in the spirit of scientific precision so worthily represented by Dr.
Petrie and his school cannot but promote sound and accurate study, and
supply a vacant place in the English literature of Egyptology.' — Times.
Flinders Petrie. EGYPTIAN TALES. Edited by W. M.
Flinders Petrie. Illustrated by Tristram Ellis. In Two
Volumes. Crown Svo. 3s. 6d. each.
' A valuable addition to the literature of comparative folk-lore. The drawings are
really illustrations in the literal sense of the word.'— Globe.
'It has a scientific value to the student of history and archseology. — Scotsman.
'Invaluable as a picture of life in Palestine and Egypt.1 — Daily News.
Flinders Petrie. EGYPTIAN DECORATIVE ART. By
W. M. Flinders Petrie. "With 120 Illustrations. Cr. Svo. y. 6d.
' Professor Flinders Petrie is not only a profound Egyptologist, but an accomplished
student of comparative archaeology. ^ In these lectures he displays both quali
fications with rare skill m elucidating the development of decorative art in
Egypt, and in tracing its influence on the art of other countries.' — Times.
S. Baring Gould. THE TRAGEDY OF THE CJESARS.
With numerous Illustrations from Busts, Gems, Cameos, etc. By S.
Baring Gould. Fourth Edition. Royal Svo. i^s.
' A most splendid and fascinating book on a subject of undying interest. The great
feature of the book is the use the author has made of the existing portraits of the
Caesars, and the admirable critical subtlety he has exhibited in dealing with this
line of research. It is brilliantly written, and the illustrations are supplied on a
scale of profuse magnificence.' — Daily Chronicle.

Messrs. Methuen's List 13
H. de B. Gibbins. INDUSTRY IN ENGLAND : HISTORI
CAL OUTLINES. By H. de B. Gibbins, M.A., D.Litt. With
5 Maps. Second Edition. Demy Svo. ios. 6d.
This book is written with the view of affording a clear view of the main facts of
English Social and Industrial History placed in due perspective.
H. E. Egerton. A HISTORY OF BRITISH COLONIAL
POLICY. By H. E. Egerton, M.A. Demy Svo. 12s. 6d.
This book deals with British Colonial policy historically from the beginnings of
English colonisation down to the present day. The subject has been treated by
itself, and it has thus been possible within a reasonable compass to deal with a
mass of authority which must otherwise be sought in the State papers. The
volume is divided into five parts :— (i) The Period of Beginnings, 1497-1650 ;
(2) Trade Ascendancy, 1651-1830 ; (3) The Granting of Responsible Government,
1831-1S60; (4) Laissez Alter, 1861-1885 ; (5) Greater Britain.
' The whole story of the growth and administration of our colonial empire is compre
hensive and well arranged, and is set forth with marked ability.' — Daily Mail.
' It is a good book, distinguished by accuracy in detail, clear arrangement of facts,
and a broad grasp of principles ' — Manchester Guardian.
'Able, impartial, clear. . . . A most valuable volume.' — Athenaum.
A. Clark. THE COLLEGES OF OXFORD : Their History
and their Traditions. By Members of the University. Edited by A.
Clark, M.A., Fellow and Tutor of Lincoln College. Svo. 12s. 6d.
' A work which will certainly be appealed to for many years as the standard book on
the Colleges of Oxford.' — Athen&um.
Perrens. THE HISTORY OF FLORENCE FROM 1434
TO 1492. By F. T. Perrens. Svo. \is. 6d.
A history of Florence under the domination of Cosimo, Piero, and Lorenzo de
Medicis.
J. Wells. A SHORT HISTORY OF ROME. By J. Wells,
M.A... Fellow and Tutor of Wadham Coll., Oxford. With 4 Maps.
Crown Svo. 3s. 6d.
This book is intended for the Middle and Upper Forms of Public Schools and for
Pass Students at the Universities. It contains copious Tables, etc.
' An original work written on an original plan, and with uncommon freshness and
vigour. ' — Speaker.
0. Browning. A SHORT HISTORY OF MEDIAEVAL ITALY,
a.d. 1250-1530. By Oscar Browning, Fellow and Tutor of King's
College, Cambridge. Second Edition. In Two Volumes. Crown
Svo. 5*. each.
Vol. 1. 1250-1409. — Guelphs and Ghibellines.
Vol. ii. 1409-1530.— The Age of the Condottieri.
' Mr. Browning is to be congratulated on the production of a work of immense
labour and learning.' — Westminster Gazette.
O'Grady. THE STORY OF IRELAND. By Standish
O'Grady, Author of ' Finn and his Companions.' Cr. Svo. 2s. 6d.
Most delightful, most stimulating. Its racy humour, its original imaginings,
make it one of the freshest, breeziest volumes.'— Methodist Times.

14 Messrs. Methuen's List

Biography

S. Baring Gould. THE LIFE OF NAPOLEON BONA
PARTE. By S. Baring Gould. With over 450 Illustrations in
the Text and 12 Photogravure Plates. Large quarto. Gilt top. 36s.
' The best biography of Napoleon in our tongue, nor have the French as good a
biographer of their hero. A book very nearly as good as Southey's " Life of
Nelson." ' — Manchester Guardian.
'The main feature of this gorgeous volume is its great wealth of beautiful photo
gravures and finely-executed wood engravings, constituting a complete pictorial
chronicle of Napoleon I.'s personal history from the days of his early childhood
at Ajaccio to the date of his second interment under the dome of the Invalides in
Paris.' — Daily Telegraph. -
'Particular notice is due to the vast collection of contemporary illustrations.'—
Guardian.
' Nearly all the illustrations are real contributions to history.' — Westminster Gazette.
Morris Fuller. THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF JOHN
DAVENANT, D.D. (1571-1641), Bishop of Salisbury. By Morris
Fuller, B.D. Demy Svo. ios. 6d.
' A valuable contribution to ecclesiastical history. '—Birmingham Gazette.
J. M. Rigg. ST. ANSELM OF CANTERBURY: A Chapter
in the History of Religion. By J. M. Rigg. Demy Svo. *js. 6d.
' Mr. Rigg has told the story of the great Primate's life with scholarly ability, and
has thereby contributed an interesting chapter to the history of the Norman period.'
— Daily Chronicle.
F. W. Joyce. THE LIFE OF SIR FREDERICK GORE
OUSELEY. By F. W. Joyce, M.A. With Portraits and Illustra
tions. Crown Svo. Js. 6d.
' This book has been undertaken in quite the right spirit, and written with sympathy,
insight, and considerable literary skill.' — Times.
W. G. Collingwood. THE LIFE OF JOHN RUSKIN. By
W. G. Collingwood, M.A. With Portraits, and 13 Drawings by
Mr. Ruskin. Second Edition. 2 vols. Svo. 32s.
* No more magnificent volumes have been published for a long time.'— Times.
' It is long since we had a biography with such delights of substance and of form.
Such a book is a pleasure for the day, and a joy for ever.' — Daily Chronicle.
C. Waldstein. JOHN RUSKIN: a Study. By Charles
Waldstein, M.A., Fellow of King's College, Cambridge. With a
Photogravure Portrait after Professor Herkomer. Post Svo. $s.
A thoughtful, impartial, well-written criticism of Ruskin's teaching, intended to
separate what the author regards as valuable and permanent from what is transient
and erroneous in the great master's writing.' — Daily Chronicle.

Messrs. Methuen's List 15
Darmesteter. THE LIFE OF ERNEST RENAN, By
Madame Darmesteter. With Portrait. Second Edition. Cr.Svo. 6s
A biography of Renan by one of his most intimate friends.
A polished gem of biography, superior in its kind to any attempt that has been made
of recent years m England. Madame Darmesteter has indeed written for English
readers " Tke Life of Ernest Renan."'— Athenamvi. ^ngusn
It is a fascinating and biographical and critical study, and an admirably finished
work of hterary art. — Scotsman.
' It is interpenetrated with the dignity and charm, the mild, bright, classical grace of
form and treatment that Renan himself so loved ; and it fulfils to the uttermost
tne delicate and difficult achievement it sets out to accomplish/— Academy.
W. H. Hutton. THE LIFE OF SIR THOMAS MORE. By
< ru" H' HuTT0N» M- A- With Portraits. Crown Svo. $s.
The book lays good claim to high rank among our biographies. It is excellently
even lovingly, written. ' Scotsman. < An excellent monograph.'— Times.
Travel, Adventure and Topography
Johnston. BRITISH CENTRAL AFRICA. By Sir H. H.
Johnston, K.C.B. With nearly Two Hundred Illustrations, and
Six Maps. Second Edition. Crown ^to. 30s.net.
'A fascinating book, written with equal skill and charm— the work at once of a
literary artist and of a man of action who is singularly wise, brave, and experi
enced. It abounds in admirable sketches from pencil. ' — Westminster Gazette.
* A delightful book . . . collecting within the covers of a single volume all that is
known of this part of our African domains. The voluminous appendices are of
extreme value.' — Manchester Guardian.
'The book takes front rank as a standard work by the one man competent to write
it.' — Daily Chronicle.
' The book is crowded with important information, and written in a most attractive
style; it is worthy, in short, of the author's established reputation.'— Standard.
Prince Henri of Orleans. FROM TONKIN TO INDIA. By
Prince Henri of Orleans. Translated by Hamley Bent, M.A.
With 100 Illustrations and a Map. Second Edition. Crown qto,
gilt top. 2$s.
The travels of Prince Henri in 1895 from China to the valley of the Bramaputra
covered a distance of 2100 miles, of which 1600 was through absolutely unexplored
country. No fewer than seventeen ranges of mountains were crossed at altitudes
of from 11,000 to 13,000 feet. The journey was made memorable by the discovery
of the sources of the Irrawaddy.
* A welcome contribution to our knowledge. The narrative is full and interesting,
and the appendices give the work a substantial value.' — Times.
1 The Prince's travels are of real importance . . . his services to geography have been
considerable. The volume is beautifully illustrated.' — Athentzum.
' The story is instructive and fascinating, and will certainly make one of the books
of 1898. The book attracts by its delightful print and fine illustrations. A nearly
model book of travel.' — Pall Mall Gazette.
' An entertaining record of pluck and travel in important regions.'— Daily Chronicle.
'The illustrations are admirable and quite beyond praise.' — Glasgow Herald.
' The Prince's story is charmingly told, and presented with an attractiveness which
will make it, in more than one sense, an outstanding book of the season.'—
Birmingham Post.
'An attractive book which will prove of considerable interest and no little value. A
narrative of a remarkable journey.' — Literature.
'China is the country of the hour. All eyes are turned towards her, and Messrs.
Methuen have opportunely selected the moment to launch Prince Henri's work.'—
Liverpool Daily Post.

16 Messrs. Methuen's List
R. S. S. Baden-Powell. THE DOWNFALL OF PREMPEH.
A Diary of Life in Ashanti, 1895. By Colonel Baden-Powell.
With 21 Illustrations and a Map. Demy Svo. ios. 6d.
1 A compact, faithful, most readable record of the campaign.' — Daily News.
P S, S. Baden-Powell. THE MATEBELE CAMPAIGN 1896.
By Colonel Baden-Powell. With nearly 100 Illustrations. Second
Edition. Demy Svo. i$s.
' As a straightforward account of a great deal of plucky work unpretentiously done,
this book is well worth reading. The simplicity of the narrative is all in its
favour, and accords in a peculiarly English fashion with the nature of the subject.'
Times.
Captain Hinde. THE FALL OF THE CONGO ARABS.
By L. Hinde. With Plans, etc. Demy Svo. 12s. 6d.
The book is full of good things, and of sustained interest.' — St. lames 's Gazette.
' A graphic sketch of one of the most exciting and important episodes in the struggle
for supremacy in Central Africa between the Arabs and their Kuropeon rivals.
Apart from the story of the campaign, Captain Hinde's book is mainly remark
able for the fulness with which he discusses the question of cannibalism. It is,
indeed, the (only connected narrative — in English, at any rate — which has been
published of this particular episode in African history.' — Times.
W. Crooke. THE NORTH-WESTERN PROVINCES OF
INDIA : Their Ethnology and Administration. By W.
Crooke. With Maps and Illustrations. Demy Svo. 10s. 6d.
' A carefully and well-written account of one of the most important provinces of the
Empire. In seven chapters Mr. Crooke deals successively with the land in its
physical aspect, the province under Hindoo and Mussulman rule, the province
under British rule, the ethnology and sociology of the province, the religious and
social life of the people, the land and its settlement, and the native peasant in his
relation to the land. The illustrations are good and well selected, and the map is
excellent.' — Manchester Guardian.
A. Boisragon. THE BENIN MASSACRE. By Captain
Boisragon. With Portrait and Map. Second Edition. Crown Svo.
Ss. 6d.
' If the story had been written four hundred years ago it would be read to-day as an
English classic' — Scotsman.
' If anything could enhance the horror and the pathos of this remarkable book it is
the simple style of the author, who writes as he would talk, unconscious of his
own heroism, with an artlessness which is the highest art.' — Pall Mall Gazette.
H. S. Cowper. THE HILL OF THE GRACES : or, the Great
Stone Temples of Tripoli. By H. S. Cowper, F.S.A. With
Maps, Plans, and 75 Illustrations. Demy Svo. ios. 6d.
'The book has the interest of all first-hand work, directed by an intelligent man
towards a worthy object, and it forms a valuable chapter of what has now
become quite a large and important branch of antiquarian research.' — Times.
Kinnaird Rose. WITH THE GREEKS IN THESSALY.
By W. Kinnaird Rose, Reuter's Correspondent. With Plans and
23 Illustrations. Crown Svo. 6s.
W. B. Worsfold. SOUTH AFRICA. By W. B. Worsfold,
M.A. With a Map. Second Edition. Crown Svo. 6s.
' A monumental work compressed into a very moderate compass. '— World.

Messrs. Methuen's List 17
Naval and Military
G. W. Steevens. NAVAL POLICY : By. G. W. Steevens.
Demy Svo. 6s.
This book is a description of the British and other more important navies of the world,
with a sketch of the lines on which our naval policy might possibly be developed.
* An extremely able and interesting work.'— Daily Chronicle.
D. Hannay. A SHORT HISTORY OF THE ROYAL NAVY,
From Early Times to the Present Day. By David Hannay.
Illustrated. 2 Vols. Demy Svo. *]s. 6d. each. Vol. I., 1200-168S.
' Weread it from cover to cover at a sitting, and those who go to it for a lively and
brisk picture of the past, with all its faults and its grandeur, will not be disappointed.
The historian is competent, and he is endowed with literary skill and style.'—
Standard.
'We can warmly recommend Mr. Hannay's volume to any intelligent student of
naval history. Great as is the merit of Mr. Hannay's historical narrative, the
merit of his strategic exposition is even greater.' — Times.
'His book is brisk and pleasant reading, for he is gifted with a most agreeable
style. His reflections are philosophical, and he has seized and emphasised just
those points which are of interest.' — Graphic.
Cooper King. THE STORY OF THE BRITISH ARMY. By
Lieut. -Colonel Cooper King, of the Staff College, Camberley. Illus
trated. Demy Svo. Js. 6d.
An authoritative and accurate story of England's military progress.' — Daily Mail.
'This handy volume contains, in a compendious form, a brief but adequate sketch of
the story of the British army.' — Daily News.
R. Southey. ENGLISH SEAMEN (Howard, Clifford, Hawkins,
Drake, Cavendish). By Robert Southey. Edited, with an
Introduction, by David Hannay. Second Edition. CrownSvo. 6s.
'Admirable and well-told stories of our naval history.' — Army and Navy Gazette.
' A brave, inspiriting book.' — Black and White.
W. Clark Russell. THE LIFE OF ADMIRAL LORD COL
LINGWOOD. By W. Clark Russell, With Illustrations by
F. Brangwyn. Third Edition. Crown Svo. 6s.
1 A book which we should like to see in the hands of every boy in the country.' —
St. fames' s Gazette. ' A really good book.' — Saturday Review.
E. L. S. Horsburgh. THE CAMPAIGN OF WATERLOO.
By E. L. S. Horsburgh, B.A. With Plans. Crown Svo. *,s.
' A brilliant essay — simple, sound, and thorough.' — Daily Chronicle.
H. B.George. BATTLES OF ENGLISH HISTORY. ByH.B.
George, M.A., Fellow of New College, Oxford. With numerous
Plans. Third Edition. Crown Svo. 6s.
' Mr. George has undertaken a very useful task— that of making military affairs in
telligible and instructive to non-military readers— and has executed it with laud
able intelligence and industry, and with a large measure of success. —Times.
A3

18 Messrs. Methuen's List

General Literature
S. Baring Gould. OLD COUNTRY LIFE. By S. Baring
Gould. With Sixty-seven Illustrations. Large Crown Svo. Fifth
Edition. 6s.
' " Old Country Life," as healthy wholesome reading, full of breezy life and move
ment, full of quaint stories vigorously told, will not be excelled by any book to be
published throughout the year. Sound, hearty, and English to the core.'— World.
S. Baring Gould. HISTORIC ODDITIES AND STRANGE
EVENTS. By S. Baring Gould. Fourth Edition. CrownSvo. 6s.
1 A collection of exciting and entertaining chapters. The whole volume is delightful
reading. ' — Times.
S. Baring Gould. FREAKS OF FANATICISM. By S. Baring
Gould. Third Edition. CrownSvo. 6s.
'Mr. Baring Gould has a keen eye for colour and effect, and the^ subjects he has
chosen give ample scope to his descriptive and analytic faculties. A perfectly
fascinating book.' — Scottish Leader.
S. Baring Gould. A GARLAND OF COUNTRY SONG :
English Folk Songs with their Traditional Melodies. Collected and
arranged by S. Baring Gould and H. F. Sheppard. Demy qto. 6s.
S. Baring Gould. SONGS OF THE WEST: Traditional
Ballads and Songs of the West of England, with their Traditional
Melodies. Collected by S. Baring Gould, M.A., and H. F.
Sheppard, M.A. Arranged for Voice and Piano. In 4 Parts
Parts I, II., III., 3s. each. Part IV., $s. In one Vol., -French
morocco, l$s.
' A rich collection of humour, pathos, grace, and poetic fancy. ' — Saturday Review.
S. Baring Gould. YORKSHIRE ODDITIES AND STRANGE
EVENTS. Fourth Edition. Crown Svo. 6s.
S. Baring Gould. STRANGE SURVIVALS AND SUPER
STITIONS. With Illustrations. By S. Baring Gould. Crown
Svo. Second Edition. 6s.
S. Baring Gould. THE DESERTS OF SOUTHERN
FRANCE. By S. Baring Gould. 2 vols. Demy Svo. 32s.
Cotton Minchin. OLD HARROW DAYS. By J. G. Cotton
Minchin. CrownSvo. Second Edition. c,s.
1 This book ii an admirable record.' — Daily Chronicle.
' Mr. Cotton Minchin's bright and breezy reminiscences of ' Old Harrow Days' will
delight all Harrovians, old and young, and may go far to explain the abiding
enthusiasm of old Harrovians for their school to readers who have not been privi
leged to be their schoolfellows.' — Times.
W. E. Gladstone. THE SPEECHES OF THE RT. HON.
W. E. GLADSTONE, M.P. Edited by A. W. Hutton, M.A. ,
and H. J. Cohen, M.A. With Portraits. Svo. Vols. IX. and X.
I2s. 6d. each.

Messrs. Methuen's List 19
J. Wells. OXFORD AND OXFORD LIFE. By Members of
the University. Edited by J. Wells, M.A., Fellow and Tutor of
Wadham College. Crown Svo. 3s. 6d.
' Wr congratuIateMr. Wells on the production of a readable and intelligent account
of Oxford as it is at the present time, written by persons who are possessed of a
close acquaintance with the system and life of the University.'— Athenojum.
J.Wells. OXFORD AND ITS COLLEGES. By J. Wells, M. A.,
Fellow and Tutor of Wadham College. Illustrated by E. H. New.
Second Edition. Fcap. Svo. 3s. Leather. 4s.
This is a guide— chiefly historical— to the Colleges of Oxford. It contains numerous
illustrations.
'An admirable and accurate little treatise, attractively illustrated.'— World.
'A luminous and tasteful little volume.' — DaUy Chronicle.
' Exactly what the intelligent visitor wants.' — Glasgow Herald.
C. G. Robertson. VOCES ACADEMICS. By C. Grant
Robertson, M.A., Fellow of All Souls', Oxford. With a Frontis
piece. Pott. Svo. 3s. 6d.
' Decidedly clever and amusing.' — Athen&um.
' The dialogues are abundantly smart and amusing.' — Glasgow Herald.
A clever and entertaining little book.' — Pall Mall Gazette.
L. Whibley. GREEK OLIGARCHIES : THEIR ORGANISA
TION AND CHARACTER. By L. Whiblei, M.A., Fellow
of Pembroke College, Cambridge. Crown Svo. 6s.
' An exceedingly useful handbook : a careful and well-arranged study.' — Times.
L. L. Price. ECONOMIC SCIENCE AND PRACTICE.
By L. L. Price, M.A., Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford. Crown
Svo. 6s.
' The book is well written, giving evidence of considerable literary ability, and clear
mental grasp of the subject under consideration. ' — Western Mornhig News.
J. S. Shedlock. THE PIANOFORTE SONATA: Its Origin
and Development. By J. S. Shedlock. Crown Svo. 55.
' This work should be in the possession of every musician and amateur. A concise
and lucid history of the origin of one of the most important forms of musical
composition. A very valuable work for reference.' — A thenaum.
E.M. Bowden. THE EXAMPLE OF BUDDHA: Being Quota
tions from Buddhist Literature for each Day in the Year. Compiled
by E. M. Bowden. Third Edition. i6mo. 2s. 6d.
Morgan-Browne. SPORTING AND ATHLETIC RECORDS.
By H. Morgan-Browne. Crown Svo. is. paper ; is. 6d. cloth.
' Should meet a very wide demand.' — Daily Mail.
' A very careful collection, and the first one of its kind.'— Manchester Guardian.
' Certainly the most valuable of all books of its kind. '—Birmingham Gazette.
Science
Freudenreich. DAIRY BACTERIOLOGY. A Short Manual
for the Use of Students. By Dr. Ed. von Freudenreich.
Translated by J. R. Ainsworth Davis, B.A. CrownSvo. 2s.6d.

20 Messrs. Methuen's List
Chalmers Mitchell. OUTLINES OF BIOLOGY. By P.
Chalmers Mitchell, M.A., Illustrated. Crown Svo. 6s.
A text-book designed to cover the new Schedule issued by the Royal College of
Physicians and Surgeons.
G.Massee. A MONOGRAPH OF THE MYXOGASTRES. By
George Massee. With 12 Coloured Plates. RoyalSvo. lSs.net.
' A work much in advance of any book in the language treating of this group of
organisms. Indispensable to every student of the Myxogastres. '— Nature.

Technology

Stephenson and Suddards. ORNAMENTAL DESIGN FOR
WOVEN FABRICS. By C. Stephenson, of The Technical
College, Bradford, and F. Suddards, of The Yorkshire College,
Leeds. With 65 full-page plates, and numerous designs and diagrams
in the text. Demy Svo. Js. 6d.
' The book is very ably done, displaying an intimate knowledge of principles, good
taste, and the faculty of clear exposition.' — Yorkshire Post.
HANDBOOKS OF TECHNOLOGY.
Edited by Professors GARNETT and WERTHE1MER.
HOW TO MAKE A DRESS. By J. A. E. Wood.
Illustrated. Crown Svo. is. 6d.
A text-book for students preparing for the City and Guilds examination, based on
the syllabus. The diagrams are numerous.
'Though primarily intended for students, Miss Wood's dainty little manual maybe
consulted with advantage by any girls who want to make their own frocks. The
directions are simple and clear, and the diagrams very helpful.' — Literature.
'A splendid little book.' — Ezicning News.

Philosophy

L. T. Hobhouse. THE THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE. By
L. T, Hobhouse, Fellow of C.C.C, Oxford. Demy Svo. 21 j.
' The mostimportant contribution to English philosophy since the publication of Mr.
Bradley's ''Appearance and Reality." Full of brilliant criticism and of positive
theories which are models of lucid statement.' — Glasgow Herald.
' A brilliantly written volume.' — Times.
W. H. Fairbrother. THE PHILOSOPHY OF T. H. GREEN.
By W. H. Fairbrother, M.A. CrownSvo. 3s. 6d.
' In every way an admirable book.' — Glasgow Herald.
F. W. Bussell. THE SCHOOL OF PLATO : its Origin and
its Revival under the Roman Empire. By F. W. Bussell, D.D.,
Fellow and Tutor of Brasenose College, Oxford. Demy Svo. ios. 6d.
' A highly valuable contribution to the history of ancient thought.'— Glasgmu Herald.
A clever and stimulating book, provocative of thought and deserving careful reading.'
—Manchester Guardian.

Messrs. Methuen's List 21
F. S. Granger. THE WORSHIP OF THE ROMANS. By
F. S. Granger, M.A., Litt.D., Professor of Thilosophv at Univer
sity College, Not.>,gham. Crown Svo. 6s.
' A scholarly analysis of the religious ceremonies.beliefs, and superstitions of ancient
Kome, conducted in the new light of comparative anthropology.'— Times.
Theology
HANDBOOKS OF THEOLOGY.
General Editor, A. Robertson, D.D., Principal of King's College,
London.
THE XXXIX. ARTICLES OF THE CHURCH OF ENG
LAND. Edited with an Introduction by E. C. S. Gibson, D.D.,
Vicar of Leeds, late Principal of Wells Theological College. Second
and_ Cheaper Edition in One Volume. Demy Svo. 12s'. 6d.
' Dr. Gibson is a master of clear and orderly exposition, and he has enlisted in his
service all the mechanism of variety of type which so greatly helps to elucidate a
complicated subject. And he has in a high degree a quality very necessary, but
rarely found, in commentators on this topic, that of absolute fairness. His book
is pre-eminently honest.' — Times.
'After a survey of the whole book, we can bear witness to the transparent honesty
of purpose, evident industry, and clearness of style which mark its contents.
They maintain throughout a very high level of doctrine and tone.' — Guardian.
' An elaborate and learned book, excellently adapted to its purpose.' — Speaker.
' The most convenient and most acceptable commentary.' — Expository Times.
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY OF RELIGION.
By E. B. Jevons, M.A., Litt.D., Principal of Bishop Hatfield's
Hall. Demy Svo. ios. 6d.
1 Dr. Jevons has written a notable work, which we can strongly recommend to the
serious attention of theologians and anthropologists.' — Manchester Guardian.
' The merit of this book lies in the penetration, the singular acuteness and force of the
author's judgment. He is at once critical and luminous, at once just and suggestive.
A comprehensive and thorough book.' — Birmingham Post.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE INCARNATION. By R. L.
Ottley, M.A., late fellow of Magdalen College, Oxon., and Principal
of Pusey House. In Two Volumes. Demy Svo. 15^.
' Learned and reverent : lucid and well arranged.' — Record.
'Accurate, well ordered, and judicious.' — National Observer.
' A clear and remarkably full account of the main currents of speculation. Scholarly
precision . . . genuine tolerance . . . intense interest in his subject — are Mr.
Ottley's merits.' — Guardian.

C. F. Andrews. CHRISTIANITY AND THE LABOUR
QUESTION. By C. F. Andrews, B.A. Crown Svo. 2s. 6d.
S. R. Driver. SERMONS ON SUBJECTS CONNECTED
WITH THE OLD TESTAMENT. By S. R. Driver, D.D.,
Canon of Christ Church, Regius Professor of Hebrew in the Uni
versity of Oxford. Crown Svo. 6s.
1 A welcome companion to the author's famous ( Introduction.' No man can read these
discourses without feeling that Dr. Driver is fully alive to the deeper teaching of
the Old Testament.' — Guardian.

22 Messrs. Methuen's List
T. K. Cheyne. FOUNDERS OF OLD TESTAMENT CRITI
CISM y T. K. Cheyne, D.D., Oriel Professor at Oxford.
Large crown Svo. js. 6d.
This book is a historical sketch of O. T. Criticism in the form of biographical studies
from the days of Eichhorn to those of Driver and Robertson Smith.
' A very learned and instructive work.' — Times.
H. H. Henson. LIGHT AND LEAVEN : Historical and
Social Sermons. By the Rev. H. Hensley Henson, M.A.,
Fellow of All Souls', Incumbent of St. Mary's Hospital, Ilford.
Crown Svo. 6s.
1 They are always reasonable as well as vigorous, and they are none the less impres
sive because they regard the needs of a life on this side of a hereafter.' —
Scotsman.
W. H. Bennett. A PRIMER OF THE BIBLE. By Prof.
\V. H. Bennett. Second Edition. CrownSvo. 2s. 6d.
'The work of an honest, fearless, and sound critic, and an excellent guide in a small
compass to the books of the Bible.' — Manchester Guardian,
'A unique primer. Mr. Bennett has collected and condensed a very extensive and
diversified amount of material, and no one can consult his pages and fail to
acknowledge indebtedness to his undertaking.' — English Churchman.
C.H.Prior. CAMBRIDGE SERMONS. Edited by CH. Prior,
M.A., Fellow and Tutor of Pembroke College. Crown Svo. 6s.
A volume of sermons preached before the University of Cambridge by various
preachers, including the late Archbishop of Canterbury and Bishop Westcott.
E. B. Layard. RELIGION IN BOYHOOD. Notes on the
Religious Training of Bovs By E. B. Layard, M.A. iSmo. is.
W. Yorke Faussett. THE DE CATECHIZANDIS
RUDIBUS OF ST. AUGUSTINE. Edited, with Introduction,
Notes, etc., by W. Yorke Faussett. M.A., late Scholar of Balliol
Coll. Crown Svo. 3s. 6d.
An edition of a Treatise on the Essentials of Christian Doctrine, and the best
methods of impressing them on candidates for baptism.
A-Kempis. THE IMITATION OP CHRIST. By Thomas A
Kempis. With an Introduction by Dean Farrar. Illustrated by
C M. Gere, and printed in black and red. Second Edition. Fcap.
Svo. Buckram. 3s. 6d. Padded morocco, $s.
'Amongst all the innumerable English editions of the "Imitation," there can have
been few which were prettier than this one, printed in strong and handsome type,
with all the glory of red initials.' — Glasgow Herald.
J. Keble. THE CHRISTIAN YEAR. By John Keble. Withan
Introduction and Notes by W. Lock, D.D. , Warden of Keble College,
Ireland Professor at Oxford. Illustrated by R. Anning Bell.
Second Edition. Fcap. Svo. Buckram. 3s. 6d. Padded morocco, $s.
'The present edition is annotated with all the care and insight to be expected from
Mr. Lock. The progress and circumstances of its composition are detailed in the
Introduction. There is an interesting Appendix on the mss. of the "Christian
Year," and another giving the order in which the poems were written. A " Short
Analysis of the Thought" is prefixed to each, and any difficulty in the text is ex
plained in a note.'— Guardian.

Messrs. Methuen's List 23
SLeatierg of Eeligion
Edited by H. C. BEECHING, M.A. With Portraits, crown Svo.
A series of short biographies of the most prominent leaders of religious
life and thought of all ages and countries.
The following are ready —
CARDINAL NEWMAN. By R. H. HUTTON.
JOHN WESLEY. By J. H. Overton, M.A.
BISHOP WILBERFORCE. By G. W. Daniel, M.A.
CARDINAL MANNING. By A. W. Hutton, M.A.
CHARLES SIMEON. By H. C. G. Moule, M.A.
JOHN KEBLE. By Walter Lock, D.D.
THOMAS CHALMERS. By Mrs. Oliphant.
LANCELOT ANDREWES. By R. L. Ottley, M.A.
AUGUSTINE OF CANTERBURY. By E. L.' Cutts, D.D.
WILLIAM LAUD. By W. H. Hutton, B.D.
JOHN KNOX. By F. M'Cunn.
JOHN HOWE. By R. F. Horton, D.D.
BISHOP KEN. By F. A. Clarke, M.A.
GEORGE FOX, THE QUAKER. By T. HODGKIN, D.C.L.
JOHN DONNE. By AUGUSTUS Jessopp, D.D.
Other volumes will be announced in due course.
Fiction
SIX SHILLING NOVELS
Marie Corelli's Novels
Crown Svo. 6s. each.
A ROMANCE OF TWO WORLDS. Seventeenth Edition.
VENDETTA. Thirteenth Edition.
THELMA. Seventeenth Edition.
ARDATH. Eleventh Edition.
THE SOUL OF LILITH Ninth Edition.
WORMWOOD. Eighth Edition.
BARABBAS : A DREAM OF THE WORLD'S TRAGEDY.
Thirty-first Edition.
1 The tender reverence of the treatment and the imaginative beauty of the writing-
have reconciled us to the daring of the conception, and the conviction is forced on
us that even so exalted a subject cannot be made too familiar to us, provided it be
presented in the true spirit of Christian faith. The amplifications of the Scripture
narrative are often conceived with high poetic insight, and this " Dream of the
World's Tragedy " is, despite some trifling incongruities, a lofty and not inade
quate paraphrase of the supreme climax of the inspired narrative.' — Dublin
Review,

24 Messrs. Methuen's List
THE SORROWS OF SATAN. Thirty-sixth Edition.
' A very powerful piece of work. . . . The conception is magnificent, and, is likely
to win an abiding place within the memory of man. . . . The author has immense
command of language, and a limitless audacity. . . . This interesting and re
markable romance will live long after much of the ephemeral literature of the day
is forgotten. . . . A literary phenomenon . . . novel, and even sublime. — w. ±.
Stead in the Review of Reviews.
Anthony Hope's Novels
Crown Svo. 6s. each.
THE GOD IN THE CAR. Seventh Edition. 
1 A very remarkable book, deserving of critical analysis impossible within our limit;
brilliant, but not superficial ; well considered, but not elaborated ; constructed
with the proverbial art that conceals, but yet allows itself to be enjoyed by readers
to whom fine literary method is a keen pleasure.'— The World.
A CHANGE OF AIR. Fourth Edition.
'A graceful, vivacious comedy, true to human nature. The characters are traced
with a masterly hand.' — Times.
A MAN OF MARK. Fourth Edition.
' Of all Mr. Hope's books, " A Man of Mark " is the one which best compares with
" The Prisoner of Zenda.'"— National Observer.
THE CHRONICLES OF COUNT ANTONIO. ThirdEdition.
'It is a perfectly enchanting story of love and chivalry, and pure romance. The
Count is the most constant, desperate, and modest and tender of lovers, a peerless
gentleman, an intrepid fighter, a faithful friend, and a magnanimous foe.' —
Guardian.
PHROSO. Illustrated by H. R. Millar, ThirdEdition.
'The tale is thoroughly fresh, quick with vitality, stirring the blood, and humorously,
dashingly told.'— St. James's Gazette.
' A story of adventure, every page of which is palpitating with action.' — Speaker.
' From cover to cover Phroso " not only engages the attention, but carries the readei
in little whirls of delight from adventure to adventure.' — Academy.
S. Baring Gould's Novels
Crown Svo. 6s. each.
'To say that a book isby the author of " Mehalah" is to imply that it contains a
story cast on strong lines, containing dramatic possibilities, vivid and sympathetic
descriptions of Nature, and a wealth of ingenious imagery.' — Speaker.
* That whatever Mr. Baring Gould writes is well worth reading, is a conclusion that
may be very generally accepted. His views of life are fresh and vigorous, his
language pointed and characteristic, the incidents of which he makes use are
striking and original, his characters are life-like, and though somewhat excep
tional people, are drawn and coloured with artistic force. Add to this that his
descriptions of scenes and scenery are painted with the loving eyes and skilled
hands of a master of his art, that he is always fresh and never dull, and under
such conditions it is no wonder that readers have gained confidence both in his
power of amusing and satisfying them, and that year by year his popularity
widens.' — Court Circular.
ARMINELL : A Social Romance. Fourth Edition.
URITH : A Story of Dartmoor. Fifth Edition.
'The author is at his best.' — Times.

Messrs. Methuen's List 25
IN THE ROAR OF THE SEA Sixth Edition.
'One of the best imagined and most enthralling stories the author has produced '
— Saturday Review.
MRS. CURGENVEN OF CURGENVEN. Fourth Edition.
' The swing of the narrative is splendid.'— Sussex Daily News.
CHEAP JACK ZITA Fourth Edition.
1 A powerful drama of -human passion.' — Westminster Gazette.
'A story worthy the author.' — National Observer.
THE QUEEN OF LOVE. Fourth Edition.
' Can bt heartily recommended to all who care for cleanly, energetic, and interesting
fiction.'— Sussex Daily News.
KITTY ALONE. Fourth Edition.
'A strong and original story, teeming with graphic description, stirring incident,
and, above all, with vivid and enthralling human interest.'— Daily Telegraph.
NOEMI : A Romance of the Cave-Dwellers. Illustrated by
R. Caton Woodville. ThirdEdition.
1 A powerful story, full of strong lights and shadows. ' — Standard.
THE BROOM-SQUIRE. Illustrated by Frank Dadd.
Fourth Edition.
1 A strain of tenderness is woven through the web of his tragic tale, and its atmosphere
is sweetened by the nobility and sweetness of the heroine's character.' — Daily News.
THE PENNYCOMEQUICKS. ThirdEdition.
DARTMOOR IDYLLS.
'A book to read, and keep and read again ; for the genuine fan and pathos of it will
not early lose their effect.' — Vanity Fair.
GUAVAS THE TINNER. Illustrated by Frank Dadd.
Second Edition.
' There is a kind of flavour about this book which alone elevates it above the ordinary
novel. The story itself has a grandeur in harmony with the wild and rugged
scenery which is its setting.' — Athenceum.
BLADYS. Second Edition.
' A story of thrilling interest.' — Scotsman.
1 A sombre but powerful story.' — Daily Mail.
Gilbert Parker's Novels
Crown Svo. 6s. each.
PIERRE AND HIS PEOPLE. 'Fourth Edition.
' Stories happily conceived and finely executed. There is strength and genius in Mr.
Parker's style.'— Daily Telegraph.
MRS. FALCHION. Fourth Edition.
' A splendid study of character.'— Athenmm. _ ,
' But little behind anything that has been done by any writer of our time — Pall
Mall Gazette. ' A very striking and admirable novel.'— St. James s Gazette.
THE TRANSLATION OF A SAVAGE. . .
' The plot is original and one difficult to work out ; but Mr. Parker has done it with
great skill and delicacy. The reader who is not interested in this original, fresh,
and well-told tale must be a dull person indeed.'— Daily Chronicle.

26 Messrs. Methuen's List
THE TRAIL OF THE SWORD. Fifth Edition.
1 A rousing and dramatic tale. A book like this, in which swords flash, great sur
prises are undertaken, and daring deeds done, in which men and women live and
love in the old passionate way, is a joy inexpressible .' — Daily Chronicle.
WHEN VALMOND CAME TO PONTIAC: The Story of
a Lost Napoleon. Fourth Edition.
' Here we find romance — real, breathing, living romance. The character of Valmond
is drawn unerringly. The book must be read, we may say re-read, for any one
thoroughly to appreciate Mr. Parker's delicate touch and innate sympathy with
humanity.' — Pall Mall Gazette.
AN ADVENTURER OF THE NORTH: The Last Adven
tures of ' Pretty Pierre.' Second Edition.
'The present book is full of fine and moving stories of the great North, and it will
add to Mr. Parker's already high reputation.' — Glasgow Herald.
THE SEATS OF THE MIGHTY, fllustrated. Ninth Edition.
1 The best thing he has done ; one of the best things that any one has done lately.' —
St. James's Gazette.
' Mr. Parker seems to become stronger and easier with every serious novel that he
attempts. He shows the matured power which his former novels have led us to
expect, and has produced a really fine historical novel. The finest novel he has
yet written.' — Athenaum.
* A great book.' — Black and White.
' One of the strongest stories of historical interest and adventure that we have read
for many a day. ... A notable and successful book.' — Speaker.
THE POMP OF THE LAVILETTES. Second Edition. $s. 6d.
'Living, breathing romance, genuine and unforced pathos, and a deeper and more
subtle knowledge of human nature than Mr. Parker has ever displayed before.
It is, in a word, the work of a true artist.' — Pall Mall Gazette.

Conan Doyle. ROUND THE RED LAMP. By A. Conan
Doyle, Author of 'The White Company/ 'The Adventures of
Sherlock Holmes, ' etc. Fifth Edition. Crown Svo. 6s.
1 The book is, indeed, composed of leaves from life, and is far and away the best view
that has been vouchsafed us behind the scenes of the consulting-room. It is very
superior to " The Diary of a late Physician. " ' — Illustrated London News.
Stanley Weyman. UNDER THE RED ROBE. By Stanley
Weyman, Author of ' A Gentleman of France.* With Twelve Illus
trations by R. Caton Woodville. Twelfth Edition. Crown Svo. 6s.
'A book of which we have read every word for the sheer pleasure of reading, and
which we put down with a pang that we cannot forget it all and start again.'—
Westminster Gazette.
'Every one who reads books at all must read this thrilling romance, from the first
page of which to the last the breathless reader is haled along. An inspiration of
manliness and courage.' — Daily Chronicle.
Lucas Malet. THE WAGES OF SIN. By Lucas
Malet. Thirteenth Edition. Crown Svo. 6s.
Lucas Malet. THE CARISSIMA. By Lucas Malet,
Author of The Wages of Sin,' etc. ThirdEdition. CrownSvo. 6s.

Messrs. Methuen's List 27
S. R. Crockett. LOCHINVAR. By S. R. Crockett, Author
of 'The Raiders,' etc. Illustrated. Second Edition. CrownSvo. 6s.
' Full of gallantry and pathos, of the clash of arms, and brightened hy episodes of
humour and love. . . . Mr. Crockett has never written a stronger or better book.
An engrossing and fascinating story. The love story alone is enough to make
the book delightful.'— Westminster Gazette.
Arthur Morrison. TALES OF MEAN STREETS. By Arthur
Morrison. Fourth Edition. Crown Svo. 6s.
' Tu'd iW'i'h co.nsu.mmate art and extraordinary detail. In the true humanity of the
book lies its justification, the permanence of its interest, and its indubitable
triumph. — A tkenesum.
' A great book. The author's method is amazingly effective, and produces a thrilling
sense of reality. The writer lays upon us a master hand. The book is simply
appalling and irresistible in its interest. It is humorous also ; without humour
it would not make the mark it is certain to make.'— World.
Arthur Morrison. A CHILD OF THE JAGO. By Arthur
Morrison. ThirdEdition. CrownSvo. 6s.
' The book is a masterpiece.' — Pall Mall Gazette.
' Told with great vigour and powerful simplicity.' — Athenceum.
Mrs. Clifford. A FLASH OF SUMMER. By Mrs. W. K. Clif
ford, Author of * Aunt Anne/ etc. Second Edition. Crown Svo. 6s.
' The story is a very sad and a very beautiful one, exquisitely told, and enriched with
many subtle touches of wise and tender insight.' — Speaker.
Emily Lawless. HURRISH. By the Honble. Emily Law
less, Author of * Maelcho,' etc. Fifth Edition. Crown Svo. 6s.
A reissue of Miss Lawless' most popular novel, uniform with ' Maelcho.'
Emily Lawless. MAELCHO : a Sixteenth Century Romance.
By the Honble. Emily Lawless. Second Edition. Crown Svo. 6s.
' A really great book.' — Spectator.
'There is no keener pleasure in life than the recognition of genius. A piece of work
of the first order, which we do not hesitate to describe as one of the most
remarkable literary achievements of this generation.' — Manchester Guardian.
Jane Barlow. A CREEL OF IRISH STORIES. By Jane
Barlow, Author of ' Irish Idylls.' Second Edition. Crown Svo. 6s.
'Vivid and singularly real.' — Scotsman.
' Genuinely and naturally Irish.' — Scotsman.
1 The sincerity of her sentiments, the distinction of her style, and the freshness of her
themes, combine to lift her work far above the average level of contemporary
fiction.' — Manchester Guardian.
J. H. Findlater. THE GREEN GRAVES OF BALGOWRIE.
By Jane H. Findlater. Fourth Edition. Crown Svo. 6s.
'A powerful and vivid story.' — Standard.
' A beautiful story, sad and strange as truth itself.'— Vanity Fair.
' A work of remarkable interest and originality.'— National Observer.
* A very charming and pathetic tale. ' — Pall Mall Gazette.
'A singularly original, clever, and beautiful story.' — Guardian.
1 Reveals to us a new writer of undoubted faculty and reserve force.'— Spectator.
1 An exquisite idyll, delicate, affecting, and beautiful. '—Black and White.

28 Messrs. Methuen's List
J. H. Findlater. A DAUGHTER OF STRIFE. By Jane
Helen Findlater, Author of ' The Green Graves of Balgowrie.'
Crown Svo, 6s.
'A story of strong human interest.' — Scotsman.
' It has a sweet flavour of olden days delicately conveyed.'— Manchester Guardian.
' Her thought has solidity and maturity.' — Daily Mail.
Mary Findlater. OVER THE HILLS. By Mary Findlater.
Crown Svo. 6s.
' A strong and fascinating piece of work.' — Scotsman.
1 A charming romance, and full of incident. _ The book is fresh and strong. ' — Speaker.
'There is quiet force and beautiful simplicity in this book which will make the
author's name loved in many a household.' — Literary World.
'Admirably fresh and broad in treatment. The novel is markedly original and
excellently written.' — Daily Chronicle.
' A strong and wise book of deep insight and unflinching truth.' — Birmingham Post.
' Miss Mary Findlater combines originality with strength.' — Daily Mail.
H. G. Wells. THE STOLEN BACILLUS, and other Stories.
By H. G. Wells. Second Edition. CrownSvo. 6s.
' The ordinary reader of fiction may be glad to know that these stories are eminently
readable from one cover to the other, but they are more than that ; they are the
impressions of a very striking imagination, which, it would seem, has a great deal
within its reach.' — Saturday Review.
H. G. Wells. THE PLATTNER STORY and Others. By H.
G. Wells. Second Edition. Crown Svo. 6s.
'Weird and mysterious, they seem to hold the reader as by a magic spell. '—Scotsman.
'No volume has appeared for a long time so likely to give equal pleasure to the
simplest reader and to the most fastidious critic.' — Academy.
E. F. Benson. DODO : A DETAIL OF THE DAY. By E. F.
Benson. Sixteenth Edition. Crown Svo. 6s.
1 A delightfully witty sketch of society.' — Spectator.
1 A perpetual feast of epigram and paradox.' — Speaker.
E. F. Benson. THE RUBICON. By E. F. Benson, Author of
' Dodo.' Fifth Edition. Crown Svo. 6s.
Mrs. Oliphant. SIR ROBERT'S FORTUNE. By Mrs.
Oliphant. Crown Svo. 6s.
' Full of her own peculiar charm of style and simple, subtle character-painting comes
her new gift, the delightful story. '—Pall Mall Gazette.
Mrs. Oliphant. THE TWO MARYS. By Mrs. Oliphant.
Second Edition. Crown Svo. 6s.
Mrs. Oliphant. THE LADY'S WALK. By Mrs. Oliphant.
Second Edition. Crown Svo. 6s.
' A story of exquisite tenderness, of most delicate fancy. ' — Pall Mall Gazette.
' It contains many of the finer characteristics of her best work.' — Scotsman.
' It is little short of sacrilege on the part of a reviewer to attempt to sketch its out
lines or analyse its peculiar charm.'— Spectator.

Messrs. Methuen's List 29
W.E. Norris. MATTHEW AUSTIN. By W. E. Norris, Author
of ' Mademoiselle de Mersac,' etc. Fourth Edition. Crown Svo. 6s.
"An intellectually satisfactory and morally bracing novel.'— Daily Telegraph.
W. E. Norris. HIS GRACE. By W. E Norris. Third
Edition. Crown Svo. 6s.
' Mr. Norris has drawn a really fine character in the Duke of Hurstbourne, at once
unconventional and very true to the conventionalities of life.'— A thena-um.
W. E. Norris. THE DESPOTIC LADY AND OTHERS.
By W. E. Norris. Crown Svo. 6s.
1 A budget of good fiction of which no one will tire.' — Scotsman.
W. E. Norris. CLARISSA FURIOSA. By W. JE. Norris.
Crown Svo. 6s.
' As a story it is admirable, as a j'eu d'esprit it is capital, as a lay sermon studded
with gems of wit and wisdom it is a model. '—The World.
W. Clark Russell. MY DANISH SWEETHEART. By W.
Clark Russell, Author of 'The Wreck of the Grosvenor,' etc.
Illustrated. Fourth Edition. Crown Svo. 6s.
Robert Barr. THE MUTABLE MANY. By Robert Barr,
Author of ' In the Midst of Alarms,' ' A Woman Intervenes,' etc.
Second Edition. Crown Svo. 6s.
, ' Very much the best novel that Mr. Barr has yet given us. There is much insight
in it, much acute and delicate appreciation of the finer shades of character and
much excellent humour.' — Daily Chronicle.
' An excellent story. It contains several excellently studied characters, and is filled
with lifelike pictures of modern life.' — Glasgow Herald.
Robert Barr. IN THE MIDST OF ALARMS. By Robert
Barr. Third Edition. Crown Svo. 6s.
1 A book which has abundantly satisfied us by its capital humour. — Daily Chronicle.
' Mr. Barr has achieved a triumph whereof he has every reason to be proud. ' — Pall
Mall Gazette.
J. Maclaren Cobban. THE KING OF ANDAMAN : A
Saviour of Society. By J. Maclaren Cobban. CrownSvo. 6s.
'An unquestionably interesting book. It contains one character, at least, who has
in him the root of immortality, and the book itself is ever exhaling the sweet
savour of the unexpected.' — Pall Mall Gazette.
J. Maclaren Cobban. WILT THOU HAVE THIS WOMAN ?
ByJ. M. Cobban, Author of 'The King of Andaman.' CrownSvo. 6s.

30 "Messrs. Methuen's List
Robert Hichens. BYEWAYS. By Robert Hichens. Author
of ' Flames,' etc. Crown Svo. 6s.
' A very high artistic instinct and striking command of language raise Mr. Hichens'
work far above the ruck.' — Pall Mall Gazette.
1 The work is undeniably that of a man of striking imagination and no less striking
powers of expression.' — Daily News.
Percy White. A PASSIONATE PILGRIM. By Percy White,
Author of ' Mr. Bailey-Martin.' Crown Svo. 6s.
1 A work which it is not hyperbole to describe as of rare excellence. ' — Pall Mall Gazette.
' The clever book of a shrewd and clever author.' — A thenceum.
' Mr. Percy White's strong point is analysis, and he has shown himself, before now,
capable of building up a good book upon that foundation.' — Standard.
W. Pett Ridge. SECRETARY TO BAYNE, M.P. By
\V. Pett Ridge. Crown Svo. 6s.
' Sparkling, vivacious, adventurous. — St. James's Gazette.
1 Ingenious, amusing, and especially smart.' — World.
' The dialogue is invariably alert and highly diverting.1 — Spectator.
J. S. Fletcher. THE BUILDERS. By J. S. Fletcher, Author
of 'When Charles I. was King.' Second Edition. Crown Svo. 6s.
1 Replete with delightful descriptions.' — Vanity Fair.
* The background of country life has never, perhaps, been sketched more realistically.'
— World.
Andrew Balfour. BY STROKE OF SWORD. By Andrew
Balfour. Illustrated by W. Cubitt Cooke. Fourth Edition. Crown
Svo. 6s.
'A banquet of good things.' — Academy.
1 A recital of thrilling interest, told with unflagging vigour.' — Globe
' An unusually excellent example of a semi-historic romance.' — World.
1 Manly, healthy, and patriotic' — Glasgow Herald.
I. Hooper. THE SINGER OF MARLY. By I. Hooper.
Illustrated by W. Cubitt Cooke. Crown Svo. 6s.
'Its scenes are drawn in vivid colours, and the characters are all picturesque.' 
Scotsman.
1 A novel as vigorous as it is charming.' — Literary World.
M. C. Balfour. THE FALL OF THE SPARROW. By
M. C. Balfour. Crown Svo. 6s.
' A powerful novel.' — Daily Telegraph.
' It is unusually powerful, and the characterization is uncommonly gocd.' — World.
' It is a well-knit, carefully-wrought story.' — Academy.
H. Morrah. A SERIOUS COMEDY. By Herbert Morrah.
Crown Svo. 6s.
H. Morrah. THE FAITHFUL CITY. By Herbert Morrah,
Author of ' A Serious Comedy. ' Crown Svo. 6s.
L. B. Walford. SUCCESSORS TO THE TITLE. By Mrs.
Walford, Author of ' Mr. Smith,' etc. Second Edition. Crown Svo. 6s.

Messrs. Methuen's List 31
Mary Gaunt. KIRKHAM'S FIND. By Mary Gaunt,
Author of ' The Moving Finger. ' Crown Svo. 6s.
' A really charming novel.'— Standard.
' A capital book, in which will be found lively humour, penetrating insight, and the
sweet savour of a thoroughly healthy moral.'— Speaker.
M. M. Dowie. GALLIA. By Menie Muriel Dowie, Author
of ' A Girl in the Carpathians. ' Third Edition. Crown Svo. 6s.
' The style is_ generally admirable, the dialogue not seldom brilliant, the situations
surprising in their freshness and originality, while the characters live and move,
and the story itself is readable from title-page to colophon.' — Saturday Review.
J. A. Barry. IN THE GREAT DEEP. By J. A. Barry.
Author of ' Steve Brown's Bunyip.' Crown Svo. 6s.
'A collection of really admirable short stories of the sea, very simply told, and placed
before the reader in pithy and telling English.' — Westminster Gazette.
J. B. Burton. IN THE DAY OF ADVERSITY. By J. Bloun-
delle-Burton.' Second Edition. CrownSvo. 6s.
' Unusually interesting and full of highly dramatic situations. — Guardian.
J. B. Burton. DENOUNCED. By J. Bloundelle-Burton.
Second Edition., Crown Svo. 6s.
' The plot is an original one, and the local colouring is laid on with a delicacy
and an accuracy of detail which denote the true artist.' — Broad Arrow.
J. B. Burton. THE CLASH OF ARMS. By J. Bloundelle-
Burton, Author of 'In the Day of Adversity.' Second Edition.
Crown Svo. 6s.
A brave story — brave in deed, brave in* word, brave in thought.' — St. James's Gazette.
'A fine, manly, spirited piece of work.' — World.
W. C. Scully. THE WHITE HECATOMB. By W. C.
Scully, Author of * Kafir Stories.' Crown Svo. 6s.
1 It reveals a marvellously intimate understanding of the Kaffir mind, allied with
literary gifts of no mean order.' — African Critic.
Julian Corbett. A BUSINESS IN GREAT WATERS. By
Julian Corbett. Second Edition. Crown Svo. 6s.
'Mr. Corbett writes with immense spirit. The salt of the ocean is in it, and the
right heroic ring resounds through its gallant adventures.' — Speaker.
L. Cope Cornford. CAPTAIN JACOBUS : A ROMANCE OF
THE ROAD. By L. Cope Cornford. Illustrated. Crown Svo. 6s.
1 An exceptionally good story of adventure and character.' — World.
L. Daintrey. THE KING OF ALBERIA. A Romance of
the Balkans. By Laura Daintrey. Crown Svo. 6s.
M. A. Owen. THE DAUGHTER OF ALOUETTE. By
Mary A. Owen, Crown Svo. 6s.

32 Messrs. Methuen's List
Mrs. Pinsent. CHILDREN OF THIS WORLD. By Ellen
F. Pinsent, Author of 'Jenny's Case.' CrownSvo. 6s.
G. Manville Fenn. AN ELECTRIC SPARK. By G. Manville
Fenn, Author of ' The Vicar's Wife,' 'A Double Knot,' etc. Second
Edition. Crown Svo. 6s.
L. S. McChesney. UNDER SHADOW OF THE MISSION.
By L. S. McChesney. Crown Svo. 6s.
' Those whose minds are open to the finer issues of life, who can appreciate graceful
thought and refined expression of it, from them this volume will receive a welcome
as enthusiastic as it will be based on critical knowledge.' — Church Times.
J. F. Brewer. THE SPECULATORS. By J. F. Brewer.
Second Edition. Crown Svo. 6s.
Ronald Ross. THE SPIRIT OF STORM. By Ronald
Ross, Author of ' The Child of Ocean. ' Crown Svo. 6s.
C. P. Wolley. THE QUEENSBERRY CUP. A Tale of
Adventure. By Clive P. Wolley. Illustrated. Crown Svo. 6s.
T. L. Paton. A HOME IN INVERESK. By T. L. Paton.
Crown Svo. 6s.
John Davidson. MISS ARMSTRONG'S AND OTHER CIR
CUMSTANCES. By John Davidson. Crown Svo. 6s.
H. Johnston. DR. CONGALTON'S LEGACY. By Henry
Johnston. Crown Svo. 6s.
R. Pryce. TIME AND THE WOMAN. By Richard Pryce.
Second Edition. Crown Svo. 6s.
Mrs. Watson. THIS MAN'S DOMINION. By the Author
of 'A High Little World.' Second Edition. CrownSvo. 6s.
Marriott Watson. DIOGENES OF LONDON. By
H. B. Marriott Watson. Crown Svo. Buckram. 6s.
M. Gilchrist. THE STONE DRAGON. By Murray Gil
christ. Crown Svo. Buckram. 6s.
E. Dickinson. A VICAR'S WIFE. By Evelyn Dickinson.
Crown Svo. 6s.
£. M. Gray. ELS A. By E. M 'Queen Gray. Crown Svo. 6s.

Messrs. Methuen's List

THRCE-AND-SIXPENNY NOVELS
Crown Svo.
DERRICK VAUGHAN, NOVELIST. By Edna Lyall.
MARGERY OF QUETHER. By S. Baring Gould.
JACQUETTA. By S. Baring Gould.
SUBJECT TO VANITY. By Margaret Benson.
THE SIGN OF THE SPIDER. By Bertram Mitford.
THE MOVING FINGER. By Mary Gaunt.
TACO TRELOAR. By J. H. Pearce.
THE DANCE OF THE HOURS. By 'Vera.'
A WOMAN OF FORTY. By Esme Stuart.
A CUMBERER OF THE GROUND. By Constance
Smith.
THE SIN OF ANGELS. By Evelyn Dickinson.
AUT DIABOLUS AUT NIHIL. By X. L.
THE COMING OF CUCULAIN. By Standish O'Grady.
THE GODS GIVE MY DONKEY WINGS. By Angus
Evan Abbott.
THE STAR GAZERS. By G. Manville Fenn.
THE POISON OF ASPS. By R. Orton Prowse.
THE QUIET MRS. FLEMING. By R. Pryce.
DISENCHANTMENT. By F. Mabel Robinson.
THE SQUIRE OF WANDALES. By A. Shield.
A REVEREND GENTLEMAN. By J. M. Cobban.
A DEPLORABLE AFFAIR. By W. E. Norris.
A CAVALIER'S LADYE. By Mrs. Dicker.
THE PRODIGALS. By Mrs. Oliphant.
THE SUPPLANTER. By P. Neumann.
A MAN WITH BLACK EYELASHES. By H. A. Kennedy.
A HANDFUL OF EXOTICS. By S. Gordon.
AN ODD EXPERIMENT. By Hannah Lynch.
SCOTTISH BORDER LIFE. By James C. Dibdin.
HALF-CROWN NOVELS
A Series of Novels by popular Authors.
HOVENDEN, V.C. By F. Mabel Robinson.
THE PLAN OF CAMPAIGN. By F. Mabel Robinson.
MR. BUTLER'S WARD. By F. Mabel Robinson.
ELI'S CHILDREN. By G. Manville Fenn.
A DOUBLE KNOT. By G. Manville Fenn.
DISARMED. By M. Betham Edwards.
A MARRIAGE AT SEA. By W. Clark Russell.
IN TENT AND BUNGALOW. By the Author of ' Indian
Idylls.'

34 Messrs. Methuen's List
MY STEWARDSHIP. By E. M 'Queen Gray.
JACK'S FATHER. By W. E. Norris.
JIM B.
A LOST ILLUSION. By Leslie Keith.

Lynn Linton. THE TRUE HISTORY OF JOSHUA DAVID
SON, Christian and Communist. By E. Lynn Linton. Eleventh
Edition. Post Svo. Is.

Books for Boys and Girls
A Scries of Books by well-known Authors, well illustrated.
THREE-AND-SIXPENCE EACH
THE ICELANDER'S SWORD. By S. Baring Gould.
TWO LITTLE CHILDREN AND CHING. By Edith
E. Cuthell.
TODDLEBEN'S HERO. By M. M. Blake.
ONLY A GUARD-ROOM DOG. By Edith E. Cuthell.
THE DOCTOR OF THE JULIET. By Harry Colling
wood.
MASTER ROCKAFELLAR'S VOYAGE. By W. Clark
Russell.
SYD BELTON : Or, The Boy who would not go to Sea.
By G. Manville Fenn.
THE WALLYPUG IN LONDON. By G. E. Farrow.
The Peacock Library
A Series of Books for Girls by well-known Authors, handsomely bound
in blue and silver, and well illustrated.
THREE-AND-SIXPENCE EACH
A PINCH OF EXPERIENCE. By L. B. Walford.
THE RED GRANGE. By Mrs. Molesworth.
THE SECRET OF MADAME DE MONLUC. By the
Author of ' Mdle Mori.'
DUMPS. By Mrs. Parr, Author of 'Adam and Eve.'
OUT OF THE FASHION. By L. T. Meade.
A GIRL OF THE PEOPLE. By L. T. Meade.
HEPSY GIPSY. By L. T. Meade, is. dd.
THE HONOURABLE MISS. By L. T. Meade.
MY LAND OF BEULAH. By Mrs. Leith Adams.

Messrs. Methuen's List 35
University Extension Series
A series of books on historical, literary, and scientific subjects, suitable
for extension students and home-reading circles. Each volume is com
plete in itself, and the subjects are treated by competent writers in a
broad and philosophic spirit.
Edited by J. E. SYMES, M.A.,
Principal of University College, Nottingham.
Crown Svo. Price (with some exceptions) 2s. 6d.
The following volumes are ready : —
THE INDUSTRIAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. By H. de B. Gibbins,
D.Litt., M.A., late Scholar of Wadham College, Oxon., Cobden Prizeman.
Fifth Edition, Revised. With Maps and Plans. o,s.
'A compact and clear story of our industrial development. A study of this concise
but luminous book cannot fail to give the reader a clear insight into the principal
phenomena of our industrial history. The editor and publishers are to be congrat
ulated on this first volume of their venture, and we shall look with expectant
interest for the succeeding volumes of the series.' — University Extension Journal.
A HISTORY OF ENGLISH POLITICAL ECONOMY. By L. L. Price,
M.A. , Fellow of Oriel College, Oxon. Second Edition.
PROBLEMS OF POVERTY : An Inquiry into the Industrial Conditions of
the Poor. By J. A. Hobson, M.A. ThirdEdition.
VICTORIAN POETS. By A. Sharp.
THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. By J. E. Symes, M.A.
PSYCHOLOGY. By F. S. Granger, M.A. Second Edition.
THE EVOLUTION OF PLANT LIFE : Lower Forms. By G. Massee,
With Illustrations.
AIR AND WATER. By V. B. Lewes, M.A. Illustrated.
THE CHEMISTRY OF LIFE AND HEALTH. By C. W. Kimmins,
M.A. Illustrated.
THE MECHANICS OF DAILY LIFE. By V. P. Sells, M.A. Illustrated.
ENGLISH SOCIAL REFORMERS. By H. DE B. Gibbins, D.Litt., M.A.
ENGLISH TRADE AND FINANCE IN THE SEVENTEENTH
CENTURY. By W. A. S. Hewins, B.A.
THE CHEMISTRY OF FIRE. The Elementary Principles of Chemistry.
By M. M. Pattison Muir, M.A. Illustrated.
A TEXT-BOOK OF AGRICULTURAL BOTANY. By M. C. Potter,
M.A., F.L.S. Illustrated, y. td.
THE VAULT OF HEAVEN. A Popular Introduction to Astronomy.
By R. A. GREGORY. With numerous Illustrations.
METEOROLOGY. The Elements of Weather and Climate. By H. N.
Dickson, F.R.S.E., F.R. Met. Soc. Illustrated.
A MANUAL OF ELECTRICAL SCIENCE. By George J. Burch,
M.A. With numerous Illustrations. %s.

36 Messrs. Methuen's List
THE EARTH. An Introduction to Physiography. By Evan Small, M.A.
Illustrated.
INSECT LIFE. By F. W. Theobald, M.A. Illustrated.
ENGLISH POETRY FROM BLAKE TO BROWNING. By W. M.
Dixon, M.A.
ENGLISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT. By E. Jenks, M.A., Professor of
Law at University College, Liverpool.
THE GREEK VIEW OF LIFE. By G. L. Dickinson, Fellow of King's
College, Cambridge. Second Edition.
Social Questions of To-day
Edited by H. de B. GIBBINS, D.Litt., M.A.
Crown Svo. 2s. 6d.
A series of volumes upon those topics of social, economic, and industrial
interest that are at the present moment foremost in the public mind.
Each volume of the series is written by an author who is an acknow
ledged authority upon the subject with which he deals.
The following Volumes of the Series are ready : —
TRADE UNIONISM-NEW AND OLD. By G. Howell. Second
Edition.
THE CO-OPERATIVE MOVEMENT TO-DAY. By G. J. Holyoake,
Second Edition.
MUTUAL THRIFT. By Rev. J. Frome Wilkinson, M.A.
PROBLEMS OF POVERTY. By J. A. HOBSON, M.A. ThirdEdition.
THE COMMERCE OF NATIONS. By C. F. Bastable, M.A., Professor
of Economics at Trinity College, Dublin.
THE ALIEN INVASION. By W. H. Wilkins, B.A.
THE RURAL EXODUS. By P. Anderson Graham.
LAND NATIONALIZATION. By Harold Cox, B.A.
A SHORTER WORKING DAY. By H. de B. Gibbins, D.Litt., M.A.,
and R. A. Hadfield, of the Hecla Works, Sheffield.
BACK TO THE LAND: An Inquiry into the Cure for Rural Depopulation
By H. E. Moore.
TRUSTS, POOLS AND CORNERS. By J. Stephen Jeans.
THE FACTORY SYSTEM. By R. W. COOKE-TAYLOR.
THE STATE AND ITS CHILDREN. By Gertrude Tuckwell.

Messrs. Methuen's List 37
WOMEN'S WORK. By Lady Dilke, Miss Bulley, and Miss Whitley.
MUNICIPALITIES AT WORK. The Municipal Policy of Six Great
Towns, and its Influence on their Social Welfare. By Frederick Dolman.
SOCIALISM AND MODERN THOUGHT. By M. Kaufmann.
THE HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES. By E. Bowmaker.
MODERN CIVILIZATION IN SOME OF ITS ECONOMIC ASPECTS.
By W. Cunningham, D.D., Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.
THE PROBLEM OF THE UNEMPLOYED. By J. A. Hobson. B.A.,
LIFE IN WEST LONDON. By Arthur Sherwell, M.A. Second Edition.
RAILWAY NATIONALIZATION. By Clement Edwards.
Classical Translations
Edited by H. F. FOX, M. A. , Fellow and Tutor of Brasenose College, Oxford.
^ESCHYLUS — Agamemnon, Choephoroe, Eumenides. Translated by Lewis
Campbell, LL. D. , late Professor of Greek at St. Andrews, 5-r.
CICERO— De Oratore I. Translated by E. N. P. Moor, M.A. 3s. 6d.
CICERO — Select Orations (Pro Milone, Pro Murena, Philippic ii. , In
Catilinam). Translated by H. E. D. Blakiston, M.A., Fellow and
Tutor of Trinity College, Oxford. $s.
CICERO— De Natura Deorum. Translated by F. Brooks, M.A., late
Scholar of Balliol College, Oxford. 3*. 6d.
LUCIAN — Six Dialogues (Nigrinus, Icaro-Menippus, The Cock, The Ship, The
Parasite, The Lover of Falsehood). Translated by S. T. Irwin, M.A. , Assis
tant Master at Clifton [ late Scholar of Exeter College, Oxford. 3s. td.
SOPHOCLES— Electra and Ajax. Translated by E. D. A. Morshead,
M.A. , Assistant Master at Winchester, zs. 6d.
TACITUS— Agricola and Germania. Translated by R. B. Townshend,
late Scholar of Trinity College, Cambridge. 2s. 6d.
Educational Books
CLASSICAL
PLAUTI BACCHIDES. Edited with Introduction, Commentary, and
Critical Notes by J. M'Cosh, M.A. Fcap. 4I0. 12s. 6d.
'The notes are copious, and contain a great deal of information that is good and
useful.' — Classical Review.
TACITI AGRICOLI. With Introduction, Notes, Map, etc. By R. F.
DAVIS, M.A. , Assistant Master at Weymouth College. Crown Svo. 2s.
TACITI GERMANIA. By the same Editor. Crown Svo. 2s.
HERODOTUS : EASY SELECTIONS. With Vocabulary. By A. C.
LlDDELL, M.A, Fcap. Svo. is. 6d.

38 Messrs. Methuen's List
SELECTIONS FROM THE ODYSSEY. By E. D. Stone, M. A., late
Assistant Master at Eton. Fcap. Svo. is. td.
PLAUTUS : THE CAPTIVI. Adapted for Lower Forms by J. H. FRESSE,
M.A. , late Fellow of St. John's, Cambridge, is. 6d.
DEMOSTHENES AGAINST CONON AND CALLICLES. Edited with
Notes and Vocabulary, by F. Darwin Swift, M.A., formerly Scholar
of Queen's College, Oxford. Fcap. Svo. 2s.
EXERCISES ON LATIN ACCIDENCE. By S. E. Winbolt, Assistant
Master at Christ's Hospital. Crown Svo. is. td.
An elementary book adapted for Lower Forms to accompany the shorter Latin primer.
' Skilfully arranged.' — Glasgow Herald.
' Accurate and well arranged.' — A thenaum.
NOTES ON GREEK AND LATIN SYNTAX. By G. Buckland
Green, M.A. , Assistant Master at Edinburgh Academy, late Fellow of
St. John's College, Oxon. Crown Svo. zs. td.
Notes and explanations on the chief difficulties of Greek and Latin Syntax, with
numerous passages for exercise.
' Supplies a gap in educational literature.' — Glasgow Herald.
GERMAN
A COMPANION GERMAN GRAMMAR. By H. DE B. Gibbins, D.Litt.,
M.A., Assistant Master at Nottingham High School. Crown Svo. is. 6d.
GERMAN PASSAGES FOR UNSEEN TRANSLATION. By E.
M 'Queen Gray. Crown Svo. 2s. 6d.
SCIENCE
THE WORLD OF SCIENCE. Including Chemistry, Heat, Light, Sound,
Magnetism, Electricity, Botany, Zoology, Physiology, Astronomy, and
Geology. By R. Elliott Steel, M.A., F.C.S. 147 Illustrations.
Second Edition. Crown Svo. 2s. 6d.
ELEMENTARY LIGHT. By R. E. Steel. With numerous Illustrations.
Crown Svo. 4s. 6d. ENGLISH
ENGLISH RECORDS. A Companion to the History of England. By
H. E. MALDEN, M.A. Crown Svo. y. 6d.
A book which aims at concentrating information upon dates, genealogy, officials, con
stitutional documents, etc., which is usually found scattered in different volumes.
THE ENGLISH CITIZEN : HIS RIGHTS AND DUTIES. By H. E.
Malden, M.A. is. 6d.
A DIGEST OF DEDUCTIVE LOGIC, By Johnson Barker, B.A.
Crown Svo. 2s. td.

Messrs. Methuen's List 39
methuen's commercial series
Edited by H. de B. GIBBINS, D.Litt., M.A.
BRITISH COMMERCE AND COLONIES FROM ELIZABETH TO
VICTORIA. By H. de B. Gibbins, D.Litt., M.A. zs. Second Edition.
COMMERCIAL EXAMINATION PAPERS. By H. de B. Gibbins,
D.Litt., M.A., is. td.
THE ECONOMICS OF COMMERCE. By H. de B. Gibbins, D.Litt.,
M.A. is. td.
FRENCH COMMERCIAL CORRESPONDENCE. By S. E. Bally,
Modern Language Master at the Manchester Grammar School. 2s.
Second Edition.
GERMAN COMMERCIAL CORRESPONDENCE. By S. E. Bally,
zs. td.
A FRENCH COMMERCIAL READER. By S. E. Bally, zs.
COMMERCIAL GEOGRAPHY, with special reference to Trade Routes,
New Markets, and Manufacturing Districts. By L. W. Lyde, M.A. , of
the Academy, Glasgow, zs. Second Edition.
A PRIMER OF BUSINESS. By S. JACKSON, M.A. is. 6d.
COMMERCIAL ARITHMETIC. By F. G. TAYLOR, M.A. is. td.
PRECIS WRITING AND OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE. By E. E.
Whitfield, M.A. zs.
WORKS BY A.M. M. STEDMAN, M.A.
INITIA LATINA: Easy Lessons on Elementary Accidence. Second Edition.
Fcap. Svo. is.
FIRST LATIN LESSONS. Fourth Edition. Crown Svo. zs.
FIRST LATIN READER. With Notes adapted to the Shorter Latin
Primer and Vocabulary. Fourth Edition revised. iSmo. is. td.
EASY SELECTIONS FROM CAESAR. Part I. The Helvetian War.
iSmo. is.
EASY SELECTIONS FROM LIVY. Part I. The Kings of Rome. iSmo.
is. td.
EASY LATIN PASSAGES FOR UNSEEN TRANSLATION. Fifth
Edition. Fcap. Svo. is. td.
EXEMPLA LATINA. First Lessons in Latin Accidence. With Vocabulary.
Crown Svo. is.
EASY LATIN EXERCISES ON THE SYNTAX OF THE SHORTER
AND REVISED LATIN PRIMER. With Vocabulary. Seventh and
cheaper Edition re-written. Crown Svo. is. td. Issued with the consent
of Dr. Kennedy.
THE LATIN COMPOUND SENTENCE : Rules and Exercises. Crown
Svo. is. td. With Vocabulary, zs.
NOTANDA QUAEDAM : Miscellaneous Latin Exercises on Common Rules
and Idioms. Third Edition. Fcap. Svo. is. td. With Vocabulary, zs.
LATIN VOCABULARIES FOR REPETITION: Arranged according to
Subjects. Sixth Edition. Fcap. Svo. is. td.

40 Messrs. Methuen's List
A VOCABULARY OF LATIN IDIOMS AND PHRASES. iSmo. Second
Edition, is.
STEPS TO GREEK. i8mo. is.
EASY GREEK PASSAGES FOR UNSEEN TRANSLATION. Third
Edition revised. Fcap. Svo. is. td.
GREEK VOCABULARIES FOR REPETITION. Arranged according to
Subjects, Second Edition. Fcap. Svo. is. td.
GREEK TESTAMENT SELECTIONS. For the use of Schools. Third
Edition. With Introduction, Notes, and Vocabulary. Fcap. Svo. zs. id.
STEPS TO FRENCH. Second Edition. iSmo. Sd.
FIRST FRENCH LESSONS. Second Edition. Crown Svo. is.
EASY FRENCH PASSAGES FOR UNSEEN TRANSLATION. Third
Edition revised. Fcap. Svo. is. td.
EASY FRENCH EXERCISES ON ELEMENTARY SYNTAX. With
Vocabulary. Crown Svo. zs. td.
FRENCH VOCABULARIES FOR REPETITION: Arranged according to
Subjects. Fifth Edition. Fcap. Svo. is.
SCHOOL EXAMINATION SERIES
Edited by A. M. M. STEDMAN, M.A. Crown Svo. zs. 6d.
FRENCH EXAMINATION PAPERS IN MISCELLANEOUS GRAM
MAR AND IDIOMS. By A. M. M. Stedman, M.A. Ninth Edition.
A Key, issued to Tutors and Private Students only, to be had on
application to the Publishers. Fourth Edition. Crown Svo. ts. net.
LATIN EXAMINATION PAPERS IN MISCELLANEOUS GRAM
MAR AND IDIOMS. By A. M. M. STEDMAN, M.A. Eighth Edition.
Key ( Third Edition) issued as above, ts. net.
GREEK EXAMINATION PAPERS IN MISCELLANEOUS GRAM
MAR AND IDIOMS. By A. M. M. STEDMAN, M.A. Fifth Edition.
Key {Second Edition) issued as above, ts. nel.
GERMAN EXAMINATION PAPERS IN MISCELLANEOUS GRAM
MAR AND IDIOMS. By R. J. Morich, Manchester. Fifth Edition.
Key 'Second Edition) issued as above, ts. net.
HISTORY AND GEOGRAPHY EXAMINATION PAPERS. By C. H.
Spence, M.A., Clifton College.
SCIENCE EXAMINATION PAPERS. By R. E. Steel, M.A., F.C.S.,
Chief Natural Science Master, Bradford Grammar School. In two vols.
Part I. Chemistry ; Part n. Physics.
GENERAL KNOWLEDGE EXAMINATION PAPERS. By A. M. M.
Stedman, M.A. Third Edition.
Key {Second Edition) issued as above, ys. net.

Printed by T. and A. Constable, Printers to Her Majesty
at the Edinburgh University Press

YALE UNIVERSITY L

3 9002 08844 7017